Twofold Approach

הוציא AND הצלה A TWOFOLD APPROACH TO THE EXODUS

BY J. WIJNGAARDS
Oosterbeek

Reprinted From: VETUS TESTAMENTUM QUARTERLY PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION OF OLD TESTAMENT SCHOLARS
VOL. XV, No 1, 1965
E.J. BRILL, LEIDEN

Among the formulas expressing the Exodus happening the two most widely used are הוציא and הצלה.[1]  The rigid form in which they have been shaped, their relation to certain legal and cultic traditions, their amazing universality throughout the Old Testament writings and their very contents justify another careful scrutiny.[2]  What are the distinct features of either formula? Can either or both be connected to one of the acknowledged traditions? Could we retrace the development of the two formulas to their early origins? In the following brief outline we will first sketch the factual observations that can be made regarding either formula, and then attempt to reconstruct their origins, development and mutual relationship.

1. THE הוציא FORMULA

a) The formula has three fixed elements: the verb הוציא, the object (Israel or its equivalents) and the determination “from Egypt” (or its equivalents). Its original form may have been:

” I liberated you from Egypt”. In no less than eighty-three cases the classical Exodus from Egypt is recalled by means of this formula.[3] Considering that the verb הוציא occurs 277 times in the Hebrew books of the Old Testament, more than a quarter of its use has been dedicated to express the Exodus happening! The rigidity of formulation may also be illustrated by the fact that out of the eighty-three formulas thirty–five are phrased in the “Icb–du Stil“.

b) To obtain a general picture of the formula’s universality and its relation to various literary strands, this survey will be helpful:[4]

It is clear from this survey that the formula lies embedded particularly in the legislative parts of the Old Testament. Moreover, legal traditions such as Dt-Law, P and HG employ it to an almost complete exclusion of the הצלה formula (see part 2 b). Another striking feature of the  הוציא formula is its absence among the early prophets (Isaias, Osee, Amos). These are significant facts that will have to be explained.

c) The הוציא formula expresses a strict liberation from slavery. The chronological note “from the day on which they left Egypt” יצא[1] should not mislead us. יצא itself is the technical term for the “going free” of a slave, the redemption of a land, the “being at liberty” of a divorced woman or of a prisoner.[2] Although יצא may indicate the mere fact of departure or of origin,[3] it is inclined to connotate the departure from a place of bondage or oppression. Causative הוציא is in line with this development when it quite naturally expresses liberation from a prison.[4]  That הוציא in the formula has the meaning of “setting free from slavery”, can be deduced from the frequent addition: “from the house of slavery” (JE; Dt-Law; Pre-Dt; Jer),[5] “from being their slaves” (P, HG),[6] “from the yoke of the Egyptians” (P)[7] or “from that melting-pot of iron” (Add; Dt; Jer).[8] Since these additions are found in all the literary layers that employ the formula, one is justified to consider them a normal feature of the formula itsel The addition is the authentic interpretation of the formula, explicitating the connotation of rescue inherent in the verb הוציא itself. Is it from this outstanding liberation from Egypt that הוציא becomes a favourite term applied to other liberating acts performed by Jahweh?).[9]

d) The formula has been enlarged at times by the phrase “with a mighty hand and an extended arm” (Dt – Law; Ps).[10] Variations of this theme are: “with a mighty hand” (J; Dt-Law; Jer; Ez; Dan),[11] “by the power of His hand” (J),[12] “with great judgements” (P)[13] and some other longer elaborations (Dt-Law; Add; Jer).[14] There can be little doubt about the interpretation of these phra They convey the powerful, miraculous manner in which Jahweh has liberated His people. Most likely they derive from the very graphic and anthropomorphic image of Jahweh at the Sea of Reeds: the arm stretched forward against the pursuing enemy, clenching His fist in wrathful indignation.[15] It is fully in line with Israel’s earliest belief that the liberation from Egypt was fought by a warlike intervention on the part of a militant God, Jahweh, who destroyed the armed forces of Egypt.[16] We may infer from it that the הוציא formula was originally understood to refer directly to the liberating act at the Sea of Reeds, and only later extended to include Jahweh’s series of signs and wonders performed in Egypt itself.

e) Of special interest is the function which the הוציא formula assumes in relation to laws and prescriptions. In the most ancient record of written laws which the Old Testament contains, the decalogue, it serves the purpose of recalling the covenant’s historical prologue[17]. It is easy to understand how the historical prologue – which is meant to establish the sovereign’s right to his vassal’s fidelity[18] – became to be considered the reason motivating the stipulations. If children ask: “Why do we observe these laws?”, they have to be instructed in the historical account of Jahweh’s deeds[19]. In this light it is a weighty observation that the הוציא formula, all by itself, rather often possesses the force of motivating either all laws in general (P; HG)[20], or of particular laws (]; Dt-Law; Dt; Add; P; HG). Regarding these latter ones it will cause no surprise to find that it was attached to the precept forbidding the cult of “other gods” – the main stipulation of the pact!![21] -by the deuteronomistic authors (Dt-Law; Dt; Add)[22]. We find it in the Paschal rite to explain the raison d’etre of the feast as a remembrance of Jahweh’s liberation (J; Dt-Law; P)[23], just as the firstborn have to be dedicated to Jahweh since He spared them in Egypt (J)[24]. Later the formula serves as motive-clause to such particular laws as: the prescriptions on the tabernacle (P)[25], the demand for justice in trade (HG)[26], prohibitions regarding the slavery of fellow-Israelites (HG)[27] and the ritual laws on the feast of tabernacles (HG)[28]. Apart from the fact of this typically covenantal tendency to justify law by history, there is the noteworthy development from motivating the whole law (decalogue) and the main stipulation to functioning as motive-clause for particular prescription

The formula’s relation to the covenant could hardly have been proved more convincingly.

It needs further explanation why according to all legal traditions the function of justifying the law is attributed to the הוציא formula all by itself. Why is it that – contrary to the ordinary scheme of the Heilsgeschichte which includes both Exodus and Landgiving[29] – in so many cases the motivation of laws consists in a sole reminder of the liberation from Egypt without reference to the other outstanding benefit wrought by Jahweh: the Landgiving?[30]

f) It would seem that the הוציא formula was only introduced into the Exodus-Landgiving scheme at a later stag Some of the earliest independent texts containing the Exodus and the Landgiving do not employ the הוציא formula (Ps; Am)[31]. The jahwistic-Elohistic account which is itself structured on the two themes of liberation from Egypt and conquest of the promised land, employs הוציא in but two of the eleven passages referring to the salvific history of these two themes combined[32]. This is all the more telling as the הוציא formula itself is well known to JE (fifteen occurrences)! Perhaps the oldest records of הוציא smoothly joined to the Landgiving theme are the two versions of the so-called Deuteronomistic Creed[33]. In later passages recalling both Exodus and Landgiving the הוציא formula is a regular feature (Add; Jer; Ez ; P; HG; Ps)[34]. One may deduce from these observations that הוציא did not originate in the Exodus-Landgiving scheme; rather it seems to have existed independently from this scheme and to have been introduced into it at a later stage.

g) The הוציא formula holds a key-position in the deuteronomistic scheme of the Heilsgeschich The redactor (or school of redactors) of the Deuteronomistic Work of History conceives of Jahweh’s beneficial deeds as a series of liberating acts. The Landgiving is not so much a fact of the past as a future blessing dependent on fidelity to the pact[35]. When Jahweh recalls the past to justify His claim on Israel, He refers to His saving interventions: “Did I not rescue הושיע you from Egypt, from the hands of the Amorites, Ammonites, Philistines, Sidonians, Amalecites and Midjanites when they oppressed you and you called out to Me?”[36]. Foremost in priority of time and importance ranks the liberation from Egypt. At times the הוציא formula is employed referring to Egypt, and its synonym הציל or הושיע referring to the other liberations[37]. At other occasions the synonym includes both the Exodus and other rescuing acts of Jahweh[38], but never do we find הוציא applied to one of the secondary liberations. הוציא is reserved to the exemplary deliverance to which Moses can point in danger[39], and which is the ultimate link binding Israel to Jahweh[40].

h) Summarizing our observations on the הוציא formula we might stress three of its characteristic In its original meaning it expresses the strict liberation from Egyptian slavery fought by Jahweh at the Sea of Reeds. It is peculiarly frequent in the legal traditions, functioning all by itself as a convenantal motive-clause. It enters the Exodus-Landgiving scheme of the Heilsgeschichte at a later stage, but seems to be treated as the first and exemplary formula by the deuteronomistic school, determining its conception of salvific history as a series of liberations.

2. THE הצלה FORMULA

a) Also this formula has three fixed elements: the verb הצלה, the object (Israel or its equivalents) and the determination “from Egypt” (or its equivalents). We might reconstruct its original wording as:

, “I made you come (here) out of Egypt”. There are forty-one cases of the formula referring to the classical Exodus from Egypt[41], of which seventeen are phrased in the “Ich-du Stil”.

b) The formula’s distribution among the various literary strands will be illustrated by the following survey:[42]

Contrary to הוציא, the הצלה formula is well attested in the pre-deuteronomistic and early prophetic texts. Although it certainly had its place even in the later years of the royal period (Dt; Jer), a tendenry to omit it must have set in quite early. Dt-law has it only once; P twice; the Chronicler leaves it in an ancient oracle to David, but does not use it himself unless in a reference to the golden calf (Neh. ix 18).

c) The formula is frequently enunciated in immediate connection with the coming to the land, at times explicitly by the addition “to this land”[43], at other times in circumstances that leave no doubt as to the same implication: His promise to Jacob[44], His rebuke to His own tribe in the land[45], the comparison with the Philistines and Amorites who also received a second, definite home from Jahweh[46]. It would seem, therefore, that even when הצלה is not followed by the הביא formula (expressing the “bringing to the land”)[47], the reaching of this goal was implied[48].

d) It is not difficult to discern the liturgical character of the formula. When appearing in the solemn proclamation by Jahweh, it is repeatedly introduced by the prophetic (?) opening “So speaks Jahweh”[49], and it seems to employ the more solemn אנכי rather than the ordinary אני[50]. Moreover, it recurs in certain decidedly cultic exclamations:

“Behold, Israel, the God that brought you out of Egypt!!”[li]; “Where is Jahweh who brought us out of Egypt?!”[lii]; “Didn’t Jahweh bring us out of Egypt?!”[liii], and the common adjuration “As sure as Jahweh lives who brought us out of Egypt!”[liv].

e) The formula must have been at home in the Northern Kingdom, particularly at the sanctuaries of Bethel and Dan. Osee and Amos testify to its existence as a sacred formula at their time[lv]. The Aaronic and Jeroboamic literally independent versions of how the cult of the golden calves was inaugurated at Bethel and Dan, record הצלה as the ritual formula employed[lvi]. It can hardly be chance that the Chronicler recalls the same formula in connection with the golden calves (Nehemias’ prayer)[lvii]. It is this connection with the illegitimate cult of the Northern Kingdom that may have caused its gradual omission in the post-exilic writings (P; HG). Dt-Law has only one case of הצלה in its collection of martial laws, a singular exception to its pronounced preference for הוציא (seventeen occurrences!). May we suspect that the deuteronomists, too, had a dislike for הצלה on account of its association with the cult of the golden calves? Would this explain why Dt avoids הצלה in his reflections on history, except in recalling the words of the “Northern” leader Samuel[lviii] and in his epilogue on the fall of the Northern Kingdom?[lix]

f) The הצלה formula seems to have functioned in the Exodus-Landgiving scheme of the Heilsgeschichte from the very start. Since the formula itself is apt to imply the terminus ad quem, the land, one might be justified to assume that the Exodus was expressed in this particular form of “bringing out of Egypt to this land” at a time when the Landgiving began to be seen as the natural complement to the Exodus, that is: after the conquest. This assumption is confirmed by JE which has four examples of הצלה functioning both as Exodus and Landgiving formula[lx] and two cases where the rebellious Jews reproach Jahweh with His taking them (הצלה) from Egypt to desert land, and not to the promised land of plenty[lxi]. For JE הצלה expresses the Landgiving as the natural sequel to the Exodus! The place of הצלה in the Exodus-Landgiving scheme is, moreover, amply attested by such independent texts as various covenantal complaints uttered by prophets (Pre-Dt; Am; Jer; Mich)[lxii] and the people’s acclamation of the pact at Sichem[lxiii]. The relation between the הצלה formula and salvific history seen as a combination of Exodus and Landgiving would seem to lie in their common origin in the new covenantal situation after the conquest.

g) Summing up our findings regarding the הצלה formula, we may recall that the formula must have been at home especially in the Northern sanctuaries. It has a distinctly liturgical character. Although it is an Exodus formula, it has the aptitude to include the Landgiving. As such it seems to have functioned in the Exodus-Landgiving scheme of the Heilsgeschichte from the very sta Its association with the forbidden cult of the golden calves may be the reason why it was gradually avoided by later authors.

3. ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE TWO FORMULAS

It would seem that the הוציא formula recalls directly the miraculous liberation at the Sea of Reeds. As such it reflects the historical title on which Jahweh could impose His covenant at Sinai. It is this juridico-historical function, which הוציא acquired from the Sinaitic pact, that it always retained in legislative traditions. The הוציא formula, however much ignored by the “Northern” prophets, must have had its origin in the earliest Sinaitic traditions.

The הצלה formula, which visualizes the Exodus as culminating in the Landgiving, can only have arisen after the conquest. The new agricultural conditions of settlement which occasioned the adaptation of the covenantal stipulations, will have required an extension of the Heilsgeschichte (the historical prologue) from a mere Exodus to an Exodus resulting in the Landgiving. This new, covenantal scheme of the Heilsgeschichte, in which also the הוציא formula was introduced, became the classical conception of salvific history: a history that could be enlarged with the Urgeschichte, with patriarchal stories and many particular traditions, but that could never extend beyond the Landgiving. That the הצלה formula is gradually superseded by הוציא may be due to the theological preference of the Deuteronomists for the latter term as well as the former’s connotation with the forbidden cult of the golden calves at the Northern sanctuaries.

A new concept of the Heilsgeschichte was developed by the Deuteronomists. The past Landgiving – made problematic in face of the exile – began to be understood rather as a continuous blessing, depending on Israel’s fidelity to the pact, than an irrevocable divine deed. In this light Jahweh’s salvific activity establishing His right to Israel’s submission, was seen to be a series of liberations of which the Exodus, the liberation “par excellence”, remained the outstanding example for all times. The well-known הוציא formula was now seized upon again and made the starting-point to a true theology of election and redemption. Moreover, it became the key to understanding consequent history. Slavific history was appreciated to continue beyond the conquest as Jahweh’s uninterrupted activity from the Exodus until present times. It is this new realization that gave rise to the redaction of the Deuteronomistic and Chronistic Works.

This sketch of the origin and development of the two formulas involved some views on the Heilsgeschichte that merit further study. The analysis of הוציא and הצלה may have helped us to discern better their own theological traits and their contribution to the rise and growth of the Heilsgeschichte.

[1] Ex. Xvi 1; xix 1; Num. i 1; xxxiii 1, 28; Dut. Iv 45, 46; 1 Kg. Vi 1; viii 9; etc.

[2]  F. ZORELL, Lexicon Hebraiaum et .Aramaicum Veteris Testamenti, Roma 1957, pp. 321 f.

[3] See Num. xxii 5, 11; xxvi 4 (referring to Israel); Deut. ii 32 (referring to the kaphthorim).

[4] Gen. xl 14 (Joseph); Jer. lii 31 (Jechonias).

[5] Ex. xiii 3,14; xx 2 (JE); Deut. v 6; vi 12; vii 8; viii 14; xiii 6, 11 (De-Law); J g. vi 8 (Pre-Dt); Jer xxxiv 13; the addition occurs twice with another formula than הוציא: Jos. xxiv 17 (with הצלה); Mich. vi 4 (withפדה ) will have meant quite concretely: “the slaves’ quarters”. Compare:  armoury (2 Kg. x 13);   the palace (Ex. viii 20; 2 Sam. xi 2; 1 Kg. iii 1; etc.); the hall for drinking (Jer. xvi 8);  the house of beervats, the public house (Prov. xxi 19: W. F. ALBRIGHT, v.T. StlPp. HI 1955, pp. 10 f.); the harem (Esth. ii 9, etc.; cf. S. YEIVIN, Enc. Bib. H 1945, pp. 92 If.). The slaves’ quarters of Egypt will have been a terrifying reality to all neighbouring peoples such as the Hebrews, an image of Egypt itself as land of captivity.

[6] Ex. vi 6 (P); Lev. xxvi 13 (HG).

[7] Ex. vi 6, 7 (P); note the transition from the concrete term to abstract slavery.

[8] Deut. Iv 20 (Add); 1 Kg. viii 51 (Dt); Jer. Xi 4. Comparing the two variations:

(symbol: MIM) and  (symbol: ME’ERES), we can observe a slide from MIM to MEÉRES:

The slide would seem to be due to a general tendency (also outside the formula) to employ  rather than  (in P and HG almost exclusively; cf. 1 Kg. viii 16 (MIM) and its parallel 2 Chron. vi 5 (ME’ERES).

[9] See the complete survey in P. HUMBERT, I.e., pp. 358 f.; remarkable is the circumstance, apparently not observed by P. HUMBERT, that all the early passages of הוציא having Jahweh (God) for its subject (I.e., p. 357: narratives préexiliques: 15 X ; prophétiques préexiliques: 6 X ; Deuteron., etc.: 26 x) are Exodus formulas (except Deut. viii 15: drawing water from the rock)! The later usage of הוציא with God as subject must be, if not derived from, at least be reminiscent of this exemplary liberation from Egypt.

[10] Ex. xxxii 11 (E); Deut. v 15; vii 19; ix 29; xi 2 (Dt-Law); Ps. cxxxvi 12.

[11] Ex. xiii 9 (J); Deut. vi 21; vii 8; ix 26; xxvi 8 (Dt-Law); Jer. xxxii 21; Ez. xx 34; Dan. ix 15. The same phrase occurs with the עשה formula 0: Ex. iii 19; Add: Deut. iv 34; xxxiv 12) and independently OE: Ex. vi 1; Dt: Jos. iv 24). Moreover, not referring to the Exodus it is also used in Jahweh’s war against His own people 0 er. xxi 5; Ez. xx 35) and about Edom’s military forces (Num. xx 20). See H. REVENTLOW, “Die Volker als Jahwes Zeugen bei Ezechiel”, Z.A.W. LXXI 1959, pp. 33-43; here p. 37.

[12] Ex. xiii 3, 14, 16 (J)

[13] Ex. vi 6; vii 4 (P).

[14] Deut. xxvi 8 (Dt-Law); Deut. iv 34 (Add); J er. xxxii 21.

[15] K. GALLING, “Die Erwahlungsrraditionen Israels”, Beih. Z.A.W. XLVIII 1928, pp. 1-95; here p. 7 note 3.

[16] G. VON RAD, Theologie des .Alten Testaments, I, Munchen 1957, p. 178.

[17]  Ex. xx 2; Deut. v 6. W. ZIMMERLI, discussing the “Selbstvorstellungsformel” (in “Ich bin Jahwe”, Festschrift A. Alt, Tubingen 1953, pp. 179-209; cf. also: Erkenntnis Cottes nach dem Buche Ezechiel, Zurich 1954, pp. 58 ff.) has shown its relation to the pact. Since the very recalling of history in these matters owes its existence to the covenantal pattern (cf. Formulas, I.c., pg. 57), this self presentation as a historical God will derive from the historical prologue. Cf. W. BEYERLIN, Herkunft und Ceschichte der altesten Sinaitraditionen, Tubingen 1961, pp. 62 ff.

[18] K. BALTZER, Das Bundesformular, Neukirchen 1960, p. 21.

[19] Ex. xiii 8 f., 14 f. (J); Deut. vi 20-25 (Dt-Law); see about this form of inculcating the covenantal prescriptions: Formulas, I.c., pp. 46 f.

[20] Num, xv 41 (P); Lev. xxii 33; xxvi 13, 45 (HG).

[21] K. BALTZER, I.c., pp. 22, 30 f., etc.

[22] Deut. xiii 6, 11 (Dt-Law); Jg. ii 12; 1 Kg. ix 9 (Dt); Deut. iv 20 (Add); exceptionally, Dt uses the הצלה formula in the same function: 2 Kg. xvii 7, 36.

[23] Ex. xiii 3,9 (J); Deut. xvi 1 (Dt-Law); Ex. xii 17,42 (P).

[24] Ex. xiii 14, 16 (J).

[25] Ex. xxix 49 (P).

[26] Lev. xix 36 (HG).

[27] Lev. xxv 38, 42, 55 (HG).

[28] Lev. xxiii 43 (HG).

[29] Of this socalled Exodus-Landgiving structure there are 93 cases, of which 50 refer to the classical Exodus and Landgiving, 2 to Abram’s Exodus from Ur and the consequent promise of land, and 41 to the New Exodus and Land- giving to be brought about after the exile (in messianic times); cf. Formulas, l.c., pp. 34 ff.

[30] The only exceptions seem to be: Deut. vi 20-25 and Lev. xxv 38.

[31] Am. ii 9-11; Ps. lxxx 9 f.; lxxiv 2; cf. also Ex. xix 4 (a pre-Jahwistic oracle?); Jg. ii 1; Jer. ii 6 f.

[32] Ex. xxxii 11-13; Num. xx 16. The other passages (without הוציא) are:

Gen. ii 24; xxiv 7; xlvi 3 f.; Ex. iii 8, 17; xv 1-19; xix 4; xxxiii 1-3; Num xiv 2 ff.; xvi 12 ff.; xx 3-5.

[33] Deut. vi 20-23; xxvi 5-9.

[34] Deut. iv 20,37 (Add); Jer. xi 4-7; xxxii 20-23; Ez. xx 5-22; Ex. vi 6-8 (P); Lev. xxv 38 (HG); Ps. cv 43-44

[35] Compare Jos. xxiii 13 ff. (Dt); 1 Kg. ix 6-9 (Dt).

[36] Jg. x 11 f.; cf. Jos. xxiii 3-10; 1 Sam. x 18 f.; xii 6-11.

[37] J g. ii 11-19; 1 Sam. xii 8-12; for הציל as synonym of הוציא cf.: Ex. xviii 1-10 (JE); Jg. vi 8-9 (pre-Dt); Ex. vi 6f. (P); for הושיע  ef.: Ex. xiv 30 (JE).

[38] Jg.xll-12; 1 Sam. x 18-19; cf. Jg. vi 9 (which is part of Dt according to P. HUMBERT. I.c., p. 357, contrary to M. NOTH, Uberlieferungsg. Studien, I.c., sub textu). It seems to me a somewhat precarious procedure to admit “deuteronomistic retouching of the matter” merely because of similar formulations. We must be open to the danger of using the formulas to distinguish “retouched matter” and then using this textual distinction to attribute formulas to certain authors. An example may be Jeremias, of which five of the הוציא formulas are judged to belong to possibly deuteronomistic (Jer. vii 22; xi 4; xxxiv 13) or inauthentic (Jer. xxxi 32; xxxii 21) texts (cf. P. HUMBERT, I.c., pp. 357 f., who cites O. ErssFELDT, Einleitung in dos Alte Testament, Tubingen 1956², pp. 503 f.). It would be interesting to know in how far the formulas themselves made O. EISSFELDT suggest these textual divisions.

[39] Deut. i 27, cf. 30 (Dt); the almost exclusive use of הוציא by Dt-Law הוציא 17 X; הצלה 1 X; will, next to the legislative character of the matter (cf. no 1 e), also be due to the renewed theological appreciation of it by the Deuteronomists (P. HUMBERT, I.c., pp. 360 f., 434).

[40] Jg. ii 12; 1 Kg. viii 16, 21, 51, 53; ix 9. in 1 Sam. xii 8 the active agents of the הוציא formula are Moses and Aaron, in parallelism to the other leaders mentioned in 1 Sam. xii 11. For Moses as subject, see Ex. Hi 10-12 (J) and Deut. ix 12 (Dt-Law); for Moses and Aaron: Ex. vi 13, 26(P).

[41]  The formula is applied to the future Exodus in Jer. xvi 15; xxiii 8; Ez. xxxvii 12, 13 (as a pun?).

[42] I have included in this survey also the following passages in which Moses is the subject of the formula: Ex. xvii 3; xxxii 1, 23; xxxiii 12; (cf. Formulas, l.c., p. 23). Num. xxi 5 (JE) has both God and Moses for its subject (I); some Greek Mss. presuppose a variant reading of הוציא instead of הצלה

[43] Ex. iii 8, 17; Gen. 1 24; cf. Ex. xxxiii 1.

[44] Gen. xlvi 4.

[45] Am. iii 1-2.

[46] Am. ix 7; cf. Am. ii 9-11; Jer. ix 4-7.

[47] For the הביא formula, see Formulas, l.c., p. 31; the combination of הצלה and הביא occurs in Num. xvi 12ff; xx 3-5 (JE); Jg. ii 1 (pre-Dt); Jer. ii 6-7.

[48] Cf. M. NOTH, Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, Stuttgart 1948, p. 54, note 169; it is a tempting suggestion, that  הצלה might express in some way an ancient Israelite conception of the route taken from Egypt at the Exodus: a long journey through the desert entering Palestine across the Jordan (E, Dt) or a direct entry through Qadesh (J)? cf. H. CAZELLES, “Les Localizations de l’ exode et la critique Iiterairc”, R.B., LXII 1955, pp. 321-364; esp. pp. 360 ff.; J. MAUCHLINE, “Gilead and Gilgal. Some Reflections on the Israelite occupation of Palestine” V. T. VI 1956, pp. 19-31; here esp. p. 24. It is interesting to note in this connection that עלה does not only mean “to go up, to climb”, but “to go to the north” (notably in such cases where a geographical descent is un- avoidable), cf. G. R. DRIVER, On “Went up country” (to the North) and Y-R-D “Went down country”, Z.A.W. LXIX 1957, pp. 74-77; esp. pp. 74, 76. Yet, it would seem that the Israelites could not conceive a journey from the lowlands of Egypt to mountainous Palestine as anything else than an ascent, no matter what route be taken.

[49] Jg. vi 8; 1 Sam. x 8; Am. ii 10; cf. also Am. ix 7; iii 1. It is probably more correct to ascribe the phrase to the “Bundesmittler” in these cases, cf. H. J. KRAUS, Die prophetische Verkundigung des Rechts in Israel, Theol. Studien 51, Zurich 1957, pp. 23 ff.

[50] Jg. vi 8; Gen. xlvi 4; ISam. x 18; Am. ii 10; Ps.lxxxi 11.

[li] Ex. xxxii 4; 1 Kg. xii 28; Neh. ix 18.

[lii] Jer. ii 6.

[liii] Jg. vi 13; cf. Am. ix 7.

[liv] Jer. xvi 14 f.; xxiii 7 f.

[lv] Os. xii 14; cf. xi 1; xii 10; Am. ii 10; iii 1; ix 7. A comparison of MIM and ME‘ ERES (see above note 12) in the הצלה formula gives the following result:

Textual uncertainties (cf. Ex. xxxii 1, 7, 23!) forbid us to be too conclusive; yet it would seem that the הצלה formula (contrary to הוציא, cf. no 1 c) has had from its beginning no fixed attachment to either MIM or ME‘ ERES.

[lvi] Ex. xxxii 1-6; 1 Kg. xii 26-32; cf. W. BEYERLIN, Herkunft und Geschichte, etc., I.e., pp. 145 ff., who illustrates that the Elohistic account is designed to portray the cult of Bethel and Dan as a breach of the pact.

[lvii] Neh. ix 18.

[lviii] 1 Sam. viii 8; x 18; xii 6; cf. 1 Sam. vii 16: Bethel, Gilgal, Mispah and Ramah.

[lix] Note that the fall is ascribed to idolatry (the cult of the calves ?!): 2 Kg. xvii 7, cf. v. 17; xvii 36, cf. 35-39 (continuation of the idolatry).

[lx] Ex. iii 8, 17; xxxiii 1; Gen. 124.

[lxi] Num. xvi 12-14; xx 3-5.

[lxii] Jg. ii 1; vi 8 (pre-Dt); Jer. ii 6-7; Am. ii 9-11; Mich. vi 4; cf. J. HARVEY, “Le “rib-Pattern”, Requisitoire prophetique sur la rupture de I’ Alliance”, Bibl, XLIII 1962, pp. 172-196; esp. pp. 178, 194.

[lxiii] Jas. xxiv 17-18; K. BALTZER, Das Bundesformular, ib. pp. 26 f.