Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Distinguishing the World of the Exodus Narrative from the World of Its Narrators: The Question of the Priestly Exodus Account in Its Historical Setting

  • Chapter
Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective

Abstract

When interpreting biblical texts historically, it is crucial to acknowledge the difference between the world of the narratives and the world of the narrators and to account for this difference in a methodologically controlled manner. The biblical account of Israel’s exodus from Egypt narrated in Exodus 1–15 is a highly debated topic in Hebrew Bible studies, in terms of both its compositional and also its historical evaluation. Nonetheless, in the global discussion on the Pentateuch, there is broad consensus about the Priestly texts in Exodus 1–15 (Exod 1:7, 13–14; 2:23*–25; 6:2–12; 7–11*; 14–15*). They provide an apt starting point for inquiry into the different historical settings of the biblical exodus account. The present chapter will discuss several narrative peculiarities in the Priestly exodus account that might be explained by their authorial setting in the early Persian period.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Dozeman et al. (2011); cf. Schmid (2010); Baden (2012a); idem (2012b); idem (2012c); Schwartz (2012a). For overviews of scholarship see, e.g., Fischer (2003); Römer (2004a, b); Otto (2009); Schmid (2008: 37–41).

  2. 2.

    Regarding its different final shapes, see Blum (1991).

  3. 3.

    See the standard text assignments by Elliger (1952); repr. 1966; Lohfink (1978/1988); Otto (1997). There is new debate, especially among European scholars, regarding the original end of P, especially in the wake of Perlitt (1988/1994). Compare the general thematic agreement, but variability with regard to the literary end at either Exodus 29 (Otto 1997), Exodus 40 (Pola 1995; Kratz 2000: 102–117; Bauks 2000), Leviticus 9 (Zenger 1997; idem 2004: 156–175), Leviticus 16 (Köckert 2004: 105; Nihan 2007: 20–68), or Numbers 27 (Ska 2008). A staggering of endings within the priestly document between Exodus 40 and Leviticus 26 is suggested by Gertz (2007: 236). Frevel (2000) supports the traditional conclusion in Deuteronomy 34 (cf. Schmidt 1993: 271; Weimar 2008: 17). Blenkinsopp (1976); Lohfink (1978/1988); Knauf (2000b); Guillaume (2009), see the conclusion of Pg in Joshua.

  4. 4.

    See, e.g., Rendtorff (1977a); idem (1975/1977b); Blum (1984); Kratz (2005); Otto (2007); Schmid (2010); idem (2012b); Berner (2010).

  5. 5.

    For a more detailed treatment of these processes, see Schmid (2010: 7–16, 334–347); idem (2011a).

  6. 6.

    See Schwartz (2012b).

  7. 7.

    See, e.g., the charts in Kratz (2000: 331), Otto (2003: 1099), and Gertz (2007: 216).

  8. 8.

    See Schmid (2010), building inter alia on Römer (1990) and de Pury (1991).

  9. 9.

    See, e.g., Carr (2001); Dozeman (2006); Van Seters (2006); Schmitt (2009a); Davies (2010).

  10. 10.

    See, e.g., Sommer (2011), who is albeit overstating his case.

  11. 11.

    Schiller (1804) (1996), see the commentary on 735–850.

  12. 12.

    For the details of the chronology, also regarding the different textual versions, see Hughes (1990).

  13. 13.

    Schmid (2010: 19).

  14. 14.

    See below n. 23.

  15. 15.

    See the discussion in Russell (2007); Dozeman (2009: 336–337); Utzschneider/Oswald (2013: 339–341).

  16. 16.

    See, e.g., Berner (2010: 389–400), especially 395; Klein (2012), see also the discussion in Albertz (2012: 253); Utzschneider/Oswald (2013: 341).

  17. 17.

    For the composite nature of the exodus account see, e.g., Gertz (2000); Dozeman (2009), but also Berner (2010); Albertz (2012).

  18. 18.

    See Schmid (2012a: 83–84), see also Hendel (2001); Bishop Moore and Kelle (2011: 77–95).

  19. 19.

    Weimar (1973); Römer (2009), see also Utzschneider/Oswald (2013: 50–52).

  20. 20.

    Berner (2010) (cf. my review in Schmid 2011c), see also Van Seters (1995: 574); Albertz (2012: 10–26).

  21. 21.

    Wöhrle (2012).

  22. 22.

    Following basically the delineations proposed by Gertz (2000: 394–396), cf. also Lohfink (1978/1988: 222–223 n. 29).

  23. 23.

    Cf. Lohfink (1978/1988: 227–242) (227: “Die Rückverwandlung der Geschichte in Mythus”); Knauf (2000a).

  24. 24.

    On P in Ex 14 see Levin (2013: 104–111).

  25. 25.

    See Schmid (2011b: 280).

  26. 26.

    Cf. Schmid (2012a: 166–167).

  27. 27.

    Berner (2010: 375–382) assumes a complicated literary process for the depiction of the Egyptian army in Exodus 14.

  28. 28.

    Cf. Van Seters (1995); Römer (2003). For the delimitation of P in the plague cycle see Gertz (2000: 79–97).

  29. 29.

    Cf. Gertz (2000: 82).

  30. 30.

    See n. 22.

  31. 31.

    Such an interpretation implies, of course, the original independence of the P source, contra, e.g., Van Seters (1995: 574). Blum (1990: 250–252) acknowledges the self-contained character of the Priestly plagues within the framework of his contextual interpretation of the Priestly plague cycle and he assumes that P has reworked a preexisting tradition.

  32. 32.

    Even the subsequent slaying of the firstborn is presented in a very reduced manner (as an announcement in two verses in Exodus 12:12–13, embedded in an elaborated Pessach account); the execution is not reported within P (Gertz 2000: 394–396).

  33. 33.

    de Pury (2007/2010).

  34. 34.

    Friedman (1987: 161–216), see also Hurvitz (1988: 88–100); idem (2000).

  35. 35.

    Propp (1999: 730–732).

  36. 36.

    Wellhausen (1886: 385–445).

  37. 37.

    See Vink (1969: 61); Knauf (2000b: 104–105); Nihan (2007: 383), see also Vermeylen (1992). Levin (1993: 124) takes a different stance.

  38. 38.

    Schmitt (1991); idem (2009b); Greenfield and Porten (1982).

  39. 39.

    Frei and Koch (1996: 201).

  40. 40.

    Von Beckerath (2002); Briant (2002: 50–55); Cruz-Uribe (2003).

  41. 41.

    The redactional verse 14:25 (see Krüger 1996: 532, see also n. 43 below) then interprets the Egyptians as the Egyptian soldiers who recognize, just before their death, that it is YHWH himself who fights against them.

  42. 42.

    See Schmid (2011b: 278–289).

  43. 43.

    Propp (1999: 400).

  44. 44.

    It might be possible to relate these “judgements” on the gods of Egypt to P’s specific location of the miracle at the sea “in front of Ba’al Zaphon” (Exod 14:2). The place is probably the antecedent to the sanctuary of Zeus Casios mentioned by Herodotus (II, 6, 158; III, 5) and is to be identified with Ras Qasrun on the sandbar of the Sabakhet (Sabkhat) el Bardawil. Excavations show no evidence reaching back prior to the Persian conquest of Egypt, see Davies (1990), especially 162–164. It is noteworthy that, according to P, the Israelites are commanded to head back (šwb) to “Ba’al Zaphon” in order that the miracle can take place, see Krüger (1996: 521f). The miracle in P is mainly a demonstration of God’s power, not necessary for the deliverance of the Israelites.

  45. 45.

    See Wagner (2012: 68–72). Utzschneider/Oswald (2013: 320) also highlight the use of in Exodus 14:25.

  46. 46.

    See also Struppe (1988: 139–143).

  47. 47.

    For Exodus 2 as the original beginning of the exodus story, see Otto (2000); Carr (2001); Schmid (2010).

  48. 48.

    Cf. Kratz (1991: 104 n. 388); see for Isaiah 45 also Leuenberger (2010). The most fitting counterpart for Isa 45:3 is Exodus 5:2:

    figure y

    However, the literary-history location and affiliation of this verse are unclear (see, e.g., Gertz 2000: 335–339). At any rate, it does not seem to be part of P.

  49. 49.

    Rendsburg (2006).

  50. 50.

    See above n. 34. A good overview on the overall debate is provided by the contributions in Young (2003); Miller-Naudé and Zevit (2012).

  51. 51.

    Cf., e.g., Nihan (2007: 608–619).

  52. 52.

    See also Bishop Moore and Kelle (2011).

References

  • Albertz, R. 2012. Exodus 1–18, Zürcher Bibelkommentare 2.1. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baden, J.S. 2012a. The Continuity of the Non-Priestly Narrative from Genesis to Exodus. Biblica 93: 161–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012b. From Joseph to Moses: The Narratives of Exodus 1–2. Vetus Testamentum 62: 133–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012c. The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauks, M. 2000. La signification de l’espace et du temps dans “l’historiographie sacerdotale”. In The Future of the Deuteronomistic History, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, vol. 147, ed. T. Römer, 29–45. Leuven: Peeters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berner, C. 2010. Die Exoduserza¨hlung: Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungserzählung Israels, Forschungen zum Alten Testament, vol. 73. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop Moore, M., and B.E. Kelle. 2011. Biblical history and Israel’s Past: The Changing Study of Bible and history. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blenkinsopp, J. 1976. The Structure of P. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38: 275–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum, E. 1984. Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, vol. 57. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum, E. (1990) Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. 189. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1991. Gibt es die Endgestalt des Pentateuch? In Congress Volume Leuven 1989, Vetus Testamentum Supplements, vol. 43, ed. J.A. Emerton, 46–57. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briant, P. 2002. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Translated by Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, D.M. 2001. Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story. Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives. In Studies in the Book of Genesis. Literature, Redaction and History, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, vol. 155, ed. A. Wénin, 273–295. Leuven: Peeters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz-Uribe, E. 2003. The Invasion of Egypt by Cambyses. Transeuphratène 25: 9–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, G.I. 1990. The Wilderness itineraries and recent archaeological research. In Studies in the Pentateuch, Vetus Testamentum Supplements, vol. 41, ed. J.A. Emerton, 161–175. Leiden: Brill.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. The transition from Genesis to Exodus. In Genesis, Isaiah and Psalms, Vetus Testamentum Supplements, vol. 135, ed. K.J. Dell, G.I. Davies, and Y. Von Koh, 59–78. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Pury, A. 1991. Le cycle de Jacob comme légende autonome des origines d‘Israël. In Congress Volume Leuven 1989, Vetus Testamentum Supplements, vol. 43, ed. J.A. Emerton, 78–96. Leiden: Brill.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007/2010. Pg as the Absolute Beginning. In Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque, ed. T. Römer, and K. Schmid. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 203. 99–128, Leuven: Peeters, repr. 2010. In Die Patriarchen und die Priesterschrift: Les Patriarches et le document sacerdotal. Gesammelte Studien zu seinem 70. Geburtstag: Recueil d’articles, à l’occasion de son 70e anniversaire, ed. J.-D. Macchi et al. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 99. 13–42, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dozeman, T.B. 2006. The Commission of Moses and the Book of Genesis. In A farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European interpretation, Society of Biblical Literature symposium series, vol. 34, ed. T.B. Dozeman and K. Schmid, 107–129. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Commentary on Exodus, The Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dozeman, T.B., K. Schmid, and B.J. Schwartz. 2011. The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, Forschungen zum Alten Testament, vol. 78. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliger, K. 1952. Sinn und Ursprung der priesterlichen Geschichtserzählung. Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 49: 121–143, repr. 1966, In Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament, ed. H. Gese, and O. Kaiser. Theologische Bücherei 32. 174–198, Munich: Kaiser.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G. 2003. Zur Lage der Pentateuchforschung. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 115: 608–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frei, P., and K. Koch. 1996. Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, vol. 55. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frevel, C. 2000. Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern, Herders Biblische Studien, vol. 23. Freiburg: Herder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R.E. 1987. Who Wrote the Bible? San Francisco, CA: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gertz, J.C. 2000. Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, vol. 186. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Grundinformation Altes Testament, Uni-Taschenbücher, vol. 2745. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenfield, J.C., and B. Porten. 1982. The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, Part I. Inscriptions of Ancient Iran, Vol. V. The Aramaic Versions of the Achaemenian Inscriptions, Texts I. Lund Humpries: Aramaic version. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guillaume, P. 2009. Land and Calendar: The Priestly Document from Genesis 1 to Joshua 18, Library of Hebrew Bible, Old Testament Studies, vol. 391. New York, NY: T&T Clark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendel, R. 2001. The Exodus in Biblical Memory. Journal of Biblical Literature 120(2001): 601–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J. 1990. Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement series, vol. 66. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurvitz, A. 1988. Dating the Priestly Source in Light of the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew. A Century after Wellhausen. In Lebendige Forschung im Alten Testament, ed. O. Kaiser, 88–100. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000. Once again: The Linguistic Profile of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch and its Historical Age. A Response to J. Blenkinsopp. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 112(2): 180–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, A. 2012. Hymn and History in Ex. 15: Observations on the Relationship between Temple Theology and Exodus Narrative in the Song of the Sea. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 124: 516–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knauf, E.A. 2000a. Der Exodus zwischen Mythos und Geschichte: Zur priesterschriftlichen Rezeption der Schilfmeer-Geschichte in Ex 14. In Schriftauslegung in der Schrift. Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. 300, ed. R.G. Kratz et al., 73–84. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000b. Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichten der Deuteronomisten. In The Future of the Deuteronomistic History, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, vol. 147, ed. T. Römer, 101–118. Leuven: Peeters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Köckert, M. 2004. Leben in Gottes Gegenwart. Studien zum Verständnis des Gesetzes im Alten Testament, Forschungen zum Alten Testament, vol. 43. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratz, R.G. 1991. Kyros im Deuterojesaja-Buch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Entstehung und Theologie von Jes 40–55, Forschungen zum Alten Testament, vol. 1. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000. Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments, Uni-Taschenbücher, vol. 2157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005. The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament. London: T&T Clark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krüger, T. 1996. Erwägungen zur Redaktion der Meerwundererzählung (Exodus 13,17-14,31). Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 108: 519–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leuenberger, M. 2010. Ich bin Jhwh und keiner sonst (Jes 45,5f): Der exklusive Monotheismus des Kyros-Orakels Jes 45,1–7 in seinem religions- und theologiegeschichtlichen Kontext, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien, vol. 224. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, C. 1993. Der Jahwist, Forschungen zur Literatur und Geschichte des Alten und Neuen Testaments, vol. 157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Source criticism: The Miracle at the Sea. In Re-Reading the Scriptures: Essays on the Literary History of the Old Testament, Forschungen zum Alten Testament, vol. 87, 95–114. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohfink, N. 1978/1988. Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichte. In Congress Volume Göttingen 1977, ed. J.A. Emerton. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 29. 183–225, Leiden: Brill, repr. 1988, In Studien zum Pentateuch. Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände 4. 213–253, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller-Naudé, C., and Z. Zevit. 2012. Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic, vol. 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nihan, C. 2007. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus, Forschungen zum Alten Testament, vol. II/25. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto, E. 1997. Forschungen zur Priesterschrift. Theologische Rundschau 62: 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000. Mose und das Gesetz: Die Mose-Figur als Gegenentwurf Politischer Theologie zur neuassyrischen Königsideologie im 7. Jh. v. Chr. In Mose: Ägypten und das Alte Testament, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien, vol. 189, 43–83. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003. Pentateuch. Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 6. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Das Gesetz des Mose. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Kritik der Pentateuchkomposition: Eine Diskussion neuerer Entwürfe. In Die Tora: Studien zum Pentateuch: Gesammelte Aufsätze, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 9, ed. O. Otto, 143–167. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pola, T. 1995. Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift. Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, vol. 70. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlitt, L. 1988/1994. Priesterschrift im Deuteronomium? Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 100 Supplements: 65–88, repr. 1994, In Deuteronomium-Studien, ed. L. Perlitt. Forschungen zum Alten Testament. 123–143, Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Propp, W.H. 1999. Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 2A. New York, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rendsburg, G.A. 2006. Moses Equal to Pharaoh. In Text, Artifact, and Image. Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion, Brown Judaic studies, vol. 346, ed. G.M. Beckman and T.J. Lewis, 201–219. Providence, RI: Brown University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rendtorff, R. 1977a. Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. 147. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1975/1977b. Der “Jahwist” als Theologe? Zum Dilemma der Pentateuchkritik. In Congress Volume Edinburgh 1974, ed. G.W. Anderson et al. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 28. 158–166, Leiden: Brill, trans. 1977 The “Yahwist” as Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism. Journal for the Sutdy of the Old Testament 3: 2–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Römer, T.C. 1990. Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, vol. 99. Fribourg: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003. Competing magicians in Exodus 7-9: Interpreting magic in the priestly theology. In Magic in the biblical world. From the rod of Aaron to the ring of Solomon, Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement series, vol. 245, ed. T.E. Klutz, 12–22. London: T & T Clark.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004a. Hauptprobleme der gegenwärtigen Pentateuchforschung. Theologische Zeitschrift 60: 289–307.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004b. La formation du Pentateuque: histoire de la recherche. In Introduction à l’Ancien Testament, Le Monde de la Bible, vol. 49, ed. T. Römer, J.-D. Macchi, and C. Nihan, 67–84. Geneva: Labor et Fides.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. The Exodus Narrative according to the Priestly Document. In The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, vol. 95, ed. S. Shectman and J.S. Baden, 157–174. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B.D. 2007. The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1–21, Studies in Biblical Literature, vol. 101. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiller, F. 1996. Tell: Schauspiel. In Werke und Briefe, Dramen IV, ed. F. Schiller, 385–505. Frankfurt am Main: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, K. 2008. Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, trans. 2012a, The Old Testament: A Literary History. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. Genesis and the Moses story: Israel’s dual origins in the Hebrew Bible, Siphrut, vol. 3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011a. Has European Pentateuchal Scholarship Abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis? Some Reminders on Its History and Remarks on Its Current Status. In The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, Forschungen zum Alten Testament, ed. T. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. Schwartz, 17–30. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011b. The Quest for “God:” Monotheistic Arguments in the Priestly Texts of the Hebrew Bible. In Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, ed. B. Pongratz-Leisten, 271–289. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011c. Rez. zu C. Berner. Die Exoduserzählung. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 123: 292–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012a. See Schmid K. 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012b. Genesis in the Pentateuch. In The Book of Genesis. Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, Vetus Testamentum Supplements, vol. 152, ed. C.A. Evans, J. Lohr, and D. Petersen, 27–50. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, L. 1993. Studien zur Priesterschrift, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. 214. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, H.-C. 2009a. Erzväter- und Exodusgeschichte als konkurrierende Ursprungslegenden Israels – ein Irrweg der Pentateuchforschung. In Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition, ed. A.C. Hagedorn, and H. Pfeiffer. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 400. 241–266, Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, R. 1991. The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the Great: Old Persian Texts. Corpus inscriptionum Iranicarum. Part I: Inscriptions of Ancient Iran. Vol. I: The Old Persian Inscriptions. Texts I. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Die altpersischen Inschriften der Achaimeniden: Editio minor mit deutscher Übersetzung. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, B.J. 2012a. The Pentateuch as Scripture and the Challenge of Biblical Criticism: Responses among modern Jewish Thinkers and Scholars. In Jewish Concepts of Scripture: A Comparative Introduction, ed. B.D. Sommer, 203–228. New York: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012b. How the Compiler of the Pentateuch Worked: The Composition of Genesis 37. In The Book of Genesis – Composition, Reception and Interpretation, ed. C.A. Evans, J.N. Lohr, and D.L. Petersen, 263–278. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ska, J.-L. 2008. Le récit sacerdotal. Une “histoire sans fin”? In The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, vol. 215, ed. T. Römer, 631–653. Leuven: Peeters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, B.D. 2011. Dating Pentateuchal Texts and the Perils of Pseudo-Historicism. In The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. T.B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B.J. Schwartz, 85–108. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Struppe, U. 1988. Die Herrlichkeit Jahwes in der Priesterschrift, Österreichische Biblische Studien, vol. 9. Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utzschneider, H./Oswald, W. 2013. Exodus 1–15. Internationaler exegetischer Kommentar. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Seters, J. 1995. A Contest of Magicians? The Plague Stories in P. In Pomegranates and Golden Bells. Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. D.P. Wright, D.N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz, 569–580. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. The Patriarchs and the Exodus: Bridging the Gap between Two Origin Traditions. In The Interpretation of Exodus, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, vol. 44, ed. R. Roukema, 1–15. Leuven: Peeters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeylen, J. 1992. La “table des nations” (Gn 10): Yaphet figure-t-il l’Empire perse? Transeuphratène 5: 113–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vink, J.G. 1969. The Date and the Origin of the Priestly Code in the Old Testament. In The Priestly Code and Seven Other Studies, Oudtestamentische studiën, vol. 52, ed. J.G. Vink et al., 1–144. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Beckerath, J. 2002. Nochmals die Eroberung Ägyptens durch Kambyses. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 129: 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, T. 2012. Gottes Herrlichkeit: Bedeutung und Verwendung des Begriffs kābôd im Alten Testament, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vol. 151. Leiden: Brill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weimar, P. 1973. Untersuchungen zur priesterschriftlichen Exodusgeschichte, Forschung zur Bibel, vol. 9. Würzburg: Echter.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008. Studien zur Priesterschrift, Forschungen zum Alten Testament, vol. 56. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellhausen, J. 1886. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 3rd ed. Berlin: Reimer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wöhrle, J. 2012. Fremdlinge im eigenen Land: Zur Entstehung und Intention der priesterlichen Passagen der Vätergeschichte, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, vol. 246. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. 2003. Biblical Hebrew. Studies in Chronology and Typology, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement series, vol. 369. London: T &T Clark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zenger, E. 1997. Priesterschrift. Theologische Realenzyklopädie 27: 435–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Studienbücher Theologie 1,1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Konrad Schmid

Authors
  1. Konrad Schmid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Konrad Schmid .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, San Diego, California, USA

    Thomas E. Levy

  2. The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

    Thomas Schneider

  3. University of California, San Diego, California, USA

    William H.C. Propp

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schmid, K. (2015). Distinguishing the World of the Exodus Narrative from the World of Its Narrators: The Question of the Priestly Exodus Account in Its Historical Setting. In: Levy, T., Schneider, T., Propp, W. (eds) Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective. Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04768-3_24

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation