Freud and Buber on Exodus 2

I've posted previously about my course with Prof. Jonathan Cohen (and I still haven't found the right picture of the Star Trek alien he looks like) about biblical hermeneutics (and their educational implications, though I have yet to figure out how exactly the educational נפקות מינה actually fit into the course in any way whatsoever).

Yesterday, some gems as we looked at Freud (Moses and Monotheism) and Cohen brought in Buber on the same text as a contrast. (Caveat: I've never read either interpretation in the original, so parsing between Cohen's read and the texts themselves will not be so simple.)

In short, foreshadowing some of my own crazy theories about who precisely was in מצריים and Knohl's new work מאין באנו, Freud argues that Moses was an Egyptian prince, that the folk etymology of Exodus 2 (כי מן המים משיתיהו - for she drew him out of the water) is actually a faux-etymology. Noting that Moses means "boy" in Egyptian (often including a name of God - like Ra-Mses, Son of Ra) (and possibly creating a pun of the Biblical phrase איש האלוהים), Freud goes on to suggest that the mythic narrative beneath the text (which, itself, is a reflection of psychology) has Moses as a foreign prince taking over the Israelite nation to resurrect the cult of Amun (Egypt's henotheistic deity that had a short-lived sojourn in the Pharoah's throne), ultimately to be deposed by the nation and murdered (even if you don't hold by the murder motif, the clear narrative of pre-Davidic Israel [if not post-Davidic Israel] is a struggle to remain loyal to the one true dude throughout Exodus [Golden Calf]; Numbers [copper serpents; scaredy-cat spies; revolting Levites; sexually promiscuous folk in general]; Deuteronomy [a recap of all the fun of Exodus and Numbers]; Joshua; and Judges). This plays right into Freud's read of the primordial narrative of ancient civilization itself, whereby "the masses" (sounds somewhat Marxist, no?) depose the ruler (who's got the cash, the ladies, and the power) only to feel horrifically guilty about it afterwards.

Buber (again, according to Cohen) has a different take, with a little more textual umph. He also notes the weird folk etymology but twists it in a different way (as he should based on my understanding of other folk etymologies throughout תנ"ך) to refer to the future drawing forth and not the past (see, for example, Abraham's name change; Judah's future role vis-a-vis his name change; and Joshua's name change for supports of the "don't read past, read future" approach). Buber notes that Moses' name (even if it does just mean "boy" in Egyptian) is the only name found in that narrative - after a bunch of "Pharoah's daughter," "Son of Levi," "His sister," et c. By being the only proper name in the narrative, Moses' name takes on deeper meaning, and Buber notes its possible prophetic nature - yes, it means "boy" in Egyptian, and that's what makes sense in context, but it also foretells of Moses' leading the people through water at the Sea of Reeds and the general narrative of deliverance that will mark his life. Buber also cites a stunning verse that serves as a prooftext here - Isaiah 63:11 - וַיִּזְכֹּר יְמֵי-עוֹלָם, מֹשֶׁה עַמּוֹ; אַיֵּה הַמַּעֲלֵם מִיָּם, אֵת רֹעֵי צֹאנוֹ--אַיֵּה הַשָּׂם בְּקִרְבּוֹ, אֶת-רוּחַ קָדְשׁוֹ - Then God remembered the eternal past, the drawing forth of his nation (or, Moses and God's nation); Where is he who lifted them up from the water, God's shepherded flock - where is the one whose name was in their midst, God's holy spirit?

Some people in our class noted that some classical commentators (i.e., מפרשים או חז"ל) had asked similar questions of the text, and these students hoped to use that point as some sort of evidence that Buber and Freud were not doing crucially important work. I think that Cohen mishandled this part of the class, in his omission of the following crucial point:

A hermeneutical approach is not always obvious in the questions that a reader asks. They are, however, constantly on the surface of the answers that the reader provides.

Buber and Freud may very well have asked the same questions as ספרונו, רשב"ם, and the גמרא, but that is not proof that their approach was ancient. Problems in the text can be seen (and created and exploited) by all - it is the way that the problem is answered in which lies the key to understanding its author.