\JSOT 12 (1985) 15-22]

ISRAEL AND AMALEK THE CONTEXT OF EXODUS 17:8-16 Bernard P. Robinson

10 Gretna Road, Newcastle upon Tyne NE15 7PE

There is a broad measure of agreement among commentators that in Ex. 17.8-16 we have a story which had as its original drift the defeat of the Amalekites through a semi-magical gesture1the lifting up of Moses' rod or his hand(s) or both rod and hands.2 The idea of the semi-magical action is played down in the text as we now have it, presumably through the modification of the original tradition by either J/E3 or a redactor. Moses the magician is clearly not the theme of the resultant text. What, then, is its theme? Clues as to how those responsible for the redaction meant the text to be read are to be found in the internal pattern discernible in the story, and in correspondences between this narrative and others in the Pentateuch. Internal Patterning The narrative exhibits a chiastic structure:
A. Amalek at war with Israel (17.8) B. Moses' instructions to Joshua What he (Moses) will do. Compliance of Joshua. (17.9,10a) C. Joshua smites Amalek (17.10b) D. Moses, Aaron and Hur (17.10c) E. Moses' arms (17.11) E' Moses' arms (17.12a) D' Moses, Aaron and Hur (17.12b) C Joshua smites Amalek (17.13) B' YHWH's instructions to Moses What he (YHWH) will do. Compliance of Moses (17.14,15) A' YHWH at war with Amalek (17.16).

16

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32 (1985)

The fact that YHWH is mentioned only late on in the story springs doubtless from the circumstance that the original narrative was not about YHWH but about Moses. In our present text, however, there can be no doubt but that the whole action is meant to be interpreted theologically. YHWH himself is hostile to Amalek (17.14,16) and if Moses instructs his disciples how to act (17.9) without explicitly consulting YHWH first, this is to be presumed to be only because he himself is so much a disciple of YHWH that he is already privy to his Lord's wishes. It is clear from the structure of the passage that his keeping his hands aloft forms the heart and core of the narrative. What is one to make of this actionis it to be seen as an act ofprayer, a symbol of victory, or what? Taken on its own, the passage affords the reader no clear answer, but 17.14-16 makes it unthinkable that the gesture is to be construed as indicating that Moses is a magus. To read the passage aright, we need to see it in context Exodus 17 and 18: Some Symmetries There are striking similarities between the three narratives contained in these chapters: (1) 17.1-17: Massah and Meribah; (2) 17.8-16: Amalek; (3) 18.1-26: Jethro. In all three, Moses takes (17.5) or chooses (17.9; 18.21) helpers: elders in 17.5 (their role is not specified); fighting men in 17.9; rulers/judges in 18.21. All three stories stress the inadequacy of Moses: to provide water (17.4); to keep his hands aloft, unaided (17.12); to judge all the cases referred to him (18.18). Note a verbal similarity between 17.12 and 18.18: Moses' hands were heavy; the task of judgment was heavy. Apart from these features that are common to all three narratives, there are others common to two of the three. Between (1) and (2) the following similarities are evident. The word ns, to try, which in (1) is given as the etymological explanation of the place-name Massah (17.2, 7) is echoed in 17.15, where Moses calls the altar he erects YHWH niss (also in 17.16 if for the odd ks yah we read, as some commentators recommend,followingJ. Clericus, nsyh or something along those lines).4 In both narratives, Moses' rod plays an important role. A hill is mentioned in both, as the place where YHWH (17.6) and Moses (17.10) stood. It seems likely, indeed, that in the text as we have it, the hill is the same one in both stories, Horeb. The picture is that the people are thirsty; Moses, as directed

ROBINSON Israel and Amalek

17

by God (17.5-6), goes ahead with some of the elders to Horeb to draw water with his rod; meanwhile, back at Rephidim, the Israelites are attacked while still thirstyhence the particular heinousness of Amalek's crimeand Moses in the distance is seen raising his hands on the summit of Horeb.5 Features common to (2) and (3) include the following. Both Amalek (17.8) and Jethro (18.5) came. Moses' positioning himself on the hilltop (17.9) and the people's standing all day (18.14) are described by the same verb (nsab). Two other roots recur lqah (Aaron and Hur took a stone, 17.12; Jethro took a holocaust, 18.12) and spar (Moses wrote in a book, 17.14; Moses narrated to Jethro the works of YHWH, 18.8). There are too many features common to these three stories for coincidence to be the explanation. The narratives are clearly meant to hang together and to be read together. Seen within the context of chs. 17 and 18 as a whole, it seems evident that one of the main emphases in the Amalek story is on the relative inadequacy of Moses. His need for the co-operation ofJoshua and hisfightingmen, and his dependence on Aaron and Hur to keep his hands held high, show that Moses is farfromomnicompetent. He relies on other human beings for help. Even more, however, he depends on YHWH, as is underlined by his erection of an altar ascribing his victory to YHWH. We have still not discovered, however, the precise significance of Moses' gesture with his hands. Light is shed on this by a comparison of the Exodus passage with Num. 21.4-9, the story of the Bronze Serpent. Exodus 17.8-16 and Numbers 21.4-9 There are two striking similarities between these stories, which have been associated together at least since the time of the Mekhilta and the Mishnah.6 The root sm occurs twice in each narrative: in Ex. 17 Aaron and Hur place a stone beneath Moses (17.12), and Moses is told to rehearse (?) in Joshua's ears the contents of the book in which he has written the account of the battle (17.14); in Num. 21 Moses sets up (21.8, 9) the Serpent. Common to both episodes is also the use of the word ns: the altar erected by Moses is given the title 'YHWH is my ns* (standard, banner, miracle) (Ex. 17.15), and the same word is used in Num.

18

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32 (1985)

21.8,9 for the Bronze Serpent. As noted earlier, ns may also occur in Ex. 17.16 if we emend the text as many critics recommend. The similarities noted suggest that a conscious attempt was made, at some stage in the construction of the Pentateuch, to assimilate these two traditions to each other. The Serpent was a ns, a sign of divine power, equally, in the Amalek pericope, the lifting up of Moses' hands was commemorated by an altar proclaiming YHWH as a ns. The implication is surely that Moses raised his hands aloft in a banner-like gesture7 betokening his total dependence on YHWH, Israel's true banner of war, like the worshippers in the Temple whose hands are lifted to bless the name of YHWH (PS. 134.2).8 There is yet one more passage outside Exodus which appears to have been consciously fashioned to exhibit resemblances to Ex. 17.816: namely, Deut. 25.17-19, the command to obliterate the memory of Amalek. Exodus 17.8-16 and Deuteronomy 25.17-19 Both passages speak of wiping out (mh, Ex. 17.14; Deut. 25.19) the memory (zker, Ex. 17.14; Deut. 25.17, 19; zikkarn, Ex. 17.14) of Amalek. The root nuah occurs in both: in Ex. 17.11 Moses lets drop his hands and in Deut. 25.19 YHWH gives respite to Israel. More striking, perhaps, is the similarity of the verb hlas in Ex. 17.13 (Joshua weakens the Amalekites) with hsal (a hapax) in Deut. 25.18 (the Amalekites smite the enfeebled among the Israelites).9 Once again, the similarities are unlikely to be entirely a matter of coincidence. What these two passages about the Amalekite attack and defeat have in common is the notion of destroying the memory of the Amalekites. In view of the fact that by the time that the Pentateuch was completed the Amalekites, who according to 1 Chron. 4.43 ceased to exist in Hezekiah's day, were part of ancient historyironically, they might well have been forgotten altogether had not passages such as these been preserved enjoining their consignment to oblivion!one suspects that in both accounts Amalek has chiefly a symbolic function, standing for any group or nation who by attacking Israel resists the divine will.10 Both passages stress the gratuitous nature of the Amalekite assault: in Ex. 17 they come and fight without any provocation, probably before the Israelites have a chance to assuage their thirst, and in Deut. 25 they snipe, in cowardly fashion, at fatigued stragglers among the Israelites, again

ROBINSON Israel and Amalek

19

without provocation. It remains to consider the Amalek story in two other contexts, that of the Wanderings narratives and that of the Pentateuch as a whole. The Wanderings Stories as Context The Amalek episode occurs in the first of the two collection of Wanderings narratives (Ex. 15-18; the second collection is to be found in Num. 10-12.). Why is it placed at this particular point in the corpus of traditions? One might be tempted to say that the fact that it is stated to have occurred at Rephidim more or less dictated the place in the Moses story at which it had to be told. There are, however, some commentators who think that 'at Rephidim' (17.8) was not part of the original tradition. To Noth, the phrase 'looks out ofplace at the end of the verse; had the story of the battle against the Amalekites in its original form had some place-name to describe the scene of action, we should surely have had an introductory remark that Israel was encamped at such and such a place'.11 The argument is perhaps rather tendentious. Hyatt questions whether the Amalekites would have ventured as far south as Rephidim, taking Rephidim to be probably the Wadi Refayid near Jebel Musa.12 The location of Rephidim is, however, far from certain. Not being completely persuaded by the arguments of Noth, Hyatt and others, I hesitate to assert that 'at Rephidim' was not part of the original story. Even if it were original, however, the author of the Wanderings collection was surely under no obligation to use the tradition; or he could have used it elsewhere in the collection, deleting the reference to Rephidim. The fact that the story has been put in, and put in at this point, surely argues a desire for it to be read in this particular context Why? One reason why it is appropriate that the Amalekite narrative should be read at this point rather than earlier or later may be that at Rephidim there was no water to be had (17.1), so that the Amalekites were behaving particularly badly in attacking the Israelites at this time. Further, events from Sinai until Kadesh (Num. 20) will inevitably tend to portray Moses in heroic colours. The presence of this story at this point serves to alert the reader to the fact that the great leader, lawgiver and intercessor who will dominate the story which is unfolding is, like other men, beset with limitations. There is no human hero in the story of Israel.

20

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32 (1985) The Pentateuch as Context

David Clines has reminded us 13 that the Pentateuch is not just a repository of diverse traditions. It is, above all, a remarkable literary entity. It dates from the exilic period and it has a discernible theme, namely the threefold divine promise (of land; of posterity; and of a special divine-human relationship) and its partial fulfilment. In such a work, of such a date, what is the Amalek story saying? In what respects, if any, would the Pentateuch have been a less effective work if this passage had been omitted? An important implication for the original, exilic, readers of the Pentateuch of its extended narrative of the giving of the divine promise and its (partial) fulfilment will surely have been that the arm of YHWH which had wrought such marvels in the past has not lost its power, and that YHWH could be trusted in the sixth century to bring to completion the promises he had made so long ago. The Babylonian exile could be no obstacle to him who had already, centuries before, brought his chosen people from slavery to possession of the Land. In this context, the significance of the Amalek story can perhaps be characterized as follows. In the past YHWH had, through the agency of Moses, crushed opposition to Israel's progress towards settlement in the promised land from the gratuitous assault of an unprincipled foe. It was not because of Moses that the victory had been gained, but because of the might of YHWH. In the exilic age, the people need not fear that the absence of a Moses figure would stand in the way of their return, their successful restoration, and the final fulfilment of YHWH'S promise to make them a very numerous people who dwell in the land of promise and enjoy a unique relationship with YHWH. Moses had not been essential then, and his absence would not be decisive now. YHWH had been the victor then and would be the victor now, provided that Israel raised its arms aloft in benediction on his name. Under the divine leadership it need fear no assaults from latter-day Amalekites (Edomites? 'Samaritans'?). Let Israel but learn from the story subjection to the purposes of YHWH and, even without a Moses to lead it, it would enter at last into the enjoyment of all the good things that it had been promised. NOTES 1. So, for example, M. Noth, Exodus (OT Library; London, 1962), ad loc: 'the lifting up of the hands appears to have a strikingly impersonal

ROBINSON

Israel and Amalek

21

magical effect Yahweh is not mentioned at all in the whole section w . 8-13, not even as having given Moses the instructions for his action. A mysterious power seems to come from Moses which is focussed in the direction of the Israelite force, visible from the hill and thus reachable in a straight line by the beam of power. We may compare Joshua stretching out the spear against the city of Ai which he meant to sack in Josh. 8.18, 26.' Gressmann, Gradwohl and Beer also take Moses' action to be magical. 2. In 17.9 Moses says that he will stand with the rod of God in his hand; thereafter the rod is not mentionedonly Moses' hand (17.11a, lib) or hands (17.12a, 12b). 3. There is general agreement that the story emanates, in substance at least, from a single source. The older commentators ascribed the passage to E, on the strength of the reference of the rod. Since, however, this is not mentioned after 17.9, it may not be an original element in the tradition. Noth is inclined to give the story to J; similarly F. Michaeli. 4. B.S. Childs, Exodus (London, 1974), argues plausibly that the form of the aetiology requires ns not ks. 5. So C M . Carmichael, The Laws of Deuteronomy (Ithaca, 1974), pp. 244-45. Ibn Ezra certainly took the hill of 17.10 to be Horeb. 6. RH 29a; Mekhilta on Ex. 17.11. Both Moses' gesture with his hands and his Bronze Serpent, says the Mekhilta, were intended to lead the Israelites to faith in YHWH, who worked for them signs (nissm) and mighty works. 7. D.M. Beegle, Moses, the Servant of Yahweh (Grand Rapids, 1972), p. 190, quaintly suggests that we are to understand the text to imply that Moses' rod acted as a flag-pole, having a banner attached to it. Rather, it is the gesture of the outstretched hands which itself is a banner or ns. 8. In the Psalm, however, the verb is ns\ not rm as in Exodus. The interpretation of Moses' gesture as an act of prayer has a long pedigree: RH 29a, Jerusalem Targum, Ps.-Jonathan, Onkelos, Origen, Jerome, Mathew Henry, Joseph Hall, F. Michaeli, et al. In prayer, however, one is usually said to spread out {paras or stah) one's hands (an exception is Ps. 28.2, which has the raising of the hands in prayer). 9. I agree with Carmichael, op. cit., p. 245 n. 19, that the suggestion of BDB that the verb hlas rather than hsal should be read in Deut. 25 is to be rejected: the lectio difficilior should be preferred. It is a witty word-play on the Ex. 17 tradition. 10. persisting grudge', wrote H. Cunliffe-Jones {Deuteronomy [London, 1951],'p. 142), 'whatever the provocation for it, is not a pretty thing.' True, but there are good grounds for thinking that in the case of the Amalekites what had begun as a grudge had passed into a symbolic gesture. A clear example of the symbolic invocation of the memory of the Amalekites has been pointed out by J.P. Hyatt {Commentary on Exodus [London, 1971],

22

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32 (1985)

p. 183): the title 'the Agagite' given in Esther to the villainous Haman in an allusion to Agag king of Amelek (1 Sam. 15.32-33). 11. Noth, op. cit., p. 141. 12. Hyatt, op. cit., p. 183.

Dsot pRess
Department of Biblical Studies University of Sheffield Sheffield S I 0 2TN England

THE TEMPLE SCROLL J o h a n n Maier

^5,, XS> ^

The introduction, translation and commentary on the Temple Scroll by Johann Maier has been thoroughly revised and updated by the author for its English edition, taking account of improvements in readings, and, among other recent secondary literature, the English translation of Yadin's edition, to which cross-references are given. Students of Second Temple Judaism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls in particular, will at last have a convenient English edition of this most important document from Qumran. Johann Maier is Professor ofjudaics at the University of Cologne.
JSOT SUPPLEMENT SERIES, 34 ISBN 1 85075 003 3 / 1 85075 004 1 C 160 pp.

cL 18.50/$28.50 (subscr. 12.50/118.50); pa. 8.95/$13.50 (subscr. 6.95/$10.95)

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.