Kenneth Greifer:
I am not sure that anyone has ever explained Exodus 4: 25-26
satisfactorily. Let me give it a shot, from my own unique perspective.
Zipporah and her father and her blood relatives are all from MDYN/Mitanni,
the Late Bronze Age Hurrian state in eastern Syria, and all of them are
ethnic Hurrians with vintage Hurrian names. The name “Zipporah” also
suggests a Kassite connection. By sharp contrast, Moses is a Hebrew, not an
ethnic Hurrian (or Kassite). Although circumcision was routine in Canaan and
Egypt and elsewhere in Africa, it was considered a barbaric custom in
Kassite-dominated southern Mesopotamia. We’re not sure what the Hurrians
generally
thought about circumcision, but if Zipporah is referred to as a “Kassite”
at Numbers 12: 1 (my interpretation of that ambiguous passage), then
Miriam may be condemning Zipporah the Hurrian for having wanted to follow the
known Kassite custom of not allowing sons to be circumcised.
Given that ethnic and historical background, Zipporah may have initially
resisted Moses’ desire to have their son circumcised. So Gershom (another
Hurrian name) had not been circumcised on the 8th day after his birth, per
the divine commandment at Genesis 17: 12. The parents, Moses and Zipporah,
were still discussing whether and when Gershom would or would not be
circumcised, with Moses having been a bit derelict in his duty, as it were, as
to
forcing the matter: Moses had not insisted, over Zipporah’s objections,
that Gershom must be circumcised at age 8 days.
With the matter of Gershom’s circumcision being in temporary limbo, and
with it also being somewhat unclear how committed Zipporah was to committing
herself irrevocably to the Hebrews as her husband’s people, as symbolized
by her great reluctance to allow their son to be circumcised per the Hebrew,
non-Kassite way (and perhaps with there also being some concern as well
about a possibly implied potential lack of commitment on Moses’ part to his
ethnic Hurrian wife and their son), Zipporah now in effect saves her husband’
s life by agreeing, at the 11th hour as it were, to have their son
circumcised, which she does on the spot:
“Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son,
and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the
circumcision.” Exodus 4: 25-26
If Zipporah were a Hebrew or a Canaanite or an Egyptian or a Cushite (as
opposed to being a Hurrian who was following Kassite ways), the story wouldn’
t make sense, because then Zipporah would have been delighted to have
Gershom circumcised at age 8 days as a matter of course. But as a Hurrian who
strongly preferred to follow the Kassite tradition of not allowing
circumcision, this was a crisis of conscience matter for Zipporah. And it
almost
got Moses killed from divine wrath.
Or to put the matter a slightly different way, this is a super-exciting
story if one realizes that Zipporah is an ethnic Hurrian who seems bound and
determined to follow the Kassite tradition of not allowing circumcision.
What then will happen as to Gershom, the son of Moses and Zipporah,
regarding circumcision?
If we can get the ethnic identities, historical time period and underlying
geography right [where MDYN = Mitanni], then in my opinion, the story
practically tells itself. Whereas otherwise, this story seems inexplicable.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
