\TK
ANNEX
5
074
623
THE ELOHIST NARRATIVE IN EXODUS 3:1 15
3!
0!
5
2
jri,I.\X MORC.KXSI T.KN
08
i i
G ^
O <$
rrt
S
:rnni
THE ELOHIST NARRATIVE IN EXODUS 3:1-15
BY JULIAN MORGENSTERN
Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio
The third chapter of Exodus is interesting for many reasons,
in general because of its far-reaching historical significance, and in
particular because it contains the account of the theophany in the
so-called "burning" bush and of the revelation of the supposedly
divine name, ^ehyeh ^ser ^ehyeh, which have furnished so much
occasion for speculation and critical acumen.
The chapter has been recognized by all biblical scholars as
composite. Thus, verse 9 manifestly repeats the thought of verse 7.
Moreover, the inconsequential use of both {"HIT and DTibfct for
the deity, and particularly the sudden transition from one to the
other, as, for example, in verse 4, as well as the easily recognized
presence of other significant characteristics of the two sources,
indicate that the chapter contains elements drawn from both the
Elohist and Yahwist documents. Upon this practically all scholars
are agreed.
But there is by no means absolute unanimity of opinion in the
analysis of the chapter into its component sources, as the following
table of analyses (p. 243), made by various biblical scholars since
the appearance of Holzinger's tables, 1 will show. This table indi-
cates that Bacon inaugurated a more detailed and searching analysis
of the chapter than had been made previously and that the majority
of scholars since have followed him in his main conclusions. It
may be remarked in passing that of all these scholars, Harford alone
assigns verse 15 to the main Elohist narrative and verse 14 to some
other source. Likewise all these scholars, with the exception of
Addis and Driver, whose analyses, however, are, as can be seen, very
vague, assign verse 5 to J.
1 Einleitung in den Hexateuch (1893), Appendix, 6, where the analyses of Dillmann,
Klttel, Wellhausen, Kuenen, Jiilicher, Cornill, and Driver, and preliminary analyses of
Eduard Meyer and Bacon are given in tabular form.
242
2092663
THE ELOHIST NARRATIVE IN EXODUS 3:1-15
243
Name
E
J
R
Addis*
1-3; 46-6; 9-15
4a; 7-8
Baconf
l;t 46;} 6; 9-14
2-4o; 5; 7-8
RD 86; 15
Kautzsch. . .
13-14
1-12 JE
15
Driver ||
1-6; 9-15
7-8
1 1 " il/i 111:1 -r
1; 46; 60; 9-12o;
2-4a; 5; 6&-7
RJE 8; 126; 15o
Harford**
13-14; 156
1; 46; 6; 96-13; 15
2-4o; 5; 7-9a; 14
14 (traces of RJE)
Baentschtt
l;t 46;1 6; 9-14
2-4a; 5; 7-8a
RJE 86- R 15
ProckschJi
1; 26; (36-ia?); 46;
2o; 26; 3o; 5; 7-8a
Meyer
6-14
1't 46;1 6; 9-14
2-4o; 5- 7-8}
Gressmann|| ||
1; 46; 6; 9-14
2-4o; 5; 7-8
6a
* The Documents of the Hexateuch (1892).
t The Triple Tradition of the Exodus (1894).
J Meyer and Gressmann regard v. 15 as the work of E2, and Gressmann regards
w. 9-13 as also the work of E2. Bacon, Baentsch, and Meyer regard 111T3 IflD in v. 1
and n20n "TIFltt in v. 46 as redactorial, while in addition Meyer would emend T1S1
of v. 8 to TIKI or iniTn
Die Heilige Schrift des Alien Testaments* (1896).
|| Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament 7 (1898).
1 Exodus, in Marti's " Handkommentar " series (190O).
** In Carpenter and Harford, Introduction to the Hexateuch (1902).
ft Exodus, in Nowack's "Handkommentar" series (1903).
Jt Das nordhebraische Sagenbuch Die Elohimquelle (1906).
Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstamme (1906).
|| || Mose und seine Zeit (1913)..
Speaking for the present in a general way, we may unhesitatingly
follow Bacon and his successors in assigning to the Elohist source
verses 1; 46; 6; 9-15. These verses exhibit numerous characteristic
indications of Elohistic authorship, such as the consistent use of
DTlbK for the deity; the designation of the father-in-law of Moses
by the name of Jethro, whereas the Yahwist document calls him
Reuel (2:18); the use of the name Horeb for the holy mountain,
the double STSE PHSE in 46; the motive of Moses hiding his face out
of fear of looking upon the deity; 1 and the motive of the revelation
for the first time of the divine name, Yahwe, to Moses on this occa-
sion, whereas, according to J, the name Yahwe was known already to
Abraham (Gen. 12:8) or even from the days of Sheth (Gen. 4:26).
On the other hand, verses 7 and 8 and also 16-22 with equal
certainty belong to the Yahwist source. Characteristic thereof
the statement of verse 8 that Yahwe has come down to deliver
> Cf. my "Biblical Theophanies" in Zeitschrift filr Assyriologie XXV (1912) 168
tually appea/ed't?Mose 3 2. 16;'
that Moses could behold and speak
244 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
Israel, with its implication that normally Yahwe dwells in heaven,
or at least in some place on high (cf. Gen. 11:5; Exod. 19:18;
34:5), and also the description of the land of Canaan as "a land
flowing with milk and honey," 1 and the reference to the pre-Israelite
nations of Palestine, 2 This same description of the land is repeated
in verse 17, while in verses 16-22 we note the characteristic Yahwist
motive that Moses could behold and speak to Yahwe face to face
(cf. Exod. 33:11; Num. 12:8); the reference to the elders as the
leaders of the people; the designation of Yahwe as the God of their
fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; 3 the reference in
verse 18 to the three days' journey into the wilderness (cf. Exod 5:3;
8 : 23) ; and likewise the motive of the despoiling of the Egyptians in
verses 21 ff. (cf. Exod. 11:2; 12:35 f.).
Actually verses 16-22 merely forecast the Yahwist account of
the future course of events in Egypt, and are rather bound up with
the continuation of the narrative than an integral part of the account
of the theophany itself. This is contained in verses 1-15. And in
this narrative a moment's consideration shows that the basis of the
account of the theophany is furnished by the Elohist, while the
Yahwist has supplied only the .secondary, amplificatory, and, in
verses 7-8, duplicative material.
Our first task, therefore, is to analyze verses 1-6 and separate
the secondary Yahwistic matter from the primary Elohistic. That
there is Yahwistic matter in these verses is proved by the sudden and
violent transition from Yahwe to Elohim in verse 4. Certainly 4a
belongs to J, and 46, as said above, to E. Furthermore, 4a implies
that something unusual, and even extraordinary, is to be seen, which
i Cf. Carpenter and Harford, op. cit., p. 386. No. 34.
1 Op. cit., p. 197.
Only J could speak logically of Yahwe as the God of the Fathers, Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, since according to him alone Yahwe was truly and completely known by them
under his right name. Since the Elohist represents this name, and therefore the true and
full nature of Yahwe, according to fundamental Semitic religious conceptions, as being
revealed to Moses, and through Moses to Israel, only now, he could scarcely have con-
ceived of Yahwe as being in the full sense of the word the God of their ancestors, and
have spoken of him as such. Moreover, as we shall see, the sequel of the Elohist tradi-
tion here is found in Exodus, chapters 18 ff., and implies that when Israel came to this
mountain, as was foretold in v. 12 of this chapter, it entered into a covenant with Yahwe;
in other words, according to the Elohist, the true and complete worship of Yahwe by
Israel began only with Moses' and Israel's advent at Horeb. For this reason, too, the
Elohist could hardly have called Yahwe the God of their fathers.
THE ELOHIST NARRATIVE IN EXODUS 3:1-15 245
impels Moses to turn aside. What that is, is stated in 26 and 3.
It is not merely the theophany of the deity in the bush, but rather
the fact that the bush burns without being consumed. Certainly
this is something sufficiently abnormal to warrant turning aside for
further examination. Accordingly 4a implies as its necessary
precedent 26 and 3, while 26 in turn implies 2a. Verses 2-4a then
clearly belong to J, as is indicated also by the reference to the "j&OE
m*T in 2a.
Verse 46 then would be the direct continuation in the Elohist
narrative of verse 1. And it is significant that not only is this
connection most apposite, but also that the passage becomes fully
intelligible only when verses 2-4a are eliminated from the basic
Elohist narrative. The Yahwist insertion, verses 2-4a, coupled
with the statement of verse 8, implies that the maPak Yahwe, or,
as the original must have had it, Yahwe himself, had descended from
his abode on high, in the form of a fiery apparition characteristic of
J, 1 here specifically stated to be a 1EN FQ5, a flame of fire, and
momentarily entered into the bush only for this one particular
theophany; but it does not in the least imply a constant and physical
contact or relationship between Yahwe and this bush, that, in other
words, Yahwe dwelt permanently in this bush, and that the bush
was therefore constantly enveloped in fire, and yet not consumed.
Just the opposite is implied in the Elohist narrative. In the
first place, this is not just a bush, any bush at all, that happened to
be growing on the top of the mountain, but is in every case HDCH ,
"the bush," invariably with the article. The question immediately
arises: "Why the article; what particular bush is this ?" And the
answer is promptly furnished by the expression HDD "OS'S , "the
dweller in the bush," applied to Yahwe in Deut. 33:16, likewise, in
all probability, just as the Elohist Code, the product of the Northern
Kingdom, and therefore reflecting in all likelihood a northern con-
ception of the original abode of Yahwe. There, it is true, HDD is
used without the article. But it is clear that the expression does not
mean that Yahwe dwells in any bush, or in any fijC , whatever it
may have actually been, but in some particular HDD; that, in other
1 Cf. my "Biblical Theophanies," loc. cit., pp. 153-58.
246 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
words, r"i!C is here used as a proper name, equivalent to the t~I3Dn
with the article in Exodus, chapter 3.
From this it becomes clear that the Elohist author of the main
narrative of Exodus, chapter 3, conceived of Yahwe as dwelling
permanently in the 5120 , just as is implied in the expression "'I'DiE
J"I3D of Deut. 33:16. His connection with this bush is not casual
and temporary, as the J writer conceived of it, but is normal and
constant. He dwells in this bush permanently, and there he may
always be found. Hence the article, "I3Cn, "the bush," the par-
ticular bush which is always distinguished by the presence of Yahwe
in it; hence also the otherwise altogether meaningless and incom-
prehensible designation of this mountain upon which the bush
stands, and upon which, therefore, Yahwe dwells, as the DTlbtfn "lH ,
"the mountain of God"; and hence, also, the fact that the ground
immediately surrounding the bush is !2np rfiJTS, "holy" or
"taboo ground," rendered so by the, not accidental and temporary,
but constant, presence of Yahwe in its midst ; therefore it must not be
trodden with impunity or with shod feet. The prescribed ritual
manner of approach to this sacred spot is with bare feet. The J
motive of the chance and momentary presence of Yahwe in this
bush would not account at all for the inviolate character of this
spot, or, at least, it would not account for it nearly as well or as
logically as does the E tradition of the constant and permanent
residence of Yahwe in this place. This is, to use the ancient Arabic
term, a hima, a spot sanctified by the residence of a deity within it. 1
Accordingly it becomes clear that the original Elohist tradition
knew nothing at all of the theophany in the burning bush. The
"burning" element of this composite tradition comes from J alone,
1 Cf. Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites*, pp. 156 t. The peculiar, fragmentary
legend recorded in Josh. 5:13-15 is undoubtedly closely related to this passage in
Exodus 3. Practically all scholars are agreed that the present literary form of that
passage is quite late, and is directly dependent upon Exod. 3:5. Because of the almost
total absence of characteristic indications the great majority of the scholars refrain from
any attempt to determine whether the passage is specifically from J or E, and content
themselves with calling it JE. Holzinger (Joshua, p. 12) concludes, rather hesitatingly,
however, that it is J, while Steuernagel (Joshua, p. 169) infers with equal hesitation that
the passage comes from E. Kittel asserts far more positively that this passage is the
work of E (Geschichte Israels 1 , I, 255). However, in view of the obvious and universally
conceded dependence and lateness of the present literary form of the legend, the decision
as to whether it comes from J or E can be of little or no significance for the solution of the
problem of the authorship of Exod. 3 : 5.
THE ELOHIST NARRATIVE IN EXODUS 3:1-15 247
and is altogether secondary. The original Elohist tradition told
simply and naturally that Moses, herding the sheep of his father-in-
law, comes purely by chance to a mountain on the western edge of
the wilderness ("G"T2n "IHX). There, suddenly and entirely unex-
pectedly, he hears a strange voice speaking to him from a bush upon
the mountain, into the vicinity of which he had involuntarily strayed ,
and from the words uttered and the charge conveyed, he realizes
that he has come into a hima, or sacred spot, and that in this bush a
certain deity is dwelling; for this reason the ground around the
bush is holy. Such was the simple and natural content of the origi-
nal Elohist narrative. Accordingly verse 5, contrary to the opinion
of all biblical scholars hitherto, must be unhesitatingly assigned to E.
But what deity was this? Certainly the story implies that
previous to this he was entirely unknown to Moses. Who could he
have been ? Verse 6 in its present form states that he is the God of
Moses' father, 1 the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God
of Jacob. This representation is surprising and incongruous and
manifestly not original. For, on the one hand, unless we emend the
singular ""US to the plural "JTG8, we cannot regard the term
"|"2S Tibi* as synonymous and appositional with Tibtf Dn"CK Tlbtf
Spr TlbiO pnr 1 as is the D5TQK ^nb of verse 15 and of 4:5.
This emendation would not be impossible nor even unnatural, since
it would necessitate the insertion of but one single letter, one which
might easily have fallen out of the original. But in such case it
would follow that the whole of 6a is a J insertion, and this is
improbable. For, to be complete, the E narrative must have con-
tained the motive of the deity's telling Moses who he was, and just
this is implied by the continuation of the narrative in 66. Moses,
suddenly made to realize through the words spoken to him that he is
standing in the presence of a god, hides his face, for he does not
dare look upon the face of a god. Obviously in the original E
narrative the very first words of the deity to Moses had given a clear
intimation of the divine source of the voice speaking from the bush.
But on the other hand, from the standpoint of the original E
narrative, as we have seen it must have run, this deity with whom
Moses now becomes acquainted for the first time could not be
Note the singular -p^ instead of the plural -pmX , which was to be expected.
248 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
spoken of logically as the God of Moses' father, and therefore still
less as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Manifestly the
original narrative, with its picture of the mountain of God, its hima
or sacred territory, and its deity dwelling in the bush in the center of
this hima, presents a conception of a local deity as pronounced and
unmistakable as any in the Bible, or, for that matter, anywhere else
in Semitic literature. This is a local deity pure and simple. He
dwells in the bush upon this sacred mountain, and his power and
authority radiate from there over a certain circle of territory. This
mountain is located in the land of Midian, 1 upon the western edge of
the desert. With this spot, and therefore with this local deity,
neither Moses' father nor yet the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, had ever come into contact. Consequently, for this reason,
too, as well as that stated above, the original E narrative could
scarcely have designated this deity as the God of the patriarchs nor
yet as the God of Moses' father.
How then did it specify him? The answer to this question is
probably not far to seek. The expression pHS 11 Tlbtf Dri"Qtf TlblS
2p!P "Tibtfl we must, as has been stated, regard as Yahwistic.
Since, according to J, the patriarchs knew Yahwe completely and
worshiped him under his own name, Yahwist writers could speak
consistently of Yahwe as the God of the patriarchs. The expression
here is undoubtedly secondary, the work of the Yahwist editor.
But how is it with "pntf ? The use of the singular here is striking.
As has been said, the change to the plural will not fit the context,
since the original narrative must have had here some simple state-
ment, telling who this deity was; and the emendation to "pHUtf, and
construing this then as in apposition with what follows, would pre-
clude the possibility of any such statement. Yet a moment's
thought will show that the use of the singular here cannot be acci-
dental, but must be purposed and significant. In all likelihood the
original read, not "p3K, but *^rin, not "thy father," but "thy
father-in-law."
The Yahwist narrative states very explicitly that the father-in-
law of Moses was the "pTJ "jrO (Exod. 2:16). The same expres-
sion is used in 3 : 1 in such a manner that we might, with a number of
1 At least so the J narrative says (Exod. 2: 15), and in this E seems to agree (cf. the
discussion below of "
THE ELOHIST NARRATIVE IN EXODUS 3:1-15 249
eminent scholars, regard it as a harmonistic, redactorial insertion,
the work of a Yahwist editor. But far more probably the Elohist
author, as well as the Yahwist, knew of the father-in-law of Moses
as being a priest, and presumably, therefore, "the priest of Midian."
As has been already intimated and as will be shown more conclusively
later, Exodus, chapters 18 ff., furnish the sequal to this Elohist
narrative begun in Exodus, chapter 3. There (v. 1) also Jethro,
the father-in-law of Moses, is called "the priest of Midian." More-
over, as 18:8-10 implies, Yahwe, the deity of this mountain, is from
of old well known to Jethro. He and his tribe have, presumably,
worshiped Yahwe as a desert deity for many generations. And now,
when he learns from the lips of his son-in-law, with whose mission to
Egypt at the command of this deity, he must have been perfectly
acquainted, how Yahwe has prospered this mission, and, although
far from his home upon this mountain, Yahwe has proved himself
more than a mere local, desert deity, and has shown himself mightier
than even the gods of the Egyptians, Jethro is filled with joy and
pride, and in this new-found and incontrovertible evidence of the
superiority of his deity to all other deities he exclaims: "Now I
know that Yahwe is greater than all other gods." It is not the
exclamation of a recent and enthusiastic convert to a new and hitherto
unknown faith, but the proud and gratified utterance of an old and
loyal devotee of this deity, who had unfailingly believed in the power
of this deity, and regarded, or at least suspected, him as being some-
thing more than an ordinary desert god, and who now rejoices to
find this faith confirmed completely and convincingly. These
verses picture Jethro unmistakably as the original worshiper of
Yahwe, and indicate that the meaning of the tradition in Exodus,
chapter 3, is not that Moses was the first discoverer of this deity,
but merely that this deity, worshiped from of old by Jethro and his
tribe, now for the first time reveals himself in person, as it were, to
Moses, the stranger and the representative of a strange people,
and indicates thereby his willingness to become the deity and pro-
tector of this people and his choice of Moses to be the leader of this
people and his representative, mediator, priest, and oracle-interpreter
to this people. But naturally on this occasion when the people
itself, through its elders, is for the first time brought into contact
250 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
with Yahwe here at his mountain, it is Jethro, his old worshiper and
priest, who acts as master of ceremonies, presides over the sacrifice
and ensuing meal, and initiates them thereby into covenant relation-
ship with Yahwe.
Even more significant, on the very next day he advises and
impliedly instructs Moses, obviously appointed, as has been said,
by Yahwe to be his oracular priest for this new and larger body of
worshipers, as to the technical procedure in regard to the consultation
of the oracle of Yahwe. Just this last was the primary function of
the *rO of a nomadic tribe, such as that into which Moses had
married as represented in all sources. All this evidence can indicate
only that the Elohist narrative, similar to the Yahwist, regarded
Moses' father-in-law as being a priest, and, in all probability, "the
priest of Midian," and furthermore as being in particular the oracular
priest or "jrD or rPTJ "PO (cf. II Chron. 15:3) of just the deity of
this mountain. 1 From all this we may safely conclude, not only
that "TJ *rD in Exod. 3:1 is original and not redactorial, but
also that verse 6 originally read simply and directly Tlbtf "'DDK
"("tin. .For this ~2fV!, to which later national tradition par-
ticularly when interpreted from the Yahwist assumption that Yahwe
had been worshiped already by the patriarchs, and which likewise
scarcely regarded the tribe of Moses' father-in-law as being in the
truest sense an integral part of Israel or one of the thirteen original
tribes naturally took exception, some later Yahwist editor sub-
stituted "pUK, the minimum change that could be conceived of,
implying thereby that this was the god of Moses' father rather than
of his father-in-law, and retaining very naturally the singular "p2K
for the original singular "jDfn. And a still later Yahwist editor
inserted, in conformity with Yahwist tradition, Tlbtf Dn~QK Tlbtf
2py Tibs'] p!"^ , without, however, troubling himself to harmonize
the resultant text by emending the singular ~"QK to the plural *jTQX.
The next matter of significance in the Elohist portion of Exodus,
chapter 3, is the statement in verse 9 that God says that the cry of
the children of Israel has come to him. This is not coupled with
1 This, too, is the picture which the Kenite document in Exod. 33 : 14 and
Num. 10:29-32 gives of Hobab, the "jnn of Moses. In this older document, however t
jpH is used in its older and more original meaning of " brother-in-law." The arguments
which lead to this conclusion must be reserved for presentation elsewhere.
THE ELOHIST NARRATIVE IN EXODUS 3:1-15 251
the expression T25 and the consequent statement that the children
of Israel were already his people, as is the case in the parallel Yahwist
statement in verse 7. Similarly, the word "TSf is conspicuously
absent in verses 11, 13, and 15, likewise, as we have seen, the work
of the Elohist. The significance of this fact is plain. For just
the same reason that the Yahwist document could speak of Yahwe
as the god of the patriarchs, it could also speak of Israel as Yahwe's
people. It had already told of the covenant entered into between
Yahwe and the patriarchs, and that this covenant was to descend to
their posterity (Gen. 12:2 f., 7; 13:14 ff.; 15:18; 28:13-15). But
the Elohist had, as yet, recorded no such incident. According to
him the relations of the deity to the patriarchs were not only
incomplete in that Yahwe's true name had not yet been revealed to
them, but likewise they were altogether personal and individual.
In the original Elohist document thus far there has not been the
slightest intimation of a covenant between Yahwe on the one hand
and the patriarchs and their descendants on the other. 1 Nor could
there have been; for a covenant implies perfect and unqualified
relations and agreement without the slightest reservation on either
side, such as the withholding front the patriarchs of the true name of
the deity would have implied. In other words, the Elohist could
not have told of a covenant between God and the patriarchs and
Israel before this moment, and, per contra, the revelation of the
divine name now is clearly preparatory to, or rather the first step
in the process of, establishing a covenant between God and Israel.
For this reason the Yahwist document, on the one hand, could
speak very consistently of Israel as Yahwe's people, while the Elohist
document could not yet do so. Therefore, in verses 9, 11, 13, and 15
the Elohist writer speaks consistently of the bjOTZT *32 alone, with-
out designating them yet as Yahwe's people. For this reason ^233
in verse 10 must be regarded as a redactorial insertion of the
Yahwist editor. 2
Verse 12 has puzzled many commentators. They have asked,
and seemingly with justification, What kind of sign is this which
1 For the analysis of Genesis 15, with its record of God's promise to Abraham, and
the comparatively late date of its composition, cf. Gunkel and Skinner to the passage.
'Similarly LXX reads rto Aa6* itov^-Qj in v. 12 where M.T. reads more cor-
rectly
252 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
Yah we now gives to Moses, viz., that after the people shall have
come forth from Egypt, they shall worship him at this mountain ?
They have argued that 126 does not fit in with the thought of 12a;
what Moses requires is not such a remote sign as this, the fulfilment
of which will not be until long after the event has transpired for the
consummation of which Moses' faith must be strengthened. Instead,
Moses now requires a sign, they argue, the truth and significance of
which he can perceive immediately, and which will at once establish
his conviction that this deity is sufficiently powerful to fulfil the word
which he has just spoken. And so they would take certain liberties
with this verse, either emend 126 radically, or transpose it to some
other position.
The second half of the verse says that when Israel shall have
come forth from Egypt, it will worship this deity at this mountain.
Inasmuch, as we have seen, as Moses himself was not previously
acquainted with this deity, it follows that the Israelites in Egypt
likewise could not have been previously acquainted with him. There-
fore the worship here referred to must be the very first worship of this
deity by this people. But according to primitive Semitic religious
conceptions, 1 amply attested by biblical evidence, the worship of
a deity by a tribe or people implies a covenant relation between that
deity and that people. A people could not worship an unrelated
deity, nor, for that matter, could it worship any deity in any way
other than that of his regular, prescribed ritual. Consequently
this statement here by this deity can mean only one thing,
viz., that thereby he expresses his willingness, and even his determina-
tion, to enter into a covenant relation with this people whom he will
have delivered; he will accept their worship, and will in turn protect
and prosper them further. Moses is not only to bring them out of
Egypt, but he is also to bring them directly to this mountain, in
order that the covenant may be solemnized and that they may
thereupon enjoy the privilege of worshiping him. For this reason
Moses need have no fear, as, according to verse 11, he seems to have,
that he must upon this mission rely upon his own, unaided efforts
alone to accomplish the arduous task of going before Pharoah and
bringing the children of Israel out of Egypt. The deity promises
'Cf. Roberston Smith, Religion of the Semites*, pp. 269 ff.
THE ELOHIST NARRATIVE IN EXODUS 3:1-15 253
Moses his aid ; he assures him that he is not to go as a mere, ordinary,
weak human being, but with his divine support; that it is he who is
sending him. And the sign and proof that this deity has indeed
sent Moses will be his constant presence with Moses and the repeated
manifestations of his power, protection, and support. And in addi-
tion, and probably as confirmation and seal of this promise, comes
the assurance that Moses shall bring the redeemed Israel to this
mountain, and there a covenant shall be solemnized between this
deity and this people; if then the deity should have failed or fallen
short in any of his promises to Moses, Moses, upon his return to
this mountain with the people, will be able to hold the deity respon-
sible. Surely this is sufficient assurance and confirmation of his
word, a sufficient indication to Moses that he is going not alone and
unaided, but that indeed a deity, and in particular this deity, has
sent him. 1
As we have said, the revelation of the divine name is undoubtedly
preparatory to, and actually the first step in, the.complicated process
of establishing a covenant between Yahwe and Israel. The sequel
to this tradition here is found in Exodus, chapters 18-20. There we
have the declaration of the deity for the second time of who he is
and what his true name is (20:2), followed by a statement of the
> That something like this interpretation must have been in the minds of the Mas-
sorites may be inferred from the fact that they placed only a zaqef over "^7 instead of the
full stop segolta. This seems to imply that they interpreted 12a to mean, "Verily, I
shall be with thee; and this fact [of Yahwe's being constantly with Moses] shall be the
sign that I have sent thee." The majority of medieval Jewish commentators from
Rashi on interpreted HT as referring to the miracle of the bush burning without being
consumed as being proof of Yahwe's power and therefore the sign that Yahwe had sent
Moses and could protect him. While this is clearly, in the light of our analysis of this
chapter, not the original meaning of this passage, it shows nevertheless that these medie-
val commentators agreed with the Massorites in interpreting, not 126, but rather 12a
as being the sign given to Moses. These same commentators interpreted 126 as being,
not the conclusion of niSil lb HIT . but rather as being the answer to Moses' second
question to the deity in 116, " How shall I bring Israel out from Egypt ? " The answer is:
"By telling them and Pharaoh that they must go forth in order to worship this deity at
this mountain." And actujilly just this is the messag that Moses brings to Israel and
to Pharaoh, that they must go forth from Egypt to celebrate a festival to Yahwe in the
wilderness. In the present composite form of the narrative this is represented as only a
pretext to deceive Pharaoh and induce him to let Israel go; and Pharoah suspects this
(10:10). But, as Eduard Meyer has shown conclusively (Die Israeliten und ihre Nach-
barttamme, pp. 32-42). the original narrative must have told in detail of the exodus of
Israel from Egypt primarily in order to celebrate just this festival to Yahwe, of course at
the sacred mountain where he was thought to dwell, and of the actual celebration of this
festival upon its advent there. Just this is what 3 : 126 implies; it is clear, therefore, that
it accords fully with the details of the original narrative. Not improbably, therefore,
126 was originally introduced by a "1 connective,
254 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OP SEMITIC LANGUAGES
fundamental principles of his worship, couched in the traditional
form of ten laws, which Israel is to observe punctiliously (20:3-17).
We have likewise in Exodus, chapter 18, as we have seen, the account
of the solemn meal, eaten in the presence of the deity by Jethro,
Aaron, and the elders of Israel, as the representatives of the people,
by which unmistakably the covenant between the deity and Israel
is ratified. We have also the initiation of Moses by Jethro, the
priest of this deity, in the technique of the oracle of this deity, and
the institution of a judicial system by which the laws emanating from
this deity through his oracle can be administered and the life which
he has ordained be controlled. And finally, we have in Exod.
23 : 20 ff . the promise that this deity will send his "]^b?J to lead the
people onward from this mountain to the place which he has appointed
for them. Moses had been able to lead the people from Egypt to
this mountain, because he had been over the ground twice before,
viz., on his first flight from Egypt and again on his return thither.
But from the mountain onward the country was entirely unknown
to him, and he was therefore unable to lead the people farther; hence
the necessity of another guide. 1
It is clear that the Elohist account of the solemnization of the
covenant between Yahwe and Israel is full and complete in practically
every detail. And it is equally clear that in the record of the pre-
liminary conversation between the deity and Moses, as recorded in
Exodus, chapter 3, the story would be incomplete and inartistically
told without some reference to the covenant that is to follow, with
its implication that this deity is acting, not whimsically and inconse-
quentially, but deliberately and with full realization of his ultimate
purpose of taking this people to be his worshipers, and the means
of its fulfilment. On the ground of this cumulative evidence we must
conclude, contrary to the opinion of many biblical scholars, that
the reference in 126 to the future covenant is not only essential to the
complete narrative, but also that it is altogether in its proper position
here, and that it cannot be logically transposed to any better place
in the Elohist narrative. And the meaning of the verse must be
that which we have offered above.
'Exod. 14:19, which speaks of the D^nbX "JSttt leading Israel already before it
came to the Red Sea, is of course the work of E2.
THE ELOHIST NARRATIVE IN EXODUS 3:1-15 255
In verse 13, for the same reason that we have emended "p3K of
verse 6 to "j'fin , so here D5TQK must be regarded as the work of
the Yah wist redactor, substituted for the original "nn . l Certainty,
again, the idea of "the God of their fathers" is incompatible with
the thought that the people do not know the name of this deity whom
their fathers, supposedly, had worshiped, and whom, presumably,
they too should have been worshiping all these years. This very
ignorance of the name of the deity implies, of course, that there
could have been neither acquaintance with, nor worship of, him on
the part of Israel.
Verses 14 and 15 present a difficult problem, yet one which, in
view of its difficulty, has been answered, incorrectly we believe, by
biblical scholars with surprising unanimity. In verse 13 Moses has
put to the deity the question as to his name. Verses 14 and 15
offer the answer to this question. The difficulty is that the answer
is double. Verse 15 furnishes an answer to the question of 13 as
complete and logical as that of 14. And the difficulty is heightened
by the fact that the two answers do not agree. For 14 states explicitly
that the name of the deity is ^Ehyeh, while 15 states just as explicitly
that the name is Yahwe. Which is original, and, after determining
this, how shall we account for the second answer ?
With surprising unanimity, as has been said, scholars have agreed
that 14 is the original. 2 The reasons for this conclusion, so far as
we have been able to determine, have never been clearly and ade-
quately stated. In fact it would seem that the natural inclination
to discover a satisfactory interpretation of the difficult ^ehyeh ' a ser
'ehyeh of 146, with the supposed significance of this name ^Ehyeh
for the determination of the original conception of Yahwe, has
caused most scholars completely to overlook the fact that 15 offers
a second answer to the question, and to assume, without argument,
that 14 is the only and original answer.
As Marti has correctly pointed out, 3 the name of the deity given
in 14 is not >Ehyeh **$er >ehyeh, but only ^Ehyeh alone. Verse 146
states explicitly that when Moses comes to the children of Israel,
1 Unless the original read simply QT15X , "a deity."
' As the tables show, Harford alone, apparently, of all the critics regards 15 as the
original and 14 as secondary.
* Getchichte der itraelitischen Religion*, pp. 72 1.
256 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
and they ask who has sent him, he is to answer, "^Ehyeh has sent me
unto you." We must, therefore, interpret ^ehyeh ' a ser ^ehyeh, not in
the usual, meaningless manner, "I am that I am/' but, with Marti,
"^Ehyeh, that is, I am"; in other words, the verse implies that the
proper name of the deity, ^Ehyeh, not only specifies him as an indi-
vidual, but also sets forth his fundamental attribute as "The one
who is," presumably, therefore as "The eternally existent one." 1
But it is significant that the actual name of the deity, elsewhere
than in this one verse, is never ^Ehyeh, but always Yahwe. This
is his true name, even to the Elohist author, as Exod. 20:2 clearly
shows. But inasmuch, as we have maintained, as these verses here
are but the introduction to the Elohist account of the covenant on
Horeb, and such a covenant between a deity and a people requires
a full knowledge of that deity by that people, in order that they may
worship him completely and direct their sacrifices and prayers to
him alone, and such full knowledge requires among other things
acquaintance with the true name of that deity and not merely a
descriptive epithet or attribute, it follows that the main Elohist nar-
rative could never have told that the name of this deity was ^Ehyeh
but must have told simply and directly that his name was Yahwe. 2
This is proved, as has been said, by the cognate narrative in
Exod. 20:2, the formal statement of the deity to the people as a
whole, that his name is Yahwe, preliminary to the communication to
them of the ten fundamental laws of 'his worship and life; he is
Yahwe, their God, who has, just as he has here promised Moses,
brought them out of Egypt. Accordingly, contrary to the opinion
of almost all biblical scholars, we must regard verse 14 as secondary,
and verse 15 as the original, the direct answer to Moses' question in
verse 13.
1 So undoubtedly LXX, in rendering 'Ehyeh 6>v, "The existent one."
2 This thought disposes of the altogether groundless hypothesis of Eduard Meyer
(Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstdmme, p. 6) that in answer to Moses' request Yahwe
pretends to reveal to him his true name, but actually avoids doing so by communicating
a name which sounds something like his true name, and which also discloses something of
his true nature; but Moses is clever enough to see through the deceit and to infer from the
wrong name ^Ehyeh that the true name is Yahwe. This hypothesis is ingenious indeed,
but altogether fanciful, and has been very properly rejected by Gressmann (Mose und
seine Zeit, p. 35), who, however, seems to propose an interpretation which differs but
little from that of Meyer in meaning and groundlessness.
THE ELOHIST NARRATIVE IN EXODUS 3:1-15 257
In verse 15, therefore, "IT? and, as we have already seen,
Tibxi pn:r vib DTD Tibs MTQK must be redac-
torial, the work of the Yahwist editor. Or, more likely, TO was
inserted by the same Elohist theologian who inserted verse 14 into
the main narrative. For verse 14 is certainly Elohistic, as the use of
DTlbK and the omission of T23? before bjOuT *D2 show. The con-
ception of a deity who is designated by such a title as ^Ehyeh,
setting forth what is obviously conceived as a fundamental attribute
of his, is certainly anything but primitive. Nor is the conception
of a deity as "The one who is" or "The eternally existent one" at
all primitive, even despite the opinion of such an eminent scholar
as Kautzsch. 1 The primitive mind may conceive of eternity and
immortality in a negative sense, as the opposite of dying, i.e.,
living forever, but it hardly conceives of this as a fundamental
and distinctive attribute of any one deity. Primitive man does
not ask what a deity is, but only what he can do. When we find
deities described and individualized by their attributes, and par-
ticularly by such abstract concepts as "The one who is," we may be
sure that we have entered the realm of theological speculation.
Just this is the case with the thought of verse 14. It can be only
the product of speculative theologizing as to the nature of Israel's
God in circles which, probably even after the destruction of the
Northern Kingdom, were directly influenced by Elohistic thought and
literature, in other words, E2. Not improbably the name ^Ehyeh
was suggested by the use of this word in verse 12; in other words, the
theological authors of verse 14 probably interpreted verse 12 to
mean "But >Ehyeh is with thee," etc. With this as their starting-
point, they developed their thought of ^Ehyeh as the name or designa-
tion of the deity.
One fact of importance, however, this verse does bring home.
It is, of course, the very first attempt in human history to interpret
the name Yahwe etymologically, and from this determine his true
nature. And it is significant that these early theologians, living
probably close to the end of the eighth century B.C., regarded the
name Yahwe as coming from the stem mn , "to be," and not from
1 "Religion of Israel" In Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible. V, 625&.
258
a, in the Semitic dialect of the Israelite tribes in the desert, supposi-
titious mn , "to fall," or from any other similar stem with any other
similar meaning or implication. This fact should undoubtedly
constitute the starting-point in any attempt today to determine
the etymological significance of the name Yahwe, for certainly those
theologians, even though they can hardly be termed primitive
Israelites, were far closer to, and more appreciative of, that early
age which first conceived of this deity and coined for him the name
Yahwe, and also more appreciative of the spirit of their own native
language than are we today. And when they tell us that the name
Yahwe is derived from the stem mn, "to be," that fact should carry
much weight with us today. Apparently, too, they regarded HIST
as in form a Qal rather than a Hif c il, since they equate it with the
Qalform *TTJ .
The original Elohist narrative of Exodus, chapter 3, as we have
reconstructed it, would accordingly read thus:
anri "na -jro isnn nrv -]s"n rim rrn rraEi (i)
Dvib vb jop"i (4) : rain o^nban irrb n*i -cran in
3iprrb Ta&ri (5) pssri Ta&ri ms7j rraB ta&ri nscn ^irra
rbr *w nnx TOSS Dipan ^ fb:n b??j "i^byD bir nbn
no^ [-pnn] ^nbx ^DS i^^^i (6) :in inp
ran nn^ h52^] (9; : D^
o ynbn n "n
bfintzr "n-ns NSIHI n^ns-bx ^nbiDM nsb nnyi (io)
"S3 *E D^nbxn-bx nisa nr"i (ii)
-m*n (12) : D^SMH b"ns" "33-n
barns* "3n-b n ^D3 nsn o^nb^n-b^ nis^ ia"i (is)
nbx onb
(is)
nn nnb ^i mi abub ^ir-ni D5-b5< -snbTo ni
Certainly nothing could be simpler, more direct, and more forceful
than this.
THE ELOHIST NARRATIVE IN EXODUS 3:1-15 259
It is true that this analysis of Exod. 3:1-15 differs in the main
but little from the analyses of previous scholars. In fact it differs
in only two essential points, viz., in the careful differentiation between
the contents of the original E and J narratives of the theophany
itself, as recounted in verses 1-6, and in the conclusion that verse 15
contains the original answer to the question of Moses in verse 13,
and that verse 14 is secondary. But the consequences of these two
conclusions for the reconstruction of the early history of Israel
are far-reaching in both a positive and a negative sense.
In the negative sense this analysis and interpretation of verses
1-6, viz., that the original Elohist narrative told simply that Yahwe
dwelt permanently in a bush upon this mountain, and that the
entire motive of the bush burning with fire and yet not consumed is
secondary, the insertion of a Yahwist reviser or editor, overthrows
completely the fundamental premises of the hypothesis first put
forward by Eduard Meyer 1 and later reaffirmed by Hugo Gressmann 2
that Yahwe was originally a fire- and volcano-god. They argue that
the tradition of Yahwe dwelling in a burning bush, which burns
constantly yet is not consumed, can be based only upon the natural
phenomenon of a gaseous fire emerging from subterranean depths
through a fissure in the earth's surface, and burning constantly in close
proximity to a thorn bush, which is, however, not close enough to be
consumed thereby. Moreover, Meyer would transfer the site of this
strange phenomenon from the mountain, Horeb or Sinai, to Qade,
according to him the scene of practically all the traditional events of
any importance and historical probability attendant upon the
exodus from Egypt and the wanderings in the desert. In this trans-
fer, however, he is not followed by Gressmann, who realizes that the
hypothesis that Yahwe was originally a volcano-god presupposes a
cleft in the earth. Gressmann, accordingly, holds fast to the moun-
tain, and refuses to transfer this one particular tradition to Qades. 3
It is needless to discuss in detail this altogether fanciful and
preposterous hypothesis to show the complete groundlessness of its
various assumptions. It suffices, in order to disprove It absolutely,
1 Die Itraeliten und ihre Nachbartt&mme, pp. 70 f.
1 Mote ttnd teine Zeit, p. 168.
Op. cit., p. 24. n. 2.
260 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
to have shown, as we believe we have done, that the original Elohist
version of this tradition, knew nothing at all of a burning bush, but
spoke only of the bush upon the mountain in which Yahwe dwelt;
therefore the mountain was called "the mountain of God" (v. 1),
or, undoubtedly more correctly, in the earliest form of the tradition
"the mountain of Yahwe" (Num. 10:33). The entire "burning"
motive and the theophany in the flame of fire are secondary, the
work of J, and accord completely with his characteristic theology
of Yahwe's theophanies. But since this fire motive was not a part of
the original tradition, the fundamental premise of the hypothesis of
the fire- and volcano-god origin of Yahwe is refuted, and the hypothe-
sis is shattered; Yahwe is, as it were, rescued from the flames.
And in a positive way, the implications of this analysis of the
introductory portion of the Elohist account of the exodus from
Egypt are even more significant. One thing has already become
clear from this brief analysis, viz., that for the great majority of the
details of their narrative the Elohist writers borrowed from older
sources. Seemingly none of the details of the portion of the Elohist
narrative contained in Exod. 3:1-15 is original, unless, perhaps, it be
the localization of Yahwe in the bush upon the mountain, with the
sacred territory or hima around it. Everything else, and perhaps
even this also, has its antecedents in older tradition.
And it is significant that we meet many of these antecedents in
the older K and C documents, as, for instance, Moses' marriage with
a maiden of the Qenite tribe, the facts that his "rn 1 is the tribal
priest and oracle-interpreter of the deity of his tribe, and that this
deity is named Yahwe and dwells upon a mountain in the wilderness,
which is therefore called DTib&CJ 1H, "the mountain of God,"
or, more exactly, as we have seen, JTirT "n, "the mountain of
Yahwe," and the command given to Moses by this deity to go down
to Egypt and bring out the children of Israel (not yet the people of
Yahwe) and lead them to this mountain, there to enter into a cove-
nant with Yahwe upon the basis of a code of laws to be revealed when
the people should have reached the mountain and the covenant
1 Undoubtedly connoting originally "brother-in-law" rather than "father-in-law."
The proofs of this statement will be presented in a volume to appear shortly, entitled
Semitic Rites of Taboo Pertaining to Birth and Kindred Occasions.
THE ELOHIST NARRATIVE IN EXODUS 3:1-15
should have been established. In these details the Elohist narrative
agrees with the fragments of the older K and C documents, which
are preserved in the Bible, so completely and exactly.that we cannot
but conclude that it must have borrowed directly from them with
very little modification of the material thus borrowed. This un-
doubtedly justifies the inference that possibly some of the details of
the Elohist narrative, parallels of which are lacking in the com-
paratively meager fragments of the K and C documents preserved in
the Bible, were also narrated, perhaps in a slightly more primitive
manner, in the original, complete forms of these two older documents.
The determination of this matter is obviously of great importance
for the reconstruction of the history of the tribes of Israel in this
early period of the exodus from Egypt and the desert wanderings.
But it is so closely bound up with an analysis of the fragments of the
K and C documents, referred to above, and a critical study, of their
contents that further consideration of this problem must necessarily
be postponed until these other preliminary studies, and still others
related to them, can first be made. 1
By the term "K document" I mean Exod. 4:24-26; 33:la, 12a, 14, 18, 20, 19a,
21-23; 34, 6oa, 8. lOaa, 14a, 17-22, 25-27; Num. 10:29-32, with, naturally, certain minor
verbal emendations based chiefly upon LXX. In the article "Biblical Theophanies"
(loc. eit., pp. 171-93), already referred to a number of times in this paper, I have set forth
the grounds for the isolation of these verses and the conclusion that they can belong
to none of the main sources of the Hexateuch, J. E, D, or P, but must constitute a frag-
ment of a document considerably older than any of these. Since the publication of that
article, which was more of a preliminary study than aught else, further consideration has
brought to light several significant facts that were then as yet unperceived, and has
cleared up a number of matters that were then obscure, and a solution of which was
offered only tentatively. I believe it is now possible to determine fairly exactly the gen-
eral contents of the entire document, even of the portions that have been lost, and the
date when, and the conditions under which, it was written; in other words, to affirm
with quite as much positiveness and assurance as a similar affirmation can be made with
regard to any other document of the Hexateuch except D, that this K document con-
stituted the basis of the reform movement in the Southern Kingdom (I Kings 15:11-15;
II Chron. 14:1-4; 15) in the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa (II Chron. 15:10), i.e.,
in the year 899 B.C., and emanated from prophetic and pastoral circles in this kingdom,
in which the Kenite, or the closely related Rekabite, clan or tribe must have played
quite a considerable role. In its original form the K document must have told of the flight
of Moses from Egypt, his marriage into the Kenite tribe, his return to Egypt at the com-
mand of Yahwe, the exodus of the children of Israel therefrom, their journey to the
mountain of Yahwe, the solemnization there of the covenant between them and Yahwe,
and their subsequent journey from the sacred mountain to the goal of their wanderings,
promised to them by Yahwe. The greater part of this old document has, however, been
suppressed by the J2 editors, who incorporated small portions of it into J, in favor of the
later J version of the same incidents. In consequence only the comparatively few frag-
ments of the K document cited above are preserved in the Bible. Careful study, however
makes it clear that in most respects the narrative in the suppressed portions of K, although
undoubtedly in many details mone archaic in character, agreed with the present J and
262 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES
E narratives, particularly the latter; or, perhaps more correctly, that the J and E narra-
tives are based directly upon the narrative of the suppressed portions of the older K
document.
At first I called this document, for obvious reasons, "The Little Book of the Cove-
nant," and designated it by the label C2. But owing to the resultant confusion of both
name and label with those of the Book of the Covenant proper, and the additional con-
fusion that this document, labeled C2, was in fact considerably older than the Book of
the Covenant, labeled C or Cl, I have come to think it best to call this the Kenite docu-
ment, for reasons easily perceived, and to label it K. (Perhaps Qenite and Q would
have been scientifically more accurate, and would have been employed had not Well-
hausen formerly used the letter Q to designate the Priestly Code; cf. his Die Composition
des Hexateuchs.)
The original independence as a document of the Book of the Covenant and its
later incorporation into E have long been recognized by biblical scholars. In the con-
tinuation of the aforecited article on " Biblical Theophanies" (Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie
XXVIII (1915), 15-25) I have set forth additional grounds for regarding Num. 10:33 as
belonging to this document. Since the publication of that article further investiga-
tion has brought to light additional information about the literary history of the C
document also. It is now clear that the original code of laws in C, upon the basis of which,
according to the narrative there, the covenant between Yahwe and Israel was established,
contained only those laws which are designated as dfbarim, as Exod. 24, 4 and 8 explicitly
state. All the other laws now found in the C document were inserted later, and probably
not all at one time. It is possible to distinguish between four different kinds of laws in
the present C document, to classify them, and determine in a general way their origin
and the order in which they were incorporated into the C code. Of the original C docu-
ment only the following verses are preserved, Exod. 20:23-26 (expanded somewhat);
22:28-30; 23:10-19 (considerably emended and expanded); 24:4-8; Num. 10:33.
The original document, however, it is clear from ample evidence, must have contained
also quite an extensive narrative introduction and conclusion, paralleling in most details
the narrative of the K document. The greater portion of this also was suppressed by the
E2 editors, who incorporated merely these few fragments into E. The close relationship
of C to K, and in fact its marked dependence upon K, both in the laws and in the narra-
tive introduction and conclusion, make it very probable, if not practically certain, that
the C document constituted the basis of the bloody revolution and reformation of Elisha
and Jehu, supported by Jehonadab ben Rekab in the Northern Kingdom in the year
842 B.C. The participation of the Rekabites in this movement reveals the medium of
transmission of the code of laws of the K document, the basis of the somewhat similar
reformation in the Southern Kingdom fifty-seven years before, to the prophetic circles of
the Northern Kingdom.
This summary statement will suffice to explain what is meant by the references to
the K and C documents in this paper. Detailed discussion of all the conclusions here
presented, and the manifold evidence thereof, must, however, be postponed for some
other occasion.
SOUTHERN RE
Untveflty otCa. l "^ Y LITY
N REGIONAL LIBRAHT ^
A 000130528
