Full Text for The Analysis of Exodus 24, According to Modern Literary, Form, and Redaction Critical Methodology (Text)

Images Of Black Religion : An Historjcal Kaleidoscope MILTON C. SERNETT An Address To Lutherans I SIDNEY E, MEAD I 1 iMessianic Prophecy And Messianism 1 RAYMOND F. SURBURG i l~he Analysis Of Exodus 24, According To iR/lodern Literary, Form, And Redaction !critical Methodology : i WALTER A, MAIER I /~heses On The Law And Gospel I DAVID P. SCAER I I look Reviews The Analysis of Exodus 24, According To Modern Literary, Form, and Redaction Critical Methodology P lZINCIl'iil, ASPECTS 01; THE h,lOllERN, so-called Itlistorical critical method as employed in the study of the Old and the New Testaments are the investigative techniques of literary source criti- cism, for111 cl-iticisn.1, 2nd redactio~l criticism. The three disciplines are distinct, but practitioners of the historical critical method normal- ly make use of tile111 in conjunction. It ~rrill be the purpose of this paper to offcr n brief o~eraien; of ways in which representative Old 'Testanlcnt scllolars ]lave :ipplied current Ilistorical critical meth- odology in their exegetical consideration of the twenty-fourth chapter of 17sotlus anct to llldicnte resultant conclusions reached in their interpretation of this Scripture section. 'I'he writer, who takes issue with soillc of the presuppositions, procedures, and fruits of this literary , for112 , and redac tion critical study of Exodus 24, proposes also to express and explain his disagreenlent with certain of the posi- tions aclvocated by rl nunlber of autl~ors whose views have been consulted in the preparation of this report. Ekodus 24: 1-1 1 purj~orts to be the account of the inauguration of the coi7enant God made with Israel at Mount Sinai, after the people 11ad beell collclucted forth from Egypt under the leadership of Moses. Exoclus 23: 12-18 relates the story of Moses' ascent of Sinai and his waiting there preparatory to receiving the stone tables of the 1:iw from Yahweh, as well as the Lord's instructions concerning the construction of the tabernacle and its furnishings, and regula- tions for worship in the sanctuary (provisions recorded in Ex. 25: 1- 3 1 : 17). Beginning with a literary-critical analysis of the text of Exodus 23, many modern exegetes assert that its verses reflect the presence of a number of sources which were combined in the compo- sition of the chapter. A lack of homogmeity in Exodus 24 is assumed because of 3 number of probleins whlch are seen in the text. Martin Not11 and Walter Beyerlin, for example, find initial difficulties in the two opening vcrscs-first, the fact that, although the Lord is pre- sented in the introductory tvords as speaking to Moses, the designa- tion "Yahweh" occurs "in the third person, as though sonlc third person, as though some third person was giving the instructions to go up the nlountain 'to Yahweh.' "l Secondly, in the words of Beyer- lin : 'There is a break to be felt between the two halves of the first verse: vv, lb-2 reverse the sense of v. la, which orders Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders to go up the mountain (sc. to God), whereas verses lb-2 lteep theill at n distance and perll~it only b!loses to come near.' 'The same author advises: ssiv. lb-2, therefore, shoulcl be treated as a distinct .unit of tradition. xxiv. la is continued in verse 9, .tvhich describes exactly hoiv the divine conlmand in v. la was fulfilled. Verses la, 9-1 1, which deal ~.i>ith the theophany before, and the covei~ant meaI celebratecl by, the reyresentatives of the people nanled in verses 1 and 9, are then also to be regarded as a separate unit of tradition, according to Beyerlin." Three other tradition-units arc presunled to have been combined in the test of Chapter 24: verses 3-8; 12-15a, 18b; and 15b-18a. The first, verses 3-8, reports that llloses "tolcl tlze people all the ~vords of tllc I,ord, and all the judgments," that he "wrote a11 thc words of the Lord," r~nd that he establisheti thc covenant wit11 sacrifice al1c1 the sprinl{ling of blood (on altar ancl people). All of this material is considered n unity, except for thc pl~rase "and all the judgmeilts (verse 3), which Bcyerlin supposes to have been "added later as a result of tlze subsecluent insertion of tl~c Book of the Covenant"" (Ex. 20 : 22-23 : 3 3) into thc Exodus narrative at the placc it yresent- ly occupies. He suggests, furthermore, that, in view of the parallelism of verses 3 aid 7, the unity of verses 3-8 appears to have beell crcateci out of two originally parallel versions of the declciration of tllc divine will nnci the people's promisc to obey. Eeyerliri sees 12-1 5a and 18b as coil~prising a unit clcaliilg with R/loscs' ascent of Sinai for the long, forty-day stay ~vith the Jdord. This new section is mar1;ed by the divine bidding to "conlc up" (as in wrse 1) ancl rvith the additional directive "be there." It is hccnuse i\;loses is espected to remaill for some time on the lllo~lllt that Beyerlin chooscs to attach verse 1 Sb to 15a, and have 1 Sh constitute the con- clusion of the unit. Verses 12- 15a are regarded ;IS the combination oi' two tlificrent traclitions, with verses 12, 13b, 1 5a, and 18b colllillg from a source ~vhicl~ empllasizes the asceilt of h'loses alone, and verses 13a ;1nd 11 coming fro111 another which speaks additionally of a companion Joshua accompanying Aloses oil the way up Sinai. ~iccording to Beyerlin, verses 15b-18a constitute anothcr ver- sion of the Sinai-theol>hanv cTescribec1 in Ex. 19 : 16-20. Verses 15b- 1 Sa introduce thc long sectioil Ex. 24 : 1 5 b-3 1 : 1 %a, ivhich presei~ts ii~form~ltion on thc iilstitutioll of the tabernacle and the ~vorship to bc carried on in it. The same verses from chapter 24 are to bc con- nectcd l~rc\iously aid directly with 19 : 1-2a,j Not11 agrees generally with Beyerlin in the designation of tradition-units in the text of Exodus 24, with a few millor cliffcrences. Noth distinguishes the follolving as units: verses 1-2, 3-8, 9-1 1, 12- 152, ant7 15 b- 1 S. Othcr scholars identify units of tradition similarly, with some variations. To .cvhat literary sources sllall the respective, presuriled uilits of traclition in Exodus 24 bc attributed? A wide range of critical opinion is offered. l)everlin," though lle holds that la, 9-1 1 and 3-5 are two different versio~ls of thc establishment of the divine covenailt with Israel, assigns both sections to the E-source. He regards the first of these tratlition-units as 1':lollistic because of the idea of God dwel- ling on a mo~iintain that a1)pears in .i:erses la 2nd 9, ~vhich js uncler- stood to be an E-concept; because of the use of the divirlc name "Elolzi~la" in verses 10 ancl 11; aiicl because of the relation of la, 9-1 1 to 1 3a, 14 follo.iving, \~hich arc also seen to be E.lohistic. Verses 3-8 are supposecl to have colne froill the E-sourcc on account of the similarities of 24: 3, '7b and the Elohistic 19: 7, and because verse 4 reports the ercction of pillars in a way siluilar to the r-lccount gi.cren in Genesis 3 1 : 45, a presumed E-passage. To E, Beyerlin also assigils 12-15a, 1 Sb. I-Ie sees in this section tl~e blending of two I:-t~aditioi~s: 12, 1323, 15a, lSb, whicli speak of i\;Ioses ascending the ~l~ount-ain fr lone, anci 13a, 14, ~vhicll illdieate that Joshua lvas a companion to Aloscs on thc asccnt. The former tratlition is considered Elohistic, becnusc bchind thc vcrses is thc idea of Got1 dn~elling 011 ;I niountain; the lattcr tradition, because of its enlphnsis 011 northern Isracl in tile provision of nalnes of leaders from llorthern tril~cs. As for the rcnlain- ing units I'ountl, in Exoilus 24, Beyerlin lal~cls lb-2 a "theological corrcctiou" whicl~, wit11 its "afar off1' and "Roses alonc," coi:resl>oncls to thc 1:-tr..:idi tion; ~ild 1 5b- 1 Sa, a 1'-scciioi~, introducing thc long P.-scction 21 : 15b-3 1 : 1 S~I (\\;Ilicll is to 11c lialicd IT ith tlic ~,l:c\;ious and followil~g P-sections, 19 : 1-22 and 34 : 29-Niim. 10 : 10; rcspec- ti~rely), Thc unit 24 : 15b-3 1 : 1 Sn is \.ic.i.i;cd ns Priestly l~cca.i~sc it oises an ilccoi.~nt of thc origil~ of-' ~fal-ious ls~.aclitc i~lstitutiol~s, sncri- ? ficcs, ant1 rituals. Noth sees 1-2 as a passage lal.gely \.i.orJicrl ol-cr in n redactional -tr..;ty, contail~illg 1: a~nd other strands. It is his opinion that 3-8 and 9-1 1 are t.tr!o different versions of covcnant ratification. 'Thc latter lie nssigl~s to I!,, because of the tlse of1 thc nai11e Elohinl in t:l.~is scctjon. TIie sourcc of the forn~er 11c OOCS not definitely identify, 11ut writes : The source J, w11icll suggests itsclf bccausc of thc usc of thc divine name Yahn:eh, cannot be ii1.c~olvcc1, as ~II it tJlc n~;llii~lf; of tlie co\-cnant only follows in the context of what is narrated iin c11. 34. . . . Thc reference to the "n-o1-d~ of Yahn-ell" in 24: 3-8 presupposes the del.ivery of s~ich words. .But then t-hc ~nost obvious thing is to thinl; of: the .i.i:ords of Ynh\\-ell \vhich have lxen rcported iinmedintely I~eforehand, i.c. of t.11~ 1100li of tllc co\:cnant ~vhich is in fact proved to 11c thc "Book of thc Covc- ti ant" 11); 24.7. 111 tl-]at cnsc 24.3-8 may I)c give11 :I li.t:crary connection ~,i.itll the 13ook of the Covenant. . . .' Concerning thc 13oo1< of the Covenant, 20 : 22-23 : 3 3, Noth csp~+csscs himsclf as fol1on.s: It is probably tllat this collection I of judg111cnts 1 once formed an indepentlcnt hool; of Ian, which hns becn inscrtctl into the l'entateucllal narrative as an already sclf-contained clntitp. IYc can no longer say wit11 certainty at what stagc of thc literary growth of the Pentatcucll this i~lscrtion was made; no clear relationship to any oilc of the Pcntateuchal rial-r2ti.c c "sources" is recognizal~lc." - Sillcc the source of the Book of the Covenant is i~ot identifiable, neither c:tn the sourcc of 24: 3-8, a section ulhich is to be given a literary connection with 20: 22-23 : 33, bc named. 30th believes that 24 : 12- 15 a "belongs to the older source ~vhich is present in chs. 3 2 and 34."TThis source he supposes to be an unlino.rvn author \\-Lo has provicled subsequeut literary additions to the J-narrntivc.'" 24: 1 jb-1.8, according to Noth are a P-section. He comments: For P the whole significance of tllc events at Sitlni is that l\,loses receives these words [25 : 1-3 1 : 17, for which 24 : 15b-15 c serve as the introduction:l and that the instructions for the estahlish- ment of the cult which they contain are subsecluently carriecl out. . . . For 1' thc encounter with God :lt Sinai represents the beginnin6 of legitilllate cultic worshil~, ~shich is of course in P's view of. fundamental in~portance for tXlc continuance of the i:elationshil~ bct~~icei~ God ancl people. . . .I1 Otto Eissfelclt ascribes 3-8 and 12, 1 3 b, 1 8b (~vlzich lle isolates as a tradition-unit) to F:;'and, 15b-18a to P."He feels that 1-2, 9-11, and 13a, 14-15a (isoIated) do not fit with J, f3, or P, but are fragments of another narrotivc, which he designates as the "Lay source" (I:,), These anc1 other L-stranci passages are marlted, accord- ing to liissfeldt, by ";I certain air of antiquity and crudity."14 S. R. Dnverl" and Hcrinan J. Iilvies attributes 1-2 and 9-1 1 to J; 3-8, 12-14, and 1Sb to E; and 15-1 8a to P.'W~erhal.d .cloil T:ad labels 3-8, E, and 15b- 18a (or 18)) 1', and does not specify the sources for the balancc of the ~natcrial in Exodus 23." Artur \Veiser ascribes 16-1 8 to P;" he saps that the rest of the chapter is generally assignecl to the Elohist strancl, wit11 J-material intermi~ed.~Qi\ variety of rienlpoints js indeed rcl11:esellted i~: the listings of the above paragraphs. .It 111;ly be observcd that the source-critical analyses of Exodus 24 which have been indicated above are based alike on the funda- menta1 assulllptions that the text of this chapter is uneven, or non- homogenous, in its con~l~osition, and that the laclt of homogeneity is best csplai~ied by supposing this section to be of conlposite author- sllip. Tllc critical theory is that Exodus 23 is the product of various redactors' having combined into a single ruilning account different units of tradition, each of ~vhich the scholars variously assign to a J-, itn E-, or a P-source. In response to these views, the present writer offers objections, as follows. First, it is not at all clear that Exodus 24 lacks homogeneity. On the contrary, the assertioil should be inade that thc cl~apter nppcars to possess a basic unity. The sequence of thoughts, and of sections, 01: paragraplis, is plain, coherent, and logical. The account provided in the eightcell verses llas the marks of an orderly, fac tual recitation of actual historical occurrences, and tllcre is 110 nccd to sul~posc that uiiits of originally variant and dis- juncted tradition have hcen artificially imported and joined in the chapter. 'I"11e writer's sumillal.!/-ii~terpret;ition of the secluence of events mentioned in Exodus 24, lvhicll is in the final por- tion of this 11;iper, \\;ill denionst-1-ate t-his. Secondly, the assign~uent of the several units of tradi- tion pres~m~cc' prcsent in tl~c text of chapter 24 to J-, E-, and P- sources seems to be arbitra~:? ;1[1d conjectural. The arbitrariness and conjectural nature of the nsc1:iption are evidenced by the fact that the scllolars n.].lose opinions \\;ere consulted are not fully agreed eitllex on tllc emact delincatiol~ of the vnrio~ls traclitioll-units or the sousccs to which tllc units ought bc attributed, as the tabulations of tllc prccedi~~~ parag~.aphs shon-. .A more satisfactory explanation of the origin of thc test: i.c.hicll has cvcj-); appea~-ance of bcing a straight- for\\;arct account of o'cZunts as thcsc transpit-cd in c? closc tenlporal sequence, is that it I~ad a single ilutl~or, and that this authol- was 1xobahlY t-11c ej-c\i.i tncss ;\loses hin~self. Thc I il.celillood of thc Rlosaic authossl~ip of Esod~ls 24 rclsts on the considcrablc cvidcnce oEerec1 by the l'cntate~~clr itsclf :tr~cl otliej: Biblical ir:riti~ljis to tile effect tll:lt the illnstrio~~s Xsrncli tc Icacie~ \\.as t-he origj~~al ivn tcr, ii~decd, of all the first. 1b.c c boolis of thc Old 'l'cstn~~ient.'.' "l'he twenty-fou~th chapter of Exodus itself: tnkc I-cfct-s (I-c.sscs 3 ai~cl '7) to tllc fact that brloses pre- pa~eci ;I litcl.ar); recoxd of ccriain lcgislatioll which the Lorcl llad com- municlated to him. (lthe~: I'cntatcuc1inl passages s])eal; lil0rtion~ of the Sinai tradition in Exodus 24 lo Israel's early days. 111 Ex. 23 : 1 a, 9-1 1 . .Ue).crlin points to three s~naller ele~nerlts of tradition.':; which may I;e disccl:ned in the largcr scctio~i of the test. First, tl~er-e is the refererlce to the elclcrs of Isracl, ivho ~:epresent the covenant people. R'Icntio11 of the eltlel:s as representing the people of Israel occurs in Joshua 2.1, in several passages of 1 and 2 Samuel, in 1 Kings S! 2nd then not. again. T'1.1.e tradition of' their al7pe;irance on tl~c mountain as reported in Ex. 24: 1, 9 ~~~ust 11a1-e ori~inated, reasons Beycrlin, dul:ing thc pc~:io\; t-l-xe name "God of Israel" is seen to 1)e connectecl with tllc cult it ~hcchem before Israel became a state, sirlcc the saillc title. is cniplo\.:c:ci in (Gen. 3 3 : 20) Joshua 8: 30 and 24: 2. Thc tfivi~le apl~earanlatform for God's fcct, according to the evidcncc of' Ezeliiel, secms to be I-i~odelled on the covering lid of the A1:l;-sl~rine, there are good grounds for believing that the tradition of God's appearance in Esod. xxiv. 10 was influcriced 11y the idcas nlhicli were connected with the theophany above the iirli. Hearing in mincl that this piece of tradition, in which the elders of Israel 111n1te their appearance ancl in which the expres- sion 'cEo7ze yisrnel is used to describe God, took shape :in the his- torical pcrioil of the pre-monarchical tribal confederacy . . . we should llot bc surprised if the Ark of Yrrllwel~, as the central sllrinc of thc al.1.lphict\~on);-, has 111 fact left its mark on this tradition :'.I The tllircl srllaller traditional clenlent which Beyerlin finds in Ex. 23 : la, 9-1 1 is the meal which Israel's representatives holcl in God's presence (verse 1 lb). The author conceives of this as a covenant-meal and regards the reference to it as reflecting very old sacral usage. He asserts that the sharing of a sacrificial ]Ileal was observed in the ratification of a pact, treaty, or covenant during the periods both of Israel's patriarchs and the Conquest (Gen. 3 1 : 44, 54; 26:26-31; Joshua 9: 14-15). The account of the God of Israel ~naltir~g a covenant with his people, insofar as He lets Israel's repre- sentatives eat ancl drink in his presence, then, Beyerlin suggests, pre- supposes ancient usage and-together with the other tradition-units -the pre-monarchic tribal union. "It may bc said to be established, therefore, that the tradition of E~od. xxiv. la, 9-11 originate(1 in tile context of ancient Israel's nmphict);ony 2nd that it presupposes thc amphictyon)r in several respects."'" Ex. 24 : 3-8 Beycrlin sees as a rival tradition to la, 9-1 1. 'The two are in his estimate .variant accounts dealing .ivit.h the lnakiug of tl~c coveniint on Sinai, and both arc approximntely the salne ;~g,~~ He feels that the antiquity of the tradition in verses 3-8 is attested particularly by the cerenlonp of the t.tvofolc1 sprinltling of blood (reference to .tvhicE, is made nowhere else in the Old "Testamcr~t) and by the appoilltrne~~t of Israelite J7ounp n~cn, who were not priests, to offer the covenant-sacrifice (a practlce I-cported only here in the Scripture j. The sprinliIing of sauificial blood for thc I)urposc of establishing a co.i7ennnt with God is presumeci by thc au'tllor to be a ritual 11;hicll originated in thc Yah.tvistic coi~~munity's no~nadic past, inasmuch as it appears the pre-Islan~ic Arabs also sought to bind thenlselves to thc deity by means of sinlilar blood rites. The fact that young laymen are involved in the acts of covenant-sacrifice points to an early Israelite period, prior to thc establishment of the Levitical 1)riesthood. Beyerlin also conjectures that the ~nentioil of these lay functionaries reflects 211 ancient custom in Israel, nccorcling to which at the annual ccrenlony of covcnant renewal a new generation of young men \\.as occasionally received .into thc covenant-people by being given an opportunity actively to participate in "malonded unanimously: "All the words which the Lord hath said will we do" (verse 3). Following this, the Israelite leader wrote dow11 the words and judonlents of the Lord, producing the record ~vhicll is referred to as th~'booh of the covenant" in verse 7."' The next nlorning Moses built an altar at the foot of Sinai and erected twelve pillars, repre- senting the twelve Israelite tribes, near the altar (verse 4). Young nlen of Israel were directed to sacrifice burnt offerings and peace offerings (of oxen) to the Lord (verse 5). As tlle oxell v7ere slaugh- tered, the blood was saved. Half of it mas sprinkIed on the altar. At this point hloses react the book of the covenant to the people and received their pledge of obedience. Then, the othcr half of the blood, which had been put into basins, was sprinkled on the people with these words: "Behold the blood of [that is, inaugurating] the cove- nant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all thesc words" (verses - - 6-5). The covenant was actually put into force at this point.,)" The final feature of this covenant-maIendent of its present context, see ibid., pp. 4-6. 5. Ibid., p. 2. 6. Beycrlin's views, which thc rest of this paragraph snnlnla~.izes, axe fou~~d in ibid., pp. 1-4, 16-18. 7. Noth, p. 198. Noth discusses the sourccs of Exodus in pi?. 194-201. 8. Ibid., 13. 173. 9. Ihi~i., 13. 200. 10. Cf. ibid., p. 246. 11. I'bid., p, 200. 12. Otto Bissfel.dt, The Old Testn~,zc~zt, trnnslatecl from thc third German edition by Petcr 1.2. Acltroyd (New York: Harper anti l'lo~v, 1965), p. 201, 13. Ibid., p. 189. 14. Ibid., 1,. 193. 15. S. 13. Drivel-, Alz 17ztr-odtrction to the Litcrntztvc of the Old ?'cstanzeizt (New York: World I'uhlishing Compl~ny, c.1956 as a R'lcridian Eook), pp. 31-32. 16. IHerman J. Iccyser, A Com~pz.c~ztn~-y on Exodzts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Housc, 1940), 1). 322. 17. C;. E. Wright, "Exodus, Book of," Thc Tlzt~rpl-ctcl-'~ Dictio~nry of thc BiLle, edited I>y Georgc A. Buttrick, et 01. (Ne~v York: Abingdo~? Press, 1962). 11. 192-194. 18. J. ~o;.;t l~ylaarsdah, "The Boo1c of Exodus: Exegesis," Thc !ntcvprctc~-'s Biblc, cditcd by Georgc A. Buttrick, et nl. (New York: Abingdon-Cokes- bury Prcss, 1952), I, 1016. 19. G. Henton Davies, Exodus (London: SCM Press, 1967), pp. 192-197. 20. Gerhard von Raii, Tlze Problcrlz of the Hexatct~clz and Other Essays, translated from the German by 11. W. Trueman Dicken (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1966), p. 16. 21. Artur Weiser, Tlze Old 'deststarncnt: Its Fos.matioi~ ad Devclo~7i~zcnt, translated from the fourth revised German edition by Dorothea M. Barton (Ncw Yorlc: Association Press, 196X), p. 1.36. 22. lbid., p. 112. 23. The present writer is in agreement with thc stntcment of Gleason L. Archer, Jr., in his A Szirvey uf Old Testnmejzt Introdziction (Chicago: Moody Press, c.1964), p. 100: "When all the data of the Pcntntcuchal text havc bcen carefully considered, and a11 the evidence, both internal and external, has bccn fairly weighed, the impression is ill1 but irrcsist- able that Mosaic authorship is the one theory which best accords .cvith the facts." It is not within the scope of this paper to enter upon a lengthy defcnse of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. The ample evidence which points to this conclusion is surveyccl in the eighth chaptcr of Archer's book, titled "The Authorship of the Pentateuch," pp. 96-109. Cf. also Hdxvard J. Young, An lntroductio;~ to thc Old Testrzl-rzc~zt, revised cdition (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, c.1960), pp. 44-48; and Merrill F. Unger, Introdzlctory Guide to the Old Tcstanze~zt (Grand Rapids : Zondervan Publishing Housc, c. 19 5 I), PP. 213-273. 24. See Ex. 17: 14; 34:27; Niin~. 33: 1-2; Dcut. 31:9(11); 31:22. 25. I- t,pc, sctt,illg ill ljfc, and :its transmission historv'" (P- 57). X-fc S1l).~: "'Jicdactioll llistor!: . . . fo]]ov?;~ th~ lvor1i of both t:lie iirst ~'i'l'itcr Llncl the: Pl,lllsc~(lIICl.lt redaCtOl.s. ]t i,.ilCCS the 1)oflz the unit [of trariiti0n.l Ilns 107:C,1 j.l.Olil tllC ijlllC jt :!.[is jjl..st 1iii.iftcl1 d(171il.) 7117t;iT th~ tir~7~ it nc1zicr:ccl iis /;11111 7ii[~rnr7. fol-JII" (1). 5 5). 2'7. ncycrlin, p. 1. 2s. VOII Rad,. 1)~ 13, 16. '29. Jbirl., 1313. .I.-78. 30. lbit?.,, I?. 13. 31. 1111d., pp. -1 6-17. 32. Vnl1 I;ad IIoltls f]l;:t tllc si.lbjcct matter of tllc !css ji~~porti-tnt txaditional ,clclnvnts (L,~.csc.llf:cti in E~. 32 a11d 33) bore no historical relationship to tlIc ;Iccol.lllt of tllc tllCo1311a~~!- ,111d thc covcllaiit-, and that thc literary assocja.[.jon of the f:ormcr 1yjt.h the 1 attcr ]$.as only secondary (~1,. :I 7-1 8). 33. lbit7., p. 22. \Ton i;,lrl stiltcs (pp. 21-22) that "7-17c Sinai narrnti\:c in its c;li~~ilical forill (conir,nycd \\.it11 \t.hich c\.cli 1 ;ind E lliiist l~c rcclc cultus ;md no~mati.vc: for it. Inclecd, thc \vhol[! a~lthorjty of tilt calri~s itsclf stards or. falls by 1.11~ Sinai narra- ti,\y . . . ." 111 l.(llI l~;lcl's cstjn~:it.e thc lcgentl prcccclcd thc CLII~LIS and h(:lpcti sllal,c 1-11~ cll]ru~, t.ll;~t is, tllc. :public rcligiol~s activity of thc Islaclitc co~nm~~nit!- \t.hjcll yrc\\- out ot ant1 in ~:csponsc: to thc tradition p~.cscil lc'ci ill t he .IcjicncI. 'Tl~c c~~lf.us .is i~ss~uii~ctl to I-iavc incl~.tdccl a 1"-cp;~~:af.ory l~;~lJo\i.jn~! or ritiinl cl.c;lnsing of tllc \\:orshipping assembly; the pcoplc's tl):a\.\-ing ncnr to Gocl at: the: I~lnst of trumpets; God's Inessagc to thc: l>co~lo. \\llich \\.as ~ilc I-casscrt.io~~ of the Icgnl rccjuirc:mcnts of tllc co\.cn;lnt. ;ii.ic.l ~hc rc;>ssur;lncc of clivinc blcssing up011 ~hosc 011cying t:hc 1;1\\; 2nd t11c s(:;~Iin,g of 111(: ~.~v(:lial~t illlctv fthr01.1gh ~IIC offering of sacl-ificc. ll;~cl ;iilds jn ;I footnote, 17. 22: "Thc facts cannot bc adcc1uatcl~- csp1ai11cc.l I>!- thc fi~shionablc notion that: thcrc has been a ~l.occss of: '1iistorific;~tion' (I-listor~isicr~zi~~g) at u.orlc he~c, i.c. that ostant sacral traditio~is \~.(:I-c SI.I?IZ.C(JI~C~~~~.J: lmt into n Iiistorical scttjllg in the intc~.csts of 'li';lIl\\.istic bclicf. I'l-~c prcscnt Iitcl:ar! fonn of 111c Sinai tr;lditi:~n cc~:tninl!. dcri\.cs from the cultic form, but thc tradition itsell must ob\'iortsly be Iicltl to l)c pl.ior to thc c~iltic cln1)oration 1~11icl1 is l~;~sctl 11po11 it." 34. lbi~l.: 13. 35. 35. I bid., pp. 3 6-40. \'on 'I3 at1 assoc.i;~tcs t11c cultic ccrcmollics clcscxibcd in To~I3ii;i 24 'IJI~ in Ilcut. 27. 1 1 :29-32, i111d losliuii S: 30-35 \vrth th~ $cstiv;~l of covclirlnt rcl,c~\.al. 36. Tbi(l.,. 13. 53. 37. Jbid.,. I?, 54. 38. Ibirl., 13. 74. 39. 1Vciscl:'s \-jc\.\.s ~sllich arc: sumrn;~rizctl jn thc l>n~:agrnpl~ that iollo\vs are prcscntcd on pp. 81-99 of his Tlzc Old Tcsin~ncl~r: Its For~~zrrtio~ rind Dcvclop~nc~lt. 40. Wciscr tljsngrccs \vitIl \;on I3acl's assumption that it was thc Y;~h\.c:ist u.llo first cflcctcd thc com11jnc1tio1-1 of thc Sjnai and Scttlcmcnt 1-~:a;litions \vhich \\.cl:c origiliall scp;ii.atc. 'Tlic formcr scholar aslis, 1313. 88-89 : "What co~~ld have inclucctl hini Ctllc Yahnpistl to cfFcct such a dccisivc operation on thc rratlition if hc was not ticcl to what: was already l~anded down in tllc cult rcgardjng thc intjmatc connesion ljctwccn thc traditi.ons of Sinai a11tl thc Conquest.? Could thc 'canonical' wight of just this conlbinntion of 111c traditions of Exodus, Sinai and thc Conquest which has 1)ccn rccognizcd in thc general plan of all thc Pcntatcucl.1al sources, and cvcn bcyond them, bc understood as thc consequence ~ncrcly of the literary undcrtalting of n single individual whose \vor]<, morcovcr, van I'lacl wants to rcndcr intelligible as a ]ate appeara1-Icc in the \\rholc (je- vclojmcnt? 1-h~ linliing togcthcr of t]?~ ti.vo sets of tradition \\!as not carried out first 1)); thc Yahnlist, but \.vas ]lan&ct dottyn to him as an cstal~lisl~ctl datum." 41. Cf. Bcwlin, PP. 169-170 (and elsewhere). Hc bases his conclusion 011 thc supposition that the covenant-form attestccl in Hittite state-treaties of the 13th ;III~ 13th ccnt~lrics B.C. also underlies the Decalogue, xvhich h(-3 rcgards as the basic law of tllc Sjnaitic covenant. As the Hittite suzerainty treaty contained a historical prologue in which the beneficent acts of the covenant's author are described, so, he points out, in the Decalogue's preface Yahweh's saving act in delivering Israel from Egyp,- tian bondage is referred to. Thus thc Sinai and Esodus-Settlement tradl- tions were already combined at this early date. 42. lbid.,p.167. ' 43. Thc author's comments concerning thesc traditional clements arc re- corded in neyerlin, pp. 2'7-3 5. 44. Ibid., pp. 32-33. 45. Ibicl., pp. 34-35. 46. The discussion of 1-erses 3-8 is set forth in Ueycrlin, pp. 34-48. . - 47. Ibid., p. 41. 48. Ibid., pp. 43, 45. 49. Discussed: ibid., pp. 48-49. 50. Ibid., p. 49. 51. Cf. Deut. 11:26-32; 27; Joshua 8: 30-35; 24; and Deut. 31 :9-13. 52, It has been noted in footllotc 33 that von liad assumes that the Sinai tractitioi~ is "prior to the cultic elaboration .ivhich is basecl upon it." As far as thc present writer can see, von Rad does not, ho~vever (in his essay "The Form-Critical Problem of the Hesateuclz"), declare bilnself espl~citly as to the actr~al historic,?l occurrence of events inentioneci in all thc elements of that tradition. Rcyerlin appears to lean in the direc- tion of the historicity of these events, when he ~vrites, p. 169: "I-Iow- ever much the growth of the Sinaitic tradition MlilS determined by its cuItic associations, which lastcd into the pcriod of the ltings, the history of the beginning of the tradition certainly did not originate in the cult. Rather, it was God's activity in lzistory that gave the impulse to the formation of this tradition and had a decisive influence on its contcnt and character. The part played by tllc cult of Yahwch in cievcloping the Sinaitic tradition should not cause us to ovcrlook the impulses which proceedeci from Izistoricrzl circumstaxlces. . . ." Klaus Iii) is nlarIted rather by an unreason- ablr lljns against their reljabllity :~nd an estrcnle subjectivinn in the dctcrmjnntion of \',hat is ~I:CSI.II~ICC~ to Lc unauthentic in thc Biblical accounts. lzrfinl tllc point of \.ic\v of conservative, Lutheran, Old 'Testa- nlcnt scllol;lrshjp, furtherrnorc, an :~tljudging as non-historical wliat the ~csatcuch 1,rcscnts as act~~al historical happening--and what the canons of Diblicitll>- snnctionccl, traditional, Lutheran hc~.mcneutics thnt have bccl, Ilaniictl cton.n Iron1 the pcl.iod of tlic Refor~l~ation require the cxegete to ;lccc17t as jlistoxical fact-ciln occur 0111,- jn conlunction with a disre- gard c,f [Ilc Scril,turnl c~oct~:i~lt! or the inspiratjon and incrranc); of the jf!ord of c;~(] of the time-honorer1 Lutheran p~.inciplcs for the intcr- prccation of th;~t \Voxd. -511 form-critical p1:occdurc which opcrates in this Inn,lnpr js to 1)~ suminaril) ~cjcctcd. 3. I:or gr:3mmf,lical siil.?l,r>rt of 11.l~ inclusjon of 24:I.-2 as a part CI~ the clil.inc atldr(:ss \vhich begins at 20:22, scc C,. 1:. Keil 311d F. Delitzsch, ]3ibljctl/ ~~,~!)t,~~)ltnr-! 012 t3zc Olrl Tc.sta.,vcnt: '1-lzc Pcntcitc~.ich, translated froln 11~~ Gi:rrnari 1)). !'arlics hIm:tirl (Grand Rapids: 'LVm. 1;. Ecrdmans l'Lll,]ishing CL)~llpnnyj 19491, IT? 155.-The sl~rnn~ar!:-intcrpretatiol~ of: [hc scql,cl.lcc (IF cvcnt-s mcnt.ioncd in Esodus 24, ~vhich is 1,rcscntcd in the ctlnclrlcIi~nc- ~;ijrogrnphs 01 this papcr, follo.i\:s jn t.11~ majn thc intcr- pl:ctatjon ot kc11 and Dclit./.scli, pp. 155-161 . Otllcr con~mcntators csp]:lin tjlC CO~~YSC (?f c\.ciits si~n.il;lrly--c:.g., I=. Cassuto, jn .:/I Co71%711~~- ttrr!. ~II lllc Ijook of fZ:~or7115, translatctl Fro111 rhc: Hebrc~v b!; Israel Xbrn- llanls (Jcrus;tlcni: 81agncs l'r(:ss, 196'7). pp. 310-3161 ;in4 3. C. Conncll, j,, " ~~~~~~l~~," 7'11(' Nc~c.. I? iblr Cotr7~rr7c~t.n~~, edited hy F. D;~vidson, ct 01. (GLnncl IlapiJs: IVm 13. Ecl:tlrn;~ns P~~blishing Cloiiq,nny, 1953). 17. 124. 54. It n,;~!. I)c notcd in passing that thcrc is a consitlctablc sc1iolarl.c; clel~atc as to the jclcntific;itio~i of th~ I3001i of the Covenant. Xoth: 1?1?. 173- 198, ant1 In;lil! r:on~n~cnt;jtoys ngrcc \\.ith thc .i;jc\v csprcsscd ahovc. Eissfeldt, c.g., 13. 3-13> ilppli~s tllc cIcsign;~tion to the dccnloguc of: 20:2-I 7. Cass~~to, p, 312, prc.f(:rs thc csplanation that thc boo]; of the covcnnnt "denotes n sJicjr~: xc.nc.ri:l tk;cument, n 1;incl of tcstimon>. i111(1 111cn10ria1 to thc malijng of tllc ct,\ (,])ant, tlli~t is, :I \\.titten ilccln~.ation t:l~;tt the pcoplc undertook to 1istc:n to tiic \-oicc of thc Lord ;~nd to liccp Hjs covcnant: (xis 5), i1nd that in rct~rrn thc Lord chnsc t1lci-n to 11c ;I pcoplc that is His special pas- .. , session . . . . rlirrc :+rc* otl~cr views. 55. Cf. 1Tc.b. 9: 16.20, 21.2. 56. Kcil ant1 I>clit-zsch comment on thc words of I1 b, ;IS fonoivs (p. 160): " 'Tl7cy (ZII. Gotl, rr7ztl did cot n11il (/rink,' i.c., they ccl.cbrated tlius near to lfiln tllc inc~.ificial meal of thc polcc-offcnings, which had bccn sacri- ficcd :it t11c corlclusion of thc cmvcnant, and rcccivo.d in this covcnant nlct~l ,I forc,ti~stu of the prccio~~s ;111d g1oi:io~is gifts with ~vhicli God tvoi11d cndo\\. ilncl refresh His rcdecmcd pcoplc in FIis 1;iligilom. 11s thc proniisc jll cl?al'. six. S,b? 1vit.h \.vl~icli God opcncd thc \-\:;~y for thc covcnant at Sinai. sc.t clcarl!: Ijcforc ~:hc nation that ]lad bccn ~cscucd irom Egypt the 11ltimalc goal of its tlivinc calling:, so,this termjo:ltion of the ccrcmony was iiitcndccl to gix-c to thc nation, in tl~c persons of: it.s rcpl:cseutatives, a tangible pJc.tlgc of thc glory of tlic goal tlwt \vas set 11cfo1:c it. 'ne sight of thc Goc! of Israel \vas a forctastc of thc blessed~iess of tlic sight of God jn cf:cr.nitp . . . ." 57. It nla? l~c inf'crl,cd 11:o.m thc account- of thc latter thircl of Exodus 24, and from thc scciion's witler cuntcxt jn Exodus, that Joshua wcllt only a ccrtain distar~cc 1.1~ thc mountain with Moscs--perhaps as liar as the point at \vhjcli A'Ioscs ~vaitcd ~mtil receiving tlic divine summons to enter into thc closc8r ~~rcscncc of thc Lord (verse lGc, 18a). Cassuto, comment- ing on thc rcfcrcncc to Josliua in verse 13, suggests (p. 315) that Joshua acconlpanictl Moscs "in ortlcr to minister to him during the period that I~c '\-auld have to wait until Gocl called him to ascend to the top of the ~llo~lnt;lirl, and l~c n:ol.lld risc abovc the plane of everyday life, ancl ~vould no longer need food ant1 drinIi. 1'ossiM;y the tcxt mcms that Joshua sot up a tent on the slopc of the moui~tain, and there they both dwelt." Reil and ljclitzsch ivrite: (p. JG1) "Wh~~hcr Jo~huil foUowcd him lNIosesl we arc nol. told; hut jt is evident from chap. sssii. 17 that hc was with him on thc mountain, though, judging fronl ver. 2 and chap. xsxiii. 11, he would not go into the immediate presencc of God."--According to 32: 17-18, Joshua is with Moses once again, when the latter has come down the mountain and both incn arc yct at some distance from thc Israelite camp. Joshua presumably had remained at a position on Sinai beneath thc mountain's summit. I3IBLIOGKAL)HY Allis, Oswnltl T. Tlzc Five I10ol:s of iLloscs. Philadclpllin: Prcsbytcrian alltl Reformed Pr~l)lishing C:ompnn)', 1913. Arcl~er, Glcason L., Ir. A S7drvey of Olcl ?'estn?izent Introdriction. Chicago: Moody l'ress, c. 1964. 13cycrlin, Walter. Origins nntZ History of tho Oltlcst Sinnitic Traditions. Translated from tlic German by S. Itudman. Oxford: Basil Rlackwell, 1965. Cassuto, U. A Conznzelzfnry on the Boolz of Exotlus. Translated fro111 thc I-Icbrew by Israel ~Ibraha~ns. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967. Connell, J. C. "Exodus," Thc New Bible Conzme~ztnry. Editccl 11y P. Dal~idson, ct al. Grant1 Ilapids: Wm. n. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1953. Davits, G. IIcnton. Exodz.is, Idonclon: SCIM Prcss, 1967, Ilrivcr, S.. H. An llttrod~ictiolz to the Litcrnttire of ttrc Olcl 'T'cs~~J~IL'I~~, New York: \Vorld Publishing Conlpany, c.1956 as a Meridin11 Bool;. EissFcltit, Otto. Thc Old Testanzcnt. Tr:~x~slatcti from thc third Germall cdition by Pctcr 11. Aclxoyrl. Ncw York: Harpcr ancl Row, 1965. Hillcrs, Dcl1)ert 11. Covenn~rt: The I-listory of n Iliblicnl Idca. I$altirnorc: John Hopkins Prcss, 1969. Johnson, Philip C. "Esotlus," The Wycliffc Bible Co~iznze~ztnry. Edited by Charles F. I'feiffer ancl Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962. Iccil, C. F., and P. Dclitzscll. RibZicnZ Commer~tnry on the Old Testntizent: The Pel-ztn- tcziclr. 11. Tra~~slatcd from the German by Jnmcs ,Martin. Grand Rapids: TVm. B. Ecrdmatls Publishing Company, 1919. I{cyscr, Ilcrman J. 11 Commcntnry on Esodzts. Grand Rapids: Zondcrvan I'ltblishing Con~pnnv, 1930. ICittel, itd doff, et al., ctlitors. Biblin Ilcbrnicn. Vol. I. Stuttgnrt: Privilegiertc Wucrt- tembergisclle J!ibelnnstnlt, 1945. I{ocl~, Klaus. The Gro~vtlz of the Riblical Tradition. Translateti froni tllc scconrl Gcrman cdition by S. M. Cupitt. New York: Cllarlcs Scribncr's Sons, 1969. Sons, 1969. Mnrty, hlnrtin E. Nciv Directions in 13iblicnl Thorcglzt. New Yorl;: Association Press, 1'260. -- .. -. Napicr, B. Davie. Tltc 13001~ of Exodus. Vol. 1.11 in The Lny~iza~z's Biblc Co,niizc~ztnry. Ilichlnond : Jol~n Knos IJrcss, 1963. Notll, Milrtin. Exodus. Translated fro111 thc Gcrnlan by J. S. Ilowdcn. Philadelphia: Wcstrni~~stcr I'rcss, 1962. old Tcstorrzcnt, The. Ilcvise~l Strrndnrd Version. Vol. I. New Yorl;: Thonlos Selson and Sons, 1952. I'errin, Norman. \.'ir/z.cct Is Jled~~ctiotz Criticisttz? Philadelphia: Fortrcss Press, 1969. Plastar:~~, J:tmcs. Tlrc Gud of EXOLZILS. Milrvaultee: 13ruee Publishing Company, 19G6. 13ac1, Gcr11;trd ).on. Tlze I'roblem of the Ncxntctrch n;zd Otlzcr Essays. Trnnslatcd from thc Gcrmnn Ily E. W. Trueman Dielcen,., London: Olivcr and Boyd, 196G. Ivlcy I. I "Moses tr~d the Dccnlogzic, ~lfcn of God. Nc~v Yorlc: TIlon~ns Xelson :~nd Sons, 1963. Rylaarsdam, J. Cocrt. "Ti~c Book of Exodus: Excgesis," TIzc Xlrtcr~7reter's Bible. I. Edited by <;eorgc A. JJ~~ttrick, et nl. Ncw Yorli: Abingdon-Colzatiort and Dcvcloptnsnt. Tra~lslatcd from the f'ourtll rcv~sctl Gcrmiln cditiorl by Dorothea M. Barton. New Yorlc: Association Prcss, 1961. Wright, G. E. "Exodus, 13001; of," TIL~ Iirtcrprcter's Dictionnry of the Uiblc. 11. Edited by Gcorgc A. l?uttricli, ct al. Ncvv Yorl; Abingdon Prcss, 1962. Pp. 188-197. Young, Ed~vard I. 1172 Ilrtroduction to the Old ?'estarnc7zt. IlcvisecI cdition. Grand Rapids: Wm. 1:. Eerdrnans l'uhlishing Company, c.1960.