Chapter XVII: Act 1895: , No. 20 of 1895) (3)

(3) xii. i-xiii. 16. _The Last Plague, the Deliverance from Egypt, the
Institution of the Passover and of the Feast of Unleavened Cakes, the
Consecration of the First-born._--This section presents the usual
phenomena of a composite narrative, viz. repetitions and
inconsistencies. Thus J's regulations for the Passover (xii. 21-23,
27b) seem at first sight simply to repeat the commands given to Moses
and Aaron in xii. 1-13 (P), but in reality they are a parallel and
divergent account. In vv. 1-13 the choice of the lamb and the manner
in which it is to be eaten constitute the essential feature, the
smearing with the blood being quite secondary; in vv. 21 f. the latter
point is all-important, and no regulations are given for the paschal
meal (which, possibly, formed no part of J's original account).
Similarly the institution of the Feast of _Mazzoth_, or Unleavened
Cakes (xiii. 3-10J), does not form the sequel to the regulations laid
down in xii. 14-20 (P), but is independent of them: it omits all
reference to the "holy convocations" and to the abstinence from
labour, and is obviously simpler and more primitive. J's account,
again, makes important exceptions (xiii. 11-13) to the severe
enactment of P with reference to the first-born (xiii. 1). The
description of the smiting of the first-born of Egypt is derived from
J (xii. 29-34, 37-39), who clearly sees in the Feast of _Mazzoth_ a
perpetual reminder of the haste with which the Israelites fled from
Egypt; the editor of JE, however, has included some extracts from E
(xii. 31, 35, 36), which point to a more deliberate departure. The
section has been worked over by a Deuteronomistic editor, whose hand
can be clearly traced in the additions xii. 24-27a; xiii. 3b, 5, 8, 9,
14-16.

(4) xiii. 17-xv. 21. _The Crossing of the Red Sea._--According to J
the children of Israel departed from Egypt under the guidance of
Yahweh, who leads them by day in a pillar of cloud and by night in a
pillar of fire (xiii. 21, 22). On hearing of their flight Pharaoh at
once starts in pursuit. The Israelites, terrified by the approach of
the Egyptians, upbraid Moses, who promises them deliverance by the
hand of Yahweh (xiv. 5, 6,-7b, 10a, 11-14, 19b). Yahweh then causes a
strong east wind to blow all that night, which drives back the waters
from the shallows, and so renders it possible for the host of Israel
to cross over. The Egyptians follow, but the progress of their
chariots is hindered by the soft sand, and in the morning they are
caught by the returning waters (xiv. 21b, 24, 25, 27b, 28b, 30). The
story, however, has been combined with the somewhat different account
of E, which doubtless covered the same ground, and also with that of
P. According to the former, Elohim did not permit the Israelites to
take the shorter route to Canaan by the Mediterranean coast, for fear
of the Philistines, but led them southwards to the Red Sea, whither
they were pursued by the Egyptians (xiii. 17-19). The remainder of E's
account has only been preserved in a fragmentary form (xiv. 7aa, 10b,
15a, 19a, 20a), from which it may be gathered that Moses divided the
waters by stretching out his rod, thus presupposing that the crossing
took place by day, and that the dark cloud which divided the two hosts
was miraculously caused by the angel of God. P also represents the sea
as divided by means of Moses' rod, but heightens the effect by
describing the crossing as taking place between walls of water (xiii.
20; xiv. 1-4, 8, 9, 15b, 16b-18, 21a, c, 22, 23, 26, 27a, 28a, 29).

J's version of the Song of Moses probably does not extend beyond xv.
1, and has its counterpart in the very similar song of Miriam (E), in
vv. 20, 21. The rest of the song (vv. 2-18) is probably the work of a
later writer; for these verses set forth not only the deliverance from
Egypt, but also the entrance of Israel into Canaan (vv. 13-17), and
further presuppose the existence of the temple (vv. 13b, 17b). These
phenomena have been explained as due to later expansion, but the poem
has all the appearance of being a unity, and the language, style and
rhythm all point to a later age. Verse 19 is probably the work of the
redactor (R^P) who inserted the song.

(5) xv. 22-xviii. 27. _Incidents in the Wilderness._--The narrative of
the first journeying in the wilderness (xv. 22-xvii. 7) presents a
series of difficulties which probably owe their origin to the
editorial activity of R^P, who appears to have transferred to the
beginning of the wanderings a number of incidents which rightly belong
to the end. The concluding verses of ch. xv. contain J's account of
the sweetening of the waters of Marah, with which has been
incorporated a fragment of E's story of Massah (xv. 25b) and a
Deuteronomic expansion in v. 26. Then follows (ch. xvi.) P's version
of the sending of the manna and quails. In its present form, this
narrative contains a number of conflicting elements, which can only be
the result of editorial activity. Thus vv. 6, 7 must originally have
preceded vv. 11, 12, though the redactor has attempted to evade the
difficulty by inserting v. 8. Again, the account of the quails, which
is obviously incomplete, is undoubtedly derived from Num. xi.; but the
latter account, which admittedly belongs to JE, places the incident at
the end of the wanderings. Closer examination also of P's narrative of
the manna shows that its true-position is _after_ the departure from
Mt. Sinai; cf. the expressions used in vv. 9, 10, 33, 34, implying the
existence of the ark and the tabernacle. P's account of the manna,
however, can hardly have stood originally in close juxtaposition with
his account of the quails (cf. Num. xi. 6), but the two narratives
were probably combined by R^P before they were transferred to their
present position. The same redactor doubtless added v. 8 (and possibly
vv. 17, 18) by way of explanation, and vv. 5 and 22-30, which imply
that the law of the Sabbath was already known, and introduce a fresh
element into the story. A plausible explanation of R^P's action is
supplied by the theory that an earlier account of the giving of the
manna already existed at this point of the narrative. We know from
Deuteronomy viii. 2 f., 16 that JE contained an account of the manna,
which included the explanation of Ex. xvi. 15, and also emphasized, as
the motive for the gift, Yahweh's desire "to prove thee (i.e. test thy
disposition) ... whether thou wouldst keep his commandments, or no."
Fragments of this early story of Massah (testing) were incorporated by
R^P in his story of the manna and the quails, viz. xv. 25b; xvi. 4,
15, 16a, 19b-21. These verses must be assigned to E, for in xvii. 3,
2c (wherefore do ye tempt the Lord?), 7a (to _Massah_), c (because
they tempted ..., &c.), we find yet another version (J) of the same
incident, according to which the people tempted (tested) Yahweh. It
was owing to the combination of this latter account with E's further
description of the striving of the people for water at Meribah that
the double name Massah-Meribah arose, xvii. 1b-7 (1a belongs to P),
though Deut. xxxiii. 8 makes it clear that Massah and Meribah were
separate localities (cf. Deut. ix. 22, 2 f., 16, where Massah occurs
alone): P's version of striving at Meribah, in which traces of J's
account have been preserved, is given at Num. xx. 1-13.

xvii. 8-16. _The Battle with Amalek at Rephidim._--This incident is
derived from E, but is clearly out of place in its present context.
Its close connexion with the end of the wanderings is shown by (a) the
description of Moses as an infirm old man; (b) the role played by
Joshua in contrast with xxiv. 13, xxxiii. 11, where he is introduced
as a young man and Moses' minister; and (c) the references elsewhere
to the home of the Amalekites: according to Num. xiii. 29, xiv. 25,
xliii. 45, they dwelt in the S. or S.W. of Judah near Kadesh (cf. 1
Sam. xv. 6 f., 30; Gen. xiv. 7; xxxvi. 12).

Ch. xviii. _The visit of Jethro to Moses and the appointment of
judges._--This story, like the preceding one, is mainly derived from E
and is also out of place. Allusions in the chapter itself point
unmistakably to a time just before the departure from Sinai-Horeb, and
this date is confirmed both by Deut. i. 9-16 and by the parallel
account of J in Num. x. 29-32. The narrative, however, displays signs
of compilation, and it is not improbable that R^JE has incorporated in
vv. 7-11 part of J's account of the visit of Moses' father-in-law (cf.
the use of Yahweh).

(b) Ch. xix.-xxiv., xxxii., xxxiv.--The contents of these chapters,
which, owing to their contents, form the most important section in the
book of Exodus, may be briefly analysed as follows. In ch. xix. we
have a twofold description of the theophany on Mt. Sinai (or Horeb),
followed by the Decalogue in xx. 1-17. Alongside of this code we find
another, dealing in part with the civil and social (xxi. 2-xxii. 17),
in part with the religious life of Israel, the so-called Book of the
Covenant, xx. 22-xxiii. 19. Ch. xxiv. contains a composite narrative
of the ratification of the covenant. In chs. xxxii. and xxxiii. we
have again two narratives of the sin of the people and of Moses'
intercession, while in ch. xxxiv. we are confronted with yet another
early code, which is practically identical with the religious
enactments of xx. 22-26; xxii. 29, 30; xxiii. 10-19.

With but few exceptions the _provenance_ of the individual sections
may be said to have been finally determined by the labours of the
critics, but even a cursory examination of their contents makes it
evident that the sequence of events, which they now present, cannot be
original, but is rather the outcome of a long process of revision,
during which the text has suffered considerably from alterations,
omissions, dislocations and additions. Yet owing to the method of
composition employed by Hebrew editors, or revisers, it is possible in
this case, as in others, not only to determine the source of each
individual passage, but also to trace with considerable confidence the
various stages in the process by which it reached its final form and
position. It must, however, be admitted that the evidence at our
disposal is, in some cases, capable of more than one interpretation.
Hence a final conclusion can hardly be expected, but with certain
modifications in detail the following solution of the problem may be
accepted as representing the point of view of recent criticism.

Ch. xix. contains two parallel accounts of the theophany on
Horeb-Sinai, from E and J respectively, which differ materially from
one another. According to the former, Moses is instructed by God
(Elohim) to sanctify the _people_ against the third day (vv. 9a, 10,
11a). This is done and the people are brought by Moses to the foot of
the mountain (Horeb), where they hear the divine voice (14-17, 19). A
noticeable feature of this narrative, of which xx. 18-21 forms a
natural continuation, is the fact that the theophany is addressed to
the _people_, who are too frightened to remain near the mountain
itself. In J, on the other hand, it is the _priests_ who are
sanctified, and great care must be taken to prevent the people from
"breaking through to gaze" (20-22). In this account the mountain is
called "Sinai" throughout, and "Yahweh" appears instead of "Elohim"
(11b, 18, 20 f.). Moreover, Moses and Aaron and the priests are
summoned to the top of the mount (in v. 24b render "thou and Aaron
with thee, and the priests: but let not the people," &c.). Vv. 3b-8,
which have been expanded by a Deuteronomic editor, have been
transferred from their original context after xx. 21; the introductory
verses 1, 2a form part of P's itinerary.

Of the succeeding legislation in xx.-xxiii., xxxii.-xxxiv.,
undoubtedly the earlier sections are xx. 22-26; xxii. 29, 30; xxiii.
10-19, and xxxiv. 10-26, which contain regulations with regard to
worship and religious festivals, and form the basis of the covenant
made by Yahweh with Israel on Sinai-Horeb, as recorded by E and J
respectively. The narrative which introduces the covenant laws of J
has been preserved partly in its present context, ch. xxxiv., partly
in xxiv. 1, 2, 9-11; the narrative of E, on the other hand, has in
part disappeared owing to the interpolation of later material, in part
has been retained in xxiv. 3-8. J's narrative xxiv. 1 f., 9-11 clearly
forms the continuation of xix. 20 f., 11b, 13, 25, but the
introductory words of v. 1, "and unto Moses he said," point to some
omission. Originally, no doubt, it included the recital of the divine
instructions to the people in accordance with xix. 21 f., 11b-13, the
statement that Yahweh came down on the third day, and that a long
blast was blown on the trumpet (or ram's horn [[Hebrew: yovel], as
opposed to [Hebrew: shofar] E]). From xxiv. 1 f. we learn that Moses
and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders were summoned to
the top of the mountain, but that Moses alone was permitted to
approach Yahweh. Then followed the theophany, and, as the text stands,
the sacrificial meal (9-11).[5] The conclusion of J's narrative is
given in ch. xxxiv.,[6] which describes how Moses hewed two tables of
stone at Yahweh's command, and went up to the top of the mountain,
where he received the words of the covenant and wrote them on the
tables. As it stands, however, this chapter represents the legislation
which it contains as a renewal of a former covenant, also written on
tables of stone, which had been broken (1b, 4a). But the document from
which the chapter, as a whole, is derived, is certainly J, while the
previous references to tables of stone and to Moses' breaking them
belong to the parallel narrative of E. Moreover, the covenant here set
forth (v. 10 f.) is clearly a new one, and contains no hint of any
previous legislation, nor of any breach of it by the people. In view
of these facts we are forced to conclude that 1b ("like unto the first
... brakest"), 4a ("and he hewed ... the first") and v. 28 ("the ten
words") formed no part of the original narrative,[7] but were inserted
by a later Deuteronomic redactor. In the view of this editor the
Decalogue alone formed the basis of the covenant at Sinai-Horeb, and
in order to retain J's version, he represented it as a renewal of the
tables of stone which Moses had broken.[8]

The legislation contained in xxxiv. 10-26, which may be described as
the oldest legal code of the Hexateuch, is almost entirely religious.
It prohibits the making of molten images (v. 17), the use of leaven in
sacrifices (25a), the retention of the sacrifice until the morning
(25b),[9] and the seething of a kid in its mother's milk (26b); and
enjoins the observance of the three annual feasts and the Sabbath
(18a, 21-23), and the dedication of the first-born (19, 20, derived
from xiii. 11-13) and of the first-fruits (26a).

The parallel collection of E is preserved in xx. 24-26, xxiii. 10-19,
to which we should probably add xxii. 29-31 (for which xxiii. 19a was
afterwards substituted). The two collections resemble one another so
closely, both in form and extent, that they can only be regarded as
two versions of the same code. E has, however, preserved certain
additional regulations with regard to the building of altars (xx.
24-26) and the observance of the seventh year (xxiii. 10, 11), and
omits the prohibition of molten images (xx. 22, 23, appear to be the
work of a redactor); xxiii. 20-33, the promises attached to the
observance of the covenant, probably formed no part of the original
code, but were added by the Deuteronomic redactor; cf. especially vv.
23-25a, 27, 28, 31b-33. The narrative of E relative to the delivery of
these laws has disappeared,[10] but xxiv. 3-8 (which manifestly have
no connexion with their immediate context) clearly point back to some
such narrative. These verses describe how Moses wrote all the words of
the Lord in a book and recited them to the _people_ (v. 7) as the
basis of a covenant, which was solemnly ratified by the sprinkling of
the blood of the accompanying sacrifices.

In the existing text the covenant laws of E (xx. 24-26, xxii. 29-31,
xxiii. 10-19) are combined with a mass of civil and other legislation;
hence the title "Book of the Covenant" (referred to above, xxiv. 7)
has usually been applied to the whole section, xx. 22-xxiii. 33. But
this section includes three distinct elements: (a) the "words"
([Hebrew: hadvarim]) found in xx. 24-26, xxii. 29-31, xxiii. 1-10; (b)
the "judgments" ([Hebrew: hamishpatim]), xxi. 2-xxii. 17; and (c) a
group of moral and ethical enactments, xxii. 18-28, xxiii. 1-9; and an
examination of their contents makes it evident that, though the last
two groups are unmistakably derived from E, they cannot have formed
part of the original "Book of the Covenant"; for the "judgments,"
which are expressed in a hypothetical form, consist of a number of
legal decisions on points of civil law. The cases dealt with fall into
five divisions: (1) The rights of slaves, xxi. 2-11; (2) capital
offences, xxi. 12-16 (v. 17 has probably been added later); (3)
injuries inflicted by man or beast, xxi. 18-32; (4) losses incurred by
culpable negligence or theft, xxi. 33-xxii. 6; (5) cases arising out
of deposits, loans, seduction, xxii. 7-17. It is obvious, from their
very nature, that these legal precedents could not have been included
in the covenant which the _people_ (xxiv. 3) promised to observe, and
it is now generally admitted that the words "and the judgments"
(which are missing in c. 1 b) have been inserted in xxiv. 3a by the
redactor to whom the present position of the "judgments" is due.[11]
The majority of critics, therefore, adopt Kuenen's conjecture that the
"judgments" were originally delivered by Moses on the borders of Moab,
and that when D's revised version of Ex. xxi.-xxiii. was combined with
JE, the older code was placed alongside of E's other legislation at
Horeb. The third group of laws (xxii. 18-28, xxiii. 1-9) appears to
have been added somewhat later than the bulk of xxi.-xxiii. Some of
the regulations are couched in hypothetical form, but their contents
are of a different character to the "judgments," e.g. xxii. 25 f.,
xxiii. 4 f.; others, again, are of a similar nature, but differ in
form, e.g. xxii. 18 f. Lastly, xxii. 20-24, xxiii. 1-3 set forth a
number of moral injunctions affecting the individual, which cannot
have found place in a civil code. At the same time, these additions
must for the most part be prior to D, since many of them are included
in Deut. xii.-xxvi., though there are traces of Deuteronomic revision.

Now it is obvious that the results obtained by the foregoing analysis
of J and E have an important bearing on the history of the remaining
section of E's legislation, viz. the Decalogue (q.v.), Ex. xx. 1-17 (=
Deut. v. 6-21). At present the "Ten Words" stand in the forefront of
E's collection of laws, and it is evident that they were already found
in that position by the author of Deuteronomy, who treated them as the
sole basis of the covenant at Horeb. The evidence, however, afforded
(a) by the parallel version of Deuteronomy and (b) by the literary
analysis of J and E not only fails to support this tradition, but
excites the gravest suspicions as to the originality both of the
_form_ and of the _position_ in which the Decalogue now appears. For
when compared with Ex. xx. 1-17 the parallel version of Deut. v. 6 ff.
is found to exhibit a number of variations, and, in particular,
assigns an entirely different reason for the observance of the
Sabbath. But these variations are practically limited to the
explanatory comments attached to the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 10th
commandments; and the majority of critics are now agreed that these
comments were added at a later date, and that all the commandments,
like the 1st and the 6th to the 9th, were originally expressed in the
form of a single short sentence. This view is confirmed by the fact
that the additions, or comments, bear, for the most part, a close
resemblance to the style of D. They can scarcely, however, have been
transferred from Deuteronomy to Exodus (or vice versa), owing to the
variations between the two versions: we must rather regard them as the
work of a Deuteronomic redactor. But the expansion and revision of the
Decalogue were not limited to the Deuteronomic school. Literary traces
of J and E in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 10th commandments point to earlier
activity on the part of R^JE, while the addition of v. 11, which bases
the observance of the Sabbath on P 's narrative of the Creation (Gen.
ii. 1-3), can only be ascribed to a priestly writer: its absence from
Deut. v. 6 ff. is otherwise inexplicable. Thus the Decalogue, as given
in Exodus, would seem to have passed through at least three stages
before it assumed its present form. But even in its original form it
could hardly have formed part of E's Horeb legislation; for (a) both J
and E have preserved a different collection of laws (or "words")
inscribed by Moses, which are definitely set forth as the basis of the
covenant at Sinai-Horeb (Ex. xxxiv. 10, xxiv. 3 f.), and (b) the
further legislation of E in ch. xx.-xxiii. affords close parallels to
all the commandments (except the 7th and the 10th), and a comparison
of the two leaves no doubt as to which is the more primitive. Hence we
can only conclude that the Decalogue, in its original short form, came
into existence during the period after the completion of E, but before
the promulgation of Deuteronomy. Its present position is, doubtless,
to be ascribed to a redactor who was influenced by the same conception
as the author of Deuteronomy. This redactor, however, did not limit
the Horeb covenant to the Decalogue, but retained E's legislation
alongside of it. The insertion of the Decalogue, or rather the point
of view which prompted its insertion, naturally involved certain
consequential changes of the existing text. The most important of
these, viz. the harmonistic additions to ch. xxxiv., by means of which
J's version of the covenant was represented as a renewal of the
Decalogue, has already been discussed; other passages which show
traces of similar revision are xxiv. 12-15a, 18b, and xxxiv. 1-6.

The confusion introduced into the legislation by later additions, with
the consequent displacement of earlier material, has not been without
effect on the narratives belonging to the different sources. Hence the
sequence of events after the completion of the covenant on Sinai-Horeb
is not always easy to trace, though indications are not wanting in
both J and E of the probable course of the history. The two main
incidents that precede the departure of the children of Israel from
the mountain (Num. x. 29 ff.) are (1) the sin of the people, and (2)
the intercession of Moses, of both of which a double account has been
preserved.

(1) _The Sin of the People._--According to J (xxxii. 25-29) the
people, during the absence of Moses, "break loose," i.e. mutiny. Their
behaviour excites the anger of Moses on his return, and in response to
his appeal the sons of Levi arm themselves and slay a large number of
the people: as a reward for their services they are bidden to
consecrate themselves to Yahweh. The fragmentary form of the
narrative--we miss especially a fuller account of the "breaking
loose"--is doubtless due to the latter editor, who substituted the
story of the golden calf (xxxii. 1-6, 15-24, 35), according to which
the sin of the people consisted in direct violation of the 2nd
commandment. At the instigation of the people Aaron makes a molten
calf out of the golden ornaments brought from Egypt; Moses and Joshua,
on their return to the camp, find the people holding festival in
honour of the occasion; Moses in his anger breaks the tables of the
covenant which he is carrying: he then demolishes the golden calf, and
administers a severe rebuke to Aaron. The punishment of the people is
briefly recorded in v. 35. This latter narrative, which is obviously
inconsistent with the story of J, shows unmistakable traces of E. In
its present form, however, it can hardly be original, but must have
been revised in accordance with the later Deuteronomic conception
which represented the sin committed by the people as a breach of the
2nd commandment. Possibly vv. 7-14 are also to be treated as a
Deuteronomic expansion (cf. Deut. ix. 12-14). Though they show clear
traces of J, it is extremely difficult to fit them into that narrative
in view of Moses' action in vv. 25-29 and of his intercession in ch.
xxxiii.; in any case, vv. 8 and 13 must be regarded as redactional.

(2) _Moses' Intercession._--The time for departure from the Sacred
Mount had now arrived, and Moses is accordingly bidden to lead the
people to the promised land. Yahweh himself refuses to accompany
Israel owing to their disobedience, but in response to Moses'
passionate appeal finally consents to let his presence go with them.
The account of Moses' intercession has been preserved in J, though the
narrative has undergone considerable dislocation. The true sequence of
the narrative appears to be as follows: Moses is commanded to lead the
people to Canaan (xxxiii. 1-3); he pleads that he is unequal to the
task (Num. xi. 10c, 11, 12, 14, 15), and, presumably, asks for
assistance, which is promised (omitted). Moses then asks for a fuller
knowledge of Yahweh and his ways (xxxiii. 12, 13): this request also
is granted (v. 17), and he is emboldened to pray that he may see the
glory of Yahweh; Yahweh replies that his prayer can only be granted in
part, for "man shall not see me and live"; a partial revelation is
then vouchsafed to Moses (xxxiii. 18-23, xxxiv. 6-8): finally, Moses
beseeches Yahweh to go in the midst of his people, and is assured that
Yahweh's presence shall accompany them (xxxiv. 9, xxxiii. 14-16). The
passage from Numbers xi., which is here included, is obviously out of
place in its present context (the story of the quails), and supplies
in part the necessary antecedent to Ex. xxxiii. 12, 13; the passage is
now separated from Ex. xxxiii. by Ex. xxxiv. (J), which has been
wrongly transferred to the close of the Horeb-Sinai incidents (see
above), and by the priestly legislation of Ex. xxxv.-xl., Leviticus
and Num. i.-x.; but originally it must have stood in close connexion
with that chapter. A similar displacement has taken place with regard
to Ex. xxxiv. 6-9, which clearly forms the sequel to xxxiii. 17-23.
The latter passage, however, can hardly represent the conclusion of
the interview, which is found more naturally in xxxiii. 14-16. E's
account of Moses' intercession seems to have been retained, in part,
in xxxii. 30-34, but the passage has probably been revised by a later
hand; in any case its position _before_ instead of _after_ the
dismissal would seem to be redactional.

It is a plausible conjecture that the original narratives of J and E
also contained directions for the construction of an ark,[12] as a
substitute for the personal presence of Yahweh, and also for the
erection of a "tent of meeting" outside the camp, and that these
commands were omitted by R^P in favour of the more elaborate
instructions given in ch. xxv.-xxix. (P). The subsequent narrative of
J (Num. x. 33-36, xiv. 44) implies an account of the making of the
ark, while the remarkable description in Ex. xxxiii. 7-11 (E) of
Moses' practice in regard to the "tent of meeting" points no less
clearly to some earlier statement as to the making of this tent.

The history of Exodus in its original form doubtless concluded with
the visit of Moses' father-in-law and the appointment of judges (ch.
xviii.), the departure from the mountain and the battle with Amalek
(xvii. 8-16).

(c) _The Construction of the Tabernacle and its Furniture_ (ch.
xxv.-xxxi., xxxv.-xl.).--It has long been recognized that the
elaborate description of the Tabernacle and its furniture, and the
accompanying directions for the dress and consecration of the priests,
contained in ch. xxv.-xxxi., have no claim to be regarded as an
historical presentment of the Mosaic Tabernacle and its service. The
language, style and contents of this section point unmistakably to the
hand of P; and it is now generally admitted that these chapters form
part of an ideal representation of the post-exilic ritual system,
which has been transferred to the Mosaic age. According to this
representation, Moses, on the seventh day after the conclusion of the
covenant, was summoned to the top of the mountain, and there received
instructions with regard to (a) the furniture of the sanctuary, viz.
the ark, the table and the lamp-stand (ch. xxv.); (b) the Tabernacle
(ch. xxvi.); (c) the court of the Tabernacle and the altar of
burnt-offering (ch. xxvii.); (d) the dress of the priests (ch.
xxviii.); (e) the consecration of Aaron and his sons (xxix. 1-37); and
(f) the daily burnt-offering (xxix. 38-42): the section ends with a
formal conclusion (xxix. 43-46). The two following chapters contain
further instructions relative to the altar of incense (xxx. 1-10), the
payment of the half-shekel (11-16), the brazen laver (17-21), the
anointing oil (22-33), the incense (34-38), the appointment of
Bezaleel and Oholiab (xxxi. 1-11) and the observance of the Sabbath
(12-17). It is hardly doubtful, however, that these two chapters
formed no part of P's original legislation, but were added by a later
hand.[13] For (1) the altar of incense is here mentioned for the first
time, and was apparently unknown to the author of ch. xxv.-xxix. Had
he known of its existence, he could hardly have failed to include it
with the rest of the Tabernacle furniture in ch. xxvi., and must have
mentioned it at xxvi. 34 f., where the relative positions of the
contents of the Tabernacle are defined: further, the ritual of the Day
of Atonement (Lev. xvi. referred to in xxx. 10) ignores this altar,
and mentions only _one_ altar (cf. "_the_ altar," xxvii. 1), viz. that
of burnt-offering; (2) the command as to the half-shekel presupposes
the census of Num. i., and appears to have been unknown in the time of
Nehemiah (Neh. x. 32) (Heb. 33); (3) the instructions as to the brazen
laver would naturally be expected alongside of those for the altar of
burnt-offering in ch. xxvii.; (4) the following section relating to
the anointing oil presupposes the altar of incense (v. 28), and
further extends the ceremony of anointing to Aaron's sons, though,
elsewhere, the ceremony is confined to Aaron (xxix. 7, Lev. viii. 12),
cf. the title "anointed priest" applied to the high priest (Lev. iv.
3, &c.); (5) the directions for compounding the incense connect
naturally with xxx. 1-10, while (6) the appointment of Bezaleel and
Oholiah cannot be separated from the rest of ch. xxx.-xxxi. The
concluding section on the Sabbath (xxxi. 12-17) shows marks of
resemblance to H (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.), especially in vv. 12-14a, which
appear to have been expanded, very possibly by the editor who inserted
the passage. The continuation of P's narrative is given in xxxiv.
29-35, which describe Moses' return from the mount. The subsequent
chapters (xxxv.-xl.), however, can hardly belong to the original
stratum of P, if only because they presuppose ch. xxx., xxxi., and
were probably added at a later stage than the latter chapters. They
narrate how the commands of ch. xxv.-xxxi. were carried out, and
practically repeat the earlier chapters _verbatim_, merely the tenses
being changed, the most noticeable omissions being xxvii. 20 f. (oil
for the lamps), xxviii. 30 (Urim and Thummim), xxix. 1-37 (the
consecration of the priests, which recurs in Lev. viii.) and xxix.
38-42 (the daily burnt-offering). Apart from the omissions the most
striking difference between the two sections is the variation in
order, the different sections of ch. xxv.-xxxi. being here set forth
in their natural sequence. The secondary character of these concluding
chapters receives considerable confirmation from a comparison of the
Septuagint text. For this version exhibits numerous cases of
variation, both as regards _order_ and _contents_, from the Hebrew
text; moreover the translation, more particularly of many technical
terms, differs from that of ch. xxv.-xxxi., and seems to be the work
of different translators. Hence it is by no means improbable that the
final recension of these chapters had not been completed when the
Alexandrine version was made.

AUTHORITIES.--In addition to the various English and German
commentaries on Exodus included under the head of the Pentateuch, the
following English works are especially worthy of mention: S.R. Driver,
_Introd. to the Literature of the O.T._, and "Exodus" in the _Camb.
Bible_; B.W. Bacon, _The Triple Tradition of the Exodus_ (Hartford,
U.S.A., 1894), and A.H. McNeile, _The Book of Exodus_ (Westminster
Commentaries) (1908); also the articles on "Exodus" by G.
Harford-Battersby (Hastings, _Dict. Bib._ vol. i.) and by G.F. Moore,
_Ency. Biblica_, vol. ii. (J. F. St.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The fact that the father-in-law of Moses is called Reuel in v.
18, as contrasted with the name Jethro, which occurs in iii. 1 f. and
in all subsequent passages from E, cannot be taken as conclusive on
this point, since critics are agreed that "Reuel" in this verse is a
later addition: had it been original we should have expected the name
to be given at v. 16 rather than at v. 18. But, if no argument can be
based on the discrepancy between the two names, we may at least
assume that the namelessness of the priest in v. 16 f. points to a
different source for those verses from that of iii. 1 f. Elsewhere J
speaks of "Hobab, the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses'
father-in-law" (Num. x. 29); the addition, "the priest of Midian,"
only occurs in the (secondary) passages iii. 1, xviii. 1 (E).
Probably RJE omitted the name in ii. 16 and added "the priest of
Midian" in iii. 1, xviii 1, from harmonizing motives. Further, vv.
15^B-22 speak of _one_ son being born to Moses at this period, a
statement which is borne out by iv. 20, 25 ("sons" in iv. 20 is
obviously a correction), whereas ch. xviii. (E) mentions _two_ sons.

The original order of events in J seems to have been as follows:
after the death of Pharaoh (ii. 23a; the Septuagint repeats this
notice before iv. 19) Moses returns to Egypt with his wife and son
(iv. 19, 20) in obedience to Yahweh's command. On the way he is
seized with a sudden illness, which Zipporah attributes to the fact
that he has not been circumcised and seeks to avert by circumcising
her son (iv. 24-26). The scene of the theophany, therefore, according
to J, is to be placed on the way from Midian to Goshen. Probably the
displacement of iv. 19, 20, 24-26 is due to the editor of JE, who was
thus enabled to combine the two narratives of the theophany.

[2] Cf. iv. 30; Aaron had received no command to do the signs, and
the words "and he did the signs" are most naturally referred to
Moses.

[3] The expansion in iii. 8c, 15, 17b; iv. 22, 23, are probably the
work of a Deuteronomistic redactor.

[4] The genealogy of Moses and Aaron (vv. 14-27) appears to be a
later addition.

[5] Unless we follow Riedel and read simply "and worshipped"
([Hebrew: vaishtahavu]) instead of "and drank" ([Hebrew: vaishtu]),
treating "and ate" ([Hebrew: vaiohlu]) as a later addition; cf. HDB,
extra vol. p. 631 note.

[6] Vv. 6-9 are out of place here: they belong to the story of Moses'
intercession in ch. xxxiii.

[7] This view is confirmed by (a) a comparison of v. lb ("and I will
write") with vv. 27, 28; according to the latter, _Moses_ wrote the
words of the covenant; and (b) the tardy mention of Moses in 4b; the
name would naturally be given at the beginning of the verse.

[8] Others suppose that the present position of ch. xxxiv. is due, in
the first instance, to RJE, but in view of the other Deuteronomic
expansions in vv. 10b-16, 23, 24, it is more probable that J's
version was discarded by RJE in favour of E's, and was afterwards
restored by RD.

[9] Reading "the sacrifice of my feasts" for "the sacrifice of the
feast of the Passover."

[10] Unless, with Bacon, we are to regard xxiv. 12-14, 18b as
original. More probably a later editor has worked up old material of
E (of which there are unmistakable traces) in order to include the
whole of xx.-xxiii. in the covenant: xxiv. 15-18a are an addition
from P.

[11] The present text of xxiv. 12 also has probably been transposed
in accordance with the view that the "judgment" formed part of the
covenant, cf. Deut. v. 31. Originally the latter part of the verse
must have run, "That I may give thee the tables of stone which I have
written, and may teach thee the law and the commandment." For further
details see Bacon, _Triple Tradition of Exodus_, pp. 111 f., 132 f.

[12] According to Deut. x. 1 f., which is in the main a _verbal_
excerpt from Ex. xxxiv. 1 f., Yahweh ordered Moses to make an ark of
acacia wood _before_ he ascended the mountain.

[13] To the same hand are to be ascribed also xxvii. 6, 20, 21;
xxviii. 41; xxix. 21, 38-41.

EXODUS, THE, the name given to the journey (Gr. [Greek: exodos]) of the Israelites from Egypt into Palestine, under the leadership of Moses and Aaron, as described in the books of the Bible from Exodus to Joshua. These books contain the great national epic of Judaism relating the deliverance of the people from bondage in Egypt, the overthrow of the pursuing Pharaoh and his army, the divinely guided wanderings through the wilderness and the final entry into the promised land. Careful criticism of the narratives[3] has resulted in the separation of later accretions from the earliest records, and the tracing of the elaboration of older traditions under the influence of developing religious and social institutions. In the story of the Exodus there have been incorporated codes of laws and institutions which were to be observed by the descendants of the Israelites in their future home, and these, really of later origin, have thus been thrown back to the earlier period in order to give them the stamp of authority. So, although a certain amount of the narrative _could_ date from the days of Moses, the Exodus story has been made the vehicle for the aims and ideals of subsequent ages, and has been adapted from time to time to the requirements of later stages of thought. The work of criticism has brought to light important examples of fluctuating tradition, singular lacunae in some places and unusual wealth of tradition in others, and has demonstrated that much of that which had long been felt to be impossible and incredible was due to writers of the post-exilic age many centuries after the presumed date of the events.

The book of Genesis closes with the migration of Jacob's family into Egypt to escape the famine in Canaan. Jacob died and was buried in Canaan by his sons, who, however, returned again to the pastures which the Egyptian king had granted them in Goshen. Their brother Joseph on his death-bed promised that God would bring them to the land promised to their forefathers and solemnly adjured them to carry up his bones (Gen. 1.). In the book of Exodus the family has become a people.[2] The Pharaoh is hostile, and Yahweh, the Israelite deity, is moved to send a deliverer; on the events that followed see EXODUS, BOOK OF; MOSES. It has been thought that dynastic changes occasioned the change in Egyptian policy (e.g. the expulsion of the Hyksos), but if the Israelites built Rameses and Pithom (Ex. i. 11), cities which, as excavation has shown, belong to the time of Rameses II. (13th century B.C.), earlier dates are inadmissible. On these grounds the Exodus may have taken place under one of his successors, and since Mineptah or Merneptah (son of Rameses), in relating his successes in Palestine, boasts that _Ysiraal_ is desolated, it would seem that the Israelites had already returned. On the other hand, it has been suggested that when Jacob and his family entered Egypt, some Israelite tribes had remained behind and that it is to these that Mineptah's inscription refers. The problem is complicated by the fact that, from the Egyptian evidence, not only was there at this time no remarkable emigration of oppressed Hebrews, but Bedouin tribes were then receiving permission to enter Egypt and to feed their flocks upon Egyptian soil. It might be assumed that the Israelites (or at least those who had not remained behind in Palestine) effected their departure at a somewhat later date, and in the time of Mineptah's successor, Seti II., there is an Egyptian report of the pursuit of some fugitive slaves over the eastern frontier. The value of all such evidence will naturally depend largely upon the estimate formed of the biblical narratives, but it is necessary to observe that these have not yet found Egyptian testimony to support them. Although the information which has been brought to bear upon Egyptian life and customs substantiates the general accuracy of the local colouring in some of the biblical narratives, the latter contain several inherent improbabilities, and whatever future research may yield, no definite trace of Egyptian influence has so far been found in Israelite institutions.

No allusions to Israelites in Egypt have yet been found on the
monuments; against the view that the Aperiu (or Apury) of the
inscriptions were Hebrews, see S.R. Driver in D.G. Hogarth, _Authority
and Archaeology_, pp. 56 sqq.; H.W. Hogg, _Ency. Bib._ col. 1310. The
plagues of Egypt have been shown to be those to which the land is
naturally subject (R. Thomson, _Plagues of Egypt_), but the
description of the relations of Moses and Aaron to the court raises
many difficult questions (H.P. Smith, _O.T. Hist._ pp. 57-60). Those
who reject Ex. i. 11 and hold that 480 years elapsed between the
Exodus and the foundation of the temple (I Kings vi. 1, see BIBLE:
Chronology) place the former about the time of Tethmosis (Thothmes)
III., and suppose that the hostile Habiri (Khabiri) who troubled
Palestine in the 15th century are no other than Hebrews (the equation
is philologically sound), i.e. the invading Israelites.[3] But
although the evidence of the Amarna tablets might thus support the
biblical tradition in its barest outlines, the view in question, if
correct, would necessitate the rejection of a great mass of the
biblical narratives as a whole.

In the absence of external evidence the study of the Exodus of the Israelites must be based upon the Israelite records, and divergent or contradictory views must be carefully noticed. Regarded simply as a journey from Egypt into Palestine it is the most probable of occurrences: the difficulty arises from the actual narratives. The first stage is the escape from the land of Goshen (q.v.), the district allotted to the family of Jacob (Gen. xlvi. 28-34, xlvii. 1, 4, 6).[4] As to the route taken across the Red Sea (_Yam Suph_) scholars are not agreed (see W.M. Muller, _Ency. Bib._ col. 1436 sqq.); it depends upon the view held regarding the second stage of the journey, the road to the mountain of Sinai or Horeb and thence to Kadesh. The last-mentioned place is identified with Ain Kadis, about 50 m. south of Beersheba; but the identification of the mountain is uncertain, and it is possible that tradition confused two distinct places. According to one favourite view, the journey was taken across the Sinaitic peninsula to Midian, the home of Jethro. Others plead strongly for the traditional site Jebel Musa or Serbal in the south of the peninsula (see J.R. Harris, _Dict. Bible_, iv. pp. 536 sqq.; H. Winckler, _Ency. Bib._ col. 4641). The latter view implies that the oppressed Israelites left Egypt for one of its dependencies, and both theories find only conjectural identifications in the various stations recorded in Num. xxxiii. But this list of forty names, corresponding to the years of wandering, is from a post-exilic source, and may be based merely upon a knowledge of caravan-routes; even if it be of older origin, it is of secondary value since it represents a tradition differing notably from that in the earlier narratives themselves, and these on inspection confirm Judg. xi. 16 seq., where the Israelites proceed immediately to Kadesh.

Ex. xvi.-xviii. presuppose a settled encampment and a law-giving, and
thus belong to a stage _after_ Sinai had been reached (Ex. xix. sqq.).
They are closely related, as regards subject matter, &c., to the
narratives in Num. x. 29-xi., xx. 1-13 (Sinai to Kadesh), and the
initial step is the recognition that the latter is their original
context (see G.F. Moore, _Ency. Bib._ col. 1443 v). Further, internal
peculiarities associating events now at Sinai-Horeb with those at
Kadesh support the view that Kadesh was their true scene, and it is to
be noticed that in Ex. xv. 22 seq. the Israelites already reach the
wilderness of Shur and accomplish the three days' journey which had
been their original aim (cf. Ex. iii. 18, v. 3, viii. 27). The
wilderness of Shur (Gen. xvi. 7, xx. 1; 1 Sam. xv. 7, xxvii. 8) is the
natural scene of conflicts with Amalekites (Ex. xvii. 8 sqq.), and its
sanctuary of Kadesh or En Mishpat ("well of judgment," Gen. xiv. 7)
was doubtless associated with traditions of the giving of statutes and
ordinances. The detour to Sinai-Horeb appears to belong to a later
stage of the tradition, and is connected with the introduction of laws
and institutions of relatively later form. It is foreshadowed by the
injunction to avoid the direct way into Palestine (see Ex. xiii.
17-19), since on reaching Kadesh the Israelites would be within reach
of hostile tribes, and the conflicts which it was proposed to avoid
actually ensued.[5] The forty years of wandering in the wilderness is
characteristic of the Deuteronomic and post-exilic narratives; in the
earlier sources the fruitful oasis of Kadesh is the centre, and even
after the tradition of a detour to Sinai-Horeb was developed, only a
brief period is spent at the holy mountain.

From Kadesh spies were sent into Palestine, and when the people were dismayed at their tidings and incurred the wrath of Yahweh, the penalty of the forty years' delay was pronounced (Num. xiii. seq.). Originally Caleb alone was exempt and for his faith received a blessing; later tradition adds Joshua and in Deut. i. 37 seq. alludes to some unknown offence of Moses. According to Num. xxi. 1-3 the Israelites (a generalizing amplification) captured Hormah, on the way to Beersheba, and subsequently the clan Caleb and the Kenites (the clan of Moses' father-in-law) are found in Judah (Judg. i. 16). Although the traditions regard their efforts as part of a common movement (from Gilgal, see below), it is more probable that these (notably Caleb) escaped the punishment which befell the rest of the Israelites, and made their way direct from Kadesh into the south of Palestine.[6] On the other hand, according to the prevailing tradition, the attempt to break northwards was frustrated by a defeat at Hormah (Num. xiv. 40-45), an endeavour to pass Edom failed, and the people turned back to the _Yam Suph_ (here at the head of the Gulf of Akabah) and proceeded up to the east of Edom and Moab. Conflicting views are represented (on which see MOAB), but at length Shittim was reached and preparations were made to cross the Jordan into the promised land. This having been effected, Gilgal became the base for a series of operations in which the united tribes took part. But again the representations disagree, and to the overwhelming campaigns depicted in the book of Joshua most critics prefer the account of the more gradual process as related in the opening chapter of the book of Judges (see JEWS: _History_, S 8).

Thus, whatever evidence may be supplied by archaeological research, the problem of the Exodus must always be studied in the light of the biblical narratives. That the religious life of Israel as portrayed therein dates from this remote period cannot be maintained against the results of excavation or against the later history, nor can we picture a united people in the desert when subsequent vicissitudes represent the union as the work of many years, and show that it lasted for a short time only under David and Solomon. During the centuries in which the narratives were taking shape many profound changes occurred to affect the traditions. Developments associated with the Deuteronomic reform and the reorganization of Judaism in post-exilic days can be unmistakably recognized, and it would be unsafe to assume that other vicissitudes have not also left their mark. Allowance must be made for the shifting of boundaries or of spheres of influence (Egypt, Edom, Moab), for the incorporation of tribes and of their own tribal traditions, and in particular for other movements (e.g. from Arabia).[7] If certain clans moved direct from Kadesh into Judah, it is improbable that others made the lengthy detour from Kadesh by the Gulf of Akabah, but this may well be an attempt to fuse the traditions of two distinct migrations. Among the Joseph-tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh), the most important of Israelite divisions, the traditions of an ancestor who had lived and died in Egypt would be a cherished possession, but although most writers agree that not all the tribes were in Egypt, it is impossible to determine their number with any certainty. At certain periods, intercourse with Egypt was especially intimate, and there is much in favour of the view that the name Mizraim (Egypt) extended beyond the borders of Egypt proper. Reference has already been made to other cases of geographical vagueness, and one must recognize that in a body of traditions such as this there was room for the inclusion of the most diverse elements which it is almost hopeless to separate, in view of the scantiness of relevant evidence from other sources, and the literary intricacy of the extant narratives. That many different beliefs have influenced the tradition is apparent from what has been said above, and is especially noticeable from a study of the general features. Thus, although the Israelites possessed cattle (Ex. xvii. 3, xix. 13, xxiv. 5, xxxii. 6, xxxiv. 3; Num. xx. 19), allusion is made to their lack of meat in order to magnify the wonders of the journey, and among divinely sent aids to guide and direct the people upon the march not only does Moses require the assistance of a _human_ helper (Jethro or Hobab), but the angel, the ark, the pillar of cloud and of fire and the mysterious hornet are also provided.

In addition to the references already given, see J.W. Colenso,
_Pentateuch and Book of Joshua_ (on internal difficulties); A.
Jeremias, _Alte Test. im Lichte d. alt. Orients_[2] (pp. 402 sqq., on
later references in Manetho, &c., with which cf. also R.H. Charles,
_Jubilees_, p. 245 seq.); art. "Exodus" in _Ency. Bib._; Ed. Meyer,
_Israeliten_ (_passim_); Bonhoff, _Theolog. Stud. u. Krit._ (1907),
pp. 159-217; the histories of Israel and commentaries on the book of
Exodus. Among the numerous special works, mention may be made of G.
Ebers, _Durch Gosen zum Sinai_; E.H. Palmer, _Desert of the Exodus_;
O.A. Toffteen, _The Historic Exodus_; fuller information is given in
L.B. Paton, _Hist. of Syria and Palestine_, p. 34 (also ch. viii.);
and C.F. Kent, _Beginnings of Heb. Hist._ p. 355 seq. (S. A. C.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See the articles on the books in question.

[2] There is a lacuna between the oldest traditions in Genesis and
those in Exodus: the latter beginning simply "and there arose a new
king over Egypt which knew not Joseph." The interval between Jacob's
arrival in Egypt and the Exodus is given varyingly as 400 or 430
years (Gen. xv. 13, Ex. xii. 40 seq., Acts vii. 6); but the Samaritan
and Septuagint versions allow only 215 years (Ex. loc. cit.), and a
period of only four generations is presupposed in Gen. xv. 16 (cf.
the length of the genealogies between the contemporaries of Joseph
and those of Moses in Ex. vi. 16-20).

[3] Sec, e.g., J. Orr, _Problem of the O.T._ pp. 422 sqq.; Ed. Meyer,
_Die Israeliten_, pp. 222 sqq. Some, too, find in the Amarna tablets
the historical background for Joseph's high position at the Egyptian
court (see Cheyne, _Ency. Bib._ art. "Joseph").

[4] For the varying traditions regarding the number of the people and
their residence (whether settled apart, cf., e.g., Gen. xlvi. 34, Ex.
viii. 22, ix. 26, x. 23, or in the midst of the Egyptians) see the
recent commentaries.