TEXTS IN EXODUS DOCUMENTING THE PLENARY RECEPTION OF REVELATION
2.1 Introduction to the Exegesis of Exodus 388
The Decalogue is not original to Exod 19–24.
389Rather, the present form of ch. 19 shows indications of previous contiguity between the verses encompassing the Dec, namely Exod 19:19
390and 20:18ff.
391The exegesis below demonstrates the tradition of the plenary reception of the revelation of revealed law (PRR) occurring at the mountain of God. The first appearance of the PRR occurs in the section Exod 20:18-22.
392“You have seen for yourselves that I spoke with you from heaven” (v. 22b).
It is noteworthy that ch. 19 contains no hint of an “impending direct transmission of the law by Yahweh to Israel.”
393With respect to the proposal that the Dec originally followed 20:18-21, A. D. H. Hayes rejects it because “there is no indication that it was ever considered to have been mediated to the people by Moses, which would be the case on this theory.”
394In light of the combined witness of Exodus and Deuteronomy, though particularly the latter, B. S. Childs affirmed in his Exodus commentary that “Yahweh indeed spoke the Ten Commandments directly to Israel (Deut 4:36; 5:22; 9:10).
395Only after the revelation of the Dec did the people request that Moses intercede on their behalf (Deut 5:23ff.).”
396The remainder of the verses exhibiting the PRR will be examined as
388 Section numbers to be recalibrated in latter stages of editing.
389 Nicholson, “Direct Address,” 422f; Hayes, Deuteronomy, 161.
390 Exod 20:1 is “ganz allgemein Inhalts, und in v. 18-21 wird gerade nicht an den Dekalog anknüpft, sondern an die Theophanieschilderung in 19, 16b.17.19” (Noth, zweite Buch Mose, 124; ET 154); cf. Van Seters, Lawbook, 48-58.
391 Hayes, Deuteronomy, 161; cf. T. Krüger, “Zur Interpretation,” 88f.
392 Ska, Introduction, 48, believes that Exod 20:1 indicates what follows to be direct revelation. We agree, and intend to take up that discussion in a subsequent study.
393 Cf. Nicholson, “Direct Address,” 423.
394 Hayes, Deuteronomy, 161.
395 Cf. Dennis Olson, Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading (Mineappolis:
Fortress, 1994), 32.
396 Exodus, 351; Römer, So-called, 130.
87
we procede through the present chapter. For now, let us begin with a look at the larger literary and narratival context of the Sinai Dec.
2.1.1 The Sinai Decalogue in the Book of Exodus: “Des influences mutuelles”
Priestly texts form a continuous and coherent narrative in the first fourteen chapters of Exodus, the majority belonging to the exilic P
g.
397Exodus 13–14, however, contain both P and non-P elements.
398The writers of Exodus structure the account of the desert through a series of priestly itinerary notices (15:22, 27; 16:1; 17:1; 19:2) similar to the P accounts of the people’s exit from Egypt (12:37; 13:20; 14:1-2). Other priestly texts within the account of the sojourn, for example, the stories of the manna and the “giving of the Sabbath” (v. 29) in ch. 16, likely originate in a secondary redaction. Literary layering in a priestly text is suggestive of inner-priestly discourse within the Pentateuch.
399Within the Sinai episode, scholars often differentiate texts elaborating the construction of the sanctuary and its rituals (chs 25–31; 35–40) from other, so-called, non-P material (e.g., 19:3–24:14; 32–34).
400The arguments favoring these differentiations do not always convince, especially in light of disagreement over the proper criteria for distinguishing between priestly and non-priestly texts and traditions. Greater reliability attaches to the attribution of texts concerned with the development of cultic institutions in the desert, which belong to P
s. Beyond the preoccupation with cultic institutions, overall, the combination of narrative (Exod 1–14) and legal material (e.g., establishing Passover and
397 “Il est largement admis que l’œuvre sacerdotale fut élaborée durant l’époque de l’exil et du retour”
(Macchi, “Exode,” 179). See Chapter Two for the status quaestionis of Pg and Ps.
398 It is unlikely, e.g., that the description of the event at the Sea of Reeds as a combat victory of YHWH derives from P (Macchi, “Exode,” 179). For non-priestly texts in chs. 13–14, see Noth, zweite Buch Mose, 82-95 [ET 104-20], who divides passages into three groups, P, J, and E. More recently scholars tend to label putative non-priestly elements (J and E, or JE) as Dtr. The Dtr presence in these chapters is extensive.
399 Macchi, “Exode,” 179.
400 In a recent essay, K. Schmid lists several terms/concepts in Exod 24:15b–18a that while belonging to Pg play little if any role in that constellation. E.g., mountains, clouds, and the tavnit notices (Exod 25–29) play no role in Pg. See his “Der Sinai und der Priesterschrift,” in Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (Gen 18,19):
Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie; Festschrift für Eckart Otto zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. R. Achenbach and M. Arneth;
Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2010), 114-26, 116-21.
88
the construction of the sanctuary) constitutes “un trait caractéristique de la littérature sacerdotale en géneral.”
401The redaction of arguably non-P texts in Exodus may have continued over a more protracted period than its priestly counterparts. Although some non-P texts predate or coextend with priestly texts, others clearly postdate them.
402Macchi suggests the exilic and postexilic periods provided favorable conditions for the production of non-P texts.
That may be, as many passages in Exodus arguably dating to this period exhibit
theological affinity with dtr milieux (e.g., the call of Moses in Exod 3).
403Still, caution is in order regarding the dating texts prior to the middle of the Persian period, and scholars should avoid making sharp dichotomies between priestly and non-priestly traditions.
Macchi concedes that the designated dtr traditions did not originate in a dtr vacuum, independent of priestly milieux; rather, “l’analyse montre en effet des influences mutuelles.”
404The latter point is especially well taken in this study.
2.1.2 Preliminary Considerations Regarding The Decalogue in Exod 20: Keeping Deuteronomy 5 in View
Within the complex literary structurings of Exodus, critical scholars have long regarded the Ten Commandments in ch. 20 as a synthesis rather than a starting point of Israelite law. For that reason it is worthwhile to look for connections between the Dec and similar laws and themes (e.g., the monotheistic manifesto of Deut 6:4). This becomes particularly important respecting the “second Decalogue” in Deut 5. Therefore, in the exegetical examination of the Dec in Exodus that follows, effort will be made to keep in view the symbiotic relationship between the two syntheses:
401 Macchi, “Exode,” 180.
402 Ibid. This would not tend to be the case in the book of Numbers.
403 Exod 3 may serve as the centerpiece for a dtr “network” (réseau) formed through redactional and compositional activity (ibid., 181, summarizing an aspect of E. Blum’s thesis). Macchi asserts that texts manifesting a typos of faithfulness to YHWH and his covenant epitomize dtr texts. “Outre une phraséologie particulière, l’insistance sur la fidélite à YHWH et à son alliance caractérise ce type de textes” (ibid., 181).
404 Ibid.; cf. ibid: “Si le travail littéraire deutéronomiste est en partie contemporain de l’activité littéraire des milieux sacerdotaux il ne s’est pas fait de manière totalement indépendante. L’analyse montre en effet des influences mutuelles, ainsi que l’existence d’une volonté éditoriale d’harmoniser les courants
deutéronomistes et sacerdotaux (sur ce point, voir par exemple les travaux de Gertz, qui insiste sur l’importance des dernières rédactions de l’Exode).”
89
Il en va probablement de même du Décalogue, dont la place en ouverture de
l’ensemble du droit du Sinaï témoigne d’une volonté d’établir une synthèse du droit israélite et de placer la proclamation législative du Sinaï en parallèle avec celle du livre du Deutéronome (dans lequel le Décalogue ouvre également la proclamation de la Loi de Moïse en Moab, cf. Dt 5). Le Décalogue apparaît aujourd’hui en effet non plus comme l’origine de la tradition législative d’Israël, mais plutôt comme sa synthèse.
405Although the canonical order of the book of Exodus boasts a certain primacy—certainly for the first exodus generation—many important texts in Exodus are secondary, and owe their inclusion to later redactions and Bearbeitungen. This verity militates against the default or traditional view that the Exodus accounts necessarily precede those of the books that follow.
2.1.3 The Plenary Reception of Revelation: Original or Secondary Notion?
That the Dec in Exodus comprises a synthesis raises questions regarding its
developmental history and the circumstances attending its direct transmission to the Israelite people. As was shown in Chapter One, Kuenen believed that on the basis of the redactional arrangement of Exod 19–20 the direct transmission of the Dec to the people was secondary in the Exodus account, and that Deuteronomy based its portrayal on that redacted text.
406E.W. Nicholson also reckons the PRR a later conception, adding that Deut 4 and 5 (excepting 5:5) assume this from the outset. A. Rofé too views the PRR as a later conception, though for him it depends not upon a redacted Exodus but a later desire to portray the Exodus generation as a prophetic assembly.
407In contrast, T. Dozeman, W.
Oswald, E. Otto, R. Achenbach, and others
408regard the plenary theme as an early if not original feature of the Sinai narrative.
405 Ibid., 182.
406 Eißfeldt (Introduction, 213) said similarly: “But this means that originally the people did not themselves actually listen to the decalogue, but first received it imparted to them by Moses who himself had received it alone from Yahweh. xx, 18-21 thus really belongs, not after the Decalogue (xx, 2-17) but before it, and its present position is related to the incorporation of the complex xx, 22-xxiii, 33, in the Sinai narrative”; cf.
the evaluation of Van Seters, Law Book, 46-53, which, like Eißfeldt, makes no mention of Kuenen’s early rendition of the displacement theory caused by the insertion of BC. Van Seter’s omission is odd in view of the explicit references to Kuenen in the section of Childs’s commentary reviewed by Van Seters.
407 Deuteronomy, 16, 22.
408 Some scholars do not come down as explicitly on this issue. Certain comments of N. Lohfink and A.
Moenikes suggest they also view direct revelation from YHWH as part of the early collective memory of Israel.