EXODUS (" the departure"), the name given to the second book of the Pentateuch. It may be regarded as composed of two parts—the first historical, and the second legisla tive. The historical extends to the end of the 18th chapter. It embraces a narrative of the various preparations, natural and supernatural, made under the providence of God for the deliverance of the Israelites from their bondage in Egypt, and also describes the accomplishment of their deliverance, and the journeyings of the people in the wilder ness as far as Mt. Sinai. The legislative is devoted to a minute and elaborate account of the institution of the theocracy. The book presents us with three aspects of Hebrew history. We have, first, a picture of a people enslaved; second, of a people redeemed from bondage; and third, of a people sanctified and set apart,to the service of God. The period embraced by the history of the book is usually reckoned at 142 or 145 years, which number is obtained as follows: From the death of Joseph to the birth of Moses, 60 or 63 years; from the birth of Moses to the departure from Egypt, 80 years; and from the departure out of Egypt to the erection of the tabernacle, 1 year. It cannot be denied, however, without wildly violating all the ordinary laws of the increase of popu-. lation, that this is much too short a period to account for the existence of such a number of Hebrews as left Egypt—viz., 600,000, exclusive of women and children—i.e., in all, at least, 2,500,000. Those who went down into Egypt with Jacob were "threescore and ten souls," and in 215 years, these, though prohibited from intermarrying with the Egyptians, had amounted to between two and three millions. The writer of E., indeed, says (chapter xii., verse 40) that " the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years," adding that they left the land " even the self-same day" on which they had entered it. This statement, however, does not seem to harmonize with the author's previous narrative, and is certainly inconsistent with the language of the apostle Paul, who says (Gal. iii. 17) that the law was given 430 years after the covenant with Abraham, which took place about 215 years before Jacob and his sons went down into Egypt, so that, according to this view, the Israelites could only have been in Egypt 215 years. This is the number commonly accepted; but it is not wonderful that some writers should affirm that " it would be more satisfactory if we could allow 430 years for the increase of the nation in Egypt rather than any shorter period." A still longer period would undoubtedly afford additional satisfaction; and Bunsen, in his ..eggypten's stelle in der Weltgesehiehte, endeavors to show that the Israelites were in Egypt for four teen centuries instead of two, and that the number 215 only indicates the period of oppression, the time when they were " evilly entreated." This conclusion is, of course, arrived at by the application of principles of criticism not generally recognized in the schools of British theology; but there seems no avoiding the conclusion, that the usual chronology is hopelessly wrong.
May it not be that the interval which elapsed between the death of "Joseph and all his brethren, and all that generation" (E. i. 6), and the period when there arose up a new king over Egypt which knew not Joseph (E. i. 8), was much longer than we suppose? The passage itself in E. seems to favor this idea; for the intervening verse (E. i. 7) speaks of the children of Israel " increasing and multiplying, and waxing exceeding mighty, and filling the land," without any reference at all to the time occu pied in this process; and such words are certainly more applicable to a series of centu ries than of years, while centuries, besides, would harmonize better than years with the statement that the Egyptian king knew not (i.e., had forgotten all about) Joseph. The only grave objection to this otherwise extremely probable hypothesis, is its incom patibility with the statement of St. Paul; an objection, however, which Luther would not have found insurmountable, for in an exactly similiar case he said of the inspired Stephen that " he was no historian, and did not trouble himself about particulars."— Zu Apostelgesch. vii. Bd. 1, 1160.
In explanation of the chronological difficulty, the confusion resulting from the use of letters as numerals in Hebrew MSS. has been urged; and this is notoriously a fertile source of error and contradiction, which rationalistic critics have not sufficiently kept in mind. To adduce such a reason, however, would be unavailing in the present case; for if it could be proved that the period stated in E. may have been abbreviated through the negligence of some careless transcriber, or otherwise, and thus an approxi mation be made to the fourteen centuries of Bunsen, this would only place the writer of the Pentateuch in more visible antagonism with St. Paul himself. The date of the exodus is fixed by Usher at 1491 B.C.; by the Septuagint, at 1614 B.C. ; by Hales at 1648 B.c.; by Wilkinson, about 1495 B.c., in the reign of Thothmes III.; and by Bunsen, as late as 1320 or 1314 B.C., in the reign of .Menephthah, in the latter of which years Manetho gives what appears to be the Egyptian version of the event. The genuineness and authenticity of the book of E. have been sharply criticised in modern times; but in fact, as early as the time of Josephus (Ant., ii. 16), there were Jews who looked upon the miracle of the crossing of the Red sea. etc., as fabulous. Among the theologians who have questioned the integrity of E., are Von Lengerke, Stithelin, De Wette, Knobel, and Colenso, who find traces of an older and a later author, the former of whom they call Elohistic, and the latter Jehovistic. Their objections have been replied to by Hengstenberg, Eftvernick, etc., who endeavor to show that the distinction is artificial, and the attempt to follow it out in detail a failure. See PENTATEUCH.