By E. POWER, S.J.
§ 162a Bibliography
(A) Commentaries:
1563*Keil-Delitzsch, tr. J. P. Lange, Edinburgh 1868; 1564*H. C. Strack (Strack-Zücklers Komm.), München 1894; 1565*Dillmann-Ryssel, Leipzig 189715663; F. de Hummelauer (CS1567S), Paris 1897; 1568*H. Holzinger (Marti’s Handkomm.), Tübingen 1900; 1569*B. Baentsch (Nowack’s Hand-Komm.), Göttingen 1903; J. Weiss, Graz 1911; 1570*S. R. Driver (CBS1571C), 1911; reprinted 1918 and 1929; 1572*W. H. Bennett (CB1573i), Edinburgh undated; 1574*A. H. McNeile (W1575C), London 191815762; H. J. Grimmelsman, Cincinnati 1927; B. Ubach, Monserrat 1927; 1577*F. M. Th. Böhl, Groningen 1928; 1578*J. H. Hertz, Pentateuch and Haftorahs II, Oxford 1930; F. Ceuppens, Bruges 1932; 1579*W. H. Gispen, Kampen, chh 1–15, 1932, chh 16–40, 1939; P. Heinisch (B1580B), Bonn 1934 (most useful); 1581*G. Beer, Tübingen 1939.
§ b (B) Special Subjects:
A. Mallon, Les Hébreux en Egypte, Rome 1921; F. X. Kortleitner, Israelitarum in Aegypto Commoratio, Tongerloo 1930; 1582*H. H. Rowley, Israel’s Sojourn in Egypt, Manchester 1938; P. Montet, ‘Tanis, Avaris et Pi-Ramses’ R1583B 39 (1930) 5–28; B. Stein, ‘Der Engel des Auszuges’ B1584i 19 (1938) 286–97; 1585*H. Bauer, ‘Die Gottheiten von Ras-Schamra’ ZAT1586W 51 (1933) 81–101; 1587*O. Eissfeldt, ‘Neue Zeugnisse für die Aussprache des Tetragramms als Jahwe’ ZAT1588W 53 (1935) 59–77; A. Vaccari, ‘Iahve e i nomi divini nelle religioni semitiche’ B1589i 17 (1936) 1–10; C. Bourdon, ‘La route de l’Exode de la terre de Gessé à Mara’ R1590B 41 (1932) 370–92, 538–49; A. Mallon, ‘La mer rouge et l’Exode’ B1591i 6 (1925) 396–400; 1592*H. M. Wiener, ‘The Date of the Exodus’ B1593s 73 (1916) 454–80; 1594*J. W. Jack, The Date of the Exodus, London 1925; A. Mallon, ‘Exode’ DB1595V (S) 2 (1934) 1333–42; 1596*T. H. Robinson, ‘The Date of the Exodus’ E1597T 47 (1935–6) 53–5; 1598*H. H. Scullard, ‘The Passage of the Red Sea’ E1599T 42 (1930–1) 55–61; 1600*T. H. Robinson, ‘Der Durchzug durch das Rote Meer’ ZAT1601W 51 (1933) 170–3; M.-J. Lagrange, ‘Le Cantique de Moïse’ R1602B 8 (1899) 532–41; J. Linder, ‘Das Siegeslied des Moses’ ZK1603T 44 (1920) 43–77; S. Garofalo, ‘L’epinicio di Mose’ B1604i 18 (1937) 1–22; 1605*C. L. Woolley and 1606*T. H. Lawrence, The Wilderness of Zin, London 1935; 1607*R. Weill, Le séjour des Israélites au désert et le Sinaï, Paris 1909; L. Prévost, L. Dennefeld, M. David, D. Gorce, M. Lejeune, Le Sinaï hier … aujourd’hui, Pairs 1937; 1608*F. S. Bodenheimer und 1609*O. Theodor, Ergebnisse der Sinaiexpedition 1927, Jerusalem 1929; K. Miketta, ‘Wo lag der Berg Sinai?’ in Weidenauer Studien 3 (1909) 77–123; 4 (1911) 47–145; J. Gabriel, ‘Wo lag der biblische Sinai?’ WZK1610M 39 (1932) 123–32; L.H. Vincent, ‘Un nouveau Sinaï biblique’ R1611B 39 (1930) 73–83; 1612*W. J. Phythian-Adams, ‘The Mount of God’ PE1613F 62 (1930) 135–49, 192–202; P. Karge, Geschichte des Bundesgedanken im AT (AT Abhandlungen II 1–4), Münster 1910; 1614*W. Staerk, ‘Zum AT Erwählungsglauben’ ZAT1615W 55 (1937) 1–36; A. Vaccari, ‘De Praeceptorum Decalogi distinctione et ordine’ V1616D 17 (1937) 317–20, 328–34; N. Peters, Die älteste Abschrift der zehn Gebote, Freiburg 1905; Anon, ‘Le Papyrus Nash’ R1617B 13 (1904) 242–50; 1618*W. F. Albright, ‘A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Age: The Nash Papyrus’ JB1619L 56 (1937) 145–76; A. Eberharter, ‘Décalogue’ DB1620V (S) 2 (1934) 341–51; K. Fruhstorfer, ‘Der Dekalog’ TP1621Q 77 (1924) 92–101, 216–24; P. Heinisch, ‘Alter und Eigenart des Dekalogs’ S1622C 10 (1933–4) 24–39; F. Feldmann, ‘Das Alter des Dekalogs’ Bonn Zts f. Th. und Seelsorge 1 (1924) 213–31; 1. Verquerre, ‘Le Décalogue, code universel et éternal’ R1623A 63 (1936, 2) 149–66; 1624*H. J. Flowers, The Permanent Value of the Ten Commandments, London 1927; J. Hehn, Der Israelitische Sabbath (Bibl. Zeitfragen 11, 12) Münster 1912; id. ‘Zur Sabbathfrage’ B1625Z 14 (1917) 198–213; 1626*J. Herrmann, ‘Das Zehnte Gebot’ in Sellin-Festschrift 1927, 69–82; F. Prat, Le Code Sinaï: sa Genèse et son Evolution (Science et Religion) Paris 1907; W. Stoderl, Das Gesetz Israels nach Inhalt und Ursprung, Marienbad 1933; 1627*A. Jirku, Das weltliche Recht im AT, Gütersloh 1927; 1628*A. Alt, Der Ursprung des israelitischen Rechts, Leipzig 1934; 1629*W. Nowack, Das Bundesbuch (ZAT1630W Beiheft 34) Berlin 1920; P. Cruveilheir, Introduction au Code d’Hammourabi, Paris 1937; id1631., Commentaire du Code d’Hammourabi, Paris 1938; id. ‘Le Code d’Hammourabi et la législation civile des Hébreux’ RC1632F 69 (1912) 641–73; 1633*S. A. Cook, The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi, London 1903; 1634*G. R. Driver and 1635*J. C. Miles, The Assyrian Laws, London 1935; M. Witzel, Hethitische Keilschrifturkunden (Keilinschr. Stud. 4), 1 (1924) 132–73; J. Nikel, Das AT und die Nächstenliebe (Bibl. Zeitfragen VI 11–12), Münster 1913; P. Heinisch, ‘Das Sklavenrecht in Israel und im Alten Orient’ S1636C 11 (1934–5) 201–18; N. Peters, Die soziale Fürsorge im AT, Paderborn 1936; 1637*C. Schick, Der Stiftshütte, der Tempel in Jerusalem und der Tempelplatz der Jetztzeit, Berlin 1896; 1638*E. Sellin, ‘Das Zelt Jahwes’ Beiträge zur Wissenschaft des AT 13 (1919) 168–92; G. Orfali, De Arca Foederis, Paris 1918; L. Dürr, ‘Ursprung und Bedeutung der Bundeslade’ Bonn. Zts. f. Th. und Seelsorge 1 (1924) 17–32; 1639*G. von Rad, ‘Zelt und Lade’ Neue Kirchl. Zts. 42 (1931) 476–98; H. Lesêtre, ‘Tabernacle’ DB1640V 5 (1912) 1951–61; 1641*A. R. S. Kennedy, ‘Tabernacle’ HD1642B 4 (1902) 653–68; P. Dhorme et L. H. Vincent, ‘Les Chérubins’ R1643B 35 (1926) 328–58, 481–95; A. Eberharter, ‘Das Horn im Kult des AT’ ZK1644T 51 (1927) 394–9; J. Gabriel, ‘Untersuchungen über das AT Hohepriestertum mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des hohepriesterlichen Ornates’ (Th. St. der österreichischer Leogesellschaft 33), 1933; S. Landersdorfer, ‘Das Problem der Priestersalbung im Gesetze’ T1645Q 107 (1926) 185–97; 1646*M. Löhr, Das Raucheropfer im AT, Halle 1927; A. Eberharter, ‘Das Weihrauchopfer im AT’ ZK1647T 50 (1926) 89–105; A. Van Hoonacker, ‘La date de l’encens dans le culte de Jahve’ R1648B 23 (1914) 161–87; F. Steinmetzer, ‘Das heilige Salböl das Alten Bundes’ B1649z 7 (1909) 17–29; P. van Imschoot, ‘Le veau d’or’ Collationes Gandavenses 14 (1927) 113–16; A. Eberharter, ‘Die Verehrung des goldenen Kalbes’ Pastor Bonus 41 (1930) 103–9; 1650*G. K. Berry, ‘The Ritual Decalogue’ JB1651L 44 (1925) 38–43; A. Eberharter, ‘Besitzen wir in Ex 23 und 34 zwei Rezensionen eines zweiten Dekalogs?’ B1652Z 20 (1932) 157–67; F. Nötscher, Das Angesicht Gottes schauen, Würzburg 1924; J. Göttsberger, ‘Die Hülle des Moses nach Ex 34 und 2 Kor 3’ B1653Z 16 (1924) 1–17; H. Cazelles, Le Code de l’Alliance, Paris 1946.
§ c Name—The Greek name of the book, Exodos, latinized Exodus, is generally derived from the LX1654X rendering of 19:1: In the third month of the Exodus of the children of Israel from the land of Egypt. It refers directly only to the first part of the narrative, not to its climax, the Sinaitic Covenant, by which Israel became the chosen people of Yahweh. Typically, however, it indicates also the ultimate object of the Convenant, since the Exodus, by which Israel was delivered from the bondage of Egypt, is a type of the Redemption, by which mankind was freed from the slavery of sin. The Hebrew name of the book is Weēlleh Šemôṯ, the opening words of M1655T.
§ d Contents—Exodus is a religious history. It narrates the first and fundamental steps in the fulfilment of the promises made by God to Abraham that his descendants should become a great nation and that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed. The opening chapter, which represents the Israelites as already a numerous people and cruelly oppressed by their Egyptian masters, shows that the time is ripe for the execution of God’s designs in their regard. The call of Moses, the aggravated oppression of the people, the plagues of the Egyptians and the deliverance of the Israelites are first described. The march through the desert to Sinai follows, during which God miraculously provides for his people’s bodily needs. Then comes the climax of the narrative, the Theophany and the Sinaitic Covenant with its necessary consequences, the Decalogue, the Book of the Covenant and the Ritual Legislation. The fall of the people into idolatry, necessitating the renewal of the Covenant, ends the narrative. The last six chapters are a kind of appendix, describing the execution of the directions already given for the organization of cult.
§ e Composition and Authorship—The remarkable unity of plan which characterizes the book is a strong confirmation of its substantial Mosaic authorship, already discussed. The principal narrative is interspersed, however, with passages, shown to be additions by their interruption of the context or their want of harmony with it in content or in date. Since the original narrative was not a diary, but received its literary form at a period subsequent to the events recorded, most of these additions are most probably Mosaic. Some, however, are of post-Mosaic origin and were inserted by an inspired editor who had other traditional sources at his disposal. There are, moreover, here as elsewhere, a few uninspired glosses and interpolations, introduced into the text in the course of transmission. As it is necessary for the better understanding of the narrative to determine these additions as far as possible, an attempt has been made to do so in the commentary, the results of which, summarized here, are not all equally well established and naturally make no claim to finality or completeness. § f The supplement to the ritual legislation (chh 30–1) and the appendix which supposes it (chh 35–40) as well as the homiletic additions to the decalogue (20:4–6; 9–11; 12b; 17b) may be ascribed to Moses himself. Legislative additions (12:15–20 in whole or in part; 12:43–51; 22:21b; 27:20–21; 29:29–30; 34:20; 24) may be Mosaic or editorial. The historical additions, practically all editorial, are: the second account of the call of Moses with an insertion on the family history of Moses and Aaron (6:2–7:7), some elements in the plague narrative, in particular the third and sixth plagues (8:15–19; 9:8–12), some elements in the Manna narrative probably Mosaic (in particular 16:33–34), the second account of the Theophany (19:20–25), the second account of the ascent of Sinai (24:1–2; 9–11b), the tent of meeting (33:7–11). It will be noted that the historical additions refer to events of major importance about which various traditions would be current among the people. It is remarkable too that the later traditions, when properly interpreted, are not at variance with the principal narrative. Glosses and interpolations are few (4:19; 11:3b, 10; 16:36; 19:13a; 38:25–28). The attempt to distinguish definite sources JEDP throughout the entire book, which encumbers so many commentaries, is avoided here as conjectural and profitless, since our object is to explain the contents of the sacred text, all parts of which, except unauthorized glosses and interpolations, are equally inspired and authoritative.
§ 163a Date—The numerical indications of the Bible are too uncertain in text and interpretation to determine the date of the Exodus either in the 15th cent. b.c., 480 years before the building of Solomon’s temple (3 Kg 6:1), or in the 12–11th cent., 645 years after Abraham’s arrival in Canaan (Gen 12:4; 17:17; 25:26; 47:9; Ex 12:40) according to the latest but still uncertain determination of Abraham’s date. The contents of the sacred narrative and the historical data obtained from Egyptian texts and excavations offer more solid arguments for a solution of the problem. The Pharaoh of the oppression, very probably a single individual, had a long reign. He has therefore been identified with Thutmosis III of the XVIII dynasty (1484–1450) and Ramesses II of the XIX dynasty (1298–1232) and the Pharaoh of the Exodus with their respective successors, Amenophis II (1450–1421) and Mernephtah (1232–1224). § b The Pharaoh oppressor (the last, if there was more than one) is distinguished as a builder of cities in the Delta region where the Hebrews dwelt. This characteristic is definitely verified in Ramesses II, but there is no trace of building in the Delta region on the part of Thutmosis III, since northern Egypt at that period was still insecure on the Asiatic side. The Pharaoh, builder and oppressor, had also his royal residence in the Delta near the Hebrews, a fact again definitely verified in Ramesses II, but not in the Pharaohs of the XVIII dynasty, residing at Thebes in Upper Egypt. Finally the cities built by the Hebrews, Ramesses and Pithom, and the site of their encampment in their flight, Migdōl, excavated and identified, still more definitely attach the Exodus to the Ramesses-Mernephtah period. Ramesses, the royal residence of Ramesses II, has been identified, more or less probably, by Montet’s excavations in 1929 with the ancient Tanis on the Tanitic branch of the Nile, 4 m. S. of Lake Menzaleh. We find the same identification suggested in the Bible by juxtaposing the field of Tanis, scene of the plagues (Ps 77:12), Ramesses, starting-point of the Exodus (Ex 12:37) and the land of Ramesses, allotted to the Hebrews (Gen 47:11). Ramesses was a store city (Ex 1:11), provided with granaries for military expeditions and commanding the northern route to Asia. The name, Ramesses, first appears in the XIX dynasty and, if the Exodus occurred two centuries earlier, it would be strange to find only the later name of the city in the Mosaic narrative.
§ c Pithom is either Tell el-Artabi or Tell el-Maskhuta, neighbouring sites in the Wady Tumilat, excavated by Naville in 1883, both containing a pi-thom, temple of Thum, as well as granaries and commanding the southern route to Asia. The identification of Succoth (Ex 12:37) with Theku, ancient Egyptian name of Tell el-Maskhuta, is probable, but not definitely established. Migdōl (Ex 14:2), identified with Tell Abu-Hasa, excavated by Clédat in 1904, was the southern of two frontier forts, both called Migdōl (fort) of Mernephtah, another name of Seti I. predecessor of Ramesses II. It guarded the route to Sinai, had a temple of Hathor, patroness of the Sinai mines, and inscriptions of Seti I and Ramesses II. All the sites mentioned attest by their inscriptions building operations of Ramesses II. § d Against this accumulated evidence the stele of Mernephtah has been objected as proof of an earlier date; cf. § 78a. If Israel was already in Palestine in the fifth year of Mernephtah’s regin, the Exodus must have occurred at least a generation earlier. Of the various explanations proposed it may be first noted that Israel is preceded in the text by the sign for foreign people, but not like the other names by the sign for foreign land. The Israelites thus seem to be still nomads four years after the Exodus. The text may refer to the crossing of the Red Sea and may exemplify a well-known tendency of ancient recorders to register defeats as victories, with some show of reason in this case since the Hebrews fled from the Egyptians. Other explanations, not without support in this and other texts, interpret Israel either as Israelites detached from the main body, or as a tribe of similar name.
§ e The indirect evidence of Palestinian excavations is still disputed. As it refers directly to the date of the settlement in Canaan, it will be discussed more conveniently in the commentary on Josue. The Habiri of the Tell el-Amarna tablets, formerly identified with the Hebrews by upholders of the earlier date, are now better known as a people or class much more ancient and more widespread than Israel, cf. §§ 78b and 120a–b. We conclude, therefore, that the 13th cent. is the only date of the Exodus solidly, if not certainly, established by the existing evidence.
§ f Teaching—Exodus teaches us, in the first place, that God chose the Hebrew nation as his special instrument in the execution of his plan for the redemption of mankind. The freedom of this choice is clearly manifested. I will show favour to whom I will show favour and I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy (33:19). He first makes known to them his exalted nature by the revelation of the divine name, Yahweh. He then shows his goodness and his omnipotence by the prodigies through which he delivers them from the bondage of Egypt. The same attributes are manifested in his solicitude for their temporal needs by the miraculous provision of water, quails, and manna in the desert. He manifests to them his majesty at Sinai and makes a covenant with them, securing them his constant favour and protection and exacting from them special holiness of life and obedience to his commands. His wisdom and holiness appear in the ethical and religious precepts which he imposes on them, surpassing immeasurably the laws of other ancient peoples. When they revolt from him he manifests his detestation of their sin and threatens punishment, but finally, when they show repentance, yields to the intercession of Moses, admits them to pardon and renews his covenant with them. In all this the nature and attributes of God are abundantly revealed and our duties towards him are clearly manifested.
§ g Three undeniable historical facts narrated in Exodus prove that God’s choice of Israel for the execution of his merciful design is not a patriotic fiction but a sublime reality: the divine name Yahweh, the miraculous provision of food in the desert, the unique character of the moral and religious laws. The nature of God, as revealed by the name Yahweh, implies the doctrine of Monotheism, a religious truth unknown to all ancient peoples and unattained even by such enlightened philosophers as Plato and Aristotle. The History of Religions thus supports the divine origin of the name, affirmed in the sacred text. The survival of the Hebrews for so many years in so destitute a region as the Sinaitic peninsula would have been impossible without divine intervention. The figure of the population given in 12:37 may be disputed, but the increase recorded in 1:7 ff. and the conquest of Canaan supposes a number times superior to the 5,000 half-starved Bedouin whom Sinai supports with difficulty today. The prohibition of evil desires in the Decalogue, the special laws of charity and consideration for the poor and unprotected in the Book of the Covenant and the religious laws in general are unparalleled in antiquity and far surpass all that the lessons of history entitle us to expect from any ancient people. Their unique character can only be adequately explained by the divine origin which is claimed for them.
§ h St Augustine’s pronouncement on the relation between the Old Testament and the New: Novum in Vetere latet, Vetus in Novo patet, the New is hidden in the Old, the Old is manifest in the New, is particularly true of Exodus. The Sinaitic Covenant or Testament is a type of the New Testament. Its mediator, Moses, is a type of Christ. The priestly people and holy nation of Israel (19:6) is a type of the members of the Church, the holy priesthood (1 Pet 2:5), who enjoy the fulfilment of the promise. The Sacrifice of the Pasch is a type of the sacrifice on Calvary. Its sacrificial commemoration is a type of the Eucharistic sacrifice. The Manna is a type of the sacrament of the Eucharist, also prefigured by God’s visible presence among his chosen people. The typical character of the Tabernacle and the various ceremonies connected with it is developed in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Church calls our Lady the Ark of the Covenant. Many rites of the old revealed religion are incorporated in our liturgy. The precepts of the Decalogue are still as actual as one the day when they were first promulgated. The principles of justice and charity inculcated in the Book of the Covenant still cry out for application to heal the wounds of the world of today. It may be said that the teaching of Exodus surpasses that of any other book of the OT in variety, extend and permanent value.