THE EXODUS FROM EGYPT, AND PASSAGE THROUGH THE RED SEA.
Project Gutenberg EPUB3 edition
Doane, T. W. (Thomas William)
Everything putrid, or that had a tendency to putridity, was carefully avoided by the ancient Egyptians, and so strict were the Egyptian priests on this point, that they wore no garments made of any animal substance, circumcised themselves, and shaved their whole bodies, even to their eyebrows, lest they should unknowingly harbor any filth, excrement or vermin, supposed to be bred from putrefaction.[53:2] We know from the laws set down in Leviticus, that the Hebrews were not a remarkably clean race.
Jewish priests, in making a history for their race, have given us but a shadow of truth here and there; it is almost wholly mythical. The author of "The Religion of Israel," speaking on this subject, says:
"The history of the religion of Israel must start from the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt. Formerly it was usual to take a much earlier starting-point, and to begin with a religious discussion of the religious ideas of the Patriarchs. And this was perfectly right, so long as the accounts of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were considered historical. But now that a strict investigation has shown us that all these stories are entirely unhistorical, of course we have to begin the history later on."[54:1]
The author of "The Spirit History of Man," says:
"The Hebrews came out of Egypt and settled among the Canaanites. They need not be traced beyond the Exodus. That is their historical beginning. It was very easy to cover up this remote event by the recital of mythical traditions, and to prefix to it an account of their origin in which the gods (Patriarchs), should figure as their ancestors."[54:2]
Professor Goldzhier says:
"The residence of the Hebrews in Egypt, and their exodus thence under the guidance and training of an enthusiast for the freedom of his tribe, form a series of strictly historical facts, which find confirmation even in the documents of ancient Egypt (which we have just shown). But the traditional narratives of these events (were) elaborated by the Hebrew people."[54:3]
Count de Volney also observes that:
"What Exodus says of their (the Israelites) servitude under the king of Heliopolis, and of the oppression of their hosts, the Egyptians, is extremely probable. It is here their history begins. All that precedes . . . is nothing but mythology and cosmogony."[54:4]
In speaking of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, Dr. Knappert says:
"According to the tradition preserved in Genesis, it was the promotion of Jacob's son, Joseph, to be viceroy of Egypt, that brought about the migration of the sons of Israel from Canaan to Goshen. The story goes that this Joseph was sold as a slave by his brothers, and after many changes of fortune received the vice-regal office at Pharaoh's hands through his skill in interpreting dreams. Famine drives his brothers—and afterwards his father—to him, and the Egyptian prince gives them the land of Goshen to live in. It is by imagining all this that the legend tries to account for the fact that Israel passed some time in Egypt. But we must look for the real explanation in a migration of certain tribes which could not establish or maintain themselves in Canaan, and were forced to move further on.
"We find a passage in Flavius Josephus, from which it appears that in Egypt, too, a recollection survived of the sojourn of some foreign tribes in the north-eastern district of the country. For this writer gives us two fragments out of a lost work by Manetho, a priest, who lived about 250 B. C. In one of these we have a statement that pretty nearly agrees with the Israelitish tradition about a sojourn in Goshen. But the Israelites were looked down on by the Egyptians as foreigners, and they are represented as lepers and unclean. Moses himself is mentioned by name, and we are told that he was a priest and joined himself to these lepers and gave them laws."[55:1]
To return now to the story of the Red Sea being divided to let Moses and his followers pass through—of which we have already seen one counterpart in the legend related of Bacchus and his army passing through the same sea dry-shod—there is another similar story concerning Alexander the Great.
The histories of Alexander relate that the Pamphylian Sea was divided to let him and his army pass through. Josephus, after speaking of the Red Sea being divided for the passage of the Israelites, says:
"For the sake of those who accompanied Alexander, king of Macedonia, who yet lived comparatively but a little while ago, the Pamphylian Sea retired and offered them a passage through itself, when they had no other way to go . . . and this is confessed to be true by all who have written about the actions of Alexander."[55:2]
He seems to consider both legends of the same authority, quoting the latter to substantiate the former.
"Callisthenes, who himself accompanied Alexander in the expedition," "wrote, how the Pamphylian Sea did not only open a passage for Alexander, but, rising and elevating its waters, did pay him homage as its king."[55:3]
It is related in Egyptian mythology that Isis was at one time on a journey with the eldest child of the king of Byblos, when coming to the river Phœdrus, which was in a "rough air," and wishing to cross, she commanded the stream to be dried up. This being done she crossed without trouble.[56:1]
There is a Hindoo fable to the effect that when the infant Crishna was being sought by the reigning tyrant of Madura (King Kansa)[56:2] his foster-father took him and departed out of the country. Coming to the river Yumna, and wishing to cross, it was divided for them by the Lord, and they passed through.
The story is related by Thomas Maurice, in his "History of Hindostan," who has taken it from the Bhagavat Pooraun. It is as follows:
"Yasodha took the child Crishna, and carried him off (from where he was born), but, coming to the river Yumna, directly opposite to Gokul, Crishna's father perceiving the current to be very strong, it being in the midst of the rainy season, and not knowing which way to pass it, Crishna commanded the water to give way on both sides to his father, who accordingly passed dry-footed, across the river."[56:3]
This incident is illustrated in Plate 58 of Moore's "Hindu Pantheon."
There is another Hindoo legend, recorded in the Rig Veda, and quoted by Viscount Amberly, from whose work we take it,[56:4] to the effect that an Indian sage called Visvimati, having arrived at a river which he wished to cross, that holy man said to it: "Listen to the Bard who has come to you from afar with wagon and chariot. Sink down, become fordable, and reach not up to our chariot axles." The river answers: "I will bow down to thee like a woman with full breast (suckling her child), as a maid to a man, will I throw myself open to thee."
This is accordingly done, and the sage passes through.
We have also an Indian legend which relates that a courtesan named Bindumati, turned back the streams of the river Ganges.[56:5]
We see then, that the idea of seas and rivers being divided for the purpose of letting some chosen one of God pass through is an old one peculiar to other peoples beside the Hebrews, and the probability is that many nations had legends of this kind.
That Pharaoh and his host should have been drowned in the Red Sea, and the fact not mentioned by any historian, is simply impossible, especially when they have, as we have seen, noticed the fact of the Israelites being driven out of Egypt.[56:6] Dr. Inman, speaking of this, says:
"We seek in vain amongst the Egyptian hieroglyphs for scenes which recall such cruelties as those we read of in the Hebrew records; and in the writings which have hitherto been translated, we find nothing resembling the wholesale destructions described and applauded by the Jewish historians, as perpetrated by their own people."[57:1]
That Pharaoh should have pursued a tribe of diseased slaves, whom he had driven out of his country, is altogether improbable. In the words of Dr. Knappert, we may conclude, by saying that:
"This story, which was not written until more than five hundred years after the exodus itself, can lay no claim to be considered historical."[57:2]