| |
Easton's Bible Dictionary
Exodus is the name given in the LXX. to the second book of the Pentateuch (q.v.).
It means "departure" or "outgoing." This name was adopted in the Latin translation,
and thence passed into other languages. The Hebrews called it by the first words,
according to their custom, Ve-eleh shemoth (i.e., "and these are the names").
It contains,
(1) An account of the increase and growth of
the Israelites in Egypt (Exodus ch. 1)
(2) Preparations for their departure out of Egypt ( Exodus 2 - 12:36 ).
(3) Their journeyings from Egypt to Sinai ( Exodus 12:37 - 19:2 ).
(4) The giving of the law and the establishment of the institutions by which the
organization of the people was completed, the theocracy, "a kingdom of priest
and an holy nation" ( Exodus 19:3 - ch. 40 ). |
The time comprised in this book, from the death
of Joseph to the erection of the tabernacle in the wilderness, is about one hundred
and forty-five years, on the supposition that the four hundred and thirty years
( Exodus 12:40 ) are to be computed from the time of the promises made to Abraham
( Galatians 3:17 ).
The authorship of this book, as well as of that of the other books of the Pentateuch,
is to be ascribed to Moses. The unanimous voice of tradition and all internal
evidences abundantly support this opinion.
Hitchcock's Dictionary of Bible Names
(no entry)
Smith's Bible Dictionary
(that is, going out [of Egypt])
The second book of the law or Pentateuch. Its author was Moses. It was written
probably during the forty-years wanderings in the wilderness, between B.C. 1491
and 1451. It may be divided into two principal parts: Historical, chs. ( Exodus
1:1 - 18 ; 27:1 ) ... and Legislative, chs. ( Exodus 19:40 ; 38:1 )
The first part contains an account of the following particulars: the great increase
of Jacobs posterity in the land of Egypt, and their oppression under a new dynasty,
which occupied the throne after the death of Joseph; the birth, education, flight
and return of Moses; the ineffectual attempts to prevail upon Pharaoh to let the
Israelites go; the successive signs and wonders, ending in the death of the first-born,
by means of which the deliverance of Israel from the land of bondage is at length
accomplished, and the institution of the Passover; finally the departure out of
Egypt and the arrival of the Israelites at Mount Sinai.
This part gives a sketch of the early history of Israel as a nation; and the history
has three clearly-marked stages. First we see a nation enslaved; next a nation
redeemed; lastly a nation set apart, and through the blending of its religious
and political life consecrated to the service of God.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
ek'-so-dus:
I. IN GENERAL
1. Name:
The second book of the Pentateuch bears in the Septuagint the name of Exodos,
in the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 AD.) accordingly Exodus, on the
basis of the chief contents of the first half, dealing with the departure of the
children of Israel out of Egypt. The Jews named the book after the first words:
we-'elleh shemoth ("and these are the names"), or sometimes after the first noun
shemoth ("names") a designation already known to Origen in the form of Oualesmoth.
2. Contents in General:
In seven parts, after the Introduction (Exodus 1:1-7), which furnishes the connection
of the contents with Genesis, the book treats of
(1) the sufferings of Israel in Egypt, for which mere human help is insufficient
(Exodus 1:8-7:7), while Divine help through human mediatorship is promised;
(2) the power of Yahweh, which, after a preparatory miracle, is glorified through
the ten plagues inflicted on Pharaoh and which thus forces the exodus (Exodus
7:8-13:16);
(3) the love of Yahweh for Israel, which exhibits itself in a most brilliant manner,
in the guidance of the Israelites to Mt. Sinai, even when the people murmur (Exodus
13:17-18:27);
(4) making the Covenant at Mt. Sinai together with the revelation of the Ten Words
(Exodus 20:1) and of the legal ordinances (Exodus 21:1) as the condition of making
the Covenant (Exodus 19:1-24:18);
(5) the directions for the building of the Tabernacle, in which Yahweh is to dwell
in the midst of His people (Exodus 24:18-31:18);
(6) the renewal of the Covenant on the basis of new demands after Israel's great
apostasy in the worship of the Golden Calf, which seemed for the time being to
make doubtful the realization of the promises mentioned in (5) above (Exodus 32:1-35:3);
(7) the building and erection of the Tabernacle of Revelation (or Tent of Meeting)
and its dedication by the entrance of Yahweh (Exodus 35:4-40:38). |
As clearly as these seven parts are separated from one another, so clearly again
are they most closely connected and constitute a certain progressive whole.
In the case of the last four, the separation is almost self-evident. The first
three as separate parts are justified by the ten plagues standing between them,
which naturally belong together and cause a division between that which precedes
and that which follows. Thus in the first part we already find predicted the hardening
of the heart of Pharaoh, the miracles of Yahweh and the demonstrations of His
power down to the slaying of the firstborn, found in the 2nd part (compare Exodus
2:23-7:7).
In part 3, the infatuation of Pharaoh and the demonstration of the power of Yahweh
are further unfolded in the narrative of the catastrophe in the Red Sea (Exodus
14:4,17). Further the directions given with reference to the Tabernacle (Exodus
25:31 taken from P) presuppose the Decalogue (from E); compare eg. Exodus 25:16,21;
31:18; as again the 6th section (Exodus 32) presupposes the 5th part, which had
promised the continuous presence of God (compare Exodus 32:34 J; 33:3,5,7 JE;
33:12,14-17 J; 34:9 J, with 25:8; 29:45 f P; compare also the forty days in 34:28
J with those in 24:18 P) as in 34:1,28 J and 34:11-27 J refers back to the 4th
part, namely, 20:1 E; 21:1 E; 24:7 JE (Decalogue; Books of the Covenant; Making
the Covenant). In the same way the last section presupposes the third, since the
cloud in Exodus 40:34 P is regarded as something well known (compare 13:21 f JE;
14:19 E and J, 14:24 J) . The entire contents of the Book of Exodus are summarized
in an excellent way in the word of God to Israel spoken through Moses concerning
the making of the covenant: Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how
I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye
shall be mine own possession from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine:
and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation (Exodus 19:4-6).
Here reference is made to the powerful deeds of God done to the Egyptians, to
His deeds of lovingkindness done to Israel in the history of how He led them to
Sinai, to the selection of Israel, and to the conditions attached to the making
of the covenant, to God's love, which condescended to meet the people, and to
His holiness, which demands the observance of His commandments; but there is also
pointed out here the punishment for their transgression. The whole book is built
on one word in the preface to the ten commandments: I am Yahweh thy God, who brought
thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage (Exodus 20:2 E; compare
29:45 f P).
3. Connection with the Other Books of the Pentateuch:
The events which are described in the Book of Exodus show a certain contrast to
those in Genesis. In the first eleven chapters of this latter book we have the
history of mankind; then beginning with 11:27, a history of families, those of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In Exodus we have following this the beginning of the
history of the chosen people. Then there is also a long period of time intervening
between the two books. If Israel was 430 years in Egypt (compare 12:40 f P; also
Genesis 15:13 J; see III, 4 below), and if the oppression began during the long
reign of the predecessors of the Pharaoh, during whose reign Israel left the country
(Exodus 2:23; 1:8), then, too, several centuries must have elapsed between the
real beginning of the book (x 1:8), and the conclusion of Genesis. Notwithstanding
these differences, there yet exists the closest connection between the two books.
Exodus 1:1-7 connects the history of the people as found in Exodus with the family
history of Genesis, by narrating how the seventy descendants of Jacob that had
migrated to Egypt (compare Exodus 1:5; Genesis 46:27) had come to be the people
of Israel, and that God, who offers Himself as a liberator to Moses and the people,
is also the God of those fathers, of whom Genesis spoke (compare Exodus 3:6 JE;
3:13 E; 3:15 f R; 4:5 J; 6:3 P). Indeed, His covenant with the fathers and His
promises to them are the reasons why He at all cares for Israel (Exodus 2:24 JE),
and when Moses intercedes for the sinful people, his most effective motive over
against God is found in the promises made to the patriarchs (Exodus 32:13 JE).
As is the case with Genesis, Exodus stands in the closest connection also with
the succeeding books of the Pentateuch. Israel is certainly not to remain at Sinai,
but is to come into the promised land (3:17 JE; 6:8 P; 23:20 JE; 32:34 J; 33:1
JE; 33:12 J; 34:9 J and D; compare also the many ordinances of the Books of the
Covenant, 21:1 E; 34:11 D and J). In this way the narratives of the following
books, which begin again in Numbers 10:11 P and JE with the story of the departure
from Sinai, continue the history in Exodus. But the legislation in Leviticus also
is a necessary continuation and supplement of the Book of Exodus, and is prepared
for and pointed to in the latter. The erection of the burnt-offering altar (27:1;
38:1), as well as the mention made of the different kinds of sacrifices, such
as the burnt sacrifices and the sin offering (29:18,14) and of the heave offering
(29:28), point to the promulgation of a law of sacrifices such as we find in Leviticus
1-7. The directions given in regard to the consecration of the priests (Exodus
29) are carried out in Leviticus 8 f. The indefinite commands of Exodus 30:10
in reference to the atonement on the horn of the incense altar once every year
renders necessary the special ritual of the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 as
its supplement. The more complete enlargement in reference to the shewbread mentioned
in Exodus 25:30 is found in Leviticus 24:5-9; and even the repetitions in references
to the candlesticks (Exodus 25:31; Leviticus 24:1-4; Numbers 8:1-4), as also the
tamidh ("continuous") sacrifices (compare Numbers 28:3-8 with Exodus 29:38-42),
point to a certain connection between Exodus and the following books. How close
the connection between Deuteronomy and Exodus is, both in regard to the historical
narratives and also to their legal portions (compare the Decalogue and the Books
of the Covenant), can only be mentioned at this place.
4. Significance of These Events for Israel:
When we remember the importance which the exodus out of Egypt and the making of
the covenant had for the people of Israel, and that these events signalized the
birth of the chosen people and the establishment of theocracy, then we shall understand
why the echo of the events recorded in Exodus is found throughout later literature,
namely, in the historical books, in the preaching of the prophets and in the Psalms,
as the greatest events in the history of the people, and at the same time as the
promising type of future and greater deliverances. But as in the beginning of
the family history the importance of this family for the whole earth is clearly
announced (Genesis 12:1-3), the same is the case here too at the beginning of
the history of the nation, perhaps already in the expression "kingdom of priests"
(Exodus 19:6), since the idea of a priesthood includes that of the transmission
of salvation to others; and certainly in the conception `first-born son of Yahweh'
(Exodus 4:22), since this presupposes other nations as children born later.
The passages quoted above are already links connecting this book with Christianity,
in the ideas of a general priesthood, of election and of sonship of God. We here
make mention of a few specially significant features from among the mass of such
relationships to Christianity.
5. Connecting Links for Christianity:
How great a significance the Decalogue, in which the law is not so intimately
connected with what is specifically Jewish and national, as eg. in the injunctions
of the Priest Codex, according to the interpretation of Christ in Matthew 5, has
attained in the history of mankind! But in Matthew 5:17 Jesus has vindicated for
the law in all its parts an everlasting authority and significance and has emphasized
the eternal kernel, which accordingly is to be assigned to each of these legal
behests; while Paul, on the other hand, especially in Romans, Galatians and Colossians,
emphasizes the transitory character of the law, and discusses in detail the relation
of the Mosaic period to that of the patriarchs and of the works of the law to
faith, while in 2 Corinthians 3 he lauds the glory of the service in the spirit
over that of the letter (compare Exodus 34)--an idea which in reference to the
individual legal institutions is also carried out in the Ep. to the Hebrews. Compare
on this subject also the articles \LEVITICUS\ and \DAY OF ATONEMENT\. Then too
the Passover lamb was a type of Jesus Christ (compare eg. 1 Corinthians 5:7; John
19:36; 1 Peter 1:19). In Exodus 12 the Passover rite and the establishment of
the covenant (24:3-8) arc found most closely connected also with the Lord's Supper
and the establishment of the New Covenant.
In the permanent dwelling of God in the midst of His people in the pillar of fire
and in the Tabernacle there is typified His dwelling among mankind in Christ Jesus
(John 1:14) and also the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the Christian congregation
(1 Peter 2:5; Ephesians 4:12) and in the individual Christian (1 Corinthians 3:16;
6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; John 14:23). The Apocalypse particularly is rich in
thought suggested by the exodus out of Egypt. Unique thoughts in reference to
the Old Testament are found in the conceptions that the law was given through
angels (Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2); further that the rock mentioned
in Exodus 17:6 followed, and was Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4); and that in Hebrews
9:4 the real connection of the altar of incense with the Holy of Holies appears
as changed into a local connection (Exodus 40:26,27), while the idea found in
Hebrews 9:4 that the manna was originally in the Ark of the Covenant, is perhaps
not altogether excluded by Exodus 16:33; and the number 430 years, found in Galatians
3:17, probably agrees with Exodus 12:40,41, in so far as the whole of the patriarchal
period could be regarded as a unit (compare on the reading of the Septuagint in
Exodus 12:40,41, III, 4 below). |
II. STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES AND ACCORDING TO MODERN ANALYSES
In the following section (a) serves for the understanding of the Biblical text;
(b) is devoted to the discussion and criticism of the separation into sources.
1. In General:
(a) The conviction must have been awakened already by the general account
of the contents given in I, 2 above, that in the Book of Exodus we are dealing
with a rounded-off structure, since in seven mutually separated yet intimately
connected sections, one uniform fundamental thought is progressively carried through.
This conviction will only be confirmed when the details of these sections are
studied, the sections being themselves again organically connected by one leading
thought. Since, in addition, the Book of Genesis is clearly divided into ten parts
by the ten toledhoth ("generations") (compare also the division made by typical
numbers in articles \LEVITICUS\ and \DAY OF ATONEMENT\), thus too the number seven,
as itself dividing the Book of Exodus into seven parts, is probably not accidental;
and this all the less, as in the subordinate parts too, a division is to be found
according to typical numbers, this in many cases appearing as a matter of course,
and in other cases traced without difficulty, and sometimes lying on the surface
(compare 10 plagues, 10 commandments). Yet in all of the following investigations,
as is the case in the articles \GENESIS\, \LEVITICUS\ and \DAY OF ATONEMENT\,
the demonstration of the fundamental thought must be the main thing for us. The
division according to typical numbers is to be regarded merely as an additional
confirmation of the literary unity of the book. We refer here first of all to
a number of cases, where certain numbers independently of the separate chief parts
combine the Biblical text into a unity. In Numbers 14:22 R, Yahweh states that
Israel had now tempted Him and been disobedient to Him ten times: compare Exodus
14:11 JE(?) (Red Sea); 15:23 f JE (Marah); 16:2 , 3 P ; 16:20 JE ; 16:27 , 28
R (Manna); 17:1 JE (Massah and Meribah); 32:1 JE (Golden Calf); Numbers 11:1 JE
(Tuberah); 11:4 JE (Graves of Lust); 14:2 P and JE (Spies). Most of these cases
are accordingly reported in the Book of Exodus, but in such manner that in this
particular a clearly marked progress can be noticed, as Yahweh does not begin
to punish until Exodus 32; but from here on He does so with constantly increasing
severity, while down to Exodus 32 grace alone prevails, and in this particular,
previous to Exodus 32, there is found nothing but a warning (16:27). Ten times
it is further stated of Pharaoh, in a great variety of forms of expression, that
he hardened his own heart (7:13 P ; 7:14 JE ; 7:22 P ; 8:15 P ; 8:32 JE ; 9:7
, 34,35 JE; 13:15 D); ten times the hardening is ascribed to God (4:21 JE ; 7:3
P ; 9:12 P ; 10:1 R ; 10:20 JE ; 10:27 E ; 11:10 R; 14:4 , 8 P ; 17 P ?). Here
already we must note that within the narrative of the miracles and the plagues
at first there is mention made only of the hardening by Pharaoh himself (7:13
P ; 7:14 JE ; 7:22 P ; 8:11 ; 8:15 P ; 8:28 JE ; 9:7 JE , i.e. seven times) before
a single word is said that God begins the hardening; and this latter kind of hardening
thereupon alone concludes the whole tragedy (14:4,8 P; 17 P?). Ten months cover
the time from the arrival at Sinai (19:1 P) to the erection of the sacred dwelling-place
of God (40:17 P). Since, further, exactly three months of this time are employed
in 19:10 , 16 JE ; 24:3 JE ; 24:16 P (ten days); 24:18 P (40 days); 34:28 J (40
days), there remain for the building of the tabernacle exactly seven months.
(b) What has been said does anything but speak in favor of the customary division
of Exodus into different sources. It is generally accepted that the three sources
found in Genesis are also to be found in this book; in addition to which a fourth
source is found in Exodus 13:3-16, of a Deuteronomistic character. It is true
and is acknowledged that the advocates of this hypothesis have more difficulties
to overcome in Exodus than in Genesis, in which latter book too, however, there
are insufficient grounds for accepting this view, as is shown in the article GENESIS.
Beginning with Exodus 6 the chief marks of such a separation of sources falls
away as far as P and J are concerned, namely, the different uses of the names
of God, Elohim and Yahweh. For, according to the protagonists of the documentary
theory, P also makes use of the name Yahweh from this chapter on; E, too, does
the same from Exodus 3:13 on, only that, for a reason not understood, occasionally
the word Elohim is still used by this source later on, e.g. 13:17; 18:1. But as
a number of passages using the name Elohim are unhesitatingly ascribed by the
critics to J, this difference in the use of the name of God utterly fails to establish
a difference of sources. To this is to be added, that J and E are at this place
closely interwoven; that, while the attempt is constantly being made to separate
these two sources, no generally accepted results have been reached and many openly
acknowledge the impossibility of such a separation, or admit that it can be effected
only to a very limited extent. Peculiarities which are regarded as characteristic
of the different sources, such as the sin of Aaron in J, the staff of Moses in
E, Sinai in J and the Priestly Code (P), Horeb in E, the dwelling of the Israelites
in Goshen in J, but according to E their living in the midst of the Egyptians,
and others, come to nought in view of the uniform text in the passages considered.
This has been proved most clearly, e.g. by Eerdmans in his Alttestamentliche Studien,
III ("Das Buck Exodus") in regard to many of these passages. Narratives of a similar
character, like the two stories in which Moses is described as striking the rock
to produce water (Exodus 17:1; Numbers 20:1), are not duplicates, but are different
events. Compare the different localities in Exodus 17:7 and Numbers 20:1, as also
the improbability that Israel would without cause in the first passage have put
into permanent form the story of its shame, and then in the latter there would
have been an uncertainty as to the importance of this locality for the career
of Moses; and finally, we must notice the distinction expressly made by the additional
statement, "waters of Meribah of Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin," in Numbers
27:12 - 14; Deuteronomy 32:51 (compare Ezekiel 47:19 ; 48:28). Then, too, these
occurrences, if we accept the division into J and E at this place, are not reduced
to a single event, since both sources would share in both narratives. The same
condition of affairs is found in Exodus 16 in so far as JE comes into consideration,
and in Exodus 18 in comparison with Numbers 11. In the case of Numbers 11 there
is express reference made to a former narrative by the word "again" and in the
second case all the details in their differences point to different occurrences.
Concerning other so-called duplicates in Ex, see later in this article. But the
acceptance of P in contradistinction to the text of JE does also not lead to tangible
results, notwithstanding that there exists a general agreement with regard to
the portions credited to P. Not taking into consideration certain that are peculiar,
the following sections are attributed to this source: Exodus 1:1 - 7 ,13 - 15
; 2:23 ; 25 ; 6:2 - 7:13 ; 6:28 - 30 ; Exodus 7:19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ; 8:1-3,11-15;
9:8-12; 12:1-20,28,37,40-50; 13:1-2,20; Exodus 14:1 - 4 , 8 - 10 , 15 - 18 , 21
, 22 - 23 , 19 ; 16:1 - 3 , 1 - 14 , 15 - 18 , 21 - 26 , 31 - 32 , 34 ,35 ; Exodus
17:1 ; 19:1 , 2 ; 24:15 - 31:17 ; 34:29 - 40:38. It is claimed that in the Book
of Genesis these sources constitute the backbone of the whole work; but this is
not claimed for Ex. The sections ascribed to P constitute in this place, too,
anything but an unbroken story. In both language and substance they are, to a
certain extent, most closely connected with the parts ascribed to JE, and in part
they are indispensable for the connection whence they have been taken (compare
for details below). It is absolutely impossible to separate on purely philological
grounds in the purely narrative portions in Exodus the portions belonging to P.
That genealogies like Exodus 6:14, or chronological notices like 12:40 , 41 ,
51 ; 16:1 ; 19:1 , or directions for the cults like Exodus 12 ; 25 have their
own peculiar forms, is justified by self-evident reasons; but this does not justify
the acceptance of separate authors. It is the result of the peculiar matter found
in each case. We must yet note that the passages attributed to P would in part
contain views which could not be harmonized with theological ideas ascribed to
this source, which are said to include an extreme transcendental conception of
God; thus in 16:10 the majesty of Yahweh suddenly appears to the congregation,
and in 40:34 this majesty takes possession of the newly erected dwelling. In 8:19
mention is made of the finger of God, and in 7:1 Moses is to be as God to Pharaoh.
In Exodus 12:12 the existence of the Egyptian gods is presupposed and the heathen
sorcerers are able to act in competition with Moses and Aaron for a while; 7:11
, 12 , 22 ; 8:3. P also describes the Passover, which on account of the handling
of the blood in 12:7 cannot be regarded in any other light than as a sacrifice
in the house, and in Numbers 9:7,13, this act is expressly called a qorban Yahweh
(`sacrifice of Yahweh'). Compare also the commands in Exodus 12:10 , 43 , 18.
But more than anything else, what has been said under (a) above goes to show that
all these sources have been united in a way that characterizes the work of a systematic
writer, and declares against any view that would maintain that these sources have
been mechanically placed side by side and interwoven into each other. What has
here been outlined for the whole book in general must now be applied to the different
parts in particular. |
2. In the Separate Pericopes:
(1) Exodus 1:8 - 7:7:
(a) Everything that is narrated in this section, which in so worthy a manner
introduces the whole book, is written from a standpoint of the Egyptian oppression,
from which human help could give no deliverance, but from which the mighty power
of Yahweh, working through human agency, offered this deliverance. It is a situation
which demands faith (4:31). This section naturally falls into ten pericopes, of
which in each instance two are still more closely connected. Numbers 1 and 2 (1:8-
14,15-22), namely, the oppression through forced labor and the threat to take
the life of the newly born males of the Israelites; and in contrast to this, the
Divine blessing in the increase of the people in general and of the midwives in
particular; numbers 3 and 4 (Exodus 2:1-10,11-22), namely, the birth and youth
of Moses stand in contrast. The child seems to be doomed, but God provides for
its deliverance. Moses, when grown to manhood, tries to render vigorous assistance
to his people through his own strength, but he is compelled to flee into a far-off
country. Numbers 5 and 6 (Exodus 2:23-4:17; 4:18-31) report the fact that also
in the reign of a new Pharaoh the oppression does not cease, and that this causes
God to interfere, which in Exodus 2:23-25 is expressed in strong terms and repeatedly,
and this again leads to the revelation in the burning bush (3:1). And at the same
time the narrative shows how little self-confidence Moses still had (three signs,
a heavy tongue, direct refusal). The sixth pericope and also the beginning of
the last four, describe, from an external viewpoint, the return of Moses to Midian,
and his journey from there to Egypt. Here, too, mention is made of the troubles
caused by Pharaoh, which God must remove through His power. This deliverance is
not at all deserved by Israel, since not even any son in a family had up to this
time been circumcised. On the other hand, everything here is what can be expected.
Those who sought the life of Moses had died; the meeting with Aaron at the Mount
of the Lord; in Egypt the faith of the people. In an effective way the conclusion
(4:31) returns to the point where the two companion narratives (2:24 f) begin.
After this point, constituting the center and the chief point in the introductory
section, numbers 7 and 8 (Exodus 5:1-6:1; 6:2-12), everything seems to have become
doubtful. Pharaoh refuses to receive Moses and Aaron; the oppression increases;
dissatisfaction in Israel appears; Moses despairs; even the new revelations of
God, with fair emphasis on fidelity to the Covenant which is to unfold Yahweh's
name in full, are not able to overcome the lack of courage on the part of the
people and of Moses. Numbers 9 and 10, introduced by Exodus 6:13 (6:14-27 and
6:28-7:7), show that after Moses and Aaron have already been mentioned together
in 4:14,27; 5:1, and after it has become clear how little they are able of themselves
to accomplish anything, they are now here, as it were, for the first time, before
the curtain is raised, introduced as those who in the following drama are to be
the mediators of God's will (compare the concluding verses of both pericopes,
6:27; 7:7), and they receive directions for their common mission, just at that
moment when, humanly speaking, everything is as unfavorable as possible.
(b) The unity of thought here demonstrated is in this case too the protecting
wall against the flood-tide of the documentary theory. For this theory involves
many difficulties. In Exodus 1:13 f there would be an account of the oppression
by the Priestly Code (P), but the motive for this can be found only in the preceding
verses, which are ascribed to JE; 2:24 speaks of the Covenant of God With Isaac,
concerning which P is said to have reported nothing in the Book of Gen, as in
the latter book a reference to this matter is found only in Genesis 26:2-5 R;
26:24 J. In Exodus 6:2 Moses and Aaron are mentioned; but as the text of P reads
we know absolutely nothing from this source as to who these men are. According
to 7:1 Aaron is to be the speaker for Moses before Pharaoh. But according to P
neither Moses nor Aaron speaks a single word. The omissions that are found by
critics in documents J and E--which, if they are separated, have lines of demarcation
claimed for the separation that are very unsettled--we here pass over in silence.
On the critical theory, the narratives of the Priestly Code (P), in the Book of
Ex, as also in Gen, would have discarded many of the stereotyped formulas characteristic
of this source (compare Exodus 2:23; 6:2; 7:1), and in both form and contents
would be made very similar to the rest of the text Exodus 1:9,10,12 JE; 1:20 E;
7:1 P; and to a great extent expressions similar to these are here found and in
part refer to these. The same must be said concerning 3:7 JE in its relation to
2:23 P; 6:6 (sibhloth) P in its relation to 1:11 JE; 2:11 E; 5:4,5 JE (in contrast
1:13,14; 2:23). JE, in 4:9 for "dry land," makes use of the term ha-yabbashah,
which in Genesis 1:9 f and Exodus 14:16 is ascribed to the Priestly Code (P),
and a different expression is used for this thought by J in Genesis 7:22. In reference
to Exodus 7:1 P compare 4:14 E (?). In reference to the hardening of Pharaoh,
which is found in all the sources (7:3 P), see above under 1a; in reference to
the miracles, and their purpose of making Yahweh known to the Egyptians (7:3-5
P) see the following paragraph. The four generations mentioned in 7:14 P find
their parallel in Genesis 15:16 J (compare 46:8); and the sons of Aaron mentioned
in Exodus 6:23 the Priestly Code (P), Nadab and Abihu, are mentioned also in the
text of 24:1,9, ascribed to JE although, except in Leviticus 10 the Priestly Code
(P), their names are not found elsewhere in the Pentateuch. In reference to the
repetitions, it must be said that Exodus 1:13 P is either the continuation (in
so far as the Israelites instead of being compulsory laborers became slaves),
or is a concluding summary, such as is found frequently. The new revelation of
God in Exodus 6 the Priestly Code (P), according to chapter 3 JE, finds its psychological
and historical motive in the account of the failure described in 5:1 JE, and in
the discouragement of the Israelites and of Moses resulting therefrom. In the
same way the renewed mention by Moses of his difficulties of speech (6:12 P; compare
with 4:10 J and E (?)) is very characteristic of human ways, and this again necessitates
the twice repeated consideration of this matter by God (6:30 R; 4:10 J and E (?);
concerning the names of God, see GENESIS; GOD, NAMES OF).
One difficulty, which is also not made clear by the proposed division of sources,
is found in the name of the father-in-law of Moses; since according to Exodus
2:18 J, this name is Reuel, and according to 3:1; 18:1 JE, it is Jethro (4:18
E in the form "Jether"); in Numbers 10:29 JE is called Hobab and a son of Reuel
(the King James Version "Raguel") for all of these passages are ascribed to J
or E. It is probable that the name Jethro is a title ("Excellency"); and as for
the rest, in Numbers 10:29 chothen probably does not mean father-in-law but brother-in-law
(Judges 1:16; 4:11); or in Exodus 2:18 we find father and in 2:21 daughter in
the place of grandfather and granddaughter; otherwise we should be compelled to
accept different traditions, by which view, however, the Mosaic authorship of
Exodus would be made impossible (compare IV, below). |
(2) Exodus 7:8 - 13:16:
(a) This section is separated as a matter of course from the rest by the typical
number of ten plagues. It is introduced by the transformation of the rod into
a serpent in the presence of Pharaoh (7:8-13). To explain the fact that there
were ten plagues on the ground of the accidental combination of sources, is from
the very outset a precarious undertaking. To this must be added the following
reasons that indicate a literary editing of the material. All of the plagues are
introduced by the same formula (7:12 JE; 8:1 J; 8:12 P; 8:16 JE; 8:20 JE; 9:1
JE; 9:8 P; 9:13 JE; 10:1,12 JE; 10:21 E; 11:1 E), and in connection with each
plague the hardening of the heart of Pharaoh is mentioned (compare (1a) above);
compare 7:22 P; 8:11 J; 8:15 P; 8:28 JE; 9:7 JE; 9:12 P; 9:34 JE; 9:35 JE; 10:1
R; 10:20 JE; 10:27 E; 11:10 R; 13:15 D. As is the case in the first section, we
find here too in each instance two plagues more closely connected, namely, numbers
1 and 2 already externally united by the double address of Yahweh (compare 7:14
JE; 7:19 P and 7:26 J; 8:1 P), but also by the methods of punishment that are
related to each other (water changed to blood and frogs); and, finally, by the
extension of the plague (the Nile and beyond the river). In 3 and 4 we have to
deal with insects (stinging flies and dung flies); in 5 and 6 with a kind of pest
(pest among cattle, and boils); 7 and 8 are again formally joined by the repeated
command of Yahweh to Moses in 9:13,12 JE and 10:1,12 JE, as also by the fullness
of the account the two show and their similarity, in both also use being made
of the staff (9:23 f JE; 10:13 f JE), in the repetition of the emphasis put on
the remarkable character of the plague (9:18,24; 10:6,14 JE). By both plagues
vegetation is destroyed; and in the plague of locusts special reference is made
also to the hail (compare 10:5,12,15). In the case of 9 and 10, the darkness constitutes
a connecting link (compare 10:21 E; 11:4 J; 12:12 P; 12:30,31 JE). By the side
of the occasional rhythm formed of two members there is also one formed of three
members (after the manner of a triole in a measure of two beats). In the case
of each group of three plagues, two are announced beforehand (thus 1 JEP and 2
JP; 4 JE and 5 JE; 7 JE and 8 JE; 10 EJ over against 3 the Priestly Code (P),
6 P and 9 E); the first of each group of three plagues, as 1, 4 and 7, is to be
announced by Moses on the following morning to Pharaoh (7:15; 8:20; 9:13 JE).
Also in regard to the impression caused by the plagues a distinct progress can
be noticed, in this too, that the Egyptian sorcerers are active only down to the
third plague. Naturally, too, over against these facts, further peculiarities
can be pointed out in the separate plagues, e.g. the fact that Goshen, or rather
that Israel, is spared in the 4th, 5th, 7th through 10th plagues (8:22; 9:6,26
JE; 10:23 E; 11:7 J); and in the mention made of the intercession in the 2nd,
4th, 7th, 8th (8:8 J; 8:12; 9:28,33; 10:17 f JE) without thereby destroying the
artistic construction of the whole that has been described above, or that in each
such case of individuality of presenting the matter there is to be found a reason
for claiming a separate source.
(b) In the same way, too, it is not a permissible conclusion, that in the first
miracle and in the first three plagues mention is made of the fact that Aaron
performed this miracle with his staff (Exodus 7:8,19; 8:5-20 P). At any rate,
in the parts ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), no absolute uniformity is to be
found, since plagues 1 to 3 are commanded to Moses, while the 6th is commanded
to Moses and Aaron (Exodus 7:19; 8:1,20 over against Exodus 9:8); and since, further,
in the 6th plague (Exodus 9:8) it is Moses, and in the 10th (Exodus 12:12) it
is God Himself who really carries out the command, and not Aaron, as was the case
in the introductory miracles and in the first three plagues. Further, according
to JE (Exodus 4:30), it appears that the presupposition is that we are to consider
all of the addresses and actions in general as taking place through Aaron, even
in those cases where this is not especially mentioned.
Only the 1st plague (Exodus 7:14) furnishes an apparent reason for the acceptance
of two sources. In this case mention is made at times of the waters of the Nile
only, and then of all other waters being changed into blood; and a separation
from this point of view at least could be carried through. But this possibility
disappears at once in the case of the 2nd plague (frogs), where the passage Exodus
8:1-3, ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), which verses contain the consummation
of the plague announced in 7:26-29 J (Hebrew), is altogether necessary for this
connection; as otherwise the impression made upon Pharaoh by this plague, which
is not mentioned in P at all, would be a torso. The similarity in the construction
of the 2nd and the 1st plague, however (compare under (a) above), and the same
difference in the mention made of the Nile and of the other waters in the 2nd
plague, make it possible and even advisable in the case of the first plague, too,
to discard the hypothesis of a difference in sources, because in the 2nd plague
this difference cannot be carried out. Then, too, there would be other omissions
found in P. According to the customary separation of sources, P would not contain
the fulfillment of the threatened tenth plague announced in 12:12 at all. In the
same way the statement in 12:28 refers to the carrying out of a command, the announcement
of which to Israel in 12:21 would be found in another source. Further in 12:37a
we would have the Priestly Code (P), as when the parts belonging to P have been
eliminated, the other sources too would contain omissions in 12:21, mostly JE;
12:37b E; 13:3 D. In the same way the announcement of a large number of miracles
(7:3 P; 11:9 R) is too comprehensive, if these verses refer only to the narratives
found in P. In addition, there is a remarkable similarity found in all of the
narratives of P with those parts which are ascribed to JE; compare the first miracle
in 7:8 with 4:2 J; 4:17 E. In the Priestly Code (P), too, as is the case with
JE, it is stated that the purpose of the miracle is, that Pharaoh, or the Egyptians,
or Israel, are to recognize that Yahweh is God and the Lord of the earth, or something
to this effect (7:5 P; 7:17 JE; 8:10 R; 8:22; 9:14,29,30 JE; 10:2 R; 11:7 J; compare
from the next section, 14:4 P; 14:18 the Priestly Code (P), which at the same
time is also the fundamental thought that forms the connecting link of the whole
section). The position of Exodus 11:1-3 E between 10:28,29 E and 11:8 J constitutes
a difficulty, because in the last-mentioned passages Moses is represented as standing
continuously before Pharaoh. The announcement made by Yahweh to Moses, that one
more plague is to come, and that the Israelites should borrow articles of value
from the Egyptians, must in reality have been made before, but for good reasons
it is mentioned for the first time at this place, in order to explain the confident
utterance of Moses, that he would not again appear before Pharaoh (10:29). But
the fact that according to 12:31 JE Pharaoh does in reality once more cause Moses
and Aaron to be called, can readily be explained on the ground of the events that
happened in the meantime.
The structure of Exodus 12 f contains nothing that could not have been written
by one and the same author. Only Moses naturally did not at once communicate (12:21)
to the leading men of Israel the command given in 12:15 concerning the unleavened
bread, which command had been given for later generations; and not until 13:3
is this command mentioned in connection with the order given to the people in
the meantime concerning the firstborn (13:1 f) . The further fact, that the story
of the exodus reaches a preliminary conclusion in 12:42 before the details of
the Passover (verses 3) have been given, is in itself justifiable. As far as contents
are concerned, everything in chapters 12, namely, the exodus, the festival of
unleavened bread, the firstborn, and orders pertaining thereto, that the month
of the exodus is to be regarded as the first month, etc., are closely connected
with the Passover and the 10th plague. Because the latter had to be described
more fully than the other plagues, we find already in 11:9,10, after the announcement
of this plague and its results, a comprehensive notice concerning all the miracles
through which Yahweh demonstrated how He, amid great manifestations of power (7:4
P) and with a mighty hand (6:1 JE), has led His people forth. |
(3) Exodus 13:17 - 18:27:
(a) This section finds its connecting thought in the emphasis placed on the
love of Yahweh, on His readiness to help, and His long-suffering in the leading
of His at times murmuring people on the road to and as far as Sinai. This section
covers two months. What is narrated, beginning with Exodus 16:1, transpires even
within a single two weeks (compare Exodus 19:1). Number 1 (Exodus 13:17-22), describes
the journey to Etham (out of love God does not lead the people the direct way,
since He fears that they will become unfaithful in the event of a battle; Joseph's
bones are taken along, since God now really is taking care of His people (compare
Genesis 50:24,26); Yahweh's friendly presence is shown in the pillar of fire).
Number 2 (Exodus 14:1-31) contains the passage through the Red Sea (Yahweh the
helper; compare Exodus 14:10,15,13,14,30,21,24,26,31, notwithstanding the murmuring
of Israel, 14:11 f). Number 3 (Exodus 15:1) contains the thanksgiving hymn of
Moses for Yahweh's help, with which fact each one of the four strophes begins
(Exodus 15:1,6,11,16 b). Number 4 (Exodus 15:20) contains Miriam's responsorium.
Number 5 (Exodus 15:22-27) treats of Marah and Elim (Yahweh proves Himself to
be Israel's helper and physician (Exodus 15:25) notwithstanding the murmuring
of Israel (Exodus 15:24)). Number 6 introduces the last five pericopes, with a
designation of the time (Exodus 16:1-36), and describes the miraculous feeding
with manna and quails. (The murmuring is particularly emphasized in Exodus 16:2,7-9,12.
Israel also gathers more than they have been directed to do (Exodus 16:16); reserves
some for the following day (Exodus 16:19); collects some on the Sabbath (Exodus
16:27); Yahweh, who in Exodus 16:6-12 alone is mentioned in rapid succession no
fewer than ten times, at first does not even utter a word of reproach, and when
the Sabbath has been violated He does nothing more than reprove.) Number 7 (Exodus
17:1-7) reports the help of Yahweh (Exodus 17:4) at the Waters of Contention (Strife).
He even appears on the rock (Exodus 17:6), notwithstanding the murmuring (Exodus
17:2-4,7). Number 8 (Exodus 17:8-16) describes the victory over the Amalekites,
which furnished the occasion for the erection of the memorial altar, called `Yahweh-my-
Banner.' Possibly in this connection Joshua ("Yahweh helps") was changed from
Hosea (Numbers 13:16). Compare Hengstenberg, Authenthic. des Pentateuches, II,
395 f. Number 9 (Exodus 18:1-12) shows in a constantly changing variety of expressions
that emphasis is laid on the impression which the deeds of God in connection with
Israel make on Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, while he was visiting the latter
(Exodus 18:1,8-12). Effective in this connection is also the mention made of the
symbolical names of the sons of Moses (Gershom, "I have been a sojourner in a
foreign land"; and Eliezer, "The God of my father was my help, and delivered me
from the sword of Pharaoh" (Exodus 18:3)). Further, the name Mount of God (Exodus
18:5; compare Exodus 18:12) probably is a reminder of the fulfillment of Exodus
3:12. Number 10 (Exodus 18:13-17) shows how God helps Moses (compare Exodus 18:19)
through the advice of Jethro to appoint judges. In this part, too, Exodus 13:17-18:27,
we have ten sections, which can easily be arranged in groups of two and two. Thus
numbers 1 and 2 are connected by their analogous beginnings (13:17,18 RE; 14:1,2
P) and by the cloud of fire (13:21 f JE; 14:19,24 J); numbers 3 and 4 by the responsive
hymn; numbers 5 and 6, which already by the feeling of hunger and thirst are connected
in thought, by their reference to the ordinances of Yahweh (15:25 D; 16:4 JE ?;
16:28 R); numbers 7 and 8 by the use made of Moses' staff (17:5,9 JE); numbers
9 and 10 by Jethro's person, and the close connection of their contents in point
of time (18:13). Further, the Biblical text of this place is clearly presupposed
in the list of stations, expressly stated to have been prepared at the command
of Moses (Numbers 33). This list, as is acknowledged on all sides, has the characteristics
of P; and it takes into consideration not only the portions ascribed to this source,
but also the text of JE. Compare Numbers 33:9 (Marah and Elim) with Exodus 15:22-27,
and Numbers 33:14 (lack of water in Rephidim) with Exodus 17:1.
(b) Over against the analysis into different sources the following data in detail
can also be advanced. In P the last demonstration of the power of Yahweh over
Pharaoh would be indeed endangered in Exodus 14:4,15,21a, but afterward would
not be related. In Exodus 16:1 we cannot find in the Priestly Code (P), unless
we bring in also 15:27 from JE, how Israel came to be in Elim. On the other hand,
in 16:4 (JE?) the promise of bread from heaven is groundless without the preceding
verses, which are attributed to P; and without 17:1 the Priestly Code (P), we
do not know to what the word "there" in 17:3 belonging to JE refers, and how in
17:8 JE the Israelites had come to Rephidim. How entirely data taken from the
language utterly fail here in establishing the separation of sources we see from
the fact that in Exodus the distribution of the different portions and verses
between P and E becomes a matter of doubt, and also in Exodus 16 a harmony of
view has not been gained as to whether only the Priestly Code (P), or in addition
also J, E or JE have contributed to the text. The hymn found in Exodus 15:1, which
certainly is an old composition, presupposes passages which are assigned to different
sources, and in this way speaks for the unity of the text. Compare 15:2 with 14:30
J; 14:13 JE (?); 15:3 with 14:14 JE (?); 14:25 J; 14:4a with 14:9 P; 14:4b with
14:7 JE; 14:8 with 14:22 EP; 14:29 P; with 14:9. On the other hand, Exodus 14:19
a and b cannot be utilized in favor of a division of sources E and J; but rather
the analogous structure of this passage presupposes the same author, and there
is only indicated what elsewhere is always a presupposition, namely, that God
Himself has taken His abode somewhere in the cloud of fire (13:21,22 JE; 14:24
J; compare 40:34 P) Just as little are the two commands found in 14:16 to be divided
between P and E and J, one stating what Moses does, and the other what Yahweh
does, since both rather belong together (compare 9:22 f with 9:33; 10:13). At
first glance 16:6 does not appear to be in its proper place, as Moses and Aaron
in 16:6,7 have already told Israel what only in 16:9 is revealed through the appearance
of Yahweh and His injunction to Moses. But these very verses are in harmony with
the character of the whole section (compare under a above), since it is here stated
that under all circumstances Israel is to be convinced of this, that Yahweh has
proven Himself to be Yahweh, and has heard their murmuring. In addition, the appearance
of Yahweh in 16:10 is clearly announced by 16:7. Accordingly, 16:9 serve only
to confirm and strengthen what is found in 16:6. The fact that not until in 18:2
JE Jethro brings the wife and the sons of Moses, while the latter himself according
to 4:20 J had taken them along when he joined Israel, finds a satisfactory explanation
in 18:2b. He sent them back doubtless because of the conduct of Zipporah on the
occasion of the circumcision of her son (4:25 J). The fact that Jethro comes to
Moses at the Mount of God (18:5 JE), while the latter does not arrive at Mt. Sinai
until 19:1 according to P and J, is no contradiction; for by the Mount of God
is meant the whole chain of Horeb, which Moses has already reached according to
17:6 JE; but Mt. Sinai is a single mountain. The special legal ordinances and
decisions mentioned in 18:20 JE before the giving of the law (19 E and JE) are
in perfect harmony with 15:25 D; 16:4 JE (?); 16:28 R. |
(4) Exodus 19:1 - 24:18a:
(a) This fourth section contains the conclusion of the covenant at Mt. Sinai
(compare 19:5 R at beginning; 24:7,8 JE toward the end). The contents cover a
period of ten days (compare 19:10,11,16; 24:3,1 JE; 24:16 P). The text of this
section can again be divided into ten pericopes. After the introduction (19:1-8),
which contains a cardinal feature of Exodus (compare under I, 2 above), numbers
1 and 2 (19:9-19,20-25) report the preparation for the conclusion of the Covenant.
Number 2 in Exodus 19:23 refers expressly to number 1, but is distinguished from
number 1 through the new addition in 19:20 after 19:18, as also through the express
amplified application of the ordinances referring to purifications and the restriction
of the prohibition to the priests (compare 19:22,21,24 with 19:10,12). Numbers
3 and 4 (Exodus 20:1-17,18-26) contain the Decalogue and the directions for the
cults, together with a description of the impression made by the revelation of
the law. Numbers 5 and 6 (Exodus 21:1-23:13 expressly circumscribed by a subscription,
Exodus 23:14-19) contain legal ordinances and further directions for the cults.
Numbers 3-6 accordingly contain the laws or the conditions of the Covenant. Now
follow in numbers 7 and 8 the promises of the Covenant (Exodus 23:20-26,27-33),
which in verses 20 and 27, 23 and 28 and 24 and 32 f correspond to each other.
Numbers 9 and 10 (Exodus 24:3-8,9-18 a, combined more closely by Exodus 24:1,2)
describe the conclusion of the Covenant and the Covenant congregation in different
stages. Further, typical numbers at this place also appear in the laws, numbers
3-6. Number 4 (Exodus 20:18) contains five directions (Exodus 20:23,24,25,26);
number 6 (Exodus 23:14-19) is divided into 2 X 5 ordinances (compare the anaphoristic
addition in Exodus 23:14 and 17), namely, verses Exodus 23:14,15 a,15b,16a,16b-17,18a,18b,19a,19b.
Number 3 (Exodus 20:1, the Decalogue) contains, according to Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy
4:13; 10:4, "ten words" margin, according to the two tables doubtless divided
into two groups of five each, no matter how in detail we may divide and number
them. In the same way number 5 (21:1-23:13) falls into ten sections, separate
in form and contents, yet belonging together; and these again are divided into
2 X 5 groups, as will appear presently. Taken altogether then we have in numbers
3-6 (Exodus 20:1-23:19) 17 X 5 legal ordinances or groups of laws. While in the
historical sections the divisions into 5 X 2 pericopes was made, we here find
three times the division into 2 X 5, although here too the beginning of the last
five pericopes in the second and third sections is particularly noticeable (compare
Exodus 9:8 and Exodus 16:1), and in the same way a new division can be made at
Exodus 4:18. Number 5 (Exodus 21:1-23:13) is, however, divided as follows: I and
II (Exodus 21:2-6,7-11) ordinances for the protection of slaves; III and IV (Exodus
21:12-17,18-27) protection of life, or liberty, of the dignity of parents, and
hygienic laws; V (Exodus 21:28-22:3) harm to animals; VI (Exodus 22:4-16) to property;
VII (Exodus 22:17-26) against witchcraft, against imitating the Canaanites, and
lack of mercy; VIII (Exodus 22:27-30) the relation to God; IX and X (Exodus 23:1-5,6-12)
ethical and humane law practice. I through IV accordingly contain laws pertaining
to persons; V and VI those referring to things; VII through X, those referring
to religion, morality, and administration of justice. But the chief line of demarcation
is to be made after V; for I through V contain each four ordinances, VI through
X each seven, which in the original text in almost each case are in their language
separated from each other by particular conjunctions or by the construction. Only
in VI (Exodus 22:4-16) one command seems to be lacking; for only Exodus 22:4,5,6,9-12,13,15
f are distinguished by the "ki" in the beginning; but the seventh ordinance is
found in 22:8. Here too, in each case, II and I, two and two as a rule are more
closely connected, after the manner of the division in the first three sections,
1:8-7:7; 7:8-13:16; 13:17-18:27; at least this is the case in I and II, III and
IV through VII and VIII, IX and X.
(b) In this section, too, Exodus 19:1-24:18 a, there is no real occasion for a
division into sources. It is claimed that P is found only in 19:1,2a; 24:15-18;
but 19:1,2a is indispensable for 19:2b on account of the word "there"; and before
24:15 there is an omission, if the preceding verses are to be ascribed to a different
source. The duplicates 19:8,9; 19:18,20 are best explained by the assumption of
a new beginning in 19:9 at 19:20 (compare above); 24:1,2, which at the same time
introduces 24:9, is placed before 24:3, because in point of time it belongs here.
According to the original text, the translation at this place must read: "To Moses
he spoke," in contrast to the ordinances which, in 21:1, are addressed to the
congregation of Israel. Certainly 24:3-8 is purposely formulated to show in almost
the same words that 24:3 reports the Violation and 24:4 the writing of the decision
to obey on the part of Israel (24:3b and 24:7b). It is not perfectly clear to
the reader where Moses was during the promulgation of the Decalogue, whether upon
the mountain or at the foot of the mountain (compare 19:24; 20:18; but also Deuteronomy
5:5). In view of the importance of the matter itself and the vividness of the
narrative and the continual change in the place where Moses abode, it is psychologically
easily understood that the clearness of the account has suffered somewhat. |
(5) Exodus 24:18b through 31:18:
(a) During the forty days which Moses tarries with God on the mountain, and
at the conclusion of which he receives the two tables of the law (31:18), God
converses with him seven times (25:1; 30:11,17,22,34; 31:1,12). Number 1 (25:1-30:10)
contains directions in reference to the building of the Tabernacle, and laws for
the priests serving in it. Numbers 2-6 bring a number of directions supplementing
number 1, namely, number 2 (Exodus 30:11-16), individual tax; number 3 (Exodus
30:17-21), copper washing vessels; number 4 (Exodus 30:22-33), oil for anointing;
number 5 (Exodus 30:34-38), incense; number 6 (Exodus 31:1-11), the calling of
Bezalel and Aholiab to be the master builders; additionally and in conclusion,
number 7 (Exodus 31:12-17), the Sabbath command. It is probably not accidental
that the Sabbath idea is touched upon 7 times, namely, in addition to the present
passage, also in (a) Exodus 16:5 JE (?); 16:23-29 P and R; (b) 20:8-11 E; (c)
23:10-12 E; (d) 24:16 P; (e) 34:21 J; (f) 35:1-3 the Priestly Code (P), and that
as is the case in this present passage, other passages too, such as 24:16 P; 35:1-3
P conclude a main section, and 22:10-22 a subordinate section, with this reference.
The first more complete pericope itself in Exodus (25:1-30:10) is, however, divided
into 12 pieces (we cannot at this place enter into details in reference to the
typical numbers found so often in the measurements of the Tabernacle, but can
refer only to the cubical form of the Holy of Holies on the basis of 10 cubits),
namely,
(1) contributions for the sanctuary (25:1 - 9);
(2) the holy ark (25:10 - 22);
(3) table of shewbread (25:23 - 30);
(4) golden candlesticks (25:31 - 40);
(5) tabernacle (26:1 - 37) in which at the same time the articles mentioned from
2 to 4 are placed (compare 26:33);
(6) altar for burnt sacrifices (27:1 - 8);
(7) court (27:9 - 19) in which this altar stood (compare 40:29 , 33);
(8) oil for the lights (27:20 , 21);
(9) sacred garments for the priests (28:1 - 43);
(10) consecration of priests (29:1 - 37);
(11) the burnt sacrifices (29:38 - 46);
(12) incense altar (30:1 - 10). |
The five articles included in 8 to 12 are combined into a contrast to the five
in 1 to 7 by their express reference to the priests (compare in addition to 9
and 10 also 27:21; 29:44; 30:7,10). With the incense altar, which was of great
importance, and of equal importance with the great altar on the Day of Atonement
(30:10), this section closes (compare (b)).
Thus it will under all circumstances be better to search for an explanation for
putting oil in the place of the candlesticks and of the incense altar, which at
first seems surprising, than in the case of every difficulty to appeal to a redactor's
working without system or order. However, the entire portion Exodus 24:18 b through
31:18 finds its explanation in the promise of 25:8 that Yahweh will dwell in the
midst of Israel (compare 29:45 f). He is enthroned on the ark, in which the accusing
law as the expression of the Divine will is deposited (for this reason called
ha-`edhuth; 25:16,21; 26:33,14), but above the atonement lid, the kapporeth, at
which on the Day of Atonement, the atonement ceremony is carried out (compare
25:17-22; Leviticus 16); see DAY OF ATONEMENT.
(b) This whole section, with the exception of Exodus 31:18 E (?) is ascribed to
the Priestly Code (P), although at this place, though without good reasons, different
strata are distinguished. In regard to the contradiction claimed to exist in the
different persons to be anointed (high priest, or all the priests; compare 29:7
over against 28:41; 29:21), see LEVITICUS. Also the duplicates of the tamidh sacrifice
and of the candlesticks (compare I, 3, above) are not at all the decisive factor
in proof of a difference of sources within the parts treating of the priests,
providing it can be shown that each passage stands where it belongs. With regard
to the candlesticks, see LEVITICUS. In addition compare passages like Matthew
10:39 and 16:25; 10:22 and 24,13; 6:14 and 18:35; 5:29 f and 18:8; 19:30 and 20:16.
But as far as attributing certain passages to P in general is concerned, it is
self-evident that ordinances referring to the cults make use of technical terms
pertaining to the cults, without this fact justifying any conclusion as to a particular
author or group of authors. On the other hand, it could not at all be understood
how P could so often call the Decalogue ha-`edhuth, without having contained this
all-important law itself (compare Exodus 25:16,21; 26:33; 34:29; 38:21, etc.).
On the other hand, as is well known, the fourth commandment (Exodus 20:8-11) expressly
refers back to Genesis 2:2,3, that is, to P; also Exodus 23:15 to 12:20. |
(6) Exodus 32:1 - 35:3:
(a) God's promise to dwell in the midst of Israel, the turning-point in the
fifth section, seems to have become a matter of doubt, through the apostasy of
Israel, but is nevertheless realized in consequence of the intercession of Moses
and of the grace of God, which, next to His primitive holiness, is emphasized
very strongly. This entire sixth section is to be understood from this standpoint.
As was the case in the preceding section, the forty days are prominent in this
too (compare 34:28 J with 24:18 P). We can divide the contents here also into
ten pericopes. Number 1 (32:1-14) reports that Yahweh tells Moses of the idolatry
with the golden calf, that He is determined to destroy Israel, but is influenced
to change this determination by the intercession of Moses. Number 2 (32:15-29)
describes the wrath of Moses and the punishment through him. He breaks the tablets
into pieces, grinds the golden calf into powder, reproves Aaron, dissolves through
the Levites the curse which had for this reason impended over them since Genesis
49:5-7 and causes this to be changed into a blessing: three thousand killed. Number
3 (32:30-35) reports that Yahweh at the petition of Moses will send some of His
angels, but later on will punish the people for their sins. Number 4 (33:1-6)
reports that Yahweh Himself no longer accompanies His people, which, on the one
hand, is an act of grace, since the presence of God would even harm the people,
but on the other hand is a punishment, and is felt as such by Israel. Number 5
(33:7-11) declares that God meets Moses only outside of the camp in a tent, but
communes with him face to face. Number 6 introduces the last six pericopes in
a natural way, since God's grace is appearing in constantly increasing glory (33:12-33).
Here we have the petition of Moses to Yahweh that He in person should accompany
him and show him His glory (Yahweh's grace is made especially prominent in 33:12,13,16,17,19).
Number 7 (34:1-10) describes the preparation for the new conclusion of the covenant;
Yahweh appears to Moses as the gracious, merciful, long-suffering kind, and faithful
God, so that Moses again appeals to His grace. Number 8 (34:11-28) describes the
new establishment of the covenant on the basis of the renewal of the Divine and
grandiose promises of ordinances pertaining to religion and cults, and the ten
words. Number 9 (34:29-35) describes how, in consequence of his close communion
with God, Moses' face shines. Number 10 (35:1-3) contains the Sabbath command
(see (5a)). Numbers 9 and 10 give expression to the renewed covenant relationship.
If we again in the larger group 1 to 8 take two and two together we find that
each of these four groups contains a petition of Moses: Exodus 32:11; 33:30-32;
33:12; 38:8,9. The entire section brings out equally prominently the love and
the holiness of God, and does this in such a way that both characteristics find
their expression in each group of two of these ten numbers. The progress beyond
the third section (leading Israel to Sinai) is noticeable, since the murmuring
is in each case followed only by an expression of the love of God; but equally
this present section stands in contrast to Numbers 11, where, on the occasion
of the continuous murmuring of Israel the love of God is not indeed ignored, but
it must take a place in the background as compared with His punitive holiness,
which is particularly apparent in the story of the return of the spies in Numbers
14:11. Here is at once seen the great similarity with the present section of Numbers
14:12,15,16,17 and with Exodus 32:10,12; 34:6, but at the same time the great
difference caused by a divergency of the events (compare Numbers 14:21). In contrast
to this, Exodus 32:34 refers back to Numbers 14, and Exodus 32:35 is a proleptic
judgment based on this experience.
(b) It is incomprehensible how critics have found in the renewal of the covenant
caused by the apostasy of Israel and in the conditions of this renewal, namely,
in the Books of the Covenant and in the Decalogue, duplicates, which are distributed
between E and J (Exodus 20:1; 21; 24:8-34:1,28; 34:11-26; 34:27). But in Exodus
34:11-26 there is no sign of the number ten being used in connection with the
ordinances referring to the religion and the cults. Goethe's attempt to find at
this place the original Decalogue, which effort is constantly being repeated,
is accordingly without any foundation, even in the use of the number ten. In 34:28
b, according to 34:1 and tradition (compare Deuteronomy 10:2,4; also Exodus 24:12;
31:18), Yahweh is to be regarded as the subject. Again Exodus 33:4 and 5 are not
duplicates. In 33:4 the people are described as having laid aside their ornaments
a single time as a sign of repentance; according to 33:5,6 the people permanently
dispense with these, a state of mind which makes it possible for God again to
show His mercy. It is an arbitrary assumption that these ornaments were used in
the construction of the Tabernacle, the building of which had been announced beforehand
in Exodus 25, so that in front of 33:7 a parallel account to 35 P taken from JE
would have been omitted. In 33:7 according to the text the author has in mind
a tent already in existence, which up to this time had been standing within the
camp and now had to be taken without, because Yahweh for the present can no longer
dwell in the midst of the people (32:34; 33:3,1), until Moses, through his intercession,
again makes this possible (33:15-17; 34:9,10). And the promised tabernacle takes
the place of the provisional tent (Exodus 35), which, as is done by the Septuagint,
is probably to be preferred to Moses' own tent. In the Priestly Code (P), to whom
34:29 is attributed, such a provisional arrangement is presupposed in 34:35, since
already at this place, and before the building of the tabernacle in Exodus 35,
mention is made of the fact that Moses entered for the purpose of receiving the
revelation of God. This accordingly presupposes what is reported in 33:7. Even
without the facts mentioned and for other reasons, too, an omission must be accepted
before 34:29; for 34:29 speaks of the tables of the Law, concerning the origin
of which P has reported nothing; and in 34:32 concerning the commandments which
Moses received on Mr. Sinai and had imparted to the people, which, however, do
not refer to the directions that were given in Exodus 25, since these, according
to 35:4, are yet to be expressly communicated to the people. |
(7) Exodus 35:4 - 40:38:
(a) The construction of the Tabernacle. This section is divided into four
pericopes, each with four subdivisions (compare Structure of Leviticus 16 in \DAY
OF ATONEMENT\). The same principle of division is found also in the history of
Abraham and in Deuteronomy 12-26.
Number I (Exodus 35:4-36:7) describes the preparation for the construction:
(1) Exodus 35:4-19 appeals for contributions for this purpose;
(2) 35:20-29, contributions;
(3) 35:30-36:1, characterization of the builders;
(4) 36:2-7, delivering the contributions to the builders. |
Numbers II and III (Exodus 36:8-38:31; 39:1-31) report the construction of the
Tabernacle and the preparation of the priests garments (compare Exodus 39:32,1);
Number II:
(1) Exodus 36:8-38, dwelling-place;
(2) 37:1-38:9, utensils;
(3) 38:10-20, court;
(4) 38:24-31, cost of 38:1-3; |
Number III
(1) 39:2-7, shoulder garment;
(2) 39:8-21, pocket;
(3) 39:22-26, outer garment;
(4) 39:27-31, summary account concerning coats, miter, bonnets, breeches, girdle,
diadem. |
Number IV (39:32-40:38) reports the completion:
(1) 39:32-43, consecration of these objects;
(2) 40:1-15, command to erect;
(3) 40:16-33, carrying out this command;
(4) 40:34-38, entrance of the glory of Yahweh. |
In this way the dwelling of Yahweh, which had been promised in 25:8 the Priestly
Code (P), and in Ex 32-34 JE had been uncertain, has become a reality. The whole
section is closely connected with Ex 25-31, yet is independent in character. The
full details found in both groups are completely justified by the importance of
the object. It is self- evident that at this place, too, the language of the cults
is demanded by the object itself.
(b) The attempts to distribute this section among different authors are a total
failure in view of the unity of the structure, which is independent also over
against Ex 25-31. Since the numbers given in 38:26 agree entirely with the numbers
gathered later in Numbers 2:32, it is evident that for the latter the lists for
the contributions were used, which in itself is very probable because it was practical.
In case this section is ascribed to P it is inexplicable how the writer can in
Exodus 40:34 speak of the pillar of fire as of something well known, since this
has not yet been mentioned in the parts ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), but
has been in 13:21 f JE; 14:19,24 J. |
|
|
III. HISTORICAL CHARACTER
1. General Consideration:
The fact that extra-Israelitish and especially Egyptian sources that can lay claim
to historical value have reported nothing authentic concerning the exodus of Israel
need not surprise us when we remember how meager these documents are and how one-sided
Egyptian history writing is. Whether the expulsion of the lepers and the unclean,
who before this had desolated the country and acquired supremacy over it as reported
by Manetho and other historians, is an Egyptian version of the exodus of Israel,
cannot be investigated at this place, but is to the highest degree improbable.
If Israel was oppressed by the Egyptians for a long period, then surely the latter
would not have invented the fable of a supremacy on the part of Israel; and, on
the other hand, it would be incomprehensible that the Israelites should have changed
an era of prosperity in their history into a period of servitude. Over against
this the remembrance of the exodus out of Egypt not only is re-echoed through
the entire literature of Israel (compare I, 4, above), but the very existence
of the people of God forces us imperatively to accept some satisfactory ground
for its origin, such as is found in the story of the exodus and only here. In
addition, the Book compare Exodus shows a good acquaintance with the localities
and the conditions of Egypt, as also of the desert. It is indeed true that we
are still in doubt on a number of local details. But other statements in the book
have in such a surprising manner been confirmed by discoveries and geographical
researches, that we can have the greatest confidence in regard to the other difficulties:
compare eg. Naville's The Store-city of Pithom (Exodus 1:11). In general, the
opening chapters of Ex, especially the narratives of the different plagues, contain
so much Egyptian coloring, that this could scarcely have resulted from a mere
theoretical study of Egypt, especially since in the narrative everything makes
the impression of resulting from recent experience. The fact that Israel from
its very origin received ordinances in regard to religion, morality, law and cults,
is explained from the very conditions surrounding this origin and is indispensable
for the explanation of the later development of the nation. None of the later
books or times claim to offer anything essentially new in this respect; even the
prophets appear only as reformers; they know of the election of Israel, and, on
the other hand, everywhere presuppose as something self-evident the knowledge
of a righteous, well-pleasing relation with God and chide the violation of this
relation as apostasy. Ethical monotheism as the normal religion of Israel is reflected
in the same way in all the sources of Israel's history, as has been proven in
my work ("Die Entwicklung der alttestamentlichen Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit,"
in the May, 1903, issue of Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie). And
the idea that an oriental people, especially if they came out of Egypt, should
have had no religious cult, is in itself unthinkable. If all of these norms, also
the direction for the cults in the Books of Covenant, of the Priestly Code, or
D, at least in the kernel, do not go back to the Mosaic times, then we have to
deal with an insoluble problem (compare my work, Are the Critics Right?).
2. The Miraculous Character:
The Book of Exodus is as a matter of fact from its first to its last page filled
with miraculous stories; but in this characteristic these contents agree perfectly
with the whole history of redemption. In this immediate and harmonious activity
of God, for the purpose of establishing a chosen people, all these miracles find
their purpose and explanation, and this again is only in harmony with other periods
of sacred history. The reason is self-explanatory when these miracles are found
grouped at the turning-points in this history, as is the case also in the critical
age of Elijah and Elisha, and in the experiences and achievements of "Jonah,"
so significant for the universality of the Biblical religion. Above all is this
true in the ministry of Jesus Christ; and also again in His return to judgment.
And in the same way, too, we find this at the beginning of Israel as a nation
(see my article in Murray's Dictionary). Compare in this respect the rapid numerical
growth of the nation, the miracles, the plagues, in the presence of Pharaoh, the
passage through the Red Sea, the miraculous preservation of the people in the
desert, the many appearances of God to Moses, to the people, to the elders, the
protection afforded by the cloud, the providential direction of the people of
Israel and of the Egyptians, and of individual persons (Moses and Pharaoh). The
fact that the author himself knows that Israel without the special care and protection
of God could not have survived in the desert is in complete harmony with his knowledge
of the geographical situation already mentioned.
3. The Legislative Portions:
If any part of the laws in Exodus is to be accepted as Mosaic, it is the Decalogue.
It is true that the ten commandments are found in two recensions (Exodus 20; Deuteronomy
5). The original form is naturally found in Exodus 20. Only Moses could regard
himself as inwardly so independent of the Decalogue as it had been written by
God, that he did not consider himself bound in Deuteronomy 5 by its exact wording.
The legal ordinances in Exodus 21:1 have found an analogy already in Code of Hammurabi,
more than 500 years older although moving in a lower sphere. As Israel had lived
in Goshen, and according to Genesis 26:12 Isaac had even been engaged in agriculture,
and Israel could not remain in the desert but was to settle down in permanent
abodes again, the fact of the existence of this law of Israel, which in a religious
and ethical sense rises infinitely above the Code of Hammurabi, is in itself easily
understood. And again since the sacred ark of the covenant plays an important
role also in the other sources of the Pentateuch (Numbers 10:33; 14:44; Deuteronomy
10:1-8; 31:9,25) and in the history of Israel (compare Joshua 3; 6:6-8; 8:33;
Judges 20:27; 1 Samuel 6:2; 2 Samuel 15:24; 1 Kings 3:15; 6:19; 8:1-9), then a
suitable tent, such as is announced in Exodus 25, and was erected according to
Exodus 35, was an actual necessity.
As the Paschal sacrifice, according to Exodus 12:3; 12:43 P; 12:21 JE (?) was
to be killed in the houses, and this on the 14th of Nisan in the evening (12:6),
and as P directs that a festival assembly shall be held on the next day at the
sanctuary (compare Leviticus 23:6; Numbers 28:17), these are conditions which
can be understood only in case Israel is regarded as being in the wilderness.
For this reason Deuteronomy 16:5 changes this direction, so that from now on the
Passover is no longer to be celebrated in the houses but at the central sanctuary.
In the same way the direction Exodus 22:29, which ordered that the firstborn of
animals should be given to Yahweh already on the 8th day, could be carried out
only during the wanderings in the desert, and is for this reason changed by Deuteronomy
14:23; 15:19 to meet the conditions of the people definitely settled after this
wandering. Compare my work, Are the Critics Right? 188-89, 194- 95.
4. Chronology:
As is well known, the average critic handles the Biblical chronology in a very
arbitrary manner and is not afraid of changing the chronology of events by hundreds
of years. If we leave out of consideration some details that often cause great
difficulties, we still have a reliable starting-point in the statements found
in 1 Kings 6:1 and Exodus 12:40 f. According to the first passage, the time that
elapsed between the exodus of the Israelites and the building of the temple in
the 4th year of Solomon was 480 years; and according to the second passage, the
time of the stay in Egypt was 430 years. A material change in the first-mentioned
figures is not permitted by the facts in the Book of Judges, even if some particular
data there mentioned are contemporaneous; and to reduce the 430 years of the stay
in Egypt, as might be done after the Septuagint, which includes also the stay
of the patriarchs in Canaan in this period, or to reduce the whole period from
the entrance into Egypt to the building of the temple, is contrary to the synchronism
of Hammurabi and Abraham (Genesis 14). The first-mentioned could not have lived
later than 2100 BC. The 430 years in Exodus 12:40,41 P are also, independently
of this passage, expressly supported by the earlier prediction of an oppression
of Israel for 400 years from the time of Abraham (Genesis 15:13 J); and the 480
years of 1 Kings 6:1 are confirmed by Judges 11:26, according to which, at the
time of the suppression by the Amorites and of Jephthah as judge, already 30 years
must have elapsed since the east Jordan country had been occupied by the Israelites.
According to this the exodus must have taken place not long after 1500 BC. And
in perfect agreement with this supposition would be the condition of affairs in
Palestine as we know them from the Tell el-Amarna Letters dating about 1450-1400
BC, according to which the different Canaanitish cities had been attacked by the
Chabiri in the most threatening manner, as this is reported too in the Book of
Joshua. As is well known linguistically, too, the identification of the Chabiri
with the Hebrews is unobjectionable. Finally, on the well- known Menepthah stele
of the 13th century BC, Israel is mentioned in connection with Canaan, Ashkelon,
Gezer, Y-nu`m (= Janoah, Joshua 16:6,7?), and accordingly is already regarded
as settled in Canaan. A date supported in such different ways makes it impossible
for me to find in Rameses II the Pharaoh of the oppression, and in Menepthah the
Pharaoh of the exodus (both between 1300 and 1200 BC). A conclusive proof that
the name and the original building of the city Rameses (Exodus 1:11; 12:37; Numbers
33:3,5) necessarily leads back to Rameses II can, at least at the present time,
not yet be given (compare on this point also, Kohler, Lehrbuch der biblischen
Geschichte des Alten Testamentes, I, 238).
5. Unjustifiable Attacks:
All these attacks on the historical character of this book which originate only
in the denial of the possibility of miracles, the Christian theologian can and
must ignore. Such attacks do not stand on the ground of history but of dogma.
Let us accordingly examine other objections. Thus, it is claimed that the number
of men in Israel, which in Exodus 12:37 is said to have been 600,000, is too high,
because not only the desert but Goshen also would not have been able to support
two million people, and Israel had been too short a time in Egypt to grow into
so populous a nation. Yet Israel, beginning with the time of the oppression, which,
according to 2:23; 18 continued many years and hence began before the highest
number in population had been reached, had claims for support from the Egyptian
corn (grain) granaries; and the 430 years in 12:40 certainly cannot be reduced,
as has been shown under (4) above. To this must be added that in Exodus 1:7,9,
12,20 f the rapid numerical growth of Israel is represented as the result of a
Divine blessing. Then, too, in the company of Jacob and his descendants, doubtless
servants, male and female, came down to Egypt (compare the 318 servants of Abraham
alone in Genesis 14). The figures in Exodus 12:37 P are further confirmed by Numbers
11:21 (according to critics from JE) and by the results of the two enumerations,
Numbers 1 f (2:31; compare Exodus 38:26 (603, 550)) and Numbers 26:51 (601, 730).
The attacks made also on the existence of the Tabernacle must be rejected as groundless.
According to the Wellhauscn school the Tabernacle is only a copy of the temple
of Solomon dated back into the Mosaic times; and the fact that there is only one
central seat of the cults is regarded as a demand first made by the Deuteronomistic
legislation in the 7th century. Against this latter claim militates not only the
impossibility of placing De at this time (compare my work Are the Critics Right?
1-55), but also the legislation of the Book of the Covenant, which, in Exodus
23:17,19; 34:23,14,26 presupposes a sanctuary, and which even in the passages
incorrectly analyzed by Wellhausen, Exodus 20:24 (compare again, Are the Critics
Right ? 19, 48, 161, 189) speaks only of a single altar (compare also Exodus 21:14)
and not of several existing at the same time. (The matter mentioned here is the
building of an altar, according to a theophany, for temporary use.) Against the
critical view we can quote the prophetic utterances of Amos, who condemns the
cult in the Northern Kingdom (5:4 f), but teaches that God speaks out of Zion
(1:2; compare probably also, 9:1); those of Isaiah (1:12; 2:2; 4:5; 6; 8:18; 18:7;
30:29; 33:20; 14:32; 28:16); also the facts of history (compare especially the
central sanctuary in Shiloh, 1 Samuel 1-4; Judges 21:19, which is placed on the
same level with Zion in Jeremiah 7:12; 26:6; Psalms 78:60-72). To this must be
added such statements as 2 Samuel 7:6; Joshua 18:1; 1 Kings 3:4; 8:4; 1 Chronicles
16:39,40; 2 Chronicles 1:3. All these facts are not overthrown by certain exceptions
to the rule (compare LEVITICUS). But the whole view leads to conclusions that
in themselves cannot possibly be accepted. What a foolish fancy that would have
been, which would have pictured the Tabernacle in the most insignificant details
as to materials, amounts, numbers, colors, objects, which in Numbers 4 has determined
with exact precision who was to carry the separate parts of the tent, while eg.
for the service of the Tabernacle, so important for later times, only very general
directions are given in Numbers 18:2,4,6; 8:22. This complete picture would be
entirely without a purpose and meaningless, since it would have no connection
whatever with the tendency ascribed to it by the critics, but rather, in part,
would contradict it. Compare my book, Are the Critics Right? 72, 87.
That particularly in the post-exilic period it would have been impossible to center
the Day of Atonement on the covering of the ark of the covenant, since the restoration
of this ark was not expected according to Jeremiah 3:16, has already been emphasized
in \DAY OF ATONEMENT\. If God had really determined to give to His people a pledge
of the constant presence of His grace, then there can be absolutely no reason
for doubting the erection of the Tabernacle, since the necessary artistic ability
and the possession of the materials needed for the structure are sufficiently
given in the text (compare also Exodus 25:9,40; 26:30; 27:8-31:2; 35:30 through
12:35; 3:21,22; 11:2; Genesis 15:14; Exodus 33:4). The examination of the separate
passages in Ex, such as the relation of 20:24 (see above) to Deuteronomy, or the
ordinances concerning the Passover and the firstborn (Exodus 12), and other laws
in the different codices, goes beyond the purpose of this article (compare however
under 3 above, at the close). |
IV. AUTHORSHIP
1. Connection with Moses:
As the Book of Exodus is only a part of a large work (compare I, 3 above), the
question as to authorship cannot be definitely decided at this place, but we must
in substance restrict ourselves to those data which we find in the book itself.
In several parts it is expressly claimed that Moses wrote them. He sang the hymn
found in Exodus 15, after the passage of the Red Sea, and it breathes the enthusiasm
of what the author has himself experienced. Exodus 15:13 do not speak against
the unity of the hymn, but rather for it, since the perfects here found as prophetic
perfects only give expression to the certainty that the Israelites will take possession
of the land of promise. In the course of history the nations often acted quite
differently from what is here stated and often antagonized Israel (compare Numbers
14:39-45; 20:18; 21:4,21-35; 22:6; Joshua 6-12; also Exodus 13:17). In Exodus
15:13,17 not only Zion is meant, but all Canaan; compare Leviticus 25:23; Numbers
35:34; Jeremiah 2:7; for har, "mountain," compare Deuteronomy 1:7,20 ("hill- country");
3:25; Psalms 78:54,55. According to Exodus 17:14 Moses writes in a book the promise
of Yahweh to destroy Amalek from the face of the earth. It is absolutely impossible
that only this statement should have been written without any connecting thought
and without at least a full description of the situation as given in Exodus 17:8.
And as 17:14 linguistically at least can mean merely `to write a sheet,' as Numbers
5:23, it yet appears in the light of the connection of a comparison with related
passages, such as Joshua 24:26; 1 Samuel 10:25, much more natural to think of
a book in this connection, in which already similar events had been recorded or
could at any time be recorded.
The Ten Words (Exodus 20:1) were written down by God Himself and then handed over
to Moses; compare Exodus 24:12; 31:18; 34:1,28 (Deuteronomy 10:2,4). The laws
and judicial ordinances beginning with Exodus 21, according to 24:4, were also
written down by Moses himself, and the same is true of the ordinances in 34:11,
according to 34:27. The proof that formerly had to be furnished, to the effect
that the knowledge of the art of writing in the days of Moses was not an anachronism,
need not trouble us now, since both in Egypt and Babylon much older written documents
have been discovered. But already from the passages quoted we could conclude nothing
else than that Moses understood how to make use of different forms of literature--the
poetical, the historical and the legal--unless the different statements to this
effect by decisive reasons could be shown to be incorrect. In Numbers 33, in the
catalogue of stations, there is a portion ascribed to Moses that bears the express
characteristics of the Priestly Code; and, finally Deuteronomy, with its hortatory,
pastoral style, claims him as its author. Already in Exodus 17:14 there were reasons
to believe that Moses had written not only this statement which is there expressly
attributed to him. Thus it becomes a possibility, that in general only in the
case of particularly important passages the fact that Moses penned these also
was to be made prominent, if it can be shown as probable that he in reality wrote
more, as we find in parallel cases in the writings of the prophets (compare Isaiah
8:1; 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Ezekiel 43:11; Habakkuk 2:2). In addition, we notice
in this connection that in the catalogue of stations mentioned above and ascribed
to Moses (Numbers 33), the close relation of which to the portions attributed
to P is certain, not only this part, but also the other words from JE in the present
Bible text from Exodus 12-19 (see above) are regarded as self-evident as Mosaic
(as is the case also later with the corresponding historical part), and this is
an important witness in favor of the Mosaic authorship of the historical parts.
But Exodus 25:31; 35-40 also claim, at least so far as contents are concerned,
to be the product of the Mosaic period. The entire portable sanctuary is built
with a view to he wanderings in the desert. Aaron and his sons are as yet the
only representatives of the priesthood (27:21; 28:4,12,41-43; 29:4, etc.). In
view of the relationship which Numbers 33 shows with the Priestly Code (P), it
is clear, if we accept the genuineness of this part, a matter that is in the highest
degree probable, that this style was current in Moses' time, and that he had the
mastery of it, even if other hands, too, have contributed to the final literary
forms of these laws. In favor of the Mosaic authorship of the whole Book of Exodus
we find a weighty reason in the unity and the literary construction of the work
as shown above. This indeed does not preclude the use and adaptation of other
sources of historical or legal statements, either from the author's own hands
or from others, if such a view should perhaps be suggested or made imperative
by the presence of many hard constructions, unconnected transitions, unexpected
repetitions, etc. But even on the presupposition of the Mosaic authorship, a difference
in style in the different kinds of matters discussed is not impossible, just as
little as this is the case with peculiarities of language, since these could arise
particularly in the course of vivid narration of the story (compare the anacolouths
in Paul's writings). But still more a reason for accepting the Mosaic authorship
of Exodus is found in the grand and deep conception and reproduction of all the
events recorded, which presupposes a congenial prophetic personality; and finally,
too, the natural and strong probability that Moses did not leave his people without
such a Magna Charta for the future. This Mosaic authorship becomes almost a certainty,
in case the Book of Deuteronomy is genuine, even if only in its essential parts.
For Deuteronomy at every step presupposes not only P (compare Are the Critics
Right? 171), but also the history and the Books of the Covenant (Exodus 21; 34:11)
as recorded in Exodus.
2. Examination of Objections:
Against the Mosaic authorship of Exodus the use of the third person should no
longer be urged, since Caesar and Xenophon also wrote their works in the third
person, and the use of this provision is eminently adapted to the purpose and
significance of Exodus for all future times. In Isaiah 20:1 Ezekiel 24:24, we
have analogies of this in prophetic literature. The statement (Exodus 11:3) that
Moses was so highly regarded by the Egyptians is entirely unobjectionable in the
connection in which it is found. That the book was not written for the self-glorification
of Moses appears clearly in 4:10-16; 6:12. In itself it is possible that some
individual passages point to a later date, without thereby overthrowing the Mosaic
authorship of the whole (compare also under (1)). In this case we are probably
dealing with supplementary material. Exodus 16:35 declares that Israel received
manna down to the time when the people came to the borders of Canaan. Whether
it was given to them after this time, too, cannot be decided on the basis of this
passage (compare however Joshua 5:12). If the entire Book of Exodus was composed
by Moses, then Exodus 16:35 would be a proof that at least the final editing of
the book had been undertaken only a short time before his death. This is suggested
also by 16:34b, since at the time when the manna was first given the ark of the
covenant did not yet exist; and the statement in 32:35 takes into consideration
the later development as found in Numbers 13 f. In the same way Exodus 16:36 could
be a later explanation, but is not necessarily so, if the `omer was not a fixed
measure, of which nothing further is known, and which probably was not to be found
in every Israelite household, but a customary measure, the average content of
which is given in 16:36. If we take Exodus alone there is nothing that compels
us to go later than the Mosaic period (concerning the father-in-law of Moses,
see under II, 2, 1 (1:8-7:7) at the close). The question as to whether there are
contradictions or differences between the different legal ordinances in Exodus
and in later books cannot be investigated at this place, nor the question whether
the connection of Exodus with other books in any way modifies the conclusion reached
under (1). |
LITERATURE
Books that in some way cover the ground discussed
in the article: Against the separation into different sources: Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche
Studien, III ("Das Buch Exodus"); Orr, Problem of the Old Testament; Moller, Wider
den Bann der Quellenscheidung. In favor of the construction of Exodus 21: Merx,
Die Bucher Moses und Josua ("Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbucher," II, Series,
number 3). For Exodus 21 in its relation to the Code of Hammurabi: A. Jeremias,
Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients; J. Jeremias, Moses und Hammurabi
(with fuller literature); Histories of Israel by Kittel, Konig, Oettli, Kohler,
Klostermann, Hengstenberg; Commentaries of Ryssel, Lange, Keil, Strack; Introductions
to the Old Testament by Strack, Baudissin, Driver, Sellin. Against the Wellhausen
hypothesis: Moller, Are the Critics Right? (with fuller literature); Orr (see
above). Against the evolutionary theory: Orr (see above); Moller, Die Entwicklung
der alttestamentlichen Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit (with fuller literature).
Representatives of other schools: The Introductions of Kuenen and Cornill; the
Commentaries of Holzinger and Baentsch; the Histories of Israel by Wellhausen
and Stade.
Wilhelm Moller
Tags:
aaron, ark of the covenant, bible commentary, bible history, bible reference, bible study, book of exodus, burning bush, define, egypt, feast of unleavened bread, frogs, israelites, moses, mount sinai, old testament, parting of the sea, passover, pentateuch, pharaoh, plague, ten commandments, water from rock, water turned to blood
Comments:
|
 |
|
