Unfortunately, too, dogmatical prepossessions have been allowed some share in the controversy. De Wette and his school chose to set down everything which savoi'ed of a miracle as proof of later author- ship. The love of the marvellous, which is all they see in the stories of miracles, according to them could not have existed in an earlier and simpler age. But on their own hypothesis this is a very extraordinary view ; for the earlier traditions of a people are not gen- erally the least wonderful, but the reverse ; and one cannot thus acquit the second writer of a design in em- bellishing his narrative. However, this is not the place to argue with those who deny the possibility of a miracle, or who make the narration of miracles proof sufficient of later autliorship. Into tliis error Knobel, it is true, has not fallen. By admitting some of the plagues into his Elohistic catalogue, he shows tliat he is at least free from the dogmatic prejudices of critics like De Wette. But his own critical tests are not con- clusive. And the way in which he cuts verses to pieces, as in viii, 11, and xiii, 15, IG, 27, where it suits his purpose, is so completely arbitrary, and results so evidently from the stern constraint of a theory, that his laliors in this direction are not more satisfactory than those of his predecessors.
On tiie whole, there seems much reason to doubt whether critical acumen will ever be able plausil>ly to distinguish between the original and the supplement in the book of Exodus. There is nothing indeed forced or improbable in the supposition either that IMoses himself incorporated in his memoirs ancient tradition, whether oral or written, or that a writer later than Moses made use of materials left by the great legisla- tor in a somewhat fragmentary form. There is an oc- casional abruptness in the narrative, which suggests that this may possibly have been the case, as in the introduction of the genealogy, vi, 13-27. The remarks in xi, 3 ; xvi, 35, oG, lead to the same conclusion. The apparent confusion at xi, 1-3 may be explained by re- garding these verses as parenthetical. Inasmuch, how- ever, as there exists no definite proof or knowledge of any later editor, except it be Joshua or Ezra, to whom isolated and unimportant additions may be attributed, we are not warranted in attributing the book to any other autlior than Moses. See Pentateuch.
III. Credibility.— Almost every historical fact men- tioned in Exodus has at some time or other been called
EXODUS
413
EXODUS
in question ; but it is certain tliat all investigation has liitherto only tended to establish the veracity of the narrator. A comparison with other writers and an examination of the monuments confirm, or at least do not contradict, the most material statements of this book. Thus, for instance, Manetho's story of the H_yk- sos questionable as much of it is, and difterentlj' as it has been interpreted by different writers, jioints at least to some early connection between the Israelites and the Egyptians, and is coiToborative of the fact im- plied in the Pentateuch that, at the time of the Israel- itish sojourn, Egypt was ruled by a foreign dynasty. See EtiYPT. Manetho speaks, too, of strangers from the East who occupied the eastern part of Lower Egypt ; and his account shows that the Israelites had become a numerous and formidable people. Accord- ing to Exod. xii, 37, the number of men, besides wom- en and children, who left Egj'pt was 600,000. This would give for the whole nation about two millions and a lialf. Tliere is no doubt some ditficulty in ac- counting for this immense increase, if we suppose (as on many accounts seems probable) that the actual res- idence of the children of Israel was only 215 years. AVe must remember, indeed, that the number who went into Egypt with Jacob was considerably more than "threescore and ten souls" [see Cukoxology] ; we must also take into account the extraordinarj' fruit- fulness of Egypt (concerning which all writers are agreed — Strabo, xv, 478; Aristot. Hist. Anim. vii, 4; Pliny, Jf. N. vii, 3 ; Seneca, Qu. Nat. iii, 25, quoted by Havernick), and especially of that part of it in which the Israelites dwelt; and, finall)', we must take into the account the " mixed multitude" that accompanied the Israelites (Exod. xii, 38).
According to De Wette, the story of Moses's birth is mythical, and arises from an attempt to account etj'- niologicallj'' for his name. But tlie beautiful simplici- ty of the narrative places it far above the stories of Komulus, Cyrus, and Semiramis, witli which it has been compared (Knobel, p. 14). As regards the ety- mology of the name, there can be very little doubt tliat it is Egj'ptian (from the Copt. ?mo, "water," and si, " to take"), and if so, the author has merely played upon the name. But this does not prove that tlife whole story is nothing but a myth. Philology as a science is of very modern growth, and the truth of his- tory does not stand or fail with the explanation of ety- mologies. The same remark applies to De Wette 's objection to tlie etymolog}' in ii, 22.
Other objections are of a very arbitrary kind. Thus Knobel thinks the command to destroy the male chil- dren (i, 15 sq.) extreme]}' improbable, because the ob- ject of tlie king was not to destroy the people, but to make use of them as slaves. To recpiire the midwives to act as the enemies of their own people, and to issue an injunction that every son born of Israelitish par- ents sliould be thrown into the Nile, was a piece of downright madness of which he thinks the king would not be guilty. But we do not know that the midwives were Hebrew; they may have been Egyptian; and kings, like other slave-owners, ma}' act contrary to their interest in obedience to their fears or their pas- sions ; indeed, Knobel himself com|)ares the story of king Bocchoris, who commanded all the unclean in his land to be cast into tlie sea (Lysim. ap. Josephus, c. Apion. i, 34), and the destruction of tlie Spartan helots (Plutarch, Lyciirg. 28). He objects further that it is not easy to reconcile such a command with the num- ber of the Israelites at their exode. But we suppose that in very many instances the command of the king would be evaded, and probably it did not long continue in force.