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 canonical
record to the normative event in the people's history, the offering and
ratification of covenant at Mount Sinai (Ex. 24).
1
This covenant was Israel's
genesis, 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 with
historical certainty the specific nature of these pre-covenantal events, we
may have reasonable assurance (1) that there was a sojourn of the Hebrews
in Egypt,
2
and (2) that so significant an event as the covenant experience
did not occur in isolated fashion.
The traditiohistorical character of the plague and sea traditions con-
tinues to be debated.
8
For the purposes of this study, however, we shall
focus primarily on the traditions as transmitted. Brevard Childs, who uses
historical-critical study in a most helpful fashion to enlighten the biblical
text, 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 the
vehicle of revelation and instruction."
4
This plurality of happenings (Ex. 7-15) should be viewed under the
rubric of a single event.
6
Since the text canonized by the synagogue and the
church was perceived as a unit, faith's affirmation becomes the clearer when
the integrity of the text's final form is acknowledged. This approach in-
validates 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 intent
was not so much to describe as to celebrate events as saving acts of
God.
e
Our focus falls upon the plagues (Ex. 7:8-11:10; 12:29-32) and the
crossing of the sea (Ex. 13:17-14:31). Prior to discussing these literary
units, however, we should clarify the Hebrew attitude toward the "mighty
act," for an understanding of the plague and sea traditions awaits
clarification 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. Greek
thought understood nature to be controlled by laws which were occasionally
abrogated, and the event occurring during this cessation and in con-
473
474
REVIEW AND EXPOSITOR
tradistinction to nature's laws was judged a miracle. To the contrary, from a
Hebraic 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 what
happened; in so far as it meets people who are capable of receiving
it, or prepared to receive it, as miracle. The extraordinary element
favours this coming together, but it is not characteristic of it; the
normal and ordinary can also undergo a transfiguration into miracle
in the light of the suitable hour.
7
Scriptural evidence supports Buber's contention that an event need not
be extraordinary to be understood as Yahweh's mighty act. On the other
hand, Walther Eichrodt, acknowledging God's working in lesser events,
stated that "the characteristic element, as far as the worship of Yahweh was
concerned, lay in those acts of God which stood out abruptly from the
normal."
8
This statement is acceptable when set specifically against the
cultic acts and their antecedents as presented in the canonical text. Viewed
from general Hebraic lifestyle, however, Eichrodt's statement places the
emphasis excessively upon Israel's being inundated by Yahweh's power and
insufficiently upon the significance of the prophetic interpreter of the event
concernedBuber's people "capable" or "prepared" to receive the event.
One must not forget either, that ultimately the "only miracle is God him-
self "
"Miracle" is, however, an inappropriate word to use with Hebraic
thought, 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 greater
significance, "a visible evidence of the presence and purpose of God."
u
For
example, it is stated in Exodus 3:12 that the Hebrews' arrival at Mount
Sinai will be a sign of Yahweh's activity in their behalf. Wonder (mopheth)
designates events of a more stupendous nature. For example, in Exodus 7:9
the 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 the
understanding of that event on the part of the beholder /interpreter, i.e., the
revelatory event is what the individual understands it to be. Second, Yah-
weh is always primarily understood as a God of history, not of nature, and
whatever events of nature he utilized as the vehicle of his revelation are
always thoroughly stamped with the imprint of historical awareness.
18
Third,
because Yahweh's mighty acts refer to historical occurrences rather than to
suprahistorical or to contra- and/or intranatural law events, understanding
of the mighty act correlates with the relation of the event to concrete
historical data. This does not negate the fact, however, that a commingling
of the "wonderful and ordinary" will characterize the mighty act. ". Nor does
acknowledgment of these principles deny the activity of power of God; to the
contrary, they simply affirm the recognition of that activity and power
within the parameters of the Hebrew mind.
THE PLAGUES AND THE CROSSING OF THE SEA 476
The Plagues
(7:8-11:10; 12:29-32)
The plagues are simultaneously enigmatic and illuminatingenigmatic
in that assured historicity eludes the interpreter, illuminating as conveyors
of Hebrew thought. The developed tradition dramatically
14
and didactically
affirmed in creedal-like fashion the historical power (not magic
16
) of Yahweh,
the God of deliverance.
The plagues are developed in the following sequence:
Plague Sequence Reference
1. Water turned red Exodus 7:14-24
2. Frogs Exodus 7:25-6:15
3. Gnats Exodus 8:16-19
4. Flies Exodus 8:20-32
5. Cattle Exodus 9:1-7
6. Boils Exodus 9:8-12
7. Hau Exodus 9:13-35
8. Locusts Exodus 10:1-20
9. Darkness Exodus 10:21-29
10. Death of first-born Exodus 11:1-10; 12:29-32
It has been suggested tnat the plagues are arranged in three cycles of
three plagues each, culminating with the single plague, the death of the
first-born:
1
First Cycle Second Cycle Third Cycle
1. Water turned red 4. Flies 7. Ha
2. Frogs 5. Cattle 8. Locusts
3. Gnats 6, Bos 9. Darkness
In each cycle, Moses issued a warning prior to the first two plagues. In the
first plague of each cycle, Moses was commanded by Yahweh to come before
Pharaoh in the morning to give warning. Yahweh also told Moses to warn
Pharaoh before the second plague of each cycle, but the time for doing so
was not specified. The third plague occurred each time without warning.
17
Typically, the third-cycle plagues were harsher than those of the first two
cycles.
Three pentateuchal sourcesJ, E, and P record the plague
tradition.
18
No single source, however, records all ten plagues.
19
To develop
the canonical text, therefore, the three sources were gradually united. Some
relevant data regarding the sources are presented below:
Source Data Yahwist Elohist Priestly
Date 950 B.C. 850-750 B.C 550-450 B.C.
Provenance Judah Israel Babylonia/Jerusalem
Literary Responsibility Yahwist(?) Elohist(?) Yahwistic Priests
Executor of Act Yahweh Moses Aaron
The following chart indicates the plagues presented in each source:
10
Plague Description Yahwist Elohist Priestly
1. Water turned red X X X
2. Frogs X X
476 REVIEW AND EXPOSITOR
3. Gnats
4. Flies X
5. Cattle X
6. Boils
7. Hau X X
8. Locusts X X
9. Darkness X
10. Death of first-born X X
Perhaps some plagues are duplicate accounts of differently transmitted
traditions.
91
For example, the Yahwist's rendering of the plagues involving
the flies (8:20-32, number 4) and the cattle (9:1-7, number 5) is possibly
duplicated 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 is
inappropriate on the question of duplications, one can be assured that the
present 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 a
separate tradition among the early Israelites. From the perspective of the
canonized tradition, however, one should not divorce the internal integrity of
the plagues and the Passover.
28
In Jewish tradition, the "signs and won-
ders" rehearsed refer primarily to the plagues
According to Jewish understanding, Exodus 20:2 ("I am the LORD
your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
bondage") constitutes the first commandment.
24
The more traditional
Christian position has been that Exodus 20:2 is an "introductory formula"
rather than the first commandment.
26
If the importance of acknowledging
the deity responsible for bringing the Hebrews "out of the land of Egypt" be
recognized, the pivotal nature of the "signs and wonders" takes clearer
focus. On the basis of these pre-Sinaitic events, a covenant was offered,
accepted, and ratified.
Obviously the traditional importance attached to the plagues does not
eliminate the problems associated with them, as is indicated for example by
the often noted silence regarding the plagues in Egyptian literature. Behind
this concern is the presumption that, had something so striking as that in-
dicated 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 modern
historical document. The ancient directed greater interest to the meaning of an
event than to the event itself. The ancient Israelite's interest rested in the con-
test waged between Yahweh and the Pharaoh (as well as with the other gods of
Egypt). Not one of the gods of Egypt could thwart the designs of Yahweh, and
this was the point the transmitted traditions sought to convey.
Since the meaning behind the event was more central than the
descriptive details of the event, it is unwise to seek an historical recon-
struction of the plagues on the basis of available evidence.
se
Childs, in-
dicating his concern about such attempts, notes that "in the end, this genre
THE PLAGUES AND THE CROSSING OF THE SEA 477
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 must
not fall prey to the modernist temptation to reconstruct them with an in-
dubitable specificity. The evidence needed to do so is unavailable today.
What is crucial to interpretation is that, through the vehicle of this holistic
narrative, the Hebrews have proclaimed that God has acted.
The plague narrative is pivotal in the biblical text, not because it gives the
interpreter an historical slice of ancient Egyptian life but because it portrays
early Israel's affirmations regarding Yahweh. This Yahweh is
the Lord of history who acts in judgment upon those who at-
tempt to thwart the administration of justice;
the God of freedom who demands that his creation live in and
propagate the cause of freedom; and
the God of deliverance who acts to deliver his elect from
Egyptian oppression, thereby giving assurance of his commitment to
be 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 con-
templating what is he!
The Crossing of the Sea
(13:17-14:31)
The tradition of the sea's crossing has long been problematic for in-
terpreters," and numerous scholars have attempted to clarify the sea
event.*
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 revealing
act of God."
20
Regardless of critical issues,
81
the sea event as a basic and
traditional foundation stone for Israelite faith must be kept in focus.
The geographic site of the sea's crossing is unknown.
82
Perhaps the only
certainty is that the Red Sea was not intended. If the Hebrews dwelled in
Goshen in the Nile Delta, the distance from Goshen to the Red Sea would
make impossible the Hebrews' fleeing successfully on toot from the
Egyptians using chariots. In addition, the Hebrew designation does not
support "Red Sea."
The Hebrew yam suph should be translated as "reed sea" or "sea of
reeds." This term is a generic description rather than a proper name. When
the Hebrew text was translated into Greek (Septuagint), yam suph was
translated as eruthra thalassa ("Red Sea," see Ex. 13:18). Since early
English translators were more dependent upon Greek than Hebrew, tue
Septuagintal translation found its way into English texts and was trans-
mitted. In 1962 an English edition of The Torah (The Jewish Publication
Society of America) properly translated yam suph as "Sea of Reeds."
478
REVIEW AND EXPOSITOR
Considerable confusion would be avoided if other translations would do
likewise.
Exodus 14 demonstrates a layered effect, an apparent developmental
process as traditions were combined. In the J materials, God drove back the
water by an east wind, permitting the Hebrews to cross safely. The E
narrative 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, but
it also pulls back like walls on either side!
When the J source
88
and the Miriam couplet (Ex. 15:21") are jux-
taposed, a probable event unfolds. The Hebrews fleeing Egypt were pursued
by the Egyptians using chariots. When the Hebrews confronted a shallow
body of water, a strong east wind blew back the water in a reedy, shallow
area, permitting the Hebrews to cross. When the Egyptians sought to
follow, their chariots were too heavy and bogged down. As the horses at-
tempted to pull 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 who
remembered and transmitted this story knew only divine causation. This
event was no fluke. Their emancipation from Egyptian bondage was the act
of Yahweh. He had delivered! He had made freedom possible. As G. Henton
Davies 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 and
worship 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 as
well as in its parts.
87
Through this unity Israel's faith affirmed that this
event was Yahweh's act. We must acknowledge the passage holistically to
understand its meaning for the community of faith, and this exercise must
precede 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 enlargement
should be sought. The most reasonable response lies in Yahwism's encounter
wit Baalism,
88
for the primary motif needing clarification is the heightening
of the water-separation element.
In Baalistic mythology, one theme revolved around Baal's encounter
with Yam, the chaotic water god whom Baal must conquer before his
authority will be recognized.
88
Ultimately Baal's victory was acclaimed; and
he became the chief god in worship, even though El continued to mpinfann
titular kingship.
The Israelites having entered Canaan (thirteenth century), if Yahweh
were to retain his dominant role, then the view of Yahweh must alter suf-
ficiently that tose agrarian functions fulfilled by the Canaanite deities
would be assumed by Yahweh. This is a brief statement of an exceedingly
complex cultural struggle which engaged the Israelites for centuries;
nevertheless, the end result was biblical Yahwism, a type of Hegelian
THE PLAGUES AND THE CROSSING OF THE SEA 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 whatever
the 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 present
affective: 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 encounter
with the sea, and the hymnic versions of Ex. 15), how the sources developed
ami ultimately came together, and how the component parts relate not only
to each other but to their larger context as well. Nonetheless, while not
demeaning at all these critical issues, it is also important to view the
tradition holistically, to see it in the integrity of its unity as it would
480 REVIEW AND EXPOSITOR
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 for
that confession. We see a people of history who ground their conviction in
the inexorable assurance of Yahweh, the God of history, the assurance which
made this tradition believable. Significantly, in The Pentateuch and Haf-
torahs, we are reminded:
In the Haggadah shel Pesach, the story of the Redemption is told
without any reference to the Leader. Once only, indirectly in a
quotation, does the name Moses occur at all in the whole Seder
Service
48
A passage in Deuteronomy, judged by Gerhard von Rad to be perhaps the
oldest creedal affirmation in the Hebrew scriptures,
47
states appropriately
our conclusion:
. . . the Egyptians treated us hardily, and afflicted us, and laid upon
us 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, and
our oppression; and the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a
mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror, with signs
and wonders . . . (Deut. 26:6-8).
48
1
See George E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East
(Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: The Biblical Colkxjuim, 1966), and "Covenant." The Inter-
preter'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 Old
Testament 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 of Israel, 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 to
be creditable . . . what merge is not history but Israel's celebration of its history as the
saving sets of God."
Cf. Martin Noth, Exodus, A Commentary, trans. J. S. Bowden, 'Old Testament
library" (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 of
Biblical Literature, 86:137-168, June, 1966.
4
Brevard 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
Testament Library" (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 1:463.
9
Edmond Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. A. W. Heethcote and P. J.
AUcock (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1968), p. 223.
THE PLAGUES AND THE CROSSING OF THE SEA 481
10
Two 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 of
Miracle," Scottish Journal of Theology, 5:355-361, December, 1952.
11
Bernhard W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 3rd ed. (Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975), p. 65.
11
See Buber, Moses, pp. 78-79.
18
Childs, 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.
16
Greenberg, Understanding Exodus, p. 169. U. Caseuto, in A Commentary on the Book
of Exodus, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1967), states that "the
Torah is absolutely opposed to all forms of magic . . . " (p. 95).
1
See J. H. Hertz, ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, 2nd ed. (London: Sonano Press,
1970). p. 400.
17
Cas su to, 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 and
Colleges" (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 terms
of the command addressed to Moses, the part taken by Aaron, the demand made of the
Pharaoh, for the use made of the rod, the description of the plague, and the formulae used to
express the Pharaoh's obstinacy." See also Buber, Moses, pp. 62ff., regarding expansion of
the plague tradition during the Elisha period.
19
The division used in this presentation accords with that of J. Coert Kylaarsdam, "The
Book 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.
20
Because 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 reader
seeking 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.
21
See 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.
28
Cf. Noth, Exodus, A Commentary, pp. 68-69.
24
See Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, trans, and abridged by Moshe
Greenberg (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. Davie
Napier, "The Book of Exodus," The Layman's Bible Commentary (Richmond: John Knox
Press, 1963), 111:75.
" Noth, Exodus, A Commentary, p. 161. Hyatt, 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).
27
Childs, The Book of Exodus, p. 168. See also Greenberg, Understanding Exodus, p.
202.
98
The author's view may be found in The Religion and Culture of Israel, 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 Biblical
Literature, 83:397-403, December, 1964; George W. Coats, "The Traditio-Historical Character
of the Reed Sea Motif," Vetus Testamentum, 17:253-265, July, 1967; Brevard S. Childs, "A
Traditio-Historical Study of the Reed Sea Tradition," Vetus Testamentum, 20:406-418,
October, 1970; and Dale Patrick, "Traditio-History of the Reed Sea Account," Vetus
Testamentum, 26:248-249, April, 1976. See also Childs, The Book of Exodus, pp. 215,
223-224; and Hyatt, Commentary on Exodus, pp. 156-161.
80
Rylaarsdam, IB, 1:935.
81
Frank Michaeli, Le Livre de LExode, "Commentaire de L'Ancien Testament" (Paris:
Delachaux & Niestle, 1974), p. 128.
482
REVIEW AND EXPOSITOR
82
Sites varying from the northern Gulf of Suez (or an inland extension thereof), an inland
body of water such as Lake Timsah, the western shores of the Sirbonian Sea, or the northern
tip of the Gulf of Aqabah have been suggested.
88
See analyses of x. 14 by Childs, The Book of Exodus, pp. 218-221; Noth, Exodus, A
Commentary, pp. 102-126; and Rylaarsdam, IB, 1:932-939.
84
Noth, Exodus, A Commentary, pp. 121-122. Noth judges chapter 15 to be relatively
late, although he accepts verse 21 as the oldest part of the chapter. F. M. Cross, Jr., and
David 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 and
Christ: 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 of
chapter 15. Buber, Moses, p. 74, states that "A song dating back to the time of Moses is
preserved in Exodus xv, 21."
88
Davies, Exodus, p. 124. See also Leandre Boisvert, "Le Passage de la Mer des Roseaux
et la Foi d' Israel," Science et Esprit, 27:147-159, May-September, 1975.
88
See Hyatt, Commentary on Exodus, pp. 148-149.
87
See 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.
88
The Ugaritic texts do not recount this struggle in full. See G. R. Driver, Canaanite
Myths and Legends, "Old Testament Studies" (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1956), III, 13-14,
80-83.
40
See The Religion and Culture of Israel, pp. 198-223.
41
Genesis 1:6-10 and Psalm 74:13-14. See T. H. Gaster, Thespis (New York: Harper
Torchbooks, 1966), pp. 142-148, for suggestions of passages from which the biblical myth may
be pieced together.
42
Georg Beer, "Exodus," Handbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. Otto Eissfeldt (Tubingen:
J. C. . Mohr, 1939), III, 12.
48
The Baal-zephon reference of Ex. 14:2 apparently referred to a Baal sanctuary. See Otto
Eissfeldt, 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 Des
Antiquits De L'Egypt, 40:433-460, 1941.
44
James 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.
47
Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York:
Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1962), 1:122.
48
In 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 the
affliction of our fathers in Egypt and hear their cry at the Red Sea . . . And thou didst divide
the sea before them, so that they went through the midst of the sea on dry land; and thou
didst 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 develop-
ment should be considered by the reader as regards the dynamic character of Israel's faith.
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically 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 specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright 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 previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection 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 American
Theological Library Association.