The Call of Moses and the Exodus Story: A Redactional-Critical Study in Exodus 3-4 and 5-13 (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe)

Jaeyoung Jeon examines and assesses recently suggested models for the formation of the Pentateuch through a redactional-critical analysis of the Call of Moses (Exod. 3-4) and the Exodus story (Exod. 5-13). He observes that Exod. 3-4 was formed through a series of stages of Deuteronomistic composition and redaction, to which some post-Priestly additions were made. Comparative analysis suggests that the elements of Deuteronomistic formation precede P and that the direction of influence is from the non-P narrative (Exod. 3-4) to the P call narrative (Exod. 6). Jeon also shows that although some of the literary layers in Exod. 3-4 extend through the Exodus story (Exod. 5-13), the present form of the latter has been shaped by a post-Deuteronomistic but pre-Priestly composition based on an earlier proto-Exodus story. He therefore concludes that the Pentateuch or Hexateuch might be the product of a more complicated process of development than the current models describe. Cover Acknowledgements Contents Introduction Part One: Methodological Considerations Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism in Recent Pentateuchal Study I. Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch 1. The Scope and Terminology of Redaction Criticism in This Study 2. A Classification of Redaction Criticism according to its Methodological Structure II. Classical Redaction Criticism: Redaction Criticism and the Classical Documentary Hypothesis 1. Development of the Approach 2. Recent Practitioners (1) R. E. Friedman (2) W. H. C. Propp (3) M. Greenberg 3. Conclusion Excursus: Recent Studies that Diminish the Role of the Redactor III. Redaction Criticism and Form/Tradition Criticism 1. Development of the Approach (1) G. von Rad’s Redaction Criticism (2) Von Rad’s Formation Model for the Yahwist (3) Author and Redactor in von Rad’s Works 2. Practitioners of the Method (1) K. Koch (2) O. Steck 3. W. Marxen and New Testament Redaction Criticism 4. Conclusion VI. Composition of Larger Units and Redaction Criticism 1. Development of the Approach (1) R. Rendtorff A. Refutation of the Classical Documentary Hypothesis B. The Deuteronomically Stamped Texts and the Final Redaction C. Rendtorff’s Model for the Formation of the Pentateuch D. Rendtorff’s Redaction Criticism (2) E. Blum A. Blum’s Formation Model B. Blum’s Method 2. Practitioners and their Divergent Formation Models (1) K. Schmid (2) R. Achenbach (3) E. Otto (4) J. C. Gertz (5) D. M. Carr 3. Conclusion V. The Late Yahwist and Redaction Criticism 1. Development and Practitioners (1) C. Levin A. Levin’s Model B. Levin’s Method (2) J. Van Seters A. Van Seters’ Model B. Van Seters’ Method 2. Conclusion VI. Summary and the Method of this Study 1. Summary 2. The Method of this Study Excursus: Van Seters’ Contentions against Redaction Criticism Part Two: Redaction-Critical Analysis Chapter 2: A Redaction-Critical Analysis of Exodus 3-4 I. Introductory Remarks 1. The Significance of Exodus 3-4 in Recent Pentateuchal Criticism 2. The Scope of the Narrative 3. Content and Literary Problems II. The Various Solutions based on Formation Models of the Pentateuch 1. Solutions based on the Classical Documentary Hypothesis 2. Modifications of the Classical Documentary Hypothesis (1) P. Weimar (2) W. H. Schmidt (3) A. Graupner (4) W. H. C. Propp (5) M. Greenberg 3. Solutions based on the Late Yahwist Models (1) C. Levin (2) J. Van Seters 4. Solutions based on Recent Redaction-Critical Models (1) E. Blum (2) K. Schmid (3) J. C. Gertz (4) C. Berner III. Redaction-Critical Analysis of the Call Narrative 1. The Doublet and the First Commissioning (3.7-8, 9-10) (1) The doublet and the formulaic הנה and ועתה construction A. Usages of the ועתה הנה clause B. The ועתה הנה and ועתה construction (a) Caleb’s plea to Joshua (Josh. 14.6-12) (b) Saul’s speech to David (1Sam. 24.17-21) (c) The Gibeonites’ plea to Joshua (Josh. 9.9-13) (d) Rabshakeh’s speech to the people of Jerusalem (2Kgs. 18.19-25) (e) Bath-sheba’s plea to David (1Kgs. 1.17-21) C. Differences between 2Sam. 7.27f. and Exod. 3.7ff. D. An Inclusio? 2. Moses’ Commissioning in vv. 9-12 (1) Vv. 9-10 (2) V. 10 (3) V. 11 (4) V. 12aα (5) V. 12aβb 3. The Revelation of the Name of God (3.13-15) (1) V. 13 (2) Vv. 14-15 4. The Commissioning in Exod. 3.9-15 and the Deuteronomic Law of the False Prophets (Deut. 18.15-22) 5. Verses 7-8 and the Second Commissioning (vv. 16-17) (1) YHWH’s Plan for the Salvation of the People (vv. 7-8) (2) The Second Commissioning (vv. 16-17) 6. Prediction of the Exodus Sequence (vv. 18-22) (1) V. 18 (2) Vv. 19-20 (3) Vv. 21-22 7. Moses’ Objections and the Signs (4.1-9) (1) V. 1 (2) Vv. 2-8 (3) V.9 8. Moses’ Excuse of Lack of Eloquence and the Introduction of Aaron (vv. 10-16) (1) The unity of vv. 10-16 (2) Vv. 4.1-16, a unity? 9. The Problem of the Staff (vv. 17, 20b) 10. The Narrative Framework (3.1-6; 4.18-20) (1) The theophany (Exod. 3.1-6) A. Vv. 1-3 B. V. 4 C. V. 5 D. V. 6a E. V. 6b (2) The relationship to the commissioning layers 11. Moses’ Return to Egypt (4.18-31) (1) V. 18 (2) V. 19 (3) V. 20a (4) The Third Commissioning (4.21-23) (5) The Bridegroom of Blood (vv. 24-26) (6) Vv. 27-28 (7) Vv. 29-31 IV. Provisional Conclusion 1. The Second Commissioning Layer 2. The First Commissioning Layer 3. The ‘Festival of Unleavened Bread’ Layer 4. The Aaron Layer 5. The ‘Staff of God’ Layer 6. The Third Commissioning Chapter 3: The Extension of the Layers of the Call Narrative in the Following Narrative of Moses’ Confrontations with Pharaoh (Exodus 5-13) I. The Second Commissioning Layer and the Passover Instruction (Exod. 12.21-27) 1. The Similarity in Scene between 12.21-27 and 4.29-31 2. The Unity of the Passage and the Problem of the Source/Layer (1) Literary features of Exod. 12.21-27a (2) Exod. 12.21-23, 27b (3) The Literary relationship between Exod. 12.21-23, 27b and the Second Commissioning Layer II. The Layer of the Festival of Unleavened Bread 1. Exod. 5.1a, 20-6.1 2. Exod. 11.1-3 3. Exod. 12.34-36, 39 4. The Laws of the Festival of Unleavened Bread and the Firstborn (Exod. 13.3-16) (1) The Connection with Exod. 12.34, 39 (2) The Deuteronomic/stic Character of the Regulation (3) Literary Dependence upon Exod. 34.18-20 (4) The Pre-Priestly date of the Regulation (5) The Problem of Exod. 13.1-2 III. The layer of Moses’ Staff 1. The Reworking of the Episode of the Blood Plague (1) Reworking in Exod. 7.15b, 17b, 20a (2) The Priestly wonders and emphasis on Moses’ staff A. The Priestly Wonders Revisited B. The Priestly Sea Narrative as a Conclusion to the Priestly Plagues Account C. The Structure of the Priestly Wonders D. The Priestly wonders and the staff of Moses 2. The Reworking of the Episodes of Masah and Meribah (Exod. 17.1-7) and the Battle with Amalek (Exod. 17.8-16) (1) The Wilderness Episode of Masah and Meribah (Exod. 17.1-7) (2) The staff in the episode of the battle with Amalek (17.8-16) IV. Summary Chapter 4: The Relationship between the Priestly (Exod. 6.2-7.7) and Non-priestly (Exodus 3-4) Call Narratives I. Arguments about Exodus 3 1. Dependence upon 2.23ab-25? 2. Exod. 3.4bα 3. The Place of Revelation II. Arguments about Exodus 4 1. A Reconsideration of Blum’s ‘Preventive Thematizing’ 2. The Signs and the Priestly Wonders 3. The Problem of Aaron III. The Dependence of the Priestly Call Account on the Non-Priestly Call and Plagues Narratives 1. The Promise of the Land to the Patriarchs and Exodus 3 2. The Israelites’ Refusal to Listen and the Episode of Exodus 5 3. Moses’ Lack of Eloquence 4. The Structural Function of the P Call Account IV. Summary Chapter 5: Layers of the Call Narrative in Relation to the Episode of the First Confrontation (Exodus 5) and the Plagues Story (Exodus 7-11) I. The First Confrontation with Pharaoh (Exod. 5.1-6.1) in its Literary Context 1. Exod. 5.1b-2 and the Redactional Framework of the Plagues Story 2. Reflection of the Episode of the First Confrontation (5.3-6.1) in the Compositional Framework of the Plagues Story 3. A Continuation of the First Confrontation Episode in the Plagues Story (1) The Relation between the First Confrontation Episode and the Negotiation in 8.21ff. (2) A Literary Discrepancy around 8.21ff. 4. Summary II. The Literary Relationship between the Plagues and Call Narratives 1. The Compositional/Redactional Framework of the Plagues Story 2. Reference to the Present Form of the (non-P) Plagues Story in the Layers of the Call Narrative (1) In the First and Second Commissioning (2) The Third Commissioning and the Formulaic Command in the Plagues story (3) The Festival of Unleavened Bread Layer and the Plagues Story A. The Prediction of the Process of the Exodus (Exod. 3.19-22) and the Plagues Story B. The Festival of Unleavened Bread Layer and the Announcement of the Last Plague (Exod. 11.4-6) 3. Reference to the Call Narrative in the Framework of the Plagues Story 4. Summary Excursus: The Formulaic Compositional/Redactional Framework of the Plagues Story Conclusions I. Summary II. Assessment of the Formation Models of the Pentateuch 1. The Elohist Hypothesis 2. The Yahwist Hypothesis (Classical and Late) 3. Post-Priestly Redaction 4. Deuteronomic/stic Composition III. Implications and Tasks for Further Studies Abbreviations Bibliography Hebrew Bible Index Footnotes are not included Index of Authors and Subjects Footnotes are not included Methodological considerations -- Redaction criticism in recent pentateuchal study -- Redaction criticism of the pentateuch -- The scope and terminology of redaction criticism in this study -- A classification of redaction criticism according to its methodological structure -- Classical redaction criticism : redaction criticism and the Classical Documentary Hypothesis -- Development of the approach -- Recent practitioners -- R.E. Friedman -- W.H.C. Propp -- M. Greenberg -- -- Conclusion Excursus : recent studies that diminish the role of the redactor -- redaction criticism and form/tradition criticism -- Development of the approach -- G. von Rad's redaction criticism -- Von Rad's formation model for the Yahwist -- Author and redactor in von Rad's works -- Practitioners of the method -- K. Koch -- O. Steck -- W. Marxen and new testament redaction criticism -- -- Conclusion Composition of larger units and redaction criticism -- Development of the approach -- R. Rendtorff -- Refutation of the Classical Documentary Hypothesis -- The deuteronomically stamped texts and the final redaction -- Rendtorff's model for the formation of the pentateuch -- Rendtorff's redaction criticism -- E. Blum -- Blum's formation model -- Blum's method -- Practitioners and their divergent formation models -- K. Schmid -- R. Achenbach -- E. Otto -- J.C. Gertz -- D.M. Carr -- -- Conclusion The late Yahwist and redaction criticism -- Development and practitioners -- C. Levin -- Levin's model -- Levin's method -- J. Van Seters -- Van Seters' model -- Van Seters' method -- -- Conclusion Summary and the method of this study -- Summary -- The method of this study -- Excursus : van Seters' contentions against redaction criticism -- Redaction-critical analysis -- A redaction-critical analysis of Exodus 3-4 -- Introductory remarks -- The significance of Exodus 3-4 in recent pentateuchal criticism -- The scope of the narrative -- Content and literary problems -- The various solutions based on formation models of the pentateuch -- Solutions based on the Classical Documentary Hypothesis -- Modifications of the Classical Documentary Hypothesis -- P. Weimar -- W.H. Schmidt -- A. Graupner -- W.H.C. Propp -- M. Greenberg -- Solutions based on the late Yahwist models -- C. Levin -- J. Van Seters -- Solutions based on recent redaction-critical models -- E. Blum -- K. Schmid -- J.C. Gertz -- C. Berner -- Redaction-critical analysis of the call narrative -- The doublet and the first commissioning (3.7-8, 9-10) -- The doublet and the formulaic ... and ... construction -- Usages of the ... clause -- The ... and ... construction -- Caleb's plea to Joshua (Josh. 14.6-12) -- Saul's speech to David (lSam. 24.17-21) -- The Gibeonites' plea to Joshua (Josh. 9.9-13) -- Rabshakeh's speech to the people of Jerusalem (2Kgs. 18.19-25) -- Bath-sheba's plea to David (1 Kgs. 1.17-21) -- Differences between 2Sam. 7.27f. and Exod. 3.7ff. -- D. An Inclusio? -- Moses' commissioning in vv. 9-12 -- Vv. 9-10 -- V. 10 -- V. 11 -- V. 12a ... -- V. 12aßb -- The revelation of the name of God (3.13-15) -- V. 13 -- Vv. 14-15 -- The commissioning in Exod. 3.9-15 and the deuteronomic law of the false prophets (Deut. 18.15-22) -- Verses 7-8 and the second commissioning (vv. 16-17) -- YHWH 's plan for the salvation of the people (vv. 7-8) -- The second commissioning (vv. 16-17) -- Prediction of the Exodus sequence (vv. 18-22) -- V. 18 -- Vv. 19-20 -- Vv. 21-22 -- Moses' objections and the signs (4.1-9) -- V. 1 -- Vv. 2-8 -- V. 9 -- Moses' excuse of lack of eloquence and the introduction of aaron (vv. 10-16) -- The unity of vv. 10-16 -- Vv. 4.1-16, a unity? -- The problem of the staff (vv. 17, 20b) -- The narrative framework (3.1 -6; 4.18-20) -- The theophany (Exod. 3.1-6) -- Vv. 1-3 -- V. 4 -- V. 5 -- V. 6a -- V. 6b -- The relationship to the commissioning layers -- Moses' return to Egypt (4.18-31) -- V. 18 -- V. 19 -- V. 20a -- The third commissioning (4.21-23) -- The bridegroom of blood (vv. 24-26) -- Vv. 27-28 -- Vv. 29-31 -- Provisional conclusion -- The second commissioning layer -- The first commissioning layer -- The 'festival of unleavened bread' layer -- The aaron layer -- The 'staff of God' layer -- The third commissioning -- The extension of the layers of the call narrative in the following narrative of moses' confrontations with Pharaoh (Exodus 5-13) -- The second commissioning layer and the passover instruction (Exod. 12.21-27) -- The similarity in scene between 12.21-27 and 4.29-31 -- The unity of the passage and the problem of the source/layer -- Literary features of Exod. 12.21-27a -- Exod. 12.21-23, 27b -- The literary relationship between Exod. 12.21-23, 27b and the second commissioning layer -- The layer of the festival of unleavened bread -- Exod. 5.1a, 20-6.1 -- Exod. 11.1-3. Exod. 12.34-36, 39 -- The laws of the festival of unleavened bread and the firstborn (Exod. 13.3-16) -- The connection with Exod. 12.34,39 -- The deuteronomic/stic character of the regulation -- Literary dependence upon Exod. 34.18-20 -- The pre-priestly date of the regulation -- The problem of Exod. 13.1-2 -- The layer of Moses' staff -- The reworking of the episode of the blood plague -- Reworking in Exod. 7.15b, 17b, 20a -- The priestly wonders and emphasis on Moses' staff -- The priestly wonders revisited -- The priestly sea narrative as a conclusion to the priestly plagues account -- The structure of the priestly wonders -- The priestly wonders and the staff of Moses -- The reworking of the episodes of Masah and Meribah (Exod. 17.1-7) and the battle with Amalek (Exod. 17.8-16) -- The wilderness episode of Masah and Meribah (Exod. 17.1-7) -- The staff in the episode of the battle with Amalek (17.8-16) -- -- Summary The relationship between the priestly (Exod. 6.2-7.7) and non-priestly (Exodus 3-4) call narratives -- Arguments about Exodus 3 -- Dependence upon 2.23ab-25? -- Exod. 3.4b ... -- The place of revelation -- Arguments about Exodus 4 -- A reconsideration of Blum's 'Preventive thematizing' -- The signs and the priestly wonders -- The problem of Aaron -- The dependence of the priestly call account on the non-priestly call and plagues narratives -- The promise of the land to the patriarchs and Exodus 3 -- The Israelites' refusal to listen and the episode of Exodus 5 -- Moses' lack of eloquence -- The structural function of the P call account -- -- Summary Layers of the call narrative in relation to the episode of the first confrontation (Exodus 5) and the plagues story (Exodus 7-11) -- The first confrontation with Pharaoh (Exod. 5.1-6.1) in its literary context -- Exod. 5.1b-2 and the redactional framework of the Plagues story -- Reflection of the episode of the first confrontation (5.3-6.1) in the compositional framework of the Plagues story -- A continuation of the first confrontation episode in the Plagues story -- The relation between the first confrontation episode and the negotiation in 8.21 ff. -- A literary discrepancy around 8.21 ff. -- -- Summary The literary relationship between the Plagues and call narratives -- The compositional/redactional framework of the Plagues story -- Reference to the present form of the (non-P) Plagues story in the layers of the call narrative -- In the first and second commissioning -- The third commissioning and the formulaic -- Command in the Plagues story -- The festival of unleavened bread layer and the Plagues story -- The prediction of the process of the Exodus (Exod. 3.19-22) and the Plagues story -- The festival of unleavened bread layer and the announcement of the last Plague (Exod. 11.4-6) -- Reference to the call narrative in the framework of the Plagues story -- -- Summary Excursus : the formulaic compositional/redactional framework of the Plagues story -- -- Conclusions -- Summary Assessment of the formation models of the pentateuch -- The elohist hypothesis -- The Yahwist hypothesis (classical and late) -- Post-priestly redaction -- Deuteronomic/stic composition -- Implications and tasks for further studies ---- Abbreviations-- Bibliography-- Hebrew Bible index-- Index of authors and subjects. Jaeyoung Jeon beurteilt neuere Modelle zur Entstehung des Pentateuchs, indem er die Erzählungen über Moses Berufung (Ex 3-4) und den Auszug aus Ägypten (Ex 5-13) redaktionskritisch analysiert. Dabei arbeitet er heraus, dass Ex 3-4 durch verschiedene deuteronomistische Kompositions- und Redaktionsstufen entstanden ist, die durch nach-priesterliche Ergänzungen erweitert wurden. Die vergleichende Analyse lässt darauf schließen, dass die deuteronomistischen Bearbeitungen P vorausgingen und dass die P-Berufungserzählung (Ex 6) von der nicht-P-Erzählung (Ex 3-4) abhängig ist. Jeon zeigt außerdem, dass, obwohl sich einige Erzählfäden aus Ex 3-4 auch durch die Auszugserzählung (Ex 5-13) ziehen, die gegenwärtige Form der letzteren eine post-deuteronomistische, aber vor-priesterliche Komposition ist, die auf einer älteren Proto-Exoduserzählung basiert. Daraus schließt er, dass der Pentateuch oder Hexateuch offensichtlich das Ergebnis eines weitaus komplexeren Entstehungsprozesses ist, als die gegenwärtigen Modelle annehmen