Preliminary Hermeneutical and Methodological Remarks

Exodus 2:1–10 has been extensively explored from a feminist perspective, and for good reason. Women play a prominent role in this story, yet they are not only marked by their gender but also by their ethnicity and social status. This study analyzes the differences in gender, ethnicity, and class to provide a nuanced understanding of power relations within biblical texts. The study thus employs a lens of intersectionality,Footnote ² in order to examine the intersection of social categories and their effects.Footnote ³ It is important to note that categories such as gender, ethnicity, and class are socially constructed and therefore subject to historical and social change. These categories vary across time, regions, and societies.Footnote ⁴ Biblical scholars commonly cite gender, class, ethnicity, age, and economic status as categories for defining social differences in Near Eastern societies. Some studies also consider sexual orientation, psychophysical status, marital status, motherhood (or fatherhood), and religion to be relevant categories.Footnote ⁵ However, it is important to note that some of these categories may have slightly different meanings than in modern theories. For instance, biblical scholars generally use the category class not in a Marxist senseFootnote ⁶ but primarily to distinguish between free and unfree people, such as slaves and masters. Defining these categories is thus an ongoing process that requires dialogue with the interpretation of biblical texts and the historical context in which they were written. How the categories of ethnicity, gender, and class are utilized in this study will become apparent in the course of the analysis of Exod 1:8–2:10 below.

The book of Exodus, including its opening chapters in Exod 1–2, underwent a long and complex formation process.Footnote ⁷ This study analyzes the final, extant version of the text.Footnote ⁸ It focuses on Exod 2:1–10 and its context for the purpose of exploring differences in gender, ethnicity, and class because these are the categories which dominate the plot. The study can serve as a hermeneutical or methodological model for analyzing similar texts.

The King’s Speeches and their Consequences in Exodus 1:8–22

The narrative unit Exod 1:(7)8–2:10 can be divided into three scenes based on the king’s attempts to prevent Israel’s growth. Each scene begins with a speech or commandFootnote ⁹ in which the new king draws a line of distinction: In the first case, the distinction is based on ethnicity, as the king distinguishes between the people (עם) of Israel on the one hand, and Egyptians, on the other hand. In the second and third cases, a gender-based distinction is made, creating a line of differentiation between men and women, or between sons and daughters.Footnote ¹⁰

In Exod 1:9–10, the king addresses “his people” (עמו), and does not include the children of Israel in this group. He is the first in the Bible to recognize Israel as a “people” (עם): “Look, the people of the children of Israel. . .”Footnote ¹¹ Throughout his speech, he distinguishes between “us” and “them”Footnote ¹² (or: “it” in the Hebrew text). The Hebrew word for “people” (עם) is used in the Bible as a kinship term, referring to a larger community of descent.Footnote ¹³ According to the book of Exodus, the people of Israel are descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob (i.e., Israel) (cf. Exod 1:1–7). In this study, the term “ethnicity” refers to the concept behind the Hebrew term עם, which encompasses larger communities of descent.Footnote ¹⁴

The distinction between Israel and Egypt is not inherently problematic. Even the Egyptian king who reigned during Joseph’s time perceived the children of Israel as a distinct group that immigrated to Egypt (cf. Gen 47–48). Drawing boundaries defines identity and is not necessarily negative. However, the new Egyptian king uses this distinction to portray Israel as the dangerous “other” who poses a threat, thus justifying his actions.

Initially, in verse 9, the king simply records what the narrative voice in Exod 1:7 reports: the children of Israel have become numerous (רב) and strong (עצום). However, he then goes beyond that by claiming that they are “more than us” (ממנו; i.e., the Egyptians). In the perception of the new Egyptian king, Israel is not only the “other” that does not belong to the “we-identity” but also a competitor. The statement that Israel has become more powerful than Egypt may stir fear and motivate followers to act quickly and decisively. The emphatic particle, הנה (“behold” or “look”), at the beginning of the sentence contributes to this.

In verse 10, the king pushes the polarization even further by depicting a scenario of war in which the Israelites join forces with Egypt’s enemies to fight against Egypt. This portrays Israel not only as a competitor but also as a military adversary.Footnote ¹⁵ Irmtraud Fischer notes that being foreign is viewed negatively in hierarchically ordered societies, resulting in disadvantages and exclusion.Footnote ¹⁶ In the situation presented in Exod 1:11–14, being foreign not only leads to exclusion but also to tangible social and physical oppression.

The speech aims to motivate action with the phrase, “Come on, let us deal shrewdly with them. . .” (Exod 1:10), and it is effective. In Exod 1:11, the Egyptians, not just the king, establish a system, in which the Israelites perform labor service to build state construction projects under the supervision of taskmasters (מסים). Therefore, Exod 1:11 is about the dependence of a collective that has to perform state-organized labor.Footnote ¹⁷ Accordingly, the Israelites may not be considered unfree with respect to personal law.Footnote ¹⁸ It was a common practice in Near Eastern societies for certain groups to provide labor service to the ruling class.Footnote ¹⁹ From Egypt’s perspective, one could argue that the Israelites who received land from Pharaoh (cf. Gen 45:18–20; 47:5–12) have an obligation to perform service in exchange for the land.Footnote ²⁰ However, it is clear that Pharaoh’s main intention for compelling the Israelites to perform labor is not economic. According to the biblical story, the labor obligation was rather intended to humiliate (cf. ענה, which is used twice in Exod 1:11–12), decimate, or weaken Israel (cf. Exod 1:8, 12).Footnote ²¹ This being the case, the Israelite labor can be described as forced.Footnote ²² In this study, the category of class is used to differentiate between forced laborers and taskmasters.

The king’s speech successfully provokes action but ultimately fails to achieve his goal of stopping Israel’s growth. In fact, the more the Israelites are oppressed, the more they multiply and spread (cf. Exod 1:12). As a result, the measures are tightened in verses 13 and 14. Verses 13 and 14 use the Hebrew words פרך (compulsion) and מרר (embittering) to express the increase of oppression: the Israelites are made to serve under duress (פרך), and their lives are embittered (מרר) through hard (קשה) work (עבודה) by the Egyptians.

In Exod 1:9–10, the king has created a division between Israel and EgyptFootnote ²³ based on ethnicity, which results not only in the ethnic humiliation of Israel but also in its social and physical humiliation. In the second scene another line of difference is added, which is strongly androcentric.Footnote ²⁴ In Exod 1:16, Pharaoh instructs two midwives, Shiphrah and Puah, to kill the sons of Hebrew women but to let their daughters live. The midwives are to make this selection immediately after the children’s births. The attempt to halt the growth of Israel has become even more extreme and cruel. Pharaoh targets the most vulnerable and defenseless members of society, specifically newborns, in order to prevent Israel from growing. The story employs the motif of the “Slaughter of the Innocents” which is also present in Exodus 1–2 in connection with the “Birth of the Hero” pattern (cf. the adaptation in Matthew 2).Footnote ²⁵ Prior to the birth of the savior, the king orders the senseless destruction of innocent life (cf. Exod 1:15–16 and 22), and the savior himself is one of the most vulnerable and endangered members of society (cf. Exod 2:1–10).

The text does not explicitly state the reason for the king’s distinction between sons and daughters. Scholars have suggested that the decision to spare daughters and kill sons may be related to patrilineal descent and patrilocal marriage practices, which involve the integration of women into their husbands’ families. In the Israelite society, a married woman’s identity is tied to her husband.Footnote ²⁶ If an Israelite woman is unable to find a man of her own people to procreate with, she may have children with an Egyptian man. However, the result would be the discontinuation of the Israelite lineage and the loss of Israel’s identity. Another consequence of sparing female children is their continued exploitation as slaves or forced laborers.

The killing of male babies at birth may also be linked to the law of inheritance in ancient Israel. If an Israelite family had no male heirs, their property would pass to the families into which their female heirs had married.Footnote ²⁷ According to Gen 45:18–20 and 47:5–12, the Israelites received land from Pharaoh, who reigned during Joseph’s time. The potential goal of the new Egyptian king in Exodus 1–2 may have been to reclaim this land for Egyptian families. Therefore, killing female babies at birth would not have been necessary. As there would be no male descendants of the Israelites, the adult female descendants would have to marry Egyptian men, resulting in the inheritance of the children of Israel falling to Egyptian families. ^{Footnote 28}

In this article, I will also emphasize another aspect or interpretation. As Nele Spiering-Schomberg notes, in a patrilineal-oriented society, a people without males lose not only their identity but also their political or military power.Footnote ²⁹ This idea is consistent with the king’s speech, in which he stokes fears that there are too many potential Israelite soldiers to fight Egypt.Footnote ³⁰ Women do not represent rivals or threats to national security in this mindset.Footnote ³¹ This is another reason why the killing of daughters seems unnecessary.

The fact that Pharaoh draws a line of distinction between men and women and focuses solely on the sons ultimately turns out to be his biggest failure, because the women become dangerous and resistant, and they are the ones who ensure the survival of the Hebrew people. As noted by Phyllis Trible, it probably would have been more effective for Pharaoh to have the daughters killed.Footnote ³²

The midwives do not obey the king’s command and instead let both male and female children live. This act of disobedience is the first defiance to Pharaoh in the book of Exodus. In Exod 1:12 the Israelites resist by multiplying despite physical oppression. Because the midwives defy a state order, their resistance is political, challenging the authority of the state.Footnote ³³ Nahum Sarna argues that the actions of the midwives in Exodus 1 represent “history’s first recorded case of civil disobedience in defense of a moral cause.”Footnote ³⁴

When justifying to the king why they did not kill, the midwives argue that the Hebrew women are different from the Egyptian women. They claim that the Hebrew women are more vital or animalistic (חיות)Footnote ³⁵ than their Egyptian counterparts and have therefore already given birth when the midwives arrive. On the one hand, the account shows that the midwives resist drawing a line of gender difference aimed at killing the Hebrew sons at birth. On the other hand, the midwives apparently take up Pharaoh’s ideology of ethnic differences as presented in Exod 1:9–10, to the point that they argue with differences in the physical fitness of the two groups of women.Footnote ³⁶ It is evident from the narrative that the midwives’ argument is an excuse. They deceive Pharaoh to avoid a life-threatening situation by adopting his ideology, thus outwitting Pharaoh. If Pharaoh truly believes and promotes the idea that Israelites are different from Egyptians, he will also believe that Hebrew women are different from Egyptian women. The midwives’ strategy is successful because Pharaoh has nothing to counter their arguments. Pharaoh’s intent to use the midwives for his evil plan finally fails due to his ideological convictions.Footnote ³⁷ The midwives can risk lying to Pharaoh because he is unable to verify the accuracy of their testimony. Birthing is the domain of the midwives, and as such, it is an area of life that is removed from the influence of the most powerful man in the country.

There is much debate in scholarship as to whether the midwives were Hebrew or Egyptian.Footnote ³⁸ The Hebrew consonant allows for both the translation “Hebrew midwives” and “midwives of the Hebrew women.” The Septuagint understood העברית (Hebrew) as a genitive (ταῖς μαίαις τῶν Eβραίων, “the midwives of the Hebrews”). Both the Hebrew consonantal text and the Septuagint are ambiguous about which ethnic group the midwives belong to. The later Masoretes vocalized the Hebrew text in such a way that הָעִבְרִיֹּת (Hebrew) should be understood as an apposition to לַמְיַלְּדֹת (midwives). Thus, the Masoretes assign the midwives to the Hebrew women. The observation that the midwives in Exodus 1 have Semitic names, Shiphrah and Puah, supports this interpretation. In favor of the interpretation that the midwives are Egyptian, it might be reasonable to argue that it seems more promising to use Egyptian rather than Hebrew midwives to kill Hebrew babies. It would also fit better into the structure of the text since all of Pharaoh’s other speeches are addressed only to his Egyptian compatriots.Footnote ³⁹ However, since there are good arguments for either readings or interpretations, the question of which ethnic group the midwives belong to ultimately has to remain open.

If the midwives were indeed Egyptian, their refusal to carry out Pharaoh’s plan would be even more remarkableFootnote ⁴⁰ because that would mean that the two Egyptian midwives, Shiphrah and Puah, would have overcome ethnic and class boundaries and ignored the distinction between Israel and Egypt, as well as the discrimination associated with it, which Pharaoh sought to enforce.Footnote ⁴¹

The third speech of the new king in Exod 1:22 leads into the third scene, in which Pharaoh no longer plans a secret genocide but instead calls for a public one.Footnote ⁴² This time the king does not merely speak, but he orders, and his command is to all “his people” (עמו). Also, the term “killing” (מות) is no longer used, but instead Pharaoh orders his subjects to “throw (שלח) him [i.e., the son] into the Nile.”Footnote ⁴³ Again, Pharaoh distinguishes between sons and daughters, but this time he does not differentiate between Hebrew and Egyptian sons—at least not in the Hebrew text version.Footnote ⁴⁴ In the following story, Exod 2:1–10, however, it becomes clear that Pharaoh’s command affects only Hebrew boys.

Female Agency in Exodus 2:1–10

The story in Exod 2:1–10 is about how women deal with the tightened command of the Egyptian king in Exod 1:22.Footnote ⁴⁵ The text mentions a man (איש) from the house (בית; i.e., family) of Levi who takes the Footnote ⁴⁶ daughter of Levi as his wife.Footnote ⁴⁷ Although this man defies the king’s murderous order by starting a family, he does not contribute to the child’s rescue or participate in the concrete resistance against Pharaoh. It is worth noting that the man from the house of Levi plays a more significant role in the Septuagint version. The verb forms ראה (see), צפן (conceal) and יכל (could [hide]) in verses 2 and 3 are in the plural form (ἰδόντες; ἐσκέπασαν; ἠδύναντο): “When they saw that he [i.e., the male child] was handsome, they concealed him. . . when they were not able to hide him anymore. . .” (LXX), instead of “And she looked at him. . . she hid him.. . . When she was no longer able to hide him. . .” (MT). The plural forms in the Greek text obviously refer to the child’s mother and father. In the Greek version, the father is more involved in his son’s fate than in the Hebrew text. Nonetheless, both in the Septuagint and in the Hebrew text, the mother is the one to initiate the child’s rescue.Footnote ⁴⁸ In Exod 2:2–3, Bat Levi is described as being meticulous and attentive to important details, as she “forgets and misses nothing, not the right moment to expose the child, not the right equipment for its salvation, and not to choose the appropriate place for exposure.”Footnote ⁴⁹

However, the child’s salvation that follows is only made possible by the (inter)actions of several women. Three female figures play prominent roles: Bat Levi (“Levi’s daughter”), the child’s sister, and Bat Pharaoh (“Pharaoh’s daughter”). At first, all three characters act in succession: Bat Levi in verses 2–3, the sister in verse 4, Bat Pharaoh in verses 5–6. Then, they interact: the sister with Bat Pharaoh in verses 7–8, the sister with Bat Levi in verse 8, Bat Pharaoh with Bat Levi in verses 9–10.

All three are introduced in their relation to their male relatives (cf. Exod 2:1, 4, 5) as daughters (בת) or sisters (אחות). Therefore, the text reflects the conventions of a patrilineal structured society in which women’s identity is determined by their fathers, brothers, or sons.Footnote ⁵⁰ However, throughout the entire story they act independently of their male relatives. In Exod 2:1–10, the plot is primarily driven by women, while men play a secondary role.Footnote ⁵¹

Two out of the three female protagonists in the story are Hebrew (cf. Exod 2:6, 7), as indicated by their lineage from the house (i.e., family or tribe) of Levi (cf. Exod 2:1). This places them within a specific subgroup of the people of Israel (cf. Exod 1:1–9). The third protagonist is introduced as Bat Pharaoh, indicating her Egyptian ethnicity. The three women not only differ in ethnicity but also in class and social status, with both categories being highly intertwined. According to Exod 1:11, Bat Levi and the sister’s child belong to an ethnic group that is oppressed by forced labor. In verses 6 and 7, the term עברים or עבריות (Hebrews) is used instead of “Israelites,” which may suggest a lower social status. The term primarily has an ethnic meaning as it refers to “Israelites” (cf. Gen 40:15 and 43:32). However, Rainer Albertz and Helmut Utzschneider argue that when the term contrasts the Israelites with the Egyptians, it carries a social connotation, as it also refers to Israel’s status as foreign, subordinated, oppressed, and marginalized.Footnote ⁵²

Bat Pharaoh is not only Egyptian but also a member of the royal family. The text indicates that maidens are subordinate to her (נערותיה and אמתה), reflecting her power. As an Egyptian princess, she holds one of the highest statuses a woman can have in society,Footnote ⁵³ while Levi’s daughter and the child’s sister are at the very edge of society.

Determining the age of the women is a more difficult task. In the case of Bat Levi, it is evident that she is of childbearing ageFootnote ⁵⁴ as she gives birth to a son, and her motherhood is explicitly mentioned in verse eight (הילד אם).Footnote ⁵⁵ Only the sister is explicitly referred to as עלמה (cf. Exod 2:8). This Hebrew term is generally assumed to refer to a young unmarriedFootnote ⁵⁶ woman of childbearing age (cf., e.g., Gen 24:43). This interpretation agrees with the LXX, which translates עלמה in Exod 2:8 as νεᾶνις (young woman).Footnote ⁵⁷ While the age of Bat Levi can only be determined approximately, it is difficult to estimate the age of Pharaoh’s daughter. At first glance, her exclusiveFootnote ⁵⁸ designation as “Bat Pharaoh” (“daughter of Pharaoh”) could indicate her age or her marital status, because biblical texts typically introduce unmarried girls and women, such as Bat Pharaoh in Exodus 2, by their father’s name or title (cf., e.g., Gen 24:15; 29:6, 16; Exod 2:21; Esth 2:7).Footnote ⁵⁹ It might therefore, on the one hand, be reasonable to assume that Bat Pharaoh is unmarried and may be of a similar age to the sister. On the other hand, Solomon’s wife is also called “Bat Pharaoh” (cf. 1 Kgs 3:1; 7:8; 2 Chr 8:11; 1 Kgs 9:16, 24; 1 Chr 4:18), which means that the term might not indicate marital status but rather function as a political and cultural statement.Footnote ⁶⁰

Therefore, the sister fulfills several criteria that Irmtraud Fischer identifies as having a negative impact on social status in hierarchical societies:Footnote ⁶¹ she is young, female, and a member of an oppressed ethnic group. Against this background, her key role in the Hebrew-Egyptian interaction is even more remarkable. Some scholars claim that her role is merely to help Levi’s daughter,Footnote ⁶² but she in fact plays a crucial role in connecting the actions of the other two female characters (cf. Exod 2:4, 6–7) and thus acts as a mediator between Bat Pharaoh and Bat Levi. Also, the text does not imply that Bat Levi instructs her to do anything; instead, she acts independently. Additionally, the longest speech, based on the number of words, is attributed to her, while Bat Levi remains silent.Footnote ⁶³ Initially, the sister stands at a distance and observes as Pharaoh’s daughter discovers the child (cf. Exod 2:4). The Hebrew verb יצב in Hitpael, instead of the verb עמד in Qal, indicates an intense standing, with the sister standing firmly, demonstrating decisive and committed action. Therefore, the sister is more than an uninvolved bystander. She watches with tension, ready to intervene if necessary. Despite their differences in ethnicity, class, and arguably also age, the sister is the first who initiates a cross-ethnic and cross-class interaction by daring to address Bat Pharaoh in Exod 2:7: “Shall I go (האלך) and call for you (לך) a nursing woman from the Hebrew women that she may nurse the child for you (לך).” In light of the hierarchical structure of society at that time, the sister’s unsolicited and unbidden initiative is remarkably courageous. In the book of Esther, for example, Esther fears for her life because she appears before the king without being asked (cf. Esth 4:10–17; 5:1–5). However, unlike Bat Pharaoh later on, the sister proposes instead of commanding. Formally, the decision thus remains with Bat Pharaoh. The sister carefully signals her acceptance of the higher position of Bat Pharaoh. Linguistically, this is reflected in the interrogative particle ה־ (i.e., Shall I. . .). The phrasing of the question is clever because it implies that Bat Pharaoh has already accepted the child as her own: “Shall I go and call for you (לך) a nursing woman. . . that she may nurse the child for you (לך).” It is possible that it is the sister’s question that gives Bat Pharaoh the idea of accepting the child as her own in the first place. In any case, the sister’s intervention aims to ensure the child’s rescue. One could even go so far as to argue that Bat Pharaoh is somewhat deceived or even manipulated in her decision. At least the sister, although she has the lowest status of all protagonists, can influence the course of events since Bat Pharaoh does exactly what she proposes.

The intervention of the sister not only ensures that Bat Pharaoh accepts the child as her own but also results in the reunion of the baby child with its birth mother, at least for the breastfeeding period (cf. Exod 2:9–10). Without the sister, there would have been no interaction between Bat Levi and Bat Pharaoh. Simultaneously, the sister also initiates cross-generational interaction by calling the child’s mother. Although Bat Levi holds a higher position in the family hierarchy, it is the sister who drives the action.

Although the sister has the longest single speech (cf. Exod 2:7) compared to the other characters, Bat Pharaoh speaks first and most frequently—a total of four times (cf. Exod 2:6, 8, 9, 10). Scholars have been quick to point out that her character is at the center of the narrative.Footnote ⁶⁴ Indeed, the finding of the child in verses 5–6, is entirely determined by her actions. Nevertheless, Bat Pharaoh does not act alone. First, an unnamed number of maidens accompany her. The Hebrew term נערות (maidens) essentially means “young women.” It is the same Hebrew term used in Exod 2:6 for the baby boy (נער, “young boy”). The term does not mean necessarily “servants,” but the maidens are referred to as “her maidens” (i.e., as maidens of Pharaoh’s daughter). They are, in fact, the first female characters in Exodus 2 who are not introduced through their relation to a man but to a woman. They are tasked with walking along the banks of the Nile while Bat Pharaoh bathes (cf. Exod 2:5). From a narratological perspective, the maidens are secondary characters since they do not actively influence the course of events. Nevertheless, these figures are essential to the story. They patrol, most likely, to protect the bathing princess from the gaze of men (cf. Dan 13:15–27). Thus, similar to the midwives’ workplace, the text presents a feminine space that is withdrawn from the realm of male influence. The maidens also witness the discovery of the princess. If Bat Pharaoh spoke the words, “A child from the Hebrews it is,” aloud, her maidens’ presence would mean that there would have been a public audience for her statement (at least in the female sphere in which she is ruling). This emphasizes the political significance of Bat Pharaoh’s actions. Additionally, one of her attendants is directly involved in saving the child. She is set apart from the other female companions by being referred to as אמה. The Hebrew term אמה means servant or slave and thus indicates that her social status is lower than that of the other female companions. The female servant is sent by the princess, who notices the box in the reeds. Although the princess is the grammatical subject of all actions in verses 5 and 6—she sees, sends, takes, spares (or feels pity), and speaksFootnote ⁶⁵—the context implies that the female servant is responsible for drawing the child from the water so that the princess can take the child easily. In Exod 2:10, the servant acts on behalf of the princess. Bat Pharaoh depends on the help of her subordinate and relies on the loyalty of all her attendants. If her companions had informed the Egyptian king, who is of course far above her in the hierarchy,Footnote ⁶⁶ that his daughter had saved a Hebrew child, the rescue operation would have failed. Thus, more than just the three women who are directly involved can be credited with Moses’ rescue. Rather, it is the collaboration of several women who differ in their social status that achieves this goal. What remains unclear in the text is the ethnicity of the young women and the female servant. The context seems to suggest that they are most likely not Hebrew. If they were in fact Egyptian, then this would imply that women from the Egyptian lower class were also involved in saving the Hebrew child.

In verse 6, Bat Pharaoh reacts spontaneously and emotionally upon discovering the weeping Hebrew baby boy (נער). She expresses pity for the child and quickly realizes the situation, exclaiming: “It is a child of the Hebrews!” Unlike the Egyptians in Exod 1:12, Bat Pharaoh does not display disgust (קוץ) towards the Hebrew child, despite her father’s branding of the Hebrews or Israelites as outsiders and dangerous. Instead, she responds with empathy. The Hebrew word חמל, however, not only means “to feel compassion,” but also has the connotation of “to spare,” as can be seen, for instance, in 1 Sam 15:9 where the verb חמל is used in exactly this meaning. In this passage, it is said that king Saul and the people spare (ויחמול) Agag, the king of Amalek, after Israel’s military victory against Amalek; i.e., Saul lets Agag live and does not kill him. The Hebrew word חמל, meaning “to spare,” is also used in 2 Sam 21:7, when king David chooses not to kill Mephibosheth, the son of Saul’s son Jonathan, but shows him mercy.Footnote ⁶⁷

Interpreted in this manner, Bat Pharaoh’s response is not solely one of compassion but also a political maneuver, as Helmut Utzschneider astutely observes.Footnote ⁶⁸ If one reads the verb חמל in its ambiguity, Bat Pharaoh is portrayed more as a ruler than as a woman with maternal instincts and thus emerges as a counterpart to her father. She not only defies his orders but also acts in direct opposition to him, as can be seen when she pulls the baby boy out of the water (or the female servant for her; cf. Exod 2:5) instead of throwing him into it, as she emphatically confesses in verse 10: “Yes. . . for out of the water I pulled him.” The narrative in Exod 1:22–2:10 is framed by the antonyms “throw” (שלך) and “pull out” (משﬣ), which also emphasize the act of rebellion against the father. Scholars have shown that Pharaoh is portrayed as an anti-figure to God in the book of Exodus, because he is a threat not only to the promise of multiplication made to the ancestors of Israel, but also to the fulfillment of the blessing of multiplication for all people. Conversely, as shown, Bat Pharaoh is depicted as an antagonist to her father.Footnote ⁶⁹ She is therefore a figure who contributes to the fulfillment of God’s blessing.

The two daughters, Bat Pharaoh and Bat Levi, finally work hand in hand (cf. Exod 2:9–10). Bat Levi responds to the Egyptian king’s orders (cf. Exod 1:22) by placing the child in a box and putting it in the Nile (cf. Exod 2:2–3). Bat Pharaoh, or rather her female servant acting on her behalf, retrieves the child from the river (cf. Exod 2:6, 10). Then both cooperate or interact with each other (cf. Exod 2:9–10), and Bat Pharaoh gives the child to Bat Levi to nurse. Finally, Bat Levi gives the child back. In the last scene in Exod 1:15–22, it remains open whether the midwives are Hebrew or Egyptian. Exodus 2:1–10 describes a unique interaction between Hebrew and Egyptian characters, initiated by the sister who is the first to cross cultural boundaries by addressing the Egyptian princess.

A closer look into the Hebrew text reveals the extent to which the female interaction is equally characterized by an imbalanced power dynamic. The most visible indication for this type of unbalanced power dynamic is the fact that Pharaoh’s daughter commands others. She addresses both the child’s sister and Levi’s daughter with imperatives, thus telling the sister to “go” (לכי; cf. Exod 2:8) and Levi’s daughter to “take away this child” (היליכי את הילד הזה) and to “breastfeed it [i.e., the child] for me” (הינקהו לי; cf. Exod 2:9). Her communication with the sister and mother is concise, regally detached, and decisive. The sister dares to address Bat Pharaoh. However, the sister asks questions and suggests rather than commands. Bat Pharaoh does as the sister suggests, but she has the power to decide otherwise. It is striking that Bat Levi does not speak one single word throughout the entire text. As with Bat Pharaoh, her presence is ensured by the use of a series of active verbs,Footnote ⁷⁰ but she is the only main character who remains silent. In verses 8, 9, and 10, Bat Levi only lets herself be summoned by the sister and carries out the tasks assigned to her by Bat Pharaoh. Her thoughts or feelings are not mentioned at all.Footnote ⁷¹

The employment of Bat Levi as a wet nurse for Bat Pharaoh highlights the social disparity and power imbalance between the two figures. Historical sources from Mesopotamian and Greco-Roman societies indicate that wet nurses were typically recruited from lower social classes,Footnote ⁷² and only wealthy families, particularly those of royal status, could afford to hire them.Footnote ⁷³ It is noteworthy that Bat Pharaoh compensates the Hebrew woman for her services as a wet nurse, treating her as a free woman rather than an unpaid forced laborer.Footnote ⁷⁴

In summary, in order to save the child’s life, the sister and Bat Levi have no other choice but to cooperate with Bat Pharaoh. As a result, they are in a much weaker position than Bat Pharaoh, who has the power to decide the child’s fate. Although the sister has some influence, Bat Pharaoh is the one who sets the terms for the Hebrew-Egyptian cooperation.

The supremacy of Bat Pharaoh is evident in how she is related to the baby boy. At the very end of the story, the text states “he [i.e., the little boy] was son to her [i.e., Bat Pharaoh]” (ויהי לה לבן). That the child belongs to Bat Pharaoh is indicated by the Hebrew preposition ל־. For the first and only time, a male character is identified in relation to a female protagonist rather than the other way around.Footnote ⁷⁵ Unlike Bat Levi, Bat Pharaoh is not referred to as the “mother of the child” (אם הילד; Exod 2:8). Instead, the child is son for her (לה), and the princess is therefore also the one who names the child (Exod 2:10). The female figures in Exodus 2 are not identified by proper names, which may suggest their insignificance (nomen est omen). However, the questions of who has the authority to name is more important for the issue of power than the question of who bears a proper name. Bat Pharaoh ultimately names the baby boy and gives him the name Moses (cf. Exod 2:10). The naming of the Hebrew child by an Egyptian princess may suggest a practice among the ancient Near Eastern kings or rulers who demonstrated their power by renaming their subjugated vassal kings (cf. 2 Kgs 23:34; 24:17; cf. also Gen 41:45, Dan 1:7, and Gen 2:19–10). The act of giving a name or renaming is a display of power over the named or renamed. Thus, while the text introduces Bat Pharaoh as an unnamed character she is in fact a powerful figure, as evidenced, among other things, by her role as a name-giver.