The intention of the Israelites in the exodus from Egypt could not at first go further than the attempt to escape from the dominion of Egypt, and resume the old free life in the desert. That the line of march at first attempted to pass along the western shore of the reed-sea, and reach the south of the peninsula of Sinai, in order to get as far as possible from Egypt, place the whole length of the protecting arm of the sea between the emigrants and Egypt, and reach the pasture lands of the apparently friendly Midianites, corresponds to the situation. Nor can it in any way surprise us that the Amalekites, as the Ephraimitic text states, opposed the Hebrews, i. e. contested the possession of the pasture-lands and oases of the wildernesses of Shur and Paran, with the new-comers. The Israelites obtained the victory. So they arrived at Sinai, the sacred mountain of the wilderness of Sin. Between the two bays with which the sea encloses this peninsula, that mountain rises, a naked granite ridge, with five steep peaks, united into a mighty crown, above the plateau of sandstone which occupies the whole peninsula. The height is 8,000 feet, and the wild and rugged mass overlooks in sublime solitude the broad and desert flats in the north, and the waves of the sea in the south. The beautiful oasis at the foot of the mountain (Wadi Firan) affords nourishment for a large number of men and beasts.[658] On the old and sacred mountain the Israelites might believe that they approached nearer to their deity; that here thanksgiving and sacrifice for their happy deliverance could best be offered to him. Then the Israelites would pasture their flocks on the slopes and glades of the peninsula. But they may have found but scanty food beside the flocks of the Midianites, and the security from Egypt would be greater, if they removed to a greater distance from that country. On the southern borders of Canaan, at Kadesh and Hormah, they sought better pastures. Yet they were driven back, and pursued as far as Hormah. After this misadventure, the Israelites, according to the Ephraimitic text, besought the king of Edom to allow them a peaceful passage through Edom, "on the road of the king, they would not turn either to the right or the left." Hence the defeat must have been a serious one.[659] The object of this march through Edom can only have been to find new pasture-lands in the Syrian steppes beyond Mount Seir on the east. The wide extent of the Syrian desert would certainly supply sufficient pastures, and the distance from the Nile was a good protection from Egypt. As the Edomites refused the demand, and showed themselves prepared to resist the march by force of arms, the Israelites did not venture to give battle; they preferred to retire to the south, and make a long circuit round the territory of the Edomites, by marching through the whole length of the valley of Arabah southward to Elath, as far as the north-east point of the reed-sea. From this point they passed to the other side of Mount Seir, past Punon and Oboth, towards the Arnon, which falls into the Dead Sea. If they could at first maintain themselves on the east, in the desert, the uplands on the left bank of the Jordan were far better than the steppes of the desert. The arms of the Israelites were here more fortunate than on the other side of the Dead Sea. The Amorites of Heshbon, eastward of the Dead Sea, were defeated at Jahaz, and their cities taken. The song which celebrates this victory ([p. 473]) is old, and above suspicion. From this point, out of the newly-conquered land, from the top of Pisgah—a mountain near Heshbon—Moses is said to have seen the promised land. A second victory over the Amorites lying to the north beyond the Jabbok, the people of Edrei and Ashtaroth Karnaim, opened ample pasture-lands to the Israelites, and also some well-watered valleys on the wide plateau to the east of the Jordan. Their territory now reached from the Arnon northwards to the Jarmuk. Here the nation remained; the greater part tended their flocks as hitherto, the lesser part applied themselves to agriculture in exceptionally fruitful valleys.
Though a peaceful race of shepherds and unused to arms, the Hebrews had bidden defiance to the strong arm of Pharaoh; with bold resolution they had successfully delivered themselves from a cruel slavery; and had preserved their freedom, their national character, and their religion. Beyond the borders of Egypt and the reed-sea, the lively perception of their liberation, and the recovery of their ancient mode of life, and of the visible protection of their God, must have aroused a mighty impulse, especially in their great leader. It was a moment of great elevation. Together with the valley of the Nile, they had left behind the gods of Egypt; and they returned to the worship of their old deity with strengthened and deepened feelings. Thus on Sinai Moses could inculcate the exclusive worship of Jehovah—a worship without images—and the consecration of the seventh day.[660] These were commands consciously and diametrically opposed to the multitude of Egyptian gods, the variety of their forms and modes of worship, and the times of their festivals. In connection with these commands, and the customs of sacrifice in use among the Israelites, regulations were given for purification, and rules, telling how to proceed at the erection of altars, at purifications and expiations, at burnt-offerings, thank-offerings, and offerings of corn and meal; rules which were preserved and developed in the family of Aaron.[661] Even for the establishment of this ritual the contrast to the Egyptian was not without influence. This contrast was in fact so strong that what was best in the Egyptian religion—the belief in the existence of the soul after death, and in its awaking from death to a new life, was not adopted by the Israelites. Of the care shown to the corpses of the dead in Egypt, we find no trace.
We saw what a long series of moral rules were set up in Egypt. For his people Moses collected the foundations of moral and religious law into a simpler, purer, deeper, and more earnest form, in the Ten Commandments.[662] In connecting the moral law with the worship of Jehovah, its inseparable foundation, and setting it up with passionate earnestness as the immediate command of the God of Israel, Moses imparted to his people that character of religious earnestness, and ethical struggling, which distinguishes their history from that of every other nation. With the decalogue were connected the regulations for peace in the nation, the law of the family, and the avenging of blood. One who curses father or mother must be put to death. One who strikes father or mother must be put to death. One who strikes a man so that he dies must be put to death. One who has slain a man without intention, by misadventure, must flee to the altar. But if anyone sins against another so as to slay him by craft, thou shalt take him from the altar that he may die. If men strive with one another, and one is injured, thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, foot for foot, burn for burn, bruise for bruise. If any man strike his man-servant or his maid-servant with his staff, and they die under his hand, vengeance must be taken. If thou buyest a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go free. The long service in Egypt was still held in lively remembrance.[663]
Just as the ordinances of Moses for religious worship again brought into prominence the ancient customs of the Hebrews, purified and developed them, so his regulations for peace, for revenge, and expiation, for injury to the person, and theft, were connected with ancient customs of the children of Jacob, which could hardly have been entirely forgotten in Egypt. As Moses attached his law to the old customs, permeating them with the depth of his own ethical point of view, a certain stock of sayings must have been formed, which were preserved and further developed by the decisions of the heads of the tribes, the leaders of families, and the elders and the priests. The code in Exodus is taken from an old document, though apparently first inserted by the revision.[664]
The Israelites had risen from a tribe into a nation, which stood in need of organisation when it was no longer under Egyptian dominion. This arrangement must be founded upon the connection of families and races, on respect for the tie of blood, and reverence for age. No other political division was known but community of family and descent. Affinities and races were in existence which carried back their origin to one patriarch, they followed the head of the oldest family, from whom the rest were derived, or thought that they were derived, and usually obeyed his decision. Some of these races carried their pedigree back to Jacob and his sons. After the pattern of these connections, and by adopting and adding to them, the whole nation was brought into ties of relationship. Strangers and families without a name must have here been in part allotted to the affinities already in existence, and partly formed into new corporations, and new affinities, so that in the total there were some seventy groups of families. Those derived from the old stocks, who carried their origin back to the same son of Jacob, formed together a large community, or tribe, and were accustomed to obey the nearest descendant of the patriarch, the son of his oldest son, from first-born to first-born, and thus the head of the oldest family in the whole community, as their tribal prince and leader by birth. In the same manner, also, the new groups of families became amalgamated into tribes, and older families were put at their head as chiefs of the tribe, in such a manner that from three to ten groups of families formed a tribe.[665] Thus twelve tribes were formed. Even the nations most closely allied to the Hebrews, the Nahorites, and Ishmaelites, were divided into twelve tribes; the Edomites were apparently divided into sixteen. The tribes already in existence were derived from definite progenitors, the sons of Jacob; and also for the new tribes one of the sons of Jacob, the number of whom has thus been fixed, was allotted as a patriarch. Reuben, Simeon, and Judah, were Jacob's eldest sons, borne by Leah his first wife in lawful marriage. From these three the oldest groups were derived. With the tribes of Issachar and Zebulon families were connected, whose antiquity did not go so far back, and thus Issachar and Zebulon were held to be younger sons of Jacob by the same wife. The tribes of Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher, were not considered equally pure; perhaps because additional families had been incorporated in them: hence, as we saw, their progenitors are said to be the sons of Jacob by his handmaids. The tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin, are marked as of later origin by the fact that they are carried back to Jacob and Rachel; and if Joseph begot his sons Ephraim and Manasseh with the daughter of the priest of Heliopolis, this leads to the conclusion that the families incorporated into the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh had grown up in Egypt, and had Egyptian blood in their veins. But Ephraim was at the same time the strongest tribe, which in numbers and bravery outstripped the rest, and the later origin is compensated by the importance of Rachel and Joseph. The Egyptian element which Ephraim and Manasseh introduced among the Hebrews cannot have been of any importance, for neither the language nor the ideas of the Hebrews incorporated elements from Egypt. Only a few external touches in the dress of the priests can be carried back with certainty to Egyptian influence. Of the two sons of Joseph, Manasseh is the elder, Ephraim the younger. Hence the groups of families incorporated into the first, must have been considered the older, or the tribe of Manasseh must at one time have had precedence of Ephraim, which may have been the case about the time of Gideon.
If in the place of Joseph, the eleventh son of Jacob, two grandsons are adopted into the number of the patriarchs, room is made by excluding Levi, a son of Jacob's first marriage, from the series of the tribes. Tradition places him among the oldest sons, between Simeon and Judah. But the tribes deduced from this ancestor won no territory like the rest: they were scattered among the other tribes. We may assume that the priestly families, who from antiquity had discharged the sacred duty at the main seats of worship, the race of Kohath (to which belonged the sons of Aaron), with the priestly families of the other altars (the races of Gershom and Merari), and the families of the temple-servants connected with them, were not combined into a tribe till a late period. The name "Levi" may mean "bound," i. e. bound to a shrine, and hence a temple-servant. The separation of this tribe from the rest, and its dedication to the sacred service, is brought forward with great emphasis in the first text, which was composed from the point of view of the priests. Jehovah takes the Levites in the place of the first-born of Israel, and this same text allots to the Levites forty-eight cities of Canaan which they never possessed, and never inhabited either exclusively or in preponderant numbers.[666] But while in this text the adoption of the Levites by Jehovah, and their "possession of the sacrifice" in the place of a territory, is regarded and extolled as a privilege of this tribe, we found above ([p. 439]) that an old poem spoke of the "division of the Levites in Jacob and their scattering in Israel" as the punishment of the sin which their progenitor had once committed. Hence we must assume that the groups of races, to which the foremost families of the priests belonged, once formed a connected tribe like the rest, and the breaking up of this tribe was brought about after the settlement in Canaan by causes unknown to us.
FOOTNOTES:
[650] Numb. xxiv. 13, c. xxxi.
[651] Numb. xxxii. 4; Nöldeke, "Untersuchungen," s. 90.
[652] De Wette-Schrader, "Einleitung," s. 292; Nöldeke, "Untersuchungen," s. 86.