127 2.2.13.5 History and Indwelling in H
Excursus 2: Exod 19:20-25 (With Recourse to Verses 12-13)
2.4 Exod 20:22
The Lord said to Moses: Thus you shall say to the Israelites: “You have seen for yourselves that I spoke with you from heaven.”
732726 In this conception Deut 5:4 confirms the earlier, direct disclosure to the people.
727 Beyerlin has described the text as “die Ätiologie für die Institution eines kultischen Sprechers” (cited in Houtman, Exodus, 3:73); cf. Beyerlin, Origins, 139: “The fact that a description of the creation of this cultic mediating agency which is to establish God’s word is inserted in the course of the theophany indicates how much the account of the revelation on Sinai is seen from and shaped by the view-point of its cultic realization. The Yahwistic tradition in Exod 19:9a also takes account of this aspect. Accordingly the theophany is here confirming Moses’ office as mediator; … The intellectual horizon of the historically unique situation of the primordial theophany is here unmistakably opening out, and the attention is directed to the future mediation of God’s revelation of himself to the cultic community through all those who share in Moses’ work of mediation. This is yet another instance, therefore, of the tradition of God’s appearance on Sinai being drawn up in the light of its later cultic realization…. This general affinity with the cultic sphere is another reason for assuming that the tradition of the theophany on Sinai was in fact recapitulated in Israel’s festival-cult.” The search for the cultic Sitz im Leben in Beyerlin’s work betrays his indebtedness to Sigmund Mowinckel and H.-J. Kraus, who emerge as leading conversation partners in Origins.
728 Houtman, Exodus, 3:74.
729 Achenbach, “Story,” 133.
730 The reader may recall Rofé’s attribution of vv. 24, 26 to his second, later writer.
731 Ibid., 133-34 (emphasis added).
732 MT = SamPent.
153
ִֶ֔תיִא ְּר ם ֶָ֣תַא ל ִֵ֑א ָרְּשִׂי יֵָ֣נְּב־לֶא רַמאֹת הֹכ ה ִֶ֔שֹמ־לֶא הָוהְּי רֶמאֹיַו םָֽ ֶכָמִע י ִת ְּרַבִד םִי ִַ֔מָשַה־ןִמ יִכ ם
This single verse plays a key role for adjacent texts.
733It inaugurates both the “altar pericope” of vv. 22-26
734and the BC. It summarizes what has preceded, and plays a prominent role within vv. 18-21. Exod 20:22 lines up with the dtn/dtr depiction of God speaking the Dec directly to Israel (Deut 4:11f.; 5:4, 22-24; 9:10; 10:4), with additional stipulations mediated by Moses (cf. Deut 5:31ff.).
735The first chapter of this dissertation recapitulated Nicholson’s view that whereas an earlier form of the theophany (sans Dec) evoked obedience to Yahweh (20:18-21), the direct speech “from heaven” (v. 22) serving as the basis for such obedience. Seen from this perspective, God’s direct address to Israel “constitutes the climax and goal of the theophany.”
736Verse 22, moreover, is secondary,
737promoting the dtr viewpoint
738of the divinity dwelling in heaven. There are linguistic/thematic connections between this verse, 19:3f, and Deut 4 (e.g., vv. 3, 9, 19), as each emphasizes what “your eyes have seen … [and] heard.”
739Also relevant in a discussion of the direction of literary dependence, the
733 Erich Zenger, “Das priester(schrift)liche Werk (P),” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament5 (ed. E. Zenger et al.; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2004), 156-75,185, divides v. 22 into Redeeinleitung (22a) and
Redeauftrag (22b).
734 Jackson, “Modelling Biblical Law,” 1783.
735 Houtman, Exodus, 3:73; cf. Dozeman, God on the Mountain, 54f; cf. Miller, Deuteronomy, 68-9: “The Ten Commandments are distinguished from all other statutes or rules and are given priority…. Received as direct revelation, in contrast to law taught by human mediator, the Ten Commandments are thereby given greater weight and authority.”
736 Nicholson, “Direct Address,” 430; cf. 426; Fischer, “Eigenart,” 22f.
737 Cf. Blum (Studien, 99), who dubs 20:22, along with 19:3b-8, an Interpretationsstück; Otto (“Scribal Scholarship,” 175), attributes vv. 22f to the post-dtr and post-P (and thus postexilic) Zadokite authors of the
“‘narratives’ of the Hexateuch and the Pentateuch.” Otto argues that these authors/redactors “supplemented an early legal collection with a postexilic interpretation in the context of the Sinai pericope” (ibid.). The additions, which also include 21:2; 22:19b, 20aβb (םקני םקנ ודי תחת תמו), 21, 23, 24bα (די תחת די) 30; 23:13- 33, exhibit the scribal techniques used by the same author/redactors attempting to mediate between exilic conceptions of DtrD and P. The author/redactors also “formed the Holiness Code … out of Deuteronomy 12–26 and P with the Covenant Code as a hermeneutical key” (ibid., 174).
738 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 206, n. 4: “Exod 20:22 ... is not an original part of the passage and appears to be a deuteronomic accretion.... The verse may, on the other hand, possibly derive from the Elohist source which also opposed corporeal conceptions of the Deity and may thus have been the ideological precursor of Deuteronomy.” Noth argued that v. 22 cannot be E because it contains the tetragrammaton. Equally, based on the premise of 18-21 as E, v. 22, which should probably prefix 24:3-8, must belong to another source. “Aber die Quellenhaftikeit dieses Erzählungstücke selbst ist fragwürdig”
(zweite Buch Mose, 140; ET 173).
739 Cf. Van Seters, Law Book, 51. Noth recognized the conflict between the notion of heaven as YHWH’s abode and traditions of him descending upon Sinai (J), hovering on the mountain in a cloud (E). He
154
second person plural speech in v. 22 may reflect development subsequent to the dtn Dec.
For example, whereas Deut 4:36 uses singular, Exod 20:22 uses plural address.
7402.4.1 The Insertion of the Exodus Dec is Subsequent to the Insertion of the Dec in Deuteronomy
While the direction of dependence remains “a matter of dispute,” Nicholson maintains
“the close relationship between the Decalogue as God’s direct address to Israel and Exod 20:22f—the latter arising from the former and the former explained to some extent by the latter—” is best explained by attributing both to the same redactor.
741Accordingly, a dtr redactor inserted the Dec of Exod 19 along with 20:22-23 into the Exodus narrative subsequently led to the inclusion of the Dec in Deuteronomy.
742Partial support for this position materializes in the late formulation of the Sabbath command in Exod 20, which is suggestive of exilic or post-exilic, priestly influence.
743Nicholson’s interpretation has become somewhat problematic in the face of recent research that posits a postexilic time of origin for 20:22f.
744Prescinding from the diverging interpretations, it seems best for now to generalize vv. 22f.’s function as enhancing the grandeur of the Dec of vv. 1-17,
745but in a way that affirms the notion of the PRR.
concluded the perspective of v. 22 to be “independent of these narratives” (Noth, zweite Buch Mose, 141f;
ET 175f. In Leviticus the notion is advanced that God “tents with the people”).
740 Nicholson, “Direct Address,” 432;
741 Ibid., 431, where he prefers to assign vv. 22f. to an exilic, dtn redactor.
742 In this case, Deut 5:5 necessarily becomes a later gloss inserted by a hand familiar with the Sinai narrative sequence in Exodus. “Apart from verse 5 there is nothing in Deuteronomy 4–5 which necessarily indicates that the authors presupposed the narrative in Exodus” (Nicholson, “Direct Address,” 431, n. 13).
In contrast to Childs, Nicholson does not regard this redactor as also responsible for the inclusion of BC into the Sinai pericope (cf. Van Seters, Law Book, 50). BC had already been added; it was the Dec that was added later.
743 Ibid. This does not, however, negate the possibility that otherwise the Dec in Exod 20 could be an earlier formulation than that of Deuteronomy. The question as to when the Decalogue and Exod 20:22f were inserted into the Sinai complex remains unanswered. Nicholson closes his article with the suggestion that this occurred “at a relatively late time and after the inclusion of the Decalogue and its related material in Deuteronomy 4–5” (ibid., 432-33).
744 Achenbach, “Grundlinien redaktioneller Arbeit,” 70, n. 41; see the literature in Crüsemann, Torah, 198, n. 448; cf., however, Houtman, Exodus 3:197: “But the argument that vv. 22 and 23 are redactional is not entirely compelling.”
745 Van Seter’s confidence in the “necessary connection” between vv. 22f. and vv. 24-26 (the altar law), which is based on his focus on BC rather than the Dec (Law Book, 51 et passim), is not shared by the present writer.
155
2.5 Exod 33:1-6: Additional Evidence of the Plenary Reception of Divine Disclosure (HexRed; vv. 7-11 is PentRed)
The Lord said to Moses, “Go, leave this place, you and the people whom you have brought up out of the land of Egypt, and go to the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, ‘To your descendants I will give it.’
2I will send an angel before you, and I will drive out the Canaanites, the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.
3Go up to a land flowing with milk and honey; but I will not go up among you, or I would consume you on the way, for you (התא) are a stiff-necked people.”
4When the people heard these harsh words, they mourned, and no one put on (תיש) ornaments.
5For the Lord had said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘You (םתא) are a stiff-necked people; if for a single moment I should go up among you, I would consume you. So now take off your ornaments, and I will decide what to do to you (ךל).’”
6
Therefore the Israelites stripped themselves of their ornaments, from Mount Horeb onward.
ם ִָ֔עָהְּו ה ָָ֣תַא ה ִֶ֔זִמ הֵָ֣לֲע ךְֵָ֣ל הֶשֹמ־לֶא הָוהְּי רֵב ַדְּיַו
םָה ָרְּבאְַּל י ִתְּעַבְּשִנ ר ֶָ֣שֲא ץ ֶראָָה־לֶא םִי ִָ֑רְּצִמ ץ ֶרֶָ֣אֵמ ָתיִלֱעָֽ ֶה רֶשֲא
׃הָנֶָֽנְּתֶא ךֲָע ְּרַזְּל ר ִֹ֔מאֵל בֹקֲעַיְּלָֽוּ קָחְּצִיְּל ִחַה י ִִ֔ז ִרְּפַהְּו י ִתִחָֽ ַהְּו י ִִ֔רֹמֱאָֽ ָה יִנֲעַנְּכָֽ ַה־תֶא יִתְּש ַרָֽ ֵגְּו ךְ ִָ֑אְּלַמ ךָיֶנָפְּל י ִתְּחַלָשְּו
2׃יָֽ ִסוּבְּיַהְּו יִוּ
׃ךְ ֶרָֽ ָדַב ךְָּלֶכֲא־ןֶפ הָת ִַ֔א ף ֶרֹע־הֵשְּק־םַע יִכ ךְָּב ְּרִקְּב הֶלֱעָֽ ֶא אלֹ יִכ ש ִָ֑בְּדוּ בָלָח תַבָז ץ ֶרֶא־לֶא
3׃ויָֽ ָלָע וֹי ְּדֶע שיִא וּתָש־אלְֹּו וּל ִָ֑בַאְּתִיַו הֶזַה ע ָרָה רָב ָדַה־תֶא םָעָה עַָ֣מְּשִיַו
4רֶמאֹיַו
5ַעְּו ךָי ִִ֑תיִלִכְּו ךְָּב ְּרִקְּב הֶלֱעָֽ ֶא דָחֶא עַג ֶר ף ֶר ִֹ֔ע־הֵשְּק־םַע ם ֶָ֣תַא לֵא ָרְּשִׂי־יָֽ ֵנְּב־לֶא רֹמֱא הֶשֹמ־לֶא הָוהְּי ד ֵרוֹה הָת
׃ךְָֽ ָל־הֶשֱׂעָֽ ֶא הָמ הָעְּדֵאְּו ךָי ִֶ֔לָעָֽ ֵמ ךְָּי ְּדֶע
׃ ב ָֽ ֵרוֹח רַהֵמ םָי ְּדֶע־תֶא לֵא ָרְּשִׂי־יָֽ ֵנְּב וּלְּצַנְּתִָֽיַו
6Exod 33:1–34:9 provides the macro context of this passage. The theme of YHWH’s presence/absence with Israel predominates.
746The pericope shows signs of further development, a tradition-historical analysis of Exod 33:1-6
747turning up dtr elements.
748Following E. Aurelius, however, Achenbach argues, and we would agree, that vv. 1-6
“eine nach-dtr. Fortschreibung der Sinai-perikope von Ex 32 darstellt.”
749The passage is postexilic.
750746 Houtman, Exodus, 3:678. YHWH’s dialogue with Moses that began in 32:31 resumes in 33:1, and 34:10- 26 conveys YHWH’s reaction to Moses’ petition in 34:9 (ibid., 682); cf. Noth, zweite Buch Mose, 208 [ET 252]).
747 Houtman believes the lack of narrative material connecting the worship of the bovine statue in Exod 32 with 33:1–34:9a constitutes the starting point for the tradition-historical analysis of the latter, where the question of the presence of YHWH looms large but remains unanswered (Exodus, 683, 685f; Noth, zweite Buch Mose, 208 [ET 253]). Childs (Exodus, 587) sees no reason for seeking a closer connection to ch. 32, which 33:1ff. has already provided.
748 The section of vv. 1-6 “ist durchsetzt mit deuteronomistischen Wendungen und ist danach am
wahrscheinlichsten als im ganzen Umfang deuteronomisticher Herkunft zu beurteilen” (Noth, zweite Buch Mose, 208 [ET 253]).
749 Achenbach, Vollendung, 179, summarizing the position of E. Aurelius.
750 K. Schmid groups the land-oaths to the three patriarchs (Gen 50:24; Exod 32:13; 33:1; Num 32:11; Deut 34.4) with the supporting evidence of Lev 26:42, in the postpriestly category (Erzväter, 298). “After Exod
156
2.5.1 Moses as Negotiator/Intercessor Rather than Mediator: The Panim’s Dependence on Covenant Renewal
The dialogue between Moses and YHWH in Exod 33:12-17 in which the former secures the latter’s perpetual panim with Israel has been suggested as the original core of the chapter.
751Achenbach thinks both vv. 1-6 and vv.12-17 belong materially (sachlich) to the end, rather than the middle, of the Sinai pericope, and that they exemplify the leadership thematic of HexRed.
752For according to HexRed, the promise of the panim depends not on the intercession of Moses (34:8f.) but rather on the renewing of the covenant (34:1-7, 9-27).
753The apparent reversal of the punitive dtr v.7b in the covenant of v. 10 (HexRed) is remarkable. It would be the constrastive expansion in 33:7-11 (PentRed) that “geht von der Unüberbietbarkeit der Offenbarung an Mose aus.”
754HexRed thus paints a Mosaic portrait of negotiator/intercessor rather than mediator. The people enjoy the panim of God based on the latter’s radical covenant made on their behalf (cf. the comprehensive sanctification of Lev 22:32f.).
As Exod 32 draws to a close no impediment looms on the horizon that would bar the benei yisrael from entering the land, and 33:1-3a (re)affirm that hope. An “aside
comment” set as the last verse in ch. 32,
755however, registers the uncertainty over whether all will indeed experience the fulfillment of that dream. YHWH intends to deal
3 the explicit non-priestly back-references to Genesis within the Pentateuch delimit to the land promise oaths to the patriarchs Exod 32:13; 33:1; Num 32:11; Deut 34:4 as well as the mentions of the patriarchs in Deuteronomy (1:8; 6:10; 9:5, 27; 29:12; 30:20; 34:4)” (ibid., 209); cf. Otto, “nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 91, n. 127: The speech introduction in 33:5aα ( ל ֵא ָר ְּשִׂי־יָֽ ֵנְּב־ל ֶא רֹמ ֱא ה ֶשֹמ־ל ֶא הָוהְּי ר ֶמאֹיַו ף ֶר ִֹ֔ע־הֵשְּק־םַע ם ֶָ֣תַא) assumes P.
751 YHWH’s presence distinguishes Israel (לפנnip’al) from other peoples (33:16b).
752 Achenbach, Vollendung, 180
753 Ibid. On the relationship between Exod 34 and 24, namely that the former is not the alternate but rather the confirming renewal of the latter, see Christoph Dohmen, Exodus 19-34 (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2004), 365.
754 Ibid. This theme is also conveyed in the story of the elders in Num 11:16f, 24-30, the Miriam episode of Num 12:2-8, the narrative of the refusal to take the land of Num 14:11-25*, as well as in Num 16f*; 27*;
Deut 31:14f, 23; 34:10ff. (ibid.). PentRed assays to delimit the era of Mosaic revelation and the Pentateuch from the era of Joshua and from all other prophecy.
755 Houtman, Exodus, 3:678. Houtman appears not to notice the thematic connection between v. 35 and 34aβ-b, also portending an uncertain future. Thomas C. Römer, “Transformations et influences dans
“l’historiographie” juive de la fin du VIIe s. av. notre ère jusqu’à l’époque perse,” Trans 13 (1997): 47-63, 4, lists the following for the first version of the calf episode: Exod 32:1-6, 15a, 19b, 25, 30f., 32a, 33a, 34aα, b. This version “justifies the annihilation of the North and links Moses with Josiah regarding Yahwistic cultic reforms.”
157
severely with collaborators in the calf incident, a vignette in which the Levites
enigmatically dispense wrath (32:26-29). In the restoration of the tablets of ch. 34 we see the summons to the re-establishment of the covenant. Chapter 33, then, with its theme of the departure from the mountain, functions to connect in series the critical events of chs.
32 and 34 while simultaneously interjecting YHWH’s presence and leadership as the overriding theme.
7562.5.2 The People (Over)hear YHWH’s Direct Pronouncement in Exod 33
There exists dialogic as well as thematic tension in our pericope. Moses’ mission of mediating the message of YHWH in ch. 32 appears to run aground in v. 30, whereupon
“the dialogue between YHWH and Moses ends.”
757It also becomes apparent that the tent shrine, the special preserve of Levites and rendezvous of God and Moses,
758has not produced the desired outcome, namely, a sacred precinct that provides safe space for the cohabitation of God and his people. Although the story line in ch. 33:1-3a continues to affirm YHWH’s commitment to fulfill the land promise as if unaware of 32:34aβ-35, 33:3
759reneges on the promise: “for I will not go up in your midst” (ךברקב הלעא אל יכ).
760That the assembly overhears “this evil word” (
הזה ערה רבדה־תא33:4) signals the change in the discourse initiated already at v.1bβ and made explicit at v. 3b. Similar to the
fluctuation among the recipients of divine disclosure in Exod 19f. and Deut 4f., the dialogic change here effects a subtle but potent shift: the addressees directly receive and react to YHWH’s words (33:3b-4). Thereupon the people mourn (לבא hitpa’el) and abstain from adorning themselves with finery (v. 4
761).
762The editorial comment in v. 5, probably
756 Cf. Achenbach, Vollendung, 179; cf. ibid., 180: “Allerdings geht es in Ex 33 um den Erhalt der Präsenz und Führung Jahwes bei seinem Volke”; Cf. Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 363, who submits the bow (Bogen) extending from 32:30 to 34:9 holds the entire section together via the theme of forgiveness. Moses raises the prospect of atoning for the people’s sin (םכתאטח דעב הרפכא ילוא 32:30b), which is formulated in 34:9.
757 Houtman, Exodus, 3:678.
758 For probable connections between Exod 33f. and Num 11f., see the summary of T. Dozeman’s observations in this regard below, §3.1.2.
759 Childs (Exodus, 583f.) sees v. 3 as a continuation of v. 1, and v. 2 functioning as a parenthesis.
760 The promissory fiasco finds resolution in vv. 33:12ff. But it is too good to be true, as Moses recognizes (v. 15f). The scene is midrashic, reminiscent of Aaron’s halakhic besting of Moses in Lev 10:16-20; cf.
Christophe L. Nihan and Thomas Römer, “Le Débat Actuel sur la Formation du Pentateuque,” in Introduction à l’Ancien Testament (ed. T. Römer, et al.; Genève: Labor et Fides, 2004), 85-113.
761 LXX does not translate v. 4b.