The Book of Exodus (1974)

A Critical, Theological Commentary

Brevard S. Childs

• Publisher: Westminster John Knox Press
• Year: 1974
• ISBN:
  9781611644715
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Commentary

Taking a pioneering approach to commentary writing, Brevard Childs gives an entirely original treatment to the book of Exodus. Apart from the philological notes and translation, this commentary includes a form-critical section, looking at the growth of the tradition in its previous stages; a consideration of the meaning of the text in its present form; and a consideration of its meaning in its total Old Testament context.

The Old Testament Library provides fresh and authoritative treatments of important aspects of Old Testament study through commentaries and general surveys. The contributors are scholars of international standing.

I

INTRODUCTORY

1.1–7

A. BESTERS, ‘“Israël” et “Fils d’Israël”’, RB 74, 1964, pp.5–23, 322–55; G. W. COATS, ‘A Structural Transition in Exodus’, VT 22, 1972, pp. 129ff.; M. GREENBERG, Understanding Exodus, 1969, pp. 18ff.; A. LACOCQUE, Le Devenir de Dieu, Paris 1967, pp.25ff.; TH. C. VRIEZEN, ‘Exodusstudien, Exodus 1’, VT 17, 1967, pp. 334–53.

1 ¹These are the names of the Israelites who came to Egypt with Jacob, each with his household: ²Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, ³Issachar, Zebulon, and Benjamin, ⁴Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher. ⁵The tribal offspring of Jacob was seventy persons, Joseph being already in Egypt. ⁶Then Joseph died, and all his brothers, and all that generation. ⁷But the Israelites were fruitful and prolific; they multiplied and increased greatly so that the land was filled with them.

1. Textual and Philological Notes

Cf. F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran, Garden City, N.Y. 1958, pp. 137f., for a preliminary treatment of the text 4QEx^a.

1.1. The MT begins with a conjunction which the LXX omits. Cf. Lev. 1.1; Num. 1.1; Josh. 1.1; G-K §49bN.

5b. A nominal clause of circumstantial force. A parallel construction is Gen. 1.2. Cf. König, Lehrgebäude III, §302a, 362k.

2. Old Testament Context

The book of Exodus begins by recapitulating information which has already been given in Genesis. The list of the sons of Jacob who entered Egypt has appeared in Gen. 46.8ff. with the tradition of seventy persons. The death of Joseph has been recounted in Gen. 50.26. At the same time new material is introduced within the first few verses which goes beyond the Genesis account, especially the death of the entire generation of Joseph and the multiplication of the people. The introduction, therefore, points both backward to the patriarchs and forward to the exodus story. The initial task is to examine more closely this dual function of the introduction.

There is general agreement among literary critics regarding the source division: P = 1–5, 7; J = 6. However, this initial source division does not in itself solve many problems, but simply focuses the issues at stake more sharply. Why did the Priestly writer recapitulate his earlier material in this form and how did he couple his introduction to the earlier Exodus traditions (J) in 8ff.?

The Priestly writer begins with the phrase ‘These are the names …’ This formula serves the author much in the same way as the phrase ‘These are the generations of …’ (Gen. 2.4, etc.) to provide a structure for the narrative. The formula which connects the names to the entrance into Egypt derives from the tradition in Gen. 46. This chapter had also included the tradition of seventy persons (v. 27). However, in its new role in the Exodus narrative the writer is forced to adjust the older material to the different historical situation. He repeats the tradition of the seventy in v.5, but adds the comment on Joseph’s being already in Egypt to accord with the narrative. (For later interpreters – the LXX records 75 souls – the problem of reconciling the numbers in the genealogies became an issue.) It is of interest to note that, although the Priestly writer of Exodus uses the genealogical framework of Gen. 46.8ff. in v. 1, the actual order of the names follows the older tradition of Gen. 35 which organized the names according to the eponymic wives of Jacob.

Verse 1 begins with the tradition of the patriarchs. The b^enê Israel are the sons of Jacob, but the transitional function of the introduction emerges in v. 7. Now the b^enê Israel are the Israelites, the people of Israel. The writer has moved from the tradition of a family to that of the nation. (Cf. A. Besters, op. cit., pp.5ff.) His fusion of the two traditions makes it clear that he understands the exodus as a direct continuation of the history begun in Genesis. Indeed the nature of the continuity is made explicit in v. 7. In this verse the Priestly writer goes beyond the Genesis narrative of 46.27 and begins the exodus account. The vocabulary of v. 7 reflects the promise of blessing to Adam (Gen. 1.28; 9. 1) as well as the promise to Abraham (12.1ff.). God, the creator, has fulfilled his promise to the fathers. Verse 7 now functions as a transitional verse by pointing in both directions. It serves as a fulfillment of the patriarchal promise of the past, but now forms the background for the events which initiate the exodus (cf. 1.9).

Vriezen (op. cit., pp.334ff.) has made a strong case for seeing a traditional formula in v. 6. The repetition of Joseph’s death in v. 6 belongs to the formula of the rise of the new king in v. 8. The beginning of the new age is marked by the ending of the old (cf. the close parallel in Judg. 2.10). The final Priestly redactor has retained the traditional formula of the earlier source in v. 6, but he has skillfully intertwined it with his own transitional material in v. 7 which sets the new period of Israel’s history within the broad framework of the one great plan of God with his people from creation.

II

ISRAEL’S PERSECUTION AND THE BIRTH OF MOSES

1.8–2.10

E. AUERBACH, Moses, Amsterdam 1963; G. BINDER, Die Aussetzung des Königskindes Kyros und Romulus, Beiträge zur klass. Philologie 10, Meisenheim 1964; B.S. CHILDS, ‘The Birth of Moses’, JBL 84, 1965, pp. 109ff.; M. COGAN, ‘A Technical Term for Exposure’, JNES 27, 1968, pp. 133–5; C. COHEN, ‘The Legend of Sargon and the Birth of Moses’, JAMES 4, 1972, pp.46–51; G. R. DRIVER, ‘Hebrew Mothers’, ZAW 67, 1955, pp.246–8; G. FOHRER, Überlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus, 1964, pp.9ff.; H. GRESSMANN, Mose und seine Zeit, 1913, pp. 1ff.; H. G. GÜTERBOCK, ‘Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Gestaltung bei Babyloniern und Hethitern bis 1200’, ZA 42, 1934, pp.62–4; W. HELCK, ‘Tkw und die Ramsesstadt’, VT 15, 1965, pp.35ff.; I. MENDELSOHN, ‘On Corvée Labor in Ancient Canaan and Israel’, BASOR 167, 1962, pp.31–5; E. MEYER, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, Halle 1906, reprinted Darmstadt 1967, pp.41ff.; F. NIMS, ‘Bricks without Straw’, BA 13, 1950, pp. 22–8; J. PLASTARAS, The God of Exodus, 1966, pp. 26ff.; G. VON RAD, ‘Beobachtungen an der Moseerzählung Exodus 1–14’, EvTh 31, 1971, pp.579–88; D. B. REDFORD, ‘Ex. 1, 11’, VT 13, 1963, pp.401–18; ‘The Literary Motif of the Exposed Child’, Numen 14, 1967, pp.210ff.; F. V. WINNETT, The Mosaic Tradition, 1949, pp. 16ff.

1 ⁸Then there arose a new king over Egypt who did not know Joseph. ⁹And he said to his people, ‘Look, the Israelite people are too numerous and strong for us. ¹⁰Come on, let’s deal shrewdly with them, lest they increase and, in the event of war, should join forces with our enemies in fighting against us and go up out of the land.’ ¹¹Accordingly, they put gang-foremen in charge of them to oppress them with forced labor; and they built storage cities for Pharaoh, Pithom and Raamses. ¹²But the more they oppressed them the more they multiplied and spread about so that they (the Egyptians) came to loathe the Israelites. ¹³So the Egyptians subjected the Israelites to cruel slavery. ¹⁴They made their lives bitter with heavy work at mortar and brick, and with all kinds of labor in the fields. All the work they exacted of them with ruthlessness.

15 Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah. ¹⁶‘When you deliver the Hebrew women, look at the birthstool; if it is a boy, kill him; if it is a girl, let her live.’ ¹⁷But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the male children live. ¹⁸So the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and said to them: ‘Why have you done this and let the male children live?’ ¹⁹The midwives said to Pharaoh, ‘Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous; and before the midwife reaches them, they have given birth.’ ²⁰And God dealt favorably with the midwives and the people multiplied and increased greatly. ²¹And because the midwives feared God, he established houses for them. ²²Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, ‘Every boy that is born you shall throw into the Nile, but let all the girls live.’

2 ¹Now a man from the house of Levi went and married the daughter of Levi. ²She conceived and bore a son. When she saw how beautiful he was, she hid him for three months. ³When she could no longer hide him, she got a papyrus basket for him, and sealed it with bitumen and pitch. She put the child into it and placed it among the reeds at the bank of the Nile. ⁴Her sister posted herself at some distance to learn what would happen to him.

5 Now the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the Nile while her maids walked along the Nile. She caught sight of the basket among the reeds and sent her maid to get it. ⁶On opening it, she saw the child – a boy – crying. She took pity on him and said, ‘This must be a Hebrew child.’ ⁷Then his sister said to Pharaoh’s daughter, ‘Shall I go and summon for you a nurse from the Hebrew women to nurse the child for you?’ ⁸Pharaoh’s daughter answered: ‘Yes.’ So the girl went and called the child’s mother. ⁹And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her: ‘Take this child and nurse it for me, and I will pay your wages.’ So the woman took the child and nursed it. ¹⁰When the child grew up, she brought him to Pharaoh’s daughter, and she made him her son. She named him Moses, saying, ‘because I drew him out of the water’.

1. Textual and Philological Notes

1.8. The AmTr catches the sense in its paraphrase ‘who knew nothing about Joseph’. B. Jacob, Das zweite Buch Mose, ad loc., reads too much into the Hebrew: ‘he did not choose to know Joseph’.

10. NJPS translates the final verb we^e‘ālāh as ‘gain ascendancy over’ which greatly improves the sense of the sentence. However, the philological warrant for this meaning is too weak to justify it. Still cf. Orlinsky, Notes on the New Translation, p. 149. The 3 fem.pl. form should be emended to tiqrā’ēnû with BH³. Cf. the use in Lev. 10.19.

14. The syntax of the final clause remains an old crux. Cf. the discussion by J. Blau, VT 4, 1954, pp. 7ff., and P. Saydon, VT 14, 1964, p. 201.

15. The LXX and V do not read ‘Hebrew’ as an attributive adjective but in construct state: ‘the midwives of the Hebrews’, which leaves open the question of nationality.

16. The exact meaning of the noun ’obnayim is still debated. Cf. the parallel in Jer. 18.3 = ‘potter’s wheel’. The most probable explanation remains a type of delivery stool of two stones on which the woman knelt. However, the translation ‘genitals’ is adopted by the AmTr and others because of the context. NAB follows the LXX in reading ‘giving birth’. Cf. H. A. Brongers, NTT 20, 1966, pp.241ff.

19. ḥayyôṯ from hāyeh, ‘lively’. The common emendation to ḥayyôṯ ‘animals’ does not commend itself either philologically or exegetically. The problem is dealt with in detail by G. R. Driver, ‘Hebrew Mothers’, ZAW 67, 1955, pp.246ff.

21. It is uncertain whether the connotation of bāttîm is narrowly construed (house) or broadly (family).

23. The LXX, followed by NAB, adds ‘to the Hebrews’, which appears to be a clarifying expansion.

2.1. The syntax of the last phrase is difficult, ’et-bat-lēwî does not normally mean ‘a daughter of Levi’ because of the definite article (König, Lehrgebäude III, 304a), nor a Levite woman as in NJPS, NAB which would be rather bat ’îš lēwî. Cf. Ex. 6.18a, 20a.

2. Cf. W. F. Albright on the idiom rā’āh kî ţôb in Mélanges bibliques redigés … A. Robert, Paris 1956, pp.22ff.; also Meek, JBL 82, 1963, p.268; JBL 64, 1945, p. 12.

5. The middle clause is circumstantial: ‘while the maidens were walking’.

8. An affirmative answer in Biblical Hebrew repeats the verb of the question.

9. hêlîkî ‘take’ is difficult and often emended to hôlîkî It is thought to have been influenced by the nearby hêniqihû. Ehrlich, Randglossen I, p. 264, argues against this emendation that the hiph. of hlk is normally used of that which can move itself. Only in late Hebrew does it become synonymous with hēbî.’ He follows the Syriac and Rashi in reading hē’ lāk = ‘here, it’s yours!’ Perhaps a technical term is reflected here. Cogan (op. cit., p. 10) argues for a Hebrew equivalent of the Akkadian nadu, ‘to throw, or cast’. An Akkadian formula from the act of adoption offers a certain parallel: ‘take the child, he is your child’, (ta-ab-li zu-ha-ra-am lu-ú ma-ru-ki). Cf. M. Schorr, Urkunden des altbabylonischen Zivil- und Prozessrechts, Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 5, Leipzig 1907, p. 122 #78, and M. David, Die Adoption in altbabylonischen Recht, Leipzig 1927, pp. 79f. However, the semantic problems involved in such a reconstruction are difficult, as J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, London and New York 1968, has rightly argued.

10a. Ehrlich, Randglossen I, p. 265, suggests emending wayyigdal to wayyiggāmēl (when it was weaned); however, the parallel in Gen. 21.8 shows that the verb in the qal can refer specifically to the age of weaning.

10b. The older attempt to understand the expression wayy^ehî l^ebēn figuratively: ‘he was to her like her own son’, breaks down in the light of the increasing number of Near Eastern parallels. Cf. The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri, ed. E. G. Kraeling, New York 1953, p. 226.

10c. Cf. Koehler-Baumgartner, Lexicon in VT libros, London 1953, s.v., for the innumerable attempts, both ancient and modern, at the derivation of the name. There is now a general consensus that the name is of Egyptian origin from the root ms(w) meaning to ‘beget’. It is a hypocoristic form of a theophoric name built on the pattern of Tutmose. Cf. J. G. Griffiths, ‘The Egyptian Derivation of the Name Moses’, JNES 12, 1932, pp. 225–31; H. Cazelles, Moïse, l’Homme de l’Alliance, Tournai 1955, pp. 14ff.

2. Literary and History of Tradition Problems

A. Literary

The vast majority of critical commentators assign the section 1.8–2. 10 to a variety of different literary sources, although recognizing at the same time a unified quality to the narrative in its present form. There is a wide consensus in assigning to P vv. 13 and 14. The characteristic style, vocabulary, and continu...