the Week of Proper 19 / Ordinary 24
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
(Gr. ῎Εξοδος, an exit; in the Hebrew canon וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת, ve-l'leh shemoth', its initial words, or simply שְׁמוֹת; in the Masora to Genesis 24:8 called נזיקין see Buxt. Lex. Talm. col. 1325; Vulig. Exodus), the second book of the law or Pentateuch, so called from the principal event recorded in it, namely, the departure of the Israelites from Egpyt. (See EXODE). With this book begins the proper history of that people, continuing it until their arrival at Sinai, and the erection of the sanctuary there.
I. Contents. —
1. Preparation for the Deliverance of Israel from their Bondage in Eyypt. — This first section (Exodus 1:50-12:36) contains an account of the following particulars: The great increase of Jacob's posterity in the land of Egypt, and their oppression under a new dynasty which occupied the throne after the death of Joseph (chapter 1); the birth, education, and flight of Moses (chapter 2); his solemn call to be the deliverer of his people (Exodus 3:1 to Exodus 4:17), and his return to Egypt in consequence (Exodus 4:18-31); his first ineffectual attempt to prevail upon Pharaoh, to let the Israelites go, which only resulted in an increase of their burdens (Exodus 5:1-21); a farther preparation of Moses and Aaron for their office, together ewith the account of their genealogies (Exodus 5:22 to Exodus 7:7); the successive signs and wonders, by means of which the deliverance of Israel from the land of hondage is at length accomplished, and the institution of the Passover (Exodus 7:8 to Exodus 12:36).
2. Narrative of Events from the Departure out of Egypt to the Arrival of the Israelites at Mount Sin ai.We have in this section
(a.) the departure and (mentioned in connection with it) the injunctions then given respecting the Passover and the sanctification of the first- born (Exodus 12:37 to Exodus 13:16); the march to the Red Sea, the passage through it, and the destruction of Pharaoh and his host in the midst of the sea, together with Moses's song of triumph upon the occasion (Exodus 13:17 to Exodus 15:21);
(b.) the principal events on the journey from the Red Sea to Sinai, the bitter waters at Marah, the giving of quails and of the manna, the observance of the Sabbath, the miraculous supply of water from the rock at Rephidim, and the battle there with the Amalekites (Exodus 15:22 to Exodus 17:16); the arrival of Jethro in the Israelitish camp, and his advice as to the civil government of the people (18).
3. The Solemn Establishment of the Theocracy on Mount Sinai. — The people are set apart to God as "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Exodus 19:6); the ten commandments are given, and the laws which are to regulate the social life of the people are enacted (Exodus 21:1 to Exodus 23:19); an angel is promised as their guide to the Promised Land, and the covenant between God and Moses, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy elders, as the representatives of the people, is most solemnly ratified (Exodus 23:20 to Exodus 24:18); instructions are given respecting the tabernacle, the ark, the mercy-seat, the altar of burnt-offering, the separation of Aaron and his sons for the priest's office, the vestments which they are to wear, the ceremonies to be observed at their consecration, the altar of incense, the laver, the holy oil, the selection of Bezaleel and Ahmoliab for the work of the tabernacle, the observance of the Sabbath and the delivery of the two tables of the law into the hands of Moses (Exodus 25:1 to Exodus 31:18); the sin of the people in the matter of the golden calf, their rejection in consequence, and their restoration to God's favor at the intercession of Moses (Exodus 32:1 to Exodus 34:35); lastly, the construction of the tabernacle, and all pertaining to its service in accordance with the injunctions previously given (Exodus 35:1 to Exodus 40:38).
This book, in shout, gives a sketch of the early history of Israel as a nation: and the history has three clearly marked stages. First we see a nation enslaved; next a nation redeemed; lastly a nation set apart, asnd, through the blending of its religious and political life, consecrated to the service of God. The close literarv connection between the books of Genesis and Exodus is clearly marked by the Hebrew conjunctive particle ו (vay), "and," with which the latter begins, and still more by the recapitulation of the name of Jacob's sons who accompanied him to Egypt, abridged from the fuller account in Genesis 46:8-17. Still the book of Exodus is not a continuation in strict chronological sequence of the preceding history; for a very considerable interval is passed over in silence, saving only the remark, "And the children of Israel were fruitful and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and eaxed exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them" (Exodus 1:7). The pretermission of all that, concerned Israel during this period and their intercourse with the Egyptians, instead of being an indication, as Rationalists allege, of the fragmentary character of the Pentateuch, only shows the sacred purpose of the history, and that, in the plan of the writer, considerations of a merely political interest were entirely subordinate to the divine intentions already partially unfolded in Genesis, and to be still farther developed in the course of the present narrative regarding the national constitution of the seed of Abraham.
II. Unity. — According to Von Lengerke (Kenaan, 88, 90), the following portions of the book belong to the original or Elohistic document: Exodus 1:1-14; Exodus 2:23-25; Exodus 6:2 to Exodus 7:7; Exodus 12:1-28; Exodus 12:37-38; Exodus 12:40-51 (Exodus 13:1-2, perhaps); 16; Exodus 19:1; Exodus 20; Exodus 25-31; Exodus 35-40. Stihelin (Krit. Unterss.) and De Wette (Einleitung) agree in the main with this division. Knobel, the most recent writer on the subject, in the introduction to his commentary on Exodus and Leviticus, has sifted these books still muore carefully and with regard to many passages has formed a different judgment. He assigns to the Elohist: Exodus 1:1-7; Exodus 1:13-14; Exodus 2:23-25, front ויאנחו, Exodus 6:2 to Exodus 7:7; except Exodus 6:8; Exodus 7:8-13; Exodus 7:19-22; Exodus 8:1-3; Exodus 8:11 from ולא, and Exodus 8:12-15; Exodus 9:8-12; Exodus 9:35; Exodus 11:9-10; Exodus 12:1-23; Exodus 12:28; Exodus 12:37 a, Exodus 12:40-51; Exodus 13:1-2; Exodus 13:20; Exodus 14:1-4; Exodus 14:8-9; Exodus 14:15-18 (except מה תצעק אלי in Exodus 14:15, and מט ָונטה את in Exodus 14:16), Exodus 14:21-23, and Exodus 14:26-29 (except Exodus 14:27 from וישב ); Exodus 15:19; Exodus 15:22-23; Exodus 15:27; Exodus 16:1-2; Exodus 16:9-26; Exodus 16:31-36; Exodus 17:1; Exodus 19:2 a; Exodus 19:25 to Exodus 31:1; Exodus 31:12-17 in the main; Exo 35:50-40:38.
A mere comparison of the two lists of passages selected by these different writers as belongiuug to the original document is sufficient to show how very uncertain all such critical processes must be. The first, that of Lengerke, is open to many objections, which have been arged by Havernick (Einleit. in der Pent. § 117), Ranke, and others. Thus, for instance, 6:6, which all agree in regarding as Elohistic, speaks of great judgments ( מַשְׁפָּטַים גְּדֹלַים in the plural), wherewith God would redeem Israel, and yet not a word is said of these in the so-called original document. Again, Exodus 12:12; Exodus 12:23; Exodus 12:27 contains the announcement of the destruction of the first-born of Egypt, but the fulfillment of the threat is to be found, according to the critics, only in the later Jehovistic additions. Hupfeld has tried to escape this difficulty by supposing that the original documents did contain an account of the slaying of the first-born, as the institution of the Passover in 12:12, etc., has clearly a reference to it: only he will not allow that the story as it now stands is that account. But even then the difficulty is only partially removed, for thus one judgment only is mentioned, not many (Exodus 6:6). Knobel has done his best to obviate this glaring inconsistency. Feeling no doubt that the ground taken by his predecessors was not tenable, he retains as a part of the originual work much which they had rejected. It is especially worthy of notice that he considers sonue at least of the miraculous portions of the story to belong to the older document, and so accounts for the expression in 6:6. The changing of Aaron's rod into a serpent, of the waters of the Nile into blood, the plague of frogs, of musquitoes (A.V. lice), and of boils, and the destruction of the first-born, are, according to Knobel, Elohistic. He points out what he considers here links of connection, and a regular sequence in the narrative. He bids us observe that Jehovah always addresses Moses, and that Moses directs Aaron howe to act. The miracles, then, are arranged in order of importance: first there is the sign which serves to accredit the mission of Aaron; next follow three plagues, which, however, do not touch men, sand these are sent through the instrumentality of Aaron; the fourth plague is a plague upon man, and here Moses takes the most prominent part; the fifth and last is accomplished by Jehovah himself. Thus the miracles increase in intensity as they go on. The agents likewise rise in dignity. If Aaron with his rod of might begins the work, he gives way afterwards to his greater brother, whilst for the last act of redemption Jehovah employs he human agency, but himself with a mighty hand and outstretched arm effects the deliverance of his people. The passages thus selected have no doubt a sort of connection, but it is in the highest degree arbitrary to conclude that because portions of a work may be omnitted without seriously disturbing the sense, these portions do not belong to the original Work, but must be regarded as subsequent embellishments and additions.
Again, all agree in assigning chapters 3 and 4 to the Jehovist. The call of Moses, as there described, is said to be merely the Jehovistic parallel to Exodus 6:2 to Exodus 7:7. Yet it seems improbable that the Elohist should introduce Moses with the bare words, "And God spake to Moses" (Exodus 6:2), without a single word as to the previous history of so remarkable a man. So argues Havernick, and, as it appears to us, not without reason. It will be observed that none of these critics attempt to make the divine names a criterion whereby to distinguish the several documents. Thus, in the Jehovistic portion (Exodus 1:15-22), De Wette is obliged to remark, with a sort of uneasy candor, "but Exodus 1:17; Exodus 1:20, Elohim (?)," and again (Exodus 3:4; Exodus 3:6; Exodus 3:11-15), "here seven times Elohim." In other places there is the same difficulty as in Exodus 19:17; Exodus 19:19, which Stahelin, as well as Knobel, gives to the Jehovist. In the passages in chapters 7, 8, 9, which Knobel classes in the earlier record, the name Jehovah occurs throughout. It is obvious, then, that there must be other means of determining the relative antiquity of the different portions of the book, or the attempt to ascertain which are earlier and which are later must entirely fail.
Accordingly, certain peculiarities of style are supposed to be characteristic of the two documents. Thus, for instance, De Wette (Einl. § 151, S. 183) appeals to פרה ורבה, Exodus 1:7; בעצ μ הי הזה Exodus 12:17; Exodus 12:41; ברית הסים, Exodus 6:4; the formula וירבר יי אל משה לאמר Exodus 25:1; Exodus 30:11, etc.; צבאות, Exodus 6:26; Exodus 7:4; Exodus 12:17; Exodus 12:41; Exodus 12:51; בין הערבים, Exodus 12:6; Exodus 29:41; Exodus 30:8, and other expressions, as decisive of the Elohist. Stahelin also proposes on very similar grounds to separate the first fr(om the second legislation. "Wherever," he says, "I find mention of a pillar of fire, or of a cloud (Exodus 33:9-10), or an 'angel of Jehovah,' as Exodus 23, 24, or the phrase 'flowing with milk and honey,' as Exodus 13:5; Exodus 33:3 ... where nmention is made of a coming down of God, as Exodus 34:5, or where the Canaanitish nations are numbered, or the tabernacle supposed to be without the camp (Exodus 33:7), I feel tolerably certain that I am reading the words of the author of the second legislation (i.e., the Jehovist)." But these nice critical distinctions are very precarious, especially in a stereoty-ped language like the Hebrew.
Unfortunately, too, dogmatical prepossessions have been allowed some share in the controversy. De Wette and his school chose to set down everything which savored of a miracle as proof of later authorship. The love of the marvelous, which is all they see in the stories of miracles, according to them could not have existed in an earlier and simpler age. But on their oen hypothesis this is a very extraordinary view; for the earlier traditions of a people are not generally the least wonderful, but the reverse; and one cannot thus acquit the second eriter of a design in embellishing his narrative. However, this is not the place to argue with those who deny the possibility of a miracle, or who make the narration of miracles proof sufficient of later authorship. Into this error Knobel, it is true, has not fallen. By admitting some of the plagues into his Elohistic catalogue, he shows that he is at least free from the dogmatic prejudices of critics like De Wette. But his own critical tests are not conclusime. And the way in which he cuts verses to pieces, as in Exodus 8:11, and Exodus 13:15-16, where it suits his purpose, is so completely arbitrary, and results so evidently from the stern constraint of a theory, that his labors in this direction are not more satisfactory than those of his predecessors.
On the whole, there seems mumch reason to doubt whether critical acumen will ever be able plausibly to distinguish between the original and the supplement in the book of Exodus. There is nothing indeed forced or improbable in the supposition either that Moses himself incorporated in his memoil a ancient tradition, whether oral or written, or that a writer later thant Moses made use of materials left by the great legislator in a somewhat fragmentary form. There is an occasional abruptness in the narrative, which suggests that this may possibly have been the case, as in the introduction of the genealogy, Exodus 6:13-27. The remarke in Exodus 11:3; Exodus 16:35-36, lead to the same conclusion. The apparent confusion at 11:1-3 may be explained by regarding these verses as parenthetical. Inasmuch, lowever, as there exists no definite proof or knowledge of any later editor, except it he Joshua or Ezra, to whom isolated and unimportant additions may be attributed, we are not warranted in attributing the book to any other author than Moses. (See PENTATEUCH).
III. Credibility. — Almost every historical fact mentioned in Exodus has at some time or other been called in question; but it is certain that all investigation has hitherto only tended to establish the veracity of the narrator. A comparison with other writers and an examination of the monuments confirm, or at least do not contradict, the most material statements of this book. Thus, for instance, Manetho's story of the Hyksos, questionable as much of it is, and differently as it has been interpreted by different writers, points at least to some early connection between the Israelites and the Egyptians, and is corroborative of the fact implied in the Pentateuch that, at the time of the Israelitish sojourn, Egypt was ruled by a foreign dynasty. (See EGYPT). Manetho speaks, too, of strangers from the East who occupied the eastern part of Lower Egypt; and his account shows that the Israelites had become a numerous and formidable people. According to Exodus 12:37, the number of men, besides women and children, who left Egypt was 600,000. This would give for the whole nation about two millions and a half. There is no doubt some difficulty in accounting for this immense increase, if we suppose (as on many accounts seems probable) that the actual residence of the children of Israel was only 215 years. We must remember, indeed, that the number who went into Egypt with Jacob was considerably more than "threescore and ten souls" (See CHRONOLOGY); we must also take into account the extraordinary fruitfulness of Egypt (concerning which all writers are agreed — Strabo, 15:478; Aristot. Hist. Anim. 7:4; Pliny, H. N. 7:3; Seneca, Qu. Nat. 3:25, quoted by Halvernick), and especially of that part of it in which the Israelites dwelt; and, finally, we must take into the account the "mixed multitude" that accompanied the Israelites (Exodus 12:38).
According to De Wette, the story of Moses's birth is mythical, and arises from an attempt to account etymologically for his name. But the beautiful simplicity of the narrative places it far above the stories of Romulus, Cyrus, and Semiramis, with which it has been compared (Knobel, page 14). As regards the etymology of the name, there can be very little doubt that it is Egyptian (from the Copt. mo, "water," and si, "to take"), and if so, the author has merely played upon the name. But this does not prove that the whole story is nothing but a myth. Philology as a science is of very modern growth, and the truth of history does not stand or fail with the explanation of etymologies. The same remark applies to De Wette's objection to the etymology in 2:22.
Other objections are of a very arbitrary kind. Thus Knobel thinks the command to destroy the male children (1:15 sq.) extremely improbable, because the object of the king was not to destroy the people, but to make use of them as slaves. To require the midwives to act as the enemies of their own people, and to issue an injunction that every son born of Israelitish parents should be thrown into the Nile, was a piece of downright madness of which he thinks the king would not be guilty. But we do not know that the midwives were Hebrew; they may have been Egyptian; and kings, like other slave-owners, may act contrary to their interest in obedience to their fears or their passions; indeed, Knobel himself compares the story of king Bocchoris, who commanded all the unclean in his land to be cast into the sea (Lysim. ap. Josephus, c. Apion. 1:34), and the destruction of the Spartan helots (Plutarch, Lycnrg. 28). He objects further that it is not easy to reconcile such a command with the number of the Israelites at their exode. But we suppose that in very many instances the command of the king would be evaded, and probably it did not long continue in force.
Again, De Wette objects to the call of Moses that he could not have thus formed the resolve to become the savior of his people, which, as Havernick justly remarks, is a dogmatical, not a critical decision.
It has been alleged that the place, according to the original narrative, where God first appeared to Mosi was Egypt, God making himself known as Jehovah, that being the first intimation of the name (Exodus 6:2). Another account, it is further alleged, places the scene at Horeb (Exodus 3:2), God appearing as the God of the patriarchs (Exodus 3:6), and declaring his name Jehovah (Exodus 3:14); while a third makes Midian the scene of the interview (Exodus 4:19). These assumptions require no refutation. It need only be remarked that the name Jehovah in Exodus 6:2 necessarily presupposes the explanation given of it in Exodus 3:14. Further, Moses's abode in Midian, and connection with Jethro, were matters, Knobel affirms, quite unknown to the older writer, while his statement that Moses was eighty years old when he appeared before Pharaoh (Exodus 7:7), is declared irreconcilable with the supplementary narrative which represents him as a young man at the time of his flight from Egypt (Exodus 2:11), and a son by Zipporah, whom he married probably on his arrival in Midian, is still young when he returned to Egypt (Exodus 4:20; Exodus 4:25; Exodus 18:2). There can be no question that from Moses' leaving Egypt till his return thither a considerable time elapsed. It is stated in Exodus 2:23 as "many days," and by Stephen (Acts 7:30) as forty years. But it is not necessary to suppose that his abode in Midian extended over the whole, of that period. The expression וִיֵּשֶׁב, "he sat down," or settled (Exodus 2:15), may only point to Midian as the end of his wanderings; or if otherwise, his marriage need not have followed immediately on his arrival, or there may have been a considerable interval between the birth of his two sons. The silence, indeed, of this part of the narrative regarding the birth of the second son may possibly be referrible to this circumstance, more probably indicated, however, by the different feelings of the father as expressed in the names Gershom and Eliezer (Exodus 2:22; Exodus 18:4). The order of these names is perplexing to expositors who conceive that the first thoughts of the fugitive would have been thankfulness for his safety, and that only afterwards would spring up the feelings of exile. But if the name Eliezer was bestowed in connection with the preparation to return to Egypt, and particularly with the intimation "all the men are dead which sought thy life" (Exodus 4:19), the whole is strikingly consistent. Another instance of the alleged discrepancies is that, according to one account, Moses' reception from his brethren was very discouraging (Exodus 6:9), whereas the other narrative describes it as quite the reverse (Exodus 4:31). De Wette calls this a striking contradiction, but it is only such when the intermediate section (Exodus 5:19-23), which shows the change that in the interval had occurred in the prospects of the Israelites, is violently ejected from the narrative — a process fitted to produce contradictions in any composition. (See MOSES).
The only alleged anachronism of importance in this book is the remark relative to the continuance of the manna (Exodus 16:35), which would seem to extend it beyond the time of Moses, particularly when compared with Joshua 5:11-12, according to which the manna ceased not until after the passage of the Jordan. But, as remarked by Hengstenberg, it is not of the cessation of the manna that the historian here writes, but of its continuance. Besides, "forty years" must be taken as a round number, for the manna, strictly speaking, lasted about one month less (Exodus 16:1). (See MANNA).
The ten plagues are physically, many of them, what might be expected in Egypt, although in their intensity and in their rapid succession they are clearly supernatural. Even the order in which they occur is an order in which physical causes are allowed to operate. The corruption of the river is followed by the plague of frogs. From the dead frogs are bred the gnats and flies; from these came the murrain among the cattle land the bolls on men; and so on. Most of the plagues, indeed, though of course in a much less aggravated form, and without such succession, are actually experienced at this day in Egypt. Of the plague of locusts it is expressly remarked that "before them were no such locusts, neither after them shall be such." And all travelers in Egypt have observed swarms of locusts, brought generally by a southwest wind (Denon, however, mentions their coming with an east wind), end in the winter or spring of the year. This last fact agrees also with our narrative. Lepsius speaks of being in a "regular snow-drift of locusts," which came from the desert in hundreds of thousands to the valley. "At the edge of the fruitful plain," he says, "they fell down in showers." This continued for six days, indeed in weaker flights much uonger. He also saw hail in Egypt. In January, 1843, he and his party were surprised by a storm. "Suddenly," he writes, "the storm grew to a tremendous hurricane, such as I have never seen in Europe, and hail fell upon us in such masses as almost to turn day into night." He notices, too, an extraordinary cattle murrain "which carried off 40,000 head of cattle" (Letters from AEgypt, Eng. transl. pages 49, 27, 14). (See PLAGUES (OF EGYPT).)
The institution of the Passover (chapter 12) has been subjected to severe criticism. This has also been called a mythic fiction. The alleged circumstances are not historical, it is said, but arise out of a later attempt to explain the origin of the cememony and to refer it to the time of Moses. The critics rest mainly on the difference between the directions given for the observance of this the first, and those given for subsequent passovers. But there is no reason why, considering the very remarkable circumstances under which it was instituted, the first Passover should not have had its own peculiar solemnities, or why instructions should not then have been given for a somewhat different observance for the future. (See PASSOVER).
In minor details the writer shows a remarkable acquaintance with Egypt. Thus, for instance, Pharaoh's daughter goes to the river to bathe. At the present day, it is true that only women of the lower orders bathe in the river. But Herodotus (2:35) tells us (what we learn also from the monuments) that in ancient Egypt the women were under no restraint, but apparently lived more in public than the men. To this must be added that the Egyptians supposed a sovereign virtue to exist in the Nile waters. The writer spaks of chariots and "chosen chariots" (Exodus 14:7) as constituting an important element in the Egyptian army, and of the king as leading in person. The monuments amply confirm this representation. The Pharaohs lead their armies to battle, and the armies consist entirely of infantry and chariots. (See CHARIOT).
As the events of this history are laid in Egypt and Arabia, we have ample opportunity of testing the accuracv of the Mosaical accounts, and surely we find nowhere the least transgression against Egyptian institutions and customs; on the contrary, it is most evident that the author had a thorough knowledge of the Egyptian institutions and of the spirit that pervaded them. Exodus contains a mass of incidents and detailed descriptions which have gained new force from the modern discoveries and researches in the field of Egyptian antiquities (comp. Hengstenberg, Die Bucher Mosis und AEgypten, Berlin, 1841). The description of the passage of the Israelites through the desert also evinces such a thorough familiarity with the localities as to excite the utmost respect of scrupulous and salentific travelers of our own time for the authenticity of the Pentateuch (comp. ex. gr. Raumer, Der Zug der Israeliten aus Egypten nach Canaan, Leipz. 1837).
The arrangements of the tabernacle, described in the second part of Exodus, likewise throw a favorable light on the historical authenticity of the preceding events; and the least tenable of all the objections against it are, that the architectural arrangements of the tabernacle were too artificial, and the materialas and richness too costly and precious for the condition and position of the Jews at that early period, etc. But the critics seem to have overlooked the fact that the Israelites of that period were a people who had come out from Egypt, a people possessing wealth, Egyptian culture and arts, which we admire even nmow, in the works which have descended to us from ancient Egypt; so that it cannot seem strange to see the Hebrews in possession of the materials or artistic knowledge requisite for the construction of the tabernacle. Moreover, the establishment of a tent as a sanctuary for the Hebrews can only be explained from their abode in the desert, being in perfect unison with their then roving and nomadic life; and it is therefore a decided mistake in those critics who give to the sacred tent a later date than the Mosaical; while other critics (such as De Wette, Von Bohlen, Vatke) proceed much more consistently with their views by considering the narrative of the construction of a sacred tabernacle to be a mere fiction in Exodus, introduced for the purpose of ascribing to the Temple of Solomon a higher antiquity and authority. However, independently of the circumstance that the Temple necessarily presupposes the existence of a far older analogous sanctuary, the whole process of such a forced hypothesis is but calculated to strike out a portion from the Jewish history on purely arbitrary grounds.
The extremely simple and sober style and views throughout the whole narrative afford a sure guarantee for its authenticity and originality. Not a vestige of a poetical hand can b e discovered in Exodus 18; not even the most sceptical critics can deny that we tread here on purely historical ground. The same may fairly be maintained of chapter 20-23. How is it then possible that one and the same book should contain so strange a mixture of truth and fiction as its opponeemts assert to be found in it? The most striking proofs against such an assumption are, in particular, the accounts, such as in Exodus 32 sq., where the most vehement complaints are made against the Israelites, where the high-priest of the covenant- people participates most shamefully in the idolatry of his people. All these incidents are described in plaen and clear terms, without the least vestige of later embellishmemets and false extolling of former ages. The Pentatemmch, some critics assert, is written for the interest and in favor of the hierarchy; but can there be more anti-hierarchical details than are founed in that book? The whole representation indicates the strictest impartiality and truth.
IV. The authorship and date of the book will be discussed under PENTATEUCH.
V. (Commentaries, etc. — The following is a list of exegetical helps on the whole book, the most important being designated by an asterisk (*) prefixed: Origen, Commentarii (in Opp. 2:110); Selecta (ib. 2:121); also Homiliae (ib. 2:129); Ephraem Syrus, Explanatio (in his Opp. 4:194); Isidore, Commentaria (in his Opp.); Theodoret, Questiones (in his Opp. I, 1); Hugo a St. Victoire, Adnotationes (in his Opp. 1); Aben-Esra, Commentar. (Prague, 1840, 8vo); Bede, Explanatio (in his Opp. 4); Quastiones (ib. 8); Rupert, In Exodus (in his Opp. 1:150); Zuingle, Adnotationes (Tigurini, 1527); Brent, Commentatio (in his Opp. 1); Ziegler, Commentarii (Basil. 1540, fol.); Phrygio, Commentarius (Tub. 1543, 4to); Lippoman, Catena (Par. 1550; Leyd. 1657, fol.); Chytraeus, Enarrationes (Vitemb. 1556, 1563, 1579, 8vo); Galasius, Commentarias (Genev. 1560, fol.); Strigel, Commentarius (Lips. 1566, 1572; Brem. 1585, 8vo); Simler, Commentarius (Tigur. 1584, 1605, fol.); Ystella, Commentaria (Romans 1601, fol.); Pererius, Disputationes (Ingolst. 1601, 4to); *Mechilthea, Commentarius (in Ugolini Thesaurus, 14); Willet, Commentarie (London, 1608, 1622, 2 vols. fol.); Rung, Praelectiones (Vitemb. 1614, 8vgo); Babington, Notes (in Works, page 165); Reuter, Commentarius (Francf. 1616, 4to); *Rivetus, Commentarii (L.B. 1634, 4to); Jackson, Paraphrase (in Works, 9:384); De la Havy, Commentarii (Paris 1639, 1641, 2 volumes fol.); Lightfoot, Gleanings (Lond. 1643, 4to); Sylvius, Commentarius (Duac. 1644, 4to); Cartwright, Adnotationes (Lond. 1653, 8vo); Calixtus, Exposatio (Helmst. 1641, 1654, 4to); Cocceius, Observationes (in his Opp. 1:136); Hughes, Exposition (Lond. 1672, fol.); *Patrick, Commentary (Lond. 1697, 4to); Hagemann, Betrachtungen (Brunsw. 1738, 4to); Torellis, Animadversiones (Lips. 1746, 4to); Haitsma, Commentarii (Franc. 1771, 4to); Hopkins, Notes (London, 1784, 4to); *St. Cruce, Hermentia (Heidelb. 1787, 4to); *Horsley, Notes (in Bib. Criticism, 1:47); Cockburn, Credibility, etc. (Lond. 1809,8vo); *Rosenmuller, Scholia (Lips: 1822, 8vo); Newnham, Illustrations (Lond. n. d. 8vo); Vizard, Commentary (London, 1838, l2mo); Buddicom, Exodus (2d ed. Liverp. 1839, 2 volumes, 12mo); Trower, Sermone (Lond. 1843, 8vo); Kitto, Illustration (Daily Bible Illust. 2); *Bush, Notes (N.Y. 1852, 2 volumes, 12mo); Cumming, Readings (Lond. 1853, 8vo); *Kalisch, Commentary (London, 1855, 8vo); Osburn, Israel in Egypt (London, 1856, 12mo); *Knobel, Erkurung (Lpz. 1857, 8vo); Howard, Notes (Cambr. 1857, 8vo); *Keil and Delitzsch, Comment. (from their Bibelwerk, Edinb. 1861, 8vo); *Lanae, Comment. (in his Bibelwerk, 2, Lpz. 1864, 8vo); *Murphy, Comment. (Edinb. 1866, Andov. 1868, 8vo). (See OLD TESTAMENT).
These files are public domain.
McClintock, John. Strong, James. Entry for 'Exodus'. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature. https://www.studylight.org/​encyclopedias/​eng/​tce/​e/exodus.html. Harper & Brothers. New York. 1870.