Plagues and the Crossing of the Sea - by Eakin

7/22/2019 Plagues and the Crossing of the Sea - by Eakin

1/11

The Plagues and the Crossing of the Sea

Frank E. Eakin, Jr.

The plagues and the crossing of the sea are integral in Israel's canonicalrecord to the normative event in the people's history, the offering andratification of covenant at Mount Sinai (Ex. 24).1This covenant was Israel'sgenesis, transforming this motley crowd into a community (Ex. 12:37-38).

Particularly during the post-exilic era, the traditions of the plagues and

the sea became pivotal. While the modern interpreter cannot unravel withhistorical certainty the specific nature of these pre-covenantal events, wemay have reasonable assurance (1) that there was a sojourn of the Hebrewsin Egypt,2 and (2) that so significant an event as the covenant experiencedid not occur in isolated fashion.

The traditiohistorical character of the plague and sea traditions continues to be debated.8 For the purposes of this study, however, we shallfocus primarily on the traditions as transmitted. Brevard Childs, who useshistorical-critical study in a most helpful fashion to enlighten the biblicaltext, indicates the need for interpreting the text holistically: "It is the final

text, the composite narrative, in its present shape which the church,following the lead of the synagogue, accepted as canonical and thus thevehicle of revelation and instruction."4

This plurality of happenings (Ex. 7-15) should be viewed under therubric of a single event.6Since the text canonized by the synagogue and thechurch was perceived as a unit, faith's affirmation becomes the clearer whenthe integrity of the text's final form is acknowledged. This approach invalidates the modern distinction between fact and interpretation of fact.Moshe Greenberg, a highly respected Jewish scholar, states:

Edification was the chief value of such narratives, and whatever

served to edify might fittingly be incorporated into them. The intentwas not so much to describe as to celebrate events as saving acts ofGod.e

Our focus falls upon the plagues (Ex. 7:8-11:10; 12:29-32) and thecrossing of the sea (Ex. 13:17-14:31). Prior to discussing these literaryunits, however, we should clarify the Hebrew attitude toward the "mightyact," for an understanding of the plague and sea traditions awaitsclarification of this aspect of Hebrew thought.

Hebraic Mighty Acts

In the west a mechanistic view of nature has prevailed, encouraging

confusion between the Hebraic mighty act and the Greek miracle. Greekthought understood nature to be controlled by laws which were occasionallyabrogated, and the event occurring during this cessation and in con-


2/11

474 REVIEW AND EXPOSITOR

tradistinction to nature's laws was judged a miracle. To the contrary, from aHebraic perspective Martin Buber stated:

Miracle is not something 'supernatural' or 'superhistoricaT, but an

incident, an event which can be fully included in the objective,scientific nexus of nature and history . . . . Miracle is simply whathappened; in so far as it meets people who are capable of receivingit, or prepared to receive it, as miracle. The extraordinary elementfavours this coming together, but it is not characteristic of it; thenormal and ordinary can also undergo a transfiguration into miraclein the light of the suitable hour.7

Scriptural evidence supports Buber's contention that an event need notbe extraordinary to be understood as Yahweh's mighty act. On the otherhand, Walther Eichrodt, acknowledging God's working in lesser events,

stated that "the characteristic element, as far as the worship of Yahweh wasconcerned, lay in those acts of God which stood out abruptly from thenormal."8 This statement is acceptable when set specifically against thecultic acts and their antecedents as presented in the canonical text. Viewedfrom general Hebraic lifestyle, however, Eichrodt's statement places theemphasis excessively upon Israel's being inundated by Yahweh's power andinsufficiently upon the significance of the prophetic interpreter of the eventconcernedBuber's people "capable" or "prepared" to receive the event.One must not forget either, that ultimately the "only miracle is God himself "

"Miracle" is, however, an inappropriate word to use with Hebraicthought, for no word in the Masoretic text properly translates as "miracle."The Hebrew spoke instead of Yahweh's mighty works, his "signs" and"wonders."10 The sign C oth) points beyond itself to something of greatersignificance, "a visible evidence of the presence and purpose of God."u Forexample, it is stated in Exodus 3:12 that the Hebrews' arrival at MountSinai will be a sign of Yahweh's activity in theirbehalf. Wonder(mopheth)designates events of a more stupendous nature. For example, in Exodus 7:9the rod's being transformed into a serpent is the wonder (translated as"miracle" in RSV).

Several interpretive principles should be acknowledged, therefore, when

interpreting the mighty act. First, the significance of an event rests in theunderstanding of that event on the part of the beholder /interpreter, i.e., therevelatory event is what the individual understands it to be. Second, Yahweh is always primarily understood as a God of history, not of nature, andwhatever events of nature he utilized as the vehicle of his revelation arealways thoroughly stamped with the imprint of historical awareness.18Third,because Yahweh's mighty acts refer to historical occurrences rather than tosuprahistorical or to contra- and/or intranatural law events, understandingof the mighty act correlates with the relation of the event to concretehistorical data. This does not negate the fact, however, that a commingling

of the "wonderful and ordinary" will characterize the mighty act. ". Nor doesacknowledgment of these principles deny the activity of power of God; to thecontrary, they simply affirm the recognition of that activity and power


3/11

THE PLAGUES AND THE CROSSING OF THE SEA 476

The Plagues(7:811:10;12:2932)

The plagues are simultaneously enigmatic and illuminatingenigmaticin that assured historicity eludes the interpreter, illuminating as conveyorsof Hebrew thought. The developed traditiondramatically

14 and didactically

affirmed in creedallike fashion the historicalpower(not magic16

) ofYahweh,the God of deliverance.

The plaguesare developed in thefollowing sequence:

Plague Sequence Reference1.Water turned red Exodus 7:14242. Frogs Exodus 7:256:153. Gnats Exodus 8:1619

4. Flies Exodus 8:20325. Cattle Exodus 9:176. Boils Exodus 9:8127. Hau Exodus 9:13358. Locusts Exodus 10:1209. Darkness Exodus 10:2129

10. Death of firstborn Exodus 11:110; 12:2932

It has been suggested tnat the plagues are arranged in three cycles ofthree plagues each, culminating with the single plague, the death of thefirstborn:

1

First Cycle Second Cycle Third Cycle1. Water turned red 4. Flies 7. Ha2. Frogs 5. Cattle 8. Locusts3. Gnats 6, Bos 9. Darkness

In each cycle, Moses issued a warning prior to the first two plagues. In thefirst plague of each cycle, Moses was commanded by Yahweh to come beforePharaoh in the morning to give warning. Yahweh also told Moses to warnPharaoh before the second plague of each cycle, but the time for doing sowas not specified. The third plague occurred each time without warning.17

Typically, the third-cycle plagues were harsher than those of the first twocycles.

Three pentateuchal sourcesJ, E, and P record the plaguetradition.18 No single source, however, records all ten plagues.19To developthe canonical text, therefore, the three sources were gradually united. Somerelevant data regarding the sources are presented below:

Source Data Yahwist Elohist PriestlyDate 950 B.C. 850-750 B.C 550-450 B.C.Provenance Judah Israel Babylonia/JerusalemLiterary Responsibility Yahwist(?) Elohist(?) Yahwistic PriestsExecutor of Act Yahweh Moses AaronThe following chart indicates the plagues presented in each source:10

Plague Description Yahwist Elohist Priestly


4/11


3. Gnats4. Flies X5. Cattle X6. Boils7. Hau X X8. Locusts X X9. Darkness X

10. Death of first-born X X

Perhaps some plagues are duplicate accounts of differently transmittedtraditions.91 For example, the Yahwist's rendering of the plagues involvingthe flies (8:20-32, number 4) and the cattle (9:1-7, number 5) is possiblyduplicated by the Priestly account of the plagues involving the gnats(8:16-19, number 3) and the boils (9:8-12, number 6)." While dogmatism isinappropriate on the question of duplications, one can be assured that thepresent ten-plague literary construction found in the text is an artificial one.

The Passover tradition assumed a pivotal position in Israelite worship,and it would be generally acknowledged that his periscope circulated as aseparate tradition among the early Israelites. From the perspective of thecanonized tradition, however, one should not divorce the internal integrity ofthe plagues and the Passover.28 In Jewish tradition, the "signs and wonders" rehearsed refer primarily to the plagues

According to Jewish understanding, Exodus 20:2 ("I am the LORDyour God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house ofbondage") constitutes the first commandment.24 The more traditionalChrist ian position has been that Exodus 20:2 is an "introductory formula"rather than the first commandment.26 If the importance of acknowledgingthe deity responsible for bringing the Hebrews "out of the land of Egypt" berecognized, the pivotal nature of the "signs and wonders" takes clearerfocus. On the basis of these pre-Sinaitic events, a covenant was offered,accepted, and ratified.

Obviously the traditional importance attached to the plagues does noteliminate the problems associated with them, as is indicated for example bythe often noted silence regarding the plagues in Egyptian literature. Behind

this concern is the presumption that, had something so striking as that indicated in the biblical text occurred, th Egyptians would have recorded it.This issue is not valid, however, for it treats the biblical text as a modernhistorical document. The ancient directed greater inte rest to the meaning of anevent than to the eventitself.The ancient Is raeli te's inte rest rested in the contest waged between Yahweh and the Pharaoh (as well as with the other gods ofEgypt). Not one of the gods of Egypt could thwart the designs of Yahweh, andthis was the point the transmit ted traditions sought to convey.

Since the meaning behind the event was more central than thedescriptive details of the event, it is unwise to seek an historical recon

struction of the plagues on the basis of available evidence.se

Childs, indicating his concern about such attempts, notes that "in the end, this genre


5/11


of apologetic literature suffers from the strange anomaly of defending biblical'supernaturalism' on the grounds of rationalistic arguments."1T

Although these events are rooted in observable history (i.e., they were

concrete events, albeit not "verifiable" by historical-critical tools), one mustnot fall prey to the modernist temptation to reconstruct them with an indubitable specificity. The evidence needed to do so is unavailable today.What is crucial to interpretation is that, through the vehicle of this holisticnarrative, the Hebrews have proclaimed that God has acted.

The plague narrative is pivotal in the biblical text, not because it gives theinterpreter an historical slice of ancient Egyptian life but because it portraysearly Israel's affirmations regarding Yahweh. This Yahweh is

the Lord of history who acts in judgment upon those who attempt to thwart the administration of justice;

the God offreedomwho demands that his creation live in andpropagate the cause of freedom; and

the God of deliverance who acts to deliver his elect fromEgyptian oppression, thereby giving assurance of his commitment tobe constant in his vigil to deliver them from any individual, people,or situation which would prevent their absolute affirmation that"Yahweh, he is God!"

The plague narrative, therefore, was Israel's mode of doing theology,You know Yahweh concretely by what he does, not abstractly by contemplatingwhat is he!

The Crossing of the Sea(13:17-14:31)

The tradition of the sea's crossing has long been problematic for interpreters," and numerous scholars have attempted to clarify the seaevent.*9 Nonetheless, Israel perceived this to be Yahweh's pivotal act.Rylaarsdam captured the event's importance: "The event is for the O.T.what Jesus as Christ is to the N.T.the normative redeeming and revealingact of God."20 Regardless of critical issues,81the sea event as a basic andtraditional foundation stone for Israelite faith must be kept in focus.

The geographic site of the sea's crossing is unknown.82Perhaps the only

certainty is that the Red Sea was not intended. If the Hebrews dwelled inGoshen in the Nile Delta, the distance from Goshen to the Red Sea wouldmake impossible the Hebrews' fleeing successfully on toot from theEgyptians using chariots. In addition, the Hebrew designation does notsupport "Red Sea."

The Hebrew yam suph should be translated as "reed sea" or "sea ofreeds."This term is a generic description rather than a proper name. Whenthe Hebrew text was translated into Greek (Septuagint), yam suphwastranslated as eruthra thalassa ("Red Sea," see Ex. 13:18). Since earlyEnglish translators were more dependent upon Greek than Hebrew, tue

Septuagintal translation found its way into English texts and was transmitted. In 1962 an English edition ofThe Torah(The Jewish PublicationSociety of America) properly translated yam suph as "Sea of Reeds."


6/11

478 REVIEWAND EXPOSITOR

Considerable confusion would be avoided if other translations would do

likewise.Exodus 14 demonstrates a layered effect, an apparent developmental

processas traditions were combined. In the J materials, God drove back thewater by an east wind, permitting the Hebrews to cross safely. The Enarrative portrays Moses' rod to be, necessary to the water's disap-pearancea type of magical aura pervades the scene.With the process

was completed as the water not only recedes for the Hebrews' crossing, butit also pulls back like walls on either side!

When the J source88

and the Miriam couplet (Ex. 15:21") arejux-taposed,aprobableevent unfolds. The HebrewsfleeingEgypt werepursued

by the Egyptians using chariots.When the Hebrews confronted a shallowbodyof water, a strong eastwindblewback the water in a reedy, shallowarea, permitting the Hebrews to cross.When the Egyptians sought tofollow, their chariots were too heavy and bogged down. As the horses at-tempted topull free, some of the Egyptians were thrown into the shallow

water and mud. In the confusion some Egyptians died.

The important fact, however, is that the ancient Israelites whoremembered and transmitted this story knew only divine causation. Thisevent was no fluke. Their emancipation from Egyptian bondage was the actofYahweh.Hehad delivered! Hehad made freedom possible. As G. HentonDavies noted: "The Israelites believed they had seen, and had been saved

by, a great miracle which was to become one of the themes of their story andworship in perpetuity."

86

Nonetheless, the event as transmitted does have a unity of its own;86

and it is important for the interpreter to see the event in its wholeness aswell as in its parts.

87 Through this unity Israel's faith affirmed that this

event wasYahweh'sact. We must acknowledge the passage holistically tounderstand its meaning for the community of faith, and thisexercisemustprecede the dissection of the narrative into its component sources.

The literary composition of the present material should be understood,

however, and the rationale for a tradition's compositional enlargementshould be sought. The most reasonable response lies inYahwism'sencounterwitBaalism,88for theprimarymotifneeding clarificationisthe heighteningof the water-separationelement.

In Baalistic mythology, one theme revolved around Baal's encounterwith Yam, the chaotic water god whom Baal must conquer before hisauthoritywill berecognized.88Ultimately Baal'svictory wasacclaimed; andhebecame the chief god inworship, even though Elcontinuedtompinfanntitularkingship.

The Israelites having entered Canaan (thirteenthcentury), if Yahweh

wereto retain his dominantrole,then the view ofYahwehmust alter sufficiently that tose agrarian functions fulfilled by the Canaanite deitieswould be assumed byYahweh. This is a brief statement of an exceedingly


7/11

TH E PLA GUES AN D THE CROSSING OF THE SE A 4TO

eyntheeis derived from the amalgation of Israelite Mosaic faith and

Canaanite Baalism.40

In the procees of this cultural struggle and amalgamation, thmes

associated with Baalism were absorbed into Yahwism. Yahweh, not Baal,

was the one to do struggle with the chaotic watery elements. 41 Yahweh, not

Baal, was the victorious God!

The process by which this assimilation took place I have argued

elsewhere. Suffice at this point to indicate that it could have occurred via

northern sources where Baalism traditionally posed the greater threat to

Yahwism,48 by post-exilic priestly hands when monotheism prevailed and

thus rendered moot associations with other deities, or through actual en

counter with and absorption of Baalistic elements while in Egypt or at least

in the departure process.48

Historical certitude will forever elude the investigator of the sea event.

The historian recognizee that this event has been both transmitted and

transformed, covered over and filled with both myth and legend. With

typical insight, James Muilenburg stated:

If one is tempted to raise the legitimate and necessary question,

what was it that happened at the Sea of Reeds? then there is the

equivocal answer that the historian is forced to give because he really

does not know. There is also the answer that faith gives: "Our God

delivered us from bondage."44

It is this answer of faith upon which this article has focused, for whateverthe critical analysis the voice of faith was always dear, "Yahweh lias

delivered!" It is this assured response by the faithful that shaped the faith

community.

Conclusion

The plague and sea crossing traditions were recorded to be didactic and

to facilitate existential encounter of the reader/hearer with Yahwh, the God

responsible for the events. History as the chronicle of verifiable events was

not the concern of these writers/redactors. Greenberg properly suggests:

"The reality that the tale intends to convey is not past historical but presentaffective: the experience of events as they were taken in first by eyewit

nesses, then through the consciousness of the generations who perennially

relived and reflected on them as, the basis of their own living faith*"41 This

series of events, beginning with the theophany to Moses at the bush (Ex. 3)

and concluding with the covenant's ratification (Ex. 24), became the

normative guide for Israel's relationship to God as well as her relationship to

her neighbors.

For the biblical critic's task, it is important to understand the

relationship of the parts (plague narrative, Passover tradition, the encounterwith the sea, and the hymnic versions of Ex. 15), how the sources developed

ami ultimately came together, and how the component parts relate not onlyto each other but to their larger context as well. Nonetheless, while notd i t ll th iti l i it i l i t t t i th


8/11


have been cultkally rehearsed, at least after the Torah became canonically

fixed.When so perceived, the material assumes additional dimensions of

significance. We see both Israel's confession and the understood base forthat confession. We see a people of history who ground their conviction inthe inexorable assurance of Yahweh, the God of history, the assurance whichmade this tradition believable. Significantly, in The Pentateuch and Haf-torahs, we are reminded:

In the Haggadah shel Pesach, the story of the Redemption is toldwithout any reference to the Leader. Once only, indirectly in aquotation, does the name Moses occur at all in the whole SederService48

A passage in Deuteronomy, judged by Gerhard von Rad to be perhaps theoldest creedal affirmation in the Hebrew scriptures,47 states appropriatelyour conclusion:

. . . the Egyptians treated us hardily, and afflicted us, and laid uponus hard bondage. Then we cried to the LORD the God of our fathers,and the LORD heard our voice, and saw our affliction, our toil, andour oppression; and the LORD brought us out of Egypt with amighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror, with signsand wonders . . . (Deut. 26:6-8).48

1See George E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East

(Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: The Biblical Colkxjuim, 1966), and "Covenant." The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Pnee, 1962), 1:714-723. From Dennis J.McCarthy, see Treaty and Covenant (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968), and OldTestament Covenant, "Growing Pointa in Theology" (Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Presi,1972).See also Klaue Baltser,The Covenant Formulary,trans. David E. Green (Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1971).

Cf. Martin Noth, The History of Israel, 2nd ed., trans. P. R. Ackroyd (New York:Harper * Row, Publishers, I960), pp. 110-121; and John Bright, A History ofIsrael,2nd ed.(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1972), pp. 103-139. Moshe Greenberg, in Under-

standing Exodus, "The Heritage of Biblical Israel" (New York, N. Y.: Behrman House, Inc.,1969),p. 204, states: "The gross features of the Exodus story . . . are too unflattering to have

been late inventions, and have enough (through meager) contacts with extrabiblfcal evidence tobe creditable . . . what merge is not history but Israel's celebration of its history as thesaving sets of God."

Cf. Martin Noth, Exodus, A Commentary, trans. J. S. Bowden, 'Old Testamentlibrary" (Philadelphia: The Westminster Prese, 1962), p. 106; and Dennis J. McCarthy,'Moses' Dealings with Pharaoh: Exodus 7:8-10:27,"Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 27:336-347,

October 1966; aleo by McCarthy, "Plagues and the Sea of Reeds: Exodus 6-14,"Journal ofBiblical Literature, 86:137-168, June, 1966.

4Brevard S. Childs, The Booh of Exodus, "The Old Testament Library" (Philadelphia:

The Westminster Press, 1974), p. xv.1 See the author's The Religion and Culture of Israel (Washington, D. C: University

Press of America, 1977), pp. 61-76.*

Greenberg,Understanding Exodus, p. 193.' Martin Beber,Moses(New York: Harper Torchbooke, 1968), p. 76.Weither Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker, "The Old

T Lib " (Phil d l hi Th W i P 1961) 1 463


9/11


10Two helpful articles are James B. Pritchard, "Motifs of Old Testament Miracles,"Crozer

Quarterly, 27:97-109, April, 1960; and Harold Knight, "The Old Testament Conception ofMiracle,"Scottish Journal of Theology,5:355-361, December, 1952.

11Bernhard W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 3rd ed. (Englewood Cliffs,

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975), p. 65.11See Buber,Moses,pp. 78-79.18Childs, The Book of Exodus, p. 238.14

G. Henton Davies, Exodus, "Torch Bible Commentaries" (London: SCM Press, Ltd.,1967),p. 90, who suggested dramatic presentation of the tradition at Passover.

16Greenberg, Understanding Exodus, p. 169. U. Caseuto, in A Commentary on the Bookof Exodus, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1967), states that "theTorah is absolutely opposed to all forms of magic . . . " (p. 95).

1See J. H. Hertz, ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, 2nd ed. (London: Sonano Press,

1970).p. 400.17Cas suto , A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, pp . 92-93.18

S. R. Driver, The Book of Exodus, rev. ed., "The Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges" (Cambridge: University Press, 1953), 111:55, succinctly stated that the differences

relative to the literary sources "Relate to not less than five or six distinct points,the termsof the command addressed to Moses, the part taken by Aaron, the demand made of thePharaoh, for the use made of the rod, the description of the plague, and the formulae used toexpress the Pharaoh's obstinacy." See also Buber, Moses, pp. 62ff., regarding expansion ofthe plague tradition during the Elisha period.

19The division used in this presentation accords with that of J. Coert Kylaarsdam, "TheBook of Exodus," The Interpreter's Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1952), 1:838-839,895-915, and 924-925. See also Noth, Exodus, A Commentary, pp. 62-99; and Childs, The

Book of Exodus, pp. 130-141. Cf. Greenberg,Understanding Exodus, pp. 183-192.20Because scholars differ so in their assignments of verses to the separate sources, a

source analysis would not be particularly beneficial for the interests of this article. The readerseeking information on analysis is encouraged to look especially at the appropriate sections in

Childs,The Book of Exodus; Noth,Exodus, A Commentary; and Rylaarsdam,IB, I.21See J. Philip Hyatt, Commentary on Exodus, "New Century Bible" (Greenwood, S. C:The Attic Press, Inc., 1971), pp. 96-139, on plagues.

" See Noth, Exodus, A Commentary,p. 76; and Rylaarsdam, IB, 1:838.28Cf. Noth, Exodus, A Commentary,pp. 68-69.24

See Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, trans, and abridged by MosheGreenberg (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 132; and Hertz, ed., The

Pentateuch and Haftorahs, 2nd ed., p. 295. See also the helpful chart prepared by B. DavieNapier, "The Book of Exodus," The Layman's Bible Commentary (Richmond: John KnoxPress,1963), 111:75.

" Noth, Exodus, A Commentary, p. 161. Hyat t,Commentary on Exodus, p.210,agrees." See Greta Hort, "The Plagues of Egypt," Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentUche

Wissenschaft, 69:84-103, 1957; or Jack Finegan, Let My People Go (New York: Harper and

Row, 1963).27Childs, The Book of Exodus, p. 168. See also Greenberg, Understanding Exodus, p.202.

98The author's view may be found inThe Religion and Culture ofIsrael, pp. 60-67, and

"The Reed Sea and Baalism,"Journal of Biblical Literature, 86:378-384, December, 1967.29

Cf. Lewis S. Hay, "What Really Happened at the Sea of Reeds?"Journal of BiblicalLiterature, 83:397-403, December, 1964; George W. Coats, "The Traditio-Historical Characterof the Reed Sea Motif," Vetus Testamentum, 17:253-265, July, 1967; Brevard S. Childs, "ATraditio-Historical Study of the Reed Sea Tradition," Vetus Testamentum, 20:406-418,October, 1970; and Dale Patrick, "Traditio-History of the Reed Sea Account," VetusTestamentum, 26:248-249, April, 1976. See also Childs, The Book of Exodus, pp. 215,223-224; and Hyatt,Commentary on Exodus, pp. 156-161.

80Rylaarsdam, IB, 1:935.

81Frank Michaeli, Le Livre de LExode, "Commentaire de L'Ancien Testament" (Paris:Delachaux&Niestle, 1974), p. 128.


10/11

482 REVIEWAND EXPOSITOR

82Sites varying from the northern Gulf of Suez (or an inland extension thereof), an inlandbody of water such as Lake Timsah, the western shores of the Sirbonian Sea, or the northerntip of the Gulf of Aqabah have been suggested.

88See analyses of x. 14 by Childs,The Book of Exodus, pp. 218-221; Noth,Exodus, ACommentary, pp. 102-126; and Rylaarsdam, IB, 1:932-939.

84Noth, Exodus, A Commentary, pp. 121-122. Noth judges chapter 15 to be relativelylate, although he accepts verse 21 as the oldest part of the chapter. F. M. Cross, Jr., andDavid N. Freedman, "The Song of Miriam,"Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 14:237-260,October, 1955; and F. M. Cross, Jr., "The Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth,"God andChrist: Existence and Province, ed. R. W. Funk, et al., Journal for Theology and the Church

(New York: Harper&Row, Publishers, Inc., 1968), 5:1-25, have argued for the early dating ofchapter 15. Buber, Moses, p. 74, states that "A song dating back to the time of Moses ispreserved in Exodus xv, 21."

88Davies,Exodus, p. 124. See also Leandre Boisvert, "Le Passage de la Mer des Roseauxet la Foi d' Israel,"Science et Esprit, 27:147-159, May-September, 1975.

88See Hyatt,Commentary on Exodus, pp. 148-149.87See Childs,The Book of Exodus, pp. 227-228.88

See footnote 28 for author's position. See also Childs,The Book of Exodus, p. 223.88The Ugaritic texts do not recount this struggle in full. See G. R. Driver,CanaaniteMyths and Legends, "Old Testament Studies" (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1956), III, 13-14,80-83.

40See The Religion and Culture of Israel, pp. 198-223.

41Genesis 1:6-10 and Psalm 74:13-14. See T. H. Gaster, Thespis (New York: HarperTorchbooks, 1966), pp. 142-148, for suggestions of passages from which the biblical myth maybe pieced together.

42 Georg Beer, "Exodus," Handbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. Otto Eissfeldt (Tubingen:J. C.. Mohr, 1939), III, 12.

48

The Baalzephon reference of Ex. 14:2apparently referredto aBaalsanctuary.See OttoEissfeldt, Baal Zaphon, Zeus Kasios und der Durchzug der Israeliten durch Meer (Halle[Saale]: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1932). Supported by Noel Aime'Giron, "Ba

/al Saphon et les

Dieux de Tahpanhes dans un Nouveau Papyrus Phnicien," Annales Du Service DesAntiquits De L'Egypt, 40:433-460, 1941.

44James Muilenburg,The Way of Israel(New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1966), p. 49.48

Greenberg, Understanding Exodus, p. 204.48

Hertz, ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, 2nd ed., p. 270.47Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York:

Harper&Row Publishers, Inc., 1962), 1:122.48In light of the earlier discussion regarding the post-exilic priestly absorption of Baalistk

motifs, it is noteworthy that Deuteronomy 26 may be read without reference to the sea event.The "signs and wonders" may refer only to the plague tradition. In Nehemiah 9:6-31, a post-exilic creedal statement, however, the sea event is explicitly noted: "And thou didst see theaffliction of our fathers in Egypt and hear their cry at the Red Sea . . . And thou didst dividethe sea before them, so that they went through the midst of the sea on dry land; and thoudidst cast their pursuers into the depths, as a stone into mighty waters" (Neh. 9:9, 11).Further discussion of this would take us too far afield, but the implications of this development should be considered by the reader as regards the dynamic character of Israel's faith.


11/11

^ s

Copyright and Use:

Asan ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Plagues and the Crossing of the Sea - by Eakin

Documents

Transcript of Plagues and the Crossing of the Sea - by Eakin