To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Exodus 3:14 again (long)
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:44:07 -0500
Some weeks ago I promised a more detailed
justification of my reading of Ex 3:14 as a flash of divine
irritation. It took longer than I expected (among other things, my
library finally got hold of a copy of Propp's piquant and informative
commentary, which I had to absorb), but here it is, with my apologies for
the delay.
This reading grows out of an effort-in-progress to produce a version of
the Exodus tale presentable in what I take to have been its original form
as a heard rather than a read work. (Please note that it's oral
*delivery* I'm assuming, not oral composition.) Consequently, some
caveats are in order:
1) My project focuses on subtext, not text or supertext. This
essentially inferential and intuitive approach will not commend itself to
readers who require rigorously documented analysis of grammatical
categories.
2) My project seeks to reconstruct an Ur-text. This source-critical
approach can only distress readers convinced of Torah's historical
unity.
3) My project dwells on the interplay of conflicting intentions and
actions. This dramatistic approach exposes me to the charge raised
(and, thank you Peter, mitigated) by Peter Kirk:
>> PETER KIRK: . . . and your whole approach can be accused of
excessive anthropomorphism of the deity. But I think it could reasonably
be argued that this would fit well with the original genre of this
exchange and the theology of its author, cf. the very anthropomorphic
YHWH of Genesis 3:8-13 and 18:16-33. <<
Exactly so. I don't merely concede, I insist on an anthropomorphic
YHWH: without anthropomorphism there's no story. But it will
annoy readers who insist upon a God without body, parts or
passions.
I'll respond first to some specific objections that have been raised;
then lay out my contextual argument; and conclude with my source-critical
speculations.
A. SOME OBJECTIONS
Trevor appears to be arguing (I may still misunderstand him) that since
the Deity commands Moses to "tell the Israelites that _)HYH_ sent
you", we must regard this as a serious self-identification.
Against this I urged the uniqueness of _)HYH_:
>> SB: But surely the fact that the designation is never used again
suggests very strongly that we should NOT take seriously the implication
that His name is 'ehyeh? <<
>> TREVOR PETERSON: Actually, a number of names for God in the
Hebrew Bible are specific to the occasion, and in this case obviously it
would be highly context-driven. <<
>> DAN WAGNER: Several other divine names are singularly revealed,
e.g., "Jehovah-Jireh," Yahweh-Is-There, Yahweh-Rophe,
Yahweh-Zidkenu come to mind but many more. Each is contextually relevant
to the needs of the moment, and the one in Ex. 3 is no exception.
<<
Trevor and Dan are quite right; I "very strongly" overstated my
case. On the other hand: those nonce-names are compounds which
combine a "context-driven" epithet with either _YHWH_ or
_)L_ real names which are used independently and repeatedly.
_)HYH_, by contrast, is
a) never used before this occurrence, which suggests that it couldn't
satisfy Moses' "contextually relevant" need for a recognized
divine name which might provide him credentials. Note that in the
parallel P passage at 6:2, the Deity ties YHWH, the new name he is
introducing, to a known old name, 'El Shaddai, which establishes
his identity.
b) never used after this occurrence, which suggests that in the event
it's *not* offered to the sons of Israel as a symbolic standard for the
liberation movement. Within a dozen verses, in fact, at 4:1, it is
as an emissary of "YHWH" that Moses projects presenting
himself, with no mention of "_)HYH_" .
The evidence thus seems clear to me that the name by which Moses is to
identify his commissioner is *not* _)HYH_ but _YHWH_, as instructed in
3:15.
Then why does YHWH give Moses two different names and two different
instructions? Dan appears to argue that in fact it's a single, continuous
instruction:
>> DAN WAGNER: _YHWH_ is likely related to, or at least an
intentional allusion to, _)HYH_, which would explain the follow-up here.
<<
"Related," possibly. "An intentional allusion,"
very likely. But is the wordplay subtextual or supertextual is it
YHWH's allusion, or the author's? At any rate, the argument for
continuous instruction seem to me to founder on the interposed _WY)MR (WD
)LHYM )L-MSH_. A quick survey of Exodus shows no other instance
where _WY)MR_ interrupts a continuous speech by the Deity.
6:2, 7:19
and 8:5 are generally held to mark editorial junctures between P and JE
material. 30:11,17,22
& 34 and 31:1 & 12 mark distinct changes of subject, and may also
mark editorial junctures. 24:1 and
34:27 mark resumption of the action after the Deity's recitation of
detailed codes; 34:1 marks a new action 32:9 marks
a narrative digression (which may also be an interpolation)
33:19,20, 21, which at first glance appear to challenge my contention, in
fact provide the clearest parallel. Each new _WY)MR_ , I suggest,
marks a pause for reconsideration: *I'll make My goodness pass before you
. . . *[ BUT:]You can't see My face . . . *[ SO:]Here's a place . .
."
The obvious narrative form for a single and continuous instruction would
have been a single and continuous speech. Unless you want to take
v.14 as an interpolation (in which case ALL bets are off), the speech
heading here has to mark *something*. Even if you read it as
"and the Deity kept on speaking to Moses," I see no way to
avoid taking it as breaking the speech in two and distinguishing the two
instructions as belonging to distinct beats.
In fairness, I must mention a mediaeval reading cited by Propp which
accommodates both the break and the continuity: that the Deity, having
Himself defined His name in the first person, interrupts himself to
provide a third-person equivalent which Moses and the Israelites may use
with propriety. This is very sensible reading, however, doesn't
contribute much to the dramatic context.
B. A DRAMATIC READING
I thank Dan in particular for reading my argument in the story-centered
dramatic context I intended:
>> DAN WAGNER: In isolation this may be possible, but what
contextual evidence is there that Moses was asking a frustrating
question? Granted, there was plenty about Moses' responses in his calling
dialogue that "annoyed" God, if i could use that term.
But it seems to be a progression, and the anger comes in chapter 4:14.
Your view that it comes so early in the progression seems unusual and
out-of-order in the narrative to me. <<
Well, frustration is the basic premise of the story: YHWH sends
Moses to bring out the Israelites, and Moses resists the
commission. Any objection or obstacle or delay is, by definition,
frustrating; the mere fact of the question frustrates, quite apart from
its content. Granted, there are frustrations and frustrations
arguments presented with a becoming humility will mollify YHWH's
displeasure, as for instance Abraham, in Gen 18, successfully persuades
YHWH to mitigate His judgments. But we see nothing of that
here. On the contrary, Moses repeatedly interrupts, bluntly and
shamelessly. And I believe we see YHWH replying
appropriately. Note, for instance, that He never gives Moses a
simple, straightforward answer; hostile wordplay and rhetoric betray His
growing impatience.
Look at it from YHWH's point of view. He's conceived a dandy plan
for rescuing the sons of Israel from the strong arm of Egypt. To
recruit Moses He prepares what anyone in my line of business would
recognize as a classic Client Proposal (an exciting mulitimedia Attractor
. . . a sonorous recitation of Credentials leaning particularly on the
past relationship with the Client . . . a disturbing analysis of
Project Needs . . . an alluring description of Project Benefits . . . and
a stirring Call to Action). But before He gets beyond the Executive
Summary Moses interrupts with a distinctly negative "Who,
me?"
YHWH has blundered. Moses' last attempt to intervene between Israel
and Egypt has cost him long days of exile; he is the very last Hebrew to
respond with the eager and indeed grateful acquiescence YHWH
expects. YHWH hastens to assure him that this time it will be
different because Moses will enjoy divine support; but His phrasing
betrays his pique: not just _)HYH (MT_ but _KY )HYH (MT_. I
don't see any translation for that particle quotation marks,
"certainly," or "because" which so materially
modifies the sense of the clause it introduces that its inclusion must be
regarded as obligatory. It's a stylistic choice by the author, and
the strict syntactic parallel with Moses' question cannot be accidental:
_KY )LK_ . . . _WKY )WCY_ . . . _KY )HYH_. There has to be at
least a whiff of this meaning:
"Who
am I, that I should go to Pharaoh and that I should bring out the sons of
Israel from Egypt?" "
that I should be with you?" . . .
It's a little joke at Moses' expense, not exactly hostile, but not
exactly warm, either a verbal lift of the divine eyebrow, so to
speak, which should warn Moses to watch his step and his
manner.
(And by the way: if anybody can come up with an idiomatic English
translation that will preserve that balance between the indicative and
the subjuntive senses of _)HYH_ I'd be very grateful to hear
it.)
At 3:13 Moses puts forward a demand for his interlocutor's
identity. If he knows Who it is he's talking with, he's being
extraordinarily insolent, and the suggestion that YHWH's reply reflects
His aversion to being asked His name is correct. I suspect that
Moses is genuinely ignorant; he knows his interlocutor is *a* deity but
not *which*, and he's being politely circumspect in asking. (That
suspicion, however, is partly grounded on my belief that this is a J
text: it explains why the author for these few lines (3:11-15) use
_)LHYM_.)
At any rate, the question annoys YHWH: it's not just an interruption, it
in effect points out that He hasn't thought His plan through. As I
said before, he barks "I'll be who I'll be!" and follows this
with a sarcastic invitation to "Tell the sons of Israel I'll-be sent
you!" He then gets hold of Himself and answers Moses' question by
correcting His earlier instruction: "Tell the sons of Israel that
*YHWH,* god of their fathers ... sent you," explaining with
pointedly patient emphasis that "*This* is my name forever, *this*
is my designation age after age."
He then resumes His presentation: "Go and collect the elders of
Israel and tell them that YHWH . . . appeared to you. . . . "
When He's done, Moses ignores the good parts even the really nifty
scheme for providing Israel with startup capital and starts carping
about practical details again "What if they don't listen . . .
and don't believe that YHWH appeared to me?" This time YHWH
doesn't bother to answer; He offers Moses a demonstration. His
practical joke sends Moses running in terror, and YHWH remarks "so
they'll believe that YHWH . . . has appeared to you." The
hanging clause here, like that in 3:12, suggests at least a certain
wryness; I find it hard not to hear "That'll teach you!" in the
subtext.
Moses raises yet another objection, and YHWH's patience is wearing thin;
He responds with a barrage of rhetorical questions before renewing His
promise of assistance. Moses continues to dig in his heels. . .
It's not at all clear what his next remark means; the plain sense is
obviously incompatible with YHWH's anger, but I don't see how translators
find "Send somebody else" in it. Perhaps YHWH interrupts
before Moses finishes saying "Send whom you please but *I'm*
not going." . . . At any rate, YHWH's irritation finally flares into
open rage.
SOME HIGHER-CRITICAL SPECULATIONS
Until now I've dealt with the text as we've received it; to advance my
argument beyond this point I have to venture onto the shakier ground of
source analysis. This post is getting far too long, so I'll hold
off on detailed argument until somebody evinces an interest. Briefly, I
see in the numerous narrative anomalies throughout Chapters 3 and 4 signs
not of the combination of two distinct versions but of a single original
text augmented and rearranged, probably by more than one hand, to reflect
theological and theopolitical rather than narrative values.
1) The initial call (4:19-20a) has been moved here from its natural place
following Pharaoh's death at 2:23b; a new introduction has replaced it
(3:1-2a, 4b-5,6b); and the "sign" (3:12b) and the return to
Jethro (4:18) have been interpolated, all in order to locate the calling
at Horeb.
2) Aaron's appointment (4:14b-16) and introduction (4:27-28) have been
added - probably in the first instance to bring him into the story for
the Golden Calf and Cushite Wife episodes, but with subsequent
additions/revisions reflecting Aaron's later standing.
3) Wonders, instructions and explanations have been interpolated at the
end of Chapter 3 (3:19-22), after the prank (4:4,6-9), and at 4:20b-23(or
maybe -22a, see below), and the sequence of speeches appears to have been
altered (Moses' objection at 3:13 presupposes some such instruction as
3:15, but without the name YHWH, his objection at 4:1 catches up YHWH's
words at 3:16-17 (or -18a), and his plea at 4:10 follows the instruction
to speak at 3:18 (or 18b) more naturally than the signs in 4:1-9)
all in order to focus the narrative on YHWH's power and majesty rather
than His very undignified and, yes, anthropomorphic squabbling with
Moses.
If I'm correct in these conjectures, then in the story as originally
composed it is Moses' whining which provokes YHWH to homicidal
fury.
If I may suppose the redactor to have altered the text, as well as
rearranging and augmenting it, we might find YHWH saying "Israel's
My firstborn son, and I keep telling you to BRING My son out so he can
serve Me, and you won't BRING him out look, I'm going to kill
*your* son, *your* firstborn!" and proceeding to try to do so.
And if these conjectures aren't wild enough: suppose, as Propp
speculates, that there has been a systematic effort to replace a Mosaic
succession through Gershom and Eliezer with an Aaronic succession through
Gershon and Eleazer; and that as he also speculates a XOTEN denotes a
bridegroom/circumcisee placed under "blood protection" by
marriage to the daughter of his XATAN, father-in-law/circumcisor; then
perhaps it is *YHWH's* feet Zipporah smears with blood, YHWH whom she
calls XOTEN, and YHWH's service to whom the child is dedicated and
4:26b has been censored by the Aaronides, having originally read
something like "And she called his name Eliezer, saying 'Now God
must protect him, because of the circumcision.'"
Or perhaps not.
But it makes a good story!
A final note: The rhythm of this reconstruction mirrors that of the major
narrative it introduces: Pharaoh constantly trying to wriggle out of
doing what he's commanded, the Deity threatening, relenting, and
threatening again on a rising scale rising from the humorous to the
frightening to the homicidal. The wilderness narrative, too,
appears to echo this rhythm in the relationship between YHWH and Israel,
which although the dynamic progression (if there ever was any) has been
obscured, perhaps hopelessly, by subsequent redaction.
I welcome your comments.
Exodus 3:14 again (long),
Stoney Breyer, 07/20/2001