THE REED SEA AND BAALISM

FRANK E. EAKIN, JR.

UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND

A PERENNIAL problem for the OT exegete is the understanding of the crossing of the Reed Sea (ηίΟΤΓ; Exod 13 17—15 21). In

spite of the signal significance of the event for the understanding of Israelite history,1 scholars have recognized the many unknowns: which body of water did the Hebrews confront? where was the water located? what happened? The biblical narrative is composite and confusing.

English translations usually indicate that the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea (as Exod 13 is, 15 4, 22). OT introductions generally have resolved this problem of nomenclature by pointing to the translation's retention of transmitted error. The Hebrew yam suph should be trans­lated "sea of reeds," but for unknown reasons the Septuagintal trans­lators rendered yam suph as Red Sea. Since early English translations were largely dependent upon the Septuagint, the English translations retained and transmitted the error. The 1962 edition of The Tor ah, published by The Jewish Publication Society of America, has corrected this to read "Sea of Reeds." Thus the first question is answered: Which body of water? The yam suph. Unfortunately, while this clarifies a linguistic faux pas, it does not bring us much nearer to our ultimate quest.

Were we able to resolve the problem of the water's location, many questions would be answered. Initially, the Red Sea can be ruled out, both because the Red Sea has no reeds and because the lengthy route along the Gulf of Suez would have enabled the pursuing Egyptians to overtake the fleeing Hebrews. I t has long been recognized that the marshy, reedy area more directly east of Goshen was the probable loca­tion of the yam suph. Identification either with lakes in the area (Lake Timsah or Lake Balah) or with the western shore of the Sirbonian Sea has been offered as a possibility.2 The water through this area would correspond with the type of confrontation which the designation yam suph apparently represents.

When inquiry is made as to what actually happened at the yam

1 J. Coert Rylaarsdam, "The Book of Exodus" (Introduction and Exegesis), IntB, 1, p. 935, refers to the crossing of the sea as "the normative redeeming and re­vealing act of God."

2 See J. Coert Rylaarsdam, op. cit., p. 938; and Martin Noth, Exodus, tr. by J. S. Bowden, pp. 109-10, who follows Otto Eissfeldt in placing the temple of Baal-zephon at the Sirbonian Sea.

378

EAKIN: REED SEA AND BAALISM 379

suph, however, it is realized that correction of the transmitted linguistic faux pas and speculation regarding the location of the sea answer only surface questions. The major problem deals neither with linguistics nor with geography but with the origin of the water-separation motif.

A literary analysis of Exod 13 17—15 21 is helpful in resolving our problem, and Martin Noth's 3 schema will be followed:

J : 13 20-22, 14 5b, 6-7 (J or E ) , 9aa, lOba, 11-12 (J or E ) , 13-14, 19b-20, 21a&, 24, 25a

(J or E ) , 25b, 27a6b, 30-31

E : 13 17-19, 14 5a, 6-7 (J or E ) , 11-12 (J or E ) , 19a, 25a (J or E )

P : 14 1-4, 8, 9a6b, 10ab&, 15-18, 21aob, 22-23, 26-27ao, 28-29

15 1-19 Relatively late hymn, impossible to date.

15 20-21 Very early, often associated with J, but impossible to date.

Using Noth's designation of the unquestioned J source in ch. 14, an account exclusively J would read as follows (using RSV text) :

5b The mind of Pharaoh and his servants was changed toward the people,

and they said, "What is this we have done, that we have let Israel go

from serving us?"

9aa The Egyptians pursued them,

loba and they were in great fear.

13-14 And Moses said to the people, "Fear not, stand firm, and see the salva­

tion of the LORD, which he will work for you today; for the Egyptians

whom you see today, you shall never see again. The LORD will fight

for you, and you have only to be still."

i9b-20 The pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them,

coming between the host of Egypt and the host of Israel. And there

was the cloud and the darkness; and the night passed without one

coming near the other all night.

2ia6 The LORD drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night, and made

the sea dry land.

24 And in the morning watch the LORD in the pillar of fire and of cloud

looked down upon the host of the Egyptians, and discomfited the host

of the Egyptians,

25a (J or E) clogging their chariot wheels so that they drove heavily;

25b and the Egyptians said, "Let us flee before Israel; for the LORD fights

for them against the Egyptians."

27a6b And the sea returned to its wonted flow when the morning appeared;

and the Egyptians fled into it, and the LORD routed the Egyptians in

the midst of the sea.

30-31 Thus the LORD saved Israel that day from the hand of the Egyptians;

and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the seashore. And Israel saw

the great work which the LORD did against the Egyptians, and the

people feared the LORD ; and they believed in the LORD and in his servant

Moses.

3 Martin Noth, op. cit., pp. 102-26, esp. 105 f. The difficulty in definitively divid­

ing the J, E, and Ρ sources in this section is acknowledged. Noth's analysis has been

used because of his eminence as an OT scholar. An attempt at such analysis must be

recognized as prerequisite to a meaningful investigation.

380 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

To this we append Exod 15 21, generally recognized as an ancient couplet, perhaps even an eyewitness report of the event:

21 And Miriam sang to them :

"Sing to the LORD,

for he has triumphed gloriously;

the horse and his rider

he has thrown into the sea."

When the remainder of ch. 14 is read, especially the Ρ passages in vss. 16, 2iaab, 22, 26~27aa, 28~29,4 various references are made to the water-separation motif, a motif conspicuously absent from the J narrative. Such analysis makes clear that there are actually two major, but quite different, strands of tradition. The one is associated with the Song of Miriam (from which the Song of Moses probably grew) and the other with the parting of a body of water which enabled the Hebrews to cross but engulfed the pursuing Egyptians.

The Miriam couplet cannot be lightly dismissed. The fact that this is poetry rather than prose provides cogent argument for its authentic preservation in transmission; indeed, if the Miriam couplet and the J source were our only material, few problems would arise. Fleeing from the Egyptians, the Hebrews finally were confronted on the one side by a body of water and on the other by the Egyptians. The wind supplied by Yahweh dried out a portion of the sea (a sand bar?) sufficiently for the Hebrews to cross. When the Egyptian chariots attempted to follow, however, the crossing area was not firm enough and the horses and chariots became mired in the sand (or mud).5 In their attempt to pull free, the horses threw many of the Egyptians into the sea (14 27b). Even in shallow water, some of the Egyptians would have drowned, resulting either from disablement or from the trampling hooves of the horses.6 Thus the tradition of death (14 30) associated with the yam suph crossing might rest on historical basis. In the light of this explana­tion, the Miriam couplet becomes the clearer. Later understanding heightened this by attributing the water separation to the outstretched arm of Moses (14 2iaa) and carried the embellishment to completion by inserting that the separated sea pulled back like walls for the crossing of the Hebrews (14 21b, 22b).7

4 Georg Beer, "Exodus," Handbuch zum Alten Testament, 3, edited by Otto

Eissfeldt, p. 12, assigns each of these passages to his E or E 1 source. 5 Thus the inclusion of vs. 25a, although Noth leaves open the question as to

whether it is to be judged as J or E. This notation fits admirably in the total context. 6 Lewis S. Hay, "What Really Happened a t the Sea of Reeds?" JBL, S3 (1964),

pp. 397-403, also makes the interesting suggestion that a military victory of the

Hebrews over the Egyptians stands behind the present story.

7 In the following presentation, two factors should be recalled. First, if these

embellishment passages be attributed to E (as Beer), plausible baalistic influence is

evident. The North was characteristically more troubled by baalism than was the

EAKIN: REED SEA AND BAALISM 381

The question yet remains, however, was there anything in the heritage of the Israelite people which would have led naturally to a heightening of the water-separation motif? There does seem to be a plausible explanation, although this has been ignored in the main.8

If it be acknowledged that Baal and Anat were known in Egypt at an early date, baalism's influence on the water-separation motif must be considered.9 While the evidence does not warrant the conclusion that there was a Hyksos cognizance of baalism, the Semitic composition of

South because of the break with the Jerusalem sanctuary, geographic proximity to the baalistic strongholds north of Israel, and agrarian interests. For a Northern tradition to associate the sea event in some fashion with baalism would not be unexpected. Secondly, when the Ρ writers did their work the struggle with baalism had been won. An ancient idea could have been utilized, although it be baalistic, to depict a work of Yahweh. Also, Roland de Vaux, in Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions, t r . by John McHugh, pp. 394-95, points to the suggestion that the Aaronite priesthood may have been associated with the "sanctuary a t Bethel, where men worshipped a golden calf . . . " (p. 395). He notes the possibility that this line of the priesthood may have become the "dominant religious force in Palestine during the Exile" (p. 395), a force with which the returning Zadokites had to reckon upon their return from exile. This possibility must be recognized when dealing with the priestly source, for "priestly" does not of necessity imply strictly a southern, normative Yahwistic influence.

8 The idea now to be expounded was suggested by the present writer in "Yahwism and Baalism Before the Exile," JBL, 84 (1965), pp. 408 f.

9 John Gray, The Legacy of Canaan, p. 128, n. 1, places Anat in Egypt as early as 1700 B.c., while in "Baal," IntDB, 1, p. 329, he notes that Baal is attested in Egypt by the 18th and 19th dynasties. Hans Wolfgang Helck, an acknowledged authority in Egyptian studies, differs slightly with Gray (see Helck's Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.). Helck finds the first evidence for the existence of Anat in Egypt at the beginning of the 19th dynasty (p. 494), but he ac­knowledges the earliest mention of Baal to stem from the time of Amenophis II (p. 482; 1438-1412 B.C.) . Further he notes that references to Astarte first appear during the reign of Amenophis II (p. 490). After careful study of the Semitic deities in Egypt (pp. 482-514), Helck concluded (p. 506) tha t the Semitic deities were recognized in Egypt during the period of the Hyksos, diminished in popularity during the 18th dynasty (Ahmose, 1552-1527 through Sethos I, 1305-1290 B.c.) when the Semitic Baal was often identified with the Egyptian Seth (pp. 109-10), but found renewed favor during the Ramessidenzeit. Need it be noted, however, tha t the Semitic deities' diminishing popularity in the Egyptian perspective during the 18th dynasty does not necessarily mean that a like phenomenon occurred among the Semites still in Egypt. Granting the confusion of goddesses at Ugarit (Athirat, Anat, Ashtart, plus the Greek form, Astarte) and the ancient Near East in general (see W. F . Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel·, p. 74, regarding the Egyptian fusion of Anat-Anath and Astarte to a single deity 'Antart) plus the cognizance of Baal in Egypt by the time of Amenophis II a t least, Helck's dating differences with Gray do not alter the argument of the paper. Helck's dating allows for Baal's recognition in Egypt for more than one hundred years prior to the Mosaic exodus, surely a time sufficient for the type of influence here suggested. Moreover, while clear evidence of Baal's presence in Egypt during the Hyksos period has not been found, Helck's presentation does not seem to me to rule out the possibility. Note: the dates used in association with Helck may be found in his volume, p. 99.

382 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

the Hyksos plus some supportive evidence argues affirmatively.10 We can only affirm that the Semitic linkage between the Hyksos and the Hebrews would likely lead to a Hebrew awareness of the Baal mythology if this were a part of the Hyksos structure.

One facet of the Baal mythology revolved around Baal's encounter with Yam, a god generally depicted as a chaotic character. This struggle accords with an ancient Near Eastern motif whereby the deity did battle with the watery chaos or divided the waters.11 By Baal's victory over Yam, the watery chaos ceased to be a destructive and threatening force and, by virtue of Baal's superiority over Yam, became rather a helpful entity. Is not this what happened at the yam suph?

Ugaritic finds have revealed that a common name for Baal was Baal-zephon, i. e., Baal of the North. In Egypt a place of this designa­tion is indicated in Exod 14 2, Baal-zephon, namely, the last place visited by the Hebrews prior to the crossing of the sea. In 1932 Otto Eissfeldt sought to establish that the Baal-zephon reference was to a Baal sanctuary,12 and a Phoenician papyrus published in March 1939 has helped to substantiate this suggestion by its reference to "Baal-zephon and all the gods of Tahpanhes."13 The papyrus, although of fifth century B.C. derivation, made clear the identification of Tahpanhes (see Jer 2 16, 43 7-9, 44 1, 46 14; Ezek 30 14-18) and the modern Tell Defneh; further, the papyrus indicated Baal-zephon to be the principal deity of the Phoenicians at Tahpanhes and attested the presence of a temple of Baal-zephon at Tahpanhes.14 Whereas Tahpanhes especially prospered during the 25th dynasty, red brick foundations attributable "à l'époque des Ramessides" have been recovered.15 Thus the antiquity of Tahpanhes is not disputed, and it is likely that the Exod 14 2 refer­ence to Baal-zephon should be identified with the town containing this temple16 (or, is it possible to the temple per sei).

10 One can only affirm that if John Gray's reading of the evidence be correct, it is unlikely tha t the Hyksos would have had cognizance of Anat apart from Baal.

11 In the Ugaritic texts, Baal's conflict with Yam is not related in full; rather, clear mention is made of the confrontation. See G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends ( 'Old Testament Studies," No. 3), pp. 13-14, 80-83 ("Baal," I I I , A, 1-35). The Baal-Yam struggle, however, is doubtless one with countless other such myths emanating out of the ancient Near East. See T. H. Gaster, Thespis, p. 141, for a listing of such parallel accounts. This motif is also not absent in the biblical text, as in Gen 1 6-10 and perhaps in the present passage.

12 See Otto Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon, Zeus Kasios und der Durchzug der Israeliten durch Meer.

13 See Noël Aimé-Giron, "Ba'al Çaphon et les Dieux de Tabpanfrès dans un Nouveau Papyrus Phénicien," Annales du Service des Antiquités de VÉgypt, 40 (1941), pp. 433-60, especially 439 and 447 fï.

x« Noël Aimé-Giron, op. cit., pp. 435, 443-^5, 447. *s Ibid., p. 445. 16 G. E. Wright and F . V. Filson, The Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible

EAKIN: REED SEA AND BAALISM 383

Having granted the existence of a Baal sanctuary and the possible cognizance by the Hebrews of the Baal mythology, there are two ap­proches which will answer the question as to how the water-separation motif became part of the Israelite text (this assuming that the J narra­tive together with the Miriam couplet gives the earliest and most historically valid account of the sea crossing) :

1. John Gray suggests that "This cult-legend of the shrine of Baal Saphon, which might be well known to the Israelites and the 'mixed multitude' in their sojourn in Goshen to the east of the delta, coloured the Exodus tradition in oral transmission and later in the written narratives of the Pentateuch."17 Although it would be possible to attribute the event to Baal originally, the chief obstacle against such (if Exod 13 17—15 21 refers to a single event) is the clear attribution of the act to Yah weh in the Miriam couplet. Such association with Yah weh would not rule out the possible influence of baalism's water-conflict motif upon the narrative of the crossing of the sea as it was passed in tradition, however.

2. A second possibility associates the water-separation motif spe­cifically with baalism and links the crossing with the Hyksos expulsion rather than the Mosaic exodus, assuming, of course, the Hyksos aware­ness of baalism. Many scholars assume that some of the Hebrew tribes left Egypt with the Hyksos when the newly formed but powerful 18th dynasty forced the emigration of the Hyksos. Most especially is this suggested of the Northern tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.18 Accord­ing to the generally accepted growth of Yahwistic understanding among the Hebrews/Israelites, the theophany at the burning bush instigated this relationship. At the time of the Hyksos emigration, therefore, the worship of Yahweh had not been initiated; and consequently it is possible that the fleeing Semites (Hyksos, Hebrews, plus others probably) would attribute a water-deliverance to Baal. Given the Baal mythology, this would naturally lead to the historization of a myth in the Yam-Baal struggle.19 This would mean that the final textual compilation

(rev. ed.; 1956), p. 38. Hans Wolfgang Helck, p. 485, accepts Wright's interpretation of Exod 14 2. As noted earlier (see n. 2), both Eissfeldt and Noth contend that the Baal-zephon of Exod 14 2 refers to a sanctuary. The determination of specific place­ment of Baal-zephon is not so significant, however, as the acknowledgment of existence. See nn. 13 and 14 above.

*t John Gray, "Canaanite Mythology and Hebrew Traditions," Glasgow Univ. Or. Trans., 14 (1953), p. 55.

18 T. J. Meek, Hebrew Origins, p. 18, refuses to accept a Hebrew exodus with the Hyksos. Unlike Meek, I am not suggesting the emigration with the Hyksos as the primary exodus but as an influence upon the Mosaic exodus narrative.

19 One might argue from cultic observance, i. e., the transmitted remembrance of a cultic act associated with baalism which certain elements in the North preserved even

384 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

drawn from the various tribes and geographic areas included references to two exodus events rather than one — the Mosaic exodus characterized by the Miriam couplet and preserved in the South, and the Hyksos-Hebrew emigration where the water-separation motif dominated ema­nating from the North.

An explanation of the yam event in the light of Baal mythology, whether this be because of an ancient awareness or because of an original dual but similar event, should not obscure the fact that the totality of the yam suph encounter has been attributed to Yah weh by the period that the text reached its present arrangement. If, as we suggest, this activity was originally linked with baalism, and our only clues are the references to Baal-zephon and the water-separation motif, the whole has now been attributed to Yahweh — it is Yahweh who acts ! James Muilenburg, with characteristic discernment, has formulated an appropriate conclusion :

If one is tempted to raise the legitimate and necessary question, What was it that happened at the Sea of Reeds? then there is the equivocal answer that the historian is forced to give because he really does not know. There is also the answer tha t faith gives: "Our God delivered us from bondage."20

after Yahwism's establishment. Equally one might postulate from some type of water confrontation which the Hyksos-Hebrews experienced when forced to flee Egypt.

20 James Muilenburg, The Way of Israel, p. 49.

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.