Abstract
In this chapter, Lee brings the tendentious nature of reading/speaking to the fore in scrutinizing the God-Moses speeches in Exodus 11:1–13:16. Through the speeches, Lee traces the binary logic—Israelite/foreigner, inside(r)/outside(r), security/hazard, holy/profane—in defining exclusive, and excluded, categories from the Passover rites to the institution of firstfruits/firstling offerings. Lee demonstrates that, from the outset, Israel’s articulation of its boundaries is a contention of perspectives set in the very tissue of the text. Moses and God, in tandem, cast and expand the web of categories that define ‘Israel.’ Speaking/reading, therefore, is essentially interactive.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See Eva Mroczek, ‘Moses, David and Scribal Revelation: Preservation and Renewal in Second Temple Jewish Textual Traditions,’ in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity (ed. George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman and Loren T. Stuckenbruck; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 112. Mroczek’s argument proceeds with reference to Jub. 1:5–7, 1:26–2:1. For a similar perspective, see Hindy Najman, ‘Interpretation as Primordial Writing: Jubilees and Its Authority Conferring Strategies,’ Journal for the Study of Judaism 30 (1999): 406–08; idem., Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 12–25.
- 2.
For Moses as a paradigm for the eschatological prophet in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see George J. Brooke, ‘Moving Mountains: From Sinai to Jerusalem,’ in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity (ed. George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman and Loren T. Stuckenbruck; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 81–84; Marcus Tso, ‘The Giving of the Torah at Sinai and the Ethics of the Qumran Community,’ in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity (ed. George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman and Loren T. Stuckenbruck; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 123. Brooke’s comments stem from an analysis of portions from 4Q174 (Florilegium), 4Q175 (Testimonia), and 4Q177 (Catenaª). Elsewhere, Brooke explores the prophetic imagination in rewritten prophetic texts at Qumran (‘Prophecy and Prophets in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Looking Backwards and Forwards,’ in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism [ed. Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak; Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 427; New York: T & T Clark, 2006], 151–65; see especially 154–56). According to Brooke, the profuse deployment of biblical prophetic texts coupled with the absence of any argument for legitimacy, as seen in Pseudo-Ezekiela-d (4Q385, 4Q385b, 4Q386, 4Q388) and the Jeremiah Apocrypha (A-Ca-f) (4Q383, 4Q384, 4Q385a, 4Q387, 4Q387a, 4Q388a, 4Q389, 4Q389a, 4Q390), betrays the assumption of a prophetic function by the authors of such texts. These writers, in spelling out for their contexts meanings incipient in and inherent to earlier prophetic visions, were no less engaged in prophecy.
- 3.
James W. Watts, ‘The Legal Characterization of Moses in the Rhetoric of the Pentateuch,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 117 (1998): 418–22; Marc Zvi Brettler, ‘“Fire, Cloud and Deep Darkness” (Deuteronomy 5:22): Deuteronomy’s Recasting of Revelation,’ in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity (ed. George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman and Loren T. Stuckenbruck; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 22–27. Watts and Brettler stand at the end of a long line of scholars investigating the legal innovations in the book of Deuteronomy. Watts, in particular, pursues a distinction between the roles of Moses as prophet and scribe; acts of interpretation and innovation belong, properly, in the latter role. This boundary, in my analysis, is porous.
- 4.
As mentioned in the chapter of introduction, such goals, often of penultimate import, are ubiquitous in Hebrew Bible studies. See, for example, the recent thorough analysis of the Pentateuch’s dissonance on prophecy by Jeffrey Stackert, A Prophet Like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2014).
- 5.
While my analysis shall note the speaker for each segment of speech, I shall consider direct quotations of divine speech within the speeches of the prophet to belong to the perspective of the prophet. This approach is useful, especially, when distinctions in the prophet’s communication of divine instruction occur in comparison with a preceding speech by God on the same subject: the distance between the two voices becomes evident.
- 6.
As the choice of terms here betrays, Mikhail Bakhtin’s conception of ‘polyphony’ in the novel inspires my thoughts on this matter. All utterances, by this conception, are multi-voiced, a conglomeration reflecting the religious, socioeconomic, ideological, and other variations representative of other voices in dialogical tension within a work. For a demonstration of Bakhtin’s approach in reading Dostoevsky’s novels, see Mikhail Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics (trans. Caryl Emerson; Theory and History of Literature 8; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984). For a comprehensive and systematic introduction to the often complex thinking of Bakhtin, see Michael Holquist, Dialogism: Bakhtin and his World (London: Routledge, 1990); Sue Vice, Introducing Bakhtin (New York: Manchester University Press, 1997). For a concise overview and application in biblical studies, see Barbara Green, Mikhail Bakhtin and Biblical Scholarship: An Introduction (Semeia Studies 38; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000).
- 7.
Among others, A. H. McNeile, The Book of Exodus (London: Methuen, 1908), 60; B. D. Eerdmans, Das Buch Exodus (Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1910), 29; S.R. Driver, The Book of Exodus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 84; Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical Theological Commentary (Old Testament Library; Louisville: Westminster, 1974), 160–62. The portion of Exodus 11:4–8 is thought to derive from the Yahwistic source (J). For a concise overview of literary problems in Exodus 11:1–10, see Martin Noth, Exodus (trans. J.S. Bowden; Old Testament Library; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 92–93; John I. Durham, Exodus (Word Biblical Commentary 3; Waco: Word, 1987), 146–47. For a concise outline of the rationale(s) for the identification of the sources of the Pentateuch, their idiosyncratic traits and the twists and turns in the discussion, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (The Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York and London: Doubleday, 1992), 4–12; Jean-Louis Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (trans. Sr. Pascale Dominique; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 131–61. A robust defense and revision of the Documentary Hypothesis with extensive demonstration of its cogency is Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (The Anchor Bible Reference Library; New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2012).
- 8.
Childs, The Book of Exodus, 161–62. For an argument along similar lines, see Waldemar Janzen, Exodus (Waterloo: Herald, 2000), 134; Terence Fretheim, Exodus (Louisville: John Knox, 1991), 131.
- 9.
On this perspective, see Cornelis Houtman, Exodus (trans. Sierd Woudstra; 4 vols.; Kampen: Kok, 1993–2002), 2:134; William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 2; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 344. Propp goes as far as to include the Israelites and readers as addressees.
- 10.
Frederick V. Winnett, The Mosaic Tradition (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1949), 11–12, places Exodus 10:28–29 between Exodus 11:8a and 11:8b in an earlier version of the text. See also John Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville: Westminster, 1994), 108; Paul Heinisch, Das Buch Exodus (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1934), 95–96. For Winnett, the clauses of Exodus 10:28–29 were removed to the present location by the Priestly (P) author in order to mark a conclusion to the story of the plagues at the end of chapter 10. Subsequently, Exodus 11:9–10 was composed to set the inauguration of the Passover within the context of a final (tenth) plague.
- 11.
Most scholars find P’s handiwork in the passage: among others, Noth, Exodus, 94; Childs, The Book of Exodus, 184; Propp, Exodus 1–18, 379–80. Childs and Propp offer concise outlines of the distinctive characteristics of P’s version of the ritual in comparison with the pre-P preoccupation with the blood rite (see Exod 12:21–23). See also McNeile, The Book of Exodus, 63.
- 12.
The clauses of Exodus 12:1–13 attest to a semantic range in the use of the term ‘house’ (byt). While ‘house’ in vv. 3b (two times), 4a, and 4b refers to members of a household, ‘the houses’ (hbbtym) in vv. 7b and 13a almost certainly designate the physical structures of the domiciles. Shimon Bar-On has noted the repeated use of the term and finds in the similar prominence of ‘house’ in Exodus 12:22–27a indication that Exodus 12:22–27a followed Exodus 12:7 at an earlier stage in the development of the text (‘Zur Literarkritischen Analyse von Ex 12,21–27,’ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 107 [1995]: 23–25).
- 13.
The senses to ‘house’ and ‘eating’ will narrow in Exodus 12:14–20.
- 14.
The sacredness and elevated status to these rituals of consumption are the affects of such proscriptions. See, among others, J. B. Segal, The Hebrew Passover from the Earliest Times to A.D. 70 (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), 207; Propp, Exodus 1–18, 396–97; Houtman, Exodus, 2:181. Roland de Vaux, Les Sacrifices de l’Ancien Testament (Paris: Gabalda, 1961), 12, links the restriction of consumption to the night and the disposal of leftovers at daybreak to nomadic practice, the imputed original context for the rite.
- 15.
The designation of the object of destruction in Exodus 12:12 may be read as an abbreviation of the longer statement in Exodus 11:5, maintaining the categories (animal and human) of the preceding expression (Exod 11:5).
- 16.
The emphasis on divine agency has been noted by several scholars: U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967), 140; Childs, The Book of Exodus, 192; Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 116. Italicization in the text is my doing.
- 17.
The preference for the abstract infinitival expression lmšḥyt (‘to destroy’) in Exodus 12:13b, instead of the personified agent of destruction, hmmšḥyt (‘the destroyer’; see also 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:12) in Exodus 12:23b, may indicate P’s aversion to the idea of ministering angels (see Richard E. Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? [New York: Summit], 191; Propp, Exod –18, 401–02). Priestly reservation in such matters, as it turns out, contributes to the rhetorical direction of the passage in emphasizing God as the agent of destruction. No other ‘destroyer’ (hmmšḥyt) exists in the speech of Exodus 12:1–13 to steal the show from Israel’s national deity. However, H. G. May contends, with reference to Exodus 13:14, 15 and Deuteronomy 6:20, that Israel’s god is often indistinguishable from the extraterrestrial agents of his will (‘The Relation of the Passover to the Festival of Unleavened Cakes,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 55 [1936]: 70). Reference to such beings, in his view, does not diminish divine participation. May’s contention presents no problem to my argument here. The function of emphasis inherent to the selection of certain lexical or grammatical forms over others does not presume the absence of the object of amplification in a text under comparison. In fact, the opposite is the case. The proliferation of first-person verbs and the choice of the infinitive construct lmšḥyt embolden a notion (divine initiative) already present in surrounding texts. Emphasis, in this capacity, draws attention to something present already in a work.
- 18.
The progression of thought in both statements is identical: a call to abstain from leaven leading into a stipulated consequence for failure to do such.
- 19.
Israel Knohl finds in Exodus 12:18–20 a structure that places the grave consequence of excommunication in focus (The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995], 21): command to eat unleavened bread (v. 18), prohibition of leaven (v. 19a), consequence of excommunication (v. 19b), prohibition of leaven (v. 20a), and command to eat unleavened bread (v. 20b). Combining the foci of both constructions in the passage (Knohl’s and mine) leads to an understanding of Passover observance/remembrance as inclusion in the congregation of Israel, a state diametrically opposed to that of excommunication.
- 20.
The postulation that the festival was a celebration of the harvest and only subsequently related to the Passover has been rehearsed elsewhere: J. Morgenstern, ‘The Origins of Massoth and the Massoth Festival,’ American Journal of Theology 21 (1917): 275–93; J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture (2 vols.; London: Oxford University Press, 1940), 2:399–401; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (trans. John McHugh; London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961), 490–92. The details of that theory are not the concern of this study, but only the connections, albeit artificial and secondary, forged in the conjunction of Exodus 12:1–13 and 14–20, and the inconcinnities that remain for readers encountering the text.
- 21.
Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 140.
- 22.
Even the chronological irregularities in the speech of Exodus 12:1–20 participates in bridging the two rites. One might ask: does ‘this day’ of Exodus 12:14a refer to the day of the Passover meal, the destruction, the departure (see Exod 12:17), or the inception of the festival of unleavened bread (Exod 12:18)? The list of activities straddles two days (14 and 15 Nisan). By formal and semantic resemblance, ‘this day’ echoes other temporal phrases in surrounding texts. Looking backward from Exodus 12:14a, ‘this day’ picks up ‘this month’ in Exodus 12:1a (the start of the year that commemorates the exodus) and ‘on this night’ of Exodus 12:8a, 12a (the night of the Passover meal and of the destruction, respectively). Looking ahead from Exodus 12:14a, ‘this day’ designates the day of Israel’s departure (15 Nisan) in Exodus 12:17a, b, which the festival (its inception slated for 14 Nisan according to Exod 12:18) commemorates. The cluster of similar temporal expressions draws together the various activities of both days, underscoring the temporal confusion. Confusion, however, may be in order in a speech that seeks to con-fuse two rituals. Several commentators follow this trend when they suggest that ‘this day’ in Exodus 12:14a refers to both days loosely: Childs, Exodus, 197; Durham, Exodus, 157–58; Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, 19–20. A similar fastidious attention to temporal delimitations, even if inaccurate, straddles both acts of ritual. The fusion of the start of both rites is also the accomplishment of Ezekiel 45:21, as Knohl points out, but in contrast to Leviticus 23:5–8 and Numbers 28:16–18.
- 23.
George W. Coats, Exodus 1–18 (Forms of the Old Testament Literature 2a; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 83.
- 24.
The unique properties of Exodus 12:21–28 and the assignment of the bulk of it by many to a pre-Priestly (P) stratum have been flagged in an earlier part of this essay (see n. 15). While the narrow focus on the blood rite is unique to Exodus 12:21–23, the literary, lexical, and thematic links with P’s prescriptions of Exodus 12:1–13 (some of which have been mentioned earlier) have led some to seek the origins of Exodus 12:21–28 in that source (see May, ‘The Relation of the Passover,’ 71–73; B.N. Wambacq, ‘Les Origines de la Pesah Israélite,’ Biblica 57 [1976]: 316–18; Coats, Exodus 1–18, 82–83; Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 115–16; Bar-On, ‘Zur literarkritischen Analyse,’ 22).
- 25.
So noted by Bar-On, ‘Zur literarkritischen Analyse,’ 22 n. 25.
- 26.
Several scholars have noted here the significance of the threshold as the transit space between the benign spaces of the house and the external environment populated by malevolent forces: Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 58–59; Houtman, Exodus, 2:175–76; Propp, Exodus 1–18, 434–39. In Exodus 12:22, the administration of blood to ward off the onslaught of the ‘destroyer’ from outside the house seems superfluous in the light of Exodus 11:4–7 (see also Exod 4:24–26); there God recognizes Israelite homes without need for a sign. Propp finds a ritual similar to the Passover in the Muslim rite of fidya. The latter is an undertaking in times of danger (transition, disease, etc.) for the community. Blood from a slain beast is applied to various objects, including doorways, for the purpose of protecting those inside. Houtman observes similarities between the blood rite of the Passover and the Jewish practice of attaching scrolls of scriptural passages to doorposts (see Deut 6:5; 11:20), and also the Christian practice of installing crucifixes in the same location.
- 27.
Both meanings are possible. The concept of a receptacle is appropriate to 2 Samuel 17:28, 2 Kings 12:14, and Jeremiah 52:19. ‘Doorway’ would suit the contexts of Judges 19:27, Isaiah 6:4, and Amos 9:1. The Aramaic versions prefer the idea of a receptacle, while the Septuagint and the Vulgate reference a doorway. Similarly, scholars are divided on this matter. In favor of ‘threshold,’ with the implication that the slaughter takes place by the entrance, are A. M. Honeyman (‘Hebrew סַף “Basin, Goblet”,’ Journal of Theological Studies 37 [1936]: 59), Houtman (Exod, 2:193), and Levinson (Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, 59). Others consider ‘receptacle’ a better fit: McNeile, The Book of Exodus, 72; Segal, The Hebrew Passover, 158 n. 1; Propp, Exodus 1–18, 408. This last option suits the degree of attention to the threshold in Exodus 12:21–24. The alternative (‘receptacle’), however, would not subtract from my argument here. The image of a doorway would remain a possibility, a playful offering through the choice of the ambiguous term for readers who would perceive a connection with the broader literary context.
- 28.
The efficiency of the NRSV here obscures the Hebrew in this case, omitting the very parenthetical phrase of distribution to which I allude. A more precise, but clumsy, translation is: ‘You shall not go forth, a man from the door of his house, until dawn’ (Exod 12:22).
- 29.
Richard Friedman, Commentary on the Torah (San Francisco: Harper, 2001), 207. Of course, the implication of a vicarious function to the lamb’s slaughter in Exodus 12:22–24 is but one interpretation of these verses. Other postulated meanings to the sacrifice and the blood manipulation, beyond an apotropaic function, include the related acts of purification (Segal, The Hebrew Passover, 157–62, 185–86; see Lev 14:2–9, Num 119:2–10, and Ezek 45:18–20) and reconciliation (Heinisch, Das Buch Exodus, 101–2).
- 30.
This is the dominant reading of the significance to the requirement: for example, Propp, Exodus 1–18, 418; Houtman, Exodus, 2:208; Durham, Exodus, 173; McNeile, The Book of Exodus, 77. The proscription, of course, accords with the element of haste (see 12:11), which would dictate a departure from customary methods of preparation (see Mic 3:3).
- 31.
The rendition of the NRSV reads the two Hebrew terms in succession as a case of hendiadys: see, also, Houtman, Exodus, 2:207. The alternative understanding of two distinct parties of temporary status in Israel is more common: Propp, Exodus 1–18, 417–18; Durham, Exodus, 169; McNeile, The Book of Exodus, 77.
- 32.
The statement, effectively, muddies the categories. Conceivably, it allows Egyptians to enter the ‘house’ if they submit to circumcision. Conversely, the privileged parties indoors might surrender their privilege. The divine voice, here, affirms the realm within doors as Israel’s space designated and clarified by God and prophet. Here Israel’s unity, by submission to circumcision, is forged. Here Israel, as one ‘house’ with invited guests, shares God’s protective embrace.
- 33.
Childs, The Book of Exodus, 202–04.
- 34.
Ibid., 203.
- 35.
Ibid., 203. The instructions here are considered, largely, the work of the Deuteronomist (D): Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 119–22; Durham, Exodus, 176; Noth, Exodus, 101–02; McNeile, The Book of Exodus, 78.
References
Baden, Joel S. 2012. The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. The Anchor Bible Reference Library; New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, trans. Caryl Emerson. Theory and History of Literature 8; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Bar-On, Shimon. 1995. ‘Zur Literarkritischen Analyse von Ex 12,21–27.’ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 107: 18–31.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. 1992. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. The Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York and London: Doubleday.
Brettler, Marc Zvi. 2008. ‘“Fire, Cloud and Deep Darkness” (Deuteronomy 5:22): Deuteronomy’s Recasting of Revelation.’ In The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, ed. George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman and Loren T. Stuckenbruck. Leiden: Brill.
Brooke, George J. 2006. ‘Prophecy and Prophets in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Looking Backwards and Forwards.’ In Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism, ed. Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 427; New York: T & T Clark.
Brooke, George J. 2008. ‘Moving Mountains: From Sinai to Jerusalem.’ In The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, ed. George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman and Loren T. Stuckenbruck. Leiden: Brill.
Cassuto, U. 1967. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, trans. Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Childs, Brevard S. 1974. The Book of Exodus: A Critical Theological Commentary. Old Testament Library; Louisville: Westminster.
Coats, George W. 1999. Exodus 1–18. Forms of the Old Testament Literature 2a; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Driver, S.R. 1953. The Book of Exodus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Durham, John I. 1987. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary 3; Waco: Word.
Eerdmans, B.D. 1910. Das Buch Exodus. Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann.
Friedman, Richard. 2001. Commentary on the Torah. San Francisco: Harper.
Fretheim, Terence. 1991. Exodus. Louisville: John Knox.
Green, Barbara. 2000. Mikhail Bakhtin and Biblical Scholarship: An Introduction. Semeia Studies 38; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Heinisch, Paul. 1934. Das Buch Exodus. Bonn: Peter Hanstein.
Holquist, Michael. 1997. Dialogism: Bakhtin and his World. London: Routledge.
Honeyman, A.M. 1936. ‘Hebrew סַף “Basin, Goblet”.’ Journal of Theological Studies 37: 56–59.
Houtman, Cornelis. 1993–2002. Exodus, trans. Sierd Woudstra. 4 vols.; Kampen: Kok.
Janzen, Waldemar. 2000. Exodus. Waterloo: Herald, 2000.
Knohl, Israel. 1995. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Levinson, Bernard M. 1998. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
May, H.G. 1936. ‘The Relation of the Passover to the Festival of Unleavened Cakes.’ Journal of Biblical Literature 55: 65–82.
Morgenstern, J. 1917. ‘The Origins of Massoth and the Massoth Festival.’ American Journal of Theology 21: 275–93.
McNeile, A.H. 1908. The Book of Exodus. London: Methuen.
Mroczek, Eva. 2008. ‘Moses, David and Scribal Revelation: Preservation and Renewal in Second Temple Jewish Textual Traditions.’ In The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, ed. George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman and Loren T. Stuckenbruck. Leiden: Brill.
Najman, Hindy. 1999. ‘Interpretation as Primordial Writing: Jubilees and Its Authority Conferring Strategies.’ Journal for the Study of Judaism 30: 379–410.
Najman, Hindy. 2003. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. Leiden: Brill.
Noth, Martin. 1962. Exodus, trans. J.S. Bowden. Old Testament Library; Philadelphia: Westminster.
Pedersen, J. 1940. Israel: Its Life and Culture. 2 vols.; London: Oxford University Press.
Propp, William H.C. 1999. Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 2; New Haven: Yale University Press.
Segal, J.B. 1963. The Hebrew Passover from the Earliest Times to A.D. 70. London: Oxford University Press.
Ska, Jean-Louis. 2006. Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch, trans. Sr. Pascale Dominique. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Stackert, Jeffrey. 2014. A Prophet Like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Tso, Marcus. 2008. ‘The Giving of the Torah at Sinai and the Ethics of the Qumran Community.’ In The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, ed. George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman and Loren T. Stuckenbruck. Leiden: Brill.
Van Seters, John. 1994. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers. Louisville: Westminster.
de Vaux, R. 1961. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, trans. John McHugh. London: Darton, Longman & Todd.
de Vaux, R. 1961. Les Sacrifices de l’Ancien Testament. Paris: Gabalda.
Vice, Sue. 1997. Introducing Bakhtin. New York: Manchester University Press.
Wambacq, B.N. 1976. ‘Les Origines de la Pesah Israélite.’ Biblica 57: 206–24, 301–26.
Watts, James W. 1998. ‘The Legal Characterization of Moses in the Rhetoric of the Pentateuch.’ Journal of Biblical Literature 117: 415–26.
Winnett, Frederick V. 1949. The Mosaic Tradition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lee, B. (2017). Staying In: The Moses-God Exchanges on the Passover. In: Marginal(ized) Prospects through Biblical Ritual and Law. Postcolonialism and Religions. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55095-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55095-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55094-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55095-4
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)