Retelling Moses's Killing of the Egyptian: Acts 7 in Its Jewish Context

Moses's Killing of the Egyptian in Artapanus and Philo

Exodus 2:11–15 records an embarrassing and morally troubling incident in Moses's early life: his killing of an Egyptian. Given the diversity of approaches to scriptural interpretation and the practice of rewriting Scripture in the Second Temple Period, it is not surprising that Jewish interpreters from the third century BCE through the first century CE dealt with this difficult text in a variety of ways. While some retained this episode with no significant changes (Ezekiel the Tragedian and the author of Jubilees) and others omitted it entirely (Pseudo-Philo and Josephus), two Jewish writers—Artapanus and Philo of Alexandria—introduced justification for Moses's seemingly rash deed in order to present Moses in a positive light. Luke likewise retells Moses's killing of the Egyptian in Acts 7, Stephen's speech before the Sanhedrin. Luke's version of Moses's killing of the Egyptian exhibits significant similarities to the retellings of Artapanus and Philo. All three interpreters (1) retain the fact of Moses's killing of an Egyptian, (2) retain other details from Exodus 2:11–15, and (3) reshape the details of the narrative in order to justify Moses's murderous act.

According to the Exodus narrative, when Moses grows up, he leaves the Pharaoh's palace to visit his kin, the Israelites. Seeing an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, Moses checks to make sure no one is looking, kills the Egyptian, and then buries the body in the sand (2:11–12). The following day, Moses comes upon two Hebrews fighting. Moses asks the one in the wrong, “Why are you striking your neighbor?” (2:13). The Hebrew beating his kinsman replies, “Who appointed you ruler and judge over us? Do you wish to kill me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?” (2:14). Moses learns from this that his murderous act has become known. When the Pharaoh hears about it and seeks to kill Moses, Moses withdraws to Midian (2:15). In Exodus, Moses is portrayed as a murderer who hides the evidence of his deed and runs away out of fear.

Fragments from the Egyptian writer Artapanus are preserved by Eusebius in his Preparation for the Gospel, in which he relies on Alexander Polyhistor's summaries of Artapanus's writing. Artapanus wrote sometime between the late-third and early-first centuries BCE; he was familiar with the Septuagint, and wrote prior to Alexander Polyhistor's summarizing of his work (Collins: 2:894; Sterling: 174; Zellentin: 32–33).

While Artapanus retains the specific event of Moses's killing of an Egyptian, he thoroughly revises the situation in which this happens. Artapanus inserts into his narrative a military campaign against the Ethiopians, and connects Moses's role in this military campaign to his killing of an Egyptian. A similar tale of Moses's martial exploits in Ethiopia is preserved in Josephus's Jewish Antiquities. Tessa Rajak (111–22) has demonstrated that the tale existed independently prior to its use by both Artapanus and Josephus.

According to Artapanus, Pharaoh Chenephres, who is jealous of Moses and the Egyptians' love for him, sends Moses on a military expedition against the Ethiopians. He makes Moses a general over an army of farmers, “supposing that he would be easily destroyed by the enemy on account of the weakness of the soldiers” (Preparation for the Gospel 9.27.7; Collins: 899). Yet Moses achieves resounding success against all odds (9.27.8; Collins: 899), ensuring his image as a successful general. Even his enemies the Ethiopians respect him so much as to learn circumcision from him (9.27.10; Collins 899).

On returning to Egypt, Moses is thanked for his valiant service with envy and hatred. The Pharaoh plots to have Moses killed; he instructs a certain man, Chanethothes, to carry out this deed while he and Moses travel beyond the borders of Egypt to bury Moses's mother (9.27.13–15; Collins: 900). Aaron hears of the plot and directs Moses to flee to Arabia (9.27.17; Collins: 900). When Chanethothes learns of Moses's flight, he lies in ambush to kill him. Moses, apparently expecting this move, kills the Egyptian Chanethothes instead (9.27.18; Collins: 900). In this way, Artapanus preserves Moses's killing of an Egyptian as well as his subsequent flight, here to Arabia, but the killing is justified because it is presented as an act of self-defense in the midst of political intrigue.

The Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria lived from sometime around 15 BCE to at least 41 CE (Schwartz: 10). His retelling of Moses's killing of the Egyptian is found in the first book of his On the Life of Moses.

Philo's reshaping of this event is part of his larger chronological rearrangement of the events of Moses's early life prior to his departure to Midian. According to Exodus, the Hebrews are enslaved in Egypt before the Pharaoh decides to kill all the newborn boys. Philo recognizes at least two significant problems here. First, it is illogical for a ruler to kill his own male slaves. Second, and likely more important to Philo, this order of events means that Moses sits idly in the palace while his Hebrew kin are suffering as slaves. To alleviate both problems, Philo rearranges the events so that the Pharaoh decides to enslave the Hebrews only after Moses has grown up. According to Philo, Moses initially shows devotion both to his ancestral ties and to his royal adoptive family. Philo reports that Moses would have continued his affection for the Pharaoh “had he not found the king adopting in the country a new and highly impious course of action” (1.33; Colson: 293).

The Pharaoh determines to enslave the Hebrews, which saddens and angers Moses. Philo makes clear the dire situation of the Hebrew slaves. They were treated so badly that they were not even allowed to take breaks to sleep and began to die from bodily exhaustion (1.38–39: Colson: 297), and their taskmasters were especially cruel (1.37, 43; Colson: 295, 299). Moses had little power, but “he assisted with his words” (1.40; Colson: 297), encouraging the taskmasters to be lenient and the slaves to endure the work bravely. Moses kills the cruelest of the taskmasters “because he not only made no concession but was rendered harsher than ever by [Moses's] exhortations, beating those who did not execute his orders with breathless promptness” (1.44; Colson: 299). Philo evaluates Moses's killing of this cruel overseer as “a righteous action” (1.44; Colson: 299).

Philo's claim that the killing is not an embarrassment to Moses is aided by his omission of Moses's subsequent encounter with the two fighting Israelites. This portion of the Exodus narrative assumes that Moses hoped the killing would remain secret, suggesting his embarrassment. Philo, by contrast, does not claim that Moses tried to hide his deed. A second benefit of omitting this episode is that Philo can avoid presenting the Hebrews' fighting amongst themselves.

Philo provides Moses with a reason to withdraw to Midian that preserves Moses's character and gives him an opportunity to show concern for the Hebrews. According to Philo, the Pharaoh hears of Moses's deed and is upset not by the killing but rather that he and his grandson do not think similarly (1.45; Colson: 299). This response on the Pharaoh's part indicates the distance between him and Moses. Pharaoh recognizes that Moses is “not one of us” (Niehoff: 71). When the Pharaoh's advisors maliciously warn him that Moses seeks to steal his throne (1.46; Colson: 299–301), Moses avoids scandal and departs. Lest Moses's departure be perceived as a lack of concern for the Hebrews, when Moses arrives in Arabia, he does not merely spend time at the local watering hole. Rather, he uses his time “beseeching God to save the oppressed from their helpless, miserable plight, and to punish as they deserved the oppressors who had left no form of maltreatment untried” (1.47; Colson: 301). Moses is devoted to his fellow Israelites throughout the whole episode.

Both Artapanus and Philo retell Exodus 2:11–15 in an effort to improve Moses's image. They avoid presenting Moses as committing a rash murder against an Egyptian. This may well have been in response to non-Jewish accusations against Jews.

Non-Jewish writers often accused Moses and the Jews of misanthropic behavior toward other peoples. In his Against Apion, Josephus records that the Egyptians Manetho (3^rd century BCE; Stern: 1:62) and Lysimachus (between 2^nd century BCE and 1^st century CE; Gager: 118; Stern: 1:382) claim that this misanthropic behavior was directed against the Egyptians; they claim that following the expulsion from Egypt, Moses led the exiles in harsh attacks against Egypt. According to Manetho, Moses led an army of exiled lepers and shepherds against Egypt. They “treated the population in … a sacrilegious and [cruel] fashion” (1.248; Barclay 2007: 140). They not only destroyed towns, temples, and images of the gods, but they “also continually used the sanctuaries as kitchens for the revered sacred animals” (1.249; Barclay 2007: 140). According to Lysimachus, Moses emerged as a leader of the unclean exiles and instructed them “to show goodwill to no-one, nor to give the best but the worst advice, and to reduce to ruins whatever sanctuaries or altars of the Gods they encountered” (1.309; Barclay 2007: 161–62). On their way to Judea, “they maltreated the people and plundered and burned the temples” (1.310; Barclay 2007: 162). If Artapanus or Philo knew these or similar accusations, they would not want to supply any proof to support such claims. Moses's rash and unjustified killing of an Egyptian could not be left untouched.

The preservation of Moses's character through the omission or revision of his killing of the Egyptian is part of Artapanus's and Philo's consistent efforts to praise Moses beyond what is recorded of him in the scriptural narrative. For example, Artapanus presents Moses as the founder of Egyptian culture and religion (Preparation for the Gospel 9.27.4; Collins: 898–99). Philo claims that Moses excelled as philosopher-king, lawgiver, high-priest, and prophet (Moses 2.2–3; Colson: 451). It is not surprising that these authors would revise Exodus 2:11–15 in their efforts to laud Moses. Exalting Moses's image was an apologetic move, potentially influencing non-Jewish readers and certainly reassuring Jewish readers who found themselves in the minority in Egypt.

Moses's Killing of the Egyptian in Acts

Luke's method of retelling Exodus 2:11–15 bears significant similarities to the approaches of Artapanus and Philo. Like Artapanus and Philo, Luke feels free to adjust some details of the scriptural narrative while retaining others. Like Artapanus and Philo, Luke keeps Moses's killing of the Egyptian but reshapes the narrative in order to justify the killing. Like Philo, Luke retains the original context of the killing, as Moses's response to an Egyptian beating a Hebrew.

Though Luke provides justification for Moses's killing, his primary goal is not to defend Moses's character. Rather, Luke reshapes this episode in order to support his goal of associating Moses with the Way and disassociating Moses from those Jews who do not follow Jesus. (This use of Scripture to pit one's own group against other Jews will be addressed below.) In his telling of the killing of the Egyptian, Luke distances Moses from the Jews outside of the Way in two ways. First, he presents Moses as a prophet rejected by his own kin, those whom he has come to save; these kin are then identified as the ancestors of those Jews who do not follow Jesus. Second, he presents Moses as a bringer of peace in direct contrast to the “seditious” Jews elsewhere in Acts (Wills: 647).

According to Luke, when Moses visits (7:23) his relatives and sees one of them being mistreated by an Egyptian, “he came to the aid of the oppressed man and avenged him by striking down the Egyptian” (7:24). Luke claims that Moses “reckoned that his kin would understand that God, through his hand, was giving salvation to them” (7:25). Long before the episode at the burning bush, Moses already understands himself as a deliverer sent by God. The next day, Moses sees two Israelites fighting. Moses attempts “to reconcile them to peace” (7:26), but “the one who had been wronging his neighbor rejected [Moses], saying, ‘Who appointed you ruler and judge over us? Do you wish to kill me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?’” (7:27–28). Though this Israelite correctly identifies Moses as ruler and judge, he recognizes neither that it is God who has thus appointed Moses nor that Moses comes to kill not the Israelites but their opponents. Hearing this rebuff and determining that his offer of salvation has been misunderstood, Moses flees to Midian.

Whereas the Moses of Exodus seeks to cover up the evidence of his murderous deed, Luke's Moses expects that his deed will become known so that the Israelites will know that God is saving them through Moses. In the Exodus account, after Moses kills the Egyptian, he checks to make sure that no one is looking and buries the man in the sand (Exod 2:12). The next day, Moses is afraid when he finds out that the murder that he tried to cover up has become known (2:14). By contrast, the Moses of Acts 7 expects that his murder of the Egyptian will be known and will serve as announcement of the salvation that he brings. After Moses “came to the aid of the oppressed man” by killing his Egyptian oppressor (Acts 7:24), Moses “reckoned that his kin would understand that God, through his hand, was giving salvation to them” (7:25). While the Moses of Exodus only reluctantly adopts the role of bringing salvation to Israel at the burning bush, Luke's Moses sees himself as one who brings salvation long before his encounter with God. Concerning Acts 7:25, Pervo (185) notes that Moses's action “was not an impulsive intervention but a symbol of the role God had in store for Moses.” Similarly, Eckey (1:172) describes the killing in Acts 7 as “a symbolic deliverance (zeichenhafte Rettungstat).” Moses expects that when the Israelites hear that he killed the Egyptian to avenge the Israelite, they will understand this act as an offer of salvation, “but they did not understand” (7:25).

Whereas in Exodus 2:15, the Israelite's question alerts Moses that his killing has become known, in Acts 7:27–28, the Israelite's question reveals to Moses that his announcement of salvation has been misunderstood. In Exodus 2:14, when the Israelite says to Moses, “Who appointed you ruler and judge over us? Do you wish to kill me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?” Moses discovers that his killing of the Egyptian has become known, and he fees because Pharaoh seeks revenge. Luke's retelling uses the very words of Greek Exodus 2:14; the Israelite says to Moses: “Who appointed you ruler and judge over us? Do you wish to kill me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?,” (7:27–28). However, since Luke's Moses assumes that the killing is known and understood as an announcement of the salvation which he brings, this question takes on a new meaning. When the Israelite asks, “Do you wish to kill me?” (7:28), Moses realizes that the Israelite does not understand his offer of salvation, but rather fears that Moses will kill him, too. Barrett (1:359) says the Israelite understands Moses “as a mere bully, prepared to deal violently with anyone, Egyptian or Hebrew.”

Whereas the Moses of Exodus flees to Midian to avoid Pharaoh's revenge, Luke's Moses flees because his kin reject the salvation that he offers to them. In the Exodus narrative, when Pharaoh finds out that Moses has killed an Egyptian, “he sought to kill Moses” (2:15). Moses is specifically described as fleeing “from Pharaoh” (2:15). Acts, by contrast, mentions nothing about Pharaoh. In Acts 7, Moses flees when he discovers that the Israelites think he will kill them just as he killed the Egyptian. Luke introduces the Israelite's question to Moses with the words, “the one who had been wronging his neighbor rejected him” (7:27; italics mine). Given that Luke's Moses intended the killing of the Egyptian as an announcement of salvation for the Israelites, Luke presents this Israelite's fear that Moses will kill him not only as a misunderstanding of, but also as a rejection of the salvation that Moses offered. Barclay (1992: 42) claims that “the central point in the whole story is that, while trying to bring salvation to Israel, Moses is misunderstood and rejected by his people.” Upon hearing the Israelite's question and realizing that his offer of salvation has been rejected, Moses flees (7:29). Luke thus reworks Moses's killing of the Egyptian in order to present Moses as a rejected deliverer.

Luke then takes the one Israelite's rejection of Moses, which he has read into Exodus 2:11–15, and extends it both to other Israelites of Moses's time and to Jews long after Moses's time. The breach that Luke constructs between Moses and the Israelite is extended so that others in the history of Israel are likewise distanced from Moses. First, Luke transposes this rejection from the one Israelite to all the Israelites. In Acts 7:27–28, it is only one Israelite who rejects Moses and asks if Moses plans to kill him as he killed the Egyptian. In Acts 7:35, Luke transforms the rejection of one Israelite into the Israelites' corporate rejection of Moses. Luke writes, “This is the Moses whom they denied, saying, “Who appointed you ruler and judge?” (7:35; italics mine).

Second, Luke transfers the Israelites' rejection of Moses to the narrative present and to the Jews who are threatening Stephen. At the end of his speech, Stephen accuses the Jewish council of being like their ancestors who persecuted the prophets. He says, “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are always opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors (hoi pateres hymōn) used to do. Which of the prophets did your ancestors (hoi pateres hymōn) not persecute?” (7:51–52a; italics mine). Stephen identifies the Jewish council with their ancestors, the Israelites who rejected the prophet Moses and persecuted the subsequent prophets. Stephen accuses the Jewish council of being the descendants not of Moses but of those Israelites who rejected Moses.

This division between Moses and the Jews outside of the Way is all the clearer because of Luke's earlier claim in Acts 3:22–23 that Moses himself claimed that whoever does not listen to Jesus will be cut out of the people. In Acts 3, Peter heals a crippled man, drawing a large crowd. Peter takes advantage of this attention by proclaiming Jesus, the one whom the Jews “rejected” (3:13–14), but “whom God raised from the dead” (3:15). Peter provides evidence that God's raising of Jesus was foretold: “Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you from your own people a prophet like me. You must listen to everything he says to you. And it will be that everyone who does not listen to that prophet will be utterly rooted out (exolethreuthēsetai) of the people’” (3:22–23). In identifying Jesus as the prophet like Moses promised in Deuteronomy 18, Luke capitalizes on the Septuagint's word choice; God promised to raise up the prophet like Moses, and God has now raised up Jesus.

The quote that Peter attributes to Moses in Acts 3:22–23 does not match any known Pentateuchal text. Rather, Peter condenses Deuteronomy 18:15–19, the promise of a prophet like Moses, and combines it with a common Pentateuchal consequence for disobedience to the law, so that Luke does not cite a single text directly from the Septuagint but has essentially created his own prophecy. Whereas in Deuteronomy, Moses says that from the one who does not listen to the prophet like him, the Lord will exact vengeance, in Acts, Luke's Moses claims that the one who does not listen to Jesus, the prophet like Moses, will be rooted out of the people. Luke revises the consequence of not listening to the prophet like Moses so as to redraw the boundaries around Israel. Those who do not listen to Jesus are cut out of the people Israel (Jervell: 54).

In Acts 7, Stephen's speech before the Sanhedrin, Luke further separates the Jews who do not follow Jesus from Moses. Luke constructs a dichotomy in which Stephen's audience, the Jewish council, can no longer claim their ethnic connection to Moses. They are the descendants of the rejecting Israelites, and not of the rejected Moses. Luke does not allow Moses to be an ancestor to those Jews who do not follow Jesus.

A second way in which Luke uses the killing of the Egyptian to create a division between those who follow Moses and those who reject him is by presenting Moses as a bringer of peace in contrast to the seditious Jews of the world of Acts. When Moses finds the two Israelites fighting, Luke claims that Moses seeks to reconcile his kinsmen to peace with words (7:26). No such intent is explicit in the Exodus narrative. Luke takes an accusatory question from Exodus 2:13, “Why are you striking your neighbor?,” and transforms it in order to present Moses as one who seeks peace between kin (Pervo: 185). In Acts 7:26, Luke writes, “reconciling them to peace, [Moses] said, Men, you are brothers. Why are you mistreating one another?”' In this way, Luke not only builds a stronger case that Moses has come on the scene to aid his kindred, but he also explicitly presents Moses as seeking to produce peace between quarrelsome Israelites, including the one who rejects Moses as a wrongdoer (Fitzmyer: 377).

Moses's goal of Israelites (or Jews) living in harmony stands in marked contrast to the picture of “the Jews” which Luke presents throughout the whole of Acts. Because Luke is writing in a time of transition and group definition, his terminology is imprecise. Even though many of those who follow Jesus are Jews, including all the leaders of the believing community, Luke regularly uses hoi Ioudaioi, “the Jews,” to refer specifically to those Jews who do not follow Jesus. The Ioudaioi in Acts are regularly presented as stirring up crowds (6:12; 13:50; 14:2; 14:19; 17:13; 18:12; 21:27; Wills: 636–37). They are seditious—dangerous to the believers whom the crowds threaten, and also “scandalously bad citizens” within the Roman order (Wills: 646). These Jews who do not follow Jesus are marked by their inclination toward disorder and stasis, in contrast with the Jews and Gentiles who follow Jesus.

Luke's Moses, who seeks to bring the Israelites to harmony with one another, is further distanced from the unbelieving Jews. These Jews whom Luke presents as quarrelsome are not simply unruly and troublesome to the Roman authorities; they have rejected the desire of Moses that they live in harmony with one another. They have separated themselves from the teaching of Moses.

Dividing Israel: The Damascus Document

Unlike Artapanus and Philo, Luke uses his retelling of Moses's killing of the Egyptian as a means of dividing Moses both from the ancient Israelites and from those Jews who do not follow Jesus. In so doing, Luke creates two streams within Israel, those who remain faithful to Moses, and those who stray. Luke identifies the Way (those who have listened to Jesus, the prophet like Moses) with the former stream and the Jews who do not follow Jesus with the latter stream. Whereas Artapanus and Philo retell Moses's killing of the Egyptian to improve the image of Moses and consequently the image of Judaism, Luke retells this tale to divide Israel into two. Defending Moses's character serves the larger purpose of defending the Way.

This interpretive move, which distinguishes Luke's retelling from Artapanus's and Philo's, is characteristic of the Jewish sectarian writing preserved at Qumran, which aims to show that the Qumran community, though small and marginal, is the faithful inheritor of the tradition. The Damascus Document (CD), a foundational text for the Qumran movement, likewise interprets the Jewish Scriptures so as to create two streams within Israel: the faithful remnant, which is associated with the Qumran community, and all others who have gone astray.

Utilizing the definition of sect put forth by sociologists Rodney Stark and Williams Sims Bainbridge, Cecilia Wassen and Jutta Jokiranta conclude that the Damascus Document, like the Rule of the Community, is a sectarian text. Stark and Williams define a sect in terms of deviance, meaning “tension with the socio-cultural environment” (Wassen & Jokiranta: 209). While the Rule of the Community, the foundational document for the community living at Qumran, has been broadly recognized as sectarian, the Damascus Document (CD), the guiding document for married members living in the midst of towns, has not always received this status. By examining three interrelated characteristics, “antagonism, separation, and difference,” Wassen and Jokiranta found in CD the high level of tension characteristic of sectarian literature (222).

The Damascus Document distinguishes between the remnant that is faithful to God's precepts and the rest of Israel, which has strayed. The text reads, “But with those who remained steadfast in God's precepts, with those who were left from among them, God established his covenant with Israel for ever, revealing to them hidden matters in which all Israel had gone astray …” (III, 12–14; García Martínez & Tigchelaar: 1:555). Only those who “remained steadfast in God's precepts” are included in the covenant with Israel. All the rest, here referred to as “all Israel,” have “gone astray.” (This confusion over terminology will be addressed below.)

The Damascus Document reads the Pentateuchal narrative so as to find these two streams—those who “remained steadfast” and those who “had gone astray”—throughout the story of Israel's beginnings, from the Watchers of Genesis 6 through the wilderness generation. Column II of the Damascus Document introduces the threat of “a guilty inclination and lascivious eyes” (II, 16; García Martínez & Tigchelaar: 1:553), warning that “many have gone astray due to these; brave heroes stumbled on account of them, from ancient times until now” (II, 16–17; García Martínez & Tigchelaar: 1:553). Having established “a guilty inclination” as the standard of judgment, CD recounts the early history of Israel, distinguishing between those who were faithful and those who “have gone astray” (II, 17) due to “a guilty inclination and lascivious eyes” (II, 16).

All those before Abraham stray. The Watchers went astray: “having walked in the stubbornness of their hearts the Watchers of the heavens fell” (II, 17–18; García Martínez & Tigchelaar: 1:553). Likewise their sons fell “because they had realized their desires and had failed to keep their creator's precepts” (II, 20–21; García Martínez & Tigchelaar: 1:555). Because of “a guilty inclination and lascivious eyes” (II, 16), “the sons of Noah and their families strayed, through it they were cut off” (III, 1; García Martínez & Tigchelaar: 1:553).

Abraham, by contrast, “did not walk in it [i.e., “a guilty inclination” (II, 16)]” (III, 2; García Martínez & Tigchelaar: 1:555) and was thus “counted as a friend for keeping God's precepts and not following the desire of his spirit” (III, 2–3; García Martínez & Tigchelaar: 1:555). Abraham taught God's precepts “to Isaac and to Jacob, and they kept [them] and were written up as friends of God and as members of the covenant for ever” (III, 3–4; García Martínez & Tigchelaar: 1:555). In the early history of Israel, only Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are faithful to God's precept rather than being ruled by “a guilty inclination and lascivious eyes” (II, 16).

Jacob's sons, however, are not judged so positively. They “strayed because of them [i.e., “a guilty inclination and lascivious eyes” (II, 16)] and were punished in accordance with their mistakes” (III, 4–5; García Martínez & Tigchelaar: 1:555). Their descendants, while slaves in Egypt and while wandering in the wilderness, followed in their path. “In Egypt their [i.e., Jacob's sons'] sons walked in the stubbornness of their hearts, plotting against God's precepts and each one doing what was right in his own eyes” (III, 5–6; García Martínez & Tigchelaar: 1:555). As a result, “their males were cut off in the wilderness” (III, 7; García Martínez & Tigchelaar: 1:555).

When God told the wilderness generation to “Go and possess the land” (III, 7; García Martínez & Tigchelaar: 1:555; Deut 9:23), “they preferred the desire of their spirit, and did not listen to the voice of their creator, the precepts he had taught them” (III, 7–8; García Martínez & Tigchelaar: 1:555). Therefore, through “a guilty inclination and lascivious eyes” (II, 16), “the very first to enter the covenant made themselves guilty and were delivered up to the sword, for having deserted God's covenant and having chosen their whims” (III, 10–12; García Martínez & Tigchelaar: 1:555). The very ones who received the covenant at Sinai strayed from it by following their own desires.

Having argued that the first to enter the covenant deserted that very covenant, the text comes to its point, to its culmination: “But with those who remained steadfast in God's precepts, with those who were left from among them, God established his covenant with Israel for ever, revealing to them hidden matters in which all Israel had gone astray …” (III, 12–14; García Martínez & Tigchelaar: 1:555). CD's assessment of the early history of Israel determines that only Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were faithful to the precepts of God. Even the first to enter the covenant strayed from it. The text thus divides Israel into two streams: “those who remained steadfast in God's precepts” (III, 12) and those who went astray.

The Damascus Document's division of scriptural characters into those who are faithful and those who stray builds on the remnant theology already present in the Hebrew Scriptures, and particularly in the book of Isaiah (Blanton: 50). CD uses remnant language to speak of those who do not stray, saying God “raised up men of renown for himself, to leave a remnant for the land” (II, 11; García Martínez & Tigchelaar: 1:553; italics mine). CD draws on the Scriptures' condemnation of those who stray from the covenant, grouping those so accused in the Scriptures with its own contemporary opponents. The community behind the text sees itself, by contrast, as the faithful remnant.

Both CD and Acts interpret the Jewish Scriptures (the Pentateuch) to show evidence of division within Israel, one group affirmed on account of their faithfulness and the other denounced. In the midst of this overarching similarity, two more specific similarities emerge: an inconsistent use of group terminology and the claim that others are cut out of the people.

First, in both CD and Acts, there is inconsistency in the terminology used to describe the different groups. In CD III, 12–14, the term Israel refers both to the members of the community and to other Jews. Concerning “those who were left,” “God established his covenant with Israel for ever,” while at the same time “all Israel had gone astray …” (III, 12–14; García Martínez & Tigchelaar: 1:555). In Acts, those Jews who oppose Jesus are referred to as the Jews (hoi Ioudaioi) even though it is clear that many, perhaps even most, of the members of the Way are also Jews, and some of them are specifically described as Ioudaios. This confused use of vocabulary suggests tension between the standard use of the term (either Jews or Israel) and the way in which the community behind the text has started to use the term (Garroway: 6–7).

One could argue that this comparison actually reveals that, while CD is a Jewish sectarian text, Acts bears witness to a community that is separate from Israel. On the one hand, CD adopts the name of the larger group, Israel, for itself alone. On the other hand, Acts consigns the name of the larger group, Jews, to its opponents. Could this difference suggest that the Damascus Document is a sectarianism document, while Luke's account of the Way is not? One might argue that the Damascus Document has adopted the name Israel for its own community, thus pushing others out of Israel, while Acts shifts the name Jews to its opponents, thus removing itself from the group of Jews. However, Acts describes the Jewish opponents of the Way as having been removed from Israel, indicating that the Way functions as the remnant.

Second, both CD and Acts describe the members of the denounced stream as being “cut off” from Israel. In CD III, the wilderness generation is said to have been “cut off” (III, 7; García Martínez & Tigchelaar: 1:555). Not only did Jacob's sons stray, but “their sons walked in the stubbornness of their hearts, … each one doing what was right in his own eyes” (III, 5–6; García Martínez & Tigchelaar: 1:555). As a result “their males were cut off (veyikaret) in the wilderness” (III, 7; García Martínez & Tigchelaar: 1:555). The Greek translation of the Hebrew verb krt is used in Acts to describe the fate of the Jews who remain outside the Way. As mentioned above, in Acts 3:22–23, Luke has Peter quote a revised version of Deuteronomy 18:15, which says that whoever does not listen to Jesus, the prophet like Moses, will be “utterly rooted out (exolethreuthēsetai) of the people” (3:23). The Greek verb, exolethreuthēsetai, means “destroy utterly” (Liddell & Scott: 597), and the prefix ex emphasizes that the destruction is out of or from something, here the people Israel. This Greek verb is used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew root krt, including in the Torah as a consequence for one who disobeys certain laws (Gen 17:14; Exod 12:15, 19; 22:20; 31:14; Lev 17:4, 9, 14; 18:29; 19:8; 20:17, 18; 22:3; 23:29; Num 9:13; 15:30; 19:20). Thus, both CD and Acts draw on the language of the Torah, whether in Hebrew or Greek, using the verb meaning “cut out” to describe what happens to those in Israel who are not members of the text's group.

Conclusion

Luke's retelling of Moses's killing of the Egyptian, and particularly his division of Israel into faithful and obstinate streams, fits neatly into the diversity of ancient Judaism. Like Artapanus and Philo, Luke freely reshapes the Scriptural narrative while simultaneously retaining particular narrative details. Luke differs from Artapanus and Philo in terms of the primary goal of his revision. While they seek to exalt Moses and thus Jews in general, Luke seeks to create division between Moses and the Israelites, division which he can then extend into the narrative present. Luke interprets the Scriptural narrative to construct two streams within Israel, one that is faithful to Moses and one that has rejected Moses and is thus rightly condemned. This practice of retelling the Scriptural narrative in order to justify the division of Israel into the faithful and those who have strayed is likewise present in the sectarian Damascus Document. Just as the Damascus Document claims that those Jews who are not part of the community behind the text are cut out of Israel, so too does Acts claim that those Jews who are outside of the Way are removed from the people for not listening to the prophet like Moses. Luke's retelling of Exodus 2:11–15 serves to present the Way as the faithful portion of Israel in opposition to the rest of the Jews who have gone astray by rejecting Moses. This claim of faithfulness is a sectarian move on Luke's part, identifying only the Way as the true inheritors of Moses's approval.