A Source of P?

The Priestly Exodus

Account and the Book of Ezekiel
Jaeyoung Jeon
University of Lausanne

Rsum. Cet article cherche montrer que le rcit sacerdotal de lExode, notamment
entre le mandat de Mose (Ex 6) et la traverse de la mer des Roseaux (Ex 14), a t com-
pos sous linfluence dzkiel 20; 29-32. Le rcit sacerdotal des plaies a une vise plus
large quil est communment admis, avec neuf prodiges oprs par Mose et Aaron. Outre
le lien littraire bien connu entre Ex 6 et z 20, les prodiges sacerdotaux tels le crocodile,
le sang, les tnbres, et la mer des Roseaux adaptent limagerie de la prophtie dzkiel
contre le Pharaon (z 29-32). En outre, la double nature de en zkiel comme croco-
dile (z 29) et monstre marin mythique (z 31) se reflte en P, compltant un cycle my-
thique de cration combat.

I. Introduction

Since August Klostermann identified Ezekiel as the author of the

Holiness Code in his 1877 article,1 the close relationship between
Ezekiel and the Priestly legal material in the Pentateuch has re-
ceived much scholarly attention. An ample number of studies
have been carried out on this issue so far, yet relatively little at-
tention has been paid to the Priestly Exodus narrative and its
literary relationship with Ezekiel. Nevertheless, especially for the
interest of this paper, a few significant studies have been carried
out recently by scholars, for instance, T. Pola, Risa Kohn, Johan
Lust.2 Those studies effectively exhibit the close literary and lin-
1
See A. Klostermann, Beitrge zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Penta-
teuchs, ZLThK 38 (1877): 401445.
2
T. Pola, Die ursprngliche Priesterschrift: Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und
Traditionsgeschichte von Pg (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und
Neuen Testament 70. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995), 145212;

Semitica 58, 2016, p. 77-92.

78 Jaeyoung Jeon

guistic relationship between the Ezekiel 20 and the Priestly ver-

sion of the commissioning of Moses (Exodus 6). A broader compa-
rison, however, reveals that not only Exodus 6 but also the entire
Priestly account of Exodus, from Exodus 1 to 14, has been compo-
sed under literary influence from Ezekiel, particularly Ezek 20 and
the prophecies against Egypt in Ezek 29-32. In this paper, I will
endeavor to show how the expressions, motifs, and imagery
found in those Ezekiel texts were adapted by the Priestly author
in his composition of the Exodus account, and discuss the impli-
cations of this in understanding the nature of the Priestly text.
For the sake of precision, I will first redefine the Priestly wonders
( )in Exodus 7-14, which are most relevant to our discussion.
After that I will turn to a comparison between the Priestly Exodus
account and Ezekiel.

II. The Priestly Exodus Account

There has been near consensus in the reconstruction of the Pries-

tly text especially in the first half of the Book of Exodus. The ma-
jority of critics maintain that the Priestly wonders consist of the
episodes of the crocodile or the dragon (7.8-13), Blood (7.19-20a,
21b-22), Frogs (8.1-3), Lice (8.12-15), and Boils (9.8-12), which
contain the theme of the competition between Aaron and Pha-
raohs magicians. Nevertheless, it is misleading to assume that Ps
main theme is the competition between Aaron and the magicians
and to confine P only to those competition episodes. In the epi-
sode of Boils (9.8-12), the alleged conclusion of the P wonders
according to the majority of the scholars, it is Moses who per-
forms the miracle, whereas Aaron is only briefly mentioned. The
hero, who has been Aaron so far, is replaced by Moses in this epi-
sode, and the complete defeat of the magicians is credited to

R. L. Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah (JSOTSupp.
358. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 2002), 3085; J. Lust, Ez XX, 426: Une parodie de
lhistoire religieuse dIsral ETL 43 (1967): 488527; idem, Exodus 6,28 and
Ezekiel, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception,
Interpretation (BEThL 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press: Peeters, 1996), 209
224. For the earlier studies, see Pola, Priesterschrift, 148ff.
 A Source of P? The Priestly Exodus Account and the Book of Ezekiel 79

Moses (9.11).3 Such a transition of the hero seems better unders-

tood as an anticipation of continuing miracles by Moses. In my
view, the Priestly episodes continue with Moses as the hero
through the episodes of Hail (9.22-23a*, 25, 35), Locusts (10.12-
13a*, 14a, 15*, 20), and Darkness (10.21-23, 27), and end with the
parting of the Sea of Reeds (14.1-4, 8-9, 10*, 15-18, 21-23*, 26-
27a*, 28-29). It has been perceived that these passages interrupt
the narrative flow of the episodes to which they belong. Classical
source critics, therefore, assigned the verses to E4 or R,5 while a
more recent trend is to attribute them to a post-Priestly redactor.6
3
See also T. Rmer, Competing Magicians in Exodus 7-9: Interpreting Magic
in the Priestly Theology, in T. E. Klutz (ed.), Magic in the Biblical World: From the
Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon (JSNTSup 245. London: T & T Clark, 2003), 12
22, esp. 20f.; J. Van Seters, A Contest of Magicians? The Plague Stories in P, in
D. P. Wright et al. (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish,
and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (Winona Lake,
Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 569579.
4
See e.g. J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der Historischen
Bcher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: Reimer, 1899), 6172; A. Kuenen, An Historico-
Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (Trans. P. H.
Wiksteed. London: Macmillan, 1886), 149ff.; H. Holzinger, Exodus (Kurzer Hand-
Commentar zum Alten Testament 2. Tbingenet al.: Mohr Siebeck, 1900), 2133;
S. R. Driver, The Book of Exodus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911),
5586; R. Smend, Die Erzhlung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht (Berlin: G.
Reimer, 1921), 126137; B. S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Com-
mentary (OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), 131f.
5
See for example W. Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion in Exodus
317 (BZAW 126. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1972), 211ff.
6
See F. Kohata, Jahwist und Priesterschrift in Exodus 314. (BZAW 166. Berlin;
New York: de Gruyter, 1986), 93ff.; H. C. Schmitt, Tradition der Prophe-
tenbcher in den Schichten der Plagenerzhlung Ex 7,111,10, in V. Fritz et al.
(eds.), Prophet und Prophetenbuch: FS fr Otto Kaiser zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW 185.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989), 196-216; L. Schmidt, Beobachtungen zu der Pla-
generzhlung in Exodus VII 14XI 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 80ff.; idem, Studien zur
Priesterschrift (BZAW 214. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1993), 10ff.; R. E. Fried-
man, The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and the
Priestly Codes (HSM 22. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 9295, 143; J. C. Gertz,
Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzhlung (FRLANT 189. Gttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 74188; B. Lemmelijn, The So-called Priestly Layer in
Exod 7,14, 11,10: Source and/or/nor Redaction? RB 109 (2002): 481511, esp.
504. See also J.-L. Ska, Les plaies dgypte dans le rcit sacerdotal, Bib 60 (1979):
2335. Here Ska agrees with the classical view that assigns only five wonders
80 Jaeyoung Jeon

However, all these passages exhibit a formulation very similar to

that of the Priestly miracles performed by Aaron. Firstly, the epi-
sodes begin with YHWHs command to Moses to stretch out his
hands or staff in the same fashion as the command is given to
Aaron; then brief reports of the sequence of events follow in an
almost identical fashion to that of Aarons wonders (see Table 1);
and finally the episodes end with the Priestly hardening formula
( in Hiph. + ) . Therefore, already M. Noth attributed
those texts to P and, recently, E. Blum included the texts in KP,
the Priestly composition.7

Table 1. Formal Similarity of the Priestly Miracles

Miracles by Aaron Miracles by Moses

Crocodile (7.9f.*) Hail (Ex 9.22-23*)



Blood (7.19*) Locusts (Ex 10.12-13*)
) (


Frogs (8.1f.*) Darkness (Ex 10.21-22*)
) (
)(

Lice (8.12f.*) The Sea of Reeds (Ex 14.15f., 21, 26f.*)
) (

(Sea Dragon to Boils) to P(G). Also Propp assigns the verses to E, but together
with the rest of the non-Priestly passages. Propp finds mainly two sources (E
and P) in the plagues story. See Propp, Exodus 118: A New Translation with Intro-
duction and Commentary (AB 2. New York: Doubleday, 1999), 286ff, 310ff.
7
See M. Noth, Exodus: A Commentary (Trans. by J.S. Bowden. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1974), 6284. Blum follows Noth and includes the present
passages to the Priestly composition layer. See E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition
des Pentateuch (BZAW 189. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1990), 242ff. See also
J. Jeon, The Call of Moses and the Exodus Story: A Redactional-Critical Study in Exodus
34 and 513 (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 178ff.
 A Source of P? The Priestly Exodus Account and the Book of Ezekiel 81

Once the Priestly wonders are sorted out as above, a discernible

structure emerges: nine episodes arranged nearly symmetrically
(see Table 2). In the first four episodes (the Crocodile, Blood,
Frogs, and Lice), Aaron competes with the magicians, ultimately
defeating them (Lice: 8.14-15). In the fifth episode (Boils), at the
center of the structure, the hero changes from Aaron to Moses;
the last four episodes (Hail, Locusts, Darkness, and the Sea of
Reeds) are performed by Moses alone, and the entire cycle con-
cludes with the Egyptian armys defeat at the Sea of Reeds. Each
side has miracles on the water (Blood-Frog and Sea of Reeds), the
land (Lice and Locust), and heaven (Boil and Darkness).8

Table 2. Arrangement of the Priestly Wonders (Ex 7-14)9

Wonders Realm Performer

(1) Crocodile (7.813) Land (7.10) Aaron
(2) Blood (7.1920a, 21b-22) Water (7.19)
(3) Frogs (8.13b) Water-Land (8.2)
(4) Lice (8.1215) Land (8.12)
Transition
(5) Boils (9.812) Heaven (9.8)
(Aaron to Moses)
(6) Hail (9.2223a*, 25, 35) Heaven (9.22) Moses
(7) Locusts (10.1213a*, 14a, 15*,
Land (10.12)
20)
(8) Darkness (10.2123, 27) [Heaven (9.21)]
(9) Parting the Sea of Reeds (14.1
4, 8-9, 10*, 1518, 2123*, 26 Water (14.21)
27a*, 28-29)

In his influential form-critical study, G. Coats claimed that the Sea

narrative belongs to the Wilderness tradition rather than the
8
For a detailed discussion, see J. Jeon, The Call of Moses, 178ff.
9
See ibid.
82 Jaeyoung Jeon

Exodus tradition,10 which provoked criticism.11 Indeed, in the non-

P portions of the narrative wilderness, motifs are found, such as
the pillar of cloud and fire; yet the Priestly portions share much
in common with the previous P narrative, such as the description
of the performance of the miracle, the motifs of the hardening of
Pharaohs heart, and the recognition of YHWH, as will be dis-
cussed below. If this is the case, the Priestly Exodus account is
framed by the P version of the commissioning of Moses Ex 6 (in-
troduced by 2.23b-24) as the beginning and the Priestly sea narra-
tive Ex 14 as the conclusion.12

III. The Connections with Ezekiel

The Priestly Exodus account from Exodus 6 to 14 exhibits linguis-

tic and thematic similarities with the Book of Ezekiel. Critics have
perceived the similarities between the language of Exodus 6.28
and Ezekiel, especially Ezekiel 20. Both texts correspond conside-
rably to each other, first of all, in their use of similar terms. For
instance, the revelation of YHWH to the people in Egypt is asso-
ciated with the expression in Nifal form (Ex 6.2f.; Ezek 20.5);
similar terms are used for the covenant ( Ex 6.4)
and ( Ex 6.5), as in Ezek 16.59-6313; the land of resi-

10
See G. W. Coats, A Structural Transition in Exodus. VT 22 (1972): 129242.
11
Note that the place of event in the Priestly Sea Narrative is still Egypt
(14.2). Even before Coats thesis, McCarthy demonstrated a number of linguistic
and thematic indications that the drowning at the sea was the climax of the
Plagues narrative. See McCarthy, Plagues and the Sea of Reeds: Exodus 514.
JBL 85 (1966): 137158; idem, Plagues and Sea of Reeds, 150ff. See also B. S.
Childs, A Tradition-Historical Study of the Reed Sea Tradition, VT 20 (1970):
406418. For a criticism of Coats, see Childs, Exodus, 221f.
12
See Jeon, Call of Moses, 181; McCarthy, Plagues and the Sea of Reeds, 136
147; Ska, Les plaies dgypte dans le rcit sacerdotal, Bib 60 (1979): 2335, esp.
30ff.; T. B. Dozeman, Exodus (The Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids,
Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 2009), 199ff.
13
The Ezekiel passage is generally regarded as editorial. See e.g. Lust, Exo-
dus 6,28 and Ezekiel, 215; T. Krger, Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch (BZAW
180. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989), 329331; T. Wagner, Ungeklrte Verhltnisse.
Die priesterliche Urgeschichte und das Buch Ezechiel. KuD 59 (2013), 207229.
 A Source of P? The Priestly Exodus Account and the Book of Ezekiel 83

dence is described as ( Ex 6.4; Ezek 20.38)14; both use

the phrase ( Ex 6.6; Ezek 11.17f.; 12.23, 28; 14.16; 20/30;
33.25; 36.22); YHWHs acts of deliverance are described as
( Ex 6.6; Ezek 11.9; 20.34), in Hiphil form (Ex
6.6; most similarly Ezek 34.27), and the root ( Ex 6.6; Ezek
11.15); the covenant formula appears as ( Ex 6.7;
similarly Ezek 11.20; 14.11; 34.24; 36.28; 37.23, 27); the phrase
appears especially in relative sentences
starting with ( Ex 6.8; 20.28, 42); is used with the verb
( Ex 6.8; Ezek 11.15; 25.4, 10; 33.24; 36.2f., 5); the recognition
formula is found (Ex 6.7; similarly 72 times
in Ezekiel), especially combined with the covenant formula (Ex
6.6; Ezek 37.27f.).15
Special attention should be given to the so-called recognition
formula: and they will know that I am YHWH your God (
) . This formulaic expression occurs at the beginning
of the P Exodus narrative (Ex 6.7) and twice at the end of the Exo-
dus account (Ex 14.4; 18). The formula envelops the whole narra-
tive,16 producing a thematic thread and providing the purpose of
the P exodus narrative, which is to cause let them to know YHWH.
The recognition formula is, as it has often been well perceived, a
typical Ezekielian expression.17 It appears a total of 72 times
throughout the Book of Ezekiel in various occasions with two
main purposes: being recognition of YHWH by Israel on the one
hand, and the nations on the other.18 Such a dual usage of the

14
In Ex 6.4 the term indicates the land of Canaan, whereas in Ezek 20.38 it
means the lands the people were scattered over. The term is typically Priestly in
the Pentateuch, while it occurs only once in Ezekiel.
15
See, also, Lust, Exodus 6,28 and Ezekiel; Kohn, A New Heart, 98ff.;
B. Gosse, Le livre dEzchiel et Ex 6,28 dans le cadre du Pentateuque. BN 104
(2000): 2025; B. Gosse, Exode 6,8 comme rponse Ezchiel 33, 24. Revue
dHistoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 74 (1994): 241247.
16
The formula therefore forms an inclusio structure at the beginning (7.5)
and the end (14.4, 18) of the Priestly Exodus narrative. See Jeon, Call of Moses,
181.
17
See also, W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel (BK 13. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1979), 56; Lust, Exodus 6,2-8 and Ezekiel, 218.
18
The formula is used for Israel in Ezek 7.27; 11.10, 12; 12.15, 16, 20; 13.14, 21,
23; 14.8; 15.8; 17.24; 20. 12, 20, 26, 38, 42, 44; 22.16, 22; 23.49; 24.24; 24.27; 33.29;
84 Jaeyoung Jeon

formula in Ezekiel corresponds precisely to the Priestly Exodus

account in which the formula is used for Israel at the beginning
(Ex 6.7) and for Egypt at the end (Ex 14.4; 18). The recognition of
YHWH by Egypt is an especially dominant theme in the prophecy
against Egypt (Ezek 29.6, 9, 29; 30.8, 25, 26; 32.15), supporting its
connection to the Priestly account of the Sea of Reeds. This point
will be discussed below.
The connection between the Priestly Exodus account and
Ezekiels prophecy against Egypt is further supported by the mo-
tif of judgment. P defines the Exodus not only as a salvation of the
Israelites but also as a great judgment ( , Ex 6.6; 7.4) of
Egypt. The latter is a unique motif in P, one which never appears
in non-P Exodus accounts. Interestingly, however, the judgment
motif is found in Ezekiels prophecy. Ezek 30.19 clarifies that all
the disasters of Egypt mentioned in Ezek 30.1-18 are YHWHs
judgment of Egypt () . Also, as the announce-
ment of the judgment in Ex 7.4b is immediately followed by the
recognition formula ( : Ex 7.5a), so is the
judgment motif in Ezek 30.19 also combined with the formula
() . The judgment of Egypt in P is described with the
expression with my arm stretched over Egypt (
: Ex 7.5b), which is a dominant expression in Ezekiel used for
the judgment of nations (Ezek 6.14; 14.13; 16.27; 25.13, 16; 35.3).19

The Priestly Wonders

The correspondence between the Priestly Exodus narrative and

Ezekiel is found also in some episodes of the Priestly wonders.
The episodes use imagery especially found in Ezekiels prophecy
against Egypt (Ezek 2932).

34.27, 30; 34.30; 36.11, 23 (36), 38; 37.6, 13, 14, 28; 38.23; 39. 22, 28, and for the
nations in Ezek 25.5, 7, 11; 26.6; 28.22, 23, 26; 35.4, 9, 12, 15; 39.6, 7. The formula is
used also for Egypt in Ezek 29.6, 9 (29); 30.8, 25, 26; 32.15. Also in Isa 49.23, 26;
60.16 are found expressions similar to the Ezekielian recognition formula, but
they are not typically the language of Isaiah.
19
Cf. Isa 5.25; Jer 6.12; 15.6; 51.25; Zeph 1.4; 2.13.
 A Source of P? The Priestly Exodus Account and the Book of Ezekiel 85

1. Crocodile ()

Ezekiels first prophecy against Pharaoh and Egypt begins with an

identification of Pharaoh as a great crocodile ( )in the midst
of the Nile (29.26a).20 In spite of Pharaohs arrogant declaration
that he made the Nile for himself (v. 3b), according to the prophe-
cy, YHWH will draw him out of the channels of the Nile and fling
him with the fishes attached to him into the open field. Pharaoh,
the crocodile, will be eaten by the beasts and birds (vv. 4-5). This
metaphoric imagery of the crocodile and its death initiates the
series of prophecies of judgment of Pharaoh and Egypt. This ima-
gery reminds us, interestingly, of the first Priestly wonder, that is,
to turn Aarons rod into a crocodile before the eyes of Pharaoh
and his servants (Ex 7.9f.).21 As Ezekiels first prophecy against

20
By the most critics here is understood as in elsewhere in the
Scripture, yet, there have been debates about its nature in this specific text,
whether it is a mythical creature such as a sea dragon or merely a crocodile.
Nevertheless, in this text the realistic description of its hunting using a hook
(v. 4), combined with the specific geographical note of Nile and its branches,
supports that here means a crocodile rather than a mythic sea monster. See
also Zimmerli, Ezechiel, 706f.; G. A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Book of Ezekiel (ICC. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1936), 326; M. Greenberg,
Ezekiel 2137: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 22A. New
York: Doubleday, 1997), 601f.; L. C. Allen, Ezekiel 2048, (WBC 29. Dallas: Thomas
Nelson, 1990), 105.
21
The connection between the two passages has long been recognized. See
Greenberg, Ezekiel, 601; N. M. Sarna, Exodus: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the
New JPS Translation: Commentary (Philadelphia; New York: The Jewish publication
Society, 1991), 37; W. Eichrodt, Ezekiel (trans. by C. Quin. OTL. London: SCM Press,
1980), 403, 432433. Some critics render the in Ex 7.9f. as a monstrous crea-
ture such as a sea dragon; see e.g. Dozemann, Exodus, 194ff., 212; J. I. Durham,
Exodus (WBC 3. Waco: Word books, 1987), 89f.; T. E. Fretheim, Exodus. Interpreta-
tion: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: John Knox Press,
1991), 113; Propp, Exodus 116, 322. Also LXX renders it as . See, for the
LXX rendering, D. M. Gurtner, Exodus: A Commentary on the Greek Text of Codex
Vaticanus (Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill, 2013), 265. Yet in
this verse is better understood as a crocodile in relationship with Ezekiel 29 as
well as Egypts affinity to crocodiles in general. It is inappropriate to render it as
a mythical creature, considering that the transformation of the rod happens in
the confined place of the court of Pharaoh and that the Egyptian magicians were
also able to produce the same creatures. Many critics therefore understand the
86 Jaeyoung Jeon

Pharaoh was the metaphor of a crocodile, Aaron, who is deemed a

prophet (, Ex 7.1), starts his mission against Pharaoh with a
transformation wonder producing a crocodile. Likewise, Ezekiels
imagery of the crocodile being eaten by animals (Ezek 29.5b) is
projected in P in that Pharaohs magicians crocodiles are compa-
rably eaten by Aarons crocodile.

2. Blood and Darkness

The imagery of Pharaoh as reappears in Ezekiels prophecy in

Ezek 32.1-8. As most commentators agree, the in this prophe-
cy is a mythical monster (e.g. Isa 51.9f.; Ps 74.13) and therefore
this creature is slaughtered on a cosmic scale,22 which is again
echoed in P. According to Ezek 32.6, for example, YHWH will
drench the mountains and fill the watercourses with the blood of
Pharaoh, the . Comparably, the second Priestly wonder, which
follows the crocodile episode, is the blood that drenches the en-
tire land of Egypt and fills the watercourses (Ex 7.19, 21b). The
grand scale of the Priestly wonder is clearly distinguished from
the non-Priestly blood plague which is limited to the Nile (Ex 7.17,
20b). The close connection between the blood and in Ezekiel
is indirectly implied in the Priestly wonder in that it is Aarons
rod, which once turned to , that brings blood to Egypt (Ex
7.19).

creature as a crocodile (see U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jeru-

salem: Magnes, 1961 [Hebrew]), 94; Greenberg, Ezekiel, 601; Sarna, Exodus, 37;
Eichrodt, ibid.) or simply a sea serpent (see Childs, Exodus, 121f.; C. Houtman,
Exodus 1 (HCOT. Kampen: Leuven: Kok Publ. House; Peeters, 1993), 532; W. H.
Schmidt, Exodus (BK. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 337). My
previous translation of the word as a sea serpent (Call of Moses, 178ff.) should be
corrected as a crocodile.
22
See Zimmerli, Ezechiel, 767f.; Greenberg, Ezekiel, 651. Allen, Ezekiel 2048,
105, 131; D. I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel 2548 (The New International Commentary
on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids Mich. [etc.]: W.B. Eerdmans, 1997), 137,
199ff.; J. Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and
Preaching (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990), 128f., 140. Gunkel already pointed
out the mythic nature of the passage, see H. Gunkel, Schpfung und Chaos in Urzeit
und Endzeit (Gttingen, 1895), 71ff. Cf. Cooke, Ezekiel, 347.
 A Source of P? The Priestly Exodus Account and the Book of Ezekiel 87

Following the blood, YHWHs punishment of the in

Ezekiels prophecy extends its scope to heaven. According to Ezek
32.7f., YHWH will cover heaven and darken the stars, Moon, and
Sun to plunge Egypt into darkness (). Similarly in P, YHWH
brings darkness to the entire land of Egypt for three days (Ex
10.21-23). The Priestly darkness wonder is the seventh one, de-
tached from the wonders of and the blood. Also in Ezekiel, the
darkness (32.7f.) is not necessarily a logical consequence of the
killing of the , but rather loosely attached to the latter.

3. Cosmic Scale: Heaven, Earth, and Sea

The prophecy in Ezek 32.1ff. describes the punishment of Pharaoh

( )in three different natural domains: water, earth, and
heaven. L. Allen therefore points out that the elements of water,
earth and heaven introduce a cosmic dimension appropriate to
the subject of the punishment of Egypt.23 Similarly in P, the won-
ders are arranged by the frame of the three natural domains. As
was indicated in Table 2 above, Aaron and Moses each perform
the wonders in three domains, explicitly directing water (),
land (), and heaven ().

4. The Hardening Formula

It is a long-standing consensus among the critics that there exist

two different sets of wording for describing the hardening of
Pharaohs heart in the Plagues story: non-P text uses ( usually
Hiph.) + ( Ex 7.14; 8.11, 28; 9.7, 34; 10.1), whereas the Priestly
text (including R) prefers ( mostly Qal) + ( Ex 7.13. 22; 8.15;
9.12; 9.35; 10.20, 27; 11.10; 14.4, 8, 17) and rarely + ( Ex
7.3).24 The two Priestly expressions appear very rarely elsewhere
in the Bible, yet both are found in Ezekiel: + in Ezek 3.7 (cf.
Prov 28.14) and + in Ezek 2.4 (cf. Josh 11.20).

23
See Allen, Ezekiel 20-48, 131f.
24
See e.g Van Seters, Moses, 87ff.; Jeon, Call of Moses, 179ff.; 231ff.
88 Jaeyoung Jeon

5. Parting the Sea

As mentioned above, commentators agree that the in Ezek

32.1ff. is a mythical sea monster that requires slaughter on a cos-
mic scale, whereas the creature in Ezek 29 is a crocodile of the
Nile that can be hunted by a hook (Ezek 29.4).25 We may therefore
observe alteration of the concept of in Ezekiels prophecies
against Egypt, from a crocodile to a mythic sea monster. Such a
conceptual shift in Ezekiel may assist us in understanding the last
Priestly wonder, parting the Sea (Ex 14), in terms of a modified
Combat Myth.
A primordial divine battle with a cosmic sea monster, which is
often associated with dividing the sea and creating the world, is a
wide-spread element in Ancient Near Eastern myths of Babylonia,
Canaan, Egypt, and Greece. The influence of the so-called Combat
Myth in the various biblical traditions has been broadly recogni-
zed already by Gunkel, and recently W. H. C. Propp persuasively
pointed out its influence on the Priestly Sea narrative.26 Accor-
ding to Propp, YHWHs splitting (, Ex 14.21b) of the Sea of
Reeds is a demythologized manifestation of the Combat Myth in
which a deity defeats the primordial sea monster. If we put this
claim together with the alteration of the nature of in Ezekiel,
we may say that in the first Priestly wonder Pharaoh is identified
as a crocodile as in Ezek 29.1ff.; in the last Priestly wonder, which
is the high point of the narrative, Pharaoh the sea monster, with
an echo of Ezek 32, is defeated by YHWH through his parting of
the Sea.27
This picture brings us back to the Priestly creation account. It
has frequently been perceived that YWHWs parting of the sea
and revealing the dry land ( )in Ex 14.16, 22 is connected to
the similar P account in Genesis 1, where God divides the primor-

25
See Greenberg, Ezekiel, 651.
26
See H. Gunkel, Schpfung und Chaos, 71ff.; Propp, Exodus 116, 560f. See also
Dozemann, Exodus, 298ff.
27
Similarly, F. Bernard claims that P portrays Egypt as an extension of the
chaos dragon. See F. Bernard, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradi-
tion (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), 113.
 A Source of P? The Priestly Exodus Account and the Book of Ezekiel 89

dial water and reveals the dry land ( ;Gen 1.6f., 10).28 Also, the
sea monster is mentioned in Gen 1.21, demythologized as one
of the aquatic beings created by God. With regard to the connec-
tion between Genesis 1 and Exodus 14, therefore, Propp argues
that the Combat Myth is displaced to Exodus 14 from the Creation
of Genesis 1, thrust forward from mythic time into (supposedly)
historical time.29
The Priestly accounts of Creation and building of the Taber-
nacle are often compared to the Babylonian creation myth Enma
Eli, according to which Marduk creates the world by defeating
the primordial sea or sea monster Tiamat, and completes creation
by building his temple.30 If we read the Priestly Sea narrative as a
demythologized manifestation of the mythic element of defeating
the sea monster (), we would have in P a complete set of the
major mythic elements from Enma Eli, that is, the creation, the
defeat of a Sea Monster, and the building of the temple.31

28
See e.g. C. Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition
of the Book of Leviticus. (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 74; T. Rmer, From the
Call of Moses to the Parting the Sea, in T. B. Dozeman at al (eds.,), The Book of
Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (VTSupp 164. Leiden: Brill, 2014),
121-150, esp. 146.
29
See Propp, Exodus 116, 560f. The parentheses are original.
30
See M. Weinfled, Shabbath, Temple and the Enthronment of the Lord -
the Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Gen 1:12:3, in A. Caquot and M. Delcor
(eds.), Mlanges bibliques et orientaux en lhonneur de M. Henri Cazelles (Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 501512. See also, recently, Nihan, From
Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 74; T. Rmer, The Exodus Narrative According to the
Priestly Document, in S. Shectman, and J. S. Baden (eds.) The Strata of the Priestly
Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (Zrich: TVZ, Theologischer
Verlag, 2009), 157174, esp. 160f.; K. L. Sparks, Enma Elish and Priestly Mime-
sis: Elite Emulation in Nascent Judaism. JBL 126 (2007): 625648; J. Calaway, The
Sabbath and the Sanctuary: Access to God in the Letter to the Hebrews and Its Priestly
Context (Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 37f. For comparisons between the Priestly taber-
nacle account and other ANE temple building accounts, see A. S. Kapelrud,
Temple Building, A Task for Gods and Kings, Orientalia NS 32 (1963): 5662; M.
Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford, 1972), 244254; V. A.
Hurowitz, The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle, JAOS 105 (1985):
2130.
31
See also Rmer, The Exodus Narrative According to the Priestly Docu-
ment, 160.
90 Jaeyoung Jeon

IV. Conclusions

From the above discussion, several notable aspects of the literary

influence of one passage on another can be illustrated. Firstly,
whereas the language of Ezekiel 20 is closely reflected in Exodus
6, the influence of Ezek 29-32 on the Priestly wonders is rather
indirect: the imagery of the former is alluded in the latter, with
less explicit logical connections between them. Such a difference
in the type or degree of literary influence might have been caused
by different authorship of the two Ezekiel texts and their diffe-
rent relationships to the Priestly writer. Also, it is not impossible
that the differences represent different stages of the composition
of the Priestly text.
Secondly, the imagery of the crocodile or sea monster, blood,
and darkness in Ezekiel 32 is used metaphorically to vividly ex-
press the judgment of Pharaoh and Egypt. In the Priestly won-
ders, however, the metaphoric imagery of Ezekiels prophecies is
materialized (real crocodiles appear; real blood drenches the land
and fills watercourses; real darkness covers Egypt). If it is Ps ge-
neral tendency to historicize the mythic elements from ANE
myths, as Propp and others argue, then, similarly, P materializes
and historicizes also the mythical imagery of Ezek 32.
Lastly, in many cases, P is not only dependent on the Ezekiel
text but also develops particular themes based on the pre-P Exo-
dus narrative or its own literary invention. For instance, the
Priestly version of the commissioning of Moses in Exodus 6 con-
tains the motif of the covenant with the patriarchs (v. 4), which is
absent in Ezek 20. A redaction critical implication of such an ex-
plicit mention of the patriarchal covenant in this verse has been
much discussed in recent Pentateuch studies, especially in terms
of the literary connection between the Patriarchal and Exodus
narratives.32 Nevertheless, either this motif is purely a literary
invention by P33 or simply a reception or creative development of
32
See, for the detailed discussion of this issue, K. Schmid, Genesis and the
Moses Story: Israels Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible (trans. J. D. Nogalski. Winona
Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 271ff.; Jeon, Call of Moses, 200ff.
33
See e.g. E. Otto, Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion, in
M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus (BETL 126, Leuven: Leuven Univer-
 A Source of P? The Priestly Exodus Account and the Book of Ezekiel 91

pre-Priestly material,34 the presence of the motif in P lacking in

Ezek 20 indicates that the former represents a further developed
stage than the latter. Also, arguably, the priestly wonders of the
crocodile and the blood are based on the non-Priestly episodes of
Mosess staff turning into a snake (Ex 4.24) and the plague of
blood (Ex 7.1425*), respectively.35 These may be indicators, parti-
cularly for understanding the direction of literary influence bet-
ween Ezekiel and P, which is still an issue under ongoing debates.
Nevertheless, it would be methodologically inappropriate to
apply this conclusion to the entire text of Ezekiel and P. Recent

sity Press, 1996), 61111, esp. 101111; K. Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story,
271ff.; idem, The So-Called Yahwist and the Literary Gap between Genesis and
Exodus, in T. B. Dozeman and K. Schmid (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The
Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (SBLSymS 34. Atlan-
ta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 2950; J. C. Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion
in der Exoduserzhlung (FRLANT 189. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000),
261304; T. Rmer, Exodus 3-4 und die aktuelle Pentateuchdiskussion in R.
Roukema (ed.), The Interpretation of Exodus: Festschrift C. Houtman (Leuven: Peeters,
2006), 6579, esp. 74f.; idem, Israels Vter: Untersuchungen zur Vterthematik im
Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99. Fri-
bourg/Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 552ff.
34
J. Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 3563; idem, The Report of the
Yahwists Demise has been Greatly Exaggerated! in A Farewell to the Yahwist?
143157; idem, The Patriarchs and the Exodus: Bridging the Gap between Two
Origin Traditions, in R. Roukema (ed.), The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in
Honour of Cornelis Houtman (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 115; C. Levin, Der Jahwist
(FRLANT 157. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 317388; idem, The
Yahwist and the Redactional Link between Genesis and Exodus, in A Farewell to
the Yahwist? 131142; E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 22ff., 232ff.; idem, Die literarische Verbindung von
Erzvtern und Exodus: Ein Gesprch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen, in
J. C. Gertz et al. (eds.) Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der
jngsten Diskussion (BZAW 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 119156, esp. 130ff.; D.
Carr, What is Required to Identify Pre-Priestly Narrative Connections between
Genesis and Exodus? Some General Reflections and Specific Cases, in A Farewell
to the Yahwist? 159180. J. Jeon, Call of Moses, 200ff.
35
The recent Pentateuchal scholarship tends to assume post-P date of Ex 4
(e.g. Rmer, Exodus 3-4, 70ff.; Blum, Verbindung, 134; Schmid, Genesis, 188f.;
Gertz, Tradition, 313ff.; Otto, nachpriesterschriftliche, 103ff.), yet see, for
detailed arguments in favor of pre-P date of Ex 4.18 as well as the non-P blood
plague (Ex 7.14ff.*), Jeon, Call of Moses, 125ff., 195ff.
92 Jaeyoung Jeon

biblical scholarship tends to find more editorial texts from the

later Persian period in both Ezekiel and P, which makes the litera-
ry relationship between them more complicated. The simple uni-
directional models for the literary influence may no longer be
tenable; a mutual influence model should be considered, which
requires detailed studies of each relevant passage.