'Noughty' Moses: A Decade of Moses Scholarship 2000–2010 (2012)

Mohr Siebeck

1Volume 1

2012

Moses

David M. Carr

The Moses Story: Literary Historical Reflections 7–36

Erhard Blum

Der historische Mose und die Frü hgeschichte Israels 37–63

Thomas Römer

Tracking Some “Censored” Moses Traditions Inside and Outside the Hebrew Bible 64–76

James Kugel

The Figure of Moses in Jubilees 77–92

Carl S. Ehrlich

“Noughty” Moses: A Decade of Moses Scholarship 2000–2010 93–110

New Projects

Jens Kamlah, Neuere Forschungen zur Archä ologie in Sü dphö nizien 113–132

Israel Finkelstein et al., Reconstructing Ancient Israel: Integrating Macro- and Micro-archaeology 133–150

Editorial Introduction

Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel is a new journal focusing on the HebrewBible and its historical contexts, the history of Israel, as well as the meth-ods by which these are studied. In an era in which a proliferation of meet-ings and media encourages the dissemination of new information but alsomakes such information diffuse and difficult to put in context, a real needexists for a forum in which the state of research on current issues can beexamined and evaluated to foster scholarly dialogue and enhance futurescholarship. Moreover, despite the increasingly international scope of bib-lical studies, various factors of language, economics, and academic culturecontinue to reinforce tendencies toward patrochialism and compartmen-talization of knowledge. Thus, a variety of conversations about commontopics often coexist side by side without interacting in substantial fashion.Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel seeks to address both of these phenomenaby providing a context in which scholars from different academic cultureswill be intentionally brought together to examine substantial questions ofcommon academic interest.

Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal ofapproximately 512 pages per year, published in both print and electronicforms. Each issue has a topical focus and consists of three to five invited ar-ticles, framed by an editorial introduction and an article that reviews recentliterature on the topic in question. Although the primary language of He-brew Bible and Ancient Israel is English, articles may also be published inGerman and French.

As the title Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel suggests, the journal focusesprimarily on the biblical texts in their ancient historical contexts, that is tosay, on issues pertaining to the study of the Hebrew Bible and ancient Israelin the first millennium B.C.E. This scope includes matters pertaining to theorigins of ancient Israel as well as to issues related to the development andreception of the Hebrew Bible in the Second Temple period. Methodologicalissues (e. g., the relation between archaeology and textual evidence, histori-ography, social scientific modeling) are also within the journal’s concerns.

HeBAI 1 (2012), 1–2 ISSN 2192-2276 © 2012 Mohr Siebeck

Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel also regularly includes features on “NewFindings” and “New Projects” to inform readers about new developments inthe field of archeology and to present major new initiatives in the discipline.

Editorial oversight for the journal is provided by four editors (Gary N.Knoppers, Oded Lipschits, Carol A. Newsom, and Konrad Schmid), assistedby a team of ten associate editors who represent a breadth of academic cul-tures and expertise. Each topical issue is planned by one of the members ofthe editorial team or by a guest editor. Suggestions for future issues are in-vited from the readers of the journal.

2 Editorial Introduction

Carl S. Ehrlich

‘Noughty’ Moses:A Decade of Moses Scholarship 2000–2010

I. Introduction

The first decade of the twenty-first century (the “noughts”) has borne wit-ness to a lively and wide-ranging engagement with the figure of Moses, towhich the present author has also made his own modest contribution.1

The aim of the current article is to survey some of the literature that hasbeen published on the theme over the course of this decade (broadly de-fined to include the eleven years 2000–2010, thus encompassing bothcompeting standard definitions of the temporal parameters of the decade).On account of space limitations and owing to the wealth of scholarship onMoses during this time, the emphasis will be placed on monographs deal-ing with Moses as a cultural figure, thereby leaving out of consideration anumber of important articles and other worthy works, including com-mentaries2 and edited volumes.3 Nonetheless, it is hoped that a considera-tion of a selection of the major monographs written on Moses will providea reasonable survey of the current state of Moses scholarship.

1 C.S. Ehrlich, “Moses, Torah, and Judaism,” in The Rivers of Paradise: Moses, Buddha,Confucius, Jesus, and Muhammad as Religious Founders (ed. D.N. Freedman and M.J.McClymond; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 11–119.

2 E.g., S.M. Langston, Exodus through the Centuries (Blackwell Bible Commentaries; Mal-den: Blackwell Publishing, 2006); C. Meyers, Exodus (NCBC; Cambridge; CambridgeUniversity Press, 2005); W.H.C. Propp, Exodus 19–40 (AB 2 A; New York: Doubleday,2006).

3 Among these edited collections are the following: P. Borgeaud, T. Romer, and Y. Volok-hine, ed., Interpretations de Moıse. Egypte, Judee, Grece et Rome (Jerusalem Studies in Re-ligion and Culture 10; Leiden: Brill, 2010); R. Ginsberg and I. Pardes, ed., New Perspec-tives on Freud’s Moses and Monotheism (Conditio Judaica 60; Tubingen: Max NiemeyerVerlag, 2006); and A. Graupner and M. Wolter, ed., Moses in Biblical and Extra-BiblicalTraditions (BZAW 372; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007). Also being left out of consideration areworks that do not engage with serious scholarship, such as M. Lichtenstein, Moses: Envoyof God, Envoy of His People (Jersey City: Ktav, 2008).

HeBAI 1 (2012), 93–110 ISSN 2192-2276 © 2012 Mohr Siebeck

II. Eckhart Otto’s Mose

Over the course of the decade of the noughts, E. Otto has been one of themost prolific writers on the subject of Moses.4 His short introduction,Mose: Geschichte und Legende, both (1) summarizes his literary theoriesregarding the Pentateuchal Moses texts and their place within the inner-Israelite/-Judean religious and political discourse and (2) presents the gen-eral reader with an overview of Moses’ place within the western religiousand cultural traditions. After a brief introduction (pp. 7–9), in which hecontrasts the diametrically opposed attitudes toward the Ten Command-ments expressed in 1933 by Adolf Hitler and in 1942 by Thomas Mann inorder to underline the power and relevance of the Mosaic message in themore-or-less contemporary world, Otto proceeds to a presentation of thePentateuch’s Moses narrative (pp. 9–21). This is followed by a discussion ofthe search for the historical Moses in the nineteenth and twentieth centu-ries, the upshot of which was the discovery of Moses as a literary ratherthan historical figure (pp. 21–27). Nonetheless, Otto does venture to spec-ulate that an indistinct outline of the historical Moses may be retrievedfrom the traditions surrounding him and his relationship through mar-riage to the Midianite priesthood (pp. 27–34). Thus, the historical Moseswas somehow involved in the introduction of the worship of the desertgod Yahweh into the Israelite heartland, a dim memory of which washanded down in the early Passover traditions.

The core of the book (pp. 35–81) is devoted to Otto’s analysis of theredactional layers he has identified within the biblical Moses traditions aswell as to their dating and theological evaluation alike. The first level isdated to the period of Assyrian rule, when the presentation of Moses wasconceived of as a counterweight to the prevailing Assyrian royal ideology(pp. 35–42).5 Starting with a revision of the Sargonid birth of Sargon leg-end,6 Moses is presented in royal terms as the champion, leader, and law-

4 Cf. E. Otto, “Mose und das Gesetz: Die Mose-Figur als Gegenentwurf Politischer Theol-ogie zur Neuassyrischen Konigsideologie im 7. Jh. v .Chr.,” in Mose: Agypten und das AlteTestament (ed. E. Otto; SBS 189; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000) 43–83;idem, Die Tora des Mose: Die Geschichte der literarischen Vermittlung von Recht, Religionund Politik durch die Mosegestalt (Berichte aus den Sitzungen der Joachim Jungius-Ge-sellschaft der Wissenschaften e.V. Hamburg 19/2; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,2001); idem, “Mose: I. Altes Testament,” RGG4 5:1534–1536; idem, “Mose, der ersteSchriftgelehrte: Deuteronomium 1,5 in der Fabel des Pentateuch,” in L’Ecrit et l’esprit (ed.D. Bohler et al. ; OBO 214; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 273–284; idem,Mose: Geschichte und Legende (Munchen: Beck, 2006).

5 See also Otto, “Mose und das Gesetz” (n. 3–4).6 See COS 1.133.

94 Carl S. Ehrlich

giver of his people. In keeping with studies that have demonstrated the in-fluence of Assyrian treaty forms on the biblical concept of covenant,7 Ottodates the association of Moses and the covenant to this period. He datesthe second major phase to the exilic period (586–539 B.C.E.), when thefunction of Moses as prophet and intermediary between God and the peo-ple became paramount (pp. 42–54). Through the introduction of the Deu-teronomistic theology of sin and punishment, the way was opened for therepentance and future restoration of the people. On the other hand, thecontemporaneous Priestly tradition emphasized the priestly and culticfunctions of Moses. The localization of revelation outside the land of Israelallowed the retention of a Judean ethnic and religious identity in exile and,in Otto’s eyes, established the Priestly tradition as diasporic in perspective.A counterargument was advanced in the fifth century B.C.E. , when theMosaic traditions merged with the Joshua traditions and produced aHexateuch in which the promise and conquest of the land became thecentral concern (pp. 54–64). However, the Priestly party proved trium-phant when Ezra, whom Otto dates to 398 B.C.E. (p. 60), was able to lop offthe book of Joshua and create a Pentateuch in which both the figure ofMoses and his story became the center of the nascent Jewish tradition.

In the context of the above lengthy discussion, the figure of Moses re-treats into the background and the emphasis is placed on the developmentof the scriptural traditions associated with Moses, which the chart on p. 48outlines. After a discussion of the Ten Commandments and their placewithin the Pentateuch as well as in later Judaism and Christianity (pp. 64–75), Otto looks at the minimal role of Moses in the Hebrew Bible outsidethe Torah (pp. 75–81). This he attributes to the lateness of the Moses tra-dition, which as a Priestly/legal tradition stood in opposition to the pro-phetic traditions that dominate the later books. By making Moses thegreatest of the prophets (Deut 34:10–12), the Priestly vision ultimately tri-umphed, as is evidenced by the place of the Mosaic Torah in rabbinicJudaism.

The rest of the book looks at the figure of Moses in various post-biblicaltraditions. First, Otto summarizes briefly the use of Moses in pro- andanti-Jewish Hellenistic literature (pp. 81–91), a topic that has been muchdiscussed in recent years.8 This is followed by a glance at Moses within

7 E.g., H.U. Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 und die ade zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhad-dons: Segen und Fluch im Alten Orient (OBO 145; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1995).

8 See, e. g. , J. Assmann, Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 23–54; L.H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile inthe Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton:

‘Noughty’ Moses: A Decade of Moses Scholarship 2000–2010 95

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, in which, cognizant of his presumed au-dience and his own background, Otto places the greatest emphasis on thesecond of the three (pp. 91–101). In a chapter entitled “Mose, Monotheis-mus und die Menschenrechte,” Otto takes issue with the central thesis of J.Assmann’s Moses the Egyptian:9 namely, that Moses has become a figure ofcultural memory transmitting an intolerant and violent form of monothe-ism (pp. 101–107). While conceding the partial applicability of Assmann’sargument, Otto draws attention to Moses as a symbol of freedom fromoppression. Finally, taking as his point of departure Thomas Mann’s andSigmund Freud’s thoughts regarding Michelangelo’s statue of Moses forthe tomb of Pope Julius II, Otto discusses the death of Moses in some ex-amples of twentieth century German literature (pp. 107–119).

Although this volume is replete with information and quite wide-rang-ing in scope, it ultimately may not satisfy those interested in Moses schol-arship per se. Too much space is devoted to Otto’s redaction-historicalanalysis of the Pentateuch and not enough to the figure of Moses himself.In addition, he gives short shrift to both the post-biblical Jewish and Mus-lim Moses traditions. Nor does he justify his limiting the discussion ofMoses literature to miscellaneous German-language depictions of hisdeath. Had he spent less time on redaction history and more time on theMoses traditions, this book would have been more satisfying.

III. Thomas Romer’s Moıse

Many of these criticisms would be moot if Otto had written a work morelike T. Romer’s Moıse.10 In spite of its being a short book, numbering just128 picture-filled pages cover to cover, this work is arguably the mostcomprehensive one published on the subject of Moses during the pastdecade. Meant as a popular introduction to Moses both in the biblical andpost-biblical traditions, no other work covers as much territory as this onedoes. The book opens with an “Ouverture” (pp. 1–9) that introduces theMoses story by reproducing selected images thence by Gustave Dore, ac-

Princeton University Press, 1993), 233–287; P. Schafer, Judeophobia: Attitudes towardthe Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997) esp. 15–120.

9 See n. 8.10 T. Romer, Moıse: “lui que Yahve a connu face a face” (Paris : Gallimard, 2002). Romer

has also published his inaugural lecture at the College de France as a short monograph(Les cornes de Moıse: Faire entrer la Bible dans l’histoire [Lecons inaugurales du Collegede France 206; Paris: College de France, 2009]). However, this volume is not aboutMoses per se but uses a discussion of his “horns” as the entryway into a broader presen-tation about the modern study of the Hebrew Bible.

96 Carl S. Ehrlich

companied by brief descriptions by Romer. The first chapter (“Aux origi-nes de l’histoire de Moıse” pp. 12–35) is concerned with the biblical Mosesnarrative. After discussing the place of the narrative within the biblicalcontext and specifically within the Pentateuch, which he views as a form ofMoses-biography, Romer summarizes the biblical Moses story (pp. 12–23).He locates the origins of biblical literature, including the formation of theMoses narrative, within the context of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (pp. 24–29). The birth narrative echoes that of Sargon, including the questionablepaternity, which, in Moses’ case, Romer deduces from Exod 2:1, where aLevite “takes a woman” – an idiom that in his eyes implies an illicit sexualunion. Also dating to this time are the themes of Moses as liberator andthe ten plagues, the former indicating a desire to be rid of the hated As-syrian domination while the latter proclaims the superiority of Israel’sGod. Like a Mesopotamian king, Moses becomes a royal lawgiver, whichthe Deuteronomistic reforms of King Josiah epitomize (pp. 29–31). Fol-lowing the Babylonian destruction and exile, two competing images ofMoses develop, the first of which presents him in priestly garb as the pre-scriber of ritual law and the second of which turns him into the archetypalprophet (pp. 31–35).

In his second chapter (“Une personnage aux multiples visages” pp. 36–53), Romer pays greater attention to the various roles assumed by Mosesin the biblical narrative as the first among the prophets (primus interprophetes), as the liberator of his people, as a legislator and royal figure,and as the intercessor between the human and the divine. The third chap-ter (“L’homme Moıse” pp. 54–67) is devoted to the question of the histori-cal Moses. While he casts doubt on the connection between the Hyksosand the biblical Israelites and on the historical validity of the references toPithom and Raamses in Exod 1:11, Romer does draw attention to possibleconnections not only with the New Kingdom Shasu and their potentialveneration of Yahweh (yhw) but also with the Apiru in the Amarna letters.After a discussion of the Egyptian origin of the name Moses, he examinesthree figures from the late New Kingdom period who have been men-tioned as possible models for the historical Moses, the most likely of whichis the chancellor Beya in the early twelth century. Finally, Romer examinesand rejects the evidence for the influence of Atenism on a supposed Mo-saic monotheism.

The final chapter of Romer’s book is devoted to various post-biblicalreadings and reinterpretations of the character of Moses (pp. 68–95). Inthis chapter he moves from Moses as the first target of anti-Semitism inthe Greco-Roman world and continues by addressing outlooks on Mosesin Christianity as a figure of both rupture and continuity (in the New Tes-


tament and the church fathers), in Judaism as its central figure, and finallyin Islam as Muhammad’s precursor – all before turning his attention tovarious more artistic and cultural creations that include music (in particu-lar the operas of Gioachino Rossini and Arnold Schonberg), the oeuvre ofSigmund Freud (both his musings on Michelangelo’s statue of Moses andhis Moses and Monotheism), and American symbols of Moses rangingfrom the writings of Benjamin Franklin to the films The Ten Command-ments (1956) and Prince of Egypt (1998). In a series of appendices, Romerprovides a selection of translations into French from the Hebrew Bible(about the Ten Commandments, the crossing of the Red [sic!] Sea, and theforeign women in Moses’ life), anti-Jewish and Jewish Hellenistic litera-ture, Muslim literature (the Quran and the writings of Al-Tabari), Freud’sworks, and various miscellanea (Benjamin Franklin, Arnold Schonberg,and the movie The Matrix, concerning the main character as a conglomer-ation of Moses and Jesus). The volume concludes helpfully with variouslists, such as a chronology, a bibliography, a filmography, a record of illus-trations, and an index.

Overall, even though Romer doesn’t forge new paths in this book, heprovides an excellent and broad summary of current research on the sub-ject of Moses. Particularly welcome features of the volume include sidebarsthat go on explicatory tangents and provide texts relevant to the subjectmatter under discussion. Providing an unexpected delight is the wealth ofcolourful artistic material interspersed with the text and beautifully repro-duced in what is in essence a most affordable book. If this book were to betranslated into English, it would reach a much larger audience as the firstchoice for those interested in Moses as both a biblical and cultural figure.

IV. C. Bottrich, B. Ego, and F. Eißler’s Mose in Judentum,Christentum und Islam

Not strictly speaking a monograph but a work authored by the threescholars C. Bottrich, B. Ego, and F. Eißler, Mose in Judentum, Christentumund Islam sets out to examine the significance of Moses in the three majorwestern or Abrahamic religious traditions.11 This book is part of a series ofbooks written by these three authors and published by Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht under the rubric of Biblische Personen als Gesprachsvermittler, aseries that by now also encompasses studies on Abraham, Adam and Eve,

11 C. Bottrich, B. Ego, and F. Eißler, Mose in Judentum, Christentum und Islam (Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010).

98 Carl S. Ehrlich

Jesus and Mary, and (eventually) one on Elijah and other prophets. Aimedat a Christian audience and written by Christian theologians, this series isan attempt to engage with the “other” in a discussion about figures foun-dational to the three traditions in question, though the choice of subjectsclearly reflects Christian biases and concerns.

Ego, a professor of OT studies in Osnabruck, wrote the chapter onMoses in Judaism (pp. 11–66). Not surprisingly, it emphasizes the biblicaltext and Jewish writings from classical antiquity, while giving short shriftto the Moses of rabbinic Judaism and its successors. Introducing her re-marks with a brief critique of Assmann’s theories regarding Moses as thebridge leading from tolerant polytheism to violent monotheism (pp. 11–12), she quickly turns to a discussion of the biblical Moses traditions whereshe largely follows Otto’s redaction-critical reading (pp. 12–30). Her trans-lation of Exodus 3:14 (“Ich bin der, der [fur euch helfend da] ist“) appearsto owe more to an understanding of the Septuagint tradition than it doesthe Masoretic one, while prescriptively imposing on the reader only one ofmany possible interpretations of the phrase. While supposedly making heraudience aware of Judaism’s understanding of the Moses story, she useslanguage drawn more from the Christian traditions, such as Reguel (fol-lowing the Septuagint) instead of Reuel (or Re’u’el) for Moses’ father-in-lawand Passahfest instead of (the) Pessach(-fest),12 the latter of which wouldhave been closer to reproducing the names as used both in the HebrewBible and in later Judaism.13 In addition, Ego misses the opportunity to fillin hermeneutic blanks by recourse to Jewish tradition, one example ofwhich would be her claim that the biblical text leaves open the questionwhether the Ten Commandments were received by the people directlyfrom God or transmitted to them by Moses (p. 16). This question is di-rectly addressed, e. g. , in b. Makkot 23b-24a, in which it is felt that the firsttwo commandments were addressed directly to Israel, while the lattereight were transmitted through Moses. Finally, her understanding of thebiblical canon that seemingly includes the book of Baruch (p. 28, cf. p. 44)differs from a traditional Jewish one.

The following section on Moses in pre-rabbinic Jewish writings is thestrongest part of Ego’s presentation (pp. 30–52). The discussion is dividedbetween sources from the Hellenistic Diaspora (pp. 31–43) and from pre-rabbinic Palestinian Judaism (pp. 43–52), emphasizing Philo in the case of

12 Unlike Bottrich, the author of the following chapter, who uses the term Pessachfest (e. g. ,p. 71).

13 Compare, e. g. , these designations in W.G. Plaut, ed., Die Tora in judischer Auslegung:Band II, Schemot תומש Exodus (trans. A. Bockler; Gutersloh: Kaiser, Gutersloher Ver-lagshaus, 2000), 47, 123ff.


the former (pp. 35–41) and Pseudo-Philo in the case of the latter (pp. 48–52). This leaves her barely eleven pages to discuss Moses in rabbinic litera-ture (pp. 52–60) and in Jewish liturgy (pp. 60–62).14 Only on the final twopages of her essay does Ego quote Moses Maimonides and Martin Buber,quickly and superficially bringing into the discussion one medieval andone modern Jewish thinker/theologian before concluding the chapter. Byrestricting her discussion of post-rabbinic Judaism to these two relativelybrief footnotes, she is unintentionally fostering a presentation of Judaismas a curious relic from the distant past rather than as a living tradition inwhich Moses still functions as a central religious symbol.

The shortest chapter in the volume is C. Bottrich’s on Moses in Christi-anity (pp. 67–111). In his introduction (pp. 67–69), Bottrich draws atten-tion to the two characteristics of the Moses story that most fire the Chris-tian imagination: the freeing of the Israelites from slavery and the receiv-ing of the commandments on Mount Sinai. However, a typological readingtempers the positive attitude toward Moses in Christianity, where Mosesstands in tension with Jesus as his prefigurement and where Jesus is theone destined to complete the work that Moses had only begun. The bulk ofBottrich’s exposition is devoted to Moses in the New Testament writings(pp. 70–100). Even though Moses is the most frequently mentioned OTfigure in the NT,15 little of his biography is referenced in the text. It ismainly as the transmitter of the divine word that he enters the NT tradi-tions. In addition, Bottrich draws attention to the NT’s incorporation ofMoses motifs from Jewish-Hellenistic and nascent midrashic literature(72–74). The heart of the chapter (pp. 74–91) is devoted to an analysis ofthe major images of Moses presented in the NT: God’s confidant, a repre-sentative of the Torah,16 a “life coach,” an exemplar of faith, and a bearerof hope for the oppressed. In each case, Bottrich endeavors to locate theearly Christian community within the Jewish fold. The typological aspectof Moses in the NT is examined in greater detail on pp. 92–100. Most im-portant in the typology of Moses as harbinger of Jesus is his function asprophet, but aspects of his story also function to actualize the experience ofthe early Christian community as delineated by the various NT authors.The following section of Bottrich’s essay is concerned with the figure ofMoses in post-NT Christian traditions (pp. 100–107). He introduces thesubject with a perusal of Michelangelo’s statue of Moses in the church of

14 Pp. 63–66 consist of a bibliography.15 According to Bottrich, there are 80 references to Moses in the NT, while there are 76 to

Abraham (p. 70).16 A word that Bottrich makes ample use of, although I suspect that nomos or “law” would

be more in keeping with the Urtext.

100 Carl S. Ehrlich

San Pietro in Vincoli in Rome, which he uses as the point of departure fora very brief discussion of the horned Moses in Christian art. While he at-tributes this iconography to a mistaken translation of the Hebrew, he ig-nores the influence of this translation tradition on the development of ananti-Semitic iconography in medieval Europe associating the Jews with theDevil.17 Following a brief discussion that addresses the developing ambiv-alence toward Moses in Christian thought, Bottrich looks at the role ofMoses in Protestant art as the bearer of the preacher’s pulpit. In his finalreflections (pp. 107–108), Bottrich speculates in the light of 9/11 that theTen (Mosaic) Commandments may serve as the basis of a universal ethics(Weltethos). However, this illusory hope is based on a misunderstanding oftheir place in Jewish thought, where they serve as an integral part of God’srevelation specifically with Israel, and on a misapprehension of their re-ception in the Muslim tradition,18 leaving out of consideration their lack ofapplicability as a whole to most of the world’s religious systems.

In the final essay in the volume, F. Eißler looks at Moses in Islam(pp. 112–181). Even more than in the previous two chapters, the perspec-tive is restricted to the scriptural foundations of the religion in question,namely to the Koran (Qur’an). Moses’ importance is underlined by the factthat he – in the Arabic form of his name, Musa – is mentioned exponen-tially more often (in ca. 502 verses in 36 suras) than any other biblical fig-ure in the Koran.19 His major role in the Koran is as the prophet whotransmits the divine commandments to Israel and who enjoys the desig-nation “the one with whom God has spoken.”20 As such, he stands op-posed to the Pharaoh and becomes the greatest of the prophets beforeMuhammad. To a large extent, the Koranic presentation of Moses is re-flective of Muhammad’s situation. Hence, most of the Moses verses aredated to Muhammad’s second and third Mecca periods, which began in615 C.E. This is particularly clear in Moses’ leadership of a small group offaithful against the seemingly greater and more powerful unfaithful, onlyto emerge triumphant at the end. These themes are addressed in the firstsection of Eißler’s essay, which also includes a short introduction to theKoran and to subsequent traditional literature regarding Muhammad andhis revelation. The remainder of his chapter (pp. 118–178) goes methodi-

17 See, e. g., J. Trachtenberg, The Devil and the Jews: The Medieval Conception of the Jewand Its Relation to Modern Anti-Semitism (Foreword by M. Saperstein; Philadelphia:Jewish Publication Society, 1983 [1943]); H. Schreckenberg, The Jews in Christian Art:An Illustrated History (trans. J. Bowden; New York: Continuum, 1996), 241–250.

18 On the latter of which, see pp. 167–170 in the volume under discussion.19 Abraham is mentioned 235 times, while Jesus is found in only 93 verses (p. 112).20 “Kalim Allah, ‘derjenige, mit dem Gott geredet hat’” (p. 113).


cally through the suras that relate specifically to the story of Moses, leavingout of consideration those in which he plays a subordinate role. The or-ganizational principle is to follow a reconstructed chronology of the Mosesstory, which, like the Muhammad story, the Koran does not presentchronologically. In this manner, Eißler’s essay presents a commentary onthe central Koranic Moses passages, in which liberal use is made of quota-tions from the text. It thus serves as a valuable compendium of the centralKoranic verses dealing with Moses, who distinguishes himself from Mu-hammad as the recipient of direct divine revelation (pp. 141–142).Throughout Eißler makes an effort to indicate the manner in which theKoran rewrites and reworks its scriptural and post-biblical sources, as wellas presenting the traditions unique to the Koran. Of particular interest isthe manner in which the figure of Moses is eventually “islamified” (islami-siert), as Muhammad’s attitude toward the Jewish community became in-creasingly negative, which is reflected in the presentation of Moses’ atti-tude toward the Israelites in later Koranic passages (pp. 171–178). Evenmore than the other chapters, Eißler’s essay focuses solely on the scripturalfoundations of the religious tradition in question. I will leave it to others todetermine whether this is appropriate in this case, as it arguably is in thecase of Christianity. However, in the case of Judaism, to rely to such a greatextent on the Hebrew Bible as indicative of the religion’s understanding ofthe figure of Moses is to shortchange the rabbinic tradition, which is toJudaism what the New Testament is to Christianity and the Koran to Islam– namely, a rewriting and reworking of earlier traditions.

V. M. Wright‘s Moses in America

As her subtitle indicates, M. Wright’s reworked Oxford dissertation Mosesin America stresses The Cultural Uses of Biblical Narrative.21 In pursuingthis subject matter, she formulates her approach as a methodological attackon the traditional concerns of biblical scholars, whom she views as elitistand narrow-minded in their interests.22 Whatever one may think of theapplicability and appropriateness of her blanket condemnation of a branchof scholarship near and dear to my heart, she has provided her readerswith an interesting and well-researched look at the cultural uses of the fig-ure of Moses in three artistic creations that span thirty years of American

21 M.J. Wright, Moses in America: The Cultural Uses of Biblical Narrative (AARCCS; Ox-ford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

22 Wright, Moses, pp. 8–9.

102 Carl S. Ehrlich

history: L. Steffen’s novel Moses in Red (1926), Z.N. Hurston’s novel Moses,Man of the Mountain (1939), and C.B. DeMille’s film The Ten Command-ments (1956). In all three cases what interests her is not the “text” per se,but the context – both historical-social and personal – within which thetext was created and the text’s reception both at the time of creation andsubsequently.23

In her “Introduction” (pp. 3–12), Wright lays out her methodologicalassumptions and positions herself firmly within the scholarly grid as a cul-tural historian. The following three chapters, the heart of the book, dealwith her three test cases and promise to shed light on the “American po-litical and social self-comprehension [that] has been articulated in relationto this biblical narrative” (p.10). All three of the central chapters of thebook regarding Steffens (pp. 13–42), Hurston (pp. 43–88), and DeMille(pp. 89–127) provide ample evidence of Wright’s ability to understand aparticular moment in history and the social currents that framed it as wellas of her capacity to situate her creators and their “readers” within theirrespective contexts.

The background for Steffens’ Moses in Red is the First World War, theRoaring Twenties, and – given the subject matter – the Mexican Revolu-tion (1910) and especially the Russian Revolution (1917). In this reading ofMoses and particularly of the exodus, it is their revolutionary aspect that ismost prominent for Steffens, for whom Moses becomes a Lenin figure(sic!), leading the Hebrews in revolt against their oppressors and then onto freedom in the promised land, which Steffens hoped would also becomea prescriptive paradigm for America. Wright argues that Steffens was notan apologist for Soviet-style Marxism (pp. 26–34). Instead, he attempted tounderstand the biblical story as a typical tale of revolution. Nonetheless, heargued that America had lost its way as the beacon of freedom in the worldonly to be replaced by Russia. Hence, Moses in Red was an appeal to hisfellow citizens to rediscover their revolutionary origins and attendant mo-rality. In light of the subsequent tensions between the United States andthe Soviet Union and the ensuing suspicion of the great-leader school ofsocial thought, it is no wonder why this book failed to enjoy the receptionSteffens had hoped for.

Hurston’s Moses, Man of the Mountain suffered a similar fate. Its authorstudied anthropology under F. Boas and participated in the fabled HarlemRenaissance. However, as a woman with multiple divorces before the sex-ual revolution, as an African-American before the civil rights movement,

23 Or as Wright phrases it: “… to explore how their images of Moses function within par-ticular contexts of production and reception” (p. 6).


and as a southerner in the northeast, she was an outsider on many differ-ent levels that contributed to the virtual erasure of her memory well beforeher death in poverty and her burial in an unmarked grave. It is only thanksto A. Walker’s advocacy for Hurston as of the 1970s that she and heroeuvre have been rediscovered (pp. 84–87). And yet her Moses remainsarguably her most controversial and complex work. It tells the tale of aMoses who harnesses the power of hoodoo magic in leading the Hebrewsfrom slavery to freedom (pp. 53–57). The reader, though, can never be surejust where Moses fits in. Is he an Israelite or an Egyptian? Like Hurstonherself, Moses defies facile categorization. Wright draws attention to thepolyvalent contexts of the book, including primarily the African-Americanexperience but also encompassing allusions to events contemporaneouswith the book’s genesis in the late 1930s (pp. 67–69). Hurston’s back-ground as an anthropologist comes to the fore in Wright’s discussions ofthe depictions of religion and of the dialects employed for different ethnicgroups and classes in the book (pp. 78–81). Because many if not all of thefemale characters in the book are depicted negatively, modern feministshave had a distanced relationship to Moses, Man of the Mountain (pp. 70–78). But Wright argues that Miriam, the most vividly ambivalent womanin the book, may reflect some of Hurston’s bitter understanding of herown tenuous place in society.

Wright understands DeMille’s Ten Commandments as a work of cold-war propaganda. She even entitles the relevant chapter “Coming in fromthe Cold (War).” To some extent, this makes the movie the antithesis ofSteffens’ book. Starting with DeMille’s unusual introduction to the movie,in which he delivers a speech to the audience about what they are about tosee and the significance of it, the movie contrasts the American love offreedom “under God”24 with the state slavery imposed by godless commu-nism. While the movie draws upon post-biblical traditions for inspiration(from ancient Jewish sources to modern novels), DeMille picks andchooses what aspects to incorporate in formulating his own vision ofMoses, oftentimes drawing from specifically Christian formulations in thepresentation of his story (pp. 102–104). The story of Moses thus prefiguresthe political, social, and religious freedoms that the United States repre-sents. Following M.G. Wood, Wright emphasizes the iconic image ofMoses at the end of the film, when C. Heston as Moses assumes a pose

24 Indeed, as Wright points out (p. 91), it was only in 1954 that the phrase “under God”was incorporated into the American Pledge of Allegiance. It is interesting to note that –while the movie suppresses the specifically Jewish aspects of the Moses story (see, e. g. ,pp. 100–101) – a rabbinic understanding of freedom from Egyptian enslavement is per-haps counter-intuitively realized in servitude to God.

104 Carl S. Ehrlich

reminiscent of that of the Statue of Liberty (p. 125). Yet in spite of thesupposed conservatism of DeMille and his time alike, his film argues forthe equality of all human beings, irrespective of ethnic origins.25

The most important general criticism one may express about Wright’sbook is her dogged avoidance of “text.” Hence, her discussion is framedsolely as one about context, in which the actual text being discussed is ofinterest only in contrasting particular aspects of the text with the biblicalor (occasionally) post-biblical sources of its reimaginings. While this ispresumably not a major problem with an iconic film like The Ten Com-mandments that has probably been viewed by most of the people at whomthis book is directed, it presents a somewhat greater issue in the case ofboth Hurston’s Moses, Man of the Mountain (an occasionally disparagedbook I consider one of the best literary works based on the narrative of theHebrew Bible) and Steffen’s Moses in Red (a work of seemingly partisanpolitical analysis that made little impression already at the time it waswritten). Wright’s book would have been more helpful if she had devotedsome space to introducing her readers to the actual contents and outlinesof the works discussed, veering a little from her chosen contextual path.

VI. B. Britt‘s Rewriting Moses

To some extent these criticisms are alleviated and addressed in B. Britt’sRewriting Moses: The Narrative Eclipse of the Text.26 This is also a work ofcultural history but it has a broader focus than Wright’s piece, engagesmore directly with texts in general, and ultimately leads the reader back tothe biblical text. The central thesis of Britt’s book revolves around Moses asa written figure in the biblical tradition and as a biographical subject in thepost-biblical one. In other words, Moses’ function in the various interpre-tative traditions – whether as the conduit of divine law or as the hero of atale – is the chief interest for Britt. Thus, he pays equal attention both tothe biblical text and to later interpretations of it. The meta-level on whichhe engages each area falls within the framework of modern literary-criticaland cultural-historical discourse. Hence, the names of theoreticians suchas Assmann, E. Auerbach, M. Bal, W. Benjamin, J. Derrida, S. Freud, Y.H.Yerushalmi, and others play important roles in the discussion. Nonethe-

25 Although, as Wright indicates, “no nonwhite actors [are] depicted in significant roles”(p. 127).

26 B. Britt, Rewriting Moses: The Narrative Eclipse of the Text (JSOTSup. 402; Gender, Cul-ture, Theory 14; New York: T & T Clark, 2004).


less, in spite of the theoretical axis around which the book revolves, it ulti-mately is best understood as a series of loosely related chapters whoseunity is provided by the Mosaic discourse in its widest sense.

The “Introduction” to the book (pp. 1–11) treats Moses as a figure ofhistorical memory. As Britt points out, there is relatively little biographicalinformation conveyed in the biblical text about Moses, a circumstance thatgave the impetus for the development of a wide-ranging post-biblical ex-pansion of the Moses story. Britt divides this expansion into traditionsmore in line with rabbinic thought, which encompasses the exegesis of theUrtext, and those traditions more influenced by Hellenistic thought, inwhich the motivation for the development of the tradition is provided byforces external to the text.27 The subsequent eight chapters of the book aredivided into two parts linked by an “Interlude.”

In “Part I,” which comprises three chapters, Britt engages “Contempo-rary Images of Moses” (pp. 12–80). The first chapter is devoted to “Sub-verting the Great Man: Violence and Magic in Moses Fiction” (pp. 13–39).Britt introduces the subject by providing a list and categorization of thirty-four Moses novels written since the mid-nineteenth century.28 Most ofthem contribute in various ways to the development of a heroic Mosesnarrative. Indeed, Britt assigns them to four overarching literary world-views: “Christian, Jewish, Romance/Orientalist, and Humanist/Secularist”(p. 15). After ascertaining that most of these are not great works of litera-ture and that they idealize the figure of Moses, Britt turns his attention to afifth category of sui generis novels and devotes the rest of this chapter to adiscussion of Steffens’ Moses in Red (1926), Hurston’s Moses, Man of theMountain (1939), and Mann’s Tables of the Law (1943).29 Britt finds thatthe works by Steffens and Mann subvert the story by “offer[ing] disturbingbut compelling images of violent social transformation” (p. 31). Hurston,on the other hand, subverts traditional understandings by locating thestory in her contemporary situation, thus allowing a reading of the storyon dual levels, as well as by turning Moses into a magician.

The second chapter takes up this theme of duality and applies it to areading of Moses films (pp. 40–58). This duality is exemplified for Britt by

27 In Britt’s words, the former “is more likely to occur within a context guided by readingand interpretation of the biblical text, commentary on words, sentences, and questionsof narrative and halakhic meaning,” while the latter “is more likely to operate accordingto concepts, patterns, and questions external to the biblical text” (p. 7).

28 Without doing a major search, I am aware of at least one work missing from his list : G.Messadie, Moıse (2 vols.; Paris: Editions Jean-Claude Lattes, 1998).

29 Owing to its short length (under sixty pages), this latter work is – pace Britt – more anovella than a novel.

106 Carl S. Ehrlich

the “doubling” of Moses in cinematic tradition. Examples of this dualityare the splitting of the Moses character between male and female protago-nists (as in 1924’s Moon of Israel and 1998’s Prince of Egypt), and the pres-entation of antagonists to the role of Moses as the protagonist (as in 1956’sThe Ten Commandments, in which Moses has both a female double/antag-onist, Nefretiri, and a male one, Ramses). To some extent this doublingmay be deduced from the ambiguity regarding Moses’ ethnic and racialidentity in the biblical narrative, a theme that is developed and expandedin the cinematic treatments of his story.

The third and last chapter of Part I examines “Legend and History inModern Scholarly Portraits of Moses” (pp. 59–80). In this chapter, Britt“seeks to demonstrate that modern scholars [engage] in the narrativeeclipse of the biblical text by their common commitment to ideas of legendand history and the opposition between them” (p. 61). In order to provehis thesis, Britt discusses the images of Moses and his place in history/leg-end in the works of J. Wellhausen, H. Gressmann, M. Noth, G. von Rad,and M. Buber. Significantly, all of these were German(-trained) scholars,although Buber as the one Jew among them differs from the rest in hisbasic presuppositions about the text and its theological import. Nonethe-less, Britt demonstrates that all of these scholars came to somewhat differ-ing views regarding Moses as a figure of history and legend. In a nutshell,while Wellhausen, Gressmann, and Noth were most interested in recover-ing the earliest layers of tradition, von Rad and Buber were more interest-ed in the theological importance of Moses for the modern reader (in effect,juxtaposing what Moses meant with what Moses means).

The “Interlude,” which Britt entitles “Biblical Text, Biblical Tradition,”consists of one chapter that deals with “The Veil of Moses in the Bible andin Christian Art” (pp. 81–115). After analyzing the biblical text, Britt en-gages in a search for images of the veiled Moses in Christian art, a motifthat he discovers is rare, particularly in comparison with the motif of thehorned Moses. This he attributes to a number of factors. One is that theveil obscures Moses in his role as prophet. When he wears the veil, he isnot privy to revelation. Another is that veiled Synagoga becomes a nega-tive trope in Christian art ; hence, there is a general reluctance to depictMoses in this manner, except for the few times he is being used as a sym-bol for Judaism and the replaced theology of the old covenant. However,this way of presenting Moses is oftentimes avoided in order not to cast as-persions on Moses within the context of a typological reading as a prefig-urement of Jesus. In addition, within the context of a patriarchal artistictradition, the employment of the female Synagoga in order to representsomething negative is preferable to the use of the male Moses.


Part II consists of four chapters, all of which foreground “UncannyBiblical Texts” (pp. 116–183). In these chapters, Britt does a close readingof what he considers difficult texts in order to elucidate their contributionto the biblical Moses discourse. The first text that Britt considers is the oneconcerning “Moses’ Heavy Mouth … in Exodus 4.10–17” (pp. 117–130).Contrary to those who see in this text an excerpt of a Moses biography,Britt “argue[s] that revelation, not the person of Moses, is a primary con-cern of the text” (p. 117). By diminishing the importance of speech in itsaccount of Moses’ commissioning, the text implicitly lays its emphasis onthe written word as Moses’ major revelatory action. The second text dis-cussed by Britt is “Deuteronomy 31–32 as a Textual Memorial” (pp. 131–143). His basic thesis is that there are two strands of tradition interwovenin these chapters: “one on the death of Moses and commission of Joshua,and another on the recording and promulgation of texts” (p. 131), whereTorah and Song become inextricably intertwined. The third text complexis Deuteronomy 32–33 (pp. 144–164), consisting mainly of two poetictexts that Britt views as “show[ing] Moses as both a ‘writing being’ and a‘being written’” (p. 164). In his final chapter Britt concentrates on “TheBirth, Death, and Writing of Moses” (pp. 165–18330). Here, he juxtaposesMoses’ birth (Exodus 1–2) and death (Deuteronomy 34) narratives andposits that they actually contribute more to establishing “a written tradi-tion centered on covenant and people rather than the legend or biographyof a hero” (p. 165). Since he views these passages as later accretions, theybecome the progenitors of the post-biblical attempts to provide Moseswith a biography. Because Moses begins and ends his story in foreignclimes, Britt views him as “the typical hero of the Diasporanovelle” (p.178), thus drawing a parallel between Moses and Joseph/Esther. AlthoughBritt’s book ends with a short “Conclusion” (pp. 184–187) in which he at-tempts to draw together his disparate strands, this work – in spite of itsmost impressive erudition – ultimately reads more as a series of looselyrelated essays than as a taut book-length essay.

VII. Conclusion

The survey presented here does not do justice to the wealth of literature onthe topic of Moses published during the past decade. Among the studieson more specific subjects that have also appeared, one may mention the

30 While this book is generally free of typos, there is a blatant one on p. 170, where Britthas confused דבא and דבע .

108 Carl S. Ehrlich

following: L. Feldman’s Philo’s Portrayal of Moses,31 in which the doyen ofscholars of Judaism in the Greco-Roman period presents a magisterial andcontextually in-depth study of Philo’s De Vita Mosis ; F.W. Graf ’s MosesVermachtnis,32 in which the author argues for the separation of religiousand secular/state law; H. Najman’s Seconding Sinai,33 in which the authorclaims that the term “rewritten Bible” applies inadequately to the rework-ing of the Mosaic discourse of late biblical and early post-biblical writings;P. Reid’s Moses’s Staff and Aeneas’s Shield,34 in which the author argues thatMoses undergoes a transformation during the course of his story from ahapless stutterer to a teacher and a “man of words;” V. Sasson’s The Birthof Moses and the Buddha,35 in which the author compares the nature ofMoses and the Buddha only to conclude that they do not have as much incommon as is sometimes claimed; B. Wheeler’s Moses in the Quran,36 inwhich the author examines the Islamic Moses traditions in both the Quranand medieval Islamic literature and engages with questions concerning thepre-Islamic sources of some of these traditions; and M. Widmer’s Moses,God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer,37 in which the author pres-ents a close reading and exegesis of Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 13–14while paying particular attention to Moses’ role as intercessor and putativeauthor of prayers.

If there is one thing that becomes evident in this discussion of theworks by Otto, Romer, Bottrich, Ego, Eißler, Wright, and Britt, it is thatMoses remains as fascinating for the modern reader as he has beenthroughout the ages. Indeed, these works of cultural and tradition historyprovide evidence not only for the Moses discourse of the past but also forthat of the present, which remains as vivid and relevant as it ever has. One

31 L.H. Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses in the Context of Ancient Judaism (Christianityand Judaism in Antiquity Series 15; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,2007).

32 F.W. Graf, Moses Vermachtnis: Uber gottliche und menschliche Gesetze (Munchen: C.H.Beck, 2006).

33 H. Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second TempleJudaism (JSJSup 77; repr. Atlanta: SBL, 2003).

34 P.V. Reid, Moses’s Staff and Aeneas’s Shield: The Way of the Torah Versus Classical Hero-ism (Lanham: University Press of America, 2005).

35 V.R. Sasson, The Birth of Moses and the Buddha: A Paradigm for the Comparative Studyof Religions (Hebrew Bible Monographs 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007).

36 B.M. Wheeler, Moses in the Quran and Islamic Exegesis (Routledge Studies in the Quran;London: Routledge, 2002).

37 M. Widmer, Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer (FAT II/8; Tubingen:Mohr Siebeck, 2004).


may, therefore, conclude that Moses will continue to be an object of fasci-nation and investigation for generations to come.

Carl S. EhrlichProfessor of Hebrew BibleYork University4700 Keele StreetToronto, Ontario, M3J [email protected]

110 Carl S. Ehrlich

'Noughty' Moses: A Decade of Moses Scholarship 2000–2010 (2012)

Documents