TO THE PARENT PAGEClick here to go to the parent page.
I invite you!
dr Wojciech Kosek

There are Dr. Wojciech Kosek’s footnotes
for
Part V of the exegetical method to discover units of Ex 1-18.

[226] Cf. N. H. Smith (ed.), ספר תורה נביאים וכתובים, op.cit. Cf. Table I in the point 1.2.1. of this dissertation.

[227] For many biblical scholars, Ex 13:17-14:31 is a specific literary unit: cf. M. Noth, Das zweite Buch Mose. Exodus, Göttingen 1958, p. 80: for the text, the author gives the title “Das Wunder am Meer” (Miracle in the sea). J. Plastaras, Und Rettet Sie aus Ägypten, Stuttgart 1970, p. 133; T. W. Mann, The Pillar of Cloud in the Red Sea Narrative, “Journal of Biblical Literature” 90 /1 (1971), p. 15.

[228] On the importance of the bones cf.: Gen 50:25; Josh 24:32; 1Sa 31:13; 2Sa 21:12-14; 1Kings 13:31; 2Kings 23:18; 1Chr 10:12; 1Macc 13:25; Psa 34:21; Sir 46:12; 49:10. 15; Jer 8:1; Bar 2:24; Ezek 37:1-14. Cf. also J. L. Ska, Le Passage de la mer: Étude de la construction, du style et de la symbolique d’Ex 14,1-31 (Analecta Biblica, 109), Rome 1986, p. 176: the author points out the importance of the act of bringing out Joseph’s bones from the earth, from the Egyptian land – it is the beginning of the process of Israel’s exodus from the state of captivity, the beginning of Israel’s birth as the people of God. According to Ska, Ex 13:17-22 is a passage between the story about plagues and Passover and the story about crossing the sea. Ska indicates that Israel has broken with her Egyptian past (which is why Moses is digging up Joseph’s bones), and all of the people have started to walk out for a new, unknown world. Ex 14:1-31 talks about how the definitive transition to this new dimension of existence takes place. See on the Internet: See on the Internet – click here, please!

[229] Cf. B. Polok, Język hebrajski. Gramatyka, Opole 1996, p. 26.

[230] Cf. A. Spreafico, Księga Wyjścia, op.cit., p. 80.

[231] This text consists of three parts: 1-14; 15-25; 26-31 – cf. Ibid. p. 80.

[232] Cf. A. Spreafico, Księga Wyjścia, op.cit., p. 80; J. L. Ska, Le Passage de la mer: Étude de la construction, du style et de la symbolique d’Ex 14,1-31, art.cit., p. 179: The author characterizes three consecutive parts of Ex 14:1-31 (1-14: in key places 3 times יהוה; 15-25: in key places 3 times יהוה; 26-31: in key places 2 times יהוה and 1 time אלהים) and notes that each of them begins with the speech of God to Moses, and ends with a statement about the saving presence of יהוה in relation to Israel. However, one should add to this valuable observation that the same logic of the beginning/end is in Ex 13:17-22: in verse 17 God also speaks (although the biblical writer did not mention to whom he speaks!); verses 21-22 also crown this part with the statement of the saving presence of יהוה. The number of words used to describe God (אלהים or יהוה) is similar here: 13:17-22: five; in other parts: six.

[233] Even traveling in the desert at night is more comfortable than during the hot day: cf. S. Hałas, Pustynia miejscem próby i spotkania z Bogiem. Wybrane zagadnienia biblijnej teologii pustyni [Desert as a Place of Trial and Meeting with God. Selected Issues of the Biblical Theology of Desert], Kraków 1999, p. 251.

[234] It is worth noting that supporters of ‘source theory’ point out in this pericope that it is necessary to divide its canonical text into different sources because they consider two descriptions to be contradictory: 1. Pharaoh’s decision to release the Israelites (Ex 12:30-33). 2. The regret of Pharaoh concerning their escape, and finally his will to pursue them (Ex 14:5-6). However, an inspired commentator in the Book of Wisdom (19:1-5, especially 19:4) solves this difficulty otherwise: God predicted that the Egyptians would forget what had happened, even after suffering from the death of their firstborns! Cf. B. Poniży, Księga Mądrości. Od egzegezy do teologii, op.cit., pp. 82-83: their hardness in the evil was the reason for their blindness. This biblical scholar also states that this thought is indeed an original explanation, never seen before!

[235] Ex 7-10 shows ten miracles against Pharaoh and his people, but does not contain a single statement that the people of Israel witnessed them! It is only in the other books of Scripture that one can read about it – cf. especially clearly in Deut 29:1.

[236] Cf. Ex 32:11; Deut 3:24; 4:34; 5:15; 6:21; 7:8. 19; 9:26; 11:2; 26:8; Psa 136:11-12; Jer 32:21; Dan 9:15. One searched in BibleWorks 6.0 with two successive commands for WTM in the Command Center: 'חזק@{na}* *2 יד and 'יד *2 חזק @{na}*.

[237] In Ex 4:10 and 14:31, Moses is called ‘the servant of God.’ It means, he is the one who – through cooperation with God – often showed in an extraordinary way that his goal is not to serve to himself nor to gain appreciation in the eyes of the Egyptians or the Israelites but to serve God and the revelation of God and His glory and His kindness towards Israel. Cf. W. Zimmerli, J. Jeremias, The Servant of God (Studies of Biblical Theology, 20), London 1965, p. 21 (עֶבֶד), p. 38 (θεράπων).

[238] Cf. A. Vanhoye, Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrew, op.cit., p. 19-20: the change of literary genre is one of the six basic ancient techniques of literary separation of pericopes, recognized by the author in the world of Jewish-Hellenistic culture of the first century after Christ. These techniques were elaborated in the preceding centuries of development, so their use by the editor of the Book of Exodus about six centuries before Christ should not be surprising. Cf. also T. Jelonek, List do Hebrajczyków [Letter to the Hebrews], Kraków 2005, pp. 58-59: the author has paid precise attention to the logic of the Hebrew structure of the Letter to the Hebrews, discovered by A. Vanhoye: in the successive parts-elements of the structure, two literary genres occur alternately (doctrinal lecture/encouragement). A similar phenomenon now exposes in the Book of Exodus: the pericope 6:2-11:10 is a narrative, 12:1-13:16 is a presentation of the law of liturgy, 13:17-14:31 is a narrative, 15:1-21 is a liturgical song, 15:22-18:27 is a narrative. It is worth noting that to fix the boundaries between pericope 1:1-6:1 and 6:2-11:10 is not possible using the criterion of the literary genre change. It is probably the reason why in the Hebrew text transmitted by Tradition, between verses 6:1 and 6:2, there is a particularly distinctive sign of the end/beginning of the pericope – see Table I in 1.2.1 of this dissertation. Cf. also about another literary phenomenon – the symmetry of elements: T. Jelonek, List do Hebrajczyków, op.cit., pp. 71-72.

[239] The translation of Biblia Tysiąclecia 4 does not reflect this.

[240] Their characteristic feature is the dance accompanying the singing and the musical instruments used – תֹּף (15:20) – they were applied, according to some exegetes, in temple worship: cf. D. Arbel, Questions about Eve’s Iniquity, Beauty, and Fall: The «Primal Figure» in Ezekiel 28:11-19 and Genesis Rabbah Traditions of Eve, “Journal of Biblical Literature” 124/4 (2005), p. 648.

[241] Cf. B. Polok, Język hebrajski. Gramatyka, op.cit., p. 26.

[242] Cf. G. Fischer, Das Schilfmeerlied Exodus 15 in seinem Kontext, “Biblica” 77 (1996) p. 32-33.

[243] Cf. Biblia Poznańska 3, vol. 1., p. 114, the footnote to Ex 15:1. Commentators point here to ancient elements: orthographic peculiarities, similarity to Ugaritic expressions, and Canaan literary composition of verses 6. 11. 16. – cf. W. Borowski, Kantyk Mojżesza i Miriam (Wj 15,1-21) [Canticle of Moses and Miriam (Ex 15, 1-21)], “Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny” 29 (1976), p. 255f; B. Poniży, Reinterpretacja Wyjścia Izraelitów z Egiptu w ujęciu Księgi Mądrości [Reinterpretation of the Israelites’ Exodus from Egypt in the Interpretation of the Book of Wisdom], Poznań 1991², p. 39.

[244] Cf. R. Meynet, Wprowadzenie do hebrajskiej retoryki biblijnej, op.cit., p. 187: the author draws attention to the key significance of the double question in verse 11, around which the structure of this song was built; Meynet also points to the occurrence of an analogous structure in the anthem of Moses and the Lamb in Rev 15:3b-4, where the question praising God also occupies a central place. S. Łach, Księga Wyjścia. Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz, op.cit., pp. 161-165. The author states that this is inspired, beautiful, ancient poetry, composed of two parts: 15:1-11: God’s victory over the gods of Egypt, His judgment over them; 15:12-21: bringing Israel into the Promised Land. B. Poniży, Reinterpretacja Wyjścia Izraelitów z Egiptu w ujęciu Księgi Mądrości, op.cit., pp. 37 and 39. This author makes a different division: 1. Moses’ canticle: introduction (1b), part I (15:2-10), Part III (15:11-17), conclusion (15:18); 2. Miriam’s canticle (15:21). The author considers verses 15:1b and 15:21b as a refrain. He also points to the origination of the hymn from the liturgy (p. 39 and 41) but assumes that verses 15:19-20 do not belong to the hymn, so he does not analyze them. However, such a critical approach, in which poetry and prose cannot be mixed within one coherent literary unit of the text, in the opinion of other exegetes is not necessarily correct: cf. F. Rienecker, G. Maier, and others, Leksykon biblijny, op.cit., p. 415.

[245] Cf. J. K. Hoffmeier, The Arm of God Versus the Arm of Pharaoh in the Exodus Narratives, “Biblica” 67 (1986), pp. 379, 384-386. The author made an interesting analytical comparison of biblical expressions “with a strong hand” and “with an extended arm” with analogous Egyptian expressions from the 12th dynasty (after 1800 BC): hymns praising the Pharaohs-winners show them as powerful men conquering other nations with their ‘powerful hand’: “the arm of king is regarded as the vehicle by which he conquers!” The author mentions analysis of the Letters of Amarna (about 1400-1360 BC) and, in particular, the letter of the king of Jerusalem Abdu-Hieb, where he in three places writes that he became king of Jerusalem thanks to the hand of the mighty Pharaoh, while the original word “hand” sounds similar to the Hebrew זְרֹעַ – hand, arm, force. These letters show that hagiographers, belonging to the same cultural circle of Canaan of the 15th century BC, had also known this Egyptian expression. The glorification of the “power of the hand” of God, reserved, within the cultural canons of Egypt, for the Pharaohs-winners, shows God יְהוָה as the king-victor, stronger than the previous unquestionable ruler: the Pharaoh. The author noted that similar expressions do not appear in the Book of Joshua and the Book of Judges, although these texts present conquest as a holy war. Based on these lexical analyses, the author estimated the date of the song Ex 15:1-21 to be no later than 1200 years before Christ.

[246] Cf. Biblia Poznańska 3, vol. 1, p. 114, the footnote to Ex 15:12: in verses 12-18, there is the anticipation of future events.

[247] Cf. T. Hieke, Der Exodus in Psalm 80. Geschichtstopik in den Psalmen, [in:] M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus. Redaction – Reception – Interpretation, op.cit., pp. 553-554. The author notes that the text Ex 15:17 – in contrast to Psa 80:9 – not only generally shows the settlement of the people of Israel in the Promised Land, but also distinguishes Zion as a place chosen by God for religious purposes.

[248] Cf. W. Borowski, Kantyk Mojżesza i Miriam (Wj 15,1-21), art.cit., p. 256: the author draws attention to the cult origin of the canticle of Moses and Miriam, the justification of which is primarily the verse 21: the women took the tambourines and, going after Miriam, danced and sang in honor of God. The aim of this cult on the day of the passage of the Sea of Reeds was to praise God the Saviour; in the coming days, years and generations Israelites did the same during holidays – the aim was to make present the salvific deeds of God. The author also points out (p. 255/256) that the origin of this cult is connected with the day of crossing the sea, and not with a later period.

[249] More precisely: the Hebrew text says: יְהוָה יִמְלֹךְ לְעֹלָם וָעֶד – Yahweh will reign forever and everlasting.

[250] Cf. W. Borowski, Kantyk Mojżesza i Miriam (Wj 15,1-21), art.cit., p. 257. The author proves the antiquity of the word ‘King’ as the title of God. It was already used in poems from the judges’ era, in Num 23:21; Deut 33:5; 1Sam 8:7, for example.

[251] In light of the subsequent study of this dissertation, one may say that God is the King as the One who has just made a covenant with Israel, passing with her between the halves of the divided Sea of Reeds.

[252] Cf. G. Fischer, Das Schilfmeerlied Exodus 15 in seinem Kontext, art.cit., p. 40.

[253] This name of God occurs in Ex 15:1-21 twelve times. One searched with BibleWorks 6.0, giving in the Command Center: .יהוה.

[254] The biblical scholars point out the meaning of the contrast between the diseases as punishments sent to the Egyptians, disobeying God commanding them, and the assurance of God for Israelites that He will be healing them, but under the condition of obeying His commandments by them: see S. Hałas, Pustynia miejscem próby i spotkania z Bogiem. Wybrane zagadnienia biblijnej teologii pustyni, op.cit., p. 192. About the meaning of penalty, being an essential element of the covenant, see in the next parts of this dissertation. Cf. also: N. Lohfink, «I am Yahweh, your Physician» (Exodus 15:26). God, Society and Human Health in Postexilic Revision of Pentateuch (Exod. 15:2b, 26), op.cit., pp. 35-95.

[255] Biblical scholars have seen an essential connection between the covenant (ברית) and the Sabbath (שׁבת) as its sign (אות) in Ex 31:16: observing the Sabbath makes Israel perceive God as the One who sanctifies His people. One should note that in the framework of the discussed pericope, the task of sanctifying Israel is the primary goal of the described way. Cf. S. Van Den Eynde, Keeping God’s Sabbath: אות and ברית (Exod 31:12-17), [in:] M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus. Redaction – Reception – Interpretation, op.cit., p. 510: “The function of the sign […] is to make Israel recognize YHWH as their sanctifier.”

[256] Biblical scholars using the method of history of forms interpret this literary fact quite differently: as proof that the present canonical text is composed of several smaller texts from different sources. Cf. B. Poniży, Reinterpretacja Wyjścia Izraelitów z Egiptu w ujęciu Księgi Mądrości, op.cit., pp. 44-48: the author refers to Maiberger’s work and shows four layers of text, and then proves that other biblical places (i.e., Num 11:6.7-9; Deu 8:2-4:16; Josh 5:12; Neh 9:15; Psa 78:23-25; Psa 105:40) depend on the narrative about the gift of manna in Ex 16; P. Maibelger, Das Manna. Eine literarische, etymologische und naturkundliche Untersuchung, Wiesbaden 1983, p. 87-222.

[257] Cf. R. Scott Chalmers, Who is the Real El? A reconstruction of the Prophet’s Polemic in Hosea 12:5a, “The Catholic Biblical Quarterly” 68 (2006), p. 630, footnote 66: already Wolff noticed that in the Old Testament there are several parallel occurrences of זכר and שׁם, showing the synonymous meaning of both words in certain contexts: Prov 10:7; Psa 135:13. To the places indicated by Wolff it is worth adding: Ex 3:15; 20:24; 24:13; Josh 23:7; 2Sam 8:18; Job 18:17; Psa 45:18; 85:3; 119:55; Isa 12:4; 26:8. 13; 48:1; 49:1; Jer 11:19; 14:21; 20:9; Hos 2:19; Am 6:10; Zech 13:2. One searched in BibleWorks 6.0, giving in the Command Center: .זכר שׁם. Some of the found verses were not related to the parallelism under consideration.

[258] More on the two primary ways of interpreting Ex 17:8-16 (a. the power of prayer; b. Amalek as a type of people opposed to God) in early Christian exegesis: R. Dietzfelbinger, Exod 17,8-16 in der frühchristlichen Exegese: Einige Anmerkungen, [in:] M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus. Redaction – Reception – Interpretation, op.cit., pp. 603-607. It is worth mentioning, however, that the excessive concentration of the exegete on the figures of Moses or Joshua, people of Israel or Amalekites – does not allow him to fully see the central message of text 17:8-12: God is the most important in this event too! God is the main character of the narrative!

[259] Cf. Biblia Poznańska 3, vol. 1, p. 118 – the footnote to Ex 17:6: the editor wants to identify the place of the water flow out with the place of Moses’ vocation (Ex 3:1) and the place of the commandments giving (Deut 4:10).

[260] Septuagint translates: ‘he came to Mount Horeb’ (ἦλθεν εἰς τὸ ὄρος Χωρηβ). Recently biblical scholars have pointed out that the traditional understanding of the name ‘Horeb’ as the other name for Mount Sinai is not entirely justified. According to these opinions, ‘horeb’ means ‘desert,’ and the covenant made ‘on horeb’ is the covenant made not on Mount Horeb but in the desert (which in Hebrew is referred to as ‘horeb’ – חֹרֵב). Cf. S. Hałas, Pustynia miejscem próby i spotkania z Bogiem. Wybrane zagadnienia biblijnej teologii pustyni, op.cit., pp. 138-141: the author presents his lexical analyses and refers to the opinions of other biblical scholars: B. Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus, translated with an introduction by W. Jacob in association with E. Yaakov, Hoboken 1992, p. 106f; E. Zenger, Wie und wozu die Tora zum Sinai kam. Literarische und Theologische Beobachtungen zu Exodus 19-34, [in:] M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus. Redaction – Reception – Interpretation, op.cit., p. 284: “Zwar wird meist angenommen, Horeb sei die dtn/dtr Bezeichnung für den Berg Sinai, doch ist dies nicht so sicher; vgl. dazu B. Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus. Hoboken, 1992, p. 1062-1063: «What was ho-rev? This was the Desert of Sinai whenever it was to be designated by its own name […] For that reason the rock of Ex 17:6 is b’ho-rev, and all verses in Deut use ho-rev when they deal with the people, who found themselves in the desert at the foot of the mountain, in contrast to Moses, who was with God on Sinai […] There never was a mountain named Horeb […] Deuteronomy does not designate the mountain of the giving of the law by name at all: it does not use ‘Sinai,’ or ‘Horeb,’ but simply called it ‘the mountain’ (ha-har, Deut 1:6; 2:3; 4:11; 5:4.5.19.20; 9:10.15.21; 10:1.3.4.5.10)». Auch Ex 33:6 ist, trotz des ersten Eindrucks, kein Gegenargument: har horev meint auch hier nicht den Berg Horeb, sondern den Berg (sc. Sinai) in der Wüste Horeb.” Translation of the last sentence: “Ex 33:6 is also, despite the first impression, not a counterargument: har horev does not mean Mount Horeb here either, but the mountain (i.e., Sinai) in the desert of Horeb.” These analyses, however, ignore Ex 33:6 and 1Kings 19:8, assuming that the term ‘Mount Horeb’ is ‘ambiguous.’ It does not seem to be the right view because of: 1. The syntax עד הר is in five places in the Bible: Deut 1:20; 3:8; Josh 12:1; 1Kings 19:8; 2Chr 19:4: up to the Amorite Mountains / up to the Hermon Mountains / up to the Hermon Mountains / unto Horeb the mount of God / up to the Ephraim Mountains – one searched in BibleWorks 6.0, giving in the Command Center: 'עד הר. 2. One should also note that Sinai/Horeb – it is not a mountain with one top. In light of the Bible, God Himself first stood in Rephidim on the rock of this mountain (Ex 17:6), on one of its smaller hills. Then Moses stood there during the struggle of the people against the Amalekites (cf. Ex 17:9. 10 – this place is not called הַר – a mountain, but גִּבְעָה – a hill, height, elevation), while (cf. Ex 19:1ff) after leaving Rephidim and encamping at the foot of the mountain (called Mount Sinai here), Moses was climbing up to the mountain’s top many times to speak with God, who was calling him there. For the time of the conclusion of God’s Covenant with the Israelites, they were called (cf. Ex 19:13) to climb a little on its hillside (הֵמָּה יַעֲלוּ בָהָר) in order to physically experience closeness to God, who descended to the top of His Mountain and revealed Himself in magnificent theophany at its very top. The covenant was therefore made on Mount Horeb / Mount Sinai, not in the desert (or ‘horeb’). A comparison of the statement in Mal 3:22 “Remember the law of Moses my servant, which I enjoined him on Horeb, the statutes and ordinances for all Israel” with the words ‘laws’ (חֻקִּים) and ‘rules’ (וּמִשְׁפָּטִים) in Deu 4:5-14 also leads to the same conclusion. Similarly is in Deut 5:1-6, including the parallelism of verses 2 and 4: “1 Moses summoned all Israel and said to them, “Hear, O Israel, the statutes and decrees which I proclaim in your hearing this day, that you may learn them and take care to observe them. 2 The Lord, our God, made a covenant with us at Horeb (בְּחֹרֵב); 3 The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today. 4 The Lord spoke with you face to face at this mountain from the midst of the fire (בָּהָר מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ). 5 Since you were afraid of the fire and would not go up the mountain, I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to announce to you these words of the Lord.” Cf. also a subsequent part of Moses’ speech, in this 10:4: “The Lord then wrote on them, as he had written before, the ten commandments which he spoke to you at this mountain from the midst of the fire (בָּהָר מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ) on the day of the assembly. After the Lord had given them to me, I came […].” God was on the mountain, in the midst of the fire. God from there proclaimed Ten Words of Covenant to Israel, which, by His command, was all gathered at the foot of the mountain, forming a holy congregation (הַקָּהָל).

[261] Desert people meet at the springs; Moses learned the topography of the desert from the Midianites; it after years turned out to be so salutary: cf. S. Hałas, Pustynia miejscem próby i spotkania z Bogiem. Wybrane zagadnienia biblijnej teologii pustyni, op.cit., p. 96. Cf. also the reference to the image of water in the announcement of a new departure in the Prophet Isaiah: H. Simian-Yofre, Exodo en Deuteroisaías, “Biblica” 61/4 (1980), pp. 543-544.

[262] Cf. M. Noth, The Old Testament Library. Exodus. A Commentary, translated by J. S. Bowden, Philadelphia 1962, pp. 31 and 148: Noth indicates in the comments to Ex 3:1 and 18:5 that the Midianites had to know stable places with water in the desert to be able to graze there. Such a place was the mountain of God, Horeb. In the days before Moses, the Midianites and Israelites could meet there as on mountain for the sacrifice offerings.

[263] Biblical scholars have noticed the importance of the order in which the biblical writer mentions individual persons – Jethro, Sephora, sons. Because respect requires the biblical writer to mention within one sentence more important persons before the less important, the change of this order indicates its literary (rhetorical) function. Cf. Ex 18:5 – the sons are listed here before their mother, Sephora, which contrasts with 18:2-4. Ex 18:2-5 is, therefore, of a chiastic structure. So the biblical writer points out that this text constitutes a whole, an introduction to the next part of the narrative. Possessive pronouns for pointing the sons are: her (בָנֶיהָ – of Sephora: 18:3.6) / his (בָנָיו – of Moses: 18:6). This change, done by the biblical writer, also has meaning: it is now the end of the time when the sons were under the authority of the mother and were, therefore, more ‘her’ than ‘his’: cf. L. J. De Regt, Aspects of the Syntax And Rhetoric of Participant Reference in Exodus, [in:] M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus. Redaction – Reception – Interpretation, op.cit., p. 520.

[264] Scholars usually assume that it is the theophany and the conclusion of the Covenant at Sinai that is the realization of this sign: cf. J. Nawrot, Zapowiedź misji w mocy (Wj 3,7-12), art.cit., p. 19.

[265] As for the plural of verbs, the situation is: in Ex 3:12, the verb תַּעַבְדוּן (you will serve) has the plural, and in Ex 18:12 the collective subject of the phrase וַיָּבֹא אַהֲרֹן וְכֹל זִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֶאֱכָל־לֶחֶם has the plural (and Moses and all the elders of Israel came to eat bread). Biblical scholars pointed out that it is only in this first revelation of God to Moses (Ex 3:12) that the plural form ‘you’ occurs for the first time: cf. J. Nawrot, Zapowiedź misji w mocy (Wj 3,7-12), art.cit., p. 19. One should add that there is also in both biblical places an identical form of הָאֱלֹהִים, rightly considered unnatural in Ex 3:12 by commentators. Maybe the connection between the two places is a sufficient reason for its use in Ex 3:12? M. Noth, however, deals with this issue differently: cf. Ibid., p. 19, footnote 48.

[266] Cf. R. E. Watts, The Legal Characterization of Moses in the Rhetoric of the Pentateuch, “Journal of Biblical Literature” 117/3 (1998), p. 426.

[267] Cf. Table I in the point 1.2.1. of this work.

[268] Cf. B. Polok, Język grecki. Gramatyka, op.cit., p. 27.

[269] Jewish wise men pointed to the need to purify Israel at the stage preceding the conclusion of the covenant at Horeb / Sinai: cf. T. Jelonek, Medytacje przed Menorą. Specyficzny wykład historii Izraela. Część II [Meditations Before Menorah. A Specific Lecture on the History of Israel. Part III], [in:] Idem (ed.), Z badań nad Biblią [From the Research on the Bible] (4), Kraków 2002, pp. 95-97.