Exodus 5:2

5:2 But Pharaoh said, “Who is the Lord ¹  that ²  I should obey him ³  by releasing ⁴  Israel? I do not know the Lord, ⁵  and I will not release Israel!”

Exodus 5:2

5:2 But Pharaoh said, “Who is the Lord ⁶  that ⁷  I should obey him ⁸  by releasing ⁹  Israel? I do not know the Lord, ¹⁰  and I will not release Israel!”

Exodus 32:15-17

32:15 Moses turned and went down from the mountain with ¹¹  the two tablets of the testimony in his hands. The tablets were written on both sides – they were written on the front and on the back. 32:16 Now the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets. 32:17 When Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, ¹²  he said to Moses, “It is the sound of war in the camp!”

[5:2]  ¹ tn Heb “Yahweh.” This is a rhetorical question, expressing doubt or indignation or simply a negative thought that Yahweh is nothing (see erotesis in E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 944-45). Pharaoh is not asking for information (cf. 1 Sam 25:5-10).

[5:2]  ² tn The relative pronoun introduces the consecutive clause that depends on the interrogative clause (see GKC 318-19 §107.u).

[5:2]  ³ tn The imperfect tense here receives the classification of obligatory imperfect. The verb שָׁמַע (shama’) followed by “in the voice of” is idiomatic; rather than referring to simple audition – “that I should hear his voice” – it conveys the thought of listening that issues in action – “that I should obey him.”

[5:2]  ⁴ tn The Piel infinitive construct here has the epexegetical usage with lamed (ל); it explains the verb “obey.”

[5:2]  ⁵ sn This absolute statement of Pharaoh is part of a motif that will develop throughout the conflict. For Pharaoh, the Lord (Yahweh) did not exist. So he said “I do not know the Lord [i.e., Yahweh].” The point of the plagues and the exodus will be “that he might know.” Pharaoh will come to know this Yahweh, but not in any pleasant way.

[5:2]  ⁶ tn Heb “Yahweh.” This is a rhetorical question, expressing doubt or indignation or simply a negative thought that Yahweh is nothing (see erotesis in E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 944-45). Pharaoh is not asking for information (cf. 1 Sam 25:5-10).

[5:2]  ⁷ tn The relative pronoun introduces the consecutive clause that depends on the interrogative clause (see GKC 318-19 §107.u).

[5:2]  ⁸ tn The imperfect tense here receives the classification of obligatory imperfect. The verb שָׁמַע (shama’) followed by “in the voice of” is idiomatic; rather than referring to simple audition – “that I should hear his voice” – it conveys the thought of listening that issues in action – “that I should obey him.”

[5:2]  ⁹ tn The Piel infinitive construct here has the epexegetical usage with lamed (ל); it explains the verb “obey.”

[5:2]  ¹⁰ sn This absolute statement of Pharaoh is part of a motif that will develop throughout the conflict. For Pharaoh, the Lord (Yahweh) did not exist. So he said “I do not know the Lord [i.e., Yahweh].” The point of the plagues and the exodus will be “that he might know.” Pharaoh will come to know this Yahweh, but not in any pleasant way.

[32:15]  ¹¹ tn The disjunctive vav (ו) serves here as a circumstantial clause indicator.

[32:17]  ¹² sn See F. C. Fensham, “New Light from Ugaritica V on Ex, 32:17 (br’h),” JNSL 2 (1972): 86-7.