Misquoting Moses

Misquoting Moses: Reconstructing the Supernatural Spirit of Exodus

Through the years, Biblical scholars such as Martin Noth,[1] Rudolph Bultmann,[2] and others have approached Biblical interpretation with a very critical lens. This hermeneutical phenomenon has stripped the Bible of its supernatural spirit, reducing it down to a book filled with myths. The process has been classified as demythologization. The end product of their labor is not a book where the supernatural activity of God is glorified and central, but a book that glorifies the natural rhythms of nature and the coincidences of man. A long, rich history of God supernaturally manifesting Himself has been explained away by scholarship that has deconstructed the miraculous by reconstructing events naturalistically. The book of Exodus has been a well-known target by this breed of scholarship, due to its historical value in the Christian faith. In order to reconstruct the deconstructed accounts of God’s supernatural activity in the book of Exodus, the following stories will be examined in light of demythologization: the burning bush,[3] the parting of the Red Sea,[4] and the water from the rock.[5]

To Burn or Not to Burn

The book of Exodus begins with Israel’s leadership passing the baton from one generation to the next. Through a series of events, Moses finds himself in Horeb, otherwise known as the “Mountain of God” in an unusual situation, where “the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush.”[6] Noth, a critical scholar, deconstructs the supernatural element from this event by arguing that the specific place Moses’ allegedly encountered God in the burning bush was unfamiliar territory to him.[7] An exact location from the Biblical data cannot be concluded.[8] Noth professes that the best scholars can do is place Moses in the wilderness, somewhere between Egypt and the cultivated lands of Palestine.[9] Noth dogmatically states that since “no specific account is given for this phenomenon, although it is assumed to be the permanent feature of the place in question, we must look for an explanation of it.”[10]

On the contrary, I would argue that Moses had a sense of direction when he traveled from Midian to his present location in Exodus 3. The move from Midian to the Sinai wilderness was intentional, not random. Moses, like any shepherd, had to strategically map out his travels so that he would find grass for his sheep to feed on, for he honored the responsibility he had taken to shepherd Jethro’s flock.[11] Moses might not have been in the familiarity of his homeland, but he was in tune with his surrounding and conscious of his actions.[12]

Noth then attacks the validity of the burning bush account by referring to parallels H. Gressman[13] made from stories of burning bushes in Syria-Palestine where bushes burn yet are not consumed.[14] He argues that the author of the J document could not possibly have known the geography of the wilderness of the South, and perhaps the oral tradition that was passed down, “did not look for the holy place of the burning bush, originally independent, of Sinai.”[15] Now, Noth turns to the Hebrew word for bush, seneh, concluding it has nothing to do with the name, Mount Sinai, originally. Noth literally defined seneh as a certain kind of thorny bush, whereas Clements’ focused on the way the word is pronounced.[16] According to Noth there are no signs of any mysterious allusion in the name Sinai.[17] “It is however possible that when the story was later incorporated into the framework of the Moses tradition the word seneh was felt to contain an allusion to the name Sinai, with the result that the scene was subsequently transferred to Sinai.”[18]

In regards to the above attempts to demythologize the supernatural activity in the burning bush, a significant part of the argument hinges on the dissociation and fallacious interpretation of the Hebrew word for bush, “seneh,” with the Hebrew word for Sinai, “sina.” The Exodus text states that Moses “came to Horeb, the mountain of God.”[19] I would agree with both Stuart[20] and Childs’[21] who testify that Horeb and Sinai are names of the same mountain.[22] Traditionally, Mount Horeb is known to have one of the largest peaks in the south central part of Sinai, which Davis calls Jebel Musa.[23] Also, since Horeb is called “the Mountain of God,” clearly the author of Exodus has placed a degree of significance on this location, setting it apart from other mountains.[24]

Noth also holds that since there are similarities in the pronunciation of the Hebrew words bush (seneh) and Sinai (sina), the author of Exodus wrote with a supernatural bias because Sinai is associated with the mountain where God gave Moses the Decalogue, [25] the most significant manifestation of God in history.[26] The supernatural association with these two events from my opinion would not disqualify the original author of Exodus from recording the truth in an objective manner. The Exodus 3 account happens chronologically before Exodus 20, not to mention, God can manifest Himself in similar fashions to the same people. Since the words for bush and Sinai are clearly different in their spelling, the only association, I would argue is one of location, not of manifestation. I would also argue that the story of Mount Sinai where God gave Moses the 10 Commandments has absolutely no sign of a burning bush, disqualifying Noth’s argument.

Childs,’ a critical commentator, notes that some scholars write off the divine element of God calling to Moses from a literal burning bush to a psychological phenomenon.[27] This reduces Moses down to a man who internally battled over the problems of his people and the religious conviction to respond to God’s call for help.[28] Modern critical scholars have attempted to demythologize this phenomenon on the grounds of subjectivity and visionary. Honeycutt suggests that Moses’ revelation was mediated through a visionary experience. Moses visionary experience was a product of the signs and symbols of his culture. Moses chose to describe his inner experience with a bush and fire, but if anyone was standing next to Moses, he/she would have seen nothing extraordinary.[29]

Various attempts have been made to explain this phenomenon away with scientific research and rationale.[30] Moldenke believes that the burning bush was a gas plant or Fraxinella, which has the potential to grow three feet in height with clusters of purple blossoms. All over the bush are tiny oily glands. “This oil is so volatile that it is constantly escaping and if approached with a naked light bursts suddenly into flames . . .”[31] Smith states that the flames could have been crimson blossoms of mistletoe twigs. They grow on a variety of prickly Acacia bushes and Acacia trees throughout the Holy Land and in Sinai. “When this mistletoe is in full bloom, the bush becomes a mass of brilliant flaming color and looks as if it is on fire.”[32] Knopf holds that the burning bush was actually various berries, angles of sunlight or the combination of golden sunlight reflecting off colorful leaves creating the illusion of a bush on fire.[33] The most outrageous attempt to demythologize this account is by Howard Rand who formulated a theory based on electrical energy.[34] In my defense, I would argue it is impossible to reconstruct this event with scientific assumptions and estimations being thousands of years removed. The fact that the language recorded in the Bible does not even remotely reflect any of the above scholar’s assumptions, testifies that it could have only happened through supernatural means.[35]
The uniqueness of the burning bush has baffled scholars for centuries, placing more significance on the bush then on the meaning of the text. The focus was not necessarily on Moses, but on Yahweh’s power over nature.[36] The text itself witnesses to the fact that something was so out of the ordinary, it provoked Moses to take a closer look. The Bible says, “Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, ‘I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.’”[37] If scholars believe that the supernatural activity of the burning bush was the result of a combination of oil and gas a certain plant exfoliates, then if anybody, Moses would have been aware of such a phenomena in those days. [38] Also, the burning bush must be of supernatural in origin for Moses’ call to be authentic. Would a nation follow a man who talks to bushes or a man who talks to God? I rest on the thousands of scriptures in the canon that never contradict the supernatural element, but add to it. Plus, the fact that not one person in Moses recorded ministry ever questioned the veracity of his call or the burning bush, solidifies the supernatural element as factual.

To Part or not to Part

In Exodus 14, God supernaturally intervenes through the obedience of His servant, Moses who held up his staff over the Red Sea to initiate the power of God that secured Israel’s escape from their captors. Scholars have been baffled by this miracle and with little faith in the miraculous, commentators have made feeble attempts to explain away God’s supernatural signs and wonders. Scholarship dating back to the days of Josephus has been extremely critical denying the historicity of this event by explaining it as simply mythology.[39] A commentator by the name of G.W. Coats has gone as far to argue that the sea event does not even belong to the exodus tradition, but to the wilderness wandering.[40] Scholars such as Noth attack the validity of the text miracles are couched in, making demythologization an easier task.
Clements’ parallels naturalistic rhythms in nature such as the land Israel escaped on was marshy, making it hard for the Egyptians to follow since their heavy equipment bogged them down.[41] Noth attacks differences between the various manuscripts of Exodus.[42] He concludes that the divine action had only consisted in the coming of the strong east wind, just at the right time and its being particularly effective. Likewise, a sirocco, which is the name for a hot east wind appearing in spring and autumn in Syria-Palestine, could have dried up the sea. Noth states that even if the divine command of God greatly heightened its effect, it “must be completely unjustified by any possible empirical observation.”[43] Noth also argues that since the words of J in v. 21ab allude to a mirage,[44] the author of the J document must have been influenced by a picture of a mirage he had in his mind as he was writing the description.[45]
Clements’ argues that the supernatural element consisted in the providential timing of a natural event, not the manipulation of the natural order of nature.[46] Noth believes the Lord’s victory was His ability to confuse and blind the Egyptian Army, making them fear Him. The Egyptians were then shaken off and lost sight of the Israelites in the midst of the dry sea where they encamped. The Egyptians were then unexpectedly overwhelmed by the returning waters from a natural source.[47]

The view getting the most press states that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea at a significantly shallow and marshy area.[48] An oceanographer’s research shows that northeasterly winds blowing for many hours can lower the depth of the gulf considerably.[49] If one were to agree with that, then the east wind blowing at an average speed would do the job. I would refute both this view as well as Noth’s, by first referring to the latter part of the story where the Egyptian army was killed by the returning of the waters. Any view contrary to the Biblical account struggles to explain away this part of the miracle. To even consider the waters being shallow enough for a wind to clear, would suggest the Egyptians drowned in inches of water. The text itself witnesses to the fact that the waters were being held up like a wall.[50] It is unlikely that a natural wind could do such a thing.[51] Even if a natural wind was great enough to sustain the waters like a wall, how could the Israelites travel across with the winds blowing at such a high velocity without deterring them from crossing? A wind of the magnitude that could hold up a great mass of water would have helped but also hindered the Israelites as they crossed the Red Sea. I would argue that if you were to account for all the details, only a supernatural element can be the source.

Rawlinson argues that the location of this event took place at narrow, shallow channel called the Bitter Lakes, which are joined to the Red Sea. As the south-east wind blew strongly up this channel, the waters of the Bitter Lakes were then driven northward, and held there. The natural action of the “ebb tide” would have withdrawn the Red Sea water to a southward position.[52] I would agree with Davis in his rebuttals to these irrational explanations, since it cannot be proved that the Bitter Lakes were connected to the Red Sea at that time. Likewise, no where does the Biblical text speak of the ebb and flow of a tide.[53]

Neil proposes that this event was the result of a volcano that erupted either in the immediate vicinity of the sea or in the Aegean of Mediterranean areas.[54] Nof and Paldor theorize that a tidal wave followed an earthquake.[55] A professor by the name of Angelos Galanopoulos of Athens University attributed the crossing of the Israelites through the sea and the pollution of the Nile river with a violent volcanic eruption which occurred somewhere in the thirteen century BC.[56] According to his theory, “this volcanic explosion set off air waves 350 times more powerful than those of a hydrogen bomb and devastated not only the presumed continent of Atlantis, but provided associated catastrophic events such as the plaques and the separation of the Red Sea.”[57] I would argue that such a calculation could not be reached since the calculator is thousands of years removed from the event. The margin for error is just too great to make such a calculation. I would also propose this calculation does not account for the variable of accidental timing. Furthermore, the impact from an explosion of that magnitude would have caused more damage then the reality of events recorded in Bible.[58]

Others scholars demythologize this event by playing grammatical gymnastics with the Hebrew word, qadim. This word is literally translated, “east,” but Jamieson and others, who are advocates for this argument translate the word, “previous.” When the word for “east” is switched with “previous,” the verse reads as follows: “the Lord causes the sea to go back by a strong previous wind all that night.” Jamieson among others hold that “a rendering which would remove the difficulty of supposing the host of Israel marched over on the sand in the teeth of a rushing column of wind strong enough to heap up waters as a wall on each side of a dry path, and give the intelligible narrative of divine interference.”[59]

The Hebrew word, qadim, does have a semantic range that permits the translation of previous, but not in this context. The writer of Exodus eludes to a supernatural wind rather then a natural wind. The text witnesses to the fact that the wind only occurred the night when the Israelites had encamped on the west side of the sea.[60] Israel’s escape plan shows that they stopped at the threshold of the Red Sea. If the waters were dried up and divided before they approached the Red Sea, why would they have camped where they did? I would argue that Israel would have taken the open passage and sought a more feasible place to camp, instead of the rim of the Red Sea, where they were an open target for the Egyptians.[61] In addition, I want to argue that the language used to describe the water is confession language, Durham says, which is not conducive to the attempts to explain the passage naturalistically.[62]

In conclusion, I agree with the four reasons Davis gives that explain why the wind came from a supernatural, not a natural source. The first is the impossibility of a natural wind being able to make the body of water into a “wall.”[63] The second, for instance, if this wind blew in from the east, it probably would have walled up the water in either a north or south direction which would be wrong.[64] Third, the text clearly states that two walls were formed which means that the waters were divided by such a wind.[65] The Israelites crossed with a wall on their right, that is to the south and a wall on their left, or to the north.[66] Fourth, if this were a natural wind great enough to move the amount of water that would later drown the Egyptians, would have Israel been able to safely make it across this passageway? Even though the Bible is not clear on how wide the passage was, it is clear that the waters were standing as a “heap,” implying speeds of such velocity that Israel would not have had a chance, if God was not in control.[67]

To Strike or Not to Strike

A third target for critical scholars to deconstruct the supernatural activity of God is in Exodus 17:1-7. In this passage, Moses miraculously extracts water from a rock through his obedience to God by striking it with his staff. Clements argues for a naturalistic explanation, reducing the miraculous activity of God down to a spring water normally gushed from,[68] whereas Noth begins his argument by attacking the location of the miracle.[69] He believes as well as Clements[70] that the location of Rephidim[71] testified to in the Exodus text does not exist. He argues that the author of Exodus depended upon a later reference to Rephidim in Numbers 33:14. Noth does show how conservative scholarship places Rephidim in the neighborhood of Sinai, but then argues that there is not enough positive data to make such a dogmatic conclusion.[72]

The location of this miracle account has been identified as one of two places. The first is Wadi Ferian, and the second is Wadi Refayid. Wadi Ferian is located on the path that leads up to Mount Sinai. I hold to, the second option, Wadi Refayid, as the better choice of the two since the name is similar to the Biblical name and because it is geographically closer to the wilderness of Sin.[73] Youngblood also affirms that Rephidim is located in the area of Wadi Refayid or Wadi Feiran both of which are not far from Jebel Musa, the traditional region called, Mount Sinai.[74] Validating Rephidim as an authentic place in the Sinai region disqualifies Noth’s line of reasoning that states if Rephidim does not exist, then the miracle account was embellished by later editors of the text.

Critical commentators demythologize this miracle by attacking the variety of sources represented in the translation of the book of Exodus. These scholars know that if they can disprove the validity of the sources behind the text, one cannot possibility believe in the details of the account. Childs suggests that commentators have come to a general consensus “that the P source is represented by the itinerary note of v. Iabα.” [75] From that point on, the narrative, Childs uses, is pieced together by multiple sources. He does confess that the criteria by which to decide on are uncertain. The primary evidence for this multiple source argument is found in the double name, Massah and Meribah as well as the doublet located in v. Ibβ-2 and v.3.[76] Childs’ highlights many commentators’ positions like Noth, Gressman, Fritz, and others who theorize solutions to this problem, only to agree that this question cannot be answered with any degree of certainty.[77]

Childs defers to the lexicographical evidence outside of the immediate passage in other Biblical accounts where the words, Massah and Meribah are used.[78] “The most widely accepted explanation of the relationship (e.g. Noth) is that Massah is a Deuteronomic element which has been secondarily introduced into the present narrative (Ex. 17:1-7) on the basis of the earlier poetic parallelism.”[79] The parallel passage, Num. 20:1-13, Childs’ suggests, was used for the framework of Ex. 17:17. He concludes that not only the basic form and contents resemble one another, the name Meribah is preserved in both.[80]

Stuart’s commentary on Exodus shows the dynamics behind the parallel usage of Meribah and Massah by explaining the Hebrew syntactical issues.[81] I would argue the text should be read literally, “both Massah and Meribah” because Moses intentionally meant for both names to be used in this immediate context regardless how they were used outside of this passage.[82] Stuart as well as Childs’ agrees that placing the words side by side was a literary device used in poetic texts[83] where both words are used.[84] I agree with Stuart who suggests that Moses understood the significance of using both words because of what Israel had done and her compliance to it. I believe Moses chose his words carefully to show the intensity of the event. Although the words in themselves are not of the miraculous, they represent the miraculous. [85]

One of the more popular attempts to demythologize this miracle is to conclude that this location represented a local etiology, a place known to accommodate those whose aim was to settle disputes.[86] “Von Rad writes: ‘Massa (h) and Meribah . . . imply that legal cases were investigated and decided by ordeal there.”[87] I would agree with Childs who finds fault in this argument, since the etiology itself does not relate to the rock bringing forth water, but the actual dispute. In Coats attempt to demythologize this miracle, he differentiates three levels in the stories development. The first level has to do with a critical analysis of the word, dispute; the second level introduces the supernatural element[88] and finally the third level depends on the murmuring motif.[89] In my judgment, it is doubtful that the Exodus author had such a plan in mind when recording this story. Instead of making such horrendous assumptions, I would allow the text to speak for itself: a need arose, those in need complained to Moses, he intercedes with the Lord on their behalf and the need was met supernaturally. I would also argue that the etiological elements are the result of someone expanding the primary tradition.[90] “The tradition did not develop from the etiology, but the etiology subsequently attached itself to the tradition of Yahweh’s aid in the wilderness.”[91]

Childs’ references a critical commentator by the name of Cassuto who cites modern parallels of water breaking through the crust of rock in the desert.[92] I agree with Davis that it is unacceptable for anyone to argue; Moses accidentally struck a rock and due to the closeness of the water to the surface, his problem was solved.[93] In line with, Childs and Davis, I would disagree with Noth who attempts to write this miracle off with an explanation that glorifies nature at the expense of God. As stated above, Clements’ argues that Meribah was a well-known place disputes were settled, since it had so much water constantly flowing from its dynamic spring. Those who sought to settle a dispute would travel to the spring at Meribah and the intensity at which this spring gushed was so shocking to its visitors “that they could only think that at one time the rock had been made to produce water in a miraculous way.”[94] I would argue that it takes more faith for Noth and Clements to believe such a tale, then for someone like myself to believe in the supernatural activity of God in Exodus.

In the attack on the validity of this miracle account in Exodus 17:1-7, most commentators see a reflection of it in 20:1-13.[95] The close parallels between these passages have been used to the detriment of the supernatural element. Critical commentators such as Noth cannot avoid the possibility that a later hand could have inserted into the P-narrative the similarities from Exodus 17:1-7. [96] At the heart of the Numbers passage, the actual miracle is recorded.[97] Noth believes that these verses are “literal borrowings” from Exodus 17.[98] Noth states, the only part of the Numbers (20:7-12) story that does not directly correlate with the Exodus (17:1-7) account is the “twofold striking of the rock.”[99]

Although both passages strongly resemble one anther, one cannot get past the vast differences. The first major difference is the author’s intentionality in using two different Hebrew words for “rock.” In Numbers, the word used is sela, but in Exodus the author chose, sur. Another major difference is the technique used to activate the miracle. In Exodus, God struck the rock, but in Numbers Moses disobeys the Lord and instead of speaking forth the miracle as God commanded, he struck the rock to propel the miracle. The most striking difference is the depth of judgment God pronounced upon Moses and Aaron for their disobedience in Numbers. The Exodus account does not allude to any disobedience on Moses or Aaron’s part and absolutely no signs of judgment can be found. I want to argue the differences are more important to take into account than the similarities. I would argue both accounts are two separate events that share common ground. This allows for freedom in the differences, which validates the Numbers passage as well as the Exodus passage as two separate entities, so that critical commentators such as Noth, Clements and others who attack textual reliability can be stopped dead in their tracks.

These three accounts in Exodus, which showcase God supernaturally intervening in the history of Israel, are the pillars of the Christian faith. If Moses did not do what the Bible records, then what can be made of the times when Jesus affirms the work of Moses? The path these scholars who apply demythologization to their Biblical interpretation take, end in a crisis of faith where the object of faith, Jesus Christ Himself, is manipulated off the throne and replaced with faith itself. Faith in itself is contrary to a God who reveals Himself through supernatural manifestations that have been recorded and preserved in the canon of scripture. God designed faith in Him to be uncertain by its very nature. The foundation of faith in Christ is built on the faith Israel had in a God who manifested Himself in a burning bush, supernaturally strategized an exit plan via the Red Sea from the Egyptian armies and who miraculously provided water from a rock. The God who acts supernaturally is the God who asks us to believe Moses at his word. Scholars thousands of years removed from such events who claim to know precise facts and figures need more faith then those who believe the validity of God’s word. If anyone misquotes Moses, then they misquote Jesus, “the author and perfecter of our faith.”[100]

Bibliography
Robinson, Bernard P. “Moses at the Burning Bush,” in Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, no 75 S 1997.
Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974.
-----------------------The Book of Numbers: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974.
Clements, Ronald E. The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1972.
Coats, G.W. “The Traditio-Historical Character of the Reed Sea Motif.” VT 17, 1967.
-----------------Rebellion in the Wilderness. Nashville: 1968.
Davis, John J. Moses and the Gods of Egypt. Indiana: BMH Books, 1998.
Durham, John I. Word Biblical Commentary: Exodus. Waco: Word Books, Publisher, 1987.
Honeycutt, Roy L. Jr. The Broadman Bible Commentary: Exodus. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1969.
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown. The Critical and Experimental Commentary. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdsmans Publishing Co., 1945.
Knopf, Carl S. The Old Testament Speaks. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1993.
Lange, John P. Exodus: Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. Translated by C. M. Mead. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960.
Maugh, Thomas H. “Research Supports Bible’s Account of Red Sea Crossing,” Los Angles Times, Saturday, 14 March 1992.
Nof, Doron & Nathan Paldor. “Are There Oceanographic Explanations’ for the Israelites Crossings’ of the Red Sea?,” Bulletin for the American Meteorological Society (73/3). March, 1992.
Noth, Martin. Exodus: A Commentary. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962.
Howard B. Rand. Primogenesis. Haverhill: Destiny Publishers, 1953.
Segert, Stanislav. “Crossing the Waters: Moses and Hamilcar.” In Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 53 no. 3 Jl, 1994.
Stuart, Douglas. The New American Commentary: Exodus. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006.
William, Neil. Harper’s Bible Commentary. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1962.
Youngblood, Ronald F. Everyman’s Bible Commentary: Exodus. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.
[1] Martin Noth (Aug. 3, 1902-May 30, 1968) was a German scholar who is well known for his work in demythologizing the Old Testament.
[2] Rudolph Bultmann (Aug. 20, 1884-July 30, 1976) was a German theologian well known for his work in demythologizing the New Testament.
[3] Exodus 3:1-3
[4] Exodus 14:21-28
[5] Exodus 17:1-7
[6] Exodus 3:2a
[7] Noth, Martin. Exodus: A Commentary. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962) p. 38. Noth holds, “The wanderings of Moses in a land still unknown, as he tends the flock of his father-in-law, which led to his findings of the place in the wilderness at which he was addressed by Yahweh, appear more clearly in the J version as a special element of the tradition.”
[8] Clements, Ronald E. The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1972), p. 20. Both Clements and Noth agree that the exact location is inconclusive.
[9] Noth, p. 39
[10] Ibid, p. 39
[11] Stuart, p. 109. Stuart states that traveling such a significant distance from Midian could mean that the grass conditions were poor.
[12] Ibid, p. 108. Moses role as a shepherd disqualified him from the prestige he had attained in Egypt, since Egyptians did not lower themselves to take care of sheep.
[13] Childs, p. 39 Gressman’s book, titled, Moses, is in German (pp. 26ff).
[14] Ibid, p. 39
[15] Ibid, p. 39
[16] Clements, p. 20. Clements, a critical commentator, sees a parallel with the word for bush (seneh) and Mount Sinai, since there is a similarity in sound.
[17] Noth, p. 39. In Semantic language study, the Arabic word for ‘bush,’ refers to a modern day thorny shrub that can be found in Palestine by the Dead Sea.
[18] Ibid, p. 40.
[19] Exodus 3:1
[20] Stuart, Douglas. The New American Commentary: Exodus. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), p. 109.
[21] Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974), p. 79. Childs does argue there is not enough data to make a distinction in terms of different parts of the mountain.
[22] Supporting passages: Exodus 19:1 & Deut. 4:10
[23] Davis, John J. Moses and the Gods of Egypt. (Indiana: BMH Books, 1998) p. 68.
[24] Lange, John P. Exodus: Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, trans. by C. M. Mead (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960), p. 9. He suggests “that this mountain was a sacred mountain even prior to the call of Moses.”
[25] Exodus 20 contains the account where God supernaturally corresponded with Moses, giving him the 10 commandments while on Mount Sinai.
[26] Noth, p. 40.
[27] Childs, p. 73. Although Childs’ writes from a critical stand point, some of his observations are not so anti-supernatural.
[28] Ibid, p. 73.
[29] Honeycutt, Roy L. Jr. Exodus: Broadman Bible Commentary. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1969), p. 328.
[30] Keller, Werner. The Bible as History. (New York: William Morrow and Co., 1956), p. 131. Harold N. Moldenke is among those that have explained away the supernatural activity in the burning bush with science.
[31] Ibid, p. 131.
[32] Ibid, p. 131. (Smith, quoted by Werner Keller)
[33] Knopf, Carl S. The Old Testament Speaks. (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1993), p. 83.
[34] Howard B. Rand. Primogenesis. (Haverhill: Destiny Publishers, 1953), p.142. “Electrical energy of an extremely high voltage would readily produce the phenomenon which Moses witnessed as fire burning in the bush without consuming it. This does not detract one iota from this miracle, but it demonstrates that the presence of the angel of the Lord was accompanied by electrical phenomena surrounding deity.”
[35] Davis, p. 69.
[36] Robinson, Bernard P. “Moses at the Burning Bush.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, no 75 S 1997, p 111.
[37] Exodus 3:2b-3 (NIV)
[38] Critical scholars have to claim a degree of omniscience to know something so particular being thousands of years removed.
[39] Davis, p. 171. Davis thinks that “Josephus may have been reacting to such a view in Antiquities II:16:5.”
[40] Coats, G.W. “The Traditio-Historical Character of the Reed Sea Motif.” VT 17, 1967, p. 263. Coats based his theory on the appearance of the murmuring tradition at the sea (J) and the sea river pattern within the wilderness-conquest tradition.
[41] Clements, p. 87.
[42] Noth, p. 116. The author of the J source, Noth states, could not have found any basis in his experience to describe, a wind whether it was strong or not, able to drive back a sea, even if the sea was shallow or not.
[43] Ibid, p. 116.
[44] A mirage is a strange phenomenon that could make the water appears then disappears, before one’s eyes. In this case, the hot air could have come into the desert from the east making the water appear then disappearing as the Israelites passed through.
[45] Ibid, p. 116.
[46] Clements, p. 87.
[47] Noth, p. 118-119. Noth states that it is evident in the J document that Israel did absolutely nothing but watch as the Lord acted on their behalf.
[48] Davis, p. 172.
[49] Maugh, Thomas H. “Research Supports Bible’s Account of Red Sea Crossing,” Los Angles Times, Saturday, 14 March 1992, A1 and A25.
[50] Clements, p. 88. I would disagree with Clements who believes this is a poetic exaggeration because if that were the case, then every miracle in the bible can be reduced to poetry.
[51] Segert, Stanislav. “Crossing the Waters: Moses and Hamilcar.” In Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 53 no 3 Jl 1994, p 195-203.This article is based on research oceanographers have gathered at the Red Sea to validate the miracle. The research has placed the miracle in such a place that the Israelites potentially could have walked in an ocean ridge. The wind then not acting supernaturally could have held the waters back
[52] Davis, p. 171. Davis cites, Rawlinson, a liberal scholar who agrees with Noth’s naturalistic rational.
[53] Ibid, p. 171-172.
[54] William, Neil. Harper’s Bible Commentary. (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1962), p. 79.
[55] Nof, Doron & Nathan Paldor. “Are There Oceanographic Explanations’ for the Israelites Crossings of the Red Sea?,” Bulletin for the American Meteorological Society (73/3) (March 1992): 312.
[56] Davis, p. 172.
[57] Ibid, p. 172.
[58] Ibid, p. 172.
[59] Jamieson, Fausset and Brown. The Critical and Experimental Commentary. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdsmans Publishing Co., 1945), I, p. 327.
[60] Exodus 14:21
[61] Davis, p. 173.
[62] Durham, John I. Word Biblical Commentary: Exodus. (Waco: Word Books, Publisher, 1987), p. 197. Durham argues that the words used to describe the waters standing to the right and to the left is that of confession used to pronounce victory.
[63] Exodus 14:22b
[64] Exodus 14:21c
[65] Exodus 14:21d
[66] Exodus 14:22b
[67] Davis, p. 173-174.
[68] Clements, p. 102.
[69] Noth, p. 138.
[70] Clements, p. 102. He argues there is not enough evidence to make a conclusion of the location.
[71] Rephidim is the location recorded in Exodus where Moses was encamped with Israel, which had no water source.
[72] Noth, p. 138.
[73] Davis, p. 194. Davis notes that Wadi Refayid is only hours’ within reach of the wilderness of Sin.
[74] Youngblood, Ronald F. Everyman’s Bible Commentary: Exodus. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983), p. 85.
[75] Childs, p. 306.
[76] Ibid, p. 306.
[77] Ibid, p. 306.
[78] Ibid, p. 306. The word, Massah, can be found in Deut. 6:16; 9:22 and Meribah (in slightly variant forms) can be located alone in Num. 20:13; Deut. 32:51; Pss. 81:8 and 106:32.
[79] Ibid, p. 306.
[80] Ibid, p. 306. “Num. 20 differs chiefly in focusing the story on a tradition which attached to Moses office. It is very difficult to say anything certain about the original position of this story in the narrative, although Wellhausen had already noticed how the two Meribah stories now enclose the Sinai tradition.” p. 306-7.
[81] Stuart, p. 391. The use of the Hebrew "waw" between the two names indicates Massah and Meribah are a single place that Moses referred to in two different ways.
[82] Ibid, p. 391.
[83] Scriptural Support: Deut. 33:8; Pss. 95:8
[84] Ibid, p. 392 & Childs, p. 306.
[85] The supernatural element attached to this event rests on the fact that both words were used to validate God bringing forth water from a rock.
[86] Clements, p. 102.
[87] Childs, p. 307. (Theology 1, p. 12)
[88] The supernatural element was the water from the rock.
[89] Coats, G.W. Rebellion in the Wilderness. (Nashville, 1968), p. 53.
[90] An example is the word play on the name of Meribah which means dispute.
[91] Childs, p. 307.
[92] Ibid, p. 308.
[93] Davis, p. 195.
[94] Noth, p. 140.
[95] I have mentioned this argument briefly above, but in the space remaining, I will give a more detailed analysis of the comparisons and differences between both passages.
[96] Noth, p. 144. (Numbers Commentary)
[97] Numbers 20:7-12
[98] Num. 20:8a is a condensed form of Ex. 17:5b and v.8ba.
[99] Noth, p. 145. (Numbers Commentary)
[100] Hebrews 12:2 (NIV)