Red Sea Stories Divided.

by peacefulpete 5 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  Most of what follows may be new to some but well established by scholarship for well over a hundred years.

  Anyone reading the Genesis stories of creation and the flood are struck by the way two versions of the story have been literally stitched together. The Documentary Hypothesis formalized this recognition by assigning names to the sources in Genesis and Exodus as, J,E,P and a Redactor R. While there have been suggested refinements this basic model has stood.

  In the story of the Red (reed) Sea we see the same work of the brilliant redactor preserving traditions of the Jews by stitching together what were once separate versions. Thankfully he wrote his composition without losing much of each of the versions so that today they can be separated and each read on their own.

  First of all, yes the Hebrew words (Yam Suph) is properly translated 'reed sea' or 'sea of reeds'. This is not in dispute. This is consistently the expression in all the versions and the retellings in the OT. So right off, drop the Red Sea from your mind, the legend has a body of water with reeds that is not named or cannot be identified. (tho countless efforts have been made).

  On to the story in Ex 14.

  As it reads, just like the creation and flood stories, there are odd internal reversals (Move!, stand still!) and duplicate statements (doublets). There are also 2 unique terminology usages consistent with the other evidence in support of the restoration below using Richard Friedman’s translation .

  The version by J:

  9And Egypt pursued them. 10bAnd the children of Israel raised their eyes, and here was Egypt coming after them, and they were very afraid. 13And Moses said to the people: “Don’t be afraid. Stand still and see Yahweh’s salvation that he’ll do for you today! For as you’ve seen Egypt today, you’ll never see them again. 14Yahweh will fight for you, and you’ll keep quiet!” 19bAnd the column of cloud went from in front of them and stood behind them. 20bAnd there was the cloud and darkness [for the Egyptians], while the column of fire lit the night [for the Israelites], and one did not come near the other all night.
  21bAnd Yahweh drove back the sea with a strong east wind all night and turned the sea into dry ground.(harabah) 24And it was in the morning watch, and Yahweh gazed at Egypt’s camp through a column of fire and cloud and threw Egypt’s camp into tumult. 25bAnd Egypt said: “Let me flee from Israel, because Yahweh is fighting for them against Egypt.” 27bAnd the sea went back to its strong flow toward morning, and Egypt was fleeing toward it. And Yahweh tossed the Egyptians into the sea. 30And Yahweh saved Israel from Egypt’s hand that day. And Israel saw Egypt dead on the seashore.

  Notice in this version the Israelites do not cross through the seabed at all. Rather they follow Moses' directive and remain silent and stand still on the shore. Yahweh sends a wind over the entire night that gradually recedes the sea waters. The encamped Egyptians, blinded by darkness and throw into a panic by the gaze of Yahweh, flee the wrong way, toward the sea, they enter the empty seabed dry ground (harabah) unaware due to the darkness, that the waters are returning, Yahweh through this deceptive means tosses the Egyptians into the sea where they drown. The Israelites having not moved from the seashore, then see the dead bodies from there vantage point.

  The version by P:

  8And Yahweh strengthened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued the children of Israel. And the children of Israel were going out boldly. 9bAnd every chariot horse of Pharaoh and his horsemen and his army caught up to them camping by the sea at Pi-Hahiroth, in front of Baal-Zephon. 10aAnd Pharaoh came close. 10cAnd the children of Israel cried out to Yahweh.
  15And Yahweh said to Moses: “Why do you cry out to me? Speak to the children of Israel that they should move. 16And you, lift your staff and reach your hand out over the sea, and split it! And the children of Israel will come through the sea on dry ground. (yabbashah) 17And I am strengthening Egypt’s heart and they will come after them, and I’ll be glorified against Pharaoh and against all his army, his chariots, and his horsemen. 18And Egypt will know that I am Yahweh when I’m glorified against Pharaoh and against his chariots and his horsemen.”
  21aAnd Moses reached his hand out over the sea. 21cAnd the water was split. 22And the children of Israel came through the sea on dry ground (yabbashah). And the water was a wall to them at their right and at their left. 23And Egypt pursued and came after them, every horse of Pharaoh, his chariots, and his horsemen, through the sea.
  26And Yahweh said to Moses: “Reach your hand out over the sea and the water will go back over Egypt, over his chariots and over his horsemen.” 27And Moses reached his hand out over the sea. 28And the waters went back and covered the chariots and the horsemen, all of Pharaoh’s army who were coming after them in the sea. Not even one of them was left. 29And the children of Israel had gone on the dry ground (yabbashah) through the sea, and the water had been a wall to them at their right and at their left.

  Here we have a very different version where the sea is split left and right immediately by the staff of Moses being raised (not gradually receded by a wind). The Israelites are not told to stand still but to go! They run across on dry ground (yabbashah) and the Egyptians follow (no cloud of darkness or pillar of light). When the Israelites get to the other side Moses again raises his staff and the waters fall back and drown the Egyptians.

  A careful reader will notice a couple elements from the present composite text remain. Generally these are seen as pieces of yet another version of the story by E. This was likely incorporated into the J narrative prior to the redactors blending with the P narrative. These fragments are:

  11And they said to Moses, “Was it from a lack of no graves in Egypt that you took us to die in the wilderness? What is this that you’ve done to us to bring us out of Egypt? 12Isn’t this the thing that we spoke to you in Egypt, saying ‘Stop! And let’s serve Egypt, because serving Egypt is better for us than dying in the wilderness!'”19And the angel of God who was going in front of the camp of Israel moved and went behind them.

  What we have left of this version incorporates an angel somehow. I wish we have more of it left for comparison.
  
• 

  dropoffyourkeylee

  The latest copy of BAR (Biblical Archaeology Review) came in the mail last week and an article about Egyptian roads got me thinking about the Red Sea tale. One of their major roads from the Nile Delta to the Levant was on a sort of peninsula that was reclaimed from the Mediterranean as the sea level went down. Makes me wonder if the Red Sea story is a memory of them travelling along such a road and escaping because of a rise in sea level due to tide, weather, or some other reason.
• 

  KalebOutWest

  The Jewish Study Bible notes a lot of this in its introduction to chapter 14 of Exodus. It states:

  The crossing of the Sea of Reeds. The composite nature of this narritive is indicated by inconsistencies and redundancies. For example, God's stiffening Pharaoh's heart to chase the Israelites (vv. 8-9) is redundant after Pharaoah has already decided to give chase (vv. 5-7). V. 19a says that the angel leading the Israelites moves to their rear, while 19b says that it was the cloud. V. 21b (through "dry ground") presents a relatively naturalistic picture of God causing a strong wind to blow back the waters of the sea, while the remainder of the v. and v. 22 present a more miraculous picture of the sea splitting, with the waters forming walls on either side of the Israelites. Source critics assign the components of the narrative to J, E, and P.

  The inconsistancies are used my the redactor in a creative way, the editors note to fabricate a religious myth.

  By skillfully combining the sources, the redactor has harmonized the differences so as to show, for example, that Pharaoh's independent decision to pursue the Israelites is, in a mysterious way, carrying out God's plan (cf. v. 4), that the cloud is indeed the angel, and that God used the natural means of the wind to carry our His miraculous splitting of the sea.

  While the honesty is very refreshing, one cannot imagine anything like this ever appearing in an edition of the New World Translation or the Insight to the Scriptures.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Kaleb....I can't imagine it will ever be possible to speak definitively about details, (such as the angel reference) The Redactor no doubt slipped segues into the composition to facilitate the flow, how much theological content he introduced is a matter of debate.

  dropoffyourketlee....Countless efforts to locate the scene on a map have led to as many suggestions. The way I read it, and the various retellings, is that some thought of the sea of reeds as in the southern Arabian Peninsula while others envisioned it much futher north just east of the Jordan by Mt Zaphon. (Ex 14:2).

  Ultimately the legend serves a theological purpose, both the mastery over chaos motif by the storm god often repeated in the region, and more importantly to later generations, as an origin story that culturally separated the Israelites from the Canaanites. As such it might be a mistake to reconstruct a historical foundation at all. Others disagree of course and will keep trying.
• 

  peacefulpete

  We didn't touch the versions incorporated into the songs of Moses and Miriam in chapter 15. Now while many would date them very early because of the use of archaic Hebrew, others see that as typical of the genre. Who knows. Vs 1-18 are the song of Moses and 20-21 are the song of Miriam.

  . In these songs Yahweh destroys the Pharoah and his army by throwing them into the sea. Nothing about Israel passing through the sea. A notable omission that the redactor 'corrected' in vs 19.
• 

  KalebOutWest

  Except for the Chasdic Jews and those outside of Modern Orthodoxy, Judaism generally accepts that the Exodus isn't history and that Moses was not a historical figure.

  While I remember the days of watching so many proudly answering questions in the Kingdom Hall during the Watchtower Study (back in my day we still used the paper versions of magazines--I'm in my 50s, don't judge me), and I would watch parents offering their children that (awfully illustrated) Bible Stories book, teaching them how this was all true, true, true--myself being born Jewish and now a Reconstructionist I still see remnants of this even in what is supposed to be the more "enlightened" liberal Jewish movements.

  And I'm not even mentioning what happens in Hillel for example when an Orthodox Yeshiva boy learns from a professor exactly what you are discussing (because professors in Orthodox seminaries do tell their students more or less what you are saying and, reportedly, students literally go crying to their rabbis that "this can't be true").

  But often, I've noticed, since the Reform movement made a turn in 1999 to adopt Jewish cutoms as "a response to secularism" (whatever that is supposed to mean), I've heard some of their rabbis say odd things that make them suggest that one can now choose--at least in the Reform movement--to believe that the Exodus really did happen.

  They never used to do that in their particular branch of Judaism. Like our own and the Conservative and even Modern Orthodox Judaism, the Exodus (as you have noted from reading even just a little of the footnotes from the NJPS Bible) is a redaction of mythology, legend, and folklore, all set in an order to teach the Torah. There is a reflection of something historical, but not a Jewish history--someone else's perhaps.

  I am glad you touched on the Song of Miriam here. It is noted for being very ancient, the oldest litrugical song in Judaism (liturgical isn't the same as "historical"). But I was visiting a Reform synagogue the other day when it was being read, and the rabbi suggested we (the Jews) have been singing it since we (the Jews) crossed the Sea of Reeds.

  I found that disturbing. I thought back to my days in the Kingdom Hall and crossed reference to my days in Hebrew School. We were taught critical scholarship in Hebrew school--that the Song is old, but because it is an old liturgical prayer, from maybe pre-Temple days, when there was just a shrine. But not that there was ever a sea-crossing event. It was designed to be sung to celebrate the Passover or maybe not even that, probably the Festival of Booths and that people had water to drink. It is the Song of Miriam, and Miriam is associated with wells of water that would be found in the desert, and the legends were as she was a prophet, she would lead the people to these oasis spots and the song would be sung in honor of that.

  The legend from oasis spot crossings, from water spot to water spot, changed from crossing the Sea of Reeds, from Egypt to Sinai, from the female prophet Miriam being the leader to life to her brother Moses to freedom, all this as time went on. And that is what is believed happened and how we got her song placed after the crossing of the Sea of Reeds (and how we know it is not historical).

  But I am not sure what to make of seeing hundreds upon hundreds of people just sitting there and listening to this rabbi and saying nothing in this Reform temple. This doesn't happen in the setting I am used to. People would have started chocking in their seats (not to mention tried to choke the rabbi afterwards) in a Reconstructionist setting. (I did not return, of course, even though the food was good. Jews love a good spread.)

  I may have heard it wrong when he said what he said, but I don't think I did. I just kind of froze, and all I could think of was see a pair of JW children and that ugly Book Stories book with that yellow cover (and those flat, horribly drawn faces).

  Please continue to post things like this. People need to know things these things. It's second nature to me, but for exJWs and many JWs who read this site who don't get exposed to the right materials, it's important eye-opening material. It's great that you are doing all this research.