Tag: Hebrew Poetry

Sunday Psalm Studies: Exodus 15:1-21 (Part 6)

The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-21, continued

The ‘Song of Miriam’ (vv. 19-21)

Verse 21, which repeats almost verbatim the lines of the opening v. 1, is often referred to as the ‘Song of Miriam’, even as vv. 1ff is sometimes called the ‘Song of Moses’. Indeed, the narrative introduction in v. 20, focusing on the role of Miriam, matches the introduction in v. 1a (and the role of Moses). These parallel notices suggest that a poetic-liturgical structure—viz., the Song of praise sung by the men answered by a chorus of women—is being (or has been) adapted to the historical-narrative scenario (Moses leads the men, and Miriam the women).

Problematic to this structure is the comment in verse 19. This verse has been characterized as a late gloss, inserted after the Song was included as part of the narrative. However, it makes little sense in its current position after the text of the full Song. By contrast, it becomes more intelligible following the opening lines (v. 1), which are then repeated (by the women) in v. 21. Note how vv. 1 + 19-21 read in sequence:

1Then Moše sang, and (with him the) sons of Yisrael, this song to YHWH…

(Come,) I will sing to YHWH,
for rising, He has risen high!
(The) horse and its ride
He has hurled in(to) the Sea!….

19For (the) horse(s) of Pharaoh, with his ride(s) and with his horse-teams, came in(to) the sea, and YHWH made (the) waters of the sea turn back upon them, while (the) sons of Yisrael walked on the dry land in (the) midst of the sea.

20And (then) Miryam the Nabî’, sister of Aharon, took the timbrel in her hand and went out, (with) all (the) women following (her) with timbrels and with twirling (dance)s, 21and Miryam sang in response to them [i.e., to the men]:

(Yes,) sing (now) to YHWH,
for rising, He has risen high!
(The) horse and its ride
He has hurled in(to) the Sea!”

It seems rather more plausible for the explanatory comment in v. 19 (cf. 14:27-29) to have been included as part of a shorter narrative text that did not present the entire Song. Moreover, the scenario of the women singing in response to what the men sang becomes much clearer if only the opening of the Song (and not the entire Song) is present in the text. And, indeed, throughout the Pentateuch (in Genesis-Exodus and Numbers), the poems and songs quoted within the narrative are usually extremely short (e.g., Num 21:17), in contrast to the rather lengthy text of the full Song.

Of course, at some point, the complete Song, as we have it, was included in the narrative. The exact relationship of the ‘Song of Miriam’ (v. 21) to the full Song has been a much-debated question among commentators. Before addressing the even more contentious question as to the time/period in which the Song was composed, let us survey four options regarding the relationship of v. 21 to the Song (vv. 1b-18):

    • The ‘Song of Miriam’ (v. 21) represents the closing refrain of the Song
    • It represents an antiphonal response for each stanza of the Song
    • It stands as a shorthand, abbreviated form of the entire Song
    • It represents the original form of the Song, upon which the longer poem was based—viz., as an elaborate expository development of the simple earlier song

The first two options are quite similar, positing that v. 21, repeating v. 1, functions as a response/refrain for the main poem. The second option is much less likely, at least for the Song as it has come down to us. Indeed, verse 21, as a repeated response, would be better suited to a simpler strophic poem (e.g., Ps 136); as we have seen, the Song rather possesses a complex literary-poetic structure. However, a repetition of the opening (v. 1) as a closing refrain would be quite feasible, with parallels in a number of other Psalms (e.g., Ps 118). In this regard, the narrative framework of vv. 1-21 (excluding v. 19) would match the poetic-liturgical structure: (i) the Song, sung by Moses and the men, is followed by (ii) a repetition of the opening lines, sung by Miriam and the women (as a refrain).

However, we must give serious consideration to the third and fourth options, particularly in light of the analysis given above—to the effect that the narrative structure of vv. 1-21 is much clearer without the full text of the Song being present. This raises the possibility that either (i) v. 1/21 represents a shorthand or abbreviated version of the Song [option 3], or (ii) it represents the original version of the Song [option 4]. For commentators such as Cross and Freedman, who maintain an early (pre-monarchic, 12th-11th century) date for the Song, option i/3 is much to be preferred. On the other hand, if the Song is a later composition (of the monarchic, exilic, or post-exilic period), then the idea that the Song represents a development of earlier material (i.e., option ii/4) becomes much more feasible (even probable). Yet even many commentators who argue a late date for the Song view the entire work as an integral (and late) composition; cf. Brenner’s analysis on vv. 1, 21 (pp. 42-53, 80-4), with his conclusion that these lines date from the post-exilic period just like the rest of the Song.

The Date of Composition for the Song

As discussed in Part 1 of this study, there is a considerable range of opinion as to when the Song was composed. Four different periods may generally be considered:

    • Pre-monarchic (12th-11th century B.C.)
    • Early monarchy to the Assyrian conquests (10th-8th century)
    • Late monarchy (7th-6th century)
    • Exilic and Post-Exilic period (6th-5th century, or later)

At one extreme end are those scholars, led by Cross and Freedman, who maintain a pre-monarchic date for the Song; to these may be added traditional-conservative scholars who accept a Mosaic origin. At the other end is the view, held increasingly by modern critical scholars, that the Song is post-exilic. Brenner, whose analysis I have referred to a number of times in this study, offers the most thorough presentation of arguments in favor of a late (post-exilic) date for the Song. His arguments are based primarily on similarities of language and phrasing with passages in the Psalms, Prophets, and Deuteronomic texts. He is on relatively solid ground when noting parallels in Jeremiah and Deutero-Isaiah, for example, but much less so with regard to the Psalms and Deuteronomic texts. He devotes much attention to the parallels in the Asaph-Psalms (73-83) and characterizes the entire collection as post-exilic, a determination that is questionable at best (cf. the comments by Davies, p. 300). Similarly dubious is the way that many of the relevant Deuteronomic passages are attributed to post-exilic redaction.

Perhaps the best defense of an early (pre-monarchic) date for the Song is the linguistic-grammatical analysis presented by Russell. He highlights a number of key features which it is useful to list here (with page numbers indicated):

1. The use of yiqtol/imperfect verb forms for past-tense narration (pp. 107-9). As this is the most significant feature cited for the dating of Biblical Hebrew poetry as early (cf. Robertson, pp. 7-55), I have devoted a special supplemental note to the subject.

2. The 3rd person masculine plural pronominal suffix om– (pp. 112-16; cf. Robertson, pp. 65-9). The regular 3rd person plural pronominal suffix in Biblical Hebrew is <-, but occasionally the longer form om– occurs (primarily in poetry). In over half (66) of the Scriptural occurrences (116), the suffix is attached to a preposition; less common are the occurrences on nouns (27) and verbs (23). For these 50 occurrences, the two forms of the suffix (om– and <-) are found together, in mixed usage, in 13 Psalms (2, 5, 11, 17, 21, 35, 49, 59, 73, 80, 83, 89, 140) and the Song of Moses (Deut 32)—in the latter, om– occurs 4 times and <– 11 times. In just five poems, om- is used without any instance of <-, but in three of these (Pss 22, 45; Deut 33) there is just one occurrence of om-, and in a fourth (Ps 58) just two occurrences. The Song of the Sea is unusual in that there are considerably more (nine) occurrences of om– without a single instance of <– (vv. 5, 7, 9 [x2], 10, 12, 15, 17 [x2]).

Yigal Bloch subjects the entire issue to a penetrating analysis in his essay, “The Third-Person Masculine Plural Suffixed Pronoun –mw and Its Implications for the Dating of Biblical Hebrew Poetry”, Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, eds. Cynthia Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit (Pennsylvania State University Press: 2012), pp. 147-70. He concludes the use of the wm– suffix (om-, also Wm-) continued at least until the mid-8th century B.C. and cannot be relied upon as an indicator of an earlier (i.e., pre-monarchic) date for Biblical Hebrew poems. 

3. The use of wz as a relative particle (pp. 110-11; cf. Robertson, pp. 62-5). The regular relative particle in Biblical Hebrew is rv#a&, but occasionally (in poetic texts) the particle wz (Wz, oz, cf. also hz#) is used. The particle Wz occurs twice in the Song of the Sea (vv. 13, 16) while standard particle rv#a& is not present. There are at least 8 occurrences of Wz in the Psalms, while there are a number of instances of relative hz# as well. This particle *z reflects the old Semitic d*/ḏ*, and its vestigial presence in Hebrew poetry is generally thought to represent an archaic (or archaizing) feature. It is certainly present in poems that are widely considered to be early (such as the Song of Deborah [cf. verse 5] and Psalm 68 [v. 9/8]), but also occurs in admittedly later poems (e.g., Isa 42:24; Hab 1:11), while the dating of most of the relevant Psalms is also disputed by scholars.

4. Preservation of a final y/w– of a verbal root in instances where it is normally lost (pp. 109-10; cf. Robertson, pp. 57-62). Many final h– verbal roots (e.g., hs*K*) are thought to reflect an original y– or w-, vestiges of which are preserved occasionally in suffixed verb forms (especially in poetry). One such instance occurs in the Song (v. 5), Wmy%s=k^y+ (rather than WmS%k^y+); cf. also Deut 32:37, and a number of occurrences in the Psalms (e.g., 39:8[7]; 83:4[3]). While it may be viewed as an archaic feature, one should note the occurrences in the book of Isaiah (including at least three in the Deutero-Isaian poems, 40:18, 25; 46:5). Similar archaizing (if such it is) can also be found in the book of Job (cf. 12:6; 19:2; 31:38).

5. Occurrences of the masculine singular object suffix Whn– on verbs (pp. 111-2; cf. Robertson, p. 65). It is thought that this rare form (in poetry) is archaic. Indeed, it occurs once in the Song (v. 2) and three times in Deut 32:10; but it also occurs twice in Jeremiah (6th century, 5:22; 22:4).

6. Use of the fuller form of the prepositions k, l, b (omK=, oml=, omB=, cf. Ugaritic km, lm, bm) (p. 116; cf. Robertson, p. 109f). Again, these may be deemed archaic forms that are preserved in poetry. They are found in later (i.e., 6th-5th century) poetry as well, but multiple occurrences in a single poem are rare and could be seen as an indication of an early date. There are two occurrences of omK= in the Song (vv. 5, 8), as many as any other poetic text with the exception of Psalm 58 (6 occurrences). There are also a considerable number of occurrences (11) in the Joban Dialogue, where it could be viewed as an intentional archaizing feature.

There are the more notable individual linguistic and syntactical features that have been posited as an indicator of an early date for the Biblical Hebrew poems. However, all of them also occur in later poetry (8th-5th century), and certainly no one of them can serve as a sufficient indicator; however, the occurrence of such a significant number in the same poem (as we find the Song) makes it more tenable for scholars to argue strongly in favor of an early date (early monarchy, or pre-monarchic). I tend to concur with commentators who, somewhat cautiously (and entirely on objective grounds), suggest a 9th-8th century date, with the definite possibility that the original form of the poem may be older still (i.e., 12th-10th century).

This leads to a final question that must be considered: to what extent has the Song undergone development and adaptation over time? The question is particularly appropriate (and significant) in light of two competing strands of evidence: (1) the number of distinct archaic linguistic and syntnactical features in the Song (discussed above), and (2) the verbal and thematic parallels with various Psalms and Prophetic poems, including those which date to the 7th-5th centuries B.C. (also discussed above, and throughout the notes). Is it possible that an early (pre-monarchic?) poem underwent development, so as to produce the Song much in the form that it has come down to us by the end of the Kingdom period (if not later)?

We have already discussed the theory that v. 1/21 represents the primitive song which was subsequently expanded into a much longer and complex literary-poetic work. A number of scholars have made various proposals as to a longer ‘original’ or core poem (see the summary discussion by Davies, pp. 292-3), e.g.:

    • Zenger (pp. 460-4ff): vv. 1, 5, 6–7, 11–12
    • Norin (pp. 96-8): vv. 1, 3, 6-7, 9-13, 15a, 16a, 17-18
    • Jeremias (pp. 98-9): vv. 1, 3, 9-13, 15a, 16-18
    • Spieckermann (pp. 105-7): vv. 1-13, 17-18
    • Albertz (pp. 231ff): vv. 6-18 (with amplifications in vv. 14, 15b)
    • Klein (pp. 516ff): vv. 1–3, 6-11a, 13, 17–18 and 21

According to my own structural analysis of the Song, which largely follows that of Freedman (pp. 195ff), the two main ‘inner’ stanzas (vv. 7-10, 12-16a) appear to have an expository character, whereby they expound, respectively, the two short ‘outer’ stanzas (vv. 3-5, 17). However, this does not necessarily mean that vv. 3-5 + 17 represent the core of an older poem that subsequently underwent development; the Song may have been composed with this complex poetic-rhetorical structure in mind. From an historical-traditional standpoint, the second half of the Song, if it indeed alludes to the settlement of the Land and the establishment of the Temple sanctuary in Jerusalem (as past events), would provide rather clear evidence for development and expansion of the Song (if the original form of the Song were pre-monarchic). And yet, all of these points are disputed by commentators, as discussed variously in the notes.

It should also be mentioned that, for commentators who posit literary and editorial-redactional ‘layers’ to the Song, their views tend to be oriented to the larger source-critical analysis that attends the Exodus narrative—viz., in terms of the ‘Documentary hypotheses’ and all their modern reflexes. I have avoided any discussion of these theories, but will address them, to some extent, and in a very general way, in a supplemental note on the “Reed Sea” ([Ws <y~) tradition.

    • References marked “Cross” above (and throughout these notes) are to Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel (Harvard University Press: 1973).
    • Those marked “Cross/Freedman” are to Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman, “The Song of Miriam”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14 (1955), pp. 237-50. This is a revised version of a chapter from their earlier dissertation, published in idem, Studies in Ancient Yawhistic Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series (1975), pp. 31-45.
    • Those marked “Freedman” are to David Noel Freedman, Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy: Collected Essays on Hebrew Poetry (Eisenbrauns: 1980): (1) pp. 131-66, “Early Israelite History in the Light of Early Israelite Poetry” (originally published in Unity and Diversity, ed. H. Goedicke & J. J. M. Roberts [1975]); (2) pp. 179-86, “The Song of the Sea” (originally published in 1968); (3) pp. 187-228, “Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15” (originally published in A Light Unto My Path, ed. H. N. Bream, R. D. Heim, C. A. Moore [1974]).
    • Those marked “Brenner” are to Martin L. Brenner, The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-21, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 195 (De Gruyter: 1991).
    • Those marked “Russell” are to Brian D. Russell, The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1-21 (Dissertation, 2002), also published as a monograph (Studies in Biblical Literature 101 [Peter Lang, Inc.: 2007]).
    • Those marked “Robertson” are to David A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series 3 (Scholars Press: 1972).
    • Those marked “Davies” are to G. I. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus 1-18, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary [ICC] (T&T Clark: 2020).
    • Those marked “Albertz” are to Rainer Albertz, Exodus 1–18, Zürcher Bibelkommentare [ZBK] (Theologischer Verlag Zürich: 2017).
    • Those marked “Norin” are to Stig I. L. Norin, Er Spaltete Das Meer. Die Auszugsüberlieferung in Psalmen und Kult des alten Israel, Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament Series 9 (CWK Gleerup: 1977).
    • Those marked “Zenger” are to Eric Zenger, “Tradition und Interpretation in Exodus 15 1–21″, in Congress Volume: Vienna, 1980, Vetus Testamentum Supplements 32 (Brill: 1981), pp. 452–83.
    • Those marked “Jeremias” are to Jörg Jeremias, Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen. Israels Begegnung mit dem kanaanäischen Mythos in den Jahwe-König-Psalmen, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testament [FRLANT] 141 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1987).
    • Those marked “Spieckermann” are to H. Spieckermann, Heilsgegenwart: Eine Theologie der Psalmen, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testament [FRLANT] 148 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1989).
    • Those marked “Klein” are to A. Klein, “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 [ZAW] 124 (2012), pp. 516–27.

Past-tense Narration and the yiqtol-imperfect verb in Exodus 15

This note is supplementary to the current study on Exodus 15:1-21 (Song of the Sea). 

One of the chief arguments put forward in favor of an early date for the Song of the Sea is the use of yiqtol/imperfect verb forms for simple past-tense (preterite) narration (cf. the discussion in Part 6). For readers who are not all that familiar with the technical issues involved, a brief overview summary may be useful.

There are two main categories in the ancient Hebrew verbal system as regards tense/aspect: (1) qatal/perfect (suffix-conjugation), and (2) yiqtol/imperfect (prefix-conjugation). The terms qatal and yiqtol derive from a transliteration of the verbal root (lfq, qṭl) used as a kind of placeholder to represent the basic verbal (conjugation) patterns. The qatal pattern is suffix-conjugation—that is, the morphologically inflected forms (person, gender, number, etc.) are indicated by sufformatives (i.e., suffixes). The pattern is rooted in the baseline Qal or G (for “gr[o]und”) stem, where, e.g., the third person masculine singular form is lf^q* (qāṭal), the feminine singular hl*f=q* (qāṭlâ), and the masculine plural Wlf=q* (qāṭlû). The yiqtol pattern is referred to as prefix-conjugation in that its forms are marked by both sufformatives (suffixes) and preformatives (prefixes). In the Qal/G stem, the third person masculine singular form is lf)q=y] (yiqṭōl), the feminine singular lf)q=T! (tiqṭōl), and the masculine plural Wlf=q=y] (yiqṭelû). The vocalization and other aspects of the morphology differ slightly (within this overall pattern) for different kinds of verbs and verbal roots.

The qatal suffix-conjugation pattern is sometimes designated “perfect” —that is, expressing perfect/past tense and/or perfective aspect (i.e., completion/completeness of action, etc.). For past-tense narration in Hebrew, the qatal pattern is used, and the qatal (suffix-conjugation) forms are typically translated in the past-tense. The yiqtol prefix-conjugation pattern is often designated (somewhat imprecisely) as “imperfect”. It is used primarily to describe future actions or events, and thus tends to be translated in the future-tense; however, it can also be used for present- and past-tense actions/events, particularly when they are described as incomplete (and thus, “imperfect”), continuous, frequent/habitual, or when they have modal-volitive force (i.e., “he would do {such}”, “he wished to do {such}”, etc.). A number of lengthened yiqtol forms serve as pattern types for jussive and cohortative forms (expressing wish, permission, or [indirect] command).

A special category within the yiqtol pattern is the so-called waw-consecutive or wayyiqtol (lf)q=Y]w~) type (a w [waw] conjunction is attached, with doubling/lengthening of the initial prefix element), which is used for past-tense narration. Typically, a wayyiqtol form follows (and is governed by) an initial qatal form, usually describing a sequence of actions/events (i.e., “he did {such}…and [then] he did {such}…”). There is a comparable waw-consecutive weqatal type, in which a qatal form (with attached w [waw] conjunction) follows (and is governed by) a yiqtol form—for future-tense narration, and for certain kinds of present-tense (and even past-tense) narration, when the verbal aspect is imperfective or modal-volitive, etc. (see above).

The ancient/classical Hebrew verbal system, as outlined above, is quite consistent in its application, particularly with regard to narrative prose. Past-tense narration is expressed by the qatal + wayyiqtol syntax-pattern. This generally applies to poetry as well, except that, instead of a narrative-linear sequence, the qatal + wayyiqtol pattern is often parallelistic—viz., for example, a qatal form in the first line of a couplet followed by a wayyiqtol form in the second. However, there are rare occasions in Hebrew poetry when an ordinary yiqtol form seems to be used for past-tense narration outside of the qatal + wayyiqtol pattern. This preterite use of the yiqtol has been related to the ancient Canaanite yaqtul form, and (thus) also as an indicator of an early date (viz., pre-monarchic or early monarchic) for the poetry. See the discussion by Robertson (Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry), pp. 7-55.

Not all scholars are so convinced of the existence of these yiqtol preterites nor that they can so readily be regarded as an indication of an early (i.e., premonarchic) date. Niccacci (pp. 247-68), for example, rather doubts that there exists such preterite usage of the yiqtol in Biblical Hebrew poetry, nor that the verbal system was ever applied differently in poetry than in prose. This skepticism would presumably relate even to the earliest poetry; in the cited article, he does not specifically discuss the Song of the Sea, but he does make passing mention (p. 261) to the Song of Moses (Deut 32) and expresses doubt as to the claim that Biblical poetry employs the yaqtul/yiqtol as a preterite (cf. in verses 8 and 10).
See the articles by A. F. Rainey, “The Ancient Hebrew Prefix Conjugation in the Light of the Amarna Canaanite”, Hebrew Studies 27 (1986), pp. 5-19; idem, “The yaqtul Preterite in Northwest Semitic”, in M. F. J. Baasten and W. T. van Peursen (eds.), Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor Τ Muraoka… (2003), pp. 395-407.

Bloch (pp. 34-70) is similarly skeptical, but is more willing to allow for the use of yiqtol (prefix-conjugation forms) “to signify past situations” in a number of relatively early poems (such as the Song of the Sea), which he would tend to date to the early (pre-exilic) monarchy (9th-8th centuries B.C.) rather than to the pre-monarchic period. He discusses the Song of the Sea on pp. 54-7, and isolates ten (or possibly eleven) instances in the Song where a short yiqtol verb form may be used to express “complete sitations in the past” outside of the qatal + wayyiqtol pattern:

    • Verse 5:
      vb hs^K* (“cover”)— “The deep places covered them”
    • Verse 6:
      vb Ju^r* (“smash, shatter”)— “Your right hand, YHWH, has smashed (the) hostile (one)”
    • Verse 7:
      vb sr^h* (“pull/tear down”)— “you tore down (those) standing against you”
      vb jl^v* (“send”)— “You sent forth your burning (anger)”
      vb lk^a* (“eat, consume”)— “it consumed them like the dry straw”
    • Verse 12:
      vb ul^B* (“swallow”)— “(the) earth swallowed them”
    • Verse 15:
      vb zj^a* (“take firm hold”)— “trembling grabbed hold of them”
    • Verse 16:
      vb lp^n` (“fall”)— “there fell upon them (sudden) dread and terror”
      vb <m^D* (“be silent”)— “they became silent like a stone”
    • Verse 17:
      vb aoB (“come”, Hiphil “bring”)— “You brought them”

To which might be added:

    • Verse 2: vb hy`h* (“be[come]”)— “and He has come to be salvation for me”

These yiqtol forms are mixed together with qatal forms, which are ordinarily used for past-tense narration (as discussed above). It is difficult to discern any clear difference in use or purpose between, for example, the yiqtol forms in vv. 5-7 and the qatal forms in vv. 8-10. Even more striking is the way that the yiqtol in v. 12 is immediately followed by a sequence of qatal forms in vv. 13-14, or how the yiqtol form in v. 15 occurs between two qatal forms, with little or no discernible difference between them. As discussed in the notes, the two yiqtol forms in v. 17 could be treated as future-tense verbs (certainly, many commentators and translators render them so), and even those in vv. 15-16 could conceivably have a future orientation. The forms of the verb rb^u* (“pass/cross over”) in v. 16 should probably not be counted as preterites since the context is clearly continuous/durative (i.e., “until your people cross over”).

Notarius (pp. 107-24), working from a discourse-analysis framework, seeks to distinguish between imperfective, modal-volitive, and possible preterite uses of the yiqtol forms in the Song. She makes the valid argument that some of these forms could be regarded as imperfect-circumstantial or historical-present tense verbs. For example, verse 5 could be translated as follows (note the yiqtol form in bold):

“(The) deep places covering them,
they went down in (the) depths like a stone!”

Note similarly verse 15:

“So (also) they were terrified,
(the) chieftains of Edôm;
(the) strong (one)s of Mô’ab,
trembling takes hold of them—
they melted (away) completely,
(all those) sitting (in) Kena’an!”

And, again, in verse 16:

“(Indeed) there falls upon them
(sudden) dread and terror;
at (the) greatness of your arm
they become silent like a stone!”

Possibly also in verse 12:

“You stretched out your right hand,
(and, see—the) earth swallows them!”

The YHWH-verses and similar hymnic portions are also suitable to translation in the historical present, describing regular/characteristic behavior by YHWH that happens to be fulfilled in particular historical circumstances (such as the Reed Sea event):

“Your right hand, O YHWH
(is) mighty in (its) strength!
Your right hand, O YHWH
smashes (the) hostile (one)!” (v. 6)

“My strength and my protection (is) YH(WH),
and He comes to be salvation for me!” (v. 2)

However, I do find myself in agreement with Bloch on at least the 10/11 occurrences (listed above), that these do, in fact, represent past-tense (preterite) uses of the yiqtol. The relative rarity of such occurrences in most Biblical Hebrew poetry, and the concentration of them in poems such as the Song of the Sea, the Song of Moses (Deut 32), and Psalm 18 (par 2 Sam 22), does suggest that they are more common in early poetry. Yet, the example Bloch gives of Isaiah 41:1-5 (pp. 61-4), should make one cautious about positing too early of a date based simply on the occurrence of yiqtol preterites. He isolates a series of six of these forms in vv. 2-3, and yet virtually all critical commentators (and even some traditional-conservative commentators) would date the poem to the 6th century. Therefore, on purely objective linguistic grounds, based on the mixture of qatal and yiqtol forms, such as we find in the Song of the Sea, it would be relatively safe to give a likely date for such a poem to the 8th (or 9th) century B.C., though it could conceivably be older. Other evidence and arguments must be taken into account in order to establish a firmer dating (see the discussion in Part 6, and the exegesis of the Song throughout Parts 1-5).

    • References above marked “Robertson” are to David A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series 3 (1972).
    • Those marked “Niccacci” are to Alviero Niccacci, “The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Poetry”, in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, eds. Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz (The Hebrew University Magnes Press / Eisenbrauns: 2006), pp. 247-68.
    • Those marked “Bloch” are to Yigal Bloch, “The Prefixed Perfective and the Dating of Early Hebrew Poetry—A Re-Evaluation”, Vetus Testamentum [VT] 59 (2009), pp. 54-70.
    • Those marked “Notarius” are to Tania Notarius, The Verb in Archaic Biblical Poetry: A Discursive, Typological, and Historical Investigation of the Tense System (Brill: 2013).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Exodus 15:1-21 (Part 1)

The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-18, 20-21

As the Sunday Psalm Studies continue, we will be focusing on a number of the Psalms that have regularly been considered among the oldest, the most ancient Hebrew songs and poems preserved in the Scriptures. These Psalms have, for the most part, already been examined in the prior studies (as well as in other notes and articles on this site); now it is time to subject them to a closer and more detailed analysis.

In this regard, the Psalm with which we will begin—the Song of the Sea (<Y`h^ tr^yv!, Exodus 15:1-18ff), sometimes also called the “Song of Moses” (or even the “Song of Miriam”)—was discussed in an earlier set of notes, and that prior exegesis will be incorporated into the current expanded study. It is natural that my own views and approach regarding the Song would change somewhat over time, as new observations and insights emerge. In addition, I will be engaging much more extensively with modern scholarship on the Song, though (hopefully) without overburdening the reader in the process. A particular number of the most relevant (and useful) commentaries and studies will be cited regularly by shorthand abbreviation (usually last name of the scholar, followed by page number); as is customarily the case in the exegetical notes and studies on this site, such abbreviations are provided at the bottom of each article.

Introduction to the Song

The issue of the dating of the Song, and its status as one of the oldest Scriptural poems, remains contested and in dispute. Indeed, in spite of the apparent antiquity of the Song (at various points) and its attribution (within the narrative) to Moses and Miriam and the Israelite people of the time, a number of scholars in the late 19th and early 20th century, were inclined to view the Song as a relatively late production—viz., from the exilic or (early) post-exilic period. See, for example, the articles by A. Bender (“Das Lied Exodus 15”, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [ZAW] 23 [1903], pp. 1-48) and P. Haupt (“Moses’ Song of Triumph”, American Journal of Semitic Languages [AJSL] 20 [1904], pp. 149-72). The situation changed notably in the second half of the 20th century in the wake of the pioneering studies by F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman (along with, and following, the work of W. F. Albright), who treated the Song as an early Israelite poem from the pre-monarchic period (13th-11th century B.C.); their analyses exercised a considerable influence over an entire generation of scholars, and an early date for the Song came to be recognized (and even assumed) by many commentators.

Now, in recent decades, the pendulum has swung back, and increasingly scholars are viewing the Song as a much later (exilic or post-exilic) work. One of the first modern commentators to provide extensive arguments for a post-exilic (e.g., c. 450 B.C.) date is Martin L. Brenner in his 1991 monograph The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-21 (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 195). And yet, there are still scholars who accept a relatively early date for the Song, as stemming from the premonarchic or early Kingdom-period (12th-10th century B.C.); see, for example, the dissertation-monograph by Brian D. Russell (The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1-21 [2007]), or the commentary by G. I. Davies (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus 1-18, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary [ICC]). There is thus a considerable divergence of opinion as to the age of the Song, even with regard to objective linguistic evidence such as vocabulary, syntax, poetic conventions and distinctive style. 

In any event, the dating of ancient Hebrew poetry is itself fundamentally difficult and problematic. There are number of factors and reasons for this difficulty. To begin with, poetic conventions and traditions can persist for centuries, over many generations, and it is much more likely for archaic features of the language to be preserved in poetry than in prose. The main reason for this is that poetry, with its specific stylized and formal aspects, is less likely to be ‘modernized’ over time. To the extent that the Exodus narratives (and/or their underlying traditions) derive from the premonarchic period (even back to the 13th century and the time of Moses), they have surely been developed, adapted, and modernized during the course of transmission. It is primarily in the early poetry that the older language (and literary/poetic style) has been preserved. This, however, creates certain text-critical problems in our study of the poems. Over time, copyists become less familiar with the older language and style, and there are signs that archaic features in the poetry were misunderstood and (at times) mistakenly ‘corrected’ or given an inaccurate pointing. While we cannot always be sure that transmission errors have taken place, the possibility must be considered in any proper critical study of the text.

At the same time, a poet from a later period may intentionally utilize archaic (or archaic-sounding) elements for a specific literary-dramatic, theological, or other purpose. Indeed, a number of commentators who favor a relatively late date for the Song would explain the apparent ancient/archaic features as learned and artificial ‘archaisms’, so as to fit the Mosaic setting of the narrative. To this we may add the relative lack of evidence for comparison, when attempting to judge the date of a Psalm or other Scriptural poem on linguistic grounds; often there are simply too few occurrences (in the surviving material) of a particular word, phrase, idiom, or syntactical-poetic convention for a definitive determination. All of these factors complicate the situation and hinder our ability to make assessments for the date of many ancient Hebrew poems that are anything more than tentative (at best).

The Song’s age/date also relates to other literary- and compositional-critical questions, among which two of the most prominent are: (1) the relationship of the Song to the narrative setting and framework of chapters 14-15, and (2) the relationship of the Song to the shorter ‘Song of Miriam’ in vv. 20-21. These and other issues will be discussed at various points in the exegetical notes, and again (in further detail) as part of a concluding study. With regard to the second of the two stated questions, it may be worth briefly noting three interpretive models (cf. the summary by Zenger, p. 453f):

    • Verse 21 represents a refrain for the Song, which may have been sung after each verse or strophe/stanza; this would be in accord with how the narrative framework presents the matter—viz., the principal Song sung by Moses and the men, with the response sung (with dancing) by Miriam and the women.
    • Vv. 20-21 provide a shorthand reference to the Song, including just the opening lines; this quotation was part of the older narrative, to which was added a full/expanded form of the Song, specifically associated with Moses (rather than Miriam) as befits the overall narrative context.
    • The Song itself represents a secondary expansion of the shorter ‘Song of Miriam’ (vv. 20-21), building upon the earlier song (v. 1) and expounding it (vv. 4ff) with an additional section (vv. 13-17) dealing with the settlement of the Israelite people (in the land of Canaan).

There can be little doubt that Song is closely related to the narrative framework of chapters 14-15, with the crossing of the Sea episode being narrated in chapter 14, and the parallels between narrative and poem will be discussed throughout the notes. This conjunction of a battle narrative followed by a poem/ode celebrating victory is similar to the situation in Judges 4-5 (cf. the essay by Alan J. Hauser, “Two Songs of Victory: A Comparison of Exodus 15 and Judges 5”, Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, ed. Elaine R. Follis [1997], pp. 265-84). There are also contemporary parallels from ancient Egypt, such as in the chronicles of the 13th century Pharaohs Rameses II (against the Hittites) and Merenptah (against the Libyans). However, as Sarna (pp. 75-76) notes, the Egyptian accounts celebrate the accomplishments of a human king (Pharaoh), while in the Exodus narrative it is the victories of God (YHWH) as Sovereign that are to be praised.

Structure/Outline

When it comes to the poetic structure of the Song there is little agreement, beyond the recognition of a broad two-part historical division—(i) episode at the Reed Sea (vv. 1-12), and (ii) exodus and settlement of the people (vv. 13-18). Any finer division of the Song into stanzas/strophes or verses has proven difficult, with a variety of approaches having been made by commentators toward segmenting and delineating the poem.

For this study, I have adopted a four-stanza division, with the following basic format: (a) hymnic YHWH praise-verse, followed by (b) an expository stanza recounting what YHWH has done on behalf of His people. This format itself may be seen as developing out of the initial call to praise in v. 1 (cf. also v. 21): YHWH hymn (v. 1a), His deeds on behalf of Israel (v. 1b). The stanzas are comparable in size/length, but otherwise irregular, with only the central two stanzas (vv. 7-10, 12-16) evincing a metrically similar strophic pattern (cf. especially the study by Freedman, pp. 187-227).

    • Opening praise (v. 1b)
      with additional YHWH-hymn (v. 2)
    • Stanza 1 (vv. 3-5)
    • YHWH-verse (v. 6)
    • Stanza 2 [Strophe I] (vv. 7-10)
    • YHWH-verse (v. 11)
    • Stanza 3 [Strophe II] (vv. 12-16a)
    • YHWH-verse (v. 16b)
    • Stanza 4 (v. 17)
    • Closing praise (v. 18)

At the same time, I am inclined to follow Freedman in recognizing a distinct concentric-chiastic structure to the Song. The core of the Song—viz., the central pair of strophic stanzas—is framed by the three YHWH-verses (vv. 6, 11, 16b). The central position of the second YHWH-verse (v. 11) is indicated by its expanded form—including a third couplet (v. 11c) that departs from the repetitive parallelism of the verse-pattern. Here is an outline of the Song’s concentric structure:

    • Opening praise (vv. 1b-2)
      • Outer Stanza—Reed Sea event (vv. 3-5)
        • YHWH-verse (v. 6)
          • Inner Stanza—Reed Sea event (vv. 7-10)
            • Central YHWH-verse (v. 11)
          • Inner Stanza—Exodus/Settlement (vv. 12-16a)
        • YHWH-verse (v. 16b)
      • Outer Stanza—Exodus/Settlement (v. 17)
    • Closing praise (v. 18)

Metrically, the Song generally employs a short 2-beat couplet (bicolon) format. This meter is established in the opening praise of v. 1 and is repeated throughout the YHWH-verses. The stanzas also utilize a 2+2 meter, punctuated by longer 3-beat lines (sometimes at the close of a strophe). In the text as we have it, the meter is not consistent. When approaching such situations in early Hebrew poetry, many commentators are inclined to emend the text whenever possible, to restore a more consistent rhythm—based on the fair assumption that the poem would originally have been sung according to a more regular, consistent (performable) rhythm. Such emendation and reconstruction must be approached with great care and caution; I must admit that I am not inclined to reconstruct the text of the Song as aggressively as Cross, for example, does.

Narrative Introduction

The Song is set within the context of the prose narrative through the introductory notice of verse 1a:

“Then Moše sang—and (with him the) sons of Yisrael—this song to YHWH. And he said (this), saying:”

The statement indicates that the Song is in response to the actions of YHWH in delivering the people of Israel from the Egyptian forces (narrated in chapter 14). The nature-miracle at the “Reed Sea” ([Ws-<y~) is the occasion for praising God and serves as the basis for the opening praise (v. 1b) and the first half of the Song as a whole.

Opening Praise (vv. 1b-2)

Verse 1b

“(Come,) I will sing to YHWH,
for rising, He has risen high!
(The) horse and its ride
He has hurled in(to) the Sea!”

Muilenburg (p. 238) refers to this opening praise as a “hymnic introit”, which is fitting. Like many of the Scriptural Psalms, it is essentially a call to praise, whereby the Psalmist speaks on behalf of the people (i.e., the congregation). The imperfect verb form (hr*yv!a*) has jussive/cohortative force (“[come,] let me…” [i.e., “let us…”]); the Targum and Syriac versions do, indeed, render as a plural verb (“let us sing…”, “we would sing…”). Cross prefers to emend the text here to a simple imperative (Wryv!, “sing!”), which tightens the rhythm and matches the opening of the parallel song in verse 21 (and is supported by the Samaritan Pentateuch [causal imperative]); he may be correct in terms of the earliest/original form of the poem. The first-person formulation matches the beginning of the Song of Deborah (Judg 5:3) and likewise occurs with some frequency in the Psalter (e.g., 89:2[1]; 101:1; 108:2[1]); Muilenburg also cites the Nikkal poem from Ugarit (’ašr nkl w’eb…).

The expression hw`hl^ (with the prefixed preposition l), also occurring in the narrative introduction (v. 1a), can mean “unto YHWH” or “with regard to YHWH” (i.e., “about/concerning YHWH”), and a few commentators (e.g., Freedman, Propp, Davies) opt for the latter, particularly since the Song is indeed about what YHWH has done. This may be supported by the parallel in Judges 5:3; note also the occurrence in Exod 14:3, where yn@b=l! clearly means “about/regarding the sons of (Israel)” rather than “to the sons of (Israel), cf. Davies, p. 324f.

As noted above, the primary meter for the Song is established in these first two couplets (2-beat, 2+2). The terse, staccato-like rhythm and repetitive parallelism are typical of Canaanite poetry of the period (as glimpsed, for example, in the 14th-13th century poetic texts from Ugarit).

The second line utilizes the common Semitic convention of doubling a verb for emphasis, thereby intensifying its force. Usually this is done by adding a cognate infinitive, creating a syntax which is most difficult to render literally in English. Here an approximate translation would be “rising, he has risen”, with a doubling of the root hag (“be high, raise high”). Though the root is relatively common (including references to YHWH’s greatness and exaltation), occurrences of the verb itself are actually rare (just five other instances in the Hebrew Scriptures). The active sense of the Qal stem suggests that the reference is to YHWH having raised Himself in might against the enemies of Israel; at the same time, it indicates a call to exalt YHWH (in praise), because He Himself is exalted. The initial particle yK! (rendered “for”) provides the reason why YHWH is to be praised, following a traditional syntax that occurs relatively often in the praise-Psalms (see esp. at the beginning of Psalms, e.g., 106:1; 107:1; 117:1f; 118:1).

The second couplet declares succinctly the victory of God in battle, defeating the Egyptian forces who threatened His people. It summarizes the powerful nature-miracle that occurred at the Reed Sea (as recorded in the tradition), which the Song develops more descriptively in the subsequent stanzas (to be discussed). The Masoretic texts reads obk=r) (“its rider”), which might give one the mistaken impression that it refers to one riding the horse, instead of the person riding in the chariot drawn by the horse. Whether or not Cross (cf. also Uzschneider/Oswald) is correct that the original text is better vocalized as bk#r# (“ride”, cf. 14:18, 23, oBk=r!, “his ride”), the reference is clearly to the chariot-ride (and the soldier/officer[s] riding in it)—cf. Jer 17:25; 51:21; Hag 2:22, and the various occurrences of the verb bkr in the context of mounting a chariot (Gen 41:43; 1 Kings 18:45, etc., cited by Propp, p. 510). If the reference were actually to the rider of a horse (i.e., cavalry), then it would certainly be anachronistic to the setting of the poem (cf. Davies, pp. 325-6); Brenner (pp. 82ff) assumes that it is the rider of a horse that is meant, and cites the point in support of a late (post-exilic) date for the Song.

The verb hm*r*, elsewhere refers to the shooting of arrows from a bow (Jer 4:29; Ps 78:9); thus, one may speak of YHWH “shooting” (i.e., thrusting, propelling) the Egyptian chariots into the sea (cf. Russell, p. 16; Propp, p. 511).

Verse 2a

“My strength and my protection (is) YH(WH),
and He has come to be salvation for me!”

As Cross/Freedman (p. 243) notes, the pair of couplets in verse 2 have a longer 3-beat (3+3) meter which, if original, seems to anticipate the 3-beat lines at the close of strophes/stanzas in vv. 5, 8b, and 14. Cross himself (p. 127) is inclined to treat v. 2a as a secondary addition, a traditional praise-couplet that is also found in Psalm 118:14 and Isa 12:2. Brenner (pp. 54-60ff) makes much of these parallels in support of a late (post-exilic) date for the Song. It may well be that those two texts are quoting from the earlier Song, as Propp suggests (p. 511).

Verse 2 reaffirms the praise that is due to YHWH. It is his strength and might that have led to the victory. There is almost certainly an intentional contrast between the Egyptians’ reliance upon military technology (chariotry) and Israel’s reliance upon the power of God (cf. Psalm 20:8[7]; Isa 31:1; 36:9). The word hrmz, parallel with zu (“strength”), should be understood as deriving from a separate root rmz with a similar meaning (“be strong, brave”, etc). The comparable ¼mr in Ugaritic is used in a military context (for armed troops, etc), which is very much appropriate here; cf. Cross/Freedman (p. 243), Propp (p. 512f), Davies (p. 327). This root zmr/¼mr occurs frequently in Semitic names, going back to the Mari texts (Zimri-lim, etc). As this root generally dropped out of use in Hebrew, it is easy to see how copyists might have mistaken it here for the more common root rmz meaning “make music”. It thus can also be cited in support of an early date for the Song.

The form trmz (apparently without a first person singular suffix [y-]) can be explained several ways (cf. Freedman, p. 200): (i) the suffix on the prior noun zu (“strength”) does double-duty (“my strength and [my] protection”); (ii) the yod (y) at the beginning of the next word does double-duty, making it unnecessary to write a second y for the suffix; (iii) in the early spelling the word would have been written without a vowel letter (i.e., T!r^m=z]w+) and a vestige of this older orthography has been preserved. Quite likely, we are dealing with a combination of (ii) and (iii); that a suffix is intended on both nouns is supported by the balanced syllable count (7:7) for the couplet that is produced as a result.

The double-use of a prefixed l preposition—hu*Wvyl! yl!—can be a bit tricky to translate. In English, we would probably say “as salvation for me”, but perhaps more literally, “(as a source) for salvation to me” (Freedman, p. 200, literally renders “[belonging] to me for salvation”); for poetic concision I have slanted the translation a bit, “He has come to be salvation for me”. For this terminology, cf. 2 Sam 10:11; Psalm 118:21.

Note the alliterative assonance in all three word pairings of the couplet: (i) ‘āzzî wezimratî, (ii) Yāh wayhî, (iii) lî lîšû‘â.

For more on v. 2a see the articles by S. B. Parker, “Exodus XV 2,” Vetus Testamentum [VT] 20 (1970), pp. 358-59, and M. L. Barre, “‘My Strength and My Song’ in Exodus 15.2”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly [CBQ] 54 (1992), pp. 623-37.

Verse 2b

“This (is) my Mighty (One) and I will exalt Him,
Mighty (One) of my father, and I will lift Him high!”

This is a straightforward 3-beat couplet with clear parallelism. It repeats the identification—so vital to the early Exodus narratives—of YHWH with both: (a) the Creator °E~l (“Mighty [One]”) and (b) the God (°E_lœhîm, “Mightiest [One]”) worshiped by the ancestors of Israel as Creator and Protector.

The verbs hwn and <wr are in parallel; the latter means “be high” (cf. hag in v. 1b, above), so, for this reason, a second hWn root (II) with a comparable meaning is assumed, rather than hWn (I), “wander, journey (toward a destination/abode)”. Based on the noun hw#n` (from hwn I, cf. verse 13), a Hiphil form of hwn (I) might mean “make/establish a dwelling”. However, it seems better to connect the form here with han (“be/make beautiful”), or, alternately, with Arabic nawwaha (“raise, elevate, exalt”); cf. Propp (p. 514), Davies (p. 328). The second verb form (of <Wr Polel, “make/lift high”) unusually includes an energic n before the Wh– suffix (cf. GKC §58i,k). Freedman (p. 200) argues that the w-particles on both verbs are emphatic, not conjunctive—i.e., “(whom) indeed I exalt…indeed I lift high!”

The final line of v. 2 is longer than the first three, with 11 syllables rather than 7. Cross/Freedman (p. 243f) would address this irregularity, by interchanging the verbs of lines 3 and 4, respectively, which produces a balanced (9:9) couplet. Freedman (p. 201f) himself would allow for the unbalanced couplet as a legitimate instance of poetic variation. Indeed, the longer line is fitting for the close of the poetic section (vv. 1b-2).

The first Stanza (vv. 3-5) will be discussed in Part 2 of this Study.

    • References marked “Cross” above (and throughout these notes) are to Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel (Harvard University Press: 1973).
    • Those marked “Cross/Freedman” are to Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman, “The Song of Miriam”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14 (1955), pp. 237-50. This is a revised version of a chapter from their earlier dissertation, published in idem, Studies in Ancient Yawhistic Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series (1975), pp. 31-45.
    • Those marked “Freedman” are to David Noel Freedman, Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy: Collected Essays on Hebrew Poetry (Eisenbrauns: 1980): (1) pp. 131-66, “Early Israelite History in the Light of Early Israelite Poetry” (originally published in Unity and Diversity, ed. H. Goedicke & J. J. M. Roberts [1975]); (2) pp. 179-86, “The Song of the Sea” (originally published in 1968); (3) pp. 187-228, “Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15” (originally published in A Light Unto My Path, ed. H. N. Bream, R. D. Heim, C. A. Moore [1974]).
    • Those marked “Muilenburg” are to James Muilenburg, “A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh”, in Studia Biblica et Semitica Theodoro Christiano Vriezen … dedicata (1966), pp. 233-51.
    • Those marked “Zenger” are to Erich Zenger, “Tradition und Interpretation in Exodus 15 1–21”, in Congress Volume: Vienna, 1980 Vetus Testamentum [VT] Supplements 32 (Brill: 1981), pp. 452-83.
    • Those marked “Brenner” are to Martin L. Brenner, The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-21, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 195 (De Gruyter: 1991).
    • Those marked “Russell” are to Brian D. Russell, The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1-21 (Dissertation, 2002), also published as a monograph (Studies in Biblical Literature 101 [Peter Lang, Inc.: 2007]).
    • Those marked “Davies” are to G. I. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus 1-18, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary [ICC] (T&T Clark: 2020).
    • Those marked “Utzschneider/Oswald” are to Helmut Utzschneider and Wolfgang Oswald, Exodus 1–15, (English version, trans. Philip Sumpter), International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament (Kohlhammer: 2015).
    • Those marked “Propp” are to William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1-18, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 2 (1999).
    • Those marked “Sarna” are to The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus twm?, commentary by Nahum M. Sarna (Jewish Publication Society: 1991).

September 9: Deuteronomy 32:1-3

Deuteronomy 32:1-3

The next series of daily notes will focus on the poem in Deuteronomy 32:1-43, the so-called “Song of Moses”, but better known in Jewish tradition from the opening word of the poem Wnz]a&h^ (Ha°¦zînû), “Give ear…”, being thus called the Shirat Ha°azinu. In terms of the preserved language, the Song is one of the oldest surviving pieces of Hebrew poetry, dated (on objective grounds) to at least the 10th or 11th century B.C. Conceivably the original form of the poem could go back to the 12th or 13th century, which would put it closer to the time of Moses himself. I have previously posted a three-part study (parts 1, 2, 3) which can serve as an introduction to the Song, and I would strongly encourage that you read it before continuing with the exegesis below. These daily notes are an expanded version of a smaller set I produced earlier.

Before proceeding, it will be helpful to consider the thematic outline of the Song. Such an outline normally would follow the sort of study we are doing, being the result of it; however, in this instance it will help things along to include it here beforehand.

    • 1-3: Opening (exordium)—Call to Creation (heaven and earth)
    • 4-18: God’s covenant with His people Israel, and their violation of the covenant —The Creator God (YHWH) as their Father (vv. 4-6) —His choice of Israel as His people, becoming their God (vv. 7-9) —His protection and guidance during the Exodus and wilderness travels (vv. 10-14) —His people turned away from Him, worshiping foreign gods (vv. 15-18)
    • 19-42: God’s punishment of His people, and their subsequent deliverance —Punishment for violation of the covenant (vv. 19-25) —Concern for how this will be perceived by Israel’s enemies (vv. 26-31) —Plans to bring punishment on Israel’s enemies in turn (vv. 32-35) —Ultimate justice/deliverance for His people, and judgment on His enemies (vv. 36-41)
    • 43: Conclusion—Call to the Nations

We start with the first verse (and line) of the Song.

Deuteronomy 32:1

The Song begins with a call (by the poet) to all of creation— “the heavens and the earth”:

“Give ear, O heavens, and I will open to speak,
And hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.” (v. 1)

This first line (bicolon) demonstrates the parallelism, common to much ancient Near Eastern (and Hebrew) poetry, which runs throughout the song. I examined this in the earlier study on Form Criticism, but it is worth illustrating again here.

By parallelism we mean that the second half line (colon) is parallel to the first, restating the idea or image, with some variation or difference in emphasis. This can be seen in an English translation of the first four bicola (vv. 1-3):

    • “Give ear, O heavens, and I will open to speak,
      —and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth!
    • Let my instruction drip as rain-fall,
      —let my speech trickle down as dew-cover,
    • As showers upon the sprouting grass,
      —as (many rain)drops upon the fresh plants.
    • For the name of YHWH I call (out)
      —(You) set (out) greatness for our God!”

There are different sorts of parallelism. Most common is synonymous parallelism, where the second half-line is more or less equivalent in form and meaning to the first. This properly characterizes the first three bicola above. Often the parallelism extends to each of the three elements (or stress units) in order. I indicate this by color-coding the first line and adding the Hebrew (in transliteration):

    • Give ear [ha°¦zînû], O heavens [haš¹mayim], and I will open to speak [w~°¦¼abb¢râ],
      —and hear [w®¾išma±], O earth [h¹°¹reƒ], the words of my mouth [°imrê-¸î]!

The fourth bicolon above is an example of synthetic parallelism, where the second half-line builds upon the first, intensifying the thought, and, occasionally, pointing in a slightly different direction— “I call the name of YHWH”, and so you, also, must “set/give greatness to our God”! A third type of parallelism, antithetic—i.e. the second half-line making an opposite (though related) point from the first—is rather rare in the poem; an example would be from later on in verse 27b:

    • “Lest they say, ‘Our hand raised (this)’
      —and ‘It is not YHWH (who) has done all this (work)’!”

Such parallelism is not simply a stylistic device; it also allows the poet to emphasize certain themes and ideas, giving two (or more) variations of a basic motif, the second restating or building upon the first. Here the dual-concept of the universe (creation) as consisting of the pair “heaven and earth” serves to establish the parallelism in the line. This sort of opening is actually a traditional literary (and rhetorical) device, seen in other places in the Old Testament—Isa 1:2-3; Jer 2:4ff; also Psalm 50:4; Mic 6:1ff. It draws upon ancient religious and cultural traditions, including certain conventions associated with establishment of binding agreements (covenants) and treaties, etc. In establishing such an agreement between parties, it was customary to call on deities as witnesses, as way of “hallowing” the agreement, and, in a quasi-magical manner, to bring down divine judgment if it should ever be violated by one of the parties. We see a faint vestige of this sort of practice today in our continued use of oaths (with a hand on the Bible, etc) in official legal proceedings and public ceremonies.

Of course, in the context of early Israelite monotheism, Yahweh was the one called upon in oaths and the like. In the case of the covenant between God (YHWH) and Israel, the typical custom (of calling upon deities as witness) could not be applied in the same way, nor was it entirely appropriate. Nothing of the sort is found in the early covenant traditions (in Gen 15, 17; Exod 24, etc) preserved elsewhere in the Pentateuch. However, it does appear several times in the book of Deuteronomy: 4:26; 30:19, and at 31:28, just prior to the Song. Though “heaven” and “earth” as such were viewed as deities in the ancient Near East, they are not treated this way here. Rather, they represent “all of creation”—i.e. the universe, the created order. The poet, following God’s own word, calls on heaven and earth to hear the words of the Song. According to 31:19, the Song itself serves as witness of the covenant, to which heaven and earth join, according to the traditional motif. This enhances the importance of the Song and its message.

Deuteronomy 32:2

“Let my instruction drip as rain-fall,
let my speech trickle down as dew-cover,
as showers upon the sprouting grass,
as (many rain)drops upon the fresh plants.”

In continuing with an analysis of the poetic devices used in the Song, we might draw attention to the use of end rhythm/rhyme, as can be seen in verse 2b (above):

    • ki´±îrim ±¦lê-¼eše°
      w®½ir»î»îm ±¦lê-±¢´e»
      “As showers upon the sprouting grass,
      and as (many rain)drops upon the fresh plants”

All of this becomes lost in translation, but it is important to keep such things in mind, and to study these features as part of the passage, as far as it is possible for you to do so.

Verse 2 extends the idea of creation as witness, hearing the words of the Song, through the natural imagery of rain and dew—i.e., water from heaven, which, drawing upon sky/storm theophany, has God as its source. God’s word—that is, the inspired message of the Song—comes down from heaven to the earth.

Commentators sometimes refer to the call to heaven and earth in verse 1 (and similar passages) as part of a “covenant lawsuit” tradition, whereby one calls upon the (divine) witnesses to deliver a complaint that the binding agreement (treaty or covenant) has been violated. Such violation will result in divine judgment, often understood in military terms—attack upon the party who violated the covenant. While verse 1 almost certainly draws upon such a tradition, it must be said that there is no real sense in the Song of a legal proceeding. It is, however, present more decidedly in Isa 1:2-3ff and Jer 2:4ff, passages which were doubtless influenced by Deut 32; indeed, there are a number of rather clear parallels between Isa 1:2-31 and the Song of Moses. For examples of heaven/earth taking a more active role in the proceedings, see Mic 6:1-2; Jer 4:28; 6:19; 51:38. Natural disasters and other phenomena were typically understood as manifestations of divine judgment.

This last point is significant, and can easily be overlooked in a casual reading of vv. 1-3. By injecting a developed (later) form of monotheism into these early Scriptures, there is also a tendency to exaggerate a separation between the transcendent Creator God (YHWH) and the Creation. In early Israelite thought and expression, God and the Creation (heaven and earth) were much more closely connected than is often realized by Jews and Christians today. While not “gods” in the sense found in ancient Near Eastern religious lore, heaven and earth, along with all of the natural phenomena contained within them, obeyed YHWH and worked/acted on His behalf. As witnesses to the covenant, they also would “act” against the violators of the agreement, as indicated in the passages cited above. We can see in the Golden Calf episode (Exod 32), for example, how natural features and phenomena are utilized to bring judgment on the people (vv. 20, 35), presented in tandem with attack by military forces (“the sword”, vv. 25-28), and this could be repeated numerous times from similar passages in the Old Testament. Here in the Song, upon violation of the covenant, the earth itself, which was at first fruitful (vv. 13-14), would turn against the people, through the burning fire of God’s anger which consumes the earth’s produce and fertility (v. 20). Along with this, there will famine, plague, disease and attacks by wild beasts (v. 24)—all natural disasters which will strike the people, even as they will also be attacked by the sword of invading military forces (v. 25). This is all very much part of the traditional language of divine judgment in the Old Testament.

It is also especially significant in light of the primary theme which runs through the Song: the contrast between YHWH as Israel’s God, and the foreign deities which the people came to worship, thereby violating the covenant. This will be discussed in our study on subsequent verses in the Song, but it is important to note how the theme is established here in the opening. We have seen how the call to heaven and earth draws upon ancient Near Eastern tradition whereby the gods were called upon as witnesses to a covenant or treaty. Thus there is here an implicit reference to the religious distinction, from the Israelite standpoint, between the one true Creator God (El-YHWH) and all of the other deities recognized by the surrounding nations. In early Israelite monotheism, this distinction was not as sharp as it would later become. The “sons of God” had not yet been reduced to “angels”, and could refer to various sorts of divine and/or heavenly beings. In the context of the traditional language of verse 1, heaven and earth are obedient servants of YHWH, and their natural activities (rainfall, etc) parallel God’s own word being spoken (v. 2).

Deuteronomy 32:3

This unifying sense of purpose is emphasized by the declaration which follows in verse 3:

“For the name of YHWH I call out—
Give greatness to our Mighty (One) [i.e., God, Elohim]!”

Note again the parallelism here, where the second half-line builds upon the first (an example, I would say, of synthetic parallelism). The poet calls out “the name of YHWH”, a way of acknowledging that Yahweh is his God, and that he is serving a prophetic, oracular role in making Him known (His word and will) to the people. In the second half-line, the poet calls upon the people to respond in kind, acknowledging and declaring “the greatness of our God”. The word translated “God” is the plural noun <yh!ýa$ (°§lœhîm), which, when applied to the Creator El-Yahweh, is perhaps best understood as an intensive plural, meaning something like “Mightiest (One)”. When used as a true plural, of course, it would refer to other “Mighty Ones”—deities or divine beings, such as those worshiped by the surrounding nations. The Song plays heavily upon this dual meaning and use of the word, as we shall see.

August 17: Exodus 15:1-2

Notes on the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:1-18)

The daily notes during the month of August are supplemental to the Study Series on “The People of God” —focusing specifically, in the first part, on the Old Testament background for the idea of Israel as God’s chosen people. As discussed in the recent article and notes on Exodus 3, the theme of Israel as the people of God (YHWH) is central to the traditions and narrative in the book of Exodus. Indeed, the Exodus event represents, symbolically, the true birth of Israel as the the people of YHWH. And, as the crossing of the “Reed Sea” is the central episode of Israel’s emergence from out of the bondage and travail in Egypt, it plays a key role in the overall narrative.

The crossing of the Sea episode is narrated in chapter 14, followed by a great poem in chapter 15 (vv. 1-18) which came to be known in Israelite and Jewish tradition as the “Song of the Sea” (<Y`h^ tr^yv!). This conjunction of a battle narrative followed by a poem/ode celebrating victory is similar to the situation in Judges 4-5. There are also contemporary parallels from ancient Egypt, such as in the chronicles of the 13th century Pharaohs Rameses II (against the Hittites) and Merenptah (against the Libyans). However, as Sarna (pp. 75-76) notes, the Egyptian accounts celebrate the accomplishments of a human king (Pharaoh), while in the Exodus narrative it is the victories of God (YHWH) as Sovereign that are to be praised.

All of the objective evidence points to the Song of the Sea as being one of the very oldest poems (and literary pieces) preserved in the Old Testament. The seminal critical study on the Song remains that of F. M. Cross in his Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel (Harvard: 1973), pp. 112-44, which is an expanded version of his earlier essay “The Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth” in the Journal of Theology and the Church 5 (1968), pp. 1-25. His work is based on an earlier study by he and D. N. Freedman, “The Song of Miriam” in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14 (1955), pp. 237-50 (republished in Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, by the same authors). Cross’ orthographic analysis points to an 11th or 10th century date (at least) for the poem being put into written form, and that the poem itself may well date from the 12th century. Most critical scholars generally agree with this assessment.

It is clear that the language of such early poems in the Old Testament, in most instances, is considerably older than that of the accompanying prose narrative. The main reason for this is that poetry, with its specific stylized and formal aspects, is less likely to be ‘modernized’ over time. To the extent that the Exodus narratives (and/or their underlying traditions) derive from the 13th century (the time of Moses), they have been developed, adapted, and modernized during the course of transmission. It is primarily in the early poetry that the older language (and literary/poetic style) has been preserved. This, however, creates certain text-critical problems in our study of the poems. Over time, copyists became less familiar with the older language and style, and there are signs that archaic features in the poetry were misunderstood and (at times) mistakenly ‘corrected’ or given an inaccurate pointing. While we can not always be sure that transmission errors have taken place, the possibility must be considered in any proper critical study of the text.

I will be examining the Song using the same critical-exegetical approach I use in the Sunday Studies on the Psalms, looking at each integral poetic unit—line, couplet, or stanza—in some detail. For the purpose of breaking the Song into multiple daily notes, I will be following the 9-unit division suggested by Cross (pp. 126ff). In simpler terms, the Song may be divided into two main parts: (1) praise for YHWH’s victory over the Egyptians (vv. 1-12), and (2) praise for YHWH Himself and what he has done for His people (vv. 13-18).

Metrically, the Song generally employs a short 2-beat couplet (bicolon) format. The main stanza utilizes this 2+2 meter, followed by an antiphonal (3-beat) response. In the text as we have it, however, the meter is not consistent in this regard. When approaching such situations in early Hebrew poetry, many commentators are inclined to emend the text whenever possible, to restore a more consistent rhythm—based on the fair assumption that the poem would originally have been sung according to a more regular, consistent (performable) rhythm. Such emendation and reconstruction must be approached with great care and caution; I must admit that I am not inclined to reconstruct the text of the Song as aggressively as Cross does.

Exodus 15:1-2

The Song is set within the context of the prose narrative through the introductory notice of verse 1a:

“Then Moshe sang—and (with him the) sons of Yisrael—this song to YHWH. And he said (this), saying:”

The statement indicates that the Song is in response to the actions of YHWH in delivering the people of Israel from the Egyptian forces (narrated in chapter 14). The nature-miracle at the “Reed Sea” ([Ws-<y~) is the occasion for praising God, and serves as the basis for the ode of praise in verses 1-12.

“(Come,) I will sing to YHWH,
for raised, He (is to be) raised!
(The) horse and its ride [bkr]
He has hurled in(to) the Sea!
Strength and might (belongs to) YH,
He has come to be salvation for me!”

The primary stanza is to be seen in the first two couplets (2-beat, 2+2). The terse, staccato-like rhythm and repetitive parallelism are typical of Canaanite poetry of the period (as glimpsed, for example, in the 14th-13th century poetic texts from Ugarit). Cross (p. 127) would argue that the 3-beat couplet of v. 2a is secondary and not part of the original stanza.

The first couplet is a call to praise YHWH. The imperfect verb form has jussive/cohortative force (“[come,] let me…”). Cross prefers to emend the text here to a simple imperative (Wryv!, “sing!”), which tightens the rhythm and matches the opening of the parallel song in verse 21; he may be correct in terms of the earliest/original form of the poem. The second line utilizes the common Semitic convention of doubling a verb for emphasis, thereby intensifying its force. Usually this is done by adding a cognate infinitive, creating a syntax which is most difficult to render literally in English. Here an approximate translation would be “raised, he is raised”, with a doubling of the root hag (“rise, raise [high]”). It indicates a call to exalt YHWH (in praise), because He Himself is exalted, having raised Himself in might against the enemies of Israel.

The second couplet declares succinctly the victory of God in battle, defeating the Egyptian forces who threatened His people. It summarizes the powerful nature-miracle that occurred at the Reed Sea (as recorded in the tradition), which the Song develops more descriptively in the subsequent stanzas (to be discussed). The Masoretic texts reads obk=r) (“its rider”), which might give one the mistaken impression that it refers to one riding the horse, instead of the person riding in the chariot drawn by the horse. Whether or not Cross is correct that the original text is better vocalized as bk#r# (“ride”), the reference is clearly to the chariot-ride (and the soldier/officer[s] riding in it).

The third couplet is a 3-beat (3+3) colon, which reaffirms the praise that is due to YHWH. It is his strength and might that have led to the victory. There is almost certainly an intentional contrast between the Egyptians’ reliance upon military technology (cavalry/chariotry) and Israel’s reliance upon the power of God. The word hrmz, parallel with zu (“strength”), should be understood as deriving from a separate root rmz with a similar meaning (“be strong, brave”, etc). The comparable ¼mr in Ugaritic is used in a military context (for armed troops, etc), which is very much appropriate here. This root zmr/¼mr occurs frequently in Semitic names, going back to the Mari texts (Zimri-lim, etc). As this root generally dropped out of use in Hebrew, it is easy to see how copyists might have mistaken it here for the more common root rmz meaning “make music”.

The antiphon-response follows in verse 2b:

“This (is) my Mighty (One) [°E~l] and I will glorify Him,
Mightiest (One) of my father, and I will raise Him (high)!”

This is a straightforward 3-beat couplet with clear parallelism. It repeats the identification—so vital to the early Exodus narratives—of YHWH with both: (a) the Creator °E~l (“Mighty [One]”) and (b) the God (°E_lœhîm) worshiped by the ancestors of Israel as Creator and Protector. On this important theme, cf. Part 1 of this Study Series, and the previous notes on Exodus 3:13-15.

References marked “Cross” above (and throughout these notes) are to Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel (Harvard University Press: 1973).
References marked “Sarna” are to The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus twm?, commentary by Nahum M. Sarna (Jewish Publication Society: 1991).

Saturday Series: Deuteronomy 32:26ff, 43

In the recent Saturday studies, we have been exploring the great poem known as the “Song of Moses” in Deuteronomy 32, using it was a way to consider, and demonstrate, how principles and methods of critical analysis apply to a particular passage (here, involving ancient Hebrew poetry). Last week, I discussed verses 15-25 in some detail; today, I wish to bring this exploration of the Song of Moses to a conclusion. There will be three parts to this study:

    • a survey/summary of verses 26-42
    • an examination of verse 43, and
    • a brief consideration of the poem in relation to verses 44ff that follow

Verses 26-42

First, a reminder of the structure of the bulk of the poem:

    • 4-18: God’s covenant with His people Israel, and their violation of the covenant
      —The Creator God (YHWH) as their Father (vv. 4-6)
      —His choice of Israel as His people, becoming their God (vv. 7-9)
      —His protection and guidance during the Exodus and wilderness travels (vv. 10-14)
      —His people turned away from Him, worshiping foreign gods (vv. 15-18)
    • 19-42: God’s punishment of His people, and their subsequent deliverance
      —Punishment for violation of the covenant (vv. 19-25)
      —Concern for how this will be perceived by Israel’s enemies (vv. 26-31)
      —Plans to bring punishment on Israel’s enemies in turn (vv. 32-35)
      —Ultimate justice/deliverance for His people, and judgment on His enemies (vv. 36-41)

Verses 26-42 belong to this second division; vv. 19-25 (discussed last week) narrate the punishment to be brought on the people as a result of their violation of the covenant. That this punishment would be both severe and deadly is clear enough from the dramatic language and imagery used. However, it would not result in the complete destruction of the people, nor is their any hint of a future Exile. Instead, we see in verses 26ff a theme of deliverance emerge. It follows the same line of thought as in the Golden Calf narrative in Exodus 32ff—Israel will suffer a devastating punishment, ceasing to be God’s people in the way that they were under the covenant bond; at the same time, because of YHWH’s own goodness and mercy, and through the intercession of Moses, the people will not be cut off completely, but will be restored to YHWH as His people under the covenant. Just as Moses appealed to YHWH’s honor, referring to how this punishment on Israel would be perceived by the surrounding nations (Exod 33:13-16), so we find the same thought expressed emphatically in the Song; indeed, it is a theme that dominates vv. 26-42.

Central to the entire poem is the contrast between YHWH and the deities recognized by other nations; it is the same contrast that effectively separates Israel (as YHWH’s own people) from the other peoples (who ‘belong’ to other deities, see the discussion on verse 8). Because of this, YHWH (and His own honor) cannot allow the nations to triumph over Israel completely, though they may attack and inflict immense suffering and destruction on the people and land (vv. 23-25). This is expressed in the opening lines of this portion of the poem (vv. 26-27), and could (almost) be understood as reflecting a kind of personal insecurity on the part of YHWH:

I said “I shall split them to pieces,
stop (all) memory of them for man(kind)!”
were it not [i.e. except] that I feared provoking the enemy,
lest (those) oppressing them look at (this),
lest they say “Our hand is lifted high—
and YHWH did not make all this (happen)!”

The focus is on curbing the wicked/fleshly ambitions and aspirations of the surrounding nations. However, to understand the lines correctly in context, we must realize the true significance of this aspect. The success of the other nations (over Israel) might lead people everywhere to think that their deities were equal (or superior) to YHWH. Thus the rhetoric and mode of expression here is fundamentally theological. The declaration in verse 31, expressing the thought of the poet/people rather than YHWH’s own pronouncement in the prior lines, is a good example:

For not like our Rock is their ‘Rock’
nor (the one)s our enemies (trust as) guardians.

The precise meaning and syntax of the second line is uncertain, but poetic parallelism suggests that the plural noun (or participle) p®lîlîm should be related to Akkadian palilu used as an epithet of deities (JPS:Tigay, pp. 310, 404). “Rock” (‚ûr) of course is used as a divine name throughout the poem, parallel with °E~l (“Mighty [One]”, i.e. God). Another example of the same sort of contrast is seen in the taunt by YHWH in verse 37ff, part of the announcement of judgment on the nations that shapes the remaining lines:

He [i.e. YHWH] will say, “Where are their ‘Mighty Ones’,
the ‘Rock’ in whom they sought protection
…?”

This expresses again the principle that the deities worshiped by the nations are not “Mighty” (°¢l, i.e. God) in the same sense that YHWH is. Even more pointed is the declaration in verse 39a:

“See then that I—I am He
and there are no ‘Mighty Ones’ with me”

While it would be a mistake to read this as a statement of absolute monotheism, it does point in that direction. Certainly it reflects the principle expressed in the first command of the Decalogue, which is central to Israelite monotheism (Exod 20:2-3; Deut 5:6-7). It is never quite stated in Deuteronomy that the deities of the surrounding nations do not exist, only that they are not comparable to YHWH and do not have anything like the same power or nature (Deut 3:24, etc). God’s ultimate judgment on the surrounding nations is essentially a condemnation of their deities, and a demonstration of their weakness compared to YHWH. Indeed, it is clear from the second bicolon (and concluding colon) in verse 39 that only YHWH truly has the power to give life and take it away (i.e. through the disasters to come in time of Judgment):

(For) I bring death and give life,
I smashed (them) and I will heal

A final thought in the poem—a warning to all people—is that YHWH’s judgment is universal, it applies both to the nations and also to His own people Israel when they violate the covenant (v. 41b, see also v. 43 below):

I will return vengeance for the (one)s oppressing me,
and for the (one)s hating me I will complete (it in turn)

The idea of reciprocity is important, and is central, indeed, to the ancient covenant idea—punishment is made according to the nature and mode of the crime, the violation being “paid back” in kind. The closing bicola of verse 42 offer a final, graphic expression of the divine Judgment.

Verse 43

With regard to the textual situation surrounding the closing lines of the poem (v. 43), I discussed that in some detail in an earlier study, and will only summarize it here. The bicolon parallelism, used consistently throughout the poem, is largely missing from v. 43, which, in the Masoretic Text, consists of 2 bicola (4 lines). Yet there is parallelism overlapping in the second and third cola, suggesting that the text may be corrupt, with perhaps two lines missing (just prior and after):

Make a shout (then), (you) nations, (for) His people,
{missing line?}
For He will take vengeance (for) the blood of His servants,
and return vengeance for the (one)s oppressing Him.
{missing line?}
and will wipe away [i.e. cleanse] His people’s land!”

This would seem to be confirmed, rather decisively, I think, by the Qumran manuscript 4QDeutq, as well as in the Greek Septuagint version. The text of verse 43 in this Qumran MS has three bicola (6 lines), which much more accurately preserve the consistent parallelism of the poem (differences with MT indicated by italics):

Make a shout, O heavens, with Him!
Bow (down) to Him, all (you) Mighty Ones!
For he will take vengeance (for) the blood of His sons,
and return vengeance to the (one)s oppressing Him.
He will treat those who reject Him (as they deserve),
and will wipe away [i.e. cleanse] His people’s land

Based on the evidence from the Septuagint, it is possible that the original text read “sons of the Mightiest” (b®nê °E_lœhîm) rather than “Mighty Ones” (°§lœhîm). The reading of the Septuagint for the first bicolon actually appears to be a conflation of two variant Hebrew versions, one corresponding to a text like 4QDeutq, and the other a precursor of the MT—resulting in four lines:

Be of a good mind [i.e. rejoice], O heavens, at once with Him,
Kiss toward [i.e. worship] Him, all (you) sons of God!
Be of a good mind [i.e. rejoice], O nations, with His people,
and let all the Messengers of God strengthen themselves in Him!

Clearly, in the Qumran MS, divine/heavenly beings are being addressed, which makes a fitting parallel to the opening address of the poem (v. 1). In the MT, and the second part of the conflate Septuagint text, it is the nations, who ‘belong’ to those divine beings, who are being addressed. In terms of the overall message of the poem, both aspects go hand in hand. However, if we adopt the text of 4QDeutq, with its emphasis on the relationship of YHWH to the other ‘deities’ (an aspect that is mitigated in the MT), then the coda of verse 43 actually functions effectively as a kind of summary of the entire poem:

    • Bicolon 1: Address to the heavens and divine/heavenly beings
      • Parallel to the opening address (vv. 1-3) and first section(s) of the poem, which establish the contrast between YHWH and the deities of the other nations (vv. 4-9ff)
    • Bicolon 2: Promise to pay back the suffering inflicted upon Israel (by other peoples) during the time of judgment
      • Parallel to the central sections focusing on Israel’s violation of the covenant, judgment upon them, and subsequent restoration (vv. 15-25ff)
    • Bicolon 3: The declaration of universal judgment on those who reject YHWH, with a promise of restoration/vindication for Israel
      • Parallel to the closing sections of the poem (vv. 26-42, esp. verses 36-42)

Conclusion

Finally, it is worth noting the relationship of the poem to the narration that follows in verses 44-47ff. It picks up the Deuteronomic narrative from where it left off (at the end of chapter 31), continuing with the same line of thought. The purpose (and importance) of the poem is re-stated, setting it in context with the book of Deuteronomy as a whole. The “all these words” and “this Instruction” refer to everything recorded in the book of Deuteronomy—all of Moses’ discourses to the people, together with the poem of chapter 32—all of which is aimed at exhorting the people to be loyal to the covenant with YHWH, adhering to the terms of the covenant, outlined in the Instruction (tôrâ, Torah):

“…You should charge your sons [i.e. children] to watch [i.e. take care] to do all the words [i.e. everything as it is stated] in this Instruction.”

According to the ancient Near Eastern religious-cultural mindset, abiding by the terms of the covenant was of the utmost importance. Violation of them was thought to result (potentially) in terrible consequences, including death and destruction, suffering and disease, etc—the judgment of God (or the divine powers) released upon those who break the agreement. This is expressed most clearly in the vivid and graphic language of the poem (see above), but also in the closing words of the narrative here:

“For (indeed) it is not an empty word for you—it (is) your (very) life! and by this word you will lengthen (your) days upon the land which you are crossing over the Yarden {Jordan} there to possess.”

That is to say, if the people of Israel (and their descendants) will adhere faithfully to the Instruction, the terms of the covenant, then they will live long and secure in their Promised Land.

References marked “JPS:Tigay” above are to The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy <yrbd, commentary by Jeffrey H. Tigay (Jewish Publication Society: 1996).

* * * * * *

This concludes our study on the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32. Next week, I will begin exploring a particularly interesting (and difficult) passage from the letters of Paul—namely the excursus in 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, long a focus for much scholarly debate regarding its origins, authorship, and purpose in 2 Corinthians. It should prove most valuable as a way of demonstrating how various critical theories and approaches to the text are vital to a sound examination and understanding of the Scriptures as we have them. I would ask that you read through the letter, paying close attention to the language Paul uses, and to the line of argument that runs through the main sections. Consider how 6:14-7:1 fits into the context of the letter. Does it seem at all out of place? Do the images and language differ noticeably from what Paul using elsewhere in the letter? Try skipping over the passage, reading from 6:13 to 7:2ff—what effect does this have of the line of thought and argument in these chapters? We will begin exploring these questions in detail here…next Saturday.

Saturday Series: Deuteronomy 32:7-9ff

In this Saturday Series study, we continue through the great poem “the Song of Moses” in Deuteronomy 32, as a way of demonstrating how the different areas of Biblical Criticism (discussed in previous studies) relate to an analysis and understanding of the the text as a whole. In the previous Saturday study, we looked at verses 4-6; now we proceed to verses 7-9 and lines following (down through verse 18). Verses 4-18 actually form a major section of the poem, as indicated from the earlier outline I presented:

1-3: Opening (exordium)—Call to Creation (heaven and earth)

4-18: God’s covenant with His people Israel, and their violation of the covenant
—The Creator God (YHWH) as their Father (vv. 4-6)
—His choice of Israel as His people, becoming their God (vv. 7-9)
—His protection and guidance during the Exodus and wilderness travels (vv. 10-14)
—His people turned away from Him, worshiping foreign gods (vv. 15-18)

The lines of vv. 4-18 comprise a summary of Israelite history, the parameters of which raise interesting (and important) historical-critical and literary-critical questions (see further below).

Verses 7-9

From the opening theme of YHWH as the Creator and Father of Israel (and all humankind), the poem progresses to the choice of Israel as the unique people of YHWH. Here are the lines in translation:

7Remember the days of (the) distant (past),
consider the years age(s) and age(s past);
ask your father and he will put (it) before you,
your old men and they will show (it) to you.
8In the Highest’s giving (property to the) nations,
in his separating (out) the sons of man,
he set up (the) boundaries of the peoples,
according to the count of the sons of the Mightiest.
9Yet YHWH’s (own) portion is His people,
Ya’aqob His own property measured (out).

The verse numbering accurately reflects the division of this section:

    • A call to remember and repeat (through oral tradition) the account of Israel’s history (v. 7)
    • The dividing of humankind into the nations/peoples (v. 8)
    • Israel as YHWH’s own nation/people (v. 9)

Verse 7 functions as the trope that sets the poetic/rhythmic pattern (a pair of 3-beat [3+3] bicola) for the section, followed by the (narrative) trope in verse 8, and a single bicolon theological trope emphasizing the covenant with YHWH (v. 9). The exhortation in v. 7 is entirely in keeping with the traditional narrative setting in chapter 31 (discussed previously), with an emphasis on the need to transmit the (Mosaic) instruction, contained in the book of Deuteronomy, to the generations that follow. In particular, Israel is to preserve and transmit the poem of chap. 32.

In an earlier study, I examined the text-critical question in verse 8, arguing that the reading in the Qumran manuscript 4QDeutj, and reflected in the Septuagint (LXX) Greek, is more likely to be original. The idea that the number of the nations (trad. 70) was made according to the number of Israelites (“sons of Israel“, b®nê yi´r¹°¢l), has always seemed a bit odd. Even prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea manuscripts, some commentators felt that the Hebrew underlying the LXX (“sons of God”, Grk. “Messengers [i.e. Angels] of God”) would be the better reading. The MS 4QDeutj gives support to this (b®nê °§lœhîm, “sons of the Mightiest [i.e. God]”). However, it is the context of both the poem and the book of Deuteronomy which seems to provide decisive evidence in favor of this reading:

    1. A careful study of the poem reveals a contrast between YHWH (Israel’s God) and the foreign deities of the surrounding nations—this is a central theme that runs through the poem, especially in vv. 15ff. It is also a primary aspect of the Deuteronomic teaching and theology, both in the book itself, and as played out in the “Deuteronomistic History” of Samuel–Kings. Turning away from proper worship of YHWH, to the deities of the surrounding peoples, is the fundamental violation of the covenant which brings judgment to Israel.
    2. The closest parallel, in 4:19-20, indicates that the nations belong to other ‘deities’ (such as those powers seen as connected with the heavenly bodies), while Israel alone belongs to YHWH. The wording in the poem, assuming the LXX/Qumran reading to be correct, likely expresses this in a more general way. The expression “sons of God” is an ancient Semitic/Canaanite idiom, referring to gods/deity generally, but also specifically in relation to the Creator °El (the “Mighty One”). In the subsequent development of Israelite monotheism, there was no place for any other deities, and the concept shifted to heavenly beings simply as servants or “Messengers” (i.e. angels) of YHWH (the Creator, identified with °El).

Indeed, what we see in vv. 8-9 is this contrast played out as a key theological principle: (a) the nations and their ‘deities’ (distinct from the Creator YHWH), and (b) Israel who belongs to YHWH. Note the chiasm in verse 8 when the LXX/Qumran reading is adopted:

    • The Highest (±Elyôn)
      • the nations [70]
        • separating the sons of man (ethnicity)
        • setting boundaries for the people (territory)
      • the sons (of God) [trad. 70]
    • The Mightiest (°Elœhîm)

While this is the situation for the other peoples, for Israel it is different (v. 9)—they have a direct relationship with the Creator YHWH:

    • YHWH’s (own) portion [µ¢leq]
      • Israel (“His people”) / Jacob
    • His (own) property measured out [µe»el naµ­¦lâ]

And it is this relationship that is expounded in verses 10ff.

Verses 10-14

A brief history of Israel is narrated in vv. 10-18, which may be divided into two sections (see the outline above):

    • His protection and guidance during the Exodus and wilderness travels (vv. 10-14)
    • His people turned away from Him, worshiping foreign gods (vv. 15-18)

Verses 10-14 is itself divided into two portions, 4 bicola each, with a YHWH-theological bicolon (v. 12, compare v. 9) in between. Here is my translation of vv. 10-12:

10He found him in the open land,
and in an empty howling waste(land);
He encircled him, watched him (carefully),
watched over him like the center of His eye.
11Like an eagle stirred (to guard) his nest,
(who) hovers over the young of his (nest),
He spread out his wings and took him (in),
carried him upon the strength of his (wing)s.
12By Himself did YHWH lead him,
and no foreign ‘Mighty One’ was with him!

Thematically we may divide the two portions as follows:

    • Vv. 10-11—The finding/choosing and rescue of Israel [Exodus]
      • Image of eagle swooping down to pick up its young (v. 11)
      • The eagle flying back up to place its young in a high/safe location (v. 13)
    • VV. 13-14—The settlement of Israel in a good/fertile land

This narrative poetry works on a number of levels, as we can see by the inset imagery of the eagle’s protection of its young, with a descent/ascent motif. In addition, there are all sorts of colorful details in vv. 10-18 which could be subject to a rich historical-critical analysis. While this is beyond the scope of this study, it would be worth comparing these lines to the narrative of the Exodus and Settlement in the Pentateuch, as well as other poetic treatments of the same (or similar) historical traditions. Let us briefly examine the language used in verse 10.

In these four lines (a pair of 3+3 bicola), there is expressed the theme of YHWH finding/choosing Israel as his people. It is a poetic description, and not tied to any one historical tradition. The main motif is the desert setting, an image which would appear repeatedly in Israelite/Jewish thought over the centuries. It is a multi-faceted (and multivalent) image; here I would highlight the following aspects and associations:

    • The idea of a formless wasteland echoes the Ancient Near Eastern cosmology and, specifically, the Creation account preserved in Genesis 1. The same word tœhû (WhT)) occurs in Gen 1:2, describing the condition of the universe (“heaven and earth”) prior to the beginning of Creation proper (i.e. the ordering of the universe, in the context of Genesis 1). In the Ancient Near Eastern cosmology, this primeval condition is typically understood as a dark watery mass (and so also in Gen 1:2); here, however, this tœhû (emphasizing formlessness and chaos/confusion) is applied to the desolation of the desert (as a “wasteland”).
    • The allusion to creation means that, in a real sense, the people of Israel comes into existence (or is ‘born’) in the desert. This can be understood from several perspectives:
      (a) The ‘desert’ setting of Egypt and the Exodus, out of which the people truly came (as in a birth)
      (b) The religious ‘birth’ of Israel in connection with Sinai—introduction of YHWH, the meaning/significance of His name, place of His manifestation, etc (Exod 3; 19ff)
      (c) The period of labor in the wanderings throughout the Sinai desert, during which the people of Israel came to be ‘born’

Each bicolon of verse 10 illustrates a different side of this setting, from the standpoint of Israel’s relationship to YHWH:

    • Bicolon 1 (10a)—the emptiness, danger, etc. of the desert/wasteland
    • Bicolon 2 (10b)—the complete care and protection given by YHWH

It is a stark contrast—i.e. the world with and without God’s presence—and one that is enhanced by the parallelism that is characteristic of ancient Hebrew poetry. This parallelism is built into the 3-beat bicolon meter and structure of the poem, and which is typical of much ancient Semitic/Canaanite poetry. In an earlier study, I demonstrated this meter/structure visually; however, let us consider verse 10 in particular. As indicated above, the verse is made up of a pair of bicola (i.e. four lines), each with three stressed syllables, or beats. There is a definite parallelism in each bicolon, with the second line (colon) parallel to the first. Here is a breakdown of the lines, with the parallelism indicated by indenting the second colon (as is commonly done in translations of poetry); the specific points of parallelism are marked by italics:

    • “He found him in the open land,
      Yimƒ¹°¢¡nû b®°éreƒ mi¼b¹¡r
      • and in an empty howling waste(land);
        û»¾œ¡hû y®l¢¡l y®šimœ¡n
    • He encircled him, watched him (carefully),
      y®sœ»»énhû¡ y®bônn¢¡hû
      • watched over him like the center of His eye.
        yiƒrénhû k®°îšôn ±ênô

The parallelism in vv. 10-12 would be called synonymous—the second line essentially restating the first, but with a greater intensity or pointedness. For example, in the first line of 10a, the common word mi¼b¹r (rB*d=m!) is used; originally indicating something like “remote, far back/away (place)”, it typically refers to the open space of the desert or wilderness. However, in the second line (10b), a more graphic description of this desert region follows, utilizing all three words of the line: (a) tœhû (“formless, cf. above), (b) y®l¢l (“howling”), and (c) y®šîmœn (“desolate/waste [land]”). The sequence of words together gives a vivid sense of chaos and danger. Similarly, in 10c, YHWH’s action is straightforward: “He encircled him, he watched him (carefully)”, with two suffixed verb forms, creating a calm, stable rhythm, as though resolving the harshness of 10b. This is followed (in 10d) by a more intimate and personalized description: “he watched over him like the center [°îšôn] of his eye“.

In vv. 13-14, the parallelism shifts to what is commonly referred to as synthetic parallelism—whereby the second line builds on the first, developing the thought in a more complex way. Consider, for example, the first bicolon (two lines) in verse 13:

    • “He made him sit upon the heights of the earth,
      • and he would eat (the) produce of the land.”

The waw-conjunction is epexegetical, indicating the purpose or result of YHWH’s action in the first line—i.e. “and then [i.e. so that] he [i.e. Israel] would eat…”. Moreover, Israel’s position in the heights (like an eagle) makes it possible for him to feast on the fruit produced in the fertile open land (´¹d¹y) down below. This imagery of the richness of the land continues on through the remainder of vv. 13-14, each bicolon developing in a similar fashion, concluding with a single extra line, for effect (v. 14e): “and the blood of grape(s) you drink, bubbling (red)!”. The shift from “he” to “you” makes this final line more dramatic and jarring, as also the slightly ominous allusion (“blood…red”) to the judgment theme that follows in vv. 15ff.

In the middle of the four tropes of vv. 10-14, dividing the two sections precisely, is a middle trope, a single bicolon, that is decidedly theological, and perfectly placed at the center of the poetic narrative. It is especially important, in that it looks back upon the opening portions of the poem, and ahead to the key (dualistic) themes that dominate the remainder. It is worth examining v. 12 briefly:

    • By Himself did YHWH lead him,
      YHWH b¹¼¹¼ yanµenû
      • and no foreign ‘Mighty One’ was with him!
        w®°ên ±immô °¢l n¢k¹r

This parallelism could be called both synonymous and antithetic—the second line essentially restates the first, but also makes the opposite point, i.e. it was YHWH and not any other foreign ‘God’. Conceptually, this can be illustrated by way of chiasm:

    • YHWH (the true Mighty One)
      • by Himself, separate [b¹¼¹¼]
        • He led/guided (Israel)
      • there was no (other) [°ên] with Him [±immô]
    • a foreign ‘Mighty One’ [°E~l]

This contrast between YHWH and the other ‘deities’ of the surrounding nations, already emphasized in vv. 8-9 (see above), will take on even greater prominence in the remainder of the poem. This will be discussed in more detail in the next study, but it is worth considering verses 15-18, at least briefly, in this light.

Verses 15-18

If verses 10-11 essentially describe the Exodus, and verses 13-14 Israel’s settlement in the Promised Land, then, it would seem, that what follows in vv. 15ff would refer to Israel’s conduct after the people had settled in the land. However, in terms of the setting within the book of Deuteronomy, which is presented as representing Moses’ words prior to the settlement, these lines would have to be taken as prophetic—foretelling the people’s future violation of the covenant, a violation already prefigured in the Golden Calf episode and other failures during the wilderness period. This raises again the historical-critical question regarding the date of composition, both of the poem and the book of Deuteronomy as a whole. I will touch upon the question further in the next study. Here, for the moment, it is sufficient to consider the poetic and thematic structure of these lines, which I view as another sequence of 4 bicola (vv. 15-17a), with a concluding bicolon pair (vv. 17b-18) that echoes the opening lines of this section (vv. 4-6, 7-9).

    • Statement of Israel’s rebellion, forsaking YHWH, their God and Rock (v. 15)
    • Description of the rebellion—worshiping other ‘deities’ (vv. 16-17a)
    • Concluding trope on their abandoning YHWH (vv. 17b-18)

It is possible to view this as a chiasm:

    • Israel forsakes their Mighty One (God) and Rock (v. 15)
      • Turning to worship false/foreign deities (vv. 16-17a)
    • You have forgotten your Mighty One (God) and Rock (vv. 17b-18)

As in verse 14e (also 15b), the sudden shift from third person (“he/they”) to second person address (“you”) is striking, and serves as a reminder of the poem’s stated purpose (within Deuteronomy) as an instruction (and warning) to future generations of Israelites. The poetic language in vv. 16-17a is especially difficult, and appropriately so given the subject matter; however, the form of the lines is actually quite clear, with a fine symmetry:

    • “They stirred Him (to anger) with strange (thing)s,
      • (indeed) with disgusting things they provoked Him;
    • They slaughtered to ‘powers’ (that are) not Mighty,
      • (but are) ‘Mighty Ones’ not known to them”

The first bicolon has a precise synonymous parallelism, with two ways of saying that the people provoked YHWH with foreign/pagan religious behavior, described by the euphemisms “strange (thing)s” (z¹rîm) and “disgusting things” (tô±¢»œ¾). The second bicolon builds on the first, explaining the behavior more directly. It is stated that “they slaughtered (sacrificial offerings) to š¢¼îm“, the word š¢¼ (dv@) being rather difficult to translate in English. It is a basic Semitic term referring to deities or divine powers generally, corresponding more or less with the Greek daimœn (dai/mwn). From the standpoint of Israelite covenantal theology, and especially the theological outlook of the book of Deuteronomy, worship (in any manner) of any deity besides YHWH represents a flagrant violation of the covenant. Given the common syncretic (and syncretistic) tendencies in ancient Near Eastern (polytheistic) religion, a blending of Canaanite religious elements with the worship of YHWH would have been quite natural, and difficult for the people of Israel to resist. This is why the point is hammered home so often in the book of Deuteronomy, as also in the “Deuteronomic History” and the messages of the Prophets. The repeated warning was necessary because of the dangers of cultural accomodation, and the tendencies in Canaanite society which could not but exert influence on the people of Israel.

With these thoughts in mind, I would ask that you read through the remainder of the poem, examining the language and imagery, the progression of thought and expression, most carefully. In the next study, I hope to provide a survey of verses 19-42 in light of the section we have studied here (especially verses 15-18). We will focus on several verses and lines in more detail, again illustrating how a sound critical approach to Scripture helps give us a much more thorough understanding of the text as it has come down to us.

Saturday Series: Deuteronomy 32:1-43 (continued)

Deuteronomy 32:1-43

This week we continue the previous discussion of the “Song of Moses” in Deuteronomy 32, where we looked at the passage from the standpoint of textual criticism. Now we move into other areas of analysis—form, source, and historical criticism.

Form Criticism

The “Song of Moses” is a poem, and, as poetry, represents a distinct form (and genre) in comparison with the surrounding material (forms of narrative prose, etc). It essentially follows the style and pattern of much early Hebrew poetry, as preserved in the Pentateuch and other historical books, as well as in the earlier layers of the Psalms. It also shares many features in common with ancient Near Eastern (especially Canaanite) religious poetry. The poetic texts from Ugarit (14th-13th cent. B.C.) provide a rich source for comparison with the oldest Hebrew poems in the Scriptures, of which the “Song of Moses” is a clear example.

We find here two primary features characteristic of early Hebrew poetry: (1) a bicolon format and meter with three beats (or stress units), and (2) linguistic and thematic parallelism in each line (bicolon). On the first item, even if you do not read Hebrew, you can see the 3:3 bicolon format presented clearly in modern editions of the text. The half-lines (cola) are set side by side; for example, here are the opening lines (first three verses) in Hebrew, followed by the same text in transliteration:

You should be able to see the three stress-units in each half line (colon), often visible as three words; this meter in a bicolon format is typically indicated as 3:3.

The second characteristic mentioned above is parallelism; that is, the second half line (colon) is parallel to the first, restating the idea or image, with some variation or difference in emphasis. This can be seen in an English translation of the first four bicola (vv. 1-3, see above):

    • “Give ear, O heavens, and I will open to speak,
      —and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth!
    • Let my instruction drip as rain-fall,
      —let my speech trickle down as dew-cover,
    • As showers upon the sprouting grass,
      —as (many rain)drops upon the fresh plants.
    • For the name of YHWH I call (out)
      —(You) set (out) greatness for our God!”

There are different sorts of parallelism. Most common is synonymous parallelism, where the second half-line is more or less equivalent in form and meaning to the first. This properly characterizes the first three bicola above. Often the parallelism extends to each of the three elements (or stress units) in order. I indicate this by color-coding the first line and adding the Hebrew (in transliteration):

    • Give ear [ha°¦zînû], O heavens [haš¹mayim], and I will open to speak [w~°¦¼abb¢râ],
      —and hear [w®¾išma±], O earth [h¹°¹reƒ], the words of my mouth [°imrê-¸î]!

The fourth bicolon above is an example of synthetic parallelism, where the second half-line builds upon the first, intensifying the thought, and, occasionally, pointing in a slightly different direction—”I call the name of YHWH”, and so you, also, must “set/give greatness to our God”! The third type of parallelism, antithetic—i.e. the second half-line making an opposite (though related) point from the first—is rather rare in the poem; an example would be verse 27b:

    • “Lest they say, ‘Our hand raised (this)’
      —and ‘It is not YHWH (who) has done all this (work)’!”

The formal structure/meter and parallelism, when applied consistently throughout a poem (as here in Deut 32), actually proves quite useful for commentators and textual critics, since it allows them to detect places where the text, as it has come down to us, may be confused or corrupt. A disruption in the poetic pattern can be an indication of possible corruption (see the previous discussion on verse 43). Caution is required in this area of analysis, however, since poetry is not always absolutely consistent, and a poet may, on occasion, break or bend the rules to achieve a certain effect.

For Christians who read the Scriptures largely (or entirely) in translation, there is a tendency to focus on the underlying message of text, rather than the form and style in which the message is expressed. And yet, the form and style are important, and cannot be ignored. If the inspired author and/or speaker made use of poetry, this is certainly significant, and is, in fact, fundamental to the meaning of the passage. However, many poetic elements and characteristics (in Hebrew poetry, especially) are almost impossible to preserve in an English translation, without seriously distorting the sense of the text. These features include wordplay, assonance (i.e. similar sounding words), alliteration, rhythm, and rhyme. A couple examples of alliterative wordplay are (note the bold italics):

    • V. 17a:
      yizb®hû laš¢¼îm lœ° °§lœah °§lœhîm lœ° y®¼¹±ûm
      “they sacrificed to spirits (that are) not-God(s),
      (to) Gods they did not know”
    • V. 21a:
      h¢m qin°ûnî »®lœ°-°¢l ki±¦sûnî b®ha»lêhem
      “they provoked me (to jealousy) with (what is) not-God,
      (and) provoked me (to anger) with their empty-breaths”

Many other examples could be given; an instance of end rhythm/rhyme can be seen in verse 2b (above):

    • ki´±îrim ±¦lê-¼eše°
      w®½ir»î»îm ±¦lê-±¢´e»
      “As showers upon the sprouting grass,
      and as (many rain)drops upon the fresh plants”

All of this becomes lost in translation, but it is important to keep such things in mind, and to study these features as part of the passage, as far as it is possible for you to do so. The wordplay and alliteration in vv. 17a and 21a (above) is used to make an ironic contrast, and to drive home a vital point. Moreover, the various instances of rhythm, rhyme, and assonance, etc, apart from their artistic significance, were valuable as a way to help people learn and transmit the poem. If you read Hebrew at all, I am confident that careful study of these poetic details in the text will help you learn it better as well.

Next week, we will continue on, examining the poem in terms of source- and historical-criticism. In preparation, you should study chapters 31 and 32 in context. Does anything you find in the Song of Moses surprise you in light of its place within the structure of the book? What are the key themes and how are they expressed in comparison with the rest of the (prose) narrative? Keep these things in mind as you study the text…and I will see you next Saturday.

Saturday Series: Deuteronomy 32:1-43

Deuteronomy 32:1-43

I have chosen the great poem in Deuteronomy 32 as a way to demonstrate Old Testament criticism involving Hebrew poetry. It is often referred to as the “Song of Moses”, while in Hebrew tradition it is known by the opening word Ha°¦zînû, “Give ear…”. As with our earlier study on Exodus 32-34, I will be examining this section according to different areas or aspects of Biblical criticism—

    • Textual criticism
    • Form criticism
    • Source criticism
    • Historical criticism

followed by a brief exegetical survey of the text as it has come down to us, according to what is typically called Literary criticism.

Textual Criticism

An important component and emphasis of textual criticism is the determination, as far as it is possible, of the most likely original form of the text. This is based on the fundamental premise that the text has experienced corruption at numerous points during the process of transmission. The word “corruption” can be misleading, suggesting a moral failing; but this is not at all what the word means in the context of the science of textual criticism. Textual corruption simply means that the original text (as authored/intended) has been altered in some way at various points (variation units). This alteration may have been intentional, or, much more frequently, occurred by accident. The alteration may be limited to particular manuscripts (or manuscript groups), or, in some instances, has been preserved in the main line of transmission of the text as it has come down to us. In the case of the Old Testament, this main line of transmission is identified as the “Masoretic Text” (MT). Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (especially the texts from Qumran), the oldest copies of the Hebrew text were from the 9th-10th century A.D.—many centuries after even the latest of the Scriptures were composed. The Dead Sea Scrolls have changed the textual picture considerably. While the Scripture texts from Qumran (and other sites) have confirmed the general reliability of the Masoretic Text, they have also brought up many differences, including numerous points at which the Qumran MSS agree with the Greek version (and/or the Samaritan Pentateuch) against the MT. In such instances, the readings of the Qumran copies must be given most serious consideration.

A particular problem related to Hebrew poetry in the Old Testament, is that the poetic portions often contain older or archaic language which can be difficult to recognize and interpret. This was probably as true for ancient copyists, working centuries after the poems were originally composed, as it is for scholars today. There are many points in Old Testament poetry where the text appears to be corrupt. It is often difficult to be sure, since the confusion may be the result of a genuine word, phrase or syntactical construct, which is unknown or unintelligible to us today. However, a comparison with the Greek version (Septuagint), and, more importantly, the Dead Sea Scrolls, can help to clarify some of these difficulties, and to confirm points at which the Masoretic Text may indeed be corrupt.

There are three points in the Song of Moses were there is evidence for textual corruption, and/or variant readings. Let us look briefly at each of them in turn.

Deut 32:5

The first line (colon) in verse 5 appears to make very little sense as it has come down to us:

Šiµ¢¾ lô lœ° b¹n¹w mûm¹m
literally: “he made ruin to/for him his sons their blemish”

If you go to this verse in your English Bible, you will likely see a footnote indicating that the Hebrew is obscure or uncertain. As noted above, this is frequently the case in Old Testament poetry. There are hundreds of verses or lines where we simply do not know for certain what the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text (MT) means, or how to translate and interpret it, or whether the apparent confusion is the result of textual corruption. The Rabbis noted the difficult syntax of this verse and sought variously to explain the MT, without any emendation. For example, Nahmanides explains it along the lines of: “their blemish caused them [i.e. the Israelites] to act corruptly toward Him” so that, as a result, “they are not His sons”.

Many critical commentators believe that the verse, as it has come down to us, is corrupt. One suggestion (cf. J. Tigay, Deuteronomy: JPS Torah Commentary [1996], p. 301) is that originally the line read something like—

šiµ¦¾û lô b¹n¹w °¢m¥n
“His sons ruined (their) firmness [i.e. loyalty] to Him”

or, possibly:

šiµ¦¾û lœ°-b¹n¹w °¢m¥n
“(the ones who are) not-His-sons ruined (their) firmness [i.e. loyalty] to Him”

Admittedly, this would make a better fit with the second half of the line, but it remains quite speculative.

The Greek version (Septuagint, LXX) is somewhat confusing as well:

h¢mártosan ouk autœ¡ tékna mœm¢tá
perhaps: “they sinned, children (of) blame (who are) not to me [i.e. not mine]”

Unfortunately, verse 5 is not present among the manuscript fragments of Deuteronomy preserved at Qumran, so there is no help from that side in elucidating the Hebrew syntax. One must always be cautious in emending the text that has come down to us (i.e. the Masoretic text), especially when there is no clear manuscript support for such emendation. On the other hand, it is equally wrong to accept the MT blindly, ignoring places where the received text is difficult or unintelligible. Here textual criticism reaches it finest, and most challenging, point.

Deut 32:8

The Masoretic Text (MT) of these lines in verse 8 reads:

B®hanµ¢l ±Elyôn gôyim
b®ha¸rî¼ô b®nê °¹¼¹m
yaƒƒ¢» g®»¥lœ¾ ±ammîm
l®mi´par b®nê Yi´r¹°¢l

“In the Most High’s giving posessions (to) the nations,
in His breaking apart [i.e. separating] the sons of man,
He set the boundaries of the peoples,
to the count [i.e. number] of the sons of Israel.”

The last line has always struck commentators as a bit peculiar. Since the context overall suggests the dispersal of the nations (following the traditions in Genesis 10-11), occurring long before Israel was a people, establishment of the traditional number of nations (seventy, according to Gen 10) in terms of the number of Israel’s descendants (Exod 1:1-5; Deut 10:22, etc) seems somewhat out of place. Many commentators were drawn to the alternate reading in the Greek version (Septuagint, LXX), which, instead of “according to the sons of Israel”, reads “according to the Messengers of God” (katá arithmón angélœn Theoú). This version of the text finds confirmation in one of the Deuteronomy manuscripts from Qumran (4QDeutj):

…
l®mi´par b®nê °E_lœhîm

“…(according) to the count [i.e. number] of the sons of God“

The expression “sons of God” is an ancient Semitic term for divine beings—”gods” generally, in Canaanite religion. Within the context of Israelite monotheism, this idea was modified so as to refer to heavenly beings, i.e. Angels (“Messengers”), who are not to be worshiped as gods. A traditional number of seventy such beings goes all the way back to ancient Canaanite religious lore, and was preserved in Israelite and Jewish writings. This variant reading would seem to be confirmed again by the context of verse 8 within the Song. An important theme throughout, as we shall see, is the need for Israel to serve and worship only Yahweh, and not to follow after the other nations, who worship other ‘deities’ (such as represented by the sun, moon, and other heavenly bodies). While the other nations may have been allotted to various heavenly beings, Israel is God’s own portion (v. 9). Elsewhere in Deuteronomy (4:19-20) we find similar language to 32:8-9, which suggests again that the reading of 4QDeutj may be original (see further below, on verse 43). Indeed, a tradition reflecting this reading is preserved in Jewish writings, such as the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the “Sayings of Rabbi Eliezer” (chap. 24). The Targum makes reference to “the seventy angels, princes of the nations”, in the context of the the Tower of Babel episode and the dispersal of the nations. For a good discussion, see J. Tigay, Deuteronomy: JPS Torah Commentary (1996), pp. 514-5 (Excursus 31).

Deut 32:43

Here is another example where the Masoretic text appears to be corrupt, in this instance due, it would seem, to a portion of the verse having dropped out. Here is the MT as it has come down to us (for the moment, I give it only in translation):

“Cry out, O nations, (to) His people!
For he will take vengeance (for) the blood of His servants
and return vengeance to His opponents,
and will cover [i.e. wipe away, cleanse] His people’s land.”

Commentators have noticed the lack of poetic parallelism in the first lines, quite in contrast to the style and technique used consistently throughout the poem, and raising the possibility that the MT is incomplete. Indeed, the Greek version is more complete, and, in part, this has been confirmed by the Qumran manuscript 4QDeutq, where v. 43 reads as follows (note the differences in italics):

“O heavens, cry out [i.e. rejoice] with Him!
Bow (down) to Him, all gods [lit. Mighty Ones]!
For he will take vengeance (for) the blood of His sons,
and return vengeance to His opponents,
He will treat those who reject Him (as they deserve),
and will cover [i.e. wipe away, cleanse] His people’s land.”

This preserves more accurately the three-beat bicolon (3:3) strophic structure and parallelism characteristic of the rest of the poem. The Septuagint Greek is more expansive, which could indicate its secondary character. The first lines, in particular, appear to conflate (combine) the text from 4QDeutq and MT:

“Be of good mind [i.e. rejoice], O heavens, with Him,
and kiss toward [i.e. worship] Him, all (you) sons of God!
Be of good mind [i.e. rejoice], O nations, with His people,
and let all the Messengers of God strengthen themselves in Him!
…”

It is easy to see how the word °§lœhîm (“gods”, LXX “sons of God”), along with the line containing it, might have dropped out or been omitted during the process of transmission. It could have been misunderstood as supporting polytheism in some way (i.e. the existence of other deities), even if here the plural °§lœhîm (lit. “mighty ones”, in the sense of “divine beings”) is referring to heavenly beings (Messengers/Angels) and not pagan deities as such. The LXX wording (“sons of God”) more accurately reflects the typical Hebrew usage in the Old Testament (see Psalm 29:1, etc; but note Psalm 97:7). In favor of the Septuagint reading is the close association of the nations and the deities (or Angels), such as we saw in what is likely the original reading of verse 8 (above). Yet the Qumran text strikes me as being more precise and favorable to the ancient poetic (and religious) outlook. The call to the heavens also serves as a fitting conclusion, functioning as a parallel to the opening words of the poem (v. 1, “Give ear, O heavens…”).

I hope that this demonstrates some of the issues involved with the study of Old Testament poetry, especially in a poem as old as the Song of Moses appears to be. Textual and interpretive difficulties abound, and must not be glossed over or ignored. Continue to study and meditate on this great poem, and we will continue with our discussion next week, picking up with the remaining areas of critical analysis which need to be explored (such as form- and source-criticism). I will see you here again next week.