JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES
361
Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive...
244 downloads
774 Views
7MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
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
1
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
This page intentionally left blank
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map 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
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION The Old Testament is full of the shadows cast by Pharaoh's sun, and the result—a mixture of admiration, distrust, envy and emulation, often at the same time—shows 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 Egypt—a determinable and distinct ancient geographic, cultural and historic entity that can be translated into a spatial referent on a map—that 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
2
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
3
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 (1989—see especially pp. 19799) and Bright (1981—see 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).
4
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
5
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
6
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 geography—one 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
7
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 constructs—they 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 maps—of 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 people—whether 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.
8
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
9
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-fulfillment—of 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 is—see 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 east—Jacob flees from the wrath of his brother Esau and lives with his uncle in the 'old country' of Aram in northwest Mesopotamia—and 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 Pharaohs—either 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 sojourn15—and 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?' (12.18—see 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
Israel,17 Egypt poses a definite danger. The taking of Sarai into the house of the Egyptian Pharaoh—signifying her assimilation as a proto-Israelite into the Egyptian kinship structure—represents 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 (n^U) 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, n^EJ) 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 conceives—Egypt is indeed fertile—but 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 deity—see 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 characteristics—in this case, fertility—is 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'— Mesopotamia—as 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 on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 (39.1—41.57, 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 Gideon—see 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
recognize him—to 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 emphasized—but 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 Egyptian—but 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 reversed—all 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 exceedingly—in 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 averted—Egypt 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 needed—which 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 Egypt—this 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 period—1963,1987:138-44). 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 him—that the Hebrew women bear virtually spontaneously—is 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 6uycr)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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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).
5. The Production and Promulgation of the 'Final Text Form ' 2 1 9 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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: 7—although 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
5. The Production and Promulgation of the 'Final Text Form' 221 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
5. The Production and Promulgation of the 'Final Text Form' 223 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 1995—changing 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 2—4 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch 's Ideological Map
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 on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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.
6. The Historical Context
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 design—they 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 structure—indicating 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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).
6. The Historical Context
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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.
6. The Historical Context
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
6. The Historical Context
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 Egypt—that Temple, built he found it.'
236
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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).
6. The Historical Context
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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.
6. The Historical Context
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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).
6. The Historical Context
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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.
6. The Historical Context
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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).
6. The Historical Context
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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: Yehud—13,350; Jerusalem—1,250. 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.
6. The Historical Context
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 2—4 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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).
6. The Historical Context
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 594—593 BCE. Gorg (1992) analyses the episode in Jer. 38 as
250
Egypt on the Pentateuch 's Ideological Map
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
6. The Historical Context
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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.
6. The Historical Context
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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).
6. The Historical Context
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
7. Summary and Conclusions
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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.
7. Summary and Conclusions
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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).
7. Summary and Conclusions
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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).
7. Summary and Conclusions
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 ascendancy—now 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 Egypt—and, 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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).
7. Summary and Conclusions
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
7. Summary and Conclusions
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 place—so also Egypt is a real place. But the image in
7. Summary and Conclusions
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"~ii£ft 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
3
9
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
1
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 Occurrences in MT/LXX
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map 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 Occurrences in MT/LXX 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 ancienne—cartographic 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 'Burials—Israelite', 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 VIII19—An 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, Fran£oise, and Christiane Zivie-Coche 1991 Dieux et hommes en Egypte (Paris: Armand Cohn).
284
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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).
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 'Nes—ein 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 'Min—ein 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'wt—einGottestitel',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 Sunde—Siinde 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 'Magic—Old 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 Testament—A 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 Transformation—A 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 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press). 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map 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: Hopes—and 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: Eisenbrauns): 259-66. '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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map 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 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press). 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
'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 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press). 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 Studies—Near 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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map Research and Methodology in Honor ofGus W. van Beek (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 297-312.
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map (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
5
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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
Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map
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 1—2 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 1 325 P.M. Michele Daviau, John W. Wevers and Michael Weigl (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans: Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion, Volume 2 326 P.M. Michele Daviau, John W. Wevers and Michael Weigl (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans: Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion, Volume 3 327 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 9—10 351 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