The Miracle at the Sea Remarks on the Recent Discussion about Origin and Composition of the Exodus Narrative Jan Christian Gertz* 1 Introduction: The Exodus Narrative and the Debate about the Formation of the Pentateuch The story of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt in Exod 1–15 “constitutes the point of crystallization of the great Pentateuchal narrative in its entirety.”1 It is, therefore, hardly surprising that the Exodus narrative plays an important role and often served as a paradigm in the recent debate about the formation of the Pentateuch.2 As a result there is much controversy about these chapters in pentateuchal scholarship. The classic formulation of the New Documentary Hypothesis assumes a Yahwistic, Elohistic, and Priestly source in Exod 1–15, as well as several pre- and post-priestly additions that were joined in successive stages. If we survey the commentaries and monographs of recent years, we find copious refutations and modifications of this model.3 By name but hardly with regard to approach, * My sincere thanks to my colleague Anselm C. Hagedorn for the translation of this article. The research was done while I was part of the group “Convergence and Divergence in Pentateuchal Theory” at the Israel Institute for Advanced Studies in Jerusalem and supported by the eurias Fellowship Programme. 1 Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. with an introduction by Bernhard W. Anderson; Chico, Calif.: Scholar Press, 1981), 51; trans. of Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948), 54. 2 Cf. inter alia Marc Vervenne, “Current Tendencies and Developments in the Study of the Book of Exodus,” in The Book of Exodus (ed. Marc Vervenne; betl 126; Leuven: Peeters, 1996), 21–59; Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (bzaw 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 9–43; Jan Christian Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch (frlant 186; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000); Christoph Berner, Die Exoduserzählung (fat 73; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010); and David M. Carr, “The Moses Story: Literary-Historical Reflections,” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 1 (2012): 7–36. 3 Martin Noth, Das zweite Buch Mose. Exodus (7th ed.; atd 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984); Fujiko Kohata, Jahwist und Priesterschrift in Exodus 3–14 (bzaw 166; Berlin: © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004282667_005 92 gertz methodology, and results, the Neo Documentarians remain committed to the New Documentary Hypothesis.4 This group of scholars assumes that the Ex- odus narrative (as indeed most of the Pentateuch) can be almost completely separated into four sources. At first glance, the most significant difference to the New Documentary Hypothesis is the assumption that the sources originated independently and in isolation from each other and were then joined together by a compiler in one single act. More significant, however, is the programmatic abandonment of the historical and intellectual classification of the sources and their compiler. While Julius Wellhausen used the New Documentary Hypoth- esis as a vehicle to reconstruct the (literary) history of ancient Israel, the Neo Documentarians simply limit themselves to the attribution of texts to one of the sources that a compiler arranged without a recognizable program, or aim, and thus created disorder.5 The vast majority of analyses of the Exodus narrative, however, follows the New Documentary Hypothesis and assumes a redaction- or composition- history based on sources or at least on source-like fragments as well as quite extensive editing. The assumption of an Elohistic source is part of the criti- cal inheritance of the New Documentary Hypothesis. Its existence is regularly de Gruyter, 1986); Werner H. Schmidt, Exodus 1–7 (bk 2.1, Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1988–1999); William H.C. Propp, Exodus 1–18/19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (ab 2/2a; New York: Doubleday, 1999/2006); Ludwig Schmidt, Beobachtungen zu der Plagenerzählung in Exodus vv 14–xi 10 (StB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1990); and Axel Graupner, Der Elohist: Gegenwart und Wirksamkeit des transzendenten Gottes in der Geschichte (wmant 97; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2002). 4 Baruch J. Schwartz, “The Torah: Its Five Books and Four Documents,” in The Literature of the Hebrew Bible: Introductions and Studies (ed. Z. Talshir; The Ancient Literature of Eretz Israel and its World 1; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2011), 161–226 (Hebrew); Joel S. Baden, j, e and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (fat 68; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). 5 Two quotations taken from a letter by Julius Wellhausen to Adolf Jülicher written on Octo- ber 8, 1880 will illustrate the sharp contrast: “I am by no means wedded to the views I expressed about the composition of the Hexateuch except for the principle that except for the main sources there were all kind of excrescences, that the supplementary hypothesis can be justified, and that the mechanical mosaic hypothesis is absurd.” A little later in the same letter he characterizes the task of literary-critical analysis as being able “to grasp prin- ciples and main tendencies, know to observe literary growth, and not deal with these mat- ters as if it were a game of skittles” (quoted according to the English excerpt prepared by M. Kohl for the 2013 iosot congress in Munich, from Julius Wellhausen-Briefe [ed. Rudolf Smend, with the assistance of Peter Porzig and Reinhard Müller; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013])..