Franz V. Greifenhagen Egypt On The Pentateuchs Ideological Map Constructing Biblical Israels Identity JSOT Supplement 2003 PDF

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
361
Editors
David J.A. Clines
Philip R. Davies
Executive Editor
Andrew Mein
Editorial Board
Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, J. Cheryl Exum, John Goldingay,
Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, John Jarick,
Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller
Sheffield Academic Press

A Continuum imprint
This page intentionally left blank
Egypt on the Pentateuch's
Ideological Map
Constructing Biblical Israel's Identity
F.V. Greifenhagen
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Supplement Series 361
Copyright 2002 Sheffield Academic Press

A Continuum imprint
Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd
The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX
370 Lexington Avenue, New York NY 10017-6550
www. continuumbooks .com
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press
Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Bookcraft Ltd, Midsomer Norton, Bath
ISBN 0-8264-6211-1
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
vii
ix
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2
EGYPT IN GENESIS
24
Chapter 3
EGYPT IN EXODUS
46
Chapter 4
EGYPT IN LEVITICUS, NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY
158
Chapter 5
THE PRODUCTION AND PROMULGATION OF THE

'FINAL TEXT FORM' OF THE PENTATEUCH
206
Chapter 6
THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT: EGYPT AND ISRAEL
225
Chapter 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
256
Appendix:
THE TERM C'HSD AND ITS OCCURRENCES IN THE

HEBREW BIBLE AND THE PENTATEUCH
272
Bibliography
Index of References
Index of Authors
277
307
321
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study is a revised version of my dissertation, 'Egypt in the Symbolic
Geography of the Pentateuch: Constructing Biblical Israel's Identity'
(Duke University, Durham, NC), completed in the summer of 1998. Parts
of the dissertation have been extensively rewritten or reorganized. However, with the exception of a few additional references, the material has
not been updated.
I owe a huge debt of gratitude to many people who in various ways made
this study possible. Teachers and mentors at the University of Manitoba,
and at the Lutheran Theological Seminary and Graduate Theological Union
in Saskatoon, especially William Klassen, Erwin Buck, Roger Uitti,
Terence Donaldson, Michael Poellet and David Jobling, sparked and
nourished my interest in biblical studies and provided encouragement on
the way. My doctoral advisor, James L. Crenshaw provided gentle guidance, unfailing support, and an exemplary model of engaged scholarship.
Other faculty at Duke University, especially Bruce Lawrence, Carol
Meyers, Eric Meyers, Melvin Peters, Regina Schwartz and Orville Wintermute, contributed in various ways to this project and to my development as
a scholar, and Gay Trotter, secretary of the graduate program in religion,
expedited many matters. Special thanks are due to many classmates,
especially Karla Bohmbach, Ann Burlein, Charles Carter, Sandra Gravett,
Barry Jones, Raymond Person, and Donald Polaski, for their gracious
friendship, collegiality and support.
It was difficult to continue to research and write my dissertation,
and then to revise it for publication, while carrying a full teaching and
administrative load. My sincere appreciation to my employer Luther
College, and its faculty and staff, for providing as congenial and supportive an environment as possible, with special thanks to the academic dean,
Bryan Hillis, for his friendship and exceptional encouragement. Also
thanks to Brian Sveinson for helping to put things into perspective, to
Leona Anderson and William Stahl for coming to the rescue in the midst
of computer problems, and to Marion Lake and the staff at inter-library
loans at the University of Regina.
viii
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
My greatest debt is to my family. My parents always had faith in my

academic abilities. My sons, Isaak and Jakob, have lived with this project
since their birth. But most especially my wife, Susan, has had to endure
much to allow me to follow this path, and I hope has also enjoyed much
on the way. It is with deep love and gratitude that I dedicate this project
to her.
ABBREVIATIONS
AB
ABD
AfO
AJSL
ANET3
BA
BARev
BASOR
BDB
BHS
Biblnt
BN
BZ
BZAW
CAH
CBQ
CD
CRBS
DBAT
DJD
EvT
GKC
HBD
HOTTP
HTR
Anchor Bible
David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary
(New York: Doubleday, 1992)
Archivfur Orientforschung
American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures
James B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating
to the Old Testament (3rd edn with supplement; Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1969)
Biblical Archaeologist
Biblical A rchaeology Review
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs,
A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1907)
Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia (4th rev. ed., 1990)
Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary
Approaches
Biblische Notizen
Biblische Zeitschrift
Beihefte zur ZA W
Cambridge Ancient History
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
Codex Damascus/Damascus Document
Currents in Research: Biblical Studies
Dielheimer Blatter zum Alten Testament und seiner Rezeption
in der Alten Kirche
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
Evangelische Theologie
Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (ed. E. Kautzsch, revised and
trans. A.E. Cowley; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910)
PJ. Achtemaier et al. (eds.), Harper's Bible Dictionary (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985)
Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament
Text Project. I. Pentateuch (New York: United Bible
Societies, 2nd rev. edn, 1979).
Harvard Theological Review
x
HUCA
IBC
IDB
IDBSup
IEJ
JANESCU
JAOS
JBL
JEA
JJS
JNES
JSJ
JSOT
JSOTSup
LXX
MT
NIB
NICOT
NJPS
NRSV
OBO
OrAnt
OTG
OTL
DTP
OTS
PEQ
RB
REB
ResQ
RevQ
SBL
SBLDS
SBLMS
SJOT
SP
ST
S WB A

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

Dictionary of the Old Testament
GJ. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theologisches
Worterhuch zum Alten Testament (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer,
1970-)
Theology Today
Texte und Untersuchungen
Tyndale Bulletin
Ugarit-Forschungen
Vetus Testamentum
Vetus Testamentum, Supplements
Word Biblical Commentary
Zeitschrift fur Althebraistik
Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The Old Testament is full of the shadows cast by Pharaoh's sun, and the
resulta mixture of admiration, distrust, envy and emulation, often at the
same timeshows through its pages, from the nostalgia of the Children of
Israel in Sinai to the denunciations of Ezekiel and Jeremiah (Ray 1995:17).
These shadows are particularly long in the Pentateuch, which contains over
half of the explicit references to 'Egypt' (cnUQ) or 'Egyptian' (nUD) in
the Hebrew Bible.1 Evidently, at least on the basis of vocabulary, Egypt
appears as an especially important topos in the Pentateuch. The purpose of
this work is to explore this topos and to inquire as to its particular
significance in the ideology embodied in the rhetoric of the Pentateuch.
Egypt as Place
At first glance, the significance of Egypt in the Pentateuch seems obvious.
Egypt is a place in the northeast corner of the African continent with
a distinct people, history, culture and literature. It is to this Egypta
determinable and distinct ancient geographic, cultural and historic entity
that can be translated into a spatial referent on a mapthat the term
'Egypt' in the Pentateuch, or in other parts of the Hebrew Bible, is generally assumed to refer.2 But this assumption itself has a history, beginning
1. A total of 376 times, constituting 53% of the 711 explicit references to 'Egypt'
(D'HUD) or 'Egyptian' (HUD) in the Hebrew Bible. The density of these references in
the Pentateuch is 0.47 occurrences per 100 words, over twice the average density in the
Hebrew Bible as a whole. Similarly, over half the occurrences in the Hebrew Bible of
related terms, such as 'Pharaoh' (niHS) or 'Nile' ("IN"1), are found in the Pentateuch,
with two to three times the average density of these words elsewhere in the Hebrew
Bible. See Table 1 in the Appendix.
2. This geographical reification of the Egypt of the Bible is evident, for example,
in the standard Bible dictionaries, which, in their entries, present Egypt as first and
foremost a geographically locatable and limitable entity (e.g. Huffmon 1985; Plumley
in the nineteenth century with the rise of critical methodology, and

especially of the disciplines of archaeology, Egyptology, and other ancient
Near Eastern studies, a time when information on Egypt was becoming
increasingly available from sources outside of the Bible itself. On the one
hand, the availability and use of this extrabiblical information made it
possible to study Egypt apart from Egypt's importance in the scriptural
heritage of the Western world. However, on the other hand, it also shifted
scholarly interpretation of 'Egypt' in the Bible towards historically and
geographically verifiable realia.
A genre of writing arose in the late nineteenth century, mainly among
German and French scholars, that attempted to gloss the biblical text with
the textual and archaeological discoveries of the emerging autonomous
field of Egyptology.3 In the early twentieth century, this genre appeared in
several English books aimed at the general public: for example, W.M.F.
Petrie's Egypt and Israel (1911) and Thomas E. Feet's Egypt and the Old
Testament (1922). These works could be quite critical of the portrayal of
Egypt in the Bible, seeing it as too general, inaccurate or anachronistic in
comparison with the rich data uncovered by Egyptology.4 But there was
also clearly an impetus to ground the biblical portrayal in the realia of an
actual ancient Egypt, an impetus that resulted in some attempts to 'prove'
the Bible's historical veracity on the basis of evidence from Egyptology.5
1993; and the various articles on Egypt \nABD II: 321-412). An exception is the article
by Philip S. Alexander, under the heading' Geography and the Bible', on 'Early Jewish
Geography' ABDII: 977-88, which includes an awareness of mental maps; i.e. maps
that exist in the consciousness of individuals, groups or cultures.
3. Examples include Georg Ebers' Aegypten und die Biicher Moses. Sachlicher
Commentarzu den aegyptischen Stellen in Genesis und Exodus (1868) and Wilhelm
Spiegelberg's Agyptische Randglossen zum Alien Testament (1904). For a comprehensive account of this history, see Engel (1979). I am indebted to Engel's book for the
broad framework of the history of research concerning Egypt and the Bible.
4. For example, Feet's judgment on the portrayal of Egypt in the Hebrew Bible is
that 'It is all the sort of vague general knowledge which any ancient tourist spending a
few weeks in Egypt at almost any date after about 1600 BC might have acquired from
his dragoman' (1922: 93).
5. A very early example is E. W. Hengstenberg's Die Biicher Mose 's undAgypten
nebst einer Beilage Manetho und die Hyksos (1841), translated into English as Egypt
and the Books of Moses or The Books of Moses Illustrated by the Monuments of Egypt
(1845). In this century, see especially A.S. Yahuda, The Accuracy of the Bible: The
Stories of Joseph, the Exodus and Genesis Confirmed and Illustrated by Egyptian
Monuments and Language (1934).
1. Introduction
Building on this scholarly legacy, investigation of Egypt and things

Egyptian in the Hebrew Bible during the twentieth century generally
proceeded in three overlapping areas of concern: history, society and
literature.6 First, the relationship between Egypt and ancient Israel7 has
been investigated as an important component of the historical reconstruction of the origins, development, demise and postexilic transformation of
the nations of Israel and Judah. Those who argue for the historical veracity
of the Joseph story8 and/or for a historical 'kernel' in the Exodus account9
see a significant Egyptian involvement in the origins of ancient Israel.
Even those who accept the growing scholarly conviction that the origins of
ancient Israel are to be located in Palestine recognize that Israel emerged
in the wake of Egyptian imperial control of this area.10 And, of course,
ancient Israel historically developed, came to an end, and was reconstituted within the bipolar system of political contestation in the Fertile
Crescent between Egypt, on the one hand, and various Mesopotamian and
Syrian states, on the other (Malamat 1975, 1982, 1988).
Secondly, Egypt's influence on the institutions of ancient Israelite
society has been investigated. For example, Egyptian influences on the
administration and political organization of the Israelite monarchies have
been seen in the titles of various state officials and in the bureaucratic
constitution of a central government (e.g. Fox 1996). Furthermore, it has
been argued that Egypt also influenced the development of writing, scribal
6.
See Williams (1971, 1975), Talmon (1983), Redford (1985), and Kitchen
(1988) for convenient summaries.
7. The term 'ancient Israel' is deliberately used, in the sense suggested by P.R.
Davies (1992), to designate the scholarly amalgam of the Israel found in the biblical
texts and the historical Israel that can be reconstructed from contemporaneous archaeological and textual evidence.
8. For example, Vergote( 1985,1959) and Kitchen (1973,1966) argue that details
of the Joseph story indicate accurate knowledge of Egyptian custom and environment.
For a more nuanced view, see Humphreys (1988: 154-75).
9. There are many examples, among them Stiebing (1989see especially pp. 19799) and Bright (1981see especially p. 120).
10. On the Late Bronze Age Egyptian empire in Palestine, see Weinstein (1981)
and Na'aman (1981). While Redford (1992a) claims that the emergence of Israel in the
highlands occurred without any essential contact with Egypt, Coote (1990) equates the
appearance of Israel with a tribal military force in the lowlands that acted as a proxy of
Egypt. On the problems of interpreting the so-called 'Israel Stela' of Pharaoh Merneptah (ANET3), which describes some level of contact between Egypt and an entity
called Israel in the 13th century BCE, see the comprehensive analysis by Hasel (1994).
practice, numbers and weights, and iconography in ancient Israel (e.g.

Wimmer 1990; Giveon 1978).11 Egyptian influence on Israel's religious
institutions has also been claimed, especially on the Jerusalem cult and
temple,12 but also on Israel's concept of God.13 However, these Egyptian
influences on Israel were likely mediated by the Phoenicians and reflected
earlier emulation of Egyptian customs and habits by Canaanite elites
during Ramesside control of Palestine.14
Thirdly, relationships of possible influence and dependence between the
extant languages and literatures of Egypt and ancient Israel have been explored. Egyptian loan words in the Hebrew Bible have long been recognized (Lambdin 1953; Williams 1969); various names, titles and concepts
in the Hebrew Bible have also been attributed to Egyptian origins or
influence.'5 The strongest degree of relationship is seen to exist in the area
of wisdom literature16 (especially proverbs and instructional literatures),
11. Possible Israelite or Canaanite influences on Egypt in these areas have been
explored to a lesser extent. For the unconventional view that the Nile delta was part of
ancient Canaan, see Nibbi (1988).
12. See especially Gorg, who sees Egyptian influence on the architecture of Solomon' s temple (1981 b, 1985a, 1991), on the priestly classification system evident in the
first creation story (1984b), on the Azazel ritual (1986a), and on the etymology of HOB
(1988), among many other suggestions. According to Gorg, these influences supposedly
emerged due to the close relationship between Egypt and Israel during the Solomonic
era, signified by Solomon's marriage to a daughter of the Pharaoh. On this possibility,
see also Bryce( 1979).
13. For example, the Egyptian idea of the sun god has been seen in the Hebrew
Bible (Dion 1991; Rendsburg 1988); see also the debate between Taylor (1996) and
Wiggins (1996, 1997) on the possibility that YHWH was seen as a solar deity.
14. Giveon (1978) points out the near absence of polemic against Egyptian religion
in the prophets and yet the frequent portrayal of Egyptian gods on imported and locally
made seals found in Palestine. Furthermore, there is very little evidence of Egyptian
temples in Palestine, even during the period of Egyptian imperial control in the Late
Bronze Age (although Barkay [ 1996] claims to have found evidence for a Late Bronze
Age Egyptian temple in Jerusalem).
15. Gorg finds Egyptian derivations for names such as Goliath (1986c), Sabaoth
(198 5b), Tahpenes/Genbath (1987a), Nehushtan (1981 a), and Ahuzzath/Phicol (1986d),
among others. Egyptian connections have also been posited for the biblical terms 'righteousness' plH (Shirun-Grumach 1985) and 'magicians' DQQ~in (Quaegebeur 1985),
and for the biblical concept of the heart (Shupak 1985).
16. 'Hebrew and Egyptian wisdom literature from the late New Kingdom onwards
can be shown, ceteris paribus, to share a similar vocabulary, and even to be constructed on parallel lines' (Ray 1995: 24, referring to Shupak 1993).
1. Introduction
but relationships are also posited in the genres of hymns and songs, and in
political propaganda.17
Egypt as Place: Critique
Thanks to these studies of the historical, societal and literary connections
between ancient Israel and Egypt, scholars have claimed to be able to flesh
out in more detail the 'Egypt' to which the Pentateuch points but which it
rarely describes. In the process, it is assumed that the term 'Egypt' in the
Hebrew Bible is a simple geographic reference, one that can be translated
unproblematically into a spatial referent on a modern map.18 This assumption reflects the concerns of biblical geography, which seeks to identify
actual locations, roads, regions and political boundaries by correlating the
Bible with the data of archaeology and other ancient documents.19
However, is the Egypt that emerges from such studies the Egypt of the
Pentateuch? Let us take a specific example. It has often been asked whether
the installation of Joseph to a high leadership position in Egypt described in
Gen. 41 matches actual ancient Egyptian practice. Some answer affirmatively, pointing to parallels from the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties
(e.g. Vergote 1959,1985;Kitchen 1966,1973); others find more compelling
parallels in later Assyrian examples of investiture (e.g. Redford 1970). But
should the primary question be whether the ancient Near Eastern sources
support the historical authenticity of the ceremony described in the biblical
text?20 W.L. Humphreys (1988), for instance, concluded that the ceremony
17. Particularly striking examples include the Wisdom of Amenemope and its
relationship to Prov. 22.17-24.22 (Ruffle 1977), the Hymn to the Aten and Ps. 104
(Tobin 1985), and Egyptian lyric poetry and the Song of Songs (Fox 1985). For recent
translations and discussions of these Egyptian parallels, see Hallo (1997). However,
the affinity between the Joseph narrative and Egyptian wisdom-literature (von Rad
1966a) has been largely demolished by the critiques of Crenshaw (1969), Redford
(1970) and Whybray (1974), G.W. Coats (1973), however, claims to have salvaged a
wisdom influenced core in the Joseph story, originating, he thinks, in the Solomonic
period or even in Egyptian circles prior to Solomon.
18. SeeSoja(1971:9-ll)onthe modern Western bias of rigidly and geometrically
defined territorial 'property' (epitomized by the nation-state) which affects readings of
the geography and spatial organization of ancient and non-Western societies.
19. E.g. G.A. Smith (1931), Holscher (1949), Simons (1959), Baly (1974, 1979),
Avi-Yonah (1977), Aharoni (1979), G.I. Davies (1979), Kallai (1986), Brown and
North (1990). A convenient overview is found in Ben-Arieh (1982).
20. Westermann suggests that too much can be made of parallels, since 'the rites
in Gen. 41 is not primarily a mirror of some actual existing practice, but is a

finely designed literary construct in which historical accuracy is subordinated to the logic or ideology of the narrative.
This conclusion is emblematic of a realization that, through their literary
rhetoric, biblical texts construct the world to which they also respond.
'Egypt' in the Pentateuch, in this view, then, is not only or primarily a
pointer to a determinate location or people, but functions more as a multivalent metaphor or symbol in which the geographic or ethnographic referent is overdetermined by the values or ideology of the producers of the
document.21 The interpretation of the biblical text that follows from this
perspective displaces the referential concern with a concern for the biblical
text's own rhetoric and ideology, resulting in quite a different biblical
geographyone that takes into account the symbolic meanings of place
and space.22 And, in fact, there have been a spate of studies on various biblical texts that speak of 'symbolic topography' (Gorg 198 Ic), 'symbolic
geography' (Wyatt 1987), 'ideological geography' (Jobling 1986), 'narrative geography' (Deurloo 1990), 'geographically dressed-up theology'
(Niemann 1994), and so on.23
are similar across a broad cultural area throughout the world. Hence the parallels say
no more than that the investiture narrated here is similar to many others known from
elsewhere' (1986: 94).
21. On symbols, see Ollenburger( 1987: 18-21). The technical term 'overdetermination', borrowed from psychoanalysis, indicates here a linguistic formation that acts
as a vehicle for a number of different meanings and associations, each having its own
coherence at a particular level of interpretation. My argument is that the ideological
valuation of the geographic and ethnographic referents in the Hebrew Bible, by the
producers of the text, on the level of the text's rhetoric, overshadows the simple
denotative meaning of these terms.
22. Precursors for this sort of symbolic geography can be found in investigations of
the various notions of space in the ancient Near East, particularly in Egypt and particularly in pictorial representations. See Brunner-Traut (1990), Baud (1989), Keel (1977),
Leclant (1969), Duchesne-Guillemin (1969), Cassin (1969), Brunner (1954-56,1957),
Groenewegen-Frankfort (1987).
23. J. Levenson has written: 'we must not understand Biblical geography as a statement of a scientific nature. Rather, to the unscientific mind of Israel...geography
is simply a visible form of theology' (1985: 116). Carroll speaks of the 'symbolic
geography whose ideology underwrites so much of the Hebrew Bible' (1992: 83-84),
and argues forcefully that the representations of geographical space in the biblical
literature on the occupation of, and exile from, the 'land' are mythic means of undergirding the specific postexilic ideologies of the Jerusalem temple. Gorg speaks of the
Bible's 'theological' (1980)or'cultic' (1987b) geography, and argues for the symbolic
1. Introduction
Cognitive Maps
To understand what 'Egypt' in the Pentateuch is or might be from the
perspective of the Pentateuch's rhetoric and ideology, the notion from
human geography24 of'cognitive maps' or 'mental maps' is useful. Such
maps consist of the ideas of space that one carries in one's head, so to
speak, somewhat accurate regarding the known territory in which the one
lives, but becoming increasingly fuzzier as one moves away from this
known space.25 Cognitive maps are the product of a selective perception
which actively excludes, augments, distorts and schematizes in the service
of a variety of purposes such as identity and preference.26 They 'include
notions of preference as well as vague ideas and value judgements about
places that speakers and authors have never seen' (Michalowski 1986:
131). Such maps exist not only as purely mental constructsthey also
appear inscribed in literature, media, artifacts of popular culture, and so on.
Geographers have explored people's cognitive maps by asking them to
literally draw mapsof their neighbourhood or even of the world.
Invariably, such maps place a more detailed and disproportionately large
depiction of the person's own familiar lived space in the center; around
this center the map becomes increasingly distorted (in relation to 'real'
geographical space) by notions of preference and alienness, by stereotypes
and so on, that are more informative of the person's own concerns and
situation (often bound by class and ethnicity) than of what is actually out
nature of various biblical toponyms, such as the four rivers ofParadise (1977b, 1987b),
Ophir and Tarshish (1981c), and Uz (1980)often finding Egyptian connections.
Other examples are found in Blok (1996), Lemche (1991), Frye (1990, 1982),
Josipovici (1988), Cohn (1981), and Brueggemann (1977).
24. Human geography takes seriously the largely subjective geographic ideas, and
their effects, of all kinds of peoplewhether those ideas are true or false. See Wright
(1947).
25. 'Often "mental maps" consist of fuzzy conceptualizations of the space that
surrounds the known territory in which everybody lives, a territory, which in some
cases may include places that do not even exist' (Michalowski 1986: 131. See also
Billinge 1981). For example, Gorg (1981 c) argues that biblical Ophir and Tarshish are
'ideal-typical' toponyms designating rather general 'far away rich lands' rather than
specific locations.
26. Downs and Stea (1973 and 1977) describe mental maps as functioning to construct and maintain identities and to provide a framework for the preservation of
memories. In their view, although mental maps have a relationship with 'reality', they
do not simply reproduce 'reality' but represent it in a selective and oblique fashion.
there.27 A particularly interesting example is a world map drawn by

Richard Nixon when he was 17, on which a solid wall separates Europe
from Asia, and on which Vietnam constitutes a prominent peninsula
attached to the United States in the place of Florida (Saarinen 1973). From
such a map one learns very little about the actual Vietnam, but one learns
much about Richard Nixon.
This notion of cognitive or mental maps is useful for conceptualizing
the meaning of 'Egypt' in the Pentateuch. If one can imagine the Pentateuch as a complex inscribed cognitive map, one can ask where or how
Egypt appears on that map. The answer will not necessarily reveal much
about an actual Egypt but it will be very informative about the ideology of
the producers of the map. And it is that particular ideology, centered on
the name 'Egypt', which will be manifested and investigated in this work.
Origins: Identity and Ethnogenesis
If cognitive maps function ideologically to support particular constructions
of identity, then it can be argued that the cognitive map of the Pentateuch
functions ideologically to support a particular construction of biblical
Israel's identity.28 The Pentateuch narrates the origins and composition of
biblical Israel; its major task, arguably, is to answer the question 'who or
what is Israel?' After a preface outlining the universal history of the world
(Gen. 1-11), the focus of the Pentateuchal narrative in Gen. 12 quickly
27. Billinge (1981) notes the emotional charge that is part of mental maps, and that
their accuracy (in regard to actual geophysical space) is generally very localized and
declines with distance from the egocentric space of the 'map maker'. Examples include
the different maps drawn of Los Angeles by upper-middle-class whites, blacks, and
Spanish-speaking residents (Gould and White 1974) and various joke maps, such as
those depicting a New Yorker's or a Bostonian's view of the United States, or a
Londoner's view of Great Britain (Gould and White 1974).
28. It is convenient to use P.R. Davies's (1990,1992) designation 'biblical Israel' to
denote the people of Israel as portrayed in the biblical texts, 'historical Israel (and Judah/
Yehud)' to denote the entities that can be reconstructed strictly from contemporaneous
archaeological and textual remains, and 'ancient Israel' to denote the scholarly amalgamation of the biblical and historical Israels. However, often in this work simply the term
'Israel' will be used, especially in the analysis of the Pentateuchal texts, with the understanding that the Israel of and in the text is meant, and not some extratextual referent.
Similarly, while the term 'biblical Egypt' would properly be used to refer to the Egypt
portrayed in the biblical text, in the analysis of the Pentateuchal texts, simply the term
'Egypt' will be used.
1. Introduction
narrows to one family: that of Abraham and Sarah, the direct ancestors of
biblical Israel. From this point on, the Pentateuch concerns itself with the
development of this family into a people. By the end of the Pentateuch,
biblical Israel is a full-fledged reality: 'This very day you have become the
people of the Lord your God' (Deut. 27.9). Thus the Pentateuch fittingly
ends with the death of Moses, whose biography is inextricably intertwined
with the genesis of biblical Israel.29 With the death of Moses, the work of
forming Israel has been completed. In other words, what we have in the
Pentateuch is an account of ethnogenesis: the emergence of biblical Israel
as a self-conscious people or ethnic group.
Egypt is a very significant component in this process of ethnogenesis.
An essential element of the construction of ethnic identity is the contrast
between 'us' and 'them'; ethnic identity is constructed over against an
'other' or 'others'.30 While Philistines and Babylonians are prominent as
'others' elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, in the Pentateuch it is Egypt that
is the major 'other' over against biblical Israel.31 In fact, at times the
29. This ending of the Pentateuch, with the death of Moses and with Israel outside
of the Promised Land, has seemed inconclusive in light of the stress of the Pentateuch
on the divine promises to the ancestors. Thus, scholars have often postulated an
original Hexateuch (Genesis through Joshua) in which the narrative culminates on a
more satisfying note with the conquest of the land (e.g. von Rad 1966b). However, see
the critique of the concept of a Hexateuch in Clines (1978: 81-83), who rather finds the
overriding theme of the Pentateuch to be, quite purposively, the partial fulfillment
implying also the partial non-fulfillmentof the divine promises to the ancestors. This
theme allows the Pentateuch to be viewed as an open-ended document. I am largely
persuaded by Clines's analysis but tend to see the genesis of biblical Israel itself as
completed by the end of the Pentateuch. The open-ended question at the end of the
Pentateuch then becomes one of whether Israel will now live up to what it issee
especially the blessings and curses in Deut. 28, and the choice offered between life and
death in Deut. 30.15-20. (See also Mann [1988], who sees the ending of the Pentateuch
as a suspended movement of departure.)
30. A bountiful literature exists on the construction and function of ideologies of
ethnicity. I have depended especially on the accounts in A.D. Smith (1992, 1994),
Eriksen (1993), de Vos and Romanucci-Ross (1982), Royce (1982), R. Cohen (1978),
and Earth (1969).
31. See Table 1 in the Appendix. Brueggemann(1994a) argues for the overriding
significance of the image of Babylon in the Hebrew Bible. However, this significance
is largely confined to the prophetic literature (the Latter Prophets) and to the historical
works on the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (the Former Prophets). Polemic against
Babylon is noticeably absent from the Pentateuch. On the Philistines and Israelite
identity in the Former Prophets, see Jobling and Rose (1996).
10
Pentateuch insists with great vigor on the difference between Israel and
Egypt.32 Therefore, where and how Egypt appears on the cognitive or
symbolic map of the Pentateuch will provide essential information as to
the 'identity polities' of the producers of the text.
Furthermore, ethnic identity is invariably characterized by an ideology
of the kinship of the members of the group, undergirded by the myth of a
common origin. An ethnohistorical consciousness oriented towards the
mythic past and ritually represented in the present functions to create a
sense of belonging within the ethnic boundary and a sense of unique
difference across the ethnic boundary.33 The mythic past often includes the
story of a paradigmatic leader or hero who goes through an identity crisis.
The Pentateuch provides for biblical Israel just such a narrative of common origin and kinship in the story of the ancestors, and of a paradigmatic
leader or hero in the story of Moses.
One can, in fact, speak of the master origin narrative of the Pentateuch:
biblical Israel has its roots in Mesopotamia and finally is ready to possess
its Promised Land in the Cisjordan. On the way, however, there is a detour
through Egypt: the ancestors, coming from Mesopotamia, live only as
temporary residents in the land promised to them in the Cisjordan by the
deity, but then migrate to Egypt. In Egypt, the ancestors become a people,
and the stage is set for the possession of the Promised Land. In terms of
this master origin narrative, Egypt occupies the ambivalent status of being
both an unfortunate detour that postpones the possession of the land and a
necessary detour for Israel as a people to come into being.
What is the rhetorical and ideological purpose of this master origin
narrative within the context of the initial production and circulation of the
Pentateuch? In contrast to increasing archaeological evidence for a moreor-less indigenous origin for historical Israel in the Cis- and Transjordan,34
32. See especially the plague account in Exodus, discussed below in Chapter 3.
33. Once ethnic identity is triggered, cultural rationalizations to undergird this
identity are created by the groups involved; these include the creation of histories,
which, although containing authentic traces or seeds, must be read as ideologically
aimed origin myths that reveal more of how the present of the history's composition
creates the past than how they authentically report on mat past.
34. The interpretation of the archaeological data for the emergence of Israel in the
central hill country of the Cisjordan is vigorously debated, as exemplified in the discussions of Dever (1995) and Finkelstein (1996) on just when and how a historical
Israel can be identified in the archaeological record. Since ethnicity resides principally
in a complex sociological and psychological process of establishing and maintaining a
group's sense of social boundaries rather than in the cultural stuff these boundaries
1. Introduction
11
the Pentateuch generally attempts to distance Israel from anything

Canaanite (i.e. indigenous) and insists on an origin in Mesopotamia. But
why the detour through Egypt? Here is a hypothesis, to be evaluated in
light of the literary analysis of the Pentateuch in the following chapters;
namely, that the Egyptian detour is a means to include and absorb yet a
third possible origin tradition that begins neither in the Cisjordan nor in
Mesopotamia but in Egypt.
What all this suggests is that the difference between Egypt and Israel,
insisted upon quite vigorously in parts of the Pentateuch, is not self-evident but is a part of the ideology of which the Pentateuch seeks to
persuade its audience, and is therefore likely being asserted in opposition
to alternate views. Furthermore, when difference is strongly asserted, the
lines are usually being drawn between 'near neighbours' who could otherwise be confused.35 This suggests that the audience towards which the
Pentateuch was directed included those for whom the difference between
Israel and Egypt was not important or self-evident, or was of a different
nature altogether. Most likely the context for the contestation of these
various views would not be one of distance and isolation from Egypt, but
of proximity to and interaction with it.
Investigations of ethnicity and ethnic discourse support such suggestions. Basic to a sense of ethnic distinctiveness is the contrast between 'us'
and 'them'; however, this distinction does not depend as much on the
actual traits of the particular groups as on the perceived boundary between
them.36 The diacritics,37 or traits, that mark this boundary are highlighted
enclose, it is notoriously fluid and multiple and difficult, if not impossible, to detect in
material remains. See Excursus One, p. 13.
35. As Jonathan Z. Smith has observed, 'Difference is rarely something simply to
be noted; it is, most often, something in which one has a stake' (Smith 1985:4). Moreover, differences or distinctions that matter most are those drawn between 'near neighbours''the radically "other" is merely "other"; the proximate "other" is problematic,
and hence of supreme interest' (Smith 1985: 5)making'"Otherness"... not so much a
matter of separation as... a description of interaction' (Smith 1985: 10).
36. Such a boundary is typically doubled in at least two ways. (1) It is a boundary
both constructed by the group from within as well as imposed from outside; both selfconstructed and imposed elements are part of the functioning of ethnic identity (Royce
1982: 29-31). (2) It is a boundary that appears differently when viewed from inside
than when viewed from outside. To the outside world, an ethnic boundary is constructed to appear as a relatively homogenous mask, whereas from the inside, the
boundary is idiosyncratic and reveals far more heterogeneity (A.P. Cohen 1986: 13).
37. R. Cohen (1978: 386-87, 397) speaks of socioculturally significant diacritics'
12
while other traits, often widely shared with other groups, are ignored.38
Moreover, the boundaries constructed by ethnic discourse are not nearly as
impervious, isolating and absolute as they are made out in that discourse to
be.39 Interaction across the boundary commonly takes place, and, in such
interaction, the extent and shape of the boundary is constantly negotiated
and manipulated.40
Thus, although the Pentateuch largely portrays Egypt in negative terms
as that against which Israel is defined, the Hebrew Bible hints at alternative views in that it does not present a monolithic conception of Egypt
as always inimical to Israel. P.A.H. de Boer has highlighted what he calls
'a twofold and ambivalent assessment of Egypt' (1991: 166) in the
Hebrew Bible: on the one hand, a place of nourishment and refuge; on the
other hand, the 'house of slavery'.41 So also in the Pentateuch one finds a
positive view of Egypt: it is a well-watered place with plenty of food,42 an
which are used in ethnic discourse to trigger ethnicity and to define membership in
ethnic groups.
3 8. The signals used to mark an ethnic boundary can vary widely depending on the
particular situation, but generally they have to do with blood, bed, territory, and culture: (1) Ethnic identity is invariably characterized by an ideology of the kinship of the
members of the group, undergirded by a myth of common origin. (2) Ethnic boundaries
nearly always are constructed to facilitate ideologies of endogamy. Certain rules of
behavior are meant to safeguard the purity of the group. At the same time, however,
ethnic anomalies, such as mixed marriages, must be accounted for. (3) Ethnic boundaries often include an ideology of space; a space, territory or homeland with which
the particular group is associated. This space need not be inhabited by the members of
the group, nor need it necessarily be a 'real' space. (4) Ethnic boundaries usually
include cultural markers, which can include language, names, cultic participation, distinctive dress, distinctive occupations, and other culturally specific behaviors. However,
only such behaviors as are deemed especially distinctive will be singled out as marking
an ethnic boundary.
39. The very constitution of such boundaries involves interaction across them: the
group inside presents a certain profile to be 'read' by outsiders, and outsiders respond
in ways that support or modify the boundary.
40. This point is especially highlighted by Earth (1969). See also Eriksen (1993:
30-32), and the critiques described by Brah (1994).
41. According to de Boer, a generally positive assessment of Egypt predates the
more dominant negative view of Egypt. Thus de Boer dissolves the tension in the
Hebrew Bible between these two views through the typical historical-critical procedure
of separating out the variant views and assigning them different dates. From an ideological-critical perspective, conflicting viewpoints can coexist in the same text as
markers of contemporaneous ideological tensions.
42. The well-watered Jordan Valley is compared favorably to Egypt (Gen. 13.10),
1. Introduction
13
acceptable and welcoming refuge in times of threat and disaster,43 and its
inhabitants are a people with whom intermarriage takes place.44 However,
admittedly the dominant view is negative: Egypt means oppression for
Israel, especially in Exodus and Deuteronomy.45
This two-sided and ambivalent evaluation of Egypt suggests that establishing the boundaries of identity with reference to the 'other' can proceed
in two ways, only one of which insists on contrastive difference. Certainly,
the boundaries of identity are often marked by negation or contrast, in
which the 'other' is what one is not and what one must reject in order to be
who one is.46 But the boundaries of identity can also be marked by
sublimation or preservation, in which the other is what is complementary
to one's identity.47 And neither do these two ways need to be mutually
exclusive; in fact, the actual establishment of boundaries for identity most
likely operates dialectically between these two poles. And so the Pentateuch's evaluation of Egypt will be seen to be both positive and negative.
However, the Pentateuch's negative evaluation clearly aspires to be dominant, and it is this dynamic in particular which will be explored in the
analysis in the following chapters.
Excursus One: Ethnicity in the Archaeological Record
Whether or not archaeological data can indicate ethnicity is vigorously debated in the
context of the emergence of Israel in the central hill country of the Cisjordan, as exemplified in the discussions of Dever (1995) and Finkelstein (1996). Dever argues that
an ethnically distinct proto-Israel can be identified in the archaeological remains of an
and the traditions of 'murmuring in the wilderness' provide many vignettes of the
attractiveness of Egypt as a land of plenty (eg. Exod. 16; Num. 11 and 20).
43. Abram finds Egypt a refuge during a time of famine (Gen. 12.10) as do also
Jacob and his sons (Gen. 45-^47).
44. Abram took Sarai's Egyptian maid Hagar as a concubine (Gen. 16), Joseph
married the daughter of an Egyptian high priest, and his father Jacob blessed the offspring of this mixed marriage.
45. See the characterization of Egypt as D'TUB JTD ('house of bondage') in Exod.
13.3, 14; 20.2, and Deut. 5.6; 6.12; 7.8; 8.14; 13.6,11.
46. One identifies oneself or one's group over against the 'other'. The 'other'
becomes the mirror image of what one does not want to be. In psychoanalytic terms,
the 'other' is the projection from out of one's self or one's group of undesirable traits
or qualities.
47. One identifies oneself or one's group with the 'other'. The 'other' becomes the
mirror image of what one wants to be. In psychoanalytic terms, the 'other' is the introjection within oneself or the group of desirable traits and qualities from outside.
14
Early Iron Age I (thirteenth century BCE) wave of new settlements in the highlands of
the Cisjordan. Finkelstein argues that the material culture of the area does not display
characteristics that can be attributed to a distinct Israelite ethnicity, rather than to
socio-economic or environmental factors, until the Late Iron II period (late ninth and
eighth centuries BCE). Finkelstein argues that uniquely Israelite ethnic features were
introduced and developed by the monarchy as a means of uniting vast areas with mixed
populations in the face of conflict with other emerging polities.
Ethnicity is very difficult to identify in the archaeological record. Since ethnicity resides principally in a complex sociological and psychological process of establishing
and maintaining a group's sense of 'we-ness' internally and 'they-ness' externally, and
thus focuses on social boundaries rather than the cultural stuff these boundaries enclose, it is notoriously fluid and multiple. Although ethnicity may be expressed by
language, script, ritual behavior, physical features, dietary choices, architectural forms,
clothing style, mortuary practices, the style of artifacts such as pottery, weapons and
jewelry, a simple one-to-one correspondence between these cultural traits and ethnicity
cannot be assumed. These traits may express status, 'style', or processes of assimilation or acculturation as much as ethnic distinctiveness (Finkelstein 1996: 203). In fact,
different ethnic groups may share the same material culture, being distinguished largely
by social networks that leave little or no material trace.
Since ethnicity is largely a subjective category of self and other ascription, ethnicity
in the past will be difficult to pinpoint from the purely material data of archaeology. As
Dever has admitted, 'we may be able to ascertain some of what people actually did, but
not what they thought they were doing, much less who they thought they were' (1995:
207). If such data is undergirded by reliable and contemporary written documentation,
then perhaps access to the subjective reality of ethnicity is possible. The Hebrew Bible
has been used to provide such documentation, but the uncertainty and debate over the
dating of its texts makes it an unreliable source, especially for earlier periods. The
quest to find evidence of Israelite ethnicity in the archaeological record of the Late
Bronze and Early Iron Ages seems at this point improbable; only a rather uncritical
reading of the biblical texts as documents dating back to this period has enabled the
quest to proceed at all. On this issue see the divergent views of Dever (1993, 1995),
Finkelstein (1997) and T.L. Thompson (1997). Emberling (1997) and Small (1997)
provide good overviews of the problem from a strictly archaeological perspective,
unfettered by prior assumptions of traditional biblical scholarship.
Text, History, Ideology

Although Egypt in the Pentateuch means more than, or differently than, a
straightforward historical location, this does not mean that the text of the
Pentateuch is to be read unmindful of its historical context. There is a relationship between a biblical text and history, but this relationship is complicated by the text's rhetoric and ideologies. As LaCapra (1983, 1985) and
Hayden White (1980, 1982, 1986) have shown, although historical and
1. Introduction
15
literary texts may refer to the 'real' world, they also have a work-like
function constituted by their rhetoric which constructs the 'real' world to
which they also respond.48 In Mieke Bal's words:
Rather than seeing the text as a transparent, immaterial medium, a window
through which we can get a glimpse of reality, I see it as a figuration of the
reality that brought it forth and to which it responded. And rather than seeing
the text as literary in the esthetic sense, as a fiction that has no connection to
reality, I will try to show how the literary and linguistic choices made in the
text represent a reality that they both hide and display (1988: 3).49
This means that an investigation of Egypt in the Pentateuch will be primarily focused, not on reconstructing actual historical connections between
Egypt and Israel, but on the ideologies regarding Egypt manifested in the
rhetoric of the Pentateuchal text. These ideologies have a particular historical context; namely, the time and place of the text's production. In other
words, the Pentateuch's ideologies about Egypt illuminate the historical
context of its production, and vice versa.
This ideological approach to the biblical text has at least three interrelated methodological implications. First, a text will be potentially most
informative and trustworthy about the historical period contemporaneous
with its initial production, circulation and consumption. Secondly, the
focus of investigation will necessarily be on the final form of the text
rather than on hypothetical prior stages of the text's development. And
thirdly, the stance of interpretation will be that of the resisting reader.50
Each of these implications requires further explanation.
The Context
A text will be potentially most informative and trustworthy about the
historical period contemporaneous with its initial production, circulation
and consumption. That is, although a biblical text may preserve information from periods prior to its composition, the selection, organization
and presentation of this information tells the interpreter more of the
context of the text's production than of the period being described by the
text. Thus, although the Pentateuch describes an exodus from Egypt as an
48. Zagorin (1990) provides a good overview of the disputed positions of LaCapra
and particularly Hayden White among historians today.
49. Similarly, see Geller (1982).
50. These three methodological implications correspond to the three members of
the interpretive triad: 'the world behind the text', 'the world of the text', and 'the world
in front of the text'. See Tate (1991).
16
event that happened in the past, the historicity and date of this event are
not of primary interest; rather, from an ideological standpoint what is of
interest are the ideological implications of how the exodus event is narrated and the images of Egypt and Israel of which it attempts to persuade
the readers or listeners. The primary historical context for these implications is the period in which the Pentateuch was first produced and circulated as an authoritative document.
Since the biblical text of the Pentateuch purports to describe a past more
distant than the historical context of its own formation, its ideologies will
not necessarily or likely appear on the text's surface. These ideologies
need to be made manifest by careful attention to the rhetoric of the text.
Furthermore, once such ideologies are exposed, the information they yield
about the context of the text's production will tend to consist less of
discrete items such as datable events and persons, and more of broader
insights into social and cultural worlds.51
The Text
The focus of investigation will be on the final form of the text. This
methodological implication is first meant to distinguish the ideological
approach employed here from traditional historical-critical approaches that
tend to dissect the biblical text into its various developmentally linked
strata. In contrast, the focus of this study is not on the origin, development
and history of traditions in the biblical text, but rather on the 'biblical
imagination''that collection of perspectives which the compiled, edited,
and canonized text mediates' (Cohn 1981:4); it is on the final form of the
text rather than on its prehistory (Greenstein 1989).
The final form of the text is, however, not thereby privileged as if it
speaks with one unified voice. The gaps, inconsistencies and contradictions in the biblical text, used by historical-critical analysis to fragment
the text, will be noted here as clues to the biblical text as a site of
contestation between different but largely contemporaneous ideological
perspectives.52 For example, the tension between positive and negative
51. Parker makes a similar argument about the historical usefulness of all ancient
narrative sources: 'Ancient narratives, whether in inscriptions recovered in modern
times by archaeologists, or in a Bible transmitted for centuries by religious bodies,
must be appreciated as narratives before they can be used as historical sources. Then
they may yield more interesting historical information about the mental or social world
of their authors than about the events to which the narratives refer' (1996: 221).
52. '.. .a text is a site of ideological struggle, deeply implicated in its own historical
1. Introduction
11
descriptions of Egypt, or between portrayals of the exodus as an expulsion

and as a deliverance from slavery, will be analyzed, not by assigning each
depiction to a distinct stratum or stage in the development of the biblical
tradition prior to the production of the Pentateuch, nor by searching for the
sophisticated narrative artistry whereby these conflicting portrayals are
juxtaposed, but by seeing in them conflicting ideological perspectives
present at the time of the production and initial circulation of the final
form of the Pentateuch.53 Of course, it will often be the case that one of the
ideological perspectives is dominant in the text; nonetheless, this
dominance will be interpreted as the attempt by the producers of the text to
subdue other alternatives, alternatives that may be reconstructed from the
textual data.
If the focus of this investigation is to be on Egypt as portrayed in the
final text form of the Pentateuch, with the assumption that the final text
form is criss-crossed by the contestation of various ideological perspectives, one problem still remains: what is to be considered as the 'final
text form' of the Pentateuch? On the one hand, invoking the final form of
the text is a means of ensuring that the investigation does not get lost in
the prehistory of the text. But on the other hand, the very notion of a final
text is problematic considering the fluid history of the text and the very
different notions of textuality in the largely orally oriented world in which
it was produced.
In reality, no such entity as the final text form of the Pentateuch exists;
instead, what we have are various textual traditions of the Pentateuch.
These traditions have been classified into three main families, represented
respectively by the Masoretic text, the Sepruagint, and the Samaritan
Pentateuch.54 When the evidence of the ancient textual material found in
the caves at Qumran is taken into account, even this threefold classifimoment and in the competing ideologies present in the culture in which it was produced' (Pollak 1988: 281). Loewenstamm (1992) treats the divergences in the Pentateuchal Exodus account as coexisting but contending traditions.
53. The particular interpretive understanding of the text outlined here is not meant
to denigrate or deny the efficacy of other interpretive methods such as the historicalcritical or the literary. Rather, the contrast of the ideological approach of this study
with these other methods is meant merely to underline the distinctiveness of the
approach and to stake out in advance the presuppositions upon which it depends.
54. According to P.M. Cross's theory of local texts (1976: 306-20), each of these
textual families was originally linked to a particular area: the Masoretic or protoMasoretic text with Babylon, the Sepruagint or Old Greek text with Egypt, and the
Samaritan or pre-Samaritan text with Palestine.
18
cation breaks down and it becomes more accurate to speak of textual

plurality, a plurality already evident in the earliest extant manuscripts (c.
250 BCE) and lasting into the first centuries CE when a period of text
stabilization and standardization began (Tov 1992: 194).
Therefore, the 'final text form of the Pentateuch' is necessarily a
heuristic construct.55 The basic Pentateuchal text used in this study is that
of the Bibtia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (4th edition, 1990; henceforth abbreviated as BHS), which is based on what still is the oldest dated manuscript
of the entire Hebrew Bible: Leningrad Codex B19A.56 This codex, while
rather late (1009 or 1008 CE), represents the Masoretic textual tradition
which stretches back to at least the proto-Masoretic manuscripts of Qumran.57 At the same time, variant textual traditions will be noted where they
occur, especially the textual tradition represented by the Septuagint since
this tradition likely originated in the Jewish diaspora in Egypt itself.58
55. That is, the existence of a final text form is assumed, although at present such a
postulate remains incapable of proof, in order to facilitate the investigation. Tov
similarly theoretically posits a 'final form', 'original shape' or 'pristine text' for each
biblical book'a textual entity (a tradition or a single witness) which stood at the
beginning of the stage of textual transmission' (1992:180) or 'finished literary works,
more or less similar to the biblical books now known to us' (1992: 199)but admits
that it is impossible, given the lack of definitive data from the earliest stages of the
formation of the biblical text, to absolutely reconstitute such a final text (1992: 18794). Tov does connect the final form or edition of a biblical book with its acceptance as
authoritative or canonical (1992: 179, 188).
56. The Aleppo Codex is somewhat earlier (c. 925 CE) but in 1947 most of the
portion containing the Pentateuch was lost.
57. Actually the Leningrad Codex more accurately represents the Tiberian Masoretic tradition of Ben Asher. The Masoretic tradition in general includes various sources
that differ from each other in many details (Tov 1992: 22-23). It is most common
among manuscripts today because all Jewish communities beginning in the second
century CE accepted it as authoritative. However, it was previously also favored by
temple circles in Palestine and may have been the most prominent textual tradition in
Palestine already in the last centuries BCE. The Qumran finds, if they are at all
representative of the situation in Palestine, show a marked preference for the protoMasoretic text: 60% of the biblical manuscripts found there are of this type (Tov 1992:
114-17,194). Tov argues that the Masoretic tradition as it is represented inBHSis not
to be discounted because of its relatively more recent age; the preservation of original
readings in a manuscript depends more on scribal practice than the age of the
manuscript, resulting in cases where later manuscripts contain readings closer to the
original than older manuscripts (Tov 1992: 301-302).
58. For the Septuagint, the basic text will be that edited by John W. Wevers in
Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum
1. Introduction
19
When significant textual variants are encountered in the following analysis

of references to Egypt in the Pentateuch, rather than trying to reconstruct an
original reading, such textual difficulties will be investigated as indicative of
possible ideological tensions or contradictions. That is, a significant textual
variant can indicate a strain or a crack in the dominant ideology of the text; a
textual variant can thus become a clue towards the reconstruction of alternate
ideologies that the text is attempting to suppress or contest.59 This approach
assumes that significant textual variants may in many cases be contemporaneous, which is not unreasonable in light of the textual plurality of the
earliest manuscript evidence; in any case, each individual instance will have
to be evaluated on its own merits.
The assumption made here that one can speak of a 'final text form' of
the Pentateuch that is quite ancient, and which is also relatively close to
the tradition represented in BHS, does not, however, indicate when and
how that final text form emerged. The date and mode of production of the
final text form of the Pentateuch is the subject of Chapter 5. Until then, for
the most part such concerns will be temporarily suspended or bracketed
out.
A further assumption lies behind the term 'Pentateuch' itself, meaning
'a book in five parts'. The antiquity of this five-part form, which in the
days preceding the invention of the codex would suggest possibly five
originally separate scrolls, is not known. No reference appears to it in the
biblical texts themselves, but Philo and Josephus are both aware of it,
indicating that a five-part form existed before the Common Era.60 The
continuous flow of the narrative from Exodus through Leviticus to the first
part of Numbers makes the division between these books seem like a later
act.61 Nonetheless, in this investigation, the five-part form will be taken for
Gottingensis editum volumes I-III. In contrast to the MT of BHS, which is based on an
actual manuscript, the LXX text produced by Wevers is an eclectic text that attempts to
recreate the most original reading on the basis of a comparison of a wide range of
manuscripts.
59. This will be true only of variants that are clearly not due to mechanical scribal
error.
60. See Philo's Aet. Mund. 19 and Josephus's Apion 1.37-41 (Fretheim 1996: 19;
Blenkinsopp 1992: 43-45). Blenkinsopp also mentions hints of a plurality of books in
the Pentateuch in the Damascus Document (CD VII) from Qumran, inAristeas (30,46,
176, etc.), and in Aristobulus (3.2), as well as more remote indications in Ben Sira, the
Septuagint and the structure of 1 Enoch; all of these suggest that by 200 BCE the
Pentateuch was divided into books.
61. The whole question of scrolls and possible scroll sizes is involved in this ques-
20
granted as a heuristic construct and the references to Egypt will first be

explored as they occur in each separate book or scroll; subsequently, these
results will be synthesized into a view of Egypt in the Pentateuch as a
whole.
The Reader
The stance of interpretation will be that of the resisting reader. This third
methodological implication has to do with the act of reading and interpreting the text, an act that is integrally bound up with the nature of the
relationship between the reader and the text. On that relationship, readerreception theory seems to be bifurcating into two camps.62 On the one
hand are those who argue that a text projects for itself an ideal or model
reader, and that therefore the best or most compelling reading of the text is
the one that emulates the reading performance thus intended.63 On the
other hand are those who argue that in the text the representation process
itself is fraught with uncertainty, allowing for no definitive interpretive
closure, and that therefore perhaps the more interesting or significant
readings of the text are those that focus on disturbances in the text that
undermine its manifest content.64 From the perspective of an approach
that reads for the ideologies implicated in a text, the first option seems to
imply the reader's subservience to the dominant ideological stance that the
text is promoting. The second option allows for a reader that resists the
persuasive appeal of the text in order to make manifest the contestation of
ideologies that constitute the productive matrix from which the text
emerged.65 Clearly, this second option is the one preferred in the following
textual analysis.
This notion of a resisting reading can be expressed more prosaically in
tion. For now, it suffices to refer to Haran's( 1982,1983,1984,1985a, 1985b) opinion
that the books of the Pentateuch were written on separate scrolls from the beginning.
Among the scrolls of the Pentateuchal books found at Qumran, only three contain more
than one book: 4QGen-Exoda (4Q1), 4QpaleoGen-Exod] (4Q11), and 4QLev-Numa
(4Q23) (Tov 1992: 104). However, later rabbinic opinion permitted larger scrolls
containing the entire Pentateuch, and the Talmud (b. Git. 60a) forbids for use in the
synagogue separate scrolls of individual books of the Torah. The fragments of Genesis
and Exodus and Numbers found at Wadi Murabba'at (2nd century CE) probably come
from the same single scroll (Blenkinsopp 1992:46, referring to DJD II1961: 75-78).
62. On this bifurcation, see H.C. White (1995: esp. 48-50).
63. Umberto Eco exemplifies this approach (H.C. White 1995: 48).
64. Jacques Derrida exemplifies this approach (H.C. White 1995: 49).
65. Judith Fetterley (1978) coined the phrase 'the resisting reader'.
1. Introduction
21
terms of whether a text is approached with a hermeneutics of acceptance

or suspicion. For instance, a historian can approach the biblical text as
being relatively trustworthy in the information it contains unless there is
incontrovertible evidence to the contrary; such an approach is one that is
largely accepting of the manifest content of the text and would respond
positively to the text's dominant ideological appeal. Or a historian can
approach the biblical text as being relatively tendentious in its selection
and portrayal of the information it contains, thus necessitating an overall
questioning and critical stance; such an approach is one that is largely
suspicious of the manifest content of the text and would resist the text's
dominant ideological appeal.66 The second approach, as employed in this
investigation, will allow for the portrayal of Egypt in the Pentateuch's
ideologies of identity to become clear.
The Pentateuch
One final preliminary matter needs to be addressed, and that is the question of why the Pentateuch has been chosen as the particular focus of this
investigation. The separation of the Pentateuch from the rest of the
Hebrew Bible may reflect a later division, and originally alternate arrangements such as a Hexateuch (von Rad 1966b) or a Tetrateuch and a
Deuteronomistic History (Noth 1981) or a Primary Story (Freedman 1987,
1991) may have existed. Again, the focus on the Pentateuch alone is
largely heuristic, based on the assumption that it was the first Hebrew
writing to gain some form of canonical authority, and on the relative
density of occurrences of Egypt in it vis-a-vis the rest of the Hebrew
Bible. Furthermore, the Pentateuch encompasses the life of Moses, with
Genesis as a prologue, and the death of Moses at the end of Deuteronomy
is portrayed as the end of an era (Whybray 1995: 2, 8; Blenkinsopp 1992:
52); thus the Pentateuch projects itself as a bounded literary entity. For
these reasons, in addition to the concern to deal with a manageable corpus
66. An example of the first approach is Alan R. Millard's (1991a, 1991b) defense
of the essential historicity of the Solomonic period as described in the Bible, in which
he contends that historians must start with a positive stance to the biblical documents.
An example of the second approach is that of J. Maxwell Miller (1991), who argues
that historians must recognize the ideological aspect of the texts about Solomon as part
of the evaluation of their historical veracity. See also Jobling (1991). On the hermeneutics of suspicion, see Stewart (1989), who, following Ricoeur, argues that a hermeneutic of suspicion positively opens up the world in front of the text to new possibilities
of being.
22
of textual material, the Pentateuch presents the limits of this study.

Obviously there is more to Egypt in the Hebrew Bible than that which is
found in the Pentateuch, and so the focus on the Pentateuch alone may
tend to limit or distort the image of Egypt that is encompassed in the symbolic or mental map of the biblical tradition. However, the preeminence of
the Pentateuch in the biblical tradition, and the Pentateuch's overwhelming attention to Egypt over and above other non-Israelite ethnic or national
entities, promises that the following analysis will at least establish a
dependable framework for further investigations of the place of Egypt in
the biblical tradition and in the formative era of Judaism.
Overview
In summary, the hypothesis so far presented is that the Pentateuch
functions primarily to narrate the origins of biblical Israel, and thus issues
of identity are central to its ideologies. Construction of identity often
proceeds via comparison with an 'other'; in the Pentateuch it is Egypt that
predominantly plays the role of 'other' over against Israel.67
In the following chapters, the significance of the topos of Egypt as
'other' in the Pentateuch will be explored and analyzed. The concept of
'mental map' from human geography has already been used to suggest that
references to 'Egypt' in the Pentateuch do not function only or primarily
as references to a particular extra-textual location but rather together
constitute an intra-textual symbolic or imaginative map that informs the
audience of the cultural values or ideologies of the producers of the text.
In Chapters 2-4, the specific references to Egypt in Genesis, Exodus, and
Leviticus through Deuteronomy will be analyzed, paying particular
attention to their narrative context and development, and thus to both their
significance as the narrative of the Pentateuch unfolds and their thematic
significance in the Pentateuch as a whole. In the fifth chapter, possible
contexts for the earliest literary production and consumption of the
Pentateuch, in a completed form similar to that in which we now know it,
are explored. A variety of proposals dating the completed Pentateuch to
various parts of the Neo-Babylonian, Persian or early Hellenistic periods
67. See Table 1 in the Appendix. As already noted, in the Hebrew Bible, the word
'Egypt' has the highest density in the Pentateuch. In contrast, the word 'Philistine' has
a much higher density than 'Egypt' in the Former Prophets, and the combined density
of the words 'Babylon' and 'Chaldean' exceed that of 'Egypt' in the Latter Prophets.
The Writings display relatively little interest in these national or ethnic designations.
1. Introduction
23
will be evaluated. It will be argued that references to 'Egypt' in the

Pentateuch, while incorporating older sedimented conceptions, in at least
their present choice and arrangement can be read as signifying conceptions, or mental maps, of Egypt contemporary to these periods. In the final
chapter, the dynamics of the Persian/early Hellenistic periods will be
examined, focusing especially on the Jewish diaspora in Egypt and the
Jewish polity in Yehud, as the historical context for the topos of Egypt in
the Pentateuch. It will be argued that the place of Egypt in the Pentateuch's symbolic geography provides important clues to the perception of
Egypt, and of the Egyptian Jewish diaspora, by the emerging Torahcentered Jewish polity in Yehud.
Chapter 2
EGYPT IN GENESIS
If one thinks of Egypt in Genesis, the story of Joseph immediately comes

to mind. And, indeed, the majority (83 per cent) of the references to Egypt
in Genesis appear in the Joseph narrative (37.1-50.26), a narrative that
involves a migration from Canaan into Egypt and then is largely set in
Egypt. Thus the image of Egypt presented in this first book of the Pentateuch is largely the image of the Egypt of the Joseph story. However, a
significant cluster of references to Egypt appears also in the cycle of
Abraham stories (12.1-25.18).' This cycle begins with a migration into
and out of Egypt (Gen. 12.10-20) and includes kinship politics involving
Hagar, an Egyptian woman (Gen. 16 and 21). These stories will provide a
significant counterpoint to the image of Egypt in the Joseph story, as will
be shown below.
'Egypt' is virtually non-existent in the two other major narrative cycles
in Genesis, namely, the primeval (1.1-11.32) and Jacob (26.19-36.43)
cycles.2 In fact, the primeval and Jacob cycles are oriented predominantly
toward Mesopotamia. The primeval cycle begins with the garden of Eden
located 'in the east' (Gen. 2.8) and ends with the tower of Babel, also in
the east (Gen. 11.2).3 In this cycle, primeval humanity moves in a general
1. See Table 3 in the Appendix for the density of occurrences of the word 'Egypt'
in various parts of Genesis.
2. In this work, the focus will be on explicit references to Egypt. It could be
argued, of course, that Egypt also appears implicitly in parts of the Hebrew Bible. For
example, Currid (1991) sees references to Egyptian cosmology in the Genesis creation
accounts, and Gorg (1990) argues that the story in Gen. 3 constitutes a veiled polemic
against Solomon's marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh. However, such implicit
references will not be considered in this work.
3. The phrase DTpD, which appears in both stories, is usually understood as 'in
the east, eastwards' but can also be interpreted as 'from the east'. Although Albright
(1922) argued for a location of Eden in the far west, from the geographical perspective
of the producers of the primeval cycle it seems more likely that Eden is located
2. Egypt in Genesis
25
eastward direction from the garden (Gen. 3.24; 4.16) until arriving in the
plain of Shinar, which is the region of Babylonia (Gen. 11.2) (Wallace
1992). The Jacob cycle, geographically, revolves around an exodus or
expulsion to the eastJacob flees from the wrath of his brother Esau and
lives with his uncle in the 'old country' of Aram in northwest Mesopotamiaand a subsequent return to Canaan.
These points of contrast are particularly interesting in light of the proposal that the Pentateuch was composed, not out of several hypothetical
parallel literary sources as in the classic Wellhausen documentary hypothesis, but rather by the editorial linking of various originally independent
units of tradition.4 It is thus not intrinsically surprising that, as possibly
originally independent traditions, the primeval and Jacob cycles show a
dominant Mesopotamian orientation, in contrast to the Joseph cycle, and
to some extent, the Abraham cycle, which are oriented more towards
Egypt. The following analysis of Genesis will demonstrate that, in the
linking of these cycles in the final text of Genesis, an attempt has been
made to subordinate the Egyptian orientation, especially that of the Joseph
cycle, to the Mesopotamian orientation of the primeval and Jacob cycles,
and that the clearest evidence of such subordination appears in the way
Egypt is presented in the Abraham cycle. This suggests a clash of ideologies, which will further be explored within the context of the Persian
period in later chapters.
In the following, the image and significance of Egypt will be analyzed
as it unfolds, beginning with the first mention of Egypt in Gen. 10, and
ending with the final mention of Egypt in the closing verse of the book.
Egypt in the Primeval Cycle (1.1-11.32)
While the primeval narrative cycle is primarily oriented towards Mesopotamia, Egypt appears twice in the segmented genealogy towards the end
of the primeval cycle known as the Table of Nations (Gen. 10).5 This
towards the east. The story of the Tower of Babel is clearly connected with Mesopotamia in terms of its location in Shinar (Gen. 11,2), which is Babylonia (Gen. 10.10),
the disparaging pun on the name 'Babel', and the tower itself as a likely reference to
Mesopotamian ziggurats. Furthermore, the flood story in the midst of the primeval
cycle (Gen. 6-9) has clear affinities with Mesopotamian tales.
4. Advanced in current scholarship especially by Rendtorff (1990).
5. In the 70 nations or peoples listed in this genealogy, one finds a picture of the
world as the author(s) understood it at their time, not primarily in terms of
26
genealogy portrays Egypt as one of four offspring of Noah's second son,

Ham. Egypt's siblings are identified as Cush, Put and Canaan. If Cush is to
be understood as referring to the land south of Egypt (i.e. Nubia) and Put
as referring to the area west of Egypt (i.e. Libya) then this set of four
siblings seems to correspond to the area variously under the sway of the
Pharaohseither of ancient Egypt, especially during the Late Bronze Age,
or of the early Ptolemies.
But is the concern of this Table of Nations necessarily geographic? That
is, should the name 'Egypt', and the other names in this genealogy, be
understood primarily as geographic or as ethnographic designations?6 In
biblical terms, is 'Egypt' primarily an|*~iN, a 'territory', or a"1"]} or DP, a
'nation' or 'people'?7 The Table of Nations speaks of clans, tongues, lands
and nations (10.5, 20, 31), and furthermore freely mixes proper names,
gentilics and toponyms, thus intermingling ethnographic and geographic
information. This practice seems to indicate that for the biblical writers
and their primary audience ethnography and geography were not sharply
differentiated. In terms of the mental map of the Pentateuch, then, one
must be prepared to read 'Egypt' both as a geographic and ethnographic
reference since these meanings seem to overlap. Only with a qualifying
term such as f")N 'land (of)', or the gentilic form "~IUD 'Egyptian', is the
text more specific.8
In spatial terms, the Table of Nations is presented as three overlapping
blocks: at the center, both chiastically and in terms of the author's standpoint, are the territories of Ham; further out are the Mesopotamian territories of Shem; and furthest is a remote outer belt of regions only vaguely
geographical locations but more in terms of 'the political, linguistic and cultural connections between peoples' (Alexander 1992:980). The DnXD, 'Egypt' of the Hebrew
text is transliterated by the LXX as MEapaip only here; elsewhere the LXX always
translates D'HISD as AiyuTTTos.
6. Strictly speaking, D'HUQ in the Table of Nations refers to the eponymous
ancestor of the Egyptian people. The usage D'HUQ flN, 'land of Egypt', that appears
later, however, clearly indicates that the term can also refer to a land.
7. The main difference between'13, 'nation' andDJJ, 'people' seems to be that the
former is based more on social and political ties, the latter more on kinship ties.
8. The LXX clearly differentiates between Egypt as a territory (Ai yu TTTOS) and as
a people (Aiyurmoi), thus adding a differentiation that is not always explicitly present
in the MT. When the word stands on its own in the Hebrew text, only contextual clues
allow for a differentiation between these two meanings; and in many cases a differentiation may not be possible.
2. Egypt in Genesis
27
known or imagined, associated with Japhet.9 Accordingly, Egypt is within

the center of the geographic perspective of the Table.10 Ethnographically,
however, the Table arranges its constituent parts in terms of their
perceived familial (which is to say, sociopolitical) relationships, from least
important to most important, focusing in the end on the chosen lineage,
which runs through Shem.11 Accordingly, Egypt is genealogically or
ethnographically excluded from the Shemite line that will eventually lead
to Israel.12 While Egypt may be geographically central, the Table of
Nations prepares the reader to perceive Egypt in terms of the genealogical
relationships that structure so much of the book of Genesis.13 Or, to put it
another way, from the perspective of the producers of the Table, Egypt is
9. See Simons (1954), in whose view the Table is written from the perspective of
being situated in Canaan and focuses most heavily on the descendants of Ham.
10. That is, the geographic perspective of the Table is more Egyptian than it is
Mesopotamian.
11. The Hebrew descent material (i.e. from Shem to Terah, the father of Abram) is
not highlighted until the following chapter (11.10-30).
12. Clearly, according to the Table of Nations, Egypt and the Hebrews descend
from completely separate branches of the human family. However, that the Table lists
several identical names under both the lines of Ham and Shem (Lud/Ludim, Ashur,
Sheba and Havilah) tends to undermine the strict separation of these two lines.
Furthermore, of the descendants of Ham, only Canaan is singled out for a curse in the
preceding chapter (9.25). Egypt, here at least, escapes the kind of condemnation that is
often leveled at the Canaanites in the Hebrew Bible. Interestingly, the Philistines are
presented as a second generation offspring of Egypt (10.14); while in the former
prophets, Philistines are Israel's prime enemy and oppressor, in Genesis they act as an
intermediate group between Canaan and Israel. The seven first generation descendants
of Egypt mentioned in the Table (10.13-14) constitute a formulaic list of peoples, all
with plural endings (which contrast with the variety of terms used elsewhere in the
Table), arranged in order of word length; they never appear elsewhere in the Hebrew
Bible and are very difficult to correlate with known peoples or lands (see Westermann
1984: 518-20). All one can say is that these names are associated somehow with Egypt,
but their original significance appears to be lost.
13. Naomi Steinberg (1993) demonstrates the importance of genealogies in the
structuring of the narrative of Genesis. Particularly intriguing are the kinship contrasts
she detects between the Sarah-Hagar and Rebekah cycles (part of the Abraham
narratives), and the Rachel-Leah cycles (part of the Jacob and Joseph narratives). In
the former only one chosen brother inherits the patrilineage, whereas in the latter all
(12) brothers inherit the patrilineage equally (signifying the birth of the nation of
Israel). Steinberg argues that the Genesis stories accord with postexilic realities, as is
also argued in Chapter 5 below. For a somewhat different analysis which, however,
comes to many conclusions similar to Steinberg, see Steinmetz (1991).
28
perceived as close geographically or spatially, but distant in terms of kinship. The reader is therefore prepared to see that, though Egypt may loom
large in Israel's origin and history, ultimately Egypt is excluded from the
lineage that leads to Israel.
Egypt in the Abraham Cycle (12.1-25.18)
While 'Egypt' occurs in the Abraham cycle less frequently than in the
Joseph cycle, the term appears at strategic points in the narrative, clustering around two narrative movements. First, 'Egypt' occurs in the narrative
movement of the ancestor Abraham into Egypt and out again (12.1013.13), followed by a subsequent gradual distancing of the ancestor from
Egypt in the series of so-called 'wife-as-sister' stories (20.1-18; 26.6-16);
this movement concerns the theme of land. Secondly, 'Egypt' appears in
the narrative movement of Egypt out to the ancestor in the account of
Abraham's attempt to gain an heir through Hagar the Egyptian (chs. 16
and 21); this movement concerns the theme of offspring and proper lineage. The themes of these narrative movements are obviously connected to
the divine promise to the ancestors of land and offspring, first introduced
in 12.1-3 and reiterated throughout the ancestral cycles. This divine
promise can be seen as the ideological motor of the ancestral narratives,
and, indeed, as the theme of the entire Pentateuch (see especially Clines
1978). The implication of Egypt in this ideology will be explored in the
following.
Going Down to Egypt (12, 13, 20, 26)
The movement of the patriarch Abram in and out of Egypt in Gen. 12 sets
the pattern for the first narrative movement. When famine threatens, the
patriarch goes down (TV) to Egypt to settle there as a resident alien
(12.10). That is, Egypt has an initial positive valuation as a place of food
and survival. But then Egypt becomes an ambiguous place that both
threatens danger and promises enrichment. At the border Abram is anxious
that Egypt may mean death for him; so he prevails upon Sarai to present
herself as his sister in order to reverse the perceived threat and to claim not
only life but also enrichment (12.11-13).14 The strategy works; Abram
lives and is indeed enriched (12.16), but Pharaoh and his household are
struck with plague (12.17). Thus a fundamental ambivalence is associated
14. Abram's words 'that it may go well pB"1) with me' (12.13), in view of the goods
he will gain in Egypt, can be understood as a reference to his hopes of enrichment.
2. Egypt in Genesis
29
with Egypt; it is simultaneously a place of potential great enrichment

note that Abram's wealth is not detailed until his Egyptian sojourn15and
also a place that raises fears, entices to deception, and so threatens death
and plague.
The same ambivalence presents itself in the immediately following
episode where the fertile well-watered plain of the Jordan which Lot
chooses is compared both to the garden of YHWH and to the land of Egypt
(13.10).16 At first reading, these equivalencies suggest a very positive
view of Egypt. The reader, however, is immediately alerted that the Jordan
plain so favored by Lot will be destroyed when YHWH rains sulphur and
fire on Sodom and Gomorrah (12.10b, referring to 19.24-28). As well, the
implicit comparison of Egypt with the garden of YHWH, in the light of
Gen. 3, suggests that Egypt is a place of temptation.
The allusion to the garden of Eden helps the reader to see the Egyptian
leader, Pharaoh, in the same ambivalent light. On the one hand, just as Eve
saw the beautiful fruit in the garden and took and ate (3.6), so also
Pharaoh's officials see the beautiful Sarai and she is taken into Pharaoh's
harem (12.15)the same vocabulary is employed in both cases (NTTlp"?,
'see' 'take'). On the other hand, once the Pharaoh discovers Abram's
deception, he confronts him in the same manner that the deity confronts
Adam and Eve, or Cain, after their transgressions: 'What have you done?'
(12.18see 3.13; 4.10). In contrast to the silent Abram, Pharaoh here
looks positively righteous. Thus Egypt is presented ambivalently, positively and negatively.
However, against the background of the Table of Nations, and in view
of the genealogical strategy of the ancestral accounts in Genesis, which
focuses on weeding out unacceptable elements in the lineage that leads to
15. Gen. 12.16; 13.2. It seems that his nephew Lot was similarly enriched since
after the Egyptian experience they could no longer live together because their
possessions were so great (13.5-7). The notice of Abram's possessions acquired before
all this in Haran (12.5) does not give the same picture of impressive wealth.
16. While the MT uses two phrases in apposition to describe the plain of the Jordan:
'like the garden of YHWH, like the land of Egypt'; the LXX separates the two phrases
with KOI, 'and'. Wevers (1993: 180) argues that the Greek conjunction differentiates
between the two comparisons'after all, the garden of God is hardly the land of
Egypt'and that the LXX here faithfully interprets the Hebrew. However, this interpretation depends upon a prior assumption, not explicit in the text, that YHWH'S garden
and Egypt cannot be comparable, and it flies in the face of the most obvious reading of
the text, which is that the garden of YHWH and Egypt are viewed analogously.
30
Israel,17 Egypt poses a definite danger. The taking of Sarai into the house
of the Egyptian Pharaohsignifying her assimilation as a proto-Israelite
into the Egyptian kinship structurerepresents the threat of the intrusion
of Ham into the chosen lineage leading from Shem to Israel. A child of an
Egyptian father, even of a Pharaoh, will not do as part of this chosen
lineage. And so plague strikes to put an end to this disapproved union.
The dangers associated with Egypt eventually outweigh the benefits,
and so Egypt cannot be a place of permanent settlement for Abraham. The
patriarch is expelled (n"?2J) and goes up (nÛ) from Egypt, albeit far
wealthier than before. Thus, almost at the very beginning of the story
cycles that narrate the origins of Israel, the audience of the Pentateuch
encounters a proto-exodus movement: a pattern of entering Egypt because
it is clearly advantageous to do so, but also leaving or being expelled from
Egypt because it cannot become a permanent home.18 Similarly, the
disastrous decision of Lot to opt for the Jordan plain, likened to Egypt but
destined for destruction (13.8-13), prefigures the later yearning of the
exodus generation to return to Egypt (Wenham 1987: 300). Thus an
ideological pattern around the term 'Egypt' is being established, which
will influence the reading of the following narratives, predisposing the
audience (1) to see Israel's origins as clearly non-Egyptian, (2) to see any
connection between Israel and Egypt as temporary and fraught with
danger, and (3) to see any yearning on Israel's part for Egypt as disastrous.
The narrative of Abram and Sarai's experience in Egypt is the first of
three sequential incidents in Genesis expressing the so-called 'wife-assister' or 'endangered ancestress' motif.19 The same motif appears twice
more in Gen. 20 and 26. However, these further instances show an interesting distancing from Egypt. In neither Gen. 20 nor 26 does the story take
place in Egypt itself; the action happens rather in Gerar, an area between
17. Steinberg (1993) notes that the genealogical strategy of the ancestral accounts
in Genesis focuses on establishing a single appropriate heir until one arrives at the sons
of Jacob in Egypt; then the strategy switches from a vertical to a horizontal concern
and all of Jacob's sons are accepted as heirs.
18. The vocabulary used of Abram's journey to (IT) and from (fl^S, nÊJ)
anticipates the same vocabulary used to described Israel's entrance into and exit from
Egypt.
19. A more accurate label would be the 'endangered ancestor' motif. In line with
the patrilineal disposition of the biblical text, it seems clear that the concern of the
narrative in these incidents is more with the danger to the ancestor posed by a threat to
his spouse.
2. Egypt in Genesis
31
Egypt and Canaan; that is, a liminal or transitional area.20 However, an

Egyptian connection remains; Gerar is Philistine (26.1), and the Philistines, according to the Table of Nations, are the second-generation offspring of Egypt (10.13).21 The same pattern of deception and subsequent
enrichment is repeated both times, but by the third instance, which involves Isaac, the Egyptian connection is repudiated. The deity tells Isaac
explicitly not to go down to Egypt as his father Abraham had done (26.2).
Isaac is still enriched; however, in this case not by the foreign ruler but
rather by his own farming success (26.12-14). In Gen. 12 the ancestress is
clearly in danger of being absorbed into the house of the foreign king, but
by Gen. 26 this particular danger exists only as a potential.
The first instances of Egypt in the Abraham cycle thus portray Egypt as
a dangerous place that one enters and leaves quickly, but which promises
riches at the cost of deception. As a proto-exodus narrative, the story presents Egypt as a detour. The greatest danger the Egyptian detour presents
is to the chosen lineage, which is compromised by the attraction of assimilation into the house of Egypt. And so in the subsequent two repetitions of
this movement, both the actual danger of Egypt and the need to go there in
the first place are progressively muted and displaced.22
Hagar the Egyptian (16, 21)
In the narrative of Abram's descent into Egypt, the danger of Israelite
absorption into Egypt has been highlighted. However, the danger could
also occur in the opposite direction; instead of the Israelite ancestor going
down into Egypt, Egypt comes up into the Israelite house. The story of
Hagar the Egyptian slave concerns just such a move. While in Egypt the
danger to the chosen lineage was an Egyptian father, in this movement an
Egyptian mother poses the threat.
The story of Hagar is told in two parts. In Gen. 16, Sarai, who is barren,
20. See Gen. 10.19 where Gerar indicates one of the borders of the territory of
Canaan, and Gen. 20.1 where Gerar seems to be located between Kadesh and Shur,
Kadesh being a border of Canaan and Shur a border of Egypt.
21. Furthermore, the king of Gerar has an army commander named ^S, 'Phicol'
(21.22, 32; 26.26) which may be an Egyptian name (Gorg 1993).
22. Van Seters (1975:168-83) and others (see Wenham 1987:286) see the account
of the endangered ancestress in Gen. 12 as the textual basis for the similar accounts in
Gen. 20 and 26; these latter accounts seem to make explicit references to the account in
Gen. 12. Quite apart from whether such a hypothesis accounts for the actual literary
development of the text, it accords with the experience of the reader or audience if the
text is presented in a linear fashion.
32
arranges for Hagar, her Egyptian slave girl, to conceive a child by Abram.
The fertility of Egypt is thus highlighted in contrast to the barrenness of
the Israelite ancestress; just as Egypt has food during famine, so it harbors
fertility during barrenness. In order to make the Egyptian connection clear,
the text repeatedly insists on Hagar's Egyptian identity (16.1, 3; 21.9;
25.12). But, just like Abram's move to Egypt, Sarai's decision, while seeming on the surface to have the desired result, conceals a hidden danger. A
verbal allusion to Gen. 3 underlines the potential problem. There, the deity
berated Adam for listening to Eve (3.17), who took of the fruit and gave of
it to her husband (3.6); so also here the same language is used to describe
how Abram listens to Sarai, who takes Hagar and gives her to her husband
(16.2-3). In both cases, the desired result leads to unforeseen consequences
(Wenham 1994: 7-8). Hagar conceivesEgypt is indeed fertilebut the
result is that she steps outside of her proper role and looks down upon
her mistress. This leads Sarai to afflict (!"[]#) Hagar, causing Hagar to flee
(!"[~Q) back in the direction of Egypt (16.6).23
Just as Abram entered Egypt and left, so also the Egyptian Hagar, having entered Israel, so to speak, now leaves. But the narrative pattern of
Abram is not repeated in mirror fashion. Before Hagar reaches Egypt, the
deity turns her back, announcing that she will indeed bear a son for Abram
(16.7-12). This Egyptian woman receives a theophany and a promise of
descendants; furthermore, she names the deity (16.13)! This favorable
valuation of Egypt leads one to speculate that perhaps indeed the promised
lineage can pass through Hagar's son. Abram later hopes for no less when
he petitions the deity, 'O, that Ishmael may live in your sight' (17.18).
But it is not to be. The second part of the Hagar story concerns the
displacement of her son Ishmael by Sarah's son Isaac. At Isaac's weaning
festival, Sarah sees Ishmael 'Isaacing' (21.9)that is, somehow acting the
role of the heir that she (and the deitysee 17.15-22) envision for Isaac
alone. So she prevails upon Abraham to drive out (ETI3) Hagar and her son
(21.10). This time Abraham is unwilling to listen to his wife and needs to
be persuaded by the deity before he indeed expels (piel of n^ttf) the
Egyptian and her son (21.11 -14).24
Again, an Egyptian origin for Israel has been avoided; the line of
Abraham beginning in Mesopotamia has remained unadulterated. Egypt,
for all its positive characteristicsin this case, fertilityis rejected. An
Egyptian mother will not do any more than an Egyptian father. Ishmael,
23. These verbs foreshadow the Exodus account (Trible 1984: 9-35).
24. Again, the verbs foreshadow the Exodus.
2. Egypt in Genesis
33
like Cain, Ham and Esau, turns out to be one of the cul-de-sacs in divine
history.
But not entirely. Once expelled, Hagar procures a wife for Ishmael from
the land of Egypt (21.21), just as Abraham will later arrange for a wife for
Isaac from Mesopotamia (24.1-67).25 Ishmael is destined to become a
people inhabiting a liminal or intermediary region between Israel and
Egypt (25.12-18); there Ishmael will later play a decisive mediating role in
bringing Israel back into Egypt again in the person of Joseph.26
So, whether the ancestors go to Egypt or Egypt comes to the ancestors,
the concern of the narrative is to highlight the danger Egypt poses to the
chosen lineage despite its obvious attractiveness in terms of food, fertility
and wealth. On the symbolic map of the Pentateuch to this point, Egypt is
portrayed as looming too close for comfort, and yet it is a comfort. Hence
the deep ambiguity of 'Egypt' in the narrative, an ambiguity that can be
interpreted as an ideological struggle, waged within the text, between proand anti-Egyptian tendencies.
Egypt in the Jacob Cycle (25.19-36.43)
The word 'Egypt' appears only once in this entire narrative cycle, when
Isaac is explicitly warned by the deity not to go down to Egypt as his
father Abraham had done (26.2). Although tempted to go to Egypt, Isaac is
stopped; he also marries the proper woman from the 'old country'
Mesopotamiaas he should. Jacob also marries the proper women, and
even spends a significant amount of time in the 'old country'; throughout
much of his life he seems to have no contact with Egypt whatsoever.27
Thus, the overall orientation of the Jacob cycle towards Mesopotamia is
underlined and the significance of Egypt, at least in this cycle, is
negligible. This all changes with the following story of Joseph.
25. Note the care taken in the narrative to keep Egypt and Mesopotamia distinct.
26. Gen. 25.1-6 also mentions the children of yet another wife of Abraham's:
Keturah. Keturah's children are given gifts but do not inherit the patrilineage anymore
than does Ishmael. There seem to be significant overlaps between the genealogies of
Ishmael and Keturah's sons, leading to speculation that Keturah is a variant of Hagar.
Significant for this investigation is that the genealogy of the Midianites is traced back
to Keturah; in the Joseph story both Midianites and Ishmaelites are involved in the conveyance of Joseph to Egypt and so perhaps both are cast in a mediating role between
Israel and Egypt. See also the later important role of Midian in Exod. 2 and 18.
27. Not so his brother Esau, who marries a descendant of Ishmael (28.9).
34
Egypt in the Joseph Cycle (37.1-50.26)

The term 'Egypt' does not occur uniformly throughout the Joseph cycle.
At times, the narrative takes the Egyptian setting for granted (or ignores
it), but at other times, Egypt is highlighted by explicit references. The
density of the occurrences of the word 'Egypt' peaks at four points: (1) the
account of Joseph's rise to a position of power in Egypt (39.141.57, but
especially in 41.37-57); (2) the account of Jacob's move to Egypt (45.947.12); (3) the account of Joseph's rule in Egypt (47.13-26); and (4) the
account of Jacob's death and burial (50.15-26). It seems that in these
episodes the narrative is at pains to stress the Egyptian setting. Furthermore, it will be seen that the portrayal of Egypt is quite positive in the first
three peaks, but that in the fourth peak the desirability of Egypt is notably
undermined.
Entry into Egypt and Elevation to Power (39.1-41.57)
Whereas in the account of Abraham Egypt is presented ambiguously,
although predominantly in negative terms, one seems to enter a different
map with the story of Joseph. At first the image of Egypt is also negative
in that Joseph is taken to Egypt as a slave.28 In contrast, Abram had chosen
to go to Egypt and had emerged enriched with, among other items, slaves.
But Joseph has barely arrived in Egypt when he is described as successful
(n^H, 39.2). The description of his success is balanced on the one side by
the notice that YHWH is with him (in Egypt), and on the other side by the
notice that 'he was in the house of his master the Egyptian'. When Sarai
was taken into the house of Pharaoh, disaster struck in the form of plagues
(12.17); in contrast, when Joseph is taken into the house of his Egyptian
master,29 YHWH causes Joseph to prosper and blesses all that his master
owns (39.3-5). Here, Israel is a blessing, not a plague or an affliction, to
28. The transition from Canaan (the territory of future Israel) to Egypt in the story
of Joseph is effected by those liminal people, the Ishmaelites, who dwell between
Canaan and Egypt and are related to both Egypt and Israel. In fact, the narrative
oscillates back and forth between Ishmaelites and Midianites. Whether or not this
phenomenon has its origin in different sources, in the final form of the narrative, if it is
not meant to be totally confusing, it seems to signify that these two groups are
considered equivalent. They also seem to be considered equivalent in the story of
Gideonsee Judg. 8.24. The proximity of the genealogies of the children of Keturah
and of Ishmael (Gen. 25) has already prepared the reader for this possibility.
29. And that his master is Egyptian is stressed three times: Gen. 39. Ib, 2, 5.
2. Egypt in Genesis
35
Egypt. The description of Joseph's initial success in Egypt stands in

striking contrast to the one previous episode in Genesis where the same
root n "?iJ is repeatedly used; that is, when Abraham sends his servant to
Mesopotamia to procure a wife of the proper lineage for his son Isaac. The
'success' provided by YHWH in that episode is the proper endogamous
match (24.21, 40, 42, 56)quite the opposite of the match of YHWH'S
blessing with the house of the Egyptian through Joseph.30
Nonetheless, Egypt is not without its temptations and dangers. In an
interesting twist on the motif of the 'endangered ancestor', the wife of
Joseph's Egyptian master finds him desirable (39.7) and attempts to
seduce him. Joseph, in refusing her advances, is the analogue of the
righteous Pharaoh or king of Gerar of previous incarnations of this motif.3'
Nonetheless, he is falsely accused and ends up in prison. Thus, Egypt,
although it is connected with ideas of success, is also a place of deception
and danger; this is the same ambiguity associated with Egypt in the earlier
narratives of Genesis.
But a subtle undercurrent also permeates this episode and most of the
following narrative: the superiority of the Hebrew over the Egyptian.
Here, Joseph is sexually restrained in contrast to his Egyptian mistress.
Later, Joseph will demonstrate his superiority in other areas such as dream
interpretation and government administration.32 The narrative presupposes
some sort of distinction between Egyptian and Hebrew,33 but Egypt itself
is thereby not denigrated or made into a place that Israel is to avoid. On
the contrary, the superior Hebrew is able to flourish in Egypt, as the
account of Joseph's eventual elevation to power in Egypt demonstrates.
30. In light of the Hagar stories, the effort to find a proper match for Isaac in the
'old country' of Mesopotamia seems decidedly anti-Egyptian in that contact between
Israel and the house of Egypt is assiduously avoided. In the Joseph story, however, it is
precisely the contact between Joseph, son of Israel, and the house of Egypt that results
in blessing and prosperity.
31. The woman accuses Joseph of 'Isaacing' with her (39.14, 17); in light of the
use of the same term in 21.9, she may mean that he is acting inappropriately for his
servant status. From the narrative perspective of Joseph, a union between himself and
his master's wife is not permissible, but for moral, not genealogical, reasons. Joseph
will in due time wed a proper Egyptian wife.
32. 'Part of the fascination of the Joseph story for its Jewish audience must have
been that it showed a poor Hebrew beating the most cultured society of the ancient
near east at its own game, and there must have been many who wished that they could
do the same' (Ray 1995: 17).
33. This distinction will be explored further in the following chapter on Exodus.
36
The episode of Joseph's elevation to power (41.1-57) is noticeably

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

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

recognition of the past that he has tried to forget (42.7-8). Several indications in the narrative show that his Egyptian identity begins to waver
and be transformed.
First, when the brothers return to Egypt with Benjamin on their second
trip, they participate in a banquet at Joseph's house, in which the seating is
segregated: the Egyptians sit by themselves, Joseph's brothers (the Israelites) sit at another table by themselves, and Joseph sits at his own table
(43.32). The reason given for these seating arrangements is that it is an
abomination (rQUin) for Egypt to eat with Hebrews,43 For the first time, a
divide between Israel and Egypt is emphasizedbut on what side of the
divide is Joseph? That he sits by himself is probably an indication of his
rank and a further confirmation of his wholesale assimilation to Egyptian
ways; however, it may narratively also indicate his entrance into a
transitional state: not Israelite since he has assimilated and is regarded by
his brothers as Egyptianbut also no longer completely Egyptian since he
has been reminded of his Israelite roots.
Secondly, the goblet that is used to implicate the brothers as thieves in
Gen. 44 is described as the goblet that Joseph uses for divination (2JTT3,
44.5, 15), a practice forbidden in Lev. 19.26 and Deut. 18.10, but likely
seen here as fitting in an Egyptian setting.44 The practice is stated without
censure and reinforces Joseph's Egyptian identity. Judah even explicitly
states that Joseph is like Pharaoh himself (44.18).45
Joseph finally reveals himself to his brothers, however, acknowledging
his Israelite roots.46 But this does not lead him out of Egypt back to
Canaan, as in the preceding ancestral narratives. Rather, he arranges for
the transfer of the entire Israelite family to Egypt (Gen. 45), using the
imagery of 'remnant' (rP"18EJ) and 'survivors' (rW^B) to describe the
purpose of this move (45.7); in the narrative context of Genesis, Egypt is
43. The term rQJJin is usually used in the Pentateuch to indicate the unacceptable
practices of foreigners, usually non-Israelites. Here it is used to refer to practices
foreign and unacceptable to the Egyptians. Herodotus, Diodorus and Strabo express a
similar interest in the exclusive eating habits of the Egyptians (Westermann 1986:
126).
44. Divination is also engaged in by Laban (a Mesopotamian) (30.27) and, by
implication, the Egyptian magicians or diviners.
45. Later in the narrative, Joseph continues to be described in very exalted Egyptian terms: father to Pharaoh, lord of Pharaoh's house, ruler of Egypt (45.8), highly
honored (45.13).
46. Note that the Egyptians are specifically excluded from this scene (45.1-2).
2. Egypt in Genesis
39
to be for Israel much as the ark was for Noah and his family (7.23).47 Will
this move, however, mean the assimilation of Israel into Egypt, as suggested by the case of Joseph himself?
It is precisely at this point that the land of Goshen is first introduced
(45.10); Joseph, it seems, has in mind a separate territory where Israel will
live together. But where is this territory? As Goshen is not mentioned in
Egyptian sources, scholars have made many attempts to provide a spatial
referent for the place, using the sparse clues in Genesis and Exodus.48
Somewhere in the eastern Nile delta is the most likely location,49 although
references to a Goshen in Joshua point to southern Judah.50 But in contrast
to this emphasis on a separate territory for Israel in Egypt is the impression
given elsewhere (particularly in Exodus) that Israel lived among the
Egyptians and had spread throughout the land of Egypt. Furthermore,
Pharaoh offers Israel the best pICD) of all the land of Egypt, the fat of the
land (45.18, 20).51
The discrepancy between Joseph's desire to settle Israel in a separate
territory, and Pharaoh's desire to offer Israel the best of all the land, leads
to complex negotiations when the family of Israel finally does enter Egypt.
Joseph is reunited with his father first in Goshen.52 He counsels his brothers
to tell Pharaoh that they are shepherds, with the hope that, since 'all
shepherds of the flock are myin, 'an abomination' to Egypt' (46.34),53
they will be settled separately in Goshen. Pharaoh, on the one hand, offers
47. The concept of a 'remnant' or 'survivors' is important in postexilic understandings of the survival of Israel; in this respect, it is significant that in the Joseph
story, the remnant or survivors take root not in the Cisjordan but in Egypt.
48. For example, Goshen in the biblical accounts seems to be a place suitable for
cattle, close to Joseph who may have lived in Heliopolis, close to the official residence
of Pharaoh, along the Nile, and somehow associated with Pithom and Rameses.
49. A popular localization is the Wadi Tumilat.
50. Josh. 10.41; 11.16; 15.5. Usually these references are interpreted as pointing to
a different place and a different tradition.
51. Not only does this cast the Pharaoh in a positive light, it also brings up again
the motif of enrichment in Egypt.
52. Here Goshen seems to be a liminal place on the border of Egypt with Canaan.
53. Again, as in the previous mention of the Egyptian taboo against eating with
foreigners (43.32), we have here an interesting ancient ethnographic observation about
the Egyptians, which at the same time posits an unbridgeable gap between Israel and
Egypt. Whereas the Egyptian taboo against eating with foreigners appears also in
Herodotus and other early Greek writers, a taboo against shepherds is not found in
other sources. Perhaps it is an expression of the dislike sophisticated urbanites or
settled farmers may have felt for unruly nomads.
40
them the best of the land of Egypt, but on the other, gives them permission
to settle in Goshen. A later notice by the narrator, however, indicates that
Israel received land in the best part of the land of Egypt that is none other
than the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had indeed instructed (47.11)!
Finally, both the land of Egypt and the land of Goshen are mentioned one
after the other as the place where Israel settled (47.27-28).
What is one to make of this confusion? It seems that the narrative wants
to say that Israel clearly settled in Egypt, but not entirely in Egypt. Perhaps
here the concept of a 'mental map' may be used to interpret Goshen less as
an actual location and more as an ideological construct that seeks to maintain the separateness of Israel while in Egypt.54 Goshen quickly drops out
of view after this point has been made.55 Thus, Goshen seems to serve an
ideology of the separateness of Israel from Egypt, which, however, sits
somewhat uncomfortably with a vaguer notion that Israel was at home
within Egypt itself. The story of Joseph thus far has been largely one of
assimilation into Egypt. With the appearance of his brothers, however,
Joseph remembers his Israelite roots. His transfer of Israel to Egypt, is
therefore not meant to repeat his own story of assimilation; rather, the
introduction of Goshen indicates a desire to maintain a distinct identity.
But with the entrance of Israel into Egypt, the focus shifts to Jacob, and
with him comes an intrusion into the Joseph story of the viewpoint of the
prior ancestral accounts with their ambivalent, yet largely negative, image
of Egypt. How is the viewpoint of the ancestral accounts to be reconciled
with the move of Israel to Egypt? On his way to Egypt, Jacob receives a
theophany (46.2-4) in which the deity reiterates promises, just as has
occurred regularly in the previous ancestor accounts. But there are some
significant differences. Whereas Isaac had been told by the deity not to go
down to Egypt as Abraham had done (26.2), Jacob is now told not to be
afraid to go down to Egypt (46.3). Whereas previous promises to the
ancestors of many descendants and a great nation were to be fulfilled
either in an unspecified context or in the context of Canaan, here the
promise of increase is explicitly located in Egypt (DO, 'there', 46.3).56 But
54. That place of separateness, while perhaps not a definite location, was probably
associated with that area of Egypt best known to the producers of the text, namely, the
eastern delta and its bordering territories.
55. Goshen is mentioned only once more in Genesis (50.8) and then appears twice
in Exodus (8.18; 9.26).
56. See 47.27 where, indeed, Jacob's family is 'fruitful and multiplies' in Egypt.
Joseph's name is explicitly connected with fruitfulness in 49.22 (see also 41.52).
2. Egypt in Genesis
41
lest the audience (mis)understand that the promises of the deity have been
redirected into Egypt, God promises not only to go with Jacob down to
Egypt,57 but, significantly, also to bring him back up again (46.4). In
contrast to Joseph, who sees Egypt as an ark for a remnant of survivors,
here Egypt is transformed into a temporary place for the birth of a nation.58
The narrative stresses that all the seed of Jacob enters Egypt (46.6-7),
and, to emphasize this point, they are listed and enumerated, all 70 of them
(46.8-27). This enumeration includes even the two sons born to Joseph in
Egypt, which the narrative twice insists on including among those who
entered Egypt as part of Israel (46.20, 27).59 Whereas to this point the
ancestor accounts have been concerned to weed out the wrong lines of
descent or 'cul-de-sacs' in the ancestral genealogy of Israel, in Egypt that
concern is reversedall of Jacob's descendants are included.60 The
promise of increase to the ancestors is to take place in Egypt.
But what has become of the promise of land to the ancestors? The
narrative twice informs the reader that Israel gained landholdings (mnN)
in Egypt (47.11, 27). Previously, however, the deity had promised landholdings in Canaan (17.8), and Abraham had indeed proleptically acquired
the cave of Machpelah as a burial site (23.4, 9, 20). The only other time
the ancestors were offered land was by the people of Shechem (34.10)
and that ended in disaster. So these landholdings in Egypt are troublesome.
Do they betray the promises to the ancestors? Do they bode disaster?
Later, on his death bed Jacob reiterates the promise of landholdings in
Canaan (48.4), and insists on being buried in the family property at
Machpelah (49.30; 50.13). Thus there is a tension here between the
landholdings of the ancestral promises and the landholdings granted to
Israel in Egypt. Land in Canaan is only a promise while land in Egypt is a
reality. The question is whether, just like the promise of increase, the
promise of land to the ancestors has also been deflected into Egypt.
57. Since YHWH has been described as already being with Joseph in Egypt (39.2),
the notion of the deity's descent with Jacob into Egypt represents an ideological
tension between the characters of Joseph and Jacob in the narrative.
58. The motif of individual enrichment in Egypt has thus been completely
expanded and transformed into the genesis of a people.
59. None is left in Canaan; Israel makes a complete transition to Egypt. The
number 70 brings to mind the Table of Nations in Gen. 10 where Egypt first appeared.
60. See Steinberg (1993: 140-42) on this shift in genealogical strategy with the
entrance of Israel into Egypt.
42
Joseph as Ruler in Egypt (47.13-26)

It is at the narrative juncture concerning landholdings that a detailed
description of Joseph's administration of Egypt seems to interrupt the narrative.61 During the course of the famine, Joseph systematically impoverishes the Egyptians and gains for Pharaoh all the silver of Egypt (and of
Canaan 47.14-15), the livestock, the land, and finally the very bodies of
the Egyptians who sell themselves into slavery or serfdom (47.16-22).
Joseph is also credited with introducing a 20 per cent tax on all produce
(47.23-26). In return, Egypt does not die of starvation but lives. One finds
here familiar motifs from the ancestor accounts: Egypt as a place of life
and death, of danger and enrichment. This time, of course, outsiders are
not involved: it is Pharaoh who is enriched and Egypt that is enslaved.
The question is whether Israel in Egypt is subject to these measures.
The narrative stresses that Joseph's measures took effect from one end of
Egypt to the other (47.21); the only exemptions were made for priests.62
No explicit exemption of Israel or Goshen or Israel's landholdings otherwise in Egypt is mentioned. And yet, immediately following this account,
the audience is informed that Israel gained landholdings, was fruitful and
multiplied exceedinglyin Egypt (47.27). Again, the same aporia is
evident; is Israel part of Egypt or not? The narrative seems to answer both
'yes' and 'no'.
Jacob/Israel Leaves Egypt (47.27-50.26)
Generally, Egypt is depicted in positive terms for Israel thus far in the
Joseph narrative. Egypt is a place of benefit for Israel, a place in which
Israel can multiply, gain landholdings, and prosper, a place Israel can call
home, even while maintaining a separate identity to some degree. However, the desirability of Egypt is notably undermined in the concluding
episodes of the narrative. The Joseph story comes to an end with the
proleptic return of Jacob/Israel to Canaan (50.4-14) and the final deathbed
repudiation by Joseph of his Egyptian identity (50.24-26). In other words,
the story of Joseph, the assimilated Israelite hero in Egypt, is ultimately
brought solidly into the orbit of the ancestral accounts, in which Egypt is a
place from which one departs.
61. This segment of the narrative contains many rare expressions, leading Westermann (1986: 173) to interpret it as an etiological appendage that has no discernible
function within the wider narrative. However, in ascertaining the image of Egypt in the
final form of the text, it is important to investigate the rhetoric concerning Egypt in this
text segment, whether it originated as an etiological appendage or not.
62. Note that Joseph had married into an Egyptian priestly family!
2. Egypt in Genesis
43
But loose ends and ambiguities still complicate the ideological rhetoric.
First is the matter of the two sons bora to Joseph in Egypt of an Egyptian
wife, Manasseh and Ephraim, who are the eponymous ancestors of two of
the largest and most prosperous tribes of Israel. This incursion of Egypt
into the lineage of Israel, so soundly repudiated previously in the case of
Hagar and Abraham, is here nullified by Jacob's adoption of Joseph's two
sons as his own; twice Jacob reiterates 'they are mine' (48.5). Thus the
Egyptian mother is conveniently bypassed, and perhaps also the Israelite
father who had become far too Egyptianized himself. By this legal fiction,
a threat to the chosen lineage is again avertedEgypt has no part in the
chosen people. But Joseph does not accept this solution: in the immediately following scene he presents Manasseh and Ephraim as 'my sons,
whom god gave to me here'; that is, in Egypt (48.9). There is an unresolved tension in the narrative between the perspectives of Jacob and
Joseph,63 pointing to an ideological tension surrounding the origin
traditions of Israel in the context of the text's production.
Secondly, Jacob insists that he should not be buried in Egypt (49.29-32),
and when he dies and is embalmed, a funeral procession winds its way
back to Canaan for the burial (50.2-14).64 This 'exodus' of Jacob from
Egypt, with its strange round-about route around the Dead Sea through the
Transjordan, seems to be meant proleptically to evoke the route of a very
different exodus to come.65 But in contrast to the exodus to come, this
particular exodus, significantly, takes place with the explicit permission of
Pharaoh (50.6) and is accompanied by all the prominent people of
Pharaoh's household and of Egypt as well as an armed Egyptian guard
(50.7,9). Moreover, the Israelites leave their children and livestock behind
(50.8), and Joseph explicitly promises Pharaoh to return (50.5). If exodus
merely consists of burial in the Promised Land, then living in Egypt poses
no obstacles.66 Furthermore, the Canaanites are portrayed as being so
63. Israel/Jacob also reverses the birth order of Manasseh and Ephraim. Whereas
for Joseph, 'forgetting' his father's house had preceded 'fruitfulness', for Jacob
'fruitfulness' takes precedence over 'forgetting'.
64. One notes that the Egyptians are portrayed as grieving over Jacob's death for
70 days (50.3) which surely conveys a positive picture of Egypt.
65. A much more direct route leads from Egypt to Hebron. However, just as the
Israelites leaving Egypt in the exodus are diverted from a direct route to the Promised
Land (Exod. 13.17-18), so also the funeral procession follows a similar indirect route.
66. One seems to have here a depiction of how Israelites could be residents of
Egypt and yet still fulfill their obligation to be buried in the land of promise.
44
impressed by the mourning of the funeral procession that they name the
place after the Egyptians (50.11). From the Canaanite point of view in the
narrative, the mixed company of Israelites and Egyptians is seen as
Egyptian; Israel and Egypt are not distinct.
This brings to two the number of proto-exoduses or prefigurations of the
exodus in Genesis. One proto-exodus account is placed carefully near the
beginning of the ancestral accounts in the story of Abraham's sojourn into
Egypt; a story that is repeated in an increasingly muted form in the
subsequent two occurrences of the so-called 'wife-as-sister' motif. And, at
the very end of Genesis, all the adult Israelites in Egypt carry the corpse of
Jacob up to the Promised Land, just as in the exodus account they will
carry the corpse of Joseph with them.
Finally, at the end, Joseph also dies (50.24-26).67 On his deathbed he
demonstrates that he has been reclaimed by the ancestor cycle: just like his
father Jacob, he makes his brothers, the sons of Israel, swear to bury him
in the land promised to the ancestors. Even Joseph finally repudiates
Egypt, thus supporting the point of view of the ancestral narratives that
Israel does not belong there. Nonetheless, Egypt still has the last word:
Genesis ends by informing the audience that Joseph dies, is embalmed and
placed in a sarcophagus in Egypt (50.26). A narrative that has asserted the
need to get out of Egypt, still ends there.68 According to the pattern of
'entry into and exodus from Egypt' established by the accounts of the
Egyptian sojourns of Abraham and Jacob, the story is left hanging unresolved. Another story is neededwhich the following scroll of Exodus
handily supplies.
Summary: Egypt in Genesis
What, then, is 'Egypt' in Genesis? Certainly one does not learn many
pertinent geographical facts about the place: the only precise toponyms
mentioned are Rameses and On, the Nile appears only in Pharaoh's
dreams, and the territory of Goshen eludes specification. By and large,
geographically Egypt is pictured as being 'out there' beyond Canaan; one
goes down into it and one comes up out of it. Neither is there much strictly
ethnographically descriptive data: only some exotic details about divi-
67. He lives to see three generations of his children, and yet, although he is the
second youngest of his brothers, he still predeceases them all (50.22-24)!
68. The very last word in the scroll of Genesis is, ironically, D'HUD, 'Egypt'.
2. Egypt in Genesis
45
nation, embalming,69 segregated eating, and a few Egyptian names.

Rather than functioning primarily as a specific geographical or ethnographic reference, the 'Egypt' of Genesis seems to be overdetermined as
an ideological marker of difference in the construction of a narrative of
Israel's origins. The Table of Nations sets up the 'mental map' of Genesis
in terms of lineage. On this map, Egypt is excluded from the chosen
lineage, but keeps threatening to enter in. The ancestral accounts thus
portray a dominant negative orientation towards Egypt in contrast to a
more positive orientation towards Mesopotamia. In the Joseph story, the
narrative of an Israelite hero at home in Egypt clashes with the viewpoint
of the ancestral narrative but is wrestled somewhat uneasily into the
dominant anti-Egyptian framework.
69. Both Jacob and Joseph are embalmed in Egyptthis distinctive Egyptian
practice could signify 'Egyptianization'. However, Jacob is quickly returned to the
ancestral tomb at Hebron, whereas Joseph remains in a coffin in Egypt.
Chapter 3
EGYPT IN EXODUS
Almost half of the occurrences of 'Egypt' in the Pentateuch appear in the
book of Exodus (see Table 2 in the Appendix), indicating that in the overall ideological strategy of the Pentateuch, Egypt figures most prominently
in the narrative of Israel's escape from bondage. This may seem selfevident and unsurprising, given the Egyptian setting of much of this book.
However, the seeming naturalness of the appearance of 'Egypt' should not
obscure the ideological work towards which it is directed in the persuasive
rhetoric of the Pentateuch. It has already been shown that, in the previous
book of Genesis, Egypt functions as an ambivalent marker of identity,
figuring prominently in Israel's origin narrative and yet having to be
framed as a negative and secondary stage in Israel's development. How
Egypt continues to function in the ideologies of Israel's identity is the
subject of the following analysis of the book of Exodus.
The term 'Egypt' occurs in Exodus most frequently in the first half of
the book, and in this first half references to Egypt show a steady increase
in density, peaking dramatically at the climactic point of the 'escape from
Egypt' (13.17-14.31). Immediately following this climax, there is a
sudden decrease in the number and density of occurrences of 'Egypt' in
the rest of the book (see Table 4 in the Appendix). Interestingly, the Song
at the Sea, according to some interpreters one of the most ancient texts in
the Hebrew Bible, contains no explicit reference to Egypt; the mention of
'Pharaoh' in 15.4 is the only explicit connection with Egypt in the poem.
The book of Exodus opens with a prologue (1.1-2.25) that introduces
the main protagonists and the narrative complication that sets the plot into
motion. It also sets the stage for the ideological contestation over Israel's
identity that takes place in the book. Accordingly, these two chapters will
be analyzed in detail with the goal of elucidating the main themes of
identity, themes that will be further played out in the rest of the book.
3. Egypt in Exodus
47
Prologue (1.1-2.25)
Israel in Egypt (1.1-7)
'Egypt' appears in the first verse of the scroll of Exodus as part of the
heading or title of a list of the sons of Jacob/Israel who accompanied him
into Egypt: nonHQ D'K3n bfcOfr1 '33 miDEJ n bttl 'And these are the names
of the sons of Israel who came to Egypt' (1.1). The list functions to link
the Exodus scroll with the Genesis scroll: the waw copulativum at the very
beginning of Exod. 1.1 in the MT suggests the continuation of a narrative,1
but, more importantly, the list recapitulates, in summary form, a similar
list found in Gen. 46.S-27.2 Thus, rhetorically, the scroll of Exodus begins
by asserting that the coming narrative is not to be understood apart from
the history of the ancestors as narrated in Genesis.3 Furthermore, it is
emphatically stated that the people about whom the following story will be
told are not native or indigenous to Egypt; it is only because they 'entered
Egypt' (1.1) from outside that they can now be described as being 'in
Egypt' (1.5). The introduction to the scroll, therefore, places what is to
follow within the anti-Egyptian framework established in Genesis, albeit
in a contested fashion.
However, the textual tradition exhibits confusion about the place of
Joseph in this genealogical list. The MT and Samaritan Pentateuch of
Exod. 1.1 -5 do not list Joseph with the other brothers; rather, after giving
the total of Jacob's offspring, these witnesses note that Joseph was (already) in Egypt (1.5b). In the LXX, again Joseph does not appear in the list
of the sons of Jacob, but the note regarding his location in Egypt appears
1. Durham (1987: 3-4) stresses the importance of the copula at the beginning of
Exodus as a marker of continuity with Genesis, and criticizes those translations that
follow the LXX in omitting it. The waw copulativum also appears in the MT at the
beginning of Leviticus and Numbers, suggesting that Genesis through Numbers was
conceived of as continuous narrative by the final redactors of the Pentateuch (at least in
the Masoretic tradition). The LXX lacks the copulative KCU at the beginning of Exodus,
but has it at the beginning of Leviticus and Numbers. This suggests that in the Hebrew
Vorlage of the Old Greek textual tradition, Exodus was seen as a new or original
beginning that continued into Leviticus and Numbers.
2. The order of names of the sons in the two lists differs somewhat; the Exodus
list also includes only the names of the first generation.
3. Before the advent of large scrolls or the codex, each 'book' of the Pentateuch
would have appeared on a separate scroll. One of the means to link one scroll
sequentially to another would be by recapitulating material from one scroll in the
introduction of the following scroll (see Haran 1985a, 1990, 1993).
48
right at the end of the list, before the total of Jacob's offspring is given.
But in the Qumran manuscript 4QExodb,4 Joseph is listed with the rest of
Jacob's sons and there is no mention of his location in Egypt. The question
raised by these textual discrepancies is whether Joseph belongs with the
brothers who entered Egypt or not; that is, whether he is a legitimate part
of Israel or not.5
Furthermore, the textual witnesses differ over the total of Jacob's offspring who entered Egypt. The number in the MT of Exod. 1.5 is70.6 This
is the same number that the MT counts at the conclusion of the similar list
in Gen. 46.27, as well as in Deut. 10.22. The LXX and4QExodb, however,
count 75 at Exod. 1.5.7 This discrepancy is again caused by the problem of
whether Joseph and his family are to be counted among the descendants of
Jacob/Israel. The total of 75 is arrived at hi the LXX by counting an
additional 5 (Egyptian) offspring of Joseph,8 whereas the MT total of 70
includes only two sons of Joseph: Ephraim and Manasseh.9
Cross (1995: 135-36) and Klein (1974: 15) argue that 4QExodb witnesses to the most original text. Rather than searching for a putative original, however, Steinmann (1996) argues that in the textual tradition of
Exod. 1.1-5 one finds two differing, perhaps competing, ideologies. One
ideology, represented by the MT and the Samaritan Pentateuch, presents
the family of Jacob as fractured and disunited; here, the position of Joseph
and his offspring is tenuous. The other ideology, represented by 4QExodb,
and developed by the LXX, presents the family of Jacob as united; here
Joseph and his offspring appear to be wholly included.
4. As reconstructed by Cross (1995: 134-36).
5. The confusion over the position of Joseph is also explicit in the Genesis list to
which the Exodus list is related: Gen. 46.26 and 27 give two different totals (66 and
70) for the number of Jacob's offspring who entered Egypt, depending on whether
Joseph's offspring are counted or not. In the LXX the totals are 66 and 75.
6. 70 is likely an artificial and symbolic round number (Van Daalen 1993: 563,
Westermann 1986: 158). Traditionally, 70 is also the number of the nations of the
world according to the Table of Nations in Gen. 10 (Wenham 1987: 213). Therefore,
the MT total at Exod. 1.5 portrays the Israel who entered Egypt as a microcosm of the
macrocosm of the entire world (Wenham 1987: 214).
7. The LXX also counts 75 at Gen. 46.27 and, in many manuscripts, at Deut. 10.22.
8. See LXX of Gen. 46.27.
9. One might recall also the tenuous position of Joseph on various lists of the 12
sons/tribes of Israel. Sometimes Joseph is listed as one of the sons/tribes (Gen. 46; 49),
at other times Joseph's sons Ephraim and Manasseh are listed instead of Joseph, and in
yet other instances both Joseph and Ephraim/Manasseh are mentioned (eg. Num. 26;
Deut. 33).
3. Egypt in Exodus
49
The ideological tension is over the status of Joseph. Because, according

to Genesis, Joseph became thoroughly Egyptianized and fathered his children by an Egyptian wife, doubt is being expressed in the textual tradition
about whether he rightfully belongs with the rest of the sons of Jacob.
Joseph and his offspring disrupt the assertion of the narrative that Jacob's
offspring are all outsiders to Egypt. Genesis already attempted to deal with
this problem by genealogically bypassing Joseph in having Jacob adopt
Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, as his own.10 In the very beginning
of Exodus, the MT seems to question his membership in Israel, while the
LXX seems to insist on it. Provisionally, it can be proposed that the MT
version upholds a Palestinian or Jerusalem based ideology of excluding
Egypt from any significant status in the origin traditions of Israel (thus
the subtle exclusion of Joseph while still including his story). In contrast,
the LXX, aimed at Egyptian Jews, includes Joseph, who is an Egyptian
Jewish hero.
These textual slippages around the inclusion or exclusion of Joseph
bring up again the matter of the connection of Exodus with Genesis. The
MT of Exod. 1.1-5 strongly assumes a continuity, whereas the LXX, lacking
the initial copula and with its different emphasis on including Joseph,
brings that continuity into question. This raises the possibility that there
may have been a pre-Pentateuchal tradition of Israel's origins that began
with Egypt and did not know or omitted the Genesis traditions, or at least
some of them.
In this connection, noteworthy is the transformation of the reference for
Israel from an individual in Exod. 1.1 to a collectivity in Exod. 1.7; the
death of Joseph and his siblings and 'all that generation' (1.6) is a watershed or dividing point in this process.1' From this point on, the individual
names of the 'sons of Israel' largely drop out of the narrative: the concern
is no longer with a family but with an emerging people. Thus, Exod. 1.1-7
functions specifically to link the following Exodus story of a people with
the accounts of the individual family ancestors in Genesis. This linkage
may have been forged to connect originally disparate traditions.12
10. This is, of course, only a partial solution to the Egyptianness of Joseph, for
Ephraim and Manasseh have still been born and raised in Egypt by an Egyptian mother
(compare the account of Hagar and Ishmael).
11. The reference to Joseph's death is also another direct reference back to Gen.
50.26; such a reference would help to link two disparate scrolls together in the proper
sequence.
12. That Exod. 1.1-7 is a later editorial link is indicated by the fact that the last
verse of Gen. 50.26 flows smoothly into Exod. 1.8.
50
Exodus 1.7 describes the stupendous increase of the sons of Israel

in Egypt13 with a unique pile-up of five verbs (mB, 'be fruitful', jHEJ,
'swarm', i"m, 'increase', DUU, 'be mighty or numerous', and N^D, 'fill')
that is certainly an echo of the creation language in Genesis.14 These verbs
also invoke the divine promise of increase to the ancestors in Genesis,15
with the result that, if Genesis provides the background, it seems as if this
promise of increase is being fulfilled in Egypt. Again a strong link is being
forged with Genesis, but, at the same time, certain ambiguities are evident.
It is unclear whether the reference to the sons of Israel 'swarming' (]HEJ)
is meant positively or negatively: certainly the Egyptian king will soon
view it negatively (Exod. 1.10), and the plagues afford examples of undesirable increase where creation runs amok.16 More important is the note
that 'the land was filled with them' (1.7b). Presumably this 'land' is Egypt;
the impression given is that the sons of Israel had become so numerous
that they were present in every part of Egypt. This claim disrupts the
ethnic containment of the Israelites in Goshen, already adumbrated in
Genesis (47.27) and mentioned later in the Exodus narrative (8.18; 9.26).
These ambiguities may hint at an ideology, partially submerged by the
text, which presented the Israelites as emerging throughout Egypt and thus
more closely connected with the Egyptians than the Goshen tradition
would allow.
In summary, Exod. 1.1 -7, as an introduction to the scroll of Exodus, presents the reader with two important claims: (1) that Israel emerged as a
people in Egypt; and (2) that the origins of Israel, nonetheless, are to be
found in ancestors who were not indigenous to Egypt, but rather, according to the ancestral cycles in Genesis, originated in Mesopotamia. These
claims, presented in Exodus as complementary and sequentially linked,
may in other contexts have been quite separate and perhaps opposing
viewpoints. If so, then the beginning of Exodus may have been edited in
its present text form to negate the idea that Israel originated in Egypt. In
other words, Exodus, which in a different context may have functioned as
a tract celebrating the Egyptian origin of Israel, becomes in the context of
13. Read in the context of Gen. 46 and later passages in Exodus, a span of 480
years (see Exod. 12.40-41) is telescoped into one verse, during which the family of 70
mushrooms into a people of some 600,000 men, besides women and children (see
Exod. 12.37).
14. See the use of the same verbs in Gen. 1.22, 28 and Gen. 8.17; 9.1, 7.
15. See Gen. 16.10; 17.2, 6, 20; 22.17; 26.4, 22, 24; 28.3; 35.11; 48.4.
16. For example: Exod. 7.28; 8.17; 10.6.
3. Egypt in Exodus
51
the Pentateuch a means of asserting the opposite; namely, a non-Egyptian

ethnic identity for Israel.
If Exodus in its present form and context expresses an ideology opposing and erasing the possibility of an Egyptian origin for Israel, then it is
theoretically possible to attempt to reconstruct the erased ideology from
the traces of it left in the present text. That is, in order to oppose and refute
the tradition of an Egyptian origin for Israel, the producers of the final text
form would necessarily have had to recapitulate some of that tradition.17
By reading between the dominant ideological lines of the present form of
Exodus in the following analysis, an attempt will be made to ascertain
whether an alternate tradition regarding Israel's origins in Egypt exists and
can be recovered.
Ethnogenesis: Israel versus Egypt (1.8-14)
The actual narrative of the book of Exodus begins with 1.8.18 In the introductory verses of Exod. 1.1-7, Egypt has been presented as a place in
which Israel multiplies and grows strong, and in which Israel is transformed from an individual and his family into a collectivity. But then a
crisis changes things: a new king appears (1.8). And with this new king a
new situation is narrated: the genesis of Israel as an ethnos or a distinct
people.19
The new king is the first to recognize Israel as a people rather than as a
family; it is on his lips that the words "7N12T13D DU ('people of the sons of
Israel') appear for the first time.20 But what is especially significant is the
17. See Jameson, who argues that ideology is a strategy of containment 'which
allows what can be thought to seem internally coherent in its own terms, while repressing the unthinkable which lies beyond its boundaries' (1981: 53), but which, by
attempting to inscribe limits and repress other options, also contains within it the
means of its own subversion. Ideology, as a legitimizing strategy, 'must necessarily
involve a complex strategy of rhetorical persuasion in which substantial incentives are
offered for ideological adherence' (Jameson 1981: 287); in this complex strategy,
traces of opposing viewpoints will be present only to be subjugated to the dominant
point of view.
18. As already noted, the last verse of Genesis (50.26) flows smoothly into Exod.
1.8, bypassing Exod. 1.1-7.
19. The word !Znn, 'new' signals this new situation.
20. In fact, this phrase appears only here in the entire Hebrew Bible. Usually, Israel
in the Pentateuch (and the Hebrew Bible) is referred to as "witO" n]3 'sons of Israel'.
^ntO" CW 'people Israel' appears only in 2 Sam. 19.41; 1 Kgs. 16.21; Ezra 2.2; and
Neh. 7.7, while b'N'lET' 'GU 'my people Israel' is a favorite of Ezekiel's.
52
framework within which the king gives voice to this recognition: it is the
framework of ethnic differentiation, of discourse that differentiates
between 'us' and 'them'.21 There is a constant play back and forth between
these two polarities in the king's speech: 'Look, the people of the sons of
Israel are more numerous and powerful than we. Come, let us deal
shrewdly with them..." (1.9-10a).22
Through the king's speech, the narrative constructs an ethnic distinction
between Israel and Egypt. The new king inverts the goodness of the
blessing of increase in 1.7 by seeing it as a threat. In light of the Joseph
story with its positive presentation of Israel's increase in Egypt, this
inversion involves a deliberate interpretational shift by the king.23 The
king asserts that Israel is anti-Egyptian and will therefore fight on the side
of Egypt's enemies; furthermore, he argues that Israel does not feel at
home in Egypt and will leave as soon as the opportunity presents itself
(1.10).24 In the narrative context, these are purely hypothetical speculations. The Israelites themselves are given no voice to either confirm or
challenge the king's inflammatory speculations. Yet these speculations
support the narrator's emphasis that Israel is not indigenous to Egypt.
The rhetoric of the king's speech in Exod. 1.9-10 is therefore intended
to persuade the audience of the distinction being constructed; it is not at
all necessary that the distinction was already accepted or presupposed by
the audience. That the speech is propaganda can be recognized by the
exaggeration that is used: the king inflates the numbers and strength of the
Israelites so as to incite the fears of his people.25 In summary, the king
constructs a differentiated identity for Israel by portraying them as not his
people, that is, as not Egyptian; and he makes that differentiation into one
21. Investigations of ethnic discourse have highlighted that such boundaries between
'us' and 'them' are most often drawn between near neighbours in order to create a sense
of differentiation (see Chapter 1).
22. The singular verbs used by the king in the MT to describe the actions of Israel
serve to heighten the sense of Israel as one people. Contrast LXX and versions that use
the plural and thus emphasize the plural collectivity of Israel.
23. That the increase of Israel in Egypt is a sign of (divine) blessing may indeed be
part of the ideology that the present text is attempting to subvert and oppose. The king
also subtly gives the increase implied in Joseph's name a negative twist by using the
Niphal of the verb "p1*, 'to be joined to', to foster the fear that Israel will join Egypt's
enemies (1.10).
24. The theme of 'going up from Egypt' is here introduced, and will quickly
become the goal of the narrative.
25. That Israel is more numerous than the Egyptians (1.9) is clearly hyperbole.
3. Egypt in Exodus
53
of antagonism and threat. The king's portrayal of the people of Israel as an

ethnic entity separate from Egypt agrees with the ideology of the narrator
in Exod. 1.1-7, but it is here cleverly put into the mouth of the one who
will be the main protagonist in the conflicts that follow.26
The consequence of the king's rhetoric of differentiation is the conscription of Israel into forced labor (1.11). His discourse is thus selfinterested in that it masks an economic motivation: a segment of Egypt's
population is turned into a new source of royal labor.27 However, the overt
reason the king offers for his enslavement of Israel is that Israel's numerical
increase must be bridled or thwarted (1.10). The logic of this reason is not
clear, since economic enslavement itself would not necessarily block the
numerical increase of a group,28 and, in fact, an increase in one's slave
population might even prove economically beneficial. Therefore, the text
seems to contain two motifs that do not quite fit together: (1) the motif of
Israel's stupendous increase in Egypt; and (2) the motif of Israel's enslavement in Egypt.29 The first motif may originally have signified Egypt as a
positive place, while the second undergirds the picture of Egypt as an
inhospitable place for Israel.
What is it that is 'new' about this king that he makes a distinction
between Israel and Egypt in order to enslave Israel? The text answers that
26. To an Egyptian diaspora Judaism, the message might be: 'See, it is the Egyptians themselves who reject you as being one of them or belonging in Egypt!'
27. The king's imagined fear that Israel will turn against Egypt makes most sense
against a background in which those identified as Israelites were actively involved in
Egyptian society, likely including the army. In this connection, it is interesting to note
the Hellenistic portrayal of Moses as a commander in the Egyptian army, who leads an
Egyptian expedition against Ethiopia (cf. Josephus, Ant. 2.238-53; Rajak 1978;
Runnalls 1983). One can also note the presence of Israelite soldiers in Egypt already in
the Persian period (at Elephantine), and prominence of Judeans in the Ptolemaic armies
and government of Egypt (cf. Kasher 1978,1985: 29-74; Modrzejewski 1995: 21-44,
83-87).
28. Numerical increase can be blocked through far more direct methods such as
selective or wholesale killing, but such methods are not considered until 1.15.
29. The introduction of the semantic field of "QI7 ('work, slavery, service, worship') here anticipates its importance in the later narrative. That is, now that the people
Israel have been constructed as a distinct entity, whom are they to serve? The whole of
Exodus can be seen as a competition between two answers to this question: either they
are to serve Pharaoh or YHWH. Furthermore, it becomes clear that for the dominant
ideology of the narrative, it is clearly impossible for Israel to serve YHWH in Egypt,
and so no alternative but an exodus is possible.
54
this king does not know Joseph (1.8).30 In fact, the beginning of Exodus is
a massive negation of the positive image of Egypt found in the Joseph
story. Israel's enslavement involves the building of mjDDQ "HJJ 'supply/
store cities' named Pithom and Ramses (l.llb).31 Whereas the Israelite
hero Joseph had initiated a program of storing food in Egyptian cities in
order to provide salvation from famine (Gen. 41.35-36,48-49, 56), here,
now that Joseph is no longer known, that program is inverted and the store
cities signify oppression for Israel.32
Despite (or because of) its oppression, Israel continues to increase
(1.12a); in fact the verb j"~lS is used, connoting a bursting out beyond
boundaries.33 This excessive increase causes Egypt to experience an 'ethnic
dread' of Israel (1.12b).34 Again, the narrative presents Egypt as the first to
express this revulsion of one ethnic group towards another; the rhetoric of
the king (1.9-10) seems to be having an effect. Egypt responds by increasing the oppression; the Egyptians become ruthless and add all kinds of
building work as well as work in the field (1.13-14).35
30. Knowledge will be an important motif in the following Exodus account. The
deity will be presented as knowing that Israel and Egypt are distinct, but both Egypt
and Israel will need to be taught this knowledge so as to separate Israel from Egypt as
the deity's own people.
31. The LXX adds the name of a third city: 'On, which is Heliopolis.' The names of
these cities are the only specific toponyms in the beginning of the book of Exodus, and
have often been interpreted as genuine historical recollections that help in ascertaining
the veracity and date of the exodus. However, the phrase in which the names occur has
all the appearance of a gloss (v. 1.11 a moves smoothly into v. 1.12), and was perhaps
interpolated into the text in order to provide Egyptian color (so Redford, who also sees
the gloss as reflecting an Egypt no earlier than the Saite period1963,1987:138-44).
32. This contrast with the Joseph story is lost in the LXX which has Israel being
forced to build rroAE i? oxupas 'strong/fortified cities'.The account in Exod. 1.9-11 of
the MT also echoes the language of the account of the Tower of Babel in Gen. 11.1-9.
An ironic comparison can be made: just as the building of the Tower of Babel frustrated the attempts of primordial humanity to remain united and resulted in its dispersal
and division, so also the Egyptian king initiates building projects to prevent the
dispersal of the people but his endeavors are negated by the exodus of Israel.
33. Note again that there is no explicit awareness of a separate territory of Goshen
for Israel here. Rather, the notion of bursting beyond boundaries gives the impression
that Israel could not be contained in any one place.
34. The verb j*1p is used in the majority of cases in the Hebrew Bible for a sort of
dread or revulsion experienced between ethnic groups (Gen. 27.46; Lev. 20.23; Num.
22.3; IKgs. 11.25).
35. In these two verses, the root "C#, 'work/serve' appears five times, and also the
3. Egypt in Exodus
55
In summary, by the end of this textual section detailing the origin of the
oppression of Israel in Egypt (1.8-14), a binary opposition between Israel
and Egypt has been constructed, and in this binary, Egypt is given a
negative valence. It is Egypt that first overtly differentiates itself from
Israel, that strikes out against Israel with oppression, and that is said to
loath or detest Israel. Just as Egypt seems to have been convinced by the
rhetoric of its king, so also the unresisting reader is led by the narrative to
be hostile to the Egyptians and to sympathize with the Israelites. At the
same time, the reader implicitly acquiesces to the differentiation between
Egypt and Israel that the producer of the narrative is at pains to make.
Genocide (LI5-22)
In 1.8-14, an antagonistic differentiation between Israel and Egypt has
been constructed. Now, that differentiation is played out in a different
register: Hebrews versus Egyptians. The term 'Hebrew' now becomes the
dominant term for the rest of chs. 1 and 2 (1.15, 16, 19; 2.6, 7, 11, 13).
What does this different register mean? Brueggemann interprets it in economic terms: 'Hebrews' are the 'have-nots' of society versus the Egyptian
'haves' (1994b: 695, 696). He depends here on the possible derivation of
"H3U, 'Hebrew' from the Akkadian habiru/hapiru in ancient Near Eastern
documents dating from the social upheavals in the Late Bronze Age,
usually interpreted as referring to a social element of fugitives, refugees
and outlaws (Lemche 1992). The term thus has connotations of trespass,
foreignness, and low social standing. However, in the Hebrew Bible "~IDU
always stands for members of the people Israel, usually from the perspective of non-Israelites;36 that is, the meaning of the term shifts from the
socioeconomic to the ethnic register.37 But these two registers are not
mutually exclusive: ethnic labels applied to a group by those outside the
group often carry derogatory connotations of low social standing, trespass
and alienism. The Hebrew etymology of ''"ntf itself suggests someone
who comes from beyond or from the other side.38 The introduction of the
words ~pB, 'harshness', "T1D, 'be bitter' andrTEip, 'severe', giving an overwhelming
sense of Israel's cruel subjugation by Egypt.
36. Israelites are Hebrews from the perspective of the Egyptians in the Joseph and
Exodus stories, and from the perspective of the Philistines in 1 Samuel.
37. The one exception is the law concerning Hebrew slaves inExod. 21.2-11 where
the old social differentiation between habiru/hapiru and hup'su ('peasants') seems to
have survived (Lemche 1979, 1975).
38. BDB: 720. The term is reminiscent of the somewhat derogatory English
56
term 'Hebrew' thus introduces into the differentiation between Egypt and
Israel a sense of social and economic marginalization, allowing Israel to
be feared and loathed from the Egyptian perspective as an intrusive
foreign element. From the Israelite perspective, the use of the term would
reinforce a sense of not belonging in Egypt.
Having tried forced labor, the king of Egypt, or Pharaoh,39 now initiates
a second strategy of killing the male newborns of the Hebrews (1.15-16).
That the sons are to be killed whereas the daughters are specifically to be
spared on the surface seems foolish in that it would deplete Pharaoh's
labor force. Yet, if kinship passes through the male,40 this policy would be
an effective means to assimilate Israel to Egypt; the Hebrew daughters
would have only Egyptian families into which to marry.41 However,
Houtman (1993: 262) suggests that one finds here the motif of the ruler
who fears the birth of a rival and therefore conspires to kill all newborn
male children; this suggestion is especially viable if this text is read as a
prelude to the birth of Moses in ch. 2.42
Thus, the Pharaoh's genocidal strategy continues the narrative's rhetoric
of differentiation by playing on the tropes of fear of assimilation (from the
narrative Israelite perspective) and fear of a rival (from the narrative
Egyptian perspective). But this ideology of differentiation is expressed
here, not by the king (as in 1.9-10), but by the midwives. It is they who
speak of a contrast between the Egyptian and Hebrew women when asked
expression for someone who does not belong to one's class: 'from the wrong side of
the tracks'.
39. Until now, the narrative has used the title 'king of Egypt' (except for one
appearance of the title 'Pharaoh' in the parenthetical remark in Exod. 1.1 Ib). Now the
titles 'Pharaoh' and 'king of Egypt' are used interchangeably. Magonet (1995: 81)
suggests that the choice of title is not merely a stylistic variant but may be part of the
particular narrative strategy at each point: 'it might be argued that the title "King of
Egypt" emphasizes the full authority vested in him as he tries to persuade the midwives
to do his bidding, whereas their courage in defying him is reflected in their addressing
"Pharaoh" when they resist his orders.'
40. Patrilineal descent is the assumed norm in the Hebrew Bible.
41. Cassuto (1983: 14) suggests that the king's policy is modeled on the story of
Abram in Gen. 12 where the male is threatened while the female is desired and brought
into the Egyptian harem. As demonstrated in Chapter 2, the story of Abram in Egypt
prefigures the dangers of assimilation Israel will face in Egypt.
42. Although the focus of Pharaoh here is on the killing of Hebrew male newborns,
in 1.22 all male newborns (Egyptian boys are not explicitly exempted) are to be killed,
thus strengthening the motif of Pharaoh's fear of the birth of a rival.
3. Egypt in Exodus
57
by Pharaoh why they have not complied with his orders: 'the Hebrew
women are not like the Egyptian women' (1.19a). The phrase by which the
midwives describe this difference, m'TIDi! jn^N KOD CHCDn run nTHD
n'n (1.19b), allows for at least two opposing interpretations. First, understanding friTI as an adjective meaning 'having the vigor of life' (BDB:
313), the phrase reads 'because they [the Hebrew women] are vigorous
and give birth before the midwife comes to them'.43 That is, the Hebrew
women are portrayed in very positive terms while the Egyptian women
appear weak in comparison. Secondly, understanding PlTf as the plural of
the noun '(wild) animal' (BDB: 312), the phrase reads 'because they are
(wild) animals and give birth before the midwife comes to them'. That is,
the Hebrew women are portrayed as barbarians who breed and give birth
like wild animals while the Egyptian women appear cultured and civilized
in comparison.44
Rather than opting for one meaning over the other, double-sided ethnic
stereotyping can be seen at work here. From an ethnocentric Hebrew
perspective, a complimentary ethnic stereotype of Hebrew women and a
derogatory one of Egyptian women is heard. But from an ethnocentric
Egyptian perspective, exactly the opposite is heard. The Egyptian king
naturally hears the stereotype in the second way, as derogatory to Hebrew
women.45 The midwives cleverly save their skin by allowing the king to
hear what he already believes while at the same time implicitly criticizing
Egyptian women over against Hebrew women.46
Thus the differentiation between Egyptian and Hebrew is again seen
to be not a simple fact but a social construct, an ideology. This ideology
of differentiation is, however, rendered problematic by the identity of
the midwives: are they Hebrew or Egyptian? They are described as
rVQUn m'ra (1.15), usually translated as 'Hebrew midwives'.47 How43. This translation is the one commonly adopted in English versions, for example
NRSV, NJPS.
44. No widespread English version seems to have chosen this translational

possibility. A third possibility is represented by the REB, which translates DVn as the
piel infinitive construct of PITT (see BDB: 311): 'they go into labor and give birth
before the midwife arrives'.
45. The king's words in 1.9-10 show him as predisposed to such an interpretation.
As Nohrnberg (1981: 52) remarks: 'the lie they tell himthat the Hebrew women bear
virtually spontaneouslyis just the He his edict shows him readiest to believe'.
46. To the audience of the narrative, the pun on the word PVH would likely have
constituted an insider's ethnic joke, much like the pun in Exod. 2 on Moses' name.
47. See NRSV, NJPS, REB.
58
ever, is the genitive here adjectival, meaning that the midwives are
Hebrew, or objective, meaning that they are midwives for or to the
Hebrews? 4S The first alternative allows the midwives only a Hebrew
identity whereas the second leaves open the possibility that they could be
Egyptian. If Hebrew, then they serve purely as ethnic heroes.49 If Egyptian, however, not only do they foreshadow the Egyptian princess who
will save Moses but they also problematize an absolute differentiation
between Hebrew and Egyptian50 since they transgress ethnic loyalties and
are rewarded for it.51
The question of the midwives' identities is an old one. Philo and Josephus describe the midwives as Egyptian and the rabbis debated the
matter.52 Again, rather than deciding the question one way or the other,
one can read the ambiguity of the text and its interpretations as pointing to
an ideological tension within the narrative. The midwives could be both or
either Hebrew or Egyptian, and they thus question the distinction or
boundary made between Hebrew and Egyptian women by the dominant
ideology of the text.
Pharaoh's genocidal initiative fails: 'the people' continue to increase
(1.20b).53 Therefore, Pharaoh calls on 'all his people' to perform the murders that the midwives seem incapable of doing (1.22), by throwing newborn sons into the Nile but allowing daughters to live.54 It is noteworthy
48. On the distinction between adjectival and objective genitives, see Waltke and
O'Connor (1990: 9.5).
49. The ethnic hero is a common topos in ethnic discourse.
50. There is always leakage around an ideology's strategies of containment. In
Exod. 1 and 2, this leakage particularly occurs around the sign of women.
51. God provides them with 'houses' (1.21), which, if they are Egyptian, may
signify that they were incorporated into Israel. Note also that it is in conjunction with
the midwives that the deity is first mentioned in the book of Exodus.
52. See Houtman (1993: 251-52) and Leibowitz (1976: 31-35).
53. Given the ambiguity of the midwives' identity, the term 'the people' in this
verse also becomes ambiguous. The reference seems to be to Israel (see 1.9) but the
introduction of the somewhat ambiguous term 'Hebrews' and the ambiguity of the
midwives' identity allows for thinking of other possibilities. For example, 'the people'
might here refer to Hebrews, whether Israelite or not, or to a group of Egyptians who
are being labeled as Israel or Hebrews although they may consider themselves Egyptian.
54. The words IDIT^D ('all his people') are a clue that the midwives can be
understood as Egyptian. In 1.9, the king speaks to 'his people'; in 1.22, he speaks to
'all his people'. Between these two occurrences, he speaks to the two midwives. The
implication is that in 1.22 he is speaking to more of his people than just the midwives;
i.e. the midwives are considered part of Pharaoh's people, as Egyptians.
3. Egypt in Exodus
59
that the MT does not specify which newborn sons are to be killed; only the
LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch and other versions indicate that it is 'sons born
to the Hebrews' who are to die. The MT, in other words, allows for the
possibility that both Hebrew and Egyptian sons are to be killed.55 If the MT
reading is a textual slip, it is one that is quite revealing of the ideological
tension within the narrative between a dominant view that constructs
absolute difference between Egypt and Israel and a submerged view that
questions such difference.
Birth of the Ethnic Hero (2.1-10)
The Israel constructed in the previous chapter of the book of Exodus has
so far remained a fairly amorphous entity, the main characteristic of which
is miraculous increase. No individual of this collective has yet stood out.
No opportunity has yet been given for Israel to speak. This situation
begins to change with the narration of the birth and early life of the ethnic
hero. With Moses, Israel begins to take definite shape. But, as we will see,
Moses is a figure fraught with ambiguity and his identification with Israel
is at times quite tenuous. As the paradigmatic hero of Israel, Moses'
ambiguous identity mirrors that of Israel itself.
Moses, as an adult, will emerge from an Egyptian household, but the
narrative is very concerned at the beginning to show that Moses' true
origins are from outside Egypt. Both his father and mother are identified as
Levites (2.1), Levi being one of the sons listed as having entered Egypt
with Jacob (1.1-5). In fact, his mother is identified literally as the daughter
of Levi himself (2.1 ).56 Furthermore, Moses is breastfed by his biological
mother (2.7-9). The likelihood of foreign elements in Moses' family tree is
made very remote. In this way, Moses, in his own history, replicates the
text's ideology of Israel's distinctiveness; originally a pure Israelite, he,
like Israel, will take a detour through the house of Egypt, but will reemerge in order to claim his true Israelite identity. As we have already
seen, this master narrative of Israel's origins has already been initiated in
5 5. This is further evidence for the motif of the ruler threatened by the birth of a
rival that may form one of the literary backgrounds to the narrative.
56. The MT reading 'I'rr'CTIK 'the daughter of Levi' is modified in the LXX to
TCOV 6uyc<TEpeov AEUI 'of the daughters of Levi', an attempt to mitigate the chronological problem that arises if the MT is taken literally. If Israel had lived in Egypt for
430 years before the Exodus (Exod. 12.40), it would be impossible for Moses' mother
to be literally a daughter of Levi. The obvious literal reading in MT Exod. 6.20 and
Num. 26.59 may be meant to underscore Moses' genealogical connection with Israel.
60
the book of Genesis; here, we see it put into play in the book of Exodus.
At the same time, however, Moses' origins will later betray some
problems. The genealogy of Levi, outlined later in 6.16-25, identifies
Moses' mother as his father's paternal aunt (6.20), a relationship that is
considered incestuous by the law code of Leviticus (18.20). Moreover, his
father marries up a generation, when the usual practice portrayed in the
Hebrew Bible is for a man to marry either in the same generation or down
one generation. And finally, Moses' birth is described (2.1-2a) such that
one assumes that he is the firstborn; however, suddenly an older sister
appears (2.4), and later a brother (4.14 and passim), who, in at least one
text, is described as three years older than Moses (Exod. 7.7).57 These
ambiguities indicate hints of alternative traditions in which Moses might
be other than what the text is at pains to portray him.
Moses' mother literally obeys the Pharaoh's decree (1.22) by putting her
child into the Nile, indicating that she is narratively identified as among
the people of Pharaoh (i.e. Egyptians) to whom his decree is directed.58
Ironically, she does so in such a way as to actually subvert the king's
command, putting her child in an ark (Ton) which she places among the
reeds (^D) along the banks of the river (2.3). The word i"DP is a backward
link to the story of Noah in Genesis (6-9), the only other place in the
Hebrew Bible where the word mn for 'ark' is used. As the ark in Genesis
was the vehicle of an entirely new beginning for humanity, so it also
functions here to mark a new beginning for Israel. Moses is thus like
Noah; just as Noah saved his family through the waters of the flood from
the rest of wicked humanity, so also Moses will save Israel from the
wicked Pharaoh and the Egyptians by leading them through the Sea of
Reeds (Ô'D1) (Exod. 14).59 However, in the immediate narrative context,
57. Aaron and Miriam are also portrayed as later rebelling against Moses' leadership (Num. 12). The relationships between Moses, Aaron and Miriam are pictured in
various, and sometimes apparently conflicting, ways in the Hebrew Bible. For example, Miriam is described as related to Aaron alone in Exod. 15.20. Or, in many of the
passages in which Moses and Aaron are mentioned together, Aaron's name could
easily be removed without affecting the significance or meaning of the passage (Spencer 1992a: 3), suggesting that Aaron is perhaps a later addition.
58. Since Pharaoh addressed his decree to 'all his people' (1.22), by implication,
Moses' mother is counted as one of Pharaoh's people. That is, on the literal level of the
text Moses' biological mother is considered Egyptian.
59. Deliberate connections with Genesis seem to be forged repeatedly in the first
two chapters of Exodus. The narrative intention seems for the macroscopic or universal
3. Egypt in Exodus
61
the ark is Moses' passage from an Israelite to an Egyptian identity.60

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

ancient Egyptian population and the general lack of color prejudice in the
ancient world.64 Perhaps the abandoned condition of the child bore witness
to its Hebrew identity, given the economic register of the term 'Hebrew'.
The Pharaoh's daughter, while positively portrayed, is also the vehicle
whereby the Egyptians are lampooned. The Pharaoh's decree allowed the
daughters to live, but daughters, including even his very own daughter, are
precisely those that undo his decree. A member of the Egyptian royal
house heeds the advice of a lowly Hebrew girl, and is duped into paying
for a Hebrew mother to nurse her own son (2.7-9). The future deliverer of
the Hebrews is raised, and presumably educated in the art of leadership,
right in Pharaoh's house (2.10-11). In these ways, the famous wisdom of
Egypt is satirized, and the contrast between Egyptian and Israelite/Hebrew
is supported.
Yet the naming of Moses illustrates the ambiguity of this contrast. On
the one hand, the daughter of Pharaoh is positively and sympathetically
portrayed; she apparently knows Hebrew and gives Moses a name that she
etymologically links to the circumstances of his rescue, namely, 'the one
who is drawn out (of the water)'.65 On the other hand, she makes a grammatical mistake, for the name Moses is not the passive participle of the
verb HEJQ, but rather the active participle, meaning 'the one who draws
out'. In effect, Pharaoh's daughter unwittingly prophesies Moses' future
role: he will be the one who draws Israel out of Egypt through the waters
of the sea.66 So Pharaoh's daughter is positively portrayed as a redeemer,
but also simultaneously lampooned.
A further complication is that the name Moses is also an Egyptian
name; derived from the verb ms 'to produce, bring forth', it is an abbreof circumcision, however, likely differed from the west Semitic form. Nonetheless,
circumcision really becomes a significant identifying mark only in the Hellenistic
period since the Greeks both practiced public nudity and abhorred circumcision (see
Hall 1992: 1027-1029).
64. According to Yurco (1989,1996), the Egyptians themselves were derived from
a broad range of peoples, and their skin color and racial features varied greatly. On the
lack of color prejudice in the ancient world see especially Snowden (1983).
65. Philo and Josephus assumed that the Pharaoh's daughter spoke Egyptian and
thus interpreted the name via Egyptian and Coptic as 'the one rescued from the water'
(see Josephus Ant. 2.228; Apion 286; and Philo Vir. Mos 1.17).
66. Thus, 'the purpose of the etymology was not so much to 'explain' the name in
itself as to link it with some legendary feature already present in the narrative tradition'
(Barr 1974: 24).
3. Egypt in Exodus
63
viated form of a theophoric name such as Ptah-mose '(the God) Ptah is

born/has engendered'.67 The Hebrew form of the name lacks the theophoric element, likely to avoid associating an Egyptian deity with an
Israelite hero; it also shows signs of having been thoroughly hebraized.68
In light of the name's Egyptian background, it is possible that the Hebrew
etymology provided for the name in 2.11 is an artificial attempt to erase its
Egyptian origin.69 Thus the very name of Moses betrays Egyptian origins,
and Moses himself, despite the attempts of the narrative to thoroughly
hebraize him, comes across as a hybrid, ambiguously straddling the
distinction between Egyptian and Israelite/Hebrew.
Ethnic Differentiation and Death (2.11-15a)
The king of Egypt in 1.9-10 first rhetorically constructed the differentiation between Egypt and Israel, and used it to justify economic exploitation.
This differentiation was immediately incorporated into the omniscient
narratorial perspective (1.12-13). The episode with the midwives (1.15-22)
shifted the differentiation to that between Egypt and Hebrew, but, at the
same time, the midwives were portrayed as manipulating or subverting
this differentiation so as to save lives. The subsequent episode with
Pharaoh's daughter (2.1-10) continued the same theme. However, now the
differentiation leads to murder. Whereas previously violence was implicit
in the oppression of Israel and in the genocidal policies of the Pharaoh
towards the Hebrews, here the differentiation between Egyptian and
67. See Griffiths (1953). Other examples of this form of Egyptian theophoric name
include Thut-mose, Ah-mose, Ra-mose and Amen-mose. Although the Egyptian origin
of the name Moses is widely accepted, it is still disputed; see, for example, Zadok
(1986: 393) who refers to possible Hurrite or Kassite etymologies.
68. The Egyptian 5 is rendered by the Hebrew tti rather than D (Griffiths 1953).
Similarly, the place name 'Rameses' in Exod. 1.10 and Gen. 47.11, spelled with a
double samekh, indicates both the influence of the Greek rendering of this place name
and that the name was regarded as foreign.
69. Noth (1962:26) argues that neither the producers of Exodus nor their audiences
were aware that 'Moses' is an abbreviated Egyptian name. However, it is just as
possible, and in fact more likely, given the anti-Egyptian ideology of the text, that the
producers of the final text form knew the name's Egyptian origins and were trying to
repress this knowledge. The fact that the Pharaoh's daughter gives Moses his name is
the vital clue since it stands to reason that she would give him an Egyptian name. The
biblical narrative elsewhere assumes that an Egyptian would give another person an
Egyptian name, as in the case of the Egyptian name that the Pharaoh gives to Joseph in
Gen. 41.45.
64
Israelite/Hebrew is explicitly drawn in blood. And the victim, interestingly, is not an Israelite or a Hebrew but an Egyptian.
Moses, now grown up, 'goes out' ,70 presumably from the royal Egyptian
household of his upbringing, to his kin.71 This movement, prefiguring the
grand movement of Israel out of Egypt,72 promises an identification of
Moses with his non-Egyptian Israelite roots. This promise seems to be
fulfilled by the narrative, which repeatedly uses the term 'his brothers/kin'
to emphasize Moses' solidarity with the Hebrews/Israel. Moses sides
with the Hebrews and kills an Egyptian who is beating 'a Hebrew man
from among his kin' (2.lib). By this action, it seems that Moses has
himself made a drastic decision to identify with the Hebrews and sealed it
with murder.
But when Moses 'goes out' a second time, he finds that the people with
whom he has identified reject him, viewing him in the same light as they
see Pharaoh. When Moses tries to intervene in a quarrel between the two
Hebrews, he demands HD1? ('Why?') (2.13b), just as the Pharaoh had
previously demanded 'Why?' of the midwives (1.18b). Whereas the midwives had given Pharaoh an evasive answer that both confirmed the king' s
prejudices and subtly made fun of his people, the Hebrews here soundly
reject Moses' attempt to identify with them. For the first time the narrative
gives access to the Hebrews' point of view; from their perspective the
murder of the Egyptian by Moses was not an act of solidarity or liberation;
instead it only confirmed for them the image of the oppressor. In the eyes
of the Hebrews, Moses was exactly what he appeared to be, a member of
an oppressive Egyptian royal house.
Having been rejected in his attempt to identify with the Hebrews, now
Moses also has his Egyptian identity repudiated, for the Pharaoh seeks to
kill him (2.15a). To save his life he is forced to flee,73 without a sure
Egyptian or Israelite identity. This uncertainty is typical of the early life of
70. The Hebrew word NIT ('to go out') is one of the programmatic words in the
account of the exodus.
71. The Hebrew word here is Vi~IN, literally 'his brothers'.
72. Fretheim (1991b: 41-45) farther points out how 2.11-15a portrays Moses as
embodying the experience of Israel in terms of conflict with Egypt and flight, and that
it also anticipates the future office of Moses as judge over Israel (see Exod. 18).
73. Moses flees away from Egypt. Most of the other examples of persons in the
Hebrew Bible who are forced to flee for political reasons, flee to Egypt (cf. Hadad the
Edomite [1 Kgs. 11.14-22], Jeroboam [1 Kgs. 11.26-40], Uriah the prophet [Jer. 26.2023]). Thus, the pattern of Moses' flight is an inversion of the more common biblical
pattern.
3. Egypt in Exodus
65
ethnic heroes, but in the case of Moses it also seems to indicate that, on the
wider ideological plane of the narrative, the differentiation between
Hebrew and Egyptian is still unstable.
Furthermore, the image of Moses is tarnished almost from the beginning
by this episode. Moses commits a premeditated murder, looking around
first to make sure there are no hostile witnesses74 and afterwards surreptitiously hides the body (2.12). He presumes not only to identify himself with the oppressed Hebrews but also to act in the capacity of leader
and judge over them, without any validation, human or divine.75 He then
flees in fear rather than heroically resisting the oppressor. One can see an
anti-Moses tradition at work here, or, as Silver puts it, an attempt to
diminish Moses' heroic role. While such a diminishment may be attributed
to theological reasons, on an ideological level it may be due to Moses'
Egyptianness.76
Liminality in Midian (2.15b-22)
Moses flees to the land of Midian (2.15b).77 In the preceding scroll of
Genesis, Midian has appeared twice: as one of the sons of Abraham and
Keturah (Gen. 25.2, 4), and, alternating with the Ishmaelites, as the
caravan traders who convey Joseph as a slave to Egypt (Gen. 37.28, 36).
Midian is thus placed in Genesis as a close kin of Israel and yet as a
branch of the family rejected as a bearer of the promises to the ancestors.
In other words, according to the geneaological ideology of Genesis,
Midian will eventually be a dead end for Moses.
In the present Exodus narrative, however, Midian signifies a liminal
74. An alternative interpretation is that Moses was looking around for help in
stopping the beating and seeing none, took matters into his own hands (see Leibowitz
1976: 43-46).
75. On a theological level, the narrative has Moses' efforts fail here because the
deity has not yet properly commissioned him.
76. In contrast to the heroic treatment of David in the Hebrew Bible, successive
editions of the Torah 'seemed to have struggled against Moses' reputation rather than
to have elaborated it' (Silver 1982: 17). 'The Torah's editors took every possible
precaution to drive home the point that power and authority belong to God and that the
community must be conscious always that Moses is simply God's agent, God is the
Master' (Silver 1982: 21). On an ideological level, however, the Pentateuch in its final
text form may be attempting to undercut or refute an image of Moses as hero
celebrated by Judeans in Egypt, thus accounting for the ambiguous portrayal of Moses.
77. A similar motif of the flight of the disgraced hero appears in the Egyptian story
of Sinuhe (ANET: 18-22).
66
space (Turner 1969), neither Egypt nor Israel, where Moses can find temporary refuge and work out his identity.78 The liminality of Midian mirrors
the liminality of Moses. However, once identities have coalesced or
settled, the liminal place is no longer necessary. So one finds in the later
Pentateuch a gradual shift towards a rejection of Midian. Whereas Moses
finds refuge in Midian (Exod. 2-4) he later divorces his Midianite wife
who takes her sons back to Midian with her (Exod. 18.2-4).79 Similarly,
whereas Israel is organized according to the advice of a Midianite priest
(Exod. 18) and asks for Midianite guidance in the wilderness, later Midian
refuses to join Israel (Num. 10.29-32), and the involvement of Midian in
Israel's participation in idolatrous fertility rituals at Peor leads to Israelite
hostility towards Midian (Num. 25). Finally, one of the last acts of Moses
is to command the extermination of the Midianites (Num. 31).
In Midian, Moses encounters the daughters of his future father-in-law at
a well, a biblical topos associated with marriage alliances and the striking
of new agreements.80 Moses is accepted into a Midianite family and
marries one of the daughters. All of this raises the issue of the identity of
Moses; previously, the question has been whether Moses is Israelite or
Egyptian, but now there is also the possibility that he has adopted a
Midianite identity.
From the narrative point of view of the Midianites, Moses is an
Egyptian.81 What Moses thinks of himself is less clear. He does not
identify himself to his Midianite host, but is willing to settle in Midian and
78. Archaeologically, Midian has been identified with a sophisticated culture that
arose in the Late Bronze Age in the northern Arabian peninsula east of the Arabah
(Mendenhall 1992: 817). However, the biblical narrative is more interested in Midian
as a foil for Israelite identity.
79. The verb used in Exod. 18.2 is the piel of FTÊJ, literally 'to send away', a
technical term for divorcing a wife (see Deut. 24.1, 3).
80. See Gen. 21; 24; 26; 29.
81. The daughters of Reuel refer to Moses as an *~)iQ ETK 'an Egyptian man'
(2.19), exactly the same words used to describe the Egyptian whom Moses murdered
(Exod. 2.11). Durham (1987: 23) regards this as nothing more than a narratorial
connecting device. Others (e.g. Cassuto 1983: 25) speculate that Moses was wearing
Egyptian clothes and/or speaking Egyptian. But these solutions only buttress the
ideology of the text which wants to distance Moses from Egypt. In contrast, a reading
that resists the dominant anti-Egyptian ideology of the text will see this reference as
one of the places in which the text slips and reveals something of the alternative
ideologies that it is opposing.
3. Egypt in Exodus
67
to many there, seeming to adopt a Midianite identity.82 But he has not

forgotten his roots: in contrast to Joseph who in Egypt names his first son
to signiiy that he has forgotten his former life (Gen. 41.51), Moses names
his first son in Midian Gershom, interpreting it to mean 'an alien I am, or I
have been, in a foreign land'.83 Yet, it is not clear just to what foreign land
Moses refers.84 If it is Egypt, then Moses is supporting the narrative's
ideology of differentiation between Israel and Egypt by indicating that he
has not been at home in Egypt because he is not an Egyptian. If, however,
the foreign land to which he refers is Midian, the land in which he finds
himself at present, then Moses counters the ideology of differentiation
between Egypt and Israel by indicating that he felt at home in Egypt and is
homesick. Again, this ambiguity can be interpreted as the trace of an ideological tension between pro- and anti-Egyptian interests in the narrative.85
The explanation the text gives for Gershom's name is patently artificial,
involving as it does the splitting of the name into two parts. The name is
more likely based on the root verb 2TI3 ('to drive out, expel').86 According
to this etymology, Gershom becomes a reference to Moses' expulsion out
of Egypt, suggesting that he was forced to leave against his will. Since
Moses narratively embodies or prefigures the experience of Israel, there
may be an obscured suggestion here that Israel will also be expelled from
Egypt unwillingly.87 This submerged tradition of expulsion from Egypt
indicates a greater attachment of Moses and Israel to Egypt than the more
dominant tradition of a willing exodus from Egypt.
In summary, the account of Moses in Midian highlights the uncertainty
82. The verb ^W, 'be willing, pleased' (2.21) could mean that Moses not only
rather passively agreed to settle in Midian, but that he was delighted and actively
resolved to settle there (BDB: 384).
83. This pun involves dividing the name DET13 into two parts: "IJ and CEJ 'alien
there'.
84. The very term ~i~Q] 'foreign' evokes the ethnic differentiation between 'us'
and 'them'.
85. While Durham (1987: 24) insists that the foreign land referred to is Egypt, and
other commentators (e.g. Noth 1962: 37, Cassuto 1983: 26) assume that it is Midian,
Fretheim (1991b: 42) concludes that the reference to the foreign land is ambiguous
since it could refer to either Midian or Egypt.
86. The affixed L (or ] in the variant jiETU) is an afformative typical of proper
names (GKC: 85 t-u). The verb 2TU is also suggested by the proximity of its usage
earlier at 2.17.
87. A tradition of Israel's expulsion from Egypt is mentioned in Exod. 6.1; 11.1;
and 12.39.
68
of his identity, and, by extension, the identity of Israel, vis-a-vis Egypt.

The ambiguities surrounding the naming of Moses' son especially highlight the ideological work of the narrative, which attempts to neutralize or
counteract alternate traditions that are more open to an Egyptian element
in Moses' and Israel's origin.
The Deity Enters the Ring (2.23-25)
The king of Egypt dies (2.23a) but there is no relief from the oppression
which he had initiated against Israel. The audience is finally given its first
direct access to the narrative perspective of the Israelites, who are
described as groaning and crying out for help from their slavery and
oppression (2.23b). Finally the deity, who has been mentioned previously
in the scroll of Exodus only briefly in the story of the midwives (1.17,2021), takes centre stage in the narrative. The main antagonists from now on
will be the deity,88 working through his ambassador Moses, and the
Pharaoh;89 they will fight over the ultimate ownership and identity of
Israel. The deity hears the groans of Israel, remembers the covenant with
the ancestors, sees the Israelites,90 and knows (2.24-25).91
88. The generic term DTT ^ ('God') is used here and in the story of the midwives.
The tetragrammaton does not appear until the revelation at the burning bush in the next
chapter of Exodus.
89. The antagonists are in the same class, in that the Pharaoh was considered
divine, or at least semi-divine, in official ancient Egyptian ideology. The producers and
audience of the text may have been aware of this Egyptian perspective.
90. The verb n~l can be understood here in the sense of'recognize, acknowledge',
perhaps indicating that the deity only now recognizes Israel as a distinct people
separate from Egypt. A textual variant here reads: 'God saw the affliction/slavery of
Israel' but this can be explained as an interpretive modification and/or an assimilation
to Exod. 3.7 (HOTTP: 91).
91. What exactly the deity knows is not mentioned. This enigmatic ending to ch. 2
of Exodus effectively heightens the audience's desire to proceed with the narrative and
to find out what the deity knows. And the answer, indeed, is given in 3.7. The LXX
offers a different reading here 'and God was made known to them [i.e. the Israelites]'.
This suggests that Israel did not know the deity during its sojourn in Egypt, an
interpretation supported by Josh. 24.14 and Ezek. 20.7-8, both of which speak of Israel
worshiping other gods or idols in Egypt. Either this means that Israel had lost the faith
of the ancestors described in Genesis, or that there is a trace here of a tradition which
sees the beginning of Israel, and Israel's faith in its unique God, in Egypt, without any
previous ancestral period or origins in Mesopotamia. The claim made in Genesis is that
Mesopotamia was the place where the ancestors of Israel worshiped other godssee
Gen. 31 and 35.1-4. Joshua 24.1-4 combines this claim with a claim that Israel also
practiced idolatry in Egypt, perhaps in an attempt to fuse two traditions.
3. Egypt in Exodus
69
Structurally, these last verses of the second chapter of Exodus form an

inclusio with the opening segments of Exodus: the mention of the three
ancestors, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, complements the naming of the sons
of Israel in 1.1-7; the reappearance of the term 'sons of Israel' instead of
'Hebrews' harks back to the usage in 1.1-14; and the ending 'and God
knew' serves as a bracket with the new king who did 'not know' in 1.8.
Just as 1.1-7 constitutes a strong link backwards to Genesis, so also does
the mention of the covenant with the three patriarchs in 2.24. Exodus 1-2
thus forms a clearly delineated literary unit, perhaps deliberately crafted as
a prologue linking the exodus story to the preceding ancestral stories in
Genesis, with their largely anti-Egyptian stance. Furthermore, this prologue
attempts to suppress the Egyptianness of Moses by having him replicate
the master narrative of Israel, which is that of a true origin with distant
ancestors in Mesopotamia and only a temporary detour through Egypt.
EGYPT/PHARAOH
YHWH
MOSES
ISRAEL
Figure 1. Characters in the Struggle over Identity in Exodus
Moses will be central to the ideological contest over identity in the rest
of the scroll of Exodus. Essentially, YHWH and Pharaoh/Egypt will vie for
ownership of Israel. The central question will be whether Israel belongs in
Egypt or not. Moses will stand in the midst of this agonistic struggle, having an ambiguous relationship with the other major players in this drama
of identity: Egypt, YHWH and Israel (see Figure 1). The following analysis
of the remainder of Exodus will be structured around the narrative construction of the identities of these players, as seen in five major narrative
segments.
70
Egypt on the Pentateuch 's Ideological Map
Encounter with the Deity and Return to Egypt (3.1-4.31)

In this section of the scroll of Exodus, Moses and the deity are brought
together. After resisting the divine mandate, Moses finally returns to Egypt
to set the stage for the contest over Israel's identity. However, already
before the contest explicitly begins, the narrative gives evidence of
ambiguities that prevent any simple allocation of static identities to Moses
or Israel and that are indications of a struggle between different ideologies
of identity.
The Identity of YHWH
In the first two chapters of Exodus, God has appeared infrequently only as
the more-or-less generic tra^K 'God' (1.20; 2.24, 25) or DTl'f'Krr 'the
God' (1.17, 21; 2.23).92 Now, however, the references to God become
more particular and detailed, with the fullest appellation occurring on the
lips of the deity himself: 'YHWH, the God of your ancestors, the God of
Abraham, (the God of) Isaac, (the God of) Jacob' (3.15, 16; 4.5). The
tetragrammaton mil' ('YHWH'), the specific name of the God of Israel in
the Hebrew Bible, dominates the references to the deity, especially after
the revelation of God's name in 3.14. Especially significant, in terms of
the construction of ethnic identities, is the definite link that is forged here
between the deity as described in the ancestral accounts of Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob in Genesis, and the deity, or a deity, known to the Israelites/
Hebrews in Egypt.93
When the deity first speaks to Moses, he introduces himself as 'the God
of your father (singular!), the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the
God of Jacob' (3.6)94all other occurrences of this formula contain the
plural 'your fathers'. Tournay (1996) argues that this textual anomaly is a
trace of editorial work in which the phrase 'the God of Abraham, the God
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' was added to the text. That is, an explicit
92. The use of CTn^NH 'the God' maybe significant. The density of occurrences of
this term is highest among biblical books that are clearly postexilic such as Qoheleth,
Jonah, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. The term may thus reflect a Persian
period usage that attempts to identify the God of the Yehudites with the high God of
the Persian rulers (T.L. Thompson 1995).
93. The same link was forged in 2.24 with the more generic B'nbN, 'God' rather
than the particular HIT, 'Yahweh'.
94. The Samaritan Pentateuch and some LXX manuscripts read the plural 'your
fathers' here, bringing the phrase into conformity with 3.15, 16 and 4.5.
3. Egypt in Exodus
71
link to the ancestral accounts of Genesis is a later addition to a text that

may not have originally known the Genesis tradition.95 The textual
anomaly at 3.6 thus indicates that two traditions are being combined: one
in which the deity is simply Moses' paternal God, perhaps the God worshiped in Egypt by the house of Levi; and the other in which the deity is
the God of the three patriarchal ancestors with their Mesopotamian connections. This combination indicates that at the time of the production of
the final text form of the scroll of Exodus, the equivalence of the God
worshiped by the Israelites/Hebrews in Egypt with the God of the patriarchs of Genesis was not yet necessarily an established or accepted fact.
Possibly, certain Judean communities, perhaps located in Egypt, did not
have or did not accept the traditions connecting YHWH with the three
patriarchs of Genesis.96
That a new link is being forged between the God of the Israelites/
Hebrews in Egypt and the God of the ancestors is further indicated by
Moses' response in 3.13. He anticipates that Israel in Egypt will ask the
name of the 'God of their ancestors' who has sent Moses to them, as if the
notion of the God of their ancestors is unclear to them.97 The answer
Moses is given concerns not only the name of God (3.14) but also the
eternal identification of this God with the God of the ancestors of Genesis
(3.15).98 In other words, Israel in Egypt is presented as not knowing that
YHWH is the God of the ancestors of Genesis. The whole episode
95. Similarly, Romer (1990) has argued that the triad 'Abraham, Isaac and Jacob'
is part of the latest redaction of Deuteronomy, which originally did not know of the
ancestral traditions of Genesis.
96. Noteworthy is the omission of Joseph, the Egyptian proto-Israelite hero, from
the ancestral formula.
97. The Hebrew Bible contains traces of a tradition that Israel worshiped a number
of different gods in Egypt (Josh. 24.14; Ezek. 20.7-8), and so the question Moses
anticipates Israel will ask may mean: 'which of these gods do you mean by your
reference to the "God of our ancestors"?' In contrast, other commentators suggest that
the question concerns the authority or credentials of the messenger (Durham 1987: 3738; Houtman 1993: 366) or the significance of God's name (Childs 1974:75-76). Such
explanations take for granted, however, the equivalence between YHWH in Egypt and
the God of the ancestors.
98. The near repetition of 'wltF ^^ 1DKH rn ('thus you shall say to the sons of
Israel') from v. 14 in v. 15, and the adverb TIU, 'again' in v. 15, are strong indications
that v. 15 is an editorial addition or insertion into the text. This supports the notion that
the linkage of the God known to Israel in Egypt with the God of the Genesis ancestors
who stem from Mesopotamia is a linkage of great concern to the producers of the final
text form.
72
concerning God's name (3.13-15) functions to make this link explicit.

YHWH'S attempts to convince Moses and Moses' resistance to YHWH'S
persuasion thus mirror the attempts of the text to convince its audience of
the link between the God of Israel in Egypt and the God of the ancestors of
Genesis. Moses himself seems dubious of this claim. Whereas YHWH
regularly announces himself as the God of the ancestors, of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob (3.6, 4.5), and commands Moses to announce the same
(3.15, 16), Moses in his own words does not explicitly repeat YHWH'S
invocation of the Genesis ancestors; he instead refers solely to the 'God of
your ancestors' (3.13) or to YHWH (4.1). Thus, in contrast to the sureness
of the divine speech, Moses' speech voices uncertainty.
While Moses is depicted as vacillating and unsure, the narrative presents
the deity as unequivocally desiring to have Israel identified as separate
from Egypt and thus attempting to put into motion a strategy to get Israel
out of Egypt. However, the text presents at least two plans whereby this
exodus from Egypt is to happen. The first plan is directed at Israel: Moses
is to persuade Israel with various 'signs' (mmK) that YHWH desires to
bring them out of Egypt to another land (3.16-17; 4.1-9); then Moses is to
request the king of Egypt to let Israel go (3.10, 18); the king will refuse
(3.19) whereupon YHWH will strike Egypt with 'wonders' (riK^SH); the
king will finally let Israel go (3.20); and, in leaving, Israel will plunder
Egypt (3.21-22). However, a second plan, directed at Pharaoh, is also
presented: Moses is to perform before Pharaoh all the 'wonders' (DTIBID)
with which YHWH has empowered him (4.2la); YHWH will harden
Pharaoh's heart so that Pharaoh will refuse to let Israel go (4.21b); and
finally, YHWH will kill Pharaoh's firstborn (4.22)." In the first plan, Israel
will leave enriched by the Egyptians; in the second plan, Egypt will suffer
death.
Each of these plans is directed at one of the two parties, Israel or Egypt,
that need to be persuaded by the deity of the ethnic differentiation of Israel
99. Two different plans are also apparent in the contrast between words Moses is
commanded to speak to the elders of Israel (3.16-17) and the words they are then to
speak to Pharaoh (3.18). To the elders Moses is to convey YHWH'S plan to bring Israel
up out of Egypt to another land, whereas to Pharaoh they are to announce merely their
desire to travel three days into the wilderness to worship their God. The separation of
Israel from Egypt thus involves a deliberate ruse or deception of the Egyptians.
Cassuto (1983:43), however, sees the words to Pharaoh in 3.18 as merely the opening
gambit in a series of negotiations, according to the conventions of ancient Near Eastern
negotiations in which one begins small and then asks for more.
3. Egypt in Exodus
73
from Egypt. The 'signs' that Moses performs will successfully persuade
Israel, according to the first plan. However, according to the second plan,
the 'wonders' that Moses performs will fail to persuade Egypt, not by its
own fault but because of the deity's machinations.100 YHWH will ensure
that the situation escalates to the point of death by hardening the Pharaoh's
heart, suggesting that the Pharaoh might otherwise have been willing to
accede to some less drastic and final form of differentiation.101 Ironically,
while the king of Egypt first suggested the differentiation of Israel from
Egypt (1.9-10), it now becomes clear that it is YHWH who most desires
this differentiation. YHWH'S identity, as the God of Israel, becomes dependent on Israel's ethnic differentiation from Egypt.
The narrative is careful to locate YHWH outside of Egypt. Moses' encounter with YHWH takes place outside both Egypt and Midian (3.1).102
YHWH claims that he has 'come down' to deliver Israel (3.8)the same
verb "TT ('to descend') is regularly used to describe the journey to
Egypt.103 In other words, the text adamantly presents this deity as not
native to Egypt. In fact, the God who reveals himself to Moses cannot, it
seems, be worshiped properly in Egypt at all, for in his presentation to
Pharaoh (3.18), Moses is to request permission for Israel to go a three
days' journey out of Egypt so that the God of the Hebrews can be
worshiped.104 The text, therefore, not only identifies the God known to
100. Because of these diametrically opposite effects, Cassuto (1983: 55) claims that
the 'wonders' of the second plan are completely different from the 'signs' of the first
plan. However, 'signs' and 'wonders' are often coupled in Deuteronomy (see 4.34;
6.22; 7.19; 26.8; 28.46; 29.2; 34.11), suggesting that the two terms form a hendiadys.
101. The motif of the 'hardening of Pharaoh's heart' becomes prominent in the
narrative of the plagues. Pharaoh hardens his own heart in 7.13, 22; 8.15 and 9.35;
YHWH hardens Pharaoh's heart in 4.21 andin9.12; 10.20,27; ll.lOand 14.4,8(10).
102. Durham (1987: 30) calls it a 'new, strange and distant place'i.e. a no-place.
On the reference to wilderness in 3.1, see Talmon (1966) on the desert motif in the
Bible. Note, however, that later Moses meets Aaron at the 'mountain of God' (4.27).
The narrative seems to understand this place as close to the border of Egypt, suggested
by the swift transition from the meeting of Moses and Aaron to their presentation to the
elders of Israel. (Josephus, in his retelling of the exodus, explicitly places the meeting
of Aaron and Moses near the border of EgyptAnt. 2.13.279.) The location of YHWH
on the border of Egypt mirrors the attempt of the narrative to locate Israel in the same
place; that is, outside of and separate from Egypt, but close enough to make Egypt the
'other' against which identity must be asserted.
103. For example, Gen. 12.10; 26.2; 39.1; 42.2-3, etc.
104. See also 3.12; 4.23. Houtman (1993: 373) argues that the God associated with
the Hebrews cannot be worshiped on territory that is the domain of the gods of Egypt.
74
Israel in Egypt with the God of the Genesis ancestors, but also simultaneously claims that this God cannot be worshiped properly in Egypt.
In the context of the production of the final form of the text, a huge claim
is being presented against the possibility of legitimate YHWH worship
in Egypt.105
However, in order to effect the differentiation and exodus of Israel from
Egypt, YHWH must, temporarily at least, move into Egypt itself. And so he
does in the guise of Moses' staff, the one with which Moses is to perform
signs, identified as the 'staff of God' (DTI ^Kn HCOQ) in 4.20. In Egypt, this
staff will function to perform magic (7.9-12), to bring on some of the
plagues (7.15, 17, 19, 20; 8.12, 13; 9.23; 10.13), and to divide the sea
(14.16). YHWH is metonymically identified with this staff which embodies
his power and presence; in the figure of the staff, it is as if YHWH invades
Egypt to do battle against the Egyptians. The deity who claims Israel as
separate from Egypt, and who is presented as not native to Egypt, can be
present in Egypt only as the one who effects the strategy of ethnic
distinction.
The Identity of Israel
Whereas the king of Egypt had disavowed the 'sons of Israel' by defining
them as the negative pole of the ethnic 'us-versus-them' polarity (1.9-10),
YHWH here claims Israel as 'my people' (3.7, 9, 10). Thus the ethnic
dichotomy constructed in the previous two chapters of Exodus is further
sharpened into an opposition between YHWH'S people and Pharaoh's
people. That Israel is now to be regarded as a separate people is further
suggested by the reference to its organizational structure of elders (3.16,
18), such as any discrete people would have been supposed to have.106
105. During the Persian period there was at least one YHWH temple in Egyptat
Elephantine. In the Hellenistic period there was an additional YHWH temple at Leontopolis. Furthermore, some of the earliest evidence for the emergence of the synagogue
comes from Egypt. Although claims against the legitimacy of diaspora Judaism would
not necessarily single out the diaspora community in Egypt, it seems that the Egyptian
community is especially targeted here. In contrast, for instance, Ezek. (10-11) pictures
the divine presence as going to Babylon with the exiles after abandoning the Jerusalem
temple after the disaster of 586 BCE.
106. Every people was likely supposed by the biblical writers to have such a
structurethe elders of Egypt are mentioned in Gen. 50.7 and those of Moab and
Midian in Num. 22.7. However, these elders of Israel quickly fade from the reader's
view in Exodusin the later narrative Aaron seems to take their place and function
(see Fretheim 1991b: 66).
3. Egypt in Exodus
75
However, this portrayal of Israel as a distinct people is subtly undermined

or questioned by other aspects of the text. The character Moses, for instance, does not necessarily accede to the identifications of Israel advanced
by either Pharaoh or YHWH. In his own words, he refers merely to the
'sons of Israel' (3.11, 13) without the qualifier 'your (i.e. YHWH'S)
people'. But it is the motif of Israel's plundering of the Egyptians,
introduced in 3.21-22 and appearing again in 11.2-3 and 12.35-36, that
complicates any facile distinction between Israel and Egypt.
On the surface, of course, the plundering motif seems to underline the
distinction between the stupid or gullible Egyptians and the smart
Israelites/Hebrews. The Egyptians, despite the blows or plagues they will
suffer because of Israel, willingly give or loan Israel valuable items, so
that their former slaves leave the land of their slavery enriched.107 Just as
the midwives and Pharaoh's daughter had earlier duped Pharaoh, so here
again women are depicted as duping the Egyptians.108 However, while the
plundering motif portrays a distinction between Egypt and Israel in the
domain of cleverness and gullibility, in the domains of residence and
kinship it undermines an absolute distinction. That the Israelite women are
able to request items of jewelry and clothing from their neighbors and
'boarders' suggests that Israel does not live segregated from the Egyptians
as later references to Goshen will suggest.109 Furthermore, the motif of
plundering is intertextually related to the slave release legislation of Deut.
15.12-18, which mandates that a freed slave is not to be sent out emptyhanded (Daube 1963: 57-61). However, that legislation concerns the
release of slaves that share the same Hebrew kinship community with their
master (Deut. 15.12). If the plundering motif is viewed in light of this
legislation, it makes the Egyptians kin of the Hebrews/Israelites.110
107. Just as in Gen. 12 Abram left Egypt enriched.
108. Women are specifically mentioned as the agents of 'plundering' in 3.22. In
11.2, both women and men are mentioned, whereas only the plural ^"IJff1 '3D, 'sons of
Israel' is used in 12.35.
109. Incidentally, that Israelites are portrayed as hosting presumably Egyptian
sojourners, tenants or lodgers, servants, gueststhe word ~il can carry all these
meaningswho own valuable jewelry contradicts the picture of Israel's oppression
elsewhere in Exodus. Daube (1963: 54) furthermore suggests that Exod. 3.22 may
indicate the presence of both Israelite and Egyptian wives (or concubines) in the same
household.
110. Houtman (1993: 384) however wonders if it is rather the motif ofplundering in
Exod. 3.21-22 that has influenced Deut. 15.12-18. He finally disavows any linkage
with the legislation in Deuteronomy and concludes that the plundering motif in Exodus
76
The narrative establishes a further important distinction between the

land of Egypt ('that land', 3.8) and the land to which YHWH promises to
bring Israel. While Egypt has so far been predominantly portrayed as a
land of slavery and oppression (1.11, 13-14,16,22; 2.11,23-24; 3.7), the
land that YHWH promises, in contrast, is described as 'good and broad'
(3.8) and 'flowing with milk and honey' (3.17). But even this distinction is
also fraught with ambiguity.
First, if the description of the Promised Land is meant to be enticing to
the Israelites in Egypt, then by contrast Egypt would be the opposite,
namely a bad, restricted place, a place of scarcity and infertility. But, that
does not accord with the description of Egypt in Genesis as a place of food
and enrichment in time of famine.111 In fact, it is in Egypt that Israel is
exceedingly fruitful, and becomes very numerous and powerful.112 Thus, if
'flowing with milk and honey' is a symbolic or metaphorical reference to
abundance, then the description seems at least as much applicable to the
fertile Nile valley as to the hills of Canaan. In fact, in Numbers 16.13, the
phrase is used by Moses' opponents precisely to describe Egypt.113
Secondly, the description of the Promised Land in the scroll of Exodus
always includes a list of the five or six tribes who already inhabit that
place.114 These prior inhabitants would constitute an obvious obstacle to
Israel's possession of the Promised Land. And so the Promised Land
promises not only abundance and fertility but also conflict. These
ambiguities throw into question the implication of the text that the land
concerns a magic spell that YHWH will place on the Egyptians so that they give rich
presents to the departing Israelites; eventually the spell breaks and the Egyptians are
infuriated (14.5).
111. Abraham goes to Egypt to escape a famine in Canaan and comes out greatly
enriched (Gen. 12). The family of Jacob/Israel migrates to Egypt to escape a famine
and there gains landholdings and is 'fruitful and multiplies' (Gen. 47).
112. See Exod. 1.7, 9, 12, 20. This increase seems to take place despite the
oppression.
113. Houtman (1993: 357-58) notes that the phrase 'flowing with milk and honey'
could be a mythological reference to the food of paradise. If so, in the light of Genesis
the description fits Egypt well; see Gen. 13.10 where the well-watered Jordan valley is
compared simultaneously to Egypt and to the garden of YHWH. Houtman, however,
concludes that the phrase here carries no mythological meaning and is used solely in
the service of literary hyperbole.
114. The phrase 'flowing with milk and honey' comes up again in 3.17, 13.5 and
33.2-3 always in conjunction with the list of the same 6 tribes (in 13.5, only five of the
tribes are listed).
3. Egypt in Exodus
77
promised by YHWH will be a better place for Israel than Egypt.

Yet the narrative is determined to depict Israel as uniquely different
from Egypt. YHWH claims Israel as his TO3 ('firstborn son', 4.22)'15 in
explicit contrast to the firstborn son of Pharaoh (4.23).116 Not only does
this formulation place both YHWH and Pharaoh into the role of rival
fathers, it also further deepens the distinction between Israel and Egypt;'17
by divine kinship, as it were, Israel and Egypt are fundamentally separate.118 That the firstborn of Pharaoh must die as a consequence of
Pharaoh's refusal to let Israel gothat is, his refusal to recognize Israel as
distinctly not belonging to or in Egyptunderlines the deity's perspective
that Israel's identity is shaped in explicit contrast to Egypt.
The position of firstborn in itself connotes privilege; within the ancient
Israelite family the firstborn son was destined to carry on the lineage of his
father (Deut. 25.6) and ranked above his brothers in matters of inheritance
(Deut. 21.17). Similarly, the claim of YHWH that Israel is his firstborn
would designate a privileged status at least equal to, if not surpassing, any
rival claims of Pharaoh. But firstborn are often displaced by younger
siblings in the narratives of the Hebrew Bible, and so the privileges of this
115. Israel is claimed as YHWH'S firstborn son only here in the Hebrew Bible;
elsewhere this epithet is applied once by the deity to Ephraim (in parallelism with
Israel) (Jer. 31.9). Otherwise, Israel is occasionally described as a son of God (Hos.
11.1) or as children of God (for example: Deut. 14.1; 32.5-6, 18-20).
116. The syntax of Exod. 4.23 is awkward in that the verb tenses seem to refer to an
event in the past'I said to you', 'you refused to let him go'and yet all of this is still
to come in the narrative's future. What seems to be involved here is a prolepsis, or
anticipation of a future act as if presently accomplished. From the perspective of the
deity, the foreknowledge of Pharaoh's resistance settles the matter of Israel's
fundamental, even divine, difference from Egypt.
117. Just as Israel, as YHWH'S firstborn son, is a collective, so also it seems that by
the parallel firstborn son of Pharaoh is meant Egypt, not just literally Pharaoh's
biological firstborn son.
118. Levenson (1993a: 40-42) warns against interpreting the notion of Israel as
YHWH'S firstborn in purely figurative terms. The involvement of YHWH in the births of
Israel's ancestors in Genesis indicates that more than a mere metaphor is involved.
Levenson also points to the interesting passage in Hos. 11.1, which indicates that 'the
divine father fell in love with the boy in Egypt, leading him forth...' (1993a: 39). The
Hosea passage seems to suggest, in contrast to the Genesis accounts, an alternate
tradition in which Israel's divine sonship begins in Egypt. Without the prologue of
Genesis, the passage in Exod. 4.21-23 could be interpreted in accordance with this
alternative tradition.
78
position are not guaranteed.119 Thus Israel's position as firstborn of YHWH

is also not guaranteed. As the narrative will later make clear, the response
of Israel to YHWH'S claim on it is also a constitutive part of Israel's
identity. A positive response will confirm Israel's identity as YHWH'S own,
separate from Egypt. A negative response, however, threatens the loss of
this distinct identity.120
However, Israel in Egypt is portrayed as not yet aware of being a
distinct people. When Aaron and Moses return to Egypt, they assemble the
elders of Israel and speak to them all of YHWH'S words and perform the
signs (4.29-30). The result is that 'the people'not, as might be expected,
the more concrete 'sons of Israel'believe and bow down in homage
(4.31). In fact, this 'people' recognizes that YHWH has noticed the 'sons of
Israel' and their misery (4.31), almost as if the 'sons of Israel' are understood as a category not quite coterminous with 'the people'. The uneasy
oscillation between the designations 'the people' and 'the sons of Israel'
indicates the amorphous state of Israel's identity at this point in the
narrative, not yet fully formed as a distinct and self-aware entity, and
perhaps understood as a subset of a larger group ('the people').121
A further indication of the amorphous state of Israel's identity is the
narrative's reticence about the object of this 'people's' belief and homage.
Some commentators see 4.31 as describing the conversion of Israel to faith
in its status as YHWH'S distinct people.122 However, the object of the
people's belief or homage is not explicitly named. Furthermore, the narra119. For example, Isaac displaces Ishmael, and Jacob displaces Esau. On this
displacement of the privileges of the firstborn see Greenspahn (1994) andBrin (1994).
While Greenspahn argues that the biblical status of firstborn was not biologically
determined but was rather a status bestowed at the behest of the father, Brin argues that
the sanctity of the firstborn is a biological given, and, while the privileges of the
position could be transferred, the designation itself and the holy status associated with
it, could not.
120. The narrative as a whole calls on its audience to make the same positive
response that Israel in the narrative is called to make; that is, to identify with Israel as
separate from Egypt. The rhetoric of the text is aimed at persuading its audience that
the ideology of Israel's identity of contrast with Egypt is divinely mandated and
therefore natural.
121. The text is not clear about whether the terms 'sons of Israel' and'the people'
are to be understood as equivalent. If the text wanted to make clear that 'the people'
and 'the sons of Israel' are equivalent, it could have said in 4.31, 'the sons of Israel
believed, and when they heard that YHWH had given heed to them... '
122. E.g. Brueggemann(1994b:718).
3. Egypt in Exodus
79
tive to come will describe the people as doubting and resisting. When the
people are portrayed again as bowing in homage much later after the
instructions for Passover have been given, once more no explicit object of
their homage is mentioned (12.27b). Not until after the crossing of the sea
and the annihilation of Egypt in the waters is it said that 'the people feared
YHWH and believed in YHWH and in his servant Moses' (14.31b). The
ethnogenesis of Israel, the formulation of Israel's identity as unique and
distinct from Egypt, is presented in the narrative as a long process that
does not near completion until after the plagues and the crossing of the
sea. In other words, Israel's distinct identity is won through contest with
Egypt and is not secured until Egypt is beaten.
The Identity of Moses
Caught in the battle between YHWH and Pharaoh over Israel's identity is
Moses. A hybrid Egyptian-Israelite, yet called by YHWH to separate Israel
from Egypt, Moses embodies in himself the ambiguities of Israel's developing identity over against Egypt.
The encounter of Moses with YHWH is structured around a series of four
objections that Moses raises to YHWH'S call.123 Such resistance is apart of
other call narratives in the Hebrew Bible;l24 what is striking in this case is
the number and persistence of Moses' objections. Although this could be
interpreted theologically as highlighting the initiative of YHWH over
against human motivations,125 ideologically what seems to be happening is
an undermining or deflation of a heroic picture of Moses.126 And yet vestiges of a heroic, even mythical, image of Moses still remain. For instance,
Moses is instructed to be as 'God' to Aaron (4.16).127 On the surface this is
123. Fretheim(1991b: 52). The number of Moses' objections hinges on the interpretation of 4.13. The phrase here is ambiguous: on the surface it could be an expression
of assent: 'please, Lord, send whomever you want' but under the surface it may conceal a subtle objection: 'anyone, that is, except for me!' Many translators and commentators prefer the second option (e.g. NRSV and NJPS).
124. For example, Jeremiah objects to his call (Jer. 1.6) and repeatedly laments his
circumstances after being called (Jer. 11.18-12.6; 15.10-21). Jonah outright flees from
the task given to him by the deity (Jon. 1.1-10). Gideon demands proof before
accepting his divine calling (Judg. 6.11-24).
125. Houtman(1993: 325), for instance, interprets the extensive resistance of Moses
as 'stamping the entire mission as God's undertaking'.
126. A heroic picture of Moses is found in Jewish Hellenistic literature; see, for
example, the portrait of Moses in Artapanus (see Holladay 1983: 199-215).
127. See also 7.1 where Moses is to be as 'God' to Pharaoh, and Aaron is to be as
'prophet' of Moses.
80
likely meant as a metaphor for the communication process, in that Aaron

is to faithfully pass on the word of Moses just as a prophet is to faithfully
pass on the word of the deity.128 However, one can also see here a trace of
a tradition that accords to Moses a much more exalted, perhaps even
divine or semi-divine, role.129 The LXX obliterates even this trace by
changing the wording to avoid any implication of divine status for
Moses.130 Thus, below the apparent surface of the text there are vestiges of
a different tradition concerning a more exalted Moses that the present text
seems to be erasing.
Further traces of a contestation of Moses traditions in the text can be
found in the problematic status of Aaron in the narrative. For one, the role
assigned to Aaron in 4.14-16 is not fully carried out in the following
narrative; instead, Aaron slowly disappears and is nowhere to be seen in
the climactic chs. 13 and 14.131 But in ch. 4 Aaron is introduced as a significant character who seems in some ways to overshadow Moses. He is
introduced not only as Moses' brother or kinsman but also as 'the Levite'
(4.14), an unnecessary designation in that the audience has already been
informed that his brother Moses is a descendant of Levi (2.1). The designation 'the Levite', with the definite article, if not gratuitous, thus seems to
be meant to set Aaron apart from Moses.132 Furthermore, Aaron is depicted as eloquent and quick to respond in contrast to Moses' thickness of
speech and reluctance. In other words, Aaron is elevated at the expense of
Moses, whose status is correspondingly diminished. Yet, Aaron's position
is also undercut when he is assigned the function of Moses' mouthpiece
128. An allusion to an Egyptian idiom may also be involved. The words in 4.16 'he
shall serve as a mouth to you' may recall the Egyptian official post of 'mouth of the
king'.
129. The tradition of an exalted, even semi-divine, Moses might belong to Egyptian
Judaism if some of the Hellenistic Jewish literature of an Egyptian provenance is any
indication.
130. The LXX reads ou 6e otuTco SOT) TOC rrpos TOV 9sov ('and you will be for him
the things pertaining to God'). Similar readings that avoid any implication of Moses'
divinity are found in the Vulgate and Targums (see Houtman 1993: 417-18).
131. As Fretheim (1991b: 73) notes: 'Moses gradually works himself into the role
that God originally intended. Hence plan B [the involvement of Aaron] turns out to be
an interim measure.'
132. Houtman (1993: 415) notes the possibility that 'the Levite' might be a gloss
referring to the office of priest. One could also speculate that Aaron's title as 'the
Levite' implies that Moses, in contrast, is not a Levite, thus possibly indicating another
trace of a tradition in which Moses enters Israel from outside.
3. Egypt in Exodus
81
(4.16). Thus the narrative displays a certain tension between the roles of
Moses and Aaron, further indicating some anxiety in the text over the
status and identity of Moses.
Moses himself does not seem to be clear about his identity; his first
objection to YHWH is "D3S 'D ('Who am I?', 3.11). On the surface, a
stereotypical way of addressing a person of greater power and authority
with suitable humility,133 this expression can also be read, in the context of
the identity politics of the narrative, as an index of the uncertainty of
Moses' identity. YHWH'S response addresses this uncertainty. While the
words 'I will be with you' (3.12a) respond to Moses' feeling of inadequacy, the following words 'when you have brought the people out of
Egypt, you will serve God on this mountain' (3.12b) implicitly answer
Moses' lack of identity. The second 'you' in the latter phrase is plural,
implying that, from the narrative perspective of YHWH, Moses is part of
Israel.
From the narrative perspective of Moses, however, this identification
with Israel is not at all clear. Although YHWH identifies himself to Moses
as the 'God of your father' (3.6),134 Moses anticipates talking to Israel, not
about the 'God of our ancestors', but about the 'God of your ancestors'
(3.13), as if he were not included in the Israel whom he is addressing.
Moreover, Moses also doubts that the sons of Israel will accept his
message as coming from YHWH (4.1), indicating that from his narrative
perspective he may not perceive himself as being accepted by Israel as a
genuine Israelite.135 That YHWH gives Moses three signs to present to
Israel (4.2-9) furthermore points to the possibility that his commission and
message required the sort of authentication that might be demanded of an
outsider.136 In these ways, the identification of Moses with Israel is
brought into question.
Whereas Moses made a rather straightforward narrative transition from
Egypt to Midian (2.15-21), his return to Egypt is narratively very complicated, involving episodic jumps, temporal distortions, and geographic
133. For example, when David addresses Saul (1 Sam. 18.18) or the deity (2 Sam.
7.18; 1 Chron. 17.16; 29.14), or when Solomon addresses the deity (2 Chron. 2.6).
134. YHWH commands Moses to use the identical phrase in 3.15 and 16.
135. Moses has already previously experienced rej ection at the hand of Israel (Exod.
2.13-14).
136. Conversely, the signs themselves may have been understood as Egyptian in
character. Besides adding Egyptian color to the story, the signs would portray Moses as
an Egyptian magician, thus further highlighting his Egyptianness.
82
dislocations.137 These jumps and dislocations could be interpreted as due

to careless editing. If so, however, why is the editing so sloppy in this
section as compared to other parts of the narrative? It seems that the theme
of 'return to Egypt' in the Pentateuch is highly charged on an ideological
level, manifesting itself here in what seems to be a chronologically and
otherwise confused narrative. The same theme reemerges later in the complaints of Israel in the wilderness, and in some of the Pentateuchal legislation, always in a negative context or as a proscribed action. If Israel's
sojourn in Egypt is ideologically framed as an unfortunate and temporary
detour, then a return to Egypt is unthinkable. And yet Moses, who replicates or anticipates within himself the destiny of Israel, here must return to
Egypt after having successfully left.138 The narrative confusion mirrors
ideological anxiety.139
Uncertainty over Moses' identity is indicated by the presence of an
alternative tradition regarding Moses' return to Egypt. From the narrative
perspective of the deity, Moses is to return to Egypt to gain release for
Israel (3.16-18). But when Moses requests permission of his father-in-law
137. Moses first asks his father-in-law permission to return to Egypt, which is
granted (4.18); suddenly, YHWH intrudes again, ordering Moses back to Egypt (4.19).
Moses, with his family, returns to Egypt (4.20); YHWH again intrudes with instructions
about 'wonders', not 'signs'(as in 4.8-9), which Moses is to perform, not for Israel (as
in 4.1-9), but for Pharaoh (4.21). In 4.23 future events are spoken of in the past tense.
In 4.24, Moses and his family are on the way again. Suddenly Aaron appears and
meets Moses at the 'mountain of God' (4.27) where Moses had his revelation (3.1),
even though the narrative has twice indicated that Moses is on the way to Egypt if not
already there (4.20. 24). Finally, Aaron speaks the words and performs the signs for the
people, presumably back in Egypt (4.30), and the people respond. Besides these
narrative dislocations, there are elements of narrative continuity in this section as well:
the staff (of God) in 4.17, 20; and the 'wonders' and 'signs' (4.21, 28).
138. Conversely, perhaps what is masked here is a tradition that Moses never left
Egypt at all, and that his encounter with YHWH took place within Egypt.
139. Fretheim (1991b: 75) suggests that the narrative confusion is typical of the
depiction of transitions, and that the movement from Midian to Egypt is here viewed
from different angles. Similarly, Durham (1987: 60) suggests that here the compiler
has brought together every reference to Moses' return to Egypt known to him. Both
suggestions are plausible but do not explain just why such strategies are employed at
precisely this point in the narrative, with this particular transition, and not at other
transitional points, such as Moses' displacement from Egypt to Midian. It is my
contention that the surface narrative tension is isomorphic to the deeper ideological
tension that the text is attempting to mediate.
3. Egypt in Exodus
83
Jether/Jethro140 to return to Egypt, quite a different reason for the return

emerges: 'Please let me return to my kinfolk in Egypt and see whether
they are still living' (4.18). Moses makes no mention of his divine commission. One can also see here the uncertainty and resistance of Moses to
YHWH'S commission; he has agreed to return to Egypt but for his own
reasons. Surprisingly, the deity then seems to support Moses' perspective,
telling him to return to Egypt 'because all those who were seeking your
life are dead' (4.19). Here is an entirely different tradition regarding the
return of Moses to Egypt. Namely, he had been forced to flee Egypt
because of the murder he had committed (2.11-15), and now, since those
seeking to kill him in vengeance for this murder are no longer a threat, he
is free to return.141 This alternate tradition does not necessarily have
anything to do with the liberation of a people Israel or an ethnic differentiation between Israel and Egypt. As in the popular Egyptian story of
Sinuhe (ANET: 18-22), Moses appears as an Egyptian of high position
who is forced to flee his homeland and settle abroad temporarily, eventually to return when the situation improves.142 However, this alternative
tradition, does not survive in the overall narrative.
The most striking episode in Moses' return to Egypt is the account of
the nocturnal attack in 4.24-26. This episode is full of uncertainties. The
referents for the pronominal suffixes are unclear; it is uncertain who was
attacked (4.24), whose 'feet'143 were touched (4.25), and who is meant by
the reference ('bridegroom of blood', 4.25). The meaning of the term
CT QT|nn 'bridegroom of blood' (4.25,26) itself is not known. Textually,
the LXX presents a somewhat different story; after circumcising her son,
Zipporah does not touch his 'feet' but rather falls at his feet, and declares:
'the blood of the circumcision of my son is staunched' (4.25, 26). Again,
140. Note the variation in the names of Moses' father-in-lawJethro, Jether, Reuel
(Exod. 2.18), and perhaps also Hobab (Num. 10.29). Such variation highlights the
ambiguous and transitional character of the place Midian in the exodus narrative.
141. Note how easily Exod. 2.23a (the notice of the Pharaoh's death) flows into 4.19
(YHWH'S command that Moses return to Egypt because those seeking his life have
died), as if the intervening material in 2.23b4.18 is an interpolation. The LXX
duplicates 2.23a at the end of 4.18, further strengthening this impression.
142. Support for this alternate tradition of Moses' return to Egypt is found in the fact
that he takes his family with him (4.20), giving the impression that he means to return
to Egypt permanently. However, his family soon drops out of view, and notice is given
later that his Midianite wife and two sons have returned to her father's house (Exod.
18.2-6), thus retrospectively aborting this alternate tradition.
143. The 'feet' are likely a euphemism for the genitals.
84
these textual variations and narrative confusions indicate the ideological

tension involved in the notion of return to Egypt.
That the ideological tension involves the issue of identity is suggested
by the parallel of Jacob's encounter at the fords of the Jabbok (Gen. 32.2232), also an uncanny nocturnal attack involving an important transition.
Jacob is similarly returning, with the family that he had acquired abroad,
from a temporary exile in Mesopotamia. The attack on him results in a
new name and identity (Gen. 32.28). The narrative of a nocturnal attack at
a point of transition thus seems to be a type-scene signifying a change of
identity. So also in the account in Exod. 4.24-26 a change in Moses'
identity is signified.144
Although Moses does not receive a new name, he is here associated
with circumcision; the final redactional comment in 4.26b, 'a bridegroom
of blood in regard to circumcision', indicates that the producers of the final
text intended the account to be understood in light of the rite of circumcision. Circumcision is established in Genesis as the identity-marking
ritual par excellence for Israel (Gen. 17.9-14,23-27). Moses seems to lack
the mark of this ritual; he and/or his son are not circumcised145 and thus
not marked as Israelite. That is, Moses has not yet thrown in his lot with
YHWH'S strategy of differentiating and separating Israel from Egypt.
YHWH attacks Moses to force the issue, and Moses emerges as one committed to YHWH'S strategy.146 The Moses who has continued to retain an
144. The references to circumcision and marriage in the account also evoke rites of
passage signifying changes or transformations of identity.
145. Or perhaps he is only circumcised in the Egyptian manner, which was less
complete than that of the Hebrewssee Sasson (1966). Joshua 5.2-7 describes a
second circumcision of the Israelites in order to roll away from them the 'reproach of
Egypt'. This supports the argument that the present passage is about attacking an
Egyptian identity and replacing it with an Israelite identity.
146. The narrative betrays a trace of a primary Egyptian identity for Moses even still
at this point. Just before the account of the nocturnal attack, YHWH threatens to kill
Pharaoh's firstborn son (4.23). Immediately following, YHWH tries to kill Moses (4.24)
(assuming that the 'him' who is attacked refers to Moses). This textual juxtaposition
suggests a metonymic identification between Pharaoh's firstborn son and Moses. This
identification is not far-fetched since, as the son of an Egyptian princess, Moses could
be pictured as Pharaoh's firstborn or favorite. (The term TD3, 'firstborn', does not
necessarily connote only a literal biologically determined status but actually points
more accurately to a socially determined status based more on preference or favoritism
than on age, as Greenspahn [1994] demonstrates). It is this trace of Moses as Egyptian,
as perhaps even the high-ranking son of Pharaoh, which must be erased for the strategy
of YHWH to proceed. The nocturnal attack is a means of providing for such an erasure.
3. Egypt in Exodus
85
Egyptian identity is symbolically transformed into an Israelite.

But even so the issue of Moses' identity is not definitively resolved. It is
Moses' Midianite wife, an outsider to Israel, who wards off YHWH'S
attack; more importantly, she does so, not by circumcising Moses, but by
circumcising her own son and then transferring the effect of this circumcision to Moses by touching his genitals with the foreskin. In other words,
Moses seems to have been circumcised only in a vicarious fashion. If so,
his Israelite identity is still in question.
The identity of Moses is thus no more firmly established in this text
segment than are the identities of YHWH and Israel. The identity of Moses
as Israelite, of Israel as a people originally from outside Egypt and separate from the Egyptians, and of YHWH as the deity of both the ancestors of
Genesis who stem from Mesopotamia and of Israel in Egypt, are constructions of which the text attempts to persuade its audience. But beneath the
surface of the text, in various ambiguities and textual anomalies, traces of
other traditions and possibilities of identity can be detected, showing the
text to be a site of ideological contestation.
First Confrontations and Complications (5.1-7.7)
The narrative prologue of the scroll of Exodus (1.1-2.25) and the account
of the call of Moses and his return to Egypt (3.1 -4.31) have functioned to
set in place the ethnic polarities of Israel and Egypt. The heart of the
narrative begins in ch. 5, a narrative in which these polarities are put into
active opposition to each other.147 Chapters 5 through 14 of Exodus comprise a narrative trajectory organized around a series of antagonistic
encounters between Israel and Egypt that escalate into plagues and finally
culminate with the ultimate showdown at the sea.'4S For the purpose of the
following analysis, this trajectory will be divided into three major sections:
(1) first confrontations and complications (5.1-7.7); (2) plagues (7.811.10); and (3) exodus (12.1-15.21). In each of these narrative sections,
the ideological rhetoric of identity around Israel, Egypt, YHWH and Moses
will be the subject of analysis.
147. Fishbane (1979:63-76) demonstrates that Exod. 1-4 iimctions as a prologue to
the main part of the narrative that begins in ch. 5.
148. The formal literary connections discerned by McCarthy (1966) between chs. 5,
7-10 and 14 of Exodus suggest a coherent and continuous narrative framework for chs.
5 through 14. The hymn in 15.1-21 constitutes an epilogue and a transition to a new
narrative trajectory that begins at 15.22.
86
The first encounters of Israel with Pharaoh upon the return of Moses to
Egypt fail in realizing their objective. Moses' and Aaron's demands of
Pharaoh (5.1-5) result in rejection and negative consequences (5.6-14).
The complaints of the supervisors of the Israelites to Pharaoh (5.15-18) are
likewise followed by negative results (5.19-23). Consequently, Moses
must be called and commissioned again, because it seems that his first call
and commission end in failure.149 Thus in ch. 6 of Exodus, the audience of
the scroll encounters a reprise of material from ch. 3 and 4.150 This particular cycle of failure followed by a second beginning provides a rich set
of insights into the ambiguous dynamics of identity construction in the
Exodus narrative.
It is clear that from YHWH'S dominant narrative perspective, as reported in
the call of Moses, the separate identity of Israel, necessitating an exodus
from Egypt, is firmly established. However, from the narrative perspectives of Egypt and Israel, this separate identity remains uncertain or
unconvincing. While the king of Egypt first voiced a distinction between
Israel and Egypt (1.9-10), and also expressed a desire to single out the
Hebrews for genocidal treatment (1.15-19), the present Pharaoh's responses to his first encounter with Moses and Aaron do not present the same
clear distinction. The term 'Israel' (5.2) appears once in the Pharaoh's
discourse, only to immediately be replaced by multiple occurrences of the
more general and ambiguous term 'people' (DU). Pharaoh refers numerous
times to 'the people' (5.4, 6, 7), once to 'the people of the land' (5.5), and
once to 'the men' (5.9). In each of these instances, the specific reference is
unclear; while one might assume that Israel is meant, the references could
just as well be to a working or slave class among the Egyptians. Therefore,
according to Pharaoh's point of view as depicted in the text, it is uncertain
whether Israel as a separate definable entity exists.151
A textual problem centering on Pharaoh's reference to 'the people of the
149. This is the opinion of Fretheim (1991b: 89-90). This interpretation also accords
with the two-step 'build-up and climax' structure that is encountered in narrative in the
Hebrew Bible, where an initial abortive attempt is followed by a second successful
attempt (Gordon 1992).
150. Altogether, ch. 6 of Exodus shows more signs of compilation or editing than
other parts of Exodus. Many interpreters see in 6.2 to 7.7 or 7.13 a strand of priestly
material that has been inserted into the JE narrative.
151. The same ambiguous usage of 'the people' continues in 5.10, 12.
3. Egypt in Exodus
87
land' (5.5) highlights these ambiguous identifications. The MT reads:

'Look! The people of the land are now numerous, and you (i.e. Moses and
Aaron) have caused them to cease from their burdens.' This text implies
that Israel is equated with, or counted as part of, 'the people of the land'.
The Samaritan Pentateuch, however, reads: 'Look! [They are] now more
numerous than the people of the land, and you have caused them to cease
from their burdens.'152 In this textual tradition, 'they', that is, Israel, are
portrayed as distinct from the people of the land, presumably the Egyptians. And finally the LXX reads: 'Look, now the people are very numerous; let us not then give them rest from their work.' In this textual
tradition, the reference to 'the people of the land' disappears.
The term 'people of the land', in its older usage, most likely refers to the
'landed gentry' or to the 'free citizens of a given territory' (Healey 1992).
In Exod. 5.5, the term would then refer to Egyptian citizens, and the MT
rendering would imply that Pharaoh perceives Israel as Egyptian. However, in its later usage, especially in literature about the postexilic period,
the term becomes one of derision for those peoples located outside of
one's group (Healey 1992). Given the context of Pharaoh's scornful speech,
a derisive meaning could be intended in 5.5, such that 'people of the land'
would be understood by the audience as perhaps something like 'peasants'
or 'commoners', an underclass or working class of people in Egypt who
could be subjected to the royal corvee. In the MT tradition, Israel, from the
narrative perspective of Pharaoh, would then be part of, or indistinguishable from, a larger mass of laborers. In contrast, the Samaritan textual
tradition clearly differentiates Israel from the Egyptian citizenry or peasantry, thus steadfastly maintaining a unique identity for Israel even in the
eyes of Pharaoh, whereas the LXX refers only to the generic and ambiguous 'the people'. These various textual traditions can be read as an
indication of ideological tension in the developing exodus tradition around
the notion of the distinctiveness of Israel vis-a-vis Egypt.
While the Pharaoh thus does not seem clearly to acknowledge Israel as
an entity separate from Egypt, neither does Israel itself. Again, a textual
problem highlights the ambiguous nature of identity, this time from the
narrative perspective of Israel. When the 'supervisors of the sons of
152. The Samaritan Pentateuch reads f ~!Kn DJJO, 'from the people of the land' instead of the MT ]Hfcn CI?, 'people of the land'; this maybe an alteration due to assimilation to the parallel passage in 1.9 and/or simplification of the text for an easier
reading (HOTTP 94). The MT presents the more difficult reading.
88
Egypton the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
Israel'153 complain to Pharaoh (5.15-16) regarding the elimination of the

provision of straw (5.6-14), they not only refer to themselves before
Pharaoh as 'your servants' (5.15-16),154 but also make a syntactically
confusing complaint: ~$3 HKtarn D'SD "TH^l? i"13! 'and look, your (masculine singular) servants are beaten and you (feminine singular) have
sinned/are guilty, your (masculine singular) people' (MT 5.16b). The
difficulty lies in the last phrase "J<5^ nNtani; the verb form requires a
feminine second person subject,155 for which there seems to be no antecedent, and there is no indication whether the phrase 'your people' is
meant as the subject or object of the verb.156
The interpretations and emendations suggested to solve these difficulties
present two main options. First, the second person feminine form of the
verb in the MT could be read as a rare form of the third person feminine.157
The verb then agrees in person, if not in gender, with the following 'your
153. These supervisors (C'HBtO) are generally understood as having been recruited
from among the Israelites, while the higher-ranking taskmasters (D'iDJj) are seen as
Egyptian (5.6, 10, 13-14). That the 'WltF "33 HBtD ('supervisors of the Israelites')
appear in apposition to the HUIS '2J23 ('taskmasters of Pharaoh') in 5.15 seems to
support this interpretation. However, just as the earlier phrase rr~QDn m'TD ('midwives of the Hebrews', 1.15) could mean either 'Hebrew midwives' or '(Egyptian)
midwives to the Hebrews', so also here the 'supervisors of the sons of Israel' could be
either Israelite or Egyptian.
154. They thus acknowledge Pharaoh's authority over them. Furthermore, since in
the following plague narrative, the phrase 'your servants' is used only to refer to the
people of Pharaoh as distinct from the people Israel (7.28, 29; 8.5, 7, 17; 9.14, 30;
10.6; 11.8), the supervisors may here be indicating their lack of a notion of distinction
between Israel and Egypt. However, in talking to Moses and Aaron (5.22), the same
supervisors refer to 'Pharaoh and his servants' as if to indicate that they do not count
themselves among those servants. In other words, publicly before Pharaoh they place
themselves within Pharaoh's domain, but privately with Moses and Aaron, they distance themselves from Pharaoh's domain.
155. The form nNtpn is second person feminine singular perfect (GKC: paradigm O,
p. 526).
156. If DU is meant to be the object of the verb, it lacks the customary *7 or 3 which
marks the object of the verb Son (BDB: 306). Since DJJ is masculine, it is unlikely to
be the subject of the feminine form of the preceding verb, which is furthermore second
person. Since the feminine singular is often used for plurals of animals and things, and
of abstracts (GKC: 145k), it may be possible that CJJ, as a collective, is being treated
in a similar fashion, but this still does not solve the problem of the second person form
of the verb.
157. Cassuto (1983: 71) makes this argument. This possibility is also mentioned by
GKC: 73g only to be rejected as unlikely.
3. Egypt in Exodus
89
people'. And, since non-human plurals often take feminine singular verbs
(GKC: 145k), it may be possible that DI3 ('people'), while a masculine
noun, as a collective could take a feminine verb form.158 The resulting
reading is: 'and look, your (masculine singular) servants are beaten and
your (masculine singular) people have sinned/are guilty'.159 In this case,
the Israelite supervisors are portrayed as positing a difference between
their people (Israel) and Pharaoh's people (Egypt).160
Secondly, one can posit a scribal error in the MT and so repoint the verb
KC3FT as a second masculine singular and add a preposition before DU in
order to make it into a proper object of the verb: "]5I? "? PKCprn. The resulting reading is: 'and look, your servants are beaten and you (second person
masculine singular) have sinned/are guilty against your people'. This is
indeed the reading found in the LXX, Syriac and Pesher versions; it is also
the suggested reading in BDB (p. 766), and has been adopted by the
NRSV.161 In this case, the Israelite supervisors present themselves as part of
Pharaoh's people, that is, as part of Egypt. Although the difference on the
surface may be due to the mediating position that the supervisors occupy
as part of middle management, under the surface the difference concerns
the self-understanding of Israel in Egypt. These textual difficulties may be
158. Waltke and O' Connor (1990: 105) indicate that singular nouns that are collectives are often feminine but they do not cite the noun DU as an example. Cassuto (1983:
71) notes thatDU is treated as feminine in Judg. 18.7 and Jer. 8.5 because of the influence of nearby feminine nouns. Of course a simple emendation to the third masculine
singular NEni would also solve the problem.
159. HOTTP (p. 95) prefers this reading (giving it a B rating), and also translates the
verb as a future tense'and your people will be guilty'by reading the preceding
waw as a waw consecutive. Cassuto (1983: 71) argues that a waw consecutive is not
involved. Cassuto (1983:71) provides the interesting argument that the supervisors are
portrayed as meaning to blame Pharaoh and therefore started out by saying 'you are
guilty', but out of deference they swallowed the last part of the verbal form and added
'your people'.
160. Two suggested emendations come to a similar interpretation. The verb NEF1
could be repointed as a feminine noun in construct, making the problematic phrase
read "]ftV nfctsrn ('and the sin/guilt [is] your people's'). (HOTPP [p. 95] rejects this
reading as due to scribal error and/or misunderstanding of ancient Hebrew linguistic
data.) Or KEF! could be repointed as a second masculine singular and a waw added
before DU resulting in "]Qri riNtprn: 'and you and your people have sinned/are guilty'
(Durham 1987: 67).
161. See also Brueggemann(1994b: 728). HOTTP (p. 96) rejects this reading as due
to simplification of the text and/or scribal error and/or misunderstanding of ancient
Hebrew linguistic data.
90
an indication of ideological tension underlying the text on the theme of

Israel's identity in relation to Egypt.162
While YHWH clearly desires an Israel that is separate from Egypt,
whether Israel at this point is narratively conscious of itself as separate or
even desires an identity distinct from Egypt is uncertain. Israel does not
yet act as a cohesive entity. The supervisors of the sons of Israel utter a
curse against Moses and Aaron163 and seem to regard them as 'outsiders'
who have caused undue trouble (5.21). Their accusation that Moses and
Aaron have made them 'smell bad' before Pharaoh indicates that this is a
split with Pharaoh that they did not desire.
Rhetorically, what is at stake in this narrative of conflicting claims of
ownership and identity is the allegiance of the scroll's audience to a
particular view of Israel's identity vis-a-vis Egypt. While in the narrative
Pharaoh and Egypt obviously need to learn to acknowledge YHWH'S claim
on Israel as a people separate from Egypt, Israel itself must also learn the
same lessonand it is Israel which is not only a character in the narrative
but also the primary audience of this text. Thus, while the following
plagues seem largely aimed at convincing Pharaoh of Israel's uniqueness,
it is noteworthy that, initially, not Egypt but Israel is threatened with
sword and pestilence if it does not leave Egypt (5.3). That is, the real issue
at stake on the textual level is Israel's acknowledgment of YHWH'S construction of Israel as distinct from Egypt, which translates on the readerly
level to convincing the audience of the scroll that the same ideology of
difference pertains to it. The initial confrontations of Moses and Aaron
with Pharaoh show the contingent nature of the identity of Israel; rather
than a given, Israel's distinct identity is being constructed as a viable
concept for the audience as the narrative proceeds.
While these confrontations at first seem unpromising for YHWH'S vision
of Israel, YHWH claims that he will now himself act against Pharaoh (6.1).
Yet ambiguity is present even in this assurance. YHWH claims that, by a
mighty hand (HpTH T2), Pharaoh will both let Israel go (HÊJ) and drive
them out (2TI3). Since no pronouns are attached to the word 'hand', it is
162. It is conceivable that the LXX version is original on the grounds that it is the
more difficult reading and was thus altered by subsequent scribes who thought it was
an obvious error to portray the Israelite supervisors as speaking of Israel as part of
Egypt.
163. Contrast the far more welcoming response Moses and Aaron receive in 4.2933!
3. Egypt in Exodus
91
not clear whether YHWH'S hand or Pharaoh's hand is meant.164 Also, there
is potentially a great difference between being let go and being driven out.
The uneasy amalgamation of different exodus traditions may be indicated
here, one tradition attributing the exodus to YHWH'S mighty actions in
forcing Pharaoh to let the people go, and another tradition attributing the
exodus to a forced expulsion by the might of Pharaoh.165 While it is the
first tradition that the narrative desires to make dominant, traces of an
alternative tradition are retained, making a definitive version of the exodus
even in the final text form questionable and showing the ideological labor
at work in the text.
From YHWH'S dominant narrative perspective, a separate identity for
Israel, necessitating an exodus from Egypt, is absolutely necessary. However, from the narrative perspective of Egypt, reported by Pharaoh, and the
narrative perspective of Israel, reported by the supervisors of the sons of
Israel, this separate identity remains uncertain and unconvincing. The text
thus has woven into it two ideological tendencies: the dominant one,
which sees the distinctiveness of Israel as necessitating an exit from
Egypt, and the submerged one, which sees Israel as somehow Egyptian or
at home in Egypt.166
The Identity ofYHWH
That the Pharaoh does not seem clearly to acknowledge Israel as a
separate entity is connected to Pharaoh's ignorance of YHWH, Israel's God
(5.2). Much of the following plague narrative will be concerned with
making YHWH known to Pharaoh and the Egyptians167 since the acknowledgment ofYHWH simultaneously entails recognition of Israel's distinct
status. By defeating Pharaoh, YHWH will gain recognition for himself and
164. The phrase HpTn T3 is repeated twice in 6.1. See the LXX variant 'an
outstretched arm', influenced by parallel passages such as 12.33. Cassuto (1983: 74)
argues that the first hand is the deity's and the second is Pharaoh's.
165. The second tradition of expulsion reminds one of the slanderous tales current in
Hellenistic Egypt and recorded by Manetho, which attributed the origin of the Jews to
the expulsion of a community of lepers from Egypt (see Stern 1976: 62-86).
166. In a later chapter, the possibility will be raised that these two perspectives may
correspond with the world view of Judeans of the Persian period in Palestine and in
Egypt, respectively.
167. See 7.17; 8.10,22; 9.14, 29; 10.2, 8, 24; 11.7; 12.31; 14.4, 17. The concern is
with making YHWH known not only to Pharaoh and the Egyptians, but also to Israel
since Israel cannot acknowledge its own identity without recognizing YHWH as its
God.
for his people Israel. To this end, the narrative portrays YHWH and
Pharaoh in parallel fashion: the prophetic formula 'Thus says YHWH'
(5.1)168 corresponds with 'Thus says Pharaoh' (5.10), YHWH threatens
with the sword (5.3) as does Pharaoh (5.21), and both YHWH and Pharaoh
are accused of causing evil (5.22-23).169 The narrative initially situates
YHWH and Pharaoh on the same level in similar roles in order to highlight
the conflict that is being sparked between them.170 Their conflict will
center on the ownership of Israel; at stake is whether Pharaoh will continue to see Israel as merely a part of his Egyptian domain or acknowledge
Israel as a separate entity to which YHWH has claim.
It is significant that this second call and commission seem to occur in
Egypt (see especially 6.28), in contrast to the location of YHWH'S previous
revelation to Moses outside of Egypt.171 One finds here possibly the trace
of a tradition which locates the origins of Israel as a distinct people not
outside of but in Egypt itself; however, this tradition has been submerged
under the dominant ideology of Israel's origins external to Egypt by being
incorporated as the second step in a twofold repetitive narrative progression.
The possibility of a tradition of an Egyptian origin for Israel finds
support in the strong case made by YHWH in 6.2-8 for discontinuity
between the Exodus narrative and the ancestor stories of Genesis. The
ancestors did not know the deity as YHWH but rather as El Shaddai
(6.3).172 Four times the deity here presents himself with the formula
168. This formula appeared once previously in the book of Exodus at 4.22. It will
appear 8 more times in Exodus, 7 of these times in the plague narrative: 7.17,25; 8.16;
9.1, 13; 10.3; 11.4. The formula does not appear elsewhere in the Pentateuch.
169. The word used is U"l, translated here in the NRSV as 'mistreatment'. The same
word also appears in 5.19. Cassuto (1993: 72) and others wonder whether there is here
an allusion to Re, the chief deity of the Egyptian pantheon. In other words, an ethnic
pun or slur may be involved, in which the Egyptian chief God is connected with evil.
170. Of course, the fact that Pharaoh was considered divine or semi-divine in
Egyptian belief further makes him a worthy opponent for YHWH.
171. Verse 6.28 is oddly highlighted by a following paragraph break in the MT. It is
difficult to know whether the emphasis in this verse is on YHWH'S presence in Egypt,
or Moses' presence in Egypt, or both, or the fact that divine revelation or contact can
happen in Egypt.
172. The transition from one name for the deity to another can have a purely literary
function, quite apart from indicating the historical origins and development of Israel's
religion. Cassuto (1983: 78-79) makes the interesting observation that the name El
Shaddai is often used in the literary context of fertility or increase. It thus accords with
the part of the promises to the ancestors regarding increase into a nation or people, a
promise that seems now in the narrative to have been fulfilled. The name YHWH,
3. Egypt in Exodus
93
miT '] ('I am YHWH', 6.2, 6, 7, 8), as if to underline this new name.173
Explicit reference by YHWH to the triad Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as
'your ancestors' (as previously in 3.6, 15, 16; 4.5) is absent. And in 6.7
YHWH asserts that he will take Israel as his people and that he will become
their God. The language here suggests adoption or marriage or taking
possession, language that presumes the beginning of a new relationship
rather than the continuation of an old one.174 These elements of discontinuity with the ancestral accounts of Genesis heighten the sense that the
creation, in Egypt, of Israel as YHWH'S people is a new beginning.175
At the same time there are also strong elements of continuity.176 The
land promised to the ancestors is precisely the land that YHWH now
promises to grant to Israel (4.8). The verb *?fcW ('redeem'), appears for the
first time as a description of the exodus (6.6),177 connoting the continuation of an established familial relationship between YHWH and Israel; it
places YHWH into the role of the kinsman who is obligated to rescue a
member of the extended family from a difficult situation or obligation
(Unterman 1992: 650-52).178 The term thus implies that Israel already
however, is associated in the literary context of Exodus with getting this people, this
nascent Israel, out of Egypt.
173. This is the first occurrence of this formula of divine presentation in the
Pentateuch. Cassuto (1983: 76) demonstrates that the phrase is the normal way that a
monarch presented himself in ancient Near Eastern texts found on stelae, and so argues
that it is not a formula of revelation or theophany as much as a formula asserting
authority. That is, YHWH here is not so much revealing himself as asserting his kingly
authority over the people he has chosen for his own vis-a-vis Pharaoh.
174. The verb in 6.7 is in the imperfect tense, indicating perhaps future action; this
seems to point to the events at Mt Sinai as the time when Israel fully becomes YHWH'S
people. While in Egypt, Israel is still under Pharaoh's authority, necessitating a strong
counter claim from YHWH. The first half of Exodus is the only place in the Pentateuch
where the phrase 'my people' is found frequently on YHWH'S lips, indicating that the
narrative is very concerned here with establishing the authority of YHWH over Israel.
175. Further on the discontinuity between Exodus and the ancestor traditions, see
Moberly (1992), who argues that this discontinuity is a deliberate theological or
ideological feature of the text serving to portray the events related in Exodus as an
entirely new beginning.
176. See Brueggemann (1994b: 733) who sees a dialectic between continuity and
discontinuity here.
177. Previously in the scroll of Exodus, the exodus has been referred to by the verbs
KiT ('to bring out', hiphil in 3.10,11,12) and "] ('to deliver', hiphil in 3.8; 5.23 and
also here in 6.6).
178. The semantic field of b^3 (Gen. 48.16; Exod. 6.6; 15.13 and many times in
94
belongs to YHWH but has only temporarily come under the power of Egypt.
The text oscillates between these elements of continuity and discontinuity connected with the deity, indicating an ideological dissonance
between at least two differing understandings of Israel's origins. One
asserts Israel's continuity with the ancestral traditions of Genesis and thus
posits the origins of Israel with those ancestors outside of Egypt; the other
claims discontinuity with those traditions and so stresses a new beginning
in Egypt. Elements of both continuity and discontinuity are preserved in
the final text form since the producers of the text seem to want to stress
both Israel's primal origin in the ancestors of Genesis outside of Egypt and
yet also the novelty of Israel's genesis as YHWH'S people inside of Egypt.
Both Israel and Egypt must be persuaded of YHWH'S claim on Israel.
Therefore, YHWH asserts that through the exodus both Israel (6.7) and
Egypt (7.5) will know YHWH. Moses and Aaron are mandated to go to both
the Israelites and to Pharaoh in order to free Israel from Egypt (6.13).179
Both Pharaoh/Egypt and Israel need to be convinced that the identities of
YHWH and Israel are interwoven. As 6.7 and 7.5 make clear, the knowledge
of YHWH as Israel's God is inextricably linked with the exodus of Israel
from Egypt. Israel's identity, and YHWH'S identity as Israel's God, hinge on
the exodus of Israel from Egypt; conversely, as long as Israel stays in Egypt
Leviticus and Ruth) and the related term HIS, 'to ransom' (Exod. 13.13, 15; 21.8;
34.20) constitutes an ideological interpretive lens through which the narrative presents
and understands the birth or formation of Israel as a distinct people through the exodus.
One form of redemption is whereby an indentured Israelite could be redeemed from
servitude by a monetary payment (Lev. 25.47-55, see also Exod. 21.8). However, if the
narrative similarly envisions YHWH as redeeming Israel from indentured servitude in
Egypt, the problem is that YHWH does not seem to make a payment of any sort. In
contrast, the plundering motif (3.21-22; 11.2-3; 12.35-36) indicates that, if anything,
the Egyptians seem to make payment to Israel. A second form or model of redemption
is that of the 'blood redeemer' who avenges murder or severe harm inflicted on a
relative (Num. 35; Deut. 19; and Absalom's killing of Amnon, his sister's rapist in 2
Sam. 13-14). YHWH'S killing of the Egyptian firstborn and drowning of the Egyptian
army in the sea would then similarly be the action of the 'blood redeemer' to avenge
the oppression of Israel by Egypt (see Unterman 1992:653). The plundering motif may
then indicate an attempt by the Egyptians to ransom their lives from the death penalty
imposed by the blood redeemer (on this sort of ransom, see Exod. 21.28-32). However,
Pharaoh's genocidal policies towards Israel constitute murder, and since a murderer's
life cannot be ransomed (Num. 35.31), the attempt fails.
179. In 6.13, the LXX omits the mandate to go to the sons of Israel (HOTTP: 96-97
sees this as a simplification of the text) and has YHWH commanding Moses and Aaron
to go only to Pharaoh.
3. Egypt in Exodus
95
neither YHWH nor Israel can be who they really are, at least according to
the dominant ideology of the text.180
If the overriding ideological concern of the text is the establishment of a
firm non-Egyptian identity for Israel, then the identities of Moses and
Aaron, Israel's leaders in the exodus, must also be firmly grounded both
within Israel and outside of Egypt. It has already been noted that the
identity of Moses is portrayed in ambiguous terms. Moses, for instance,
does not seem to identity himself clearly as a part of Israel. In response to
the recriminations of the Israelite taskmasters, Moses complains to YHWH,
using the terms 'this people' and 'your people' of Israel (5.22-23). In
response to a challenge to his leadership, he distances himself from the
people.181 This division between Moses and the people reflects the tension
in the narrative regarding Israel's identity and perhaps mirrors similar
tensions in the audience of the scroll.
On the other hand, however, in ch. 6 a genealogy provides a legitimate
place within Israel for Moses and Aaron (6.14-25).182 The genealogy
begins by listing, in order, Jacob/Israel's sons. But after a cursory treatment of Reuben and Simeon (6.14-15), a detailed treatment of Levi
follows (6.16-25), and the other sons of Jacob are not mentioned at all.
This shift is surprising in light of what the audience may have expected
given the previous genealogical lists in Gen. 46 and Exod. 1, and so may
have been designed intentionally by the producers of the text to highlight
the very explicit purpose of this genealogy in legitimating Aaron and
Moses.
Such concern for genealogical legitimation is reminiscent of the postexilic reconstructionist concerns for pure lineage reflected in EzraNehemiah, and may suggest that some sort of resistance to the legitimacy
180. And therefore no compromises can be made with Pharaoh; thus, the motif of
the hardening of Pharaoh's heart (7.5; also previously at 4.21) which will play an
important part in the upcoming plague narrative. The notion that Israel cannot really be
Israel in Egypt would be a strong message to Judeans settled in Egypt in the Saite,
Persian or Ptolemaic periods (see Chapter 6).
181. Compare the similar dynamic in 2.14-18 where Moses flees to Midian.
182. Note the double emphasis on, and the chiastic arrangement of, the names of
Aaron and Moses at the end of the genealogy (6.26-27). The genealogy is surrounded
by a frame of repetitive material (6.11-13 and 26-30), suggesting that it has been
interpolated into the text. Resumptive repetition (Wiederaufnahme) of material as a
frame around an interpolation seems to have been an ancient editorial practice.
96
of Moses and Aaron among the target audience for the scroll of Exodus
needed to be overcome. However, this effort at genealogical legitimation
is itself ambiguous. For one thing, the effort to provide Aaron and Moses
with an unassailably pure Levitical lineage results in having their father
marry his father's sister, a type of marriage that is forbidden in Leviticus
(18.12; 20.19).183 For another, an Egyptian etymology seems to lie behind
several of the names in the genealogy.184 Thus both the purity and nonEgyptian character of the genealogy are undercut.
Although the genealogy concludes by twice mentioning both Moses and
Aaron (6.26-27), it is in reality far more concerned with Aaron. Descendants of Aaron extending all the way to one of his grandchildren are
mentioned, but no descendants of Moses are listed, even though at least
one son of Moses is already known.185 Genealogically, Moses disappears
while Aaron lives on in his descendants.186 This dynamic fits the general
diminishment of the heroic Moses that has already been noted earlier in
the Exodus scroll. In contrast, in 7.1, Moses is given the status of a God
183. Durham (1987: 83) suggests that the importance of providing a pure genealogy
for Aaron (and Moses) has here overridden the taboo against marrying one's father's
sister. The LXX tries to rectify the problem by describing Amran's wife here as the
daughter, not the sister, of his uncle. But the LXX agrees with the MT in Num. 26.59,
where Jochebed, the mother of Moses and Aaron, is described as Levi's daughter.
184. The names Moses, Aaron, Miriam, Merari, Putiel, Assir and Phinehas likely
have Egyptian etymologies (Noth 1966; Zadok 1986). The name Putiel is particularly
interesting in that it may be a hybridized name of both Hebrew and Egyptian origin.
185. Moses' son Gershom appears in Exod. 2.22. Moses packs up his wife and sons
(plural) in 4.20. A second son of Moses, Eliezer, is named later along with Gershom in
Exod. 18.3-4. A few further descendants of Moses are listed in 1 Chron. 23.15-17, but
in a context where they are clearly seen as secondary to Aaron's descendants who
become priests. There is some confusion between Gershom, Moses' son, and Gershon,
one of Levi's sons (1 Chron. 5.27; 6.1, 16 lists Levi's son as Gershom, but this is
usually considered a scribal error). A different line of descent from Moses through
Gershom is suggested in Judg. 18.30, where a priesthood descended from Moses is
associated with a cult deemed illegitimate by the narrative (textual variants read
Manasseh instead of Moses here); see Garsiel (1991: 136-38). 1 Chronicles 26.24-28
describes various descendants of Moses as levitical officials in charge of the treasuries.
The second son of Moses, Eliezar, may be confused with Aaron's son Eleazar. Moses'
Cushite wife in Num. 12 seems to be someone different from Zipporah, but no children
connected with this wife are mentioned.
186. Durham (1987: 83-84) suggests that at the time the final form of the Tetrateuch
took place, the legitimacy of Moses was firmly established but the legitimacy of Aaron
was still being debated. However, it could be argued that the text seeks not just to
legitimize Aaron, but also to displace the elevated status of Moses.
3 Egypt in Exodus
97
vis-a-vis Pharaoh, while Aaron is to act as his prophet.187 The text labors,
therefore, as in the erasure of Moses' descendants from the genealogy, to
subvert any such tradition of an exalted status for Moses.188 While it is
important that Moses be portrayed as non-Egyptian, it is also ideologically
important for the text to portray him as not heroic or of divine stature.189
The ambiguity of Moses' identity is further manifested by his resistance
to this second of YHWH'S commissions with the explanation that he is a
person of'uncircumcised lips' (6.12,30). This comment is usually understood as a reference to some sort of speech disability like the one
described by Moses in 4.10.19 However, the word b~lU ('uncircumcised')
may imply that Moses felt that his success would be prevented by his
outsider ('uncircumcised') status.191 Since the Egyptians seem to have
practiced circumcision of a sort and refused access to the royal court to
those they considered uncircumcised (Galpaz-Feller 1995), Moses could
be referring to his outsider status vis-a-vis Pharaoh. However, he could
just as well be referring to his lack of insider status among the Israelites;192
the possibility that he was not circumcised at all was already raised in
4.24-26. Again, the uncertain identity of Moses is highlighted.
Conclusion
After an initial attempt ended in failure (Exod. 5), Moses is commissioned
a second time (Exod. 6). The play of continuity and discontinuity with the
ancestor traditions of Genesis suggests two main perspectives on Israel's
origins: from outside Egypt, and from within Egypt. The struggle of the
first perspective for dominance is reflected in the need of both Israel and
Egypt to be persuaded of YHWH'S plan for Israel's identity and exodus,
187. It has already been suggested that 4.16, where Moses is to be as a God to Aaron
and Aaron is to be his mouth, not only subordinates Aaron to Moses, but also may
indicate a tradition of a (semi) divine status for Moses. The word 'prophet' is used in
Exodus only of Aaron (here) and of Miriam (15.20).
188. As Durham (1987: 86) remarks: 'at every crucial point, the presence of Moses
is either forgotten or at least obscured by the Presence of Yahweh'.
189. The image of Moses as both Egyptian and as heroic or even (semi-) divine may
have been held by Judeans settled in Egypt.
190. Brueggemann (1994b: 735), however, cautions against too quickly making a
connection between the two texts.
191. Ezekiel 32 and 44 make extensive use of the epithet 'uncircumcised' as a
category of exclusion and derision.
192. Abraham institutes circumcision in Gen. 17. Exodus 12.48 excludes the
uncircumcised from participation in the Passover.
98
and in the genealogical legitimation of Moses and Aaron as genuine

Israelites which forms the centerpiece of this chapter of Exodus. And yet
the ambiguity of especially Moses' identity continues to attest to the
presence of alternative traditions or understandings that confound or cloud
the sharp ethnic distinction that the text is working to create.
Plagues (7.8-11.10)
It is in the plague narrative that the issue of Israel's identity vis-a-vis
Egypt comes to a head. A striking feature of this narrative is that three
times in it YHWH insists on an explicit, unequivocal distinction between
Israel and Egypt (8.19 [23]193; 9.4; 11.7). That the distinction is insisted
upon repeatedly with such vigor suggests that it was not self-evident or
accepted by all members of the audience of the final text form of the
scroll; it was a distinction that needed to be established. Moreover,
violence and death mark this distinction. An escalating series of plagues,
culminating with the climactic words of YHWH 'that you may know that
YHWH distinguishes/ separates between Egypt and Israel' (11.7), lead
inexorably to the death of the Egyptian firstborn and finally to the
annihilation of Egypt in the sea. The impossibility of any rapprochement
between Israel and Egypt is forcibly portrayed in the drawing of the
boundaries of identity in blood.
In the following, the analysis will focus on how the rhetoric of the
narrative develops an identity for Israel as separate from Egypt. This
involves unraveling several different threads of the narrative tapestry
which contribute variously to the construction (or subversion) of a distinct
identity for Israel. Since the purpose of this narrative segment is so singly
directed towards Israel's identity separate from Egypt, the identity of
YHWH will receive only brief treatment on its own, and the identity of
Moses will not be considered separately at all.
The Identity of Israel vis-a-vis Egypt
Essentially the plague narrative portrays the cosmic contest between
YHWH and Pharaoh for the definition and ownership of Israel. The
narrative itself, however, begins with a more mundane version of this
contest; namely, the competition between Moses/Aaron and the Egyptian
193. Where MT and English translation differ in verse numbering, the verse numbers
in the English translation are enclosed in square brackets
3. Egypt in Exodus
99
magicians (7.8-13). While the greater cosmic contest is presented largely

in solemn and serious tones, the contest with the Egyptian magicians
contains elements of satirical ethnic stereotyping,194 and seeks to discredit
the image of Egypt as a place of richness and wisdom. The contest begins
with the transformation of staffs into snakes (7.8-13).195 While both Aaron
and the Egyptian magicians are able to perform this trick, Aaron simply
does so at the command of Moses. The Egyptian magicians do so
DiTEn bn ('by their secret or arcane arts', 7.11); this phrase conjures up an
image of the incomprehensible babbling of incantations.196 Furthermore,
Aaron's staff is able to gobble up their staffs (7.12). Thus, the vaunted
power of the D'EDf! ('wise ones') and G^BCnn ('conjurers'), the D'DQin
('scholar magicians') of Egypt,197 is ridiculed and discredited by Aaron
and Moses, the Israelite heroes.198
The contest with the Egyptian magicians continues into the first plague,
the plague of blood, which the Egyptian magicians are also able to
duplicate 'by their secret or arcane arts' (7.22). However, instead of being
able to reverse the plague, they have the power only to imitate its debilitating effects, thus intensifying the nuisance that the plague represents to the
population of Egypt (7.21, 24). Furthermore, if Moses and Aaron had
194. The contest with the Egyptian magicians is of the popular folk genre 'contest
between magicians' (see S. Thompson 1966: V, 2.67, 309).
195. Irwin(1977:195) draws attention to a similar motif in the Egyptian story 'The
Wax Crocodile'. Houtman (1993: 137-38) suggests that the pP ('snake') in the
biblical story should be understood as a crocodile.
196. See also 7.22; 8.3 [7]; and 8.14 [18], where the phrase appears asnrreta. It is
usually connected to the root OK1? (see Judg. 4.21) with its connotations of secrecy and
stealth. Alternatively, it may suggest the connotation of the blazing brilliance of a
magical illusion (from the root BH *?), or the connotation of entangling in magical spells
(from the root 01^).
197. The term D'QBin is itself an Egyptian loan word, meaning 'priest-reader'. All
three terms designate the same group of people: those learned in secret knowledge and
thus capable of interpreting dreams and displaying supernatural powers. Their presence
at the royal court is indicative of their power and prestige. See also Gen. 41, which is
also set in the Egyptian court, and Dan. 1-2, set in the court of Babylonia. That these
are all non-Israelite contexts suggests that an exotic foreign, if not forbidden, practice
is being described.
198. Note that, whereas the sign of the snake was given in 4.1-5 to persuade Israel,
here it is directed towards convincing Pharaoh. Also, the snakes here are the more
awesome and fearsome (pP), with their connotations as monsters or dragons of chaos,
(e.g. Gen. 1.21;Ps. 74.13; Isa. 27.1) rather than the EJm ('snake') of 4.1-5. However,
the term tOTT] is picked up again in 7.15.
100
already turned most of the water in Egypt into blood,199 very little water
remained for the magicians to demonstrate their power.200 Similarly, the
magicians are able only to duplicate, but not reverse, the annoying second
plague of frogs (8.3 [7]). A humorous picture is presented of frogs jumping everywhere, even into Pharaoh's bed and into the ovens and kneading
bowls (7.28 [8.3]). Pharaoh is unable to turn to his own magicians for
help, but must request that Moses and Aaron bring an end to the frog
plague (8.4 [8]). And then, ironically, the cure is no better than the plague
itself; the frogs die everywhere and stink up the land (8.9-10 [13-14]).
The ineffective power of the magicians reaches its limits with the third
plague of gnats; this plague the magicians are not able to duplicate (8.14
[18]). In their defeat, they acknowledge that some sort of divine power is
atwork: 'the finger of (a) God, this!' (8.15 [19]). Couroyer(1956a) argues
that this phrase is an Egyptian expression, here referring to the staff of
Aaron and Moses, which is seen by the magicians from their Egyptian
perspective as a divine or magical tool. The phrase itself appears elsewhere in the Pentateuch only in Exod. 31.18 and Deut. 9.10, where the
two stone tablets of the covenant are described as having been written by
the 'finger of God'.201 Intertextually, therefore, the magicians may be portrayed more sympathetically at this point as recognizing in the plagues
YHWH'S Torah or teaching.202
The magicians appear one last time in the sixth plague; they cannot
stand before Moses because they are afflicted with boils along with all the
other Egyptians (9.11).203 This last trace of their contest with Moses and
Aaron signifies their final humiliation and defeat, for they cannot even
protect themselves from the effects of the plague.
The whole series of encounters with the Egyptian magicians can be read
199. The impression given by 7.19. However, 7.21 -22,24 seem to indicate that only
the water in the Nile was turned into blood.
200. Unless the magicians changed the blood back into water before changing it into
blood again, which would paint an even more ludicrous picture.
201. On the possible Egyptian background of the writing of the tablets of the
covenant by the finger of God, see Couroyer (1956b).
202. Durham (1987: 110) argues that the magicians are not denigrated but seen as
worthy opponents.
203. The phrase ''DS1? "TQU usually means to present oneself before someone, but it
can also have the connotation of making a stand or holding one's ground against
someone (e.g. Judg. 2.14); the magicians are thus pictured satirically both as physically
not being able to present themselves and as not being able to hold their ground against
Moses in the performance of wonders.
3. Egypt in Exodus
101
as a satirical discrediting of the highly vaunted and admired wisdom of

Egypt, shown here to be no match for the power of YHWH at work in
Moses and Aaron.204 The contest between the Egyptian magicians and
Moses/Aaron becomes in the text a means of delimiting the boundary of
identity between Israel and Egypt by ridiculing what is seen as the illusionary pretensions of 'them' in contrast to the authentic power and
wisdom of 'us'. Nonetheless, the boundary thus drawn is not without its
ambiguity; the magicians, after all, are the first Egyptians to seemingly
recognize the divine at work in Moses and Aaron. They thus enter into a
role structurally opposed to Pharaoh, representative of Egypt, who continues to refuse to grant the claims and demands of Moses and Aaron any
legitimacy.
Some commentators have seen in the various plagues intimations of a
wider contest between YHWH and specific gods of the Egyptian pantheon.205
From the perspective of the producers of the text, however, rather than a
polemic against specific Egyptian gods, the plagues as a whole signify the
reversal of creation (Fretheim 199la, 1991b: 108-12). Just as the first
creation account in Gen. 1 presented a progressive ordering of creation
through six days, so the ten plagues present a progressive disordering of
creation in Egypt. The plague of darkness comes as a climax in which
creation in Egypt is returned to the primordial chaotic darkness (Gen. 1.2).
This reversal contains a strong critique of the portrayal of Egypt as a wellwatered garden and as a paradisiacal Eden (Gen. 13.10), a portrayal that
204. Similarly, in the Joseph story, the Egyptian magicians are portrayed as unable
to interpret Pharaoh's dream (Gen. 41.8,24), but, they are not defeated and humiliated
as in the Exodus story.
205. The plague of blood is seen as an attack against Hapi, the Egyptian God
connected with the annual inundation of the Nile. Cassuto (1983: 99) suggests that the
phrase 'and in woods and stones' in 7.19 points to the practice of Egyptian priests who
washed the images of their gods, made of wood and stone, early every morning. The
plague of frogs is seen as an attack against the frog-headed Egyptian goddess Heket
(Cassuto 1993:101). And the plague of darkness is interpreted as an attack against the
power of the Egyptian sun-God Re. Cassuto (1983:126) also sees a punning allusion to
the Egyptian God Re in the !tm of 10.10, as also possibly in 5.19 and 32.12. All these
interpretations, however, likely assume more detailed knowledge of Egyptian religion
than the producers of the final text form had (see Durham 1987:104). Furthermore, the
narrative associates judgment against the Egyptian gods only with the tenth plague:
'against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments. I am YHWH' (12.12). To read
judgments against specific Egyptian gods in the other plagues is probably a case of
overinterpretation.
102
may have been part of a positive portrayal of Egypt among the intended
audience of the scroll.
Thus the narrative attempts generally to discredit Egypt. The contest
with the Egyptian magicians ridicules the view of Egypt as a place of
wisdom and magical power, while the reversal of creation signified by the
plagues casts suspicion on images of Egypt as a place of plenty. But the
plague narrative also strives more specifically, in a variety of ways, to
differentiate Israel from Egypt. For instance, Israel is mentioned as exempt
from the effect of some of the plagues: the fourth plague of flies (8.18-19
[22-23]), the fifth plague of livestock disease (9.4,6-7), the seventh plague
of hail (9.26), the ninth plague of darkness (10.23), and the tenth plague
involving the death of the firstborn (11.7; 12.21-27). Some commentators
assume that the text means to exempt Israel from all of the plagues, even if
the exemption is not explicitly mentioned for every plague. But this
assumption is questionable, especially in the case of the first three plagues
before the exemption of Israel is even mentioned.206
The narrative emphasizes that the effect of many of the plagues was felt
throughout all the land of Egypt. During the first plague 'there was blood
in all the land of Egypt' (7.19, 21), implying that Israelites could be
among the Egyptians who could not drink from the river and had to dig for
water (7.21,24). The second plague of frogs extends to all the borders of
Egypt (7.27 [8.2]). When the frogs die, they are described as expiring in
houses, courtyards and fields (8.9 [13]) without any indication of whose
these properties are, and the identity of those who heap the dead frogs into
piles is also not specified (8.10 [14]); again, by implication, Israelites
could be among those affected. Similarly, the third plague of gnats takes
place 'in all the land of Egypt' (8.12-13 [16-17]); in fact, 'all the dust of
the earth' in Egypt is turned into gnats (8.13 [17]);207 again, without any
indication of exemption, one could easily assume that Israelites were also
affected.
206. Philo already argued (Vit. Mos. 1.143) that the theme of the distinction of Israel
from Egypt was implicit in all the plagues and that Israel was spared from the effect of
the plagues from the start (see Childs 1974: 157). But such a view depends on reading
distinctions made in the narrative of the later plagues back into the earlier plagues.
While such 'back-reading' is a legitimate interpretive move and may actually indicate
the dominant ideology of the producers of the text, it should not be used to obscure the
traces of other ideologies against which the producers of the text may have been
writing.
207. The LXX tones this hyperbolic statement down by saying 'in all the dust of the
land there were gnats'.
3. Egypt in Exodus
103
Although an exemption of Israel from the effect of the plagues begins to

be mentioned with the fourth plague, the hyperbolic descriptions of the allencompassing scope of the plagues continue. The fourth plague of flies is
said to spread destruction 'in all the land of Egypt' (8.20 [24]). The sixth
plague of boils is present 'in all the land of Egypt' (9.9) and affects 'all
Egypt' (9.11). The seventh plague of hail takes place 'in all the land of
Egypt' (9.22, 24, 25). The eighth plague of locusts covers the land and
houses of Egypt right to the borders (10.5-6, 14-15). The ninth plague of
darkness covers 'all the land of Egypt' for three days (10.22). And, finally,
the tenth plague is announced as inclusive: 'all the firstborn of Egypt'
(11.6, see also 12.29) in 'all the land of Egypt' (11.7) will be affected.
There thus exists a tension in the narrative between the wide-ranging
extent of the plagues and the explicit exemption of Israel from at least five
of them. Part of this tension can be dissolved by attributing it to the use of
hyperbole. The extravagant exaggeration in the description of the extent of
the plagues is meant to underline the awesome power of YHWH and, in
turn, the incredible hard-heartedness of Pharaoh, even if this leads to some
far-fetched results.208 In other words, the exemption of Israel from the
plagues may not necessarily contradict the rhetorical description of the
extent of the plagues. However, since the motif of Israel's exemption
appears only with the fourth plague, it seems reasonable that Israel may
have suffered the effects of at least the first three plagues along with the
Egyptians. More problematic, however, is the means whereby Israel seems
to be exempted from the effects of at least some of the subsequent plagues;
namely, by residence in a separate territory, Goshen (8.18 [22]; 9.26).209
But what and where is Goshen? It is described both times in Exodus as
an f*~1K ('land'), presumably meaning a distinct territory. If the plagues
208. For instance, the statement that 'all the dust of the earth became gnats in all the
land of Egypt' (8.13 [17]) is literally incredible. Similarly, the statement that 'all the
livestock of Egypt died' in the fifth plague (9.6) is literally contradicted by the mention
of Egyptian livestock in the seventh plague (9.19-21). (Animals are also said to be
affected by the boils of the sixth plague, but there nora, 'animal/cattle' is used rather
than the HjpD, 'livestock', of the fifth plague). The seventh plague of hail is recounted
in hyperbolic terms (9.24-25), but later the text tones down this exaggeration by noting
that not all the crops were mined (9,31 -32).
209. Even the references to Goshen, however, are not consistent. For example,
Goshen is not mentioned in the distinction between Israelite and Egyptian livestock in
the fifth plague; only 'tomorrow this thing/plague will be in the land' (9.5)with no
specification of which land or territory. In 10.23 the Israelites are also exempted from
the plague on the basis of where they live, but there is no explicit mention of Goshen.
104
affect 'all Egypt', then Goshen, to be exempt, must be outside of Egypt.

And yet, the whole purpose of the exodus account is premised on the
presence of Israel in Egypt. Furthermore, the location of the Israelites in
this one territory contrasts with the picture elsewhere in Exodus that they
are found throughout Egypt.210 Most problematic is the final plague that is
averted from the houses of the Israelites by the mark of blood on the lintel
and doorposts of their houses (12.7,12-13,21-27). If all of Israel lived in a
separate territory, such a method of distinguishing their houses would not
be necessary.211
Scholars usually locate Goshen in the eastern delta region of Egypt.212
But no satisfactory equivalence with places in the eastern delta has been
conclusively established.213 For one thing, there is no Egyptian equivalent
to either the Hebrew ] tft or Greek PEGS |_i, and the Hebrew and Greek terms
themselves cannot be connected philologically. The identification of
Goshen with the twentieth nome of lower Egypt, designated as 'Arabia' by
the Greek geographers Pliny and Ptolemy, depends on the LXX, which
reads FECEM 'Apafias ('Gesem of Arabia') in Gen. 45.10 and 46.34.214
The LXX designation has also been equated with the sphere of influence of
Gesem the Arab, a Persian official of the fifth century BCE and an
210. 1.7 mentions that the 'land', presumably Egypt, was filled with the sons of
Israel. In 5.12, 'the people' scattered in all the land of Egypt to find stubble to use as
straw in their brick making. While likely hyperbole to emphasize the extreme extra
effort that was placed on the workers, the statement also suggests the presence of Israel
throughout the land of Egypt. The motif of the plundering of the Egyptians (3.21-22;
11.2-3; 12.35-36) seems to presume that the Israelites lived among Egyptian
neighbours. In fact, there is no reason for the audience to suppose that Israel lives in a
separate territory in Egypt until Goshen is mentioned for the first time in 8.18 [22]. Of
course, the preceding book of Genesis mentions Goshen several times, but the term
there is also not without its problems and ambiguities. Source critics solve this problem
by pointing out that J pictures the Israelites as confined to Goshen, whereas E has them
living side by side with the Egyptians.
211. Similarly, in the immediately preceding plague of darkness, while the Israelites
are described as having light 'in their dwellings' (10.23b), Goshen is not mentioned.
The reference to the Israelite dwellings does not necessarily point to a separate
territory, and may in fact anticipate the distinction between houses, not territories, that
will be made in the next and final plague.
212. The connection of Goshen with the eastern delta region of Egypt is dependent
on references in Genesis (45.10; 46.28-29, 34; 47.1, 4, 6, 27; 50.8).
213. For a summary of the data, see Ward (1992).
214. The place name Gsm.t, found on several geographical lists of the Ptolemaic
period, has been equated with the LXX TeasM, but the reading is not certain (Ward 1992).
3. Egypt in Exodus
105
opponent of Nehemiah (Neh. 2.19; 6.1-2,6). Thus, while the name in the
LXX seems to have been meant to point to some place in the eastern delta
of Egypt, in the MT it remains unattached to any extrabiblical toponyms.
The eastern delta was a place that outsiders often entered in order to find
pasture for their flocks, as ancient Egyptian records show (e.g. ANET:
259); the reference to Rameses and Pithom in Exod. 1.11, cities that
interpreters usually locate in the eastern delta,215 support this general
location. But Goshen also refers in Joshua (10.41; 11.16; 15.51) to
locations in southern Judah.216 It seems that, at least in the MT, Goshen
remains unlocatable and functions perhaps more as a symbolic territory,
ambiguously located on the margins between Egypt and Canaan.217 In the
plague narrative, then, Goshen functions twice to mark a utopic distinction
between Israel and Egypt,218 while the remainder of the narrative portrays
Israel as dwelling among the Egyptians.219
While exemption from some of the plagues and residence in Goshen are
incomplete means whereby Israel is distinguished from Egypt, a much
stronger case is made in the language of the deity. The dialogues between
YHWH and Moses and Pharaoh abound in the ethnic rhetoric of'us' versus
'them'. The discourse of YHWH is especially strong in the use of the
contrast between ^ftV ('my [i.e. YHWH'S] people') and ~[DI? ('your [i.e.
Pharaoh's] people', see 7.26-29 [8.1-4]; 8.16-19 [20-23]; 9.13-19). The
distinction is not quite as starkly drawn, however, in the discourse of
Pharaoh and Moses. Pharaoh speaks of 'DU ('my people', 8.4 [8]; 9.28),
but never of 'your people'. Moses speaks of ~p# ('your [i.e. Pharaoh's]
people', 8.5 [9], 7 [11]), but never of 'my people'.220 Conversely, while
215. Uphill (1968, 1969), however, suggests that Pithom is to be located at Heliopolis near present day Cairo.
216. In these instances, the LXX reads fooop instead of FEDEM, suggesting that in the
LXX tradition these places were considered different from the Goshen in Egypt.
217. See the analysis of Goshen in Chapter 2 on Genesis.
218. Ethnic discourse often includes an ideology of space: a territory or homeland
that is associated with the particular group. However, this space need not be inhabited
by the members of the group, nor need it necessarily be 'real' space. Fictive or Utopian
spaces often function as part of the ethnic discourse of colonial or diasporal groups. On
these types of ethnic groups, see A.D. Smith (1992).
219. Egypt and Israel are not physically separated until the pillar interposes itself
between the Egyptian and Israelite camps (14.20).
220. Moses' words in 8.6 [10] 'so that you (i.e. Pharaoh) will know that there is no
one like YHWH our God' seem to create the classic dichotomy between 'us' and 'them'
in the MT. The LXX here, however, reads OTI OUK EOTCO aXAo? TrAr|V Kupiou ('that
106
Pharaoh speaks only of DUTl^N ('your [i.e. Moses and Aaron/Israel's]

God', 8.21 [25], 24 [28]; 10.8,16-17) and never of 'my/our God', Moses
speaks only of 13^8 ('our God', 8.6 [10], 22 [26]; 10.25-26), and never
of 'your God'. Thus, Pharaoh seems willing to acknowledge YHWH as
Israel's God but not Israel as a separate people, while Moses for his part
identifies with Israel's God but not necessarily with Israel as his people.
That is to say, narratively, while the distinction between Egypt and Israel
is clearly articulated by the character YHWH, in contrast, the characters
Pharaoh and Moses articulate various grades of ambiguity regarding this
distinction.
Three times YHWH posits a clear distinction between Israel and Egypt
(8.19 [23]; 9.4; 11.7); the problem is to convince both Egypt and Israel of
this distinction. Furthermore, that the distinction is insisted upon with such
vigor suggests that, in the context of the primary production and consumption of the final text form, this distinction was not at all self-evident but
needed to be established in opposition to alternate views. That is, the
audience towards which the Pentateuch was first directed included those
for whom the distinction between Israel and Egypt was not important or
self-evident, or was of a different nature altogether. Because the distinctions that matter most are those drawn between near neighbors (J.Z. Smith
1985: 5), it is most likely that the context for the contestation of these
various views was not one of distance and isolation from Egypt, but of
proximity to and interaction with it.
YHWH first claims a clear distinction between Egypt and Israel when
he announces to Pharaoh, through Moses, the fourth plague (8.18-19
[22-23]):
I will make separate (hiphil of H^S) on that day the land of Goshen, upon
which my people are situated; no swarm will be there, so that you will
know that I am YHWH in the midst of the land. And I will set a ransom
(ms TIQfcJl) between my people and your people; tomorrow will be this
sign.
The ethnic distinction between 'my people' and 'your people' is immediately evident; it would be clear to the audience of these words that a
distinction between YHWH'S people and Pharaoh's people is divinely
mandated. However, the manner of the distinction is less obvious.
there is none besides the Lord'), thus emphasizing a universal monotheism instead of
an ethnic dichotomy. In this case the LXX displays a universalizing tendency as
opposed to the ethnic dichotimization in the MT.
3. Egypt in Exodus
107
First, the rare verb n^S is used. This verb appears in the Pentateuch
only in Exodus and always there in the context of some sort of differentiation of Israel: in 8.18 [22] the separation of Goshen, in 9.4 separation
between the livestock of Egypt and Israel, in 11.7 separation between
Egypt and Israel, and in 33.16 separation of Israel from all the people of
the earth.221 Thus its primary signification of ontological or spatial separation seems to be firmly established in the scroll of Exodus. However, the
verb appears three more times in the Hebrew Bible in Psalms 4.4 [3], 17.7
and 139.14, where it has a sense of uniqueness or distinction more by
virtue of being extraordinary rather than separate. In these instances, the
verb H ^S functions very much like the orthographically similar verb K ba,
which means 'to be extraordinary' in the sense of being either marvelous
or incomprehensible or impossible.222 This overlap of meanings compromises the strict sense of spatial or ontological separation indicated by the
use of the verb H ^S in Exodus, and suggests that the separation of Israel
from Egypt is more one of degree than kind. That is, Egypt is ordinary
while Israel is extraordinary, which does not necessarily imply that they
must be separate in origin or location.
The LXX also hints at this alternative meaning in that, for each instance
of ri^B in the MT of Exodus, it reads rrapaSoâôo ('to make wonderful,
extraordinary', 8.18 [22]; 9.4; 11.7) or sv6oi;aco ('to hold in high esteem',
33.16).223 When a sense of strict separation or division is meant, the Pentateuch usually employs the verbs ^"Q or "HE .224 The distinctive use of n ^S
in Exodus, with its different concept of separation, seems to indicate some
221. Thenotion of separationis reinforced by theuse of]13...]''3, 'between' in9.4
and 11.7, and by the use of the partitive |G, 'from' in 33.16.
222. BDB: 811, on the basis of an Arabic cognate, suggests that n bs and K bs are
actually parallel forms; in Ps. 139.14, they appear in juxtaposition. Both verbs seem to
be based on some notion of separation: n ^S on separation per se, implying spatial or
ontological separation, and N bs on separation from the ordinary or expected, implying
more of a separation of degree.
223. The LXX could possibly have read the verb N ^S in its Hebrew Vorlage in these
instances. The Samaritan Pentateuch, for instance, reads N^S in 9.4 and 11.7 (but not
in 8.18 [22]).
224. For "?~D, see especially Lev. 20.24-26 where this verb is used of the separation
between Israel and the nations. The verb ~I~S is similarly used of the separation of
peoples and nations; see especially Gen. 13.9,11,14 (separation of Lot, ancestor of the
Ammonites and Moabites, from Abraham), Gen. 25.23 (separation of Esau, ancestor of
the Edomites, from Jacob), and Deut. 32.8 (division of the human race into separate
nations with fixed boundaries).
108
ambiguity, even in YHWH'S words, as to whether the divinely mandated

separation between Israel and Egypt is to be understood as complete or
more as a matter of degree.225
Secondly, the phrase "|QI7 ) n m 'Dl? J'3 HIS TIDfol ('and I will set a ransom between my people and your people', 8.19 [23]) is odd. A ransom
typically involves, not the act of distinguishing between different peoples,
but a substitutionary payment to free a party from a particular situation.
The root ms ('to ransom, redeem') in the Pentateuch is used for a variety
of situations: the indemnity payment made by the owner of a goring ox to
the family of the victim as a substitute for his liability for the death of the
victim (Exod. 21.28-32),226 the redemption of a female slave from her
owner (Exod. 21.7-11; Lev. 19.20),227 and, most frequently, the 'buying
back' of the male firstborn of both animal and human who, according to
the religious ideology of the Pentateuch, belong to YHWH (Exod. 13.12,
15; 22.28b; Lev. 27.26). For the latter situation, the Pentateuch discusses
the procedure for the redemption of three types of firstborn.228 Male
firstborn of clean animals such as cattle, sheep and goats are not to be
ransomed, but are to be sacrificed to YHWH, the priests sharing the meat
from these animals (Exod. 13.15b; 34.19; Num. 18.15, 17-18). Male
firstborn of unclean animalsthe donkey is the example givenrequire
225. The notion of a separation of degree supports an Israelite diaspora community
in Egypt, since it would allow Israel to be in Egypt and still maintain a distinct identity.
(The notion that Israel is distinct from Egypt in terms of being extraordinary also
allows for an Egyptian origin for Israel; Israel is not ontologically or spatially separate
from Egypt but developed out of Egypt as an extraordinary manifestation.) Conversely,
the notion of absolute ontological or spatial separation would question the very
possibility of an authentic Israelite diaspora community on Egyptian soil.
226. That is, the owner, being liable to the death penalty, would make a compensatory payment to the family of the victim as a substitute for giving his own life. If the
victim was a slave, the payment was set at 30 shekels; otherwise the amount of
payment was likely negotiated with the victim's family.
227. In Exod. 21.7-11, if a slave-bride (Durham 1987: 322) dissatisfies her ownerhusband, one of the options is to provide for her redemption, presumably by her
family. No means or price is set for this transaction. In Lev. 19.20, it is implied that if a
man became betrothed to a slave girl he would have to redeem or ransom her from her
owner. Again, no means or price is set for this transaction.
228. Two Hebrew terms are employed to signify the firstborn: Dm "IDS ('opener of
the womb') and "1133 ('firstborn'). The first term is more typically applied to animals,
while the second term is used more often in the case of humans. The male firstborn
is meant, as the occasional additional qualifier "OT 'male' indicates (e.g. Exod.
13.12, 15).
3. Egypt in Exodus
109
that a clean animal, such as a sheep, be sacrificed as a substitute; alternately, the unclean animal's neck must be broken (Exod. 13.13a; 34.20a;
Num. 18.16; Lev. 27.27).229 Finally, male firstborn of humans require
a substitute in the form of some sort of ransom, usually a payment of
money to the sanctuary (Exod. 13.13b, 15; 34.20b; Num. 3.11-13, 44-51;
18.16).230
The question is what these procedures of substitutionary ransom have to
do with YHWH'S determination to make a distinction between Israel and
Egypt (8.18-19 [22-23]). Israel has already been identified as YHWH'S
male firstborn in Exod. 4.22-23. Moreover, the Pentateuchal legislation
regarding the ransoming of the firstborn described above twice includes a
motive clause justifying the legislation by reference to the killing of the
Egyptian firstborn in the tenth and final plague (Exod. 13.14-15; Num.
3.11-13). Thus, the phrase 'I will set a ransom between my people and
your people' (8.19 [23]) could be read as a proleptic reference to the tenth
plague which will distinguish between Israel, whose firstborn will live,
and Egypt, whose firstborn will die. If so, however, based on the substitutionary logic of the ransom procedure, what sort of exchange, either
monetary or sacrificial, is involved? The only monetary transaction involved in the exodus is the 'plundering' of Egypt by Israel. According to
the logic of ransom, this would signify a payment whereby the Egyptians
ransom themselves, but this does not seem to be the case. Another
possibility is that the death of the Egyptian firstborn functions as a sacrificial substitute for the Israelites. When Israel is born as a distinct people,
as the firstborn of YHWH (Exod. 4.22-23), the substitutionary ransom
required of every firstborn male must be paid. In this case, Egypt is the
substitutionary sacrifice. The ethnogenesis of Israel as a people, in terms
of the metaphor of ransom, involves the drawing of distinctions via substitutionary violence.231
229. In the case of a vow (Lev. 27.27), an unclean animal could be ransomed by
paying to the sanctuary its assessed value plus one-fifth.
230. The type or amount of ransom for the human male firstborn is not specified in
Exod. 13.12-16 or 34.19-20. hi Num. 3.44-51, the Levites count as substitutes, but a
ransom of 5 shekels apiece is set for human male firstborn over and above the number
of Levites. See also Num. 18.16. Leviticus 27.3-8 provides a list of monetary
equivalents for human lives, ranging from 5 to 50 shekels depending on age and
gender, for the purpose of ransoming from a vow; in this list, the male from one month
to five years of age is equivalent to 5 shekels.
231. The use of the root mS in Deuteronomy (7.8; 9.26; 13.6[5]; 15.15; 21.8; and
24.18) is quite different in that it refers exclusively to the rescue of Israel from Egypt
110
Thirdly, the textual variants show that the meaning of Exod. 8.19 [23] is
difficult or contested. The LXX reads Scooco SiacrroAr] ava (jeaov TOU
EMOU Aaou Kai ava (jeaov TOU oou Aaou ('I will grant/sanction/permit a
difference between my people and your people'). The term 5iaoroXr|
('distinction, difference') does not seem to translate the MT term ms
('ransom'), and is possibly a translation of P "?B, from the verb n bs ('to be
separate/distinct'). However, when nbs appears in the MT in other passages in Exodus where the distinctiveness of Israel is asserted (9.4; 11.7;
33.16), there the LXX does not translate the verb as SiaoxoAAco ('to
separate, distinguish'). Thus, perhaps yet another term lies behind the LXX
translation.232 Durham (1987: 111-12), following G.I. Davies (1974:49192), proposes an emendation of the MT ma to n~ns, from the verb "HS
('to divide'), which the LXX does translate twice (Gen. 25.23; 30.40) with
SiaojoAAco.233
These textual variations point out two different understandings of
YHWH'S intention in Exod. 8.18-19 [22-23]: one is that of ransom, with its
allusion to the redemption of the firstborn through a substitutionary
sacrifice, and the second is that of division, separation or distinction.
Either understanding speaks of a distinction between Israel and Egypt, but
the understanding of ransom articulates more directly with the final plague
(and the following climax at the sea) in which the distinction is signified
quite literally by the death of Egyptians. This overlapping of notions of
substitutionary ransom with notions of differentiation make the difference
between Israel and Egypt far more compelling; indeed, rather than merely
as the ransoming of slaves from slavery, without any connotation of the ransoming of
the firstborn. The instances in Deuteronomy thus resemble the use of the root "7K3 in
legislation regarding the redemption of property (Lev. 25.24-34) or kin (Lev. 25.47-55)
that have been sold because of dire need. However, since the exodus does not seem to
involve a payment to the Egyptians, Deuteronomy seems to refer more specifically to
the concept of the C"in VlM ('redeemer/avenger of blood', Num. 25; Deut. 19) who
avenges a homicide by killing the perpetrator. In any case, the functions of ms and
bm can overlap, as they seem to do in the discussion of ransoming property, animals
or human beings from vows in Lev. 27 (Snaith 1967: 268; Budd 1984: 36).
232. The LXX translates as TrapaSoKEco ('to make marvelous/mysterious') in Exod.
9.4 and 11.7, and as evSoKEco ('to make glorious') in 33.16, both possibly readings of
N bs. Although the LXX uses 61 otoToAXco to translate some 21 different Hebrew verbs,
il'PS is not among them. Once, in Lev. 22.21, the LXX uses SiotOToAAco to translate the
closely related verb &"?).
233. Durham (1987: 111) sees the word n~l~IS as meaning something like a 'protective shield'.
3. Egypt in Exodus
111
a difference of degree (as suggested by the ambiguous verb il "?S3 or 8 "73),

it becomes an issue of life and death.
The second time that YHWH explicitly claims a clear distinction between
Egypt and Israel is in the announcement of the fifth plague of livestock
disease (9.4):
YHWH will distinguish/separate (hiphil of n"?!)) between the livestock of
Israel and the livestock of Egypt; and not one thing of all that belongs to the
sons of Israel will die.
In this case, the actual selective outcome of the plague is explicitly

described (9.6); Pharaoh even makes inquiries, only to discover that
indeed not one of the livestock of the Israelites has died (9.7). The textual
variants in the Samaritan Pentateuch (8^2 instead of H^S) and the LXX
(TrapaSoxeeo) again indicate uncertainty over the type of separation
between Israel and Egypt, whether it is ontological and spatial or more a
matter of degree.
YHWH, for a third and final time in the plague narrative, asserts an explicit distinction between Israel and Egypt in the announcement of the tenth
plague. Whereas previously YHWH'swords have distinguished between the
territories in which Israel and Egypt live (8.18 [22]), or between their
livestock (9.4), now the distinction unequivocally becomes one between
Israel and Egypt per se. YHWH announces that he will go through Egypt
and every firstborn, animal and human, will die, but in contrast (11.7):
Not a dog will sharpen his tongue against any of the sons of Israel,234
against either human or animal; in order that you (plural) will know that
YHWH distinguishes/separates (hiphil of n ^S)235 between Egypt and Israel.
Again, a distinction between 'them' and 'us', between Egypt and Israel, is
starkly drawn. However, whereas YHWH'S two previous assertions of the
234. The dog generally appears in the Hebrew Bible as an unclean, loathsome creature, and thus in formulaic expressions of opprobrium and self-abasement (Botterweck
1995). Conversely, in Egypt, while the dog figured as a metaphor for 'slave/servant', it
was also considered with affection as a domestic pet and functioned as a symbol in the
religious cult, particularly that of Anubis, the dog-headed God of the dead. The dog is
also associated with death in the Hebrew Bible, but with a shameful death (dogs are
pictured as eating unburied corpsese.g. 1 Kgs 14.11; 16.4; 21.24). The figure of the
dog in 11.9 thus may imply that the sons of Israel will be protected from the shameful
death that will befall the Egyptians. Durham (1987: 145) interprets the phrase 'to
sharpen the tongue' as describing an attitude of malice.
235. Again, the Samaritan Pentateuch here reads N^S instead of HI7S, and the LXX
translates irapaSoKEco, most likely also reading K^B.
112
separation of Israel and Egypt appear in speeches that Moses is commanded to speak to Pharaoh (8.16-18 [20-23]; 9.1-4),236 in this third and
final instance the speech has no explicit addressee.237 Moreover, in the
phrase 'that you will know that YHWH distinguishes/separates between
Egypt and Israel', the verb I7T ('to know') is not singular, referring to
Pharaoh, as in 8.18 [22], but plural.238 So who is being addressed?
At first glance, the speech in 11.4-8 seems to be addressed to Israel,
since the immediately preceding verses (11.1-3) are directed to Israel.239
Furthermore, Moses has just previously indicated that he will never see
Pharaoh again (10.29), seeming to bring his audiences with Pharaoh to an
end. But a subtle shift occurs in v. 11.8: Moses now seems to be speaking
not YHWH'S words but his own words, and Pharaoh and his court, not the
Israelites, are being addressed.240 Some commentators have solved this
problem by seeing either different sources in the text241 or by bracketing
11.1-3 as parenthetical.242 It seems, however, that the text in its present
form presents an ambiguity that cannot be conjured away but rather is a
clue to the dynamics of the formation of biblical Israel's identity. That is,
although YHWH'S assertions of distinction between Israel and Egypt are
236. In both cases the actual delivery of the speech is not reported, only the actual
occurrence of the threatened plagues (8.20 [24]; 9.6-7). One can assume that the
narrative means for its audience to understand that Pharaoh heard the speeches and that
therefore, within the narrative world, it is Pharaoh that needs to hear and learn of the
distinction between Israel and Egypt. Of course, by reporting only YHWH'S command
to Moses to deliver the speech, the narrative betrays that its true concern is that the
audience hear the speech and be convinced of the distinction between Israel and Egypt.
237. Furthermore, in 11.4-8 Moses is portrayed as actually delivering this divine
speech without any explicit prior authorization from YHWH.
238. The LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch both read the verb as a singular here.
239. Admittedly, however, in 11.1-3 the ambiguous DI?n ('the people') is used and
not the more specific 'sons of Israel'. This ambiguity does not exist in the LXX reading
of 11.3: 'And the Lord gave favor to his people in the sight of the Egyptians... also, the
man Moses was very great before the Egyptians and before Pharaoh and before all of
his servants.'
240. And the phrase at the end of 11.8 indicates that only now does Moses leave
Pharaoh's presence, and not earlier, as was implied by 10.29.
241. For example, against Noth (1962: 94), who suggests that the speech in 11.4-8 is
addressed to Israel, Childs (1974: 133) argues that 11.4-8 is continuous with 10.29 in
the J source.
242. For example, Cassuto (1983:131) wants to see 11.1 -3 as parenthetical since he
cannot conceive of YHWH speaking to Moses in the presence of Pharaoh and his court.
3. Egypt in Exodus
113
ostensibly directed to Pharaoh,243 again it is really Israel that needs to be

persuaded.244 The ambiguity of the addressee of the divine speech in 11.48 reveals that the purpose of the text is to convince its audience, namely
the Israel to whom the narrative is directed, to see itself as distinct from
Egypt. Rhetorically, the entire account of the plagues is aimed in this
direction.245
The ideological message of the narrative could thus be summarized: 'To
know YHWH is to know that Israel is YHWH'S people, which is to know
that Israel is distinct and separate from Egypt.' As if to underline the
critical nature of this distinction, the consequences of the very knowledge
of the distinction also differ according to whether the recipient of the
knowledge is Egypt or Israel. For Pharaoh and Egypt, such knowledge
ultimately means destruction, a closing of the future (14.30); for Israel,
such knowledge means life, an exodus into a new future. Israel is described as telling the story of the plagues from generation to generation
into the future (10.2), while in contrast the text mentions only the past
generations of the Egyptians (10.6).246
The plague narrative thus strives in a variety of ways to construct an
ultimate difference between Israel and Egypt, the strongest expression or
assertion of that difference appearing in the words of YHWH (8.19 [23];
9.4; 11.7) examined above. The ultimate transcendental authority is
invoked by the text as the main support of the ethnic polarity between
Egypt and Israel. Thus, at issue is also the identity of YHWH.
243. The text singles out Pharaoh as requiring knowledge of YHWH and of the
distinction between Israel and Egypt in 5.2; 7.17; 8.6 [10]; 9.14,29; and 10.7. Egypt is
mentioned as requiring this knowledge in 7.5, and 14.4, 18. The formulaic phrase
repeated in many of these instances is 'you/they will know that I am YHWH' (7.5, 17;
8.18 [22]; 10.2; 14.4, 18) with the variants 'you will know that no one is like YHWH/
me' (8.6 [10]; 9.14 and 'you will know that to YHWH (belongs) the land' (9.29).
244. That Israel is the one who needs to learn to know YHWH is already suggested
by 6.7, where YHWH announces to Moses that he will take Israel as his people and they
will know that he is YHWH, and by 10.2, where the future didactic function of the
telling of the story of the plagues is to make YHWH known to Israel.
245. See Durham (1987: 96, 99-100), who argues at length that the plagues themselves are not meant to bring Pharaoh or his people to belief in YHWH (otherwise there
would be no hardening motif), but are rather directed to convincing Israel (both the
Israel in the text and the Israel that constitutes the audience outside the text) that YHWH
is its God and they are YHWH'S people.
246. This orientation towards the past in the case of Egypt is also evident in 9.18,
24.
114
The Identity ofYHWH

On this cosmic or transcendental level, the scroll of Exodus portrays a
contest between YHWH and Pharaoh that must end with the absolute
victory of one side and the total defeat of the other side. But the scroll also
portrays a more mundane or human level that involves negotiation,
bargaining, deception and compromise between human players. This level
is evident in the exchanges between Moses and Pharaoh, and it stands in
tension with the cosmic level of ultimate victory and defeat.
Moses quite consistently presents Pharaoh with the demand of YHWH:
'Let my people go (piel of n'xJ)247 so that they may worship/serve me'
(5.16; 7.26 [8.1]; 8.16 [20]; 9.1,13; 10.3). The demand is somewhat more
specific at times, in that the people are to be let go so that they may
celebrate a festival to YHWH (5.1) and sacrifice to YHWH (5.2), in the
wilderness (5.1,2; 7.16; 8.22 [26]), a three-day journey away (8.22 [26]).
Pharaoh at first absolutely refuses this demand, but after the fourth plague
of flies is willing to make some concessions. First, he requires that Israel
sacrifice to YHWH within the land of Egypt (8.21 [25]);248 when Moses
counters that the sacrifices will offend the Egyptians (8.22 [26]), Pharaoh
gives permission to go into the wilderness as long as it is not far away
(8.23 [27]). After the announcement of the eighth plague of locusts and
upon the advice of his courtiers, Pharaoh negotiates permission for the
men to go, but not the women, children or livestock (10.8-11). No restrictions on the place and duration of the sacrificial festival are again
mentioned. After the ninth plague of darkness, Pharaoh is willing to let all
the people go, as long as the livestock are left behind (10.24); Moses
counters that all the livestock must go (10.25-26).
One wonders whether Pharaoh might have conceded in the end. However, YHWH intervenes by hardening Pharaoh's heart (10.27) and Pharaoh
breaks off negotiations (10.28). This abrupt end to negotiations that finally
seemed to be leading to some resolution is inexplicable except through
divine intervention. YHWH apparently has no wish to see a negotiated
247. The piel of n^ has a number of nuances. The translation 'let go' or 'set free'
picks up the nuance of being released from some sort of confining or abusive situation.
But the verb can also have the more negative nuance of 'dismiss, expel' as, for
instance, in the formula for divorcing a wife (e.g. Deut. 22.19, 29)in this sense it is
closer to the verb Kh3 ('to drive out'), which is occasionally used of the exodus (Exod.
6.1; 11.1; 12.39).
248. Verse 8.21 [25] only mentions 'within the land', but from Pharaoh's narrative
perspective Egypt is to be understood.
3. Egypt in Exodus
115
solution but brings the negotiations to an end so that the final break can be
made between Israel and Egypt.
Therefore, as the intensity of the plagues increase, Pharaoh is portrayed
as increasingly willing to negotiate and make concessions. He even displays
a growing piety toward Israel's God.249 But at every turn, Pharaoh's
increasing flexibility is thwarted by the hardening of his heart. Pharaoh's
heart is hardened sometimes without the mention of an explicit agent (7.1314, 22; 8.15 [19]; 9.7, 35); at other times it is either Pharaoh himself (8.11
[15], 28 [32]; 9.34) or YHWH (7.3; 9.12; 10.1,20,27; 11.10; 14.4,8, 17)
who is the agent of the hardening. However, as the narrative progresses, the
agent of the hardening is identified increasingly as YHWH; after the eighth
plague of locusts, when Pharaoh is portrayed as most willing to negotiate, it
is YHWH alone who continues to harden Pharaoh's heart and prevent him
from reaching a compromise with Moses.250 Pharaoh has no alternative for
he is divinely destined to take Egypt to destruction.251
The motif of the hardening of the heart represents the intrusion of the
level of the cosmic contest into the level of human negotiation. But on the
cosmic level the contest is one-sided; it has already been decided in favor
of YHWH and so really is no contest at all. In the context of the seventh
plague of hail, YHWH quite clearly announces that his intention is to wipe
Egypt off the face of the earth (9.15)252 and that he is prolonging the
plagues only so as to display his power and humble Egypt (9.16-17).
249. He asks Moses to pray for him (8.24 [28]; 9.28), he acknowledges that he is in
the wrong (9.27), that he has sinned against YHWH (10.16), and finally, when Israel
leaves, he asks for a blessing (12.32). Of course, this piety may be negatively
interpreted as a sign of Pharaoh's opportunism and cynicism.
250. See Brueggemann (1995) for a totally different interpretation in which the lack
of compromise is glorified and the responses of Pharaoh are seen as signs of either the
humiliation or untrustworthy cunning of a recalcitrant vassal who engages in futile
negotiations in bad faith.
251. It is interesting how commentators attempt to exonerate YHWH from responsibility for the hardening of Pharaoh's heart: 'God as subject (of the hardening)
intensifies Pharaoh's obduracy' (Fretheim 1991b: 98); 'lest the Pharaoh pay too much
attention too soon and come prematurely to less than an unquestioning belief, he
(YHWH) will harden the Pharaoh's resistance so that he will pay no attention to Moses
and so bring about Yahweh's rescue of the Israelites in such a manner as to provoke
even the Egyptians to belief (Durham 1987: 86).
252. This verse is often translated as a conditional statement (see NRSV, NJPS), but
Durham (1987: 127) argues convincingly that neither the verse nor its surrounding
context suggests a conditional sense.
116
YHWH reiterates these sentiments just before announcing the eighth plague
of locusts; he has hardened the heart of Pharaoh and his courtiers in order
to prevent any human resolution of the contention between Moses and
Pharaoh. Thus, the signs of the plagues will be fully performed in the
midst of Egypt (10.1; see also 11.9) so that the Israelites can tell their
children and grandchildren how YHWH 'toyed with Egypt' (10.2).253
YHWH apparently does not have only the exodus of Israel in mind; he also
intends the utter humiliation of Egypt by which he will gain glory for
himself (10.3; 14.4, 17). The plundering of Egypt (11.2-3; 12.35-36)
represents the apex of Egypt's humiliation; just as the victorious party
would plunder the enemy after a military defeat, so also here Egypt will be
stripped of its riches.254
Thus is underlined the divine desire portrayed in the narrative to
construe an Israel that is so completely separated from Egypt as to require
the humiliation and even the destruction of Egypt. The cosmic contest
between YHWH and Pharaoh overwhelms the more prosaic human world
in which things are never as neatly or sharply divided, in which ambiguity,
negotiation, compromise, contingency and the blurring of boundaries is
part of everyday experience. The text attempts to do away with such
uncertainties, but to do so invokes a deity who insists on a reality of stark
contrasts in which Israel is not only completely other than Egypt but in
which Egypt must also be destroyed in order for Israel (and its God) to
exist. The ethnogenesis of Israel as portrayed in the dominant ideology of
253. The verb used here is the hithpalel of ^S with connotations of diverting or
amusing oneself by making a fool of someone else (e.g. Num. 22.29); see Durham's
translation (1987: 131): 'how I amused myself aggravating Egypt'. It also carries more
violent connotations of abuse: see Judg. 19.25 where the verb is used to describe a
gang rape.
254. Various theories have been proposed to account for the motif of the plundering
or despoiling of Egypt as part of the exodus. Daube (1963: esp. 55-61) finds the pattern
for the exodus in the slave release legislation of Deut. 15.12-18 and thus suggests that
the plunder represents the payment due a released slave. Knight (1976: 82-83)
interprets the plunder as due payment for the years of labor that Israel provided the
Egyptians. Coats (1968:453-57) sees in the plundering motif the remnant of a tradition
of exodus by stealth in which items were deceptively 'borrowed' from the Egyptians.
The interpretation that seems best to fit the narrative context of the cosmic contest
between YHWH and Pharaoh, however, is that of Durham, who sees the plundering as
part of the humiliation of Egypt by YHWH: Egypt is picked clean through a process that
is supernaturally enabled by YHWH. On the practice of plundering in ancient Israelite
warfare, see, for example, de Vaux (1961: 255-56).
3. Egypt in Exodus
117
the text is grounded in this worldview of sharply contrasting polarities and

undergirded by divine sanction.
Deception also plays a part in the humiliation of Egypt and the setting
apart of Israel. In his dialogues with Moses, Pharaoh is given to understand that Israel is requesting permission for a temporary pilgrimage; a
three-day journey into the wilderness is explicitly mentioned (5.2; 8.22
[26]; see also 3.18). But the audience already knows that YHWH intends
not a temporary pilgrimage but a permanent exodus of Israel out of Egypt
and into the land of Canaan (3.8, 17-18). Eventually Pharaoh seems to
sense that more than a simple temporary pilgrimage is intended; his
suspicions are aroused when Moses insists that all of the people, including
men, women, children, along with their livestock, are to go (10.8-11).255
Although Pharaoh may simply suspect that by moving out en masse the
people are intending to permanently quit the country, his suspicions also
make sense against the Pentateuchal stipulation that only adult male
Israelites are required to attend the main pilgrimage festivals (Exod. 23.17;
34.23; Deut. 16.16).256
While the goal of the pilgrimage is not specified at this point in the
scroll of Exodus,257 a three-day journey into the wilderness at least points
to a location outside of Egypt, raising the question of whether YHWH can
be legitimately worshiped or served in Egypt at all.258 The plague narrative
of Exodus overwhelmingly gives the impression that the worship or
255. It is interesting that, although Pharaoh is being deceived as to the true nature of
the demand 'let my people go', Moses twice accuses Pharaoh of duplicity (8.25 [29],
9.30). Of course, Moses' charge is validPharaoh does not live up to his promises
but the cause is the hardening of Pharaoh's heart that is increasingly directed by
YHWH.
256. These alternative conceptions of pilgrimage maybe directly connected with the
situation of diaspora Judeans during the production of the final text form of the scroll
of Exodus. That is, the legitimacy of pilgrimage from the diaspora, especially from the
Egyptian diaspora, maybe in question. The text presents two understandings: (1) from
the narrative point of view of Pharaoh, such pilgrimage is temporary; Judeans in Egypt
would visit Jerusalem but would return to Egypt; (2) from the narrative point of view
of YHWH, such pilgrimage actually entails a permanent migration to Palestine. Thus,
according to the dominant ideology of the text, a permanent migration is presented as
the proper alternative for Judeans in Egypt.
257. The audience will perhaps however remember that at the beginning YHWH
declared that, after the exodus, the people will worship at the mountain of God (3.12).
258. This question would obviously be of great significance for the Judean diaspora
communities in Egypt.
118
service of YHWH in Egypt is impossible.259 In general this is the case

because, according to the dominant ideology of the text, YHWH'S people
Israel cannot properly be constituted as such until they are absolutely
separated from Egypt. Moreover, the impossibility of worshiping YHWH in
Egypt is also indicated more specifically.
For instance, Moses warns Pharaoh that Israel cannot sacrifice to YHWH
within the land of Egypt because PQTD D"HiJQ rQUin ('the abomination of
Egypt we will sacrifice', 8.22 [26]). That is, the sacrifices that Israel
intends to offer will be seen as detestable or sacrilegious by Egypt,260 thus
necessitating a three-day journey into the wilderness.261 But then the text
seems to slip; Moses' words continue, 'If we sacrifice the abomination of
Egypt before their eyes, they will not stone us (ID^pD 8*71)' apparently
directly undermining Moses' argument. The MT reading is usually interpreted as a rhetorical question: 'If we sacrifice the abomination of Egypt
before their eyes, will they not stone us?' (e.g. NJPS, NRSV). Although the
absence of an interrogative particle here does not exclude this interpretation,262 it does introduce some ambiguity. Furthermore, the LXX, Samaritan
Pentateuch and the Vulgate all omit the negativeto*?,suspiciously as if to
correct a prior difficult reading. Thus, on the one hand, the sacrifices of
Israel are presented as making impossible Israel's worship in Egypt'will
they not stone us?'; on the other hand, the sacrifices of Israel present no
barrier to worship in Egypt'they will not stone us'. This ambiguity is
indicative of an ideological tension that the text is attempting to resolve, a
259. Not only can Israel not sacrifice to YHWH in Egypt, but even the knowledge of
exactly what is proper to sacrifice is not available in Egypt (10.26).
260. Note that the Elephantine temple community seems to have offended the priests
of the Egyptian ram God Khnum by sacrificing rams. Later, the Elephantine community was given permission by Jerusalem to restore its worship, with the exclusion,
however, of animal sacrifices (see chapter 6).
261. This interpretation depends on reading the construct chain DHiJD fOUID as an
objective or adverbial genitive: i.e. 'objects or practices which Egypt finds abominable', thus expressing the Egyptian point of view according to the narrative. It is also
possible to read the construct chain as a subjective genitive or genitive of agent: i.e.
'Egyptian objects or practices judged as abominable [by Israel]', thus suggesting the
Israelite point of view. In this second possibility, the meaning of Moses' words may be
that Israel will correctly sacrifice that with which Egypt only practices abomination.
Although this second meaning is more difficult to establish, it may lurk beneath the
surface of the text as a sly ethnic barb against Egypt and its religious cults.
262. The context can indicate an interrogative in the absence of a special interrogative pronoun or adjective. See GKC: 150a for examples, including Exod. 8.22 [26].
3. Egypt in Exodus
119
tension between the view that Israelite worship is not possible within
Egypt and the view that it is. The text desires its audience to take the first
view, but has also preserved a trace of the second view.
Related to the issue of the legitimacy or possibility of worship of YHWH
in Egypt is the question of whether YHWH is portrayed as being present in
Egypt or not. When YHWH announces that he will set apart the land of
Goshen where his people live so that they will not suffer the fourth plague
of flies, he appends the following purpose clause: 'so that you (i.e.
Pharaoh) will know that I, YHWH, (am) in the midst of the land' (8.18
[22]). Given the mention of Goshen earlier in the verse, 'the land' here
would most naturally refer to Goshen. However, later YHWH announces to
Pharaoh that he will send all his plagues 'so that you (i.e. Pharaoh) will
know that there is no one like me in all the land' (9.14). Furthermore,
YHWH intends for Pharaoh to be effaced 'from the land' (9.15), and has
only spared him so far in order that 'my name will be declared in all the
land' (9.16). Finally, the end of the seventh plague of hail is promised 'so
that you (i.e. Pharaoh) will know that the land belongs to YHWH' (9.29). In
these cases, the whole land of Egypt seems to be meant.263 And if YHWH is
in Egypt and means for his name to be declared throughout Egypt, and if
indeed the land of Egypt belongs to him, then it certainly seems possible
that YHWH can be worshiped or served in Egypt.264 This possibility, however, exists in tension with the problem of Israelite sacrifice in Egypt,
discussed above, and with the overall impression given by the narrative
that YHWH only enters Egypt with Moses in order to constitute and rescue
Israel and then leaves Egypt with the exodus of Israel.
Further, Moses is in contact with YHWH while he is in Egypt.265 YHWH'S
263. These references to 'the land' have, however, also been interpreted as referring
to the earth or the world in general; see, for example, the NRSV and NJPS translations of
9.14, 15, 16,29. If so, then a very elevated ideology of YHWH as the supreme God of
the whole world is being propounded. This may indeed fit with the kind of monotheism
that is developed in Second Isaiah, and with the sort of ecumenical 'God of the
heavens' ideology promulgated by the Persian empire (see T.L. Thompson 1995; Bolin
1995). But it also stands in tension, then, with the emphasis elsewhere in the narrative
that worship of YHWH by Israel in Egypt is impossible.
264. Note, however, that when YHWH goes out into the midst of Egypt (11.4) to
execute the tenth plague, his presence in Egypt means death for the Egyptians, not the
possibility of worship or service.
265. Moses is the main protagonist by the end of the plague narrative. However, in
the first three plagues and the preceding sign of the staff turning into a snake, Aaron
plays a very active role; in fact, there is some confusion as to whose staff is used in
120
revelation of each of the plagues comes to Moses in Egypt, once, it seems,

even right in Pharaoh's court (11.4-8).266 Moses prays to YHWH in Egypt.267
In fact, prayer is offered to YHWH in Egypt on behalf of the Egyptian
ruler; Pharaoh requests that Moses pray for him and Moses does so (8.4-5
[8-9], 24-25 [28-29]; 9.28-29; 10.17-18).268
Finally, the presence of what seem to be' YHWH-fearers'269 among those
attached to the Egyptian court confounds the notion that YHWH cannot be
served or worshiped in Egypt, and also, more importantly, blurs the distinction between Egypt and Israel. After the announcement of the seventh
plague of hail, some of Pharaoh's officials, described as 'fearing the word
of YHWH' (mrr ~Q~rnK NTH), put their slaves and livestock under shelter
(9.20), while others, described as 'not taking the word of YHWH to heart'
(mn1 "DT^K inb nerK1? ~\m), leave their slaves and livestock in the
open. A distinction is thus made among Pharaoh's people, based on their
response to YHWH'S word, which complicates the rather stark separation
between Egypt and Israel otherwise advocated by YHWH in the text.
However, this distinction among the Egyptians is short-lived; soon Moses
insists that neither Pharaoh nor his officials yet fear YHWH God (9.30).
The narrator then informs the audience that Pharaoh and his officials
what way in the first plague of blood, indicating some tension between the roles of
Aaron and Moses. After the third plague of gnats, though, with the exception of one
more brief appearance in the sixth plague of boils (9.8-12), Aaron no longer appears in
an active role. The plague of gnats and the plague of boils are also the last two times
that the Egyptian magicians appear and they are shown to be completely defeated. It
seems that with the end of the contest with the magicians, Aaron's active role is no
longer required and his name now appears only formulaically joined to the name of
Moses (e.g. 8.21 [25]; 9.27; 10.3, 16; 11.10; 12.1, 28 etc.).
266. In 12.1 the text is very specific in indicating that YHWH spoke to Moses and
Aaron in the land of Egypt.
267. However, Moses is portrayed as leaving the presence of Pharaoh (8.8 [12];
10.18), and even the city, before praying (9.29, 33)perhaps Egyptian cities, at least
the royal residential cities, were not seen as appropriate places to offer prayer to
YHWH.
268. This may reflect the practice of offering prayers for the ruling house that Ptolemaic rulers expected of their subjects and which (diaspora) Jews were quite willing
to do.
269. The term 'YHWH-fearers' alludes to those Gentile sympathizers and/or adherents
of Judaism called 'God-fearers' who are mentioned in Josephus, the New Testament,
rabbinic literature and various Jewish inscriptions. The extent of their involvement in
Judaism and the degree of their integration into the Jewish community varied greatly
(S.J.D. Cohen 1989).
3. Egypt in Exodus
121
hardened their hearts (9.34; see also 10.1) even though subsequently those
officials advise Pharaoh to let the people go (10.7).270 The text, in the
interests of constructing and maintaining a separation between Egypt and
Israel, thus abruptly seems to foreclose on the possibility that Egyptians
might be sympathetic or receptive to Israel's God. And yet in the process
of establishing the boundary between Egypt and Israel, the text contains
these tantalizing glimpses that compromise the boundary's impermeability.
YHWH'S identity is constructed in the text such that Israel cannot
worship or serve YHWH in Egypt, thus necessitating Israel's separation
from Egypt. But again there are traces in the text of an alternate view that
sees some sort of worship or service of YHWH by an Israel in Egypt as
possible, even if only the service of prayer (without sacrifice) together
with an occasional pilgrimage. The tension between these two views is a
clue to the historical situation that this narrative in its final text form is
designed to address.
Conclusion
The plague narrative presents a complex tapestry in which various narrative threads dealing with the interrelated identities of Israel and Egypt
are intertwined. The dominant voice of the plague narrative, heard especially in the pronouncements of YHWH, is one that wishes to construct an
irrevocable and absolute difference or separation between Israel and
Egypt. But at the same time other voices can be reconstructed from various clues in the text, voices that blur the boundary between Egypt and
Israel. The contest with the Egyptian magicians, while serving to discredit
the vaunted wisdom and power of Egypt, also portrays the capability of
the wise ones of Egypt to come to a recognition of Israel's God. The
rhetoric of 'us' versus 'them', while strong in YHWH'S speech, is muted in
the speech of Pharaoh and Moses. The exemption of Israel from the
plagues is incomplete and ambiguous. The possibility that Israel can worship or serve YHWH in Egypt is fleetingly glimpsed. Against these alternative views, however, the dominant voice of the text thunders 'that you
will know that YHWH distinguishes/separates between Egypt and Israel'
(11.7). The divine voice forecloses on the human level of negotiation and
compromise, aiming for such a complete separation of Israel and Egypt
that the deception, humiliation and destruction of Egypt is required. In the
270. See also 11.7 where Moses predicts that Pharaoh's officials will urge Israel to
leave, a prediction fulfilled in 12.33 when Egypt urges the people to hasten their
departure.
122
tension between this dominant voice and the alternatives which it seeks to
overcome is mirrored the relationship between the text and at least some
of its intended audience. That is, the rhetorical intent of the producers of
the final text form is to persuade the intended audience to accept as true
and valid the portrayal of Israel as absolutely separate from Egypt, and to
overcome alternative perspectives in which a more positive relationship
between Israel and Egypt is envisioned.
Leaving Egypt (12.1-15.21)
The actual exodus or separation of Israel from Egypt is finally attained
when the tenth plague, in which the firstborn of Egypt die, has its desired
effect in that Pharaoh lets Israel go. However the climax of the narrative
plot is not immediately reached. YHWH effects one more hardening of the
heart of Pharaoh so that he changes his mind and decides to pursue Israel
with his army. The climax of the narrative, therefore, does not occur with
the death of the firstborn and the departure of Israel from Egypt, but rather
when Egypt is utterly destroyed in the waters of the Sea while Israel is
saved. With this climactic act, the separation between Israel and Egypt
is made complete. The entire narrative aims for this climax; the focus is
entirely on the differentiation of Israel from Egypt.
Ritualizing Identity
Woven into the narrative are instructions for the performance of two ritual
complexes: Passover and the redemption or ransoming of the firstborn.271
That the instructions for these rituals come at this point of the narrative,
instead of being reserved for the later legal material that is revealed at
Sinai, indicates that they are integral to the constituting of the final separation of Israel from Egypt. Passover and the ransoming of the firstborn are
rituals that are meant to commemorate, and thus actualize, maintain and
perpetuate, the distinctions and boundaries of Israel's identity which the
narrative presents as divinely mandated.272 The instructions for these two
271. Instructions for Passover (including the festival of unleavened bread) appear in
12.1-28, 43-49 (with reference to the firstborn in 12.12) and 13.2-10. Instructions for
the ransoming of the firstborn appear in 13.1-2 and 11-16, enclosing instructions for
the festival of unleavened bread.
272. These rituals are introduced in 12.2 by a calendrical instructionthe month in
which they are to be observed is to be the first month of the year for Israel. Thus, these
rituals are to define the beginning of a new year just as they define the beginning or
birth of Israel.
3. Egypt in Exodus
123
rituals are presented as being given or revealed, that is, originating, in

Egypt. And yet the purpose of the two rituals is to memorialize the separation of Israel from Egypt and the destruction of Egypt. Ostensibly
directed in the present time of the narrative towards the Israel that is still
in Egypt, these instructions are in actuality directed in the future time of
the narrative to the Israel that is the recipient or addressee of the scroll of
Exodus.273 The catechetical material for Passover in 12.26-27 and for the
ransoming of the firstborn in 13.14-15 makes this dynamic quite clear.274
Each of these rituals needs to be analyzed in turn as a component of the
rhetorical work of the text in constructing the differentiation of Israel from
Egypt.275 First, the ritual of Passover consists of two actions: the slaughter,
cooking and eating of the Passover sacrifice (12.1-13, 21-27, 43-49) and
the prohibition of leaven for seven days (12.14-20; 13.3-10). While,
according to the consensus of most scholars, two originally separate
ritualsa nomadic spring festival and an agricultural festival at the time
of the barley harvesthave here been combined and converted into a
historical commemoration, the text presents them as an integrated ritual of
identity. That the drawing of boundaries of identity is at stake is indicated
by the ritual actions themselvesthe drawing of a mark of distinction in
blood and the exclusion of leavenand by the concern over who may
legitimately participate.276
When the Passover sacrifice is slaughtered, some of its blood is used to
273. The switch back and forth between the present and future of the narrative is
especially noticeable in 12.14, where the ritual is presented as an everlasting statute for
future generations. See also the switch from a present to a future orientation in 12.24
and 13.5.
274. If the scroll is giving instructions for the celebration of Passover and the
redemption of the firstborn as rituals that repudiate Egypt, one wonders if among the
intended addressees are Jews settled in Egypt. If so, the celebration of these rituals in
Egypt, and the very possibility of being both Jewish and Egyptian, become problematic.
275. Although each ritual will be analyzed in turn, they are presented in parallel
fashion in the text. Both are means to actualize the exodus for later generations, and so
the regulations for both in 13.1-16 contain the same elements in the same order: a
reference to the Promised Land (13.5,11), catechetical instruction of the sons into the
meaning of the rites (13.8, 14-15), and some sort of memorial signs on the hand and
forehead (13.9, 16).
276. The word n~QJJ is used to refer to the future observance of Passover by Israel
in the land which YHWH is giving to them (12.25,26), the same term used earlier of the
oppressive labor in Egypt (1.14; 2.23; 5.9, 11; 6.6, 9 etc.). This emphasizes that the
Passover ritual commemorates the victory of YHWH in his contest with Pharaoh,
resulting in the transfer of Israel's service from one lord to another.
124
mark the lintel and two doorposts of the houses in which the sacrifice will
be eaten (12.7, 22). This blood functions to ward off the tenth plague;
when YHWH sees the bloody marks he will 'pass over' (11023) that dwelling, sparing those inside (12.13, 23, 27).277 The bloody mark signifies
doubly in the narrative. First, according to the logic of YHWH'S ownership
of the firstborn (4.22), the blood seems to signify that a substitute for the
firstborn, that is, the Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Secondly, the
blood signifies that the occupants of the house count themselves as part of
the Israel that the narrative is constructing. Whereas YHWH had previously
distinguished between Israel and Egypt through the plagues without
requiring either the assistance or consent of those thus set apart, in this last
plague the mark of distinction must be applied by those who identify
themselves with Israel. While the contest between YHWH and Pharaoh has
given birth to the idea of biblical Israel as a people separate from Egypt,
the boundaries of this Israel must now be marked and affirmed by the
people themselves. Hitherto, the people have had a very passive role; now
they are called to draw the line in blood. And that is perhaps why the
blood on the doorway, while ostensibly functioning as a marker for YHWH,
is actually described as a H1K ('sign') for Israel (12.13).
The sign of blood makes problematic the notion of a separate territory,
Goshen, as the primary means of distinguishing Israel in Egypt, as already
noted above in the discussion of the plague narrative. That is, the sign of
blood would be unnecessary if Israel already lived in a separate territory.
Rather, Israel here is distinguished by the actions of individuals, or, more
accurately, household groups,278 who heed YHWH'S instruction through
Moses and thus identify with Israel. The boundary that distinguishes Israel
is thus shown as shifting and flexible. The mark of blood demonstrates that
living within Goshen would be no guarantee of membership in YHWH'S
people, nor would living without it be an automatic exclusion;279 only
277. The verb RDS is used only of the sparing of Israel from the plagues (12.13,23,
27), while the verb "QI7 ('to pass over, through') is used of the destruction that will hit
the Egyptians. This dichotomy in vocabulary underlines the distinction between Israel
and Egypt.
278. The Passover instructions, while directed at the 'whole congregation of Israel'
(12.3, 47), are enacted in houses (12.3-4, 7, 13 etc.), which denote not only or primarily physical structures, but rather kinship groupings. Note the rTONTTD ('extended
families') in 12.3, and the mnSEJQ ('clans') in 12.21. On these terms as descriptions of
the social structure of Israel, see Gottwald (1979: 257-92).
279. These dynamics are extremely important if the scroll is addressing a situation in
which some of Israel lives in the diaspora. If Goshen is a figure of Israel's own
3. Egypt in Exodus
125
drawing the line in blood would demonstrate or be a sign of one's inclusion in 'us'.280 The other side of the same coin is that, at least theoretically,
those not yet counted among Israel could also draw the line in blood and
be included. As earlier Egyptian 'God-fearers' had safeguarded their cattle
and slaves by heeding the warning about the seventh plague of hail (9.20),
so also, by the same logic, it would seem possible, although the narrative
certainly contains no explicit warrant for it, that Egyptian household
groups could draw the line in blood, be spared the effect of the tenth
plague, and be identified as part of Israel. Therefore, the mark of blood
simultaneously differentiates between Israel and Egypt and potentially
blurs the boundaries of that differentiation.
The exclusion of leaven is the other main ritual action of the Passover.
For seven days, absolutely nothing leavened is to be eaten; even the
possession of leavened products or the presence of leaven is prohibited
(12.15, 17-20; 13.3, 6-7).281 The prohibition has been variously explained,282 but, in the context of the exodus narrative, the most compelling
explanation is that it is a means of differentiation, and indeed itself
symbolizes differentiation.283 Leavening, involving the admixture of an
territory or homeland, then the last plague shows the homeland to be no guarantee of
inclusion and the diaspora to be no guarantee of exclusion.
280. Note that the tenth plague is described as comprehensive; all the firstborn of
Egypt are hit and there is no house in Egypt without death (12.29, 30). No explicit
exemption for Israel is mentioned.
281. Two words are used of leaven in these prohibitions: ~IN!D, referring to the
leavening agent itself, and f DH, referring to leavened dough and dough products.
Elsewhere in the Pentateuch, leaven is absolutely prohibited in connection with
sacrifices to the deity or with grain offerings (Exod. 23.18; 34.25; Lev. 2.11; 6.17),
although it is permitted of offerings which would be eaten by the priests or others (Lev.
7.13; 23.17).
282. The view found in the New Testament and among the rabbis is that leaven is
emblematic of corruption and decomposition; however, since leavened bread is
otherwise not considered to be spoiled, this view is a questionable explanation of the
prohibition at Passover. The view that leavened bread is prohibited as characteristic of
settled life in contrast to the prevalence of unleavened bread in nomadic diets finds a
counterpart in the narrative itself, which attributes the lack of leaven to the haste in
which the Israelites had to leave Egypt (12.34, 39). The same explanation reoccurs in
Deut. 16.3, where, moreover, it is given a negative valence since the resulting
unleavened bread is called the 'bread of affliction'. However, such a historicizing
explanation not only sounds like an explanation after the fact, but also does not account
adequately for the strong connection between the prohibition and membership in Israel.
283. Kellerman (1980:490) speculates that the offering of leavened bread was likely
126
element that in some mysterious way changes the whole by an inward

operation, is an apt figure for the danger of crossing boundaries or mixing
categories that should be kept separate. Just as the new grain is a holy gift
of the deity and would be profaned by the addition of leaven, so also Israel
as YHWH'S holy people would be profaned by the addition of other
elements that threaten to change it.284 To observe the prohibition of leaven
at Passover is thus a powerful way of reinforcing the lesson of the exodus,
not only of Israel's differentiation from the nations in general, but more
specifically of Israel's separation from Egypt.
That both the blood on the doorways and the prohibition of leaven are
connected with the actualization of Israel's distinct identity is especially
suggested by the explicit regulations for inclusion and exclusion that are
embedded within the description of the Passover rituals. Whoever does not
observe the prohibition of leaven will be cut off from Israel (12.15, 19).
Extensive regulations for those that may or may not participate in the
Passover sacrifice are listed in 12.43-49.285 Those excluded are the "Q]~p
('foreigner', 12.34),286 the 3&in ('temporary and dependent sojourner',
12.45),287 the TDfo ('hired laborer', 12.45), and the 'nu ('uncircumcised',
part of Canaanite sacrificial cults from which the Israelites wanted to distinguish
themselves. In Greek and Roman cults, leavened bread and honey were important
sacrifices, especially for chthonic deities (Kellerman 1980: 490). On the prohibition of
honey in connection with sacrifices to YHWH, see Lev. 2.11. The process of leavening
itself was likely first discovered in Egypt (Latham 1987) and may thus have been
particularly identified with Egypt.
284. The prohibition of leaven is absolute; there is to be none whatsoever within the
borders ("703) of the land (13.7). The same term is used in Exod. 23.31 and 34.24,
passages that speak of casting out before Israel all the original inhabitants within the
borders of the Promised Land. Thus, the prohibition of leaven is isomorphic with the
concern for a pure Israelite population.
285. The material in this section is clearly an appendix or a footnote, as indicated by
the resumptive phrase in 12.51 which echoes 12.41b. This material is likely a later
addition, but in its present form it functions as a footnote that reflects the gate-keeping
concerns of the latest redactors of the document.
286. Literally, the 'son of foreignness'as opposed to perhaps 'son of Israel'. The
term refers to those outside of one's kinship group as indicated by Gen. 17.12 andNeh.
9.2, where it appears in apposition to those of one's IHT ('seed'). Significantly, inNeh.
9.2 those of pure Israelite descent separate themselves from 'foreigners' and continue
by confessing the sins of their ancestors, who presumably allowed the leaven of such
foreignness to enter Israel.
287. The term apparently signifies a more temporary and dependent status than that
of the "13 ('resident alien', BDB: 444). Durham (1987: 169) translates it as 'transient'.
3. Egypt in Exodus
127
12.48). Those included are 'all the congregation of Israel' (12.47), conceived of as mTK ('native') to the land (12.48)288 and including purchased
slaves who have been circumcised (12.44). The family group of the "1J
'resident alien' can also be included if all the males are circumcised
(12.48). Thus, the main criteria of inclusion are kinship, permanent residence and circumcision.289
The various rules of inclusion and exclusion in 12.43-49 form a chiasmus around the central rules in 12.46: the Passover sacrifice is to be eaten
in one house,290 none of the meat is to be taken outside of the house, and
the bones are not to be broken. These rules, reinforced by the surrounding
chiasmus, concern the unity of the Passover-eating community and the
prohibition of crossing boundaries. The Passover rite is one that constitutes a particular bounded people who are separate from others. And yet,
at the same time, the legitimate presence of some 'outsiders' in the Passover community is acknowledged; the 13 ('resident alien') falls under the
same min ('Torah, instruction') as the miN ('native, indigene') (12.49).
In other words, in the midst of regulations for a ritual celebration of
distinctiveness, the door is left slightly ajar for the acknowledgment and
participation of outsiders who otherwise might constitute the leaven that
needs to be purged from Israel's midst. This loophole in the Passover
regulations, allowing for a somewhat more porous boundary between
'us' and 'them', contrasts with the symbolism of the absolute prohibition
of leaven.
Moreover, in the Egyptian context it is Israel, according to the dominant
ideology of the text, that is the "D and Egypt that is the mTN. 291 Although
the rules of Passover, as they stand in the present text, presuppose Israel's
settled status in the land of Palestine, and are thus placed anachronistically
here in Exodus, their literary context is quite suggestive. That is, if the
'Migrant laborer' might also be an apropos translation given the connection with the
T3&. Cassuto's translation 'settler' (1983: 150) is quite different and based on direct
extrapolation from the root 3271.
288. Interestingly, the term mil?, meaning literally to arise from the land, in a
Palestinian setting could imply that Israel is indigenous to Palestine, hi an Egyptian
setting, such as in Exodus, the implication would be that Israel is indigenous to Egypt.
289. The importance of circumcision has already been pointed out in 4.24-26.
290. That is, within a cohesive kinship grouping, as much as within a single physical
building.
291. The status of Israel as 'resident alien' in Egypt is several times used as a motive
clause of Pentateuchal legislation. See the analysis of such motive clauses later in this
chapter and in the following chapter.
128
Israel addressed as mTK by these rules is still in Egypt, then the text
is unconsciously admitting the possibility of Israel's native roots and
origin in Egypt in contradiction to its dominant concern to deny such a
possibility.
The second ritual woven into the narrative of the tenth plague and the
departure of Israel from Egypt is that of the ransoming of the firstborn
(13.1-2,11-16).292 The ritual, probably in origin an ancient fertility rite, is
reinterpreted as a memorial of the last plague in which all the Egyptian
firstborn, human and animal, die (13.14-15).293 It thus functions here to
actualize and perpetuate the differentiation between Israel and Egypt;
whereas YHWH kills the Egyptian firstborn, the firstborn of Israel can be
redeemed or ransomed. Every time the ritual of the redemption of the
firstborn is carried out, Israel is reminded that it is not of Egypt.294 The
embedding of instructions for the prohibition of leaven (13.3-10) in the
midst of these instructions for the ransoming of the firstborn (13.1-2,1116) makes this purpose clear.
In summary, the rituals of Passoverthe Passover sacrifice, the prohibition of leaven, and the redemption of the firstborn, whatever their origins
or previous purposes may have beenare here presented as rituals commemorating and actualizing the separation, in perpetuity, of Israel from
Egypt. That is why these rituals are presented in the context of the final
plague, the one announced by YHWH as providing the knowledge that
'YHWH makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel' (11.7). That such
knowledge must be supported by a multiplicity of repeated ritual actions
suggests, again, that alternative views were being contested, alternative
views that did not see the same necessary distinction between Israel and
Egypt.
292. This ritual has already been extensively discussed above, especially in connection with 4.22-23 and 8.19 [23].
293. The last plague is also described in 12.12 as YHWH'S judgment on the gods of
Egypt (see also Num. 33.4). Since in the Hebrew Bible the firstborn are conceptualized
as god's property, by killing the Egyptian firstborn, YHWH, in effect, steals from the
gods of Egypt what, by this logic, belongs to them, and thus shows them to be weak
and ineffectual in comparison to him.
294. The words 'it will be a sign upon your hand and a frontlet (?) between your
eyes' (13.16) could refer to some sort of mnemonic devicelater Talmudic tradition
sees here a reference to phylacteries. However, rather than referring to a literal symbol,
these words could also be meant as a metaphor for constant remembrance. See also
13.9.
3. Egypt in Exodus
129

As the narrative of the first half of the scroll of Exodus progresses to its
climax at the sea, the picture of Israel as a separate people takes more
definite shape. Linguistically, the term Din ('the people') is increasingly
clearly associated with ^NIET "DH ('the sons of Israel'). While at the beginning of the scroll of Exodus 'the people' was used somewhat ambiguously
in that it was not always clear whether the reference was to 'the sons of
Israel' or not, towards the end of the plague narrative the ambiguity disappears. Both terms appear alternately in Exod. 12-14, clearly referring to
the same entity. In other words, the 'sons of Israel' are no longer primarily
a familial unit but are now portrayed as truly a people. In fact, when Egypt
is finally destroyed in the waters of the sea, it is not 'the sons of Israel' but
just 'Israel'295 that sees Egypt dead and realizes the great deed of YHWH
(14.30-31).
This Israel is also increasingly inscribed as organized, strong and united.
The Israel coming out of Egypt is addressed as a !~ni? ('congregation',
12.3, 6, 19, 47), a term used often in later passages to designate the body
politic of Israel.296 Israel has a leadership structure consisting of elders
(12.21),297 and is described with the termniK3H ('hosts', 12.17, 41, 51),
usually connoting military organization.298 Israel is 600,000 DHZl^n ^ "2H
('foot-soldiers strong', 12.37)299 and marches out of Egypt in battle
295. The term 'Israel' by itself first appears on the lips of YHWH when he designates
Israel as his firstborn son (4.22). It is mentioned thereafter sporadically in the plague
and exodus narrative, usually in connection with the words or actions of YHWH, and in
the context of an explicit differentiation between Israel and Egypt: 5.22; 9.4, 7; 11.7;
12.15; 14.5, 19,20.
296. In 12.6, the term ^Hp, 'assembly' is also used. Both mu and blip are used
interchangeably to refer to the cult community of Israel (Pope 1962).
297. Elders of Israel have been mentioned previously in 3.16, 18 and 4.29.
298. Israel's exodus has already been anticipated in terms of DtOU ('hosts, troops,
ranks') in 6.26 and 7.4. See also Num. 33.1. The term suggests that the Israel that
leaves Egypt does not flee as a motley group of escaped slaves, but leaves as a disciplined and organized fighting force. 7.4 contains an interesting set of equivalencies:
'my hosts' = 'my people' = 'sons of Israel'. nNDH may here be a faint allusion to
Judean military units that served in Egypt, especially in Ptolemaic times. Alternatively,
flKZliJ could be connected with the idea of a ritual procession or just generally with
(tribal) organization.
299. If women and children are added, the Israel that leaves Egypt would total two
to three million persons, clearly a historical impossibility. Various solutions to this
problem have been attempted, ranging from gematria to different meanings of ^K,
'thousand' (see Durham 1987: 171-72), but it is most likely that the number is
130
formation (13.18)300 and HQITn ('boldly', 14.8).301 Perhaps most importantly, after coming through the sea, the people finally 'fear YHWH and
trust in YHWH and his servant Moses' (14.31).302 The impression given is
of a strong, triumphant and distinct people, confident in their newly won
identity.303
Yet at this key moment, when Israel is birthed by actual physical
separation from the matrix of Egypt, its distinctiveness is brought into
question. Israel is described as leaving Egypt accompanied by a numerous
or great 3"jU ('mixture', 12.38). The same word, vocalized identically,
appears in only two other places in the Hebrew Bible: in Lev. 13.47-59,
where the term refers to the woof of cloth, and in Neh. 13.3, where, after
the reading of the Torah, the returned exiles separate/divide (^"O) all
mixture from Israel.304 The Nehemiah reference suggests that, according to
at least one strand of postexilic thought, the Israel constituted in the
exodus was not entirely pure and its impurity was not rectified until much
later at the time of Nehemiah and Ezra.305 The Leviticus reference,
hyperbolic (see the similarly large, but more exact numbers given in Num. 1.46;
26.51). The intention of the narrative seems to be to impress its audience with the
immensity of this new people.
300. The meaning of the term CTEJlQn is uncertain. A similar word in Arabic
suggests an army (perhaps organized into five parts?) (BDB: 332). Cassuto (1993: 156)
translates the word as 'in proper military formation'. The Arabic cognate could also
suggest 'courageously' (BDB: 332), which would correspond with the phrase i~IQ~l T3
in 14.8. A third possibility is that the term derives from the root 271 n and thus means
'hastening' (BDB: 301).
301. The phrase HQ~l TD, used as well to describe Israel's exodus in Num. 33.4, can
also mean 'presumptuously' (see Num. 15.30; Deut. 32.27), which would give 14.8 an
ironic twist.
302. The previous references to the obeisance of the people (4.31; 12.27) do not
explicitly describe the object of their homage.
303. The notice that Israel was driven out of Egypt (12.39), however, belies this picture. See also 6.1 and 11.1 for the tradition that Israel was driven out of Egypt. From
the perspective of the Egyptians, the exodus is a flight (14.5), not a triumphant march.
304. A similar term, vocalized slightly differently, in 1 Kgs 10.15; Jer. 25.20, 24;
50.37 and Ezek. 30.5, most likely refers to Arabian peoples (see especially the parallelism in Jer. 25.24), but the exact referent is not known. Similar also, but again vocalized
differently, is the term used of the 'swarm' that constitutes the fourth plague (8.16-28
[20-32]). Again, the similar term for 'raven' may be suggestive, since the raven is
excluded from the diet of Israel as unclean and detestable (Lev. 11.15; Deut. 14.14).
305. The prohibition of leaven as part of the Passover commemoration and actualization of the exodus would symbolically accord with the purging of mi? from Israel in
3. Egypt in Exodus
131
however, suggests the opposite; just as cloth requires both woof and warp
in order to exist, so also the iny would be a necessary constituent part of
Israel. Whether the term D"]U has negative or positive connotations, it
indicates that the Israel that emerges from Egypt is a heterogeneous group
which includes more than just those who can trace descent back to the
family of Jacob.306 Given the narrative setting in Egypt, these additional
others, although they are not further specified or described, could possibly
include Egyptians. In 12.38, then, one finds an isolated trace of a tradition
of a heterogeneous Israel with possible Egyptian elements, if not roots,307
a tradition at odds with the main ideological thrust of the narrative.
The portrayal of Israel at the moment of the exodus as a distinct people
with an established identity is also tempered by the anxiety manifested in
the text that this people will desire to return to Egypt; that is, that they will
abandon their new hard-won separate identity and dissolve back into their
former Egyptian context. The desire to return to Egypt will be a major
motif in the coming wilderness wanderings, and, significantly, it is
introduced here even before Israel has fully left Egypt. YHWH decides to
lead Israel by a roundabout route through the wilderness, rather than by
the more direct route through the land of the Philistines, because he is
concerned that, in the face of battle, the people will regret their decision,
change their minds (CH3 ),308 and return to Egypt (13.17-18). The exodus is
the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Note that Passover and Unleavened Bread in Ezra
6.19-22 is celebrated by those who had returned from exile together with those who
had separated themselves ("n) from the impurities of the nations of the land (Ezra
6.21).
306. Note the hapax legomenom ÎDBDK in Num. 11.4, translated as 'rabble' (NRSV)
or 'riffraff (NIPS), seemingly describing some heterogeneous collection of peoples
attached to Israel in the wilderness. The story of the ruse of the Gibeonites in Josh. 9
also suggests that the Israel that settles in Palestine is less than genealogically pure
and includes heterogeneous elements, even among those who serve in the Israelite
sanctuaries.
307. The possibility of strong Egyptian roots is also suggested by the lengthy period
of Israel's presence in Egypt, 430 years according to the notice in the MT of 12.40. This
number is difficult to reconcile with the 4 generations mentioned in 6.16-20 and Gen.
15.16 (and the 400 years of Gen. 15.13). The SP andLXX of 12.40 solve the problem
by including in this figure also the time of the ancestors in Canaan; that is, they fold the
narrative of Exodus into that of Genesis. If the MT figure were taken independently at
face value, it would point to a very antique origin of Israel in Egypt.
308. The verb Oil signifies the feeling of regret after a decision or action that seems
to have turned out badly, as well as the resolve to change one's mind. This verbal
action is often attributed to YHWH (Gen. 6.6-7; Exod. 32.12-14).
132
barely underway and the possibility of returning to Egypt already occurs.309

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

the first time that Israel as a whole has been given a direct voice in the
narrative.310 The narrative thus discloses a hitherto rare glimpse into the
perspective of the Israel that YHWH desires to shape into a particular
people distinct from Egypt. One finds that, not only in the face of adversity
is Israel ready to reject its new identity, but that it has been resisting its
new identity even earlier. From the perspective of Israel, there are two
alternatives: to die in the wilderness or to live by serving Egypt.
These alternatives of death or life are not only understood in terms of
basic physical existence but also framed by the concern for proper graves
(O^'Dp, 14.11). The Hebrew Bible, in common with its general ancient
Near Eastern context, views proper burials in a family tomb as not only
perpetuating the memory of the individual but also, more importantly
perhaps, as establishing a visible claim to the family patrimony (Kennedy
1992; Bloch-Smith 1992). The wilderness, as a place of unmarked graves,
thus presents the terrifying prospect of the end, not only of life, but also of
memory and the landed property that undergirds it. In contrast, Egypt, as a
bounded territory in which identification with landed property is possible,31! and known for its prominent mortuary monuments perpetuating the
memory of the dead,312 is surely preferable.313
309. The same anxiety over 'return to Egypt' was manifested earlier in ch. 6 in the
description of Moses' return to Egypt.
310. Previously, the audience has heard the voice of Israel directly only in the words
of the Israelite labor supervisors in Exod. 5. The perspective of Israel has been voiced
indirectly in some of the objections Moses raises to his call in Exod. 3-4.
311. According to the Joseph story in Genesis, the family of Jacob acquired landed
property in Egypt (Gen. 47.11, 27).
312. See the LXX rendering nvrinaxa ('memorials/monuments of the dead') in
14.11.
3. Egypt in Exodus
13 3
The contrast presented in the narrative between Israel's pro-Egyptian

perspective and the efforts of YHWH to define Israel over against Egypt is
a clear marker of a major ideological struggle in which the text is engaged.
The anti-Egyptian perspective of YHWH is likely the ideology of the
producers of the final text form while the pro-Egyptian perspective expressed by Israel is probably the ideology of at least some of the intended
audience of the text. The purpose of the text is to undermine this proEgyptian ideology and to persuade its audience to accept the anti-Egyptian
ideology. The motif of murmuring and rebellion expressed in the desire to
return to Egypt, of which Exod. 14.11-12 is only the first instance, most
explicitly conveys this clash of ideologies.
As the people of Israel leave, they plunder Egypt (12.3 5-36).3H Plundering presupposes a state of conflict or warfare and so underscores the
separation between Egypt and Israel. However, plundering normally takes
place after the enemy has been vanquished;315 here it takes place before the
decisive battle. While this unusual sequence may be meant to emphasize
the humiliation of Egypt,316 it simultaneously can also indicate a positive
valuation, apart from the context of battle, of Egypt as a place where one
can be enriched317 and whose inhabitants view Israel with favor: 'YHWH
gave the people favor in the sight of Egypt' (12.36).318 This potential
313. The rhetorical polar question in 14.11, 'is it for lack of graves in Egypt..,',
implies a negative answer: 'Of course not! Egypt is full of gravesyou can see them
everywhere!' The question is full of irony: Moses is accused of bringing the people out
into the wilderness to die needlessly when there is no lack of suitable graves in Egypt.
In contrast, the question could be read as expecting an affirmative answer; that is, 'Yes,
there are no suitable graves for members of Israel in Egypt because Israel does not
belong in Egypt and has no patrimony there.' However, usually a rhetorical question
requiring assent is signaled by the combination 81'n (Waltke and O'Connor 1990:
684-85).
314. See Durham's translation: 'they picked the Egyptians clean' (1987: 165).
315. For example, Shechem is plundered after the males have been killed (Gen.
34.25-29), and Midian is plundered after every male has been killed in battle (Num.
31).
316. That is, Egypt is under the power of YHWH to such an extent that the Egyptians
are persuaded (or bewitched) into giving valuable gifts to the departing Israelites. In
effect, Egypt is shown to be defeated even before the final confrontation at the sea
takes place.
317. The motif of Egypt as a place of enrichment is strong in the Genesis accounts
of Abraham and of Joseph.
318. The so-called motif of the plundering of Egypt appears three times in the scroll
of Exodus (3.21-22; 11.2-3; 12.35-36), but only twice is it explicitly described as
134
positive valuation of Egypt is, however, quickly negated by the description

of Egypt as a DHDU ITU ('house of slaves') in 13.3, 14, this being the
first time in the scroll of Exodus that Egypt is characterized explicitly in
this way.319
Annihilation of the 'Other'
YHWH himself leads Israel out of Egypt (13.17) and Moses brings along
the bones of Joseph (13.19). In this way, the finality of leaving Egypt is
stressed. Not even a trace of Israel's sojourn in Egypt is to stay behind.320
YHWH, who has been present in Egypt, is now definitely leaving. The
pillar of cloud and fire (13.21 -22) signifies not only the presence of YHWH
with Israel, but also the exodus of YHWH from Egypt. In the pillar YHWH,
furthermore, for the first time explicitly physically separates Israel and
Egypt (14.20).321
YHWH'S purpose, as portrayed in the narrative, is to destroy Egypt and
so gain glory for himself; in fact, the destruction of Egypt will be the
means whereby Egypt will come to know YHWH (14.4, 17-18). As we
have seen, to know YHWH is to know Israel as YHWH'S people apart from
Egypt, and so the separate identity of Israel will be asserted at the expense
of Egypt's annihilation. In order to guarantee this outcome, YHWH again
hardens Pharaoh's heart (14.4, 8, 17); there must be absolutely no possibility of compromise or negotiation at this stage. In the final showdown at
'plundering' (3.22; 12.36) and then only in a concluding phrase that could be an
interpretive addendum. In addition, the ambiguous verb ÛD is used, rather than the
more usual bÊJ (e.g. see Exod. 15.9); bU] has strong connotations of deliverance (see
BOB: 664-65).
319. The phrase becomes a characteristic way of referring to Egypt in Deuteronomy
(5.6; 6.12; 7.8; 8.14; 13.6, 11); it is also part of the Decalogue in Exodus (20.2).
320. The reference to the bones of Joseph is also, of course, a deliberate link
between the exodus account and the account of the ancestors in Genesis (see Gen.
50.25). However, when the promises regarding the land are mentioned in this section
of Exodus, they are promises made to 'you and your fathers' (13.5, 11) without any
specific mention of the names of the three patriarchs.
321. The pillar that guides Israel in 13.21 -22 becomes a means of separating Israel
from Egypt in 14.19-20. The MT text in 14.20 literally reads, 'there was the cloud and
the darkness and it illumined the night', seeming to confuse the two functions of the
pillar as a cloud by day and afire by night (13.21-22). The LXX reads, 'and there was
darkness and blackness and the night passed'. The ambiguity of the pillar in the MT
evokes a similar ambiguity regarding the identity of Israel. That is, even when Israel
and Egypt are finally physically separated, that which separates them is uncertain.
3. Egypt in Exodus
135
the sea, YHWH'S overwhelming and utterly complete victory over Egypt is
stressed. Israel has absolutely no part to play except for that of observer.
YHWH looks down upon Egypt (14.24a),322 throws the Egyptian camp into
disarray (14.24b), misguides the wheels of the Egyptian chariots (14.25a),
and then, when the waters return, shakes the Egyptians into the water to
drown when they attempt to save themselves (14.27). Not one Egyptian
survives (14.28);323 Egypt is utterly annihilated.324 The progressive
distinction between Israel and Egypt is brought to its climax when Israel
sees 'Egypt dead upon the shore of the sea' (14.30).325
It is at this point that Israel finally acknowledges that the power of
YHWH is greater than the power of Egypt (14.3 la).326 And so the people
fear YHWH and trust/believe in YHWH and his servant Moses (14.3 lb).327
Previously, only Moses (3.6), the midwives (1.17, 21), and some of
Pharaoh's servants (9.20) are described as fearing YHWH or God. Now
Israel fears YHWH. Previously, the people are said to believe (4.31), but no
object of their belief is described. Now Israel believes in YHWH who has
distinguished it from Egypt.
At this moment of climax, the narrative hovers on the brink of a Utopian
dissolution; the 'other' so necessary for the stabilization of identity no
longer needs to exist. Israel can stand as Israel without contrast because
Egypt, Israel's other, has been destroyed. In a burst of song, this moment
322. The verb *|pK? indicates that YHWH looks down upon Egypt in disapproval; the
same verb is used when YHWH observes Sodom and Gemorrah (Gen. 18.16; 19.28).
323. The same phrase'not one remained/survived'is used to describe the end of
the fourth plague of the swarm (8.27 [31 ]) and the end of the eighth plague of locusts
(10.19). The language describing the destruction of the locusts (10.19) is formally very
similar to the language used to describe the destruction of the Egyptians (14.28).
324. The Egyptians have earlier had a premonition that the identity of Israel will
mean death for them (12.33). In response to Israel's fear of death in the wilderness
(14.11-12), Moses has told them that they will never see Egypt again (14.13). Israel's
final view of Egypt is as corpses upon the seashore (14.30). All of these elements
combine to paint a picture of total annihilation.
325. On a pragmatic level, of course, only the army of Egypt is destroyed in the sea.
Numerous references in Exod. 14 describe the pursuing Egyptians as an army (14.4-9,
17-18,23-28). However, the army of Egypt functions as a synecdoche for all of Egypt,
or the idea of Egypt, and so elsewhere in Exod. 14 the word 'Egypt' is used alone
(14.4, 9, 10, 13, 17, 23, 25, 26, 27, 30).
326. The word T in 14.31 is emblematic of power.
327. The mention of Moses here in addition to YHWH is intriguing, given the narrative's attempts to generally downplay a heroic portrait of Moses. Perhaps one finds
here a trace of the more heroic or elevated Moses that the text elsewhere suppresses.
136
of victory is elevated into a paradigm for the establishment of Israel on

YHWH'S mountain under YHWH'S kingship (15.1-18, especially 13-18).328
For a moment the narrative pauses to be caught up into an ecstatic deferral
of the contingencies of identity. And yet, as has been shown, the entire
narrative of the plagues and exodus cumulatively betrays a self-critical
tendency. On the one hand, the dominant goal of the narrative has been to
construct an identity for Israel as absolutely separate from Egypt. But on
the other hand, the narrative depicts the enormous cost of an identity for
Israel that must be won at the expense of a Pharaoh whose heart must be
hardened and an Egypt that must be drowned in the sea.329
Conclusion
The description of the exodus is a key section of the narrative construction
of the identity of Israel in the scroll of Exodus in that Israel is birthed as a
distinct people by actual physical separation from Egypt. The Passover
and firstborn rituals are meant, from this perspective, in perpetuity to
memorialize and ever anew actualize this separation. Furthermore, the
Israel that leaves Egypt has the definite shape of an organized people. But
most compelling is the climax of the narrative, when at the sea, Egypt, the
'other' over against which the identity of Israel is forged, is erased. And
yet, throughout this narrative there are hints of other views in which the
328. This song seems to be an insertion or additionan ancient footnoteas
indicated by the resumptive repetition in 15.19 of 14.28-29. Egypt is not explicitly
mentioned in the song, although there is a single reference to Pharaoh (15.4); the song
could thus become the paradigmatic celebration of rescue from any enemy. Israel is
also not explicitly mentioned in the song itself; instead there are references to YHWH'S
'people'. This 'people' is described as having been redeemed (^83) and acquired or
purchased (H3p) by YHWH; these expressions suggest an interpretation of the exodus as
the redemption of captives or the purchasing of slaves.
329. For a modern reader, the graphic depiction of the cost of Israel's distinct
identity threatens 'to swamp the text, overcoming the positive identity it seeks to
establish by drawing our sympathies to the rejected Other, making them not rejected by
us' (Schwartz 1995: 135). Thus, at the same time as the narrative insists on the
rejection of Egypt so that Israel can be what YHWH intends, it also raises the question
of whether Egypt is so abject as to be totally rejected. Pharaoh's last words to Moses
are a request for blessing (12.32), reminding one of the promise of YHWH to Abraham
that 'in you all the clans of the earth will be blessed' (Gen. 12.3). Pharaoh's request,
however, is denied; in the scroll of Exodus annihilation of Egypt and not blessing is the
outcome. This tension between the Abrahamic promise and the destruction of Egypt
serves also to bring into question the abjection of Egypt. (On the dynamic of abjection,
seeKristeva 1982.)
3. Egypt in Exodus
137
boundaries that set Israel apart are more porous than the dominant narrative lets on, and especially in which a pro-Egyptian voice is raised to
counter the relentless anti-Egyptian thrust of the leading voice of the text.
Even when Egypt is seemingly decisively erased in the waters of the sea,
the text can pause only momentarily to savor this absolute triumph over
the 'other', which is soon shown to be fantasy. An identity without any
contrasting other is impossible. As becomes clear in the next major narrative sequence in Exodusthe wilderness wanderingswhat has been
repressed returns. Egypt will come back repeatedly to haunt Israel's
memory.330
Wilderness and Sinai (15.22-40.38)
Israel is now physically separated from Egypt, but the process of its
ethnogenesis is not complete. The notion of Israel's distinct identity must
now be internalized, and the wilderness provides the liminal setting for
this completion of the identity formation process.331 The process includes
scenes of rebellion, a covenant at Sinai, and an occasion of apostasy that
almost aborts the process itself, finally culminating in autopic portrayal of
YHWH in the midst of his people. The main focus of the narrative's
ideology is the continuing differentiation of Israel from Egypt. However,
the figure of Moses re-emerges as a complication to this narrative purpose.
The Identity of Israel vis-d-vis Egypt
Whereas previously the narrative offered only hints of perspectives
opposing its anti-Egyptian rhetoric, now such perspectives are increasingly
given a voice. The voice is that of Israel, but it is a voice of murmuring
and rebellion. On the journey from Egypt to Sinai, the people three times
voice their resistance to their new identity and their attachment to their
former Egyptian identity, as was already foreshadowed in 14.10-14.332 The
330. The short vignette in 14.10-14 already anticipates this return.

331. On the one hand, the wilderness provides a liminal place between Egypt and
the Promised Land for the completion of the construction and adoption of Israel's
identity. On the other hand, the wilderness is already part of the Promised Land
according to Exod. 23.31, which sets one of the borders of the Promised Land at the
Red Sea/Sea of Reeds. The crossing of the sea is thus the transition par excellence in
the formation of Israel's identity.
332. Similarly, much of the narrative in the scroll of Numbers (from ch. 11 to 21)
will be taken up with the complaints of the people in the wilderness.
138
voice of the people's complaint gives access to a pro-Egyptian ideology

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

into the discourse of Israel's identity. Egypt, Israel's 'other', had just been
effaced in the waters of the sea. An attempt had been made to stabilize the
boundaries of a precarious and contingent identity by erasing the effect of
the other, or, in effect, erasing the other. Violence and death were the
result. But this same violence and death here return to undo what they
were meant to establish. As YHWH tells Israel, there is no necessary end to
the plagues that served to separate Israel from Egypt. The same plagues
can be turned upon Israel if Israel is not vigilant in maintaining its distinct
identity. It seems that no matter which way the lines of differentiation are
drawn, 'the violence doesn't go away because the violence is in the lines
themselves' (Schwartz 1995: 121).333
Thus Egypt returns into the discourse of Israel's identity as a threat used
to maintain Israel's distinctiveness and separateness. YHWH'S words con333. Even when such violence is displaced or deferred to a sacrificial scapegoat (the
Passover lamb) or to the transcendental realm (YHWH versus the gods of Egypt, 12.12;
15.11), it still results in real victims and the mark of differentiation remains that of
death. Even when such violence is meted out 'measure for measure', as in the interpretation that Egypt suffers in due proportion to the sufferings it caused Israel, there is
no Utopian closure to the continued attempt to subdue and annihilate the 'other': that
which is repressed returns.
3. Egypt in Exodus
13 9
tinue to emphasize the polarity between Egypt and Israel; Egypt is associated with disease while Israel is associated with a divinity that heals.334
But, at the same time, this polarity is threatened in that if Israel disobeys, it
will be treated just like Egypt, and the distinction between the two will
collapse, hi other words, the identity of Israel as not-Egypt is here
revealed, not as a given or divinely mandated fact, but as a contingency
dependent upon constant obedience to the world-defining rules of YHWH.
Egypt, which just previously seemed to have utterly disappeared into the
sea, returns to haunt the precarious identity of Israel with the possibility of
dissolution.
The second instance of Israel's resistance occurs in the wilderness of
Sin, where the 'whole congregation (mU) of the sons of Israel' complains
(p *?) against Moses and Aaron (16.2):
Would that we had died by the hand of YHWH in the land of Egypt, when
we sat by the flesh pot, when we ate bread to satiation; For you have
brought us out to this wilderness to kill all this assembly (v~p) with famine
(16.3).
Again, the resistance of the people is described with the verb p1? ('to
murmur, complain').335 From the perspective of Israel, Egypt is highlighted
as a place of plenty while the wilderness is typified as a place of lack.336 In
fact, death in Egypt, even at the hand of YHWH, is preferred to death in the
wilderness by famine. Israel here even implicitly identifies itself with the
Egypt that bore the brunt of YHWH'S hand in the plagues.337 Note also that
the people, in their complaint, refer to themselves as 'all this assembly',338
and not as Israel, thus perhaps evoking the 'mixed crowd' (12.38) that left
Egypt. These glimpses into Israel's point of view highlight, at this stage of
334. The appellative 'healer' stands out, since most cases of the formula of divine
disclosure in Exodus simply state 'I am YHWH' (6.2, 6, 8, 29; 7.5, 17; 10.2; 12.12;
14.4, 18). See, however, also 31.13: 'I am YHWH your sanctifier.'
335. Apart from Josh. 9.18, this verb appears only as part of the 'murmuring and
rebellion in the wilderness' motif in Exod. 15, 16, 17 and Num. 14, 16, 17.
336. In the earlier complaint in 14.11-12, Egypt even has an abundance of graves.
One also recalls the status of Egypt in the ancestral accounts of Genesis as a place of
plenty in time of famine.
337. The 'hand of YHWH' functions in the plague narrative to strike down Egypt and
to bring out Israel (7.4-5 passim); that is, it functions to discriminate between Israel
and Egypt. Here, however, Israel wishes that the hand of YHWH had been directed
against it and Egypt indiscriminately.
338. Durham (1987: 215) translates 'this whole crowd'.
140
the narrative, the tenuous and unfinished nature of the people's identity visa-vis YHWH'S definition of who they are to be.
The response of YHWH to the people's complaint is to turn the
wilderness of lack into a place of regular nourishment; bread is provided
miraculously in the morning and meat in the evening (16.4-8,12-14). But,
as in the response to the previous complaint, this incident also becomes an
occasion of testing (TIDD, 16.4). Specific instructions are given to keep no
leftovers for the next day (16.19) except for the Sabbath, when no food
will be provided (16.23). Some of the people fail the test; they either keep
leftovers when the next day is not a Sabbath (16.20) or they seek to gather
food on the Sabbath (16.27). Moses' anger (16.20) and YHWH'S rebuke
(16.28-29) in the face of these infractions attest to the importance of
Sabbath observance for the identity of Israel. Sabbath observance is here
presupposed as constitutive of Israel's identity over against Egypt even
though specific Sabbath legislation does not appear until later in the scroll
(20.8-11; 31.12-17; 3S.2-3).339
That the formation of Israel's identity is inextricably linked with the
knowledge of the deity that brought them out of Egypt is pointed out twice
in this incident (16.6, 12). As already argued, the plagues were meant to
bring both Egypt and Israel to knowledge of YHWH; for Egypt, this
knowledge meant destruction, while for Israel it meant separation from
Egypt. Apparently, insofar as the plagues were meant to engender Israel's
knowledge of YHWH, and thus knowledge of itself as a distinct people,
they were only partially successful. Although Israel is out of Egypt it still
needs to know YHWH, which is to say that Israel still needs to know its
own identity as YHWH'S distinct people. The narrative is aware that the
identity it envisions for Israel is fragile and contingent, and so must be
engendered anew every generation. Therefore, instruction is given that an
omer of the manna be preserved so that each generation may be reminded
of the deity who is defined primarily as the one who brought his people
out of Egypt (16.32-34).340
339. Just as the legal stipulations for the observance of Passover and the redemption
of the firstborn were inserted into the narrative of chs. 12-13, before the revelation of
Sinai, in order to underscore the importance of these rituals as defining Israel's
separateness from Egypt, so also here the Sabbath regulations appear before they are
formally legislated in order to define Israel's uniqueness over against the people's
desire to return to their old Egyptian identity.
340. That YHWH is defined primarily as the one who brought Israel out of Egypt is
shown by the prominence of some form or variation of the formula 'YHWH your God
3. Egypt in Exodus
141
The third instance of the people's resistance to their non-Egyptian

identity occurs at Rephidim, where there is no water. The people (121?) contend (IT~0 with Moses: 'Give us water to drink' (17.2). Moses interprets
this quarrel as the people's testing (HD3) of YHWH (17.3), but the people
(DUP!) further complain (p ^) against Moses: 'Why, then, did you bring us
up from Egypt/to kill me and my sons and my livestock with thirst?'
(17.3).341 In response, Moses intercedes with YHWH, arguing that his own
life is in danger (17.4); YHWH instructs Moses to produce water from a
rock (17.5-6). In a flashback, the narrator informs the audience that the
sons of Israel had questioned: 'Is YHWH among us or not?' (17.7).
Again, the same terminology of complaint (]1 *7) and testing (HDD) occurs;
this time, however, YHWH does not test the people, but the people
are described as testing YHWH (17.2, 7). In addition, the verb m, with
its connotations of a legal dispute or lawsuit, is used to report the people's
resistance (17.2, 7). According to the flashback in 17.7, it seems that the
test or legal dispute has to do with proof of YHWH'S presence with the
people. From the narrative perspective of Israel, the lack of water in
the wilderness highlights an uncertainty about YHWH'S presence. In contrast, Egypt is associated with plenty of food (16.3), and here, implicitly,
with abundant water. According to this perception of relative lack and
plenty, Israel doubts whether YHWH is present in the wilderness; the
people seem to think that surely YHWH is back in Egypt.
If Egypt is connected with plenty and the presence of the deity, while
the wilderness is connected with lack and the absence of the deity, then the
very wisdom and necessity of leaving Egypt is brought into question.
According to the logic of the dominant ideology of the narrative, this
would also discredit the very existence of Israel as a distinct people separate from Egypt. And so the narrative now presents a counter-example in
who brought you out from the land of Egypt' in the Hebrew Bible. This formula forms
the introduction to both versions of the Decalogue (Exod. 20.2; Deut. 5.6), and appears
frequently in the scroll of Exodus (e.g. 6.7; 7.5; 18.1; 29.46; 32.11). In contrast, in
Gen. 15.7, YHWH is defined as the one who brought Abraham out of Mesopotamia, an
identification reiterated in the prayer of Ezra in Neh. 9.7.
341. The switch from the plural to the singular seems disconcerting in English
usage. It was also disconcerting to the ancient translators: the LXX, Syriac and Targum
versions all retain the plural throughout the verse, as does also the Samaritan
Pentateuch. However, in biblical Hebrew the singular functions here either to represent
the people as a collective (HOTTP: 108) or in a distributive sense to single out the
members composing the aggregate (as in Exod. 13.8, 15).
142
the person of Jethro, who comes to confess YHWH as the one who delivered
the people from the power of Egypt and who is therefore greater than all
other gods (18.9-11).342 In Jethro's kerygmatic assertion, 'Blessed be
YHWH who has delivered you from the hand of Egypt and the hand of
Pharaoh' (18.10), is found the antithesis of the people's resistance.
And yet Jethro is an outsider, a Midianite. Although he brings with him
Moses' Midianite wife Zipporah and their two sons, these members of
Moses' family never appear again in the narrative of the Pentateuch.343
While Jethro officiates at sacrifices (18.12) and advises Moses on how to
establish Israel's legal administration (18.13-26), he then leaves for his
own country (18.27). Just as Midianites facilitated the entrance of Israel
into Egypt by their part in the Joseph story in Genesis,344 so also now a
Midianite, Jethro, facilitates the exit of Israel from Egypt. But Midian does
not join Israel;345 in fact, Israel is commanded later to engage in a holy war
of genocide against Midian (Num. 31). Midian thus functions temporarily
to facilitate the consolidation of Israel's unique identity in the transitional
or liminal period in the wildernesshere as a foil over against Israel's
342. Verse 18.11 in the MT literally reads: 'Now I know that YHWH is greater than
all the gods; indeed (or because of) in the matter in which they acted presumptuously
or rebelliously against them.' The problem is to ascertain the antecedents of the
pronouns 'they' and 'them'. BHS suggests a lacuna in the text while NRSV transposes a
phrase from 18.10 in order to make the phrase mean that Egypt acted presumptuously
against the Israelites (an interpretation that seems also to be found in Neh. 9.10). As it
stands in the MT, the phrase seems to refer to the other gods, presumably the gods of
Egypt, acting presumptuously against the Israelites, thus connecting with the notice in
12.12 that YHWH will execute judgments on the gods of Egypt. This is the interpretation of NJPS and Durham (1987: 239-40). The LXX, reading 'because of this, that they
attacked them', seems to refer to the attack of the Amalekites, narrated just previously
(17.8-16). These textual difficulties do not significantly affect Jethro's basic affirmation of YHWH as the God who separated Israel from Egypt.
343. Only here is the audience of the scroll informed that Zipporah and Moses' two
sons have been back in Midian with Jethro all this time (the last time they were encountered was on their way to Egypt with Moses in ch. 4). Moses seems to have sent them
back, perhaps even divorcing Zipporahthe piel of PIÊJ [18.2] is often used in this
sense. Although they seem here to be reunited with him, Zipporah never again appears
by name in the Hebrew Bible, and Eliezer and Gershom do not appear again in the Pentateuch (unless Gershom is a variant of Gershon, a name appearing once in Genesis and
several times in Numbers).
344. Midianites (alternatively Ishmaelites) are responsible for conveying Joseph to
Egypt (Gen. 37.28, 36; 39.1).
345. In Num. 10.29-30, Moses asks his father-in-law to join Israel, but he refuses.
3. Egypt in Exodus
143
longing for its old Egyptian identitybut is just as sharply separated from
Israel as is Egypt when that function is fulfilled.
In summary, once the physical separation of Israel from Egypt has been
effected, the narrative allows the voice of Israel to come to expression. It
is a voice that longs for its former identity in Egypt, and associates Egypt
with plenty and the presence of YHWH. In this voice, the pro-Egyptian
ideology that the text is attempting to combat is made manifest, but it is
cast as a rebellious and complaining voice. Moreover, in this voice, Egypt
returns as the 'other' over against which the identity of Israel continues to
be constructed; the Utopian moment at the sea, in which the necessity of
the other was dissolved, could not be sustained. Finally, in contrast to
Israel's rebellious voice, the narrative offers the counter-example of
Jethro, who affirms the centrality of the exodus to the identity of Israel and
its God. And yet this affirmation comes from an outsider; the people have
yet to make this affirmation their own. It is only at Sinai that the people
will finally confirm their new identity apart from Egypt in the form of an
agreement or covenant with YHWH.
At Sinai YHWH designates Israel as a distinct and special people, and the
people formally assent to a relationship with YHWH that is premised on
their distinct identity.346 Here the ethnogenesis of Israel is advanced a further step in that Israel is legally constituted as a people defined by the
covenant. The preparations for the making of the covenant in Exod. 19
proleptically anticipate the sealing of the covenant in Exod. 24,347 and so a
structural inclusio serves to set apart and highlight this section.
Since the necessary prologue to the formation of Israel as a people is
separation from Egypt, YHWH begins the covenant-making process by first
recounting what he did to Egypt and how on eagle's wings he brought the
346. The biblical terminology of 'covenant' (tY~Q) is used to describe the agreement reached between Israel and YHWH at Sinai. Underlying the biblical concept are
the forms of ancient Near Eastern treaties and loyalty oaths (Mendenhall and Herion
1992). The exodus of Israel from Egypt and the events at Sinai signify the transference
of Israel from a vassal relationship in Egypt subject to Pharaoh to a vassal relationship
in the wilderness subject to YHWH. In contrast, the promise made to Abraham in the
ancestor accounts of Genesis is of the form of a divine charter. Genesis and Exodus
thus differ in their conceptualization of the relationship between (proto-) Israel and its
God.
347. Exodus 19.7-8 has Moses setting before the people 'all these words which
YHWH had commanded him' (even though the detailed covenant stipulations do not
begin until Exod. 20), and all the people answering as one 'all which YHWH has
spoken we will do'. These words are recapitulated almost verbatim in 24.3, 7.
144
people to himself (19.4). In exchange for the people's covenant obedience,

YHWH offers them the identity of being his CPQirr'^DQ H^D ('treasured
possession out of all the peoples'), his D^HD ro *?QE ('kingdom of priests'),
and his EJnp ^ ('holy nation', 19.5-6). The affirmative response of the
people to YHWH'S offer (19.8) marks the creation of Israel as YHWH'S
special people or nation.348
Similarly, the Decalogue, marking the beginning of the list of covenant
stipulations, begins by identifying the covenant sovereign as 'YHWH your
God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt' (20.2).349 In other words,
the legal tradition that defines and undergirds the identity of Israel as a
people is rooted in separation from Egypt. YHWH, the covenant lord, is
identified primarily as the God who effected this separation. From the perspective of the dominant ideology of the text, without an exodus or
separation from Egypt, the entire premise for the existence of Israel as a
people in a covenant relationship with YHWH would not exist.350 The repudiation of Egypt is thus essential, for it defines both Israel and its deity.
While separation from Egypt is therefore shown, according to the narrative, to be the foundation of Israel's legal tradition, Egypt itself appears
only infrequently in the actual stipulations of that legal tradition. Significantly, Egypt is mentioned specifically in connection with legislation
regarding the treatment of the "O ('resident alien'):
A resident alien you will not afflict/humble (ilDJ?), nor will you oppress/
squeeze (JTI"?) him; for resident aliens you were in the land of Egypt (22.20
[21]).
A resident alien you will not oppress/squeeze QTt 7), you know the life of
the resident alien; for resident aliens you were in the land of Egypt (23.9).
348. 'Without that affirmative response, indeed, there would have been only "sons of
Israel", the descendants of Jacob. With the affirmative response, "Israel", a community of
faith transcending biological descendancy, would come into being' (Durham 1987:262).
349. Egypt is additionally described here in a negative way as aO''"QU fTO ('house
of slaves'see the first appearances of this description in 13.3, 14). This negative
portrayal does not appear again until Deuteronomy, where it is used frequently (5.6;
6.12; 7.8; 8.14; 13.6, 11).
350. Note the repeated appearance of the autokerygmatic phrase 'I am YHWH (your
God) who brought you out/up from the land of Egypt' (with minor variations) throughout the legal material of the Pentateuch, particularly in the Holiness Code of Leviticus
with its emphasis on the separateness of Israel: Exod. 29.46; Lev. 11.45; 19.36; 22.33;
25.38; 26.13; Num. 15.41; Deut. 5.6.
3. Egypt in Exodus
145
The "12 ('resident alien'/'sojourner') refers to settled or temporary residents who have no familial or tribal affiliation with the dominant residents
of a territory, and therefore usually lack full rights and are dependent on a
patron for protection from abuse. This legislation presumes that Israel
occupies the role of the dominant kinship group settled in the land, and so
stands as a collective over against the resident aliens in its midst. In that
situation, Israel's own experience in Egypt is to provide the motivation
and the measure for its non-abusive treatment of the resident alien.
Given the narrative's dominant interest in portraying Israel's Egyptian
experience as oppressive, Israel's experience is easily interpreted as a
negative example of the maltreatment of the resident alien.351 Israel is thus
enjoined not to repeat such maltreatment when it itself achieves a position
of dominance. However, Israel's Egyptian experience in this legislation
could also be interpreted as a positive example that Israel is to emulate.
The Joseph story, for instance, provides a positive example of how Egypt
treated the resident alien. To a lesser extent, Abraham's experience in
Egypt (Gen. 12) and the plundering motif in the exodus narrative point to
Egypt as a place where resident aliens become enriched. In other words,
the legislation itself is not intrinsically positively or negatively inclined
towards Egypt, but the context in which the legislation is read will determine whether Egypt is seen as a positive or negative example. By making
separation from Egypt foundational for Israel's constitutive legal tradition,
the text of Exodus places this legislation regarding the resident alien into a
context whereby it is most naturally read as anti-Egyptian. Had the same
legislation been placed in a context friendlier to Egypt, such as that of the
Joseph story, it could be read as pro-Egyptian.
The legislation regarding the resident alien not only contributes to a
negative image of Egypt in its present context, but it also plays a part in
the portrayal of Israel vis-a-vis Egypt. Describing Israel as a resident alien
in Egypt implies that Israel was not and can never be fully at home there
but in actuality belongs elsewhere. In Egypt Israel can never be a mTN
('native, indigene'), only a "U,352 thus undergirding the separation of Israel
from Egypt and the view that Israel's origins are to be found outside of
351. The verbs f n b and H3i3 have been used previously of the Egyptian oppression
of Israel (1.11-12;3.9). Both verbs are brought together to describe Egypt's oppression
of Israel in the credo of Deut. 26.5-9.
352. This notion would strongly undermine the legitimacy of a Jewish diaspora
community in Egypt, at least one that sees itself as rooted in any significant fashion in
Egypt.
146
Egypt. However, other legal traditions in the Pentateuch call the distinction between IT1TK and "13 into question. For example, Israel is specifically
enjoined that the same legal code is to apply to 1"!1TN and 13 alike,353 and
various legal stipulations are directed to both niTK and "II354 Israel is even
commanded to collapse the distinction between niTN and "13 precisely on
the basis of its experience in Egypt:
As a native among you shall be for you the resident alien residing with you,
and you shall love him as yourself, for you were resident aliens in Egypt
(Lev. 19.34a).
That the distinction between PUTS and 13 is thus problematized by

Israel's legal tradition itself355 has two implications. First, it suggests that
Israel is recognized on at least a certain implicit level of the text to be not
the homogenous and rooted kinship group (niTN) that the image 'sons of
Israel' portrays it to be, but rather a collection of originally heterogeneous
elements, including D''13.356 Secondly, it suggests that the image of Israel
as a resident alien in Egypt does not as strongly imply the separate and
foreign status of Israel there as it might seem at first. If the !"!1TK and 13 are
equated in at least some of the Pentateuchal traditions, then the differential
force of the assertion that Israel was a resident alien in Egypt is at least
theoretically muted and it becomes possible to find latent in the text an
Israel that is more at home in Egypt than the manifest text will allow.357
As the people's physical distance from Egypt increases, the concern for
separation specifically from Egypt is increasingly generalized into a concern for separation or distinctiveness from all other peoples. For instance,
the legal stipulations seem more interested in differentiating Israel from
353. Exod. 12.49; Lev. 24.2; Num. 9.14; 15.29.
354. Exod. 12.19; Lev. 16.29; 17.8-16; 18.26.
355. It must be recognized that occasionally the legal tradition does differentiate
between the HITS and the 13, but such explicit distinctions are rare. An example is
Deut. 14.21, in which Israel is prohibited from eating anything that has died of itself
but is allowed to give it to resident aliens. However, the similar law in Lev. 17.15
stipulates that both native and alien resident become unclean if they eat that which has
died of itself.
356. In other words, the notion of a common ancestry is a fiction that functions to
unite originally disparate groups, including, one might speculate, Egyptians.
357. The ancestors of Genesis are regularly described as resident aliens in Palestine
(e.g. Gen. 23.4; 36.6-7), and Jacob and his family are described as resident aliens when
they migrate into Egypt (Gen. 47.4). However, the story of Joseph in Genesis portrays
Israel as obtaining land in Egypt (Gen. 47.11, 27), a step towards gaining the status of
niT there.
3. Egypt in Exodus
147
the tribes in Canaan, than from Egypt (23.23-33; 34.11-26). This generalization is explicitly voiced in Moses' words to YHWH: 'And we will be
distinct/separate, I and your people, from all the people who are upon the
face of the earth' (33.16b).358 Thus, gradually the concern for differentiation from Egypt is opening up to include new foci for contrastive identity.
In summary, the constitutive moment at Sinai, when Israel is given
definitive shape through a covenant with YHWH, is framed within the
context of separation from Egypt. The exodus through which Israel becomes distinct from Egypt provides the necessary historical prologue to
the presentation of Israel's covenantal obligations. Yet within those covenantal obligations are legal traditions regarding the proper treatment of the
resident alien that unsettle a too-facile distinction between Egypt and
Israel, and make problematic the notion of an impermeable boundary
between the two. And finally, the focus for contrastive identity begins to
shift from Egypt to the tribal peoples of Canaan, although differentiation
from Egypt remains the underlying paradigm.
By the end of the scroll, Israel's identity as YHWH'S people separate
from Egypt seems finally to be secured, but not until that identity is endangered and rescued. In the narrative of the golden calf (Exod. 32-34),
Israel almost loses its newly birthed identity. In an ironic reversal of the
plague narrative, in which YHWH had to persuade Pharaoh to let Israel go,
in this narrative Moses has to persuade YHWH to stick with Israel. In the
end, after repeated entreaties, YHWH'S covenantal relationship with Israel
is renewed and Israel's distinctive identity is assured.359 And so the scroll
of Exodus can end with a second utopic moment, with the indwelling of
YHWH in the newly constructed tabernacle, indicated by the cloud and
YHWH'S glory (40.34-38).360 While the tabernacle has been fused with the
tradition of the tent of meeting, unlike the tent of meeting which was
located on the margins of the camp (33.7), it is located in the middle of the
358. The LXX here reads 'we will be glorified beyond all the nations', a translation
perhaps based on the verb N^S instead of il^S (see the remarks on 8.19 [23]; 9.4 and
11.7 above).
359. The proleptic instructions for the tabernacle's construction and for the institution of worship cannot be actualized until after Israel's identity has been endangered
and rescued. The material concerning the tabernacle (25.1-31.18; 35.1-40.33) frames
the narrative of Israel's apostasy and restoration (32.1-34.35), highlighting the
centrality of this narrative to the text's construction of Israel's identity.
360. The cloud as an indication of YHWH'S presence has already been encountered
in 13.21-22; 14.19-20, 24; 19.9; 33.9.
148
camp (25.8; 29.44-45).361 Thus, when YHWH'S presence enters the

tabernacle, in the narrative world of the scroll it can truly be said that now
YHWH indeed dwells in the midst of his people.362
The utopic indwelling presence of YHWH also finally secures Israel's
identity. Throughout the golden calf incident, and even earlier in Exodus,
the more general term 'the people' has alternated with the more specific
terms 'sons of Israel' and 'Israel', but the general term was used more
frequently. Although COT likely functions often as a synonym for 'Israel',
in the context of the mixed crowd that leaves Egypt (12.31), it is also
possible that the term is meant to evoke the yet heterogeneous nature of
the people in the wilderness. In other words, from the dominant ideological standpoint in the text, not all that depart from Egypt are or can be
legitimately part of Israel. But gradually the more specific term 'Israel' prevails, and the scroll ends with a reference to 'all the house of Israel'
(40.38).363 Thus the narrative of Exodus has come full circle; the Israel
that emerges out of Egypt is equivalent, except in numbers, to the Israel that
entered Egypt. It has remained functionally intact as a group connected by
a common origin extrinsic to Egypt; Egypt was but a dangerous detour or
deviation, which in the end was overcome.
And yet, the figure of Moses indicates that there is a surplus or remainder that does not fit this neat equation of those who enter and those
who leave Egypt. The ambivalent status of Moses will continue to beset
the narrative of the Pentateuch with an ideological contradiction between
origins intrinsic and extrinsic to Egypt, leading eventually to his untimely
death at the borders of the Promised Land. Egypt, far from being erased,
will persist as the 'other' at the heart of Israel's identity.
Moses, the key character in facilitating the covenant between Israel and
YHWH, seems to embody the ambiguity about boundaries of identity in the
361. See the references to the hybrid 'tabernacle of the tent of meeting' in 39.32;
40.2,6,29. The narrative of Exodus contains a tension between the tabernacle, which
will be a sign or house of YHWH'S presence in the midst of the camp, mediated by
Aaron and his sons as priests, and the tent of meeting which is a sign or house of
YHWH'S presence outside, on the margins of the camp, connected with Moses and
Joshua. The tension is clearly resolved in the end in favor of the centrally located
tabernacle, which subsumes (or subverts) the function of the tent of meeting.
362. And so the promise of YHWH in 29.46 is fulfilled.
363. This reference evokes the original family of Jacob/Israel with which the scroll
of Exodus opened. See also the reference to the 'house of Jacob' in 19.3.
3. Egypt in Exodus
149
narrative. Only he is able to go up and down the mountain; strict boundaries circumscribe the movement of everyone else, including YHWH.364
Moses' ability to transgress these boundaries is due to his role as intermediary between Israel and YHWH; in this capacity, Moses functions like a
"[N^D ('messenger/angel') of the deity. In this respect, it is interesting to
consider the tradition reported in Exod. 14.19; 23.20-23; 32.34; 33.2;
Num. 20.16 and Judg. 2.1-5 that an angel guided Israel out of Egypt, in the
wilderness and into the Promised Land. Although no explicit connection is
made between this guiding angel and Moses, the later tradition of the
ascent and divine enthronement of Moses at Sinai, found in Jewish Egyptian, Samaritan and rabbinic sources (Meeks 1968) suggests the possibility
that a more heroic and even semi-divine portrayal of Moses is obscured
behind the figure of this angel.
In any case, the people are depicted as believing that it is Moses, not the
deity, who has brought them out of Egypt. While Moses and the narrator
interpret the people's complaints as directed towards YHWH (16.7-8; 17.2,
7), the people themselves complain against Moses (15.24; 16.2; 17.2, 3).
They blame Moses, not YHWH, for bringing them out of Egypt, a place of
plenty, into the wilderness, a place of sure death. Even though Moses had
announced that the miraculous provision of food in the wilderness would
cause the people to know that YHWH had brought them out of Egypt
(16.6), it seems that the lesson did not sink in. In fact, the people explicitly
express a desire for death at the hand of YHWH in Egypt (16.3). The
people's question, 'Is YHWH among us or not?' (17.7) indicates that, from
Israel's narrative perspective, the plenty of Egypt is connected with the
presence of YHWH, while the lack of the wilderness expresses YHWH'S
absence. Moses, however, is present and to blame for their predicament.365
In contrast, YHWH insists that he is present with Israel because he
brought Israel out of Egypt:
364. A strict boundary ("733, HUp) is set around the mountain that the people are not
to break down or through (0~in) (19.12-13, 20-24). The same boundary constrains
YHWH; the people are warned not to break through the barrier lest YHWH burst forth
(f ~IS) against them (19.22, 24). Moses transgresses boundaries here that the people
cannot cross, but later he is not allowed to cross a boundary that all the people cross,
namely the Jordan River into the Promised Land.
365. While most of the plague narrative tended to emphasize the power and central
role of YHWH, in comparison to which Moses was only an instrument to carry out the
deity's work, it is Moses who is originally commissioned to bring Israel out of Egypt
(3.10, 12). Later on, in the incident of the golden calf, YHWH admits that Israel is
Moses' people, whom he has brought out of Egypt (32.7).
150

And I will dwell in the midst of the sons of Israel, and I will be for them (a)
God; And they will know that I am YHWH their God, who brought them out
of the land of Egypt, in order that I may dwell in their midst; I am YHWH
their God. (29.45-46).
In this autokerygmatic statement, the audience of the scroll clearly

encounters the logic of Israel's separation from Egypt; namely, that YHWH
can dwell in the midst of Israel as its God. The implication is that, as long
as Israel was still in Egypt, YHWH could not dwell in Israel's midst because YHWH cannot dwell in Egypt. Thus only outside of Egypt can Israel
be truly Israel. But even though Israel is now physically outside Egypt, the
incomplete aspect of the verbs indicates that Israel still needs to come to
this knowledge of its God and its own identity.
The narrative of the golden calf and its aftermath in 32.1-34.18 presents
the ultimate crisis in terms of Israel's identity. Hitherto, the people have
resisted and complained about their new non-Egyptian identity, but now
they reject it outright and thus jeopardize the entire program of the
exodus.366 The role of Moses in this story of apostasy is not only crucial in
that he resolves the crisis and prevents Israel's destruction, but also
because it evokes again his ambiguous status vis-a-vis Israel.
The incident begins when, in the people's (DUH) estimation, Moses, who
has brought them up from Egypt, shamefully fails to return from the top of
the mountain,367 leaving them without leadership (32. la). So they gather
against Aaron368 and demand that he make for them nTl^K ('gods')369 to
go before them (32. Ib). From the people's perspective, it is Moses, not
YHWH, who has brought them out of Egypt, and therefore it is for him that
366. Durham has captured well the sense of urgency and danger presented by the
narrative of Israel's apostasy: 'The special treasure-people whose identity has been
established by the arrival in their midst of the Presence of Yahweh himself are
suddenly in danger of becoming a people with no identity at all, a non-people and a
non-group...' (Durham 1987: 417). 'All that has been received is about to be lost'
(Durham 1987: 418).
367. The active intensive po'el of tETD ('to be ashamed') is used of the people's
perception of Moses. While BDB glosses this rare form, here and in Judg. 5.28, as 'to
delay (in shame)', it seems that the shame involved is due to a perceived potential
failure, not delay, in achieving a desired goal. That is, the people here do not believe
that Moses is taking too long on the mountain but that he will fail to return altogether,
thus, on the one hand, disgracing or shaming him, and, on the other, necessitating a
new leader.
368. The use of the preposition *7JJ suggests an adversarial sense.
369. The term is here understood as plural since it is followed by a verb in the plural.
3. Egypt in Exodus
151
they seek a replacement. Furthermore, they seek a divine replacement,

suggesting that they viewed Moses as (semi-) divine. Aaron takes the gold
earrings370 offered by the people and fashions them into a calf,371 which
the people then acclaim as 'your gods, O Israel, which brought you up
from the land of Egypt' (32.4).372 According to the people, the golden calf
substitutes for Moses, not YHWH, and thus the identity of Israel is associated primarily, or solely, with Moses.373
In response, YHWH angrily proposes to consume this' stiff-necked people'
(^-lirrrtOp)374 and to make instead of Moses a great nation (32.7-10). Just
as the people desired a replacement for Moses, so now YHWH proposes to
replace them. However, precisely in his rejection of the people, YHWH
agrees with their identification of themselves with Moses; 'your people,
whomjyow brought up from the land of Egypt', he says to Moses (32.7; see
370. Gold earrings (DT3) seem to be associated with both idolatry and foreignness
(Gen. 35.4; Judg. 8.24-27). Here, the earrings could be part of the jewelry that Israel
acquired when leaving and plundering Egypt (Exod. 3.21-22; 11.2-3; 12.35-36).
371. Bull images were common in ancient Near Eastern worship; examples include
the lunar cult of the Mesopotamian god Sin, the bull as the icon of Ugaritic deities such
as El, Baal and Anat, and Egyptian representations of Amon-Re as a bull. The epithet
of YHWH as TUN ('the Strong One', e.g. Gen. 49.24; Isa. 1.24), may actually refer to
YHWH metaphorically as a bull. The use of "731? ('calf) in this text instead of a word
for 'bull' may be deliberately derisive. See, for instance, the play on words between
^312 and King Eglon of Moab as part of the derisive ethnic stereotyping in the story of
Judg. 3.12-30 (Handy 1992).
372. The plural 'gods' is puzzling here since only one golden calf has been produced
(see also 32.8). The identical acclamation in 1 Kgs 12.28 suggests that the present
passage is a direct reference to the two golden calves that Jeroboam produced for Israel
(1 Kgs 12.26-29). Jeroboam, as also Solomon's other adversary, Hadad the Edomite,
found refuge in Egypt (1 Kgs 11.14-22, 26-40; 12.2; Galpaz 1991), a notion that is
anathema to the dominant ideology of the text.
373. That the calf also indicates a reversion back to Egyptian ways by the people is
possible, though not explicitly indicated in the narrative. The people have not been
depicted anywhere in the narrative, even while they lived in Egypt, as worshiping
Egyptian deities. Also, rather than expressing a desire to return to Egypt, as in the
previous incidents of the people's resistance, the making of the calf seems to reflect the
people's acceptance of the exodus from Egypt (32.4, 8) and a concern for leadership
forward in the wilderness (32.1). Sasson (1968) speculates that the calf, far from
symbolizing connections with Egypt, actually preserves a link to the worship of the
god Sin by the Mesopotamian ancestors of Israel.
374. The phrase is usually understood as portraying stubbornness or obstinacy. Since
spl? means 'back of the neck', it also connotes a turning away; the 'stiffness' would
indicate arrogant pride.
152
also 33.1). This statement is striking in that previously YHWH has insisted
that he will bring the people out of Egypt so that they will be his people
(e.g. 3.7-12; 6.6-7; 1 A;passim). On the narrative level, it seems that the
crisis of the people's apostasy is so acute that YHWH is ready to jettison
the whole project of the ethnogenesis of Israel and so distances himself
from the people. On the ideological level, however, one can perceive in
this agreement between the perspectives of the people and of YHWH hints
of an alternative definition of Israel, of an Israel that is predominantly
shaped by, and claims as its origin, the Moses of Egypt.
Ironically, Moses is portrayed as the one who disagrees with this perspective. He challenges YHWH, 'Why, O YHWH, does your anger burn
against your people whom you brought out from the land of Egypt?'
(32.11), and urges YHWH to repent and change (Dm) 'regarding the evil/
wrong (you intend) against your people' (32.12).375 Repeatedly, Moses
emphasizes that the people are not his but YHWH'S. The narrative uses the
voice of Moses, even over against the usually authoritative voice of
YHWH, to undermine precisely the notion that Israel is essentially defined
by Moses and thus to support the ideology of Israel's identity as YHWH'S
unique possession.
To change YHWH'S mind proves, however, to be no easy matter. At least
three times Moses must plead and argue to persuade YHWH to reclaim and
maintain his ownership of Israel. First, Moses persuades YHWH not to
destroy his people; he evokes YHWH'S honor or reputation in Egypt, which
will be ruined if Israel is wiped out, and reminds YHWH of the promises to
the ancestors (32.12-14).376 Moses then subjects the people to a trial by
ordeal (32.20)377 and a violent purge (32.25-29)378 in an effort to cleanse
375. The roles of Moses and YHWH are here the reverse of what they were in Exod.
3-4. In the call of Moses, YHWH had to persuade Moses to accept his commission; here
Moses has to persuade YHWH not to give up his project of the ethnogenesis of Israel.
376. The allusion to the ancestral stories of Genesis as a means of affirming Israel's
essentially non-Egyptian roots is familiar from the story of the call of Moses (3.6,1516). The argument about upholding YHWH'S reputation in Egypt continues the motif of
the demonstration of YHWH'S power to the Egyptians in the plagues.
377. Moses grinds the golden calf to powder and mixes it with water that he makes
the sons of Israel drink. This procedure is somewhat reminiscent of the destruction of
idols elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. 2 Kgs 23.6), but it especially exhibits
parallels to the test of a wife's faithfulness on the occasion of her husband's jealousy as
outlined in Num. 5. So also Israel's faithfulness to its God and its God-bound identity
is at stake here.
378. Moses recruits the Levites to engage in a slaughter of three thousand of their
3. Egypt in Exodus
153
them of the stain of their apostasy. Additionally, YHWH sends a plague on

the people (32.35).379 Despite these measures, YHWH, although he has
changed his mind about destroying the people, threatens to withdraw his
presence from them (33.3), offering the guidance of an angel instead
(32.34; 33.2). YHWH refuses Moses' offer to be the substitutionary victim
for the people's sin (32.32-33) and continues to refer to Moses as the one
who brought the people up from the land of Egypt (33.1). Israel's identity
is still at risk. In response, the people strip themselves of their ornaments
in an ironic reversal of the plundering motif (33.4-6),380 symbolically
putting themselves into the submissive role of the defeated enemy.
For a second time, Moses argues to persuade YHWH to claim Israel as his
own. Playing on his own favored status in YHWH'S eyes (33.12b, 13a), he
reminds YHWH, 'And see, your people are this nation' (33.13b). Andagain:
And in what will it be known, then, that I have found favor in your eyes,
I and your people, if not in your going with us ? And we will be distinct, I
and your people, from all the people who are on the face of the earth.
(33.15-16)
Moses here twice explicitly links himself with the people, thus circumventing the attempt to single him out as unique. And yet Moses is indeed
presented in the narrative as unique. He is the only one who can climb the
mountain to YHWH,381 and YHWH even speaks with him face-to-face as
one talks with a friend (33.11).382 And yet Moses uses his unique status
precisely to dissolve his distinctiveness into the distinctiveness of the
people: 'we shall be distinct, I and your people, from all the people who
are upon the face of the earth' (33.16b). At the same time, Moses continues to insist that the people are YHWH'S, addressing YHWH consistently
kin and neighbors. He also confronts Aaron, who tries to blame the people (32.24) and
claims that the golden calf formed by itself (32.24).The narrator, however, blames both
Aaron and the people, resulting in the unusual syntax of 32.35: 'And YHWH sent a
plague on the people because they made the calf which Aaron made.1
379. This plague (*p3) evokes the plagues in Egypt that YHWH promised not to
inflict upon Israel if it was obedient to his words (15.26).
380. The verb "7JM in 33.6 recalls the similar use of the same verb in the plundering
motif (3.22; 12.36).
381. Even the covenant meal on the mountain in which the 70 elders of Israel participate (24.9-11) does not diminish Moses' uniqueness, for even here the text several
times insists that only Moses actually encounters YHWH (24.2, 15-18).
382. In contrast, however, when Moses requests a theophany, he is only granted a
view of YHWH'S back since no one can see YHWH'S face and live (33.20, 23).
154
about 'your people'. For a second time, YHWH is persuaded, although his
response focuses entirely on Moses with no mention of the people: 'Indeed, this very thing you have said I will do, for you have found favor in
my eyes and I know you by name' (33.17).383
For a third and final time, Moses pleads with YHWH: 'If, please, I have
found favor in your eyes, my lord, then, please go, my lord, in our midst;
for it is a stiff-necked people, and (so) pardon our iniquity and our sin and
take us as your inheritance/possession' (34.9).384 Again Moses identifies
himself unequivocally with the people. Finally, YHWH responds decisively
by making a covenant, thus replacing the former broken covenant, and by
having Moses inscribe a new set of tablets (34.27-28). And the presence of
YHWH with the people is now assured, for YHWH promises that he himself,
and not an angel as previously mentioned (33.2), will drive out the tribes
of the land before them (34.11).
Yet, while Moses both identifies himself with the people, and sees them
as YHWH'S people, YHWH continues to identify them as Moses' people
while at the same time maintaining a sense of difference between them
and Moses. YHWH speaks to Moses of 'your people', not 'my people'
(34.10a), thus reiterating the people's own sense of identification with
Moses. But in the same sentence, YHWH differentiates between Moses and
the people in speaking to Moses of 'all the people in whose midst you are'
(34. lOb). The same differentiation appears in YHWH'S later declaration to
Moses: 'I have made with you a covenant, and with Israel' (34.27). Moreover, Moses' shining (or horned) face, and his need to veil his face (34.2935), underline his difference from the people.385
The whole incident of the golden calf and its aftermath thus plays on the
aspect of uniqueness in identity formation. From the narrative perspective
of the people, Israel is closely identified with Moses, who both comes
from Egypt and is perceived as (semi-) divine in that he is interchangeable
383. The dialogue between Moses and YHWH in 33.12-17 is also significant in its
emphasis of the theme of knowledge: the root UT appears six times in these six verses,
recalling the importance of this theme in the plague and exodus narratives.
3 84. Moses' plea, with its twofold use of the particle of entreaty 83, echoes the same
twofold plea of 33.13; it also evokes the invitation of YHWH in 19.5 that Israel be his
special treasured possession.
385. Both Sasson (1968: 384-87) and Moberly (1983: 108-109) see in the word |~p
a deliberate parallelism with the calf that the people substituted for Moses. The change
in Moses' appearancehis face shines or has a horned appearancehas also been
explained as a horned cultic mask signifying divine priestly authority or as the aura
that signifies Moses' elevation to semi-divine status.
3. Egypt in Exodus
155
with the divine symbol of the golden calf. The narrative perspective of
YHWH agrees withthatof the people insofar as it identifies Israel as Moses'
people and at the same time ascribes a unique status to Moses in that he can
be substituted for the people as a new starting point. From these two perspectives, Moses is both identified with, and yet distinct from, the people.
Over against these perspectives is that expressed by Moses. Whereas the
people and YHWH identify Israel primarily with Moses, Moses insists
repeatedly that Israel belongs to YHWH. And whereas the people and YHWH
place Moses in a unique position apart from the people, Moses constantly
links himself with the people as one of them. In fact, Moses uses the unique
favored status attributed to him by YHWH, not to glorify himself, but to
plead for the restoration of the people's unique status by identifying
himself with the people. Ironically, while Moses is successful in persuading
YHWH to restore the people's unique status, YHWH continues to maintain
Moses' own distinctiveness. Moses' attempt to be seen as one of YHWH'S
people is rebuffed. Moses remains an exalted yet liminal figure, central to
the constitution of Israel as YHWH'S people rescued from Egypt, and at the
same time marginal in relationship to membership in Israel.386
This clash of narrative perspectives on the place of Moses in relation to
Israel is integral to the conflict of ideologies in the narrative over Israel's
identity in relation to Egypt. Moses, for all the efforts to distance him from
his Egyptian background, has strong Egyptian associations. The various
perspectives on Moses thus represent a variety of ways in which the
connection of Israel with Egypt was conceptualized in the context of the
primary producers and consumers of the scroll of Exodus. First, there is
the people's view of Moses as a (semi-) divine 'strong one/bull' who leads
them out of Egypt and through the wilderness, a view opposed by YHWH
and Moses; this reflects an ideological conflict regarding the status of
Moses as an exalted Egyptian Israelite hero. Secondly, there is Moses'
view of himself as one of YHWH'S people contrasted with YHWH'S view of
Moses as separate from the people; this reflects an ideological conflict
about whether an Egyptian, no matter how exalted and beneficial for
Israel, can really be a member of Israel. Thirdly, there is YHWH'S ambivalence about whether the people belong to him or to Moses; this reflects an
386. In order to be a mediating figure between the mundane and transcendent
worlds, Moses must exist on the margins; the tent of meeting where YHWH and Moses
meet, for instance, is located on the edge of the camp (33.7-11). But on the level of the
clash of ideologies in the narrative, the marginalization of Moses may have more to do
with his Egyptian associations.
156
ideological conflict about the status of Israelites from Egypt and whether
they can claim membership in the true Israel descended from the eponymous ancestor who originally migrated from Mesopotamia.
Summary: Egypt in Exodus
The scroll of Exodus, as analyzed above, is a sustained argument for a particular distinctive, non-Egyptian identity for Israel. The scroll begins by
setting up the classic ethnic polarity between 'us' and 'them', between
Israel and Egypt, and then expends its rhetorical effort in persuading its
audience to acquiesce to this binary opposition. Just as the Israel in the
narrative only gradually comes to an awareness and acceptance of its
identity separate from Egypt, so the audience of the scroll is likewise
gradually persuaded, via its identification with the Israel in the narrative,
to come to the same conclusion about itself. The evocation of the 'master
narrative' of Israel found in the ancestor stories of Genesis, in which
Israel's true origins are to be found in Mesopotamia and in which Egypt,
therefore, represents only a temporary detour, proves to be a powerful
argument. The image of Egypt as a place of plenty and security is effectively attacked as the voice of rebellion and complaint. However, the main
persuasive force in the narrative is the voice of YHWH, who unequivocally
insists that Israel and Egypt are distinct and actively seeks to actualize this
distinction by the physical and emotional separation of Israel from Egypt.
And yet the distinction between Israel and Egypt is continually compromised by ambiguity and hints of alternative understandings. When Israel is
given a voice in the narrative, this voice speaks predominantly of an Israel
that is rooted in Egypt and is reluctant to participate in an exodus. The
very origins and composition of Israel are problematized by notions of
heterogeneity that poke holes in absolute ethnic boundaries. Moreover, the
spectre of a return to Egypt perturbs the ideological master narrative in
which a return to Egypt is unthinkable. But it is especially in Moses that
the ambiguities of identity formation in the narrative come together.
Moses is a hybrid straddling the boundary between Egypt and Israel; he is
also the hero who leads Israel out of Egypt. While the narrative attempts to
distance Moses as much as possible from his Egyptian background, in the
end his identification with Israel remains suspect. Furthermore, the narrative consistently attempts to undercut a heroic or even mythical portrait
of Moses.
These strong rhetorical moves indicate that the scroll of Exodus is engaged in a contest of ideologies in the context of its production, circulation
3. Egypt in Exodus
157
and consumption. The scroll is fundamentally aimed at combating and

discrediting views that are pro-Egyptian. In the scroll, Egypt is the major
'other' over against which the unique and distinct identity of Israel is constructed by contrast. Views that construct Israel's identity more in terms of
positive identification with Egypt are repressed and can only be partially
reconstructed from hints in the narrative. The negative value attached to
Egypt is intensified or aggravated to the extent that Egypt is erased in the
destruction in the sea. But a contrastive Israelite identity without an 'other'
cannot be sustained. Thus, although the various tribal peoples of the
Promised Land to which Israel is moving gradually enter the picture as a
contrastive focus for Israel's identity, Egypt returns again and again as the
necessary 'other' that renews and actualizes, in ritual and law, in memory
and desire, Israel's distinctiveness.
Chapter 4
EGYPT IN LEVITICUS, NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY
The Pentateuch is characterized by an intertwining of narrative and summary, in the form of genealogy, list and law (Blenkinsopp 1992:34). However, one or the other genre tends to be in the foreground in different parts
of the Pentateuch. While narrative is the dominant genre in Genesis and in
the first half of Exodus, after Exod. 19 the genre of summary, especially
legal prescriptions and institutions, is more prevalent. This invites a somewhat different approach to the analysis of Egypt as portrayed in Leviticus,
Numbers and Deuteronomy. Whereas the analysis thus far has proceeded
more or less sequentially, as befits the temporal unfolding of narrative, in
this chapter more of a thematic approach will be employed. The themes will
be ones that have already been introduced in the previous analyses of Egypt
in Genesis and Exodus; in the following pages, new permutations and
further developments of these themes will be highlighted.
But first, a brief look at the occurrences of Egypt within the specific
shape of each of these three books seems warranted. The scroll of Leviticus recounts further laws and statutes that are revealed to Israel at Sinai.
The number of explicit references to Egypt in the scroll is rather small
only 11 occurrencesmost of which appear in the latter half of the book,
especially in the so-called Holiness Code (chs. 17-26). Egypt does not
explicitly figure in the regulations of Leviticus regarding the organization
of Israel's cultic lifethe sacrificial system and the ordination of cultic
personnel. However, when the focus shifts from specialized ritual
requirements of cultic specialists to matters of concern for the layperson,
such as regulations regarding purity, community life, festivals and so on,
then Egypt reappears. These regulations outline forms of behavior that
function to make Israel distinct from other peoples, as indicated by the
frequent admonition throughout the latter part of Leviticus that Israel is to
be holy as YHWH, its God, is holy.1 Egypt's appearance among these
1.
'Holy' or 'sanctified' (E7Hp) at root means to be set apart or separated, even
4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy
159
regulations is not surprising, given Egypt's function in the Pentateuch as

Israel's 'other'.
The scroll of Numbers narrates the actual movement of Israel from Sinai
through the wilderness to the borders of the Promised Land. Although
sometimes seen as a hodge-podge of law and narrative, the scroll is
coherently structured around the significant transition from the Egyptian
generation of Israel, those who left Egypt in the exodus, to a new generation, birthed in the wilderness, which is destined to inherit the Promised
Land. This structure is indicated by the two census lists, one numbering
the old generation (Num. 1) and the other numbering the new generation
(Num. 26), which function to divide the scroll into two halves (Olson
1996:4). This generational transition is extremely important for the ethnogenesis of Israel via separation from Egypt. The old generation is portrayed in an overwhelmingly negative fashion as rebellious, desiring to
return to Egypt, and therefore unable to inherit the land, while the new
generation provides at least the potential or hope of being the Israel, totally
disassociated from Egypt, that the ideology of the Pentateuch desires.2
The scroll of Deuteronomy presents itself as a series of four Mosaic
speeches at the boundary of the Promised Land.3 Explicit occurrences of
Egypt, while spread rather generally throughout the scroll, are most
prevalent in the second speech of Moses. This speech presents a hortatory
resume of the covenant stipulations that define Israel, and therefore Egypt
seems to have an important role to play in that definition. Deuteronomy
also ends with an account of the death of Moses outside of the Promised
Land (34.1-12), and various references to his death appear in the first
(1.37; 3.26; 4.21) and last (31.2; 32.51) parts of the scroll. The death of
Moses thus forms an inclusio framing the scroll of Deuteronomy (Olson
1994: 18). Moses, with his ambiguous Egyptian-Israelite identity, has been
made taboo. Leviticus also has one of the highest densities in the Hebrew Bible of
occurrences of the verb ^~Q ('to separate'); only the book of Ezra has a higher density
of occurrences.
2. See Olson (1996: 4-7), who characterizes the two generations as the 'old
generation of rebellion' and the 'new generation of hope', and also outlines significant
parallels or echoes between the two halves of the scroll, thus strengthening the notion
that a primary purpose of the scroll is to narrate the replacement of the old Egyptian
generation of Israel with a new generation that is unadulterated by contact with Egypt.
3. The division between the speeches varies somewhat among commentators. P.D.
Miller (1990: 10-11) divides them as follows: 1.1-4.43; 4.44-28.68; 28.69-32.52;
33.1-12. Chistensen's division (1991: xl-xli) is somewhat different: 1.1-4.43; 4.4426.19; 27.1-31.30; 32.1-34.12.
160
central in the formulation of Israel's distinctiveness, and so his death will

be significant in the ideological rhetoric of the Pentateuch.
Separation from Egypt
In the regulations of Leviticus, Egypt appears mainly as a marker of Israel's
difference. Egypt first appears in Lev. 11 at the end of a list of dietary
restrictions, recognized as norms that constitute the community of Israel,
both by stabilizing its inner organization and by delimiting it over against
other communities (Gerstenberger 1996: 133-34):
Because I (am) YHWH your God, and you will make yourselves holy, and
you will be holy ones, because a holy one (am) I; And you will not make
yourselves unclean by any swarming animal that creeps upon the land.
Because I (am) YHWH, the one bringing you up from the land of Egypt to
be for you (a) God; and you will be holy ones, because a holy one (am) I
(Lev. 11.44-45).
The first autokerygmatic statement, 'I (am) YHWH your God', is matched
by a second one, 'I (am) YHWH, the one bringing you up from the land of
Egypt to be for you (a) God'; that is, the very definition of YHWH is
connected with the separation of Israel from Egypt. Furthermore, not only
does YHWH separate Israel from Egypt, but he is essentially himself one
who is set apart (2Jnp); so also Israel, the people whom he constitutes
through the exodus from Egypt, is to be set apart. The root paradigm for
Israel's holiness is separation from Egypt.
The two autokerygmatic declarations enclose an admonition to avoid
swarming, creeping animals, and, as Lev. 11.41-42 makes clear, such
animals are not to be part of Israel's diet.4 If the dietary restrictions
function to set Israel apart, and if the distinctiveness of Israel is tied
closely to the exodus from Egypt, then one might suspect that these dietary
regulations are set over against what the producers of the text took to be
characteristic Egyptian dietary habits.5 However, the dietary regulations
4. Swarming Q"TO) may be contrary to holiness because it signifies an unpredictable, chaotic movement that is not proper to any element (Wenham 1979: 178) and
which thus threatens to breach the boundaries of proper order. Note that the seemingly
unnatural swarming increase of Israel in Egypt (Exod. 1.7) arouses dread on the part of
Egypt (1.12).
5. In actuality, of course, Israel shared a host of cultural practices, including various prohibitions, with its Near Eastern neighbours. Circumcision and pork avoidance,
for example, were also found among the Egyptians (Chan 1985: 97); pork avoidance
161
exhibit their own internal taxonomic logic,6 quite apart from any necessary
reference to the contrasting dietary habits of other peoples. Furthermore,
some of them, such as the prohibition of pork, may have developed out of
the particular environmental constraints of Palestine.7 Therefore, it is more
likely that a set of dietary restrictions emerging from a context in Palestine
is here adopted as distinctive of Israel. The reference to Egypt in the concluding section then does not so much point to an opposition to specific
Egyptian dietary habits as it formulaically incorporates the dietary regulations into the more general theme of Israel's distinct!veness generated by
the exodus.
As was already observed in the latter part of Exodus, the 'other' over
against which Israel is defined is shifting from Egypt alone to include also
the tribal peoples of the land that Israel is to inherit. This shift is discernible especially in the second explicit mention of Egypt in Leviticus, which
occurs at the beginning of a list of sexual restrictions:
I (am) YHWH your God. That which is done in the land of Egypt, in which
you lived, you will not do; And that which is done in the land of Canaan,
into which I am bringing you, you will not do, and their prescriptions you
will not walk in/follow. My judgments/ordinances you will do, and my
prescriptions you will keep, to walk in/follow them. I (am) YHWH your God
(Lev. 18.2b-4).
Here the prescriptions and ordinances of YHWH for his people Israel are
differentiated from both what is done in Egypt and what is done in
Canaan. That Canaan is mentioned following Egypt mirrors the narrative
movement from Egypt to Canaan. An extra phrase is attached to the prohibition of Canaanite behavior, and the conclusion of the list (Lev. 18.2430) matches the proscribed behaviors only to the abominations (ETCUm)
of the nations or inhabitants of the land towards which Israel is journeying,
and not to the behavior of Egypt. These characteristics indicate a shift
from a primary emphasis on differentiation from Egypt to more of a
concern with differentiation from Canaan. The mention of Egypt in 18.3
seems to be largely formulaic; the real concern of the prohibitions is with
differentiation from Canaan.8
seems to have been a widespread custom among all Semitic peoples with the exception
of the Babylonians (de Vaux 1972: 266).
6. See especially the analyses by Mary Douglas (1966, 1975 , 1993) and Soler
(1979).
7. See Marvin Harris (1985: 68-84). For sophisticated analyses based on archaeological faunal remains in Palestine, see Hesse (1990) and Zeder (1996).
8. This conclusion is further supported by the ending of Lev. 20, a chapter that
162
Again, one could speculate that the sexual behaviors proscribed in the
following regulations were seen by the producers of the text as somehow
characteristic of either the Egyptians or the Canaanites, or both. For example, consanguineous marriages between brother and sister, prohibited in
Lev. 18.9, 11, were common in Greco-Roman Egypt and practiced occasionally among the royal families of Pharaonic Egypt (Cerny 1954).
Bestiality, prohibited in Lev. 18.23, may be a reflection of the prominence
of zoomorphic representations in the Egyptian cult.9 However, the greater
contrast occurs within the Pentateuch itself: Abraham is married to his
half-sister Sarah (Gen. 20.2, 12; 12.13) in violation of the taboo in Lev.
18.11 (also 20.17), Amram, Moses' father, marries his paternal aunt (Exod.
6.20) in violation of the taboo in Lev. 18.12 (also 20.19), and Jacob's
marriage to both Leah and Rachel (Gen. 29.21-30) violates the taboo in
Lev. 18.18.' Interestingly, all these violations take place outside of Palestine, in either Mesopotamia or Egypt. It seems therefore that, instead of
focusing on prohibiting the customs of Canaan along with those of Egypt,
the text, more in keeping with the previous narrative in Genesis and Exodus, could have focused on the customs of Mesopotamia alongside those
of Egypt. That Mesopotamia is absent, while a concern for separation from
Egyptian customs is linked to a similar separation from Canaanite customs, seems to betray an anti-Egyptian (and anti-Canaanite) but proMesopotamian ideological stance on the part of the producers of the text.
The differentation of Israel from Egypt is evoked in several more
occurrences of the autokerygmatic formula 'I am YHWH, who brought you
out from the land of Egypt'(Lev. 19.36; 22.33; Num. 15.41). The example
from Lev. 19 is of special interest in that, midway through the chapter, one
finds a set of regulations prohibiting the mixture or confusion of what the
producers of the text saw as incompatible categories: 'Your cattle you will
not (inter) breed (between) two kinds, your field you will not plant (with)
two kinds, and a garment (of) two kinds (T]i2,D2Jn) you will not put upon
mirrors many of the sexual taboos of Lev. 18. The end of Lev. 20 contains some of the
most explicit language about separation (20.24,26) but explicitly refers, not to Egypt,
but only 'the nation which I am driving out before you, because all these things they
did and I abhorred them' (20.23).
9. However, such representations are known also from other ancient Near Eastern
sources.
10. The institution of levirate marriage (Gen. 38.8; Deut. 25.5-10) also technically
violates the taboo in 18.16 (also 20.21).
11. This word is evidently a technical term for some sort of fabric made of two
163
yourself (19.19). Thus, the God who separated Israel from Egypt (19.36b)
demands that his people maintain their distinctiveness to the extent even of
avoiding behaviors that involve mixtures and thus model the possibility of
heterogeneity. Again, the invocation of the exodus from Egypt at the end
of this list of regulations likely functions not so much to oppose specific
Egyptian practices as it does to raise the issue of differentiation itself,
which the text inextricably links with Egypt.12
That mixtures are to be avoided, most especially mixtures between
Israel and Egypt, is graphically portrayed in the only piece of actual narrative in the scroll of Leviticus, the account of the blaspheming son in 24.1023. On the surface, this narrative addresses the legal question of how
blasphemy is to be punished. It is formally similar to three other Pentateuchal cases of ad hoc judgments: Num. 9.6-14, which addresses the
question of whether someone who has touched a corpse can celebrate the
Passover; Num. 15.32-36, which addresses the question of the appropriate
penalty for working on the Sabbath; and Num. 27.1-11, which addresses
the question of whether daughters can inherit in the absence of eligible
sons. The Leviticus case differs however, in that, while these other cases
refer to the people involved either in general, unspecified terms13 or place
them expressly within Israel,14 the blasphemer in Leviticus is explicitly
described as the son of an Egyptian father and an Israelite mother, the
product of a mixed Israelite-Egyptian union.
Several conspicuous elements of the narrative connected with the
blasphemer's mixed origins demand attention. First, his Israelite mother is
named and her genealogical connection to the tribe of Dan is traced
(24.11). In contrast, his Egyptian father remains nameless and devoid of
the context of kin; the only important descriptive piece of information
about this father, from the perspective of the narrative, is his ethnic
identification as an Egyptian. Furthermore, the son is twice referred to as
the 'son of the Israelite woman' (24.11, 12).15 Secondly, the presence of
different kinds of thread; in Deut. 22.11 it is defined as a mixture of wool and linen.
Significantly, the term may be a loan word from Egyptian (Lambdin 1953: 155).
12. So also Egypt is evoked in Lev. 22.33 at the end of a series of regulations
concerning the separation ("IT]) and special status of sacrificial offerings and donations.
13. Certain unspecified people touch a corpse in Num. 9; an unspecified 'man' is
discovered collecting sticks on the Sabbath.
14. The daughters of Zelophehad in Num. 27 are explicitly linked by genealogy
with the Israelite tribe of Manasseh.
15. However, it is unlikely that the narrative specifies the Israelite kinship of the
164
the product of an Israelite-Egyptian union with the people at Sinai is very

suggestive. It suggests that intermarriage between members of Israel and
Egypt took place in Egypt, and at least some of the offspring of such
intermarriage took part in the exodus, counting themselves among those
called out of Egypt by YHWH.16 Yet the narrative introduces the son in a
peculiar fashion, saying that he 'went out into the midst of the sons of
Israel' (24.10). The phrasing seems to imply that the son entered the place
of Israel from elsewhere outside.17 Thus, the narrative seems ambivalent
about the presence of this mixed Israelite-Egyptian, on the one hand
according him an Israelite ancestry through his mother, but, on the other,
making him marginal to the Israelite camp.
If this narrative is mainly to be seen as a particular instance of the
general procedure for dealing with cases of blasphemy, then the particular
identity of the person involved as an example would be immaterial, as in
the other three narratives of ad hoc judgments adduced in Numbers.
However, the precise description of the perpetrator in this case as a mixture of Israel and Egypt has something additional to communicate. It has
been argued that the son's mixed parentage is meant to illustrate the legal
principle, stated twice (24.16,22), that the same penalty is to apply to both
the mm ('native') and the 13 ('resident alien') (Fishbane 1985: 94). That
is, in this particular example, the legal status of the 'half-breed' in Israel is
equivalent to the status of a "U. However, the meaning of "13 has nothing to
do, at least in its basic formulation, with mixed parentage.18
mother in order to prove the Israelite kinship of her son, since it contradicts the overwhelming system of patrilineal descent evident throughout the Pentateuch (and the
Hebrew Bible). By that patrilineal system, the blaspheming son would be reckoned as
Egyptian. The Jewish system of reckoning Jewish ancestry through the mother is a
product of the much later Roman period (see S.J.D. Cohen 1985, 1986).
16. One recalls the notice in Exodus about a 'mixed crowd' leaving Egypt (Exod.
12.38).
17. An alternative reading is also possible; if the phrase ^S~l!2? ^32 ~p!"Q is taken to
modify HJJQ STR, then the son's father is described as 'the Egyptian in the midst of the
sons of Israel', and the implication that the son entered into the midst of Israel from
outside is erased. This alternate reading indicates that the Egyptian father was present
with Israel in the wilderness; otherwise, the text gives no direct indication of whether
the son's parents are present with him or not.
18. The 13 is defined by his lack of kinship with Israel: 'The key is that the sojourner has no familial or tribal affiliation with those among whom he or she is
traveling or living' (Spencer 1992b: 103). But the narrative specifically mentions the
blaspheming son's kinship with Israel.
165
In contrast, it seems that the reference to the son's Egyptian parentage is

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

structurally part of material that seems to be an addendum to the festival
regulations. After an introduction (23.4), the festivals of Pesach, Shavuot,
Yom Kippur and Sukkoth are discussed, followed by a concluding summary (23.37-38). But then further regulations for the festival ofbooths are
added, including the stipulation, found only here in the Hebrew Bible, that
19. See the analysis of the relevant texts in Num. and Deut. in the following
section.
166
Israel is to live in booths throughout the seven days of the festival. Thus,
both the instruction regarding living in booths and the connection of
booths to the exodus from Egypt appear as a supplement.
Secondly, Lev. 23 is the only one of the festival calendars in the Pentateuch to make a specific connection between the festival of booths and the
exodus from Egypt. The two festival calendars in Exodus (23.14-17; 34.1823) connect the exodus explicitly only with the festival of unleavened
bread (34.18, cf. 23.15).20 And the festival calendar in Deut. 16 specifically connects both the festivals of Passover/Unleavened Bread and weeks,
but not the festival of booths to the exodus.21 Leviticus 23 thus stands out
in that it specifically connects only the festival of booths to the exodus
from Egypt, making no such connection for either Passover/Unleavened
Bread or weeks.22 The addendum or supplement of Lev. 23.39-43 thus
gives particular value to the festival of booths, over against all the other
festivals, as a means of perpetuating the memory of the exodus or
separation from Egypt. Significantly, the postexilic celebration of booths
described in Neh. 8.13-18, which is closely followed by a solemn
separation of Israelites of pure descent from all 'foreigners' (Neh. 9.1-2),
is clearly analogous to the festival calendar in Leviticus.23 Moreover, the
eschatological celebration of booths imagined in the postexilic text of
Zech. 14.16-19 follows upon a plague and plundering of the nations,
strongly reminiscent of the plagues and motif of plundering that enable the
separation of Israel from Egypt in the narrative of Exodus. In other words,
the conspicuous connection in Leviticus between the festival of booths and
the exodus articulates with particular ideologies of separation found in
certain postexilic texts.
Thirdly, the connection made between the festival of booths and the
20. Furthermore, in Exodus, Sukkoth is referred to only as the 'festival of ingathering'; the term 'festival of booths' occurs only in Lev. 23 and Deut. 16.
21. The festival of Passover/Unleavened Bread is emphatically connected with
the exodus three times in Deut. 16.1,3,6. The connection of the festival of weeks with
the exodus (16.12) occurs in the Hebrew Bible only in the festival calendar of
Deuteronomy.
22. It may also be significant that the addendum does not refer to the 'festival of
booths' as in 23.34, but rather to the 'festival of YHWH' (23.39) as if this were the only,
or most important, of the festivals.
23. Fishbane (1985:109-12) describes both the similarities and differences between
the Nehemiah and Leviticus passages. While the differences preclude a direct dependence of Nehemiah on Leviticus, the similarities indicate that both passages utilize a
parallel tradition.
167
booths that the Israelites lived in during the exodus from Egypt is clearly
artificial. As Gerstenberger remarks, 'it would be nonsensical to assume
that from station to station (cf. Num. 33) the desert provided the Israelites
with enough tree branches for thousands of refugees to build provisional
shelters' (1996: 349). None of the narratives of the desert wanderings
mentions booths. So the festival of booths is here rather arbitrarily made
into a celebration, not only of the harvest, but also of the genesis of Israel
as a people through separation from Egypt. This connection with the
exodus, together with the supplemental nature of the material and its clear
connection with decidedly postexilic texts, hints that the festival of booths
has become in the Persian period a particular locus for the expression of an
ideology of Israelite identity focusing on contrast with, and separation
from, Egypt.24
Finally, it is noteworthy that, while separation from Egypt is a major goal
of the text, Egypt yet geographically remains Israel's neighbor. Whenever
the borders of the Promised Land are delineated, the southern border abuts
on Egypt,25 and thus Egypt continues to be Israel's proximate 'other'.
From Egyptian Generation to a New Generation
The scroll of Numbers marks the transition from the generation of Israel
that emerged from Egypt to a new generation birthed in the wilderness.
Apparently, the exodus alone was not sufficient to produce an Israel
separate from Egypt; an even more radical break is required and it is
supplied in the scroll of Numbers by the definitive end of Israel's
Egyptian-born generation. The Egyptian generation is enumerated in a
24. One further example of ritual enactment of separation from Egypt is found in
Num. 15.41, where an autokerygmatic statement of YHWH as the one bringing Israel
out of Egypt follows instructions for the making of tassels on garments. Just as the
Passover or Sukkoth ritual memorializes and re-enacts separation from Egypt as the
constitutive core of Israel's identity, so the tassels are to act as a daily reminder of
Israel's distinction from Egypt.
25. In the promise to Abraham, the southern border of the Promised Land is
designated as the 'river of Egypt', likely referring to the Nile (Gen. 15.18). In Exod.
23.31, the southern border is set at the Red/Reed Sea. Numbers 34.5 identifies the
southern boundary as the 'wadi of Egypt', a designation appearing only here in the
Pentateuch, but elsewhere to designate the southern border of Israel/Judah (Josh. 15.4,
47; 1 Kgs 8.45; 2 Kgs 24.7 passim). The 'wadi of Egypt' is likely referring to a
fluctuating borderline further north in the Sinai Peninsula, variously identified with
Wadi Besor or Wadi el-'Arish (see Hooker 1993; Na'aman 1986: 246-49).
168
census commanded by YHWH and described in the first chapter of the

scroll. It consists of a count of the fighting men of 12 tribes, each tribe
traced to a son or grandson of Jacob/Israel, thus reiterating the same
emphasis on the sons of Jacob/Israel at the beginning of the scroll of
Exodus. That is, an origin for Israel outside of Egypt is supported in that
the generation that emerges from Egypt is homologous to the family that
previously entered Egypt.26 But in Num. 14, in response to a rebellion of
the people, YHWH decrees that, with the exception of Caleb and Joshua,
not one of this Egyptian-born generation will enter the Promised Land
(14.22-24, 29-35).
A second census, again of those 20 and older and thus capable of military service, is reported in Num. 26. Initially this second census seems
identical to the first one, which counted the Egyptian generation, because
it is entitled 'the sons of Israel, the ones coming out of the land of Egypt'
(26.4). However, at the end of the chapter the narrative insists that, with
the exception of Caleb and Joshua, not one of those enrolled in the first
census were counted here (26.64-65). With this clarification, the text
reiterates the decision YHWH already made in 14.20-35 to exclude from
the land all those counted in the first census. It is noteworthy, however,
that this clarification comes at the end of the section and that the misleading title in 26.4 is allowed to stand. This juxtaposition of contradictory
elements indicates a tension between a tradition emphasizing Israel's
continuity with Egypt, and the dominant tradition of the Pentateuch, which
emphasizes the discontinuity of Israel with Egypt.27
The scroll of Deuteronomy provides yet a further problematization of
the notion of a clean transition from the Egyptian-born generation to a new
generation untainted by Egypt. The scroll makes repeated reference to the
mighty deeds of YHWH in Egypt, which the people addressed had
witnessed (6.22; 7.18-19; 11.2-7; 29.1-2 [2-3]; 34.11-12).28 However, the
very people whom Moses addresses with such words as 'Your own eyes
26. Of course this homology contrasts with other, less dominant, traditions that
speak of the Israel that emerges from Egypt as a 'mixed crowd' (Exod. 12.38; Lev.
24.10-23; Num. 11.4).
27. The present text of Num. 26.3-4 is confusing and may contain a gap; the NRSV,
for instance, supplies the phrase 'Take a census of the people' at the beginning of v. 4.
(Cf. NJPS and see Budd 1984: 286, 292; HOTTP 252). Such textual uncertainty is an
indication of ideological tension.
28. The mighty deeds of Moses, rather than YHWH, are referred to in 34.11 -12.
169
have seen every great deed which YHWH did' (11.7),29 are ostensibly the
new generation of Israel; the former Egyptian-born generation that actually witnessed the mighty deeds of YHWH in Egypt has passed away (e.g.
2.16). The intention may be to present the eyewitness of the addressees in
terms of the liturgical remembrance and representation that takes place, for
example, at Passover.30 However, in terms of the chronology of the
narrative, a strong sense of continuity between generations is presented
which is contrary to the discontinuity signaled by the motif of the demise
of the Egyptian-born generation.31
The census of the two generations in Numbers contains an interesting
feature: the tribe of Levi is explicitly omitted from the census of Israel
(1.47-49; 2.33) and is enumerated quite separately and differently (3.14
4.49).32 The exclusion of the Levites from the general military census is
explained by virtue of their special job of serving in, carrying and
guarding the tabernacle (1.48-53; see also 8.5-15,19). In this occupational
role, they are exceptionally claimed by YHWH to function, one-for-one, as
substitutes for the firstborn of the Israelites (3.12, 41, 45; 8.16-18).33
Numbers etiologically traces YHWH'S claim to all Israel's firstborn to the
tenth plague against the Egyptian firstborn (3.13; 8.17), as in Exodus
(13.14-15). However, in contrast to the rules regarding the firstborn in
29. See also 29.1 [2], 16.
30. Participants in the Passover ritual are instructed to tell their children, 'It is
because of what YHWH did for me, when I came out from Egypt' (Exod. 13.8),
indicating that at Passover the exodus is ritually re-enacted and re-experienced.
31. Another example upsetting the discontinuity between the Egyptian-born
generation and the new generation is found in 5.3, where Moses insists 'not with your
ancestors did YHWH make this covenant [i.e. the covenant at Horeb/Sinai] but with us,
who are all here alive today'. The impression given is that the generation that received
the Sinai covenant (the Egyptian-born generation) is addressed as the generation that
will inherit the land.
32. While all males of fighting age, that is, 20 years old and up, in the tribes of
Israel are enumerated (1.3, 45), the Levites are first enumerated according to the
number of males one month old and up (3.15), and secondly, according to the number
of males 30-50 years old (4.3, 23, 30, 39, 43, 47).
33. The firstborn of Israel over and above the number of the Levites are to be
redeemed by a monetary payment to the priesthood of five shekels (3.46-48). Even the
livestock of the Levites are to function as a substitute for the firstborn of Israel's
livestock (3.41, 45). Later in the scroll, however, the substitutionary function of the
Levites is disregarded; 18.15-18 calls for the redemption of all human firstborn and
the firstborn of unclean animals in Israel with a monetary payment of five shekels, and
the sacrifice of all firstborn of clean animals.
170
Exodus and Leviticus, here Levites, and not an unspecified ransom, provide the substitute for the firstborn. The Levites are specifically separated
out from the rest of Israel34 so that no *\ti ('plague') will strike the sons of
Israel for approaching the holy (8.19b); they function as a 'shielding
priestly buffer zone' (Olson 1996: 18) protecting Israel from the holiness
of YHWH'S indwelling presence (Budd 1984: 18-19). The 'line in blood'
that is drawn in the final plague of exodus to make a definitive life-ordeath separation between Israel and Egypt is here drawn to mark a similar
life-or-death distinction within Israel.35 Egypt, in other words, continues to
function ideologically in the text as a principle mandating differentiation,
not just externally but also internally.36
The purging of the old Egyptian-born generation from Israel extends
even to Moses, Israel's leader in the exodus. In the preceding analysis of
Exodus, it was noted that, in contrast to Aaron's, mention of the descendants of Moses is noticeably absent from the genealogy of Exod. 6.16-25,
even though Moses is described in Exodus as married and fathering children. Similarly, although himself a descendant of Levi, no descendants of
Moses are listed in the Levitical genealogical lists in Num. 3 or 26, even
though Num. 3 begins 'and these are the generations of Aaron and Moses'
(3.1).37 It seems that the lineage of Moses, who has at least two sons
according to Exod. 2.22 and 18.3-4, has been erased from the Levitical
lists.38 Moreover, the similarities in names between Gershom, Moses' first
34. See the use of "m ('to separate') in 8.14.
3 5. The word *)M is used in Exod. 12.13 in reference to the plague of the death of
the firstborn; a similar plague may be in view here, which would be averted by the
consecration of the Levites.
36. Furthermore, by the logic of substitution operative in the firstborn legislation,
the Levites take the place of the Egyptian firstborn in substituting for the Israelite firstborn. A homology is thus structurally drawn between the Levites and the Egyptians,
suggesting the possibility that the Levites may have strong Egyptian associations. That
the Levites are not assigned any landholdings in the Promised Land may additionally
indicate that they of all the tribes of Israel are remembered as originating from outside
the land; Egypt, then, figures prominently as possibly their place of origin.
37. In fact, the genealogy of the Levites in 1 Chron. 23 is the only one in the entire
Hebrew Bible to list descendants of Moses. A priestly descendant of Moses is also
described in Judg. 18.30, although early scribes added a suspended 3 to this verse to
change the name Moses to Manasseh. Perhaps this was done to prevent the association
of the name of Moses with idolatry (Tov 1992: 57), but it can also be seen as a
deliberate erasure of any trace of Moses' lineage.
38. The Egyptianizing Joseph also has two sons, but having his sons adopted by
Joseph's father Jacob in this case solved the problem.
111
son, and Gershon, Levi's first son, between Eliezer, Moses' second son,
and Eleazar, Aaron's third son, and between Moses and the Levitical clan
of the Mushites, may mark traces of a Moses lineage that has otherwise
been expurgated (Rehm 1992:299).39 Although Moses is the great man of
God who leads Israel out of Egypt to the Promised Land, no textual trace
of his family is allowed to survive. One can speculate that, in view of the
anti-Egyptian stance of the Pentateuch, the exclusion of Moses' family is
due to the strong association of Moses with Egypt.40
Not only is the lineage of Moses excluded from the Levitical genealogies, but Moses himself is excluded from the Promised Land. He is
reckoned with the old Egyptian generation of Israel and so must die with
them in the wilderness outside of the Promised Land. This exclusion of
Moses is striking on two counts. First, Moses is depicted as selflessly
working, not only to lead Israel out of Egypt, but also to avert from Israel
the consequences of its sin and rebellion; precisely by refusing YHWH'S
plan to make a greater nation out of himself, Moses persuades YHWH
against disinheriting Israel (14.11-19).41 Yet, despite this selfless service
and intercession, despite YHWH'S view of Moses as somehow more worthy
than Israel, and despite his lack of involvement in Israel's rebellion, Moses
is made to suffer, with the old Egyptian generation, exclusion from the
Promised Land.
Secondly, Moses' exclusion stands out in contrast to the exception that
YHWH makes for Joshua and Caleb. While Joshua has previously appeared
as a military leader in Israel (Exod. 17.9-14), and most prominently as
Moses' assistant (Exod. 24.13, 32.17, 33.11, Numbers 11.28), Caleb and
39. A further irregularity in the genealogy of Moses is the uncertain text regarding
Moses' parents in Num. 26.59, which literally reads, 'And the name of the wife of
Amram was Jochebed, daughter of Levi, who bore her to Levi in Egypt.' It seems that
the name of Jochebed's mother has been omitted, although the LXX, Syriac and
Vulgate versions present yet other readings. This textual uncertainty indicates ideological contention over the status of Moses in Israel.
40. Further support for this speculation is found in Num. 12.1, where Aaron and
Miriam speak against Moses because of his mixed marriage with a Cushite woman.
Although the identity of Cush is disputed (see Budd 1984: 136), Ethiopia, closely
associated with Egypt, is the most feasible candidate (the LXX makes this identification). However, the text immediately proceeds to a second reason for the opposition to
Moses, namely, a dispute concerning prophetic uniqueness; the notion of Moses'
mixed marriage is dropped and does not appear again.
41. Moses engages in exactly the same strategy on behalf of Israel in the earlier
incident of the golden calf (Exod. 32.7-14).
172
Joshua together are the chief characters in the story of the spies who are
sent out to recormoiter the Promised Land (chs. 13-14). Of the twelve
spies, only they encourage Israel to invade the land (14.6) and only they
survive the plague that kills the other spies (14.38). They alone are thus
singled out by YHWH as the only exceptions to the rule that the entire
Egyptian-born generation of Israel must die in the wilderness (14.30,
26.65, 32.12), the reason being that 'they wholly follow after YHWH'
(32.12).42 Yet their status pales in comparison to that of Moses, who is
praised as unequaled among Israel's prophets in the concluding encomium
of the Pentateuch (Deut. 34.10-12) and in YHWH'S panegyric in Num.
12.6-8. Nevertheless, Joshua and Caleb are allowed to enter the Promised
Land, while Moses is excluded.
The striking exclusion of Moses fits the dominant anti-Egyptian
ideology of the Pentateuch if Moses is seen as too closely associated with
Egypt. That is, even Moses must expire outside the land in order for the
break between Israel and Egypt to be final. However, while this reason
may be implicitly compelling as part of the overall ideological strategy of
the Pentateuch, on the narrative level a more explicit justification for
Moses' exclusion is required. And precisely such a justification is found in
the story of the complaint at the waters of Meribah (Num. 20.2-13). The
account in the scroll of Numbers is parallel to a similar story, also associated with Meribah, in Exod. 17.1 -7. As in the Exodus story, the people
complain of a lack of water, Moses (and Aaron) turn to YHWH for help,
water is miraculously provided from a rock, and the name of the place is
connected to the people's complaint. However, the story in Numbers has
its own unique features: YHWH commands Moses (and Aaron)43 to take
42. The exception of Joshua and Caleb is again mentioned in the retelling of the
story of the spies in Deut. 1.22-40. Caleb alone is mentioned as the exception in Num.
14.24 and Deut. 1.36, indicating that originally separate traditions about Caleb and
Joshua may have been fused in the present text, hi the end, Joshua figures more
prominently than Caleb in that he is commissioned as Moses' successor (Num. 27.1823, Deut. 31.14, 23). Note Kissling's argument that, in contrast to Moses, who is
sometimes portrayed as unreliable, Joshua is presented in the scroll of Joshua as a fully
reliable character independent of Moses (1996: 70). Earlier, on historical-critical
grounds, Dus (1976) argued that Joshua indeed was the true founder of Israel and that
only later, as a result of priestly politics, was the socio-religious work of Joshua
displaced onto Moses.
43. Aaron is mentioned in brackets because, as in many sections of the Pentateuch,
he is only partially integrated into the story and seems to have been incompletely
added to the text.
173
the staff, but not to strike the rock (as in Exod. 17.6) but speak to it so that
it issues water (20.8); Moses addresses an unexpected and ambiguous
question to the assembled people, 'Listen, rebels! From this rock, will
we bring forth water for you?' (20.10); Moses strikes the rock twice and
water issues forth (20.11); and YHWH condemns Moses (and Aaron) for
their actions and excludes them from the Promised Land (20.12). It seems
that a priestly writer has here rewritten the story in Exodus in order to
explain the exclusion of Moses from the Promised Land (see, e.g., Budd
1984:217).
The exact nature of the transgression of Moses, however, remains
unclear. That Moses strikes the rock twice (20.11) seems to emphasize that
he is not literally following YHWH'S command to speak to the rock (20.8).
Moreover, his question to the people (20.10) is surprising and seems to
imply that he is either emphasizing his own agency (over against YHWH'S)
in providing the water or is exhibiting an unwillingness to provide the
water (Olson 1996: 126-27).44 The verdict of the narrative is clear, however; whatever the exact nature of his sin, Moses (and Aaron) is excluded
from the land along with the rest of the rebellious Egyptian-born generation of Israel. As YHWH says, 'you did not trust/believe in me to sanctify
me before the eyes of the sons of Israel' (20.12a).45 While Moses calls the
people rebels (20.10), ironically it is Moses (and Aaron) who are assessed
as rebels in this instance, as the narrative later makes clear (20.24; 27.14).46
That Moses should be punished to this extreme for a vaguely articulated
transgression is especially striking when compared to Aaron's seemingly
far more serious involvement with the sin of the golden calf in Exod. 32,
an involvement that does not result in any dire consequences for him.
Moses' punishment seems to exceed the extent of his crime. The narrative
needs to justify the absence of Moses (and Aaron) from the head of the
44. Moses' unwillingness might be positively motivated. Olson (1996: 127) notes
that in the past when the people requested meat (Num. 11), they received meat but also
a plague from God (11.33). Perhaps, therefore, Moses is cautioning the people that the
satisfaction of their desires may in this case also prove detrimental.
45. Num. 20.12 is the only time that the belief or trust of Moses in YHWH is
brought into question. Elsewhere, it is the people's trust in YHWH (Exod. 4.31; 14.31;
Num. 14.11;Deut. 1.32; 9.23) or in Moses (Exod. 4.1-9, 31; 14.31; 19.19) that is the
issue. That Moses did not sanctify YHWH in the eyes of the people suggests that
perhaps Moses did not fulfill the duty of a client to maintain the honor of his patron.
46. The verb H~lQ ('to rebel') links these passages about Moses (and Aaron) with
the motif of the rebelliousness of the people especially in Deuteronomy (1.26,43; 9.7,
23-24; 31.27).
174
Israelite invasion of the Promised Land without incriminating them in any

direct and serious fashion; thus, the apparent deliberate vagueness of the
narrative as to the transgression that leads to their exclusion. Yet, the
break with Egypt must be complete. If the people as a whole failed in their
rebellion in the affair of the spies in Num. 13-14, and the Levites failed in
the rebellion of Korah in Num. 16-17, so now even the very leaders of the
Egyptian-born generation fail by an act of rebellion. The ideology of separation from Egypt is thus pushed to its logical extreme: all elements of
continuity with Egypt must be expurgated. And yet even here the element
of continuity represented by Joshua and Caleb, both apparently of the
Egyptian-born generation of Israel and both allowed to enter the Promised
Land, confounds the absolute separation that the text attempts to construct.
Absolute separation is a Utopian aspiration that is impossible in the real
world.
As in Numbers, the reason for Moses' death in Deuteronomy is linked
to the theme of rebellion in the wilderness. Deuteronomy (1.19-40) recounts the story of the spies and the people's consequent rebellion, a story
told in Num. 13-14. While generally following the contours of the story in
Numbers, the version in Deuteronomy adds these words of Moses: 'Also
with me YHWH was angry on your account, saying, "You also will not
enter there!'" (1.37). Whereas the exclusion of Moses from the Promised
Land is connected in Numbers (20.2-13) to his wrongdoing at the waters
of Meribah, in Deuteronomy the people's rebellion is to blame for Moses'
exclusion. Moses is vicariously linked to the great sin of the people although he himself is not at fault. That Caleb and Joshua escape implication
in the people's sin (1.36, 38) is even more striking in comparison.
The same reason for Moses' exclusion is presented twice more in
Deuteronomy. When Moses tells the people of his request that YHWH
allow him to cross the Jordan and see the 'good land', he reports:
YHWH became furious with me on your account, and would not listen to
me; and YHWH said to me, 'Enough! Do not speak to me again about this
matter!... For you will not cross over this Jordan' (3.26, 27b).47
And in the midst of an exhortation against idolatry that concludes

Moses' first speech in Deuteronomy, he reminds the people that 'YHWH
was angry with me because of your actions, and he vowed that I should
47. Near the end of Deuteronomy, Moses prepares Israel for his death and the
transition of leadership to Joshua by reminding the people again, 'YHWH said to me,
"You shall not cross over this Jordan'" (31.2).
175
not cross the Jordan' (4.21a). Thus repeatedly the reason given for Moses'
exclusion from the Promised Land is the fault of the people in which
Moses is made to share. A double image of Moses is presented; on the one
hand, Moses is separate from the people since he does not participate in
their sin, but, on the other hand, Moses is classified with the people in
order to legitimate his death outside the Promised Land. On the one hand,
thus, the text portrays a heroic Moses who stands above the people, but on
the other hand, Moses is made one with the Egyptian-tainted generation
of Israel.
At the end of Deuteronomy, however, the sin of Moses at the waters of
Meribah is given as the reason for his exclusion from the Promised Land
(32.50-52), just as in Numbers (20.2-13). Therefore, within the scroll of
Deuteronomy there is a tension between two very different explanations
for Moses' death, one attributing it to the sin of the people and the other to
his own sin. Matters are complicated even more by the actual account of
Moses' death at the end of Deuteronomy (34.1 -8) which mentions neither
of these reasons, but seems more concerned to portray Moses' death as
due, not to old age, but to divine causation (34.5, 7).48 Yet even this
description conflicts with the portrayal earlier of Moses' frailty because of
old age (31.2).
The figure of Moses in Deuteronomy is thus fraught with ambiguity.
Deuteronomy contains contending traditions legitimizing Moses' death
outside of the Promised Land and differing portrayals of Moses' state of
health at death. Moreover, the narrator's concluding encomium emphasizes the incomparability of Moses and 'all the strong hand and all the
great terrifying deeds which Moses did in the sight of all Israel' (32.12).
Earlier, however, Moses speaks of the promise that 'YHWH will raise up
for you a prophet like me' (18.15), and it is YHWH who is credited with the
strong hand and the great terrifying deeds (see esp. 4.34 and 26.8). The
figure of Moses, the great leader associated with Israel's ethnogenesis,
thus gives rise to an anxiety about Israel's origins that is articulated in
conflicting traditions and portrayals. That Moses is somehow central to the
constitution of Israel is acknowledged, but simultaneously his enduring
status as Israel's founder is undercut.49
48. The phrase mn' 'B'bjJ ('at the command of YHWH') literally means 'by
YHWH'S mouth', thus giving rise to the legend that Moses died by a divine kiss. The
description of Moses' vigor and undiminished eyesight at age 120 in 34.7 supports the
text's intention here to portray Moses' death as divinely caused.
49. In Deuteronomy, the undermining of a heroic or even (semi-) divine status for
176
Unlike Jacob's and Joseph's, not even the bones of Moses are allowed
to enter the Promised Land nor is his grave locatable.50 A midrash has
Moses complaining to God, 'You allowed Joseph's bones to be carried
into the land, why not mine?' And God replies, 'Joseph never denied his
origins, in Egypt he admitted he was a Hebrew (Gen. 40.15; cf. 39.14): but
when you were identified as an Egyptian by the daughters of the priest of
Midian (Exod. 2.19), you heard but held your peace' (quoted from Deut.
R. 2.8 in Goldin 1987: 221). Although this midrash stems from a time
much later than the production of the final text form of Deuteronomy, it
seems to correctly identify an important dynamic in the text that lies
behind the depiction of Moses' death outside the Promised Land. Namely,
direct continuity between Moses and Israel must be interrupted since
Moses is too closely associated with Egypt. And so only the record of
Moses' deeds and words outside of the land is allowed to survive, but no
enduring physical perpetuation, whether in the form of a gravesite or a
continuing family line. Not only does Moses perish outside the Promised
Land as part of the Egyptian-born generation, but unlike that generation,
his descendants have no share or inheritance (n^rTJ) in the good land
promised by YHWH (4.21).51
Moses is connected with a concern to portray Joshua as the legitimate successor of

Moses. Most of the references to Moses' death outside of the Promised Land lead
directly to a consideration of the succession of Joshua: 1.37-38; 3.27-28; 31.2-3. It is
Joshua, and not Moses, therefore, who completes the process of Israel's ethnogenesis
by establishing Israel in its true homeland. In a sense, Joshua usurps the position of
Moses as the founder of Israel, a move that is clearly portrayed in the book of Joshua
with its many parallels between the roles of Joshua and Moses (see Dus 1976).
50. Noth (1944) suggests that the location of Moses' grave was lost because it was
in inaccessible Moabite territory. The argument that an unknown grave would prevent
an ancestor cult from forming around Moses' tomb (Coats 1977: 42) seems to stem
from after the time Christians erected a sanctuary in honor of Moses on Mt Nebo. It
also clashes with the well-established and known burial places of the ancestors at
Hebron and Shechem. Loewenstamm (1976) suggests that the unknown grave tradition
covers up a tradition in which Moses was actually not buried at all but was directly
exalted or assumed into heaven or occulted in some way, similar to the story of Elijah
in 2 Kgs 12.11. This suggestion accords with other hints that the Pentateuch attempts
to counter the tradition of a more exalted Moses.
51. The erasure of Moses continues even into the much later Passover haggadahs,
which in their recounting of the exodus, make no explicit reference to Moses.
177
Pro-Egyptian Sentiments as Rebellion

A major theme running through Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy is
that of the people' s complaints and rebellions in the wilderness. This theme
has already been analyzed where it appears in the scroll of Exodus (14.1014; 15.22-25; 16.2-30; 17.1-7; 32.1-6), where it was found to function to
portray pro-Egyptian sentiments as anti-YHWH and thus anti-Israel. In the
following, the occurrences of this theme in Numbers and Deuteronomy
will be examined for their particular nuances and expansions on this theme.
The first occurrence of rebellion in Numbers appears in a circumstantial
clause that mentions the people complaining or murmuring52 of misfortune
in the hearing of YHWH (Num. 11.1 a). The substance of the complaint is
unknown; however, YHWH reacts with anger, sending a fire that consumes
the edges of the camp (11 .lb). The people cry out to Moses, Moses intercedes with YHWH, and the danger is averted. The pattern of this complaint
story displays significant differences from the previous complaint stories
in Exodus. 'The divine intervention comes much earlier in the development of this story, and brings punishment rather than aid' (Budd 1984:
118). Also, Moses, instead of requesting YHWH'S help for Israel, becomes
the intercessor saving Israel from YHWH'S wrath. In other words, the
nature of the theme of rebellion seems to have changed. That YHWH'S
response to the people's complaining is much harsher and indeed punitive
indicates that complaints are no longer to be tolerated. In fact, they seem
to be characteristic of the old Egyptian-born generation that needs to die in
the wilderness.
Egypt enters into the more detailed story of complaint that immediately
follows. The complaint seems to have a twofold source: the 'gathered
people/rabble',33 who exhibit a strong craving/desire, and the sons of
Israel, who again weep (Num. 11.4). It is likely that the heterogeneous
nature of the people who emerged from Egypt is being highlighted.54 The
52. The rare verb pN is used. Its meaning both here and in Lam. 3.39, the only
other place in the Hebrew Bible where it is used, is uncertain; similar words in cognate
languages suggest the meaning of complaining'.
53. The word "pBOKn, which appears only here, literally denotes a gathering of
people and does not necessarily have any negative connotations. However, the association with strong craving or lust may indicate a negative assessment (see, e.g., Deut.
5.21).
54. Note the similarity with Exod. 12.38 where a 'mixed crowd' is described as
exiting Egypt together with the sons of Israel. The 'gathered people/rabble' in this case
178
complaint itself features a positive depiction of Egypt as a place offering a

varied diet at no cost, including meat, especially in contrast to the rather
monotonous (and vegetarian) wilderness fare of manna:
Who will feed us meat? We remember the fish which we ate in Egypt for
nothing (DDIl), the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions and the
garlic; but now our appetite is dried up, there is nothing at all, except for the
manna before our eyes (Num.11.4b-6).
The same complaint is reiterated three more times: once in the words of
Moses to YHWH (11.13), and twice in the words of YHWH to the people
(11.18, 20). In this voice of complaint, Egypt is positively assessed as a
place of plenty and variety in which Israel's hunger was satisfied for
free.55 In contrast, the present situation of the people is one of hardship.
The description of the effort required in order to gather and process the
manna (11.7-8) further underlines the contrast between what appears to be
a rather effortless life in Egypt and the arduous task of survival in the
wilderness. These sentiments are attributed to the Egyptian-born generation of Israel, and that this generation cannot seem to make a definitive
break with Egypt justifies the strategy in Numbers of replacing it with a
new generation to inherit the Promised Land.
In this complaint, voice is given to a pro-Egyptian perspective, one that
holds a positive evaluation of Egypt vis-a-vis the ethnogenesis of Israel,
but which the narrative seeks to undermine. The rhetorical strategy of the
narrative is to give this positive evaluation of Egypt a voice, but to make it
a voice of complaint and rebellion against YHWH, thus negating its
legitimacy. Overall, the memory of Egypt as a positive place of plenty is
not sanctioned, being branded as a false recollection produced by complaint and rebellion. Conversely, the memory of Egypt as a negative place
of slavery and oppression is officially sanctioned and given an institutionalized means of maintenance and perpetuation in ordinances such as
those for the celebration of Passover.
But the scroll of Numbers goes beyond only negating the legitimacy of
a pro-Egyptian perspective; it also demonstrates that such a perspective
are described as '3"lpD ('in his/its midst', 11.4), presumably in the midst of Israel.
Thus, the heterogeneous nature of the people is indicated while at the same time a
sense of distinction is maintained between the sons of Israel and the others with them.
55. The word DDn can mean 'at no cost', but it can also signify 'for no purpose'.
Thus, while the complainers may picture themselves eating in Egypt for free, the
narrative may subtly imply that, while in Egypt, the people were eating without any
purpose. (See the similar play of meanings in the use of D3PT in Job 1.9.)
179
leads to divine wrath and punishment. YHWH indeed heeds the complaint
of the people by providing them with meat in the form of quails, but this
meat will become strange or loathsome (11.20),56 and, just as they begin to
eat it, a plague strikes them (11.33).57 The divine response to the complaint is not just aid, but more punishment. Such complaints, and the
alternative pro-Egyptian perspective they embody, are not to be tolerated
in the body politic of Israel.
The climax to the theme of rebellion in the scroll of Numbers comes with
the story of the spies who are sent out to reconnoiter the Promised Land
(13.1-25). They bring back a report that verifies the fruitfulness of the land
(13.26-27), but emphasizes the danger posed by the formidable inhabitants
who are described as giants living in fortresses (13.28-29, 31-33). In
response, the people weep and raise a complaint against Moses and Aaron:
'If only we had died in the land of Egypt, or if only in this wilderness we
had died! Why is YHWH bringing us into this land to fall by the sword?
our women and our little ones will become plunder! Would it not be better
for us to return to Egypt?' And each man said to his brother,' Let us appoint
a leader58 and let us return to Egypt' (Num. 14.2b-4).
The entire collapse of the ethnogenesis of Israel as the dominant

ideology of the Pentateuch envisions it is threatened in this complaint. The
very existence of Israel as a distinct people under its God YHWH has been
premised on separation from Egypt. Now the people threaten to undo this
separation by seeking to return to Egypt. This notion of return to Egypt is
anathema to the ideological purpose of the Pentateuch. In this complaint,
then, is articulated an alternative pro-Egyptian perspective in a manner that
sets it into the most stark opposition with the goal and purpose of the
exodus. Correspondingly, the consequence or punishment is also harsher
than any encountered thus far; namely, the exclusion of the entire Egyptianborn generation from the Promised Land by condemnation to death in the
wilderness.
56. The word HIT is possibly an error for N~IT (see the Samaritan Pentateuch),
which is derived from "TIT ('to be strange, foreign'), with connotations of repugnance.
The LXX reads x^Pav('cholera'), indicating that the meat will give the people
gastro-intestinal pain and disease.
57. The phrase n~O' n~ICD (lit. 'before it will be cut off), can mean that the plague
strikes the people as soon as they put the meat into their mouths, even before they
begin chewing (see NJPS).
58. Alternatively, the phrase here could mean something like 'let us set a (new)
direction' or 'let us head back' (see NJPS).
180
The pro-Egyptian perspective revealed in this complaint conceives of

the Promised Land as a place of war in which the men will fall by the
sword and the women and children will be taken as plunder. In contrast,
by implication Egypt is seen as a place of relative safety and stability
where war does not threaten. Such a perspective is portrayed in the text as
mutinous since it results in the people's decision to choose a new leader
and return to Egypt. Ironically, while the desire of the people to return to
Egypt is rejected, their wish to die in the wilderness is granted; thrice
YHWH emphasizes that their corpses will fall in the wilderness (14.29,32,
33). Just as the corpses of the Egyptians littered the shores of the sea
(Exod. 14.30), so now the corpses of the Egyptian-born generation will
litter the wilderness.59
While the story of the spies demonstrates the worst kind of rebellion,
resulting in the exclusion of the Egyptian-born generation from the
Promised Land, several further examples of rebellion follow in Numbers.
Numbers 16 presents two rebellions that are rather uneasily interwoven:
the Levitical rebellion of Korah against the priestly prerogatives of the
family of Aaron, and the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram,60 of the tribe of
Reuben, against the leadership of Moses.61 While the rebellion of Korah
does not explicitly involve Egypt, Dathan and Abiram, in their resistance
to Moses, use Egypt as a point of comparison:
We will not go up! Was it not enough that you brought us up from a land
flowing with milk and honey to cause our death in the wilderness, that you
also insist on playing the chief over us? Moreover, into a land flowing with
milk and honey you have not brought us, nor have you given us an
inheritance of field and vineyard. Would you gouge out the eyes62 of these
men? We will not go up! (Num. 16.13-14).
59. The complete end of the Egyptian-born generation is emphasized by the use of
the verb nan (14.33, 35).
60. A certain On, son of Peleth, is also mentioned with Dathan and Abiram in 16.1,
but does not subsequently appear elsewhere in the story.
61. Source critics assign the rebellion of Korah to P, and the rebellion of Dathan
and Abiram to JE (Budd 1984: 181-86). In the present text, the rebellion of Korah
provides the dominant framework for the story, into which traces of the rebellion of
Dathan and Abiram are placed (Milgrom 1990:414-23). The end result in the final text
is a portrayal of rebellion against both the political authority of Moses and the religious
authority of Aaron.
62. The phrase is an idiom approximately equivalent to 'pulling the wool over the
eyes'; i.e. acting deceptively or hoodwinking.
181
Remarkably, Egypt is described as a land flowing with milk and honey

in this complaint, a description that hitherto has been used only of the
Promised Land;63 in fact, the spies had just previously portrayed the
Promised Land exactly as flowing with milk and honey (Num. 13.27;
14.8). It seems, therefore, that the very description applied to the Promised
Land was employed also in a positive view of Egypt. As was already
noted in the analysis of Egypt in the scroll of Exodus, if the phrase 'flowing with milk and honey' is generally symbolic of fertility and abundance,
then Egypt has as much, if not more, of a claim than Palestine to this
description. Yet this positive evaluation of Egypt is here proscribed as a
symptom of complaint and rebellion.
This particular complaint is leveled against the authority of Moses, and
is thus reminiscent of the challenge to Moses' leadership already back in
Egypt (Exod. 2.13-14). Not only is Moses directly defied in the twice repeated words, 'We will not go up!' that frame the complaint (Num. 16.12,
14), but he is also accused of being deceptive, of enticing the people with
promises of abundance, of fields and vineyards, which he obviously has
not been able to fulfill. The implication is that the best course of action is
to return to Egypt, although this option is not explicitly stated in the text.64
Again, while voice is here given to what was likely a viewpoint among
those to whom the Pentateuch is directed, that viewpoint is delegitimized
by being cast as a voice of defiance and complaint. The complaint is
furthermore joined with the rebellion against the priestly prerogatives of
the house of Aaron, a rebellion that is severely punished by the destruction
of the instigators and their families (16.23-35), and by a plague from
YHWH that kills 14,700 Israelites before Aaron is able to intervene with a
ritual of atonement (16.41-50). Again, a clear message is conveyed that a
pro-Egyptian perspective that articulates the possibility of a reversal of the
exodus is absolutely intolerable and subjects its adherents to divine
punishment and annihilation.65
Another rebellion takes place at Kadesh, where a lack of water incites
63. Exod. 3.8, 17; 13.5; 33.3; Lev. 20.24; Num. 13.27; 14.8.
64. The verb nbu ('to go up') is used in general of the exodus from Egypt (e.g.
Gen. 50.24; Exod. 3.8,17; Lev. 11.45, and in the present passage, Num. 16.13); thus,
the refusal here to 'go up' implies a rejection of the exodus and the desire to return to
Egypt. Is it possible that, in the refusal 'we will not go up!', is heard the voice of
Judeans in the Egyptian diaspora during the Persian period?
65. The punishments that come as consequences of these complaints show again
that the rhetoric against a pro-Egyptian perspective has escalated in Numbers when
compared to Exodus.
182
the people to bring a legal complaint p1"!) against Moses and Aaron
(Num. 20.2-3):
If only we had expired when our brothers expired before YHWH! And why
have you brought the congregation of YHWH into this wilderness, to die
there, we and our cattle? And why did you bring us up from Egypt to bring
us into this evil place, not a place of seed and fig and vine and pomegranate;
and there is not even water to drink!? (Num. 20.3-5).
This complaint reiterates the features of previous complaints, namely,

that the real goal of the exodus is death in the wilderness, that the promise
of a bountiful land has not been fulfilled, and that, by implication, the
people should never have left Egypt because Egypt at least was a place of
plenty. The fig, vine and pomegranate mentioned in the complaint are
precisely the examples of produce brought back from the Promised Land
by the spies (13.23), thus painting the present complaint as a notorious
example of distrust. Again, voice is given to a pro-Egyptian perspective
but in such a way that it can only be interpreted as an act of unfaithfulness.
In the end, this incident of complaint also has a detrimental consequence
in that it leads to the exclusion of Moses and Aaron from the Promised
Land (20.12).
A final story of rebellion occurs in Numbers when the king of Edom
refuses to grant Israel passage through his territory (20.14-21). The people
are forced to make a detour around Edom and become impatient, speaking
against God and Moses:
Why have you (plural) brought us up from Egypt to die in the wilderness?
For there is no bread and no water, and we abhor this accursed/worthless
bread! (Num. 21.5).
Familiar features occur again: the notion that the exodus from Egypt is a
mistake leading to death in the wilderness, and the description of lack in
the wilderness, implicitly contrasted with plenty in Egypt. However, in
this case the complaint is directed not only against Moses but also against
God.66 It is also contradictory, in that both a lack of bread and a loathing
of the bread that was being provided in the wilderness (the manna) are
mentioned at the same time. Thus, the very shape of their complaint
undermines the integrity of those complaining. Divine retribution follows
immediately, without any chance for Moses to intercede until after the
punishment has already begun (21.6-7). So not only is a pro-Egyptian
66. The generic DTI ^N ('God') is used in Num. 21.5.
183
perspective portrayed as deserving of divine wrath, but also as inherently

fabricated.
The punishment comes in the form of poisonous "pto ('snakes', 21.6)67
and is mitigated only when Moses erects a copper representation of one of
these snakes on a standard; looking at this representation would effect the
homeopathic healing of those bitten (21.8-9). The homeopathic use of
snakes, while widespread in the ancient world, is especially distinctive of
ancient Egypt; Egypt is also the home for images of winged snakes
(Milgrom 1990: 459-60). The Egyptian associations of Moses are thus
strengthened. It is also fitting that this last unconvincing complaint of the
Egyptian-born generation is met with a punishment evocative of Egypt.
The scroll of Deuteronomy describes the rebellions and complaints of
the people in the wilderness as a constant feature since the exodus (Deut.
9.7) or since Moses has known the people (Deut. 9.24).68 However, only
once does the scroll actually quote the rebellious voice of the people, hi
retelling the story of the spies (1.19-40), Moses reports that the people
grumbled, 'Because YHWH hates us, he has brought us out from the land
of Egypt, to give us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us!' (1.27).
In this single utterance is summarized the scroll's judgment of the people's
rebellion; it is nothing less than an act of distrust that imputes evil motives
to YHWH.69 To question the separation from Egypt that is at the root of the
Pentateuch's definition of Egypt is thus painted as apostasy.
These stories of complaint and rebellion are portrayed as characteristic
of the Egyptian-born generation of Israel, to be replaced by the new
generation of hope enumerated in the second census of Num. 26. A constitutive element of these complaints is the expression of nostalgia for Egypt,
expressed variously by the reproach that the only outcome of the exodus
will be the death of the people in the wilderness, by a comparison that
glorifies the people's previous state in Egypt over against the present and
67. The root f]~\^D means 'to burn' and has been taken to refer to the burning effect
of the poison of these snakes or their glittering coppery appearance. However, they are
more likely to be related to the mythical winged serpent-deities or seraphim (see Isa.
6.2, 6; 14.29; 30.6).
68. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the LXX portray Israel in 9.24 as rebellious ever
since YHWH has known them.
69. The accusation that YHWH hates the people is later echoed in the description of
Moses' appeal to YHWH after the incident of the golden calf; Moses informs YHWH
that, if he abandons the people, Egypt will say that it is because YHWH hated the
people from the beginning (Deut. 9.28). Thus, the accusation is portrayed as
quintessentially Egyptian.
184
future, and by the desire, usually implicit, to return to Egypt (Romer 1991:
157).70 While the narratives of these complaints begin in the scroll of
Exodus, it is in Numbers that they are shown to lead to dire consequences.71 The ideological message conveyed by these narratives is clearly
one that stigmatizes or censures any critique of the necessity of exodus or
separation from Egypt; the question HE1? ('why?') in the complaints is
never given an explicit response except for divine disapproval of the very
question itself. Such a rhetorical strategy indicates that, in the audience
towards which the Pentateuch was directed, there existed a pro-Egyptian
perspective that called into question the Pentateuch's entire project of
constructing Israel's identity over and against Egypt. This perspective had
to be undermined and delegitimized in the strongest and yet most persuasive manner possible. And so, while this alternative perspective was
given a voice in the narrative, the voice it is given is one of rebellion
against YHWH that can only lead to disaster.
Prohibition of Return to Egypt
In the series of complaints in the wilderness, the height of the people's
rebellion was reached with the explicit suggestion that they return to Egypt
(Num. 14.4).n The notion of a return to Egypt is also implicit in many of
the people's complaints that describe Egypt in glowing terms in comparison to their present state in the wilderness. This ideological trajectory
culminates in the scroll of Deuteronomy with two explicit references to
returning to Egypt. First, in the 'law of the king' (17.14-20), the notion of
70. Only in Num. 14.3-4, however, do the people explicitly plan to return to Egypt.
71. Each of the narratives of complaint in Exodus has a corresponding narrative in
Numbers: Exod. 14.10-12, describing the people's reluctance to leave Egypt corresponds to Num. 14.1-4. describing their reluctance to enter the Promised Land; Exod.
16.2-3 describes a complaint based on lack of food, corresponding to the complaint
regarding the lack of meat in Num. 11.4-6,18-20; and Exod. 17.1-3 details a complaint
about the lack of water, corresponding to a similar complaint in Num. 20.2-5 (Romer
1991: 156). Numbers is thus building on the pattern already established in Exodus.
However, Numbers also includes the additional narratives of the complaint raised by
Dathan and Abiram (16.12-14) and the final contradictory complaint regarding bread
(21.5); this surplus indicates that the motif of rebellion and complaint reaches a climax
in Numbers. Deuteronomy generalizes the theme of rebellion by making it a longstanding characteristic of the people.
72. The notion of a return to Egypt was already raised before the people even
crossed the sea (Exod. 13.17).
185
an Israelite monarchy is legitimized as long as certain restrictions are met,

among them the following limitation on the king's trade in horses:
He is not to multiply horses for himself; and he is not to return the people to
Egypt in order to multiply horses; Since YHWH has said to you, 'You will
not return on that road again!' (Deut. 17.16).
The horses in this prohibition likely refer figuratively to the large professional armies of horses and chariots acquired by kings in the ancient
world; Solomon is later explicitly described as having a large army of
horses and chariots (1 Kgs 10.26) and as engaging in the importation of
horses and chariots from Egypt for resale to the kings of the Hittites and
of Aram (1 Kgs 10.28-29). Of special interest here are two items: first, that
a prohibition of YHWH against return to Egypt is invoked, a prohibition
that is not found explicitly elsewhere, and second, that a scenario is portrayed in which this proscribed return of the people73 to Egypt is used to
multiply the king's military resources.74
The second explicit reference to a return to Egypt appears as the culminating punishment (28.68) in a long list of curses that are threatened as
consequences of disobedience to the covenant (28.15-68):
And YHWH will return you to Egypt in ships on the road of which I said to
you, 'You shall not see it again!'; And you will put yourselves up for sale
there to your enemies as male and female slaves, but there will be no buyer
(Deut. 28.68).
Again, of interest here are two items: first, the quotation of a prohibition, this
time stemming from Moses, against seeing Egypt, or the road to Egypt,
again,75 and second, the depiction of a return of the people to Egypt in
boats,76 instigated by YHWH as apunishment, andrelatedto the trade in slaves.
73. The term DOT ('the people') is very general; it could refer to mercenaries or
slaves that were exchanged for horses, or, as suggested by Reimer (1990: 227-28), to
the ambassadors sent to Egypt to negotiate an exchange of military aid for horses, as in
the fable recounted in Ezek. 17.15. However, CUil seems often in the Pentateuch to be
a designation for Israel.
74. Similar polemic against relying on Egypt for horses and military aid is found in
Isa. 31.1; Ezek. 17.15; 29.16.
75. Reimer (1990: 224-25) argues that the parallel in Exod. 14.13 is the basis of
the Deuteronomy passage through a process of inner-biblical legal exegesis.
76. The detail about returning to Egypt 'in boats' is puzzling. While the exodus
route from Egypt to the Promised Land proceeds overland, a quicker route would
likely be one along the coast in boats. Some sort of maritime interchange with Egypt
seems to be envisioned (and condemned) in this verse. See Gorg (1984c), who, on the
186
In Deuteronomy thus one finds both a direct prohibition of a return to

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

the yoke of slavery and YHWH as signifying freedom from this yoke. The
portrayal of Egypt here matches the label 'house of slaves' given to Egypt
in Exodus and Deuteronomy.78 While the yoke is often a negative figure of
basis of a 7th-century BCE Judean seal published by Avigad (1982), postulates the
existence of a pro-Egyptian circle in Jerusalem or Judah that made use of Egyptian
boat symbolism in its onomastics and iconography.
77. The notion of a return to Egypt also appears several times in Hosea, usually as
a punishment for Ephraim (8.13; 9.3), but seems to be prohibited in 11.5 (Reimer
1990:219).
78. Exod. 12.3,14; 20.2; Deut. 5.6; 6.12; 7.8; 8.14; 13.6 [5], 11 [10]. See also Josh.
187
oppressive servitude (e.g. Deut. 28.43; Ezek. 34.27; Gen. 27.40), it is also
used more positively or neutrally to symbolize proper obedience, even to
YHWH (e.g. Jer. 2.20; 5.5; and chs. 27 and 28). Thus, the issue here is less
one of freedom from restraint79 and more one of serving the proper master.
In other words, YHWH broke Egypt's yoke in order that Israel might take
on his yoke and serve him, the implication being that serving Egypt and
serving YHWH are incompatible.80
Of course, this passage, although its context is one that emphasizes the
importance of obedience to YHWH, does not speak explicitly of the yoke of
YHWH, and neither does the rest of the Pentateuch. The figure of the yoke
is reserved as a negative figure identified only with Israel's 'others'. This,
however, erases the notion, on the one hand, that obedience to the particular ideology sanctified in the text by the invocation of the name YHWH
could also be seen as a yoke,81 and, on the other hand, that taking up the
yoke of a foreign nation can be interpreted as precisely the way that YHWH
means to be served. If Jeremiah can counsel Israel that to serve YHWH
means to submit to the yoke of Babylon (Jer. 27-28), then it is theoretically possible to argue the same for the yoke of Egypt. But this the text
does not want to allow.
Deuteronomy frequently associates Egypt with slavery. The characterization of Egypt as a 'house of slaves' is found throughout the scroll, beginning with the autokerygmatic statement at the beginning of the Decalogue:
'I am YHWH your God, who brought you out from the land of Egypt, from
the house of slaves' (Deut. 5.6).82 Similar is the repeated reminder that the
addressees were once slaves in Egypt.83 The Passover in Deuteronomy is
also much more explicitly made into a reminder of oppression in Egypt: the
unleavened bread is described, uniquely in the Hebrew Bible, as the 'bread
of affliction' (16.3). The verse otherwise focuses on the explanation, already
encountered in Exod. 12.39, that the bread is unleavened because of the
hasty departure of the people in the exodus. The notice regarding the
24.17; Judg. 6.8; Jer. 34.13.

79. A decidedly modern notion of freedom which it would be anachronistic to
import into this ancient text. See especially the critique of the interpretation of the
exodus by liberation theologians in Levenson (1993b).
80. Whether serving Persia and serving YHWH are incompatible is conveniently not
discussed by the text.
81. Note YHWH'S claim in 25.42, 55 that the sons of Israel are his slaves.
82. See also Deut. 6.12; 7.8; 8.14; 13.6 [5], 11 [10].
83. Deut. 5.15; 6.21; 15.15; 16.12; 24.18, 22.
188
'bread of affliction' thus seems to be a secondary explanatory expansion

that highlights the association of Egypt with oppression.
Deuteronomy also associates Egypt several times with disease (7.18;
28.27, 60). This association occurs in the context of the divine threat that
if Israel disobeys the covenant, Israel will suffer again the diseases that
were experienced in Egypt. A life of exposure to disease is portrayed as
normal in Egypt; in contrast, if the people are obedient to the terms of the
covenant, such disease will not strike them in the Promised Land. Thus, on
the one hand, Egypt is rejected, but, on the other hand, Egypt returns as a
threat that can foreclose on Israel's identity.
An explicit contrast is drawn between Egypt and the Promised Land in
Deuteronomy in terms of horticulture. Whereas the land of Egypt is
characterized as one where 'you sow your seed and water it with your foot
as a garden of greens' (Deut. 11.10), the Promised Land is described as
one of hills and valleys which are watered by rain at the behest of YHWH
(Deut. 11.11,14). This comparison means to show the Promised Land in a
more favorable light than Egypt; namely, Egypt is watered by a system of
irrigation that is dependent on human initiative and effort, whereas the
Promised Land is freely watered by the divine gift of rain. While such a
comparison may work on a theological level, on a pragmatic level it is not
very convincing; as Eslinger remarks, 'only a fool would try to convince
someone that the intermittent Palestinian rainfall was a superior water
supply to the irrigation of the Nile valley' (1987:87). The lists of Egyptian
garden produce in some of the complaints of the people (Num. 11.5; 20.5)
support the notion that the description of Egypt as a 'garden of greens'
(Deut. 11.10) seems actually to be quite a positive description, one that
may reflect the trace of a pro-Egyptian perspective.84
However, the interpretation of the phrase 'water with your foot' (Deut.
11.10) as a description of irrigation flounders on the difficulty of correlating it with any irrigation method known in the ancient context of the text's
production (Eslinger 1987: 86, 89). This makes attractive Eslinger's suggestion that the phrase employs the common biblical euphemism in which
the 'foot' stands for the genitals. Thus, to 'water with the foot' becomes a
derogatory and disgusting debasement of the green gardens of Egypt to
84. One might also recall the comparison made between Egypt, the garden of
YHWH, and the well-watered plain of the Jordan in Gen. 13.10, as well as the association of green plants for food with the creation account in Gen. 1.30. On the other
hand, the only other occurrence in the Hebrew Bible of the phrase 'garden of greens'
may be derogatory; it appears in the story of King Ahab's desire for Naboth's
vineyard, which he wants to turn into a 'garden of greens' (1 Kgs 21.2).
189
urine-watered cesspools.85 What seems at first glance to be a rather positive assessment of Egypt, is turned, via the use of a euphemism, into a
negative and degrading picture. Such an inversion fits well with the
strategy encountered before in the Pentateuch of articulating a proEgyptian perspective only in order to cast it in a negative light.
One further description of Egypt is unique to Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, although it appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible; that is, the
depiction of Egypt as the 'iron smelter' from which YHWH has taken the
people to be his own possession (4.20).86 This image of Egypt seems
negative at first glance; taken as functionally equivalent to the description
of Egypt as a 'house of slaves', it appears to indicate the white-hot agony
and pain of oppression. But the image of the iron smelter is also that of a
crucible in which a stronger and superior substance is produced. Egypt as
a crucible represents the liminal phase in a rite-of-passage.87 In the smelter, soft iron ore is heated and carburized, existing in a liminal state between what it was and what it will become, finally to be quenched and to
emerge transformed into a far stronger metal. So also Egypt is where Israel
exists in a liminal state, no longer a family but in the process of being
forged into a people or nation. In crossing out of Egypt through the waters
of the sea, Israel is 'quenched' and becomes a people. The image of Egypt
as an iron smelter thus draws on the positive transformative associations of
iron-producing technology,88 making Egypt into an indispensable element
in the ethnogenesis of Israel. At the same time, this image serves the
dominant ideology of the Pentateuch in that it not only presents Israel's
Egyptian experience as positively transformative, but also presents the
necessity of withdrawal from the smelter, that is, separation from Egypt.
Complicating the Insider-Outsider Boundary
The scrolls of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy fairly consistently
present Egypt in negative terms and support the ideology of Exodus that
insists on a separation of Israel from Egypt that allows for no possibility of
85. See the parallel passages of 2 Kgs 18.27 and Isa. 36.12, where the Qere
suggests the phrase 'waters of the foot' for the noun 'urine'.
86. See also 1 Kgs 8.51 and Jer. 11.4.
87. In the classic formulation of rites-of-passage as first outlined by van Gennep
and further developed by Victor Turner (1969), there are three phases: separation, a
liminal or marginal phase, and aggregation.
88. On the use of iron technology in the context of the formation of Israel, see
McNutt(1988, 1990).
190
return. However, as was already pointed out in the analysis of Egypt,

various complications and ambiguities cloud the sharp distinctions or
boundaries that the text wishes to draw between Israel and Egypt. Already
in Exodus, the legal prescriptions pertaining to the relatively equal status
of the ~i; ('resident alien') and the mTK ('native, indigene') revealed that
the boundary between Israel and Egypt is more porous than the ideology
of the Pentateuch wishes to allow. Similar prescriptions in Leviticus
confirm and extend this analysis.159
mTK refers to someone who is part of the established and dominant
kinship group of the sons or house of Israel,90 and thus has access to the
family's landed property. A ~U, in contrast, lives in the same territory but
is not a member of this dominant kinship group, and has no guaranteed or
permanent access to the land, and is thus vulnerable to exploitation and
dependent for protection on patrons from the dominant kinship group.91
Leviticus consistently calls for equal responsibilities and equal treatment
of these two socio-economic groups (16.29; 17.8-16; 18.26; 20.2; 22.1820; 24.16-22). Furthermore, Israel is admonished:
When a resident alien resides with you in your land, you will not oppress
him; As the native from among you shall be for you the resident alien with
you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were resident aliens in the
land of Egypt. I (am) YHWH your God (Lev. 19.33-34).
Here Leviticus goes beyond the stipulation in Exodus (22.20 [21]; 23.9)
to refrain from oppressing the resident alien in that Israel is to love the
resident alien as if he or she were a native Israelite.92 The motive for such
89. The use of the paired terms "13 and mtK is especially prevalent in Leviticus
(16.29; 17.15; 18.26; 19.34; 24.16, 22; 25.23, 35,47). It also appears in the Passover
legislation in Numbers (9.14; 15.13-14,29, 30), mirroring Exodus (12.19,48,49), but
is absent in Deuteronomy.
90. See 17.8-15, where the contrast between the house/sons of Israel and the
resident alien, becomes the contrast between the indigene and the resident alien. In
19.34, the indigene is a person who is 'from you', meaning 'one of you' (the ]Q of
source or origin), whereas the resident alien is one who is 'with you'; i.e. dependent
upon you for protection as a client. For the producers of Leviticus, it is self-evident that
the indigene is a son of Israel.
91. Leviticus recognizes the vulnerable position of resident aliens by classifying
them with the poor f]JJ) in 19.10 and 23.22.
92. Just a few verses previous, Israel is admonished: 'You shall love your neighbor
(in) as yourself (19.18). By 'neighbor' is meant a fellow-citizen or a person with
whom one has reciprocal relationships; in other words, an associate located within the
dominant kinship group of Israel, an insider as opposed to the resident alien who is an
191
behavior is the experience of Israel as resident aliens in the land of Egypt.

That experience is usually interpreted as a negative example: the oppression which Israel experienced as resident aliens in Egypt, Israel is to avoid
perpetuating when it becomes the dominant group in the land. However, it
is also possible to read Israel's Egyptian experience as apositive example:
just as Israel experienced fair and equitable treatment as resident aliens in
Egypt, so also should Israel extend such favorable treatment to resident
aliens.
Positive examples of Israel's experience as resident aliens in Egypt are
found in Genesis, even though YHWH'S prophecy to Abraham in Gen.
15.13 that his offspring will be enslaved and oppressed as resident aliens
in a foreign land for 400 years already predisposes the audience of the
Pentateuchal narrative to perceive Egypt negatively. Nonetheless, Abraham is enriched by Egypt and through Joseph Israel receives a bountiful
welcome in Egypt. Only with the beginning of Exodus does the Pentateuchal narrative actually portray Israel's Egyptian experience as one of
oppression (Exod. 1.11-14; 2.11; 3.7-9; 4.31; 5.4-23; 6.6-9). However, this
explicit portrayal of Egyptian oppression does not appear in the following
plague narrative or in the account of the actual exodus; nor does it appear
again in the subsequent stories of the wilderness wanderings or in the legal
material until Deut. 26.93 In other words, the tradition of the ancestors in
Genesis, and much of the legal material, especially in Exodus, Leviticus
and Numbers, does not necessarily presuppose a negative experience of
Israel in Egypt. And yet, by framing the Pentateuchal narrative at the
beginning with a proleptic anticipation of Egypt as oppressive (Gen.
15.13), and at the end with an analeptic retrospect of Egypt as oppressive
(Deut. 26.6-7), the narrative disseminates an overpowering view of Egypt
as predominantly a negative experience and example.
Returning to the passage at hand, that Israel is portrayed as resident
aliens in Egypt supports the Pentateuch's dominant view that the people
from whom Israel was formed were never indigenous to Egypt. However,
outsider. Therefore, the admonition in 19.34 to love the resident alien as oneself is
more radical in that it involves crossing or erasing the boundary between insider and
outsider.
93. That is, the terminology describing oppression (!"I317, ''DJJ, fnb, tao, and
ntop nTQU) does not appear to report Israel's experience in Egypt. However, there are
references to Egypt as a 'house of slaves' (Exod. 12.3, 14; 20.2; Deut. 5.6; 6.12; 7.8;
8.14; 13.6, 11), and a reference to unleavened bread as the 'bread of oppression/
poverty' (Deut. 16.3).
192
by insisting at the same time that the distinction between native and
resident alien is to be disregarded or erased, the text also implicitly
undermines the distinction between Israel as resident alien in Egypt and
the native Egyptians.
More significant is that Israel is here addressed as, and equated with, the
native or indigene. If the context of enunciation is Israel in the wilderness,
for which the most recent landed experience is that of Egypt, the implication is that Israel was originally native to Egypt. If the context of enunciation is, however, understood proleptically as Israel in the Promised Land,
then the implication is that Israel is native to Canaan.94 Interestingly, both
options clash with the notion in Genesis of Israel's Mesopotamian origins.95
It seems that the categories of 'native' and 'resident alien' are fluid and
contingent upon the ideological interests of the users of these terms. To
portray Israel as resident aliens in Egypt and as indigenous in Canaan may
suit an ideology that seeks to promote Israel's lack of roots in Egypt and its
claim to ownership of Canaan, but that ideology trips over its inherent
contradictions, not least with a tradition of origins in Mesopotamia.
The regulations regarding the sale of property and debt-slavery in Lev.
25 offer a particularly interesting view of how Leviticus further understands the status of the resident alien and the native in relation to the
exodus from Egypt. The chapter contains references to a number of socioeconomic strata of society: from the lowest to the highest strata, one finds
references to slaves (CH2U), both male (132) and female (ni2) (25.6,39,
42, 44), then the seasonal laborer (TDC?) and tenant laborer (327in, 25.6,
23, 35,40,45,47, 50,53), then the resident alien (12,25.23, 35,47), and,
finally, the landholders, indicated by references to their inalienable
property (nTHN, 25.10, 13, 24, 25, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 41, 45, 46).96 Over94. These laws in Leviticus (and the rest of the Pentateuch), by virtue of their
concerns with the experience of a landed people, seem proleptically to be addressing
the Israel that is settled in the land of promise. In the temporal scheme of the narrative,
of course, it is the Israel-in-formation and on the move in the wilderness of Sinai that is
here being addressed; but for this Israel the designations 'native' and 'resident alien'
would presumably have little meaning. The interpretation of these terms in the
narrative thus depends on whether the liminal wilderness period is seen as leaning back
to the previous Egyptian experience or leaning forward in anticipation of the fully
formed and landed people of Israel who will emerge in the end.
95. The ancestors who hark back to Mesopotamia, including Abraham, Lot, Isaac,
Jacob and Esau, are consistently described in Genesis as resident aliens in the land of
Canaan (Gen. 17.8; 28.4; 36.7; 37.1; Exod. 6.4).
96. Interestingly, the term n~lTR ('native') is not used in this chapter.
193
lapping with this list are references to categories of kinship or kin

proximity, such as brother or close relative (I"!N, 25.25, 35,36,39,46,47,
48), and relative or associate (JTQiJ, 25.14, 15, 17). The purpose of the
chapter is to stress that the properties held by families in Israel, as well as
individual Israelites themselves, are inalienable; even when Israelites sell
property or their own selves in times of economic need, such sales are to
be seen as temporary. In the jubilee year, all property, with the exception
of property in walled cities, reverts to its original owners, and all Israelites
who have sold themselves into indentured servitude are freed.
These rules of inalienable property apply to the landholding Israelite
alone. While an Israelite may out of need be forced to sell his property and
so take on the status of a resident alien, or a tenant or seasonal worker,
such a situation is not viewed as permanent (25.25-28). While an Israelite
may out of need similarly sell himself into indentured servitude, again this
situation is not seen as permanent (25.39-41). In contrast, slaves taken by
Israel from the surrounding nations, or from the resident aliens born in
their midst, are considered slaves in perpetuity and may be inherited in the
same way as the family's landholdings (25.44-46). Thus, the attempt
earlier in Leviticus to mandate the equal treatment of resident aliens here
breaks down. The contradiction is especially evident if one compares the
earlier invocation of Egypt to justify the equal treatment of the resident
alien ('love the resident alien as yourself, for you were resident aliens in
Egypt', 19.34) with the invocation of Egypt here to justify the differential
treatment of the Israelite and the resident alien. The kinship group of the
sons of Israel (see 25.46) is immune from permanent enslavement because
YHWH claims, 'They are my slaves, whom I brought out from the land of
Egypt; (therefore) they will not be sold as slaves are sold' (25.42, see also
25.55).97 Resident aliens, in contrast, are liable to permanent slavery because they do not belong to YHWH, not having been acquired by YHWH as
slaves in Egypt. The comparison of Israel to slaves rather than to resident
aliens allows Israel to be made distinct here not only from the surrounding
nations and foreigners, but also from the non-propertied and non-kinrelated resident aliens in its midst.
Earlier in the chapter, however, YHWH compares Israel's status to that
of the resident alien (~IJ) and the tenant laborer pETin) (25.23). Again the
comparison is not to engender any sympathy for these classes of people on
the basis of Israel's analogous experiences in Egypt, but rather to prevent
97. The deliverance from Egypt is here pictured as the acquisition of slaves, either
by purchase or, more likely, as booty of war.
194
the selling of patrimonial property by appealing to the dependent status of

Israel over against YHWH. What is at stake is Israel's distinct status, a
status constituted by separation from Egypt: 'I (am) YHWH your God, who
brought you out from the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to
be your God'(25.38).
Leviticus 25 thus presents tensions both internal to the chapter and
externally with previous material in the scroll. Internally, the prohibition
against charging interest or profiteering from one's kin (PIN, 25.36-37)
conflicts with the provision of the jubilee year, which recognizes that just
such practices are the norm. The prohibition of selling property in
perpetuity, because the property in the final analysis belongs to YHWH
(25.23), conflicts with the exemption of urban property (25.29-30). The
very notion that YHWH owns the land (25.23) conflicts with the repeated
recognition of, and emphasis on, the inheritable and inalienable land
(nins) of the family or clan (nnS!J) (see references above). And externally, the differentiation between the treatment of the resident alien and the
landholding Israelite in ch. 25 conflicts with the earlier mandate in
Leviticus to erase such differentiation in status and treatment.
Such conflicts and tensions are inevitable because, in its association of
legal precepts regarding property with traditions of status based on an exodus from Egypt, the text confronts an insoluble aporia; namely, the impossibility of making for Israel the native's claim to inalienable property
and privileges while at the same time positing for Israel an origin outside
of the land. The separation of Israel from Egypt, that is, its origin outside
the land, is invoked precisely to defend the Israelite's immunity, as a
person with landed property, and in contrast to the resident alien, from
permanent slavery (25.41-42). Separation from Egypt becomes the
symbol, not only of distinctiveness per se, but also of landed privileges. It
is no wonder that Israel is finally pictured as the slaves of YHWH, the
actual owner of the land (25.42, 55); YHWH becomes the term that
mediates between Israel's foreign origin and Israel's indigenous claims.
That Israel is depicted as YHWH'S slaves itself conflicts with the notion
that YHWH has freed Israel from servitude in Egypt.98 And the notion of
98. Lev. 26.11 -13. The Decalogue begins with the autokerygmatic statement 'I am
YHWH your God, who brought you out from the land of Egypt, from the house of
slaves' (Exod. 20.2; Deut. 5.6), and Deuteronomy repeatedly characterizes Egypt as a
house of slaves (6.12; 7.8; 8.14 and 13.6 [5], 11 [10]). Similar is the repeated reminder
in Deuteronomy that the addressees were once slaves in Egypt (5.15; 6.21; 15.15;
16.12; 24.18, 22).
195
Israel's enslavement in Egypt in turn conflicts with the notion that Israel
was a resident alien in Egypt." This latter notion, in fact, leads to a surprisingly positive and inclusive evaluation of Egypt:
You shall not abhor an Egyptian for you were a resident alien in his land;
Sons born to them, in the third generation, may enter to them into the
assembly of YHWH (Deut. 23.8b-9 [7b-8]).100
This preferential treatment of the Egyptians, in comparison to the

exclusion of other peoples,101 is often seen as surprising (e.g. P.D. Miller
1990: 176; von Rad 1966c: 146) given the dominant negative portrayal of
Egypt elsewhere in the scroll. And indeed it is a rather rare explicit and
undistorted articulation of a pro-Egyptian viewpoint in the midst of
generally negative portrayals. In fact, if the Egyptian can enter the Israelite
assembly of YHWH, then the whole process of Israel's separation from
Egypt is brought full circle back to its beginnings. The Israel that was
birthed in Egypt is now able to absorb the Egyptian. Ultimately, the notion
of an absolute boundary between Israel and Egypt is confounded.
Israel's Origins and Egypt
The uneasy fit between the Genesis stories of Israel's ancestors from
Mesopotamia and the Exodus stories of Israel's birth within an Egyptian
matrix has already been noted several times in previous chapters. Traditions of a Mesopotamian origin seem to be in tension with traditions of
an Egyptian origin. This tension is evident also in the scrolls of Leviticus,
Numbers and Deuteronomy. For instance, Lev. 26, which speaks of the
possibility of restoration after disobedience and punishment if the people
confess and make amends,102 contains the following verses:
99. Deut. 10.19; 23.8 [7] are the latest references to this notion in the Pentateuch.
100. The Egyptians are here classified with the Edomites, whom Israel is not to
abhor because they are kin (23.8a [7a]). Children of both ethnic groups, Edomite and
Egyptian, are allowed entrance to the Israelite 'cultic levy', which means that they
were not considered unclean (von Rad 1966c: 146).
101. Compare the absolute exclusion of the "ITCO ('bastard?'), Ammonite and
Moabite in 23.3-4 [2-3] and the command to exterminate Amalek in 25.17-19!
102. As Gerstenberger (1996: 426) notes, with v. 34 a different temporal category is
evoked: a schema of potential disasters now becomes a reflection on a past that has
already taken place. 'This entire section is thus dealing with the period of exile, specifically from the perspective of those who have already reflected upon and interpreted that
terrible event. Apparently even the Persian emergence is already history...'
196

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

recollection of the covenant with the 'first ones' or 'ancestors' whom
YHWH brought out of the land of Egypt; in other words, a tradition locating
Israel's first origins in Egypt seems to be invoked.103 This tradition is in
tension with the immediately preceding reference to YHWH'S covenant with
Jacob, and with Isaac, and with Abraham (Lev. 26.42), which evokes a
tradition locating Israel's origins with the ancestors who migrated from
Mesopotamia to Canaan. That is, within the space of a mere four verses,
there is a tension between a covenantal history beginning with the exodus
from Egypt (Lev. 26.45) and a covenantal history beginning with the
ancestors familiar from the Genesis traditions (Lev. 26.42) (Gerstenberger
1996:431-32).
The reference to the covenants with the ancestors in Lev. 26.42, while
following the tradition in Exod. 2.24 and 6.3-4 of the deity's covenant
with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is unique in two respects. First, the Leviticus passage speaks of individual covenants with each patriarch rather than
the idea of a single covenant renewed with each patriarch in succession as
in the Exodus passages.104 Secondly, the Leviticus passage uniquely
stresses the covenant with Jacob by placing it first in the series, before
Isaac and Abraham, a reversal of the order found in the Exodus passages.
This is striking in view of the fact that, as already noted, Genesis does not
mention a formal divine covenant with Jacob, even in the crucial episodes
103. The adjective ]ltBN"l carries an overlapping series of denotations: former in
time/previous, first in time, and first in degree/chief. The notion of an originating first
time is strong in many occurrences of the adjective; for example, the former times of
Deut. 4.32 are connected to the very beginning of the creation of humanity, the
references in Exod. 34.1; Deut. 10.2; Jer. 36.28 concern a first set of tablets or a first
scroll that is subsequently replaced by a second copy, and the second trip of Moses up
the mountain to receive the Torah is seen in Deut. 10.10 as a repetition of the first time.
In Deut. 19.14, the adjective describes the first generation of Israel to occupy the
Promised Land. Therefore, the use of the adjective in Lev. 26.44 can clearly indicate
that a reference is being made to the original ancestors of Israel, seen here as issuing
out of not Mesopotamia, but Egypt.
104. In the ancestral traditions of Genesis, YHWH makes a covenant with Abraham
(Gen. 15 and 17), which is subsequently renewed with Isaac and Jacob.
197
of Gen. 28.10-22 or 35.9-15. The Leviticus passage seems, for some

reason, to bring Israel's more immediate eponymous ancestor to the fore.
Jacob is the ancestor who migrated into Egypt according to the traditions
of Genesis, and it is under his new name Israel that his descendants
emerge out of Egypt. Perhaps the focus on him is meant to ameliorate or
mediate the uneasy juxtaposition between an Egyptian origin tradition and
a Mesopotamian origin tradition for Israel.
An Egyptian origin tradition for Israel seems to be evoked in the
narrative perspective of the outsiders, Balak, king of Moab, and Balaam,
the Mesopotamian diviner whom Balak hires to curse Israel (Num. 2224). Israel is described by Balak as D'HJtDD fc!T DI7 ('a people that came
out from Egypt',105 22.5, II) 106 while Balaam adds the notion of divine
involvement in Israel's origins, DHiiQD DÛID "?K ('El, the one who
brought [or brings] them out from Egypt', 23.22; 24.8).107 In contrast,
Moses, in his message to the king of Edom requesting passage through his
territory, makes it clear that Israel has not originated in Egypt:
And our ancestors went down to Egypt, and we dwelt in Egypt many days,
and Egypt did evil to us and to our ancestors. And we cried out to YHWH,
and he heard our voice, and he sent an angel/messenger,108 and he brought
us out of Egypt (Num. 20.15-16).
In these words are outlined the pattern of descent into Egypt, of affliction and outcry there, and of divine response resulting in an exodus from
Egypt, that constitutes the spatial movement of the master narrative of the
Pentateuch. Not only does this pattern negate any notion of an Egyptian
origin for Israel, but it also portrays Egypt in a totally negative light; no
trace, for instance, appears of Egypt's kindness to the family of Jacob
through Joseph. These words of Moses depict what the text projects as the
105. The verb NIT can connote the notion of source or origin (see BDB: 423).
106. The MT of 22.11 is slightly different: ammo KITH DUn ('the people who came
or are coming out from Egypt'), but the LXX and other versions repeat verbatim the
formulation in 22.5.
107. The MT reads IK'JflD ('brought him out') in 24.8; the LXX and SP read 'guided
him/them out'. The contusion between a singular or plural object is reflected in the
textual variants to both 23.22 and 24.8.
108. The notion that Israel was led out of Egypt by an angel appears several times in
Exodus (14.19; 23.20-23; 33.2-3). That this angel is not necessarily a circumlocution
for YHWH, but perhaps a reference to Moses as a divine guide and messenger has
already been considered in the analysis of Exodus above. The LXX in 20.16 reduces the
angel's role by subordinating it to the role of God in a circumstantial participle.
198
insider perspective on the origins of Israel; the outsider perspective, in

contrast, seems to know only of Israel's beginnings in Egypt. The articulation of both these perspectives, even if they are differentially evaluated
according to their insider or outsider status, discloses again the possibility
of at least two disparate traditions of Israel's origins in the context of the
Pentateuch's production and dissemination, one starting in Egypt and the
other in which Egypt is a detour.
The tradition of an Egyptian origin for Israel is occasionally expressed
by linking the origins of the people with Moses. For instance, in the scroll
of Numbers, Moses responds to the people's complaints by himself
complaining to YHWH that the burden of carrying the people is too great
for him; he even implores YHWH to kill him rather than to require him to
continue to be treated so badly (11.11-15). In the midst of his complaint,
Moses asks the rhetorical question:
Did I myself conceive all this people? Or did I myself give birth to it? that
you say to me, 'Carry it in your bosom, as the nurse carries the suckling
child', to the soil which you swore to their ancestors (Num. 11.12).
The intended answer to Moses' rhetorical questions is that, no, of course

he did not conceive and give birth to the people Israel; the genesis of the
people is YHWH'S work. Therefore Moses feels that he should not be made
to carry the burden of the people alone; YHWH should more directly bear
some of the burden. However, alternately, the answer to the rhetorical
question could be positive, in which case implicit in Moses' complaint is
the view that he is indeed the one to whom the ethnogenesis of Israel is to
be traced. This alternative perspective may have been held by some of the
audience towards which the Pentateuch was directed. Again, by articulating it in the form of a complaint, and furthermore in the form of a rhetorical question that assumes a negative response, this alternative perspective
is undermined and negated.
In a subsequent story of rebellion in Num. 14 in which the people
explicitly plan to return to Egypt, Moses intercedes for the people and
attempts to avert YHWH'S wrath from them. As in the story of the people's
apostasy with the golden calf (Exod. 32.10), so also here YHWH decides to
strike the people with plague, disinherit them, and to make in their stead a
greater and mightier nation out of Moses (Num. 14.12). This notion of
making a fresh start with Moses not only highlights the difference between
Moses and the people,109 but, more significantly, it articulates the possi109. This difference continues to show the ambiguous status of Moses, who is never
unambiguously portrayed as a full member of Israel.
199
bility of Moses as the origin of Israel. This alternative tradition, while

given voice by YHWH, is cleverly negated in the text by the refusal of
Moses himself to give it credence.
Again, as in the apostasy story in Exodus (32.12), Moses persuades
YHWH to change his mind by appealing to YHWH'S honor among the
Egyptians (Num. 14.13). That is, if YHWH destroys the people in the
wilderness, then Egypt will spread the word that the people's destruction
is due to YHWH'S inability to bring them into the Promised Land (Num.
14.16). Although ostensibly destroyed in the waters of the sea, Egypt
continues to return as a determining factor in Israel's fate. The appeal to
YHWH'S honor among the Egyptians indicates that the status of YHWH in
Egypt, and, by extension, the status of those who worship him there, is
possibly an issue of concern or contention at the time of the promulgation
of this text.
Imbedded in the story of rebellion in Num. 13-14 is a note or gloss that
the Hebron reconnoitered by the Israelite spies was built seven years
before Zoan in Egypt (Num. 13.22). Surprisingly, no indication is given of
the importance of Hebron as the burial place of the patriarchs and matriarchs of the ancestor stories of Genesis.110 Rather, the emphasis is on the
antiquity of Hebron over against Zoan, capital of Egypt during the 21st
and 22nd dynasties.''' The claim to antiquity is an important topos in the
writing of Hellenistic and Roman authors, and its appearance here maybe
a late addition to the text that attempts to bolster Israel's unique origins
against Egyptian claims to greater antiquity.112 That Egypt and Israel are
different appears to be taken for granted.
110. See Gen. 23; 25.9-10; 35.27-29.
111. That is, c. 1176-721 BCE. Zoan, known as Tanis in Greek, was often mistakenly identified with the older Pharaonic center of Pi-Rameses and Avaris, both in
antiquity and by modern excavators, because many of the monumental buildings of
these older centers were dismantled and rebuilt in Zoan. The producers of the notice in
Numbers may have similarly mistakenly identified Zoan with the Rameses mentioned
in Exod. 1.11. (Redford 1992b).
112. This interpretation was suggested in rabbinic tradition (Milgrom 1990:103). As
Josephus remarked in his argument against Apion, people attempt to trace their origins
back to the remotest antiquity to avoid appearing as the imitators of other peoples
(Apion 2.152). In fact, Josephus begins his argument by referring to his previous work,
Antiquities of the Jews, in which he made evident 'that our Jewish nation is of very
great antiquity, and had a distinct subsistence of its own originally' (Apion 1.1). On
efforts of Hellenistic Jewish authors to establish the antiquity of figures such as
Abraham, Moses or Enoch, see Holladay (1983: 113, 137, 171-75, 180-81,252-55).
200
The scroll of Deuteronomy, with its image of Egypt as an iron smelter,

also gives evidence of tensions in regard to the origin of Israel vis-a-vis
Egypt. In Moses' first address, he extols YHWH by invoking Israel's
miraculous origins from within Egypt:
Has a God ever attempted to come and take for himself a nation from
within a nation by trials, by signs and by wonders, and by war, and by a
strong hand and by an outstretched arm, and by great terrors; As all that
YHWH your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes? (Deut. 4.34).
Notably, Israel is pictured here as emerging out of Egypt without reference to any prior stage predating Egypt. Even the reference to the 'ancestors' which soon follows (4.37) does not explicitly indicate any prior
stage of Israel's history; rather, by itself, this description literally speaks of
Israel as originating from Egypt. Similarly, in the credo (P.D. Miller 1990:
180) embedded in the catechetical instructions of 6.20-25, only the origins
of Israel out of Egypt are mentioned.
The case is quite different, however, in Moses' later allusion to the 70
ancestors of Israel who went down to Egypt (10.22),'13 and especially in
the credo embedded in the liturgy for the presentation of the first fruits
(26.1-11):
A straying/perishing Aramean was my ancestor, and he went down to Egypt
and sojourned there, consisting of a few men; and he became there a great
nation, mighty and numerous. And the Egyptians ill-treated us and afflicted
us, and imposed upon us harsh service. And we cried out to YHWH, the God
of our ancestors. And YHWH heard our voice, and saw our affliction and our
toil and our oppression. And YHWH brought us out from Egypt with a
strong hand and an outstretched arm, and with a great awe-inspiring action,
and with signs and wonders. And he brought us into this place and gave us
this land, a land flowing with milk and honey (Deut. 26.5b-9).
Presented here, near the end of the Pentateuch, is the Pentateuch's

master narrative in bare outline; in spatial terms, it consists of an origin
with a Meosopotamian ancestor, followed by a detour into Egypt where
the ancestor is transformed into a numerous people, and culminates with
the people's entrance into the Promised Land. Egypt is depicted as quite
separate from Israel, providing only the matrix for the transformation of
113. The allusion is to the opening verses of the scroll of Exodus, with its enumeration of Jacob's family as 70 (1.5) and its description of the extraordinary growth
of this family in Egypt (1.7). These verses in Exodus, it will be recalled, function as a
means of linking Exodus to the ancestor traditions in Genesis (especially to the
enumeration of Jacob's descendants in Gen. 46.8-27).
201
Israel from a small ancestral family to a multitudinous people; even more

importantly, Egypt provides the stage for the display of YHWH'S awesome
powers in freeing this people from Egyptian oppression. This picture of
Egypt corresponds perfectly with the dominant negative image of Egypt
projected in the scroll of Exodus. It also, however, points to the productive
and perhaps necessary function of Egypt in the construction of Israel's
identity; that is, without the 'iron smelter' of Egypt, to borrow the metaphor at the beginning of Deuteronomy, Israel would not have been forged
into the distinct people which the Pentateuch aims to depict it as. Nonetheless, whether Egypt is portrayed negatively or positively, a distinction is
maintained between it and Israel.
However, the credo's succinct summary of the Pentateuch's master
origin tradition for Israel is not without its difficulties. The opening phrase
1
38 ~nN ""DIN, by its assonance, appears to be a formulaic phrase from the
oral tradition, but its exact meaning is not certain. It has often been
translated 'a wandering Aramean was my ancestor' (e.g. NRSV)"4 and
understood as a reference to Jacob, the progenitor of Israel, and, more
generally, to the ancestors of Genesis, who are depicted as wandering from
place to place with no permanent home (e.g. von Rad 1966c: 158-59).
However, the primary meaning of the verb ~DK is 'to perish', and it is with
this meaning that the verb appears elsewhere in the Pentateuch.115 Moreover, the wanderings of the ancestors in Genesis are never described with
~DN.116 Finally, the appellation 'Aramean' is applied explicitly in the
Hebrew Bible only to Laban and Bethuel, Jacob's maternal uncle and
grandfather (Gen. 25.20; 28.5; 31.20, 24), but not to Jacob himself.
Thus, the credo here in Deuteronomy may point to an origin tradition
that is not necessarily immediately to be identified with the tradition of the
ancestors as they are portrayed in Genesis. Rather, an Aramean ancestor
114. NJPS translates 'fugitive Aramean'; REV translates 'homeless Aramean'.
115. The verb is secondarily used of animals that have strayed from the herd and are
lost, but only one instance of this usage is found in the Pentateuch, in the context of a
legal ruling unconnected with the narrative (Deut. 22.3). Janzen (1994) rejects the
traditional rendering 'a wandering Aramean' and, based on contextual indicators that
point to famine as the reason the ancestors went down to Egypt, opts instead for 'a
starving Aramean'.
116. Contrary to von Rad (1966c: 159), who refers to Gen. 20.13; the verb there,
however, is nun, which is used elsewhere in the Pentateuch of Hagar's and Joseph's
aimless wanderings (Gen. 21.14; 37.15) or of the aimless wanderings of livestock that
have gone astray (Exod. 23.3). The more usual verb for the wanderings of the ancestors
(also for the wanderings of Israel in the wilderness after the exodus) is UD].
202
at the point of extinction is described as finding refuge in Egypt and there

becoming a great people. An origin outside of Egypt is preserved, but the
line of descent seems to proceed directly from Mesopotamia, the place
where the Aram of Genesis is located, to Egypt without any intermediary
steps in Palestine. Jacob indeed is depicted in Genesis as spending a substantial part of his life with his Aramean relatives in Paddanaram and most
of his sons, the eponymous ancestors of the tribes of Israel, are born there.
The origin tradition of the credo seems thus to more tightly identify the
origins of Israel directly with Mesopotamia, locating those origins with the
indisputably Mesopotamian ancestors Bethuel and Laban, who are closely
associated with Jacob. That Aramaic, the language of the Arameans, was
the most common spoken language among the Neo-Babylonians, that it
became the lingua franca of the Persian empire, and that by Hellenistic
times it had replaced many local languages, including Hebrew (Pitard
1994: 227-28), raises the possibility that the origin tradition reflected in
the credo attempts to identify the origins of Israel with the predominant
linguistic trend in the ancient Near East of the first millennium BCE.
The textual variants at the beginning of the credo further indicate that
this origin tradition of Israel is a site of contestation or, at least, variation.
On the one hand, the LXX translates Aramean as Syrian,117 and makes it
the object of the action: 'My ancestor left behind/abandoned Syria and
went down into Egypt.' On the other hand, the tradition found in the
Syriac version, the Targums, the Mishnah and Talmud, and enshrined in
the midrash that forms the core of the Passover Haggadah (Guggenheimer
1995: 252-53), makes the Aramean into the subject of hostile action
against the ancestor: 'The Aramean destroyed my ancestor, but he
descended into Egypt.''18 These variants indicate further different understandings of Israel's origin tradition. The LXX suggests that the ancestor
rejected an Aramean origin in favor of Egypt, and yet this variant still
117. The usual Greek translation of the Hebrew 'Aram' is 'Syria'. The Aramean
people are historically attested in substantial parts of ancient Mesopotamia and Syria.
While the Aram of Genesis is to be located with the birthplace of Abraham in
Mesopotamia, the Aram that appears in the scrolls of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles is
associated with Damascus in Syria, thus giving rise, it seems, to the common Greek
translation. One might also recognize the influence, contemporary with the translation
of the Torah into Greek, of the series of wars in the third century BCE between the
Seleucids and the Ptolemies over control of Palestine and Coele-Syria.
118. One might note that the MT links the terms ~nn and ""JK with a conjunctive
accent, thus perhaps leading to the isolation of the 'D~IN as either the subject or object
of the verbal action.
203
contains the notion of the ancestor entering Egypt from outside. The
variant in the Targums and Passover Haggadah suggests a definite distancing from any implication of Aramean ancestry for Israel; rather, the
Arameans are the enemy that would have destroyed the ancestor, had it not
been for Egypt.119 But, again, the notion of the ancestor entering Egypt
from outside is preserved.
The text of the credo and its textual variants therefore provides no
definite single account of Israel's origins, but instead seems to function as
an entree into a variety of origin traditions. While some of these traditions
posit an ancestral connection with the Arameans, others reject such a connection. Coincidence with the ancestral accounts of Genesis is not as
substantially explicit as is sometimes assumed.120 However, all of the
variants suggest that Israel's origins are to be located ultimately outside of
Egypt. Thus, this credo, coming near the end of Deuteronomy and thus
near the end of the Pentateuch, is a fitting conclusion to the Pentateuch's
master narrative of origins that begins, in the scroll of Genesis, outside
of Egypt.
Summary
The references to Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy present
the audience of these scrolls with a complex tapestry of associations that
in many ways continues and maintains the presentation and function of
Egypt established in Genesis and Exodus, but which also adds its own
particular nuances. A major concern is to separate Israel from Egypt, paint
Egypt in a negative light, and prohibit a return to Egypt. The discontinuity
of Israel with Egypt is emphasized.
In the legal material, Egypt functions as a marker or emblem of Israel's
distinctiveness without necessarily evoking a contrast with Egyptian
119. Laban here becomes the enemy that tried to destroy Jacob, an interpretation that
accords with some of the sentiment expressed in the stories of Jacob and his uncle
Laban in Genesis.
120. Deuteronomy usually refers to the 'ancestors' generically, without further
specification. The triad, 'Abraham, Isaac and Jacob', appears only six times in the
entire scroll (1.8; 6.10; 9.5, 27; 29.12; 30.20). Romer (1990) argues that the names of
the patriarchs were inserted into the scroll after its completion in order to link it with
the origin traditions of Genesis; originally the scroll betrayed no knowledge of the
Genesis traditions and the 'ancestors' referred to the generation of the exodus (and,
further, for the intended audience of the scroll, to successive disobedient generations
after the conquest). For a contrary opinion, see Lohfink (1991).
204
practices; rather, as far as specific practices are concerned, there is a shift

to contrast with the alleged practices of Canaan. As Israel's 'other', Egypt
is also invested with seemingly negative properties, being described as the
place where Israel suffered the yoke of slavery and the vulnerable status of
the resident alien. Yet, the legal material also positively values these
positions, in that Israel has the status of slave or resident alien vis-a-vis
YHWH, thus generating equivocal meanings for these terms. This ambiguity especially becomes apparent when the exodus traditions are interpolated into the rules governing ownership of property; the identification
of Israel with both the positions of the landholding, kin-related native
(n~ITN) and the landless, unrelated resident alien (~)3) leads to an insoluble
tension. Such strains are evident when separation from Egypt, on the one
hand, becomes the principle justifying Israel's indigenous rights in the
land, and, on the other hand, indicates an origin that differentiates Israel
from the former inhabitants of the land.
In the scroll of Numbers the ethnogenesis of Israel via separation from
Egypt is radicalized in that a complete change of generations, concretely
portrayed through the structural device of two censuses, is required before
Israel can enter the Promised Land. The old Egyptian-born generation,
through repeated incidents of rebellion culminating in the desire to return
to Egypt, is shown to be incapable of abandoning its nostalgia for Egypt;
only a new generation can hope to free itself of these strong Egyptian
attachments. The discontinuity with Egypt demanded by the ideology
expressed by the text affects every level of Israel, from the layperson to
the Levites and priests, including even Israel's pre-eminent leader, Moses.
Not only is Moses excluded from the Promised Land, but even his very
lineage seems to be erased. Deuteronomy continues by replacing the
Egyptian-tainted Moses with his successor Joshua. No physical trace of
Moses, whether bones, gravesite or lineage, is allowed to survive. Egypt
must be completely purged from Israel, and return to Egypt is prohibited.
And yet this emphasis on discontinuity is compromised by the various
and ambiguous reasons given to justify Moses' death outside of the
Promised Land, by the conflicting reports on his health and uniqueness
and by Moses' characterization of the addressees of his speech in Deuteronomy, not as a new generation, but as eyewitnesses to all that had transpired in Egypt and beyond. The exemption of Joshua and Caleb from the
demise of the Egyptian-born generation of Israel, moreover, shows that an
absolute discontinuity with the Egyptian-born generation is impossible.
Furthermore, while a pro-Egyptian perspective is framed as a voice of
rebellion that has no legitimacy and leads inexorably to divine punishment
205
and annihilation, its very articulation indicates the possibility of the

existence of such a perspective.
The dominant image of Egypt, nonetheless, is negative; Egypt is a place
of disease and a 'house of slaves'. Even the abundance of Egyptian
agriculture is twisted into a figure of debasement. And yet, in tension with
this dominant effort, is the command not to abhor Egypt, and especially
the depiction of an Egypt functioning productively and necessarily as the
'iron smelter' giving birth to Israel. This highlights the primary contradiction of the Pentateuch's ideology regarding Egypt: the very Egypt which is
painted in such negative colors, which is the opposite of everything that
Israel is to be, and return to which must be assiduously avoided, is precisely the Egypt that is indispensable to the birthing, definition and
maintenance of Israel. The Egypt that Israel is to reject is the spectre that
necessarily haunts the core of Israel's identity.
The implication of Egypt in Israel's origin leads to tensions between
various conceptions of Israel's origin, tensions that can be reconstructed
from the text. In the legal material, the status of native for Israel implies an
indigenous origin, while the status of resident alien implies an origin outside of the land, usually in Egypt, although the ancestral traditions of an
origin in Mesopotamia are also occasionally summoned. That Egypt is an
integral part of Israel's heritage is tacitly acknowledged, but only in the
sense that Israel comes to be in contrast to Egypt. Fusion or mixture of
Israel with Egypt is usually viewed with apprehension and a desire for
purging, as illustrated by the horror called forth by the blaspheming son of
the Israelite-Egyptian mixed marriage.
However, traces of an Egyptian origin tradition for Israel are found, for
instance, in the perspective of Balak and Balaam, and in the hints of
Moses as the originating ancestor of Israel. These hints continue to subvert
the hegemony of the Pentateuchal master narrative, which portrays Israel's
Egyptian experience as a detour. Even the so-called credo at the end of
Deuteronomy becomes the locus for various contending interpretations of
Israel's origins, as is evident in the textual variants and the different
scholarly conclusions. The absence of any sustained reflection on Israel's
Mesopotamian origins or connections in the Pentateuch, and the negative
portrayal of Egyptian origins and connections, is an indication of ideological debate or tension involved in the production of the text. That the
references to Egypt also call forth ambiguity shows that the issues of
Israel's identity in the historical context of the text's production were not
clearcut but involved the overlapping of a variety of traditional, socioeconomic and cultic claims.
Chapter 5
THE PRODUCTION AND PROMULGATION OF THE
TINAL TEXT FORM' OF THE PENTATEUCH
The analysis of Egypt in the Pentateuch in the previous chapters has highlighted a strong anti-Egyptian ideology that seems to be contending with
other views more friendly to Egypt. The task in this chapter is to attempt
to date this ideological contention by assessing the evidence for a possible
range of dates for the production and promulgation, as an authoritative
document, of what can heuristically be called the 'final text form' of the
Pentateuch.1 Keeping in mind that the Pentateuch at this stage likely
consisted of separate scrolls, it is necessary to assess the evidence both in
terms of the dating of individual scrolls and in terms of the date for the
concept of the Pentateuch or Torah as a linked five-scroll collection.
Furthermore, the notion of 'promulgation as an authoritative document'
requires attention to the possible dynamics and contexts of the production
and 'publication' of documents in the ancient world.
As historical-critical scholarship has shown, the Pentateuch incorporates
various earlier traditions. However, the exact nature of the composition of
the Pentateuch, and the sources and traditions upon which it draws, are
today hotly debated, disrupting the earlier virtual scholarly consensus
around the documentary hypothesis associated with Wellhausen.2 It is unnecessary for the purpose of this investigation to explore the various contending theories regarding the composition of the Pentateuch, except to
note the increasing tendency in Pentateuchal scholarship to focus attention
on the final form of the text as having its own literary integrity, and to date
1. On the heuristic concept of the 'final text form', see the discussion in Chapter 1
above.
2. Descriptions and analyses of the recent history of scholarship on the compositional origins of the Pentateuch abound; some reliable and thorough efforts include
Rendtorff (1993; 1997); Wenham (1996), Romer (1996), Whybray (1995) and
Blenkinsopp(1992).
5. The Production and Promulgation of the 'Final Text Form' 207

the completion of this final form sometime in the Persian period (539-333
BCE). The focus on the final form as having an ideological intent and purpose of its own, rather than being merely an editorial compilation of previous views, complements the attempt in this study to explore the ideology
of the Pentateuch, and not its precursor traditions, concerning Egypt's role
in the formation of Israel's identity.3 And the tendency towards a date in
the Persian period provides a first tentative suggestion for a historical
period in which the final text form of the Pentateuch can be contextualized.
However, the dating of the concept of the Pentateuch and of its constitutive scrolls must rest on more substantial evidence than the admittedly
speculative and contested reconstructions of the process of its composition. In the following, it will be suggested that the search for possible
dates must be based first on the more solid ground of the extant manuscript
evidence. Corroborating evidence can then be found in the familiarity, or
lack of familiarity, with the Pentateuch and its content exhibited in other
more or less datable documents. Finally, comparative historical material
on the authorization and canonization of certain documents can be drawn
upon to provide the shape of possible historical contexts for the production
of a work like the Pentateuch.
The Manuscript Evidence
Extant manuscripts of the entire Pentateuch are decidedly late. The oldest
surviving manuscript of the entire Hebrew Bible, and thus of the entire
Pentateuch, is the Aleppo Codex, dated approximately 925 CE.4 Almost as
old, and also containing the entire Hebrew Bible, is Codex Leningradensis,
copied, according to its colophon, in 1008 CE. Much earlier manuscripts
exist of the Greek translation of the entire Hebrew Bible, including Codex
Vaticanus from the fourth century CE and Codex Alexandrinus from the
fifth century CE. Before this time, manuscript evidence for the Pentateuch
consists only of fragments and parts of various scrolls.
3. Some Pentateuchal scholars even attribute the main work of the composition of
the Pentateuch to a single author. Van Seters (1983) argues for a reconceptualization of
the Yahwist as a historiographer who composed the basic Pentateuchal story of Israel's
origins in the exilic period; Whybray (1987), following Van Seters, argues for one
author of the Pentateuch. Such hypotheses helpfully emphasize the relative literary
autonomy of the final text; however, the notion of a single author is not necessary to sustain the argument that the final form of the text expresses its own ideological purposes.
4. Unfortunately, it was damaged in anti-Jewish riots in 1947 and most of the
Pentateuch (Gen. 1.1 to Deut. 28.26) was lost (Wiirthwein 1995: 36).
208
The earliest surviving manuscript evidence for the existence of several

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

(4Q17), discussed above, fragments of at least two other scrolls containing
Exodus, and one containing Leviticus, have been dated to the early Hasmonean period (c. 150-100 BCE): 4QGenExoda (4Q1), containing parts of
Genesis and Exodus (Davila 1994); 4QExode (4Q16), a fragment of Exod.
13.3-5 (Sanderson 1994); and 4QLevNunf (4Q23), containing parts of
Leviticus and Numbers (Ulrich 1994).9 Fragments of several early scrolls
of Deuteronomy include: 4QpaleoDeuts (4Q46), a fragment of Deut.
26.14-15 written in archaic Hebrew script and possibly dating to the late
third century BCE (Scanlin 1993:63; Skehan, Ulrich and Sanderson 1992:
153); SQDeut (5Q1), containing parts of Deut. 7-9 and dated c. 200-150
BCE (Milik 1962: 169); 4QLXXDeut (4Q122), five fragments of a Greek
translation of Deuteronomy, of which only one fragment can be identified
with confidence as a text from Deuteronomy 11.4, dated to the early or
mid second century BCE (Skehan, Ulrich and Sanderson 1992: 195);
4QDeuta (4Q28), containing parts of Deut. 23.26 and 24.1-8 and dated c.
175-150 BCE (Crawford 1995a); 4QDeutb (4Q29), containing fragments of
Deut. 29-32 and dated c. 150-100 BCE (Duncan 1995); and 4QDeuf
(4Q30), containing fragments of Deut. 3-32 and also dated c. 150-100
BCE (Crawford 1995b). Two manuscript fragments from Egypt possibly
also date to the early Hasmonean period: the Rylands Greek Papyrus 458,
containing a Greek translation of parts of Deut. 23-28 (Wurthwein 1995:
188); and the Nash Papyrus, containing a Hebrew text of the Decalogue,
with affinities to both Exod. 20 and Deut. 5, and of the Shema from
Deuteronomy (Albright 1937).10
Thus, the extant manuscript evidence confirms the existence of copies of
all of the scrolls that make up the Pentateuch by at least the beginning of
the Hasmonean period in the mid second century BCE. Moreover, this early
manuscript evidence also attests to the existence of single scrolls containing at least two contiguous books of the Pentateuch, indicating that the
9. One might also mention 11 QpaleoLev (11Q1), which was originally dated c. 200
BCE (Freedman and Matthews 1985: 15) since its script is similar to 4QpaleoExod
(4Q22), which was originally dated as early as 225 BCE (Sanderson 1986: 307). However, 4QpaleoExodm (4Q22) is now placed in the first century BCE (Sanderson 1988:
549; Skehan, Ulrich and Sanderson 1992: 61-62) and 11 QpaleoLev (11Q1) is dated c.
100 BCE (Matthews 1986: 173).
10. The Nash Papyrus is technically not a biblical manuscript, but is derived from a
liturgical, devotional or instructional document (Wurthwein 1995: 34), although
Albright believed it to be copied from a scroll of Deuteronomy (1937: 175-76).
Albright's dating was supported by Cross (1955: 148), who suggested a date of c. 150
BCE or even slightly earlier.
210
Pentateuch (with perhaps the exception of Deuteronomy) was considered

as a literary unit of sorts.11 Finally, if the manuscript evidence from Egypt
is taken into account, scrolls of books of the Pentateuch were geographically widely dispersed, one would assume among the Jews of the
diaspora, by the beginning of the Hasmonean period.
It is important to make two observations about the early extant manuscript evidence. First, the evidence indicates that the text of the various
scrolls of the Pentateuch was not yet fixed or stabilized but rather
exhibited pluriformity; that is, multiple forms of the 'original' Hebrew text
existed. Setting aside orthographic variants and the minor individual
variants peculiar to every ancient manuscript, significant variants among
the various textual witnesses seem to indicate the coexistence of multiple
literary editions of the same texts (Ulrich 1996). However, each of these
editions is a revised version of a relatively stable base text, especially in
the case of the scrolls that make up the Pentateuch.12 Thus, one can still
11. Links between Genesis and Exodus (4QGenExoda [4Q1 ]), between Exodus and
Leviticus (4QExodLev [4Q17]), and between Leviticus and Numbers (4QLevNuma
[4Q23]) are attested in the earliest extant scroll fragments. Later manuscript evidence
contains further examples of two or more Pentateuchal books on the same scroll, such
as 4QpaleoGenExod' (4Q11), IQpaleoLevNum (1Q3), and 4QpaleoExodm (4Q22)
(which may have also included Genesissee Sanderson 1988: 548; Skehan, Ulrich
and Sanderson 1992: 56). The fragments of Genesis, Exodus and Numbers from
Murabba'at (dated c. 100 CE) seem to have come from the same scroll, indicating a
possible scroll of at least the first four books of the Pentateuch (Milik 1961: 75).
Deuteronomy seems to stand alone as a separate scroll, perhaps indicating that it was
not yet well integrated into a Pentateuchal structure. Interestingly, the remnants of
almost twice as many scrolls of Deuteronomy as of any other single book of the
Pentateuch were recovered from Qumran (see the charts in VanderKam 1994: 30;
Schiffman 1994: 163), attesting to what seems to be the special importance of this
book to those who gathered, used and stored the scrolls at Qumran. However, one must
note also the fragments of what may be a single composition consisting of a running
commentary on the Pentateuch (4QPentPar "e [4Q364-67]), which are dated c. 100 BCE
or somewhat later (Tov and White 1994), and may demonstrate an awareness of the
Pentateuch as a unified or connected composition by this time.
12. According to the extant evidence, the text of the various books of the
Pentateuch or Torah seems to have stabilized relatively early. 'The Torah, whether in
text or versions, exhibits remarkable stability in all the witnesses available. Even the
some six thousand variants in the Samaritan Pentateuch are, except for a few, largely
minor and fall within a range of relative stability' (Sanders 1992: 843). However, as
Brooke (1992,1993) asserts, the Qumran evidence also indicates that in the last two or
three centuries BCE even the scrolls of the Pentateuch were not slavishly copied but
rather creatively represented as part of a living, and not fixed, tradition.
5. The Production and Promulgation of the 'Final Text Form ' 2 1 1

legitimately search for a possible range of dates in which the 'base text'
(to use Ulrich's terminology) or the 'final text form' (the term adopted in
this study), as the substantial end point of the composition of the text, was
produced and promulgated.13
Secondly, that there is presently no extant manuscript evidence for the
scrolls of the Pentateuch dating before the middle of the third century
BCE14 does not necessarily restrict the options for dating to this time, although it does advise caution in too easily postulating much earlier dates.
The early extant manuscript evidence could represent copies made of preexisting scrolls. Unlike the durable baked clay tablets used for writing in
Mesopotamia, scrolls, whether of papyrus or leather,15 disintegrate under
normal use, and, as well, are especially susceptible to damage caused by
insects, rodents and moisture (Reed 1972: 181-91), and therefore require
periodic recopying.16 Thus, one could postulate a period of time prior to
13. Of course, various adjustments and changes could still be made after the 'base
text' or 'final text form' was composed or compiled, but these tend, at least in the case
of the Pentateuch, to be largely minor or easily explained as harmonizations or
expansions based on the content of the Pentateuch as a whole, after it was recognized
as a bounded literary entity, resulting in the various textual traditions, or, as Ulrich
(1996) puts it, multiple literary editions, among the Qumran material. More substantial
changes need to be identified by careful textual criticism in each individual case, and,
as is argued in this study, can be significant markers of ideological contestation. An
example of a later significant adjustment tied to particular historical circumstances
might be the imposition of a chronological system on a nascent biblical canon in the
third century BCE (Larsson 1983, 1985).
14. The silver plaques excavated at the site of Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem,
inscribed with two abbreviated versions of the priestly benediction known from Num.
6.24-26, and dated both on the basis of archaeological context and paleography to the
latter half of the seventh century BCE (Barkay 1992), while they antedate the earliest
biblical manuscripts from Qumran by over 300 years, do not constitute evidence for
the early existence of the Pentateuch. A ritual blessing such as the priestly benediction
could exist for a long period of time in oral form as part of priestly lore, and even be
written in the form of amulets (which is what these plaques appear to be), before being
incorporated into a more extensive literary composition.
15. Most of the scrolls of books of the Hebrew Bible found at Qumran were written
on leather scrolls, although a few examples of papyrus scrolls were also discovered.
Haran (1983) argues that a transition from predominantly papyrus to predominantly
leather scrolls took place among the Judeans in the Persian period.
16. An example of the effects of use on an ancient biblical scroll is provided by
4QpaleoExodm (4Q22). Originally copied in the early first century BCE, it was
corrected twice by a different hand, and, after being damaged, was patched and
reinscribed by yet another hand (Skehan, Ulrich and Sanderson 1992: 70). Both
212
the mid third century BCE in which earlier scrolls, no longer extant, existed.
However, it is difficult to specify, on the basis of the material evidence
alone, just how long this prior period might have been.17 A conservative
guess might be about 100 to 200 years, thus suggesting a date around 450350 BCE for the production of the final text form of the Pentateuch.
Clearly, on the basis of the extant manuscript evidence alone, 250 BCE
represents the terminus ad quern for the production of the final text form of
the Pentateuch. It may also be helpful to suggest a terminus a quo. This
remains a much more speculative matter, subject especially to the vagaries
of various theories of the composition of the Pentateuchal text. However,
a more fruitful approach is to investigate when, on the basis of the
archaeological record, material conditions existed making it both possible
and desirable for a composition of the nature of the Pentateuch to be
produced in historical Israel. Or, to put it another way, when did scribal
abilities and patronage (usually called 'scribal schools') of a sufficient
mass to produce extensive literary documents exist in historical Israel?
On the basis of inscriptional remains and the scribal practices of Israel's
neighbors,18 Lemaire (1981, 1992a, 1992b), for example, has argued that
scribal schools existed very early in Israel, appearing perhaps already
during David's reign in the tenth century BCE. In contrast, Jamieson-Drake
(1991) has argued that the archaeological evidence, such as settlement
paleographic and radiocarbon dating indicate that the patch is about 30-50 years
younger than the original scroll (Jull 1995). Another example is provided by 4QJuba, a
scroll originally written c. 125-100 BCE. Apparently the outer sheet of the scroll became damaged or too worn; a scribe recopied the text in a later hand, dated to c. 50
BCE, and then the newer sheet was sewn to the older scroll (VanderKam and Milik
1994: 1-2). It seems reasonable, therefore, to postulate a period of about 100 years as
the life of a scroll in use. Eventually, scrolls would become worn out and unusable;
humidity especially would induce biological degradation. The only early scroll fragments that have survived from Palestine, therefore, are those that were preserved in
desert caves with undisturbed conditions of almost total desiccation.
17. Documents were sometimes sealed in earthenware jars if they were meant to be
stored for a long time, as Jer, 32.14 seems to indicate, and as the Qumran remains
attest. However, just how long a scroll could be expected to survive under either
normal conditions of use or storage would vary with the specific context, especially
climate. No explicit estimate of the length of a scroll's life is given in descriptions of
ancient writing materials (Forbes 1957; Reed 1972; Poole and Reed 1972; Haran 1982,
1983,1985b; Lemaire 1992b; Wiirthwein 1995: 4-7), although usually leather is seen
as a more durable material than papyrus, being thus suited for writings intended for
long or frequent use, such as canonical compositions.
18. Certainly in Mesopotamia and Egypt, and likely also in Canaan.

size, and the presence or absence of public works and luxury items, indicates that Judah did not become a strongly centralized state requiring, or
even making likely, the existence of scribal schools, until the eighth and
seventh centuries BCE. In a survey of the debate, G.I. Davies, while
critiquing some of the shortcomings of Jamieson-Drake's study, agrees
that the evidence warns 'against claiming too much, especially for the
early monarchy period' (1995: 209).19 Millard, a supporter of Lemaire's
position (e.g. 1995), admits 'there are few ancient Hebrew texts which can
be dated much before 700 BC' (1992: 339). In conclusion, this brief overview implies that the production of a literary work like the final text form
of the Pentateuch, while it may draw upon previous written records, is
unlikely before the last century of Judah's existence. Thus, tentatively, a
terminus a quo of about 700 BCE is suggested.20
In summary, within this chronological framework of 700 to 250 BCE, a
possible date for the appearance of the final text form of the Pentateuch
within the late fifth or early fourth century BCE has been suggested above
on the basis of the extant manuscript evidence. Two other types of evidence will now be drawn upon in an attempt to lend more support and
precision to a possible range of dates for the production of the final text
form of the Pentateuch.
19. See also Na'aman (1997) who agrees with Jamieson-Drake that Judah did not
evolve from a chiefdom to a state until the eighth century BCE, but also argues for the
presence of royal scribes already under David.
20. Such a terminus a quo does not take into account the caesura represented by the
deportations and ravages effected upon Judah by the Neo-Babylonians in the early
sixth century BCE. Although the ensuing exile is often painted as a period of great
literary activity in which much of the biblical material was compiled or composed, the
improbability of associating such activity with a period of dislocation and destruction
in the ancient world is highlighted by P.R. Davies (1992: 41-44). Even the survival of
documents from pre-exilic Israel through such a period must be questioned. Thus, a
more realistic terminus a quo may be no earlier than the beginning of a new community in Jerusalem under the Persians in the late sixth century BCE. However, one
must also note that the biblical picture of a devastated and empty land during the exile
is belied by archaeological evidence of continued Israelite material culture during this
period (on this issue, see the synthesis of Barstad 1996). Thus Israelite cultural life
continued during the exilic period and perhaps with it also continued literary production, although the destruction of the societal macrostructure by the Babylonians
would have seriously compromised the material conditions necessary for sustained
literary production.
214
The Evidence of Other Documents

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

traditions can be pinpointed in these non-Pentateuchal biblical books, this
only indicates a knowledge of some of the traditions incorporated, perhaps
at a later date, into the Pentateuch and not necessarily of the final text form
of the Pentateuch itself.24
Although there is thus no firm evidence in non-Pentateuchal biblical
books to date the final text form of the Pentateuch, there are numerous
references to a definitive min ('Torah'), which may indicate knowledge
of the concept of a Pentateuch as a unified authoritative composition.
Although iTYin can simply mean 'instruction', both human and divine, the
use of modifiers, in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History, to
specify a particular Torah, shows the development of an authoritative text
of instruction.25 In works such as Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles, which
are definitely postexilic, one sees frequent references to simply minn;26
it is also among these works that one finds references to the establishment
of 'the Torah' as an authoritative document for the postexilic community
in Jerusalem (Ezra 7; Neh. 8-10). Of course, it is not clear whether these
references to the Torah are synonymous with something close to the final
text form of the Pentateuch,27 but they do indicate awareness that a
this phenomenon, see the comments of Rendtorff 1990: 204-205; and de Pury and
Romer 1989: 78-79). For example, with the exception of Jacob (a name that can also
signify the people Israel), the names of major characters from the Pentateuch, such as
Abraham, Joseph or even Moses, are virtually absent in the rest of the Hebrew Bible,
and appear most often only in the relatively late work of Chronicles.
24. Fishbane (1985) provides a finely nuanced discussion of the ongoing productive interplay between tradition (traditum) and the process of its transmission (traditio)
as evident in the present biblical text itself, both within books and between books.
25. Thus one finds references, for example, to minn ISO ('book of the Torah',
e.g. Josh. 8.34), HKin ITTinn ('this Torah', e.g. Deut. 1.5), nm min ('Torah of
Moses', e.g. 2 Kgs 23.25), and other formulations (seeCarr 1996: 29). As Criisemann
(1987: 66-67) aptly puts it, with the Deuteronomistic tradition, the dispersed and
generalized concept of Torah is transformed into something far more specific: 'die
eine, alles umfassende, schriftlich vorliegende, durch Mose in bestimmter Vergangenheit ubermittelte Weisung Gottes'.
26. See the discussion and biblical references in Carr (1996: 29-30). These works
also contain references to 'the Torah/Book of Moses', to 'the Torah of God/YHWH',
and other descriptions.
27. The problem is that some of the legislation described in Ezra and Nehemiah as
deriving from 'the Torah (of Moses)' finds no literal counterpart in the present form of
the Pentateuch. Fishbane (1985:114-29), for instance, demonstrates that the strategy of
exclusions from the postexilic community, as described in Ezra 9-10 and Neh. 10 and
13, is not based directly on any part of the present Pentateuch, but involves an
216
Pentateuch-like authoritative body of tradition was established by the

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

dates coincide with the range of dates suggested above on the basis of the
manuscript evidence.30
The evidence of texts outside of the present canon of the Hebrew Bible
will also now be briefly examined. Ben Sira, originally composed in
Hebrew c. 180 BCE, and subsequently translated into Greek by, at latest,
117 BCE by the grandson of the author (Di Leila 1992: 932), who also
added a preface to the work, is important in two respects.31 First, the
original work contains a famous section (chs. 44-49) in which Israel's
ancestors are praised. The persons on the list, and their order, correspond
closely not only to the final shape of the Pentateuch or Torah, but also to
the shape of the Prophets in the present Tanakh. In chapters 44 to 45, the
following characters from the Pentateuch are successively praised: Enoch
(44.16), Noah (44.17-18), Abraham (44.19-21), Isaac (44.22), Jacob
(44.23), Moses (45.1-5) and Aaron (45.6-26), thus showing familiarity with
the general outline of the Pentateuch.32 Therefore, the argument can be
made that Ben Sira testifies to the knowledge of a bipartite Scripture
consisting of the Torah and the Prophets, with the Torah corresponding to
the final shape of the Pentateuch, by the end of the third century BCE. The
prologue added to the Greek translation of the work some 60 years later
several times refers specifically to the Torah (b vopos) and the Prophets (01
TTpo<J>r)Tai), seemingly as authoritative collections of documents, arguably
following the practice of the original author (Orlinsky 1991: 486-4S7).33
30. The existence of a sectarian Samaritan version of the Pentateuch from about
100 BCE (Purvis 1986; Waltke 1992) confirms that at least by the second century BCE
the notion of a Torah consisting of the books Genesis through Deuteronomy existed.
31. The text of this work was preserved in its Greek form as part of the Christian
Old Testament. However, parts of the lost original Hebrew text were recovered in this
century from the Cairo Genizah, Masada and Qumran.
32. The major omission from this list is Joseph; however, after the praise of the
prophetic figures in chs. 46-49, the author closes with references to Enoch (49.14),
Joseph (49.15), Shem and Seth (49.16a), and Adam (49.16b). Of course, here the proper
order is disrupted, raising the question of whether this ending is a later addition, and
whether the original author was aware of the Joseph story as part of the Pentateuch.
33. The reconstructed text of a document found at Qumran, 4QMMT (4Q394-99),
contains a reference to 'the book of Moses, [the words of the pro]phets, and Da[vid and
the words of the days of every] succeeding generation' (Carr 1996: 41), thus perhaps
attesting to an authoritative Pentateuch' the book of Moses'by the second century
BCE. Further references to the various divisions or categories of authoritative Jewish
Scripture are found in Philo, Josephus, 4 Ezra, the New Testament and early rabbinic
literature (see Orlinsky 1991:488-89; VanderKam 1994:144-49), but these sources are
all first century CE or later.
218
Secondly, the prologue to the Greek translation mentions the existence

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

Discipline (1QS)38 all show awareness of at least those parts of the Pentateuch which they use as prooftexts. These manuscripts, however, date no
earlier than 150 BCE and most were copied in the first century BCE or later,
so they only corroborate the canonical nature of the Pentateuch by this
time. The same can be said of the various biblical commentaries or paraphrases, or other works found at Qumran, that make reference to the
content of the Pentateuch, such as 4QPentParb~e (4Q364-367); 4QpapParaphrase of Genesis-Exodus (4Q422), 4QCommentary on Genesis A-D
(4Q252-2543), 4QTestimonia (4Q176), IQapGen or 11QT.39 Several
copies of Jubilees, a retelling of most of Genesis and Exodus, and thus
presupposing the existence of these Pentateuchal texts, were found at
Qumran. One scroll remnant, 4QJuba (4Q216), may date as early as 150
BCE (VanderKam and Milik 1994: 2), indicating the likely earlier existence of authoritative (and linked) copies of Genesis and Exodus.
Finally, the evidence of works produced by early non-Jewish Hellenistic
writers needs to be assessed. The oldest extant account of Jewish origins in
Greek literature appears to be from Hecataeus of Abdera, a Greek historian who wrote under Ptolemy I of Egypt about 300 BCE. It is extant as
an excursus in the Bib. Hist. 40.3 of Diodorus Siculus, preserved by
Photius, and generally seems to be regarded as authentic (Stern 1976: 2024; Gager 1972:26-37). Hecataeus describes a Jewish exodus from Egypt
led by Moses, but his version differs in many ways from the Pentateuchal
account, not least in that Moses himself is described as coming to Judea
and founding Jerusalem and the temple. The account of Hecataeus thus
does not seem to know the canonical Pentateuchal story, or seems to know
it only in part; however, his account does contain a reference to written
Mosaic laws that echoes a common summary formula found in the Pentateuch (Gager 1972: 32). Thus, it is possible that some sort of Greek translation of at least parts of the Pentateuch may have been available in Egypt
at the time of Hecataeus; his divergence from the Pentateuch account may
be due to his status as outsider to the Jewish community, his adherence to
common schemata of Hellenistic historiography,40 and the influence on
38. Besides the nearly complete copy from Cave 1 (1QS), fragments of this work
have also been found in Caves 4 and 5 (4Q255-264,5Q11 and perhaps 5Q13) (VanderKam 1994: 57).
39. See the brief but helpful descriptions of some of these texts in VanderKam
(1994: 42, 52-55, 58-59).
40. For example, he describes the settlement of Judea according to the conventions
of Greek colonization.
220
him of the actual contemporary situation in the Judea of his time.41 The
third-century BCE Egyptian historian Manetho also wrote about the origin
of the Jews in Egypt, albeit in a denigratory fashion; his account has been
preserved by Josephus (Stern 1976:62-86; Gager 1972:113-18), and identifies Moses with an ex-Heliopolitan priest named Osarsiph. The anti-Jewish polemic of Manetho's account makes it unclear whether he is writing
specifically against the Pentateuchal account or more generally reporting
popular Egyptian views of his time; it has also been argued that the antiJewish passages are later interpolations into Manetho's account (e.g. Gager
1972: 116-18).
The most interesting work to consider is the writing of Herodotus, the
Greek historiographer of the fifth century BCE. Herodotus's History is
the oldest historical work in Greek preserved in its entirety; in its historiographical patterns and dimensions, compared to extrabiblical, Near Eastern
literature prior to the Hellenistic period, it provides the closest parallel to
the continuous biblical account found in Genesis through Kings (see esp.
Van Seters 1983: 8-54; 1992: 78-104). Not that Herodotus reports the
same events as found in the biblical account, but rather the manner and
conventions whereby Herodotus reports and organizes his account have
been seen as similar to those employed in the biblical account.42 Comparative studies of Herodotus and what has been called the 'Primary History'
(Genesis through Kings)43 have raised the question of whether either work
41. His description of the Jewish community as one that is ruled by priests seems to
be influenced by the contemporary situation of Judea in the Persian and Hellenistic
periods.
42. For example, Herodotus divides his work into nine books; Genesis through 2
Kings likewise comprises nine books. More cogently, 'In both works the material is
subordinated to a causal and corporate progression of events. The causes of the Persian
defeat in Hellas and of the Israelite exile respectively are explained, in both cases, as
models for proper behavior in the writers' own age as well as in the future' (Nielsen
1997: 7although he is referring primarily to the Deuteronomistic History; that is,
Deuteronomy through Kings).' [B]oth... stress the relationship between the rise or fall
of each nation and the state's leader's adherence to what is willed by the godhead.
Hence, they emphasize the defeat of a nation as a consequence of (often repeated and
escalating acts of) hubris or sin' (Mandell and Freedman 1993: 145-46). Stylistically,
'the two works have parallel motifs, parallel technical usages, and parallel literary
techniques' (Mandell and Freedman 1993: 160). Mandell and Freedman characterize
both works as 'tragic, primarily prose combined Roman a Clef and Documentary
Novel in epic format' (p. 170).
43. The term 'Primary History' for Genesis through Kings is that of David Noel
Freedman (1963,1987,1990), who postulates that this work was compiled, completed

influenced the other, or, at least, have proposed that both works are the
product of the same historical world view. While Mandell and Freedman
(1993: 175-76) argue that Herodotus was influenced by a prior Primary
History, Nielsen (1997:164) and Wesselius (1996) argue that the Hellenic
literary tradition represented by Herodotus influenced the writing of the
Primary History.44 It is not within the purview of this investigation to
decide between these various alternatives, except to suggest that the
parallels with Herodotus support a date in the fifth century BCE for the
appearance of the final text form of the Pentateuch.
In summary, the non-Pentateuchal biblical tradition associates the
promulgation of an authoritative Torah with a figure named Ezra who is
placed in Persian-period Yehud in the fifth or early fourth century BCE.
Various Pentateuchal books are widely cited as authoritative texts in
works found at Qumran, some copies of which may date to the third century BCE; this suggests the compilation and promulgation of the Pentateuch
some time earlier. Greek translations of the Torah may have been available as early as the late fourth or third centuries BCE, suggesting a somewhat earlier date for the Hebrew originals. Variant or distorted versions of
some Pentateuchal stories are known among non-Jewish Greek writers as
early as the late fourth century BCE. And, finally, the historiographic
parallels of Herodotus point to a fifth-century BCE milieu for the shaping
of the Pentateuch. This evidence cumulatively, although not conclusively,
points to the fifth or early fourth century BCE as the most likely period
during which the final text form of the Pentateuch was produced and
promulgated.
Excursus: Dating Based on Language Development and Archaeology
Some scholars base dating of the Pentateuch on the progressive stages of the development of the Hebrew language. This method, however, usually concerns the stages prior
to the completion of the Pentateuch rather than the final text form of the Pentateuch.
For example, it has been argued that the hypothetical source P of the Pentateuch
reflects a pre-exilic stage of the Hebrew language; for an effective refutation of this
argument, see Blenkinsopp (1996). Knauf (1990) compares the language of the
Hebrew Bible with inscriptional remains and concludes that it is a composite of
Hebrew from various periods, and that no biblical book was edited in its final text form
and 'published' between 560 and 540 BCE, based on an interpretation of the last verses
of Kings as a statement of the date and place of publication.
44. Wesselius, in fact, argues that the redactor of the Primary History took
Herodotus' History as a model both to emulate and with which to contrast.
222
before the fifth century BCE. This view is supported on different grounds by Cryer
(1994) but is contested by Ehrensvard (1997). See also P.R. Davies (1992: 102-105).
Another form of evidence for dating the Pentateuch is to attempt to find correlations
between Pentateuchal descriptions or legal stipulations and the archaeological record.
However, this sort of evidence is subject to a wide range of interpretation, and
furthermore may deal only with embedded ancient traditions in the Pentateuch rather
than the Pentateuch itself. For example, since an aniconic tendency seems to be part of
the ideology of the final text form of the Pentateuch (however, see the reservations of
Schmidt 1995), one could attempt to date the Pentateuch to the time when the
archaeological record indicates the beginning of a consistent aniconic practice in
Judahite society. The trend toward aniconism in Judean private name seals of the sixth
and fifth centuries BCE has been interpreted as evidence that the Pentateuchal ban on
images was in force by this time; yet, the same data can be interpreted as due to nonreligious factors such as growing literacy among the seal-owning elite and an
increasing distinction between the functions of seals and amulets (see Uehlinger 1993).
Conversely, Edelman's study (1995a) of images on coins minted in Cisjordan in the
Persian, Ptolemaic, Seleucid and Hasmonean periods, suggests that aniconism as religious legislation was not introduced until the late Persian or early Ptolemaic periods.
Official Authorization and Promulgation

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

legal traditions in the various provinces and colonies, which would then be
understood as the king's law.45 The mission of Ezra has been interpreted in
light of this imperial policy, leading to the suggestion that the 'law of your
god and the law of the king' (Ezra 7.26) which Ezra is instructed to teach
and administer is a reference to a similar codification of Israelite law
undertaken under Persian imperial auspices; and, furthermore, that this
codification is to be associated in some way with the Pentateuch.46 The
production of the Pentateuch is thus a product not only of the internal need
of the community of Yehud to construct a sense of cultural and religious
identity, but also, significantly, of the external pressure exerted by the
Persian empire for standardized law.47
Although this interpretation is very attractive, it is conjectural. Actual
examples of Persian imperial authorization are rather infrequent, range
over two centuries, and seem to concern texts much shorter than the Pentateuch (Romer 1996: 51). Furthermore, the historical authenticity of the
biblical traditions concerning Ezra are subject to debate (Grabbe 1994).
However, whether it is completely authentic or not, the biblical tradition
places the figure of Ezra in the fifth century BCE, and associates him with
the promulgation of an authoritative Torah. Even if it is a non-contemporary canonization legend for the Torah,48 the story of Ezra at least
45. See Peter Frei (1996) for the argument that the Persian empire had two tiers of
government: a central system focused on Persia, and a secondary system in which the
laws and customs of local subject peoples were allowed to operate with relative
autonomy, insofar as they concerned internal matters, and with the official authorization
of the Persian king. As evidence for this thesis, Frei evokes, among others, the trilingual
Xanthos inscription from Lycia (during the reign of Artaxerxes III) giving imperial
authorization for a sanctuary to the goddess Leto, the Egyptian demotic chronicle with
its description of a commission set up by Darius I to codify traditional Egyptian law,
and the so-called Passover Papyrus from Elephantine mentioning an edict of Darius II
legitimating the Passover celebration. This idea of imperial authorization (Reichsauthorisatiori) is also applied by Frei to the interpretation of the mission of Ezra.
46. See Berquist (1995: 110-12,138-39; 1996: 19-22); Blenkinsopp (1987; 1992:
239-42); Hoglund (1992: 228-36); Blum (1990: 345-60); Criisemann (1989).
47. Berquist (1995: 138-39). Gottwald (1985: 320) refers to the same internal and
external factors, adding that the internal need included the necessity of compromise
between different traditions (a P Torah and a D Torah) resulting in a 'new consensus
Torah'. The idea that the Pentateuch represents a compromise between two different
contemporaneous traditions is also argued by Blum (1990) and Romer (1992a, 1992b,
1996).
48. Similar, for example, to the legend of the canonization of the LXX presented in
the Letter of Aristeas.
224
points to the Persian period as a time in which the process of the production of the Pentateuch likely took place, although it does not, of course,
guarantee that the final text form of the Pentateuch was completed in the
fifth century BCE.
Conclusion
The cumulative weight of the evidence examined above suggests the
Persian period as the most probable period during which the final text
form of the Pentateuch was produced. The extant manuscript evidence,
references to and citations from an authoritative Torah in non-Pentateuchal
biblical texts and non-biblical texts, and references to early Greek
translations of the Torah indicate that the Pentateuch in its present overall
shape existed most likely at least by the fourth century BCE; that is, by the
late Persian and/or early Hellenistic periods, if not somewhat earlier. If the
parallels with the writings of Herodotus are cogent, and if at least some of
the traditions concerning Ezra are reliable, then a date in the mid or late
fifth century BCE is possible. Although dates during the earlier Persian or
even exilic period (sixth century BCE) can be postulated, they are more
difficult to justify on the basis of the available evidence. Later dates in the
Hellenistic period or even in the Hasmonean period are also possible if the
above evidence is interpreted from a more skeptical position.49 In sum, it
seems reasonable to propose a date for the final text form of the Pentateuch c. 450-350 BCE, with the awareness that such a date can only be
tentatively proposed on the basis of the available evidence, and that it thus
remains possible that adjustments to either a somewhat earlier or a somewhat later date may be necessary.
49. For example, some argue that the genesis of the Pentateuch (usually together
with the Deuteronomistic History) is a product of the encounter with Hellenism
(Lemche 1993; P.R. Davies 1995changing from his focus on the Persian period in
his 1992 work; Bolin 1996) or the product of the Hasmonean need for a legitimizing
national tradition (T.L. Thompson 1995).
Chapter 6
THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT: EGYPT AND ISRAEL
In Chapters 24 above, the various images of Egypt projected by the

Pentateuch's symbolic geography have been mapped out. In Chapter 5, a
range of possible dates for the production and promulgation of the final
text form of the Pentateuch was proposed, and a date in the later Persian
period was seen as most likely. In this chapter, the history of both Yehud
and the Egyptian Judean or Jewish1 diaspora within the context of the
Achaemenid empire will be explored, with the aim of identifying possible
sociohistorical contexts for the images of Egypt found in the Pentateuch.
The exploration will proceed as follows. First, the history of the Achaemenid empire will be briefly surveyed, with a focus on events having to do
with the empire's relations with Egypt and with Yehud's position as an
administrative unit on the empire's frontier with Egypt. Secondly, the history of the Judean diaspora community in Egypt will be briefly surveyed,
with a focus on that community's relationships with Jerusalem. Thirdly, an
attempt will be made to specify more precisely the producers and intended
audience of the Pentateuch's final text form in the Persian period. And
fourthly, alternative, but less likely, contexts for the Pentateuch's images
of Egypt, such as the earlier Neo-Babylonian and exilic periods, or the
later Ptolemaic, Seleucid or Hasmonean periods, will be briefly explored.
1. The use of the term 'Jewish' is problematic since it presupposes that some sort
of normative or essential Judaism existed already in the Persian period. Rather, as
many scholars are recognizing, this period (and even later periods extending to the
rabbinic period) is characterized by many different forms of religion and culture
somehow connected to Judea. Thus, it would probably be more correct to speak of a
'Judean' diaspora rather than a 'Jewish' one. See P.R. Davies (1995) for a stimulating
discussion of the problem, and the suggestion of a three-stage development beginning
with an unreflective Judean culture, progressing to 'Juda-ism', in which this culture
becomes a conscious object of community and ethnic definition, and finally 'Judaisms'
in which the formulations go beyond the culture of Judea.
226
The Persian Period

The Persian period was inaugurated by the reign of Cyrus the Great (559530 BCE), who defeated the Neo-Babylonians in 539 BCE and is credited
by the scroll of Ezra (1.1-4; 6.3-5) with a decree granting Judean exiles
permission to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple of YHWH.2 The
return of such exiles is portrayed as taking place under both a certain
Sheshbazzar, variously depicted as a 'prince of Judah' and 'governor'
(rrns),3 andZerubbabel, called 'governor of Judah' (rmrv HPIS).4 Achaemenid policy in this regard presents little change from previous NeoBabylonian and Assyrian precedents, in that the goal is the creation of
populations of peoples dependent on centralized imperial control (Hoglund 1992: 5-11, 23). In the following reign of Cambyses (530-522 BCE)
Egypt was conquered and added to the Persian empire (525-526 BCE). The
expeditionary force that accomplished this task would have marched south
through the Levant and therefore conceivably may have had some impact
on Judea, or Yehud (as the area was known in the Aramaic lingua franca
of the Persian period).
The reign of the next Achaemenid king, Darius I (522-486 BCE),
marked a period of profound change for the empire. The accession of
Darius was characterized by revolts throughout the empire, including
Egypt (Bresciani 1985: 507; Ray 1988: 262), leading Darius to undertake
a program of administrative reorganization. It is Darius who is credited
with ordering the continuation of the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem
(Ezra 6.6-12), and it is in his sixth year (515 BCE) that the temple is
reported as completed (Ezra 6.15). Yehud is clearly depicted in the biblical
sources as being by this time an autonomous administrative unit, with its
2. The Cyrus Cylinder (ANET: 316) is usually cited as evidence that such permission for the return of exiles is not only historically authentic but also not unique to
the exiled Judeans. However, as Williamson (1985: 13-14) cautions, especially on the
basis of the study of Kuhrt (1983), the evidence of the Cyrus Cylinder does not refer to
a general return of deported populations and is not as close to the biblical text as is
often claimed.
3. Ezra 1.8, 11; 5.14, 16.
4. Haggai 1.1. See also Hag. 1.12,14; 2.2,23; Zech. 4.6,7,9,10; Ezra2.2; 4.2,3;
Neh. 7.7; 12.47; 1 Chron. 3.19. On the confusion of, or overlap between, Sheshbazzar
and Zerubbabel, see the discussion of Williamson (1985: 17-18) and C. Meyers and
E.Meyers (1987: 9-14).
6. The Historical Context
227
own governor, within the satrapy 'Beyond the River' (mnr~au).5

In Egypt, the reign of Darius is characterized by extensive building projects6 and, especially, by the codification of Egyptian law. The so-called
Demotic Chronicle7 reports the appointment of a commission during the
reign of Darius to codify the law of Egypt as it stood in the days of
Pharaoh Amasis; the commission's work was copied in both Egyptian
demotic and Aramaic, the official administrative language of the empire.
In addition, the inscription on the mortuary statue of the Egyptian collaborator Udjahorresnet recounts that he was sent by Darius to Sais to restore
the scribal institution attached to the temple there. On the one hand, such
actions served to legitimize Darius's rule by appeal to native customs; on
the other hand, they functioned to enable the rule of Persian officials over
widely disparate parts of the empire. The codification of Egyptian law
under imperial directive raises, of course, the question of whether a similar
imperial interest may have been behind the codification of Judean law in
the Pentateuch. In this connection, the similarities between the mission of
Udjahorresnet, and those of Ezra and Nehemiah as depicted in the biblical
texts, are evocative.8
Besides these administrative changes, the reign of Darius is marked by
an unsuccessful invasion of Greece and the emergence of the Greek threat
to Persian hegemony in the eastern Mediterranean. While the rebellions of
the Ionian cities at the beginning of the fifth century BCE were successfully
put down, the Persian invasion of Greece ended in defeat at Marathon in
490 BCE. Subsequently, at the death of Darius, revolts broke out, first in
5. The theory, first proposed by Alt, that Yehud was under the administrative
oversight of Samaria until the mid fifth century BCE, is thoroughly examined and
refuted in Hoglund (1992: 69-86); see also E. Meyers (1987). On the likely territorial
extent and population of Yehud, see Carter (1994, 1999).
6. Under Darius I, a canal between the Nile and the Red Sea begun by Pharaoh
Necho II, was completed. Darius also enabled the construction or embellishment of
various Egyptian temples (Ray 1988: 264; Bresciani 1985: 508-509), possibly a
parallel to his support of the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem.
7. This work forms the recto of Papyrus Bibliotheque Nationale 215, and consists
of a series of oracular statements with explanations or glosses; it was probably composed in the early Ptolemaic period (Johnson 1992).
8. For the parallels, as well as differences, see Blenkinsopp (1987; 1994:210-12).
Ezra and Nehemiah do not appear until at least a half century after Udjahorresnet (the
chronologically closer parallel to Udjahorresnet would be Zerubbabel); however, the
example of Udjahorresnet may indicate the evolution of a particular imperial policy of
legal reform that may have been operative for a long time.
228
Egypt (c. 486 BCE) and then in Babylon (c. 484 and 482 BCE), which the
next Achaemenid monarch, Xerxes I, was required to subdue. Further
major defeats at the hands of the Greeks followed: at Salamis in 480, at
Plataea and Mycale in 479, and at the Eurymedon in Pamphylia in 466
BCE. The formation of the Athenian-dominated Delian League in 479 BCE
led to the empire's loss of its European territories and of its dominance
over many of the Greek communities in Asia Minor. Persian interests in
the eastern Mediterranean were deeply compromised by these setbacks,
and it seems that Persian policy toward the populations of the empire
became harsher.9 The potential of Greek subversion was especially
demonstrated by Greek involvement in a major Egyptian revolt, to which
we now turn.
As early as 465 or 464 BCE, with the death of Xerxes I and the accession
of Artaxerxes I, a revolt broke out in Egypt under the leadership of Inaros
and Amyrtaeus, native leaders from the western Delta.10 The rebels were
initially successful, defeating the satrap of Egypt, Achaemenes, in 460
BCE. Inaros called on Athenian aid and a Delian fleet sailing to attack
Cyprus was diverted to Egypt, and Memphis was besieged in 459 BCE.
This involvement of the Greeks was especially troubling to the empire
since it threatened the Persian hold over the entire Levant. A large imperial army was mustered under the leadership of the general Megabyzus,
and the rebels, together with their Greek allies, were defeated in 456 BCE.1'
Eventually a truce between Athens and Persia was negotiated in 449 BCE.12
Athenian influence, however, continued, and even expanded in Asia
Minor, and was not halted until the onset of the Peloponnesian Wars (431404 BCE).
The reigns of Xerxes I and Artaxerxes II are thus characterized by
increasing Persian difficulty in maintaining the empire's western border on
the eastern Mediterranean sea coast. The alliance between the Egyptian
9. With Xerxes I, for instance, one finds for the first time an emphasis on exclusive worship of Ahura Mazda as opposed to the previous more conciliatory Persian
policy of inclusive monotheism in which regional gods were equated with Ahura
Mazda (Bolin 1995: 136-39).
10. Revolts and other disturbances often accompanied the death of a king and the
subsequent uncertainty over the succession; for instance, revolts also broke out upon
the death of Cambyses in 522 and Darius I in 486 BCE.
11. While Inaros was taken captive, Amyrtaeus continued resistance in the Delta
until c. 449 BCE (Cook 1983: 127; Ray 1988: 276).
12. This truce was called the 'Peace of Callias' after the Athenian negotiator.
229
rebels and the Greeks especially threatened Persian ability to control the
Levant. Areas on the western frontier of the empire such as Yehud were
left open to anti-Persian influence and coercion, and thus also vulnerable
to the empire's desire to bring such areas under tighter imperial control,
not least because they stood on the path that the imperial armies would
take on the way to Egypt. The Egyptian revolt, with its Greek backing,
thus constituted a crisis that called forth extraordinary efforts by the
Persian empire in the mid fifth century to consolidate its hold on its
western territories.
It is precisely during this critical period in the mid fifth century that the
biblical accounts place the missions of Ezra (c. 458 BCE)B andNehemiah
(445^32 BCE).14 Furthermore, Hoglund (1992: 170-202) argues that
archaeological evidence indicates the establishment of a series of standardized garrisoned fortresses throughout the Levant at this time, located
so as to secure the road network.15 In his words, 'the appearance of these
garrisons in the mid-fifth century is the indelible fingerprint of the hand of
the Achaemenid empire tightening its grip on local affairs in the Levant'
(1992: 243). Large grain storage pits associated with some of these
fortresses suggest that these garrisons were also imperial supply depots
connected with Persian military actions against Egypt.16 The mission of
13. Of Ezra's mission, Grabbe remarks 'the mission may well have had the
Egyptian revolt as a background' (Grabbe 1992: 131).
14. The traditional order and dates for the missions of Ezra (458 BCE) and
Nehemiah (445 BCE) are here provisionally accepted, while recognizing the significant
debate on this issue (see Hoglund 1992: 40-44). What is important is not that the
missions of Ezra and Nehemiah took place exactly as depicted in the biblical accounts,
but rather that the biblical accounts depict these characters as active in the mid fifth
century in Yehud, at the height of Persian imperial concern over the stability of the
western frontier.
15. The fortresses examined by Hoglund exhibit a regularity of designthey are
precisely square with a central courtyard, surrounded on all four sides by casemate
rooms, that occupies 25-33% of the total area of the structureindicating a centralized
construction effort. They tend to be located away from population centers and on high
elevations overlooking major roadways.
16. See Hoglund (1992: 213). At Tel Michal, grain storage pits seem to date
already from the founding of a military depot at the site in the last quarter of the sixth
century, associated by the excavator with the invasion of Egypt by Cambyses. Such
granaries also appear in subsequent Persian period strata at the site (Herzog 1989). The
suggestion of Stager (1971) that such granaries functioned to store agricultural
surpluses for times of famine is less likely, given the general association of the sites
with military installations rather than settlements.
230
Nehemiah, depicted in the biblical accounts as concerned with the refortification of Jerusalem, and with economic reforms that could be interpreted as intending to lessen the impact of increased imperial demands,17
provides a compelling parallel to the archaeological evidence. The mission
of Ezra, portrayed in the biblical accounts as largely concerned with legal
reform, is suggestive of the imperial imposition of a new legal order to
tighten the empire's control over the region (Hoglund 1992: 220-25).I8
The Persian empire's response to the lessons of the Egyptian revolt can
thus be reasonably correlated with the memory, encoded in the scroll(s) of
Ezra and Nehemiah, of profound changes initiated in Yehud around the
middle of the fifth century BCE. One of these changes is associated with
the promulgation by Ezra, under imperial auspices, of a 'law of the God of
heaven' (K'Qtf 11 ^"H Km),19 a law that is elsewhere called the 'law of
YHWH',20 the 'law of God/your God',21 or the 'law/book of Moses',22 a
written document (~I2D)23 that is officially equated with imperial law
(ND^Q "H Nfll).24 Although there is no unequivocal correlation between
any element of the commission of this law and Pentateuchal legislation, it
seems that the author of the scroll(s) of Ezra and Nehemiah understood the
law brought by Ezra to be the Pentateuch (Williamson 1985: xxxviixxxix). If the Pentateuch was promulgated in the mid fifth century as an
imperially sponsored or initiated codification of law for Yehud (whether in
actuality or fictiously), then the Pentateuch's strong anti-Egyptian stance
fits well into the historical context. It would be in the best interests of the
leaders of the Judeans to disassociate their community from any Egyptian
connections so as to affirm their loyalty to the Persian cause at a time of
Persian troubles with serious Egyptian rebellion.
17. New local revenue would have been required to support an increased military
presence in the region.
18. The parallel often drawn between the missions of Ezra and Udj ahorresnet only
establishes the possibility of imperially initiated legal reform and codification. In other
respects, the missions of these two figures is quite different in that Udj ahorresnet
functioned immediately after the Persian conquest of Egypt when initial structural
integration of Egypt into the empire was required, whereas Ezra functioned at a time
when Yehud was already presumably integrated into the empire.
19. Ezra 7.12, 21.
20. Ezra 7.10; 13.9; Neh. 9.3.
21. Ezra 7.14, 25, 26; Neh. 8.8, 18; 9.3; 10.3, 29.
22. Ezra 3.2; 7.6; Neh. 8.1.
23. Nehemiah 8.1, 8, 13, 14, 18; 9.3; 10.35, 37.
24. Ezra 7.26. See Berquist (1995: 112).
231
The Judean situation was complicated by the presence of Judean communities already in Egypt at the time of the revolt. Although it seems that
the Egyptian rebels never extended their power into Upper Egypt, and so
the Judean garrison at Elephantine, for instance, remained loyal to the
empire, it seems reasonable to suppose that there was a concern on the part
of Jerusalem with the loyalty of the Judean communities in Egypt. By
bringing such communities under the authority of the official anti-Egyptian narratives and laws promulgated from Jerusalem, assimilation to
Egyptian ways could be mitigated and pro-Persian loyalties guaranteed.
And precisely such a dynamic is suggested by the correspondence from
Elephantine regarding the celebration of Passover and/or the festival of
Unleavened Bread, and the rebuilding of the YHWH temple (see pp. 237-38
below); namely, the Judean authorities were attempting to extend their
religious and cultural authority, again under imperial auspices, over
Judean communities in the Egyptian diaspora.
Persia's troubles in Egypt were only temporarily relieved by the withdrawal of the Greek threat due to the Peloponnesian Wars. Eventually, the
successor of Artaxerxes I, Darius II (423-^-04 BCE), was drawn into intervening against the Athenians in their war with Sparta (c. 414 BCE; Cook
1983: 130); various rebellions in Egypt are also hinted at by this time,25
Around the death of Darius II in 404 BCE, and the accession of Artaxerxes
II (404-359 BCE), full revolt broke out in Egypt under a second Amyrtaeus
(28th dynasty, 404-399 BCE), and Egypt became independent of Persian
control.
The next 60 years were characterized by repeated unsuccessful Persian
attempts to regain control of Egypt, and by various Egyptian forays into
the Levant, attempting to extend Egyptian hegemony into the area and
often in support of anti-Persian rebellions.26 For instance, a scarab of
Pharaoh Nepherites I (399-393 BCE), founder of the 29th dynasty, found at
Gezer, suggests that Egyptian control may have extended into Palestine
sometime during his reign.27 Pharaoh Achoris (393-380 BCE), in collusion
25. In 410 the Temple of Yahu in Elephantine was destroyed in what seems to have
been a rebellion of sorts. Cook (1983: 261) notes that Diodorus mentions troubles in
Egypt in 411 BCE.
26. Succinct overviews of the period of Egyptian independence are found in Ray
(1987) and Kaiser (1972).
27. If the mission of Ezra is to be dated to 398 BCE, as some commentators argue,
then the promulgation of the anti-Egyptian Pentateuch may be connected with the
beginning of Persian attempts to reconquer Egypt.
232
with Athens and rebels in Cyprus and Ionia, was active in Palestine, successfully repelling a Persian invasion of Egypt. Destruction layers dated
around 380 BCE at sites in the Shephelah and the Negev may be connected
with military efforts that restored Persian control over Palestine at this
time. During the prosperous reign of the 30th dynasty, several more
Persian attempts to invade Egypt came to nothing, and, in fact, Pharaoh
Tachos (362-360 BCE) was able momentarily to occupy the coastal plain
of Palestine and Phoenicia. The failure of the Persian invasion of Egypt in
350 BCE led to the revolt of Phoenicia under Tennes. Once Artaxerxes III
(358-338 BCE) had pacified Sidon, he was finally able to reestablish
Persian hegemony over Egypt in 343 BCE.
The effect on the tiny colony of Yehud of these military conflicts
between Persia and Egypt is not known, yet it seems likely that the movements of armies back and forth had an impact. On the one hand, there may
have been pressures to adopt either pro-Egyptian or pro-Persian attitudes
at various times, depending on who was in control. On the other hand,
Persian control of the vast empire was gradually disintegrating during the
fourth century and so Yehud may have been able to maintain a relative
autonomy; at any rate, there are no obvious references to imperial interference in Yehud's affairs during this century (Berquist 1995:126). There
is also no indication of the state of relationships between Jerusalem and
the Judean diaspora in Egypt; however, especially during the period of
Egyptian independence, one can imagine that such a relationship may have
been difficult to maintain.28 Certainly the anti-Egyptian message of the
Pentateuch would have been relevant at various times within the historical
context of the fourth century BCE, especially in association with Persian
attempts to reconquer Egypt. Thus, while the initial impetus for the codification and promulgation of the Pentateuch can be located in the context of
the mid fifth-century BCE imperial response to the Egyptian revolt, as
suggested above, it is also possible that the final text form of the antiEgyptian Pentateuch could have evolved during the tumult of the repeated
Persian attempts to reconquer Egypt 50-100 years later.
The intrigues and assassinations during the short reign of Arse (338-336
28. There is scant evidence for a Judean diaspora in Egypt during this time. Judean
military garrisons, now in the service of the native Pharaohs, probably continued to
exist, perhaps on analogy with the Greek mercenaries that Egypt certainly employed
during this time; see also the evidence discussed below. It seems likely that the Egyptians would foster a pro-Egyptian attitude in such garrisons, perhaps precisely the type
of pro-Egyptian attitude that the Pentateuch is at pains to discredit.
233
BCE) enabled Egypt to revolt yet again. The revolt was subdued by Darius
III (336-330 BCE) but his victory was shortlived; by 330 BCE Alexander of
Macedon had conquered the Persian empire, including Palestine and
Egypt, and a new Hellenistic period began. A Hellenistic period context is
argued by some for the production and promulgation of the Pentateuch;
this argument will be considered below.
To summarize: the historical survey above has highlighted a number of
periods during which Egypt figures prominently in the politics and military strategies of the Achaemenid empire. These include the initial conquest of Egypt in 525 BCE during the reign of Cambyses, the Egyptian
revolt of Inaros in the mid fifth century BCE during the reign of Artaxerxes
I, and the successful Egyptian revolt of Amarytaeus at the end of the fifth
century leading to over half a century of Persian-Egyptian conflicts during
the reigns of Artaxerxes II and III. During these periods, Yehud was a
territory of possible strategic importance since it was located on the Palestinian frontier between the satrapy Abar Nahara and Egypt.29
The range of dates of 450-350 BCE identified in the previous chapter as
the most likely period during which the final text form of the Pentateuch
was produced and promulgated coincides with the rebellions and eventually successful bid for independence by Egypt during the reigns of
Artaxerxes I and II. One can imagine that in such turbulent times, the
governing elite of Yehud would have been eager to demonstrate their
allegiance to their Persian overlords and their repudiation of any positive
Egyptian connections. It would have been in their self-interest to disassociate, or in some way distance, the origin stories and legal traditions of
their people from Egypt, and to persuade the local population in Yehud to
follow suit. At the same time they needed to deal with the reality of an
Egyptian Judean diaspora community, which would need to be persuaded
to make an anti-Egyptian (and thus pro-Persian) tradition their own. The
evidence for this Judean diaspora community in Egypt must now be
examined in more detail.
The Judean Diaspora in Egypt
The earliest attestations of Judean diaspora communities in Egypt come
from notices condemning such communities in Jeremiah (sixth century
BCE, if authentic),30 from the Elephantine Papyri (dating from 495-399
29. See the apt title of Kaiser's (1972) article: 'Zwischen den Fronten'.
30. It is not within the purview of the present discussion to debate the date of the
234
BCE),31 and from grave inscriptions discovered in Edfu (fourth century

BCE).32 From about 250 BCE, an abundance of evidence, including inscriptions, historical accounts and other literature such as Philo's writings,
confirms the widespread existence of Judean diaspora communities in
Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt.33
The first Judean presence in Egypt is probably to be associated with
mercenaries supplied by the king of Judah in the late seventh century BCE
to the Egyptian Pharaoh as part of the shifting alliances of that period, in
which Judah was squeezed in the superpower rivalry between Egypt and
first the Assyrians and then the Neo-Babylonians. Modrzejewski (1995:
23-25) argues that King Jehoiakim (609-598 BCE) probably provided the
Egyptian king with mercenaries;34 Porten (1968: 11-13) argues that king
Manasseh (c. 687-642 BCE) already engaged in such a practice.35 Graffiti
in the temple of Abu-Simbel attests to the presence of foreign troops in the
campaign of Psammetichus II against Nubia in 593 BCE, and the Letter of
Aristeas (13) may associate Judean troops with this expedition.36 Jeremiah
(44.1) mentions a number of Jewish settlements in Egypt as already
established in the early sixth century BCE.37 Thus, there is evidence for the
composition and editing of the scroll of Jeremiah, and the relative reliability of its
description of various historical events. Many commentators seem both to assume the
general reliability of the scroll and to date its final compilation in the mid sixth century
BCE (e.g. Clements 1988: 12; Lundbom 1992: 716). However, some scholars locate
redactions of the scroll as late as the fourth century BCE (Carroll 1989: 31-40).
31. On the Elephantine Papyri, see especially Porten (1968, 1996).
32. See Kornfeld (1973, 1976).
33. See especially Tcherikover, Fuks and Stern (1957-1964); Lewis (1964);
Horbury and Noy (1992); Barclay (1996).
34. Jehoiakim was placed on the throne by Necho II of Egypt after Necho defeated
and killed King Josiah (2 Kgs 23.28-36).
35. The Rassam Cylinder (ANET: 291), describing Ashurbanipal's expedition to
Egypt, seems to indicate the presence of Judean troops in the Assyrian army that
attacked Egypt.
36. This conjecture is mentioned by, among others, Porten (1968: 8-11); Kornfeld
(1976: 57); Modrzejewski (1995: 23-25).
37. These are Migdol, Tahpanhes, Memphis and Pathros. Migdol, a West Semitic
loan word in Egyptian, commonly means 'tower' or 'fortress' and therefore could
serve as the place name for various military stations at the borders of Egypt; the
biblical references seem to point to one, or several, locations in Lower Egypt (Lott
1992). Tahpanhes was an Egyptian outpost in the eastern delta bordering the Sinai
peninsula, garrisoned with foreign mercenaries since the Saite period; interestingly, the
present site contains a ruin referred to by Egyptian peasants as 'fortress of the Jewish
235
presence of communities of Judeans in Egypt before the exile.

In the aftermath of the Neo-Babylonian destructions and deportations in
597 and 586 BCE, it is likely that Egypt experienced an influx of soldiers
and other refugees from Judah. The story in Jer. 40-43 depicts the Judeans
responsible for the assassination of Gedaliah, the king or governor
appointed over Judah by the Neo-Babylonians,38 as fleeing into Egypt,
taking Jeremiah with them.39 However, direct evidence of a Judean presence in Egypt is first found in the papyri recovered from the island of
Elephantine at the first cataract of the Nile, which indicate the presence of
a Judean military colony there. Although the papyri date from the fifth
century BCE, and provide an unparalleled glimpse into the life of this
colony at that time, it seems that the colony was established earlier during
the Saite period.40 Therefore, it seems that a Judean presence existed in
Egypt already by the beginning of the Persian period, and that it consisted
largely of military colonists (although this may be due to the fact that the
only extant evidence indicates military colonies).
woman' (Jones and Fiema 1992). Memphis was the principal residence and capital of
many of the Pharaohs, including those of the Saite dynasty, and it served as governmental headquarters during the Persian period. It included a foreign community of
merchants and mercenaries including Syrians, Greeks and Jews (Redford 1992c). And
Pathros refers to the administrative region of Upper Egypt, in which the border
garrisons of Syene and Elephantine were located (Baker and Redford 1992). Each of
these places is associated with a military site, thus corresponding to other evidence of
an early Judean presence in Egypt largely in military colonies.
38. See Miller and Hayes (1986: 421-23) for the possibility that Gedaliah was
appointed as king.
39. The account in Jeremiah expresses a blatant anti-Egyptian perspective in that
the Judeans exiled in Egypt are totally rejected; 'blaming the community in Egypt for a
deep spirit of apostasy tends to offset the contrastingly high expectations concerning
the exiles forcibly taken to Babylon' (Clements 1988: 234-35). This pro-Babylonian
and anti-Egyptian perspective corresponds well with the ideology of the Pentateuch,
but requires its own more detailed analysis.
40. Among the papyri are two drafts of a letter sent to the governor of Judah
appealing for help in getting the colony's temple rebuilt, in which it is asserted that this
temple had been established before Egypt was conquered by the Persians under
Cambyses in 525 BCE. The two papyri in question are variously designated as Cowley
30-31 (Cowley 1923), TAD A4.7-8 (Porten and Yardeni 1986-93), and B19-20
(Porten 1996). The rather literal rendition of the relevant sentence from lines 13-14 of
the first draft in Porten (1996: 141-42) reads: 'And from the days of the king(s) of
Egypt our fathers had built that Temple in Elephantine the fortress and when Cambyses
entered Egyptthat Temple, built he found it.'
236
The papyri of the Judean colonists at Elephantine describe practices that

seem at odds with Pentateuchal legislation, and, even more significantly,
with the exclusivist ethos prevalent in the descriptions of the Jerusalem
community in Ezra and Nehemiah. Whereas Deuteronomy stipulates only
one legitimate temple, the Elephantine colonists had their own long-standing temple; moreover they may have associated their god YHW (a
shortened form of YHWH) with a consort,41 and were not constrained
against swearing oaths by other deities.42 While Ezra (9-10) and Nehemiah (13) advocated the expulsion of foreign wives to solve the problem
of mixed marriages, at Elephantine it seems that children of mixed marriages involving either a Judean father or mother were accepted into the
Judean community (Modrzejewski 1995: 35). In contrast to Pentateuchal
law, the legal documents recovered from Elephantine seem to indicate that
women enjoyed a greater degree of autonomy, having inheritance rights
and being allowed to take the prerogative in divorce (Modrzejewski 1995:
35-36).43 In other words, the legal and religious practices at Elephantine
41. Modrzejewski (1995: 37) draws attention to Jer. 44, in which members of the
Egyptian Judean diaspora are described as insisting on maintaining the ancient custom
of making offerings to the 'queen of heaven'. A papyrus from the late fifth century
from Elephantine, Cowley 44 (Cowley 1923)/TAD B7.3 (Porten and Yardeni 198693)/B52 (Porten 1996), testifies to an oath sworn by a Judean by the gods Herem and
AnathYHW; the latter may indicate the goddess Anath as either a consort of YHW or
an aspect of YHW. Anath may have carried the title 'Queen of Heaven' (see Porten
1996: 266). Ackerman (1992) argues that the worship of other deities, such as Anath,
in association with YHWH was more characteristic of the popular religion of sixthcentury Judah than the exclusive monotheism advocated by a priestly and prophetic
minority which survives in the texts of the Hebrew Bible.
42. See the previous footnote; as well, Cowley 14 (Cowley 1923)/TAD B2.8
(Porten and Yardeni 1986-93)/B30 (Porten 1996) reports an oath sworn by a Judean by
the Egyptian goddess Sati, consort of the Egyptian Elephantine god Khnum. Cowley
22(Cowley 1923)/TADC3.15 (Porten and Yardeni 1986-93) is a list of contributions
from the Judean colonists not only for YHW but also for two Aramean deities,
Eshembethel and Anathbethel. See the extensive analysis by Porten (1968:151 -86) of
what he designates as the 'pagan contacts' of the Elephantine colony.
43. See especially the documents from the Elephantine archive of the Judean
woman Mibtahiah, e.g. Cowley 8-9 (Cowley 1923)/TAD B2.3-4 (Porten and Yardeni
1986-93)/B25-26 (Porten 1996). Eskenazi (1992) argues that the ban on intermarriage
in Ezra and Nehemiah indicates that women in postexilic Yehud most likely originally
enjoyed the same autonomy exhibited by the women at Elephantine; 'the fear of mixed
marriages with their concomitant loss of property to the community makes most sense
when women can, in fact, inherit' (p. 35).
237
do not seem to be bound to the traditions as they are presented in the final
text form of the Pentateuch; either the Pentateuch was not yet promulgated
at this time or it was not known or acknowledged among these colonists
in Egypt.
That there was an attempt to bring the religious practices of the Elephantine colony under the direction and control of Jerusalem is indicated
by two pieces of evidence. The so-called Passover Papyrus (419 or 418
BCE) is a letter sent from a certain Hananiah, a Judean appearing to have a
senior position with the Persian administration,44 to the Judeans at Elephantine, ordering them to celebrate the festival of Unleavened Bread on
the standardized dates of the 15th to 21st of Nisan.45 These dates correspond to the instructions for observing a week of prohibition of leaven in
Exod. 12.18. The prohibition of leaven (see pp. 123-24 above), serves in
the Pentateuch as a ritual to manifest the purification of Israel from Egyptian associations. Thus, the intent of the letter may be to bring the celebration of Unleavened Bread at Elephantine into line with its celebration
in Jerusalem, with its anti-Egyptian associations.46 The involvement of the
Persian administration in religious matters is probably not unusual;47 the
Passover Papyrus also corresponds to later examples of letters from Jerusalem to the Egyptian diaspora urging the celebration of a new or reformed
44. That Hananiah came from outside of Egypt seems to be indicated by another
Elephantine Papyrus: Cowley 38 (Cowley 1923)/TAD A4.3 (Porten and Yardeni
1986-93)/B15 (Porten 1996), line 7. Porten speculates that Hananiah may have been a
relative ofNehemiah, who became governor of Yehud after Nehemiah (1968: 130), or
that he was an emissary of Darius II (1968: 280). Another suggestion is that he was a
member of the staff of the Egyptian satrap Arsames (Hamilton 1995: 109).
45. Cowley 21 (Cowley 1923)/TAD A4.1 (Porten and Yardeni 1986-93)/B13
(Porten 1996). The extant letter is quite fragmentary and has been extensively reconstructed on the basis of biblical and even rabbinic traditions (Porten 1996: 126,1979:
91-92). The extant fragments, however, do not explicitly mention either Passover or
Unleavened Bread. See Lindenberger (1994: 56-58), who offers two versions of the
letter: one based solely on the surviving text, and a second containing the extensive
reconstructions of Porten and Yardeni.
46. Passover was already known by the Elephantine community, as indicated by
earlier ostraca from Elephantine mentioning Passover. One of these, dated to c. 475
BCE (Lindenberger 1994: 44), however, may attest that Passover/Unleavened Bread
was celebrated at variable times in Elephantine (cf. Deut. 16.9). Therefore, part of the
letter's mandate may be to fix the time of Passover according to Jerusalem practice.
47. See the demotic papyrus dating to 492 BCE detailing the involvement of the
satrap Pherendates in the appointment of the lesonis, an important temple functionary,
for the Khnum priests at Elephantine: C1.3 (Porten 1996).
238
festival in association with the promulgation of a new written text.48 It is

thus tempting to connect the Elephantine Passover papyrus with a similar
promulgation of the Pentateuch.
Secondly, a papyrus documenting the support received from Jerusalem
and Samaria (shortly after 407 BCE) for the rebuilding of the temple at
Elephantine mentions permission for the reinstitution of incense and vegetable offerings, but is conspicuously silent about permission to reinstitute
animal sacrifice, as the petitioners had apparently requested.49 In a further
document from the same period, offering the Egyptian satrap a bribe in
exchange for support in rebuilding the temple, the leaders of the Elephantine colony seem to have accepted the exclusion of animal sacrifice.50 It
seems that, in contrast to the prior practice at Elephantine, animal sacrifice
was now to be restricted to the Jerusalem temple alone. This change may
have been mandated to pacify the local Egyptian worshipers of the ramgod Khnum and/or to assert the authority and centrality of the Jerusalem
temple by downgrading the importance of the Elephantine temple.51
One must note that these apparent changes in the ritual practice of the
Judeans at Elephantine took place at the behest of Judean authorities in
48. 2 Maccabees 1.1-9 (c. 124 BCE) urges the Egyptian diaspora to celebrate
Hanukah (Modrzejewski 1995: 122), and the colophon to the Greek edition of the
scroll of Esther (c. 114 or 77 BCE) urges the Egyptian diaspora to celebrate Purim,
perhaps as a replacement for a distinctly Egyptian Jewish festival (Moore 1992: 631).
49. The brief memorandum from Bagavahya, governor of Yehud, and Deliah of
Samaria, is found in Cowley 32 (Cowley 1923)/TAD A4.9 (Porten and Yardeni 198693)/B21 (Porten 1996). The two drafts of the petition to the governor of Yehud for
support in rebuilding the temple (see n. 40 above) mention the restoration of vegetable,
incense and animal offerings (line 25).
50. Cowley 33 (Cowley 1923)/TAD A4.10 (Porten and Yardeni 1986-93)/B22
(Porten 1996). Line 10 makes the implicit exclusion of animal sacrifices in the imperial
memorandum explicit.
51. R.E. Clements argues that the Deuteronomic law of cult centralization, in
which all legitimate worship involving sacrifice was to take place in Jerusalem alone,
was a development after the catastrophe of 587 BCE, and in response to 'serious voices
which had begun to look elsewhere for suitable places at which to continue older, but
in their own way thoroughly traditional, forms of Israelite cultic activity' (1996: 18).
One might add to Clement's argument the strong indications of imperial Persian
authorization for such a move implicit in the biblical portrayals of Ezra andNehemiah.
The extension of this cult centralization to the Judean diaspora communities would
thus fit the circumstances of the Elephantine correspondence.
239
conjunction with, and under the auspices of, Persian royal authorization.52
Furthermore, the Elephantine Papyri attest to a deterioration of relations
toward the end of the fifth century BCE with the local Egyptian population.
Several papyri speak of imprisonments and riots;53 the most traumatic
event for the colony, of course, was the destruction in 410 BCE of the temple to YHW by Egyptian soldiers, incited by the local priests of the Egyptian deity Khnum54 and in collusion with the local governor.55 The fifth
century was a period of rising nationalism in Egypt, characterized by a
number of revolts56 that eventually led to the restoration of Egyptian independence from the Achaemenid empire c. 404-400 BCE.57 In this context,
these attempts to assert control over the religious practices of the Judeans
of Elephantine may be evidence of a wider concern to engender and
support Judean allegiance to the Persians and against Egyptian nationalist
aspirations, not just in the province of Yehud, but also among Judean
colonists in Egypt.
It is not known whether the Judean colonists at Elephantine succeeded
in rebuilding their temple;58 the last datable documents recovered from the
52. The injunction to celebrate Unleavened Bread from the 15th to the 21st of
Nisan, for instance, is based on a royal decree of King Darius; unfortunately, a lacuna
in the surviving text does not allow a reconstruction of the text of the royal decree
(Porten 1996: 126).
53. Cowley 38, 56 and 34, 27 (Cowley 1923)/TAD A4.3-5 (Porten and Yardeni
1986~93)/B15-17 (Porten 1996).
54. The arrival of Hananiah in Egypt seems to have stirred up the enmity of the
Khnum priests against the temple of YHW (Porten 1996: 78, 125).
55. A series of four papyri narrate the destruction of the temple and the various
efforts to have it rebuilt: Cowley 30-33 (Cowley 1923)/TAD A4.7-10 (Porten and
Yardeni 1986-93)/B19-22 (Porten 1996).
56. Large-scale rebellions broke out in Egypt in 486-483 BCE, and again in 460454 BCE (Ray 1988: 275-76). The correspondence of the satrap of Egypt, Arsames, in
the last half of the fifth century, also mentions Egyptian insurrections several tunes
(Lindenberger 1994: 79, 82, 83).
57. Amyrtaeus revolted in 405/404 BCE but the Elephantine papyri continue for
some time to be dated according to the reign of the Persian monarchs. Cowley 7
(Cowley 1923)/TAD B7.2 (Porten and Yardeni 1986-93)/B50 (Porten 1996) is the
latest of these papyri, dated to the fourth year of the reign of Artaxerxes II (401 BCE).
However, a papyrus a year later is dated to the fifth year of Amyrtaeus (400/399 BCE),
indicating that the native Egyptian Pharaoh had finally extended his authority into
Upper Egypt: Cowley 35 (Cowley 1923)/TAD B4.6 (Porten and Yardeni 1986-93)7
B51 (Porten 1996).
58. A document from402 BCE-Kraeling 12 (Kraeling 1953)/TAD B3.12 (Porten
240
Judean colony refer to the reign of Pharaoh Amyrtaeus in 40059 and to the
accession of Pharaoh Nepherites I in 399 BCE,60 indicating perhaps a
smooth transition from Persian domination to local rule (Bresciani 1985:
522). However, the colony then seems to disappear and no further mention
of it is found in any sources. Nine fragmentary grave stelae with Aramaic
inscriptions from Edfu in Upper Egypt downstream from Elephantine,
have been tentatively dated on paleographic grounds to the fourth century
BCE (Kornfeld 1973), and are perhaps evidence of a continuing Judean
colony during the period of Egyptian independence (404-343 BCE). This
period was one of Egyptian piety, exploited by the ruling class, and a high
interest in magic, with an emphasis on distinctively Egyptian religious
elements such as animal cults (Ray 1987: 86-88).61 It was also a period of
instability, during which Egyptians constantly under threat of Persian
invasion,62 during which, not military settlers, but professional foreign
mercenaries working for cash, came to displace Egyptian warriors (Ray
1987: 85). Under these conditions, Judean colonists could certainly have
continued to exist in Egypt but relationships with Jerusalem, firmly within
the orbit of Persian control, may have been difficult.
From what is known of the Judean military colony at Elephantine, the
Judean diaspora in Egypt seems to present a distinct profile. First, it
clearly demonstrates a pre- or non-Pentateuchal religious milieu. As already discussed above, the presence of a temple of YHW at Elephantine in
which sacrifices took place, the mention of other deities, the autonomy of
women and the seeming acceptance of intermarriage all contrast with
some of the legal stipulations of the Pentateuch and certainly with the picture painted of the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah in the biblical scroll(s)
and Yardeni 1986-93)/B45 (Porten 1996)mentions the temple of YHW in the
description of the boundaries of a house, indicating that perhaps the temple had been,
or was being, rebuilt (Porten 1996:249). However, the temple site could still have been
used as a reference point even if it was in ruins (Lindenberger 1994: 56).
59. See n. 57.
60. Kraeling 13 (Kraeling 1953)/TAD A3.9 (Porten and Yardeni 1986-93).
61. The proliferation of mummified animal burials in Egypt, which began in the
seventh century BCE, 'possibly expanded as a nationalistic movement against Persian
domination in an attempt to express the superiority of traditional Egyptian religion',
and reached its zenith in the Greco-Roman period (Hoffmeier 1992: 376).
62. The Persians attempted some five invasions of Egypt in the first half of the
fourth century BCE before they were finally successful in 343 BCE. The Egyptians,
allied variously with Sparta, Ionia, Cyprus and Phoenicia, made several incursions into
Palestine (Bresciani 1985; Ray 1987).
241
bearing their names. The Elephantine colonists largely bear theophoric

Yahwistic names characteristic of postexilic Judean literature; however no
names associated with Israel's early origins as presented in the Pentateuch,
such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph or Moses, are found.63 The Sabbath
and some form of the Passover and/or Unleavened Bread seem to have
been observed, although the degree and type of observance is unknown.
Secondly, the evidence of the Elephantine colonists seems to indicate
integration into aspects of the imperial Persian world view. While no
copies of any biblical texts were found at Elephantine, an Aramaic text of
the Besitun inscription of Darius I and a copy of the Aramaic Words of
Ahiqar were recovered from the colony. The Besitun inscription, relating
the legitimization of Darius's rule by his victory over nineteen rebels in
one year, was not only carved into rock in the three cuneiform languages
of Old Persian, Akkadian and Elamite, but copies in these and other
languages seem to have been distributed by Darius I throughout the
empire. Meant to impress subject peoples with Persian might and power,
the copy of the inscription at Elephantine could be an affirmation of the
loyalty of the Judean colony to the Persian crown.64
The Words of Ahiqar, a polytheistic text containing the story of the
unjust accusation and eventual restoration of a sage in the Assyrian court,
as well as a collection of brief sapiential sayings, was probably edited
before the mid sixth century BCE in Mesopotamia (Lindenberger 1985).
That this text was found in the Judean colony at Elephantine supports the
relative openness of the colonists to the mention of deities other than
YHW;65 if it contained the part of the story telling of the sage's journey to
Egypt to dazzle the Egyptian court, it may especially have resonated with
the colonists in their Egyptian setting.66
63. Some of these names do appear later in the Ptolemaic period; compare the
prosopography of Hebrew names from Elephantine in Porten (1996: 268-76) with the
prosopography in Tcherikover, Fuks and Stern (1957-64: III, 167-96) and the index of
names in Horbury and Noy (1992: 258-64).
64. Greenfield and Porten (1982: 3) suggest that the inscription might have been
recopied in Elephantine as an affirmation of loyalty during the reign of Darius II, who
came to the throne a century after the accession of Darius I.
65. Besides references to 'the gods' (plural), the sayings refer specifically to the
gods El, Shamash and Shamayn, familiar from the Canaanite pantheon (Lindenberger
1985: 484-86).
66. Unfortunately, the end of the narrative portion of the text from Elephantine is
not extant due to the fragmentary condition of the papyrus; later versions narrate
Ahiqar's travels from Assyria to Egypt. The fuller version is thus comparable to the
242
One further indication of integration into the Persian imperial world

view is the colonists' identification of their god YHW with the 'god of
heaven' (N'QC SH "?R) in their letter requesting permission to rebuild their
temple. Bolin (1995) argues that thereby the local god YHW is being
equated with the Persian high god Ahura Mazda as a pragmatic accommodation to current imperial policy, which, during the reign of Xerxes I in the
early fifth century BCE, shifted from a more conciliatory approach towards
local religious manifestations to an emphasis on the exclusive worship of
Ahura Mazda.67 Others view the identification of YHW with the 'god of
heaven' as evidence of a theological shift in the Israelite world view, in
common with a general intellectual shift in the Near East in the Persian
period, from henotheism to a universalistic monotheism.68 Likely, both
pragmatic political considerations and participation in a more general
intellectual trend were involved; what is significant here is that the Judean
colony at Elephantine exhibits an accommodation to Persian imperial
religious policy. The same accommodation may be evident in Pentateuchal
texts that equate YHWH with DT! *7K.69
The Judean colonists at Elephantine also exhibit generally good relations with the native Egyptian population of Persian period Egypt. Intermarriage with Egyptians, for instance, seems to have taken place without
censure. Such close relations could, of course, lead to certain degrees of
assimilation to native Egyptian ways. For example, Papyrus Amherst 63
contains a seven-line prayer to the Egyptian god Horus with a striking
resemblance to Ps. 20.2-6. If this text represents an Egyptianized version
stories of Joseph, Esther and Daniel, all depicting the success of Judean heroes in a
foreign court. However, as Lindenberger (1985: 498) notes, the surviving portions of
the Elephantine text contain no traces of the Egyptian episode.
67. 'It is no longer a case of the Persian administration making the equation of the
local god with the high god; rather, in the face of a Persian policy focused exclusively
on the high god, it is the task of the worshippers of the local/regional god to make the
equation and then to convince the Persians as well' (Bolin 1995: 139).
68. See especially T.L. Thompson, who writes that the shift is to 'a world view that
distinguishes relative perceptions that are contingent geographically and religiously
from an assertion of ultimate reality that is beyond human expression, perception and
understanding' (1995: 115). Bolin (1995: 128) also mentions Porten and Andrews as
proponents of this view.
69. On this point, see T.L. Thompson (1995: 116-21), who focuses especially
on the theophanies experienced by Moses in Exod. 3 and 6. One might also note
the strong associations made between Abraham and ]vbu bft ('the high god') or
C'DETI Tl^K ('the god of heaven') in Gen. 14 and 24.
243
of Ps. 20, and if it originated from Edfti or Syene, both associated with
Persian period Judean military colonies,70 then it may indicate the possibility of Judean assimilation to an Egyptian religious milieu.71 However,
the enmity of the priests of the Egyptian ram-god Khnum towards the
sacrifices in the YHW temple, an enmity that may have been rooted in a
rising sense of Egyptian nationalism and a resentment of the foreign troops
who undergirded Persian domination, and that led to the destruction of the
temple of YHW, indicates a relative religious differentiation from the native Egyptians. Similarly, the use of Aramaic rather than demotic indicates
a linguistic differentiation.72
The relationship of the Judean colonists at Elephantine with Jerusalem
and the province of Yehud is ambiguous. When the colonists sought
support for the rebuilding of their temple, they apparently first appealed to
the high priest and the nobles in Jerusalem, but received no reply;73 they
then wrote to the Persian governor of Yehud as well as to the authorities in
Samaria, and, when a reply eventually arrived, it was underwritten by both
the Jerusalem and Samarian authorities. While these authorities express no
overt condemnation of the Elephantine temple, they do seem to attempt to
exert a measure of control over the religious affairs of the colony, as is
seen in the restrictions placed on the type of offerings allowed in a rebuilt
70. Steiner (1995) traces the papyrus to the community of Arameans at Syene, with
whom the Judean colonists at the nearby island of Elephantine had close relations. The
papyrus containing the prayer was found in Thebes, which definitely had a Judean
community in the Hellenistic period; Nims and Steiner (1984) also point to the
possibility of a provenance in Edfu, which was a center of Horus worship. The papyrus
itself is dated to the late second century BCE, but could preserve much older traditions.
The tenuousness of the dating and provenance of the prayer to Horus, and of its relationship to Ps. 20, allow only the postulation of possibilities but no firm conclusions.
71. Nims and Steiner (1984) argue that the prayer to Horus represents an
Egyptianized version of Ps. 20. However, they acknowledge that it is difficult to
ascertain whether the psalm was Egyptianized by a highly syncretic Judean community
or whether it was Egytianized subsequent to leaving Judean hands. Others have seen
the origins of this text in an ancient Canaanite or Aramaic prayer that predates both Ps.
20 and the prayer to Horus, and served as the original source for both (Zevit 1990).
72. Conversely, the identification of the Jewish colonists with the Aramean
colonists in Syene was quite close, as witnessed by the use of Aramaic, the seemingly
shared veneration of the Aramean deities Eshembethel and Anathbethel, and the relative interchangeability of the labels 'Judean of Elephantine' and 'Aramean of Syene'
(Hamilton 1995: 108).
73. This lack of response may be significant if the Jerusalem priests were already
beholden to the Pentateuchal restriction of temple sacrifice to one place.
244
Elephantine temple. Furthermore, if the Hananiah who dictates what are

ostensibly new instructions for celebrating Unleavened Bread is an official
from Yehud, then one has a further example of the extension of the control
of Jerusalem. In other words, there seems to be a certain exercise of
Jerusalem authority over the Judean diaspora community at Elephantine,
in a form that resembles some of the dictates of the Pentateuch.74
The evidence of Elephantine thus paints a picture of Judean diaspora
communities in Egypt as largely military colonies employed by the Persians to maintain imperial hegemony. While the accidents of preservation
and archaeological discovery have provided solid evidence only for the
colony at Elephantine (and perhaps at Edfu) during the Persian period, this
colony is not necessarily an isolated or singular occurrence.75 Semitic
soldiers are attested during this period at a number of places in Egypt other
than Elephantine, such as Syene, Edfu, Thebes, Hermopolis, Oxyrhynchos, Daphnae and in the Fayyum (Bresciani 1985:517-18), and they may
have included Judean contingents. Other than as soldiers, Judeans may
have also been present in Egypt as government officials,76 peasant farmers
or shepherds, but it is only with the Hellenistic period that evidence for
such a Judean presence in Egypt is found.
In sum, the Judean diaspora in Egypt during the Persian period seems to
74. The instructions for Unleavened Bread from Jerusalem in part adhere to
Pentateuchal instructions, but they also contain provisions not found in the Pentateuch.
Similarly, the restriction on offerings in the rebuilt Elephantine temple approaches, but
is not identical with, the restriction of temple worship to one place (Jerusalem) in
Deuteronomy. Thus, it seems that either the Pentateuch is not yet in its final form of
promulgation or that its authority is only gradually being extended to the Judean
diaspora. There is no evidence in the Elephantine Papyri of two other concerns hinted
at by the Pentateuchal narrative of the exodus, namely, of making a pilgrimage outside
of Egypt in order to worship YHWH, and of having one's bones transported back to
Judea for burial. The evidence gathered by Safrai (1981: 8, 66-67) indicates that
pilgrimage to Jerusalem was not prominent in the period of the Second Temple until
towards the end of the Hasmonean era; huge numbers of pilgrims, including pilgrims
from Egypt, only begin to be mentioned in the Herodian period. Burials in the
neighborhood of Jerusalem of Jews from the diaspora are similarly only attested in the
late Second Temple period (Safrai 1974: 194).
75. Bolin (1995: 140) refers to Cook's assessment of Elephantine's important
location such that the colony established there cannot be viewed as a secluded,
parochial community unconnected to the events and policies of the wider empire.
76. A certain' Anani, the scribe' is mentioned as a government official in a Persian
period papyrus: B11 (Porten 1996)/TAD A6.2 (Porten and Yardeni 1986-93)/Cowley
26(Cowley 1923).
245
present a pre-Pentateuchal community that is beginning to come under the

sway of what seem to be Pentateuchally based stipulations, emanating
with imperial authorization from Jerusalem. The series of Egyptian revolts
in the latter half of the fifth century BCE and the period of Egyptian
independence in the first half of the fourth century BCE provide a compelling background for the extension of the Pentateuch's anti-Egyptian (and
thus pro-Persian) rhetoric to the diaspora in Egypt.
Producers and Audience
As was argued in the previous chapter, the production and first promulgation of the final text form of the Pentateuch seems most likely to date to
the Persian period, and more specifically to the second part of that period,
Persian II (450-333 BCE).77 The biblical memory of significant changes
associated with Ezra and Nehemiah, who are placed by the biblical tradition also in this period,78 and the imperial efforts to intensify the Persian
empire's control through legal codification and other means, tends to support this historical contextualization. The history of this period, as outlined
above, especially the intensification of the empire's troubles on its western
frontier, epitomized by unrest and revolt in Egypt, and the role of Judean
colonists in Egypt as soldiers under Persian command, provides a compelling sociopolitical setting for the Pentateuch's anti-Egyptian rhetoric. If
this scenario seems reasonable, it still remains to attempt to answer the
question of who exactly the producers of the Pentateuch were and to
which audience(s) they directed their work.
If the final text form of the Pentateuch is a production of the restoration
community centered in Jerusalem79 in the province of Yehud, then it is the
77. Following Carter's periodization (Carter 1994: 120-22).
78. Whether this tradition is historically accurate or not in all its details is a separate issue from the clear indication that the tradition attributes significant changes to
this period.
79. Ben Zvi (1997: 200-201) claims that all the books in the Hebrew Bible, with
the notable exception of Esther, display a Jerusalem-centered theology. The story of
the eighth plague of locusts in Exodus contains some revealing geographical information supporting the Jerusalem-centric nature of the narrative in its description of the
direction of the winds that first bring the locusts (10.13) and then drive them away
(10.19). In the MT, an east wind brings the locusts and a west (sea) wind drives them
away, betraying a geographical orientation at home in Palestine but not in Egypt. By
contrast, in the LXX a south wind brings the locusts and a wind from the sea drives
them away, which fits the geographical orientation of Alexandria in the Nile delta.
246
product of a very small group. Carter (1999), extrapolating from archaeological data, estimates that the population of Yehud during the Persian
period did not exceed 20,650, and that Jerusalem had only some 1,500
inhabitants.80 The literate elite involved in the production of the final text
form of the Pentateuch would therefore consist of only at most a few
hundred individuals at any given time.81 By itself, the province of Yehud
did not possess sufficient social and economic resources to develop and
maintain a literate elite capable of high-quality literary production, thus
leading some scholars to locate this type of production in the previous
period of late monarchic Judah, or in the Babylonian exile, or in the
following Hellenistic period (see pp. 249-55 below). However, the Persian
period is a time in which external imperial resources made literary production, as well as the construction and support of a temple and the
refortification of Jerusalem, possible.82 In other words, the final text form
of the Pentateuch was produced by a small literate elite in Jerusalem under
Durham (1987: 137) and Cassuto (1993: 127) offer rather weak arguments attempting
to reconcile the MT with Egyptian geography.
80. These are the figures that Carter estimates for Persian II. The estimates for
Persian I are even lower: Yehud13,350; Jerusalem1,250. One must remember that
the boundaries that Carter draws for the Persian period province of Yehud are quite
restricted, encompassing a territory of only some 1,900 square kilometres (1999: 102),
and that some Judeans lived outside those boundaries in neighboring provinces as well
as in the diaspora (1994: 140-41). Other population estimates are higher; Broshi
(1975), for example, estimated the population of Persian period Jerusalem at 4,800.
Much higher are the estimates of Weinberg (1972; reiterated most recently in 1996:6465), who argues that the population of Persian period Yehud was 200,000; however,
Weinberg's estimates are based solely on an intuitive, uncritical interpretation of the
various lists in Ezra-Nehemiah.
81. See Ben Zvi (1996) for a similar numbering of the elite behind the production
of the prophetic literature in its final forms; in a later article, he speaks of only a
'handful' of biblical writers in Achaemenid Yehud (1997:201,205). By 'literate elite'
is meant a segment of the population that exhibits 'high literacy'; i.e. competence in
the reading and composition of complex texts such as those found in the biblical
tradition, as opposed to lower levels of 'practical literacy' (Ben Zvi 1997: 195).
82. Carter (1999:292; 1994: 140-41) notes that financial support for the temple in
Jerusalem came not only from the population of Yehud itself, but also from Judean
populations in neighboring territories (but see the cautions of Ben Zvi 1997: 197-98).
Financial support also came from the empire itself as part of an imperial policy of
fostering loyalty by restoring cults and temples disrupted by the Neo-Babylonians. The
refortification of Jerusalem likewise was part of a wider imperial strategy to bolster its
western frontiers, as discussed above.
247
the active patronage of the empire.83 Since the size of this elite was rather
small, even with imperial patronage it probably tended towards the redaction of existing traditions and a limited repertoire more than to the composition of completely new texts and an extensive repertoire (Ben Zvi
1996:263; 1997:205-206). Thus, while the Pentateuch was likely redacted
in this period from pre-existing sources and tradition, its final redactional
profile and ideology would stem from this period. The ideology of this
elite, as the intellectual leaders of what may possibly have been an ethnically defined, Persian-sponsored, 'citizen-temple' community,84 would tend
both to delineate the boundaries between its membership and outsiders,
and to express its loyalty to its Persian patrons.
As for the audience towards which the final text form of the Pentateuch
was directed, it would consist of literate individuals who could read the
text and the illiterate public who could have the text read to them.85 It
seems reasonable that the majority of the audience was local to Yehud, yet
indications of contact between authorities from Yehud and the Judean
diaspora in Egypt, for example, suggest that the audience may also have
extended to include members of Judean diaspora communities. That the
Pentateuch, in accordance with the analysis in Chapters 24 above, seeks
to persuade its audience to take up an anti-Egyptian viewpoint suggests
that at least part of the intended audience consists of those who, to some
degree, hold a pro-Egyptian viewpoint which the producers of the Pentateuch find inimical to their sociopolitical goals. That is, among the local
population in Yehud, and perhaps also among communities of Judeans
83. As Ben Zvi (1996: 265) points out, the patron-client relationship between the
imperium and the producers of the final forms of Israel's biblical literature is indicated
by the absence of any condemnation of Persia, for instance, in the prophetic oracles
against the nations, even though almost every other ancient nation, both close to and
distant from Yehud, and including imperial powers such as Egypt, Assyria and
Babylon, is criticized. The only anti-Persian text seems to be Neh. 9.36-37, although
Persia is not mentioned directly.
84. The theory of 'citizen-temple communities' in the first millennium BCE was
first formulated by Soviet historians of the Near East, and was applied to Achaemenid
Yehud by Weinberg; see Weinberg (1992) for a convenient collection and translation
into English of his writings on the subject. For a comprehensive examination of the
issue, see Blenkinsopp (1991).
85. The biblical tradition gives evidence that it was formulated for such public
reading. See, e.g., Neh. 8.1-8; 2 Kgs 23.1-3//2 Chron. 34.29-33; Deut. 31.9-13. For a
consideration of these and other texts, and for an argument that the Pentateuch in
particular was composed for oral presentation, see Watts (1995).
248
living elsewhere, especially those in Egypt, there were those for whom
Egypt occupied a positive position in their cognitive or symbolic
geographies.86 In the context of Persian imperial concerns over the interlocking issues of the empire's hegemony over Egypt and the stability of its
western frontiers, such a geography was potentially subversive to imperial
interests, and thus the attempt by Persian loyalists to reinscribe in the
Pentateuch a different geography that shifts Egypt into a negative position.
The audience towards which the final text form of the Pentateuch was
first directed was likely not homogenous; besides those with a more proEgyptian stance, it probably included others inclined to a more antiEgyptian viewpoint. As Watts (1995: 554-55) argues, a rhetorical appeal
to such a mixed audience, with diverse and perhaps opposed interests,
often employs a strategy in which the concerns of each audience are
appealed to separately in the same text, even though this results in
ambiguity and contradiction.87 While the persuasive text generally seeks to
project a unitary vision, opposed groups in the audience must be convinced that their views are represented in the text's program in order to
gain their acceptance. The Pentateuch's sometimes ambivalent assessment
of Egypt suggests that both pro- and anti-Egyptian constituencies were
among the first audience of its final text form, even though the unitive
vision of the Pentateuch aims at an unequivocal differentiation between
Egypt and Israel.
Since the production of the Pentateuch was likely sponsored and made
possible by official Persian patronage, it remains to ask whether the Pentateuch was also aimed at a Persian readership; that is, was the Pentateuch,
like the codification of Egyptian law during the time of Darius I, also
meant to be translated into Aramaic for the use of the Persian governmental bureaucracy? While Wacholder (1990: 262-69) argues that Aramaic versions of at least some Hebrew biblical texts existed already in the
Persian period, conclusive evidence is lacking until the much later
targums. However, the fact that parts of Ezra and the early chapters of
Daniel, which may originally have had a Persian period provenance, are
rendered in Aramaic at least attests to the possibility of an early Aramaic
version of sorts of the Pentateuch. If so, then the Pentateuch's anti86. The positive position of Egypt might be due to a number of factors, such as
Egypt's long-standing historical dominance and influence in Palestine, and ancestral
traditions in Israel of Egyptian origins.
87. ' Juxtaposition of contradictory appeals is apparently more effective at gaining
audience support than vague statements that offend no one' (Watts 1995: 554 n. 38).
249
Egyptian rhetoric may also have been aimed to satisfy Persian patrons.
Nonetheless, at present it seems more prudent to see the rhetoric of the
Pentateuch as aimed chiefly at the mixed Judean audience delineated
above.
Alternatives: Before or after the Persian Period
In considering possible other periods that might provide a better, or at least
alternative, historical fit to the Pentateuch's specific view on Egypt, it
seems that the periods immediately preceding or following the Persian
period warrant consideration. These would include the latter years of the
Judean monarchy as it fell under increasing Neo-Babylonian domination
(late Iron IIC period) and the period of exile (Neo-Babylonian period),
occurring immediately before the Persian period, and the Ptolemaic
period, which follows the Persian period.
The latter years of the Judean monarchy were dominated internationally
by the collapse of the Assyrian empire and the emergence of a bipolar system of confrontation between the rising Neo-Babylonian empire and the
Saite or 26th dynasty of Egypt. Malamat (1988; 1975) outlines no less than
six critical shifts in Judah's foreign policy, from the death of Josiah at
Megiddo in 609 BCE to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, in which
loyalty switched back and forth between Egypt and Babylon.88 The antiEgyptian diatribes in Ezekiel and Jeremiah may reflect some of the arguments that took place in the Judean court between proponents of the
pro-Babylonian and pro-Egyptian camps.89
88. These six shifts include: (1) Josiah's disastrous expedition against the Egyptians at Megiddo in 609 BCE leading to Egyptian subjugation of Judah; (2) the defeat of
Egypt by Babylon at Carchemish in 605 BCE leading shortly to the subjection of Judah
to Neo-Babylonian hegemony; (3) a rebellion and defection to the Egyptian camp in
the wake of Babylon's failed invasion of Egypt in 601-600 BCE; (4) Judah's surrender
to Babylon in 597 BCE and the deportation of some of its inhabitants; (5) Judah's
participation in a rebellious anti-Babylonian coalition with Egyptian backing in 594
593 BCE; and (6) the destruction of Jerusalem by the Neo-Babylonians and further
deportations in 586 BCE.
89. That only the views of the pro-Babylonian side are explicitly preserved in the
biblical tradition indicates the general pro-Mesopotamian orientation under which the
material was edited into its final text form. The contrasting prophetic messages of
Hananiah (anti-Babylonian) and Jeremiah (pro-Babylonian) in Jer. 28, for instance, are
connected by W.L. Holladay (1989: 127) with the anti-Egyptian coalition convened by
Zedekiah in Jerusalem in 594593 BCE. Gorg (1992) analyses the episode in Jer. 38 as
250
This situation of contention seems at first glance to provide an appropriate historical context for the equivocal anti-Egyptian rhetoric of the
Pentateuch. However, the fact that the final text form of the Pentateuch
contains clear references to an exile and a return from exile of the people
of Israel90 indicates that its final text form could not have been produced
any earlier than the exile or return from exile. Furthermore, given the rapid
shifts in Judah's foreign allegiances during this period, it is difficult to
pinpoint the institutional stability and patronage that would have undergirded one particular viewpoint. This does not obviate the possibility that
both pro-Babylonian and pro-Egyptian traditions from this period may
have been preserved into the Persian period, there forming part of the
situation to which the Pentateuch is addressed.
The period of exile in Babylon itself (586-530 BCE) could perhaps provide a context in which Judeans would have found it beneficial to express
pro-Mesopotamian and anti-Egyptian sentiments, since the Neo-Babylonians invaded Egypt at least once during this period.91 However, the
Neo-Babylonian incursions and deportations of 598 and 586 BCE, while
not utterly devastating Judah as much as the biblical tradition depicts,
nevertheless disrupted especially the macrostructure of society capable of
supporting a high literate elite.92 It is therefore unlikely that remnants of
a confrontation between pro-Egyptian and pro-Babylonian constituencies in Jerusalem.
90. See Deut. 4.26-31; 28.36-37,63-67; 29.27; 30.1-5. The verbal correspondence
between Deut. 30.1 andJer. 16.15, and between Deut. 30.4 andNeh. 1.9, is especially
striking.
91. In 567 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar sent an army against Egypt, ostensibly to reinstate
Pharaoh Apries, who had been deposed by Amasis in a military coup in 570 BCE; the
Babylonian army suffered a crushing defeat in the delta at the hands of the Egyptians
(Lloyd 1983:285; Kuhrt 1995: 593). Aprior Babylonian invasion of Egypt in 582-581
BCE is sometimes posited on the basis of Josephus (Ant. 10:180-82); see the discussion
in Miller and Hayes (1985:425,427), who also point to Ezek. 29.17-20 and speculate
that this was a time of anti-Babylonian uprisings in Syria-Palestine, including the
assassination of Gedaliah by Ishmael, probably with the support of Egypt. The third
deportation of Judeans mentioned by Jeremiah (52.30) may have been part of the NeoBabylonian response to this revolt.
92. Barstad (1996) debunks the biblical myth of Judah as an 'empty land' during
the exile, arguing that the deportation of the upper class would have had little effect on
the day-to-day operation of what was basically an agricultural society. However,
Jamieson-Drake argues that the Neo-Babylonian disruption of the controlling elite
destroyed the state centralization mechanisms of Jerusalem, leading eventually to
wider economic collapse and depopulation (1991: 75-76, 145-46); certainly, the
deportations would have had far more dire consequences for the survival and operation
251
the monarchic literate elite deported to Babylon would have enjoyed the
political and economic resources necessary for producing a work like the
Pentateuch,93 nor that the task would have been any more possible among
those who were allowed to remain in the land.94 Certainly, the disaster of
the destruction of the temple and of the monarchy in Jerusalem would
have made a great impression on the Judahite world view and gained a
prominent place in the collective memory of surviving Judahite communities, but the articulation of the meaning of these events in literate
form would need to await the necessary material and sociopolitical
conditions later in the Persian period.
Yet, precisely because the requisite resources for literary production
appear low also in Persian period Yehud, some scholars have suggested
that the production of biblical literature should be located in the following
Hellenistic period,95 inaugurated by Alexander of Macedon's swift
conquest of the Persian empire in the late fourth century BCE. Alexander's
death in 323 BCE touched off a period of unrest, the period of the so-called
Wars of the Diadochi, during which various of Alexander's generals
fought and schemed against each other to carve up the empire. Palestine
was fought in and over many times during this period. Ptolemy I of
of a high literate elite, which depends on accumulated surplus in urban centers with
institutional support. The trend toward ruralization, beginning in the exilic period
(Barstad 1996: 54-55) and continuing into the early Persian period (Hoglund 1991: 5760), would make conditions for literary production less than ideal. Nonetheless,
Barstad (1996: 20, 81) points to the scroll of Lamentations as an example of the high
literary production that could have taken place in exilic Judah. One should note,
however, that Lamentations was composed early in the exilic period according to most
interpreters (see Sailers 1994: 98-99) and focuses very narrowly on poetically
describing immediate circumstances; it thus differs in extent and qualitatively from the
'historical' and composite nature of the Pentateuch. For arguments against the dating
of Lamentations in the exilic period, see Provan (1990).
93. It is not until the fifth century BCE that there is evidence, in the form of the
Murashu tablets, of prosperous Judeans in the Mesopotamian diaspora who may have
had the resources to sponsor literary production (but see the cautions of Stolper 1992:
928).
94. Mizpah seems to have been the main administrative center of Neo-Babylonian
Judah, and was far too small to support high literate production (Ben Zvi 1997: 203).
95. Lemche (1993) makes this argument, adducing also evidence of Greek historiographical influence on the Hebrew Bible. Bolin (1996) argues that the final editing and
writing of much of the Hebrew Bible took place in the Hellenistic period since the
biblical references in Ezra and Nehemiah indicate that in the Persian period the biblical
traditions were only just being shaped and collected.
252
Egypt96 eventually succeeded in bringing Palestine under Ptolemaic hegemony, inaugurating large-scale voluntary or forced migration into Egypt
of Judeans and others looking for economic opportunities or entering as
war captives, a migration which continued throughout the Ptolemaic
period.97 From this time, the Judean diaspora population in Egypt grew
enormously, such that, by the beginning of the first century CE, it is
estimated that the Jewish98 population in Egypt numbered about 300,000,
constituting some 20 per cent of the Greek speaking population of Egypt.99
The majority was located in Alexandria, where they constituted a good
third of the city's population of over one-half million inhabitants, but they
were also settled throughout the country.100
Although Judea fell under Ptolemaic, which is to say Egyptian, hegemony, and remained so for a century, the Seleucids of Mesopotamia did
not abandon their claim to Palestine.101 Over the course of the third
century BCE, a series of five wars, called the Syrian Wars, were fought
between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies.102 During this period, pro96. At first, from 323 BCE, Ptolemy was satrap of Egypt under Alexander's halfbrother and then under his son. In 305 BCE, he assumed the royal title and reigned over
Egypt and Palestine until 282 BCE.
97. According to Josephus, in the course of extending his hegemony over CoeleSyria (southern Syria and Palestine), Ptolemy captured Jerusalem and took many
captives from Judah and Samaria and settled them in Egypt; he also reports that Jews
migrated to Egypt voluntarily (Grabbe 1992: 211-12).
98. Commentators customarily seem to refer to the existence of Jews and Judaism
especially from the Hellenistic period on. It would be more accurate, however, to speak
of Judaisms, in the plural.
99. These estimates are from Modrzejewski (1995: 74), who gives a figure of 8
million for Egypt's total population, of which 1.5 million were Greek-speaking immigrants, including the Greek-speaking Jews, and the rest native Egyptians. For somewhat different, but comparable, figures, see Dunand and Zivie-Coche (1991: 252).
100. See the extensive lists of places of Jewish habitation in Egypt, based on papyri,
ostraca and inscriptions, in Tcherikover, Fuks and Stern (1957-64: III, 197-209).
101. After the Battle of Ipsus (301 BCE), the victors awarded Coele-Syria to
Seleucus, but Ptolemy seized the area and refused to cede control of it.
102. During the first three of these wars (274-71, 260-53, and 246-241 BCE), the
Ptolemies retained control of Coele-Syria. During the fourth war (221-217 BCE), the
Seleucid army pushed south through Palestine only to be defeated in the battle of
Raphia. During the fifth war (202-200 BCE), the Seleucids were victorious at the battle
of Paneion and the Ptolemies permanently lost control of Palestine. Thus, only towards
the end of the third century BCE did these wars range extensively into territory close to
Judea; for the most part, the Ptolemaic period was one of relative peace and stability
for Judea.
253
Ptolemaic and pro-Seleucid factions seem to have been active in Jerusalem, especially in the politics surrounding the position of the high
priest.103 Judea continued to be a territory strategically located between
Egypt and Mesopotamia, now on the frontier between the Ptolemaic and
Seleucid spheres of influence.
One can envision that during this period, the interests of a pro-Seleucid
faction in Jerusalem would be served by the publication of a pro-Mesopotamian and anti-Egyptian Pentateuch. However, several factors militate
against the Ptolemaic period as the context for the production of the final
text form of the Pentateuch. First, the available resources for literary
production in Ptolemaic Jerusalem were no greater, and actually probably
less, than they were in Persian period Jerusalem.104 Secondly, the Ptolemies do not seem to have invested significantly in Judea the way the
Achaemenids did; as was argued above, imperial investment of resources
from outside of Yehud was precisely the determining factor in providing
the conditions for higher literary production in Yehud during the Persian
period. And thirdly, during most of this period Judah was firmly under
Ptolemaic control, probably providing little leeway for anti-Egyptian expression; while Ptolemaic rule involved oppressive taxation and resource
extraction under a highly centralized administration, it was at least initially
stable and peaceful.105
In 200 BCE Palestine finally came under firm Seleucid control, with
some military action apparently taking place also in Jerusalem. According
to Josephus, Antiochus III rewarded Judea for its support during his war
with the Ptolemies by issuing a decree granting tax concessions and
confirming the right of the Jews to practice their ancestral traditions
(Grabbe 1992:246-47,275). The hostilities between the Seleucids and the
103. Evidence of rivalry between the pro-Ptolemaic upper-class Tobiad family and
the then pro-Seleucid priestly Oniad family appears in the second half of the third
century BCE (Grabbe 1992:192-98). Eventually the Tobiad family itself split into proPtolemaic and pro-Seleucid factions, and later, during the Seleucid period, members of
the Oniad family were pro-Ptolemaic.
104. R.H. Smith (1990) notes that archaeological evidence indicates a flourishing of
the Levant in the Hellenistic period only later under the Seleucids; during the Ptolemaic period the area stagnated under a high tax burden, tight centralized control,
ruralization, prohibitive resource extraction, and likely a hotter than usual climate. Yet
it is precisely within this period that Harrison (1991) places the composition of
Qoheleth.
105. For an extensive overview of the socio-economic impact on Palestine of Ptolemaic rule, see Harrison (1991: 208-35).
254
Ptolemies did not end, however; in 170 and 168 BCE Antiochus IV
successfully invaded Egypt only to be forced by Rome to withdraw.
Around the same time, various struggles were taking place between contenders for the position of high priest in Jerusalem. Onias IV, son of the
deposed pro-Egyptian high priest Onias III, fled to Egypt and was there
allowed to establish a Jewish temple at Leontopolis.106 Antiochus IV
intervened in the struggle between the high-priestly contenders Jason
and Menelaus, attacked Jerusalem, pillaged the temple, and eventually
attempted to suppress Jewish practices (Grabbe 1992:276-84). As aresult,
the Maccabean revolt broke out, and gradually the Hasmonean family both
gained the support of most Palestinian Jews and wrested control from the
Seleucids. By 143-142 BCE Judah became an independent state, and under
Alexander Janneus (103-76 BCE) became a kingdom with a territorial
extent rivaling that of the biblical Solomon's.
The invasions of Egypt by Antiochus IV and the ousting of the now proPtolemaic Oniads from the high priesthood, or the Maccabean revolt and
the subsequent attempts of the Hasmoneans to legitimate their rule, with
Seleucid recognition and perhaps against the opposition of the Egyptian
diaspora community, provide possible contexts for the production of an
anti-Egyptian Pentateuch. That a letter was sent from Jerusalem to Egyptian Jews mandating the celebration of a new festival to celebrate the
Hasmonean liberation of the temple (2 Mace. 1.1-9) indicates that the
Hasmoneans were attempting to extend their authority also over Jews in
the Egyptian diaspora. However, the main problem is that these periods
are too late. As argued in the previous chapter, the manuscript evidence,
together with the knowledge of the Pentateuch displayed in other writings
from the Hellenistic period, support the appearance of the final text form
of the Pentateuch by at least the mid third century BCE.
In summary, the Persian period still provides the best overall historical
context for the production of the final text form of the Pentateuch, with
allowances for the possibility of a slightly earlier or slightly later date.
That so many periods give evidence of contention between pro-Mesopotamian and pro-Egyptian orientations is due to the geopolitical position
of Judah, located on the border between the two major areas of empire in
106. During the reign of Antiochus IV, the high priest Onias III came into trouble
with the Seleucid authorities, and his brother Jason usurped the priesthood. Jason soon
became embroiled with Menelaus, another contender for the position of high priest. It
is actually unclear from the sources whether Onias III or Onias IV fled to Egypt and
founded the temple at Leontopolis (Grabbe 1992: 277-81).
255
the Fertile Crescent. This borderline position accounts both for the forces
leading eventually to the formation of the Pentateuch's particular stance in
the Persian period, and for the continuing relevance of the Pentateuch's
stance in succeeding periods.
Summary
In this chapter, the equivocal anti-Egyptian perspective of the Pentateuch
has been historically contextualized within the period of the production of
its final text form in the Persian period. The history of the Persian empire's
troubles in Egypt during this period, the geopolitical location of Yehud on
the front between the empire and Egypt, and the presence of Judean
colonists in Egypt, have been shown to provide a compelling sociopolitical
setting for the Pentateuch's anti-Egyptian rhetoric. In the audience towards
which the Pentateuch was directed were those on whose cognitive or
symbolic maps Egypt occupied a positive position, potentially subversive
of the interests of the Persian patrons of the elite of Yehud. This perspective the Pentateuch seeks to subdue by inscribing it within a symbolic
geography in which Egypt occupies a predominantly negative position.
While other periods, both before and after the Persian period, provide
other possible settings for the Pentateuch's anti-Egyptian rhetoric, the
Persian period remains the most compelling context for the ideological
contestation evident in the final text form of the Pentateuch.
Chapter 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In the analysis of the books of the Pentateuch in Chapters 2-4 above, an

attempt was made, for the most part on a purely literary basis, to identify the
major ideological themes regarding Israel and Egypt in the final text form of
the Pentateuch. Chapters 5 and 6 attempted to provide the most likely
historical context for the production of these ideological themes in Persian
period Yehud. It now remains to more clearly articulate these themes in
their historical context. In other words, the Pentateuch's ambivalent antiEgyptian perspective needs to be understood in its historical concreteness,
against the probable pro-Egyptian symbolic geography which it opposes.
For ease of discussion, the cognitive map of Egypt in the Pentateuch can
be divided into the five major topoi: (1) the issue of origin traditions and
the ethnogenesis of Israel; (2) the depiction of Egypt as a negative place;
(3) the use of Egypt as an emblem for Israel's distinctiveness; (4) the
displacement of Egyptian-Israelite heroes like Joseph and Moses by a proMesopotamian orientation defined by Abraham; and (5) the condemnation
of a return to Egypt. Each of these topoi will now be discussed in turn.
Origin Traditions and Ethnogenesis (Genealogy)
The Pentateuch promotes the following master narrative of Israel's origins:
the ancestors of Israel originally hail from Mesopotamia, from which they
migrate to the Cisjordan; although they also then migrate to Egypt, this
turns out to be only a temporary detour, and eventually the family, now
evolved into a people, arrives back in Cisjordan to claim their rightful
patrimony. This master narrative is proleptically enacted by Abraham (as
well as, to a certain extent, by Jacob), is actualized in the sequence of the
Joseph and exodus cycles, and is summed up near the end of the Pentateuch
by the credo in Deut. 26.
In the Persian period, ethnic collectivization seems to have been one of
7. Summary and Conclusions
257
the imperial strategies for creating local groups loyal to the empire; this
strategy is reflected in the desire of Ezra and Nehemiah to stop and reverse
the incidence of intermarriage in Yehud (Hoglund 1991: 65-68; 1992:
231-40). In such a situation, it would be necessary to access and articulate
a clear origin tradition to identify those who can legitimately lay claim to
control of Jerusalem and Yehud under imperial auspices. Origin traditions
are an essential element of ethnic identity in that they define the boundaries of the group by including only those who can lay claim to a certain
history of origination. The Pentateuch provides just such an origin tradition in its master narrative.
However, origin traditions also tend to be largely mythical, in that they
are put into play to serve the particular interests of boundary formation; in
the process, which is one of selective perception and memory, actual
historical events are obscured, distorted and reworked. The ethnic group in
actuality cannot claim in totality the pure origins posited by its founding
myths. Thus, while the Pentateuch promotes a master origin narrative
which begins in Mesopotamia, enough clues remain in the text that this
master narrative is overwriting other differing traditions of Israel's origins,
in particular, traditions that root Israel in Egypt rather than Mesopotamia.
Given the Persian period context in which imperial loyalty is required in
the face of the challenges to Persian hegemony on the western front,
epitomized by a rebellious Egypt, origin traditions rooted in Egypt would
not have provided beneficial sociopolitical capital for those in Yehud and
would need to be neutralized.
Rather than directly negating or challenging an alternative Egyptian
origin tradition, such a tradition is more subtly subverted in the Pentateuch
by being incorporated as a subordinate part into a master narrative that
places Israel's most antique origins in Mesopotamia, closer to the Persian
heartland. Thus the narratives of Joseph and Moses, which on their own
could stand as testimonies to Egyptian Israelite heroes, are linked in the
Pentateuch to the programmatic ancestral accounts of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob, making Israel's time in Egypt a temporary detour rather than a
point of origin.
There are clues left in the narrative of the Pentateuch of an alternative
origin tradition that begins in Egypt and which may have traced Israel's
beginnings to Moses rather than to Abraham; the analysis in Chapters 2-4
above has attempted to uncover some of these clues. The overall shape of
the final text form of the Pentateuch itself also suggests that at least two
different narratives of biblical Israel's origin have been incorporated. The
258
story of Joseph, for instance, has long been recognized as qualitatively

different from the narrative which precedes and follows it,' thus giving the
appearance that it has been inserted to function as a link between the
narrative of the ancestors, which posits biblical Israel's beginnings in
Mesopotamia, and the narrative of the exodus, which begins biblical
Israel's story in Egypt.2
Furthermore, Albert de Pury and Thomas Romer have repeatedly made
a convincing argument that it is only in the final redaction of the Pentateuch that the ancestral accounts of Genesis are connected with the
account of the exodus from Egypt. The final text form of the Pentateuch
thus constitutes a document of compromise, in which two differing origin
traditions are allowed to coexist, namely, the genealogical model of
Genesis and the covenantal prophetic model of Exodus through Deuteronomy (and also the Deuteronomistic History).3 Elsewhere in the Hebrew
Bible, there are texts that seem to know only an origin tradition beginning
in Egypt for biblical Israel,4 as is also the case for some of the oldest
1. The difference of the Joseph story has been recognized and interpreted in
chronologically and thematically diverse ways. For instance, von Rad (1966a) depicted
it as a Solomonic wisdom tale (but see the demolition of this hypothesis by Crenshaw
1969); and Meinhold (1975, 1976) argued that it is a diaspora novel.
2. Romer (1987) argues that the Joseph story is a production of the Egyptian
diaspora, giving it an identity and hero, and that it was meant to oppose the developing
' orthodoxy' of Jerusalem by positing a reverse exodus from Palestine into Egypt. Only
during the final redactional stage of the Pentateuch was the story of Joseph incorporated. If so, then the final text form of the Pentateuch represents the subordination of
even this oppositional tract from the Egyptian diaspora into the master narrative of
Mesopotamian origins.
3. See de Pury (1991, 1992), Romer (1990, 1992a, 1992b, 1996). In his dissertation (1990), Romer extends the argument of Van Seters (1972) that the 'ancestors' or
'fathers' in the Deuteronomistic layer of the Pentateuch and in the Deuteronomistic
History are not the patriarchs of Genesis but rather an anonymous collective most often
associated with the sojourn in, and the exodus from, Egypt. A later redaction resulting
in the formation of the Pentateuch, and the separation of Deuteronomy from the
Deuteronomistic History, transformed the Deuteronomistic 'ancestors' into the patriarchs of Genesis, and the 'promise to the ancestors' was established as a leitmotif
throughout the Pentateuch. Unlike Van Seters, who saw this process as a reformulation
of Deuteronomistic tradition by JE during the exile, Romer postulates a P redaction in
the Persian period that integrated two concurrent and conflicting origin traditions.
4. For instance, Amos; Ezek. 20; Pss. 78; 106; 136. Hosea knows both the traditions of the exodus and of the ancestor Jacob (see especially ch. 12), but seems to pit
the Mosaic tradition against the patriarchal tradition. De Pury (1991,1992) sees Hosea
259
accounts of Judean or Jewish origins in Greek literature.5 The analysis in

this study tends to support this view of a confrontation of various myths of
origin in the final text form of the Pentateuch. However, whereas de Pury
(1991) suggests that the Mosaic origin tradition becomes dominant in the
Pentateuch, demoting the patriarchal tradition to a mere prologue, exactly
the converse is argued here, namely, that the patriarchal tradition of
origins incorporates and subordinates the Mosaic tradition of origins into a
master narrative that begins in Mesopotamia and not in Egypt.
In conclusion, while the Pentateuch purports to narrate the ethnogenesis
of Israel from Mesopotamian ancestors in an Egypt long ago, in terms of
the context of the production of the Pentateuch's final text form, the
ethnogenesis of the true biblical Israel actually took place in Persian
period Yehud among the literate intelligensia of the restoration community. In the process, at least two disparate origin traditions, each likely
valued by different elements of the intended audience of the Pentateuch,
were incorporated in such a way that both were recognized as legitimate
as championing the Mosaic exodus origin tradition of a ' YHWH alone' party (see M.
Smith 1987) against the more tolerant, tribally based patriarchal traditions. The date of
Hos. 12 is a matter of dispute; Whitt (1991), for instance, argues for an eighth-century
BCE date for most of the Jacob material in this chapter, with the exception of later
glosses such as w. 6-7. A comparison of Ps. 106, which knows only an origin for
biblical Israel in Egypt, with Ps. 105, which includes also the patriarchal traditions of
Genesis, could suggest either that Ps. 106 is pre-Pentateuchal and thus predates Ps.
105, which reflects the Pentateuchal master narrative, or that these two Psalms
originate in concurrent different milieus or among different parties in which differing
origin traditions were valued and celebrated.
5. The oldest account of Judean or Jewish origins in Greek literature derives from
Hecataeus of Abdera (c. 300 BCE), quoted in book 40 of Diodorus Siculus's
Bibliotheca Historica, which has survived in the Bibliotheca of Photius (Stern 1976:
20-44). Hecataeus claims that the Jews originated when foreigners were expelled from
Egypt at a time of pestilence; under their leader Moses, they established a colony in
Judea around the city Jerusalem, and they continue to revere the 'words Moses heard
from God'. (For a positive assessment of the evidence of Hecataeus, see P.R. Davies
1995: 163-68.) The Egyptian Hellenistic historian Manetho (third century BCE),
fragments of whose writing survive in Josephus, identified Jewish origins both with the
Hyksos, expelled from Egypt, and with a group of lepers under a priest named
Osarsiph, who is Moses, also expelled from Egypt (Stern 1976: 62-86). Although in
both these cases, the Jews are seen as not native to Egypt, the origin tradition begins in
Egypt. In the works of the first-century BCE historian Diodorus Siculus and the
geographer Strabo of Amaseia (Stern 1976: 167-89, 261-315), Jews are described as
being originally Egyptians.
260
but also so that one clearly dominates over the other. Given the Mesopotamian origins of the Judean elite of the Persian period restoration community in Yehud (at least, insofar as they are depicted in Ezra and
Nehemiah), it is not surprising that Mesopotamian origins are championed.
Egypt as Negative Place (Axiology)
The dominant evaluation of Egypt on the Pentateuch's cognitive map is
negative; Egypt is a bad and dangerous place, associated with disease,
slavery and the loss of identity, and is to be rejected. Consequently, a
strong sense of discontinuity is constructed between Israel and anything
Egyptian. Israel, to be truly Israel under the approval of the deity, must be
purged of all things Egyptian. Thus, the 'endangered ancestor' series in
Genesis shows a progressive distancing from Egypt, the Egyptian Hagar
and her son are rejected from the lineage of Israel, the Israelites are
persuaded to physically exit from Egypt, the blaspheming half-Egyptian
son in Leviticus is stoned, and finally the entire Egyptian-born generation,
including Moses, must expire in the wilderness and only an entirely new
generation, untouched by Egypt, can inherit the Promised Land.
In this largely negative depiction of Egypt, both Egypt as a place of
residence and Egypt as a network of sociocultural associations are repudiated. To be truly Israel, Israel cannot live in Egypt; thus, the necessity of
the exodus. To be truly Israel, Israel cannot adhere to Egyptian values and
desires; thus, the necessity of purging the Egyptian-born generation. In the
Persian period context, this signifies a strong disapproval of the very
existence of an Egyptian diaspora community and of favorable contacts
with Egypt as place or culture. In effect, Judeans in Egypt were either
being told to make the exodus and come home to where they can be part of
the true Israel, or were being written off as illegitimate.6 Simultaneously,
Yehudites with leanings toward Egypt were being reprimanded for
expressing a mistaken and detrimental stance. In terms of the Achaemenid
empire's struggle with Egypt, the illocutionary act of the public reading of
the Pentateuch in Yehud (and perhaps elsewhere) would aim to have the
perlocutionary effect of engendering in its audience loyalty to the Persian
side against Egyptian nationalist aspirations. The rejection of Egypt in the
6. That the legitimacy of the Judean diaspora was a matter of dispute is indicated
by other, admittedly later, literature. For example, according to Goldstein (1991), the
Letter ofAristeas was composed to counter Hasmonean extremists who were insisting
that Jews should no longer live in the diaspora.
261
Pentateuch might especially mirror the period of Egyptian independence in

the fourth century BCE, when the temptation to find in Egypt an ally for
Yehudite nationalist aspirations may have been great.
Of course, the Pentateuch does not explicitly allude to this Persian
period sociopolitical context in its negative depiction of Egypt. Rather, the
devaluation of Egypt is attributed to the oppressive nature of the Egyptian
system itself and ultimately to religious criteria. A strong impetus for the
exodus from Egypt is the impossibility of worshiping or serving YHWH
there. YHWH is depicted as a God who, like Israel, originates from outside
of Egypt, and who is locked in an inexorable conflict with Egypt's
Pharaoh for mastery.7 While YHWH ultimately wins the contest with
Pharaoh, it is not to establish his cult in Egypt but rather to lead his people
out of Egypt to serve him. Egypt, at least in a temporary utopic climax, is
utterly erased. Although this erasure cannot be sustained, it does indicate
that an Egyptian diaspora community is illegitimate since in Egypt Israel
cannot truly serve YHWH.
The negative depiction of Egypt in the Pentateuch is overwhelming. Yet
the Pentateuch also gives voice to an alternative perspective in which
Egypt is viewed positively as a place of refuge, of plenty and of enrichment, an alluring and attractive place. Such a depiction is especially part
of the Joseph story, which represents a sort of exodus-in-reverse in that
Israel leaves the famine-ridden territory of the Cisjordan in order to enter
an Egypt that promises survival, satiation and even prosperity. In the
turmoil of the exilic, Persian and early Hellenistic periods, Egypt may very
well have seemed to promise inhabitants of Judea at least the possibility of
a better life in terms of stability of sustenance.8 Moreover, the Pentateuchal narrative contains indications that a diaspora community could
indeed function in Egypt: temporary pilgrimage to the Promised Land is
implied by Moses' initial request to Pharaoh,9 burial in the Promised Land
7. Although the Pentateuch never directly acknowledges the Egyptian theology in
which Pharaoh is divine, it suggests the same by placing Pharaoh and YHWH into
mutually antagonistic roles. The various gods of Egypt, in comparison, are barely
acknowledged and seem to play no significant role.
8. R.H. Smith (1990: 124) mentions Koucky's hypothesis of cyclical climatic
changes in the Levant, indicating that in the fourth and third centuries BCE the area was
experiencing severe hot dry weather. The resulting relative drought would have
lessened agricultural production and likely motivated some migration to more
agriculturally stable areas like Egypt.
9. The goal of the pilgrimage is not specified in the Exodus texts; 'Three days'
journey into the wilderness' only points to a location outside of Egypt. YHWH'S
262
after a life lived in the diaspora is insinuated by the transport of the

remains of Jacob and Joseph from Egypt to Palestine,10 and prayers for the
rulers of Egypt by the diaspora community are pointed to by Pharaoh's
pious request to Moses for prayer.11
These clues of a more positive assessment of Egypt indicate the presence of such a perspective in the traditions that the Pentateuch draws on
and among the audience to which it is directed. This perspective, in such
opposition to the dominant negative view of Egypt that the Pentateuch
seeks to inculcate, could, however, not simply be rejected or delegitimized
without alienating parts of the audience which it seeks to persuade. Instead, while at times acknowledging the positive character or associations
of Egypt, the Pentateuch fits this positive perspective within its larger
master narrative, thus effectively neutralizing a positive view of Egypt by
framing it within a more negative view.12 For example, the plundering
declaration that the people will worship on the mountain of God (Exod. 3.12) might
conjure up Mt Zion and the Jerusalem temple in the imagination of the audience. Of
course, while a temporary pilgrimage is Pharaoh's understanding, from YHWH'S viewpoint, Moses' initial request is only a ruse covering the intention of turning pilgrimage
into permanent emigration from Egypt. The evidence gathered by Safrai (1981)
indicates little significant pilgrimage to Jerusalem from the diaspora until Herodian
times. Given that there was a Judean temple at Leontopolis in Egypt for some time, as
well as the earlier temple at Elephantine (indicating that perhaps there could also have
been others in other diaspora communities of which we are unaware), it may be that
Egyptian Jews felt little need to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, much less to migrate
there permanently. Against this background, the text of Exodus presents a strong case
against temporary pilgrimage from Egypt and for a permanent exodus to Palestine.
10. However, burial of the remains of diaspora Jews in Palestine is given positive
emphasis only from the third century CE onwards in the teachings of the rabbinic sages;
before this time, actually dwelling in the Promised Land received the greatest emphasis
and the transfer of remains from the diaspora was likely exceptional rather than usual.
Jacob and Joseph were actually bom in Palestine, not in the diaspora, and therefore legitimately required burial in their family inheritance. On these matters, see Gafiii (1981).
11. As for prayers offered for the rulers of Egypt, one might note that the earliest
evidence of Jewish proseuchai or prayer houses in Ptolemaic Egypt are inscriptions
dedicating such edifices to the ruling member of the Ptolemaic dynasty (see, e.g.,
inscriptions 22, 24, 25, 27 and 28 in Horbury and Noy 1992). Such inscriptions
indicate official recognition, which would surely follow only upon guarantees of
loyalty and support for the rulers.
12. Even though this rhetorical strategy can lead to ambiguity and contradiction
within the same text, it is worth the payoff in gaining audience support for the main
rhetorical appeal of the text (see Watts 1995 and the discussion of audience on pp. 24549 above).
263
motif represents an attempt to fit the positive image of Egypt as a place of

enrichment into the more negative frame of the need to leave Egypt. Or
the rebellion motif represents an attempt to articulate a positive image of
Egypt as a place of satiation while simultaneously framing such a voice as
one of rebellion against the divine. In the context of the Persian period,
one can see in these dynamics the attempt to disassociate Israel from any
positive leanings towards Egypt so as to encourage loyalty to the Persiansanctioned regime in Jerusalem.13
That Egypt is negatively portrayed in the dominant perspective of the
Pentateuch, and yet that Israel is described as receiving its shape as a
distinct people in the same place, leads to a number of ambiguities and
aporias. Legislation that speaks of Israel as native to the land conflicts with
the tradition of Israel's origins outside of the Promised Land, and legislation that speaks of Israel as a sojourner in Egypt conflicts with Israel's
experience of slavery in Egypt. Furthermore, the image of Egypt as an
'iron furnace' consists of overlapping negative and positive connotations.
It is here that the Pentateuch reveals one of its stress points or fault lines: a
total repudiation of Egypt cannot be made to fit totally with the tradition of
an origin that is at least somehow connected with Egypt. On the Pentateuch's cognitive map, Egypt thus functions not only as embodiment of
that which is adverse and must be repulsed, but also as a mark of the
anxiety, ambiguity and contingency of identity itself.
Egypt as an Emblem of Israel's Distinctiveness (Taxonomy)
By virtue of its position on the Pentateuch's map as both negative and yet
constitutive of Israel's identity, Egypt functions less as an actual spatial
territory and more as an emblem or symbol, a mental construct, evoking
the distinctiveness and separateness of Israel. Egypt is the 'them' over
against which the 'us' is constructed, and so becomes the necessary matrix
of Israel's imaginative ethnogenesis in Persian period Yehud. Separation
between 'us' and 'them' is constructed and maintained especially on the
level of kinship. Israel's genealogies are purified of any contamination by
'them'; thus, the expulsion of Hagar, Jacob's adoption of Joseph's two
13. The Pentateuch is thus primarily directed to a Judean audience, to wean it from
any positive associations with Egypt and thus to focus attention on the Jerusalem elite
as the locus of authority. The Persians themselves would not be persuaded of a
depiction of Egypt as a negative place since their desire to maintain or regain their hold
on the territory indicates that they value it.
264
sons as his own, and the silence about Moses' descendants. Separation is
also effected on the level of land; even within Egypt, Goshen functions to
maintain an (illusory) separation between Israel and Egypt. At times,
'they' are lampooned while 'we' are extolled; otherwise 'they' are usually
depicted as harboring destructive or assimilative intentions towards 'us'.
Similar concerns, placed in the Persian period, are expressed in Ezra and
Nehemiah.14
The binary of Israel versus Egypt is foundational for Israel's identity as
established in the Pentateuch, and the command is given for it to be commemorated and ritually actualized especially in the rites of the firstborn
an4 of Passover/Unleavened Bread, and, to a lesser extent, in the observance of the Sabbath and perhaps the festival of Booths. The boundaries
established by Israel's dietary and sexual rules in Leviticus are likewise
grounded in the distinctiveness mandated by the ethnic binary of Israel
versus Egypt, even while the actual contrast shifts to Israel's distinctiveness from the tribes of Canaan. As an emblem of Israel's distinctiveness,
Egypt functions here less as a means to engender pro-Persian loyalty, and
more as an ideological means of asserting primacy over other or divergent
elements of the Judean community.
Yet again the narrative often blurs the distinction between Israel and
Egypt, thus suggesting that the distinction itself is a construct that is being
promulgated in opposition to other alternative views in which Israel and
Egypt are seen as more closely related, perhaps by relationships of complementarity rather than contrast. There are hints that the differences
between Israel and Egypt are scalar rather than polar in nature. A mixed
multitude is part of the exodus. The narrative's attempt at a utopic dissolution when Egypt is annihilated in the sea is short-lived, as is also the
utopic picture at the end of Exodus of the perfect Israel arranged around
the presence of YHWH in the tabernacle. Most disturbing, however, to the
sense of the absolute distinctiveness of Israel that the Pentateuch attempts
to foster, is the hybridity of the heroes Joseph and especially Moses.
Displacement of Joseph and Moses by Abraham (Typology)
In the final text form of the Pentateuch, the characters Joseph and especially Moses play important roles. Yet, they constitute a problem for an anti14. Kinship and land are also prime concerns of the Persian period restoration
community as described in Ezra and Nehemiah. On land, see especially Carroll (1991,
1992); on the concern over kinship and intermarriage, see Smith-Christopher (1994)
and Eskenazi and Judd (1994).
265
Egyptian perspective by virtue of their undeniable and strong associations

with Egypt, which could be seen to compromise their Israelite identity; in
effect, they are Israelite-Egyptian hybrids.15 Seemingly too entrenched in
the traditions of various Yehudite groups to be erased, these heroes are
made to fit the master narrative through a variety of strategies. Joseph is
essentially bypassed. While his triumphs in Egypt are duly acknowledged,
they have no enduring value and are quickly forgotten at the accession of a
new Pharaoh. Joseph's two sons are divested of their Egyptian background
by being adopted by Jacob. In the end even Joseph articulates a desire for
return to Palestine, and so the narrative of Joseph in the Pentateuch closes
with the impression that this story of the success of the Hebrew in Egypt
has been merely a temporary diversion in preparation for the main event
which is to come.
Moses, because of his centrality in the exodus and the giving of the
Torah at Sinai, presents a more complicated case. While the Pentateuch
seems systematically to debunk his heroic status by portraying his hesitation and other weaknesses, and by showcasing, in contrast, the might and
power of YHWH, some hints remain in the narrative of his exalted, perhaps
even semi-divine, status in some traditions.16 As one who seems to straddle
15. Nohrnberg expresses this hybridity well: 'Moses' singularity is that he is a
Hebrew Egyptian and an Egyptian Hebrew: in him are combined what the exodus will
separate' (1981: 37). 'Joseph is a Hebrew who assimilates with Egypt and becomes
"father to Pharaoh"; he calls the Hebrews into Egypt and, in a series of repeating
scenes, confronts and judges over the brothers who formerly disputed his ascendancynow he stands in the place of Pharaoh and God. Moses is an Egyptianized
Hebrew who becomes the reverse, the adopted son of Pharaoh's daughter who
alienates himself from the land of his birth, calls the Hebrews out of Egyptand, in a
series of repeating scenes, confronts and judges over Pharaoh on behalf of God and the
kinsmen who formerly questioned his authority over them' (1981: 39).
16. The existence of traditions that give Moses a far more exalted and heroic status
is indicated by the portrayal of Moses in some early Hellenistic writings stemming
mainly from Egypt. Hecataeus of Abdera (c. 300 BCE), for instance, portrays Moses as
a wise and courageous leader who left Egypt and established the colony of Judea,
founding Jerusalem and other cities, instituting the temple and its cult, and issuing
laws. The Jewish Hellenistic historian Eupolemus (c. 150 BCE) credits Moses as the
first philosopher, lawgiver and inventor of the alphabet. In the work of the Jewish
Hellenistic historian Artapanus (c. 250-100 BCE), Moses is identified with Hermes and
credited with the establishment of Egyptian civilization, political organization and even
religion. In the Greek drama Exagoge, written by the Jewish Hellenistic playwright
Ezekiel (late third or second century BCE), Moses is depicted as the national hero of the
Jews in the mode of Greek tragedy. On these portrayals of Moses see Droge (1989:1235) and Barclay (1992; 1996: 125-38); while it is often assumed that these exalted
266
the boundary between Egypt and Israel, his membership in Israel is both
questioned and asserted. However, despite his leadership in the exodus and
his championing of Israel even to god's face, Moses is rejected as one of
the Egyptian-born generation and so must perish outside of the Promised
Land. One gets the sense from the Pentateuch that Moses is a unique
aberration from normative Israelite identity, an aberration that is allowed to
continue functioning as an icon for the origin of Israel's legal traditions, but
which is left safely behind in the past. That is, while the book of Moses, in
terms of the laws of the Torah and the stories of his exploits, continues to
live, Moses has no line of descent or patrimony in Israel.
The case is quite different with Abraham. While the Israelite-becomeEgyptian, Joseph, is bypassed, and the Egyptian-become-Israelite, Moses,
is removed, Abraham is placed at the very beginning of the master narrative of Israel's origins and proleptically enacts the following history which
his descendants live out in unbroken succession. The life of Abraham
stamps the Pentateuch with its pattern, and the repeated reference to the
triad of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ties the Pentateuch always back to the
determinative story of the patriarchs. Abraham thus displaces the importance of Joseph and Moses as originating figures in Israel, and is the
means for incorporating them into the Pentateuch's master narrative.17 As
argued above, this formulation of the Pentateuch's master narrative with
Abraham at the beginning is likely the result of the last redaction leading
to the Pentateuch's final text form.
Condemnation of Return to Egypt (Teleology)
Given the trajectory of the Pentateuch's master narrative, in which the
sojourn in Egypt is incorporated as a temporary detour, and which is
portrayals of Moses are conscious reworkings of the Pentateuchal narrative, they could
also represent old alternative Moses traditions current alongside those in the Pentateuch. The texts of these portrayals are conveniently collected in Holladay (1983,
1989), except for Hecataeus, for which see Stern (1976).
17. A possible extrabiblical parallel to this process is found in the Jewish (or
Samaritan) Hellenistic historian Pseudo-Eupolemus (early second century BCE), who
depicts Abraham (and Enoch) as the fathers of civilization, and the Babylonians as the
first civilized people, followed by the Phoenicians and finally the Egyptians. Egypt is
here demoted from its position as the fount of civilization by Mesopotamia, and Moses
is displaced as the original culture hero by Abraham, in a process similar to the one
that seems to be at work in the Pentateuch. See Droge (1989: 19-25) and Holladay
(1983: 157-87).
267
always aimed at the goal of the Promised Land in the Cisjordan, it is not
surprising that a strong anxiety over, and condemnation of, returning to
Egypt is displayed by the narrative. Such notions of return are directly
condemned in the legislation of Deuteronomy, and are also cast as a voice
of rebellion against YHWH. While this condemnation obviously critiques
the Egyptian diaspora, it seems especially to be directed against the lure of
emigration from Palestine into Egypt. Such emigration took place at
various times but became especially widespread in the Ptolemaic era. In
the Persian period, the main avenue of immigration into Egypt was as a
military colonist (also characteristic of the Ptolemaic period), and thus
perhaps the legislation in Deuteronomy expressly forbids return to Egypt
in a military context.18 While the Persians probably appreciated the presence of foreign troops by which they struggled to maintain their hegemony
in Egypt, the Pentateuch forbids true Israelites to return to Egypt because
of fears that there they will not only succumb to Egyptian loyalties but
also forget who they really are and where they really belong.
The Pentateuch's adamant rejection of the notion of return to Egypt is
another way of expressing the root conviction that 'YHWH makes a
distinction between Israel and Egypt'. The separation between the two has
been established in the past; it is the task of the present generation to
maintain the distinction against the danger of its collapse. That these
warnings and condemnations are even required is ample indication that the
danger of the blurring of the boundaries between Egypt and Israel was
acutely sensed by the producers of the final text form of the Pentateuch.
Conclusions
The goal of this study has been twofold: to make manifest and investigate
the particular ideology centered in 'Egypt' on the Pentateuch's cognitive
or symbolic map, and to place that ideology within the historical context
of its production. The result is a view of the Pentateuch as a contestatory
document, promoting an essentially anti-Egyptian stance, especially in
relation to Israel's origin myths, while attempting to incorporate and
subordinate alternative pro-Egyptian views. The production of this
ideology in the final text form of the Pentateuch is attributed to a Persian
loyalist elite in Yehud during the period of the Persian empire's troubles
with Egypt. Although the results are to some extent speculative, enough
18. Note the depiction of Israel in the exodus as organized as a military force, an
allusion perhaps to the Jewish military settlers in Egypt during the Persian period.
268
evidence, both from a close reading of the final text form of the Pentateuch, and from an examination of the historical period, has been presented to establish a high degree of plausibility for these results. In
conclusion, a few more general issues, raised or alluded to in this study,
and indicative of wider areas of research, will be discussed briefly.
Biblical Geography
Biblical geography, as noted in Chapter 1, has generally been concerned
with historical toponomy and topography, with the correlation of biblical
toponyms and data drawn from archaeology and other ancient documents
so as to be able to pinpoint actual locations on an empirical map. From
such a perspective, 'Egypt' in the Pentateuch is a determinative place, the
accuracy of the description of which in the Pentateuch can be investigated
and judged. In this study, however, it has been suggested that the 'Egypt'
in the Pentateuch functions less as an actual location and more as an
ideological site in the cognitive or symbolic geography of the producers of
the final text form. That is, while the producers of the text may certainly
have had some empirical notion of an actual 'Egypt', the 'Egypt' that is
created in the Pentateuch is more a representation of their ideological
interests. This suggests that when geographical entities are encountered in
the Hebrew Bible, the interpreter must consider the investment of such
entities in the ideological rhetoric and interests of the given text before too
quickly proceeding to historical geographical realia. This is certainly
pertinent when geographical entities of large scope and with many layers
of overlapping signification, such as Egypt or Babylon, are considered, but
the same could apply, mutatis mutandis, to smaller geographic entities
such as Goshen or locations such as biblical cities and towns.
The notion of cognitive or symbolic maps, of course, does not mean that
the notion of real locations or the helpfulness of empirical mapping are to
be discarded. In considering the historical context of the representation of
Egypt in the Pentateuch, this study has worked with the notion of Egypt as
a real place to the producers of the Pentateuch. However, even if
overdetermined and influenced by ancient traditions about Egypt, this real
Egypt is first and foremost the Egypt of the Persian period. And even then,
the Egypt of that period is invested with the peculiar ideological concerns
and anxieties of the producers.
Pentateuchal Criticism
In this study, the final Hebrew text form of the Pentateuch has been the
focus of attention, with little concern for the reconstruction of the text's
269
prior history. This focus has not meant an ahistorical literary treatment, but
has enabled a more precise historical contextualization of the final text
form. The final text form itself provides a more certain basis for the establishment of historical hypotheses than hypothetical prior stages of the
text's history. In other words, the historical data of the Pentateuch are
most sure in the historical context of its final production. This does not
mean that the Pentateuch is devoid of prior traditions or that it is not
informed, perhaps, by prior written sources; however, to make detailed
and definitive claims for such a prehistory is a very tenuous procedure. It
seems more empirically productive to begin with the final formation of the
Pentateuch in the Persian period, and then to work backwards chronologically from that point in time.
Abstinence from the traditional dissective procedures of historical
criticism of the Pentateuch in this study does not constitute a claim that the
Pentateuch speaks with a unitive voice. Rather, the final text form, it has
been shown, is shot through with various ambiguities and tensions. In
other words, the Pentateuch appears as contestatory literature responding
to and incorporating contending and coexisting ideologies. The discordant
features of the Pentateuch's discourse are not so much sedimented survivals of chronologically successive stages in its formation as they are
evidence of clashing viewpoints contemporary with the period of its final
formation. This model is amenable to features of traditional Pentateuchal
criticism, whether they work on the basis of prior written sources, or of
supplements, or of the joining of various fragments of tradition, as long as
the focus is on the production of the final form rather than a lengthy
prehistory.
In this respect, textual criticism potentially has a significant part to play
in the manifestation of sites of resistance, anxiety and contestation in the
text. Aside from those variants that are clearly due to scribal error (although even in cases of error one might probe for the reasons that such
errors continued to be transmitted), textual variants should not too quickly
become problems begging for a solution (such as the 'original reading')
but be interpreted as potential indicators of the contending and concurrent
ideologies with which the final text form is struggling. That is, textual
variants can be seen as similar to Freudian slips, in which some aspect of
the anxiety of the final producers of the text is revealed.
Identity, Ethnogenesis and Origin Traditions
The main concern of the Pentateuch is the construction of Israel's identity,
and thus the Pentateuch could be termed the narrative of Israel's ethno-
270
genesis. What becomes clear when the final text form of the Pentateuch is
analyzed in the context of its production is the analeptic nature of
ethnogenesis; that is, the importance of projecting into the past the present
needs of ethnic definition. Thus, origin traditions, more so than current
discernible differences in language, culture, or even religion, occupy pride
of place in the construction of identity and ethnicity. Furthermore, origin
traditions are not givens, but constitute sites of contention between various
conceptions of ideal identity. At least in the discourse of ethnogenesis of
the Pentateuch, it is the interplay of origin traditions emphasizing a
genesis either in Egypt or Mesopotamia that largely gives rise to the other
aspects of Israelite identity with which the Pentateuch is concerned.
The idea of 'Egypt' has been shown to play a large part in the construction of Israel's identity in the Pentateuch, mainly in terms of contrast:
Egypt stands for that which Israel is not. Thus Egypt plays the role of the
'other' or the 'them' in the classic binarism of ethnic boundary establishment and maintenance. However, identities can also be constructed on less
contrastive or oppositional bases. For example, identities can be reciprocal
or complementary, in which the 'other' or the 'them' do not represent the
contrary of 'us' but rather form, in a more positive sense, the ground of
possibility or the complement for the identity of 'us'. It seems that the
alternative more pro-Egyptian origin myths and traditions that the
Pentateuch attempts to subvert might have proposed such a complementary identity. To reconstruct these alternatives is important in restoring
to the construction of ethnic identity the dialectic between contrastive and
complementary identities. Straying too far in the direction of contrastive
identity leads to violent dualisms while an unbalanced embrace of
complementary identity leads to suffocating assimilation. If the divine
voice in the Pentateuch insists, 'so you may know that YHWH makes a
distinction between Egypt and Israel', perhaps these words can be read,
not in the sense that Egypt must be negated as 'other' in order for Israel to
exist, but rather in the sense that both Egypt and Israel might learn the
proliferation of life-giving difference.
Egypt as Heterotopia
And finally, this study suggests that the Egypt in or of the Pentateuch is a
heterotopia, a word coined by Michel Foucault (1986) to describe a
countersite in which other sites in a culture are simultaneously represented, contested and inverted. A heterotopia is like the image in a mirror.
The mirror is a real placeso also Egypt is a real place. But the image in
271
the mirror exists in a sort of virtual space that causes observers simultaneously to see themselves there where they are actually not, and from
that vantage point to reconstitute themselves here where they actually are.
So also Egypt in the Pentateuch functions simultaneously as the projection
of Israel in its liminality there where it is not, and the reconstruction of
Israel from that vantage point here in the Pentateuch, as a strategy of
postexilic communities attempting to define themselves in response to
internal differences and external pressures.
Appendix
THE TERM n"~iift AND ITS OCCURRENCES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND
THE PENTATEUCH
The name D'HiJQ is grammatically and etymologically a puzzle. It is

pointed by the Masoretes as a dual, leading some scholars to see in the
name an allusion to the well-known ancient Egyptian expression for Egypt:
'The Two Lands', i.e. Upper and Lower Egypt. However, prophetic texts
from Jeremiah and Isaiah differentiate between D'HHft and D"ins as Lower
and Upper Egypt, indicating that D'HUD, if it is to be located as a
geographic reference, at least in these prophetic texts refers to Lower Egypt
or the Nile delta. The singular form 11UQ is sometimes used in poetic texts
and may be an older term for Egypt. The dual ending is interpreted by
others as a locative or as simply a popular pronunciation, as in other dual
toponyms such as DHSN, D'HIf] or the Qereperpetuum D"1 ^"IT. Etymologically, the name is sometimes traced via Arabic to misr ('big city,
metropolis').1 Forms similar to DHJSE appear in Ugaritic, Phoenician,
Aramaic, Akkadian, Arabic and Assyrian.2 The Greek translation
A'lyuTTTOs in the LXX is derived from an Egyptian name for the city of
Memphis: Het-kau-ptah ('castle of the ka-souls of Ptah').
The name DHiJQ appears especially frequently in the Pentateuch, both
in comparison to its appearances elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible and in
comparison to the frequency of other ethnic designations in the Pentateuch. The relative frequency of a term can be used as a rough measurement of its potential significance in a particular textual unit. A more
accurate indication will be given by the relative density of the term; that is,
its average, rather than absolute, number of occurrences in a given textual
unit. Of course, relative frequency or density is not the only indicator of
1. The term "11UQ in Hebrew can refer to an entrenched (fortified) or besieged city
(BDB: 848-49). The Arabic word misr today carries the additional denotation of Egypt
or things Egyptian.
2. On the form and etymology ofD'HUQ see Ringgren (1980) and Houtman (1993).
Appendix
273
significance; the particular literary context of a term can serve to highlight

its significance quite apart from its frequency or density. Therefore, an
analysis will need to include both a consideration of the frequency and
density of the occurrences of the word 'Egypt' in the Pentateuch and in its
various parts, and a detailed close reading of those occurrences in their
literary context.
The word counts, frequencies and densities reported in the following
tables are based on occurrences in the MTofBHS. Data from the LXX is
noted for comparative purposes only. The data of Andersen and Forbes
(1989) provide precise word densities (occurrences per 100 words) for
various biblical books and for the Pentateuch as a whole.
Table 1. Densities Of Selected Ethnic Designations in the Hebrew Bible1'
Hebrew Bible
Torah/Pentateuch
Former Prophets
Latter Prophets
Writings
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
'Israel '
'Israelite '
'Egypt'
'Egyptian '
'Babylon '
'Chaldean ' 'Canaan '

'Philistine '
'Canaanite '
0.82(2519)
0.74(591)
1.41 (980)
0.71 (508)
0.52 (440)
0.21 (43)
1.02(170)
0.61 (69)
1.44(237)
0.50 (72)
0.23(711)
0.47 (376)
0.13(88)
0.27(196)
0.06(51)
0.48 (99)
1.08(180)
0.10(12)
0.20 (33)
0.36(52)
0.09 (287)
0.00 (2)
0.05 (32)
0.29 (205)
0.05 (48)
0.01 (2)
0.00 (0)
0.00 (0)
0.00 (0)
0.00 (0)
0.03(81)
0.00 (3)
0.01 (8)
0.08 (55)
0.02(15)
0.01 (3)
0.00 (0)
0.00 (0)
0.00 (0)
0.00 (0)
0.05(166)
0.12(96)
0.07 (48)
0.01 (10)
0.01 (12)
0.28 (57)
0.07(12)
0.03 (3)
0.12(19)
0.03 (5)
0.09 (296)
0.01 (11)
0.32 (224)
0.03 (20)
0.05 (41)
0.04 (8)
0.02 (3)
0.00 (0)
0.00 (0)
0.00 (0)
Table 1 indicates the importance of Egypt in the Pentateuch, which

contains 376, or 53%, of the 711 explicit references to 'Egypt' or 'Egyptian' in the Hebrew Bible. The density of these references is 0.47 occurrences per 100 words, over twice the average density in the Hebrew Bible
as a whole. In contrast, other ethnic designations are dominant in other
parts of the Hebrew Bible: Babylon in the Latter Prophets, and the Philistines in the Former Prophets. References to Canaan and the Canaanites also
3. Based on Andersen & Forbes (1989), with the following modifications: figures
for 'poetry' and 'other writings' have been combined; occurrences of D'HUQ and "HUQ,
and ]U3D and n]i?]D, have been combined; and the five occurrences of "* b^lET and
eight occurrences of fl^S have been factored in. Densities are reported in occurrences
per 100 words. Numbers in brackets represent actual number of occurrences.
274
show the highest density in the Pentateuch, but are especially concentrated
in Genesis.
Table 2. 'Egypt' in the Books of the Pentateuch
Genesis
4
MT Occurrences of
\ OO
O'TiETTiD
Percentage of total occurrences 26
in the Pentateuch
Density of occurrences
0.48
(per 100 words)
LXX occurrences of A !(fAJJTTOf/iot 1 00
Percentage of total occurrences 26
in the Pentateuch
LXX pluses (chapter & verse)
47.5
47.6
47.23
LXX minuses (chapter & verse)
25. 1 2
41.45
41.56b
Exodus
Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy
180
12
33
52
48
14
1.08
0.10
0.20
0.36
185
48
12
3
34
9
53
14
33.4
6.4
9.29
1.12
3.10
3.11
4.18b
7.11
8.3
ll.lOa
ll.lOb
18.8
40.15
8.1
9.22b
10.12b
10.13
18.10b
6.21b
As Table 2 makes clear, almost half of the occurrences of 'Egypt' in the

Pentateuch appear in the book of Exodus, indicating the crucial significance of Egypt in that book. The term is also especially significant in
Genesis. Accordingly, an analysis of Egypt in the Pentateuch will largely
consider Exodus and Genesis, and will give relatively less attention to
Egypt in the remaining three books of the Pentateuch.
4.
Anderson and Forbes (1989) list 99 occurrences for Genesis.
275
Appendix
Table 3. 'Egypt'In Genesis
Primeval
Cycle
1.1-11.32
Occurrences in MT/LXX
2/25
2
Percentage of total
occurrences in Genesis (MT/LXX)
Abraham
Cycle
12.1-25.18
14/13
Jacob
Cycle
25.19-36.43
1/1
Joseph
Cycle
37.1-50.26
83/84
14/13
83/84
As indicated in Table 3, the majority of references to Egypt appear in

the Joseph narrative. However, a significant cluster of references to Egypt
also appears in the cycle of Abraham stories. In contrast, such references
are virtually absent from the Primeval and Jacob cycles, narrative cycles
that are strongly oriented towards Mesopotamia.
Table 4. 'Egypt' in Exodus
Percentage of Total Occurrences

in Exodus (MT/LXX)
Prologue 1.1-2.25
13/14
7.25/8
Call of Moses 3. 1-4. 31
17/20
9.5/11
First confrontations and

complications 5.1-7. 7
13/13
7.25/7
Plagues 7.8-11.10
54/54
30/29
Exodus 12.1-15.21
56/56
31/30
Sinai & wilderness

15.22-40.38
27/28
15/15
References to Egypt in Exodus are concentrated in the first half of the

scroll, becoming increasingly frequent as the narrative progresses to the
climax of the actual exodus from Egypt. Thereafter, references to Egypt
drop off sharply, although they appear at significant points in the wilderness wanderings and in certain legal contexts.
5. For these two occurrences on the Table of Nations, the LXX, rather than
translating D'HUQ as AiyuTTTO?/ioi, transliterates it as Meopai|j.
276

Table 5. 'Egypt' in Leviticus
Sacrifices/
Priesthood
1.1-10.20
Occurrences in MT/LXX 0/0
Purity/
Atonement
11.1-16.34
Holiness Code Appendix: Vows

17.1-26.46
27.1-34
1/1
11/11
Percentage of total
0/0
occurrences in Leviticus
8/8
92/92
0/0
0/0
(MT/LXX)
Explicit references to Egypt in Leviticus are few, and appear for the
most part in the Holiness Code. This code, significantly, focuses on behavioural prescriptions for the Israelite layperson that function to make
Israel distinct from other peoples.
Table 6. 'Egypt'in Numbers
Census I, preparation Wilderness
for leaving Sinai
wanderings II
1.1-10.10
10.11-25.18
Occurrences in
Census II, preparations

for entering the land
26.1-36.13
4/4
21/21
8/9
12/12
64/62
24/26
MT/LXX
Percentage of total
occurrences in
Numbers (MT/LXX)
References to Egypt are scattered throughout the scroll of Numbers,

with no discemable pattern. However, the majority of these references
have to do with the rebellious Egyptian-born generation.
Table 7. 'Egypt' in Deuteronomy
Moses ' 1st Moses ' 2nd
speech
speech
1.1-4.43 4.44-28.68
Percentage of total
occurrences in Deuteronomy
5/5
9.5/9
43/44
82.5/83
Moses ' 3rd Moses ' 4th

speech
speech
28.69-32. 52 33.1-34.12
3/3
6/6
1/1
2/2
(MT/LXX)
References to Egypt are spread rather generally throughout the scroll of

Deuteronomy, but are most prevalent in the second speech of Moses,
which is a hortatory resume of the covenant stipulations that define Israel.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ackerman, Susan
1992
Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah (Atlanta:
Scholars Press).
Aharoni, Yohanan
1979
The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 2nd enlarged and rev. edn).
Albright, William F.
1922
'The Location of the Garden of Eden', AJSL 39.15-31.
1937
'A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Age: The Nash Papyrus', JBL
56: 145-76.
Alexander, Philip S.
1992
'Geography and the Bible (Early Jewish Geography)', ABDII: 977-88.
Andersen, Francis I., and A. Dean Forbes
1989
The Vocabulary of the Old Testament (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto
Biblico).
Avigad, Nahman
1982
'A Hebrew Seal Depicting a Sailing Ship', BASOR 246: 59-62.
Avi-Yonah, Michael
1977
The Holy Land from the Persian to the Arab Conquests (536 B. C. to A.D.
640): A Historical Geography (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House).
Baker, David W., and Donald B. Redford
1992
'Pathros', ^5D V: 178.
Bal, Mieke
1988
Death and Dissymmetry: The Politics of Coherence in the Book of Judges
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Baly, D.
1974
The Geography of the Bible (New York: Harper & Row, 2nd edn).
1979
Geographical Companion to the Bible (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2nd edn).
Barclay, John M.G.
1992
'Manipulating Moses: Exodus 2.10-15 in Egyptian Judaism and the New
Testament', in Robert P. Carroll (ed.), Text as Pretext: Essays in Honour of
Robert Davidson (JSOTSup, 138: Sheffield: JSOT Press): 28-46.
1996
Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE
117CE) (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Barkay, Gabriel
1992
'The Priestly Blessing on Silver Plaques from Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem',
Tel Aviv 19: 139-92.
1996
'A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple in Jerusalem?', IEJ46: 23-43.
278
Barr, James
1974
'Etymology and the Old Testament', OTS 19:1-28.
Barstad, Hans M.
1996
The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of
Judah During the 'Exilic' Period (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press).
Barth, Fredrik
1969
'Introduction', in F. Barth (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social
Organization of Culture Difference (Boston: Little, Brown & Co.): 9-38.
Baud, M.
1989
'La representation de 1'espace en Egypte anciennecartographic d'un
intineraire d'expedition', Mappe-monde 3: 9-12.
Ben-Arieh, Y.
1982
'Historical Geography in Israel: Retrospect and Prospect', in Alan R.H.
Baker and Mark Billinge (eds.), Period and Place: Research Methods in
Historical Geography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 3-9.
Ben Zvi, Ehud
1996
A Historical-Critical Study of the Book ofObadiah (BZAW, 242; Berlin:
W. de Gruyter).
1997
'The Urban Center of Jerusalem and the Development of the Literature of
the Hebrew Bible', in W.E. Aufrecht, N.A. Mirau, and S.W. Gauley (eds.),
Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete (JSOTSup, 244;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 194-209.
Berquist, Jon L.
1995
Judaism in Persia's Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
1996
'Postcolonialism and Imperial Motives for Canonization', Semeia 75:15-35.
Billinge, Mark D.
1981
'Mental Maps', in R.J. Johnstone (ed.), Dictionary of Human Geography
(Glencoe: Free Press): 215-16.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph
1987
'The Mission of Udjahorresnet and Those of Ezra and Nehemiah', JBL 106:
409-21.
1988
Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press).
1991
'Temple and Society in Achaemenid Judah', in Davies 1991: 22-53.
1992
The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (New
York: Doubleday).
1994
' The Nehemiah Autobiographical Memoir', in Samuel E. Balentine and John
Barton (eds.), Language, Theology and the Bible: Essays in Honour of
James Barr (Oxford: Clarendon Press): 199-212.
1996
'An Assessment of the Alleged Pre-Exilic Date of the Priestly Material in the
Pentateuch', ZAW108: 495-518.
Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth
1992
'BurialsIsraelite', ABD I: 785-89.
Blok, Hanna
1996
'Allegoric Geography in the Song of Songs', in Janet Dyk (ed.), Give Ear to
My Words: Psalms and Other Poetry in and around the Hebrew Bible:
Essays in Honor of Professor N.A. van Uchelen (Kampen: Kok Pharos):
173-82.
Bibliography
Blum, E.
1990
279
Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW, 189; Berlin: W. de

Gruyter).
Boer, P.A.H. de
1991
'Egypt in the Old Testament: Some Aspects of an Ambivalent Assessment',
OTS27: 152-67.
Bolin, Thomas M.
1995
'The Temple of "liT at Elephantine and Persian Religious Policy', in
Edelman 1995b: 173-82.
1996
'When the End is the Beginning: The Persian Period and the Origins of the
Biblical Tradition', SJOT 10: 3-15.
Bonani, Georges, Susan Ivy, and Willy Wolfli
1994
'Report and Discussion Concerning Radiocarbon Dating of Fourteen Dead
Sea Scrolls', in Michael O. Wise et al. (eds.), Methods of Investigation of the
Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future
Prospects (New York: New York Academy of Sciences): 441-53.
Botterweck, G. Johannes
1995
'3^5', TDOTVll: 146-57.
Brah, Avtar
1994
'Time, Place, and Others: Discourses of Race, Nation, and Ethnicity',
Sociology 28: 805-813.
Bresciani, Essa
1985
'The Persian Occupation of Egypt', in Ilya Gershevitz (ed.), The Cambridge
History of Iran. II. The Median and Achaemenian Periods (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press): 502-528.
Bright, John
1981
A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 3rd edn).
Brin, Gershon
1994
Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls
(JSOTSup, 176; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
Brinkman, Johan
1992
The Perception of Space in the Old Testament: An Exploration of the
Methodological Problems of its Investigation, Exemplified by a Study of
Exodus 25 to 31 (Kampen: Kok Pharos).
Brooke, George J.
1992
'The Textual Tradition of the Temple Scroll and Recently Published
Manuscripts of the Pentateuch', in D. Dimant and U. Rappaport (eds.), The
Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (Leiden: E.J. Brill): 261-82.
1993
'Torah in the Qumran Scrolls', in H. Merklein, K. Miiller, and G.
Sternberger (eds.), Bibel injudischer und christlicher Tradition: Festschrift
fur Johann Maier zum 60. Geburtstag (Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain): 97120.
Broshi, M.
1975
'La population de 1'ancienne Jerusalem', RB 82: 5-14.
Brown, R.E., and R. North
1990
'Biblical Geography', in R.E. Brown et al., The New Jerome Biblical
Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall): 1175-95.
280
Brueggemann, Walter
1977
The Land (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
1994a
'At the Mercy of Babylon: A Subversive Rereading of the Empire', in
Patrick D. Miller (ed.), A Social Reading of the Old Testament: Prophetic
Approaches to Israel's Communal Life (Philadelphia: Fortress Press): 11133.
1994b
'The Book of Exodus: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections', NIB:
675-981.
1995
'Pharaoh as Vassal: A Study of a Political Metaphor', CBQ 57: 27-51.
Brunner, H.
1954-56
'Die Grenzen von Zeit und Raum bei den Agyptern', AfO, 17: 141-45.
1957
'Zum Raumbegriff der Agypter', Studiem Generale 10: 612-20.
Brunner-Traut, E.
1990
Fruhformen des Erkennens: am Beispiel Altdgyptens (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft).
Bryce, G.E.
1979
A Legacy of Wisdom: The Egyptian Contribution to the Wisdom of Israel
(Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press).
Budd, Phillip J.
1984
Numbers (WBC 5; Waco, TX: Word Books).
Caird, G.B.
1982
'Ben Sira and the Dating of the Septuagint', in E.A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia
Evangelica, VII (TU, 126; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag): 95-100.
Callaway, Phillip R.
1993
'The Ancient Meaning of the Law of Moses', in M.P. Graham, W.P. Brown,
and J.K. Kuan (eds.), History and Interpretation: Essays in Honor of John
H. Hayes (JSOTSup, 173; Sheffield: JSOT Press): 160-72.
Caplan, J., et al.
1989
'Patrolling the Borders: Feminist Historiography and the New Historicism',
Radical History Review 43: 23-43.
Carr, D.
1966
'Canonization in the Contxt of Community: An Outline of the Formation of
the Tanakh and the Christian Bible', in Richard D. Weiss and David M. Carr
(eds.), A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in
Honor of James A. Sanders (JSOTSup, 225; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press): 22-64.
Carroll, Robert P.
1989
Jeremiah (OTG: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
1991
'Textual Strategies and Ideology in the Second Temple Period', in Davies
1991: 108-24.
1992
'The Myth of the Empty Land', Semeia 59: 79-93.
Carter, Charles E.
1994
'The Province of Yehud in the Post-Exilic Period: Soundings in Site
Distribution and Demography', in Eskenazi and Richards 1994: 106-45.
1999
The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic
Study (JSOTSup, 294; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Cassin, E.
1969
' Cycles du temps et cadres de 1' espace en Mesopotamie Ancienne', Revue de
Synthese, Hie Ser. 55-56: 241-57.
Bibliography
281
Cassuto, Umberto
1983
A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem:
Magnes Press).
Gazelles, H.
1955
'Donnees geographiques sur 1'Exode', La Bible et I 'Orient; Travaux de lei
Congres archeologie et d'orientalisme bibliques (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France).
Cerny, Jarislav
1954
'Consanguineous Marriages in Pharaonic Egypt', JEA 40: 23-29.
Chan, Kim-Kwong
1985
'You Shall Not Eat Those Abominable Things: An Examination of Different
Interpretations of Deuteronomy 14.3-20', East Asia Journal of Theology 3:
88-106.
Childs, Brevard S.
1974
The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (OTL;
Philadelphia: Westminster Press).
Christensen, Duane L.
1991
Deuteronomy 1-11 (WBC 6; Dallas: Word Books).
Clements, Ronald E.
1988
Jeremiah (ffiC; Atlanta: John Knox Press).
1996
'The Deuteronomic Law of Centralisation and the Catastrophe of 587
B.C.E'., in John Barton and David J. Reimer (eds.), After the Exile: Essays
in Honour of Rex Mason (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press): 5-25.
Clines, David J.A.
1978
The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup, 10; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
Coats, George W.
1968
'Despoiling the Egyptians', VT18: 450-57.
1973
'The Joseph Story and Ancient Wisdom: A Reappraisal', CBQ 35: 285-97.
1977
'Legendary Motifs in the Moses Death Reports', CBQ 39: 34-44.
Cohen, A.P.
1986
Symbolizing Boundaries (Manchester: Manchester University Press).
Cohen, Ronald
1978
'Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropology', Annual Review of
Anthropology 7: 379-403.
Cohen, Shaye J.D.
1985
'The Origins of the Matrilineal Principle in Rabbinic Law', Association for
Jewish Studies Review 10: 19-53.
1986
'Was Timothy Jewish (Acts 16.1 -3)? Patristic Exegesis, Rabbinic Law, and
Matrilineal Descent', JBL 105: 251-68.
1989
'Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew', HTR 82: 13-33.
Cohn, Robert L.
1981
The Shape of Sacred Space: Four Biblical Studies (Chico, CA: Scholars
Press).
Cook, John Manuel
1983
The Persian Empire (London: J.M. Dent & Sons).
Coote, Robert B.
1990
Early Israel: A New Horizon (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
282
Couroyer, B.
1956a
'Le "doigt de Dieu" (Exode, VIII, 15)', RB 63: 481-95.
1956b
'Quelques Egyptianismes dans 1'Exode', RB 63: 209-19.
Cowley, A.
1923
Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B. C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Crawford, Sidnie White
1995a
'4QDeuta', in Ulrich et al. 1995: 7-8.
1995b
'4QDeuf, in Ulrich et al. 1995: 15-34.
Crenshaw, James L.
1969
'Method in Determining Wisdom Influence upon "Historical" Literature',
JBL 88: 129-42.
Cross, Frank Moore
1955
'The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran', JBL 74: 147-72.
1976
'The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts', in P.M. Cross and S. Talmon
(eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press): 306-20.
1994
'4QExod-Levf', in Ulrich et al. 1994: 133-44.
1995
The Ancient Library of Qumran (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 3rd edn).
Criisemann, Frank
1987
'Das "portative Vaterland". Struktur und Genese des alttestamentlichen
Kanons', in Aleida Assmann and Jan Assmann (eds.), Kanon undZensur:
Beitrdge zur Archdologie der literarischen Kommunikation II (Munich:
Wilhelm Fink): 63-79.
1989
'Der Pentateuch als Tora: Prolegomena zur Interpretation seiner Endgestalt',
EvT49: 250-67.
Cryer, Frederick H.
1994
' The Problem of Dating Biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew of Daniel', in K.
Jepsen, K. Nielsen, and B. Rosendal (eds.), In the Last Days: On Jewish and
Christian Apocalyptic and its Period (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press):
185-98.
Currid, John D.
1991
'An Examination of the Egyptian Background of the Genesis Cosmogony',
BZ35: 18-40.
Daube, David
1963
The Exodus Pattern in the Bible (London: Faber & Faber).
Davies, G.I.
1974
'The Hebrew Text of Exodus VIII19An Emendation', FT 24: 489-92.
1979
The Way of the Wilderness: A Geographical Study of the Wilderness
Itineraries in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
1995
'Were There Schools in Ancient Israel?', in Day, Gordon, and Williamson
1995: 199-211.
Davies, Philip R.
1990
'Does Biblical Studies Need a Dictionary?' in D.J.A. Clines et al. (eds.), The
Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical
Studies in the University of Sheffield (JSOTSup, 87; Sheffield: JSOT Press):
321-35.
1992
In Search of 'Ancient Israel' (JSOTSup, 148; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
1995
'Scenes from the Early History of Judaism', in Edelman 1995b: 145-82.
Bibliography
283
Davies, Philip R. (ed.)

1991
Second Temple Studies. I. The Persian Period (JSOTSup, 117; Sheffield:
JSOT Press).
Davila, James R.
1994
'4QGen-Exoda', in Ulrich et al. 1994: 7-30.
Day, John, Robert P. Gordon and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.)
1995
Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour ofJ.A. Emerton (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Deurloo, K.A.
1990
'Narrative Geography in the Abraham Cycle', in A.S. van der Woude (ed.),
In Quest of the Past: Studies on Israelite Religion, Literature, and
Prophetism (OTS, 26; Leiden: E.J. Brill): 48-62.
1994
'The Way of Abraham: Routes and Localities as Narrative Data in Gen.
11.27-25.11', in Martin Kessler (ed.), Voices from Amsterdam: A Modern
Tradition of Reading Biblical Narrative (Atlanta: Scholars Press): 95-112.
Dever, W.G.
1993
'Cultural Continuity, Ethnicity in the Archaeological Record and the
Question of Israelite Origins', Eretz Israel 24: *22-*33.
1995
'Ceramics, Ethnicity, and the Questions of Israel's Origins', BA 58: 200-13.
Di Leila, Alexander A.
1992
'Wisdom of Ben-Sira', ABD VI: 931-45.
Dion, P.E.
1991
'YHWH as Storm-god and Sun-god: The Double Legacy of Egypt and
Canaan as Reflected in Psalm 104', ZAW103: 43-71.
Douglas, Mary
1966
Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo
(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
1975
'Deciphering a Meal', Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology (London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul): 249-75.
1993
'The Forbidden Animals in Leviticus', JSOT 59: 3-23.
Downs, Roger M., and Stea, David
1973
'Introduction: Cognitive Representations', in Downs and Stea (eds.), Image
and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior (Chicago:
Aldine): 79-86.
1977
'Maps in Minds: Reflections on Cognitive Mapping' (New York: Harper &
Row).
Dozeman, Thomas B.
1996
'The yam-sup in the Exodus and the Crossing of the Jordan River', CBQ 58:
407-16.
Droge, Arthur J.
1989
Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture
(Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]).
Duchesne-Guillemin, J.
1969
'Espace et temps dans 1'Iran ancien', Revue de Synthese, Hie Ser. 55-56:
259-80.
Dunand, Franoise, and Christiane Zivie-Coche
1991
Dieux et hommes en Egypte (Paris: Armand Cohn).
284
Duncan, Julie Ann

1995
'4QDeutb', in Ulrich et al. 1995: 9-14.
Durham, John I.
1987
Exodus (WBC 3; Waco, TX: Word Books).
Dus, Jan
1976
'Moses or Joshua? On the Problem of the Founder of the Israelite Religion',
in Norman K. Gottwald and Antoinette C. Wire (eds.), The Bible and
Politics: Political and Social Hermeneutics. A Radical Religion Reader
(Berkeley, CA: Radical Religion): 26-41.
Ebers, Georg
1868
Aegypten und die Bucher Mose's. Sachlicher Commentar zu den
aegyptischen Stellen in Genesis und Exodus (Leipzig: Verlag von Wilhelm
Engelmann).
Edelman, Diana V.
1995a
'Tracking Observance of the Aniconic Tradition through Numismatics', in
Edelman 1995b: 185-25.
Edelman, D.V. (ed.)
1995b
The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans).
Ehrensvard, Martin
1997
'Once Again: The Problem of Dating Biblical Hebrew', SJOT11: 29-40.
Emberling, Geoff
1997
'Ethnicity in Complex Societies: Archaeological Perspectives', Journal of
Archaeological Research 5: 295-344.
Engel, Helmut
1979
Die Vorfahren Israels in Agypten: Forschungsgeschichtlicher Uberblick
tiber die Darstellungen seit Richard Lepsius (1849) (Frankfurt am Main:
Josef Knecht).
Eriksen, Thomas H.
1993
Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives (London: Pluto
Press).
Eskenazi, Tamara
1992
'Out from the Shadows: Biblical Women in the Postexilic Era', JSOT 54:
25-43.
Eskenazi, Tamara C., and Eleanore P. Judd
1994
'Marriage to a Stranger in Ezra 9-10', in Eskenazi and Richards 1994: 26685.
Eskenazi, T.C., and Kent H. Richards (eds.)
1994
Second Temple Studies. II. Temple Commentary in the Persian Period
(JSOTSup, 175; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
Eslinger, L.
1987
'Watering Egypt (Deuteronomy XI 10-11)', F737: 85-90.
Fetterley, Judith
1978
The Resisting Reader: A Feminist Approach to American Fiction
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press).
Finkelstein, Israel
1996
'Ethnicity and Origin of the Iron I Settlers in the Highlands of Canaan: Can
the Real Israel Stand Up?', BA 59: 198-212.
Bibliography
1997
285
'Pots and People Revisited: Ethnic Boundaries in the Iron Age F, in Silberman and Small 1997: 216-37.
Fischer, Thomas
1992
'First and Second Maccabees', ABDIV: 439-50.
Fishbane, Michael
1979
Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York:
Schocken Books).
1985
Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Fohrer, Georg
1968
Introduction to the Old Testament (trans. David E. Green; Nashville:
Abingdon Press).
Forbes, R.J.
1957
'Leather in Antiquity', Studies in Ancient Technology (5 vols.; Leiden: E.J.
Brill): V: 1-76.
Foucault, Michel
1986
'Of Other Spaces', Diacritics (Spring): 22-27.
Fowl, Stephen
1995
'Texts Don't Have Ideologies', Biblnt 3: 15-34.
Fox, M.V.
1985
The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs (Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press).
Fox, Nili
1996
'Royal Officials and Court Families: A New Look at the D"1!"?"1 in 1 Kings
12', BA 59: 225-32.
Freedman, David Noel
1963
'The Law and the Prophets', Congress Volume: Bonn 1962 (VTSup, 9;
Leiden: EJ. Brill): 250-65.
1987
'The Earliest Bible', in M. O'Connor and D.N. Freedman (eds.), Backgrounds for the Bible (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 29-37.
1990
'The Formation of the Canon of the Old Testament: The Selection and
Identification of the Torah as the Supreme Authority of the Postexilic
Community', in E.B. Firmage, B.G. Weiss, and J.W. Welch (eds.), Religion
and Law: Biblical, Judaic and Islamic Perspectives (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns): 315-31.
1991
The Unity of the Hebrew Bible (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).
Freedman, D.N, and K.A. Matthews
1985
The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (HQpaleoLev) (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns).
Frei, Peter
1996
' Zentralgewalt und Lokalautonomie im Achamenidenreich', Reichsidee und
Reichsorganisation im Perserreich (OBO, 55; Freiburg-Schweiz:
Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd rev. edn): 5131.
Fretheim, Terence E.
1991a
'The Plagues as Ecological Signs of Historical Disaster', JBL 110: 385-96.
1991b
Exodus (IBC; Louisville, KY: John Knox Press).
1996
The Pentateuch (Nashville: Abingdon Press).
286
Frye, Northrop
1982
1990
Gafni, Isaiah
1981
The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (Toronto: Academic Press
Canada).
Words with Power: Being a Second Study of The Bible and Literature' (San
Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich).
'Reinternment in the Land of Israel: Notes on the Origin and Development
of the Custom', The Jerusalem Cathedra 1: 96-104.
Gager, John G.
1972
Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism (SBLMS, 16; Nashville: Abingdon
Press).
Galpaz, Pnina
1991
'The Reign of Jeroboam and the Extent of Egyptian Influence', 57V 60: 1319.
Galpaz-Feller, P.
1995
'The Stela of King Piye: A Brief Consideration of "Clean" and "Unclean" in
Ancient Egypt and the Bible', RB 102: 506-21.
Garsiel, Moshe
1991
Biblical Names: A Literary Study ofMidrashic Derivations and Puns (trans.
Phyllis Hackett; Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University).
Geller, Stephen
1982
'Through Windows and Mirrors into the Bible: History, Literature and
Language in the Study of the Text', in Stephen Geller et al (eds.), A Sense of
the Text: The Art of Language in the Study of Biblical Literature (Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 3-40.
Gerstenberger, Erhard S.
1996
Leviticus: A Commentary (trans. Douglas W. Scott; OTL; Louisville, KY:
Westminster/John Knox Press).
Giveon, R.
1978
The Impact of Egypt on Canaan: Iconographical and Related Studies (OBO,
20; Freiburg-Schweiz: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht).
Goldin, Judah
1987
'The Death of Moses: An Exercise in Midrashic Transposition', in J.H.
Marks and R.M. Good (eds.), Love and Death in the Ancient Near East:
Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope (Guildford, Conn: Four Quarters
Publishing Company): 219-25.
Goldman, Shalom
1995
The Wiles of Women/The Wiles of Men: Joseph and Potiphar's Wife in
Ancient Near Eastern, Jewish, and Islamic Folklore (Albany, NY: State
University of New York).
Goldstein, Jonathan A.
1991
The Message of Aristeas to Philokrates: In the Second Century BCE, Obey
the Torah, Venerate the Temple of Jerusalem, But Speak Greek and Put
Your Hopes in the Ptolemaic Dynasty', in Menachem Mor (ed.), Eretz
Israel, Israel and the Jewish Diaspora: Mutual Relations (Lanham, MD:
University Press of America): 1-23.
Bibliography
287
Gordon, Cyrus H.
1992
' "This Time" (Genesis 2.23)', in M. Fishbane and E. Tov (eds.), 'Sha 'arei
Talmon': Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented
to Shemaryahu Talmon (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 47-51.
Gorg, Mannfred
1977a
'Komparatistische Untersuchungen an aegyptische und israelitischer
Literatur', in Jan Assmann (ed.), Fragen an die altdgyptische Literatur
(Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag): 197-215.
1977b
'Wo lag das Paradies? Einige Beobachtungen zu einer alten Frage', BN 2:
23-32.
1978a
'Ausweisung oder Befreiung? Neue Perspektiven zum sogenannten Exodus',
in Kairos: Zeitschrift fur Religionswissenschaft und Theologie 20: 272-80.
1978b
'Ptolemaische Theologie in der LXX', Kairos: Zeitschrift fur Religionswissenschaft und Theologie 20: 208-17.
1980
'Ijob as dem Lande 'Us: Bin Beitrag zur "theologischer Geographie'", BN
12: 7-12.
1981a
'Nesein Herrschaftsemblem?', BN 14: 11-17.
1981b
'Zur Dekoration des Leuchters', BN 15: 21-28.
1981c
'Ophir, Tarschish und Atlantis', BN 15: 76-86.
1984a
'Die Spiegeldienst der Frauen (Ex 38,8)', BN 23: 9-13.
1984b
'Minein charakteristischen Begriff der Priesterschrift', BN24: 12-15.
1984c
' "Mein Schiffist YHWH" Zu Dekoration eines hebraischen Siegels', BN 25:
7-9.
' Methodological Remarks on Comparative Studies of Egyptian and Biblical
19 8 5 a
Words and Phrases', in Israelit-Groll 1985: 57-64.
1985b
'Sb'wteinGottestitel',57V30: 15-18.
1986a
'Beobachtungen zum sogenannten Azazel Ritus', BN 33: 10-16.
1986b
'Hagar, die Agypterin', BN 33: 17-20.
1986c
'Goliat aus Gat', BN34: 17-21.
1986d
'Die Begleitung des Abimelech von Gerar (Gen 26,26)' BN 35: 21-25.
1987a
'Namen und Titel in I Kon 1 l,19f.., BN 36: 22-26.
1987b
'Zur identitat des Pischon', BN40: 11 -13.
1988
'Pesach (Pascha): Fest des "schlagenden" Gottes?', BN43: 7-11.
1990
'Geschichte der SundeSiinde der Geschichte: Gen 3,1-7 im Licht
tendenzkritischer Beobachtungen', Munchener Theologische Zeitschrift
41/4:315-25.
1991
'Jachin und Boas: Namen und Funktion der beiden Templesaulen', in
Aegyptiaca-Biblica (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz): 79-98.
1992
'Jeremia zwischen Ost und West (Jer 38,1-6)', in Studien zur biblischagyptischen Religionsgeschichte (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk [1982]):
190-207.
1993
'Pichol in Agypten und in der Bibel', BN 69: 12-14.
Gottwald, Norman K.
1979
The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel,
1250-1050B.C.E. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books).
1985
'Social Matrix and Canonical Shape', TTod42: 307-21.
Gould, Peter, and Rodney White
1974
Mental Maps (New York: Penguin Books).
288
Grabbe, Lester L.
1992
Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. I. The Persian and Greek Periods (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
1994
'What Was Ezra's Mission?', in Eskenazi and Richards 1994: 286-99.
Greenfield, Jonas C., and Bezalel Porten
1982
The Besitun Inscription of Darius the Great: Aramaic Version (London:
Lund Humphries).
Greenspahn, Frederick E.
1994
When Brothers Dwell Together: The Preeminence of Younger Siblings in the
Hebrew Bible (New York: Oxford University Press).
Greenstein, Edward L.
1989
'The Torah as She is Read', in Essays in Biblical Method and Translation
(Atlanta: Scholars Press): 29-51.
Griffiths, J. Gwyn
1953
'The Egyptian Derivation of the Name Moses', JNES 12: 225-31.
Groenewegen-Frankfort, H.A.
1987
Arrest and Movement: An Essay on Space and Time in the Representational
Art of the Ancient Near East (London: Faber & Faber, 1951; repr., Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press).
Guggenheimer, Heinrich
1995
The Scholar's Haggadah: Ashkenazic, Sephardic, and Oriental Versions
(Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson).
Hall, Robert G.
1992
'Circumcision', ABD I: 1025-1031.
Hallo, William W. (ed)
1997
The Context of Scripture. I. Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World
(Leiden: E J. Brill).
Hamilton, Mark W.
1995
'Who Was a Jew? Jewish Ethnicity During the Achaemenid Period', ResQ
37: 102-17.
Handy, Lowell K.
1992
'Uneasy Laughter: Ehud and Eglon as Ethnic Humor', SJOT 6: 233-46.
Haran, M.
1976
'Exodus, the', IDBSup 304-10.
1982
'Book-Scrolls in Israel in Pre-exilic Times', JJS 33: 161-73.
1983
'Book-Scrolls at the Beginning of the Second Temple Period: The Transition
from Papyrus to Skins', HUCA 54: 111-22.
1984
'More Concerning Book Scrolls in Pre-exilic Times', JJS 35: 84-85.
1985a
'Book-size and the Device of Catch Lines in the Biblical Canon', JJS: 36.111.
1985b
'Bible Scrolls in Eastern and Western Jewish Communities from Qumran to
the High Middle Ages', HUCA 56: 21-62.
1990
'Book-Size and the Thematic Cycles in the Pentateuch', in E. Blum, C.
Macholz, and E.W. Stegemann (eds.), Die Hebrdische Bibel und ihre
zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift fur RolfRendtorffzum65. Geburtstag
(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag): 165-76.
1993
'Archives, Libraries, and the Order of the Biblical Books', JANESCU22:
51-61.
Bibliography
Harley, J.B.
1988
Harris, Marvin
1985
289
'Maps, Knowledge, and Power', in Denis Cosgrove and Stephen Daniels

(eds.), The Iconography of Landscape: Essays on the Symbolic Representation, Design and Use of Past Environments (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press): 277-312.
The Sacred Cow and the Abominable Pig: Riddles of Food and Culture
(New York: Touchstone, Simon & Schuster, Inc).
Harrison, C. Robert, Jr
1991
'Qoheleth in Social-Historical Perspective' (PhD dissertation, Duke
University; Durham, North Carolina).
Hasel, Michael G.
1994
'Israel in the Merneptah Stela', BASOR 296: 45-61.
Healey, Joseph P.
1992
'AmHa'arez',^5DI: 168-69.
Hengstenberg, E.W.
1845
Egypt and the Books of Moses or The Books of Moses Illustrated by the
Monuments of Egypt (trans. R.D.C. Robbins; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Herzog, Ze'ev
1989
'Persian Period Stratigraphy and Architecture (Strata XI-VI)', in Ze'ev
Herzog, George Rapp, Jr, and Ora Negbi (eds.), Excavations at Tel Michal,
Israel (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; Tel Aviv: Sonia and
Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University): 88-114.
Hesse, Brian
1990
'Pig Lovers and Pig Haters: Patterns of Palestinian Pork Production',
Journal of Ethnobiology 10: 195-225.
Hoffmeier, James K.
1992
'Egypt, Plagues in', ABD II: 374-78.
Hoglund, Kenneth G.
1991
'The Achaemenid Context', in Davies 1991: 54-72.
1992
Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of
Ezra andNehemiah (SBLDS, 125; Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Holladay, Carl R.
1983
Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. I. Historians (Chico, CA:
Scholars Press).
1989
Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. II. Poets: The Epic Poets
Theodotus and Philo, and Ezekiel the Tragedian (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Holladay, William L.
1989
Jeremiah 2 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
Holscher, Gustav
1949
Drei Erdkarten: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung des hebrdischen Altertums
(Heidelberg: Carl Winter).
Hooker, Paul K.
1993
'The Location of the Brook of Egypt', in M.P. Graham, W.P. Brown, and
J.K. Kuan (eds.), History and Interpretation: Essays in Honor of John H.
Hayes (JSOTSup, 173; Sheffield: JSOT Press): 203-14.
Horbury, William, and David Noy
1992
Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
290
Houtman, Cornells
1993
Exodus (trans. J. Rebel and S. Woudstra; Kampen: Kok).
Huffmon, Herbert B.
1985
'Egypt', HBD 249-51.
Humphreys, W. Lee
1988
Joseph and his Family: A Literary Study (Columbia: University of South
Carolina Press).
Irwin, Dorothy
1977
'The Joseph and Moses Stories as Narrative in the Light of Ancient Near
Eastern Narrative', in John H. Hays and J. Maxwell Miller (eds.), Israelite
and Judaean History (London: SCM Press): 180-209.
Jameson, Fredric
1981
The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act (Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press).
Jamieson-Drake, D.W.
1991
Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archaeological Approach
(SWBA, 9; Sheffield: Almond Press).
Janzen, J. Gerald
1994
'The "Wandering Aramean" Reconsidered', FT44: 359-75.
Jobling, David
1986
' "The Jordan A Boundary": Transjordan in Israel's Ideological Geography',
in The Sense of Biblical Narrative. II. Structural Analyses in the Hebrew
Bible (JSOTSup, 39; Sheffield: JSOT Press): 88-134.
1991
'"Forced Labor": Solomon's Golden Age and the Question of Literary
Representation', Semeia 54: 57-76.
Jobling, David, and Catherine Rose
1996
'Reading as a Philistine: The Ancient and Modern History of a Cultural
Slur', in Mark G. Brett (ed.), Ethnicity and the Bible (Leiden: E.J. Brill):
381-417.
Johnson,Janet H.
1992
'Demotic Chronicle', ABDII: 142-44.
Jones, Richard N., and Zbigniew T. Fiema
1992
'Tahpanhes', ABD VI: 308-309.
Josipovici, Gabriel
1988
The Book of God: A Response to the Bible (New Haven: Yale University
Press).
Jull, A. J. Timothy et al.
1995
'Radiocarbon Dating of Scrolls and Linen Fragments From the Judean
Desert', Radiocarbon 37/1: 11-19.
Kaiser, Otto
1972
'Zwischen den Fronten: Palastina in den Auseinandersetzungen zwischen
dem Perserreich und Agypten in der ersten Halfte des 4. Jahrhunderts', in
Josef Schreiner (ed.), Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch: Beitrdge zur Psalmen
und Propheten, II (Wurzberg: Echter Verlag): 197-206.
Kallai, Z.
1986
Historical Geography of the Bible: The Tribal Territories of Israel (Leiden:
E.J. Brill).
Bibliography
Kasher, Aryeh
1978
1985
Keel, O.
1977
291
'First Jewish Military Units in Ptolemaic Egypt', JSJ9: 57-67.

The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights
(Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]).
Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament: am
Beispiel der Psalmen (Zurich: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2nd edn).
Kellerman, D.
1980
'fQn', TDOTIV: 487-93.
Kempinski, A.
1988
'Jacob in History', BARev 14/1: 42-47.
Kennedy, Charles A.
1992
'Dead, Cult of, ABDII: 105-108.
Kissling, Paul J.
1996
Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua,
Elijah andElisha (JSOTSup, 224; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Kitchen, Kenneth A.
1966
Ancient Orient and Old Testament (London: Tyndale Press).
1973
'Review of A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph, by D.B. Redford', Or Ant
12: 233-42.
1988
'Egypt and Israel during the First Millennium B.C.', in J.A. Emerton (ed.),
Congress Volume (Jerusalem 1986) (VTSup, 40; Leiden: E.J. Brill): 107123.
1992
'Exodus, The', ABD II: 700-708.
Klein, Ralph W.
1974
Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint After Qumran
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
Knauf, Ernst Axel
1990
'War "Biblish-Hebraisch" eine Sprache?', ZAH3: 11-23.
Knight, G.A.F.
1976
Theology as Narration: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Edinburgh:
Handsel Press).
Kornfeld, Walter
1973
'Judisch-Aramaische Grabinschriften aus Edfu', Anzeiger der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 110: 123-37.
1976
'Unbekanntes Diaspora]udentum in Oberagypten im 5./4. Jh. v. Chr.', in
Kairos 18: 55-59.
Kraeling, Emil G.
1953
The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri (New Haven: Yale University Press).
Kristeva, Julia
1982
Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection (New York: Columbia University
Press).
Kuemmerlin-McLean, Joanne K.
1992
'MagicOld Testament', ABD IV: 468-71.
Kuhrt, Amelie
1983
'The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy', JSOT25: 83-97.
1995
The Ancient Near East c. 3000-330 BC, II (London: Routledge).
292
LaCapra, Dominick
1983
Rethinking Intellectual History (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
1985
History and Criticism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
Lambdin, Thomas O.
1953
'Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament', JAOS 73: 146-55.
Larsson, Gerhard
1983
'The Chronology of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the MT and LXX', JBL
102: 401-409.
1985
'The Documentary Hypothesis and the Chronological Structure of the Old
Testament',ZAW91: 316-33.
Latham, James E.
1987
'Leaven', in Mircea Eliade (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion, VIE (New York:
Macmillan): 490-91.
Leclant, J.
1969
'Espace et temps, ordre et chaos dans 1'Egypte Pharaonique', Revue de
Synthese, Hie Ser. 55-56: 217-39.
Leibowitz, Nehama
1976
Studies in Shemot (trans. Aryeh Newman; Jerusalem: World Zionist
Organization).
Lemaire, Andre
1981
Les Ecoles et la formation de la Bible dans I'ancien Israel (OBO, 39;
Freiburg-Schweiz: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht).
1992a
'Education (Ancient Israel)', ABDII: 305-312.
1992b
'Writing and Writing Materials', ABD VI: 999-1008.
Lemche, Niels Peter
1975
'The "Hebrew Slave": Comments on the Slave Law Ex xxi 2-11', VT 25:
129-44.
1979
' "Hebrew" as a National Name for Israel', ST 33: 1-23.
1991
The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites (JSOTSup,
110; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
1992
'Hebrew', ABD III: 95.
1993
'The Old TestamentA Hellenistic Book?', SJOT1: 163-93.
Levenson, Jon D.
1985
Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper &
Row).
1987
'The Sources of Torah: Psalm 119 and the Modes of Revelation in Second
Temple Judaism', in Miller, Hanson and S.D. McBride 1987: 559-74.
1993a
The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son (New Haven: Yale
University Press).
1993b
'Exodus and Liberation', in The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and
Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies (Louisville,
KY: Westminster/John Knox Press [1991]): 127-59.
Lewis, David M.
1964
'The Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt', in Victor A. Tcherikover, Alexander
Fuks, and Menahem Stern (eds.), Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vols.;
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press): III: 138-66.
Bibliography
293
Lindenberger, James M.
1985
'Ahiqar', OTPII: 479-507.
1994
Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Lloyd, Alan B.
1983
'The Late Period, 664-323 BC', in Bruce G. Trigger, Ancient Egypt: A Social
History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 279-348.
Loewenstamm, Samuel E.
1976
'The Death of Moses', in George W.E. Nickelsburg, Jr (ed.), Studies on the
Testament of Abraham (Missoula: Scholars Press): 185-217.
1992
The Evolution of the Exodus Tradition (trans. Baruch J. Schwartz; Jerusalem:
Magnes Press).
Lohfink, Norbert
1991
Die Vdter Israels in Deuteronomium: mit einer Stellungnahme von Thomas
Romer (OBO, 111; Freiburg-Schweiz: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Loretz, O.
1992
'Exodus, Dekalog und Ausschliesslichkeit Jahwes im Amos-und-HoseaBuch in der Perspective ugaritischer Poesie', UF 24: 217-48.
Lott, Jeffrey K.
1992
'Migdol',^5DIV:822.
Lundbom, Jack R.
1992
'Jeremiah, Book of, ABD III: 706-21.
Magonet, Jonathan
1995
'The Names of God in Biblical Narratives', in J. Davies, G. Harvey, and
W.G.E. Watson (eds.), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in
Honour of John F. A. Sawyer (JSOTSup, 195; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press): 80-96.
Malamat, Abraham
1975
'The Twilight of Judah: In the Egyptian-Babylonian Maelstrom', in A.
Alonso-Schokel (ed.), Congress Volume: Edinburgh 1974 (VTSup, 28;
Leiden: E.J. Brill): 123-45.
1982
'A Political Look at the Kingdom of David and Solomon and its Relation
with Egypt', in T. Ishida (ed.), Studies in the Period of David and Solomon
and Other Essays (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 187-204.
1988
'The Kingdom of Judah between Egypt and Babylon: A Small State within a
Great Power Configuration', in W. Claassen (ed.), Text and Context: Old
Testament and Semitic Studies for F.C. Fensham (JSOTSup, 48; Sheffield:
JSOT Press): 117-29.
Mandell, Sara, and David Noel Freedman
1993
The Relationship Between Herodotus' History and the Primary History
(Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Mann, Thomas W.
1988
The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch (Atlanta:
John Knox Press).
Matthews, K.A.
1986
'The Leviticus Scroll (1 IQpaleoLev) and the Text of the Hebrew Bible',
CBQ48: 171-207.
294
McCarthy, Dennis J.
1966
'Plagues and Sea of Reeds: Exodus 5-14', JBL 85: 137-58.
McNutt, Paula
1988
'Egypt as an "Iron Furnace": A Metaphor of TransformationA Writer's
Perspective', in David J. Lull (ed.), SBL 1988 Seminar Papers (Atlanta:
Scholars Press): 123^5.
1990
The Forging of Israel: Iron Technology, Symbolism, and Tradition in
Ancient Society (JSOTSup, 182; SWBA, 8; Sheffield: Almond Press).
Meeks, Wayne A.
1968
'Moses as God and King', in J. Neusner (ed.), Religions in Antiquity: Essays
in Memory ofE.R. Goodenough (Leiden: EJ. Brill): 354-71.
Meinhold, Arndt
1975
'Die Gattung der Josephgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle
\\ZAW87: 306-24.
1976
' Die Gattung der Josephgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle
IF, ZW88: 72-93.
Mendenhall, George E.
1992
'Midian',^5> IV: 815-18.
Mendenhall, George E., and Gary A. Herion,
1992
'Covenant', ABD I: 1179-1202.
Metzger, Bruce M., and Michael D. Coogan (eds.)
1993
The Oxford Companion to the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press).
Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers
1987
Haggai, Zechariah 1-8 (AB 25B; Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
Meyers, Eric M.
1987
'The Persian Period and the Judean Restoration: From Zerubbabel to
Nehemiah', in Hanson and McBride 1987: 509-21.
Michalowski, Piotr
1986
'Mental Maps and Ideology: Reflections on Subartu', in Harvey Weiss (ed.),
The Origins of Cities in Dry-Farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the 3rd
Millenium B.C. (Guilford, CT: Four Quarters): 129-56.
Milgrom, Jacob
1990
Numbers (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society).
Milik, J.T.
1961
'Textes hebreux et arameens', in J.T. Milik and R. de Vaux (eds.), Les
Grottes de Murabba 'at, P. Benoit (DJD, 2; Oxford: Clarendon Press): 67205.
1962
'Textes de la Grotte 5Q', in M. Baillet, J.T. Milik, and R. de Vaux (eds.), Les
'Petites Grottes' de Qumran: Textes (DJD, 3; Oxford: Clarendon Press):
167-97.
Millard, Alan R.
1991a
'Texts and Archaeology: Weighing the Evidence: The Case for King
Solomon', PEQ 123: 19-27.
1991b
'Solomon: Text and Archaeology', PEQ 123: 117-18.
1992
'Literacy (Ancient Israel)', ABD IV: 337-40.
1995
'The Knowledge of Writing in Iron Age Palestine', TynBul 46: 207-17.
Bibliography
295
Miller, J. Maxwell
1991
'Solomon: International Potentate or Local King?', PEQ 123: 28-31.
Miller, J. Maxwell, and John H. Hayes
1986
A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press).
Miller, Patrick D.
1990
Deuteronomy (IBC; Louisville, KY: John Knox Press).
Miller, P.D., P.D. Hanson, and S.D. McBride (eds.)
1987
Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honour of Frank Moore Cross
Moberly, R.W.L.
1983
At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32-34 (JSOTSup,
22; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
1992
The Old Testament of the Old Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Modrzejewski, Joseph Meleze
1995
The Jews of Egypt: From Ramses II to Emperor Hadrian (trans. Robert
Cornman; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society).
Moore, Carey A,
1992
'Esther, Additions to', ABDII: 626-33.
Na'aman, Nadav
1981
'Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan', IEJ 31:172-85.
1986
Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography (Jerusalem: Simor).
1997
'Cow Town or Royal Capital? Evidence for Iron Age Jerusalem', BARev
23/4: 43-47, 67.
Nibbi, Alessandra
1988
Canaan and Canaanite in Ancient Egypt (Oxford: DE Publications).
Nielsen, Flemming A.J.
1997
The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Deuteronomistic History
(JSOTSup, 251; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Niemann, Hermann Michael
1994
'Theologie in geographischen Gewand: Zum Wachstumprozess der
Volkerspruchsammlung Amos 1-2', in H.M. Niemann, M. Augustin and
W.H. Schmidt (eds.), Nachdenken uber Israel, Bibel und Theologie:
Festschrift fur Klaus-Dietrich Schunck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (New
York: Peter Lang): 177-96.
Nims, Charles F., and Richard C. Steiner
1984
'A Paganized Version of Psalm 20.2-6 From the Aramaic Text in Demotic
Script', in Jack M. Sasson (ed.), Studies in Literature from the Ancient Near
East (New Haven: American Oriental Society): 261-74.
Nohrnberg, James
1981
'Moses', in B.O. Long (ed.), Images of Man and God: Old Testament Short
Stories in Literary Focus (Bible and Literature, 1; Sheffield: Almond Press):
35-57.
Noth, Martin
1944
'Israelitische Stamme zwischen Moab und Amon\ZAW6Q: 11-57.
1962
Exodus: A Commentary (trans. J.S. Bowden; OTL; Philadelphia:
Westminster Press).
1966
Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen
Namengebung (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1928; repr., Hildesheim: Georg
Olms).
296

1981
A History of the Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. B.W. Anderson; Englewood

Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972; repr., Chico: Scholars Press).
Ollenburger, Ben C.
1987
Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem
Cult (JSOTSup, 41; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
Olson, Dennis T.
1994
Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press).
1996
Numbers (IBC; Louisville, KY: John Knox Press).
Orlinsky, Harry M.
1991
'Some Terms in the Prologue to Ben Sira and the Hebrew Canon', JBL 110:
483-90.
Parker, Simon B.
1996
'Appeals for Military Intervention: Stories from Zinjirli and the Bible', BA
59: 213-24.
Peet, Thomas E.
1922
Egypt and the Old Testament (Liverpool: University Press of Liverpool).
Petrie, W.M.F.
1923
Egypt and Israel (London: SPCK, 2nd edn).
Pitard, Wayne T.
1994
'Arameans', in A.J. Hoerth, G.L. Mattingly, and E.M. Yamauchi (eds.),
Peoples of the Old Testament World (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House):
207-30.
Plumley, J. Martin
1993
'Egypt', in Metzger and Coogan 1993: 179-82.
Pollak, Ellen
1988
'Feminism and the New Historicism: A Tale of Difference or the Same Old
Story?', The Eighteenth Century: Theory and Interpretation 29: 281-86.
Poole, J.B., and R. Reed
1972
'The Preparation of Leather and Parchment by the Dead Sea Scrolls
Community', in Melvin Kranzberg and William H. Davenport (eds.),
Technology and Culture: An Anthology (New York: Schocken Books): 14368.
Pope, Marvin H.
1962
'Congregation, Assembly', IDS I: 669-70.
Porten, Bezalel
1968
Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony
(Berkeley: University of California Press).
1979
'A New Look: Aramaic Papyri & Parchments\BA42: 74-104.
1996
The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural
Continuity and Change (Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Porten, Bezalel, and Ada Yardeni
1986-93
Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, I-III (Jerusalem: The
Hebrew University).
Provan, Iain W.
1990
'Reading Texts against an Historical Background: The Case of Lamentations
\',SJOT\: 129-43.
Bibliography
297
Purvis, James D.
1986
'The Samaritans and Judaism', Robert A. Kraft and George W.E.
Nickelsburg (eds.), Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters (Atlanta:
Scholars Press): 143-68.
Pury, Albert de
1991
'Le cycle de Jacob comme legende autonome des origines d'IsraeT,
Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (VTSup, 43; Leiden: EJ. Brill): 78-96.
1992
'Osee 12 et ses implications pour le debat actuel sur le Pentateuque', in
Pierre Haudebert (ed.), Le Pentateuque: Debats et recherches (Paris: Cerf):
175-207.
Pury, Albert de, and Thomas Romer
1989
'La Pentateuque en question: position du probleme et breve histoire de la
recherche', in Albert de Pury (ed.), La Pentateuque en question: les origines
et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible a lumiere des
recherches recentes (Geneve: Editions Labor et Fides, 2nd edn): 9-80.
Quaegebeur, Jan
1985
'On the Egyptian Equivalent of Biblical Hartummim', in Israelit-Groll 1985:
162-72.
von Rad, Gerhard
1966a
'The Joseph Narrative and Ancient Wisdom', in The Problem of the
Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E.W. Trueman Dicken; Edinburgh:
Oliver & Boyd [1938]): 120-27.
1966b
'The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch', in The Problem of the
Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. EW. Trueman Dicken, Edinburgh:
Oliver & Boyd [1938]): 1-78.
1966c
Deuteronomy (trans. Dorothea Barton; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster
Press).
Rajak, Tessa
1978
'Moses in Ethiopia: Legend and Literature', JJS 29: 111-22.
Ray, J.D.
1987
'Egypt: Dependence and Independence (425-343 B.C.)', in Heleen SancisiWeerdenburg (ed.), Achaemenid History. I. Sources, Structures and
Synthesis (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten): 79-95.
1988
'Egypt 525-404 B.C.', CAH1, IV: 254-86.
1995
'Egyptian Wisdom Literature', in Day, Gordon, and Williamson 1995: 1729.
Redford, Donald B.
1963
'Exodus I 11', FT113: 401-18.
1970
A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 3 7-50) (VTSup, 20; Leiden:
E.J. Brill).
1985
'The Relations Between Egypt and Israel from El-Amarna to the Babylonian
Conquest', in Janet Amitai (ed.), Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings
of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April
1984 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society): 192-205.
1987
'An Egyptological Perspective on the Exodus Narrative', in Anson F. Rainey
(ed.), Egypt, Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in
the Biblical Period (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University): 137-61.
298

1992a
Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
'Zoan', ABD VI: 1106-1107.
'Memphis', ABD IV: 689-91.
1992b
1992c
Reed, R.
1972
Ancient Skins, Parchments and Leathers (London: Seminar Press).
Rehm, Merlin D.
1992
'Levites and Priests', ABD IV: 297-310.
Reimer, David J.
1990
'Concerning Return to Egypt: Deuteronomy XVII 16 and XXVIII 68
Reconsidered', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Pentateuch (VTSup, 41;
Leiden: E.J. Brill): 217-30.
Rendsburg, Gary A,
1985
The Redaction of Genesis (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns).
1988
'The Egyptian Sun-God Ra in the Pentateuch', Henoch 10: 3-15.
Rendtorff, Rolf
1990
The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch (trans. John J.
Scullion; JSOTSup, 89; Sheffield: JSOT Press [1977]).
1993
The Paradigm is Changing: Hopesand Fears', CRBS 1: 34-53.
1996a
'Is It Possible to Read Leviticus as a Separate Book?', in John F.A. Sawyer
(ed.), Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas (JSOTSup,
227; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 22-35.
1996b
'Chronicles and the Priestly Torah', in M.V. Fox et al. (eds.), Texts,
Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menachem Haran (Winona Lake, IN:
'Directions in Pentateuchal Studies', CRBS 5: 43-65.
1997
Ringgren, H.
1980
'D'-lltB', TW^TTV: 1099-1111.
Romer, Thomas
1987
'Joseph approche: Source du cycle, corpus, unite', Foi et Vie 86: 3-15.
1990
Israels Voter: Untersuchungen zur VaterthematikimDeuteronomiumundin
der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO, 99; Feiburg-Schweiz:
Universitatsverlag; Gortingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
1991
' Exode et anti-Exode: La nostalgic de 1' Egypte dans les traditions du desert',
in Thomas Romer (ed.), Lectio Difficilior Probabilior? L 'exegese comme
experience de decloisonnement: Melanges offerts a Francoise SmythFlorentin (DBAT 12; Heidelberg: B.J. Diebner and C. Nauerth): 155-92.
1992a
'La Deuteronomie. A la quete des origines', in Pierre Haudebert (ed.), Le
Pentateuque: Debats et Recherches (Paris: Cerf): 65-94.
1992b
'Les recits patriarchaux centre le veneration des ancetres: Une hypothese
concernant les "origines" d'"Israel"', in Olivier Abel and Fransoise Smyth
(eds.), Le livre de traverse de I'exegese biblique a I'anthropologie (Paris:
Cerf): 213-25.
1996
'La formation du Pentateuque selon 1'exegese historico-critique', in
Christian-Bernard Amphoux and Jean Margain (eds.), Les premieres
traditions de la Bible (Lausanne: Editions du Zebre): 17-55.
Rooker, Mark F.
1993
'The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Hosea', Criswell Theological
Review 7: 51-66.
Bibliography
Royce, A.P.
1982
Ruffle, J.
1977
299
Ethnic Identity: Strategies of Diversity (Bloomington: Indiana University

Press).
'The Teaching of Amenemope and its Connection with the Book of
Proverbs', TynBul 28: 29-68.
Runnalls, Donna
1983
'Moses' Ethiopian Campaign', JSJ 14: 135-56.
Saarinen, Thomas F.
1973
'Student Views of the World', in Roger M. Downs and David Stea (eds.),
Image and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior (Chicago:
Aldine): 148-61.
Safrai, Shmuel
1974
' Relations between the Diaspora and the Land of Israel', in S. Safrai and M.
Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century (1 vol.; Assen: Van
Gorcum): 184-215.
1981
Die Wallfahrt im Zeitalter des Zweiten Temples (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag).
Salters, R.B.
1994
Jonah and Lamentations (OTG, 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
Sanders, James A.
1992
'Canon, Hebrew Bible', ABD I: 837-52.
Sanderson, Judith E.
1986
An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition
(Atlanta: Scholars Press).
1988
'The Contributions of 4QpaleoExodm to Textual Criticism', RevQ 13: 54960.
1994
'4QExode', in Ulrich et al. 1994: 129-31.
Sasson, Jack M.
1966
'Circumcision in the Ancient Near East', JBL 85: 473-76.
1968
'Bovine Symbolism in the Exodus Narrative', VT 18: 380-87.
Scanlin, Harold
1993
The Dead Sea Scrolls and Modern Translations of the Old Testament
(Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House).
Schenker, Adrian
1996
'Eine Neuausgabe der Biblia Hebraica', ZAH9: 58-61.
Schiffman, Lawrence H.
1994
Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society).
Schmidt, Brian B.
1995
'The Aniconic Tradition: On Reading Images and Viewing Texts', in
Edelman (ed.), 1995: 75-105.
Schwartz, Regina
1995
'Monotheism and the Violence of Identities', Raritan 14: 119-40.
Shirun-Grumach, Irene
1985
'Remarks on the Goddess Maat', in Israelit-Groll 1985: 173-201.
Shupak, Nili
1985
'Some Idioms Connected with the Concept of "Heart" in Egypt and the
Bible', in Israelit-Groll 1985: 202-12.
300

1993
Where Can Wisdom Be Found? The Sage's Language in the Bible and in
Ancient Egyptian Literature (OBO, 130; Freiburg-Schweiz: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Shutt, R.J.H.
1985
'Letter of Aristeas', OTPII: 7-34.
Silberman, Neil A., and David Small (eds.)
1997
The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present
(JSOTSup, 237; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Silver, Daniel Jeremy
1982
Images of Moses (New York: Basic Books).
Simons, J.
1954
'The "Table of Nations" (Gen. X): Its General Structure and Meaning', OTS
10: 155-84.
1959
The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament: A Concise
Commentary in XXXII Chapters (Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Skehan, Patrick W., Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson
1992
Qumran Cave 4, IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (DJD,
9; Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Small, David B.
1997
'Group Identification and Ethnicity in the Construction of the Early State of
Israel: From the Outside Looking In', in Silberman and Small 1997:271-88.
Smith, Anthony D.
1992
'Chosen People: Why Ethnic Groups Survive', Ethnic and Racial Studies 15:
436-56.
1994
'The Problem of National Identity: Ancient, Medieval and Modern?', Ethnic
and Racial Studies 17: 375-99.
Smith, George Adam
1931
The Historical Geography of the Holy Land (London: Hodder & Stoughton,
1894; London: Collins, the Fontana Library, 25th rev. edn).
Smith, Jonathan Z.
1985
'What a Difference a Difference Makes', in Jacob Neusner and Ernest S.
Frerichs (eds.), To See Ourselves as Others See Us: Christians, Jews and
Others in Late Antiquity (Chico, CA: Scholars Press): 3-48.
Smith, Morton
1987
Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (London:
SCM Press, 2nd edn).
Smith, Robert Houston
1990
'The Southern Levant in the Hellenistic Period', Levant 22: 123-30.
Smith-Christopher, Daniel
1994
' The Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9-10 and Nehemiah 13: A Study of the
Sociology of Post-exilic Judaean Community', in Eskenazi and Richards
1994: 243-65.
Snaith, N.H.
1967
Leviticus and Numbers (NCB; Greenwood, SC: Attic Press).
Snowden, Frank M.
1983
Before Color Prejudice: The Ancient View of Blacks (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press).
Bibliography
301
Soja, Edward W.
1971
The Political Organization of Space (Resource Paper No. 8; Washington,
DC: Association of American Geographers).
Soler, Jean
1979
'The Dietary Prohibitions of the Hebrews', in The New York Review of
Boohs 26 (June): 24-30.
Spencer, John R.
1992a
'Aaron', ABD I: 1-6.
1992b
'Sojourner',/LBD VI: 103-104.
Spiegelberg, Wilhelm
1904
Die dgyptische Randglossen zum Alien Testament (Strassbourg: Schlesier &
Schweikhardt).
Stager, Lawrence E.
1971
'Climatic Conditions and Grain Storage in the Persian Period', BA 34: 86-88.
Steinberg, Naomi
1993
Kinship and Marriage in Genesis: A Household Economics Perspective
Steiner, R.C.
1995
'Papyrus Amherst 63: A New Source for the Language, Literature, Religion,
and History of the Arameans', in M.J. Geller, J.C. Greenfield, and M.P.
Weitzman (ed.), Studia Aramaica: New Sources and New Approaches (New
York: Oxford University Press): 199-207.
Steinmann, Andrew E.
1996
'Jacob's Family Goes to Egypt: Varying Portraits of Unity and Disunity in
the Textual Traditions of Exodus 1.1-15', paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, New Orleans, Nov. 23-26.
Steinmetz, Devora
1991
From Father to Son: Kinship, Conflict, and Continuity in Genesis (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press).
Stern, Menahem
1976
Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. I. From Herodotus to
Plutarch (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities).
Stewart, David
1989
'The Hermeneutics of Suspicion', Journal of Literature and Theology 3:
296-307.
Stiebing, William H.
1989
Out of the Desert? Archaeology and the Exodus/Conquest Narratives
(Buffalo: Prometheus Books).
Stolper, Matthew W.
1992
'Murashu, Archive of, ABD IV: 927-28.
Talmon, Shemaryahu
1966
'The 'Desert Motif in the Bible and in Qumran Literature', A. Altmann
(ed.), Biblical Motifs (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press): 31-63.
1983
'Agypten und Israel aus Biblisher Sicht', in Jan Assmann and Gunter
Burkard (eds.), SOOOJahren Agypten, Genese undPermanenzPharonischer
Kunst (Nussloch: IS-Edition): 129-39.
Tate, W. Randolph
1991
Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
302
Taylor, J. Glen
1996
'A response to Steve A. Wiggins, "Yahweh: The God of the Sun?"',

JSOTll: 107-19.
Tcherikover, Victor A., Alexander Fuks and Menahem Stern
1957-64
Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press).
Thompson, Stith
1966
Motif Index of Folk Literature (6 vols.; Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, rev. enlarged edn).
Thompson, Thomas L.
1995
'The Intellectual Matrix of Early Biblical Narrative: Inclusive Monotheism
in Persian Period Palestine', in Edelman 1995: 107-24.
1997
'Defining History and Ethnicity in the South Levant', in Lester L. Grabbe
(ed.), Can a 'History of Israel' Be Written? (JSOTSup, 245; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press): 166-87.
Tobin, Vincent A.
1985
'Amarna and Biblical Religion', in Israelit-Groll 1985: 231-77.
Toumay, Raymond Jacques
1996
'Genese de la triade "Abraham-Isaac-Jacob"', RB 103: 321-36.
Tov, Emanuel
1992
Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; Assen:
Van Gorcum).
Tov, E., and S. White
1994
'Reworked Pentateuch', in Qumran Cave 4, VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1
(DJD, 13; Oxford: Clarendon Press): 187-351.
Trible, Phyllis
1984
Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives
Turner, Victor
1969
The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press).
Uehlinger, Christoph
1993
'Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, Iconography and Syro-Palestinian
Religions of Iron Age II: Some Afterthoughts and Conclusions', in Benjamin
Sass and Christoph Uehlinger (eds.), Studies in the Iconography of
Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals (OBO, 125; Freiburg-Schweiz:
Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht): 257-88.
Ulrich, Eugene
1996
'Multiple Literary Editions: Reflections toward a Theory of the History of
the Biblical Text', in Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks (eds.), Current
Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden:
E.J. Brill): 78-105.
1994
'4QLev-Numa', in Ulrich et al. 1994: 153-76.
Ulrich, Eugene, et al. (eds.)
1994
Qumran Cave 4, VII: Genesis to Numbers (DJD, 12; Oxford: Clarendon
Press).
1995
Qumran Cave 4, IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (DJD, 14; Oxford:
Clarendon Press).
Bibliography
303
Unterman, Jeremiah
1992
'Redemption, Old Testament', ABD V: 650-54.
Uphill, E.P.
1968
'Pithom and Ramses: Their Location and Significance I', ^V'5'27:291-316.
1969
'Pithom and Ramses: Their Location and Significance IF, JNES 28: 15-39.
Van Daalen, David H.
1993
'Number Symbolism', in Metzger and Coogan: 561-63.
VanderKam, James C.
1994
The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
VanderKam, J.C., and J.T. Milik
1994
'Jubilees', Qumran Cave 4, VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (DJD, 13;
Oxford: Clarendon Press): 1-185.
Van Seters, John
1972
'Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period', VT22: 448-59.
1975
Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press).
1983
In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins
of Biblical History (New Haven: Yale University Press).
1992
Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville, KY:
Westminster/John Knox Press).
Vaux, Roland de
1961
Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (trans. John McHugh; New York:
McGraw-Hill).
1972
'The Sacrifice of Pigs in Palestine and in the Ancient Near East', in The
Bible and the Ancient Near East (trans. Damian McHugh; London: Darton,
Longman & Todd): 252-69.
Vergote, J.
1959
Joseph en Egypte: Genese Chap. 37-50 a la lumiere des etudes
Egyptologiques recentes (Louvain: Publications Universitaires; Leuven:
Instituut voor Orientalisme).
1985
'"Joseph en Egypte": 25 Ans Apres', in Israelit-Groll 1985: 289-306.
Vos, George de, and Lola Romanucci-Ross
1982
'Ethnicity: Vessel of Meaning and Emblem of Contrast', in George de Vos
and Lola Romanucci-Ross (eds.), Ethnic Identity: Cultural Continuities and
Change (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn): 363-90.
Wacholder, Ben Zion
1990
'The Ancient Judaeo-Aramaic Literature (500-164 BCE): A Classification of
Pre-Qumranic Texts', in Lawrence H. Schiffman (ed.), Archaeology and
History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in
Memory ofYigael Yadin (JSPS 8; Sheffield: JSOT Press): 257-81.
Wallace, Howard N.
1992
'Eden, Garden of, ABD II: 281-83.
Waltke, Bruce K.
1992
' Samaritan Pentateuch', ABD V: 932-40.
Waltke, Bruce K., and O'Connor, M.
1990
An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns).
Ward, William A.
1992
'Goshen',^5D II: 1076-1077.
304
Watts, James W.
1995
'Public Reading and Pentateuchal Law', FT45: 540-57.
Weil, Gerard E.
1981
' Les decomptes de versets, mots et lettres du Pentateuque selon le manuscrit
B 19a de Leningrade', in P. Casetti, O. Keel, and A. Schenker (eds.),
Melanges Dominique Barthelemy (OBO, 38; Freiburg-Schweiz:
Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht): 652-703.
Weinberg, J.P.
1972
'Demographische Notizen zur Geschichte der nachexilischen Gemeinde in
Juda', Klio 54: 45-59.
1992
The Citizen-Temple Community (trans. Daniel L. Smith-Christopher;
JSOTSup, 151; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
1996
Der Chronist in seiner Mitwelt (BZAW, 239; Berlin: W. de Gruyter).
Weinstein, James
1981
'The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment', BASOR 241: 1-28.
Wenham, Gordon
1979
The Book of Leviticus (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
1987
Genesis 1-15 (WBC; Waco, TX: Word Books).
1994
Genesis 16-50 (WBC; Waco, TX: Word Books).
1996
'Pentateuchal Studies Today', Themelios 22/1: 3-13.
Wesselius, Jan W.
1996
'Analysis, Imitation and Emulation of Classical Texts in the Hebrew Bible',
Dutch StudiesNear Eastern Languages and Literatures 2: 43-68.
Westerrnann, Claus
1984
Genesis 1-11: A Commentary (trans. John J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg).
1986
Genesis 3 7-50: A Commentary (trans. John J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg).
Wevers, John William
1993
Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
White, Hayden
1980
'The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality', Critical Inquiry
7/4: 1-25.
1982
'The Politics of Historical Interpretation: Discipline and De-Sublimation',
Critical Inquiry 9.1: 113-37.
1986
'Historical Pluralism', Critical Inquiry 12: 480-93.
White, Hugh C.
1995
'The Trace of the Author in the Text', Semeia 71: 45-64.
Whitt, William D.
1991
'The Jacob Traditions in Hosea and their Relation to Genesis', ZAW 103:
18-43.
Whybray, R.N.
1974
Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament (Berlin: de Gruyter).
1987
The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (JSOTSup, 53;
Sheffield: JSOT Press).
1995
Introduction to the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Bibliography
305
Wiggins, Steve A.
1996
'Yahweh: The God of the Sun?', JSOTll: 89-106.
1997
'A Rejoinder to J. Glen Taylor', JSOT13: 109-112.
Williams, Ronald J.
1969
'Some Egyptianisms in the Old Testament', Studies in Honor of John A.
Wilson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press): 93-98.
1971
'Egypt and Israel', in J.R. Harris (ed.), The Legacy of Egypt (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 2nd edn): 257-90.
1975
'"A People Come Out of Egypt": An Egyptologist Looks at the Old
Testament', in A. Alonso-Schokel (ed.), Congress Volume: Edinburgh 1974
(VTSup, 28; Leiden: EJ. Brill): 231-52.
Williamson, H.G.M.
1985
Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC; Waco, TX: Word Books).
1987
Ezra and Nehemiah (OTG, 13; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Wimmer, Stefan
1990
'Egyptian Temples in Canaan and Sinai', in Sarah Israelit-Groll (ed.),
Studies in Egyptology Presented to Miriam Lichtheim (2 vols.; Jerusalem:
Magnes Press): II, 1065-1106.
Wright, G.E.
1962
'Exodus, Route of, IDE II: 197-99.
Wright, John K.
1947
'Terrae Incognitae: The Place of the Imagination in Geography', Annals of
the Association of American Geographers 37: 189-215.
Wiirthwein, Ernst
1995
The Text of the Old Testament (trans. Erroll F. Rhodes.; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2nd rev. edn).
Wyatt, N.
1987
'Sea and Desert: Symbolic Geography in West Semitic Thought', UF 19:
375-89.
Yahuda, A.S.
1934
The Accuracy of the Bible: The Stories of Joseph, the Exodus and Genesis
Confirmed and Illustrated by Egyptian Monuments and Language (London:
Heinemann).
Yurco, Frank J.
1989
'Were the Egyptians Black or White?', BARev 15/5: 19-58.
1996
'Black Athena: An Egyptological Review', in Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy
M. Rogers (eds.), Black Athena Revisited (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press): 62-100.
Zadok, Ran
1986
'Die nichthebraischen Namen der Israeliten vor dem hellenistichen
Zeitalter', UF 17: 387-98.
Zagorin, Perez
1990
'Historiography and Postmodernism: Reconsiderations', History and Theory
29: 263-96.
Zeder, Melinda
1996
'The Role of Pigs in Near Eastern Subsistence: A View from the Southern
Levant', in Joe Seger (ed.), Retrieving the Past: Essays on Archaeological
306

Research and Methodology in Honor ofGus W. van Beek (Winona Lake, IN:
Zevit, Ziony
1990
'The Common Origin of the Aramaicized Prayer to Horus and of Psalm 20',
JAOS 110:213-28.
INDEXES
INDEX OF REFERENCES
BIBLE
Old Testament
Genesis
24, 25,
1.1-11.32
275
1-11
8
1
101
207
1.1
1.2
101
99
1.21
1.22
50
1.28
50
1.30
188
2.8
24
3
24, 29, 32
3.6
29,32
3.13
29
3.17
32
3.24
25
4.10
29
4.16
25
6-9
60
6.6-7
131
6.9
25
7.23
39
50
8.17
50
9.1
9.7
50
9.25
27
25,41,48
10
10.5
26
10.10
25
10.13-14
27
10.13
31
10.14
10.19
10.20
10.31
11.1-9
11.2
11.10-30
12
12.1-25.18
12.1-3
12.5
12.10-13.13
12.10-20
12.10
12.11-13
12.13
12.15
12.16
12.17
12.18
13
13.2
13.5-7
13.8-13
13.9
13.10
13.11
13.14
27
31
26
26
54
24,25
27
8,28,31,
56, 76,
145
24, 28,
275
28
29
28
24
13,28,29,
73
28
28, 162
29
28,29
28,34
29
28
29
29
30
107
12, 29, 76,
101, 188
107
107
14
15
15.1
15.7
15.13
15.16
15.18
16
16.1
16.2-3
16.3
16.6
16.7-12
16.10
16.13
17
17.1
17.2
17.6
17.8
17.9-14
17.12
17.15-22
17.18
17.20
17.23-27
18.16
19.24-28
19.28
20
20.1-18
242
196
37
141
131, 191
131
167
13,24,28,
31
32
32
32
32
32
50
32
97, 196
37
50
36,50
37,41,
192
84
126
32, 165
32
50
84
135
29
135
28,30,31
28
308
Genesis (cont.)
20.1
31
20.2
162
20.12
162
20.13
201
21
24,28,31,
66
21.8-14
165
21.9
32,35
32
21.10
21.11-14
32
21.14
201
21.21
33
21.22
31
21.32
31
50
22.17
23
199
23.4
41, 146
23.9
41
23.20
41
24
66, 242
24.1-67
33
24.21
35
24.40
35
24.42
35
24.56
35
34
25
25.1-6
33
25.2
65
25.4
65
25.9-10
199
25.12-18
33
25.12
32, 274
25.19-36.43 275
25.19
33
25.20
201
25.23
107,110
26
28,30,31,
66
26.1
31
26.2
31,33,40,
73
26.4
50
26.6-16
28
26.12-14
31
26.19-36.43 24
26.21-26
208
26.22
50
26.24
26.26
27.40
27.46
28.3
28.4
28.5
28.9
28.10-22
28.13
29
29.21-30
30.27
30.40
31
31.20
31.24
32.22-32
32.28
34.10
34.25-29
35.1-4
35.4
35.9-15
35.11
35.12
35.27-29
36.6-7
36.7
36.43
37.1-50.26
37.1
37.15
37.28
37.36
38.8
39.1-41.57
39.1
39.2-3
39.2
39.3-5
39.5
39.7
39.14
39.17
40.15
50
31
187
54
50
192
201
33
197
37
66
162
38
110
68
201
201
84
84
41
133
68
151
197
36, 37, 50
37
199
146
192
33
24, 34,
275
192
201
65, 142
65, 142
162
34
34, 73,
142
37
34,41
34
34
35
35, 176
35
176
41
41.1-57
41.8
41.24
41.35-36
41.37-57
41.38
41.44
41.45
41.48-49
41.51
41.52
41.56
42.1-47.12
42.2-3
42.7-8
43.32
44
44.5
44.15
44.18
45^7
45
45.1-2
45.3
45.4
45.7
45.8
45.9^7.12
45.10
45.13
45.18
45.20
46
46.2-4
46.3
46.4
47.5
47.6
46.6-7
46.8-27
46.20
46.26
46.27
46.28-29
5, 6, 36,
99
36
36, 101
36, 101
54
34
36
37
36, 63,
274
54
36,67
36,40
54, 274
37
73
38
38,39
38
38
38
38
13
38
38
37
37
38
38
34
39, 104
38
39
39
48, 50, 95
40
40
37,41
274
274
41
41,47,
200
41
48
41,48
104
Index of References
46.34
47
47.1
47.4
47.6
47.11
47.13-26
47.14-15
47.16-22
47.21
47.23-26
47.23
47.27-50.26
47.27-28
47.27
48.4
48.5
48.9
48.16
49
49.22
49.24
49.29-32
49.30
50.2-14
50.3
50.4-14
50.5
50.6
50.7
50.8
50.9
50.11
50.13
50.15-26
50.19
50.22-24
50.24-26
50.24
50.25
50.26
39, 104
76
104
104, 146
104
40,41,63,
132, 146
34,42
42
42
42
42
274
42
40
40-42, 50,
104, 132,
146
36,37,41,
50
43
43
93
48
40
151
43
41
43
43
42
43
43
43,74
40, 43,
104
43
44
41
34
37
44
42,44
181
134
44,49,51
Exodus
\-4
1-2
1
1.1-2.25
1.1-14
1.1-7
1.1-5
1.1
1.5
1.6
1.7-8
1.7
1.8-14
1.8
1.9-11
1.9-10
1.9
1.10
1.11-14
1.11-12
1.11
1.12-13
1.12
1.13-14
1.14
1.15-22
1.15-19
1.15-16
1.15
1.16
1.17
85
69
55, 58, 95
46, 47, 85,
275
69
47,49-51,
53,69
47-49, 59
47,49
47, 48,
200
49,61
61
49, 50, 52,
76, 104,
160,200
51,55
49, 51, 54,
69
54
52, 54, 56,
57, 63, 73,
74,86
52, 58, 76,
87
50, 52, 53,
63
191
145
53, 54, 56,
76, 105,
199
63
54, 76,
160, 274
54,76
123
55,63
86
56
53, 55, 57,
88
55,76
68, 70,
135
309
1.18
1.19
1.20-21
1.20
1.21
1.22
2-4
2
2.1-10
2.1-2
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.7-9
2.7
2.10-11
2.11-15
2.11
2.12
2.13-14
2.13
2.14-18
2.15-22
2.15-21
2.15
2.17
2.18
2.19
2.21
2.22
2.23-4.18
2.23-25
2.23-24
2.23
2.24-25
2.24
2.25
3^
3
64
55,57
68
58, 70, 76
58, 70,
135
56, 58, 60,
76
66
33, 55-58,
68
59,63
60
59,80
60
60
55
59,62
55
62
63, 64, 83
55, 63, 64,
66, 76,
191
65
81,181
55,64
95
65
81
64,65
67
83
66, 176
67
96, 170
83
68
76
68, 70, 83,
123
68
69, 70,
196
70
132, 152
86, 242
310
Exodus (cont.)
3.1-4.31
70, 85,
275
3.1
73,82
3.6
70-72, 81,
93, 135,
152
3.7-12
152
3.7-9
191
3.7
68, 74, 76
3.8
73, 76, 93,
117,181
3.9
74, 145
3.10
72, 74, 93,
149
3.11
75,81,93,
274
3.12
73,81,93,
117, 149,
262
3.13-15
72
3.13
71, 72, 75,
81
3.14
70,71
3.15-16
152
3.15
70-72,81,
93
3.16-18
82
3.16-17
72
3.16
70, 72, 74,
81,93,
129
3.17-18
117
3.17
76, 181
3.18
72-74,
117, 129
3.19
72
3.20
72
3.21-22
72, 75, 94,
104, 133,
151
3.22
75, 134,
153
4
80, 86,
142
4.1-9
72, 82,
173
4.1-5
99
4.1
4.2-9
4.5
4.8-9
4.8
4.10
4.13
4.14-16
4.14
4.16
4.17
4.18
4.19
4.20
4.21-23
4.21
4.22-23
4.22
4.23
4.24-26
4.24
4.25
4.26
4.27
4.28
4.29-33
4.29-30
4.29
4.30
4.31
5-14
5
5.1-7.7
5.1-5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4-23
72,81
81
70, 72, 93
82
93
97
79
80
60,80
79-81,97
82
82, 83,
274
82,83
82, 83, 96
77
72, 73, 82,
95
109, 128
72, 77, 92,
124, 129
73, 77, 82,
84
61, 83, 84,
97, 127
82-84
83
83,84
73,82
82
90
78
129
82
78, 130,
135, 173,
191
85
85, 97,
132
85, 275
86
92, 114
86,91,
113, 114,
117
90,92
191
5.4
5.5
5.6-14
5.6
5.7
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13-14
5.15-18
5.15-16
5.15
5.16
5.19-23
5.19
5.21
5.22-23
5.22
5.23
6
6.1
6.2-8
6.2
6.3-4
6.3
6.4
6.6-9
6.6-7
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.11-13
6.12
6.13
6.14-25
6.14-15
6.16-25
6.16-20
6.20
86
86,87
86,88
86,88
86
86, 123
86, 88, 92
123
86, 104
88
86
88
88
88, 114
86
92, 101
90,92
92,95
88, 129
93
86, 95, 97,
242
67,90,91,
114, 130
92
86, 93,
139
196
92
192
191
152
93, 123,
139
93, 94,
113, 141
93, 139
123
95
97
94
95
95
60, 95,
170
131
59, 60,
162
Index of References
6.26-30
6.26-27
6.26
6.28
6.29
6.30
7-10
7-9
7.1
7.3
7.4-5
7.4
7.5
7.7
7.8-11.10
7.8-13
7.9-12
7.11
7.12
7.13-14
7.13
7.15
7.16
7.17
7.19
7.20
7.21-22
7.21
7.22
7.24
7.25
7.26-29
7.26
7.27
7.28
7.29
8.1-4
8.1
8.2
95
95,96
129
92
139
97
85
36
79,96
115
139
129, 152
94, 95,
113,139,
141
60,86
85, 98,
275
99
74
99, 274
99
115
73,86
74,99
114
74, 91, 92,
113,139
74, 100102
74
100
99, 102
73, 99,
115
99, 100,
102
92
105
114
102
50, 88,
100
88
105
1 14, 274
102
8.3
8.4-5
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8-9
8.8
8.9-10
8.9
8.10
8.11
8.12-13
8.12
8.13-14
8.13
8.14
8.15
8.16-28
8.16-19
8.16-18
8.16-17
8.16
8.17
8.18-19
8.18
8.19
8.20-32
99, 100,
274
120
100, 105
88, 105
105, 106,
113
88, 99,
100, 105
120
100, 105,
120
100
102, 105
91, 102,
105, 106,
113
105, 115
102
74, 120
100
74, 102,
103
99, 100,
102
73, 100,
115
130
105
112
102
92, 114
50, 88,
102, 103
102, 106,
109,110
40, 50, 99,
100, 103,
104, 107,
112,113,
119
98, 100,
106, 10810,113,
115, 128,
147
130
311
8.20-23
8.20
8.21
8.22-23
8.22
8.23
8.24-25
8.24
8.25
8.26
8.27
8.28-29
8.28
8.29
8.31
8.32
9.1-4
9.1
9.4
9.5
9.6-7
9.6
9.7
9.8-12
9.9
9.11
9.12
9.13-19
9.13
9.14
105,112
103, 112,
114
106,114,
120
102, 106,
109,110
91, 103,
104, 106,
107,11214, 117119
98, 106,
108-10,
113,114,
128, 147
120
103, 106,
112,115
106, 114,
117, 120
106,114,
117, 118
114,135
120
106, 115
117
135
115
112
92, 114
98, 102,
106, 107,
110, 113,
129, 147
103
102, 112
103
115, 129
120
103
100, 103
73, 115
105
92, 114
88,91,
113, 119
312
Exodus (cont.)
9.15
115, 119
9.16-17
115
9.16
119
9.18
113
9.19-21
103
9.20
120, 125,
135
9.22
103, 274
9.23
74, 120
9.24-25
103
9.24
103
9.25
103
9.26
40, 50,
102, 103
9.27
115, 120
9.28-29
120
9.28
105, 115
9.29
91, 113,
119
9.30
88, 117,
120
9.31-32
103
9.33
120
9.34
115, 121
9.35
73, 115
10.1
115, 116,
121
10.2
91, 113,
116, 139
10.3
92, 114,
116, 120
10.5-6
103
10.6
50, 88,
113
10.7
113,121
10.8-11
114, 117
10.8
91, 106
10.10
101
10.12
274
10.13
74, 245,
274
10.14-15
103
106
10.16-17
10.16
115, 120
10.17-18
120
10.18
120
10.19
135,245
10.20
10.22
10.23
10.24
10.25-26
10.26
10.27
10.28
10.29
11.1-3
11.1
11.2-3
11.2
11.3
11.4-8
11.4
11.6
11.7
11.8
11.9
11.10
12-14
12-13
12.1-15.21
12.1-28
12.1-13
12.1
12.2
12.3-4
12.3
12.6
12.7
12.12-13
12.12
73, 115
103
102-104
91, 114
106, 114
118
73, 114,
115
114
112
112
67, 114,
130
75, 94,
104, 116,
133, 151
75
112
112, 113,
120
92, 119
103
91,98,
102, 103,
106, 107,
110, 113,
121, 128,
129, 147
88, 112
116
73, 115,
120, 274
129
140
85, 122,
275
122
123
120
122
124
124, 129,
136, 186,
191
129
104, 124
104
101, 122,
12.13
12.14-20
12.14
12.15
12.17-20
12.17
12.18
12.19
12.21-27
12.21
12.22
12.23
12.24
12.25
12.26-27
12.26
12.27
12.28
12.29
12.30
12.31
12.32
12.33
12.34
12.35-36
12.35
12.36
12.37
12.38
12.39
12.40-41
12.40
12.41
128, 138,
139, 142
124, 170
123
123, 186,
191
125, 126,
129
125
129
237
126, 129,
146, 190
102, 104,
123
124, 129
124
124
123
123
123
123
79, 124,
130
120
103, 125
125
91, 148
115, 136
91, 121,
135
125, 126
75, 94,
104, 116,
133, 151
75
133, 134,
153
50, 129
130, 131,
139, 164,
168, 177
67,114,
125, 130,
187
50
59, 131
126, 129
Index of References
12.43-49
12.44
12.45
12.46
12.47
12.48
12.49
12.51
13
13.1-16
13.1-2
13.2-10
13.3-5
13.3-10
13.3
13.5
13.6-7
13.7
13.8
13.9
13.11-16
13.11
13.12-16
13.12
13.13
13.14-15
13.14
13.15
13.16
13.17-14.31
13.17-18
13.17
13.18
13.19
13.21-22
14-15
14
122, 123,
126, 127
127
126
127
124, 127,
129
97, 127,
190
127, 146,
190
126, 129
80
123
122, 128
122
209
123, 128
13, 125,
134, 144
76, 123,
134, 181
125
126
123, 141,
169
123, 128
122, 128
123, 134
109
108
94, 109
109, 123,
128, 169
13, 134,
144
94, 108,
109, 141
123, 128
46
43, 131
134, 184
130
134
134, 147
61
60, 80, 85,
135
14.4-9
14.4
14.5
14.8
14.9
14.10-14
14.10-12
14.10
14.11-12
14.11
14.13
14.16
14.17-18
14.17
14.18
14.19-20
14.19
14.20
14.23-28
14.23
14.24
14.25
14.26
14.27
14.28-29
14.28
14.30-31
14.30
14.31
15
15.1-21
15.1-8
15.4
15.9
15.11
15.13-18
135
73,91,
113, 115,
116, 134,
135, 139
76, 129,
130
73, 115,
130, 134
135
137, 177
184
73, 135
132, 133,
135, 139
132, 133
135, 185
74
134, 135
91, 115,
116, 134,
135
113, 139
134, 147
129, 149,
197
105, 129,
134
135
135
135, 147
135
135
135
136
135
129
113, 135,
180
79, 130,
135, 173
139
85
136
46, 136
134
138
136
313
15.13
15.19
15.20
15.22-40.38
15.22-25
15.22
15.24
15.25
15.26
16
16.2-30
16.2-3
16.2
16.3
16.4-8
16.4
16.6
16.7-8
16.12-14
16.12
16.19
16.20
16.23
16.27
16.28-29
16.32-34
17
17.1-7
17.1-3
17.2
17.3
17.4
17.5-6
17.6
17.7
17.8-16
17.9-14
18
18.1
18.2-6
18.2-4
18.2
18.3-4
18.8
18.9-11
18.10
18.11
93
136
60,97
137,275
177
85
138, 149
138
138, 153
13, 139
177
184
139, 149
139, 141,
149
140
140
140, 149
149
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
139
172, 177
184
141, 149
141, 149
141
141
173
141, 149
142
171
33, 64, 66
141
83
66
66, 142
96, 170
274
142
142, 274
142
314
Exodus (cont.)
18.12
142
142
18.13-26
18.20
60
18.27
142
143, 158
19
19.3
148
19.4
144
19.5-6
144
19.5
154
19.7-8
143
19.8
144
19.9
147
19.12-13
149
19.19
173
19.20-24
149
20
143, 209
20.2
13, 134,
141, 144,
186, 191,
194
20.8-11
140
197
20.16
21.2-11
55
108
21.7-11
94
21.8
21.28-32
94, 108
144, 190
22.20
22.21
144, 190
22.28
108
23.3
201
23.9
144, 190
23.14-17
166
23.15
166
23.17
117
23.18
125
23.20-23
149, 197
23.23-33
147
23.31
126, 137,
167
24
143
24.2
153
24.3
143
24.7
143
24.9-1 1
153
24.13
171
24.15-18
153
25.1-31.18
147
25.8
29.44-45
29.45-46
29.46
31.12-17
31.13
31.18
32-34
32
32.1-34.35
32.1-34.18
32.1-6
32.1
32.4
32.7-14
32.7-10
32.7
32.8
32.10
32.11
32.12-14
32.12
32.17
32.20
32.21
32.24
32.25-29
32.32-33
32.34
32.35
33.1
33.2-3
33.2
33.3
33.4-6
33.6
33.7-11
33.7
33.9
33.11
33.12-17
33.12
33.13
33.15-16
33.16
148
148
150
141, 144,
148
140
139
100
147
173
147
150
177
150, 151
151
171
151
149, 151
151
198
141,152
131, 152
152, 199
171
152
101
153
152
153
149, 153
153
152, 153
76, 197
149, 153,
154
153,181
153
153
155
147
147
153,171
154
153
153, 154
153
107, 110,
147, 153
33.17
33.20
33.23
34.1
34.9
34.10
34.11-26
34.11
34.18-23
34.18
34.19-20
34.19
34.20
34.23
34.24
34.25
34.27-28
34.27
34.29-35
35.1-^0.33
35.2-3
38.18-22
39.3-24
39.32
40.2
40.6
40.8-27
40.15
40.29
40.34-38
40.38
154
153
153
196
154
154
147
154
166
166
109
108
94, 109
117
126
125
154
154
154
147
140
208
208
148
148
148
208
274
148
147
148
Leviticus
1.1-10.20
1.13-15
1.17-2.1
2.11
6.17
7.13
8.18
8.22
9.4
9.6
9.7
11
11.1-16.34
11.7
11.9
276
208
208
125, 126
125
125
111
111
111
111
111
160
276
111
111
315
Index of References
11.15
11.41-42
11.44-45
11.45
13.47-59
16.29
17-26
17.1-26.46
17.8-16
17.8-15
17.15
18
18.2-4
18.3
18.9
18.11
18.12
18.16
18.18
18.23
18.24-30
18.26
19.10
19.18
19.19
19.20
19.26
19.33-34
19.34
19.36
20
20.2
20.17
20.19
20.21
20.23
20.24-26
20.24
20.26
22.18-20
22.21
22.33
23
23.4
23.17
130
160
160
144, 181
130
146, 190
158
276
146, 190
190
146, 190
162
161
161
162
162
96, 162
162
162
162
161
146, 190
190
190
163
108
38
190
146, 190,
191, 193
144, 162,
163
161, 162
190
162
96, 162
162
54, 162
107
162, 181
162
190
110
144, 162,
163
165, 166
165
125
23.22
23.34
23.37-38
23.39-43
23.39
23.42-43
24.2
24.10-23
24.10
24.11
24.12
24.16-22
24.16
24.22
25
25.6
25.10
25.13
25.14
25.15
25.17
25.23
25.24-34
25.24
25.25-28
25.25
25.27
25.28
25.29-30
25.32
25.33
25.34
25.35
25.36-37
25.36
25.38
25.39-41
25.39
25.40
25.41-42
25.41
25.42
25.44-46
25.44
25.45
190
166
165
166
166
165
146
163, 168
164
163
163
190
164, 190
164, 190
192, 194
192
192
192
193
193
193
190, 19294
110
192
193
192, 193
192
192
194
192
192
192
190, 192,
193
194
193
144, 194
193
192, 193
192
194
192
187, 19294
193
192
192
26
26.11-13
26.13
26.34
26.42
26.44-45
26.44
26.45
27
27.1-34
27.3-8
27.26
27.27
192, 193
94, 110
190, 192,
193
193
192
192
187, 193,
194
186, 195
186, 194
144
195
196
196
196
196
110
276
109
108
109
Numbers
1
1.1-10.10
1.3
1.45
1.46
1.47-49
1.48-53
2.33
3
3.1
3.11-13
3.12
3.13
3.14-4.49
3.15
3.41
3.44-51
3.45
3.46-48
4.3
4.23
4.30
4.39
4.43
159
276
169
169
130
169
169
169
170
170
109
169
169
169
169
169
109
169
169
169
169
169
169
169
25.46
25.47-55
25.47
25.48
25.50
25.53
25.55
316
Numbers (cont.)
4.47
169
5
152
211
6.24-26
8.5-15
169
8.14
170
8.16-18
169
8.17
169
8.19
169, 170
9
163
9.6-14
163
9.14
146, 190
10.11-25.18 276
10.29-32
66
10.29-30
142
10.29
83
11-21
137
11
13, 173
11.1
177
11.4-6
178, 184
131, 168,
11.4
177, 178
188
11.5
178
11.7-8
198
11.11-15
198
11.12
178
11.13
184
11.18-20
178
11.18
11.20
178, 179
171
11.28
11.33
173, 179
12
60,96
171
12.1
172
12.6-8
13-14
172, 174,
199
179
13.1-25
108
13.12
108
13.15
13.22
199
182
13.23
179
13.26-27
181
13.27
179
13.28-29
179
13.31-33
14
139, 168,
198
14.1-4
14.2-4
14.3-4
14.4
14.6
14.8
14.11-19
14.11
14.12
14.13
14.16
14.20-35
14.22-24
14.24
14.29-35
14.29
14.30
14.32
14.33
14.35
14.38
15.13-14
15.29
15.30
15.32-36
15.41
16-17
16
16.1
16.12-14
16.12
16.13-14
16.13
16.14
16.23-35
16.41-50
17
18.15-18
18.15
18.16
18.17-18
20
20.2-13
20.2-5
20.2-3
20.3-5
184
179
184
184
172
181
171
173
198
199
199
168
168
172
168
180
172
180
180
180
172
190
146, 190
130, 190
163
144, 162,
167
174
139
180
184
181
180
76, 181
181
181
181
139
169
108
109
108
13
172, 174,
175
184
182
182
20.5
20.8
20.10
20.11
20.12
20.14-21
20.15-16
20.16
20.24
21.5
21.6-7
21.6
21.7-11
21.8-9
22-24
22.3
22.5
22.7
22.11
22.29
23.22
24.8
25
26
26.1-36.13
26.3-4
26.4
26.51
26.59
26.64-65
26.65
27
27.1-11
27.14
27.18-23
31
32.12
33
33.1
33.4
34.5
35
35.31
188
173
173
173
173, 182
182
197
149
173
182, 184
182
183
108
183
197
54
197
74
197
116
197
197
66, 110
48, 159,
168, 170,
183
276
168
168
130
59, 96,
171
168
172
163
163
173
172
66, 133,
142
172
167
129
128, 130,
274
167
94
94
Index of References
Deuteronomy
1.1-4.43
1.5
1.8
1.19-40
1.22-40
1.26
1.27
1.32
1.36
1.37-38
1.37
1.38
1.43
2.16
3-32
3.26
3.27-28
3.27
4.20
4.21
4.26-31
4.32
4.34
4.37
4.44-28.68
4.44-26.19
5
5.3
5.6
5.15
6.4
6.10
6.12
6.20-25
6.21
6.22
7-9
7.8
159,276
215
203
174, 183
172
173
183
173
172, 174
176
159, 174
174
173
169
209
159, 174
176
174
189
159, 175,
176
250
196
73, 175,
200
200
159,276
159
209
169
13, 134,
141, 144,
186, 187,
191, 194
187, 194
274
203
13, 134,
144, 186,
187, 191,
194
200
187, 194,
274
73, 168
209
13, 109,
7.18-19
7.18
7.19
8.14
9.5
9.7
9.10
9.23-24
9.23
9.24
9.26
9.27
9.28
9.29
10.2
10.10
10.19
10.22
11.2-7
11.4
11.7
11.10
11.11
11.14
13.5
13.6
13.10
13.11
14.1
14.14
14.21
15.12-18
15.12
134, 144,
186, 187,
191, 194
168
188
73
13, 134,
144, 186,
187, 191,
194
203
173, 183
100
173
173
183
109
203
183
274
196
196
195
48
200
168
209
169
188
188
188
109, 186,
187, 194
13, 109,
134, 144,
186, 187,
191, 194
186, 187,
194
13, 134,
144, 186,
187, 191,
194
77
130
146
75, 116
75
317
15.15
16
16.1
16.3
16.6
16.9
16.12
16.16
17.14-20
17.16
18.10
18.15
19
19.14
21.8
21.17
22.3
22.11
22.19
22.29
23-28
23.2-3
23.3-4
23.7-8
23.7
23.8-9
23.8
23.26
24.1
24.3
24.18
24.22
25.5-10
25.6
25.17-19
26
26.1-11
26.5-9
26.6-7
26.8
26.14-15
27.1-31.30
27.9
28.15-68
109, 187,
194
166
166
125, 166,
187, 191
166
237, 247
166, 187,
194
117
184
185
38
175
94, 110
196
109
77
201
163
114
114
209
195
195
195
195
195
195
209
66
66
109, 187,
194
187, 194
162
77
195
191,256
200
145, 200
191
73, 175
209
159
9
185
318
Deuteronomy
28.26
28.27
28.36-37
28.43
28.46
28.60
28.63-67
28.68
28.69-32.52
29-32
29.1-2
29.1
29.2-3
29.2
29.12
29.16
29.27
30.1-5
30.1
30.4
30.15-20
30.20
31.2-3
31.2
31.9-13
31.14
31.23
31.27
32.1-34.12
32.5-6
32.8
32.12
32.18-20
32.27
32.50-52
32.51
33
33.1-34.12
33.1-12
34.1-12
34.1-8
34.5
34.7
34.10-12
34.11-12
34.11

(cont.)
207
188
250
187
73
188
250
185
159,276
209
168
169
168
73, 169
203
169
250
250
250
250
9
203
176
159, 174,
175
247
172
172
173
159
77
107
175
77
130
175
159
48
276
159
159
175
175
175
172
168
73
Joshua
5.2-7
8.34
9
9.18
10.41
11.16
15.4
15.5
15.47
15.51
24.1-4
24.14
24.17
84
215
131
139
39, 105
39, 105
167
39
167
105
68
68,71
186, 187
Judges
2.1-5
2.14
3.12-30
4.21
5.28
6.8
6.11-24
8.24-27
8.24
14.3
18.7
18.30
19.25
149
100
151
99
150
187
79
151
34
61
89
96, 170
116
1 Samuel
18.18
12.2
12.26-29
12.28
14.11
16.4
16.21
21.2
21.24
151
151
151
111
111
51
188
111
2 Kings
12.11
18.27
23.1-3
23.6
23.25
23.28-36
24.7
176
189
247
152
215
234
167
1 Chronicles
5.27
6.1
6.16
17.16
23
23.15-17
26.24-28
29.14
96
96
96
81
170
96
96
81
2 Chronicles
2.6
34.29-33
81
247
Ezra
1.1-4
1.8
1.11
2.2
3.2
4.2
4.3
5.14
5.16
6.3-5
6.6-12
6.15
6.19-22
6.21
7
226
226
226
51,226
230
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
131
131
215
81
2 Samuel
7.18
13-14
19.41
81
94
51
1 Kings
8.45
8.51
10
10.15
10.26
10.28-29
11.14-22
11.25
11.26-40
167
189
61
130
185
185
64, 151
54
64, 151
Index of References
7.6
7.7-8
7.10
7.12
7.14
7.21
7.25
7.26
9-10
13.9
230
216
230
230
230
230
230
223, 230
215,236
230
Nehemiah
1.9
2.19
6.1-2
6.6
7.7
8-10
8.1-8
8.1
8.8
8.13-18
8.13
8.14
9.1-2
9.2
9.3
9.7
9.10
9.36-37
10
10.3
10.29
10.35
10.37
12.47
13
13.3
250
105
105
105
51,226
215
247
230
230
166
230
230
166
126
230
141
142
247
215
230
230
230
230
226
215,236
130
Job
1.9
178
Psalms
4.3
4.4
17.7
20
20.2-6
107
107
107
243
242
74.13
78
105
106
136
139.14
99
258
259
258, 259
258
107
Proverbs
22.17-24.22
Isaiah
1.24
6.2
6.6
14.29
27.1
30.6
31.1
36.12
151
183
183
183
99
183
185
189
Jeremiah
1.6
2.20
5.5
8.5
9.25-26
11.4
11.18-12.6
15.10-21
16.15
25.20
25.24
26.20-23
27-28
27
28
31.9
32.14
34.13
36.28
38
40-^3
44.1
50.37
52.30
79
187
187
89
61
189
79
79
250
130
130
64
187
187
187,249
77
212
187
196
249
235
234
130
250
Lamentations
3.39
177
319
Ezekiel
10-11
17.15
20
20.7-8
29.16
29.17-20
30.5
32
34.27
44
74
185
258
68, 71
185
250
130
97
187
97
Daniel
1-2
36, 99
Hosea
8.13
9.3
11.1
11.5
12
12.6-7
186
186
77
186
258,259
259
Jonah
1.1-10
79
Haggai
1.1
1.12
1.14
2.2
2.23
226
226
226
226
226
Zechariah
4.6
4.7
4.9
4.10
14.16-19
226
226
226
226
166
Apocrypha and
Pseudipigrapha
1 Maccabees
1.55-56
216
2 Maccabees
1.1-9
238,254
1.10-2.18
216
320
2 Maccabees (cont.)
2.13
216
2.14
216
Ben Sira
44-^9
44-^5
44.16
44.17-18
44.19-21
44.22
44.23
45.1-5
45.6-26
46-49
49.14
49.15
49.16
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
Qumran
CD VII
30
46
176
19
19
19
Talmuds
b. Git.
60a
Midrash
Deut. R.
2.8
Philo
Aet. Mund.
19
2.238-253
10.180-182
53
250
Apion
1.1
1.37-41
2.152
286
199
19
199
62
Papyri
Cowley (Cowley, 1923)
7
239
8-9
236
14
236
21
237
22
236
26
244
27
239
30-31
235
30-33
239
32
238
33
238
34
239
35
239
38
237, 239
44
236
56
239
B7.3
Bll
B13
B15-17
B15
B 19-22
B 19-20
B21
B22
B25-26
B45
B50
B51
C1.3
C3.15
236
244
237
239
237
239
235
238
238
236
240
239
239
237
236
Kraeling (Kraeling,
1953)
12
239
13
240
Papyrus Amherst
63
242
Other Ancient Sources
Aristobulus
3.2
19
20
176
19
Vit. Mos.
1.17
1.143
62
102
Josephus
Ant.
2.13.279
2.228
73
62
TAD (A & C: Porten &

Yardeni, 1986-93;
B: Porten, 1996)
A3. 9
240
A4.1
237
A4.3-5
239
A4.3
237
A4.7-8
235
A4.7-10
239
A4.9
238
A4.10
238
A6.10
238
B2.3-4
236
B2.8
236
B3.12
239
B4.6
239
B7.2
239
Diodorus Siculus,
Bib. Hist.
40.03
219
40
259
Letter ofAristeas
13
234
30
218
310-31
218
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Ackerman, S. 236
Aharoni, Y. 5
Albright, W.F. 24,209
Alexander, P.S. 2,26
Andersen, F.I. 273,274
Avi-Yonah, M. 5
Avigad,N. 186
Brueggemann, W. 7, 9, 55, 78, 89, 93, 97,

115
Brunner, H. 6
Brunner-Traut, E. 6
Bryce, G.E. 4
Budd,P.J. 110, 168, 170, 171, 173, 177,
180
Baker, D.W. 235

Bal,M. 15
Baly,D. 5
Barclay, J.M.G. 234,265
Barkay, G. 4,211
Barr,J. 62
Barstad,H.M. 213,250,251
Barth, F. 9, 12
Baud, M. 6
Ben-Arieh, Y. 5
BenZvi,E. 245-47,251
Berquist, J.L. 222, 223, 230, 232
Billinge, M.D. 7,8
Blenkinsopp, J. 19-21, 158, 206, 216,
221,223,227,247
Bloch-Smith, E. 132
Blok,H. 7
Blum, E. 223
Boer, P.A.H. de 12
Bolin, T.M. 119, 224, 228, 242, 244, 251
Bonani, G. 208
Botterweck, G.J. I l l
Brah,A. 12
Bresciani, E. 226, 227, 240, 244
Bright,!. 3
Brin, G. 78
Brooke, G.J. 210
Broshi, M. 246
Brown, R.E. 5
Caird,G.B. 218
Callaway, P.R. 216
Carr, D. 215,217
Carroll, R.P. 6,234,264
Carter, C.E. 227,245,246
Cassin, E. 6
Cassuto, U. 56, 66, 67, 72, 73, 88, 89, 9193, 101, 112, 127, 129, 130,246
Ceray, J. 162
Chan,K.-K. 160
Childs,B.S. 71, 102, 112
Christensen, D.L. 159
Clements, R.E. 234, 235, 238
Clines, D.J.A. 9,28
Coats, G.W. 5, 116, 176
Cohen, A.P. 11
Cohen, R. 9, 11
Cohen, SJ.D. 120, 164
Cohn,R.L. 7, 16
Cook, J.M. 228,231
Coote, R.B. 3
Couroyer, B. 100
Cowley,A. 235-39,244
Crawford, S.W. 209
Crenshaw, J.L. 5,258
Cross, P.M. 17,48,208,209
Crusemann, F. 215,223
Cryer,F.H. 222
Currid,J.D. 24
322
Daube,D. 75, 116

Davies, G.I. 5, 110,213
Davies, P.R. 3, 8, 213, 222, 224, 225
Deurloo, K.A. 6
Dever,W.G. 10, 13, 14
Di Leila, A.A. 217
Dion, P.E. 4
Douglas, M. 161
Downs, R.M. 7
Droge,A.J. 265,266
Duchesne-Guillemin, J. 6
Dunand, F. 252
Duncan, J.A. 209
Durham, J.I. 47, 66, 67, 71, 73, 82, 89,
96,97, 100, 101, 108, 110, 111,
113, 115, 116, 126, 129, 133, 139,
142, 144, 150,246
Dus,J. 172, 176
fibers, G. 2
Edelman, D.V. 222
Ehrensvard, M. 222
Emberling, G. 14
Engel,H. 2
Eriksen, T.H. 9,12
Eskenazi, T.C. 236,264
Eslinger, L. 188
Fetterley, J. 20
Fiema, Z.T. 235
Finkelstein, I. 10, 13, 14
Fischer,!. 216
Fishbane,M. 85,164,166,215
Forbes, A.D. 273,274
Forbes, R.J. 212
Foucault, M. 270
Fox,M.V. 5
Fox,N. 3
Freedman, D.N. 21,209,212,216,220,
221
Frei,P. 223
Fretheim, I.E. 19, 64, 67, 74, 79, 80, 82,
86,101, 115
Frye,N. 7
Fuks,A. 234,241,252
Garni, I. 262
Gager, J.G. 219,220
Galpaz, P. 151
Galpaz-Feller, P. 97
Garsiel, M. 96
Geller, S. 15
Gerstenberger, E.S. 160, 167, 195, 196
Giveon, R. 4
Goldin,J. 176
Goldstein, J.A. 260
Gordon, C.H. 86
G6rg,M. 4,6,7,24,31,185,249
Gottwald, N.K. 124,223
Gould, P. 8
Grabbe, L.L. 223, 229, 252-54
Greenfield, J.C. 241
Greenspahn, F.E. 78,84
Greenstein, E.L. 16
Griffiths, J.G. 63
Groenewegen-Frankfort, H.A. 6
Guggenheimer, H. 202
Hall,R.G. 62
Hallo, W.W. 5
Hamilton, M.W. 237,243
Handy, L.K. 151
Haran,M. 20,47,211,212
Harris, M. 161
Harrison, C.R. Jr. 253
Hasel, M.G. 3
Hayes, J.H. 235,250
Healey,J.P. 87
Hengstenberg, E.W. 2
Herion,G.A. 143
Herzog, Z. 229
Hesse, B. 161
Hoffmeier, J.K. 240
Hoglund,K.G. 223,229,230,251,257
Holladay, C.R. 79,199,266
Holladay, W.L. 249
Holscher, G. 5
Hooker, P.K. 167
Horbury,W. 234,262
Houtman, C. 58, 61, 71, 73, 75, 76, 79,
80, 99, 272
Huffmon,H.B. 1
Humphreys, W.L. 3, 5
Irwin, D. 99
Index of Authors
Jameson, F. 51
Jamieson-Drake, D.W. 212,213,250
Janzen, J.G. 201
Jobling,D. 6,9,21
Johnson, J.H. 227
Jones, R.N. 235
Josipovici, G. 7
Judd,E.P. 264
Jull,A.J.T. 208,212
Kaiser, O. 231,233
Kallai,Z. 5
Kasher,A. 53
Keel,O. 6
Kellerman, D. 125, 126
Kennedy, C.A. 132
Kissling, PJ. 172
Kitchen, K.A. 3,5
Klein, R.W. 48
Knauf,E.A. 221
Knight, G.A.F. 116
Kornfeld,W. 234,240
Kraeling, E.G. 239,240
Kristeva, J. 136
Kuemmerlin-McLean, J.K. 36
Kuhrt,A. 226,250
LaCapra, D. 14, 15
Lambdin,T.O. 4,163
Larsson, G. 211
Latham, J.E. 126
Leclant, J. 6
Leibowitz,N. 58,65
Lemaire, A. 212
Lemche,N.P. 7,55,224,251
Levenson, J.D. 6, 77, 187, 216
Lewis, D.M. 234
Lindenberger, J.M. 237, 239-42
Lloyd, A.B. 250
Loewenstamm, S.E. 17, 176
Lohfink,N. 203
Loretz, O. 214
Lott,J.K. 234
Lundbom, J.R. 234
Magonet, J. 56
Malamat, A. 3,249
Mandell, S. 220,221
323
Mann, T.W. 9
Matthews, K.A. 209
McCarthy, D.J. 85
McNutt,P. 189
Meeks,W.A. 149
Meinhold, A. 258
Mendenhall, G.E. 66, 143
Meyers, C.L. 226
Meyers, E.M. 226,227
Michalowski, P. 7
Milgrom,J. 180, 183, 199
Milik,J.T. 210,212,219
Millard,A.R. 21,213
Miller, J.M. 21,235,250
Miller, P.O. 159, 195,200
Moberly, R.W.L. 93,154
Modrzejewski, J.M. 53, 234, 236, 238,
252
Moore, C.A. 238
Na'aman,N. 3, 167,213
Nibbi,A. 4
Nielsen, F.A.J. 220,221
Niemann, H.M. 6
Nims, C.F. 243
Nohrnberg, J. 57,265
North, R. 5
Noth,M. 21, 63, 67, 96, 112, 176
Noy, D. 234,262
O'Connor, M. 58,89, 133
Ollenburger, B.C. 6
Olson, D.T. 159, 170, 173
Orlinsky, H.M. 217
Parker, S.B. 16
Peet, I.E. 2
Petrie, W.M.F. 2
Pitard,W.T. 202
Plumley,J.M. 1
Pollak, E. 17
Poole,J.B. 212
Porten,B. 234-41,244
Provan, I.W. 251
Purvis, J.D. 217
Pury,A.de 215,258,259
Quaegebeur, J. 4
324
Rad, G. von 5, 9, 21, 195, 201, 258

Rajak, T. 53
Ray, J.D. 1, 4, 35, 226-28, 231, 239, 240
Redford, D.B. 3, 5, 54, 199, 235
Reed, R. 211,212
Rehm,M.D. 171
Reimer, D.J. 185, 186
Rendsburg, G.A. 4
Rendtorff,R. 25,206,215,216
Ringgren, H. 272
Romanucci-Ross, L. 9
Romer, T. 71, 184, 203, 206, 215, 223,
258
Rooker, M.F. 214
Rose, C. 9
Royce, A.P. 9, 11
Ruffle,!. 5
Runnalls, D. 53
Saarinen, T.F. 8
Safrai, S. 244, 262
Salters, R.B. 251
Sanders,!.A. 210,216
Sanderson, I.E. 208-11
Sasson,J.M. 61, 84, 151, 154
Scanlin, H. 208
Schiffman, L.H. 210
Schmidt, B.B. 222
Schwartz, R. 136, 138
Shupak, N. 4
Shutt,R.J.H. 218
Silver, D.J. 65
Simons, J. 5, 27
Skehan,P.W. 208-11
Small, D.B. 14
Smith, A.D. 9, 105
Smith, G.A. 5
Smith, J.Z. 11, 106
Smith, M. 259
Smith, R.H. 253,261
Smith-Christopher, D. 264
Snaith,N.H. 110
Snowden, P.M. 62
Soja,E.W. 5
Soler,J. 161
Spencer, J.R. 60, 164
Spiegelberg, W. 2
Stager, L.E. 229
Stea, D. 7
Steinberg, N. 27,30,41
Steiner, R.C. 243
Steinmann, A.E. 48
Steinmetz, D. 27
Stern, M. 91,219,220,234,241,252,
259,266
Stewart, D. 21
Stiebing, W.H. 3
Stolper,M.W. 251
Talmon, S. 3, 73
Tate,W.R. 15
Taylor, J.G. 4
Tcherikover, V.A. 234,241,252
Thompsons. 99
Thompson, T.L. 14, 70, 119, 224, 242
Tobin,V.A. 5
Tov,E. 18,20, 170,210
Trible,P. 32
Turner, V. 66, 189
Uehlinger,C. 222
Ulrich,E. 208-11
Unterman, J. 93,94
Uphill, E.P. 105
Van Daalen, D.H. 48
VanderKam, J.C. 210,212,217-19
VanSeters,J. 31,207,220,258
Vaux,R. de 116,161
Vergote, J. 3,5
Vos, G. de 9
Wacholder, B.Z. 248
Wallace, H.N. 25
Waltke,B.K. 58,89,133,217
Ward,W.A. 104
Watts, J.W. 247,248,262
Weinberg, J.P. 246,247
Weinstein, J. 3
Wenham, G. 30-32, 48, 160,206
Wesselius, J.W. 221
Westermann, C. 5, 6, 38, 42, 48
Wevers,J.W. 18,29
White, H. 14, 15
White, H.C. 20
White, R. 8
Index of Authors
White, S. 210
Whitt, W.D. 259
Whybray,R.N. 5,21,206,207
Wiggins, S.A. 4
Williams, R.J. 3,4
Williamson, H.G.M. 216, 226, 230
Wimmer, S. 4
Wurthwein,E. 207-209,212
Wyatt,N. 6
Yahuda,A.S. 2
Yardeni,A. 235-40,244
Yurco,F.J. 62
Zadok,R. 63,96
Zagorin, P. 15
Zeder, M. 161
Zevit,Z. 243
Zivie-Coche, C. 252
325
JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

SUPPLEMENT SERIES
170 Wilfred G.E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse

171 Henning Graf Reventlow, Yair Hoffman and Benjamin Uffenheimer (eds.),
Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature
172 Volkmar Fritz, An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology
173 M. Patrick Graham, William P. Brown and Jeffrey K. Kuan (eds.), History and
Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes
174 Joe M. Sprinkle, 'The Book of the Covenant': A Literary Approach
175 Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies: 2
Temple and Community in the Persian Period
176 Gershon Brin, Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea
Scrolls
177 David Allan Dawson, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew
178 Martin Ravndal Hauge, Between Sheol and Temple: Motif Structure and
Function in the I-Psalms
179 J.G. McConville and J.G. Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy
180 Richard L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets
181 Bernard M. Levinson (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law:
Revision, Interpolation and Development
182 Steven L. McKenzie and M. Patrick Graham (eds.), The History of Israel's
Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth
183 William Robertson Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (Second and
Third Series)
184 John C. Reeves and John Kampen (eds.), Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of
Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday
185 Seth Daniel Kunin, The Logic of Incest: A Structuralist Analysis of Hebrew
Mythology
186 Linda Day, Three Faces of a Queen: Characterization in the Books of Esther
187 Charles V. Dorothy, The Books of Esther: Structure, Genre and Textual Integrity
188 Robert H. O'Connell, Concentricity and Continuity: The Literary Structure of
Isaiah
189 William Johnstone (ed.), William Robertson Smith: Essays in Reassessment
190 Steven W. Holloway and Lowell K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken:
Memorial Essays for Gosta W. Ahlstrom
191 Magne Saeb0, On the Way to Canon: Creative Tradition History in the Old
Testament
192 Henning Graf Reventlow and William Farmer (eds.), Biblical Studies and the
Shifting of Paradigms, 1850-1914
193 Brooks Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic
History of the Restoration
194 Else Kragelund Holt, Prophesying the Past: The Use of Israel's History in the
Book ofHosea
195 Jon Davies, Graham Harvey and Wilfred G.E. Watson (eds.), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A. Sawyer
196 Joel S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible
197 William M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to
Exegete in the Second Temple Period
198 T.J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison
199 J.H. Eaton, Psalms of the Way and the Kingdom: A Conference with the
Commentators
200 M. Daniel Carroll R., David J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies (eds.), The Bible in
Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson
201 John W. Rogerson, The Bible and Criticism in Victorian Britain: Profiles ofF.D.
Maurice and William Robertson Smith
202 Nanette Stahl, Law and Liminality in the Bible
203 Jill M. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs
204 Philip R. Davies, Whose Bible Is It Anyway?
205 David J.A. Clines, Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of
the Hebrew Bible
206 M0gens Muller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint
207 John W. Rogerson, Margaret Davies and M. Daniel Carroll R. (eds.), The Bible
in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium
208 Beverly J. Stratton, Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric, and Ideology in Genesis 2-3
209 Patricia Dutcher-Walls, Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: The Case ofAthaliah
and Joash
210 Jacques Berlinerblau, The Vow and the 'Popular Religious Groups' of Ancient
Israel: A Philological and Sociological Inquiry
211 Brian E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles
212 Yvonne Sherwood, The Prostitute and the Prophet: Hosea's Marriage in
Literary- Theoretical Perspective
213 Yair Hoffman, A Blemished Perfection: The Book of Job in Context
214 Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney (eds.), New Visions of Isaiah
215 J. Cheryl Exum, Plotted, Shot and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical
Women
216 Judith E. McKinlay, Gendering Wisdom the Host: Biblical Invitations to Eat and
Drink
217 Jerome F.D. Creach, Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter
218 Harry P. Nasuti, Defining the Sacred Songs: Genre, Tradition, and the PostCritical Interpretation of the Psalms
219 Gerald Morris, Prophecy, Poetry and Hosea
220 Raymond F. Person, Jr, In Conversation with Jonah: Conversation Analysis,
Literary Criticism, and the Book of Jonah
221 Gillian Keys, The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative'
222 R.N. Whybray, Reading the Psalms as a Book
223 Scott B. Noegel, Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job
224 Paul J. Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses,
Joshua, Elijah and Elisha
225 Richard D. Weis and David M. Carr (eds.), A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays
on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders
226 Lori L. Rowlett, Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist Analysis
227 John F.A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: Responses to Mary Douglas
228 Volkmar Fritz and Philip R. Davies (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite
States
229 Stephen Breck Reid (ed.), Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M.
Tucker
230 Kevin J. Cathcart and Michael Maher (eds.), Targumic and Cognate Studies:
Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara
231 Weston W. Fields, Sodom and Gomorrah: History and Motif in Biblical
Narrative
232 Tilde Binger, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament
233 Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms ofAsaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the
Psalter, III
234 Ken Stone, Sex, Honor, and Power in the Deuteronomistic History
235 James W. Watts and Paul House (eds.), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on
Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts
236 Thomas M. Bolin, Freedom beyond Forgiveness: The Book of Jonah Reexamined
237 Neil Asher Silberman and David B. Small (eds.), The Archaeology of Israel:
Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present
238 M. Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The
Chronicler as Historian
239 Mark S. Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus
240 Eugene E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and
Content. Essays in Honor of George W. Coats
241 Robert Karl Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel
242 K.L. Noll, The Faces of David
243 Henning Graf Reventlow (ed.), Eschatology in the Bible and in Jewish and
Christian Tradition
244 Walter E. Aufrecht, Neil A. Mirau and Steven W. Gauley (eds.), Urbanism in
Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete
245 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Can a 'History of Israel' Be Written?
246 Gillian M. Bediako, Primal Religion and the Bible: William Robertson Smith
and his Heritage
247 Nathan Klaus, Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets
248 Etienne Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the
Mishnah
249 William Paul Griffin, The God of the Prophets: An Analysis of Divine Action
250 Josette Elayi and Jean Sapin, Beyond the River: New Perspectives on Transeuphratene
251 Flemming A. J. Nielsen, The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Deuteronomistic History
252 David C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme

in the Book of Psalms
253 William Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Volume 1:1 Chronicles 12 Chronicles
9: Israel's Place among the Nations
254 William Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Volume 2: 2 Chronicles 10-36: Guilt
and Atonement
255 Larry L. Lyke, King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa: The Resonance of
Tradition in Parabolic Narrative
256 Roland Meynet, Rhetorical Analysis: An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric
257 Philip R. Davies and David J.A. Clines (eds.), The World of Genesis: Persons,
Places, Perspectives
258 Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107-150):
Studies in the Psalter, IV
259 Allen Rosengren Petersen, The Royal God: Enthronement Festivals in Ancient
Israel and Ugarit?
260 A.R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O'Connor and Louis Stulman (eds.), Troubling
Jeremiah
261 Othmar Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near
Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible
262 Victor H. Matthews, Bernard M. Levinson and Tikva Frymer-Kensky (eds.),
Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East
263 M. Patrick Graham and Steven L. McKenzie, The Chronicler as Author: Studies
in Text and Texture
264 Donald F. Murray, Divine Prerogative and Royal Pretension: Pragmatics,
Poetics, and Polemics in a Narrative Sequence about David (2 Samuel 5.177.29)
265 John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan
266 J. Cheryl Exum and Stephen D. Moore (eds.), Biblical Studies/Cultural Studies:
The Third Sheffield Colloquium
267 Patrick D. Miller, Jr, Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays
268 Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: 'Pandeuteronomism' and Scholarship in the Nineties
269 David J.A. Clines and Stephen D. Moore (eds.), Auguries: The Jubilee Volume of
the Sheffield Department of Biblical Studies
270 John Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar
271 Wonsuk Ma, Until the Spirit Comes: The Spirit of God in the Book of Isaiah
272 James Richard Linville, Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of
Social Identity
273 Meir Lubetski, Claire Gottlieb and Sharon Keller (eds.), Boundaries of the
Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon
274 Martin J. Buss, Biblical Form Criticism in its Context
275 William Johnstone, Chronicles and Exodus: An Analogy and its Application
276 Raz Kletter, Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom ofJudah
277 Augustine Pagolu, The Religion of the Patriarchs

278 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: 'The Exile' as History and
Ideology
279 Kari Latvus, God, Anger and Ideology: The Anger of God in Joshua and Judges
in Relation to Deuteronomy and the Priestly Writings
280 Eric S. Christiansen, A Time to Tell: Narrative Strategies in Ecclesiastes
281 Peter D. Miscall, Isaiah 34-35: A Nightmare/A Dream
282 Joan E. Cook, Hannah's Desire, God's Design: Early Interpretations in the
Story of Hannah
283 Kelvin Friebel, Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts: Rhetorical Nonverbal
Communication
284 M. Patrick Graham, Rick R. Marrs and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), Worship and
the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of John T. Willis
285 Paolo Sacchi, History of the Second Temple
286 Wesley J. Bergen, Elisha and the End ofProphetism
287 Anne Fitzpatrick-McKinley, The Transformation ofTorahfrom Scribal Advice
to Law
288 Diana Lipton, Revisions of the Night: Politics and Promises in the Patriarchal
Dreams of Genesis
289 Jose Krasovec (ed.), The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia
290 Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran between the Old
and New Testaments
291 Christine Schams, Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period
292 David J.A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, 1967
1998 Volume 1
293 David J.A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, 19671998 Volume 2
294 Charles E. Carter, The Emergence ofYehud in the Persian Period: A Social and
Demographic Study
295 Jean-Marc Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew
Narratives
296 Mark Cameron Love, The Evasive Text: Zechariah 1-8 and the Frustrated
Reader
297 Paul S. Ash, David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment
298 John D. Baildam, Paradisal Love: Johann Gottfried Herder and the Song of
Songs
299 M. Daniel Carroll R., Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contributions from
the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation
300 Edward Ball (ed.), In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament
Interpretation in Honour of Ronald E. Clements
301 Carolyn S. Leeb, Away from the Father's House: The Social Location ofna 'ar
and na 'arah in Ancient Israel
302 Xuan Huong Thi Pham, Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew
Bible
303 Ingrid Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis
304 Wolter H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubabbel: Messianic Expectations in the Early
Postexilic Period
305 Jo Bailey Wells, God's Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology
306 Albert de Pury, Thomas Romer and Jean-Daniel Macchi (eds.), Israel Constructs
its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research
307 Robert L. Cole, The Shape and Message of Book III (Psalms 73-89)
308 Yiu-Wing Fung, Victim and Victimizer: Joseph's Interpretation of his Destiny
309 George Aichele (ed.), Culture, Entertainment and the Bible
310 Esther Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative: Reading the Hebrew
Bible as a Woman
311 Gregory Glazov, The Bridling of the Tongue and the Opening of the Mouth in
Biblical Prophecy
312 Francis Landy, Beauty and the Enigma: And Other Essays on the Hebrew Bible
313 Martin O'Kane (ed.), Borders, Boundaries and the Bible
314 Bernard S. Jackson, Studies in the Semiotics of Biblical Law
315 Paul R. Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations: The Patriarchal Promise
and its Covenantal Development in Genesis
316 Dominic Rudman, Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes
317 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and
Scripture in the Hellenistic Period
318 David A. Baer, When We All Go Home: Translation and Theology in LXX56-66
319 Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman (eds.), Creation in Jewish and
Christian Tradition
320 Claudia V. Camp, Wise, Strange and Holy: The Strange Woman and the Making
of the Bible
321 Varese Layzer, Signs of Weakness: Juxtaposing Irish Tales and the Bible
322 Mignon R. Jacobs, The Conceptual Coherence of the Book ofMicah
323 Martin Ravndal Hauge, The Descent from the Mountain: Narrative Patterns in
Exodus 19-40
324 P.M. Michele Daviau, John W. Wevers and Michael Weigl (eds.), The World of
the Aramaeans: Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion, Volume 1
327 Gary D. Salyer, Vain Rhetoric: Private Insight and Public Debate in Ecclesiastes
328 James M. Trotter, Reading Hosea in Achaemenid Yehud
329 Wolfgang Bluedorn, Yahweh Verus Baalism: A Theological Reading of the
Gideon-Abimelech Narrative
330 Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak (eds.), 'Every City shall be Forsaken':
Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Near East
331 Amihai Mazar (ed.), with the assistance of Ginny Mathias, Studies in the
Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan
332 Robert J.V. Hiebert, Claude E. Cox and Peter J. Gentry (eds.), The Old Greek
Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma
333 Ada Rapoport-Albert and Gillian Greenberg (eds.), Biblical Hebrew, Biblical
Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman
334 Ken Stone (ed.), Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible
335 James K. Bruckner, Implied Law in the Abrahamic Narrative: A Literary and
Theological Analysis
336 Stephen L. Cook, Corrine L. Patton and James W. Watts (eds.), The Whirlwind:
Essays on Job, Hermeneutics and Theology in Memory of Jane Morse
337 Joyce Rilett Wood, Amos in Song and Book Culture
338 Alice A. Keefe, Woman's Body and the Social Body in Hosea 1-2
339 Sarah Nicholson, Three Faces of Saul: An Intertextual Approach to Biblical
Tragedy
340 Philip R. Davies and John M. Halligan (eds.), Second Temple Studies III: Studies
in Politics, Class and Material Culture
341 Mark W. Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger Jr (eds.), Mesopotamia and the Bible
343 J. Andrew Dearman and M. Patrick Graham (eds.), The Land that I Will Show
You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in
Honor ofJ. Maxwell Miller
345 Jan-Wim Wesselius, The Origin of the History of Israel: Herodotus' Histories as
Blueprint for the First Books of the Bible
346 Johanna Stiebert, The Construction of Shame in the Hebrew Bible: The
Prophetic Contribution
347 Andrew G. Shead, The Open Book and the Sealed Book: Jeremiah 32 in its
Hebrew and Greek Recensions
348 Alastair G. Hunter and Phillip R. Davies, Sense and Sensitivity: Essays on
Reading the Bible in Memory of Robert Carroll
350 David Janzen, Witch-hunts, Purity and Social Boundaries: The Expulsion of the
Foreign Women in Ezra 910
351 Roland Boer (ed.), Tracking the 'Tribes ofYahweh': On the Trail of a Classic
352 William John Lyons, Canon and Exegesis: Canonical Praxis and the Sodom
Narrative
353 Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem van Henten (eds.), Bible Translation on the
Threshold of the Twenty-First Century: Authority, Reception, Culture and
Religion
354 Susan Gillingham, The Image, the Depths and the Surface: Multivalent
Approaches to Biblical Study
356 Carole Fontaine, Smooth Words: Women, Proverbs and Performance in Biblical
Wisdom
357 Carleen Mandolfo, God in the Dock: Dialogic Tension in the Psalms of Lament
359 David M. Gunn and Paula N. McNutt, 'Imagining' Biblical Worlds: Studies in
Spatial, Social and Historical Constructs in Honor of James W. Flanagan
361 Franz V. Greifenhagen, Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map: Constructing
Biblical Israel's Identity

Franz V. Greifenhagen Egypt On The Pentateuchs Ideological Map Constructing Biblical Israels Identity JSOT Supplement 2003 PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Franz V. Greifenhagen Egypt On The Pentateuchs Ideological Map Constructing Biblical Israels Identity JSOT Supplement 2003 PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

Sheffield Academic Press

This page intentionally left blank

Egypt on the Pentateuch's

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Copyright 2002 Sheffield Academic Press

EGYPT IN LEVITICUS, NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY

THE PRODUCTION AND PROMULGATION OF THE

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT: EGYPT AND ISRAEL

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

THE TERM C'HSD AND ITS OCCURRENCES IN THE

This page intentionally left blank

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

My greatest debt is to my family. My parents always had faith in my

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theological

This page intentionally left blank

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

in the nineteenth century with the rise of critical methodology, and

Building on this scholarly legacy, investigation of Egypt and things

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

practice, numbers and weights, and iconography in ancient Israel (e.g.

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

in Gen. 41 is not primarily a mirror of some actual existing practice, but is a

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

there.27 A particularly interesting example is a world map drawn by

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

the Pentateuch generally attempts to distance Israel from anything

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Text, History, Ideology

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

descriptions of Egypt, or between portrayals of the exodus as an expulsion

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

cation breaks down and it becomes more accurate to speak of textual

When significant textual variants are encountered in the following analysis

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

granted as a heuristic construct and the references to Egypt will first be

terms of whether a text is approached with a hermeneutics of acceptance

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

of textual material, the Pentateuch presents the limits of this study.

will be evaluated. It will be argued that references to 'Egypt' in the

If one thinks of Egypt in Genesis, the story of Joseph immediately comes

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

genealogy portrays Egypt as one of four offspring of Noah's second son,

known or imagined, associated with Japhet.9 Accordingly, Egypt is within

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

with Egypt; it is simultaneously a place of potential great enrichment

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Egypt and Canaan; that is, a liminal or transitional area.20 However, an

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Egypt in the Joseph Cycle (37.1-50.26)

Egypt. The description of Joseph's initial success in Egypt stands in

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

The episode of Joseph's elevation to power (41.1-57) is noticeably

Attention can also be drawn to the formula of self-introduction used by

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

recognize himto them he is an Egyptian. But Joseph is jolted with a

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Joseph as Ruler in Egypt (47.13-26)

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map