Vetus Testamentum

Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 657-676

brill.nl/vt

Why Does the Plague of Darkness Last for ree Days? Source Ascription and Literary Motif in Exodus 10:21-23, 271
Je rey Stackert, Ph.D.

e University of Chicago Divinity School

Abstract is article addresses the question of source ascription for the plague of darkness in Exod 10:2123, 27. It argues that attention to the speci c content of this episode, and especially its indication of a three-day duration for the darkness, ties it to Exod 6:9-12, Mosess initial interaction with the Israelites in the pentateuchal Priestly source (P). Beyond style or form, the darkness plague plays an essential role in the Priestly plot and for this reason may be con dently assigned to P. Keywords Plague of darkness, Priestly source,

ree-day literary motif

Within the Exodus account, the plague of darkness appears in Exod 10:21-23, 27:
e LORD said to Moses, Stretch out your hand to the heavens that there might be darkness over the land of Egypta heavy darkness. 22Moses stretched out his hand to the heavens, and there was a heavy darkness in all the land of Egypt for three days. 23No one could see anyone else, and no one moved from where he was for three days, but all the Israelites had light in their settlements. 27 e LORD strengthened Pharaohs resolve, and he would not let them go.2
21

I am grateful to Simeon Chavel, Anne Kna , Samuel Boyd, and the journals anonymous referees for their comments on an earlier draft of this essay. Any infelicities, of course, are my responsibility alone. 2) All translations are my own. For justi cation of the demarcation of these verses as the extent of the darkness plague, see below.
1)

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011

DOI: 10.1163/156853311X560727

658

J. Stackert / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 657-676

is episode poses signi cant interpretive challenges. One of the most persistent has been its literary relationship with the other Exodus plagues. In their attempts to characterize darkness, source critics have focused upon this units formal features, its style, the symbolic value of di erent overall plague enumerations, and the external witness of alternative plague traditions (Pss 78, 105). ese analyses have produced multiple, mutually exclusive solutions. is failure to achieve consensus is due in large part to characteristics of the darkness episode itself, namely, its brevity and its variation from the other Exodus plagues. With the limited amount of data available, the question is rightly posed: what features of the darkness account are most signi cant for making a source-critical determination? I will o er here new arguments in favor of assigning darkness to the Priestly source (P)3 by attending to the speci c content of the episode. I will focus especially upon the persistence of the darkness plague for three days, its notable intensity (thick darkness [v. 22]; no one could see another, and no one rose from his place [v. 23]) and its limited realization (but there was light for all of the Israelites in their habitations [v. 23]). I will show how these details relate directly to the account of the initial interaction between Moses and the Israelites in Exod 6:9-12, a text that can con dently be ascribed to P, and ll a lacuna in the Priestly sources plot that is otherwise left unaddressed. I will also show how a Priestly plague account that includes the darkness episode accords well with this sources larger conceptualization of the relationship between YHWH and Israel. In short, attributing darkness to P clari es details in this plague episode, lls a noticeable gap within this sources plot line, sheds light on the larger Priestly plague account, and contributes to an understanding of the theological perspective of P. Finally, I will show how P exploits in the darkness episode a shared Israelite three-day literary motif to its own distinctive end. Doing so demonstrates the logic of the position of darkness among the Priestly plagues and thus also contributes to the source-critical argument by rebutting the claim that darkness is misplaced in the Exodus account. It also suggests that the di erent description of darkness in Ps 105 informs its alternative positioning in the psalms sequence of plagues.
e abbreviations employed in this essay are as follows: J: Yahwistic source; E: Elohistic source; P: more traditionally referring to the entirety of the Priestly material in the Pentateuch, but here referring only to the non-Holiness (H) portions of the Priestly source; H: Holiness Legislation, referring especially to Lev 17-27 but also to other priestly material outside of this unit; D: Deuteronomic source. Against the current trend in scholarship to dismiss the Elohistic source, see esp. Joel S. Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (FAT 68; Tbingen, 2009).
3)

J. Stackert / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 657-676

659

e Priestly Signs and Wonders Narrative: Preliminary Observations e Priestly plague story actually describes the imposition of divine signs (!"!"#) and wonders ($%!&"') in Egypt (Exod 7:3).4 According to Exod 6:6-7, YHWH will demonstrate to the Israelites that he is the one who is freeing them from their Egyptian yoke by intervening against Egypt. Exod 7:4-5 add an additional rationale for the signs and wonders: they are meant to instill in the Egyptians knowledge ofwhich is to say, respect forYHWH.5 To this end, the reader is explicitly informed at the beginning of the narrative and reminded at its conclusion that these marvels will not persuade Pharaoh to free his Hebrew captives (Exod 7:4; 11:9-10). e Priestly signs and wonders can be distinguished from their non-Priestly ( J) counterparts on the basis of their content, structure, style, and the ow of the narrative. ey are as 6 follows:
4) See, e.g., the discussion of Brevard S. Childs, e Book of Exodus: A Critical, eological Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia, 1974), p. 139. e term plague (()') actually never appears in either of the Exodus plague narratives. However, both P and J employ verbal forms of the root %*)+ (C stem) to describe the imposition of the plagues (P: Exod 8:12, 13; 9:31, 32; cf. also Exod 12:12, 13; J: Exod 7:17, 20, 25; 9:15, 25; 12:29). 5) Moshe Greenberg, e Redaction of the Plague Narrative in Exodus, in Hans Goedicke (ed.), Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (Baltimore, 1971), pp. 243-252 (at p. 248); Childs, Exodus, pp. 132, 139; H.-C. Schmitt, Tradition der Prophetenbcher in den Schichten der Plagenerzhlung Ex 7, 1-11, 10, in V. Fritz et al. (eds.), Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift fr Otto Kaiser zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW 185; Berlin/New York, 1989), pp. 196-216 (at p. 203); omas Rmer, e Exodus Narrative according to the Priestly Document, in Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden (eds.), e Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (A ANT 95; Zrich, 2009), pp. 157-174 (at p. 165). 6) With the exception of hail and locusts, this source division follows closely that of Greenberg, Redaction. As I will show, however, my assignment of darkness to P is grounded di erently than Greenbergs. My source division also follows that of Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin/New York, 1990), pp. 242-256 (see esp. the text layout on pp. 247-248]). Notwithstanding recent claims to the contrary (e.g., Rmer, Exodus Narrative, p. 152 note 37), there remains signi cant disagreement among scholars regarding source ascription in this unit. e classical source-critical approach has been to identify three strands within the plague narrative (e.g., S. R. Driver, e Book of Exodus [Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; Cambridge, 1911], pp. 55-57; Childs, Exodus, pp. 130-142). More recently, however, there has been a move toward identifying only two sources (see already Martin Noth, Exodus: A Commentary [OTL; translated by J. S. Bowden; Philadelphia, 1962], pp. 69-70; see also Greenberg, Redaction; William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1-18 [AB 2; New York, 1999], p. 310). Both Richard Elliott Friedman (e.g., e Bible With Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses [New York, 2003] and Propp (Exodus 1-18) identify the non-Priestly source in the plagues as Elohistic. However, this is based on a faulty identi cation of J and E in Exod 3-4. In

660

J. Stackert / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 657-676

Introduction (Exod 6:2-13; 7:1-7) 1. Crocodile (7:8-13) 2. Blood (7:19-20a; 21b-22) 3. Frogs (8:1-3; 11b) 4. Lice (8:12-15) 5. Boils (9:8-12) 6. Hail (9:22-23a!, 24a!, 25, 31-32, 35) 7. Locusts (10:12-13a!, 14a!, 15a"-b, 20) 8. Darkness (10:21-23, 27) Conclusion (11:9-10) + (9. Firstborn [12:1, 3-13, 21b-27a, 28, 37-38])7 Moses and Aaron perform the Priestly signs and wonders in immediate succession and in a single audience with Pharaoh.8 ey rst encounter the Egyptian king in Exod 7:10 and, though their departure is not stated explicitly, seem not to leave Pharaoh until after initiating the darkness marvel. Yet even though Ps plagues are enacted relatively quickly, there is an internal development within them that proves signi cant to understanding the narrative overall as well as certain features within the individual plague episodes, including
my view, Mosess rod in Exod 4:2-4 belongs to J and should be distinguished from the rod in 4:17 (E), which is newly introduced at this point in the narrative. It is Exod 4:2-4 that correspond with 7:15, which then sets a course for the identi cation of the entire non-Priestly plague narrative. Likewise, Exod 11:1-3 cannot belong to either the non-Priestly or Priestly plague narrative but corresponds with Exod 3:21-22, which belongs to E (cf. also Exod 12:35-36). e non-Priestly plagues are thus con dently assigned to J. For further discussion, see Baden, J, E, and the Redaction, pp. 218-21, 234-35, 237-38, 269-70. Among those who identify two sources, few assign darkness to P. Notable exceptions are W. Rudolph (Der Elohist von Exodus bis Josua [BZAW 68; Berlin, 1938], pp. 18-23) and Noth (Exodus, p. 83; however, Noth presumes that J also once included a darkness plague, remnants of which he sees in Exod 10:23), who is then followed by John Van Seters ( e Plagues of Egypt: Ancient Tradition or Literary Invention?, ZAW 98 [1986]: pp. 31-39). Van Seters, however, does not view P as an originally independent narrative. In my view, P is an independent source and shows no clear evidence of literary dependence upon the other Torah sources. 7) As indicated here, the rstborn plague falls outside of what I identify as the Priestly plague narratives literary boundaries. Moreover, in my view, darkness plays the key role in the story that is oftentimes assigned to the rstborn episode. See below for further discussion. 8) Several scholars have noted that there are no overt references to the progression of time in Ps plague descriptions. Such indications belong instead to the J narrative alone (H. Holzinger, Exodus [KHC 2; Tbingen, 1900], p. 32; Schmitt, Tradition, p. 203; Propp, Exodus 1-18, p. 310).

J. Stackert / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 657-676

661

darkness. is development corresponds with the presence or absence of the Egyptian magicians in the imposition of the marvel and the duration and destructiveness of the wonders enacted. In the rst four episodes (crocodile, blood, frogs, and lice), the Egyptian magicians are explicitly presented as rivals to Moses and Aaron in a sort of magical contest. ese Priestly plagues are not debilitating or devastating; nor are they characterized by duration. Because blood and frogs also appear among the J plagues, comparison between these P and J episodes highlights the distinctiveness of Ps presentation. In Js account, the bloody Nile water and the infestation of frogs have durative and damaging e ects ( sh die, Nile stinks; frogs infest homes, die, and stink). Js accounts even explicitly associate the passage of time with these plagues (Exod 7:25; 8:5-6). By contrast, there is no corresponding report of the e ect of Ps blood and frogs, and no duration is indicated. Ps blood and frogs are instead momentary demonstrations of YHWHs power. ese observations solve a logical problem that has long confounded interpreters: how can the Egyptian magicians replicate the plagues of blood and frogs immediately after Aaron produces these marvels?9 is problem is particularly acute in the case of blood. Exod 7:21b reports the sanguination of all of the water in Egypt, even as the very next verse claims that the Egyptian magicians reproduce it. Left entirely unexplained is what water is available for the Egyptian magicians to turn to blood. In the case of frogs, replication is again reported, leading some interpreters to posit a doubling of the number of frogs covering the Egyptian land when the magicians perform their wonder (Exod 8:3).10 Yet the isolation of sources eliminates such logical incongruities: in contrast to Js depiction of these events, in Ps accounts, the blood and frogs have already vanished when the Egyptian magicians match these wonders. In accord with its view of the durative nature of these plagues, J includes no story of their replication by the Egyptians.

For various claims, see Cornelis Houtman, Exodus, vol. 2 (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; translated by Johan Rebel and Sierd Woudstra; Leuven, 1995), pp. 30, 43. Closest to my view is that of Bruno Baentsch, who rightly recognizes the momentary nature of the Priestly blood and frogs wonders (Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri [HAT; Gttingen, 1903], pp. 62, 64). Note that the crocodile sign di ers in some respects from blood and frogs (as well as lice) because of its limited scope. us the magicians ability to perform this marvel does not induce questions of logic in the same way as the plagues of blood and frogs do. 10) On analogy to Exod 4:1-9, it might be claimed that Moses and Aaron both perform their signs and then reverse their e ects (so Houtman, Exodus, vol. 1, pp. 386-387). However, the P plague episodes give no indication that reversal is part of the performance of its wonders.
9)

662

J. Stackert / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 657-676

ough unsuccessful, the Egyptian magicians attempt to produce lice (Exod 8:14) assumes the same temporary e ect of Aarons wonder as in the cases of blood and frogsa feature now obscured by a scribal error preserved in all of the textual witnesses but identi able on the basis of the literary evidence. e lice episode includes the verbatim repetition of v. 13a" ($+)( %(!" ('(,," $-#,, the lice were on human and beast) in v. 14b. e second instance of this line seems to indicate duration for the lice wonder; that is, it suggests that the lice remain on humans and animals during and after the Egyptian magicians attempt to reproduce the wonder. Yet this attempt is only plausible if the lice are no longer present in the land when the magicians perform their spells. As is the case with blood, the pervasiveness of the lice (there was blood in all the land of Egypt [7:21b]; all the dust of the earth became lice in all the land of Egypt [8:13b]) does not allow for their persistence to the moment when the magicians act. Put simply, if all of the dust of the earth was already turned to lice, how could the Egyptians do the same with their charms? e combination of this logical di culty with the non-persistence in the foregoing Priestly plagues suggests that v. 14b is a dittography (probably vertical) of v. 13a".11 e fth episode in Pboilsmarks a shift in the story. e boils narrative implies that the Egyptian magicians are present at the imposition of the wonder, but Exod 9:11 states that the boils a ict them alongside the rest of the Egyptians and persist so that they are unable to attempt to reproduce the marvel. Yet the signi cance of the persistence of boils should not be overstated. It may be explained in light of the particular nature of the wonder itself (as I will argue is also partially true of darkness). e boils wonder requires a symptomatology consistent with the plaguing ailment: duration and intensity here identify the precise nature of the outbreak and are thus necessary elements within the unit.12 P o ers no elaboration of the boils agonizing physical e ects, nor does it indicate that the Egyptians pursue a remedy for their predicament. It is not until the following two plagues, hail and locusts, that P makes destruction and devastation overt by clarifying the extent of the damage that these plagues cause (9:25, 31; 10:15a"-b). Yet the boils plague, with its e ect upon the magicians, serves an additional purpose in the P narrative. By completely eliminating the magicians from
11) Georg Beer argues that v. 14b describes the same event as narrated in the previous verse (Exodus [HAT 3; Tbingen, 1939], p. 50). 12) Lev 13:18-23, Deut 28:27, 35, and Job 2:7-13 each attest to a prolonged course for boils (.%/0).

J. Stackert / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 657-676

663

interaction with Moses and Aaron, the boils episode makes clear that the magicians inability to reproduce the lice wonder was not a one-time failure. Accordingly, the Egyptian magicians do not appear again in opposition to Moses and Aaron. is development also e ectively eliminates Aarons role within the narrative, for Pharaoh has lost his representatives who duel with Mosess counterpart. It is unsurprising, then, that Moses acts alone in the imposition of the following Priestly wonders (hail, locusts, and darkness).13 Aarons shift from primary to ancillary player is actually pre gured already in the opening of the boils wonder, where Moses plays the principal role in the imposition of the marvel. is shift in prominence from Aaron to Moses likely correlates with the roles of Moses and Aaron described at the outset of the story: Moses plays the role of God to Aaron, who is his prophet (Exod 7:1). e gradual eclipse of Aaron in favor of Moses seems to denote the increasingly direct involvement of the Israelite deity (symbolically indicated through Moses) in the imposition of the Priestly wonders.14 e Darkness Episode: Method in Source Ascription Having addressed in brief the rst seven wonders in P, I turn now to darkness. What recommends its ascription to P? And, if it is a P marvel, how does it accord with the preceding P wonders? As noted already, in their struggle to categorize this plague, scholars have largely sidestepped the speci c literary content of the darkness episode, focusing instead upon the plagues form, its literary style, the symbolic value of di erent plague enumerations, the variant plague traditions in Pss 78 and 105, or a combination of these factors.15 e
ere is also no need for Aaron to serve as Mosess assistant as he performs the wonders of hail, locusts, and darkness, for Mosess actions in these cases are not accompanied by speech. When Moses is again to speak to the Israelites (Exod 12:1), Aaron reappears in Ps narrative. 14) Greenberg makes a similar argument concerning the imposition of the plagues by Aaron, Moses, and then God (Redaction, p. 248; see also Joseph Blenkinsopp, e Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible [New York: Doubleday, 1992], p. 155; Jan Christian Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzhlung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch [FRLANT 186; Gttingen, 1999], p. 82). 15) Scholars who focus upon the speci c content of the darkness plague typically do not do so for the purpose of source attribution. Rather, they most often highlight the supposed mythic dimensions of the darkness plague and posit an underlying cosmic battle between light and dark and/or the contest between YHWH and the Egyptian sun god (see, e.g., eodore Mascarenhas, Psalm 105: e Plagues: Darkness and its Signi cance, in Simone Paganini, Claudia Paganini, and Dominik Markl (eds.), Fhre Mein Volk Heraus: Zur innerbiblischen Rezeption der
13)

664

J. Stackert / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 657-676

result of these approaches has been assignments of the darkness episode to each of the pentateuchal sources, multiple sources, a variant tradition, or a pentateuchal compiler/redactor. In each of these cases, howeverincluding in those analyses that assign darkness to Pthe basis for the proposed source ascription has been inadequate. e starting point for many source analyses is an evaluation of the formal and stylistic features of the di erent plague episodes. Consideration of these features in the case of darkness con rms that this episode does not conform fully to the patterns of the other plagues.16 For instance, it does not exhibit what many have characterized as the hallmark signs of P: both Aaron and the Egyptian magicians are missing, and this episode explicitly highlights the plagues duration (a feature commonly associated with J). Yet its form does not correspond entirely with that of the J plagues either, for though Moses initiates the plague and the Israelites are una ected by it, the episode contains no opening warning to or subsequent negotiation with Pharaoh.17 On the basis of these divergences from otherwise identi ed J and P plague narratives, some scholars suggest that darkness belongs to the E source. In other words, because they recognize E elsewhere in the pentateuchal narratives and presume that it also once had a plague narrative that would correspond, however roughly, to the J and P accounts, the compiler must have included here a fragment from this larger E account.18 Others have claimed that, because darkness seems to combine stylistic elements from the plague accounts readily recognizable as

Exodusthematik: Festschrift fr Georg Fischer [Frankfurt am Main, 2004], pp. 79-93). is is at least partially in response to the variant placement of darkness in the plague enumerations in Exodus and Ps 105. As Childs aptly notes, however, Many of these problems obviously escaped the attention and concern of the author in the Exodus account (Exodus, p. 160; see also p. 143). 16) e argument from style/typical plague form is actually undermined further by many scholars failure to recognize Priestly accounts in the plagues of hail and locusts, which most closely mirror the style of the darkness account. us, as argued above, the absence of Aaron from the episode and Mosess initiation of the wonder in the case of darkness are actually paralleled in the Priestly depictions of hail and locusts. 17) Greenberg, Redaction, p. 249. 18) For ascriptions of darkness to E, see, e.g., Holzinger, Exodus, p. 30; Driver, Exodus, p. 82; A. H. McNeile, e Book of Exodus (Westminster Commentaries; London, 1908), pp. 45-46; Georg Fohrer, berlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus: Eine Analysis von Ex 1-15 (BZAW 91; Berlin, 1964), pp. 70-71; Childs, Exodus, p. 131; Propp, Exodus 1-18, p. 315 (albeit Propp differs from the foregoing, for he assigns the non-Priestly plagues in their entirety to E).

J. Stackert / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 657-676

665

J and P compositions, it must be a later, redactional unit that is composed in light of J and P.19 Problematic for the assignment of darkness to E is precisely the problem that scholars have encountered in ascribing darkness to any of the Torah sources: there is no substantial link, stylistic or otherwise, between the darkness pericope and the larger E source. e only advantage to ascribing darkness to E rather than J or P is avoiding the problem of the formal divergence of darkness from (some of ) the J and P plague descriptions. According to this reasoning, because there are either no other E plagues attested or, for those who identify other brief E passages, no identi able E stereotype,20 there is no formal barrier to claiming that darkness is an E plague. Yet neither is there any advantage to labeling darkness as Elohistic rather than as a wholly unassigned tradition or the work of a redactor.21 Identi cations of the darkness episode as a redactional composition are similarly problematic. Such claims, like the arguments of many who argue against assigning darkness to P, are overly reliant upon the units form and combination of stylistic features and do not su ciently acknowledge that the biblical authors were free to vary their formulations (for any number of reasons). In some cases, they also fail to acknowledge that the biblical authors reliance upon earlier traditions likely undermines full consistency in style. It must also be admitted that, once stylistic considerations are set aside, the assignment of darkness to a redactorlike the assignment of this unit to Eis primarily a negative assessment: there is little, if any, positive evidence that recommends this conclusion. A claim based on process of elimination is especially precarious in a case of identifying redactional composition, for redactional material by de nition may not play a necessary role in the plot of one
Citing its partial resemblance to both P and J, Gertz asserts the literary unity of 10:21-27 and assigns these verses (along with the plagues of hail and locusts) to his pentateuchal Endredaktion (though not the nal redaction of the Pentateuch, Gertzs Endredaktion is a compilation and attempted harmonization of pre-existing Priestly and non-Priestly compositions) (Tradition, pp. 163-166, 389-393). 20) Childs attempts to identify an Elohistic plague form (Exodus, p. 137), but his reconstuction is highly dubious. 21) It is precisely this reasonthat there are two clear sources in the Exodus account of the plaguesthat leads several scholars to seek a compromise and to assign darkness to one of these two sources. is is a variation of the classic Nothian principle of when in doubt, it is J (Martin Noth, A History of the Pentateuchal Traditions [translated by Bernard W. Anderson; Chico, Ca., 1981], p. 27). However, it does seem that E knows a plague tradition, for Exod 11:1-3 should likely be assigned to E on the basis of its correspondence with Exod 3:21-22, an E text (see also Exod 12:35-36).
19)

666

J. Stackert / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 657-676

of the narrative sources into which it is inserted.22 us, barring additional textual surgery, an assignment of darkness to a redactor must be accompanied by a vigorous defense of the integrity of the narrative sources into which it is inserted. If it can be shown that the darkness episode plays a necessary role in the plot of one of these sources, the possibility of its ascription to a redactor is e ectively ruled out. Some scholars have focused in their analyses of the Exodus plagues on the symbolic value of di erent enumerations of plagues, especially in relation to the Priestly source. For Greenberg, the elegance of a septennial enumeration is the main basis for assigning darkness to P. at is, after identifying six P plagues, Greenberg imports the 6+1 pattern that he observes in the Priestly creation story to the Priestly plagues and on this basis assigns the darkness episode to P.23 Noting that P evinces a marked penchant for sevens, William H. C. Propp also assigns seven plagues to P. However, he identi es these seven plagues di erently than Greenberg. For Propp, darkness does not belong to P, while the crossing of the sea in Exod 14 should be included as one of the signs and wonders.24 Responding to Propp, Philippe Guillaume argues for the logic of six rather than seven plagues in the Priestly account. In his estimation, six and its multiples are symbolic of destruction in P, while the number seven is reserved for themes of creation.25 ese varying proposals demonstrate that di ering enumerations of plagues can easily inspire the imposition of di erent symbolic signi cances to the narrative (in part or whole) and even guide the source attribution of plague episodes. Yet there is no a priori reason that any biblical author should be constrained by a numero-symbolic system. As the di ering proposals reviewed here suggest, attempts to identify such numerical schemes in the plagues appear instead to be impositions on the part of modern interpreters. Other scholars focus especially upon the psalmic traditions as a guide to reading the Exodus plague narratives and especially the darkness episode. For example, Samuel Loewenstamm overtly prioritizes Psalms 78 and 105 in his critique of Greenbergs analysis in Exodus: Groping in the dark . . . is not an
22) See Joel S. Baden, Identifying the Original Stratum of P: eoretical and Practical Considerations, in Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden (eds.), e Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (A ANT 95; Zurich: TVZ, 2009), pp. 13-29 (at pp. 25-26). 23) Greenberg, Redaction, p. 248. 24) Propp, Exodus 1-18, p. 315. 25) Philippe Guillaume, Only Six Plagues in the Priestly Narrative, Biblische Notizen 123 (2004), pp. 31-33.

J. Stackert / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 657-676

667

appropriate method for reconstructing literary sources; this should only be done in the light of the visible sources, namely, Psalms 78 and 105, each of which contains a complete and simple account.26 Yet Loewenstamms approach does little to aid in the reconstruction of sources in Exodus and, indeed, cannot, for the Exodus account yields neither psalmic tradition except by signi cant alteration.27 He thus ends up rejecting a source-critical model in favor of a more exible traditio-historical approach. In so doing, he detects tradition complexes that do not accord with either psalmic tradition. Yet this is unproblematic for Loewenstamm, for he posits that more than two plague traditions stand behind Exodus and that a redactor compiled them in maximal fashion.28 In a recent article, Marc Z. Brettler also takes his cue from the psalms in his analysis of the darkness plague, even as he is attuned to an ideal plague enumeration. He argues that darkness is an originally free- oating plague tradition that was introduced independently in Ps 105 and the Exodus account.29 Arguing against the view that the psalmist here knows a compiled Torah, Brettler contends that Ps 105 depends primarily upon the J plagues, even as it exploits in a limited fashion the P plagues as a separate tradition/source. In his view, the psalmist objects to polytheistic associations that accompany the pestilence (1,-) tradition. He thus omits the pestilence plague and replaces it with darkness in order to restore a numbering of seven. Brettlers proposal suffers on two fronts. First, there is no direct evidence for the tradition-historical and/or redactional activity that he posits for either Ps 105 or the P tradition. Second, he unduly imposes a numeric symbolism upon the Exodus narrative and allows it to guide his source analysis.30
Loewenstamm, Evolution, p. 179. e major problem is that the boils do not appear in either psalm. Loewenstamm solves this problem by characterizing boils as a late addition in Exodus (Evolution, pp. 95, 122, 168, 181). 28) Loewenstamm, Evolution, pp. 95-96. 29) Marc Z. Brettler, e Poet as Historian: e Plague Tradition in Psalm 105, in Kathryn F. Kravitz and Diane M. Sharon (eds.), Bringing the Hidden to Light: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller (Winona Lake, Ind., 2007), pp. 19-28 (at p. 27). See also Gertz, who argues that a redactor inserted darkness into the Exodus account (Tradition, pp. 163-166). 30) Citing Loewenstamm, Brettler bases his argument on a consistent enumeration of seven plagues in each of the sources attested in the Exodus narrative (J and P) (Poet as Historian, p. 26). However, Loewenstamm claims the tradition of seven plagues on the basis of his reading of Pss 78 and 105, not the Exodus narrative. As noted above, in Loewenstamms view, neither of Greenbergs sources, which Brettler seems to accept (Poet as Historian, p. 24 note 22; note also that Brettlers enumeration of the J plagues on p. 24 follows Greenberg), can be viewed as originally grouped in independent narratives (Evolution, pp. 175-181). Moreover, unless Brettler
26) 27)

668

J. Stackert / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 657-676

Re-evaluating the Darkness Plague: Source Ascription and Narrative Arc ough not to be neglected, form, literary style, numerical symbolism, and variant traditions remain provisional and, ideally, corroborative data for source identi cation. In the case of darkness, style does provide some aid in both determining the parameters of the episode and assigning it to P, as demonstrated well by Blum.31 Yet style can be imitated, especially by a redactor or interpolator. Moreover, many biblical texts are not characterized by distinctive stylistic features. us, a rmer basis for source ascription is achieved by connecting the content of a disputed episode to a sources content and situating it speci cally within the sources larger narrative32guidepoints missing from almost all of the source considerations reviewed here.33 Such a narratival connection can be made between the darkness episode and Exod 6:9-12, the Priestly depiction of the aftermath of Mosess initial interaction with the Israelite people:
Moses spoke thus to the Israelites, but they did not listen to Moses because of their shortness of breath and hard labor. 10And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 11Go, speak to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, so that he will let the Israelites leave his land. 12And Moses spoke before the LORD, saying, Look, the Israelites
9

would follow a proposal such as Holzingers that the splitting of the sea and drowning of the Egyptian army is Ps nal plague (Exodus, p. 32; recently followed by Propp, Exodus 1-18, p. 316), his argument regarding the redactional insertion of darkness in Exodus undermines his claim to seven P plagues. Greenberg posits seven plagues in each of the Exodus accounts by assigning darkness to P (Redaction, p. 248). Eliminating darkness from P and labeling it a redactors insertion leaves Brettler with at most six Priestly plagues. 31) Blum, Komposition, 248. e most signi cant stylistic features that recommend the ascription of darkness to P are its uses of 2-% %*3+ $%14' 51# 6),, and ,6 7*8/. Exod 10:24-26 may be con dently assigned to J rather than P based on their content. e negotiation between Pharaoh and Moses concerning a worship excursion into the wilderness is a recurrent theme in the J plagues (Exod 4:23; 7:16, 26; 8:16, 25; 9:1, 13; 10:3, 7, 8, 11; 12:31). In this case, vv. 24-26 follow immediately upon Exod 10:19 in J and are a continuation of Js locust episode (cf. Greenberg, Redaction, p. 252). 32) My approach here is thus markedly di erent from that of Propp, who overtly prioritizes style in his attribution of the non-Priestly plagues and looks to content only secondarily. In his consideration of the darkness episode, for instance, he states, Since stylistic evidence is inconclusive, we must look to content for evidence of authorship (Exodus 1-18, p. 314). Fohrer, by contrast, though he identi es style as an important criterion for source attribution, emphasizes the importance of plot details (berlieferung, p. 63). 33) A concern for the darkness episodes content does inform Rudolphs despair over the source ascription for darkness. Yet he nally surrenders his attempts, labeling darkness a supplement of unknown origin (Der Elohist, p. 21).

J. Stackert / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 657-676

669

did not listen to me. How is Pharaoh to listen to me, for I am an unaccomplished speaker!

In the preceding verses (vv. 2-8), YHWH instructs Moses to declare his divine intent to rescue the Israelites from Egyptian bondage in light of the promise that he made to their ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Yet when Moses relays YHWHs message, the Israelites do not listen (6:9). Immediately after this encounter, YHWH instructs Moses to go to Pharaoh to demand the Israelites release. In light of his lackluster reception from the Israelites, Moses objects,34 whereupon YHWH appoints Aaron as his spokesman (Exod 7:1-2). e next interaction between Moses and the Israelites in P is not until the delivery of the Passover instructions in Exod 12.35 Directly following these instructions is Ps report that the Israelites are fully compliant with Mosess words (Exod 12:28). e question naturally arises, what happened between Mosess initial interaction with the Israelites and their reception of the Passover instructions to alter their response so radically? e obvious answer is, YHWHs signs and wonders in Egypt. But how do these signs and wonders e ect this signi cant change in the Israelites receptivity to Moses? e key, it seems, is in the rationale for their initial disregard toward Moses. Exod 6:9 states that, when Moses rst approached the Israelites to deliver the divine message, they did not listen to him due to shortness of breath and hard labor ((97 (-,:'" /"1 147').36 ere has been signi cant debate concerning the meaning of the phrase shortness of breath (/"1 147). Contextually, it seems to indicate either exhaustion or exasperation.37 Some
34) Moses rightly anticipates that the Pharaoh will not listen to him. However, the analogy to the Israelites failure to heed proves faulty, for YHWHs stance vis--vis the recipients of his message di ers fundamentally in the two cases. In Pharaohs case, YHWH has no interest in Pharaoh acceding to his command. YHWH predicts that the king will not obey and even actively prevents him from doing so (Exod 7:3; 11:9). In the case of the Israelites, by contrast, YHWH not only desires the peoples obedience but also presumes that they will obey. As argued here, he also actively provides the necessary conditions for them to do so. 35) Exod 12:2, 14-20 is an H supplement to vv. 1, 3-13, 21b-27a, which are P. See Baden, Identifying the Original Stratum of P, pp. 25-26. Baden shows that vv. 1, 3-13 are an integral part of the P narrative. 36) It is also worth noting that in its relatively sparse narrative leading up to Mosess commissioning, P nonetheless exhibits a recurrent emphasis upon the Israelites hard labor in Egypt (Exod 1:14; 2:23). 37) Mic 2:7, Job 21:4, and Prov 14:29 each employ a verbal form of 1*47 + /"1 and connote exasperation or impatience. (Prov 14:29 provides the clearest connotation of impatience, opposing /"1 147 to $%&# 21# slow to anger in an antithetic parallelism.) Also relevant is the

670

J. Stackert / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 657-676

interpreters even render (97 (-,:'" /"1 147' as a hendiadys.38 Yet even if the precise meaning of /"1 147 remains unclear, there is no question regarding the meaning of (97 (-,;. e hard labor cited here is the ruthlessly enforced toil the Israelites are enduring at the hand of Egypt (Exod 1:13-14). How do the Priestly wonders alleviate the Israelites hard labor? e rst seven Priestly wonders do not.39 Darkness, however, provides Israel with precisely the respite necessary to rejuvenate them. is rest is e ected through the speci c characteristics of the darkness wonder. Exod 10:22 reports that the darkness persists for three days. On the one hand, duration here, as in the case of boils, hail, and locusts, is a necessary feature of the wonder itself. Because darkness is a naturally occurring, daily phenomenon, it must persist in order to be recognized as miraculous.40 However, there is more to Ps speci c description of darkness. During this three-day period, all Egyptian activity ceases completely: No man could see his fellow man, and no man could rise from his place for three days (v. 23). e Israelites, by contrast, are wholly una ected by the darkness (v. 24).41 e implication is that, due to the Egyptians home con nement, the Israelites are a orded a holiday from their labor,
combination 1*47 + 0&+, which appears in Num 21:4; Jud 10:16; 16:16; and Zech 11:8. In each of these verses, 1*47 + 0&+ seems to connote exasperation or exhaustion. For similar assessments, see, e.g., Childs, Exodus, p. 110; Propp, Exodus 1-18, p. 273. Robert D. Haak argues against understanding /"1 147 in Exod 6:9 as impatience. He prefers instead weakness, a meaning for which he nds a parallel in the Kirta Epic (A Study and New Interpretation of QS!R NP, JBL 101 (1982), pp. 161-167 [at p. 163]; cf. Cassuto, Exodus, p. 82). Haak (p. 163 note 10) also discounts the proposed parallel between /"1 147 and Akkadian ikku kar (CAD I-J, pp. 59-60; cf. Kevin J. Cathcart, Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic [BibOr 26; Rome, 1973], pp. 44-45; and Moshe Held, Rhetorical Questions in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew, Eretz Israel 9 [1969], p. 78 note 69), preferring instead napitu kar (CAD K, pp. 229-230). 38) See, e.g., NJPS, where (97 (-,:'" /"1 147' is rendered their spirits crushed by cruel bondage. ough not going as far as hendiadys, Haak characterizes the relationship between /"1 147 and (97 (-,: as strong parallelism and uses the latter as a guide for his interpretation of the former (QS!R NP, p. 163). 39) It might be argued that the rst seven Priestly wonders do address the issue of Israelite 147 /"1 if the latter is understood as connoting a dismissive attitude toward Moses. Exod 6:6-7 could be read as supporting such a view: the wonders (called in 6:6 $%6-< $%3&9 great judgments) and perhaps especially those that cannot be reproduced by the Egyptiansserve to convince the Israelites that YHWH is powerful and working on their behalf. 40) Baruch J. Schwartz, personal communication. 41) Note that the distinction between the Israelites and the Egyptians here functions di erently than in the cases of di erentiation between the Israelites and Egyptians in the J plagues of swarm, pestilence, and the death of the rstborn (see Exod 8:18, 9:4, 11:7). In the J examples, the distinction is meant to demonstrate that YHWH is indeed causing the plagues. Moreover, the Israelites live in Goshen and are thus physically separated from the Egyptians. In the P darkness

J. Stackert / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 657-676

671

after which they are fully compliant when Moses instructs them (Exod 12:28). Darkness is hereby shown to be a vital component within the Priestly plot itself: because of the rest it a ords, the Israelites no longer su er from shortness of breath and hard labor and can heed the divine message that Moses brings.42 e Priestly Plagues and the Larger Priestly Source Beyond the internal coherence it lends to the Priestly plague narrative, the ascription of darkness to P gains further corroboration through darknesss resonances with key perspectives that characterize the Priestly source. Primary among these is Ps optimistic perception of the Israelite people and their willingness to heed the divine message.43 When God instructs Moses to address the Israelites in Exod 6:2-8, the assumption of the narrative is that the people will immediately accept Mosess message. ere is no concern on the part of
wonder, the distinction between the Israelites and Egyptians serves the purpose of Israelite rest, and the Israelite dwellings are intermingled among the Egyptians (cf. Exod 12:22-23). 42) ough he does not connect it with Exod 6:9 and the Israelites ability to heed the divine message, Ephrem the Syrians interpretation of the darkness wonder is closest to my own. He states, Moses induced darkness over all of Egypt for three days and nights, but the Hebrews had light in order that they might rest from their labors and arrange the a airs for their departure (R.-M. Tonneau, ed., Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum: Commentarii [CSCO 152, Scriptores Syri 71; Louvain, 1955], pp. 139-140). 43) Several scholars have commented on the command/ful llment structure of P, its positive anthropology, and the anomaly of Exod 6:9b. See, e.g., Sean E. McEvenue, Word and Ful llment: A Stylistic Feature of the Priestly Writer, Semitics 1 (1970), pp. 104-110; Joseph Blenkinsopp, e Structure of P, CBQ 38 (1976), pp. 275-291 (esp. pp. 275-278); omas Pola, Die ursprngliche Priesterschrift: Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von P g (WMANT 70; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1995), pp. 116-146; Eckart Otto, Forschungen zur Priesterschrift, R 62 (1997), pp. 1-50. From a slightly di erent perspective, see Baruch J. Schwartz, Profane Slaughter and the Integrity of the Priestly Code, HUCA 67 (1996), pp. 15-42 (at pp. 39-42). Pola in particular emphasizes Ps positive anthropology, as indicated by its command ful llment formula (Befehlsausfhrungsformel), and uses it as one basis for distinguishing strata within P. Otto follows Polas assessment (Forschungen, p. 10 note 45) and therefore seems to assign Exod 6:9 to a later Priestly stratum. Christophe Nihan o ers a helpful critique of Ottos view: e fact that the people does not listen to Moses in 6:9 cannot be automatically regarded as a mark of a negative anthropology foreign to Pg (From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus [FAT/II; Tbingen, 2007], p. 65 note 237). As I attempt to show here, the peoples failure to listen to Moses in Exod 6:9 is adequately rationalized there and then addressed by the deity in the darkness wonder.

672

J. Stackert / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 657-676

Moses or God for legitimating Moses in the eyes of the Israelites. is hopeful assessment stands in relief from the corresponding presentations of Mosess commissioning and interactions with the Israelites in the other Torah sources, even as it nds corollaries elsewhere in P. In both J and E, Moses anticipates the peoples rejection of his message even during his rst encounter with YHWH and emphasizes his own inadequacy for prophetic vocation. In J, YHWH responds by giving Moses miraculous wonders to perform before the Israelites to legitimate his message (Exod 4:1-9). YHWH also addresses Mosess self-diagnosed inadequacy in J: he rst promises to be with Moses, but after Moses expresses additional hesitance, YHWH appoints Aaron to be Mosess prophetic spokesman (Exod 4:10-16). e J author also returns to his theme of Mosess legitimation through miracles later in its narrative (see, e.g., Exod 14:31). In E, Moses is likewise concerned about his adequacy and credibility to address Israel. In response, YHWH promises to be with him and, in response to Mosess inquiry concerning the deitys identity, reveals to Moses his name (Exod 3:11-15). Like J, E exhibits a continued concern for Mosess credibility in the eyes of the Israelites. In Es Horeb revelation event, the Israelites are allowed to experience the mechanics of prophecy so that they might always trust Mosess message (Exod 19:9a; 20:20). E insists that of all prophets, Moses alone speaks directly with God (Num 12:6-8). Finally, upon his death, E opines, Never again did there arise a prophet like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face (Deut 34:10). As in J and E, Moses expresses his inadequacy in P, but this is only after the Israelites refuse to listen to him (Exod 6:12). In his initial encounter with the Israelites, Mosess assumption is that the people will heed his message. It is on this account then that the speci c reasons for their failure to listen are cited: exhaustion and hard labor. In other words, it is not that the Israelites would not listen; it is that they could not. Yet once they are relieved of their onerous toil through divine accommodation, they are immediately responsive to Moses. e anticipation of the peoples change of heart after their three-day holiday can explain Ps omission of any attempt to address Mosess failure to garner Israelite assent. Ps fundamental optimism concerning the peoples responsiveness to the divine word in Exod 6 is analogous to its initial presumption concerning all humanity and, later, its speci c optimism regarding Israel. In the Priestly creation account, God instructs people and animals to eat only plant matter (Gen 1:29-30) and gives no prohibitions against slaughter or meat consumption. When his created beings fail to abide by his commands and begin to kill and eat animals and humans (Gen 6:11-13; cf. 9:1-6), God is genuinely surprised,

J. Stackert / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 657-676

673

for he had presumed that they would follow his dietary directives assiduously. As in the case of the Priestly darkness wonder, he is forced to improvise. God thus gives regulations for licit killing and meat consumption (Gen 9:3-6). With regard to the Israelites, Ps puri cation system in particular betrays its hopeful outlook. e Priestly rules for puri cation presume the de ling e ects of both impurity and sin upon the divine abode, Israels sanctuary.44 By fastidiously maintaining the purity of the sanctuary, the Israelites assure the continued presence of God in their midst (and the tangible bene ts that accrue because of it). It is especially in Ps conceptualization of the de ling e ects of sin and the requisite purgations of the sanctuary (outlined in Lev 4 and 16) that its optimistic view of Israelite obedience can be observed. Leviticus 4 outlines purgation procedures for inadvertent sins of the high priest (vv. 3-12), the entire Israelite congregation (vv. 13-21), a chieftain (vv. 22-26), and an ordinary Israelite (vv. 27-35). e severity of the sanctuary pollution caused by such sins relates to the status of the sinner and is re ected both in the animal required for the o ering and the locations within the sanctuary complex where its blood is applied as a ritual detergent. Sins of the high priest and the entire community penetrate into the outer room of the shrine (vv. 5-7, 16-18), while sins of a chieftain or ordinary laypersons are less potent, accumulating only on the outer sacri cial altar (vv. 25, 30, 34). Lev 16 adds a third tier to this gradation: deliberate sins penetrate into and pollute the holy of holies, the inner sanctum of the deity (vv. 11-17). us, in addition to purgations of the outer altar and outer room of the shrine, the annual Day of Atonement rite includes the application of blood within the holy of holies.45 Because this system a ords only an annual purgation of the holy of holies,46 it creates the remarkable circumstance that the deitys inner sanctumthe
Jacob Milgrom, Israels Sanctuary: e Priestly Picture of Dorian Gray, RB 83 (1976), pp. 390-399; Baruch J. Schwartz, e Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature, in David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (Winona Lake, Ind., 1995), pp. 3-21. 45) Milgrom, Israels Sanctuary, esp. pp. 393-394. 46) In my view, the Day of Atonement rite is conceived in P from the beginning as an annual ritual. By assigning Lev 16:29-34a (and Exod 30:10) to H, some scholars have claimed that Ps Day of Atonement was originally an emergency rite that H later regularized through annual observance. See, e.g., Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 (AB 3; New York, 1991), pp. 1061-1065. Milgrom assigns vv. 29-34a to H and thus sees these verses, including the establishment of a yearly purgation rite, as a later addition to the chapter. Israel Knohl agrees that vv. 29-34 belong to H, but he contends (without evidence) that the P ritual in vv. 1-28 is already an annual one (Sanctuary of Silence [translated by Jackie Feldman and Peretz Rodman; Minneapolis, 1995], pp. 28, 32). My view is closer to that of Knohl than Milgrom, yet I view the literary division
44)

674

J. Stackert / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 657-676

location within the sanctuary complex whose de lement could have the most deleterious e ectcould through repeated Israelite intentional sin become its most polluted space. is potential aw in the Priestly system of puri cation, however, points to the same optimism detectable in Ps plague narrative. In the Priestly view, once Israel knows the divine messagein this case, Ps lawsit is assumed that they will abide by it. Intentional sin is expected to be a rare occurrence; unintentional sin and impurities, by contrast, are unavoidable and thus greater concerns. us, in both its plague narrative and its puri cation system, the Priestly source presumes a fundamental receptivity on the part of the Israelites to the divine message. e ree Days of Darkness and the in the Hebrew Bible ree-Day Literary Motif

ough the three days of rest a orded the Israelites by Ps darkness wonder achieve Israelite obedience to God, this obedience is not an end in itself. Rather, this obedienceand the three days necessary to realize itserve as prelude to the Israelites exodus from Egypt. e Priestly author here employs the common Israelite literary motif of three days to signal Israelite preparation, to indicate the completion of the signs and wonders, and to introduce the ensuing major event, the departure from Egypt. e motif of three days is well attested in the Hebrew Bible.47 Even within the Exodus plague account, it is a recurrent motif: in addition to the three-day
di erently, which also addresses the evidentiary problem. In my view, vv. 1-28 and 34 (minus $6": !7/6 $)6) belong to P, while vv. 29-33 are an H addition, as are $6": !7/6 $)6 in v. 34. e result is an original P layer that consistently refers to the Israelites in the third person, which accords well with the narrative framing of the divine speech in this chapter (God commands Moses to speak to Aaron). is also leaves open the possibility of the rite being performed immediately within the story (and thus Aaron as the subject of the verb =:%" in v. 34b) rather than, if the chronology of the larger Priestly narrative is observed (cf. Exod 40:17; Num 1:1), six months after Moses gives this command to Aaron. Finally, it might account for the anomalous formulation !#8 (!%(" in v. 34a, which employs the demonstrative in an abstract manner to refer to the whole rite, as in v. 3a (cf. D. Ho man, Das Buch Leviticus, vol. 1 [Berlin, 1905], p. 464). 47) It also appears, of course, in the New Testament stories of Jesuss death and resurrection (Matt 12:40; 16:21; 27:63; Luke 24:21, 46; John 2:19-21; 1 Cor 15:4). e recently touted exemplar in the early Jewish Vision of Gabriel text is more di cult to assess. For the most ambitious reading of this text, see Israel Knohl, By ree Days, Live: Messiahs, Resurrection, and Ascent to Heaven in Hazon Gabriel, JR 88 (2008), pp. 147-158. For critique of Knohls views, see John J. Collins, e Vision of Gabriel, Yale Alumni Magazine, online: http://www. yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/2008_09/forum.html (accessed August 17, 2010).

J. Stackert / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 657-676

675

duration of darkness, in J Moses appeals to Pharaoh to grant the Israelites a three-day journey into the wilderness to sacri ce to YHWH (Exod 5:3; 8:23; cf. Exod 3:18). As scholars have noted, a three-day time period in the Hebrew Bible regularly signals the time period necessary for the completion of a task, and the third day often indicates the climax of an event and/or the initiation of a new action.48 For example, Exod 19:10-16a (through 17,() describe the three-day preparatory period prior to Js Sinai theophany. During this time Moses must set up a boundary around the mountain, and the people must launder, purify, and abstain from sexual activity. Josh 2:16 exempli es well the su ciency of three days for the task at hand: in this verse, the Israelite spies leaving Jericho hide for three days in order to elude capture. e presumption is that those who are pursuing them will give up their search after three days, and this is indeed what the text reports. Likewise, Jon 2:1 states that Jonah remained in the belly of the sh for three days, after which he forsook his rebellious ways and ful lled his prophetic charge ( Jon 3:1-4). Ps use of the three-day motif in its darkness episode follows this general trend. As such, it can explain the placement of darkness within Ps version of the plagues. Darkness completes Ps plague in two important senses. As noted above, P portrays a single encounter between Pharaoh, Moses, and Aaron in which all of the marvels are enacted. e paralyzing e ect of darkness upon Egyptian society thus requires that darkness appear last in this succession of wonders. Yet even more signi cant is the e ect of darkness upon the Israelites: by allowing the Israelites to listen to Mosess words, this wonder prepares Israel to depart from Egypt. ose who have argued that darkness is ill-suited to its context in Exodus have concentrated on its variant position in Ps 105 and the alleged pattern of intensifying severity in the overall plague sequence. Both of these foci, however, shift the spotlight away from the speci c content of each of these darkness accounts. e psalmic description of darkness is admittedly brief (/69 29/%" 29/ He sent darkness and made it dark [Ps 105:28a]).49 In comparison with the Exodus account, however, it is noteworthy that there is no mention of a three-day duration for the wonder or the inability of the Egyptians to move about during the period of darkness. ese elements are entirely unique
48) See, e.g., M. G. Swanepoel, Die drie dae-motief in die Ou Testament, Nederduits Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif 32 (1991), pp. 541-551; Roland Gradwohl, Drei Tage und der dritte Tag, VT 47 (1997), pp. 373-378. 49) On the interpretive di culties of Ps 105:28, see, e.g., . Booij, e Role of Darkness in Ps cv 28, VT 39 (1989), pp. 209-214.

676

J. Stackert / Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 657-676

to the Exodus account, and, as I have argued above, accord well with the larger Priestly narrative. us, while P and Ps 105 agree on the occurrence of a darkness plague in Egypt (and likely rely on an older, common tradition in this case), they do not narrate the same darkness plague. Ps darkness ts well at the end of its plague account because of its preparatory and transitional functions. In Ps 105, darkness does not serve these purposes. It can thus easily appear elsewhere in the plague sequence. Viewed in this light, the placement of darkness as the initial plague in the psalm may indeed be in uenced by a concern for intensi cation or increasing severity in the progression of plagues. Ps 105 may even re ect an older plague sequence, in which case Ps positioning of the darkness wonder could be an innovation made against the tradition in service of its larger narratival goals. Whatever the case of the tradition history of the darkness plague, it is clear that Ps darkness episode accords fully with its theological and historical claims and ts well within its larger narrative of the exodus from Egypt. Conclusion To sum up, then, the darkness plague in Exodus can be con dently assigned to the Priestly source of the Torah. Its details of duration, intensity, and selectivity accord well with the unique Priestly portrayal of Moses as intermediary between YHWH and the Israelites as well as the basic Priestly assumption concerning the Israelites receptivity to YHWHs message. Connecting the darkness episode to the larger P narrative also explains its position within the sequence of plagues and thereby lends further credibility to a claim for its Priestly origin. is connection also supports the integrity of the Exodus darkness plague vis--vis its counterpart in Ps 105. As is regularly observable in instances of duplication among the Torah sources, the Priestly author in the case of the plagues felt emboldened to shape the tradition to his own purpose. us, it is no surprise that Ps story di ers in signi cant ways from those of J and E. In J and E, the death of the rstborn is decisive (Exod 11:1 [E], 7 [J]). In P, however, darkness serves a dual role. Like the other wonders, it is meant to impress the Egyptians, but it also serves as the peripety that enables the Israelites to leave Egypt. It logically follows, then, that the conclusion to Ps plague narrative (Exod 11:9-10) should precede its narration of the death of the rstborn. What is decisive for P is accomplished already in the darkness wonder: because of their respite, the Israelites are able to obey YHWH, and it is this obedience that is the prerequisite for all that is to follow in Ps story of Israelite formation.