A question on Exodus

M

mia1994

1,000+ Posts
So it has been close to 20 years since the last time I read Exodus so I decided to pick it up again (Actually, I'm planning on reading through most of the bible old and new testament). Immediately, I'm shocked by how much of the specifics I either missed or simply didn't pay attention to from this book on previous readings. It is simply a delightful book, but there are a number of points which seem to have a problem settling between my ears, and I was hoping to get some direction from some of the more religiously inclined on this board.

First, why does Moses lie to Pharaoh? It is not "Let my people go!" as we were taught, it is "Let my people go, so that they may celebrate a festival to God in the wilderness." (Ex 5:1) Moses was asking for a 3-day pass from their labors away from Egypt, but had no intentions of ever coming back. Moses had the full weight of God's wonders at his back, why did he need to misrepresent his intentions? This request is repeatedly reaffirmed (plagues 2, 4, 7, 8 & 9) even after it is clear that Moses & Aaron have Pharaoh by the short hairs. Why do they lie?

Second, why exactly does Pharaoh seek to impede the Israelite exodus? He fears Israelite prosperity and has concerns that they would turn on Egypt if presented with the opportunity. From Exodus 1, Pharaoh has commanded his people to throw Israelite male children into the Nile. The book says explicitly that the Israelites were put to labors to diminish their numbers. Clearly, pharaoh isn't shooting for a sustainable slave labor work force, so much as actively trying to kill Israelites. So he wants them gone, they want to be gone, it seems like Moses will and Pharaoh's are not in disharmony. The only conclusion I can come up with is that God simply won't let Pharaoh (hardens his heart), but that too is problematic. If the Egyptian's require punishment, why not simply let them be punished and have that be that?

Third, amongst biblical literalists how is plague 5 reconciled to plagues 7 and 10? In plague 5 (Ex 9.1-6) ALL livestock is killed. In plague 7 (Ex 9.19) Pharaoh is instructed to bring in his livestock or they will be killed by hail. In plague 10 (Ex 11:5), the cattle (or in other translations simply "livestock" or "beasts") are included in the plague of the firstborn. If plague 5 already took out all of the livestock, what is being refered to in the other two plagues?

Finally, again, a biblical literalist question... using biblical chronology the exodus occurred around 1450-1400 BC. Archeological chronology shows the first proto-Israelite constructions in Canaan around 1200 BC. The earliest scholarly dating of the exodus (which I am aware of) attempts to tie the Israelite exodus with the Hyksos expulsion in 1540-1530 BC. So it seems that everyone seems agreed that the Exodus would have occurred in the 300 years between 1550-1250 BC. This time span is all entirely within recorded history of the region. The Egyptians were relentless note takers and one would think that if, over the period of a few months all of Egypt's food was devastated (fish in plague 1, livestock in plague 5, crops in plagues 7 & 8), not to mention the massive loss of life (plagues 7 & 10) that it would have made it on to a stele somewhere. Why is there no record of the plagues or the reconstruction which would have had to have followed?

Understand, I don't need any part of the bible to be literally true to reconcile it to my beliefs. But I am curious how one would do that at all with the bottom two questions.
 
In answer to the last question: a lot of modern scholarship suggests that the Hyksos were a Semitic people, and that their invasion was more of a migration than anything else. I am by no means an expert, but that might be an angle to pursue if you're interested in learning more. I'd like to hear what you find if you do.
 
My inclusion of the Hyksos was to set a possible time range for the exodus, and demonstrate that regardless of which method you use to date the Exodus (separate from the Hyksos), you were still going to have it occur in Egypt during a time which people were recording their own history... and that the plagues (and subsequent reconstruction) which precede the Exodus from Egypt in the bible which are utterly devastating, is unrecorded in Egyptian history. That seems like a hard fact to reconcile to a literal interpretation of the bible.

That said, I'm very interested in the Hyksos in general. If they are not the Israelites, I suspect they ARE the people referenced in the Exodus. It is very telling to me that the Hyksos were driven out of Egypt by Ahmose sometime between 1540-1530, and that carbon dating of the soot on the walls of Jericho place the sacking and subsequent abandonment around 1550. All of the specific connections to the Israelites are wrong (they were not shepherds, they were not monotheistic, they were not slaves, etc), but the generalities are almost perfect. They are Semites which enter Egypt and immediately amass great power and wealth, they settle and create a capital in the NE corner of the Nile delta and after a few hundred years are expelled by the Egyptians. How perfect is that? Once removed from Egypt, they almost certainly either repatriated to Canaan, or at least passed through... and their history was going to be remembered by the people in the region. When a ruling Israelite monarchy starts to define itself +200 years later, why wouldn't they claim that story as their own, it may very well have been. Specifics were tweaked to make the narrative of the story more clear, as well as paint the divine right of the ascending monarchy. It is a very compelling argument as to how those pieces fit together... but it requires the bible to NOT be the literal truth.

Anywho, this is all my personal reactions to the connection between the Jews and the Hyksos. I am very interested in more information on the first 4 questions though.
 
mia,

First, the verb in Ex 5:1 means the following, which describes a permanent action based on the verb stem used in Hebrew, Piel.
“If a person was dismissed through the use of this verb, then he ceased to be within the power or sphere of influence of the individual who had dismissed him. He was completely free and subsequently acted entirely on his own responsibility”

So the purpose of the request was for the freedom of the Israelites. Celebrating a festival to God is what He wanted the Israelites to do with their new found freedom. Moses and Aaron are quoting what God had dictated to Moses previously. Also the 3 day’s journey was a statement of temporal duration for their absence. It was a description of the location for the celebration. Again the reasoning for this interpretation is due to the grammatical structure of the sentence where “journey” is an adverb describing “go” and “3 day’s” is another adverb qualifying the length of the journey. The intention was not for them to come back. It was a statement of what they were going to do with their freedom.

Second, I don’t think I can agree with the premise of your question. You correctly state Pharoah’s fears (Israel’s number) and his response (killing male children). However, I don’t see that Pharoah was necessarily trying to kill them off totally but to decrease the Israelite population to a manageable level. I think Pharoah did want to maintain a slave labor force. Why wouldn’t he? Ancient societies like the Egyptians were dependent on them for many things. He could have easily changed tactics later once the Israelite population had reached Pharoah’s desired level.

Third, the use of “all the livestock of the Egyptians died” in Ex 9:5 can be difficult to understand literally, I agree. There are 2 possibilities. The first is that “all” is not used in an absolute sense but a more general one meaning a very large majority died. This kind of use occurs in the prophets when God warns Israel/Judah that he will remove “all” of them from the land. In that case, “all” everyone except a very very small contingent of the very poorest Israelites which the Babylonians allowed to remain. For all practical purposes, the land was deserted though. In the same way, there could have been a small number of livestock left including first born after the plague. The other way “all” could be used is meaning “all kinds”. In verse 3, there is a list the kinds of livestock in Egypt including horses, donkeys, camels, herds, and flocks. Then in verse 5 “all” can be used to state that in fact all of the animals listed in verse 3 had received the plague.

Fourth, the lack of written records of the plagues/judgments of Exodus is curious. The only answer I could think of is from studying other parts of Egyptian history. They were very careful about recording statements which were against their set of gods. I would like to hear of any stele that recorded the victory over them of any god outside their pantheon. In one case, there was a king named Akenaten (probably misspelled). He departed from Egyptian orthodoxy by worshiping exclusively the sun god Aten. Traditionally Egyptian kings had worshipped Amun, the moon god. There are a few artifacts from Akenaten’s reign depicting him worshipping the sun disc. A hymn praising Aten also survived. However, the kings following Akenaten’s reign did a pretty good job of erasing the record of his rule and worship. Little is known about him due to it. I saw the exhibit showing these artifacts, and I think I remember reading that they were found very recently and in a difficult spot to find. I think it is reasonable to believe that because the Egyptians were so sensitive to role of religion in their government that they would have tried to erase any reference to YHWH judging them and sending plague after plague. Their response even to Aten, their own god, was extreme. I would expect an even more extreme and thorough response to YHWH.
 
why does Moses lie to Pharaoh? It is a moot point. No matter what Moses told him, Pharaoh would not let them go, because God said in the previous chapter, "but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go."
Who's to say that they wouldn't return had Pharaoh done it? But again, God knew it wouldn't happen.

why exactly does Pharaoh seek to impede the Israelite exodus? Cheap labor is hard to come by. He had a big ego and there was a lot of work to be done.

ALL livestock is killed. It doesn't say "all" livestock in Egypt, it says all livestock in the field. It says the same thing in both plagues. Besides, the ancients were not as literal as we are today. When they say all of pharoahs chariots drowned, it meant all that were there. Certainly they had chariots on other fronts.

9:3 Behold, the hand of the LORD is upon thy cattle which [is] in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep: [there shall be] a very grievous murrain.

... that it would have made it on to a stele somewhere. There wasn't time. Egypt's culture died that day. The face of Egypt changed forever.


Also this reminds me of the various "Pharaohs" that enslave us daily.
 
I would add that it's possible Moses wasn't lying at all. It could very well be that this was simply the first thing he chose to ask for - and as has been mentioned, he knew full well he wasn't going to get it anyway. While it's true we read about some godly men in the OT lying, it's a stretch to say they were lying at God's request - at least in this instance.

It's pretty much speculation one way or the other since we're not told. But it's interesting speculation anyway!
 
@TexasGolf

I agree that the point is not hugely relevant to the narrative, but there are two implications of a lie in this instant (if in fact there was one) which are hard to simply set aside. First, if the lie is necessary, then it is a statement of the lack of power of God in this instant. If the freeing of the Israelites requires a subterfuge despite God's full backing, that is a statement about the limits of God's power. If the lie is UNnecessary, then it is hard to ignore the fact that this book which is the basis of the moral code for the vast majority of the planet is recommending a casual relationship with the truth. Keep in mind, the lie (if in fact there was one) was coming from God, not Moses, so it would be hard to make the argument that you can for most of the other patriarchs about the failings of men. Monahorns is not making the argument that the lie was a moot point, but that there was no lie... which makes both implications moot.

Slave labor in Egypt was not simply free work. Egyptian slaves were paid, and maintained their own residence. They were more like a blue collar work force than what the modern conception of slavery was. This may not have been the case with this Pharaoh and these slaves, but that was how it was practiced then. Keep in mind also, that there was not "a lot of work to be done" the bible is explicit that the Pharaoh was inventing tasks specifically for the Israelites, not putting them towards necessary projects. The purpose of the enslavement of the Israelites, as stated in the bible, was not to build a workforce, but to control the Israelite population growth. When the slavery alone did not accomplish that task, the pharaoh told the egyptians to start killing israelite children. The text is clear, the Pharaoh's motive was strictly about controlling Israel.

There is a context with the Reed Sea that makes the number of chariots destroyed clear. The wording in Ex 9:6 is not refering to a subset, and the context, though not as clear as with the other plagues, is that all of Egypt was stricken except for the Israelites animals. Your statement of "the ancients were not as literal as we are today", underlies the heart of my question. Clearly, in my mind, they did not intend the words to mean what they literally say. But if they didn't view it that way, then how possibly can we?

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Who is this guru I'm pitted against?
smile.gif


You've got some good points.

I would still venture to say that the archaeologists dating is very suspect. Certainly, since we know Exodus is true, Egypt could never have been the same again from the day the water was turned to blood, forward.

If God told them to tell Pharaoh they would be back in three days (And Moses did say, "Thus saith the LORD..." so obviously it was) Then God in His impeccible character, would have had them turn around after three days. But it was irrelevant, because He knew Pharaoh would not budge.


hookem.gif
 
@TexasGolf
I'm a professional arguer.

In fairness, Exodus makes two points about the water to blood plague. First that it only lasted 7 days, and second that amongst the plagues is was fairly minor. Pharaoh's magicians were able to duplicate it, and the bible treats it as the warm up act.

That said, the problem with the dating is that there are three sources you must consider. The first is the bible itself which places the date of the Exodus around the mid 1400 BC. The second is the archeological dating (based off of the earliest "permanent" proto-Israelite structures in the region, which place the Israelites in Canaan in the late 1200 BC. The third is the scholarly dating which tries to triangulate the date based off of known corroborating events (The sacking of Jericho, known migrations, etc) which place the date earlier around the mid-1500 BC. Regardless of how you date it, though it seems the exodus would have occurred during the early to mid New Kingdom period of Egypt.... which is a period of resurgence and prosperity in Egypt, on the whole.

Your "irrelevant" note regarding the pledge implies that you can sin only in deed, and not in conception. Certainly this is more in line with this part of the old testament, but not in line with the text over all. In any event, I see nothing in the text to indicate that Moses ever had any intention of returning after the festival the way the material is laid out everything builds to Passover and the release of the Israelites.

!ProdigalHorn
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
mia1994, I agree with you. It is strange that we do not see this celebration feast carried out once they leave Egypt. It could have been and just not recorded. That would not make sense, but it is a possibility. It is a mystery for which I have no answer.

More generally, there were feasts in Israel that included sacrifices even some of the ones mention later in Exodus included them. It might not have mentioned them in Exodus but in other books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy it would.

Yes, the full nature of the request is veiled due to the text I agree.
 
The early parts of the Exodus read like they were pretty tight for time, I have a hard time believing they squeezed in an celebration in addition to the celebration of unleavened bread. The sacrifice issue is an aside, really, because Moses/Aaron say they don't know the nature of the sacrifices required, which leaves room for potentially no sacrifices whatsoever. My problem is when party time comes, it is at best tangentially in God's honor, which makes it a different party than the one Moses/Aaron asked leave for.

I'm still only about halfway through Exodus right now (just doing a couple of chapters a day, to pace myself). I think you are right that Deuteronomy is a good candidate book to fill in any gaps left here. I'll let you know when I get there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top