Context Linguistically
Previously, analyzing the gentile object markers, it was concluded that if we fit any speech e.g. nationality in that template, the results would mutually convey the fact that either the speaker has no proper command over the basic sense of his language, or there is a shift in the plot. This article aims to explore the concept with further depth.
In Exodus 32:1, we continue to encounter significant linguistic choices that contribute to the portrayal of detachment and seclusion within the narrative.
The phrase ‘משה ׀ כי־זה’ (ki-zeh Moshe) is particularly noteworthy. The word ‘כי’ (ki) often translates to ‘for’ or ‘because,’ indicating a rationale or explanation. Here, it precedes ‘זה’ (zeh), which means ‘this.’ Together, ‘כי־זה’ (ki-zeh) can be interpreted as ‘for this,’ emphasizing a
כי־זה׀משה האישאשרהעלנומארץמצרים לאידענומה־היהלוa.
specific referent or individual. The use of ‘זה’ (zeh), meaning ‘this,’ is demonstrative and can imply a certain level of distance or detachment. By referring to Moses as ‘משה זה’ (zeh Moshe), the narrative subtly introduces a sense of separation between Moses and the Israelites, suggesting that he is viewed as an outsider or distinct entity rather than an integral part of the community.
The strong shift of tone maintains its essence linguistically, throughout the narrative:
Yahweh spoke to Moses, ‘Descend down, for your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt, have acted lowly/ descended.’
In this fragment from Exodus 32:7, the phrase ( ךַָע ְּמ ֔) ‘your people’, it evokes new questions in one’s mind. Throughout the Tankah, Allah says to the Israelites, my people, even at times of their swear mistakes, e.g. Hosea 4:6
‘My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.’
Just observe, even though admits His wrath, and utmost rejection, how does God of Yirael addresses them?
My people (ַי ִּ֖מ) are destroyed for lack of knowledge… In the verse from Hosea, the term ַי ִּ֖מ represents ‘my people’ where the addition of
ָֽר ִים ִמ ְצ ֶ֥א ֶר ץ ֵמ ֶָה ֱע ֵ֖ל י ֶׁ֥שר ֲא ךַָע ְּמ ֔ ֵ֣חת ִׁש ִּ֚כי ֶל ְך־ ֵ֕רד ֶא ל־ ֹמ ֶׁ֑שה ְי ֹה ָ֖וה ֵּ֥בר ַו ְי a. תחֵ֣ ִׁש ִּ֚כי ֶל ְך־ ֵ֕רד ֶא ל־ ֹמ ֶׁ֑שה ְי ֹה ָ֖וה ֵּ֥בר ַו ְי
Additionally, the phrase ‘העלנו אשר האיש’ (ha-ish asher he’elnu) further reinforces this sense of detachment. ‘האיש’ (ha-ish) means ‘the man,’ a generic term that can convey a sense of anonymity or impersonality. By describing Moses as ‘האיש’ (ha-ish), the narrative depersonalizes him, reducing him to a mere figure rather than a relational being. Furthermore, the use of ‘אשר’ (asher), meaning ‘who’ or ‘that,’ introduces a relative clause that defines Moses in terms of his action (‘העלנו’ – he’elnu, ‘who brought us’). This construction emphasizes Moses’ role as an agent of action rather than as a person with whom the Israelites have a personal relationship.
Together, these linguistic nuances contribute to a portrayal of Moses as an outsider or distant figure within the narrative of Exodus 32:1. The use of demonstrative and depersonalizing language serves to emphasize his separateness from the Israelites and underscores the theme of detachment and seclusion present in the passage.
By dissecting the linguistic choices in Exodus 32:1, the article helps to gain a deeper insight, into the narrative dynamics and character portrayals within the text, enhancing the readers understanding of the broader themes and relationships depicted in the Tanakh.
Yod (י) in ‘am’ (ַמִּ֖) shows the possession, similar to what we do in the Arabic language. On the other end, the addition of Qaf (ָ ) shifts the possession from God towards Musa peace be upon him, again, much identical to the rule observed under the Arabic language.
Ha’Shem claims that the Israelites are His people, then why is He referring them to Musa?
The question gains more strength in the second fragment of the verse:
Allah makes it quite evident that He was the one, to liberate the Jewish people off the hands of Egyptians, not anyone else, e.g. in Al-Baqarah 2:49
And [recall] when We saved you from the people of Pharaoh, who were afflicting you with the worst torment – killing your sons and keeping your women alive. And in that was a great trial from your Lord.
In the phrase (ֶָה ֱע ֵ֖לי) he’elata ‘whom you brought’, Allah seems to be stepping aside from His claim. But this is not true, it cannot be true, because the word of God is free from all sorts of blemishes and illness, so what does this second shift and distancing hint towards…?
(Connecting dots between the first two examples)
In Exodus 32:1, the people (ָה ָ֔ע ם) say that Moshe brought them out of the land of Mixrayim, (כי־זה׀משההאישאשרהעלנומארץמצרים). In Exodus 32:7, Eloah Yisroel says about these people, that Moshe brought the people out of Egypt (ִמ ְצ ָֽר ִים ֶ֥א ֶר ץ ֵמ ֶָה ֱע ֵ֖לי ֶׁ֥שר ֲא ךַָע ְּמ ֔ ֵ֣חת שִׁ יכִּ֚).
Then the same God affirms that the Israelites are My people (‘ami’), and declares that He alone led them out of Egypt.
Conclusion: This invites reflection on the identity of “the people” from the perspective of a third party, rather than the second person.
Building on the analysis so far, let us now take a closer look at Exodus 32:4:
מצרים מארץ העלוך אשר ישראל אלהאלהיך ויאמרו ויזבחו־לו
…Whom you brought out of the land of Egypt, have acted lowly/ descended.
b. ָֽר ִים ִמ ְצ ֶ֥א ֶר ץ ֵמ ֶָה ֱע ֵ֖ל י ֶׁ֥שר
وَإِذْ نَجَّيْنَٰكُم مِّنْ ءَالِ فِرْعَوْنَ يَسُومُونَكُمْ سُوٓءَ ٱلْعَذَابِ يُذَبِّحُونَ أَبْنَآءَكُمْ وَيَسْتَحْيُونَ نِسَآءَكُمْ ۚ وَفِى ذَٰلِكُم بَلَآءٌۭ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ عَظِيمٌۭ
These, are your Gods (ֱא ֹל ִה ים ,אלהיך), O Yisrael, which have brought you out of the land of Egypt.
After the creation of the Golden Calf, ‘these people’ use the word (אלהיך) should it not have been instead (אלהינו) ‘Eloheinu’? Should it not have been instead, El-leh Eloheinu (replacing Eloheka) Yisrael?
Why do ‘these people’ spare themselves from the status of a believer? Secondly, why do they keep excluding themselves from the Israelites…?
This seclusion gets even stronger as the verse commence
He (Moshe) took the calf that ‘they’ had made and burned it; he ground it to powder and strewed it upon the water and so made the Israelites drink it.
The same linguistic and person shift is observed under the same verse, ‘a-shu’ (וּׂש עָ) and ‘way- yasaq –et bani Yishrael’ (ֵֽאל ִי ְׂש ָר ֶא ת־ ְּב ֵ֥ני ְַו ַּ֖י ְׁש). If there were only the Israelites present wouldn’t it depict that, He (Moshe) took the calf that the Israelites had made and burned it; he ground it to powder and strewed it upon the water and made them drink it?
Another factor to be noted here, the direct object maker of –et (דע).
Instead of the phrase (העלוך) he’eluka, should it not be (העלוך) halanu, if the speaker is an Israelite?
This discrimination does not flee from the main screen, the Exodus 32:20 reports Musa’s return from the mount and his dissolving of the calf as:
This marker segregates the Israelites from the rest of the population and people present, that clearly signifies that there is a mixed multitude present. First the article of ‘hA’ was used, in ‘the people,’ and now this special marker is used to fully make a profound distinction.
The God of Israel, He also favor this discrimination in Exodus 32:9
And Yahweh said unto Moshe, ‘I have seen these people, and behold, these are stiff-necked people.
.ֽה ּוא ַעם־ ְק ֵׁש ה־ ֹ֖ע ֶר ף ֵּ֥נה ְו ִה ַה ֶּ֔זה ָ֣עם ֶא ת־ ָה ִ֙֙אי ָר ֶא ל־ ֹמ ֶׁ֑שה ְיה ָ֖וה ַו ֹּ֥יא ֶמ ר ָּג ֹֽדול ְל ֹ֥גוי ֹאו ְת ֶׂ֥שה ְו ֶֽא ֱע ַו ֲא ַכ ֵּ֑לם ָב ֶ֖הם ִּ֥פי ְו ִֽי ַח ר־ ַא ִּ֔ל י ַה ִּ֣ני ָח ה ְ֙ו ַע a. ישראל אלהאלהיך ויאמרו ויזבחו־לו b. מצרים מארץ העלוך אשר
ֲא ֶׁש ר־ ָּ֑דק ַ֣עד ַ֖חן ַו ִּי ְט ָּׁב ֵ֔א ַו ִּי ְׂש ֹ֣רף וּׂש ָע ֶׁ֤שר ֲא ֵ֨ע ֶגל ֶא ת־ ָה ַו ִּי ַּ֞ק ח ֵֽאל ִי ְׂש ָר ֶא ת־ ְּב ֵ֥ני ְַו ַּ֖י ְׁש ַה ַּ֔מ ִים ַעל־ ְּפ ֵ֣ני ַ֙ו ִּ֙י ֶז
Now therefore, let me alone, that my wrath may vex hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make out of you a great nation.
The alteration of address in ‘I will consume them’ and ‘I will make you a great nation’, is vivid enough. It is obvious that if God is saying of destroying a nation, why would He speak of them so highly?
Linguistically, the shift of persons is something that could not go un-noticed.
Thirdly, the repeated use of the direct object marker, -et, also sets common grounds with the opinion of presence of another party.
And further, when Moshe pleads to God, his Lord, he maintains the same gentilic sense in Exodus 32:11-14.
Conclusion: We find two groups:
Et Bani Yisrael Et HA’am
So, there was a multitude of other nations present amongst them, as mentioned in Exodus 12:38. In this story, a nation or community is distinguished from this diverse mob of people, and they were the Egyptians. (Note: a great number of magician Egyptians)
When Allah parted the red sea, He guided, merely the Israelites. When others asked to join them, being a prophet and someone with unconditional sincerity, Musa A.S. allowed them to join the Israelites, hence we find two communities,
The first, the Bani Israel who were guided by Allah.
The second, the verities of gentiles, guided by Musa.
In light of this, when we read the verses, it makes perfect sense,
‘When the people (Egyptians) saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aaron and those people said to him, ‘Come, make us Elohim, who shall go before us, for that fellow Moses—the man who brought us from the land of Egypt—we do not know what has happened to him.
Yahweh spoke to Moses, ‘Descend down, for your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt, have acted lowly/ descended.
He took the calf that they had made and burned it; he ground it to powder, strewed it upon the water, and made the Israelites drink it.
These, are your Gods (ֱא ֹל ִה ים ,אלהיך), O Yisrael, which have brought you out of the land of Egypt.
And Yahweh said unto Moshe, ‘I have seen these people, and behold, these are stiff-necked people. Now therefore, let me alone, that my wrath may vex hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make out of thee a great nation.
As a conclusion, the linguistic analysis makes it vivid that the petition was proposed by a second nation, amongst the mix multitude, with the Hebrews.