mohr siebeck volume 1 · mohr siebeck 1 volume 1 ... various factors of language, economics, ......

Mohr Siebeck

1Volume 1

2012

Moses

David M. Carr

The Moses Story: Literary Historical Reflections 7–36

Erhard Blum

Der historische Mose und die Frü hgeschichte Israels 37–63

Thomas Römer

Tracking Some “Censored” Moses Traditions Inside and Outside the Hebrew Bible 64–76

James Kugel

The Figure of Moses in Jubilees 77–92

Carl S. Ehrlich

“Noughty” Moses: A Decade of Moses Scholarship 2000–2010 93–110

New Projects

Jens Kamlah, Neuere Forschungen zur Archä ologie in Sü dphö nizien 113–132

Israel Finkelstein et al., Reconstructing Ancient Israel: Integrating Macro- and Micro-archaeology 133–150

Editorial Introduction

Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel is a new journal focusing on the HebrewBible and its historical contexts, the history of Israel, as well as the meth-ods by which these are studied. In an era in which a proliferation of meet-ings and media encourages the dissemination of new information but alsomakes such information diffuse and difficult to put in context, a real needexists for a forum in which the state of research on current issues can beexamined and evaluated to foster scholarly dialogue and enhance futurescholarship. Moreover, despite the increasingly international scope of bib-lical studies, various factors of language, economics, and academic culturecontinue to reinforce tendencies toward patrochialism and compartmen-talization of knowledge. Thus, a variety of conversations about commontopics often coexist side by side without interacting in substantial fashion.Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel seeks to address both of these phenomenaby providing a context in which scholars from different academic cultureswill be intentionally brought together to examine substantial questions ofcommon academic interest.

Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal ofapproximately 512 pages per year, published in both print and electronicforms. Each issue has a topical focus and consists of three to five invited ar-ticles, framed by an editorial introduction and an article that reviews recentliterature on the topic in question. Although the primary language of He-brew Bible and Ancient Israel is English, articles may also be published inGerman and French.

As the title Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel suggests, the journal focusesprimarily on the biblical texts in their ancient historical contexts, that is tosay, on issues pertaining to the study of the Hebrew Bible and ancient Israelin the first millennium B.C.E. This scope includes matters pertaining to theorigins of ancient Israel as well as to issues related to the development andreception of the Hebrew Bible in the Second Temple period. Methodologicalissues (e. g., the relation between archaeology and textual evidence, histori-ography, social scientific modeling) are also within the journal’s concerns.

HeBAI 1 (2012), 1–2 ISSN 2192-2276 © 2012 Mohr Siebeck

Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel also regularly includes features on “NewFindings” and “New Projects” to inform readers about new developments inthe field of archeology and to present major new initiatives in the discipline.

Editorial oversight for the journal is provided by four editors (Gary N.Knoppers, Oded Lipschits, Carol A. Newsom, and Konrad Schmid), assistedby a team of ten associate editors who represent a breadth of academic cul-tures and expertise. Each topical issue is planned by one of the members ofthe editorial team or by a guest editor. Suggestions for future issues are in-vited from the readers of the journal.

2 Editorial Introduction

Zum Programm der Zeitschrift

Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel ist eine neue Zeitschrift zum Thema derHebraischen Bibel und ihren historischen Kontexten, der Geschichte Isra-els sowie zu den entsprechenden methodologischen Fragen.

Die gegenwartige akademische Landschaft ist von einer Vielzahl vonKongressen und Publikationsmedien gepragt, gleichzeitig bleibt aber eineverlassliche Vermittlung von Forschungsergebnissen eine bestandige Auf-gabe der Wissenschaft, der sich die neue Zeitschrift annehmen will.

Obwohl die Bibelwissenschaften in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten einemehr und mehr internationale Ausrichtung gewonnen haben, sind dochviele Beitrage nach wie vor ihren eigenen, lokal gepragten akademischenKulturen verhaftet. Eine substantielle Interaktion zwischen diesen Kultu-ren findet nur in unzureichender Weise statt. Auch zu diesem Problemwill Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel einen Beitrag leisten: Die Zeitschriftwird darauf achten, dass die thematischen Hefte jeweils die verschiedenenZugangsweisen und Referenzrahmen der unterschiedlichen Forschungs-raume berucksichtigen.

Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel erscheint viermal jahrlich in gedruckterund elektronischer Form mit einem Umfang von ca. 512 Seiten pro Jahr.Die Beitrage werden durch einen Peer-review-Prozess evaluiert. Jedes Heftbesitzt einen thematischen Fokus und umfasst neben einer Einleitung undeinem Ubersichtsartikel zu neuerer Forschungsliteratur zum Thema ca. 3–5 weitere Aufsatze. Die meisten Beitrage werden in Englisch verfasst sein,Artikel konnen aber auch auf Deutsch oder Franzosisch erscheinen.

Entsprechend dem Titel Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel beschaftigtsich die Zeitschrift mit Themen der Hebraischen Bibel und des antikenIsrael, die das 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. betreffen. Sie schließt also sowohlhistorische Probleme des antiken Israel wie auch literarische Fragen derHebraischen Bibel mit ein, diskutiert aber auch methodologische Pro-bleme, wie etwa das Verhaltnis von Archaologie und Text, Probleme an-tiker Geschichtsschreibung oder Fragen sozialgeschichtlicher Interpreta-tionen.


Die Zeitschrift wird auch regelmaßig uber neue archaologische Fundeund neue Projekte im Rahmen der Disziplin informieren.

Die Zeitschrift wird von vier Herausgebern betreut (Gary N. Knoppers,Oded Lipschits, Carol A. Newsom und Konrad Schmid), die von eineminternationalen Kreis von Forschern mit unterschiedlichen fachlichenSpezialisierungen beraten werden. Jede thematische Nummer wird entwe-der von einem Mitglied des erweiterten Herausgeberkreises oder einemGastherausgeber inhaltlich und redaktionell betreut. Thematische Anre-gungen fur kunftige Nummern werden gerne entgegen genommen.

4 Zum Programm der Zeitschrift

Konrad Schmid

Editorial

“Moses” presents an obvious though difficult topic for the opening volume ofa new journal on “Hebrew Bible.” On the one hand, Moses is the most prom-inent character of the most important part of the canon of the Hebrew Bibleand, in recent decades, he has received attention beyond the boundaries ofbiblical studies. On the other hand, literary and historical investigations intothis personality combine the well-known difficulties of modern biblical studiesin paradigmatic fashion: an amicably-wrought solution remains distant forthe problem of the historical composition of the Pentateuch, even though theinternational discussions of these questions are more closely linked than wasever the case in the past century.1 The Documentary Hypothesis, which con-tinues to enjoy strong support in English-speaking scholarship, interprets theMoses narrative first and foremost in relation to Genesis, while German-speaking scholarship – and also a significant number of scholars outside thisregion – often reckons with an independent Moses story. In this view, thenarrative was then only connected to the ancestor traditions in Genesis at acomparatively later date. David Carr does not draw upon a preset particularmodel or theoretical position in his approach to the composition-historicalproblems of the Moses tradition on display in this volume. He instead at-tempts to reconstruct the Moses tradition thematically, determining its majorstages by way of comparison with the Moses tradition in Deuteronomy. Thestudy shows that the narrative’s original independence remains observableeven in later redactional stages, including those that took place long after theMoses narrative had become part of the larger fabric of the historical books.

While some agreement exists about Moses’ historical reality, clarifying thehistorical roots of the Moses figure in the biblical narratives appears evenmore intractable than answering the composition questions. Recognizing themythical character of the traditions of Israel’s origins found in the Pentateuchhas led to an increasingly nuanced view of the historical background of theMoses and exodus traditions alike. This background is indeterminable by wayof “rationalistic reductions” of the biblical texts. Instead, interpreters must ad-

1 Cf. T.B. Dozeman et al. , ed., The Pentateuch. International Perspectives on Current Re-search (FAT 78; Tubingen: Mohr, 2011).


dress the various historical situations and memories that the exodus narrativeblends together into its integrated narrative. The contribution by Erhard Blumin this volume first presents in brief the current state of scholarship and thenproceeds to develop his own well-balanced and well-refined view of the ques-tion of the historical Moses in the context of Israel’s early history.

The difficulties of the compositional and historical evaluation of the Mosesfigure have increased scholarly attentiveness to the notion that Moses’ impor-tance lies primarily in the traditions attached to him, rather than in the factsrelated to his historical person.2 As a result, research on the reception historyof Moses has intensified, and both biblical and extra-biblical texts have re-ceived new attention and interpretations. Thomas Romer’s article in this vol-ume investigates forgotten and repressed Moses traditions either alluded to byHellenistic historians or recognizable behind prominent motifs in the HebrewBible. His contribution also functions as a methodological plea for tradition-historical questions to be accorded more consideration alongside their redac-tion-historical counterparts.

James Kugel concentrates on the presentation of Moses in the book of Ju-bilees, which played a very significant role at Qumran and which continues tobe included as part of the canon of the Ethiopian church. He highlights animportant redaction-critical differentiation in Jubilees that scholarship has notadequately taken into consideration: Jubilees presents the fidelity to MosaicTorah by Israel’s ancestors in two divergent ways, and these approaches indi-cate two different redactional layers in the book. The older layer portrays thepre-Mosaic ancestors as following the law naturally and intuitively, while thesecond perspective interprets their behavior as resulting from adherence toheavenly tablets containing the corresponding prescriptions.

In the final contribution addressing the volume’s topic, Carl Ehrlich pro-vides an overview of Moses scholarship in the past decade. He considers notonly material from biblical studies, but also addresses the debates about Mosesand his cultural-historical impact in the humanities at large.

The volume concludes with a presentation of recent archaeological find-ings from southern Phoenicia by Jens Kamlah, who draws on his own experi-ences on archaeological digs in the region. This section also introduces thesubstantial research project led by Israel Finkelstein that attempts to correctand further our understanding of the history of ancient Israel through the in-tegration of macro- and micro-archaeology.

2 Cf. R. Bloch, Moses und der Mythos. Die Auseinandersetzung mit der griechischen Mytho-logie bei judisch-hellenistischen Autoren (JSJ.Sup. 145; Leiden: Brill 2011).

6 Konrad Schmid

David M. Carr

The Moses Story: Literary-Historical Reflections

Building on recent trends in scholarship, this article studies the formation of the writ-ten Moses story as a discrete literary unit, as opposed to primarily treating its storiesas mere components in the broader formation of the Pentateuch. After a review ofhow study of the Moses story has and has not been linked with broader trends inpentateuchal research, the article traces six relatively reconstructable stages in theformation of the Moses story, from at least one pre-D Moses composition (now trun-cated through its combination with Deuteronomy) to the harmonization of parts ofthat story with Deuteronomy in Second Temple manuscript traditions and the differ-entiation of a “Torah of Moses” from the historical books of Joshua and following.Notably, even late stages such as P (and the combined P/non-P Hexateuch) thatcombine the Moses story with other literary unities (e. g. Genesis traditions) still pre-serve structural and other signs of the independent origins of the Moses story vis-a-vis the materials that precede and follow it.

I. Introduction

Although the books of Exodus through Deuteronomy are united by thefact that they cover the expanse of the life of Moses, it has not always beenself-evident that they form a coherent textual unit that shares a distinctiveliterary history. Past study of the literary strata of these books has beenheavily influenced by criteria and models derived from study of the bookof Genesis, and data from Genesis – such as narrations of sacrifices by pa-triarchs outside Jerusalem – has often played a role in the relative dating ofliterary strata in the Moses story. In this way, much of the history ofscholarship on the formation of Exodus–Deuteronomy has been study ofthese books as parts of the Pentateuch, without attention to unique prob-lems and aspects presented by the Moses story per se.

This essay builds on an opposing trend: the tendency in many recentstudies to highlight the literary distinctiveness of the traditions connectedto Moses, emphasizing in particular the literary-historical divide betweenmaterials in Genesis on the one hand and materials in Exodus(ff.) on theother. Moreover, as will become clear in the course of discussion, this lit-erary distinctiveness is not a phenomenon limited to one stage of the for-mation of the Pentateuch. Rather, I will argue that the unique early origins


of Moses traditions continue to be reflected in later strata of the Penta-teuch, including some (e. g. P) that joined Moses traditions with others.

II. The Distinctive History of Scholarship on Formationof the Moses Story

The Moses story, of course, was not always subsumed under study of theformation of the Pentateuch more broadly. On the contrary, with oneslight exception, the Moses story was the last part of the Pentateuch tohave its formation studied. To be sure, already careful rabbinic readersspeculated about how Moses could have written about his own death, bur-ial and aftermath in Deut 34:5–12. Otherwise, however, Moses seemed anobvious choice as author for the traditions surrounding his life in Exodusthrough Deuteronomy. Therefore, early academic speculation about“sources” focused primarily on what sources Moses himself might haveused in writing about history long prior to his life. Early critics askedwhether Moses might have adopted an oral version of the creation story(H.B. Witter) or broader memoirs stretching across Genesis (J. Astruc).1

Indeed, though often misidentified as the founder of the E hypothesis, onedistinct innovation introduced by K.D. Ilgen was his explicit inclusion ofMoses traditions in his hypotheses regarding pentateuchal source docu-ments kept in the temple.2 In doing so, he built on an emergent eighteenthcentury tradition of source criticism of Genesis, and his and others’ workwas strongly shaped by criteria and models developed there.

Ilgen’s own suppositions regarding the Moses story were confined tounpublished notes, but nineteenth century source critics (especially Kno-bel 1857, 1861 and Noldeke 1869) soon applied themselves to the Mosesstory.3 They identified a P strand that eventually (with minor refinements

1 H.B. Witter, Jura Israelitarum in Palaaestinam terram Chananaeam, commentatione inGenesin perpetua (Hildesiæ: Sumtibus Ludolphi Schroderi, 1711); also, J. Astruc, Conjec-tures sur les memoires originaux dont il paroıt que Moyse s’est servi pour composer le livrede la Genese (Paris: Chez Fricx, 1999 [1753 original]). For contemporary discussion, seethe essays in J. Jarick, ed., Sacred Conjectures: The Context and Legacy of Robert Lowthand Jean Astruc (London: T & T Clark, 2007).

2 On the latter, see the discussion particularly on pp. 244–246 in B. Seidel, Karl David Ilgenund die Pentateuchforschung im Umkreis der sogenannten Alteren Urkundenhypothese:Studien zur Geschichte der exegetische Hermeneutik in der Spaten Aufklarung (Berlin: deGruyter, 1993).

3 A. Knobel, Die Bucher Exodus und Leviticus (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1857); idem, Die BucherNumeri, Deuteronomium, und Josua (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1861); T. Noldeke, Untersuchun-gen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments (Kiel: Schwers’sche Buchhandlung, 1869).

8 David M. Carr

by subsequent scholars) included texts such as the preliminary descriptionof the Israelites in Egypt and Moses’ call (Exod 1:1–5[6 or 7], 13–14;2:23ab–25; 6:2–7:7); parts of the plague narratives (e. g. 7:8–13, 19–20,21b–22; 8:1–3, 11b–15 [Eng. 8:5–7, 15b–19]; 9:8–12), Passover (e. g. 12:1–20, 28) and Reed Sea narratives (Exod 13:[1–2] 20; 14:1–4, 8–9, 10 [end ofverse], 15–18, 21*, 22–23, 26–27a, 28, 29), the mannah story (Exodus 16*),a strand of the Sinai account (Exod 19:1–2a; 24:15–18; 25:1–31:17; 35:1–40:38; Leviticus; Num 1:1–10:10), a P spy story (Num 13:1–17a, 21, 25,32aba; 14:1–10*, 26–38), additional laws on sacrifice and Sabbath (Num-bers 15), a Korah-Levite strand of the rebellion against Moses story inNumbers 16–17 and various subsequent legal materials (e. g. Num 16:1, 3–11, 16–19, etc. ; 18–19), at least parts of the second Meribah story (Num20:1–13*), the death of Aaron (Num 20:22–29), parts of the followingitinerary (e. g. Num 21:10–11) and Baal-Peor story (Num 25:6–15, also25:16–19 saying), the Numbers 26 census, the bulk of the materials thatfollow in Numbers (exceptions are parts of the story of distribution of landto Transjordanian tribes in Numbers 32) and a bit of Deuteronomy(Noldeke assigned most of Deut 34:1–9 to P; later critics tended to assignjust 34:1a, 7–9*, sometimes with other fragments).

Aside from minor adjustments, these basic identifications of P (andimplicitly non-P) texts have been standard up until recently. The maincontroversy in the last couple of decades has been over the question ofwhether the original P document ended with the tabernacle account orpossibly somewhere in Leviticus.4 This debate is not settled, but there aresigns that the pendulum may swing back to a more traditional identifica-tion of P across much of Numbers and possibly even into Deuteronomyand Joshua.5 Not only are there a number of terminological and conceptu-al weaknesses in the arguments denying the assignment of Numbers textsto P,6 but also this recent line of scholarly argumentation (for an originalending of P at the end of Exodus or early in Leviticus) is undermined by a

4 For a recent overview, see J. Ska, “Le recit sacerdotal: Une ‘histoire sans fin’?,” in TheBooks of Leviticus and Numbers (ed. T. Romer; BETL 215; Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 632–636.

5 To be sure, in Europe this movement has been limited to E. Axel Knauf, “Die Priest-erschrift und die Geschichten der Deuteronomisten,” in The Future of the Deuteronomis-tic History (ed. T. Romer; BETL 147; Leuven: Peeters, 2000); see too the work of his stu-dent P. Guillaume, Land and Calendar: The Priestly Document from Genesis 1 to Joshua18 (Library of Hebrew Bible 391; New York: T & T Clark, 2009). Nevertheless, cf. nowSka, “‘histoire sans fin’?”; for more survey, see C. Frevel, “Kein Ende in Sicht? Zur Pries-tergrundschrift im Buch Levitikus”, in Leviikus als Buch (ed. H. Fabry and H. Jungling:Berlin: Philo, 1999), 85–123.

6 On this, see particularly Ska, “‘histoire sans fin’?” 648–653.

The Moses Story: Literary-Historical Reflections 9

number of uninterrogated assumptions about what sort of ending P had tohave had7 if we even have such an ending preserved.8 But overall, the basicidentification of Priestly material (whether source or, in some cases, red-actional) across the Hexateuch remains one of the more assured results ofthe last two centuries of biblical scholarship.

The same cannot be said of the identification of J and E non-Priestlysources of the Moses story. Here again we see the belated application inthe Moses story of criteria and models first developed in Genesis. The realoriginator of the E hypothesis, H. Hupfeld (1853), developed and appliedhis E hypothesis in a book on the sources of Genesis.9 But it was Knobel’scommentaries (in 1857 and 1861) on the books of the Moses story and es-pecially J. Wellhausen’s articles (in 1876 and 1877) on the composition ofthe Hexateuch that extended this model to the Moses story. In subsequentyears, the portions of the Moses story often assigned to E have includedthe following:

1) Parts of the prelude to Moses’ commission (midwives in 1:15–21;sometimes the birth story in 2:2–10)

2) Most of the divine commission of Moses (e. g. 3:1b, 3b, 4b, 6, 9–15, 21–22; 4:1–18)

3) Much of the interlude before the plagues (Exodus 4–5*; minus the at-tack of Yahweh in 4:24–26)

4) Miriam’s song (15:20–21) and elements of the plagues and wildernessnarratives seen as having particular links to (purported E) elements ofMoses’ commission such as his staff (e. g. Exod 7:17, 20; 9:23; 10:13;the plague of darkness in 10:21–27 and bulk of Exodus 17) and the de-spoiling of the Egyptians (11:1–3)

5) An anticipation of the wilderness in Exod 13:17–19 seen as linking (viaExod 13:19) back to a supposed “E” element in Gen 50:24–25 and an-ticipating what was taken as a (largely) “E” review of the Hexateuch inJoshua 24 (see especially Josh 24:29, 32)

7 Again, the reflections in Ska, “‘histoire sans fin’?” 636–639 are pertinent.8 As I argue at more length in The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction(New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 88–90, our documented cases of transmis-sion history do not feature the preservation of entire precursor documents, and the end-ings and beginnings of source documents are particularly likely to be lost in transmission.

9 H. Hupfeld, Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung von neuem un-tersucht (Berlin: Verlag von Wiegandt und Grieben, 1853). Ilgen is sometimes mentionedas the originator of the idea of E (Die Urkunden des Jerusalemischen Tempelarchivs in ihrerUrgestalt, als Beytrag zur Berichtigung der Geschichte der Religion und Politik: Theil I: DieUrkunden des ersten Buchs von Moses [Halle: Hemmerde und Schwetschke, 1798]), buthis “E” is quite distinct from the “E” of Hupfeld and successors.

10 David M. Carr

6) A strand of Exodus 18–24 that seems to link to Exodus 3–4* and focuson the “mountain of God” (Exodus 18 [especially 18:12–27]; 19:3, 16–17, 19; 20:1–21; 24:12–14; 32:1–6, 15–20)

7) The tent of meeting in Exod 33:7–11 and a series of texts featuring it(Num 11:16–17, 24–30; 12:1–15; 20:4–9; Deut 31:14–15, 23)

8) The Edom story (Num 20:14–21) with perceived links to Exodus 18and elements in Numbers 21 seen as related to the Edom story (oftenthe Sihon account in 21:21–25 and varying parts of surrounding mate-rial)

9) The bulk of the Balaam story except for the donkey episode in Num22:22–35 and (often) parts of Numbers 24.

Although W. Rudolph (1938) fundamentally challenged the existence ofany E elements in the Moses story – a range of assignments that under-went significant modification in influential treatments such as Noth’s10 –the supposed influence of E in this story dwindled even more in the wakeof the broad critique of documentary models initiated by J. Van Seters, H.H. Schmid, R. Rendtorff, and others who followed them.11 By the time A.Graupner mounted his large-scale defense of the idea of an “Elohistic”document, his proposed “E” contained only a small fraction of the above-listed texts once assigned to E,12 and T. Yoreh’s recent revisionary proposalfor E likewise locates almost all his proposed E texts in Genesis.13

10 W. Rudolph, Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Josua (BZAW 68; Berlin: A. Topelmann,1938). Noth’s source assignments varied some between his various writings. For exam-ple, in his identification of E in Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (M. Noth, Uber-lieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch [2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960 (original 1948)],38–39 [Eng. 35–36]), his resultant “E” source lacks significant portions of Exodus 3–4often assigned to the Elohist (e. g. Exod 3:1b, 3b; 4:1–16): any plague or other materialprior to the wilderness introduction in Exod 13:17–19; Miriam’s song (15:20–21); thetent of meeting and all other Exodus 32–34 material often assigned to E with the excep-tion of 32:1b–4a, 21–24, and the other “tent of meeting” texts in subsequent wildernessnarratives.

11 H.H. Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist : Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchfors-chung (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976); R. Rendtorff, Das uberlieferungsgeschichtli-che Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW 147; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977); E. Blum, Studien zurKomposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990); J. Van Seters, TheLife of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville, KY: WestminsterJohn Knox, 1994).

12 A. Graupner’s E (summarized on pp. 410–413 of Der Elohist: Gegenwart und Wir-ksamkeit des transzendenten Gottes in der Geschichte [WMANT 97; Neukirchen-Vluyn:Neukirchener Verlag, 2002]) lacks the Moses birth story and the latter parts of the com-mission of Moses (Exod 3:15, 21–22; 4:1–17); all parts of Exodus 5–6, plagues and Exo-dus 17; the ten commandments; all of the Sinai account except the golden calf episodeand the materials associated with the tent of meeting; and all of Numbers except parts ofthe Balaam story. Note also R. Kratz’s “E” (summarized on p. 303 [Eng. 294] of Die


Meanwhile, some recent revisionary proposals for J likewise have elimi-nated most Moses story texts once assigned to the Yahwist source. R.Kratz’s “J” is exclusively confined to the book of Genesis14 and C. Levin’s“J” includes only a short Moses section comprised primarily of non-P por-tions of the outset of the Moses story: the prelude to Moses’ commissionand the bulk of the first part of that commission (Exod 3:1–22, includingmany portions assigned in the past to E) followed by a thin strand of textsspanning from the Reed Sea story to the pre-Sinai wilderness stories. Asidefrom this beginning, Levin’s J lacks much other Moses material – asidefrom parts of the Balaam story and fragments relating to or immediatelyfollowing Sinai (Exod 19:2–3a; 24:18; 34:5, 9, 28; also, Hobab in Num10:29aab, 30–31, 33 and quails in parts of Num 11:2, 4, 11, 23, 31–32).15

In sum, much recent scholarship, including those interpreters who ad-vocate some form of a classical source-critical approach to the Pentateuch,has moved away from assigning much, if any, of the Moses story materialto the J and E sources originally identified in Genesis. This trend thenconverges with a simultaneous movement in pentateuchal research towardthe conclusion that the connection of non-P Genesis and Moses materialsis either post-Priestly or (at the least) a very late pre-Priestly compositionallayer. As R. Kessler first showed in his 1972 dissertation, the explicit backreferences to the Genesis story in the non-P portions of Genesis–Deuter-onomy are quite limited and often obviously secondary to their contexts.16

For example, the back-reference in Exod 32:13 to Yahweh’s oath promise

Komposition der erzahlenden Bucher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik[UTB 2137; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000]), which lacks any texts former-ly assigned to E in Genesis and most texts missing in Graupner’s E (though Kratz in-cludes the Moses birth story and Exod 3:21–22 in his E) as well as the revelation of thedivine name to Moses in Exod 3:9–15, the introduction to the wilderness account inExod 13:17–19, and all extended narratives in the following Moses story except for partsof Exod 15:20–27*. Thus, Kratz’s “E” is basically an “E” in name only, consisting of theintroduction and commissioning of Moses (but not the revelation of the divine name),the Reed Sea and Marah stories, a series of fragments leading to the death of Moses inDeut 34:5–6, and a series of texts in Joshua rarely assigned to E, such as the Rahab storyof Joshua 2*.

13 T. Yoreh’s E (summarized on pp. 38–42 of The First Book of God [BZAW 402; Berlin: deGruyter, 2010]) likewise lacks the Moses birth story, latter parts of Moses’ commission(Exod 3:21–22; 4:1–17), all of Exodus 5–6, the Sinai account aside from the golden calfepisode, and the Edom story in Num 20:14–21.

14 Kratz, Komposition, 249–80 (Eng. 248–274).15 C. Levin, Der Jahwist (FRLANT 157; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 313–

388.16 R. Kessler, Die Querverweise im Pentateuch: Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung

der expliziten Querverbindungen innerhalb des vorpriesterlichen Pentateuchs (Heidelberg:Universitat Heidelberg, 1972), 180–327, esp. 314–327.

12 David M. Carr

of land and multiplication to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob occurs in an in-tercessory scene with Moses (Exod 32:9–14) that scholars have long rec-ognized as a secondary addition to the golden calf narrative. Even thoughthe commission of Moses in Exod 3:1–4:18 potentially can be taken as alink back to Genesis through its mention of the three patriarchs (Exod 3:6,15, 16), the overall text may well be a secondary insertion into the sur-rounding non-P context (moving from the death of Pharaoh in 2:23aa tothe divine announcement of that fact to Moses in Exod 4:19).17 The mainplace where one might find some kind of non- and even pre-Priestly linkbetween Moses and Genesis is in the bridge between these blocks in Gen50:24–Exod 1:8. Nevertheless, the non-P elements found here, particularlythe blessing and death of Joseph in Gen 50:24–25, have semi-Deuterono-mistic elements and links to Joshua 24 that have led most recent scholarsto see them as extremely late, perhaps even post-Priestly, additions to non-Priestly Joseph and Moses narratives that originally presented quite differ-ent perspectives on Egypt (as is recognized and engaged in Exod 1:8).18

Thus we now face a situation where the question of the formation of theMoses story might be re-engaged on its own terms. Aside from the dis-tinction of Priestly and non-Priestly strata across the Hexateuch, pastsource-critical models for the formation of the Moses story (vis-a-vis J andE) command a much smaller sector of contemporary international schol-arship than previously.19 Moreover, the links between Genesis and Mosesstory materials appear to be relatively late. The balance of this essay will

17 For the basic arguments and citation of earlier literature on Exod 3:1–4:18 as an inser-tion, see Blum, Studien, 20–22 and J.C. Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exodus-erzahlung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch (FRLANT 186; Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 254–256. Note that other potential back-references innon-P Moses story materials to elements of Genesis, such as the general reference to Ya-hweh’s promise of land by oath to “fathers” in Num 14:16, show similar signs of late/secondary character and/or feature only vague links to elements of Genesis.

18 K. Schmid, Erzvater und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begrundung der Ur-sprunge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbucher des Alten Testaments (WMANT 81; Neu-kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999), 209–238 [Eng. 193–221]; and Gertz, Exo-duserzahlung, 359–370. For a recent different perspective, cf. C. Berner, Die Exodus-erzahlung: Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungslegende Israels (FAT 73; Tubingen:Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 10–48.

19 To be sure, there is a movement of scholars such as R. Friedman on the one hand and B.Schwartz and his students on the other, who have advocated more extensive assignmentsof Moses story texts to J and E. See, for example, R. Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?(New York: Summit, 1987); idem, The Hidden Book in the Bible (San Francisco: Harp-erSanFrancisco, 1998); B. Schwartz, “What Really Happened at Mount Sinai? Four Bib-lical Answers to One Question,” BR 13 (1997): 20–30, 46; and J. Baden, J, E, and theRedaction of the Pentateuch (FAT 68; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). The present au-thor has a preliminary response to the latter treatment in Review of Biblical Literature 12[2010] at http://www.bookreviews.org.


offer several suggestions regarding reconstruction of the formation of theMoses story, starting with two bodies of what might be termed “empirical”data: first, the evidence provided by the earliest manuscript traditions forthe Moses story and, second, the evidence from the way Deuteronomy’sreminiscences relate to the episodes in Exodus and Numbers that theypurportedly review. These two bodies of evidence (and reflections onthem) will provide the starting point for several further reflections on whatis taken here to be the most reconstructable potential stages of the forma-tion of the written Moses story.

Because of this study’s limited scope, this focus on the broad contoursof the most reconstructable potential stages will exclude exploration of ex-clusively oral portions of the prehistory of the biblical Moses story. To besure, the Moses narrative contains some tantalizing hints that it preservessome quite archaic elements. These include the Egyptian names of majorcharacters (e. g. Moses, Phinehas), the double tradition that Moses had aforeign wife (Midianite in Exod 2:16–22; 18:1–6; Kushite in Num 12:1),and the enigmatic hints of some kind of unusually close link betweenMoses and the Midianites (Exod 2:16–22; 18:1–27; Num 10:29–32). Thesefragments have provided fodder for many speculative reconstructions ofMoses’ life, the formative history of Israel, and its earliest traditions. So far,however, research on the history of Moses’ life has led to quite generalsustained results. While we have good reason to think that there was anancient Moses and oral traditions about him and his people, it has provenmore difficult to characterize more precisely our most ancient traditionsabout Moses. For that reason, this discussion focuses primarily on stagesof the formation of the Moses story that involved the medium of writing,its literary-historical formation.20

III. A “Final Redaction” of the Moses Story?

The earliest manuscript traditions of the Pentateuch provide a startingpoint for a backwards look at the formation of the Moses story, since wehave some documentation of divergent recensions of the Pentateuch inOld Greek, Samaritan, proto-Masoretic and Qumran manuscripts. To be

20 As argued at more length in my Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scriptureand Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), written literary traditionslike the Bible usually were performed orally and memorized. In that sense, then, thisentire discussion focuses on written traditions that were, in part, transmitted “orally.”Thus, this qualification only rules out traditions that were not written but transmitted inan exclusively oral manner.

14 David M. Carr

sure, in the case of the Old Greek we must reckon with the possibility thatsome differences resulted from the translators. Moreover, some parts ofthe Samaritan pentateuchal tradition are manifestly late.21 Nevertheless, anumber of “proto-Samaritan” pentateuchal manuscripts at Qumran havedocumented the existence of a broader tradition of expansionist recen-sions of the Pentateuch that both preceded and followed the formation ofthe substrate of the Samaritan Pentateuch,22 and the relative conservatismof the translation-technique of the Septuagint translators is well docu-mented. Thus, when we encounter large-scale differences between thesemanuscript traditions we must reckon with the significant possibility thatthey reflect late (Persian or Hellenistic period) divergent literary iterationsof the Hebrew pentateuchal tradition.

Accordingly, the bulk of such divergences seem to reflect a documentedtendency to coordinate parts of the Pentateuch with one another – aboveall, materials in Exodus and Numbers with their reviews in Deuteronomy.Later tradents thus appear to have added materials to Exodus and Num-bers in order to secure correspondence of those materials with Moses’summaries of events in Deuteronomy (e. g. , the conquest of Og in Num21:33–35; cf. Deut 3:1–7). Less often documented, but still present in someparticularly expansionist traditions, are a few cases where scribes addedmaterials to Moses’ reviews in Deuteronomy in order to make them cor-respond to narrations in Exodus and Numbers.23 This tendency towardsupplementation of the Tetrateuch (rather than supplementation of Deu-teronomy) seems to reflect a presupposition among the tradents of thesepentateuchal traditions that Moses’ reviews were selective and could haveleft out mention of various preceding narratives and, conversely, that thesepreceding narratives were comprehensive and necessarily needed to in-clude all events that Moses mentioned. We see other examples of scribalcoordination of narratives and reviews of them in several other docu-mented revisions of pentateuchal traditions, such as the revision of Gene-sis 30 to agree with Jacob’s speech to his wives in Gen 31:11–13 (4Q158;

21 Here I am thinking particularly of the insertion of the collage of biblical passages (Deut11:29a; 27:2b–3a, 4a, 5–7; 11:30) inserted into the conclusion of the ten commandmentsfound in the Samaritan Pentateuch that urge sacrifice at Gerizim, the Samaritan sanctu-ary.

22 For a useful probe suggesting a model for this, see E. Eshel and H. Eshel, “Dating theSamaritan Pentateuch’s Compilation in Light of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls,” in Eman-uel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov(ed. S. Paul et. al. ; VTSup. 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 215–240.

23 On this, see particularly E. Eshel, “4QDeutn – A Text That Has Undergone HarmonisticEditing,” HUCA 62 (1991): 117–154.


proto-Samaritan and Samaritan traditions) and revision of Joshua’s reviewof hexateuchal history to agree with parts of that history.24

In addition to such modifications of narrations and narrative reviews ofthem, there are many other examples of likely coordinating expansions ofpentateuchal traditions, both on micro- and macro-levels. For example,the Old Greek and proto-Masoretic traditions for Exodus appear to reflectdifferent stages in the gradual harmonization of the command and com-pliance portions of the tabernacle narrative.25 This would be a relativelylarge-scale example of coordination/harmonization. Meanwhile, the OldGreek, proto-Samaritan/Samaritan, and even proto-MT (in these casesoften aligned in its supplements with expansionist pentateuchal traditionsagainst the Old Greek) contain a multitude of probable supplements coor-dinating minor parts of different episodes with each other. For example,the LXX of Exod 23:18 adds a divine promise to expand the borders of Is-rael from Exod 34:24a before regulations regarding leaven and fat(23:18b//34:25), effectively harmonizing Exod 23:18 with 34:24–25(34:24b is parallel to 23:17). A few verses later, the LXX of Exod 23:22features an enhanced version of God’s promise concerning covenantalbenefits for obedience that more closely matches and thus harmonizeswith the promises for obedience in Exod 19:5–6. Such micro-harmoniza-tions, of course, are not limited to the LXX or even to the family of expan-sionist manuscripts of which the Samaritan Pentateuch is a part. For ex-ample, the MT along with the Samaritan Pentateuch tradition contain aplus in Num 13:33 clarifying that the םילפנ seen by the spies are the םיקנעmentioned in Deut 1:28, thus conforming a Priestly portion of the spystory with vocabulary found in the D review of that account. These are justsome examples of scores of such micro-additions documented across themanuscript traditions for the Moses story.

In addition, there are a limited number of possible interventions docu-mented in the proto-MT that may reflect late literary interventions byHasmonean-period editors aiming to bolster their monarchy and under-mine Samaritan claims. Examples include the particular year-scheme evi-dent in the proto-MT that – when combined with our present knowledgeof the chronology of Persian rulers – results in the dating of the Hasmo-

24 For review of these and other cases of documented harmonization/coordination see myFormation of the Hebrew Bible, 40–56, 90–98 and (for Joshua 24) 134–136.

25 On this problem, see particularly A. Aejmelaeus, “Septuagintal Translation Techniques:A Solution to the Problem of the Tabernacle Account,” in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cog-nate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and ItsRelations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (Manchester 1990) (ed. G.J. Brookeand B. Lindars; Atlanta: Scholars, 1992), 381–401.

16 David M. Carr

nean rededication of the temple 4000 years after creation. Such knowledgeof Persian chronology, however, is not documented among Second Tem-ple tradents and is notably lacking in examples such as Esdras and Ezra–Nehemiah.26 Perhaps a better founded possibility is that the proto-MTDeuteronomy represents a revision of older texts (reflected in the Samari-tan and some Old Greek traditions) that had Yahweh insist on sacrifice atthe place that Yahweh “had chosen,” which emerges in Deut 27:4–7 asMount Gerizim (the site of the Samaritan temple). This probable earlierGerizim-focused edition of Deuteronomy then was modified to a Hasmo-nean version that has Yahweh insist on sacrifice at the place Yahweh “willchoose” and then revision of Deut 27:4–7 to describe the building of analtar on Mount Ebal (the mountain where people soon pronounce a curseon themselves). This revised Hasmonean version then inclines the readerto see the ultimate choice of worship place as Jerusalem, where Solomonultimately builds a temple in 1 Kings.27

Whether or not one finds all these proposals persuasive, these manu-script materials appear to document a stage of literary revision that is notfocused on broader theological shaping of the pentateuchal tradition. In-stead, at most, they manifest a scribal tendency to enhance the coherenceof the tradition with itself, coordinating character reviews of events withprior narrations of those events, compliance with command, etc. For themost part, documented, late ideological/theological changes (e. g. theabove discussed proto-MT of Deut 27:4–7) are rare and confined in theirscope. Allowing that some Second Temple authors seem to have under-taken broader-scale re-presentations of the Moses tradition (e. g. the Tem-ple Scroll that replaced Moses with a divine speaker across much of Deu-teronomy), their efforts did not find acceptance among broad sections ofJudaism.

However, one thing these documented revisions do reveal is the con-certed effort of Second Temple tradents to overcome perceived problemswith the continuity between Deuteronomy and the material preceding it.

26 These reservations balance my endorsement of this theory in my Writing on the Tablet ofthe Heart, 264. I thank John Collins (in a personal communication) for calling theseproblems to my attention.

27 A. Schenker, “Le Seigneur choisira-t-il le lieu de son nom ou l’a-t-il choisi?: l’apport de laBible grecque ancienne a l’histoire du texte samaritain et massoretique,” in Scripture inTransition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of RaijaSollamo (ed. A. Voitila and J. Jokiranta; JSJSup. 126; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 339–351; idem,“Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch und Samareitikon,” in Samari-tans: Past and Present. Current Studies (ed. M. Mor and F.V. Reiterer; Berlin: de Gruy-ter, 2010), 105–21. In addition, I thank Stephan Schorch for sharing his own presenta-tion on this topic in pre-publication form.


Indeed, it is striking how many more coordinating insertions documentedin the manuscript traditions are focused on harmonizing Deuteronomywith what precedes as opposed to overcoming differences between whatscholars now would identify as P and non-P traditions. Apparently SecondTemple authors found the occasional lack of fit between the reminiscencesof Moses and preceding narrations (in Exodus and Numbers) problematicenough to justify repeated intervention. Such problems are not mere crea-tions of contemporary critics. Furthermore, this phenomenon raises ques-tions for recent studies suggesting that the reminiscences in Deuteronomywere written to stand as part of a literary continuation of non-P (or com-bined P and non-P) materials in Exodus–Numbers. However much theauthor(s) of Deuteronomy knew the traditions in Exodus–Numbers (and Imyself believe they had some such knowledge), they apparently felt a free-dom to radically revise and represent those traditions (in the Mosaicvoice) in a way that later scribes – struggling now with a corpus that com-bined Deuteronomy with those traditions – found problematic. This prob-lem, along with the fact (observed long before by Wellhausen) that theMosaic reviews in Deuteronomy seem to presuppose a situation where thebook did not follow materials currently preceding it in Exodus–Num-bers,28 suggests that the combination of Deuteronomy with Exodus–Num-bers in the present Pentateuch is a secondary creation, one that posedproblems for later tradents working with the resultant and sometimes dis-cordant composition.29

28 J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bucher des AltenTestaments (4th ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963 [orig. 1876]), 194; see also E. Blum, “Pen-tateuch-Hexateuch-Enneateuch? Oder : Woran erkennt man ein literarischer Werk inder Hebraischen Bibel?” in Les dernieres redactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque etde l’Enneateuque (ed. T. Romer and K. Schmid; BETL 203; Leuven: Leuven University,2007), 67–97.

29 Kratz (“Die literarische Ort des Deuteronomiums,” in Liebe und Gebot: Studien zumDeuteronomium [ed. R. Kratz and H. Spieckermann; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup-recht, 2000], 101–120 [esp. p. 109]); and Schmid (Erzvater und Exodus, 34–37 [Eng. 29–32]) have argued on various grounds that Deuteronomy 1–3 was written from the outsetas a continuation of what precedes. Schmid notes correctly that Deuteronomy 1–3 pre-supposes audience knowledge of some form of Tetrateuchal narratives, but as Blum hasnoted (Blum, “Woran erkennt?” 90–93), this does not require that texts be part of thesame corpus. Kratz (esp. p. 109) notes ways in which Deuteronomy is set in the plains ofMoab, exactly where the preceding narrative concluded (Num 22:1; 25:1; 27:12–13a).Nevertheless, it should come as no surprise that the redactors of the present Pentateuchmade sure that the geographical setting of Deuteronomy agreed in one way or anotherwith the material preceding it.

18 David M. Carr

IV. Deuteronomy and Its Precursors

So far I have proposed and discussed three main stages to the formation ofthe Moses story: 1) the precursor text(s) to Deuteronomy presupposed inits reviews; 2) the writing of Deuteronomy itself (possibly along with othermaterials following it) ; 3) and the combination of some (partially pre-served) form of the precursor Moses text(s) with Deuteronomy. I turnnow to consideration of what Deuteronomy might tell us about its precur-sor texts.

I start with several loci where texts belonging to various layers of Deu-teronomy show fairly specific potential links to parts of Exodus and Num-bers. For example, materials in Deuteronomy chapters 1, 4–5 and 9–10show some striking links to the strand of texts in Exodus 18–24, 32–34 thattend to designate the location of the mountain covenant as either the“mountain” or “mountain of God” and frequently refer to the deity as just“God.” These same Deuteronomistic reminiscences do not show as manyobvious connections to the other materials (whether non-P or P) in Exo-dus 18–40. Deuteronomy 1:9–18 shows multiple and specific links to thestory of Moses’ delegation of authority in Exodus 18:13–27; Deuteronomy4–5 includes a picture of an auditory theophany of God, including the tencommandments (Exod 19:16–17, 19), that leads the people to be afraidand to ask Moses to receive other commands alone (Exod 20:18–21); andDeut 9:8–21, 25–29; 10:1–5 reviews a story of how the people made agolden calf upon Moses’ ascent on the mountain for forty days and nightsto receive the tablets of law, and his subsequent angry destruction of thecalf and the tablets alike before praying on the people’s behalf and ascend-ing a second time to get a second set of tablets (cf. especially Exod 32:1–6,19–20; 34:1, 5). Moving beyond Sinai/Horeb, Deut 1:19–45 (note alsoDeut 9:23) appears to review and reconstrue an earlier (pre-harmonized)version of the non-P spy narrative preserved in parts of Numbers 13:17–14:45, including now blind motifs in Deuteronomy, such as the role of thefruit in Num 13:20, 23–24 (see Deut 1:25) and the exclusion of Caleb frompunishment in Num 13:30; 14:8–9 (see Deut 1:36). The report in Deut2:26–37 (note also 4:46–47; 29:6) about Israel’s interactions with Sihon ofthe Amorites verbally parallels and blends elements of narratives in Num-bers regarding the background to Israel’s detour around Edom (Num20:14–21) and Israel’s interactions with Sihon (Num 21:21–25, 31–32).30

Finally, Moses’ review of the distribution of the land to the Reubenites and

30 For more discussion, see Baden, J, E and Redaction, 347–351; and cf. W. Oswald, “DieRevision des Edombildes in Numeri XX 14–21,” VT 50 (2000): 218–232.


Gadites in Deut 3:12–20 may presuppose a strand of Numbers 32:1–32that likewise portrays Moses giving land to these tribes and allowing themto leave their wives, children and livestock in the Transjordanian townswhile they went at the vanguard of the other tribes across the Jordan asshock troops.31 In these cases, the materials in Deuteronomy 1–3 provide(more and less) extended overviews of materials found in the non-PTetrateuch, containing enough verbal parallels to support the hypothesisthat the author of these materials knew some literary form of these corre-sponding tetrateuchal narratives prior to their combination with P.32

Meanwhile, other parts of Deuteronomy do not necessarily have non-Ptetrateuchal narratives in view. For example, Deut 25:17–18 refers to anotherwise unknown tradition about the Amalekites attacking Israel on theway out of Egypt (Deut 25:17–18; cf. Exod 17:8–15). Moreover, Deut26:4–5 mentions otherwise unattested traditions about an Ammonite andMoabite refusal to provide provisions along with God’s turning Balaam’soriginal curse of Israel into a blessing.33 Both could be Deuteronomic re-interpretations of narratives now in Numbers, but their present form doesnot allow us to conclude with certainty that the author(s) of these texts inDeuteronomy knew these materials.

In between are somewhat briefer back-references to non-P tetrateuchalnarratives across various strata of the rest of the book of Deuteronomy.Most such references parallel narratives that follow the Sinai narrative ofExodus and Numbers, including mention of disobedience at Taberah(Deut 9:22; cf. Num 11:1–3), Kibroth Ha-Taavah (Deut 9:22; cf. Num11:4–35), Miriam’s leprosy (Deut 24:9; cf. Numbers 12), the story of Da-than and Abiram being swallowed up in the earth in Numbers 16 (Deut11:6; cf. esp. Num 16:27b–35), fiery snakes in the desert (Deut 8:15; cf.Num 21:4b–9), and disobedience at Baal-Peor (Deut 4:3–4; also 4:46 andHos 9:10). Indeed, combined with the above-mentioned back-references

31 Again, Baden’s discussion in J, E and Redaction, 141–148 is evocative in its implicit useof Deuteronomy to stratify Numbers 32, even if this renders circular his own argumentthat the stratification of Numbers 32 means that Deuteronomy relied on only one andnot two pre-D sources. This strand of Numbers 32 in isolation and using D would thencontrast with a layer of P or P-like materials where Moses commissions Joshua and El-eazar the priest to assign Transjordanian lands to Reuben and Gad after the conquestwas complete.

32 In this sense, I disagree with more radical proposals, such as that of M. Rose, Deuteron-omist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Beruhrungspunkten beider Literaturwerke(ATANT 67; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1981), that the Tetrateuchal narratives virtu-ally all post-date their counterparts in Deuteronomy.

33 See the discussion in Blum, Studien, 175 (including n. 337) on how these traditionsmight relate to reinterpretation of Tetrateuchal traditions in (late) layers of Deuterono-my.

20 David M. Carr

in Deuteronomy 1–3, these texts at least briefly mention almost everyevent in the non-P tetrateuchal narrative after Sinai. In addition, variouslayers of Deuteronomy also certainly know generally of the Exodus fromEgypt referring frequently to it as the defining event of Israel’s early historywith Yahweh (Deut 1:27, 30; 4:20, 34, 37, 45, 46; 5:6, 15; 6:12, 21–22; 7:8,18–19; 8:14; 9:12, 26, 28–29; 11:2–3; 13:6, 11; 15:5, 15; 20:1; 21:8; 23:5;24:9, 18, 22; 25:17; 26:8; 29:2, 24).34

Nevertheless, we do not see quite as specific review in Deuteronomy ofevents prior to the mountain of God/Sinai as we see of many events afterthe mountain. The small credo in Deut 26:5–8 parallels terminology foundin (potential) non-P materials of Exodus 1 and 3:7, 9 for Israel’s becominga “great and powerful nation” ( םוצע לודג יוג 26:5; cf. םוצעו בר … םע in Exod1:9), Egypt’s “oppressing” them ( ונונעי 26:6; cf. 1:12), Israel’s crying out( קעצנו 26:7; cf. םתקעצ in 3:7 and לארשי ינב־תקעצ in 3:9, but also וקעזיו in 2:23[P]), and Yahweh’s “hearing” their distress (Exod 3:7; note also “hearing”in 6:5 [P]) and “seeing” ( האר ) their “oppression” ( ינע and ץחל in 26:7;

ינע־תא יתיאר in Exod 3:7; ץחלה־תא יתיאר in Exod 3:9).35 In addition, the lawregarding Passover and the feast of unleavened bread in Deuteronomy 16adds nighttime themes to its covenant code precursor (Deut 16:1; cf. Exod23:15) along with a mention of hurried flight in connection with unleav-ened bread (Deut 16:3), which stand as possible connections to the Passo-ver narrative of Exodus 12:29–34. Finally, Deut 11:4 knows of the destruc-tion of the Egyptian army at the Red Sea, perhaps reflecting the non-Pnarrative strand in Exodus 14 (see also the drying of the Red sea in Josh2:10 and reenacted in 4:23). At any rate, the numerous references to theexodus from Egypt often refer in only general terms to Yahweh’s bringingIsrael out of Egypt (1:27; 6:12; 9:12; 13:11; 20:1; 29:24) and/or buying Is-rael free ( הדפ ; Deut 15:15; 21:8; 24:18; both in 13:6), often with a “stronghand” ( הקזח די ) and “outstretched arm” ( היוטנ עורז ) (see, e. g. Deut 5:15;7:8). It is only in the first fruits confession mentioned above and variousreferences in paranesis to what Israel “saw” in Egypt that we see expansionof these sorts of back-references to the exodus with mention of “signs”

34 Note also the possible reference to wonders in Egypt in Deut 10:21–22, memories of anEgyptian sojourn in Deut 10:19; 16:12; 23:8; 28:68; 29:15, and the journey out of Egyptin Deut 23:5; 24:9; 25:17.

35 The potential echoes of the “cry” and Yahweh’s “hearing” it in P relate to a crux in thepossible dependence of Exod 3:7, 9 on P in 2:22. On this question, see Schmid, Erzvaterund Exodus, 235–6 [Eng. 218–219]. With regard to P, there is also a unique parallel be-tween the occurrence of קשההדבע in Deut 26:6 and two P loci in Exod 1:14; 6:9, whichcould suggest a dependence of Deut 26:6 on P, a coincidental agreement, or a placewhere the first fruits credo of Deuteronomy has exercised some influence on the P tra-dition.


( תותא ), “wonders” ( םיתפומ ), “trials” ( תסמ ), and/or “terrors” ( םיארומ ) (4:34;26:8), sometimes with mention of them being done against Pharaoh andhis house (6:22), or Pharaoh and all Egypt (7:18b)/his land (11:2–3)/all hisservants and his entire land (34:11). No specific plague is ever mentioned36

and the focus in these Deuteronomy texts on Yahweh’s demonstrationsigns to Israel contrasts with the focus in the non-P (and P) texts on theplagues as demonstrations of Yahweh’s power to Pharaoh (e. g. Exod 7:17,8:6, 18; 9:14, 29; cf. 5:2).37 Similar ambiguity attends the mention of man-nah in the wilderness in Deut 8:3, 16, which could refer to a strand of Ex-odus 16, though it also could relate to the apparently independent tradi-tion about mannah in Num 11:7–9 or another source. Otherwise, there isno mention in any stratum of Deuteronomy of the midwives (Exod 1:15–22), the birth of Moses (2:1–10), the circumstances surrounding his de-parture from Egypt (2:11–15aba), or the sojourn in Midian (2:15bb–22),nor is there clear recollection of the murmering at Marah (15:22–27), aspecific story of victory over Amalek (17:8–16), or the reunion with Jethro(18:1–12).

Some of the above mentioned gaps certainly could be due to selectivityin what the authors of Deuteronomy found to be relevant for their pur-poses (e. g. Exod 18:1–12). Nevertheless, the contrast with the possiblerecollection of almost all post-Horeb events found in non-P portions ofNumbers raises the question of how much of the non-P material prior toExodus 18 was available to the authors of Deuteronomy. A maximal inter-pretation of this contrasting distribution would suggest that at least thelatest of Deuteronomy’s authors knew parts of Exodus 1 and 3 and relatedmaterials in Exodus 18–24, 32–34, along with some form of the non-PPassover narrative that concludes in Exodus 12, a reed sea narrative andmany of the non-P narratives appearing in Numbers. The main possibleexception to the last case might be the general lack of back-references inDeuteronomy to materials in Numbers about Israel’s stay on the plains ofMoab: the Balaam tradition of Num 22:4–24:25 and possibly the Baal-Peor story in Num 25:1–5*. If one wanted to depend on the often prob-lematic criterion of potential readability, it is notable that the very materi-

36 Notably, in 7:15 and 28:60, Deuteronomy mentions “diseases” of Egypt ( יודמ ) without amore specific link to the plague narratives. Even the mention of the “boils” ןיחש of Egyptin the curse in 28:27 lacks any explicit back-reference to the plague of boils in Exod 9:8–12.

37 Specific assignment of these texts is disputed. As an example, they are distributed acrossall but the earliest (non-P) layers of Gertz’s analysis of this section of Exodus, includinghis earliest plague layer (see his chart on p. 395 of Exoduserzahlung).

22 David M. Carr

als not obviously reflected in (most of) Deuteronomy38 also interrupt themovement from the taking of Jazer in Num 21:32 to the (potentially non-P) Reubenite and Gadites’ notice that the land of Jazer was good for theircattle (Num 32:1, 4–5).

Whether one interprets the above-discussed back-references in Deuter-onomy maximally or minimally, the range and frequent specificity ofback-references to the non-P Moses story in Deuteronomy radically con-trast with the virtual absence of any such back-references to events narrat-ed in Genesis – aside from the possible back-reference to Jacob’s fugitivestatus and descent into Egypt in Deut 26:5 and the mentions in Deuter-onomy and Joshua of an oath promise of land (and occasionally multipli-cation of offspring) to the “fathers”/Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Even if oneunderstands the latter references to the oath promise to the fathers/threepatriarchs to be original to Deuteronomy, which is a matter of significantquestion, they do not necessarily refer back to a form of the Genesis nar-rative that featured such a promise by oath. At most they require only ageneral knowledge on the part of the audience of a tradition of Yahweh’spromise to patriarchal ancestors.39

In sum, various layers of Deuteronomy review in highly variant ways afairly specific group of narratives now found in other biblical books:

1) they are all in the Moses story (particularly the post-Sinai portions)and

2) they are all non-Priestly.The few possible echoes of P in Deuteronomy, such as the use in (theproto-MT) Deut 1:39 of vocabulary from the P version of the spy story( היהי זבל םתרמא רשא //Num 14:31), turn out to be pluses vis-a-vis the OldGreek and likely harmonizing additions,40 while P-like materials such asDeut 10:6–9 are clearly late insertions in their contexts. Given the range ofDeuteronomic reviews of various narratives, the lack of D back-referencesto Priestly material is significant. It forms one important confirming

38 Disobedience at Baal-Peor is only mentioned in the relatively late Deuteronomy 4 (Deut4:3–4, also 4:46; but see Hos 9:10), and – as mentioned before – the Balaam traditionmentioned in Deut 23:4b does not bear a very clear connection to what is narrated nowin Num 22:4–24:25.

39 N. Lohfink, Die Vater Israels im Deuteronomium (OBO 111; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1991), 34. The same can be said for the possible reference to a more ancientJacob-Joseph story in Deut 26:5, which easily could have been known in separate form.

40 Cf. Noldeke, Untersuchungen, 2 (n. 1), who uses this as one of his prime arguments forthe old form of the source hypothesis, where D was subsequent to P.


datum for arguments long advanced on other grounds for identification ofP and non-P strands in Exodus through Numbers.41

The other form of Deuteronomic selectivity also may be significant: theexclusive focus in Deuteronomy on summarizing Moses narratives incontrast to the lack of such specific references to any narratives in Genesis.At most one finds the repeated, but (often) vague, references to Yahweh’soath promise of land to the patriarchs (Deut 1:8, 35; 6:10, 18, 23; 7:12; etal.). This highly different treatment of Genesis and Moses Story traditionsin Deuteronomy raises the question of what form the Genesis and MosesStory traditions were in when these reminiscences in Deuteronomy werecomposed. It is possible, as Noth proposes, that the non-P Tetrateuch insome form was the precursor to these parts of Deuteronomy whose au-thors only had interest in the specifics of some Moses story narratives.Perhaps given the highly situational character of each of the Deuterono-mistic reviews, the authors of the Deuteronomistic reminiscences neverfelt the occasion to link to a story in Genesis. Nevertheless, as noted above,they found occasion to refer to a fairly wide array of Moses story narra-tives. The lack of clear and specific reference in Deuteronomy to any Gen-esis story is therefore striking, and it suggests that the D reviews werecomposed in a time when Genesis and Exodus narratives were still sepa-rate, with the Genesis materials either not available to those authors orstood as a composition (or set of compositions) separate from the Mosesstory and – partly as a result – treated quite differently.42

41 Notably, one decisive indicator that the early source critics such as Noldeke were notusing Deuteronomy as an implicit criterium for source-criticism strands is that thesecritics generally presupposed that D post-dated P. Indeed, Noldeke is quite clear in hisdiscussion that he thinks the author of Deuteronomy had both strands in front of him.Only later, when Deuteronomy was taken as potentially earlier than P, did Deuteronomybecome a potential indicator of the contours of the non-P Moses story.

42 This difference with regard to back-references to Genesis and the Moses story in Deu-teronomy is far more demonstrable than any alternation in back-references to putative Jand E source documents (as posited by Baden [J, E and Redaction]) or selective back-references to E, as posited by M. Haran, The Canonization of the Scriptures and Forma-tion of History: The Deuteronomic Torah and Deuteronomistic Tradition (Hebrew), Vol. 2of The Biblical Collection: Its Consolidation to the End of the Second Temple Times andChanges of Form to the End of the Middle Ages (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Magnes Press,2003).

24 David M. Carr

V. The Linkage of non-P Moses Materials to What Precedesand Follows

We have thus gone as far as we can with data provided by separate manu-script traditions and scrolls (Deuteronomy and material it reviews). Thismaterial, however, has raised an acute question regarding the prehistory ofthe materials that precede Deuteronomy. If it is probable that the Mosesand Genesis materials were still separate at an early stage of the composi-tion of (parts of) Deuteronomy, when and how might they have been con-nected to each other?

A potential answer to this question can be found in materials that buildbridges between the Moses story and Genesis materials, some of whichwere mentioned briefly above. To be sure, some such bridges could bequite late secondary harmonizations/coordinations of Genesis and theMoses story, much like the documented harmonizations/coordinations ofDeuteronomy and Exodus-Numbers documented in manuscript pluses ofthe Old Greek, “proto-Samaritan” and even proto-MT traditions. Never-theless, many of the texts that potentially link the non-P Moses story ofExodus-Numbers with material preceding and following it – e. g. Exod3:1–4:17; 32:10–14; Num 14:11–21 – are themselves strikingly non-Priestly.

Most interesting for our purposes may be a bridge of texts about Jo-seph’s bones that stretches from Genesis (50:24–26) through Exodus(13:19) to the conclusion of the Joshua story in Joshua 24 (especially Josh24:32). Here again, despite a trend in recent scholarship to identify Joshua24 as post-Priestly, the texts in this strand are strikingly non-Priestly incharacter, with their few potential/probable Priestly connections identifia-ble as redactional additions (e. g. Josh 24:32) or secondary harmonizations(e. g. possible P elements in Josh 24:6) of what are essentially non-P texts(i. e. , Joshua 24:1–32*). In addition, this series of texts is hexateuchal inscope, leading from the sojourn in Egypt through the exodus to an ulti-mate conquest of the land and covenant at Shechem. Finally, the specifi-cally compositional character of these materials is suggested by the fact thatthe Joshua 24 covenant features the creation and deposit of a םיהלא תרות(“torah of God” Josh 24:26), a seeming consecration in the story world ofthe composition containing this narrative. As others have pointed out,these indicators together would seem to point to compositional interven-tion binding the Genesis, Moses story and Deuteronomy–Joshua materialsinto a probable non-P hextateuchal composition, a “Torah of God,” selec-


tively reviewed and mythologized in Joshua’s covenant at Shechem in Josh24:1–32*.43

The extent and coherence of this compositional layer, to be sure, is andwill be debated without definitive resolution. E. Blum posits a relativelycircumscribed Joshua 24-layer comprised primarily of just these texts (Gen50:24–26; Exod 13:19; Joshua 24).44 K. Schmid sees Joshua 24 as sharing anumber of characteristics with Genesis 15; Exod 3:1–4:18 and the bridgebetween Genesis and Exodus, characteristics that lead him to see thesetexts as parts of a common redactional layer.45 J. Van Seters assigns thebulk of these texts along with many others to an exilic, pre-Priestly “J.”46 Imyself see noteworthy resemblances in a series of texts secondarily addedto non-P parts of the Hexateuch, resemblances including their conquestfocus, emphasis on promise of the land as oath, and overall orientation to-ward Deuteronomy (e. g. Gen 50:24–26; Exod 3:1–4:18*; 13:19; 32:9–14;Num 14:11–21; Josh 24:1–32). These resemblances and their identifiablesecondary character lead me to see these texts as identifiable parts of abroader non-P hexateuchal compositional layer responsible for linkingoriginally separate non-P proto-Genesis, Moses Story, and Deuteronomy–Joshua* compositions. I acknowledge that these texts often have differentthemes and emphases, but I do not see these differences as insurmountableobstacles to seeing them as part of a common compositional stratum.47

The extent to which one expansively or narrowly defines this hexateu-chal compositional layer depends on the extent to which one deems ithelpful or possible to differentiate between fine textual strata on the basisof differences in emphasis and terminology. Nevertheless, the existence ofsome sort of hexateuchal layer concluding in Joshua 24 seems likely to be apersistent feature in future biblical scholarship. Moreover, this composi-tional stratum is the one non-Priestly layer that most demonstrably bindsthe Moses story with what precedes and follows, including an interventionat the very end of Genesis (Gen 50:24–26) and the most explicit review in

43 See esp. E. Blum, “Der kompositionelle Knoten am Ubergang von Josua zu Richter. EinEntflechtungsvorschlag,” in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: FS Brekelmans(ed. M. Vervenne and J. Lust; BETL 133; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 203–205.

44 E. Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvatern und Exodus. Ein Gesprach mitneueren Endredaktionshypothesen,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition desHexateuch in der jungsten Diskussion (ed. J.C. Gertz, K. Schmid, and M. Witte; BZAW315; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 153–154.

45 Schmid, Erzvater und Exodus, 241–250 [Eng. 224–233], with consideration of a few ad-ditional potential elements on pp. 250–252 [Eng. 233–236].

46 Van Seters, Life of Moses.47 I discuss these texts and problems at more length in Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 255–

282.

26 David M. Carr

Joshua 24 of events in both the ancestral and Moses narratives. Further-more, whether one defines this layer broadly or narrowly, its general non-Priestly character and occurrence in exclusively non-Priestly contexts isconspicuous. This layer does not obviously bind or coordinate Priestlytexts in the Moses story with what precedes and follows. If the aboveproposition is true that the possible Priestly links of texts in this layer aresecondary extensions and/or harmonizations (e. g. Josh 24:33), then thedistribution of these texts in non-Priestly contexts would seem to suggestthat the series of texts in Gen 50:24–26; Exod 13:19; and Josh 24:1–32*along with others sharing similar scope and characteristics (e. g. Genesis15; Exod 3:1–4:18*; 32:9–14*; Deut 14:11–21) are specifically pre-Priestly,and their lack of linkage (on an early level) with Priestly texts is a result ofthe fact that Priestly texts were not part of the hexateuchal compositioninto which these hexateuchal-compositional-layer texts were inserted. Fur-ther individual analysis of problems of direction of dependence are notpossible in an essay of this scope. Nevertheless, contrary to some recentanalyses, I suggest that several texts in this series show strong signs ofbeing prior to their Priestly counterparts (e. g. Exod 3:1–4:18 vis-a-vis6:2–8), and this would stand as confirming evidence for the pre-Priestlycharacter of this Hexateuchal compositional layer.48

Notably, the Priestly layer, as mentioned above, is itself specificallyhexateuchal in scope. Whether or not one identifies all P-like elements ofNumbers–Joshua as redactional or part of the PG source, it is clear thatsuch P-like texts are generally absent from the following books of Samueland Kings. As hinted above, an originally separate PG source may have ex-tended in some form to include some kind of land-occupation narrative,mirroring the hexateuchal scope of its pre-P hexateuchal precursor. Butwhether or not one finds this proposal persuasive, at the very least, thehexateuchal scope of the “Torah of God” ending in Joshua 24 seems tohave defined the limits of the activity of the authors who combined the Pand non-P materials with each other and those authors who enhanced thewhole with various layers of P-like material. Indeed, the very last verse ofthe Hexateuch, the death and burial report for Eleazar in Josh 24:33, is a P-

48 For example, the intense and specific appropriation of prophetic motifs, particularlyfrom Jeremiah, in Exod 3:1–4:18 becomes a blind motif characterizing Moses and Aar-on’s relationship in Exod 6:2–8, pointing to the likelihood that Exod 6:2–8 gained thesefaint echoes of prophetic motifs from Exod 3:1–4:18 rather than the other way around(as per, for example, Schmid, Erzvater und Exodus, 197–209 [Eng. 182–193] and [for thebulk of Exod 3:1–4:18] see also Gertz, Exoduserzahlung, 281–317; cf. Carr, Formation ofthe Hebrew Bible, 140–143).


like redactional addition that mimics and extends the model of precedingdeath and burial reports for Joshua and Joseph (24:29–32).

VI. The Question of Books

Another place to look for signs of the later formation of the Moses story isthe conclusion of the scrolls constituting it, since it was particularly easy intransmission for scribes to add new portions to the ends of such scrolls. Ifsomeone wanted to write a new introduction or portion of the middle,they generally had to rewrite the scroll as a whole. We have documentationof such revision, but it generally occurred as part of a more general andambitious reconceptualization of the whole document.49 In contrast, it waseasier for scribes simply to add a few elements to the remaining room inthe column of the last leaf of a scroll or even to sew some extra portionsonto an existing scroll to make a more extensive addition. And this mayexplain why so many biblical books, such as Joshua, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah,Ezekiel, Psalms, Job, and Ecclesiastes, seem to have relatively late elementsappended to their conclusions.50 Indeed, it is one indicator that the tra-dents of books such as Samuel and Kings originally conceived such worksas coherent, not two-part wholes, and thus did not insert a similar series ofappendices onto the ends of 1 Samuel and 1 Kings.

Such appendix-like materials appear at several junctures in the Mosesstory: the law regarding vows that is appended to the end of Leviticus (Le-viticus 27) using resumptive repetition; a series of appendix-like materialsin the Priestly material of Numbers 1:1–10:10 (particularly Numbers 5–10); and especially the various and quite late Priestly materials clusteredtoward the end of the book of Numbers (e. g. Numbers 33–36). It is ofcourse possible that such materials were added at points understood asconceptual breaks in the narrative, even if they were not originally scrollendings. Nevertheless, the clustering of such appendix-like materials maybe indicators of where scrolls once ended at different stages of the tradi-tion. Thus, the clustering of Priestly appendices in Numbers 5–10 maymark an ancient scroll-break in the Priestly tradition, a break dividing thePriestly narrative up through Sinai from the Priestly material that fol-lowed. Leviticus 27 represents an appendix-like addition to Leviticus when

49 On this, see the excellent study of the phenomenon of added introductions in S. Mil-stein, Revision Through Introduction in Biblical and Mesopotamian Literature (Ph.Diss. ,New York: New York University, 2010), in the process of revision for publication.

50 Note also the documented late additions to Community Rule traditions and the descentof the Ishtar portion of the Gilgamesh epic.

28 David M. Carr

Leviticus had started to be recognized as a separate scroll. Most signifi-cantly, the much more plentiful Priestly and even post-Priestly additionsto the end of Numbers (and relative lack of such additions at the end ofExodus and Leviticus aside from Leviticus 27) may mean that the materialof Exodus–Leviticus–Numbers was transmitted for a significant period oftime on a single scroll and/or understood to one “book.” As pointed outmost extensively by Koorevaar, the narratives of Exodus–Numbers are in-extricably connected to each other in their character groupings, narratedevents (e. g. tabernacle and priestly ordination across Exodus–Leviticus),and grammatical linkages. However much we now understand Exodus–Numbers as three books, they appear once to have been conceptually andperhaps even materially a single book. The late/post-Priestly appendices atthe end of Numbers were added there because that scroll was understoodto end there and represent a decisive seam in the tradition.51

In this way, we see echoes of the above-discussed fracture betweenDeuteronomy and the material that precedes it even in the late-Priestly orpost-Priestly phases of composition of the Moses story. By this point, it ishighly likely that Moses’ last address to Israel in Deuteronomy was under-stood to be part of a broader narrative consisting of some P/non-P form ofGenesis–Numbers. Conceptually, Deuteronomy now formed part of a cor-pus beginning in Genesis. Nevertheless, if the above suppositions are cor-rect, tradents still transmitted Deuteronomy on a separate scroll from Ex-odus–Leviticus–Numbers and felt freest to add materials at the break thatseparated Deuteronomy from the scroll(s) preceeding it.

In sum, I suggest that we should conceive of the transmission of theMoses tradition on two scrolls for a significant period of time in whichthat tradition was subject to Priestly and post-Priestly revision. Only at arelatively late stage and likely for technical reasons (having to do with theunwieldy size of the ever expanding P/non-P Exodus–Numbers tradition)were the materials now in Exodus–Numbers moved onto three separatescrolls, such that we see a brief and isolated appendix to Leviticus in Le-viticus 27 (or possibly a set of appendices in 25–27). Even then, judgingfrom evidence at Qumran, these materials in Exodus–Numbers sometimeswere transmitted together on the same scroll. Only toward the latter halfand possibly the end of the Second Temple period did the present five-folddivision of the Pentateuch achieve such a dominant position that it couldbe referred to in many rabbinic writings as the chumash/ שמוח (five books).

51 H.J. Koorevaar, “The Books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, and the Macro-Struc-tural Problem of the Pentateuch,” in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers (ed. T. Romer;BETL 215; Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 423–453.


VII. Concluding Overview and Reflections

The above investigation delineates what I judge to be the six most recon-structable stages in the formation of the Moses story. The process beganwith the writing of at least one pre-D form of the non-P Moses story. Pre-cisely because it is the earliest and most distant phase of composition, it isthe most difficult to reconstruct precisely. The contours of this pre-DMoses story (or stories) may to some extent be reconstructable throughthe highly refracted lens(es) of various Deuteronomistic reminiscences.52

Nevertheless, it is difficult to know the extent to which the character andscope of D reminiscences is an accurate reflection of the original propor-tions of such a Moses story (or one of them) or merely an outgrowth of theparticular interests of the author(s) of these reminiscences. I have made afew tentative suggestions regarding the potential contours of some kind ofE-like Moses tradition on which some authors of Deuteronomy mighthave been dependent. Nevertheless, this approach could just represent aform of contemporary hyper-harmonization (of Exodus–Numbers by wayof radical subtraction to Deuteronomy) that would make the SecondTemple forms of augmenting harmonization pale by comparison (see thisdiscussion above). Moreover, this quite tentatively proposed pre-D Mosesstory is decisively not the “E” Moses story posited in the nineteenth centu-ry, since it lacks a series of texts that were formerly assigned to E, such asthe tent of meeting texts in Exod 33:7–11 et al. , the despoiling of Egyptiansin Exod 11:1–3, links to the Joseph commission in Exod 50:24–25, andJoshua 24. This latter series of texts seems neither presupposed in Deuter-onomy nor residual from a pre-D Moses narrative. Instead, they share nu-merous characteristics that lead me to identify them as common parts of apost-D hexateuchal compositional layer (see the discussion of this layerabove).

The second stage that I posit in the development of the Moses storywould be the framing of Deuteronomy as a final speech of Moses andgradual augmentation of Deuteronomy with Moses speeches that reviewearlier events in his life. The LXX of Deut 6:4 may preserve a remnant of aprior stage of Deuteronomy where its laws were framed as “the decreeswhich Yahweh commanded the sons of Israel in the desert, having brought

52 Here I find W. Johnstone’s reflections interesting (esp. his “The Use of Reminiscences inDeuteronomy in Recovering the Two Main Literary Phases in the Production of thePentateuch,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jungstenDiskussion [ed. J.C. Gertz, K. Schmid, and M. Witte; BZAW 315; Berlin: de Gruyter,2002], 247–273) along with Baden’s implicit use of Deuteronomy for source stratificationin much of J, E and Redaction, 106–188.

30 David M. Carr

them out of the land of Egypt,”53 but already the non-LXX manuscript tra-ditions appear to have suppressed this divine framing of the D legislationin favor of the Mosaic framing elements in Deut 1:1; 4:1; 6:1 and else-where. Most importantly, this Mosaic figure of Deuteronomy is graduallygiven speeches that appear based on yet freely related to some of the non-Pnarratives now found in Exodus and Numbers. As discussed previously,from Deuteronomy 1–3(ff.) these largely non-verbatim reviews do not ap-pear originally to have been intended to stand in the same narrative streamas the stories undergirding them. Instead, they rehearse the stories aboutMoses as if they had not been previously narrated and often diverge fromthem in ways that would trouble later tradents who confronted D reviewsas part of a continuation of Exodus and Numbers.

The third major proposed stage in the formation of the Moses story wasthe combination of (this “Mosaicly”-framed) Deuteronomy (probably incombination with Joshua) with at least two other scrolls: some form of astory of Moses and some form of a non-P proto-Genesis. The result was aMoses-focused Hexateuch that probably concluded with Joshua’s covenantat Shechem in Joshua 24*. Notably, as with many documented forms oftextual combination, this joining almost certainly involved elimination ofsome parts of the combined documents, in this case at least the elimina-tion of parts of the non-P Moses story that once concluded the non-Pstory of Moses found in Numbers. Why should one posit the existence ofsuch eliminated (Moses) material that we no longer have? First of all,however one conceives of the process of the gradual extension of the bookof Numbers, it is difficult to reconstruct an original ending to that bookthat would have stood independently of Deuteronomy(ff.). The march ofthe Israelites toward the land seems to presuppose some kind of arrival,the conquest and distribution of the Transjordan toward the end of Num-bers seems to require the conquest and distribution of the west Jordan inJoshua, the life of Moses across Exodus–Numbers needs to come to a con-clusion, and so on. Moreover, because of the non-conformity of Numberswith Deuteronomy (and vice versa) as reviewed above, it is as implausibleto suppose that the narratives of Numbers were written with Deuteronomyin mind as it is to suppose that the book of Deuteronomy was written withExodus and Numbers in mind. Rather, at least some portions of Numbers(all of them non-P) and Deuteronomy seem to represent what were origi-

53 A.F. Puukko, Das Deuteronomium (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1910), 149 n. 2; J. Hempel,Die Schichten des Deuteronomiums: Ein Beitrag zur israelitischen Literatur- und Rechts-geschichte (Beitrage zur Kultur- und Universalgeschichte 33; Leipzig: Voigtlander, 1914),124 (with n. 1); Carr, Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 147 n. 110.


nally separate compositions that were secondarily combined with eachother. At the same time, the truncated character of Numbers suggests thatsome part of that original composition was eliminated in the process ofthis combination. Another pointer, originally observed by Noth, is the factthat the narration of the death of Moses outside the land now found in D/Pform at the end of Deuteronomy presupposes an idea of the Jordan as aland boundary that contradicts the West-East Jordan concept found inDeuteronomy and Joshua itself. According to Noth, this incongruencesuggests that the narration in Deuteronomy 34 is based on a now missingdeath report of Moses outside the land that was once a continuation of the(non-P) materials now found in Numbers.54 We cannot know what shapethe continuation of such non-P materials once had. For example, it is im-possible to reconstruct a pre-D narrative of the death of Moses or identifya pre-D arrival/conquest narrative. Nevertheless, much as an amputeesometimes feels sensations of their missing limbs, there are faint indicatorsin Numbers and Deuteronomy of the prior existence of a now missingconclusion of the pre-D Exodus*/Numbers* Moses story, a conclusioneliminated in the process of what was both a conceptual and literary com-bination of that story with Deuteronomy(–Joshua).

The fourth reconstructed stage of the growth of the Moses story was thewriting of some sort of separate Priestly source, one that extended at leastfrom Genesis through the tabernacle account and likely well beyond. Bythis point, the Moses story was thoroughly bound together with the Gene-sis materials, with the events at Sinai now depicted not as an independentcovenant but rather as an outgrowth of the covenant first made withAbraham, and with the Moses story explicitly coordinated with the prime-val and patriarchal periods as times when people knew God by differentnames (Exod 6:2–3). Yet even as these Priestly materials so explicitly spanthe Genesis and Moses story materials and coordinate them with eachother, they still mirror in their very structure some of the above-discussedposited divisions in their non-P precursor documents, especially the divi-sion between a proto-Genesis composition on the one hand and a pre-PMoses story on the other. For example, Priestly materials in Genesis mayintegrally link with Moses story materials that follow, but they are struc-turally defined in the P layer as part of a “toledot” book that surveys thegenerations preceding the time of Moses.55 Similarly, the Priestly Mosesstory materials show multiple links back to Priestly materials of Genesis,

54 M. Noth, “Israelitische Stamme zwischen Ammon und Moab,” ZAW 19 (1944): 19–21.55 D.M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis : Historical and Literary Approaches (Louis-

ville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 120–121.

32 David M. Carr

yet the P Moses story features a beginning (Exod 1:1–5) that almostsounds like the beginning of a scroll : a rehearsal and repetition of the rollof Israelites who descended into Egypt. Moreover, the broader P Mosesstory is organized by a pre- and post-Sinai itinerary structure rather thanby the toledot framework that covered Genesis.56 In these and other waysthe original divisions between pre-P portions of the Pentateuch continueto echo in the literary stratum of P that manifestly joins the Moses storywith materials that precede it. Indeed, given the above-noted indicators, itis likely, in my view, that the original P document was transmitted on sep-arate scrolls: a “scroll of the toledot of Adam” (Gen 5:1) and one or morescrolls (beginning with material preserved in Exod 1:1–5) comprised pri-marily of events during Moses’ lifetime. As mentioned above, the Priestlyappendices at the end of the (P) Sinai narrative in Numbers 5–10 may in-dicate that the P Moses story was transmitted on two scrolls, one begin-ning in Exod 1:1–5 and one beginning with the post-Sinai material, butcertainty on this count is particularly difficult to obtain.

In the fifth stage of the formation of the Moses story, this Priestly ma-terial was combined with the non-P Hexateuch on which it was modeledand which it was originally designed to replace, and the combined P/non-P document seems to have received yet further Priestly expansions,whether at its conclusion (Josh 24:33) or throughout its middle. As in thecase of the combination of Deuteronomy–Joshua with the Moses story, aloss of material almost certainly occurred at this stage, including non-Pmaterial about the construction of the ark (reflected in Num 10:33–36 andDeut 10:2b [cf. Exod 34:1]).57 Of course, lacking separate copies of thesource documents, we can do no more than speculate on the specifics ofsuch matters, but we are on sure ground to suppose that such eliminationof both P and non-P material took place. The fact that so much relativelycontinuous P and non-P material is present in parts of the Moses story (e.g. the plagues and Reed sea narrative) is a lucky happenstance thatstrengthens the hypothesis that those materials once existed independent-

56 F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic; Essays in the History of the Religion of Is-rael (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1973), 308; and J. Milgrom, Numbers (Philadel-phia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), xvi.

57 Note also the suggestive discussion by H. Gressmann of yet other indicators that tradi-tions surrounding the ark once stood as the counterpoint to the building of the goldencalf (Mose und seine Zeit [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913], 218), the originalcontents of the tent of meeting (Mose, 240–246), and the object around which Mose’snegotiations in Exodus 33; 34:5b–9 and Num 10:29–36 revolve (Mose, 319–337). Herewe probably do have indirect indicators of elements of the non-P narrative on which theP tabernacle material was (in part) modeled, but which are no longer present in our ex-tant non-P materials.


ly, but full preservation of conflated source documents is neither docu-mented elsewhere nor to be expected in this instance. Notably, however,even as the redactors and augmentors of the P/non-P document eliminat-ed some material in the process of combining sources into a coherent his-torical overview up to occupation of the land, they seem to have preservedseveral basic divisions in the narrative, such as the narrative and scrollbreak between Genesis(ff.) along with the break between Deuteronomyand what precedes it. As suggested above, there are several signs that theintegrated narrative in Exodus–Numbers may have been conceived as aunit and even transmitted together up to a relatively late period. But evenat the stage of P/non-P transmission we still see ripples reflecting theseams of older separate non-P proto-Genesis, Moses, and Deuteronomy–Joshua documents.

As for the sixth stage, I have discussed a series of even later documentedmodifications of the Moses story, most of which attempted to bridge theremaining seams between its parts, particularly the perceived disjunctionsbetween narratives in Exodus and Numbers and the seeming reviews ofthem in Deuteronomy. These modifications, however, were not the onlyones. For example, as discussed above, there are signs that the proto-MTversion of Deut 27:4–7 is the result of an anti-Samaritan modification ofthe text from describing the building of an altar on Gerizim to one on Mt.Ebal. If such a change occurred in this way, and there is a question aboutthat, it would be associated with the Hasmoneans and represent quitemarginal revisions of an otherwise quite ancient tradition preserved in theproto-MT. By this point, apparently, the story of Moses tradition becamequite fixed, at least in the authorized, proto-MT (Hasmonean?) stream.More expansionist and coordinating additions are attested in the OldGreek tradition as well as in the expansionist pentateuchal manuscriptstream that includes both the Samaritan Pentateuch and a number of(“proto-Samaritan”) manuscripts at Qumran with similar coordinatingadditions. Otherwise, more radical reconceptualizations of the Moses storymaterial, e. g. 4QRP and 11QTemple, did not end up in ongoing transmis-sion streams.

Finally, it is not clear at what point in the above-described process thatthe Moses story along with Genesis was split off from Joshua and madeinto a supremely authoritative pentateuchal “Torah of Moses.” This movelikely post-dated the composition and combination of P and non-P mate-rials, since those materials both extend in some form into the Hexateuch.Moreover, there is an array of late Persian period/Hellenistic references tothe “Torah of Moses” (e. g. Mal 3:22; Dan 9:11, 13; Ezra 3:2; 7:6; Neh 8:1;2 Chr 23:18; 30:16), some of which may have the broader Pentateuch in

34 David M. Carr

mind. In using such terminology, these later Judean texts take up languageused in earlier periods to refer more narrowly to the Deuteronomic Torah(e. g. Josh 8:31–32; 1 Kgs 2:3; 2 Kgs 14:6; 23:25). Nevertheless, at the latestby the time of Ben Sira’s “Praise to the Fathers” that clearly distinguishesthe Pentateuch from other Scriptural texts, the older idea of a “Torah ofMoses” has expanded to encompass and separate the books of Genesis–Deuteronomy from all other inspired books.58 This gradual formation of aspecifically pentateuchal “Torah” may have been accompanied by thewriting of parts of Deuteronomy 34, as has been proposed by some recentstudies, though this chapter could, in my view, be dated to earlier periodsas well.59 Nevertheless, I believe we would be mistaken to presuppose thecreation of the Pentateuch through a substantial and broad “pentateuchalredaction.” Rather, it appears that the recognition of a “Pentateuch” was solate a move that it was less a compositional move than a definitional move.It was not a question of deeply shaping or modifying the tradition, but ofdefining it. In the end, Judaism defined and sanctified what is essentially astory about the formation of Israel defined by the scope of Moses’ lifealong with a prologue in Genesis.

In this creation of a pentateuchal “Torah,” we see yet another exampleof the return of ancient precursors in later formulations. I have alreadystressed ways in which later literary layers (e. g. P and our combined P/non-P Hexateuch) likely reflect older divisions between literary precursors(proto-Genesis, a non-P Moses story, Deuteronomy along with Joshua).Moreover, I have suggested that tradents at several stages felt compelled toadd elements from Deuteronomy into the Moses story, whether in theprocess of forming a post-D Hexateuch (e. g. Exod 32:10–14 that harmo-nizes Exodus 32 with Deuteronomy 9–10) or in later additions of coordi-nating additions to expansionist pentateuchal manuscripts at Qumran andthe Samaritan Pentateuch (e. g. Exod 32:9 [missing in the LXX] that in-serts Deut 9:13 into Exodus 32). The eventual Jewish centering on a“Torah of Moses” represented yet another way in which the books of Gen-esis–Numbers (and by exclusion, Joshua) came to be received under therubric of terminology and conceptuality whose original home was Deuter-

58 A. Goshen-Gottstein, “Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers – a Canon-Conscious Reading,” inBen Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference (Durham 2001) (ed.R. Egger-Wenzel; BZAW 321; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001), 244–249.

59 See particularly T. Romer and M. Brettler, “Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a PersianHexateuch,” JBL 119 (2000): 401–19; and K. Schmid, “The Late Persian Formation ofthe Torah: Observations on Deuteronomy 34,” in Judah and the Judeans in the FourthCentury BCE (ed. O. Lipschits, G. Knoppers, and R. Albertz; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,2007), 237–251; cf. Carr, Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 271–273.


onomy. This inclusion of the books of the Pentateuch under the (originallyDeuteronomic) rubric of “Torah” may have been prompted partially bythe totalitarian ideological claims of Deuteronomy itself (e. g. Deut 4:1;5:1; 6:1–9, 20–25; 7:9–11; 8:1; 11:1, 8–9, 13–28, 31–32) and the unusuallystrong influence of Deuteronomy across Second Temple Judaism, partiallyby Persian-period privileging of cultic law over narrative and/or Persiananxiety about the conquest narrative, and perhaps partially by a wish topose Moses as the Judean cultural counterpart and worthy contrast to theGreek Homer. It is difficult to know. In the end, the present Pentateuch isa literary construct with likely roots in an originally separate Moses story,augmented through the addition of material both preceding (forms ofGenesis) and following (forms of Deuteronomy) it, rewritten and enrichedwith substantial amounts of Priestly material, and modified and finally re-conceptualized through a Deuteronomistic lens.

David M. CarrProfessor of Old Testament/Hebrew BibleUnion Theological Seminary in New York3041 BroadwayNew York, NY [email protected]

36 David M. Carr

Erhard Blum

Der historische Mose und die Fruhgeschichte Israels

Walter Großcollegae dilectissimo

septuagenario

The ‘Life of Moses’ is beyond the range of historiography. Nevertheless, several ele-ments of the Moses traditions rooted in the northern Israelite heritage probably goback to the earliest history of (Proto-) Israel, partly even to a figure called ‘Moses’ orto groups in the realm of its Wirkung. These elements are mainly the name ‘Moses’ it-self and the Exodus tradition on the one hand, Moses’ relations to Midian and thetradition which relates the god YHWH to Teman/Seir on the other hand. With regardto the last aspect, the epigraphic evidence from Kuntillet Ajrud proves to be of majorimportance.

Die Person des Mose bleibt einer historischen Rekonstruktion, die diesenNamen verdient, entzogen. Dies ist kein Urteil uber die Historizitat derMosegestalt, sondern eine Feststellung zur Quellenlage und eine Aner-kenntnis der Grenzen der historischen Analyse. Gleichwohl behalt dieFrage nach dem „historischen Mose“ ihr Recht. Zwar durfte mit einschla-gigen ‚direkten‘ Quellen auch in Zukunft kaum zu rechnen sein, dochbleibt fur die historische Ruckfrage immerhin der Weg zu erkunden, wel-che Uberlieferungen der biblischen Tradition wie nahe an die mutmaßli-che Mosegestalt und damit an Aspekte der Vor- und Fruhgeschichte desalten Israel heranfuhren konnen. Eben darin liegt denn auch die primareBedeutung historischer Hypothesenbildungen zu Mose: nicht in einemtatsachlich oder vermeintlich gesicherten Urteil uber das eine oder andereDatum zur Person des Mose, sondern in dem Versuch, Klarungen uberformative geschichtliche Prozesse bei der Genese Israels und die darauserwachsene Traditionsbildung herbeizufuhren.

Die moglichen Ansatzpunkte innerhalb der biblischen Tradition unddarauf bezogene Quellen und Daten liegen seit Jahrzehnten nahezu unver-andert auf dem Tisch. Es sind dies (1) der Name des Mose, damit zusam-menhangend: (2) der historische Hintergrund der Exodusuberlieferung,(3) die Tradition von Moses midianitischer Verschwagerung und damit


zusammenhangend: (4) die religionsgeschichtliche Rekonstruktion derAnfange der JHWH-Verehrung in Israel.

Was sich verandert, und dies in den letzten Jahrzehnten vielleicht indeutlicheren Zuspitzungen als fruher, sind zum einen die literargeschicht-lichen Analysen der biblischen Quellen, zum anderen die (oft stillschwei-gend) supponierten Korrelationen von Texten, Traditionen und ‚realer‘Geschichte.

I. Der Mose-Name

Der Name ‚Mose‘ ( השמ ) gilt seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts als agypti-schen Ursprungs,1 eine Herleitung, zu der es bislang keine uberzeugendeAlternative gibt. Naherhin ist er als Kurzform eines theophoren Namensnach der Art von ‚Thutmose‘ oder ‚Achmose‘ zu sehen und etymologischvon einem Verb msj mit der Bedeutung „gebaren/zeugen“ abzuleiten. Alsphilologisch nicht ganz einfach erweist sich dabei die Erklarung der he-braischen Form mose, insbesondere die Wiedergabe des agyptischen Sibi-lanten mit s anstelle eines s, wie es beispielsweise in der hebraischenSchreibung von ‚Ramses‘: ססמער (vgl. Ex 1,11) belegt ist. Schon J.G. Griffi-ths hat den Befund nach dem Vorgang von W.F. Albright mit unter-schiedlichen Transkriptionen des agyptischen s-Lautes im 2. Jahrtausendbzw. im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (und mit unterschiedlichen Aneignungenfremder Namen im Hebraischen) erklart.2 Noch pointierter verbindet E.A.Knauf den Befund mit einer „kanaanaischen Lautverschiebung“ zum An-fang des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. , in deren Folge agyptisches /s/ hebraischmit ס wiedergegeben worden sei.3 Diese These ist, soweit ich sehe, in derSache bislang unwidersprochen geblieben.4 Gleichwohl scheint Manfred

1 R. Lepsius, Die Chronologie der Aegypter. Einleitung und erster Theil : Kritik der Quel-len, Berlin: Nicolaische Buchhandlung, 1849, 325f Anm. 5; aus der neueren Lit. beispiel-haft: W.H. Schmidt, Exodus (BK II/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974–1988, 73f. ; H. Donner, Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzugen.Teil 1: Von den Anfangen bis zur Staatenbildungszeit (GAT 4/1), Gottingen: Vandenho-eck & Ruprecht, 32000, 125f; M. Gerhards, Die Aussetzungsgeschichte des Mose. Literar-und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Schlusseltext des nichtpriester-schriftlichen Tetrateuch (WMANT 109), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2006,137f. mit weiterer Lit.

2 J.G. Griffiths, The Egyptian Derivation of the Name Moses, in: JNES 12 (1953), 225–231,hier bes. 231.

3 E.A. Knauf, Midian. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palastinas und Nordarabiens amEnde des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. (ADPV), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988, 105.

4 M. Gorg, Die Beziehungen zwischen dem alten Israel und Agypten. Von den Anfangenbis zum Exil (EdF 290), Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1997, 143f; ders. ,

38 Erhard Blum

Gorg eine innerisraelitische Veranderung des Mosenamens von mose zumose zu praferieren. Diese Veranderung sei mit der sekundaren Eintra-gung einer hebraischen Erklarung des Mosenamens (mit dem Verbum

השמ ) in eine mutmaßliche kurzere Fassung der Geburtsgeschichte in Ex*2,1–10 erfolgt. Allerdings bleibt nicht nur diese postulierte „Grundfas-sung“ der Episode ohne exegetischen Ausweis, die Annahme, wonach dieaQt_a den zu erklarenden Sachverhalt generiert hatte, wurde zudem dieLogik atiologischer Uberlieferungen auf den Kopf stellen. Vielmehr war esumgekehrt die Moglichkeit einer hebraischen Namenserklarung, die eineRezeption der Aussetzungsmotivik nahelegte, zumal sich damit nicht nurauthentisches Lokalkolorit (Nil, Papyrus etc.)5 zwanglos verbinden ließ,sondern vor allem auch eine schlussige Gestaltung der Geschichte vonMoses Geburt als Klimax der Bedrohung Israels durch Pharao.

Die Episode ist denn auch ganz auf ihren Kontext hin gestaltet. Dies zeigt insbesonderedie dramatische Entsprechung zwischen dem Vernichtungsbefehl Pharaos in 1,22:„Jeden neugeborenen Knaben [scil. der Hebraer] – in den Nil sollt ihr ihn werfen!“ unddem Hohepunkt in 2,6, als ausgerechnet Pharaos Tochter im Nil stehend (!) erkennt,dass sie einen hebraischen Saugling in der Hand halt. Dazu gehort aber auch schon diemit 1,15 einsetzende Rolleninszenierung, in der die pharaonische Vernichtungsstrategieauf die mannlichen Hebraerkinder fokussiert bleibt, ebenso wie deren Vereitelung aufagyptische und israelitische Frauen: die Hebammen, Moses Mutter und Schwester bishin zu Pharaos eigener Tochter. Insbesondere die zweimalige, aus der Genozidabsichtnicht erklarliche ausdruckliche Anordnung, die weiblichen Hebraerkinder zu verscho-nen (1,16bb. 21bb: „aber jede Tochter sollt ihr am Leben lassen“), bestatigt die bewussteProfilierung dieses Erzahlungszuges; im Ubrigen schafft sie die Voraussetzung fur dasAuftreten von Moses Schwester.6

Mose – Name und Namenstrager. Versuch einer historischen Annaherung, in: E. Otto(Hg.), Mose. Agypten und das Alte Testament (SBS 189), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel-werk, 2000, 17–42, hier 23f. Vgl. zuletzt Gerhards, aaO., 139–141.

5 Dazu bspw. Schmidt, Exodus (s. Anm. 1), 69f.6 In dieser Linie kann auch die aufs Notigste verknappte Statistenrolle des Familienvaters(2,1) erzahlerisch nicht uberraschen. Halt man sich von daher an die Hauptprotagonisten,so sind deren Auftreten und der jeweilige Handlungsort in 1,22–2,10 konzentrisch umden dramatischen Hohepunkt in 2,6 herum gruppiert:

Pharao <Konigshof> Totungsbefehl(Vater+)Mutter <Elternhaus> Geburt und VerbergenMutter Nilufer AussetzungSchwester <Nilufer> BeobachtenPharaos Tochter am/im Nil Entdeckung+ Schwester <Nilufer> Vermittlung+ Mutter <Nilufer> Auftrag zum StillenMutter <Elternhaus> HeranwachsenPharaos Tochter <Konigshof> Adoption + Namensgebung

Die offensichtliche Gestaltung der Erzahlungssubstanz als Hohepunkt der in Ex 1einsetzenden Handlung schließt m. E. die Aufnahme einer vorformulierten „eigenstandi-

Der historische Mose und die Fruhgeschichte Israels 39

Dass dem Erzahler die Aussetzungsmotivik in Gestalt der verbreiteten Sargon-Sage7 be-kannt war, ist moglich, auch wenn sich spezifische Parallelen auf die funktionellen Ele-mente des Binsenkorbchens und dessen Abdichtung beschranken.8 Nichts zeigt jedochan, dass er die Sargongeschichte bewusst als Folie benutzt und deren Kenntnis bei seinenRezipienten vorausgesetzt hatte.9

Die sprachgeschichtliche Erklarung der biblischen Namensform von‚Mose‘ nach Knauf hat nun gleichermaßen exegetische wie historische Im-plikationen: Wurden in der israelitisch judaischen Konigszeit entspre-chende agyptische Namen nach dem Muster von ססמער ausgesprochen,dann war השמ nicht mehr ohne weiteres als agyptischer Name identifizier-bar, ein Datum, das zunachst fur die Auslegung von Ex 2,1–10 nicht ohneBelang ist.10

gen(n) Wandererzahlung, die ursprunglich nicht auf Mose bezogen war“ (Schmidt,aaO., 53), aus und lasst zudem die beliebte literarkritische Ausscheidung der Verse2,4.7–10a (ibid. 52f mit Lit.) fragwurdig erscheinen: (a) die literarkritisch vermissteMitteilung der Geburt der Tochter hatte nicht nur die zielfuhrende Geschlossenheit undDramatik der Episode zerstort ; (b) ein solcher Bericht war nach der auch sonst erkenn-baren Konvention gar nicht zu erwarten; (c) das Profil des Vorkontextes mit 1,16.22bbliebe unerklarlich. Im Ubrigen ware in der resultierenden Grundschicht 2,1–3.5–6+10bam Ende der bis V. 6 liebevoll ausgefuhrten Erzahlung ein unvermittelter Abbruch zukonstatieren.

7 Fur neuere Wiedergaben des Textes vgl. J.G. Westenholz, Legends of the Kings of Ak-kade. The Texts (MC 7), Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997, 36–49; K. Hecker, SargonsGeburtslegende, in: TUAT Erganzungslieferung, Gutersloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus,2005, 56f; Gerhards, aaO., 170–176.

8 Gerhards, aaO., 233f, fuhrt dagegen den Umstand, dass der Vater „an der Aussetzungdes Kindes nicht beteiligt ist“, auf eine direkte Abhangigkeit von dem Sargontext zu-ruck. Die Konzentration auf die verschiedenen Vergleichstexte scheint dabei jedoch denBlick auf das Profil des Kontextes von Ex 2 verdeckt zu haben (s. o. bei Anm. 5).

9 Erst recht nicht nachzuvollziehen ist, wie intendierte Leser, selbst wenn sie mit der Sar-gonuberlieferung vertraut waren, Ex 2 als eine konigskritische, naherhin eine „subver-siv“ gegen die „neuassyrische Konigsideologie“ (dann auch gegen das davidische Konig-tum?) gerichtete Erzahlung verstehen sollten; so E. Otto, Mose und das Gesetz. DieMose-Figur als Gegenentwurf Politischer Theologie zur neuassyrischen Konigsideologieim 7. Jh. v. Chr., in: ders. (Hg.), Mose. Agypten und das Alte Testament (SBS 189),Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000, 43–83; Gerhards, aaO., Kap. C. Vgl. dazu auchdie Kritik bei J. Christian Gertz, Mose und die Anfange der judischen Religion, in:ZThK 99 (2002), 3–20, hier 13f, sowie F. Blanco Wißmann, Sargon, Mose und die Geg-ner Salomos – Zur Frage vor-neuassyrischer Ursprunge der Mose-Erzahlung, in: BN110 (2001), 42–54, hier 50f.

10 Damit wird eine durchaus reizvolle Uberlegung von I. Willi-Plein, Ort und literarischeFunktion der Geburtsgeschichte des Mose, in: VT 41 (1991), 110–118, wonach die in Ex1,15–2,10 rekurrente Wurzel דלי als Leitwort verdeckt auf die – den Lesern bekann-te – agyptische Bedeutung von „Mose“ hinfuhre, doch fraglich; vgl. auch Gerhards,aaO., 138–141. Gerhards, ebd. 141–147, vermutet dagegen, dass das hebraische השמ insemantischer Analogie zu לצנ Hif. in einem verallgemeinerten Sinn fur „retten“ ge-braucht werden konnte. Dann bote die Namensgebung des Pharaonentochter in 2,10eine schone Explikation des der Geburtsgeschichte zugrundeliegenden Motivs vom „ge-

40 Erhard Blum

Fur die israelitische Traditionsgeschichte einer Gestalt namens ‚Mose‘fuhrt die Sprachform in die fruhe Eisenzeit (EZ I) oder gar Spatbronzezeit(SB), d. h. in eine fruhisraelitische (oder proto-israelitische) Epoche. Belegtsie auch einen genuinen traditionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang dieserGestalt mit der Agypten-Exodus-Uberlieferung? M. Noth verneint diesunter Verweis auf die Rahmenbedingungen in Kanaan: „Einen agypti-schen Namen konnte ein Mensch am Ausgang der Spatbronzezeit, nach-dem Syrien-Palastina mehrere Jahrhunderte lang unter agyptischer Ober-herrschaft gestanden hatte, auch erhalten haben, ohne jemals in Agyptenselbst gewesen zu sein; besonders bei Stammen, die sich in der Wustezwischen Agypten und dem palastinischen Kulturlande zeitweise aufhiel-ten, war das leicht moglich. Wie auch immer Mose zu seinem agyptischenNamen gekommen sein mag, eine spezielle Beziehung zu der Erzahlungvon der ‚Herausfuhrung aus Agypten‘ hat er offenbar nicht.“11 Auch wennNoth keinen Beleg fur Nicht-Agypter mit agyptischen Namen im Kanaandieser Zeit anfuhrt, ist eine solche Moglichkeit naturlich nicht auszu-schließen. Nicht beantwortet ware damit gleichwohl die weitergehendeFrage, wie wahrscheinlich die Verknupfung eines Heros agyptischen Na-mens mit einer Ursprungstradition ist, welche die Anfange der Israelitenmit einem Auszug aus Agypten verbindet. Nun ist reale Geschichte ge-meinhin komplexer, als die Ordnungskategorien nachgeborener Histori-ker es vorsehen, insofern ware gewiss damit zu rechnen, dass an solchenAnfangen, wie immer sie zu beschreiben sind, bspw. ein Agypter eine we-sentliche Rolle gespielt haben mochte. Demgegenuber hatte jedoch einederartige sekundare Verknupfung innerhalb der fruhen israelitischen Tra-dition jede Plausibilitatserwagung gegen sich.12 Geradezu ausgeschlossenwerden kann dergleichen fur „jungere“ Traditionen (d. h. in diesem Falle:jedenfalls ab dem 9./8. Jahrhundert v. Chr.): Falls die Herkunft des Na-mens noch bekannt war (s. o.), stellte sich die eben formulierte Frage nochverscharft. Falls der Name nicht mehr verstanden wurde, bliebe nur diezweifelhafte Hypothese eines wundersamen Zufalls. Beide Optionen ver-

retteten Retter“. Erweisen lasst sich dies gleichwohl nicht, weil das Verbum neben Ex 2nur noch in Ps 18,17 (par.) vorkommt, ebenfalls in der konkreten Bedeutung „(aus demWasser) ziehen“. Gerade bei einer idiomatischen Bedeutung im Sinne von „retten“ sollteman aber ein haufigeres Vorkommen erwarten.

11 M. Noth, Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948, 178f.12 Vgl. R. Smend, Mose als geschichtliche Gestalt, in: ders. , Bibel – Theologie – Universitat

(KVR 1582), Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997, 5–20, hier 17: „Der Namespricht entschieden fur eine agyptische Komponente in der Biographie seines Tragers …Spatere Erfindung durfte auszuschließen sein; wie sollte Israel dem Mann, den es alsseinen Begrunder ansah, einen Namen gerade in der Sprache derer beilegen, aus derenHand er das Volk gerettet hatte?“


banden sich zudem mit dem zusatzlichen Problem, woher diese Traditi-onsgestalt mit dem altertumlichen Namen genommen sein sollte. Die his-torischen Implikationen des Mose-Namens lassen sich mithin von der Ge-schichte der Exodustradition nicht losen.

II. Die Exodus-Tradition als Hintergrund

Nach einer verbreiteten Sicht in der neueren Exegese war die Traditioneines Exodus aus Agypten primar im Bereich des Nordreiches Israel be-heimatet.13 In der Tat ist der Textbefund außerhalb der Pentateucherzah-lung in dieser Hinsicht eindeutig: Unter den Propheten des 8. Jahrhun-derts v. Chr. bezieht sich allein14 der nordisraelitische Hosea auf die Agyp-tentradition, und dies ebenso nachdrucklich wie pointiert (Hos 11,1;12,10. 14; 13,4[f]). Nicht zuletzt kann der Prophet in Hos 12, einer litera-risch komponierten Redeeinheit, die zwischen 732 und 724 zu datierenist,15 Mose als Fuhrungsfigur des Agypten-Exodus thematisieren (12,14):

13 Vgl. so unterschiedlich gepragte Fachvertreter wie Y. Hoffman, A North Israelite Typo-logical Myth and a Judean Historical Tradition: the Exodus in Hosea and Amos, in: VT39 (1989), 169–182; R. Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit 1(GAT 8/1) Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992, 212–226; ders., Exodus: Libera-tion History against Charter Myth, in: J.W. van Henten/A. Houtepen (Hgg.), ReligiousIdentity and the Invention of Tradition (STAR 3) Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001, 128–143; K. van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel. Continuity andChange in the Forms of Religious Life (SHCANE 7), Leiden et al. : Brill, 1996, 287–306;ders., The Exodus as Charter Myth, in: J.W. van Henten/A. Houtepen (Hgg.), aaO.,113–127; J.J. Collins, The Development of the Exodus Tradition, in: J.W. van Henten/A.Houtepen (Hgg.), aaO., 144–155; M. Kockert, YHWH in the Northern and SouthernKingdom, in: R.G. Kratz/H. Spieckermann (Hgg.), One God – One Cult – One Nation.Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (BZAW 405), Berlin/New York: De Gruyter,2010, 357–394. In der alteren Forschung blieb der Zusammenhang verdeckt, solangeman sich von dem judaischen Jahwisten der Urkundenhypothese leiten ließ.

14 Daneben konnte man auch an Amos denken; s. z. B. Hoffman, aaO., 177–181; van derToorn, Family Religion (s. Anm. 13), 291–293. Die einschlagigen Belege (Am 2,10f; 3,1;9,7) gelten jedoch mit guten Grunden zumeist als jungere (im weiteren Sinne ‚deute-ronomistische‘) Eintragungen. Vgl. insgesamt W.H. Schmidt, Die deuteronomistischeRedaktion des Amosbuches, in: ZAW 77 (1965), 168–193; zu Am 2,10f bes. M. Kockert,Das Gesetz und die Propheten in Amos 1–2 (1992), in: ders., Leben in Gottes Gegen-wart. Studien zum Verstandnis des Gesetzes im Alten Testament (FAT 43) Tubingen:Mohr Siebeck, 2004, 183–193; zu Am 3,1 H.W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 2. Joel undAmos (BK 14/2) Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969, 212f; zu Am 9,7 H.Gese, Das Problem von Amos 9,7 (1979), in: ders. , Alttestamentliche Studien, Tubin-gen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991, 116–121.

15 E. Blum, Hosea 12 und die Pentateuchuberlieferungen, in: A. C. Hagedorn/H. Pfeiffer(Hgg.), Die Erzvater in der biblischen Tradition. FS M. Kockert (BZAW 400), Berlin-New York: De Gruyter, 2009, 291–321.

42 Erhard Blum

רמשנאיבנבוםירצממלארשיתאהוהיהלעהאיבנבוDie Rede von „einem Propheten“ ohne Nennung des Namens steht imDienst einer pointierten pragmatischen Zuspitzung der Einheit, die ein aufseine eigene Kraft bauendes Jakob/Israel dazu anhalt, sich auf die bewah-rende Leitung seines Gottes, eben vermittelt durch Propheten (Verse [7.]11. 14), zu besinnen. Welcher Art die Erzahltradition war, auf die diesesummarische Erinnerung von V. 14 anspielte, lasst sich aus Hos 12 nichtmehr erschließen. Jedenfalls ist mit der Moglichkeit zu rechnen, dass dieProfilierung Moses als Prophet eine bewusste Neuakzentuierung durchHosea darstellte.

Obschon Hosea bestimmte Formen der ‚Staatsreligion‘ wie etwa denKult um „Samarias Jungstier“ scharf angreift (8,5; 10,5–6; 13,2b), steht ermit der Exodusthematik doch auch in einer zentralen ‚offiziellen‘ Traditi-on des Nordreichs. Diese Tradition belegen in wunschenswerter Deutlich-keit noch die beiden kritischen Spiegelungen des Kultes zu Bethel in 1 Kon12,26–33 und Ex 32, wo die Stierbilder jeweils als „dein Gott, Israel, derdich aus Agyptenland heraufgefuhrt hat, (1 Kon 12,28; Ex 32,4) prokla-miert werden. Unabhangig davon, ob man es fur moglich halt, innerhalbder dtr Darstellung der kultpolitischen Maßnahmen Jerobeams I. in Bethel(und Dan) in 1 Kon 12 literarkritisch alteres annalistisches Material nochim Wortlaut abgrenzen zu konnen,16 erscheint es kaum denkbar, dass (imengeren und weiteren Sinne) deuteronomistische Tradenten auf die Ideeverfielen, die fur sie zentrale Exodustradition ausgerechnet mit dem Kult-programm Jerobeams, d. h. aus ihrer Sicht mit der ‚Ursunde‘ des Nordrei-ches Israel, in Verbindung zu bringen.17 Umgekehrt ist nicht zu uberse-hen, mit welcher Intensitat nach der Zerschlagung des Nordreiches inJuda daran gearbeitet wurde, die Illegitimitat der JHWH-Verehrung inBethel zu erweisen, ohne dabei die Exodustradition selbst infrage zu stel-len. Bezeichnenderweise gelingt es dabei weder Ex 32 (in seinen verschie-denen Schichten) noch 1 Kon 12, die Spannung zwischen der Verbindungdes Stierbilds zum JHWH-Kult und dem jeweils unterstellten Abfall vonJHWH (zu einem selbstgemachten Gott) ganzlich aufzulosen. Es sprichtmithin einiges dafur, dass in der o.g. Proklamation des Exodusgottes so

16 Fur entsprechende Analysen vgl. H. Pfeiffer, Das Heiligtum von Bethel im Spiegel desHoseabuches (FRLANT 183), Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999, 26–33; Ko-ckert, YHWH (s. Anm. 13), 368f, jeweils mit Lit.

17 F. Crusemann, Der Widerstand gegen das Konigtum. Die antikoniglichen Texte desAlten Testamentes und der Kampf um den fruhen israelitischen Staat (WMANT 49),Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978, 122 mit Anm. 59.


etwas wie ein Kultruf aus dem Reichsheiligtum von Bethel zitiert wird,18

dessen Implikationen auf der Hand liegen: „In the royal proclamation infront of the bull (v. 28), YHWH appears as the ‚God of Israel‘, i. e. as thenational god who bases his special relationship to ‚Israel‘ on the Exodusfrom Egypt.“19

Kann man insofern vom Exodus als einem „Charter Myth“ des Konig-reiches Israel sprechen,20 verbindet sich damit freilich sogleich die weiter-gehende Frage, weshalb dieser Tradition gerade im Nordreich eine solcheBedeutung zuwachsen konnte. Eine mogliche Antwort musste wohl dop-pelt ausgerichtet sein: zum einen auf das Herkommen der Exodus-Tradi-tion, zum anderen auf eine (oder mehrere) Konstellation(en) in der Ge-schichte des Nordreiches, in welcher der Exodus eine spezifische identi-tatsstiftende Wirkung entfalten konnte.

Fur Letzteres bietet sich m. E. allein die Anfangszeit des sich konstitu-ierenden Konigsreiches Israel an; allerdings verbinden sich damit einiger-maßen verzweigte historische Fragen, deren fundierte Diskussion in die-sem Rahmen nicht moglich ist. Deshalb muss es hier bei einer knappenSkizze bleiben: Unter der Voraussetzung, dass das Nordreich Israel als‚rechtlich-politische‘ Große mit einer Separation der Nordstamme ausdem Herrschaftsbereich der Davididen entstanden ist und dass diese Se-paration nicht zuletzt vor dem Hintergrund von Fronarbeiten dieserStamme fur die salomonische Oberherrschaft (s.u.) angestrebt wurde, liegtdas Bedeutungspotential der Exodustradition fur die kollektive Identitatdes sich konstituierenden ‚Staates‘ auf der Hand. Dies ist nicht so zu ver-stehen, dass Pharao als Chiffre fur das davidische Konigtum gedient hatteoder Erzahlungen vom Auszug aus Agypten als Allegorien fur die Auf-kundigung der Gefolgschaft gegenuber Jerusalem. Wohl aber konnte sichdie ursprungsmythisch erfolgreiche Absetzung aus dem Herrschaftsbe-reich Pharaos als Analogie zur erfolgreichen politischen Absonderung von

18 W. Zimmerli, Das Bilderverbot in der Geschichte des alten Israel. Goldenes Kalb, Eher-ne Schlange, Mazzeben und Lade (1971), in: ders. , Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theo-logie und Prophetie. Gesammelte Aufsatze II (TB 51), Munchen: Kaiser, 1974, 247–260,hier 250. Vgl. u. a. auch Albertz, Religionsgeschichte (s. Anm. 13), 223.

19 Kockert, aaO., 370.20 Vgl. van der Toorn, Exodus (s. Anm. 13). Allerdings ware neben und mit der Exodus-

tradition sogleich auch die Jakobuberlieferung zu nennen. Deren Verhaltnisbestimmungbei van der Toorn: „whereas the Jacob tradition was a paradigm of local religion, theExodus tradition served as national charter myth“ (aaO., 122), verfehlt die Jakobuber-lieferung in nahezu jeder Beziehung: der „Gott in Bethel“, der Israel-Name, die Bezie-hungen zu Edom auf der einen, zu Aram auf der anderen Seite, die VorrangsstellungJosephs etc. haben nichts mit „localist clan religion“ zu schaffen. Zu Jakob vgl. zuletzt E.Blum, Jacob Traditions, in: C.A. Evans u. a. (Hgg.), The Book of Genesis. Composition,Reception, and Interpretation (FIOTL), Leiden: Brill, im Druck.

44 Erhard Blum

den Davididen aufdrangen. Das Motiv der Fronarbeit kann dabei bereitszum Exodus-Narrativ gehort haben.21 Falls nicht, wird es ihm nun zuge-wachsen sein.

Der Gedanke, dass der Stellenwert der Exodustradition im Nordreich mit den Erfahrun-gen der Salomozeit und dem politischen Widerstand gegen dieses Konigtum zu verbin-den sei, ist gewiss nicht neu.22 Vor allem R. Albertz hat dafur auch einen Nachweis aufder Textebene gesucht, indem er Strukturentsprechungen im Plot der Mose- und Jero-beam-Geschichte benannte und darauf die Datierung einer Mose-Exodus-Grunderzah-lung in die Anfangszeit des Nordreiches grundete.23 Allerdings ist zu fragen, ob die Par-allelen wirklich derartiges erweisen konnen oder doch eher aus thematisch-sachlichenGegebenheiten resultieren (Flucht vor dem Herrscher in ein anderes Land, Ruckkehrnach dessen Tod etc.). Daruber hinaus erscheint es ratsam, die geschichtliche Ansetzungder uberlieferten Texte (auch deren mutmaßlich altesten Bestandteile) von den traditi-onsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhangen zu trennen. Dies gilt auch fur die Uberlieferungvon der Reichstrennung in 1 Kon 11–12, insbesondere fur die Episode von den Ver-handlungen der Nordstamme mit Rehabeam und dem Konflikt zwischen alteren undjungeren Ratgebern.24 Als tragend durften sich am Ende eher einfache Sachzusammen-hange erweisen: Wenn Salomo in Jerusalem Tempel- und Palastbauten (in welchen Di-mensionen auch immer) durchfuhrte (was sich nicht so leicht als Fiktion erweisenlasst25), war er angesichts der fehlenden Ressourcen in Juda und Jerusalem zweifellos aufeine Rekrutierung von Angehorigen der Nordstamme in betrachtlichem Umfang ange-wiesen – wiederum eine fur den Idealkonig wenig vorteilhafte Tradition, die spatereTradenten wieder zu verdecken suchten.26

21 Noth, Uberlieferungsgeschichte (s. Anm. 11), 53, ist sich hier sicher : „Dabei gehorteneben dem eigentlichen Hauptgegenstand der Vernichtung der Agypter im Meere alsEinfuhrung noch der Aufenthalt der Israeliten, ihre Heranziehung zur Fronarbeit undihr Entweichen aus Agypten zum unentbehrlichen und festen Grundbestand an Erzah-lungsmotiven….“ Tatsachlich bedarf der Plot mit Auszug aus Agypten und Verfolgungder vorausgehenden Motivation fur den Auszug; allerdings waren neben der Fron auchandere Motivcluster denkbar, wie Deportation/Gefangenschaft, Desintegration in der‚Fremde‘ etc.

22 S. vor allem Crusemann, aaO. (s. Anm. 17), 111–122, bes. 122; Albertz, Religionsge-schichte (s. Anm. 13), 215–219.

23 Albertz, ebd.; ders. , YHWH (s. Anm. 13); mit einer eigenstandigen Weiterfuhrung:Blanco Wissmann, Sargon (s. Anm. 9). Noch ausgedehntere Salomo/Jerobeam-Mose-Bezuge finden zu konnen meint P. Sarkio, Exodus und Salomo. Erwagungen zur ver-deckten Salomokritik anhand von Ex 1–2; 5; 14 und 32 (SESJ 71), Helsinki/Gottingen:Finnische Exegetische Gesellschaft/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998.

24 Dazu zuletzt A. Rofe, Elders or Youngsters? Critical Remarks on 1 Kings 12, in: R.G.Kratz & H. Spieckermann, aaO. (s. Anm. 13), 79–89, der eine eher spate Datierung derweisheitlichen Episode vertritt.

25 Fiktive Bauprojekte dieser Art wurden dem Dynastiegrunder zugeschrieben werden;dies belegt schlagend die Muhe der Tradenten, diese Abweichung zu begrunden (2 Sam7; 1 Chron 17; 22).

26 Dazu dient die Einfuhrung „ubriggebliebener Amoriter, Hethiter, Perisiter, Hiwiter undJebusiter“ als Frondienstleistende in 1 Kon 9,20f, wahrend die Israeliten ausdrucklichausgenommen werden (9,22!). Dem widersprechen jedoch die Angaben in 5,27–30, dieEinfuhrung Adonirams als des fur die Fron zustandigen Beamten (ebd. und 12,18!) und


Fur die Verbreitung der Exodustradition vor ihrer Rezeption im Staatskultdes Nordens gibt es keine Quellengrundlage, weder in der biblischen Lite-ratur noch gar außerhalb. M. Noth kam fur seine These, bei der „Heraus-fuhrung aus Agypten“ handle es sich um „ein gemeinsames Bekenntnis vonGesamtisrael [Hervorhebungen im Orig. , EB]“, noch ohne greifbare Argu-mente aus, weil er sich auf einen unhinterfragten Konsens stutzen konn-te.27 Immerhin ist aber bereits vor Jerobeam mit einer Geltung der Tradi-tion in maßgeblichen Teilen der mittelpalastinischen bzw. nordlichenStamme zu rechnen, insofern auch ein „Charter Myth“ seine Aufgabe nurwirkungsvoll erfullen kann, wenn er eine entsprechende Resonanz in derBevolkerung findet. Traditionsgeschichtlich fuhrt dies fur die Exodusthe-matik letztlich in vorstaatliche Zeit.

Was meint aber das Exodus-Bekenntnis in dem nordisraelitischenKultruf in der Sache? Diese auf den ersten Blick uberraschende Frage wirdin einigen neueren Beitragen durchaus unterschiedlich beantwortet. So er-wagt M. Kockert, dass „the phrase ‚brought you up from the land of Egypt‘would … refer – in the context of the Northern Kingdom – to ‚Canaan‘ asa former Egyptian province.“ Wie die anschließende Erlauterung andeutet,ware damit naherhin die Geschichte der mittelpalastinischen Stamme imBlick, die zuvor symbiotisch mit kanaanaischen Stadtstaaten verbundenwaren. Erst spater ware der Exodus als Herausfuhrung aus Agypten selbstinterpretiert worden.28 Damit ware „Land Agypten“ in der „Exodus“-Tra-dition ursprunglich als Metapher verwendet, und dies in einem doppeltenSinne: fur „Kanaan“, aber nicht als raumlich-geographische Bezeichnung(die auch das mittelpalastinische Gebirge einschlosse), sondern als Chiffrefur eine soziokulturelle Große. Zu fragen ist jedoch, ob ein solcherSprachgebrauch von „Land Agypten“ mehr als zweihundert Jahre nach

die Notiz, wonach Jerobeam ben Nebat von Salomo als verantwortlich fur die Fron des„Hauses Joseph“ eingesetzt war (11,28). In der Kommentierung dieser Abschnitte durchM. Noth (Konige) zeigt sich eine umgekehrte Tendenz, weil in dem Alt-Nothschen ge-schichtlichen Bild eines nachhaltigen Antagonismus zwischen Israeliten und Kanaana-ern (der Theorie nach bis in die spate Konigszeit hinein) 1 Kon 9,20–22 als (letztlicheinziger) Beleg fur solche Kanaanaer neben den Israeliten gebraucht wurde. Literarge-schichtlich durfte in 9,20–22 dagegen schon die nach-dtrG-Verselbstandigung des Rich-terbuches mit Ri 1 vorausgesetzt sein.

27 Noth, Uberlieferungsgeschichte (s. Anm. 11), 52. Kritisch zu Noth bereits R. Smend,Jahwekrieg und Stammebund. Erwagungen zur altesten Geschichte Israels (FRLANT84), Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21966, 81–83; A.H.J. Gunneweg, Mose inMidian, in: ZThK 21 (1966), 1–9, hier 5 Anm. 12.

28 Kockert, YHWH (s. Anm. 13), 370.

46 Erhard Blum

dem Ruckzug der Agypter aus Kanaan (s.i.F.) nicht eine Art historischenBewusstseins, ja geradezu eine analytische Perspektive voraussetzte.29

Zuletzt hat auch N. Na’aman den Sachkern der Exodustradition auf Er-fahrungen von Protoisraeliten im Kanaan der Spatbronzezeit bezogen,wenn auch mit einer anderen Fullung:30 Insbesondere unter der 19. und20. Dynastie sei die agyptische Oberherrschaft in Kanaan auch von dernicht-stadtischen Bevolkerung zunehmend als druckend, als eine Art„Sklavenhaus“ erfahren worden, „so that the Egyptian withdrawal fromCanaan was a great relief to all its inhabitants.“31 Dieser historische Hin-tergrund mache die von Anfang an gesamtisraelitische Bedeutung derAgyptentradition verstandlich. Umgekehrt erklare die Annahme, „thatmemory of the Egyptian withdrawal from Canaan and the deliverancefrom its bondage was reversed and turned into a story of deliverance andthe emergence from Egypt“, weshalb in der biblischen Uberlieferung jedeErinnerung an die agyptische Herrschaft in Kanaan vor dem Zusammen-bruch der kanaanaischen Stadtstaaten fehle.32 Nun ist aber weder die zen-trale gesamtisraelitische Bedeutung der Tradition zweifelsfrei gegeben33

noch das Fehlen von Nachrichten uber historische Prozesse des 2. Jahrtau-sends v. Chr. in der alttestamentlichen Uberlieferung wirklich erklarungs-bedurftig. Na’amans indigen kanaanaische Herleitung gibt mithin das Rat-sel auf, weshalb der Exodus der Agypter in einen Exodus aus Agyptentransformiert worden sein sollte; zudem bleibt die religionsgeschichtlicheFrage nach den Ursprungen der JHWH-Verehrung durch die israeliti-schen Stamme dabei ausgeklammert. Na’aman ist sich dessen bewusst undnennt als weiteres Traditionselement noch die Mose-Figur mit ihrem sup-ponierten agyptischen Hintergrund.34 So bleibt schließlich als einzig sub-

29 Auch die Prasupposition der Erklarung des mit „herauffuhren“ (anstelle von „heraus-fuhren“) formulierten Kultrufs: „it [scil. der Kultruf] aims at safeguarding the possessionof the land and thus at protecting the national existence of the Northern kingdom – anexistence that has to be secured again and again in the cult: ‚…who brought you (sg.!)up …‘“ (ibid., 371), versteht sich nicht von selbst. Hat sich fur das Nordreich (odereinen der benachbarten Kleinstaaten) vor 732/722 v. Chr. eine standige ‚nationale Exis-tenzfrage‘ in diesem Sinne wirklich gestellt?

30 N. Na’aman, The Exodus Story: Between Historical Memory and HistoriographicalComposition, in: JNER 11 (2011), 39–69.

31 Na’aman, aaO., 55; vgl. die breite Prasentation des Materials ebd., 44–55, anknupfend anR. Hendel, The Exodus in Biblical Memory, in: JBL 120 (2001), 601–622.

32 Na’aman, aaO., 63f.33 Siehe oben bei Anm. 27. Na’amans Insistieren darauf, dass die Exodustradition in Juda

bekannt gewesen sei, trifft im Ubrigen nicht den Punkt: Das tragende Element desStaatskultes im Norden kann in Jerusalem in der Tat nicht unbekannt gewesen sein; ge-rade wegen dieser Funktion durfte man im Suden aber genugend Grunde gehabt haben,diese Tradition nicht ins Zentrum zu rucken.

34 Na’aman, aaO., 66f.


stanzieller Erklarungsansatz ein Ruckgriff auf die (im Umfeld von A. Altund M. Noth) ‚traditionelle‘ Hypothese der kleinen Exodusschar : „Thesmall group led by Moses that possibly arrived from Egypt to Canaan andthe tradition of the southern origin of YHWH might have played somerole in the shift of the historical memory.“35

Nach Lage der Dinge wird man die Gewichte gegenuber den neuerenVorschlagen eher wieder umzukehren haben: Falls die agyptische Herr-schaft im spatbronzezeitlichen Kanaan tatsachlich pragende Erinnerungs-spuren bei der fruh-israelitischen Bevolkerung hinterlassen haben sollte,bildeten diese einen Resonanzboden, der die Identifikation mit einer „vonaußen“ vermittelten Exodustradition nicht unerheblich zu fordern ver-mochte.

Was sich aus den Hinterlassenschaften der agyptischen Verwaltung im13./12. Jahrhundert v. Chr. uber mogliche Rahmenbedingungen fur „Eiso-doi“ sogenannter „Asiaten“ nach Agypten, seien es vorubergehend aufge-nommene nomadische Schasu oder verschleppte Apiru, erheben lasst, istseit langem diskutiert und dokumentiert.36 Das gleiche gilt fur die daraufbezogene kritische Aufarbeitung der biblischen Uberlieferungen zumAuszug.37 Deren alteste literarische Gestalt in Ex *1–14, die analytischnoch mit einiger Zuversicht greifbar erscheint, geht wohl auf das (eherfruhe) 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr. zuruck.38 Umso erstaunlicher ist der Befund,dass auch darin noch Einzelzuge zu finden sind, die sich nicht aus der Zeitder Erzahler herleiten lassen. Dazu gehoren die Ramsesstadt in Ex 1,1139

und vermutlich auch die signifikant gehaufte Rede von „Hebraern“ in Ex

35 Na’aman, ibid., 67.36 Fur das Textmaterial vgl. K. Galling, Textbuch zur Geschichte Israels, Tubingen: Mohr

Siebeck, 21968, Nr. 12, 14, 16, und insbes. M. Weippert, Historisches Textbuch zumAlten Testament. Mit Beitragen von J.F. Quack, B.U. Schipper und S.J. Wimmer (GAT10), Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010, 148–198.

37 Fur eine klassische Darstellung der Daten und Probleme mag der Verweis auf Donner,Geschichte (s. Anm. 1), 97–111, genugen.

38 Vgl. E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189), Berlin: De Gruy-ter, 1990, 215–218; oder zuletzt Na’aman, aaO., 67. Na’amans Formulierung: „[T]he Ex-odus story was composed for the first time in the seventh century BCE …“, beruht frei-lich auf einem (verbreiteten) Kurzschluss von der mehr oder weniger zufallig noch er-kennbaren Uberlieferung auf die Gesamtheit der israelitischen Literatur.

39 Dagegen spricht auch nicht die jungere Orthographie (im Vergleich zu „Mose“), lag esfur spatere Tradenten doch nahe, die Aussprache und Schreibung des bekannten Pha-raonennamens – anders als beim nostrifizierten Mose – zu aktualisieren; zu Knauf, Mi-dian (s. Anm. 3), 105. Dass man in spaterer Zeit Spolien aus der Ramses-Residenz weiterbenutzte (ibid.), besagt noch nicht, dass der alte Name der versunkenen Residenz wei-terhin bekannt war. Zu „Pithom“ vertritt zuletzt auch Na’aman, aaO., 57, fur die 19./20.Dynastie eine Lokalisierung auf dem tell er-ret

˙abe, wahrend der Name spater bis in hel-

lenistisch-romische Zeit mit der Ortslage von tell el-mash˘ut˙a verbunden gewesen sei.

48 Erhard Blum

1–14. Direkte historische Rekonstruktionen lassen sich auch darauf nichtstutzen, immerhin durften hier aber Elemente fruher Erzahltraditionenvorliegen. Erst recht kommt man bei den anderen Handlungselementenwie dem Meerwunder und seiner Lokalisierung uber Vermutungen, diesich am Ende weder belegen noch widerlegen lassen, nicht hinaus.

Die einzige Ausnahme bildet nach den obigen Ausfuhrungen die Mo-segestalt. Die Existenz einer Fuhrungsgestalt mit diesem (agyptischen)Namen hat alle Wahrscheinlichkeit fur sich. Alles Weitere bleibt im Be-reich „historisch“ mehr oder weniger „kontrollierter Spekulationen“. Diesgilt zumal fur Identifikationen Moses mit bekannten Personen der agypti-schen Geschichte, darunter die Gleichsetzung mit einem Asiaten namensBy (Bai/Beya), der beim Ubergang von der 19. zur 20. Dynastie einenUsurpationsversuch unternommen haben soll.40 Obschon dieser Zusam-menhang besonders differenziert begrundet wurde, erscheint er inzwi-schen auch aufgrund agyptischer Daten ausgeschlossen,41 die exegetischeGrundlage war von Anfang problematisch.42

III. Mose und die Midianiter

Neben dem agyptischen Namen gilt vielfach Moses Verschwagerung mitden Midianitern (vgl. Ex 2,15–22; 3,1; 4,18–20. 24–26; 18; Num 10,29–32)als ein weiterer ‚historischer‘ Zug der Mosetradition.43 In der Tat sprechengewichtige Grunde zumindest fur ein ausgepragtes Alter44 der Tradition.Nicht nur ware etwa aus exilisch-nachexilischer Zeit das Motiv einer exo-gamen Verschwagerung der Grundungsfigur Mose, noch dazu mit dem

40 Knauf, aaO. (s. Anm. 3), 129–138 (vgl. auch die abwagende Rezeption bei Donner, aaO.,131–134, als „historisch kontrollierte Spekulation“); J.C. de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism.The Roots of Israelite Monotheism (BEThL 91), Leuven: University Press/UitgeverijPeeters, 1990, 136–151.

41 Dazu S. Timm, Der Tod des Staatsfeindes: Neues zu B3j*, in: VT 58 (2008), 87–100,davor schon Gorg, Mose (s. Anm. 4), 36f mit Lit. Der Knaufsche Rekonstruktionsver-such hat sich gleichwohl als anregend erwiesen. Dass er einer Falsifikation zuganglichwar, spricht grundsatzlich fur die Hypothese.

42 Die bei Knauf, aaO. (s. Anm. 3), 129f, als alteste Mosetexte herausdestillierten Verse Ex11,1–3*; 12,35f* bilden literargeschichtlich deutlich erkennbare spate Einschreibungenin die Erzahlungssubstanz; s. Blum, Studien (s. Anm. 38), 28–30 mit Anm. 106.

43 Vgl. u. a. Smend, Jahwekrieg (s. Anm. 27), 95f; W.H. Schmidt, Exodus (s. Anm. 1), 83–87; ders. , Exodus, Sinai und Mose. Erwagungen zu Ex 1–19 und 24 (EdF 191), Darm-stadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1983, 110–113 (mit Lit.) ; Gertz, Mose (s.Anm. 9), 10.

44 In diesem Sinne – ohne Verbindung mit dem „historischen Mose“ – z. B. Gunneweg,Mose (s. Anm. 27); G.W. Coats, Moses in Midian, in: JBL 92 (1973), 3–10.


Priester (!) der als feindselig konnotierten Midianiter kaum zu erklaren,schon die vielgestaltigen Auspragungen der Tradition (nicht nur bei denNamen von Moses Schwiegervater45) deuten auf eine langere Traditions-geschichte: So traten in einer Traditionslinie an die Stelle der anstoßigenMidianiter die mehr oder weniger ‚nostrifizierten‘ Keniter (Ri 1,16;46

4,16).47 In einer anderen (Num 12) liegt vermutlich die Tradition einer„kuschanitischen“ Frau zugrunde, die – entsprechend dem Parallelismusin Hab 3,7 – kaum als sachliche Variante zur Midianiterin gemeint war, inder vorliegenden kompositionellen Fassung (KD) jedoch als „kuschitisch= nubisch“ reinterpretiert wurde;48 damit war die Tradition einer weite-ren, nubisch-athiopischen Frau Moses geboren. Daruber hinaus bietet diePentateuchuberlieferung gleich mehrere Texte aus unterschiedlichen Epo-chen, in denen die Tradition von Moses midianitischer Frau israelitisch‚integriert‘ bzw. verarbeitet wurde.

So hat die dichte Episode vom „Blutbrautigam/Blutverschwagerten“ (Ex4,24–26) ihren Skopos in einer symbolischen Handlung (inkl. eines per-formativen Sprechaktes), mit der Zippora ihren Mann aus der todlichenBedrohung durch JHWH rettet. Dies wird ermoglicht durch die (Neu-)Konstitution der sozio-religiosen Zugehorigkeit Zipporas und ihres Soh-nes zu Mose und seiner Gemeinschaft.49 Erst damit ist der kunftige Retter

45 Vgl. die Ubersicht und Diskussion in Blum, Studien (s. Anm. 38), 142f mit Lit.46 Hier stellt השמןתח freilich eine Glosse (in unvollstandigem Anschluss an 4,11) dar. Die

abweichenden Lesungen in Teilen der LXX versuchen den Text sprachlich und sachlichzu harmonisieren (anders S. Mittmann, Ri. 1,16f und das Siedlungsgebiet der keniti-schen Sippe Hobab, in: ZDPV 93 [1977], 213–235, hier 213–215), ebenso die Konjek-turvorschlage in BHK und BHS, allerdings sprachlich missgluckt.

47 Ob es dabei um ein Legitimationsbedurfnis kenitischer Sippen ging (so Knauf, Midian[s. Anm. 3], 158f) oder um Glattungen durch judaische Tradenten kann offenbleiben; injedem Fall wird die JHWH-Verehrung bei den Kenitern eine wesentliche Rolle gespielthaben. Die verschiedentlich postulierte Stammeszugehorigkeit der Keniter zu Midianbildet wohl eine moderne Harmonisierung.

48 Damit erklart sich nicht nur das implizite ‚Spiel‘ mit dem weißen Aussatz, der Mirjam ineinem Tun-Ergehens-Zusammenhang befallt (dazu Blum, aaO. [s. Anm. 38], 84f mitAnm. 176; ebd. auch zur Unterscheidung von alterer Substanz und kompositionellerFortschreibung in Nu 12), sondern auch die Form der Nisbe und die bemuhte nachho-lende Information in 12,1b.

49 Vgl. Schmidt, EdF (s. Anm. 43), 118–122; R. Blum & E. Blum, Zippora und ihr םימדןתח ,in: E. Blum/C. Macholz/E. Stegemann (Hgg.), Die hebraische Bibel und ihre zweifacheNachgeschichte. FS R. Rendtorff, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990, 41–54= E. Blum, Textgestalt und Komposition (FAT 69), Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010, 123–136. Neben den in letzterem Beitrag entfalteten Bedeutungsaspekten durfte uber die Se-mantik von םימד als „Todesgefahr/todliches Strafgericht“ (Ps 51,16; vgl. M. Kedar-Klopfstein, Art. dam, ThWAT 2 [1977], 248–266, hier 260) auch ein Bezug auf die Blut-schuld Moses in Ex 2,11–12 im Blick (und eine suhnende Bedeutung des Beschnei-dungsblutes impliziert) sein. Diese Blutschuld ist kontextuell dann auch als einer der

50 Erhard Blum

Israels fur seine Aufgabe zugerustet. Literarisch durfte der Abschnitt be-reits zur spatvorexilischen Haupterzahlung gehort haben.50

Innerhalb der priesterlichen Komposition wird die Episode vom Abfallder Israeliten zum Baal Peor in Num 25,1–5 fortgeschrieben mit der fre-velhaften Beziehung eines Israeliten mit einer Midianiterin „vor denAugen Moses und den Augen der ganzen Gemeinde der Israeliten“ (25,6).Deren Totung durch den Aaroniden Pinchas beendet die Plage, die uberdie Israeliten gekommen war, und begrundet die feste Zusage des Priester-amtes fur Pinchas und seine Nachkommen (25,10ff). Man kann darin eineverdeckte Kritik an Moses eigener Verschwagerung mit Midian sehen, diein genuinen P-Texten nicht erwahnt wird; jedenfalls aber ist damit ein‚Vorbildcharakter‘ Moses in dieser Hinsicht drastisch ausgeschlossen.51

Ganz andere Wege geht die Geschichte in Ex 18, die Mose und seinenmidianitischen Schwiegervater Jethro mitsamt Moses Familie am „Gottes-berg“ zusammenfuhrt. Wie zuletzt Volker Haarmann sorgfaltig herausge-arbeitet hat,52 zielt die nachpriesterlich eingeschriebene Episode 18,1–12auf die JHWH-Erkenntnis des midianitischen Priesters angesichts des Ex-odusgeschehens und auf die Anerkennung dieser Bekehrung durch Aaronund „alle Altesten Israels“ mit ihrer Teilnahme53 an der von Jethro initi-ierten Opferfeier „vor Gott“ (18,12). Nicht zuletzt erkennen damit die Re-prasentanten des Volkes auch die Legitimitat der Frau Moses und „ihrer(!) Sohne“ (18,3.6) in Israel an.

Noch pointierter wird diese Thematik profiliert, wenn die Angabe היחולשרחא in Ex 18,2bals Begrundung dafur, dass Moses Frau und Sohne sich bei Jethro aufhalten, nicht nurderen – zuvor nicht erzahlte – Ruckkehr nach Midian in knappster Form ‚nachholt‘,sondern entsprechend der pragnanten Verwendung von חלש pi. in Dtn 24,1–4 und Jes50,1 von einer vorausgegangenen Scheidung der Ehe54 spricht. Dann impliziert die Er-zahlung deren faktische Rucknahme, ermoglicht durch die erneute Zufuhrung von Frauund Kindern durch den Schwiegervater und dessen Zuwendung zu JHWH in Wort undTat. Sie unterstellt Mose damit einerseits ein ‚vorbildliches‘ Verhalten im Sinne der Pro-

Grunde fur die nachtliche Bedrohung in 4,24 einzubeziehen, zumal auch die Konnexio-nen mit 2,15; 4,19 darauf hindeuten.

50 Darauf deuten die wichtigsten Querbezuge im Nahkontext (s. vorstehende Anm.). Dienachpriesterlichen Verse 4,21–23 stellen auch einen Bezug zur Passauberlieferung her,insbesondere zum (ebenfalls nachpriesterlichen) Abschnitt 12,21ff, allerdings verbundenmit einer Neudeutung, die Bedrohung und Rettung nun auf den Sohn bezieht.

51 Vgl. auch Knauf, Midian (s. Anm. 3), 164.52 V. Haarmann, JHWH-Verehrer der Volker. Die Hinwendung von Nichtisraeliten zum

Gott Israels in alttestamentlichen Uberlieferungen (AThANT 91), Zurich: TVZ, 2008,59–94.

53 Das literarkritisch oft vermisste ‚Hinzukommen‘ Moses erubrigt sich in V. 12; in derLogik der Erzahlung ist er von V. 6 an immer da.

54 So zuletzt Ges18 s.v. חולש˙םי .


grammatik von Esr 9–10 und Num 25,6ff(!), eroffnet aber andererseits einen dort nichtvorgesehenen Weg fur familiare Beziehungen zwischen Israeliten und Nichtisraeliten.55

In historischer Perspektive kann eine midianitische VerschwagerungMoses auch mit der unverkennbaren Nachhaltigkeit und dem wahr-scheinlich recht hohen Alter dieser Tradition als Element der ‚Biographie‘der geschichtlichen Mosegestalt nicht erwiesen, freilich auch nicht ausge-schlossen werden. Alternativ ist mit der Moglichkeit zu rechnen, dassKontakte/Beziehungen Moses zu Midianitern in diesem Motiv nachtrag-lich einen personalisierten narrativen Ausdruck gefunden haben. So oderso bleibt die Frage, weshalb dieser Midianitertradition anscheinend vonAnfang an ein betrachtliches Gewicht zukam. Schon lange und nicht ohneGrund wird damit das Problem der Herkunft und Vorgeschichte desJHWH-Glaubens in Israel verbunden.

IV. Mose und die JHWH-Verehrung in Israel

Bis in die jungste Zeit hat die sogenannte „Midianiter- oder Keniter-Hy-pothese“ die religionsgeschichtliche Diskussion uber die ursprunglicheHeimat der JHWH-Verehrung bestimmt. Entlastet von mancherlei speku-lativen Rekonstruktionen zu einem vermeintlich formativen Kadesch-Aufenthalt der (Proto-) Israeliten hat sich als Kern die Hypothese einerVermittlung der Verehrung des Gottes JHWH von Midianitern/Keniternan Gruppen, die in dem entstehenden Israel aufgegangen sind, gehalten.Sie stutzt sich im Alten Testament neben den Midianiter-Texten im Pen-tateuch (besonders Ex 18) vor allem auf poetische Theophanietraditionenvon einem dramatischen Erscheinen JHWHs (zum Kampf) aus Bergregio-nen der sudlichen Wuste. Genannt werden naherhin die Bereiche Seir/Edom/Sinai (Ri 5,4f), Teman/Gebirge Paran/Kuschan/Midian (Hab 3,3.7)bzw. Sinai/Seir/Gebirge Paran (Dtn 33,2). Als außerbiblische Quelle wirdhiermit vor allem eine agyptische Liste von „Schasu-Landern“ verglichen,die in verschiedenen Inschriften (teilweise) erhalten ist, die alteste auseinemTempel in Soleb von Amenophis III. (Ende 15. Jahrhundert v. Chr.),eine jungere (vollstandig erhaltene) aus einem Tempel Ramses’ II.56 Darin

55 Als Strukturanalogie auf einer anderen Ebene gehort hierher auch der Umgang mit derJHWH-Bekennerin Rahab in Jos 2 etc. ; dazu wieder Haarmann, aaO., 100–130.

56 Die jungste Ubersetzung und Kommentierung der Liste(n) bietet Weippert, Textbuch(s. Anm. 36), 183f, Nr. 075; vgl. zuletzt auch O. Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems und dieEntstehung des Monotheismus. Teil 1 (OLB IV,1), Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,2007, 200; M. Leuenberger, Gott in Bewegung. Religions- und theologiegeschichtlicheBeitrage zu Gottesvorstellungen im alten Israel (FAT 76), Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck,

52 Erhard Blum

findet sich neben dem „Schasu-Land Seir“57 auch ein „Schasu-LandYahw3“, dessen Namenselement zumeist mit dem Gottesnamen ‚JHWH‘in Verbindung gebracht wird und in der agyptischen Liste als Toponymzugleich einen Gott bezeichnen konnte.58 M. Leuenberger hat jungst diegelaufige Schlussfolgerung daraus zusammengefasst, wonach „die altestenBelege fur Jhwh einen sudpalastinischen Ursprung im Bereich Edoms undder Araba indizieren“.59 Dies ist noch nicht die Midianiter-Hypothese,aber es ist nicht weit davon entfernt.

In jungster Zeit werden jedoch grundlegende Elemente dieses religi-onsgeschichtlichen Bildes bzw. Teile seiner Quellenbasis infrage gestellt.Dies betrifft zum einen JHWHs Herkunft aus dem Suden, zum anderendie Begrundung der Midianiter-Hypothese mit einem Text wie Ex 18. Vonletzterem wurde schon gehandelt. Wenn, wie oben skizziert, jede Faser desTextes auf Jethros Bekehrung zu JHWH und damit verbunden auf die Le-gitimierung von Moses midianitischer Verschwagerung hin angelegt ist,bleibt kein Raum mehr fur eine methodisch in irgendeiner Weise greifbarealte Uberlieferung von einer Kultgemeinschaft zwischen midianitischenund (proto-)israelitischen Gruppen am Gottesberg, die hier gemeinsamdem Gott JHWH huldigten.60 Verwunderlich ist dieses ‚Schweigen‘ deralttestamentlichen Erzahluberlieferung zu Verhaltnissen der Fruhzeit frei-lich nicht: israelitische und judaische Tradenten dachten nicht religions-geschichtlich, und dass sie noch JHWH verehrende „Midianiter“ kennenkonnten, dafur gibt es keine Hinweise.61 Kritisch fur die Midianiter-Hypo-these wurde dieser Befund allerdings dann, wenn sich auch die sonstigen

2011, 14–17 (s. ders., Jhwhs Herkunft aus dem Suden. Archaologische Befunde – bibli-sche Uberlieferungen – historische Korrelationen, in: ZAW 122 [2010], 1–19), jeweilsmit weiterer Lit.

57 M. Weippert, Art. Edom und Israel, TRE 9 (1982), 291–299, hier 292, rechnet damit,dass Seir als erstes der sechs aufgelisteten Schasu-Lander „als eine Art Uberschrift fun-giert haben durfte, die den allgemeinen geographischen Rahmen der folgendenNamen…angab“; aufgenommen bei Leuenberger, aaO., 17.

58 So die verbreitete Deutung mit Knauf, Midian (s. Anm. 3), 46f.59 Leuenberger, aaO., 17 (im Original großtenteils kursiv).60 Vgl. dazu bspw. – in unterschiedlichen historischen Rekonstruktionen – Noth, Uberlie-

ferungsgeschichte, 152; Gunneweg, Mose (s. Anm. 27), 7; Schmidt, EdF (s. Anm. 43),116f (mit Lit.). Zu Kritik an dieser modernen Umkehrung der Pointe des Textes s. be-reits Haarmann, JHWH-Verehrer (s. Anm. 52), 78–83.

61 Vgl. auch K. Koch, Jahwas Ubersiedlung vom Wustenberg nach Kanaan. Zur Herkunftvon Israels Gottesverstandnis, in: M. Dietrich/I. Kottsieper (Hgg.), „Und Mose schriebdieses Lied auf“. Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient. FS O. Loretz(AOAT 250), Munster : Ugarit-Verlag, 1998, 437–474, hier 442 (= ders., Der Gott Israelsund die Gotter des Orients. Religionsgeschichtliche Studien II [FRLANT 216], Gottin-gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007, 171–209, hier 176).


Belege fur eine alte JHWH-Verehrung im Suden als trugerisch erweisensollten.

Eben diese Moglichkeit wird in neueren Beitragen pointiert zur Dis-kussion gestellt. So insistiert M. Kockert darauf, dass eine Lokalisierungdes Schasu-Landes „Jhw(h)“ der Ortsnamenlisten von Soleb bzw. Amara-West in der sudlichen Region von Edom/Seir unsicher bleibe.62 Aus derAnalyse von Ps 18 legt sich ihm zudem eine genuine Beheimatung derTheophanie-Tradition in der Jerusalemer Tempeltheologie nahe; erst nachVerlust von „Land und Tempel“ sei sie in den hymnischen Rahmungendes Deboralieds etc. auf den Sinai ubertragen worden.63 Offensichtlich istdabei von vornherein nur an eine Jerusalemer bzw. judaische Traditions-geschichte gedacht. Die hier lediglich skizzenartig angesprochene Datie-rung der Rahmentexte mit Theophanieelementen in Ri 5; Dtn 33; Hab 3und Ps 68 hat sodann H. Pfeiffer einer eingehenden Untersuchung unter-zogen.64 Als Archetyp dieser Textgruppe nimmt er das Deboralied in Ri 5an. Freilich gehore hier die „Edom-Theophanie“ in V. 4f schon zu einerzweiten hymnischen Bearbeitung (V. 3.4–5*.31a) des in seinem Kernbe-stand nordisraelitischen Liedes. Dieser Bearbeitung gehe es in nachexili-scher Zeit um „die Vernichtung aller inneren und außeren Gottesfeindesowie die Rettung der Gerechten (V. 31a)“. Noch spater, „als man mit‚Edom‘ als Chiffre fur das Gericht nichts mehr anzufangen wusste“, sei einBezug zum Sinai ( יניסהז 5,5) hergestellt worden. Die anderen Theophanie-stucke der genannten Textgruppe gelten als literarisch von Ri 5 abhangigund werden in die hellenistische Zeit datiert. Von den hier nicht zu disku-tierenden literarkritischen Fragen ganz abgesehen65 geht die vorgeschlage-ne Deutung von Ri 5,4f jedoch nicht auf. Sie beruht auf einem Analogie-schluss von Jes 63,1–6 her, einem Abschnitt, aus dem „Edom“ in kontex-tuellen Lesungen als „Chiffre“ sowohl „fur die Frevler im Innern der Zi-onsgemeinde“ als auch „fur die dem Judentum feindlich gegenuberstehen-

62 M. Kockert, Wandlungen Gottes im antiken Israel, in: BThZ 22 (2005), 3–36, hier 20Anm. 43. Fur die Region Jahu bleibe vielmehr „das Gebiet zwischen dem Ostjordanland(„Seir-Lander“) und dem Karmel“ zur Auswahl. Zu seiner Argumentation mit dem Ort„Gint-Karmel“ auf der Kopie von Amara-West vgl. aber Leuenberger, aaO. (s. Anm. 56),17 Anm. 43.

63 M. Kockert, ders., Die Theophanie des Wettergottes Jahwe in Psalm 18, in: T. Richter/D. Prechel/J. Klinger (Hgg.), Kulturgeschichten. Altorientalische Studien. FS V. Haas,Saarbrucken: SDV, 2001, 209–226, hier 225f.

64 H. Pfeiffer, Jahwes Kommen von Suden. Jdc 5; Hab 3; Dtn 33 und Ps 68 in ihrem litera-tur- und theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld (FRLANT 211), Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 2005.

65 Siehe dazu die folgenden Zitate ebd. 258, grundliche und uberzeugende Analyse bei W.Groß, Richter (HThK.AT), Freiburg u. a. : Herder, 2009, z.St.

54 Erhard Blum

de Weltmacht“ erschlossen wird.66 Selbst wenn man einmal fur das Jesaja-buch eine solch polyvalente Chiffre unterstellt67 und auch davon ausgeht,dass diese den Adressaten der zweiten hymnischen Bearbeitung vertrautwar, hatten die Leser von Ri 5 diese Bedeutung hier nicht applizieren kon-nen, weil JHWH in Jes 63 von seinem Gerichtshandeln in/an Edom68

„kommt“ ( אב ), in Ri 5,4f dagegen aus Seir zum Krieg/Gerichtshandeln„auszieht“ ( אצי ).69 Das eine ist das schiere Gegenteil des anderen. Dement-sprechend beruht auch יניסהז in V. 5 nicht auf einem Missverstandnis.

Angesichts der komplexen biblischen Quellenlage und der Unbe-stimmtheiten des agyptischen Materials nimmt es wunder, dass ausge-rechnet verhaltnismaßig klar zu datierende Primarquellen fur diese Frage-stellung zumeist nur am Rande in den Blick genommen werden: die In-schriften von Kuntillet ‘Agrud.70 Das gravierendste Hindernis bildet dabeider Umstand, dass mehrere Jahrzehnte nach der Entdeckung immer nochkeine Editio princeps vorliegt, doch durften die bisher publizierten Datenein zwar begrenztes, fur unsere Zwecke aber hinreichendes Bild ermogli-chen.

Der 1975/76 ausgegrabene Gebaudekomplex liegt etwa auf halbem Wegzwischen Kadesch Barnea und Elath, wenige Kilometer westlich der Ver-bindung zwischen Mittelmeer und Rotem Meer, die arabisch als darb el-Ghazza bezeichnet wird. Die Ortslage mit Wasserversorgung, die archi-tektonische Anlage, die gefundenen Hinterlassenschaften und die In-schriften deuten am ehesten auf eine Raststatte fur Reisende auf der ge-nannten Handelsroute. Fur die zunachst vertretene Deutung als Heiligtumfehlt es an eindeutigen Indizien,71 gegen eine „Schule“ spricht die abseitige

66 Pfeiffer, aaO., 82–86, die Zitate S. 85.67 Sie beruht allerdings auf kombinatorischen Endtextlesungen, die nicht ohne Alternati-

ven sind.68 Das Gericht ist vollzogen, wie die blutigen Kleider und V. 3a zeigen. Pfeiffers futurische

Ubersetzung der Verse 3aßb. 5a.6 ist sprachlich nicht moglich; nach der Vokalisierungder wyqt

˙l-Formen durch die Masoreten waren diese modal, hier genauer : final, zu ver-

stehen. Nicht nur der Sachzusammenhang, sondern auch die AK-Formen in V. 3b.5bzeigen aber deutlich an, dass man vom Konsonantentext ausgehen muss und sog. Kon-sekutivformen zu lesen hat.

69 Vgl. schon Groß, aaO. (s. Anm. 65), 311.70 Die (mir bekannte) Ausnahme ist Keel, aaO. (s. Anm. 56), 201. In der Monographie von

H. Pfeiffer beispielsweise (aaO., 261) wie auch bei Leuenberger, aaO. (s. Anm. 56), 23,kommen die Inschriften eher beilaufig in den Blick.

71 N. Na’aman/N. Lissovsky, Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, Sacred Trees and the Asherah, in: TA 35(2008), 186–208, postulieren zuletzt ein Baumheiligtum mit einem Aschera-Kult. Dereinzig ‚greifbare‘ Befund, der dafur in Anschlag gebracht wird, ist eine großere Anzahlvon Textilienresten, die mit besagtem Baumheiligtum in Verbindung gebracht werden.In einer Station fur Handelsreisende erscheinen dafur jedoch auch andere Grundedenkbar.


Lage. Die Anlage hat offenbar nur kurze Zeit bestanden. Von den Ausgra-bern ins ausgehende 9. Jahrhundert bzw. beginnende 8. Jahrhundert v.Chr. datiert, werden die archaologischen Daten derzeit kontrovers beur-teilt. In der Diskussion sind Datierungen zwischen dem Anfang und demletztem Drittel des 8. Jahrhunderts: Nach L. Singer-Avitz deutet der Kera-mikbefund auf eine Zeit um 725 v. Chr.; I. Finkelstein und E. Piasetzkyrechnen dagegen mit einer fruheren Grundung der Anlage: „the 14C datatogether with historical consideration seem to indicate that Kuntillet‘Ajrud functioned between ca. 795 and 730/720 BCE.“72 Auf das fruhe odermittlere 8. Jahrhundert deuten die palaographischen Ansetzungen der In-schriften und wohl auch die geschichtlichen Rahmenbedingungen (s.i.F.).

Obwohl die Gebrauchskeramik vorwiegend (wenn auch nicht aus-schließlich) der EZ IIB im judaischen Negev und der Schefela (Tell es-Seba’, Arad, Lachisch) entspricht, was – wenig uberraschend – auf dieseRegion als Versorgungshinterland schließen lasst, dokumentieren die In-schriften in erster Linie nordisraelitische Besucher/Reisende. Dies zeigendie ausnahmslos nordisraelitischen Formen der mit „JHWH“ gebildetentheophoren Namen und Segens-/Grußwunsche bei jhwh smrn, d. h.„JHWH von Samaria“.73 Drei auf Wandputz geschriebene Texte werdenpalaographisch als „phonizisch“ bestimmt.74 Inwieweit daraus auf eine an-dere Herkunft dieses Schreibers zu schließen ist, kann vor der vollstandi-gen Publikation nicht substantiell diskutiert werden.75 Darf man von dahervor allem von nordisraelitischen Handelsunternehmungen mit dem ZielEdom/Nordarabien als Hintergrund ausgehen, kommt als ‚Zeitfenster‘ furdie Anlage am ehesten die erste Halfte des 8. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. infrage,d. h. das sich politisch und territorial gegenuber den Aramaern konsoli-dierende Israel unter Joasch und Jerobeam II.76

72 I. Finkelstein/E. Piasetzky, The Date of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud: The 14C Perspective, in: TA 35(2008), 135–185, hier 184. Zur Diskussion vgl. L. Singer-Avitz, The Date of Kuntillet‘Ajrud, in: TA 33 (2006), 186–228; dies. , The Date of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud: A Rejoinder, in:TA 36 (2009), 110–119; L. Freud, The Date of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (2006): A Reply to Singer-Avitz, in: TA 35 (2008), 169–174; Na’aman/Lissovsky, aaO.

73 Vgl. ausfuhrlich A. Lemaire, Date et origine des inscriptions Hebraiques et Pheniciennesde Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, SEL 1 (1984), 131–143, hier 132–134.

74 J. Renz, Die althebraischen Inschriften. Teil 1: Text und Kommentar (HAE I), Darm-stadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 57f mit Lit.

75 Das in S. Ahituv, HaKetav VeHaMiktav. Handbook of Ancient Inscriptions from theLand of Israel and the Kingdoms beyond the Jordan from the Period of the First Com-monwealth (BEL 21), Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 2005 (Hebr.), 241, publizierte Foto einerder Wandinschriften (vgl. auch u. Anm. 80) deutet palaographisch auf eine große Nahezu den (aramaischen) Putzinschriften vomTell Deir ‘Alla.

76 Die folgenden Jahrzehnte bis 734/32 bzw. 722/21 waren wieder durch innere Destabili-sierungen und außere Bedrohungen gepragt.

56 Erhard Blum

Drei bisher (vorlaufig) publizierte Segens-/Grußwunsche, die auf zweiVorratskrugen gefunden wurden, nennen als Gottheit, der die Adressatenbefohlen werden, JHWH („und seine Aschera“). Dabei wird JHWH ein-mal als „JHWH von Samaria“ (KAgr[9]:8) bezeichnet, zweimal als „JHWHvon Teman“ (KAgr[9]:9)77 bzw. „JHWH von ha-Teman/JHWH des Su-dens“ (KAgr[9]:10),78 dazu vermutlich zweimal in einer Wandinschrift (in„phonizischer“ Schrift), hier wohl beide Male mit Diphthong ( ןמית )79 undzumindest einmal mit Artikel.80 Halt man sich die Situation der Fernrei-senden vor Augen liegen, die Grunde gerade fur diese Gottesbezeichnun-gen auf der Hand: Sie benennen innerhalb der Segenswunsche die Gott-heit entweder aus der Perspektive ihrer Herkunft (JHWH von Samaria)oder in der Perspektive ihres Reisezieles (JHWH von Teman).81 Beide Malewird JHWH nicht nach einem einzelnen Kultort, sondern nach einer Re-gion naher bestimmt. Fur „Teman“ ist dies wohl Konsens.82 Der Ausdruckwird nach den biblischen Belegen entweder synonym mit „Edom“ ver-wendet oder spezifischer fur dessen sudliche (?) Region. Dabei blieb frei-lich Hebraern der geographische Name in seiner etymologischen Bedeu-tung transparent. Wie die Verwendung mit Artikel in den Inschriften an-zeigt, lag deshalb in diesem Fall die generalisierende appellative Variante„der Suden“ durchaus nahe. Bei „Samaria“ kannn man auch an die Stadt,

77 Die in Renz, aaO., 62 nur in der Ubersetzung und in Klammern gebotene Lesungscheint inzwischen gesichert zu sein; vgl. die Nachzeichnung in Keel, Geschichte (s.Anm. 56), 201 Abb. 122a; Ahituv, aaO., 238 (Foto und Nachzeichnung ebd., 239, bietendgg. den Text nicht vollstandig); F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp u. a. , Hebrew Inscriptions. Textsfrom the Biblical Period of the Monarchy with Concordance, New Haven/London: YaleUniversity Press, 2005, 293f.

78 Die Inschrift steht auf dem sog. „Pithos 2“ oberhalb eines langeren, fragmentarisch er-haltenen Satzes: ובבלכ.והי.הל.ןתנו].התפםאואה[ןנח.שאמ.לאשי.רשאלכ] (die Ausdrucke in derKlammer nur bei Ahituv, aaO., 236); vgl. J.M. Hadley, Some drawings and inscriptionson two pithoi from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, in: VT 37 (1987), 180–213, hier 187; Dobbs-All-sopp, aaO., 296. Renz, aaO., 64, rechnet hier mit zwei nicht zusammengehorigen Tex-ten; die Grunde werden nicht ausgefuhrt, ebenso wenig, weshalb die beiden Teile inumgekehrter Reihenfolge prasentiert werden.

79 Die Monophthongierung voraussetzende Schreibung auf den Pithoi entspricht einemDialektmerkmal des nordisraelitischen Hebraisch.

80 Vgl. die Fotographie in Ahituv, aaO., 241. Trotz der außerst fragmentarischen Erhaltungist hier in der zweiten Zeile doch einigermaßen sicher zu lesen: ] יתה.הוהי …[ Die zweiteHalfte der ersten Zeile ist bei Ahituv folgendermaßen arrangiert : .ןמית][הוה]י[ל.ונתי]

התרשאלו .81 So schon recht deutlich J.A. Emerton, New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications

of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, in: ZAW 94 (1982), 2–20, hier 10: „… the ideaof Yahweh’s connexion with Teman would be relevant to a blessing on someone whohoped for divine protection on the journey.“

82 Vgl. bes. R. de Vaux, Teman, ville ou region d’Edom?, in: RB 76 (1969), 379–385;Emerton, aaO. 9; HAL, s.v. ת

¨ןמי I u. II mit Lit. ; Ges18, s.v. ת

¨ןמי I u. II; E.A. Knauf, Art.

Teman, NBL 3 (2011), 799.


dann freilich als Pars pro Toto fur das Land denken (in Analogiezu ןורמשירע [1 Kon 13,32] oder ןורמשלגע [Hos 8,5 f]): Gewiss wird es auchin der Residenzstadt Kultstatten fur den Reichsgott gegeben haben, Zen-trum des Staatskultes war jedoch Bethel. Wenn schon die massive juda-ische Kritik an dem nordlichen Kult (inkl. ihres Vorlaufs bei Amos undHosea) von einem zentralen Heiligtum in der Hauptstadt schweigt, erub-rigt sich die textarchaologische Suche.

Fur unseren Zusammenhang entscheidend ist die Frage, wie die fur denNordisraeliten Amaryaw und seine ‚Kollegen‘ offenbar selbstverstandlicheSicht von dem in Teman/„im Suden“ beheimateten und wirkmachtigenJHWH zu erklaren ist.83 Mit J.A. Emerton wird man nicht umhin konnen,hier die oben genannten Theophanietraditionen von Ri 5,3 f; Dtn 33,2;Hab 3,3 etc. heranzuziehen.84 Mit der Rede von jhwh ha-teman gemeinsamist ihnen – zum einen – nicht nur die sudliche „Beheimatung“ des GottesIsraels, sondern auch deren Unbestimmtheit, wie sie sich den wechselndenBezeichnungen fur den Raum um Edom ausdruckt. Damit ist weder uberdas Alter des Epithetons יניסהז in Ri 5, noch uber die Vorstellung einesbestimmten, mit JHWH verbundenen „Gottesbergs“ geurteilt. Sowohl dieinschriftliche wie die hymnische Tradition scheinen aber darauf hinzu-deuten, dass der „Sinai“ fur Israeliten in der Konigszeit (und wohl nichterst dann) kein real identifizierbarer Berg war. Auf der Sinai-Halbinselwurde er erst im Zuge der narrativen Verknupfung von Exodus und Got-tesberg gesucht.85

Gemeinsam ist den altesten Theophanietraditionen und den Kuntillet‘Agrud-Belegen zum anderen die Heimat im Nordreich Israel. Fur denHauptbestand von Ri 5 ist dies kaum strittig; der Versuch, die Theopha-nieelemente in Ri 5,4 f uber Jahrhunderte davon abzurucken, hat m. E.keine Basis (s. o.). Mit einem ahnlichen Sachverhalt ist aber auch bei Dtn33 zu rechnen. Der knappe Wunsch fur Juda (33,7) und das Segensbild zuJoseph (33,13–17) sprechen fur sich.86 Zu Letzterem gehort aber auch das

83 Die Auskunft von Pfeiffer, aaO. (s. Anm. 64), 262: „Jahwe besaß … im 9. Jh. v. Chr.Kultstatten an den genannten Orten“ (Hervorhebung im Orig.), verschiebt nur – miteiner sachlich nicht belegten Annahme – das Problem. Wie grundlich ihm dann selbstdiese Annahme aus dem Blick gerat, zeigt das abschließende Resumee von einem „durchund durch negativen Befund[] fur eine Beheimatung im Suden“ (aaO., 268).

84 Emerton, aaO., 9f und besonders 12f.85 Knauf, Midian (s. Anm. 3), 50ff.86 Darauf hat bereits Isac Leo Seeligmann mit sicherer Hand den Finger gelegt, indem er

vom „northern character of the Blessing of Moses established by vv. 7 and 16“ sprach;ders., A Psalm from Pre-Regal Times, in: VT 14 (1964), 75–92 (= ders., GesammelteStudien zur Hebraischen Bibel [FAT 41], Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004, 349–364, hier363). Dtn 33,7 kehrt den davidischen Blick auf die Nordstamme gleichsam in nordlicherSpiegelung um.

58 Erhard Blum

JHWH-Epitheton הנסינכש in V. 16a, in dem הנס mit Knauf als „Nebenform*Sina/Sına zu Sınay“ aufzufassen ist (analog zu ירש/הרש ).87

הנסינכש bildet demnach das nordliche Gegenstuck zum Jerusalemerןכשהרהבןויצ (Jes 8,18). Grundsatzlicher formuliert : Die implizite Konkur-

renz zwischen Sinai und Zion bedeutet fur die Konigszeit keine historischeAporie,88 sondern lasst das Interesse des Nordreichs an einer Pflege derTradition, nicht nur des Exodus, sondern auch der Heimat JHWHs „imSuden“ plausibel erscheinen, nicht zuletzt im profilierenden Gegenuberzur Jerusalemer Gottesberg-Zaphon(= Nord!)-Tradition, zu der es imNordreich Israel offenbar kein ‚naturliches‘ Pendant gab.89

Die angesprochenen genuinen Bezuge vom Nordreich Israel zu Edom/Seir fuhren dar-uber hinaus auf weitere Traditionszusammenhange. So musste die Rolle der Zwillings-bruderschaft zwischen Jakob/Israel und Esau/Edom in der unverkennbar nordisraeliti-schen Jakoberzahlung (Gen 25B; 27–33) schon der Geographie wegen immer wiederauffallen. Ebenso blieb die Lokalisierung des ersten Teils der Jakob-Esau-Geschichte inBeer-Sheva (Gen 28,10) gegenuber der ansonsten konsequent im Bereich von Gilead und‚Joseph‘ verorteten Handlung isoliert. In dieser Hinsicht mochte die Rede vom Nord-reich als קחשי bzw. קחשיתיב in Am 7,9.16 und von Wallfahrten aus dem Norden nachBeer-Sheva in Am 5,5 (8,14) immerhin als Indiz fur komplexere Zusammenhange die-nen; zugleich aber blieben diese Elemente merkwurdig vereinzelt. Im Licht der Mose-Traditionen in Verbindung mit den Kuntillet ‘Agrud-Texten wird nun deutlich, dassGeographie nicht alles ist und Vieles hier zusammenpasst: Isaak ist der Vater von Israelund Edom/Seir, mit dem sich Israel als ‚Heimat‘ JHWHs in genuiner Weise verbundensieht. Beer-Sheva, der Haftpunkt der Isaak-Tradition, wiederum stellt fur Nordisraelitendie naturliche und ‚letzte‘ Station dar vor dem langen Weg durch die Wuste nach Edom,d. h. in das Sudland JHWHs (1 Kon 19,3.890).91

In der judaischen Traditionsbildung erklart sich aus dem ‚traditionell‘ konkurrierendenGegenuber von Sinai und Zion das Zugleich von Rezeption und Abgrenzung im Blick

87 Knauf, aaO., 50; ebd. Anm. 248: „SNH ist dann der spateren Einfugung des y in SNY ent-gangen, aber dafur nach Ex. 3 vokalisiert worden.“

88 Vgl. den diachronen Erklarungsversuch von Leuenberger, Gott (s. Anm. 56), 27, in derDiskussion mit Pfeiffer, aaO.

89 Was dies fur die Gestalt der Konigsideologie im Norden, fur Traditionen wie das Ko-nigtum Gottes etc. ebenda bedeutete, ware noch auszuloten.

90 L.E. Axelsson, The Lord Rose up from Seir. Studies in the History and Traditions of theNegev and Southern Judah (CB.OT 25), Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1987,62f. 181, fuhrt die Elijageschichte als „literary evidence“ fur nordisraelitische Wallfahr-ten zum Gottesberg uber Beer Sheva an, wobei er Elijas Reise fur historisch halt. InWahrheit setzt der Text die Katastrophe des Nordreichs und wohl auch Judas schonvoraus (vgl. E. Blum, Der Prophet und das Verderben Israels. Eine ganzheitliche, histo-risch-kritische Lekture von 1 Regum XVII-XIX, in: VT 47 [1997], 277–292 = ders. ,Textgestalt [s. Anm. 49] 339–353); gleichwohl durfte die darin vorausgesetzte Reiseroutelange eingefuhrt sein.

91 Zu diesen Aspekten der Jakobuberlieferung vgl. jetzt Blum, Jacob Traditions (s.Anm. 20).


auf die Gottesbergtradition nach dem politischen Ende des Nordreiches. Einen – letzt-lich gescheiterten – Versuch der ‚Distanzierung‘ bildet die Ersetzung des alten Sinai-Na-mens durch „Horeb“ in der im weitesten Sinne dtn/dtr Uberlieferung.

Von den Kuntillet ‘Agrud-Befunden und ihren Implikationen her gewinntauch die herkommliche Deutung der o.g. spatbronzezeitlichen Belege ausAgypten an Wahrscheinlichkeit. Spricht demnach in religionsgeschichtli-cher Perspektive doch alles fur eine Herkunft der JHWH-Verehrung ausden an das sudliche Kanaan angrenzenden Regionen von Midian/Edom,dann behalt auch die Hypothese eine hohe Plausibilitat, dass dieserJHWH-Kult durch eine „Exodus-Gruppe“, die das Gelingen ihres „Aus-zugs“ diesem Gott zuschrieb, an das sich in Kanaan konstituierende Israelvermittelt wurde. Das gleiche gilt fur die Annahme, dass eine Fuhrungsge-stalt namens „Mose“ in der Ursprungsgeschichte92 dieser Exodus-Gruppeeine zentrale Rolle spielte.

Hatte die altere Forschung bis in die 80er Jahre des vorigen Jahrhunderts hinein miteinem religionsgeschichtlichen ‚Differenzmodell‘ gearbeitet, das im Wesentlichen eineHistorisierung des in Juda seit der spaten Konigszeit propagierten Antagonismus zwi-schen „Israel“ und seinem Gott einerseits und „Kanaan“ mit seiner Gotterwelt anderer-seits zur Voraussetzung hatte, so dominiert in der neueren Diskussion ein genetisches‚Indifferenzmodell‘, in dem sich die Frage nach der „genuinen“, d. h. ursprunglichenJHWH-Tradition (im Unterschied zur „kanaanaischen Umwelt“) schon im Ansatz nichtstellt. Dieser Paradigmenwechsel in der historischen Fragestellung bedeutet eine grund-legende und wesentliche Korrektur. Unbeschadet dessen ist zu fragen, ob das verstandli-che Interesse an klaren, pointierten Erklarungen nicht mitunter auch gewissen Vereinfa-chungen Vorschub geleistet hat. Dies gilt etwa fur die verbreitete Zuordnung JHWHszum Typ des syrischen Wettergottes. Setzt man die hier diskutierte sudliche HeimatJHWHs voraus, so erscheint es nicht unbedingt plausibel, fur die ariden Regionen dessudlichen Edom bzw. der Midianiter eine Berggottheit vom Typ des nordsyrischen Wet-tergottes zu postulieren. Mit welchen Zugen die Mosegruppe ihren Gott JHWH an dasentstehende „Israel“ vermittelt hat, lasst sich, wenn uberhaupt, dann nur in vorsichtigerRekonstruktion alter Traditionen erschließen. Dass JHWH Grundzuge des Hadad-Typuszugewachsen sind, steht außer Frage, freilich auch die Integration von Zugen des El-Typus etc. Generalisierende Bestimmungen sollten jedenfalls nicht als Ausgangspunktund Maßstab fur religionsgeschichtliche Einordnungen dienen. Kurzum: die Fragennach Spezifika der „JHWH-Religion“ sind historisch durchaus geboten, sofern ihnennicht das obsolete Pattern des „eigentlichen, genuinen etc.“ JHWH-Glaubens zugrundegelegt wird. Uber diese Problemanzeige hinaus bleibt in diesem Rahmen nur der Ver-

92 Die Begrenzung auf die „Ursprungsgeschichte“ ergibt sich aus der eindeutigen Be-schrankung der Mosetradition auf das transjordanische Gebiet und aus der Unwahr-scheinlichkeit, dass „Mose“ sekundar aus cisjordanischen Bezugen verdrangt wordenware. Die Uberlieferung in Dtn 34 spiegelt quasi-atiologisch den erklarungsbedurftigenUmstand, dass jedenfalls in der spaten Konigszeit kein Mosegrab mehr gezeigt werdenkonnte.

60 Erhard Blum

weis auf die weiterfuhrenden Beobachtungen und Uberlegungen bei Othmar Keel(2007).93

Die Frage, in welchem Maße die „Mosetraditionen“ im Nordreich Israelals mundliche und vor allem literarische Uberlieferungen konzeptionellund narrativ ausgearbeitet waren, kann hier nicht in der erforderlichenBreite und Differenziertheit aufgenommen werden. Zumindest Hoseascheint nach 12,14 im letzten Jahrzehnt des Konigreichs Israel eine be-kannte, substantielle Exodus-Mose-Uberlieferung voraussetzen zu kon-nen. Eine spezifische Mose-Sinai-Tradition ist bei ihm nicht erkennbarangesprochen. Gleichwohl verdient auch die Moglichkeit einer solchenUberlieferung eine sorgfaltige Prufung, insofern die literargeschichtlichenIndizien innerhalb der vorderen Sinaiperikope (Ex *19–24) auf Umrisseeines kompositionellen Zusammenhangs fuhren, der weder literarischeVerknupfungen mit einer vorausgehenden Exoduserzahlung noch solchezu einer Episode vom Goldenen Kalb etc. aufweist.94 Im Zentrum standvielmehr die Mitteilung eines Rechtskorpus, des (spater so genannten)Bundesbuches,95 an Mose, vorbereitet durch eine Natur und Mensch be-

93 Keel, Geschichte (s. Anm. 56), §§ 238–245.94 Der ‚Pra-Bundesbuch-Atiologie‘ rechne ich zu: Ex 19,…(3a) 10–13a.14–19a; 20,18.21b

(22aa); 20,24ff ; *21,1–23,19 (Grundbestand des „Bundesbuches [BB]“) – fur Ex 20 weit-gehend im Anschluss an M. Kockert, Wie kam das Gesetz an den Sinai?, in: C. Bult-mann/W. Dietrich/C. Levin (Hgg.), Vergegenwartigung des Alten Testaments. Beitragezur biblischen Hermeneutik. FS R. Smend, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002,13–27, hier 20f = ders., Leben in Gottes Gegenwart. Studien zum Verstandnis des Ge-setzes im Alten Testament (FAT 43), Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 167–181, hier 174f. DerErzahlungsabschluss mit der Mitteilung des Rechtskorpus durch Mose ist innerhalb desmehrfach uberarbeiteten Abschnitt 24,3–8* moglicherweise noch (mit Kockert, ebd.) in24,3 greifbar, vielleicht lasst sich aber auch kein Wortlaut mehr rekonstruieren. Der Er-zahlungsanfang ist naturgemaß nicht erhalten. Grundlegend fur die Eigenstandigkeitder Einheit ist (wiederum mit Kockert, ebd.) die ‚Wiederaufnahme‘ von 20,18bß in20,21a. Werden gestutzt darauf die Verse 19–21a (mit 23) als Eintragung verstanden,fallen damit der narrative Ruckbezug auf die Verkundigung des Dekalogs (bzw. seinerVorstufe) (V. 29) und der Vorverweis auf Ex 32 (V. 20!) weg. 20,22* (par. 19,4) ist schonlanger als von Dtn 4 abhangige Fortschreibung (KD) identifiziert; diese hat aus Dtnauch den komplettierten(!) Dekalog ubernommen, vgl. dazu E. Blum, The Decalogueand the Composition History of the Pentateuch, in: T. Dozeman/K. Schmid/B.J.Schwartz (Hgg.), The Pentateuch. International Perspectives on Current Research (FAT78), Tubingen: Siebeck Mohr, 2011, 289–301.

95 In einem Grundbestand, der selbst ein alteres kasuistisches Rechtsbuch integriert habendurfte. Dazu rechne ich: (A) Ex 20,24–26 / (B) 21,1–11 / (C) 21,12–17 / (D) 21,18–22,14/ (C’) 22,15–19 / (B’) 23,10–13 / (A’) 23,14–19. In dem konzentrischen Aufbau reprasen-tieren A/A’ kultische Regelungen, B/B’ sind uber die 6+1-Struktur miteinander verbun-den, C/C’ benennen mit Todesfolge verknupfte Tabubestimmungen, D umfasst eine insich weiter zu gliedernde Sammlung kasuistischer Rechtssatze. Die in *22,20–23,9 zu-sammengestellten sozial-ethischen Verbote und Gebote, die durch (Exodus-) Paranesenzum Schutz der gerim gerahmt sind, werden mit F. Crusemann, Das Bundesbuch – his-


wegende Theophanie am Gottesberg Sinai und abgeschlossen mit der Mit-teilung des Gottesrechts durch Mose an das Volk. Mehrere konzeptionelleIngredienzien fur eine solche „Atiologie“ des ‚Pra-Bundesbuchs‘ standenim 8. Jahrhundert v. Chr. im Nordreich zur Verfugung: Der Berg JHWHs(Sinai) im Suden, der Exodus Israels aus Agypten, die Fuhrung durchMose sowie dessen Beziehungen zu Midian/Sinai. Diese Gottesberg-‚Bun-desbuch‘-Uberlieferung wurde als ein ‚Baustein‘ in die judaische Mose-Ex-odus-Erzahlung des 7. Jahrhunderts integriert und weiter ausgebaut.96 Indiesem Rahmen diente sie sodann als ‚Vorlage‘ wohl schon fur die Mose-rede des vor-deuteronomistischen Deuteronomiums und – vermittelt – furdas Deuteronomium im Rahmen des DtrG. Zum „historischen Mose“fuhrt diese Uberlieferung der Rechtstradition vom Sinai her allerdingsnicht zuruck. Vielmehr stehen wir hier umgekehrt am Beginn des bis indie Gegenwart hinein wohl wirkmachtigsten Traditionselements der Mo-seuberlieferung.

Als alteste mit der Mosegestalt verbundene Traditionen bleiben dem-nach der Agypten-Exodus, die Beziehung zu Midianitern und die Anfangeder JHWH-Verehrung im Bereich des spateren Israel.97 Ausgehend von

torischer Ort und institutioneller Hintergrund, in: J.A. Emerton (Hg.), Congress Volu-me Jerusalem 1986 (VT.S 40), Leiden u. a. : E.J. Brill, 1988, 27–41, hier 33–35, am ehes-ten nach der Flucht und Ubersiedlung von Israeliten nach Juda/Jerusalem beim Zusam-menbruch des Nordreiches zusammengestellt worden sein. Sie durften zur Fortschrei-bung der kleinen „Pra-Bundesbuch“-Komposition innerhalb der judaischen Mose-Ex-odus-Erzahlung gehoren.

96 Insbesondere mit einer (‚heptalogischen‘) Vorstufe des Dekalogs, dem Steintafelnmotivund der Antiatiologie der Stierbilder in Ex 32* sowie mit der nicht mehr im Wortlautrekonstruierbaren Vorlage fur Dtn 10 bzw. Vorstufe von Ex 34*. Fur Teile der hier vor-ausgesetzten Analyse vgl. Blum, Decalogue (s. Anm. 94).

97 Nicht ganz unerwahnt bleiben durfen an dieser Stelle die Traditionen, die einen Zu-sammenhang zwischen Mose und den Leviten herstellen; vgl. J. Wellhausen, Prolego-mena zur Geschichte Israels, Berlin/Leipzig: De Gruyter, 61927, 134–138 (Eng.: Prolego-mena to the History of Israel, Edinburgh: A. & C. Black 1885, 142–145); Schmidt, Ex-odus (s. Anm. 1), 65–67 (Exkurs 2: Mose als Levit) mit Lit. Sie verdienen schon deshalbBeachtung, weil die einschlagigen Uberlieferungen (Ex 2,1; 32,26–29; [Dtn 33,8–11]; Ri18,30 [LXX; Masora; Raschi z.St.]; Ex 6,19 [levitische Sippe „Muschi“]) literarisch wederaufeinander abgestimmt sind, noch sich durchgehend aus Interessen spaterer Tradentenherleiten lassen. Zugleich wird man die durchweg erkennbaren Spezifika des sozialenStatus der Leviten einbeziehen mussen: Sesshafte Personen/Familien, die in die lokalenSippenverbande ihrer Wohnorte nicht verwandtschaftlich integriert sind, zugleich sichaber mit den anderen „Leviten“ einem gemeinsamen Verwandtschaftsverband(„Stamm“) zugehorig sehen. Entsprechend ihrer verwandtschaftlichen ‚Fremdheit‘ (ana-log zu den gerim) leben sie in der Regel nicht auf/von einem familiaren Erbland; sie gel-ten vielmehr als besonders geeignet fur den Dienst an lokalen oder familiaren JHWH-Kultstatten. Bezieht man diese strukturellen Merkmale der Leviten und die angespro-chenen Zusammenhange mit der Mosetradition aufeinander, dann bietet es sich an, ineiner „historischen Spekulation“ die Anfange der Leviten mit der hypothetischen Mose-

62 Erhard Blum

diesen Grundkoordinaten fallt es nicht schwer, mehr oder weniger elabo-rierte Mose-Biographien zu imaginieren.98 Dergleichen mag legitim sein,in den Bereich der historischen Rekonstruktion gehort es nicht mehr.

Erhard BlumProfessor fur Altes TestamentUniversitat TubingenLiebermeisterstr. 1272076 [email protected]

Exodus-Gruppe zu verbinden, deren Angehorige, so mag man mutmaßen, sich weder inden (pra-)israelitischen Verwandtschaftsverbanden integrieren, noch sich territorial ineinem eigenen zusammenhangenden Gebiet ansiedeln konnten. Im Gegenuber zu denbereits bestehenden Sippen und Stammen definierten sie sich naheliegenderweise selbstals eigene, segmentar gegliederte Verwandtschaftsgruppe. Als bekannt eifernde „An-hanger“ ( םיול ) ihres Gottes JHWH galten die mit keinem der ‚normalen‘ Stamme ver-bundenen schließlich als ‚geborene‘ Priester an JHWH-Kultstatten.

98 In diese Richtung geht beispielsweise die biographische Skizze von S. Hermann, Art.Mose, NBL 2 (1995), 847–848.


Thomas Romer

Tracking Some “Censored” Moses Traditions Insideand Outside the Hebrew Bible*

This article deals with extrabiblical Moses traditions that have their provenance inHellenistic times: Moses the leprous, the warlord, and the husband of an Ethiopianwoman. The Hebrew Bible contains some allusions to these traditions (Exod 1:10;4:6–7; Num 12:1; 21:4–9) that were probably inserted after the first publication of theTorah.

I. Gunkel versus Wellhausen, Tradition Criticism versusRedaction Criticism: the Difficult Quest for Oral (and Written)Traditions

The documentary hypothesis developed by J. Wellhausen and others wasmainly devoted to the distinction of three major literary layers, which latercompilers or redactors combined in order to create the Pentateuch orHexateuch: J/E (Wellhausen expressed caution concerning the possibilityof distinguishing between J and E), D, and P. For Wellhausen these threedocuments represented three steps in the evolution of the Israelite and Ju-dean religion: J/E, the non-clerical and diversified cult of Yahweh duringthe monarchy; D, the centralization of the Judahite religion; and P, the rit-ualization and legalistic conception of the cult. I intend here not to com-ment on this quite negative view of Judaism, but to underline the fact thatWellhausen was not interested in investigating the different elements thatmade up J/E, D, and P. Although recognizing that J might have used someoral traditions,1 Wellhausen did not pay much attention to the origins andsocial settings of those traditions. His younger colleague H. Gunkel tookthe opposite position.2 At the end of the nineteenth century, the publica-tion of Mesopotamian tablets containing stories of creation and flood sim-

* I express my gratitude to R.J. Thompson of Harvard University, who kindly revised themanuscript.

1 See for instance J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischenBucher des Alten Testaments (14th ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963), 7–8.

2 H. Gunkel, Genesis (trans. J. Nogalski; Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997).


ilar to the biblical accounts prompted questions about the material thatbiblical authors or collectors had at their disposal. Gunkel initiated agrowing interest and fascination for oral traditions, and some decades latermost scholars accepted that almost all biblical narratives were based on oldand oral traditions. This conception enabled scholars to claim a second-millennium origin for some of the Biblical traditions, especially those ofthe Pentateuch.3 The form-critical and tradition-historical methods wereat the zenith of Biblical studies, and most scholars were very confident inthe retrieval of the older Vorlagen.

At least in European scholarship, the collapse of the classical documen-tary hypothesis, which brought a number of scholars to move the date ofthe Yahwist from the early monarchy into the Babylonian exile or even tobid him “farewell,”4 has also produced new skepticism about the possibilityof reconstructing oral traditions or other Vorlagen used by the authors ofthe Pentateuch. The work of H. Wahl on the Jacob narrative typifies thisskepticism.5 He claims that one cannot clarify the contours of the oral tra-ditions from which the Jacob narrative originated. According to Wahl, oraltradition fluctuates and therefore renders illusory the effort to track thetraditions that inspired the authors and redactors of the Jacob story. Onthe basis of a wide-ranging review of oral tradition, he argues that oraltradition does not function as an efficient means to perpetuate a narrativesubstance, since memory does not last more than about fifty years. Thisnegative assessment of the possibility to reconstruct older traditions alsounderlies the current emphasis on redactors in the discussion concerningthe formation of the Torah. The shift of interest to the latest redactors ofthe Torah6 triggers models in which the text appears as a “rolling corpus,”as W. McKane puts it.7 Thus a short written text undergoes constant in-crease and supplement by redactors. For C. Levin for instance, the onlyevents originally told between the call of Moses and the crossing of the Seaconsist of the following: “So Moses took his wife and his sons, put them on

3 See for instance the idea of a patriarchal age that was popular in commentaries on thebook of Genesis until the 1960s and that still appears in the chronological tables of manymodern Bible translations.

4 T.B. Dozeman and K. Schmid, ed., A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of thePentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (SBL Symposium Series 34; Atlanta: SBL,2006).

5 H.M. Wahl, Die Jakobserzahlungen. Studien zu ihrer mundlichen Uberlieferung, Verschrif-tung und Historizitat (BZAW 258; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997).

6 T. Romer and K. Schmid, ed. , Les dernieres redactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque etde l’Enneateuque (BEThL 203; Leuven: Peeters, 2007).

7 W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Vol. 1 (ICC; Edinburgh:T&T Clark, 1986), l–liii.

“Censored” Moses Traditions Inside and Outside the Hebrew Bible 65

a donkey, and went back to the land of Egypt … (4:20) The Israelites jour-neyed from Rameses to Succoth … (12:37) They set out from Succoth, andcamped at Etham, on the edge of the wilderness … (13:20) When the Isra-elites looked back there were the Egyptians advancing on them (14:10).”8

In a way, the emphasis on redactional criticism in recent theories aboutthe formation of the Torah9 obfuscates the investigation about the under-lying traditions. Recent theories about the book of Numbers, which R.Achenbach10 elaborated and with which I am sympathetic, argue that most(if not all) of the book is to be understood as late Fortschreibungen andredactional activity. Of course, one admits the existence of some tradition-al material, but this material remains constantly blurred and its prove-nance unclear.

No doubt the reconstruction of an Ur-Text or an Ur-Tradition oftenappears hazardous. One should also recall that biblical literature, with fewexceptions, stems not from the work of authors but is instead tradition lit-erature. Therefore, one cannot oppose orality and written traditions, as D.Carr has shown.11 Literariness, at least for narratives, is shaped by oralityand traditions. Some cases allow for such a reconstruction. The most ob-vious case involves the reconstruction of the (oral) source of Jesus’ sayings(the Q source) in the New Testament through a comparison of the Synop-tic Gospels. The result of this investigation, as far as I can see, is acceptedby a majority of NT scholars. In the Hebrew Bible, the books of Kings andChronicles also allow for synoptic investigation. Traditionally, scholarshave considered Chronicles a reinterpretation of the Deuteronomistic ac-count in Samuel and Kings. G. Auld has challenged this view by recon-structing a shared text from which the contemporaneous redactors ofKings and of Chronicles drew.12 Even if his reconstruction is not entirely

8 C. Levin, Der Jahwist (FRLANT 157; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 76–77.

9 For a very critical evaluation of this trend, see J. Van Seters, The Edited Bible. The Curi-ous History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006). Inthis book Van Seters integrates former articles (e. g. “The Redactor in Biblical Studies: ANineteenth Century Anachronism,” JNSL 29 [2003] 1–19) to which J.L. Ska, “A Plea onBehalf of the Biblical Redactors,” Studia Theologica 59 (2005): 4–18 replied.

10 R. Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeri-buches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur altorien-talische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 3; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003).

11 D. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2005).

12 A.G. Auld, Kings Without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible’s Kings(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994). See now also R.F. Person Jr., The Deuteronomistic His-tory and the Books of Chronicles: Scribal Works in an Oral World (Ancient Israel and ItsLiterature 6; Atlanta: SBL, 2010).

66 Thomas Romer

convincing, it reflects a growing awareness that the book of Chroniclesdoes not depend on the current text of Samuel–Kings but on a differenttextual base that one can, at least in some cases, rediscover approximate-ly.13

II. Extrabiblical Moses Traditions

Unfortunately, the Hebrew Bible does not contain much other materialuseful for synoptic comparison outside of some doublets in Exodus–Num-bers on the one hand and in the book of Deuteronomy on the other (es-pecially Num 13–14 and Deut 1:19–45; or Exodus 32 and Deut 9:7–10:5).These texts have been frequently analyzed with different results14 and I donot intend to reopen this file. I would like instead to explore another di-rection: investigating some extra-biblical Moses traditions that may allowfor a better understanding of some rather obscure texts of the Torah. Ifone takes seriously the present state of Pentateuchal research, a considera-ble number of texts appear to belong to the Persian period. This scholarlydevelopment makes some extrabiblical accounts about Moses almost con-temporaneous with the canonization of the Torah. If this development iscorrect, it implies that, theoretically, these extrabiblical accounts may con-tain traditions as old as those that became part of the official story ofMoses in the Hebrew Bible.15

No wonder, then, that authors like Hecateus of Abdera, Manetho, Ar-tapanus, and Flavius Josephus are enjoying somewhat of a comeback inbiblical scholarship. Some of the traditions conserved in the works of theseauthors can highlight the variety of traditions about Moses and the Exodusat the time of the gathering of the official Pentateuch traditions. We shouldremember, however, that we have access to most of these authors onlythrough fragments gathered by much later authors. For instance, Mane-tho’s original History of Egypt from the third century B.C.E. was probablyaltered several times by pro- and anti-Jewish editors before it came to be

13 D. Carr, “Empirische Perspektiven auf das Deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk” in Diedeuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke. Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektivenzur ”Deuteronomismus”-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (ed. M. Witte et al. ;BZAW 365; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 1–17.

14 The most recent work on this is V. Senechal, Retribution et intercession dans le Deutero-nome (BZAW 408; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010).

15 P.R. Davies, “Judeans in Egypt: Hebrew and Greek Stories”, in L.L. Grabbe, ed., DidMoses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period (JSOT-Sup. 317; European Seminar in Historical Methodology; Sheffield: Sheffield AcademicPress, 2001), 108–128.


known by Josephus in the first century B.C.E. and by Eusebius in the fourthcentury C.E.16 Artapanus is available to us through Eusebius’ quoting of Al-exander Polyhistor.17 The case of Hecateus, who must have lived at the endof the fourth century B.C.E. , is also complicated because fragments of hiswork are only preserved in Diodorus Siculus’ Library – which, in turn, isquoted by the Byzantine Patriarch Photius.18 We cannot be sure of theoriginality of these quotes. Nevertheless, we can retrace the content and inmany places even the wording of these sources from Hellenistic times,which may in some cases reflect oral traditions from the Persian period. Inwhat follows, I will take some intriguing passages from the biblical Mosestradition and try to show how extrabiblical traditions may shed new lighton these texts.

1. Moses’ Leprosy and Israel’s War against Egypt

The biblical story of Moses’ call in Exod 3:1–4:17 has undergone severalredactions. Most scholars agree that 4:1–17 belongs to a late post-priestlyredactor, as argued by E. Blum and others:19 Moses’ new objections come

16 G.P. Verbrugge and J.M. Wickersham, Berossos and Manetho Introduced and Translat-ed: Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt (Ann Arbor : University ofMichigan Press, 2000), 108–128. It is also interesting to note that Josephus on one handquotes Manetho positively in order to prove the historicity of the exodus and on theother hand attacks him on his stories about the leprous and their leader.

17 C.R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, Vol. 1: Historians (Texts andTranslations 20. Pseudepigrapha Series 10; Chico: Scholars Press, 1983), 189.

18 M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Vol. 1: From Herodotus to Plut-arch (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974), 20–35. Re-cently, several works have argued that the frequently quoted passage on the Jews did notderive from Hecateus, but from a later source. According to D.S. Schwartz, “DiodorusSiculus 40.3 – Hecataeus or Pseudo-Hecataeus,” in Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land inthe Days of the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud (ed. M. Mor et al. ; Jerusalem:Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2003), 181–197, Diodorus 40.3 does not preserve a fragment fromHecataeus. See also R.E. Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenis-tic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch (LHBOTS 433; New York: T&T Clark, 2006),33–71; also, C. Zamagni, “La tradition sur Moıse d’ ‘Hecatee d’Abdere’ d’apres Diodoreet Photius” in Interpretations de Moıse: Egypte, Judee, Grece et Rome (ed. P. Borgeaud, T.Romer, and Y. Volokhine; Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 10; Leiden: Brill,2010), 133–169, 162–169.

19 E. Blum, “The Literary Connection Between the Books of Genesis and Exodus and theEnd of the Book of Joshua” in A Farewell to the Yahwist? (ed. T.B. Dozeman and K.Schmid; SBL Symposium Series 34; Atlanta: SBL, 2006), (see n. 4) 89–106, 94–95; J.C.Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzahlung. Untersuchungen zur Endredak-tion des Pentateuch (FRLANT 186; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 305–327; T. Romer, “Exodus 3–4 und die aktuelle Pentateuchdiskussion” in The Interpreta-tion of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman (ed. R. Roukema; CBET 44;Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 65–79. Traditionally this passage has been ascribed to the E

68 Thomas Romer

too late since Yahweh has already replied to Moses’ first refusal by promis-ing assistance and revealing his name (3:11–14). The new signs that Godconcedes to Moses apparently presuppose Priestly texts from the plaguestory. Therefore, J.C. Gertz ascribes 4:1–17 to the “Pentateuch redac-tion.”20 If one takes a closer look at this passage, however, it may not stemfrom one author or redactor. It has often been observed that the first signin 4:1–5 (the transformation of Moses’ staff into a snake) preludes Mosesand Aaron’s first miracle in Egypt in 7:8–13 (the transformation of Aaron’sstaff into a snake during the first encounter between Yahweh’s messengersand the king of Egypt). This first encounter in Exodus 7 is followed in7:14–25 by the changing of the Nile water into blood. Exodus 4:8–9 alsocomprises an allusion to the transformation of the Nile’s water, reinter-preting the story of Exod 7:14–25.21 The sequence that contains thetransformation of a rod into a snake and water into blood appears inter-rupted in Exod 4:6–7 by another sign: Moses’ hand becomes leprous.This episode, clearly a later insertion, interrupts the sequence of Exodus7 and creates a hiatus in the divine speech about the people’s disbelief – aspeech in which 4:8 appears clearly related to v. 5 (cf. ונימאי ןעמל in v. 5and ךל ונימאי אל־םא היהו in v. 8).

The temporary leprous infection of Moses’ hand has puzzled commen-tators, since it constitutes a unique occurrence in the Bible, whereas all theother signs in Exodus 4 foreshadow episodes from the Exodus story. Ac-cording to W. Propp, this episode was transmitted in order to show “thatYahweh wishes to prove, on Moses’ person, his ability to send disease andhealing.”22 Other commentators point to the parallel in Num 12:10 (Mir-iam’s leprous disease),23 but the reason why Moses should prefigure Mir-iam’s punishment in his body remains unclear.

Taking a look at Manetho’s account about the Hebrews in Egypt, onecan find a better explanation for these verses. Josephus quotes some frag-ments of his History of Egypt in his Contra Apionem. According to Jose-phus, Manetho knew a story of an Egyptian king, Amenophis, who wantedto purify Egypt from all lepers and sick people. He put them to work instone-quarries east of the Nile and later transferred them to the city of Av-

document. But the existence of E is more than uncertain, and the passage clearly pre-supposes the late and post-priestly texts to which it alludes.

20 Gertz, Tradition (see n. 19), 305–327.21 This reinterpretation tries to answer the problem that arose through the conflation of

different traditions in Exodus 7. According to one, only the river water is transformedinto blood, but in the other the striking with the staff provokes blood all over Egypt.

22 W.H.C. Propp, Exodus 1–18 (AB 2; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 209.23 The expression גלשכ תערצמ appears also in Num 12:10 and furthermore in 2 Kgs 5:27.


aris, the former capital of the Hyksos (the “Shepherds”). A leprous priestnamed Osarseph headed the colony there and gave it new laws (239: “[T]hey should not worship the gods or show reverence for any of the animalsregarded as sacred by the Egyptians…. They should sacrifice and use all ofthem, and they should have nothing to do with any person except thosewho shared the oath.”).24 Then he formed an alliance with the Hyksosfrom Jerusalem, and together they fought against the Egyptian king whohad to flee to Ethiopia and stay for thirteen years. Meanwhile, the lepersand the Shepherds burned cities and sanctuaries and destroyed statues ofthe gods. They were finally defeated by Amenophis and his army, who“killed many and pursued the rest as far as the borders of Syria.” At theend of the story: “250: It is said that the man who gave them their consti-tution and laws was a priest of the people of Heliopolis, named Osarseph25

from Osiris the god of Heliopolis. When he changed his allegiance, hechanged his name and was called Moses.” Whether Manetho himself re-ports this identification or whether it was added later has prompted somedebate.26 The identification of Osarseph and Moses, however, finds sup-port by the biblical account in Exod 4:6–7. This passage, which representsa later insertion into a very late text, could function as a “counter history”reacting against an apparently important tradition that describes Moses asa man affected with leprosy. Apparently, Hecateus, who is often consid-ered a main source for Manetho, knows a similar tradition inasmuch as herelates that a disease struck Egypt and prompted the Egyptians to expel theforeigners from the country. Among them was Moses, the founder of Je-rusalem. Although Hecateus does not mention Moses’ leprosy, he doescombine the theme of the expulsion of Moses and his followers with thetheme of disease. A text such as Deut 7:15 may reflect such a tradition:“[A]ll the dread diseases from Egypt that you experienced he (Yahweh) willnot inflict on you” (see also Deut 28:60). The biblical redactor opposes tothe tradition of the lepers known by Manetho the affirmation that Moses’leprosy was only momentary; it happened in the context of a transfer ofdivine powers to him.

24 Translation according to Verbrugghe and Wickersham, Berossos and Manetho (see n.16).

25 According to D.B. Redford (Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times [Princeton:University Press, 1992], 415–416), Osarseph is a polemical name for Akhenaton; othersthink of a combination of Joseph and Osiris.

26 See J.G. Gager, Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism (SBL Monograph Series 16: Nashville :Abingdon Press, 1972), 113–118; E.S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinventionof Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 58–62.

70 Thomas Romer

Thus, the source for the strange sign related to Moses’ leprous handmay be found in a tradition from the end of the Persian period. At a latestage, Exod 4:6–7 may have been inserted together with the Wiederauf-nahme in 4:9aa (altering the announcement of 4:9aßb to a third sign), amove that may have occurred after the first promulgation of the Torah inorder to counter anti-Jewish versions of the Exodus narrative.

Another difficult passage from the beginning of the book of Exodus canalso be better understood in the light of the tradition related by Manetho,as J. Ruckl convincingly suggests.27 According to Exod 1:9–10, the newPharaoh feared the Hebrews: He said to his people, “Look, the Israelitepeople are more numerous and more powerful than we. Come, let us dealshrewdly with them, or they will increase and, in the event of war, join ourenemies and fight against us and get them up out of the land.” In the bookof Exodus, the idea that Egypt is at war and that the Hebrews could jointhe enemies of Egypt represents a blind motif, since it is not taken up later.This passage has intrigued past and recent commentators and even pro-voked the idea that ןמ הלע should mean here “to seize upon,” since the textseems odd otherwise.28 But if one reads Exod 1:10 in the light of the tradi-tion transmitted by Manetho, such an emendation becomes unnecessary.Manetho’s account of the alliance of the “lepers” in Egypt with the “Shep-herds” does not make sense as an amplification of the biblical passage, be-cause it is quite difficult to imagine Manetho as an attentive reader of theTorah. One may hypothesize, on the contrary, that a redactor insertedExod 1:10 in reaction to the tradition related by Manetho.

On the diachronic level, one can understand Exod 1:10b* as an inser-tion into the passage comprising Exod 1:8–12, which, according to K.Schmid and J. Gertz, is part of a post-priestly redaction in view of its pre-supposition of Exod 1:7.29 This verse, which almost all scholars attribute tothe Priestly writer or redactor, relates that the Israelites have become a nu-merous people. The following verses must therefore belong to the sameliterary level or to a later one. In 1:8–12, v. 10b* interrupts the transitionbetween Pharaoh’s statement in v. 10a and the “wise” measures that he

27 J. Ruckl, “Israel’s Alliance with the Enemies of Egypt in Exodus 1,10,” in La constructionde la figure de Moıse – The Construction of the Figure of Moses (ed. T. Romer; Trans-euphratene Supp. 13; Paris: Gabalda, 2007), 157–168.

28 For details see Ruckl, 164–165.29 K. Schmid, Erzvater und Exodus. Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begrundung der Ur-

sprunge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbucher des Alten Testaments (WMANT 81; Neu-kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999), 233; J.C. Gertz, “The Transition Betweenthe Books of Genesis and Exodus” in A Farewell to the Yahwist? (ed. T.B. Dozeman andK. Schmid; SBL Symposium Series 34; Atlanta: SBL, 2006), (see n. 4) 73–87, 82–83. InTradition (see n. 19), 379, Gertz attributes 1:8–10 to the “final redaction”.


wants to take. The late insertion in 1:10b may stem from the same hand as4:6–7. The biblical redactor, operating again in a polemical way, took atradition that previously ended with the expulsion of the Hebrews andturned it into a prophetic oracle where the king foresees Israel’s exodus.The tradition found in Manetho, which places the exodus in the context ofEgypt’s war against the inhabitants of Canaan and Israel’s alliance withthem, probably stems from an older tradition (an allusion to it can befound in Jubilees 46:6–13, where the text may represent a midrash of Exod1:10 or may result from some knowledge of such a tradition). J. Rucklthinks that Manetho’s account may reflect the situation of the Persian oc-cupation of Egypt in the fifth century B.C.E. ,30 but this question needs toremain open. In any case, Exod 1:10 provides another example of the wayextra-biblical tradition can improve our understanding of some biblicalaccounts.

2. Moses’ Wars, the Snakes, and his Ethiopian Wife

In the Hebrew Bible, Moses has a more or less demilitarized stance: hedoes not lead the people into the land and, according to the Deuterono-mistic tradition, the military conquest becomes the work of Joshua, whomthe text clearly presents as a warlord in the book of Joshua (as well as al-ready in Exod 17). Nevertheless, some military traditions about Moses ap-pear at the end of the book of Numbers and in the first chapters of Deu-teronomy. He conquers the Transjordan territory, and Num 20:14 evenmentions a “book of the wars of Yahweh,”31 which would have containedMoses’ military exploits. One may therefore ask if the stories at the end ofNumbers reflect a tradition of Moses as a conqueror. This tradition ap-pears also in Hecateus and more extensively in Artapanus, who presentsMoses as an excellent commander leading an Ethiopian campaign. Artap-anus probably did not invent this tradition, since Josephus in his JewishAntiquities (2.238–256) offers a similar account. As several scholars haveclaimed, Josephus could theoretically depend on Artapanus, but a synopticcomparison of both accounts leads to the conclusion that they take over(in different ways) a common oral tradition that probably originated in the

30 Ruckl, “Israel’s Alliance” (see n. 27), 166–167.31 A text-critical problem arises here, since LXX read “the war of Yahweh” not as the title

of the book but as a quotation from it.

72 Thomas Romer

Jewish (Egyptian) Diaspora.32 This tradition comprised the followingthemes:

a) Moses wages war against the Ethiopians;b) He uses ibises to fight snakes in the wilderness;c) He sojourns in Ethiopia and marries an Ethiopian princess.The latter theme does not appear in Artapanus. The notion that Jose-

phus invented the story is improbable. It is more likely that Polyhistorcensored Artapanus, whom Polyhistor only transmitted in fragments.

a) We can easily trace the origin of the theme of Moses’ Ethiopian wars.The Egyptian Jews would have known about the antagonism betweenEgypt and Cush. Since the second millennium B.C.E. , Egypt and Cushwarred often. One may recall that around 728 B.C.E. , the Cushite kingPiankhy invaded Egypt, took over Memphis and Heliopolis, and pro-claimed himself king. This Ethiopian occupation of Egypt, which endedonly around 672 B.C.E. with the installation of Neco I after the Assyrian in-vasion, offers a fitting background to Artapanus’ account (Praep. 9.27, 3).33

During the Persian era, the topic of Ethiopian campaigns by the Phar-aohs or other kings (Semiramis, Cambyses) became a literary motif34 withwhich Jews in Egypt may have been familiar. The legend of Sesostris(Sesoosis) offers the most parallels to the tradition used by Artapanus andJosephus.35 This figure apparently combines recollections about Sesostriswho defeated the Ethiopians with recollections about Ramses II.36 Her-odotus (Hist. 2.102–110), Diodorus Siculus (1.53–57), and Strabo refer tothis legend:37 Sesostris, a brilliant legislator and an excellent head of state,organizes the land of Egypt in different departments (Herodotus 2.109;Diodorus 1.14,3). Artapanus says the same thing about Moses

32 For more details, see T. Romer, “Les guerres de Moıse,” in La construction de la figure deMoıse – The Construction of the Figure of Moses (ed. T. Romer; TranseuphrateneSupp. 13; Paris: Gabalda, 2007), (see n.27), 169–193.

33 Cf. D.B. Redford, From Slave to Pharaoh: The Black Experience of Ancient Egypt (Balti-more: John Hopkins University Press, 2004).

34 J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE– 117 CE) (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 129 and n. 9.

35 D.L. Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (SBLDS 1; Missoula: SBL, 1972),153–167; T. Rajak, “Moses in Ethiopia: Legend and Literature,” JJS (1978): 111–122, 115.

36 C. Obsomer, Les campagnes de Sesostris dans Herodote: essai d’interpretation du texte greca la lumiere des realites egyptiennes (Connaissance de l’Egypte ancienne 1; Bruxelles:Connaissance de l’Egypte ancienne, 1989).

37 For a summary of this legend, cf. M. Braun, History and Romance in Graeco-OrientalLiterature (1938) (reprint; New York: Garland, 1987), 13–18. Braun situates its origin inthe Egyptian resistance against the Persian invaders.


(Praep. 9.27,3).38 He also claims that Moses introduced circumcision inEthiopia, whereas Herodotus (Hist. 2.104) and Diodorus (i.55,5) mentioncircumcision in relation with Sesostris. But above all, Sesostris epitomizesa fine strategist and wages war against Ethiopia (Strabo, Geographica,16.4,4.). According to Artapanus and Josephus alike, Moses likewise goesto war against Ethiopia.39 Both authors report that Moses has to confrontthe hostility of the Egyptian court (Praep. 9.27,11–18; Ant. 2.254–256); thesame holds true for Sesostris when he returns from his campaign accom-panied by his wife (Herodotus, Hist. 2.107; Diodorus 1.57,7–8).40 There-fore, one may plausibly assume that this legend inspired the tradition usedby Artapanus and Josephus.41 If so, then this tradition constructed Mosesas a Jewish Sesostris.42

b) The relation between Moses and the ibises is a more difficult topic toinvestigate. According to D. Silver, this association could reflect an earlysyncretistic cult of the Egyptian Diaspora centering on Moses as healerand intercessor.43 While this idea is speculative, it may find support fromArtapanus, who identifies Moses with Hermes-Thoth in turn associatedwith the ibis. Herodotus (II, 75) mentions a cult dedicated to ibises be-cause they repel the winged snakes of the desert: “the story goes that at thebeginning of spring winged serpents from Arabia fly towards Egypt, andthe birds called ibises meet them at the entrance to this country and do notsuffer the serpents to go by but kill them. On account of this deed it is (saythe Arabians) that the ibis has come to be greatly honored by the Egyp-tians.”44 In the light of this tradition, one may ask if a (probably late) storyabout the snake plague in Num 21.4–945 could indicate an orthodox coun-ter-history trying to show that only a decision coming from the God of Is-rael could stop the serpents. In any case, Numbers 21 shares the traditionabout winged serpents in the wilderness with Herodotus and Artapanus.

38 Both authors mention 36 names.39 Tiede, Charismatic Figure (see n. 35), 161.40 According to Herodotus and Diodorus, his brother wants to kill him through fire. Di-

odorus reports that the gods decided to save him. Herodotus tells a cruel plan of hiswife: Sesostris’ two sons perish in the fire, since Sesostris uses them as a bridge to crossit.

41 See also Tiede, Charismatic Figure (see n. 35), 164. However, Tiede is convinced thatArtapanus invented the Mosaic version of this legend: “…[I]t appears likely that Artap-anus had adapted a version of this legend and applied it to Moses.”

42 Cf. Exod 2:1–10, where he is constructed with the attributes of Sargon.43 D.J. Silver, ”Moses and the Hungry Birds,” JQR 64 (1973): 123–153.44 Translation by G.C. Macaulay (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/herodotus/h4 m/).45 E. Aurelius, Der Furbitter Israels. Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament. (CB.OT

27; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1988), 151–152, claims that this storywas inserted only after the Pentateuch redactor.

74 Thomas Romer

c) The tradition about a marriage between Moses and an Ethiopianprincess, which appears in Josephus’ Antiquities, must have some relationin one way or another to the strange note in Num 12:1: “And Miriam andAaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he hadmarried; he had indeed married a Cushite woman.” This verse is anothercrux interpretationis, since the following story switches to Miriam andAaron’s denial of Moses’ superiority.46 Traditional Jewish and Christian in-terpretation has already made several attempts to smooth out this passage,especially by identifying Cush with Madian and the Cushite woman withZipporah.47 It is difficult to imagine the whole tradition about Moses’Ethiopian woman – which Flavius Josephus had certainly not invented –as solely a midrashic amplification spun out of Num 12:1. The oppositesolution appears more plausible. Numbers 12:1 was inserted at a late red-actional stage (together with 12:10–15). Presupposing knowledge of theMoses-Ethiopian connection, the passage represents a discrete counter-history against the Deuteronomistic prohibition of mixed marriages asformulated in texts such as Deut. 7.1–6 or Ezra 10.

The Ethiopian-Cushite theme may have come from the Jews living inthe military colony of Elephantine, where they found themselves in imme-diate contact with “Cush.” The tradition of Moses’ military successes inEthiopia was especially fitting for Jewish mercenaries, some of whomprobably had Ethiopian wives.48 We may conclude that in the Persian pe-riod a (probably oral) tradition about Moses’ military feats existed and in-cluded his marriage with an Ethiopian princess as well as the benefits thathe provided for Egypt.49 It is almost impossible to know whether Manethoreacted against such a tradition or whether the intended function of thetradition was to counter anti-Jewish stories in Egypt. What is clear, how-ever, is the fact that the reconstruction of this tradition enables a betterunderstanding of some passages in the Torah.

46 Scholars often argue that Miriam’s punishment with leprosy in verses 10–15 was theoriginal continuation of her denial of Moses’ wife. While this may well be the case, theCushite woman receives no further mention.

47 For a good overview on the history of interpretation, see Achenbach, Vollendung (see n.10), 275–277. See also T. Romer, “Mose in Athiopien. Zur Herkunft der Num 12,1 zu-grunde liegenden Tradition” in Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt von Genesis bis II Regum.Festschrift fur Hans-Christoph Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. M. Beck and U. Schorn;BZAW 370; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 203–15.

48 B.J. Diebner, “‘…for he had married a Cushite woman’ (Num 12,1),” Nubica I/II (1990):499–504.

49 For a similar conclusion, see Rajak, “Moses in Ethiopia,” 111–122; see also D. Runnalls,“Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign,” JSJ 14 (1993): 135–156.


III. Conclusion

The focus on redactional criticism sometimes obscures the quest for theprovenance and meaning of traditions that the redactors used, inserted, ortransformed. Scholars have often caricaturized tradition history as a ro-mantic pursuit of the oldest origins. The new state of Pentateuchal re-search that emphasizes the importance of the Persian period for the for-mation of the Torah allows for a modified investigation into the biblicaltraditions, which scholars can now, at least partially, retrieve from extra-biblical sources of the Hellenistic period. This interest in oral traditiondoes not mean that one should abandon investigation of the written text.On the contrary, it contributes to a better understanding of the complexityof the Torah, which still contains enough difficult passages to keep futuregenerations of scholars busy.

Thomas RomerCollege de France52, rue du Cardinal Lemoine75231 Paris Cedex [email protected]

76 Thomas Romer

James Kugel

The Figure of Moses in Jubilees

Moses is a central figure in numerous Second Temple period writings: in a number ofthem, he is even presented as a semi-divine “God-like man.” By comparison, theMoses of the book of Jubilees is a rather pale figure, altogether overshadowed by thetowering portraits of Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and others. The reason for this calculat-ed de-emphasis of Moses’ importance and role is connected to the contrasting ideol-ogies of two writers, the original author of Jubilees and an interpolator responsible forsome 29 insertions into the original author’s text.

It is hardly surprising that Moses is exalted in the literature of the SecondTemple period. In the Pentateuch itself he is by far the dominant figure,the man of God who stood up to Pharaoh to demand his people’s freedomand who, at Mount Sinai, received the Torah on behalf of all Israel. Thegap separating him from ordinary mortals was no doubt evident to all whoknew Israel’s sacred scriptures. Consider, for example, God’s own wordscontrasting Moses to all other prophets: “With him, I speak mouth tomouth, plainly and not in riddles, indeed, he beholds the very likeness ofthe LORD” (Num 12:8). Or elsewhere:

And there has never since arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the LORD knewface to face, with all the signs and portents that the Lord commissioned him to performin the land of Egypt, against Pharaoh and all his courtiers and his whole country, andwith all the terrifying power that Moses wielded in the sight of all Israel (Deut 34:10–12).

Given Moses’ unique standing as expressed in such passages, one can littlewonder at the exaltation, indeed, lionization of Moses in the writings ofpost-biblical Jewish sages. Here, for example, is the opening of Philo ofAlexandria’s two-volume work on the life of Moses:

I propose to write the life of Moses, whom some describe as the legislator (nomothetes) ofthe Jews, others as the interpreter (hermeneus) of the sacred laws. I, however, hope tobring the story of the greatest and most perfect of men to the knowledge of such as de-serve not to remain in ignorance of it (Mos. 1.1).

One particularly significant factor in this lionization was God’s reply toMoses when he asserted that he was not a good speaker and thereforecould not confront Pharaoh. God observes that Aaron, Moses’ brother, isindeed a good speaker, so “He [Aaron] shall be a mouth for you, and youwill be to him as God” (Exod 4:16). This might have seemed like a mere


figure of speech, but it is repeated later on: “See, I am making you a God toPharaoh, and Aaron your brother will be your prophet” (Exod 7:1). Thisled more than one ancient interpreter to claim that Moses had, in effect,been deified by God:

Beloved of God and men was Moses (may his mention bring good),

And He honored him as God, and kept him strong in the heavens (Sir 45:1–2).

And He made him God over the mighty ones, and as a cause of reeling to Pharaoh(4Q374 frag. II, 2, 6, Discourse on the Exodus/Conquest Tradition).

And did not he [Moses] enjoy an even greater partnership with the Father and Creator ofall things, having been found worthy of [being called by] the same form of address? For,he was named God and king of the entire nation (Philo, Mos. 1.158).

And so that law-giving [i.e. the Torah], being believed to come from God, has caused thisman to be ranked higher than his own [human] nature (Josephus, Ant. 3.320).1

In the light of all this, the portrayal of Moses in the book of Jubilees seemsrather pale. One might object that this is a natural consequence of thebook’s design: after all, Jubilees is primarily concerned with retelling thebook of Genesis, where Moses is entirely absent, and only begins to referto Moses’ lifetime in its last four chapters. Naturally, therefore, Jubilees hasmuch more to say about Noah, Abraham, and the other patriarchs thanabout Moses. But such an objection is faulty on two accounts. First, it putsthe cart before the horse: the question ought to be why Jubilees’ focus is onthe book of Genesis, a question whose answer is, as we shall see, most re-vealing about the book’s overall aim. But secondly, Moses is hardly absentfrom Jubilees. The closing chapters recount the life of Moses from birth tothe beginning of the exodus; surely, if the author had wanted, they couldhave been full of superlatives from beginning to end. Moreover, the bookopens with Moses’ ascent of Mount Sinai, and is punctuated here and therewith direct speech from the book’s narrator, the Angel of the Presence, toMoses: “Now you, Moses, command the Israelites…” and so forth. Heretoo was ample opportunity for the author to expatiate, as other SecondTemple writers did, on Moses’ unique qualities as a prophet, indeed, hisGod-like status. But there is nothing of the kind in Jubilees ; indeed, mostof the time Moses seems to cut a rather small figure amidst the book’sother, apparently greater, heroes.

1 For a survey of some early sources, see L. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible(Berkley: University of California, 1998), 374–442. I have also discussed some of thesedepictions of Moses in Traditions of the Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1998), 544–546, 560–561.

78 James Kugel

The Author’s Purpose

The beginning of an explanation for this curiosity lies, as already implied,in an understanding of the author’s historical situation and in his overallpurpose in writing. He presumably lived sometime close to the start of thesecond century B.C.E. ,2 a time when, no doubt, many of his countrymen

2 The dating of Jubilees remains a thorny question. It used to be dated to the time of theMaccabees, mostly on the basis of the geographic references in the battle narratives of Jub34:2–9 and 37:1–38:14, which were held to reflect the sites of Maccabean battles; this ar-gument was later taken up by, among others, J.C. VanderKam, but seriously countered byR.H. Doran in his article “The Non-Dating of Jubilees: Jub. 34–38; 23:14–32 in NarrativeContext,” JJS 20 (1989): 1–12. In the meantime J. Goldstein argued for dating the bookprior to 167 B.C.E.: “The Date of the Book of Jubilees,” Proceedings of the AmericanAcademy for Jewish Research 50 (1983): 63–86. VanderKam has also argued that Jubileesdisplays a knowledge of the chapters 85–90 of 1 Enoch and alludes in particular to the al-legorical presentation of Israel’s history that includes an apparent reference to the Macca-bean wars (1 Enoch 90:9b-16) and ends with a last judgment – a section claimed to bereflected in Jub. 4:19. (See VanderKam, “Enoch Traditions in Jubilees and Other SecondCentury Sources,” SBL Seminar Papers 13 [1978]: 1:229–251; and idem, “Jubilees, Bookof,” in L. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam, Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls [NewYork: Oxford, 2000], 434). But as G. Nickelsburg has noted, “the duplications in vv. 9–18…have led many commentators to posit a process of updating the Vision, such as is at-tested, for example, in Daniel, by means of interpolation or the construction of an alter-native ending to the historical section of the Vision” (1 Enoch 1, Hermeneia [Minneapo-lis: Fortress, 2001], 361). If so, there is no reason to associate Jub. 4:19 with any date as-signed to the current form of 1 Enoch 90 – Jubilees could just as easily be referring to anearlier form of the text. Indeed, there is good reason to move the date of compositionconsiderably earlier than the time of the Maccabees. Not only is there no hint in Jubileesthat its author was aware of the revolt of the Maccabees, but there is likewise no refer-ence, however indirect, to the events in the reign of Antiochus IV that preceded it, start-ing around 175 B.C.E. The book intones against such Hellenistic practice as public nudity(3:31), but there is little reason to suppose that such nudity could not have been a shock-ing element of Greek culture even in the third century B.C.E. As for the book’s other dis-paragements of Hellenistic society and its ardent xenophobia, these might likewise bedated to the beginning of the second or even the late third century B.C.E. Indeed, Diodo-rus Sicilus cites Hecataeus of Abdera, ca. 300 B.C.E., as referring to the Jews’ “antisocialand foreigner-hating way of life”; see his Bibliotheca Historica XL 3. In short, there simplyappears to be no evidence for favoring a post-175 B.C.E. dating over a pre-175 one. Wor-thy of consideration as well is the relationship of Jubilees to the Aramaic Levi Document(ALD), a text that is often dated to the very start of the second century or still earlier. TheALD appears to be dependent on Jubilees in its reference to a certain visit of Jacob and histwo sons to Isaac – a trip nowhere mentioned in the Bible or elsewhere in Second Templeperiod literature. Jubilees narrates this visit at some length and even gives it a cleverScriptural justification; the ALD summarizes it in a single short sentence (ALD 5:1). Onewould have to assume that the author of Jubilees read this sentence in the ALD, thenthought up his own clever Scriptural justification for its existence, and then expanded theALD’s passing reference into his own lengthy narration (Jub. 31:3–30). But commonsense, as well as the details of Jubilees’ account and the absence of any reference to thisjourney elsewhere in Second Temple writings, would seem to point to exactly the oppo-site process: the famous, authoritative book of Jubilees was the first text to think up this

The Figure of Moses in Jubilees 79

were despairing of Israel’s understanding of itself and its place in theworld. Perhaps, they reasoned, the God YHWH really did at one pointadopt Israel as His own people, just as ancient Scripture related (Exod19:5–6). But that day was long gone. In the meantime, He had allowed theNorthern Kingdom of Israel to fall to the Assyrians, never to rise again;the Southern Kingdom, Judah, had similarly fallen to the Babylonians, andmuch of its citizenry had been exiled to Babylon. True, unlike the North-erners, the Judean exiles had subsequently been allowed to return to theirhomeland, but they were nonetheless a subject people, ruled over first byPersia, then Ptolemaic Egypt, and now by Seleucid Syria. Was this a fittingarrangement for a people allegedly chosen by the Lord of heaven andearth? Instead, it seemed a clear indication that God’s adoption of Israel asHis own people, an act inaugurated with the great covenant at MountSinai, must no longer be in force. Israel had violated that covenant – firstthe Northerners, then the Southerners – and had therefore been rejected;the apparently unending years of foreign domination were a clear indica-tion that Israel had fallen into God’s disfavor.

It was principally to combat any such reading of history that the authorof Jubilees wrote his book. He began by having Moses hear the “predic-tion” of all the evils that would lead up to the Babylonian exile (Jub. 1:9–14). This was to be a terrible catastrophe, but it would ultimately be fol-lowed by Israel’s repentance and restoration (Jub. 1:15), and the explicitreversal of the Pentateuch’s own curses that were said to be Israel’s lot if itviolated the Sinai covenant (Jub. 1:16). In other words, Jubilees’ authorreadily accepted that Israel had sinned and was punished – but this hardlyspelled the end of its historic bond with its God. Israel was, and always hadbeen, God’s own people.

For Jubilees’ author, this was the great message carried by the book ofGenesis – as well as his reason for choosing to retell its stories as the idealinstrument for communicating his theme. Genesis is, after all, full of ac-counts of God’s dealings with Israel’s remote ancestors, Noah and his sons,Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and his wives and chil-dren. These stories all give evidence of the close connection between Godand Israel’s forebears; they not only interact directly with God, but Godrewards them – most tangibly in the grant of the land of Canaan to themand their descendants. For the author of Jubilees, this was proof positivethat God’s adoption of Israel did not begin at Mount Sinai, as one might

non-biblical visit, and the author of the ALD was content to allude to Jubilees’ account ina single sentence. See my “How Old is the Aramaic Levi Document?” DSD 14 (2007):291–312.

80 James Kugel

assume from a straightforward reading of Exod 19:5–6, but that it hadbegun long before – going back, his book asserted, to the sixth day of cre-ation, when God first decided that Israel was to be His people (Jub. 2:19–20). The covenants concluded with Abraham in Genesis 15 and 17, alongwith the promises made to Jacob in Gen 28:13–14, were thus not, as itmight seem, merely intended as a grant of the land of Canaan, nor yet avague pledge of numerous descendants, but an eternal alliance. They, noless than the Sinai covenant, bound Israel to its God forever.

To say this likewise implied a certain diminution of the importance ofthe Sinai covenant itself. It was not the first and sole basis of the alliancebetween God and Israel, but only one covenant among several; its viola-tion, therefore, could hardly have occasioned a definitive rupture betweenthe two parties. So yes, Israel had failed to keep the conditions of the Sinaicovenant, a sin for which it had been duly punished through the Babylo-nian conquest and exile. But once punished, the child is forgiven. Whatev-er the political ups and downs that had subsequently characterized Israel’shistory, there could be no doubt that God’s alliance with Israel was still ineffect and would continue eternally.

This was the basic message of comfort that the author of Jubilees wishedto communicate, and in retelling Genesis, he sought to give it concrete ex-pression. Jubilees maintained that although Israel did not yet exist, Godhad actually decided to create this special people for Himself way back onthe seventh day of the Creation, the very first sabbath in history.3 In effect,then, God’s great alliance with Israel was moved back from the Sinai reve-lation (Exodus 19) to Genesis 1. In keeping with this shift, Israel’s remoteancestors were portrayed as worshiping God in much the same way as Is-rael was commanded to worship Him at Mount Sinai. True, there was notemple or tabernacle in pre-Sinai times, indeed, no established priesthood.But Genesis did mention that various patriarchs had built altars and of-

3 This point is well made in M. Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ide-ology, and Theology (JSJSup. 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 178–179, 238–243. The claim thatIsrael had been chosen as God’s people on the seventh day of creation was buttressed byfour different arguments: Since Israel was the only people on earth commanded to keepthe sabbath, God must have decided on Israel’s special status when He created the firstsabbath. In line with this, there were only two items in Genesis that were called both “sa-cred” and “blessed,” Israel and the first sabbath. Moreover, by Jubilees’ count, there wereexactly twenty-two different acts of creation in that first week – corresponding to thetwenty-two generations from Adam to Jacob, Israel’s progenitor. Finally, God describesIsrael in Exod 4:22 as His “firstborn son” – clear proof that Israel was conceived as God’sown people from the very beginning. See Jub 2:19–23; also L. Doering, “The Concept ofthe Sabbath in the Book of Jubilees,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees (ed. M. Albani etal. ; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 179–206; J. Kugel, “4Q369 ‘Prayer of Enosh’ andAncient Biblical Interpretation,” DSD 5 (1998): 119–148.


fered sacrifices to God. With this slim bit of evidence to support him, theauthor of Jubilees asserted that a chain of priests had in fact existed fromearliest times – one priest at a time – and that these priests were in everysense continuous with the later, Levitical priesthood. Thus, Adam, Enoch,Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Levi are represented in Jubilees as forming acontinuous chain of priests, with each new priest being instructed by hispredecessor in proper priestly procedure.4

To further illustrate the continuity between these pre-Sinai priests andtheir post-Sinai successors, the author of Jubilees detailed the form andcontent of the sacrifices that they offered, having these conform to pre-scriptions for sacrifices found later in the Pentateuch, principally in thebook of Leviticus. For the same reason, the author depicted these pre-Sinaipriests as celebrating (and properly observing the sacrificial laws of) vari-ous holy days – the Feast of Booths, the Feast of Weeks, the Day of Atone-ment – even though these holy days were first mentioned only later in theTorah, as part of or following the Sinai covenant.

A Bold Step

It was here that the author of Jubilees, in his effort to stress the crucial im-portance of the patriarchs in God’s connection to His people, took a par-ticularly bold step. He asserted – not once, but repeatedly throughout thebook – that the very reason for the existence of various holy days andother practices was to be found not in the prescriptions of the Sinai cove-nant, but in the events of the patriarchs’ own lives.

Here, for example, is how the biblical Festival of Tabernacles (Sukkot)came into existence: One day, God’s angels visited Abraham and informedhim that his future grandson, Jacob, would grow up to become the fatherof a holy nation, sacred to God. (This angelic visit is altogether the crea-tion of Jubilees’ author – there is no such account in the book of Genesis.)After hearing the news, Abraham and Sarah “were extremely happy”:

Thereupon he [Abraham] built an altar for the Lord who had rescued him and who wasmaking him so happy in the country where he resided as an alien. He celebrated a joyfulfestival in this month – for seven days – near the altar which he had built at the well ofthe oath. He constructed tents for himself and his servants during this festival. He was[thus] the first to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles on the earth. During these sevendays he was making – throughout all the days, each and every day – an offering to theLord on the altar : two bulls, two rams, seven sheep, one goat for sins in order to atone

4 See my “Levi’s Elevation to the Priesthood in Second Temple Writings,” HTR 96 (1993):1–64, esp. 17–21.

82 James Kugel

through it for himself and his descendants. And as a peace offering: seven rams, sevenkids, seven sheep, seven he-goats as well as their (cereal) offerings and their libationsover all their fat – (all of these) he would burn on the altar as a choice offering for apleasing fragrance. In the morning and evening he would burn fragrant substances:frankincense, galbanum, stacte, nard, myrrh, aromatic spices, and costum. All seven ofthese he would offer beaten, equally mixed, pure.

He celebrated this festival for seven days, being happy with his whole heart and all hisbeing – he and all those who belonged to his household. There was no foreigner withhim, nor anyone who was uncircumcised. He blessed his creator who had created him inhis generation because he had created him for his pleasure, for he knew and ascertainedthat from him there would come a righteous plant for the history of eternity and (that)from him there would be holy descendants so that they should be like the one who hadmade everything. He gave a blessing and was very happy. He named this festival the fes-tival of the Lord – a joy acceptable to the most high God (16:20–27).

Observance of the Festival of Tabernacles (or “Booths”) is commanded bythe Torah (Exod 34:22; Lev 23:33–36, 39–43; Num 29:12–38, Deut 16:13–15). Yet it is curious how Abraham’s observance of this festival cameabout: he decided it on his own initiative. It certainly would have been pos-sible for the author of Jubilees to have God or one of His angels appear toAbraham and instruct him to inaugurate this festival – but that is not at allwhat happens. Abraham, overjoyed at the news the angels have broughthim, spontaneously decides to create a seven-day festival, and it is only as aresult of his action that this festival subsequently becomes a provision ofdivine law in the Torah.

The same pattern is repeated again and again in Jubilees. Here, for ex-ample, is how the Day of Atonement came about according to Jubilees’ au-thor : It all started when Joseph’s brothers sought to deceive their fatherJacob into thinking that Joseph was dead.

Jacob’s son’s slaughtered a he-goat, stained Joseph’s clothing by dipping it in its blood,and sent [it] to their father Jacob on the tenth of the seventh month. He mourned all thatnight because they had brought it to him in the evening. He became feverish throughmourning his death and said that a wild animal had eaten Joseph. That day all the peopleof his household mourned with him. They continued to be distressed and to mourn withhim all that day. His sons and daughter set about consoling him, but he was inconsolablefor his son…. He continued mourning for Joseph for one year and was not comfortedbut said: “May I go down to the grave mourning for my son.” For this reason, it has beenordained regarding the Israelites that they should be distressed on the tenth of the sev-enth month – on the day when [the news] which made [him] lament Joseph reached hisfather Jacob – in order to make atonement for themselves on it with a kid – on the tenthof the seventh month [the date of the Day of Atonement], once a year – for their sins.For they had saddened their father’s [feelings of] affection for his son Joseph. This dayhas been ordained so that they may be saddened on it for their sins, all their transgres-sions, and all their errors; so that they may purify themselves on this day once a year(34:12–19).


Once again, what was to become one of the commandments of the Torah,the observance of the Day of Atonement, came about as a result of some-thing done altogether spontaneously by one of the patriarchs – and in thiscase, in commemoration of nothing particularly virtuous, a fraud perpe-trated by his sons that caused Jacob to mourn needlessly. So it was as wellwith the Festival of Weeks (Shabu‘ot). It was inaugurated, according to Ju-bilees’ author, with Noah’s spontaneous decision to offer thanks to God atthe end of the great flood (Jub. 6:1–3); only later did this Festival becomepart of the Torah’s legislation (Exod 34:22; Lev 23:16–21; Num 28:26–31;Deut 16:10–11). In other words, these holy days are essentially based onthings that happened to the patriarchs long before the Sinai revelation. Itwas not God who commanded the patriarchs that they be celebrated, butalmost the opposite: God made them official in reaction, as it were, tothings that the patriarchs themselves had instituted.

This is true not only with regard to festivals and other holy days, butalso with certain other laws contained in the Torah. For example, the bookof Leviticus contains a provision about consuming the fruit of a tree:

When you enter the land and plant any tree for food, you shall regard its fruit as forbid-den. Three years it shall be forbidden for you, not to be eaten. In the fourth year all itsfruit shall be set aside for jubilation5 before the Lord; and only in the fifth year may youuse its fruit – that its yield to you may be increased: I am the Lord your God (Lev 19:23–24).

In the Pentateuch, this law is a command of God. But according to Jubi-lees, its provisions seem to have been anticipated by one of Israel’s fore-bears long before the Sinai revelation. And once again, it is not the author’sclaim that God revealed the details of this law to the ancestor, who thencarried them out to the letter. Rather, the opposite happens: the ancestor –in this case Noah – spontaneously does something that only later comes tobe commanded in the Torah:

During the seventh week, in its first year, in this jubilee Noah planted a vine at themountain (whose name was Lubar, one of the mountains of Ararat) on which the arkhad come to rest. It produced fruit in the fourth year. He guarded its fruit and picked itthat year during the seventh month. He made wine from it, put it in a container, andkept it until the fifth year – until the first day at the beginning of the first month(Jub. 7:1–2).6

5 See M. Kister, “Some Aspects of Qumranic Halakhah,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress(ed. J.T. Barrera and L.V. Montaner; STDJ 11/2; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 571–588.

6 Note that a later passage (Jub. 7:35–36) presents a somewhat different understanding ofthis law. See M. Kister (previous note).

84 James Kugel

The author of Jubilees was certainly familiar with the idea of the divine or-igin of the Torah’s laws, an idea unambiguously depicted in the Sinai peri-cope (Exodus 19–24, 34) and repeated in numerous passages thereafter.Nevertheless, time and again he seeks to connect those laws to somehuman source. For example, here is what Noah commands his sons:

During the twenty-eighth jubilee, Noah began to prescribe for his grandsons the ordi-nances and the commandments – every statute which he knew. He warned his sons thatthey should do what is right, cover the shame of their bodies, bless the one who had cre-ated them, honor father and mother, love one another, and keep themselves from forni-cation, uncleanness, and from all injustice.

[Noah said:] But now I am the first to see your actions – that you have not been con-ducting yourselves properly because you have begun to conduct yourselves in the way ofdestruction, to separate from one another, to be jealous of one another, and not to be to-gether with one another, my sons. For I myself see that the demons have begun to leadyou and your children astray; and now I fear regarding you that after I have died you willshed human blood on the earth and (that) you yourselves will be obliterated from thesurface of the earth. For everyone who sheds human blood and everyone who consumesthe blood of any animate being will all be obliterated from the earth. No one who con-sumes blood or who sheds blood on the earth will be left. He will be left with neither de-scendants nor posterity living beneath heaven because they will go into Sheol and willdescend into the place of judgment. All of them will depart into deep darkness through aviolent death. No blood of all the blood which there may be at any time when you sacri-fice any animal, cattle, or (creature) that flies above the earth is to be seen on you. Do agood deed for yourselves by covering what is poured out on the surface of the earth. Donot be one who eats (meat) with the blood; exert yourselves so that blood is not con-sumed in your presence. Cover the blood because so was I ordered to testify to you andyour children together with all humanity. Do not eat the life with the meat so that yourblood, your life, may not be required from every person who sheds (blood) on the earth.For the earth will not be purified of the blood which has been shed on it; but by theblood of the one who shed it the earth will be purified in all its generations (7:20, 26–33).

The passage opens: “Noah began to prescribe for his grandsons the ordi-nances and the commandments – every statute which he knew.” It is notclear from whom Noah came to know these ordinances: he may haveheard them, directly or indirectly, from Enoch or some other humansource. What is striking, however, is who he did not hear them from: God.This speech is clearly derived from Gen 9:1–6, but there, on the contrary,it is God who is speaking, warning Noah and his sons against sheddinghuman blood or consuming the blood of animals. Unlike the biblical pas-sage from which it is derived, Jubilees says nothing of God transmittingthese rules: they come from Noah himself. Having thus first “warned hissons that they should do what is right, cover the shame of their bodies”


and so on,7 Noah then goes on to command his descendants – again, ap-parently on his own – not to shed human blood or consume the blood ofanimals, just as God commands Noah and his sons in Gen 9:1–6. More-over, Noah tells his sons in Jub. 7:30 that if any animal’s blood is shed inthe process of its being slaughtered, they are to cover over “what is pouredout on the surface of the earth” – which, in the Pentateuch, is likewise acommandment given by God to humans (Lev 17:13).

Somewhat later in the book, Jubilees’ author creates the followinglengthy speech, in which Isaac instructs his sons before his death:

This is what I am ordering you, my sons: that you do what is right and just on the earthso that the Lord may bring on you everything which the Lord said that he would do forAbraham and his descendants. Practice brotherly love among yourselves, my sons, like aman who loves himself, with each one aiming at doing what is good for his brother and atdoing things together on the earth. May they love one another as themselves. Regardingthe matter of idols, I am instructing you to reject them, to be an enemy of them, and not tolove them because they are full of errors for those who worship them and who bow tothem. My sons, remember the Lord, the God of your father Abraham (afterwards I, too,worshiped and served him properly and sincerely) so that he may make you numerousand increase your descendants in number like the stars of the sky and plant you in theearth as a righteous plant which will not be uprooted throughout all the history of eter-nity. Now I will make you swear with the great oath – because there is no oath which isgreater than it, by the praiseworthy, illustrious, and great, splendid, marvelous, powerful,and great name which made the heavens and the earth and everything together – thatyou will continue to fear and worship Him, as each loves his brother kindly and properly.One is not to desire what is bad for his brother now and forever, throughout your entirelifetime, so that you may be prosperous in everything that you do and not be destroyed(36:3–8).

Each of the phrases highlighted above refers to a different commandmentin the Torah (Lev 19:18; Deut 7:25–26, 8:18, 10:12; Lev 19:17–18). ButJubilees’ author does not attribute them to some divine source; instead,these commandments of the Torah are communicated avant la lettre atIsaac’s own initiative.

The message that all these changes introduced into the author’s retellingof Genesis was clear. The great covenant concluded at Mount Sinai reallywasn’t so great after all. God had bound Israel to Himself long before, inhis covenants with Noah, Abraham, and Israel’s other ancestors. The Ba-bylonian conquest, and such violations of the Sinai covenant as may have

7 Gen 9:1–6 was the biblical source of the rabbinic “seven Noachide laws” to which Noah’sseven commandments here in Jub. 7:20 bear some resemblance. See Kugel, Traditions,224–226. On these, see D. Novak, The Image of the Non-Jew in Judaism: An Historical andConstructive Study of the Noahide Laws (New York: E. Mellen Press, 1983); J.D. Bleich,“Tikkun Olam: Jewish Obligations to Non-Jewish Society,” in Tikkun Olam: Social Re-sponsibility in Jewish Thought and Law (Northvale: Jason Aronson, 1997).

86 James Kugel

led to that catastrophe, certainly caused Israel terrible suffering, but noth-ing had been abrogated as a result. Israel had been God’s people long be-fore Sinai, it had worshiped God in those pre-Sinai days with the samesacrifices, and on the same holy days, as after Sinai, indeed, at least someof the very laws promulgated at Sinai had been created in imitation of thecasual deeds and decisions undertaken by Israel’s remote ancestors.

As for Moses, he was, in keeping with this outlook, a singularly dimin-ished figure in Israel’s history. If the Sinai covenant was not all-important,then his role as its mediator was consequently of lesser significance.Moreover, if the gift of the land to Israel’s ancestors was more than a merepromise of real estate, if it was in fact a tangible token of God’s eternalbond with His people, then the exodus itself could not be considered, as itonce had, a great turning-point in Israel’s history (if not the very begin-ning of Israel’s history),8 but merely a return to normalcy after a period ofabsence in Egypt. For that reason, too, the existence of Moses-as-liberatorwas less crucial in Jubilees than in the Pentateuch. Other Second Templewriters may have been eloquent in their praise of Moses, sometimes clearlyexaggerating his greatness and the miracles he performed – but not Jubi-lees’ author.

The Interpolator

The foregoing may indeed account for the overall image of Moses in Jubi-lees, but it omits another aspect important to the version of things ulti-mately presented in that book.

Two recent studies have highlighted a number of striking contradic-tions within the book of Jubilees, suggesting that they point to the possi-bility that our current book includes the work of more than one writer.9

Unmentioned in these studies, however, is the source of the greatest in-consistency within Jubilees, the author’s systematic attribution of the originof various festivals and other practices to initiatives undertaken by the pa-triarchs on their own. This attribution was intended, as we have seen, toserve a good cause, but there were no doubt readers of Jubilees who werehorrified at the very idea of attributing the origin of the Torah’s laws tosome human initiative. To do so was to turn the whole idea of imitatio Dei

8 See on this K. Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the HebrewBible (Siphrut 3; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010).

9 Segal, Book of Jubilees; J. Kugel, “The Interpolations in the Book of Jubilees,” RevQ 24(2009): 215–272.


on its head. God’s divine laws, Jubilees seemed to be claiming, were rathera matter of imitatio hominis : such-and-such a practiced is enjoined byGod in the Torah as a result of something entirely human in origin, in fact,in the case of the Day of Atonement, as a result of a shabby deceptionpracticed by Joseph’s brothers. Surely, this could not be right!

One reader of Jubilees, known herein as the Interpolator, therefore setout to “correct” this aspect of a book that he (and quite possibly, hisgroup) otherwise loved. Rather than accept the author’s claim that this orthat holy day had been inaugurated by the all-too-human actions of Israel’sancestors, he made the exact opposite claim: long before those ancestorsever walked the globe, in fact, from the very beginning of time, those lawshad been decreed by God on high. The ancestor in question may havethought he or she was founding some new practice, but in fact, that prac-tice had been decreed by God since the time of the Creation.

The Heavenly Tablets

In service of this claim, the Interpolator borrowed a concept that had beenaround for some time: the Heavenly Tablets.10 As numerous scholars haveobserved, the idea that some sort of writing tablets exist in heaven has adistinguished history, going back to ancient Mesopotamian writings.11 Al-though the Hebrew Bible does not speak explicitly of heavenly tablets, itdoes sometimes refer to heavenly or divine writing. Thus, Moses at onepoint says to God that if He is unwilling to forgive Israel’s sin, “erase me atonce from the book that You have written” (Exod 32:32). Psalm 69:29similarly speaks of a “book of life” from which the wicked will be erased“and will not be written along with the righteous.” Isaiah 4:3 (clearly a late

10 The Heavenly Tablets themselves have been the topic of numerous studies. See, interalia, F. Garcia Martinez, “Las Tablas Celestes en el Libro de los Jubileos,” in Palabra yVida: Homenaje a Jose Alonso Dıaz en su 70 cumpleanos (ed. A. Vargas Machuca and G.Ruiz; Madrid: Ediciones Universidad de Comillas, 1984), 333–349 = “The HeavenlyTablets in the Book of Jubilees” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees (ed. M. Albani, J. Frey,and A. Lange; TSAJ 65; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 243–260; A. Lange, Weisheitund Praedestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Pradestination in den Textfunden vonQumran (STDJ 18; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 69–97; R.A. Kraft, “Scripture and Canon inJewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Antiquity (vol. 1 of Hebrew Bible, Old Testa-ment: The History of its Interpretation ; ed. M. Sæbø; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck undRuprecht, 1996), [199–216] 205–209; C. Werman, “The Torah and the Te‘udah Writtenon the Tablets,” Tarbiz 68 (1999): 473–492; H. Najman, “Angels at Sinai: Exegesis, The-ology, and Interpretive Authority” DSD 7 (2000): 313–333; idem, Seconding Sinai: TheDevelopment of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 119–125; M. Kister, “Two Formulae in the Book of Jubilees,” Tarbiz 70 (2001): 289–300.

11 S.M. Paul, “Heavenly Tablets and the Book of Life,” JANES 5 (1973): 345–353; also R.Eppel, “Les tables de la loi et les tables celestes” RHPhR 17 (1937): 401–412.

88 James Kugel

addition to the book) says of a group of survivors: “Whoever is left in Zionand remains in Jerusalem will be called holy, everyone who has been writ-ten for life in Jerusalem.” Malachi 3:16 similarly speaks of “a book of re-membrance [that] was written before [i.e. , by] Him of those who reveredthe Lord and thought on his name.” These and other passages all suggestthat the notion of some sort of divine book kept in heaven was not un-known in biblical Israel; in it were recorded the names of the righteous,and this act of recording was to their benefit – in some cases, it seems, itmeant they were to be granted continued earthly existence.

Still closer to the world of Jubilees is 1 Enoch, a book that preceded Ju-bilees by perhaps fifty or a hundred years and parts of which the originalauthor of Jubilees seems to have known and even cited.12 In 1 Enoch, theHeavenly Tablets are tablets on which the good and bad deeds of humanityare recorded – at least some, apparently, before they have taken place –and on which other heavenly mysteries, including future events, are re-vealed. Thus 1 En. 81:1, 2 speaks of “the book of all the deeds of mankindand of all the children of flesh that shall be upon the earth to the remotestgenerations.” 1 Enoch 93:2 says that Enoch learned from the HeavenlyTablets about “the sons of righteousness and the eternally chosen ones, andabout the plant of uprightness.” In 1 En. 103:2–3, Enoch reports that hehas “read the Heavenly Tablets” about the righteous, “that all goodness andjoy and glory are prepared for them.” In 1 En. 106:19, Enoch says that heknows “the mysteries of the holy ones; for He, the Lord, has showed meand informed me, and I have read [them] in the Heavenly Tablets.” In107:1, Enoch says that he saw written on the Heavenly Tablets “that gener-ation after generation will do wrong, until a generation of righteousnessarises and wrongdoing is destroyed and sin is wiped out from the earthand every good omen comes upon it” (see also 108:3, 7).13

These same themes – that the Heavenly Tablets contain a record of therighteous and the wicked, as well as of events yet to occur – appear inother texts from this period. Thus, among the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q180Ages of Creation A opens: “The interpretation concerning the ages whichGod made: an age to mark the end of […] and that which was created.Before He created them He determined [their] operations […every] age toits end. And this is engraved on the [heavenly] tablets.” Similarly, 4Q177Catenaa says: “Now behold: everything is written on the tablets, which […]

12 See, e. g. , Jub. 4:17 and 1 En. 12:3–4; Jub. 4:17 and 1 En. 80:1; Jub. 5:6 and 1 En. 10:12;13:1–2; 21:6; Jub. 5:7 and 1 En. 10:12; Jub. 7:21–24 and 1 En. 7:1; 8:1–2; 10:11; 12:4.

13 On all these see L. Stuckenbruck 1 Enoch 91–108 (CEJL; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007),esp. 81–86.


and inform him of the number of [all generatio]ns, and gran[t him as an]inheritance…[to] him and his offspring [for]ever” (III, 12). The fragmen-tary 4Q537 Testament of Jacob [?] ar,, apparently connected to Jub. 32:16–26, has an angel bid Jacob to read from tablets that foretell the future, per-haps including future punishment of the wicked (last line). The HeavenlyTablets likewise make their appearance in the Greek Testaments of theTwelve Patriarchs (T. Levi 5:4;14 T. Asher 2:9;15 7:5). The “Prayer of Jo-seph” (of uncertain date) has Jacob say: “For I have read in the HeavenlyTablets all that shall befall you and your sons.”16

But all these texts view the Heavenly Tablets principally as a record ofrighteous and wicked people and events, both past and future. The partic-ular innovation of the Interpolator was to use this existing concept of theHeavenly Tablets in order to solve his own problem with the book of Jubi-lees. Even more than he hated the idea of human intervention in the cal-endar (in regard to both the beginnings of months and the dating of theFestival of Weeks),17 he hated the claim by Jubilees’ original author thatvarious divine laws were essentially based on things spontaneously initiat-ed by humans. So he adapted the Heavenly Tablets to a new purpose, pre-viously undreamed of: they would also be the repository of a great set ofdivine laws, statutes that had been “written and engraved” from the begin-ning of time and which, therefore, must have preceded any actions byNoah, Abraham, or the other patriarchs that seemed to have originatedvarious festivals and other practices. In this way, he solved the aspect of

14 Here the Heavenly Tablets contain a record of past events, Levi’s virtuous execution ofHamor, “as it is written in the Heavenly Tablets.” This is clearly a reflection of Jub. 30:19.

15 M. Kister (“Two Formulae”) has described this verse as suggesting that the laws of purefood are written on the Heavenly Tablets. Even if that were true, it would have no sig-nificance for our topic, since the Testaments are clearly later than Jubilees and borrowheavily from them. But it seems to me that what this text is asserting is not that thoselaws are written on the Heavenly Tablets, but that men who do both good and evil “arelike pigs or hares, for they are half clean, but in truth they are unclean. For God has saidso [about such people] in the Heavenly Tablets,” that is, they have been condemned (al-together in keeping with the pre-Jubilees, classical function of the Heavenly Tablets asforetelling future punishments) as “unclean” through and through. Note also that 4Q400Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice says at one point that God “has inscribed his laws for allspiritual creatures” (1 I, 5), which may possibly be a reference to the Heavenly Tablets inJubilees.

16 See J.Z. Smith, “The Prayer of Joseph,” in Expansions of the Old Testament and Legends,Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes: Fragments of LostJudeo-Hellenistic Works (ed. J. Charlesworth; Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2; GardenCity: Doubleday, 1985), 714.

17 See my “Interpolations in the Book of Jubilees,” 241–248, 262–263.

90 James Kugel

Jubilees that must have been the most troubling for him and, quite possi-bly, the group to which he belonged.18

Not only did he seek to counter this claim when invoked by the originalauthor, but he also sought out further connections between incidents re-counted in Jubilees and various laws promulgated later in the Torah: Thecurse of Cain in Gen. 4:11 thus corresponded to the law of Deut 27:24 andthe manner of his death (unreported in the Pentateuch but described inJub. 4:31–32) reflected the law of Lev. 24:19–20; the oath sworn by Noahand his sons (Jub. 6:10) was connected to the law of the tamid sacrifices(Exod 29:38–42 and Num 28:3–8), and so forth. In these instances as well,the Interpolator asserted that long before the event took place in patriar-chal times, the law that was ultimately given to Moses on Mount Sinai hadbeen “written and inscribed on the Heavenly Tablets.”

How could two such contradictory outlooks manage to coexist in thesame book? Part of the Interpolator’s genius was not to seem to disagreewith the original author, but merely to supplement his words with the re-frain, “And so it is written and ordained in the Heavenly Tablets.” Timeand again, where the original author had attributed a law or practice toone of the patriarchs, the Interpolator inserted his own qualifier : This maylook like human initiative, but that is an illusion. Long before Abraham,long before Noah, all of divine law had been written in heaven, on theHeavenly Tablets.19

18 Note that the Interpolator also spoke of the Heavenly Tablets in the traditional sense: forexample, a record of Abraham’s righteousness and his future appellation “the friend ofGod” were recorded on the Heavenly Tablets (19:9); the punishment to be suffered byLot’s descendants (17:9); the reward to be given to the righteous (23:32); the curse tobefall the Philistines (24:33); Levi’s righteous acts in slaughtering the Shechemites andthe reward prepared for his descendants (30:5, 19); and so forth. All of these instancesclearly belong to the “old” notion of the Heavenly Tablets, the same notion presented in1 Enoch and other texts referenced above. But in truth, the Heavenly Tablets were im-portant to the author of Jubilees principally for their value in confuting the original au-thor’s idea that later biblical laws were based on the actions of the patriarchs.

19 I suspect that some scholars will seek to argue that Jubilees is nonetheless the work of asingle author, who wished at one and the same time to attribute certain practices to theapparent initiative of various biblical figures, all the while asserting that these practiceswere in fact consonant with things written long before in the Heavenly Tablets. But itseems impossible to imagine one and the same person desiring to assert these two op-posites: if he wished to say that God’s laws were eternal, then by all means have Abra-ham or Noah initiate them on earth at God’s instruction, or at least assert that God hadsomehow manipulated events so as to have these patriarchs unconsciously act in ac-cordance with the Heavenly Tablets. But that is clearly not what Jubilees says. On reflec-tion, both claims cannot come from the same pen. Apart from this overall argument,however, lie the numerous internal contradictions in Jubilees that also indicate the pres-ence of two writers, the second of whom often misunderstood what the first was saying.See Segal, Book of Jubilees; and Kugel, “The Interpolations.”


Although they acted out of completely different, indeed, opposite mo-tives, both the original author and the Interpolator did agree on one thing:the revelation at Mount Sinai did not count for much. For the original au-thor, it did not count for much because the great agreement hammeredout there – “If you obey Me faithfully and keep my covenant, then you willbe My treasured possession” (Exod 19:5) – was merely a reiteration of arelationship that had existed for centuries before, indeed, one that wentback to the first sabbath in history. Moreover, at least some of the laws thatwere promulgated at Sinai were copied from the spontaneous actions ofIsrael’s illustrious ancestors. For the Interpolator, by contrast, the Sinairevelation did not count for much because its laws had always been in ex-istence on the Heavenly Tablets. What happened at Sinai was thus merely apublic proclamation of existing statutes. In either case, it was not only thelaws and covenant of Mount Sinai that were diminished, but the figure ofthe man who stood at their center. In the book of Jubilees, Moses is indeeda minor figure, his diminution in status the product of the conflictingagendas of the two men responsible for the book as we have it today.

James KugelBible DepartmentFaculty of Jewish StudiesBar Ilan University52900 Ramat [email protected]

92 James Kugel

Carl S. Ehrlich

‘Noughty’ Moses:A Decade of Moses Scholarship 2000–2010

I. Introduction

The first decade of the twenty-first century (the “noughts”) has borne wit-ness to a lively and wide-ranging engagement with the figure of Moses, towhich the present author has also made his own modest contribution.1

The aim of the current article is to survey some of the literature that hasbeen published on the theme over the course of this decade (broadly de-fined to include the eleven years 2000–2010, thus encompassing bothcompeting standard definitions of the temporal parameters of the decade).On account of space limitations and owing to the wealth of scholarship onMoses during this time, the emphasis will be placed on monographs deal-ing with Moses as a cultural figure, thereby leaving out of consideration anumber of important articles and other worthy works, including com-mentaries2 and edited volumes.3 Nonetheless, it is hoped that a considera-tion of a selection of the major monographs written on Moses will providea reasonable survey of the current state of Moses scholarship.

1 C.S. Ehrlich, “Moses, Torah, and Judaism,” in The Rivers of Paradise: Moses, Buddha,Confucius, Jesus, and Muhammad as Religious Founders (ed. D.N. Freedman and M.J.McClymond; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 11–119.

2 E.g., S.M. Langston, Exodus through the Centuries (Blackwell Bible Commentaries; Mal-den: Blackwell Publishing, 2006); C. Meyers, Exodus (NCBC; Cambridge; CambridgeUniversity Press, 2005); W.H.C. Propp, Exodus 19–40 (AB 2 A; New York: Doubleday,2006).

3 Among these edited collections are the following: P. Borgeaud, T. Romer, and Y. Volok-hine, ed., Interpretations de Moıse. Egypte, Judee, Grece et Rome (Jerusalem Studies in Re-ligion and Culture 10; Leiden: Brill, 2010); R. Ginsberg and I. Pardes, ed., New Perspec-tives on Freud’s Moses and Monotheism (Conditio Judaica 60; Tubingen: Max NiemeyerVerlag, 2006); and A. Graupner and M. Wolter, ed., Moses in Biblical and Extra-BiblicalTraditions (BZAW 372; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007). Also being left out of consideration areworks that do not engage with serious scholarship, such as M. Lichtenstein, Moses: Envoyof God, Envoy of His People (Jersey City: Ktav, 2008).


II. Eckhart Otto’s Mose

Over the course of the decade of the noughts, E. Otto has been one of themost prolific writers on the subject of Moses.4 His short introduction,Mose: Geschichte und Legende, both (1) summarizes his literary theoriesregarding the Pentateuchal Moses texts and their place within the inner-Israelite/-Judean religious and political discourse and (2) presents the gen-eral reader with an overview of Moses’ place within the western religiousand cultural traditions. After a brief introduction (pp. 7–9), in which hecontrasts the diametrically opposed attitudes toward the Ten Command-ments expressed in 1933 by Adolf Hitler and in 1942 by Thomas Mann inorder to underline the power and relevance of the Mosaic message in themore-or-less contemporary world, Otto proceeds to a presentation of thePentateuch’s Moses narrative (pp. 9–21). This is followed by a discussion ofthe search for the historical Moses in the nineteenth and twentieth centu-ries, the upshot of which was the discovery of Moses as a literary ratherthan historical figure (pp. 21–27). Nonetheless, Otto does venture to spec-ulate that an indistinct outline of the historical Moses may be retrievedfrom the traditions surrounding him and his relationship through mar-riage to the Midianite priesthood (pp. 27–34). Thus, the historical Moseswas somehow involved in the introduction of the worship of the desertgod Yahweh into the Israelite heartland, a dim memory of which washanded down in the early Passover traditions.

The core of the book (pp. 35–81) is devoted to Otto’s analysis of theredactional layers he has identified within the biblical Moses traditions aswell as to their dating and theological evaluation alike. The first level isdated to the period of Assyrian rule, when the presentation of Moses wasconceived of as a counterweight to the prevailing Assyrian royal ideology(pp. 35–42).5 Starting with a revision of the Sargonid birth of Sargon leg-end,6 Moses is presented in royal terms as the champion, leader, and law-

4 Cf. E. Otto, “Mose und das Gesetz: Die Mose-Figur als Gegenentwurf Politischer Theol-ogie zur Neuassyrischen Konigsideologie im 7. Jh. v .Chr.,” in Mose: Agypten und das AlteTestament (ed. E. Otto; SBS 189; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000) 43–83;idem, Die Tora des Mose: Die Geschichte der literarischen Vermittlung von Recht, Religionund Politik durch die Mosegestalt (Berichte aus den Sitzungen der Joachim Jungius-Ge-sellschaft der Wissenschaften e.V. Hamburg 19/2; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,2001); idem, “Mose: I. Altes Testament,” RGG4 5:1534–1536; idem, “Mose, der ersteSchriftgelehrte: Deuteronomium 1,5 in der Fabel des Pentateuch,” in L’Ecrit et l’esprit (ed.D. Bohler et al. ; OBO 214; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 273–284; idem,Mose: Geschichte und Legende (Munchen: Beck, 2006).

5 See also Otto, “Mose und das Gesetz” (n. 3–4).6 See COS 1.133.

94 Carl S. Ehrlich

giver of his people. In keeping with studies that have demonstrated the in-fluence of Assyrian treaty forms on the biblical concept of covenant,7 Ottodates the association of Moses and the covenant to this period. He datesthe second major phase to the exilic period (586–539 B.C.E.), when thefunction of Moses as prophet and intermediary between God and the peo-ple became paramount (pp. 42–54). Through the introduction of the Deu-teronomistic theology of sin and punishment, the way was opened for therepentance and future restoration of the people. On the other hand, thecontemporaneous Priestly tradition emphasized the priestly and culticfunctions of Moses. The localization of revelation outside the land of Israelallowed the retention of a Judean ethnic and religious identity in exile and,in Otto’s eyes, established the Priestly tradition as diasporic in perspective.A counterargument was advanced in the fifth century B.C.E. , when theMosaic traditions merged with the Joshua traditions and produced aHexateuch in which the promise and conquest of the land became thecentral concern (pp. 54–64). However, the Priestly party proved trium-phant when Ezra, whom Otto dates to 398 B.C.E. (p. 60), was able to lop offthe book of Joshua and create a Pentateuch in which both the figure ofMoses and his story became the center of the nascent Jewish tradition.

In the context of the above lengthy discussion, the figure of Moses re-treats into the background and the emphasis is placed on the developmentof the scriptural traditions associated with Moses, which the chart on p. 48outlines. After a discussion of the Ten Commandments and their placewithin the Pentateuch as well as in later Judaism and Christianity (pp. 64–75), Otto looks at the minimal role of Moses in the Hebrew Bible outsidethe Torah (pp. 75–81). This he attributes to the lateness of the Moses tra-dition, which as a Priestly/legal tradition stood in opposition to the pro-phetic traditions that dominate the later books. By making Moses thegreatest of the prophets (Deut 34:10–12), the Priestly vision ultimately tri-umphed, as is evidenced by the place of the Mosaic Torah in rabbinicJudaism.

The rest of the book looks at the figure of Moses in various post-biblicaltraditions. First, Otto summarizes briefly the use of Moses in pro- andanti-Jewish Hellenistic literature (pp. 81–91), a topic that has been muchdiscussed in recent years.8 This is followed by a glance at Moses within

7 E.g., H.U. Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 und die ade zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhad-dons: Segen und Fluch im Alten Orient (OBO 145; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1995).

8 See, e. g. , J. Assmann, Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 23–54; L.H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile inthe Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton:

‘Noughty’ Moses: A Decade of Moses Scholarship 2000–2010 95

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, in which, cognizant of his presumed au-dience and his own background, Otto places the greatest emphasis on thesecond of the three (pp. 91–101). In a chapter entitled “Mose, Monotheis-mus und die Menschenrechte,” Otto takes issue with the central thesis of J.Assmann’s Moses the Egyptian:9 namely, that Moses has become a figure ofcultural memory transmitting an intolerant and violent form of monothe-ism (pp. 101–107). While conceding the partial applicability of Assmann’sargument, Otto draws attention to Moses as a symbol of freedom fromoppression. Finally, taking as his point of departure Thomas Mann’s andSigmund Freud’s thoughts regarding Michelangelo’s statue of Moses forthe tomb of Pope Julius II, Otto discusses the death of Moses in some ex-amples of twentieth century German literature (pp. 107–119).

Although this volume is replete with information and quite wide-rang-ing in scope, it ultimately may not satisfy those interested in Moses schol-arship per se. Too much space is devoted to Otto’s redaction-historicalanalysis of the Pentateuch and not enough to the figure of Moses himself.In addition, he gives short shrift to both the post-biblical Jewish and Mus-lim Moses traditions. Nor does he justify his limiting the discussion ofMoses literature to miscellaneous German-language depictions of hisdeath. Had he spent less time on redaction history and more time on theMoses traditions, this book would have been more satisfying.

III. Thomas Romer’s Moıse

Many of these criticisms would be moot if Otto had written a work morelike T. Romer’s Moıse.10 In spite of its being a short book, numbering just128 picture-filled pages cover to cover, this work is arguably the mostcomprehensive one published on the subject of Moses during the pastdecade. Meant as a popular introduction to Moses both in the biblical andpost-biblical traditions, no other work covers as much territory as this onedoes. The book opens with an “Ouverture” (pp. 1–9) that introduces theMoses story by reproducing selected images thence by Gustave Dore, ac-

Princeton University Press, 1993), 233–287; P. Schafer, Judeophobia: Attitudes towardthe Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997) esp. 15–120.

9 See n. 8.10 T. Romer, Moıse: “lui que Yahve a connu face a face” (Paris : Gallimard, 2002). Romer

has also published his inaugural lecture at the College de France as a short monograph(Les cornes de Moıse: Faire entrer la Bible dans l’histoire [Lecons inaugurales du Collegede France 206; Paris: College de France, 2009]). However, this volume is not aboutMoses per se but uses a discussion of his “horns” as the entryway into a broader presen-tation about the modern study of the Hebrew Bible.

96 Carl S. Ehrlich

companied by brief descriptions by Romer. The first chapter (“Aux origi-nes de l’histoire de Moıse” pp. 12–35) is concerned with the biblical Mosesnarrative. After discussing the place of the narrative within the biblicalcontext and specifically within the Pentateuch, which he views as a form ofMoses-biography, Romer summarizes the biblical Moses story (pp. 12–23).He locates the origins of biblical literature, including the formation of theMoses narrative, within the context of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (pp. 24–29). The birth narrative echoes that of Sargon, including the questionablepaternity, which, in Moses’ case, Romer deduces from Exod 2:1, where aLevite “takes a woman” – an idiom that in his eyes implies an illicit sexualunion. Also dating to this time are the themes of Moses as liberator andthe ten plagues, the former indicating a desire to be rid of the hated As-syrian domination while the latter proclaims the superiority of Israel’sGod. Like a Mesopotamian king, Moses becomes a royal lawgiver, whichthe Deuteronomistic reforms of King Josiah epitomize (pp. 29–31). Fol-lowing the Babylonian destruction and exile, two competing images ofMoses develop, the first of which presents him in priestly garb as the pre-scriber of ritual law and the second of which turns him into the archetypalprophet (pp. 31–35).

In his second chapter (“Une personnage aux multiples visages” pp. 36–53), Romer pays greater attention to the various roles assumed by Mosesin the biblical narrative as the first among the prophets (primus interprophetes), as the liberator of his people, as a legislator and royal figure,and as the intercessor between the human and the divine. The third chap-ter (“L’homme Moıse” pp. 54–67) is devoted to the question of the histori-cal Moses. While he casts doubt on the connection between the Hyksosand the biblical Israelites and on the historical validity of the references toPithom and Raamses in Exod 1:11, Romer does draw attention to possibleconnections not only with the New Kingdom Shasu and their potentialveneration of Yahweh (yhw) but also with the Apiru in the Amarna letters.After a discussion of the Egyptian origin of the name Moses, he examinesthree figures from the late New Kingdom period who have been men-tioned as possible models for the historical Moses, the most likely of whichis the chancellor Beya in the early twelth century. Finally, Romer examinesand rejects the evidence for the influence of Atenism on a supposed Mo-saic monotheism.

The final chapter of Romer’s book is devoted to various post-biblicalreadings and reinterpretations of the character of Moses (pp. 68–95). Inthis chapter he moves from Moses as the first target of anti-Semitism inthe Greco-Roman world and continues by addressing outlooks on Mosesin Christianity as a figure of both rupture and continuity (in the New Tes-


tament and the church fathers), in Judaism as its central figure, and finallyin Islam as Muhammad’s precursor – all before turning his attention tovarious more artistic and cultural creations that include music (in particu-lar the operas of Gioachino Rossini and Arnold Schonberg), the oeuvre ofSigmund Freud (both his musings on Michelangelo’s statue of Moses andhis Moses and Monotheism), and American symbols of Moses rangingfrom the writings of Benjamin Franklin to the films The Ten Command-ments (1956) and Prince of Egypt (1998). In a series of appendices, Romerprovides a selection of translations into French from the Hebrew Bible(about the Ten Commandments, the crossing of the Red [sic!] Sea, and theforeign women in Moses’ life), anti-Jewish and Jewish Hellenistic litera-ture, Muslim literature (the Quran and the writings of Al-Tabari), Freud’sworks, and various miscellanea (Benjamin Franklin, Arnold Schonberg,and the movie The Matrix, concerning the main character as a conglomer-ation of Moses and Jesus). The volume concludes helpfully with variouslists, such as a chronology, a bibliography, a filmography, a record of illus-trations, and an index.

Overall, even though Romer doesn’t forge new paths in this book, heprovides an excellent and broad summary of current research on the sub-ject of Moses. Particularly welcome features of the volume include sidebarsthat go on explicatory tangents and provide texts relevant to the subjectmatter under discussion. Providing an unexpected delight is the wealth ofcolourful artistic material interspersed with the text and beautifully repro-duced in what is in essence a most affordable book. If this book were to betranslated into English, it would reach a much larger audience as the firstchoice for those interested in Moses as both a biblical and cultural figure.

IV. C. Bottrich, B. Ego, and F. Eißler’s Mose in Judentum,Christentum und Islam

Not strictly speaking a monograph but a work authored by the threescholars C. Bottrich, B. Ego, and F. Eißler, Mose in Judentum, Christentumund Islam sets out to examine the significance of Moses in the three majorwestern or Abrahamic religious traditions.11 This book is part of a series ofbooks written by these three authors and published by Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht under the rubric of Biblische Personen als Gesprachsvermittler, aseries that by now also encompasses studies on Abraham, Adam and Eve,

11 C. Bottrich, B. Ego, and F. Eißler, Mose in Judentum, Christentum und Islam (Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010).

98 Carl S. Ehrlich

Jesus and Mary, and (eventually) one on Elijah and other prophets. Aimedat a Christian audience and written by Christian theologians, this series isan attempt to engage with the “other” in a discussion about figures foun-dational to the three traditions in question, though the choice of subjectsclearly reflects Christian biases and concerns.

Ego, a professor of OT studies in Osnabruck, wrote the chapter onMoses in Judaism (pp. 11–66). Not surprisingly, it emphasizes the biblicaltext and Jewish writings from classical antiquity, while giving short shriftto the Moses of rabbinic Judaism and its successors. Introducing her re-marks with a brief critique of Assmann’s theories regarding Moses as thebridge leading from tolerant polytheism to violent monotheism (pp. 11–12), she quickly turns to a discussion of the biblical Moses traditions whereshe largely follows Otto’s redaction-critical reading (pp. 12–30). Her trans-lation of Exodus 3:14 (“Ich bin der, der [fur euch helfend da] ist“) appearsto owe more to an understanding of the Septuagint tradition than it doesthe Masoretic one, while prescriptively imposing on the reader only one ofmany possible interpretations of the phrase. While supposedly making heraudience aware of Judaism’s understanding of the Moses story, she useslanguage drawn more from the Christian traditions, such as Reguel (fol-lowing the Septuagint) instead of Reuel (or Re’u’el) for Moses’ father-in-lawand Passahfest instead of (the) Pessach(-fest),12 the latter of which wouldhave been closer to reproducing the names as used both in the HebrewBible and in later Judaism.13 In addition, Ego misses the opportunity to fillin hermeneutic blanks by recourse to Jewish tradition, one example ofwhich would be her claim that the biblical text leaves open the questionwhether the Ten Commandments were received by the people directlyfrom God or transmitted to them by Moses (p. 16). This question is di-rectly addressed, e. g. , in b. Makkot 23b-24a, in which it is felt that the firsttwo commandments were addressed directly to Israel, while the lattereight were transmitted through Moses. Finally, her understanding of thebiblical canon that seemingly includes the book of Baruch (p. 28, cf. p. 44)differs from a traditional Jewish one.

The following section on Moses in pre-rabbinic Jewish writings is thestrongest part of Ego’s presentation (pp. 30–52). The discussion is dividedbetween sources from the Hellenistic Diaspora (pp. 31–43) and from pre-rabbinic Palestinian Judaism (pp. 43–52), emphasizing Philo in the case of

12 Unlike Bottrich, the author of the following chapter, who uses the term Pessachfest (e. g. ,p. 71).

13 Compare, e. g. , these designations in W.G. Plaut, ed., Die Tora in judischer Auslegung:Band II, Schemot תומש Exodus (trans. A. Bockler; Gutersloh: Kaiser, Gutersloher Ver-lagshaus, 2000), 47, 123ff.


the former (pp. 35–41) and Pseudo-Philo in the case of the latter (pp. 48–52). This leaves her barely eleven pages to discuss Moses in rabbinic litera-ture (pp. 52–60) and in Jewish liturgy (pp. 60–62).14 Only on the final twopages of her essay does Ego quote Moses Maimonides and Martin Buber,quickly and superficially bringing into the discussion one medieval andone modern Jewish thinker/theologian before concluding the chapter. Byrestricting her discussion of post-rabbinic Judaism to these two relativelybrief footnotes, she is unintentionally fostering a presentation of Judaismas a curious relic from the distant past rather than as a living tradition inwhich Moses still functions as a central religious symbol.

The shortest chapter in the volume is C. Bottrich’s on Moses in Christi-anity (pp. 67–111). In his introduction (pp. 67–69), Bottrich draws atten-tion to the two characteristics of the Moses story that most fire the Chris-tian imagination: the freeing of the Israelites from slavery and the receiv-ing of the commandments on Mount Sinai. However, a typological readingtempers the positive attitude toward Moses in Christianity, where Mosesstands in tension with Jesus as his prefigurement and where Jesus is theone destined to complete the work that Moses had only begun. The bulk ofBottrich’s exposition is devoted to Moses in the New Testament writings(pp. 70–100). Even though Moses is the most frequently mentioned OTfigure in the NT,15 little of his biography is referenced in the text. It ismainly as the transmitter of the divine word that he enters the NT tradi-tions. In addition, Bottrich draws attention to the NT’s incorporation ofMoses motifs from Jewish-Hellenistic and nascent midrashic literature(72–74). The heart of the chapter (pp. 74–91) is devoted to an analysis ofthe major images of Moses presented in the NT: God’s confidant, a repre-sentative of the Torah,16 a “life coach,” an exemplar of faith, and a bearerof hope for the oppressed. In each case, Bottrich endeavors to locate theearly Christian community within the Jewish fold. The typological aspectof Moses in the NT is examined in greater detail on pp. 92–100. Most im-portant in the typology of Moses as harbinger of Jesus is his function asprophet, but aspects of his story also function to actualize the experience ofthe early Christian community as delineated by the various NT authors.The following section of Bottrich’s essay is concerned with the figure ofMoses in post-NT Christian traditions (pp. 100–107). He introduces thesubject with a perusal of Michelangelo’s statue of Moses in the church of

14 Pp. 63–66 consist of a bibliography.15 According to Bottrich, there are 80 references to Moses in the NT, while there are 76 to

Abraham (p. 70).16 A word that Bottrich makes ample use of, although I suspect that nomos or “law” would

be more in keeping with the Urtext.

100 Carl S. Ehrlich

San Pietro in Vincoli in Rome, which he uses as the point of departure fora very brief discussion of the horned Moses in Christian art. While he at-tributes this iconography to a mistaken translation of the Hebrew, he ig-nores the influence of this translation tradition on the development of ananti-Semitic iconography in medieval Europe associating the Jews with theDevil.17 Following a brief discussion that addresses the developing ambiv-alence toward Moses in Christian thought, Bottrich looks at the role ofMoses in Protestant art as the bearer of the preacher’s pulpit. In his finalreflections (pp. 107–108), Bottrich speculates in the light of 9/11 that theTen (Mosaic) Commandments may serve as the basis of a universal ethics(Weltethos). However, this illusory hope is based on a misunderstanding oftheir place in Jewish thought, where they serve as an integral part of God’srevelation specifically with Israel, and on a misapprehension of their re-ception in the Muslim tradition,18 leaving out of consideration their lack ofapplicability as a whole to most of the world’s religious systems.

In the final essay in the volume, F. Eißler looks at Moses in Islam(pp. 112–181). Even more than in the previous two chapters, the perspec-tive is restricted to the scriptural foundations of the religion in question,namely to the Koran (Qur’an). Moses’ importance is underlined by the factthat he – in the Arabic form of his name, Musa – is mentioned exponen-tially more often (in ca. 502 verses in 36 suras) than any other biblical fig-ure in the Koran.19 His major role in the Koran is as the prophet whotransmits the divine commandments to Israel and who enjoys the desig-nation “the one with whom God has spoken.”20 As such, he stands op-posed to the Pharaoh and becomes the greatest of the prophets beforeMuhammad. To a large extent, the Koranic presentation of Moses is re-flective of Muhammad’s situation. Hence, most of the Moses verses aredated to Muhammad’s second and third Mecca periods, which began in615 C.E. This is particularly clear in Moses’ leadership of a small group offaithful against the seemingly greater and more powerful unfaithful, onlyto emerge triumphant at the end. These themes are addressed in the firstsection of Eißler’s essay, which also includes a short introduction to theKoran and to subsequent traditional literature regarding Muhammad andhis revelation. The remainder of his chapter (pp. 118–178) goes methodi-

17 See, e. g., J. Trachtenberg, The Devil and the Jews: The Medieval Conception of the Jewand Its Relation to Modern Anti-Semitism (Foreword by M. Saperstein; Philadelphia:Jewish Publication Society, 1983 [1943]); H. Schreckenberg, The Jews in Christian Art:An Illustrated History (trans. J. Bowden; New York: Continuum, 1996), 241–250.

18 On the latter of which, see pp. 167–170 in the volume under discussion.19 Abraham is mentioned 235 times, while Jesus is found in only 93 verses (p. 112).20 “Kalim Allah, ‘derjenige, mit dem Gott geredet hat’” (p. 113).


cally through the suras that relate specifically to the story of Moses, leavingout of consideration those in which he plays a subordinate role. The or-ganizational principle is to follow a reconstructed chronology of the Mosesstory, which, like the Muhammad story, the Koran does not presentchronologically. In this manner, Eißler’s essay presents a commentary onthe central Koranic Moses passages, in which liberal use is made of quota-tions from the text. It thus serves as a valuable compendium of the centralKoranic verses dealing with Moses, who distinguishes himself from Mu-hammad as the recipient of direct divine revelation (pp. 141–142).Throughout Eißler makes an effort to indicate the manner in which theKoran rewrites and reworks its scriptural and post-biblical sources, as wellas presenting the traditions unique to the Koran. Of particular interest isthe manner in which the figure of Moses is eventually “islamified” (islami-siert), as Muhammad’s attitude toward the Jewish community became in-creasingly negative, which is reflected in the presentation of Moses’ atti-tude toward the Israelites in later Koranic passages (pp. 171–178). Evenmore than the other chapters, Eißler’s essay focuses solely on the scripturalfoundations of the religious tradition in question. I will leave it to others todetermine whether this is appropriate in this case, as it arguably is in thecase of Christianity. However, in the case of Judaism, to rely to such a greatextent on the Hebrew Bible as indicative of the religion’s understanding ofthe figure of Moses is to shortchange the rabbinic tradition, which is toJudaism what the New Testament is to Christianity and the Koran to Islam– namely, a rewriting and reworking of earlier traditions.

V. M. Wright‘s Moses in America

As her subtitle indicates, M. Wright’s reworked Oxford dissertation Mosesin America stresses The Cultural Uses of Biblical Narrative.21 In pursuingthis subject matter, she formulates her approach as a methodological attackon the traditional concerns of biblical scholars, whom she views as elitistand narrow-minded in their interests.22 Whatever one may think of theapplicability and appropriateness of her blanket condemnation of a branchof scholarship near and dear to my heart, she has provided her readerswith an interesting and well-researched look at the cultural uses of the fig-ure of Moses in three artistic creations that span thirty years of American

21 M.J. Wright, Moses in America: The Cultural Uses of Biblical Narrative (AARCCS; Ox-ford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

22 Wright, Moses, pp. 8–9.

102 Carl S. Ehrlich

history: L. Steffen’s novel Moses in Red (1926), Z.N. Hurston’s novel Moses,Man of the Mountain (1939), and C.B. DeMille’s film The Ten Command-ments (1956). In all three cases what interests her is not the “text” per se,but the context – both historical-social and personal – within which thetext was created and the text’s reception both at the time of creation andsubsequently.23

In her “Introduction” (pp. 3–12), Wright lays out her methodologicalassumptions and positions herself firmly within the scholarly grid as a cul-tural historian. The following three chapters, the heart of the book, dealwith her three test cases and promise to shed light on the “American po-litical and social self-comprehension [that] has been articulated in relationto this biblical narrative” (p.10). All three of the central chapters of thebook regarding Steffens (pp. 13–42), Hurston (pp. 43–88), and DeMille(pp. 89–127) provide ample evidence of Wright’s ability to understand aparticular moment in history and the social currents that framed it as wellas of her capacity to situate her creators and their “readers” within theirrespective contexts.

The background for Steffens’ Moses in Red is the First World War, theRoaring Twenties, and – given the subject matter – the Mexican Revolu-tion (1910) and especially the Russian Revolution (1917). In this reading ofMoses and particularly of the exodus, it is their revolutionary aspect that ismost prominent for Steffens, for whom Moses becomes a Lenin figure(sic!), leading the Hebrews in revolt against their oppressors and then onto freedom in the promised land, which Steffens hoped would also becomea prescriptive paradigm for America. Wright argues that Steffens was notan apologist for Soviet-style Marxism (pp. 26–34). Instead, he attempted tounderstand the biblical story as a typical tale of revolution. Nonetheless, heargued that America had lost its way as the beacon of freedom in the worldonly to be replaced by Russia. Hence, Moses in Red was an appeal to hisfellow citizens to rediscover their revolutionary origins and attendant mo-rality. In light of the subsequent tensions between the United States andthe Soviet Union and the ensuing suspicion of the great-leader school ofsocial thought, it is no wonder why this book failed to enjoy the receptionSteffens had hoped for.

Hurston’s Moses, Man of the Mountain suffered a similar fate. Its authorstudied anthropology under F. Boas and participated in the fabled HarlemRenaissance. However, as a woman with multiple divorces before the sex-ual revolution, as an African-American before the civil rights movement,

23 Or as Wright phrases it: “… to explore how their images of Moses function within par-ticular contexts of production and reception” (p. 6).


and as a southerner in the northeast, she was an outsider on many differ-ent levels that contributed to the virtual erasure of her memory well beforeher death in poverty and her burial in an unmarked grave. It is only thanksto A. Walker’s advocacy for Hurston as of the 1970s that she and heroeuvre have been rediscovered (pp. 84–87). And yet her Moses remainsarguably her most controversial and complex work. It tells the tale of aMoses who harnesses the power of hoodoo magic in leading the Hebrewsfrom slavery to freedom (pp. 53–57). The reader, though, can never be surejust where Moses fits in. Is he an Israelite or an Egyptian? Like Hurstonherself, Moses defies facile categorization. Wright draws attention to thepolyvalent contexts of the book, including primarily the African-Americanexperience but also encompassing allusions to events contemporaneouswith the book’s genesis in the late 1930s (pp. 67–69). Hurston’s back-ground as an anthropologist comes to the fore in Wright’s discussions ofthe depictions of religion and of the dialects employed for different ethnicgroups and classes in the book (pp. 78–81). Because many if not all of thefemale characters in the book are depicted negatively, modern feministshave had a distanced relationship to Moses, Man of the Mountain (pp. 70–78). But Wright argues that Miriam, the most vividly ambivalent womanin the book, may reflect some of Hurston’s bitter understanding of herown tenuous place in society.

Wright understands DeMille’s Ten Commandments as a work of cold-war propaganda. She even entitles the relevant chapter “Coming in fromthe Cold (War).” To some extent, this makes the movie the antithesis ofSteffens’ book. Starting with DeMille’s unusual introduction to the movie,in which he delivers a speech to the audience about what they are about tosee and the significance of it, the movie contrasts the American love offreedom “under God”24 with the state slavery imposed by godless commu-nism. While the movie draws upon post-biblical traditions for inspiration(from ancient Jewish sources to modern novels), DeMille picks andchooses what aspects to incorporate in formulating his own vision ofMoses, oftentimes drawing from specifically Christian formulations in thepresentation of his story (pp. 102–104). The story of Moses thus prefiguresthe political, social, and religious freedoms that the United States repre-sents. Following M.G. Wood, Wright emphasizes the iconic image ofMoses at the end of the film, when C. Heston as Moses assumes a pose

24 Indeed, as Wright points out (p. 91), it was only in 1954 that the phrase “under God”was incorporated into the American Pledge of Allegiance. It is interesting to note that –while the movie suppresses the specifically Jewish aspects of the Moses story (see, e. g. ,pp. 100–101) – a rabbinic understanding of freedom from Egyptian enslavement is per-haps counter-intuitively realized in servitude to God.

104 Carl S. Ehrlich

reminiscent of that of the Statue of Liberty (p. 125). Yet in spite of thesupposed conservatism of DeMille and his time alike, his film argues forthe equality of all human beings, irrespective of ethnic origins.25

The most important general criticism one may express about Wright’sbook is her dogged avoidance of “text.” Hence, her discussion is framedsolely as one about context, in which the actual text being discussed is ofinterest only in contrasting particular aspects of the text with the biblicalor (occasionally) post-biblical sources of its reimaginings. While this ispresumably not a major problem with an iconic film like The Ten Com-mandments that has probably been viewed by most of the people at whomthis book is directed, it presents a somewhat greater issue in the case ofboth Hurston’s Moses, Man of the Mountain (an occasionally disparagedbook I consider one of the best literary works based on the narrative of theHebrew Bible) and Steffen’s Moses in Red (a work of seemingly partisanpolitical analysis that made little impression already at the time it waswritten). Wright’s book would have been more helpful if she had devotedsome space to introducing her readers to the actual contents and outlinesof the works discussed, veering a little from her chosen contextual path.

VI. B. Britt‘s Rewriting Moses

To some extent these criticisms are alleviated and addressed in B. Britt’sRewriting Moses: The Narrative Eclipse of the Text.26 This is also a work ofcultural history but it has a broader focus than Wright’s piece, engagesmore directly with texts in general, and ultimately leads the reader back tothe biblical text. The central thesis of Britt’s book revolves around Moses asa written figure in the biblical tradition and as a biographical subject in thepost-biblical one. In other words, Moses’ function in the various interpre-tative traditions – whether as the conduit of divine law or as the hero of atale – is the chief interest for Britt. Thus, he pays equal attention both tothe biblical text and to later interpretations of it. The meta-level on whichhe engages each area falls within the framework of modern literary-criticaland cultural-historical discourse. Hence, the names of theoreticians suchas Assmann, E. Auerbach, M. Bal, W. Benjamin, J. Derrida, S. Freud, Y.H.Yerushalmi, and others play important roles in the discussion. Nonethe-

25 Although, as Wright indicates, “no nonwhite actors [are] depicted in significant roles”(p. 127).

26 B. Britt, Rewriting Moses: The Narrative Eclipse of the Text (JSOTSup. 402; Gender, Cul-ture, Theory 14; New York: T & T Clark, 2004).


less, in spite of the theoretical axis around which the book revolves, it ulti-mately is best understood as a series of loosely related chapters whoseunity is provided by the Mosaic discourse in its widest sense.

The “Introduction” to the book (pp. 1–11) treats Moses as a figure ofhistorical memory. As Britt points out, there is relatively little biographicalinformation conveyed in the biblical text about Moses, a circumstance thatgave the impetus for the development of a wide-ranging post-biblical ex-pansion of the Moses story. Britt divides this expansion into traditionsmore in line with rabbinic thought, which encompasses the exegesis of theUrtext, and those traditions more influenced by Hellenistic thought, inwhich the motivation for the development of the tradition is provided byforces external to the text.27 The subsequent eight chapters of the book aredivided into two parts linked by an “Interlude.”

In “Part I,” which comprises three chapters, Britt engages “Contempo-rary Images of Moses” (pp. 12–80). The first chapter is devoted to “Sub-verting the Great Man: Violence and Magic in Moses Fiction” (pp. 13–39).Britt introduces the subject by providing a list and categorization of thirty-four Moses novels written since the mid-nineteenth century.28 Most ofthem contribute in various ways to the development of a heroic Mosesnarrative. Indeed, Britt assigns them to four overarching literary world-views: “Christian, Jewish, Romance/Orientalist, and Humanist/Secularist”(p. 15). After ascertaining that most of these are not great works of litera-ture and that they idealize the figure of Moses, Britt turns his attention to afifth category of sui generis novels and devotes the rest of this chapter to adiscussion of Steffens’ Moses in Red (1926), Hurston’s Moses, Man of theMountain (1939), and Mann’s Tables of the Law (1943).29 Britt finds thatthe works by Steffens and Mann subvert the story by “offer[ing] disturbingbut compelling images of violent social transformation” (p. 31). Hurston,on the other hand, subverts traditional understandings by locating thestory in her contemporary situation, thus allowing a reading of the storyon dual levels, as well as by turning Moses into a magician.

The second chapter takes up this theme of duality and applies it to areading of Moses films (pp. 40–58). This duality is exemplified for Britt by

27 In Britt’s words, the former “is more likely to occur within a context guided by readingand interpretation of the biblical text, commentary on words, sentences, and questionsof narrative and halakhic meaning,” while the latter “is more likely to operate accordingto concepts, patterns, and questions external to the biblical text” (p. 7).

28 Without doing a major search, I am aware of at least one work missing from his list : G.Messadie, Moıse (2 vols.; Paris: Editions Jean-Claude Lattes, 1998).

29 Owing to its short length (under sixty pages), this latter work is – pace Britt – more anovella than a novel.

106 Carl S. Ehrlich

the “doubling” of Moses in cinematic tradition. Examples of this dualityare the splitting of the Moses character between male and female protago-nists (as in 1924’s Moon of Israel and 1998’s Prince of Egypt), and the pres-entation of antagonists to the role of Moses as the protagonist (as in 1956’sThe Ten Commandments, in which Moses has both a female double/antag-onist, Nefretiri, and a male one, Ramses). To some extent this doublingmay be deduced from the ambiguity regarding Moses’ ethnic and racialidentity in the biblical narrative, a theme that is developed and expandedin the cinematic treatments of his story.

The third and last chapter of Part I examines “Legend and History inModern Scholarly Portraits of Moses” (pp. 59–80). In this chapter, Britt“seeks to demonstrate that modern scholars [engage] in the narrativeeclipse of the biblical text by their common commitment to ideas of legendand history and the opposition between them” (p. 61). In order to provehis thesis, Britt discusses the images of Moses and his place in history/leg-end in the works of J. Wellhausen, H. Gressmann, M. Noth, G. von Rad,and M. Buber. Significantly, all of these were German(-trained) scholars,although Buber as the one Jew among them differs from the rest in hisbasic presuppositions about the text and its theological import. Nonethe-less, Britt demonstrates that all of these scholars came to somewhat differ-ing views regarding Moses as a figure of history and legend. In a nutshell,while Wellhausen, Gressmann, and Noth were most interested in recover-ing the earliest layers of tradition, von Rad and Buber were more interest-ed in the theological importance of Moses for the modern reader (in effect,juxtaposing what Moses meant with what Moses means).

The “Interlude,” which Britt entitles “Biblical Text, Biblical Tradition,”consists of one chapter that deals with “The Veil of Moses in the Bible andin Christian Art” (pp. 81–115). After analyzing the biblical text, Britt en-gages in a search for images of the veiled Moses in Christian art, a motifthat he discovers is rare, particularly in comparison with the motif of thehorned Moses. This he attributes to a number of factors. One is that theveil obscures Moses in his role as prophet. When he wears the veil, he isnot privy to revelation. Another is that veiled Synagoga becomes a nega-tive trope in Christian art ; hence, there is a general reluctance to depictMoses in this manner, except for the few times he is being used as a sym-bol for Judaism and the replaced theology of the old covenant. However,this way of presenting Moses is oftentimes avoided in order not to cast as-persions on Moses within the context of a typological reading as a prefig-urement of Jesus. In addition, within the context of a patriarchal artistictradition, the employment of the female Synagoga in order to representsomething negative is preferable to the use of the male Moses.


Part II consists of four chapters, all of which foreground “UncannyBiblical Texts” (pp. 116–183). In these chapters, Britt does a close readingof what he considers difficult texts in order to elucidate their contributionto the biblical Moses discourse. The first text that Britt considers is the oneconcerning “Moses’ Heavy Mouth … in Exodus 4.10–17” (pp. 117–130).Contrary to those who see in this text an excerpt of a Moses biography,Britt “argue[s] that revelation, not the person of Moses, is a primary con-cern of the text” (p. 117). By diminishing the importance of speech in itsaccount of Moses’ commissioning, the text implicitly lays its emphasis onthe written word as Moses’ major revelatory action. The second text dis-cussed by Britt is “Deuteronomy 31–32 as a Textual Memorial” (pp. 131–143). His basic thesis is that there are two strands of tradition interwovenin these chapters: “one on the death of Moses and commission of Joshua,and another on the recording and promulgation of texts” (p. 131), whereTorah and Song become inextricably intertwined. The third text complexis Deuteronomy 32–33 (pp. 144–164), consisting mainly of two poetictexts that Britt views as “show[ing] Moses as both a ‘writing being’ and a‘being written’” (p. 164). In his final chapter Britt concentrates on “TheBirth, Death, and Writing of Moses” (pp. 165–18330). Here, he juxtaposesMoses’ birth (Exodus 1–2) and death (Deuteronomy 34) narratives andposits that they actually contribute more to establishing “a written tradi-tion centered on covenant and people rather than the legend or biographyof a hero” (p. 165). Since he views these passages as later accretions, theybecome the progenitors of the post-biblical attempts to provide Moseswith a biography. Because Moses begins and ends his story in foreignclimes, Britt views him as “the typical hero of the Diasporanovelle” (p.178), thus drawing a parallel between Moses and Joseph/Esther. AlthoughBritt’s book ends with a short “Conclusion” (pp. 184–187) in which he at-tempts to draw together his disparate strands, this work – in spite of itsmost impressive erudition – ultimately reads more as a series of looselyrelated essays than as a taut book-length essay.

VII. Conclusion

The survey presented here does not do justice to the wealth of literature onthe topic of Moses published during the past decade. Among the studieson more specific subjects that have also appeared, one may mention the

30 While this book is generally free of typos, there is a blatant one on p. 170, where Britthas confused דבא and דבע .

108 Carl S. Ehrlich

following: L. Feldman’s Philo’s Portrayal of Moses,31 in which the doyen ofscholars of Judaism in the Greco-Roman period presents a magisterial andcontextually in-depth study of Philo’s De Vita Mosis ; F.W. Graf ’s MosesVermachtnis,32 in which the author argues for the separation of religiousand secular/state law; H. Najman’s Seconding Sinai,33 in which the authorclaims that the term “rewritten Bible” applies inadequately to the rework-ing of the Mosaic discourse of late biblical and early post-biblical writings;P. Reid’s Moses’s Staff and Aeneas’s Shield,34 in which the author argues thatMoses undergoes a transformation during the course of his story from ahapless stutterer to a teacher and a “man of words;” V. Sasson’s The Birthof Moses and the Buddha,35 in which the author compares the nature ofMoses and the Buddha only to conclude that they do not have as much incommon as is sometimes claimed; B. Wheeler’s Moses in the Quran,36 inwhich the author examines the Islamic Moses traditions in both the Quranand medieval Islamic literature and engages with questions concerning thepre-Islamic sources of some of these traditions; and M. Widmer’s Moses,God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer,37 in which the author pres-ents a close reading and exegesis of Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 13–14while paying particular attention to Moses’ role as intercessor and putativeauthor of prayers.

If there is one thing that becomes evident in this discussion of theworks by Otto, Romer, Bottrich, Ego, Eißler, Wright, and Britt, it is thatMoses remains as fascinating for the modern reader as he has beenthroughout the ages. Indeed, these works of cultural and tradition historyprovide evidence not only for the Moses discourse of the past but also forthat of the present, which remains as vivid and relevant as it ever has. One

31 L.H. Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses in the Context of Ancient Judaism (Christianityand Judaism in Antiquity Series 15; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,2007).

32 F.W. Graf, Moses Vermachtnis: Uber gottliche und menschliche Gesetze (Munchen: C.H.Beck, 2006).

33 H. Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second TempleJudaism (JSJSup 77; repr. Atlanta: SBL, 2003).

34 P.V. Reid, Moses’s Staff and Aeneas’s Shield: The Way of the Torah Versus Classical Hero-ism (Lanham: University Press of America, 2005).

35 V.R. Sasson, The Birth of Moses and the Buddha: A Paradigm for the Comparative Studyof Religions (Hebrew Bible Monographs 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007).

36 B.M. Wheeler, Moses in the Quran and Islamic Exegesis (Routledge Studies in the Quran;London: Routledge, 2002).

37 M. Widmer, Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer (FAT II/8; Tubingen:Mohr Siebeck, 2004).


may, therefore, conclude that Moses will continue to be an object of fasci-nation and investigation for generations to come.

Carl S. EhrlichProfessor of Hebrew BibleYork University4700 Keele StreetToronto, Ontario, M3J [email protected]

110 Carl S. Ehrlich

New Projects

Jens Kamlah

Neuere Forschungen zur Archaologiein Sudphonizien

Die phonizische Kultur, deren Kerngebiet sich etwa mit dem Territoriumdes heutigen Libanon deckt, verbreitete sich im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. imgesamten Mittelmeerraum. Im Unterschied zu vielen anderen Kulturendes Altertums und der Moderne expandierte sie nicht auf der Grundlagemilitarischer Eroberungen, sondern vielmehr primar durch den Aufbauund die Pflege merkantiler Kontakte. Von ihren großen Hafenstadten ausschufen die Phonizier Handelsverbindungen bis ins westliche Mittelmeerhinein und grundeten seit dem 10. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Kolonien an wich-tigen Schlusselpositionen z. B. in Zypern, Nordafrika, Sizilien und auf deriberischen Halbinsel. Die Kolonisation ging vornehmlich von Sudphonizi-en aus, also von den großen Hafenmetropolen Tyros und Sidon sowie vonihrem Um- und Hinterland (Abb. 1).

Das sudliche Phonizien grenzte unmittelbar an das Konigreich Israel,und die Geschichte Israels/Judas war u. a. dadurch gepragt, dass sich derpolitische Einfluss der Stadte Tyros und Sidon auf große Teile der KustePalastinas erstreckte. Zwischen Sudphonizien und Israel/Juda bestandenvielfaltige Beziehungen, vor allem in den Bereichen des Handels sowie derGeistes- und der Religionsgeschichte.

Lange Zeit basierten wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen uber den sud-phonizischen Raum ausschließlich auf den Altgrabungen von Tyros undSidon sowie auf den stratigraphischen Grabungen in Sarepta.1 Doch in denvergangenen Jahren hat die archaologische Erforschung Sudphoniziensbedeutende Fortschritte erzielt.2 Im Folgenden soll ein kurzer Uberblick

1 Vgl. die Uberblicksdarstellung J.B. Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, a Phoenician City.Excavations at Sarafand, Lebanon, 1969–1974, by the University Museum of the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania, Princeton: University Press, 1978.

2 Fur Literaturhinweise zu den neueren archaologischen Forschungen im Libanon vgl. diein diesem Beitrag angefuhrten Titel. Vgl. ferner die Beitrage im Doppelheft der ZeitschriftNEA 73:2–3 (2010) mit dem Schwerpunkt „Archaeology in Lebanon“. Vgl. auch M.Heinz/W. Vollmer (Hgg.), Libanon. Treffpunkt der Kulturen. Eine archaologische Per-spektive, Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2010.


uber die relevanten neuen Ausgrabungsprojekte und ihre wichtigsten Er-gebnisse gegeben werden.

I. Tyros

Tyros war eine der bedeutendsten der phonizischen Stadte. Dies spiegeltsich in den zahlreichen antiken Schriftquellen wieder, in denen die Stadtseit dem 14. Jahrhundert v. Chr. sehr haufig erwahnt wird (z. B. in denAmarna-Briefen: EA 146ff.). Sie war ein wichtiger Ausgangspunkt fur dieAusbreitung der phonizischen Kultur im Mittelmeerraum. Die Stadt un-terhielt enge Kontakte zu den Konigreichen Juda und Israel (vgl. z. B. 2Sam 5,11; 1 Kon 5,15–26; 1 Kon 9,26–28). Als benachbarte Metropoleruckte Tyros in das Blickfeld israelitischer Prophetie und wurde zum Ge-

Abb. 1: Kartenskizze von Sudphonizien.

114 Jens Kamlah

genstand prophetischer Orakel- und Fremdvolkerspruche (Am 1,9–10 undEz 26,1–28,19).3

Die Stadt befand sich auf einer vor der Kuste gelegenen Insel, die imNorden und im Suden je einen Hafen besaß. Erst seit der Eroberung durchAlexander den Großen ist die Insel durch einen Damm mit dem Festlandverbunden. Umfangreiche Altgrabungen, die bereits 1830 begannen,haben zahlreiche Relikte und Monumente aus romischer bis byzantini-scher Zeit sowie die Reste einer von den Kreuzfahrern errichteten Kathe-drale freigelegt. Die betreffenden Ausgrabungsgebiete liegen im Sudteil deralten Inselstadt sowie in der ostlichen Verlangerung des Dammes auf demFestland (el-Bass). Hier befinden sich ein Hippodrom aus romischer Zeitund ostlich eines Monumentalbogens (2. Jahrhundert n. Chr.) eine ausge-dehnte Nekropole, die bis in die byzantinische Zeit bestand.

Von 1997 bis 2008 fanden im Bereich der Nekropole von el-Bass neueAusgrabungen statt. Das spanische Projekt unter der Leitung von MariaEugenia Aubet konnte nachweisen, dass die Anfange der Nekropole bisweit in die eisenzeitliche Epoche zuruck reichen.4 Sie haben ca. 320 phoni-zische Bestattungen freigelegt, von denen die altesten aus dem 9. Jahrhun-dert v. Chr. und die jungsten vom Ende des 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. stam-men.5 Die dabei geborgenen Gegenstande eroffnen erstmals wertvolle Ein-blicke in die materielle Kultur und in die Bestattungssitten der phonizi-schen Metropole Tyros.

Die Befunde zeigen, dass es in Tyros wahrend der mittleren Eisenzeitfest gefugte Begrabnisriten gab, die mit spezifischen Jenseitsvorstellungenund daraus resultierenden kultischen Handlungen in Verbindung standen.Demnach verbrannten die Tyrer ihre Toten und legten fur Erwachsene

3 Vgl. zuletzt z. B. C. Fischer, Die Fremdvolkerspruche bei Amos und Jesaja. Studien zurEigenart und Intention in AM 1,3–2,3.4f. und JES 13,1–16,14 (BBB 136), Berlin: Philo,2002, 48–51; und M. Saur, Der Tyroszyklus des Ezechielbuches (BZAW 386), Berlin: deGruyter, 2008.

4 Vgl. zuletzt M.E. Aubet (Hg.), The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre Al-Bass. Excavations1997–1999 (BAAL.HS I), Beirut: Ministere de la Culture, 2004; dies. , Begrabnispraktikenin der eisenzeitlichen Nekropole von Tyros, in: ZDPV 122 (2006), 1–13; dies. , The Pho-enician Cemetery of Tyre, in: NEA 73 (2010), 144–155; Nunez, F.J./M.E. Aubet, Tyre Al-Bass – Imported Material / Typology and Results, in: A. Maıla-Afeiche (Hg.), Intercon-nections in the Eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Procee-dings of the International Symposium Beirut 2008 (BAAL.HS VI), Beirut: Ministere de laCulture, 2009, 403–417.

5 Diese altesten Urnenbestattungen aus el-Bass bilden die zweitalteste Phase, welche durchdie Grabungen erfasst wurde (Phase 2). Die vorausgehende Phase 1 (10. Jahrhundert)enthielt nur Einzelfunde und keine intakten Bestattungen (vgl. Aubet, Cemetary).

Neuere Forschungen zur Archaologie in Sudphonizien 115

und fur Kinder getrennte Friedhofe an.6 Die menschlichen Asche-Uber-reste wurden in einer ersten und die ubrigen Reste des Feuers in einer

Abb. 2: Tyros (el-Bass): Grabinventar der Doppelurnen-Bestattung 12–13 (Eisenzeit II) ;(nach Aubet, Begrabnispraktiken, Abb. 3).

6 Die Tatsache, dass fur Erwachsene und Kinder getrennte Friedhofe angelegt wurden,zwingt zu einer Neubewertung der sog. Tofets. Es stellt sich die Frage, ob eine Deutungder Tofets als Kinderopferplatze aufzugeben ist zugunsten einer Interpretation der be-treffenden Platze als Friedhofe fur Kinder im Kontext der Sitte der Brandurnenbestat-tung, die unter den Phoniziern und Puniern weit verbreitet gewesen ist. Vgl. zu Tofet-

116 Jens Kamlah

zweiten Urne gesammelt (vgl. Abb. 2 mit dem typischen Inventar einer ty-rischen Doppelurnen-Bestattung). Das weitere Begrabnisritual bestanddarin, dass eine Grube ausgehoben wurde, sich die Trauergemeinde zumTotenmahl versammelte und dass die beiden Asche-Urnen sowie das Ge-schirr des Totenmahls zusammen mit einem Olkannchen sorgsam in derGrabgrube angeordnet wurden. Sodann hat man die Grube mit Brennma-terial ausgefullt und in der Grube einen zweiten Begrabnisbrand entzun-det. Danach wurde die Grube zugeschuttet, bedeckt und durch eineGrabstele markiert.7 Abschließend wurde das restliche Geschirr des To-tenmahls uber der Grube zerschmissen. Durch die doppelte Verbrennungnahm das Feuer eine zentrale Stellung in den phonizisch-tyrischen Be-grabnisriten ein, die sich von den Bestattungssitten Israels und Judas undanderer Nachbarregionen markant unterschieden.8

Den Neugrabungen in der Nekropole kommt auch deshalb große Be-deutung zu, weil archaologisch sonst nur sehr wenig uber die eisenzeitlich-phonizische, auf der ehemaligen Insel gelegene Stadt Tyros bekannt ist.Eine dort von Patizia Bikai in den Jahren 1973–1974 durchgefuhrte Tief-sondage hat nur in einer sehr begrenzten Flache Befunde der Bronze- undEisenzeit nachweisen konnen.

II. Tell el-Burak

Der Ruinenhugel Tell el-Burak liegt ca. 9 km sudlich von Sidon direkt ander Kuste. Seit dem Jahr 2001 fuhrt ein deutsch-libanesisches Gemein-schaftsprojekt hier Ausgrabungen durch.9 Die Grabungen haben drei

Problematik zuletzt P. Xella, Per un ‘modello interpretativo’ del tofet: il tofet come necro-poli infantile? in: Quaderni di Vicino Oriente 4 (2010), 259–278.

7 Die Grabstelen waren anikonisch gestaltet oder trugen ein (Gotter-)Symbol und/oderkurze Inschriften mit den Namen der Verstorbenen; vgl. dazu H. Sader, Iron Age Funer-ary Stelae from Lebanon (CAM 11), Barcelona: Bellaterra, 2005.

8 Vgl. dazu J. Kamlah, Grab und Begrabnis in Israel/Juda. Materielle Befunde, Jenseitsvor-stellungen und die Frage des Totenkultes, in: A. Berlejung/B. Janowski (Hgg.), Tod undJenseits im alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt. Theologische, religionsgeschichtliche, ar-chaologische und ikonographische Aspekte (FAT 64), Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009,257–297.

9 Es handelt sich um ein Gemeinschaftsprojekt der American University of Beirut (vertre-ten durch H. Sader), der Universitat Tubingen (vertreten durch J. Kamlah) und der Ori-entabteilung des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts (vertreten durch M. van Ess); vgl.U. Finkbeiner/H. Sader, The Tell el-Burak Archaeological Project: A Preliminary Reporton the 2001 Season, in: BAAL 5 (2001), 173–194; ders., The Tell el-Burak ArchaeologicalProject. Preliminary Report on the 2002 and 2003 Seasons, in: BAAL 7 (2003), 145–173;


Siedlungsphasen nachgewiesen (Tabelle 1), von denen hier diejenigen derEisenzeit II und der Mittelbronzezeit I beschrieben werden sollen.

Tabelle 1: Tell el-Burak, Siedlungsgeschichte.Mittelbronzezeit I ~2000–1700 v.Chr. Palast (zum Stadtkonigtum Sidon gehorend)

Phase 1 Errichtung und erste Nutzung des PalastesPhase 2 Partielle Verfullung, Wiederaufbau

und weitere NutzungEisenzeit II ~700–350 v.Chr. Befestigte Siedlung (zu Sidon gehorend)

Phase 1 Grundung der Besiedlung mit BefestigungPhase 2 Fortfuhrung der BesiedlungPhase 3 Rudimentare Restbesiedlung ohne Befestigung

Spates Mittelalter/Osmanische Zeit Einzelne Hauser auf der Kuppe des Hugels

1. Tell el-Burak in der Eisenzeit II (ca. 700–350 v. Chr.)

Die eisenzeitliche Siedlung auf Tell el-Burak wurde gegen Ende des 8.Jahrhunderts v. Chr. von der nahe gelegenen Metropole Sidon aus gegrun-det. Nach ihrer Grundung bestand sie ohne Unterbrechung bis zur Mittedes 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Vermutlich war sie wahrend der gesamtenDauer ihres Bestehens dem Zentralort Sidon untergeordnet und erfulltebestimmte Funktionen am Rande des Siedlungssystems der Großstadt.Verschiedene Bereiche dieser kleinen, am sudlichen Randbezirk Sidonsgelegnen Ansiedlung konnten bislang freigelegt werden. So kamen inAreal 3 Wohnhauser und in den Arealen 2 und 4 Reste einer Umfassungs-mauer zutage (Abb. 3). Zur Siedlung gehorte auch ein Friedhof, dessen

ders., Deutsch-libanesische Ausgrabungen auf Tell el-Burak sudlich von Sidon. Vorbe-richt nach Abschluß der dritten Kampagne 2003, in: ZDPV 120 (2004), 123–140; ders. ,The Tell el-Burak Archaeological Project. Preliminary Report on the 2005, 2008 and 2009Seasons, in: BAAL 12 (2008; erschienen 2010), 17–34; ders., Deutsch-libanesische Aus-grabungen auf Tell el-Burak sudlich von Sidon. Vorbericht nach Abschluss der siebtenKampagne 2010, in: ZDPV 126 (2010), 93–115; H. Sader/J. Kamlah, Tell el-Burak. A NewMiddle Bronze Age Site in Lebanon, in: NEA 73 (2010), 130–141; H. Sader, Tell el-Burak.An Unidentified City of Phoenician Sidon, in: B. Pongratz-Leisten u. a. (Hgg.), Ana sadıLabnani lu allik. Beitrage zu altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen. FS W.Rollig (AOAT 247), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1997, 363–375; ders., Beirut andTell el-Burak. New Evidence on Phoenician Town Planning and Architecture in theHomeland, in: S. Helas/D. Marzoli (Hgg.), Phonizisches und punisches Stadtewesen.Akten der internationalen Tagung in Rom vom 21. bis 23. Februar 2007 (Iberia Archa-eologica 13), Mainz: Zabern, 2009, 55–67; ders., Palace Architecture in Tell el-Burak-Le-banon: Some Evidence for Egyptian-Mesopotamian-Levantine Interconnections, in: A.Maıla-Afeiche (Hg.), Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon in theBronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Symposium Beirut 2008 (BAAL.HS VI), Beirut: Ministere de la Culture, 2009b, 177–185. Die jungste Kampagne fandvom 12. Juli bis 6. August 2011 statt (Kamlah/Sader, The Tell el-Burak ArchaeologicalProject. Preliminary Report on the 2010 and 2011 Season, in: BAAL 14 [im Druck]).

118 Jens Kamlah

Graber zwar noch nicht lokalisiert werden konnten, von dem sich abermehrere phonizische Grabstelen erhalten haben.10

Das Fundinventar der Wohnhauser setzt sich aus Gebrauchskeramik,Steingeraten, Metallwerkzeugen, Tierknochen, verkohlten Pflanzensamenu. a. zusammen und bezeugt als Ganzes die landlichen Lebensverhaltnisseim phonizischen Mutterland in der Peripherie einer großen Hafenstadt.11

Angesichts der Tatsache, dass mit Ausnahme der Grabungen von Tell el-Burak so gut wie keine Ausgrabungen von eisenzeitlichen Siedlungen im

10 Die Grabstelen entsprechen denen, die bei den Ausgrabungen der phonizischen Nekro-pole von Tyros gefunden worden sind; vgl. dazu Sader, Funerary Stelae.

11 Zu einem Rollsiegel mit der Darstellung eines Mischwesens am „heiligen Baum“ undeiner Jagdszene siehe Kamlah, Sakraler Baum und mythische Jagd. Zur ikonographi-schen Verbindung zweier mythologischer Motive auf einem eisenzeitlichen Rollsiegelaus Phonizien, in: BaM 37 (2007), 549–563.

Abb. 3: Tell el-Burak: Topographischer Plan mit Resten der Eisenzeit und der Mittelbronze-zeit (nach J. Kamlah / H. Sader, Ausgrabungen ZDPV 126, Abb. 2).


Herkunftsland der Phonizier stattgefunden haben, stellen diese Befundeeine wesentliche Erweiterung unserer Kenntnisse uber die phonizischeKultur dar.

2. Tell el-Burak in der Mittelbronzezeit I (ca. 2000–1700 v. Chr.)

Die Ausgrabungen der Jahre 2001–2011 konnten auf der Kuppe von Tellel-Burak (Areal 1) den Grundriss eines mittelbronzezeitlichen Palastesvollstandig freilegen (Abb. 4). Das Gebaude ist 31,5 x 41,6 m groß. DemBau liegt eine komplexe Planung zugrunde. Grundeinheit ist ein Langen-maß, bei dem eine Elle ca. 52,5 cm betragt. Das ergibt fur die Ausmaße des

Abb. 4: Tell el-Burak: Planskizze des Palastes (Mittelbronzezeit I) (nach Kamlah/Sader, Aus-grabungen ZDPV 126 [s. hier Anm. 9], Abb. 3).

120 Jens Kamlah

Palastes Werte von exakt 60 x 80 Ellen.12 Das Gebaude umfasst insgesamt19 Raumeinheiten (Hof 1 und Raume 2–10). Im Zentrum des Palastes be-fand sich ein 16,5 x 20,8 m großer Innenhof (Raum 1; 30 x 40 Ellen). DasFußbodenniveau des Hofes lag bei ca. 17,70 m uNN. Um ihn herum grup-pierten sich Raume mit ahnlich hohen Bodenniveaus (Raume 2–7). ImUnterschied dazu lagen die Boden der Raume 10–17 ursprunglich ca. 5–6 m tiefer.

Der Palast gliederte sich demnach wahrend der 1. Phase in zwei Trakte,die terrassenartig auf zwei Ebenen angelegt waren. Der nordwestlicheTrakt (Raume 10–17) bildete eine zum Meer hin ausgerichtete, tiefereTerrasse. Auf einer ca. 5–6 m hoheren Ebene lag der Trakt des zentralenInnenhofes und der ihn umgebenden Raume. Die Durchgangsraume 9und 18 sowie die Treppenraume 8 und 19 dienten dazu, die tiefer gelege-nen Raume 10–17 mit den hoher gelegenen Raumen 1–7 zu verbinden.13

Noch wahrend der Mittelbronzezeit I hat man den großen Hohenun-terschied zwischen den beiden Terrassen verringert (Phase 2). Die unterenStockwerke der Raume 10–17 sowie diejenigen der Durchgangs- undTreppenraume (8–9 und 18–19) wurden vollstandig verfullt und aufeinem hoheren Niveau wieder aufgebaut. Vor der Verfullung dieserRaume hat man ihre Turen mit Lehmziegeln zugesetzt. Nach Ausweis vonKeramikfunden und von C14-Analysen stammen beide Bauphasen desPalastes aus der Mittelbronzezeit I (ca. 2000–1700 v. Chr.).

Die Ausgrabungen der Jahre 2001–2011 haben nicht nur den Grundrissdes Palastes vollstandig freigelegt, sondern auch seine exzeptionelle Bau-weise ermittelt. Um dem Gebaude einen erhohten Standort verleihen zukonnen, schufen die Baumeister zunachst einen kunstlichen Berg (an derBasis ca. 115 x 115 m groß; insgesamt ca. 17 m hoch). Die steile Nordflan-ke des Hugels schutzten sie durch ein verputztes Steinglacis. Bereits ineinem fruhen Stadium dieser Arbeiten wurde im Kern des kunstlichenBerges der Grundriss des Palastes angelegt. Die Baumeister errichtetenFundamentmauern aus luftgetrockneten Lehmziegeln und verstarkten dieunteren Außenkanten der Fundamentmauern mit Schalenmauern ausSteinen.14 Im weiteren Verlauf des Bauprojekts wuchsen die Fundament-

12 Die Ausgrabungen von Tell el-Burak ermoglichen erstmals verlassliche Schlussfolgerun-gen zu den antiken Langenmaßen, die in der Mittelbronzezeit im Sudlibanon in Ge-brauch waren. Vgl. dazu Kamlah/Sader, Ausgrabungen ZDPV 126, 101–103.

13 Der Haupteingang in den Palast konnte bislang leider noch nicht lokalisiert werden.14 Nach Abschluss der Kampagne des Jahres 2010 wurde vermutet, dass alle Fundament-

mauern aus Lehmziegeln auf einem Steinpodium ruhen (vgl. dazu Kamlah/Sader, Aus-grabungen ZDPV 126, 98–99 mit Taf. 18 A und 19B). Die Grabungen des Jahres 2011haben dagegen nachgewiesen, dass die am Fuße der Fundamentmauern erfasste Stein-


mauern (aus Lehmziegeln) und der kunstliche Berg (aus Erd- und Lehm-schichten) sukzessiv in die Hohe und bildeten insgesamt einen monu-mentalen Unterbau fur den Palast. Im Alten Orient sind auch an anderenmittelbronzezeitlichen Orten imposante Fundamente bezeugt, die ausGrundmauern und Verfullungen in die Hohe gebaut wurden, so z. B. inAlalah, Nippur und Larsa. Nirgends jedoch konnten sie bislang in diesenAusmaßen nachgewiesen werden. Dieser Umstand unterstreicht die Aus-nahmestellung, die der Palast von Tell el-Burak im Kontext des mittel-bronzezeitlichen Stadtkonigtums von Sidon innegehabt haben muss.

Eine ganz außergewohnliche Besonderheit kam im großten Raum desPalastes zutage (Raum 10; 28 x 12 Ellen). Hier haben sich Malereien derfruhen Mittelbronzezeit in situ an den Innenwanden erhalten. Der gesam-te Raum wurde (wie oben beschrieben) zwischen den Nutzungsphasen 1und 2 verfullt, was sich als Glucksfall fur die Wandmalereien erwies. Denndie Verfullung hat die aufgehenden Lehmziegelwande mit den Malereienkonserviert. Sie wurden seit dem Jahre 2005 in kleinen Abschnitten vonFachkraften sorgfaltig freigelegt. Auf diese Weise konnte mittlerweile ca.ein Drittel aller Innenwandflachen dokumentiert werden. Die aufgedecktFlache an der sudostlichen Innenwand des Raumes ist ca. 8 m lang undca. 2,5–3,0 m hoch (vgl. Abb. 5 mit einem Ausschnitt aus dieser Flache).Die Wandbemalungen bestehen hier sowohl aus geometrischen Musternals auch aus figurlichen Motiven. Die geometrischen Muster orientierensich an der Architektur und dienen der Einfassung und Gliederung desRaumes (z. B. Sockel aus zwei roten Streifen; Turrahmungen). Daruberhinaus teilt ein geometrischer Fries auf halber Hohe die Wand in zwei Re-gister. Die komplexe Gestaltung und die prazise technische Ausfuhrungdes Ornamentbandes zeugen von der ausgesprochen hohen Qualitat derMalereien in Tell el-Burak.

Die bisherigen Arbeiten geben drei figurliche Szenen zu erkennen: 1.ein an einem Baum stehendes Tier;15 2. eine Reihe schreitender Men-schen; und 3. eine Tierjagd. Im Folgenden sollen die 2. und die 3. Szenebeschrieben werden.

2. Szene: In dem Register unterhalb des Frieses ist eine Reihe vonschreitenden Menschen dargestellt. Zwei Manner konnten zur Ganze frei-gelegt werden. Sie messen von den schwarzen Haaren, die jeweils an dasuntere Band des Mittelfrieses stoßen, bis zu den Fußen ca. 1,5 m und sind

setzung nicht zu einem Podium gehort, sondern zu einer Schalenmauer, mit welcher dieunteren Bereiche der Lehmziegel-Fundamentmauern verblendet waren.

15 Vgl. Kamlah/Sader, Ausgrabungen ZDPV 126, 109–111 mit Taf. 22. Die Szene liegt au-ßerhalb des Ausschnittes von Abb. 5 in diesem Beitrag und wird deshalb hier nichtnaher beschrieben.

122 Jens Kamlah

damit die ersten in der Levante entdeckten annahernd lebensgroßen Men-schendarstellungen der Bronzezeit. Der vordere der drei Manner tragt of-fensichtlich eine Waffe auf seinem Rucken, vielleicht einen Bogen. Dem-nach konnte die im unteren Register dargestellte Prozession moglicher-weise inhaltlich mit der Jagdszene zusammenhangen, welche das obereRegister der Wand ausfullt.

3. Szene: Oberhalb des Frieses ist eine Tierjagd dargestellt. Der Mittel-fries bildet dabei die Laufflache fur einen schwarzen Hund, der eine Herdefluchtender Tiere vor sich her treibt. Seine Vorderlaufe greifen weit nachvorne aus, und aus seiner aufgerissenen Schnauze hangt eine rote Zungeheraus. Ein rotes Band umschließt seinen Hals. Oberhalb dieses Hundesfinden sich Bemalungsreste eines zweiten Tieres gleicher Art, von demSchadel, Zunge, Halsband und Ruckenansatz klar zu erkennen sind. Dierot gezeichneten gejagten Tiere sind als eine Herde von Gazellen zu iden-tifizieren. Sie fluchten vor den beiden schwarzen Hunden. Zur linken Seitehin findet die Jagdszene ihren Abschluss in einer zu Boden sturzendenGazelle sowie in einem Jager, der sich dem Wild entgegen stellt. Von ihmhaben sich nur sein vorgestelltes Bein und sein Oberkorper mit beidenArmen erhalten. Im oberen Wandregestier ist also das Motiv der herr-schaftlichen Jagd dargestellt, das im Alten Orient und in Agypten weit

Abb. 5: Tell el-Burak: Wandmalereien (teilweise erganzt) an der sudostlichen Innenwandvon Raum 10 des Palastes (Mittelbronzezeit I) ; Ausschnitt links der blockierten Tur zu Raum9 (nach Kamlah/Sader, Ausgrabungen ZDPV 126, Taf. 21).


verbreitet war und das in den Zusammenhang der Herrschaftsreprasenta-tion gehort.

Zusammenfassend kann festgehalten werden, dass der Palast von Tellel-Burak zu Beginn des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. gebaut wurde und als freistehendes Gebaude auf einem kunstlich errichteten Berg in der sudlichenKustenebene Sidons stand. Er muss sich um ein Bauwerk des Stadtkonig-tums von Sidon handeln. Der Palast erfullte vermutlich mehrere Zwecke.Einerseits diente er wohl der Verwaltung im Bereich in der sudlichenKustenebene Sidons. Moglicherweise hatte er auch eine Funktion fur dieSeefahrt. Andererseits sind seine Eckraume festungsartig wie Turme ge-staltet, so dass das Bauwerk wahrscheinlich auch eine sudliche Grenzfes-tung fur das sidonische Herrschaftsgebiet war. Daruber hinaus zeigen diekostbare Ausstattung mit Wandmalereien und die dabei verwendeten Mo-tive aus dem Bereich der Herrschaftsreprasentation, dass das monumenta-le Bauwerk von den Stadtkonigen Sidons zeitweilig auch als Residenz ge-nutzt wurde. Die Wandmalereien des Palastes von Tell el-Burak sind diealtesten großflachigen Malereien an bronzezeitlicher Monumentalarchi-tektur, die bisher in der Levante entdeckt wurden.16 Ihr Stil und ihreTechnik bezeugen intensive Kontakte zwischen dem sudlichen Libanonund Agypten wahrend der Mittelbronzezeit I. Sie sind Ausdruck der loka-len mittelbronzezeitlichen Kultur, und ihre unerwartete Entdeckung eroff-net neue Moglichkeiten fur die Erforschung der kulturgeschichtlichen Zu-sammenhange zwischen entsprechenden altorientalischen, agyptischenund minoischen/agaischen Kunstgattungen.

16 Zum Phanomen der Wandmalerei an bronzezeitlicher Monumentalarchitektur im Vor-deren Orient vgl. z. B. M. Bietak, Bronze Age Paintings in the Levant. Chronological andCultural Considerations, in: M. Bietak/E. Czerny (Hgg.), The Synchronisation of Civili-sations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millenium B.C. III. Proceedings ofthe SCIEM 2000/2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th of May–1st of June 2003 (Contribu-tions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 9, Denkschriften der Gesamtaka-demie 37), Wien: VOAW, 2007, 269–300; A. Brysbaert, The Power of Technology in theBronze Age Eastern Mediterranean. The Case of the Painted Plaster (MMA 12), Lon-don/Oakville: Equinox, 2008; M.H. Feldman, Frescoes, Exotica, and the Reinvention ofthe Northern Levantine Kingdoms during the Second Millennium B.C.E., in: M. Heinz/ders. (Hgg.), Representations of Political Power. Case Histories from Times of Changeand Dissolving Order in the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007, 173–194; P. Pfalzner/C. von Ruden, Between the Aegean and Syria: The Wall Paintings fromthe Royal Palace of Qatna, in: D. Bonatz/R.M. Czichon/F.J. Kreppner (Hgg.), Fundstel-len. Gesammelte Schriften zur Archaologie und Geschichte Altvorderasiens ad honoremHartmut Kuhne, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008, 95–118.

124 Jens Kamlah

III. Sidon

Sidon zahlte mit Byblos und Tyros zu den bedeutendsten phonizischenHafenstadten. Wie in Tyros so ist auch in Sidon das antike Stadtgebiet bisheute uberbaut und bewohnt. Beruhmt sind die seit langem bekanntenFragmente von Kapitellen mit Stierprotomen, die man innerhalb desStadtgebietes gefunden hat. Sie entsprechen bis ins Detail achamenidi-schen Vorbildern aus Persepolis und Susa und konnten von einem perser-zeitlichen Palast in Sidon stammen. Im Umfeld von Sidon kam es bereitsim 19. Jahrhundert zur Freilegung mehrerer Nekropolen aus der zweitenHalfte des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Die hier entdeckten „phonizisch-anthro-poiden“ oder „sidonischen“ Sarkophage zeugen vom Reichtum und vonder Bedeutung Sidons wahrend der spaten Eisen-/Perserzeit.17

Aus jungerer Zeit sind zwei wissenschaftliche Unternehmungen zurArchaologie Sidons zu verzeichnen: erstens die Grabungen innerhalb desStadtgebietes unter der Leitung von Claude Doumet-Serhal und zweitensdie von Rolf A. Stucky durchgefuhrten Auswertungen der Altgrabungen inBustan es-Seh, dem extramuralen Heiligtum des Heilgottes Esmun.

1. Die jungeren Stadtgrabungen von Sidon

Seit dem Jahre 1998 grabt ein Team des British Museum unter der Leitungvon Claude Doumet-Serhal in einem schmalen unbebauten Streifen amostlichen Rande der Altstadt von Sidon (sogenannte College Site).18 DasGrabungsgebiet liegt damit knapp außerhalb des antiken Stadtgebietes von

17 Zu den anthropoiden Sarkophagen vgl. S. Frede, Die phonizischen anthropoiden Sarko-phage. Teil 1: Fundgruppen und Bestattungskontexte (Band I.1, Forschungen zur pho-nizisch-punischen und zyprischen Plastik. Sepulkral- und Votivdenkmaler als Zeugnissekultureller Identitaten und Affinitaten), Mainz: Zabern, 2000; K. Lembke, Phonizischeanthropoide Sarkophage (DF 10), Mainz: Zabern, 2001; S. Frede (Hg.), Die phonizi-schen anthropoiden Sarkophage. Teil 2: Tradition – Rezeption – Wandel (Band I.2,Forschungen zur phonizisch-punischen und zyprischen Plastik. Sepulkral- und Votiv-denkmaler als Zeugnisse kultureller Identitaten und Affinitaten), Mainz: Zabern, 2002.Ausgangspunkt fur die Entstehung der sidonischen Sarkophagproduktion war die Be-stattung zweier Stadtkonige von Sidon (Tabnit und Esmunazar II.), deren Sarkophagebedeutende phonizische Inschriften tragen. Zusammen mit Bauinschriften von KonigBodastart geben diese Inschriften wichtige Einblicke in das Stadtkonigtum Sidons zurZeit der Esmunazar-Dynastie (2. Halfte des 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.).

18 Vgl. zuletzt C. Dourmet-Serhal, Second Millennium BC Levantine Ceremonial Feasts:Sidon a Case Study, in: A. Maıla-Afeiche (Hg.), Interconnections in the Eastern Medi-terranean. Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Sym-posium Beirut 2008 (BAAL.HS VI), Beirut: Ministere de la Culture, 2009, 229–244;dies. , Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Season of Excavation at Sidon (2008–2010), in:BAAL 13 (2009b), 7–69; dies. , Sidon during the Bronze Age: Burials, Rituals and Feas-ting Grounds at the “College Site”, in: NEA 73 (2010), 114–129.


Sidon. Nur in wenigen Perioden der Stadtgeschichte Sidons dehnte sichdie Siedlungsflache so weit nach Osten aus, dass sie bis in das Gebiet desCollege Site reichte. Zu diesen Perioden zahlt erstaunlicher Weise diejenigeEpoche, in der auf der syro-palastinischen Landbrucke erstmals stadtischeStrukturen entstanden: die Fruhbronzezeit. Die jungeren Ausgrabungenim College Site von Sidon haben nachgewiesen, dass die Stadt wahrend derFruhbronzezeit im 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. eine sehr viel großere Ausdeh-nung besaß als wahrend der darauf folgenden Mittel- und Spatbronze-zeit.19

Nach dem Ende der Fruhbronzezeit reduzierte sich das Stadtgebiet be-trachtlich. Es nahm fortan lediglich die Flache der heutigen Altstadt vonSidon ein. Dagegen wurde im Gebiet des College Site zu Beginn des 2.Jahrtausends v. Chr. der mittelbronzezeitliche Friedhof Sidons planvollangelegt. Dazu hat man große Mengen von Sand am nahe gelegenenStrand entnommen, diesen Sand sorgfaltig von allen Verunreinigungengereinigt und ihn dann auf der gesamten Flache des College Site angehauft,bis er zu einer 1,0–1,5 m dicken Schicht angewachsen war. Die kunstlichangelegte Sandschicht mit dem gereinigten Rand lag extramural ostlichdes mittelbronzezeitlichen Stadtgebietes von Sidon und diente zur Auf-nahme von Bestattungen. Das Team des British Museum hat bis zum Jahre2011 mehr als 100 dieser Graber freigelegt und dabei festgestellt, dass dieBestattungssitten in Sidon beim Ubergang von der Mittelbronzezeit I zurMittelbronzezeit II (ca. 1700 v. Chr.) entscheidende Anderungen erfahrenhaben. Wahrend in der Mittelbronzezeit I Einzelgraber vorherrschendwaren,20 nahmen seit Beginn der Mittelbronzezeit II Mehrfachbestattun-gen stetig zu. Beisetzungen von Kindern in Krugen (im Alter von bis zu 13Jahren) sind ebenfalls ein Phanomen der Mittelbronzezeit II.

Zahlreiche Reste der Zubereitung von Speisen sowie geschlachteterTiere, die ganz (Mittelbronzezeit I) oder in Teilen (Mittelbronzezeit II)den Toten mit ins Grab gegeben wurden, sind eindeutige Hinweise darauf,dass rituelle Mahlzeiten ein fester Bestandteil der Bestattungssitten gewe-sen sind. Um 1700 v. Chr. entstand auf dem Gebiet des Friedhofes offen-sichtlich ein monumentales, ca. 50 m langes Gebaude, das von den Aus-grabern als „Tempel zur Abhaltung von Totenmahlzeiten“ gedeutet wird.21

19 Vgl. C. Dourmet-Serhal, The Early Bronze Age in Sidon. “College Site” Excavations(1998–2001) (BAH 178), Beirut: Institut Francais du Proche-Orient, 2006; und zuletztdies. , Sidon during the Bronze Age.

20 Besonders charakteristisch sind Einzelbestattungen in Kistengrabern mit Stein- oderLehmziegelumrandung, in denen sich Waffen und zahlreiche andere Grabbeigaben fan-den (sog. Kriegergraber); vgl. zuletzt Doumet-Serhal, Sidon during the Bronze Age, 118.

21 Vgl. z. B. Doumet-Serhal, Sidon during the Bronze Age, 123 mit Fig. 17.

126 Jens Kamlah

Die große Anzahl der insgesamt im Bereich der Nekropole aufgefundenenGrabbeigaben gibt jedenfalls zu erkennen, dass die Mittelbronzezeit inSidon eine Phase der besonderen Prosperitat gewesen ist, die durch regeKontakte nach Agypten gekennzeichnet war. Aber auch zum agaischenRaum bestanden Verbindungen, wie z. B. ein in Sidon gefertigter Kraterzeigt, der mit dem agaischen Motiv springender Delphine dekoriert war(Abb. 6).

In der spaten Bronzezeit (ca. 1550–1200 v. Chr.) scheint das monu-mentale Gebaude, welches die Ausgraber im Zusammenhang mit den Be-stattungssitten deuten, weiter genutzt worden zu sein. In der Nahe seinesEingangs haben die Ausgraber eine mit Keilschrift beschriftete Tontafelgefunden, auf der eine Inventarliste holzerner Gegenstande verzeichnetist.22 Die meisten spatbronzezeitlichen Funde der College Site-Grabungensind jedoch sekundar verlagert, stammen also aus Abfallschichten, dienach dem Ende der spaten Bronzezeit hier im Außenbereich der Stadt de-poniert wurden.23 Dennoch bietet das Fundgut wertvolle Hinweise auf dieTeilhabe Sidons am internationalen Handel dieser Zeit. Dazu zahlt einegroße Anzahl importierter mykenischer Keramikgefaße.24 Auch aus Agyp-

Abb. 6: Sidon, College Site: Krater mit Bemalung (Mittelbronzezeit) ; Motiv mit springendenDelphinen (nach Doumet-Serhal, Sidon during the Bronze Age [s. hier Anm. 18], Fig. 16).

22 Doumet-Serhal, Sidon during the Bronze Age, 124 mit Fig. 19.23 Es sei erwahnt, dass an anderer Stelle in Sidon, namlich in dem sudlichen Vorort Dak-

erman, bei Altgrabungen unter der Leitung von R. Saida ein Friedhof der spaten Bron-zezeit freigelegt wurde. Die Ergebnisse dieser Grabungen sind vor kurzem posthum ver-offentlicht worden (Saida, Sidon et la Phenicie meridionale au Bronze recent: a proposdes tombes de Dakerman [BAH 170], Beirut: Institut Francais du Proche-Orient, 2004).

24 Zu mykenischer Importkeramik im Nordlibanon vgl. zuletzt H. Charaf, Arqa and itsRegional Connections Redux, in: A. Maıla-Afeiche (Hg.), Interconnections in the Ea-


ten stammen zahlreiche Fundstucke, darunter kostbare Gegenstande undPrestigeobjekte, wie z. B. ein bemaltes Fayencegefaß mit Namenskartu-schen der Pharaonin Tausret (ca. 1190 v. Chr.).25 Auf intensive Handels-kontakt nach Zypern weisen große Mengen von Keramikgefaßen und ei-nige Tonfiguren (Stierfiguren und eine Reiterfigur), die wahrend der spa-ten Bronzezeit nach Sidon gelangten.

Leider geben die Ausgrabungen im Bereich des College Site nur sehrwenige Auskunfte uber das Ende der spaten Bronzezeit sowie uber diefruhe und mittlere Eisenzeit. Allerdings konnten wahrend der letztenKampagne im Sommer 2011 signifikante Befunde zur spaten Eisenzeitfreigelegt werden.26 Die Grabungen haben Teile eines monumentalen, ausmachtigen Steinquadern errichteten Gebaudes erfasst und dabei in einemBereich, der der Vorratshaltung diente, zahlreiche spateisenzeitliche Am-phoren in situ geborgen. Es zeichnet sich ab, dass in der spaten Eisenzeitund in der persischen Periode in diesem Bereich zumindest teilweise be-deutende stadtische Gebaude standen. Demnach scheint das College Site-Gebiet erstmals nach dem Ende der Fruhbronzezeit wieder mit in die ur-bane Bebauung einbezogen gewesen zu sein. Allerdings kann der genaueVerlauf der Stadtmauern Sidons leider fur keine der bronze- und eisen-zeitlichen Perioden auch nur annahernd bestimmt werden.

2. Die Auswertung der Grabungsbefunde des Esmun-Heiligtumsvon Bustan es-Seh

Sicherlich außerhalb der Stadtmauern – aber innerhalb des unmittelbarenUmlandes der Stadt – lag das große Esmun-Heiligtum im Norden Sidons.Es befindet sich bei einer Trinkwasserquelle in einem Gelande, das heuteden Namen Bustan es-Seh tragt. An dieser Stelle tritt das Nahr el-Auwalidurch eine Hugelkette aus dem Libanongebirge heraus und fließt in dieKustenebene nordlich von Sidon (siehe Abb. 1). Verschiedene Untersu-chungen haben zweifelsfrei nachgewiesen, dass die in Bustan es-Seh frei-

stern Mediterranean. Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the Interna-tional Symposium Beirut 2008 (BAAL.HS VI), Beirut: Ministere de la Culture, 2009,295–309.

25 C. Doumet-Serhal, Sidon during the Bronze Age, 125 mit Fig. 21a–c. Ein weiteres Fa-yencegefaß mit der Namenskartusche dieser Pharaonin hat man im spatbronzezeitlichenHeiligtum von Tell Deir cAlla im Jordangraben aufgefunden. Zur agyptischen Importke-ramik in Sidon vgl. zuletzt I. Forstner-Muller/K. Kopetzky, Egypt and Lebanon: NewEvidence for Cultural Exchanges in the first half of the 2nd Millenium B.C., in: A. Maıla-Afeiche (Hg.), Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon in the Bronzeand Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Symposium Beirut 2008 (BAAL.HS VI),Beirut: Ministere de la Culture, 2009, 143–157.

26 Ich danke den Ausgraberinnen C. Doumet-Serhal und S. Collins fur diese Information.

128 Jens Kamlah

gelegten Relikte zu dem in mehreren Konigsinschriften genannten extra-muralen Tempelbezirk des sidonischen Stadt- und Heilgottes Esmun ge-horen.

Umfangreiche Ausgrabungen in Bustan es-Seh begannen bereits gegenEnde des 19. Jahrhunderts.27 Sie erbrachten hauptsachlich Befunde derhellenistischen bis byzantinischen Zeit, aber auch solche aus der Zeit vom6. bis 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. , auf die hier naher eingegangen werden soll.Rolf A. Stucky unterzog alle Funde und Befunde einer systematischenAuswertung und hat die Ergebnisse in mehreren Publikationen vorgelegt.Die Analyse der phonizischen Inschriften erfolgte durch Hans-Peter Ma-thys.

Der Kern der in Bustan es-Seh freigelegten Kultstatte bestand aus einerQuelle, die am Fuße eines Berges entspringt. Nachdem der Kult hier zuBeginn des 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. eingesetzt hatte, wurde die Kultstattekontinuierlich zu einem großen Tempelbezirk ausgebaut, wobei das Was-ser ihrer Quelle ein wesentliches Element darstellte. Eine Vielzahl von Ka-nalen und Becken sorgte fur seine Einbeziehung in den Kult.28 Augenfal-ligster Bestandteil des Temenos war jedoch seit der Mitte des 6. Jahrhun-derts v. Chr. ein machtiges Podium, das sich am Steilhang eines Hugelsuber der Quelle erhob. Es glich einem aus Steinen errichteten „heiligenBerg“, der ein Tempelhaus trug. Das ursprungliche Podium, von dem nurnoch die Westecke erhalten ist, wurde spater durch ein noch großeres Po-dium aus gewaltigen Steinquadern uberbaut (Abb. 7).

Aus den Inschriften und den neueren Auswertungen der Ausgrabun-gen gehen die Grundzuge der vorhellenistischen Baugeschichte des Hei-ligtums hervor. Demnach stammt das altere Podium von Konig Esmuna-zar II. (ca. Mitte des 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.) und das jungere von Bodast-

27 Vgl. die Uberblicksdarstellungen R.A. Stucky/H.P. Mathys, Le Sanctuaire Sidoniend’Echmoun. Apercu historique du site, des fouilles et des decouvertes faites a Bostanech-Cheikh, in: BAAL 4 (2000), 123–148; R.A. Stucky, Das Heiligtum des Esmun beiSidon in vorhellenistischer Zeit, in: ZDPV 118 (2002), 66–86. Vgl. ferner die Endbe-richte bei ders. , Tribune d’Echmoun. Ein griechischer Reliefzyklus des 4. Jahrhundertsv. Chr. in Sidon (Antike Kunst Beiheft 13), Basel : Vereinigung der Freunde antikerKunst, 1984; ders., Die Skulpturen aus dem Eschmun-Heiligtum bei Sidon. Griechische,romische, kyprische und phonizische Statuen und Reliefs vom 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. biszum 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (Antike Kunst Beiheft 17), Basel: Vereinigung der Freundeantiker Kunst, 1993; ders. (Hg.), Das Eschmun-Heiligtum von Sidon. Architektur undInschriften (Antike Kunst Beiheft 19), Basel: Vereinigung der Freunde antiker Kunst,2005.

28 Zu der Quelle und den Wasserinstallationen von Bustan es-Seh siehe E.M.C. Gro-enewoud, Use of Water in Phoenician Sanctuaries, in: ANESt 38 (2001), 139–159, hier141 und 144 (im Rahmen einer ubergreifenden Darstellung der Bedeutung des Wassersan phonizischen Kultstatten).


art. Typologisch handelt es sich bei dem Esmun-Heiligtum der spaten Ei-senzeit und der persischen Zeit um ein extramurales Naturheiligtum, des-sen Errichtung, Pflege und Ausbau zu den Aufgaben der sidonischenStadtkonige gehorten.29 Fur die Geschichte, Kultur und Religion Sidonswahrend des 6.–4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. stellen die Funde und Befunde ausBustan es-Seh in ihrer Neubearbeitung eine archaologische Quelle vonunschatzbarem Wert dar.

IV. Zusammenfassung

Die neueren Untersuchungen zur vorhellenistischen Archaologie in Sud-phonizien haben wichtige Ergebnisse fur alle Perioden von der fruhenBronze- bis zur spaten Eisenzeit erbracht. Die fruhe Bronzezeit, fur diebislang nur außerst sparliche Befunde aus Tyros vorlagen, erweist sich imLichte der Stadtgrabungen von Sidon als eine Epoche, in der im sudlichenLibanon erstmals große Metropolen und eine urbane Kultur entstanden(zu Beginn des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr.). Sidon gelangte in dieser Zeit sogarzu einer Große, die es erst in sehr viel spaterer Zeit wieder erreichte. DieFrage, wie sich der Ubergang von der Fruh- zur Mittelbronzezeit im Sud-libanon gestaltete (ca. 2300–2000 v. Chr.), muss derzeit noch offen bleiben.

Abb. 7: Sidon, Bustan es-Seh: Extramurales Heiligtum des Gottes Esmun; Podium des Bo-dastart (2. Halfte des 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.) mit spaterer Tempelarchitektur (Rekonstrukti-on nach Stucky, Eschmun-Heiligtum [s. hier Anm. 27]; Umzeichnung nach Kamlah, Tempel[s. hier Anm. 29], Abb. 5a).

29 Vgl. J. Kamlah, Die Tempel und Heiligtumer Phoniziens. Kultstatten im Kontext der ei-senzeitlichen Stadtkultur in der Levante, in: S. Helas/D. Marzoli (Hgg.), Phonizischesund punisches Stadtewesen. Akten der internationalen Tagung in Rom vom 21. bis23. Februar 2007 (Iberia Archaeologica 13), Mainz: Zabern, 2009, 93–94.

130 Jens Kamlah

Es ist jedoch unwahrscheinlich, dass die Region eine ahnlich einschnei-dende Deurbanisierung erlebte wie Palastina, denn bereits unmittelbar zuBeginn der Mittelbronzezeit (ca. 2000 v. Chr.) stand Sidon in voller Blute.Dies dokumentieren die Graber im Bereich des College Site ebenso wie dermonumentale Festungspalast von Tell el-Burak. Das Stadtkonigtum vonSidon verfugte bereits in der Mittelbronzezeit I (ca. 2000–1700 v. Chr.)uber große okonomische Kapazitaten und uber vielfaltige uberregionaleKontakte, insbesondere nach Agypten.

Trotz einiger feststellbarer Veranderungen (Aufgabe des Palastes vonTell el-Burak; Einfuhrung der Mehrfachbestattungen in der College Site-Nekropole) halt die Blute Sidons unverandert in der Mittelbronzezeit II(ca. 1700–1550 v. Chr.) an. Unsere Kenntnisse uber die Spatbronzezeit imSudlibanon (ca. 1550–1200 v. Chr.) beruhen vor allem auf den neuen Gra-bungen im Bereich des College Site sowie auf den Ergebnissen der alterenAusgrabungen in Sarepta und in Sidon Dakerman. Aus diesen Grabungengeht die besonders hohe Intensitat der Handelskontakte hervor, die vomSudlibanon aus in dieser Zeit zu vielen Bereichen des Mittelmeerraumsbestanden. Die spatbronzezeitliche Hochkonjunktur des Handels ist eineunmittelbare Voraussetzung fur die merkantilen Entwicklungen in phoni-zischer Zeit. Bedauerlicherweise gehort die Eisenzeit I (ca. 1200–1000 v.Chr.) zu den „dunklen“ Perioden in Sudphonizien, so dass die Entwick-lungen von der Spatbronze- zur mittleren Eisenzeit derzeit nicht beschrie-ben werden konnen.

Im Hinblick auf die Eisenzeit II haben die neueren Forschungen inSudphonizien fur das 10.–8. Jahrhundert v. Chr. ausschließlich Grabbe-funde aus Tyros erbracht. Hier zeigt sich, dass im phonizischen Mutter-land Kremation mit anschließender Beisetzung in Asche-Urnen die regu-lare Bestattungsform war, wobei es fur jung verstorbene Kinder separateFriedhofe gab. Fur die Zeit vom 7. bis 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. liegen durchdie Ausgrabungen auf Tell el-Burak nun erstmals Befunde aus einer befes-tigten Niederlassung vor. Der Ort scheint jedoch keine autonome Siedlunggewesen zu sein. Vielmehr hatte er dem Anschein nach bestimmte Funk-tionen im Siedlungssystem Sidons zu erfullen. Sidon selbst gewann in die-ser Zeit an Starke. Dies ist bereits seit langerem aufgrund der Analyseschriftlicher Quellen bekannt, hat nun aber durch die neueren Stadtgra-bungen in Sidon sowie durch die Auswertung der Befunde von Bustan es-Seh eindruckliche archaologische Bestatigungen gefunden. In persischerZeit erweiterte sich das Stadtgebiet Sidons und das extramurale Quellhei-ligtum des sidonischen Stadtgottes Esmun erreichte monumentale Aus-maße. In dieser Zeit schloss das Herrschaftsgebiet Sidons auch die Gebietevon Dor und von Jaffa an der Kuste Palastinas mit ein.


In diachroner Perspektive lassen die neueren Forschungen zur Archao-logie Sudphoniziens vier Aspekte hervortreten:

1. Es zeichnet sich fur die Region seit dem Beginn des 3. Jahrtausendsv. Chr. ein Siedlungsmuster ab, in dem die großen Hafenstadte Zentrenbilden30 und kleinere Orte entlang der Kuste zeitweilig bestimmte Funk-tionen im Gefuge der Zentralorte ubernahmen.31

2. Monumentale Architektur zur Herrschaftsreprasentation tritt anzwei unterschiedlichen Orten zu unterschiedlichen Zeiten hervor.32 Sietritt als profan-administrative (Tell el-Burak) oder als sakrale Baukunst(Bustan es-Seh) in Erscheinung.

3. Besonders markante Auspragungen hat die materielle Kultur der Re-gion jeweils im Bereich des Bestattungswesens erfahren.33 EmphatischeTotenrituale, unter Einschluss von Totenmahlzeiten, sind augenscheinlichtief in den regionalen Traditionen Sudphoniziens verankert.

4. Die tragende Rolle des Fernhandels ist das wesentliche Kontinuumder bronze- und eisenzeitlichen Wirtschaftsgeschichte Sudphoniziens,34

und die daraus resultierenden Akkulturationsprozesse bilden ein unver-kennbares Proprium der phonizischen Kultur dieser Region.

Jens KamlahUniversitat TubingenLiebermeisterstr. 14, Zi. 14972076 [email protected]

30 Sidon und Tyros; seit der spaten Bronzezeit tritt Sarepta zu diesen hinzu.31 So z. B. Tell el-Burak (in der Mittelbronzezeit I und im 7.–4. Jahrhundert v. Chr.) oder

Bustan es-Seh (seit dem 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr.); beide jeweils auf Sidon bezogen.32 In Tell el-Burak (Mittelbronzezeit I) und in Bustan es-Seh (6. Jahrhundert v. Chr.).33 Vgl. fur Sidon die Nekropolen des College Site (Mittelbronzezeit) und in Dakerman

(Spatbronzezeit), den phonizischen Friedhof von Tyros (Eisenzeit II) sowie die sidoni-schen anthropoiden Sarkophage (seit dem 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr.).

34 Fur die Fruhbronzezeit ist dies bislang nur in Ansatzen zu erkennen (aufgrund derStadtgrabungen von Sidon). Dagegen haben fur samtliche Perioden von der Mittelbron-zezeit I bis zur persischen Zeit alle der hier dargestellten neueren Untersuchungen ar-chaologische Nachweise dieser Schlussfolgerung erbracht.

132 Jens Kamlah

Israel Finkelstein, Shirly Ben Dor Evian, Elisabetta Boaretto,Dan Cabanes, Maria-Teresa Cabanes, Adi Eliyahu-Behar,Shira Faigenbaum, Yuval Gadot, Dafna Langgut, Mario Martin,Meirav Meiri, Dvora Namdar, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Ruth Shahack-Gross,Arie Shaus, Barak Sober, Michael Toffolo, Naama Yahalom-Mack,Lina Zapassky and Steve Weiner

Reconstructing Ancient Israel:Integrating Macro- and Micro-archaeology1

I. Introduction

The study of ancient Israel’s texts and history has been a keystone of Euro-pean scholarship since the Enlightenment. From the beginning of the 19thcentury, biblical exegesis contributed impressively to our understanding ofthese topics. Biblical archaeology joined in about a century later and pro-vided critical evidence for the material culture of ancient Israel, sheddingnew light on its history. Yet, until recent years (and in certain circles upuntil today) biblical archaeology was dominated by a conservative inter-pretation of the texts and was not given a true independent role in recon-

1 This study is supported by the European Research Council Advanced Grant n˚ 229418.The project is directed by I. Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University and S. Weiner of the We-izmann Institute of Science. Y. Gadot serves as archaeology director and S. Ben DorEvian as the administrative director of the project. The different tracks of the project arebeing carried out by E. Boaretto, A. Fantalkin and M. Toffolo (radiocarbon); R. Shahack-Gross, D. Cabanes, M. Cabanes and D. Friesam (geoarchaeology); M. Meiri, E. Halpernand M. Safra (DNA); E. Kagan, D. Langgut, T. Litt, F. Neumann and M. Stein (palynol-ogy); M. Martin (ceramic petrography); A. Eliyahu-Behar, N. Yahalom-Mack and S. Shil-stein (metallurgy); Y. Benenson and E. Zapassky (daily mathematics); S. Faigenbaum, D.Levin, M. Moinester, E. Piasetzky, B. Sass, A. Shaus, B. Sober and E. Turkel (epigraphy);D. Namdar and L. Goldenberg (residue analysis) ; G. Bar-Oz, L. Sapir-Hen, L. Weissbrodand R. Zukerman (archaeozoology). The work started in February 2009 and should lastfor five years.

The authors wish to thank the following archaeologists for their cooperation in thestudies discussed in this article: I. Lemos of Oxford University (Lefkandi), A. Maeir ofBar-Ilan University (Tell es-Safi/Gath), D. Master of Wheaton College and L. Stager ofHarvard University (Ashkelon), W. Niemeier of the German Archaeological Institute inAthens (Kalapodi), P. Nahshoni of the Israel Antiquities Authority and Ben Gurion Uni-versity (Patish), D. Ussishkin of Tel Aviv University and E. Cline of George WashingtonUniversity (Megiddo, together with author I. Finkelstein).


structing ancient Israel’s history. In addition, the contribution of conven-tional archaeological research has somewhat diminished, since much of itsinput is now the accumulation of additional data in well-known fields ofthis discipline.Textual exegesis, too, can hardly revolutionize the field, asthe number of new pieces of evidence (texts found at excavations) is limit-ed. Thus, in view of the above-mentioned limitations of biblical archaeol-ogy, the sparsity of available real-time historical records (consisting mainlyof Assyrian sources and inscriptions unearthed in excavations), the biblicaltestimony’s substantial chronological distance from the events that it de-scribes along with the theological agenda not only of its original authorsbut also of many modern scholars, the task of reconstructing the world ofancient Israel accordingly stands in need of new directions and fresh evi-dence. Both can be found in dramatic developments in archaeology in re-cent years.

Biblical archaeology, to date, has dealt mainly with the macroscopic ev-idence, that is, what can be seen by the naked eye – architecture, potteryassemblages and other artifacts, animal bones, settlement patterns etc. Alot of additional information can however be extracted from the micro-ar-chaeological record – the record that is revealed with the help of instru-mentation.2 This includes, for example, the mineralized bodies that plantsproduce (phytoliths) that provide information on the use of plant materi-als at a site; pollen, which may shed light on the paleo-environment andsubsistence practices in the past ; the mineral components of the sedimentsthat may include remnants of ash from wood fires and signs of exposure toelevated temperatures indicating past pyrotechnological practices; themineral components of ceramics which may determine their place of pro-duction and patterns of trade; the organic molecules captured inside ce-ramics which may determine vessel use; and the study of metal objects forreconstructing ancient production processes. Perhaps one of the most im-portant aspects of the micro-archaeological record is the carbon-14 con-centration in organic remains that can provide a reliable absolute chro-nology for archaeological finds and thus help reconstruct the past.

II. The Project

In our European Research Council (ERC) funded project entitled Ancient(Biblical) Israel: The Exact and Life Sciences Perspective, we use a novel ap-

2 S. Weiner, Microarchaeology: Beyond the Visible Archaeological Record (New York: Cam-bridge University Press, 2010).

134 I. Finkelstein et al.

proach to integrate the macro and microscopic archaeological recordsfrom the Iron Age. The project is organized into ten tracks that were for-mulated in order to shed light on five main themes related to ancient(biblical) Israel:

1. The time of Ancient Israel:a. Radiocarbon: correlating the chronology of Ancient Israel with

neighboring lands, especially the Mediterranean basin, as well as en-hancing the dating of the different phases in the Iron Age and deep-ening understanding of relative chronology based on ceramic typol-ogy.

2. The genesis of Ancient Israel :a. Ancient DNA: collected from humans and animals to track origin

and movement of ancient populations.b. Geo-archaeology: understanding formation processes, use of space,

and tracking subsistence economy practices in Ancient Israel by ex-amining sediments in sites that represent Iron Age towns and vil-lages.

c. Palynology: studying cores of sediments from the Dead Sea and Seaof Galilee in order to obtain information on paleoclimate, subsist-ence practices and settlement oscillations.

3. The life of Ancient Israel :a. Ceramic petrography: reconstructing production and trade patterns

in ceramic vessels – the most common type of macro-artifact in thefield.

b. Metallurgy: tracking technological advances, specifically the shiftfrom bronze to iron, during the Iron I–IIA period.

4. The mind of Ancient Israel:a. Daily mathematics of dimensions: examining pottery vessels to dis-

cern, for example, the relationship between units of length and vol-ume for the sake of determining the “mathematical” knowledge ofthe people of the Iron Age.

b. Epigraphy: using advanced computational methodologies in orderto study the development of writing in Israel and Judah.

5. The identity of Ancient Israel:a. Residue analysis: of pottery vessels in order to determine the usage

of vessels, culinary practices and long-distance trade.b. Archaeo-zoology: studying a large number of assemblages from dif-

ferent sub-phases of the Iron Age in different regions and variedcontexts in order to better understand subsistence strategies in thepast.

Reconstructing Ancient Israel 135

In most of the ten tracks the investigations are being conducted with spe-cial reference to both the diachronic and synchronic dimensions. This isdone by comparing finds in one site/region along the chronology scale andcomparing a given assemblage to finds from the same period in other re-gions.

III. The Strategy

An important component of our methodology is the very close integrationof the macro- and microscopic archaeological records starting in the field.In other words, we replace the traditional system of an “expert” comingoccasionally to the site in order to collect samples with a team of archaeol-ogists and researchers from the exact and life sciences alike, some of whomoperate an on-site laboratory. The outcome is a continual sharing ofknowledge – from stratigraphy and architecture to the smallest micro-scopic items.

We integrate the traditional excavation methods with the use of an on-site laboratory (Fig. 1) that enables parts of the microscopic record to berevealed in the real time of the excavation, minimizing the loss of infor-mation by the use of inappropriate excavation methods and sampling pro-cedures. The work then continues in the laboratory after the excavation,

Fig. 1: A laboratory in the field – Megiddo 2010.


subsequently oscillating between field and laboratory. The end product is amore detailed and better integrated understanding of the archaeologicalrecord.

The picture in Figure 2, taken in Area Q at Megiddo in the fall of 2010,demonstrates this integrative approach. It shows a baulk with evidence forfire and broken Iron Age vessels, and a much-tilted floor (on the right).This baulk, along with similar ones in the area, posed difficult questionsregarding accumulation of sediments, reason for the tilting, the nature ofthe fire, and the nature and exact date of the ceramic assemblage. A weekin the field of the entire team – field archaeologists, geo-archaeologists, ra-diocarbon specialists and others – helped to decipher many of these ques-tions. Much of the sediment was laid down after a short abandonment ofthe site. Massive concentrations of phytoliths (mineralized bodies pro-duced in plants) both in the ashy layer and below it indicate that largeamounts of organic material accumulated in this area. The subsequent lossof the organic material by degradation may account for the sinking of thefloor (Fig. 2 right-hand side). Grain seeds in the storage jar in the ashymaterial were radiocarbon dated to the 9th century B.C.E. This integrated

Fig. 2: A baulk in Area Q at Megiddo, showing Iron IIA sediments, demonstrating the inte-gration of macro- and micro-archaeology data in an attempt to resolve stratigraphic prob-lems.


macro- and microarchaeological perspective reflects the fact that the teamwas working together in the field throughout the excavation season. Thefollowing discussion describes some of the results that we have already ob-tained (as of June 2011).

IV. Course of Work and Some Results

1. The Time of Ancient Israel

The application of the integrative approach described above has revolu-tionized the manner in which radiocarbon dating is used to build an abso-lute chronological framework. Radiocarbon dating is all about context. In-deed, some recent studies demonstrate how dating samples originatingfrom insecure contexts can lead research astray.3 Therefore, in order toensure that only samples derived from the most reliable contexts are ana-lysed, a dating project must start with extensive work in the field by thedating experts along with the excavation team. Strict criteria are used todefine such solid contexts whose reliability is documented in the field. Ac-cordingly, our project under the directorship of E. Boaretto has abandonedthe widespread practice of area supervisors collecting samples for datingand then submitting them for analysis to a radiocarbon laboratory. Datingstarts in the field, and the same team then characterizes the quality of thematerials to be dated. For the most commonly used materials for dating –charred botanical remains and bones – strict pre-screening criteria hasbeen developed in order to select the best preserved samples. For bones,the major component of interest is the protein collagen, as it is a short-lived dateable material. Bones are pre-screened for the best preserved col-lagen in the field by using the Fourier Transform Infrared Analysis (FTIR)and the splitting factor of the mineral fraction. The analysis continues inthe laboratory, where FTIR is used to characterize the purity of the colla-gen before the sample is prepared for carbon-14 analysis. The states ofpreservation of charred short-lived organic materials are assessed by mon-itoring the weight losses that are incurred during sample purification pro-cedure (poorly preserved samples lose more weight). FTIR is used to assessthe purity of the charred samples after cleaning, and samples with large

3 E.g., E. Boaretto, “Dating materials in good archaeological contexts: the next challengefor radiocarbon analysis,” Radiocarbon 51 (2009): 275 – 282; A. Fantalkin, I. Finkelstein,and E. Piasetzky, “Iron Age Mediterranean Chronology: A Rejoinder,” Radiocarbon 53(2011): 1 – 20.


proportions of clay (and its associated carbon) are rejected. The carbon-14concentrations are determined by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS).

Ancient Israel was closely connected to other regions in the ancientNear East and the eastern Mediterranean basin. Thus, one of the majorobjectives of this track is to correlate the absolute chronology of the differ-ent phases of the Iron Age Levant, which is fairly well documented, withthe chronologies of neighboring lands, especially the Aegean basin. Therelative chronology of Greece from approximately the 11th–9th centuries B.C.E is well known, but the absolute chronology of the Greek Proto-Geo-metric and Geometric layers depends in many ways on the Levant (Greeksherds found in well-dated Levantine layers).4 The problem is that sherdsof these periods found in the east are either poorly stratified or potentiallyresidual. In order to address this problem we are using the integrative ap-proach (including the field component) to obtain radiocarbon dates fromtwo Iron Age sites in central Greece, namely Lefkandi and Kalapodi.

One objective of the radiocarbon track is to better understand thestrengths and weaknesses of relative dating which is based on pottery seri-ation. For instance, we wish to see whether layers carrying similar potteryassemblages in different parts of the Levant indeed date to the same dec-ades. Our project is essentially a follow-up on the study of high resolutionabsolute chronology of the Iron I/II transition carried out by I. Sharon, A.Gilboa, T.A.J. Jull and Boaretto.5 The resolution of dates in Iron I–IIAdemonstrated that two different events that occur within a century couldbe differentiated. This however requires an extraordinarily large numberof samples, mainly due to the noise introduced into the study by samplesfrom poorly defined contexts.

We also aim to improve our understanding of the absolute chronologyin comparison to the relative ceramic typology by working on sites withdense stratigraphy. Megiddo features about twelve well-distinguished lay-ers with good ceramic assemblages over the approximately six centuries ofthe Late Bronze IB–Iron IIA time span. We are now radiocarbon datingthis sequence and, by doing so, establishing the most detailed radiocarbonframework for a single site in the ancient Near East. These dates are ex-pected to shed light on events related to the history of Ancient Israel. Forinstance, previous work has already hinted that the destruction of the late-Canaanite (late Iron I, late 11th and early 10th centuries B.C.E) cities in the

4 E.g., N. Coldstream, “Some Aegean Reactions to the Chronology Debate in the SouthernLevant,” Tel Aviv 30 (2003): 247 – 258.

5 I. Sharon et al. , “Report on the First Stage of the Iron Age Dating Project in Israel: Sup-porting a Low Chronology,” Radiocarbon 49 (2007): 1 – 46.


Jezreel Valley was a gradual process rather than a result of a single event. Ithas also indicated that the 9th century B.C.E conflicts between the northernkingdom and Aram Damascus left a series of destruction layers in thenorthern valleys. These destructions can probably be affiliated with severaldifferent events.6

2. The Origin and Identity of Ancient Israel: Pigs, Humans andGenetics

The blueprint of life is embedded in the DNA, which is a large and unsta-ble molecule that easily breaks down. Despite the very small amounts ofpreserved ancient DNA, DNA fragments can often be found in fossilbones, probably because they are protected by the mineral.7 With the de-velopment of very powerful molecular biological techniques, even thesesmall semi-degraded fragments can be analysed and the sequences of theircomponents (nucleotides) deciphered. These sequences of nucleotides arein fact the genetic information. The capability of analysing ancient DNAwas developed in the late 1980s8 and over the years the methods have be-come increasingly more powerful. This genetic information can providefascinating insights into different aspects of past life.

In our project directed by M. Meiri, we are addressing two topics usingancient DNA (aDNA): the origin of the pig populations in the Iron AgeLevant and the genetic affinities of humans from different areas within theregion.

Pig bones from the Iron Age exhibit uneven distribution. Their fre-quency depends on the region where the site is located and on the chron-ological phase within the period. While they are fairly commonly found insites affiliated with the Philistines, they are rare or absent in sites in thecentral hills.9 The absence or presence of pigs has been correlated with en-

6 I. Finkelstein and E. Piasetzky, “Radiocarbon-Dated Destruction Layers: A Skeleton forIron Age Chronology in the Levant,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28 (2009): 255 – 274.

7 M. Salamon et al. , “Relatively Well Preserved DNA is Present in the Crystal Aggregates ofFossil Bones,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 102 (2005): 13,783 – 13,788.

8 R. Higuchi et al. , ”DNA sequences from the quagga, an extinct member of the horsefamily,” Nature 312 (1984): 282 – 284.

9 B. Hesse, “Pig Lovers and Pig Haters: Patterns of Palestinian Pork Production,” Journal ofEthnobiology 10 (1990): 195 – 225; idem, “ Husbandry, Dietary Taboos and the Bones ofthe Ancient Near East: Zooarchaeology in the Post-Processual World,” in Methods in theMediterranean: Historical and Archaeological Views on Texts and Archaeology (ed. D.B.Small; Mnemosyne Sup 135; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 197 – 232.


vironmental, social, political and cultural factors.10 In the current study,archaeozoologist L. Sapir-Hen has noticed an interesting dichotomy in thefrequency of pig bones in the Iron II between the lowlands of Israel andthe lowlands of Judah, and demonstrated the complexity of factors influ-encing pork consumption. DNA analysis of pig bones will hopefully shedlight on the origins of the pig populations: Did the so-called “Sea Peoples”bring pigs with them from the Aegean, for example? Were some or all ofthe Iron Age pigs domesticated from the wild indigenous populations justas they were elsewhere in Europe and Asia? And what were the culturalboundaries between populations raising pigs and those with no evidencefor pig husbandry?

The study of preserved DNA in fossil human bones is fraught with thedifficulty of contamination by modern human DNA. Thus, extreme pre-cautions need to be taken to minimize this risk. These precautions includecarrying out the DNA extraction and analysis in ultra-clean laboratories.Our project has involved the construction of such a laboratory. It is alsoimperative to work on the best preserved bones, which have the highestlikelihood of containing well preserved ancient human DNA that can bereliably differentiated from modern contamination. In order to identifysuch bones, S. Ben Dor Evian and M. Cabanes have pre-screened manyfossil animal bones for the presence of the preserved protein in bone calledcollagen, which is much easier to identify than DNA. The rationale is that,because proteins are also unstable, well preserved collagen suggests agreater likelihood for well preserved DNA. This correlation between colla-gen and DNA preservation has been noted in human bones from theChalcolithic period in the Levant.11

Work on this track has only recently started and therefore it will takesome time until we can hope to get first results.

3. Iron Age Settlement Patterns and the Environment: Palynology

The highlands of Canaan, the hub of Ancient Israel, feature sharp settle-ment oscillations in the Bronze and Iron Ages. For instance, in the areabetween the Jezreel and Beer-sheba Valleys the number of sites grew toca. 250 in the Middle Bronze, dropped to ca. 30 in the Late Bronze, andthen grew again to ca. 250 in the Iron I. Taking into consideration thesteppe nature of the eastern and southern parts of this region, these oscil-

10 E. g. , Hesse, “Pig Lovers” (see n. 9); M.A. Zedar, “The Role of Pigs in Near Eastern Sub-sistence: A View from the Southern Levant,” in Retrieving the Past (ed. J.D. Seger; Wi-nona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 297 – 312.

11 Salamon et al. , “Relatively” (see n. 7).


lations could have resulted from small climatic changes. The oscillationsmay also reflect changes in human behavior, such as subsistence practicesinfluenced by economic and social factors rather than climate factors.

A powerful tool that can shed light on these settlement oscillations isthe pollen record in the sediments of the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee.These basins are repositories of pollen transported from the highlands byboth wind and wadi streams. The pollen records can provide informationon the relative quantities of the major vegetation types in the highlands inantiquity and this in turn can reflect both climatic- and human-inducedchanges.

The palynologist D. Langgut is working on sediment cores from the Seaof Galilee and (together with Frank Neumann) the sediments from thenarrow gully of Nahal Zeelim, formed near the shore of the Dead Sea as aresult of the recent drop in sea level (Fig. 3). The sedimentary sequenceexposed in the gulley is now thick-enough to reveal the pollen record ofthe last five millennia. In the Sea of Galilee, members of our team T. Littfrom the University of Bonn and M. Stein from the Hebrew Universitydrilled a core from the center of the lake. In order to shed light on minuteand rapid changes in the vegetation of the highlands, the pollen samplesare analysed at a resolution of ca. 20 years – a resolution not yet attemptedin our region.

Fig. 3: The Nahal Zeelim gully. The pollen record in the sediments reveals the vegetationhistory of the Judean highlands in the last five millennia.


Preliminary results from the sediments of the Zeelim gully indeed showclear oscillations in the pollen record during the Late Bronze and IronAges. In general, fluctuations in the Mediterranean vegetation curve pointto climate changes while fluctuations in the olive pollen curve representchanges in the highlands olive horticulture activity. Tree clearing and pas-ture activities are also evident from the Dead Sea pollen spectrum. Inorder to achieve a proper interpretation we need reliable dates along eachcore. Accordingly, we are now engaged in a rigorous radiocarbon datingproject, including directly dating the pollen itself – a challenging task be-cause of the relatively low pollen concentrations characterizing our re-search area.

4. Domestic Lifestyles in Ancient Israel

The integrated macroscopic and microscopic archaeological records canreveal different aspects of past lifestyles. Under the directorship of R. Sha-hack-Gross, we deploy several analytical tools for this purpose. For under-standing different uses of space we use phosphate and phytolith concen-trations as tracers for locations where organic materials had been deposit-ed in the past (livestock enclosures, dumps, toilets, storage). We useminerals to reconstruct domestic pyrotechnological practices (i. e. , cook-ing, destruction by fire) and to study fuel sources within macroscopic re-mains of ovens and kilns.12 For information on diet and economic prac-tices we use detailed morphotype phytolith analysis, and bones from ani-mals that were eaten (work of L. Sapir-Hen). The key to integrating themacro- and micro-archaeological records in this sub-track is the study ofthin sections of embedded sediments using mainly the petrographic mi-croscope. This so-called micro-morphological approach provides informa-tion on the in situ spatial relations of sediment components as deposited,shedding light on, for example, primary deposition processes by humansversus transport and reworking of sediment components by natural agentssuch as wind and water.13

The difficulty in reconstructing lifestyles relates to abandonment proc-esses. In the normal course of village or town life, houses are not aban-doned and then left untouched. Secondary use of abandoned structures iswidespread, and thus the artifact distribution pattern most likely to befound when excavated will reflect this secondary use. One way of over-

12 R. Shahack-Gross, “Approaches to Understanding Formation of Archaeological Sites inIsrael: Materials and Processes,” Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 56 (2007): 73 – 86.

13 M.A. Courty et al. , Soils and Micromorphology in Archaeology (Cambridge Manu-als in Archaeology; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).


coming this complication is by working on destruction levels. However, itmust also be taken into consideration that during catastrophic events suchas destructions, the macro- and to a lesser extent the micro-artifacts maymore likely reflect the special needs of the moment (preparation for a siegeor for a battle), rather than ”normal” daily lifestyles. Another way to over-come this complication is by studying in detail the processes taking placein abandoned structures.14

Siliceous plant phytoliths are invaluable for reconstructing past life-styles, as they can be used to determine the ways in which plants were usedfor food, construction, fodder, bedding, matting and more.15 D. Cabaneshas critically examined evidence showing that, under certain circumstanc-es, phytoliths can dissolve and/or be abraded. Such taphonomic processescan lead to incorrect interpretations of the phytolith record, especiallywhen determining the ratios between straw and spiklets that originatedfrom cereals.16 This is critical for evaluation of agricultural and herdingpractices. We are now testing these hypotheses by field studies at the ruralIron Age site of Izbet Sartah. As phytolith distributions can be very helpfulin planning the optimal excavation strategy, we developed a rapid methodfor determining phytolith concentrations whereby some 10 to 20 samplescan be processed within 4 – 6 hours (i. e. , from one day to the next).17 Ourwork at Izbet Sartah also demonstrates the potential of using phytolithconcentration in order to delineate the boundaries of a site, including thesurrounding work areas where architectural remains are absent.

We have applied many of these methods to analyse in detail an area atTel es-Safi/Gath that was buried by the events that destroyed the site in thelate 9th century B.C.E.18 We could show that following the actual destruc-tion, erosional processes continued for decades and eventually left an ac-cumulation of destruction debris nearly one meter thick.19

14 D. Friesem et al. , “Degradation of Mud Brick Houses in an Arid Environment: A Geo-archaeological Model,” Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011): 1,135 – 1,147.

15 D.R. Piperno, Phytoliths. A Comprehensive Guide for Archaeologists and Paleoecologists(Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2006).

16 D. Cabanes, S.Weiner and R. Shahack-Gross, “Stability of Phytoliths in the Archaeologi-cal Record: A Dissolution Study of Modern and Fossil Phytoliths,” Journal of Archaeo-logical Science (forthcoming).

17 O. Katz et al. , “Rapid Phytolith Extraction for Analysis of Phytolith Concentrations andAssemblages During an Excavation: An Application at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel,” Journalof Archaeological Science 37 (2010): 1,557 – 1,563.

18 A.M. Maeir, “The Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI 2: An ArchaeologicalPerspective from Tell es-Safi/Gath,” VT 54 (2004): 319 – 334.

19 D. Namdar et al. , “The 9th Century B.C.E Destruction Layer at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel:Integrating Macro- and Microarchaeology” (forthcoming).


An interesting example of how micro-archaeology may reflect on broadhistorical questions is provided by studies carried out in Iron IIA NegevHighlands sites by R. Shahack-Gross (geo-archaeology), Boaretto (radio-carbon) and M. Martin (petrography of pottery vessels). These sites(Fig. 4) were described in the past as “Israelite fortresses” from the time ofKing Solomon that were destroyed in the course of the Sheshonq I cam-paign to Canaan in the second half of the 10th century.20 Other studiesproposed sedentarization processes of local pastoral nomads who prac-ticed mixed pastoral activity and seasonal dry-farming.21 Our sediment in-vestigation in one of these sites indicates that the inhabitants’ subsistenceeconomy was based on animal husbandry, with no evidence for seasonaldry-farming.22 Radiocarbon dating of short-lived samples from two sites

Fig. 4: The Negev Highlands site of Atar Haroa. Extraction of a block with sediments fromthe floor.

20 E.g., R. Cohen, “The Iron Age Fortresses in the Central Negev,” BASOR 236 (1979): 63 –75.

21 I. Finkelstein, Living on the Fringe: The Archaeology and History of the Negev, Sinai andNeighbouring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages (Monographs in Mediterranean Ar-chaeology 6; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1995).

22 R. Shahack-Gross and I. Finkelstein, “Subsistence Practices in an Arid Environment: AGeoarchaeological Investigation in an Iron Age Site, the Negev Highlands, Israel,” Jour-nal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008): 965 – 982.


show that they were inhabited between the second half of the 10th centuryand relatively late into the 9th century,23 rejecting both the notion that theycan be associated with a mid-10th century northern polity and the idea thatthey were destroyed in the late 10th century. Mineralogical observations byMartin show that a certain number of both wheel and hand-made vesselsfrom these sites were produced in the Araba Valley at sites connected withcopper production. This seems to indicate that the inhabitants of theNegev Highlands sites were in contact with the large-scale copper produc-tion centers at Feinan.24 Hence, in this case, micro-archaeology revolu-tionized what we know about the Negev Highlands sites – their nature andtime as well as their inhabitants’ subsistence strategies.

The transformation of raw materials into useful synthetic materials(pyrotechnology) produces some of the most durable components of thearchaeological record, such as ceramics and plaster. A most interestingproduct of pyrotechnology found at Tell es-Safi/Gath from the late Iron Iis hydraulic plaster.25 In addition to the normal calcite component of limeplaster, hydraulic plaster contains a silicate-based additive that polymerizesand contributes to the hardening process. Thus, this type of plaster canharden under water and is therefore called hydraulic plaster. Although it isbest known from the Roman period, there have been reports of hydraulicplaster from as early as the Neolithic Age. The problem is proving that thesilicate component of the plaster was added deliberately and not by acci-dental mixing. In the study of two overlying floors at Tell es-Safi/Gath, weshowed that both were composed of hydraulic plaster and that the silicatephase was deliberately added, judging from the fact that both floors are ofidentical composition and contain silicate minerals obtained from outsidethe local area. It is of particular interest to note that there are reports thathydraulic plaster was used prior to this time in the Aegean,26 raising the

23 For one of the sites see E. Boaretto, I. Finkelstein and R. Shahack-Gross, “RadiocarbonResults from the Iron IIA Site of Atar Haroa in the Negev Highlands and their Archae-ological and Historical Implications,” Radiocarbon 52 (2010): 1 – 12.

24 And possibly also Timna; for more on these sites see T. Levy et al. , “Reassessing theChronology of Biblical Edom: New Excavations and 14C Dates from Khirbet en-Nahas(Jordan),” Antiquity 78 (2004): 865 – 879; idem et al. , “High-Precision RadiocarbonDating and Historical Biblical Archaeology in Southern Jordan,” Proceedings of the Na-tional Academy of Sciences 105 (2008): 16,460 – 16,465; E. Ben-Yosef et al. , “The Begin-ning of Iron Age Copper Production in the Southern Levant: New Evidence from Khir-bat al-Jariya, Faynan, Jordan,” Antiquity 84 (2010): 724 – 746.

25 L. Regev et al. , “Iron Age hydraulic plaster from Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel,” Journal of Ar-chaeological Science 37 (2010): 3,000 – 3,009.

26 A. Brysbaert, The Power of Technology in the Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean: TheCase of Painted Plaster (Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 12; London: Equi-nox Publication, 2008).


interesting possibility that this skill was brought from that region to theLevant by the Sea Peoples.

Based on the findings of metal artifacts, during the early period of theIron Age, bronze was still the most commonly produced metal in the Le-vant.27 Very little, however, is known about the modes of production ofbronze and iron and about the pace of transition from one metal to theother. N. Yahalom-Mack and A. Eliyahu-Behar’s detailed excavation of asmall Iron IIA (9th century B.C.E) area from a stratum at Tell es-Safi/Gathrevealed the remains of a metal “workshop” that essentially comprised afew macroscopic metal associated artifacts (mainly a crucible, a few tuyerefragments and a piece of slag) and a fairly rich microscopic record. Themicroscopic data showed that bronze and iron alike were produced at thesite, based on the analysis of a lined pit and another depression containingiron hammerscales.28 The fact that so few macroscopic artifacts were foundprobably explains why such workshops could easily have been overlookedin other, more traditional excavations.

5. Ritual Practices in Ancient Israel

Information on ritual practices is most often derived from the macroscop-ic record, mainly in the form of architecture (temples, shrines, alters, etc.)and ceramic objects whose style might suggest some form of ritual prac-tice. One such ceramic object is the so-called “chalice” – a bowl on a highleg-shaped base. Chalices are often found in ritual architectural contexts aswell as in domestic contexts, which casts some doubt on their use as ritualobjects. D. Namdar’s analysis of the small lipid (fat) molecules preserved invoids inside the ceramic of chalices from an Iron IIA repository pit at thesite of Yavneh in Philistia showed that many of the samples containedmolecules that could produce fragrances and, in some cases, hallucinogen-ic effects – properties consistent with the use of chalices in a ritual con-text.29 Similar molecules were found by our team in chalices from twoother contemporary sites in Philistia.30

27 Recently Y. Gottlieb, “The Advent of the Age of Iron in the Land of Israel: A Review andReassessment,” Tel Aviv 37 (2010): 89 – 110.

28 A. Eliyahu-Behar et al. , “Iron and Bronze Production in Iron Age IIA Philistia: NewEvidence fromTell es-Safi/Gath, Israel,” Journal of Archaeological Science (forthcoming).

29 D. Namdar, R. Neumann and S. Weiner, “Residue analysis of chalices from the reposi-tory pit,” in Yavneh I. The Excavation of the “Temple Hill” (ed. R. Kletter, I. Ziffer, and W.Zwickel; OBO Series Archaeologica 30; Fribourg: Academic Press, 2010), 167 – 173; D.Namdar et al. , “Hallucination-Causing Compounds in Votive Objects from an Iron AgePhilistine Repository Pit, Israel,” Antiquity (forthcoming).

30 Y. Gadot et al. , “Chalices in Iron Age Philistia: Production, Function and Content”(forthcoming).


The analysis of these ceramic derived lipid molecules (known as “resi-due analysis”) is proving to be an important source of information in theLevant not only for identifying ritual practices, but also for deducing ves-sels’ contents and from this information shedding light on topics such asfoodways and trade. We are pursuing both of these questions.

In a detailed study of one area at Tell es-Safi/Gath we observed thatthere was a clear-cut correlation between the absence of lipids in ceramicfragments and associated sediments exposed to elevated temperatures. Thelatter determination was based on the alteration of the clays in the sedi-ments in which the fragments were buried. We thus demonstrated thatresidue analysis studies should also begin in the field with a detailed studyof the contexts in which the ceramics are found.31

6. The Mind of Ancient Israel and its Neighbors

Can modern research shed light on intellectual abilities of Iron Age Lev-antine people, such as mathematical capability? One way to address this isto use pottery vessels in order to evaluate the ability of people to carry outelaborate measurement in estimating the volumes of valuable commodi-ties. Most pottery vessels, including those that served for trade, do nothave a simple shape, e. g. , cube, sphere or cylinder, and therefore estimat-ing their volume requires a sophisticated knowledge, at least on the practi-cal level (i. e. , without awareness of complicated mathematical formulae).

An interesting example is the “torpedo”-shaped storage jar of the IronIIB in the 8th century B.C.E. Torpedo jars have a cylindrical body, a pointedbase and a right-angle rim. Petrographic analysis shows that they wereproduced in sites along the Phoenician coast.32 Two shipwrecks with hun-dreds of “torpedo” storage jars were found in deep waters in the south-eastern Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Ashkelon. A robot removed 22of the vessels for further investigation.33 The cargo found in the two ship-wrecks seems to consist of a single loading “event,” a single port of origin,a single commodity and possibly a single production center. I. Benenson,L. Zapassky and Y. Gadot measured these jars as well as other “torpedo”jars from land sites in Israel. The results show that the jars from the ship-wreck constitute a special sub-type and evince a high level of standardiza-

31 Namdar et al. , “The 9th Century” (see n. 19).32 C.A. Aznar, Exchange Networks in the Southern Levant during the Iron Age II: A Study of

Pottery Origin and Distribution (Ph.D. thesis; Cambridge: Harvard University, 2005),66 – 68, 157 – 160.

33 R.D. Ballard et al. , “Iron Age Shipwrecks in Deep Water off Ashkelon, Israel,” AJA 106(2002): 151 – 168.


tion. Since the jars were produced in Phoenicia, where Egyptian culturehad been greatly influential since proto-historical times, and since theywere made for Egyptian customers,34 we analysed their dimensions inEgyptian units. We noted a link between the units of length and volume:the height of the cylindrical part of the jar is close to one Egyptian royalcubit (52.3 centimeters). In the case that the circumference of the jar is onecubit and two palms, the volume is four Egyptian hekats (19.2 liters). Thisinteresting relation between units of length and volume in storage jarsbuilt for maritime trade does not hold for the inland Judahite royal storagejars of the lmlk type, which were produced with a different system ofmeasurements in mind.

Another strong connection to the intellect of Ancient Israel is the de-velopment of the Hebrew script. Scholars proposed a clear line of develop-ment for the ancient Hebrew letters according to the study of inscriptions(mainly ostraca).35 These studies depend on the production of facsimilesand are therefore influenced by the subjective eye (and mind) of thescholar. A. Shaus, B. Sober and S. Faigenbaum – with the help of a team ofphysicists, chemists and mathematicians – aim to overcome this difficulty.Our first objective was to produce an automated facsimile of an ostracon.Attempts to do this using a laser that causes emission of a light signal fromthe surface of the ostracon (Raman spectroscopy) showed that the ink sig-nal differs from that of the ceramic. Thus, the ink distribution can bemapped. However, the method is not practical due to the considerableamount of time required to produce a single facsimile. Spectral imaging ofostraca was also attempted using visual color and infrared wavelengths, inorder to determine which wavelengths are optimum for improving thelegibility of ostraca. Images taken around the optimum wavelength (in theregion 500 – 800 nm) provide significantly improved readability comparedto the usual color images of ostraca. The team also developed a facsimilequality evaluation method which enables different facsimiles to be com-pared for the same ostracon, allowing objective identification of the bestfacsimile.36 The next and most important phase in this track will be thedeployment of computerized methods in order to compare letters in dif-

34 L.E. Stager, “Phoenician Shipwrecks in the Deep Sea,” in Sea Routes: Interconnections inthe Mediterranean 16th–6th c. BC (ed. N. Stampolidis and V. Karageorghis; Athens:University of Crete and the A. G. Leventis Foundation, 2003), 233 – 247.

35 E. g. , J. Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphyand Palaeography (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1987).

36 A. Shaus, I. Finkelstein, and E. Piasetzky, ”Avoiding the Eye of the Beholder : AutomatedOstraca Facsimile Evaluation” (forthcoming).


ferent ostraca and corpora of ostraca. This will be the ultimate test of theelaborate theories regarding the development of Hebrew letters.

V. Concluding Comment

This large and diverse project is already producing interesting results thatshed light on ancient (biblical) Israel. The hallmarks of this project involveour development of new analytical techniques and approaches to manydifferent problems, our integration of field work with laboratory work in-cluding laboratory work in the field, and our focus on an approximately600 year period that was undoubtedly a fascinating time in the Levant. Al-though the project is just half way along, we expect to produce new in-sights into the archaeology of this period and illuminate problems relatedto the history of ancient Israel. We also anticipate developing new meth-ods and approaches that can be applied to many other periods and regionsthroughout the world.

Israel FinkelsteinProfessor of ArcheologyTel Aviv UniversityTel Aviv, Israel [email protected]


mohr siebeck volume 1 · mohr siebeck 1 volume 1 ... various factors of language, economics, ......

Documents