The Oxford Bible Commentary

This page intentionally left blank

the oxford bible commentary

The
Pentateuch
edited by
JO H N MUDDIMAN
and
JO H N BARTON
associate editor
Rex Mason, Emeritus Fellow of Regent’s Park College, Oxford

1
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
# Oxford University Press 2001
First published in this updated selection 2010
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First published in this updated selection 2010
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Data available
Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India
Printed in Great Britain
on acid-free paper by
Clays Ltd., St Ives plc

ISBN 978–0–19–958024–8

1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
 LIST OF CONTENTS

List of Contributors vi
Abbreviations vii

1. General Introduction 1
2. Introduction to the Old Testament 7
3. Introduction to the Pentateuch 16
4. Genesis 53
5. Exodus 92
6. Leviticus 127
7. Numbers 153
8. Deuteronomy 187

Bibliographical Guide 220

Index 223
 LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

John Barton, Oriel and Laing Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture,
University of Oxford
Christoph Bultmann, Professor of Biblical Studies, Universität Erfurt, Germany
G. I. Davies, Professor of Old Testament Studies, Fellow, Fitzwilliam College
Terence E. Fretheim, Elva B. Lovell Professor of Old Testament, Luther
Seminary, St Paul, Minnesota
Lester L. Grabbe, Professor in Theology, University of Hull
Walter J. Houston, Mansfield College, University of Oxford
R. N. Whybrayy, formerly Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Studies at the
University of Hull
 ABBREVIATIONS

GENERAL

AB Anchor Bible
ABD D. N. Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols.; New York:
Doubleday, 1992)
AfO Archiv für Orientforschung
AnBib Analecta biblica
ANET James B. Pritchard (ed.). Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 3rd. edn. 1969)
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
ASOR American Schools of Oriental Research
ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch

B 4th-cent. MS of part of NT, in the Vatican Library

BA Biblical Archaeologist
BAR Biblical Archaeologist Reader
BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge
BBET Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie
BCE Before Common Era
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
BEvT Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie
BKAT Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament
BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament
BZAW Beihefte zur ZAW

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CChr.SL Corpus Christianorum Series Latina
CE Common Era
ConBOT Coniectanea biblica, Old Testament
CTA A. Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cunéiforme alphabétiques

D Deuteronomist source in the Pentateuch

DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert

E Elohist source in the Pentateuch

EI Eretz Israel
ErFor Eträge der Forschung
ET English Translation
ETR Études théologiques et religieuses
abbreviations viii

FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament

FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testa-
ments

H Holiness Code
HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament
HB Hebrew Bible
Heb. Hebrew
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual

ICC International Critical Commentary

IDB G. A. Buttrick (ed.), Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abing-
don Press, 1976)
IDBSup Supplementary volume to IDB

J Yahwist source in the Pentateuch

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament—Supplement Series
JTS Journal of Theological Studies

LXX Septuagint

m. Mishnah
MS Monograph Series; manuscript
Mt. Mount
MT Masoretic Text

NCB New Century Bible

NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NJPS New Jewish Publication Society Translation

OBL Orientalia et biblica lovaniensis

OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis
OTL Old Testament Library
OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën

P Priestly Work source in the Pentateuch

par. parallel(s)
pl. plural
 ix abbreviations

RB Revue biblique

SAA State Articles of Assyria

SBAB Stuttgarter biblischer Aufsatzbände
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
SBLDS SBL Dissertation Series
SBLMS SBL Monograph Series
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
SCM Student Christian Movement
SHAW Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften
SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
SOTS Society for Old Testament Study
SOTSMS Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series
SPCK Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge
SUNT Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments

TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringg-

ren, and H.-J. Fabry, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testa-
ment tr. J. T. Willis, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1974–)
tr(s). translation(s), translated (by)
TWAT G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum
Alten Testament (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970–)
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift

v. versus
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Vetus Testamentum, Supplements

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

YNER Yale Near Eastern Researches

ZAR Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte

ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins
ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

CLASSICAL

Philo Philo Judaeus

Spec. leg. De specialibus legibus
This page intentionally left blank
 1. General Introduction

A. Studying the Bible. 1. People’s reasons for of the whole Bible before going on to use more
studying the Bible—and therefore for using a advanced individual commentaries on particu-
biblical commentary—are many and various. lar biblical books.
The great majority of Bible readers have a reli- 3. Finally, there are many Bible readers who
gious motivation. They believe that the Bible are committed neither to a religious quest of
contains the ‘words of life’, and that to study it their own nor to the study of religion, but who
is a means of deepening their understanding of are drawn by the literary quality of much of the
the ways of God. They turn to the Bible to Bible to want to know more about it. For them
inform them about how God desires human it is a major classic of Western—indeed, of
beings to live, and about what God has done world—literature, whose influence on other lit-
for the human race. They expect to be both erature, ancient and modern, requires that it
challenged and helped by what they read, and should be taken seriously and studied in
to gain clearer guidance for living as religious depth. A generation ago ‘the Bible as literature’
believers. Such people will use a commentary to was regarded by many students of the Bible,
help them understand the small print of what especially those with a religious commitment
has been disclosed about the nature and pur- to it, as a somewhat dilettante interest, insuffi-
poses of God. The editors’ hope is that those ciently alert to the Bible’s spiritual challenge.
who turn to the Bible for such religious reasons Nowadays, however, a great deal of serious
will find that the biblical text is here explained in scholarly work is being done on literary aspects
ways that make it easier to understand its con- of the Bible, and many commentaries are writ-
tent and meaning. We envisage that the Com- ten with the needs of a literary, rather than a
mentary will be used by pastors preparing religious, readership in mind. We think that
sermons, by groups of people reading the Bible those who approach the Bible in such a way
together in study or discussion groups, and by will find much in this Commentary to stimulate
anyone who seeks a clearer perspective on a text their interest further.
that they hold in reverence as religiously inspir-
ing. Jews, Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox B. Biblical Criticism. 1. The individual authors
Christians have different expectations of the of commentaries have been free to treat the
Bible, but we hope that all will find the Com- biblical books as they see fit, and there has
mentary useful in elucidating the text. been no imposition of a common editorial per-
2. A somewhat smaller group of readers spective. They are, however, united by an ap-
studies the Bible as a monument to important proach that we have called ‘chastened historical
movements of religious thought in the past, criticism’. This is what is traditionally known as
whether or not they themselves have any per- a critical commentary, but the authors are aware
sonal commitment to the religious systems it of recent challenges to what is generally called
represents. One of the most striking develop- biblical criticism and have sought (to a greater
ments of recent decades has been the growth of or lesser extent) to take account of these in their
interest in the Bible by those who have no work. Some explanation of these terms is ne-
religious commitment to it, but for whom it is cessary if the reader is to understand what this
a highly significant document from the ancient book seeks to offer.
world. Students who take university or college 2. Biblical criticism, sometimes known as his-
courses in theology or religious or biblical stud- torical criticism of the Bible or as the historical-
ies will often wish to understand the origins and critical method, is the attempt to understand
meaning of the biblical text so as to gain a the Bible by setting it in the context of its
clearer insight into the beginnings of two time of writing, and by asking how it came
major world religions, Judaism and Christianity, into existence and what were the purposes of
and into the classic texts that these religions its authors. The term ‘historical’ is not used
regard as central to their life. We hope that because such criticism is necessarily interested
such people will find here the kinds of informa- in reconstructing history, though sometimes
tion they need in order to understand this com- it may be, but because biblical books are
plex and many-faceted work. The one-volume being studied as anchored in their own time, not
format makes it possible to obtain an overview as freely floating texts which we can read as
general introduction 2

though they were contemporary with us. It case of some books in the Bible it is suspected
starts with the acknowledgement that the Bible by scholars that such a process of production
is an ancient text. However much the questions has resulted in the texts as we now have them.
with which it deals may be of perennial interest Such hypotheses have been particularly preva-
to human beings (and perhaps no one would lent in the case of the Pentateuch (Genesis–
study it so seriously if they were not), they arose Deuteronomy) and of the Synoptic Gospels
within a particular historical (and geographical) (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). The attempt to dis-
setting. Biblical criticism uses all available cover the underlying sources is nowadays usu-
means of access to information about the text ally called ‘source criticism’, though older books
and its context, in order to discover what it may sometimes call it ‘literary criticism’ (from Ger-
have meant when it or its component parts were man Literarkritik, but confusing in that ‘literary
written. criticism’ usually means something else in mod-
3. One precondition for a critical under- ern English), or ‘higher criticism’—by contrast
standing of any text is a knowledge of the lan- with ‘lower’, that is, textual criticism. It is im-
guage in which it is written, and accordingly of portant to see that biblical critics are not com-
what individual words and expressions were mitted to believing that this or that biblical
capable of meaning at the time of the text’s book is in fact the result of the interweaving
composition. The critical reader is always on of sources (R. N. Whybray’s commentary on
guard against the danger of anachronism, of Genesis in this volume argues against such a
reading later meanings of words into their use hypothesis), but only to being open to the pos-
in an earlier period. Frequently, therefore, com- sibility.
mentators draw attention to problems in 5. A further hypothesis that has had a long
understanding particular words and phrases, and fruitful history in the study of both Testa-
and cite evidence for how such words are used ments is that our present written texts may rest
elsewhere in contemporary texts. A second pre- on materials that were originally transmitted
requisite is that the text itself shall be an accur- orally. Before the biblical books were written,
ate version of what the author actually wrote. In the stories or other units of which they are
the case of any ancient text this is an extremely composed may have had an independent life,
difficult thing to ensure, because of the vagaries circulating orally and being handed on from
of the transmission of manuscripts down the parent to child, or in circles where stories were
centuries. Copying by hand always introduces told and retold, such as a ‘camp-fire’ or a litur-
errors into texts, even though biblical texts were gical context. The attempt to isolate and study
often copied with special care because of their such underlying oral units is known as form
perceived sacred status. In all the individual criticism, and it has been much practised in
commentaries here there are discussions of the case of the gospels, the stories in the Penta-
how accurately the original text is available to teuch and in the early historical books of the
us, and what contribution is made to our know- Old Testament, and the prophetic books. Again,
ledge of this by various manuscripts or ancient by no means all critics think that these books do
translations. The art of textual criticism seeks to in fact rest on oral tradition, but all regard the
explain the evolution of texts, to understand question whether or not they do so as import-
how they become corrupted (through miscopy- ant because it is relevant to understanding their
ing), and how their original form can be redis- original context.
covered. 6. Where texts are composite, that is, the
4. In reading any piece of text, ancient or result of weaving together earlier written or
modern, one needs to be aware of the possibil- oral sources, it makes sense to investigate the
ity that it may not be a unity. Some documents techniques and intentions of those who carried
in our own day come into existence through the out the weaving. We should now call such
work of several different authors, which some- people ‘editors’, but in biblical studies the tech-
one else then edits into a reasonably unified nical term ‘redactor’ tends to be preferred, and
whole: such is the case, for example, with docu- this branch of biblical criticism is thus known
ments produced by committees. In the ancient as ‘redaction criticism’. Once we know what
world it was not uncommon for books to be were a biblical redactor’s raw materials—
produced by joining together, and sometimes which source and form criticism may be able
even interweaving, several already existing to disclose to us—we can go on to ask about the
shorter texts, which are then referred to as the aims the redactor must have had. Thus we can
‘sources’ of the resulting single document. In the enquire into the intentions (and hence the
 3 general introduction

thought or the ‘theology’) of Matthew or Luke, and have contributed materially to the work of
or of the editor of the book of Isaiah. Redaction biblical study. Hence our adoption of a critical
criticism has been a particular interest in mod- stance is ‘chastened’ by an awareness that new
ern German-speaking biblical study, but it is questions are in the air, and that biblical criti-
also still widely practised in the English-speaking cism itself is now subject to critical questioning.
world. It is always open to the critic to argue 2. One important style of newer approaches
that a given book is not composite in any case to the Bible challenges the assumption that
and therefore never had a redactor, only an critical work should (or can) proceed from a
author. Most scholars probably think this is position of neutrality. Those who write from
true of some of the shorter tales of the Old feminist and liberationist perspectives often
Testament, such as Jonah or Ruth, or of many argue that the older critical style of study pre-
of Paul’s epistles. Here too what makes study sented itself as studiedly uncommitted to any
critical is not a commitment to a particular particular programme: it was simply concerned,
outcome, but a willingness to engage in the so its practitioners held, to understand the bib-
investigation. It is always possible that there is lical text in its original setting. In fact (so it is
simply not enough evidence to resolve the mat- now argued) there was often a deeply conserva-
ter, as R. Coggins argues in the case of Isaiah. tive agenda at work in biblical criticism. By
This conclusion does not make such a com- distancing the text as the product of an ancient
mentary ‘non-critical’, but is arrived at by care- culture, critics managed to evade its challenges
fully sifting the various critical hypotheses that to themselves, and they signally failed to see
have been presented by previous scholars. An how subversive of established attitudes much
uncritical commentary would be one that was of the Bible really was. What is needed, it is said,
unaware of such issues, or unwilling to engage is a more engaged style of biblical study in
with them. which the agenda is set by the need for human
7. Form and redaction criticism inevitably liberation from oppressive political forces,
lead to questions about the social setting of whether these constrain the poor or some
the underlying units that make up biblical other particular group such as women. The
books and of the redactors who put them into text must be read not only in its reconstructed
their finished form. In recent years historical ‘original’ context but also as relevant to modern
criticism has expanded to include a consider- concerns: only then will justice be done to the
able interest in the contribution the social sci- fact that it exercises an existential claim upon its
ences can make to understanding the Bible’s readers, and it will cease to be seen as the
provenance. The backgrounds of the gospels preserve of the scholar in his (sic) study.
and of Paul’s letters have been studied with a 3. Such a critique of traditional biblical criti-
view to discovering more about the social con- cism calls attention to some of the unspoken
text of early Christianity: see, for example, the assumptions with which scholars have some-
commentary here on 1 Thessalonians by Philip times worked, and can have the effect of decon-
Esler. In the study of the Old Testament also structing conventional commentaries by
much attention has been directed to questions uncovering their unconscious bias. Many of
of social context, and this interest can be seen the commentators in this volume are aware of
especially in D. L. Smith-Christopher’s com- such dangers in biblical criticism, and seek to
mentary on Ezra–Nehemiah. redress the balance by asking about the contri-
bution of the books on which they comment
C. Post-Critical Movements. 1. In the last few to contemporary concerns. They are also more
decades biblical studies has developed in many willing than critics have often been to ‘criti-
and varied directions, and has thrown up a cize’ the text in the ordinary sense of that
number of movements that regard themselves word, that is, to question its assumptions and
as ‘post-critical’. Some take critical study of the commitments. This can be seen, for example, in
Bible as a given, but then seek to move on to ask J. Galambush’s commentary on Ezekiel, where
further questions not part of the traditional misogynist tendencies are identified in the text.
historical-critical enterprise. Others are frankly 4. A second recent development has been an
hostile to historical criticism, regarding it as interest in literary aspects of the biblical texts.
misguided or as outdated. Though the general Where much biblical criticism has been con-
tone of this commentary continues to be crit- cerned with underlying strata and their combin-
ical, most of its contributors believe that these ation to make the finished books we now have,
newer movements have raised important issues, some students of the Bible have come to think
general introduction 4

that such ‘excavative’ work (to use a phrase of all, in a conviction that the Bible was open
Robert Alter’s) is at best only preparatory to a to investigation by everyone, and was not the
reading of the texts as finished wholes, at worst preserve of ecclesiastical authorities: it appealed
a distraction from a proper appreciation of to evidence in the text rather than to external
them as great literature just as they stand. The sources of validation. It is important that this
narrative books in particular (the Pentateuch insight is not lost by starting to treat the Bible as
and ‘historical’ books of the Old Testament, the possession of a different set of authorities,
the gospels and Acts in the New) have come namely historical-critical scholars! Canonical
to be interpreted by means of a ‘narrative criti- approaches emphasize that religious believers
cism’, akin to much close reading of modern are entitled to put their own questions to the
novels and other narrative texts, which is alert text, and this must be correct, though it would
to complex literary structure and to such elem- be a disaster if such a conviction were to result
ents as plot, characterization, and closure. It is in the outlawing of historical-critical method in
argued that at the very least readers of the Bible its turn. Contributors to this volume, however,
ought to be aware of such issues as well as those are certainly not interested only in the genesis
of the genesis and formation of the text, and of the biblical books but are also concerned
many would contend, indeed, that they are ac- to delineate their overall religious content, and
tually of considerably more importance for a to show how one book relates to others within
fruitful appropriation of biblical texts than the canon of Scripture.
is the classic agenda of critical study. Many of 6. Thus the historical-critical approach may
the commentaries in this volume (such as those be chastened by an awareness that its sphere of
on Matthew and Philippians) show an aware- operations, though vital, is not exhaustive, and
ness of such aesthetic issues in reading the Bible, that other questions too may reasonably be on
and claim that the books they study are literary the agenda of students of the Bible. In particular,
texts to be read alongside other great works of a concern for the finished form of biblical books,
world literature. This interest in things literary however that came into existence, unites both
is related to the growing interest in the Bible literary and canonical approaches. Few scholars
by people who do not go to it for religious nowadays believe that they have finished their
illumination so much as for its character as work when they have given an account of how a
classic literature, and it is a trend that seems given book came into being: the total effect
likely to continue. (literary and theological) made by the final
5. Thirdly, there is now a large body of work form is also an important question. The contri-
in biblical studies arguing that traditional bib- butors to this volume seek to engage with it.
lical criticism paid insufficient attention not
only to literary but also to theological features D. The Biblical Canon. 1. Among the various
of the text. Here the interest in establishing the religious groups that recognize the Bible as
text’s original context and meaning is felt to be authoritative there are some differences of
essentially an antiquarian interest, which gives a opinion about precisely which books it should
position of privilege to ‘what the text meant’ contain. In the case of the New Testament all
over ‘what the text means’. One important rep- Christians share a common list, though in the
resentative of this point of view is the ‘canonical centuries of the Christian era a few other books
approach’, sometimes also known as ‘canonical were sometimes included (notably The Shep-
criticism’, in which biblical interpreters ask herd of Hermas, which appears in some major
not about the origins of biblical books but New Testament manuscripts), and some of
about their integration into Scripture taken as those now in the canon were at times regarded
a finished whole. This is part of an attempt as of doubtful status (e.g. Hebrews, Revelation, 2
to reclaim the Bible for religious believers, on and 3 John, 2 Peter, and Jude). The extent of the
the hypothesis that traditional historical criti- Old Testament varies much more seriously.
cism has alienated it from them and located it Protestants and Jews alike accept only the
in the study rather than in the pulpit or in books now extant in Hebrew as fully authorita-
the devotional context of individual Bible- tive, but Catholics and Orthodox Christians rec-
reading. While this volume assumes the ognize a longer canon: on this, see the
continuing validity of historical-critical study, Introduction to the Old Testament. The Ethi-
many contributors are alive to this issue, and opic and Coptic churches accept also Enoch and
are anxious not to make imperialistic claims for Jubilees, as well as having minor variations in the
historical criticism. Such criticism began, after other books of the Old Testament.
 5 general introduction

2. In this Commentary we have included all confessional allegiance, and because it holds the
the books that appear in the NRSV—that is, all balance between accuracy and intelligibility,
the books recognized as canonical in any of the avoiding paraphrase on the one hand and liter-
Western churches (both Catholic and Protest- alism on the other. But comparison between
ant) and in the Greek and Russian Orthodox different English translations, particularly for
churches and those in communion with them. the reader who does not know Hebrew or
We have not included the books found only in Greek, is often instructive and serves as a re-
the Ethiopic or Coptic canons, though some minder that any translation is itself already an
extracts appear in the article Essay with Com- interpretation.
mentary on Post-Biblical Jewish Literature. 3. The Oxford Annotated Bible, based on the
3. It is important to see that it is only at the NRSV, is particularly useful for those who
periphery that the biblical canon is blurred. wish to gain a quick overview of the larger
There is a great core of central books whose context before consulting this Commentary on
status has never been seriously in doubt: the a particular passage of special interest. It is
Pentateuch and Prophets in the Old Testament, useful in another way too: its introductions
the gospels and major Pauline epistles in the and notes represent a moderate consensus in
New. Few of the deutero-canonical books of contemporary biblical scholarship with which
the Old Testament have ever been of major the often more innovative views of the contri-
importance to Christians—a possible exception butors to this Commentary may be measured.
is the Wisdom of Solomon, so well respected 4. When a commentator wishes to draw at-
that it was occasionally regarded by early Chris- tention to a passage or parallel in the Bible, the
tians as a New Testament book. There is now- standard NRSV abbreviations apply. But when
adays comparatively little discussion among the reference is to a fuller discussion to be
different kinds of Christian about the correct found in the Commentary itself, small capitals
extent of the biblical canon (which at the Ref- are used. Thus (cf. Gen 1:1) signifies the biblical
ormation was a major area of disagreement), text, while GEN 1:1 refers to the commentary on
and our intention has been to cover most of it. In the same way GEN A etc. refers to the
the books regarded as canonical in major introductory paragraphs of the article on Gen-
churches without expressing any opinion esis. The conventions for transliteration of the
about whether or not they should have canon- biblical languages into the English alphabet are
ical status. the same as those used by The Oxford Companion
to the Bible (ed. B. M. Metzger and M. Coogan,
E. How to Use this Commentary. 1. A com- Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).
mentary is an aid towards informed reading of 5. The traditional kind of verse-by-verse
a text, and not a substitute for it. The contribu- commentary has in recent times come under
tors to this volume have written on the assump- attack as a ‘disintegrating’ approach that diverts
tion that the Bible is open before the reader all the attention of the reader from the natural flow
the while, whether in hard copy or electronic of the text. The paragraph or longer section, so
form. The NRSV is the normal or ‘default’ ver- it is argued, is the real unit of thought, not the
sion. When other versions or the commenta- verse. However, certain commentators com-
tor’s own renderings are preferred this is menting on certain texts would still defend the
indicated; often this is because some nuance in traditional approach, since they claim that
the original has been lost in the NRSV (no readers chiefly need to be provided with back-
translation can do full justice to all the possible ground information necessary to the proper
meanings of a text in another language) historical interpretation of the text, rather than
or because some ambiguity (and these abound a more discursive exposition which they could
in the text of the Bible) has been resolved in work out for themselves. Examples of both the
a way that differs from the judgement of the older and newer methods are to be found in the
commentator. commentaries below. But even when a particu-
2. The NRSV is the latest in a long line of lar commentator offers observations on indi-
translations that go back to the version author- vidual verses, we would recommend readers to
ized by King James I of England in 1611. It is read the whole paragraph or section and not
increasingly recognized as the most suitable for just the comment on the verse that interests
the purposes of serious study, because it is them, so as to gain a more rounded picture.
based on the best available critical editions of And to encourage this we have not peppered
the original texts, because it has no particular the page with indications of new verses in
general introduction 6

capitals (V.1) or bold type (v.1), but mark the have actually adopted should be understood as
start of a new comment less obtrusively in simple conventions, without prejudice to the
lower case (v.1). serious issues that underlie these differences. A
6. The one-volume Bible commentary, as particular problem of a similar kind was
this genre developed through the twentieth cen- whether or not to offer some assistance with a
tury, aimed to put into the hands of readers welter of texts, dating from the late biblical
everything they needed for the study of the period up to 200 CE, which, while not biblical
biblical text. Alongside commentaries on the on any definition, are nevertheless relevant to
individual books, it often included a host of the serious study of the Bible: these are the Dead
general articles ranging from ‘Biblical Weights Sea scrolls, the Old Testament pseudepigrapha,
and Measures’ to ‘The Doctrine of the Person of and the apocryphal New Testament. The com-
Christ’. In effect, it tried to be a Commentary, promise solution we have reached is to offer not
Bible Dictionary, Introduction (in the technical exactly commentary, but two more summariz-
sense, i.e. an analysis of evidence for date, ing articles on this literature (chs. 55 and 82)
authorship, sources, etc.) and Biblical Theology which, however, still focus on the texts them-
all rolled into one. But it is no longer possible, selves in a way consistent with the commentary
given the sheer bulk and variety of modern format. Some readers may wish to distinguish
scholarship, even to attempt this multipurpose sharply between the status of this material and
approach: nor indeed is it desirable since it that in the Bible; others will see it as merging
distracts attention from the proper task of a into the latter.
commentary which is the elucidation of the 9. In addition to the overall introductions to
text itself. Readers who need more background the three main subdivisions of the commentary,
information on a particular issue are recom- there are other articles that attempt to approach
mended to consult The Oxford Companion to the certain texts not individually but as sets. The
Bible or the six volumes of The Anchor Bible Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses functions
Dictionary (ed. D. N. Freedman, New York: Dou- not only doctrinally but also in terms of its
bleday, 1992), though older bible dictionaries literary history as one five-part work. Similarly,
may be used instead: the basic factual informa- the letters of Paul were once a distinct corpus of
tion they contain remains largely reliable and writings before they were expanded and added
relatively stable over time. to the growing canon of the New Testament.
7. Each article concludes with a bibliog- The four gospels may properly be studied sep-
raphy of works cited. But in addition at the arately, but, both as historical and theological
end of the volume there is an aggregated bibli- documents, may also be read profitably ‘in syn-
ography that points the reader towards the opsis’. No attempt has been made by the editors
most important specialist works in English on to make these additional articles that group
the separate books of the Bible, and also major certain texts together entirely consistent with
reference works, introductions, theologies, and the individual commentaries on them, for the
so forth. differences are entirely legitimate. The index of
8. The contributors to The Oxford Bible subjects at the end of the volume relates only to
Commentary—and this will probably apply to this introductory material and not to the com-
its users as well—belong to different faith mentaries themselves. To locate discussions of
traditions or none. They have brought to their biblical characters, places, ideas etc. the reader is
task a variety of methods and perspectives, and recommended to consult a concordance first
this lends richness and depth to the work as a and then to look up the commentary on the
whole. But it also creates problems in coming to passages where the key words occur.
an agreed common terminology. As we have The Bible is a vast treasury of prose and
noted already, the definition of what is to be poetry, of history and folklore, of spirituality
included in the Bible, the extent of the canon, is and ethics; it has inspired great art and archi-
disputed. Further, should we refer to the Old tecture, literature and music down the centur-
and New Testaments, or to the scriptures of ies. It invites the reader into its own ancient and
Israel and of early Christianity; to the Apoc- mysterious world, and yet at the same time can
rypha or the deutero-canonical literature? often surprise us by its contemporary relevance.
How should dates be indicated, with BC and AD It deserves and repays all the efforts of critical
in the traditional manner or with BCE and CE in and attentive reading which the Oxford Bible
reference to the Common Era? The usages we Commentary is designed to assist.
 2. Introduction to the Old Testament
john barton
A. The Old Testament Canon. 1. ‘The Old Tes- already regarded as sacred Scripture by most
tament’ is the term traditionally used by Chris- Jews. Many, however, especially in Greek-
tians and others to refer to the Holy Scriptures speaking areas such as Egypt, also had a high
of Judaism, which the Church inherited as part regard for other books, including what are now
of its Jewish origins and eventually came to see the deuterocanonical or apocryphal books,
as a portion of its own composite Bible, whose along with others which are no longer in any
other main section is the New Testament. The Bible. The early Christian church, which was
early Church recognized as Old Testament predominantly Greek-speaking, tended to ac-
Scripture both those books which now form cept this wider canon of books. In due course,
the Hebrew Scriptures accepted as authoritative mainstream Judaism decided to canonize only
by Jews, and a number of other books, some of the books extant in Hebrew, but the Christian
them originally written in Hebrew but now churches continued to operate with a wider
(with a few exceptions) found only in Greek canon. Certain Church Fathers, notably Melito
and other, later, translations. Since the Refor- of Sardis (died c.190 CE) and Jerome (c.345–420)
mation, the Hebrew Scriptures alone are recog- proposed that the church should exclude the
nized as part of the Bible by Protestants, but deuterocanonical books, but this proposal was
Catholic and Orthodox Christians continue not accepted. It was only at the Reformation in
to acknowledge also these ‘Greek’ books—some- the sixteenth century that Jerome’s suggestion
times called the ‘deuterocanonical’ books— was reconsidered, and Protestants opted for the
which are referred to as ‘The Apocrypha’ in shorter, Jewish canon of the Hebrew Scriptures
Protestantism. In this commentary all the as their OT. The Catholic Church continued to
books recognized by any Christian church use the longer canon, and the Orthodox
have been included, just as they are in the churches were unaffected by the Reformation
NRSV, but (again as in the NRSV) we have in any case. Some Protestants, notably Luther-
followed the Protestant and Jewish custom of ans and Anglicans, treated what they now called
separating the Apocrypha from the Hebrew the Apocrypha as having a sub-scriptural status,
Scriptures. but Calvinists and other Protestants rejected it
2. The official list of books accepted as part entirely. (See Sundberg 1964; 1968; Anderson
of Scripture is known as the ‘canon’, and there 1970; Barton 1986; 1997a; 1997b; Beckwith
are thus at least two different canons of the OT: 1985; Davies 1998.)
the Hebrew Scriptures (for which Jews do not 4. Since we have included a separate Intro-
use the title ‘Old Testament’), and the OT of the duction to the Apocrypha in this Commentary,
early church, which contained all the Hebrew little more will be said about these deutero-
Scriptures together with the deuterocanonical/ canonical books here. But it is important to
apocryphal books. This second canon has in grasp that the term ‘Old Testament’ does not
turn been received in a slightly different form identify a corpus of books so simply as does the
in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, so that corresponding ‘New Testament’, since different
there are a few books in the Orthodox canon Christians include different books within it.
which do not appear in the Catholic Bible (e.g. 3 ‘Hebrew Bible’ or ‘Hebrew Scriptures’ is unam-
Maccabees, Ps 151) and one book (2 Esdras) biguous and is nowadays often preferred to ‘Old
which is often found in Catholic Bibles but is Testament’, but it cannot be used to refer to the
not extant in Greek and therefore not canonical longer OT of the ancient church.
in the Orthodox churches. The Protestant
Apocrypha has traditionally included the deu- B. Collecting the Hebrew Scriptures. 1. If the
terocanonical books of the Catholic rather than Hebrew Scriptures were complete by the begin-
of the Orthodox church. For a comparison of ning of the Common Era, that does not mean
the Hebrew and Greek canons, see the chart at 1. that the collection was new at that time. Many
3. How did this situation arise? There are of the OT books were recognized as authorita-
many theories about the origins of the various tive long before the first century BCE. The Penta-
canons, but one which is widely accepted is as teuch, or five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus,
follows. By the beginning of the Common Era, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), prob-
most if not all of the books now in the HB were ably existed in something like its present form
introduction to the old testament 8

by the fourth century BCE, and the historical and venerated and not questioned. Even where one
prophetic books (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, book was clearly incompatible with another, as
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve is the case with Kings and Chronicles, both were
Minor—i.e. shorter—prophets) may well have allowed to stand unreconciled within the one
been compiled no later than the third century canon.
BCE. The Jewish arrangement of the Hebrew
Scriptures recognizes these two collections, C. Writing the Hebrew Scriptures. 1. People
which it calls respectively ‘the Torah’ and ‘the often think of the books of the Bible as each
Prophets’, as having a certain special prestige having an author. This was normal in ancient
above that of ‘the Writings’, which is the Heb- times, too: Jews and Christians thought that the
rew title for the third collection in the canon, ‘books of Moses’ were written by Moses, the
consisting of other miscellaneous works ‘books of Samuel’ by Samuel, the Psalms by
(Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Daniel, Chronicles, David, the Proverbs by Solomon, and each of
Ezra, Nehemiah, and the five scrolls read at the prophetic books by the prophet whose
festivals, Esther, Ruth, Song of Songs, Lamenta- name the book bears. This raises obvious his-
tions, and Ecclesiastes). This may well be torical problems—for example, Moses and
because the Writings were formed rather later, Samuel then have to be seen as having recorded
perhaps not until the first century BCE—indeed, the details of their own deaths! But modern
some of the books contained in them, notably study has made it clear that many of the books
Daniel, are themselves much later than most of of the OT are the product not of a single author
the books in the Torah and Prophets, and so did but of several generations of writers, each re-
not exist to be collected until that later time. working the text produced by his predecessors.
2. In the Greek Bible, followed by the trad- Furthermore, some material in the biblical
itional, pre-Reformation Christian canon, this books may not have originated in written
division into three collections is not followed, form at all, but may derive from oral tradition.
but a roughly thematic arrangement is preferred, In their finished form most of the books are the
with all the ‘historical’ books at the beginning, product of redactors—editors who (more or
the ‘wisdom’ or teaching books such as Proverbs less successfully) smoothed out the texts that
in the middle, and the prophetic books (includ- had reached them to make the books as we now
ing Daniel) at the end. This produces what looks have them.
like a more rational arrangement, but it may 2. Modern scholarship recognizes important
obscure the process of canonization to which collections of material in the OT that are not
the Hebrew arrangement is a more effective wit- coterminous with the books in their present
ness. This commentary follows the traditional form. In the Pentateuch, for example, it is
Protestant arrangement, which adopts the order widely believed that earlier sources can be dis-
of books in the Greek Bible but extracts the tinguished. These sources ran in parallel
deuterocanonical books and groups them into throughout what are now the five books, in
the separate Apocrypha. The different arrange- particular an early (pre-exilic) strand called ‘J’
ments can be seen in the chart at 1. which is to be found throughout Genesis–
3. The collection of scriptural texts was Numbers, and ‘P’, a product of priestly writers
probably undertaken by learned scribes, the after the Exile, which is now interwoven with J
forerunners of the people described as ‘scribes’ to form the present form of these books (see
in the NT. But it should not be thought of as a INTROD. PENT.). Scholarship has also pointed to
conscious process of selection. On the whole the existence of originally longer works which
the HB probably contains most of what had have been broken up to make the books as they
survived of the writings of ancient Israel, to- now stand. An example is the so-called Deuter-
gether with more recent books which had com- onomistic History, supposed by many to have
mended themselves widely. Growth, rather than been compiled during the Exile and to have
selection, was the operative factor. Specific Jew- comprised what are now the books of Deuter-
ish communities, such as that which produced onomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, with
the Dead Sea scrolls, may have worked with a points of division falling elsewhere than at the
larger corpus of texts, but there too the texts we present limits of the books. The Psalter has clear
now know as biblical had pride of place. There evidence of the existence of earlier, shorter col-
is no evidence of disputes about the contents lections, such as the Psalms of Asaph and the
of the Bible until some time into the Common Psalms of the sons of Korah, which were partly
Era: in earlier times, it seems, old books were broken up to make the book of Psalms as we
 9 introduction to the old testament

now have it. The book of Isaiah seems likely to 26; Dan 2:4–7:28). Aramaic and Hebrew are
have consisted originally of at least three related, but not mutually comprehensible, lan-
lengthy blocks of material, chs. 1–39, 40–55, guages belonging to the Semitic family, which
and 56–66, which have been brought together also includes Arabic, Ethiopic, and the ancient
under the name of the great prophet. language Akkadian. Aramaic was more import-
3. Underlying these longer works there were ant historically, since it was the lingua franca of
legends, tales, prophetic oracles, wise sayings, the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian empires,
and other traditions which may once have whereas Hebrew is simply the language of Pal-
existed without any larger context, and circu- estine, closely related to the tongues of Israel’s
lated orally in particular areas of Israel. The neighbours, Moab, Edom, and Ammon.
stories of the patriarchs in Genesis, for instance, 2. Hebrew and Aramaic, like some other
may go back to individual hero-tales which Semitic languages, were originally written with-
originally had only a local importance, but out vowels. In any language written with an
which later writers have incorporated into alphabet more information is provided in the
cycles of stories purporting to give information writing-system than is actually needed to make
about the ancestors of the whole Israelite sense of most words: for example, if we wrote
people. Individual proverbs may have origin- ‘Th Hbrw lngg’ no-one would have any diffi-
ated in the life of this or that Israelite village, culty in understanding this as ‘the Hebrew lan-
only much later collected together to form the guage’, especially if they were helped by the
book of Proverbs. Prophets taught small groups context. So long as Hebrew was a living lan-
of disciples about matters of immediate con- guage, this caused few problems. Although
cern, but later their words were grouped to- some words might be ambiguous, the context
gether by theme and applied to the history of would usually determine which was meant.
the whole nation and its future. Modern Hebrew is usually written without
4. Thus the process which gave us the OT is vowels, too, and this seldom causes difficulties
almost infinitely complicated. Recently, how- for readers. Once biblical Hebrew became a
ever, literary critics have begun to argue that ‘learned’ language and passed out of daily use,
alongside much anonymous, reworked mater- however, systems of vowel points—dots and
ial, there are also books and sections of books dashes above and below the consonant letters—
which do betray the presence of genuinely cre- were devised to help the reader, and the system
ative writers: the popular idea of biblical now used in printed Bibles is the work of the
‘authors’, that is, is not always wide of the Masoretes (see E.2). The unpointed text continues
mark. The story of David’s court in 2 Samuel in use today in the scrolls of the Torah read in
and 1 Kings, for example, is now widely synagogue worship.
regarded as the work of a literary genius, and 3. Most scholars think that two phases in the
similar claims have been made for other narra- development of Hebrew can be found in the
tive parts of the OT, including segments of the pages of the OT: a classical Hebrew which pre-
Pentateuch. This Commentary tries to maintain vailed until some time after the Exile, and a later
a balance between continuing to hold that most Hebrew, first attested in Ezekiel and P, which
OT books came about as the result of a process develops through Ecclesiastes and Chronicles in
stretching over several generations, and a will- the direction of later Mishnaic Hebrew—the
ingness to recognize literary artistry and skilful learned language of Jews from about the first
writing where it can be found. The general trend century CE onwards, by which time Aramaic had
in OT study at present is towards a greater become the everyday tongue. However, this is
interest in the present form of the text and disputed, and anyone who acquires classical
away from an exclusive concentration on the Hebrew can read any biblical book without
raw materials from which it may have been difficulty. As in many languages, there are
assembled. This present form is often more wide differences between the Hebrew of prose
coherent than an older generation of critics narrative and that used in verse, where there is
was willing to accept, even though evidence of often a special vocabulary and many grammat-
reworked older material often remains appar- ical variations. In some cases these may be due
ent. (See Rendtorff 1985; Smend 1981.) to the use of dialect forms, though this is not
certain. Some scholars believe that the oldest
D. Language. 1. The original language of the parts of the OT, such as the Song of Deborah in
OT is predominantly Hebrew, though there are Judg 5, preserve an archaic form of the lan-
a few sections in Aramaic (Ezra 4:8–6:18, 7:12– guage. (See Saenz-Badillos 1993.)
introduction to the old testament 10

E. The Text. 1. Until the discovery of the Dead the days of the prophet Isaiah himself. Here we
Sea scrolls, which include at least portions of are dependent on conjecture, and the recon-
every biblical book except Esther, scholars were struction of the original text, in the literal sense
dependent on Hebrew MSS no earlier than the of ‘original’, is beyond our powers. What we can
ninth century CE. The three most important are say is that the HB we possess today is the HB we
the Cairo Codex (of the Prophets only), written possess today is the HB that was known to Jews
in 896 CE; the Aleppo Codex (c.930 CE), unfortu- and Christians in the first centuries of our era,
nately damaged by fire in 1947; and the Lenin- carefully preserved even where it does not make
grad Codex, dated 1009 CE. The latter is a sense (which is occasionally the case)! (See
complete text of the whole HB, and has become Weingreen 1982; Würthwein 1979; Talmon
the standard text which modern printed Bibles 1970.)
take as their basis.
2. In general terms the Dead Sea discoveries F. Ancient Translations of the Old Testa-
have confirmed the accuracy with which the ment. 1. By the end of the Second Temple
Leningrad Codex has transmitted the Hebrew period (4th–2nd cents. BCE) there were substan-
text. Although there are innumerable differ- tial communities of Jews who no longer had
ences in detail, the Dead Sea MSS, though one Hebrew as their first language, certainly outside
thousand years older, do not show major devi- the land of Palestine and perhaps even inside it.
ations from the text as we know it. The HB was For many, Aramaic had become the everyday
transmitted from the beginning of the Com- tongue, and all around the Mediterranean Greek
mon Era by schools of scribes, the most import- became the lingua franca in the aftermath of the
ant of whom are the Masoretes, who worked conquests of Alexander the Great (d. 323 BCE).
from 500 to 1000 CE; and their claims to have Aramaic paraphrases of the HB began to be
transmitted the Hebrew text with great faithful- compiled, for use in the liturgy, where readings
ness is on the whole confirmed by the evidence in Hebrew would be followed by an Aramaic
from the Dead Sea. One of their tasks was to translation, or Targum. Initially Targums were
record the traditional pronunciation of biblical apparently improvised, and there was a dislike
Hebrew, by then a dead language, by adding of writing them down for fear they might come
pointing, that is, signs indicating vowels, to to seem like Holy Scripture themselves. But
the basic Hebrew text (see D. 2). The Masoretes later they were collected in writing, and a num-
set themselves the task, almost impossible to ber have survived to this day.
imagine in an age before computers, of record- 2. Various Greek versions of the Bible were
ing every detail of the text: they compiled lists also made. A legend says that the initiator of
of unusual spellings, the frequency with which Greek translations was Ptolemy Philadelphus of
particular words or combinations of words oc- Egypt (285–247 BCE), who ordered that a trans-
curred, and even obvious errors in the text. lation of the Torah should be made so that he
Their work can be seen in the margins and at could know under what laws his Jewish subjects
the top and bottom of the text in a printed HB, lived. According to the legend, seventy-two
in the form of many tiny comments, written in scholars worked on the project for seventy-
unpointed Aramaic. Their object was not to two days: hence their work came to be known
improve or emend the text they had received, as the Septuagint (meaning ‘seventy’, tradition-
but to preserve it accurately in every detail, and ally abbreviated LXX). The truth is probably
they succeeded to an astonishing extent. The more prosaic, but the third century remains
student of the Bible can have confidence that the period when Greek translations of the
the text translated by modern versions such as Torah began to be made, followed by versions
the NRSV rests on a faithful tradition going of other books too. Later translators set about
back to NT times. correcting the LXX versions, among them
3. This of course is not to say that that the Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion (see Sal-
text was preserved with equal faithfulness be- vesen 1991). About six different translators can
tween NT times and the times of the original be detected in the LXX itself. The version is in
authors. The work of the Masoretes, together general faithful to the Hebrew, and far less of a
with the evidence of the Dead Sea scrolls, en- paraphrase than the Aramaic Targums. Quite
sures that we can feel confident of knowing in often the LXX seems to be a translation of a
general terms what text of Isaiah was current in different Hebrew original from the one that has
the time of Jesus. That does not mean that we come down to us, and in some books, notably
can know what version of Isaiah was current in Jeremiah, it is obvious that the translators were
 11 introduction to the old testament

dealing with a quite different (in this case, ites in Genesis, the early history of Israel from
shorter) version of the book. Any quest for an Exodus through into the books of Samuel, tales
‘original’ text of Jeremiah underlying the MT about early prophets such as Elijah and Elisha,
therefore has to treat the evidence of the LXX an account of the court of David which is al-
very seriously. most novelistic, and the retellings of older stor-
3. In the early church Greek was at first the ies in the books of Chronicles, as well as a very
commonest language, and the LXX has come small amount of first-person narration in Ezra
down to us largely because it was preserved in and Nehemiah. But the OT itself shows no
Christian hands. Its divergent ordering of the awareness of any differences or gradations
books, as well as its inclusion of more books within this range of material, but records it all
than the Hebrew Scriptures, came to be in the same steady and neutral style as if it were
regarded as distinctively Christian features, all much on a level. Sometimes God or an angel
even though in origin it is plainly a Jewish makes regular appearances in the narrative, as
work. Once Latin displaced Greek as the lan- in Genesis and Judges, sometimes events are
guage of the Western church the need was felt recorded without overt reference to divine caus-
for a further translation into Latin, and various ation, as in 2 Samuel; but the OT itself does not
Old Latin MSS have survived, alongside the draw attention to the difference, and we cannot
evidence of biblical quotations in Christian assume that the writers saw any distinction
writers who used Latin. The Old Latin versions between ‘sacred’ and ‘secular’ history. (See Barr
are translations from the Greek and thus stand 1980.)
at two removes from the Hebrew text. In the 3. Law. Within the narrative framework of
fifth century CE Jerome made a complete Latin the Pentateuch we find several collections of
version of the whole Bible from the original laws, such as the so-called Book of the Coven-
languages. This translation, which came to be ant (Ex 21–4), the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26), and
known as the Vulgate, became the official Bible the Deuteronomic legislation (Deut 12–26). In
of the Western church until the Reformation, fact the whole of Leviticus and large parts of
and continues to enjoy a high prestige in the Exodus and Numbers contain legal material,
Catholic church. Naturally both the Greek and and from the perspective of the redactors of
Latin Bibles, like the Hebrew, have come down the Pentateuch the giving of the law is the
to us in a range of different MSS, and the quest main purpose of Israel’s sojourn at Sinai. At
for ‘the original LXX’ is no easier than that for the heart of the law lie the Ten Commandments
the original HB. (See Roberts 1951.) (Ex 20, Deut 5), and the rest of the legislation is
presented as a detailed exposition of the prin-
G. Contents of the Old Testament. 1. The OT ciples the Commandments enshrine.
contains a huge variety of material, much wider 4. From a historical point of view the laws in
than the contents of the NT, embracing every the Pentateuch have much in common with the
aspect of the social and political life of ancient laws of other nations in the ancient Near East,
Israel and post-exilic Judaism. The variety can such as the famous Code of Hammurabi. But they
be suggested by looking briefly at some of the also differ from them in striking ways—e.g.
genres of literature to be found there. in a higher valuation of human life, much
2. Narrative. More than half the OT consists more interest in regulations concerning wor-
of narrative, that is, the consecutive description ship, and a greater tendency to lay down gen-
of events set in the past. It is hard to distinguish eral principles. As presented in the Pentateuch,
between what we might call history, legend, however, the laws are understood as the foun-
saga, myth, folktale, or fiction. There are pas- dation of the highly distinctive relationship of
sages in the books of Kings which seem to be Israel with its god, YHWH. They are the terms
excerpts from official documents and thus ap- of the solemn agreement, or ‘covenant’, made
proach close to something we might recognize between YHWH and the people through the
as history. At the other end of the spectrum mediation of Moses. The idea of a legislative
there are at least three stories—Jonah, Ruth, framework which regulates the relation between
and Esther—which from our perspective are a god and his people was unusual in the
probably fiction, since they rest on no historic- ancient world. It led in post-biblical times to the
ally true data at all. Then there are a lot of idea of Torah, a complete ethical code covering
stories that seem to lie between these two ex- all aspects of life as lived before God, which
tremes: the stories about the creation, the first would become the foundation-stone of later
human beings, and the ancestors of the Israel- Judaism. This tendency can already be discerned
introduction to the old testament 12

in Deuteronomy, where the laws are not just to understanding, characteristic of post-exilic
be enacted and observed jurisprudentially but are Jewish thought. (See Crenshaw 1981.)
also to be a subject for constant meditation and 7. Prophecy. ‘Prophecy’, like ‘wisdom’, is
delight. (See Noth 1966.) something of a catch-all term covering a wide
5. Hymns and Psalms. The Psalms have diversity of material. Its basic form is the oracle:
sometimes been described as the hymnbook of a (usually) short, pithy saying in which the
the temple, though since they are hard to date prophet either denounces some current evil, or
there is no agreement as to whether they are predicts what YHWH will do in the immediate
best seen as the hymnbook of Solomon’s Tem- future as a response to human conduct. One of
ple or of the Second Temple, built after the the difficulties of studying the prophetic books
Exile. We do not know which psalms were is that these oracles are often arranged in an
intended for public liturgical and which for order which reflects the interests of the editors,
private prayer—indeed, that distinction may rather than registering the chronological se-
be a false one in ancient Israel. There have quence of what the prophet himself said. The
been many theories about the use of the Psalms matter is complicated further by the insertion of
in worship, but all are highly speculative. What many non-authentic oracles, representing per-
can be said is that Israel clearly had a tradition haps what later writers thought the prophet
of writing sophisticated religious poems, and might or would have said in later historical
that this continued over a long period: Ps 29, situations, had he still been alive and able to
for example, seems to be modelled on a do so. It is probably in the prophetic books that
Canaanite psalm and must therefore have the concept of authorship breaks down most
originated in early pre-exilic times, while Ps completely. Many prophetic books also contain
119 reflects a piety based on meditation on the brief narratives and biographical details about
Torah, and is generally dated in the late post- the prophet whose name they bear. Sometimes
exilic period. Psalms can also be found outside these are indistinguishable in style and ap-
the Psalter itself, for example in Ex 15, 1 Sam 2, proach from narratives in the ‘historical’
and Jon 2. (See Gillingham 1994.) books—e.g. Jeremiah contains many stories
6. Wisdom. There are at least three kinds of about the prophet that would not be out of
wisdom literature in the OT. The book of Pro- place in Kings, and perhaps comes from the
verbs preserves many sayings and aphorisms same school of writers.
which draw moral and practical conclusions 8. Sometimes the prophets relate visions and
from aspects of daily life. These may in some their divine interpretations, and towards the
cases have originated in the life of the Israelite end of the OT period this became the normal
village, in others in the royal court, but all have way of conveying divine revelation, in the form
been gathered together to form the great collec- usually called ‘apocalyptic’. Daniel is the only
tion of sayings that runs from Prov 10 to 30. A book in the HB generally called apocalyptic, but
second kind of wisdom is more speculative in later portions of the prophetic books show
character, concerned with theological and developments in this direction and are some-
cosmological questions, as seen e.g. in Prov times referred to as proto-apocalyptic. Prime
8:22–36. Frequently in such passages Wisdom candidates for this description are Isa 24–7,
is itself personified as a kind of goddess, and Joel, and Zech 9–14. (See Blenkinsopp 1984.)
the writer speculates on the involvement of
this being in the creation of the world and on H. Themes of the Old Testament. 1. Despite
its/her relationship to YHWH. Thirdly, we its variety, the OT is a document from a reli-
find what is sometimes called mantic wisdom, gious tradition that retained, over time, certain
which draws on ancient Near-Eastern tradi- characteristic features. These can be introduced
tions about the interpretation of dreams and here only in the most sketchy outline, but it
portents to gain insight into the future, and may be helpful to the reader to be aware of
this is manifested by Joseph in Genesis, and in four interlocking themes.
the book of Daniel. Two books, Job and Eccle- 2. Creation and Monotheism. YHWH is
siastes, seem to reflect on deficiencies within consistently presented throughout the OT as
the traditions of wisdom, and argue for a gen- the God who created the world, and as the only
erally sceptical and non-committal attitude God with whom Israel is to be concerned. Older
towards the mysteries of life. They are part strands of thought do not yet treat him as the
of a general tendency towards greater pessim- only God there is (strict monotheism), a devel-
ism about human capabilities of reason and opment generally thought to have taken place
 13 introduction to the old testament

around the time of the Exile. But it is never is stressed in such a way as to imply the possibility
envisaged that any other god is a proper object of the destruction of Israel if the nation is
of worship for Israelites. There are occasional disobedient. It is not too much to say that the
survivals of a polytheistic system—e.g. in Ps main preoccupation of most of the prophets
82—but no extended text in the OT speaks of was with how YHWH would ‘manage’ this strict
the actions of gods other than YHWH as real or interpretation of the covenant, punishing his
other than purported. The OT presents much of people and yet somehow preserving the special
the life of the pre-exilic period as one of warfare relationship with them which the covenant
between YHWH and the gods of Canaan for implied. In other strands of OT thought, however,
Israel’s allegiance. We know that as a matter of the emphasis falls more heavily on YHWH’s
historical fact many people were far from being commitment to his people and the idea of a
monotheistic in their religious practice in this bargain is less apparent. Thus the covenant with
period. But all our texts imply or affirm that for Abraham, and that with David and his descend-
Israel there can in the end be only YHWH. ants, tend to be presented as almost uncondi-
3. Alongside the majestic account of creation tional. Either the obedience required from the
in Gen 1, where God creates by mere diktat, the human partner is seen as minimal, or else
OT is familiar with older creation stories in which disobedience (though it will be punished) does
creation was accomplished when the chief god not have the power to lead to a complete break-
killed a dragon and made the world out of its down in the relationship with YHWH. After the
body (see Ps 74, Job 3)—a pattern of thought Exile the covenant between YHWH and Israel was
widespread in the ancient Near East. However, often seen as unbreakable on the national scale,
this theme seems to be used in a literary way, but individuals had a duty to remain within the
rather than reflecting a genuine belief of the covenant community by faithful adherence to
authors—much as English poets in the past Torah.
might conventionally invoke the Muses though 6. The God who makes a covenant with Is-
they did not believe these beings actually existed. rael is a God of redemption as well as of cre-
Jews and Christians alike have seen the Hebrew ation. He saves his people from Egypt, and then
Scriptures as important, among other reasons, constantly intervenes in their history to deliver
because they affirm the oneness of God and his them from their enemies, even though he can
absolute power over the creation, and in this they also use these enemies as agents of his just
have correctly captured a theme which is of cen- punishment. In every national crisis Israel can
tral importance in the Bible itself. It finds its most call on YHWH for help, and though his mercy
eloquent expression in the oracles of Deutero- must not be presumed on, he is a reliable source
Isaiah, as the author of Isa 40–55 is known: see of support in the long term. (See Nicholson
especially Isa 40:12–26. (See Theissen 1984; Why- 1986; Spriggs 1974.)
bray 1983.) 7. Ethics. In some OT traditions, such as that
4. Covenant and Redemption. It is a central of the law, ethical obligation is tightly bound up
point in many OT texts that the creator God with Israel’s contractual obligations to YHWH,
YHWH is also in some sense Israel’s special god, whereas in others (notably wisdom) there is
who at some point in history entered into a more appeal to universally applicable standards
relationship with his people that had something of justice and uprightness. Everywhere in the
of the nature of a contract. Classically this con- OT, however, it is taken as given that God
tract or covenant was entered into at Sinai, and makes moral demands on both Israel and all
Moses was its mediator. As we saw above, the human beings. These demands characteristic-
laws in the Pentateuch are presented as the terms ally include two aspects which to modern,
of the contract between YHWH and his people. non-Jewish readers do not seem to belong nat-
Acting in accordance with his special commit- urally together: a strong commitment to social
ment to Israel, YHWH is thought to have guided justice, and a deep concern for ritual purity.
their history, in particular bringing them out of Ritual and ethical punctiliousness are seen as
Egypt and giving them the promised land as a points on a single spectrum, so that some texts
perpetual possession. Later prophets hoped for a can speak of gross moral outrages such as mur-
restoration to this land after the Jews had lost der as polluting the sanctuary of YHWH just as
political control of it to a succession of great do ritual infringements (see Ezek 18). Pagan
powers: Assyria, Babylonia, and Persia. writers in the ancient world often drew atten-
5. In the prophetic version of the covenant tion to the high moral standards of Jews, while
theory, the contractual nature of the arrangement simultaneously being puzzled that they were so
introduction to the old testament 14

concerned about matters of diet and ritual pur- that God is utterly just, and that those who
ity. At the same time there are prophetic books, complain of his injustice are in fact themselves
such as Amos and Hosea, which seem to distin- to blame for what has befallen them. Second
guish the two types of ethical concern, and Isaiah combines a conviction that God has
which argue that YHWH requires social justice been just to punish Israel with an assurance
more than ritual purity, and perhaps that he that destruction is not his last word, and that
does not care about ritual purity at all: this latter he will remain true to his ancient promises to
possibility is also envisaged in some wisdom Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Through reflection
texts. on the disaster that has befallen Israel all these
8. The OT’s moral code is remarkably con- thinkers come to an affirmation of the superior
sistent throughout the period covered by the justice of God—greater, not less, than that of
literature. It stresses justice, both in the sense any human power.
of fairness to everyone, rich and poor alike, 11. At the level of the individual the prob-
and in the sense of intervention on behalf of lems of theodicy are discussed in Job and, to
those who cannot help themselves. It forbids some extent, in Ecclesiastes. Here explanations
murder, theft, bribery and corruption, deceitful in terms of human guilt are for the most part
trading standards (e.g. false weights and rejected, since we are told at the outset that Job
measures), and many sexual misdemeanours, is a righteous man, who manifestly does not
including adultery, incest, bestiality, and deserve to suffer as he does. The book con-
homosexual acts. It insists on the duty of cludes that God cannot be held to account,
those in power to administer justice equitably, and that his ways are imponderable, though
and forbids exploitation of the poor and help- perhaps also that there are forms of fellowship
less, especially widows and orphans. All moral with him in which understanding why one suf-
obligation is traced back to an origin in God, fers is not a first priority. For Ecclesiastes, the
either by way of ‘positive’ law—YHWH’s expli- world manifests no moral order such that
cit commands—or else through the way the the righteous can expect to be rewarded and
divine character is expressed in the orders of the wicked punished, but ‘time and chance
nature. Some moral obligations at least are happen to all’.
assumed to be known outside Israel (as was 12. Convictions about the justice of God are
of course the case), and especially in the wis- crucial to the way the story of Israel is told in
dom literature appeal is made to the consensus the historical books: Kings and Chronicles in
of right-minded people and not only to the particular are concerned to show that God is
declared will of YHWH. (See Wright 1983; Bar- always just in his dealings with his people.
ton 1998; Otto 1994.) Kings sees this as manifested in the fact that
9. Theodicy. In a polytheistic system it is sin is always avenged, even if it takes many
easy to explain the disasters that overtake generations for God’s justice to be implemen-
human societies: they result from disagree- ted; while Chronicles believes instead in imme-
ments among the gods, in which human be- diate retribution. The Psalms, too, contain
ings get caught in the crossfire, or from many reflections on the respective fate of right-
the malevolence of particular gods towards eous and wicked, and contain some profound
humankind. This kind of explanation is not insights on this theme—see especially Ps 37, 49,
available in a monotheistic culture, and conse- and 73. There are, in fact, few books in the OT
quently the kind of problem which philo- where the theme of theodicy is absent. (See
sophers deal with under the title ‘theodicy’— Crenshaw 1983.)
how to show that God is just in the face of the
sufferings of the world—bulk large in the writ-
I. Arrangement of Books in Hebrew and Greek
ings of the OT.
Bibles
10. On the corporate level, the Exile seems
to have been the crisis that first focused the The Hebrew Bible The Greek Bible
minds of Israel’s thinkers on the problem of
how to make sense of apparently unjust suf- Torah: Historical Books:
ferings. Lamentations is an extended expres- Genesis Genesis
sion of grief at the rough treatment that Exodus Exodus
YHWH has apparently handed out to the Leviticus Leviticus
people he had chosen himself; Jeremiah also Numbers Numbers
reflects on the problem. Ezekiel tries to show Deuteronomy Deuteronomy
 15 introduction to the old testament

The Hebrew Bible The Greek Bible The Hebrew Bible The Greek Bible

Prophets: Daniel 1–12 (with additions

Joshua Joshua Song of Azariah and Song of
Judges Judges the Three Jews)
Samuel Ruth Bel and the Dragon (¼ Daniel 14)
Kings 1 Samuel
Notes: Books additional to the HB are in italics.
Isaiah 2 Samuel
Jeremiah 1 Kings Books are given the names familiar to English readers:
Samuel and Kings are in Greek the ‘Four Books of King-
Ezekiel 2 Kings
doms’, and Ezra-Nehemiah is ‘2 Esdras’.
The Twelve: 1 Chronicles
Hosea 2 Chronicles
Joel 1 Esdras
Amos Ezra REFERENCES
Obadiah Nehemiah
Jonah Esther (with additions) Anderson, G. W. (1970), ‘Canonical and Non-canonical’,
Micah Judith Cambridge History of the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge
Nahum Tobit University Press), i. 113–59.
Habakkuk 1 Maccabees Barr, J. (1980), The Scope and Authority of the Bible,
Zephaniah 2 Maccabees Explorations in Theology, 7 (London: SCM).
Haggai 3 Maccabees Barton, J. (1986), Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient
Zechariah 4 Maccabees Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (London: Darton,
Malachi Longman & Todd).
—— (1991), What is the Bible? (London: SPCK).
Writings: Didactic Books: —— (1997a), Making the Christian Bible (London: Dar-
Psalms Psalms ton, Longman & Todd).
Job Proverbs —— (1997b), The Spirit and the Letter: Studies in the
Proverbs Ecclesiastes Biblical Canon (London: SPCK).
Ruth Song of Songs —— (1998), Ethics and the Old Testament (London:
Song of Songs Job SCM).
Ecclesiastes Wisdom of Solomon Beckwith, R. T. (1985), The Old Testament Canon of the
Lamentations Ecclesiasticus New Testament Church and its Background in Early
Esther Judaism (London: SPCK).
Daniel Blenkinsopp, J. (1984), A History of Prophecy in Israel
Ezra-Nehemiah Prophetic Books: from the Settlement in the Land to the Hellenistic Period
Chronicles Twelve Minor Prophets: (London: SPCK).
Hosea Crenshaw, J. L. (1981), Old Testament Wisdom: An Intro-
Amos duction (Atlanta: John Knox).
Micah —— (1983) (ed.), Theodicy in the Old Testament (Phila-
Joel delphia: Fortress).
Obadiah Davies, P. R. (1998), Scribes and Schools: The Canoniza-
Jonah tion of the Hebrew Scriptures (Louisville, Ky.: West-
Nahum minster/John Knox).
Habakkuk Gillingham, S. E. (1994), The Poems and Psalms of
Zephaniah the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University
Haggai Press).
Zechariah Nicholson, E. W. (1986), God and his People:
Malachi Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford:
Isaiah Clarendon).
Jeremiah Noth, M. (1966), ‘The Laws in the Pentateuch: Their
Baruch 1–5 Assumptions and Meaning’, in his The Laws in the
Lamentations Pentateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh: T. &
Letter of Jeremiah (¼ Baruch 6) T. Clark), 1–107.
Ezekiel Otto, E. (1994), Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments
Susanna (¼ Daniel 13) (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer).
introduction to the pentateuch 16

Rendtorff, R. (1985), The Old Testament: An Introduction —— (1968), ‘The ‘‘Old Testament’’: A Christian
(London: SCM). Canon’, CBO 30: 143–55.
Roberts, B. J. (1951), The Old Testament Text and Ver- Talmon, S. (1970), ‘The Old Testament Text’, Cam-
sions: The Hebrew Text in Transmission and the History bridge History of the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge
of the Ancient Versions (Cardiff: University of Wales University Press), i. 159–98.
Press). Theissen, G. (1984), Biblical Faith: An Evolutionary Per-
Saenz-Badillos, A. (1993), A History of the Hebrew Lan- spective (London: SCM).
guage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Weingreen, J. (1982), Introduction to the Critical Study of
Salvesen, A. (1991), Symmachus in the Pentateuch (Man- the Text of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford Univer-
chester: University of Manchester Press). sity Press).
Smend, R. (1981), Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments Whybray, R. N. (1983), The Second Isaiah, Old Testa-
(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer). ment Guides (Sheffield: Academic Press).
Spriggs, D. S. (1974), Two Old Testament Theologies Wright, C. J. H. (1983), Living as the People of God
(London: SCM). (Leicester: Intervarsity Press).
Sundberg, A. C. (1964), The Old Testament of the Würthwein, E. (1979), The Text of the Old Testament: An
Early Church (Cambridge, Mass.: Yale University Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica (Grand Rapids:
Press). Eerdmans).

3. Introduction to the Pentateuch

g. i. davies
A. What is the Pentateuch? 1. The name 2.1. Four of the five books in the Pentateuch
‘Pentateuch’ means literally ‘the work compris- deal with the time of Moses, and one recent
ing five scrolls’, from Greek pente and teukhos, suggestion has been that we should think of
which can mean ‘scroll’. It has been used since the Pentateuch as a biography of Moses with an
at least early Christian times for the first five introduction, that is, Genesis. This attempts to
books of the OT, Genesis to Deuteronomy. The answer the question in terms of the literary
Jewish name for these books was usually and genre of the Pentateuch.
still is ‘the law’: Hebrew tôrâ, Greek nomos or 2.2. Its main weakness, however, is that it
nomothesia (the latter is literally ‘legislation’), puts Moses as an individual too much in the
and it is this name which appears in the NT: centre of the picture, important as he undoubt-
e.g. Lk 24:11, ‘What is written in the law, the edly is as the leader of his people Israel. We
prophets and the psalms’, where we meet the might do better to call the Pentateuch the story
threefold subdivision of the Hebrew canon that of Israel in the time of Moses, with an introduction
continues to be used, with the substitution of (Genesis) which sets it in the light of universal
‘writings’ for ‘psalms’ as the third section. Cf. creation and history.
also the Greek Prologue to Sirach (c.132 BCE). 2.3. To many, however, this would not be
2. But there is a much deeper way of asking, theological enough to do justice to the strongly
and answering, the question, ‘What is the Penta- religious element that pervades the story from
teuch?’, one which goes beyond merely defining beginning to end. Gerhard von Rad suggested
its external limits to enquire into its nature. In that the Pentateuch (or to be more precise, the
other words, what sort of a thing is this section Hexateuch, that is the Pentateuch plus the sixth
of the Bible? This question can only really be book of the Bible, Joshua—see below) was an
answered after a full examination of the text, amplified creed, more specifically an amplified
and one justification for the kind of detailed historical creed, as will be seen in more detail
critical analysis which has been popular in later. The implication is then that the Penta-
modern OT scholarship is that it enables us to teuch is a product and an expression of
give a well-judged (if complicated!) answer to faith—it is preceded as it were by an implicit ‘I
that question. It is a question of considerable believe in God who . . . ’, it is a confessional
theological importance, as can be seen from an document, as one might put it. Of course the
introductory look at a few answers that have adjective ‘historical’ before ‘creed’ raises some
been given to it, some of which will be exam- problems, for example whether the story which
ined more fully later on. the Pentateuch as a whole tells is real history, a
 17 introduction to the pentateuch

question whose answer has important theo- books as well as the legal ones. On the other
logical implications which critics of von Rad hand, while tôrâ understood in this wider way
were quick to point out. But there are also does preserve an important truth about the
problems of a simpler kind which relate specif- Pentateuch (especially if it is thought of as ‘The
ically to its accuracy as a description of Genesis Teaching’, with a capital T), it is in danger of
1–11. Von Rad was, for much of his scholarly being too vague a description to identify its
career, fascinated by the historical focus of so distinctive character within the OT.
much of Israel’s faith, and he tended to overlook 2.5. Another theological definition, which
or play down its teaching about God the Cre- has the merit of combining the advantages of
ator. This may well have been due to an under- the last two, is to call the Pentateuch a covenant
standable wish on his part not to allow a book, a document which presents the terms of
foothold in the OT for crude Nazi ideas about God’s relationship to his people, in the form of
racial supremacy grounded in the order of cre- his promises to them and the laws which he
ation which were current at the time he wrote requires them to obey. The support of the apos-
his earliest works on the Hexateuch. It is, never- tle Paul can probably be claimed for this de-
theless, necessary to emphasize that the begin- scription, for when he speaks of ‘the old
ning of Genesis is not about history in the covenant’ in 2 Cor 3:14 it is very likely that he
ordinary sense of that word, or indeed in any means specifically the Pentateuch. He is clearly
sense, and the idea that the Pentateuch is a thinking of a written document, because he
‘historical’ creed is in danger of losing sight of refers to the ‘reading’ of the old covenant, and
the important theological statements about cre- the substitution of the expression ‘whenever
ation in those chapters. Moses is read’ in the following verse points
2.4. A different way of representing the theo- firmly to the Pentateuch (for ‘Moses’ as short-
logical character of the Pentateuch is of course hand for ‘the books of Moses’ see Lk 24:27). A
the traditional Jewish expression: the law. This is somewhat earlier Jewish reference to the Penta-
as characteristic of Judaism as von Rad’s em- teuch as ‘the book of the covenant’ occurs in 1
phasis on faith is characteristic of his Lutheran- Macc 1:57. Despite the antiquity and authority of
ism. If it seems at first sight to focus too much this description, it scarcely does justice to the
on the second half of the Pentateuch, where the narrative element in the Pentateuch, especially
laws are concentrated, and to give insufficient in Genesis.
attention to the ‘story’ character of the earlier 2.6. A description which combines the literary
books, it is worth saying that this problem has and the theological aspects has been proposed
not escaped the notice of Jewish commentators, by David Clines: he regards the Pentateuch as
and a very early one, Philo of Alexandria, in the the story of the partial fulfilment of the promise to
first century CE, had what he thought was a the patriarchs. This has the great advantage of
perfectly satisfactory answer to it. It is that highlighting the important theological theme
while written law is indeed mainly found in of promise in Genesis, and of showing how
the later books of the Pentateuch, the personal- Genesis is linked to the later books theologic-
ities who appear in Genesis, for example, con- ally, and not just by the continuation of the
stitute a kind of ‘living law’, since through their story. But of course it says nothing about Gen
example, and in some less obvious ways, it was 1–11, and one may wonder whether it takes
God’s intention to regulate human behaviour, enough account of the vast amount of legisla-
just as he does later by the written law. Another tive material in Leviticus and Deuteronomy
way of making the description ‘law’ more especially.
widely applicable involves going back to the 2.7. One might legitimately wonder whether
Hebrew term tôrâ. Although commonly trans- there can be any brief answer to the question
lated ‘law’, its original meaning is something which is not open to some objection or an-
like ‘instruction’, and it could be used of other other! If nothing else these quite different de-
kinds of instruction as well as law in the strict scriptions, and the comments on them, should
sense. For example, the word tôrâ is found in have shown that the Pentateuch is a many-sided
Proverbs, where the context shows that the piece of literature and one which has features
reference is to the kind of teaching contained which appeal to a variety of religious and other
there, not to the law as such. If we use tôrâ as a points of view. The final description that I will
description for the Pentateuch in this more gen- mention is that the Pentateuch is an incomplete
eral sense of ‘teaching’ or ‘instruction’, it can work, a torso, because the story which it tells
easily embrace the non-legal parts of these only reaches its climax in the book of Joshua,
introduction to the pentateuch 18

with the Israelites’ entry into the land of Ca- began to be published, and so brought critical
naan. For von Rad, as we saw, the real literary OT scholarship very much into the public eye
unit is the ‘Hexateuch’, ‘the six books’, and he in Britain only shortly after the publication of
had many predecessors who also took this view. Charles Darwin’s Origins of Species and the col-
It was especially popular among the source- lection called Essays and Reviews. And yet by 1862
critics of the late nineteenth and early twentieth the critical study of the Pentateuch was already
centuries, who believed (as some still do) that some 150 years old.
the sources out of which the Pentateuch was 3. There is no need to amplify this statement
composed were also used by the editor or edi- here—the details are in most Introductions to the
tors who composed Joshua. It is less popular OT—except to say that particularly since about
today, because Joshua is generally treated as 1800 strenuous efforts had been made, chiefly in
part of the long historical work which extends Germany, to discover the process by which the
to the end of 2 Kings, the Deuteronomistic Pentateuch had reached its present form, and that
History. In fact since Deuteronomy formed the at the beginning of the 1860s the leading scholars
introduction to that work and, even when taken held to what was known as the Supplementary
alone, its connection with the first four books Hypothesis (Ergänzungshypothese). According to
of the Bible can seem very weak, some scholars this, the original core of the Pentateuch was a
therefore speak of ‘the Tetrateuch’, that is the four document known as the Book of Origins (Das
books from Genesis to Numbers, as the primary Buch der Ursprünge), which was put together by a
literary unit at the beginning of the Bible. From priest or Levite in about the time of King Solo-
this point of view the Pentateuch would be mon. A distinguishing mark of this book was that
not so much a torso as a hybrid, the combin- in Genesis and the beginning of Exodus (up to
ation of one literary work with the first section ch. 6) it avoided using the name YHWH for God,
of another. If nothing else this view serves to and employed other words, especially ʾělōhı̂m,
underline the differences in character, concerns, which means ‘God’, instead. This core, it was
and origin of Deuteronomy, as compared with held, was expanded in the eighth century BCE,
the earlier books. Yet those differences should the time of the first great classical prophets,
not be exaggerated, and it can be argued by the addition of stories and other matter in
that Deuteronomy belongs as much with the which the name YHWH was freely used from
Tetrateuch as with the books that follow it, and the very beginning. Later still, in the time of
when we come to look at the theology of the Jeremiah (7th cent.), the work was further supple-
Pentateuch in more detail that will become mented by the addition of the major part of
clearer. Deuteronomy and shorter sections with a similar
spirit elsewhere, and so the Pentateuch reached
B. The Documentary Hypothesis. 1. To make its present form, before the Babylonian Exile.
further progress with our question, ‘What is the Wellhausen’s teacher at Göttingen, Heinrich
Pentateuch?’, we need to dig deeper and con- Ewald, had played an important part in the deve-
sider more closely how it came to exist and lopment of this theory and still held to it in its
what kinds of material it is made up of. A useful essential points in 1862, though not with the
way into such study is to review, critically rigidity of some of its other adherents.
where necessary, the main directions which 4. But changes were in the air. An important
Pentateuchal scholarship has taken over the challenge to this theory had already been made
past century and a half (see also Clements by the publication in 1853 of a book by Hermann
1997: ch. 2). Hupfeld. Its main theses were: (1) that the so-
2. The year 1862 was auspicious for the de- called ‘original core’ contained some passages
velopment of Pentateuchal study in England which were of later origin than the rest and
and Germany. It was in that year that Julius represented a first stage of expansion of the
Wellhausen went, at the age of 18, as a new core; and (2) that both these later passages and
student to the German university of Göttingen the passages which the Supplementary Hypoth-
to study theology. That same year a young esis itself had distinguished from the core were
British student, T. K. Cheyne, was also in Göt- not fragments picked up from all over the place
tingen, and he was to play an important part in but had been parts of large preexisting narrative
bringing Wellhausen’s later ideas to prominence compositions which the compilers of the Penta-
in Britain—he became a professor at Oxford. teuch had drawn on as sources.
The year 1862 was also when a series of books 5. Hupfeld thus did two things. He refined the
by John Colenso, a Cambridge mathematician, analysis of the Pentateuch into its component
 19 introduction to the pentateuch

parts, which were now seen to be not three but that the Book of Origins was the earliest source.
four in number, and he replaced the idea of When E was detached from this, it could easily
the expansion of an original core with a truly be seen that in certain respects it had a more
documentary theory of Pentateuchal origins. His sophisticated approach to religion than the
four originally independent source-documents rather primitive J, and so it was natural to date
correspond closely in extent to those of later it a little later.
theories, three parallel narrative sources and the 7. The second change in order was much
law-code of Deuteronomy (with some other more decisive, in fact it was quite revolutionary.
passages related to it). His oldest narrative cor- According to both the Supplementary Hypoth-
responds closely to what is now called the esis and Hupfeld’s theory, the oldest part of the
Priestly Work (P), the remainder of the Book Pentateuch was a Book of Origins that began
of Origins is the later Elohist (E), and the source with the account of creation in Gen 1 and in-
which uses the name YHWH is the Yahwist (J). cluded most of the priestly laws in Exodus,
Hupfeld did not depart from the dominant view Leviticus, and Numbers. Doubts about the an-
at the time about the relative ages of the mater- tiquity of these texts had already been expressed
ials in these sources, and his position can be in the 1830s, but detailed critical arguments only
represented in terms of the modern symbols began to appear in the early 1860s. One can see
for them as P-E-J-D (for a fuller account of this in the work of the Dutch scholar Abraham
the sources as later understood see sections C.7 Kuenen (1828–91), whose Introduction to the OT
and G). began to be published in 1861. Kuenen, who
Hupfeld’s new ideas did not succeed in dis- accepted Hupfeld’s division of the Book of Ori-
placing the dominant Supplementary Hypoth- gins into earlier and later layers, also held that
esis, at any rate not immediately. But some time the priestly laws in the supposedly earlier layer
before 1860 Ewald had recognized the existence were not in fact all ancient but had developed
of a second Elohist and the character of J and E over a long period of time, some of them being
as continuous sources—which places him very later in date than Deuteronomy. An even more
close to Hupfeld. A. Knobel, though less well- radical conclusion had been reached by a Ger-
known, had reached similar conclusions inde- man schoolteacher, Karl Heinrich Graf, who on
pendently of Hupfeld about the same time, and 7 October 1862 wrote to his former OT profes-
over a larger range of texts. His work is ignored sor, one Eduard Reuss, ‘I am completely con-
in most modern accounts of the history of vinced of the fact that the whole middle part of
Pentateuchal criticism (though not by Wellhau- the Pentateuch [apparently Exodus 25 to the
sen) and deserves greater recognition. These end of Numbers] is post-exilic in origin,’ i.e. it
scholars brought the analysis of the Pentateuch all belongs to the final, not the first, stage of the
to a state which received only relatively minor growth of the Pentateuch, after the writing of
modification at the hands of those such as Well- Deuteronomy. Wellhausen himself, looking
hausen, whose work was to become the clas- back on his early student days, also in the
sical account of Pentateuchal origins and indeed early 1860s, wrote that he had been puzzled at
remained so until very recently. Hupfeld’s con- the lack of reference to the allegedly very old
tribution at least was fully recognized: Well- priestly laws in the early historical books such
hausen, for example, wrote in his own work as Samuel and Kings and in the prophets,
on the composition of the Hexateuch: ‘I make though he had no idea at the time why this
Hupfeld in every respect my starting-point.’ was. It was not until 1865 that these very new
Where he and subsequent scholarship departed ideas came out into the open, when Graf pub-
from Hupfeld was in the chronological order in lished his views in book form. But while he
which the sources were to be placed. maintained that all the legal parts of the Book
6. Two changes were in fact made. One, the of Origins were post-exilic in origin, he still held
placing of the YHWH-source—what we now to the traditional early date for its narratives. In
call J—before the second Elo-him-source— response to the appearance of Graf’s book Kue-
what we now call E—did not make a funda- nen now argued that the Book of Origins could
mental difference to the time at which either not be divided up in this way, because the
source was thought to have been written, and narratives were intimately related to the laws;
we shall not spend long on it. Once Hupfeld so, if (as Graf had so powerfully demonstrated)
had made the separation between E and P it was the laws were late in origin, the narratives asso-
really inevitable, as it was the supposed an- ciated with them in the ‘earlier’ part of the Book
tiquity of the P texts which had led to the idea of Origins must be late too. Graf’s letter to
introduction to the pentateuch 20

Kuenen accepting the validity of this point sur- Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Prolegomena zur
vives—it is dated 12 Nov. 1866—and subse- Geschichte Israels)—and it was published in 1878.
quently Graf put this change of mind into It is still worth reading and its thorough atten-
print in an article in which he responded to tion to detail, its treatment of evidence from all
various criticisms of his book, though the article parts of the OT, and the force and vigour of its
only came out in 1869 after Graf’s death. In this arguments still make a strong impression on
way the order (as represented by the modern the reader.
symbols) P-E-J-D of Hupfeld was transformed 10. Two criticisms are often made of it. The
into the J-E-D-P that became standard. first is that it embodies a Hegelian view of
8. It is clear that Abraham Kuenen played a history which has been imposed upon the data
very important part in the development of this of the OT (so e.g. W. F. Albright and R. K.
revised theory, although it (like Knobel’s contri- Harrison). This is not justified as a criticism of
bution) is often overlooked. What is interesting Wellhausen’s method of working, whatever
is that Kuenen gave a great deal of the credit for similarities may be traced between some of his
the contribution which he himself was able to conclusions and those of Hegel-inspired his-
make to John Colenso’s series of volumes en- tory-writing. It is a complicated issue but essen-
titled The Pentateuch and The Book of Joshua Critic- tially it seems that what Wellhausen did was to
ally Examined. These books were one reason why approach the Pentateuch as a secular ancient
an attempt was made to depose Colenso from historian would approach his primary sources
the see of Natal, which he held, an attempt in an effort to discover their character and
which was only the beginning of a long wrangle closeness to the events described: his presup-
in the Anglican Church in South Africa. Much positions and methods are those of a historian
of what Colenso wrote merely echoed what was rather than those of a philosopher, and not
already being done in Germany, but in the first significantly different from those with which
volume of the study he presented what seemed more recent historians have worked. Where he
to him to be a devastating attack on the genu- does refer to Hegel once it seems to be an
ineness of the narratives of the Book of Origins implied criticism. The other criticism is that
and particularly the large numbers which they Wellhausen presented his theory in isolation
give for the participants in the Exodus (e.g. Ex from knowledge of the ancient Near East,
12:37), the very thing which had seemed to which makes it of no more than antiquarian
others a guarantee of the accuracy and antiquity interest: so Harrison again and especially K. A.
of the source; on the contrary, argued Colenso, Kitchen. Wellhausen did not of course have the
it was quite impossible that the numbers could benefit of knowing many of the archaeological
represent real historical facts: they must be fic- discoveries of subsequent years, and what he
tional. This argument so impressed Kuenen that did know he did not regard as of primary im-
he found no difficulty at all in regarding those portance for interpreting the OT (unlike Gun-
narratives, as well as the priestly laws which kel: see below). But the main structure of his
Graf had examined, as a late and artificial source-critical arguments has seemed to most
composition. subsequent scholars to be unaffected by these
9. It is evident from all this that the classical discoveries, rightly in my opinion. Where they
documentary theory of Pentateuchal origins have departed from them it has been because
owes little or nothing, as far as its origin is they sensed weaknesses in his treatment of the
concerned, to Wellhausen: this was mainly the OT evidence, and not because of fresh evidence
work of Hupfeld, Graf, and Kuenen, themselves from the ancient Near East.
of course building on much earlier work. To call 11. This brief historical introduction to the
it ‘the Wellhausen theory’, as is often done, is a origins of the so-called Graf–Wellhausen theory
misnomer, though a revealing one. What the about the sources of the Pentateuch should
new theory still needed, and what Wellhausen have removed some misconceptions about it,
was to provide, was a presentation of it which and in particular it has shown that far from
would convince the many scholars who still being the product of one man’s mind it was
held either to the Supplementary Hypothesis arrived at through a process of research and
or to Hupfeld’s version of the documentary discussion which lasted over several decades
theory. The work in which Wellhausen did and involved a number of different scholars in
this so successfully was originally called History several countries. But it also begins to open up a
of Israel. Volume I (Geschichte Israels I)—when no topic of quite central importance at the present
further volumes appeared this was changed to time when some very searching questions are
 21 introduction to the pentateuch

once again being asked about the validity of parts of passages to a particular source or layer
what, for brevity, we may continue to call Well- of the Pentateuch, has not always been carefully
hausen’s theory. observed. Indeed a clear distinction is perhaps
not to be found before the handbook of Wolf-
C. The Logic of Source-Criticism. It is in fact gang Richter (Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft,
possible to distinguish, logically at least and to 1971). But the two operations can and should
some extent chronologically as well, four stages be regarded as separate. To put it in a quite
in the argument which led to the formulation of general formula: if ABCD represents a section
Wellhausen’s account of the origins of the of the Pentateuch, the assertion that A is of
Pentateuch, and if we define them appropriately separate origin from B and that C is of separate
we shall find that they are quite generally ap- origin from D is one thing; but the question
plicable to all attempts to analyse the Penta- of whether A belongs to the same source as C
teuch into its constituent parts, and indeed to or D or neither, for example, is another ques-
all attempts at discovering what sources were tion, and different answers to it will produce
used in biblical and other writings. different theories about the larger sources of the
1. The first step was the acceptance that an Pentateuch.
enquiry into the sources of the Pentateuch was So on what basis is it argued that the Penta-
permissible at all, i.e. that it was not ruled out by teuch is of composite origin? Four main kinds
the tradition which regarded Moses as the author of criteria have commonly been used:
of the whole Pentateuch. This tradition goes
back to the NT and contemporary writings, 1. repeated accounts of the same action or
though it is probably not implied by anything story.
in the OT text itself. Clearly if this tradition is 2. the occurrence of statements (or commands)
not open to question, there is little room for that are incompatible or inconsistent with
Pentateuchal criticism of any kind: one could each other.
only enquire into the sources that Moses may 3. vocabulary and style—the use of different
have used for the writing of Genesis, which is words for the same thing, including e.g. dif-
exactly what one early work of criticism, pub- ferent names for God; and variations of style.
lished in 1753, purported to uncover (Jean 4. the appearance of different viewpoints on
Astruc’s Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux dont matters of religion in particular, but also on
il paroit que Moyse s’est servi pour composer le livre de other matters.
la Genèse). The reasons for questioning the trad-
ition of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch are Two observations on these criteria should be
broadly of two kinds: (1) the relatively late date made at this stage: their use will be clarified by
of the first appearance of this tradition (not at an example later on.
any rate before the Babylonian exile); (2) various 1. The argument for disunity is strongest when
data in the Pentateuch itself which seem to be several of these criteria occur together—so
inconsistent with it: an obvious one is the ac- for example in the analysis of Gen 1–3.
count of Moses’ death (Deut 34). 2. In recent years it has been generally realized
2. The second step was the analysis of the that criteria 3 and 4 are of far less value for
text, the demonstration of its lack of unity in analysis, at least when they occur alone, than
detail. In the eighteenth century, well before the 1 and 2. Variations in relation to 3 and 4 may
formulation of the Wellhausen theory, theories perfectly well occur within a single account
had been developed to account for what (so Noth 1972 and Westermann 1984). In fact
seemed to be signs of composite authorship, it is much more at the next, constructive,
or the use of sources. Some passages, such as stage that such factors enter in, by suggesting
the Flood Story, appeared to arise from the which of the various fragments into which
combination of two originally separate ac- the Pentateuch has been analysed have a
counts of the same event. In other cases it common origin, i.e. belong to the same
seemed unlikely or even impossible that two source or layer.
separate passages could have belonged to the
same continuous account, the two creation 3. The third step is the development of hy-
stories for example. In the history of Penta- potheses about the major constituent parts of the
teuchal criticism the distinction between this, Pentateuch and their interrelation. Various
analytical, stage of the enterprise and the next models are possible, of which the idea that a
stage, synthesis or the attribution of passages or number of independent source-documents
introduction to the pentateuch 22

have been combined is only the best-known 4.1. The relative age of the sources can be
because it is the pattern exemplified by the considered in various ways: Does one source
classical Documentary Hypothesis of Graf, Kue- or layer take for granted the prior existence of
nen, and Wellhausen. Other ‘models’ are pos- another one? Is one source obviously more
sible, however, and indeed have been tried, such primitive in its way of presenting events, or its
as that the Pentateuch is simply a conglomer- legal requirements, than another? Numerous
ation of small units put together by an editor examples of both these kinds of arguments
(the Fragmentary Hypothesis) or that an ori- can be found in Wellhausen’s Prolegomena
ginal core was amplified by the addition of (1885). They can be cogent, but it must be
fresh material, either material that had previ- pointed out that the argument from primitive-
ously existed independently as small units or ness to antiquity and from sophistication to
new material that was composed for the first lateness is a dangerous one, because it too
time for the purpose of modifying the existing quickly assumes that the religion of Israel devel-
core (a Supplementary Hypothesis such as that oped in a single line with no setbacks or decline
which was dominant in the middle of the 19th throughout its history or divergent patterns of
cent.). It is also possible, and in fact common religion coexisting at the same time. In practice
today, to have a combined theory which ex- the classical theory has relied much more heav-
hibits features of all three models. ily on arguments of a second kind.
With all of these models (except the Frag- 4.2. The actual or absolute dates of the sources
mentary theory) there is the problem of attri- can be fixed by reference to evidence outside
bution, deciding what material belongs to the the Pentateuch. Such arguments can themselves
same source or stage of supplementation. be subdivided according to whether reference is
Sometimes this can be determined by what being made to fixed points in the events of
we may call narrative continuity: i.e. an epi- Israel’s political and religious history (such as
sode in the story presupposes that an earlier the Babylonian exile) as we know them from
part of the story has been told in a particular the historical books of the OT, or to doctrines
way. For example, Gen 9:6, ‘Whoever sheds the (such as the demand for the centralization of
blood of a human, by a human shall that per- worship in Jerusalem) whose first formulation
son’s blood be shed; for in his own image God we can date by reference to these same histor-
made humankind,’ clearly presupposes the ac- ical books and the writings of the prophets, for
count of the creation of human beings in Gen example. Even here it is fair to say that the
1:26–7 (note the reference to ‘in his own strength of the arguments used varies, and
image’), rather than that in Gen 2:7, and so where a link can be established with something
they presumably belong to the same source like the Exile, it can still be difficult to deduce a
or layer. Fortunately the character of the Penta- very precise date for the source in question. But
teuch is such that this kind of argument can for all that, it has seemed possible to define in
quite often be used. Where it cannot, one must broad terms the time when the various source-
have recourse to such factors as agreement documents were put into their definitive form.
over criteria such as 3 and 4 at c.2 above to I emphasize that last phrase because when
argue that sections of the Pentateuch have a scholars assign a date to a source they are not
common source. saying that this is when it was suddenly created
4. The fourth step is that of arranging the out of nothing. They recognize that much of the
sources (or supplements) in chronological order material in the sources is older than the sources
and dating them. It is in this area that Graf, themselves, it comes from earlier tradition.
Kuenen, and Wellhausen made a real innov- What they are looking for when they date a
ation. In relation to c. 1, 2, and 3 they did little source is the latest element within it, because
more than refine the results of their predeces- that will show when it reached its definitive
sors, especially Hupfeld: but on this point they form.
made a radical change from him, in arguing that
the Book of Origins/First Elohist (P) was the D. An Example of a Source-Critical Argument:
latest, not the earliest of the four sources, and The Analysis of the Flood Story (Gen 6–9) into
in dating it to the post-exilic period. How are its sources. 1. Now we shall move back from
such conclusions reached, in general terms? theory to practice, and look at some of the
Along two main lines, which must still be detailed claims made by the classical theory
taken into consideration in any discussion of associated with Wellhausen and the arguments
the matter: that were used to support them. Historically,
 23 introduction to the pentateuch

Pentateuchal source-criticism seems to have it. Thus (1) vv. 5–7 describe how YHWH saw the
begun with the observation that Genesis opens evil which men did on the earth and declared
with not one but two different accounts of creation that he would therefore destroy the human race.
(so already H. B. Witter in 1711): 1:1–2:3 (or 2:4a) When, after three verses referring specifically to
and 2:4 (or 2:4b)–25). The second repeats a num- Noah, we come to vv. 11–13 we find another
ber of events already described in the first, but reference, this time to God seeing the corrup-
not in exactly the same order, and with some tion of ‘all flesh’ and saying that he will there-
notable differences in presentation. The differ- fore destroy it. (2) The paragraph then
ence that was to be put to most productive use continues with instructions to Noah about
in subsequent scholarship was, of course, the how the ark is to be built (vv. 14–16), how
difference over the divine names: the fact that Noah and his family are to enter it (vv. 17–18)
whereas the first account refers to God only by and how he is to take a pair of every kind of
the word ‘God’ (ʾělōhı̂m); the second used the living creature with him (vv. 19–21). And this,
compound phrase ‘the Lord God’ ¼ YHWH we are told, is exactly what Noah did, ‘he did all
ʾělōhı̂m, combining with the word ‘God’ the that God commanded him’ (v. 22). It therefore
proper name by which Israel knew her God, comes as something of a surprise when, in 7:1–4,
YHWH. we find YHWH telling Noah again to enter the
2. According to the word used to refer to God, ark with his family and the animals, and it again
the second account of creation was referred to as being said (v. 5) that Noah did as he was told. (3)
‘Yahwistic’ and given the symbol J. J was used By the time we get to the actual entry into the
(after the German form, jahwistisch) because the ark we are more prepared for repetitions, and
abbreviations were worked out in Germany and we are not disappointed: 7:7–9 make explicit
the ‘y’ sound is represented by ‘j’ in German. The that Noah, his family, and the animals entered
first account could be and was for a time called the ark, apparently with plenty of time to spare,
Elohistic (E), although this description of it was as it was another 7 days before the flood started
given up after Hupfeld’s discovery that there were (v. 10). Then the rain began (vv. 11–12), and then
two major source-documents which avoided the we are told again that Noah, his family, and the
name YHWH in Genesis. This source is known animals all went into the ark, cutting it a bit fine
today as the Priestly Code, or Priestly Work (ab- this time we may suppose! It is a strange way to
breviated as P), because of the prominent place tell a story, and there are further curiosities to
given to priesthood and ritual in its later parts, follow which we must forgo because of short-
particularly in the books from Exodus to Num- age of space, as we must do also with some
bers. The early history of mankind, prior to the Flood, details of the explanation which seems to be
is also described twice, once in the form of a required to do justice to them.
series of stories (chs. 3–4, 6:1–4), and once in the 5. But let us consider again the first two cases
form of a genealogy (ch. 5). The first of these of repetition, in a slightly different way. We
connects directly with ch. 3, while the second have in the paragraph 6:11–22 a speech of God
has various similarities to ch. 1, so they were to Noah with introduction and conclusion, a
attributed to J and P respectively. passage which makes perfectly coherent sense.
3. In the Flood story (6:5–9:17) things are not so But before it are two verses which parallel
tidy. Does it belong to J or P? Uses of the name vv. 11–13, and after it are five verses which par-
YHWH do occur, but only in restricted parts of allel vv. 17–22. And the striking thing is that
the story (6:5–8; 7:1–5, 16; 8:20–2): elsewhere the whereas 6:11–22 use the word God (vv. 11, 12,
word ‘God’ (ʾělōhı̂m) is employed. Thus the story 13, 22), the parallel passages placed before and
is hardly typical of P, which avoids YHWH, but after it use YHWH (6:5, 6, 7; 7:1, 5). That is, we
yet it is not typical of J either, which uses seem to have here two versions of a part of the
YHWH much more consistently. What is one Flood story, one of them, like the creation
to make of this situation? Should one attribute account in Gen 2, using the name YHWH, the
the Flood story to a third source occupying an other, like the creation account in Gen 1, avoid-
intermediate position with regard to the divine ing it and using ʾělōhı̂m instead. But instead
names between P and J? Or has either J or P of being placed one after the other, as with the
changed its practice at this point? creation accounts, the two versions of the Flood
4. Careful attention to the details of the story story have been interwoven, with sections from
suggests that neither of these solutions is cor- one alternating with sections of the other. This
rect. We may note that there are a surprising interpretation of the situation is strengthened
number of repetitions or overlaps of details in by two additional factors:
introduction to the pentateuch 24

1. tensions or contradictions within the story from both), but they may be all J except for
which seem likely to be due to the combin- some late editorial additions. Chs. 25–31 and
ation of two different versions of it; e.g. the 35–40 are all from P.
number of pairs of animals taken into the ark Leviticus: The whole book, together with
(one pair according to 6:19–20; seven pairs of Num 1:1–10:28, is from P, though it is clear that
clean animals, i.e. those that could be eaten, already existing collections of laws have been
and of birds, but only one pair of the unclean incorporated in Lev 1–7 and Lev 17–26 (the latter
animals according to 7:2–3). section being known as the Holiness Code ¼ H).
2. the fact that when the whole story is ana- Numbers: The rest of the book, from 10:29, is
lysed, one is left with two substantially com- again a mixture of J, E, and P. E is most clearly
plete accounts of the Flood, one showing present in the story of Balaam (ch. 23 and some
affinities (including the name YHWH) with verses in 22). P provided the sections of chs.
the second creation account and the other 16–18 that deal with the revolt of Korah and
showing affinities with the first. the vindication of the Aaronite priesthood,
most of 25:6–36:13, and some other passages;
One or two details remain unclear but the again older documents (including the wilder-
majority of scholars are agreed on something ness itinerary in ch. 33) have been worked in.
very like the following analysis: (a) 6:5–8; 7:1–5, Deuteronomy: from the D source, with the
7–10, 12, 16b–17, 22–3; 8:2b–3a, 6–12, 13b, 20–2 exception of a few passages, mostly at the end.
(¼ J); (b) 6:9–22; 7:6, 11, 13–16a, 18–21, 24; 8:1–2a, But an original core in 4:45–29:1 from pre-exilic
3b–5, 13a, 14–19; 9:1–17 (¼ P). A more detailed times can be distinguished from a framework
presentation of the argument can be found in placed around it in the Babylonian Exile (so esp.
the commentaries on Genesis by S. R. Driver chs. 4 and 29–30).
(1904: 85–6) and J. Skinner (1910: 147–50); cf. 7. Fuller details can be found, (1) in commen-
Habel (1971: 14–15). taries, among which special mention should be
6. This brief but important example will give made of the ‘Polychrome Bible’, published from
an idea of how the analysis of the Pentateuch 1893 onwards, in which the sections drawn
proceeds in the classical documentary hypoth- from the various sources were marked in differ-
esis. It is work of this kind which lies behind the ent colours, a custom which has been widely
lists of passages belonging to J, E, D, and P in the followed by theological students in their own
standard introductions to the OT. There are, it copies of the Bible as an aide-mémoire (The proper
should be said, some passages where scholars title of the series was The Sacred Books of the
have not been unanimous about the recogni- OT, gen. ed. P. Haupt. A less colourful way of
tion of the sources, and here caution is neces- achieving the same end is by using different
sary. The following sketch will give a general typefaces, as in von Rad’s commentary on Gen-
idea of what has been thought to belong to each esis and Noth’s on Exodus in the Old Testament
of the four sources: Library series, where the P sections are printed
Genesis: Chs. 1–11 are formed from J (2:4b– in italics and the rest in ordinary type); and
4:26; 6:1–4; part of the Flood Story (see above); (2) in a synopsis of the Pentateuch, like those
9:18–27; parts of 10; 11:1–9) and P (1:1–2:4a; most which are produced to show the relationships
of 5; the rest of the Flood Story; 9:28–9; the rest between the Synoptic Gospels, though they are
of 10; most of 11:10–32); most of chs. 12–50 hard to come by in English (but see Carpenter
come from J (including 12–13; 18; most of 19 and Harford-Battersby (1900), ii; Campbell and
and 24), E (including most of 20–2 and 40–2), O’Brien (1993) gives the texts of the sources
and P (17; 23; 28:1–9; 35:9–13; and most of the separately, but not in parallel columns).
genealogies).
Exodus: Chs. 1–24 are again made up of ex- E. A Second Example: The Dating of the
tracts from J, E, and P. The only passages of any Priestly Source (P). 1. The second example of
length which are clearly from E are 1:15–21 and source criticism to be given here concerns the
3:9–15. P is the source of 6:2–7:13; 12:1–20, 40–51, dating of the sources (step c.4), and in particular
and various shorter passages. Traditionally the the claim that P is the latest of the four. Wellhausen
Decalogue (20:1–17) and the Book of the Coven- used two kinds of argument to establish this
ant (20:22–23:33) were ascribed to E, but it is view. First he noted the almost unbroken si-
now widely doubted if they appeared in any of lence of the older historical books, Samuel and
the main sources. Chs. 32–4 are usually thought Kings, with regard to the distinctive institutions
to have been based on J and E (32 E; 34 J; 33 parts of the cult prescribed by P (the tabernacle,
 25 introduction to the pentateuch

detailed laws about sacrifice, the Day of Atone- priesthood which follows. He begins by sum-
ment, the limitation of full priesthood to the marizing the regulations about priesthood in
descendants of Aaron, and the development of the P sections of Exodus–Numbers. He points
tithing as a means of support for the priests). In out that there are two important distinctions
view of the fact that these books have plenty to made in them: the first between the Levites
say about ritual, this must imply that these and the twelve secular tribes, which is vividly
institutions were not yet known in the pre- reflected in the arrangement of the camp in
exilic period. It follows that P could not yet Num 2; and the second between the Levites
have been written. The specific reference to and the sons, or descendants, of Aaron, which
‘the older historical books’ is deliberate, so as receives, to quote Wellhausen, ‘incomparably
to exclude the books of Chronicles. The force of greater emphasis’. He continues: ‘Aaron and
this argument could only be felt when a true his sons alone are priests, qualified for sacri-
appreciation of the late date and largely fic- ficing and burning incense; the Levites are hier-
tional character of Chronicles had been gained, oduli [temple servants], bestowed on the
and the dating of P is closely connected with the Aaronidae for the discharge of the inferior ser-
study of Chronicles. Graf’s epoch-making essay vices.’ The unique privilege of the descendants
of 1865 on the Pentateuch was published along of Aaron is underlined in the story of the Kor-
with a study of the books of Chronicles, while ahite rebellion in Num 16–18. The setting apart
Wellhausen devoted more than 50 pages of the of the two priestly groups is the result of two
Prolegomena to them. Chronicles does relate the separate acts of a quite different character. First
existence of institutions characteristic of P in Aaron is chosen by YHWH to be a priest (Ex
the pre-exilic period, and it was only when it 28:1–5), and then later the Levites are given their
had been shown that these elements of the role, by being offered at YHWH’s bidding by the
Chronicler’s account were fictional that a clear people as a substitute for their firstborn who,
view of the nature of pre-exilic religion could be according to the law, belonged to YHWH (Num
obtained, and so the necessity of a late date for P 3:40–4:49; cf. also ch. 18).
established. 4. This picture of the demarcation of the
2. The second kind of argument was based Aaronide and Levite groups is located by P at
on the relationship of the laws and narratives of Mount Sinai in the time of Moses—but how
P to the laws in Deuteronomy and the final ancient is it really? Wellhausen believed that
chapters of Ezekiel. The origin of Deuteronomy the answer was to be found in Ezek 44:6–16, a
in the eighth or seventh century BCE was gener- passage from the early years of the Babylonian
ally regarded in the mid-nineteenth century as exile (40:1 refers to the year 573), which both
having been established beyond doubt by the refers to pre-exilic practices on admission to the
critical arguments of W. M. L. de Wette and priesthood and prescribes what practices shall
others, and Ezekiel was of course a prophet of be followed in this matter in the future. Accord-
the early sixth century. In a number of ways it ing to this account, in the pre-exilic temple in
was argued that the Priestly texts must be later Jerusalem (‘my sanctuary’) the menial tasks had
than those in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel. This is been performed by foreigners (44:8), a practice
not just a simple evolutionary argument, saying of which Ezekiel very strongly disapproved.
that the practices referred to by P must by their And in the future, he says, these tasks are to be
very character lie at the end of a long process of performed by Levites (vv. 9–14). Not however in
development. The argument is rather that in accordance with a role assigned to them by the
some cases Deuteronomy and Ezekiel make no people in ancient times—of this explanation
reference to features of P which one might have (the one given by P) Ezekiel says not a word—
expected them to mention if it were indeed a but as a punishment for their sins in the pre-
document of pre-exilic origin; while elsewhere exilic period. ‘They shall bear their punishment’,
what Deuteronomy and Ezekiel prescribe it says in vv. 10 and 12 (cf. v. 13b). This only
would make no sense if P already existed. makes sense as a degradation from a previously
3. As an example we will look at Wellhau- higher position, which was no doubt that of full
sen’s argument in the case of admission to the priesthood, which the Levites had enjoyed pre-
priesthood (1885: 121–51). The crucial points in viously to this (cf. v. 13a). That Levites were full
the argument are set out in the first few pages of priests in pre-exilic times is implied also by
the chapter (pp. 121–7), but Wellhausen believed Deuteronomy (cf. ch. 18). To what is their pun-
that they received some confirmation from the ishment due? It is because they ‘went astray
more thorough account of the history of the from me after their idols when Israel went
introduction to the pentateuch 26

astray’ (v. 10—cf. v. 12). This evidently refers to being disqualified from sitting or voting in the
service at the high places or bāmôt outside Jeru- House of Lords’ (ibid.). This was written before
salem: because those who had been priests at the introduction of life peerages! One may
the Jerusalem temple, ‘my sanctuary’ (vv. 15–16), put the essential argument as follows: if P had
are explicitly excluded from blame and are to been in existence in 573, Ezekiel surely would
retain an exclusive right to full priesthood in the have developed his argument in a different
future: they are called ‘the sons of Zadok’ after way.
Zadok the priest under David and Solomon. 6. For these reasons, then, Wellhausen con-
The antithesis between the Jerusalem temple, cluded that the regulations about the priest-
the one place of legitimate worship, and all hood, which are absolutely central to P, could
other shrines had of course been at the heart not have originated before Ezekiel, but only
of the reform programme of King Josiah (640– afterwards. Arguments of similar kinds were
609) half a century earlier which, as described in brought forward to justify a late date for other
2 Kings 23, was inspired by the somewhat earlier aspects of the ritual system prescribed by P. But
prescriptions of Deuteronomy (cf. esp. Deut how much later than Ezekiel was P to be dated?
12:1–14). Ezek 44 is fully at one with Josiah and Quite a lot later, according to Wellhausen (ibid.
the Deuteronomists on this point though he 404–10). He took as his point of departure the
differs from Deuteronomy on the extent of the statement in Ezra 7:14 that when Ezra came
priesthood for the future. He agrees with P that from Babylon to Jerusalem in 458 BCE he had
most Levites are to have an inferior role, but he the law of God in his hand. This Wellhausen
gives a completely different reason for it and he understood to be a new law book, which con-
has a different view about what they were ori- sisted of the completed Pentateuch, incorporat-
ginally meant to do. ing not only the older sources J, E, and D but the
5. The relationship between what Ezekiel Priestly Code, which had quite recently been
says and the regulations of P is most forcibly compiled. He seems to have believed that the
expressed in two quotations, one from Well- completed Pentateuch (and the new Priestly
hausen himself and the other from Kuenen. Code) must owe its authority to some act of
First Wellhausen: authorization, and only Ezra’s mission seemed
to be available to meet this requirement.
What he [Ezekiel] regards as the original right of the
Levites, the performance of priestly services, is trea-
According to Wellhausen, Neh 8–10 describes
ted in the latter document [P] as an unfounded and Ezra’s publication and the people’s acceptance
highly wicked pretension which once in the olden of the new (or rather partly new) law code, and
times brought destruction upon Korah and his com- these events are dated not earlier than 444 BCE
pany [Wellhausen is referring to the (P) story of the (compare Neh 1:1 with 8:2). This, Wellhausen
rebellion of Korah in Num 16–17]; what he [Ezekiel] held, gave the approximate date when the
considers to be a subsequent withdrawal of their Priestly Code was written up and combined
right, as a degradation in consequence of a fault, with the older Pentateuchal sources. A different
the other [P] holds to have been their hereditary
kind of argument which lends some support
and natural destination. The distinction between
priest and Levite which Ezekiel introduces and justi-
to this position was used by Kuenen: early
fies as an innovation, according to the Priestly Code post-exilic literature, such as the books of
has always existed; what in the former appears as a the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, shows no
beginning, in the latter has been in force ever since awareness of the P legislation. The book of
Moses—an original datum, not a thing that has Malachi, probably from the early fifth century
become or been made. That the prophet [Ezekiel] BCE, is especially significant, as it says quite a
should know nothing about a priestly law with lot about priests, but calls them Levites, not
whose tendencies he is in thorough sympathy admits sons of Aaron. By contrast the Chronicler,
of only one explanation—that it did not then exist.
writing some time after 400 BCE is clearly famil-
(1885: 124)
iar with P’s regulations. So a date within the
The quotation from Kuenen uses an analogy fifth century becomes likely on this argument
which is particularly comprehensible in Brit- too.
ain: ‘If by reason of their birth it was already 7. In the last quarter of the nineteenth cen-
impossible for the Levites to become priests [as tury a majority of scholars gradually came to
P lays down], then it would be more than accept the conclusions of the Newer Documen-
strange to deprive them of the priesthood on tary Hypothesis, as the viewpoint propounded
account of their faults—much as if one were to by Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen came to be
threaten the commons with the punishment of known. In essence they held that the Pentateuch
 27 introduction to the pentateuch

had been composed from four documents or J material in Gen 1–11 is not an original unity,
sources, whose dates and places of origin were and have gone on to argue that the whole of J is
as follows: the result of the combination of two originally
J 9th cent., Judah separate sources or the enlargement of the
E 8th cent., northern kingdom of Israel original J by additions. This is only a minority
D 7th cent., Judah view, but it has obtained wide publicity through
P 5th cent., Babylon its presentation in two Introductions that were at
one time popular, those of Otto Eissfeldt and
8. There have, however, from the beginning Georg Fohrer. Eissfeldt called the extra source L
been those who repudiated this position vocif- (‘Lay Source’, because of the absence of cultic
erously. In Britain and the United States today material) and Fohrer called it N (‘Nomadic
the best-known opponents of the theory are Source’, because it seemed opposed to settled
among conservative evangelical Christians. In life), but both attribute much the same passages
an earlier generation scholars such as J. Orr to it: e.g. in Gen 1–11 Fohrer ascribed a few
and A. H. Finn, later E. J. Young and G. C. verses in chs 2–3 to N, as well as 4:17–24 and
Aalders, and most recently K. A. Kitchen and 11:1–9, all it is said expressing the frustration of
R. K. Harrison, sought to minimize the force of man’s attempts to develop. Similar subdivisions
such arguments as those which we have been have been proposed of the other sources, with
considering. But opposition came from other more justification in the cases of D and P, but
quarters too. In the Roman Catholic church hardly so in the case of E.
the theory became a matter of controversy in 10. In fact it has been repeatedly suspected
the first decade of the twentieth century and the that E is not a true source at all, that is that the
Pontifical Biblical Commission decreed in 1906 passages attributed to it do not belong to a
that the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch single continuous account of Israel’s early
was not a subject that was open to discussion. history (partial rejection of step c.3 in the sys-
This ban lasted until the 1940s. Some Jewish tematic presentation). Two German scholars,
scholars too have been resolutely opposed to P. Volz and W. Rudolph, pressed the case for
the documentary theory, e.g. U. Cassuto and this view between the First and Second World
M. H. Segal of Jerusalem, but others have dis- Wars, and Noth was influenced by it to some
agreed only at one particular point, the rejec- extent, although he never gave up a belief in
tion of the idea that P is the latest of the E altogether. The problem was that what were
documents (see below). Among Protestant supposed to be the remnants of E seemed
Christian scholars there has been a further to show neither the completeness nor the
group consisting mainly of Scandinavian theological unity that appears in J. However,
scholars, who, for a distinctive reason, have important defences of the existence of E as
rejected many of the conclusions of the docu- an independent source have been put forward
mentary theory. The leader of this group was I. (Bruegge-mann and Wolff 1975: 67–82;
Engnell of Uppsala, who wrote mainly in Swed- Jenks 1977).
ish. Engnell proposed to replace the dominant 11. A further kind of modification, or rather
theories by the use of what he called ‘the tradi- extension, of the theory has been the claim that
tio-historical method’, which as far as the Penta- the Pentateuchal sources extend into the fol-
teuch was concerned meant that its origin lay lowing books of the OT, the historical books.
not in the combination of written sources for This is quite widely held for Joshua, but it was
the most part but in developments that took also maintained by some scholars for Judges,
place while the stories etc. were being transmit- Samuel, and even parts of Kings (so Eissfeldt,
ted orally, by word of mouth, a process which, C. A. Simpson). There are certainly some signs
according to Engnell, only ended at the time of of duplicate or parallel narratives in these
the Babylonian exile or even later. The enthusi- books, especially in 1 Samuel, but few scholars
asm which Engnell’s approach generated seems today accept this explanation of them.
now to have waned, and it belongs for the most 12. Despite all these modifications and even
part to the history of Pentateuchal study rather rejections of the theory, the great majority of
than to its present concerns. OT scholars were prepared, after the early years
9. There have also been several modifica- of debate, to accept it substantially as it left
tions proposed to the classical theory. Some Wellhausen’s hands. This was true, in recent
scholars have taken up a suspicion already times, of the major figures in Britain (e.g. Row-
expressed by Wellhausen himself that the ley, G. W. Anderson), Germany (von Rad, Noth,
introduction to the pentateuch 28

Weiser) and America (Albright, Bright). For are some more positive aspects of the situation
close on a century the view that the Pentateuch now, this preoccupation with the later, literary
was composed from the four documents J, E, D, stages of composition poses exactly the same
and P, which originated in that order, belonged threat today to a historical and living appreci-
to what used to be called the assured results of ation of the Pentateuch as it did around 1900.
Old Testament criticism. This was an unfortu- Then the way forward was marked out by Her-
nate phrase, and it would have been better to mann Gunkel, who was in fact much more of a
speak of the dominant or most satisfactory the- pioneering, original thinker than Wellhausen.
ory: neither a proven fact nor mere speculation, His correctives are as much needed today as
but a plausible account of the phenomena of they ever were.
the text. It needs to be emphasized that Mosaic 2. In 1901 Gunkel (1862–1932) published a
authorship is also a theory: all that we know is commentary on the book of Genesis, with a
that the Pentateuch existed by about the fourth long introduction which was separately pub-
century BCE. And Mosaic authorship is a theory lished and also translated into English under
which seems to account less well for the phe- the title The Legends of Genesis. The change of
nomena than critical theories; so at least the perspective can very quickly and easily be seen
majority of scholars have believed. And since if we compare the contents of this introduction
this theory seemed a solid foundation to them, with the introductions to other commentaries
their fresh thinking about the Pentateuch was on Genesis which appeared in the years imme-
until recently generally not about source criti- diately before 1901, such as that of H. Holzinger
cism but proceeded along two rather different of 1898. (In English Driver (1904) still shows the
lines of enquiry: (1) the study of the traditions, pre-Gunkel approach.) Holzin-ger’s introduc-
both narrative and law, in the preliterary stage of tion of some 18 pages included the following
their history, before they were incorporated subsections: Content of the Hexateuch and of
into the Pentateuchal source-documents; (2) Genesis; Tradition about the Author; History of
the definition of the particular theological content Criticism [i.e. source criticism]; the source J; the
of the different source-documents. source E; the source P; the Combination of the
Sources. This clearly reflects, almost exclusively,
F. The Preliterary Origins of the Pentateuch. 1. the preoccupations of the source critics. Alth-
By 1900 the source-critical theory was in need of ough Holzinger was aware that the material in J
a corrective of a much more fundamental kind and E was ultimately derived from popular oral
than any of those mentioned so far, for both tradition, as indeed Well-hausen had been be-
historical and literary reasons. On the one hand fore him, he was not apparently interested in, or
there had opened up a significant gap between perhaps capable of, exploring the character of
the dates attributed to even the earliest sources this ‘popular oral tradition’.
of the Pentateuch (9th–8th cents. BCE) and the 3. The contrast with Gunkel’s introduction
period which they purported to describe, which could hardly be greater. Its first subsection has
ended about 1200 BCE or even earlier. How a polemical title which sums up the whole
much, if any, real historical information had thesis: ‘Genesis is a collection of legends (Ger-
survived this passage of time? Was it necessary man Sagen)’—the English translation waters this
to conclude, as Wellhausen (1885: 318–19) tended down to ‘The Significance and Scope of the
to imply, that the sources could inform us only Legends’. Then follow sections on ‘The Varieties
about conditions in the time when they were of the Legends’; ‘The Artistic Form of the
written? On the other hand, the investigations of Legends’; ‘History of the Transmission of the
the source-critics had isolated the Pentateuch Legends in Oral Tradition’. These four sections,
from the life of the people of ancient Israel, all of them dealing with the stages of tradition
and left the text as a product of writers and prior to the written sources, comprise about 80
redactors who were to some extent created in pages, that is over three-quarters of a much
the image of the scholars who studied them—an enlarged introduction. Only after this does
intellectual élite far removed from ordinary Gunkel bring in two more traditional-sounding
people. Was it really from such circles that the sections: one on ‘Yahwist, Elohist, the Older
Pentateuch had ultimately originated? These are Collections’ (but note how what were ‘sources’
in fact very topical issues for biblical scholarship are now ‘collections’, reflecting the change of
at the present time, when interest has reverted perspective); the other on ‘The Priestly Code
to the discussion of sources and especially the and Final Redaction’. An English commentary
work of redactors or editors. Although there which shows the influence of Gunkel’s work
 29 introduction to the pentateuch

was J. Skinner’s International Critical Commen- speaks of ‘the senseless confusion of legend
tary, published in 1910: sections 2–5 of the intro- with lying’ in discussion of this issue—but at
duction are taken over almost directly from the same time strong emphasis is laid on the
Gunkel. creativity of the story-tellers and it is significant
4. There were in fact two basic changes of that Gunkel followed up his remark that ‘Leg-
approach with Gunkel: (1) chronologically, he dug ends are not lies’ with ‘on the contrary they are a
deeper, there is the concentration on the pre- particular form of poetry’: this is perhaps a
literary form of the tradition, instead of the pointer to the kind of truth which he believed
written sources of Genesis themselves, as we them to contain, it is more the truth of poetry,
have seen; and changes in the tradition at the i.e. general truths about the (or a) human situ-
earlier stage are regarded as a possible and ind- ation, than the truth of history. His argument
eed necessary subject for study; (2) but there is that the stories in Genesis are to be classed as
also, analytically, a transfer of attention away Sagen is quite a simple one. The basic difference,
from long connected narratives to individual he says, between history-writing as a literary
sections or episodes, each of which turns out genre and Sage is that history-writing is a writ-
to comprise a more or less self-contained story, ten composition, whereas Sage, as its derivation
which Gunkel believed had once existed inde- from the German word ‘to say’ shows, is a genre
pendently of the larger narrative context. These of oral tradition. The stories in Genesis, at least
two new departures are interconnected, but it most of them, bear the marks of having been
may be said with good reason that the first of originally composed orally—he gives more de-
them led to tradition criticism, as particularly tail later, but here mentions especially the exist-
practised later by von Rad and Noth, while the ence of variant versions of essentially the same
second gave rise to form criticism, which is where story (e.g. the patriarch who passed his wife off
Gunkel himself made his main contribution. In as his sister (Gen 12; 20; 26))—and therefore
fact both of these methods were designed by they are Sagen. In addition, the general lack of
Gunkel to reach a higher goal, a more adequate interest in political events, the long period bet-
account of the history of Hebrew literature, and ween the events reported and their being put in
his work is most accurately described as literary written form, and the inclusion of numerous
history: he could see that source criticism alone details that are, from a modern point of view,
would never do justice to the art of the Hebrew fantastic (such as Lot’s wife turning into a pillar
writers. of salt: Gen 19:26), serve to confirm the general
5. The general principles of Gunkel’s form- description as Sagen. This description of the
critical work on Genesis are the same as those stories as Sagen has important consequences
used by him elsewhere, for example on the for Gunkel’s understanding of them which he
Psalms. Briefly we may distinguish: (1) determin- illustrates by reference to the sacrifice of Isaac in
ation of the literary genre; (2) classification of Gen 22: ‘The important matter [sc. for the nar-
the material; and (3) the reconstruction of its rator] is not to establish certain historical facts,
social setting (Sitz im Leben). but to impart to the hearer the heart-rending
6. Gunkel begins by making the general grief of the father who is commanded to sacri-
point that history-writing as we know it, and fice his child with his own hand, and then his
as it is represented in the later historical books boundless gratitude and joy when God’s mercy
of the OT, is not ‘an innate endowment of the releases him from this grievous trial.’ The posi-
human mind’. ‘Only at a certain stage of civil- tive implications of using such language about
ization has objectivity so grown and the interest the Genesis stories were to be developed further
in transmitting national experiences to poster- by Karl Barth (Church Dogmatics, iii. 1) as well as
ity so increased that the writing of history bec- by Gerhard von Rad (in the introduction to his
omes possible. Such history has for its subjects commentary on Genesis).
great public events, the deeds of popular leaders 7. Gunkel went on to subdivide the Sagen of
and kings, and especially wars.’ Apart from such Genesis into various types, first of all making a
political organization, the past is remembered sharp distinction between those of Gen 1–11,
and cherished in the form of popular tradition, which tell of the ancestors of the human race
for which Gunkel used the genre-description as a whole, and Gen 12–50, which tell of the
Sage (pl. Sagen); ‘legend’ is a better English ancestors of particular peoples, especially Israel.
equivalent for this than saga, and perhaps ‘tale’ Nowadays it seems appropriate to use the terms
is best of all. The preservation of some historical ‘myth’ and ‘legend’ to distinguish these two
memories in Sage is not ruled out—Gunkel types of story, but they were not often so used
introduction to the pentateuch 30

by Gunkel. Gen 12–50 was further subdivided collected together, so as eventually to form the
into Sagen of different types: the two main ones source-documents J and E—this is really trad-
being tribal legends and aetiological legends. ition-history—and, as we have seen, went on to
The former (1) can be either (a) historical, if deal with the sources themselves and their com-
they represent events in the history of tribes, bination together by the editors of the Penta-
such as the treaty between Abraham or Isaac teuch. Gunkel’s views about the origins of
and Abimelech king of Gerar (21:22–34; 26) or Genesis have been enormously influential and
the migrations of the various patriarchs from have shaped subsequent research just as much
one place to another; or (b) ethnographic if they as the documentary source-theory. They are not
represent tribal relations, as in the stories of however satisfactory in every respect, as we
Jacob and Esau. Aetiological legends (2) are shall see.
those whose purpose is to explain the origin 9. Form-critical study of the Pentateuch was
of some aspect of contemporary experience, extended to the stories involving Moses by
and they subdivide into (a) ethnological legends, Hugo Gressmann in 1913 and to the Penta-
which explain why different peoples live where teuchal laws by Albrecht Alt in 1934 (Alt 1966:
they do, e.g. Gen 19; (b) etymological legends, 87–132: see further below), and many others
which explain the meaning of names, e.g. Beer- followed them. But at the same time the study
sheba in Gen 21:31; (c) cultic legends, which of the preliterary history of the Pentateuch
explain why a place is holy, or a particular ritual began to be carried forward in a different way,
act carried out (32:32); (d) geological legends, which considered not isolated individual stories
explaining features of the landscape (19:26). or laws but the overall structure of the Penta-
These categories are not mutually exclusive, a teuch, with its sequence of creation, patriarchs,
particular legend may exhibit the characteristics Exodus, revelation at Sinai, wilderness wander-
of two or more of them, e.g. Gen 22. This is the ing and conquest of Transjordan. Was this
analysis worked out by Gunkel for the first order of events, which already appeared in the
edition of his commentary in 1901: an import- J source, simply derived from the historical
ant consequence of it was that, while the aetio- sequence of events; or was it to be explained
logical legends were of little or no use for the as the result of some process or processes of
historian, the tribal legends could (if read cor- development in the tradition which had over-
rectly) provide information about the history of simplified an originally more complicated
the various tribes. In the course of his preoccu- story? We come with this to the traditio-histor-
pation with Genesis over the next few years ical work of von Rad and Noth (see on this
Gunkel changed his mind over certain topics, especially Nicholson 1973).
and in particular he gave up the ‘tribal’ inter- 10. Von Rad’s very influential views on this
pretation of groups (1)(a) and (1)(b) above subject are set out in a long essay published in
and supposed instead that they too were based 1938 and entitled ‘The Form-Critical Problem of
on folklore motifs and had no historical kernel the Hexateuch’ (von Rad 1966: 1–78). The refer-
at all. ence to form criticism in the title is at first
8. Gunkel’s account of the social setting of surprising but is justified by the use, at the
such stories is given in a chapter in which he beginning of the essay, of the basic principles
attempts to formulate their literary character of that discipline, the difference being that von
more clearly. ‘The common situation which Rad suggested applying them to the Hexateuch
we have to suppose is this: In the leisure of a as a whole (like others before and since he
winter evening the family sits about the hearth; believed that the book of Joshua was intimately
the grown people, but more especially the chil- linked with the Pentateuch) instead of only to
dren, listen intently to the beautiful old stories the short episodes or pericopae from which it
of the dawn of the world, which they have was made up. So he asks first about the literary
heard so often yet never tire of hearing genre of the Hexateuch in its final form, and
repeated.’ It is to be noted, because of the con- answers that it is essentially a statement of faith,
trast with von Rad and Noth, that it is a domes- a creed: not just popular tradition, or history,
tic scene that Gunkel reconstructed, not one of but a historical creed. Then he proposed the
a cultic festival. He lived before the time when question of other and especially earlier exa-
all (or nearly all) the OT was thought to be mples of this genre, the historical creed, in Is-
related to the setting of worship. In the remain- rael, and coupled with it the question of its
ing chapters he reconstructed the processes social setting or Sitz im Leben. He found the
by which the originally separate stories were answers to these questions given above all in
 31 introduction to the pentateuch

the prayer prescribed in Deut 26:5–9 to be said lieved, there were signs that the Sinai narrative
at the presentation of the first fruits of the had been artificially fitted into an original se-
harvest, in which the following ‘confession of quence, running from the Exodus to the Con-
faith’ bears a striking resemblance to the outline quest, in which it did not appear. This sequence
of the narrative of the Hexateuch: on the one hand and the Sinai narrative on the
other at one time therefore existed quite inde-
A wandering Aramaean was my ancestor; he went
down into Egypt and lived there as an alien, few in
pendently of one another. As we have seen, von
number; and there he became a great nation, mighty Rad had come to the conclusion from his study
and populous. When the Egyptians treated us of the genre ‘creed’ that the origins of the Hexa-
harshly and afflicted us, by imposing hard labour teuch were bound up with the history of the
on us, we cried to the Lord, the God of our ancestors; cult, and he proceeded in the next stage of his
the Lord heard our voice and saw our affliction, our essay to develop this view by a detailed argu-
toil and our oppression. The Lord brought us out of ment that these two blocks of tradition had
Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, been the theme-material of two different festi-
with a terrifying display of power, and with signs
vals celebrated in the period of the Judges
and wonders; and he brought us into this place
and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and
at two different sanctuaries. The patriarchs–
honey. Exodus–Conquest sequence (which von Rad
usually refers to as the ‘settlement-tradition’
11. This ‘short historical creed’, as it has come from its concluding item, the possession of the
to be called, was taken by von Rad to be a very promised land) belonged to the festival of Weeks
ancient formula embedded in the Deutero- or First-Fruits, celebrated at the sanctuary of
nomic law book and one which had originally Gilgal near Jericho, while the Sinai narrative
been composed for just the purpose which belonged to a festival of the Renewal of the
Deuteronomy gives it, namely to accompany a Covenant, referred to in the OT as Tabernacles
ritual action in the cult. This passage repre- or Booths, which took place at Shechem in the
sented, according to von Rad, the first stage in central highlands of Israel.
the history of the genre ‘historical creed’, at the 13. If that is so, the question arises as to when
end of which stood the composition of the and by whom the two blocks of tradition were
Hexateuch in its final form, and it indicated an combined together. Von Rad’s answer is that it
originally cultic setting for the genre. This im- was the author of the J source in the Hexateuch,
plied for von Rad that the origin of the Hexa- whom he dates to the tenth century BCE, for in
teuch too was bound up with the history of the it, as traditionally reconstructed, the canonical
Israelite cult, a subject which had already before sequence already appears. It is also to the Yahwist
1938 come to interest OT scholars considerably, that the prefacing of Gen 1(2)–11, the primeval
particularly through the work of Sigmund history, to the pattern dictated by the creed is
Mowinckel on the Psalms, and von Rad was in attributed, so that this writer takes on immense
fact only developing suggestions made previ- stature as the originator of the canonical form
ously by other scholars about particular sec- of the narrative, and indeed in other ways too,
tions of the Hexateuch (Mowinckel on the which von Rad also spelt out at the end of his
Sinai peri-cope (1927), Alt on a covenant-festival essay.
as a setting for apodictic law (1934), and Peder- 14. Noth’s work on the Pentateuch (he did
sen on the link between Exodus and Passover not believe that Joshua was so closely con-
(1934)). nected) is to be found above all in his book
12. At this point we move out of the strictly published in 1948 and later translated into Eng-
form-critical sphere into that of tradition criti- lish under the title A History of Pentateuchal Tra-
cism or tradition history. Von Rad noticed that ditions (1972). It sets out to be a comprehensive
the creed in Deut 26:5–9 does not mention the and systematic treatise, which builds on von
meeting with God at Mount Sinai among the Rad’s work, but also introduces fresh ideas and
events which it enumerates, and that the same is draws in elements of Gunkel’s work on particu-
true of various other ‘credal’ passages in the OT, lar passages. Beginning from the conclusions of
especially Deut 6:20–4 and Josh 24:2–13. On the source criticism, Noth observed that the canon-
other hand, the final form of the Hexateuch ical pattern of narrative from the patriarchs to
does give considerable space to events at the settlement appeared not only in J but also in
Mount Sinai, and thus represents a departure E, and since it seemed unlikely to him that E
from the original form of the creed. Even within simply imitated J (since sometimes one seems
the Hexateuchal narrative itself, von Rad be- more primitive and sometimes the other), he
introduction to the pentateuch 32

proposed that both were drawing on a common constituent part of Israel was involved in the
source in which the canonical pattern already events of all the five themes, and it is quite
appeared. He seems to have been unsure possible that each theme derived originally
whether to postulate a written source or just from a different group, so that there was no
common oral tradition, but he proposed the original historical continuity at all between
symbol G (for Grundlage, ‘foundation’) to repre- them.
sent it. This is already an important departure 17. Apart from these general considerations
from von Rad’s view, since it implied that J about the history of the tradition, Noth con-
inherited the canonical pattern from earlier tinued with the examination of the individual
tradition and was not himself the first to com- stories that had been begun by Gunkel and
bine the Sinai narrative with the others, as von Gressmann, emphasizing their typical and le-
Rad had thought. gendary features. He seems to have held that
15. But in general Noth regarded von Rad’s the tradition began with five raw statements of
account of the preliterary history of the trad- faith corresponding to the five themes, of the
ition as sound. He accepted the idea that the form ‘YHWH brought us out of the land of
Sinai narrative had once been separate from the Egypt’, to which only the slightest historical
rest, and the early Israelite cult as the locus of recollections were attached. These statements
preservation and transmission of the traditions. of faith then became the inspiration for a
Von Rad was only at fault in that he did not take process of amplification by the creativity of
the process of analysis far enough for Noth. In story-tellers or bards, who developed the vari-
Noth’s view there were not just two originally ous episodes with which we are familiar.
separate blocks of tradition but five, which he 18. One result of Noth’s theory was his re-
generally refers to as ‘themes’. These were the luctance to regard any element of the tradition
promise to the patriarchs, the deliverance from which represented continuity between the dif-
Egypt (Exodus), the leading through the wilder- ferent themes as an early component of the
ness, the revelation at Sinai, and the settlement story. The most celebrated example of this is
in the land of Canaan. his treatment of Moses, who of course appears
16. To understand what Noth has to say throughout the central section of the Penta-
about the origin of these themes it is necessary teuch, in the Exodus, wilderness, and Sinai
to remind ourselves of his views about the earli- themes. In all of this, Noth argued, Moses is
est history of Israel. For him there can be no dispensable and therefore a secondary element.
question of a history of Israel before the settle- He originally belonged in fact to the story of the
ment in Canaan, because prior to the settlement settlement in Canaan, because his grave was
various groups of semi-nomads existed quite located in land claimed by the Israelite tribes
separately and they only became ‘Israel’ when (cf. Deut 34:1–6 with Josh 13:15–23), and those
they combined together in a sacred tribal league elements of the stories about him that are not
or ‘amphictyony’ on the soil of Canaan. What- likely to have been invented (his foreign wife,
ever came before was not, could not be, the criticism of his leadership) therefore originally
history or story of the ‘children of Israel’, but belong here.
could only be the history or story of parts of 19. While the views of von Rad and Noth
what later became Israel. The arrangement of have been very influential, they have also
Noth’s own book on the history of Israel is the come in for criticism from many scholars.
logical consequence of this view: its first main Among the counter-arguments the following
chapter deals with the arrival in Canaan of those may be mentioned:
groups which were eventually to become Israel,
and only in the third chapter are the traditions 1. von Rad’s reliance on Deut 26:5–9 may have
about the Exodus, the patriarchs, and Mount too readily assumed that it is an ancient
Sinai dealt with, under the heading ‘The Tradi- piece of traditional liturgy: its style is
tions of the Sacral Confederation of the Twelve strongly Deuteronomic, and perhaps it was
Tribes’. In Noth’s picture these traditions could composed by the authors of Deuteronomy
only have originated as the traditions of one of in the eighth or seventh century BCE.
the constituent parts of Israel in each case: that 2. whether that is so or not, von Rad’s recon-
is, the implication of the Pentateuchal texts struction of the history of the genre ‘creed’
themselves that they are talking about the ori- too readily assumes that shorter forms are
gin of ‘all Israel’ is historically false. Further earlier than longer ones, a common miscon-
there is no reason to think that the same ception of form critics; or to put it another
 33 introduction to the pentateuch

way, that development invariably proceeds have suggested that oral literature is a much
by supplementation and never by selection more varied phenomenon, with several differ-
or subtraction. It is not necessarily the case ent functions. Detailed studies of the text of
that the ‘canonical pattern’ of the creed with Genesis itself also suggested weaknesses in
Sinai included is later than the shorter form. Gunkel’s description. He seems to have lost
3. Even if Noth’s historical views about the settle- sight of the essential difference in character
ment are true, they do not in fact rule out the between the myths of Gen 1–11, which are pure
possibility that all the themes represent experi- imagination as far as the events they describe
ences of the same group of ‘ancestors of Israel’, are concerned, and the stories of the patriarchs,
so that there might be an element of historical where imagination is constrained by a particu-
continuity between them. lar historical situation.
4. Noth too quickly disposed of Moses, who is The most comprehensive attempt to develop
very firmly linked with the Exodus, Sinai, a new form criticism of the patriarchal stories
and wilderness traditions and scarcely as has been made by C. Westermann, in the intro-
‘dispensable’ as Noth believed. But if he is duction to the second volume of his commen-
allowed to remain in them, this is an indica- tary on Genesis. Westermann’s main assertion
tion of an original historical continuity be- about the patriarchal narratives is that they are
tween Exodus, Sinai, wilderness, and above all family narratives, not only in the sense
settlement. that they are about family life but also because
they are told and handed on by people who are
20. In addition to these objections, which the descendants (or think they are the descend-
are widely current, it should be observed that ants) of the chief characters in the story. In his
many of Noth’s arguments are only possible if it commentary he makes a comparison between
is assumed that the tradition possessed the de- them and Galsworthy’s ‘family novels’, The For-
gree of creativity ascribed to it by Gunkel and syte Saga. Plato in the Hippias Major said that
Gressmann: and it is not at all certain that it did, people in his day liked hearing stories of the
particularly as far as the tradition about the foundation of cities; other classical parallels can
Exodus and subsequent events is concerned. In be found in stories of the founding of colonies
fact, a number of questions have been raised in and in Virgil’s Aeneid. According to Wester-
recent years about the validity of some of Gun- mann, it is also possible to show that the aetio-
kel’s inferences. Two questions in particular logical stories and motifs, which are where
need to be asked: (1) Is Gunkel’s overall descrip- creativity is at its greatest, belong to a compara-
tion of the stories as ‘legend’ (Sage) adequate? tively late stage of the process of growth of the
(2) Was his growing conviction that Genesis patriarchal stories. In the rest of the tradition,
lacked any historical basis justified? These are there is no reason why memories of quite an-
clearly related questions, for the historical reli- cient situations should not have been preserved,
ability of the stories is bound to be affected by indeed this is to be expected. This is not to say
the type of stories that we suppose them to be. that we can read Genesis as if it were a series of
21. The description ‘legend’ was arrived at by biographies: for the sequence of stories is less to
Gunkel by a deceptively simple process of rea- be relied on than some of the stories them-
soning: the stories originated before the Israel- selves, and in addition there are some individual
ites organized themselves politically into a stories which owe a lot to later narrators with a
state, therefore they are oral compositions, particular theological point to make.
therefore they are legends (Sagen), and their 22. In looking at Westermann’s fresh de-
purpose is to convey experiences of human scription of the patriarchal stories we thus en-
existence which are not to be equated with counter some pointers to a somewhat more
particular historical events. The attraction of positive historical evaluation of them than Gun-
this line of reasoning is that at its end there is kel allowed. To these archaeological evidence
something that certainly needs to be said if we lends some support, though this must not be
are to do justice to the literary art of the Genesis exaggerated. The claim that such evidence can
narratives. But it is not a cast-iron argument, prove the substantial reliability of the stories
and cogent objections can be raised to it at has rightly been criticized by T. L. Thompson
virtually every point. To take only one point, and J. Van Seters. There are no direct references
is it really true that oral literature knows only to Abraham, Isaac, or anyone else in Genesis in
the genre of Sagen as defined by Gunkel? Com- contemporary Near-Eastern texts. But in a var-
parisons over a wider range than he undertook iety of ways certain details of the stories (though
introduction to the pentateuch 34

not others) can be shown to fit in with our advance in theology and not just innovations
knowledge from external sources of how life on the literary level. It is now widely recognized
was lived in the second millennium BCE. That that the interpretation of a particular Penta-
is, the stories of the patriarchs did transmit to teuchal passage must take account of its setting
ancient Israel and do transmit to us some au- within the context of the source-document to
thentic information about conditions of life, which it belongs and ask, ‘How is the inclusion
both external and internal, social and spiritual, of this passage related to the author’s overall
in the time before the Exodus. Creative devel- purpose and plan?’ Von Rad again is a good
opment there may indeed be, but it is not cre- illustration of this at many places in his Genesis
ation in this case out of nothing: it is an commentary, though he concentrates mainly
enlarging and deepening of the story of a fam- on the J source. Further studies of this kind
ily, or families, who came to be regarded as the can be found in Brueggemann and Wolff
ancestors of all Israel and the recipients of a (1975). Before looking briefly at each source in
divine promise whose fulfilment was believed turn I want to make some general, and rather
to have been worked out in the life of Israel as a polemical, points about our method and aim.
historical people. 2. First, the method must be addressed: how
23. Despite the various criticisms we have are we to determine the theology of a document
looked at, it needs to be remembered that, which is essentially in narrative form? There are
even if the answers have weaknesses, the ques- various possibilities:
tions posed by von Rad, Noth, and Gunkel 2.1. The best-known studies of this topic
about the preliterary stage of the tradition are have tended to concentrate either on specific
still with us and are ultimately unavoidable. I passages that make clearly theological state-
have already mentioned Wester-mann’s more ments or on expressions which recur in a number
fruitful treatment of the patriarchal stories of passages. For example, Gen 12:1–3 has been
from this point of view. There is nothing quite regarded as almost the motto of the J writer (so
comparable yet for the Exodus and subsequent by von Rad, Wolff, and others), with special
episodes—T. L. Thompson’s work suffers from emphasis being laid on Abraham as the means
the same defect as Gunkel’s—but B. S. Childs’s of blessing for all the peoples of the earth. Other
commentary contains some useful material and passages have also been thought to shed par-
G. W. Coats recently brought out an excellent ticular light on the theology of this writer: thus,
study, based on a series of articles written over a in Gen 1–11; 6:5; 8:21, and later on 18:22b–33.
period of some twenty years, which, in direct Again, Wolff’s brilliant study of the theology
contrast to Noth’s position, takes Moses as its of E is largely concerned with the recurring
central theme (Coats 1988). expressions ‘the fear of God’ (20:11, etc.) and
God ‘testing’ or ‘proving’ someone (Gen 22:1;
G. The Theology of the Pentateuchal Sour- Ex 20:20). In the case of Deuteronomy the key
ces. 1. General considerations. Twentieth- terms ‘covenant’ and ‘law’ have often been
century scholars have been occupied by an- picked out, or the demand for the centralization
other development in Pentateuchal study, of the cult (Deut 12:1–14). Finally, in his essay on
going beyond the analysis into sources: that is, the theology of P, Brueggemann sees the dec-
the theology—or rather theologies, for they laration of blessing in Gen 1:28 as ‘the central
differ considerably—of the sources. In fact the message in the faith of the priestly circle’, which
realization of the differences is one of the main is recapitulated in later passages such as Gen
benefits of source-analysis. One may draw an 9:7; 17:20; 28:1–4; 35:11; Ex 1:7. There is no doubt
analogy with what has happened in NT study of that this is a natural and useful approach to
the Gospels—there too a source-critical phase take, but if it is used alone as it sometimes is,
and a form-critical phase have been followed by it is in danger of producing an account of the
a phase that focuses on the theologies of the theology of the sources that is both one-sided
different evangelists. The theological study of and oversimplified. For that reason it is very
the sources of the Pentateuch seems to date important to look also at two other aspects of
from von Rad’s ‘Hexateuch’ essay (1938), in the texts.
which he identified the author of the J source 2.2. One of these is the range of contents of a
as a creative theological writer. The modifica- particular source, that is, particularly, where it
tions which von Rad thought J had made to the begins and ends. Again the study of the Gospels
tradition (combination of Sinai and settlement; is an illuminating comparison, for they all begin
addition of primeval history) were clearly an and end at different points, at least if it is kept in
 35 introduction to the pentateuch

mind that Luke’s Gospel is only the first part of an understanding of its theology by the
a 2-volume work. The different beginnings were methods described above.
already noticed by Irenaeus in the second cen- 5. Two important features are common to
tury CE. The Pentateuchal sources also all begin all four sources of the Pentateuch: (1) they all
at different points, but unfortunately the ques- alike seek to define the character of the relation-
tion of their endings is not so simple, and it is ship between YHWH and Israel; (2) they do this
much argued whether J, E, and P did or did not by reference to certain ancient events, among
go on to describe the conquest of Canaan under which the sequence patriarchs–Exodus–Sinai–
Joshua, while Deuteronomy can be said to ‘end’ occupation of the land is present in all of
at two very different places. Still, the different them. Nevertheless in their handling of these
beginnings are clear enough, and they have common features they differ considerably.
important implications for the theology of the 6. The Theology of J. J, in overall shape, is
sources. clearly a narrative. But what kind of a narrative?
2.3. Also important is what I would call the Some of the important events described would
form of presentation and the arrangement of the clearly justify von Rad’s term, used of the Hexa-
contents of the source, and in fact von Rad teuch as a whole, ‘creed’, but others, such as the
makes these factors fundamental for his explor- stories of Abraham’s or Jacob’s exploits, do not
ation of the theology of the Yahwist. What I fit this description very well. One might say
have in mind is first the general shape of the then that there is a credal framework filled out
source—is it essentially a narrative or a collec- with what might be called illustrative material.
tion of speeches? And what kind of narrative or An alternative approach is to begin at the other
speeches?—and then the more detailed struc- end with the genre-description ‘epic’, and then
ture of the contents. qualify this by a term such as ‘religious’ or
3. Secondly, the aim must be decided: what is ‘theological’. Somewhere at the convergence of
it that we are trying to do? I would see this as these two approaches an accurate description is
being to state the religious assertions that are to be found. The narrative shape of J has led to
made by the document as a whole, or at least in so the view that his theology, like that of other OT
far as it has been preserved. I say this over writers, is a theology of history, i.e. a witness to
against the approach which seeks out only and interpretation of the acts of God in history.
what is distinctive or what is new in a particular The question does of course arise as to how far
source. This has sometimes been the way of the ‘history’ in J’s account is real history, espe-
putting the question—it is in these terms that cially in Gen 1–11, and the recently coined term
von Rad puts it in relation to the Yahwist—but ‘narrative theology’ is more widely applicable.
(1) we then presuppose that we can make a clear Either way, the difference between J’s theology
distinction between the contribution of an and a timeless, philosophical theology needs to
author himself and what he inherited from his be noted.
predecessors. This may sometimes be possible 7. J begins with creation: but it is worth
but frankly we are often not in a position to do amplifying this to ‘the creation of human
that with any certainty when dealing with the beings’, because in Gen 2:4–5 the references to
Pentateuchal sources, and that is an important the creation of the natural world are in a sub-
part of the reason why scholars have found it ordinate clause, and not part of the actual story,
difficult sometimes to agree in this area. (2) In which begins only in v. 7: ‘Then the Lord God
any case the theology of an author is shaped formed man . . . ’. J’s story is thus human history
and expressed as much by what he reproduces from its beginning to—wherever J ended! That
from earlier tradition as by the fresh insights (if we do not know for sure, but the occupation of
any) which he brings to it himself. the land of Canaan by Israel seems the most
4. One further point: the authors produced likely ending, whether, as some still think, that
their work in particular historical situations and ending is preserved in the book of Joshua or
addressed themselves to those situations. It not.
must therefore be part of our aim to discover 8. The contents of J can be subdivided into
what those situations were, i.e. to date the work, two parts: Gen 2–11, ‘The Early History of Man-
and to relate what it says to the events of its kind in General’; and Gen 12 onwards, ‘The
time. But since most of the evidence for dating Early History of Israel and their Ancestors’. An
comes from the theological themes that are account of J’s theology must address both parts
prominent in the sources, this part of our task of the document and, which is very important,
can only be approached after we have reached the fact that they have been brought together.
introduction to the pentateuch 36

In Gen 2–11 we have a number of stories about blessing of Abraham’s descendants, i.e. of Israel,
the earliest ages of human history, which now and that ‘in you [or: your seed] all the families of
have an interesting parallel in the Babylonian the earth shall be blessed’ (12:3—cf. 26:4; 28:14),
Epic of Atrahasis, which covers a similar span of i.e. that Abraham/Israel is destined to mediate
early history. They do not pretend to present a YHWH’s blessing to other nations. J’s theology
complete history of these times, but only cer- is thus universalistic: it looks beyond Israel to
tain episodes with a particular importance for God’s work in the wider world. There is how-
later generations. These episodes are presented ever a snag with this interpretation (see the note
either as the cause of a present state of affairs on this verse), and that is that the crucial words
(human mortality, the need to work for a living, in Gen 12:3 could be translated in a different
the existence of many languages, for example) way: ‘by you all the families of the earth shall
or as paradigms of situations that may occur at bless themselves’, that is, Abraham would be the
any time (the rivalry of brothers, the attempt to standard to which all others would want to rise,
break through the limits imposed on man by without it being implied that this was in fact
God), or as both. Westermann points out how YHWH’s intention for them (cf. Ps 72:17; and for
the family is often in view. Of course in all cases the idea Zech 8:13). Then J is only speaking
the context is theological, and the sequence of directly about YHWH’s purpose for Israel. How-
sin–punishment–mercy appears several times, ever that may be, we must certainly not make
both as the cause of the present state of the the mistake of thinking that Gen 1–11 serves in
world and as typical of God’s government of its present context only to indicate what the
the world at all times. world needs to be saved from. In other respects,
9. J’s presentation of the early history of as we saw, it specifies the unchanging condi-
Israel is shot through with the idea of election, tions under which human life has to be lived, as
that Israel is YHWH’s own people, which he much in Israel as anywhere else, and shows
brought into being, protected, and settled in YHWH’s dominion as creator over the whole
her land, to fulfil the promises which he had world. This is also a kind of universal theology
made to her distant ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and ethics, but it differs from the salvation-
and Jacob. That history too illustrates the history kind that has been found in 12:3 etc.
themes of sin–punishment–grace (especially in and is not dependent upon it. Other signs of
the wilderness), but more especially that of a universal interest are the Table of Nations
YHWH as a powerful deliverer and provider of (ch. 10) and the use of Mesopotamian materials
his people’s needs: corresponding to this, faith in the Flood story, as well as the Tower of
in God is the primary virtue (Gen 15:6, cf. Ex Babel story in ch. 11, which seems implicitly
4:30–1; 14:13, 31). There are some passages, to challenge the pretensions of the great
chiefly poetic, in this section which seem to world-empires of the ancient Near East, and
relate to events of J’s own time and are the especially those of Babylon. The approach is
basis for attempts to date him to the tenth reminiscent of the wisdom literature in a num-
century BCE: according to them Israel is destined ber of ways. In this respect Gen 2–11 is not the
to be a great nation, who will rule her neigh- antithesis to the kerygma of 12:1–3, law to gos-
bours and have a king from the tribe of Judah pel as it were, but displays God’s wider work in
(Gen 24:60; 27:27–9; 49:8–12; Num 24:15–19). creation and providence as the basis for his
Interestingly none of these passages is exactly work in his own people’s history.
in the form of a divine promise and perhaps this 11. The Theology of E. The E source survives to
means that J did not regard political power as of a much smaller extent than J. In shape or general
the very essence of Israel’s relationship to character E seems to have been very similar to J,
YHWH. and what was said earlier about this in relation
10. What is the significance of the combin- to J applies broadly to E. On the other hand the
ation of the two parts together? There has of range covered seems to be less, for there is no
late been a tendency to focus on the gloomy evidence that E had any account of creation or
side of Gen 1–11, which ends, as von Rad points the early history of the human race as a whole:
out, with the story of the scattering of the it began its account with the patriarchs, specif-
nations. Unlike earlier acts of judgement, this ically with Abraham. Most of Gen 20–2 is at-
one is not mitigated by any word of grace and tributed to E, and it has commonly been
mercy. The word of mercy to the nations thought that part of Gen 15, which describes
comes, according to this view, in a quite new the making of a covenant between God and
form, in 12:1–3, where YHWH promises his Abraham, is also from E and indeed its begin-
 37 introduction to the pentateuch

ning. It is certainly an appropriate place to religious attitude (in addition to Gen 20:11 cf.
begin the story of Israel’s origins. 22:12; 42:18: Ex 1:17, 21; 18:21; 20:20).
12. From Abraham on the contents of E 13.2. E’s narratives reflect a greater preoccu-
apparently corresponded closely to those of J, pation than the corresponding passages in J
with even greater uncertainty about whether it with ethical standards of behaviour as the con-
originally included an account of the occupa- dition of God’s blessing of his people. This is
tion of Canaan or not. This means that the particularly clear if one compares the parallel
theological affirmations of E about the actions stories in Gen 12:10–20J and 20:1–18E, where the
and character of YHWH are to a large extent the latter passage includes Abimelech’s protestation
same as J’s, and to save repetition it is possible of his innocence and the implication that Abra-
to note just some important differences: ham’s behaviour is reprehensible. It would be
12.1. The most obvious difference is the lack even clearer if it were certain that the Decalogue
of the universal perspective (in whatever sense) and the Book of the Covenant were included in
provided in J by the primeval history (Gen 1–11) E, as used to be thought, but this has been
and perhaps by Gen 12:3. For E God’s purposes questioned in recent years, perhaps rightly.
are in the main limited to his people Israel.
Individual foreigners are, however, shown to 14. The Theology of Deuteronomy (D). Deuter-
have recognized the authority of Israel’s God onomy/D stands in great contrast to J and E in
(cf. Abimelech in Gen 20 and Jethro in Ex 18). both its shape and its range, not to speak of its
This is reminiscent of the widow of Zarephath structure, whether one considers its original nu-
in 1 Kings 17 and Naaman in 2 Kings 5, in cleus (4:44–29:1) or its amplified form. As regards
prophetic stories from the northern kingdom, its shape it consists not of narrative, but of a series
which is often seen as the environment in of speeches, which can most adequately be desc-
which E was composed. ribed as preaching: they speak directly to the
12.2. It is apparently the view of E that the people in the second person and urge them to
special name for God, YHWH, was not known do certain things for reasons that are also stated.
to the patriarchs, but was first revealed to Moses Events of the early history are generally referred
(Ex 3:14–15: the same view is also held by P (Ex to in passing and are not the main subject of what
6:2–3)). This has two effects: it links the begin- is being said. This leads on to the range of the
ning of Israel’s religion particularly strongly contents: in the nucleus there is no attempt at a
with the Exodus and the mountain of God in connected description of early history as found in
the wilderness, and it makes a distinction bet- J and E, but rather the portrayal of a single event
ween patriarchal religion and Israelite religion in great detail, namely Moses’ parting speeches to
which, while not absolute, remains important. the Israelites as they are encamped on the banks
The character of God as conveyed in his name is of the river Jordan. The structure is consequently
given a rare, though elusive, exposition by E in also quite different and has been a topic of major
3:14: ‘I am who I am’, or ‘I will be what I will be’ interest to scholars, who have related it to the
(see the commentary). liturgy of a festival for the renewal of the coven-
12.3. On the subject of political power, E also ant (von Rad) or to the pattern of ancient Near-
includes passages which speak of Israel’s great Eastern treaties (Weinfeld), or indeed to both. The
destiny (cf. Gen 46:1–4; Num 23:18–24), but it is amplified form (i.e. chs. 1–34 as a whole), on the
noticeable that they do not give any special other hand, is most probably the first section of a
place to Judah, but rather celebrate the suprem- long historical work with a quite different range
acy of the northern tribes Ephraim and Mana- from J and E, extending through the books of
sseh (cf. Deut 33:13–17; also Gen 48:15–16). This Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, commonly
is one reason for thinking that E originated in referred to as the Deuteronomistic History. So
the northern kingdom (cf. Jenks 1977). in neither form is D at all similar externally to J
13. Each of these three features in which E and E.
differs from J is probably due to E’s having 15. There is more common ground with the
retained the attitudes and presentation of the other sources, not surprisingly, when we come
story which were current in earlier times, while J to look at its actual teaching, though here too
represents a new approach in each. Two other there are new features. In the speeches of
differences are more likely to be due to E’s own Deuteronomy the themes of the promise to
contribution. the patriarchs, YHWH’s deliverance and protec-
13.1. H. W. Wolff (1975) has noted the concern tion of his people, and his gift to them of the
of E for ‘the fear of God’, as an all-embracing land of Canaan as a land full of every good
introduction to the pentateuch 38

thing, repeatedly appear. Thus far there is a real notes. And throughout this source long speeches
continuity with the older sources. The creation (as in D) are very much in evidence, but this
story, however, is ignored (though cf. 4:32), and time in the form of divine revelations (or rather
the book is dominated by the theme of the promises and commands) communicated to
covenant based on God’s laws and obedience such figures as Noah, Abraham, and Moses.
to them. This central concern is reflected in the Not infrequently it is clear that a narrative epi-
title of the original core of Deuteronomy (4:45): sode is only there to reinforce what has been
‘These are the decrees and the statutes and or- said in one of the divine speeches. So despite
dinances, that Moses spoke to the Israelites . . . ’ some superficial resemblance to J and E we are
(cf. Moses’ opening words: ‘Hear, O Israel, clearly in a quite different world. It is difficult to
the statutes and the ordinances that I am ad- specify the genre of P as a whole. An anthro-
dressing to you today’ (5:1)). The picture of pologist once suggested that because of his
Moses himself is changed: instead of being the interest in myth, kinship, and ritual P could
inspired leader of his people in all kinds of rank as the world’s first social anthropologist!
circumstances, he has become above all what But anthropologists are only observers, while
we might call a ‘prophetic legislator’. The laws for P (which was probably produced by priests
too in chs 12–26 go far beyond the most that for priests) these things clearly have existential
can be ascribed to J and E and allude to many importance. Perhaps a report of a Liturgical
aspects of life, both private and national—in Commission is a closer modern analogy!
the latter sphere it is notable that they make 18. While the theology of P is without doubt
provision for the offices of priest, judge, very largely a theology of ritual (especially
prophet, and king, and imply that public wor- priesthood and sacrifice), it does have a broader
ship is to be concentrated at a single sanctuary, base. God/YHWH is the creator of the whole
which is referred to as ‘the place that the LORD world (Gen 1), which he declared to be good and
your God will choose as a dwelling for his on which he bestowed his blessing. Humanity
name’ (e.g. 12:11). National prosperity, indeed as such, male and female, is made ‘in his image’,
survival in the land which YHWH has given, a difficult phrase which should probably be
now depends upon observance of these com- translated ‘as his image’, implying that they are
mands (cf. ch. 28). It is not the connection of sin God’s representatives on earth, to whom domi-
and punishment which is new in Deuteronomy nion over the earth is therefore naturally given
but the explicit definition, in the form of a code (1:26). Gen 9:1–17, which incorporates the
of laws, of what counts as sin in the sight of covenant with Noah and all living creatures
YHWH and the dire threats (‘curses’) held out in (v. 10), amplifies this definition of the place of
the case of disobedience. mankind in the world. Alongside these univer-
16. The amplified form of D incorporates sal statements P also reaffirms the tradition of
one additional theme of great significance to the election of Israel in her ancestor Abraham
the community in exile, which is evidence of (Gen 17) and tells in his own way the story of the
its origin in the sixth century BCE: this is the call Exodus, the meeting with God at Mount Sinai,
to return to YHWH (cf. 4:27–31; 30:1–6). If sinful and the wilderness wanderings.
Israel, now under the judgment of YHWH, will 19. But already in Genesis P’s interest in rit-
once more be obedient to YHWH’s law, then he ual can be seen: God himself, by his own
will bring them back to Canaan and will even example, inaugurates the sabbath (2:2–3); the
transform them inwardly so that they do not instructions to Noah include the ban on eating
fail again (30:6), a thought that is closely related meat with the blood, a basic element of Jewish
to Jeremiah’s teaching of a new covenant and food laws (9:4); and Abraham receives and
Ezekiel’s of a new heart. obeys the command to be circumcised (17:9–
17. The Theology of P. As regards its shape, 14, 22–7). It is interesting that the three rituals
P stands somewhere between J and E on the one given such great antiquity by P are all private,
hand and D on the other. It does have a narra- domestic rituals, which did not need a temple
tive structure, with its story extending from and could therefore be practised in the diaspora,
creation (this time explicitly including the nat- in exile. There is some sign that P thought of
ural world) to at least the eve of the Israelites’ four great epochs of revelation, beginning at
entry into Canaan. But in Genesis one can creation (where God is called Elohim), Noah
scarcely speak of a real story, as hardly any (again Elohim), Abraham (El Shaddai), and
episodes are described in detail and the P mat- Moses (YHWH), and it used to be customary
erial is mostly genealogies and chronological to speak of P as the Book of the Four Covenants,
 39 introduction to the pentateuch

leading to the use (for example in Wellhausen’s (Isa 1:10; 8:16, 20), as well as for what is com-
early work) of the symbol Q (for quattuor, Latin monly meant by law. This is an important
for ‘four’). But in only two of the cases (Noah insight, but it does not help with the definition
and Abraham) does P actually speak of the of law as distinct from these other kinds of instr-
making of a ‘covenant’ (běrı̂t), and other com- uction. For that a more general (though possibly
mon features, such as the presence of a ‘sign’, anachronistic) account is needed, which would
are also hard to trace all through the series. recognize that what holds together the different
20. Be that as it may, the weight of P’s emp- types of law (constitutional, civil, criminal,
hasis certainly falls on the making, according cultic) is their prescriptive character, the regula-
to a detailed, divinely revealed plan, of the tab- tion of specific kinds of recurrent (interpersonal)
ernacle, or desert shrine, at Mount Sinai (Ex 25– behaviour between members of a community,
31; 35–40). This, or rather the altar outside it, their enactment (and modification) by a recog-
was of course a place of sacrifice, and P has a lot nized authority, political or ecclesiastical, and
to say, both practical and theological, about the the existence of sanctions or penalties and pro-
ritual of sacrifice and the priests who were cedures for their determination.
needed to carry it out. But this was not all. The 2. Most biblical law is found in the Penta-
name ‘tabernacle’ (miškān) means ‘dwelling- teuch (some cultic law is included in 1 Chr 23–7).
place’ (sc. for the divine glory) and it was also The main collections of laws in the Pentateuch are
known as the ‘tent of meeting’ (i.e. for meeting (1) the Decalogue or Ten Commandments
with God). That is, what made the tabernacle a (Ex 20:1–17; Deut 5:6–21); (2) the Book of the
holy place, and an appropriate place to offer Covenant (Ex 20:22–23:23: for the title cf. 24:7);
sacrifice, was that YHWH was in a special sense (3) the cultic commandments in Ex 34:10–27; (4)
there, in the midst of his people. And that was the Priestly laws about sacrifice, priesthood, and
its purpose. According to Ex 25:8 YHWH said to related matters, including land tenure (Ex 25–31
Moses: ‘And have them [the Israelites] make me passim; Lev 1–7; 11–16; 27; Num 5–6; 8:1–10:10; 15;
a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.’ And 18–19; 27:1–11; 28–30; 33:50–34:15; 35–6), among
after the work was finished (40:34), ‘Then the which (5) the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26) forms a
cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory distinct section; and (6) the law of Deuteron-
of the LORD filled the tabernacle.’ P’s account of omy 4:1–30:20). All these collections are pre-
the relationship of YHWH to Israel, therefore, sented as having been revealed by God to
while it does not bypass other categories, is Moses (and sometimes Aaron) for proclamation
above all a theology of the divine presence in to the people at Mount Sinai/Horeb (or, in cer-
the midst of the people, which necessitates the tain cases, most notably (6), elsewhere). There
construction of a sanctuary. For P God’s pres- are, however, numerous instances where the
ence is inconceivable without a sanctuary and same topic is dealt with more than once, often
its associated personnel and rituals. The people in different and even contradictory ways (cf. e.g.
need also to know about what is holy and Ex 21:7 with Deut 15:17). From this, and from
profane, what is clean and unclean, and it is a comparison with other biblical texts, scholars
major part of the priests’ task to instruct them have concluded that the legal collections derive
in such matters: they are ‘to distinguish between from very diverse times and situations, and that
the holy and the common, and between the most probably none goes back to Moses him-
unclean and the clean’ (Lev 10:10). This em- self. There is also reason to think that several of
phasis on the necessity of a sanctuary makes the collections at least have been revised since
the most natural time for the composition of P their original promulgation. In several cases the
the period between the destruction of the First collections have an introductory or concluding
Temple in 587/6 BCE and the completion of the exhortation or both, and much of the legal
Second Temple in 516, and not later, as Well- collection in Deuteronomy is interleaved with
hausen and Kuenen thought. exhortations and ‘motive clauses’ (cf. G. von
Rad’s description ‘preached law’: on biblical
H. Law. 1. What is law? The most familiar, law in general see further Patrick (1986) and
and most general Hebrew word for ‘law’, tôrâ, is art. ‘Law’ in ABD).
not necessarily the best place to begin an ans- 3. Within these collections it is possible to
wer to this question. The very fact that it has the distinguish different styles or types of law. In an
wider meaning ‘instruction, teaching’ led to its essay first published in 1934, A. Alt initiated a
use for the teaching given by parents (Prov 1:8; new phase in the study of biblical law. He began
4:2), by the wise (Prov 13:14), or by prophets from the important axiom that ‘The making of
introduction to the pentateuch 40

law is basically not a literary process at all, but for occasions of public instruction or modelled
part of the life of a community’ (Alt 1966: 86). on them, but the casuistic cultic laws were pre-
Using the form-critical method, mainly on the sumably not administered by judges, but by the
Book of the Covenant (as being the oldest col- priests at the temples.
lection), he distinguished two major types of 5. Some of Alt’s conclusions, especially about
law. One, which he called ‘casuistic’, was condi- apodictic law, have been rejected by more
tional and (originally) expressed in the third recent scholars. The ‘festival for the renewal of
person: ‘If a man . . . then . . . ’. This type was the covenant’ is no longer widely accepted as an
represented by most of Ex 21:2–22:17, and was ancient feature of the religion of Israel. It can
similar to the form of law found among other be questioned whether all the subtypes of apo-
ancient Near-Eastern peoples (see below). Alt dictic law have the same origin. Even Alt’s
concluded that such laws provided the norms more general claims that the apodictic laws are
for the village courts ‘at the gate’ in early Israel distinctively Israelite and come from a liturgical
and that they had probably been taken over context have been challenged on the basis of
from the Canaanite inhabitants of the land. By parallels in non-Israelite, non-legal texts. Direct
contrast there was another type of law which commands and prohibitions have been found in
Alt called ‘apodictic’. Some examples of it exp- Egyptian wisdom literature, in Hittite and Assyr-
ress the same kind of case-law in a different way ian treaties, and even occasionally in Mesopota-
(e.g. Ex 21:13–14, 23–5; 21:12, 15–17; 22:19–20): mian law-codes. There is a growing consensus
most of these laws require the death penalty, that much if not all apodictic law originated in a
and they are formulated in a simpler, more family or clan setting and that it originally had
direct style than the laws referred to above. nothing to do with the cult or the covenant
But generally laws of this type contain no explicit (Gerstenberger 1965, summarized in Stamm
penalty at all: they are in many cases direct and Andrew 1967; Otto 1994). It is striking that
commands or prohibitions, like the Decalogue the cases where such a view is most difficult to
(cf. also Ex 22:18, 21–2, 28; 23:1–3, 6–9; and the accept are those where laws about worship are
‘table of affinity’ in Lev 18:7–18), but they also involved: the opening of the Decalogue and the
appear as curses (Deut 27:15–26). Alt argued that cultic commandments in Ex 34 (cf. 23:10–19).
these laws were of a distinctive Israelite form It may be that initially it was only laws such
and origin, and that they originated not in the as these which formed part of a cultic ceremony.
local courts but in a religious context, specific- On the other hand, if that much is accepted,
ally in a festival for the renewal of the covenant one ought not perhaps to rule out the possibility
celebrated at Shechem in the Judges period that other commandments dealing with every-
(cf. Deut 27; 31:10–13; Josh 24). Indeed the major day life also had a place in such a ceremony.
impulse for such a formulation of law might The fact that commands and prohibitions
well go back into the pre-settlement period, are found in a school or family or treaty con-
when the worship of YHWH began. text elsewhere does not mean that they may
4. The key difference between apodictic and not have had a cultic context in Israel. Those
casuistic law as defined by Alt is that the former who deny this have to see the literary formu-
prescribes before the event what ought or ought lation of the law-codes as commandments
not to be done, while the latter declares to a of God as a relatively late innovation. The
situation after the event what the appropriate alternative view is, with Alt, to see the literary
penalty is. Thus the former belongs to a context formulation of all law as continuing what
of teaching or instruction, while the latter belo- had been the basis for some law since its
ngs to a judicial context. This distinction can be beginning.
extended to cover the laws about worship to 6. Since the archaeological discoveries of the
which Alt gave very little attention. Some of late nineteenth century it has become clear that
these lay down in the apodictic style what Pentateuchal law has an important relationship
forms worship is or is not to take (e.g. the with other ancient Near-Eastern law (cf. Boecker
largely parallel series in Ex 23:10–19 and 34:11– (1980) and, for specific parallels, IDBSup 533).
26, and the later Priestly ordinances of Ex 25–31 Whether that relationship is one of dependence
and Lev 23); others provide, in the casuistic or just similarity is not the main issue here.
style, guidance for the remedy for particular Several collections of laws are now known
circumstances that may arise (e.g. Lev 4–5, 12– from ancient Mesopotamia. The best known
15). In the context of worship and ritual the is the Code of Hammurabi of Babylon, from
apodictic laws may well have been intended the eighteenth century BCE. The most fully
 41 introduction to the pentateuch

preserved copy was taken in antiquity from which he took to be based on the memory of
Babylon to Susa in Elam, where it was found the ‘amphictyony’ (sacred tribal league) of the
during excavations in 1901–2. It is now in the Judges period. But the existence of such a union
Louvre. Other copies of parts of the text are also of the tribes is widely doubted today. Recently
known. The Code consisted of 282 laws and a Albertz has suggested that the Book of the Cov-
prologue and epilogue (see ANET 164–80 for enant was in its original form the basis for
ET). The laws deal with such matters as the reforms introduced by Hezekiah c.700 BCE,
administration of justice, state and temple thus giving it too a royal stamp of approval.
property, service to the king, private property, But there is little solid evidence for such an
borrowing, family relationships, bodily injury, association with Hezekiah. Recent scholarship,
and agriculture. Earlier and later legal collec- much influenced by redaction criticism, has
tions from Mesopotamia are also known: the tended to doubt whether J or E originally con-
Code of Ur-Nammu (21st cent.), the Code of tained any of the legal collections.
Lipit-Ishtar (19th cent.), the Code of Eshnunna 8. The distinctiveness of biblical law can be seen
(18th cent.), the Middle Assyrian Laws (13th in its form, its ethics, and its theology. Attention
cent.), and the Neo-Babylonian Laws (?7th has already been drawn to the hortatory elem-
cent.). Another important collection is the ent which is frequently present in the OT legal
Hittite Laws (14th cent.: the surviving parts of collections, and a specific feature of this is the
all these collections are translated in ANET numerous ‘motive clauses’, which ground the
160–3, 180–8, 523–5). These collections are all laws in the divine will, a historical event, or a
apparently state law and they are predominantly promise of future well-being (Sonsino 1980).
in the ‘casuistic’ form, with a penalty or remedy Close comparisons between the contents of
specified for each particular set of circumstances. biblical and non-biblical laws have shown
At present no comparable documents are known that, despite many similarities, there are differ-
from ancient Egypt or Canaan. ences here too. The laws apply equally to all
7. The history of law in the OT, in the sense of free-born Israelites, whereas in Mesopotamia
the study of how and why the prescriptions the penalty imposed may vary according to
about particular matters arose and developed the social status of the other party. Biblical law
through the OT period, is not straightforward. goes further in its provision for the disadvan-
It requires that the relative ages of the different taged in society, including the ‘resident alien’
legal collections be determined and that, (gēr) as well as widows and orphans. More gen-
where appropriate, the inner growth of each erally, a higher value tends to be set on human
individual collection be examined. Wellhau- life as opposed to property, as can be seen in the
sen’s conclusions about the ages of the major respective laws about the ‘goring ox’ (Ex 21:28–
Pentateuchal sources J, E, D, and P were largely 32) and theft (Ex 22:1–4). Finally, the mingling of
based on such a history of law, specifically of laws on sacred and secular matters, found in the
the laws about worship. The source-critical Decalogue, the Book of the Covenant, Deuter-
approach held that the cultic laws in Ex 34 onomy, and the Holiness Code, reflects a sense
belonged to the J source and the Decalogue of the unity of life and especially of the claim
and the Book of the Covenant to E. Both made by the religion of Israel on the secular as
sources were dated to the early monarchy well as the sacred. This latter point is closely
period and it was thought that the legal collec- associated with the theological, and specifically
tions might be earlier still. Deuteronomy came covenantal, context in which all the laws now
from the seventh century and P (including the stand, as well as the motive clauses already
Holiness Code) from the fifth century. In the mentioned. The historical fiction whereby the
latter two cases a specific link could be made lawgiving of Moses occurs at the behest of
with official ratifications of law, by Josiah (2 Kgs YHWH in the period between the creative
22–3) and Ezra (Neh 8–10), which gave the bib- event of the Exodus from Egypt and the entry
lical laws a similar official status to that enjoyed into the land of Canaan promised to Israel
by the Mesopotamian legal collections. It was anchors the law in the fundamental structure
not so clear what gave authority to the earlier of OT faith. This is explicitly brought out in
legal collections, especially the Book of the such passages as Ex 20:1 and Deut 6:20–5. Par-
Covenant. M. Noth made the important obser- ticularly in the later collections, Deuteronomy
vation that both the content of these collections and the Holiness Code, the observance of the
and the linking of their promulgation with law is presented as a communal responsibility
Moses asserted their validity for ‘all Israel’, and failure to keep it as the cause of a national
introduction to the pentateuch 42

catastrophe, ultimately exile from the land. In Whybray (1987). It is possible to distinguish six
several places this theology is specifically ‘new directions in research’ in this area.
summed up by a reference to the establishment 3. An earlier date for P. First we have the
of a covenant between YHWH and his people view that P is not the latest of the four sources,
(Ex 24:7–8; 34:10, 27; Lev 26:42, 44, 45; Deut 5:2– from the exilic or post-exilic period, but is earl-
3, 29:1). ier in origin than D or at least contemporary
with it. This view has recently been argued for
I. Recent Questioning of the Classical Docu- at some length (Haran 1979). But it in fact ori-
mentary Theory. 1. The work on oral tradition ginated with the Israeli scholar Y. Kaufmann as
and theological interpretation that we reviewed long ago as 1930 and it has been accepted
earlier was based on the assumption that the widely among Israeli scholars, though hardly
classical (Wellhausen) theory of Pentateuchal at all elsewhere. In the form that Haran presents
origins is correct. It would need at least consid- it, this view holds that the composition of P is to
erable revision if that theory proved to be be dated to the reign of Hezekiah, c.700 BCE, and
wrong, though no doubt some of the insights that P was in fact the stimulus for Hezekiah’s
would survive. When a theory has come to reforms of national religion reported in 2
support such a superstructure of further specu- Kings 18:3–5. As with Wellhausen, we find that
lation, it is clearly important that its own foun- the dating of P by Haran is based on the place
dations should be examined from time to time which P’s regulations seem to occupy in the
and possible alternatives to it should be consid- history of Israel’s religion, and Haran argues
ered. Perhaps this is one reason why recent that, contrary to what Graf and Wellhausen
years have seen a return of interest to the had said, all the P regulations make sense, and
source-critical questions which the classical the- some of them only make sense, if P was com-
ory sought to answer. At the present time the posed before the exile.
study of the Pentateuch is a matter of discussion 4. A ‘sounding’ can be made by considering
and controversy such as it has scarcely been what Haran says about the issue considered
since the time of Wellhausen and Kuenen. A earlier in connection with Wellhausen’s dating
variety of fresh approaches is being tried, and of P, namely admission to the priesthood.
discarded ones revived, to seek a well-founded In order to show that P’s regulations reflect
way forward in this most basic of all Penta- pre-exilic conditions, Haran draws attention to
teuchal studies. Much of what will be described the list of Levitical cities in Josh 21, in which
in the following sections is still very much a the descendants of Aaron appear as a distinct
matter for discussion. group, and are assigned cities in the tribal areas
2. The fresh approaches have taken two of Judah and the related Benjamin and Simeon,
main forms: that is the southernmost tribes, while the other
2.1. New attempts to formulate the principles Levites are given cities in the other tribal areas.
according to which study of the Pentateuch and A number of scholars have argued, on grounds
other parts of the Bible must proceed, i.e. a of historical geography, that this list is pre-exilic
concern with methodology; which has arisen in origin, which would, if taken seriously, imply
partly from the need to define more closely that the Aaronides were a recognizable group
the relationship between source criticism and before the exile, and that they already then had
other methods such as tradition criticism and an exclusive right to full priesthood (cf. v. 19)
form criticism, and also partly from the impact and not only afterwards. Nevertheless, while the
on biblical studies of ‘structural analysis’ and list may have a pre-exilic basis, its present con-
other modern literary methods for the exegesis text is in a historical work of the exilic period
of texts (see esp. Barton 1984). (the Deuteronomistic History), so that it is not
2.2. The development of particular alternative clear evidence of pre-exilic practices. Haran also
theories about the origins of the Pentateuch, claims support from references to Aaron in the
involving a partial or total abandonment of the older Pentateuchal sources J and E; but they
classical theory. do not present Aaron and his descendants
We have, then, two lines of research, reflec- as having the sole right to the priesthood, as
tion on method and the formation of new the- P does. Nor is there any greater force in the
ories, which have sometimes reinforced one passages cited to show the existence of Levites
another but sometimes proceeded quite separ- in subservient positions before the exile, as pre-
ately. For some evaluation of them in print scribed by P: 2 Kings 11:18 and 1 Sam 2:31–3. In
see the Introductions of Soggin and Childs, and the former case there are subordinate cultic
 43 introduction to the pentateuch

officials but there is no indication that they are are several cases where P’s vocabulary seems
Levites, while in the latter case it is not actually closest to Ezekiel, an argument again perhaps
said whether Eli’s descendants were to be given for a sixth-century date. Further, Hurvitz’s study
any role at all, even an inferior one, in the future of vocabulary must be viewed in the light of
temple service. R. Polzin’s work on syntax, which shows that
5. An argument against Wellhausen’s view in this respect P’s language differs from that of
which is perhaps more telling arises from stat- pre-exilic writings and represents a transitional
istics. P appears to envisage a large number of stage in the development to Late Biblical Hebrew,
Levites compared with priests (cf. the tithe-law), as represented by the books of Chronicles—just
whereas the lists in Ezra and Nehemiah suggest what would be expected from a sixth-century
that there were actually relatively few Levites work.
in post-exilic times. This makes it difficult to 8. It has not been established that this earlier
believe that P originated in the time to which dating of P should be adopted. Discussion of it
these lists refer. Even the force of this argument, has, however, been useful for two reasons: (1) it
however, is reduced if P is dated to the years of has emphasized that the P document did not
exile itself in the sixth century, as this would emerge out of thin air, but in some passages is a
leave time for conditions to have changed compilation of older traditions, particularly
before Ezra and Nehemiah, and more Levites laws; (2) it has brought to light one or two
than had at first been anticipated may have reasons for preferring a sixth-century date for
been able to lay claim to full priestly status the composition of P to the fifth-century one
by finding a genealogical link with Aaron, thus advocated by earlier critics.
reducing the number of ordinary Levites. The 9. Renewed emphasis on the final form of
nub of Wellhausen’s argument was Ezek 44, the text. A second feature of recent Penta-
and Haran does attempt a different interpret- teuchal scholarship has been the tendency of
ation of this which would leave room for an certain scholars to direct attention to what they
older distinction within the priesthood. But it sometimes refer to as ‘the final form of the text’,
does not convince. that is the form in which the Pentateuch actu-
6. In general, many of Haran’s arguments ally appears in the OT, as distinct from the
seem to turn out on examination to be less sources and traditions which lie behind, or ben-
conclusive than they at first appear. Moreover, eath the surface of, the biblical text itself. Those
it is surely revealing that Haran has after all to who have advocated this approach are agreed
concede that ‘it was only in the days of Ezra . . . that the style of scholarship which has been
that P’s presence became perceptible in histor- dominant in academic circles for a century
ical reality and began to exercise its influence and more has been too preoccupied with ques-
on the formation of Judaism’ (1979: p. v). To tions of origin and sources, and has neglected
attribute a document nearly three centuries of the interpretation of the text in the form that
existence before it became perceptible is rather became standard for synagogue and church for
unsatisfactory when set against the very explicit twenty centuries. In their view it is not so much
arguments of Wellhausen. a revision of particular theories that is needed
7. Other Israeli scholars have used different but a completely new approach to the study of
arguments to support similar views. Weinfeld the Pentateuch. Indeed it is not only the Penta-
has argued that D presupposes P at various teuch that needs a new approach, but the whole
points so that P must be earlier: but these turn OT (and perhaps the NT as well). Within this
out either to be in passages which are for other group of scholars it is possible, and perhaps
reasons not thought to be an original part of D, useful, to distinguish two different kinds of
or else to concern regulations which there is concern for the final form of the text.
every reason to think existed on their own 10. On the one hand there are those who
before their inclusion in P, so that D may have emphasize the need to treat the Pentateuch as
known them without knowing P as a whole. a work of literature in its own right, which
Again, Hurvitz has examined the language of P means seeking to understand its present form,
and shown that the vocabulary includes many purpose, and meaning, just as one would with,
words characteristic of pre-exilic rather than say, a play by Shakespeare or a novel by D. H.
post-exilic Hebrew. This need not mean that P Lawrence. A good example of this literary ap-
is pre-exilic: it could be due to the use of trad- proach is David Clines’s The Theme of the Penta-
itional vocabulary in priestly circles—a not teuch (1978): he is quite explicit (cf. ch. 2) about
unheard of phenomenon—and in fact there his debt to the general study of literature.
introduction to the pentateuch 44

Another kind of literary approach is repre- such questions are ones that can and should be
sented by structuralist studies of parts of the asked, and they will be answered by the use of
Pentateuch which appear from time to time, other, more appropriate methods. I think it is
and sometimes claim to be the sole representa- also necessary to go a stage further and ask
tives of a general literary approach to the bib- whether Childs’s canonical approach is really
lical text, an impression that is far from being a adequate, by itself, even for the answering of
true one. A good indication of the rich possi- theological questions about the Pentateuch.
bilities of such a literary approach to the Penta- Does it not involve turning one’s back on mat-
teuch can be gained from Robert Alter’s The Art ters of enormous theological importace, such
of Biblical Narrative (1981), which has been very as the original message of the Pentateuchal
well received. sources taken one by one, and the relation of
11. To be distinguished from this literary this to the historical situation which they addr-
approach there are those, above all Brevard essed? For Childs the only historical situation
Childs, who have urged afresh the need for which seems ultimately to matter is that addr-
exegesis to read the OT as the Scripture of essed by the text in its canonical form, some-
synagogue and church, and who speak of a time in the post-exilic or even intertestamental
‘canonical approach’ to the OT. Here too the period, and the only theological viewpoint
exegete is thought of as having much to learn which ultimately matters is that of the final
from an unfamiliar direction, and in view of the redactor of the text. Is not a theological exegesis
emphasis on the term ‘Scripture’ it is not sur- based on such principles going to be impover-
prising to find that it is the history of biblical ished compared with what historically based
interpretation, among both Jews and Christians, exegesis has to offer?
that is meant: the great (and not so great) com- 13. This is also an appropriate place for a
mentaries and other works which grappled with brief comment on R. N. Whybray’s recent
the meaning of Scripture long before the mod- book, The Making of the Pentateuch (1987). It con-
ern historical approach was thought of. One tains a review of recent (and not so recent) work
can see Childs’s high respect for the commen- on the Pentateuch, and as such it has many
taries of the past in his own on Exodus, in useful things to say. The conclusion is, however,
which one section of the treatment of each rather different from that which will be pro-
passage is reserved for a consideration of them posed here: Whybray supports the more far-
(see also Childs 1979: chs. 3, 5). reaching criticisms of the Documentary Theory,
12. Clearly both varieties of this develop- and he takes the view that the final author of the
ment have a real attraction, which is due partly Pentateuch, sometime in the post-exilic period,
to the fact that they recognize important dime- employed such a ‘high degree of imagination
nsions of the texts which are commonly over- and [such] great freedom in the treatment of
looked in other OT scholarship, and partly to sources’ that source criticism of the traditional
the fact that what they say seems so much kind is not possible and one must limit oneself
simpler and more familiar than talk of sources to the study of the final form of the text, but
and stages of tradition does. At the same time it on critical rather than literary or canonical
is important to recognize their limitations, grounds. This view has found very little support
which mean that they cannot and should not among critical scholars, whose continued dis-
take the place of traditional historical scholar- cussion of the composition of the Pentateuch
ship. Clines and Childs are both clear that their from earlier material shows that they do not
methods leave room for historical study of the consider that the situation is as desperate as
origins of the Pentateuch, but they do not stress Whybray proposes. In particular it is remark-
this point sufficiently. One can see the limita- able that Whybray does not even seem to
tions as well as the advantages of their methods recognize the possibility of distinguishing Deu-
if one remembers the descriptions of the Penta- teronomy and the Priestly material from the
teuch which lie at their foundation: on the one remainder.
hand, a unified work of literature, on the other, 14. Redaction criticism. Back in the world
Scripture. It is only questions arising out of of traditional biblical criticism, it is necessary
these descriptions which the methods proposed to consider the growing emphasis on redaction
are capable of answering: that is the questions criticism. This can be defined as the study of the
of students of literature and of preachers and way in which editorial processes have shaped
systematic theologians. For the answering of the Pentateuch. In early biblical criticism the
historical questions they are of little or no use: redactor was chiefly thought of as a scribe
 45 introduction to the pentateuch

who combined together older sources into them, but are part of this later redactional layer,
a composite narrative, without contributing the result of which is to argue that covenant was
much if anything out of his own head by way not an original component of the Sinai trad-
of interpretation or additional material. He ition. There is something of a vicious circle in
was what has sometimes been called a scissors- this argument. The references to a covenant in
and-paste man. He was thought to have taken Exodus are said to be due to a late Deutero-
extracts from existing documents and joined nomic redactor—because the covenant idea is
them together, often in a rather careless way. no older than Deuteronomy—but this can only
The symbol RJE, for example, was used to denote be sustained by assuming that the verses in
the redactor who combined the J source with the Exodus are due to a Deuteronomic redactor.
E source of the Pentateuch. Over the years the Little attention seems to be given to the possi-
emphasis has changed, and when scholars bility that the covenantal texts in Exodus are the
speak of a redactor today they are thinking seeds from which the Deuteronomic theology
more often of a figure who may only have had grew. There is also a failure to notice important
in front of him a single document or account, differences between the way that the Sinai cov-
and amplified it by the addition of words or enant is presented in Exodus and the Deutero-
sentences which would alter its overall meaning nomic literature (cf. the critique of Perlitt in
to present more clearly the teachings which he Nicholson 1986: ch. 8).
himself believed to be most important for his 15. However redactional explanations have
day. This development can be seen with par- been brought forward for other sections of the
ticular clarity in recent study of the prophetic Pentateuch as well. Auld has argued that the
and historical books of the OT, but it has also passages at the end of Numbers which speak
considerably modified the way in which some about plans for the conquest of Canaan and its
scholars have seen the composition of the division among the tribes are dependent on the
Pentateuch as taking place. It of course brings passages in Joshua which describe these epi-
attention firmly back to the written stage of the sodes, and did not form part of any of the
tradition and sometimes there is an explicit main Pentateuchal sources (Auld 1980). It has
polemic against the oral tradition approach. also been suggested that many of the notes of
Some scholars in Germany have applied this movement from place to place in Exodus and
approach to the detection of layers within the Numbers, which form a framework to the wil-
sources recognized by earlier scholarship (e.g. derness narrative as we now have it, were added
E. Zenger; P. Weimar). But, perhaps because in an ‘itinerary-redaction’, which made use of a
of the importance of Deuteronomic/Deutero- full account of the wilderness journey preserved
nomistic editing in other parts of the OT, this in Num 33:1–49. On a more theological level it
approach often asserts that redactional work by has been argued that the promises to the patri-
the same ‘school’ of writers can be traced in the archs in Genesis were greatly multiplied and
Pentateuch, or rather the Tetrateuch. This is enlarged by redactors working at a time when
particularly true of L. Perlitt’s book, Bundestheo- one of the themes of these promises, the pos-
logie im Alten Testament, ‘Covenant Theology in session of the land of Canaan, was threatened in
the OT’, which made a big impression through the late monarchy or even the exilic period by
the acceptance of some of its theses by influential the appearance of the great imperial powers
scholars (cf. Nicholson 1973). For our purposes of Assyria and Babylon. Nicholson, again, has
what is most important is that Perlitt reckons argued that the Decalogue in Ex 20 did not
with an extensive Deuteronomic reworking of originally appear there but was inserted by a
the chapters in Exodus which deal with events redactor who took it more or less as it stood
at Mount Sinai. According to Perlitt, all pas- from its other occurrence in Deut 5. Each of the
sages in these chapters which imply the making theories has of course to be judged on its merits.
of a covenant between YHWH and Israel at 16. It is appropriate to refer briefly here to
Sinai belong to this redactional level, which he C. Westermann’s massive commentary on Gen-
calls Deuteronomic, because he believes that esis. Westermann does not accept that there is
covenant theology is peculiarly the creation of any trace of an E source in Genesis. The pas-
the authors of Deuteronomy, and was imposed sages usually said to have been derived from E,
by them and their disciples on the other parts of such as most of chs. 20–2, he takes to be stories
the OT. Much of Perlitt’s detailed work on the that had circulated separately before being
Sinai narrative is directed at showing that verses added to the J narrative, which was already in a
normally attributed to J or E do not belong to connected form. They are, in effect, supplements
introduction to the pentateuch 46

to J, and with Westermann here we are right reflecting his own special interests. It is, for
back in the world of the supplementary theory example, then no longer possible to say, as
of Pentateuchal origins. It is for that reason that some have done, that P knows nothing of a
he is included here, even though the additional covenant at Sinai but only the founding of
matter is too extensive and too self-contained a pattern of ritual. P incorporated the older
for the process of its inclusion really to be covenant-making story and had no need to add
referred to as a redaction. In coming to this one of his own. One of the attractions of this
view, Westermann is taking up the approach view, and indeed of the other ‘supplementary’
advocated by W. Rudolph many years ago, and theories, is that it appears to spare us the al-
also followed by S. Mowinckel. It is not clear legedly unreal picture of redactors sitting at
that he has made that approach any the more their desks with scissors and paste, selecting
likely, but it remains an option that must be half a verse from here and half a verse from
carefully examined. Wolff’s essay on the the- there in the four sources to make the completed
ology of E, of course, noted some important Pentateuch. There are also some passages,
recurring features in the E material which sug- especially in the patriarchal stories, where the
gest that it did come from a connected narrative P material is so meagre that it seems at first sight
or source. unlikely that it ever existed alone, and unjusti-
17. With redactional explanations covering fied to claim that it represents extracts from a
so much of the Pentateuch, it is not a big step fuller, now lost, parallel account of the events,
to suggest that comprehensive redactional acti- and it might better be explained as amplifica-
vity has sought to remould the whole Penta- tion of an existing narrative.
teuch into a new form. This is the direction in 19. And yet there are a number of passages
which William Johnstone has moved. He argues which seem to defy explanation in these terms,
that the Pentateuch is the result of a Priestly and to require a hypothesis of the traditional
revision of an original Deuteronomic version kind, which allows for the existence of an inde-
of the story, which was based on Deuteronomy pendent P source (see especially Emerton 1988;
(he does not say on what else), so that a close Davies 1996). These are passages where it is
parallel exists with the composition of the his- possible by analysis to identify both a relatively
torical books, where the ‘priestly’ Chronicles is complete P version of the story and a relatively
seen by most scholars as a revision of the Deu- complete version from one of the older sources.
teronomic historical books of Samuel and The Flood story is a prime example, but there
Kings (Johnstone 1998). This leads straight into are others. A redactor would not compose
a wider questioning about the nature of P. duplicates such as we observed in the Flood
18. P as a supplement, not a source. Ques- story: whether it seems ‘natural’ or ‘likely’ to us
tions have been raised not only about the date, or not, the only explanation which makes sense
but about the nature of the Priestly Source. F. M. of the situation there is that he had two com-
Cross and others have argued that P is not a plete narratives of the Flood and combined
separate source which once existed independ- them. Another point arises from the P passage
ently of J etc., perhaps as a rival version of the Ex 6:2–3, according to which God did not make
story of Israel’s origins, but a series of supple- himself known to the patriarchs by the name
ments overlaid on the older narrative. Accord- YHWH but only as El Shaddai/God Almighty.
ing to this view, P was thus reworking the older This corresponds well to the beginnings of
narrative by expanding it with material of a speeches in P such as Gen 17:1 and 35:11, but it
new, generally cultcentred character, so as to conflicts directly with passages where the patri-
shift the balance of the story in this direction. archs show familiarity with the name YHWH,
Like the elimination of E as a separate source, which are quite frequent in J (12:8 etc.). It is
this is in fact an old view revived which can be hardly conceivable that P would have left such
traced back to P. Volz in the years between the passages unamended if he had included them in
two World Wars. It is also the view that was his overall presentation. This implies that there
held by the Scandinavian scholar Ivan Engnell, is a continuing need to reckon with the inde-
whose views on oral tradition were mentioned pendent existence of P prior to its combination
briefly earlier. The important difference it with the other sources. But it also seems that
makes is that the purpose of the P writer must there has been some minor editing of the com-
now be investigated on the assumption that he pleted Pentateuch by a Priestly writer at a very
reproduced the older traditions, e.g. about legis- late stage which has introduced the vocabulary
lation at Sinai, as well as incorporating material of P into older material (e.g. Ex 16:1, 17:1, the
 47 introduction to the pentateuch

phrase ‘the congregation of the people of gods of Israel’s neighbours. Israel’s specific
Israel’), and this could help to explain the faith in a God of history was the result of the
isolated ‘P’ verses in the patriarchal stories that insights of the prophets and the Deuteronomic
were mentioned. school. But is Schmid’s late date for J correct? It
20. A late date for J. A further recent deve- is clearly as valid or invalid as the arguments on
lopment concerns the dating of J. The first which it stands. They need careful examination.
scholar to mention here is H. H. Schmid who Let us look at the two main types:
argued in his book Der sogenannte Jahwist (1976) 21.1. The similarity between the call of Moses
(‘The So-Called Yahwist’) that the composition and, say, the call of Isaiah is undeniable, but it
of the whole of J took place after the rise of should not be exaggerated. Moses in J is not
classical prophecy and is contemporary with called to be a prophet in the later sense, but
the rise of the Deuteronomic movement. In to lead his people out of Egypt, in a manner
his own words: ‘The historical work designated similar to that by which Gideon in Judg 6 and
in research by the word ‘‘Yahwist’’, with its Saul in 1 Sam 9 were called, older narratives
comprehensive theological redaction and inter- without doubt. In so far as there are real proph-
pretation of the Pentateuchal material cannot etic motifs, these can be attributed either to the
derive from the time of Solomon, but already old Moses-tradition itself or to the influence of
presupposes pre-exilic prophecy and belongs the early prophetic movement, which we know
close to the deuteronomic-deuteronomistic to have been active already in the tenth or
shaping of the tradition and literary activity.’ ninth century. There is no need to come any
He declines to give an absolute date but this later.
view would put the composition of J in the 21.2. The ‘silence’ about certain Pentateuchal
7th or 6th century BCE. How, briefly, does Schmid themes in other pre-exilic literature is remark-
arrive at this conclusion? By two main kinds of able but it really proves too much, for if taken
argument: (1) he points to features in the J nar- with full seriousness it would imply not just
rative which, according to him, are prophetic in that J was a late composition but that these
character and are not found in literature before themes were only invented in the late pre-exilic
the classical prophets in the eighth century and period, an extremely radical position which
later. For example, the ‘call of Moses’ in Ex 3 Schmid clearly does not wish to take up. And
resembles the call-narratives found in the books yet if he is ready to conceive that the prophetic
of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and other texts might have failed to mention a
but finds no earlier analogues. (2) He points to tradition which nevertheless existed in oral
traditions in J which are noticeably absent from form, surely it is not appreciably more difficult
pre-exilic literature outside the Pentateuch: the to conceive of their failing to mention what was
meeting with God at Mount Sinai, Moses (with written down, in J? Moreover, the silence is not,
one exception), the patriarchs (with one or two as Schmid has to recognize, total, at least in
exceptions), the unity of all Israel in her early some of the cases. The prophet Hosea, for
history. The ‘silence’ of the other texts is strange example, clearly refers to a number of events
if J (and E) had existed since the early monarchy, in Israel’s early history.
but is readily explicable if J did not originate Many of Schmid’s arguments are open to
until the late pre-exilic period. criticism along one of these lines, and he has
21. The consequences of such a view for the given no compelling reason why J should not
history of Israelite religion are considerable. It have originated in the early monarchy or why it
implies that there was no connected written should be dated to the late monarchy or the
account of the early history of Israel until the exilic period. J is after all notably lacking in
seventh century BCE, and also conversely that references to the great powers or the possibility
the seventh and sixth century BCE made an of exile (contrast Deuteronomy).
even greater contribution to the shaping of 22. Another scholar who dates the Yahwist
OT tradition than has been recognized in the very late, in the exilic period, is John Van Seters.
past, even more than Perlitt thinks. If one asks, In his first book-length study on the subject,
‘What then was the nature of Israelite religion Abraham in History and Tradition (1975), he did
before this?’, Schmid’s books on wisdom and not date all of J so late. In fact he suggested
the cult provide an answer: YHWH was seen that the Pentateuch had ‘grown’ through a series
above all as the creator of an order in the world, of expansions of an original core, and that core
which wisdom sought to understand and the consisted of part of the J source. To this was
cult sought to maintain, very much like the added first E, then D, then the rest of J (the larger
introduction to the pentateuch 48

part of it in fact) and finally P. Even then, how- transmitted independently of content; and dif-
ever, he was saying that the J material as a whole ferent communities could easily have brought
only came into being in the exile, shortly before P. their traditions together independently in simi-
In Van Seters’ more recent work it is on this lar ways. The most impressive parallel concerns
stage of composition that he has concentrated. Gen 6:1–4: the Catalogue is very largely about
Already in Abraham Van Seters was developing such divine–human liaisons which produced
a series of arguments for a late date for the the ‘heroes’ or demi-gods of primeval times,
Yahwist: they include historical anachronisms, and one passage suggests that a natural disaster
the use of formulae from prophecy and the may have been sent by Zeus to get rid of them
royal cult, and particularly the prominence (cf. the Flood). Van Seters sees several of the
given to Abraham as the source of Israel’s elec- ‘origins of civilisation’ stories in Gen 2–11 as
tion. This, he argued, corresponds closely to the linked to 6:1–4 and modelled on the ‘Western
view of Deutero-Isaiah (see Isa 41:8 and 51:2), but tradition’. In most cases it is possible to say that
it is a theme which is not yet emphasized in the similar stories may have originated independ-
late pre-exilic writings of Deuteronomy, Jere- ently. But in the case of Gen 6:1–4 Van Seters
miah, and Ezekiel. It does, of course, reappear may be right: this story is very much the odd
in P, which is also exilic. one out among the stories in Gen 1–11 and
23. In his more recent books Van Seters has perhaps it does have a distant origin. However,
widened the textual base of his studies by look- it may not be necessary to look as far as Greece
ing at the rest of the Pentateuch, at least its non- for this: the Ugaritic myths include at least one
Priestly sections. An important new stage in his description of a god having sexual intercourse
work was In Search of History (1983). This actually with human women (Shachar and Shalim, CTA
has very little to say about the Pentateuch—it is 23). A different kind of argument is used by Van
mostly about the Deuteronomistic History. But Seters to place the composition of Gen 2–3 (J) in
in it Van Seters draws numerous comparisons the exilic period. He sees these chapters as the
between Old Testament history-writing and end of a development which begins with a
comparable literature from other cultures, and Babylonian myth about the creation of a king,
he particularly emphasizes the similarity with dated to the seventh or sixth century: this, he
ancient Greek historians such as Herodotus, argues, was the basis for Ezekiel’s oracle against
who lived in the fifth century BCE. From these Tyre, which speaks of a mythical king who was
comparisons Van Seters argued for a greater once in the Garden of Eden but was expelled
appreciation that the Deuteronomistic History from it (Ezek 28), and Gen 2–3 in turn was a
was a literary work whose author was ready to transformation of this oracle to describe the
write creatively where his sources did not pro- creation and fall of mankind generally. Hence
vide what he needed, and in fact was the begin- Gen 2–3, and therefore J, would be later than
ning, as far as Israel was concerned, of such Ezekiel. It remains possible, however, that the
historical literature. These findings have worked relationship between these three texts is a dif-
their way into his more recent work on the ferent one: Ezekiel may have combined motifs
Pentateuch and strengthened his opinion that from a myth about the origins of kingship and
in J we are dealing with a highly literate, but also Gen 2–3 or something like it. In that case Gen
quite late, author. Actual Greek parallels to pas- 2–3, and J, would be, as generally thought,
sages in the Pentateuch have also come to play a earlier than Ezekiel.
more important part in his work, though Near- 25. The new tradition-criticism. But—and
Eastern ones are still cited. this brings us to the final issue that has been
24. A good example of this work is Van raised in the recent debate—was there a J at all?
Seters’ study of Gen 1–11 (1993; see also The Life This is the question that has been asked—and
of Moses (1994)). He notes some parallels of form answered in the negative—in a book published
and substance between the Yahwist’s primeval in 1977 (cf. Rendtorff 1990). In certain respects
history and Hesiod’s Catalogue of Women, which Rendtorff’s arguments and conclusions are simi-
is thought to have been written about 550 BCE. lar to those of the redaction critics and of Schmid,
He sees this as representative of a ‘Western and in subsequent discussion they have been able
genealogies tradition’, which influenced the J to find quite a lot of common ground with him.
author in Genesis about the same time. Some For example, Rendtorff also believes that P never
of the parallels are probably not very signifi- existed as a separate document, but should rather
cant: it is difficult to see, for example, how be described as a redactional layer or rather a
similarities of form are likely to have been series of redactional layers belonging to a late
 49 introduction to the pentateuch

stage of the Pentateuch’s composition. But was a unity unless it was proved otherwise;
Rendtorff has arrived at his views by a quite whereas Rendtorff wants to say that prior to the
different route and maintains some theses present text narratives were not united unless
which go far beyond the views of the other that can be positively proved. This is not speci-
scholars. fically a traditio-critical view: it is noticeable
26. The key to Rendtorff’s approach is the above all in fact in some of the newer revisions
high value which he places on tradition criti- of source criticism, specifically in those eman-
cism. The origins of this method, which seeks to ating from the pupils of W. Richter.
trace the history of the Pentateuchal traditions 28. Quite apart from this methodological
from their beginning to the stage of the com- point, Rendtorff is in little doubt that source
pleted Pentateuch, can be found in Gunkel’s criticism is a bankrupt business. In a chapter
introduction to his Genesis commentary and it of his book entitled ‘Criticism of Pentateuchal
was taken further by von Rad and Noth in their Criticism’ he exposes at length the disagree-
famous works. Now all these scholars regarded ments of source critics both about individual
tradition criticism as a method which was com- passages and about the number and nature of
plementary to and needing to be combined the sources they find. There is no consensus, he
with source criticism, the JEDP analysis or repeatedly affirms; there is no ‘classical docu-
something like it. And in this, according to mentary theory’, but several competing theor-
Rendtorff, they made a serious error: to quote ies, none of which has been able to drive the
some words of his from an earlier paper, ‘It others from the field. In particular the status of
must be said that adherence to the Documen- the J document, which according to von Rad
tary Hypothesis is an anachronism from the gave the Pentateuch its canonical shape, is very
point of view of tradition-criticism.’ That is, doubtful. Is it one document or two (cf. its
the two methods are not complementary, they subdivision by Eissfeldt and Fohrer)? And
are incompatible with each other. We may note, more generally, what evidence is there of its
in passing, that this had been said before, by unity? Here Rendtorff points to the method of
Ivan Engnell, the Scandinavian scholar, and his elimination which lies so often behind the iden-
closest followers. In Rendtorff’s polarization tification of J passages. First the easily recogniz-
of source and tradition criticism the theses of able P sections are eliminated from the existing
Engnell have received, in part, a new lease Pentateuch, to reveal the older sources; then like-
of life. wise the book of Deuteronomy (D) is removed;
27. Why does Rendtorff polarize the two then E, marked by its use of Elohim in Genesis;
methods? Because according to him, they and then what is left is called J. But how do we
represent the use of diametrically opposed know that what is left is a unity? To give an
starting-points in the analysis of the text. analogy: how do we know that the Pentateuch
Source criticism begins from ‘the final form of is not like a basket containing many kinds
the text’ and examines the question of its unity, of fruit, from which the apples, bananas, and
and seeks to explain its apparent diversity in oranges are removed, to leave—just pears? No,
terms of the combination of parallel ‘sources’ surely a mixture of these with peaches, grapes,
(such as J, E, and P). Tradition criticism, on the strawberries, and so on.
other hand, starts from the smallest originally 29. It is not of potential disunity in a
independent unit, say an individual episode in source-critical sense (i.e. two parallel Yahwist
the story or a law, and seeks to explain how it (J) strands, as with Eissfeldt and Fohrer) that
was combined with other similar units to make Rendtorff is primarily thinking, but rather in a
a series to make a yet larger whole, and how traditio-historical sense: what reason have we
editorial processes or redaction shaped the for thinking that the residue was a single con-
units until they reached their present form. So tinuous narrative describing everything from
it is not a matter of doing source criticism first creation to the conquest of the land, rather
and then tradition criticism: you have to choose than a series of smaller-scale stories, one
your starting-point and follow through the an- about the patriarchs, one about the Exodus,
alysis until you reach the other end. As it stands etc.? In fact Rendtorff believes that it is pos-
this is not a very strong point: tradition criti- sible to show that the J material is in this sense
cism too has to start with the present text. The definitely not a unity. This he endeavours to do
contrast of approaches could be put better by by an examination of the various sections
saying that traditional source criticism has been of the Pentateuchal narrative taken one by
ready to believe that a sequence of narratives one: the sections bear a notable resemblance
introduction to the pentateuch 50

to Noth’s themes—patriarchs, Exodus, Sinai, might have served, but clearly there are in
wilderness, and settlement. The primeval his- some cases at least possibilities of an associ-
tory seems to be passed over, but the same ation with cultic festivals.
approach could be applied to it. Rendtorff’s 30. It is not clear whether Rendtorff’s particu-
point is that the theological perspective of lar proposals will be able to withstand detailed
the editing is not consistent throughout but criticism. The denial of a unity in J will have to
varies from one section to the next. Compre- contend not only with von Rad but with the
hensive theological evaluations of the whole more wide-ranging studies of G. Hölscher and
history are surprisingly rare, and tend to be H. Schulte. There are in fact various ways in
concentrated in what look like late passages. which scholars might respond to the dilemmas
In his book Rendtorff did not spell his argu- with which Rendtorff has faced us, apart from
ment out in full detail for all the sections, but accepting in full his own reading of the situation.
he indicated his method of applying tradition But he has, whatever we may decide, exposed
criticism in a very detailed study of the patri- some tensions at the heart of modern critical
archal narratives. He begins with the observa- method which need to be resolved. I do not
tion (which is not new) that the theological myself think that tradition criticism is a very
texts of the patriarchal stories are chiefly con- secure base from which to attack the literary-
centrated in the ‘promises’: passages, that is, critical enterprise. It is a bit like trying to move
where YHWH makes a promise or several prom- a piano while standing on a tea-trolley!
ises to Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. The interrela- 31. Since it was first put forward in 1977 this
tion of the contents of these promise-passages view has been rather neglected. Rendtorff him-
to one another is extremely complex, and self quite quickly lost interest in it: he was per-
Rendtorff attributes it to a succession of stages suaded by Childs’s arguments that attention
of editing of the patriarchal traditions. At any ought to be focused on the final canonical
rate it is clear that the promises are the major form of the text—a dramatic change for
theological theme of the patriarchal narratives. him—and he became particularly interested in
Now von Rad had seen this and attributed the the coherence of the book of Isaiah as a whole.
main body of the promises to the Yahwist, who His Introduction to the Old Testament (ET 1985)
he supposed inserted them to impress on the reflects this change of perspective, though it
Pentateuchal material his theological under- also shows that he retains some interest in
standing of Israel’s early history: it was a history older traditions and redaction criticism. A stu-
worked out under the shadow of YHWH’s dent of Rendtorff’s, Erhard Blum, has continued
promise. But against this Rendtorff is able to some of his ideas in two large books on the
show that this theme virtually vanishes at the Pentateuch (1984, 1990), but it is noticeable
end of Genesis, and is missing from JE passages that he too increasingly concentrates not on
such as Ex 3, which mention the land to which the earliest stages of the tradition, when the
YHWH now says he will lead the Israelites with- stories of the primeval history, the patriarchs,
out any hint that this had been promised long the Exodus, etc. may have been told separately
ago to their forefathers, time and time again! from one another, but on the stages at which
The conclusion he draws is that the develop- they were already combined together: he inves-
ment of the promise theme in Genesis is not the tigates what he calls the Deuteronomistic Com-
work of a J author who composed or compiled position (KD)—which does not include the J
a document extending the whole length of the portions of Gen 1–11—and the Priestly Compos-
Pentateuch, but rather the theological enrich- ition (KP), which successively amplified the tra-
ment of a story which did not extend beyond ditions from their particular points of view (cf.
the limits of the patriarchal period itself. Only at John-stone 1990).
the time of the Priestly redaction and a further
stage of editing related to the Deuter-onomic J. Review and Assessment. 1. In reviewing
school is there any sign of the various sections these recent developments it should be noted
of the Pentateuch being co-ordinated together that by different routes quite a lot of scholars
into a continuous narrative. Prior to this there are coming to support more or less the same
existed only shorter compositions which circu- alternative to the older source-critical view. The
lated separately and were edited separately— developments outlined in the last four sections
Rendtorff seems not to have any suggestion to are increasingly merging into what is in effect
offer about the social context in which this took the same understanding of the origin of the
place or the purpose that such compositions Pentateuch. This holds that:
 51 introduction to the pentateuch

1. The first major comprehensive Pentateuchal As for thesis 2, we have seen that some pas-
narrative was composed either late in pre- sages, such as the Flood story, are very difficult
exilic times or in the Babylonian exile (7th or for it to accommodate.
6th cent. BCE), rather than in the early mon- 3. So what are we to think? Which view will
archy. Some prefer to speak of a ‘late Yahwist’ prevail? As far as 1 is concerned, I think we are at
(Schmid, Van Seters), some of a Deuterono- a stage when all the emphasis is on late elements
mistic narrative (Johnstone, Blum), but they of the Pentateuch, and some scholars write as
are largely talking about the same thing and though that is all there is. The arguments for
using the same arguments. lateness are of varying strength. For myself I am
2. The Priestly Work never existed as a separate more convinced that the Decalogue is a late
source, but involved the insertion into the addition to the Sinai narrative in Exodus than
older narrative of the specifically Priestly that the idea of a covenant is a latecomer in
narratives and laws, so as to produce a Exodus, for example. But more important, I
work very like our present Pentateuch. think we shall before long find more work
being done again on what we may call for now
In each case the model or overall approach is a the ‘pre-Deuteronomic Pentateuchal narratives
‘supplementary’ one, that is, the old idea of and laws’—their contents, their theology, and
redactors interweaving extracts from distinct their origins. Then the Deuteronomic or late J
sources, a verse from here and a verse from layer (which may turn out to be ‘thinner’ than
there, is abandoned and we go right back to currently thought!) will be seen as more clearly
the approach that was followed in the first half that, rather than seeming to comprise the whole
of the nineteenth century and think of a core of the non-P part of the Pentateuch. On 2 an
which in successive stages was amplified until interesting mediating position has been put for-
the present Pentateuch was produced: the major ward by R. E. Friedman (1981). He thinks that at a
difference being—and it is a very significant first stage there were independent P versions of
one—that then what we call P was (part of) certain parts of the Pentateuch, such as the Flood
the original core, while now it represents the story; but the major composition of P as a whole
final stage of the process. An important theo- took place at a second stage in very much the
logical consequence of the new approach is the way Cross proposed, i.e. by supplementation of
increased prominence which it gives to the sec- the older narrative. Where P texts from the first
tions of the Pentateuch which contain or are stage had to be worked into the older narrative,
associated with law, namely the Deuteronomis- they were sometimes interwoven with the older
tic and Priestly passages. It should be noted that version, as in the case of the Flood story. Blum,
theses 1 and 2 are in fact logically independent. working in detail on certain passages, ends up
It is possible to accept one of them and not the with a partly similar view to this. Maybe it will be
other, and some scholars have done and still do necessary to hold some such view to accommo-
this, following the Wellhausen approach or date all the evidence—the case for supplementa-
something like it on the other issue. Thus tion has been argued to be particularly strong in
Cross accepts 2 but not 1; and Schmid and relation to the Table of Nations and the plague-
Blenkinsopp hold 1 but not 2. story by Van Seters—or maybe it will be better,
2. The supporters of the new views are not in view of the coherence of so much of the P
having things all their own way. Some difficul- material, to retain the idea of an original, once-
ties with them have already been mentioned, separate source, and explain the most intractable
and some further criticisms of thesis 1 have counter-indications by a further, still later layer
been made by E. W. Nicholson in a recent of redaction.
paper (see also Nicholson 1998). This thesis 4. But there are problems within the literary-
also fails, in its strongest form, to do justice to critical method itself, arising from the fact that
the evidence of Deuteronomy itself. The very we now feel compelled to treat each unit sep-
setting of Deuteronomy on the eve of the con- arately for analysis. While it is quite clear that
quest of the promised land presupposes a trad- the Pentateuch is not a literary unity and that
ition about Israel’s origins; likewise there are analysis can separate out parallel strands at nu-
many passing allusions to features of that trad- merous points, it is not so obvious that a rigor-
ition in the text of Deuteronomy which would ous approach to the assembly of the ‘bits’ leads
only have made sense if the hearers of the Deu- automatically to the division of the Pentateuch
teronomic preaching had been familiar with a into four or five major sources, such as trad-
quite detailed account of the Exodus and so on. itional source criticism proposes. In other
introduction to the pentateuch 52

words the model for synthesis (step c.3) need Barton, J. (1984), Reading the Old Testament (London:
not be a wholly documentary one. About the Darton, Longman & Todd).
coherence and original independence of the Boecker, H.-J. (1980), Law and the Administration of
bulk at least of the P material, it seems to me, Justice in the OT and the Ancient Near East, ET (Lon-
there is little doubt, and equally about the sep- don: SPCK).
arate character and development of Deuteron- Brueggemann, W., and Wolff, H. W. (1975), The Vi-
omy. However it is more difficult to be sure tality of OT Traditions (Atlanta: John Knox).
how the residue of the books Genesis–Numbers Campbell, A. F., and O’Brien, M. A. (1993), Sources of
is to be thought of and Rendtorff’s thesis of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations (Min-
shorter works may well have a part to play, neapolis: Fortress).
and equally processes of redaction which did Carpenter, J. E., and Harford-Battersby, G. (1900), The
not extend the whole length of the Pentateuch, Hexateuch According to the Revised Version (2 vols.
but concerned only a particular range of the (London: Longmans, Green and Co.); vol. ii is a
narrative. synopsis).
5. We may conclude by returning, very Childs, B. S. (1979), Introduction to the OT as Scripture
briefly, to the question with which we began, (London: SCM).
‘What is the Pentateuch?’, in the light of the Clements, R. E. (1997), A Century of Old Testament Study
modern study of the text which we have just (Guildford: Butterworth).
reviewed. Whichever of the approaches that Clines, D. J. A. (1978), The Theme of the Pentateuch
have recently been advocated prevails, or even (Sheffield: JSOT).
if things eventually stay very much as they were, Coats, G. W. (1988), Moses: Heroic Man, Man of God
we must build into our view of the Pentateuch (Sheffield: JSOT).
the fact that it is the product of a long process of Davies, G. I. (1996), ‘The Composition of the Book of
tradition. In other words we must recognize Exodus: Reflections on the Theses of E. Blum’, in
that its teaching, while organized into some M. Fox et al. (eds.), Texts, Temples and Tradition: A
sort of unity by the various redactors, derives Tribute to Menahem Haran (Winona Lake, Ind.:
from various periods in the history of Israel Eisenbrauns), 71–85.
within which certain individuals or schools Driver, S. R. (1904), The Book of Genesis, Westminster
have contributed an especially creative shaping Commentaries (London: Methuen).
and rethinking of the traditions which they Emerton, J. A. (1988), ‘The Priestly Writer in Genesis’,
inherited. In varying degrees these individuals JTS NS 39: 381–400.
or schools deserve the name ‘theologians’. To Friedman, R. E. (1981), The Exile and Biblical Narrative
some extent the difficulty of finding a fully (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press).
satisfactory description for the Pentateuch as a Gerstenberger, E. (1965), Wesen und Herkunft des ‘apo-
whole is due to the differing emphases of these diktischen Rechts’, WMANT 20 (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
writers. In a real sense, then, the Pentateuch Neukirchener Verlag).
bears witness to the whole history and life of Habel, N. C. (1971), Literary Criticism of the OT (Phila-
Israel, and not just to the period which it pur- delphia: Fortress).
ports to describe. As a comprehensive descrip- Haran, M. (1979), Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient
tion I would suggest the following, which I Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
think can apply to all stages of the composition Jenks, A. W. (1977), The Elohist and North Israelite Tra-
of the Pentateuch: ditions (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press).
‘The charter of YHWH’s people Israel, which Johnstone, W. (1998), Chronicles and Exodus: An Ana-
lays down the founding principles of their life in logy and its Application (Sheffield: JSOT).
creation, history and law, under the guidance of Nicholson, E. W (1973), Exodus and Sinai in History and
his word of promise and command.’ Tradition (Oxford: Blackwell).
——(1986), God and his People (Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press).
REFERENCES
——(1998), The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The
Alt, A. (1966), ‘The Origins of Israelite Law’, in Essays Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Clarendon
on Old Testament History and Religion, ET (Oxford: Press).
Blackwell), 87–132; 1st edn. 1934. Noth, M. (1972), A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, ET
Alter, R. (1981), The Art of Biblical Narrative (London: (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall), from Germ.
George Allen & Unwin). orig., Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (1948).
Auld, A. G. (1980), Joshua, Moses and the Land (Edin- Otto, E. (1994), Theologische Ethik des Alten Testament
burgh: T. & T. Clark). (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer).
 53 genesis

Patrick, D. (1986), Old Testament Law (London: SCM). Van Seters, J. (1992), Prologue to History (Louisville, Ky.:
Rad, G. von (1966), ‘The Form-Critical Problem of the Westminster/John Knox).
Hexateuch’ (1938), in his The Problem of the Hexateuch ——(1994), The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in
and Other Essays (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd), 1–78. Exodus–Numbers (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John
Rendtorff, R. (1990), The Problem of the Process of Trans- Knox).
mission in the Pentateuch, ET (Sheffield: JSOT), from Wellhausen, J. (1885), Prolegomena to the History of
German original, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Israel, ET (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black); from German
Problem des Pentateuch, BZAW 147 (1977). original, Geschichte Israels I (1878).
Skinner, J. (1910), A Critical and Exegetical Commentary Westermann, C. (1984), ‘The Formation and Theo-
on Genesis, International Critical Commentary (Ed- logical Meaning of the Primeval Story’, in Genesis
inburgh: T. & T. Clark). 1–11: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg), 567–
Soggin, J. A. (1989), Introduction to the Old Testament, 606; German original Genesis 1–11 (Neukirchen-
3rd edn. (London: SCM). Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974–6).
Sonsino, R. (1980), Motive Clauses in Biblical Law, Wolff, H. W. (1975), ‘The Elohistic Fragments in the
SBLDS 45 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press). Pentateuch’, in Brueggemann and Wolff (1975),
Stamm, J. J., and Andrew, M. E. (1967), The Ten Com- 67–82.
mandments in Recent Research, SBT 2/2 (London: Whybray, R. N. (1987), The Making of the Pentateuch
SCM). (Sheffield: JSOT).

4. Genesis
r. n. whybray
INTRODUCTION first four books constituted a complete work
(the Tetrateuch). Deuteronomy, though later
A. Genesis and the Pentateuch. Genesis
joined with these to form the Pentateuch,
forms part of a series of ‘historical’ books that
belonged to a second and distinct work, the
begin with the creation of the world and end
Deuteronomistic History, comprising Deuter-
with the destruction of the tiny kingdom of
onomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.
Judah in the sixth century BCE (the final chs. of
Noth’s theory has been widely accepted.
2 Kings). The events narrated are all arranged in
It may perhaps seem that these questions are
a single chronological sequence into which the
irrelevant to a study of Genesis; but this is not
non-narrative material, mainly poems and laws,
so. Genesis, although it has its own distinctive
has been fitted. But this great history was not
character—it is the only book in the Pentateuch
originally conceived as a single work. It is gen-
that is not dominated by the figure of Moses—is
erally agreed that it consists of two complexes,
intimately linked with the books that follow,
but the point at which the first ends and the
and can only be fully understood as part of a
second begins has long been a disputed ques-
more extended history. It is essentially a book of
tion. According to ancient tradition the first
promise, a preface to all that follows in the
complex comprises the first five books, ending
history of Israel, having specific links to many
with Deuteronomy. This is known to the Jews
events narrated in those books. It establishes the
by the name of Torah (or ‘the law’), and is the
identity of the nation of Israel and of its God.
first and most sacred part of the canon of the
In particular, it is a necessary prelude to the
Hebrew Scriptures. Modern scholars know it as
great events associated with the Exodus from
the Pentateuch, a Greek word meaning ‘(of) five
Egypt, which is the foundation of Jewish history
books’. However, its integrity was challenged in
and faith. At the same time it presents the
the nineteenth century CE, when many scholars
reader with the God who is creator of the
held that it is incomplete without Joshua: it is
world but also a God who cares for his human
only in Josh that God’s promise, made in Gen-
creatures and reveals his nature especially in his
esis, of possession of the land of Canaan is
protection and guidance of those whom he
fulfilled (hence the term Hexateuch, six books).
chose to be his special people.
This hypothesis has few supporters today. In
1948 Martin Noth (ET 1972) also rejected the B. Literary Genre. It is important for an under-
traditional view but in a contrary sense: the standing of Genesis (and of the Pentateuch as a
genesis 54

whole) to see it as a literary work and to attempt long been recognized. All this material has
to define its literary genre. This involves been pieced together and provided with a
an appreciation of the nature of ancient, pre- continuous narrative thread and a chrono-
scientific, historiography, of which the most logical sequence by a skilful editor and com-
notable examples are to be found in the work piler, who by his selection and arrangement
of certain early Greek historians of the sixth of material and his own original contribu-
century BCE. The aim of these historians was to tions converted it into an expression of
write accounts of the origins, genealogical des- his own view of history and theology. With
cent, and history of the notable families of their regard to the Sagen used by this compiler,
own day, tracing them back to a remote, heroic Gunkel held that much of this material had
age: see Van Seters (1983: 8–54; 1992: 24–38). In previously been transmitted in oral form over
their accounts of past ages they did not distin- many generations and so may be seen as
guish between myth, legend, and what we now preserving, even though in garbled form,
call ‘historical facts’. It was not their primary genuine reminiscences of the persons and
purpose to establish the exact truth of the events described, but this has recently been
events that they described, but rather to raise questioned: see Whybray (1987: 133–219).
in their readers a consciousness of their own
D. Composition. About the process or pro-
identity and a feeling that they were citizens of a
cesses by which the diverse material was com-
great and noble city or race. These historians
bined to form a single literary work there is at
made full use of extant traditions about the
present no consensus of opinion. The Docu-
past, but they were also creators of tradition:
mentary Hypothesis (see INTROD.PENT B), which
where extant traditions were lacking or scanty,
was the dominant theory for about a century,
they did not hesitate to fill them out with det-
envisaged an interweaving of comprehensive
ails, and even entire stories, supplied from their
‘horizontal’ written sources (in Genesis, J, E,
own imaginations. This kind of imaginative
and P); but this view has met strong opposition
writing has analogies with that of the Israelite
during the last twenty years; and none of the
historians; but the purposes of the latter were
alternative theories that have been proposed has
somewhat different. They were certainly con-
yet found general acceptance. One thorough
cerned to create—or, perhaps, to restore—a
investigation of the composition of the patri-
sense of national identity in their readers; but
archal stories (Blum 1984), which envisages a
their intention was far from triumphalist: the
gradual process of composition in which the
principal human characters were not heroes in
traditions about each of the patriarchs were
the fullest sense. For them it is always God who
gradually and independently built up before
has the principal role; the human characters are
their combination into larger complexes, has
represented as foolish and frequently sinful
considerable plausibility; on the other hand,
creatures who time and time again frustrate
the notion of a fragment hypothesis according
God’s good intentions towards them.
to which there was no lengthy process of growth
but a single act of composition in which a mass
C. Types of Material. The character and inten-
of material was collated by a single author, as in
tion of Genesis as a completed book cannot be
the case of the early Greek historians cited
deduced from the wide miscellany of materials
above, has undergone something of a revival:
which constitute its sources. Gunkel (1901) (see
see Whybray (1987: 221–42). In this commentary
Gunkel 1964 for ET of the Introduction to his
the Documentary Hypothesis is referred to only
commentary) identified many of the sources
occasionally. Obvious differences of point of
and demonstrated their nature. Particularly in
view implied in the material employed have
chs. 12–36 he identified many Sagen—that is,
been noted; but no attempt has been made to
brief, originally independent, folk-tales—
define or to date these. References to the
which had been strung together only at a rela-
‘author’, ‘editor’ etc., are to those responsible
tively late stage, eventually taking shape as
for the final shaping of the book.
accounts of the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob. The somewhat different characters of E. The Date of Genesis. Nothing in the book
chs. 1–11, which narrate cosmic and universal directly indicates the time when it reached its
events (often classified as ‘myths’—an am- final shape. However, many passages reflect
biguous term) and of the story of Joseph in episodes and situations of post-patriarchal
chs. 37–50, a single, homogeneous narrative times: the tradition of a nation comprising
not formed by the combination of Sagen, has twelve tribes (49:16, 28); the Exodus from
 55 genesis

Egypt (15:13–14); the future possession of Can- man and woman were banished from the gar-
aan and the areas occupied by the various tribes den but allowed to live outside it; the first mur-
(15:17–20; 17:8; 28:4); the predominance of the derer also was banished, but his life was
tribe of Judah (49:10) and of the Joseph tribes preserved; the human race, despite its total cor-
(especially Ephraim (48:17–20)); and the Davidic ruption, was given a second chance in the per-
monarchy (49:10). There are also anachronisms sons of Noah and his family; the builders of the
such as the references to the ‘land of the Philis- Tower of Babel were scattered and divided, but
tines’ (21:32, 34), whose arrival in Canaan was survived and peopled the world. The picture of
roughly contemporary with that of the Israel- humanity painted in these chapters is dark but
ites, and to the Chaldeans (11:28, 31; 15:7), a realistic; however, it is lightened by the corre-
people of southern Mesopotamia whose sponding theme of divine forbearance which, in
names do not appear in historical records be- the context of the book as a whole, foreshadows
fore the time of the neo-Assyrian empire (from a more hopeful destiny for a human race that
the 8th cent. BCE) and who were otherwise will be blessed in Abraham.
unknown to the OT before the sixth century 2. The two main themes of chs. 12–36 are
BCE. Other features of the book—for example God’s choice of Abraham and his descendants
the constantly reiterated theme of the promise out of the entire human race and the promises
of possession of the land of Canaan—are per- that he made to them. The particularity of this
haps best understood as particularly relevant to choice is striking: it is seen not only in the initial
a time when the nation had been dispossessed selection of Abraham but also in a series of
from the land—that is, either the Babylonian subsequent choices: not Ishmael but Isaac, not
exile during the sixth century BCE or the ensuing Esau but Jacob are chosen. (The theme is pur-
period when the Jewish community living in sued further in the succeeding Joseph story:
and around Jerusalem were once more, like Joseph, Jacob’s eleventh son, is chosen to be
the patriarchs of Genesis, aliens in the land, the saviour of his family, and even in the next
needing encouragement to hope that God generation Ephraim is preferred before Mana-
would enable them to throw off the yoke of sseh.) The promises in their fullest form com-
Persian domination and would restore to them prise divine blessing, guidance and protection,
the fullness of his blessing as the rightful wealth and political power, and the possession
owners of the land which he had promised of the land of Canaan as a permanent home. But
long ago to them. there is also an important counter-theme: that
of the perils into which the recipients of the
F. Themes. 1. The primeval history (Gen 1–11) promises (and their wives) constantly fall,
heralds some of the main themes of the book. It sometimes through their own fault and some-
defines Israel’s place in the world of nations and times at God’s instigation (Gen 22). It is this
links the human figures of the remote past with counter-theme that gives liveliness and excite-
Abraham and his descendants by a series of ment to the narratives; indeed, without it there
genealogies. It also functions as a universal his- would be no story to tell. The failure of the
tory of beginnings. It afforded the author the promise of the land to materialize within the
opportunity to state his belief that there is only timespan of the book gives these narratives a
one, supreme God and that he created the world forward-looking character: the possession of
with all its inhabitants. It is concerned with the the land is clearly the goal to which they aspire.
nature of this God and with the nature of his There are, of course, a number of subsidiary
human creatures. This universal history taught themes, corresponding to the variety of the
the Israelite readers a moral lesson as well as a material. There is throughout a strong emphasis
theology: human beings are both foolish and on the inscrutability of God’s purposes.
prone to sinful rebellion against God, arrogant 3. The story of Joseph (chs. 37–50) continues
and ambitious, seeking to achieve divine status that of the previous section, but has its own
for themselves and capable of murderous inten- independent character and its own themes. Ex-
tions towards one another. It warned about the cept at the very end of the book the divine prom-
consequences of such behaviour: God, who at ises are not specifically mentioned in these
the beginning had approved his created world chapters, though the theme of the endangered
as good, determined to obliterate the human heirs continues to be prominent: at different
race when it became corrupted; but he merci- times both Joseph and his family are placed in
fully refrained from carrying out this intention: peril. The Egyptian setting is a major feature of
he punished, but did not destroy. So the first the Joseph story and is described in some detail,
genesis 56

partly to give it a plausible local colour but later chapters of the book, can hardly be ad-
mainly in order to enhance the impression of equate as a structural marker since it is used
Joseph’s eminent position in Egypt. Joseph’s char- with different meanings, e.g. genealogy or list
acter is portrayed with consummate skill. This of descendants (6:9; 10:1) and story or history
final part of the book leaves the readers with (2:4; 37:1). One way of viewing the purpose and
hopes of a splendid future. The final verses spe- structure of chs. 1–11 is to see them as presenting
cifically foretell the Exodus from Egypt which will a picture of the growing power of sin in the
lead at last to the possession of the promised land. world, together with a parallel picture of a ‘hid-
den growth of grace’ (von Rad 1966a: 64–5).
This view has some plausibility as regards chs.
COMMENTARY 3–9. If this is so, however, the story of the Tower
of Babel (11:1–9) surely stands outside the pat-
A History of Origins (chs. 1–11) tern. There, as also in ch. 3, it appears to be
These chapters may be regarded as a prologue God’s concern for his own status rather than
to Genesis, and indeed to the whole Pentateuch. his grace that is to the fore. It may be best to
Beginning as they do with the activity of God regard this story as an appendix to chs. 1–9, or
even before the universe came into existence as a negative foil to the story of Abraham that
(Gen 1:1–2), they clearly cannot be based on begins at the end of ch. 11.
any record of what actually occurred; and the Why does the Pentateuch preface its history
fact that in them a number of persons are of Israel’s ancestors with these universal stories?
reported as having lived preternaturally long It is of interest to note that the origin-stories of
lives is sufficient to show that the world other nations (see Van Seters 1983) show a simi-
depicted here is different even from that of the lar pattern: many of them also begin with myth-
later chapters of the book. These stories do not ical tales and then proceed gradually to the
constitute a connected sequence; they have more historical. The aim of such works, apart
been linked together only in a very artificial from a wish to satisfy the readers’ natural curi-
way by a series of genealogies (Gen 4:17–22; osity about ‘how it all began’, was to create or
5:1–32; 10:1–32; 11:10–32). They are universal strengthen their sense of national or ethnic
stories, depicting not human beings as we identity, especially at critical times when for
know them but giants or heroes in something specific reasons this was threatened. In order
like the fairytale sense of those words. What is to foster such a sense it was thought necessary
being conveyed is how the authors or collectors to account for the nation’s place in the world;
of the stories imagined that it might all have and, since the human race was thought to have
begun. However, as we shall see, these stories had a single origin, to explain how the various
were intended to convey a much more pro- peoples had come into existence. In Gen 1–11
found meaning than that. these aims come to the fore in ch. 10, which was
Many peoples have at an early stage of their clearly intended to be a ‘map’ of all the peoples
development possessed a fund of stories about of the world, and in 11:1–9, which accounts for
the origin of the world and the earliest history their failure to remain united. At this point the
of the human race; and many of the stories in history of Israel’s ancestors could begin.
Gen 1–11 have a family likeness to origin-stories But beyond these motives Gen 1–11 was
current in the Near-Eastern milieu to which designed to reflect certain distinctive Israelite
ancient Israel belonged (cf. ANET 3–155). These (Yahwistic) articles of faith. Not the least of
Israelite versions, however, are unique in that these was monotheism. Despite the inclusion
they are monotheistic: all the divine actions that of the phrases ‘Let us make man in our own
they depict are attributed to a single deity, and image’ (1:26) and ‘like one of us’ (3:22), on which
there is no mention of other gods. The term see below, this monotheistic stance is quite
‘myth’ is often applied to them; but since there striking and sometimes even polemical—that
is no agreement about the meaning of that term is, anti-polytheistic—especially in ch. 1. The
it is probably best avoided. conflict-tradition of Mesopotamia, according
It is possible that the final author or compiler to which the creator-god had had to fight and
of these chapters has left an indication of their kill a hostile monster before he could create the
structure by his use of the word tôlĕdôt, espe- world, although traces of it are to be found
cially in the phrase ‘These are the tôlĕdôt of . . . ’ elsewhere in the OT (e.g. Ps 74:13–14; Isa 51:9),
(2:4; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; cf. also 5:1). However, this is entirely absent here: the ‘great sea monsters’
phrase, which also occurs at intervals in the (tannı̂nı̂m, 1:21) are simply listed together with
 57 genesis

God’s other creatures. Similarly the sun, moon, implied—it is an agreeable one. The cursing of
and other heavenly bodies, which in the Near- the ground and the consequent harshness
Eastern religious systems are powerful deities of agricultural labour (3:17–19) are the result of
coexisting with the creator-god, are here a part disobedience. The final line of 3:19 (‘You are
of God’s creation and are entirely subservient to dust, and to dust you shall return’), possibly a
him, being assigned by him their proper func- common saying, does not imply that human
tions (1:14–18). Equally distinctive of Israelite mortality is the result of disobedience.
religion is the setting aside by God of the sev- Another matter that evidently called for exp-
enth day, the day on which he rested from his lanation was the wearing of clothing. The feel-
work of creation, to be observed as a day ing of shame at appearing naked before others
of rest—presumably by the whole created (cf. 9:20–7) and the universal custom of wearing
world—in the institution of the Sabbath (2:1–3). clothes are explained as a consequence of the
Some scholars have interpreted these chap- eating of the forbidden fruit (3:7–12, 21): previ-
ters as reflecting the experiences of the Baby- ously (2:25), nakeness had not been shameful.
lonian exile or the early post-exilic period. Thus Other aetiologies in these chapters include the
the themes of punishment for sin, especially reason for the human dislike of snakes and for
banishment from God’s presence and/or disper- the ability of snakes to move without legs (3:14–
sal or destruction (3:23–4; 4:12, 16; 6–8; 11:4, 9), 15), the reason for the rainbow (9:12–17), and the
have been taken as symbolic of Israel’s richly origin of the sabbath.
deserved banishment from the land of Canaan, It is generally agreed that the stories in Gen 1–
while the signs of divine grace and forgiveness, 11 are not a pure invention of the final compiler:
especially God’s acceptance of Noah’s sacrifice however much he may have adapted them for
and the covenant which he made with him his own purpose, he was using material current
(8:20–9:17) would suggest to the exilic or post- in his own time. On the nature and date of this
exilic reader that God had even now not cast off material, however, there is at present no agree-
his people but was a God of infinite patience ment. Arguments have recently been advanced
and forgiveness who would rescue Israel from which suggest that, at least in their present
its folly and its guilt as he had done for human- form, these chapters cannot be older than the
ity in ancient times. sixth century BCE. For example, the Chaldeans,
Some of these stories also betray an interest referred to in 11:28, a verse assigned by the
in aetiology: that is, in seeking the origin of followers of the Documentary Hypothesis to
various phenomena of universal human experi- the oldest source J, did not become significant
ence which appear to defy rational explanation. on the international scene until about that time,
These aetiologies are of many kinds. One of the while the garden of Eden is nowhere mentioned
most important ones concerns the reason for in OT texts before the time of the exilic Isaiah
human mortality, a common theme in both (Deutero-Isaiah, Isa 51:3) and Ezekiel (Ezek 28:13;
Near-Eastern and classical literature that some- 36:35). Similarly Abraham (Abram 11:26–30)
times took the form of narratives in which appears to have been unknown in the pre-exilic
human beings attempted to wrest immortality period: he is never mentioned by the pre-exilic
from the gods but failed; this is alluded to in prophets, and his name occurs only in two OT
Gen 3:22—which appears to imply that mortal- passages which may be pre-exilic but are prob-
ity is inherent in mankind’s status as creature— ably not (1 Kings 18:36; Ps 47:9). This fact is, of
and in the mysterious incident of 6:1–3. The course, significant also for the dating of the
nature of the relationship between man and story of Abraham in chs. 12–25. Finally it is
woman is discussed in 2:18, which explains remarkable that there is no extant ancient
why both sexes are necessary to a complete Near-Eastern text that in any way covers the
humanity, and in 2:23–4, which explains the same ground as Gen 1–11, and no evidence that
attraction between the sexes and the forming any other people compiled a comparable nar-
of permanent relationships between them as rative before the Graeco-Roman period.
due to God’s providence. In ch. 3, however, the
less ideal realities of the relationship are attrib- (1:1–2:4a) The Creation of the World This cre-
uted to disobedience to God’s command, in ation story is only one of many current in the
which both partners are implicated. ancient Near East; there are, for example, sev-
There is also an aetiology of work here. Work eral extant Egyptian ones in which the creation
in itself is not regarded as a punishment: rather, of the world is attributed to different gods, and
it is a natural (male) activity (2:15); but—it is the creator-god is not necessarily the principal
genesis 58

god. This multiplicity is due to the existence of very good’ (1:31). This is the craftsman’s assess-
different local traditions. In the OT also, where ment of his own work; and it says something
there is only one God, we find several quite about his intention as well as about his artis-
distinct creation traditions. In addition to Gen try. A competently crafted artefact implies a
1 there is a different account in Gen 2, and good intention. The word ‘good’ (tôb) here,
another version is reflected especially in Ps however, refers more directly to the usefulness
74:13–14 and Isa 51:9, in which the creation of of the world—presumably primarily its useful-
the world appears to have followed a conflict in ness to mankind. It does not necessarily have
which YHWH defeated and killed a sea monster an ethical connotation: it is not mankind that
or monsters. Other somewhat different versions is said to be ‘good’, but God’s work as crafts-
are found in Prov 8:22–31, in parts of the book man. The author was well aware of the subse-
of Job, and elsewhere. quent catastrophic introduction of evil into the
The creation story in Gen 1:1–2:4 has long world.
been thought to have particular affinities with In its cosmology—that is, its understanding
the Babylonian Enuma Elish (ANET 60–72); but a of the structure and different parts of the uni-
glance at the latter shows that the relationship is verse—this account of the creation conforms to
at most a very remote one. Apart from the fact that generally current in the ancient Near East.
that the Genesis story is monotheistic, the most (In some OT passages this cosmology is de-
crucial difference between the two accounts is scribed in more detail.) The pre-existent watery
that Enuma Elish belongs to the category of the waste (1:1–2) was divided into two by the cre-
conflict tradition, which is entirely absent from ation of a solid dome or vault (the sky, 1:6–8), so
Gen 1. In the former, the god Marduk first sum- that there was water both above and below it.
mons the other deities and, after killing the sea The lower mass of water was then confined to a
monster Tiamat, creates heaven and earth by limited area, the sea, revealing the dry land,
splitting Tiamat’s body into two. (The com- which God called ‘the earth’ (1:9–10). (According
monly repeated notion that the word ‘the to Gen 7:11 the sky had ‘windows’ which when
deep’—tĕhôm, in 1:2—is a pale reminiscence of opened allowed the rain to fall.) The heavenly
Tiamat cannot be sustained.) There is no trace bodies, sun, moon, and stars, moved across the
of a conflict here: God is alone, and he is vault of the sky, giving light and following a
supreme. prescribed programme (1:14–18).
This account contains no explicit statement A characteristic feature of this account of cre-
about God’s purpose in creating the world; but ation is its precise and meticulous style. It fre-
this purpose is clearly implied in the great quently repeats the same phraseology, listing the
emphasis that is placed on the position of man- various acts of creation with the dryness of a
kind in God’s plan: the creation of mankind, the catalogue, and possesses nothing of the imagina-
last of God’s creative acts, is evidently the climax tive or dramatic skill characteristic of chs. 2–3.
of the whole account, and receives the greatest Yet, as has long been recognized, there remain a
attention (1:26–30). The creatures created on the number of variations or inconsistencies of detail,
previous days—light, day and night, dry land, which suggests that two or more accounts have
heavenly bodies, plants and animals—are all by been combined. In particular, the creative acts are
implication provided for mankind’s use and introduced in different ways. While in some cases
convenience; human beings are given the plants God creates simply by speaking (‘And God
for food, and power over the animals. Above all said . . . ’), in others we are told that he per-
they are created in God’s image and likeness formed certain actions: he made, separated,
(1:26–7). Whatever may be the precise meaning named, blessed, placed. A second anomalous
of that phrase—this question has been endlessly feature is that although the entire work of cre-
debated (see below)—it sets human beings apart ation was carried out in six days (presumably to
from all the other creatures and puts them in a conform to the concept of six days of creation
unique relationship with God himself. concluding with a Sabbath rest on the seventh
A further clue to God’s intention when he day), there are in fact eight creative acts: on the
created the world is to be found in the succes- third day and again on the sixth (1:9–13, 24–31),
sive statements made at the conclusion of each two acts of creation are performed. It is not
act of creation, that ‘God saw that it was good’ possible, however, to reconstruct the earlier
(1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25), culminating in the final accounts whose existence is thus implied.
comprehensive statement that he ‘saw every- The sentence with which ch. 1 begins (1:1–2)
thing that he had made, and indeed, it was has been translated in several ways (see NRSV
 59 genesis

marg.). The older English versions have ‘In the Unlike the plants which are to serve as food
beginning God created . . . ’. Some other fea- for both human beings and animals (1:29, 30)
tures of these verses call for comment. The it is significantly not said of them that they may
use of the word ‘God’ (ʾĕlōhı̂m) rather than be killed and eaten. This is a vegetarian regime.
YHWH (2:4b–3:24 mainly uses ‘the LORD The meaning of the statement that mankind
God’—YHWH (ʾĕlōhı̂m) is found elsewhere in was created in God’s image (selem) and likeness
Genesis and has been taken to indicate the (děmût) (1:26, 27) has always _been a matter of
use of different sources. The word rendered discussion, as also has been the use of the plural
by ‘created’ (bārāʾ) is a rare and probably late form (‘Let us make’, ‘in our image’, 1:26, although
term confined almost entirely in the OT to Gen in 1:27 the singular form ‘in his image’ is used).
1–6, where it occurs 9 times, and Isa 40–66; it is The most probable explanation of the second
used exclusively of the creative activity of God. point is that the plural is used to denote the
Elsewhere in the OT that activity is denoted by court of heavenly beings who exist to do God’s
words meaning ‘to form’ or ‘to make’, which bidding. The terms ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ are
are also used of human activity. probably not to be differentiated: the double
1:2 refers to the situation before God’s cre- phrase is simply for emphasis. It clearly defines
ative action began. There is no question here of human beings as resembling God in a way that
a creatio ex nihilo, a ‘creation out of nothing’. The is not the case with the animals (cf. 1:28 and Ps
earth (hāʾ āres) already existed, but it was a 8:3–8). The nature of this resemblance is not
‘formless void’_ (tōhû wābōhû)—not a kind of apparent, however, and hypotheses abound.
non-existence but something empty and form- Since God is often represented elsewhere in
less, without light and covered by the water of the OT as having bodily organs—hands, feet,
the deep (tĕhôm). There are echoes here of the eyes, etc.—and the word selem is elsewhere used
Near-Eastern cosmologies. The word rûah, ren- of images of gods, it has been _ supposed that the
dered by ‘wind’ in NRSV, can also mean _‘spirit’ passage refers to a resemblance to God’s exter-
(see NRSV marg.). Whichever is the correct nal form. It is more probable, however, that
interpretation, NRSV’s ‘swept’ is a participle, some less material resemblance is intended:
denoting a continuous action; it should perhaps that human beings, in distinction from the ani-
be rendered ‘was hovering’. mals, possess the unique capacity to communi-
In 1:3 as in some later verses God creates by cate meaningfully with God, or—particularly
means of a command. His words are presum- with reference to the animals—are God’s repre-
ably addressed to the ‘formless void’ of 1:2. The sentatives or vicegerents on earth.
creation of light before that of the sun and The ordinance that mankind is to rule over
moon (1:14–18) has led to the suggestion that the animal kingdom (1:26, 28), like the state-
this feature of the account is derived from an ment that the sun and moon are to rule over
earlier, somewhat different tradition. God’s sep- the day and the night (1:16), determines man-
aration of light from darkness and his naming kind’s function in the world. It does not imply
them (1:4–5), like his other acts of separating exploitation, for food or for any other purpose;
and naming (1:6, 8, 10, 14, 18), are the acts of a rather, it is a consequence of the gift to mankind
sovereign who determines the destinies of his of the image of God. Mankind is, as it were, a
subordinates. manager or supervisor of the world of living
In 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25 the phrase ‘of every kind’ creatures. The blessing, accompanied by the
might be better rendered by ‘(each) according to command to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ (1:28) is,
its species’. The reference to signs and seasons as with the animals (1:22), a guarantee that life is
and days and years in the description of the to continue.
heavenly bodies in 1:14 suggests the establish- God’s rest (šābat, 2:2) on the seventh day imp-
ment of the calendar with particular reference lies the sabbath (šabbāt—the word itself does
to the determination of the dates of the sacred not occur here—which is thereby ‘hallowed’ or
festivals. When the account moves on to the made holy (2:3; cf. Ex 20:8). The same reason for
creation of the animal kingdom, first the water the observance of the sabbath is given in the
animals and birds (1:20–3) and then the land Decalogue (Ex 20:11).
animals (1:24–5), these are distinguished from
all that had been previously created as being (2:4b–3:24) This narrative, which could stand
‘living creatures’ (nepeš [ha] hayyâ, 1:20, 21, 24, by itself as an independent story, has taken up
30)—clearly a higher status _ than that of the themes and motifs quite different from those
plants. They receive God’s blessing (1:22, 28). employed in 1:1–2:4a. It was once generally
genesis 60

believed to be older and more primitive in its (male) human in terms of formation from the
theology than the preceding chapter (J as con- soil (perhaps rather, clay). This is a tradition also
trasted with P); but more recently this view has found among modern preliterate peoples (Wes-
been challenged. Blenkinsopp (1992: 63, 65), for termann 1984: 204). In Egyptian mythology the
example, suggests that it may have been ‘gen- god Khnum fashioned living creatures on a
erated by reflection on the creation account in potter’s wheel (ANET 368, 431, 441), while in
Genesis 1’ and may be seen as ‘standing in a the Babylonian tradition the wild man Enkidu
wisdom tradition which indulged in ‘‘philoso- was fashioned from clay (ANET 74).
phizing by means of myth’’ ’. Undoubtedly Eden (2:8—the word means ‘delight’) as the
some of the motifs employed are considerably garden of God occurs again in Ezek 28:13; 31:9;
older than the author’s own time; but the tell- Joel 2:3, and Eden by itself in a few passages in
ing of tales for edifying or didactic purposes is Ezekiel and in Isaiah (51:3), always as a place of
more a characteristic of a late stage of civiliza- ideal fertility and beauty. (It also occurs in Gen
tion than an early one. There is evidence, too, 4:16 as a place-name.) In Ezek 28:13–16 there is
that some elements of the vocabulary an allusion to a myth of an expulsion from the
employed here are late rather than early. garden, but this differs markedly from Gen 2–3.
This is a story about two people, a man and a The two named trees in the garden—the tree
woman, and what happened to them. Although of the knowledge of good and evil (2:9, 17, and
in the context they are necessarily pictured as also, it must be presumed, the ‘tree that is in the
the first man and woman, they are symbols as middle of the garden’, 3:3; cf. 3:11, 12) and the tree
well as ancestors of the human race: behind his of life (2:9; 3:22) constitute a puzzle in that the
statements that ‘This is what happened’ the latter does not appear in the main story but
author is saying ‘This is how human beings only in the two verses mentioned above. The
behave, and these are the consequences that problem is usually, and probably rightly, solved
follow.’ The eating of the fruit is not a single by supposing that the author combined two
event of the remote past, but something that is variant traditions in order to introduce the
repeated again and again in human history. The theme of life and death, and was not concerned
traditional view that it was the first sin that with consistency of detail. Both trees have con-
caused all later generations to be born in ‘ori- nections with wisdom themes. In the book of
ginal sin’ is not borne out by this story, although Proverbs knowledge is a synonymous with wis-
it has the aetiological purpose of explaining the dom; and in Prov 3:18 it is stated that wisdom is
present conditions of human existence. It ‘a tree of life to those who lay hold of her’. This
teaches that God’s intention for human beings might lead one to suppose that the two trees are
is wholly good, but that they can be led astray by the same, but it is clear from 2:9 and 3:22 that
subtle temptations; and that, while disobedience this is not so. So knowledge and (eternal) life are
to God, which is self-assertion, may bring not synonymous in this story.
greater self-knowledge, it leads to disaster: the 2:15 resumes the main narrative after what
intimate relationship with God is broken. Life appears to be a digression. The identity of the
then becomes harsh and unpleasant; however, first two of the four rivers of 2:10–14 is not
God does not entirely abandon his creatures known. 2:16–17 contain the first instance of a
but makes special provisions for their preserva- divine prohibition, on which the plot of ch. 3
tion. An Israel that had suffered devastation and depends. The naming of the animals by the man
exile from its land could hardly fail to get the in 2:19–20 establishes their distinct characteristics
message. and confirms the man’s rule over them. The cre-
It is hardly correct to call ch. 2 a second and ation of woman from the man’s rib is a detail that
alternative creation story. The reference to the no doubt derives from an older tradition. In 2:23
creation of the world only occupies 2:4b–6, and the word ‘woman’ (ʾiššâ) is stated—erroneously—
is expressed in a subordinate clause: ‘In the day to be derived from ‘man’ (ʾı̄š). 2:24a is an aetiology
when . . . ’. It is introduced in order to provide a explaining the origin of the relation between the
setting for the main story. It belongs to a differ- sexes; it appears, however, to run counter to
ent tradition from that of ch. 1 with its Meso- actual practice. 2:25b probably expresses a view
potamian perspective—that of Palestine, where that was generally held about primitive man. It
rain (2:5) is vitally important for the existence of also points ahead to 3:8–11: shame is one of the
plant and animal life. But other motifs may have consequences of sin.
Mesopotamian or other origins. In 2:7 the The serpent (3:1) is neither a supernatural
author chose to depict the creation of the first enemy threatening God’s creation from outside
 61 genesis

nor some kind of inner voice within the woman The reason for the expulsion from the garden is
urging her to disobedience. It is specifically specifically stated in 3:22: it is to prevent man-
stated that it was one of God’s creatures, but kind from eating the fruit of the tree of life and
that it was craftier (ʿārûm) than all the others. so obtaining eternal life. The theme echoes
(There is a play on words here: ʿārôm (2:25) Mesopotamian myths about mankind’s failure
means ‘naked’.) ʿārûm is an ambiguous word: it to attain immortality (see ANET 89–96, 101–3).
can also denote ‘wisdom’ in a positive sense. But There is no implication here or anywhere else in
here it is the wrong kind of wisdom possessed chs. 2–3 that mankind was originally intended to
by the serpent that initiates mankind’s fall into be immortal.
disaster. Snakes played a significant part in the In 3:24 God takes elaborate precautions to
mythologies and religious practices of the anci- ensure that the man and woman do not re-enter
ent Near East, as objects both of fear and wor- the garden. The cherubim (cf. Ezek 10; Ps 18:10)
ship. The question of the origin of the serpent’s are supernatural beings closely associated with
wickedness is not raised here. The phenomenon God who carry out his commands, here as guard-
of the speaking snake (cf. Balaam’s ass, Num ians; the flaming and turning sword reflects a
22:28–30) is a folkloric one. Mesopotamian tradition.
In its conversation with the woman (3:1b–5)
the serpent asserts that God’s threat of immedi- (4:1–16) In its present context this story is a
ate death for eating the fruit of the tree of continuation of the previous chapter, as is
knowledge (2:17) is a false one. The acquisition shown by the mention of the name Eve. How-
of the knowledge of good and evil (that is, of ever, the use of a different source is indicated by
wisdom) will lead rather to the human pair the fact that God is now called not by the
becoming ‘like God’. There is truth in what the appellation ‘the LORD God’ (YHWH ʾĕlōhı̂m) but
serpent says: eating the fruit does not result in by the single name YHWH. In v. 1 there is a play
immediate death, and although the man and on words: Eve called her firstborn Cain (qayin)
woman do not become wholly like God since because she had ‘acquired’ (qānâ) him from
they still lack immortality, God fears that if they YHWH.
also eat the fruit of the tree of life they will This is a story about Cain: his brother Abel’s
obtain full divine status (3:22). But the serpent role is entirely passive. The account of Cain’s
fails to say what will be their actual fate. murder of his brother Abel follows the pattern
The various punishments imposed by God on of ch. 3. This motif of fratricide is found in other
the guilty (3:14–19) all have aetiological bases: ancient myths, for example in the Egyptian
serpents have no legs and are thought to ‘eat story of the murder of Osiris by his brother
dust’, and bite human beings but are killed by Seth and, in Roman mythology, that of Romu-
them; women are attached to their husbands, lus’s murder of Remus. The similarity of motif,
suffer pain in childbirth, and also suffer from however, does not help to elucidate the point of
their husbands’ domination (contrast ‘helper’ Gen 4:1–16. Some scholars have seen this in the
and ‘partner’ in 2:18). The final clause of 3:19, difference between the brothers’ occupations
probably a common saying, adds point to the (v. 2) and in YHWH’s acceptance of Abel’s
first half of that verse, which refers back to 2:7. meat offering while he rejected Cain’s fruit of-
The derivation of the name Eve (hawwâ, 3:20) fering (vv. 3–5), which was the cause of Cain’s
which occurs in the OT only here and _ in 4:1, is anger. But no explanation is given in the text of
unknown. There is a play on words here: hawwâ God’s preference, and it is not probable that the
_ to
echoes hay, ‘living (person)’. This verse seems story, at any rate in its present form, reflects
have no_ connection with the previous verses, an age-old rivalry between pastoralists and
though it is separated from the notice of Eve’s farmers.
becoming a mother (4:1) by only a few verses. The story is of course significant in that this is
The somewhat ludicrous picture in 3:21 of the earliest instance in Genesis of death and also
God’s acting as seamstress for the man and his of violence committed by one human being
wife is an indication of his continuing concern against another. Although there is no suggestion
for mankind now that he has abandoned his in the text that the sin of disobedience commit-
original intention to impose the death sentence ted by the first human pair is here seen as the
(2:17) on them. 3:22–4 is not to be regarded as the cause of the universal corruption of human na-
imposition of an additional punishment: God ture, the fact that the first murder immediately
has already made it clear that mankind’s way of follows it can hardly be without significance.
life must now change radically and for the worse. There is in these chapters a progression in evil
genesis 62

which culminates in the statements in 6:5, 11 that the verb šı̂t, ‘to put, procure’ (NRSV ‘appointed’).
mankind has become wholly corrupt. The statement at the end of v. 26 that mankind
In his reply to God’s questioning (v. 9) Cain (ʾĕnôs—the word is identical with the name
intensifies his sin by a lie: he pretends that he Enosh) began ‘at that time’ to invoke the name
does not know where Abel is. He also declines of YHWH appears to contradict Ex 6:2–3, where
responsibility for his brother—a denial of family it is stated that the worship of YHWH began
solidarity that would be anathema to Israelite with Moses (cf. also Ex 3:13–15). The attempt to
readers. The blood of Abel is understood as reconcile v. 26 with the Exodus passages by
crying out from the ground (v. 10), demanding arguing that the former only refers to divine
vengeance. God’s answer to this cry is a curse (vv. worship in general is hardly convincing. That
11, 12). Cain is condemned to have no permanent there is a discrepancy here should be admitted.
place to dwell: he will henceforth be a wanderer The proponents of the Documentary Hypoth-
or fugitive on the earth (v. 14), subject to the esis regarded the discrepancy as providing
vengeance of anyone who may meet him strong evidence of their source theory.
(v. 13). (The implication that there are other
human beings on the earth shows that the (5:1–32) The genealogy of Seth of which this
story is not in fact a continuation of ch. 2–3; cf. chapter consists, which traces the history of
the statement in 4:17 that Cain later married a mankind from the beginning to the birth of
wife.) But in v. 15 God mitigates his punishment, Noah, is linked to ch. 1 by the résumé in vv. 1–2.
cursing in turn Cain’s potential murderers, and This is a somewhat different tradition from
puts him under his protection. The nature of the that of the genealogy of Cain in ch. 4, though
mark (ʾôt) that God placed on him as a sign that it has some of the names in common. In this
he was not to be killed is not explained in the chapter Lamech becomes the father of Noah
text, and the various explanations that have been (v. 29). Enoch appears in both lists, but in v. 22
offered by scholars are purely speculative. The there is an additional note about his character
‘land of Nod (nôd)’ to which Cain took himself and fate. He ‘walked with God’, as is also said of
(v. 16) should not be understood as a geograph- Noah in 6:9; and, presumably on account of
ical location: the word probably means ‘aimless this exceptional piety, he was mysteriously
wandering’. taken away by God and disappeared from the
earth. (Cf. the similar translation of Elijah, 2
(4:17–26) The genealogy in vv. 17–22 is in two Kings 2:10–11.) (The late Jewish books of Enoch
parts: vv. 17–18 list six generations (making used this information to develop elaborate
seven in all if Adam, v. 1, is included), while speculations about Enoch’s adventures after
vv. 19–22 are of a different, collateral, type, his translation.)
listing the children of Lamech by his two There is a partial parallel between this list and
wives. The latter passage has something of the the Mesopotamian King Lists, especially the old
character of an aetiology of the origin of various Babylonian (Sumerian) King List (ANET 265–6)
aspects of civilized life; the origin of cities is which ascribes even more fantastically long
interestingly placed very early (v. 17). This pro- reigns to kings who lived both before and
pensity to satisfy a demand for historical infor- after the Flood. However, these lists differ in
mation about origins by naming the inventors important respects from Gen 5, and there is no
of existing aspects of life is not peculiar to reason to suppose that the latter was modelled
Israel: we may compare the Sumerian ‘seven on the former. But they do share a common
sages’ who taught mankind the pursuits of civ- notion of a succession of distant forebears; and
ilization, and the Greek myth of Prometheus, they also have in common the idea that these
who gave mankind the gift of fire. human beings of the unimaginably remote past
The song of Lamech (vv. 23–4) is an elabor- were of a quite different order of vitality and
ation of the preceding genealogy. It may origin- durability from the puny men and women of
ally have been a boasting song; but in its the present age.
present context its prediction of dramatically v. 29 refers back to 3:17. The name Noah (nōah)
increased violence marks a new stage in the is improbably associated in the Hebrew text _
progress of human wickedness. vv. 25–6 appear with the root n-h-m, ‘to comfort’ (NRSV ‘bring
to be a fragment of a separate genealogy (of _ translation seems to presup-
us relief’); the Greek
Seth) from that of Cain; it is given in a more pose a form of the root n-w-h, which would be
complete form in ch. 5. v. 25 refers back to 4:1. closer to ‘Noah’ and would mean _ ‘give rest’. This
The name Seth is connected by the author with verse is evidently intended to introduce the story
 63 genesis

of the Flood, though this summary of Noah’s different parts of the world between whom no
achievements, whichever version is accepted, is kind of historical contact seems possible that
not particularly appropriate. the theme seems almost to be a universal fea-
ture of the human imagination. The flood story
(6:1–4) It must be admitted that the meaning of Genesis is a clear example of a type that was
and purpose of this story remain uncertain after characteristic of the Mesopotamian world. The
a long history of attempts to interpret it. Every two extant literary accounts that most closely
verse presents difficulties. v. 1 speaks of a great resemble it are Atrahasis (ET in Lambert and
increase of human population—a motif of Millard 1969) and Tablet XI of the Epic of Gilga-
Mesopotamian origin-stories, where this consti- mesh (ANET 93–5). The Babylonian text trans-
tuted a threat to the gods; but as far as one can lated in ANET was, according to Lambert and
see this is not central to the biblical story. Espe- Millard, largely derived from Atrahasis, although
cially problematic is the interpretation of the the latter in its fragmentary state lacks some of
phrase ‘the sons of God’ (bĕnê-hāʾ ĕlōhı̂m), which the details preserved in the former such as the
can also be rendered by ‘the sons of the gods’, in sending out of birds to discover whether the
v. 2. These are mentioned again in Job 1:6; 2:1 waters had receded. But unlike Gilgamesh, Atra-
and—with slightly different wording (bĕnê hasis resembles Genesis in that it contains an
ʾēlı̂m)—in Ps 29:1; 89:6. In those passages they account of the creation of mankind from clay
are heavenly beings subordinate to YHWH and before proceeding to the story of the Flood.
members of his council. In the texts from Ras As was pointed out long ago, there are a
Shamra (Ugarit) the sons of the gods are them- number of details in the Genesis story such as
selves gods and members of the pantheon of the chronology and the numbers of animals
which the high god El is the head. The trad- taken into the ark that are mutually contradict-
itional view of the sons of God here in v. 2 ory. Attempts to reconcile these, however ing-
is that they are angels; but the implication of enious, can hardly be convincing. It is clear that
vv. 1–4 as a whole is that their activities do not more than one version of the story have been
meet with YHWH’s approval. There are other combined. But the text as it stands can no
ancient myths describing marriages between longer be separated into two complete versions:
gods and human women, and also well-known there is, for example, only one account of God’s
myths about a rebellion in heaven. The story detailed instructions to Noah about the con-
here may have been derived from an otherwise struction and dimensions of the ark (6:14–16),
unknown Canaanite myth. without which there could be no story.
In v. 3 YHWH is represented as speaking to The author, who may have known several ver-
himself, expressing his determination to limit sions from which he could choose, has spliced
the span of human life to 120 years. Here we two of them together without concerning him-
have once more the motif of a divine prohib- self about total consistency—a method already
ition of human immortality, which might have noted above with regard to chs. 2–3.
resulted from the union of divine beings with The story of the Flood in Genesis is the cli-
human women. God’s spirit (rûah) here is max of a sequence that begins with the creation
probably equivalent to the ‘breath _ of life’ of of the world and ends, after almost total disaster
2:7. v. 4 appears to be a series of comments on for mankind, with the renewal of mankind
the story, identifying the nature of the children through Noah and his descendants. Despite
born of the divine–human union. They were similarities in some of the details of the account
the Nephilim, interpreted in Num 13:33 as of the Flood itself, no such sequence is to be
giants. In the second half of the verse they found in either Gilgamesh or Atrahasis. In the
are identified with the famous ‘heroes (gib- former, the Flood is only an episode recounted
bōrı̂m) of old’. The reason why the author by the ‘Babylonian Noah’, one Utnapishtim; no
chose to include this strange story with its information is given about the future of the
polytheistic overtones may be that it served survivors. In Atrahasis as in Genesis the Flood
as a further mark of the corruption of human is part of a connected story, but a quite different
nature and thus as an appropriate prelude to one which involves a quarrel among the gods,
the story of the Flood in chs. 6–9. while the fate of the survivors is barely sketched
in the fragmented manuscripts that have been
(6:5–8:22) The Story of the Flood Stories of a preserved. The Genesis story on the other hand
great flood sent in primeval times to destroy has in the hands of the author acquired a pur-
mankind are so common to many peoples in poseful theological meaning in the context of
genesis 64

the book’s presentation of human nature and of made later with the people of Israel. It is an
the one God’s treatment of it which combines obligation that God imposes on himself; its
mercy and grace with severity. contents are unspecified, but it clearly implies
vv. 5–12 give the reason for the bringing of divine protection and blessing, conditional only
the Flood: human wickedness has now become on Noah’s complete obedience to God’s instruc-
total and universal (Noah being the sole excep- tions in 6:18–21, which he carried out (6:22).
tion, 6:9); and God, faced with this apparently In its specification of the numbers of each
complete failure of his hopes, now regrets species of animal to be taken into the ark
his decision to create human beings (6:6) and 6:19–20 differs from that of 7:2–3, which is
determines on their destruction together with clearly from a different source. In 7:2–3 a dis-
all other living creatures (6:7). This striking an- tinction is made between clean and unclean
thropomorphism (i.e. the representation of God animals. This refers to the lists of clean and
as fallible and reacting to a situation as with unclean animals in Lev 11:3–31 and Deut 14:4–
human weakness) is reminiscent of 3:22. Such 20: it is an example of a tendency to carry back
a view of God runs counter to the belief expr- the origin of fundamental institutions (in this
essed elsewhere in the OT (e.g. Num 23:19; 1 case, Mosaic laws) to primeval times. The main
Sam 15:29), but is not unparalleled (cf. e.g. Ex reason for the command to take seven rather
32:14; Am 7:3, 6), though in those instances than two pairs of the clean species into the ark
God’s ‘repentance’ is favourable rather than was that some of the clean animals were to be
unfavourable to those concerned. More analo- reserved to be used, for the first time, as animal
gous to the present passage is God’s threat in Ex sacrifices (8:20).
32:10 to destroy his rebellious people and to The discrepancies in the statements about
start again with Moses. the duration of the Flood in 7:4–8:14, which
The statement that humanity had become to- are due to the combination of different
tally corrupt is repeated in 6:11–12. Since there is sources, are difficult to disentangle, although
a change in the appellation of God here—from the main outline of the narrative is clear. The
YHWH to ʾĕlōhı̂m—this verse has been thought immediate cause of the Flood is a dual one: the
to come from a different source (P as opposed bursting forth of the ‘fountains (i.e. springs)
to J); but in the present context the repetition is of the great deep (tĕhôm rabbâ)’ below the
appropriate since it immediately follows the earth (cf. 1:2) and the opening of the ‘windows
statement about the uniquely righteous Noah of the heavens’ (7:11; cf. Isa 24:18; Mal 3:10) to
in 6:8–9. In 6:12, 13 ‘all flesh’ evidently includes let the torrential rain fall unremittingly for
the animals, though some of these were to be forty days and nights (7:12). This signalled the
preserved by being taken into the ark together undoing of his creation by God’s command:
with Noah and his family. The word ‘ark’ (tēbâ, chaos had come again.
6:14) occurs in the OT only here and in the Ararat (8:4) is mentioned again in 2 Kings
story of the infant Moses (Ex 2:3, 5). It is prob- 19:37; Isa 37:38; Jer 51:27. It was known to the
ably derived from an Egyptian word meaning a Assyrians as Urartu, and was an independent
chest or box. The usual word for ‘ship’ has been kingdom in the early first millennium BCE until
avoided. The use of the word tēbâ may point to its destruction in the sixth century BCE. The area
an earlier version of the story. The identity of corresponds roughly to that of modern Arm-
the word rendered by ‘cypress’ (gōper, older enia. The Epic of Gilgamesh also records the land-
English versions ‘gopher’) is uncertain. The ing of the ark on a mountain. The sending out
impression given of the ark is that of a flat- of a raven and a dove to test the subsidence of
bottomed box-like construction about 450 ft. the waters (8:6–12) also corresponds to a similar
long, 75 ft. broad and 45 ft. deep (6:15) with incident in Gilgamesh. The first animal sacrifice
three decks, a roof or window (the meaning of on the first altar (8:20) is an act of thanksgiving,
sōhār is uncertain), and a door (6:16; ‘finish it to not an attempt to propitiate God, who had
a_ cubit above’ is incomprehensible). already (6:8, 18) shown his acceptance of
At 6:18 is the first mention of a covenant Noah. But this sacrifice inaugurates a new era
(běrı̂t) in the book. This promise to Noah is in which the slaughter of animals was permitted
reaffirmed in 9:11–17. Since Noah and his family (9:3–4). The anthropomorphical statement that
were to be the only human survivors, it is by God ‘smelled the pleasing odour’, unique in the
implication a covenant made by God with the OT, is no doubt a reminiscence of an earlier
whole future human race; it points forward version of the story: it is a way of saying that
also, however, to the specific covenant to be he approved of the sacrifice. In Gilgamesh at this
 65 genesis

point in the story the gods ‘smelled the savour’ with 4:20–2, but with a story attached to it. The
and ‘crowded like flies about the sacrificer’. In point of the story in vv. 20–7 is not that Noah
determining never again to destroy mankind committed a sin in becoming drunk, but that
God now appears to accept that the evil ten- Ham sinned in seeing his father when he was
dency of the human heart is innate and inerad- naked, an act which called forth a curse on Ca-
icable. The negative decision of 8:21 is then naan, Ham’s son. There is nothing in the text to
matched by a positive one: the orderly alterna- support the view advanced by some scholars that
tions of day and night and of the seasons will Ham’s sin was in fact either an act of homosexu-
now resume and will not again be interrupted. ality or the incestuous rape of his mother (Lev
‘As long as the earth endures’ makes it clear, 18:6–19, which speaks of ‘uncovering’ nakedness,
however, that it will not continue for ever but is not speaking of the same thing). Nakedness was
will have an end. shameful (3:7–11), and Ham humiliated his father
by not decently covering him. In vv. 25–7 it
(9:1–17) In vv. 1–7 God, addressing Noah and is already presupposed that Noah’s sons are to
his sons, inaugurates the new era and the become the ancestors of different nations. The
renewed humanity. There are strong indica- incongruity that it is Canaan and not his father
tions here that this is regarded as a new cre- who is cursed (vv. 25, 27) is connected with Israel’s
ation. The passage begins and ends with a traditional hatred of the Canaanites, who are seen
blessing (cf. 1:28) and there is a repetition of as destined to become slaves; but attempts to
the command to be fruitful and multiply and identify the circumstances in which these verses
fill the earth and to rule over the animal world; were written have not been successful. The name
but there are significant differences from ch. 1. Japheth is here aetiologically associated with a
The animals are now to fear their rulers (v. 2), rare Hebrew verb meaning ‘to enlarge’.
and may be killed for food: things are not after
all as idyllic as at the beginning. v. 4 prescribes (10:1–32) This chapter, often known as the
the manner of their slaughter, once more ‘table of the nations’, is an attempt, on the
carrying back the institution of a Mosaic law basis of the presupposition that all humanity
to the primeval period (cf. 7:2–3); this is the is descended from Noah’s three sons, to name
kosher law prohibiting the consumption of an all the nations of the world and to state from
animal’s blood (cf. Lev 7:26–7 and other pas- which genealogical branch they are derived. It
sages). vv. 5–6 forbid homicide: mankind, in con- appears to be quite unique: no comparable anc-
trast to the animals, was created in the image of ient texts exist. Certain stylistic variations and
God. The story of the Flood concludes in vv. 8–17 inconsistencies in the lists of names have led the
on a hopeful note with God’s reaffirmation of the source critics to postulate a combination of the
covenant that he had made with Noah (6:18), sources J and P, despite the fact that there is
which now includes all living creatures as well only one reference to God, where he is referred
as Noah’s descendants. He reveals his previous to by his name YHWH (v. 9). Many but by no
decision (cf. 8:21–2) never again to destroy means all the names are readily identifiable. The
the earth, and makes the rainbow—literally a descendants of Japhet, for example, include the
‘bow in the clouds’—a ‘sign’ of the covenant, a Medes (Madai), the Ionian Greeks (Javan), pos-
reminder both to himself and to mankind— sibly the Cypriots (Kittim), and Rhodians (if the
another example of aetiology. emendation of Rodanim from the Dodanim of
the Hebrew text is correct). The list of Ham’s
(9:18–29) The story of Noah’s drunkenness can descendants, which begins with Nubia (Cush),
hardly be seen as related to that of the Flood. It Egypt, and possibly Lybia (Put), also contains
appears to be a resumption of the history of Canaan, a country which would in modern ter-
human generations in chs. 4 and 5 with its minology be ranked as Semite (i.e. Shemite).
theme of human sin and corruption. vv. 18–19, This is true also of Babylon (Babel) and Assyria.
however, have a connection with the Flood The descendants of Shem, who is called ‘the
story in their reference to the departure of father of all the sons of Eber’, that is, Hebrews,
Noah’s sons from the ark. The notice in v. 18 are listed last as more immediately relevant to
that Ham was the father of Canaan is a link with the readers. There is some inconsistency here:
vv. 20–7; an attempt to account for the curse on Assyria, listed under Ham in v. 11, is given as a
Canaan in vv. 25–7. descendant of Shem in v. 22. Other well-attested
The statement in v. 20 that Noah was the peoples listed as descendants of Shem include
inventor of viticulture is an aetiology comparable Elam and Aram (the Arameans); but most of the
genesis 66

remaining names in these verses are unknown Isaac, and Jacob, the ‘fathers’ of Israel. vv. 27–
or not certainly identifiable, as also is the terri- 32, the genealogy of Terah, Abraham’s father, in
tory mentioned in v. 30. By thus peopling the fact function as the beginning of the story of
world the author has prepared for Abraham’s Abraham, and introduce principal characters in
world, which was already divided into nations. that story: Abraham, his wife Sarai (Sarah), and
The cause of these divisions is given in 11:1–9. his brother Lot. It briefly refers to Sarai’s bar-
renness and a migration of the family from Ur
(11:1–9) This is a compact and self-contained of the Chaldeans, probably in southern Meso-
narrative. It contains an aetiological element in potamia (but ‘Chaldeans’ is an anachronism),
that it purports to explain why the human with the intention of settling in Canaan but
population, which had originally shared the instead getting no further than Haran, a city of
same language, came to be divided by the deve- northern Mesopotamia.
lopment of many languages which prevented
their mutual comprehension and so hindered Abraham and his Family (chs. 12–36)
co-operation; and also how they came to be The world of Israel’s ancestors, Abraham, Isaac,
dispersed throughout the world (though this is and Jacob, and their families, is different from
already implied in the command to ‘fill the that of chs. 1–11: here we are dealing with ‘real’
earth’, 9:1, and its fulfilment in 9:19). But aeti- individuals and their life stories. Yet it is still not
ology is not the main point of the story, which our world. Frequent attempts have been made to
is another account (cf. ch. 3) of human ambition find historical situations into which these patri-
to rise above the human condition, the threat archs can be fitted, but they have all failed to
that this posed to God’s supremacy, and the convince (see Thompson 1974). Gunkel, in
action taken by God to frustrate this. The his famous commentary on Genesis (1901), put
story is located in the land of Shinar, that is, forward a view which was long accepted: that
Mesopotamia (cf. 10:10); the city which they most of these stories were independent short
began to build, perhaps including the tower folk-tales (Sagen) which circulated by word of
(v. 4) is identified in v. 9 with Babylon. There mouth for a very long time before they were
is nothing specifically in the text to indicate combined into longer complexes and eventu-
that the story was inspired by one of the Meso- ally set down in writing. That they have an oral
potamian ziggurats: it is true that the Esagil in origin and are not to be seen as accounts of the
Babylon was supposed to link heaven and lives of historical personages remains a com-
earth; but it was a completed building, not mon opinion; but that they had a long history
one left unfinished as was the city in v. 8. before their incorporation into the present
There is no extant Mesopotamian story com- work is regarded by some recent scholars as
parable with this, though some of its motifs are by no means certain (see Whybray 1987). The
found in a Sumerian epic. The anonymous possibility that these stories may not be much
builders (‘they’) are represented as the whole older than the time of the final redactor of
human population (‘the whole earth’, v. 1). This the Pentateuch is supported by the fact that
means that ‘make a name for ourselves’ implies the pre-exilic parts of the OT with one possible
a universal ambition to attain to a greatness exception (Hos 12:3–4, 12) show no knowledge
superior to their present status, which must of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as individuals or of
mean an infringement of God’s absolute su- events connected with them.
premacy. God’s decision to come down from The true purpose of this part of Genesis was
heaven to see what his puny creatures are try- theological rather than historical in the modern
ing to do (‘Let us go down’, v. 7) is expressed in sense of the latter term. Like some other parts of
the same plural terms as are 1:26 and 3:22. In the OT which must be regarded as historical
v. 9 the word ‘Babel’ is seen as related to the fiction (e.g. Job, Ruth, Jonah, Esther, and Dan
verb bālal, ‘to mix, confuse’. 1–6), its purpose is to teach a religious lesson. It
is generally admitted that the three patriarchs
(11:10–32) This genealogy spans the gener- were originally unrelated to one another and
ations from Shem to Abram (Abraham). It con- that their stories have been combined in order
centrates on succession from father to son, and to create a family story whose main theme is set
deals with individuals: thus it is intended to be out at the very start (Gen 12:1–3), where Abra-
seen as the family history of a single individual, ham is commanded by God to leave the country
Abraham. It forms a link between the primeval where he has been residing and to migrate to
world and that of the patriarchs, Abraham, another country whose identity will later be
 67 genesis

revealed to him, where he will become the ance- the story of the life of Joseph, chs. 37–50, which
stor of a great nation, especially blessed and in belongs to a different literary genre from the
turn conferring his blessing on other peoples. previous stories, see below.) Meanwhile the
This theme of God’s promise dominates these births of all Jacob’s twelve sons had taken
chapters: the promise is repeated on several place, recorded at intervals between 29:32 and
more occasions to Abraham himself (15:4–7, 35:18. Recently attempts have been made to
18–21; 17:4–8; 22:17–18) and then to Isaac (26:2– reconstruct the stages of the process by which
5, 24) and Jacob (35:11–12). The promise of future the patriarchal stories have been composed
blessing implies material success; and it is made (especially Blum 1984), but these remain hypo-
clear that God will guide the fortunes of the thetical.
family. But the continuity of that family dep-
ends on the production of an heir in each suc-
ceeding generation; and the difficulties and The Story of Abraham (chs. 12–25)
dangers attending this provide the dramatic (12:1–3) The story begins with a divine com-
content of many incidents in the story. mand and a dual promise. First, God promises
The promise of the possession of the land, to make Abraham into a great nation; this of
which proved to be the land of Canaan, was not course implies that Abraham himself will have a
in fact fulfilled in the course of the book of male heir and that the succeeding generations
Genesis; but by the end of the book there had will all have numerous progeny, and also that
been a positive development. The twelve sons the future nation will enjoy great political
of Jacob, who were to be the ancestors of the power (the word gôy, ‘nation’, suggests a fully
twelve tribes of Israel, had been born, and had organized group, and the ‘great name’ in this
received their blessings (ch. 49). So the nation of context implies international pre-eminence or
Israel now existed in embryo. Their migration superiority). The second promise is really imp-
to Egypt during a famine, in the final section of lied by the first: it is a promise of divine bless-
the book, may be considered on the one hand as ing, which will ultimately be extended to all
one of the many causes of delay of the fulfil- peoples. There is no specific promise of posses-
ment of the promise; but it is also to be seen as sion of the land here; this appears for the first
the springboard for the miracle at the Sea in the time in 12:7 as a promise not to Abraham per-
book of Exodus and for the subsequent series of sonally but to his descendants. A number of
events related in the rest of the Pentateuch recent scholars, regarding 12:1–3 as representing
which led eventually to the possession of the the earliest stage of the Abraham story, have
land. The readers were thus presented in these maintained that the promise of the land belongs
chapters with a picture of a God who was tota- to a later stage of redaction. This may be so; but
lly in control of events and who had marvel- the initial command to Abraham in v. 1 to travel
lously created their nation and preserved it to a land later to be identified cannot be without
from the beginning, one whose promises they significance, especially to the original readers,
knew to have been ultimately fulfilled; but they who would naturally identify that land with the
were also made aware, through the account of land of Canaan, which they knew had in fact
the wanderings and vicissitudes of their ances- come into the possession of Abraham’s des-
tors, of the precariousness of the life of faith. cendants. The fact that God had arbitrarily
Basically these chapters fall into three sec- uprooted Abraham and exiled him from his
tions, each concerned with the life of one of original country would, however, remind them
the three patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. of the precariousness of their own residential
However, since in their present form they are a status. In Gen 23:4 Abraham himself spoke of
combination of separate parts to form the his- his being ‘a stranger and an alien’ in the land. In
tory of a single family, the three stories have 12:1–3, then, the basic promises to the patriarchs
been made to interlock so as to produce a are all already presented.
continuous family saga. Thus Abraham’s death
is recorded in 25:8, but the birth of his heir Isaac (12:4–9) takes Abraham on his journey south
had taken place long before (21:2); similarly the from Haran to Canaan, which God now identi-
birth of Isaac’s son Jacob is noted in 25:25–6, but fies (v. 7) as the land to which he was to go (v. 1).
Isaac’s death only in 35:29. Jacob’s own death His unquestioning obedience to God’s com-
(noted in 49:33) did not occur until the comple- mand is seen by NT writers (Heb 11:8–10; cf.
tion of his son Joseph’s extraordinary success Rom 4; Gal 3) as an outstanding act of faith to
story (Joseph’s birth is recorded in 30:23). (On be imitated. The reference in v. 4 to Lot (cf. 11:27,
genesis 68

31) as Abraham’s travelling companion sets the with ‘great plagues’ (presumably soon cured; a
stage for the story in 13:5–13. The oak of Moreh lacuna in the story has been suspected between
near Shechem (v. 6) is represented as an already vv. 17 and 18) is exemplary and even generous (v.
sacred tree at which oracles were given (mōreh 20). Abraham is left speechless before Pharaoh’s
means ‘one who teaches’); but it was God’s justified reproach. The story is told without the
appearance to Abraham that led him to build making of an overt moral judgement; but the
an altar there and—presumably—to offer sac- contrast between the obedient Abraham of
rifice (cf. Noah’s sacrifice, 8:20). On the invoca- 12:1–9 and the Abraham of this story is unmis-
tion of the name of YHWH at the second altar takable. The story considered by itself is clearly
that he built near Bethel (v. 8) see at 4:26 above. not favourable to Abraham; but in its present
In travelling to the Negeb (the semi-desert area context it has become an illustration of the
to the south of Judah) he reached the southern theme of the promise constantly endangered
border of Canaan, having traversed the land but never annulled. Paradoxically, Abraham
completely from north to south. It is significant emerges from this incident not only unscathed
that it is not stated that he entered any of the but rewarded with great wealth (vv. 16, 20). It is
ancient cities of Canaan; instead, he lived in important to note that it is not said of Abraham
tents as a travelling stranger. as it is of Noah (6:9) that he was morally perfect.
The point of the story in its present context is
(12:10–20) is one of a group of three stories in not his moral character but that he is the bearer
Genesis with the same theme. In 20:1–18, as of God’s promise to him and his descendants.
here, Abraham passes Sarah off as his sister The threefold repetition of what is basically the
during a temporary residence in Gerar, with same story cannot be adequately accounted for
similar consequences, and again in 26:6–11 in terms of a dovetailing of written continuous
Isaac, driven by famine (26:1), as was Abraham strands that were originally independent of one
in ch. 12, seeks refuge, again, in Gerar. It is another. The reason for it is of a literary nature.
generally recognized that these are three vari- Repetition to create particular effects is a com-
ants of one and the same story, which was mon literary device in narrative; and this is
defined by Gunkel as a folk-tale; but there is eminently the case in Genesis (see Alter (1981),
no agreement today about their relationship to especially on type-scenes, 47–62). Here each
one another or the reasons why despite their version of the story marks a crucial point in
basic similarities they differ substantially in the total narrative. 12:10–20 stands at its head,
details. Attempts to discover which of the immediately following the initial promise to
variants is the oldest have resulted in different Abraham of numerous descendants (12:2–3),
conclusions. and shows how God safeguards that promise,
Migrations of groups of people at various keeping both the prospective parents from
times across the eastern frontier of Egypt to harm in a dangerous situation. 20:1–18 occurs
seek more favourable conditions of life are immediately before the crucial account of the
well attested historically (see e.g. ANET 251). In birth of Isaac (21:1–2) which marks the first stage
the OT the migration of Jacob and his sons to in the fulfilment of that promise. 26:6–11 is
Egypt (Gen 47) is another example of this. 12:10– similarly closely connected with the birth of
20 is the first instance of many in which the Isaac’s son Jacob, the next heir (25:21–4) and is
fulfilment of the promise to Abraham is endan- immediately preceded in 26:3–5 by a further
gered. Not only is the departure from Canaan a reiteration of that promise. These repeated stor-
move away from the promised land; even more ies thus help to provide a structure for the
serious is the threat to the marriage of Abraham patriarchal stories.
and Sarah which is still childless, and so to the
promise of progeny. Faced with a choice be- (13:1–18) This chapter and ch. 14, which are
tween death from starvation and the potential mainly concerned with relations between Lot
danger entailed in migrating to an alien and and Abraham, are a kind of interlude or digres-
unknown country, Abraham chooses the latter sion: Lot is not a leading character in the main
course; but, fearful for his own safety, he sacri- patriarchal story; after the events of ch. 19 he
fices his wife to a life in Pharaoh’s harem, which disappears from it, though at the end of that
would also make the promise null and void. In chapter it is noted that he became the ancestor
contrast to his shabby conduct, which also in- of the Moabites and Ammonites whose later
volves telling a lie, the behaviour of Pharaoh, dealings with Israel have a part to play in
whose unsuspecting action is rewarded by God other OT books (19:37–8). Continuity with the
 69 genesis

main plot is, however, maintained in the inci- of old traditions, its heroic character and also
dent which determines Abraham’s future area perhaps its style may point to a post-exilic
of residence well away from the corruption and origin.
temptations of Sodom and Gomorrah, whose The peoples named in vv. 5–6 are legendary
evil inhabitants (v. 13) were later to suffer dest- groups who inhabited the Transjordan; the Val-
ruction at the hands of YHWH (v. 10). The final ley of Siddim is unknown. The reference in v. 13
verses of ch. 13 revert to the principal theme of to Abraham as ‘the Hebrew’ conveys the impr-
the promise. ession that he has not been previously intro-
In v. 2 Abraham’s wealth is again stressed, duced to the reader. The word ‘Hebrew’ is used
though he continued to live an itinerant life. in the OT only by foreigners speaking about the
The quarrel between Abraham’s and Lot’s Israelites and not by Israelites about themselves
herdsmen (vv. 5–7) is to be understood as due (see Jon 1:9). In Genesis it occurs elsewhere only
to inadequate living space for the herds in a in the story of Joseph when he is spoken of by
land which was occupied by other, settled, Egyptians or addresses Egyptians. The tiny size
peoples. (The identity of the Perizzites, v. 7, of Abraham’s military force, which consists
who are mentioned fairly frequently in Genesis, entirely of members of his own household
is uncertain.) Abraham’s offer to settle the dis- (v. 14) enhances his heroic stature.
pute, which was not of his making or of Lot’s, Melchizedek, in v. 18, provides a royal ban-
by giving Lot the choice of territory is explained quet to welcome Abraham on his return after
as due to a desire to preserve amicable relations his victory. It is strange that he should suddenly
with his kinsman (lit. brother), while Lot’s dis- appear in the story, having taken no part in the
astrous choice is determined by the attraction preceding events. He is a mysterious and enig-
of the fertility of the Jordan plain, which is matic figure. His name probably means ‘(The
compared to that of Egypt and of the garden god) Melek is righteousness’ and closely resem-
of Eden. The passage ends with a more detailed bles that of a pre-Israelite king of Jerusalem,
reaffirmation of the promise to Abraham of Adoni-zedek (‘The Lord is righteousness’), who
numerous descendants and of the whole land, was defeated and killed by Joshua (Josh 10). It is
with the additional assurance that it will remain not clear whether Salem is intended to be iden-
in their possession for ever (v. 15). tified with Jerusalem, as Jerusalem is never so-
called in any of the non-biblical texts that refer
(14:1–24) This chapter is an unusual one in to (pre-Israelite) Jerusalem. In the OT, only in Ps
several respects. It is self-contained and appears 76:2 is Salem equated with Zion, God’s dwell-
to be unrelated to the surrounding chapters ing-place. In Gen 14:18 Melchizedek is described
except for the names of Abraham and Lot and as a priest-king serving El Elyon (ʾēl elyôn, ‘God
of Sodom and Gomorrah. The documentary Most High’) who is stated to be the creator of
critics with some exceptions were unable to heaven and earth. In Ps 110:4, the only other OT
connect it with any of their main sources (J, E, passage where his name occurs, Melchizedek is
and P), and concluded that it is a quite inde- taken to be a precursor of the later priest-kings
pendent episode. It is the only passage in which of Israel. The author of Gen 14 clearly intended
the otherwise entirely peaceable Abraham is the reader to identify El Elyon with YHWH as is
represented as taking part in military activity. the case with the titles El Olam (ʾēl ʿôlām, ‘the
It begins in the style of a historical narrative; yet Everlasting God’, 21:33), El Shaddai ‘God Al-
none of the nine kings mentioned (vv. 1–2) has mighty’, (ʾēl šadday, 17:1), etc. But in fact El was
been identified, nor is any war such as is desc- the high god of the Canaanite pantheon, who is
ribed here known to have occurred. It puts not infrequently identified with YHWH in the
Abraham in a very good light both as an out- OT, and Elyon sometimes occurs in the texts
standing warrior who comes to the aid of mem- from Ugarit as an epithet of El. The phrase
bers of his family, and as forgoing the spoils of ‘maker of heaven and earth’ is virtually identical
war. Its purpose thus seems to have been to with what is said of El in those texts. In v. 22 El
glorify Abraham as a great and powerful hero Elyon is specifically identified with YHWH in
of international stature. It has been argued that the solemn oath that Abraham swears to forgo
it is not a single unitary composition; the Mel- his share of the spoils of victory.
chizedek episode (vv. 18–20) has been thought
by some scholars to be a later addition to the (15:1–21) There has been much scholarly discus-
original story. There is no agreement about its sion about the composition of this chapter. It has
date: while some believe that it is a reworking proved resistant to a division into sources along
genesis 70

the lines of the Documentary Hypothesis, and solemn oath-like statement to Abraham
attempts to demonstrate that a relatively short by YHWH in vv. 13–16 and his making of
piece has been massively supplemented by a late a covenant with him (vv. 18–21). Its awesome
hand have also failed to be entirely convincing. accompaniments—the ‘deep sleep’ (tardēmâ, a
Some recent scholars have reverted to something rare word also used of Adam when Eve was
like the pre-critical position that it is mainly or created) and the terrifying darkness—add to
wholly the work of a single author. But all agree the solemnity of the event. The smoking fire
that it is in two parts: vv. 1–6 and 7–21. Both pot and the flaming torch (v. 17) represent
contain further divine revelations to Abraham YHWH’s passing between the rows of animals
reiterating the earlier promises, but they differ to symbolize his binding himself to keep the
considerably in the mode of revelation. covenant. vv. 13–16 are a ‘prophecy after
vv. 1–6 are introduced in the same way as a the event’ foretelling the captivity in Egypt and
prophetical oracle, but take the form of a the Exodus; its purpose is to account for the
vision—the word ‘vision’ (mahăzeh) is very rare long gap between promise and fulfilment. The
and probably indicates a late _date. The call not 400 years of v. 13 and the ‘fourth generation’ of
to be afraid is characteristic of Deutero-Isaiah v. 16 can hardly be reconciled; it has been sug-
(Isa 40–55). This is what is often called an ‘oracle gested that v. 16, which foreshadows the Israel-
of salvation’, and it sounds the note of encour- ites’ conquest of the Amorites (Canaanites), is a
agement. But it becomes clear that Abraham later revision of the prophecy. The Amorites
has begun to doubt whether God will carry are said not to be sufficiently wicked as yet to
out his promise to give him an heir of his deserve this fate. The promise of vv. 18–21, which
body: he has been obliged to appoint his own contains a comprehensive list of the peoples
servant Eleazar as his heir. YHWH reiterates his believed to have preceded Israel in the land,
original promise and shows him the stars as a describes the boundaries of the land in very
demonstration of how numerous his descend- grand terms—from the borders of Egypt to the
ants will be. This direct vision of God convinces Euphrates. In fact the borders of the state of
him: he believes, that is, trusts, God’s word. The Israel were probably never as extensive (1 Kings
author’s statement that YHWH ‘reckoned it to 4:21 is hardly a sober historical statement). The
him as righteousness’, which forms the climax covenant with Abraham (v. 18), who here repre-
of the episode, has rightly been seen as one of sents the future nation of Israel, is a free, uncon-
the most significant in the whole of Scripture ditional promise, unlike the covenant of Sinai.
(see Gal 3:7–9; Jas 2:23; cf. Heb 11:8–10) and has
been taken, together with other instances of (16:1–16) Like the stories in chs. 12, 20, and 26
Abraham’s faith, particularly his readiness to (see above on 12:10–20), the story of Hagar in
leave Haran and his willingness to sacrifice his this chapter has a counterpart (21:9–21). These
son Isaac (ch. 22) as the foundation of the doc- are clearly variants of an older folk-tale; and
trine of justification by faith, even though its once again their placement in the ongoing
precise meaning has been disputed. That it is an story of Abraham is significant. Both are further
expression of Abraham’s readiness to trust examples of the threat to the fulfilment of the
God’s promise cannot be doubted. promise that Abraham will have a legitimate
vv. 7–21, like 1–6, are probably a creation of heir by his wife Sarah and of the setting aside
the author with no older tradition behind it. of that threat (cf. 15:2–4). Ch. 16 immediately
They are also concerned with the promise, but precedes the repetition of the promise guaran-
now specifically with the promise of the land teeing Abraham’s progeny and their destiny
rather than with the question of progeny. Like (17:1–8); 21:9–21 immediately follows the birth
vv. 1–6, they present Abraham as hesitant to of Isaac (21:1–8) and confirms that it is he who is
believe the promise and demanding to know to be the heir. But the motif of God’s protection
how it is to be fulfilled. YHWH satisfies him by of the rejected Ishmael which is common to
means of a solemn but curious ritual which both versions of the story is an indication that
Abraham is commanded to carry out. This ritual before the story was inserted into the Abraham
does not conform precisely with anything narrative and placed in its two respective posi-
known from elsewhere, although the cutting of tions it was the figure of Hagar who was the
the animals into two is reminiscent of some centre of interest and the principal character.
covenant rituals. The animals specified are There is a somewhat similar story of acrimoni-
those used in sacrifice in the laws of the OT; ous relations between a barren wife and her
but the purpose of the ritual is indicated by the rival in 1 Sam 1:2–8.
 71 genesis

The practice alluded to in vv. 2–3 was a com- warning against the breach of the covenant,
mon and accepted one in the ancient Near East; which will entail exclusion from its privileges
it is consequently not possible to fix the date of and from the new special relationship with
the story by reference to any particular extant God; this could be a warning to Jews of the
Near-Eastern law or legal contract as has been immediate post-exilic community who were
proposed by some scholars. The words of the tempted to abandon their Jewish identity. The
‘angel’ (malʾāk) of YHWH who speaks to Hagar in concept of the crucial importance of circumci-
16:7 are identified with the words of YHWH sion was a particular characteristic of the post-
himself in 16:13. Westermann’s comment (1985: exilic period.
244) is apt: ‘God is present not in the messenger, Two further additional features of the chap-
but in the message.’ The promise that YHWH ter are the personal promise to Sarah (vv. 15–19)
makes to Hagar in v. 10, which is curiously like with the precise announcement of the time
that made elsewhere about Isaac, identifies Ish- when her son will be born (v. 21) and the bless-
mael as the ancestor of the Ishmaelites, whose ing of Ishmael (v. 20). Abraham’s sceptical
supposed characteristics are described in v. 12. laughter at the announcement that Sarah will
There are two aetiologies in the later part of the give birth combined with his deep obeisance (cf.
narrative, but they are subordinate to the main Sarah’s laughter on a parallel occasion, 18:12) is
theme of the story. First, the name Ishmael, who strange; but there is here a play on the name
is to be preserved by YHWH’s intervention (v. 11), Isaac (yishāq, that is, ‘he laughs’, possibly an
means ‘God hears’. In the second aetiology the _ _ form of yishāq-ʾēl, ‘God laughs’).
abbreviated
name El-rei (ʾēl rōʾı̂ ) (v. 13, probably ‘God who Abraham’s wish that Ishmael__ should be pre-
sees me’), is stated in v. 14 to be the origin of the served under God’s protection (v. 18) shows
name of the—now unidentifiable—well where that he still places his hopes in Ishmael. God
the angel spoke to Hagar. The aetiology, like grants his wish, conferring a special blessing on
others in Genesis, is not exact, as it is Hagar Ishmael, but excludes him from the covenant
who ‘sees’ God, and not vice versa. that is for Isaac and his descendants. The chap-
ter concludes with a notice that Abraham duly
(17:1–27) This chapter is primarily concerned carried out God’s commands about circumci-
with the covenant (bĕrı̂t) which God undertakes sion, which was performed on all Abraham’s
to make with Abraham—the word bĕrı̂t occurs household (including Ishmael) as prescribed in
13 times in the chapter. It reiterates the promises later legislation (Ex 12:48).
of progeny, of future greatness for Abraham’s
descendants, and of the gift of the land; but it (18:1–16) The motif of the appearance to
contains several new and significant features. In human beings of gods in human disguise is a
v. 1 YHWH introduces himself as El Shaddai common mythological theme of the ancient
(‘God Almighty’): the author supposes that at world. A Greek myth, preserved by the Roman
this time Abraham did not know YHWH by poet Ovid, tells of such a visit in which a mi-
name. The name Shaddai, the meaning of raculous birth is announced; there is a similar
which is uncertain (it may mean ‘the one of story in Judg 6:11–24. Gen 18:1, 13 make it clear
the mountain’ or ‘the one of the field’) was that, although Abraham and Sarah are unaware
probably used as a divine epithet from an of this, the three mysterious visitors (or one of
early period. This incident is regarded as open- them?) are in fact YHWH himself. This passage
ing a new stage in the life of Abraham: this is is thus another version of ch. 17, but expressed
why he now receives a new name (v. 5). (So also in a quite different, more circumstantial style,
with Sarah, v. 15.) Abraham is to be the father of with a precise note of time and place. Abra-
not one but many nations, including that of the ham’s treatment of the strangers is an example
Ishmaelites; but the covenant is clearly for Israel of the traditional customs of hospitality ob-
alone, and will be for ever. It is to Israel that the served by tent-dwellers. The laughter of Sarah,
land of Canaan is to be given ‘for a perpetual like that of Abraham in 17:17, involves a play on
holding’ (v. 8) and YHWH will be their God. But words and is an expression of unbelief about
the covenant is now to be two-sided: Abraham the news that the visitors have brought. Sarah is
and his descendants must keep it by obeying firmly reminded that God has unlimited power
God’s command to practise circumcision, a and can bring about the impossible. Her denial
rite not practised by the peoples of Mesopota- that she laughed (v. 15) is caused by fear:
mia from which Abraham has come. There is she now dimly recognizes the identity of
now for the first time in the Abraham story a the speaker. The reference to Sodom in v. 16
genesis 72

introduces the theme that follows in the second Jordan, whose principal cities (unknown to
half of the chapter and ch. 19. The passage is an archaeology) were Sodom and Gomorrah in
admirable example of the high quality of Heb- the vicinity of the Dead Sea (13:10–13). But it is
rew narrative art at its best. now also connected with ch. 18: the ‘men’ who
visited Abraham (18:2) departed towards Sodom
(18:17–33) This passage is not based on an older with the exception of YHWH himself, who
folk-tale but is a discussion of a theological ques- remained to talk to Abraham (18:22). In v. 1 the
tion of the utmost importance, that the author other two, now called ‘angels’ or ‘messengers’
has himself composed in the form of a dialogue. (malʾ ākı̂m), who are clearly supernatural beings
The question, which is about God’s justice (v. 25), (v. 11), arrive in Sodom, presumably to investi-
was not, for the readers, a purely theoretical one, gate the reported wickedness of the inhabitants
but one of immense practical importance, espe- (it appears to be assumed that there are no
cially for those who had suffered, and were still righteous persons among them), where they
suffering, the effects of the devastation of the find Lot sitting in the city gate. It is to be
Babylonian conquest of Judah in 587 BCE. It is noted that there is no mention at all of Abra-
raised in various forms in other OT books of ham in the main story: he appears only after the
a relatively late period, e.g. in Job, and Ezek event (v. 27) and looks down on the catastrophe
14:12–23. The fate of Sodom is here a paradigm in the valley below. His absence may suggest
of this much wider question. that this was originally a story about an un-
The passage is remarkable in more than one named man (now identified with Abraham’s
respect. It begins (vv. 17–21) with the author’s nephew Lot) and the destruction of a city,
notion of YHWH’s private thoughts: YHWH which the author has incorporated into the
comes to a decision to inform Abraham of his story of Abraham. The reason for its inclusion
intention—if the inhabitants of Sodom and is not obvious; however, it illustrates the con-
Gomorrah prove to be as wicked as they have sequences of grave sin against which Abraham
been reported to be—to destroy them, so that has been warned. It should further be noted that
Abraham, whom he has chosen, may not imitate the main story recounts only the fate of Sodom:
their wickedness and so prove unworthy of the Gomorrah is not mentioned until v. 24. But the
promise (cf. 17:1–2, where Abraham’s righteous- two cities are regularly mentioned together in a
ness appears to have been made a condition of number of passages elsewhere in the OT
the making of the covenant with him). A second as examples of exemplary sin and consequent
outstanding feature of the passage is Abraham’s annihilation (e.g. Deut 29:22–4; 32:32; Isa 1:9–10;
boldness in rebuking YHWH: although he Jer 23:14).
frquently shows awareness of his temerity It is strongly stressed in 19:4 that every male
(vv. 27, 30, 31, 32), he dares to remind YHWH of individual was involved in the homosexual at-
his duty, as universal judge, to deal justly (v. 25)! tack intended against the two angels. This is no
His rebuke is reminiscent of the passionate doubt to be seen as a justification of the subse-
speeches of Job. Equally remarkable is YHWH’s quent annihilation of the whole populace; but
readiness to listen to the rebuke and even to the omission of any reference to the women of
modify his intention. The precise accusation the city (or to the children) reflects at least a
which Abraham makes is that in proposing to residuary notion of communal rather than of
destroy the whole population of Sodom and individual guilt. Lot’s offer of his daughters (v. 8)
Gomorrah YHWH intends to treat the righteous also reflects a moral code, repulsive to the mod-
in the same way as the wicked (v. 25). He extracts ern reader, which put the duty of hospitality
from YHWH a promise that he will not do so above other ethical concerns. vv. 24, 28 attempt
(v. 26). The point appears to be not that YHWH to describe the nature of the catastrophe that
fell short of his true nature but rather that he is overwhelmed Sodom. That it was an earth-
shown to be a just God after all! There is no quake that caused the release of combustible
particular significance in the diminishing num- gases is a plausible guess; but—apart from the
bers of righteous persons for whose sake he will fact that no historical basis can be found for
not destroy Sodom (vv. 28–32). The principle of the story—it is not possible to be sure what the
justice towards individuals as against indiscrim- author had in mind. The city of Zoar (sôʿār) to
inate collective punishment has been established. which Lot was allowed to flee (vv. 18–23) _ actu-
ally existed in OT times (Isa 15:5; Jer 48:34). Like
(19:1–29) This story is an episode in the life of Sodom and Gomorrah, it lay in the valley, but
Lot, who had chosen to live in the plain of was counted as belonging to Moab. Its name is
 73 genesis

here stated to be derived from a verb sāʾar made Abimelech’s wives unable to bear chil-
meaning to be small or insignificant; Lot _calls dren during Sarah’s residence in his harem;
it ‘a little one’ (misʿār). The point of this conclu- and we are explicitly told that Abimelech did
sion to the story _is to emphasize that it is Lot not have sexual relations with her. Like Pharaoh
who is the central character and to present in 12:16, Abimelech behaves with great generos-
God’s merciful nature towards those of whom ity to Abraham, while Abraham, though he is
he approves (19:29) as well as his punitive side. said by God to be a ‘prophet’ (v. 7) and bidden to
The incident of the fate of Lot’s disobedient wife pray for Abimelech, is portrayed as a guilty
(v. 26) may be an aetiology based on a rock man. Nevertheless (21:1) God does not abrogate
formation that existed in later times. his promise.

(19:30–8) These verses mark the conclusion of (21:1–21) This story, although it begins with the
the story of Lot, who now disappears from birth of Isaac, is really about Abraham’s two
Genesis. This is a story of double incest involv- sons, Isaac and Ishmael. vv. 8–21 are a variant
ing father and daughters; but no moral judge- of the earlier story of the banishment of Hagar
ment is made or implied. The information that and Ishmael because of Sarah’s jealousy (ch. 16).
the children born of the incestuous union be- While it is emphasized that it is Isaac who is
came the ancestors of the Moabite and Am- Abraham’s promised heir, the author stresses
monite peoples is probably a secondary God’s concern for Ishmael, contrasting it with
feature of the story rather than its main point. the harsh attitude and action of Sarah. Accord-
It is presupposed (v. 31) that the male popula- ing to the chronology given in 16:16 and v. 5,
tion of the region has entirely perished in the Ishmael would have been about 14 years old
catastrophe which befell Sodom; the observa- when Isaac was born, yet the story used here
tion that Lot is old cannot, in the context, mean by the narrator assumes that he was a small
that he is too old to father children; it probably child whom his mother put on her shoulder
means that he will not marry again and so have and carried away (v. 14). In v. 6 there is yet
legitimate children. This is a situation in which another explanation of the name Isaac (see on
the need to perpetuate the race is paramount, 17:17 and 18:12). The circumcision of Isaac (v. 4)
and sanctions desperate remedies. Like Noah is in accordance with the command in 17:12.
(9:21), Lot is unaware, in his drunkenness, of Abraham’s reactions to Sarah’s demand
what is happening. (vv. 10–11) are more forthright than in 16:5–6,
but he gives way when God intervenes. Hagar’s
(20:1–18) This story is a variant of 12:10–20 and distress in vv. 15–16 is depicted with psycho-
26:1–11 (see at 12:10–20 above). Its position im- logical sensitivity. God’s reaction to her distress
mediately before the notice of the conception illustrates his compassion (vv. 17–20). Finally
and birth of Isaac, which at last fulfilled when he grows up under God’s protection Ish-
YHWH’s promise, is an example of dramatic mael goes to live in the wilderness of Paran near
irony: the reader is made to feel the danger of the border of Egypt where he becomes the an-
the situation. The relationship between the cestor of the Ishmaelites.
three variants is disputed. This version is fuller
than 12:10–20, and there are a number of differ- (21:22–34) These verses presuppose ch. 20, but
ences of detail. The scene is set not in Egypt but are not closely related to it. They are concerned
in Gerar, near Gaza (already mentioned in to enhance Abraham’s status: although he re-
10:19), and the king is Abimelech—a Canaanite mains an alien (v. 34) he is recognized by Abi-
name. Abraham’s residence in Gerar is not due melech as especially protected and favoured by
to a famine. The main variant detail is Abime- God; he is thus treated by a king, who com-
lech’s dream in which God speaks to him. God mands an army, as an equal. In vv. 22–4 Abi-
exonerates Abimelech as he has acted in ignor- melech thinks it important to safeguard himself
ance of Sarah’s status as Abraham’s wife. An by obtaining from him an oath that he will
additional detail is Abraham’s excuse, made on remain his ally (the phrase is ʿāśâ hesed) and
the specious grounds that Sarah is his half-sister _ gener-
that this alliance will continue in future
as well as his wife (not previously mentioned!), ations. The second incident is quite different:
together with his claim to know that the most Abraham becomes involved in a dispute
basic moral standards are not observed in Gerar with Abimelech over the possession of a well
(vv. 11–12). Also, instead of the plagues inflicted (vv. 25–32). The dispute is settled in Abraham’s
on Pharaoh (12:17) we are told that YHWH had favour with the offering of seven lambs and the
genesis 74

making of a treaty of friendship (běrı̂t, v. 32). what the author had in mind. Every particular
There are two different aetiologies of the name of the journey and of the preparations for the
Beersheba here: it is the place of the well (bĕʾ ēr) sacrifice (vv. 3–9) is meticulously recorded in
of the oath (šĕb
uʿâ) but also of seven (šebaʿ). The order to retard the pace of the action and so
tree planted by Abraham marked the spot where increase the tension to an almost unbearable
the covenant was made. The ‘Everlasting God’ (ʾēl degree; it reaches its greatest intensity with
ʿôlām) worshipped by Abraham here, and impli- 22:10 and is then suddenly released in v. 11.
citly identified with YHWH, was probably ori- Abraham’s reply to Isaac’s question (vv. 7, 8) is
ginally a local deity associated with Beersheba. understandably evasive, but he speaks more
The ‘land of the Philistines’ is an anachronism: than he knows. The angel of YHWH is here
the Philistines in fact arrived in Canaan and clearly identified with YHWH himself. The
established their cities there near the Mediterra- name given to the place by Abraham (YHWH
nean coast during the twelfth century BCE and yirʾeh, ‘Yahweh provides’—lit. sees, or looks out)
cannot have been known to Abraham. Abime- echoes his reply to Isaac in 22:8; it expresses his
lech has a Semitic name, and so was evidently a joy that YHWH has now done so in a miracu-
local Canaanite ruler, not a Philistine. lous way. The note in v. 14b is a later addition
to the story, perhaps linking the place with
(22:1–19) This story is one of the most brilli- Jerusalem. vv. 15–18 are also probably an add-
antly told narratives in the book. It has gener- ition to the story: by its repetition of the prom-
ated an immense quantity of interpretative ise of blessing this makes explicit its place in the
comment beginning in early times with Heb wider context of Abraham’s life—by his obedi-
11:17 and Jas 2:21 and continuing up to the pre- ence Abraham has confirmed that he is worthy
sent, and many works of art. It is widely agreed of the blessing.
that no one interpretation is entirely adequate
(see von Rad 1972: 243–5). Its psychological sen- (22:20–4) This genealogy defines Abraham’s
sitivity and stylistic skill in portraying the dis- kinship with the Arameans (Aram) and points
tress of Abraham when commanded by God to forward to Isaac’s marriage with Rebekah (ch. 24).
kill his beloved son and heir are unequalled. It
may be that somewhere in its background lies a (23:1–20) Full possession of the land of Canaan
story about human sacrifice, specifically the was a crucial matter for a people that had lost it
sacrifice of the firstborn; but there is no indica- with the Babylonian conquest in the sixth cen-
tion at all that that practice, which was not only tury BCE and were, even under the milder policy
forbidden but regarded with horror in Israel, of the Persian empire, like Abraham, only
was in the mind of the author of the present ‘strangers and aliens’ (v. 4) in it, subject to for-
story. The statement in the opening verse that eign rule. Abraham’s legal purchase from the
God’s purpose in demanding Isaac’s death was ‘Hittite’—that is, Canaanite—owner of a single
to test Abraham’s obedience—to see whether field containing the cave where he could bury
he ‘feared God’ (v. 12)—is an accurate summary Sarah (vv. 17, 20) was a hopeful sign to these
of the plot. Abraham was forced to choose readers, even though it was no more than
between obedience to an incomprehensible symbolic—the first fruits, as it were, of the
and abhorrent command and his love for his promise that Abraham’s descendants would
child (v. 2). There is a terrible dramatic irony possess the whole land.
here: God did not intend that his command The name Kiriath-arba, here identified with
should be carried out; but Abraham had no Hebron (v. 2), means ‘city of four’—probably
means of knowing that. He passed the test. On referring to its consisting of four districts or
a different level, this is yet another example of ‘quarters’ or to its position at the intersection
the theme of the endangerment of God’s prom- of four roads. The name ‘Hittite’ here and else-
ise: with Isaac’s birth the promise of an heir has where in the Pentateuch does not designate the
apparently been miraculously fulfilled; but now great Hittite empire of Asia Minor, long extinct
the very life of that heir is—as far as the reader when this chapter was written, but is used as a
knows—to be prematurely brought to an end. general designation of the Canaanites. Abra-
The location of the ‘land of Moriah’ is un- ham, having no settled home, is obliged to
known. A later tradition identified Moriah with seek a place of burial for Sarah from the local
the mountain on which Solomon later built the inhabitants. The cave in question belongs to
Jerusalem temple (2 Chr 3:1); but there is no one Ephron (v. 8); but the decision to convey
indication in the text of Gen 22 that this is it to Abraham’s use evidently rests with the
 75 genesis

people of Hebron as a whole—the ‘people of he takes no action but kneels down at a well
the land’ (vv. 10–13). The negotiation is carried that he knows will be frequented by the young
on with great courtesy; it is a legal transaction, girls of the town when they come to draw
and the terminology resembles that used in water, and prays that YHWH will signify his
extant neo-Babylonian legal contracts. Abra- choice of a bride for Isaac in a particular way
ham, who is regarded by the Hebronites as a (vv. 13–14); he is miraculously rewarded when
‘mighty prince’ (v. 6), is first offered a choice of the first girl who comes to draw water proves to
burial places, but not legal ownership. He insists be not only beautiful, a virgin, and of a kindly
that the latter is what he seeks; and he finally disposition but also Abraham’s own niece, so
succeeds in buying the entire field, though confirming that YHWH has made his mission
at what is known to have been a very high unexpectedly and completely successful (vv. 15–
price (v. 15). 27; cf. 11:29; 22:22, 23). The reason why it is
Rebekah’s brother Laban rather than her father
(24:1–67) This is by far the longest story in this who plays the principal role in the remainder of
part of the book, and has with some justifica- the story (from v. 29) is not clear, though he
tion been called a novella, or short story (in the is to be a principal character in later chapters
modern sense of that term). It is divided into (29–31). The reference to Rebekah’s mother’s
distinct scenes, and is told with great sensitivity house rather than that of her father (v. 28)
and with acute psychological insight. An un- might lead the reader to suppose that her father
usual feature is the extent to which dialogue is Bethuel was dead; but he appears in a minor
used to portray character and to move the ac- role in v. 50.
tion along: more than half the verses consist of Although it is not specifically stated that
or contain reported speech. Apart from its in- Rebekah’s consent to the marriage was sought,
trinsic interest as literature, the story marks a this seems to be implied in her acceptance of
new and positive stage in the theme of the the valuable jewellery and the ring (v. 22) and by
promise: Abraham’s heir has not only survived; her running home to tell the news (v. 28). It is
he is now provided with an eminently suitable also strongly implied by the fact that, when
wife, who is destined in turn to produce an heir, consulted, she agreed to leave her family imme-
the inheritor of the promise in the third gener- diately and accompany the servant home to
ation. The narrative speaks of the continued meet her designated husband (v. 58). There is
guidance of God at every stage. some difficulty about the Hebrew text of v. 62
Abraham, who is evidently too old to under- and about Isaac’s place of residence. According
take a long journey (but note his second mar- to 25:20 Isaac was 40 years old when he mar-
riage in 25:1!), sends his trusted and confidential ried, and had a separate establishment. The ab-
servant or steward, whom he has entrusted with sence of any reference to Abraham in the last
all his possessions, to seek a wife for Isaac from part of the story is strange: one would have
among those of his kindred who have remained expected that the servant would have first con-
in Mesopotamia (Aram-naharaim, lit. Aram of ducted Rebekah to Abraham and have made his
the two rivers): marriage with an alien Canaan- report to him. The story concludes with the rare
ite is ruled out as unthinkable, and it is equally statement that Isaac loved his wife, paralleled in
out of the question that Isaac should return to Genesis only by the love of Jacob for Rachel
fetch his bride from the country from which his (29:18) and of Shechem the Hivite for Dinah
father had departed at God’s command. If the (34:3).
girl chosen should refuse the match, the mes-
senger is to return alone to Abraham. (25:1–18) With these verses the story of Abra-
The rite of touching the genitals of the other ham comes to an end. They are a somewhat
party while swearing an oath, mentioned in the miscellaneous collection consisting mainly of
OT only here (vv. 2, 9) and Gen 47:29, is attested genealogies but including a brief statement of
in a Babylonian document and is also known Abraham’s death and burial (vv. 7–10). They
from Arabic usage (TWAT 7, 984). Its signifi- contain no real continuous narrative. The
cance is not clear; but it may be related to the point of the genealogies is to continue the
more common practice of swearing by a per- theme of Abraham as the ‘father of many na-
son’s life. The messenger sets out with an im- tions’ (cf. 17:5, 20; 21:13). These lists contain the
pressive retinue and carries valuable gifts names of several nations and tribes known
appropriate to his master’s great wealth and from elsewhere, notably Midian (v. 1) and
high status (v. 10). On arrival at his destination the Ishmaelites (vv. 12–16). The note about
genesis 76

Abraham’s life in v. 8 reflects the Israelite atti- the precedence of Jacob over his brother. The
tude towards both life and death. Death was not former story, which begins with YHWH’s de-
regarded as tragic if it closed a long and fulfilled, cree that the elder is to serve the younger,
honourable life. The statement that Abraham contains a pun on the name Jacob (yaʿăqōb)
was ‘gathered to his people’ (v. 8) obviously who grasped the heel (ʿāqēb) in the womb (v.
does not mean that his body was placed in an 26) and another on Esau, the ancestor of the
ancestral tomb, since only Sarah had yet been Edomites (v. 30; 36:1) who ‘came out red’
buried in the cave of Machpelah (v. 10): it was a (ʾadmônı̂) from the womb. There is yet another
conventional expression testifying a strong pun on the name Edom in the second story,
sense of family solidarity. where Esau calls the dish that Jacob has pre-
pared ‘that red stuff’ (ʾādōm, v. 30). The two
The Story of Jacob (25:19–37:2) brothers are also caricatured as two contrasting
Of the three ‘patriarchs’ Abraham, Isaac, and types: the ruddy, hairy hunter (vv. 25, 27) who is
Jacob only Isaac lacks a really independent an easy prey to the cunning ‘quiet man’ who
story. Although as Abraham’s heir and Jacob’s stays at home (v. 27; Jacob is later to become a
father he obviously holds an essential place in shepherd, ch. 29). vv. 27–34 especially have
the family history and is in his turn the recipient been seen as based on an earlier civilization
of the promise of blessing and of numerous story which reflected problems that arose
descendants ‘for Abraham’s sake’ (26:3–5, 23– when the sedentary way of life began to super-
5), he is the principal character in only one sede the hunting stage (see Westermann 1985:
chapter (26). It must be presumed that the 414–15). The motif is of crucial importance later
author or editor of the book did not possess a in ch. 27; but the point of the present story is to
wealth of narrative material about Isaac as he show that Esau already forfeited the privileges
did about Abraham and Jacob. A large part of of the elder son.
the story of Jacob is concerned with the rela-
tions between Jacob and his elder brother Esau. (26:1–35) This chapter is given a unity by the
God’s choice of Jacob rather than Esau as the theme of Isaac’s relations with Abimelech the
heir and recipient of the promise recounted in ‘Philistine’ (i.e. Canaanite) king of Gerar. vv. 6–11
these chapters introduces a new major theme: are a variant of 12:10–20 and 20:1–18 (on which
God in his sovereignty is not bound by the see the commentary above), the main difference
‘natural’ or legal principle of inheritance by from both the other stories being that it con-
primogeniture but inscrutably singles out cerns Isaac and Rebekah, not Abraham and
younger sons to carry out his purpose (cf. the Sarah. It contains motifs from both the other
choice of David as king of Israel, 1 Sam 16:1–13). versions; and it is commonly held that its
So not Ishmael but Isaac is chosen, and not Esau author was familiar with, and intended to
but Jacob; and, of Jacob’s twelve sons, it is his make certain changes with regard to, both. In
eleventh son Joseph who is chosen to rule over particular, the lie told by Isaac (v. 7) is the same
his brothers (Gen 37:5–11) and to preserve the as that told by Abraham in the other two ver-
lives of the embryo people of Israel (Gen 45:5; sions, but the consequences are less critical,
50:20). Similarly Ephraim is given precedence since Rebekah is not taken into the royal
over his elder brother Manasseh (Gen 48:8–20). harem. vv. 1–5 introduce the story by account-
ing for Isaac’s move to Gerar. It includes an
(25:19–34) In vv. 19–20, which introduce the appearance to Isaac by YHWH in which he
stories about Isaac’s children, the author has repeats the promise of the land and of numer-
inserted a short notice which repeats what the ous progeny but couples it with an injunction
reader already knows, adding the information not to depart from Canaan as Abraham had
that Isaac was 40 years old when he married. done in similar circumstances (12:10).
But the chronology in this chapter is some- In vv. 12–33 the motif of the dispute with the
what confused. If Isaac was 60 when Rebekah Canaanites of Gerar over the ownership of the
bore his first children (v. 26), Abraham, who wells that were essential to life and livelihood
was 175 when he died (25:7), would still have (21:25–34) recurs. But Isaac, who was the first of
fifteen years to live, since he was 100 when the patriarchal family to grow crops (v. 12) as
Isaac was born (21:5)! The two stories about the well as owning flocks and herds (v. 14) and who
birth of Esau and Jacob (vv. 21–6) and the had become wealthy even beyond the wealth
birthright (25:27–34) both point forward to accumulated by his father, had aroused the envy
the later antagonism between the two and to of the ‘Philistines’ (vv. 12–14) who were making
 77 genesis

life difficult for him. However, this series of travels. One of the most remarkable features of
incidents ends with the making of a treaty of the story is the portrayal of Rebekah, who plays a
peace between Isaac and Abimelech, in which crucial role in the story and whose personality is
Isaac is credited with taking the initiative thus displayed in marked contrast to the passiv-
(vv. 26–31). The aetiologies of the names of the ity of Sarah in the previous chapters (but we may
wells (v. Ezek 20, ‘contention’; Sitnah, v. 21, compare the enterprising action of Rachel in
‘quarrel, accusation’; Rehoboth, v. 22, ‘broad 31:34–5). Despite Jacob’s disgraceful behaviour
space’) probably come from ancient local tradi- in deceiving his aged and blind father, the story
tions. The naming of Shibah (v. 33) is attributed, is presented in a way that arouses the reader’s
as is Beersheba in 21:31, to an oath, this time sympathy for such a rogue, though the depiction
between Isaac and Abimelech (v. 31). of Esau’s distress (vv. 34–8) is intended to elicit
some sympathy for him as well. There is also a
The Adventures of Jacob (chs. 27–33) humorous quality in the tale that should not be
At one level this is a story of withdrawal and missed. The predominance of dialogue helps to
return, a familiar folk-tale motif. It is also a story give the narrative a particularly lively character.
of hatred between brothers followed by eventual The fact that the action takes place entirely
reconciliation; but in the context of the book as a on the human plane, with no mention of God
whole it is a continuation of the history of the (except for his invocation in Isaac’s blessing,
promise made to the patriarchs. Although Esau v. 28, and Jacob’s lying assertion in v. 20) sets
has his reward in the end in terms of material the chapter, together with 25:27–34, apart from
wealth (33:9–11), it is made clear that he was the surrounding chapters in which the hand of
deprived not only of his birthright but also of God is prominent.
the blessing (27:36). He is to be the ancestor of It is noteworthy that it is Rebekah, who evi-
the Edomites and not of Israel, and accordingly dently loves her ‘smooth’ son Jacob more than
establishes his residence in the region of Seir, the uncouth, hairy Esau (v. 11) and is even pre-
later to be part of Edom (32:3; 33:14, 16; cf. 36:9). pared to risk her husband’s curse, who proposes
Later events are clearly reflected here. Isaac’s the deception; but Jacob, in agreeing to her pro-
blessing of Jacob (27:27–9) and his lesser ‘bless- posal, is equally guilty. The story turns on the
ing’ of Esau (27:39–40) reflect the history of the belief that blessings and curses possess objective
later relations between the state of Israel power and cannot be taken back (v. 33). In v. 36
and Edom: Israel will rule over Edom, but even- Jacob’s name is once more (cf. 25:26) associated
tually Edom will ‘break his yoke’ and achieve its with the root ʿ-q-b, here in a verbal form and
independence (cf. 2 Sam 8:14; 1 Kings 11:14; 2 Chr interpreted as ‘supplant’. It is again Rebekah
21:8–10). This account of Jacob’s adventures is who takes the initiative, overhearing Esau’s inten-
not made of whole cloth: it has incorporated tion to kill Jacob and warning him to flee to
many elements which the final author/editor Haran to his uncle Laban (vv. 43–5). The chapter
has combined. In particular, one major section, ends with her fear that Jacob may marry a ‘Hittite’
ch. 29–31, which describes Jacob’s extended resi- (cf. 26:34–5)—an echo of the theme of 24:3–4.
dence in the house of his uncle Laban, originally
belonged to a quite distinct tradition about the (28:1–9) A different account of the circumstan-
relations between two peoples: Israel and the ces of Jacob’s departure to Laban is given in vv.
Arameans. 1–5 from that given in ch. 27. Here his father
sends him off so that he may marry a girl from
(27:1–46) This chapter is another example of his own family as Isaac himself had done, and
narrative skill. It is structured in a number of Isaac prays that he will inherit the promise once
distinct scenes, in each of which, as in folk- given to Abraham. Laban’s home is now given
tales, only two characters appear: Isaac and as Paddan-aram, which may mean ‘country of
Esau in vv. 1–4, Jacob and Rebekah in vv. 5–17, Aram’ (so also in 25:20). This region of north
Jacob and Isaac in vv. 18–29, Esau and Isaac in vv. Mesopotamia is called Aram-naharaim in 24:10.
30–40, Esau alone in v. 41, Rebekah and Jacob in vv. 6–9 relate how Esau also conformed to
vv. 42–5, Rebekah and Isaac, v. 46. The theme is Isaac’s wish in that he now married a relation
Jacob’s trickery by which he obtains the paternal in addition to his previous Canaanite wives.
blessing that would normally be given to the
elder son and the consequent implacable hatred (28:10–22) On his way to Laban, whose home
of Esau for his brother which makes it necessary is now specified (as in 27:43) as the city of Haran,
for Jacob to leave home and set out on his Jacob rests for the night at an unnamed place
genesis 78

(v. 11) and takes a large stone there as a pillow. (29:1–30) This chapter begins the story of
He has a dream in which he sees a ladder (prob- Jacob and Laban which continues to the end
ably rather a ramp) stretching from earth to of ch. 31. It is set in foreign territory, outside
heaven on which God’s angels—that is, heav- Canaan. As yet another story about an encoun-
enly messengers—are passing up and down to ter at a well that ends with marriage of the heir
perform tasks assigned to them by God. to the promise to a member (here two mem-
He recognizes the ladder as ‘the gate of heaven’ bers!) of his Aramean kindred, it has many
(v. 17), that is, as the means of communication affinities with ch. 24; but there are significant
between God in his dwelling in heaven and his differences. There is again the apparently for-
manifestations to human beings on earth; and tuitous meeting with the Aramean kindred; but,
so concludes with awe that the place where he unlike Isaac, who was forbidden to leave Ca-
is resting must therefore be ‘the house of God’, naan to seek his wife, Jacob makes precisely that
that is, a place where God manifests himself on journey. He travels to ‘the land of the people of
earth. The imagery of the dream corresponds to the east’ (a rather vague term denoting the land
Babylonian religious beliefs as expressed in to the east of Canaan, but here including the
their structures known as ziggurats. In the more northern territory in the vicinity of
dream Jacob becomes aware that God is indeed Haran); but he does not go specifically to seek
communicating with him: God repeats to him a wife, and does not at first realize where he is.
the promise of the land of Canaan, in which he Further, in contrast to the religious atmosphere
is now resting, and of numerous progeny, and of 28:10–22 and with the pious mission of Abra-
adds a further promise that he will guide and ham’s servant in ch. 24, this is a purely secular
protect him on his journey and wherever he story in which God does not appear, although
may go (vv. 13–15). no doubt he is invisibly present in the back-
It is generally agreed that this passage has ground in the mind of the final editor.
undergone several accretions, but there is no vv. 1–14 are an idyllic tale that gives no hint of
consensus about the details. Jacob names the troubles to come. Jacob is presented as the
place Bethel (lit., ‘house of God’), thus naming mighty hero who is able alone to move the
a place which was later to be one of Israel’s most stone, which normally required several men to
important sanctuaries. The story is thus to be move it, from the mouth of the well to enable
seen as the origin story of the sanctuary of the flocks to be watered (cf. 28:18, where also he
Bethel and will have been used from ancient moves a massive stone); and he does this on
times by the worshippers at that sanctuary. Its perceiving the arrival of Rachel. The kiss which
importance to later generations accounts for the he gives her is no doubt a cousinly kiss (v. 11; cf.
fact that it later came to be embellished in vari- v. 13); but his weeping (for joy) surely speaks of
ous ways (for a recent study of its redactional love at first sight. The continuation of the story
history which understands it without ascribing in vv. 15–30, however, already introduces the
it to an interweaving of two major written reader to the calculating character of Laban,
sources see Rendtorff 1982: 511–23). The stone who succeeds in employing Jacob for fourteen
used by Jacob as a pillow (v. 11), which he erected years without wages and in tricking him into
as a pillar and consecrated with oil (v. 18), marrying the unwanted Leah. There are two
marked the site as a holy place where God had further motifs in this story: Jacob’s marriages
revealed himself and so might be expected to do are a further example of the younger being
so again—that is, as a sanctuary. Such a pillar preferred to the elder; and, in view of Jacob’s
(massēbâ) might be no more than a memorial earlier behaviour (25:27–34; 27), vv. 21–30 may
_ _ or marker, e.g. of a frontier (31:51); but it
stone be seen as an example of the motif of the de-
was often a feature of sanctuaries both Canaan- ceiver deceived. Jacob’s love for Rachel is again
ite and Israelite, though later condemned emphasized in vv. 20 and 30. In vv. 24 and 29
in Israel (e.g. Lev 26:1). In his concluding vow Laban’s assignment of the two maids Zilpah
(vv. 20–2) Jacob acutely translates God’s prom- and Bilhah respectively to serve Leah and Ra-
ise of guidance into concrete, down-to-earth chel prepares the reader for the accounts of the
terms, and in turn promises to worship YHWH birth of Jacob’s twelve sons, who are to be the
as his God. He also undertakes to pay a tithe of ancestors of the twelve tribes of Israel.
future produce, in anticipation of the cult that
will be established at Bethel. He is clearly speak- (29:31–30:24) This section consists mainly of a
ing as a representative of a future Israel and as miscellaneous collection of notices of the births
the founder of the Bethel sanctuary. of Jacob’s first eleven sons (and one daughter,
 79 genesis

Dinah), whose names are those of later Israelite Rachel’s own. 30:14–18 reflects an ancient belief
tribes. The reasons given for their names, which that the fruit of the mandrake plant has aphro-
all refer to the circumstances of the mothers disiac properties, although the birth of Issachar
(unlike the tribal blessings in ch. 49) are quite is attributed to divine operation.
fanciful and hardly genuine popular etymolo-
gies. The words attributed to the mothers in (30:25–43) The details of this story are not
naming their sons have been made to fit the clear, and have puzzled the commentators.
names; but they do not fit very well. In some There are strange contradictions, no doubt due
cases they involve the use of very rare words. to glossators who themselves did not fully grasp
The name Reuben (rěʾûbēn) would naturally be what was happening but attempted to set mat-
taken to mean ‘Behold a son’ (29:32), but has ters right. The thrust of the story, however, is
been connected with ʿônı̂, ‘affliction’. Simeon sufficiently plain. This is a battle of wits be-
(29:33) is more reasonably connected with tween Jacob and Laban from which Jacob
šāmaʿ, ‘to hear’. Levi (29:34) is supposedly de- emerges victorious. Jacob, who has suffered be-
rived from lāwâ, ‘to join’. Judah (29:35) has been fore from Laban’s trickery, repays it in kind. The
associated with the mother’s exclamation ʾôdeh, story begins with an abrupt request by Jacob to
‘I will praise’; Dan (30:6) with the verb dı̂n, ‘to Laban for his release from his servitude which
give judgement’; Naphtali (30:8) with a rare verb puts Laban in an embarrassing situation. Jacob
pātal, possibly meaning ‘to twist’, here inter- points out that Laban has greatly benefited from
preted as ‘wrestle’. Gad (30:11) is the name of a his service, but now requests to be allowed to
god of good fortune; Asher (30:13) is explained return to his homeland accompanied by his
as related to ʾiššēr, ‘to pronounce happy’; Issa- wives and children, who are of course Laban’s
char (30:18) as connected with śākār, ‘hire, own daughters and grandchildren (v. 26). This
wages’. In two cases (and possibly a third, Reu- request may not have been within Jacob’s rights:
ben) two alternative explanations are given: the Ex 21:2–4 does not permit a freed slave to take
name Zebulon (30:20) is associated with a verb his family with him; but Jacob’s status is not
that occurs nowhere else in the OT but which clear (cf. Laban’s action in ch. 31). Laban recog-
may refer to exaltation, hence honour, but also nizes the value of Jacob’s service to him, and
with zēbed, ‘gift’, while Joseph (30:24) is related adopts a conciliatory tone. He admits that his
both to ʾāsap, ‘gather, remove, take away’, and to prosperity is due to Jacob, perhaps claiming
yāsap, ‘add, increase’. It was not deemed neces- that he has learned by divination (the meaning
sary to offer an explanation of the name of the of this word is uncertain) that this is due to
daughter, Dinah. YHWH’s having blessed Jacob (v. 27), but com-
Only scraps of narrative and dialogue are plains that the loss of Jacob may damage his
attached to these birth notices. The motif of own economic status. He makes an offer to
the two wives, one of whom is unable to bear reward Jacob, who replies that he is not asking
children (29:31–2), is found also in the story of for a reward, but then inconsistently requests to
the birth of Samuel (1 Sam 1), but with signifi- be allowed to keep some of Laban’s flocks. He
cant differences. In both cases the childless wife proposes (v. 32) that he should be given those
is enabled to bear a son through divine inter- animals that are particoloured (a rarity among
vention; but here this happens to the ‘hated’ sheep and goats) and promises to carry out this
wife (i.e. the one who is unwanted by her hus- operation honestly. Laban pretends to agree,
band) whereas in 1 Sam 1 it happens to the one but then himself deceitfully separates the parti-
who is especially beloved; here too God takes coloured animals from the rest, and sends them
the initiative rather than acting in response to away with his sons to be kept at a distance
prayer as in the case of Hannah. There are other (vv. 35–6).
OT parallels to God’s initiative in such cases: The account of Jacob’s retaliatory action
not only in the case of Sarah but also in the (vv. 37–42) is again somewhat muddled and
story of the birth of Samson (Judg 13). All these repetitive, but here again its general import is
stories differ considerably in detail; but behind clear. To gain an advantage over Laban Jacob
them lies the conviction that God alone be- had recourse to a trick based on a superstitious,
stows or withholds life. 30:1–7 is another ex- farmers’ belief (taken seriously by the author)
ample of the custom of surrogate birth earlier that newborn animals (and also human babies)
practised by Sarah (so also 30:9–11). The ‘birth can derive certain characteristics from the visual
on the knees’ of Rachel (30:3) is a rite which impressions experienced by their mothers at the
ensures that the child born is to be regarded as moment of conception. Taking advantage of
genesis 80

Laban’s absence, Jacob arranged that the ewes, ing is that owing to their father’s actions they
which mated while they were drinking, should no longer belong to their community, and are
do so while standing facing some rods which he prepared to put their trust in what Jacob has
had taken from appropriate trees that he had told them of God’s call to him. So the heir of the
partly peeled and set before the drinking promise effects his escape from the alien terri-
troughs, so producing particoloured young. tory of Paddan-aram and returns to the land of
(v. 40 is unfortunately obscure.) In addition promise.
(vv. 41–2) he selected for this purpose only the The second scene (vv. 19–42) opens with
more robust animals. As a result he became the Laban, accompanied by his kinsmen, pursuing
owner, following his previous arrangement Jacob, and overtaking him when he has reached
with Laban, of the choice animals because the hill country of Gilead, east of the Jordan.
they were particoloured, while Laban was left Once more Laban receives a divine message
only with the feebler ones. By this device he warning him not to interfere with Jacob
increased his wealth, though the final verse of (v. 24); and in fact when they meet Laban exer-
the chapter (v. 43) about the extraordinary cises restraint. His final complaint against him is
wealth which he acquired in this way seems that he has stolen his ‘household gods’ (tĕr-
entirely disproportionate to the preceding acc- āphı̂m), though in fact it was Rachel who
ount and is probably a later addition made had stolen them without Jacob’s knowledge
to enhance the impression that the patriarchs, (vv. 19, 32). The incident of the search for the
although landless, were nevertheless persons of teraphim (vv. 33–5) is recounted with crude
substance in the world. This is another secular humour. Teraphim, which are mentioned in
story in which (apart from Laban’s remark in several other OT texts, appear to have been
v. 27) God does not appear. fairly small hominiform images of gods whose
use was not confined to Israel. There is a refer-
(31:1–55) This chapter concludes the Jacob– ence to their manufacture in Judg 17:5, and Hos
Laban stories. It is a continuation of ch. 30, 3:4 implies that they were in common use in
but it also marks a return to the theme of the Israel during the period of the monarchy. Later,
promise. The question of Jacob’s departure however, they were condemned as idolatrous
broached in ch. 30 has remained unresolved. (Zech 10:2) together with the practice of divin-
Now he has determined to leave, with his fam- ation with which they appear to have been
ily, without Laban’s permission, partly because associated (Ezek 21:21). They were obviously
relations with Laban and his sons have deteri- very important to Laban, who may have used
orated, but above all because YHWH has com- them for divination. In recent times it was
manded him to do so and has promised to widely supposed, on the basis of purportedly
continue to guide and protect him (vv. 2–3). similar practices known from second-millen-
Jacob meets his wives secretly and speaks to nium BCE texts discovered at the Mesopotamian
them of his reasons for departure: Laban’s ani- city of Nuzi, that possession of such objects
mosity towards him, restrained only by God’s could be used to substantiate legal claims to
protection, and God’s command, here repre- the inheritance of property; but it has now
sented as mediated by an angel in a dream been shown that this view is not tenable, at
(vv. 11–13). There are inconsistencies again least as far as this passage in Genesis is con-
here, e.g. Jacob’s claim that Laban has changed cerned (see Thompson 1974: 272–80). There is
his wages ten times does not accord with what nothing in the Genesis text that indicates why
has been said in the previous two chapters. In Laban’s teraphim were so important to him.
his account of his dream (v. 13) he cites God’s Jacob in his defence of his conduct (vv. 36–
command, but with an additional reference to 42) attributes his present material success to the
ch. 28. Jacob’s proposal to his wives, which ancestral God, whom he here refers as ‘The Fear
involved for them the abandonment of their of Isaac’ (or possibly ‘Kinsman of Isaac’, prob-
family and their community, is accepted with- ably an ancient name of a god who was later
out demur: they too have a grudge against their identified with YHWH). Laban (vv. 43–4) still
father, who has used for himself their bridal maintains his legal right to all Jacob’s posses-
price and has thus ‘sold’ them and in fact treated sions, but is forced to admit defeat. The treaty or
them as foreigners (vv. 14–16). These verses covenant now made between the two is a non-
involve legal questions of marriage and inherit- aggression pact (vv. 48–50); but in a different
ance customs which are not completely clear to version of the event (v. 52) it also defines a
the modern reader; but what the wives are say- territorial boundary which each partner swears
 81 genesis

to observe. This is really an agreement not sim- tack travellers who are endeavouring to pass on
ply between two individuals but between rep- their way, but who are powerful only at night;
resentatives of two nations, as is indicated by here we are told that the sun rose only when the
the double naming of the boundary cairn that incident was over (v. 31). The place in question
they have set up in two distinct languages: both here is a ford over the stream Jabbok, which
Jegarsahadutha (Aramaic) and Galeed (Hebrew rises in the mountains east of the Jordan and
galʿēd) mean ‘cairn of witness’. Behind this inci- descends precipitately to flow into the Jordan—
dent there undoubtedly lies an ancient tradition a place where it is difficult to cross on foot. The
of an agreement once made between Israel and supposed connection between its name and the
the Arameans, who were, however, later to be rare Hebrew verb ʾābaq, ‘wrestle’ (v. 24) may
involved in territorial wars (cf. especially 2 Sam have given rise to the story in its original ver-
8; 10; 1 Kings 11; 20; 22; 2 Kings 7–16). sion. The man (ʾı̂š) who attacked Jacob and
struggled with him all night remains unidenti-
(32:1–21) After reporting the peaceful solution fied until v. 30, but is clearly possessed of super-
of Jacob’s dispute with Laban (31:54–5) the story natural power as well as of great physical
resumes the account of his relations with his strength (30:25), and is recognized by Jacob as
brother Esau, from whose hostile intentions he one who is able to confer a blessing on him. He
had fled (ch. 27). First, however, there is a short subsequently reveals himself as divine (ʾĕlōhı̂m,
notice of a (presumably) favourable appearance v. 28); but the statements that Jacob over-
of a group of divine messengers or angels matched him and forced him to bless him
(cf. 28:12) during his journey, which he perceives (vv. 26, 29) remain mysterious in the face of
as ‘God’s camp’ (mahănēh ʾĕlōhı̂m) and so names Jacob’s final realization that he has been locked
the place Mahanaim. _ This incident is no doubt in a struggle with God, and has seen him face to
based on a local foundation legend about the face (pĕnı̄ʾēl means ‘face of God’). At this point of
city of Mahanaim in Gilead east of the Jordan, the story, as in others, features of the original
later to become an important Israelite city. tale are still present. The central and crucial
Now, aware that he is close to the land of point of the story in its present form is that
Edom, Esau’s home, and fearful for his life and Jacob not only received the divine blessing (des-
the lives of his family, he sends an embassy to pite the refusal of the ‘man’ to declare his own
Esau. Learning that Esau is advancing towards name), but that his name is changed to ‘Israel’
him with a strong military force (v. 6), he prays (this name is here associated with the rare verb
to God that he will protect him, and then makes śārâ, ‘struggle’, used in v. 28). The passage thus
preparations for the encounter, sending a fur- declares Jacob to be not only a towering, heroic
ther conciliatory message to Esau together with figure who has close dealings with God himself,
valuable presents which he sends by instal- but also the founder of the nation of Israel.
ments, himself remaining behind with his fam- Despite its evidently somewhat composite na-
ily in the hope of protecting them in case of ture, attempts to analyse its sources have been
attack. Here again the reader finds the heir to controversial; but the final verse is certainly a
the promise and his family in danger of their separate comment on the incident as being the
lives; and once again the narrative is slowed origin of an otherwise unknown food taboo.
down to increase the dramatic tension.
(33:1–20) The reconciliation between Jacob
(32:22–32) This incident, which interrupts the and his wronged brother resolves the tension
account of Jacob’s concluding encounter with built up in 32:1–21. The chapter is a riot of
Esau, is of central importance in the story deferential bowings and honorific expressions
of Jacob, even more significant than Jacob’s (‘my lord’, ‘your servant’) in oriental fashion on
experience at Bethel (28:10–22). Here once the part of Jacob and his household and mag-
more the heir to the promise is placed in danger nanimity and solicitous concern on the part of
of his life. But the incident remains essentially Esau. Esau’s emotional welcome of Jacob signi-
mysterious, and several of its features are diffi- fies his complete forgiveness, after so many
cult to interpret. This is at least partly due to the years, of a grievous offence which is never men-
fact that it is evidently a pre-Israelite story that tioned, but of which Jacob still remains pain-
has been reworked, probably more than once. fully aware. Until the moment of greeting he
The original version strongly resembles pagan, appears still to be apprehensive of Esau’s inten-
even animistic, tales of spirits or demons guard- tion; and even subsequently he is still reluctant
ing particular places such as streams, who at- to travel in his company, pretending that they
genesis 82

will meet again in Seir, Esau’s home territory (vv. 8–14). The imposing of circumcision on all
(vv. 12–15), whereas in fact he makes for Succoth the Shechemite men as a condition of the mar-
(‘booths’), where he builds a house for himself riage is a trick with sinister and ironical over-
and settles down. Another version (vv. 18–20), tones, a mere excuse for the real cause of the
however, takes him across the Jordan, still living massacre, the desire for revenge for the initial
in tents, to the ‘city of Shechem’. This phrase rape (v. 31). In the Blessing of Jacob (49:2–27) in
must, on grounds of Hebrew syntax, refer to a which Jacob foretells what will be the future
person of that name (cf. v. 19) who was the destiny of each of his sons (now openly called
owner or founder of the city (see Westermann the twelve tribes of Israel, 49:28), Simeon and
1985: 528). The further reference to the man Levi are not blessed but cursed (49:5–7) for their
Shechem and to the sons of Hamor in v. 19 violent behaviour, with an apparent reference
links this chapter to the events of ch. 34. Jacob’s to the incident of ch. 34.
naming of the altar that he erects on the plot of
land that he has bought (‘God, the God of Israel’) (35:1–15) Jacob’s departure from Shechem
might be a reference to Jacob’s new personal to Bethel is here attributed to a positive com-
name Israel, but the reader would understand it mand by God. The preparations for the journey
as a proclamation that Jacob’s God was to be (vv. 2–4) and the use of the technical term ‘to go
the God of the people Israel. up’ (ʿālâ) suggest that this was no ordinary jour-
ney but a pilgrimage. Alt (1959: 79–88), followed
(34:1–31) This brutal and—to the modern by others including von Rad (1972: 336), main-
reader—repulsive story, which may be based tained that these verses reflect an actual annual
on a reminiscence of some actual event in the pilgrimage made by the Israelites at later times.
early history of the Israelite tribes, is widely Bethel was the place where Jacob had already
supposed to have existed in two versions, encountered God and set up a sacred pillar
which have been combined and used by a later (28:10–22) during his flight to Laban, and
writer to make the point that Israelites should which he had vowed to visit again on his return
abstain from intermarriage with the Canaanites. home ‘in peace’ (28:21). The connection be-
The massacre which it describes is in conform- tween the two episodes is specifically made in
ity with the teaching of the Deuteronomists, vv. 1, 3, 7. The change of clothes (v. 2) was an act
who represent Moses as having demanded of purification necessary before an encounter
their extermination (Deut 7:1–3). The protagon- with God (cf. Ex 19:10–14). More important is
ists are Simeon and Levi, who first ensure by a the putting away and burial of ‘foreign gods’
trick that the victims will be in a weakened (vv. 2, 4). The fact that a similar rite, also per-
condition (vv. 25–6). Their brothers, however, formed at Shechem, is recorded in Josh 24:23
all participate in the subsequent plundering of suggested to Alt (1959) that something of the
the city. That Jacob may not have figured in the kind constituted an esential feature of a regular
original story is suggested by the fact that he pilgrimage from Shechem to Bethel, marking an
plays only a marginal and passive role. Jacob’s annual demonstration of exclusive loyalty to
fear that the neighbouring Canaanites will take YHWH. (On v. 5 see above on ch. 34.) The
their revenge on his family and destroy it in name given to the place where Jacob set up an
turn (v. 30) qualifies the story as yet another altar (v. 7) is the same as in 33:20. In vv. 9–15
example of the endangerment of the lives of there occurs a further repetition of the promise
the heirs to the promise, a situation that leads of numerous descendants and of the land, fol-
to Jacob’s removal with his family to Bethel and lowed by a further account of the setting up of a
is only relieved by the mysterious ‘terror’ that pillar and its consecration with oil.
falls on the surrounding cities (35:5, which ap-
pears to be intended as the sequel to this story). (35:16–22) is concerned with events in Jacob’s
The Shechemites are here (v. 2) specified as family. The birth of his twelfth and last son
Hivites, one of the tribes supposed to have Benjamin is recorded. Jacob does not accept
constituted the Canaanite people (cf. e.g. Gen the name given to him by his dying mother,
10:15–18; Deut 7:1). After forcing Dinah into which means ‘son of my sorrow’, but gives him
illicit intercourse with him, Shechem falls in a name which may mean either ‘son of the right
love with her and wishes to marry her at hand’ or ‘son of the south’ but perhaps, more
all costs. The inhabitants of the city, with appropriately and hopefully, ‘son of good for-
Hamor as spokesman, attempt to negotiate the tune’ (Soggin 1961: 432–40). The incest commit-
marriage in all innocence, but are rebuffed ted by Reuben is condemned when Jacob
 83 genesis

blesses his sons (49:4). vv. 23–9 conclude the to Pharaoh himself (41:40–4) and so became,
story of Jacob’s adventures with his return under God’s guidance, the saviour of his father
home at last in time to be with his father Isaac Jacob and all his family (45:7–8; 50:19–21). This
before he dies. Jacob lived many more years story raises for the reader a number of questions
after this (his death is recorded in 49:33, at the which have been the subject of much discus-
end of the story of his son Joseph’s brilliant sion, e.g.: What is its relationship to the rest of
career), but he no longer plays an active role the patriarchal stories? What is its literary
in the book. genre? Is it the work of a single author? Does
it contain reliable information about ancient
(36:1–43) After the lengthy story of Jacob the Egypt, and if so, of what period? What is its
author turns his attention to Esau, the ancestor purpose?
of the Edomites, and his descendants—an indi- The function of the story in the context of the
cation that although Israel and Edom were foregoing patriarchal stories and of the follow-
often hostile to one another Israel still consid- ing book of Exodus is that it bridges a gap in the
ered them to be ‘brothers’. These genealogical chronological scheme of the Pentateuch. The
lists are derived from different sources and con- material available to the compiler of Genesis
tain not a few repetitions and inconsistencies. about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob appears to
The extent to which they contain genuine in- have come to an end. The story of Joseph,
formation about a people about whom little is whose connection with that material is tenuous
otherwise known is disputed. In vv. 20–30 the though real (his birth and his genealogy are
clan of the Horites appears to be reckoned as recorded in Gen 30:22–4; 35:22–6) serves the
related to Esau, but in Deut 2:12, 22 the Horites purpose of accounting for the migration of
are said to have been one of the former peoples Jacob and his family to Egypt, from which
whom the Edomites dispossessed. The lists dis- country the Exodus tradition recounts the sub-
tinguish between three types of socio-political sequent departure of the Israelites (the sons of
organization, referring to heads of families Jacob), so ensuring the continuity of the larger
(vv. 1–8, 20–8), tribal leaders (vv. 15–19, 29–30, narrative tradition. At the same time, it consti-
40–3), and kings (vv. 31–9). The kings of Edom tutes yet another example of the theme of dan-
are said to have reigned ‘before any king reigned ger to the heirs of the promise—again as a
over the Israelites’ (v. 31). This list, which obvi- result of famine—and their miraculous deliver-
ously cannot be very early, may contain some ance. But neither of these functions required or
genuine historical information (so Westermann could account for such an elaborate narrative
1985). The Edomites are known from the evi- as this. Von Rad (1966b), who found parallels
dence of archaeology to have settled in their between the story and Egyptian short stories,
territory before the arrival of Israel in Canaan, saw it as narrative wisdom literature depicting
and that they had acquired the status of a mon- Joseph as an ideal wise man. But others have
archy before Israel had done so is plausible questioned this assessment of the character of
(Num 20:14 mentions a ‘king of Edom’ in the Joseph as here portrayed.
time of Moses). That their monarchy was at first It is this quality that has led to a questioning
non-hereditary as stated in Gen vv. 31–9 is of of the conventional view that the story is the
interest in the light of recent studies of the early result of a combination of two separate ver-
history of Israel. sions, attributed respectively to J and E. Von
Rad’s attempt to combine the latter view with
The Story of Joseph (chs. 37–50) an appreciation of its literary quality was shown
These chapters are of a different kind from the to be inconsistent by Whybray (1968), followed
rest of Genesis. Instead of a catena of brief independently by Donner (1976). The possibility
incidents and notices about family and tribal that it is the work of a single author, first pro-
affairs we have here—interrupted only by posed by Volz and Rudolph in 1933, who threw
some obviously interpolated material, notably doubt on the existence of an E strand, is now
chs. 38 and parts of 48–50—a single, well-con- seriously, though not universally, accepted.
structed, continuous narrative comprising some Whether the story betrays accurate knowledge
300 verses in our Bibles and skilfully arranged of Egyptian life and customs of any period has
in a series of distinct consecutive scenes, about been disputed by Egyptologists. Some (e.g. Ver-
the career of one man, Jacob’s eleventh son, gote 1959) took a positive view of this, arguing
who rose to an undreamed-of eminence in that it fits well into the Ramesside period which
Egypt as ruler of that whole land second only was believed by some to be a plausible time for
genesis 84

the career of a historical Joseph, but others (e.g. Jacob’s family it was thought to deserve a place
Redford 1970) were sceptical about the authen- in the total narrative, but no satisfactory place-
ticity of the Egyptian allusions. Redford main- ment for it could be found. It is wholly con-
tained that if the author did in fact have genuine cerned with events in the life of Judah, Jacob’s
knowledge of Egypt the work cannot be dated fourth son. But he can hardly be called the hero
earlier than the seventh century BCE. of the story: it is his daughter-in-law Tamar who
fills that role. The story is a complicated one
(37:1–34) The minor inconsistencies and dupli- and involves a number of customs that call for
cations in this chapter (e.g. the apparent confu- elucidation. These can only be briefly sketched
sion between Ishmaelites and Midianites here. vv. 1–11 are introductory to the main story.
in v. 28; the duplication of Joseph’s dreams in Judah’s decision to settle apart from his broth-
vv. 6–7 and 9; the similarity of the compassion- ers probably reflects the fact that the tribe of
ate actions of Reuben and Judah in vv. 21–2 and Judah was located in historical times in the
26–7) are not sufficient to show that two com- south, away from the other tribes, and had a
plete versions of the story have been inter- separate existence until politically united with
woven; at most they may suggest that the them by David (Adullam and Timnah were both
author made use at some points of earlier oral Judaean cities in later times). The story also
material. The story itself is quite straightfor- reflects fraternization and intermarriage be-
ward: it recounts the first of a series of incidents tween Israelites and Canaanites. Tamar’s second
which once again put in danger of his life the marriage, to Onan, conforms to the custom of
person who is destined to hold in his hands the levirate marriage (see Deut 25:5–6). With the
survival of the heirs of the promise. This destiny death of her first two husbands Tamar evidently
is foreshadowed here by Joseph’s dreams; but expected to be married to the third brother,
the dramatic suspense is to continue concern- Shelah; but, afraid that he too might die prema-
ing his fate for several more chapters. Another turely, Jacob made an excuse to avoid this; and
motif, that of hatred between brothers, is rem- Tamar, according to custom, returned to the
iniscent of the hostility between Jacob and Esau; unenviable state of living with her parents. In
once again the issue is solved by the end of the desperation she then tried to force Judah’s hand.
story with the indication that it is not the elder She arranged to have sexual relations with her
brother who has been chosen by God to assure father-in-law in the guise of a prostitute without
the continuation of the chosen race. vv. 1–2 are his being aware of her identity, and retained
an introduction to the whole Joseph story, pro- proof of the relationship by keeping his cylin-
viding the necessary link between the earlier der seal with its cord and his staff as pledge for
patriarchal stories and the present one. In v. 3 her fee (v. 18). It is not clear on what grounds
the precise nature of the ‘long coat with sleeves’ she was condemned to death by Judah in his
(kĕtōnet passı̂m) is not certain. Outside this chap- capacity as undisputed head of the family with
ter this garment is referred to in the OT only in powers of life and death (v. 24); it is perhaps
2 Sam 13:18, 19, where it is the apparel of a assumed that she was betrothed to Shelah,
princess. Here it is a token of Jacob’s especial though not actually married to him (cf. Deut
affection for Joseph and a mark of esteem 22:23–4). After Judah’s recognition that her ac-
which incites the brothers’ hatred. The descrip- tion was justified (!) the story ends with her
tion of Jacob’s grief at the supposed death of his giving birth to twin boys, Judah’s children,
son (vv. 33–5) closes this first part of the story of whose names (Perez and Zerah) are interpreted
Joseph, after which (in ch. 39) the scene changes as meaning ‘breaking out’ and (perhaps) ‘bright,
to Egypt. shining’ respectively.

(38:1–30) This chapter, in which Joseph does (39:1–41:57) This account of Joseph’s humili-
not appear at all, is an interpolation that inter- ation and subsequent exaltation has some of
rupts the Joseph story, which resumes in 39:1 at the characteristics of the folktale, but is an inte-
the point at which it is broken off at the end of gral part of the story of Joseph as a whole. It is
ch. 37. Attempts to interpret it as in some way full of dramatic tension: Joseph is again placed
relevant to the events narrated in the surround- in great danger; but the tension is finally re-
ing chapters have hardly been convincing, al- solved in an equally dramatic fashion. It is sev-
though on the other hand no convincing eral times (39:3, 5, 21, 23; 41:51–2) specifically
explanation has been found for its interpol- emphasized that both his preservation in dan-
ation. Probably, as a story about a member of ger and his later success are due not to his own
 85 genesis

abilities but to the unseen operation of God. meanings of the phrase ‘to lift up the head’, whose
Although there is no evidence in extant Egyp- normal meaning was to restore to favour, but in
tian texts of any comparable elevation of a the case of the baker referred to decapitation or
person of humble status to a position of great hanging. Both interpretations proved to be cor-
power, the theme of the elevation of exiled Jews rect. The last verse of the chapter reintroduces the
by foreign potentates was evidently a favourite tension into the story: although the cupbearer
one in post-exilic times, and is found also in had promised to intercede for Joseph when he
Dan 1–6 and Esther. 39:1, which repeats infor- was restored to favour with Pharaoh, he forgot
mation given at the end of ch. 37, is deliberately him, leaving him in prison with no apparent
resumptive following the interpolation of hope, and possibly again in danger of his life
ch. 38. It specifies that it was Ishmaelites rather should judgement be given against him.
than Midianites who sold Joseph into slavery in Pharaoh’s dreams (41:1–7) are of the same
Egypt (as in 37:28b). The Egyptian name Poti- symbolic kind as those of the cupbearer and
phar means ‘the one whom Re gives’. The initial baker, and required expert decipherment. Like
success of the good-looking Joseph (39:6) as Nebuchadnezzar in similar circumstances (Dan
Potiphar’s trusted servant (39:2–6) is brought 2:4) Pharaoh sent for his experts (hartummı̂m,
to a sudden end and his life once more endan- ‘magicians’, is a form of an Egyptian _ _ word
gered by the lie told by Potiphar’s wife when he meaning ‘soothsayer-priest’), who proved to
twice virtuously refuses her sexual advances be incapable of the task. On the suggestion of
(39:14–18). (On the use of the term ‘Hebrew’, the cupbearer, who at last remembered
39:14, which occurs several times in the story Joseph’s talents, Joseph was sent for from his
of Joseph, see above on 14:13.) But the punish- prison cell and, having shaved and put on clean
ment which Potiphar imposes on Joseph is sur- clothes—matters of great importance to the
prisingly mild for the crime of adultery, and Egyptians—appeared before Pharaoh. His pre-
suggests that Potiphar was not entirely con- parations are symbolic of a great change in his
vinced of his guilt. The chapter ends on a life; from this moment he never looked back.
more positive note: Joseph’s attractive person- But it was his successful interpretation of the
ality (as well as God’s protection) once more dreams that—under God, 41:39—was the cause
leads to success, when he obtains the favour of of his sudden elevation to greatness, together
the jailer. with his eminently practical advice about the
The chief cupbearer and chief baker, whom measures to be taken in the face of an otherwise
Joseph waited upon in prison (40:1–4) were high certain disaster. In a manner typical of
officials imprisoned for some undisclosed of- the folktale, Pharaoh put his entire faith in
fences by the dictatorial king of Egypt. Unlike this one demonstration of Joseph’s ability
Joseph’s own dreams in ch. 37, whose meaning (41:39–40) and lost no time in appointing him
needed no explanation, their dreams, as also Grand Vizier of Egypt, endowing him with all
those of Pharaoh in ch. 41, were dreams whose the symbols and the reality of that office, which
meaning was not obvious and which required an are attested in Egyptian art and tomb furniture.
interpreter with special powers. The interpret- The meaning of the word ʾabrēk (‘Bow the
ation of such dreams was, both in Egypt and in knee!’, 41:43) may be related to the Semitic
Mesopotamia, the speciality and occult art of the root b-r-k, ‘kneel’, or may be related to an Egyp-
professional diviner. Like Daniel, who was re- tian word meaning ‘Watch out!’ In receiving a
quired not only to interpret Nebuchadnezzar’s new and Egyptian name (Zaphenath-paneah
dream but also to remind the king of its contents means ‘God speaks and lives’), Joseph was re-
(Dan 2:31–45), Joseph possessed the power to ceived into the ranks of the Egyptian nobility;
interpret dreams, but attributed this power to and this was confirmed by his being given the
special divine revelation rather than to his own daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis (‘On’)
ability (40:8)—although in 44:15 he speaks of his as his bride. He is presented (41:34–6, 47–57) as a
ability to practise divination (nihēš). The differ- foresighted administrator. The establishment
ence between the cupbearer’s and _ the baker’s of large granaries against times of low grain
dreams—the fact that in the latter’s dream the production was a well-known Egyptian eco-
birds were eating from the basket of food which nomic measure. The final verse of the chapter
he was carrying to Pharaoh, whereas the cup- (57) prepares for the events of the following
bearer dreamed that he had resumed his former chapters by emphasizing the world-wide na-
function—determined Joseph’s interpretations, ture of the food shortage against which Joseph
in which Joseph played—gruesomely—on two successfully prepared Egypt.
genesis 86

(42:1–45:28) With ch. 42 the scene switches for his aged father, and is overjoyed, and again
back to Canaan and to Jacob and his other deeply affected, on seeing Benjamin (43:30).
sons. Egypt was the granary of the ancient There is again astonishment at Benjamin’s treat-
world; and journeys from such countries as ment as guest of honour, and probably at
Canaan to try to buy food in times of famine Joseph’s dining at a separate table in accordance
are recorded in extant Egyptian texts (see ANET with Egyptian rules of purity; but in the relaxed
250–1) and depicted in Egyptian graphic art. The atmosphere they forget their fears and even
main problem of the interpretation of these drink to excess (‘were merry’) in Joseph’s com-
chapters is to understand the reason for pany, unaware of further trouble to come.
Joseph’s harsh treatment of his brothers before
he reveals his identity in ch. 45. One of his (44:1–34) By the repetition of the earlier inci-
motives was certainly to force them to bring dent of 42:35 with the planting in the brother’s
his youngest brother Benjamin to see him. But luggage of Joseph’s cup (the reference to the
there can be little doubt that a main motive was money here is probably a later addition), the
connected with his brothers’ treatment of him pursuit and apprehension of the brothers and
many years before (ch. 37). In his present pos- the accusation of theft (vv. 1–13) the tension is
ition of unlimited power he was in a position to still further increased. It seems to them that
punish them, and he did so; but in the end Joseph has now trapped them as they had
brotherly love and family feelings proved feared all along, and that it is all up with them.
stronger than his desire for revenge (ch. 45). The cup is particularly important to Joseph
The story is replete with dramatic tension and because he uses it to practise lecanomancy
also with dramatic irony (the brothers do not (v. 5), a form of divination in which oil was
know who he is, but the readers do) and is told poured into a cup or bowl to give psychic
with psychological subtlety. By pretending to insight (see Cryer 1994: 145–7, 285)—a practice
believe that the brothers are spies (42:9), Joseph somewhat resembling modern foretelling of the
extracts the information that they have left their future by tea-leaves. Joseph’s purpose in so
youngest brother behind with his father, and tricking the brothers was to test them to see
demands that he should be brought to him. whether they had changed their nature, and
Imprisoned for three days, they suppose that whether they genuinely cared for their father
they are being punished for their earlier crime, and for Benjamin. They protest their innocence,
even though they do not recognize Joseph but recognize that if found guilty they merit
(42:21). In releasing them all except Simeon, condign punishment (v. 9), though both the
however, Joseph is deeply affected, and supplies steward and Joseph himself are inclined to
them with corn and provisions; but the return mercy except towards the thief, who must be
of their money increases their fears (42:28, 35), enslaved (vv. 10, 17). Joseph adds to their dismay
and their misery is increased when on their by claiming that he has the gift of divination
return home Jacob, in a mood of self-pity, re- even without the use of the cup, and knows
fuses to let Benjamin return with them to Egypt. what has occurred (v. 15). But Judah’s lengthy
When a further supply of corn became an speech in which he heartrendingly depicts the
absolute necessity to Jacob and his family a inevitable fate of Jacob if he is bereft of yet
second visit to Egypt was mooted, and Jacob another son and offers himself as a scapegoat
was persuaded against his will to let Benjamin in Benjamin’s place is a masterpiece of rhetoric
go with his brothers, with Judah as a guarantor which Joseph finds too hard to endure (45:1).
of his safety (43:1–11). This time, fearful of their
reception, they take with them tribute in the (45:1–28) This chapter probably marks the end
form of choice products of Canaan and double of the Joseph story proper. With it all the ten-
the previous sum of money, to prove their hon- sion is released and the problems solved; there
esty (43:11–12). Joseph, however, was to continue is a reconciliation and a happy ending. From the
to play his tricks on them (ch. 44). The scene literary point of view the story is complete, and
with Joseph’s steward (43:16–25) is intended to the chapters that complete the book have rather
allay the brothers’ fears: they are at first suspi- the character of an appendix or series of appen-
cious and naı̈vely afraid of a trap (in such a dices designed to provide an answer to
setting!), but are reassured. They have been nat- the question, ‘And how did it all end?’ (46:1–5
urally astonished and awed by the luxury of already reverts to the style and concerns of the
Joseph’s house and by the invitation to dinner; earlier patriarchal stories, with an appearance
but when Joseph arrives he shows his concern of God in the night to Jacob, reiterating the
 87 genesis

promise of making a great nation of him, but suspicious of foreign immigrants, commonly
this time in Egypt rather than Canaan. The settled them. There is a strong hint to the reader
remaining chapters lack the high literary quality in v. 34 about the future in the statement that
of the Joseph story proper, and are rather piece- shepherds are abhorrent to the Egyptians, and
meal in contents.) vv. 1–15 describe a touching in Joseph’s advice to his father to be open in his
scene in which, apart from the emotions that interview with Pharaoh about his profession.
are expressed between Joseph and his brothers, However, Pharaoh is represented in 47:5–6 as
the author is concerned to emphasize Joseph’s being prepared to welcome Jacob for Joseph’s
forgiveness of his brothers and the hidden hand sake on condition that he lived in Goshen, as he
of God in preserving the lives of Jacob’s family had already promised (45:17–20).
through Joseph’s agency. In vv. 10–15, however,
a new theme is announced: Jacob and his family (47:1–26) The narrative of vv. 1–12 follows im-
are to migrate to Egypt to share in Joseph’s mediately on ch. 46, and is continued in v. 27.
good fortune. (His question in v. 3 is strange: vv. 13–26 are an account of Joseph’s economic
the brothers have already told him that his policy as Grand Vizier, and has no connection,
father is still alive.) The rest of the chapter except for the motif of the famine, with the
is concerned with the arrangements for the story of Jacob and his family in Egypt. The
move. Joseph proposes it on his own initiative audience with Pharaoh (vv. 1–12) is in two
(vv. 9–11), and Pharaoh himself confirms this, parts: first Joseph presents five of his brothers
offering the family the best land in Egypt for to Pharaoh (vv. 2–6) and then, separately, his
their residence. In vv. 21–8 Joseph’s lavish pro- father (vv. 7–12). It is probable that two distinct
visions for the journey and Jacob/Israel’s aston- versions have been used here; this is suggested
ishment, incredulity, and final acceptance of the by the fact that in v. 11 the land assigned to the
news of Joseph and of his offer are described. immigrants is called (only here) the land of
Rameses (cf. Ex 1:11) rather than of Goshen.
(46:1–34) Jacob was last heard of as living in The location, however, is probably the same.
Hebron (37:14). Now he passes through Beer- The point of the audience with the brothers
sheba on his way to Egypt, and it is there that seems to be that the brothers do not, as they
he has his reassuring message from God. The might have done, try to use their kinship with
list of names of those who went with him Joseph to enhance their social status: they do
(vv. 8–27) is supposedly a roll-call of the persons not ask for permanent residence in Egypt,
mentioned in vv. 6–7; but it clearly comes from which would have been tantamount to Egyp-
a different source and interrupts the narrative. tian citizenship, and they wish to continue their
Among the total of sixty-six persons alleged to hereditary profession, although Pharaoh sug-
have made the journey (v. 26), expanded to gests that some of them may be capable of
seventy by (presumably) including Jacob him- positions of some responsibility (v. 6). The
self and also Joseph and his two sons Ephraim point of the second audience is to present
and Manasseh, who are counted twice, though Jacob as a dignified old man who is not over-
not named the second time (v. 27) there are awed by Pharaoh but dares to bless him (vv. 7,
some who are expressly stated not to have 10). vv. 13–26 are designed to demonstrate
been among them: Er and Onan (v. 12) were Joseph’s superior wisdom in using his control
already dead (38:7, 10), and Manasseh and Eph- over the corn supply to make slaves of the
raim had been born in Egypt. Joseph, of course, whole Egyptian nation—a triumph which,
was still in Egypt. Moreover, the statement that whatever the modern reader may think of its
Benjamin had ten sons who accompanied him morality, perhaps—although this is a secular
on the journey (v. 21) does not accord with what story—foreshadows the later triumph of the
had previously been said about his youth. Prob- Israelites over Pharaoh himself (Ex 6–15).
ably this list was originally intended as a list of
all Jacob’s descendants through three gener- (47:27–48:22) The story of Jacob and his family
ations and had no original connection with is now resumed; but the narrative is not all of
this narrative. vv. 28–34 are concerned with one piece. It contains a number of inconsisten-
Jacob’s projected meeting with Pharaoh and cies and incongruities, and is the result of the
with the place of residence designated for the combination of several different kinds of ma-
immigrants. Goshen (vv. 28, 34, already men- terial. 47:27–8 notes the family’s successful life
tioned in 45:10) was an area on the eastern edge in the land of Goshen and the period of their
of the Nile delta, where the Egyptians, who were residence there together with a note of the
genesis 88

length of Jacob’s life—though his death is not The significance of 48:22 is not clear. ‘Joseph’
recorded until 49:33. 47:29–31, however, begins here does not refer simply to the individual but
the account of his last years and death. His to the ‘house of Joseph’, which comprised the
request to be taken back to Canaan for burial tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, and was to be
reintroduces—though indirectly—the theme of the most powerful of the northern group of
the promise of the land: life in Egypt is not to be Israelite tribes. Jacob confers on ‘Joseph’ one
the permanent destiny of the nation of Israel. In ‘portion’ (šĕkem), here unidentified, more than
his deathbed speech in 48:1–4 Jacob first repeats he gives to the others. The word šĕkem is also
the story of his blessing and the promise made the name of the city of Shechem, but as a
to him at Bethel (35:6–12; Luz ¼ Bethel; 28:19; common noun means ‘shoulder’. Here it plainly
35:6) and then informs Joseph that he is adopt- means a shoulder of land or a mountain ridge.
ing his (Joseph’s) sons Ephraim and Manasseh as The military exploit of Jacob referred to here is
his own sons. This action, which points beyond unknown; certainly he did not capture the city
the brothers as individuals to their future char- of Shechem from the Amorites (¼ Canaanites;
acter as Israelite tribes, would mean that the cf. ch. 34).
traditional number of twelve tribes (implied,
for example, in 35:23–6) is augmented to thir- (49:1–33) The sayings about the twelve tribes
teen (if Ephraim and Manasseh are to be of Israel preserved here in the guise of a deathbed
counted instead of their father). In fact the trad- address by Jacob to his twelve sons (vv. 3–27)
itional number of twelve is a fiction; they are are generally known as the Blessing of Jacob,
listed in several different ways in various places partly on the basis of the statement in v. 28. v. 1,
in the OT, and their numbers vary between ten however, describes their character somewhat
and thirteen. more accurately: in their present form the say-
The scene of Jacob’s blessing of Ephraim and ings are, to a large extent, predictions of ‘what will
Manasseh (48:8–20), in which Jacob is called by happen’ to the various tribes in the future. They
his other name Israel, appears not to presup- vary considerably in their contents, and their
pose the previous passage but to be from a assessments are by no means all favourable.
different source. Since it is implied here that They cannot be said to constitute a single
Joseph’s sons are not yet adult and Jacob ap- poem, but differ greatly in form and length as
pears to be encountering them for the first time, well as in contents. They are in fact a collection
the scene is evidently supposed to have taken of originally quite separate sayings or slogans
place soon after Jacob’s arrival in Egypt rather each characterizing an individual tribe (in the
than just before his death (cf. 47:28). This is case of Simeon and Levi, vv. 5–7, two are treated
another example of the younger son being together), some of them alluding to particular
given precedence over the elder (cf. ch. 27). incidents in which they were involved that are
The right hand is assumed to confer the greater now wholly or partly obscure. Some have been
blessing. Jacob deliberately crosses his hands greatly augmented; in those cases it is often
despite Joseph’s protest, in order to give Eph- possible to identify the original, usually
raim, the younger, the greater blessing. 48:15–16 pointed, saying. The intention of the author/
is somewhat confused, and interrupts the main collector was to provide a complete survey of
narrative. It is stated here that it is Joseph who is all the twelve tribes of Israel (Joseph, vv. 22–6
blessed (48:15a), but in fact it is his sons who are being treated as a single tribe—see above); how-
blessed (48:16), and no difference is made be- ever, the persistent tradition that Israel was
tween them. 48:20 also is a somewhat confus- composed of exactly twelve tribes is not derived
ing addition to the story: it purports to be an from this chapter. This is not the only passage
alternative blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh of this kind in the OT: Deut 33, known as the
(‘them’), but in fact it is a wish rather than a Blessing of Moses, is a parallel instance, and
blessing, and it is addressed to one person (‘you’ Judg 5, the Song of Deborah, also assesses the
is singular). It is noteworthy that ‘Israel’ here characters of almost all the tribes (Judg 5:14–18).
(and perhaps also in 47:27) refers to the nation The latter, however, is a unitary poem which
of Israel, not to the individual Jacob/Israel. The comments on a single incident, and praises or
last sentence in the verse reverts to the main blames the various tribes according to their co-
story, summing it up: Ephraim was preferred operation or otherwise. Here in Gen 49 it
before Manasseh. There is a clear allusion in is significant that Judah (vv. 8–12) and Joseph
this story to the later predominance of the (vv. 22–6)—that is, the tribes which were later
tribe of Ephraim (cf. e.g. Deut 33:17). to become the most powerful and important
 89 genesis

tribes—are treated much more fully than the statement at the end of v. 7 reads like a divine
others. pronouncement of judgement similar to those
The Blessing of Jacob is here presented as a found in the prophetical books.
scene that took place at Jacob’s bedside just Judah (vv. 8–12) was David’s tribe, pre-eminent
before his death in the presence of all his in the time of the united kingdom; it was the
sons, and thus as a farewell discourse (a fre- name of the southern kingdom after the dissol-
quent feature in the accounts of the deaths of ution of the union until its destruction in the
great men in the OT—cf. e.g. the Blessing of sixth century BCE. This passage has incorporated
Moses, Deut 33; Josh 24; David’s farewell more than one shorter saying. The reference to
speech, 1 Kings 2:1–9). However, it is clearly Judah as a lion (v. 8) is the first of several ex-
an independent piece that has been inserted amples in the chapter of the association of a
at an appropriate point into the story of tribe with a particular animal. The lion later
Jacob’s death. In its present expanded form it became the traditional symbol of the tribe of
cannot be earlier than the time of David, as it Judah (cf. Rev 5:5). ‘shall praise you’ (yôdûkā) is a
speaks of Judah as the ruler of the other tribes play on the word ‘Judah’. ‘Until tribute comes to
and of other peoples (v. 10). The full and fa- him’ (v. 10) is only one among many alternative
vourable assessment of Joseph—that is, of the renderings of the Hebrew phrase ʿad kı̂-yābōʾ
central tribes—as numerous and powerful šı̂lōh, the meaning of which is one of the un-
(vv. 22–6) expresses a different picture of lead- solved problems of OT interpretation. Its literal
ership; but it also clearly reflects a later period translation could be either ‘Until Shiloh comes’
and has a different orientation from that of or ‘Until he comes to Shiloh’; but no plausible
Judah. The chapter appears to have been sub- connection between Judah (or David) and the
ject to more than one process of redaction. The Ephraimite city and sanctuary of Shiloh can be
function of the individual sayings in their ori- found. The Hebrew text may be corrupt, or the
ginal brief state is not obvious and has been word ‘Shiloh’ may have some hitherto undis-
frequently debated. They were presumably covered meaning; but attempts to correct it or
comments by tribes about other tribes made to find some other explanation based on com-
at an early period; but the circumstances in parative philology have achieved no consensus.
which they were made remain obscure. ‘Until’ suggests that some event will put an end
v. 2 is a formal poetical introduction to the to Judah’s domination; but the traditional no-
collection of sayings, which are also in poetical tion that this is a prophecy of the coming of the
form. Reuben (vv. 3–4) is addressed directly and Messiah to bring to an end temporal earthly
accused of incest—probably referring to 35:22. rule lacks support in the text. That it should be
Little is known of Reuben either as an individ- a prophecy of the accession to rule of David is
ual or as a tribe. It played no prominent part in also improbable, as he can hardly be said to
subsequent history; Deut 33:6 suggests that it have put an end to the rule of Judah! Wester-
died out as a distinct tribe at a fairly early period mann (1986: 231) comments: ‘It is no praise-
despite its initial prominence reflected in Reu- worthy page in the history of O.T. exegesis
ben’s being the eldest son of Jacob. Simeon and that so many studies have been preoccupied
Levi (vv. 5–7) are not blessed but cursed. The with this one word [Shiloh]’. vv. 11–12 appear
crime of which they are accused in v. 6 is almost to be a somewhat fanciful prediction of great
certainly their treacherous murder of the She- fertility and prosperity which will follow the
chemites in ch. 34, though no mention is made accession of the future ruler, when wine will
there of their hamstringing oxen. In historical flow in abundance, and of the ruler’s outstand-
times Levi was a priestly tribe which, unlike the ing beauty. There is an analogous prediction of
others, had no inheritance in the land: it thus a future king in Num 24:5–9; the last two lines
ceased to be counted among the ordinary tribes, of v. 9 are repeated almost word for word in
though the connection between the Levi of this Num 24:9a.
saying and the later priestly tribe is uncertain. The saying about Zebulon (v. 13) makes no
According to Judg 1:3, 17 Simeon was associated comment on the character of this tribe, but
with Judah in its invasion of Canaanite territory, only—somewhat vaguely—on its territorial lo-
and was probably absorbed into the more cation. These statements do not correspond
powerful tribe of Judah, so being ‘scattered in very closely with the description of its location
Israel’. The use in v. 6 of the first person singular in Josh 19:10–16, which places it in Galilee to the
can hardly be supposed to be that of Jacob, and east of the Sea of Tiberias, but at least ten miles
this is also true of ‘are brothers’ in v. 5. The from the Mediterranean at its nearest point. It is
genesis 90

not known at what period it expanded its terri- The section on Joseph (vv. 22–6) is, like that
tory so far west. Ancient Israel was not, of on Judah, made up of a number of originally
course, a maritime people. The saying may separate elements, not all of which are tribal
have been intended to emphasize Zebulon’s sayings. It is divided into two main parts, a
isolation from the other tribes, though in Judg characterization of the ‘tribe’ of Joseph with an
5:14 it is commended for its participation with allusion to Joseph’s behaviour when attacked (vv.
other tribes in the battle against Jabin and Sisera 22–5a) and a series of blessings (vv. 25b–6). Un-
in the nearby valley of Jezreel. Issachar’s name fortunately much in these verses is difficult to
and character (vv. 14–15) are probably associated understand: there are rare and obscure words,
here, as in 30:18, with śākār, ‘hire, wages’. and the syntax is sometimes unusual and diffi-
Although the tribe, like Zebulon, is praised in cult. There are probably textual corruptions,
Judg 5:15, it is here portrayed as submitting itself and the rendering of NRSV—and of all other
to the harshest form of slavery—that is, under translations—is based to some extent on conjec-
the neighbouring Canaanite cities. Dan’s name tural interpretation, v. 22 is a metaphorical ref-
(v. 16) is understood here, as in 30:6, to be erence to Joseph as a strong and flourishing plant
derived from the verb dı̂n, ‘to judge’; but well supplied with water; ‘fruitful’ (pōrāt) plays on
whereas in 30:6 it is God who is the subject of the word ‘Ephraim’, the predominant member of
the verb, here it is Dan who is the subject: he the ‘house of Joseph’. vv. 23–4 describe an inci-
will be the judge of his people. In v. 17, however, dent, now unidentifiable, in which ‘Joseph’ was
Dan is described as a snake that attacks horse- attacked by enemies but overcame them with
men by biting the horses’ heels. The analogy God’s help. v. 24b introduces a series of divine
may be a reference to the small size of the blessings, and prayers for blessings to be con-
tribe, that cannot attack enemies openly. This ferred on Joseph. In vv. 24–5 God is invoked with
verse is probably intended as praise rather than an amazing, and unique, concatenation of divine
condemnation, referring to attacks against the names, all found elsewhere in the OT, but to-
enemy Canaanites. v. 18 is probably a pious gether betraying a fairly late date of composition.
exclamation of a general kind, not specifically ‘Mighty One of Jacob’ occurs in Isa 49:26; 60:16;
connected with the tribe of Dan. Ps 132:2, 5. God is referred to as a shepherd a
The name of Gad (v. 19) is here derived from number of times, e.g. Ps 23:1 and 80:1. ‘Rock
the Hebrew root g-d-d, ‘to band together’, (ʾeben) of Israel’ occurs only here, but there are
which occurs in various forms four times in fairly frequent references in the Psalms to him as
the verse. It is an appropriate name in that this ‘Rock’ (sûr), and in that form ‘Rock of Israel’
tribe, which was located east of the Jordan occurs in _ Isa 30:29. ‘God of your father’ most
bordering on the desert, would be subject to obviously refers to Abraham or Jacob, and simi-
attacks by marauding raiders. The saying com- lar epithets are found throughout Genesis.
ments that it is known for its ability to give a ‘Almighty’ (šadday) elsewhere in Genesis occurs
good account of itself in such encounters. in the phrase ‘El Shaddai’, but is found frequently
Asher (v. 20), whose name means ‘happiness, by itself in Job and elsewhere. v. 26 is probably a
good fortune’ (cf. 30:13), settled in the fertile very ancient form of blessing. In vv. 25 and 26a
coastal strip between Carmel and the Phoen- Joseph is addressed in the second person, but not
ician border (Josh 19:24–31). But according to in the previous verses or in v. 26b. v. 26b refers
Judg 1:31–2 it was unable to drive out the local primarily to Joseph’s separation from his broth-
Canaanites and so lived among them. The ers while in Egypt, but is also intended to em-
‘royal delicacies’ referred to here may refer to phasize his pre-eminence over the other tribes.
a period when Asher was renowned for its The description of Benjamin (v. 27) refers to the
provision of delicacies for royal courts—either tribe rather than to the individual: it has nothing
for those of Jerusalem or Samaria or for in common with the Benjamin of the preceding
Canaanite or Phoenician royal courts. The say- narratives. This is a fierce tribal saying of great
ing about Naphtali (49:21) is obscure: the text antiquity, unaugmented by later comment. Ben-
may be corrupt. A different spelling of ‘doe’ jamin is here presented, and apparently com-
(ʾayyālâ) would yield ‘terebinth’ (ʾêlâ); ‘fawns’ mended, as a ruthless brigand-like fighter.
could also mean ‘words’. But if the text is cor- Jacob’s charge, now to all his sons, to bury him
rect and ‘fawns’ is a correct interpretation, this with his ancestors in the cave of Machpelah
is another animal analogy: Naphtali is called a (vv. 29–32) essentially repeats his charge to
female deer ‘let loose’, that is, free to roam at Joseph alone in 47:29–31. The repetition was
will in the mountains of Galilee. intended by the final redactor of the book to
 91 genesis

form a framework for the whole section about unattested—that Jacob had asked that Joseph
Jacob’s arrangements in anticipation of his death should forgive them (v. 17) cannot be deter-
that stretches from 47:29 to 49:32. mined; to tell such a lie would be an indica-
tion of their panic. On the other hand, there
(50:1–26) This chapter forms an appropriate is nothing in the text to suggest that they
conclusion to the patriarchal stories that acted in bad faith. Joseph’s weeping when
began in ch. 12. Like the deaths of Moses at the they spoke in this way was a sign of deep
end of Deut (34:5–12) and of Joshua at the end of emotion, but gives no hint of his thoughts. In
Josh (24:29–31), that of Joseph marks the end of their fear the brothers fell at his feet in sup-
an epoch. The chapter satisfactorily ties up sev- plication and acknowledged that their fate
eral of the themes of the book, at the same time was in his hands, so unconsciously—though
hinting that it marks no more than a temporary this was certainly in the mind of the author—
stopping-place in the history of the nation: the fulfilling Joseph’s former dreams that he
final words of the book, ‘in Egypt’, make this would eventually rule over them (37:6–10).
clear. The reconciliation of the brothers with But his reply (vv. 19–21) reassures them com-
Joseph is completed and their crime forgiven; pletely. He first points out that it is not for
God’s promise of protection and guidance is human beings, however exalted, to take re-
once more affirmed and demonstrated; the venge, which is a prerogative of God, and
promise of the land is renewed; and the future then, as he had already done on a previous
of the heirs of the promise is assured. Joseph’s occasion (45:5–8), he attributes all that had
love for his father, already noted in his enquiry happened to the hidden hand of God, whose
about him in Gen 45:3, is poignantly brought purpose had been to preserve their lives so
out in v. 1. The elaborate treatment of Jacob’s that they would become a ‘numerous people’
corpse (vv. 2–3) and of his burial (vv. 4–14) (the word ʾam, ‘people’, can denote a group or
reflects the almost royal position of Joseph in family, but here has also overtones of ‘na-
Egypt. Joseph’s application for permission to tion’). This speech, which expresses a high
bury Jacob in Canaan through the court officials theology and also sums up a major theme of
rather than personally to Pharaoh (vv. 4–6), the the book, is the climax of the whole.
granting of which was presumably a foregone
conclusion, though his promise to return to (50:22–6) constitutes the epilogue to the book.
Egypt afterwards (v. 5) may have some signifi- v. 23 hints at the fulfilment of the promise of
cance, is strange; it may mean that as a recent numerous progeny, reported in Ex 1:7 as having
mourner he refrained from appearing at court. already been realized in Egypt. In v. 24 Joseph
The great detail with which the ceremonies of on his deathbed at the end of a long life affirmed
the burial are described (vv. 7–13) certainly re- the promise of the land—not a feature of the
flects his immense prestige among the Egyp- Joseph story proper; and in v. 25 he charged ‘the
tians and so was a matter of great pride to the Israelites’ (lit., ‘the sons of Israel’), to rebury him
Israelite reader. The curious route taken by the after they left Egypt and returned to Canaan.
funeral procession with a first stopping-place That they did so is recorded in Josh 24:32, after
east of the Jordan before the actual burial in the land had been conquered and its territory
Machpelah (i.e. Hebron) on the western side distributed among the tribes. Meanwhile Joseph
(vv. 10–13) is also strange; it has been suggested died in Egypt and was duly buried according
that an alternative tradition about Jacob’s burial to Egyptian custom, as befitted the man who
place has been incorporated into the narrative had been the effective ruler of Egypt. EX 1:6–7
(see von Rad 1972: 431). The place-name Abel- takes up the story. So, the author tells us, Israel
mizraim (v. 11) is interpreted here as meaning became a nation.
‘the mourning of Egypt’; its true meaning, how-
ever, may be ‘brook of Egypt’.
REFERENCES
(50:15–21) Joseph had given the brothers no Alt, A. (1959), ‘Die Wallfahrt von Sichem nach
cause to believe that he was only waiting for Bethel’, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel
their father’s death to take his revenge on I (Munich: Beck), 79–88.
them; but their consciousness of their guilt Alter, R. (1981), The Art of Biblical Narrative (London:
still remained, and they were afraid. Whether Allen & Unwin).
the author means the readers to understand Blenkinsopp, J. (1992), The Pentateuch. An Introduction
that they invented the story—otherwise to the First Five Books of the Bible (London: SCM).
exodus 92

Blum, E. (1984), Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte Redford, D. B., (1970), A Study of the Biblical Story of
(WMANT 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Joseph (Genesis 37–50) (VT Supplement 20; Leiden:
Verlag). Brill).
Cryer, F. H. (1994), Divination in Ancient Israel and its Rendtorff, R. (1982), ‘Jakob in Bethel. Beobachtun-
Near Eastern Environment. A Socio-Historical Investiga- gen zum Aufbau und zur Quellenfrage in Gen 28,
tion, JSOTSup 142 (Sheffield: JSOT). 10–22’, ZAW 94, 511–23.
Donner, H. (1976), Die literarische Gestalt der alttesta- Soggin, J. A. (1961), ‘Die Geburt Benjamins, Genesis
mentlichen Josephs-geschichte (SHAW; Heidelberg: xxxv 16–20 (21)’, VT 11, 432–40.
Carl Winter). Van Seters, J. (1983), In Search of History (New Haven
Driver, S. R. (1909), An Introduction to the Literature of the and London: Yale University Press).
Old Testament (8th ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). —— (1992), Prologue to History. The Yahwist as Historian
Gunkel, H. (1964), Genesis übersetzt und erklärt (HK 1/1; in Genesis (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901; 6th ed.). Knox).
—— (1901), The Legends of Genesis (New York: de Vaux, R. (1978), The Early History of Israel I, (London:
Schocken, 1964; German original). Darton, Longman & Todd; French original, Paris:
Lambert, W. G., and Millard, A. R. (1969), Atra-hası̄s. Gabalda, 1971).
The Babylonian Story of the Flood (Oxford: Clarendon Vergote, J. (1959), Joseph en Egypte. Genèse chap. 37–50 à
Press). la lumière des études égyptologiques récentes (OBL 3;
von Rad, G. (1966), ‘The Form-Critical Problem of the Louvain: Publications Universitaires).
Hexateuch’, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Volz, P., and Rudolph, W. (1933), Der Elohist als Erzäh-
Essays (Edinburgh and London: Oliver & Boyd) 1–78 ler ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? (BZAW 63; Gies-
(German original, Munich: Kaiser, 1958) 9–86. sen: Töpelmann).
—— (1966), ‘The Joseph Narrative and Ancient Wis- Westermann, C. (1985), Genesis 12–36 (London: SPCK;
dom’, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays German original, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirch-
(Edinburgh and London: Oliver & Boyd) 292–300 ener Verlag, 1981).
(German original, VT supplement, Leiden: Brill, Whybray, R. N. (1968), ‘The Joseph Story and Penta-
1953) 120–7. teuchal Criticism’, VT 18, 522–8.
—— (1972), Genesis (OTL; 2nd ed.; London: SCM) (Ger- —— (1987), The Making of the Pentateuch. A Methodo-
man original, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). logical Study, JSOTSup 53 (Sheffield: JSOT).

5. Exodus
walter j. houston
INTRODUCTION to understand parts of the story as heightened
accounts of natural sequences of events (see EX
A. What Kind of Book is Exodus? 1. The sec-
7:6–11:10, EX 16, or EX 19), this flies in the face of
ond book of the Pentateuch is in many ways its
the basic intention of the text, which is to relate
centrepiece. Genesis is about Israel’s ancestors,
the glorious works of God. Not only does God
Exodus tells how they became a nation through
intervene directly in an astonishing series of
the action of their God. It is Israel’s foundation
powerful acts, but he himself appears on the
story, their identity document, telling them
scene several times in more or less plainly vis-
where they have come from and showing
ible forms (see EX 3:1–6). The writers draw freely
them their place in the world under God’s sov-
on imagination or legend to create the scenes
ereignty.
which we read. The historical setting is only
2. Is Exodus a work of history? That is, could
very hazily sketched in. In brief, Exodus is not
it be appropriately put on the history shelves in
the kind of history recognized by the Greeks or
a library? If we define a historical work as one
by modern historians.
whose ‘chief purpose is to trace the network of
3. Yet several points show that its intention is
causation between events at a mundane level’
to relate, however imaginatively, a story of the
(Johnstone 1990: 31), then Exodus is not one.
actual past, not a simple fiction. The story
It portrays the entire sweep of events as the
focuses on a people of history and is part of a
direct result of the purpose and intervention
continuous narrative (Genesis to 2 Kings)
of God. Although people have sometimes tried
which takes their story down to the fall of
 93 exodus

Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 587 BCE; and the characters do not have sufficient indep-
there are links with earlier and later parts of this endence to oppose YHWH’s purposes. Never-
narrative. Often the story serves to explain theless there is a plot. There is a struggle
known facts, such as the name of Israel’s God between YHWH and Pharaoh; its end is inevit-
(see 3:13–15). Occasionally, chronological infor- able and clearly foreseen, but it is a struggle.
mation is given, as in 12:40. If the writing Israel’s acceptance that YHWH must be obeyed
of history can be defined as imaginatively re- is not as automatic as it seems to be at first sight
creating a people’s past so that they may under- (in 19:8); they do rebel in Ex 32. Their rebellion is
stand themselves in the present, then Exodus is of course doomed from the start; the interest of
a work of history. As such, it has literary, his- this part of the story lies in whether Moses will
torical, and theological aspects, which we shall persuade YHWH to restore the people to his
briefly look at in turn in this introduction. favour, and here the end is by no means a fore-
gone conclusion. The rebellion sets up a tension
B. Exodus as Literature. 1. Exodus falls into in YHWH himself, which Moses exploits. To
the category of narrative, literature which tells destroy them and to restore them to favour are
a story. Even the large parts of the text which in different ways humiliating for YHWH. He
present law or instructions are cast into the resolves the tension by declaring himself a God
form of speeches by God at appropriate points of mercy, whose glory it is to forgive as much as
in the story. The story has two main themes. to punish affronts to his honour.
The first theme is the deliverance of the Israel- 4. But in general the story proceeds on lines
ites from oppression in Egypt by their God, that are not only expected but explicitly forecast
usually referred to by his name YHWH (see EX (3:12, 16–20: 4:21–3), and its sympathies are un-
3:7–12). This theme is completed in the first ambiguous. In Ex 1–15 we are constrained to be
fifteen chapters, which are set mainly in Egypt against the oppressors, and on the side of the
or on its borders. The second theme is how innocent sufferers and their deliverers. As D.
YHWH establishes his presence among the Is- Robertson (1977: 16–32) points out, there is no
raelites and brings them into obedience to him- irony in the moral structure of the story. It is all
self. This is told mainly in the second half of the black and white, there are no shades of grey. Of
book, from 15:22 onwards, which is set in the course, moral simplicity is to be expected in a
wilderness to the east of Egypt, but it is fore- nation’s foundation story. The reader, however,
shadowed in the earlier part of the book. The may not find it so simple; could a righteous god
two themes are united in that both events are destroy so many innocent lives for his own
ways in which YHWH makes himself known glory?
and fulfils his promises to Israel’s ancestors.
2. YHWH is the dominant character. The text C. Exodus and History. 1. On the assumption
underlines his sovereignty even at the expense of that the book is intended as history, it is natural
the interest of the story in places. Although the to ask how it has come by what it knows or
Israelites are essential to the story, they rarely act claims to know about the early history of Israel.
independently. Between the two stands Moses. The first step is to ask about the history of the
He can be described as the hero of the story. He book itself; but as it is only a part of the Penta-
is hardly ever off-stage from the moment of his teuch we can refer to PENT for discussion of the
birth; the story alternates constantly between various proposals. The view taken in this com-
scenes between Moses and YHWH and scenes mentary (broadly that of Van Seters 1994) can
between Moses and the Israelites or Pharaoh. only be stated here, that the work consists of
Yet even he, throughout the greater part of the two main strands with different styles and inter-
story, acts simply as YHWH’s agent, and it is only ests, which I refer to as J and P. J was created
in places that he asserts his independence (Ex 32 is from a variety of source material by an author
a notable example). The main foil to YHWH in writing probably in the seventh or sixth century
the first part of the book is the Pharaoh of the BCE. Some J material is earlier than Deuteron-
plagues. Yet, as I will show in EX 7:6–11:10, YHWH omy, some of it later and clearly dependent on
increasingly constrains him to act in the way he that book; see e.g. EX 23:10–19 contrasted with
does, and ultimately he seems to be little more 13:3–10. P was written by a priestly author in the
than a puppet whom YHWH manipulates to later sixth or fifth century. It seems to me likely
demonstrate his own power (Gunn 1982). that P was not an independent work later com-
3. The development of the plot has, then, bined with J, but was written from the begin-
decided limitations. Through much of the story ning as an expansion of J.
exodus 94

2. Exodus, then, was developing during a 5. What then is the likelihood that the tradi-
time when the nation’s continuing existence as tions of Exodus reach right back, as the book
a distinct community was in prolonged doubt. claims, to the origin of Israel? (See, among
It was written to strengthen national feeling and others, S. Herrmann 1973; de Vaux 1978: i. 321–
support national identity. The two main tradi- 472; Ramsey 1981: 45–63: Houtman 1993: 171–
tions or ideas which J uses to achieve this are 90; Hoffmeier 1997.) If one abstracts the many
those of Israel’s origin from a group of miraculous elements, the story in itself is not
exploited aliens in Egypt, and of YHWH’s cov- implausible, and indeed similar events appear in
enant with them at Mt. Sinai. They were, Egyptian records (S. Herrmann 1973: 23–9, de
according to this writer, a nation specially Vaux 1978: i.374). The names Moses and Aaron
claimed by the God of all the earth as his own are best explained as of Egyptian origin (Hout-
(19:5). His claim, his care and protection, and in man 1993: 75. 83). It is generally assumed that
return their exclusive attachment to him and before the traditions were committed to writing
faithful obedience to his moral direction they were carried by oral tradition, maybe in
would preserve them as a nation. The main connection with the feast of Passover which
ideas added by P were that of YHWH’s covenant celebrates the Exodus, and possibly in poetry
of promise to Israel’s ancestors and that of his (Cross 1973: 124 n. 38), which is less subject to
presence among his people in a sanctuary spe- loss and distortion than a prose tale. The date of
cially built at his direction, and this has obvious the event is most often put at the end of the
relevance to the time of restoration. Note that Bronze Age, in the thirteenth century BCE. But
‘covenant’ has various shades of meaning in the some (e.g. Bimson 1978) maintain the fifteenth-
OT (see Mendenhall 1992a, Nicholson 1986). century date suggested by the Bible’s own
3. Despite the great attention given by chronology.
scholars in this century to what they have called 6. However, recent research into traditions
‘tradition history’ (I again refer to PENT for a brief about historical events in modern non-literate
survey), I do not believe it is possible to write a societies shows that it would be difficult for
history of the way in which these traditions reliable historical knowledge to survive the
developed. The evidence is simply insufficient. hundreds of years separating any possible date
Nor is there much to go on to distinguish for the events related and any likely date for
traditional material from the authors’ own the writing, even if that was much earlier than
contributions. However, the central narrative I have suggested (Kirkpatrick 1988). Moreover,
assertion, that YHWH delivered Israel’s ances- the hard archaeological evidence that would
tors from slavery in Egypt, is certainly trad- show that the nation of Israel came from out-
itional: it is central to the prophecy of Hosea side Canaan is lacking. The material culture of
in the eighth century BCE, as well as to the book early Iron Age Israel is like that of Late Bronze
of Deuteronomy in the late seventh. It is much Age Canaan, only poorer (Finkelstein 1988,
more doubtful that the claim that YHWH made Dever 1992). At most there could have been a
a covenant with Israel at Sinai can be described small group which escaped from Egypt and
as traditional (Nicholson 1986). It is important passed on its traditions to related groups in
in Deuteronomy and writings influenced by it; Canaan (so Gottwald 1980: 36, etc.). And the
but it plays no significant role in any prophetic Pass-over did not become a national festival
book before Jeremiah, itself influenced by Deu- until the end of the seventh century (2 Kings
teronomy. Still less securely rooted in tradition 23:22); could the rustic family celebration from
is the concept of the mobile sanctuary; al- which it arose have been the bearer of a na-
though it depends on the ancient tradition of tional tradition?
temple-building in the Near East (see EX 25–31), it 7. It therefore remains unclear to what extent
appears practically only in the P strand in Exo- Exodus presents authentic historical events.
dus, Leviticus, and Numbers. It should in any case be clear from the way in
4. With the exception of the Exodus from which it speaks of history (see c. 2) that we
Egypt itself, the major ideas of the book are cannot use the book as a historical source. Its
not popular traditions but ideas of an intellec- aim is not to present an objective record, but to
tual élite striving to preserve or excite national celebrate the glory of YHWH.
feeling in a time of crisis, and to reshape the
national spirit through an exclusive monothe- D. Exodus as Theology. 1. Exodus is based
istic ideal which they saw as the only way to on a thoroughly monotheistic world-view.
preserve the nation at all. Even though YHWH is known by a name
 95 exodus

distinguishing him from other gods, he is the 5. There is, however, an increasing emphasis
only God who counts as such: the others are as one moves into the plagues narrative and
mere idols. He is the creator (4:11), and to him beyond on YHWH’s action for his own sake:
the whole earth belongs (9:29; 19:5). Yet he ‘that the Egyptians shall know that I am the
has committed himself to one people, the LORD [YHWH]’ (7:5). YHWH’s need to achieve a
people of Israel, long in advance (6:3), and in resounding victory over Pharaoh leads him to
return asks for their exclusive commitment to manipulate him into fruitless opposition (see EX
him (20:3). Although his presence and power 7:6–11:10). His motive appears to be not so much
is made known to the Egyptians (7:5) and to compassion for or commitment to Israel as the
the whole earth (9:16), it is permanently need to have his own Godhead recognized
promised to Israel (29:45–6) in a specially (Durham 1987:99: Gunn 1982:84). This is a par-
beneficent form: he will ‘dwell among them’. ticular emphasis of the P material, though it is
2. This is not simply the theology found in not absent from J. However, the ancient reader
Exodus: the story which it tells is intended as the would have seen it differently. Human patrons’
foundation and legitimation of this theology. generous treatment of their clients redounded
YHWH demonstrates that he is the God of all to their honour; likewise there was no contra-
the earth in his victory over Pharaoh. No other diction between the divine patron’s commit-
god even enters the contest. He demonstrates ment to his people and to his own glory.
his commitment to Israel in his calling of Moreover, the good order of the world
Moses, his revelation of his name, his deliver- demanded that its ruler should be recognized.
ance of Israel from slavery in Egypt, and his
appearance to them at Sinai. The covenant E. Exodus and the Reader. 1. As with any
which he offers the Israelites embodies the great work of literature, what Exodus means is
basic demand that they should be committed in the end up to the reader. Creative readings of
to him alone, and governs the entire story of the the book depend not merely on the readers’
nation from this point onwards. The instruc- needs and perspectives, but upon their propen-
tions he gives to Moses in 25–31 are intended to sity to read themselves into the book. Thus,
govern the way in which his presence with his although Miranda’s reading of YHWH’s motives
people is to be safeguarded for all time. in Ex 3 (see above, D.4) may seem distorted, we
3. Obviously in the above two paragraphs I understand it when we realize that he speaks for
have combined points from the two or more the Latin-American base communities, con-
main writers of the book. P’s particular contri- scious of their own oppression, who identify
butions are the recollection of the promise to themselves with oppressed Israel and claim
the ancestors, the definition of the name YHWH God’s just deliverance for themselves. Thus Exo-
as a new revelation, and the instructions for the dus, despite its emphasis on God’s self-regard-
building of the sanctuary for his presence. ing motives and destructive activity, has taken a
4. Exodus raises questions about the charac- central place in liberation perspectives on the
ter and motives of YHWH, which can be fol- Bible (cf. also Gutiérrez 1988; Croatto 1981).
lowed through the commentary. Miranda 2. The book’s original purpose was to create
(1973:89) asserts that (in J) YHWH acts to deliver or strengthen the identity of the community of
the Israelites from slavery simply because he is Israel, and that is certainly the way in which it
the God of justice who delivers the oppressed, has been read by Jews ever since. The book
and not because they are his people or because forms the warrant for the festival of Passover.
of any prior commitment. In the text as it In traditional Christian exegesis, on the other
stands the prior commitment is clearly stated hand, Christians have seen themselves as the
(2:24 (P)). Even in J the prior connection be- Israelites brought through the Red Sea by the
tween YHWH and the ancestors is emphasized. hand of God, and the experience of the Sea has
That is not to say that YHWH does not act been identified with the Resurrection, as in John
because of his justice; ‘justice’ in the HB is a of Damascus’s Easter hymns (e.g. ‘Come ye
term of relationship, and denotes, among faithful, raise the strain’) or with baptism (1
other things, acting in accordance with the Cor 10:1–5; Origen, Homily on Exodus, 5.5). For
commitments one has to other particular interpretations through the ages see Langston
people. YHWH’s self-proclamation in 34:6–7 2006.
lays great stress on the virtues of relationship, 3. More recently, some readers have read
and his compassion, also emphasized there, has Exodus ‘against the grain’ of the text, identifying
to be seen in that context. themselves with groups who are marginal to it,
exodus 96

such as women (Exum 1993, 1994; Fewell and overtone of relationship. The relation of friend-
Gunn 1993), or simply reading as moderns scep- ship and service set up between Joseph and the
tical of the values maintained by the book earlier king is forgotten. In the king’s speech (vv.
(Clines 1995a and b), and pointing to their so- 9–10) the writer uses irony to undermine the
cially relative character. This procedure, of king’s credibility. He grossly exaggerates the
course, makes it more difficult to embrace the numbers of the Israelites, but in doing so con-
witness of the book; but that does not make firms the divine promise to the patriarchs. He
these any less legitimate readings. On the con- says ‘let us deal shrewdly with them’, but the
trary, they should be welcomed as powerful story shows that his plan is anything but
tests of the validity of the far-reaching claims shrewd; and he ends by posing the danger that
that the book makes. the Israelites may escape—which was exactly
what happened! The Israelites have to perform
conscript labour for the state. Often the OT
COMMENTARY
writers describe them as slaves. Strictly speak-
(1:1–2:22) The first two chapters of the book set ing this is not the same thing: a conscript la-
out the problem to which God responds and bourer is not the property of his master. But
introduce the person through whom he will act; understandably the writers tend to ignore the
they are the exposition of the plot. God is distinction. Forced labour was a practice of
hardly mentioned; it is implied that he is active Israelite kings also, but the biblical tradition
behind the scenes, but he does not appear on has a moral repugnance to it (1 Kings 12:18; Jer
stage until he hears the cry of his people (2:24). 22:13). v. 11, the names of the supply cities (see
At first sight Pharaoh’s command to kill the ABD for each, and Redford 1963; they are in the
baby boys (1:16, 22) does not fit in with the east of the Nile Delta) have often been taken as a
main story in which the Israelites are subjected clue to the historical setting of the Exodus.
to forced labour, especially as it is not men- Rameses is probably the capital of Rameses II,
tioned again after ch. 2. It was clearly intended abandoned after his death in 1212 BCE. On the
as context for the traditional story in 2:1–10. other hand, the form of the name Rameses in
However, there is no contradiction. In Phar- Hebrew suggests that it was borrowed no earlier
aoh’s speech Israel is presented not as a con- than 700 BCE (Redford 1963: 411–13). A writer at a
venient source of labour but as a danger. The later time could have used the names to give his
two measures have the same object: to crush story colour without having an old tradition.
and weaken the Israelites (Houtman 1993: 245).
To destroy only boys is not a very efficient way (1:15–22) Pharaoh’s attempt to deprive the
of wiping out a nation: the object could rather Israelites of male leadership is first of all frus-
be to deprive it of its leadership. trated by the courage of two women, and three
Most of 1:1–2:22 belongs to J, but P is respon- more frustrate the second stage of his plan. For
sible for 1:1–5, 7, 13–14. feminist reflections on this irony, see Exum
(1993, 1994). v. 15, ‘the Hebrew midwives’. This
(1:1–7) These verses form a link between Gen- is the first appearance of the word ‘Hebrew’ in
esis and Exodus. They refer back to Gen 46:5–27 the book. It is used to refer to the Israelites from
and 50:26, and set the scene for the story of the the point of view of the Egyptians (or, later, of
oppression and deliverance of Israel in Ex 1–15. other foreigners). For the origin of the word see
We are reminded in v. 7 of the promise to the ‘Hebrew’, and ‘Habiru, Hapiru’ in ABD iii. v. 19.
patriarchs that they would have a multitude of The midwives’ lie is not disapproved of—the
descendants (e.g. Gen 15:5), but at the same time OT reflects the moral sense of ordinary people,
it begins the exposition of the plot of Exodus. not moral philosophers!
We are reminded of it twice in the following
verses (12, 20); whatever the Egyptians may do, (2:1–10) The birth story of Moses appears to be
the Israelites continue to increase, so God is based on a very old folk-tale, which we first find
perhaps secretly at work. v. 1, the Jewish name as the birth story of King Sargon of Akkad
for Exodus, šēmôt, ‘Names’, comes from the first (about 2300 BCE; ANET 119). Moses is destined
words. v. 5, seventy names are listed in Gen 46. to die; the human compassion of Pharaoh’s
daughter impels her to disobey her father and
(1:8–14) This section relates the beginning of rescue him. v. 1, ‘a Levite woman’: the Hebrew
the oppression of Israel. The new king ‘did not text actually says ‘the daughter of Levi’, but may
know Joseph’. ‘Know’ in Hebrew often has an be influenced by 6:20 (Schmidt 1988: 50). v. 9,
 97 exodus

Moses is brought up as a Hebrew, even though Pharaoh to let them go meet with failure. This
adopted as an Egyptian. This ironic twist serves creates a crisis which can only be overcome by a
to explain his later role. v. 10, the name ‘Moses’ further and more powerful divine intervention.
is probably derived from an Egyptian word The God of Israel is usually given his name
often found in personal names such as that of YHWH, but in places he is referred to by the
the Pharaoh Thutmosis. But here, as so often in more general ʾĕlōhı̂m, ‘God’. 2:23–5 (and prob-
the OT, it is given a fanciful Hebrew derivation: ably not much else here) belongs to P, who
‘Moses’ is Moshe (mōšeh), which means ‘one who avoids using ‘YHWH’ before YHWH himself
draws out’. reveals the name. 3:9–15 is often ascribed to a
distinct source, E; but the writer (J) may simply
(2:11–15a) Can it be right for the oppressed to find it appropriate to use ʾĕlōhı̂m in describing
take justice into their own hands? The story the dialogue with Moses, who does not yet
neither approves nor disapproves. It shows us know the name. See Moberly (1992: 5–35). 2:23,
that Moses is a man who is passionate for just- the statement about the death of the king
ice (so is God’s choice of him so odd?), but also expresses the passage of time, and prepares for
imprudent. For without the divine authoriza- 4:19. But this makes no difference to the oppres-
tion which he later receives, there is no possi- sion. 2:23–5 adds a theologically important link
bility that his action could succeed. As far as the between the Israelites’ oppression and God’s
plot is concerned, the episode gets Moses from action. God’s action is a response not only to
Egypt to Midian, where he is to meet God. what he sees, but also to what he hears, the cry
of a suffering people. His action is then deter-
(2:15b–22) Moses in Midian. The resemblance mined by his prior commitment to Israel’s an-
of this story to that of Jacob in Gen 29, and cestors (see Gen 17; 35:11–13; 6:2–8). ‘Covenant’
more distantly to Gen 24, has often been noted. here refers to a solemn promise made by God to
It may be a literary convention, in stories of the the patriarchs. In Israelite society it was the
hero’s finding a wife in distant parts (Alter 1981: responsibility of the nearest relative to redeem
47–62), or a deliberate imitation (Van Seters a person from the grip of the creditor and the
1994: 32). slaveholder (Lev 25:25, 47–9). P expresses
‘Midian’ was an Arab people occupying an YHWH’s responsibility to Israel, which was
area to the east of the Gulf of Aqaba; but it is not based on physical kinship, in the concept
possible that their shepherds came as far west as of this ‘covenant’ with the ancestors. See further
the Sinai peninsula (Mendenhall 1992b), where EX 6:2–8.
Mt. Sinai/Horeb (3:1, 12) has traditionally been
located. In v. 17 the word translated ‘came to (3:1–4:17) The Call of Moses This passage fol-
their defence’ is the word which the OT regu- lows basically the same pattern as some other
larly uses of God’s ‘saving’ people. Here is an- accounts of God’s call of individuals to special
other sign marking Moses out as one who is tasks, e.g. Gideon in Judg 6:11–24, Jeremiah in Jer
ready to save people who are suffering injustice. 1:4–10. In all of them, five things happen. There
v. 18, Moses’ future father-in-law is called Reuel is a meeting between God and the chosen one;
here and probably in Num 10:29, Jethro in 3:1 God gives him a commission; he objects that he is
and 18:1–12, Jether in 4:18, and Hobab in Judg unfit; God reassures him; God gives him a sign
4:11 and perhaps Num 10:29. He is a Midianite in (Habel 1965). Here, however, the pattern is
Exodus and Numbers and a Kenite in Judges. expanded. It is complete by 3:12; but Moses
Probably he originally had no name in the trad- keeps finding new objections, which God re-
ition (Schmidt 1988: 85–7), and the writers, or sponds to seriously; the elements of commis-
the traditions they draw on, have filled in the sion and assurance are thus taken up again in
blank in various ways. In Exodus this may point various ways, and a whole section (4:1–9) is
to different source material. v. 22, there may be devoted to signs. It is often suggested that
a hidden meaning in Moses’ words. Which is the Moses is here cast in the role of a prophet. It is
‘foreign land’, Midian or Egypt? true that much of the material is typical of
prophecy (e.g. Moses is to speak to a king in
(2:23–5:21) God’s intervention: Act I In this the name of God); but some is more typical of a
section the Israelites call for help, and the God military leader, for example the assurance ‘I will
of Israel responds by appointing Moses as his be with you’ (3:12; see Gowan 1994: 56–61).
agent, and promises him he will deliver the Moses is both. This simple storytelling device
Israelites; but Moses’ first attempts to ask of repeated objections enables the passage to be
exodus 98

much richer than a simple call to service. It is in footwear in holy places is regular in Judaism,
the first place God’s promise that he himself will Islam, and Buddhism, but its meaning is dis-
act to deliver Israel. Moses’ work takes its place puted: see Houtman (1993: 351–2).
within the divine plan, and is impossible with-
out God’s action. God’s words dominate the (3:7–12) The divine promise and commission,
passage, and they refer backwards and for- Moses’ initial objection and God’s fundamental
wards; the whole of the Pentateuchal story is reassurance. Because v. 9 seems to repeat the
set out here. The story of Exodus is a plot with substance of v. 7, it has often been thought that
few surprises, because the chief character prom- vv. 9–12 come from a different source (E) from
ises beforehand everything that is to happen. It vv. 7–8. But it is important that God’s promise
is essential to this that God should here reveal to ‘bring up’ the Israelites out of Egypt stands
his name YHWH (3:13–15), backing his promise alongside his commission to Moses to ‘bring
with it, as we might sign our name to a contract. them out’. Neither the divine initiative nor the
The passage pictures the interplay of divine human agency can be dispensed with. The
sovereignty and human freedom. It ends, of phrases in v. 8 are conventional. The list of
course, with total victory for YHWH. Moses, former inhabitants occurs in many places with
for all his show of independence, is forced to slight variations; it is impossible to give a pre-
submit, and for many chapters will play the role cise meaning to the names, except for the Jebu-
of a mere agent. Yet he has not been deprived of sites, who were the people of Jerusalem before
his humanity, and will later (14:13–14 and esp. David captured the city (2 Sam 5). Moses’ objec-
32–3) show that he can take the initiative (Gunn tion in v. 11 is a standard expression to avoid
1982: 84–7). commitment. See Judg 6:15, Jer 1:6, which get
the same answer; 1 Sam 18:23. The ‘sign’ in v. 12
(3:1–6) Moses’ meeting with God is the experi- has caused problems, since it is not something
ence of a mysterious and awe-inspiring, but that Moses can see and be convinced by now
attractive presence, an example of the experi- (contrast 4:1–9). Gowan (1994: 55–6) rightly says
ence of the holy, as defined by Rudolf Otto that ‘I will be with you’ is sufficient in itself as an
(Gowan 1994: 25–53). It cannot be described assurance; if Moses hangs on to that, he will
literally, but only pictured, as in e.g. Judg 5:4– eventually see the confirmation of his mission in
5; Ps 18:7–15; 50:1–6; Hab 3. When God is the meeting of all the people (the last ‘you’ is
described in such passages as coming in visible plural) with their God.
ways to judge and save, scholars call it a ‘the-
ophany’. Fire is the most regular accompani- (3:13–15) Here the god in the bush, so far name-
ment of theophanies. Therefore, although less to Moses, reveals his name. Why does
people have tried to explain what the burning Moses ask this question (v. 13)? The call is to
bush was in natural terms, this misses the point. be a messenger, and a messenger needs a name
But who is it who appears to Moses? The nar- to authenticate his credentials. Moses, however,
rator calls him first ‘the angel’ (lit. messenger) of does not know the name of his ‘father’s god’;
YHWH (‘the LORD’) (v. 2), and then in one verse but he cannot be sure that the Israelites do not
(4) both YHWH (‘the LORD’) and ʾĕlōhı̂m (‘God’). know it either. The story at this point does not
It is common in theophanies for the one who commit itself on whether the Israelites know
appears to be called ‘the angel of YHWH/ YHWH’s name already; it focuses on Moses’ ig-
ʾĕlōhı̂mʾ (as in Judg 6:11–24); but it normally norance, not Israel’s. But while this is Moses’
becomes clear (as in Judg 6:14) that it is YHWH reason for raising the question, the author has
himself who is speaking. In this way the narrator a deeper motive for highlighting it. A strong
makes it clear that the event is a real visitation of tradition held that the bond between Israel
God, but avoids saying that YHWH himself be- and YHWH went back to the time of the Exodus
came visible. v. 6 finally makes it clear that the from Egypt (see Hos 2:15; 11:1; 13:4; Jer 2:2–8).
mysterious apparition is none other than the Therefore it is appropriate that it is at this point,
God who is spoken of in Genesis, and was when he announces his intention to save, that
known to Israel’s ancestors and Moses’ own YHWH becomes known to Israel. But here the
father. v. 1, for Jethro see EX 2:18. Horeb and ‘the episode is part of a larger story in which Israel’s
mountain of God’ are alternative names, particu- ancestors have already encountered this God, so
larly in Deuteronomy, for the mountain called the story must be told in a way which allows for
Sinai in Ex 19 where God reveals himself to Israel. this. 6:2–8 (P) clears up the ambiguity of this
v. 5, similarly Josh 5:15. The practice of removing passage.
 99 exodus

God answers Moses’ question in v. 15. But first YHWH runs out of patience, but his answer
he tantalizes him with a play on words. The harks back to Moses’ pretext in v. 10. Moses
Hebrew for ‘I am’ or ‘I will be’ is ehyeh. Changed must go, but his brother may do the speaking
into the third person this would be yihyeh or in for him. However, in the event, this does not
an older form yahweh, which was probably the happen in any consistent way (explicitly only in
pronunciation of YHWH. Many meanings have 4:30); and Aaron sometimes performs the signs
been seen in ‘I AM WHO I AM’ or ‘I WILL BE WHO (as in 4:30; 7:10, etc.) rather than, or as well as,
I WILL BE’; probably the simplest is ‘I will be speaking. It is probable that Moses’ pretext is
whoever I will be’, that is, while I will graciously simply, for the author, a device to bring Aaron
reveal my name to you, I will not be bound or into the story, for the sake of a group in Jewish
defined by it (Gowan 1994: 84). But as a word- society that was attached to him, presumably
play the meaning is not as important as the the priests who claimed descent from him. It is
sound! The actual origin of the name YHWH not clear why Aaron is called ‘the Levite’ (v. 14)
is quite uncertain (see de Vaux 1978: i. 338–57). when Moses was one himself according to 2:1.
‘Probably ‘‘your brother the Levite’’ originally
(3:16–22) YHWH follows up his revelation of meant ‘‘your fellow Levite’’ (Propp 1998: 214).’
his name by telling Moses how he is to use it, ‘You shall serve as God for him’, Moses is told in
and so goes into his commission in detail, along v.16. That is, the relation between Moses and
with the assurance that he will unleash his own Aaron is like that between God and his prophet.
power to compel the king to let the Israelites go.
Thus the whole story up to Ex 12 is given here in (4:18–26) Moses’ return to Egypt is told in a
outline. rather disjointed narrative which probably
‘The elders of Israel’ do not in fact accompany shows the effect of the piecing together of dif-
Moses to the king (v. 18, cf. 5:1). Is this an ferent sources or traditions. v. 19 refers back to
inconsistency in the story, or a mistake on 2:23, but seems to ignore all that has happened
Moses’ part? The request they are to make of in between, since Moses already has his march-
the king (v. 18) is of course a ruse, which ought ing orders and has even said goodbye. vv. 21–3
not to worry anyone’s conscience when dealing develop Moses’ instructions in a new direction
with tyrants (see EX 1:19). But it also picks up 3:12. as compared with 3:20. Pharaoh will refuse to
let Israel go because YHWH so wills. This import-
(3:21–2) The puzzling instruction is carried out ant theme is taken up again at 7:3. The mention
in Ex 12:35–6. Daube (1947: 49–50) offers a of the ‘firstborn son’ anticipates another major
plausible explanation. There was a custom theme of the story (Ex 11–13).
(Deut 15:14) that a released slave should get a In the obscure vv. 24–6 the biggest puzzle is:
generous endowment. The Israelites are to de- why should YHWH try to kill the messenger
ceive the Egyptians—if it is deception—into whom he has only just commissioned? There
giving them their rightful due! are other questions. Why does Zipporah do
what she does and how does it work? What is
(4:1–9) Moses may well mean that he does not the meaning of her words? Many scholars have
know whether to believe YHWH. YHWH’s an- regarded the piece as an old legend in which the
swer is to demonstrate his power by means of attacker was a demon, possibly intended to
‘signs’ that he enables Moses to perform. These explain the origin of the practice of the circum-
signs achieve what that in 3:12 could not, in cision of infants. Maybe, but this does not really
immediately convincing a wavering Moses. explain what it means in this context. The first
Such signs, however external and artificial they question is not really answerable, but at least
may appear to us, are common in OT narrative two other episodes are in some way similar: the
(compare Judg 6:17–22, 36–40). In the story that command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Gen
follows they are used not only to convince the 22) and Jacob’s wrestling with God at the Jabbok
Israelites (4:30), but, with variations, to impress (Gen 32). The God of the Bible has a dark side.
the Egyptians (7:8–24; foreshadowed in 4:21). Zipporah circumcises her son and touches
Moses’ own penis (‘feet’ is a euphemism) with
(4:10–17) Moses offers his final excuse (v. 10). the severed foreskin. Along with her words, this
YHWH’s answer (vv. 11–12) shows that the suggests a symbol legitimizing this marriage
author takes for granted that YHWH is the between the leader of Israel and a foreign
Creator. Moses has now run out of excuses woman, which may have been a scandal to
and simply turns the job down (v. 13). And some of the first readers of Exodus in the
exodus 100

Second Temple period (Römer 1994—only one the self-giving of a person, whose personality
of many proposals). For circumcision, see GEN 17 and character are summed up in his name, but
and ‘Circumcision’ in ABD i. who can be fully known for who he is only in
his gracious act of salvation (6:7).
(4:27–5:21) describes Moses and Aaron’s first The ambiguity in 3:13–15 is cleared up in 6:3.
attempt to carry out YHWH’s commission. How could Israel’s ancestors have known the
It fails, and Pharaoh’s oppression of Israel is God whose name is now newly revealed? An-
simply intensified; a common experience for swer: they knew him under another name.
many who have challenged tyranny. Significant Therefore Moses can be sure that the promise
for the future development of the story is Phar- to them is still valid. ‘God Almighty’ (NRSV,
aoh’s dismissal of their request in 5:2: ‘I do not etc.) is a conventional translation of ʾēl šadday.
know the LORD’. The long series of ‘plagues’ in ʾēl means ‘God’: the meaning of šadday is un-
chs. 7–12, according to YHWH’s own statement known. See Gen 17:1; 35:11; 28:3. For ‘covenant’
in 7:3, has just one aim: that the Egyptians should in 6:4 see EX 2:23–5. 6:5 takes up the wording of
know YHWH. See EX 7:8–11:10. For 5:1 see EX 3:18. Ex 2:24.
For ‘the Hebrews’ in 5:3 see EX 1:16. In 5:16 ‘‘‘You Something new is introduced at 6:7a YHWH’s
are unjust to your own people’’’ is odd, since the rescue of Israel from Egypt is the beginning of a
Israelites are not Pharaoh’s people. The text is permanent relationship between them. This
uncertain, and a better reading may be ‘The promise will be fulfilled at Sinai in Ex 19–40,
fault is with you.’ with the establishment of institutions by which
God and people are related. In 6:8 the speech
(5:21–13:16) The Intervention of God: Act II returns to its beginning, by promising the im-
This is the key act of the story, in which minent fulfilment of what God swore to Israel’s
YHWH’s powerful action enables the Israelites ancestors.
to leave Egypt, though not yet to escape finally For 6:12 see 4:10. The genealogical material in
from Pharaoh’s reach. It has much the same 6:14–25 is to our mind quite out of place in the
structure as the previous act: the appeal to middle of a story. But the author had different
God, his response of promise and commission. ideas of literary appropriateness. His object is
Moses and Aaron’s request to Pharaoh. The vital expressed in 6:26–7: to locate the heroes of the
differences are God’s supporting action (the tale within the Israelite social structure and so
plagues) on the one hand and his delaying ac- validate them as historical according to his
tion (hardening Pharaoh’s heart) on the other. ideas of history (Childs 1974: 116), and probably
to claim them as members of his own social
(5:21–7:7) In response to Moses’ despairing group. Social and political status depended
complaint, God again reveals his name, con- mainly on kinship, and genealogies, real or fic-
firms his promise to deliver the Israelites from titious, were essential to validate it (Wilson
slavery, and repeats his commission to go to 1977). As in many genealogies in the Bible,
Pharaoh. 6:1 advances the story and points for- many of the names are those of kinship groups
ward to the plagues. Eventually, in 7:3–5, we who trace their descent from a supposed ances-
return to this point. But from 6:2 to 7:2 (except tor with the same name. Moses and Aaron,
for 6:14–25) the episode appears to go over the then, belong to the Kohathite Levites, and
same ground as 3:1–4:17, but with new language. Aaron is the ancestor of the Jerusalem priests.
In the context this is quite appropriate, since Aaron’s wife (6:23) is a Judahite (see Num 1:7),
Moses has been brought to the point where which signifies the close connection between
only fresh encouragement and a fresh mandate the priests of Jerusalem and the people of
from God can restore his confidence. But it is Judah. Korah (6:21), the sons of Aaron (6:23),
also the sign of a fresh hand at work. The whole and his grandson Phinehas (6:25) will all play
passage from 6:2 is the work of P, probably parts in the story which follows (Num 16; Ex 24
working on the basis of the existing story. and Lev 8–10; Num 25). 6:28–30 takes up the
(6:14–25 may be a still later expansion.) story again by summarizing 6:2–13.
The formal speech of God in 6:2–8 has an
elegant structure (see Auffret 1983 for details). (7:1–5) This completes Moses’ recommission-
The pronouncement ‘I am the LORD [YHWH]’ ing, and like 3:20 and 4:21–3 points forwards
occurs in key places and is clearly the key to the very clearly, and in more detail, to the plague
entire speech (see also Zimmerli 1982). It is story, which follows straight away. 7:1–2 takes
more than a bare statement of authority: it is up the theme of 4:14–16. In 7:3–5 several points
 101 exodus

are made which define the meaning of the fol- authors have had a hand in it. But the division
lowing episodes. I will discuss most of them at of sources is very much disputed. The simplest
greater length in the next section, EX 7:8–11:10. theory (Van Seters 1994:80) is that the original
YHWH will ‘harden Pharaoh’s heart’. The ‘heart’ narrative (J) had seven plagues, and the Priestly
in Hebrew refers to the understanding and the editor added three more, as well as extra mater-
will. What YHWH will do is to make Pharaoh ial in the others.
uncomprehending and obstinate. The effect is
that he will ‘not listen to you’ (7:4), and it will Table 1. Patterns in Plague Narratives
trigger YHWH’s move to ‘multiply my signs and
wonders’, ‘lay my hand on Egypt’, and bring the Pattern 1: Pattern 1: Pattern 2:
Israelites out ‘by great acts of judgement’. A sign ‘Go to Pharaoh ‘Go to not to go to
is anything that shows God’s power, a wonder is in the morning’ Pharaoh’ Pharaoh, but
a remarkable event of any kind; ‘hand’ usually simply to bring
means power at work; and a judgement is not the plague
necessarily a punishment, but an act of force
1. blood, 2. frogs, 3. gnats,
undertaken to effect the decision of a judge or
7:14–24 7:25–8:15 8:16–19
ruler. So in several different ways YHWH makes
4. flies, 5. cattle plague, 6. boils,
it clear that by making Pharaoh obstinate he
8:20–32 9:1–7 9:8–12
will be enabled to display his power as ruler of
7. hail, 9:13–35 8. locusts, 9. darkness,
the world on the Egyptians. And the result is
10:1–20 10:21–9
that they ‘shall know that I am YHWH’. Israel
will know YHWH in his gracious act of deliver-
ance (6:7), Egypt in a very different way. 7:7, Patterns in the plague narratives. The story is com-
the apparently excessive ages of Moses and posed by taking a couple of basic patterns and
Aaron fit the widespread belief that age brings repeating them with variations (see Table 1). In
wisdom. the first pattern YHWH tells Moses to go to Phar-
aoh and require him to let YHWH’s people go,
(7:8–11:10) The Narrative of the Plagues (a and to threaten him with a plague if he does not.
traditional rendering of the Hebrew word in Moses’ delivery of this message is not described,
9:14, which would be better translated ‘blows’, but taken for granted. (This is varied in plagues 8
with which YHWH strikes Egypt). Here general and 10.) Pharaoh’s response is not given either;
remarks will be made on the passage as a whole, YHWH’s first speech is immediately followed (ex-
not on the separate plagues, followed only by cept in plagues 4 and 5) by another telling Moses
notes on individual verses. (and often Aaron) to bring the plague. Except in
There are ten plagues, starting with the turn- plagues 1 and 5 Pharaoh then summons Moses
ing of water to blood in 7:14–24 and finishing and Aaron and attempts to negotiate, and asks
with the death of the firstborn in 11–12. But as Moses to pray to YHWH for the plague to be
the book has been edited, the section is intro- removed, which he does, and it is.
duced by 7:8–13, though it does not describe a In the second pattern, there is no message to
‘plague’ but only a sign, and closed by an obvi- Pharaoh, but YHWH simply tells Moses to bring
ous summary in 11:9–10; the last plague has the plague. There are negotiations in plague 9.
been announced, but its execution is tied up but in this pattern Pharaoh does not ask for the
with the Passover narrative. In this part of the removal of the plague. In both patterns, and all
story the narrative, usually so concise, spreads the episodes except the last, the conclusion is
itself at length. Attempts to explain the series of the same, though expressed in different ways:
plagues historically as the effect of natural Pharaoh’s ‘heart was hardened’ (see above, EX
causes (Hort 1957–8) surely miss the point of 7:1–7, for the meaning of this), and he refuses
the story, that they are the direct work of God to let them go. This enables another round to
for his purposes. From a literary point of view, begin. It is P who has added the three plagues in
they can be seen as intended to create tension. the second pattern, each after two plagues in
Since we already know the final result (3:20; 6:6; the first pattern. This helps to create a larger
7:4–5), we know that YHWH will achieve his recurring pattern: three groups of three, accord-
purpose but we can still be intrigued as to how ing to the start of YHWH’s speech to Moses,
he will. To some extent the number of the followed by the final plague.
plagues and the length of the narrative may be We would expect the plagues to get steadily
accounted for by the likelihood that different worse, and this is broadly true. Other climactic
exodus 102

effects include the contest with the magicians. first three episodes (7:13; 7:22; 8:15), when his
They can duplicate the staff-into-snake sign, own magicians can produce the same effects,
and the first two plagues, but they stick on the so that there is no clear demonstration of
third, and the boils, finally, make it impossi- YHWH’s superiority; though even here we are
ble for them even to appear in Moses’ presence reminded that YHWH had foretold it, and that
(9:11). Then there is the series of negotiations only he can remove the effects (8:10). Pharaoh’s
between Moses and Pharaoh. Much of the inter- obstinacy in 8:15 seems to be a response to the
est of the section lies in them, for these are the respite from the frogs, but as plague succeeds
only parts of the whole story where Pharaoh is plague this gradually ceases to be a convincing
allowed some human personality. Broadly explanation. The magicians themselves point
speaking, Pharaoh’s concessions (always with- out the truth after the third plague (8:19), and
drawn once the plague has gone) are prog- his continuing blindness at 8:32 and 9:7 be-
ressively more generous (8:8; 8:25, 28: 9:28; comes increasingly puzzling. From 9:12, after
10:8–10; 10:24). True, if he realizes that the Is- the sixth plague, it becomes increasingly plain
raelites do not intend to come back, they are that it is YHWH who is hardening Pharaoh’s
nicely calculated to be always unacceptable to heart, for his own purposes; so in 10:1, 20, 27,
Moses. So even before the removal of each and in the summary at 11:10. This is something
plague Pharaoh seems not to understand the which Pharaoh himself and his officials do not
real situation, that he cannot win. know, hence the officials’ despairing protest at
Other variations include the gradual down- 10:7. Even if Pharaoh appears to act independ-
grading of Aaron, who in spite of 4:14–16 and ently, he is in fact a puppet in the hands of
7:1–2 never actually speaks, but uses his staff in YHWH. Taken as a whole the narrative gives
the initial sign and the first three plagues, but little support to the common preacher’s idea
never after that; and whether the protection of that Pharaoh falls victim to a paralysis of the
the Israelites is mentioned (8:22–3; 9:4, 6–7: will set up originally by his own free decision.
9:26; 10:23; 11:7—five out of nine). (This paragraph summarizes the fine analysis of
‘That they may know that I am YHWH’. More Gunn 1982.)
serious issues arise when we ask why YHWH It is possible (Childs 1974: 172) that an older
brings the plagues. YHWH himself says that it is version of the story was much simpler: YHWH’s
so that Pharaoh and his people (and Israel, 10:2) sole purpose was to force Pharaoh to release the
may know him: 7:5, 17:9:14; 10:2; cf. also 8:10, 22; Israelites, and the successive plagues were sim-
9:29; 11:7. Pharaoh had said in 5:2 that he did not ply a response to Pharaoh’s own refusal to act
know YHWH. He will now—to his cost. From sensibly. But that is not the case in the story as
each new round of the struggle he will find that we have it. Here YHWH prevents Pharaoh from
YHWH, not he, emerges with the real power in acting sensibly in order to have an excuse for
his own land, and indeed throughout the world. bringing the plagues on him. Gowan’s com-
9:14–16 is especially clear. If it had just been a ment (1994: 138) is to the point: ‘If freeing the
question of liberating Israel, one stroke would Hebrews from slavery had been God’s main
have been enough. This long-drawn torture has intention . . . then for God to harden Pharaoh’s
a different goal: ‘that you may know that there heart so as to extend the agonies of the process
is none like me in all the world’. would be indefensible on any grounds.’ But if
The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. We may well his purpose is as stated in 7:5, 17, etc., to make
wonder why YHWH’s demonstrations of his Pharaoh know that he is God, it is strange that
power must be so violent and destructive. And he acts every time to frustrate his own purpose.
why do they have to be repeated so often, with For that is the effect of the ‘hardening’, to pre-
increasing destructiveness? The answer is there vent Pharaoh from understanding the truth.
at the end of every single episode. Pharaoh fails However often and destructively YHWH dis-
to draw the right conclusion from his experi- plays his power, it will have no effect on Phar-
ence, so it needs to be repeated. Other people aoh until YHWH wants it to. As Gowan sees
get the point (9:20; 10:7), but not Pharaoh. (1994: 138), the truth must be that the object is
Now if we had not already had the clues in not to enlighten Pharaoh but to triumph over
4:21 and 7:3, we might at first think that Pharaoh him, to ‘gain glory over him’ (14:4). He will truly
was responsible for his own incomprehension ‘know that I am YHWH’ only at the very end of
and obstinacy, especially as in three places we the process (14:18), when it will do him no good
are told that ‘Pharaoh hardened’ his own heart at all: this must be ironical. Durham (1987: 96)
(8:15, 32; 9:34). It is after all quite natural in the and Gunn (1982: 84) may well be right in
 103 exodus

suggesting that the true audience for the dem- next plague. Pharaoh’s remark in 10:10 is iron-
onstration is Israel, certainly from the point of ical, actually a curse. Of course he understands
view of the authors. The account is shaped by a very well what Moses really wants: he imposes a
theology interested above all in maintaining the similar unacceptable condition in 10:24.
absolute sovereignty of the God they serve. Ch. 11 is awkward: Moses appears to be leav-
Believing readers will need to reflect on the ing in 10:29, but at 11:8 it turns out he has been
question whether a God so anxious to display speaking to Pharaoh since 11:4. No doubt there
his power and triumph over his enemies is the has been some rearrangement of the text, in
God that they believe in. See Gunn 1982: 84; order to accommodate the detailed ritual
Croatto 1981: 29; Houston 2007. But Bruegge- instructions which are given in 12:1–28 before
mann (1995: 47) suggests that the struggle the final blow is actually struck. But the chapter
between YHWH and Pharaoh is not a matter does impressively introduce this final act. 11:2–3
of personalities; they are embodiments of op- repeats the instructions of 3:21–2 (see EX 3:21–2).
posed social policies; so that the victory of 11:9–10 sums up the section, so that it is tied up
YHWH is the victory of a no-slavery policy. before launching into the Passover instructions,
Notes on individual verses. 7:8–13 develops 4:2–5. which will be followed by the final blow and
The motif of the contest between courtiers is a then immediately by the leaving of Egypt.
popular one (see Gen 41; Dan 2; 4; 5; 1 Esd 3–4),
and it serves here as a comic counterpoint to the (12:1–13:16) The Passover and the Exodus
tragic struggle between YHWH and Pharaoh. from Egypt Once more the style of the
Not that the magicians are clowns. They have narrative changes abruptly. The climax of the
real power, but it is soon shown not to compare account of YHWH’s blows against Egypt does
with YHWH’s (Durham 1987: 92). The turning of not come until 12:29–39, and this brief narrative
water into blood takes up 4:9, but is much more is surrounded with detailed ritual instructions.
extensive and drastic. There is a seasonal red- Some of them concern not what the people are
dening of the Nile waters at the time of the to do immediately, but how they are to repeat
inundation (Hort 1957–8: 87–95), but it cannot the rite in time to come, which to us seems
be taken seriously as the origin of an account of inappropriate in the context. Once again we
water being actually turned into blood (Durham need to understand the motivation of the
1987: 97). For ‘Hebrews’ in 7:16 see EX 1:15, and for writers. They are not simply writing about the
the request to Pharaoh, obviously a blind, see EX past; they are offering to their people an ac-
3:18. In 8:10, the lesson about YHWH’s power is count of events which made them a people,
derived by Moses from the exact fulfilment of events which are to be celebrated and relived.
Pharaoh’s definition of the time. 8:16, ‘gnats’ The little dialogues between child and parent in
(NRSV), or lice: biting insects at all events. 8:21, 12:25–7 and 13:14–15 show how by celebration a
‘swarms of flies’: the Hebrew simply says ‘mixed people can keep memory alive and recreate the
swarms’, without specifying the insects. 8:22: the saving and founding act of their God. As this
land of Goshen, see Gen 45:10, has never been passage is the climax of the story of deliverance,
satisfactorily identified. There is no particular it is natural that the theme of observance should
reason known why any animal the Israelites be concentrated here.
sacrificed would be ‘offensive’ (8:26; same word Three ritual observances are presented in this
as in Deut 14:3) to the Egyptians; presumably it is text as memorials of the Exodus, but the first
meant to be the invention of the wily negotiator. two are held at the same time and virtually
It is odd that after all the Egyptians’ livestock merged: Passover (pesah), the Festival of Unleav-
have died in the cattle pestilence (9:1–7), there ened Bread (massôt), and _ the consecration of the
are still some alive to be affected by the boils _ _
firstborn. The first two celebrate the Exodus in
(9:10) and the hail (9:19–25). OT authors or edi- other texts: Unleavened Bread in Ex 23:15, and
tors are not concerned for narrative coherence in Passover (and Unleavened Bread) in Deut 16:1–8;
the way we might be. but the consecration of the firstborn is related
In 9:13–35, the seventh and longest of all the to the Exodus only here (compare Deut 15:19–
plague episodes, except the last, things are mov- 20). All three are widely believed to be very old
ing towards a climax, and this is signalled by rites of various origins which at some stage
YHWH’s especially detailed explanation of why have been given an interpretation related to
he is acting as he is (9:14–16). 9:31–2 is a note the Exodus. (For details see de Vaux 1961: 484–
added, not in the right place, perhaps to explain 93; ABD vi. 755–65; Propp 1998: 427–61; Van
how the locusts had anything to destroy in the Seters: 1994: 113–27 dissents.)
exodus 104

A widespread opinion (following Rost 1943) symbol of the deliverance of the whole people
is that Passover was originally a rite carried out from slavery.
by shepherds when moving to new pastures in Instructions for Passover and Unleavened
the spring, while Unleavened Bread was an agri- Bread are also given at Deut 16:1–8; there are
cultural rite, marking the beginning of the bar- striking differences. Jewish interpreters have
ley harvest (which takes place in spring in the traditionally distinguished between ‘the Pass-
Near East) by getting rid of all the remains of over of Egypt’ and ‘the Passover of the [subse-
bread from the last year’s harvest and starting quent] generations’. Critical scholars have
afresh. However, if that is so the distinctive tended instead to see the history of the rite in
features of the rites are given quite different the differences: the usual view is that Passover
interpretations, relating them to the last night began as a family observance, and was trans-
in Egypt. Propp (1998: 427–61) sees them as ferred to the temple in the time of Josiah as part
ancient rites of purification, but not linked to of the centralization required by Deuteronomy,
the agricultural year. and that during the Exile P kept the festival alive
The very name pesah is interpreted in this by reviving its family character. ‘But it is more
way. The verb in 12:13, 27_ translated ‘pass over’ likely that P was simply depicting ‘‘the Passover
is pāsah—a wordplay characteristic of Hebrew of Egypt’’ (Propp 1998: 445–51).’
_ The verb is rather uncertain in mean-
narrative. YHWH gives instructions for each rite to
ing: it might be ‘leap over’ or ‘protect’. This is Moses before Moses passes them on to the
connected with the use of the blood to protect people; but the speeches are interwoven in a
each family. Though this may be an ancient rite, curious way which points to the editorial his-
and may have been thought of as a kind of tory of the text (see Table 2).
magic, forcing evil spirits to swerve away, the
text avoids this idea: the blood is a ‘sign’ (v. 13), Table 2. Speeches of Moses and YHWH
YHWH sees it and of his own goodwill
‘passes’—or leaps—‘over’. Then there is the YHWH Moses
continuing importance of Passover as a mark
Passover 12:1–13 (14) þ 43–9 12:21–7
of identity. All Israelites must celebrate it, and
Unleavened Bread 12:14–20 13:3–10
no one who does not belong to the community
Firstborn 13:1–2 13:11–16
may share in it (12:43, 47–8). But it is not only a
question of national identity. The eating of the
passover lamb is a family activity, must take In each case YHWH’s speech is the work of
place within the house, and cannot be shared the P writer, but scholars have disagreed about
with those who are not members of the house- the attribution of Moses’ speeches. The simplest
hold: 12:44–6. So the Passover serves to solution is that in J Moses gave instructions for
strengthen and celebrate ritually both the iden- the Passover before the Exodus and for
tity of the nation and its social structure of the other two observances after it; and that P
patriarchal extended families. Unleavened added the speeches of YHWH, taking Passover
Bread is not explained in 12:14–20, simply com- and Unleavened Bread together because they
manded; but in 12:34, 39 it is explained in story belonged together in the liturgical calendar.
terms. Probably the story was invented to ex- However, many scholars take 12:21–7 as P
plain it, and Moses’ subsequent commands in work (see Van Seters 1994: 114–19).
13:3–10 do not refer to it, simply emphasizing The first speech falls into two parts. 12:1–13
the feast’s commemorative function. gives immediate instructions, while 14–20 looks
The relation between the consecration of the forward to the future. This part is generally
firstborn, also probably a very ancient practice, thought of as referring exclusively to Unleav-
and the events described in the story is obvious, ened Bread; but the natural order of the speech
and is explained in 13:15. It is not just that the shows that it is closely bound up with Passover.
firstborn males of cattle are consecrated to 12:2, 3, 6, 18: the month of Passover is called
YHWH in sacrifice, but that human firstborn Abib in Ex 23:15; Deut 16:1. This is the old name
are redeemed (by payment or substitution), for the first month of spring. P, writing after the
just as they were in Egypt. There may have Exile, always uses numbers instead of names,
been a time in Israel when firstborn sons were and begins the year in the spring as the Baby-
sacrificed—see Ezek 20:26; Jer 7:31. Therefore it lonian calendar did. It is likely that under the
is appropriate that the ‘horrifying’ edict, as Eze- monarchy the new year began in the autumn, as
kiel calls it, should be presented as revoked as a it does for Jews today, and possible that 12:1 is to
 105 exodus

be interpreted as a call for a new calendar. See Bread in 13:3–10. This speech has strong Deu-
‘Calendar’ in ABD i. The Hebrew word trans- teronomic overtones (see EX C.1); many of the
lated ‘lamb’ in 12:3, etc. by NRSV is wider than phrases can be found in Deuteronomy (e.g. the
our word ‘lamb’, as you can see from 12:5. The sign on the hand and the emblem on the fore-
requirement for a yearling male is quite prac- head is in Deut 6:8), and the device of the
tical—these were the most expendable mem- dialogue with the child is used in Deut 6:20–5.
bers of the flock. The ‘bitter herbs’ in 12:8 are But there is also a reference back to Ex 3:8 in
today taken as a symbol of the bitterness of 13:5. Moses goes on to instruct the people about
oppression: the interpretation of the rite is an the consecration of the firstborn. The first off-
ongoing process. The requirement for the ani- spring of every female, if it is male, whether
mal to be roasted whole (12:9, 46) differentiates human or of domestic animals, belongs in prin-
it from a public sacrifice, which was boiled (as ciple to YHWH. However, only cattle, sheep,
in Deut 16:7), and also perhaps symbolizes the and goats can be sacrificed. The donkey is an
integrity of the family and the nation. The iden- ‘unclean’ animal which cannot (Lev 11:3—it has
tification of the lamb as the passover is held undivided hoofs), so a sheep must be sacrificed
back to the climax of YHWH’s speech in 12:11. instead, or the donkey simply killed (13:13). A
Moses passes on the instructions in 12:21–7. substitute sacrifice must be offered in place of
‘The passover lamb’ may be intended to refer human firstborn.
back to 12:11. In 12:23, ‘the destroyer’ has been
taken as a relic of an ancient belief in demons as (13:17–15:21) The Intervention of God: Final
the object of the blood-smearing; but it can just Act The Israelites have left Egypt, but they are
as well be interpreted as YHWH’s own angel. not yet out of the reach of Pharaoh. His attempt
12:29 resumes the thread of the story broken off to recapture them is rewarded with the total
at 11:8. At 12:32 is a reference back to Pharaoh’s destruction of himself and his army. With the
last negotiations with Moses in 10:24–6, and at end of Israel’s oppressors the story of their deliv-
12:35–6 to 11:2. ‘Succoth’ in 12:37 may be identi- erance reaches a conclusion. It has been argued
fied with Tell el-Maskutah on the east border of that the story of the deliverance at the sea is the
Egypt, close to the present Suez Canal (ABD s.v. original basic story of the Exodus (Noth 1962:
Succoth). 114–15). But we have already seen that the com-
The 600,000 in 12:37 is obviously historically memoration of the Exodus is concentrated on
impossible, but it is the standard biblical figure, the last night in Egypt. It is better to see this as
repeated in the censuses in Num 1 and 26. The the last twist in the tale, the final example of the
origin of the figure is disputed. But it was habit- pattern where a crisis evokes a desperate cry
ual for ancient scribes to exaggerate numbers. from the people, to which YHWH graciously
The writer produced a number which seemed responds, as in 2:23–5 and 5:22–6:1. From another
fitting to him as a representation of the might of point of view this is the beginning of the Israel-
YHWH’s people marching out in freedom. ites’ ‘wanderings in the wilderness’. We are intro-
The P editor, or a later one, adds his own duced to the way in which YHWH will lead them
reflections in 12:40–2. The figure of 430 years is in the wilderness, and the story is the first of
fitted to his scheme of chronology. The Exodus several in which the people complain to Moses
happens 2,666 years after creation—two-thirds and YHWH graciously provides for them.
of 4,000 years (Blenkinsopp 1992: 48; but see
Hughes 1990: 5–54). 12:41, 51 again liken the Exo- (13:17–22) The Israelites are, in fact, not ‘wan-
dus to the marching out of a military force. dering’ in the wilderness, even if it looks like it.
In 12:43–9 some further provisions for Pass- Their movements are determined by the pur-
over are added. They underline the close con- poses of God. 13:17 tells us why God does not
nection of the feast with the integrity of the lead them by the obvious route; vv. 18, 20 trace
nation, symbolized by circumcision, and of the route on the map, first in general terms,
the family. The translation ‘bound servant’ in then by mentioning the staging posts; and vv.
12:45 NRSV is very dubious, and the word is 21–2 tell us how God leads them.
more usually thought to refer to a lodger or The quickest route to Canaan was along the
temporary visitor. A very brief speech by Mediterranean coast. The author appears to sug-
YHWH in 13:1–2 ensures that the theme of the gest they would meet the Philistines there—an
consecration of the firstborn is given divine anachronism if the Exodus took place in the late
authority; but Moses has first to introduce thirteenth century BCE. But this is imaginative
the Israelites to the festival of Unleavened history which cannot be fixed in time (EX C.3).
exodus 106

Instead, they went inland ‘by way of the wilder- v. 21 and has effect only next morning! Accord-
ness toward the Red Sea’. In other places (23:31; ing to a widely accepted source division, in J (vv.
Num 21:4; 1 Kings 9:26) ‘the Red Sea’ (Heb. ‘sea of 5–7, 10–14, 19–20, 21b, 24–5, 27b, 30–1) Pharaoh
reeds, weeds’) refers to the Gulf of Aqaba. It is changes his own mind, and the sea is driven
often thought that the Gulf of Suez is meant back by the wind and then returns to over-
here, or one of the lakes north of it, because whelm the Egyptians. This is the account
15:4, 22 and other texts (but not 14) fix it as the which concentrates on the Israelites and
place where the great deliverance took place, and Moses’ call for faith. In P (vv. 1–4, 8–9, 15–18,
the Gulf of Aqaba is too far away (see 14:2). For 21a, 21c, 22–3, 26–7a (to ‘over the sea’), 28–9)
Succoth (v. 20) see EX 12:1–13:16; Etham is un- YHWH ‘hardens Pharaoh’s heart’, and the sea
known. For all topographical details from this is split into two walls when Moses stretches out
point on, see Davies (1979). v. 19 refers back to his hand, which fall in when he stretches out his
Gen 50:25, and forward to Josh 24:32. In vv. 21–2 hand again.
God’s leadership is represented in a literal, visible On one central point the text is at one. The
manner. Cloud and fire are two of the common- Israelites are delivered and the Egyptians
est accompaniments of God’s presence in the- destroyed by God’s power. Whether he uses
ophanies (see EX 3:1–6). In the pillar of cloud and the natural elements or the hand of Moses, he
fire God’s presence becomes permanent and mo- triumphs in person over the enemies of Israel,
bile. This visible presence continues with them who are his own enemies.
presumably to the borders of the promised land. YHWH’s opening instructions to Moses (v. 2)
are to turn back. This is intended as deliberate
(14:1–31) It is clear that the action of this chap- deception: it is to make Pharaoh think the Is-
ter is presented from two different points of raelites are lost, and tempt him to follow them
view; but these do not clash, because they are (v. 3). The place-names in v. 2 cannot be located
focused on different characters. vv. 1–4, 15–18 exactly, but they are on the borders of Egypt,
are words of YHWH showing us the events and by ‘the sea’ (see EX 13:17–22). In v. 5 Pharaoh’s
from his point of view as the climax of his motive is different. He receives an intelligence
struggle with Pharaoh in the plagues narrative. report that the Israelites have ‘fled’. Since he
(For a full discussion of this, see EX 7:8–11:10.) knew they were going, this must mean that
YHWH deliberately entices him out to recap- they have not returned as implied in the nego-
ture the Israelites, so that he may ‘gain glory’ for tiations (7:16, etc.). In vv. 9. 18, 23, 26, 28 the
himself (vv. 4, 17). One last time, with deepest NRSV has ‘chariot drivers’ where other versions
irony, he announces ‘the Egyptians shall know have ‘horsemen’ or ‘cavalry’. The Hebrew word
that I am the LORD’ (v. 18): as they sink to their normally means ‘horseman’. NRSV is probably
deaths, they will know that YHWH is the true based on the fact that armies are known not to
ruler of the world. have had mounted cavalry before the first mil-
But in vv. 10–14, 30–1 we see things from the lennium BCE. But the author of Exodus would
Israelites’ point of view. They are in panic, but not have known that, and almost certainly
Moses tells them to trust in YHWH’s deliver- meant ‘horsemen’. A different word is translated
ance: ‘Do not be afraid . . . you have only to keep ‘rider’ in 15:1, 21.
still’ (vv. 13, 14). Moses uses a form of assurance What the Israelites claim to have told Moses
that recurs again and again in the accounts of in Egypt (v. 12) they have not said anywhere in
Israel’s wars, where prophets urge the king or the text of Exodus; but this kind of allusion is
commander not to be afraid, but to trust in very common in Hebrew narrative. In v. 15
YHWH. Cf. particularly Isa 7:4; 28:16; 30:15. YHWH asks Moses why he is crying out to
However, in the end faith comes as a result of him (‘you’ is singular), but the narrator has not
seeing YHWH’s act of salvation (v. 31). This told us he has. Moses may be assumed to have
pattern of events is repeated several times in relayed the Israelites’ cry in v. 10 to YHWH. In v.
the story of Israel in the wilderness: three 19 as elsewhere (see EX 3:1–6) ‘the angel of God’
times in the next three chapters, so that the may be a substitute for YHWH himself (cf.
lesson is rubbed in. 13:21). But the statement is repeated with refer-
Although these points of view do not clash ence to the pillar of cloud; so it is often held that
on the theological level, there are obvious in v. 19 there are two parallel sources. v. 29 is
unevennesses in the story, v. 4 seems at first to not a simple repetition of v. 22. It tells us that
be fulfilled in v. 5, but actually looks forward to the Israelites had passed through in safety while
v. 8. YHWH’s order in v. 16 is carried out only in the Egyptians were destroyed behind them.
 107 exodus

(15:1–21) Pieces of poetry occasionally break the ‘walls’ of water in 14:22, 29; but if the poem
the flow of prose in the Pentateuch, often at is older, it could have been a poetic description
significant points. This one is particularly suit- of a wave rearing up and about to break; the
able here: it is fitting that Israel should praise breaking is described in 10 (Houston 1997).
YHWH when they are finally delivered from For the question ‘who is like YHWH’ (v. 11) cf.
their oppressors. This is a victory song, but the Ps 89:6–8. ‘Your holy abode’ in v. 13 could be
victor is God, so it is also a hymn of praise and Sinai or the temple at Jerusalem, but v. 17 makes
thanksgiving. It has parallels in the Psalms, the latter more likely. The song praises YHWH
which are pointed out in the notes, but it does not just for the settlement in Canaan but for the
not rigidly follow any one model of psalm. establishment of his dwelling among them at
Psalms of praise often begin with a call to the Zion. The final verse is another psalm-type
people to praise, such as Ps 118:1–4. The song motif: see Ps 93:1; 95:3; 96:10; etc. v. 19 recalls
sung by Miriam in v. 21 is such a call and could the essence of the story after the look into the
be intended as the opening to which the men’s future in vv. 13–18.
song in 1–18 is the response (Janzen 1992). The There was a custom, when men came back
song does not describe the previous state of victorious from a battle, for women to come
distress or the cry to God for help, unlike out from the towns to meet them (hence ‘went
many thanksgiving psalms (Ps 18: 30; 118). out’ in v. 20) with victory songs and dances (see
Everything is concentrated on YHWH and his 1 Sam 18:6–7). Since this victory has been won
victory. The song achieves its effect by repeat- by YHWH, not by the men, the men have cele-
ing the account of the victory in several differ- brated it, but the women’s role is not forgotten,
ent vivid and allusive ways, punctuated with and may well be intended to be prior to the
words of praise. men’s (see above, and Janzen 1992; against
There is a dispute about the age of the song. Trible 1994: 169–73). Miriam is called a prophet
One school (see Cross 1973), argues that the probably because of this song, which is seen as
grammar and poetic style mark it out as very inspired.
old, perhaps from the eleventh or twelfth cen-
tury BCE, so a very ancient and important wit- (15:22–18:27) Israel in the Wilderness The
ness to the event of the Exodus. Others (e.g. two main accounts in Exodus are of YHWH’s
Brenner 1991) say that the song relies on Ex 14 deliverance of Israel from Egypt and of his gra-
as it now stands, so that it must be quite late cious provision for their future life with him at
(fifth century?), and composed to occupy its Sinai. But Israel have first to reach Sinai through
present place; the author has deliberately cre- the wilderness. What is meant by ‘wilderness’ in
ated a song which looks old enough to be sung the Bible is not totally barren sand-desert, but
by Moses. But it is possible (Houston 1997) that steppe with low rainfall and sparse vegetation,
v. 8 was the source from which the P author in suitable as pasture for sheep and goats but not
Ex 14 took his account by interpreting its im- much else. So there is a linking section describ-
aginative picture literally. This would make the ing this journey, but it is more than a simple
song older than P, but not necessarily older than link. The episodes are based on the well-known
J. Of course, now that the song is part of the Ex conditions of life in the wilderness, but these are
text we inevitably read it in line with the ac- used as an opportunity to develop the charac-
count in ch. 14. The song looks forward to the terization of the Israelites and the relationship
completion of YHWH’s work in the settling of between them, Moses, and YHWH. The first
Israel in his own land. All the promises in 3:7–12 three episodes in particular go very closely to-
and 6:2–8 are seen as fulfilled, really or virtually, gether. Two short stories about water frame the
in the miracle at the sea. much longer one about the manna. In each the
The song can be divided into: an introduc- people raise a complaint against Moses, to
tion, vv. 1–3; a main section praising. YHWH for which YHWH responds with gracious provision
the victory, 4–12; and a coda looking forward to for their needs. In each Moses acts as the inter-
the entry into the promised land, 13–18. For mediary between YHWH and the people, both
‘rider’ in vv. 1, 21 see the note on 14:9, etc. in EX ruling them and interceding for them. The word
14:13–31. But the word here could mean ‘chariot- used for ‘complain’ implies bad-tempered
eer’, v. 2 is closely similar to Ps 118:14, 28. The grumbling; in 16:3 and 17:3 they even suggest
word for ‘heap’ in v. 8 is used in the account of they would have been better off back in
the Jordan crossing in Josh 3:13, 16. As the text Egypt—thus rejecting YHWH’s act of salvation.
stands, this verse has to be taken as describing In spite of this YHWH is patient and gracious.
exodus 108

Yet there is a harder note to the relationship, for his ‘healing’ of the water; they should beware
another word which occurs in each story is lest he act in the opposite way (as he does in
‘test’. YHWH tests Israel (15:25; 16:4) to see Numbers).
whether they will be faithful and obedient; Is-
rael tests or provokes YHWH (17:2, 7) by their (16:1–36) For general comments and com-
grumbling. The theological point is very clear: ments on the location of the place-names, see
life for Israel depends on trust in God’s provi- EX 15:22–18:27. This story seems to have origin-
sion and obedience to his requirements. This is ally been based on the fact that the tamarisk tree
a lesson that reaches far beyond their tempor- of the Sinai peninsula in May and June exudes
ary life in the wilderness; the best commentary drops of a sweet substance which is gathered
is Deut 8. The main outlines of the relationship and eaten by the local people, who still call it
that will be literally cast in stone at Sinai begin man. But the amounts are small, and obviously
to emerge; hence we should not be surprised the story goes far beyond that natural fact.
that most of these stories anticipate points that It speaks of a miracle which provides enough
are eventually grounded formally in the law food every day, all the year round, to sustain a
given there: the ‘statute and ordinance’ at whole people on the march. And to that miracle
Marah (15:25); the sabbath provision in the of provision are added two further miracles
manna story (16:5; 22–30); the legal system es- which test the obedience and faith of the
tablished on Jethro’s advice (18:13–27). There is a people. There is the miracle of precise quantity
similar group of stories in Num 11; 12; 14; 16; (vv. 17–18). God’s providing is always enough
20:2–13, but in most of these the people’s grum- for the day, it cannot be stored (v. 20). And
bling arouses YHWH’s anger and his punish- there is the miracle of the sabbath exception
ment. This arrangement is surely deliberate. to this miracle (vv. 22–30). The meaning of
Once the people have received the law and these miracles is found first in the saying in
accepted the covenant, there is no excuse for v. 5 which has echoed in one form or another
them. through the narrative since 6:7. Here it is a
It is impossible to say to what extent these rebuke to the Israelites who have spoken of
stories are based on a tradition in Israel (see EX Moses and Aaron as having brought them out of
C.2). The references to the wilderness time in Old Egypt (v. 3). They need to understand that it is
Testament literature are very varied: in some it is YHWH alone who can and will provide for
a time of happiness and obedience in contrast to them. The second lesson is that the generosity
the apostasy of the time in Canaan (e.g. Hos 2:14; of YHWH is only of value to them if they on
Jer 2:2–3), in some a time of disobedience (e.g. their part obey his commands. The full meaning
Deut 9:7; Ps 95). Deut 8 comes closest to Exodus of the sabbath will not be revealed until 20:11;
in seeing it as a time of testing. but for the moment they need to understand
By putting in place-names, the authors must simply that it is possible to rest for a day and
have intended to give a precise idea of the still live, by YHWH’s grace.
Israelites’ route, but this no longer works for This chapter has been through a process of
us because we do not know where the places editing. It is mainly P, but there is probably an
are. The people are now on their way to Sinai. If older narrative behind it. It is a somewhat awk-
Sinai was, as traditionally supposed, in the ward effect of the editing that when YHWH
south of the Sinai peninsula (see Davies 1979: appears he simply repeats what Moses and
63–9), the places mentioned in 15:22, 27; 16:1; 17:1 Aaron have said already; and another awkward
are likely to be strung out along the west side of feature is the half-hearted way in which the
the peninsula. But there are other theories quails are introduced into the narrative from
about the location of Sinai, and they would Num 11, where they play a greater part. It is
change the location of these places. only the manna that the people eat for their
whole time in the wilderness. v. 1, ‘the second
(15:22–7) For general comments and com- month’. The reckoning is inclusive: it is exactly
ments on the location of the place-names, see a month since they left Egypt. In v. 7 ‘the glory
the previous section. Nothing is said about how of the LORD’ is probably another way of refer-
or why the ‘tree’ or ‘piece of wood’ (15:25) made ring to the way YHWH makes himself known in
the water sweet. It seems like magic, but to the his miraculous provision; but in 10 it is the
author it is simply the way in which YHWH usual way in P of describing the appearance of
chooses to act. And it is YHWH who ‘tests’ YHWH in brightness wrapped in a cloud. In v.
them. They have known YHWH as a ‘healer’ in 15 the word translated ‘what?’ is man, which is
 109 exodus

not the normal word for ‘what?’ (mah), but near with 3:12. There are difficulties in the placement
enough for a Hebrew pun: it is the word for of the story. The Israelites have not at this point
‘manna’ (v. 31). Aaron kept the preserved manna actually reached the mountain of God. Moses’
‘before the covenant’ or ‘testimony’ (v. 34), that father-in-law appears to be still with them in
is before or in the ark, which is made in ch. 37. Num 10:29; and the measures of 18:13–27 are
Since they ‘ate manna forty years’ (v. 35), Moses’ placed after leaving Horeb in Deut 1:9–18. For
order could have been given at any time: there is all these reasons it is often believed that the
no anachronism. story originally belonged after the Sinai narra-
tive; but the reason why it was moved is unclear
(17:1–7) For general comments and comments (see Childs 1974: 322; Durham 1987: 242; Van
on the location of the place-names, see EX 15:22– Seters 1994: 209 n. 3. Propp 1998: 627–8 does
18:27. The episode closely follows the general not agree). Zipporah and her family also create
pattern of the two previous episodes; its dis- a problem. In 2:22 we are only told of one son
tinctive feature is the people’s ‘testing’ or ‘pro- of Moses (but see 4:20); and we last heard of
voking’ of YHWH, which gives its name to the Zipporah and her son on the way to Egypt, not
place (vv. 2, 7). Once again Moses directs their left behind with her father (4:24–6). The best
attention away from himself, whom the Israel- explanation may be that 4:24–6 is a late add-
ites blame, to YHWH who is able to provide. ition to the narrative. ‘After Moses had sent her
‘Horeb’ in v. 6 is the name in Deuteronomy, but away’ would then be an addition in v. 2 to
not in Exodus (except 3:1), of the mountain of harmonize the narrative with 4:20–6. ‘Took
revelation. It may be identified with Sinai here, her back’ in v. 2 (NRSV) is not a correct trans-
which cannot be far away. It is confusing that lation of the Hebrew, which refers to what
the place is given two names, not only Massah, Jethro did after hearing about Moses: he ‘took
‘testing’, but Meribah, ‘quarrelling’, and that the her and her two sons . . . and came’ (v. 5).
latter is given to another place where a similar The author has a tolerant acceptance of for-
thing happens in Num 20:13. The poetic refer- eign peoples, and sees no sharp distinction be-
ences at Deut 33:8 and Ps 95:8 use the two tween their religion and Israel’s. Jethro, a
names. Possibly the author has taken both foreign priest, gladly acknowledges the suprem-
names from one of the poems and assumed acy of YHWH (v. 11): but he makes this acknow-
they referred to the same place. ledgement from within his own religious
tradition, not as an act of conversion. Probably
(17:8–16) Amalek was a nomadic people dwell- for this reason (unless one accepts the existence
ing in the wilderness to the south of Canaan. All of a special E source (see PENT)) the chapter tends
references to them in the HB are fiercely hostile: to use ʾĕlōhı̂m rather than YHWH except in vv.
see especially Deut 25:17–19 and 1 Sam 15. There 8–11. For the multiple names of Moses’ father-
seems to be a long-standing feud: Deut 25 offers in-law, see EX 2:15b–22.
a reason for this, but it is not reflected in this
story. The strangest feature of the story is the (18:13–27) The theme of this section is also
connection between the position of Moses’ addressed in Num 11:11–17; Deut 1:9–18. It is
arms and the fortunes of the battle. Older com- not clear why the advice to Moses to share the
mentators presume that his arms were raised in burden is given by his father-in-law. Moses here
prayer; but if so why does the narrative not say is a judge deciding civil disputes, and a lawgiver
he was praying? As Van Seters (1994: 203) mediating God’s ‘statutes and instructions’; and
points out, Josh 8:18–26 is similar. In both people come to him ‘to inquire of God’ (v. 15),
cases the automatic connection suggests that is, to seek directions in particular situ-
magic; it is only implicit that God was in action. ations. There is no sharp line drawn between
It is only the end of the story (17:14–16) that these functions in the Bible: so in Deut 17:8–13
makes it clear that Israel’s battle is, as always, the priest is associated with the judges in the
YHWH’s—to the death in this case. The Hebrew decision of difficult cases, because the direction
text in v. 16 is unclear. The NRSV’s ‘A hand of God must be sought. The legal system which
upon the banner of the LORD’ is the best sugges- is established is actually based on a military
tion, since it explains the name Moses has just organization (v. 21). Practice in the ancient
given to his altar. Near East tended to give military and judicial
functions to the same officers. The organization
(18:1–12) This episode links up with the early is artificial, it does not arise out of the existing
part of the story (chs. 2–4). Cf. in particular v. 5 social structure. Moses here acts like ancient
exodus 110

kings, who tended to impose their systems on I call J (see EX C.1). The second answer sees the
society. Possibly the story is intended to ac- main issue as being that of holiness. From God
count for the later judicial system of the Israel- radiates a power that is the source of life and
ite/Judean monarchy. blessing, but is destructive to anyone who ap-
The interesting theological point is seen by proaches too close or does not take precautions.
Childs: that hard-headed, practical advice is This answer is the contribution of P.
seen as the ‘command of God’ (v. 23). There is
no distinction between divine revelation and (19:1–20:21) Before any of this can happen, the
practical wisdom: the latter is as much the will coming of YHWH to his people must be de-
of God as the former. scribed. Mount Sinai becomes the symbol, not
of the permanent presence of YHWH, which
(19:1–40:38) The Establishment of Israel’s Re- goes with them, but of his coming in unimagin-
lationship with YHWH The people of Israel able power and glory. This is the work of an
are no longer slaves. They have been saved imaginative writer, not a record from history.
from the land of oppression. But they are not But it describes, symbolically, the experience of
yet a nation. The authors of Exodus believed the presence of the holy and righteous God. The
that their being as a nation depended on the account proves difficult to follow, at least with
presence of their God with them, and that in our ideas of narrative logic. 19:3–8 appears to
turn depended on certain conditions. The sec- anticipate the whole process which culminates
ond half of the book of Exodus is mainly con- in ch. 24, and vv. 20–5 seem inconsequential.
cerned to set these out. The chapters contain YHWH’s speech to the people in ch. 20 begins
two main kinds of answer to the question: on abruptly: 19:25 breaks off with; ‘and Moses said
what conditions can Israel be YHWH’s people to them’ which ought to be followed by what he
and YHWH their God? The first answer is: on said (NRSV ‘and told them’ smooths over the
condition of obeying his commandments, difficulty). After YHWH’s speech, in 20:18–21,
which can be summed up as to worship him the people react in a way that suggests they
alone, and to behave with justice towards one have not heard what he has said. Two main
another. These are set out in chs. 20–3, and the types of solution are on offer. The first is that
people’s formal acceptance of them is narrated the difficulty arises from a complex literary
in ch. 24. This solemn imposition of require- history (see, for different analyses. Childs 1974:
ments and undertaking of obedience is what 344–51; Van Seters 1994: 248–52; Albertz 1994:
this part of the book means by ‘covenant’ 55; Propp 2006: 141–54). It is possible, for
(19:5:24:7, 8; 31:18; for covenant see EX C.1; and example, that the Ten Commandments are a
for law and commandments, Patrick 1986). The late addition to this context, from Deut 5, al-
book then goes on, in chs. 32–4, to deal with the though they are fundamental to the covenant in
question: what happens if the people break the text as it stands. The alternative is that a
the covenant? They then depend essentially on literary technique is being used which we tend
the mercy of God (33:19). But interleaved with not to understand. For example, Sprinkle (1994:
this account is another way of dealing with the 18–27) suggests that ch. 19 gives us an overview
question. It is not contradictory to the first, but of events to come, which are described in
its presuppositions are different. YHWH safe- greater detail later: possibly 20:1 picks up 19:19
guards his presence among his people by locat- and 20:21 picks up 19:20; YHWH’s command to
ing it in a physical site which moves as they Moses in 19:24 is taken up again in 24:1–2.
move, and is hedged about with restrictions so Patrick (1994) suggests that 19:3–8 makes clear
that they receive blessing rather than harm at the outset the nature of the transaction.
from the presence of the holy God among YHWH does not give commandments until
them (29:43–6). YHWH gives Moses directions the Israelites have formally declared themselves
for the establishment of this ‘tent of meeting’ or ready to accept them.
‘tabernacle’ in 25–31, and it is set up in accord- The description of YHWH’s coming is cre-
ance with his directions in 35–40. ated from traditional materials. So far as the
The first answer sees the relationship as above site of the theophany (see EX 3:1–6) is concerned,
all a moral one—not a matter of morals in a there was a very ancient literary tradition de-
narrow sense, but based on how God and people scribing the coming of YHWH in power from
behave towards one another. It is deeply marked the deep southern wilderness, and one of the
by the influence of the prophets and the Deu- geographical names used was Sinai (Judg 5:5; Ps
teronomic writers, and is the work of the author 68:8). The idea that the gods live on a high
 111 exodus

mountain was a very widespread one. But here religious and moral teaching of Judaism and
the idea is more refined: YHWH does not actu- Christianity is a fair reflection of the centrality
ally live on the mountain, but comes down on it which it is given here in Exodus and in Deut
(19:11, 18; cf. 3:8). The theophany (19:16–20) is 5. The Ten Commandments are, in this story,
described in terms drawn from thunderstorms, the prime expression of the covenant demands.
earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions, the great- They stand first in the account of the covenant-
est displays of natural power that can be making. It is unclear whether they are spoken
observed; and such descriptions are found in directly to the people; they certainly are in
Hebrew literature of all periods—see e.g. Ps Deuteronomy. But the centrality also emerges
18:7–15. They are ways of describing the indes- from the very form and content of the text. In
cribable, and certainly should not be taken to the first place it begins with YHWH’s self-intro-
mean that what the Israelites actually saw was a duction (cf. 6:2 and see Zimmerli 1982), and
thunderstorm or earthquake, or that Mt. Sinai asserts his right to authority, by recalling to
was a volcano. The one unusual feature in the the Israelites his goodness to them. And the
theophany is the sound of the trumpet (19:13, 16, first and much the greater part of the text is
19; more precisely the ram’s horn). This was concerned with the requirements of his honour.
used in temple services. YHWH comes so that Secondly, it is obviously designed to include all
the Israelites may come to him in worship. They the most basic religious and moral require-
have to make preparations to meet a holy God ments over a wide sphere of life. Thirdly, every
(19:10–15), preparations which are similar to command is expressed in the broadest possible
those undertaken before entering a temple for way, sometimes by detailed elaboration (vv. 8–
sacrifice, and the mountain is fenced off in the 11), sometimes by avoiding any details which
same way as the most holy parts of a shrine are might narrow down the application (vv. 13–15).
fenced off. ‘On the third new moon’, 19:1; more In a word, it is the most basic statement possible
likely ‘in the third month’, reckoning inclu- of the conditions on which Israel may be in
sively. This would bring them in the Priestly relationship with YHWH. It combines in one
calendar to the feast of Pentecost, when the text the specific demand for Israel to worship
Jews to this day celebrate the giving of the Law. YHWH alone with those few moral require-
‘A priestly kingdom and a holy nation’ (19:6): ments which are essential in one form or an-
each of the two phrases expresses both sides of other for any human society.
Israel’s future existence. They will be a nation, But it is not a legal text. What laws in ancient
with a social and political structure; they will at Israel looked like we see in chs. 21–2. It is
the same time and through their nationhood and instruction addressed personally to Israel, or
state structures be dedicated to YHWH as priests to the individual Israelite (the ‘you’ is singular
are dedicated to the God they serve. The covenant and masculine, but that does not necessarily
to be announced will explain how this will be mean that women are not addressed; see below
possible. A further purpose of YHWH’s coming is on vv. 8–11). It does not suggest how it is to be
explained in v. 9: it is to confirm the position of implemented or say what is to happen if the
Moses as the confidant of YHWH in the eyes of commands are ignored, but simply asks for
the people, so that they trust him (cf. 14:31). The obedience. (But Phillips 1970 regards it as
severe rules for anyone touching the mountain in Israel’s fundamental law, and many scholars
19:12–13 arise from the idea that holiness is a connect it with the form of ancient treaties:
physical infection which can be ‘caught’ and is see Mendenhall 1992a.) If the setting in life of
dangerous for people in an ordinary state. The this type of text is not legal, what is it? Material
command ‘do not go near a woman’ (v. 15)—a of this kind, with its brief memorable clauses,
euphemism for sex; the ‘people’ who receive the could be designed as an aid to religious in-
command are the men—again arises because of struction in the home (Albertz 1994: 214–16).
the conception that certain bodily states create a But this text goes beyond that function. With
danger in the face of holiness (see Lev 15, esp. 31; 1 YHWH’s self-announcement and personal
Sam 21:4). The mention of priests in 19:22, 24 is demand for exclusive loyalty, vv. 2–6 belong
difficult, since at this point Israel has no priests. nowhere else but in this present setting of
Presumably it means those who will become covenant-making. Afterwards, in vv. 7–12, he
priests later (Lev 8–9). is referred to in the third person, which is more
suitable for a catechism. Perhaps catechetical
(20:1–17) The Ten Commandments The cen- material has been adapted to its place in the
tral place which this passage has had in the narrative.
exodus 112

This is the fundamental text of the covenant, sanctuaries tended not to be an image, but im-
but that does not mean that it is necessarily ages of subordinate gods and especially god-
historically the earliest of the OT ‘legal’ texts, desses were freely used (Mettinger 1995). But in
although many scholars firmly believe that it is, the pure monotheism demanded here YHWH
at least in an older form (see Durham 1987: 282). brooked no such rivals.
Reflection on all God’s commands and require- Modern preachers interpret this command in
ments may have led to a more profound grasp a moralistic way: anything which absorbs a
of their basic meaning, which has then been person’s devotion is his/her god (cf. Luther).
expressed in this text. In fact vv. 2–12 are written But this is not what it means in the OT context.
very much in the style of Deuteronomy, except It was not self-evident to people in OT times
for v. 11, which is Priestly, so they are unlikely to that there was only one God; the demand to
be earlier than the late seventh century. Al- worship only one God had to struggle against a
though this passage has always been called (lit- polytheism which to many people seemed
erally) the Ten Words (Ex 34:28; Deut 4:13; 10:4), more natural, reflecting the complexity and un-
it is not obvious how the roughly twenty sen- predictability of the world. Even the Bible has
tences of the text are to be grouped into ten. to recognize the existence of other powers; the
Different religious traditions have come to dif- uniqueness of its demand is that even so only
ferent conclusions. Jews call v. 2 the first Word one of them is worthy of Israel’s worship, the
and vv. 3–6 the second. Roman Catholics and one ‘who brought you . . . out of the house of
Lutherans group vv. 2–6 as the first command- slavery’; who is ‘a jealous God’—better, perhaps,
ment and divide v. 17 into two to make up the ‘passionate’, ‘watchful of my rights’. The issue is
tally of ten; other Christians separate v. 3 as one of YHWH’s honour as the protector and
the first commandment and treat vv. 4–6 as saviour of his people. The harshness of the
the second. (See further EX 20:2–6.) This com- threat in 5b–6 (see also 34:7) has to be evaluated
mentary will simply use verse numbers. (For in the light of a far stronger community feeling
detailed discussion of the Commandments see than is normal with us. The worship of a god
Childs 1974: 385–439; Weinfeld 1991: 242–319.) could not be an individual matter: the whole
extended family shared in the sin—and there-
(20:2–6) The first section of the Command- fore in the punishment. But contrast Ezek 18.
ments is quite different from the rest, being
spoken in the first person and expressing what (20:7) It is uncertain what this command was
is most distinctive of the religion of the OT: the intended to refer to: suggestions include deceitful
requirement to worship YHWH alone, and the oaths (as in Lev 19:12), unwarranted use of formal
prohibition of using images in worship. Two curses (Brichto 1963: 59–68), the use of God’s
basic demands: can the Catholic tradition be name in magic spells, or all of these and other
right in treating it as one ‘commandment’? things (Childs 1974: 410–12). But it is quite clear
Many scholars (e.g. Durham 1987: 286; B. B. that the improper use of the name YHWH is
Schmidt 1995) would see v. 4 as prohibiting prohibited. The command is closely related to
images of YHWH in particular, after v. 3 has 20:2–6. It is YHWH’s honour that is at stake. To
dealt with worshipping other gods. However, wrest his name to one’s own private and deceitful
there is no sharp break anywhere in these purposes is to dishonour the one who bears it.
verses: they treat throughout of YHWH’s exclu-
sive claim. The ‘them’ in v. 5 must refer to the (20:8–11) The sabbath likewise is an institution
‘other gods’ in v. 3, because all the nouns in v. 4 for the honour of YHWH; it is a sabbath ‘to
are singular (Zimmerli 1968). This means that YHWH your God’, and must be ‘kept holy’. The
the command not to make an idol is part of a day is dedicated to YHWH by abstaining from
context forbidding the worship of any god but work, that is, from anything that is intended for
YHWH. That YHWH might be worshipped by one’s own benefit, or human purposes generally.
means of an idol is simply inconceivable for this In order to ensure that the entire community
text. If you are using an idol, you must be keeps it, the householder is required to ensure
worshipping another god. In those OT passages that everyone in the house, which is also the work
where people appear to be worshipping YHWH unit in peasant society, abstains from work on
with idols (Ex 32:4; Judg 17; 1 Kings 12:28), the the seventh day. The list of persons does not
context implies that they are not genuinely include ‘your wife’. The best explanation is that
worshipping YHWH. In the Syria–Canaan area the lady of the house is not mentioned because
generally, the central worship symbol in official she is addressed along with her husband (as in
 113 exodus

e.g. Deut 16:11; Smith 1918: 169; Weinfeld 1991: the violent or dishonest alienation of land and
307–8; contrast Clines 1995a). v. 11 gives a motiv- houses: that is probably covered by 20:17.
ation for observing the commandment. The pri-
mary emphasis is on the special character of the (20:16) This is concerned with testimony in the
day, determined by YHWH in the beginning, courts. In Israelite courts the witness was in
rather than on the need for people to rest (con- effect a prosecutor, as there was no state pros-
trast Deut 5:15). The verse is obviously P, referring ecution system. False accusation could put one’s
back to Gen 2:1–3 (so also Ex 31:14). The sabbath life, not merely one’s reputation, in danger (see 1
commandment is the only positive ritual require- Kings 21; Deut 19:15–21).
ment among the Ten Commandments. The main
reason is likely to be that it had to be observed by (20:17) The dominant interpretation of this
every individual in the community without ex- commandment is that it is concerned simply
ception (the dietary laws, for example, did not with the desire to possess what is not one’s
have to be observed by aliens). own as a sin in itself (Rom 7:7–8; Calvin 1953:
i. 354–6). However, there is also an interpret-
(20:12) Ancient Israel was a hierarchical society ation which sees it as concerned with overt
in which respect for superiors, parents in the action to dispossess one’s neighbour (Mk
first place, was fundamental. Care for their hon- 10:19; Luther, J. Hermann 1927). Even if the Heb-
our therefore comes next in the series after the rew word refers primarily to desire (Moran
honour of God (similarly Lev 19:3–4). This com- 1967), the concern is for the danger to one’s
mandment is formulated positively, so its effect neighbour posed by one’s covetousness; and
is broader than the law against insulting parents in particular the kind of covetousness described
in Ex 21:17, etc. It will include care and comfort in Mic 2:1–2. As Luther saw, the machinations of
in old age (Mk 7:9–13). The commandments are the powerful to dispossess the weak are not
addressed to adults, not children, and the need covered elsewhere in the Ten Commandments.
for this commandment may arise from tension
between older men at the head of extended (20:18–21) Moses’ point is that they should not
families and their sons with their own families. be terrified at the divine appearance because it is
The remaining commandments define serious for their good: ‘fear’ in v. 20 is not the panic
transgressions against the rights of members of terror that is now seizing them, but reverence
the community (generally of male householders). and awe which should lead to the right conduct
that God asks of them. Once again (cf. 15:25)
(20:13) ‘Murder’ is the correct translation, i.e. they are being ‘tested’ or ‘challenged’ to make
the unlawful killing of a member of the com- the right response.
munity. The commandment does not cover
capital punishment, killing in war, or the killing (20:22–23:33) The ‘Book of the Covenant’
of animals for food; which is not to say that the The very long speech that YHWH now delivers
OT is unconcerned with the ethical problems to Moses to pass on to the Israelites includes a
posed by these things. much wider range of religious, moral, and legal
instruction than the Ten Commandments. The
(20:14) Adultery in the Bible is definable as Ten Commandments make absolute demands;
intercourse between a married (or betrothed) this speech shows how the demands of God for
woman and a man not her husband. The com- fairness and justice and for the proper honouring
mandment is concerned with a man’s rights of himself work out in practice in a particular
over his wife. As in all traditional patriarchal society. That is why much of it is at first sight of
cultures, the men of the family need to be as- little interest to people who live in a different
sured of the faithfulness of their wives to be sure society under different conditions. It has been
that their children are theirs. No similar restric- given the name Book of the Covenant by modern
tions apply to a husband in OT morality. It is scholars, from 24:7. The name suggests that the
the only sexual offence in the Ten Command- speech existed as a single document simply slot-
ments, since others do not infringe the rights of ted into the text. (There continues to be discus-
a third party in a serious way. sion among scholars about its date (see Albertz
1994: 182–3).) But it is unlikely ever to have been a
(20:15) This commandment would include kid- single document. Most of the material has been
napping as well as the theft of movable prop- taken from earlier sources, but it has been shaped
erty. The word translated ‘steal’ does not cover to fit its narrative context (see 20:22; 22:21; 23:15
exodus 114

(13:6–7); 23:20–33), and as it stands is likely to have justice. Laws like these embody such traditional
been put together by J. ideas, not in the form of legal principles, but by
The main areas covered are religious obser- evoking typical situations and giving appropri-
vance; civil law, specifically the law of bondage ate solutions (Jackson 2006: 23–39). That is why
for debt, personal injury, and property torts; so- they do not have the detail and precision one
cial justice; and judicial integrity. The arrange- would expect in a modern body of law. They are
ment of material sometimes seems capricious to probably borrowed from an old legal text to
us, but there is logic behind it, as Sprinkle (1994) illustrate the kind of justice required by
shows. 23:20–33 is concerned with the immediate YHWH in the resolution of disputes.
situation rather than with permanent rules, so it The other main style is that of personal ad-
might be described as an epilogue. The remaining monition. This is the kind of style in which a
material is arranged as follows: tribal elder might give moral instruction (cf. Jer
35:6–7; Gerstenberger 1965: 110–17), but in this
20:23–6 Rules for worship text it is clear that God is the speaker. It is there-
21:1 Heading for 21:2–22:17 fore unlikely to have been borrowed from a spe-
21:2–11 Release of slaves cific social setting; the suggestion of a ritual of
21:12–32 Personal injury covenant renewal (see Childs 1974: 455–6) is pure
21:33–22:17 Property damage (these two bridged speculation. So although the content of the in-
by the case of the goring ox) struction would have been derived from Israel’s
22:18–20 Offences against covenant holiness moral and religious tradition, its form has been
22:21–7 Treatment of dependants designed to fit its present literary setting.
22:28–30 Treatment of superiors In each case the style is appropriate to the
22:31 Covenant holiness (bracketing with subject-matter: casuistic for the settlement of
22:18–20) disputes, personal address for religious instruc-
23:1–9 Judicial integrity tion and for teaching about justice as a personal
23:10–19 Sabbaths and festivals responsibility.

The speech contains material of very different (20:22–6) Prologue: YHWH’s Presence YH-
types. Most of the material between 21:2 and WH begins his address to Moses by speaking of
22:17 is in an impersonal legal style which con- his own person and presence in worship. The first
trasts sharply with the personal address of most point, as in the Ten Commandments, is his in-
of the rest, in which YHWH speaks of himself in tolerance of idols, that is, other gods, alongside
the first person and addresses Israel as ‘you’ him: see EX 20:2–6, and Sprinkle (1994: 37–8) for a
(usually in the singular, sometimes the plural). different view. He goes on to speak positively of
For detail on these different types of law see how he should be worshipped. The altar must be
Patrick (1986: 13–33). The impersonal style sets of natural materials (E. Robertson 1948; for the
out a legal case, giving the situation ‘when such- different kinds of sacrifices, see LEV 1–7). The key
and-such happens’, and laying down what religious point, however, is in v. 25. YHWH’s
should then be done. This is the style used in presence and blessing depends not on the hu-
the Mesopotamian legal codes such as the Code manly organized cult, but on his own decision:
of Hammurabi (see ANET 159–98), and it is ‘where I proclaim my name’. This has generally
technically referred to as ‘casuistic’ law. There been understood as permitting many altars for
is also a good deal of overlap in content be- sacrifice, while Deut 12 permits only one, so that
tween this section and the Mesopotamian codes it would belong to an earlier stage in religious
(summarized by Childs 1974: 462–3). This does history than Deuteronomy. But it could be saying
not mean that the laws have been borrowed that while one altar is allowed, YHWH’s blessing
from a foreign source, simply that legal style may be received quite apart from altars and sac-
and stock examples were similar all over the rifice (Van Seters 1994: 281).
ancient Near East. Laws of this type were prob-
ably not used as the basis of judicial decisions (21:2–11) The ‘ordinances’ begin with the de-
(see Jackson 1989: 186). Jackson considers them mands of justice in relation to the use of people
‘self-executing’ laws, which would enable lay as slaves, no doubt because the people ad-
people to settle their disputes without recourse dressed have just been released from slavery
to a court. But even judges in the ancient Near themselves. For detail on the laws of slavery,
East did not normally interpret written laws, but see Chirichigno (1993); also ‘Slavery’ in ABD vi.
used their wisdom to apply traditional ideas of The law is concerned with ‘Hebrews’ who are in
 115 exodus

bonded service for debt., not with foreign slaves (21:28–36) The case of the goring ox is a topic
who might be owned outright (ibid. 200–18: also in Mesopotamian codes. It serves as a
another view of the meaning of ‘Hebrew’ in e. standard example of the way to treat cases of
g. Childs 1974: 468). Someone taking out a loan negligence, and of how to distinguish between
might hand over a child of the family to work accident (vv. 28, 35) and culpable negligence.
off the debt, or might sell a child into service in The one feature that would not be found in
order to pay off debts (Neh 5.1–5); and a creditor contemporary or modern laws is that the ox
was entitled to seize a defaulting debtor or his/ itself, if it has killed a person, is treated as a
her child (2 Kings 4:1) and either sell or use him/ criminal and stoned rather than slaughtered in
her as a slave. A creditor could seize a defaulting the normal way (vv. 28, 29, 32). Here religious
debtor or a member of his family (2 Kings 4:1) factors enter in. The ox has transgressed bound-
and either sell or use him/her as a slave; or a aries between human and animal and between
man could sell a member of his family into wild and tame animals (see Houston 1993: 182–
bondage to pay off his debts (Neh 5:1–5). The 200), so is treated as ritually detestable and not
law limits the period of such bondage to six simply dangerous; see Gen 9:5.
years. Permanent bondage could only be at the
bondsman’s own choice; but often he may have (22:1–15) The principle adopted in the property
had no genuine choice. 21:7–11 is concerned section of the laws is that equal compensation is
with a girl who is sold as a concubine or slave- acceptable for negligence (vv. 5, 6, 12, 14), but is
wife. A woman who had been sexually used and enhanced as a deterrent to deliberate theft or
might be the mother of her master’s children fraud (vv. 1,4, 7, 9); while no compensation is
could not normally be released after six years; payable in the case of accident or force majeure
but the law lists situations in which justice (vv. 11, 13).
would demand that she should be. In effect Theft and sale of livestock (v. 1) is treated
she is given the privileges of a legal wife. more severely than theft of money or articles
(v. 7), perhaps because they represented the
(21:12–17) Four capital cases are listed in des- farmer’s livelihood; oxen are compensated on
cending order of severity. All are worthy of a higher scale than sheep perhaps because
death; this indicates how seriously the require- of their working capacity (Daube 1947: 133). vv.
ment to honour parents (20:12) was taken. In v. 2–3a draw a line between justified killing in self-
17 ‘dishonour’ or ‘reject’ might be a better trans- defence and unnecessary killing, which is mur-
lation than ‘curse’. It was customary for the der. The time of day is simply an example of the
relatives of the victim to take vengeance. v. 13 factors that could be taken into account. The
limits this by protecting someone who is acci- other issue raised in this section is that of evi-
dentally responsible for a person’s death (Deut dence. Where the matter could not be settled by
19:1–13 elaborates): traditionally the altar pro- witnesses, the only recourse was religious. ‘Be-
vided sanctuary (1 Kings 2:28). Frequently the fore God’ (8, 9) probably means at a sanctuary;
victim or relatives would accept monetary com- but how was the decision made? In 11 it is
pensation (see 21:30), though in the case of clearly by oath; this may be true in 8 and 9 as
murder Num 35:31 forbids this. well (Sprinkle 1993: 146–7); other suggestions
include ordeal and divination by the priest.
(21:18–27) The general principle of justice ex-
emplified here is that of fair compensation for (22:16–17) Seduction is treated on the one hand
injury. The principle is stated in general terms in as a matter of responsibility on the part of the
the famous vv. 23–5. Later this was interpreted as seducer: he does not have the right to decide not
requiring reasonable monetary compensation to marry the girl. On the other, it is a matter of
(Daube 1947: 106–9; Childs. 1974: 472), but the father’s rights. Normally a father had the
at some earlier stage its literal application pre- right to dispose of his daughter, and to receive
vented excessive vengeance and would have en- ‘bride-price’ for her. If he chooses to exercise his
sured the rich were not at an advantage. In the right, he is compensated for the difficulty he
case of slaves, the compensation for serious will have in giving her away. The girl has no
injury or unintended killing (v. 21) is that the say in the matter.
owner loses his property. If he murders his
slave he must face punishment (v. 20). It is im- (22:18–20) gives a series of three practices which
portant that as against Mesopotamian codes the the advocates of exclusive loyalty to YHWH saw
slave is treated as a legal person. as fundamentally threatening to it, and therefore
exodus 116

deserving of death. We do not know precisely (23:10–19) A people dedicated to YHWH, who
what is meant by sorcery, but it probably in- are called by him to act with justice, honour
volved treating with spiritual powers other than him particularly in ways which serve the cause
YHWH. Bestiality transgressed fundamental rit- of justice. Two institutions particularly charac-
ual boundaries (cf. 21:28 and see Lev 18:23). Here it teristic of Israel’s religious culture are the sab-
is the community which must inflict punishment bath year (vv. 10–11) and the sabbath day (v. 12).
on YHWH’s behalf. Neither of them is called that here, possibly
because the name was attached to a different
(22:21–7) Earlier sections have treated disputes holy day in the pre-exilic period when these
in the community as resolvable by applying verses may have originated (Robinson 1988).
norms of justice. But there were great disparities The original function of the sabbath year (cf.
in wealth and power in Israelite society, as in Lev 25:1–7) is unclear, but here it is given a
ours. Some people were in a dependent situ- charitable purpose; likewise the sabbath day is
ation either temporarily or permanently. It was commended for its beneficial effects on depend-
easy to take advantage of them and prevent ants, as in Deut 5:15, not as in 20:11 (P!) for its
them from obtaining legal redress. So those sacral character in itself. v. 13 looks like a con-
who hold power over them must be both cluding verse, so what follows may be an ad-
reminded of what is just and warned of the dendum. vv. 14, 17 bracket the brief instruction
possible consequences when they have to deal about the major pilgrimage festivals of the agri-
with a just God (See Houston 2008: 105–14.). cultural year. Passover is not mentioned, pos-
The ‘resident alien’ meant an incomer from sibly because it was not yet a pilgrimage festival
another area without a property stake in the at the time of writing. The Israelites are
local community. Widows and orphans were reminded that they have already been told
vulnerable because they had no adult male pro- (13:3–10) of Unleavened Bread. The other two
tector in the immediate family. A ‘poor’ person festivals are described in exclusively agricultural
means primarily a family head who has insuffi- terms, and are given different names from those
cient resources to maintain his family (Houston customary later. ‘Harvest’ is Weeks or Pentecost,
2008: 61–4) and so needs a charitable loan. Deut 16:9–12; Lev 23:15–21; ‘Ingathering’, when
all produce is taken in before the autumn rains
(22:28–30) As the independent Israelite has du- begin, is Booths or Tabernacles, Deut 16:13–15;
ties to his dependants, he also has duties to those Lev 23:33–6.
above him, especially God (see also 13:11–16). The instructions in vv. 18–19 are connected
with festival worship. The taboos in v. 18 pos-
(22:31) In an economy of scarcity, people sibly arise because the ideas of fermentation
would be inclined to make use of any source and corruption are opposed to the purity of
of food, however suspect. But being dedicated the sacrifice. The ‘kid in mother’s milk’ prohib-
to YHWH means using a diet fitted to his dig- ition is an old conundrum. See the full discus-
nity. Mangled meat is fit only for the universal sion in Milgrom (1991: 737–41); also Houston in
scavenger. This theme is developed in much DOTP: 333–4.
more detail in Lev 11; Deut 14; see Houston
(1993: 241–4, 248–53). (23:20–33) Epilogue: Entering the Land As
the whole of the speech has looked forward to
(23:1–9) It is all very well to have norms of Israel’s settled life in the land, it is appropriate
justice. But unless they can be enforced fairly that it should be concluded with a word of
and impartially, they are of no use v. 3: ‘the promise, along with some admonition, about
poor’ is probably a textual error for ‘the great’ their journey to and entering of it. The promise
(Van Seters 2003: 137; Houston 2008: 114–15; of an ‘angel’ or messenger does not really re-
against, Houtman 2000: 240–41), vv. 4, 5, voke YHWH’s personal presence with them
which do not seem to fit this theme, underline (13:21–2)—see EX 3:1–6; especially in view of
the requirement of total impartiality. You may YHWH’s statement that ‘my name is in him’.
have a long-standing dispute with another fam- vv. 23–33 look back to the promises in 3:7–10
ily: but you should be fair to them in daily life, and expand them. Here, as in Deuteronomy (see
and, just the same, you should show no partial- Deut 7 especially), the native nations stand for
ity against them in court. v. 9 ties up the section the constant threat of the worship of the gods
on social justice by repeating the warning not to of the land (seen as idols, as in the opening of
oppress the alien which begins it in 22:21. the speech at v. 24): ‘you shall . . . demolish them’)
 117 exodus

to the exclusive loyalty demanded by YHWH. temples. The eating and drinking of the
He will do all the fighting for them (as in ch. 14!); people’s representatives in the presence of
their sole responsibility is to be faithful to him. YHWH himself is an appropriate conclusion
v. 31 very much exaggerates the territory that to the story of how they became his holy
Israel ever held at any time in her history; but as people. The promise of 19:13b is at last ful-
in vv. 25–6 the implication may well be that filled. (See Nicholson 1986: 121–33, 173–4.)
they never received the fullness of the promise vv. 12–14 prepare for YHWH’s giving of the
because they were not faithful. tablets of stone to Moses, and it also makes a
bridge to ch. 32. What exactly is written on
(24:1–8) The Conclusion of the Covenant Ch. the tablets is not made clear here: it is only at
24 is the climax of the Sinai narrative, but it 34:28 (and Deut 5:22) that it emerges it is the
contains a number of themes rather roughly Ten Commandments. It is also unclear how
pieced together. There has never been any con- the tablets relate to the document that Moses
sensus among critics about the sources or edit- has written. The tablets are to be placed in the
ing of the chapter. vv. 1–2 take us back to the Ark when it is made (25:16; 40:20; Deut 10:2–
end of ch. 19. v. 1a is most accurately translated 5); as Cassuto (1967: 331) notes, this is similar
in the Jerusalem Bible: ‘To Moses he had said’, to the provisions in ancient treaties for copies
i.e. in 19:24. YHWH’s invitation here includes to be placed in the sanctuaries of the con-
more people, but variation is common when tracting parties. Perhaps, then, the tablets are
speeches are repeated. Though we are reminded meant to be the official original of the coven-
of the invitation here, it is only taken up at v. 9. ant, while copies on papyrus may be made for
vv. 3–8 are the account of the ceremonial seal- practical purposes, vv. 15–18 are a P paragraph
ing of the covenant on the basis of the words preparing for the giving of the instructions
which YHWH has given to Moses, that is the about the tabernacle which now follow.
Ten Commandments and the Book of the Cov-
enant. The meaning of the covenant has already (25:1–31:17) The Prescriptions for the Sanctu-
been explained in 19:4–6. There (19:8) we heard ary This third long speech by YHWH from
of the people’s response in advance, and it is Sinai is an entirely Priestly passage. He gives
repeated twice here (vv. 3, 7): first Moses secures instructions here for the building of a portable
their acceptance of YHWH’s terms, then he structure which has two functions. It enables
formally seals their covenant with YHWH by the living presence of YHWH, which the Israel-
writing the terms down, reading them to them, ites have met at Sinai, to go with them on their
and hearing their acceptance again; then he journey and continue to bless them (40:34–8);
consecrates them as YHWH’s holy people and it enables Moses to continue to receive
(19:6) in a sacrificial ritual. Nicholson (1986: instructions from YHWH after the people have
171–2) has shown that although there is no ritual left Sinai (see 25:22; 29:42; Lev 1:1).
precisely like this in the OT we can understand This double function is reflected in the names
its meaning by comparing rituals which have ‘tabernacle’ and ‘tent of meeting’. In part, these
some similarity, such as the ordination of names refer to different parts of the structure
priests in 29:20. The blood of the holy offering (see ch. 26, especially v. 7): the tabernacle is the
makes them holy to YHWH. This is an imagina- arrangement of frames or boards over which
tive way of expressing in narrative form the curtains of fine material are stretched, and the
bond of will and obedience between YHWH tent is the curtains of goat’s hair which cover
and Israel. the tabernacle. But theologically the name ‘tent
of meeting’ implies (as in 33:7–11) the place where
(24:9–18) Vision of God on the Mountain God meets with Moses as the prophetic repre-
The invitation of 24:1 (19:24) is now taken sentative of Israel: while ‘tabernacle’ (miškān, lit.
up. Representatives of the people, and of the ‘dwelling’) implies the place where God dwells
future priests (Aaron and his sons), ascend the among his people. Both these understandings
mountain and receive a vision of God himself. are expressed in the conclusion to the main
As with other similar visions (Isa 6; Ezek 1), body of instructions in 29:43–6.
the Bible avoids describing the appearance of But though the name ‘tent of meeting’ is
God, but simply gives one vivid glimpse rather the commoner of the two, the physical
of the glory that surrounded him. ‘Sapphire’ image is that of a temple, differing from other
(NRSV) should probably be ‘lapis lazali’, a temples only in being portable; and a temple
common material in the decoration of was primarily thought of as a god’s permanent
exodus 118

dwelling-place on earth. (For thorough discus- personal service of the deity: the lampstand
sion of the priestly picture of the tabernacle and for light, the table for the ‘bread of the Presence’,
its service see Haran 1985: 149–259.) and the incense altar for pleasant scent. Outside
The main body of instructions, chs. 25–9, in the court stands the ‘altar of burnt offering’,
moves outwards from the centre which repre- where offerings are burnt, wholly or partially, as
sents the divine presence. First (25:10–40) the a ‘pleasing odour’ to YHWH (29:18, etc.).
sacred furniture is prescribed, beginning with Taken literally, this mode of service would
the ark and its cover which stand in the inner- imply a very crude conception of God. But the
most sanctum; then (ch. 26) the tabernacle-tent ritual goes back to time immemorial, and the
structure which screens these sacred objects text does not imply such a literal conception. It
from public view, then (ch. 27) the altar outside avoids implying that YHWH was enthroned
and the hangings which surround the court over the ark (Mettı́nger 1982: 88), and gives no
where it stands. A consecrated priesthood is indication beyond the use of traditional clichés
required to serve in this holy place, so the in- that YHWH was literally benefited by his ser-
structions proceed by prescribing their vest- vice. In fact no one had ever believed that gods
ments (ch. 28) and the rite of their ordination literally lived in their temples, in the sense that
(ch. 29) which qualifies them to serve. Chs. 28–9 they were bounded by them. God’s true temple
on the priesthood are framed by two passages is in heaven, where he sits enthroned in glory
which prescribe the permanent daily service (see Isa 6): the temple on earth is a copy of this
which is to be carried on, and so explain why (Ex 25:9; Cassuto 1967: 322), and there he makes
a priesthood is necessary: 27:20–1 on the tend- himself present to his people in a particular
ing of the lamp in the tabernacle; and 29:38–42 way.
on the daily burnt offerings. The presence of God in the centre is believed
The instructions are rounded off (29:43–6) to generate an intense holiness which is like a
with a statement by YHWH of how he will use physical influence, radiating outwards in declin-
the sanctuary, as the place of meeting and of ing degree. This is marked by the materials used
presence. However, some additional prescrip- and by the persons allowed to enter. The ma-
tions follow in ch. 30; the first (vv. 1–10) is part terials decrease in value as one moves outwards
of the main speech, the others, like those in ch. (Haran 1985: 158–65). No one may enter the
31, are added as separate short speeches. As a inner sanctum except the high priest once a
conclusion has already been given to the in- year (Lev 16:2, 29); no one but priests may
structions, and the incense altar and basin enter the outer hall or ascend the altar. The
have not been mentioned in their logical places, high priest (Aaron) and the priests (the sons of
these prescriptions are generally taken as later Aaron) are specially consecrated (29) and must
additions. preserve a special degree of ritual purity (Lev 21)
The whole passage is framed by the call for so that they can venture into these holy areas.
contributions in 25:2–9 and the provisions for Any Israelite who is ritually clean for the time
design and manufacture in 31:1–11. Why this is being (see Lev 11–16) may enter the court, but
followed by the repetition of the sabbath com- the hangings mark out the area beyond which
mandment in 31:12–17 is discussed below. the unclean may not proceed. (For further de-
The general outline of the sanctuary is similar tails see Haran 1985: 158–88.)
to that of Solomon’s temple described in 1 Kings Clearly this whole arrangement is symbolic.
6, and to that of many of the shrines in Palestine At the centre of the people’s life stands the
and its surrounding area found in archaeo- Presence of God, and order, life, and blessing
logical excavations. It clearly reflects very an- flow out from there. But there are also powers
cient ideas of the deity’s dwelling in the temple of disorder and death that have to be kept at
and having his needs attended to there by his bay. Contact between these would be deadly:
priestly servants. A covered rectangular struc- hence the carefully ordered gradation of bound-
ture stands in an open court, and is divided by a aries, material, and personnel. (See also Jenson
crosswise partition into two rooms (for a 1992: 56–88.) At the same time the system
slightly different picture see Friedman 1992). would have served to guarantee the power of
The inner, smaller room contains the principal the priests who controlled it.
symbol of the presence of the deity. The two The system is more obviously appropriate for
cherubim originally represented a throne for a settled people, despite the great care with
the invisible YHWH (see 1 Sam 4:4). In the which it is adapted to life on the move. No
outer room stands furniture required for the doubt it represents what the priests believed
 119 exodus

about the temple. The question arises whether vessels for drink-offerings; however, these were
the picture of the mobile tabernacle is imagin- not offered inside the tabernacle. The prescrip-
ary or derived from a real sanctuary. Portable tions for the lampstand are hard to follow, but
shrines existed, but the one described is far too the well-known relief of the lampstand from
elaborate to have been produced in the wilder- Herod’s temple on the Arch of Titus in Rome
ness. Critical scholars have tended to argue that probably gives a fair idea of what the writer had
it is an imaginary projection of the Jerusalem in mind; see also Meyers (ABDiv.142; cf. Meyers
temple into the period of the wilderness. Some 1976). Solomon’s temple had ten lampstands
(e.g. Friedman 1992), however, have suggested (1 Kings 7:49), but it is not said that these were
that there was a real portable shrine, not as branched. The branched lampstand appears to
elaborate as is here described, referred to in Ex be a later innovation, thrown back into the time
33:7–11 and in Num 11 and 12, which was pre- of the wilderness.
served at Shiloh and perhaps later at Jerusalem,
and that this is what the writer is describing. (26:1–37) The description is ambiguous, and
But if P is dependent on the earlier sources, it is various reconstructions have been made. The
likely that it has taken the idea of a tent-shrine main structure is the ‘frames’, or boards, de-
and the name ‘tent of meeting’ from 33:7, and with scribed in vv. 15–25. These are setup on end, so
it the function of the shrine as a place of meeting that the height of the tabernacle is 10 cubits (a
between God and his prophet, and has combined cubit was about 50 cm. or 1ft. 8 in.); but dis-
that with the temple image (similarly Childs 1974). agreement arises over whether they are set side
But there are details that do not accord with the by side, giving the tabernacle a length of 30
Jerusalem temple either before or after the Exile. cubits, or overlapping (Friedman 1992), giving
a length of (perhaps) 20 cubits. The breadth is
(25:1–9) The Israelites are to make a ‘holy place’ very uncertain, because of the difficulty of vv.
(v. 8; NRSV ‘sanctuary’), a place marked out for 23–4. The tabernacle curtains are meant to be
and by YHWH’s presence. The verse is echoed stretched over the top of the structure, forming
by 29:43 at the end of the main body of instruc- its roof and hanging down the sides; they are
tions. In v. 9, YHWH does not merely tell Moses joined together lengthwise to make an area 28
what to make: he shows him a ‘pattern’ (very
40 cubits, with the long side running the
necessary in view of the obscurity and ambigu- length of the tabernacle and hanging down the
ity of some of the prescriptions!). Perhaps the back; similarly with the tend curtains which are
writer believed that the tabernacle was a copy of stretched over the top of the tabernacle curtains
a heavenly temple (as Heb 8:5 deduces). Other and cover the parts these cannot reach.
ancient Near-Eastern priestly writers claimed The key ritual element here is the ‘curtain’
this for their temples. (not the same word as in v. 1, etc.) in vv. 31–5,
which marks off the ‘most holy place’ (Heb.
(25:10–22) The word translated ‘covenant’ (vv. ‘holy of holies’). Within the curtain is the ark,
16, 25) in the NRSV and ‘testimony’ in many outside it the other furniture. Most scholars
other versions is not the same as the word for envisage the curtain as dividing the tabernacle
‘covenant’ earlier; it is P’s term for the document crosswise in the same way as the solid wall
on the stone tablets which YHWH gives to dividing the main hall from the inner sanctum
Moses in 31.18. In the Pentateuch as it now of permanent temples, with the pillars side by
stands this must be the ten commandments side; Friedman however sees it as a canopy
(see Deut 10:2–5), but possibly not in P origin- hanging down from four pillars set in a square.
ally (Propp 2006: 383–5). vv. 17–22. The ‘mercy-
seat’ or ‘cover’ (NRSV margin; Heb. kapporet) is (27:1–8) This description is once again very am-
the central site where atonement or purification biguous. The altar is a hollow box of wooden
is made for Israel on the Day of Atonement (Lev boards overlaid with bronze: so much is clear.
16:13–15) v. 18, ‘cherubim’ were probably imagin- But as it is doubtful whether such a structure
ary winged four-footed creatures such as are could stand a fire, it is argued by Cassuto
found constantly in ancient Near-Eastern art. (1967:362) that it has no top and in use would be
YHWH is depicted as ‘riding’ or ‘seated’ on cher- filled with stones or earth (cf. 20:24–6), so that the
ubim in e.g. Ps 18:10; 80:1. fire would be laid on the stones. Even more
unclear is the placing and function of the ‘grat-
(25:23–40) The table is used both for the bread ing’. The horns (v. 2) at least are a regular feature
of the Presence (v. 24; see Lev 24:5–9) and for of altars in that cultural area. Their origin is
exodus 120

uncertain, but their use in Israelite ritual appears stones on which he bears the names of the sons
in 29:12. of Israel ‘before the LORD’—that is, in the tab-
ernacle; Urim and Thummim in which he
(27:9–19) The dimensions and function of the would ‘bear the judgement of the Israelites’;
enclosure which surrounds the altar and taber- the rosette with its inscription, which reminds
nacle are clear, even though details of the spa- YHWH that the whole people (not just Aaron)
cing of the pillars on which the hangings are is ‘holy to YHWH’, so that any unintentional
hung are not, and the placing of the altar and failures may be overlooked. During the mon-
tabernacle within the court is not specified. archy, it was the king who was the representa-
tive of the people before God; it is likely that it
(27:20–1) It is not immediately clear why this was in the post-exilic period that the high
passage is placed here (it is repeated almost priests took over this function, and perhaps
word for word in Lev 24:2–4): for my suggestion much of the array ascribed here to Aaron was
see above. EX 25:1–31:17. Why it speaks of only originally the king’s.
one light is also unclear; it is likely that it is a
fragment of a different tradition from that (29:1–37) This chapter prescribes a ritual
which calls for seven, which has become dom- which is carried out in Lev 8, where it is again
inant in the text. described in detail; Lev 9 goes on to describe
the ritual of the eighth day, when Aaron enters
(28:1–43) This chapter now introduces the fully on his priesthood. Fuller comment will
priesthood to serve in the holy place, and details therefore be found at LEV 8–9; for the details of
the vestments they are to wear for that purpose. the different sacrifices LEV 1–4; and for the ‘ele-
Aaron is to be the high priest, his sons the priests. vation offering’ (vv. 24, 26) Lev 7:28–38. Briefly,
Obviously what is said of Aaron will apply to the elements of the ordination ritual are as
each high priest after him. Most of the chapter follows: investiture in the sacred vestments
(vv. 2–39) is concerned with Aaron’s vestments, (vv. 5–6, 8–9); anointing, a symbol of appoint-
which are designed for officiating within the tab- ment (v. 7; only for Aaron, though 28:41 men-
ernacle (Haran 1985: 210–13). v. 40 lists the gar- tions anointing for them all); and ordination
ments of Aaron’s sons, for service at the altar, and proper (vv. 10–35), which is a seven-day rite of
v. 41 points forward to their vesting and ordin- passage (v. 35) consisting of particular sacri-
ation prescribed in detail in the next chapter. The fices. The defining moment is the ritual in vv.
undergarments or drawers prescribed in vv. 42–3 19–21, in which some of the blood of the ‘ram
may be a later development, but as their function of ordination’ is smeared on representative
is a negative one (cf. 20:26) they might in any case extremities of the ordinands and the rest
not be mentioned along with the garments which dashed on the sides of the altar. Cf. 24:6–8:
are designed for ‘glorious adornment’ (vv. 2, 40). the smearing or sprinkling of a token portion
These are made of the same costly materials (v. 5) of the blood of a sacrifice which is at the same
as the tabernacle itself. The ephod (vv. 6–14) ap- time made holy by its offering to God makes
pears to be a sort of apron with shoulder-straps; it the person holy to God. The altar (vv. 36–7)
is the most visible and impressive of the vest- also requires purification from any unclean-
ments. The ‘breastpiece of judgement’ (vv. 15– ness it may have contracted, and consecration.
30) is so called because it holds the Urim and ‘Sin offering’ and ‘atonement’ (NRSV) are
Thummim (v. 30), which are objects used for clearly unsatisfactory translations in reference
divination (Num 27:21). The robe (vv. 31–5) is to an inanimate object: ‘purification offering’
worn under the ephod, and is of simpler work- and ‘purification’ (Milgrom 1991: 253–4) are
manship, except for the hem. The bells protect better. Its consecration is not simply dedica-
Aaron (v. 35) perhaps by preventing him making tion: it becomes actively holy so as to engulf in
an unannounced approach before the throne its holiness anything that touches it: this is a
(Cassuto 1967: 383). Like the other elements of warning, for it is certain death for anyone who
ritual in the tabernacle, they go back to a more is not already consecrated.
primitive conception of deity. The tunic goes
under the robe, but it may have sleeves, unlike (29:38–42) Mention of the altar leads into
the other vestments. instruction for its one regular daily use; but
The balance and structure of the account as I have suggested it also serves, with 27:20–
emphasize those elements in Aaron’s attire 1, to frame the instructions for the priesthood
which express his representative function: the with a representative reminder of the daily
 121 exodus

need for a priesthood: Aaron to enter the tab- (30:17–21) The concern here is not for ordinary
ernacle to dress the lamps, and his sons to dirt, but for ritual uncleanness (Lev 11–15), which
serve at the altar. The prime reason for the to the priests, who are constantly in the holy
existence of a public sanctuary is to offer pub- place and handling holy things, is a constant
lic offerings paid for out of public resources threat. Washing the body is the normal way of
(see 30:11–16) as a formal expression of the removing low-grade uncleanness.
community’s homage to its God. The Jerusa-
lem temple under the monarchy would have (30:22–38) These two sections each provide for
had such a regular offering paid for by the the compounding of distinctive substances
king: P needs to emphasize the importance of which are to be used exclusively in the service
continuing it by placing its beginning in the of the tabernacle. They are ‘holy’ (vv. 25, 36)
wilderness. both in this sense and as far as the oil is con-
cerned in the sense that it is a sign which con-
(29:43–6) The speech comes to a fitting climax veys holiness to the objects and persons which
in which YHWH defines the purpose of all the are anointed with it.
elaborate provisions which he has been reciting,
and makes it clear that they are the fulfilment of (31:1–11) Bezalel’s qualifications come to him
the promise he had made while the people were by a twofold action of YHWH, who both calls
slaves in Egypt, that ‘I will take you as my people, him and fills him with divine spirit. Although
and I will be your God’ (6:7). What he had not said these graces are most frequently referred to as
there was that he would meet with them and dwell bestowing gifts of leadership and of prophecy,
among them. It is the tent of meeting that makes they are clearly not confined to those connec-
this possible. And even though he has been giv- tions. P has laid stress throughout on the im-
ing directions for Moses to consecrate the tent, the portance of the materials and design of the
altar, and the priests, he makes it clear that it is he tabernacle and its furniture; they help to give
himself, YHWH, who will really consecrate them, them their holy character. It is therefore natural
and he will do this by his presence, which is that the skill which is needed to create them
summed up in the symbol of his ‘glory’, which should be seen as a divine gift.
for P is a literal dazzling radiance. ‘And they shall
know . . . ’ (v. 46): of all the acts by which Israel (31:12–17) It is appropriate that the sabbath
comes to know their God, this, for P, is the su- command should be repeated here, with its
preme one, that he dwells among them and grounding in the creation account in Gen 1:1–
speaks with them. 2:3. The tabernacle represents God’s heavenly
dwelling-place, where he rested after his exer-
(30:1–10) This may reflect an addition to the tions in creation, and the sabbath represents his
furniture of the Second Temple. Incense was at heavenly rest (cf. Levenson 1988: 79–99). The
all times in the ancient Near East a common passage bears a number of marks of the style
element of ritual; its sweet smell was held to and concerns of the editor of the Holiness Code
attract the favour of the deity and appease the (Lev 17–26), who may have been the final editor
deity’s wrath. But we more commonly hear of its of the Priestly material (Knohl 1994). The sab-
being offered in censers carried in the hand. Al- bath is not only holy itself, but is a way God has
though it is an addition to the ritual, it is fully given of expressing the holiness of the people (v.
integrated into the complex of acts of ‘service’ 13). For the first time a penalty is given for
which Aaron performs in the tabernacle (vv. 7–8) breaking it (vv. 14–15): as with other offences
(Haran 1985: 230–45). For v. 10, see Lev 16. against Israel’s holiness to YHWH, it is death
(cf. Lev 20).
(30:11–16) During the monarchy the regular
offering would have been the king’s responsi- (Chs. 32–4) Covenant Breaking and Re-
bility; in Neh 10:32–3 we find the community as newal (For a thorough treatment of 32–4, see
a whole taking the responsibility on themselves Moberly 1983; also Van Seters 1994: 290–360.)
through a poll-tax; the census ransom is P’s The story here takes a turn which is of great
version of this. It was an ancient belief that importance for the theological message of the
carrying out a census was a dangerous act book. After the people have solemnly accepted
which might arouse the envy of the deity: see YHWH’s covenant on the basis of his com-
2 Sam 24. The token offering averts this, as well mandments, the first thing they do is to break
as providing for the offering. the most fundamental of them; they desert the
exodus 122

worship of YHWH for an idol. This is a ‘test’ (see in 32:4 is identical to Jeroboam’s announcement
17:2) of the covenant, and of YHWH’s commit- in 1 Kings 12:28. There can be no doubt that one
ment to his people, of the most radical sort. He or other of the writers has deliberately de-
would have every justification in destroying scribed the event in terms drawn from the
them and starting afresh, and says so in 32:10. other account. It is likely that Kings is the
But this does not happen; why not? source. The bull was a common symbol of
The story makes Moses responsible for rec- deity in Canaanite culture; it fits with this that
onciling YHWH to the people. Moses struggles the kingdom of Israel should have had bulls as
with YHWH from 32:11 to 34:9, first to avert the its official cult symbols, and the story in 1 Kings
threatened destruction, and then to ensure the 12 is a slanted and polemical account of how
full restoration of his presence with them and they were introduced. Calling the bulls ‘calves’ is
graciousness to them. And this he achieves. deliberate disparagement, probably begun by
The people do nothing towards this, and Hosea (Hos 8:5, 6; 10:5). I follows his usual
make no renewed promises. They express no practice of tracing back key themes in Israel’s
repentance for their apostasy; Moberly (1983; later history into the wilderness period. (For
60–1) shows that their mourning in 33:4 is not another view, see Moberly 1983: 161–71.)
repentance. Moses here comes into his own as
a heroic figure (see EX A). For months he has (32:1–6) The calf which Aaron makes is in the
simply obeyed orders; now he not only acts on first place a subsitute for Moses, who repre-
his own initiative, but, with deference but de- sented God’s guidance in a concrete way. With-
termination, sets himself against YHWH’s ex- out him, the people feel the need for a visible
pressed intention and fights on behalf of the expression of divine guidance. The course they
people whom YHWH himself has made his urge on Aaron is described in terms which
responsibility, ignoring inducements (32:10), suggest that they are behaving exactly like pa-
and putting his own life on the line for their gans. Gods are something that can be made.
sake (32:32). Aaron makes a pitiful contrast: Why ‘gods’, when there is only one image?
‘Aaron was too weak to restrain the people; Because to speak of ‘gods’ in the plural is typical
Moses was strong enough to restrain even of pagans (see 1 Sam 4:7–8; 1 Kings 20:23); the
God’ (Childs 1974: 570). But if Moses acquires sentence is probably taken from 1 Kings 12:28,
new stature in this episode, so too does but not unthinkingly—the fact that there are
YHWH. What Moses appeals to is YHWH’s two calves does not make it more appropriate
own promise and character. He cannot per- there (see Moberly 1983: 163). Is the calf intended
suade him to do something that he does not as an image of YHWH? It is hailed as having
want to do. And when YHWH at the climax of ‘brought you up out of the land of Egypt’, and
the story proclaims his own characteristics, the feast which Aaron announces is a festival
what comes first is his mercy, steadfast love, for YHWH. But the author leaves no doubt that
and forgiveness (34:6–7). He proves himself a they are not really worshipping YHWH. See EX
God able in the end to bear with a people who 20:2–6. Therefore the people have indeed
not only have sinned but are likely to go on broken the first commandment.
sinning, as Moses confesses (34:9). The legalistic
interpretation of the covenant, that breaking (32:7–14) This passage has caused difficulty.
the commandment means death, suggested in Why should Moses react so violently in v. 19 if
20:5, 23:21, and 32:10, is set aside without being YHWH had already told him on the mountain?
formally repudiated (34:7b). It is on this basis How can the long process of intercession in
that YHWH’s presence is able to go with the 32:30–34:9 be understood if Moses has already
people, as he has already promised in 33:17; and secured YHWH’s forgiveness in v. 14? It is a
so the elaborate provisions that he has made matter of literary technique. The key issues are
for this are able to go forward. set out here, right after the account of Israel’s
We may treat this passage as a literary unity, sin, and they govern the whole story. There is,
though many would see 32:9–14 and 25–9 as in any case, no real difficulty in understanding
later expansions (see Moberly 1983: 157–86 and Moses’ reaction on actually seeing the worship
Van Seters 1994: 290–5). Interesting questions of the golden calf; and it is often overlooked
arise when we compare the story, particularly that Moses is not himself told of YHWH’s
32:1–6, with the story of Jeroboam and his change of heart. v. 14 is a narrative comment
calves in 1 Kings 12. In both cases the cultic which gives the reader the advantage over
object is described as a golden calf, and the cry Moses; as far as he knows, there is everything
 123 exodus

still to play for; and YHWH, as befits the ser- among them. The ‘angel’, as in 23:20, may repre-
iousness of the sin, will not immediately reveal sent YHWH and even be a form of his presence.
his forgiveness. ‘Stiff-necked’ (v. 9) is one of the But what he refuses to give them is his presence
motifs of the story, repeated in 33:3, 5:34:9. In among them. Moberly (1983: 62–3) suggests that
YHWH’s demand ‘Now let me alone’, ‘he pays this presence would be experienced through the
such deference to [Moses’] prayers as to say they medium of a sanctuary; and the following sec-
are a hindrance to him’ (Calvı́n 1854: iii. 341); tion supports this.
and he then indirectly reminds Moses of the
right basis for such prayers. ‘Of you I will (33:7–11) This section is a digression from the
make a great nation’ recalls his promise to main thread of the narrative, but not an irrele-
Abraham, Gen 12:2. Moses in his reply picks vant digression. It describes not what Moses did
this up, as well as reminding YHWH of the next, but what he regularly did; the period over
danger to his reputation, which had been which he did it is not specified, but see Num 11
one of the main themes of the struggle with and Deut 31:14–15. It is mentioned to make clear
Pharaoh. how Moses was still able to communicate with
YHWH although he had refused his presence in
(32:15–24) The tablets are the focus in vv. 15– their midst. He does it through the medium of a
19. Moses’ breaking of them appears to signify tent shrine; but unlike the one provided for in
that the covenant is at an end, and this is chs. 25–6 it is pitched way outside the camp, a
confirmed in ch. 34, where a new covenant is clear enough sign of the danger of YHWH’s
made on conditions inscribed on new tablets. coming any closer. v. 11 underlines the special
Could a calf made of gold be burnt and privilege of Moses in speaking with YHWH ‘face
ground to powder? It is possible that the de- to face’, and this leads in appropriately to the
scription has simply been taken over from next passage of intercession.
Deut 9:21 (Van Seters 1994: 303–7); Deuteron- Although P takes over the name ‘tent of
omy does not say what the calf was made of. meeting’, there are many differences between
vv. 21–4 recall Gen 3. Aaron contrives to throw this tent and his, besides its location. It is a
all the blame on the people and minimizes his place not of priestly service and sacrifice but
own part, in contrast with Moses, who identi- of prophetic revelation, and YHWH appears
fies himself with the people in his struggles not in its innermost recesses but at its entrance.
with God. It has been conjectured that this tent of meeting
was an ancient prophetic institution in Israel.
(32:25–9) is another passage that has caused But Van Seters (1994: 341–4) suggests that it is J’s
difficulty, partly because Moses inflicts a fearful imaginative reconstruction.
punishment on the people, whereas elsewhere
he pleads for forgiveness, partly because the (33:12–23) The story of Moses’ intercession
punishment seems quite random. It should be with YHWH is taken up again at the point
noted that what Moses pleads against is the where it was left in 33:4. Moses’ object is to
total destruction of the people, and then gain YHWH’s personal presence among the
YHWH’s withdrawal of his presence from people. In v. 14 the translation ‘I will go with
Israel’s midst; this does not rule out an exem- you’ (NRSV and others) makes nonsense of the
plary punishment. v. 35 expresses the same idea, conversation. Only in v. 17 does YHWH finally
though it has been interpreted as the much later grant Moses what he has been asking for, his
fulfilment of the threat in v. 34. The passage presence with the people. At v. 14 all he says is
serves to account for the special position of ‘My presence will go’, without the vital word
the Levites in Israelite society. ‘with’. Moses’ success is remarkable: a holy God
has agreed to be present with a people who are
(32:30–33:6) In this episode of intercession, still sinful and show no serious sign of repent-
Moses clearly does not achieve his object, though ance. Moses’ further request in v. 18 seems at
it is not easy to follow the conversations be- first sight to be purely selfish. But it becomes
tween Moses and YHWH because of their polite clear when YHWH grants it (in his own way) in
and allusive language. 32:33 rejects Moses’ offer, 34:5–7 that the vision of his ‘goodness’ which he
and v. 34 warns that a time of punishment is yet has promised Moses has everything to do with
to come. YHWH is not yet reconciled. For v. 35, the people’s need of mercy and forgiveness.
see above on vv. 25–9. In 33:1–3 YHWH sends the Moses has achieved much, but he has still not
people off to Canaan, but without his presence gained the main point, absolute forgiveness.
exodus 124

The answer he got to the direct request in 32:32 but it is not necessary for the author to repeat
was not encouraging, so he tries an indirect one, the entire code, as only certain things need to be
and this time receives definite, though still in- emphasized. Moses is commanded to write the
direct, encouragement (v. 20). YHWH is merci- words, as he had done in 24:4. The text in 28
ful, though he reserves to himself absolute seems to say that Moses wrote on the tablets.
discretion in deciding whom to be merciful to. But YHWH has already said (34:1) that he him-
self would write the words on them. So prob-
(34:1–9) The episode moves to its climax. ably the subject of the last sentence in v. 28 is
YHWH’s order to Moses in v. 1 leaves no YHWH, and Moses is thought of as writing a
doubt now that he intends to restore the cov- separate copy. But what did YHWH write?
enant shattered with the tablets in 32:19. Moses Up to this point the implication has been
alone goes up the mountain. The people’s re- that it would be the words in vv. 11–26, yet
bellion leaves them no role but humbly to ac- the text adds that it was ‘the ten command-
cept their Lord’s good pleasure. YHWH’s ments’. This can only mean 20:2–17. The likely
proclamation of his own name and qualities in explanation is that someone has added the
vv. 6–7 is another version of the descriptions in words ‘the ten commandments’, remembering
20:5–6 and Deut 7:9–10, and is itself repeatedly that in Deut 5 it is these which are written on
quoted elsewhere (e.g. Ps 103:8). It lays stress on the tablets and trying to make Exodus and Deu-
his forgiveness, and avoids saying that he is teronomy agree.
gracious ‘to those that love me and keep my
commandments’. The centre is his ‘steadfast (34:29–35) The shining of Moses’ face as a sign
love’ (Heb. hesed; other translations ‘faithful- of intense spiritual experience is not unparal-
_ This is the gracious favour
ness’, ‘mercy’). leled: one might think of Jesus’ transfiguration
which a patron shows to those who have (Mk 9:2–8) or the experience reported of St
come under his protection (or the loyalty Seraphim of Sarov. It is not clear why Moses
which they show to him); it is gracious and yet puts a veil over his face when he has finished
at the same time required of him by the rela- reporting YHWH’s commands, unless perhaps
tionship, an idea difficult for us to grasp in a simply to avoid standing out unnecessarily
society which has separated institutional obli- when not performing his religious and leader-
gation and personal motivation (cf. Kippenberg ship functions.
1982: 32). There remains a paradox in the proc-
lamation: YHWH forgives iniquity, and yet he (Chs. 35–40) The Building of the Sanctuary
also punishes it, even to the fourth generation. With the covenant relationship restored, the
As we have already seen, punishment is not instructions given by YHWH to create a sanc-
excluded even where he has resolved to forgive. tuary for him can now be carried out. This
The essential thing is that the relationship is account obviously depends very closely on
restored and maintained in perpetuity, however chs. 25–31; in the parts which describe the
much Israel’s sinfulness may test it. actual construction the instructions are repro-
duced word for word with the appropriate
(34:10–28) And this is what YHWH promises changes. As the incense altar and laver are
in his proclamation ‘I hereby make a covenant’. described in their proper places, the account
A covenant, because what he now does is new. was obviously written from the start in de-
The precise reference of the rest of v. 10 is pendence on the whole passage chs. 25–31
unclear; even whether ‘you’ is Moses or Israel; including its afterthoughts. Every paragraph
but it is clear that the covenant is primarily concludes ‘as YHWH had commanded Moses’
YHWH’s promise to Moses to forgive Israel. to underline the authority behind the con-
There are conditions; they are not new, but struction. As the instructions had concluded
almost entirely a selection of the command- with the repetition of the sabbath command,
ments from the Book of the Covenant (see EX Moses’ commands to the Israelites begin with
20:22–23:33) with particular emphasis on the it. A detailed account of the offering follows in
exclusive worship of YHWH. vv. 11–16 are a 35:4–36:7, together with the calling of Bezalel
rewriting of 23:23–4, 32–3; v. 17 is a version of and Oholiab. The construction of the various
20:23; and vv. 18–26 are 23:15–19 with some items occupies 36:8–39:43. The account begins
expansion, mostly from 13:12–13 (cf. 22:29–30). with the tabernacle itself before moving on to
The implication is that, as YHWH has already the furniture which is placed in it. It is broken
said in 34:1, the covenant terms are still in force, only by the account of the contributed metals
 125 exodus

in 38:24–31. This does not reproduce any single Clines, D. (1995a), ‘The Ten Commandments, Read-
passage in 25–31, but is deduced from its data; ing from Left to Right’, in Interested Parties: The
as far as the silver is concerned the figure Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible
in 38:25 is derived from the census figure in (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), 26–45.
Num 1:46 on the assumption that the ransom —— (1995b), ‘God in the Pentateuch; Reading
commanded in 30:11–16 was intended for the against the Grain’, ibid. 187–211.
construction. Croatto, J. S. (1981), Exodus: A Hermeneutics of Freedom
(38:8) No one can really explain this odd (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books).
note. 1 Sam 2:22 is no help. Cross, F. M. (1973), ‘The Song of the Sea and Canaan-
When all is complete, YHWH gives the order ite Myth’, in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cam-
to set the tabernacle up and consecrate it and bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press), 112–44.
ordain its priesthood (40:1–15). For the fulfil- Daube, D. (1947), Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge:
ment of much of this we must wait till Lev 8; Cambridge University Press).
but here we are told of the setting up of the Davies, G. I. (1979), The Way of the Wilderness: A Geo-
tabernacle (40:16–33), and this is followed im- graphical Study of the Wilderness Itineraries in the Old
mediately by the climax of the whole account, Testament, SOTSMS 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
the entry of the glory of YHWH into his dwell- versity Press).
ing-place. The glory is described as cloud and Dever, W. G. (1992), ‘Israel, History of (Archaeology
fire, as it appeared on Sinai in 24:16–17. The and the ‘‘Conquest’’)’, ABD iii. 545–58.
object of all the work has been achieved: the DOTP ¼ Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, eds.
presence of YHWH, as it had been on Sinai, is T. D. Alexander & D. W. Baker (Downers Grove,
with his people for ever, and guides them on IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003).
their journeys. Durham, J. J. (1987), Exodus, WBC (Waco, Tex.: Word
Books).
Exum, J. C. (1993), ‘‘‘You Shall Let Every Daughter
REFERENCES
Live’’: A Study of Exodus 1.8–2.10’, Semeia, 28: 53–
Albertz, R. (1994), A History of Israelite Religion in the 82, repr. in Athalya Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Com-
Old Testament Period (2 vols.: London: SCM). panion to Exodus to Deuteronomy (Sheffield: Sheffield
Alter, R. (1981), The Art of Biblical Narrative (London: Academic Press, 1994), 37–61.
Allen & Unwin). —— (1994), ‘Second Thoughts about Secondary
Auffret, P. (1983), ‘The Literary Structure of Ex. 6.2–8’, Characters: Women in Exodus 1.8–2.10’, ibid.
JSOT 27: 46–54. 75–87.
Bimson, J. J. (1978), Redating the Exodus and Conquest, Fewell, D. N. and Gunn, D. M. (1993), Gender, Power
JSOTSup 5 (Sheffield: JSOT). and Promise: The Subject of the Bible’s First Story (Nash-
Blenkinsopp, J. (1992), The Pentateuch: An Introduction ville: Abingdon).
to the First Five Books of the Bible (London: SCM). Finkelstein, I. (1988), The Archaeology of the Israelite
Brenner, M. L. (1991), The Song of the Sea: Ex. 15, 1–21, Settlement (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society).
BZAW 195 (Berlin: de Gruyter). Friedman, R. E. (1992), ‘Tabernacle’ in ABD vi. 292–
Brichto, H. C. (1963), The Problem of ‘Curse’ in the Hebrew 300.
Bible, JBL Monograph Ser. 13 (Philadelphia: Society Gerstenberger, E. (1965), Wesen und Herkunft des ‘apo-
for Biblical Literature and Exegesis). diktischen Rechts’, WMANT 20 (Neukirchen Vluyn:
Brueggemann, W. (1995), ‘Pharaoh as Vassal: A Study Neukirchener Verlag).
of a Political Metaphor’, CBQ 57: 27–51. Gottwald, N. K. (1980), The Tribes of Yahweh: A Soci-
Calvin, J. (1854), Commentary on the Four Last Books of ology of Liberated Israel, 1250–1050 B.C.E. (London,
Moses, arranged in the Form of a Harmony, tr. C. W. SCM).
Bingham (4 vols.; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Gowan, D. E. (1994), Theology in Exodus: Biblical The-
Society). ology in the Form of a Commentary (Louisville, Ky.:
—— (1953), Institutes of the Christian Religion, tr. H. Westminster/John Knox).
Beveridge (2 vols.; London: James Clarke). Gunn, D. M. (1982), ‘The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart’,
Cassuto, U. (1967), A Commentary on Exodus (Jerusa- in David J. A. Clines, David M. Gunn, and Alan J.
lem: Magnes). Hauser (eds.), Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical
Childs, B. S. (1974), Exodus: A Commentary (London: Literature, JSOTSup 19 (Sheffield: JSOT), 72–96.
SCM). Gutiérrez, G. (1988), A Theology of Liberation, rev. edn.
Chirichigno, G. C. (1993), Debt-Slavery in Israel and (London: SCM).
the Ancient Near East, JSOTSup 141 (Sheffield: Habel, N. (1965), ‘The Form and Significance of the
JSOT). Call Narratives’, ZAW 77: 297–323.
exodus 126

Haran, M. (1985), Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Levenson, J. D. (1988), Creation and the Persistence of Evil
Israel, 2nd edn. (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns). (San Francisco: Harper & Row).
Herrmann, J. (1927), ‘Das zehnte Gebot’, in A. Jirku Luther, M. (1896), ‘The Larger Catechism’, in Wace
(ed.), Sellin-Festschrift (Leipzig: A. Deichert), 69–82. and Buchheim (eds.), Luther’s Primary Works, ii.
Herrmann, S. (1973), Israel in Egypt, CSBT 2nd ser. 27 Mendenhall, G. E. (1992a), ‘Covenant’ in ABD, i. 1179–
(London: SCM). 1202.
Hoffmeier, J. K. (1997), Israel in Egypt: the evidence for the —— (1992b), ‘Midian’ in ABD, iv. 815–18.
authenticity of the Exodus tradition (New York: Oxford Mettinger, T. N. D. (1982), The Dethronement of Sabaoth:
University). Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies, ConBOT 18
Hort, G. (1957–8), ‘The Plagues of Egypt’, ZAW 69: (Lund: Gleerup).
84–103; 70: 48–59. —— (1995), No Graven’ Image? Israelite Aniconism in its
Houston, W. J. (1993), Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Ancient Near Eastern Context, ConBoT (Stockholm:
Unclean Animals in Biblical Law, JSOTSup 140 (Shef- Almqvist & Wiksell Int.).
field: JSOT). Meyers, C. (1976), The Tabernacle Menorah (Missoula,
—— (1997), ‘Misunderstanding or Midrash?’, ZAW Mont.: Scholars Press).
109: 342–55. Milgrom, J. (1991), Leviticus 1–16, AB 3 (New York:
—— (2007), ‘The Character of YHWH and the Ethics Doubleday).
of the Hebrew Bible: Is Imitatio Dei a Safe Prin- Miranda, J. P. (1973), Marx and the Bible (London,
ciple?’, JTS 58, 1–25. SCM).
—— (2008), Contending for Justice: Ideologies and The- Moberly, R. W. L. (1983), At the Mountain of God: Story
ologies of Social Justice in the Old Testament (2nd ed., and Theology in Exodus 32–34, JSOTSup 22 (Sheffield:
London: T & T Clark). JSOT).
Houtman, C. (1993), Exodus, Historical Commentary —— (1992), The Old Testament of the Old Testament:
on the Old Testament, vol. i (Kampen: Kok). Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism (Minneap-
—— (1996), Exodus, vol. ii (Kampen: Kok). olis: Fortress).
—— (2000), Exodus, vol. iii (Leuven: Peeters). Moran, W. L. (1967), ‘The Conclusion of the Deca-
Hughes, J. (1990), Secrets of the Times: Myth and History logue (Ex. 20, 17 ¼ Dt. 5. 21)’, CBQ 29, 543–4.
in Biblical Chronology, JSOTSup 66 (Sheffield: JSOT). Nicholson, E. W. (1986), God and his People: Covenant
Jackson, B. S. (1989), ‘Ideas of Law and Legal Admin- and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Claren-
istration’, in R. E. Clements (ed.), The World of don).
Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Noth, M. (1962), Exodus: A Commentary (London:
Press), 185–202. SCM).
—— (2006), Wisdom-Laws: A Study of the Mishpatim of Patrick, D. (1986), Old Testament Law (London: SCM).
Exodus 21:1–22:16 (Oxford: Oxford University). —— (1994), ‘Is the Truth of the First Commandment
Janzen, J. G. (1992), ‘Song of Moses, Song of Miriam: Known by Reason?’, CBQ 56: 423–41.
Who is Seconding Whom?’, CBQ 54: 211–20, repr. Phillips, A. C. J. (1970), Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law: A
in Athalya Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Companion to New Approach to the Decalogue (Oxford: Blackwell).
Exodus to Deuteronomy (Sheffield: Sheffield Aca- Propp, W. H. C. (1998), Exodus 1–18, AB 2 (New York:
demic Press, 1994), 187–99. Doubleday).
Jenson, P. P. (1992), Graded Holiness, JSOTS 106 (Shef- —— (2006), Exodus 19–40, AB 2A (New York: Dou-
field: Sheffield Academic Press). bleday).
Johnstone, W. (1990), Exodus, Old Testament Guides Ramsey, G. W. (1981), The Quest for the Historical Israel
(Sheffield: JSOT). (London: SCM).
Kippenberg, H. G. (1982), Religion und Klassenbildung Redford, D. B. (1963), ‘Exodus I, II’, VT 13: 401–18.
im antiken Judäa: Eine religionssoziologische Studie zum Robertson, D. (1977), The Old Testament and the Literary
Verhältnis von Tradition und gesellschaftlicher Entwick- Critic (Philadelphia: Fortress).
lung (SUNT 14), 2nd edn. (Göttingen: Vanden- Robertson, E. (1948), ‘The Altar of Earth (Exodus xx,
hoeck & Ruprecht). 24–26)’, JJS 1:12–21.
Kirkpatrick, P. (1988), The Old Testament and Folklore Robinson, G. (1988), The Origin and Development of the
Study, JSOTSup 62 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Old Testament Sabbath, BBET 21 (Bern: Peter Lang).
Press). Römer, T. (1994), ‘De l’archaı̈que au subversif: le cas
Knohl, I. (1994), The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah d’Exode 4/24–26’, ETR 69: 1–12.
and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress). Rost, L. (1943), ‘Weidewechsel und altisraelitischer
Langston, S. M. (2006), Exodus Through the Centuries, Festkalendar’, ZDPV 66: 205–16.
Blackwell Bible Commentaries (Oxford: Black- Schmidt, B. B. (1995), ‘The Aniconic Tradition: On
well). Reading Images and Viewing Texts’, in Diana
 127 leviticus

V. Edelman (ed.), The Triumph of Elohim (Kampen: —— (2003), A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the
Kok Pharos), 75–105. Study of the Covenant Code (New York: Oxford Uni-
Schmidt, W. H. (1988), Exodus 1. Teilband: Exodus 1–6, versity).
BKAT (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag). Vaux, R. de (1978), The Early History of Israel (2 vols.;
Smith, G. A. (1918), The Book of Deuteronomy, Cam- London: Darton, Longman & Todd).
bridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: —— (1961), Ancient Israel, its Life and Institutions (Lon-
Cambridge University Press). don: Darton, Longman & Todd).
Sprinkle, J. M. (1994), ‘The Book of the Covenant’, a Weinfeld, M. (1991), Deuteronomy 1–11 AB 5 (New York:
Literary Approach, JSOTSup 174 (Sheffield: JSOT). Doubleday).
Trible, P. (1994), ‘Bringing Miriam out of the Wilson, R. R. (1977), Genealogy and History in the
Shadows’, in Athalya Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Biblical World, YNER 7 (New Haven: Yale Univer-
Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy (Sheffield: Shef- sity Press).
field Academic Press), 166–86: repr. from Bible Zimmerli, W. (1968), ‘Das zweite Gebot’, in Gottes
Review 5/1 (1989), 170–90. Offenbarung (Munich: Kaiser), 234–48.
Van Seters, J. (1994), The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as —— (1982), ‘I am Yahweh’, in I am Yahweh (Atlanta:
Historian in Exodus–Numbers (Kampen: Kok Pharos). John Knox), 1–28.

6. Leviticus
lester l. grabbe
INTRODUCTION Atonement for sanctuary and people (scape-
goat ritual) (ch. 16)
A. Structure and Contents. 1. The structure
Holiness code (chs. 17–26)
and content of Leviticus as a whole can be
Question of blood (ch. 17)
briefly outlined as follows:
Forbidden sexual relations (ch. 18)
Sacrificial system (chs. 1–7) Miscellaneous laws on being holy (chs. 19–20)
Introduction (1:1–2) Laws for priests (ch. 21)
Whole burnt offering (1:3–17) Laws on holy things and sacrifice (ch. 22)
Cereal offering (ch. 2) Who may eat of holy things (22:1–16)
Well-being offering (ch. 3) No blemished animals (22:17–25)
Sin offering (chs. 4–5) Miscellaneous laws (22:26–30)
Normal sin offering (ch. 4) Concluding admonition (22:31–33)
Graduated sin offering (5:1–13) Festivals (ch. 23)
Guilt offering (5:14–6:7 (HB 5:14–26)) Lamps and bread of presence (24:1–9)
Laws (tôrôt) of the offerings (chs. 6–7) Question of blasphemy (24:10–23)
Law of burnt offering (6:8–13 (HB 6:1–6)) Sabbatical and jubilee years (ch. 25)
Law of cereal offering (6:14–18 (HB 6:7–11)) Blessings and curses (ch. 26)
Offering at Aaron’s anointment (6:19–23 Appendix: vows and tithe of livestock (ch. 27)
(HB 6:12–16))
2. At various points in this commentary, the
Law of sin offering (6:24–30 (HB 6:17–23))
form critical structure of passages will be dis-
Law of guilt offering (7:1–10)
cussed. For further detailed information on the
Law of well-being offering (7:11–18)
structure and contents of Leviticus, one should
Miscellaneous instructions (7:19–38)
consult the Leviticus volume of the Abingdon
Initiation of Aaron and sons to the priesthood
series, the Forms of Old Testament Literature,
(chs. 8–10)
when it appears. In the meantime, the commen-
Consecration of priests (chs. 8–9)
tary by Hartley (1992) is very valuable for its
Death of Nadab and Abihu (10:1–11)
extensive discussion of the form criticism of
Question of consuming the offerings (10:12–20)
each section of the book.
Purity and pollution (chs. 11–15)
Clean and unclean animals (ch. 11)
Childbirth (ch. 12) B. History of the Tradition. 1. We can say with
Skin diseases (‘leprosy’) (chs. 13–14) some confidence that the book of Leviticus has
Genital discharges (ch. 15) had a long period of growth, with numerous
leviticus 128

additions and editings. Scholarship is practic- Zevit 1982). Indeed, Milgrom even suggests that
ally unanimous on this point. We can also state P was originally composed for the pre-monar-
that much of the material within it seems to chic territory centring on the temple at Shiloh.
derive from priestly circles. Thus, Leviticus is a On the other hand, Gerstenberger (1993) con-
‘Priestly’ document as it now stands, whether or tinually discusses how the book fits into the
not there was a P source as envisaged by the situation in the post-exilic community, and
Documentary Hypothesis. More controversial Blenkinsopp (1996) has recently challenged the
are the precise stages of this growth. In recent linguistic arguments of Hurvitz and others for a
years many monographs, as well as commen- pre-exilic dating. A further factor to consider is
taries, have attempted to tease out the different the current debate on the history of Israel in
layers (in addition to the writers cited below, see which a number of scholars are arguing that the
Reventlow 1961; Kilian 1963; Rendtorff 1963; present text of the HB is no earlier than the
Koch 1959). Persian period and perhaps even later (see e.g.
2. The Documentary Hypothesis has domin- Lemche 1993). This debate has taken on a new
ated study of the Pentateuch for the past cen- impetus with the launch of the European Sem-
tury (see INTROD. PENT B). According to that inar on Historical Methodology (see Grabbe
theory, most of Leviticus belongs to the Priestly 1997).
source (P), though the P writers may have used a 5. The question is rightly being vigorously
diversity of material in composing it. For ex- debated on several fronts, and I believe it is
ample, many would see chs. 17–26 (usually re- premature to anticipate the outcome. Yet we
ferred to as H, for the Holiness Code) as should not forget that there is some agreement
originally a separate block of material which on several issues. One is that the present form
was taken over by P. Since Wellhausen’s time, of the book was not reached until the Persian
this dating to the sixth century—whether the period; another is that the text as it now stands
exilic or the early post-exilic period—has incorporates some material of considerable an-
remained fairly constant among critics. An ex- tiquity. Finally, the book probably says a good
ception was Vink who put it in the fourth cen- deal about the temple cult in the Second Tem-
tury, though few have followed him. All agree ple period, but one should be cautious in as-
that this is only the date of the final form of the suming it is an actual description of what went
work, though, since the editor/author drew on on at that time. For this last point, see further
various priestly traditions, some of them of below (‘Leviticus and the Actual Temple Cult’).
substantial antiquity. 6. Throughout the rest of this commentary
3. In recent years, however, there have been on Leviticus, I shall often refer to P, by which
two challenges to this consensus: (1) some ask the material normally identified as part of the P
whether P may not date from before the Exile document is being referred to. However, in each
(see below), and (2) others have questioned case one should always understand the qualify-
whether the traditional alleged sources exist at ing phrase, ‘if it exists’ or ‘as normally identified’.
all (Whybray 1987). Although biblical funda- I have no intention of begging the question of
mentalists have continually rejected the Docu- whether P exists or, if so, what it consisted of.
mentary Hypothesis for dogmatic reasons, it 7. The Holiness Code. Lev 17–26 is com-
should not be assumed that recent challenges monly divided off from the rest as the so-called
fall into the same category. While some of the Holiness Code (H), with ch. 27 as an appendix to
arguments may have been around a long time, the book. Not all would accept this delineation,
those who oppose the old consensus do so for but most would agree that within 17–26 is an-
critical reasons which have nothing to do with a other document which has been incorporated
desire to ‘defend’ the biblical text. into the present book but is not necessarily
4. The question of P is discussed at length fully integrated with 1–16. That is, both 1–16
above (INTROD. PENT B.5) and need not be repeated and 17–26 are collections with their own stages
here. I shall only point out that the composition of growth, but each has a relative unity which
and dating of the book of Leviticus is very much marks it off from the other. There are tensions
tied up with the question of when P is to be between the two parts, with some major differ-
dated—assuming that it exists. One school of ences of outlook on certain issues. There is also
thought, currently a minority but with a grow- the difficult problem of trying to give the rela-
ing number of adherents and a strong voice in tive dates of the two collections. In the past it
the debate, now favours a pre-exilic dating was customary to consider H earlier than most
(Haran 1978; Milgrom 1991; Hurvitz 1982, 1988; of the material in 1–16. Nevertheless, a number
 129 leviticus

of prominent scholars had not accepted the concerns. For example, although Rendtorff
existence of H as such. For example, Elliger (1982–95: 4) does not reject ‘reconstruction’ of
had proposed several independent legal cor- earlier phases of the tradition, he thinks these
pora which had been brought together, with should be seen primarily as an aid to under-
several redactional hands. A. Cholewski took a standing the present text.
similar view. I. Knohl (1995; cf. 1987), although 10. This by no means suggests that older
accepting the existence of H, has come to the methods of source criticism and the like can be
conclusion that it was later than Lev 1–16. He forgotten. On the contrary, they are often pre-
argues the question mainly on the basis of Lev supposed in the new methods. This means that
23 which he thinks is constructed on Num 28–9. traditio-historical analysis is very important for
Knohl concludes that there were two priestly two further legitimate stages to be interpreted.
schools, one that produced the earlier P docu- The second level of interpretation is that of the
ment and the other that not only wrote H (the book as a part of the P document (see below).
later document) but also did the final editing of A third object of interpretation would be the
the Pentateuch. Similarly, Milgrom (1991) has various levels in the growth of the book as deter-
taken the position that most of H is later than mined by form and redaction criticism. This is the
most of 1–16, and in his opinion H was one of most hypothetical and is less favoured today for
the editors of the book. that very reason (cf. Rendtorff 1982–95: 4), yet
8. Methods and Approaches to Interpret- most commentators give some attention to the
ation. Having now seen a general consensus internal growth of the book, and many see it as
that the book grew up over a long period of their primary concern.
time, the reader might ask, ‘What level of the
book do we interpret?’ There is more than one C. Importance of the Cult to Ancient Israel. 1.
legitimate answer to the question. In recent It is easy for modern Christians to dismiss the
years, many interpreters have argued for the Levitical and other passages dealing with the
final form of the text as the primary object of sacrificial cult as outdated or irrelevant. For
study, whatever the stages of growth of the that reason, the cult is often slighted or even
book or its dating. This has led to a number of ignored when Israel’s religion is discussed. But it
new disciplines under the general rubric of the must not be forgotten that many Jews still ob-
‘literary approach’ to the biblical text, including serve the regulations concerning ritual purity,
‘close reading’, structuralism, deconstruction, in some form or other, even though the sacrifi-
and rhetorical criticism. So far, few seem to cial regulations can no longer be applied in the
have applied these to Leviticus specifically (but absence of a functioning temple. Any descrip-
see Damrosch (1987) and Schwarz (1991) for tion of Israelite religion has to take stock of its
examples). From a different perspective, those complexities, but one cannot get away from the
interested in the ‘canonical’ form of the text for fact that the sacrificial cult, especially blood
theological purposes are also concerned mainly sacrifice, lay at the heart of worship in Israel.
with the final form of the text (see esp. Childs On the other hand, the Israelite cult, like all
1979). Douglas (1993: 8–12) has recently argued religious ritual—and all religions have their rit-
that the book can be properly understood only ual—was extremely meaningful to the partici-
if one recognizes a basic ring structure of the pants even if we do not always understand it
text in its present form. from our time and culture millennia later.
9. This does not mean that the final form of A number of recent studies have focused on
the text has been ignored even by some of the the symbolism of the cult and attempted to
traditional disciplines. For decades, many form decipher the priestly world-view that lay behind
critics have practised a structural analysis of the it. For example, Gorman (1990) argues that a
text as we have it before asking questions of complex creation theology is presupposed and
growth or even questions of genre and the like. represented by the cult, and Jenson (1992) has
The results of this approach can be seen in the made similar points. The priestly view had a
series Forms of Old Testament Literature edited cosmological and sociological dimension, as
by R. P. Knierim and G. Tucker. Knierim’s recent well as a cultic. In order to express this, it
book (1992) on exegesis combines traditional made distinctions between holy and profane,
form criticism with broader concerns, including clean and unclean, life and death, order and
theological and sociological ones. Some exe- chaos.
getes, while not abandoning traditional source 2. The idea of sacrifice seems to be ubiqui-
criticism, have severely demoted it in their tous among human societies the world over.
leviticus 130

Even those which have abandoned it in their They map the ideological cosmos of the people
contemporary form, especially in the devel- who hold these views. These regulations can be
oped countries, have sacrifice as a part of seen as a language, in the broad sense of
their past. Since the concept goes so far back the term, communicating to those within the
in human history that its origins are no longer society the ‘correct’ attitudes towards relations
traceable, we are left only with hypothesis and between the sexes, marriage, kinship, and inter-
speculation as to how sacrifice came to be a course with outsiders. Ritual cleanliness tells
part of the religious culture of most peoples. the people how to classify the entities—
(For further information, see the account of the human and animal—which inhabit the world
debate in Grabbe 1993: 43–7.) But the inescap- around them and communicates to the society
able conclusion seems to be that central to how to fit in new forms which enter its world.
most sacrifices are the notions of expiation, The animal world and how it is treated is
cleansing, and re-establishment of cosmic— also a map of human society, and the human
or at least microcosmic—harmony. If evil can- community is represented by the body of the
not be removed, sin wiped away, pollution individual.
purified, and harmony restored, there would 4. One of the major attempts to work out the
be little point in sacrifice. Therefore, regardless meaning of the biblical system in detail was by
of the precise terms in which sacrifices are Mary Douglas in her seminal book Purity and
conceived (substitution, ritual detergent, etc.), Danger (1966; for an account of this book and
the desired outcome is clear. The scapegoat criticisms of it, see Grabbe 1993: 56–9). Despite
sort of ceremony is perhaps not strictly a sac- some criticisms against Douglas, some of her
rifice, in that the animal is not killed (though points about the meaning of the system in Is-
according to later Jewish tradition, the scape- raelite society have not been affected and still
goat was pushed over a cliff: m. Yoma 6:6; cf. seem valid, especially the notion that the system
Grabbe 1987), but the concept seems to be very of permitted and forbidden animals was a
much the same as that of sacrifice. In this case, microcosm of the world according to the Israel-
the sins are heaped onto the head of the victim ite view. The many forbidden animals repre-
which is then separated from the community. sented the surrounding nations; the few clean
In other cases, the victim is in some way iden- animals, the Israelites; and the sacrificial ani-
tified with the offerer even if precise identifi- mals, the priests. Just as Israelites were not to
cation is not required. The laying of the hands eat certain animals, they were not to mix with
on the victim by the offerer in Israelite sacrifice other nations. The dietary regulations had both
may have a function along these lines. But a practical and a symbolic function; symbolic-
regardless of the rite, the desire is to cause the ally they stood for the fact that Israel was
sins, pollutions, illness, or troubles to vanish. to keep itself free from intercourse with non-
3. Perhaps one of the most misunderstood Israelites; practically, inability to eat certain ani-
concepts is that of ritual purity. It has little or mals meant that Jews could not socialize with
nothing to do with hygiene or with the clean/ those who ate these animals. The rules of pol-
dirty distinction in a physical sense. For ex- lution and purity also drew strict boundaries
ample, in the Israelite system, excrement was around the altar and sanctuary. No pollution
not usually included in the category of unclean; and no polluted persons were allowed to pene-
even though ancient Israelites had much the trate into the sacred area. This clear and rigid
same view towards it that we do today. One of boundary drawing suggests a concern with pol-
the important discoveries of anthropology in itical boundaries as well as social ones. Just as
the past half-century is that purity and pollu- the Israelites were concerned about mixing with
tion systems are not arcane, primitive supersti- the surrounding peoples, so their political
tion. The precise form of the rituals may well be boundaries may have been threatened by others
arbitrary, at least to some extent, but recent who claimed the territory for themselves. If so,
study suggests that broader concerns are at the the message of the rules which, on the surface,
heart of the purity system. The insights offered might seem arcane ritual turn out to be a rich
by social and cultural anthropology have gone a symbolic system with significant meaning for
long way towards explaining the deeper mean- understanding the concerns of ancient Israel.
ing and foundation of these laws which may
seem primitive to many today. Purity and pol- D. Women and the Cult. 1. The place of
lution form an important mirror of the society women in society and literature has become a
itself, especially its social relations and attitudes. much-discussed subject in the past couple of
 131 leviticus

decades (see e.g. Newsom and Ringe 1992; which they were confined. They were not gen-
Schüssler Fiorenza 1994a and b). Some have erally allowed to participate in activities which
seen the treatment of women as very negative. were associated with the male Israelite. These
It is not my purpose to enter into this debate, customs were not necessarily absolute since the
but Wegner (1992) gives a mainly positive as- OT tradition has stories of exceptional women
sessment of Leviticus on women, recognizing who broke through the traditional boundaries.
its general context in the ancient world. But any woman who carefully observed the
Women are mentioned specifically in only two rules about menstrual pollution would have
sections of Leviticus: one concerns childbirth, found her activities severely restricted in certain
which made a woman impure for ritual pur- ways. A similar purpose seems to be associated
poses (Lev 12). In order to be allowed to re- with the rules surrounding childbirth. The
enter the temple, she had to undergo a period longer purification time after bearing a daugh-
of cleansing which culminated in sacrifices in ter could be a symbol that women had an ap-
the temple. The implication is that the woman propriate place in society which was different
herself is envisaged as participating in the sac- from that of men. On the other hand, any
rificial cult. Although the directions relating to evaluation of these regulations would do well
sacrifice are addressed in the masculine form of to take account of the fact that many Jews still
the verb (whether singular or plural), this could observe these or similar regulations today and
be thought to include women under normal give them a positive value (cf. Wegner 1992).
circumstances. Women are not specifically ex-
cluded in the P legislation. If women were not E. Leviticus and the Actual Temple Cult. 1.
allowed to enter the altar area, as was the case in Does Leviticus (or it and the rest of P) describe
the time of the Second Temple, this is nowhere the rites in the temple, or is it merely a theoret-
stated. ical document, a programme, or even a mere
2. The other occasion of impurity with fantasy? We can say with some confidence that
women was menstruation (15:19–24). The regu- Leviticus does not describe the cult in a taber-
lations about bodily issues in Lev 12–15 do not nacle built by the Israelites under Moses during
make a particular point about menstruation; on 40 years in the wilderness. The whole story as
the contrary, it is only one of a number of issues described in the biblical text (from Exodus to
of blood or fluid which are polluting. Neverthe- the end of Deuteronomy) is now generally
less, most of the other regulations concern un- rejected by biblical scholars. A generation ago,
usual occurrences, whereas the rules about many would have given greater credence to the
menstruation would regularly affect all women story, or at least certain parts of it. New arch-
between puberty and menopause, as well as aeological information and further study has
their families more indirectly. It is clear that convinced most that Israel did not enter the
these purity regulations were extremely import- land as a unified group out of the wilderness
ant to all Israelites of both sexes. However, it after escaping from Egypt. Rather, even if some
should be noted that menstruation, like the had been in Egypt, they would have been a
impurity contracted from normal sexual inter- small group. The bulk of those who came to
course, did not require a sacrifice for cleansing. make up Israel were probably indigenous
These were in a different category from ‘abnor- people in some sense, though there may also
mal’ discharges. have been immigrants from outside the area.
3. Anthropological studies have suggested that Those who coalesced to produce Israel no
regulations about menstruation often mirror the doubt had their shrines, permanent or portable,
relationship between the sexes and the place of but the description of building the tabernacle in
either sex within the society. Societies in which Exodus is fiction as it stands. For example, the
women have considerable freedom of choice and altar described in Exodus is made of wood and
independence from men will usually have this bronze. This sort of construction would hardly
reflected in various customs about ritual purity, stand the heat of the fire necessary to consume
including menstruation. Those societies in which the sacrificial portions, and any actual altar was
women are restricted to a particular place and probably made of stone and earth (Gerstenber-
function and are discouraged from entering the ger 1993: 29). Nevertheless, some reality may
province of men will usually have constrictive have lain behind it. What might that have been?
regulations about menstruation. 2. It is possible that the description in P is
4. It seems clear that in Israelite society, purely hypothetical or utopian. Priests who had
women had a particular sphere and place in a vision of an idealized cult could write it up
leviticus 132

and present it as if that was what happened long understand the sacrifices if one wishes to under-
ago under Moses. There is no doubt that we find stand Israelite religion (see C.1–2 above). It was
a certain amount of idealization in the descrip- through the sacrificial cult that sins were for-
tion of the tabernacle and the setting up of its given and evil was removed from the land. And
cult. However, most scholars would see some an important question is what was thought to
relationship to what went on in an actual tem- happen when an animal was slain at the altar.
ple or shrine. Those who date P to the post- Milgrom (1976) has dismissed the idea of the
exilic period consider the Priestly material to sacrificial victim being a substitute for the sin-
reflect generally the situation in the Second ner. He does acknowledge, though, that on the
Temple which was built in the early Persian ‘day of kippûrı̂m’ (Day of Atonement) the sins
period. If P is dated to the exilic period, one were placed metaphorically on the head of the
would expect that it is presenting a programme goat for Azazel. In this case, there is no sense of
for a renewed cult in Jerusalem (which was ‘wiping off’ but of the transfer of sins from the
expected imminently), with the hope of influ- people to the animal (see further at LEV 1:4 and
encing the structure of the new cult. 16). That this is really a type of substitute or
3. Cross (1947) advanced the thesis that the surrogate for the sinner, however, is a point
tent of David, which housed the ark before and well made by Kiuchi (1987). Kiuchi argues that
after its removal to Jerusalem but before the the sin offering is envisaged as a substitute for
temple was built, was the basis of the tabernacle the sinner, in other words, it purges the sin
tradition. The proposal of Haran (1962), fol- of the individual and not just, as Milgrom as-
lowed by Milgrom (1991), makes the core of serts, the effects of these sins on the sanctuary.
Leviticus relate to the temple at Shiloh in the (The transfer of sins in the Day of Atonement
early period of the monarchy. Part of Milgrom’s ceremony may be somewhat different from
argument concerns later editings which this, since the victim is sent away and not
attempted to bring the material up to date, slain. Nevertheless, he argues that the scapegoat
with some of these even as late as the post-exilic ceremony is a form of sin offering.) This trans-
period. Therefore, despite possible earlier ori- fer of sins might be indicated when the offerer
gins the cult and regulations in the present text lays hands on the animal’s head. Kiuchi (1987:
of Leviticus in most cases can be related to the 112–19) notes that there are a number of inter-
practice in the First Temple. pretations of this act. Although he favours the
4. What most would accept is that Leviticus interpretation that it represents substitution, he
represents to a large extent actual cultic prac- recognizes that the evidence is scanty. Knierim
tice, despite some tensions and contradictions. (1992: 34–40) opposes the idea of substitution
No doubt there have been editings, perhaps in and considers the gesture (which he translates
part because of changes and developments in as ‘firm pressing down of the hand’) a means of
actual practice. But it is also likely that many denoting transfer of ownership, i.e. from the
cultic procedures remained essentially un- offerer to God. If so, this aspect of the discus-
changed over long periods of time (Rendtorff sion does not help resolve the main problem of
1985–92: 5; Grabbe 1995: 207). The many differ- the elimination of sin.
ences in detail between Leviticus and other Perhaps part of the problem is being too
passages in the OT do not suggest major differ- literal in interpretation. The sacrificial system
ences in the overall shape of the cult. Those was a symbolic system, filled with metaphor,
who see Leviticus as by and large a description allegory, and analogy. It would be a mistake to
of cultic observance in the Second Temple assume that only one symbol or metaphor was
period are probably correct since, even if used for removing sin (e.g. ritual detergent). In
much of it goes back to the First Temple, the the same way, the cultic terminology may have
same practices were probably continued when a more general meaning and should not be
the temple was rebuilt. defined in terms of the specific metaphor used.
The individual’s sins were removed, whatever
the precise symbolic conceptualization used.
COMMENTARY
Chs. 1–5 tend to address the whole people, lay
Chs. 1–7 describe the sacrificial system. Contrary as well as priest, in contrast to 6–7 which seem
to popular opinion, there is more to the book of aimed primarily at the priests. The main term
Leviticus than just a description of various sac- for offering is qorbān, a generic term which
rifices. Nevertheless, the cult was central to Is- refers to a variety of different types (cf. the
raelite worship, and it is important to reference to the term in its Greek transliteration
 133 leviticus

korban ‘gift’ in Mk 7:11). The instructions about also be used as an occasion for rejoicing (Lev
how to prepare the sacrifice are often stereo- 22:17–19; Num 15:3). It has been proposed that
typed, so that similar instructions are given because of its ubiquity in early texts, it and the
about those which are parallel; however, it is well-being offering (Lev 3) were the only sacri-
interesting to notice that small differences in fices in the earliest period, with the sin and guilt
wording are often found, even when the same offerings being added later when the temple
instructions seem to be in mind. The sacrificial was established. Gerstenberger (1993: 31) also
pattern for animals generally goes according to suggests that the sin offering was a later replace-
the following schema: ment for the whole burnt offering.
1. The sacrificer laid hands on the head of the (1:4) says that the purpose of the sacrifice is for
animal. ‘atonement’ for the one making the offering. The
2. It was killed at the entrance to the tabernacle, Hebrew word is kipper and is used in a number of
north of the altar, and cut up. The most contexts to describe the removal of sin or ritual
natural interpretation of the Hebrew word- impurity. Although often translated as ‘atone’ or
ing is that the slaughtering was done by the ‘cover up’, the precise connotation has been
one making the offering rather than by the much debated. The denominative verb can
priest. If so, it contradicts Ezek 44:11, where it mean ‘serve as a ransom, expiation gift’. Levine
is done by the Levites, and 2 Chr 29:22, 24 (1974: 56–77) has argued that it means ‘remove,
where it is done by the priests. wipe off ’ impurity, not ‘cover up’. In the cult, the
3. Blood was sprinkled or dashed or poured, word was used primarily in functional terms to
usually on the sides and/or base of the altar. mean ‘perform rites of expiation’ rather than ‘to
4. The parts burned for cattle included the en- clean’. Milgrom (1991: 1079–84) sees a develop-
trails with their fat, the kidneys and suet, and ment in the word from a basic meaning ‘purge’.
the caul of the liver; the same was true with It also carried the idea of ‘rub, wipe’, so that the
sheep or goats, except that the fat tail was meanings ‘cover’ (‘wipe on’) and ‘wipe off’ are
also added. complementary rather than contradictory. In rit-
5. Except for the whole burnt offering, the ual texts, the idea of ‘wipe off’ predominated in
breast of the animal went to the priests as a that the blood was thought of as wiping off
body, while the right thigh went to the pre- impurity, acting as a sort of cultic detergent.
siding priest specifically. With certain rituals, such as those on the Day
of Atonement or involving the red cow (Num
(1:1–2) is an introduction to the entire section 19:1–10), the idea of ‘ransom’ or ‘substitute’ was
of chs. 1–7 and forms an inclusio with 7:37–8, to the main connotation. This finally led to the
mark off chs. 1–7 as a unit. meaning ‘atone, expiate’ in some passages, espe-
cially with regard to all sacrifices where blood
(1:3–17) describes the whole burnt offering was not daubed on the horns of the altar.
(ʿôlâ). Sometimes referred to as the ‘holocaust’, Central to the cult was the shedding of blood.
this whole burnt offering was the complete There is a major disagreement about the func-
sacrifice, for none of it went to the sacrificing tion of the blood between Milgrom and Levine,
priest (except for the hide, 7:8) or to the one however. Levine argues that it has two func-
bringing the offering. The entire animal was tions: (1) an apotropaic function for the deity;
‘turned into smoke’, to use the Hebrew expres- that is, the blood was placed on the altar to
sion (hiqtı̂r). The offering could be from the herd protect God from the malignancy of impurity
or flock,_ a male animal in either case, or from which was regarded as an external force; (2)
the birds (turtle-doves or pigeons). Although purificatory or expiatory, in which the blood
the animal was cut up, all the pieces (not served as a ransom substituting for the life
just the fat, kidneys, etc.) were placed on the owed by the offerer. According to Milgrom,
altar. The legs and entrails were washed but the idea of demonic or malignant forces which
placed on the altar as well. The burnt offering might harm the deity had no place in the
had expiatory function, as indicated by 1:4, 9:7, thought of the P tradition. Impurities did com-
14:20, and 16:24 (cf. also Ezek 45:15, 17). But it promise the holiness of the sanctuary and altar,
also seems to have been used for a wide range of so the purpose of the offering was to remove
functions, according to other passages, includ- these. As noted above, Milgrom’s opinion is
ing entreaty (1 Sam 13:12) and appeasement of that the blood acted as a ritual detergent,
God’s wrath (1 Sam 7:9; 2 Sam 24:21–5). It could washing off the impurities which had attached
leviticus 134

themselves to the sacred things. For further noted above, the cereal offering can also stand
comments on the blood, see at LEV 17:10–14. alone and be offered independently of other
offerings. By contrast, the J source (followed
(1:14–17) gives instructions for a whole burnt by Deut, Hos, and Ezek 1–39) limits its horizon
offering of birds. There are differences from to the blood offering, according to Marx.
those of other animals. For birds the neck was
wrung off but, rather than being cut up, the body (3:1–17) describes the šĕlāmı̂m offering. There is
was torn open by the wings without severing it. no agreed translation for this term. It was long
The crop and excrement were placed on the ash connected with šālôm ‘peace’ and called the
pile. The whole of the offering was done by the ‘peace offering’, a translation still found in the
priests, perhaps because only the poorest, such as RSV. More recent translations have often de-
slaves, used birds and were perhaps not as obser- rived the name from šāl
em ‘well-being’, the
vant of the cult (Gerstenberger 1993: 27–8). On translation used in the New Jewish Publication
fowls for the sin offering, see at LEV 5:14–6:7. Society translation and the NRSV (the NEB and
REB have ‘shared-offering’). Levine himself sug-
(2:1–16) describes the cereal or meal offering gests the meaning ‘gift’, based on the Akkadian
(minhāh). The word minhāh means ‘gift’ and is šulmānu which means ‘gift of greeting’. These are
used_ with such a general_meaning in some texts all only educated guesses, and exactly how one
(e.g. in reference to animals in Gen 4:3–4 and 1 renders the term is to some extent arbitrary. The
Sam 2:17). It could even have the meaning of actual terminology used for the well-being of-
‘tribute’ (Judg 3:15; 2 Sam 8:2). In Leviticus and fering is zebah šĕlāmı̂m ‘sacrifice of well-being’.
priestly tradition in general, it refers exclusively The term zeba_h is often translated by the general
to the offering of grain or meal. The cereal term ‘sacrifice’; _ however, it seems to be limited
offering was the only non-blood sacrifice. It to those sacrifices which were eaten by the
had two functions: (1) it was often an accom- offerer and would not be applied to the burnt
panying offering to one of the others, in par- offering or the sin offering since these were
ticular the burnt and thanksgiving offerings; (2) burnt whole or eaten only by the priests. The
it could be offered in its own right as an inde- question is why the double terminology is used.
pendent sacrifice. The meal offering follows this Rendtorff has suggested that two originally sep-
basic pattern: arate offerings must have been combined, since
1. Choice flour was to be used, with oil mixed such double terminology is unparalleled in
in before cooking or added afterwards; any- cultic language. Also, zebah šĕlāmı̂m is limited
thing cooked was always unleavened; frank- to Leviticus and Numbers;_ zebah often occurs
incense accompanied the offering. by itself outside these two books,_ but šĕlāmı̂m is
2. The frankincense and a token portion of the never alone and often in the context of the
flour or cake were burnt on the altar. burnt offering. Milgrom (1991), on the other
3. The rest of the offering went to the priest. hand, argues that zebah šĕlāmı̂m is merely a syno-
nym for šĕlāmı̂m. This_ passage does not discuss
It could be raw flour (mixed with oil) or it could the various sorts of well-being offerings, and
be baked in an oven, cooked on a griddle, or one must see the later treatment at 7:11–18 for
fried in a pan. It was always unleavened since no a breakdown of the types of usage for this
leaven was to be burnt on the altar (v. 11), and offering.
was to be salted (v. 13) as a sign of the covenant. v. 11: A number of offerings are said to be
Other vegetable offerings could be brought: first ʾiššeh, which is often translated as ‘offerings by
fruits (v. 12: r
eʾšı̂t, no details given) and a cereal fire’. This depends on the presumed origin of
offering of first fruits (bikkûrı̂m) which was to the word from ʾ
eš ‘fire’, which is also reflected in
consist of roasted grain with the usual oil and later translations. This presents two difficulties:
frankincense (vv. 14–16). some offerings are referred to as ʾiššeh even
In his recent study Marx (1994) argues that when they are not burned (e.g. the wine offer-
the vegetable offering plays a central role in the ing: Num 15:10), whereas some offerings burned
system of P (including Ezek 40–8 and Chr), and on the altar (e.g. the sin offering) are not called
is an accompaniment not only of the whole ʾiššeh. Milgrom has related the zword to Ugaritic
burnt offering but also of the well-being offer- itt ‘gift’ and perhaps Arabic ʾaâu ‘possession of
ing, the sin offering, and the guilt offering. (P every kind’. He suggests the translation ‘food
represents a utopian ideal which views vegetar- gift’, perhaps a shortened term from lehem
ianism as the original state of man-kind.) As _
ʾiššeh ‘food gift’ (Lev 3:11, 16). In his opinion,
 135 leviticus

the word may have become obsolete by exilic because of the sin of the priests or the congre-
times since it is absent from later OT collections. gation as a whole and is burnt entirely. The
other, offered on behalf of the ordinary Israelite
(4:1–6:7) (HB 4:1–5:26) treats the sin and guilt (including the tribal chieftain), was eaten by the
offerings. There is considerable difficulty in sep- priests after the normal parts were burned on
arating these. The guilt offering especially has the altar. vv. 3–12, if the anointed priest (high
been a notorious problem since antiquity. Early priest?) is atoning for his own sin, he is to offer a
Jewish commentators already had difficulties in bull. The blood is sprinkled inside the taber-
interpreting it (cf. Philo, Spec. leg. 1.226–38; Jose- nacle itself, before the curtain covering the
phus, Ant. 3.9.3 §§ 230–2). The same quandary Holy of Holies, and some of it put on the
has afflicted modern commentators, with vari- horns of the incense altar. The normal portions
ous solutions proposed. For example Keller- are burnt on the altar, but the rest of the animal
mann (1977) suggested that the guilt offering is taken outside the camp and burned where the
developed from the sin offering, to provide a ashes from the altar are dumped. vv. 13–21, if the
form of sacrifice between the sin and burnt of- whole community has sinned, the ceremony is
ferings, as the atonement sacrifice for all cases of the same as for the priest, except that the elders
gross negligence. In Lev 5:15, however, it is prob- take the part of the offerer. vv. 22–6, if a tribal
ably equivalent to the sin offering. Levine (1974) chieftain (nāśı̂ʾ) has sinned, a male goat is
believes that it was not originally an altar sacri- offered, with blood put on the horns of the
fice but a cultic offering presented to the deity in altar of burnt offerings. In this case only the
the form of silver or an object of value in expi- normal portions are burned, while the rest
ation for certain offences. A necessary precondi- goes to the priest to be eaten. vv. 27–31, if an
tion is that the sin be done inadvertently, ordinary person (ʿam hāʾāres) has sinned, a fe-
although Lev 5:20–6 may seem to go against male goat or sheep is offered,_ with the other
this, because a false oath cannot be given inad- details being the same as for the chieftain.
vertently, Levine explains this as a separate cat-
egory of crime. Milgrom (1976) opposes Levine (5:1–13) is generally interpreted as describing
with the view that the guilt offering must be a the graduated sin offering. That is, there are
blood sacrifice. Any mention of silver has refer- two sorts of sin offering: the normal sin offering
ence to buying an animal to sacrifice. Milgrom (4:1–35) and the graduated sin offering. Confu-
thinks he has found a solution in the meaning of sion is caused by the fact that the term ʾāšām is
the name, which he takes to mean ‘feel guilt’ used here (vv. 6–7) as in 5:14–6:7 (HB 5:14–26),
when there is no verbal object. The notion com- suggesting that the offerings of ch. 5 are separ-
mon to all offences which call for it is that they ate from ch. 4. However, it is usually argued that
are all cases of sacrilege against God, i.e. either an ʾāšām means ‘atonement for guilt’ in vv. 6–7
actual infringement of holy things or a trespass rather than ‘guilt offering’, especially since ref-
against the name of God. erence is specifically made to the ‘sin offering’ in
vv. 6, 7, 11. The breaches for which this is offered
(4:1–35) The term hattāʾt is traditionally trans- do not form a clear pattern: not acting as a
_ __
lated ‘sin offering’ because the word also means witness, uttering a rash oath, or touching the
‘sin’. The difficulty with this translation is that corpse of an unclean animal or some other
the sacrifice is required in certain cases where unclean thing without realizing it. The person
no sin is involved (e.g. Lev 12:6). Therefore, must first confess the sin, then bring an offering
Milgrom argues for the translation ‘purificatory of a female goat or sheep. If he does not have
offering’. His point is well taken; however, it enough wealth for sheep or goat, he can bring
seems a cumbersome title and one which may two turtle-doves or two pigeons, one for a
not be readily apparent to those more used to burnt offering and one for a sin offering. Since
‘sin offering’. For this reason, ‘sin offering’ is still there are no instructions about fowls for a sin
used here despite being somewhat problematic. offering, some details are given: the neck is
The sin offering is to be offered when one has wrung but the head not severed from the
committed a sin unwittingly. The instructions body, and part of the blood is sprinkled on the
vary according to the rank of the person offer- side of the altar while the rest is poured out at
ing it, and the pattern differs in certain details the base. What happens then is not stated. The
from that given at the head of this section on LEV flesh of the guilt offering normally went to the
1–5. It is clear that two sorts of sin offering are in priest, after the fat etc. were burned on the altar,
mind here. There is the one which is offered but we do not have precise instructions
leviticus 136

about birds. The other bird is treated as a burnt (6:8–7:38) (HB 6:1–7:38) gives the laws (tôrôt) of
offering. If the person does not have enough for the offerings. The term tôrâ in these texts often
birds, a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (without refers to a priestly ruling. The sacrifices enumer-
oil or frankincense) is offered. A token portion ated in chs. 1–5 are covered once more, but this
is burnt, and the rest goes to the priest, as is time the instructions relate to the responsibil-
normal in cereal offerings. This is the only case ities of the priests rather than focusing on the
where a cereal offering can serve for a transgres- offerings from the point of view of the lay
sion (though cf. Num 5:15). person. It also emphasizes the priestly dues to
be given over from each sacrifice. 6:8–13 (HB
(5:14–6:7) (HB 5:14–26) describes the guilt of- 6:1–6) gives the law of the burnt offering; cf. 1:3–
fering. The precise meaning of ʾāšām is not 17. 6:14–18 (HB 6:7–11) gives the law of the cereal
clear. The verb can mean ‘commit an offence’ offering; cf. Lev 2. 6:19–23 (HB 6:12–16) discusses
and ‘become guilty’ (by committing an offence); the offering at Aaron’s anointing. This section
hence, the traditional translation ‘guilt offering’. seems out of place because of its subject,
Milgrom (1976) opposes this, arguing that when though it was probably put here because a cer-
confined to cultic usage it has four meanings: (1) eal offering is being described. It seems to be
reparation, (2) reparation offering, (3) incur li- referring to a type of tāmı̂d or daily meal offer-
ability to someone, (4) feel guilt. It is especially ing. It consisted of a tenth of an ephah of fine
this last which he emphasizes. The translation flour (about 2 litres), mixed with oil, and cooked
‘realize guilt’ or ‘become conscious of guilt’, as on a griddle. Half is offered in the morning and
found in a number of translations, he thinks is half in the evening. This is burned entirely on
wrong. Rather, the clue to the sacrifice lies in the altar, with no portion eaten by the priests.
the fact that the person becomes conscience- We know that there was a daily or tāmı̂d offer-
stricken, afraid that he has committed an of- ing made on the altar, and it seems to have
fence. For the offering itself, he uses the trans- included a cereal offering as well as a burnt
lation ‘reparation offering’. offering in the morning. The daily offering
5:14–16: the first transgression relating to the was extremely important in antiquity because
guilt offering involves unwitting violation of it was the chief sign that the temple was func-
the ‘holy things’ of God (qodšê yhwh). The type tioning and God accessible to the people. The
of violation is not described, but the later cere- times when the daily sacrifice was stopped were
mony suggests that the person has used some- times of dire consequences, as when the temple
thing belonging to God for his own purposes, was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzer or the
for restitution has to be made with another 20 Romans, or when the sacrifice was stopped by
per cent (fifth part) added to it (v. 16). A ram is force in the time of the Maccabees. Surprisingly,
also brought (v. 15; cf. 6:6 (HB 5:25)). A debate though, what constituted the daily offering is
has arisen concerning the expression ‘convert- not clear. Leviticus mentions only the cereal
ible into silver’ (v. 15). Does this mean that only offering of the high priest, made in the morning
the value of the ram in money was brought and in the evening. Other priestly passages
rather than the animal itself (Noth 1977: 47)? mention a daily burnt offering of two lambs,
Hartley (1992: 81–2) disagrees. However, Levine one in the morning and one in the evening (Ex
(1974: 98–100) thinks this was the earlier prac- 29:38–42; Num 28:3–8). Was this separate from
tice which later developed into the use of a ram the cereal offering or was the cereal offering
of a minimal value, while Milgrom (1991: 326–7) thought of only as a companion offering? If
argues that the value of the ram could be as- the cereal offering accompanied it, why is this
sessed and the equivalent value paid. vv. 17–19 not mentioned in Leviticus, and why is the
follow the instructions about the transgression required drink offering also ignored? Other pas-
with regard to holy things by a general state- sages are different yet again. Dating from the
ment that a ram is to be brought for any trans- time of the Maccabees, the practice of sacri-
gressions of YHWH’s commands which at first ficing the tāmı̂d twice a day is attested in Dan
escape the person’s notice. 6:1–7 (HB 5:20–6) 8:11–14, while 9:21 mentions an evening cereal
expands the the concept of 5:17–19 further to offering. 2 Kings 16:15 refers to a morning whole
include defrauding one’s neighbour by illicitly burnt offering and an evening cereal offering.
appropriating a pledge or not returning a lost Ezek 46:13–15 differs from Exodus, Leviticus,
object. Again, restitution has to be made, with and Numbers by describing a daily sacrifice of
20 per cent added, and a ram or its equivalent one lamb (not two), accompanied by one-sixth
value is brought for a guilt offering. of an ephah of flour (instead of one-tenth).
 137 leviticus

The question is, What is the offering of 6:19–23? Some passages envisage that one’s line of des-
Is it identical with the cereal offering of the tāmı̂d? cendants would be cut off, not necessarily in-
Most likely, it is a separate offering but one volving human action (1 Sam 2:30–4; Ps 109:13;
offered daily by the high priest (Milgrom 1991). Mal 2:12; Ruth 4:10). vv. 28–36 talk specifically
6:24–30 (HB 6:17–23) gives the law of the sin of the well-being offering, but the main theme
offering; cf. 4:1–5:13. 7:1–10 gives the law of the concerns those portions of the animal which
guilt offering; cf. 5:14–6:7. 7:11–21 gives the law are due to the priests: the breast and the right
of the well-being offering. 3:1–16 gives the de- thigh. In Leviticus the maintenance of the
tails of the ritual, but it is only here that the priest-hood is alluded to only in chs. 6–7, plus
basic rationale is given, i.e. the various sorts of a brief discussion of tithing of animals (see at LEV
well-being offering. Three types seem to be 27:26–7). But the priesthood could not have
included under the well-being offering: been supported on portions of sacrifices alone,
and other P passages speak of tithes and other
1. The freewill offering (nĕdābâ), given voluntar- support; see the discussion in Grabbe (1993: 70–
ily on the part of the offerer, without any 2). vv. 37–8 are a concluding summary for the
special motivation. entire section on sacrifices, i.e. chs. 1–7; cf. 1:1–2.
2. The votive offering (n
eder). Whenever a vow
was made, it was completed by an offering. (Chs. 8–10) describe the initiation of Aaron
3. The thanksgiving offering (tôdâ), given as an and sons into the priesthood and an unfortu-
expression of thanks for deliverance in time nate episode relating to priestly service in the
of trouble. There are several problems with sanctuary. Chs. 8–9 concern the ceremony in
understanding this offering. which Aaron and his sons were anointed and
consecrated to their offices. There is general
Is it the same as the freewill offering? Some agreement that this is a priestly fiction; that is,
scholars have thought so. Others (e.g. Milgrom these chapters do not describe an actual event
1976) think the two are always clearly distin- involving a literal Aaron and Moses in the wil-
guished in the OT and should be kept separate. derness of Sinai. On the other hand, these chap-
There are certain anomalies about the tôdâ ters may tell us something about priestly belief
offering when compared with the other well- or practice. Leviticus seems to envisage the
being offering, suggesting that it was once con- anointing of Aaron and his sons as a once-
sidered separate. The main distinction from the only event, setting apart their descendants to
other similar offerings is that it is accompanied the priesthood forever, as apparently does Exo-
by a cereal offering and must be eaten the same dus (29:9; 40:15). But each new high priest was
day it is offered. The freewill and votive offer- customarily designated by anointing (Lev 6:22
ings do not have the accompanying cereal of- (HB 6:15)). The lengthy ritual described in Lev
fering and can be eaten both on the day of the 8–9 has many characteristics of what is often
offering and the next day. Indeed, in other pas- referred to as a ‘rite of passage’ (Gennep 1960).
sages the thanksgiving does seem to be an in- This is an anthropological term for rites which
dependent offering along-side the well-being take place as a person passes from one stage to
(Lev 22:21, 29; Jer 17:26; 2 Chr 29:31–3; 33:16) another, such as from boyhood to manhood or
and only in the supposed P source is it made a girlhood to womanhood. There is first a rite of
subdivision of the well-being offering. separation, next a transitional rite during which
7:22–38 has a set of miscellaneous instruc- the person is in a ‘liminal’ state (on the doorstep
tions. Formally, it consists of two speeches of between one phase and another). There may be
YHWH to Moses, and it seems to form a sort of dangers while in this liminal state, and various
appendix or supplement to instructions on the rituals have to be carefully performed to protect
various sacrifices: vv. 22–7 prohibit the eating of the one undergoing the transition. In the case of
any fat or blood, under pain of the penalty of Aaron and sons, they were under-going the
being ‘cut off ’ (nikrat; also in 7:21). This expres- passage from ‘common’ to ‘sacred’. Various
sion of being ‘cut off’ has been much debated purification and burnt offerings and washings
but without a clear resolution (e.g. Levine 1989: were performed, a special ordination offering
241–2; Milgrom 1991: 457–60). In some passages carried out (8:22–9), and the anointing done.
it refers to an early death, perhaps because of Those involved were then required to remain a
judicial punishment (Lev 20:2–3). Others have week segregated in the Tent of Meeting (transi-
argued that passages with the expression gen- tional rite). The final act was a ritual of incorp-
erally imply divine punishment, not human. oration, in this case sacrifices and ceremonies
leviticus 138

on the eighth day (Lev 9). Thus, the ceremony of the ‘unclean’ animals are intrinsically bad to eat
consecration in Lev 8–9 is very much parallel to or to be avoided in a Mediterranean climate, as
rites of passage known both from preliterate is sometimes asserted. For a further discussion,
modern societies and from many examples in see LEV C.3–4.
modern Western culture. Ch. 10 seems to be an
inset chapter relating the incident of Nadab and (11:1–47) describes the clean and unclean ani-
Abihu (sons of Aaron) and its consequences, mals. Eating was very much involved with pur-
though the chapter follows naturally on the ity. Certain things were not to be eaten. The
anointing ritual of Aaron and his sons. Israelite was especially to be concerned about
the types of animal considered fit for consump-
(10:1–20) vv. 1–7 describe the death of Nadab tion and how they were to be prepared. Lev 11
and Abihu as a result of offering ‘alien fire’ (ʾ
eš (paralleled by Deut 14) lists the various animals
zārâ) on the altar. The episode is very puzzling available for food and those to be avoided.
since the ‘sin’ of the two sons is never clearly There are some difficulties here because it is
indicated, with the result that the passage gen- not always clear which animals were being re-
erated many explanations in later Judaism ferred to. The standard treatment of this chapter
(Hecht 1979–80; Kirschner 1982–3). Thus, as is now the study by Houston (1993). He argues
with the Golden Calf episode, one must ask that the animals allowed or forbidden under
what lies behind the story. Those who date Israelite law were generally those similarly per-
this part of Leviticus late usually look for mitted or prohibited in the surrounding cul-
some event in the exilic or post-exilic period. tures. The laws of the Pentateuch thus reflect
For example, Noth (1977) thought he saw in- and systematize the general habits not only of
ternal disputes between different priestly the Israelites but also of their north-west Sem-
groups. However, others are willing to ascribe itic neighbours. Thus, the animals permitted or
the background to one or other event during forbidden seem to have come first, and the
the time of the monarchy. Milgrom (1976) criteria for distinguishing them were worked
suggests that it is a polemic against private out only subsequently. The presentation in
offerings of incense. There are textual and arch- this chapter is an intellectual exercise, a learned
aeological indications that it was common for attempt to systematize and provide formal cri-
Israelites to offer incense to God in their homes teria and probably had little practical signifi-
and elsewhere outside the Jerusalem temple. cance (Houston 1993: 231).
Those who believed in cult centralization In vv. 2–12 the mammals and sea life are fairly
would have disapproved of this practice. Thus, easy to identify. For mammals (vv. 2–8) two
a graphic story like that in Lev 10 would serve as questions are asked: ‘Does it chew the cud?’
a salutary reminder that private incense offer- ‘Does it have cloven hooves?’ If ‘yes’ is the re-
ings were fraught with danger. vv. 6–7 com- sponse to both these, the animal can be eaten; if
mand Aaron and his other sons not to mourn ‘no’ to either or both, it is off limits. A few
for Nadab and Abihu. This is parallel to the borderline cases are mentioned to clarify the
passage in 21:10–12 which forbids the high priest situation: the pig has cloven hooves but does
to mourn for his near kin. vv. 8–11 give a general not chew the cud; the camel chews the cud but
instruction about not drinking alcohol when on does not have cloven hooves; the hare might be
duty in the sanctuary, another possible occasion thought to chew the cud, because of the move-
for divine punishment for a serving priest. vv. ments of its jaws, but it has no hooves. In
12–20 use the the death of Aaron’s sons related scientific terminology, mammal food is limited
in the previous verses to discuss a particular to the ruminating bi-hooved ungulates. The
situation—the question of consuming the offer- practical implications were that edible mam-
ings in a time of mourning. mals were limited to those offered on the altar
and to their wild counterparts. Although pigs
(Chs. 11–15) form an important section on rit- are attested in many areas of Palestine (Hübner
ual purity and pollution. An explanation now 1989), the number seems to have declined fairly
almost universally rejected is that the various rapidly during the Iron Age. There is almost no
laws in this section have hygiene as their basis. evidence for their being used for sacrifice (even
Although some of the laws of ritual purity where they were eaten), with the possible ex-
roughly correspond to modern ideas of physical ception of some special rites to underworld
cleanliness, many of them have little to do with gods. However, it should be noted that pigs
hygiene. For example, there is no evidence that were included in these particular sacrifices
 139 leviticus

because they were unclean, rather than that they pigeons or doves, one for the burnt offering and
were declared unclean because of being used in one for the sin offering.
cults, as so often asserted (Houston 1993: 253).
So the Israelite avoidance of pork fits with the (Chs. 13–14) discuss a variety of skin diseases
general practice in the west Semitic area. under the general Hebrew term of sāraʿat. Al-
Consumption of sea creatures is restricted to _ English
though this is often presented in older
those that have fins and scales (vv. 9–12). No translations as ‘leprosy’, the modern condition
animals are named, but it is clear that some fish of leprosy is limited to Hanson’s disease; by
(those without scales), all crustaceans, and most contrast, it is not clear that modern leprosy is
other fresh and saltwater animals are forbidden. even covered by the ancient disease; in fact,
The birds are hard to categorize because not all there is some question as to whether Hanson’s
can be positively identified (vv. 13–19). Never- disease was known in the Mediterranean world
theless, the majority of those which can be before the Hellenistic period. Also, some ob-
recognized are carnivorous or scavengers. jects can be infected with ‘leprosy’.
Other flying things are also discussed here, in-
cluding the bat (unclean) and some insects. (13:1–59) Various skin afflictions are listed in vv.
A few insects could be eaten, mainly of the 1–46, along with the priestly response to them.
locust, cricket, or grasshopper type (vv. 20–3). The main function of the priest was to examine
This concession of some insects seems to be any affliction or inflammation brought to him,
because of common dietary habits among the isolate the individual if it looked like the real
people, since insects seem to have been forbid- disease, check again after seven days, and finally
den in the parallel passage in Deut 14:29 (Hous- pronounce the afflicted person whole or leprous.
ton 1993: 236). vv. 24–40 seem to repeat earlier Despite the length of the regulations, they are
instructions, with quadrupeds again (vv. 24–8), fairly repetitive, with slightly different criteria for
followed by a long section on ‘swarming things’ scaly patches, burns, boils, and so on. As with
(vv. 29–45). However, some sort of structure Lev 11, the text is not dealing with medical treat-
does emerge with a closer look, since vv. 24– ment or hygiene but rather with ritual. What is
40 are primarily about the carcasses of unclean being discussed is not how to treat the various
animals, not the animals themselves. Then, vv. diseases under the rubric sāraʿat but only how to
41–5 are about the swarming things which had recognize them and how _to view them from the
not really been discussed in vv. 1–23. Despite a point of view of cultic purity. The medical ques-
somewhat coherent structure, though, most tion was no doubt of concern in Israel but it is
critics have seen evidence of growth and sup- not within the scope of the discussion here. The
plementation here. Further evidence of this is job of the priest was to pronounce on ritual
found in vv. 43–5 which use language reminis- purity and impurity, and the text gives some
cent of H: ‘be holy as I am holy’. vv. 41–5 discuss guidance on how to decide whether the person
the ‘swarming things’, which seem to be a mis- is clean or not, but he was not treating the
cellaneous collection of small animals regarded disease as such. Even the isolation was not a
as abhorrent by the Israelites. vv. 46–7 are a quarantine for purposes of preventing the spread
summary of the chapter. of the disease but only a way of allowing it time
to develop or recede so an authoritative pro-
(Ch. 12) gives directions about the purity pro- nouncement could be made about it. In vv.
cedure which follows childbirth. The first form 47–59 the infected object is a piece of cloth or
of impurity for women listed in Leviticus is that leather. This is an additional complication to the
of childbirth. If a woman bore a boy, she was identification of the disease(s) falling under the
unclean for 7 days, until the circumcision of the generic term sāra’at. This section appears to deal
boy on the eighth day. For another 33 days she with mould or_ fungus infections. From a medical
was not unclean as such (i.e. passing on un- point of view, there is no connection between
cleanness to others who had contact with her) these and the skin diseases otherwise dealt with.
but was not allowed to come into the sanctuary This reinforces the view that something other
or touch any holy thing. than pathological conditions is in the mind of
These periods were doubled for the birth of a the writer.
girl: 14 days and 66 days. The allotted period
was completed and purity restored with a lamb (14:1–53) In vv. 1–32 a good deal of space is
for a burnt offering and a pigeon or dove for a devoted to the question of re-entry into the
sin offering. A poor person could substitute two cultic community once the disease is cured.
leviticus 140

A major feature was a ritual in which two birds with in 12:1–8. The most basic and regular geni-
were taken, one killed but the other released tal discharge was the monthly menstrual
into the open country. As is obvious, this ritual period. The time of impurity lasted 7 days
has certain features in common with the scape- even if the actual flow of blood finished sooner.
goat ritual, especially the use of two creatures, During this time the woman transmitted impur-
one of which is slain and the other released (see ity by direct contact or indirectly via anything
further at LEV 16). The cured person then had to on which she sat or lay. The person who
wash himself and his clothes, shave off his hair, touched her or that on which she lay or sat
and remain outside his tent (though within the would need to wash himself or herself and his
camp) for a further 7 days. He then presented or her clothes and be unclean until evening.
three lambs (one for a guilt offering, one for a A man who had sexual relations with her
sin offering, and one for a burnt offering), a would be unclean for 7 days. Any other pro-
cereal offering, and a quantity of oil. Some of longed discharge of blood for a woman also
the blood of the guilt offering and some of the brought on uncleanness on the same order as
oil was put on different parts of the former menstruation (vv. 25–30). If the flow stopped,
sufferer’s anatomy. A poor person need bring the woman would become clean after 7 days. In
only one lamb (for the guilt offering), two tur- this case, though, there was a significant differ-
tle-doves or pigeons (for the sin and burnt of- ence, for she had to make a sacrifice. On the
fering), the cereal offering, and the oil. The eighth day she was to bring two pigeons or
range of offerings required in this case is paral- doves, one for a burnt offering and one for a
leled only by those required for the nazirites to sin offering.
finish their vow (Num 6:13–20). vv. 33–53 envis-
age that a house could get sāraʿat, in the same (16:1–34) describes the atonement for sanctu-
way as a piece of cloth or_ leather. Again, it ary and people popularly known as the ‘scape-
seems to be some sort of fungus which the goat ritual’. The central core of the ritual was
writer has in mind. As with a person, the cleans- the ceremony with the two goats. One goat was
ing would be completed with the ceremony of for God and one was for ‘Azazel’ (on this word,
the two birds. see at v. 8), the choice being determined by lot.
This ceremony differs from most of the cultic
(15:1–30) deals with a variety of genital dis- rituals in having the sins of the people placed
charges, normal and abnormal, for both men on a live animal rather than sacrificing one and
and women. vv. 2–24: a number of discharges putting its blood on the altar. Part of the pecu-
were regarded as more or less normal, because liarities of this chapter may arise from its ori-
they were a part of everyday life, and the person gins. A variety of possibilities have been
becoming polluted by them would be purified suggested, the most recent seeing parallels—
by washing and the passage of time. There was and perhaps even the origin—of the rite in
no requirement to offer a sacrifice. First to be southern Anatolia and northern Syria (Janowski
treated, in vv. 1–16, are men. If there is an ab- and Wilhelm 1993). Expiation rituals in the Hit-
normal emission of semen or other penile dis- tite and Hurrian texts have some striking points
charge, the man (zab) becomes impure. The in common with the scapegoat ritual (ibid. 134–
pollution is passed on to anyone touching him 57; Wright 1987: 31–60).
or anything on which he sits, as it is also if he v. 1 connects the chapter back to the regula-
spits on anyone or touches anyone without first tions about the priests in chs. 8–10, linking it
washing his hands. The person so polluted was with the one proper occasion when a priest
required to bathe in spring water, wash his (limited to the high priest) could appear before
clothes, and would become clean with the God in the Holy of Holies. That is, whereas
going down of the sun. A normal discharge of Adab and Abihu had acted improperly (though
semen in marital intercourse (vv. 16–18) was their sin is never specified) and had been pun-
also polluting, though less contagious than an ished by death, the right ceremony at the right
abnormal discharge. The man and woman both time could allow the right priest to come into
were to wash themselves and remain unclean God’s actual presence. vv. 2–14, before the high
until evening. Any cloth or leather object on priest could come into God’s presence, he first
which semen fell was also to be washed and had to offer a bull as a sin offering for himself
remain unclean until evening. and his household. Then he went inside the veil
With regard to women (vv. 19–24), the flow of and placed incense on the coals of his censer to
blood caused by childbirth was already dealt make a cloud of smoke and hide the ark, thus
 141 leviticus

protecting himself from God who was seated likely to have been a ceremony evoked by the
on top of the ark, and sprinkled the blood of the high priest whenever it was needed (Milgrom
bull on the ark. This was all to atone for his own 1991: 1061–5).
sins. Before this was done, however, two goats Chs. 17–26 form the Holiness Code according
were chosen to perform separate roles by lot to a long-term consensus in scholarship; never-
(vv. 7–10). One goat was for YHWH, the other theless, there have been significant voices raised
for ‘Azazel’ (v. 8). What was this Azazel? Unfor- against this identification. See LEV B. 7 above.
tunately, it remains an enigma. No explanation
is found in the text of Lev 16, and the word does (17:1–16) Ch. 17 does not provide a formal
not occur elsewhere in the OT or early inscrip- introduction to the Holiness Code (assuming
tions. Various etymologies have been proposed, one accepts the idea of H). Indeed, Gerstenber-
but none is clearly compelling. Later Jewish ger sees chs. 16–26 as a unit separate from chs.
tradition identified Azazel with the leader of 1–15, and puts ch. 17 in with ch. 16 as a thematic
the fallen angels (Grabbe 1987). Although this unit on ‘the prime festival and the prime rule of
identification may itself be the result of exe- the offerings’ (1993: 17). The subject of ch. 17 is
gesis, scholars have often proposed that Azazel proper sacrifice; under this heading come the
represents some sort of demonic figure. This is matters of handling blood and of eating meat.
suggested by the context as well as later Jewish The reason for these is that eating of meat is
interpretation. While accepting this interpret- intimately associated with cultic sacrifice in the
ation as the one which developed in Judaism, mind of the writer.
Janowski and Wilhelm (1993: 161–2) argue that vv. 3–7 cover the law regarding slaughter,
the original meaning of the word was ‘for (the requiring that domestic animals be killed at
elimination of ) God’s wrath’. vv. 15–19, after the the altar. The reason is that the blood can be
priest had sacrificed for himself and his family, disposed of at the altar, and people will not
he next sacrificed the goat on whom the lot for sacrifice to goat demons (vv. 6–7). It is generally
God had fallen. This goat became a sin offering assumed that this chapter envisages all slaugh-
and was sacrificed and the blood sprinkled on ter as being done at the altar so that the blood
the ark, which atoned for the holy place (pol- can be dashed against the altar and the fat
luted because of the sins of the people). The burned on it. The exception to this rule was
altar was atoned for by sprinkling on it the the case of clean wild animals or birds which
blood from both the bull and goat. vv. 20–8, could be hunted, killed, and eaten apart from
in the rituals earlier in the chapter the various the shrine as long as the blood was drained out
sacrifices had been used to atone for the sins of onto the earth. If so, all slaughter of domestic
the high priest himself and then to cleanse the animals for food would have to take place in a
sanctuary of impurities because of the sins of sacrificial context. How could this be carried
the people. Now a unique ceremony takes place out from a practical point of view, if no butch-
in which the sins of the people are removed by ering or eating of meat could be done apart
the treatment of the goat ‘for Azazel’. It was not from the shrine? The difficulty is highlighted
slain. Rather, the high priest laid hands on it and by Deut 12:20–5 which seems to be changing
confessed the sins of the congregation, thus just such a regulation when it states that pro-
transferring them to its head. The goat was fane slaughter is now allowed, as long as the
then taken away and sent into the wilderness, blood is drained out of the animal. This means
bearing away all the sins of Israel on its head. As that Lev 17 must either be an idealized system
noted above, the different conceptualization of divorced from reality or have in mind a society
removing sins in this ritual may be due to its small enough in numbers and territory to allow
origins. a trip to the altar and back within a day or so.
vv. 29–34 summarize the ceremony and as- The post-exilic community had just such a size,
sociate it with the tenth day of the seventh and the majority of scholars apply this to the
month. The detailed ceremony of ch. 16 is post-exilic community (cf. Gerstenberger 1993:
only at this point connected with the Day of 216–17). Milgrom, however, argues that the ori-
Atonement listed as one of the festivals of Israel ginal setting was the pre-monarchic commu-
(Lev 23). It also specifies that the day should be nity, which was also quite small and allowed
one of fasting by the people. This suggests that such laws to operate. Another interpretation
the ritual of ch. 16 may have been only second- argues that only the sacrifice of well-being of-
arily connected with the Day of Atonement in ferings is in mind and that profane slaughter
the list of festivals (Noth 1977). Before this it was for food was permitted outside the temple
leviticus 142

(cf. Hartley 1992), though this seems to go against relationships are an important clue to attitudes
the most obvious meaning of the passage. towards relatives and outsiders (cf. LEV c.3–4). In
vv. 8–9 are a separate law and seem to repeat many preliterate societies elaborate codes gov-
vv. 3–7. They may have had a separate existence ern marriage. Often these force exogamy, even if
at one time and thus came to be included in the the only source of wives or husbands might be
collection despite some duplication. The pen- an enemy tribe. Israel’s rules here are very leni-
alty of being ‘cut off’ is characteristic of Leviti- ent (despite the claim that ‘the Canaanites’
cus (see at LEV 7:22–7). vv. 10–14 focus on the allowed sex with close of kin), allowing even
question of blood which is a central element in first cousins to marry. Israel was thus an endog-
this chapter. The life of both humans and ani- amous society. This fits their emphasis on rigid
mals is in the blood (vv. 11, 14). For that reason, barriers to non-Israelites. Easy marriage between
blood should not be eaten but dashed on the groups internally would, of course, help to pre-
altar or poured on the ground and covered with vent any feeling of need for marriage to out-
dust. Blood functions as a potent symbol within siders.
the sacrificial cult and must be given due weight vv. 1–5: the prohibited relations are framed in
in any theological discussion of the meaning of two sets of admonitions or paranaetic material
the cult (see at LEV 1:4). Schwartz (1991: 55–61) (vv. 1–5, 24–30). The sections justify the laws by
argues that kipper in 17:11 has the meaning of an appeal to the ‘abominations’ of the Egyptians
‘ransom’ and is the only biblical passage where and Canaanites (vv. 3, 24–8). In fact, there is no
sacrificial blood is said to be a ranson for evidence that these peoples were less moral
human life. Elsewhere blood has the quality of than the Israelites, nor that their sexual prac-
purifying or cleansing, so v. 11 is a unique verse. tices were necessarily that different. There may
Because of the characteristic of blood to serve as have been some differences in definition of
a ransom for life, its consumption is prohibited. what constituted incest among these peoples
(17:15–16) deals with eating that which dies of compared with Israel, as is to be expected, but
itself or is killed by animals. One of the reasons they had their own strict society codes. (The
is no doubt that the blood is still in the animal ‘abominations of the Egyptians and Canaanites’
and has not been drained away as required (vv. is a fiction which still dominates some discus-
6, 11, 13–14). Surprisingly, though, such eating is sions, especially with regard to Canaanite reli-
not prohibited but only requires the eater to gion.) On the theological construction of the
bathe, wash clothes, and be unclean until sun- Canaanites in the biblical text, see Lemche
set. No sacrifice is necessary. Priests were spe- (1991).
cifically prohibited from eating meat not The following sexual relations are considered
properly slaughtered in Lev 22:8, while Ex off limits for the Israelite male (vv. 7–23): first
22:31 (HB 22:30) and Deut 14:21 are even more are those ‘with his own flesh’ (i.e. near of kin):
stringent, and prohibit Israelites from eating mother or step-mother (vv. 6–7); sister, half-
such meat at all. sister, stepsister, or sister-in-law (vv. 9, 11, 16);
daughter-in-law (v. 10, 15); aunt (vv. 12–14); a
(18:1–30) discusses primarily forbidden sexual woman and her daughter or granddaughter
relations, in two sets of laws (vv. 7–18 and (v. 17). Other regulations seem to have to do
19–23). Much of this chapter covers what is usu- more with what is deemed appropriate: not to
ally referred to as incest, that is, sexual relations take a wife’s sister as rival wife (v. 18); not to
forbidden because of the closeness of kinship of have sex during the menstrual period (v. 19) or
the person involved; however, some other sorts with the neighbour’s wife (v. 20), with another
of sexual acts are also mentioned. Sexual rela- male (v. 22), or with animals (v. 23). One should
tions sit at the heart of social practice within any not offer one’s children to Molech (v. 21—on
community. Each society has strict views about this, see further at LEV 20:1–6). Omitted is pro-
which sort are allowed and which are not; these hibition of relations with a daughter or a sister.
views may change over time and—human na- The reason may be that the laws are phrased to
ture and passions being what they are—such forbid violation of one’s father and one’s
rules are often breached, but they are still there mother (Rattray 1987). Also omitted is any pro-
even in what might seem the most promiscuous hibition against homosexual acts between
of societies. Indeed, promiscuity in one area of a women, though the framers of the laws may
society may be matched by great rigidity in not have envisaged that such even existed.
another. Social anthropologists have found that vv. 24–30 put blame for exile from the land
laws about permitted and forbidden sexual on the sins of the inhabitants. The Israelite is the
 143 leviticus

object of the command but, as noted above in (r
eaʿ), ‘associate’ (ʿāmı̂t), and ‘people’ (ʿam) (Wen-
the general comments on ch. 18, the attribution ham 1979: 267). Scholars have noted connec-
of such abominable sins to the original inhab- tions between the Decalogue (Ex 20; Deut 5)
itants of the land is not based on any objective and this chapter (Morgenstern 1955). Some
criteria. Sexual mores were fairly uniform have thought they could even find two decalo-
throughout the ancient Near East. For example, gues (Kilian 1963: 58–9) or a dodecalogue and a
adultery was universally condemned (cf. Codex decalogue (Elliger 1966: 254), though a good
Hammurabi 129–32). Sex with animals seems deal of textual rearrangement is required and
otherwise unattested in the Near East at this the precise construction is not agreed on. It is
time (Gerstenberger 1993: 232). true that the contents of much of the Ten Com-
mandments are echoed here: graven images
(Chs. 19–20) list a set of miscellaneous laws on (19:4 jj Ex 20:3); using God’s name in vain
being holy. The term ‘miscellaneous’ is used (19:12 jj Ex 20:7); the sabbath (19:3, 30 jj Ex
from a modern perspective; no doubt the an- 20:8–12); honouring parents (19:3 jj Ex 20:12);
cient authors/compilers had their own view and murder (19:16 jj Ex 20:13); adultery (19:29 jj Ex
may have arranged the material according to a 20:14); stealing (19:11, 13 jj Ex 20:15). Lev 19 also
perfectly logical pattern from their standpoint. has a command against lying (v. 11) which might
The contents of this section have a number of be taken as somewhat parallel to bearing false
parallels with the Covenant Code (Ex 21:1–23:33) witness (Ex 20:16). Nevertheless, the wording
and Deut 12–24, as well as with laws known and even the precise concept is often different,
elsewhere in the ancient Near East (on Israelite and the order of presentation has nothing in
law in the context of ancient Near-Eastern law, common, and there is much here not in the Ten
see Grabbe (1993: 23–8) and the bibliography Commandments. Thus, there is no obvious re-
cited there). lationship between this chapter and the Deca-
logue. Comparison of the OT and the legal
(Ch. 19) has a series of laws preceded by an material elsewhere in the ancient Near East sug-
introduction (vv. 1–2) and with a concluding gests a large amount of traditional exhortative
verse (v. 37): revere parents (v. 3); unusually, material widespread in the area. The coinci-
the mother is mentioned first; keep the sab- dences between the traditional Decalogue and
baths (v. 3); avoid idols (v. 4); law of well-being this chapter are most likely due to this fact.
sacrifice (vv. 5–8); leave some of harvest for the
poor (vv. 9–10); do not steal (v. 11); do not lie or (20:1–8) is a section prohibiting seeking after
deceive (v. 11); do not swear falsely (v. 12); do not false sources of supernatural aid. It primarily
exploit others: friend, hired person, deaf, blind concerns dedicating children to Molech (vv.
(vv. 13–14); judge justly (v. 15); do not be a 2–5) but also forbids necromancy (v. 6). The
slanderer (v. 16); do not hate your fellows but prohibitions about Molech raise two questions:
love them (vv. 17–18); avoid mixtures (v. 19); if a what does it refer to, and why should it be in
man has sex with a betrothed slave woman (vv. this collection? There has been much discussion
20–2); the first fruits of a fruit tree (vv. 23–5); do about the first question (cf. Day 1989; Heider
not eat blood (v. 26); do not practice divination 1985). Who or what is Molech? Some have ar-
(v. 26); do not disfigure yourself for the dead (vv. gued that the term refers to a type of sacrifice;
27–8); do not make your daughter a prostitute others assert that Molech is a deity of some sort.
(v. 29); keep the sabbaths and honour the sanc- Although recent writings have favoured the lat-
tuary (v. 30); do not seek to contact spirits of the ter hypothesis, it cannot be said that the matter
dead (v. 31); show respect for the elderly (v. 32); is settled. Similarly, the expression ‘pass (a child)
love the resident alien (vv. 33–4); have honest over to Molech’ has been taken to mean only ‘to
scales and measures (vv. 35–6). dedicate to’ Molech or, more drastically, ‘to
Many of these are what we might call civil sacrifice (the child) to’ Molech. Again, recent
law, but here they are given a religious sanction writings have tended to support the latter view-
and thus brought under cultic law. The motive point. The same prohibition occurs in a similar
clause, ‘(for) I am YHWH’, occurs frequently. series in 18:19–23, but there the writer/editor
The laws proper (vv. 3–36) are not of a piece must have seen a connection between the sex-
because there is some overlap between the vari- ual acts and offering children to Molech. Its
ous ones. For example, the sabbath is men- presence is more easily explained here in ch.
tioned twice (vv. 3, 30). It has been noted that 20. But why is the law included in a series
vv. 11–18 have a common vocabulary in ‘friend’ having to do with sexual relations? Perhaps
leviticus 144

both were seen as threatening to family solidar- to all the priests, since they were all thought of
ity (Hartley 1992: 289–90). As its position here as descendants of Aaron.
indicates, worship of Molech may be a form of vv. 1–9: the presumption is that all Israel is to
seeking the deities of the underworld. Necro- be holy, but the priests had to be even more
mancy was another means of gaining help from rigorous. They were not allowed to defile them-
the dead and the forces associated with death selves by contact with a corpse by participating
and the netherworld. The precise development in funerals other than of close blood relatives:
of the cult of the dead and its significance is only for a mother, father, son, daughter, brother,
debated (cf. the summary in Grabbe 1995: 141–5), or an unmarried sister (vv. 1–4). They were not to
some thinking it was early in Israel’s history carry out mourning rites by disfiguring their hair,
(Bloch-Smith 1992) while others think it devel- beards, or flesh by cutting it (vv. 5–6). They were
oped only fairly late (Schmidt 1994). What is not allowed to marry a harlot or divorcee, and
clear is that in Leviticus, as in other passages the priest’s daughter who became a harlot was to
(e.g. Deut 18:9–14), the practice of necromancy be burned (vv. 7–9). However, v. 8 makes the
was known and forbidden, suggesting that it holiness of the priests a responsibility of the
was practised at the time of writing, whenever whole community. vv. 10–15, the OT as a whole
that was. does not say much about a high priest, though
we know that the high priest became very im-
(20:9–27) has parallels to Lev 19 and, espe- portant in Second Temple times (Grabbe 1992:
cially, Lev 18. vv. 10–21 primarily concern the 73–83). Leviticus does envisage a high priest,
question of sexual relations between relatives however, as this and other passages (e.g. Lev 16)
and others, though it is introduced by a prohib- show. The special nature of his office is shown
ition against cursing one’s parents (v. 9). These by special restrictions which were even more
are similar to Lev 18:6–23. vv. 22–6 give the stringent than in 21:1–9: he was not to participate
rationale for these laws (the previous inhabit- in a funeral, even for a close relative, or engage in
ants did these things and the land vomited them mourning rites of any kind; he was to marry only
out) in a manner parallel to 18:24–30. The sec- a virgin of his own people. vv. 16–23, the regula-
tion finally ends in a prohibition against necro- tions about the physical condition of those who
mancy (v. 27). This probably forms an inclusio could preside at the altar were also rigorous. Just
with 20:1–6 (i.e. the chapter begins and ends as animals to be sacrificed were to be without
with the same subject), suggesting that ch. 20 physical defect, so the officiating priests were to
was composed as an independent unit. This be without physical blemish. A number of these
implies that the repetition between chs. 18 and defects are described, though they may be only
20 is probably due to their being originally representative. Nevertheless, even priests whose
separate collections. If so, the final editor in- physical deformity or disease prevented them
cluded both, despite the parallel material, rather from carrying out their priestly duties were still
than choosing between them or attempting the allowed to eat of the priestly gifts.
difficult task of editing them together. Gersten-
berger (1993: 262–6), however, argues that one (22:1–33) carries on the theme at the end of ch.
of the chapters must be dependent on the other, 21 by giving laws on holy offerings and who
most likely the editor of ch. 20 was dependent may eat of them. Certain portions of the sacri-
on ch. 18; the intention of this revision is to give ficial animal and other offerings were to go to
new perspectives relating to the community. the priests, as noted in chs. 5–7. These were
sacred and to be eaten only by those qualified
(21:1–23) The concentration in chs. 17–20 has and only under certain conditions, vv. 3–16, the
been the community and people; now the text priests and their families who were in a state of
turns to laws relating primarily to the priests. purity, and they alone, were to partake of these
Formally, the passage is divided into two parts offerings. The various sorts of uncleanness are
by two speeches by YHWH to Moses. The first specified, but these do not differ from those
speech (vv. 1–15) is addressed to all the priests, already known. The basic rule was that only
whereas the second (vv. 16–23) is specifically to members of the priest’s household could
Aaron. The reason the second speech is ad- eat, including slaves but not hired servants,
dressed to Aaron may be because he (and sub- and unmarried daughters but not married
sequent high priests) were the ones to decide ones. Any unqualified person who ate of holy
whom to allow near the holy food (Hartley things had to restore it plus 20 per cent; cf. at
1992: 346). Otherwise, all the regulations relate 5:14–16.
 145 leviticus

vv. 17–25 link again the bodily perfection of made to the original list, especially vv. 39–43
both sacrificial animals and the presiding priests. (Feast of Booths). For further information on a
The first part of ch. 22 covers the priest; this number of the festivals, see Grabbe (1993: ch. 6).
section now specifies that all offerings were to
be whole, normal animals without major phys- (23:3) the word ‘sabbath’ is from the Hebrew
ical defects. Anything which was blind, injured, root š-b-t which means ‘rest, cessation’. The
maimed, or had certain sorts of disease was basic characteristic of the sabbath was that no
rejected. Neither was a castrated animal to be work (mĕlāʾkâ) of any kind was to be done. What
accepted. (The implication is that Israelites did exactly made up that prohibited work is not
not castrate their animals, contrary to the normal stated in this passage and is nowhere else
practice of those around them.) An animal with a spelled out as such. Outside Leviticus one pas-
limb extraordinarily short or long could be sage notes that work is also prohibited on the
accepted for a free-will offering but not for a holy days except ‘that which each person must
vow. This was the only explicit concession eat’ (Ex 12:16), suggesting that the preparation of
made about blemishes, though how the rules food was allowed on these annual sabbaths but
might be interpreted in practice we do not not on the weekly sabbath. The sabbath seems
know. v. 21 mentions only the votive (n
eder) and to have a long history in Israel and was hardly
the free-will (nĕdābâ) offerings as falling under the invented by the Priestly writers, but it is difficult
well-being offering; this seems to differ from the to say how far back the development of sabbath
description given at 7:11–18 which also seems to observance can be pushed. It was once com-
include the thanksgiving offering (tôdâ), though mon to regard the sabbath as primarily a post-
even this is a moot point. See the discussion at exilic innovation. Sabbath observance is em-
LEV 7:11–18. vv. 26–30 list another set of miscel- phasized mainly in exilic and post-exilic texts
laneous laws. A newborn animal was not to be (e.g. Isa 56; Neh 13:15–22). There is also the
sacrificed until it had been with its mother 7 days question of the sabbath passage here, since
(v. 26), nor were it and its mother to be sacrificed from a form-critical point of view, v. 3 appears
on the same day (v. 27). Any thanksgiving offer- to be a later insertion and not part of the ori-
ing had to be eaten on the day it was offered, and ginal list. Yet some texts generally acknow-
anything left over after that time had to be burnt ledged to be pre-exilic seem to presuppose
(vv. 29–30). This agrees with 7:15. vv. 31–3 provide sabbath observance (Hos 2:11; Am 8:5; Isa 1:13),
a concluding admonition to the chapter. indicating that it was known and followed in
some circles as early as the eighth century BCE.
(Ch. 23) is one of several lists itemizing the Some have even argued for an earlier obser-
major religious festivals (cf. Ex 23:14–17; 34:18– vance based on such passages as Ex 23:12 and
26; Deut 16:1–17), but it tends to be the most 34:21 (cf. 2 Kings 4:23). Although it does not
detailed and, in the opinion of many, one of the seem to be clearly attested as early as some of
latest. There is also a late list of festivals in Ezek the annual festivals, certain scholars have ar-
45:18–25; however, this one is a bit difficult to gued that the weekly sabbath goes far back in
correlate with the others because it focuses on Israel’s history and is not a late development
the duties of the ‘prince’ and perhaps was not (see Andreasen 1972; Shafer 1976).
meant to be comprehensive in other respects.
The list to be most closely compared to Lev 23 is (23:5) briefly mentions the Passover, but Leviti-
Num 28–9, however. The conventional view of cus is otherwise silent about this important
scholarship has been that Num 28–9 (a part of celebration. This may not be significant if
the P document) is secondary to Lev 23 (a mix- there is a P document since other passages nor-
ture of P and H). This view has now been stood mally labelled P include a lengthy description of
on its head by Knohl (1995; cf. 1987) who argues the observance, especially Ex 12:1–20. The im-
that H is secondary to P. Specifically, he thinks portant point about Leviticus is that Passover is
Lev 23 is an adaptation of Num 28–9 and thus presupposed but intimately tied up with the
represents the later list. Form-critically, ch. 23 is Festival of Unleavened Bread (23:6–8). This was
divided into five commands to Moses for him to the 7-day period when only unleavened bread
speak to Israel: 23:1–8, 9–22, 23–5, 26–32, 33–44. (massôt) was eaten and no leavening or leavened
This serves to give each festival an independent __
products were allowed in the land. The festival
treatment, but it also highlights the fact that the was inaugurated by the Passover meal, at which
weekly sabbath does not fit easily in the list and unleavened bread was eaten, on the evening
draws attention to what seem to be additions between 14 and 15 Nisan. The first full day
leviticus 146

(15th) was a holy day, as was the last day (1st). A was disagreement among the various sects about
major question is when the Passover became the day of this festival. The dispute concerned
associated with the Feast of Unleavened Bread. whether one counted 7 weeks from a floating
It is now generally admitted that some early annual sabbath on 15 Nisan or 7 sabbaths from
traditions do mention the Passover (e.g. Ex the first day of the week, to arrive at another first
23:18; 34:25). Haran (1962: 317–48) has argued day of the week. (As noted above, the debate
that the Passover was associated with Unleav- mainly concerned the exact time of the Wave
ened Bread from an early time and is already so Sheaf Day.) Some translations and lexicons ren-
linked in all the biblical sources. However, his der the Hebrew phrase šebaʿ šabbātôt as ‘seven
argument that the Passover goes back to a ‘no- weeks’, but this would be the only place where
madic’ way of life, with Unleavened Bread aris- šabbāt means week in the OT; more likely is that
ing in settled conditions, is problematic in the the word means ‘sabbath’ here as elsewhere. It
light of recent discussion about nomadism and was only in Second Temple times that the mean-
the Israelite settlement (cf. Lemche 1985: esp. ing ‘week’ developed and allowed some sects to
84–163). Haran also makes the point that the try to count from a fixed day of the month.
Passover in Ex 12 and elsewhere is actually en- Hebrew usage and later priestly practice indicate
visaged as a temple sacrifice. that Shavuot was always celebrated on a Sunday
as long as the temple stood and only later be-
(23:9–14) An important day within the festival came fixed on 6 Sivan as it is among most Jews
of unleavened bread was the Wave Sheaf (ʿōmer) today (Grabbe 1992: 486). Shavuot also had its
Day. On this day a symbolic sheaf of grain was own specific offerings. Two loaves of bread were
cut as the first fruits of the harvest and presented baked from flour made from the new grain and
before God. In addition, certain specific offerings presented before God. Unusually, they were to
are enjoined: a male lamb as a burnt offering, a be baked with leaven; this seems the only excep-
cereal offering of two ephahs of flour mixed with tion to the requirement that cereal offerings were
oil, and a quarter hin of wine as a drink offering. to be unleavened, though nothing is said about
This ceremony marked the start of the grain their being burnt on the altar.
harvest. No bread or grain from the new crop
was to be eaten until the first sheaf had been (23:23–5) the first day of the seventh month
brought. The ceremony took place on the Sun- (Tishri) was a holy day celebrated by the blow-
day (‘the day after the sabbath’) during the days ing of trumpets. The type of trumpet used is not
of unleavened bread. In later centuries, the vari- specified. Another passage usually associated
ous sects disagreed over whether the ‘day after with P mentions a set of silver trumpets to be
the sabbath’ meant the day after the first annual used for ceremonial occasions and war (Num
sabbath (the holy day on 15 Nisan) or after the 10:1–10). One might therefore think of these, but
weekly sabbath, but the most natural reading of the symbolic blowing may not have been con-
the Hebrew text was that which interpreted it as fined to them. The ram’s horn (šôpār) associated
the weekly sabbath (cf. Grabbe 2000:141). This with the festival in modern times may have
date also affected the date of Pentecost. been a later development or interpretation,
but we have no way of knowing. Other than
(23:15–21) The spring grain harvest began on the blowing of trumpets and the command to
the Wave Sheaf Day and continued for 7 weeks do no work, nothing further is stated about this
until the Feast of Weeks. For some reason, day here. Num 29:1–5 lists sacrifices to be
though, no specific term (‘Feast of Weeks’ or offered, though why they should be omitted
otherwise) occurs for this festival in Leviticus. here is a problem.
The Feast of Weeks did not fall on a specific
day of the month but was counted from the (23:26–32) The tenth day of the seventh
Wave Sheaf Day, reckoning 7 sabbaths. The month was the Day of Atonement (yôm hakkip-
Feast of Weeks (hag šābu ʿôt: Ex 34:22) was on pûrı̂m). This passage states that the day is a time
the day after the_ seventh sabbath, called the of no work, fasting (‘you shall afflict your
fiftieth day when counting inclusively (i.e. in- souls’), a holy convocation, with an ‘offering of
cluding both the starting and finishing day in fire’ (see at 3:11) to be carried out. No further data
the total). Hence, in later times the day was are given. Yet we know that the ceremony of
given the Greek name of Pent
ekost
e ‘fiftieth the two goats was also associated with this day,
(day)’, from which the English Pentecost comes. as Lev 16 describes in detail. Was the ceremony
From later Jewish sources, we know that there of Lev 16 once an independent observance
 147 leviticus

which only later became associated with 10 also a narrative section and, especially, to Num
Tishri? Most of the chapter gives no indication 15:32–6 where a sinner is likewise imprisoned
of when the ceremony was to take place. It is until God decides the punishment for the
only towards the end of the chapter (16:29–34) crime (in this case, the sin is sabbath-breaking).
that the ritual is connected with the Day of The passage is made of up two sections: a
Atonement known from Lev 23. narrative about the blasphemer and his ultimate
fate (vv. 10–12, 23), and the command of YHWH
(23:33–6, 39–43) The Feast of Booths or Taber- not only about blasphemy but also other sins
nacles (sukkôt) was the final festival of the year, (vv. 13–22). The narrative tells how a man with
celebrated after the autumn harvest (23:33–6, an Israelite mother but an Egyptian father used
39–43) on 15–22 Tishri. It probably arose from God’s name in a blasphemous way. He was put
the practice of farmers who would build a tem- in custody until God could be consulted. God’s
porary shelter (booth) in the field to sleep in to judgement was that he be stoned to death by
protect the harvest and maximize the daylight the entire community. Anyone in the future
until it was gathered. The people were to take blaspheming with God’s name was likewise to
fruit, palm leaves, tree branches, and willows be executed by stoning. The commands of
and make booths as a part of the celebration. YHWH (vv. 13–22) concern not only blasphemy
The first day was a holy day on which no work but also causing death to a man (which brings
was to be done, as was the eighth day. As with the death penalty) or a beast (compensation has
the Day of Trumpets, no sacrifices are listed for to be paid), and they apply not only to Israelites
Sukkot in Leviticus. At Num 29:12–39, however, but also to the resident alien. Within this sec-
we find that an elaborate series of sacrifices was tion is an inset paragraph about life and recip-
to take place, with each of the eight days having rocation of punishment, otherwise known as
its own particular ceremony. They followed a the lex talionis.
diminishing series, beginning with 13 bulls on
the first day, 12 bulls on the second, and so on (24:17–22) makes the point of the importance
down to 7 bulls on the seventh day. The eighth of life, especially human life. The one who kills
day had its own separate ceremony. a person is to be executed. Anyone who kills an
animal must make restitution. There is also the
(24:1–9) describes the lamps and the bread of principle that injuries were to be compensated
the presence in the foyer of the temple. Why this by having a reciprocal injury done to the per-
section and the next (24:10–23) go here is not petrator, the famous ‘eye for an eye and a tooth
immediately apparent, but both 24:2–4 and 24:5– for a tooth’. This law has often been misunder-
9 relate to the area inside the Holy Place, in front stood as if it were a primitive barbaric practice
of the curtain separating it from the Holy of which embarrassed legislators later did their
Holies. A very pure olive oil was to be provided best to soften. In fact, the earlier principle was
to keep the lampstand burning on a regular basis that a person injuring another was to pay com-
(vv. 2–4). (The concept of a perpetual lamp pensation. For example, the earliest Mesopota-
occurs in 1 Sam 3:3.) There was also to be a mian law codes (Eshnuna 42–7; Ur-Nammu
table on which 12 loaves (along with frankin- 15–19 ¼ A324–325? jj B§§13–24) have monetary
cense) were to be placed each sabbath. compensation. In the case of an extended fam-
The frankincense was burned at the end of the ily or community, that was the simplest way of
week, and the priests were allowed to eat the handling it. The injured party received some
loaves. This was known as the ‘bread of presence’ benefit, or at least his family did. On the other
or ‘show bread’. It is these loaves or something hand, the later law codes (Hammurabi 195–223)
similar which David and his men ate in 1 Sam evoke the lex talionis for those of equal status
21:1–6. This bread is referred to in passing at Ex (though monetary compensation applies to in-
39:36, but it is a puzzle why an actual description jury of someone of lower status). The lex talionis
is delayed until this point in Leviticus. was an important advance in jurisprudence for
two reasons: first, it made all equal before the
(24:10–23) discusses the question of blas- law. The rich man could not get away with his
phemy. Here and there within Leviticus narra- crime of injuring another by monetary pay-
tive replaces direct commands. In such cases, ment. The ‘eye for an eye’ principle was a great
the episode seems meant to explain what leveller. Secondly, it marks the stage at which
should be done by example rather than just the tribe or state takes over the function of
instruction. It is similar to Lev 8–10 which is justice from the local community.
leviticus 148

(Chs. 25–6) seem to be envisaged as a unit by was allowed, and the people could eat it for
the author or editor, because they consist of one food on a day-to-day basis, but no harvesting
speech by YHWH to Moses and because they as such was permitted. Of course, by a divine
are marked off by an inclusio (the phrase ‘on miracle there would be no hardship since the
Mount Sinai’) in the first verse (25:1) and the land would produce enough in the sixth year to
last verse (26:46). Each of the two chapters has tide the inhabitants over to the harvest of the
different subject-matter and can be treated sep- crops sown in the new cycle (vv. 19–22). In
arately, but they are also connected in that the Leviticus the seventh year seems to be primarily
punishments of ch. 26 are in part the result of an agricultural observance (cf. also Ex 23:10–11).
not observing the sabbatical year commanded According to some passages, however, loans
in ch. 25. and the enslavement of Israelites were also can-
celled in the seventh year (Deut 15:1–3, 12–15; Jer
(Ch. 25) describes two year-long observances: 34:8–16). If so, the seventh year would have been
the seventh or sabbatical year (year of release: an integral part of the nation’s life, with wide-
šĕmittâ) in vv. 2–7, and the jubilee ( yôb
el) year in spread implications for the economy. On the
__
vv. 8–55. Comparison has been made with the other hand, there seems to be a contradiction
Mesopotamian m
išarum and the andurāru (Lewy between Leviticus, which sees the year of release
1958) which go back to the Old Babylonian and as the jubilee, and those other passages which
Old Assyrian periods (early second millennium ascribe release to the sabbatical year (see
BCE). Among the points to note are the follow- below). This suggests that we find two separate
ing: Babylonian andurāru is cognate with the systems, one in which the year of release is the
Hebrew dĕrôr release. A king would declare a seventh year, and the other in which the year of
mı̄šarum which was a general declaration of just- release is the fiftieth. Those texts which view the
ice. He might also declare an andurāru ‘release’, seventh year as the year of release do not seem
which could include a remission of certain to envisage a jubilee year at all.
taxes, a release of debts, reversion of property The existence of a sabbatical year is attested
to its original owners, or manumission of in historical sources of the Second Temple
slaves. It was common for a king to declare period (Grabbe 1991: 60–3). This included a
such in his first year of reign. The Israelite in- rest from growing crops, at least from the time
novation was to declare a jubilee at regular of the Maccabees (1 Macc 6:49, 53; Josephus, Ant.
intervals rather than in the first year of a king 13.7.4–8.1 §§ 228–35; 14.16.2 § 475). We also
as in Mesopotamia. The Akkadian evidence for know from actual documents found in the Ju-
the mı̄šarum and andurāru is generally accepted dean Desert that the cancellation of debts and
(cf. Finkelstein 1961), but its interpretation in return of property in the seventh year was a
relation to the Israelite institution is not neces- known institution (Murabba’at 18; 24). There is
sarily simple. In solidly argued studies of both no mention of the jubilee year, however, except
the biblical and the Mesopotamian evidence, N. in literature such as the Book of Jubilees. The
P. Lemche (1976; 1979) found a lot of sloppy indication is, therefore, that the sabbatical year
comparison in earlier studies. For example, OT but not the jubilee was observed in Second
material was used to interpret the Old Babylon- Temple times. It is also reasonable to conclude
ian which was then used to interpret the Israel- that the seventh year was in some way observed
ite, with clear dangers of circular reasoning. The in early post-exilic times, though how much
existence of the practice of a king’s granting a further back it can be projected is a question.
release in his first year in the Old Babylonian Whether the jubilee was ever observed is a
period proves nothing about the antiquity of matter of speculation.
the jubilee in Israel which is, after all, somewhat The tithing cycle is not mentioned in Leviti-
different. Lemche admits some evidence for the cus (or other P passages) but, if a sabbatical year
antiquity of a seventh fallow year in agriculture, existed, the tithes of Deut 14–15 would work
but the development of a sabbatical year with only if operated on a 7-year cycle. That is, the
all its social accoutrements seems late. tithe of the third year (Deut 14:28–9) would have
to be coordinated with the seventh year, or it
(25:2–7) envisages a basic cycle of 7-year would sometimes fall on the sabbatical year
periods or sabbatical years. The last year of when there was no produce on which to pay
this cycle was a year when the land had to be tithes. Thus, the tithe of the third year would
left fallow. No crops were to be sown. That have been paid on the third and sixth year out
which grew up by itself (volunteer growth) of the cycle rather than forming an independent
 149 leviticus

3-year cycle. On the matter of tithing in general, price being calculated according to the number
see Grabbe (1993: 66–72). of years until the jubilee. If he is not redeemed,
he and his family were allowed to go free in the
(25:8–55) describes the jubilee which took jubilee year. On the question of the release of
place after seven sabbatical-year cycles. The slaves and cancellation of loans, there is some
text is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, contradiction between Leviticus and other pas-
the jubilee might be thought to coincide sages, as already noted above. Lev 25 and Lev 27
with the last year of the seventh cycle (Lev are the only descriptions of the jubilee year.
25:8); on the other hand, it is explicitly said to
be the fiftieth year (Lev 25:10–11). If it was indeed (26:1–46) is mainly composed of a list of bless-
the fiftieth year, it would mean two fallow years ings for obedience and curses for disobedience,
in a row, yet nothing is said about the effects of and makes a fitting end to the book. An appro-
such a situation or how to cope with it. The later priate literary closure of a book such as this is a
Jewish Book of Jubilees definitely counts a jubilee section which demonstrates the consequences
cycle of 49 years, showing that the ‘fiftieth of heeding or not heeding the commands con-
year’ might be counted inclusively (i.e. including tained in it. A similar conclusion is found in
both the starting and finishing years in the cal- Deut 28. Such blessings and curses are well
culation). It may be that this is what the author known from other ancient Near-Eastern litera-
of Lev 25 has in mind, but the point is never ture. International treaties usually ended with a
clarified. list of blessings and, especially, curses for dis-
vv. 13–28, the jubilee was also a fallow year obedience (cf. McCarthy 1978: 172–87). The so-
but, according to Leviticus, it was more than called ‘law codes’ often include a similar section.
this; it was a year of release (also Lev 27:16–24; For example, the epilogue to the Code of Ham-
Num 36:4). Land was to return to its original murabi spells out how the gods will punish the
family. Agrarian land was considered an inali- king in various ways for not heeding the mar-
enable heritage granted by God and to be kept vellous laws which had just been listed (ANET
in the family in perpetuity. Therefore, the land 163–5). Probably the clearest example of an
could not be sold permanently. Any sale was international treaty is that of Esarhaddon (Wise-
viewed really as a long-term lease which man 1958; ANET 534–41). As with the list in Lev
reverted back to the family in the jubilee year. 26, the curses tend to dominate, with the bless-
The sale price was determined according to the ings listed only briefly.
length of time to the next jubilee, so that the vv. 1–2 at first sight seem out of place in the
purchaser was really paying for the number of context of chs. 25–6. However, they may form a
crops obtained before it reverted to the original connecting section between the two chapters.
owners; the less time until the jubilee, the less vv. 3–13 list the blessings for obedience which
was paid for the property. vv. 29–34 note that come first. There seem to be four of these, based
town property was treated differently and could on the formal structure (Hartley 1992): rain in
be transferred without right of repossession, due season (vv. 4–5), peace (vv. 6–8), fertility (vv.
after a probation year in which the seller could 9–10), and God’s presence (vv. 11–13), though
change his mind and redeem it. On the other victory over enemies could be said to be a fifth
hand, Levitical property was treated like agrar- (vv. 7–8), judging from the content (Porter 1976).
ian land in that it would revert to the original vv. 14–38 give a much longer and more clearly
owner at the jubilee. vv. 35–55 deal with the structured section on the curses for disobedi-
question of helping the poor and needy ence. Five sections are marked off with the
among the Israelites by necessary loans, with- phrase, ‘If you (still) disobey, I will punish you
out charging interest. It moves on to the ques- sevenfold’ or similar words. The desire seems to
tion of debt slavery. Slavery was accepted as an be to create a crescendo effect, so that the
institution (as, indeed, it was in the NT). Foreign longer the Israelites refuse to obey, the stronger
slaves could be bought and sold as chattels (vv. becomes the punishment, multiplying seven-
44–6), though there were laws which regulated fold each time. This does not seem to be carried
how they were treated (e.g. Deut 21:15–17). But through consistently, though there is a sort of
Israelites were not to be treated as slaves. climax in the exile from the land. In fact, the
If someone sold himself or his family because individual curses seem to be listed by subject
of debts or poverty, the person was to be treated rather than according to any sense of increasing
as a hired servant. He may also redeem himself malignancy: defeat in battle (vv. 14–17), drought
or be redeemed by a relative, the redemption (vv. 18–20), wild animals (vv. 21–2), war,
leviticus 150

pestilence, famine (vv. 23–6), dire conditions according to how much the person is likely to
and exile (vv. 27–39). Finally, hope is expressed earn by physical labour. This means that males
for repentence and a return from captivity (vv. were worth more than females of a similar age,
39–45). and adults in their prime were worth more than
vv. 31–45 end the chapter with reference to an children, youths, or the elderly. vv. 9–13, if an
exile and return, which led many scholars to animal suitable for offering had been vowed, it
claim that this shows knowledge of the Exile had to be sacrificed, with no substitution being
of the Jews in 587/586 BCE and their return in allowed. Any attempt at substitution meant that
538. This may be a correct interpretation, but it both the original vow and the substitute be-
is interesting to note that one of the traditional came dedicated to God. However, in the case
punishments is to have the people of the land of an unclean animal no sacrifice was possible.
taken captive (e.g. Codex Hammurabi, xxvi. 73– Therefore, it had to be redeemed by its valu-
80; xxviii. 19–23). If the actual Exile is presup- ation plus 20 per cent. vv. 14–15, if a house was
posed, the writer is surprisingly vague about the dedicated, it could also be redeemed by paying
details; alternatively, the account of the Exile its value plus 20 per cent. vv. 16–24: land was
known to him was rather different from that valued in relation to the jubilee year. In other
described elsewhere in the OT. This suggests words, the number of harvests remaining until
that the punishment of exile was a traditional the jubilee was calculated and the value set
one in such curses and not necessarily to be according to that number. Inherited land
related to the historical situation. v. 46 forms a could then be redeemed for its valuation plus
concluding piece. Is it the conclusion of ch. 26 20 per cent. If the owner did not redeem the
only or is it a conclusion to a larger section? Its land and it was sold, however, it was no longer
reference to ‘statutes’ (huqqı̂m), ‘judgements’ in his power to redeem. Instead it became
_
(mišpātı̂m), and ‘laws/teachings’ (tôrôt) suggest priestly property. According to Deut 18:1–21,
_
that something larger than a chapter or even a Levites (including priests) were not to own
couple of chapters is intended. Thus, this seems land as individuals. Apparently, though, the
to be a concluding formula for the entire book temple and priesthood could own land jointly.
(Hartley 1992: 414). (We know that such was the case in the Second
Temple period.) Land which had been pur-
(Ch. 27) describes vows and tithe of livestock. chased (as opposed to inherited) did not belong
It is also an important chapter about support perpetually to the purchaser but reverted to the
for the priesthood. The chapter is usually seen original owner in the jubilee. Thus, if such land
as an appendix to the book and not part of the was consecrated, it would still go back to the
Holiness Code proper. The reason is that ch. 26 owner in the jubilee, so its valuation without
makes an appropriate ending with its general any addition was given to the priests.
blessings and curses and, as noted above, 26:46 vv. 26–7, firstling animals belonged automat-
fits well as a concluding statement for the entire ically to God. This brief mention is all that
book. On the other hand, in the present struc- Leviticus has on the subject. Other passages of
ture of the book ch. 27 is parallel with chs. 1–7 in priestly instruction fill this out (Ex 13:11–15;
giving specific halakic instructions. Also, just as 34:19–20; Num 18:15–18): all clean animals were
Deuteronomy does not end with the blessings to be offered at the altar, with the appropriate
and curses of ch. 28, so the final editors of portions burned, but the rest of the meat went
Leviticus may have been reluctant to end with entirely to the priests. Unclean animals were
ch. 26. Therefore, Lev 27 may indeed be a later more complicated since there seems to be
addition but one which the final editors more than one set of instructions. It is clear
regarded as appropriate and even essential. that they were normally to be redeemed,
though Ex 34:20 says this was to be with a
(27:1–29) Much of this chapter is devoted to the lamb, whereas Lev 27:27 states that it is by
question of vows and consecration of objects their monetary value plus 20 per cent. Similarly,
and property to God. It was possible to dedicate if not redeemed, 27:27 says they were to be sold
human beings, animals, houses, and land to for their assessed value, with the money going
God. vv. 2–8: if the dedicated object was a to the temple personnel, but Ex 34:20 says the
person, then he or she had to be redeemed by animal’s neck was to be broken.
money. The valuation of the redemption vv. 28–9 devoted things (h
erem) belonged
money was according to age and sex and solely to God and were not to_ be made use of
seems to be primarily economic; that is, it is by man. They could not be sold or redeemed.
 151 leviticus

A devoted human being was to be put to death. Childs, B. S. (1979), Introduction to the Old Testament as
This last statement is puzzling because nor- Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress).
mally the human beings which belonged to Cross, F. M. (1947), ‘The Priestly Tabernacle’, BA 10:
God were to be redeemed. For example, the 45–68 (¼ BAR 1: 201–28).
first-born were to be redeemed for money be- Damrosch, D. (1987), ‘Leviticus’, in R. Alter and
cause their place was taken by the Levites (Num F. Kermode (eds.), The Literary Guide to the Bible
3:5–13; 18:15). It seems unlikely that an Israelite (London: Collins), 66–77.
would be allowed to devote another Israelite to Day, J. (1989), Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in
God in this way. Therefore, it is unclear who the the Old Testament, University of Cambridge
devoted person might be who would be put to Oriental Publications, 41 (Cambridge University
death; however, there are several examples of Press).
prisoners-of-war being slain at God’s orders, Douglas, M. (1966), Purity and Danger: An Analysis of
suggesting that this might be what was in the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routle-
mind (cf. Josh 10:24–7; 1 Sam 15). dge & Kegan Paul).
—— (1993), ‘The Forbidden Animals in Leviticus’,
(27:30–3) speaks of the tithe of livestock. The JSOT 59: 3–23.
tithe of animals is nowhere else referred to in Elliger, K. (1966), Leviticus, HAT 4 (Tübingen: Mohr
the Pentateuch. They were to be tithed apparently [Siebeck]).
by running them past and cutting out every tenth Finkelstein, J. J. (1961), ‘Amisaduqa’s Edict and the
animal, regardless of whether it was good or bad. Babylonian ‘‘Law Codes’’ ’, JCS 15: 91–104.
If the owner tried to substitute an animal, not Gennep, A. van (1960), The Rites of Passage (London:
only was the original tithe animal still considered Routledge & Kegan Paul).
as belonging to YHWH but also the substitute. Gerstenberger, E. S. (1993), Das dritte Buch Mose:
The point was that no substitution was to be Leviticus, ATD 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
made. Nothing is said about how the tithe was Ruprecht); ET Leviticus: A Commentary, OTL, tr.
to be used. By inference from other passages Douglas W. Stott (London: SCM; Louisville, Ky.:
(2 Chr 31:6), it was to go to the priests as a part Westminster/John Knox, 1996).
of their income. A number of questions arise. Gorman, F. H., Jr. (1990), The Ideology of Ritual: Space,
Why is not the tithe of animals referred to else- Time and Status in the Priestly Theology, JSOTSup 91
where in the OT (apart from 2 Chr 31:6)? How was (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
the tithing to be carried out? If the entire herd or Grabbe, L. L. (1987), ‘The Scapegoat Ritual: A Study
flock was run by each year, the breeding stock in Early Jewish Interpretation’, JSJ 18: 152–67.
would gradually become decimated (literally). —— (1991), ‘Maccabean Chronology: 167–164 or
Would it just have been the new crop of calves, 168–165 BCE?’ JBL 110: 59–74.
kids, and lambs each time? This makes sense, but —— (1992), Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, i. Persian and
no discussion is given. Why? Is it because this was Greek Periods; ii. Roman Period (Minneapolis: Fort-
only a theoretical law which was never put into ress); British edn. in one vol. (London: SCM, 1994).
practice? Giving the first-born of each breeding —— (1993), Leviticus, SOTS, Old Testament Guides
animal would equal roughly 10 per cent, so how (Sheffield: JSOT).
did the tithe relate to the command about the —— (1995), Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-
first-born? The question of how these instruc- Historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel
tions of Leviticus related to the actual situation (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Int.).
in Israel is brought forcefully to our attention —— (ed.) (1997), Can a History of Israel Be Written?
in these verses. For a further comment on the JSOTSup 245 ¼ European Seminar in Historical
situation, see LEV E.4 above. Methodology, 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press).
—— (2000), Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period:
REFERENCES
Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh (London:
Andreasen, N.-E. A. (1972), The Old Testament Sabbath, Routledge).
SBL Dissertation 7 (Missoula, Mont: Scholars Press). Haran, M. (1962), ‘Shilo and Jerusalem: The Origin of
Blenkinsopp, J. (1996), ‘An Assessment of the the Priestly Tradition in the Pentateuch’, JBL 81:
Alleged Pre-Exilic Date of the Priestly Material in 14–24.
the Pentateuch’, ZAW 108: 495–518. —— (1978), Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel
Bloch-Smith, E. (1992), Judahite Burial Practices and (Oxford: Clarendon).
Beliefs about the Dead, JSOTSup 123; JSOT/ASOR Hartley, J. E. (1992), Leviticus, WBC 4 (Dallas: Word
MS, 7 (Sheffield: JSOT). Books).
leviticus 152

Hecht, R. (1979–80), ‘Patterns of Exegesis in Philo’s Application in the Ancient Near East’, JNES 38:
Interpretation of Leviticus’, Studia Philonica, 6: 11–22.
77–155. —— (1985), Early Israel: Anthropological and Historical
Heider, G. C. (1985), The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment, Studies on the Israelite Society before the Monarchy,
JSOTSup 43 (Sheffield: JSOT). VTSup 37 (Leiden: Brill).
Houston, W. (1993), Purity and Monotheism: Clean and —— (1991), The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition
Unclean Animals in Biblical Law, JSOTSup 140 (Shef- of the Canaanites, JSOTSup 110 (Sheffield: Sheffield
field: Sheffield Academic Press). Academic Press).
Hübner, U. (1989), ‘Schweine, Schweineknochen und —— (1993), ‘The Old Testament—a Hellenistic
ein Speiseverbot im Alten Israel’, VT 39: 225–36. Book’, SJOT 7:163–93.
Hurvitz, A. (1982), A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Levine, B. A. (1974), In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of
between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel, SJLA 5
New Approach to an Old Problem, Cahiers de la Revue (Leiden: Brill).
Biblique, 20 (Paris: Gabalda). Lewy, H. (1958), ‘The Biblical Institution of Derôr in the
—— (1988), ‘Dating the Priestly Source in Light of Light of Akkadian Documents’, EI 5: 21*–31*.
the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew: A Century McCarthy, D. J. (1978), Treaty and Covenant, 2nd edn.,
after Wellhausen’, ZAW 100 Suppl., 88–100. AnBib 21A (Rome: Biblical Institute).
Janowski, B. and Wilhelm, G. (1993), ‘Der Bock, der Marx, A. (1989), ‘Sacrifice pour les péchés ou rites de
die Sünden hinausträgt: Zur Religionsgeschichte passage? Quelques réflexions sur la fonction du,
des Azazel-Ritus Lev 16,10.21 f’, in Bernd Janowski, hattāʾt’, RB 96: 27–48.
Klaus Koch, and Gernot Wilhelm (eds.), Religions- ——_ __(1994), Les Offrandes végétales dans l’Ancien Testa-
geschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyr- ment: Du tribut d’hommage au repas eschatologique,
ien und dem Alten Testament: Internationales Symposion VTSup 57 (Leiden: Brill).
Hamburg 17.–21. März 1990, OBO 129 (Fribourg: Milgrom, J. (1976), Cult and Conscience: The ASHAM and
Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 69. the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (Leiden: Brill).
Jenson, P. P. (1992), Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly —— (1991), Leviticus 1–16, AB 3 (Garden City, NY:
Conception of the World, JSOTSup 106 (Sheffield: Doubleday).
Sheffield Academic Press). —— (1992), ‘Priestly (‘‘P’’) Source’, ABD v. 454–61.
Kellermann, D. (1977), ‘ʾāshām’, TDOT (Grand Rapids, Morgenstern, J. (1955), ‘The Decalogue of the Holi-
Mich.: Eerdmans), i. 429–37. ness Code’, HUCA 26: 1–27.
Kilian, R. (1963), Literarkritische und formgeschichtliche Newsom, C. A., and Ringe, S. H. (eds.) (1992), The
Untersuchung des Heiligkeitsgesetzes, BBB 19 (Bonn: Women’s Bible Commentary (Louisville, Ky.: West-
Peter Hanstein). minster/John Knox; London: SPCK).
Kirschner, R. (1982–3), ‘Rabbinic and Philonic Exe- Noth, M. (1977), Leviticus: A Commentary, OTL, rev.
gesis of the Nadab and Abihu Incident (Lev. 10:1– trans. (London: SCM).
6)’, JQR 73: 375–93. Porter, J. R. (1976), Leviticus, Cambridge Bible Com-
Kiuchi, N. (1987), The Purification Offering in the Priestly mentary on the New English Bible (Cambridge:
Literature: Its Meaning and Function, JSOTSup 56 Cambridge University Press).
(Sheffield: JSOT). Rattray, S. (1987), ‘Marriage Rules, Kinship Terms
Knierim, R. P. (1992), Text and Concept in Leviticus 1:1–9: and Family Structure in the Bible’, Society of Biblical
A Case in Exegetical Method, FAT 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Literature Abstracts and Seminar Papers, 26, ed. K.
[Siebeck]). Richards (Atlanta: Scholars Press), 537–44.
Knohl, I. (1987), ‘The Priestly Torah Versus the Holi- Rendtorff, R. (1963), Die Gesetze in der Priesterschrift:
ness School: Sabbath and the Festivals’, HUCA 58: Eine gattungs-geschichtliche Untersuchung, 2nd edn.
65–117. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
—— (1995), The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah —— (1982–95), Leviticus, BKAT 3 (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress). Neukirchener Verlag).
Koch, K. (1959), Die Priesterschrift von Exodus 25 bis Reventlow, H. G. (1961), Das Heiligkeitsgesetz for-
Leviticus 16: Eine überlieferungsgeschichtliche und litera- mgeschichtlich untersucht, WMANT (Neukirchen-
rische Untersuchung, FRLANT 71 (Göttingen: Van- Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag).
denhoeck & Ruprecht). Schüssler Fiorenza, E. (ed.) (1994a), with the assist-
Lemche, N. P. (1976), ‘The Manumission of Slaves— ance of S. Matthews, Searching the Scriptures, i.
the Fallow Year—the Sabbatical Year—the Jobel A Feminist Introduction (London: SCM).
Year’, VT 26: 38–59. —— (1994b), with the assistance of A. Brock and S.
Lemche, N. P. (1979), ‘Andurārum and Mı̄šarum: Com- Matthews, Searching the Scriptures ii. A Feminist Com-
ments on the Problem of Social Edicts and their mentary (London: SCM).
 153 numbers

Schmidt, B. B. (1994), Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Wenham, G. J. (1979), The Book of Leviticus, NICOT
Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans).
Tradition, FAT 11 (Tübingen: Mohr[Siebeck]). Whybray, R. N. (1987), The Making of the Pentateuch:
Schwartz, B. J. (1991), ‘The Prohibitions Concerning A Methodological Study, JSOTSup 53 (Sheffield:
the ‘‘Eating’’ of Blood in Leviticus 17’, in G. A. JSOT).
Anderson and S. M. Olyan (eds.), Priesthood and Wiseman, D. J. (1958), ‘The Vassal-Treaties of Esar-
Cult in Ancient Israel, JSOTSup 125 (Sheffield: Shef- haddon’, Iraq 20, Part 1.
field Academic Press), 34–66. Wright, D. P. (1987), The Disposal of Impurity: Elimin-
Shafer, B. E. (1976), ‘Sabbath’, IDBSup 760–2. ation Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian
Wegner, J. R. (1992), ‘Leviticus’, in C. A. Newsom and Literature, SBL Dissertation, 101 (Atlanta: Scholars
S. H. Ringe (eds.), The Women’s Bible Commentary Press).
(Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox; London: Zevit, Z. (1982), ‘Converging Lines of Evidence Bear-
SPCK), 36–44. ing on the Date of P’, ZAW 94: 481–511.

7. Numbers
terence e. fretheim
INTRODUCTION book itself speaks of sources, the Book of the
Wars of the Lord (21:14) and popular songs
A. Character. 1. The book of Numbers, named
(21:17–18, 27–30). The tradition most identifiable
for its census lists, is the most complex of the
is the Priestly writing (in several redactions), with
books of the Pentateuch. This can be seen in the
its interest in matters of worship and priesthood;
variety of types of literature represented, e.g.
it is most attested in chs. 1–10; 26–36, and pro-
lists, itineraries, various statutes, ritual and
vides continuity with Ex 25–40 and Leviticus.
priestly prescriptions, poetic oracles, songs, wil-
Other sources, such as J and E (esp. in chs.
derness stories, and even a well-known bene-
11–25), are more difficult to distinguish; it is com-
diction (6:22–7). The interweaving of law and
mon to speak simply of an older epic tradition.
narrative characteristic of Exodus and Deuter-
The association of blocks of texts with three
onomy is most evident in Numbers; specific
primary locales (Sinai, 1:1–10:10; Kadesh, chs.
statutes again and again emerge from specific
13–20; Moab, chs. 22–36) could reflect a way in
life situations, revealing a dynamic relationship
which traditions were gathered over time. Bey-
of law and life.
ond this, editorial activity seems unusually com-
2. Moreover, some of these texts border on
mon (for detail, see Milgrom 1990: pp. xvii–xxi).
the bizarre, with talking donkeys, curses from a
2. Also of scholarly import has been the
non-Israelite diviner turned into blessings that
study of individual traditions and their develop-
have messianic implications, the earth swallow-
ment, e.g. the Balaam cycle, the murmuring
ing up people, copper snakes that have healing
stories, the censuses, the wilderness encamp-
powers, an almond-producing rod, an execu-
ment, the Transjordan conquest, the cities of
tion for picking up sticks on the sabbath, Mir-
refuge, land apportionment, and the priest-
iam turning leprous, and repulsive instructions
hood. It is clear from such work that various
for discerning a wife’s faithfulness. One is
Israelite interests from different times and
tempted to claim that these strange goings-on
places inform the present redaction. These tra-
were constructed to match the incredible char-
ditions have in time (perhaps during and after
acter of Israel’s response to its God. To compli-
the Exile) been brought together to form a uni-
cate these matters, God is often depicted in
fied composition, but the character of that unity
ways that challenge traditional understandings;
has been difficult to discern.
at times it seems that God’s identity is in the
process of being shaped too.
C. Structure. 1. The structure of Numbers,
often thought to be non-existent, is best seen
B. Source and Tradition. 1. The origin of Num- from two angles, those of the census lists and
bers is also complex. Most scholars consider the the geography of a journey.
book to be a composite of sources (both oral and 2. The Census Lists (for detail, see Olson
written) from various historical periods. The 1985). The overarching structure of the book is
numbers 154

laid out in terms of its two census lists (chs. 1; 25:18). The disjunction with the opening (and
26). The first registers the generation that ex- closing) chapters is remarkable: obedience to
perienced the Exodus and the giving of the law God’s command turns to rebellion; trust be-
at Sinai, which is prepared to move towards the comes mistrust; the holy is profaned; order
land of promise. When faced with dangers, becomes disorder; the future of the people of
however, the people do not trust the promise; God is threatened. Continuities with the wilder-
they experience God’s judgement (14:32–3) and ness journey story in Ex 15:22–19:1 are seen in
finally, in the wake of apostasy, die off in a the gifts of quail and manna, the ongoing com-
plague (25:9). Even Moses and Aaron mistrust plaints, and military victory; but discontinuities
God and are prohibited from entering the land are also sharply presented, evident especially in
(20:12); only the faithful scouts, Caleb and the conflict among leaders, sin, and divine
Joshua, and the young (14:29) are allowed to judgement. Integrated with these journey re-
do so. The oracles of Balaam (chs. 22–4) provide ports are miscellaneous statutes (chs. 15; 18;
a hopeful sign of things to come, as God blesses 19), focused on purification and leadership sup-
the insiders through this outsider. port, the need for which grows out of these
3. The second census (ch. 26) lists the members experiences.
of the new generation (though no births are (c) The journey concludes in the plains of
reported in Numbers). They are a sign of God’s Moab (26:1–36:13). This is an entirely positive
continuing faithfulness to ancestral promises and stage. Conflicts are resolved through negoti-
will enter the land. The following texts (chs. ation and compromise and land begins to be
27–36) raise issues focused on the future in the settled. Various statutes anticipate the future in
land. No deaths, no murmurings, and no rebel- the land; the community is to so order its life
lions against the leadership are in view, while that this new dwelling-place of both God and
various hopeful signs are presented. This new people will not be polluted.
generation is the audience for Deuteronomy. 6. These three stages may also be character-
4. Generally speaking, the censuses include ized in terms of Israel’s changing relationship
representatives from each of the twelve tribes. with God, moving from fidelity to unfaithful-
This inclusiveness may have functioned in the ness and back to fidelity. But, through all these
wake of various devastating events in Israel’s developments, God remains faithful and does
history as an assurance that all tribes were in- not turn back from the ancestral promises to
cluded among the chosen (see Douglas 1993). Israel (articulated most clearly by Balaam).
5. The Geography of a Journey. The move- Though Israel’s journey involves judgement,
ment through Numbers can also be tracked in that judgement is finally in the service of
terms of three stages of a journey toward the God’s objectives of blessing and salvation.
fulfilment of the land promise, with all the 7. Such a portrayal mirrors the situation of
problems encountered along the way in spite the implied (exilic) readers of the Pentateuch
of careful preparations. The itinerary of 33:2– (for details, see the proposal in Fretheim 1996:
49 emphasizes the importance of the journey 40–65). Israel’s apostasy and experience of div-
as such, apart from specific occasions. Laws are ine judgement lie in their recent past; signs of a
integrated into the story, providing for an on- hopeful future are articulated in both law and
going ordering of the community as it encoun- promise. The paradigm of old generation and
ters new situations. The positive opening new generation would be especially pertinent
and closing sections enclose a sharply negative during the years of exile in a situation which
picture. could be seen to have parallels with that of the
(a) Numbers begins with the people still situ- Israelites in the wilderness.
ated at Sinai, preparing to leave (1:1–10:10). That
includes the organization of the camp and vari- D. Leading Themes. 1. Certain themes provide
ous statutes, especially regarding the sanctuary compass points for negotiating the journey
and its leadership. A somewhat idealistic pic- through Numbers: the wilderness book, the
ture emerges: a community ordered in all ways ancestral promises, the divine presence and
appropriate to God’s dwelling in the centre of guidance, divine revelation and human leader-
the camp, and the precise obedience to every ship, and holy people and holy priests.
divine command (e.g. 1:17–19, 54). The reader 2. A Wilderness Book. The entire book is set
may wonder how anything could go wrong. in the wilderness. Appropriately, ‘In the Wilder-
(b) In episodic fashion, Israel moves through ness’ is the Hebrew title for Numbers. This set-
the wilderness from Sinai to Transjordan (10:11– ting presents problems and possibilities for
 155 numbers

shaping a community identity for the newly promises with the apportionment of lands
redeemed people of God. As a long-oppressed (26:53–6) and the specification of boundaries
community, Israel has a deeply ingrained iden- (34:1–15). Initial settlements in Transjordan
tity as ‘slave’. It does not have the resources to function as a ‘down-payment’ on the fulfilment
move quickly to a ‘slaves no more’ (Lev 26:13) of the promise (chs. 31–2). Moreover, various
mentality; God must be at work to enable them laws dealing with emerging issues constitute a
to ‘walk erect’ once again. The period of wan- hopeful sign in the midst of much failure and
dering is a necessary buffer between liberation grief; a community will exist to obey them. In
and landedness for the sake of forming such an some sense, the ongoing promulgation of law is
identity. Such a process does not unfold easily a witness that the promise of land will indeed be
for Israel or for God; even the most meticulous fulfilled.
preparations for the journey are not able to 7. Divine Presence and Guidance. God, not
make things go right. It is possible to take the Moses, has given birth to this people (11:12) and
people out of Egypt, but it proves difficult to has chosen to stay with the family and to dwell
take Egypt out of the people. The familiar or- in the heart of their camp (5:3). From this
derliness of Egypt seems preferable to the inse- womb-like centre blessings flow out into the
curities of life lived from one oasis to the next. encircled community. This intense kind of pres-
In other words, the problem is not so much the ence is promised for Israel’s future in the land as
law as an inability to rely on the God who has well (35:34). Even Balaam testifies to the pres-
brought freedom and keeps promises. ence of such a God among this people (23:21–2).
3. Israel’s time in the wilderness is finally 8. Because of the intense presence of God in
shaped by God’s extraordinary patience and Israel’s midst, and the recognition of God’s holi-
mercy, and the divine will to stay with Israel in ness, the tabernacle was to be protected from
this time of adolescence. No divine flick of the casual contact. This concern is sharpened in
wrist is capable of straightening them out with- view of the golden calf apostasy and the near
out compromising their freedom. If God wants annihilation of Israel (Ex 32:9–10). Precautions
a mature child, the possibility of defiance must must be taken to prevent a recurrence for the
be risked. But it soon becomes clear that the sake of the integrity of the divine–human rela-
process of maturation will take longer than a tionship. The tribe of Levi was consecrated for
single generation. God will not compromise in service at the tabernacle and made responsible
holding Israel to high standards. for guarding this holy place (1:50–3). Sharp
4. Ancestral Promises. God is committed to warnings about intrusion are issued (1:51–3;
the ancestral promises, especially of land. As 3:10, 38); even Levites could die if furnishings
Israel moves out from Sinai, the goal is the were mishandled (4:17–20). Strikingly, en-
land God is ‘giving’ (10:29 and often). Condi- croachment is not a serious problem in the
tions regarding the land promise are expressed subsequent narratives, except as related to con-
(14:8), which affect the future of individuals— flict over leadership (ch. 16). The more problem-
even an entire generation—but not finally Israel atic issue is mistrust and rebellion with respect
as such. Beyond that, the promises are spoken to God and God’s chosen leaders. These forms
almost exclusively by Balaam. His oracles iron- of sinfulness in particular pervade chs. 11–25
ically gather the clearest references to the prom- and deeply affect the character of the journey
ises in Numbers; no Israelite, including Moses, and the shape of Israel’s future. On God’s
has standing enough left to bring them to wrath and judgement, see especially at NUM 1:53
expression. and ch. 14.
5. The middle section (chs. 11–25) problem- 9. Israel’s God not only dwells in the midst of
atizes the movement toward fulfilment; the wil- Israel, but also goes before them. The accom-
derness is a time of endangered promises. Again panying presence of God is associated with the
and again the people trust the deceptive secur- pillar of cloud/fire; 9:15–23 speaks of it in such a
ities of the past more than God’s promised way that the itinerary is not predictable or rou-
future (11:5; 21:5). Hence, they experience disas- tinized. This symbol is linked to the ark of the
ters of various kinds that threaten progress to- covenant, which represents the presence of God
wards the goal, including plagues (11:33; 16:49), (10:35–6). God’s ongoing presence is the decisive
an abortive conquest (chs. 13–14), and snake factor in Israel’s journey, but various texts wit-
infestation (21:6). ness also to the importance of human leader-
6. The final section (chs. 26–36), with the new ship; for example, the passage regarding
generation in place, bespeaks confidence in the Hobab’s skills (10:29–32) is placed immediately
numbers 156

before the ark text (10:33–6). God works in and honours the insights that Moses offers. Indeed,
through what is available, even characters God may shape a different future in view of
such as Balaam, to move towards the divine the encounter (14:13–20; 16:20–2). But such div-
objectives. ine openness to change will always be in the
10. Divine Revelation and Human Leader- service of God’s unchanging goals for Israel and
ship. Revelation is not confined to Sinai; it the creation (Balaam’s point in 23:19).
occurs throughout Israel’s journey. Statutes 15. Some of the disputes are focused on Aaron
and other divine words newly enjoin Israel all (and his sons) and their priestly leadership (chs.
along the way. This was the case with Israel’s 16; 17). Actual tests are carried out which sub-
wanderings before Sinai as well (15:26; 18:23). stantiate their unique role with respect to the
God’s word is not delivered in a once-and-for- sanctuary in the eyes of God. Members of this
all fashion; it is a dynamic reality, intersecting family also take actions that have an intercessory
with life and all its contingencies. This is dem- function; they stand ‘between the dead and the
onstrated in the very form of this material in the living’ and a plague is averted (16:47–50; cf.
interweaving of law and narrative (for detail, see 25:7–13). This correlates with their mediating
Fretheim 1991: 201–7). role in various rituals (chs. 5; 15).
11. God’s word is usually mediated through 16. Interest in the proper succession of lead-
Moses, but not uniquely so. This becomes an ers (Eleazar, 20:22–9; Joshua 27:12–23) demon-
issue during the journey. Challenges to Moses’ strates the crucial importance of good leaders
(and Aaron’s) leadership that began in the pre- for the stability of the community. Rebellion
Sinai wanderings are intensified in Numbers, against God-chosen leaders is deeply subversive
and other leaders take up the argument. Related of God’s intentions for the community and risks
issues and disputes are pursued in various chap- death short of the goal. But the leaders them-
ters (11; 12; 16; 17). selves are not exempt from strict standards
12. The issue is voiced most sharply by Mir- (20:10–12). They may be held to a higher stand-
iam and Aaron: has God spoken only through ard, because the impact of their mistakes has
Moses (12:2)? The response is negative. God is such a deep and pervasive effect on the com-
not confined to only one way to speak to this munity.
community; indeed, if need be, God will go 17. Holy People and Holy Priests. The call in
around the chosen ones to get a word through. Leviticus for the people to be holy (i.e. to live a
God’s spirit even rests upon the outsider Balaam life that exemplifies the holy people they are) is
who mediates remarkably clear words of God continued here (15:40). What constitutes a holy
(24:2–4, 15–16). Nevertheless, Moses does have a life, or that which is inimical to it, is continuous
special relationship with God and challenges to with the provisions of Leviticus in some ways.
his role are not countenanced. Various uncleannesses—whether moral or rit-
13. God communicates to and through Moses ual in nature—are incompatible with holiness
often in Numbers; indeed, 7:89 speaks of Moses’ (chs. 5; 6). Yet, for Numbers, Israel’s sins are
contact with God in an almost routinized way. focused on matters relating to leadership, mis-
In 12:8 God himself claims for Moses a unique trust of God and failure to believe in promises,
face-to-face encounter. Moses actually ‘beholds and finally idolatry (ch. 25).
the form of the LORD’ and lives to tell about it. 18. A case for more democratic forms of
One facet of this relationship is especially priestly leadership is pursued by Korah on the
remarkable: the genuine interaction between basis of the holiness of all the people (16:3).
them as they engage issues confronting the Moses’ reply assumes gradations of holiness;
wandering community. Characteristic of their even if all are holy, God chooses from among
relationship in Exodus (chs. 3–6; 32–4, cf. GEN them certain persons to exercise priestly lead-
18:22–33), it intensifies in Numbers (chs. 11; 12; ership, and this chosen status constitutes a holi-
14; 16; 21; cf. Ps 106:23). ness that sets them apart from other holy ones.
14. This says something about both Moses The disaster experienced by Korah and his com-
and God. Moses’ leadership credentials are con- pany (16:23–35) demonstrates their special sta-
siderable, including a capacity to tolerate tus (16:40), as does the test with staffs (ch. 17).
threats to his authority (11:29) and to persevere 19. Gradations of holiness are also evident
with God (chs. 11; 14; 16), calling forth the strong within the members of the tribe of Levi. The
statement regarding his unique devotion (12:3). Levites are set aside to care for the tabernacle,
God also is remarkably open to such discou- symbolized by their encampment between the
rse, treats the relationship with integrity, and tabernacle and the people. Among the Levites
 157 numbers

the family of Aaron is especially set aside for Directions for the Conquest of Canaan
priestly duties (16:40; 17; 18:7–11, 19). Indeed, a (33:50–6)
‘covenant of perpetual priesthood’ is made with The Apportionment of the Land (34:1–29)
this family because of the mediatorial actions of Special Cities and Refinements in the Law
Phinehas (25:10–13). (35:1–34)
20. The NT works with several themes from Once Again: the Daughters of Zelophehad
Numbers. It cites God’s providing for Israel in (36:1–13)
the wilderness and lifts up Israel’s infidelity as a
warning for the people of God. These themes
are carefully interwoven in 1 Cor 10:1–13, where COMMENTARY
many texts from Num 11–25 are referenced; it is
carefully noted that these passages were ‘written Israel Prepares to Leave Sinai (1:1–10:10)
down to instruct us’ (cf. Jn 3:14; Heb 3:7–4:11; 2 This entire section comes from the Priestly trad-
Pet 2:15–16; Jude 5–11; Rev 2:14–17). ition. The chronological report (1:1) situates the
census one month after the completion of the
tabernacle (Ex 40:17) and nineteen days before
E. Outline
the departure from Sinai (10:11), where Israel had
Israel Prepares to Leave Sinai (1:1–10:10) been for almost a year (Ex 19:1). The tabernacle
The First Census (1:1–54) stands in the centre of the camp. Encamped
The Encampment (2:1–34) around it are members of the tribe of Levi.
The Levites (3:1–4:49) Encircling them are the various tribes of Israel,
Purification of the Camp (5:1–6:21) three in each direction. The tabernacle situated
The Aaronic Benediction (6:22–7) in the centre of the camp expresses a divine
Final Preparations for Tabernacle Worship centring for the community generally. At the
(7:1–8:26) same time, while God dwells among the people
The Passover at Sinai (9:1–14) and guides them through the wilderness (9:17),
Divine Guidance in the Wilderness (9:15–23) the nature of that guidance is divinely limited.
The Two Silver Trumpets (10:1–10) Hence, while God leads them from one oasis
The Wilderness Journey (10:11–25:18) to the next, the divine guidance is not all-
Departure from Sinai (10:11–28) controlling and human leadership is crucial
Human and Divine Guidance (10:29–36) (10:29–32). The divine presence does not issue
A Paradigm of Rebellion (11:1–3) in a situation where the people have no option
Rebellion and Leadership (11:4–35) but to obey; disobedience is a lively possibility.
Familial Challenge to Moses’ Leadership Indeed, warning signs punctuate the narrative
(12:1–16) (e.g. 1:53); they alert Israel to the care needed by
The Spy Mission (13:1–14:45) the community with respect to the near pres-
Statutes for Life in the Land (15:1–41) ence of God in their midst and the importance
The Rebellions of Korah and others (16:1–50) this has for the shape of the journey.
Aaron’s Blossoming Rod (17:1–13)
Rights and Responsibilities of Priests and (1:1–54) The First Census The early mention of
Levites (18:1–32) the ‘tent of meeting’ (v. 1) signals its importance
Ritual of the Red Heifer (19:1–22) for what precedes as well as what follows; it is
The Disobedience of Moses and Aaron (20:1–29) synonymous with the tabernacle. How it is to
Victory, Complaint, and Healing (21:1–35) be related to the tent of the epic tradition (Ex
The Story of Balaam (22:1–24:25) 33:7–11) is uncertain; the tabernacle may have
The Final Rebellion (25:1–18) assumed the role of the tent (see 7:89). The rare
The New Generation on the Plains of Moab (26:1– phrase, ‘tabernacle of the covenant’ (1:50, 53;
36:13) 10:11; Ex 38:21) extends the designation for its
The Census of the New Generation (26:1–65) major sacred object, the ‘ark of the covenant’;
The Daughters of Zelophehad (27:1–11) the language focuses on the God–Israel rela-
From Moses to Joshua (27:12–23) tionship and the divine speaking associated
Offerings for Life in the Land (28:1–29:40) with that.
Vows and their Limits (30:1–16) This census list plays an important structural
War Against the Midianites (31:1–54) role in Numbers (see NUM c.2). God commands
Early Land Settlement Issues (32:1–42) the census and also names one male from each
The Wilderness Journey Remembered (33:1–49) tribe to assist (except Levi; two Joseph tribes
numbers 158

keep the number at twelve, see Gen 48), ‘the may be death, often in Numbers because of
leaders of their ancestral tribes’ (v. 16; cf. 2:3–31; plague (16:46–50; 31:16). It can be overcome by
7:12–83; 10:14–28). To appear on this list was a various means, from sacrificial ritual (8:19) to
continuing sign assuring each tribal group of priestly intercession (16:47–50; 25:11).
their present identity and future place among Looming large over the exacting concern for
God’s chosen. the tabernacle are Israel’s past infidelities, espe-
The census is to include the males of the old cially the golden calf débâcle, where Israel vio-
generation, 20 years and older. The purpose is lated its relationship with God and jeopardized
conscription, to determine ‘everyone able to go its future (Ex 32:9–10). God graciously chose to
to war’ (cf. 2 Sam 24:9); battles are expected dwell among them; but, given the people’s pro-
(though there will be few to fight, see 21:1–3). pensity to apostasy, safeguards had to be insti-
Israel has good reason to be confident with tuted. These strict measures are not to protect
these numbers (but they are not, 14:1–4). The God from the people or the people from God
results of the census (perhaps the same census (though violation could mean violence, v. 53),
as in Ex 38:26; cf. 12:37): 603,550 males; the but to preserve a proper relationship between
second census yields 601,730 (26:51), though God and people. Israel has been honoured by
the tribal distribution changes somewhat. this incredible divine condescension, but God
When women, children, and Levites are added, remains God and this divine move is not to be
the total must have been about 2 million. The presumed upon without the endangerment of
unrealistic number has not been resolved (for a life.
survey, see Ashley 1993: 60–6); probably it was In v. 54 and throughout chs. 1–9, the Israelites
thought, if mistakenly, to be actually this large. are reported to have done exactly as God com-
Whether literal or symbolic, the number testi- manded. One wonders how anything could go
fies to God’s blessing and preserving this wrong. Later failures cannot be blamed on
people, and keeping the divine promises. This faulty preparations.
generation will be unfaithful and, by divine
decree (14:22–30), will die off in the wilderness. (2:1–34) The Encampment With the taber-
At the time of the new census, ‘not one of them nacle centred in the camp, and the Levites
was left’, except Joshua and Caleb (26:65). camped immediately around it (see NUM 3),
The Levites, who do not bear arms and are God commands that the tribes be precisely
not registered here (see 3:14), are given duties ordered around the perimeter. They are to be
with respect to the tabernacle and its furnish- ordered as companies (‘hosts’ or ‘armies’), spe-
ings (detailed in NUM 4). They are charged to cifying military readiness. Three tribes are to be
encamp around it, protect it from casual con- positioned at each side of the tabernacle, under
tact, maintain it, carry it during the journey, and their distinctive banners; each triad is named for
pitch it at each stop. The ‘outsider’ (v. 51) refers the dominant tribe of the three (seen from the
to all who are not Levites, whether Israelite or perspective of Israel’s later history; cf. Gen 49),
alien (16:40). The sense of ‘come near’ is ‘en- which is flanked by the other two tribes in each
croach (see Milgrom 1990: 342–3). Violation of case—the camp of Judah (the most dominant)
the tabernacle precincts means death, not as a to the east, the side where the tabernacle open-
court verdict, but as a penalty delivered on the ing was located, and Moses and the Aaronides
spot by the levitical guards (see 18:7). were camped; Reuben to the south; Ephraim to
This drastic action is in the interests of the the west; Dan to the north (the leaders of the
community as a whole, so that it will not exp- tribes as in 1:5–15). This order of the tribes is the
erience the wrath of God (v. 53). God’s wrath in order for the march, beginning with Judah. The
Numbers is impersonal in its basic sense; it tabernacle, set in the midst of the Levites (v. 17),
‘goes forth’ or ‘comes upon’ (16:46; 18:5). is to move between the camps of Reuben and
Wrath is not a legal penalty, or a divine deci- Ephraim. God’s commands are again followed.
sion, but inevitably issues from the deed as a This camp may have been modelled after an
matter of the moral order; it is an effect intrin- Egyptian pattern (see Milgrom 1990: 340).
sically related to, growing out of, the violation
of the place of God’s presence or the divine– (3:1–4:49) The Levites This section describes
human relationship (see NUM 14). God is not two censuses of the tribe of Levi, its organiza-
conceived in deistic ways, however, and sees tion, and its responsibilities for transporting
to the movement from deed to consequence, and guarding the tabernacle and its furnish-
in sometimes sharp language (11:33). The effect ings. The genealogical formula (3:1) links the
 159 numbers

generation of Moses and Aaron with those in Again, God’s commands are followed (3:16, 39,
Genesis (the last is 37:2; cf. Ex 6:14–25). 42, 51).

(3:1–13) occurs ‘at the time when God spoke (3:40–51) The firstborn system is detailed more
with Moses on Mount Sinai’ (v. 1). Since that fully here, where the firstborn of all Israel are
time Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, have died numbered (22,273); each of the 273 persons over
childless (Lev 10:1–2); this reference alerts the and above the 22,000 Levites is redeemed by
reader to dangers associated with handling five shekels apiece (paid apparently by the first-
holy things, and the tasks of the Kohathites in born, v. 50, and given to the priests; cf. Lev
particular (4:15–20). Aaron’s other sons, Eleazar 27:6). The figure of 22,273 seems too low in
and Ithamar, were ordained as priests by Moses view of the census numbers in 2:32 (even
(the ‘he’ of v. 3; cf. Lev 8:30) and served with assuming an equal number of female to male
their father throughout his lifetime. firstborn, this would entail an average of four-
A distinction is made within the tribe of Levi teen male children per family); no satisfactory
between the descendants of Aaron, who attend explanation has been given. The redemption of
to priestly duties, and other Levites, who assist the firstborn keeps the exodus action of God
the priests, with responsibilities for ‘service at explicitly before the people as a reminder of
the tabernacle’ (cf. 1:50–3 for an earlier sum- their redeemed status. The recurring phrase
mary). vv. 11–13 (restated in 8:16–18) recall the ‘I am the LORD’ (common in Leviticus) is short-
killing of the Egyptian firstborn and the sparing hand for the divine origin of the commands.
of the Israelite firstborn (see Ex 13:1–2, 11–15), in
remembrance of (or repayment for) which God (4:1–33) delineates God’s commands regarding
had consecrated the latter to a life of religious the second levitical census, taken to determine
service; the Levites serve as substitutes for them the number of those (ages 30–50) who are to
(and their livestock for Israel’s firstborn live- perform the actual duties; these ages differ
stock). While the Levites are responsible to the somewhat from 8:24–6 and from other OT
sons of Aaron, it is as representatives of all texts (e.g. Ezra 3:8), perhaps reflecting expand-
Israel. It may be that God himself takes the ing community needs. Aaron and his sons are
census of the Levites and reports the results to responsible for packing and unpacking the
Moses (3:12, 15–16). most holy things, with differently coloured
cloths marking gradations of holiness (vv. 5–
(3:14–39) continues in narrative time and space 15); only they are allowed to see and touch
from 2:34 and describes God’s command of a them. The responsibilities of the three levitical
census of the non-Aaronide Levites (total: groups for certain sanctuary items, as noted
22,000), their encampment positions, and above, are also divinely commanded in detail,
their specific responsibilities. The census of Le- so that each item is exactly accounted for
vites was prohibited in 1:47–9 because they were (Kohathites, vv. 1–20; Gershonites, vv. 21–8;
non-military, served the tabernacle, included all Merarites, vv. 29–33). A special emphasis is
from one month and older, and represented all given regarding the work of the Kohathites
Israel’s firstborn (cf. 3:40–1). The levitical camp (4:17–20), not because their status is higher,
is ordered in terms of Levi’s sons (Gershon, but because they handle the ‘most holy things’.
Kohath, and Merari); their clans encamp on God graciously takes their greater risk into ac-
three sides of the tabernacle and have varying count and specifies precautionary procedures
duties with respect to its transit. The Kohathites for their handling of these objects. To die for
(from whom Moses and Aaron are descended) improper contact with the most holy objects
are responsible for the most sacred objects (4:4; (vv. 15, 19–20) seems to have reference to direct,
e.g. the ark), the Gershonites for the fabrics, and though mediated action by God (see NUM 1:53;
the Merarites for the supporting structures (re- Lev 10:1–2). This concern may be rooted in the
sponsibilities are detailed in 4:1–33). Aaron and golden calf apostasy, where the holiness of God
his sons encamp on the pre-eminent, entrance was compromised.
(eastern) side of the tabernacle (v. 38). Aaron’s
son, Eleazar, is in charge of the leaders of the (4:34–49) describes the implementation of
three clans (v. 32) and has general oversight of God’s commands; once again, they are obeyed
the tabernacle and certain special details (4:16); to the letter (vv. 46–8 summarizes the results).
his brother Ithamar has oversight over the work The encampment is now fully prepared for the
of the Gershonites and the Merarites (4:28, 33). journey through the wilderness.
numbers 160

(5:1–6:21) Purification of the Camp This sec- with a grain offering, though without the usual
tion, probably added late in the redactional pro- oil and frankincense (Lev 2:1–10), as was the case
cess, deals with matters needing attention for the with sin offerings (Lev 5:11). Such offerings bring
journey. Why these particular issues are collected ‘the [potential] iniquity to remembrance’ before
at this point and ordered in this way is uncertain; God. The procedure: the priest prepares a mix-
some links are evident (e.g. ‘be unfaithful’ in 5:6, ture of holy water (see Ex 30:17–21) and dust
12; guilt offerings) and they deal both with mat- from the tabernacle floor, probably thought to
ters of ritual purity and moral living among the have potency because of its contact with holy
laity (male and female), and the priests have re- things, in an earthen vessel (which could be
sponsibilities relating to both spheres. More gen- broken after use, Lev 11:33). The priest is then
erally, matters of purity are important in to bring the woman ‘before the LORD’ (the altar),
recognition of God’s dwelling in the camp (5:3), loosen her hair—a sign of (potential) unclean-
but so also are matters of moral wrongdoing, ness, Lev 13:45—and put the grain offering in
which ‘break faith with the Lord’ (5:6). Several her hands. The priest has her take an oath
cases extend or modify statutes in Leviticus. regarding the suspicions registered (vv. 19–22):
if she has been faithful, she will be immune
(5:1–4) Persons who are ritually (and commu- from the water; if unfaithful, the water will
nicably) unclean for various reasons are to be cause her sexual organs to be affected adversely
put outside the camp to live in tents or caves, in some way (the effect is correlated with the
without access to worship, so as not to contam- crime) and she will be ostracized among the
inate the community or defile the tabernacle. people (see Job 30:9) and precluded from having
This statute reinforces or extends those in Levi- children (v. 28). If the woman is pregnant, the
ticus (see Lev 13:45–6; 15:31–3; 21:1–3, 11). effect may be a miscarriage. The nature of the
effect of the water upon the woman is consid-
(5:5–10) extends Lev 6:1–7; the new focus is on ered a sign as to whether the woman has told
wrongdoing (including a false oath) where the the truth. The repeated ‘Amen. Amen’ (‘so be it’),
injured party dies without next of kin, in which expresses her willingness to accept either result
case priests receive the appropriate restitution. of the ritual (see Deut 27:15–26). Unlike her
The public confession of this deliberate sin husband, she is given no other voice in the
against the neighbour (see Lev 5:5) is also ritual.
newly integral to the ritual; note that the sin In 5:23–8 (v. 24 anticipates 26b, as v. 16a does
against the neighbour ‘breaks faith with God’. 18a), the priest writes the curses on a surface
vv. 9–10 note that priests are to receive their from which the ink could be washed off into the
rightful dues. water the woman is to drink; the imbibed water
is thought to contain the power of the curses
(5:11–31) has a complex history given the liter- (cf. Ex 32:20; Ezek 3:1–3). The priest takes the
ary difficulties; yet at least some features (e.g. grain offering from her and burns a portion of it
repetition) serve a purpose in the present redac- on the altar, after which she drinks the water
tion (for detail, Milgrom 1990: 350–4). Though (vv. 25–6). If the woman has been unfaithful, she
often called a trial by ordeal, the coalescence of will experience distress (no time frame is speci-
verdict and sanction, effected by God not the fied), hence the phrase, ‘waters of bitterness’.
community, suggests rather an oath that is The potion actually has no bitter taste nor
dramatized. The focus of this case-law is a brings pain in itself, but this would be the effect
wife, possibly pregnant, whose husband sus- if God adjudged the woman guilty (v. 21; cf.
pects (‘is jealous of’) her of adultery but has no Zech 5:1–4; Jer 8:14; 9:15).
evidence, whether she has actually committed
adultery (vv. 12–14a) or is only suspected of (5:29–31) summarizes the essence of the two
doing so (14b). In the former case, this text types of case for which this ordeal would be
softens the penalty prescribed for an adulteress applied. The husband is freed from any respon-
in Lev 20:10, probably because there was no sibility for a false accusation (the need to
evidence. In the latter case, a woman unjustly express this is striking, and it opens the way to
accused could be vindicated; so the jealous hus- frivolous expressions of jealousy). If the woman
band (or the community) could not arbitrarily is guilty, she bears the consequences (by divine
decide her fate. agency).
In either case, the man brings his wife (who is One might claim that the ritual could not
‘under [his] authority’, vv. 19, 29) to the priest accurately determine the truth; but, as in the
 161 numbers

sacrificial system, it is God, before whom the secular life was signified by cutting the hair.
woman is brought, who knows the truth of the As such, these persons were highly visible
situation and is believed to act in the ritual and members of the community, signs to all of
to effect the proper result. Yet, one wonders if total dedication to God. They bore similarities
this procedure ever verified suspicions; perhaps to the Rechabites (2 Kings 10:15; Jer 35), conser-
the threat was sufficient to elicit confessions. It vative proponents of ancient Israelite traditions
was only women who lived under such threat, who rejected Canaanite culture, including viti-
and the ritual is degrading; that no comparable culture and building houses.
law existed for the male, or no concern is exp- Like the high priests, nazirites were not to
ressed that undisclosed male infidelity might come into contact with (even within sight of)
contaminate the camp, is revealing of the patri- a corpse, but unlike them, accidental contact
archy involved. The language of jealousy is also required rites of purification (vv. 6–12; cf. 5:2–
used in the marriage analogy for Israel’s rela- 3; 19:11–12, 19). Upon being purified, they were
tionship with God, her husband (who is jealous, to ‘sanctify the head [hair]’, i.e. be reconsecrated
e.g. Ex 20:5; 34:14), and may have informed (vv. 11c–12). vv. 13–20 describe the ritual at the
prophetic rhetoric (e.g. Isa 3:16–17; Ezek 23:31–4). completion of their consecration; the range of
Jesus’ attitude towards women (Lk 7:36–50; Jn offerings (cf. Lev 8) suggests the high status of
4:1–30; 8:1–11) breaks open the one-sidedness of the nazirite; returning to secular life was a
the Numbers ritual (see Olson 1996: 38–9). major step. The ritual includes the shaving of
the head and the burning of the hair (because it
(6:1–21) provides for a temporary, voluntary is considered holy). v. 21 summarizes the force
nazirite vow (from nāzı̂r, meaning ‘set apart’; of the previous verses. On possible links to
the unpruned vine was also called a nāzı̂r, per- Jesus, John the Baptist, and the early church,
haps a symbol of Israel as consecrated to the see Mt 2:23; Lk 1:15; Acts 18:18; 21:23–4; on
Lord; the word for uncut hair is nezer). As with nazirites in Second-Temple Judaism, see Mil-
the other statutes in this section, the laity are the grom (1990: 355–8).
focus of concern; yet these statutes highlight
priestly obligations relating thereto (and may (6:22–7) The Aaronic Benediction The place-
suggest priestly control over their activity). ment of this benediction seems unusual; it
The text does not institute the nazirite vocation, may be another item that prepares the people
but regulates a consecrated life in certain ways. for the journey through the wilderness. This
Vows, always individual acts, were common in is the blessing for the time of departure, and
ancient Israel (see 30:1–16) and this vow was daily throughout their journey. Each line, with
‘special’ (v. 2). God as subject, is progressively longer (three,
Yet, the precise purpose for becoming a naz- five, seven Hebrew words); besides the name
irite remains elusive. Generally, nazirites were YHWH, twelve Hebrew words signify the twelve
male or female individuals who took a vow of tribes.
consecration for a special vocation. Am 2:11–12 This benediction in some form was widely
states that God raised up nazirites; the parallel used in ancient Israel, especially at the conclu-
with the prophets means they had a high calling sion of worship (see Lev 9:22; Deut 21:5; 2 Chr
(as does their parallel with the priests). That 30:27; Ps 67:1; 121:7–8; see its ironic use in Mal
they generated opposition among the people, 1:8–10). Putting the name of God on the people
who made them drink wine and thereby pre- may have been understood literally, given
vented them from fulfilling their calling, sug- the inscription on two cigarette-sized silver
gests their importance. The stories of Samson plaques found near Jerusalem, dating from
and probably Samuel, lifelong nazirites (dedi- the seventh–sixth centuries BCE (for such paral-
cated by their parents from the womb, cf. Jer lels, see Milgrom 1990: 360–2). The blessing
1:5), suggest that God called such persons to has been commonly used in post-biblical Jew-
specific tasks (cf. Judg 5:2; Gen 49:26). Wenham ish and Christian communities.
(1981: 85) calls them ‘the monks and nuns of One probably should not see a climactic ar-
ancient Israel’, but we do not know if this was rangement in the clauses; so, for example, bless-
considered an ‘office’, whether many took the ing would include peace. Perhaps the second
vow, or how long a term was. verb in each case defines the first more specif-
The nazirite vow entailed separation from ically, but together the six verbs cover God’s
products of the vineyard (and other intoxi- benevolent activity from various angles and
cants), haircuts, and corpses; their return to state God’s gracious will for the people.
numbers 162

Blessing has a wide-ranging meaning, touch- This striking repetition underlines the unity
ing every sphere of life. It testifies most basically and equality of the tribal groups and the gener-
to the work of God the Creator, both within the osity of their support for the tabernacle.
community of faith and without. No conditions
are attached. It signifies any divine gift that (7:89) seems out of place, but it emphasizes
serves the life, health, and well-being of individ- that God’s ongoing commitment to Israel (not
uals and communities. Keeping is a specific only to dwell among them, but to speak to
blessing to those with concerns for safety, Moses) matches the people’s obedient response
focusing on God’s protection from all forms of regarding God’s dwelling-place. The mercy seat
evil (Ps 121:7–8), pertinent for wilderness wan- is the cover of the ark of the covenant, upon
dering. which were fixed two cherubim, sphinx-like
God’s face/countenance (the same Hebrew creatures, shaped to form a throne for the
word) is a common anthropomorphism (esp. in invisible God (1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2); in effect,
Psalms; see Balentine 1983). The shining face of the ark was God’s footstool (2 Kings 19:15; 1 Chr
God (contrast the hiding face) signifies God’s 28:2; for description, see Ex 25:17–21). From this
benevolent disposition towards the other, here place, God will speak to Moses on a regular
in gracious action, for which Israel can make no basis when he enters the tabernacle; this fulfils
claims (Ps 67:1). The lifting up of the Lord’s coun- God’s promise in Ex 25:22 and is reported in the
tenance signifies a favourable movement towards narrative that follows (Num 11:16–30).
the other in the granting of peace, that is, whole-
ness and fullness of life. Putting God’s name on (8:1–4) specifies lighting directions for the
the people (supremely by means of the word) seven tabernacle lamps (commanded by God
emphasizes the divine source of all blessings. in Ex 25:37, but not reported in Ex 37:17–24),
with a reminder of how the lamps were con-
(7:1–8:26) Final Preparations for Tabernacle structed. Their seven branches and flowery
Worship The chronological note at 7:1 indicates design may have symbolized the tree of life
that what follows is a flashback (it continues (see 1 Kings 7:49 for the temple lampstands; cf.
through 10:10); it is one month earlier than the also Zech 4:1–14; Rev 11:4); the branched lamp-
time of 1:1 and coincides with Ex 40 and the day stand or menorah remains an important sym-
Moses set up the tabernacle; yet it assumes Num bol of light in Judaism.
3–4 and the provisions made for carrying the
tabernacle. This literary technique suspends the (8:5–26) (the setting is still as Ex 40; cf. Num
forward movement of the narrative and returns 3:11–13); the Levites are consecrated ‘to do ser-
the reader to the occasion of the divine descent vice at the tent of meeting’ (v. 15; cf. Lev 8; the
to dwell among the people and their grateful priests are sanctified, while the Levites are puri-
response. fied). vv. 5–19 state the divine command and
rationale for the ceremony and vv. 20–2 stress
(7:1–88) describes the consecration of the tab- that it was obeyed. This entails participation in
ernacle in connection with which offerings a purification rite (vv. 5–7; cf. 6:9; 19:1–22; Lev
were made by the leaders of the twelve tribes. 14:8–9) so they can perform this service without
vv. 1–9 describe one gift: six wagons and twelve endangering themselves or the community. The
oxen to carry the tabernacle and its furnishings. Levites are then presented ‘before the LORD’ (v.
The Merarites received two-thirds of the 10) and before ‘Aaron and his sons’ (v. 13) in the
wagons and oxen because they carry the sup- presence of the people. The people lay their
porting structure; the Kohathites carry the most hands on them, symbolizing that the Levites
holy things by hand. 7:10 refers to the offerings have become their sacrifice, a ‘living sacrifice’
presented in both vv. 1–9 and 12–88. vv. 11–83 dedicated to the service of God in their stead
specify other gifts: necessities for the public (vv. 10–11; cf. 3:40–51). The Levites in turn lay
altar sacrifices and the priesthood—silver and their hands on the head of the bulls, which are
gold vessels, animals, and flour mixed with oil sacrificed to cleanse the sanctuary (the whole
and incense—to be offered at the altar when- burnt offering, v. 8a) and to atone for sins they
ever needed (not at one dedication occasion). had committed (v. 12b). God claims that the
The tribal leaders, in the order given in 2:3–31, choice of the Levites is rooted in the Exodus
each give the same offerings on the successive events (3:5–13), and that they are ‘mine . . . unre-
days of the celebration; they are listed out servedly given to me from among the Israelites’
twelve times, and vv. 84–8 provide a total. (vv. 14–16); God in turn gives them to the
 163 numbers

Aaronides for service at the tabernacle (see 3:9). anticipate the march, stressing Israel’s obe-
This constitutes an act of atonement for the dience to the divine leading at every stage.
Israelites (for whom the Levites undertake the In Israel’s pre-tabernacle journeying, God ‘in’
work) to prevent any plague resulting from too (not ‘as’) the pillar of cloud and fire led them
close a contact with the holy things. The section through the wilderness (Ex 13:21–2). Divine lead-
concludes with the typical reference to obedi- ing follows this Passover as it did the first. This
ence and a summary of the Levites’ cleansing was a single pillar, with the fire within the cloud
(vv. 20–2), followed by a reference to age re- (Ex 14:24; 40:38); references to the ‘glory’ of the
quirements (vv. 23–6; cf. 4:47) and a clarification Lord in the cloud (Ex 16:10) refer to the fire
that they are not priests, but assist the Aaro- (Ex 24:17). Here this ‘glory-cloud’ is linked to
nides in their responsibilities. the tabernacle (and the ark, 10:33–6); its rising
and setting schedule the stages of Israel’s jour-
(9:1–14) The Passover at Sinai This section ney. It is likely that the cloud would rest on the
continues the flashback begun at 7:1. vv. 1–5 tabernacle and, while the tabernacle remained
report a second celebration of the Passover in in the middle of the marching people, the cloud
fulfilment of the ‘perpetual ordinance’ of Ex would proceed to the front of the procession
12:24. This celebration also precedes the wilder- (see v. 17; 14:14). The various timings of this
ness journey, and enhances this moment of cloud activity (v. 22) emphasize obedience and
departure in Israel’s life. the need to follow a schedule (‘charge’) set by
A question is presented to Moses (and Aaron) God, however irregular. At the same time, div-
as to whether those who had become unclean ine activity does not function apart from
through touching a corpse (see 5:1–4; 19:11–20) human agency (see 10:1–10, 29–32).
could celebrate Passover. Upon consulting the
Lord (see 7:89), Moses is told that such unclean (10:1–10) The Two Silver Trumpets God com-
persons (and possible descendants) should not be mands Moses to make two trumpets of ham-
denied Passover and are to keep it one month mered silver (about 1 ft. long with a wide bell).
later, i.e. the fourteenth day of the second month. They are to be blown by priests on various occa-
In view of v. 6 (‘could not keep’) this represents an sions: summoning the congregation or its leaders
adjustment in the law (see NUM D.10). The (later?) (vv. 3–4), breaking camp (vv. 5–6, presumably all
addition of another case of persons away from four sides according to the order in Num 2, so the
the camp (v. 9) assumes the land settlement and is LXX), engaging in battle (v. 9; see 31:6), and on
a still further adjustment of passover law. For days of rejoicing (see 2 Kings 11:14; Ezra 3:10),
stipulations regarding celebration, see Ex 12:10, appointed festivals (see chs. 28–9), and monthly
46. For reference to not breaking the bones of the offerings (v. 10; see 28:11–15). In vv. 9–10, the lan-
passover lamb (9:12), see Jn 19:36. guage anticipates the land settlement. A distinc-
Supplemental instructions also adapt older tion is made (v. 7) between an ‘alarm’, perhaps a
regulations for those who are clean and at series of short blasts, and a ‘blow’, one long blast.
home (v. 13). Such a strict ordinance at this A rationale for the blowing of trumpets is
point reflects a concern that others might given in vv. 9–10: to bring Israel’s situation
delay celebration until the second month. before God, who is thereby called to act on
A permissive rubric in v. 14 is given for the their behalf, either in battle (salvation from en-
aliens, non-Israelites who are residing perman- emies) or in and through the offerings (forgive-
ently in the land (cf. Ex 12:19, 48–9). Being ‘cut ness and well-being). The call of the trumpet is
off from the people’ is explained as bearing (the picked up in eschatological contexts (Zech 9:14;
effects of) one’s own sin, which is either banish- 1 Cor 15:51–2), exemplifying continuity across all
ment or execution, either judicially or at God’s generations of God’s people. The blowing of the
own hand. As in 5:31, the last seems likely (see trumpets by the sons of Aaron complements
Milgrom 1990: 405–8). the rising and the setting of the cloud. With the
role of Hobab in 10:29–32, it becomes apparent
(9:15–23) Divine Guidance in the Wilderness that clear-sighted human leadership is integral
This section begins (v. 15) with a flashback to Ex to effective divine guidance.
40:34 and supplements Ex 40:36–8 regarding
the relation between the cloud/fire and the The Wilderness Journey (10:11–25:18)
stages of Israel’s journey. It describes in advance This middle section of Numbers describes
an ongoing feature of that journey; the actual Israel’s journey from Sinai to the plains of
departure is not reported until 10:11. vv. 17–23 Moab. The emphasis upon Israel’s obedience
numbers 164

to this point stands in sharp contrast to what guide, even from outsiders such as Hobab (cf.
follows. The beginnings of the march (10:11–36) also Balaam; Jethro in Ex 18). Both divine and
signal no problems, but with 11:1 the carefully human activity are necessary for the people to
woven fabric comes apart at the seams. In spite find their way (so also the spies in ch. 13). Moses
of precise preparations, disloyalty now fills the promises that Hobab’s people will obtain the
scene and severely complicates the move to- goodness the Israelites receive from God (see
wards the land. Warnings of divine judgement Judg 4:11).
have been given (1:53; 3:4, 10; 4:15, 18–20; 8:19), The ark in association with the cloud (see
but they go unheeded, with disastrous results. 9:15–23) precedes the community here (v. 33).
Many of these narratives (a mixture of the The second ‘three days’ journey’ is probably a
traditional sources) are ordered in a comparable dittograph. Moses’ directives to the Lord (vv. 35–
way (see at 11:1–3) and mirror the wilderness stor- 6), at the departure and arrival of the ark, are old
ies of Ex 15:22–18:27. Once again we hear of poetic pieces. They portray the march as a litur-
manna, rocks producing water, battles with des- gical procession. God was believed to be in-
ert tribes, and non-stop complaints. But Numbers tensely present wherever the ark was (7:89; see
is different. The complaints in Exodus are toler- Ps 68:1; 132:7–8). God, the Lord of Hosts (‘the ten
ated, as if a long-oppressed people is entitled to thousand thousands of Israel’), leads Israel in bat-
some grumbling. In Numbers, however, in view tle against its enemies (14:44; 1 Sam 4:1–7:2). That
of the giving of the law and the golden calf Moses would invite the Lord to become active on
débâcle, the themes of sin, repentance, and judge- behalf of Israel demonstrates again the integra-
ment are introduced. The people are sharply tion of human activity and divine.
identified as rebellious, against both God and
Moses/Aaron, and the judgement of God is in- (11:1–3) A Paradigm of Rebellion These verses
vited into the picture again and again. provide a pattern in both form and content for
several episodes that follow: murmuring; judge-
(10:11–28) Departure from Sinai The date in ment; cry (of repentance); intercession; deliver-
v. 11 is nineteen days after the census (1:1), which ance (on Exodus parallels, see above; for content
was eleven months after arrival at Sinai (Ex 19:1). see NUM 13:1–14:45). Place-names are at times ety-
The time of departure is set by divine com- mologized for convenient recall of the story.
mand, signalled by the cloud (see 9:15–23). The peoples’ complaints of unidentified mis-
In vv. 14–28 the marching order of the tribal fortunes are not specifically directed to God, but
units according to a three-tribe standard (or God hears them. The divine anger is provoked
regiment) follows the arrangement in Num 2. and ‘the fire of the LORD’, perhaps lightning (see
The positioning of the Levites, those who carry Ex 9:23–4; 2 Kings 1:9), consumes outlying areas
the tabernacle items (vv. 17, 21), is not precisely of the camp (a threat to its integrity). The people
symmetrical (see chs. 3–4). For the leaders see direct their response to Moses, who intercedes
1:5–15; 2:3–31; 7:12–83. The end of the first stage on their behalf, and the storm stops. The place
of the journey is anticipated in the reference to was called Taberah (‘Burning’), referring to both
the settling of the cloud in the wilderness of divine anger and its effects.
Paran (v. 12; see 12:16), the setting up of the
tabernacle framework (v. 21), and the reference (11:4–35) Rebellion and Leadership The coher-
to three days’ journey (10:33). ence of this passage is difficult, perhaps reflect-
ing different traditions; yet good sense can be
(10:29–36) Human and Divine Guidance made of the awkwardness. On the ‘miraculous’
These verses formed part of the older epic trad- provision of food in the wilderness see NUM
ition. Both v. 29 and the tradition are ambigu- 20:1–13.
ous as to whether Hobab or Reuel is Moses’ This murmuring immediately follows the
father-in-law; in Ex 2:18 Reuel is, but in Judg first; complaining has become a pattern of life.
4:11 Hobab is so identified (and Jethro in Ex 3:1; The complaints of the rabble (non-Israelites, Ex
18:1). Perhaps ‘father-in-law’ refers to any rela- 12:38), intensified by Israelites, despise God’s
tive by marriage. The Midia-nites are often men- gifts of food (vv. 6, 18) and deliverance (v. 20).
tioned positively (contrast chs. 25; 31); being a Nostalgically recalling the (mostly vegetable!)
desert tribe, they would know the wilderness. diet typical for Egyptians, they cry out for fish
Moses’ invitation shows that the guidance of the (cf. v. 5). God’s gift of manna (see EX 16), which
cloud is not deemed sufficient. The marching the narrator notes was tasty and choice, was not
community is in need of the ‘eyes’ of a human thought to provide the strength they needed.
 165 numbers

This amounts to a rejection of God and a The gift of meat (vv. 18–20, 31–5) comes in the
request for the Exodus to be reversed (v. 20)! form of quails (see Ex 16:13; Ps 78:26–31), carried
God’s anger is revealed to Moses, who joins into the camp on a wind (rûah) provided by
the people in complaint about a related matter God. They cover the ground _for miles to a
(vv. 10–15). In language typical of lament depth of two cubits (about 3 ft.); the least that
psalms, Moses complains that, given what the anyone gathered was ten homers (probably 60
people have become, God has mistreated him, bushels). But before they had finished eating
placed too heavy a leadership burden on him (the entire amount; cf. vv. 19–20), God’s anger
(see Ex 18:18), and provided insufficient re- was provoked and a plague (related to the
sources. Feeling caught in the middle, he asks food?) swept the camp.
for either relief or death. The maternal imagery The place was called Kibroth-hattaavah
Moses uses is striking; God has conceived and (‘Graves of craving’), recalling the people’s com-
birthed this people (see Deut 32:18), and hence plaint (v. 4) and the effects of the plague.
God should assume the responsibilities of a
wet-nurse and see to their nourishment. Moses (12:1–16) Familial Challenge to Moses’ Leader-
should not have to carry this burden ‘alone’, ship This text concerns the authority of the
implying that God is somehow negligent. Mosaic tradition in view of rival claims regard-
A lively exchange between God and Moses ing divine revelation; it may reflect later power
follows (vv. 16–23). God replies to Moses in two struggles among priestly groups (cf. NUM 16).
respects: he will share the spirit given to Moses Challenges to Moses as a unique spokesman
with others, who will help bear the burden (see vv. for God are brought by his sister and brother
24–30); God will provide the meat for which the (though God alone hears them, v. 2?). The stated
people have asked (see vv. 31–2). Regarding the basis for the challenge is that Moses had mar-
latter, however, God’s anger at the people rem- ried a Cushite woman. Cush usually refers to
ains. Repeating their complaints, God declares Ethiopia (if so, this would be Moses’ second
that they are to prepare for an encounter with wife; so the LXX), but here it probably refers
him; they will indeed get meat, a month’s worth, to a Cush in northern Arabia (see Hab 3:7). If so,
but so much that it will become loathsome. Moses she would be Zipporah, a Midianite (10:29; Ex
responds by wondering how meat can be found 2:15–22).
for so many people (only soldiers are counted, Why this issue is raised remains uncertain. If
1:46). God responds with a rhetorical question: in v. 1 is integral to the reason given in v. 2, the
effect, God’s hand is not too short (NRSV fn.; no issue centres on intrafamilial conflict regarding
general statement is made about divine power; cf. authority in view of Zipporah’s (growing?) lead-
Isa 50:2; 59:1) to provide this amount of food. God ership role and/or influence with Moses (see Ex
will show that his word is good. 4:24–6; 18:2). Miriam and Aaron assume that
As for burden-sharing (vv. 16–17, 24–30), God has spoken through them (cf. Mic 6:4),
Moses obeys God and gathers seventy elders confirmed by God in v. 5, for Miriam is a
around the tent (probably in the centre of the prophet (Ex 15:20) and Aaron speaks for God
camp in spite of vv. 26, 30, which may speak of (Ex 4:15). 11:4–35 has shown that God does not
movement within the camp). God shares Moses’ speak only through Moses; moreover, God’s
spirit (rûah, not quantitatively understood), spirit will rest upon Joshua (27:18) and even on
which had_ its source in God, with the elders, Balaam (24:2–4, 15–16). God is not restricted to a
who prophesy. Such a charisma was given to single way into this community.
various leaders (see 24:2, 27:18, 1 Sam 10:5–10) Yet, challenges to Moses’ status with God are
and was transferable (see 2 Kings 2:9; on proph- not countenanced. The narrator bases this point
ecy and ecstasy, see Milgrom 1990: 380–4). on Moses’ unique relationship with God, stated
While they prophesy only once (unlike Moses), generally (v. 3, devout, humble before God) and,
16:25 suggests they assume some ongoing bur- in an act of conflict resolution, God’s own
dens. Even two elders who remained in the words to Aaron and Miriam in Moses’ presence.
camp (Eldad and Medad) receive a share of God customarily speaks to prophets in visions
God’s spirit. In the face of efforts by Joshua to and dreams, but Moses is different for two
stop them, Moses refuses any protection of his reasons: he is uniquely entrusted with the
authority or restriction of the divine word to house of Israel (see Ex 40:38) and God speaks
established channels (see 12:1–16; Balaam); in- to him directly (lit. mouth to mouth) and he
deed, he wishes that all God’s people could sees the form of YHWH, a human form that
receive this charisma. God assumes (cf. 14:14; Ex 24:9–11; Deut 34:10; in
numbers 166

Deut 4:15, the people see no form). The issue days the scouts bring back a mixed report. The
pertains both to what is heard (that is, clarity) initial report (13:28–9) is realistic; the land is
and what is seen (God). Unlike with dreams and bountiful but filled with strong people and for-
visions, Moses’ entire person, with all senses tified cities. The identity and placement of indi-
functioning, is engaged in the experience (for genous peoples is not always clear (cf. 13:29
detail, see Fretheim 1984: 79–106). God assumes with 14:25, 45), reflecting different traditions.
(v. 8c) that Miriam and Aaron were aware of this The Amalekites are a perennial enemy of Israel
uniqueness, and his response is anger (see 11:33). (see EX 17:8–16). The Anakites (13:22, 29, 33) are a
When Miriam becomes leprous (an unidenti- people remembered as giant in stature and as-
fied skin disease), Aaron interprets it as a sociated with the Nephilim (see GEN 6:1–4); they
consequence of their foolish sin and pleads iron- are later defeated (Josh 15:14). For the other
ically to ‘my lord’ Moses that he (not God!) spare peoples, see GEN 15:19–21.
both Miriam and himself. The Hebrew ‘do not Unrest among the people at the report (13:30)
lay sin upon us’ (NRSV fn.) should not be trans- occasions a division among the spies. Caleb
lated ‘punish’; rather, the effect is intrinsic to the responds by expressing confidence in Israel’s
deed. The whiteness of Miriam’s skin (a reversal ability to overcome all obstacles. The other
of the dark skin of Moses’ wife?) occasions the scouts (Joshua is not separated out until 14:6–
stillborn analogy, in effect: do not let her waste 9, 30) give ‘an unfavourable report of the land’
away to death. Aaron may not suffer the same (13:32), voicing alarm at the size and strength of
effects because of his confession and plea or its inhabitants and their cities and expressing a
perhaps because he is high priest (see Lev belief that Israel would be defeated (so ‘devours’
22:4), revealing a clerical (and male) bias. in 13:32). This report is exaggerated for effect; it
Moses prays to God on Miriam’s behalf, but succeeds. The people are seduced by the nega-
God responds that she is to be barred from the tive report (14:36), despise God’s promise of
camp for seven days. The levitical regulations land (14:31), and complain against Moses and
speak of a fourteen day process for leprosy (Lev Aaron out of fear for their lives and the fate of
13:4; 14:8), so the banishment is probably an their dependants (cf. 31:13–18). They plot to
external sign of shame (like a parent spitting choose a new leader and reverse the Exodus
in a child’s face, Deut 25:9). Miriam bears her (14:4)! They persist in spite of the leaders’ urgent
shame, and the people honour her by not re- pleas (‘fell on their faces’; 16:4, 22), expressions
suming the march until she returns (apparently of distress (‘tore their clothes’; Gen 37:34), and
healed). v. 16 probably means they remain in the assurances that the indigenous peoples are
wilderness of Paran (see 10:12). ‘bread’ (that is, we will ‘devour’ them, not they
(13:1–14:45) The Spy Mission The setting for us, contrary to 13:32; cf. Ps 14:4) and their gods
chs. 13–20 is Kadesh-barnea (13:26), about 50 will provide no protection (lit. ‘shadow’; cf. Ps
miles south of Beersheba in the wilderness of 91:1), for ‘the LORD is with us’. Rather than rejoice
Paran (or Zin, 20:1). On historiographic consid- in the report of ‘an exceedingly good land’ and
erations, see Levine (1993: 372–5). This passage trust that God will see to the promise, the
interweaves at least two traditions; the epic people ‘rebel against the LORD’ and threaten to
story has Caleb as hero and the Priestly tradition stone Joshua and Caleb to death.
adds Joshua. This rebellion proves to be the To these developments God responds (on
decisive one for the future of Israel. ‘glory’ see 9:15–23). This response has several
Twelve scouts, one from each tribe, are sent dimensions. If this kind of detail were present
to spy out the land of Canaan at God’s com- in the other sin and judgement stories, a com-
mand (cf. 32:6–13; Deut 1:22–45). Moses gives parable understanding would no doubt be
instructions regarding destination (the Negeb evident.
and the hill country) and observations to be 1. God voices a lament (14:11), echoing those
made regarding military readiness and the char- of the people and Moses (11:11–14), using lan-
acter of the land (13:17–20). According to 13:21 guage familiar to the psalms (cf. Ps 13:1–2). God
they scout the entire length of the country, from does not remain coolly unaffected in the face of
the wilderness of Zin in the south to Rehob in these developments. But the judgement that
the north; 13:22–4 (from the epic tradition) rep- follows is spoken, not with the icy indifference
orts only on the Negeb and Judah, from which of a judge, but with the mixed sorrow and anger
they bring back fruit; especially noted is a clus- of a suitor who has been rejected. That God’s
ter of grapes (hence the name Eshcol), the sea- lament is repeated in 14:26, interrupting the
son for which is July/August. After some forty announcement of judgement, reinforces this
 167 numbers

understanding (see Fretheim 1984: 107–26). The wilderness (14:2) is granted (14:32–3); their rejec-
phrase ‘you shall know my displeasure’ (14:34) tion of the land (14:3) is agreed to (14:30); their
may refer to this divine frustration. desire for a return to Egypt (14:3–4) is brought
2. God announces a disastrous judgement close to hand (14:25); their claim that the
(14:12), comparable to that visited upon Egypt children would become booty (14:3) causes the
(Ex. 9:15). God will disown Israel and start over children to suffer that fate at their own hands
with Moses. Given what follows, this is a pre- (14:33) rather than in the land (14:31); they want
liminary announcement, a point for debate different leaders (14:4), they will get them
with Moses (cf. 16:20–1; Ex 32:9–14). Yet, such a (14:30). They do not believe that God is with
judgement would be deserved. them (14:8–9); they discover he is not (14:43–4).
3. God engages Moses in conversation The forty days of scouting become forty years
(14:13–35). Moses argues (cf. EX 32:11–14; Deut of wandering (14:34). Judgement is intrinsic to
32:26–7) that God’s reputation among the na- the deed (‘you shall bear your iniquity’, 14:34; cf.
tions (the Egyptians and, remarkably, the Ca- 32:23); God does not introduce it into the situ-
naanites) is at stake; they will conclude that ation. God is not arbitrary, but facilitates a con-
God failed in his promise to give them the land. sequence that correlates with the deed. One
Their opinion should count with God; God might speak of a wearing down of the divine
agrees that it does, for God’s goal is that his patience in view of 14:22; the other side of the
glory fill the earth (14:21). Moses also appeals to coin is that persistent negative human conduct
God’s promise from that previous interaction will in time take its toll, and God will see to the
(see EX 34:6–7), pleading for God to act according proper functioning of the moral order.
to his steadfast love: to forgive the people as he Having heard these words of judgement, the
had done ‘ten times’ (frequently, Gen 31:7). Such people mourn at what has been lost, confess
intercession is reported elsewhere as prayer (11:2; their sin, and seek to make things right by
21:7) or action that ‘turned back my wrath’ (25:11) taking the land on their own (14:39–45;
and diminished the effects of a plague (16:46–50). cf. Deut 1:41–5). Moses sees that it is too late.
4. God responds favourably to Moses and God has now issued a new command (14:25) and
forgives Israel (14:20); but forgiveness, while it they will be defeated, for God will not be with
ameliorates the effects of sin (Israel is not anni- them (cf. 14:9). The die has been cast, and God’s
hilated), does not cut off all consequences. This word about their future is certain. Moses’ word
is true for all acts of forgiveness; the conse- proves to be correct; God (the ark) does not go
quences of sin, which can catch up the innocent with them and they are defeated. God’s pres-
(as here), need ongoing salvific attention (e.g. ence, not human strength, is what finally will
abuse in its various forms). In this case, the count in Israel’s life.
build-up of the effects of sin means that the
old generation will die in the wilderness and (15:1–41) Statutes for Life in the Land The
their children suffer the fall-out of the adults’ wilderness narrative is interrupted by a series
infidelity (14:33; 26:64–5; 32:10–12). Those who of statutes—probably late Priestly additions—
brought the bad report die off early (14:37). Yet, pertaining to the time ‘when you come into the
the consequences are not total: the children, land’ (vv. 2, 18) ‘throughout your generations’
ages 1–19 (14:29, 31; cf. 1:3), and the clans (see (vv. 15, 21, 23, 37). For the coherence of this
Josh 14:6–14) of Caleb (14:14) and Joshua (14:30) chapter in its context, see Olson (1996: 90–
will enter the land. So, finally, God does not 101). Such laws, following upon rebellion and
disinherit this people, and a new generation judgement, function to assure the community
will possess the land. But the entire community in a concrete way that God still intends a future
is now to turn away and continue their wander- for them; hence, law essentially functions as
ing for a generation (14:25, 34). promise, at least for the new generation. For
5. God announces the judgement (14:21–35), the old generation, however, the laws would
this time as a solemn oath, made as certain as function only as threat, for they would not live
God’s own life (14:21, 28), and details that judge- to obey them. Such an interweaving of law and
ment in moral order terms, i.e. what goes narrative is common in the Pentateuch, and is
around comes around (14:28–35). They have revealing of the dynamic relationship of law
sinned, they will bear (the effects of) their sin and changing life circumstances.
(14:34). A key verse is 14:28, ‘I will do to you the One such matter pertains to the non-Israelites
very things I heard you say’. In effect: your will in the camp. The statutes in vv. 1–31 apply
be done, not mine. Their desire for death in the equally to outsiders (vv. 14–16, 26, 29, 30;
numbers 168

cf. 9:14). They are given equal status before God: though the death penalty was clear, the com-
‘you and the alien shall be alike before the LORD’ munity awaited a word from God either regard-
(v. 15; cf. Lev 19:33–4, ‘you shall love the alien as ing the means of execution or before
yourself’). Other changes are evident. proceeding to such a severe punishment (gang
stoning).
(15:1–16) prescribes that a grain offering (flour
mixed with oil) and a drink offering (wine)— (15:37–41) (cf. Deut 22:12) pertains to clothing.
agricultural products—are to accompany each Tassels are to be attached to each corner of the
animal (vv. 11–12) presented for the ‘offerings by garments of all Israelites, with a blue(-purple)
fire’ listed in v. 3 (for detail, see LEV 1–7). What cord on each (still worn on prayer shawls by
was previously required only for the offering of Orthodox Jewish men). This cord was a public
first fruits and the festival of Weeks (Lev 23:12– sign of Israel’s status as a holy people and a
18) and for the nazirite consecration (6:14–17) reminder of what that entailed. The call to be
now applies to all offerings. The amount of holy (v. 40; see EX 19:6; LEV 19:2) is a call to
these offerings increases with the size of the exemplify that holiness in daily life, to be true
animal (lamb, vv. 4–5; ram, vv. 6–7; bull, vv. to the relationship in which they already stand.
8–10). The repeated reference to ‘a pleasing The fundamental way in which the people do
odour to the LORD’ (vv. 3, 7, 10, 13, 14, 24) is a justice to this relationship is by obedience to the
vivid way of speaking of that which brings commandments. Israel’s holiness is not simply
pleasure to God (see GEN 8:21–2) because it sig- an internal disposition; it is to be expressed in
nifies a healthy relationship. every sphere of life. The fundamental ground-
ing for this is the fact that God is YHWH, the
(15:17–21) prescribes, on the occasion of baking Lord who brought them out of Egypt.
bread (in the land), a donation of one loaf from
the first batch of dough. A donation is any gift for (16:1–50) The Rebellions of Korah and
the service of the sanctuary, given to acknow- Others Num 16–18 focuses on issues relating
ledge that all such gifts come from God. In this to the value and legitimacy of leadership within
case the bread would be food for the priests. This Israel, especially priestly leadership as it relates
statute broadens earlier statutes regarding first to service at the tabernacle.
fruits to include that produced by humans (see This passage in its present form portrays two
Ex 23:19; Lev 23:9–14; cf. 18:13–18). major rebellions, one by Korah, Dathan,
Abiram, and 250 lay leaders (vv. 1–40) and, in
(15:22–36) Various sacrifices for atonement for response to their deaths, a second rebellion by
unintentional sins (cf. LEV 4:13–21; for detail see ‘the whole congregation’ (vv. 41–50). The role of
Milgrom 1990: 402–5), for the ‘whole people’ Korah, one of the Levites (about whom the
(vv. 22–6) and for the individual (vv. 27–9), narratives have been silent heretofore), draws
and penalties for individuals who commit the entire community into a rebellious stance.
‘high-handed’ sins, i.e. who are defiant and un- The conflict between the Levites and the Aaro-
repentant (vv. 30–1; see Milgrom 1990: 122–5). In nides may reflect later controversies between
5:5–8 (cf. LEV 6:7) even intentional sins can be rival priestly groups (cf. 12:1–16; 17:1–13).
atoned for, apparently because the persons are Issues of coherence make it likely that at least
repentant (though see 16:46). The priests are two major traditions have been interwoven.
those who make atonement for both congrega- The epic tradition centred on a revolt led by
tion and individual (vv. 25, 28). This is the the Reubenites (Dathan and Abiram, vv. 12–15);
means God has established in and through it has been overlaid by a Priestly tradition,
which to effect both corporate and individual wherein Korah leads the rebellion (vv. 3–11,
forgiveness. 16–24, 35). Other expansions may be evident,
Those who sin defiantly (the old generation e.g. the role of the 250 lay leaders, but it is
of chs. 11–14 is in view) will be ‘cut off’ from the possible to read the whole as an (awkwardly
people (see 9:13). The following incident of in- ordered) unity.
tentional sabbath-breaking (vv. 32–6) illustrates Korah, a son of Kohath, belonged to the
such defiance. The sabbath-breaker’s labour did Levite clan responsible for the tabernacle’s
carry the death penalty (see EX 31:14–15; 35:2–3); ‘most holy things’ (4:4), but they were not to
yet it was not clear what to do with him (15:34). touch or see them (4:15, 20). Korah is the
Though much disputed (see Milgrom 1990: eponymous ancestor of a later group of temple
408–10), this may mean (cf. LEV 24:12) that, singers (1 Chr 6:31–48; his name occurs in eleven
 169 numbers

Psalm superscriptions, e.g., 44–9). Dathan and to be deceived (to ‘put out the eyes’). In their
Abiram (and On, not mentioned again) were complaint about Moses’ authoritarianism (after
members of the tribe of Reuben, the firstborn all, Reuben was the firstborn son), they give
son of Jacob (the demotion of the tribe may be Moses’ own words in v. 9 an ironic twist
due to this rebellion, 26:9–11). These persons (v. 13), and even call Egypt the land of milk and
(probably with different agendas) make common honey! Moses tells God (spitefully?) to ignore
cause against Moses and Aaron. They are joined their offerings, i.e. not act through them on
by 250 lay leaders and confront Moses and their behalf, for he has taken nothing (cf. 1
Aaron with the charge that they ‘have gone too Sam 12:3) from them or harmed them. Finally,
far’ in ‘exalting’ themselves above other members Moses repeats his instructions to Korah, adding
of the community (vv. 3, 13). While this charge that Aaron is also to appear (vv. 16–17).
may have been sparked by their prominence in The time for the divine decision arrives (vv.
15:1–41, it may also be related to their harsh 18–35). Each of the men stands before the Lord
words about the old generation (14:26–35), at the tent with his censer prepared. In addition,
among whom the rebels would be numbered. Korah assembles the entire congregation, ap-
The claim (v. 3) that ‘everyone’ in the camp is parently in sympathy with him, to watch the
holy is not incorrect (as just noted in 15:40, and proceedings. The glory of the Lord appears (see
perhaps prompted by it); the problem is the 9:15–16) and God tells Moses and Aaron to
implication drawn, namely, that Aaron and move away for God is going to destroy the
Moses have no special prerogatives for leader- assembled congregation (in essence, the old
ship. The claim for the holiness of everyone is generation; cf. v. 45) immediately. But Moses
not simply related to a move to gain priestly and Aaron intercede on behalf of the congrega-
prerogatives for all Levites (as Moses interprets tion (v. 22), for not all should bear the conse-
it, v. 10), though this is primary. The presence of quences for the ‘one person’ (an exaggeration
Reubenites and 250 laymen reveals another for Korah is representative of the rebellious
interest, namely, extending ‘secular’ leadership group; cf. GEN 18:22–33). The ‘God of the spirits
prerogatives beyond Moses to representatives of all flesh’ (cf. 27:16) is an appeal to God as
from all twelve tribes, especially firstborn Reu- Creator, who gives breath (i.e. spirit) to all.
ben (so vv. 12–15). God responds positively to the intercession
Moses responds in deed and word to this and separates the congregation from the ‘dwell-
confrontation (vv. 4–17). After ‘falling on his ing’ (sing. here and v. 27; since sing. is used only
face’ (see 14:5), Moses proposes a test. The ant- for God’s dwelling, does it refer to their ‘tents’,
agonists are to bring censers (metal trays that v. 26, ironically?) of the rebels and their families.
hold hot coals on which incense is burned, Dathan and Abiram had refused to leave their
cf. LEV 10:1–2) to the tabernacle and prepare homes (16:14) and Korah had apparently joined
them for offering incense. If God accepts their them. The 250 men remain at the tent to offer
offerings, their priestly status would be recog- incense, and are later consumed by fire (v. 35; cf.
nized. The phrase ‘and who is holy’ (v. 5) 3:4; 11:1; LEV 10:1–2). The inclusion of the families
assumes gradations of holiness; even if all are and the command not even to touch (v. 26)
holy, God chooses the priest and this status suggests their sins have polluted all that is theirs
entails a holiness that sets him apart from (on corporate guilt, see JOSH 7:24–6).
other holy ones (cf. 6:8). So God, not Moses, When the separation occurs, Moses sets up a
will decide the identity of ‘the holy one’ who is test to demonstrate that this is God’s decision
to approach the altar. But Moses makes his not his own. If these people die a natural death,
opinions clear. They (and here Levites, whom then he is wrong; if God ‘creates something
Korah represents, become the focus), not we new’ (a creation for this moment) and the
(v. 3), have gone too far (v. 7)! ground opens up and swallows them, and they
The reply in vv. 8–11 addresses the Levites’ descend prematurely to Sheol (the abode of all
challenge to Aaron’s leadership (v. 11). Their the dead; cf. the image in Isa 5:14), then they
displeasure with the duties they have been have despised the Lord (note: not Moses). The
assigned by God (1:48–54), and their desire for latter happens immediately to ‘everyone who
higher status, is a move ‘against the LORD’ (v. 11). belonged to Korah and all their goods’ (v. 32).
They have elevated privilege above service. Next Korah, Dathan, and Abiram are not specifically
Moses speaks to challenges to his own leader- mentioned (they are in 26:9–10; cf. Deut 11:6; Ps
ship (vv. 12–15), sending for Dathan and Abiram. 106:17). The people panic, perhaps because of
They twice refuse to come, believing themselves complicity; it quickly turns to accusation, v. 41.
numbers 170

In the wake of the killing of the 250 men that through an ordeal that led to death, this
because of their presumption, special attention passage makes the same point through an or-
is given to their censers (vv. 36–40), which be- deal that symbolizes life (the budding staff),
came holy because of the use to which they emblematic of Aaron’s life-saving actions in
were put, even by unqualified persons (‘at the 16:46–50. Both the bronze covering for the
cost of their lives’). They are gathered from the altar (16:38) and Aaron’s staff serve as ongoing
fire by Eleazar and not Aaron (see Lev 21:11) and, visual signs for the community of God’s choice
at God’s command, hammered into an altar of Aaron’s priestly leadership. This story, best
covering (perhaps a supplement; cf. Ex 38:2) to designated a legend (with parallels in many
serve as a reminder that only Aaron’s sons can cultures), may reflect later struggles between
approach the Lord to offer incense. rival priestly groups. Yet, unlike 16:3–11, rivalry
The congregation, however, remembers only with the Levites is not evident.
the killings, blames Moses and Aaron, and God’s effort on behalf of Aaron’s priestly sta-
threatens them (16:41). Again the glory of the tus is settled by means of a unique ordeal. At
Lord appears, this time to Moses and Aaron, God’s command, Moses places twelve staffs
and God again threatens to annihilate this (a symbol of authority; ‘staff’ and ‘tribe’ translate
people (cf. vv. 19–21). Once again Moses and the same Hebrew word) from the leaders (cf. 16:2)
Aaron intercede by falling on their faces, pre- of the tribes, each inscribed with a leader’s name,
sumably pleading with God (cf. v. 22). In the before the Lord, i.e. the ark (see 10:35–6), in
absence of God’s response, they take the initia- which the ‘covenant’, the Decalogue, was placed
tive and act to make atonement for the (inten- (Ex 25:16, 21). Aaron’s staff, the powers of which
tional! cf. 15:22–31) sins of the people through had already been demonstrated (EX 7:8–12, 19;
the use of incense (unprecedented, but appro- 8:16–17), was added to them (the Levites are the
priate for this story). They do so with haste, and thirteenth tribe in Numbers). God set the terms:
at some risk (he ‘stood between the dead and the staff that sprouts would indicate which
the living’—a job description for a priest!), be- leader God had chosen for priestly prerogatives.
cause a plague had already broken out (on div- Upon Moses’ inspection the following morning,
ine judgement, see NUM 13–14; note that wrath is only the staff of Aaron had sprouted; moreover,
impersonally described, see NUM 1:53). The act of it flowered and bore ripe almonds (symbolic of
atonement had the effect of stopping the the life-enchancing, fruit-bearing capacity of
plague, but not before many died (14,700). priests for the community). Moses shows the
The disaster experienced by Korah and his evidence to all the people. At God’s command
company proves the special status of both Moses put Aaron’s staff before the ark, to be
Moses (vv. 28–9) and Aaron (v. 40). It is not kept as a warning (Hebrew ‘sign’) to the rebels.
that such leaders never fail (12:1–16; 20:12) or For usage of this image in messianic texts, see ISA
that other persons are never channels God 11:1–2.
might use to reveal his will (11:24–30; Balaam), God had performed such a sign ‘to put a stop
but these persons are chosen and are deserving to the complaints’ against ‘you’ (pl.; Moses and
of respect. Implicit is that the way to adjudicate Aaron) and ‘me’ (vv. 5, 10); it soon becomes
differences with leaders in the community is clear that God did not succeed in his objective
not through envy or personal attack (common (see 21:5).
in Numbers), but through a careful discernment The concluding verses (12–13) lead into the
of God’s will for the flourishing of the commu- next chapter. The people, apparently con-
nity. God goes to enormous lengths to protect vinced, express their dismay and worry about
the place of good leaders (on the divine wrath, dying. Yet the focus is not on what they have
see NUM 1:53). done, but on the possibility of encroaching
upon the tabernacle precincts. The next chapter
(17:1–13) Aaron’s Blossoming Rod Whereas provides protections against such a possibility.
16:1–40 was concerned about the status of
both Aaron and Moses, and Aaron among (18:1–32) Rights and Responsibilities of
other Levites, this passage focuses on Aaron Priests and Levites The Priestly material of
‘the man’ (v. 5) among other tribal leaders. In chs. 18–19 constitutes a second break in the
view of the renewed rebellions of the people and narrative flow (cf. 15:1–14). On law and narrative,
Aaron’s risking his life on their behalf (16:41– see NUM 15.
50), God makes another effort to demonstrate Given the establishment of Aaron’s status
Aaron’s priestly status. Whereas 16:40 showed with the people and other Levites (chs. 16–17),
 171 numbers

and the concern of the people about encroach- (Lev 2:13); as a preservative it becomes a symbol
ment on the tabernacle (17:12–13), a redefinition for an everlasting covenant (see 2 Chr 13:5). This
of the responsibilities of the tribe of Levi is now provision is God’s commitment to the priests in
given along with their means of support perpetuity, for the Aaronides have no property.
(though the people are not said to hear this). God alone is their share and possession, that is,
vv. 1, 8, 20 contain the only cases (except Lev they are dependent for life and health upon
10:8), of God’s speaking to Aaron alone, indi- the gifts of God, albeit gifts mediated through
cating its importance for Aaronides. human beings, rather than on land.
vv. 1–7 gather previous material (see 1:50–3; The Levites’ portion for their work is
3:5–10, 14–39; 4:1–33; 8:14–19) and delineate the the Israelites’ tithe of agricultural produce (vv.
relationship among the various groups regard- 21–4). The tithe belongs to YHWH (v. 24) and is
ing their duties at the tent of meeting (‘coven- given to the Levites (on the title see Milgrom
ant’, 17:7). The protection of the community as a 1990: 432–6). They also have no tribal territory,
whole (‘outsider’) from ‘wrath’ (v. 5, see NUM 1:53) but are given forty-eight cities with pasture land
is a prime concern (vv. 1a, 4–5, 7, 22; ‘outsider’ in (see 35:1–8). On vv. 22–3, see vv. 1–7.
v. 7 would also include Levites). Aaronides and Finally, in a speech to Moses, God commands
Levites alone (not laity) ‘bear responsibility for the Levites to give a tithe of the tithe they have
offences’, that is, suffer the consequences for received (the ‘best of it’) to the Aaronides (vv.
violations (their own and that of the laity) rela- 25–32). The other nine-tenths of the offering
tive to the sanctuary (vv. 1a, 23). In addition, shall be no longer holy and become in effect
priests are responsible for other priests (v. 1b) their own produce, ‘as payment for your ser-
and priests and Levites for Levites (v. 3, ‘they and vice’. But if they do not give their tithe, that will
you’). God stresses to the Aaronides that priest- ‘profane’ the holy gifts, and they shall die.
hood is a gift from God as is the service of their
‘brother Levites’ (vv. 6–7; cf. v. 19); they cannot (19:1–22) Ritual of the Red Heifer 5:1–4 stipu-
presume upon their office in relationship to lated a measure to be taken in cases of ‘contact
their brothers or all Israel. with a corpse’. Such unclean persons were to be
vv. 8–32, a gathering of materials from Lev placed ‘outside the camp’ so as not to defile the
6–7; v. 27 primarily reviews the God-com- community. This passage expands upon that
manded portion due to the Aaronides from statute, providing for rituals of purification for
the people (vv. 8–20) and the Levites (vv. 25– such persons in perpetuity (mostly laypersons,
32, a new provision) and that due to the Levites Israelite and alien), especially in view of all who
(vv. 21–4), in perpetuity (vv. 8, 11, 19, 23), in spite had died (e.g. 16:32–5, 49) and would die
of their failures. (14:32–5). Caring for the dead is a necessary
In vv. 8–20 the ‘portion’ consists of those (and dangerous) task, so this impurity is not
‘holy gifts’ the people give to the Lord, which linked to sin. On purity issues, see Nelson
in turn God ‘gives’ to the priests and Levites and (1993: 17–38). The origin of this ritual is un-
their ‘sons and daughters’ for the sake of their known, but it probably can be traced to ancient
support and for that of the sanctuary. vv. 9–10 Near Eastern rites developed to deal with the
specify the ‘most holy’ gifts, reserved for the same issue. These statutes are to be conveyed to
priests: ‘every offering of theirs’ (those parts the Israelites (v. 2; contrast 18).
not burned, ‘reserved from the fire’). vv. 11–18 The choice of a (brownish-)red heifer (actu-
specify the ‘holy’ gifts (v. 19), ‘elevation offer- ally, cow) perhaps symbolized blood/life (red
ings’ (těnûpâ) or gifts dedicated to God, to be animals were so used in the ancient Near East);
eaten by any clean member of the priests’ fam- it was to be unblemished (see Lev 21:16–24;
ilies. They include first fruits (‘choice produce’); 22:20) and never used for work (Deut 21:3–4).
anything ‘devoted’ to the Lord’s service, pro- The burning of the entire animal (including its
scribed under the provisions of the ban (see blood/life, v. 5, uniquely here) may have been
LEV 27:21, 28); and firstborn human and unclean thought to concentrate life in the ashes which,
animals, for which the priests receive the re- when mixed with water and applied to the
demption price (v. 15 is detailed in 16–18). On unclean person or thing, would counteract (lit-
the redemption of the firstborn, see NUM 3:11–13, erally thought to absorb?) the contagious im-
40–51. purity of death and the diminishment of life in
These holy gifts of God to the priests are the community. This happened, not in some
called ‘a covenant of salt forever before the magical way, but because God had decreed it
LORD’ (v. 19). Salt is presented with all offerings so. The placement of cedar wood and hyssop
numbers 172

(cleansing agents), and crimson material (sym- water’ (vv. 2, 5). They return to the basic ques-
bolizing blood?), during the burning intensified tions they had in 14:2–4; events have apparently
the purifying quality (literal and symbolic) of not changed this people. They even express the
the resultant ashes. The sprinkling of the wish that they had died with Korah, Dathan,
blood/life seven times towards the entrance of and Abiram (16:32–5, 49)! Again, Moses and
the tabernacle (that is, towards God; cf. Lev 4:6) Aaron fall on their faces and turn towards
shows the importance of the ritual for main- God (14:5; 16:4); again the glory of the Lord
taining the integrity of the community in rela- appears (see 9:15–16).
tionship to God (19:4, 13, 20). The reader expects to hear about God’s judge-
vv. 1–10 specify the procedure by which the ment; but God has a different response this
life-giving and cleansing agent was prepared time, recognizing that the people’s need for
under the supervision of the priest (the absence water is real. God commands Moses to take
of reference to death may mean an earlier, more ‘the staff’ (from v. 9 this is Aaron’s staff that
general application). Eleazar is charged with had been placed in the tent, 17:10–11; ‘his’ staff
this duty (Aaron dies in 20:28); he and those refers to the one he was using, v. 11) and ‘com-
who assist him must be clean, but they become mand [speak to] the rock before their eyes to
unclean in the process (because of contact with yield its water’ (my itals.). The reference to ‘the
the holy) and short-term ‘decontamination’ rit- rock’ (v. 8) suggests a prominent rock in the
uals are prescribed for each. area. This was the way in which Moses was ‘to
vv. 11–13, detailed in 14–22, specify the use to bring water out of the rock for them’.
which the ashes and fresh (‘running’) water are Moses takes the staff as God had commanded
put for persons and things (vv. 14–16) that have him. The reference to Moses’ obedience usually
had contact with death. As in other cases (see concludes his actions; here it breaks into the
Lev 12:2) they are unclean for seven days; during sequence, suggesting that his following actions
this time, if they are to become clean, they must are less than what God commanded. Having
twice be sprinkled with this mixture by a clean gathered the people, Moses calls them rebels
person (vv. 17–19; outside the camp? cf. v. 9 and (as does God, 17:10), and asks them:‘shall we
5:3–4). Otherwise they ‘defile the tabernacle’ bring water for you out of the rock?’ (my
where God dwells (5:3) and shall be ‘cut off itals.). He proceeds to strike the rock twice with
from Israel’ (19:13, 20; see NUM 9:13) for the sake Aaron’s staff, and water flows. God’s response is
of the community’s wholeness. negative: Moses and Aaron did not trust God to
‘show my holiness’ before the people, and hence
(20:1–29) The Disobedience of Moses and they will not lead the people into the land. The
Aaron The text returns to a narrative mode, place name Meribah is linked to the people’s
explaining why Israel’s key leaders did not quarrelling with God (as in EX 17:7, without
enter Canaan. It is enclosed by the deaths of judgement) and to God’s showing his holiness,
Miriam and Aaron and marked especially by perhaps because of the gift of water (but appar-
the ‘rebellion’ of Moses and Aaron. It may be a ently less so than if Moses and Aaron had
reworking of the story in EX 17:1–7, which also trusted, v. 12).
took place at a place called Meribah (‘Quar- A much debated question: what did Moses
relled’). Priestly materials surround a report and Aaron (Aaron stays in the background) do
from the epic tradition in 20:14–21. to deserve this divine response (for the history
v. 1 is difficult given the reference to Kadesh of interpretation, see Milgrom 1990: 448–56)?
in 13:26. Perhaps God’s command in 14:25 to The charge in v. 12—they did not ‘trust’ in God
wander back towards Egypt was in fact carried (used of the people in 14:11, with the same result)
out (contrast 33:36–7), and so they arrive again ‘to show my holiness’ before Israel; in v. 24—
in Kadesh (they set out again in v. 22). Probably they ‘rebelled against my command’; in 27:14—
the forty years in the wilderness has been com- they ‘rebelled against my word . . . and did not
pleted, as v. 12 and the time of Aaron’s death (v. show my holiness’ before Israel; in Deut 32:51—
28 with 33:38) suggests. The ‘first month’ in v. 1 they ‘broke faith . . . by failing to maintain my
would thus be in the fortieth year. On the prob- holiness among the Israelites’; in Deuteronomy
lems of redaction in chs. 20–1 see Milgrom elsewhere (1:37; 3:26; 4:21)—God was angry to-
(1990: 463–7). wards Moses because of the people, as if Moses
The people again complain to Moses and suffered vicariously; in Ps 106:32–3—the people
Aaron about wilderness conditions, but this make Moses’ spirit bitter and his words rash
time the narrator agrees that ‘there was no (v. 10?), qualifying Moses’ fault.
 173 numbers

It is difficult to bring coherence to this var- time; cf. the chieftains of GEN 36). Moses’ letter,
iety; it may be purposely ambiguous. The ‘we’ of typical in that world, uses the word ‘brother’ for
v. 10 could suggest that this was their work not Edom, a dual reference assuming a relationship
God’s, hence reducing the witness to God. But of both ally and actual brother (see Gen 33:9).
the focus in v. 24 and 27:14 is ‘rebelling against’ Moses briefly recounts Israel’s history from
God’s command (a major issue in Numbers), the descent into Egypt through the Exodus to
ironically using Moses’ own word regarding the present time. Notable is the confessional
the people (v. 10). This could entail a lack of character of this account: they cried to YHWH,
trust or breaking faith. Neither the questioning who heard and sent an angel, God in human
of the people nor the striking of the rock (rather form (see NUM 9:15–23; EX 14:19; 23:20–3), to bring
than speaking to it) followed God’s command. them out. It is assumed that the king of Edom
The former, with its negative address, does not knows who YHWH is (cf. Ex 15:15)! Given the
recognize the real needs of the people (as God last reference to an Edom–Israel encounter,
did twice in v. 8), and the latter would be less a which ends on an ambivalent note (33:4–17), it
witness to God’s power. Thus God’s compas- is not surprising that Edom refuses (Judg 11:17).
sion and power, both analytic of God’s holiness, Edom refuses even though Israel promises not
are compromised ‘in the eyes of’ the people. to trouble them and, after negotiation, even
The point is sharply made that the end result promises to pay for water (vv. 19–20). Edom’s
(here, water to drink) is not only what counts as show of military force convinces Israel to go
a witness to God, but also the means by which ‘around’ Edom (so 21:4; Judg 11:18; Deut 2:4–8
that result is achieved. The most trusted of has access to a memory that the Israelites
God’s leaders fall into the trap of thinking that passed through Edom without incident).
the end justifies any means. The reader should
beware of both ‘rationalization’ and supernat- (20:22–9) returns to internal issues, with the
uralism in interpreting stories such as this (as installation of Eleazar as successor to his father
with the manna and quail, 11:7–9, 31). The pro- as high priest and the death of Aaron. The
vision of food and water is not to be divorced people continue their journey along the border
from a recognition of nature’s God-given po- of Edom and come to Mount Hor (site un-
tential. Even in the wilderness God’s world is known). In view of Aaron’s imminent death,
not without resources. In ways not unlike the and at God’s command and as a reminder of
gifts of manna and quail, water courses through their rebellion (‘you’ is pl.), Moses, Aaron, and
rock formations. God is not creating out of Eleazar climb to the top of the mountain (cf.
nothing here; water does not materialize out Moses’ death in DEUT 32:50; 34). Aaron’s vest-
of thin air. God works in and through the nat- ments are transferred to Eleazar before ‘the
ural to provide for his people. The rock itself whole congregation’, an assuring sight signify-
plays a significant role in this. ing continuity into the future. Aaron dies (is
‘gathered to his people’, cf. Gen 25:8) and is
(20:14–21) Before reporting the death of Aaron, mourned by Israel for thirty days (as with
an interlude recounts developments in Israel’s Moses, Deut 34:8), rather than the usual seven.
journeying. They are ‘on the edge’ of Edom (v. The next five chapters are transitional. The
16) and request permission from the Edomites to new generation seems to be essentially, if not
use the King’s Highway (the major north–south entirely in place (20:12). And so the texts por-
route through Transjordan) to pass through and, tray a mix of the old and the new.
presumably, enter Canaan from the east (cf. the
failure from the south in 14:39–45). Edom’s refusal (21:1–35) Victory, Complaint, and Healing The
to allow Israel to pass creates an external diffi- narrative from 11:1 to this point has been pre-
culty that matches the internal difficulties in the dominantly negative. The promulgation of laws
chapter. Together they raise questions about for life in the land (chs. 15; 18; 19) and the
endangered promises. The text gives no reason installation of Eleazar have given signs of
for the reader to think this request of Edom was hope. As the narrative moves towards the cen-
unfaithful because God was not consulted. sus of the new generation (ch. 26), these signs
The Edomites are the first people Israel en- become more frequent. Indeed, from this time
counters since Sinai (cf. GEN 25:19–36:43 on on Israel will be successful in all its battles. Yet
Jacob/Esau). Moses initiates the contact by negative realities still abound. In this passage
sending messengers to the ‘king of Edom’ (no military victories enclose a negative report
evidence exists that Edom was a kingdom at this about further complaint and judgement.
numbers 174

Victory over Arad (vv. 1–3): this text functions commanding a means (a homeopathic Egyptian
paradigmatically for other holy war texts in a technique to ward off snakes and heal snake-
way that 11:1–3 did for the complaint passages; it bite), with which the promise of God is associ-
summarizes the essence of what is at stake. For ated, through which to heal those who are
the geographical and chronological problems bitten (cf. Wis 16:7; the combination of prayer
associated with Canaanite contact at Arad and and medicine in 2 Kings 20:1–7). Moses makes a
Hormah (a region in the Negeb), given the ref- copper image of a snake and sets it upon a pole
erences to Edom in 20:21 and 21:4, see Milgrom for all to see; God is true to promises made,
(1990: 456–8). healing those who look to it and trust the
The Canaanites of Arad fought with some means God has provided. The copper snake
success against Israel; this prompts ‘Israel’ to ends up in the temple, but its meaning is dis-
make a vow to wage holy war against them if torted and Hezekiah has it destroyed (2 Kings
God would give them victory (cf. Jephthah’s 18:4). On snakes as symbols of both death and
vow, Judg 11:30–1). Israel’s victory reverses the life in the ancient Near East and the discovery of
earlier failure at Hormah (14:45). copper snakes in that area, including a copper
Israel then fulfils the vow, utterly destroying snake 5 in. long near Timnah in a copper-smelt-
the people and their towns. Such texts (see also ing region, see Joines (1974); Milgrom (1990:
ch. 31) are virtually genocidal in their ferocity 459–60) (for NT usage, see JN 3:14–15).
towards others. These understandings are
grounded in a concern about infidelity and ex- (21:10–20) Travel in Transjordan: the tempo of
treme danger to Israel’s future (Deut 20:16–18) the journey picks up as Israel moves through
and unfaithful Israel experiences similar de- various places on its way to Canaan. The charac-
struction (see Deut 28:15–68). Such practices ter of the journey changes as well; water is pro-
are followed only in this era of land settlement vided at the divine initiative at Beer (v. 16, meaning
(and hence are not paradigmatic, even for Is- ‘well’, the first positive etymology in Numbers)
rael). Yet they rightly remain incomprehensible and the people sing songs of appreciation (vv. 17–
to modern sensibilities. That Israel understands 18, 27–30, from unknown sources).
their God to want such destruction makes this Though several sites cannot be identified (and
practice even more difficult to fathom. The do not fully correspond to the itinerary in 33:41–
canon as a whole subverts such understandings 9), the route takes Israel around Edom and Moab.
(see Isa 2:1–4). The Wadi Zered is the boundary between Moab
and Edom and the Wadi Arnon the northern
(21:4–9) returns for a final time to the com- boundary of Moab. The Arnon prompts the nar-
plaining mode (for form, NUM 11; for content, rator to insert a portion from the otherwise un-
NUM 14), qualifying the victories that enclose it. known Book of the Wars of the Lord (apparently
The seriousness of the complaint is evident in an early collection of poems about Israel’s con-
that it is directed for the first time against both quests). This poetic piece (though not spoken by
God and Moses (though see 14:2–3), yet for the Israel) and the songs in vv. 17–18 and 27–30 con-
first time the people sincerely (cf. 14:40) confess tribute to the increasingly anticipatory character
their sin, and the segment ends on a healing of the march. Finally, they arrive at Mount Pisgah
note. This occurs as the people turn towards ‘across the Jordan from Jericho’ (22:1).
the Red Sea, that is, the Gulf of Aqaba, and
begin their journey around Edom. The com- (21:21–35) Victories over the Amorites: these
plaint focuses on the lack of (palatable) food reports probably precede 21:10–20 chrono-
and water, and God is charged with intending logically. For greater detail, cf. Deut 2:24–3:7.
death in the Exodus. The God-facilitated effect With Israel situated on the ‘boundary of the
of their complaining is an infestation of poison- Amorites’ (21:13), Moses sends a message (simi-
ous (lit. fiery, because of the burning) snakes lar to 20:17) to King Sihon requesting safe pas-
that results in many deaths (not unheard of in sage. Moses receives the same reply as he got
this area). The people confess their sin to Moses from Edom, but Sihon also pursues Israel in
and request his intercession to have the snakes battle. In response, Israel defeats his armies,
taken away. Though the people repent (and kills him, and takes possession of his lands, to
presumably are forgiven), the snakes are not the border of the Ammonites in the east (at the
removed nor kept from biting. In other words, Wadi Jabbok), including the capital Heshbon,
as is typical, the effects of sin continue beyond perhaps a short distance east of Jericho. These
forgiveness. But God works on those effects by lands include former Moabite lands, and the
 175 numbers

song in 21:27–30 (cf. Jer 48:45–6) praises the (a) Balaam’s three encounters with God (22:1–
victory of the Amorites over the Moabites and 40); (b) Balak’s three attempts to curse Israel
their god Chemosh (21:29) and the capture of thwarted by Balaam’s three blessings (22:41–
their lands, now belonging to Israel. Notable is 24:13); (c) A climactic fourth blessing (24:14–25).
Israel’s integration of a non-Israelite story into The function of this material at this juncture
their own story of these events. Because Sihon in Numbers has been delineated by Olson (1985:
defeated Moab and Israel defeated Sihon this 156–64) especially. With its focus on the bless-
enhances Israel’s strength. Israel’s ‘settling’ in ing of Israel and its remarkable reiteration of
the land of the Amorites sets up a later contro- divine promises, the story envisages a marvel-
versy (see NUM 32). lous future for Israel at a key transition between
The victory over the aggressor Og, another old generation and new. The material also func-
Amorite king (vv. 33–5), mirrors that of the tions ironically; a non-Israelite with less than
victory over Arad in 21:1–3 (cf. Josh 10:8), with sterling credentials voices God’s promises in a
its stress upon holy war, and this in express way that no Israelite in Numbers does, not even
response to a word from God. The total destruc- Moses. God finds a way to get the word through
tion is like what was done to Sihon (v. 34). in spite of the rebellions of Israel and its leaders
Israel is now situated at the boundary of the (and Balaam’s own failings, 22:22–35; 31:8, 16).
promised land and is given a foretaste of victor- The disastrous activities in 25:1–18 make the
ies and settlements to come. Those promises are words of Balaam stand out all the more
now raised in the story of Balaam. brightly. That the people do not actually hear
these words is testimony that, contrary to ap-
(22:1–24:25) The Story of Balaam This text has pearances, God continues to be at work in ful-
been deemed intrusive in its context, and its filling these promises. Indeed, God turns even
central figure Balaam thought less than worthy the worst of situations (the potential curses of
of God’s purposes for Israel. He is a travelling Balaam) into blessing.
professional seer, and a non-Israelite at that,
who seems all too ready to pronounce curses (22:1–40) Balak, king of Moab, is fearful that
if the price is right. But the story with its oracles Israel, given their numbers and victories over
has in fact been cleverly woven into the larger the Amorites, will next turn on what is left of
fabric of Numbers and God uses Balaam in his kingdom (which includes Midianites, 22:4, 7;
remarkable ways to bring blessing to Israel. 31:7–9) and overcome his armies with ease. And
Source-critical attempts to divide this story so, as kings were wont to do in that world (cf. 1
into J and E (only 22:1 is P) have not been Kings 22), he turns to a mercenary diviner from
successful. Coherence difficulties and the vari- Syria (the exact location is uncertain), famous for
ous divine names may reflect a long history of his effective blessings and cursings (v. 6, an ironic
transmission and editing of both narrative and statement, given later developments!). Messen-
poetry, the earliest forms of which may date gers, prepared to pay for his services, inform
from before the monarchy. An Aramaic in- Balaam of Balak’s request to have him curse Israel
scription from the eighth century BCE has so that he can defeat them (in v. 11 the compli-
been found at Tell Deir ʿAlla in Jordan, the ment of v. 6 is omitted). Note that the curses were
contents of which are ascribed to a ‘seer of not thought to be finally effective apart from
the gods’ named ‘Balaam, son of Beor’. He Balak’s subsequent actions. Divination (usually
reports a vision of a meeting of the gods who condemned in Israel, Deut 18:9–14) was a widely
are planning disaster for the earth (for text and practised ‘art’ whereby the meaning and course of
details, see Milgrom 1990: 473–6). Scholars events was sought through interpretation of vari-
agree that this text and Num 22–4 both have ous natural phenomena.
roots in Transjordan traditions about this le- Asking for a delay in order to consult
gendary figure. A few biblical traditions have a YHWH(!), Balaam has the first of three encoun-
negative assessment of Balaam, perhaps having ters with God. That YHWH’s name is placed in
access to still other traditions (cf. Num 31:8, 18; the mouth of Balaam, that he is called ‘my God’,
Josh 13:22; Rev 2:14). converses with him, and is accepted as a matter
The text combines a narrative and four poetic of course by the visitors, is remarkable. Such a
oracles, the basic content of which is blessing. usage expresses, not a historical judgement, but
Literary studies have noted the repetition of key the narrator’s conviction that the god with
words such as ‘(not)seeing’ and the number whom Balaam had to do is none other than
three, including a probable tripartite structure: YHWH (cf. Ex 15:15; Gen 26:28). The divine
numbers 176

enquiry into the visitors’ identity (v. 9) is designed Balaam’s treatment of the donkey during the
to elicit the response Balaam gives; how he re- journey is a sign of his unfaithfulness; he does
sponds—absolute divine foreknowledge is not not see the God who stands before him in
assumed—will shape the nature of God’s re- increasingly inescapable ways and respond ap-
sponse. God prohibits Balaam from going to propriately (cf. Joshua in JOSH 5:13–15). The don-
Moab to curse Israel, for they are blessed (see key is a vehicle through which God works
6:22–7). Balaam obeys God and recounts the div- to show Balaam’s dependence upon God for
ine refusal to the visitors (both acts relate to his insight and words and to sharpen his
Balaam’s faithfulness to God), who report back faithfulness.
to Balak but without any reference to God (v. 14). With sword drawn, the angel of YHWH (God
Readers would expect such a reply from God in human form, see 9:15–23) confronts Balaam
and think this is the end of the matter, but not and donkey three times in increasingly restrict-
Balak: he sends a larger and more distinguished ive circumstances. The donkey alone sees the
delegation, who make a more attractive offer— figure in the road; twice it is able to avoid a
promising honour and writing a blank cheque confrontation, but the third time it proves im-
(v. 17). Even with such a tempting offer, Balaam possible and so it lies down under Balaam. Each
again demonstrates his faithfulness by consult- time Balaam strikes the donkey, becoming
ing with ‘YHWH my God’ and telling the vis- angry (like God in v. 22) the third time. God
itors that he is subject exactly (not ‘less or more’, opens the donkey’s mouth and it questions
v. 18) to the divine command. In view of Balaam about its mistreatment. Balaam thinks
Balaam’s demonstrated and promised faithful- that he has been made to look the fool; if he had
ness, God changes the strategy and commands had a sword, he would have killed the animal.
him to go and do ‘only what I tell you to do’ When the donkey queries him about their long
(v. 20), a word which the reader is led to think history together, Balaam admits that the donkey
God can now speak with more confidence. has not acted this way before.
Balaam goes, but the reader is left to wonder At this point God opens Balaam’s eyes so that
what God might tell him to do. he can see as the donkey sees. When he sees the
What follows is surprising (v. 22), probably to angel with drawn sword he falls on his face,
both ancient and modern readers (in view of presumably pleading for his life. It was not the
various disjunctions most regard vv. 22–35 as a donkey who was against him but God. The
later interpolation). The reader (but not Balaam) angel gives the reason for the confrontation,
is told of God’s anger because he departed (for noting that if it had not been for the donkey’s
the translation, ‘as he was going’, see Ashley manœuverings, he would have killed Balaam.
1993: 454–5); indeed, God has become Balaam’s Balaam responds that, though he did not
‘adversary’. To create curiosity about the reason, know that God opposed him, he has sinned;
the narrator delays informing the reader until he offers to return home if God remains dis-
v. 32, where it is clear that God still has ques- pleased. But God renews the commission (v. 35)
tions about Balaam’s faithfulness, remarkable in and Balaam proceeds.
view of his responses in vv. 13–21. This strange The three episodes of Balaam with his donkey
encounter thus amounts to a ‘blind’ test. The are mirrored in the first three oracles of 22:41–
reader will remember Jacob in GEN 32:22–32 and 24:13. These oracles show that the experiences of
Moses in EX 4:24–6, both of whom encounter a Balaam with his donkey parallel the experiences
God who creates trials as they embark upon a of Balak with Balaam. The donkey’s experience
new venture relative to God’s call. The language becomes Balaam’s experience. Just as the donkey
is also similar to Joshua’s experience (JOSH 5:13– is caught between God’s threatening presence
15). At the end of this test (v. 35), God’s com- and Balaam’s increasing anger so Balaam is
mand to Balaam remains the same as it was in v. caught between God’s insistence on blessing
20—to speak only what God tells him. and Balak’s increasing anger about the curse.
But to get to that goal, the narrator makes use From another angle, Balaam’s difficulties with
of fable motifs with a talking donkey (cf. GEN the donkey are like God’s experience with
3:1–6; JUDG 9:7–15) to portray the test. God here Balaam. It is a conflict of wills. Balaam has to
uses irony and humour to get through to be brought more certainly to the point where he
Balaam. The donkey becomes his teacher (!), will allow God to use him as God sees fit (see
one who sees the things of God (including po- v. 38). God will open Balaam’s mouth just as God
tential disaster) more clearly than Balaam opened the donkey’s mouth (v. 28). From still
sees and subverts Balaam’s supposed powers. another angle, the donkey becomes a God
 177 numbers

figure(!), speaking for God and reflecting God’s the spirit of God comes upon him (see 11:17,
relationship to Balaam (vv. 28–30). God has 25–6) without consultation after he ‘sets his
been mistreated by Balaam along the journey face’ and ‘sees’ Israel’s situation (24:2).
because Balaam thinks this trip is making him 5. Balaam speaks God’s blessings on Israel
look the fool. The donkey reminds Balaam of rather than curses. The blessings become less
their long life together and his faithfulness to him. descriptive, more future oriented, and more
Having arrived at the boundary of Moab properly blessings as one moves through the
(v. 36), Balaam is greeted by Balak, who chides four oracles. Even more, those who curse Israel
him for his initial refusal. Balaam responds by will themselves be cursed, while those who
saying, rhetorically, that he does not have the bless will be blessed (24:9). Prominent through-
power ‘to say just anything’ (v. 38). What God out is the language of seeing; the one who did
puts in his mouth, as with the prophets (see Jer not see the purposes of God (22:22–30) now
1:9; 15:16; Ezek 2:8–3:3), this is what he must say does see them (23:9, 21, 23–4; 24:3–4, 15–17).
(cf. Jer 20:7–9). Indeed, the clarity of his seeing increases over
the course of the oracles; the most expansive
(22:41–24:13) Balaam’s first three oracles. The claims are the ‘knowledge’ of 24:16 and the
first two oracles are integral to the surrounding seeing into the future of 24:17. Falling down
narrative; the third (as with the fourth) is less so but alert (24:4, 16) may refer to a qualified ec-
but still has close links. Each situation contains static reception of God’s word.
seven similar elements; the third time around Balaam ‘sees’ Israel’s history and God’s prom-
breaks the pattern in key ways (cf. Olson 1996: ises, moving from the past through the present
145–7): to a more and more specific future: election
1. Balak brings Balaam to a high point over- from among the nations (23:9); promise (and
looking the Israelite camp (22:41; 23:13–14, fulfilment) of many descendants, like the dust
27–8), a people so vast he cannot see them all of the earth (23:10; see Gen 13:16, 28:14), and
(23:13). The place changes each time and Balak blessing (24:9, cf. GEN 12:3); exodus (23:22;
hopes that the venue (and the sight of a smaller 24:8); God’s presence among them and his
portion of the people) might change the word care in the wilderness (23:21; cf. 24:5–6). He
spoken; in the third instance Balak uses (will of) anticipates a successful conquest, as both Israel
God language (23:27). But the place makes no and God are imaged as lions (22:23–4; 24:7–9),
difference, and he finally sees all the people the rise of the monarchy and specific conquests
(24:2). relating thereto (24:7, 17–19). The overall scene
2. Balak builds seven altars and sacrifices a for Balaam is a blessed people: numerous, con-
bull and a ram on each (23:1–2, 14, 29–30), the fident, flourishing, powerful, and its king is God.
first and the last at Balaam’s request. Sacrifices In Balaam’s words (23:10):‘let my end be like his!’
were a typical part of the diviner’s art, perhaps Balaam ‘sees’ some of Israel’s basic convic-
to appease the deity and to look for omens in tions about God. God is not a human being, is
the entrails. Balaam’s purpose may be to show not deceptive, blesses Israel, reveals his word to
Balak that he is proceeding in a proper manner. people such as Balaam, and makes promises
But, in fact, divination is seen to be bankrupt as and keeps them (23:19–20). The claim that God
a means of revelation (23:23; 24:1). has spoken and will not change his mind (23:19)
3. Balaam twice turns aside from the offerings refers to these promises for Israel and is not a
to consult with YHWH, but the third time he general statement about divine immutability
does not ‘look for omens’ (24:1; diviner’s lan- (see Gen 6:5–6; Ex 32:14) or a general claim
guage is used for consulting with YHWH). In about prophecy (see Jer 18:7–10). This God
the first case, he is uncertain that YHWH will chooses to dwell among this people and is
meet him and informs God about the offerings acclaimed as their king (23:21), is a strong deliv-
(23:3–4); the second time he is certain and says erer, imaged as strong animals (23:22; 24:8–9),
nothing about offerings (23:15). and will defeat Israel’s enemies (24:8–9).
4. God twice meets Balaam and puts a word 6. Balak’s reactions to Balaam’s oracles are
in his mouth and commands him to return and increasingly negative, issuing finally in anger
speak that word (23:5, 16). God’s insistence on and dismissal (23:11, 25–6; 24:10–11). But Balak
what he must say recognizes that Balaam does comes to recognize that Balaam’s God is the
have options. It becomes increasingly clear, one with whom he has to do (23:17, 27) and
even to Balak (23:17), that God reveals through finally blames YHWH for the fact that Balaam
the word, not divination. In the third instance, will not be paid for his services (24:11).
numbers 178

7. Balaam’s response to Balak in each case is a (for parallels, see Olson 1996: 153–4), anomalous
testimony to the word of God (23:12, 26; 24:12– given God’s blessings in chs. 22–4. In these
13). That he must ‘take care’ to say what God has events the old generation seems finally to die
put in his mouth again indicates that he does off (14:26–35; 26:64–5). The decks are cleared for
have other options. But he knows he must the new generation (whose census follows in
speak in view of the source of the words. ch. 26).
The first story (vv. 1–5; cf. Deut 4:3–4) in-
(24:14–25) Balaam’s fourth oracle stands out- volves Moabite women who, through acts of
side the form delineated above and comes dir- prostitution, invite Israelite males into idol-
ectly from Balaam, with no reference to the atrous practices associated with the god (sing.)
spirit of the Lord (as in 24:2), but with a claim Baal, the Canaanite god of Peor (on Balaam’s
that he himself ‘knows the knowledge of the advice, 31:16). God tells Moses to impale the
Most High’ (24:16). This oracle is suddenly intro- chiefs of Israel so that the anger of God is
duced as Balaam’s word to Balak upon his de- turned away from Israel; no notice is given of
parture, a word that ironically makes clear that obedience (unusual in Numbers; a failure of
Balak and Moab are expressly in Israel’s future. Moses?). Moses issues a different command,
Israel will bring Moab (24:17, and perhaps Ir in namely to kill only the idolaters (also not exe-
24:19; cf. 22:36), Edom, and the other peoples in cuted). vv. 8–9 speak of a severe plague, which
the region (the Shethites) under the aegis of v. 18 and 31:16 associate with the idolatry of
Israel and its God and will be exalted among Peor, and must have begun in 25:3 (cf. weeping
the nations. in 25:7). Because the wrath of God was not
The means by which this will be accom- turned away by following God’s command to
plished is anticipated in the kingdom language execute a few, a more devastating plague oc-
of 24:7; God will raise up a star and sceptre (the curred, a working out of the consequences of
future ‘him’) of 24:17a; from the tribe of Judah, the deed (see NUM 1:53; 14).
for whom lion imagery is also used (see Gen The second story (vv. 6–15) involves a rela-
49:9–10), and Israel will be established among tionship between a Midianite woman and a
the nations (24:17–20). These royal images are Simeonite; the detail given in vv. 14–15 testifies
usually associated with the Davidic dynasty and to their status (and may link the man with v. 4).
its victories over Moab and Edom (2 Sam 8:2, The phrase ‘into his family’ (v. 6) suggests mar-
12–14) and have been messianically interpreted. riage, but the Hebrew is ‘to his brothers’; the
The obscure (and possibly added) brief or- tabernacle setting suggests something more sin-
acles against the nations (24:20–4) name the ister, as does the word ‘trickery’ in v. 18 (see
Amalekites (cf. its king Agag, 24:7, and 1 SAM 31:16). He did this ‘in the sight of Moses’ and all
15; 30); the Kenites (Kain), a subgroup of the Israelites as they voiced their lament to God at
Midianites; Assyria (or an obscure tribal group, the tabernacle. The wrong committed is uncer-
Gen 25:3); Eber (perhaps another tribal group in tain, but the combination of marriage to a Mid-
the area); and the Philistines or other sea people ianite (paired with idolatrous Moabites, v. 18)
(Kittim). The oracles announce their ultimate and the defiance exhibited in parading them-
demise. In all of these events Israel’s God will selves before the lamenting people suggests
be the chief actor (24:23). idolatrous practice.
But the Moabites come back to haunt Israel Perhaps Moses had difficulty acting because
almost immediately. The Israelites remain at the he himself had married a Midianite. In any case,
boundary of Moab across from Jericho. the blatant act exhibited in his sight was serious
enough to call for a decisive response. Moses’
(25:1–18) The Final Rebellion Scholars agree failure entails two instances of disobedience in
that this chapter combines two separate stories quick succession. But Phinehas, grandson of
about Israelite men and foreign women (often Aaron, does not hesitate. He enters their tent
assigned to JE and P), with a conclusion that (perhaps a nearby shrine?—the Hebrew word
assumes both stories. The second story may occurs only here) and pierces them through.
have been added to illustrate the first and to The single act suggests they were having inter-
raise up the stature of the Aaronic line (at the course and the tabernacle vicinity suggests
expense of Moses?). The chapter is highly con- an act of cultic prostitution, which would link
densed and the reader must fill in many gaps. back to v. 1. The effect of his action (in effect
The focus is violation of the first command- a ‘sacrifice’) was to ‘make atonement for the
ment, the first notice of idolatry since Ex 32 Israelites’ (v. 13; cf. 16:46–8) and stop the plague,
 179 numbers

which God’s command to Moses in v. 4 had that God will be true to promises made, and
called for, and Phinehas now fulfils at least in those promises have been focused on this new
part. God interprets this action as a zeal exer- generation by God himself (14:24, 31). From the
cised on behalf of the divine jealousy (the re- assumptions of land ownership and allocation
lated Hebrew words show that God’s zeal in chs. 27–36, this new generation will inherit
became Phinehas’s), which links the action to the land, regardless of what it does. Hence, these
idolatry (see Ex 34:14–16; Hos 9:10). So, this is a chapters have a promissory force (see NUM 15).
zeal for the first commandment (and the first Yet this does not lessen the call to be faithful
reference to Baal, which may account for the (Caleb and Joshua stand as examples) and so
god’s later infamy, e.g. Ps 106:28). chs. 27–36 (and Deuteronomy, also addressed
This action of Phinehas becomes the basis for to the new generation) seek to assist Israel in its
God’s establishing with the Aaronides an ever- faithfulness through new orderings of a com-
lasting covenant of peace, which is interpreted munity confronted with many of the same
to mean a covenant of perpetual priesthood issues. Many signs of hope will surface, not
(‘my’ means that its fulfilment is solely depen- least the complete absence of death notices.
dent on God). What is new, given earlier divine But this picture dare not contribute to undue
commitments to Aaron (Ex 29:9; 40:15; cf. Mal optimism. Deut 28–31 will make it clear that this
2:4–5)? Covenant (of peace) language is new (see new generation will be no more faithful than
Isa 54:10; Ezek 34:25), suggesting a formaliza- the old and will experience many of the same
tion of a prior commitment. failures and consequences (see Deut 29:22–8;
This text may reflect later priestly rivalries. 31:20–9). On parallels between Num 1–25 and
The status of Phinehas is raised up over Aaron’s 26–36, see Olson (1996: 158–9).
other son Ithamar (whose descendants were Characteristic of chs. 27–36 is the recognition
banished by Solomon, 1 Kings 2:26–7) and that older law may need to change in view of
God’s commitment to Phinehas, whose des- new life situations. The heart of the matter is
cendants were Zadokites (1 Chr 6:4–10; Ezek community justice and stability; for that reason
44:15), is eternal. God becomes engaged in social and economic
The conclusion (vv. 16–18) combines elem- change. Such ongoing divine involvement wit-
ents from both stories (known to Num 31:8–16 nesses to a dynamic understanding of law, in
and Ps 106:28–31). The divine word to ‘harass which the tradition is reinterpreted for the sake
[be an enemy to] the Midianites’ is directly of life in a new situation. Instead of an immut-
correspondent to their harassment of Israel; able, timeless law, Israel insists on a developing
see NUM 31, where Israel goes to war against the process in which experience in every sphere of
Midianites and Balaam is killed for his partici- life is drawn into the orbit of law, but always in
pation in Israel’s apostasy. The condemnation the service of life and the flourishing of com-
of a Simeonite, when combined with the ac- munity.
tions of Levites and Reubenites in ch. 16,
means that the curse on these three tribes in (26:1–65) The Census of the New Generation
Jacob’s last testament (Gen 49:1–7) is brought to The second census begins as did the first (cf. v. 2
completion (see Douglas 1993: 194–5). with 1:2–3), with military service in mind,
Eleazar replacing his father Aaron, and land
The New Generation on the Plains of Moab allotment issues paramount. The reference to
(26:1–36:13) all these persons having come out of Egypt
The balance of Numbers (all Priestly material) seems strange; perhaps this is how they identify
contains little narrative in the usual sense, themselves as a community. See GEN 46:8–24,
though enough to keep the law and narrative whose list of seventy individuals have here—
rhythm alive (see chs. 31; 32). Various statutes basically—become seventy clans (cf. also 1 Chr
and lists are presented that prepare Israel for its 2–8). Even with the failures of certain tribal
life in the land. groups and the diminishment of numbers, the
This census marks the beginning of the new twelve-tribe reality remains intact here (only
generation without the presence of the old (see Manasseh and Ephraim are inverted). The listing
NUM c.2). Given the obedient preparations for focuses on clans rather than individuals (for
the journey in chs. 1–10, the reader may wonder land allotment); the totals are given for each
whether anything external can be developed to tribe and the total for all: 601,730 compared to
prevent the rebellions of a new generation. The 603,550 in 1:46. Even with all the deaths in chs.
oracles of Balaam, however, have made it clear 11–25, the numbers remain essentially the same.
numbers 180

God’s blessings have been at work behind the Deut 25:5–6), a questionable issue from a mod-
scenes. ern perspective; yet, such a concern sought to
Several events of previous chapters are safeguard a just distribution of land among the
recalled, the rebellion of Korah and the Reube- tribes (see 36:1–12). These women challenge the
nites (vv. 9–11; cf. also v. 19), the deaths of Er and practice that only males inherit land; yet their
Onan (v. 19; cf. Gen 38:3–10), the deaths of appeal remains fundamentally oriented in
Nadab and Abihu (v. 61; cf. Lev 10:1–2), and a terms of their father’s name (vv. 3–4), perhaps
reference to Jochebed, the mother of Moses practising politics as the art of the possible. So
(v. 59). Another reference to women anticipates they commendably challenge current practice,
events yet to occur (v. 33), and is the reason for and take an important step toward greater gen-
the lengthier generation list of Manasseh. A new der equality, but they do not finally (seek to)
reason for the census is given in vv. 52–6, i.e. overturn the patrilineal system. (See Fishbane
land apportionment is to be based on tribal size 1985: 98–105.)
after the conquest is complete (though the lo-
cation of land will be based on lot, a means of (27:12–23) From Moses to Joshua This seg-
eliminating human bias). Such a method sought ment describes the transfer of authority from
to ensure a fair distribution of the land to the Moses to Joshua. A good case can be made,
various families. especially given the reference to the death of
The Levites are also newly enrolled (cf. 3:14– Moses (v. 13), that the report of Moses’ death
39, with an increase of 1,000), separately as (now in Deut 34; note also the similarity be-
before (1:48–9), with reference to the absence tween Num 27:12–14 and Deut 32:48–52) origin-
of tribal allotment (18:23–4). As God had said ally stood here (or after 36:13) and concluded an
(14:20–35), no member of the old generation is earlier version of the ‘Pentateuch’.
still alive except Caleb and Joshua and, for a The need for a successor to Moses on the eve
time, Moses. of the entry into the land is made clear by his
(and Aaron’s) earlier rebellion (v. 14; see 20:12).
(27:1–11) The Daughters of Zelophehad Bec- It is striking that Moses is the one who initiates
ause ancestral lands are to be kept within the the issue of succession (v. 15), appealing to God
tribe (see Lev 25; 1 Kings 21:1–4), a way to pass as Creator, the one who gives breath (spirit) to
on the inheritance must be found if a man has all people (see 16:22), in an apparent reference
no sons. In such cases daughters may inherit; to God as the one who has given Joshua the
that possibility is here given Moses’ blessing (it spirit, a specific charisma for leadership (27:18;
occurs in Josh 17:3–6). A restriction is added in cf. 11:17, 26; Deut 34:9). Joshua has been an
36:1–2, providing an inclusio for Num 27–36 (for ‘assistant’ to Moses since the Exodus (11:28; Ex
less restrictive practices in that world, see Mil- 24:13; 33:11). Here his responsibilities are espe-
grom 1990: 482–4). cially associated with leading the Israelites in
The daughters of Zelophehad take the initia- battle (see Ex 17:8–14), the basic meaning of ‘go
tive with Moses in pursuing inheritance rights out before them and come in before them’
inasmuch as their father had no sons (see the (27:17, 21; Josh 14:11). Yet the image of sheep
census, 26:33). The allusion to their father not and shepherd suggests a more comprehensive
being with Korah may refer to the 250 laymen leadership role, even royal in its basic sense (see
of 16:2; ‘his own sins’ may refer to the old 2 Sam 5:2).
generation (26:64–5). They note that their In response to Moses, God commands him to
father’s name would still be associated with take Joshua and commission him by laying his
this land (27:4); apparently their sons would hand upon him, a symbolic act signifying the
pass on the name (see 36:1–12; Ezra 2:61). transfer of authority through which God was
Moses consults with God, who agrees with the active (so v. 20; cf. 8:10–11; Deut 34:9). The
daughters. In addition, God decrees other ways investiture is public, before ‘all the congrega-
in which the inheritance is to be passed on in tion’, so that it is clear that he is the one whom
the absence of sons, with preference given to the people are to obey (v. 20). The act is also to
direct lineage (see Sakenfeld 1995). Levirate mar- take place before Eleazar the high priest (see
riage (Deut 25:5–10) was probably not applic- 20:22–9), to whom Joshua is responsible with
able here, either because the mother was dead respect to the discernment of the will of God
or no longer of child-bearing age. (esp. regarding battle) through the use of Urim
Israel’s patrilineal system sought to ensure and Thummim (see EX 28:29–30). The latter ex-
the endurance of the family name (see 27:4; plains why only ‘some’ of Moses’ authority was
 181 numbers

given to Joshua (v. 20; cf. Moses’ role in 12:6–8; (28:9–10) Sabbath Offerings, which help focus
Deut 34:10; Josh 1:7–8). Moses did as God had on that hallowed seventh day of creation, sep-
commanded him. arated from all other days. No purification of-
fering is presented on the sabbath because of
(28:1–29:40) Offerings for Life in the Land In the theme of joyfulness.
chs. 28–9 offerings are instituted for various regu-
lar and festival occasions (the number seven is (28:11–15) Monthly (New Moon) Offerings. Cf.
prominent throughout) for Israel’s life in the land. NUM 10:10.
They assume all previous texts in the Pentateuch
regarding these matters (e.g. LEV 23; cf. NUM 7; 15; (28:16–25) Passover and Unleavened Bread,
DEUT 16:1–17) and may be a late addition. Whereas celebrated in the first month. v. 16 assumes
the opening chapters of Numbers centre on the the provisions for Passover (see 9:1–14; Ex
spatial ordering of the community, these ordin- 12:1–27; Deut 16:1–8). Unleavened bread
ances focus on its temporal ordering, in anticipa- (vv. 17–25; see Ex 13:3–10) was celebrated on
tion of a more settled life in the land. By marking the seven days following Passover; it was
out these times Israel placed itself in tune with begun and concluded with a ‘holy convoca-
God’s temporal ordering in creation, a rhythm tion’, on which days there was to be no
and regularity essential for the life God intends occupational work.
for all (for links to Gen 1, see Olson 1996: 170–3).
At these times through the year Israel is to be (28:26–31) Festival of First Fruits (Weeks; Har-
attentive to offerings given by God in and vest; Pentecost), one day with no occupational
through which God acted for the sake of the life work. Celebrated fifty days (a sabbath plus
and well-being of the community (indeed, the seven times seven days) after Unleavened
cosmos). For a convenient summary of the sig- Bread at the start of the wheat harvest (June).
nificance of offerings, see Nelson (1993). See LEV 23:15–21; DEUT 16:9–12.

(28:1–2) introduces all the offerings (brought (29:1–6) The first day of the seventh month is
by the people) that belong wholly to YHWH the traditional New Year’s Day (this time in the
(whole burnt offerings; purification or ‘sin’ autumn is thought to be the first month in an
offerings; each with meal and drink offerings, older agricultural year calendar, cf. Ex 23:16;
cf. NUM 15) for the various times. This totals 34:22). This is an occasion for a holy convoca-
thirty days of the year (252 total male ani- tion, with no occupational work. The shofar is
mals—lambs (140), rams (20), bulls (79), and blown (v. 1); on blowing the trumpets at the
goats (13) for the purification offerings), besides appointed festivals, see NUM 10:10.
the daily and sabbath offerings (two lambs in
each case). 29:39–40 concludes the list, with a (29:7–11) Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur),
list of private offerings not covered here. On celebrated on the tenth day of the seventh
‘pleasing odour’ (28:2, 24) see NUM 15:3. month, with a holy convocation, fasting, and
The first three offerings (28:3–15) mark the no work at all (as on sabbath). See LEV 16:29–34;
basic temporal frame of days, weeks, and 23:26–32.
months. The remainder mark out the festival
year, set primarily in terms of the beginning of (29:12–38) Tabernacles (Booths; Sukkot; Inga-
the two halves of the year, the first month thering) is the autumn harvest festival. Cele-
(Passover and Unleavened Bread) and the sev- brated from the fifteenth day (when there was
enth month (Rosh Hashanah, Day of Atone- no occupational work) of the month for seven
ment, and Booths), with Weeks between these days, offerings are specified for each day, with
major seasons. These three festival periods are many more animals than at other festivals.
closely timed to Israel’s three harvest times, and Fewer offerings are ordered for an eighth day,
in time become associated with three events of a day of ‘solemn assembly’ (the seventh one for
Israel’s early history (Exodus; giving of the law; the year) with no occupational work, which
wilderness wanderings). ends the celebration. See LEV 23:33–6, DEUT
16:13–15.
(28:3–8) Daily (continual) Offerings (tāmı̂d), The large number of animals and amounts of
offered every day (even on special days) at produce anticipate settlement in a land of abun-
dawn and dusk, the points of transition be- dance. These statutes will help the wilderness
tween night and day. See EX 29:38–42. community face into the future.
numbers 182

(30:1–16) Vows and their Limits The mention texts in Numbers and its exaggerations (e.g.
of votive offerings in 29:39 perhaps provides the amount of spoil and that no Israelite war-
the link to this material (see LEV 7:16–18; 22:17– rior was lost in battle, v. 49). Certainly the
25; 27; NUM 15:1–10). These statutes in casuistic entire narrative is idealized, probably in the
style (cf. DEUT 23:21–3) concern vows or pledges interests of the portrayal of the new gener-
(n
eder) made by men (v. 2), who are bound ation, though a nucleus seems rooted in some
by their word, and by women who are as well event.
(vv. 3–15). But women are usually (v. 9) bound vv. 1–2 pick up the story line from 25:17–18.
to their vows within limits placed by the actions God had commanded Israel to attack the Mid-
of a father or husband. These are (sworn) prom- ianites in response to their corresponding at-
ises to God (‘oath’ is used with human beings) tacks on Israel. v. 16 interprets this harassment
related to service (nazirite, 6:2) or in exchange in terms of Moabite/Midianite—merged here—
for the (potential) fulfilment of a request, women, at the instigation of Balaam, seducing
often in crisis (see 21:2; Jacob in GEN 28:20–2; Israelite men into idolatrous practices. Israel’s
Jephthah in JUDG 11:30–1; Hannah in 1 SAM 1:11). obedient response to God’s command is mili-
Three categories of women whose vows are tary in character and is interpreted as ‘avenging’
conditional are presented: those who are still in (n-q-m) Israel and God (vv. 2–3). But the lan-
their father’s house and under his authority (vv. guage of ‘vengeance’ for n-q-m is problematic;
3–5); women who are under vows (even rash preferred is the sense of vindication, to seek
ones, see Lev 5:4) at the time they are married, redress for past wrongs. Israel is God’s instru-
vows not annulled by the father (vv. 6–8); ment of judgement against the Midianites,
women who are married and under their hus- which would vindicate the honour of both
band’s authority (vv. 10–15). Widows and divor- God and the Israelites.
cees are excluded because they are under no This narrative is also linked to two earlier
man’s authority (v. 9). successful battles against Canaanites and
In the cases presented essentially the same Amorites (21:1–3, 21–35), each waged according
principles are operative. If a father or husband to holy war principles in which their entire
disapproves of a vow, he must speak up at the populations were destroyed (cf. Josh 6:20–1;
time he hears (of) the vow (not least a vow to 10:28–42). This battle takes a somewhat differ-
fast, v. 13) or the vow stands. If the father or ent turn. It has the earmarks of a Holy War,
husband disapproves, the vow is annulled, the with the presence of the priest as ‘chaplain’
woman is forgiven by God and is to suffer no (see Deut 20:2–4; Phinehas rather than Eleazar
consequences. The fourth case is expanded because of Lev 21:11) and the sanctuary vessels
(3:14–15): if a husband annuls his wife’s vow (v. 6, presumably including the ark, 14:44) and
after some time has passed, then he (not she) the sounding of alarm (10:9). Only 1,000 men
will be guilty of breaking the vow and will have from each tribe are engaged, a small percent-
to suffer the (unspecified) consequences (see age of those available (26:51; cf. Judg 7:2–8;
Deut 23:21). 21:10–12). The battle itself is only briefly de-
These statutes assume dependence of the scribed (vv. 7–8) and every male (including
woman upon the man rather than a culture of Balaam) is killed and their towns destroyed
reciprocity. They protect both men (from hav- (v. 10; cf. Josh 13:21–2). The presence of Mid-
ing the responsibility to fulfil a vow a woman ianites in Judg 6–8 would seem to question
has made) and, to a lesser extent, women this, but there were other Midianite clans (see
(whose vows remain intact unless there is im- Hobab in 10:29–32). Then (unlike Num 21) the
mediate male response). Lines of responsibility women and children (and animals) are not
are thus clearly drawn. The overarching con- killed but taken captive and (with other
cern is that voiced in v. 2—individuals are to booty) brought before Moses, Eleazar, and the
keep their word. Failed promises adversely af- congregation (v. 12). This action represents a
fect one’s relationship to God and disrupt the variation in the practice of Holy War as out-
stability of a community. lined in Deut 20:13–18 (and 21:10–14), where a
distinction is made between the peoples of
(31:1–54) War Against the Midianites This Canaan (including Amorite areas where some
narrative (with 32:1–42) focuses on traditions tribes settled, 32:33) and others more distant.
associated with Israel’s conquests and settle- Apparently the Midianites are considered
ment in the Transjordan. It is often called a among the latter, though qualified in view of
Midrash, with its frequent reference to prior Israel’s prior history with them (ch. 25).
 183 numbers

Moses expresses anger that captives have On the offensiveness of these holy war prac-
been taken, or at least that ‘all the women’ tices, see NUM 21:1–3. This victory is the first of
have (vv. 14–15). He isolates ‘these women the new generation and bodes well for the fu-
here’, because they were involved in the Peor ture.
apostasy. But he commands not only that they
be killed, but all women who are not virgins (32:1–42) Early Land Settlement Issues This
(because all are suspect?) and all male children chapter reports a crisis among members of the
(certainly a genocidal move), while female vir- new generation regarding land settlement to the
gins can be preserved alive ‘for yourselves’, as east of the Jordan (outside the usual definition
wives or slaves (vv. 16–18). No word from the of Canaan, but present in some texts, GEN 15:16–
Lord is given regarding this matter (common in 21, Exod 23:31). Its resolution by means of com-
Numbers), and there is no arbitration, so the promise stands in sharp contrast to earlier ex-
reader might ask how legitimate it is. One can- periences (see 32:6–13) and witnesses to a
not help but wonder if the unmarried women change in this Israelite generation.
were checked one by one! The text informs the The focus is on tribes who settled in the
reader only indirectly that these commands of highlands of Gilead east of the Jordan river—
Moses were carried out (see v. 35). Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh
The commands regarding purification for (see also Deut 3:12–20; Josh 13:8–32; 22:1–34).
persons (soldiers and captives) and organic ma- These tribes receive a somewhat mixed evalu-
terials which have come into contact with the ation here and elsewhere in the tradition (see
dead are begun by Moses (vv. 19–20; in terms of 16:1; Gen 49:3–4; Josh 22:10–34; Judg 5:15–17;
NUM 19, as is v. 24) and extended by Eleazar (vv. 11:29–40; 1 Chr 5:23–6).
21–3, in terms of a word of God to Moses not In 21:21–35 the Israelites had defeated the
previously reported) with respect to distinc- Amorite kings Sihon and Og and obliterated
tions between flammable and nonflammable their communities; this happened at God’s
(metallic) items. command (21:34). This theological point is cor-
vv. 25–47 focus on the distribution of the rectly made by Reuben and Gad (32:4) in their
spoil. God speaks for the first time since v. 2 request for this territory as their possession
(vv. 25–30) with commands regarding the dis- (32:1–5). These areas with their fertile pasture
position of captives and booty. They are to be lands were now ‘vacant’, and their availability
divided evenly between the warriors and the attracted the attention of these cattle-rich tribes
rest of the congregation (cf. 1 Sam 30:24). One (later joined by the half-tribe of Manasseh,
in 500 of the warriors’ items are to be given to 32:33–42).
the priests as an offering to the Lord; one in fifty Their final words, ‘do not make us cross the
of the congregation’s items (more because of Jordan’, trigger Moses’ memories of past disas-
less risk) are to be given to the Levites (see NUM ters associated with reluctance to enter the land
18:8–32 for other such portions; cf. also NUM 7). (32:8–15; see NUM 13–14), ‘land’ here understood
This command is carried out (v. 31) and vv. 32– to mean Canaan. Moses questions whether they
47 detail the disposition and quantity of the are trying to avoid upcoming battles; indeed, he
spoil; the total—just of the officers!—is im- considers them ‘a brood of sinners’ (v. 14) who
mense: 808,000 animals, 32,000 young repeat the unfaithfulness exhibited by the spies,
women, and (from v. 52) 16,750 shekels of the effects of which he rehearses, and which
gold. vv. 48–54 deal with non-living booty. could now recur with even more disastrous
The officers approach Moses with information consequences—the destruction of Israel.
that no Israelite was killed and announce their But, unlike Israel in chs. 13–14, these tribes
gift to YHWH of the precious metals each sol- propose a compromise (vv. 16–19). They will
dier (v. 53 includes everyone) had taken. These settle in the Transjordan and leave their families
valuables are brought to Moses to make atone- and animals behind. And they will fight, indeed
ment for themselves and as a memorial before serve in the vanguard of the Israelites as they
God—through tabernacle furnishings made move across the Jordan. They will not return to
from the metals—regarding this event (vv. 50, their homes until ‘all the Israelites’ are secure
54). The need for atonement is usually linked to and they will not inherit any of those lands
EX 30:11–16 and the taking of a military census, (vv. 16–19).
but this seems strained; it might have to do with Moses responds positively, if cautiously, and
the taking of human life, not fully commanded mention of God is especially prominent. Pick-
by God in this case (see above). ing up on the ‘vanguard’ of v. 16, they are to go
numbers 184

‘before the LORD’ (vv. 20–2), that is, before the The reader can recognize two uneven seg-
ark (see JOSH 4:12–13; 6:7–13). If they follow ments, up to and following the death of Aaron
through on their agreement they have fulfilled (vv. 38–9), perhaps betraying priestly interests,
their obligation. If they do not, they can be sure and the reference to the king of Arad (v. 40),
that their sin will find them out (vv. 20–4). The perhaps because this is the first contact with
effects of sin are here understood to have an Canaanites. Only v. 8 speaks of the travel time
intrinsic relationship to the deed and such ef- involved.
fects will in time reveal what they have done The first segment is vv. 3–37 (see Ex 12:37–19:1;
(see NUM 14). Num 10:11–20:29). Noteworthy is the detail
Gad and Reuben, using deferential lan- regarding the Passover, and the note about it
guage (‘your servants’, ‘my lord’), agree with as a battle among the gods (see v. 52; cf. Ex 12:12;
those terms (vv. 25–7). And so Moses com- 15:11). Strikingly, Sinai is simply another stop
mands Eleazar, Joshua, and tribal heads to along the way (vv. 15–16), with no mention of
witness and honour (he will soon be dead) the giving of the law, and the sea crossing is
this agreement and these tribes formally and mentioned only in passing. The presence and
publicly agree (vv. 28–32). If these tribes fail, absence of water is raised (vv. 9, 14), perhaps
they will have to take lands west of the because of its import for the journey. This lev-
Jordan (v. 30). The words, ‘As the LORD has elling of the journey to its bare bones highlights
spoken’ (v. 31) are striking because the text the journey itself rather than the events along
does not report God having so spoken; the way.
Moses’ word seems to be as good as God’s. The second segment (vv. 41–9; see Num 21:1–
When the agreement has been made, Moses 22:1) moves quickly to the present situation
gives the lands to these tribes, who rebuild (with a passing reference to Mt. Nebo, the site
Amorite cities and rename them (vv. 33–8; of Moses’ death and burial).
see JOSH 13:8–32 for land allotments).
The integration of the half-tribe of Manasseh (33:50–6) Directions for Conquest of Canaan
(vv. 33, 39–42) into the tribes settling in Trans- This segment constitutes hortatory instruc-
jordan comes as something of a surprise; it may tions from God to Moses regarding the
be an old tradition added later (see 26:29–34; nature of the attack on Canaan, which God
Josh 13:29–32). They oust more Amorites for has given for Israel to possess (v. 53). In pos-
their lands, and hence their situation is different sessing the land, they are to drive out (not
from that of Gad and Reuben who possess exterminate; cf. Ex 23:23; Deut 7:1–6) all the
already conquered lands. The land for two and present inhabitants, destroy their images and
one-half tribes is thus already in place before sanctuaries, and apportion the land by lot
the Jordan is crossed. according to the size of the clans (v. 54, essen-
tially a repetition of 26:54–5, perhaps because
(33:1–49) The Wilderness Journey Remem- of the events of NUM 32). If they do not drive out
bered This passage is a recollection of the the inhabitants (which is what actually hap-
forty-two stages of Israel’s journey through the pens; cf. JUDG 1:1–2:5; 1 Kings 9:21), those left
wilderness, from Egypt (vv. 3–5) to their present shall ‘be as barbs in your eyes and thorns in
situation across the Jordan (v. 49). Its placement your sides’ (v. 55), which is what they prove to
may recognize the end of the journey narrative be over the years (see Judg 2:11–3:6). The reader
and the beginning of the land settlement. The will recognize these themes from EX 23:23–33
itinerary is represented as something Moses and 34:11–16; they anticipate such texts as Deut
wrote at God’s command (v. 2); it probably 12:2–4. The final verse (v. 56) anticipates the
has its origin in one or more ancient itineraries destructions of Samaria and Jerusalem and the
that circulated in Israel through the generations exiling of Israel, a warning that will be more
(see Milgrom 1990: 497–9). Many sites are not fully developed in Deuteronomy (see esp. chs.
mentioned elsewhere (vv. 13, 18–29); most are 28–31).
not geographically identifiable. The itinerary is
a surprisingly ‘secular’ document; divine activ- (34:1–29) The Apportionment of the Land
ity is mentioned only at the beginning (v. 4) and This chapter delineates the boundaries of the
at the death of Aaron (v. 38). This omission promised land (vv. 1–15) and the leaders who
emphasizes the importance of human activity are to apportion that land among the tribes
on this journey. (vv. 16–29). Both are chosen by God. The
 185 numbers

content suggests that the land will soon be in permanent possessions (and others would live
Israel’s hands. in them). 1,000 cubits (450 m.) in each direc-
The boundaries of the land of Canaan are tion from the town wall issues in a square
idealized; they do not correspond to the bound- of 2,000 cubits per side (see Milgrom 1990:
aries known from any time during Israel’s his- 502–4). The various tribes will contribute cities
tory. On the other hand, the boundaries according to their size.
correspond well to the Canaan known from
Egyptian sources prior to the Israelite settle- (35:9–15) institutes cities of refuge (cf. Ex 21:12–
ment and a few other texts (see Josh 13–19; 14; Deut 4:41–3; 19:1–3, 9; for a list see Josh
Ezek 47:13–20). Several sites are not known 20:1–9). When established in the land, the
and so the boundaries cannot be determined people were to choose three cities of refuge on
with precision (see Milgrom 1990: 501–2). each side of the Jordan (well distributed north
The southern border (vv. 2–5) moves from to south). These cities were set aside as a place
the southern end of the Dead Sea south and of asylum for persons (Israelite or alien) who
west across the wilderness of Zin to south of killed someone without intent, until their case
Kadesh to the Wadi of Egypt to the Mediterra- could be properly tried. Their purpose was to
nean (the western boundary, v. 6). The northern ensure that justice was done and to prevent
border (vv. 7–9) is less clear, extending from the blood feuds. As long as such persons remained
Mediterranean to Mount Hor (not the southern within one of these cities they were secure from
mountain, 20:22–9) into southern Syria (Lebo- the avenger. The avenger of blood (or redeemer,
hamath). The boundary to the east moves from gōʾ
el; cf. Lev 25:25, 47–9) was the relative of the
a line north of the eastern slope of the Sea of deceased charged to ensure proper retribution
Chinnereth (Galilee) down the Jordan river to for the sake of the land (see 35:33). These cities
the Dead Sea (vv. 10–12). Hence, the boundaries were probably functioning during the monar-
given here do not include Transjordan where chial period.
two and one-half tribes had settled (v. 32), con-
firmed by Moses’ statement (vv. 13–15). From the (35:16–34) Distinctions are made in the homi-
perspective of v. 2 (cf. 32:17; 33:51), Israel has not cide laws between murder (including death
yet entered the land of its inheritance. Yet God through negligence) and unpremeditated killing
had commanded the destruction of the Amor- (on the intentional/unintentional distinction,
ites (21:34) and cities of refuge are assigned in see 15:22–31; Ex 21:13–14). The burden of proof
the Transjordan (35:14). Deut 2:24–5 includes the is on the slayer. Those who murder another
area west of the Jordan. with intent, regardless of the means or motiv-
Ten tribal leaders (not from Reuben and Gad) ation (six examples are given, vv. 16–21), are to
are appointed to apportion the land, generally be put to death by the avenger (vv. 19, 21),
listed from south to north (vv. 16–29). Eleazar though not without trial (v. 24 covers both
and Joshua (v. 17) are to supervise the work. cases, see below) and, according to the supple-
ment (vv. 30–4), evidence of more than one
(35:1–34) Special Cities and Refinements in witness (v. 30; cf. Deut 19:15–21), and no mon-
the Law These stipulations are given by God etary ransom (‘loophole’) is possible (v. 31). Mur-
to Moses for the enhancement of life for vari- der pollutes the land and its wholeness, not
ous persons in the new land. The taking of least because God dwells there (v. 34); only the
human life puts the land in special danger. vv. blood of the killer can expiate the land, that is,
1–8 allocate cities for the Levites (for lists see remove the impurity that the murder has let
Josh 21:1–42; 1 Chr 6:54–81). Stipulations for loose (vv. 33–4). The avenger’s action is neces-
land distribution in Num 34 are here con- sary for the sake of the future of the land and its
tinued, with provision for the Levites, who inhabitants.
have no territorial rights (see 18:21–4; 26:62). On the other hand, killing without intent and
Inasmuch as they will be active throughout the hostility issues in a different response (vv. 22–3).
land (with unspecified functions more exten- A trial is to be held (v. 24, outside the city of
sive than care for the tabernacle, such as teach- refuge, with national judges representing the
ing), they are to be allotted forty-eight cities congregation, cf. Deut 19:12; Josh 20:4–6) to
(six of which are cities of refuge, vv. 9–15). decide whether the killing was truly uninten-
These cities provide for their housing and for tional. If so decided, the slayer was returned to
grazing lands for their livestock, though not as the city where he originally took refuge (cf. Josh
numbers 186

20:6), where he remained until the high priest tially forward-looking, anticipating Israel’s
died. future life in the land. Inasmuch as Deuteron-
The cities of refuge were a kind of exile, a omy takes place over the course of a single
home away from home for those who killed day, at the end of Numbers Israel’s entrance
unintentionally, so this was a penalty. Because into the promised land is just hours away.
the city of refuge only masked the polluting
effects of the murder, expiation was still neces-
REFERENCES
sary. This was accomplished through the death
of the high priest, which had expiatory signifi- Ashley, T. R. (1993), The Book of Numbers, NICOT
cance, issuing in a kind of general amnesty. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Only then was release possible. If the slayer Balentine, S. E. (1983), The Hiding of the Face of God
left the city before this happened (and no ran- (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
som was possible, v. 32), he was not protected Douglas, M. (1993), In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of
from the avenger, whose actions would not Defilement in the Book of Numbers (Sheffield: Shef-
incur guilt. field Academic Press).
Fishbane, M. (1985), Biblical Interpretation in Ancient
(36:1–13) Once Again: The Daughters of Zelo- Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
phehad This chapter picks up the issues raised Fretheim, T. E. (1984), The Suffering of God: An Old
by the daughters of Zelophehad; they provide an Testament Perspective, Overtures to Biblical The-
inclusio for Num 26–36. In 27:1–11 they had ology, (Philadelphia: Fortress).
requested Moses that they inherit their father’s —— (1991), Exodus, Interpretation: A Bible Commen-
property inasmuch as he had no sons. They tary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, Ky.:
based their case on the continuance of their John Knox).
father’s name and his property in their clan —— (1996), The Pentateuch, Interpreting Biblical Texts
(27:4). Now members of their tribe (Manasseh) (Nashville: Abingdon).
come to Moses, recall the previous arrangement Joines, K. R. (1974), Serpent Symbolism in the Old Testa-
(v. 2), and ask for an interpretation in view of the ment: A Linguistic, Archaeological, and Literary Study
fact that upon marriage any property held by the (Haddonfield, NJ: Haddonfield House).
wife became that of her husband. Hence, if a Levine, B. (1993), Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with
daughter were to marry outside her tribe, the Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New
property would transfer to that tribe and Mana- York: Doubleday).
sseh (in this case) would lose its full original Milgrom, J. (1990), Numbers, JPS Torah Comment-
allotment. Even the jubilee year property transfer ary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of
would not return it to the family, because the America).
property would have been inherited rather than Nelson, R. D. (1993), Raising Up a Faithful Priest: Com-
sold (v. 4; see LEV 25:13–33). Moses agrees with this munity and Priesthood in Biblical Theology (Louisville,
reasoning and apparently receives a word form Ky.: Westminster/John Knox).
the Lord on the matter (it may be his interpret- Olson, D. (1985), The Death of the Old and the Birth of the
ation of the ‘word of the LORD’ more generally, cf. New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the
Ex 18:23). The daughters may marry whom they Pentateuch, Brown Judaic Studies, 71 (Chico, Calif.:
wish, but it must be from within their own tribe Scholars Press).
(common in patrilineal systems) so that the tribal —— Numbers, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary
allotment of every tribe remains as originally for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, Ky.: John
determined. The daughters of Zelophehad— Knox).
Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah— Sakenfeld, K. D. (1995), Journeying with God: A Com-
actually marry within their clan, sons of their mentary on the Book of Numbers, International Theo-
father’s brothers. logical Commentary on the Old Testament
The final verse in Numbers speaks of God’s (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
commandments given through Moses since Wenham, G. J. (1981), Numbers: An Introduction and
22:1, when Israel arrived by the Jordan at Jeri- Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary
cho. These commandments have been essen- (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity).
 8. Deuteronomy
christoph bultmann
INTRODUCTION relates to the patriarchal stories in Genesis.
Above all, Deuteronomy indicates the end of
A. Character. Deuteronomy represents a
the era of divine legislation for Israel. All of the
major strand of Judean theology of the seventh
laws which Moses delivers to the people were
to fifth centuries BCE. Its anonymous authors
revealed to him at Mount Horeb (which is called
develop pivotal ideas such as the uniqueness
Mount Sinai in Exodus and Numbers). Accord-
of YHWH, the human ‘love’ and ‘fear’ of God
ing to Deuteronomy, however, they were only
(6:4–5, 24), and the excellence and accessibility
promulgated by Moses towards the end of his
of Israel’s law (4:5–8; 30:11–14). The book con-
life in the ‘land of Moab’ (except for the Deca-
tains a version of the Decalogue and relates all
logue). This concept allowed later redactors of
other laws to these basic commandments (ch.
the Pentateuch to co-ordinate competing laws
5). It gives expression to the ideas of a ‘covenant’
which claimed Mosaic authority by making
between YHWH and Israel and of Israel’s ‘elec-
Deuteronomy a sequel to the so-called Priestly
tion’ through YHWH (5:2; 7:6; 26:16–19). Deu-
Document.
teronomy focuses narrowly on Israel’s land,
2. Deuteronomy is the first book of a histor-
while at the same time viewing it from a per-
ical work which consists of Deuteronomy plus
spective of expectation (6:10–12, 17–18; 30:20).
the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel,
Its concern for the exclusiveness and purity of
Kings). Thus, it is the opening of what is
the worship of YHWH results in drastic admon-
known as the Deuteronomistic History and
itions about the conquest of the land (7:1–2;
leads directly on to the book of Joshua (Noth
12:1–4, 29–31) and harsh regulations concerning
1991; McKenzie 1994). In many instances, Deu-
apostasy (13:1–18; 17:2–7). Originally the docu-
teronomic laws function as criteria for the rep-
ment of a religious movement, the oldest parts
resentation of Israel’s history in the land during
of the book functioned as a law to enforce the
the period from the crossing of the river Jordan
centralization of the sacrificial cult at the tem-
to the fall of Jerusalem. The process of the
ple in Jerusalem (ch. 12) and as a law to promote
formation of the Pentateuch loosened the liter-
social solidarity in Judah (ch. 15). The spirit of
ary link between Deuteronomy and its continu-
Deuteronomy in regard to cultic matters may
ation.
be grasped from the law on religious vows in
23:21–3 (MT 22–4), and in regard to ethical mat-
D. Literary Genre and Structure. 1. A clue to
ters from the law on just measures in 25:13–16.
the problem of genre lies in 1:5 which says that
Deuteronomy reflects a tendency towards ra-
Moses set out ‘to expound this law’ (b
eʾ
er ʾet
tionalization within the Israelite religious trad-
hattôrâ hazzōʾt). From 1:6 to 30:20, Deuteronomy
ition. However, as the book developed over a
is a great oration with a didactic purpose. How-
long period, there are many tensions within it.
ever, the speaker is presented to the readers of
Deuteronomy by a narrator, who framed the
B. Name. The name ‘Deuteronomy’ is derived oration with short narrative sections in 1:1–5
from the LXX where it is called deuteronomion, and 34:1–12, thus making the oration the val-
the ‘second law’. This goes back to a misinter- edictory address of Moses before his death in
pretation of 17:18 by the LXX translators, where the land east of the Jordan. This concept is also
the expression mišneh hattôrâ means a ‘copy of reflected in a few more instances where the
(this) law’. In the Jewish tradition, the name of voice of a narrator is heard in Deuteronomy
the book is děbārı̂m (words), which is a name (e.g. 4:41–3, 44–9; 5:1; 27:1; 29:1, 2 (MT 28:69;
taken from the opening verse of the book. 29:1); 31:1, 2, 7, 9–10, and see Polzin 1993).
2. Deuteronomy is a multifaceted oration. ‘To
C. Place within the Canon. 1. Deuteronomy is expound tôrâʾ means more than just the trans-
the fifth book of the Pentateuch. Its last chapter mission of a law code. The speaker relates the
reports the death of Moses and thus, on the plane laws to the land as the area of their future
of narrative, concludes the story of the Exodus application as well as to the Decalogue as the
which began with the oppression of the essential compilation of commandments for
Israelites and the call of Moses in Exodus. With Israel. He instructs his audience about the theo-
its numerous references to the patriarchs it also logical significance of the Torah and calls for
deuteronomy 188

faithful obedience. This gives Deuteronomy its fifty years later (1805–6), W. M. L. de Wette at the
unrivalled paraenetic tone. The speaker also University of Jena came to the conclusion that
predicts the consequences of violating the law Deuteronomy was not only the book which was
and even hints at the prospects beyond. The found in the temple but had also been written
resulting structure of the oration is very com- not long before Josiah’s times (see Rogerson
plex indeed. Historical reviews in 1:6–3:29; 5:1– 1992: 19–63). Whereas for de Wette this hypoth-
33; 9:7–10:11 and paraenetic sections in 4:1–40; esis meant that Deuteronomy was a late part of
6:4–9:6; 10:12–11:25 form a prologue to the laws the Pentateuch, later research into the history of
in 12:1–26:15, a large collection of blessings and the Israelite religion, conducted by A. Kuenen
curses in 28:1–68 and a further paraenetic sec- and J. Wellhausen around 1870, established the
tion in 29:2–30:20 forms an epilogue to them. view that most parts of the Pentateuch were
In addition, the speaker gives instructions for a even later than the Josianic Deuteronomy
future ritual commitment to the law after the (for a convenient presentation of this view
crossing of the Jordan in 11:26–32 and 27:1–26. see W. Robertson Smith 1892: 309–430). The
At the climax in 26:16–19, the speaker himself valuable commentary by S. R. Driver (1895)
enacts a declaration of covenantal relationship rests on this seminal model of the history of
between Israel (his audience) and YHWH. The Israel’s religious traditions. Subsequent scholar-
overall form of an oration thus combines a ship tried to identify several editions of Deuter-
number of distinct materials. onomy which had been conflated into the extant
3. Many attempts have been made to describe book or to discover distinct redactional layers
the literary unity of Deuteronomy in more pre- within it (see Mayes 1979; for a retrospective
cise terms than that of an oration. A basic discussion see Nielsen 1995; for the current
structural pattern of four elements consisting state of debate see Veijola (forthcoming)). Mean-
of a historical and paraenetic prologue— while it has become clear that the age of Josiah
laws—covenant (26:16–19)—blessings and only stands for the beginnings of the literary
curses, was regarded as reflecting the pattern development of Deuteronomy which reaches
of a cultic ceremony (von Rad 1966). A similar well into the Second Temple period.
basic pattern of four main elements, namely a
historical prologue—a fundamental statement F. Historical Background. 1. The age of Josiah,
of allegiance (6:4–7)—detailed stipulations— king of Judah 639–609 BCE (2 Kings 22–3), was
blessings and curses, was regarded as reflecting characterized by the decline of the Neo-Assyrian
a pattern of ancient Near-Eastern political treat- empire. As very little is known about the
ies (McCarthy 1978; Weinfeld 1992: 65–9). How- impact of Assyrian politics and religion upon
ever, a simple basic pattern of laws, introduced Judah, which since the second half of the eighth
by a prologue and concluded by an epilogue century had to some extent been a vassal state
with curses, may already be found in the Code of Assyria, it is hard to decide what liberation
of Hammurabi of the eighteenth century BCE from Assyrian domination would have meant
(where the curses threaten any future king to the Judeans (see McKay 1973; Spieckermann
who might abolish or alter the laws: ANET 1982; Halpern 1991). However, even in a very
163–80). Deuteronomy cannot be reduced to a critical reading of Kings, scholars accept the
literary structure which directly corresponds to historicity of the information given in 2 Kings
any typical pattern because its erudite authors 23:11–12, according to which Josiah removed
freely employ several elements from a common Assyrian religious symbols from the temple in
Near-Eastern cultural background. his capital Jerusalem (Würthwein 1984: 459; cf.
Uehlinger 1995). It is less certain whether
E. History of Research. From patristic times he also carried out the centralization of sacrifi-
onwards there was always a tradition that Deu- cial worship which is attributed to him in 2
teronomy was somehow related to the ‘book of Kings 23:8–9, and whether this was instigated
the law’ (s
eper hattôrâ) which, according to 2 by the Deuteronomic law or conversely inspired
Kings 22:1–23:25, was found in the Jerusalem the composition of a corresponding law code
temple during the reign of Josiah in the late (see Lohfink 1985; Clements 1996). Even more
seventh century BCE (e.g. Jerome, CChr.SL 75. 5). disputed is the historical reliability of the infor-
T. Hobbes, in his Leviathan (1651, chs. 33, 42), mation about Josiah’s encroachment on the
explicitly identified that law code with Deut territory of the former Assyrian provinces north
12–26 and emphasized that, in his opinion, it of Judah (2 Kings 23: 15–20). Any general con-
had been written by Moses. One hundred and clusions concerning the spirit of the Josianic
 189 deuteronomy

age are severely restricted by the nature of the more, not only do such passages as 4:25–31 and
historical sources informing us about his times 29:22–30:10 refer to Israel in exile; the entire
(cf. also P. R. Davies 1992: 40–1). Nevertheless, concept which dominates the paraenetic sec-
even if most of 2 Kings 22–3 is only legendary, tions, namely that Israel finds herself outside
the historical background of the representation in the promised land and has to regain it, looks
these chapters of Josiah’s religious reform in 622 like a response to the end of monarchic Judah.
BCE may be sought in the activity of a move- 4. More refined analyses of the distinct redac-
ment which promoted the exclusiveness and tional layers within the Deuteronomistic His-
purity of the Judean religion and gave literary tory led many scholars to the conclusion that
expression to these ideas in a law code which the work of the Deuteronomistic scribal school
later became the core of Deuteronomy. It is extended far beyond the middle of the sixth
therefore not amiss to attribute the origin of century BCE and right into the Persian period.
Deuteronomy to a ‘YHWH alone movement’ in Passages which secondarily add theological re-
the seventh century BCE (M. Smith 1987: 11–42) flections on the relevance of the Torah to pre-
and even to a distinct class of scribes who were ceding narrative or paraenetic texts (such as
educated in a Judean wisdom tradition (Weinfeld Josh 1:7–8; Deut 6:17–18) are seen as an expres-
1992: 158–78, 244–319). sion of a specific ‘nomistic’ or ‘covenant-related’
2. An important factor in the development of stage in the Deuteronomistic tradition (Smend
the Deuteronomic movement is the language of 1971; 1983; Veijola 1996a). Modifications in anti-
political treaties in the ancient Near East syncretistic paraenetic passages which seem to
(McCarthy 1978; Weinfeld 1992). Although the reflect later historical experience of the Second
dependence of Deuteronomy upon such docu- Temple period (e.g. Deut 7:22; 7:3–4; cf. Neh
ments has often been overstated (see the cri- 13:23–7; Ezra 9:1–2) are another point in ques-
tique by Nicholson 1986: 56–82), there are tion. An important formal criterion for these
clear parallels in terminology and in the com- analyses is the recurrent shift of address in Deu-
positional function of a curse section. The rele- teronomy between second person singular and
vant texts for comparison may be found in second person plural (cf. DEUT 12:1–32) for which,
Parpola and Watanabe (1988) and ANET 531– however, an explanation in purely stylistical
41, also 201–6. The succession treaty of the terms has also been suggested.
Assyrian king Esar-haddon in favour of his son
Assurbanipal, which dates from 672 BCE, is of G. Sources. 1. The legal core in chs. 12–26 in-
particular interest here. Copies of this treaty corporates many older materials. A direct com-
were discovered during an excavation in Nim- parison is possible between Deuteronomy and
rud on the upper Tigris in 1955. They represent the so-called Book of the Covenant in Ex 20:22–
versions of the treaty as it was concluded with 23:33. This shows parallels between Ex 20:24–5
vassal states in the eastern periphery of Assyria jj Deut 12:13–14, Ex 21:2–11 jj Deut 15:12–18, Ex
and one can assume that the same treaty was 21:12–14 jj Deut 19:1–13, Ex 22:25–7 (MT 24–6) jj
also concluded with vassal states in the west, 23:19–20 (MT 20–1); 24:10–13, Ex 23:4–5 jj Deut
including Judah. The treaty must have been 22:1–4, Ex 23:10–11 jj Deut 15:1–11, Ex 23:14–18 jj
known to the scribe who wrote Deut 28:20–44 Deut 16:1–17. These as well as some less obvious
(Steymans 1995) and may also be alluded to in parallels make it clear that the Deuteronomic
Deut 13. However, the question of under what law represents a later stage in the history of
political circumstances a Judean scribe would Israelite law (Otto 1996a; Levinson 1997; con-
have borrowed those motifs from ancient Near- trast Van Seters 1996), although the Book of the
Eastern traditions remains open to conjecture. Covenant may itself contain post-Deutero-
3. The literary history of Deuteronomy devel- nomic as well as pre- and proto-Deuteronomic
oped further after the Babylonian conquest of materials. At least two more collections of
Jerusalem in 587 BCE. According to Noth’s theory laws were taken up by the authors of the
of a Deuteronomistic History (see DEUT c.2), the law code, namely a collection of family and
author who wrote the history of Israel in her sex laws (21:15–21; 22:13–29; 24:1–4; 25:5–12) and
land must be seen against the background of a collection of laws on warfare (20:10–14, 19–20;
this exilic age (see, however, Cross 1973). That 21:10–14; 23:10–15) (Seitz 1971; Rofé 1987; 1985b).
author opened his narrative with Deut 1–3; 4; 31; Further laws may have been taken up from oral
34 (apart from some later additions) and placed tradition, possibly with some paraenetic elem-
the book of the law which had been passed on ents attached to them urging and motivating
to him into this narrative framework. Further- obedience, such as, e.g. 22:6–7. The series of
deuteronomy 190

curses in 27:16–25 belongs to the apodictic law Morrow 1995), family and sex laws (see DEUT G.1),
in Israelite tradition which commands an un- laws promoting equity in response to poverty
conditional condemnation of or punishment (mainly in 23:15–25:16), and some ritualistic ma-
for certain offences. terials (e.g. 21:22–3; 22:9–10; 23:17–18), cf. Crüse-
2. The large section of blessings and curses in mann 1996. 6:4–9 may have been the prologue
ch. 28 contains a traditional series of blessings to this law code. However, any detailed recon-
in vv. 3–6 (which are reversed in vv. 16–19). vv. struction of the original law code remains
20–44 closely follow a sequence of curses in highly hypothetical. Whether or not it was pre-
Esar-haddon’s succession treaty (see DEUT F.2). sented as a law of Moses depends on the evalu-
3. Ch. 5 contains the Decalogue (vv. 6–21) ation of 4:44–5 as its superscription.
which found its place also in Exodus (20:2–17). 2. The incorporation of Deuteronomy into
However, instead of being a source of Deuter- the Deuteronomistic History was a distinct
onomy, it is a composition which originated stage in its literary history (see DEUT C.2 and
inside the Deuteronomic movement (Hossfeld F.3), which created an explicit interrelation be-
1982). tween the law and the issue of Israel’s land as
4. On the plane of the history of ideas, Deu- well as the differentiation between the law code
teronomy is often seen as belonging to a Hos- and the Decalogue in ch. 5. In this process, the
eanic prophetic tradition. The basic command historians added laws to the code which look
of Deut 6:4–5 which centres on the notion of towards the subsequent history of Israel, such as
‘love’ of God is regarded as a consequence of the the law on the king (17:14–20) and the law on
theological concern and the metaphorical lan- the conquest (20:10–18, and further laws on
guage of Hosea. As a second instance of Hosea- warfare, see DEUT G.1).
nic influence the law concerning the king over 3. The literary development of the paraenetic
YHWH’s people (Deut 17:14–20) is appealed to. sections in 4:1–40; 6:4–11:25; 29:2–30:20 as well
However, the available evidence does not suffi- as of the laws which are primarily concerned
ciently support the conclusion that Deuteron- with the problem of syncretism or religious
omy originated in the monarchy of northern assimilation such as 12:1–7, 29–31; 13:1–18; 18:9–
Israel and was taken to Judah by refugees after 20 is a special problem (see DEUT F.4). Many
the defeat of Israel in 722 BCE (Alt 1953). suggestions have been made for attributing the
5. The historical reviews in 1:6–3:29; 5:1–33; respective texts to only a few successive edi-
9:7–10:11 show a relationship with narrative tra- tions or redactional layers. However, it seems
ditions in Exodus and Numbers and presuppose more appropriate to think in terms of a pro-
the Yahwistic work in the Pentateuch. Whether longed literary process which led to what
11:26–32 and 27:1–14, together with Josh 8:30–5, ideally may be called the canonical shape of
reflect an ancient tradition (Nielsen 1995; Wein- Deuteronomy no earlier than the 4th century.
feld 1991) remains doubtful.
6. Two independent documents have been I. Outline
added to Deuteronomy, in ch. 32 the Song of Review of the Conquest of the Land East of the
Moses, and in ch. 33 the Blessing of Moses. Jordan ((1:1–5) 1:6–3:29)
Whereas the collection of sayings about the Discourse on the Excellence of the Law (4:1–40
tribes in ch. 33 mostly predates the seventh (41–3, 44–9))
century, the poem of ch. 32 has its origin in Review of the Covenant at Horeb and the Deca-
the context of later reflections about the rela- logue (5:1–33 (6:1–3))
tionship between YHWH and Israel amongst Discourse on Faithful Obedience to the Law
the nations. (6:4–11:25 (26–32))
Promulgation of the Laws (12:1–25:19 (26:1–15))
H. Literary History. 1. Deuteronomy devel- Declaration of Mutual Commitments between
oped from a law code to an oration of Moses YHWH and Israel (26:16–19)
within a narrative frame. The original law code Instructions for a Ceremony West of the Jordan
aimed at a cultic reform in Judah and addressed (27:1–26)
its lay audience in the second person singular. It The Consequences of Obedience and Disobedi-
consisted of laws which were relevant to the ence through Blessings and Curses (28:1–68)
centralization of sacrificial worship (12:13–19; Discourse on the Significance of the Law ((29:1)
14:22–9; 15:19–23; 16:1–17; 18:1–8) and probably 29:2–30:20)
also of laws concerning social and judicial mat- Report of Moses’ Parting from Israel, Including
ters (15:1–18; 16:18–19; 17:8–13; 19:1–21; 21:1–9; cf. his Poem and his Blessings (31:1–34:12)
 191 deuteronomy

COMMENTARY designation based on the name for the area in

Neo-Assyrian inscriptions. An alternative gen-
Review of the Conquest of the Land East eral designation is ‘the land of the Canaanites’
of the Jordan ((1:1–5) 1:6–3:29) (ʾeres hakkĕnaʿănı̂ ), and elsewhere in Deuteron-
(1:1–5) Moses as Orator The superscription to omy_ a list of peoples is used for describing the
Deuteronomy introduces the book as the words population of the land (cf. 7:1; 20:17). Whereas
of Moses to all Israel at a location east of the river chs. 2–3 carefully define Israel’s territorial claims
Jordan. As Moses is never to cross the Jordan east of the Jordan (cf. 3:8), the vision of Israel’s
(3:23–8), the following oration will be his val- land as extending to the north as far as the river
edictory address. This, however, is only expli- Euphrates (v. 7; cf. Josh 1:4) is alien to the con-
citly indicated in 31:1–2 (cf. 4:22). The basic form cept of a conquest as well as to Israel’s historical
of the superscription, ‘These are the words that traditions. It may be either an echo of imperial
Moses spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan as rhetoric (Weinfeld 1991:133–4) or a reflection of
follows’, has been considerably expanded. v. 5, political experience in the late seventh century
which may be part of a specific compositional when victory in a battle at Carchemish on the
scheme (cf. 4:44; 29:1 (MT 28:69)), emphasizes Euphrates in 605 BCE made the Neo-Babylonians
the qualification of Moses’ oration as law (tôrâ). the political overlords of Palestine (cf. Jer 46:2; 2
‘Of all the terms for God’s instructions, none Kings 24:7). v. 8 emphasizes that Israel’s hope
better characterizes Deuteronomy, since it con- for the land is founded on an oath which
notes both law and an instruction that must be YHWH swore to her ancestors, cf. Gen 15:18.
taught, studied, and pondered, and it is expected The verse forms an inclusio with 30:20.
to shape the character, attitudes, and conduct of
those who do so’ (Tigay 1996: 3). For v. 4 see (1:9–18) Officers in Israel This insertion, which
further on 2:24–3:11. v. 2 can best be explained separates vv. 6–8 from its continuation in v. 19,
as a misplaced gloss on 1:19, while v. 1b, which authorizes an organization of the people mod-
adds some topographical information, remains elled on 16:18–19 and 17:8–11. The passage is
elusive. v. 3 reflects an interest in chronology remarkable in that it grounds the position of
that is typical of Priestly texts in the Pentateuch, ‘leaders’ on the consent of the people (v. 14)
cf. e.g. Ex 40:17; Num 10:11. and specifies their qualification as ‘wise, discern-
ing, and reputable’ persons (v. 13)—a profile
(1:6–3:29) The Conquest of Israel’s Land which one may read as a self-portrait of the
Moses gives an account of the partly unsuccess- Deuteronomistic school. The designation of
ful and partly paradigmatic beginning of Israel’s these leaders (rāʾšı̂m) in military terms (śārı̂m,
taking possession of the promised land. The šōtĕrı̂m, v. 15) corresponds with the literary
_
context of the conquest narrative. Their desig-
section gives expression to a deliberate concept
of the land as YHWH’s gift to Israel which Israel nation as ‘judges’ (sōpĕtı̂m) may reflect their
_
actual function in the society of the author’s
entered from outside at a certain moment in
history. The Deuteronomistic History (see DEUT time. A similar concern with the institution of
C.2) thus starts with an idealized image of the
leaders is expressed in Ex 18:13–27; 2 Chr 19:5–10;
conquest of the land, and ends with a somewhat Num 11:14–17, 24–5, whereas no details about
stylized image of the loss of the land, cf. 2 Kings the appointment of officials during the time of
15:29; 17:6, 23; 25:21, 26. It thus shapes a coherent the Judean monarchy (cf. e.g. Jer 36:12; 2 Kings
overall view of one extended period of Israel’s 24:15) are known vv. 16–17, integrity of the
history. Although the Deuteronomistic authors judges is essential to the idea of justice, and
of the sixth and fifth centuries BCE include several just claims of the poor merit protection (cf.
historical traditions in their composition, their 24:14–15; Am 5:10–12).
work cannot be called historiographical in a
strict sense. (1:19–2:1) The Failed Conquest In an artistic
retrospective account, Moses indicates the rea-
son why, after the Exodus, the Israelites did not
(1:6–8) YHWH’s Command Moses’ retrospect- conquer the promised land west of the Jordan
ive does not start from the Exodus but with a from its southern border (cf. also the time-scale
reference to Mount Horeb. Thus it alludes to all implied in 1:2). Disobedience (1:26; cf. 1:7–8) and
the events which this name implies (cf. 5:2; 9:8). lack of faith (1:32, RSV; contrast Ex 14:31) led to
The land which Israel is to conquer is called ‘the divine punishment of the Exodus generation
hill country of the Amorites’ (har hāʾ ĕmōrı̂ ) by a (1:34–5; cf. 2:14–15). Kadesh-barnea has been
deuteronomy 192

identified with an oasis about 80 km. to the act of the conquest draws on an ancient trad-
south-west of Beersheba, the town which nor- ition about a Transjordanian city ruler which
mally marks the southern border of Judah has been preserved in the parallel narrative in
(1 Kings 4:25 (Mt 5:5); 2 Kings 23:8; cf. however Num 21:21–31. The account follows a highly
Josh 15:2–4). Instead of being the starting-point stylized pattern: YHWH gives the enemy over,
for the conquest, it becomes the starting-point and the Israelites’ army then ‘strikes him
for a journey of nearly forty years south- down—captures his towns—utterly destroys
eastwards to the Red Sea and back northwards all human beings in them—keeps the livestock
on the eastern side of Mount Seir until the and plunder as spoil’ (2:33–5 and again in 3:3–7).
successful conquest begins with the crossing This pattern agrees with the Deuteronomistic
of the Wadi Arnon (2:24), a wadi which runs law on warfare in 20:10–18 and especially the
towards the Dead Sea from the east opposite injunction to ‘utterly destroy’ (h-r-m hifil) all
En-gedi. The narrative has been constructed former inhabitants of the land _(20:16–17; see
upon the basis of a tradition about the Calebites DEUT 7:1–2). Moses is thus represented as con-
who had expelled ‘the three sons of Anak’ from ducting an exemplary war against the Amorites
the fertile Hebron area (cf. Josh 15:14 and some east of the Jordan, cf. 3:21; 31:4. 2:25–30, the basic
fragments in Num 13–14). structure of the account has been supplemented
by several additions which focus on divine
(2:2–23) The Neighbouring Nations The sec- providence: YHWH puts ‘the dread and fear’ of
ond episode in Moses’ account opens with a Israel upon the peoples (2:25), YHWH ‘hardens
phrase similar to 1:6–7. The approach to the the spirit’ of the Amorite king (2:30). Moses acts
Wadi Arnon offers an opportunity to define in accordance with the law of 20:10 although
Israel’s territorial claims against the Edomites, neither this law nor the analogy with Israel’s
the Moabites, and the Ammonites (see ABD, ad passing through the land of the neighbouring
loc.). The section has been expanded by several nations applies to the case of the Amorite ter-
successive scribes. One basic feature is the idea ritory (2:26–9). 3:1–7, the second Amorite king is
that YHWH, and not the respective national seen not as a city ruler but as king of a vast
deities, assigned these three peoples their terri- region; see, however, 1:4 and DEUT 2:10–11, 20–1.
tories (vv. 5, 9, 19; contrast Judg 11:12–28, esp. v. His name has been adopted from an etiolo-
24). A second basic feature is the analogy be- gical tradition which links this mythological
tween Israel’s conquest of her land and the way figure to Rabbah of the Ammonites (3:11, how-
in which these and other peoples took posses- ever, the Ammonite territory itself is exempted
sion of their respective territories ‘just as Israel from the land which the Israelites claim, 2:19, 37).
did in the land they were to possess, which the The description of the conquered towns prob-
LORD had given to them’ (v. 12, NJPS). According ably depends on 1 Kings 4:13. 3:8 states the result
to this view, the history of the historical nations of Moses’ ideal conquest which a scribe, prob-
follows on a mythological age in which ably in the sixth century BCE, created from very
‘Rephaim’ (giants) inhabited the land. They remote memories of some early history of Israel-
may be called ‘Emim’, or ‘Zamzummim’, or ite tribes in the land east of the Jordan.
‘Anakim’ (vv. 10–11, 20–1), and are comparable
with ‘Horim’ and ‘Avvim’ in other regions (vv. (3:12–20) Tribal Territories On the distribution
12, 22–3; cf. also Am 9:7). As far as the Rephaim of the land see Josh 13:8–32. vv. 18–20, the ‘rest’
are concerned, a mythological tradition has (n-w-h hifil I.) which YHWH has given to these
been identified through a Ugaritic text (c.14– tribes_ is an ideal for all Israel. Therefore, these
12th cents. BCE) which also establishes a link tribes are summoned to support the conquest of
between Rephaim and the place-names Ashtar- the land west of the Jordan, cf. Josh 1:12–15; 22:1–4
oth and Edrei (cf. 1:4; 3:11; see Margulis 1970). All (for the notion of ‘rest’ cf. also Deut 12:9; Josh 23:1;
these glosses amount to a striking reinterpret- 2 Sam 7:1; 1 Kings 8:56). The notion of a rest in
ation of the conquest imagery which finds ex- which the towns may be left without any defence
pression also in 9:2. vv. 14–15, pointing back to (v. 19) conveys a peaceful vision in strong contrast
1:34–5, these verses mark a transition between with the military ideology of 2:34.
two periods of Israel’s history after the Exodus.
(3:21–9) The End of Moses’ Leadership vv.
(2:24–3:11) The Model Conquest YHWH’s 21–2, Moses’ and Joshua’s leadership in the con-
command also stands at the beginning of the quest are seen in close parallel, cf. Josh 1:5. v. 28 is
third episode in Moses’ account. 2:32–6, the first resumed in 31:7; Josh 1:6. The scene of Moses’
 193 deuteronomy

rejected prayer is not continued by the narrator incomparable law would counteract the ‘fool-
until 34:1–3. Moses wants to ‘cross over’ into the ishness’ of the people which is attacked in Jer
land and ‘see’ it (v. 25), but he may only ‘see’ it, 4:22. The designation of Israel as a ‘great nation’
whereas Joshua is to ‘cross over’ into it (v. 27–8). echoes Gen 12:2, cf. Deut 1:10. In the final shape
Moses thus becomes the symbol for an unfulfilled of Deuteronomy, the admiration of the nations
hope to live in the promised land. The reason for in 4:6–8 corresponds with their puzzlement in
this is that YHWH makes him bear the conse- 29:24–8 (MT 23–7). vv. 3–4, the warning against
quences of the people’s lack of faith—which apostasy may be a gloss based on Num 25:1–5,
Moses deplored in 1:32 (v. 26; the same thought cf. also Hos 9:10.
has been added in 1:37–8). Not unlike 9:13–14,
25–9, the scene thus includes reflections on the (4:9–14) YHWH’s Voice at Mount Horeb The
relationship between Moses and the people. The praise of the Torah is complemented by a
opening of the prayer proclaims YHWH’s graphic representation of the revelation of the
uniqueness (as in 1 Kings 8:23); one might com- Decalogue. The Israelites are to keep that day in
pare the hymnic praise of the sun god in an their memory and their heart and pass the trad-
Akkadian hymn (Lambert 1960: 129 ll. 45–6; ition on to all future generations (v. 9). YHWH
ANET 388): ‘Among all the Igigi (gods) there is revealed the Ten Commandments directly to
none who toils but you, j None who is supreme the people so that they could hear ‘the sound
like you in the whole pantheon of gods.’ of words’ (v. 12; cf. 4:33; 5:24), and he thus
established his ‘covenant’ (bĕrı̂t) with them. The
Discourse on the Excellence of the Law (4:1–40) poetic imagery underlines the priority of the
This great discourse has been inserted between Decalogue over the several statutes and ordin-
the historical retrospective and the superscrip- ances (vv. 12–14). The account is based on 5:1–
tion to the law in 4:44. Although it combines 6:3 which, in turn, depends on fragments of
several components and although the form of older traditions in Ex 19–34. It makes the special
address changes between second person plural point that Israel did not see any ‘form’ (tĕmûnâ;
and second person singular (see DEUT F.4 and Begg ‘shape’ NJPS, ‘similitude’ KJV) in the theophany
1980), it eventually forms a unit framed by vv. 1–2 (v. 12).
and 40. The discourse gives an interpretation of
the Exile after the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 (4:15–20) Prohibition of Idols and Astral
BCE as a time of ‘serving’ gods who are nothing but Cults Like 5:8, Moses’ warning excludes all
‘wood and stone’ (v. 28; cf. 28:64) and addresses sculptured images in wood or stone (pesel)
the issue of Israel’s ‘return’ to YHWH (v. 30; cf. from Israel’s cult. No image of the deity can
30:1–2). It presupposes the prohibition of idols in signify religious truth, because the fundamental
the Decalogue (vv. 12–13, 16; cf. 5:8) and contains tradition of YHWH’s theophany at Mount
an explicit monotheistic confession (vv. 35, 39). Horeb knows of no anthropomorphic or zoo-
Both these fundamental theological doctrines are morphic shape, cf. also the imagery of 1:33; Ex
being derived from the visual scene of YHWH’s 13:21–2, contrast Ex 32:4. The strongly anthro-
revelation at Mount Horeb and presented as an pomorphic language of the HB should be con-
epitome of the Torah. sidered in the light of this critical thought. The
section takes the law of 16:21–2 one step further
(4:1–8) Israel’s Wisdom Obedience to the ‘stat- and reflects a development which is also indi-
utes and ordinances’ brings with it the promise cated by Isa 40:18–20, 25–6; Jer 10:14–16 (on
of life (v. 1; cf. 30:15–16) and is also seen as a religious iconography in Israel in antiquity see
condition for the conquest of the promised land Keel and Uehlinger 1998). Astral cult, which is
(v. 1; cf. 6:17–18). At the same time, the ‘statutes also an issue in the law code itself (17:2–7),
and ordinances’ are defined as rules for life in seems to have been a major threat to Judean
the land (v. 5; cf. 12:1). The substance and the religious identity in the late monarchic period,
extent of the law must be protected from any cf. 2 Kings 23:11–12; Zeph 1:4–6; Jer 8:1–3, and see
changes (v. 2). This principle lies on the way to the quotations from an Assyrian treaty at DEUT
the formation of a canon. In vv. 6–8, a scribe 28:1–68. This type of religion is interpreted in
gives expression to the ideal of Israel as a ‘wise vv. 19–20 on a line with 32:8–9, according to
and discerning people’ (ʾam hākām wĕnābôn). Is- which YHWH as the God most high assigns
rael will be recognized as such _ a people from celestial beings as deities to the nations,
YHWH’s protection (v. 7) as well as from her whereas Israel is his own people (ʿam nahălâ,
divine law (v. 8, cf. DEUT 1:5). Obedience to this cf. 1 Kings 8:51–3 and the term ʿâm sĕgullâ_ in
deuteronomy 194

26:18). However, the polemics in v. 28 and the in the allotted territory east of the Jordan
confession in v. 35 seem to invalidate this inter- (3:12–17) as places of refuge. This is repeated
pretation of polytheism. in Josh 20:1–9.

(4:21–31) Moses’ Prophetic Warning A scribe (4:44–9) A Superscription v. 44 marks the

here gives Moses a prophetic role on his parting transition from Moses’ historical review in 1:6–
from Israel (cf. 31:14–30). Moses foresees YHWH’s 3:29 to the publication of the tôrâ in a more
wrath and YHWH’s mercy in Israel’s future his- limited sense than that implied by 1:5. Still, the
tory which centres on the Exile after the defeat of notion of tôrâ includes paraenesis as well as the
Jerusalem in 587 BCE. He confronts Israel’s faith laws. Together with the subscription in 29:1 (MT
with two conflicting views of God: ‘the LORD your 28:69), the superscription in v. 44 forms a frame
God is a jealous God’, and ‘the LORD your God is a around the extended law code as the document
merciful God’ (vv. 24, 31; cf. 5:9–10; Ex 34:6–7). The of a covenant, and 31:9 may refer to this unit.
tension between these two statements should not A parallel superscription in v. 45, which is taken
be superficially resolved, as both perceptions of up in 6:20–5, is terminologically interesting, cf.
God claim their place in religious experience and 5:31. The term ‘decrees’ (ʿ
edōt) may designate the
stimulate as much as restrict theological reflec- Decalogue, cf. 2 Kings 17:15 and the singular
tion. In the present context, the experience of noun in such priestly texts as Ex 25:16; 31:18.
divine punishment is seen as a consequence of As neither of these superscriptions can be
violating the prohibition of idols (v. 23), not of the shown to have been the original superscription
service of ‘other gods’ as e.g. in 29:24–5 (MT 25–6); to the law code which Hilkiah is said to have
cf. also Rom 1:22–3. On the other hand, the ex- sent to Josiah (2 Kings 22:3–10), it remains an
pectation to ‘find’ YHWH ‘if you search after him open question whether that document had al-
with all your heart and soul’ (v. 29; cf. Jer 29:13–14; ready been attributed to Moses then. vv. 46–9,
Am 5:4) is founded on YHWH’s covenant with the these later additions are based on chs. 1–3. In-
ancestors (cf. 29:13 (MT 12)) which, unlike the stead of ‘the land of Moab’ as in 1:5, they speak
covenant at Mount Horeb (4:13, 23) does not de- more correctly of ‘the land of . . . Sihon’.
pend on obedience to the law (cf. Gen 15:6). v. 31,
Review of the Covenant at Horeb and the
therefore, shows a greater kerygmatic depth than
Decalogue (5:1–33 (6:1–3))
a passage like 28:58–68.
(5:1–5) The Covenant at Mount Horeb The
(4:32–40) A Confession of Monotheism vv. superscription which announces the Torah
32–5, this unique statement in Deuteronomy (4:44) is not directly followed by a code of
must be seen on one level with Isa 45:5–6, 12, laws, but instead by an explanation of the rela-
18, 21–2; 46:9–10, although it may reflect a later tion between the laws of Deuteronomy and the
liturgical adaptation of these sayings from the Decalogue (5:1–31) as well as by a series of dis-
sixth century BCE. In a perspective of a theology courses on faithful commitment to YHWH (chs.
of creation, the unit leads to a climax in a 6–11). Chs. 5–11 may altogether be attributed to
monotheistic creed, cf. 32:39. In a universal Deuteronomistic scribes of the sixth and fifth
horizon, YHWH’s revelation at Mount Horeb centuries BCE; cf. DEUT F.3, H.3. The Decalogue is
in a voice ‘out of the midst of the fire’ (RSV, cf. the foundation of YHWH’s covenant with Israel
vv. 12–13) and his prodigious actions in the (v. 2) which is linked to the place name ‘Horeb’
Exodus (cf. 5:15; 34:11–12) are considered a (as ‘Sinai’ in Exodus) and the imagery of God’s
proof of his exclusive divinity. The knowledge speaking to the Israelites directly from ‘out of
of God (v. 35) which Israel will arrive at through the fire’ (v. 4). Two further considerations have
an understanding of her traditions is finally to been added to this original concept: v. 3 empha-
become the knowledge of ‘all the people of the sizes the continuous relevance of the covenant
earth’: 1 Kings 8:60; cf. Isa 49:6. vv. 36 (cf. 8:5) to all generations of Israel. The weight of this
and 37–9 read like homiletic amplifications of issue becomes clear in contrast to Jer 31:32
the preceding sections. In liturgical diction, v. 38 where the original covenant refers to the ‘an-
refers to the completed conquest of the land. vv. cestors’ and, after a history of unfaithfulness,
39–40 echo v. 35 and vv. 1–2 respectively and needs eschatological renewal. v. 5 emphasizes
form a finale to the discourse. the role of Moses as mediator between YHWH
and Israel. A similar concern guides the narrators
(4:41–3) Cities of Refuge Based on 19:1–13, a in Ex 19–24; 32–4. For a circumspect analysis of
narrative insertion identifies three towns Deut 5 see Hossfeld (1982).
 195 deuteronomy

(5:6–21) The Decalogue A proper biblical per- The commandment continues an older trad-
spective on the Decalogue can be gained through ition (cf. Ex 23:12; 34:21) and at the same time
5:24 (cf. 4:33): ‘Today we have seen that God may probably transforms the day called šabbāt from
speak to someone and the person may still live.’ a celebration of full moon (cf. e.g. 2 Kings 4:23;
The Decalogue is fundamental not only to the Hos 2:11 (MT 13)) into a weekly day of rest. vv.
covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel, 14–15 particularly emphasize the social signifi-
but through Israel as God’s revelation to human- cance of a periodical day of rest and call for
kind. Within the Christian tradition, it remains a generous treatment of all dependent persons,
valid exposition of the commandment to love whether they be formally linked to a family as
God and one’s neighbour (Mk 12:28–34; Rom slaves or live as ‘resident alien[s] in your towns’.
13:8–10). The Decalogue is a literary composition Obeying this commandment is a way of
of the Deuteronomists and may be more original remembering God’s liberation of Israel from
in its context in Deut 5 than in Ex 20. It could, oppression in Egypt (cf. 15:15; 26:6–8). In Ex
however, always function as a self-contained 20:11, this motivation has been substituted
sequence of basic commandments and probably with the concept of a cosmic dimension of a
originated independently of its literary setting. seven-day week, cf. Gen 1:1–2:3. Notwithstand-
The Decalogue integrates several distinct elem- ing this notion of its universal character, the
ents; see also Schmidt (1993). Its three main sec- sabbath must also be protected as a ‘sign’ of
tions are the self-presentation of YHWH and the the unique relationship between YHWH and
prohibition of other gods (vv. 6–10), the sabbath Israel, cf. Ex 31:12–17.
commandment (vv. 12–15) and the series of six v. 16, except for v. 12, this commandment of
prohibitions in vv. 17–21. the Decalogue is the only one which is ex-
vv. 6–10, in a first person singular address of pressed in a positive form. It has a traditional
YHWH, two basic features of Israel’s faith are background in the legal sentences in Ex 21:15, 17;
being expressed: the God who demands obedi- cf. also Deut 21:18–21. It aims at protecting soli-
ence to his commandments is the God who darity within a family and securing support for
delivered his people from oppression in Egypt, parents in their old age by their sons and daugh-
and this God is a ‘jealous God’ (ʿ
el qannāʾ) and ters. The first part of the motive clause (cf. 22:7)
therefore demands exclusive worship. God’s reflects the idea that honourable behaviour will
punishment for ‘iniquity’ (ʿāwôn) extends to an repay the person who exercises it. The second
entire family, i.e. to the four generations which part refers to life in Israel’s land, and this shows
may at most be living at any one time. Ezek 18 that the Decalogue was given preeminence over
revises this doctrine of 5:9–10 and Ex 34:7 in an the ‘statutes and ordinances’ for observance in
extensive theological discussion, cf. especially the land (5:31; 12:1) only through the literary
18:19–20 and also Deut 7:10; 29:18–21 (MT 17– construction of 5:1–5, 22–31.
20). The first section of the Decalogue is framed vv. 17–19, these three prohibitions are prob-
by a witness to the gracious God who is known ably based on Hos 4:2 and are alluded to in Jer
to those who love God through the Exodus and 7:9. Fundamental ethical criteria for accusations
through a promise to show ‘steadfast love’ in prophetic speech are being reformulated as
(hesed). The human being’s response is to love positive law here. The life of the community is
_ (v. 10; cf. 6:5), and this implies acknowledg-
God to be guided by three essential principles: the
ing God’s uniqueness (v. 7) and keeping God’s protection of human life, of marriage, and of
commandments (v. 10). v. 8, which separates property. Natural indignation at any offences
v. 7 from its continuation in v. 9, is an addition against these rules is a powerful demonstration
which anchors the concern of 4:15–18 in the of their universal validity. The death penalty
Decalogue. The prohibition effects a sharp dis- within a society (cf. 19:11–13) and war between
tinction between visual representations of God hostile societies (cf. 20:10–14) are not addressed
and metaphorical representations of God in by the commandment at v. 17, cf. also Gen 9:6.
human language, v. 11, invoking the name of a However, as the commandment expresses great
deity is part of an oath (cf. 6:13; Jer 5:2; Ps 24:4). respect for human life, it should strengthen a
The prohibition reflects the strong concern with commitment to peace and protection of life in
judicial matters typical of Deuteronomy (cf. all fields. vv. 20–1, the three concluding prohib-
16:19; 19:15–19). itions can be related to the three preceding
vv. 12–15, the Decalogue includes only one ones. Bearing false witness may be used as a
distinctive religious custom, namely keeping strategy for causing another person’s death, cf.
the sabbath as a weekly day of rest from work. 19:15–21; 1 Kings 21:8–14. Coveting a married
deuteronomy 196

woman may lead to adultery, and desiring an- liturgical and doctrinal tradition, which is char-
other person’s property may end in its misap- acteristic of Deuteronomistic writing (cf. also
propriation. The authors of the Decalogue have 8:1; Josh 1:7; Jer 7:23), is questioned by the
thus reduplicated the three basic rules of vv. 17– book of Job which gives expression to a differ-
19 in order to warn against the psychological ent religious experience. 6:1 marks the begin-
origin of obvious violations of basic ethical ning of Moses’ teaching Israel the ‘instruction’
norms, cf. Job 31:5–12. The same line of inter- (miswâ) which YHWH commanded him (5:31). A
pretation is pursued further in Jesus’ teaching in _
further superscription in 12:1 introduces the
Mt 5:21–2, 27–8. As much as the social world of ‘statutes and ordinances’, cf. already 4:44, 45.
ancient Judah can be recognized behind 5:12–21, 6:2–3 may again reflect liturgical practice. A
and as strongly as the conflict between the God strong endeavour to keep the religious tradition
of the Exodus and ‘other gods’ in Israel’s reli- alive throughout the generations also motivates
gious history characterizes 5:6–11, the Deca- 6:20–5.
logue still remains the most comprehensive
compilation of life-enhancing religious and eth-
ical insights within the OT.
Discourse on Faithful Obedience to the Law
(6:4–11:25 (26–32))
(5:22–31) Moses as Mediator The idea which (6:4–9) The Central Confession The opening
was only secondarily added in 5:5, that Moses is vocative in v. 4 gives this section its name,
the unique mediator of YHWH’s revelation of the Shema, and vv. 4–9 together with 11:13–21 and
law (cf. 34:10), is fundamental to this section of Num 15:37–41 form a liturgical text of highest
Moses’ review of the events at Mount Horeb. importance in Jewish worship. The translation of
YHWH invites Moses, ‘stand here by me’ (v. 31), the second half of v. 4 (YHWH ʾĕlōhênû YHWH
after approving of what the people demanded of ʾehād) is much debated and remains ambivalent.
Moses (vv. 28, 30). Following the people’s pledge _
Stylistically, the words may form one prose
to listen and do whatever YHWH would tell sentence or, alternatively, two parallel hymnic
Moses (v. 27, cf. Ex 19:7–8), YHWH begins to tell exclamations. Thematically, the words may be a
Moses the whole instruction (kol-hammiswâ), and statement about YHWH or, alternatively, a
‘the statutes and ordinances’ which Moses _ in turn statement about YHWH’s relationship with Is-
shall teach the people (v. 31). All the laws are thus rael. The translation adopted by NRSV and
referred back to a revelation at Mount Horeb NJPS, ‘The LORD is our God, the LORD alone’, is
although, prior to entering the land, the Deca- probably the best, cf. however LXX and Mk
logue is the only law known to the people. In 12:29. The audience is being admonished and
correspondence with this differentiation between confesses that Israel stands in an exclusive rela-
the Decalogue and all other laws, the idea that tionship with YHWH. This excludes the wor-
YHWH wrote the Ten Commandments on two ship of any other deities (cf. 5:7; 17:2–7) as well
stone tablets further underlines their significance as a consort of YHWH (cf. DEUT 16:21). Josh 24
(v. 22; cf. 9:8–10; 10:1–5; Ex 24:12; 31:18). Scribal reflects a similar concern regarding Israel’s ex-
comments (vv. 24b, 26) on the notion of the clusive allegiance to YHWH. At a later stage in
divine voice from ‘out of the fire’ reflect on the the history of Israel’s religious thought, this
uniqueness of God’s revelation (cf. 4:32–3) as well fundamental confession could be accommo-
as the frailty of the human being beside God (cf. dated to a monotheistic creed like 4:35, 39;
Isa 40:6–7; Jer 17:5–8). v. 29, which has a close 32:39; and in this sense Zech 14:9 unfolds the
parallel in Jer 32:39–40, is a further comment on universal dimension of v. 4; cf. also 1 Cor 8:4. v.
Israel’s pledge to obey the laws: the ideal of ‘fear 5, cf. Mk 12:30. What human sentiment can
of God’ as the true disposition for obedience to correspond to the confession of v. 4? A scribe
the law was realized in an exemplary situation here designates the true faith commitment as
during the foundational theophany. This ‘fear’ is ‘love of God’. This notion has been further
‘not terror but inner religious feeling’ (Weinfeld developed in 30:16–20, and it equals the notion
1991: 325). of ‘fear of God’ as in 5:29, see DEUT A.I. The fact
that v. 5 is an injunction need not surprise. First,
(5:32–6:3) Exhortations 5:32–3 may be a reflec- it may have been modelled after a demand
tion of liturgical practice, cf. 6:17–18; 7:11. In of undivided loyalty in the political sphere
general terms, a scribe here relates obedience (cf. Parpola and Watanabe 1988: 39 (ll. 266–8);
to God’s will to the rewards which an obedient ANET 537). Secondly, as faith is a human re-
person will gain from it. Within the OT, such a sponse to divine revelation (cf. 5:6, 24), it can
 197 deuteronomy

be given guidance, and the notion of love here (RSV), ‘to our merit before the LORD our God’
functions as the fundamental guiding idea; cf. (NJPS), cf. 24:13. LXX offers a remarkable trans-
also Mic 6:6–8. The scribe circumscribes the lation: ‘mercy (elee-mosyne-) will be for us, if . . . ’ In
totality of the human being with three terms the NT, Paul in Phil 3:9 expresses his acceptance
in order to emphasize the seriousness of a faith and his rejection of this theological thought, cf.
commitment, cf. the idealized characterization also Gal 2:16–17, 21.
of Josiah in 2 Kings 23:25 and also 1 Kings 8:46–
50; contrast Jer 12:2. vv. 6–9, all Israelites (7:1–11) The Election of Israel v. 1 takes 6:10 as
are asked to memorize, to teach, and to pub- a model, and v. 4 depends on 6:15. However, the
licly confess the dogma of v. 4. As the intru- perspective in which the land is seen is totally
sive relative clause ‘that I am commanding different from the one adopted in 6:10–15 and
you today’ (cf. 7:11) shows, this later came to 8:7–18 or such texts as Hos 2:2–13 (MT 4–15); Jer
be understood of the entire law; see Veijola 2:5–7 where the wealth and fertility of the land
(1992a, b) and on the customs mentioned in are considered a threat to Israel’s allegiance to
vv. 8–9, Keel (1981). YHWH. According to vv. 1–5, the land is a
territory where the religious habits of many
(6:10–19) Against Forgetting YHWH The ancient ‘nations’ prevail and where, because of
paraenetic discourses in chs. 6–11 are styled so this, Israel’s identity is in danger. This idea is
as to correspond to the imagined situation of being expressed through the imagery of a mili-
Moses’ audience east of the Jordan (1:1–5; 3:29; tary conquest. v. 2 represents the same concept
4:46). Taking possession of the promised land which underlies 2:32–5; here as in 20:16–17 it is
(cf. 1:8) is seen by the Deuteronomists as the one shaped as a command to ‘utterly destroy’ (h-r-m
great threat to Israel’s belief in the God of the _
hifil) the nations of the land. (On the antiquar-
Exodus (5:6). Looking back to the defeat of ian list of names see the entries for the respect-
Jerusalem in 587 BCE, these scribes understand ive names in ABD.) The concept of ‘ritual
the catastrophe as caused by the ‘anger’ (ʾap) of destruction’ of entire communities can be
-
YHWH who, as a ‘jealous God’ (cf. 5:9), punishes traced back to at least the ninth century BCE as
apostasy (v. 15; cf. 29:25–8 (MT 24–7)). The it is also found on the Mesha stone, a Moabite
extraordinary thought that YHWH might ‘des- royal inscription from about 830 BCE, which
troy’ Israel (v. 15) is made the subject of reflec- includes this episode:
tion in 9:7–10:11, especially 9:13–14; cf. also Am And Chemosh said to me, ‘Go, take Nebo [a town east
9:8 and Deut 28:63. ‘Forgetting YHWH’ while of the Jordan] from Israel!’ So I went by night and
devoting oneself to the worship of local, au- fought against it from the break of dawn until noon,
tochthonous deities is a recurring reason for taking it and slaying all, seven thousand [men and
accusations in Hosea (2:13 (MT 15); 8:14; 13:6) women], for I had devoted them to destruction [hrm]
and Jeremiah (2:32; 13:25; 18:15; 23:27), cf. _
for (the god) Ashtar-Chemosh. And I took from there
8:7–20. v. 14 reflects a situation of Israel as a the [vessels] of Yahweh, dragging them before Che-
community not yet consolidated after the de- mosh. (ll.14–18 (abbreviated): cf. ANET 320)
struction of the central royal sanctuary. Like ch. However, v. 2 does not intend to document
13, the verse indicates the Deuteronomists’ anti- ancient military practice, but rather to construe
assimilationist concerns. v. 16 points back to Ex an ideal of Israel’s conquest of the land. This
17:1–7: YHWH’s presence in Israel must not be ideal does not tell anything about Israel’s early
‘put to the test’. For vv. 17–18 cf. DEUT 5:32–3. v. 19 history, but mainly has two functions: it serves
reflects the same situation as v. 14, cf. Josh 23:5 as a basis for explaining the defeat of Jerusalem
and see on 7:1–6. in 587 BCE in terms of Israel’s apostasy which is
seen to have been induced by her assimilation
(6:20–5) Basic Religious Instruction The sec- to the nations of the land in defiance of a Mo-
tion emphasizes that the Exodus creed is the saic command (cf. 20:18; 29:25–8 (MT 24–7);
foundation of the law, as the internal structure Josh 23:1 to Judg 3:6), and it serves as a warning
of the Decalogue also makes clear. The intro- against assimilation for the community of those
duction shows the catechetical purpose of a who are faithful to the law, probably at some
unit such as vv. 21–4, cf. Ex 13:14–15. The graphic time in the Second Temple period. v. 3 may be
elaboration in v. 22 may be secondary, cf. Gar- directly related to the policy of Nehemiah in the
cı́a López (1978). v. 25 formulates a fundamental fifth century BCE, cf. Neh 13:23–7 and also Gen
theology of the law: observing the law (kol-ham- 24:3; 28:1. v. 5 proscribes all cultic sites besides
miswâ) will be ‘righteousness (sĕdāqâ) for us’ the temple, cf. 12:3; Ex 34:13. In vv. 1–2, Israel’s
_ _
deuteronomy 198

claim to the land and fear of apostasy resulted what is essential is not to allow the religions
in an ideal which induces doubt about God’s of these peoples to become a ‘snare’ (v. 16) for
relation to humankind and frightens the human the people of YHWH. Cf. also the liturgical use
being away from God. Even within Deuteron- of the warning example of the earlier gener-
omy itself, this voice finds a theologically more ations in Ps 106:34–41.
promising context, cf. 4:19–20, 32–5 (however,
also 36–8); 9:1–6. v. 6 can justify a separation (8:1–20) Knowledge of God and Praise Char-
from people who worship ‘other gods’ (v. 4; acterized by its poetic beauty and a rich diver-
20:18), but not the ideal of vv. 1–2. On the sity of paraenetic verbs, ch. 8 returns to the
exegetical problem of vv. 1–2 see Barr (1993: subject of 6:10–15: the wealth of the land as a
207–20). possible threat to Israel’s faithful adherence to
v. 6 (cf. 26:16–19) puts the exclusive relation- the God of the Exodus. For a critical analysis see
ship between YHWH and Israel (cf. 6:4) into a Veijola (1995 a). vv. 7–10 (‘When the LORD your
universal horizon in relating it to the entire God brings you into a good land . . . then you
created world (cf. Ex 19:5; Am 3:2), thus going shall bless the LORD your God . . . ’; cf. Weinfeld
far beyond an orientation towards Israel’s land. 1991: 391) is an exhortation to praise God for all
The connection between mythological pri- the good which the community enjoys. In v. 11,
meval history and YHWH’s call of Abraham in the notion of ‘forgetting YHWH’ is explained in
Gen 9:18–12:3 gives a narrative representation of terms of disobedience to the law. vv. 12–18 en-
this creed. Its climax in Gen 12:3 (cf. Jer 4:1–2) large on the preceding texts, notably in hymnic
must be considered an aspect of the canonical praise of YHWH’s mighty deeds. A scribe here
context of Deut 7:6. vv. 7–8, Israel’s election is warns against impious arrogance (cf. Hos 13:4–
founded solely on YHWH’s love, cf. Hos 11:1, 6), as Israel’s wealth is owed to God’s blessing
which also manifests itself in YHWH’s promise (7:13; cf. Hos 2:8 (MT 10)). vv. 19–20 add a re-
to the ancestors, cf. Gen 22:16–18. A scribe here interpretation of vv. 7–18 on the lines of 7:1–5,
confronts the triumphant conception of vv. 1–2 turning the concept of annihilation into a con-
with a deliberate antithesis which sees Israel as ditional threat against Israel, cf. 6:15. vv. 1 and 6
‘the fewest of all peoples’. vv. 9–10 quote 5:9–10 (cf. 6:1) frame the first unit of ch. 8 which dem-
but restrict YHWH’s punishment to any indi- onstrates how the imagery of Israel’s forty years
vidually responsible person. wandering in the wilderness (cf. 1:3; 2:14; Am
2:10; Ex 15:22–17:7; Num 10:33–12:16; 20:1–21:20)
(7:12–26) Hope and Israel’s History This should lead towards a knowledge of God. To
section presents further Deuteronomistic elab- the several interpretations of this period (cf. 1:31;
orations of some of the subjects addressed in 32:10–11; Hos 2:14–15 (MT 16–17); Jer 2:2), v. 2
6:10–7:11. YHWH’s oath to Israel’s ancestors (7:8) adds the aspect of God’s ‘testing’ (n-s-h piel)
will only motivate YHWH to keep the ‘gracious Israel’s faithfulness (cf. Judg 3:4). This thought
covenant’ if Israel observes the command- may even prepare the ground for the discussion
ments; v. 12, together with 8:19–20, thus relate of the problem of theodicy in the book of Job.
the theology of 7:7–8 to the doctrine of YHWH In v. 5, this interpretation is modified by the
as a ‘jealous God’ (5:9–10; 6:15; 7:9–10). God’s concept of God’s ‘disciplining’ (y-s-r piel) Israel,
love unfolds in blessings in the spheres of daily cf. Zeph 3:2; Jer 2:30; 30:11, 14; 31:18. v. 3 is a
life (vv. 13–15; cf. Ex 23:25–6; Deut 28:1–14). v. 16 keystone of theology within the OT. A scribe
forms a transition to scribal reflections on the here develops an understanding of religious
impossible vision of 7:1–2 in the light of the faith and, at the same time, claims that this
historical experience of a small community liv- faith must have its foundation in God’s words
ing amongst different peoples (cf. 6:14). Al- of promise and command; cf. 5:24; 30:15–16;
though hope remains that taking possession of also Mt 4:4.
the land will eventually be as successful as the
Exodus from Egypt (vv. 18–19; cf. 1:30; Ex 13:17– (9:1–6) Righteousness and the Conquest of
14:31), YHWH will ‘clear away’ (NRSV; dislodge: the Land Rhetorically, this section has been
NJPS: nāšal, v. 22 as in 7:1) the peoples only ‘little carefully adapted to the fictitious situation indi-
by little’, cf. Ex 23:28–33; Josh 23:6–13. This con- cated by 1:1–5; 3:28; cf. also 31:3–6. It is probably
cept prepares for the biblical picture of Israel’s an insertion, and borrows a number of motifs
early history as much as for an understanding of from its literary context. Moses ‘encourages and
the post-exilic period in the light of YHWH’s strengthens’ Israel in such a way that his words
exuberant promises. In the realm of history, even create a contradiction between v. 3 and
 199 deuteronomy

7:22. However, the specific subject of vv. 1–6 is (10:12–11:32) Nomistic Paraenesis The exhort-
the question of why YHWH would destroy the ation ‘So now, O Israel’ opens a sequence of
nations of the land, cf. 7:1–2; 8:19–20. Israel is loosely connected paraenetic addresses which
being warned not to ascribe YHWH’s great borrow many elements from the preceding
deeds to her own ‘righteousness’ (sědāqâ; con- chapters. Although the section may include
trast 6:25; 8:1). Instead, the nations _of the land some vague reminiscences of a treaty form (cf.
are being qualified by a ‘wickedness’ (rišʿâ) which Mayes 1979: 30–4, 207–9), it has no overall co-
provokes divine punishment, cf. Ezek 18:20 and herence. Regarding the conquest of the land
also Gen 15:16; Lev 18:24–30. There is no way of west of the Jordan, 11:22–32 returns as it were
determining what the ‘wickedness’ of these na- to the point where Moses’ historical review had
tions who could not have offended against the left the reader in 3:29.
laws from Mount Horeb is seen to have been, The first unit, 10:12–11:1, builds upon 6:2, 5
although one might refer to the ‘abhorrent and emphasizes that ‘fear of God’ and ‘love of
things’ (tôʿe-b-ôt) according to 12:31; 18:9–12; God’ denote a belief in God which is the basis
20:18. This problem may have motivated the for all faithful obedience to the divine com-
scribe who, by adding v. 2, altogether trans- mandments. vv. 14–15 refer to Israel’s election
forms the imagery of conquest. Building on in a universal horizon (cf. 7:6–8; 4:32–5), and vv.
elements adopted from 1:28 and 7:24, this scribe 17–18 establish a connection between election
imagines the entire land as populated not by and behaviour (cf. 4:5–8; Ps 146:6–9). v. 19 gives
ancient nations, but rather by ‘the offspring of an example of how hymnic praise of a just and
the Anakim’ (see DEUT 1:28), i.e. mythological benevolent God must entail practical ethical
creatures, cf. Am 2:9; Josh 11:21–2; Bar 3:24–8. consequences for the life within a community.
Mythological imagination thus counter-balances For the command itself cf. Lev 19:18b, 33–4. The
the rhetoric of annihilation. ‘sojourner’ (RSV; NRSV translates ‘stranger’ in
10:19, but ‘resident alien’ in 5:14; 24:17, etc.) is a
(9:7–10:11) YHWH’s Wrath at Mount Horeb typical needy person because he holds no
This section reads like a homily on the doctrine property in land and does not belong to a
of YHWH as a ‘jealous God’ in 6:15. Looking landowner’s household either. In dense meta-
back to Mount Horeb as the place of a ‘coven- phorical language, v. 16 gives a paraenetic re-
ant’ ceremony (9:9, based on 5:2, 22), a scribe sponse to 9:13 (cf. also Jer 4:4; 6:10); however, in
here reflects on the threat that YHWH might 30:6 a scribe arrives at an even more radical
‘destroy’ (š-m-d hifil, 6:15; 9:8, 13–14) Israel. In his understanding of human opposition to the div-
representation of Israel’s foundational period ine word and of God’s will to overcome this
under Moses’ leadership, he shows how, in a opposition, cf. Jer 31:33–4; Ezek 18:31; 36:26. For
paradigmatic way, this threat had been averted v. 22 cf. Gen 46:27. The second unit, 11:2–9,
through Moses’ intercession for the people. gives an enumeration of the mighty deeds of
Thus, Israel’s future is grounded in the Mosaic God (cf. esp. Ex 14; Num 16) that will contribute
age (as well as in the promise to the ancestors, to an understanding of God’s ‘greatness’, cf.
9:27; cf. 7:7–8), although the catastrophe of 587 3:24. As v. 2 is an anacoluthon, it is not clear
BCE could not be averted, cf. Jer 5:18–19; 30:11, the in what sense a scribe here addresses the prob-
interdiction of intercession theme in Jer 7:16; lem of the succession of generations in Israel,
11:14; also 15:1. The basic narrative, which may cf. 29:14–15 (MT 13–14); Josh 24:31; Judg 2:7, 10.
have included 9:7–18, 26–9; 10:10b–11, is based The liturgical fragment does not take the situ-
on an earlier version of the story of the Golden ation of Moses’ oration into account, cf. 1:34–5,
Calf in Ex 32–4; see Driver (1895 (1901)) and 39; 2:16. For vv. 8–9 cf. 8:1. vv. 10–12, cf. 8:7–10:
especially Aurelius (1988). Several additions the praise of the land also implies a rejection of
have been joined to it, notably referring to idolatrous fertility cults, cf. Hos 2:2–13 (MT 4–
Aaron (9:20; 10:6–7), the Levites (10:8–9), and 15). vv. 13–15 cf. 7:12–15, a scribe here turns the
the ark (10:1–5; cf. 1 Kings 8:9). The section starts praise into a conditional promise, cf. Jer 5:23–5.
from a striking reinterpretation of the period in vv. 16–17 are based on 6:15 and echo the curse of
the wilderness (9:7; cf. Jer 7:24–6, and see DEUT 28:23. For vv. 18–21 see DEUT 6:6–9. vv. 22–5 (cf.
8:2), and this has been enlarged by more in- 7:16–24; 9:1; Josh 1:1–9): this unit leads on to
stances of Israel’s rebellious character as a ‘stub- the conquest narratives of the book of Joshua.
born people’ (ʿam qĕšê-ʾo-rep, 9:13) in 9:22–4 (for For the ideal delineation of Israel’s territory cf.
-
which cf. 1:19–46; Ex 17:1–7; Num 11:1–34; Ps 1:7 and Josh 1:4. For the motif of the nations’
106:19–33). dread of Israel cf. 2:25; Josh 2:9–11, 24.
deuteronomy 200

11:26–32 (cf. 27:11–13; 30:15–20). Crossing the YHWH from time immemorial (cf. also 2 Sam
Jordan and entering into the land marks the situ- 6–7; 1 Kings 5–9). However, there is no reason to
ation for a decision between faithful adherence to suppose that the formula ‘the place that the
YHWH, the God of the Exodus, and apostasy: LORD will choose’ should be interpreted in a
obedience or disobedience, blessing or curse are distributive sense as ‘at all the respective places
being presented as straightforward alternatives. that YHWH will choose’, even if, according to
A similar ceremony at Shechem, i.e. between Jer 7:12–15, Shiloh had at some time been a
Mount Gerizim to the south and Mount Ebal to sanctuary of the same legitimacy as Jerusalem.
the north, is narrated in Josh 24, cf. especially vv. Deut 12 clearly has Jerusalem in view.
14–15. A puzzling gloss in v. 30 transfers the The law of Deut 12 is addressed to a laity
ceremony of v. 29 to a location directly in the which must be seen as living outside the capital
valley of the Jordan, cf. Josh 4:20; 5:10. Here as in a rural milieu (v. 17). It has several repetitions
elsewhere in chs. 4–11, the great paraenetic alter- and employs the second person singular as well
native is as much a reflection of liturgical practice as plural. There is a broad scholarly consensus
as it is part of the Deuteronomistic literary inven- which says that the sections in the plural (or
tion of Moses’ oration. mixed forms of address) are later than those in
the singular, and that the singular sections may
have been part of the original Deuteronomic
Promulgation of the Laws (12:1–25:19 (26:1–15))
law code. As far as cultic matters are concerned,
(12:1–32 (MT 12:1–13:1)) The Law of Central- 12:13–19; 14:22–9; 15:19–23; 16:1–17 represent the
ization of Sacrificial Worship Ch. 12 contains core of the Deuteronomic legislation. A corres-
the law which defines the place of Deuteron- pondence has often been noted between these
omy in the history of Israelite cult. It is based on laws on cultic centralization and the concept of
an opposition between a multiplicity of cultic YHWH’s unity and uniqueness as expressed in
sites (‘any place you happen to see’) and ‘the 6:4. For an extensive discussion of Deut 12 see
place that the LORD will choose’ as the one Reuter (1993), Levinson (1997).
legitimate place for performing acts of sacrifi-
cial cult (vv. 13–14). On the one hand, the law (12:1–7) Centralization and Anti-Syncretism v.
contradicts that of Ex 20:22–6 which gives per- 1 is a superscription to the law which closely
mission to erect ‘an altar of earth’ or ‘an altar of follows 5:31; cf. 6:1. It introduces a second-person
stone’ in many places, for that law includes plural section (however, in the MT the formula
the divine promise that ‘in every place where relating to the land and its conquest is in the
I [YHWH] cause my name to be remembered I singular). vv. 2–3 echo 7:5 and introduce into the
will come to you and bless you’. On the other Deuteronomic law a criterion for the judgement
hand, the law is presupposed by the Priestly of Israel’s history of the monarchic period which
Document. In that code, the one single ‘place’ is pronounced in Deuteronomistic historiog-
of sacrificial worship is imagined as a sanctuary raphy (cf. 1 Kings 14:23–4; 2 Kings 17:7–12).
the design of which was revealed to Moses on The stereotypical description of the high places
Mount Sinai, and this unique sanctuary was to may be based on Hos 4:13; Jer 2:20. Their inter-
allow YHWH ‘to dwell among the Israelites’ pretation as the remains of the cult of an earlier
(wĕšākantı̂ bĕtôkām, Ex 25:8–9 MT). The law of non-Israelite population represents a distinct
Deut 12 in its hypothetical original form is development within Deuteronomistic thought,
often regarded as the law which caused the which results from the concept of the legitimacy
Judean king Josiah ‘to defile the high places . . . of one single sanctuary of YHWH only. In 1 Sam
from Geba to Beersheba’, i.e. throughout his 9:11–14, for example, the fact that a country town
kingdom, and to leave only ‘the altar of the (ʿı̂r) has its shrine on a hilltop (bāmâ) does not
LORD in Jerusalem’ (2 Kings 23:8–9; see DEUT worry the narrator. The list of cult-related objects
F.1), and this historical connection remains a in v. 3 also represents a late stage of religious
plausible assumption. The law does not name polemics when compared to 16:21–2; 5:8.
Jerusalem directly but, instead, speaks of ‘the
place that the LORD will choose’. This may be (12:8–12) Centralization and the Periodiza-
due to the fact that, according to Israel’s histor- tion of Israel’s History vv. 8–12 are another
ical tradition, it was David who first conquered second-person plural section. Like Jer 7:21–2,
Jerusalem and made it an Israelite city in the the text builds upon the idea that Israel did
tenth century BCE (2 Sam 5:6–10). The temple at not receive laws concerning cultic matters
Jerusalem, therefore, was not a sanctuary of prior to entering the land. However, according
 201 deuteronomy

to this Deuteronomistic scribe, the period of 8:22–53. The LXX translators may have had this
cultic tolerance lasted not only until the age prayer in mind when they translated the phrase
of Joshua (cf. Josh 21:43–5; 23:1) but until that ‘to make his name dwell there’ as ‘for his name
of Solomon, during which the temple in Jerusa- to be invoked there’, cf. also Isa 56:7 and Mk
lem was built. Like 1 Kings 8:16, Deut 12:8–12 11:17.
identifies the moment at which YHWH ‘chose’ vv. 13–14 speak of one type of sacrifice only,
the place of the only sanctuary with the inaug- the ‘burnt offering’ (ʿôlâ), when the entire ani-
uration of the temple in Jerusalem, cf. 1 Kings mal is presented to the deity. It gives permission
5:3–5 (MT 5:17–19); 2 Sam 7:1 for the notion of to slaughter (zābah) animals for food ‘within any
‘rest’. It is clear from these links between the law of your towns’ (v._15) and thus makes slaughter a
and the narrative that vv. 8–12 are an addition to secular matter which does not have to be per-
the Deuteronomic law after it had become part formed at an altar any more (see Maag 1956). In
of the Deuteronomistic History. consequence, no ritual purity is demanded of
those who eat the meat. v. 16 adds a detailed
(12:13–19) Centralization and Sacrifices vv. 13– instruction concerning the blood which was
19 are a second-person singular section and are formerly put on an altar. vv. 17–18 deal with
the most original and the most radical part of cultic offerings which can no longer be brought
the legislation of the Deuteronomic reform to a local shrine but are not entirely divested of
movement in the late-monarchic era (see DEUT their ritual quality either. On the tithe see the
F.1). The first and the last sentences of this sec- additional law in 14:22–9, on the firstlings the
tion open with the imperative ‘take care that law in 15:19–23, on pilgrimages to the sanctuary
you do not . . . ’ and it may be debated whether the laws in 16:1–17. The LXX has the second
this is an appropriate beginning for a law half of v. 17 in the second person plural which
(cf. 8:11; however, in 6:10–12; 12:29–31 the im- might suggest that the references to ‘votive gifts’
perative follows a temporal clause). However, (nĕ-dārı̂m, cf. 23:21–3 (MT 22–4)), ‘freewill offerings’,
no alternative beginning suggests itself. In vv. and ‘donations’ are a later addition. The law
13–14, the lawgiver commands the restriction of envisages cultic celebrations of the entire family
sacrifices to the one single place ‘that the LORD and makes ‘rejoicing’ the main characteristic of a
will choose’ and thus puts an end to all other religious festival. In the LXX, the list of parti-
cultic sites which used to exist in Judah. cipants does not include the Levite but rather
A connection between the concept of a single the ‘resident alien’, as in 5:14. v. 19 commands
sanctuary and the concept of tribal territories is permanent support of the Levite who used to be
made only here (and, depending on this verse, the priest at a local shrine and was to lose his
in 12:5), and the Deuteronomistic authors are cultic functions through the centralization of
not agreed on whether Jerusalem could be sacrificial worship (see, however, 18:6–8).
claimed by Judah (Josh 15:63) or by Benjamin
(Judg 1:21). (12:20–8) Restrictions on Profane Slaughter
The formula concerning the chosen place of The section gives a restrictive interpretation of
sacrificial worship in v. 14 lacks a complement v. 15. Permission is given to ‘eat’ meat ‘whenever
as in 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2 which qualifies the you have the desire’, but an animal may be
chosen place as a place which YHWH chooses ‘slaughtered’ (za-bah) ‘within your towns’ only
‘to make his name dwell there’ (lĕšakke-n šĕmô _ of the territory, the sanc-
if, after the expansion
šām; also in a second-person plural text in tuary is ‘too far from you’ (v. 21; the structuring
12:11; a later variation reads ‘to put his name of the verse in the NRSV is not convincing). vv.
there’ as in 12:5 etc.). The concept of the sanc- 23–5 show the great concern this scribe has
tuary as dwelling-place not of the deity, but of about the blood taboo (cf. Gen 9:4; Lev 17:10–
the divine ‘name’ reflects a critique of a concept 12). v. 27 restores the zebah type of sacrifice as a
of holiness which is founded upon too anthro- _
consequence of the restrictions on the law of v.
pomorphic a notion of the deity (see Weinfeld 15, and this is presupposed in the enumeration
1992: 191–209; Mettinger 1982: 38–79). It coun- of offerings in vv. 6, 11. At an even later stage,
ter-balances a theological understanding of the the law of Lev 17:1–7 abrogates Deut 12:15 (Cho-
temple which may have been prevalent in the lewi nski 1976: 149–78; see, however, Rofé,
monarchic era and again in the Second Temple quoted in Fishbane 1985: 228, who suggests
period (cf. Ps 46:5). According to 26:15, the that vv. 20–8 should be understood as a late
‘heaven’ is YHWH’s ‘holy habitation’, and this scribal harmonization of Deut 12:13–19 and
idea also underlies Solomon’s prayer in 1 Kings Lev 17:1–7).
deuteronomy 202

(12:29–32) Anti-Syncretistic Paraenesis In a seize them and put them to death, then you shall
second-person singular section, the same con- destroy their name and their seed from the land . . . (ll.
cept as in vv. 2–7 is being repeated, namely that 108–46: Parpola and Watanabe 1988: 33–4; ANET 535–6;
an Aramaic treaty of the 8th cent even includes the
even after the extinction of the nations in the
instruction to destroy a treasonous town: Sfire stela, 3.
land west of the Jordan, a temptation will re- 12–13; ANET 661).
main for Israel to imitate religious rites which
the divine ceremonial law does not permit. For (13:1–5) Prophets The possibility of magic acts
paraenetic purposes, all ‘abhorrent’ rites are in the name of other gods than YHWH is also a
equated with a syncretistic corruption of Israel’s motif in the Exodus narrative (cf. Ex 7:8–13).
religion (and vice versa). The end of v. 31 ad- However, in the light of Jer 23:9–32, especially
dresses a ritual practice which is severely criti- vv. 25–32, it is doubtful whether prophetic
cized in such Deuteronomistic texts as e.g. Jer incitement to apostasy was ever an issue in
7:30–4; 2 Kings 21:6. This type of child-sacrifice late-monarchic Judah. The problem of untrue
may betray Phoenician influence in Judah in the oracles in the name of YHWH is addressed in
period after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE (see Deut 18:9–22. The author of vv. 1–2 interprets
Müller 1997). v. 32 (MT 13:1) concludes the law of the criterion of fulfilment of an oracle as refer-
centralization with a general exhortation and a ring to thaumaturgic competence and decidedly
formula which serves to protect the text from subordinates it to the first commandment of the
any changes and thus leads towards its canon- Decalogue (5:6–10). The law exhibits a concern
ical status (cf. 4:2). The law of Deut 12 was not for the exclusiveness of the worship of Israel’s
only of enormous importance in the religious God, probably against a background of strong
history of ancient Israel, but it retains its theo- tendencies towards assimilation to foreign
logical significance as a reflection on God’s cults after the fall of Jerusalem (cf. 12:29–31).
presence in worship in relation to God’s su- The second half of v. 3 which is based on 6:5
preme freedom. aims at a theological understanding of any con-
ceivable enticement to a new religious alle-
(13:1–18 (MT 13:2–19)) Incitement to Apostasy giance.
The law deals with incitement to apostasy or
idolatry in three paragraphs and in each case (13:6–11) Family The second law concentrates
commands the death penalty (vv. 5, 10, 15) as in on an instigator’s confidentiality with the
17:2–7. The laws echo some motifs which are tempted believer and is therefore supported by
also found in Esar-haddon’s succession treaty an explicit order to suppress any feelings of
(see DEUT F.2), and thus apply instructions con- sympathy. In comparison to the careful legal
cerning disloyalty in the political sphere to proceeding spelled out in 17:2–7 (‘ . . . and you
apostasy in the religious sphere. Whether this make a thorough inquiry, and the charge is
betrays a revolutionary atmosphere in late sev- proved true’), the instructions for punishing
enth century Judah (Weinfeld 1992: 91–100; the offender in vv. 8–9 look awkward. A double
Dion 1991; Otto 1996b) or whether a later textual tradition for the beginning of v. 9 reads
learned scribe employed the language of polit- ‘you shall surely kill him’ (MT) or, alternatively,
ical treaties for paraenetic variations on the ‘you shall surely report him’ (LXX). However, it
commandment of 5:7 (Veijola 1995b) remains is clear that the formal legal verdict ‘and he shall
open to debate. It may be useful to quote die’ (wa-me-t, cf. 19:12 contrast 19:4 ‘and he shall
some lines from the Assyrian treaty for com- live’, wa-ha-y, and cf. 24:7 etc.) is only pronounced
parison here: in v. 10 _(MT 11; cf. also Tigay 1996: 132). The law
If you hear any evil, improper, ugly word which is represents a specific conception of ‘Israel’ in
not seemly nor good to Assurbanipal . . . either whose midst (MT vv. 2, 6, 12, 14) any attempt
from the mouth of his ally, or from the mouth of his to incite apostasy must be punished. At a later
brothers . . . or from the mouth of your brothers, your literary stage within Deuteronomy, this is
sons, your daughters, or from the mouth of a prophet, restricted to a threat of divine punishment
an ecstatic, an inquirer of oracles, or from the mouth
(29:16–21 (MT 15–20)). v. 7 (28:64) may reflect
of any human being at all, you shall not conceal it
but come and report it to Assurbanipal . . . If anyone
an awareness of the religious world of antiquity
should speak to you of rebellion and insurrection . . . or in which Israel struggled to retain her faith.
if you should hear it from the mouth of anyone,
you shall seize the perpetrators of insurrection, and (13:12–18) An Insurrectionary Town The
bring them before Assurbanipal . . . If you are able to model idea of ritual destruction of the nations
 203 deuteronomy

in the promised land (7:1–2) is applied to an mains speculative (Crüsemann 1996: 215–19).
Israelite town in the case of its turning to the The tithe is made the subject of a formal com-
worship of foreign gods. The detailed instruc- mand in Deuteronomy in an attempt to abolish
tions about the ‘ban’ (he-rem) are reminiscent of the traditional rites and to link the offering to
Josh 6–7, cf. also Deut_ 7:25–6. vv. 17b–18 prove the central sanctuary. A tendency towards desa-
the author to have lived some time after the fall cralization of the tithe is reflected by the per-
of Jerusalem, which was explained by the Deu- mission to turn it into money and to reserve the
teronomists as the consequence of YHWH’s money for a pilgrimage. A later scribe restricted
‘fierce anger’ (hărônʾap, cf. 2 Kings 23:26). The this permission by adding a conditional clause
_ in the-
community lives expectation of YHWH’s like that at 12:21 (‘if/because the place . . . is too
‘compassion’ (rahămı̂m), and faithful obedience far from you’, v. 24). In legislation of the Second
_
to the law is understood as a condition for Temple period, the tithe is formally declared a
future restoration. source of income for the Levites, cf. Num 18:20–
32; Neh 13:10–14. vv. 28–9 (cf. 26:12–15), twice
(14:1–2) Rites of Mourning This law, a late within a seven-year cycle (15:1), the tithe must be
insertion into the law code, forbids two rites put to charitable support of the poor in the
still considered to be habitual rites in Judah in country towns. The attached promise makes it
Jer 16:6. The Israelites must neither gash their clear that divine blessing does not depend on
skin nor ‘make baldness between the eyes’, i.e. any fertility rites.
on the forehead. The kerygmatic introductory
statement employs parent–child imagery in a (15:1–11) Remission of Debts and God’s Bless-
way reminiscent of Isa 63:8–9, 16. Its metaphor- ing Within the sequence of cultic laws, the law
ical aspects are more evident in 8:5; Isa 1:2–3; Jer indicates that the divine blessing on which eco-
3:19. In the monarchic period, the title of a ‘son’ nomic success of farming depends (v. 10, cf. v.
of YHWH could be given to the king in royal 18) may be won through humanitarian behav-
ideology (cf. Ps 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14), and also the iour. vv. 1–3 revise the traditional institution of a
entire people could be called YHWH’s ‘son’ (Hos fallow year (cf. Ex 23:10–11) and either comple-
11:1). v. 2 is a repetition of 7:6. ment or even replace it by a command to remit
any debts which a fellow farmer might have
(14:3–21) Dietary Laws The law opens with incurred. It is clear from the context that the
the general instruction not to eat ‘any abhor- law concerns a loan which helped the ‘neigh-
rent thing’ (kol-tôʿe-b-â) This is explained by bour’ or ‘brother’ (RSV) to survive until the next
detailed lists which have a more extended par- harvest. The law does not include ‘foreigners’,
allel in Lev 11. The section may be a secondary because they did not belong to the community
addition induced by the question of profane of those who had to observe the ‘release’ (šĕmi-
slaughter (12:15). A theological reason for these ttâ) that was proclaimed in YHWH’s honour. A
distinctions is given in Lev 20:22–6; for an _lucid
_ philosophical understanding of this con-
interpretation of these rules see Douglas troversial differentiation (cf. again in 23:19–20
(1966: 41–57). v. 21, animals which have died (MT 20–1)) has been suggested by H. Grotius
of natural causes are a taboo for the people to who says that the Israelites owed the foreigners
which the law code is addressed but may be only whatever was demanded by ‘natural law’
given as a charitable support to members of because of the unity of humankind, but not
the non-landowning class, cf. 24:19–22, and what would have been motivated by an extra-
may even be sold to foreigners. Later laws in ordinary benevolence (‘Talibus incolis debeban-
Lev 11:39–40 and 17:15–16 only demand rites of tur ob humani generis cognationem ea quae
purification after eating such meat. The pro- sunt iuris naturalis: non etiam ea quae maioris
hibition at the end of v. 21 may reflect religious sunt bonitatis,’ Annotata ad Vetus Testamentum,
awe in regard to an animal and its mother as at 1644).
22:6–7, cf. Ex 23:18–19. The instruction of vv. 7–10 implies rich ob-
servations on the human heart and comes close
(14:22–9) Tithes A detailed law on tithes fur- to the commandment of Lev 19:18 to love one’s
ther clarifies 12:17–19. The tithe (or a less clearly neighbour (cf. Deut 10:17–19; Mk 12:31). In vv. 4–5,
defined offering: Ex 23:19) seems to have been a a later scribe expresses a vision of the fullness
conventional contribution which peasants gave of God’s blessing in response to the people’s
for ceremonies at local shrines, cf. Am 4:4–5. faithful obedience (cf. Isa 58:6–9) and v. 11 recon-
Any suggestion to link it to royal taxation re- ciles this expansion with the original intention of
deuteronomy 204

the law. v. 6 may be a late gloss on vv. 4–5 which (16:1–8) Pesah and the Feast of Unleavened
is partly based on 28:12 and possibly reflects a Bread The law _ conflates pesah and the massôt
political hope of the community in the Persian feast into one festival in the _ month of Abib __
empire. (March/April; a later name is Nisan; see also
Lev 23:5). The pesah is thus integrated into the
(15:12–18) Debt Servitude The law commands traditional cycle of_ three agricultural festivals
that any Hebrew slave is to be set free (hopšı̂) (Ex 23:14–19). For a critical analysis of vv. 1–8
_

after six years of service. This seven-year period see Veijola (1996b); Gertz (1996). Read in con-
is not directly related to the year of release of vv. junction with 12:13–19, it appears that the pesah
1–11. The law is based on Ex 21:2–6. However, it is the main zebah type offering in the original_
does not take up the second law of Ex 21:7–11 law code. It may_ only be offered at the central
(which is more a family law), but instead ex- sanctuary (vv. 2, 5–6). The ancient prohibition
tends the force of the first law to apply equally of eating leavened bread with a zebah (Ex 23:18)
to male and female slaves. The term ‘Hebrew’ forms a transition to the instructions _ concern-
(ʿibrı̂) is known from narratives which confront ing the Feast of Unleavened Bread. This is to last
the Israelites with the Egyptians or the Philis- for seven days and radiates into the entire terri-
tines (e.g. Ex 1; 1 Sam 4). It remains doubtful tory (vv. 3–4). At a later stage, v. 8 introduces a
whether it was originally related to the term cultic assembly at the close of the festival week.
hab/piru which, in Egyptian and Near-Eastern In the history of the pesah, this law is unique in
_
texts of the second millennium BCE, designates that it does not allow the _ slaughtering of the
a certain stratum of society (see ABD iii. 6–10, passover lamb in the individual homes, cf. Ex 12.
95). The subject of the law has a parallel in For the Deuteronomic movement, this festival
the Code of Hammurabi (18th cent. BCE) which in spring is of foremost religious significance
decrees: ‘If an obligation came due against a because it causes the participants to remember
seignior and he sold (the services of) his wife, the Exodus as the foundational intervention of
his son, or his daughter . . . they shall work (in) God in Israel’s history; cf. also 2 Kings 23:21–3.
the house of their purchaser . . . for three years,
with their freedom reestablished in the fourth (16:9–12) The Feast of Weeks In Ex 23:16a, the
year’ (§117, ANET 170–1). The version in Deuter- sābuʿ ôt festival is called ‘the feast of harvest’.
onomy puts special emphasis on the obligation The date of this feast depends on the beginning
to provide the slave generously with some of the grain harvest which would normally fall
goods on leaving, ‘in proportion to YHWH’s in April. Its main characteristic is the liberal
blessing’ which the master had enjoyed (v. 14, consumption of portions of the new yield,
following the LXX reading). However, it does and therefore it is supposed to include all the
not become clear on what economic basis for- people within the rural community. The appeal
mer slaves would sustain themselves, and in- to generosity is underlined by v. 12 in a way
stead of becoming landless poor, it might be similar to 15:15. According to the Deutero-
more advantageous for them to stay with their nomic law, ‘rejoicing’ in YHWH’s presence is
masters (vv. 16–17). In the circumspect social the primary raison dʾêtre of the harvest festivals
vision of Lev 25, the release of slaves is con- (vv. 11, 14–15; cf. 12:18, see Braulik 1970), which,
nected to the restitution of landed property in in pre-Deuteronomic times, may have had nu-
the jubilee year; cf. also Neh 5:1–13. v. 15 adduces merous and confusing mythological aspects, cf.
the fundamental article of Israel’s faith accord- Hos 2:2–15 (MT 4–17).
ing to Deuteronomy in order to encourage un-
restrained obedience. ‘Remembering’ (za-k-ar) is a (16:13–15) The Feast of Booths In Ex 23:16b, the
vital act of faith. Additionally, a rational argu- sukkôt festival is called ‘the festival of ingather-
ment in v. 18 says that a slave gives his master ing’. It is the autumn festival which follows the
‘double the service of a hired man’ (NJPS; grape harvest. Before the beginning of the cal-
NRSV’s translation is based on a contentious endar year in ancient Israel was moved to spring
interpretation of mišneh as ‘equivalent’). in the late seventh or early sixth century, the
festival must have coincided with the New Year
(15:19–23) Firstlings Instructions for annual of- and many suggestions have been made con-
ferings in 14:22–7 and here form a framework for cerning its ritual aspects, notably as
the humanitarian laws in 14:28–15:18 which refer a celebration of YHWH’s enthronement as a
to three-year and seven-year cycles or periods ‘king’ and ‘creator god’ (Mowinckel 1962:
respectively. On firstlings see Ex 13:1–2; 34:19–20. i. 118–30; Mettinger 1982: 67–77).
 205 deuteronomy

(16:16–17) The Rule of Pilgrimages The law (17:2–7) Apostasy as a Legal Case This law
summarizes the festival calendar with a revised may be more original in Deuteronomy than
version of the rule of Ex 23:17. It is clear from vv. 13:1–18 from which laws it is distinguished by
11, 14; 12:18; 14:26 that ‘all your males’ includes the prescription of a careful legal procedure.
entire ‘households’, if not entire villages. 31:10– Apostasy is explicitly called a breach of the
13 gives a more extensive list of participants in a covenant (bĕrı̂t) between YHWH and Israel.
religious festival. This points back to the interpretation of the
Decalogue (esp. 5:6–10) as the main stipulation
(16:18–20) Judges Possibly as one aspect of of a ‘covenant’ in 5:2, cf. also 4:12–13. Whether
royal administration and judicature, the law or not this idea of a covenant can be ascribed to
institutes judges (šōpĕtı̂m) in the Judean country the Josianic age depends on the critical under-
-
towns. These are _coupled with ‘officials’ standing of Hos 8:1 and 2 Kings 23:1–3; see
(šōtĕrı̂m), i.e. a certain type of scribe, to which Nicholson (1986).
the_ specification ‘according to your tribes’
(RSV) may relate, possibly a secondary addition (17:8–13) The Authority of a High Court As
(as in 1:15) which alludes to a tribal and military the abolition of local sanctuaries eliminates the
model, cf. 20:5–9. The city gate was the normal possibility of seeking an ordeal (cf. Ex 22:7–8),
place for trials, cf. 21:19; Am 5:10. One layer of the law establishes the judicial authority of the
laws in Deuteronomy, esp. the collection of priests at the central sanctuary (cf. 12:13–14).
family laws (see DEUT G.1), is built upon the Later additions in vv. 9, 12 seem to anchor the
judicial authority of the ‘elders’ (zĕqe-nı̂m) of a office of a judge in this text which is presup-
town who may have been a more traditional posed in the book of Judges. The death penalty
body. v. 19 is a concise expression of the jurid- for ‘presumptuously’ (bĕza-dôn) disregarding div-
ical ethos which, in 10:17–18, is even related to ine authority is commanded in a second case in
God as example. Taking a bribe (cf. Ex 23:8) is 18:20–2.
condemned as a threat to justice in all currents
of Israel’s religious thought, cf. e.g. Am 5:12; Isa (17:14–20) The Israelite King The law deals
5:23; Ps 15:5; Prov 17:23; cf. also Lambert (1960: with the legitimacy of the Israelite, i.e. Judean
133). v. 20 is a later addition which makes taking monarchy, as does the Deuteronomistic dis-
possession of the land depend on obedience to course in 1 Sam 8. It is often regarded as the
the law as in 6:17–18. The subject of legal pro- core of a supposed Deuteronomic constitu-
cedures is further pursued in 17:8–13; 19:1–21; tional law in 16:18–18:22. As such, it could be
21:1–9. directed against revolutionary tendencies as
known from the history of the northern king-
(16:21–2) Cultic Sites This pair of instructions dom (cf. 1 Kings 15:27–8; 16:9–10, 16; 2 Kings
concerning the features of a sanctuary is puz- 9:14; 15:10, 14, 25, 30; Hos 8:4) or it could be a
zling in its literary context. The reference to ‘the utopian model for the political role of a future
altar that you make for the LORD your God’ is Israelite king after the destruction of the Judean
reminiscent of Ex 20:24–5 rather than Deut monarchy in 587 BCE (cf. Lohfink 1971a). How-
12:13–14. The temple at Jerusalem does not ever, a more plausible interpretation sees the
seem to be an obvious place for an ʾăše-râ, a law related to the diverse reflections within the
sacred tree or a wooden object, nor a masse-bâ, a Deuteronomistic representation of Israel’s his-
standing stone (cf., however, 2 Kings 23:6)._ _ In tory (see DEUT C.2 and F.3) about the responsibil-
Deuteronomistic literature, these objects are ity of the kings for the national disasters under
normally connected with cultic sites in the the Assyrians and Babylonians (2 Kings 15:17–
open country (1 Kings 14:23) and are ascribed to 25:21). In any case it is worth noting that the law
the pre-Israelite population (Deut 7:5; 12:2–3). does not mention any royal officers (cf. 1 Kings
Following recent archaeological discoveries, it 4:1–6).
is strongly debated whether an asherah might According to vv. 14–15, instituting a mon-
originally have been devoted to the goddess archy was fundamentally legitimate although
Asherah as a divine consort of YHWH, see Wig- not without ambivalence, as it meant that Israel
gins (1993); Frevel (1995). would become similar to ‘all the nations that are
around’, thus verging on apostasy. The prohib-
(17:1) A Sacrificial Rule The mention of an ition against appointing a foreigner (v. 15) as
altar entails a rule like that of 15:21 concerning well as the reference to the king and his des-
sacrifices, cf. further Lev 22:17–25. cendants (v. 20) intend to protect the Davidic
deuteronomy 206

dynasty, cf. 2 Sam 7. However, the restrictions the notion of a succession of prophets by the
imposed on the king in vv. 16–17, 20 are an same interpretation of the events at Mount
indirect critique of Solomon, cf. 1 Kings 9:10– Horeb which is employed to define the relation
11:13. They correspond to the more general para- between the Decalogue and the law code in ch. 5.
enesis of 8:11–14 and can even be traced back to The idea of a prophet in v. 18 and the law
prophetic criticism in Isa 31:1. The reference to a concerning a ‘presumptuous’ prophet in vv.
divine oracle in v. 16b (and again in 28:68) may 20–2 are closely related to the book of Jeremiah
reflect controversies which also lie behind Jer (Jer 1:7–9; 23:9–32). Israel’s prophetic traditions
41:16–43:7. At a later stage, the law was supple- are thus anchored in the Torah. However, 34:10
mented by vv. 18–19 which emphasize the pre- makes a distinction between Moses and all later
eminence of the Torah in Israel. The king shall prophets. On theories concerning the end of the
have his own copy of the law which may lead prophetic age sometime during the Persian
him like any Israelite to fear God (6:24) and period see Barton (1986: 105–16).
keep God’s commandments (5:31–2). Deuteron-
omy ideally subjects the supreme representative (19:1–13) Cities of Refuge The law continues
of political power to the same religious and the section on judicial matters which began in
ethical obligations of the highest possible 16:18. However, it does not mention any judges
moral standard (4:8) which are valid for the but only the ‘elders’ of a city (v. 12). The intro-
entire community. It is this concern which in- ductory v. 1 appears to be an addition made after
vites comparison of this law with Paul’s reflec- 17:14–20 and 18:9–22 had been inserted into the
tions on political power under the conditions of law code. The institution of three cities of refuge
the Roman empire (Rom 13:1–7). in Judah compensates for the abolition of local
sanctuaries where, prior to the reform, an asy-
(18:1–8) Priests The law, which may originally lum-seeker could have found protection (Ex
have followed on 17:13, only addresses two 21:13–14; cf. 1 Kings 1:49–53). vv. 8–9 are an add-
issues which concern the typical audience of ition which provides for three cities of refuge
the law code in the Judean country towns. In a east of the Jordan, cf. 4:41–3; Num 35; Josh 20.
legislative form similar to 15:1–2, it defines the The central concern of the law finds expression
claims of the priests at the central sanctuary (cf. in v. 10 and is the same as in 21:1–9.
Ex 23:19). The priests, who are not entitled to
landed property, are regarded as levitical priests, (19:14) Boundaries Laws such as this (cf. 27:17);
and vv. 6–8 state that all Levites have a right to 23:24–5 (MT 25–6); 24:19–22, and also 15:7–11
perform priestly duties, even if, due to the cen- address likely causes of conflict in a rural com-
tralization of the cult, they lose their functions munity and may be compared with the laws on
outside Jerusalem. The relation between this agriculture in Plato’s Laws, 842e–846c (Driver
law and Josiah’s actions as reported in 2 Kings (1895) 1901: 234). The issue is also dealt with in
23:8–9 is a controversial issue (see DEUT F.1). In wisdom literature: Prov 23:10–11; the Egyptian
additions to the law in vv. 1, 2, 5, a scribe under- Instruction of Amen-em-ope (12th cent. BCE: ANET
lines YHWH’s ‘electing’ the entire ‘tribe of Levi’. 422, ‘Do not carry off the landmark at the
However, in later legal developments the priest- boundaries of the arable land, j Nor disturb
hood is restricted to the descendants of Aaron the position of the measuring-cord; j Be not
(Num 3:9–10). greedy after a cubit of land, j Nor encroach
upon the boundaries of a widow’ (7.12–13)), the
(18:9–22) Prophets As sacrificial cult does not Akkadian series of incantations, Shurpu (copies
exhaust all religious energies, a section on div- from the 7th cent. BCE: Reiner 1958: 14, ‘He set up
ination and magic has been added to the law an untrue boundary, (but) did not set up the [tr]
code. Like 17:14, vv. 9–12 reflect the Deuterono- ue bound[ary], j He removed mark, frontier and
mistic narrative framework of Deuteronomy. boundary’ [the sun god is asked to release this
As in 12:2–4, 29–31, what is ‘abominable’ to person] (2, 45)).
Israel’s God is equated with the religious prac-
tices of the former inhabitants of the land, cf. (19:15–21) Legal Witnesses v. 15 is of great con-
also Lev 20:1–8, 22–7. Besides child sacrifice (see sequence for setting up standards for legal pro-
DEUT 12:31), seven forms of superstition make a ceedings, vv. 16–21 nevertheless discuss the
contrast to the one exclusive form of commu- problem of false testimony by a single witness
nication between God and his people through a and threaten him with a penalty based on the lex
prophet (nābı̂ʾ). vv. 16–18, the author establishes talionis. This rule, which applies to manslaughter
 207 deuteronomy

and bodily harm, intends to keep punishment tions in a rural community and forbids ‘ignor-
and revenge within strict limits (cf. Ex 21:23–5). ing’ (hitʿ alle-m) obvious cases for mutual help.
Taken out of its original legal context, it is Although it also draws a distinction between
rejected in Mt 5:38–42, whereas within that con- lost property and theft, its main characteristic
text a line of interpretation within Judaism leads is the strong paraenetic tone which aims at
towards monetary fines (Tigay 1996: 185). overcoming indifference and irresponsibility.

(20:1–21:14) Laws on Warfare Except for (22:5–12) Ordinances Protecting Life and
21:1–9, these laws form a sequence of four laws Manners This section, notably vv. 5, 9–12,
on the army, on conquest, and on booty. Their must be seen against the background of the
background in antiquity is well illustrated by 2 notion that certain practices would be ‘abom-
Sam 8:2; 12:26–31, and 2 Kings 15:16; and espe- inable’ to YHWH. Of special interest is the re-
cially in view of 20:10–14 it is worth comparing striction on human greed and power over
Thucydides, Peloponnesian War, 5: 84–116. The first animal life in vv. 6–7. It concludes with a motive
two laws have been heavily supplemented. In clause similar to the one in 5:16, and from this
20:1–9, a priest has been given a role beside the one may infer that respect for the parent-child
officials (šōtĕrı̂m) in vv. 2–4, and the officials’ en- relationship stands behind the law, cf. also
quiry has been_ reinterpreted in v. 8, cf. Judg 7:1–7. 14:21b.
In 20:10–18, the original law of vv. 10–14 has been
given an opposite meaning in accordance with (22:13–30 (MT 23:1)) Family and Sex Laws Part
the idea of a military conquest of the promised of a more extended collection (see DEUT G.1 and
land in vv. 15–18 (cf. Rofé 1985b). Whereas the Otto 1993), the laws address issues of dishonesty
original sequence of laws aimed at restricting and violence in sexual relations. They are ar-
destructive energies in case of war, the eventual ranged according to the marital status of a
result of its reworking provides another affirm- woman. The death penalty is imposed in most
ation of the concept of annihilation of the cases, although vv. 23–7 reflect a development
peoples in the land, see DEUT 7:2. The anti- towards restricting this through careful consid-
assimilationist motive for this fictitious historio- erations. In one case only (v. 19) a fine is im-
graphical concept is emphasized in v. 18, cf. 18:9–13. posed, even if this seems to contradict the
However, the authors of 1 Kings 14:24; 2 Kings 21:2 principle expressed in 19:19. A complementary
point towards the futility even of this concept. law to vv. 28–9 can be found in Ex 22:16–17 (MT
15–16). v. 30, if a man was married polygam-
(21:1–9) Expiation for Unresolved Murder ously, his son must not marry any of his father’s
Thematically contiguous to 19:1–13, the rite al- former wives; cf. 27:20; Lev 18:8.
lows the elders of an Israelite town to make
atonement for a murder in a case where the (23:1–8 (MT 23:2–9)) The Assembly of the
murderer cannot be identified and punished, v. Lord The law probably concerned local assem-
5 is a later attempt to see this unique ceremony blies in monarchic Judah (cf. Mic 2:5), however,
directed by priests, cf. Lev 4:20. it does not indicate what functions such an
assembly (qĕhal YHWH) would have had. Edom-
(21:15–23) Family Laws vv. 15–17, the rule ites and Egyptians are to be admitted under
that the firstborn son shall inherit twice as certain conditions, whereas Ammonites and
much of his father’s estate as any other heirs Moabites are not (see ABD). vv. 1–2 may allude
must not be violated (cf. E. W. Davies 1986). to cultic perversions, however, this is not en-
vv. 18–21, conversely, parents must be able to tirely conclusive, and the designation ‘born of
rely on that son for support in their old age, cf. an illicit union’ (NRSV) follows the LXX inter-
5:16; Ex 21:15, 17. The elders of a town play a pretation of the unknown Hebrew word
remarkable role in traditional family law in mamz
er. The law originally seems to think of
Deuteronomy, cf. 22:15; 25:7. The law imposes Jacob as Israel’s ancestor (v. 7; cf. Gen 25:21–6)
a death penalty and stresses its function as a and, in v. 3, to express the same spirit of con-
deterrent. By association, it is followed by a tempt as Gen 19:30–8. The list of peoples does
regulation which limits public exhibition of an not exhaustively reflect the political situation of
executed offender. Judah (cf. e.g. 2 Kings 23:13; Jer 27:3; Zeph 2:4–9)
but concentrates on those three Transjordanian
(22:1–4) Fairness and Co-operation Like Ex neighbours with whom 2:2–23 is also con-
23:4–5, the law looks at disturbed social rela- cerned. vv. 4–6 are obvious secondary additions
deuteronomy 208

based on reinterpretations of 2:8–25 and Num who are employed as ‘labourers’ (śākı̂r) or are
22–4. 1 Kings 11:2; Ezra 9:12; Neh 13:1–3 refer to not attached to any household at all (g
er, also
this law in combination with 7:3–4. It has been needy orphans and widows). The rules are
suggested that Isa 56:3–7 abrogates this law based on an ethos of fairness and generosity,
(Donner 1985). and this is an obvious moral consequence of a
faith which centres on the Exodus creed (24:22;
(23:9–14) The Military Camp Possibly by asso- cf. 5:6–21, esp. 14–15). 24:1–4, a man had the right
ciation a transition is made from the assembly to divorce his wife (cases such as 22:13–19, 28–9
(qāhāl) to the camp (mahăneh). YHWH is not seen excepted), and he could get married to more
to appear in an epiphany _ during a campaign (cf. than one woman (cf. 21:15). By implication, a
Judg 5:4–5; 2 Sam 22:8–16), instead, the law is woman had the right to get married more than
intended to protect the deity’s continuous pres- once. However, a man did not have the right to
ence in the camp (cf. 20:2–4). call back his divorced wife once she had been
married to and thus ‘defiled’ by (tām
eʾ) another
(23:15–16) A Fugitive Slave The law may ori- man. As generally in Deuteronomy, _ the law
ginally have followed on v. 8 since it deals with does not take the perspective of the woman,
slaves who presumably have fled from a foreign whose fate may be deplorable. For discussions
country: they are given permission to settle ‘in about this law in early Christianity cf. Mk 10:2–
any one of your towns’. If a political dimension 12; Mt 19:9; 5:31–2. 24:5, cf. 20:5–7. 24:7, the
should be implied here, the law overturns pro- death penalty is imposed on anybody who kid-
visions such as are known from an Aramaic naps a person, cf. Ex 21:16. In the Code of Ham-
treaty of the eighth century BCE which specifies murabi a similar law reads: ‘If a seignior has
that a fugitive must be returned (Sfire stela, 3, 4–6; stolen the young son of another seignior, he
ANET 660). If, however, the law must be under- shall be put to death’ (§ 14, ANET 166). 24:8–9,
stood within a domestic horizon only, it is worth a later addition to the collection, asserts the
comparing contrary regulations in the Code of authority of the levitical priests in cases of an
Hammurabi (§16, ANET 167). infectious disease which LXX identifies as lep-
rosy. Lev 13–14 offers detailed instructions for
(23:17–18) Laws against Prostitution As in dealing with such diseases. The concluding ex-
23:1–2, it is not clear what kind of cultic rites, hortation points to Num 12. 24:16, capital pun-
if any, lie behind these laws (cf. ABD v. 505–13). ishment (cf. e.g. 24:7) must be executed only on
Even Hos 4:13–14 and 2 Kings 23:7 hardly offer a the person of the offender. Thematically, this
firm basis for historical explanation. belongs to a group of laws on the administra-
tion of justice (21:22–3; 25:1–3). Although in its
(23:19–25:12) Religious, Economic, and immediate context the term for ‘crime’ (h
etʾ) is
Civil Laws 23:19–20, like 15:1–3, the law is in- also being used for ‘guilt’ in a religious _ sense
_
tended to facilitate a fellow Israelite’s economic (24:15), the principle of individual responsibility
survival. 23:21–3, the law is typical of the con- here does not engage with the teaching of 5:9
flation of religious and sapiential thought in which states that YHWH will punish ‘iniquity’
Deuteronomy (Weinfeld 1992: 270–2). On the (ʿāwôn) through four generations. 25:1–3, a
one hand it fully recognizes and teaches the further law on practical legal matters. The
religious implications of a vow, on the other notion of ‘degradation’ within the community
hand it asserts that this custom is dispensable, also underlies the two following laws. 25:4,
thus putting into effect the liberating power of proverbial from its reinterpretation in 1 Cor
reflection. A further development of this line of 9:9–11, may have been linked with 24:19–22.
thought can be found in Mic 6:6–8. If someone In four Hebrew words it says a lot about treat-
made a vow, whatever had been dedicated to ment of animals and its original sense merits
the deity would have to be taken to the central pondering. Prov 12:10 may be a help. 25:5–10, if
sanctuary (12:17–18). 23:24–5, a number of rules, a man dies without leaving a son, his name is
such as this, in the final section of the law code ‘blotted out of Israel’, and this is seen as a great
(also 24:6, 10–13, 14–15, 17–18, 19–22) anticipate misfortune (the same view may be implied
conflicts in a rural community. Most of them in 24:5). Where circumstances allow, securing
express the same spirit as 22:1–4 or 15:7–11. They the continuity of a deceased man’s family
refer to the relationship between economically through levirate marriage has first priority.
independent ‘neighbours’ (r
eaʿ) as well as be- Fear of disgrace is to motivate a reluctant
tween such peasants and the landless poor brother-in-law. 25:11–12, except for the lex talionis
 209 deuteronomy

(19:21), this is the only instance of mutilation as chic times, but instead within the Deuterono-
punishment in the law code. mistic School (cf. Richter 1967; Lohfink 1971b).
The confession starts from a reminiscence of an
(25:13–16) Fairness and Honesty The conclud- ancestor who was ‘a perishing Aramean’ (NRSV
ing paragraph of the law code is permeated by reads ‘a wandering’; see, however, Janzen 1994).
the sapiential spirit of humanism typical of As this must refer to Jacob, the scribe here
many sections of Deuteronomy. The law on integrates the Jacob tradition into the Exodus
just weights and measures has parallels in Is- tradition and thereby to a certain degree invali-
raelite as well as ancient Near-Eastern wisdom dates the former which was closely linked to the
texts (Prov 11:1; 20:10, 23; Shurpu, 8. 64–7 (Reiner sanctuary at Bethel (Gen 28; 35; cf. 2 Kings
1958: 42–3); cf. Code of Hammurabi, §94 23:15). The confession then unfolds four times
(ANET169)). It appeals to a common sense of in three sentences with a characteristic pause at
what is just in order to keep the human being the end of each section (cf. RSV). It is built on
from doing ‘unrighteousness’ (ʿāwel); cf. also Lev numerous allusions to the Exodus narrative,
19:35–4; Ezek 18:5–9. Moral behaviour guided by notably Ex 1:9–14; 3:7–10, 15 (in v. 8, ‘signs and
such self-evidently just principles is related to wonders’ may be secondary as is 6:22). v. 10
the blessing of a long life, whereas its opposite leads up to the actual ceremony which is fol-
is considered an ‘abomination’ (tôʿe-bâ) for God. lowed by a celebration. A scribe here designs a
However, in such laws as 15:1–11 and 23:19–20 concise picture of Israel’s salvation history and
(MT 20–1), Deuteronomy goes beyond the thus gives profound witness to God’s mercy in a
limits of this moral order: fairness is not enough perspective of Judean theology. The basic struc-
in the service of Israel’s God. ture of the composition reflects the conviction
of biblical faith that God helps the oppressed
(25:17–19) War against Amalek A historical who cry out to him (cf. Judg 3:9; Ex 22:20–3),
reminiscence of relations between Israelites even if his ways are inscrutable (cf. Ex 34:10; Isa
and Amalekites may have been preserved in 1 55:6–9). vv. 3–4, as v. 10 instructs the farmer
Sam 30, whereas the traditio-historical back- himself to set down his basket ‘before YHWH’,
ground behind the three texts in Ex 17:8–16; the reference to a priest must have been intro-
Deut 25:17–19; 1 Sam 15:1–35 remains obscure; duced at a later stage, perhaps sometime during
cf. Foresti (1984). The peculiar episode in Ex the Second Temple period (cf. Neh 10:35–7 (MT
17:8–16 is taken up here (in a secondary addition 36–8)).
to the law code in the 2nd person pl., like 23:4a
(MT 5a); 24:9) and reinterpreted in terms of a (26:12–15) A Declaration of Obedience A dec-
lack of ‘fear of God’ (cf. Gen 20), in order to laration at the sanctuary corresponds to the law
account for the command to exterminate the of 14:28–9 and also responds to an exhortation
Amalekites. Looking forward to a time when such as 6:17–18. It includes a list of three forbid-
Israel will enjoy ‘rest from all her enemies’ (cf. den abuses of the third year’s tithe, which pre-
12:9–10) prepares the ground for the story of 1 sumably are related to some form of death-cult,
Sam 15 (although this is not coherent with 2 possibly a problem in the Second Temple
Sam 7:1). Cf. also the motif of just retribution period. For the designation of heaven as
in Jer 2:3; 30:16. YHWH’s dwelling place cf. 1 Kings 8:27–30 and
also Zech 2:17; Isa 63:15; 2 Chr 30:27.
(26:1–11) A Form for Liturgical Recitation On
a redactional level similar to 17:14–20, a Deuter- Declaration of Mutual Commitments between
onomistic scribe makes the traditional custom YHWH and Israel (26:16–19)
of taking the first fruits to a YHWH sanctuary In its present literary context, the passage rep-
(Ex 23:19a; Deut 18:4) the occasion for a pilgrim- resents the covenant ceremony which is pre-
age which seems not to coincide with one of the supposed in 29:1 (MT 28:69). It has been
three main festivals (16:1–17). The core of the suggested that it originated in a cultic event
instruction is an artistic composition in vv. and that this might even be identified with the
5–10. In twentieth-century scholarship, it has covenant ceremony under King Josiah which is
often been considered an ancient confessional narrated in 2 Kings 23:1–3 (Smend 1963). After its
formula on which the oldest literary source of introduction (v. 16a; cf. 6:1; 12:1), the declaration
the Pentateuch was modelled (von Rad 1966). revolves around the solemn statements: ‘You
However, it is more likely that the confession have affirmed this day that the LORD is your
did not originate in Israelite cult in pre-monar- God’, and ‘And the LORD has affirmed this day
deuteronomy 210

that you are [ . . . ] His treasured people’ (NJPS). mainly on clandestine evil deeds which threaten
In the unique form of a mutual declaration, this human dignity and a peaceful society.
corresponds to 6:4. The covenant relationship
between YHWH and Israel has an ethical di- The Consequences of Obedience and
mension, and the Deuteronomists are strongly Disobedience through Blessings and Curses
concerned with the ensuing idea of a divine law. (28:1–68)
This accounts for the first explication concern-
As part of his address to Israel, Moses gives
ing Israel’s obligation ‘to walk in his ways, and
conditional promises of divine blessings (vv. 1–
to keep his statutes [ . . . ] and his ordinances,
14) and curses (vv. 15–68) respectively. The par-
and to obey his voice’. Equally, the covenant
allel introductory clauses to these two sections
relationship has a universal dimension. This is
(vv. 1–2, 15) presuppose the shaping of the law
expressed in the second explication concerning
code as an oration of Moses (cf. Mayes 1979:
YHWH’s promise to Israel ‘to set you high
348–51). They refer back to the declaration in
above all nations that he has made, in praise
26:16–19, and this connection to the idea of a
and in fame and in honour’ (cf. RSV; there are
covenant scene is further underlined by the
some further additions to the text which partly
subscription in 29:1 (MT 28:69). However, it is
may depend on 7:6). God the creator of all
disputable whether 28:1–68 originated as part of
humankind sets his people ‘high above’ (ʿelyôn)
a covenant pattern or as a homiletic elaboration
all nations ‘that he has made’. A similar thought
based on a pattern of a good and a bad alterna-
is expressed in Ex 19:5–6, where the clause ‘for
tive, cf. the Deuteronomistic passages in 1 Kings
all the earth is mine’ also implies a theology of
9:4–7 and Jer 22:3–5. The latter suggestion
creation which in its hymnic form may have
would account for the promise of blessings
been a constituent motif in the cult of the Jeru-
which cannot be traced back to treaty rhetoric.
salem temple even in the monarchic period (cf.
There is strong evidence that the section of
Ps 24:1). Deut 7:6, too, refers to ‘all the peoples
curses, notably vv. 20–35, incorporates material
that are on the face of the earth’. All these
adopted from Esar-haddon’s succession treaty
reflections (cf. also 32:8–9) should be under-
of 672 BCE (see DEUT F.2 and on Deut 13; Weinfeld
stood in a dialectical relation to Gen 12:3 or Isa
1992: 116–29; Steymans 1995). In this treaty an
49:6 which speak of the blessing that comes to
extended series of curses invoking the gods of
all humankind through Israel.
the Assyrian pantheon is pronounced against
Instructions for a Ceremony West of the anyone who should breach the oath imposed by
Jordan (27:1–26) the Assyrian king:
In vv. 1, 9, 11, as well as in 29:1–2 (MT 28:69; 29:1), 37 May Aššur, king of the gods, who decrees [the
the narrator interrupts Moses’ speech, which fates], decree an evil and unpleasant fate for you.
comes to an end only in 31:1. Concurring con- May he not gra[nt yo]u long-lasting old age and the
ceptions of cultic ceremonies on entering the attainment of extreme old age. 38 May Mullissu, his
beloved wife, make the utterance of his mouth evil,
land have been combined here just as in the
may she not intercede for you. 38A May Anu, king of
book of Joshua. v. 2–3, the scribe who com- the gods, let disease, exhaustion, malaria, sleepless-
mands the erection of stelae with the law code ness, worries and ill health rain upon all your houses
written on them may be responding to the (cf. 28:22). 39 May Sin, the brightness of heaven and
accusation that Israel spoiled her land as soon earth, clothe you with leprosy and forbid your enter-
as she entered it (cf. Jer 2:7). Josh 4:20 mentions ing into the presence of the gods or king. Roam the
twelve memorial stones in Gilgal near the river desert like the wild ass and the gazelle (cf. 28:27). 40
Jordan (on the place-names see ABD). vv. 5–7, a May Šamaš, the light of heaven and earth, not judge
second scribe thinks of sacrifices and conse- you justly. May he remove your eyesight. Walk about
in darkness! (cf. 28:28–9). 41 May Ninurta, the fore-
quently of the need for an altar, built in accord-
most among the gods, fell you with his fierce arrow;
ance with Ex 20:24–5, but not with Deut 12:13–14. may he fill the plain with your blood and feed your
The location of this altar, which Joshua is said to flesh to the eagle and the vulture (cf. 28:25–6). 42 May
have built (Josh 8:30–1), is near Shechem, to Venus, the brightest of the stars, before your eyes
where v. 4 also transfers the stelae. vv. 11–13, make your wives lie in the lap of your enemy; may
the valley between Mount Gerizim and Mount your sons not take possession of your house, but a
Ebal is defined as the place for a third ritual (cf. strange enemy divide your goods (cf. 28:30). . . . 63 May
11:29–30). vv. 14–26, this in turn has been all the gods that are [mentioned by name] in th[is]
expanded by a liturgy (cf. Neh 8:1–8). The series treaty tablet make the ground as narrow as a brick for
you. May they make your ground like iron (so that)
of curses, framed by vv. 15 and 26, has its focus
 211 deuteronomy

nothing can sprout from it. 64 Just as rain does not fall of the social order in which ‘aliens’ were the
from a brazen heaven so may rain and dew not come landless poor, cf. 14:28–9. vv. 45–8, the seventh
upon your fields and your meadows; instead of dew section is a transitional passage which forms a
may burning coals rain on your land (cf. 28:23–
conclusion to vv. 15–44 and an introduction to
4). . . . 69 Just as [thi]s ewe has been cut open and the
flesh of [her] young has been placed in her mouth,
vv. 49–57. The curses in vv. 20–44 are called ‘a
may they make you eat in your hunger the flesh of sign and a wonder’ (RSV), which expression
your brothers, your sons and your daughters (cf. may even allude to the Egyptian plagues (cf.
28:53). (Parpola and Watanabe 1988: 45–52; ANET 538) 6:22) and thereby draw a parallel between
these two sets of images of punitive disasters.
In addition to this Assyrian treaty, an Aramaic The following reflections on the Exile and the
treaty of the eighth century BCE has been ad- fall of Jerusalem (as well as some additions in
duced as a possible source for motifs in 28:38– vv. 20, 25) betray connections to the book of
42 (Sfire stela, 1A. 27–8; ANET 659–60). Jeremiah. For vv. 47–8 cf. Jer 5:18–19 and 28:13–
The curses of Deut 28, notably vv. 20–42, 14. vv. 49–53, the eighth section gives a stylized
must be seen against this ancient Near-Eastern representation of the Babylonian attack on Je-
background, and it seems most likely that they rusalem. Cf. Jer 5:15–17; 6:11; 19:9; 48:40. v. 51
were contrived once the disaster which Judah reverses the blessing of 7:13. Whether v. 53 refers
and Jerusalem suffered in 587 BCE had come to to historical experience during the siege of Je-
be interpreted as the experience of a divine rusalem or only alludes to a recurring motif in
curse (cf. 29:24–7 (MT 23–6); 1 Kings 9:8–9). In treaty curses (see above, and Weinfeld 1992:
this process, YHWH became the subject of all 126–8) is not conclusive (cf. also Lev 26:26, 29).
those curses on an almost monotheistic level, vv. 54–7, the ninth section elaborates the scenes
cf. Isa 45:6–7. Referring back to the curses and of horror during a siege, cf. also 2 Kings 6:24–9.
‘afflictions’ pronounced in vv. 20–35, a scribe in vv. 58–68, the concluding section adds several
vv. 58–9 calls them a ‘stupendous’ doing of scribal reflections on what is written in the
YHWH (p-l-ʾ hifil). ‘book of this law (tôrâ)’. vv. 58–61 focus on
(28:1–14) Moses promises God’s blessing for the issue of diseases (vv. 21–2, 27, 35) and reverse
obedience to the law. vv. 3–6 may be a trad- the blessing of 7:15. The line of interpretation of
itional formula of blessing which originated in a the curses as ‘a sign and a portent’ in v. 46 seems
cultic setting, cf. 1 Sam 2:20; Ps 24:5; 118:26; to be continued here. v. 62 points back to 26:5
121:8. vv. 7–14 can best be described as an at- on the one hand, and 1:10 on the other. The
tempt by later scribes to counterbalance the verse implies a total reversal of Israel’s salvation
curses in vv. 20–44 (see Seitz 1971: 273–6). The history, even if it might still hint at a vague
blessing of Israel functions as a witness to possibility of a new beginning. This in turn is
YHWH’s divinity (v. 10; cf. 1 Kings 8:43). excluded by v. 68 which refers back to Ex 14:13
(Reimer 1990) and leaves no room even for the
(28:15–68) vv. 15–19, the curse section opens in expectation of a miserable life in Egyptian slav-
close correspondence with vv. 1–6. vv. 20–9, the ery. vv. 64–7, the threat concerning life in the
second section adopts a rhetoric from the pol- Diaspora cuts Israel off from any relationship
itical sphere, see above. vv. 30–3, the third sec- with YHWH, the protection of which is the
tion, marked off by the repetition of central concern of Deuteronomy, cf. 13:6–11
expressions from v. 29 in v. 33, refers to a typical (MT 7–12). The frightful picture of the condi-
military defeat, cf. 20:5–7, 10–14. vv. 34–5, the tions of that life enlarges v. 34 in a different age.
fourth section, partly an inverted repetition of v. 68 sets a seal on the nullification of the
vv. 27–8, lays an elaborate curse upon the men- relationship between YHWH and Israel (cf. 5:6)
tal and bodily state of an individual. vv. 36–7, in case of disobedience to the Torah.
the fifth section goes beyond the motifs of A most extraordinary interpretation of the
vv. 30–3 and refers to the entire nation’s exile, curse section and, by implication, of the de-
cf. v. 64 and 4:27–8. The scribe looks back to struction of Jerusalem, is given in v. 63a. The
the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, verse is an artistic expression of the climax of
cf. 1 Kings 9:7; Jer 24:9. vv. 38–44, the sixth negativity. While its structure may depend on
section to a certain degree runs parallel to such oracles as Zech 8:14–15; Jer 31:28; 32:42, the
vv. 30–3; it includes a series of so-called futility verb employed (śı̂ś) may have been adopted
curses (vv. 38–42) which again reflect the rhet- from other promises of salvation (cf. Deut
oric of political documents, see above. The elab- 30:9; Zeph 3:17; Jer 32:41 MT; Isa 65:18–19).
orate curse in 43–4 envisages a total subversion This peculiar statement finds a wider context
deuteronomy 212

in reflections on YHWH’s compassion (r-h-m speech by YHWH (MT; LXX reads the 3rd
_
piel, n-h-m nifal; cf. e.g. Jer 4:28; 13:13–14; 18:7– person). The final clause of 8:3 is substituted
_
10; Deut 4:31; 30:3). by a formula which mostly occurs in Ezekiel
and in the Priestly Document in the Pentateuch
(e.g. Ezek 20:20; 28:26; Ex 6:7), and this demon-
Discourse on the Significance of the Law
strates a combining of diverse theological
((29:1) 29:2–30:20)
traditions.
(29:1 (MT and LXX 28:69)) The Covenant in
the Land of Moab Whether this verse is a sub- (29:10–15) Covenant and Oath This section
scription to the preceding law or a superscrip- sets forth a liturgical scene comparable to the
tion to the following speech of Moses is subject one narrated in Neh 10. The term ‘covenant’
to debate. As it cannot be demonstrated that a (bĕrı̂t) is doubled by the term ‘oath’ or ‘curse’
traditional ancient Near-Eastern covenant pat- (ʾālâ, v. 12; cf. Neh 10:29 (MT 30)). The idea of a
tern underlies 29:2b–30:20 (see, however, Wein- covenant ceremony finds a less direct expression
feld 1992: 100–16; Rofé 1985a), it is more likely than in 26:16–19. The reference to the ancestors
that v. 1 is a concluding statement and that (cf. Gen 17:7) sees the patriarchal age as the foun-
4:44–28:68 are subsumed under the expression dation of Israel’s existence as the people of God in
‘these are the words of the covenant’. Thus, the an even more fundamental sense than that of the
verse is part of an editorial framework around concept of a divine promise of the land (1:8;
the law, and it also connects to 1:1–5 and to 5:1–5. 30:20). According to vv. 14–15, the covenant also
Just as a ‘covenant at Horeb’ defines the theo- includes people who are not present at the as-
logical dimension of the Decalogue, so a ‘cov- sembly, although this is not coherent with the
enant in the land of Moab’ defines that of the fictional setting of Moses’ speech. The addition
Deuteronomic law. However, the unique con- may be by a scribe having in mind the Jewish
cept of two covenants which supplement each Diaspora in the Persian empire (cf. 30:3–4).
other does not blur the distinction between the
Decalogue and the Deuteronomic law which is (29:16–21) A Warning against Apostasy The
developed in ch. 5. view of the ‘nations’ in this homiletic passage
is informed by 1 Kings 11:1–8 and 2 Kings 23:13
(29:2 (MT 29:1)) A Concluding Address The rather than Deut 2:1–23. The polemics against
narrator introduces a speech which reaches as foreign gods and their visual representations
far as 30:20 and mainly consists of three the- echo such passages as Ezek 20:1–44; Isa 44:9–
matically distinct units. 29:3–21 focuses on the 20; Jer 10:1–16. Historically, it betrays a strong
religious obligation of every single Israelite and tendency towards a separation from rival
on the limitation of divine punishment for groups within the land, cf. Neh 10:28 (MT 29).
apostasy to an individual. 29:22–30:10 gives an The metaphors of v. 18 (cf. also Am 6:12), as well
interpretation of the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE as the term ‘stubbornness of heart’ (šĕrirût le-b),
and turns towards a prediction of future salva- link the passage with Jer 9:12–16 (MT 11–15). The
tion. 30:11–20 is a general reflection concerning threat of divine punishment is restricted to an
the law delivered by Moses and functions as a individual and left entirely to YHWH. A scribe
magnificent coda to it. thus revises 5:9–10; 17:2–7, and also gives the
curses of ch. 28 a new application.
(29:2–9) Exhortations The notion of ‘coven-
ant’ in 29:1 triggers off a paraenetic discourse (29:22–8) The Devastated Land The passage
which seems to be looking at the conquest of looks back to the destruction of Judah in 587
the land (cf. the verb ‘to succeed’, ś-k-l hifil, in v. BCE. The rhetorical form of vv. 24–8 has close
9 (MT 8) and in Josh 1:7–8). vv. 2–3 highlight the parallels in 1 Kings 9:8–9 and Jer 22:8–9 and is
mighty deeds of YHWH in the Exodus, cf. 6:22. also known from an Assyrian source from the
vv. 7–8 remind the reader of the paradigmatic seventh century where a report of a punitive
conquest of the land under Moses’ leadership as campaign reads: ‘Whenever the inhabitants of
narrated in 2:24–3:17. v. 4, which may depend Arabia asked each other: ‘‘On account of what
on Isa 6:9–10, is a gloss on vv. 2–3: unless God have these calamities befallen Arabia?’’ (they
himself directs the human heart, even his answered themselves:) ‘‘Because we did not
mighty deeds which are represented through keep the solemn oaths (sworn by) Ashur, be-
the kerygmatic narrative tradition will not lead cause we offended the friendliness of Ashur-
to faith. vv. 5–6 quote from Deut 8 in direct banipal, the king, beloved by Enlil!’’ ’ (ANET
 213 deuteronomy

300). v. 25 is founded on the first command- aspect of the wisdom tradition, cf. Prov 11:19;
ment of the Decalogue as the central stipulation Am 5:14–15. The invitation to ‘choose’ (bāhar) in
of the covenant at Horeb (5:1–10, cf. also 4:20; _ vv.
v. 19b recalls the scene in Josh 24, especially
Judg 2:11–15). vv. 22 (cf. 1 Kings 8:41–3) and 23 (cf. 14–15. v. 20, the revealed law is the source of life
Jer 49:18; Gen 19) may be later additions. (cf. Lev 18:5 and Rom 10:5), and true obedience
to its commandments is based on the love of
(29:29) Secret and Revealed Things Taken God (cf. Mk 12:28–34). Faith is a possible deci-
in its literary context, this verse may refer to sion in the face of death and ‘evil’ (RSV). The
the human inability to fully understand the past beginning of the secondary vv. 16–19a has been
(29:25–8) or the future (30:1–10). It may also lost in the MT but can be restored following the
refer to a concealed background of the Torah LXX, cf. 7:12–13; 8:19–20.
which would be irrelevant to obedience (30:11–
14), or an interpretation in the light of Ps 19:12 Report of Moses’ Parting from Israel,
(MT 19:13), which speaks of ‘secret faults’, might Including his Poem and his Blessings (31:1–34:12)
also be a possibility. NJPS reads: ‘Concealed acts (31:1–8) The Appointment of Joshua NRSV
concern the LORD our God; but with overt acts, rightly restores the beginning of this section
it is for us and our children ever to apply all the following the LXX and the fragmentary MS 1Q
provisions of this Teaching.’ Deutb from Qumran (DJD 1. 59). The narrator
resumes 3:28–9 and prepares the transition to
(30:1–10) Hope for Future Restoration From the book of Joshua, cf. Josh 1:1–9. Additions in
the image of the land devastated by a curse, the vv. 3, 4–6 take up material from 7:17–23; 9:3;
speech turns towards predictions of salvation. 29:7–8 (MT 6–7). What is presented in 2:33–4
These have close parallels in the book of Jere- and 3:3, 6 as actions of the Israelites, is inter-
miah (e.g. Jer 29:10–14; 32:36–41). As in Deut preted directly as a divine action in v. 4, cf.
4:25–31, Israel is envisaged as returning to 3:21–2.
YHWH who will show his mercy to the people
(rāham: 4:31; 30:3). However, whereas according (31:9–30) Codification of the Law and
to _vv. 1–2 returning to YHWH is a precondition Announcement of Moses’ Poem Two themes
for better fortunes, a scribe in v. 6 (contrast overlap in this section: a description of the
10:16) makes Moses pronounce an uncondi- Torah as a book, and, in vv. 16–22, the designa-
tional promise, cf. Jer 31:33–4. Within this hori- tion of a Mosaic poem as a ‘witness’ against
zon of expectation, v. 7 gives a new Israel. vv. 9–11, the written Torah is handed
interpretation of the curses in ch. 28. vv. 8–10 over to the levitical priests and significantly
are based on motifs adopted from 28:11, 63. also to representatives of the laity. Its public
reading gives the festival of the tabernacles
(30:11–14) The Accessibility of the Law Here (hag hassukkôt) in every seventh year (following
as in 6:1, 25, ‘commandment’ (miswâ) designates _
15:1–3) a theological significance as great as that
the entire law which Moses delivers _ in his of the Passover which is designed to remember
speech. In terms of composition, the declar- the Exodus (16:1–8). In a later addition in vv. 24–
ation may be seen as an equivalent to 4:5–8. 7, the book of the Torah is brought into con-
Whereas the expression ‘in your mouth’ refers nection with the ark in which, according to
to the regular repetition of the received law (cf. 10:1–8, the tablets of the Decalogue are being
6:7; Josh 1:8), the expression ‘in your heart’ takes kept. The same scribe possibly also depicted the
the internalization of the law even further than levitical priests in v. 9 (cf. 17:18) as those ‘who
6:6 does, cf. also Jer 31:33–4. The scribe demon- carried the ark of the covenant’. vv. 14–15 make
strates the essential conformity of the divine the tent of meeting (ʾōhel môʿe-d) the place where
law to the human being with the help of im- YHWH speaks to Moses, cf. Ex 27:21; 33:7–11, etc.
pressive poetic imagery. In Rom 7, especially vv. vv. 16–22 are motivated by the problem of what
7–13, Paul opposes this anthropological concept will happen to Israel once her incomparable
of Deuteronomistic theology in the light of his first leader has died and the foundational period
understanding of sin, and therefore, in Rom of her history has come to a close, cf. the analo-
10:5–8, applies the figures of Deut 30:11–14 to gous problem in Josh 3:11 to Judg 23:1. The
‘the word of faith which we proclaim’. author introduces an independent poem in
32:1–43 which he wants to hand down as a
(30:15–20) Choice between Good and Evil song of Moses. He makes YHWH address
This solemn finale to Moses’ speech reflects an Moses in a prophetic speech which characterizes
deuteronomy 214

Israel by her breach of the covenant on entering (vv. 34–5, 40–1) leads beyond Deuteronomistic
the land, cf. 5:2, 7; Jer 31:32; Hos 13:4–6. The expectations. Instead, it has parallels in oracles
notion of YHWH concealing himself (v. 18) in Nahum; Jer 46–51; Isa 63:1–6, etc.
which is predicted in the poem (32:20; cf. Jer The poem is anthological in character and
18:17; 33:5; also Isa 8:17 and Ps 44:24 (MT 25); obviously presupposes the development of
80:3 (MT 4) et al.) is a remarkable interpretation monotheistic thought as reflected in Deutero-
of the motif of YHWH’s anger which elsewhere Isaiah (Isa 45:5–7). Despite the attempt by
dominates in the Deuteronomistic literature (e. Sanders (1996), in his authoritative study of
g. 29:27 (MT 26); Judg 2:14–15; 2 Kings 23:26). Deut 32, to demonstrate a pre-exilic origin of
The secondary vv. 20–1 borrow from 6:10–12, the poem, it is more plausibly considered a
and, with the notion of ‘inclination’ (y
eser), pos- composition from, the Second Temple period.
sibly even allude to the framing verses _ of the
Flood story in Gen 6:5; 8:21. vv. 24–9 imitate the (32:1–6) The poet and wisdom teacher stresses
introduction to the Song of Moses and make the perfection and justice of God in sharp con-
the entire Torah a ‘witness’ against Israel. This trast to the foolishness of the people. Upon the
thought is further underlined in 32:45–7 with doctrinal foundation which is established by
material taken from 30:15–20. this antithesis, any historical experience of dis-
aster will be reflected in a straight scheme of
(32:1–43) Moses’ Poem The Song of Moses theodicy. It is worth noting how the poet places
adds a new facet to the Mosaic oration and himself within a horizon of hymnic praise of
thus to the picture of the Mosaic age in Deuter- YHWH (v. 3) and thus responds to the superior
onomy. Attributed to Moses as it is, the poem importance of the concept of ‘fear of the LORD’
has a prophetic purpose (cf. 31:16–22), although in the wisdom tradition (Prov 9:10). There is a
its main characteristic is that of wisdom poetry. striking similarity between the opening of
It has its climax in a monotheistic creed in v. 39, Moses’ poem and the introduction to Isaiah
and this is prepared by a theodicy (vv. 4–5), a (Isa 1:2–3).
reference to mythological primeval history (vv.
8–9), a résumée of the earliest salvation history (32:7–9) An insight into right behaviour as well
(vv. 11–12), an explication of YHWH’s conceal- as a knowledge of God’s actions in a mythical
ing of himself (v. 20), and a critique of a poly- primeval age are preserved in the wisdom of
theistic misinterpretation of Israel’s apparent former generations (v. 7; cf. Job 8:8–10; Jer
abandonment by her God (vv. 30–1). S. R. Driver 6:16–17; Isa 45:20–1; 46:8–11). Therefore, the
was right when he wrote: ‘The Song shows great poet grounds the Deuteronomistic notion of
originality of form, being a presentation of Israel’s election (7:6) on a mythological concept
prophetical thoughts in a poetical dress, on a of the primeval age and adduces a polytheistic
scale which is without parallel in the OT’ (1895 concept of the order of the nations correspond-
(1901): 345). A notable feature of the poem is its ing with the number of celestial beings. It has
wealth of metaphors and images (e.g. in vv. 6, been suggested that this may be traced back to
10, 11, 13, 15, 18–19) as well as mythological Ugaritic mythology which, in the epic The Palace
motifs (vv. 8–9, 22, 23–4). Stylistically, it is char- of Baʿal of the fourteenth century BCE, has the
acterized by the typical parallelism of two sen- ‘seventy sons of Athirat’, cf. the seventy nations
tences or expressions which together form a in Gen 10 (see Lipi nski 1998: 300–1; Gibson 1978:
poetic line; cf. Alter (1990, notably 24–5 on 63; ANET 134). v. 8 thus is a poetic echo of
vv. 10, 13). polytheistic mythology as e.g. Ps 82:6–7; 89:5–
The poem’s basic structure is built upon Deu- 14 (MT 6–15); Job 38:7. Whereas the LXX reads
teronomistic motifs. Israel first became guilty ‘according to the number of the angels of God’
before YHWH when she prospered in her land (one MS reads ‘of the sons of God’; cf. 4Q Deutj
and forgot her God (vv. 15–18; cf. 6:10–12; 8:7– (DJD 14. 90), and see Sir 17:17), the Hebrew text
18). In consequence, YHWH’s anger was aroused testifies to a revision which reads ‘according to
(vv. 21–2; cf. 6:15; 29:24–8 (MT 23–7)). However, the number of the sons of Israel’ (for which cf.
when the poet speaks of YHWH’s mercy (v. 36), Gen 46:27; Deut 10:22). The designation of God
he does not see Israel’s return to YHWH as a as ‘the Most High’ (ʾelyôn) in v. 8 refers to Israel’s
condition for it, in contrast to the Deuterono- God as much as does the divine name ‘the LORD’
mistic vision of Israel’s future restoration in (YHWH) in v. 9; cf. the use of ʿelyôn in Ps 18:13
4:29–31; 30:1–3. The concept of YHWH taking (MT 14); 83:18 (MT 19); 97:9, etc. and see the
revenge on his enemies and destroying them discussion in Sanders (1996: 362–74).
 215 deuteronomy

(32:10–14) For the poetic images of the eerie (32:34–5) The future destiny of Israel’s en-
desert and the prodigious land, cf. 8:1–18. The emies has been decided by YHWH long ago,
poet mentions neither the theme of the Exodus, and the time of its arrival is conceived of as
nor that of the conquest of the land, cf. also Jer 2:2. imminent. The nations will be hit by YHWH’s
The fascinating imagery of v. 10b is unique in the ‘vengeance’. This is a recurring motif in oracles
OT, that of v. 11 has a parallel in Ex 19:3–4. Against of doom against the nations in the prophetic
the background of the splendour of Israel’s early books (Jer 50:15; Isa 34:8; see Peels 1995). At the
salvation history, v. 12 prepares the ground for the beginning of v. 35, the reading of the Samaritan
monotheistic creed in v. 39. In contrast to the Pentateuch and the LXX, ‘for the day of ven-
obvious uniqueness of YHWH in this early geance and recompense’ may be more original
period, the foreign gods to which vv. 15–18 refer than the MT which, however, is clearly presup-
are called ‘new ones recently arrived’ (v. 17). posed in Rom 12:19, where Paul combines Deut
32:35 and Lev 19:18 in a paraenetic call. In the
(32:15–18) The representation of Israel’s sin Targum Onqelos, the phrase ‘for the time when
stands in the tradition of prophetic accusations their foot shall slip’ is rendered as ‘for the
(Hos 11:1–3; 13:4–6). The poet compares Israel to time when they go into exile’, because the
a rebellious animal that ‘kicks out’ (LXX apolak- entire passage, vv. 28–35, is seen as referring
tizein), cf. Hos 4:16. ‘Jeshurun’ as a name for to Israel.
Israel has only three other references in the
OT, namely in the poems which frame the (32:36–8) The central idea is that of YHWH, the
Blessing of Moses in 33:2–5, 26–9, and in Isa gracious God, who has ‘compassion’ on his
44:1–5. The name is a nominal form of the people, cf. 4:31. Looking back to vv. 15–18, the
root y-s-r ‘to be straight/right’, perhaps in a poet derides Israel’s aberration from her faith in
play on the name ‘Jacob’ which, in Hos 12:3 YHWH, the only true God.
(MT 4), is derived from the root ’-q-b possibly
meaning ‘to deceive’. LXX translates the name (32:39) The climax of Moses’ poem. Even the
as ‘the beloved’ (ho
egap
emenos). most contradictory experiences which Israel
may suffer must be referred to YHWH. The
(32:19–25) The poet attributes to the hidden- uniqueness of God has been given expression
ness and to the anger of YHWH all disastrous in 6:4 and it is now emphasized in a monothe-
events which strike Israel. In vv. 21 and 25 he istic creed. As a prayer of an individual, the
refers to military catastrophes, in v. 22 he rep- Song of Hannah in 1 Sam 2:1–10 has close par-
resents YHWH’s anger in a cosmological di- allels to this verse, which may be considered the
mension (cf. Job 9:5–6). vv. 23–4 portray culmination of such passages as Hos 6:1–3 and
mythical powers of destruction as ‘arrows’ Isa 45:5–7, cf. also Rom 4:17.
which YHWH will shoot at his people (cf.
Ezek 5:16; Job 6:4). (32:40–2) The image of YHWH’s hand raised
for an oath (cf. Ezek 20) introduces an amplifi-
(32:26–7) YHWH who is the God Most High, is cation of the expectation of vv. 34–5. The poet
also the originator of Israel’s disaster (cf. Isa portrays YHWH as a warrior. Arrows and a
45:6–7). However, the nations do not under- sword as YHWH’s weapons are mentioned in
stand his work, because they attribute their tri- many oracles of doom, cf. e.g. Nah 3; Hab 3. The
umph over Israel to their own strength (cf. Isa poet envisages the total extinction of the
10:5–15). Therefore, the relationship between enemy. Within the OT as a whole, this image
YHWH and Israel which existed ever since the of vengeance finds its counterpart in the vision
mythological origin of history (vv. 8–9) does of universal peace as in Isa 2:2–4. That vision
not permit YHWH to destroy Israel totally, be- breaks up the dualism of ‘compassion’ and ‘ven-
cause then his name could not be known and geance’ which underlies any apocalyptic con-
honoured any more, cf. Isa 48:9–11. cept of ‘salvation’ and ‘doom’.

(32:28–33) Israel’s enemies are portrayed as (32:43) As in v. 8, MT has been revised in order
being foolish (some commentators, however, to avoid all possible reminiscences of polythe-
suggest that vv. 28–30 refer rather to Israel). In ism. Where MT reads ‘praise, O nations, his
v. 31, the poet points to the impotence of the people’, a MS from Qumran reads ‘praise, O
enemies’ gods who, following v. 8, can at most heavens, his people, j worship him, all you
be subordinate divine beings. gods’ (4QDeutq, see DJD 14. 141; this is followed
deuteronomy 216

by NRSV; cf. also Ps 97:9 and see Rofé (2000)), of Solomon’s reign (1 Kings 12) from a northern
which partly corresponds to the double reading Israelite perspective. However, it refers rather to
in LXX ‘rejoice, O heavens, with him, j and let all a return from battle. vv. 8–11, Levi is a tribe
the sons of God worship him; j rejoice, O na- which does not have its own territory (10:8–9;
tions, with his people, j and let all the angels of 18:1). It is characterized as a priestly tribe by the
God confirm for him’. The last colon of v. 43 Urim and Thummim, technical means for giv-
goes beyond the thrust of the poem and ad- ing oracles, cf. Ex 28:30. The reference to a trial
dresses the question of impurity and atonement of Levi at ‘Massah’ and ‘Meribah’ gives a surpris-
(kipper), which according to the LXX and ing interpretation of the story of Ex 17:1–7 (cf.
4QDeutq refers to Israel’s land, but according Deut 6:16); Num 20:1–13, which may allude to
to MT refers to the people as well as the land; on Ex 32:25–9. An addition in vv. 9b–10 makes the
this theological issue cf. Ezek 36. Levites the true teachers of the Torah, cf. 31:9.
vv. 12–17, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh are
(32:48–52) Moses on Mount Nebo Harmoniz- tribes in the hill country north of Jerusalem. vv.
ing between different sources of the Pentateuch, 18–19, the saying about Zebulun and Issachar may
a late redactor makes an instruction by YHWH refer to a former border sanctuary. vv. 20–1, Gad
precede the report of Moses’ death in 34:1–8. He has its territory east of the Jordan. It is also men-
does not refer to 3:26–7, where no sin of Moses tioned there as a tribe in the Mesha stone of the
is thought of, but rather adopts motifs from ninth century BCE (see ANET 320–1). vv. 23–5, Dan,
Num 20:1–13, 22–4; 27:12–14. Deut 10:6 repre- Naphtali, and Asher are tribes in the north of
sents a different tradition about Aaron’s death. Israel’s territory.

(33:1–29) The Blessing of Moses It has been (34:1–12) Moses’ Death and Praise of Moses
suggested that the framing verses in vv. 2–5 The scene resumes the command in 3:27. The
and vv. 26–9 (together with v. 21b) originally exact location of ‘the top of Pisgah’ (cf. Num
formed an independent psalm from the earliest 23:14) is unknown and its identification with
period of Israel’s history (Seeligmann 1964; Jer- Mount Nebo conflates two different traditions
emias 1987: 82–92). However, the text and its (cf. 32:48–52). v. 6 is based on 3:29; however, the
numerous mythological allusions pose many important point is that no veneration for the
virtually unanswerable philological and tradi- site of Moses’ burial may arise as it is said to be
tio-historical questions. It opens with a hymnic unknown. Moses’ survey of the land from
description of a theophany of YHWH, sur- Gilead in the north-east to the Negeb in the
rounded by celestial beings (vv. 2–3, cf. Steiner south-west is reminiscent of Gen 13:14–15, and
1996; Müller 1992: 30) and ends with praise of YHWH thus confirms his promise to Israel’s
the incomparability of Israel’s God (vv. 26–9). If ancestors (v. 4, cf. 1:8; 30:20). v. 5, like 29:1 (MT
v. 5a has YHWH as subject and is more original 28:69), refers back to the concept of 1:5: the era
than v. 4, the poem may originally have cele- of Moses, who delivered the Torah to Israel,
brated the kingship of YHWH in ‘Jeshurun’ (see comes to a close in the land east of the Jordan.
DEUT 32:15, and cf. e.g. Ps 93). Parallels to consider v. 7, Moses died at the highest age that, accord-
would have to include Judg 5:4–5 and Hab 3:3–6, ing to Gen 6:3, a human being could possibly
also 1 Kings 8:23, 56 and Num 23:9. reach; see, however, Num 33:39 and cf. Josh
24:29. v. 10, in a paradoxical way, stresses the
(33:6–25) The Blessings On the individual primary importance which prophecy has for
tribes see ABD. Here, as in Gen 49, the tribes the Deuteronomistic school. On the one hand
are mostly characterized by metaphors. In gen- the verse classifies Moses as a prophet, on the
eral, the sayings date from before the Assyrian other, it underlines his incomparable status
expansion to the west in the eighth century BCE. (contrast 18:18) and thus subordinates all later
The order of the tribes does not follow an es- prophets to the Torah; see Blenkinsopp 1977:
tablished system like e.g. that of Jacob’s sons 80–95. The expression ‘face to face’ may refer to
according to Gen 29:31–30:24; 35:16–20. v. 6, the scene at Horeb as represented by 5:5, 31; the
Reuben, a tribe mostly paired with Gad in the motif has been elaborated further in Ex 33:8–11,
land east of the Jordan, is seen as nearing ex- cf. also Num 12:1–8. v. 9 again addresses the
tinction. v. 7, the saying about Judah is a bless- problem of succession and continuity after
ing for success in a military campaign. The Moses’ death and portrays Joshua according to
expression ‘bring him to his people’ has often an ideal of wisdom. vv. 9–10 thus relate the
been interpreted as commenting on the division Torah, prophecy, and wisdom to each other.
 217 deuteronomy

vv. 1a, 7–9 are often considered fragments of the Dion, P. E. (1991) ‘Deuteronomy 13: The Suppression
Priestly Document, see, however, Perlitt (1988). of Alien Religious Propaganda in Israel during the
Finally, vv. 11–12 follow the same tendency of Late Monarchical Era’, in B. Halpern and D. W.
magnifying the miraculous which can be ob- Hobson (eds.), Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel,
served in 6:22. The verses stimulate the poetic JSOTSup 124 (Sheffield: JSOT), 147–216.
imagination of the readers with a reference to Donner, H. (1985), ‘Jesaja LVI 1–7: Ein Abrogationsfall
the miracles that Moses wrought in Egypt and inner-halb des Kanons—Implikationen und Kon-
thus emphasize God’s intervention when sequenzen’, VTSup 36: 81–95.
Israel’s history started with the Exodus. Douglas, M. (1966), Purity and Danger: An Analysis of
Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul).
REFERENCES
Driver, S. R. (1895), Deuteronomy, ICC; 3rd edn. 1901;
Alt, A. (1953), ‘Die Heimat des Deuteronomiums’, in repr. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
id., Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel Fishbane, M. (1985), Biblical Interpretation in Ancient
(Munich: Beck), ii. 250–75. Israel (Oxford: Clarendon).
Alter, R. (1990), The Art of Biblical Poetry (Edinburgh: T. Foresti, F. (1984), The Rejection of Saul in the Perspective of
& T. Clark); first pub. 1985. the Deuteronomistic School (Rome: Edizioni del Ter-
Aurelius, E. (1988), Der Fürbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum esianum).
Mosebild des Alten Testaments, ConBOT 27 (Stock- Frevel, C. (1995), Aschera und der Ausschließlichkei-
holm: Almqvist & Wiksell). tsanspruch YHWHs, BBB 94 (2 vols.; Weinheim:
Barr, J. (1993), Biblical Faith and Natural Theology (Ox- Beltz Athenäum).
ford: Clarendon). Garcı́a López, F. (1978), ‘Deut. VI et la tradition-
Barton, J. (1986), Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient rédaction du Deutéronome’, RB 85: 161–200.
Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (London: Darton, Gertz, J. (1996), ‘Die Passa-Massot-Ordnung im deu-
Longman & Todd). teronomischen Festkalender’, in T. Veijola (ed.),
Begg, C. T. (1980), ‘ The Literary Criticism of Deut 4, 1–40’, Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen (Göt-
EThL 56: 10–55. tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 56–80.
Blenkinsopp, J. (1977), Prophecy and Canon (Notre Gibson, J. C. L. (1978), Canaanite Myths and Legends
Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press). (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Braulik, G. (1970), ‘Die Freude des Festes: Das Kult- Halpern, B. (1991), ‘Jerusalem and the Lineages in the
verständnis des Deuteronomium—die älteste bib- Seventh Century BCE: Kinship and the Rise of
lische Festtheorie’, (1988) in id., Studien zur Theologie Individual Moral Liability’, in B. Halpern and
des Deuteronomiums, SBAB 2 (Stuttgart: Katho- D. W. Hobson (eds.), Law and Ideology in Monarchic
lisches Bibelwerk; ET in id., The Theology of Deuter- Israel, JSOTSup 124 (Sheffield: JSOT), 11–107.
onomy (N. Richland Hills, Tx.: BIBAL Press, 1994), Hossfeld, F.-L. (1982), Der Dekalog, OBO 45 (Göttin-
27–65. gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Cholewi nski, A. (1976), Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuterono- Janzen, J. G. (1994), ‘The ‘‘Wandering Aramean’’
mium, AnBib 66 (Rome: Biblical Institute). Reconsidered’, VT 44: 359–75.
Christensen, D. L. (1993) (ed.), A Song of Power and the Jeremias, J. (1987), Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen,
Power of Song, Sources for Biblical and Theological FRLANT 141 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Studies, 3 (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns). Keel, O. (1981), ‘Zeichen der Verbundenheit: Zur
Clements, R. E. (1996), ‘The Deuteronomic Law of Vorgeschichte und Bedeutung der Forderungen
Centralization and the Catastrophe of 587 B.C.’, in von Dt 6, 8f. und par.’, in P. Casetti, O. Keel and
J. Barton and D. J. Reimer (eds.), After the Exile A. Schenker (eds.), Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy,
(Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press), 5–25. OBO 38 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht),
Cross, F. M. (1973), ‘The Themes of the Book of Kings 160–240.
and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History’, Keel, O., and Uehlinger, C. (1998), Gods, Goddesses, and
in id., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Images of God in Ancient Israel (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Mass.: Harvard University Press), 274–89. Clark); first pub. in German 1992.
Crüsemann, F. (1996), The Torah: Theology and Social Lambert, W. G. (1960), Babylonian Wisdom Literature
History of Old Testament Law (Edinburgh: T. & T. (Oxford: Clarendon).
Clark); first pub. in German 1992. Levinson, B. M. (1997), Deuteronomy and the Hermen-
Davies, E. W. (1986), ‘The Meaning of pı̂ šĕnayim in eutics of Legal Innovation (Oxford: Oxford University
Deuteronomy XXI 17’, VT 36: 341–7. Press).
Davies, P. R. (1992), In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’, Lipinski, E. (1998), ‘nahal’, in TDOT 9 (Grand Rapids,
JSOTSup 148 (Sheffield: JSOT). _
Mich.: Eerdmans), 319–35.
deuteronomy 218

Lohfink, N. (1993), Das Hauptgebot: Eine Untersuchung Otto, E. (1993), ‘Das Eherecht im Mittelassyrischen
literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn 5–11, AnBib 20 Kodex und im Deuteronomium’, in id., Kontinuum
(Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum). und Proprium, Orientalia Biblica et Christiana, 8
——(1971a), ‘Die Sicherung der Wirksamkeit des (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996), 172–91.
Gotteswortes durch das Prinzip der Gewaltentei- ——(1996a), ‘The Pre-exilic Deuteronomy as a Revi-
lung nach den Ämtergesetzen des Buches Deuter- sion of the Covenant Code’, in id., Kontinuum und
onomium (Dt 16,18–18,22)’, in id., Studien zum Proprium (as above), 112–22.
Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur, ——(1996b), ‘Treueid und Gesetz’, Zeitschrift für Altor-
SBAB 8 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990), ientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte, 2: 1–52.
i. 305–23; ET in Christensen (1993), 336–52. Parpola, S., and Watanabe, K. (1988), Neo-Assyrian
——(1971b), ‘Zum ‘‘kleinen geschichtlichen Credo’’ Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, SAA 2 (Helsinki: Helsinki
Dtn 26,5–9’, in id., Studien zum Deuteronomium und University Press).
zur deuteronomistischen Literatur (as above), i. 263–90. Peels, H. G. L. (1995), The Vengeance of God, OTS 31
——(1985), ‘Zur neueren Diskussion über 2Kön (Leiden: Brill).
22–23’, in id. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Perlitt, L. (1988), ‘Priesterschrift im Deuterono-
Gestalt und Botschaft, BETL 68 (Leuven: Leuven mium?’, in id., Deuteronomium-Studien (Tübingen:
University Press), 24–48; ET in Christensen Mohr[Siebeck], 1994), 123–43.
(1993), 36–61. Polzin, R. (1993), Moses and the Deuteronomist (Bloo-
Maag, V. (1956), ‘Erwägungen zur deuteronomischen mington, Ind.: Indiana University Press); first pub.
Kultzentralisation’, in id., Kultur, Kulturkontakt und 1980.
Religion (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Rad, G. von (1966), ‘The Problem of the Hexateuch’,
1980), 90–8. in id., The Problem of the Hexateuch and other Essays
McCarthy, D. J. (1978), Treaty and Covenant: A Study in (Edinburgh and London: Oliver & Boyd), 1–78;
Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old first pub. in German 1938.
Testament, rev. edn., AnBib 21A (Rome: Biblical Reimer, D. (1990), ‘Concerning Return to Egypt:
Institute Press); first pub. 1963. Deuteronomy XVII 16 and XXVIII 68 Reconsid-
McKay, J. W. (1973), Religion in Judah under the Assyr- ered’, in J. A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Pentateuch,
ians, SBT 26 (London: SCM). VTSup 41 (Leiden: Brill), 217–29.
McKenzie, S. L. et al. (eds.) (1994), The History of Israel’s Reiner, E. (1958), Šurpu: A Collection of Sumerian and
Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth, JSOTSup 182 Akkadian Incantations, AfO 11 (Graz: Selbstverlag
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). des Herausgebers (Ernst Weidner)).
Margulis, B. (1970), ‘A Ugaritic Psalm (RS 24.252)’, JBL Reuter, E. (1993), Kultzentralisation, BBB 87 (Frankfurt
89: 292–304. am Main: Anton Hain).
Mayes, A. D. H. (1979), Deuteronomy, NCB (Grand Richter, W. (1967), ‘Beobachtungen zur theolo-
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans); repr. 1991. gischen Systembildung in der alttestamentlichen
Mettinger, T. N. D. (1982), The Dethronement of Sabaoth, Literatur anhand des ‘‘kleinen geschichtlichen
ConBOT 18 (Lund: Gleerup). Credo’’ ’, in L. Scheffczyk et al. (eds.), Wahrheit und
Miller, P. D. (1990), Deuteronomy, Interpretation Verkündigung (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh), i.
(Louisville, Ky.: John Knox). 176–212.
Morrow, W. S. (1995), Scribing the Center, SBLMS 49 Rofé, A. (1985a), ‘The Covenant in the Land of Moab
(Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press). (Deuteronomy 28:69–30:20)’, in Lohfink (ed.), Das
Mowinckel, S. (1962), The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (2 Deuteronomium (1985), 310–20; repr. in Christensen
vols.; Oxford: Blackwell). (1993), 269–80.
Müller, H.-P. (1997), ‘molæk’, in TDOT 8 (Grand ——(1985b), ‘The Laws of Warfare in the Book of
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans), 375–88. Deuteronomy’, JSOT 32: 23–44.
——(1992), ‘Kolloquialsprache und Volksreligion in ——(1987), ‘Family and Sex Laws in Deuteronomy
den Inschriften von Kuntillet ’Ajrud und Hirbet el- and the Book of Covenant’, Henoch, 9: 131–59.
Qōm’, Zeitschrift für Althebraistik, 5: 15–51. ——(2000), ‘The End of the Song of Moses (Deuter-
Nicholson, E. W. (1986), God and His People: onomy 32:43)’, in R. G. Kratz et al. (eds.), Liebe und
Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Gebot, FRLANT 190 (Gôttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Clarendon). Ruprecht), 164–72.
Nielsen, E. (1995), Deuteronomium, HAT 1/6 (Tübin- Rogerson, J. W. (1992), W. M. L. de Wette: Founder of
gen: Mohr[Sie-beck]). Modern Biblical Criticism, JSOTSup 126 (Sheffield:
Noth, M. (1991), The Deuteronomistic History, JSOTSup JSOT).
15, 2nd ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press); Sanders, P. (1996), The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32,
first pub. in German 1943. OTS 37 (Leiden: Brill).
 219 deuteronomy

Schmidt, W. H. (1993), Die Zehn Gebote im Rahmen M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus,
Alttestamentlicher Ethik, ErFor 281 (Darmstadt: Wis- BETL 126 (Leuven: Leuven University Press), 319–45.
senschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). Veijola, T. (1992a), ‘Das Bekenntnis Israels: Beobach-
Seeligmann, I. L. (1964), ‘A Psalm from Pre-Regal tungen zur Geschichte und Theologie von Dtn 6,
Times’, VT 14: 75–92. 4–9’, TZ 48: 369–81.
Seitz, G. (1971), Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deu- ——(1992b), ‘Höre Israel! Der Sinn und Hintergrund
teronomium, BWANT 93 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer). von Deuteronomium VI 4–9’, VT 42: 528–41.
Smend, R. (1963), ‘Die Bundesformel’, in id., Die Mitte ——(1995a), ‘ ‘‘Der Mensch lebt nicht vom Brot
des Alten Testaments, BEvT 99 (Munich: Kaiser, allein’’: Zur literarischen Schichtung und theolo-
1986), 11–39. gischen Aussage von Deuteronomium 8’, in
——(1971), ‘Das Gesetz und die Völker’, in id., Die G. Braulik (ed.), Bundesdokument und Gesetz: Studien
Mitte des Alten Testaments (as above), 124–37. zum Deuteronomium, Herders Biblische Studien, 4
——(1983), ‘Das uneroberte Land’, in id., Zur ältesten (Freiburg: Herder), 143–58.
Geschichte Israels, BEvT 100 (Munich: Kaiser, 1987), ——(1995b), ‘Wahrheit und Intoleranz nach Deuter-
217–28. onomium 13’, ZTK 92: 287–314.
Smith, M. (1987), Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped ——(1996a), ‘Bundestheologische Redaktion im
the Old Testament (London: SCM); first pub. 1971. Deuteronomium’, in id. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium
Smith, W. Robertson (1892), The Old Testament in the und seine Querbeziehungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
Jewish Church, 2nd edn. (London: A. & C. Black). & Ruprecht), 242–76.
Spieckermann, H. (1982), Juda unter Assur in der Sargo- ——(1996b), ‘The History of the Passover in the Light
nidenzeit, FRLANT 129 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & of Dtn 16, 1–8’, ZAR 2: 53–75.
Ruprecht). ——(forthcoming), Deuteronomium, ATD (Göttingen:
Steiner, R. C. (1996), ‘ ‘‘dat’’ and ‘‘ʿen’’ ’, JBL 115: 693–8. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Steymans, H. U. (1995), Deuteronomium 28 und die ‘adê’ Weinfeld, M. (1991), Deuteronomy 1–11, AB 5 (New
zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons, OBO 145 (Göt- York: Doubleday).
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). ——(1992), Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School
Tigay, J. H. (1996), Deuteronomy, JPS Torah Commen- (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns); first pub.
tary (Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society). 1972.
Uehlinger, C. (1995), ‘Gab es eine joschijanische Wevers, J. W. (1995), Notes on the Greek Text of Deuter-
Kultreform?’, in W. Groß (ed.), Jeremia und die onomy, Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series, 39
‘deuteronomistische Bewegung’, BBB 98 (Weinheim: (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press).
Beltz Athenäum), 57–89. Wiggins, S. A. (1993), A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’,
Van Seters, J. (1996), ‘Cultic Laws in the Covenant AOAT 235 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker).
Code (Exodus 20:22–23:33) and their Relationship Würthwein, E. (1984), Die Bücher der Könige, ATD 11–2
to Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code’, in (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
 Bibliographical Guide to Old Testament Studies:
the Pentateuch

History and Theology, Old Testament Pentateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh and Lon-
don), 1–107.
Barr, J. (1999), The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old
Soggin, J. A. (1989), Introduction to the Old Testament:
Testament Perspective (London: SCM).
From its Origins to the Closing of the Alexandrian Canon
Bright, J. (1981), A History of Israel, 3rd edn. (London:
(London: SCM).
SCM).
Theissen, G. (1984), Biblical Faith: An Evolutionary Per-
Brueggemann, W. (1997), Theology of the Old Testa-
spective (London: SCM).
ment: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Philadelphia:
Fortress).
Clements, R. E. (1978), Old Testament Theology: A Fresh 3. Introduction to the Pentateuch
Approach (London: Marchall, Morgan, and Scott).
Eichrodt, W. (1961–7), Theology of the Old Testament Albertz, R. (1994), A History of Israelite Religion in the
(2 vols.: London: SCM). OT Period, ET (2 vols.: London: SCM).
Hayes, J. H., and Miller, J. M. (1990), Israelite and Alt, A. (1966), ‘The Origins of Israelite Law’, in Essays
Judaean History (London: SCM). on Old Testament History and Religion, ET (Oxford:
Herrmann, S. (1981), A History of Israel in Old Testament Blackwell), 87–132. First published 1934.
Times (Philadelphia: Fortress). Blenkinsopp, J. (1992), The Pentateuch: An Introduction
Jagersma, H. (1982), A History of Israel in the Old Testa- to the First Five Books of the Bible (London: SCM).
ment Period (London: SCM). Brueggemann, W., and Wolff, H. W. (1975), The Vi-
—— (1985), A History of Israel from Alexander the Great tality of OT Traditions (Atlanta: John Knox).
to Bar Kochba (London: SCM). Clements, R. E. (1976), A Century of OT Study (Guild-
Noth, M. (1960), The History of Israel, 2nd edn. (London: ford: Lutter-worth).
A. & C. Black). Clines, D. J. A. (1978), The Theme of the Pentateuch
von Rad, G. (1975), Old Testament Theology (2 vols.; (Sheffield: JSOT).
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Lohfink, N. (1994), Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of
the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy (Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark).
2. Introduction to the Old Testament Nicholson, E. W. (1997), The Pentateuch in the Twentieth
Barton, J. (1991), What is the Bible? (London: SPCK). Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
—— (1997), Making the Christian Bible (London: Noth M. (1972), A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, ET
Darton, Longman & Todd). (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall): from German
Blenkinsopp, J. (1984), A History of Prophecy in Israel original, überlieferungsgeschichle des Pentateuch, 1948.
from the Settlement in the Land to the Hellenistic Period Patrick, D. (1986), Old Testament Law (London: SCM).
(London: SPCK). Pritchard, J. B. (ed.) (1969), Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Childs, B. S. (1979), Introduction to the Old Testament as Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd edn. (Princeton:
Scripture (London: SCM). Princeton University Press).
Crenshaw, J. L. (1981), Old Testament Wisdom: An Intro- von Rad, G. (1962), OT Theology, ET (Edinburgh:
duction (Atlanta: John Knox). Oliver & Boyd).
Davies, P. R. (1998), Scribes and Schools: The Canoniza- Wellhausen, J. (1885), Prolegomena to the History of
tion of the Hebrew Scriptures (Louisville: Westmin- Israel, ET (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black); from German
ster/John Knox). original, Geschichte Israels 1, 1878.
Hayes, J. H. (1982), An Introduction to Old Testament Whybray, R. N. (1987), The Making of the Pentateuch: A
Study (London: SCM). Methodological Study (Sheffield: JSOT).
Kaiser, O. (1975), Introduction to the Old Testament: A
Presentation of its Results and Problems (Oxford: 4. Genesis
Blackwell).
Laffey, A. (1988), An Introduction to the Old Testament: A Blenkinsopp, J. (1992), The Pentateuch. An Introduction
Feminist Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress). to the First Five Books of the Bible (London: SCM).
Noth, M. (1966), ‘The Laws in the Pentateuch: Their Gunkel, H. (1964), The Legends of Genesis (New York:
Assumptions and Meaning’, in his The Laws in the Schocken).
 221 bibliographical guide

McKane, W. (1979), Studies in the Pentateuchal Narratives Johnstone, W. (1990), Exodus, Old Testament Guides
(Edinburgh: Handsel). (Sheffield: JSOT).
Noth, M. (1972), A History of Pentateuchal Traditions Langston, S. M. (2006), Exodus Through the Centuries,
(Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall). Blackwell Bible Commentaries (Oxford: Black-
Redford, D. B. (1970), A Study of the Biblical Story of well).
Joseph (Genesis 37–50), VTSup 20 (Leiden: Brill). Meyers, C. L. (2005), Exodus, NCBC (Cambridge:
Rogerson, J. W. (1974), Myth in Old Testament Interpret- Cambridge University).
ation, BZAW 134 (Berlin: de Gruyter). Moberly, R., and Walter, L. (1983), At the Mountain of
Thompson, T. L. (1974), The Historicity of the Patriarchal God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34, JSOTSup 22
Narratives, BZAW 133 (Berlin: de Gruyter). (Sheffield: JSOT).
Van Seters, J. (1975), Abraham in History and Tradition Nicholson, E. W. (1986), God and his People: Covenant
(New Haven and London: Yale University Press). and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Claren-
von Rad, G. (1966), ‘The Joseph Narrative and don).
Ancient Wisdom’, in The Problem of the Hexateuch Patrick, D. (1986), Old Testament Law (London: SCM).
and Other Essays (Edinburgh and London: Oliver & Propp, W. H. C. (1998), Exodus 1–18, AB 2 (New York:
Boyd), 292–300. Doubleday).
—— (1972), Genesis, OTL, 2nd edn. (London: SCM). —— (2006), Exodus 19–40, AB 2A (New York:
Westermann, C. (1974), Creation (London: SPCK; Doubleday).
Philadelphia: Fortress). Van Seters, J. (1994), The Life of Moses: the Yahwist as
—— (1980), The Promises to the Patriarchs. Studies on the Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Kampen: Kok Pharos).
Patriarchal Narratives (Philadelphia: Fortress).
—— Genesis (3 vols.: London: SPCK, 1984, 1985, 1987).
6. Leviticus
—— Genesis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987;
London: SPCK, 1988). Anderson, G. A. (1987), Sacrifices and Offerings in An-
Whybray, R. N. (1987), The Making of the Pentateuch. A cient Israel: Studies in their Social and Political Import-
Methodological Study, JSOTSup 53 (Sheffield: JSOT). ance, HSM 41 (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
—— and Olyan, S. M. (eds.) (1991), Priesthood and Cult
in Ancient Israel, JSOTSup 125 (Sheffield: Sheffield
5. Exodus
Academic Press).
Bruckner, J. K. (2008), Exodus, NICOT (Milton Key- Blenkinsopp, J. (1976), ‘The Structure of P’, CBQ 38:
nes: Paternoster) 275–92.
Brueggemann, W. (1994), ‘Exodus’, in The New Inter- Cassuto, U. (1961), The Documentary Hypothesis and the
preter’s Bible (vol. 1; Nashville: Abingdon). Composition of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Magnes).
Cassuto, U. (1967), A Commentary on Exodus (Jerusa- Cross, F. M. (1973), Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic
lem: Magnes). (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press).
Childs, B. S. (1974), Exodus: a Commentary (London: Grabbe, L. L. (1991), ‘Maccabean Chronology:
SCM). 167–164 or 168–165 BCE?’, JBL 110: 59–74.
Coggins, R. J. (2000), The book of Exodus, Epworth Kaufmann, Y. (1961), The Religion of Israel From its
Commentaries (Peterborough: Epworth). Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (tr. and abr. M.
Croatto, J. S. (1981), Exodus: a Hermeneutics of Freedom Greenberg) (London: George Allen & Unwin).
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books). Levine, B. A. (1989), Leviticus, JPS Torah Commentary
Durham, J. I. (1987), Exodus, WBC (Waco, Tex.: (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society).
Word). McKeating, H. (1979), ‘Sanctions against Adultery in
Fretheim, T. E. (1991), Exodus (Interpretation) (Louis- Ancient Israelite Society, with Some Reflections
ville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox). on Methodology in the Study of Old Testament
Gowan, D. E. (1994), Theology in Exodus: Biblical The- Ethics’, JSOT 11: 57–72.
ology in the Form of a Commentary (Louisville, Ky.: Noth, M. (1972), A History of Pentateuchal Traditions
Westminster/John Knox). (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Gunn, D. M. (1982), ‘The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Polzin, R. (1976), Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an His-
Heart’, in D. J. A. Clines, D. M. Gunn, and A. J. torical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose, HSM 12
Hauser (eds), Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical (Missoula: Scholars Press).
Literature, JSOTSup 19 (Sheffield: JSOT), 72–96. Rentdorff, R. H. (1990), The Problem of the Process
Haran, M. (1985), Temples and Temple Service in Ancient of Transmission in the Pentateuch, JSOTSup 89
Israel, 2nd edn. (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns). (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): German ori-
Houtman, C. (1993– ), Exodus, Historical Commen- ginal, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des
tary on the Old Testament (3 vols.; Kampen: Kok). Pentateuch (1977).
bibliographical guide 222

—— (1993), ‘Two Kinds of P? Some Reflections on Pentateuch, Brown Judaic Studies, 71 (Chico, Calif.:
the Occasion of the Publishing of Jacob Milgrom’s Scholars Press).
Commentary on Leviticus 1–16’, JSOT 60: 75–81. —— (1996), Numbers, Interpretation: A Bible Com-
Van Seters, J. (1983), In Search of History: Historiography mentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville:
in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History John Knox).
(New Haven/London: Yale University Press). Sakenfeld, K. D. (1995), Journeying with God: A Com-
Vink, J. G. (1969), ‘The Date and Origin of the Priestly mentary on the Book of Numbers, An International
Code in the Old Testament’, OTS 15:1–144. Theological Commentary on the Old Testament
Weinfeld, M. (1972), Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
School (Oxford: Clarendon). Wenham, G. J. (1981), Numbers: An Introduction and
—— (1992), Deuteronomy 1–11, AB5 (Garden City, NY: Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary
Doubleday). (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity).
Wellhausen, J. (1885), Prolegomena to the History of Israel
(Edinburgh: A. & C. Black).
8. Deuteronomy
Christensen, D. L. (ed.) (1993), A Song of Power and the
7. Numbers
Power of Song. Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy
Ashley, T. R. (1993), The Book of Numbers, The New (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns).
International Commentary on the Old Testament Crüsemann, F. (1996), The Torah (Edinburgh: T. & T.
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Clark)
Budd, P. J. (1984), Numbers, Word Biblical Commen- Driver, S. R. (1986), A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
tary, 5 (Waco, Tex.: Word). on Deuteronomy (ICC), 1895, 3rd edn. 1901 (Edin-
Douglas, M. (1993), In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of burgh: T. & T. Clark).
Defilement in the Book of Numbers (Sheffield: Shef- Levinson, B. M. (1997), Deuteronomy and the Hermen-
field Academic Press). eutics of Legal Innovation (New York, Oxford: Oxford
Fretheim, T. E. (1996), The Pentateuch, Interpreting University Press) (includes bibliography).
Biblical Texts (Nashville: Abingdon). Miller, P. D. (1990), Deuteronomy (Interpretation) (Louis-
Gorman, F. H., Jr. (1990), The Ideology of Ritual: Space, ville, Ky.: John Knox).
Time and Status in the Priestly Theology, JSOTSup 91 Rofé, A. (1988), Introduction to Deuteronomy. Part I and
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). further chapters [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Akademon
Gray, G. B. (1903), A Critical and Exegetical Commentary Publishing House).
on Numbers, International Critical Commentary Tigay, J. H. (1996), Deuteronomy (The JPS Torah Com-
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). mentary) (Philadelphia/Jerusalem: The Jewish Pub-
Levine, B. (1993), Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with lication Society).
Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New Weinfeld, M. (1972), Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic
York: Doubleday). School, reprinted (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns).
Milgrom, J. (1990), Numbers, JPS Torah Comment-
ary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of
Joshua
America).
Moore, M. (1990), The Balaam Traditions: Their Character Aharoni, Y. (1967), The Land of the Bible (London:
and Development, SBLDS, 113 (Atlanta: Scholars Press). Burns and Oates).
Nelson, R. D. (1993), Raising Up a Faithful Priest: Commu- Auld, A. G. (1980), Joshua, Moses and the Land:
nity and Priesthood in Biblical Theology (Louisville: Tetrateuch, Pentateuch. Hexateuch in a Generation
Westminster/John Knox). since 1938 (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark).
Noth, M. (1968), Numbers: A Commentary, Old Testa- Baltzer, K. (1971), The Covenant Formulary in Old Testa-
ment Library (Philadelphia: Westminster); tr. J. D. ment, Jewish and early Christian Writings (Oxford)
Martin. (¼ Das Bundesformular: sein Ursprung und seine Ver-
Olson, D. (1985), The Death of the Old and the Birth of the wendung im alten Testament [WMANT 4] (Neu-
New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the kirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960)).
 Index
Aaron Levitical law regarding archaeology
benediction 153–4 slaughter 141 origin of Israel 94
blossoming rod 157 sanctuary 119–21 ark (Noah) 63
challenge to leadership by Amalek 109 ark (of the covenant)
Levites 155 Amalekites 166, 209 role in tabernacle worship 162–3
death of 138, 173, 184, 216 Ammonites Asher (son of Jacob) 79
disobedience at Kadesh 191 exclusion from local Asher (tribe) 90
genealogy 24, 42–43, 94, 159, 206 assemblies 207 Asherah
golden calf episode 138 Israel’s territorial claims 192 cultic sites 205
initiation into priesthood 137 Lot 68–74 asses see donkeys
Moses’ spokesman 99–102 Rabbah 192 Assurbanipal 189, 202
priesthood 24–5, 42, 100, 117 ff. Amorites 51 Assyria
questioning Moses’ see also Canaanites Judah (kingdom) 188
leadership 122, 156 exemplary war against 192 political alliances 202
Aaronides Israelite conquest 174 astral cults 193–4
dating of P 42 Anakim 192, 199 atonement
establishment of perpetual angels meaning 133
priesthood 171 Balaam’s donkey 176 sacrifices for 168
priestly responsibilities 163 Hagar 71 Atonement, Day of 25, 119, 132, 133,
Abel 61–2 Jacob 77 141, 146, 147, 181
Abel-mizraim 91 Sodom 73–4 authority
Abihu 138, 159, 180 sons of God 63 priests 205
Abimelech (Philistine kings) 30, 37, animal sacrifice avenger of blood 185
73–77 Genesis 64 Avvim 192
Abraham 67–77 animals Azazel 132, 140, 141
burial of Sarah 74 ark 64
dating accounts of 33, 47–8, 57 clean and unclean 64, 138 Baal 178–9
death of 77 creation of 57–60 Babylon
Egypt 67 naming of 60 see also Babylonian exile
genealogy 65 anthropology King List 62
Gerar 68 purity and pollution systems Tower of Babel 36, 55, 66
God’s promises to 14, 123 130 Babylonian exile
Hagar 73 sexual relationships 142 burial of Sarah in Canaan 74
marriage of Isaac 77 anthropomorphism 193 Genesis 55
sacrifice of Isaac 99 anti-syncretism, paraenesis 194, as punishment for
sources of accounts of 54, 66–7 195, 200, 202, 206 disobedience 149
vision 69–70 Apocalypse of John see revelation sin and 57
Adam 62, 70 apocalyptic literature theodicy 14
genealogy of 62 Old Testament 12 f. Balaam 24, 61, 153–7, 164–5, 170,
adultery Apocrypha 174–82
Decalogue commandment Protestant 7 Balak 175–8
195–6 apodictic law 31, 40, 190 Beersheba 30, 74, 77, 87, 166, 200
Ten Commandments 113 apostasy benediction
aetiology, Genesis 57, 60, 62, 65, 66, breach of the covenant 205 Aaronic 161–2
71, 73 incitement to 202 Benjamin (son of Jacob) 82
agriculture Arad 174–5, 184 Benjamin (tribe)
boundary laws in Aram-naharaim 75, 77 Blessing of Jacob 90
Deuteronomy 206 Aramaic Bethel
sabbath years 148 Old Testament 9 Abraham 68
success linked with humanitarian Arameans Jacob 78
behaviour 203 Abraham 74 Bethuel (father of Rebekah) 75
Almighty 46, 69, 71, 90, 100 genealogy of 65–6 Bezalel 121, 124
Alt, A. 30–1, 39–40 Israel (people) 77, 81 Bilhah 78
altars Jacob 78–81 birds
centralization of sacrificial ‘perishing Aramean’ burnt offerings 136
worship 200 confession 209 clean and unclean 139
cultic sites 205 Ararat 64 quail 108, 154, 165, 173
index 224

blasphemy casuistic law 40, 114 covenant, ark of the see ark
Leviticus 147 cattle, red heifer ritual 157, 171 Covenant, Book of the see Book of
blessing census the Covenant
Aaronic benediction Levites 158–9 covetousness 113
Balaam and Israel 177 Numbers 157 ff. creation 11
consequence of obedience cereal offering 127, 134, 136–7, 140, the Flood 64
210–12 146 J source 35, 40
link with humanitarian Chaldeans source criticism 22
behaviour 203 use of term 55, 57, 66 creeds
for obedience 107–8 cherubim 71 Exodus 197
Blessing of Jacob 77, 82, 88, 89 on mercy seat 8–19 Hexateuch 16–19, 30
Blessing of Moses 88, 89, 190 in sanctuary 162 criticism 1–3
blood childbirth 61, 127, 131, 139–40 see also source criticism
avenger of children Pentateuch 21 ff.
Levitical law 141 killing by Pharaoh 96 cults
menstruation 131 sacrifice of 142 astral 193–4
ordination ritual 120 Childs, B. S. 34, 42–44, 100 Israelite 139, 199
Passover 104 1 Chronicles curses
place in sacrificial cult 133 dating of P 25 Balak and Israel 175
red heifer ritual 171–2 2 Chronicles consequences of
taboo 201 dating of P 25 disobedience 210
Book of the Covenant 11, 17, 24, 37, circumcision for disobedience 149
39–41, 113, 117, 124, 189 Abraham’s covenant 48
Book of Jubilees Zipporah 109 Dan (son of Jacob) 79
jubilee cycles 148 cities Dan (tribe) 90
Book of the Law 188, 189 refuge 185–6, 194 David (king)
Book of Origins 18–20 civil law 114, 143 Blessing of Jacob 90
Booths, Feast of 145, 147, 204 Clines, David 17, 43–4, 96, 113 Day of Atonement 25, 119, 132–3,
boundaries Code of Hammurabi 40, 114, 149, 141, 156–7, 191
law in Deuteronomy 206 188, 204, 208, 209 Dead Sea scrolls
bread Colenso, John 18, 20 Hebrew Scriptures 10
statute regarding 168 commandments Psalm 107
in temple 147 see Ten Commandments donkeys 153
burning bush 98 commentary Douglas, Mary 129, 130
burnt offerings 118, 135, 137, 181 critical 1–6
reasons for using 1 E see Elohist
Cain 61–2 use of The Oxford Bible Ecclesiastes
Caleb Commentary 6 theodicy 8–9
spy mission 154, 158, 166–7, 179, compensation 125, 147 Eden 48, 57, 60, 69
180, 192 consecration Edom
calendars firstborn 103, 104 Esau 30, 55, 76–7, 81–4, 173
Passover 103–5 Levites 138 refusal to allow Israel to
calf, golden see golden calves of tabernacle 162 pass 173
Canaan (land) Coptic Church 4 Edomites
Abraham in 76 cosmology admission to local
boundaries 184–6 anger of YHWH 215 assemblies 207
burial of Sarah 74 creation 58 descent from Esau 76, 77, 83
covenant 70 countenance of God 162 Israel’s territorial claims 192
Genesis 55 covenant Egypt
Israelite conquest of 191 see also ark Abraham 68
patriarchs 45 Abraham 51, 70 destruction of army 105
Canaan (son of Ham) 65 apostasy as breach of 205 Exodus from 103
Canaanites broken by Israel 121–2 Jacob’s family 67
genealogy of 65 Exodus 94 Joseph 83
and Isaac 75 golden calf 124 oppression of Israel 95
Israelite conquest 174 Moab 212 plagues 101–3
sexual relationships 142 at Mount Horeb 194 sexual relationships 142
Shechemites 82 Noah 64 Egyptians
canon and oath 212 local assemblies 207–8
biblical criticism 4–6 Pentateuch 24 El Elyon 69
Old Testament 7–8 Ten Commandments 111 El Shaddai 38, 46, 71, 90
Carchemish 191 YHWH and Israel at Sinai 117 Eleazar (son of Aaron)
 225 index

oversight of tabernacle 159 God historical criticism 1–3

red heifer ritual 172 see also El Elyon; El Shaddai; historiography
succession to high priesthood YHWH Genesis 53–4
173 character of 95 history
election 36, 38, 48, 177, 187, 197–9, countenance of 160 Exodus as 92
214 covenants of 69 sacrifice 129
Elohim creation 67 ff. Hittites 74
Exodus 127 fear of 195 Hivites 82
Pentateuchal study 38, 49 hiddenness of 214 Hobab 87, 155, 163–4, 182

elōh
em holiness of 159 holiness
the Flood 63 Israel 209 of God 159
use of 59 jealousy of 179 Levitical laws 143
Elohist (E) source 19, 22, 23, 28 justice 72 Holiness Code (H) 11, 24, 39, 41, 121,
Emim 192 mercy of 29, 110, 194, 209 127–8, 141, 150
names of 21, 23 homosexuality, Sodom 65
Festivals (see original for entries promises of 55, 67 hope
prior to this) revelation of 98 for future restoration of
Day of Atonement 141 uniqueness of 193–4 Israel 213
Levitical listing 145 wrath of 121, 133, 141, 155, 158, 167, Israel’s history 198
Unleavened Bread 103, 116 170, 178, 194, 199 Moses as symbol of 192–3
First Fruits, Festival of 31, 181 gods, sons of the 63 Horeb (Mount Sinai)
firstborn golden calves 122, 138, 155, 158–9, see also Sinai, Mount
consecration of 103 164, 199 Israel’s conquest of the land 191
Levitical laws 151 Gomorrah 69, 72 revelation at 191, 193
numbering of Israel 115 Goshen 87, 103 YHWH’s wrath at 199
Flood 21–4, 36, 46, 48, 51, 62–5 Graf, Karl Heinrich 19–20, 22, 25, Horim 192
flour, offerings 146, 168 26, 42 Horites 83
food Graf Wellhausen theory 20 household gods 80
Book of the Covenant 116 Greek human beings
clean and unclean animals 138 Old Testament 7 see also men; women
laws in Deuteronomy 203 guidance creation 57–8
meal offerings 134 of Israelites in wilderness 163 mortality of 41, 44, 46
form criticism 2, 29 as theme in Numbers 157 Hupfeld, Hermann 18–23
Fragmentary Hypothesis 22 guilt offering, Leviticus 133–7, 140 hymns
Gunkel, H. 20, 28–34, 49, 54, 66, 68 Old Testament 12
Gad (son of Jacob) 79
Gad (tribe) H see Holiness Code idolatry
Blessing of Jacob 90 Hagar 70–3 Book of the Covenant 112
land settlement 183 Ham (son of Noah) 65 golden calves 122, 199
gender Hammurabi Code 11, 40, 114, 143, incitement to 202
see women 147, 149, 150, 188, 204, 208, Israelites on journey to Moab 178
genealogy 209 Moses’ warning against 193
Aaron and Moses 96–7 Hamor 82 Ten Commandments 113
Abraham 66, 75 Hannah (wife of Elkanah) 182 incense 25, 118, 121, 124, 135, 138, 140,
Cain 62 Haran 66, 67, 77, 78 162, 169, 170
Genesis 53 Haran, M. 42 incest 14, 65, 73, 82, 99, 142
Rebekah 74 harvest inheritance
Seth 62 festivals 203 Jacob 76
table of the nations 65–6 Wave Sheaf Day 146 Zelophehad’s daughters 180,
Genesis Hebrew Bible (HB) 186
dating of 54–5 anthropomorphic language 193 intercession
Pentateuch 53 arrangement of books 14 ff. by Moses 122–3
source 23 Old Testament 7–9 Moses at Mount Horeb 199
Gerar 30, 68, 73, 76 Hebrew (language) Isaac
Gershonites 159 Old Testament 9 birth of 70, 71, 73
Gerstenberger, E. S. 40, 114, 128, 131, Hebrews (people), use of term 69 in Gerar 76
133, 134, 141, 143, 144 Hebron 74, 75, 87, 91, 192 marriage to Rebekah 74–7
Gilead Hexateuch 16–19, 28, 30–5, 52–3, 92 sacrifice of 70
Laban and Jacob 80 high priesthood sources of accounts of 54
Gilgamesh 63–4 see also priesthood Ishmael (son of Abraham) 55,
goats 78, 105, 107, 133, 140–1, 146, higher criticism see source criticism 70–3, 76
181 historical creeds, Pentateuch 30 Ishmaelites 71, 73, 75, 85
index 226

Israel transfer of authority from D source theology 208

Blessing of Jacob 88 Moses 180–1 definition 39
conquest of Canaan 195 Josiah (king of Judah) economic 208
conquest of land east of defiling of high places 200 excellence of 193
Jordan 192 Deuteronomy 188 genre 11
covenants 70, 121–2 Jubilee years 148 monarchy 205
Exodus from Egypt 104 Jubilees 4 Pentateuch 16, 39
history Judah (kingdom) sources of Deuteronomy 189
J source 35–6 Assyria 188 Ten Commandments 196
Noth, M. 27 fall of theology of 197
Holiness Code 128 Deuteronomy 211 leadership
origins 94 Judah (son of Jacob) 79, 84, 86, 88 challenge of Korah 168
sacrificial worship 200 Judah (tribe) Moses 165
wilderness wanderings 181 Blessing of Jacob 88 Numbers 155
YHWH and 70, 110, 121–5, 196 Moses’ Blessing 216 organization of Israel 192–3
Israel (Jacob) see Jacob Judaism Leah 78
Issachar (son of Jacob) 89 Holy Scriptures 7 ff. legends 9, 28–30
Issachar (tribe) 90 judgement Leningrad Codex 10
Ithamar (son of Aaron) 159, 179 Israel following spy mission 166 leprosy 139, 166
judges letters of Paul
J see Yahwist laws in Deuteronomy 205 biblical criticism 6
Jabbok 81, 99, 174 officers in Israel 191 Levi (son of Jacob) 79, 82, 88
Jacob (Israel) 76–91 justice Levi (tribe)
birth of 77 Book of the Covenant 113–14 see also Levites
Blessing of 82, 88, 89 divine 72 Blessing of Jacob 88
burial 88 see also theodicy censuses 158–9
change of name 81 Old Testament ethics 13 consecration 162
death of 88 Sodom and Gomorrah 72 law in Deuteronomy 207
Esau 76, 81 justification by faith Moses’ Blessing 216
Joseph 84–91 Abraham and Isaac 70 organization and
sources of accounts of 54 responsibilities 158–9
Japheth (son of Noah) 65 Kadesh 153, 166, 172, 185, 191 priestly duties 155
Jeroboam I (king of Israel) Kadesh-bamea 176 Levine, B. A. 133–6
golden calves 122 King Lists 62 Levites
Jerusalem kings see also Levi (tribe)
see also temple see monarchy dating of P 25
centralization of sacrificial kingship Leviticus (book) 127–52
worship 201 see monarchy source 24
fall of kipper see atonement lex talionis 147, 206, 208
Deuteronomy 187, 202, 203, knowledge liberationism 3, 95
212 tree of 61 life
Moriah 74 Kohathites 159, 162 ordinances protecting 207
Salem 69 Korah 8, 24–6, 100, 156–7, 168–72, respect for human 195
temple see temple 180 literary criticism see source criticism
Jeshurun 215, 216 Kuenen, Abraham 19–22, 26 literature
Jethro 37 Bible as 1, 3
Job (man) Laban 75, 77–82 Exodus (book) 93
theodicy 14 Lamech 62 Pentateuchal study 43
Jonah (book) lamps 121, 127, 147, 162 study of Leviticus 129
biblical criticism 3 land settlement Numbers 183–4 Lot 66–9, 72–3
Joseph (son of Jacob) language LXX see Septuagint
birth of 78–9 see also Aramaic
Blessing of Jacob 89 biblical criticism 2 Machpelah 76, 90, 91
death of 91 Old Testament 9 Mahanaim 81
in Egypt 83–91 Latin 11 Manasseh (son of Joseph) 76, 87
themes in Genesis 55 Latin Vulgate Manasseh (tribe)
Joshua (book) origin 11 inheritance issues 186
inclusion in Hexateuch 53 law land settlement 183–4
Joshua (Israelite leader) 180–1 see also Book of the Law; Torah manna 107–9, 154, 164, 173
appointment of 213 accessibility of 213 mantic practices 12
leadership 193 ancient Near Eastern codes 114 marriage
spy mission 166 civil 143 see also adultery
 227 index

Decalogue commandments 195 birth story 96 Noth, Martin 12, 21, 24, 27–34, 41,
law in Deuteronomy 208–9 Blessing of 88, 216 49, 50, 53, 105, 141, 187, 189
suspicion of adultery 161 call 83 Numbers (book) 153–86
Masoretes 9, 10 as character in Exodus 93 redaction criticism 45
Melchizedek 69 death of 31 source 24
men disobedience at Kadesh 172
creation 59 end of leadership 191 oaths
relationship with woman 61 genealogy 99 Abraham 75
ritual purity 144 intercession at Mount Horeb 198 and covenant 212
menstruation, ritual purity 131, land settlement issues 182 obedience
140 leadership 165 divine blessing for 210
Merarites 159, 162 as mediator 196 rewards as result of 195
mercy as orator 191 offerings
divine 194 Poem (Song) of 190, 213 see also sacrifice
Mesha Stone 197, 216 role as judge 109 descriptions 133
Mesopotamia shining face of 124 laws concerning 135, 144, 168, 181
law codes 147, 149 at Sinai 125 on returning to cultic
law collections 39 special relationship with community 140
legal codes 112 God 155, 165, 196 Og (king) 175, 183
Tower of Babel 66 transfer of leadership to Old Testament
metaphors Joshua 180 canon 4–5, 7
blessings of tribes 216 war with Midianites 182 contents 11–12
Midian 75, 97, 126 Mount Sinai see Sinai, Mount history of law 41
Midianites 84, 85, 97, 165, 175, 178, mourning origins 8
179, 182 rites 203 themes 12–14
midwives 96 murder translations 10–11
Mighty One of Jacob 90 Cain and Abel 61 Onan 84, 87, 180
Milgrom, J. 116, 120, 128, 129–38, distinguished from oracles
141 unpremeditated killing 185 Balaam 175
Miranda, J.P. 95 expiation for unresolved 207 of doom 215
Miriam 107, 153, 156, 165–6, 172 Ten Commandments 113 Old Testament 12
Moab music untrue 202
covenant in the land of 212 trumpets 146, 163 oral tradition
and Israel (kingdom of) 174 biblical criticism 2
Moabites Nadab (son of Aarom) 138 Pentateuchal study 28
exclusion from local nakedness ordination ritual 120
assemblies 207 Ham and Noah 65 origin stories 56, 63
Israel’s territorial claims 192 shame at 57 Orthodox canon 7
Lot 68 Naphtali (son of Jacob) 79 oxen 89, 115, 16
Mesha Stone 197 Naphtali (tribe) Oxford Annotated Bible 5
Molech 142–4 Blessing of Jacob 90
monarchy nation, Abraham 67 P see Priestly Work
astral cults 193 national identity Paddan aram 77, 80
law in Deuteronomy 205 Exodus (book) 94 paraenesis 194, 199, 202, 206
local assemblies in Judah 207 Genesis 53, 56 Paraleipomena
monotheism Passover 104 see also Chronicles
Book of the Covenant 114 threat to Israel’s 197 parents
Deuteronomistic confession 194 nationality, table of the nations 65 Ten Commandments 113
Old Testament theme 12–13 Nebo, Mount 184, 197, 216 Passover
origin stories 56 necromancy 143–4 of Egypt 103
Shema 196 Nephilim 63, 166 festival 181
Song of Moses 214 New Testament Festival of Unleavened Bread 103,
Ten Commandments 112 canon 4–5 145, 146
theology of Exodus 94 themes from Numbers 157 lamb 105, 204
morality Newer Documentary Hypothesis see at Sinai 163
Old Testament 13 Documentary Hypothesis patriarchal narratives 33, 50
Moreh, oak of 68 Noah patriarchs
Moriah, Mount 74 Flood 63 see also Abraham; Isaac; Jacob
Mosaic law origin of name 62 promise of descendants 96
animal slaughter 64 Nod 62 Paul (apostle)
Moses nomistic paraenesis, Pentateuch as covenant 17
authorship of Pentateuch 21, 30 Deuteronomy 199 peace offering 134
index 228

Pentateuch vestments 120 Israel’s hope of 214

biblical criticism 2 Priestly Work (P) source Reuben (son of Jacob)
composite authorship 20 creation accounts 23 birth of 79
dating of sources 21, 24–8, 42, 46 dating 24–8, 42, 132 Joseph sold into slavery 89
definitions 16–18, 50–1 Exodus (book) 93, 104 Reuben (tribe)
Documentary Hypothesis 18–21, Hupfeld, Hermann 18–19 Blessing of Jacob 89
26, 49 Leviticus 128 land settlement 183
Genesis 53 nature 46 rebellion 169
Greek parallels 48 theology 34, 38 revelation
law 10, 16 promise to Abraham see covenant of Decalogue at Mount
literary genre 53–4 prophecy Horeb 193
preliterary origins 28–34 see also prophets Numbers 156
redaction criticism 44–6 Deuteronomistic school 216 rewards 196
source-criticism logic 21–2 genre 12 righteousness
Supplementary Hypothesis 18, incitement to apostasy 202 conquest of land by Israel
46 Prophets (Hebrew Scripture) 8 198–9
theology of sources 34–5 prophets rites of passage 137
Perez 84 see also prophecy ritual
Perizzites 69 laws in Deuteronomy 206 determination of adultery
pesah 204 prostitution guilt 160
Pharaoh law in Deuteronomy 208 mourning 202
Abraham 68 Proverbs (book) ordination 120
destruction 105 wisdom literature 12 Passover of Egypt 103
‘hardening of heart’ 101 Psalms (book) 8, 12, 14–16, 29, 31, red heifer 171–2
Jacob 87 90, 107, 162, 165 scapegoat 140
Joseph 85 Psalm 216 theology of P source 38
killing of baby boys 96 punishment ritual destruction
Philistines curses for disobedience 148 ancient Near East 197
Abraham 74 of Israel for apostasy 202–3
Isaac 77 of Exodus generation 191 ritual purity
use of term in Genesis 55 for golden calf episode 123 of camp in Numbers 160
Phinehas (son of Eleazar) 100, 157, lex talionis 147 childbirth 131
178–9, 182 purification Levitical laws 138
pigs 138 after contact with corpses 171, menstruation 131
pilgrimage 183 Old Testament ethics 13
Deuteronomy 205 red heifer ritual 171 Ruth (book) 3
pillar of cloud and fire 106, 163 purity
Pisgah 106, 163 see also ritual purity sabbath
plagues ritual 129 Book of the Covenant 116
Egypt 101–3 breaking of 168
plants, creation of 58, 59 quail 108, 154, 165, 173 creation 57
poetry Qumran Decalogue commandment 195
Moses’ poem 214–16 see Dead Sea scrolls holiness of Israel 121
in Pentateuch 107 Qumran manuscripts see Dead Sea Levitical law 145
pointed text 9 scrolls manna provision 108
pollution see ritual purity Ten Commandments 112
Polychrome Bible 24 Rabbah 192 years 147
polytheism Rachel (wife of Jacob) 75–80 Sacherdonos see Esar-haddon
Song of Moses 215 Rad, Gerhard von 16–18, 27–37, 49– sacrifice 1
Ten Commandments 112 50, 56, 74, 82–3, 91, 188, 209 Abraham 70
post-critical movements 3–4 Rebekah (wife of Isaac) 74–7 centralization of worship 201
Potiphar 85 Red Sea, crossing of 106 of children 202
priesthood redaction criticism 2, 3, 41, 44, 50, of Isaac 74
see also high priesthood: Levites 129 Levites as symbol of 162
dating of P 25 redemption Levitical law 132, 141
determination of adultery dedicated items 150 ordination ritual 120
guilt 160 Old Testament theme 13 pattern for animals 133
initiation of Aaron 137 slaves 149 Sagen 28–30, 33, 54, 66
law in Deuteronomy 205 refuge cities 185, 194, 206 Salem 69
Levitical laws 144 Rendtorff, R. 9, 48–52, 134 Samuel (prophet)
responsibilities 136, 170–1 Rephaim (giants) 192 birth of 79
skin infections 139 restoration sanctuary
 229 index

centralization of sacrificial skin diseases 139, 166 Tamar (daughter-in-law of

worship 200 slaughter Judah) 84
construction 124 Levitical law 141 Targum Ongelos 10, 215
as dwelling place of divine profane 201 temple (first)
name 200 slavery see also sanctuary
prescriptions 117–21 Book of the Covenant 114 centralization of worship 201
Sarah (wife of Abraham) 66, 68, 70 debt servitude 204 Ten Commandments
burial 74 Israelites in Egypt 95 expression of covenant
Hagar 73 jubilee year release 148 demands 110
Isaac 71 law for fugitives 208 revelation at Mount Horeb 193
Saul (king of Israel) 47 snake see serpent tent of meeting 39, 110, 117, 121, 123,
scapegoat 86, 127, 130, 132, 140 social justice 137, 157, 162, 171, 213
Schmid, H. H. 47–8, 51 Old Testament ethics 13 Terah 66
scripture Sodom 50, 52–3 teraphim 80
Hebrew 8–9 see also Gomorrah Tetrateuch 18, 45, 53
seduction Solomon textual criticism 3
Book of the Covenant 115 centralization of worship 201 theft 14, 41, 86, 113, 115, 207
Semitic languages 9 Solomon’s temple see temple (first) theodicy
Septuagint (LXX) Song of Deborah 88 Deuteronomy 198
arrangement of books 14–15 Song of Hannah 215 Old Testament theme 14
Hebrew scriptures 7–9 Song of Moses 190 Song of Moses 214
origin 10 songs theology
serpent 60–1 Miriam’s 107 of law 198
Genesis 60–1 sons of God 63, 214, 216 Pentatenchal sources 34–7
Seth 61–2 sorcery 116 theophanies
sex source criticism Blessing of Moses 216
aetiology 57 biblical criticism 3 burning bush 98
law in Deuteronomy 207 Leviticus 129 pillar of cloud and fire 106
Levitical law 140 Pentateuch 21 ff. Sinai 110
ritual purity 140 Rendtorff critique 48–50 Thummim see Urim and
sexes, relationships between 130 story of Balaam 175 Thummim
Shechem 31, 40, 68, 75, 82, 88, 200, spy missions 157, 167 tithes
210 stone tablets see tablets of stone laws in Deuteronomy 203
altar built by Joshua 210 stones, memorial 210 Levites’ portion 171
Shechemites Succoth 82, 105, 106 livestock 151
massacre of 82 superstition law in seven year cycles 148
Shelah 84 Deuteronomy 206 Torah
Shem (son of Noah) 66 Supplementary Hypothesis announcement in
Shema 196 18–22 Deuteronomy 194
Shibah 77 surrogate birth 79 definition 53
Shiloh 89, 119, 128, 132 symbolism Greek translation 10
sanctuary role 200 Israelite society 130 Hebrew scriptures 8
Sihon (king) 174–5, 183, 194 lamps in tabernacle 162 pre-eminence in Israel 206
Simeon (son of Jacob) sacrificial systems 132 as witness against Israel 213
birth of 79 synoptic Gospels 2 Tower of Babel 36, 55, 56
massacre of the Shechemites 82 traditio-historical analysis 129
Simeon (tribe) tabernacle tradition criticism 29, 31, 42,
Blessing of Jacob 88 critique of Exodus 48–50
sin description 131 tradition history 30, 31, 94
Cain and Abel 61 definition 117 transgressions see sin
consequences of 166 dimensions 119 translation
growth of 56 duties of Levites 158 Bible 5
Ham 65 entry of glory of YHWH 124 Old Testament 10–11
origins of theology of P source 39 treaties
eating of the fruit 60–1 Tabernacles, Feast of 106 political 189, 202
Sodom and Gomorrah 72 tablets of stone trees of knowledge and life 60
transference of 132 breaking by Moses 117 tribes of Israel
sin offering 120, 127, 132–41, 160, 181 differentiation between birth of Jacob’s sons 78
Sinai, Mount Decalogue and other Blessing of Jacob 88
see also Horeb laws 196 blessings 216
Israelites’ journey towards 107 provision 117 number of 87
theophany 110 written on by YHWH 117–19 territories 192
index 230

trumpets Wave Sheaf Day 146 wrath

Day of 146 Weeks, Feast of 146, 204 of God 158, 178
made by Moses 163 well-being offerings 134, 141 Writings (Hebrew Scriptures) 8–10
twelve tribes see tribes of Israel Wellhausen, Julius 18–28, 39, 41–3,
51 Yahwist (J) source
Unleavened Bread, festival Westermann, C. 21, 33, 36, 45–6 dating 47
of 103–4, 116, 145–6, 181, whole burnt offerings 181 Exodus (book) 94–5, 103
204 Whybray, R. N. 2, 44 Hupfeld, Hermann 18–19
Ur 66 wickedness theology 35
Urim and Thummim 120 conquest as punishment for tradition criticism 48–9
blessing of Levi 216 199 YHWH
the Flood 64 see also God
Van Seters, John 33, 47–8, 51 wilderness covenants
vengeance 62, 115, 182, 205 Israelites in 105, 107, 154, 164 Israel 11, 12–15, 110, 121–4
vestments 118, 120, 173 wisdom creator 12–13
visions of Israel in obedience 203 Israel 11, 12–15, 35, 38, 110, 121–4,
Sinai 117 tree of knowledge 61 197–8
vows wisdom literature monotheism 12–13, 94–5
law in Deuteronomy 187 Old Testament 12 name of 18, 23, 37, 46, 98
Levitical laws 150 Wisdom of Solomon (book) presence of 123, 124
limits 182 canonical status 5 warrior 215
Vulgate see Latin Vulgate women worship of 62
conditional vows 182
warfare creation 60 Zamzummim 192
law in Deuteronomy 207 cult in Israel 130–1 Zebulon (son of Jacob) 79
model conquest 192 Hebrew midwives 96 Zebulon (Zebulun) (tribe) 89
ritual destruction 187 ritual purity 139 Zelophehad, daughters of 180, 186
water work 57 Zerah (son of Judah) 84
Israelites in wilderness 107 worship Zilpah 78
rock struck by Moses 171 centralization in Israel 200 Zoar 72