1 On this delimitation, see J. Cheryl Exum, “ ‘You Shall Let Every Daughter Live’: A Study of Exodus 1.8–2.10,” in A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy (ed. Athalya Brenner; The Feminist Companion to the Bible 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) 37–61, at 42; Phyllis Trible, “Difference Among the Distaff: A Reading of Exodus 1.1–2.10,” in Making a Difference: Essays on the Bible and Judaism in Honor of Tamara Cohn Eskenazi (ed. David J. A. Clines, Jacob L. Wright, and Kent Harold Richards; HBM 49; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012) 292–306, at 292. At the same time, Exod 2:1–10 is the opening of a new narrative thread dealing with Moses’ identity in Exod (1:22)2:1–2:22, see Thomas E. Dozeman, Commentary on Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary; Grands Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) 62, 78–91. On the position of Exod 2:1–2:10 within the opening chapters in Exod 1:1–2:25, see Helmut Utzschneider and Wolfgang Oswald, Exodus 1–15 (IEKAT; Stuttgart: Verlag Kohlhammer, 2013) 65; Siebert Hommes, “But if she be a Daughter. . . She May Live! ‘Daughters’ and ‘Sons’ in Exodus 1–2,” in A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy (ed. Athalya Brenner; The Feminist Companion to the Bible 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994) 62–74, at 64.

2 The term “intersectionality” was first coined by the African-American legal scholar Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw in 1989. See Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics,” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1 (1989), Article 8, 139–67. See also Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color,” Stanford Law Review 43 (1991) 1241–99. Intersectional analysis—first applied in the legal and social science disciplines—has since found its way into (feminist) biblical exegesis. Women of color were among the earliest interpreters to use the intersectional approach. See, e.g., the African-American biblical scholar Clarice Martin, “The Haustafeln (Household Codes) in Afro-American Biblical Interpretation: Free Slaves and Subordinate Women,” in Stony the Road We Trod: African-American Biblical Interpretation (ed. Cain Hope Felder; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991), 206–31; the African-American scholar Delores S. Williams, Sisters in the Wilderness: The Challenge of Womanist God-Talk (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1993) 4, 15–19; and the African-American scholar Mitzi Smith, “Roman Slavery in Antiquity,” in The African American Jubilee Bible (New York: American Bible Society, 1999) 157–85. On intersectionality in biblical studies, see also Gale A. Yee, “Thinking Intersectionally: Gender, Race, Class, and the Etceteras of Our Discipline,” JBL 139.1 (2020) 7–26; Nyasha Junior, An Introduction to Womanist Biblical Interpretation (Louisville: WJK, 2015); Womanist Interpretations of the Bible: Expanding the Discourse (ed. Gay L. Byron and Vanessa Lovelace; Semeia 85; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016); Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “Introduction: Exploring the Intersections of Race, Gender, Status, and Ethnicity in Early Christian Studies,” in Prejudice and Christian Beginnings: Investigating Race, Gender, and Ethnicity in Early Christian Studies (ed. Laura Nasrallah and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2009) 1–23; Carol Meyers, “Gender and the Heterarchy Alternative for Re-Modeling Ancient Israel,” in The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Approaches to the Hebrew Bible (ed. Susanne Scholz; New York: Oxford University Press, 2021) 443–59; Renate Jost, “Intersektionalität als Herausforderung für Feministische Theologie, Gender Studies und Religion: Einführende Überlegungen,” in Vielfalt und Differenz. Intersektionale Perspektiven auf Feminismus und Religion (ed. Renate Jost and Sarah Jäger; Internationale Forschungen in Feministischer Theologie und Religion: Befreiende Perspektiven 6; Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2017) 7–17.

3 However, intersectional studies not only aim at researching differences in gender, ethnicity, class, etc., as well as the power relations resulting from these differences, but also draw attention to discrimination that results from the intersection of social categories such as gender, ethnicity, and class. Some biblical books, texts or stories address multiple discrimination (cf., e.g., the figure of Hagar in the book of Genesis or the foreign women in the book of Ezra/Nehemiah). However, there are also biblical books that tell counter-stories (cf., for instance, the book of Ruth). As I will show in this study, the child’s sister in Exod 2:1–10 is not discriminated against based on gender, class, and ethnicity. She acts to save her brother despite the power imbalance between her and Bat Pharaoh. Hence, this study does not meet certain criteria of intersectionality.

4 See Ute E. Eisen, Christine Gerber, and Angela Standhartinger, “Doing Gender–Doing Religion: Zur Frage nach der Intersektionalität in den Bibelwissenschaften: Eine Einleitung,” in Doing Gender—Doing Religion: Fallstudien zur Intersektionalität im frühen Judentum, Christentum und Islam (ed. Ute E. Eisen, Christine Gerber, and Angela Standhartinger; WUNT 302; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013) 1–36, at 27–29.

5 On these criteria or categories for the definition of social differences in Near Eastern societies, see Fischer, “Inklusion und Exklusion–Biblische Perspektiven,” 11. On marital status, see Sara Bolze, “Auch wenn ich schwach scheine, bin ich stark”: Tamar in Gen 38 und die kanaanäische Frau in Mt 15,21–28 in intersektionaler Perspektive (ed. Renate Jost, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, and Susannah Heschel; Internationale Forschungen in Feministischer Theologie und Religion: Befreiende Perspektiven 12; Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2024) 35. On motherhood, see Delores S. Williams, Sisters in the Wilderness, 4, 15–19. On motherhood and fertility, see also Nele Spiering-Schomborg, “Manifestationen von Ungleichheit: Exegetische und bibeldidaktische Perspektiven zur Hagar-Erzählung im Horizont von Intersektionalität und Vielfalt,“ in Einschließung und Ausgrenzung: Von Intersektionalität von Religion, Geschlecht und sozialem Status für religiöse Bildung (ed. Thorsten Knauth and Maren A. Jochimsen; Münster, NY: Waxmann Verlag, 2017) 61–78, at 68–69.

6 See Marianne Bjelland Kartzow, “Intersectional Studies,” in Oxford Encylopedia of the Bible and Gender Studies, Vol. 1: ASI-MUJ (ed. Julia O’Brien; Oxford University Press: New York, 2014), www.oxfordreference.com.

7 On theories of the textual genesis, see, for instance, Utzschneider and Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 67–92 or Dozeman, Commentary on Exodus, 57–61.

8 On this approach, see, for instance, Carol Meyers, Exodus (NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) 2–3.

9 On this structure, see Exum, “ ‘You Shall Let Every Daughter Live,’ ” 42; Trible, “Difference among the Distaff,” 292.

10 Spiering-Schomberg, Exodus 1, 171, has drawn attention to these lines of difference in Exod 1:8–22. See also Renita Weems, “The Hebrew Women are not Like the Egyptian Women: The Ideology of Race, Gender and Sexual Reproduction in Exodus 1,” in Semeia 59 (1992) 25–34, at 30: “Difference is inherent in the culture of the story [e.g. Exod 1:8–22]: differences between Egyptians and Hebrews, differences between slaves and slave masters, differences between Egyptian women and Hebrew women, differences between male and female children, differences between women and men.”

11 All following translations of the Hebrew texts stems from the author of this article.

12 Magdi S. Gendi, “Pharaoh as a Character in Exodus 1–2: An Egyptian Perspective,” in Exodus and Deuteronomy (ed. Athalya Brenner and Gale Yee; Texts@Contexts; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2012) 55–66, at 57; Meyers, Exodus, 34; Georg Fischer and Dominik Markl, Das Buch Exodus (NSKAT 2; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009) 30. This distinction between “us” and “them” can be determined by the Hebrew grammatical forms.

13 See Meyers, Exodus, 34 and Kristin Weingart, “Volk (AT),” in WiBiLex (2016) 1.1.1, www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/34299/.

14 It is important to note that the genealogies of descent depicted in the Bible are literary constructions. See, for instance, Robert R. Wilson, “The Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research,” in JBL 94 (1975) 169–89, at 171.

15 The last remark of the king in v. 10 is treacherous because the king also prophesies that Israel could leave the country (ועלה מן הארץ); see Benno Jacob, Das Buch Exodus (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1997) 9. If the Israelites are as powerful and dangerous as the king claims, he should be relieved if they leave voluntarily. The speech is contradictory. On the one hand, the king plays with the Egyptian people’s fear of being inferior. On the other hand, his last words reveal the desire of being dominant and supreme. See Gendi, “Pharaoh,” 58; Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 47.

16 See Fischer, “Inklusion,“ 11; Spiering-Schomberg, Exodus 1, 160.

17 See Meyers, Exodus, 34–36; Wolfgang Oswald, “Auszug aus der Vasallität–Exodus-Erzählung (Ex 1–14*) und das antike Völkerrecht,“ in ThZ 3.67 (2011) 263–88, at 269–76.

18 See Karl-Wilhelm Welwei, “Sklaverei und Zwangsarbeit im Alten Orient und in der griechischen und hellenistischen Welt,” in Zwangsarbeit als Kriegsressource in Europa und Asien (ed. Kerstin von Lingen and Klaus Gestwa; Krieg in der Geschichte 77; Paderborn: Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2014) 73–91, at 73; Antonio Loprieno, “Slavery and Servitude,” in UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 1/1 (2012), www.escholarship.org/uc/item/8mx2073f.

19 Utzschneider and Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 69–70.

20 Christoph Dohmen, Exodus 1–18 (HThKAT; Freiburg im Breisgau: Verlag Herder, 2015) 102–3.

21 See Albertz, Exodus 1–18 (ZBAT 2.1; Zürich: TVZ, 2012) 46–48. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 102, however, disagrees.

22 The wording in Exod 1:11–12 (ענה [twice], סבלות,מסים) suggests most likely “forced labor”; see Jost and Peetz, Exodus, forthcoming. The NRSV even translates סבלות (heavy burden) in Exod 1:11 with “forced labor.” J. Alberto Soggin, “Compulsory Labor under David and Solomon,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays (ed. Tomoo Ishida; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1982) 259–67, at 260–61, argues that the Hebrew term מסים from Akkadian massu indicates “statutory labor.” According to Soggin, the term סבלות specified the labor of the Israelites in Exod 1:11 as “forced labor.”

23 See Gendi, “Pharaoh as a Character,” 57.

24 Spiering-Schomberg, Exodus 1, 171.

25 For a more detailed analysis of the motif of the “Slaughter of the Innocents” and the “Birth of the Hero” pattern, see Dozeman, Exodus, 86; Ulrich Luz, Matthäus 1–7 (EKKNT; Zürich: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002). On the “Birth of the Hero” pattern, cf. also the legend of “the birth of Sargon the Great” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts: Relating to the Old Testament [ed. James B. Pritchard; 3^rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969] 119).

26 See Fischer, Gottesstreiterinnen, 160; Jost and Peetz, Exodus, forthcoming.

27 See Maier, “Der Diskurs um interkulturelle Ehen in Jehud als antikes Beispiel von Intersektionalität,” in Doing Gender–Doing Religion, 129–53, at 144–45.

28 On this Interpretation, see also Christoph Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 102–3.

29 Spiering-Schomborg, Exodus 1, 171.

30 Ellmenreich, “Widerstand,” 40. Although there are numerous female gods of war in antiquity (such as the goddess Anat, cf. Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découvertes à Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 à 1939 [ed. Andrée Herdner; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1963] 1, 3, 35–40), war is apparently a male affair in daily life. In the surviving Assyrian reliefs, only men are depicted as military soldiers (cf., e.g., the Lachish relief in The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament [ed. James B. Pritchard; 4^th ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992] 371). However, the Bible also knows female warriors—women in leading military positions (cf., e.g., the judge Deborah in Judg 4).

31 See Spiering-Schomberg, Exodus 1, 171.

32 See Phyllis Trible, “Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation,” JAAR 41 (1973) 30–48, at 34 and the reference to Trible in Exum, “ ‘You Shall Let Every Daughter Live,’ ” 37.

33 For more on the role of the midwives and their power, see Jost and Peetz, Exodus, forthcoming.

34 Nahum Sarna, Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel (New York: Schocken Books, 1986), 25. See also Judy Klitsner, Subversive Sequels in the Bible: How Biblical Stories Mine and Undermine Each Other (Philadelphia: JPS Society 2009) 31–62.

35 The Hebrew expression חיות (hayot), is highly ambiguous and ambivalent. The word חיות (hayot), which occurs in the Bible only here, is often translated as “vital.” Understood this way, the term most likely implies in the context of Exod 1:19 that Hebrew women are not as delicate as Egyptian women. They are vigorous and give birth so quickly that any midwife arrives too late. This ultimately means that Israel is strong, whereas Egypt is weak. This characterization devalues the Egyptian women as compared to the Hebrew women; see Fischer, Gottesstreiterinnen, 161. However, at the same time, the term חיות also alludes to hayyot (animals); see Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 51. If read this way, the statement can also be understood as indicating that the Hebrew women are (like) animals and therefore give birth so quickly that they do not need a midwife (unlike the cultured Egyptians), resulting in a strongly pejorative perspective on the Hebrew women.

36 Unlike the king in Exod 1:9–10, the midwives argue with the body. The physical and biological appearance of Hebrew women (they are much more vital or animal-like) is different from that of Egyptian women. Hence the midwives employ bodyisms to favor or disfavor certain groups.

37 Nele Spiering-Schomborg, Exodus 1, 177. Nevertheless, Renita Weems, “Hebrew Women,” 32–33, rightly notes that neither the characters within the story nor the narrator challenge the stereotypes assumed in Exod 1:8–22. Instead, the story inverts these stereotypes to serve its own ideological interests. Weems therefore emphasizes that the story cannot be understood as a liberation story without due caution. On Weems, see also Juliana M. Claassens, “Resisting Dehumanization: Acts of Relational Care in Exodus 1–2 as Image of God’s Liberating Presence,” in Scriptura 105 (2010) 572–80, at 572–73 n. 1.

38 On this issue, see, for instance, Jost and Peetz, Exodus, forthcoming or Dozeman, Commentary on Exodus, 73–74.

39 Thomas Römer, “Moses und die Frauen in Exodus 1–4,” in Wege der Freiheit zu Entstehung und Theologie des Exodusbuches (ed. Reinhard Achenbach, Rut Ebach, and Jakob Wöhrle; Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und des Neuen Testaments 104; TVZ: Zürich, 2014) 73–86, at 76–77, who argues in favor of the interpretation as Egyptian midwives.

40 See Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 49–50.

41 See Spiering-Schomberg, Exodus 1, 179; Jaqueline E. Lapsley, Whispering the Word: Hearing Women’s Stories in the Old Testament (Louisville, Kentucky; WJK, 2005) 72.

42 Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 48.

43 The measures become more extreme each time an attempt fails. First, Pharaoh tried to decimate Israel, more or less passively, by forced labor. Then, he planned a secret genocide. Now he is planning a public one, in which all Egyptians are to participate. The resistance likewise intensifies. In the first case, the rebellion consists of Israel resisting and multiplying despite hard work. In the second case, two midwives rebel by not carrying out Pharaoh’s order. In the third case, Pharaoh’s daughter explicitly acts contrary to her father’s command.

44 The translators of the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, and the Targumim make it clear that it is about the sons of the Hebrews (LXX: ὃ ἐὰν τεχθῇ τοῖς Eβραίοις; PJT: כל ביר דכר דאיתיליד ליהודאי). However, according to Utzschneider and Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 81, this “inconsistency” of the Hebrew text might be a deliberate inconsistency, to represent Pharaoh as unlimited in the extent of his cruelty.

45 Fischer, Gottesstreiterinnen, 162.

46 It is noticeable that the woman is not introduced as being a daughter of Levi but decidedly as the daughter of Levi (the text uses accusative particle את). Possibly this is to set her apart as a profiled character from her husband. He is merely a man stemming from the house of Levi. That she is introduced as the daughter of Levi, at the same time, serves to juxtapose her in opposition to the daughter of Pharaoh, see also Siebert-Hommes, “ ‘Daughters’ and ‘Sons’,” 67–68.

47 Verbatim, the text does not say that the man took a wife (אשה), but that he took Levi’s daughter. Therefore, Konrad Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments (WMANT 81; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999) 153, argues that the birth in v. 2 is illegitimate. In this, he sees an analogy to “the birth legend of Sargon” (a story that probably served as a model for Exod 2:1–10), where Sargon introduces himself as an illegitimate child by saying that he does not know his father and that his mother gave birth to him secretly. The interpretation as an illegitimate birth could explain why the man does not play any role in the salvation of the baby boy in the following narrative; see Jost and Peetz, Exodus, forthcoming. However, in the Hebrew Bible, the Hebrew term לקח (take) with a simple object can refer to a legitimate relationship, such as marriage (cf., for instance, Gen 4:19; 11:29; 38:2; Deut 20:7; 22:13); see, for instance, Dozeman, Exodus, 80 and Utzschneider and Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 80. The father’s inaction is probably best explained by the narrative intention to put women in the spotlight. In contrast to the men, the women resist not only indirectly by continuing to procreate, but also directly by either not carrying out Pharaoh’s order (cf. the midwives in Exod 1:15–21) or even undermining his orders and turning them into the opposite (see the following interpretation).

48 Utzschneider and Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 86 n. 48.

49 Helmut Utzschneider, “Die LXX als Erzählerin: Beobachtung an der LXX-Fassung der Geburts- und Kindheitsgeschichte des Mose (Ex 2:1–10),” in Die Septuaginta: Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse (ed. Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer; WUNT 252; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) 462–77, at 469.

50 On the patriarchal structure of the societies in ancient Israel, cf., for instance, Fischer, “Inklusion und Exklusion,” 14.

51 Some feminist scholars find the stories in Exod 2:1–10 and Exod 1:8–22 troubling, since all female figures are introduced from an androcentric mindset or patriarchal point of view, namely as daughters and sisters of men, or are defined by typical female professions. Also, their actions revolve around male characters, and Exod 2:1–10 is even framed by male proper names, namely “Levi” and “Moses.” Moreover, the crying little boy stands in the center of the text (cf. Exod 2:5). On the feminist critique of Exod 1–2, see, for instance, J. Cheryl Exum, “Second Thoughts about Secondary Characters: Women in Exodus 1.8–2.10,” in A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy (ed. Athalya Brenner; A Feminist Companion to the Bible 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) 75–87; Esther Fuchs, “A Jewish-Feminist Reading of Exodus 1–2,” in Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scripture (ed. Alice Ogden Bellis and Joel S. Kaminsky; Symposium Series 8; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2000) 307–26; and Susanne Scholz, “Exodus: Was Befreiung aus seiner Sicht bedeutet. . .,” in Kompendium feministischer Bibelauslegung (ed. Luise Schottroff and Marie-Theres Wacker; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 1998) 26–39. It should be taken into account, however, that it is women who determine the entire plot of the story in Exod 2:1–10. Although the female figures in Exod 1:8–2:10 are introduced as daughters and sisters of men or defined by typical female professions, it is striking that they act independently of their male relatives. The women in Exod 1:8–2:10 may be primarily concerned about male offspring. However, the female characters are not told by men what to do. Instead, they are presented as self-confident characters who do not limit themselves to the private sphere (see the interpretation on the action of the midwives above and on Pharaoh’s daughter below). The actions of the women are highly political.

52 See Utzschneider and Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 79–80; Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 51.

53 On the status and power of princesses in ancient societies, see, e.g., Renate Jost, “Königin (AT),” in Wibilex (2012) 2.3.5, bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/23736/. Ilse Müllner and Carsten Jochum-Brotfeld, “Königtum,” in Sozialgeschichtliches Wörterbuch zur Bibel (ed. Frank Crüsemann et al.; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2009) 301–6, at 302. On the lives of royal daughters, see Willem Römer, Frauenbriefe über Religion, Politik und Privatleben in Mari. Untersuchungen zu G. Dossin, Archives Royales de Mari X (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1971).

54 Since the woman is presented as Levi’s daughter, her approximate age can be calculated using the relative numbers of years given in the Bible. See, for instance, Jacob, Exodus, 20. However, the presentation of the woman as Levi’s daughter in Exod 2:1–10 is rather a narrative device to highlight her as an authoritative figure and says little about her actual age in the narrative. See also n. 46.

55 Researchers tend to assume that Bat Levi is also the mother of the child’s sister; see, for instance, Fischer, Gottesstreiterinnen, 163. If that was the case, the sister would have to be much younger than Bat Levi (and thus approximately at least twelve years younger or so). However, the relationship between Bat Levi and the sister is not expressively stated in the text. At least theoretically, it is possible that the sister and the child have the same father but not the same mother (cf. Gen 20:12), i.e., that they are half-siblings.

56 On the issue of determining the sister’s age, see Jenifer Lewis, “Girl Power Gone Right in Exodus 1–2: Miriam as Model for Contemporary Youth,” in Journal of Youth and Theology 18 (2019) 3–18, nn. 12 and 35.

57 Another translation is proposed by Karen Engelken, Frauen im Alten Israel: Eine begriffsgeschichtliche und sozialrechtliche Studie zur Stellung der Frau im Alten Testament (BWANT 7; Stuttgart: Verlag Kohlhammer,1990) 44–45, who translates עלמה with “Hofdame” (court lady). According to Engelken, the sister belongs to the staff of Bat Pharaoh and is the “court lady” of Bat Pharaoh.

58 Pharaoh’s daughter is only referred to as בת־ (daughter of). The term בת־פרעה (Pharaoh’s daughter) occurs in total four times (cf. 2:5, 7, 9, 10), unlike, the term בת־לוי (Levi’s daughter), which is used only once at the very beginning. Hence, throughout the text, Bat Pharaoh is only defined by the relation to her father.

59 See Elke Seifert, Tochter und Vater im Alten Testament: Eine ideologiekritische Untersuchung zur Verfügungsgewalt von Vätern über ihre Töchter (Neukirchner theologische Dissertationen und Habilitationen 9; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 1997) 48.

60 See Seifert, Tochter und Vater, 48 n. 3.

61 On the criteria which have disadvantageous or preferential effects, see Fischer, “Inklusion,” 11.

62 See, for instance, Utzschneider, “Erzählerin,” 469.

63 The sister’s speech is just one word longer than the longest speech of Pharaoh’s daughter.

64 See, for instance, Utzschneider and Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 85.

65 The Septuagint version relates the Hebrew verb לקח (to take) to the handmaid of Pharaoh’s daughter by an infinitive construction (ἀποστείλασα τὴν ἅβραν ἀνείλατο αὐτήν). Hence, in the Septuagint version, the handmaid, at least formally, is more active than in the Hebrew text.

66 Erika Feucht, “Frauen,” in Der Mensch des Alten Ägyptens (ed. Sergio Donadoni; Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1992) 361–94, at 393, for instance, describes the status of female royal family members in ancient Egyptian societies as follows: “In all social classes, women were largely dependent on the men in their families.. . . Even members of the royal family rarely attained leading positions. Although the women of the ruling class had a high status compared to the ordinary people, both socially and religiously, they hardly exercised power. The few women who did occupy positions of power owed it to their social embeddedness as the wife, mother, or daughter of a man of high rank, and in many cases, they exercised power in the interests of the man.. . . There were exceptions at that time, as there were and are at any time in societies dominated by men.”

67 Lapsley, Whispering, 77, emphasize the fact that in Ezek 16:5 God pities (חמל) Israel, the orphan child.

68 Utzschneider, “Erzählerin,” 471.

69 Some scholars view Pharaoh’s daughter more negatively. See Gale A. Yee, “ ‘Take This Child and Suckle It for Me’: Wet Nurses and Resistance in Ancient Israel,” in Biblical Theology Bulletin 39 (2009) 180–89, at 187. James Ackerman, “The Literary Context of the Moses Birth Story (Exodus 1–2),” in Literary Interpretation of Biblical Narratives (ed. Kenneth R. R. Gros Louis; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1974) 74–119, at 93, even argues that the “foolish Egyptian princess stands in contrast to the wise Hebrew midwives.” Indeed, the power relationship between the princess and the other main female characters is partly as unequal as that between Pharaoh and the midwives. The crucial point of the story, however, is that the princess defies her father. Like all female characters, she resists Pharaoh’s deadly command. The linguistic hints in the narrative support the characterization of the princess as a counter-figure to her father. Utzschneider, “Erzählerin,” 471–75, even argues that the Septuagint version reinforces the notion of Pharaoh’s daughter as her father’s antagonist. According to him, the more prolific profile of Pharaoh’s daughter in the Greek translation is probably due to the fact that the Septuagint stems from Egypt. The translators seem to be particularly interested in highlighting the resistance of the Egyptian princess in the biblical narrative in order to enhance the image of Egypt in the Exodus narrative a little bit. In doing so, however, they tie in with what is already laid out in the Hebrew text, argues Utzschneider.

70 See on this Trible, “Difference among the Distaff,” 301–2.

71 However, her feelings for the child are expressed in v. 2, where it said that she saw that he (the baby boy) was good.

72 See Jost and Peetz, Exodus, forthcoming.

73 For Mesopotamia, see Eleonore Reuter, “Amme,” in WiBiLex (2010) 3.2, bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/13217/. For Greco-Roman sources, see Gale A. Yee, “Wet Nurses,” 182–83.

74 By paying Bat Levi, she also expresses her acceptance of the child as her own. See Jost and Peetz, Exodus, forthcoming.

75 Exodus 2:2 only mentions that Bat Levi gave birth to a son.