In the descriptive history of Exodus a fixed plan, in conformity with the principles above stated, is consistently and visibly carried through the whole of the book, thus giving us the surest guarantee for the unity of both the book and its author. In vain have several modern critics attempted to discover here also sundry sources and manifold original documents, or even fragments, but loosely connected with each other (comp. ex. gr. De Wette, Introd. to the 0. T., sec. 151). Such an assumption proves in this case in particular to be nothing more than a last resource of argument against the Mosaical composition of the book. De Wette has of late been induced, in favour of this hypothesis, to de clare that in some portions of Exodus the source is uncertain, and that there took place a mixture of both sources, the Mosaical and the non-Mosaical (comp. PENTATEUCH). Nor are other modern critics more successful in their attempts to shew in this book traces of a post-Mosaical origin. Among the passages quoted in support of that assertion is xxiii. 9, the law contained in which seems to imply a later state of the people during their settled abode in Palestine. Regulations about strangers were, however, of importance during their abode in the desert, especially since a number of Egyp tians had joined the Israelites, and stood to them in the relation of strangers. Chap. xvi. 36, also, is quoted in favour of the above opinion, because the omer is designated therein as the tenth part of an ephah, implying that changes had in later times been made in the Hebrew measures. But they forget that the Hebrew word 1n3, does not at all indicate a definite measure, but merely a vessel, the size of which it was therefore necessary to specify by giving its exact measurement. In vi. 26, 27, also, they think they recognise the hand of a later author, who refers to Moses and Aaron, and describes their character. The least attention, however, to the preceding genealogy, and the de scriptive style of the Pentateuch in general, must soon convince them that even a contemporary writer might have spoken in the way which Moses does in these passages.
For neological criticism it was of the utmost im portance to stamp this book as a later production, the miracles contained in its first part but too manifestly clashing with the principles in which that criticism takes its starting-point. Its votaries therefore have endeavoured to spew that those miracles were but mythological fictions which had been gradually developed in process of time, so that the very composition of the book itself must necessarily have been of a later date. Neither do we wonder at such attempts and efforts, since the very essence and central point of the accounts of the miracles given in that book are altogether at variance with the principles of rationalism and its criticism, which can by no means admit the rise and formation of a people under such miraculous circumstances, such peculiar belief, and, in a reli gious point of view, such an independent exist ence, at the side of all the other nations of anti quity. Indeed, the spiritual substance of the whole, the divine idea which pervades and combines all its details, is in itself such a miracle, such a pecu liar and wondrous phenomenon, as to lend natural support and undeniable confirmation to the iso lated and physical wonders themselves ; so that it is impossible to deny the latter without creating a second and new wonder, an unnatural course in the Jewish history. Nor is that part of the book which contains the miracles deficient in numerous historical proofs in verification of them. As the events of this history arc laid in Egypt and Arabia, we have ample opportunity of testing the accuracy of the Mosaical accounts, and surely we find no where the least transgression against Egyptian in stitutions and customs ; on the contrary, it is most evident that the author had a thorough knowledge of the Egyptian institutions and the spirit that per vaded 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. Heng stenberg, Die Buches ilfoszIr and --Egn5ten, Berlin, 18.11). The description of the passage of the Israel ites through the desert also evinces such a thorough familiarity with the localities as to excite the utmost respect of scrupulous and scientific travellers of our own time for the authenticity of the Pentateuch (comp. ex. Arr. Ramer, Der der Israelite!, ens zEgyfien each Canaan, Leipz. 1837). Nor is the passover-festival, its rise and nature, less confirm atory of the incidents connected with it, if we have not recourse to the desperate expedient—as rationalistic criticism really does—of ascribing to that festival a quite different signification originally, namely, a purely physical one, an opinion which brings its advocates in conflict with the whole of the Israelitish history. The arrangements of the tabernacle, described in the second part of Exodus, likewise throw a favourable 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 materials and richness toe 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 now 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 artistical knowledge requisite for the construction of the tabernacle. Moreover, the establishment of a TENT as a sanctuary for the He brews can only be explained from their abode in the desert, being in perfect unison with their then loving and nomadic life ; and it is therefore a de cided 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 cir cumstance 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 through out the whole narrative afford a sure guarantee for its authenticity and originality. Not a vestige of a poetical hand can be discovered in Exod. xviii.; not even the most sceptical critics can deny that we tread here on purely historical ground. The same may fairly be maintained of ch. xx.-xxiii. How is it then possible that one and the same book should contain so strange a mixture of truth and fiction as its opponents assert to be found in it ? The most striking proofs against such an assumption are, in particular, the accounts, such as in Exod. xxxii. 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 plain and clear terms, without the least vestige of later embellish ments and false extolling of former ages. The whole representation indicates the strictest imparti ality and truth. On the literature of Exodus, see