Part 7
(32:1—21) After reporting the peaceful solution of Jacob's dispute with Laban (31:54—5) the story resumes the account of his relations with his brother Esau, from whose hostile intentions he had fled (ch. 27). First, however, there is a short notice of a
(presumably) favourable appearance of a group of divine messengers or angels (cf. 28:12) during his journey, which he perceives as 'God's camp' (mahaneh 'Zldhim) and so names the place Mahanaim. This incident is no doubt based on a local foundation legend about the city of Mahanaim in Gilead east of the Jordan, later to become an important Israelite city. Now, aware that he is close to the land of Edom, Esau's home, and fearful for his life and the lives of his family, he sends an embassy to Esau. Learning that Esau is advancing towards him with a strong military force (v. 6), he prays to God thathe will protect him, and then makes preparations for the encounter, sending a further conciliatory message to Esau together with valuable presents which he sends by instalments, himself remaining behind with his family in the hope of protecting them in case of attack. Here again the reader finds the heir to the promise and his family in danger of their lives; and once again the narrative is slowed down to increase the dramatic tension.
The second scene (w. 19-42) opens with Laban, accompanied by his kinsmen, pursuing Jacob, and overtaking him when he has reached the hill country of Gilead, east of the Jordan. Once more Laban receives a divine message warning him not to interfere with Jacob (v. 24); and in fact when they meet Laban exercises restraint. His final complaint against him is that he has stolen his 'household gods' (teraphim), though in fact it was Rachel who had stolen them without Jacob's knowledge (w. 19, 32). The incident of the search for the teraphim (w. 33-5) is recounted with crude humour. Teraphim, which are mentioned in several other OT texts, appear to have been fairly small hominiform images of gods whose use was not confined to Israel. There is a reference to
(32:22—32) This incident, which interrupts the account of Jacob's concluding encounter with Esau, is of central importance in the story of Jacob, even more significant than Jacob's
59 GENESIS
chapter to the events of ch. 34. Jacob's naming of the altar that he erects on the plot of land that he has bought ('God, the God of Israel') might be a reference to Jacob's new personal name Israel, but the reader would understand it as a proclamation that Jacob's God was to be the God of the people Israel.
experience at Bethel (28:10-22). Here once more the heir to the promise is placed in danger of his life. But the incident remains essentially mysterious, and several of its features are difficult to interpret. This is at least partly due to the fact that it is evidently a pre-Israelite story that has been reworked, probably more than once. The original version strongly resembles pagan, even animistic, tales of spirits or demons guarding particular places such as streams, who attack travellers who are endeavouring to pass on their way, but who are powerful only at night; here we are told that the sun rose only when the incident was over (v. 31). The place in question here is a ford over the stream Jabbok, which rises in the mountains east of the Jordan and descends precipitately to flow into the Jordan—a place where it is difficult to cross on foot. The supposed connection between its name and the rare Hebrew verb 'abaq, 'wrestle' (v. 24) may have given rise to the story in its original version. The man ('is) who attacked Jacob and struggled with him all night remains unidentified until v. 30, but is clearly possessed of supernatural power as well as of great physical strength (30:25), and is recognized by Jacob as one who is able to confer a blessing on him. He subsequently reveals himself as divine ('elohim, v. 28); but the statements that Jacob overmatched him and forced him to bless him (w. 26, 29) remain mysterious in the face of Jacob's final realization that he has been locked in a struggle with God, and has seen him face to face (peni'el means 'face of God'). At this point of the story, as in others, features of the original tale are still present. The central and crucial point of the story in its present form is that Jacob not only received the divine blessing (despite the refusal of the 'man' to declare his own name), but that his name is changed to 'Israel' (this name is here associated with the rare verb sard, 'struggle', used in v. 28). The passage thus declares Jacob to be not only a towering, heroic figure who has close dealings with God himself, but also the founder of the nation of Israel. Despite its evidently somewhat composite nature, attempts to analyse its sources have been controversial; but the final verse is certainly a separate comment on the incident as being the origin of an otherwise unknown food taboo.
(34:1—31) This brutal and—to the modern reader—repulsive story, which may be based on a reminiscence of some actual event in the early history of the Israelite tribes, is widely supposed to have existed in two versions, which have been combined and used by a later writer to make the point that Israelites should abstain from intermarriage with the Canaanites. The massacre which it describes is in conformity with the teaching of the Deuteronomists, who represent Moses as having demanded their extermination (Deut 7:1—3). The protagonists are Simeon and Levi, who first ensure by a trick that the victims will be in a weakened condition (w. 25-6). Their brothers, however, all participate in the subsequent plundering of the city. That Jacob may not have figured in the original story is suggested by the fact that he plays only a marginal and passive role. Jacob's fear that the neighbouring Canaanites will take their revenge on his family and destroy it in turn
(v. 30) qualifies the story as yet another example of the endangerment of the lives of the heirs to the promise, a situation that leads to Jacob's removal with his family to Bethel and is only relieved by the mysterious 'terror' that falls on the surrounding cities (35:5, which appears to be intended as the sequel to this story).
The Shechemites are here (v. 2) specified as Hivites, one of the tribes supposed to have constituted the Canaanite people
(cf. e.g. Gen 10:15—18; Deut 7:1). After forcing Dinah into illicit intercourse with him, Shechem falls in love with her and wishes to marry her at all costs. The inhabitants of the city, with Hamor as spokesman, attempt to negotiate the marriage in all innocence, but are rebuffed (w. 8—14). The imposing of circumcision on all the Shechemite men as a condition of the marriage is a trick with sinister and ironical overtones, a mere excuse for the real cause of the massacre, the desire for revenge for the initial rape (v. 31). In the Blessing of Jacob (49:2—27) in which Jacob foretells what will be the future destiny of each of his sons (now openly called the twelve tribes of Israel, 49:28), Simeon and Levi are not blessed but cursed (49:5-7) for their violent behaviour, with an apparent reference to the incident of ch. 34.
(33:1—20) The reconciliation between Jacob and his wronged brother resolves the tension built up in 32:1—21. The chapter is a riot of deferential bowings and honorific expressions ('my lord', 'your servant') in oriental fashion on the part of Jacob and his household and magnanimity and solicitous concern on the part of Esau. Esau's emotional welcome of Jacob signifies his complete forgiveness, after so many years, of a grievous offence which is never mentioned, but of which Jacob still remains painfully aware. Until the moment of greeting he appears still to be apprehensive of Esau's intention; and even subsequently he is still reluctant to travel in his company, pretending that they will meet again in Seir, Esau's home territory (w. 12—15), whereas in fact he makes for Succoth ('booths'), where he builds a house for himself and settles down. Another version (w. 18-20), however, takes him across the Jordan, still living in tents, to the 'city of Shechem'. This phrase must, on grounds of Hebrew syntax, refer to a person of that name (cf v. 19) who was the owner or founder of the city (see Westermann 1985: 528). The further reference to the man Shechem and to the sons of Hamor in v. 19 links this
(35:1—15) Jacob's departure from Shechem to Bethel is here attributed to a positive command by God. The preparations for the journey (w. 2-4) and the use of the technical term 'to go up' ('did) suggest that this was no ordinary journey but a pilgrimage. Alt (1959: 79—88), followed by others including von Rad (1972: 336), maintained that these verses reflect an actual annual pilgrimage made by the Israelites at later times. Bethel was the place where Jacob had already encountered God and set up a sacred pillar (28:10—22) during his flight to Laban, and which he had vowed to visit again on his return home 'in peace' (28:21). The connection between the two episodes is specifically made in w. i, 3, 7. The change of clothes (v. 2) was an act of purification necessary before an encounter with God (cf. Ex 19:10—14). More important is the putting away and burial of'foreign gods' (w. 2, 4). The fact that a similar rite, also performed at Shechem, is recorded in
G E N E S I S 60
Josh 24:23 suggested to Alt (1959) that something of the kind constituted an esential feature of a regular pilgrimage from Shechem to Bethel, marking an annual demonstration of exclusive loyalty to YHWH. (On v. 5 see above on ch. 34.) The name given to the place where Jacob set up an altar (v. 7) is the same as in 33:20. In w. 9—15 there occurs a further repetition of the promise of numerous descendants and of the land, followed by a further account of the setting up of a pillar and its consecration with oil. (35:16-22) is concerned with events in Jacob's family. The birth of his twelfth and last son Benjamin is recorded. Jacob does not accept the name given to him by his dying mother, which means 'son of my sorrow', but gives him a name which may mean either 'son of the right hand' or 'son of the south' but perhaps, more appropriately and hopefully, 'son of good fortune' (Soggin 1961: 432—40). The incest committed by Reuben is condemned when Jacob blesses his sons (49:4). w. 23—9 conclude the story of Jacob's adventures with his return home at last in time to be with his father I saac before he dies. Jacob lived many more years after this (his death is recorded in 49:33, at the end of the story of his son Joseph's brilliant career), but he no longer plays an active role in the book. (36:1-43) After the lengthy story of Jacob the author turns his attention to Esau, the ancestor of the Edomites, and his descendants—an indication that although Israel and Edom were often hostile to one another Israel still considered them to be 'brothers'. These genealogical lists are derived from different sources and contain not a few repetitions and inconsistencies. The extent to which they contain genuine information about a people about whom little is otherwise known is disputed. In w. 20-30 the clan of the Horites appears to be reckoned as related to Esau, but in Deut 2:12, 22 the Horites are said to have been one of the former peoples whom the Edomites dispossessed. The lists distinguish between three types of socio-political organization, referring to heads of families (w. i—8, 20—8), tribal leaders (w. 15—19, 29—30, 40—3), and kings (w. 31—9). The kings of Edom are said to have reigned 'before any king reigned over the Israelites' (v. 31). This list, which obviously cannot be very early, may contain some genuine historical information (so Westermann 1985). The Edomites are known from the evidence of archaeology to have settled in their territory before the arrival of Israel in Canaan, and that they had acquired the status of a monarchy before Israel had done so is plausible (Num 20:14 mentions a 'king of Edom' in the time of Moses). That their monarchy was at first non-hereditary as stated in Gen w. 31-9 is of interest in the light of recent studies of the early history of Israel.
ance, the saviour of his father Jacob and all his family (45:7-8; 50:19—21). This story raises for the reader a number of questions which have been the subject of much discussion, e.g.: What is its relationship to the rest of the patriarchal stories? What is its literary genre? Is it the work of a single author? Does it contain reliable information about ancient Egypt, and if so, of what period? What is its purpose?
The function of the story in the context of the foregoing patriarchal stories and of the following book of Exodus is that it bridges a gap in the chronological scheme of the Pentateuch. The material available to the compiler of Genesis about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob appears to have come to an end. The story of Joseph, whose connection with that material is tenuous though real (his birth and his genealogy are recorded in Gen 30:22—4; 35:22—6) serves the purpose of accounting for the migration of Jacob and his family to Egypt, from which country the Exodus tradition recounts the subsequent departure of the Israelites (the sons of Jacob), so ensuring the continuity of the larger narrative tradition. At the same time, it constitutes yet another example of the theme of danger to the heirs of the promise—again as a result of famine—and their miraculous deliverance. But neither of these functions required or could account for such an elaborate narrative as this. Von Rad (1966/7), who found parallels between the story and Egyptian short stories, saw it as narrative wisdom literature depicting Joseph as an ideal wise man. But others have questioned this assessment of the character of Joseph as here portrayed.
It is this quality that has led to a questioning of the conventional view that the story is the result of a combination of two separate versions, attributed respectively to J and E. Von Rad's attempt to combine the latter view with an appreciation of its literary quality was shown to be inconsistent by Whybray
(1968), followed independently by Donner (1976). The possibility that it is the work of a single author, first proposed by Volz and Rudolph in 1933, who threw doubt on the existence of an E strand, is now seriously, though not universally, accepted. Whether the story betrays accurate knowledge of Egyptian life and customs of any period has been disputed by Egyptologists. Some (e.g. Vergote 1959) took a positive view of this, arguing that it fits well into the Ramesside period which was believed by some to be a plausible time for the career of a historical Joseph, but others (e.g. Redford 1970) were sceptical about the authenticity of the Egyptian allusions. Redford maintained that if the author did in fact have genuine knowledge of Egypt the work cannot be dated earlier than the seventh century BCE.
(37:1—34) The minor inconsistencies and duplications in this chapter (e.g. the apparent confusion between Ishmaelites and Midianites in v. 28; the duplication of Joseph's dreams in w. 6-7 and 9; the similarity of the compassionate actions of Reuben and Judah in w. 21—2 and 26—7) are not sufficient to show that two complete versions of the story have been interwoven; at most they may suggest that the author made use at some points of earlier oral material. The story itself is quite straightforward: it recounts the first of a series of incidents which once again put in danger of his life the person who is destined to hold in his hands the survival of the heirs of the promise. This destiny is foreshadowed here by Joseph's
The Story of Joseph (chs. 37-50)
These chapters are of a different kind from the rest of Genesis. Instead of a catena of brief incidents and notices about family and tribal affairs we have here—interrupted only by some obviously interpolated material, notably chs. 38 and parts of 48-50—a single, well-constructed, continuous narrative comprising some 300 verses in our Bibles and skilfully arranged in a series of distinct consecutive scenes, about the career of one man, Jacob's eleventh son, who rose to an undreamed-of eminence in Egypt as ruler of that whole land second only to Pharaoh himself (41:40-4) and so became, under God's guid-
61 GENESIS
(39:1—41:57) This account of Joseph's humiliation and subsequent exaltation has some of the characteristics of the folktale, but is an integral part of the story of Joseph as a whole. It is full of dramatic tension: Joseph is again placed in great danger; but the tension is finally resolved in an equally dramatic fashion. It is several times (39:3, 5, 21, 23; 41:51—2) specifically emphasized that both his preservation in danger and his later success are due not to his own abilities but to the unseen operation of God. Although there is no evidence in extant Egyptian texts of any comparable elevation of a person of humble status to a position of great power, the theme of the elevation of exiled Jews by foreign potentates was evidently a favourite one in post-exilic times, and is found also in Dan i—6 and Esther. 39:1, which repeats information given atthe end of ch. 37, is deliberately resumptive following the interpolation of ch. 38. It specifies that it was Ishmaelites rather than Midianites who sold Joseph into slavery in Egypt (as in 37:28/7). The Egyptian name Potiphar means 'the one whom Re gives'. The initial success of the good-looking Joseph (39:6) as Potiphar's trusted servant (39:2-6) is brought to a sudden end and his life once more endangered by the lie told by Potiphar's wife when he twice virtuously refuses her sexual advances (39:14-18). (On the use of the term 'Hebrew', 39:14, which occurs several times in the story of Joseph, see above on 14:13.) But the punishment which Potiphar imposes on Joseph is surprisingly mild for the crime of adultery, and suggests that Potiphar was not entirely convinced of his guilt. The chapter ends on a more positive note: Joseph's attractive personality (as well as God's protection) once more leads to success, when he obtains the favour of the jailer.
dreams; but the dramatic suspense is to continue concerning his fate for several more chapters. Another motif, that of hatred between brothers, is reminiscent of the hostility between Jacob and Esau; once again the issue is solved by the end of the story with the indication that it is not the elder brother who has been chosen by God to assure the continuation of the chosen race. w. 1—2 are an introduction to the whole Joseph story, providing the necessary link between the earlier patriarchal stories and the present one. In v. 3 the precise nature of the long coat with sleeves' (ketonet passim) is not certain. Outside this chapter this garment is referred to in the OT only in 2 Sam 13:18, 19, where it is the apparel of a princess. Here it is a token of Jacob's especial affection for Joseph and a mark of esteem which incites the brothers' hatred. The description of Jacob's grief at the supposed death of his son (w. 33-5) closes this first part of the story of Joseph, after which (in ch. 39) the scene changes to Egypt.
(38:1—30) This chapter, in which Joseph does not appear at all, is an interpolation that interrupts the Joseph story, which resumes in 39:1 at the point at which it is broken off at the end of ch. 37. Attempts to interpret it as in some way relevant to the events narrated in the surrounding chapters have hardly been convincing, although on the other hand no convincing explanation has been found for its interpolation. Probably, as a story about a member of Jacob's family it was thought to deserve a place in the total narrative, but no satisfactory placement for it could be found. It is wholly concerned with events in the life of Judah, Jacob's fourth son. But he can hardly be called the hero of the story: it is his daughter-in-law Tamar who fills that role. The story is a complicated one and involves a number of customs that call for elucidation. These can only be briefly sketched here. w. i-n are introductory to the main story. Judah's decision to settle apart from his brothers probably reflects the fact that the tribe of Judah was located in historical times in the south, away from the other tribes, and had a separate existence until politically united with them by David (Adullam and Timnah were both Judaean cities in later times). The story also reflects fraternization and intermarriage between Israelites and Canaanites. Tamar's second marriage, to Onan, conforms to the custom of levirate marriage (see Deut 25:5—6). With the death of her first two husbands Tamar evidently expected to be married to the third brother, Shelah; but, afraid that he too might die prematurely, Jacob made an excuse to avoid this; and Tamar, according to custom, returned to the unenviable state of living with her parents. In desperation she then tried to force Judah's hand. She arranged to have sexual relations with her father-in-law in the guise of a prostitute without his being aware of her identity, and retained proof of the relationship by keeping his cylinder seal with its cord and his staff as pledge for her fee (v. 18). It is not clear on what grounds she was condemned to death by Judah in his capacity as undisputed head of the family with powers of life and death (v. 24); it is perhaps assumed that she was betrothed to Shelah, though not actually married to him (cf Deut 22:23-4). After Judah's recognition that her action was justified (!) the story ends with her giving birth to twin boys, Judah's children, whose names (Perez and Zerah) are interpreted as meaning 'breaking out' and (perhaps) 'bright, shining' respectively.
The chief cupbearer and chief baker, whom Joseph waited upon in prison (40:1-4) were high officials imprisoned for some undisclosed offences by the dictatorial king of Egypt. Unlike Joseph's own dreams in ch. 37, whose meaning needed no explanation, their dreams, as also those of Pharaoh in ch. 41, were dreams whose meaning was not obvious and which required an interpreter with special powers. The interpretation of such dreams was, both in Egypt and in Mesopotamia, the speciality and occult art of the professional diviner. Like Daniel, who was required not only to interpret Nebuchadnezzar's dream but also to remind the king of its contents (Dan 2:31—45), Joseph possessed the power to interpret dreams, but attributed this power to special divine revelation rather than to his own ability (40:8)—although in 44:15 he speaks of his ability to practise divination (nihls). The difference between the cupbearer's and the baker's dreams—the fact that in the latter's dream the birds were eating from the basket of food which he was carrying to Pharaoh, whereas the cupbearer dreamed that he had resumed his former function—determined Joseph's interpretations, in which Joseph played—gruesomely—on two meanings of the phrase 'to lift up the head', whose normal meaning was to restore to favour, but in the case of the baker referred to decapitation or hanging. Both interpretations proved to be correct. The last verse of the chapter reintroduces the tension into the story: although the cupbearer had promised to intercede for Joseph when he was restored to favour with Pharaoh, he forgot him, leaving him in prison with no apparent hope, and possibly again in danger of his life should judgement be given against him.
G E N E S I S 62
and supplies them with corn and provisions; but the return of their money increases their fears (42:28, 35), and their misery is increased when on their return home Jacob, in a mood of self-pity, refuses to let Benjamin return with them to Egypt.
Pharaoh's dreams (41:1-7) are of the same symbolic kind as those of the cupbearer and baker, and required expert decipherment. Like Nebuchadnezzar in similar circumstances (Dan 2:4) Pharaoh sent for his experts (hartummim, 'magicians', is a form of an Egyptian word meaning 'soothsayer-priest'), who proved to be incapable of the task. On the suggestion of the cupbearer, who at last remembered Joseph's talents, Joseph was sent for from his prison cell and, having shaved and put on clean clothes—matters of great importance to the Egyptians—appeared before Pharaoh. His preparations are symbolic of a great change in his life; from this moment he never looked back. But it was his successful interpretation of the dreams that—under God, 41:39—was the cause of his sudden elevation to greatness, together with his eminently practical advice about the measures to be taken in the face of an otherwise certain disaster. In a manner typical of the folktale, Pharaoh put his entire faith in this one demonstration of Joseph's ability (41:39—40) and lost no time in appointing him Grand Vizier of Egypt, endowing him with all the symbols and the reality of that office, which are attested in Egyptian art and tomb furniture. The meaning of the word 'abrlk ('Bow the knee!', 41:43) may be related to the Semitic root b-r-k, 'kneel', or may be related to an Egyptian word meaning 'Watch out!' In receiving a new and Egyptian name (Zaphenath-paneah means 'God speaks and lives'), Joseph was received into the ranks of the Egyptian nobility; and this was confirmed by his being given the daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis ('On') as his bride. He is presented (41:34-6,47-57) as a foresighted administrator. The establishment of large granaries against times of low grain production was a well-known Egyptian economic measure. The final verse of the chapter (57) prepares for the events of the following chapters by emphasizing the world-wide nature of the food shortage against which Joseph successfully prepared Egypt.
When a further supply of corn became an absolute necessity to Jacob and his family a second visit to Egypt was mooted, and Jacob was persuaded against his will to let Benjamin go with his brothers, with Judah as a guarantor ofhis safety (43:1n). This time, fearful of their reception, they take with them tribute in the form of choice products of Canaan and double the previous sum of money, to prove their honesty (43:11-12). Joseph, however, was to continue to play his tricks on them (ch. 44). The scene with Joseph's steward (43:16-25) is intended to allay the brothers' fears: they are at first suspicious and naively afraid of a trap (in such a setting!), but are reassured. They have been naturally astonished and awed by the luxury of Joseph's house and by the invitation to dinner; but when Joseph arrives he shows his concern for his aged father, and is overjoyed, and again deeply affected, on seeing Benjamin (43:30). There is again astonishment at Benjamin's treatment as guest of honour, and probably at Joseph's dining at a separate table in accordance with Egyptian rules of purity; but in the relaxed atmosphere they forget their fears and even drink to excess ('were merry') in Joseph's company, unaware of further trouble to come.
(44:1-34) By the repetition of the earlier incident of 42:35 with the planting in the brother's luggage of Joseph's cup
(the reference to the money here is probably a later addition), the pursuit and apprehension of the brothers and the accusation of theft (w. 1-13) the tension is still further increased. It seems to them that Joseph has now trapped them as they had feared all along, and that it is all up with them. The cup is particularly important to Joseph because he uses it to practise lecanomancy (v. 5), a form of divination in which oil was poured into a cup or bowl to give psychic insight (see Cryer 1994: 145—7, 2^5)—a practice somewhat resembling modern foretelling of the future by tea-leaves. Joseph's purpose in so tricking the brothers was to test them to see whether they had changed their nature, and whether they genuinely cared for their father and for Benjamin. They protest their innocence, but recognize that if found guilty they merit condign punishment (v. 9), though both the steward and Joseph himself are inclined to mercy except towards the thief, who must be enslaved (w. 10, 17). Joseph adds to their dismay by claiming that he has the gift of divination even without the use of the cup, and knows what has occurred (v. 15). But Judah's lengthy speech in which he heartrendingly depicts the inevitable fate of Jacob if he is bereft of yet another son and offers himself as a scapegoat in Benjamin's place is a masterpiece of rhetoric which Joseph finds too hard to endure (45:1).
(42:1-45:28) With ch. 42 the scene switches back to Canaan and to Jacob and his other sons. Egypt was the granary of the ancient world; and journeys from such countries as Canaan to try to buy food in times of famine are recorded in extant Egyptian texts (see ANET 250-1) and depicted in Egyptian graphic art. The main problem of the interpretation of these chapters is to understand the reason for Joseph's harsh treatment of his brothers before he reveals his identity in ch. 45. One of his motives was certainly to force them to bring his youngest brother Benjamin to see him. But there can be little doubt that a main motive was connected with his brothers' treatment of him many years before (ch. 37). In his present position of unlimited power he was in a position to punish them, and he did so; but in the end brotherly love and family feelings proved stronger than his desire for revenge (ch. 45). The story is replete with dramatic tension and also with dramatic irony (the brothers do not know who he is, but the readers do) and is told with psychological subtlety. By pretending to believe that the brothers are spies (42:9), Joseph extracts the information that they have left their youngest brother behind with his father, and demands that he should be brought to him. Imprisoned for three days, they suppose that they are being punished for their earlier crime, even though they do not recognize Joseph (42:21). In releasing them all except Simeon, however, Joseph is deeply affected,
(45:1-28) This chapter probably marks the end of the Joseph story proper. With it all the tension is released and the problems solved; there is a reconciliation and a happy ending. From the literary point of view the story is complete, and the chapters that complete the book have rather the character of an appendix or series of appendices designed to provide an answer to the question, 'And how did it all end?' (46:1—5 already reverts to the style and concerns of the earlier patriarchal stories, with an appearance of God in the night to Jacob,
63 GENESIS
is suggested by the fact that in v. n the land assigned to the immigrants is called (only here) the land of Rameses (cf. Ex 1:11) rather than of Goshen. The location, however, is probably the same. The point of the audience with the brothers seems to be that the brothers do not, as they might have done, try to use their kinship with Joseph to enhance their social status: they do not ask for permanent residence in Egypt, which would have been tantamount to Egyptian citizenship, and they wish to continue their hereditary profession, although Pharaoh suggests that some of them may be capable of positions of some responsibility (v. 6). The point of the second audience is to present Jacob as a dignified old man who is not overawed by Pharaoh but dares to bless him (w. 7,10). w. 13— 26 are designed to demonstrate Joseph's superior wisdom in using his control over the corn supply to make slaves of the whole Egyptian nation—a triumph which, whatever the modern reader may think of its morality, perhaps—although this is a secular story—foreshadows the later triumph of the Israelites over Pharaoh himself (Ex 6-15).
reiterating the promise of making a great nation of him, but this time in Egypt rather than Canaan. The remaining chapters lack the high literary quality of the Joseph story proper, and are rather piecemeal in contents.) w. 1-15 describe a touching scene in which, apart from the emotions that are expressed between Joseph and his brothers, the author is concerned to emphasize Joseph's forgiveness of his brothers and the hidden hand of God in preserving the lives of Jacob's family through Joseph's agency. In w. 10-15, however, a new theme is announced: Jacob and his family are to migrate to Egypt to share in Joseph's good fortune. (His question in v. 3 is strange: the brothers have already told him that his father is still alive.) The rest of the chapter is concerned with the arrangements for the move. Joseph proposes it on his own initiative (w. 9—11), and Pharaoh himself confirms this, offering the family the best land in Egypt for their residence. In w. 21-8 Joseph's lavish provisions for the journey and Jacob/ Israel's astonishment, incredulity, and final acceptance of the news of Joseph and of his offer are described.
(46:1—34) Jacob was last heard of as living in Hebron (37:14). Now he passes through Beersheba on his way to Egypt, and it is there that he has his reassuring message from God. The list of names of those who went with him (w. 8—27) is supposedly a roll-call of the persons mentioned in w. 6—7; but it clearly comes from a different source and interrupts the narrative. Among the total of sixty-six persons alleged to have made the journey (v. 26), expanded to seventy by (presumably) including Jacob himself and also Joseph and his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh, who are counted twice, though not named the second time (v. 27) there are some who are expressly stated not to have been among them: Er and Onan (v. 12) were already dead (38:7,10), and Manasseh and Ephraim had been born in Egypt. Joseph, of course, was still in Egypt. Moreover, the statement that Benjamin had ten sons who accompanied him on the journey (v. 21) does not accord with what had previously been said about his youth. Probably this list was originally intended as a list of all Jacob's descendants through three generations and had no original connection with this narrative, w. 28-34 are concerned with Jacob's projected meeting with Pharaoh and with the place of residence designated for the immigrants. Goshen (w. 28, 34, already mentioned in 45:10) was an area on the eastern edge of the Nile delta, where the Egyptians, who were suspicious of foreign immigrants, commonly settled them. There is a strong hint to the reader in v. 34 about the future in the statement that shepherds are abhorrent to the Egyptians, and in Joseph's advice to his father to be open in his interview with Pharaoh about his profession. However, Pharaoh is represented in 47:5—6 as being prepared to welcome Jacob for Joseph's sake on condition that he lived in Goshen, as he had already promised (45:17-20).
(47:27-48:22) The story of Jacob and his family is now resumed; but the narrative is not all of one piece. It contains a number of inconsistencies and incongruities, and is the result of the combination of several different kinds of material. 47:27-8 notes the family's successful life in the land of Goshen and the period of their residence there together with a note of the length of Jacob's life—though his death is not recorded until 49:33.47:29-31, however, begins the account of his last years and death. His request to be taken back to Canaan for burial reintroduces—though indirectly—the theme of the promise of the land: life in Egypt is not to be the permanent destiny of the nation of Israel. In his deathbed
speech in 48:1-4 Jacob first repeats the story of his blessing and the promise made to him at Bethel (35:6—12; Luz = Bethel; 28:19; 35-6) and then informs Joseph that he is adopting his (Joseph's) sons Ephraim and Manasseh as his own sons. This action, which points beyond the brothers as individuals to their future character as Israelite tribes, would mean that the traditional number of twelve tribes (implied, for example, in 35:23-6) is augmented to thirteen (if Ephraim and Manasseh are to be counted instead of their father). In fact the traditional number of twelve is a fiction; they are listed in several different ways in various places in the OT, and their numbers vary between ten and thirteen.
The scene of Jacob's blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh (48:8—20), in which Jacob is called by his other name Israel, appears not to presuppose the previous passage but to be from a different source. Since it is implied here that Joseph's sons are not yet adult and Jacob appears to be encountering them for the first time, the scene is evidently supposed to have taken place soon after Jacob's arrival in Egypt rather than just before his death (cf. 47:28). This is another example of the younger son being given precedence over the elder (cf. ch. 27). The right hand is assumed to confer the greater blessing. Jacob deliberately crosses his hands despite Joseph's protest, in order to give Ephraim, the younger, the greater blessing. 48:15-16 is somewhat confused, and interrupts the main narrative. It is stated here that it is Joseph who is blessed (48:150), but in fact it is his sons who are blessed (48:16), and no difference is made between them. 48:20 also is a somewhat confusing
(47:1-26) The narrative of w. 1-12 follows immediately on ch. 46, and is continued in v. 27. w. 13—26 are an account of Joseph's economic policy as Grand Vizier, and has no connec tion , except for the motif of the famine, with the story of Jacob
and his family in Egypt. The audience with Pharaoh (w. 1-12) is in two parts: first Joseph presents five of his brothers to Pharaoh (w. 2—6) and then, separately, his father (w. 7—12). It is probable that two distinct versions have been used here; this
G E N E S I S 64
point into the story of Jacob's death. In its present expanded form it cannot be earlier than the time of David, as it speaks of Judah as the ruler of the other tribes and of other peoples (v. 10). The full and favourable assessment of Joseph—that is, of the central tribes—as numerous and powerful (w. 22—6) expresses a different picture of leadership; but it also clearly reflects a later period and has a different orientation from that of Judah. The chapter appears to have been subject to more than one process of redaction. The function of the individual sayings in their original brief state is not obvious and has been frequently debated. They were presumably comments by tribes about other tribes made at an early period; but the circumstances in which they were made remain obscure.
addition to the story: it purports to be an alternative blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh ('them'), but in fact it is a wish rather than a blessing, and it is addressed to one person ('you' is singular). It is noteworthy that 'Israel' here (and perhaps also in 47:27) refers to the nation of Israel, not to the individual Jacob/Israel. The last sentence in the verse reverts to the main story, summing it up: Ephraim was preferred before Manasseh. There is a clear allusion in this story to the later predominance of the tribe of Ephraim (cf e.g. Deut 33:17).
The significance of 48:22 is not clear. 'Joseph' here does not refer simply to the individual but to the 'house of Joseph', which comprised the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, and was to be the most powerful of the northern group of Israelite tribes. Jacob confers on 'Joseph' one 'portion' (sekem), here unidentified, more than he gives to the others. The word sekem is also the name of the city of Shechem, but as a common noun means 'shoulder'. Here it plainly means a shoulder of land or a mountain ridge. The military exploit of Jacob referred to here is unknown; certainly he did not capture the city of Shechem from the Amorites (= Canaanites; cf. ch. 34).
v. 2 is a formal poetical introduction to the collection of sayings, which are also in poetical form. Reuben (w. 3-4) is addressed directly and accused of incest—probably referring to 35:22. Little is known of Reuben either as an individual or as a tribe. It played no prominent part in subsequent history; Deut 33:6 suggests that it died out as a distinct tribe at a fairly early period despite its initial prominence reflected in Reuben's being the eldest son of Jacob. Simeon and Levi (w. 5-7) are not blessed but cursed. The crime of which they are accused in v. 6 is almost certainly their treacherous murder of the Shechemites in ch. 34, though no mention is made there of their hamstringing oxen. In historical times Levi was a priestly tribe which, unlike the others, had no inheritance in the land: it thus ceased to be counted among the ordinary tribes, though the connection between the Levi of this saying and the later priestly tribe is uncertain. According to Judg 1:3, 17 Simeon was associated with Judah in its invasion of Canaanite territory, and was probably absorbed into the more powerful tribe of Judah, so being 'scattered in Israel'. The use in v. 6 of the first person singular can hardly be supposed to be that of Jacob, and this is also true of 'are brothers' in v. 5. The statement at the end of v. 7 reads like a divine pronouncement of judgement similar to those found in the prophetical books.
(49:1—33) The sayings about the twelve tribes of Israel preserved here in the guise of a deathbed address by Jacob to his twelve sons (w. 3-27) are generally known as the Blessing of Jacob, partly on the basis of the statement in v. 28. v. i, however, describes their character somewhat more accurately: in their present form the sayings are, to a large extent, predictions of 'what will happen' to the various tribes in the future. They vary considerably in their contents, and their assessments are by no means all favourable. They cannot be said to constitute a single poem, but differ greatly in form and length as well as in contents. They are in fact a collection of originally quite separate sayings or slogans each characterizing an individual tribe (in the case of Simeon and Levi, w. 5—7, two are treated together), some of them alluding to particular incidents in which they were involved that are now wholly or partly obscure. Some have been greatly augmented; in those cases it is often possible to identify the original, usually pointed, saying. The intention of the author/collector was to provide a complete survey of all the twelve tribes of Israel (Joseph, w. 22-6 being treated as a single tribe—see above); however, the persistent tradition that Israel was composed of exactly twelve tribes is not derived from this chapter. This is not the only passage of this kind in the OT: Deut 33, known as the Blessing of Moses, is a parallel instance, and Judg 5, the
Judah (w. 8—12) was David's tribe, pre-eminent in the time of the united kingdom; it was the name of the southern kingdom after the dissolution of the union until its destruction in the sixth century BCE. This passage has incorporated more than one shorter saying. The reference to Judah as a lion (v. 8) is the first of several examples in the chapter of the association of a tribe with a particular animal. The lion later became the traditional symbol of the tribe of Judah (cf. Rev 5:5). 'shall praise you' (yodiika) is a play on the word 'Judah'. 'Until tribute comes to him' (v. 10) is only one among many alternative renderings of the Hebrew phrase 'ad ki-yabo' siloh, the meaning of which is one of the unsolved problems of OT interpretation. Its literal translation could be either 'Until Shiloh comes' or 'Until he comes to Shiloh'; but no plausible connection between Judah (or David) and the Ephraimite city and sanctuary of Shiloh can be found. The Hebrew text may be corrupt, or the word 'Shiloh' may have some hitherto undiscovered meaning; but attempts to correct it or to find some other explanation based on comparative philology have achieved no consensus. 'Until' suggests that some event will put an end to Judah's domination; but the traditional notion that this is a prophecy of the coming of the Messiah to bring to an end temporal earthly rule lacks support in the text. That it should
Song of Deborah, also assesses the characters of almost all the tribes (Judg 5:14—18). The latter, however, is a unitary poem which comments on a single incident, and praises or blames the various tribes according to their co-operation or otherwise. Here in Gen 49 it is significant that Judah (w. 8—12) and Joseph (w. 22—6)—that is, the tribes which were later to become the most powerful and important tribes—are treated much more fully than the others.
The Blessing of Jacob is here presented as a scene that took place at Jacob's bedside just before his death in the presence of all his sons, and thus as a farewell discourse (a frequent feature in the accounts of the deaths of great men in the OT—cf. e.g. the Blessing of Moses, Deut 33; Josh 24; David's farewell speech, i Kings 2:1—9). However, it is clearly an independent piece that has been inserted at an appropriate
65 GENESIS
The section on Joseph (w. 22—6) is, like that on Judah, made up of a number of originally separate elements, not all of which are tribal sayings. It is divided into two main parts, a characterization of the 'tribe' of Joseph with an allusion to Joseph's behaviour when attacked (w. 22—50) and a series of blessings (w. 25/7—6). Unfortunately much in these verses is difficult to understand: there are rare and obscure words, and the syntax is sometimes unusual and difficult. There are probably textual corruptions, and the rendering of NRSV— and of all other translations—is based to some extent on conjectural interpretation, v. 22 is a metaphorical reference to Joseph as a strong and flourishing plant well supplied with water; 'fruitful' (porat) plays on the word 'Ephraim', the predominant member of the 'house of Joseph', w. 23—4 describe an incident, now unidentifiable, in which 'Joseph' was attacked by enemies but overcame them with God's help. v. 24/7 introduces a series of divine blessings, and prayers for blessings to be conferred on Joseph. In w. 24—5 God is invoked with an amazing, and unique, concatenation of divine names, all found elsewhere in the OT, but together betraying a fairly late date of composition. 'Mighty One of Jacob' occurs in 13349:26; 60:16; Ps 132:2,5. God is referred to as a shepherd a number of times, e.g. Ps 23:1 and 80:1. 'Rock ('eberi) of Israel' occurs only here, but there are fairly frequent references in the Psalms to him as 'Rock' (sur), and in that form 'Rock of Israel' occurs in Isa 30:29. 'God of your father' most obviously refers to Abraham or Jacob, and similar epithets are found throughout Genesis. 'Almighty' (sadday) elsewhere in Genesis occurs in the phrase 'El Shaddai', but is found frequently by itself in Job and elsewhere, v. 26 is probably a very ancient form of blessing. In w. 25 and 260 Joseph is addressed in the second person, but not in the previous verses or in v. 26/7. v. 26fcrefers primarily to Joseph's separation from his brothers while in Egypt, but is also intended to emphasize his pre-eminence over the other tribes. The description of Benjamin (v. 27) refers to the tribe rather than to the individual: it has nothing in common with the Benjamin of the preceding narratives. This is a fierce tribal saying of great antiquity, unaugmented by later comment. Benjamin is here presented, and apparently commended, as a ruthless brigand-like fighter. Jacob's charge, now to all his sons, to bury him with his ancestors in the cave of Machpelah (w. 29—32) essentially repeats his charge to Joseph alone in 47:29—31. The repetition was intended by the final redactor of the book to form a framework for the whole section about Jacob's arrangements in anticipation of his death that stretches from 47:29 to 49:32.
be a prophecy of the accession to rule of David is also improbable, as he can hardly be said to have put an end to the rule of Judah! Westermann (1986: 231) comments: 'It is no praise worthy page in the history of O.T. exegesis that so many studies have been preoccupied with this one word [Shiloh]'. w. ii—12 appear to be a somewhat fanciful prediction of great fertility and prosperity which will follow the accession of the future ruler, when wine will flow in abundance, and of the ruler's outstanding beauty. There is an analogous prediction of a future king in Num 24:5—9; the last two lines of v. 9 are repeated almost word for word in Num 24:90.
The saying about Zebulon (v. 13) makes no comment on the character of this tribe, but only—somewhat vaguely—on its territorial location. These statements do not correspond very closely with the description of its location in Josh 19:10—16, which places it in Galilee to the east of the Sea of Tiberias, but at least ten miles from the Mediterranean at its nearest point. It is not known at what period it expanded its territory so far west. Ancient Israel was not, of course, a maritime people. The saying may have been intended to emphasize Zebulon's isolation from the other tribes, though in Judg 5:14 it is commended for its participation with other tribes in the battle against Jabin and Sisera in the nearby valley of Jezreel. Issachar's name and character (w. 14-15) are probably associated here, as in 30:18, with sakar, 'hire, wages'. Although the tribe, like Zebulon, is praised in Judg 5:15, it is here portrayed as submitting itself to the harshest form of slavery—that is, under the neighbouring Canaanite cities. Dan's name (v. 16) is understood here, as in 30:6, to be derived from the verb din, 'to judge'; but whereas in 30:6 it is God who is the subject of the verb, here it is Dan who is the subject: he will be the judge of his people. In v. 17, however, Dan is described as a snake that attacks horsemen by biting the horses' heels. The analogy may be a reference to the small size of the tribe, that cannot attack enemies openly. This verse is probably intended as praise rather than condemnation, referring to attacks against the enemy Canaanites. v. 18 is probably a pious exclamation of a general kind, not specifically connected with the tribe ofDan.
The name of Gad (v. 19) is here derived from the Hebrew root g-d-d, 'to band together', which occurs in various forms four times in the verse. It is an appropriate name in that this tribe, which was located east of the Jordan bordering on the desert, would be subject to attacks by marauding raiders. The saying comments that it is known for its ability to give a good account of itself in such encounters. Asher (v. 20), whose name means 'happiness, good fortune' (cf 30:13), settled in the fertile coastal strip between Carmel and the Phoenician border (Josh 19:24-31). But according to Judg 1:31-2 it was unable to drive out the local Canaanites and so lived among them. The 'royal delicacies' referred to here may refer to a period when Asher was renowned for its provision of delicacies for royal courts—either for those of Jerusalem or Samaria or for Canaanite or Phoenician royal courts. The saying about Naphtali (49:21) is obscure: the text may be corrupt. A differ ent spelling of 'doe' ('ayyala) would yield 'terebinth' ('elA); 'fawns' could also mean 'words'. But if the text is correct and 'fawns' is a correct interpretation, this is another animal analogy: Naphtali is called a female deer 'let loose', that is, free to roam at will in the mountains of Galilee.
(50:1-26) This chapter forms an appropriate conclusion to the patriarchal stories that began in ch. 12. Like the deaths of Moses at the end of Deut (34:5—12) and of Joshua at the end of Josh (24:29—31), that of Joseph marks the end of an epoch. The chapter satisfactorily ties up several of the themes of the book, at the same time hinting that it marks no more than a temporary stopping-place in the history of the nation: the final words of the book, 'in Egypt', make this clear. The reconciliation of the brothers with Joseph is completed and their crime forgiven; God's promise of protection and guidance is once more affirmed and demonstrated; the promise of the land is renewed; and the future of the heirs of the promise is assured. Joseph's love for his father, already noted in his enquiry about
G E N E S I S 66
Meanwhile Joseph died in Egypt and was duly buried according to Egyptian custom, as befitted the man who had been the effective ruler of Egypt. Ex 1:6-7 takes up the story. So, the author tells us, Israel became a nation.
him in Gen 45:3, is poignantly brought out in v. i. The elaborate treatment of Jacob's corpse (w. 2—3) and of his burial (w. 4—14) reflects the almost royal position of Joseph in Egypt. Joseph's application for permission to bury Jacob in Canaan through the court officials rather than personally to Pharaoh
(w. 4—6), the granting of which was presumably a foregone conclusion, though his promise to return to Egypt afterwards (v. 5) may have some significance, is strange; it may mean that as a recent mourner he refrained from appearing at court. The great detail with which the ceremonies of the burial are described (w. 7—13) certainly reflects his immense prestige among the Egyptians and so was a matter of great pride to the Israelite reader. The curious route taken by the funeral procession with a first stopping-place east of the Jordan before the actual burial in Machpelah (i.e. Hebron) on the western side (w. 10-13) is also strange; it has been suggested that an alternative tradition about Jacob's burial place has been incorporated into the narrative (see von Rad 1972: 431). The place-name Abel-mizraim (v. n) is interpreted here as meaning 'the mourning of Egypt'; its true meaning, however, may be 'brook of Egypt'. (50:15-21) Joseph had given the brothers no cause to believe that he was only waiting for their father's death to take his revenge on them; but their consciousness of their guilt still remained, and they were afraid. Whether the author means the readers to understand that they invented the story—otherwise unattested—that Jacob had asked that Joseph should forgive them (v. 17) cannot be determined; to tell such a lie would be an indication of their panic. On the other hand, there is nothing in the text to suggest that they acted in bad faith. Joseph's weeping when they spoke in this way was a sign of deep emotion, but gives no hint of his thoughts. In their fear the brothers fell at his feet in supplication and acknowledged that their fate was in his hands, so unconsciously—though this was certainly in the mind of the author—fulfilling Joseph's former dreams that he would eventually rule over them (37:6-10). But his reply (w. 19-21) reassures them completely. He first points out that it is not for human beings, however exalted, to take revenge, which is a prerogative of God, and then, as he had already done on a previous occasion (45:5-8), he attributes all that had happened to the hidden hand of God, whose purpose had been to preserve their lives so that they would become a 'numerous people' (the word 'am, 'people', can denote a group or family, but here has also overtones of 'nation'). This speech, which expresses a high theology and also sums up a major theme of the book, is the climax of the whole.
Alt, A. (1959), 'Die Wallfahrt von Sichem nach Bethel', Kleine Schriften
zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I (Munich: Beck), 79-88. Alter, R. (1981), The Art of Biblical Narrative (London: Allen & Unwin). Blenkinsopp, J. (1992), The Pentateuch. An Introduction to the First Five
Book of the Bible (London: SCM). Blum, E. (1984), Die Komposition der Vdtergeschichte (WMANT 57;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag). Cryer, F. H. (1994), Divination in Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern
Environment. A Socio-Historical Investigation, JSOTSup 142 (Sheffield: JSOT). Donner, H. (1976), DieliterarischeGestaltderalttestamentlichenJosephs-
geschichte (SHAW; Heidelberg: Carl Winter). Driver, S. R. (1909), An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testa-
ment (8th ed.; Edinburgh: T. £ T. Clark). Gunkel, H. (1964), Genesis iibersetzt und erkldrt (HK i/i; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901; 6th ed.).
(1901), The Legends of Genesis (New York: Schocken, 1964; German original). Lambert, W. G., and Millard, A. R. (1969), Atra-hasis. The Babylonian
Story of the Flood (Oxford: Clarendon Press). von Rad, G. (1966), The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch',
The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh and London: Oliver £ Boyd) 1-78 (German original, Munich: Kaiser, 1958) 9-86. (1966), 'The Joseph Narrative and Ancient Wisdom', The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh and London: Oliver&Boyd) 292-300 (German original, VT supplement, Leiden: Brill, 1953) 120-7.
(1972), Genesis (OTL; 2nd ed.; London: SCM) (German original, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck £ Ruprecht). Redford, D. B., (1970), A Study ofthe Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis^—
joj (VT Supplement 20; Leiden: Brill). Rendtorff R. (1982), 'Jakob in Bethel. Beobachtungen zum Aufbau
und zur Quellenfrage in Gen 28,10-22', ZAW94, 511-23. Soggin, J. A. (1961), 'Die Geburt Benjamins, Genesis xxxv 16—20 (21)',
VTn, 432-40. Van Seters, J. (1983), In Search of History (New Haven and London:
Yale University Press).
(1992), Prologue to History. The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox). de Vaux, R. (1978), The Early History of Israel I, (London: Darton,
Longman £ Todd; French original, Paris: Gabalda, 1971). Vergote, J. (1959), Joseph en Egypte. Genese chap. 37-50 a la lumiere des
etudes egyptologiques recentes (OBL 3; Louvain: Publications Universitaires). Volz, P., and Rudolph, W. (1933), Der Elohist als Erzdhler ein Irrweg der
(50:22—6) constitutes the epilogue to the book. v. 23 hints at the fulfilment of the promise of numerous progeny, reported in Ex 1:7 as having already been realized in Egypt. In v. 24 Joseph on his deathbed at the end of a long life affirmed the promise of the land—not a feature of the Joseph story proper; and in v. 25 he charged 'the Israelites' (lit., 'the sons of Israel'), to rebury him after they left Egypt and returned to Canaan. That they did so is recorded in Josh 24:32, after the land had been conquered and its territory distributed among the tribes.
Pentateuchkritik? (BZAW 63; Giessen: Topelmann). Westermann, C. (1985), Genesis 12-36 (London: SPCK; German origi-
nal, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981). Whybray, R. N. (1968), 'The Joseph Story and Pentateuchal Criticism',
VT 18,522-8.
(1987), The Making ofthe Pentateuch. A Methodological Study, JSOTSup 53 (Sheffield: JSOT).
5Exodus WALTER HOUSTON
shadowed in the earlier part of the book. The two themes are united in that both events are ways in which YHWH makes himself known and fulfils his promises to Israel's ancestors.
A. What Kind of Book is Exodus? 1. The second book of the Pentateuch is in many ways its centrepiece. Genesis is about Israel's ancestors, Exodus tells how they became a nation through the action of their God. It is Israel's foundation story, their identity document, telling them where they have come from and showing them their place in the world under God's sovereignty.
2. YHWH is the dominant character. The text underlines his sovereignty even at the expense of the interest of the story in places. Although the Israelites are essential to the story, they rarely act independently. Between the two stands Moses. He can be described as the hero of the story. He is hardly ever off-stage from the moment of his birth; the story alternates constantly between scenes between Moses and YHWH and scenes between Moses and the Israelites or Pharaoh. Yet even he, throughout the greater part of the story, acts simply as YHWH's agent, and it is only in places that he asserts his independence (Ex 32 is a notable example). The main foil to YHWH in the first part of the book is the Pharaoh of the plagues. Yet, as I will show in EX 7:6-11:10, YHWH increasingly constrains him to act in the way he does, and ultimately he seems to be little more than a puppet whom YHWH manipulates to demonstrate his own power (Gunn 1982).
2. Is Exodus a work of history? That is, could it be appropriately put on the history shelves in a library? If we define a historical work as one whose 'chief purpose is to trace the network of causation between events at a mundane level' (Johnstone 1990: 31), then Exodus is not one. It portrays the entire sweep of events as the direct result of the purpose and intervention of God. Although people have sometimes tried to understand parts of the story as heightened accounts of natural sequences of events (see EX 7:6—11:10, EX 16, or EX 19), this flies in the face of the basic intention of the text, which is to relate the glorious works of God. Not only does God intervene directly in an astonishing series of powerful acts, but he himself appears on the scene several times in more or less plainly visible forms (see EX 3:1—6). The writers draw freely on imagination or legend to create the scenes which we read. The historical setting is only very hazily sketched in. In brief, Exodus is not the kind of history recognized by the Greeks or by modern historians.
3. The development of the plot has, then, decided limitations. Through much of the story the characters do not have sufficient independence to oppose YHWH's purposes. Nevertheless there is a plot. There is a struggle between YHWH and Pharaoh; its end is inevitable and clearly foreseen, but it is a struggle. Israel's acceptance that YHWH must be obeyed is not as automatic as it seems to be at first sight (in 19:8); they do rebel in Ex 32. Their rebellion is of course doomed from the start; the interest of this part of the story lies in whether Moses will persuade YHWH to restore the people to his favour; and here the end is by no means a foregone conclusion. The rebellion sets up a tension in YHWH himself, which Moses exploits. To destroy them and to restore them to favour are in different ways humiliating for YHWH. He resolves the tension by declaring himself a God of mercy, whose glory it is to forgive as much as to punish affronts to his honour.
3. Yet several points show that its intention is to relate, however imaginatively, a story of the actual past, not a simple fiction. The story focuses on a people of history and is part of a continuous narrative (Genesis to 2 Kings) which takes their story down to the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 587 BCE; and there are links with earlier and later parts of this narrative. Often the story serves to explain known facts, such as the name of Israel's God (see 3:13—15). Occasionally, chronological information is given, as in 12:40. If the writing of history can be defined as imaginatively re-creating a people's past so that they may understand themselves in the present, then Exodus is a work of history. As such, it has literary, historical, and theological aspects, which we shall briefly look at in turn in this introduction.
4. But in general the story proceeds on lines that are not only expected but explicitly forecast (3:12,16-20; 4:21-3), and its sympathies are unambiguous. In Ex 1-15 we are constrained to be against the oppressors, and on the side of the innocent sufferers and their deliverers. As D. Robertson (1977: 16-32) points out, there is no irony in the moral structure of the story. It is all black and white, there are no shades of grey. Of course, moral simplicity is to be expected in a nation's foundation story. The reader, however, may not find it so simple: could a righteous god destroy so many innocent lives for his own glory?
B. Exodus as Literature. 1. Exodus falls into the category of narrative, literature which tells a story. Even the large parts of the text which present law or instructions are cast into the form of speeches by God at appropriate points in the story. The story has two main themes. The first theme is the deliverance of the Israelites from oppression in Egypt by their God, usually referred to by his name YHWH (see EX 3:7—12). This theme is completed in the first fifteen chapters, which are set mainly in Egypt or on its borders. The second theme is how YHWH establishes his presence among the Israelites and brings them into obedience to himself. This is told mainly in the second half of the book, from 15:22 onwards, which is set in the wilderness to the east of Egypt, but it is fore-
C. Exodus and History. 1. On the assumption that the book is intended as history, it is natural to ask how it has come by what it knows or claims to know about the early history of Israel. The first step is to ask about the history of the book itself; but as it is only a part of the Pentateuch we can refer to PENT for discussion of the various proposals. The view taken in this
EXODUS 68
commentary (broadly that of Van Seters 1994) can only be stated here, that the work consists of two main strands with different styles and interests, which I refer to as J and P. J was created from a variety of source material by an author writing probably in the seventh or sixth century BCE. Some J material is earlier than Deuteronomy, some of it later and clearly dependent on that book; see e.g. EX 23:10—19 contrasted with 13:3-10. P was written by a priestly author in the later sixth or fifth century. It seems to me likely that P was not an independent work later combined with J, but was written from the beginning as an expansion of J.
records (S. Herrmann 1973: 23—9, de Vaux 1978: i-374). The names Moses and Aaron are best explained as of Egyptian origin (Houtman 1993: 75, 83). It is generally assumed that before the traditions were committed to writing they were carried by oral tradition, maybe in connection with the feast of Passover which celebrates the Exodus, and possibly in poetry (Cross 1973: 124 n. 38), which is less subject to loss and distortion than a prose tale. The date of the event is most often put at the end of the Bronze Age, in the thirteenth century BCE. But some (e.g. Bimson 1978) maintain the fifteenth-century date suggested by the Bible's own chronology.
2. Exodus, then, was developing during a time when the nation's continuing existence as a distinct community was in prolonged doubt. It was written to strengthen national feeling and support national identity. The two main traditions or ideas which J uses to achieve this are those of Israel's origin from a group of exploited aliens in Egypt, and of YHWH's covenant with them at Mt. Sinai. They were, according to this writer, a nation specially claimed by the God of all the earth as his own (19:5). His claim, his care and protection, and in return their exclusive attachment to him and faithful obedience to his moral direction would preserve them as a nation. The main ideas added by P were that of YHWH's covenant of promise to Israel's ancestors and that of his presence among his people in a sanctuary specially built at his direction, and this has obvious relevance to the time of restoration. Note that 'covenant' has various shades of meaning in the OT (see Mendenhall 19920, Nicholson 1986).
6. However, recent research into traditions about historical events in modern non-literate societies shows that it would be difficult for reliable historical knowledge to survive the hundreds of years separating any possible date for the events related and any likely date for the writing, even if that was much earlier than I have suggested (Kirkpatrick 1988). Moreover, the hard archaeological evidence that would show that the nation of Israel came from outside Canaan is lacking. The material culture of early Iron Age Israel is like that of Late Bronze Age Canaan, only poorer (Finkelstein 1988, Dever 1992). At most there could have been a small group which escaped from Egypt and passed on its traditions to related groups in Canaan (so Gottwald 1980: 36, etc.). And the Passover did not become a national festival until the end of the seventh century (2 Kings 23:22); could the rustic family celebration from which it arose have been the bearer of a national tradition?
3. Despite the great attention given by scholars in this century to what they have called 'tradition history' (I again refer to PENT for a brief survey), I do not believe it is possible to write a history of the way in which these traditions developed. The evidence is simply insufficient. Nor is there much to go on to distinguish traditional material from the authors' own contributions. However, the central narrative assertion, that YHWH delivered Israel's ancestors from slavery in Egypt, is certainly traditional: it is central to the prophecy of Hosea in the eighth century BCE, as well as to the book of Deuteronomy in the late seventh. It is much more doubtful that the claim that YHWH made a covenant with Israel at Sinai can be described as traditional (Nicholson 1986). It is important in Deuteronomy and writings influenced by it; but it plays no significant role in any prophetic book before Jeremiah, itself influenced by Deuteronomy. Still less securely rooted in tradition is the concept of the mobile sanctuary; although it depends on the ancient tradition of temple-building in the Near East (see EX 25—31), it appears practically only in the P strand in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.
7. It therefore remains unclear to what extent Exodus presents authentic historical events. It should in any case be clear from the way in which it speaks of history (see c.2) that we cannot use the book as a historical source. Its aim is not to present an objective record, but to celebrate the glory of YHWH.
D. Exodus as Theology. 1. Exodus is based on a thoroughly monotheistic world-view. Even though YHWH is known by a name distinguishing him from other gods, he is the only God who counts as such: the others are mere idols. He is the creator (4:11), and to him the whole earth belongs (9:29; 19:5). Yet he has committed himself to one people, the people of Israel, long in advance (6:3), and in return asks for their exclusive commitment to him (20:3). Although his presence and power is made known to the Egyptians (7:5) and to the whole earth (9:16), it is permanently promised to Israel