Analysis 📜
Hill and Walton write:
“The message of Exodus is summarized in two passages: the commission of Moses (6:2-9) and the preface to the covenant ceremony at Sinai (19:1-6). The three basic components of the message include (1) the judgment of the oppressor nation Egypt, (2) the deliverance of Israel from slavery in Egypt by the ‘mighty arm’ of Yahweh, and (3) the establishment of Israel as God’s special possession among all peoples.”
Walter Harrelson writes:
“The three major literary strands continue throughout the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. In Exodus, J and E are prominent in chaps. 1-24 and 32-34. The materials in chaps. 25-31 and 35-40 are normally assigned to P. The priestly tradition also seems to have shaped the entire Book of Leviticus. In Numbers, the J and E materials are most apparent in chaps. 11-14 and 21-24, the majority of the remainder being from the priestly tradition. The Book of Deuteronomy contains much ancient legislation which has undergone a number of modifications. The J and E materials, if present at all, appear in the closing chapters, 27-34. The letter D designates the remainder.” (Interpreting the Old Testament, p. 75)
P. Kyle McCarter Jr. writes:
“The basic thread to which the rest has been attached is the J account. The original form of this old story remains generally visible despite its reworking by subsequent editors. It presents the departure from Egypt as a continuation of the theme of the double promise made by Yahweh to the patriarchs. Israel is to become a great nation living in a productive land. The first part of this promise, the growth into a great nation, seems already very near fulfillment at the beginning of the Exodus story. The Israelites have become a strong and numerous people, a sign of the power of the blessing that accompanied the promise (Gen. 12:2-3). But the captivity in Egypt is a hindrance to th realization of the second part of the promise, the occupation of the land, and the king of Egypt, in his determination to reduce the numbers of the Israelites, poses a direct threat to the first part. Thus in the J narrative it is to safeguard his promise to the patriarchs that Yahweh commissions Moses to lead the people to freedom. Knowing that this can be achieved only by force (3:19-20), Yahweh strikes Egypt with repeated plagues until Pharaoh agrees to let the people go. In the end, the king who tried to thwart the blessing of Israel asks Israel for a blessing for himself (12:32). Note that for J the goal of the Exodus is clearly the promised land (3:8, 17). Sinai is only a stop—albeit the most important stop—along the way. J’s version of the proclamation of the covenant, which is preserved in chap. 34, links the covenant very closely to the conquest of the land (cf. 34:11). The covenant stipulations are largely concerned with agricultural festivals; thus the mandated mode of worship is also linked to the land (34:18-26).” (Harper’s Bible Commentary, pp. 129-130)
John E. Huesman writes: “The final redaction, or the form of the book as we have it today, probably dates from the 5th cent. BC.” (The Jerome Biblical Comentary, p. 47) Huesman provides the following outline:
Exodus can be divided into six sections. The first section (1:1-12:36) tells the story of Israel in Egypt: the oppression of the Israelites; the birth and adoption of Moses; his flight to, and sojourn in, Midian; and his call by Yahweh. After his choice, Moses returns to confront Pharaoh with the divine command, ‘Let my people go.’ The obduracy of Pharaoh and the crescendo of plagues occupy most of the remaining material of this section. With the death of the first-born of the Egyptians, the Israelites win their freedom and prepare to depart from the land of slavery.
The second section (12:37-18:27) treats the Exodus and the wandering. Avoiding the Way of the Land of the Philistines, Moses leads his people across the Sea of Reeds onto the rugged terrain of the Sinai Peninsula. Throughout the narrative, special emphasis is laid on the divine assistance accorded the Israelites. The victory paean of ch. 15 constitutes a glorious and joyful hymn of praise and simulataneously provides us with one of our oldest pieces of Hebrew poetry. To the subsequent complaints of the people, Yahweh responds with manna, quail, and water from the rock. Through Moses’ intercession, he also grants them victory over the Amalekites, and the section closes with the institution of judges.
The third and most important section (19:1-24:18) deals with the covenant. Yahweh summons his chosen leader to Sinai’s mount and through him proposes a unique union with Israel—the Israelites will be his people and he will be their God. The Decalogue and Book of the Covenant announce the stipulations incumbent upon Israel as a result of this union.
The fourth section (25:1-31:18) enumerates the detailed instructions for the Tabernacle: e.g., the size, construction materials, and adornments. Also in this section occurs the divine institution of the priesthood, with specific instructions regarding consecration and priestly vestments. Further injunctions concern sacrifices.
The brief fifth section (32:1-34:35) tells of the sorry apostasy of the chosen people and their worship of the golden calf. The further mediation of Moses averts the destruction of his people and wins a renewal of the covenant with Yahweh. The sixth and final section (35:1-40:38) describes the fulfillment of the commands in chs. 25-31.
Samuel Sandmel writes:
“Of the many intriguing aspects of the foregoing story, we shall be forced to limit ourselves to remarking on only a limited number. In the first place, we deal with an account full of miracles, and not with a political account. Curiously, the name of neither the hostile Pharaoh nor of his daughter who rescued Moses is given; yet we are told the names of the two Egyptian midwives, Shifrah and Puah. (Did just two midwives suffice for an Israelite population that included 600,000 men [12:37]?) Though Moses has been reared in Pharaoh’s palace and remained there until manhood, no allusion is made to this period, in the subsequent dealing with Pharaoh, nor is it at all implied that Moses and Pharaoh know each other. Moreover, the motives of the Egyptians seem mixed. On the one hand, the midwives were to slay the male children. If the motive was to be freed of the Hebrews by preventing them from propagating, why retain them in slavery—why not simply kill them or send them away? On the other hand, if they made good slaves, why seek to keep them from propagating and increasing?” (The Hebrew Scriptures, pp. 373-374)
Jay G. Williams writes:
“One should not conclude from this tentative hypothesis [of a thirteenth century Exodus], however, that the exodus took place as the Bible says. We have no external evidence at all about the exodus and must rely almost exclusively on the Bible for our information. Although the basic outlines of the Biblical story seem believable, it is difficult to separate historical fact and legendary embellishment. In particular, the question of whether all the tribes participated in the event is a much debated point. It may be that the story of the exodus functioned in Israel much as the story of the first Thanksgiving functions in modern America. Although Americans tend to speak of the Puritans as forefathers, it is obvious that they are such only in a quasi-mythological way, for the ancestors of most Americans came to the New World long after the Puritans arrived. In the same way, Israelites may have taken this event experienced by a few of the tribes and made it a central myth for all.” (Understanding the Old Testament, p. 101)
Authorship of the book of Exodus (Mosaic Authorship) 📜
Karel van der Toorn’s “Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible”:
To us, it would be unusual to publish something in writing without signing it. A book or an article – be it creative writing, journalism, or a scientific study – is the work of one or more persons; acknowledgment of their authorship is almost a moral obligation. Only those who write for a firm or an advertising agency, as a clerk or copy writer, write anonymously. This modern practice, more than any other, matches the process of producing texts in antiquity. It confirms the fact that the authors of the time did not write as individuals but functioned as constituent parts of a social organism. Our concept of the author as an individual is what underpins our concern with authenticity, originality, and intellectual property. The ancient Near East had little place for such notions. Authenticity is subordinate to authority and relevant only inasmuch as it underpins textual authority; originality is subordinate to the cultivation of tradition; and intellectual property is subordinate to the common stock of cultural forms and values. Stock phraseology and conventional ideas are not impediment to success as an author. Copying from another author was not a deadly sin. Though Jeremiah inveighed against the misappropriation of oracles (Jer 23:30), the scribes who composed the oracle collections borrowed freely from existing collections.
To us, it would seem wrong to credit an editor with the work of the author. The author, in our mind, is the intellectual source of the text, whereas an editor merely polishes; the former is the creative genius, the latter merely the technician. The distinction was obviously less important to the ancients. They did not place the same value on originality. To them, an author does not invent his text but merely arranges it; the content of a text exists first, before being laid down in writing. The closest counterpart to our notion of invention is perhaps the concept of revelation. Prophets, as channels of revelation, had to be authenticated, which explains why their work had to be signed. This situation is the only instance, in fact, where textual authenticity is tantamount to textual authority.
Church Father’s early history of criticism of the Pentateuch :tm~1:
Edward J. Young (An Introduction to the Old Testament) gives a survey:
“Celsus did not deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, as has sometimes been affirmed”. I think this is what the reference to Origen pertains to. Unfortunately Young does not cite the passage that makes some believe he denied Mosaic authorship.
“This Jewish opinion [from 4 Ezra], namely, that Ezra restored the books of the Old Testament that had been lost or destroyed in the downfall of Jerusalem, had been adopted by many of the early Christian Fathers, e.g. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, Basil the Great. The language of these Fathers is not always as cautious as could be desired, and a superficial study of this language might leave the impression that they believe that Ezra under divine inspiration completely rewrote the books that had been lost. Quite possibly, however, what the Fathers meant was that Ezra edited or reproduced from various sources the books of Scripture. At any rate, whatever the precise meaning, they do not employ this belief to deny the Mosaic authorship of the Law.”
The Clementine Homilies “maintained that Moses delivered the Law to seventy chosen men, but later certain falsehoods were added to the Scriptures by the wicked one….The account of Moses’ death was not written by Moses, for how could he write that he had died? About five hundred years after Moses’ time the Law was found in the Temple, and five hundred years later at the time of Nebuchadnezzar it was burned and destroyed”.
“In all probability Porphyry denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch”.
“Jerome (died 420) discussing the words ‘unto this day’ of Genesis 35:4 and Deuteronomy 34:5, 6 remarks, ‘We must certainly understand by “this day” the time of the composition of the history, whether you prefer the view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch or that Ezra re-edited it. In either case I do not object.’ Some have apparently understood this remark to involve a denial of Mosaic authorship, but such is not the case. Jerome is merely not pronouncing upon the question at this point. His concern is simply whether the words ‘unto this day’ refer to the time of ‘publishing or writing the books’ “.
Although Theodore of Mopsuestia (fifth century) did not comment on the authorship of the Pentateuch, he believed that Job did not write parts of Job and that some of the Psalms were written as late as the time of the Maccabees.
Anastatius the Siniaite (seventh century) wrote a work concerning people who have left the Church, discussing contradictions in Genesis and their doubts on Mosaic authorship.
John of Damascus (8th century) wrote concerning the Nazoreans: “They claim that Moses is not the author of the books of the Pentateuch, but they stoutly defend other books different from these” (On Heresies, 19)
Ibn Hazm of Cordoba, Spain (eleventh century) wrote against the reliability of the Old Testament and “attributed the authorship of many statements in the Pentateuch to Ezra”.
Abu Ibrahim Isaac ibn Yashush (eleventh century). “From references in the writings of Ibn Ezra it appears that Isaac regarded Genesis 36 as having been written not earlier than Jehoshaphat’s time. He identified the Hadad of Genesis 36:36 with the Hadad of 1 Kings 11:14, and his work was denounced by Ibn Ezra as one that should be burned”.
Ibn Ezra (eleventh century). “There is no question that Ibn Ezra maintained the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, yet he evidently believed that certain verses were later additions. For example, with regard to the words, ‘the Canaanite was then in the land’ (Gn. 12:6), he thought that the verse had a secret and the prudent man would be silent. He also referred to such passages as Genesis 22:14, Deuteronomy 1:1, 3:11, and evidently questioned them. He also spoke in such a way as to suggest a late origin for Isaiah 40-66”.
Fun fact, this was one of the earliest channels I listed in porphyry but in here, it talks about Porphyry and Mosaic authorship, let’s take a look:
“Nothing Moses wrote has been preserved for all his writings are said to have been burnt with the temple. All those written under his name afterwards were composed fraudulently [συνεγράφη] one thousand one hundred and eighty years after Moses’ death by Ezra and his followers”.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1381.2019.452918
━━━━
Is Exodus credible? 📜
Let’s start off with the fact that there isn’t any archaeological evidence supporting mass migration in Egypt of Israelites or any slavery of Israelites under Pharaohs, so is this book credible? http://www.godawa.com/chronicles_of_the_nephilim/Articles_By_Others/Humphreys%20-%20Number%20of%20People%20in%20the%20Exodus.pdf
The Old Testament book of Numbers records that Moses conducted a detailed census of the Israelite community that had come out of Egypt at the Exodus. The total number of male Israelites over twenty years old who were able to serve in Israel’s army was 603,550 (Num. i 46). This implies a total number of men, women and children of at least two million. As is well known, there are substantial problems with accepting these figures as they stand for the reasons outlined briefly below (see Davies2 for a recent review). First, the numbers in Numbers appear to be internally inconsistent. For example, Num. iii 43 states that the number of firstborn males a month or more old was 22,273. However, if the number of males over twenty years old was 603,550, this implies a total number of males a month or more old of about one million, hence a ratio of all males to firstborn males of about 50 to 1. The average mother must then have had about 100 children (50 sons and 50 daughters). This is unlikely. Second, even allowing for heaven-sent manna, quail and water, it is difficult to imagine a population of two million people surviving in the desert for about 40 years.”
“Third, other parts of the Old Testament state that initially there were two few Israelites to occupy the promised land (Exod. xxiii 29, 30) and that they were “the fewest of all peoples” (Deut. vii 7). Yet two million Israelites would have easily filled the promised land, and until the relatively recent Jewish immigration into Israel the total population of Palestine was only about one million. For the above reasons, and others, it is difficult to accept the very large numbers in Numbers as they stand. The purpose of this paper is to give a new mathematical argument based on internal evidence within the book of Numbers which shows that about 5,000 males over 20 and about 1,000 Lévites were involved in the Exodus. We will show that the numbers in Numbers are internally consistent when properly interpreted. Our new theory also enables various alternative theories proposed by others to be assessed.”
Detailed summary:
It’s not just the numbers that are problematic, there is no record in Egypt of an enslaved Semitic nation, and they did not go for a pilgrimage to Mt Sinai as claimed. In fact scholars call the Bible’s Mt Sinai “Biblical Mt Sinai” which is curious because it gives the impression that the story is real but the location is not, whereas the location is very much real but the story is not. There’s also a further problem – when the Israelites first emerged as their own people they left behind artefacts that are virtually indistinguishable from other Canaanite groups. Had they been enslaved in Egypt for a number of generations as is claimed by Exodus then their artefacts should look distinctive: “Significantly, the difficulty in distinguishing Israelite artefacts implies that Israel had not spent centuries enslaved in Egypt.” (Brettler 2005, p.96). And “The following question highlights the problems with the biblical account: What would the archaeological record look like if the Book of Joshua were factual?” (Ibid). I know this quote relates to Joshua, but you can apply a similar question to the Exodus, and as the author notes some scholars prefer to treat the Joshua as a part of the Hexateuch rather than as just the book that comes after the Pentateuch. In any case, each part of the Hexateuch up to and including the Conquest has been shown to be mythical – the “universal history” of Genesis 1-11, the “Patriarch and Matriarchal History”, the Exodus, the Conquest, and the bits that happen in-between. So I think this shows that even if the evidence for one part of this narrative seems merely “inconclusive” that it would still mean it happens amongst an otherwise established mythical narrative, and that fact I think should weigh into whether you’re going to consider a specific narrative to be historically credible as well. I.e. if the stuff before it is mythical, and the stuff that comes after it is mythical, then it’s likely to be mythical too.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=39nQafdJ_ssC&lpg=PA19&pg=PA95#v=onepage&q&f=false
The Patriarchs, and the other Jewish ancestors in the Pentateuch up to Joshua are ahistorical. Myth. I’ll list out some observations cited by OT scholar Marc Zvi Brettler in his book:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=39nQafdJ_ssC&pg=PA19&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
“Because of relatively recent reassessments in the field of history, some of the most popular and well-known histories of the biblical era are now obsolete.” (p. 19)
Biblical history used to be assumed as true among Jewish scholars until a shift in scholarship in the 1970s.
One shift in scholarship followed the discovery and publication of 10’s of 1000’s of cuneiform tablets in the 20th century located in and around the Mesopotamia region. Early scholarly analysis by E A Speiser, W F Albright and others was favourable to Biblical history. However when the evidence was re-evaluated in the 70’s by Thomas L Thompson and John Van Seters serious flaws in Speiser’s and Albright’s analyses was found.
Another shift followed the setting of the burden of proof. In the early 20th century when archaeological evidence failed to confirm the Biblical records scholars would make excuses like for the destruction of Jericho “the relevant layer hasn’t been eroded” or for other conquest cities “a city of the same name must be located elsewhere”. However the evidence against the Biblical record, in this case for the conquest of Canaan, has now become overwhelming.
Another problem with taking the (Jewish) Bible as history is that “it is fundamentally a theological document” (p. 22). The authors were not primarily concerned with conveying accurate history, and were writing through a theological lens heavily influenced by a partisan political ideology (p. 22).
The Jewish Bible is not unique, and is “typical” of other Near East ancient texts (p. 22).
The Jewish Bible has been redacted over the early centuries. “It is naïve to believe that we may recover the [Jewish] Bible’s original text (what scholars call the ‘Urtext’), namely the text as penned by its original authors.” (p. 22). This “serious problem” is not unique to the (Jewish) Bible and is shared by almost all classical texts.
“No outside confirmation exists for any aspect of the ‘Patriarchal period,’ and thus it is improper to speak of Abraham, Jacob, or Rachael as real figures, or as early Isralites or Jews. In addition there is no Egyptian evidence for an extended sojourn of Israel in Egypt. The fact that the [Jewish] Bible shows relatively little influence from Egypt also suggests that the Biblical account of an extended sojourn there by hundreds of thousands of Israelites is not factual.” (p. 23, emphasis added).
The origin myths of ancient Israel represent a later self-understanding.
This can be done in many different ways. According to the peasant revolt theory, the Israelites were a lower class that rebelled against their leaders when the Egyptian government was overthrown. They might have been related to the underclass known as “Apiru,” which is mentioned in the Amarna letters. Another possibility is that they came from the Northeast, specifically the region that the Bible refers to as Aram. Some theories add a group of migrants from Egypt to the Israelites. Friedman, for instance, believes that the Levites are Israelites who came from Egypt, which explains why they didn’t have any native land.
The religion’s origins are also a little hazy. According to the excavations of the city of Ugarit, it has very close ties to the local Canaanite religion. On the other hand, there are aspects that appear to be Egyptian. Additionally, there is Yahweh, who appears to be an introduction to the religion (again, there are varying perspectives on this, but it is generally accepted that Yahweh originated from the nomadic regions of the South).
The number of Israelites in the Numbers censuses and the exodus: thousands, not hundreds of thousands? [Part 1] :tm~1:
In the 1990s/early 2000s, there was a series of articles published (for the most part) in Vetus Testamentum, revisiting an old hypothesis of G.E. Mendenhall that drastically revised the number of early Israelites given in the book of Numbers, assuming an early scribal misunderstanding.
In short, the original hypothesis depends on the interpretation of the word אלף, ʾelep – usually understood as ‘thousand’ – as, instead, ‘families, troops’. For example, in Numbers 1:21, the number of those in the tribe of Reuben – or, rather the number of “every male from twenty years old and upward, whoever was able to go out to war” – is listed as ששה וארבעים אלף וחמש מאות, traditionally translated as 46,500. However, on the revised understanding, it would instead be “46 ‘families, troops’, and (consisting of) 500.”
It can also be cattle. It’s suggested that the original base verb was probably ‘to band together, be connected’.
Probably the clearest instance in the HB of אלף as something like ‘family, troop, clan’ is in Gideon’s response to God’s command to go up against the Midianites, in Judges 6.15: אלפי הדל במנשה, “my אלף is the least in Manasseh.”
Somewhat similarly, Micah 5.2, בית לחם אפרתה צעיר להיות באלפי יהודה, has been interpreted “Bethlehem of Ephratha, least among the clans of Judah.” It’s also used in conjunction with שבט as ‘clan, tribe’: cf. 1 Sam. 10.19, התיצבו לפני יהוה לשבטיכם ולאלפיכם, “present yourself before the Lord, by your tribes and clans” (although admittedly these two could be more ambiguous).
Klein compares the several different senses with that of לְאֹם ‘people, nation’ / Akkadian līmu, ‘thousand’.
This, of course, has profound implications, as the total number of Israelites in the Numbers 1 census is given as 603,550. This matches the number of (wilderness) Israelites given in Exodus: “about 600,000 men on foot, besides children” (כְּשֵׁשׁ־מֵאֹות אֶלֶף רַגְלִי הַגְּבָרִים לְבַד מִטָּֽף, Ex. 12:37).
However, it’s been realized that this is hard to reconicle with other “more general statements in the Pentateuch which represent the Israelites who fled from slavery in Egypt as too few in number to occupy effectively the land of Canaan” – for example Ex. 23:29-30 and Deut. 7:7 (where the Israelites are “the fewest of all peoples”).
Here’s more on how Mendenhall explains how the large number (603,550) may have been arrived at:
In my paper I suggested that in the original source document this total was written as 598 ʾlp (meaning troops) and 5 ʾlp (meaning thousands) and 550 men, because this would have been the natural way of writing these numbers. I suggested that the original readers of the source document would have understood that there were 598 troops containing 5550 men. However, at a much later date, when the original meaning was forgotten, a scribe or editor conflated the numbers and ran together the two ʾlp figures (598 + 5) to yield 603 thousand, not realising that two different meanings of ʾlp were intended. Thus the total became 603 thousand and 550 men, i.e. 603, 550 men.
So is the ‘600,000’ of Exodus 12:27 actually secondary, inserted after the exaggerated numbers of the Numbers censuses were arrived at?
Relevant articles 📜
Humphreys’ “The Number of People in the Exodus from Egypt: Decoding…” is the best one to look at first.
The Hebrew word translated “thousand” (‘lp) has been mistranslated and should have been translated as “family”, “group”, or “troop”. Thus Flinders Petrie6 suggested that when the number of the tribe of Reuben is translated as forty-six thousand five hundred (Num. i 21), the correct translation should be 46 families containing 500 men. Mendenhall7 agreed with Petrie, except that he argued that the lists refer to men of military age, not the whole population. Clark8 and Wenham9 have proposed variations of the Petrie theory. Israel’s total population leaving at the Exodus was 5,550 according to Petrie, over 20,000 according to Mendenhall, about 72,000 (Wenham) and about 140,000 (Clark)
E.W. Davies, “A Mathematical Conundrum: The Problem of the Large Numbers in Numbers I and XXVI,” Vetus Testamentum 45 (1995), 449-469
Humphreys, “The Number of People in the Exodus from Egypt: Decoding Mathematically the Very Large Numbers in Numbers I and XXVI,” VT 48 (1998), 196-213
J. Milgrom, “On Decoding Very Large Numbers,” VT 49 (1999), pp. 131-32
M. McEntire, “A Response to Colin J. Humphreys’s ‘The Number of People in the Exodus from Egypt: Decoding Mathematically the Very Large Numbers in Numbers i and xxvi’,” VT 49 (1999), pp. 262-64.
R. Heinzerling, “Bileams Rätsel: Die Zählung der Wehrfähigen in Numeri 1 und 26,” ZAW 111 (1999), pp. 404-415.
R. Heinzerling, “On the Interpretation of the Census Lists by C. J. Humphreys and G. E. Mendenhall,” VT 50 (2000), 250-252
C.J. Humphreys, “The Numbers in the Exodus from Egypt: A Further Appraisal,” VT 50 (2000), pp. 323-28.
Rendsburg, “An Additional Note to Two Recent Articles on the Number of People in the Exodus from Egypt and the Large Numbers in Numbers I and XXVI,” VT 51 (2001)
Ziegert 2009, “Die großen Zahlen in Num 1 und 26: Forschungsüberblick und neuer Lösungsvorschlag” (מאה as a “military unit,” too: cf. on Akkadian līmu, ‘thousand’?)
A Thousand Times, No Subtitle: אלף does not Mean ‘Contingent’ in the Deuteronomistic History**
One solution regularly offered to the problem of historically implausible numbers in Joshua – 2 Kings is that the term אלף , normally translated ‘thousand’, actually refers to a ‘contingent of armed men’. This article argues that ‘contingent’ is not a plausible translation for אלף in the Deuteronomistic History. The argument focuses on grammatical evidence, as there are several unique ways that the term אלף behaves grammatically like a numeral when it is used in conjunction with other numerals, and comparative evidence, as other ANE battle narratives do not enumerate numbers of contingents when reporting numbers of troops and casualties.
The number of early Israelites – in the Numbers censuses, the exodus: thousands, not hundreds of thousands? [Part 2] :tm~1:
Recent scholarship reviving the older proposals of Mendenhall, et al., which revised the number of Israelites in the exodus and the Numbers censuses from 600,000 (Ex. 12.27) – cf. 603,550 in Numbers 1 (and 2), and 601,730 in Num. 26 – down to merely thousands (5,550 in Num. 1; 5,730 in Num. 26), based on the assumption of an early scribal confusion over the word אלף, interpreted either as ‘families, clans, troops’ or ‘thousands’.
For example, in Numbers 1.21, the number of those in the tribe of Reuben is listed as 46,500 – literally ‘6 + 40 אלף, five hundred’. But this would have originally meant ‘6 and 40 families, 500’…and was only later (mis)understood as ‘6 and 40 thousand (46,000), 500’.
Visual layout:
The notice, in Exodus 12:27, that “the Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Sukkoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides children,” would then be understood to be secondary to the ‘accidentally’ inflated numbers in the censuses from Numbers.
Colin Humphreys, who (re)inaugurated this discussion, made a plausible defense against the critical notes of Milgrom, et al. However, one of the later critical notes, by Rüdiger Heinzerling, was not responded to (“On the Interpretation of the Census Lists by C. J. Humphreys and G. E. Mendenhall”). Heinzerling noted that in the book of Numbers itself, “the numbers [of Israelites] in chapters 1 and 2 are closely connected with those in chapters 3 and 4. So we should apply this reading of the numbers to chapters 3 and 4 as well. In doing so we find [an inconsistency].”
Here, he refers to the number of (male, 1 month+ old) Levites given in Numbers 3-4: 7,500 Gershonites, 8,600 Kohathites, 6,200 Merarites. In Ex. 3.39, this is said to be “22,000 total” (although this is actually 22,300 (cf. 3.42f.)). Indeed, in adopting the scheme of Humphreys’ proposed revisions, there would be an inconsistency: here, the total numbers of Levites would be 21 families, 1,300: an average of ~60 per family, which is much higher than the calculated average for Numbers 1 and 26 (about 9 or 10 per family, respectively).
But there’s no reason that inconsistencies like this can’t work in the other way: that Numbers 3-4 comes from a different redactional layer than the other chapters. For one, there’s debate as to whether there was a tribe of Levi in the same sense there were other tribes (though see Gen. 34 and 49). Also, 22,000 is still significantly smaller than the total number of members of the other tribes in Numbers 1 and 26.
But more than this, the (secondary) status of (parts of) Numbers 3-4 in source critical schemes has been explored in depth by a few scholars – including Pola (1996), Achenbach (2002), Coats and Knierim (2006), and most recently Horst Seebass’ “Moses’ Preparation of the March To The Holy Land: A Dialogue With Rolf P. Knierim on Numbers 1:1–10:10.”
And yet Seebass writes – in reference to pre-Priestly layers of Num. 3-4 – that “There is a longstanding scholarly conviction that one of the older parts of it is found in 3:20b-39. It deals with the genealogical order of the Levites with the following aspects: sequence of a) the clans Gershon–Kohath–Merari; b) their headcount…” However, Seebass believes that “the idea of [the exodus/wilderness in the Priestly source] was that of a small tribal military camp led by the Deity through the holy tent with a marching order for the tribes, but without totaling numbers.”
Although we might agree with the latter (minus the lack of totaling numbers), I don’t think the former necessarily holds. In any case, many scholars agree on the stratified nature of Numbers 3-4, which compels us not to assume, with Heinzerling, that they are to be analyzed together with Num. 1-2.’
There’s another line of thought here that I think could be very instructive. First off, in Num. 1, the Danites number 62,700. Revised, this is 700 in 62 clans/families (or 400 in Numb. 26 [cf. 64,400]).
Back in 1958, Mendenhall extended his original revision scheme to 1 Chronicles 12 as well – where the 28,600 Danites, as listed there, would be 28 families/units, 600. Based on this, he was compelled to say that “The 600 of Dan are mentioned also in Judg 18 11, 16. In the older tradition of OT scholarship it could presumably be argued that this tradition is the source of the 600 in I Chron 12. If so, why not 600 also in the troops of Dan in Num 1 and 26?” Although we should point out that the revised numbers of 1 Chron. 12 do not match up with the tally in Numbers, there are several interesting things about the number of Danites elsewhere – as well as of the Manassehites and others in Judges 6-7.
Interestingly, I don’t think it’s been pointed out that, in Brooke/McLean’s critical LXX edition, the number of Danites at Numb. 26.43 is τέσσαρες καὶ ἑξήκοντα χιλιάδες καὶ χʹ – 64,600. Further, although Brooke/McLean’s edition has 62,700 Danites in Numbers 1 – the same as MT – in certain LXX manuscripts, there are instead 62,600.
Perhaps we shouldn’t make too much of that, though. But there’s another narrative possibly even more suggestive of the early Israelite tribes being very small.
In Judges 6, the ‘angel of the Lord’ appears to a certain Gideon, son of Joash the Abiezrite, telling him to free Israel from the Midianites. But Gideon protests, saying that his clan/family (אלף) is the “weakest in Manasseh” (and that he’s the “the youngest in my father’s house”). But after a narrative of reassuring – prefaced by the angel telling him that he will defeat Midian כאיש אחד – “[Gideon] sent messengers throughout all Manasseh, and they too were called out to follow him. He also sent messengers to Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali, and they went up to meet them.”
As Gideon and all the men prepare for battle, there is a very curious episode:
The Lord said to Gideon, “The troops with you are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hand. Israel would only take the credit away from me, saying, ‘My own hand has delivered me.’ Now therefore proclaim this in the hearing of the troops, ‘Whoever is fearful and trembling, let him return home.’”
After this, it’s said that “22,000 left, and 10,000 remained” – allowing us to calculate the original number as 32,000. Interestingly, this is very close to Manasseh’s 32,200, as listed in Numbers 1.34.
Next, as the remaining troops are getting water, there is another extremely bizarre ‘test’ that dwindles their numbers further:
the Lord said to Gideon, “All those who lap the water with their tongues, as a dog laps, you shall put to one side; all those who kneel down to drink, putting their hands to their mouths, you shall put to the other side.”…Then the Lord said to Gideon, “With the 300 that lapped I will deliver you, and give the Midianites into your hand…”
So they ultimately end up with only 300.
And yet…
In Soggin’s opinion…the original Gideon account described Gideon’s war with [only] three hundred soldiers. However, a late, but pre-Deuteronomistic editor wished to describe a war in which several tribes participated under Gideon’s leadership. In order not to discard any of the descriptions, the late editor had to invent the screening method initiated by God.
Back to historicity:
Killebrew:
In light of the lack of evidence in the Egyptian texts and the archaeological remains of an exodus of this magnitude, it is not surprising that scholars have suggested that the exodus does not represent a specific historical moment but rather numerous “exoduses” of runaway Asiatic slaves that were “telescoped” into a single event.13 It is difficult if not impossible, and probably unwise, to attempt to pin this saga to a particular historical event. Rather, we should see it is as reflecting a powerful collective memory of the Egyptian occupation of Canaan and the enslavement of its population, which reached its greatest impact during the thirteenth and twelfth centuries B.C.E. (Weinstein 1981, 17-22; Singer 1994, 284-94).
Hoffmeier writes:
In the 1920s a tablet written in the Ugaritic-cuneiform script was found at Beth-Shemesh, but only recently was it shown to be written in Old South Arabian. Kenneth Kitchen, a specialist in south Arabian history, says of this find that ‘‘it reflects contact between Canaan and Saba in the field of writing at about 1200 B.C.’’
City of Ramesses is outright mentioned in Exodus 1:11 is an anachronism:
Meanwhile the toponyms look like much later borrowings of Late Egyptian, so the narratives show a mix of early and later borrowings. The toponym רעמסס in Genesis 47:11, Exodus 1:11 signifies the sibilents in Pr-Rՙ-mś-św with samek (ס). Egyptian ś was rendered by ש in the earlier period (as in many of the loans discussed by Noonan such as שֵש “Egyptian linen” from šś) but by the Saite period this letter had been replaced by samek (as in Genesis 10:14, 2 Kings 17:14, Isaiah 30:4, Jeremiah 43:7-9, Ezekiel 30:17). The name Moses, which certainly goes back to the early exodus traditions, is based on the verbal form of the same root as the mś of Ramesses, and this early loan uses ש. The vocalization in the MT also more closely resembles the Greek transliteration Ραμεσσής (with both reflecting the pronunciation in the late period) than how the name was pronounced in the New Kingdom (which would have been iirc something more like Ramesisu). With respect to Pithom, the softening of the rhotic consonant in Pr-ՙtm was definitely underway in the New Kingdom as the Amarna letters show (with it pronounced something like Pi-ՙAtum) but it seems even more reduced in פִתֹם (Exodus 1:11) than פיבסת for Pi-Basat in Ezekiel 30:17, with the vowel either lost or otherwise reduced, reminiscent of the late form Patum as attested by Herodotus in Πάτουμος. Such reductions involving Pr- are common in the late period, such as Coptic Ⲡⲙϫⲏ for the name of Oxyrhynchus (< Egyptian Pr-Mğd), Greek Βουσῖρις and Coptic Ⲃⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ for Busiris (< Egyptian Pr-Wsı͗r), and Greek Βουτώ for Buto (< Egyptian Pr-WꜢğt), see Donald Redford’s “The Pronunciation of Pr in Late Toponyms” (JNES, 1963).
It seems as if this is a late borrowing of Egyptian names, that are way past the datings of the 13th/12th centuries.
Credit to the analysis:
I think it is also worth noting that the cities are incorrectly designated as store cities (ערי מסכנות) in the text. I think this might be a clue that the names are secondary. There is a close relationship between the story in Exodus and the Solomon-Jeroboam succession narrative, whether as an allegory or a source to a separate story (see the article by Michael Oblath in JSOT, 2000). This extends far beyond the oft-noted parallels between the golden calf episode in Exodus 32 and Jeroboam’s golden bulls in 1 Kings 12. So we find in 1 Kings 9:19 that Solomon forced enslaved Israelites to build unnamed store cities (ערי מסכנות) for him. So it seems that the underlying tradition was that an unnamed Pharaoh built store cities just like Solomon with corvée labor, which secondarily were identified with two of the most prominent Ramesside cities in Lower Egypt: Pi-Ramesses and Pi-Atum. By the Late Period, the Ramesside era came to be viewed as a kind of golden age which many legends and pseudepigrapha arising surrounding Ramesses II (such as the Rhampsinitus cycle of Herodotus, the Bentresh stele, the Osymandias of Hecataeus, the Setne Khamwas cycle), so it would have been natural to borrow the names of Ramesside cities (in contrast to Psalm 78 which anachronistically refers to Tanis), even if originally they were not store cities. One poetic text from the 8th century BCE praises the idyllic setting of Pi-Ramesses and the name occurs in later texts as well, so the names would have been available as literature from the Ramesside era continued to be copied and read.
It is also interesting that other stories similar to the exodus narrative are given a Ramesside setting. Josephus’ paraphrase of Manetho in Contra Apionem 1.231ff situates the Osarseph story (which has striking similarity to the Israelite exodus) to the reign of Amenophis, father of “Sethos who is also called Ramesses”, who himself reigned after Rampses who ruled for 66 years. The latter is a clear reference to Ramesses II, which makes “Amenophis” (a name likely reflective of Akhenaten, Amenophis IV, who inspired much of the story) equivalent to Merneptah, and indeed the name appears to be a corruption of Ammenephthês/Ammenephthis/Amenephthis which more clearly reflects the name Merneptah in other versions of Manetho. “Sethos who is also called Ramesses” is often thought to be a reference to Ramesses III, as Theophilus wrote that he was “said to have possessed a large force of cavalry and an organized fleet”, a possible reference to the wars with the Sea Peoples. So there were exodus-like stories set in the Ramesside era by the Late Period. Another example is the Rhampsinitus of Herodotus. Herodotus made the 4th Dynasty pharaohs responsible for the Giza pyramids the immediate successors to Rhampsinitus, a probable late form of the name of Ramesses (with an epithet “son of Neith” which is characteristic of the Late Period). Herodotus describes the pyramids as built by oppressive pharaohs with corvée labor, a similar situation to Exodus 1:11.
According to studies by Römer and Finkelstein, the tradition of Egyptian origins probably originated in the northern kingdom (Israel/Samaria) around the 8th century, roughly the date of Hosea. However, this early tradition probably did not include the Hebrews’ enslavement, plagues, Moses and Aaron, and all the other stuff now in the book of Exodus. And no stage of the tradition’s development identifies a specific Pharaoh, though other Pharaohs are mentioned by name in other contexts.
━━━━
Dating of the book of Exodus 📜
There’s generally around two consensus for dating this period, either an early date which is around 1466 B.C, or a later date, around 1250 B.C.
When considering the exodus, it is important to take into account the original text says nothing of how many people took part, as well as the fact that not the entire nation took part. A later priestly text places the number at 603,550 (added roughly 400 years later) and there is no basis for this number. Taking these factors into account, it is easier to determine when the exodus happened, which to me is 1446 BC.
Moses is identified as a Levite, and this is the group which, if looking historically, partook in the exodus. Moreover, just as last names can often tell ones nationality origins, names of this time period could tell from where one hailed. The Levites were the only group of Israelites who had Egyptian names. Moses, Phineas, and Hur are examples of this.
Exodus mentions historical events and states the Israelites captivity as 430 years. However, it does not mention directly when the exodus took place. This date is derived from 1 Kings 6:1:
“And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord.”
The typical agreed on date for Solomon’s coronation is 970 BC. Based on this: -970 + 4 – 480 = 1446.
Archaeologist Rosalie David continued the work of Egyptologist Sir Flinders Petrie. She has written books on the matter and has discovered, among other things:
- Skeletons of Egyptian infants three months old and younger in boxes located in a slave town called Kahun (correlates to Pharaoh’s killing of Hebrew infants).
- The Ipuwer Papyrus, a work of poetry stating, in part, “Plague stalks through the land and blood is everywhere…Nay, but the river is blood…gates, columns and walls are consumed with fire…the son of the high-born man is no longer to be recognized…The stranger people from outside are come into Egypt…Nay, but corn has perished everywhere.”
- The Amarna letters, which were letters between Egyptian and Middle Eastern rulers and blamed civil unrest on the “Haibru” or “‘Apiru”.
- Neferhotep I of the 13th Dynasty was succeeded not by his son, Wahneferhotep, but by his brother, Sobkhotpe IV. This correlates to the Passover death of the firstborn son. This proof of course operates under the growing speculation amongst archaeologists that the Egyptian dynasties are not dated correctly.
This article by Dr Joseph Weinstein presents the argument that the events in Exodus could have occurred in the 16th century BCE, when Lower Egypt was ruled by a foreign Hyksos dynasty at their capital in Avaris, whereas the native Egyptian dynasty had relocated to Upper Egypt and consolidated a capital at Thebes.
https://www.thetorah.com/article/we-were-slaves-to-the-hyksos-in-egypt
To summarize the article:
After the disintegration of the Middle Kingdom in the 17th century BCE, a Semitic-speaking Hyksos dynasty rose to prominence to become the ruling dynasty of Lower Egypt, whereas native Egyptian political power shifted to Upper Egypt, forming the 18th dynasty which comepted against the Hyksos.
The Hyksos rulers were infamous for levying what was effectively corveé labour on the population of Lower Egypt to work on construction projects. At that point in time, Lower Egypt was primarily inhabited by other Semitic-speaking peoples.
There is some evidence that Lower Egypt suffered natural disasters and plagues in the 16th century BCE, so that the power of the Hyksos dynasty faltered enough to become challenged by the Egyptians of the 18th dynasty, whose rebellion under the leadership of pharoah Ahmose I led to a ‘reconquest’ of Lower Egypt by native Egyptians and culminating in the expulsion of the Hyksos.
The ruins of Hyksos-era temples and tombs suggests that that they were ransacked by their southern conquerors, and the scant artifacts of Hyksos society may have been an intended consequence of Ahmose’s reconquest so that native Egyptian culture would become the dominant culture again. This displacement of the Hyksos may also explain the lack of Egyptian records to support the Exodus narrative, because the Egyptians themselves had not been in Lower Egypt at the particular time of those events in the 16th century BCE. If, during the reign of the Hyksos, there had been a revolt by the predominantly Semitic population against the policy of forced labour for construction projects, and a coinciding spate of disasters and plagues, then the more extensive records of these events would have been part of the Hyksos culture which was ultimately displaced by the conquering Egyptians, who in turn would have little records of those events.
This could also explain why the Torah’s narrative of a defeated Pharoah conflicts with the contemporary Egyptian narrative of a victorious Pharoah – the Hebrews escaped their tyrannical Hyksos pharoah – possibly named Apophis – whom the Egyptians contemporaneously defeated under the leadership of their own native Egyptian pharoah – Ahmose I.
If the Exodus events occurred during the reign of the Hyksos, then the displacement of the Semitic Hyksos culture by the reconquering Egyptians would explain why there are few Egyptian records to support the Exodus narrative in any manner consistent to the chronology the Torah – the Egyptians simply hadn’t been there at the time, and then destroyed the records of those who had kept records upon conquering the Hyksos.
But a record of this history could have been preserved among the Semitic refugees who had already been fleeing the collapsing Hyksos tyrannic dynasty by the time the native Egyptians reconquered Lower Egypt – hence the story of Exodus being preserved in the Torah by the descendents of these Semitic refugees – i.e. the Hebrews.
Leave a Reply