175 THE CONTINUITY OF THE NON-PRIESTLY NARRATIVE multiplied (Exod 1,7.13-14). Pharaoh’s plan in Exod 1,8-12 could not have been written with the priestly narrative in mind, much less been secondarily inserted after the priestly text of Exod 1,7. In Exodus 3, God’s self-description as “the God of your fathers” stands in contradiction to the priestly claim that God revealed himself to the patriarchs as El Shaddai (Exod 6,2) — P never uses the term “God of your fathers” in the patriarchal account. Indeed, the entirety of Exodus 3 — all of which has been deemed to be post-priestly — stands in opposition to the parallel priestly text of Exodus 6. According to Ex- odus 3, God speaks to Moses, announcing that he has heard the cry of the Israelites and will free them from Egypt, in Midian, whereas in P God speaks to Moses — announcing that he has heard the cry of the Israelites and will free them from Egypt — in Egypt; in Exodus 3, Moses is given clear instructions about whom to speak to and in what order, while in Exodus 6 he is given a distinctly different set of in- structions; in Exodus 3, God refers to the Israelites as already being “my people”, while in Exod 6,7, God proclaims that he will take Israel to be his people only after the redemption from Egypt. Exodus 3 does not depend on Exodus 6; it is written as if Exodus 6 did not exist. The location of the Israelites in the separate territory of Goshen in the plagues narrative stands in contradiction to the priestly claim that Jacob’s family originally settled in the territory of Rameses (Gen 47,11). According to the non-priestly Joseph story, the Israelites set- tle in Goshen, apart from the Egyptians, because they are shepherds, and shepherds are abhorrent to the Egyptians (Gen 46,34), while ac- cording to P they settle in Rameses because it is the best land in Egypt (47,11). The isolation of the Israelites in Goshen also contradicts the priestly claim that when the Israelites multiplied, they filled the land (Exod 1,7). This distinction is played out in the plagues narrative: according to the non-priestly story, the Israelites do not suffer from the plagues that strike the Egyptians because they live apart from them, but in the priestly plagues narrative the Israelites are inter- mingled with the Egyptians, such that they have to specially mark their houses so as to be spared from the death of the first-born. The emphasis on the Israelites living in Goshen thus creates two distinct inconsistencies with the priestly text. The difficulty with these contradictions in the supposedly post- priestly passages is two-fold. First, they show neither agreement with nor even knowledge of the priestly texts on which they are purportedly based. This raises the question of what, precisely, © Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati