|
|
|
||||||||
The Yahwist Perspective In Exodus
Tim L. Smith
In response to Inerrancy: Higher Criticism and Biblical Inerrancy, written by J. B. Payne, in which the adjudication of higher biblical criticism is emphasized, leading one to conclude that higher biblical criticism is problematic for the position of inerrancy,1 I desire, in all fairness, to positively assert the higher critical perspective from the written material itself. It is important to understand that biblical criticism arises from the text itself. One must not interpret scripture from a presupposed position without first weighing the evidence accordingly, nor should they argue inerrancy by begging the question. Thus, interpretation must arise from a complete consistency with the natural world while applying the mind of man, subjectively, as the method of unpacking the meaning of these events.
In this paper I want to convey some literary problems, in short, from within the Exodus tradition, as a means to express the content from which higher biblical criticism arises. I want to show, that in all fairness, higher biblical criticism's objective is "seeing literature exactly as it is,"2 absent any presuppositions, at best. It is not plausible, nor is it legitimate, to argue or pass judgment upon higher biblical criticism without covering, in some profundity, the problematic issues themselves. Thus, I want to consider and analize, in narrow depth, a handful of events from within the Exodus tradition that may shift the inerrancy perspective.
As a base of argument, I am utilizing the New Supplementary Hypothesis (NSH) established by John Van Seters at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in contrast to the Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis (WDH). What are the general differences between Wellhousen's Documentary Hypothesis and the New Supplementary Hypothesis developed by Van Seters?
NSH WDH
D - 7th century BCE (Josiah, 625) J - 10th/9th century BCE
J - 6th century BCE (exilic) Pentateuch E - 8th century BCE Tetrateuch
P - 5th century BCE (post exilic) P - 5th century BCE (Ezra)
D - 7th century BCE (Josiah) Deut.
R - redactor or editor (Ezra)
There is no redactor within the NSH, the Yahwist is the editor or redactor of the core text. E material cannot be extracted into a complete narrative, primarily from Genesis, hence, E is no longer thought of as a pentateuchal source. Each author expands the pentateuchal tradition by supplementation, following the previous author. J used E material by revising it, thus, Elohim as a divine name is a northern kingdom term. The essence of inquiry within this context is, is the exodus out of Egypt a historical event? Some assert that the Exodus tradition is a literary explanation of the exilic experience, because many motifs match those within the exilic period, examples such as the temple structure, gold, angels, folklore. There is no archaeological evidence for the exodus, nor is there literary evidence outside the Bible. Brevard Childs suggests a possible small band of people(hapiru) may have escaped Egypt due to political or agricultural reasons and met up with other nomadic tribes in Canaan and their story of escape escalated from there.3
First I will approach the Sojourn in Egypt and the Birth of Moses, Ex. 1-2, from a literary analysis, utilizing scholars who argue from the NSH. Second, in the like manner, I will address the Sea Crossing and Wilderness traditions in Exodus 12:29-15:21. Finally, I want to concentrate on the Golden Calf event in Ex 32, Duet 9:8-10:11 and Kings 12:25-33. These events within the Exodus tradition are core events. These events impart deep theological meaning. The question is, however, are these theological events literary events or actual historical events composed by an author (J) as a means to separate Hebrew creed from other traditional Near Eastern perspectives following the return to Jerusalem from Babylon? To answer this question, one must examine the text itself, with attempted impartiality.
The Sojourn in Egypt and the Birth of Moses traditions in Exodus 1-2 begin by explaining how and why the Israelites became enslaved and following that enslavement, the need of a deliverer, hence, the birth of Moses is written of in chapter two. Literary problems arise when the text is carefully read and thought out and compared to an Old Testament knowledge of its background. Many scholars have analyzed the text and have come up with some remarkable insights. Biblical scholars like Noth, Gressmann, Van Seters, and Childs to name a few. Such insights as the exodus having an Exilic flavor or formula to it, or that Moses' birth is essentially an adoption of a folklorist telling. These issues are debatable and yet they can't be escaped if one is totally open and honest in regards to reading the text without applying a pious perspective first. Also, opposition arises by those who approach the text with presuppositions of inerrancy. Scholars like Archer, Geisler, Packer and Payne. Payne rejects higher biblical criticism due to the passing of "rationalistic judgment on scripture's own claims."5
Childs favors Van Seter's conclusion that the traditions have been passed on in history and were later collaborated to formulate a single text. In looking at the first chapter of the Exodus story while incorporating also the second chapter it becomes apparent that chapter one, the Enslavement, is dependent more on chapter two, the Birth of Moses, as opposed to chapter two following chapter one. Gressmann thinks that maybe the birth of Moses was exaggerated with the help of folklore in order to incorporate the mistreatment of the Hebrews on a greater literary scale. Childs points out that there may be actually three traditions collaborated into Exodus chapter one.6 The first being the increase of the Israelites (7-12, NRSV) , the second being the Israelites within slavery in Egypt (11-13) and thirdly the Pharaoh plotting to destroy the Israelites (15-20). He concludes that the slavery (11-13) is the backbone of the text and the other two traditions have been added into the story. This insight produces some internal conflicts however. Why would a ruling nation try to destroy its male labor force when its architectural splendor is dependent upon them? Also, a political power would seek to increase its labor force, not weaken it. Was this the historical case?
In comparing the Exodus chapter one to the rest of the Hebrew Bible, parallels can be found, remarkably not within the same frame of time. The book of kings are literary tellings of the history of the Israelites and their relationship to their God. It's interesting to see that much of the Hebrew Bible has a literary core or source that has its place in time surrounding the Exile of the Jews to Babylon. Van Seters points out that the Yahwist ( J ) seems to have actually structured the oppression and genocide themes within the first chapter of the Exodus story from his understanding or recollection of much later traditions then the Exodus.7 When I Kings 9:15-23 is read the parallel with the slavery in Egypt is seen clearly. Why would the Hebrews repeat what they so disliked about their own history by enslaving other nations? It would make sense that they wouldn't. It seems that the writer, Dtr, of this history (I Kings 9), regarding Solomon's forced labor, had influenced the Yahwist in using the same formula to retell the story of the Israelites being used as a labor force for Pharaoh in Exodus chapter one:
Exodus 1:11-12 ( J ) I Kings 9:15 ( Dtr )
"...they set taskmasters over them to "This is the account of the forced
oppress them with forced labor. They labor King Solomon conscripted
built such cities as Pithom and Rameses...." to build the house of the Lord."
Therefore, both J and Dtr use the Exilic experience as the primary formula for structuring both the Exodus enslavement and Solomon's enslavement of other nations.
Van Seters uses other insight beyond simple parallels for concluding the Yahwist as the source for Exodus one. In one instance, he concludes that the usage of "sons of Israel" in Exodus 1:7 is consistent with the J narrative.9 It is also written in Exodus 1:9, "that the Israelites have become to numerous", which is the same terminology the Dtr uses when referring to the Canaanites before Joshua. Hence, J is building on Dtr, which shows a transition of the Exilic formula into the Exodus narrative. Van Seters essentially has established an origin and authorship to the narration of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, which is the Yahwist ( J ) writing from the post Exilic period with an exilic perspective.
The Birth of Moses is one of the earliest of the traditions within the exodus story. Parallels can be found in older Near Eastern stories such as the legend of Sargon, the king of Akkad. It may be that the Yahwist is using the Sargon story as a model to build Moses' birth narrative as a way to illuminate the Israelite's enslavement in Egypt. The legend of Sargon is also a narrative which explains how a child saved from possible neglect becomes a ruler over a nation. However, their are more major differences than parallels. First, the Legend of Sargon is ambiguous, in that some Akkadian terms like "enitum" cannot positively be interpreted. Hence, this leaves it open to ambiguity. Also, the idea of Moses being born as an illegitimate child as Sargon has been portrayed in the Legend, is inconsistent with the Hebrew women's way of handling children. Hebrew women would not expose their children, hence, chapter one of Exodus was necessary to explain why a Hebrew woman would expose her child. Following this, a princess rescuing a child from neglect would not be a princess within Egyptian storytelling, she would be a goddess. This shows the tale is from a Hebrew perspective, the story was first developed orally and passed on within Israel and preserved for later compilation with other traditions.
It seems that there are some internal consistencies of the birth narrative with wisdom literature. Pharaoh is shown to be a fool because of the midwive's obedience to their God. He also shows how the princess is open culturally by taking affection on Moses as an infant, because he is Hebrew. Lastly, the control of the events taking place within the story more or less show them as having a "natural" cause. That is, that there is no aggressive, supernatural explanation within the narrative.
Some literary problems arise when the birth narrative is broken down from a redactional perspective. Maybe the birth narrative is a combination of two separate traditions that have been passed on orally. Coats concludes that following the first tradition, a redactional bridge, Ex. 1:22, is then added in as a way to link both traditions literarily. Van Seters thinks that this may not be so. First, Van Seters asserts the point that if the genocide theme of the birth story is necessary then it can't be redactional. If Pharaoh's ambition fails because of the midwives piousness, then the bridge between the two traditions must have been orally passed on as well as the two traditions.10
The beginning of the birth narrative may be a literary design for the particular setting portrayed in the narrative. This is because the opening of the story does not fit the other introductions to the narratives. There is more emphasis on Moses' character as opposed to any other persons in the narrative being anonymous. Moses' parents and sister are not named. This is inconsistent with Hebrew tradition, in that if it were, emphasis would be put on genealogy. One method by which the birth narrative can be set during the exilic period is the reference to the "house of Levi". The Hebrew word for "house", is used in a political sense when coupled with a name of one of the twelve tribes for example. However, in the context of the birth narrative does not fit. Thus, the "house of Levi" is of a Priestly work and dates to the exilic period.12
It's not quite clear as to whether Moses was considered heroic. It may seem he is according to tradition and what history has done for him. Moses needed Arron to speak for him, he questioned his own ability at the bush and he killed two men. To study out Moses from a subjective perspective, he is not heroic. Rather, God is the hero of the text.
Both Van Seters and Childs make the inference that the birth narrative was not original and that it was not a preexisting oral tradition. Rather, the birth narrative is actually a literary work structured by ( J ) during the post exilic period. The Yahwist apparently took various birth narratives and imitated various points within those narratives to structure his own. J does this without elaborating on a traditional genealogical setting, but rather he keeps it short and simple.
Comparing J, P and the poetic versions, the departure, Sea Crossing and Wilderness traditions within the exodus story (Exodus 12:29-15:21) have also been examined by a number of scholars, such as Childs, Van Seters, Coats and Mann. Childs and Van Seters approach these traditions from a form source critical analysis followed by a traditional-historical analysis. Their literary research shows various versions and modifications of these traditions.
Childs points out some problems of source criticism within chapters 13:17 - 14:31 of Exodus. There is a lack of unity within the sea events. There are parallels of the sea crossing that suggest a composite narrative which he assigns to both J and P. Wellhousen originally pointed out that the P material differed in style and vocabulary within the plague narrative from typical P material. This evidence proposes a new source division. P is reassigned favorably to J. Strands of E can be left within the new source hypothesis. In response to Volz's argument of source criticism, Childs writes, "I do not agree with Volz's attempt to eliminate the E source completely, but certainly little of it is left intact in this section."13
Childs divides the sea event between J and P. J's narrative shows no account of the sea crossing or any movement by the Israelites. J does narrate the strong wind that blew from the east and bared the sea floor bed which then allowed the Israelites to cross. The Egyptians then fled because the pillar of cloud and fire. They are then destroyed by the sea returning to its natural state. P (E)'s narrative shows that an angel moved behind the Israelites to slow down the Egyptians. Yahweh opened the sea and the Israelites crossed. Moses then stretched out his hands and the sea covered the Egyptians.
Van Seters suggests the source for Exodus 13:17-22 is not E but J. Nor should one think that 12:37, "The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth," and 13:20, "They set out from Succoth," compare with 13:17-18 as a doublet. There are several reasons why this should not be. First, they correspond to the same route for different reasons: 12:37 and 13:20 lays out geographical markers for the route. 13:17-18 establishes a basis for the route. Second, the statement "when Pharaoh let the people go," reflects the J theme within the plague narrative. Also, the theme of divine guidance is common to both 13:17, 21-22. Lastly, the "edge of the wilderness," in v20 is where the event takes place. The route and sea are linked (13:18). This suggests that the Israelites circled back up the Nile through Wadi Tumilat.14
The Israelites carry Joseph's bones in v19. This connects the Exodus to God's promise to the Patriarchs and the promise to the Israelites at the end of the journey in Joshua. The beginning of the narrative in Ch.14 of the sea event is a later combination of P and J. There are still problems with separating P and J, however. The divine speech addressed to Moses in 14:1-4 is identified as P material with J material following in 14:5-7. This interprets a quick departure from Egypt because of Pharaoh's change of heart. P's narration of the Israelites leaving Egypt is a victory march. Later the Egyptians close in on the Israelites at the sea and Moses speaks to them about deliverance, "Do not be afraid, stand firm and see the deliverance of the LORD" v11-14. This may be P's material since Moses' speech follows the oracle. V 19-20 is J's narrative in which the pillar of cloud and fire keep the Egyptians back.
Van Seters then infers that the P material within Exodus 14:1-4, 8, 9, 15-18 is not an independent account. J's material is being supplemented by P.15 If P is identified as the source for 22-23, "The Israelites went into the sea on dry ground...." then J's Israelites never crossed the sea. This expresses a desire for P to be independent. This then makes it difficult to reconstruct J's narration of the events. V22a and 23 "the Egyptians pursued...." belongs to J and were then elaborated on by P. This reconstruction can be supported by a variety of pre-priestly texts. Duet. 11:4, "...how he made the water flow over them....", Joshua 2:10, "...we've heard how the Lord dried up the waters...." both suggest the dependence upon the J's version of the sea event. Joshua 24:6-7 is an extensive summary of J's account. J doesn't, however, reveal how it was done. The Hebrew verb used 16 "covered" which is also used in Exodus 14:28, "The waters covered the chariots...."
Van Seters divides the sources into J - as the primary account - Exodus 14:5-7, 9a, 10-14, 19-20, 21a, 22a, 23-25b, 27a, 28 and 30-31. P then elaborates on J's account. This helps clarify the traditio-historical development and it allows a clearer form-critical reading of the text.17
Noth was one of the first to address the traditio-historical problems within the sea narrative. He says that the crossing is not connected to the plagues or Passover, that the sea account is the heart of the Exodus from Egypt.18 Coats argues that departing Egypt is the heart of the Exodus story. The sea crossing belongs to the wilderness tradition because of the murmuring at the sea and the river pattern within the conquest tradition.19 Childs believes there are still inconsistencies with assigning the sea narrative to the wilderness tradition. This reflects a more complex development of tradition within the Hebrew Bible. Both Coats and Childs agree that P follows the J(E) tradition by having the Israelites depart Egypt prior to the sea event. Childs claims that the Israelites do not actually enter the wilderness until after the sea crossing. "...the Lord brought the Israelites out of the land of Egypt...." in Exodus 12:51, which shows they left Egypt. In 14:1 they "turn back". This shows they haven't entered the wilderness yet.20 The sea crossing is also connected with the plagues in the P source. P is theologically connecting God's plan at the sea as a follow up to the previous plagues.
Van Seters concludes that for P the sea event is the climax of the Exodus. He goes on to point out that a difficulty with the advance of Childs and Coats is to consider the stories of the plagues, the exodus and the wilderness as individual traditions in which one contained the sea narrative. One must accept the principle that the traditions of J or P derive from ancient oral tradition. If this is not so, then there's no point in discussing it.21 Van Seters also points out that the murmuring tradition is form critically secondary to the holy war theme that J uses to structure his own perspective of the story. He then reveals two important clues of the tradition-history of the sea event that need to be explored. First, like Child's discovery that the sea tradition is considerably lacking, except for one later addition in Deut. 11:14, the same goes for DtrH. The references in Joshua 2:10, 4:22, 24:5 are held in units following DtrH. It would then follow that the sea event is quite possibly a later literary development within the exodus tradition.22
Coats and Childs both consider the influence the Jordan crossing had on the sea crossing. Van Seters argues that rather than this being more P than J, J already had reference to the sea tradition.23 T. W. Mann brings attention to the parallel between the pillar of cloud and fire at the sea and the ark (Nora) at the Jordan. This makes imperative the Jordan crossing in comparison to the sea crossing.24 Van Seters says that P took J's version of the sea crossing and modified it by possibly adding the splitting of the waters and the two walls of water from the Joshua account in 3:16. This is P's interpretation of the water being cut off because of the priests stepping into the Jordan, which split the waters, whereas creating a vision for his sea narrative.25
Van Seters then makes the point that Second Isaiah is the first of the prophetic books to make any reference to the sea event, Isaiah 43:16-17. This reference is J's material with a slight difference in the poetic imagery. Payne opposes due to apostolic references.26 In 51:9-11, however, the sea event is compared to the creation myth, which is symbolized in the slaying of the dragon, "Were you not the one who cut Rahab in pieces, who pierced the dragon." This sea crossing symbolizes the reign of Yahweh at a return to Zion. P's way of interpreting the poetic language in Second Isaiah is to extend the theme of the Jordan crossing and the sea crossing with the act of splitting the waters, hence, he uses the divine staff within the plagues narrative to do so. Van Seters concludes that Second Isaiah may stand between J and P in the development of the exodus tradition.27
J.L. Ska challenges the idea that Dtr is behind the holy war theme in Exodus 14 for three reasons. First, the Israelites do not show faith in Yahweh until after an event, as opposed to Isaiah 7 in which faith is a prerequisite for such a victory. Second the Israelites are passive during the event and not out to win a holy war. Thirdly the Israelites do not exterminate the enemy after the victory. Van Seters says these arguments are more illusory than real. First the Israelites did "despoil" the Egyptians by taking gold and silver in Exodus 11:2 and Yahweh later destroys the Egyptians completely by covering them with the sea. This becomes Yahweh's victory, not the people's. Lastly the expression of faith in Yahweh is a later Dtr development to inspire later generations.28
Ska also argues primarily against the Dtr holy war theme by using parallels within Exodus 14:13 and 1 Samuel 12:16 where "take a stand and see" signifies preparation for a theophany that leads to faith rather than to combat.29 Van Seters says this is not a true contrast, that a theophany is an important role within holy war. He says that in 1 Samuel 12:18 the theophany resembles divine activity in holy war so that the people fear for their lives and become obedient to Yahweh. In Exodus 14 the theophany is present in the pillar of cloud and fire.30 Van Seters agrees with T.W. Mann, however, that this pillar of cloud and fire reflects a theophany accompanying peoples and armies on the march. Van Seters also suggests the consideration that the cloud's origin has theophanic elements and that it has two uses within the exodus. One is that the cloud is a means of guidance. Two, it also acts as a military force.31
Childs addresses the Old Testament context surrounding the sea narrative with the statement that the final literary production must be recognized for its own integrity and studied with the same intensity as with source criticism. He explains that the context encompasses the dual between Yahweh and Pharaoh and that Israel is sharing in the drama. He points out that J views the crossing of the sea as the effect of more natural causes, "The lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind...." Exodus 14:21. P emphasizes more of the supernatural effect behind the sea crossing, "...the waters formed a wall on their right and on their left." Exodus 14:22. P sought to articulate the theology of the sea crossing by extending the imagery into the supernatural. This then allows later readers of the text to be witness to God's hand within historical events.32
Various authors would later retell the sea crossing with a slight difference in views. Josephus wrote about the sea crossing without mentioning the east wind as playing a role. He emphasizes Moses making a more rationalistic choice of route by clever calculations.33 Philo, however, retells the story more in line with the biblical tradition.34 The story of the sea crossing event within the Wisdom of Solomon, a book in the Apocrypha, 19: 6-17 (NRSV) emphasizes the benefits of good verses the outcome of evil. The Midrashic tradition emphasizes the promise made to the patriarchs via the Exodus and the crossing of the sea.
Exodus 15, the song of Moses and Miriam, is approached by Childs from a literary, form-critical and traditio-historical perspective. He points out that the song has been characterized by various scholars as a hymn, an enthronement psalm, a litany, a victory psalm and a thanksgiving psalm. None of these forms describe the entire song, nor do they give justice to the variety within the song. The sea event within the song/poem belongs to the exodus tradition because the event reflects the victory over the Egyptians.35 The sea crossing in v17 reflects the Jordan crossing. There is, however, no actual mentioning of the sea crossing within the song. This brings to light some problems within the tradition history. Scholars think that maybe this description of the sea account has little to do with the early prose account. Childs divides J and P in the song according to the wind and the walls of water. The song has been transmitted within the larger framework of the Exodus and conquest traditions. The song's essence is that God is the sole agent of salvation.36
Van Seters says that the Song in Exodus 15 is an eclectic poem that stems from a variety of hymns with references to the sea event, the wilderness journey and the establishment of the religion at Mount Zion. Both the P and J material are represented within the song. The song/poem is probably a late composition because the language parallels late poetic and non poetic texts.37 Van Seters also points out that the J author was influenced from the Dtr tradition of Yahweh bringing Israel out of Egypt with a strong hand, which J then develops into the sea event. The sea was the border of the wilderness as the Jordan was for the land of Canaan. Van Seters concludes that these salvation traditions were constructed for the religious community within the exilic period, which is reflected within Second Isaiah and later within the liturgy of the second temple period.38
The Golden Calf episode (Ex 32; Duet 9:8-10:11; Kings 12:25-33) within the the Exodus tradition derives from the law given at Sinai and the murmuring traditions. The violation of the initial law by the people in Exodus 20:23, "Do not make any gods to be alongside of me; do not make for yourself gods of gold or silver", gives the golden calf episode meaning.
Exodus 32 parallels I Kings 12 and Deuteronomy 9. Exodus 32 narrates the event in which the calf is constructed, followed by the punishment. The Deuteronomy version is narrated in a different sequence. I Kings reads of Jeroboam making golden calves to set in the "high places," for worship. Many questions are raised about the source, unity and later additions of Ex 32. The fact that Ex. 32 has parallels in Deuteronomy 9 and I Kings 12 complicates the analysis even further.
Two recent studies of Ex. 32 have illustrated this problem. J. Vermeylen reconstructed a base text dating to the 6th Century BCE with four Dtr redactions dating between 585 and 525 BCE by comparing Ex. 32 and Deut. 9-10. Vermeylen assumes Dtr used this text as his Vorlage.39 P. Weimer also reconstructed a base text which contain two Dtr redactions and one P redaction.40 These two studies hardly share more than two verses and there is little correlation in their redactional levels. Little progress, Van Seters believes, with these two studies have been made.41
Van Seters divides Ex. 32 into sections followed by literary-critical analysis. The first section vs. 1-6 is a basic to the story and this raises the issue of the larger context in the Sinai pericope to which there must be a literary connection. Vs. 1-6 also links to the exodus itself because of the identification of Moses as the one who "brought us out of Egypt."42 Childs says that vs. 1-6 "...introduce the story and are clearly of one piece.... But the story evidently needs vs. 7-8 to connect with Moses' return in v. 15."43 Aaron is viewed as the one to whom the people would complain. Van Seters points out that the expression "assemble against" parallels other murmuring stories like in the Korah rebellion. Van Seters believes there is good reason to connect vs. 1-6 to the murmuring tradition.
Vs. 7-14 contains Deuteronomistic language and is regarded as suspect because it is thought to anticipate Moses' later discovery of the apostasy in vs 15. Childs points out a parallel in Deut. 9:25 with reason for the different sequence of events in comparing Ex. 7-14 and Deut. 9:25. This expansion appears to be attached to an element in the original story. Vs. 9-10 is viewed as doubly suspect because it constitutes a second speech of the deity. Moses' response in vs. 11-14 seems to link more closely with vs. 9-10 than with the preceding. Moses' prayer is a doublet for a later prayer in vs. 30-34. Some are inclined to see vs. 9-14 as a later addition.
Section vs. 15-20 contain glosses of P on the nature of the tablets. Van Seters thinks that the initial statement may have read: "Moses turned and descended the mountain with the two tablets in his hand."44 This descent introduces Joshua who plays a larger role outside of being Moses' assistant. The dialogue between Moses and Joshua is for the purpose of heightening the discovery scene and Moses' reaction to the apostasy.
Scholar's attitudes differ towards the section vs. 21-24 where Moses interrogates Aaron. Noth views Aaron as secondary in the tradition and an addition. Childs defends the verses as original. Van Seters claims that the fit of vs. 21-24 into the earlier scene in vs. 1-6 shows no reason for rejection. Vs. 25-29 looks like an etiology on the legitimation for priestly service by the Levites. Most scholars regard vs. 25-29 as secondary since nothing is said prior to or following the event to suggest they were an exception to the act of apostasy. Childs says the expansion in vs. 25-29 "reflects an independent tradition...."45, that this introduces another issue into the story that goes beyond the narrator's original intention.
The last section vs. 30-35 produces a variety of scholarly opinions. Some view v.35 as going with v.20 and that it is punishment resulting from a drinking ordeal. This makes vs. 30-34 secondary. However, the drinking motif in v. 20 as an ordeal is not secure. Many take vs. 30-34 as original and part of the earliest text. Van Seters makes the point that if the statement about the plagues in v. 35 is original then, "...one would have expected the intercession to be concerned with its effect and an amelioration of its consequences...."46 It is easier to see v.35 as an addition which makes the threatening punishment in v. 34 immediate.
Vs. 9-14 and 25 -29 are not really problematic nor are they additions. If they are then there is a minimal text of vs. 1-8, 15a, 17-24, 30-34, left. Van Seters makes it clear that this is not an independent and self contained tradition, but rather a larger whole of the Yahwist. This is part of Van Seter's reconstruction of J's literary work up to this point. It is linked to the exodus, the murmuring tradition and to the giving of the law at Sinai, which provides immediate context. This work "must be understood in the light of those features and literary techniques that are characteristic of J in the previous narratives."47
Ex. 32 parallels I Kings 12 and this connection has completely determined the literary analysis and interpretation of Ex. 32. Van Seters suggests that the resemblances between the golden calves in I Kings and the golden calf in Ex. 1-6 is so strong that there must be a relationship between the two. Iain W. Provan in his commentary on I and II Kings points out that "Jeroboam/Moses is transformed into Jeroboam/Aaron (Exod. 32:1-35), making gods for the people to worship in defiance of the LORD's words at Mount Sinai (Exod. 20:4)."48 The words used in I Kings 12:28, "Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you out of Egypt," are almost exactly the same words used in Ex. 32:4. Childs points out that scholars treat Ex. 32 as a late addition into the narrative which is composed by the Deuteronomic writer as a "polemic against Jeroboam's policy and projected back etiologically into the Mosaic period."49 "There are strong reasons against believing that any such cultic reform ever took place before DtrH created it as an interpretive framework for his history of the Northern Kingdom."50
There is difficulty in fitting I Kings 12:26 into historical context within the biblical record. Vs. 25 is part of an older source, "the chronicles of the Kings of Israel." The golden calf in I Kings 12:26 is not related to the indications of place and time in the preceding v. 25. This assumes that the action took place at the beginning of Jeroboam's reign and it presupposes peaceful pilgrimages to Jerusalem, which may lead to Jeroboam's overthrow. Van Seters says, "This is completely incongruous with the evidence of continuous hostility in the other source."51
Iain Provan makes the suggestion that Jeroboam may have received a raw deal from the author of Kings. "Here are your gods...." in I Kings 12:28 is a misrepresentation. It is often held that Jeroboam did not in fact initiate idolatrous worship in Israel. Rather, Jeroboam may have been substituting the calves for the ark and cherubim, in competition with the worship of the LORD in Jerusalem. Provan claims, "He is not so much wicked, it is claimed, as misunderstood, even misrepresented; what he really wanted was to worship the LORD through the medium of the calves."52 The biases of the DtrH is clear. Jeroboam's actions are set forth in sequence as a studied violation of the Deuteronomic code. Thus, "There is no warrant for believing that there was any such centralization of worship, amphictyonic or otherwise, prior to the Deuteronomic reform, so the is anachronistic, and Jeroboam's actions are deprived of any motivation."53 The apostasy of Jeroboam may have become a model for the people and their fate, including Judah's. The golden calf event is shaped with certain flexibility by J.54
The Yahwist also uses Deuteronomy 9-10 as an important source for shaping Exodus 32. The burden of proof falls on those who would argue that the Deuteronomy version of the golden calf is later than the Exodus version. There are considerable literary problems in Deuteronomy 9-10 and Aurelius is one to address this. Aurelius proposes a complex relationship with Ex.32 and a multi-staged development of the Deuteronomical account. Deut. 9:8-10:11 contains the story of the calf apostasy. Aurelius see an early level within this material without mention of the event. He suggests the double statement of the deity in 9:12-14, of which vs. 13-14 is more original, relates to the introduction of the people being "stiff-necked" in vs. 6, 13 and the anger of the deity in vs. 7, 14. The intercession of Moses is added in vs. 26a, 27, and the response of the deity in 10:11.
There is some difficulty in this reconstruction by finding the connection between v. 7a and v. 13 not very convincing. The accusation against the people in v. 7a suggest that something concrete should be mentioned for the people to remember. Van Seters neither thinks that 10:11 is an adequate response to Moses' intercession by itself. Vs. 10:11 demands 10:10 or at least part of it.
Aurelius also proposes that Deut. 9:27a is part of the earliest level in the D material. He first argues that the word "remember" is typical of Dtr. He then argues the reference to the patriarchs in v. 5 is within immediate context. Van Seters thinks, however, that all the references to "the fathers" are later additions. Van Seters says, "I conclude that the reference to the patriarchs has been added from J."55
Van Seters makes the point that the pattern of murmuring stories follows the golden calf episode. A regular form of punishment is issued and Moses intercedes. Van Seters concludes, "The result is a narrative of considerable complexity, but one that has been created by one author (with a few glosses) and is not the result of a complex redactional process."56 Pearson asserts, like the Greek historian Timaeus, the Yahwist, as a historian, constructs his history of the Exodus through his recollection of oral tradition and possible texts or stories he may have had in front of him. He does this the best way he knows how and that is what is "most likely" to have happened.57
In conclusion, these "Exodus" motifs are complex and thus establish a further in depth perspective of scripture. Higher Biblical Criticism, therefore, is necessary for attempting to see literature as it really is. While it is true that the idea of Inerrancy becomes more problematic for those who initially desire scripture to be flawless, it is through denial of such critical insights, as suggested above, that Inerrancy holds any ground. Inerrancy cannot be argued from within the scriptures themselves, to do so would be begging the question.
Bibliography
1. Inerrancy, Norman Geisler, ZP, 1980 - pg. 85-113
2. Inerrancy, Norman Geisler, ZP, 1980 - pg. 84
3. The Book of Exodus, A Critical, Theological Commentary, Childs, 1974
5. Inerrancy, Norman Geisler, ZP, 1980 - pg. 84
6. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 27
7. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 10
9. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 20
10. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 25-26
12. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 26
13. The Book of Exodus, A Critical, Theological Commentary, Childs, 1974 - pg. 220-221
14. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 128-129
15. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 130-131
17. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 133
18. Exodus: A Commentary, Noth, OTL, Philadelphia, 1963 - pg. 104
19. The Traditio-Historical Character of the Reed Sea Motif, Coats, 1967 - pg. 253-65
20. A Traditio-Historical Study of the Reed Sea Tradition, Childs, 1970 - pg. 415
21. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 140
22. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 141
23. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 141
24. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 141
25. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 142
26. Inerrancy, Norman Geisler, ZP, 1980 - pg. 103-104
27. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 145-46
28. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 135-36
29. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 136
30. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 136
31. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 137
32. Deuteronomic Formula of the Exodus Tradition, Childs, 1967 - pg. 30-39
33. The Works of Josephus, Whiston, Book 1, Ch. 16:2-3 - pg. 76
34. The Works of Philo, Yonge - pg. 476
35. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 147-48
36. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 148
37. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 147
38. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 148-49
39. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 291
40. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 292
41. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 292
42. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 292-93
43. The Book of Exodus, A Critical, Theological Commentary, Childs, 1974 - pg. 559
44. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 294
45. The Book of Exodus, A Critical, Theological Commentary, Childs, 1974 - pg. 559
46. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 295
47. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 295
48. I & II Kings Commentary, Iain W. Provan - pg.110
49. The Book of Exodus, A Critical, Theological Commentary, Childs, 1974 - pg. 559
50. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 296
51. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 297
52. I & II Kings Commentary, Iain W. Provan - pg.111
53. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 297
54. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 296-97
55. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 309
56. The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian, John Van Seters, JKP, 1994 - pg. 318
57. Greek Historians of the West, Pearson - pg. 54-55