VOLUME X SLICE I Evangelical Church Conference to Fairbairn, Sir William (continued 8)

(a) Israel in Egypt and the Exodus (ch. i.-xviii.). (1) i. 1-vii. 13.—The analysis of these chapters shows that the history, in the main, has been derived from the two sources J and E, chiefly the former, and that a later editor has included certain passages from P, besides introducing a slight alteration of the original order and other redactional changes. The combined narrative of JE sets forth the rise of a new king in Egypt, who endeavoured to check the growing strength of the children of Israel; it thus prepares the way for the birth of Moses, his early life in Egypt, his flight to Midian and marriage with Zipporah, the theophany at Mt. Horeb, and his divine commission to deliver Israel from Egypt.

At the very outset the two sources betray their divergent origin and point of view. According to J (i. 6, 8-12, 20b) the Israelites dwell apart in the province of Goshen, and their numbers become so great as to call for severe measures of repression, the method employed being that of forced labour. E, on the other hand (i. 15-20a, 21, 22), represents them as living among the Egyptians, and so few in number that two midwives satisfy their requirements. It is to this latter source that we owe the account of the birth of Moses and of his education at the court of Pharaoh (ii. 1-10). On reaching manhood Moses openly displays his sympathy with his brethren by slaying an Egyptian, and has, in consequence, to flee to Midian, where he marries Zipporah, the daughter of the priest of Midian (ii. 11-22). In this section the editor has undoubtedly made use of the parallel narrative of J, though it is impossible to determine the exact point at which J’s account is introduced: certainly ii. 15b-22 belong to that source.1 The narrative of the call of Moses is by no means uniform, and shows obvious traces of twofold origin (J iii. 2-4a, 5, 7, 8, 16-18; iv. 1-12 (13-16), 29-31; E iii. 1, 4b, 6, 9-14, 21, 22; iv. 17, 18, 20b, 27, 28). These two sources present striking points of difference, which reappear in the subsequent narrative. According to E, Moses with Aaron is to demand from Pharaoh the release of Israel, which will be effected in spite of his opposition; in assurance thereof the promise is given that they shall serve God upon this mountain; moreover, the people on their departure are to borrow raiment and jewels from their Egyptian neighbours. According to J, on the other hand, the spokesmen are to be Moses and the elders; and their request is for a temporary departure only, viz. “three days’ journey into the wilderness”; their departure from Egypt is a hurried one. Yet another difficulty, which disappears as soon as the composite character of the narrative is recognized, is that of the signs. In J three signs are given for the purpose of reassuring Moses, only one of which is wrought with the rod (iv. 1-9), but in iv. 17 (E) the reference is clearly to entirely different signs, probably the plagues of Egypt, which according to E were invariably wrought by “the rod of God.” Further, it is questionable if the passage iv. 13-16 really forms part of the original narrative of J, and is not rather to be ascribed to the redactor of JE. The name of Aaron has certainly been introduced by a later hand in J’s account of the plague of frogs (viii. 12), and the only passage in J in which Aaron is represented as taking an active part is iv. 29-31, where the mention of his name causes no little difficulty.2 In E, on the other hand, Aaron is sent by God to meet Moses at Mt. Horeb, after the latter had taken leave of Jethro, and, later on, accompanies him into the presence of Pharaoh. The succeeding narrative (v. 1-vi. 1) is mainly taken from J, though E’s account of the first interview with Pharaoh has been partially retained in v. 1, 2, 4. Moses and the elders ask leave to go three days’ journey into the wilderness to sacrifice to Yahweh, a request which is met by an increase of the burdensome work of brick-making: henceforward the Israelites have to provide their own straw. The people complain bitterly to Moses, who appeals to Yahweh and is assured by him of the future deliverance of Israel “by a strong hand.”

With the exception of the genealogical list (i. 1-5) and the brief notices of the increase of Israel (i. 7) and of its oppression at the hands of the Egyptians (i. 13, 14; ii. 23b-25), the narrative so far exhibits no traces of P3. But in vi. 2-vii. 13 we are confronted with a narrative which carries us back to ii. 23b-25 and gives practically a parallel account to that of JE in ch. iii.-v. Thus the revelation of the divine name, vi. 2f., finds its counterpart in iii. 10f., the message to be delivered to Israel (vi. 6f.) is very similar to that of ch. iii. 16f., while the demand which is to be addressed to Pharaoh is identical with that which had been already refused in ch. v. No allusion, however, is made by Moses to this previous demand; he merely urges the same objection as that put forward in iv. 10f. With the resumption4 of the story in vi. 28f. Moses reiterates his objection, and is told that Aaron shall be his “prophet” and speak for him, and shall also perform the sign of the rod (cf. iv. 2-4). The sign, however, has no effect on Pharaoh (vii. 13), and we thus reach the same point in the narrative as at vi. 1. Apart from the literary characteristics which clearly differentiate this narrative from the preceding accounts of J and E, the following points of variation are worthy of consideration: (1) The people refuse to listen to Moses; (2) Aaron is appointed to be Moses’ spokesman, not with the people, but with Pharaoh; (3) one sign is given (not three) and performed before Pharaoh; (4) the rod is turned into a reptile (tannīn), not a serpent (nāhāsh).

(2) vii. 14-xi. 10. The First Plagues of Egypt.—In this section the analysis again reveals three main sources, which are clearly marked off from one another both by their linguistic features and by their difference of representation. The principal source is J, from which are derived six plagues, viz. killing of the fish in the river (vii. 14, 16, 17a, 18, 21a, 24, 25), frogs (viii. 1-4, 8-150), insects (viii. 20-32), murrain (ix. 1-7), hail (ix. 13-18, 23b, 24b, 25b-34), locusts (x. 1a, 3-11, 13b, 14b, 15a, c-19, 24-26, 28, 29), the threat to slay all the first-born (xi. 4-8). The most striking characteristic of this narrative is that the plagues are represented as mainly due to natural causes and follow a natural sequence. Thus Yahweh smites the river so that the fish die and render the water undrinkable. This is succeeded by a plague of frogs. The swarms of flies and insects, which next appear, are the natural outcome of the decaying masses of frogs, and these, in turn, would form a natural medium for the spread of cattle disease. Destructive hailstorms, again, though rare, are not unknown in Egypt, while the locusts are definitely stated to have been brought by a strong east wind. Other distinctive features of J’s narrative are: (1) Moses alone is bidden to interview Pharaoh (vii. 14 f.; viii. 1 f., 20 f.; ix. 1 f., 13 f.; x. 1 f.); (2) on each occasion he makes a formal demand; (3) on Pharaoh’s refusal the plague is announced, and takes place at a fixed time without any human intervention; (4) when the plague is sent, Pharaoh sends for Moses and entreats his intercession, promising in most cases to accede in part to his request; when the plague is removed, however, the promise is left unfulfilled, the standing phrase being “and Pharaoh’s heart was heavy (כבד),” or “and Pharaoh made heavy (הכביד) his heart”; (5) the plagues do not affect the children of Israel in Goshen. E’s account (water turned into blood, vii. 15, 17b, 20b, 23; hail, ix. 22, 23a, 24a, 25a, 35; locusts, x. 12, 13a, 14a, 15b) is more fragmentary, having been doubtless superseded in most cases by the fuller and more graphic narrative of J, but the plague of darkness (x. 20-23, 27) is found only in this source. As contrasted with J the narrative emphasizes the miraculous character of the plagues. They are brought about by “the rod of God,” which Moses wields, the effect being instantaneous and all-embracing. The Israelites are represented as living among the Egyptians, and enjoy no immunity from the plagues, except that of darkness. Their departure from Egypt is deliberate; the people have time to borrow raiment and jewels from their neighbours. E regularly uses the phrase “and Pharaoh’s heart was strong (חזק),” or “and Yahweh made strong (חיזק) Pharaoh’s heart” and “he would not let the children of Israel (or, them) go.” In the priestly narrative (P) the plagues assume the form of a trial of skill between Aaron, who acts at Moses’ command, and the Egyptian magicians, and thus connect with vii. 8-13. The magicians succeed in turning the Nile water into blood (vii. 19, 20a, 21b, 22), and in bringing up frogs (viii. 5-7), but they fail to bring forth lice (viii. 15b-19), and are themselves smitten with boils (ix. 8-12): the two last-named plagues have no parallel either in J or E. Throughout the P sections Aaron is associated with Moses, and the regular command given to the latter is “Say unto Aaron”: no demand is ever made to Pharaoh, and the description of the plague is quite short. The formula employed by P is “and Pharaoh’s heart was strong (חזק),” or, “and Pharaoh made strong (חיזק) his heart,” as in E, but it is distinguished from E’s phrase by the addition of “and he hearkened not unto them as Yahweh had spoken.”

(3) xii. i-xiii. 16. The Last Plague, the Deliverance from Egypt, the Institution of the Passover and of the Feast of Unleavened Cakes, the Consecration of the First-born.—This section presents the usual phenomena of a composite narrative, viz. repetitions and inconsistencies. Thus J’s regulations for the Passover (xii. 21-23, 27b) seem at first sight simply to repeat the commands given to Moses and Aaron in xii. 1-13 (P), but in reality they are a parallel and divergent account. In vv. 1-13 the choice of the lamb and the manner in which it is to be eaten constitute the essential feature, the smearing with the blood being quite secondary; in vv. 21 f. the latter point is all-important, and no regulations are given for the paschal meal (which, possibly, formed no part of J’s original account). Similarly the institution of the Feast of Mazzoth, or Unleavened Cakes (xiii. 3-10J), does not form the sequel to the regulations laid down in xii. 14-20 (P), but is independent of them: it omits all reference to the “holy convocations” and to the abstinence from labour, and is obviously simpler and more primitive. J’s account, again, makes important exceptions (xiii. 11-13) to the severe enactment of P with reference to the first-born (xiii. 1). The description of the smiting of the first-born of Egypt is derived from J (xii. 29-34, 37-39), who clearly sees in the Feast of Mazzoth a perpetual reminder of the haste with which the Israelites fled from Egypt; the editor of JE, however, has included some extracts from E (xii. 31, 35, 36), which point to a more deliberate departure. The section has been worked over by a Deuteronomistic editor, whose hand can be clearly traced in the additions xii. 24-27a; xiii. 3b, 5, 8, 9, 14-16.

(4) xiii. 17-xv. 21. The Crossing of the Red Sea.—According to J the children of Israel departed from Egypt under the guidance of Yahweh, who leads them by day in a pillar of cloud and by night in a pillar of fire (xiii. 21, 22). On hearing of their flight Pharaoh at once starts in pursuit. The Israelites, terrified by the approach of the Egyptians, upbraid Moses, who promises them deliverance by the hand of Yahweh (xiv. 5, 6,-7b, 10a, 11-14, 19b). Yahweh then causes a strong east wind to blow all that night, which drives back the waters from the shallows, and so renders it possible for the host of Israel to cross over. The Egyptians follow, but the progress of their chariots is hindered by the soft sand, and in the morning they are caught by the returning waters (xiv. 21b, 24, 25, 27b, 28b, 30). The story, however, has been combined with the somewhat different account of E, which doubtless covered the same ground, and also with that of P. According to the former, Elohim did not permit the Israelites to take the shorter route to Canaan by the Mediterranean coast, for fear of the Philistines, but led them southwards to the Red Sea, whither they were pursued by the Egyptians (xiii. 17-19). The remainder of E’s account has only been preserved in a fragmentary form (xiv. 7aa, 10b, 15a, 19a, 20a), from which it may be gathered that Moses divided the waters by stretching out his rod, thus presupposing that the crossing took place by day, and that the dark cloud which divided the two hosts was miraculously caused by the angel of God. P also represents the sea as divided by means of Moses’ rod, but heightens the effect by describing the crossing as taking place between walls of water (xiii. 20; xiv. 1-4, 8, 9, 15b, 16b-18, 21a, c, 22, 23, 26, 27a, 28a, 29).

J’s version of the Song of Moses probably does not extend beyond xv. 1, and has its counterpart in the very similar song of Miriam (E), in vv. 20, 21. The rest of the song (vv. 2-18) is probably the work of a later writer; for these verses set forth not only the deliverance from Egypt, but also the entrance of Israel into Canaan (vv. 13-17), and further presuppose the existence of the temple (vv. 13b, 17b). These phenomena have been explained as due to later expansion, but the poem has all the appearance of being a unity, and the language, style and rhythm all point to a later age. Verse 19 is probably the work of the redactor (RP) who inserted the song.

(5) xv. 22-xviii. 27. Incidents in the Wilderness.—The narrative of the first journeying in the wilderness (xv. 22-xvii. 7) presents a series of difficulties which probably owe their origin to the editorial activity of RP, who appears to have transferred to the beginning of the wanderings a number of incidents which rightly belong to the end. The concluding verses of ch. xv. contain J’s account of the sweetening of the waters of Marah, with which has been incorporated a fragment of E’s story of Massah (xv. 25b) and a Deuteronomic expansion in v. 26. Then follows (ch. xvi.) P’s version of the sending of the manna and quails. In its present form, this narrative contains a number of conflicting elements, which can only be the result of editorial activity. Thus vv. 6, 7 must originally have preceded vv. 11, 12, though the redactor has attempted to evade the difficulty by inserting v. 8. Again, the account of the quails, which is obviously incomplete, is undoubtedly derived from Num. xi.; but the latter account, which admittedly belongs to JE, places the incident at the end of the wanderings. Closer examination also of P’s narrative of the manna shows that its true-position is after the departure from Mt. Sinai; cf. the expressions used in vv. 9, 10, 33, 34, implying the existence of the ark and the tabernacle. P’s account of the manna, however, can hardly have stood originally in close juxtaposition with his account of the quails (cf. Num. xi. 6), but the two narratives were probably combined by RP before they were transferred to their present position. The same redactor doubtless added v. 8 (and possibly vv. 17, 18) by way of explanation, and vv. 5 and 22-30, which imply that the law of the Sabbath was already known, and introduce a fresh element into the story. A plausible explanation of RP’s action is supplied by the theory that an earlier account of the giving of the manna already existed at this point of the narrative. We know from Deuteronomy viii. 2 f., 16 that JE contained an account of the manna, which included the explanation of Ex. xvi. 15, and also emphasized, as the motive for the gift, Yahweh’s desire “to prove thee (i.e. test thy disposition) ... whether thou wouldst keep his commandments, or no.” Fragments of this early story of Massah (testing) were incorporated by RP in his story of the manna and the quails, viz. xv. 25b; xvi. 4, 15, 16a, 19b-21. These verses must be assigned to E, for in xvii. 3, 2c (wherefore do ye tempt the Lord?), 7a (to Massah), c (because they tempted ..., &c. ), we find yet another version (J) of the same incident, according to which the people tempted (tested) Yahweh. It was owing to the combination of this latter account with E’s further description of the striving of the people for water at Meribah that the double name Massah-Meribah arose, xvii. 1b-7 (1a belongs to P), though Deut. xxxiii. 8 makes it clear that Massah and Meribah were separate localities (cf. Deut. ix. 22, 2 f., 16, where Massah occurs alone): P’s version of striving at Meribah, in which traces of J’s account have been preserved, is given at Num. xx. 1-13.

xvii. 8-16. The Battle with Amalek at Rephidim.—This incident is derived from E, but is clearly out of place in its present context. Its close connexion with the end of the wanderings is shown by (a) the description of Moses as an infirm old man; (b) the rôle played by Joshua in contrast with xxiv. 13, xxxiii. 11, where he is introduced as a young man and Moses’ minister; and (c) the references elsewhere to the home of the Amalekites: according to Num. xiii. 29, xiv. 25, xliii. 45, they dwelt in the S. or S.W. of Judah near Kadesh (cf. 1 Sam. xv. 6 f., 30; Gen. xiv. 7; xxxvi. 12).

Ch. xviii. The visit of Jethro to Moses and the appointment of judges.—This story, like the preceding one, is mainly derived from E and is also out of place. Allusions in the chapter itself point unmistakably to a time just before the departure from Sinai-Horeb, and this date is confirmed both by Deut. i. 9-16 and by the parallel account of J in Num. x. 29-32. The narrative, however, displays signs of compilation, and it is not improbable that RJE has incorporated in vv. 7-11 part of J’s account of the visit of Moses’ father-in-law (cf. the use of Yahweh).

(b) Ch. xix.-xxiv., xxxii., xxxiv.—The contents of these chapters, which, owing to their contents, form the most important section in the book of Exodus, may be briefly analysed as follows. In ch. xix. we have a twofold description of the theophany on Mt. Sinai (or Horeb), followed by the Decalogue in xx. 1-17. Alongside of this code we find another, dealing in part with the civil and social (xxi. 2-xxii. 17), in part with the religious life of Israel, the so-called Book of the Covenant, xx. 22-xxiii. 19. Ch. xxiv. contains a composite narrative of the ratification of the covenant. In chs. xxxii. and xxxiii. we have again two narratives of the sin of the people and of Moses’ intercession, while in ch. xxxiv. we are confronted with yet another early code, which is practically identical with the religious enactments of xx. 22-26; xxii. 29, 30; xxiii. 10-19.

With but few exceptions the provenance of the individual sections may be said to have been finally determined by the labours of the critics, but even a cursory examination of their contents makes it evident that the sequence of events, which they now present, cannot be original, but is rather the outcome of a long process of revision, during which the text has suffered considerably from alterations, omissions, dislocations and additions. Yet owing to the method of composition employed by Hebrew editors, or revisers, it is possible in this case, as in others, not only to determine the source of each individual passage, but also to trace with considerable confidence the various stages in the process by which it reached its final form and position. It must, however, be admitted that the evidence at our disposal is, in some cases, capable of more than one interpretation. Hence a final conclusion can hardly be expected, but with certain modifications in detail the following solution of the problem may be accepted as representing the point of view of recent criticism.

Ch. xix. contains two parallel accounts of the theophany on Horeb-Sinai, from E and J respectively, which differ materially from one another. According to the former, Moses is instructed by God (Elohim) to sanctify the people against the third day (vv. 9a, 10, 11a). This is done and the people are brought by Moses to the foot of the mountain (Horeb), where they hear the divine voice (14-17, 19). A noticeable feature of this narrative, of which xx. 18-21 forms a natural continuation, is the fact that the theophany is addressed to the people, who are too frightened to remain near the mountain itself. In J, on the other hand, it is the priests who are sanctified, and great care must be taken to prevent the people from “breaking through to gaze” (20-22). In this account the mountain is called “Sinai” throughout, and “Yahweh” appears instead of “Elohim” (11b, 18, 20 f.). Moreover, Moses and Aaron and the priests are summoned to the top of the mount (in v. 24b render “thou and Aaron with thee, and the priests: but let not the people,” &c. ). Vv. 3b-8, which have been expanded by a Deuteronomic editor, have been transferred from their original context after xx. 21; the introductory verses 1, 2a form part of P’s itinerary.

Of the succeeding legislation in xx.-xxiii., xxxii.-xxxiv., undoubtedly the earlier sections are xx. 22-26; xxii. 29, 30; xxiii. 10-19, and xxxiv. 10-26, which contain regulations with regard to worship and religious festivals, and form the basis of the covenant made by Yahweh with Israel on Sinai-Horeb, as recorded by E and J respectively. The narrative which introduces the covenant laws of J has been preserved partly in its present context, ch. xxxiv., partly in xxiv. 1, 2, 9-11; the narrative of E, on the other hand, has in part disappeared owing to the interpolation of later material, in part has been retained in xxiv. 3-8. J’s narrative xxiv. 1 f., 9-11 clearly forms the continuation of xix. 20 f., 11b, 13, 25, but the introductory words of v. 1, “and unto Moses he said,” point to some omission. Originally, no doubt, it included the recital of the divine instructions to the people in accordance with xix. 21 f., 11b-13, the statement that Yahweh came down on the third day, and that a long blast was blown on the trumpet (or ram’s horn [יבל, as opposed to שפר E]). From xxiv. 1 f. we learn that Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders were summoned to the top of the mountain, but that Moses alone was permitted to approach Yahweh. Then followed the theophany, and, as the text stands, the sacrificial meal (9-11).5 The conclusion of J’s narrative is given in ch. xxxiv.,6 which describes how Moses hewed two tables of stone at Yahweh’s command, and went up to the top of the mountain, where he received the words of the covenant and wrote them on the tables. As it stands, however, this chapter represents the legislation which it contains as a renewal of a former covenant, also written on tables of stone, which had been broken (1b, 4a). But the document from which the chapter, as a whole, is derived, is certainly J, while the previous references to tables of stone and to Moses’ breaking them belong to the parallel narrative of E. Moreover, the covenant here set forth (v. 10 f.) is clearly a new one, and contains no hint of any previous legislation, nor of any breach of it by the people. In view of these facts we are forced to conclude that 1b (“like unto the first ... brakest”), 4a (“and he hewed ... the first”) and v. 28 (“the ten words”) formed no part of the original narrative,7 but were inserted by a later Deuteronomic redactor. In the view of this editor the Decalogue alone formed the basis of the covenant at Sinai-Horeb, and in order to retain J’s version, he represented it as a renewal of the tables of stone which Moses had broken.8

The legislation contained in xxxiv. 10-26, which may be described as the oldest legal code of the Hexateuch, is almost entirely religious. It prohibits the making of molten images (v. 17), the use of leaven in sacrifices (25a), the retention of the sacrifice until the morning (25b),9 and the seething of a kid in its mother’s milk (26b); and enjoins the observance of the three annual feasts and the Sabbath (18a, 21-23), and the dedication of the first-born (19, 20, derived from xiii. 11-13) and of the first-fruits (26a).

The parallel collection of E is preserved in xx. 24-26, xxiii. 10-19, to which we should probably add xxii. 29-31 (for which xxiii. 19a was afterwards substituted). The two collections resemble one another so closely, both in form and extent, that they can only be regarded as two versions of the same code. E has, however, preserved certain additional regulations with regard to the building of altars (xx. 24-26) and the observance of the seventh year (xxiii. 10, 11), and omits the prohibition of molten images (xx. 22, 23, appear to be the work of a redactor); xxiii. 20-33, the promises attached to the observance of the covenant, probably formed no part of the original code, but were added by the Deuteronomic redactor; cf. especially vv. 23-25a, 27, 28, 31b-33. The narrative of E relative to the delivery of these laws has disappeared,10 but xxiv. 3-8 (which manifestly have no connexion with their immediate context) clearly point back to some such narrative. These verses describe how Moses wrote all the words of the Lord in a book and recited them to the people (v. 7) as the basis of a covenant, which was solemnly ratified by the sprinkling of the blood of the accompanying sacrifices.

In the existing text the covenant laws of E (xx. 24-26, xxii. 29-31, xxiii. 10-19) are combined with a mass of civil and other legislation; hence the title “Book of the Covenant” (referred to above, xxiv. 7) has usually been applied to the whole section, xx. 22-xxiii. 33. But this section includes three distinct elements: (a) the “words” (הדברים) found in xx. 24-26, xxii. 29-31, xxiii. 1-10; (b) the “judgments” (המשפטים), xxi. 2-xxii. 17; and (c) a group of moral and ethical enactments, xxii. 18-28, xxiii. 1-9; and an examination of their contents makes it evident that, though the last two groups are unmistakably derived from E, they cannot have formed part of the original “Book of the Covenant”; for the “judgments,” which are expressed in a hypothetical form, consist of a number of legal decisions on points of civil law. The cases dealt with fall into five divisions: (1) The rights of slaves, xxi. 2-11; (2) capital offences, xxi. 12-16 (v. 17 has probably been added later); (3) injuries inflicted by man or beast, xxi. 18-32; (4) losses incurred by culpable negligence or theft, xxi. 33-xxii. 6; (5) cases arising out of deposits, loans, seduction, xxii. 7-17. It is obvious, from their very nature, that these legal precedents could not have been included in the covenant which the people (xxiv. 3) promised to observe, and it is now generally admitted that the words “and the judgments” (which are missing in c. 1 b) have been inserted in xxiv. 3a by the redactor to whom the present position of the “judgments” is due.11 The majority of critics, therefore, adopt Kuenen’s conjecture that the “judgments” were originally delivered by Moses on the borders of Moab, and that when D’s revised version of Ex. xxi.-xxiii. was combined with JE, the older code was placed alongside of E’s other legislation at Horeb. The third group of laws (xxii. 18-28, xxiii. 1-9) appears to have been added somewhat later than the bulk of xxi.-xxiii. Some of the regulations are couched in hypothetical form, but their contents are of a different character to the “judgments,” e.g. xxii. 25 f., xxiii. 4 f.; others, again, are of a similar nature, but differ in form, e.g. xxii. 18 f. Lastly, xxii. 20-24, xxiii. 1-3 set forth a number of moral injunctions affecting the individual, which cannot have found place in a civil code. At the same time, these additions must for the most part be prior to D, since many of them are included in Deut. xii.-xxvi., though there are traces of Deuteronomic revision.

Now it is obvious that the results obtained by the foregoing analysis of J and E have an important bearing on the history of the remaining section of E’s legislation, viz. the Decalogue (q.v.), Ex. xx. 1-17 (= Deut. v. 6-21). At present the “Ten Words” stand in the forefront of E’s collection of laws, and it is evident that they were already found in that position by the author of Deuteronomy, who treated them as the sole basis of the covenant at Horeb. The evidence, however, afforded (a) by the parallel version of Deuteronomy and (b) by the literary analysis of J and E not only fails to support this tradition, but excites the gravest suspicions as to the originality both of the form and of the position in which the Decalogue now appears. For when compared with Ex. xx. 1-17 the parallel version of Deut. v. 6 ff. is found to exhibit a number of variations, and, in particular, assigns an entirely different reason for the observance of the Sabbath. But these variations are practically limited to the explanatory comments attached to the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 10th commandments; and the majority of critics are now agreed that these comments were added at a later date, and that all the commandments, like the 1st and the 6th to the 9th, were originally expressed in the form of a single short sentence. This view is confirmed by the fact that the additions, or comments, bear, for the most part, a close resemblance to the style of D. They can scarcely, however, have been transferred from Deuteronomy to Exodus (or vice versa), owing to the variations between the two versions: we must rather regard them as the work of a Deuteronomic redactor. But the expansion and revision of the Decalogue were not limited to the Deuteronomic school. Literary traces of J and E in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 10th commandments point to earlier activity on the part of RJE, while the addition of v. 11, which bases the observance of the Sabbath on P ’s narrative of the Creation (Gen. ii. 1-3), can only be ascribed to a priestly writer: its absence from Deut. v. 6 ff. is otherwise inexplicable. Thus the Decalogue, as given in Exodus, would seem to have passed through at least three stages before it assumed its present form. But even in its original form it could hardly have formed part of E’s Horeb legislation; for (a) both J and E have preserved a different collection of laws (or “words”) inscribed by Moses, which are definitely set forth as the basis of the covenant at Sinai-Horeb (Ex. xxxiv. 10, xxiv. 3 f.), and (b) the further legislation of E in ch. xx.-xxiii. affords close parallels to all the commandments (except the 7th and the 10th), and a comparison of the two leaves no doubt as to which is the more primitive. Hence we can only conclude that the Decalogue, in its original short form, came into existence during the period after the completion of E, but before the promulgation of Deuteronomy. Its present position is, doubtless, to be ascribed to a redactor who was influenced by the same conception as the author of Deuteronomy. This redactor, however, did not limit the Horeb covenant to the Decalogue, but retained E’s legislation alongside of it. The insertion of the Decalogue, or rather the point of view which prompted its insertion, naturally involved certain consequential changes of the existing text. The most important of these, viz. the harmonistic additions to ch. xxxiv., by means of which J’s version of the covenant was represented as a renewal of the Decalogue, has already been discussed; other passages which show traces of similar revision are xxiv. 12-15a, 18b, and xxxiv. 1-6.

The confusion introduced into the legislation by later additions, with the consequent displacement of earlier material, has not been without effect on the narratives belonging to the different sources. Hence the sequence of events after the completion of the covenant on Sinai-Horeb is not always easy to trace, though indications are not wanting in both J and E of the probable course of the history. The two main incidents that precede the departure of the children of Israel from the mountain (Num. x. 29 ff.) are (1) the sin of the people, and (2) the intercession of Moses, of both of which a double account has been preserved.

(1) The Sin of the People.—According to J (xxxii. 25-29) the people, during the absence of Moses, “break loose,” i.e. mutiny. Their behaviour excites the anger of Moses on his return, and in response to his appeal the sons of Levi arm themselves and slay a large number of the people: as a reward for their services they are bidden to consecrate themselves to Yahweh. The fragmentary form of the narrative—we miss especially a fuller account of the “breaking loose”—is doubtless due to the latter editor, who substituted the story of the golden calf (xxxii. 1-6, 15-24, 35), according to which the sin of the people consisted in direct violation of the 2nd commandment. At the instigation of the people Aaron makes a molten calf out of the golden ornaments brought from Egypt; Moses and Joshua, on their return to the camp, find the people holding festival in honour of the occasion; Moses in his anger breaks the tables of the covenant which he is carrying: he then demolishes the golden calf, and administers a severe rebuke to Aaron. The punishment of the people is briefly recorded in v. 35. This latter narrative, which is obviously inconsistent with the story of J, shows unmistakable traces of E. In its present form, however, it can hardly be original, but must have been revised in accordance with the later Deuteronomic conception which represented the sin committed by the people as a breach of the 2nd commandment. Possibly vv. 7-14 are also to be treated as a Deuteronomic expansion (cf. Deut. ix. 12-14). Though they show clear traces of J, it is extremely difficult to fit them into that narrative in view of Moses’ action in vv. 25-29 and of his intercession in ch. xxxiii.; in any case, vv. 8 and 13 must be regarded as redactional.

(2) Moses’ Intercession.—The time for departure from the Sacred Mount had now arrived, and Moses is accordingly bidden to lead the people to the promised land. Yahweh himself refuses to accompany Israel owing to their disobedience, but in response to Moses’ passionate appeal finally consents to let his presence go with them. The account of Moses’ intercession has been preserved in J, though the narrative has undergone considerable dislocation. The true sequence of the narrative appears to be as follows: Moses is commanded to lead the people to Canaan (xxxiii. 1-3); he pleads that he is unequal to the task (Num. xi. 10c, 11, 12, 14, 15), and, presumably, asks for assistance, which is promised (omitted). Moses then asks for a fuller knowledge of Yahweh and his ways (xxxiii. 12, 13): this request also is granted (v. 17), and he is emboldened to pray that he may see the glory of Yahweh; Yahweh replies that his prayer can only be granted in part, for “man shall not see me and live”; a partial revelation is then vouchsafed to Moses (xxxiii. 18-23, xxxiv. 6-8): finally, Moses beseeches Yahweh to go in the midst of his people, and is assured that Yahweh’s presence shall accompany them (xxxiv. 9, xxxiii. 14-16). The passage from Numbers xi., which is here included, is obviously out of place in its present context (the story of the quails), and supplies in part the necessary antecedent to Ex. xxxiii. 12, 13; the passage is now separated from Ex. xxxiii. by Ex. xxxiv. (J), which has been wrongly transferred to the close of the Horeb-Sinai incidents (see above), and by the priestly legislation of Ex. xxxv.-xl., Leviticus and Num. i.-x.; but originally it must have stood in close connexion with that chapter. A similar displacement has taken place with regard to Ex. xxxiv. 6-9, which clearly forms the sequel to xxxiii. 17-23. The latter passage, however, can hardly represent the conclusion of the interview, which is found more naturally in xxxiii. 14-16. E’s account of Moses’ intercession seems to have been retained, in part, in xxxii. 30-34, but the passage has probably been revised by a later hand; in any case its position before instead of after the dismissal would seem to be redactional.

It is a plausible conjecture that the original narratives of J and E also contained directions for the construction of an ark,12 as a substitute for the personal presence of Yahweh, and also for the erection of a “tent of meeting” outside the camp, and that these commands were omitted by RP in favour of the more elaborate instructions given in ch. xxv.-xxix. (P). The subsequent narrative of J (Num. x. 33-36, xiv. 44) implies an account of the making of the ark, while the remarkable description in Ex. xxxiii. 7-11 (E) of Moses’ practice in regard to the “tent of meeting” points no less clearly to some earlier statement as to the making of this tent.

The history of Exodus in its original form doubtless concluded with the visit of Moses’ father-in-law and the appointment of judges (ch. xviii.), the departure from the mountain and the battle with Amalek (xvii. 8-16).

(c) The Construction of the Tabernacle and its Furniture (ch. xxv.-xxxi., xxxv.-xl.).—It has long been recognized that the elaborate description of the Tabernacle and its furniture, and the accompanying directions for the dress and consecration of the priests, contained in ch. xxv.-xxxi., have no claim to be regarded as an historical presentment of the Mosaic Tabernacle and its service. The language, style and contents of this section point unmistakably to the hand of P; and it is now generally admitted that these chapters form part of an ideal representation of the post-exilic ritual system, which has been transferred to the Mosaic age. According to this representation, Moses, on the seventh day after the conclusion of the covenant, was summoned to the top of the mountain, and there received instructions with regard to (a) the furniture of the sanctuary, viz. the ark, the table and the lamp-stand (ch. xxv.); (b) the Tabernacle (ch. xxvi.); (c) the court of the Tabernacle and the altar of burnt-offering (ch. xxvii.); (d) the dress of the priests (ch. xxviii.); (e) the consecration of Aaron and his sons (xxix. 1-37); and (f) the daily burnt-offering (xxix. 38-42): the section ends with a formal conclusion (xxix. 43-46). The two following chapters contain further instructions relative to the altar of incense (xxx. 1-10), the payment of the half-shekel (11-16), the brazen laver (17-21), the anointing oil (22-33), the incense (34-38), the appointment of Bezaleel and Oholiab (xxxi. 1-11) and the observance of the Sabbath (12-17). It is hardly doubtful, however, that these two chapters formed no part of P’s original legislation, but were added by a later hand.13 For (1) the altar of incense is here mentioned for the first time, and was apparently unknown to the author of ch. xxv.-xxix. Had he known of its existence, he could hardly have failed to include it with the rest of the Tabernacle furniture in ch. xxvi., and must have mentioned it at xxvi. 34 f., where the relative positions of the contents of the Tabernacle are defined: further, the ritual of the Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi. referred to in xxx. 10) ignores this altar, and mentions only one altar (cf. “the altar,” xxvii. 1), viz. that of burnt-offering; (2) the command as to the half-shekel presupposes the census of Num. i., and appears to have been unknown in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. x. 32) (Heb. 33); (3) the instructions as to the brazen laver would naturally be expected alongside of those for the altar of burnt-offering in ch. xxvii.; (4) the following section relating to the anointing oil presupposes the altar of incense (v. 28), and further extends the ceremony of anointing to Aaron’s sons, though, elsewhere, the ceremony is confined to Aaron (xxix. 7, Lev. viii. 12), cf. the title “anointed priest” applied to the high priest (Lev. iv. 3, &c. ); (5) the directions for compounding the incense connect naturally with xxx. 1-10, while (6) the appointment of Bezaleel and Oholiah cannot be separated from the rest of ch. xxx.-xxxi. The concluding section on the Sabbath (xxxi. 12-17) shows marks of resemblance to H (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.), especially in vv. 12-14a, which appear to have been expanded, very possibly by the editor who inserted the passage. The continuation of P’s narrative is given in xxxiv. 29-35, which describe Moses’ return from the mount. The subsequent chapters (xxxv.-xl.), however, can hardly belong to the original stratum of P, if only because they presuppose ch. xxx., xxxi., and were probably added at a later stage than the latter chapters. They narrate how the commands of ch. xxv.-xxxi. were carried out, and practically repeat the earlier chapters verbatim, merely the tenses being changed, the most noticeable omissions being xxvii. 20 f. (oil for the lamps), xxviii. 30 (Urim and Thummim), xxix. 1-37 (the consecration of the priests, which recurs in Lev. viii.) and xxix. 38-42 (the daily burnt-offering). Apart from the omissions the most striking difference between the two sections is the variation in order, the different sections of ch. xxv.-xxxi. being here set forth in their natural sequence. The secondary character of these concluding chapters receives considerable confirmation from a comparison of the Septuagint text. For this version exhibits numerous cases of variation, both as regards order and contents, from the Hebrew text; moreover the translation, more particularly of many technical terms, differs from that of ch. xxv.-xxxi., and seems to be the work of different translators. Hence it is by no means improbable that the final recension of these chapters had not been completed when the Alexandrine version was made.

Authorities.—In addition to the various English and German commentaries on Exodus included under the head of the Pentateuch, the following English works are especially worthy of mention: S.R. Driver, Introd. to the Literature of the O.T., and “Exodus” in the Camb. Bible; B.W. Bacon, The Triple Tradition of the Exodus (Hartford, U.S.A., 1894), and A.H. McNeile, The Book of Exodus (Westminster Commentaries) (1908); also the articles on “Exodus” by G. Harford-Battersby (Hastings, Dict. Bib. vol. i.) and by G.F. Moore, Ency. Biblica, vol. ii.

(J. F. St.)

1 The fact that the father-in-law of Moses is called Reuel in v. 18, as contrasted with the name Jethro, which occurs in iii. 1 f. and in all subsequent passages from E, cannot be taken as conclusive on this point, since critics are agreed that “Reuel” in this verse is a later addition: had it been original we should have expected the name to be given at v. 16 rather than at v. 18. But, if no argument can be based on the discrepancy between the two names, we may at least assume that the namelessness of the priest in v. 16 f. points to a different source for those verses from that of iii. 1 f. Elsewhere J speaks of “Hobab, the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law” (Num. x. 29); the addition, “the priest of Midian,” only occurs in the (secondary) passages iii. 1, xviii. 1 (E). Probably RJE omitted the name in ii. 16 and added “the priest of Midian” in iii. 1, xviii 1, from harmonizing motives. Further, vv. 15B-22 speak of one son being born to Moses at this period, a statement which is borne out by iv. 20, 25 (“sons” in iv. 20 is obviously a correction), whereas ch. xviii. (E) mentions two sons.

The original order of events in J seems to have been as follows: after the death of Pharaoh (ii. 23a; the Septuagint repeats this notice before iv. 19) Moses returns to Egypt with his wife and son (iv. 19, 20) in obedience to Yahweh’s command. On the way he is seized with a sudden illness, which Zipporah attributes to the fact that he has not been circumcised and seeks to avert by circumcising her son (iv. 24-26). The scene of the theophany, therefore, according to J, is to be placed on the way from Midian to Goshen. Probably the displacement of iv. 19, 20, 24-26 is due to the editor of JE, who was thus enabled to combine the two narratives of the theophany.

2 Cf. iv. 30; Aaron had received no command to do the signs, and the words “and he did the signs” are most naturally referred to Moses.

3 The expansion in iii. 8c, 15, 17b; iv. 22, 23, are probably the work of a Deuteronomistic redactor.

4 The genealogy of Moses and Aaron (vv. 14-27) appears to be a later addition.

5 Unless we follow Riedel and read simply “and worshipped” (וישתחוו) instead of “and drank” (וישתו), treating “and ate” (ויאכלו) as a later addition; cf. HDB, extra vol. p. 631 note.

6 Vv. 6-9 are out of place here: they belong to the story of Moses’ intercession in ch. xxxiii.

7 This view is confirmed by (a) a comparison of v. lb (“and I will write”) with vv. 27, 28; according to the latter, Moses wrote the words of the covenant; and (b) the tardy mention of Moses in 4b; the name would naturally be given at the beginning of the verse.

8 Others suppose that the present position of ch. xxxiv. is due, in the first instance, to RJE, but in view of the other Deuteronomic expansions in vv. 10b-16, 23, 24, it is more probable that J’s version was discarded by RJE in favour of E’s, and was afterwards restored by RD.

9 Reading “the sacrifice of my feasts” for “the sacrifice of the feast of the Passover.”

10 Unless, with Bacon, we are to regard xxiv. 12-14, 18b as original. More probably a later editor has worked up old material of E (of which there are unmistakable traces) in order to include the whole of xx.-xxiii. in the covenant: xxiv. 15-18a are an addition from P.

11 The present text of xxiv. 12 also has probably been transposed in accordance with the view that the “judgment” formed part of the covenant, cf. Deut. v. 31. Originally the latter part of the verse must have run, “That I may give thee the tables of stone which I have written, and may teach thee the law and the commandment.” For further details see Bacon, Triple Tradition of Exodus, pp. 111 f., 132 f.

12 According to Deut. x. 1 f., which is in the main a verbal excerpt from Ex. xxxiv. 1 f., Yahweh ordered Moses to make an ark of acacia wood before he ascended the mountain.

13 To the same hand are to be ascribed also xxvii. 6, 20, 21; xxviii. 41; xxix. 21, 38-41.

EXODUS, THE, the name given to the journey (Gr. ἔξοδος) of the Israelites from Egypt into Palestine, under the leadership of Moses and Aaron, as described in the books of the Bible from Exodus to Joshua. These books contain the great national epic of Judaism relating the deliverance of the people from bondage in Egypt, the overthrow of the pursuing Pharaoh and his army, the divinely guided wanderings through the wilderness and the final entry into the promised land. Careful criticism of the narratives1 has resulted in the separation of later accretions from the earliest records, and the tracing of the elaboration of older traditions under the influence of developing religious and social institutions. In the story of the Exodus there have been incorporated codes of laws and institutions which were to be observed by the descendants of the Israelites in their future home, and these, really of later origin, have thus been thrown back to the earlier period in order to give them the stamp of authority. So, although a certain amount of the narrative could date from the days of Moses, the Exodus story has been made the vehicle for the aims and ideals of subsequent ages, and has been adapted from time to time to the requirements of later stages of thought. The work of criticism has brought to light important examples of fluctuating tradition, singular lacunae in some places and unusual wealth of tradition in others, and has demonstrated that much of that which had long been felt to be impossible and incredible was due to writers of the post-exilic age many centuries after the presumed date of the events.

The book of Genesis closes with the migration of Jacob’s family into Egypt to escape the famine in Canaan. Jacob died and was buried in Canaan by his sons, who, however, returned again to the pastures which the Egyptian king had granted them in Goshen. Their brother Joseph on his death-bed promised that God would bring them to the land promised to their forefathers and solemnly adjured them to carry up his bones (Gen. 1.). In the book of Exodus the family has become a people.2 The Pharaoh is hostile, and Yahweh, the Israelite deity, is moved to send a deliverer; on the events that followed see Exodus, Book of; Moses. It has been thought that dynastic changes occasioned the change in Egyptian policy (e.g. the expulsion of the Hyksos), but if the Israelites built Rameses and Pithom (Ex. i. 11), cities which, as excavation has shown, belong to the time of Rameses II. (13th century B.C.), earlier dates are inadmissible. On these grounds the Exodus may have taken place under one of his successors, and since Mineptah or Merneptah (son of Rameses), in relating his successes in Palestine, boasts that Ysiraal is desolated, it would seem that the Israelites had already returned. On the other hand, it has been suggested that when Jacob and his family entered Egypt, some Israelite tribes had remained behind and that it is to these that Mineptah’s inscription refers. The problem is complicated by the fact that, from the Egyptian evidence, not only was there at this time no remarkable emigration of oppressed Hebrews, but Bedouin tribes were then receiving permission to enter Egypt and to feed their flocks upon Egyptian soil. It might be assumed that the Israelites (or at least those who had not remained behind in Palestine) effected their departure at a somewhat later date, and in the time of Mineptah’s successor, Seti II., there is an Egyptian report of the pursuit of some fugitive slaves over the eastern frontier. The value of all such evidence will naturally depend largely upon the estimate formed of the biblical narratives, but it is necessary to observe that these have not yet found Egyptian testimony to support them. Although the information which has been brought to bear upon Egyptian life and customs substantiates the general accuracy of the local colouring in some of the biblical narratives, the latter contain several inherent improbabilities, and whatever future research may yield, no definite trace of Egyptian influence has so far been found in Israelite institutions.

No allusions to Israelites in Egypt have yet been found on the monuments; against the view that the Aperiu (or Apury) of the inscriptions were Hebrews, see S.R. Driver in D.G. Hogarth, Authority and Archaeology, pp. 56 sqq.; H.W. Hogg, Ency. Bib. col. 1310. The plagues of Egypt have been shown to be those to which the land is naturally subject (R. Thomson, Plagues of Egypt), but the description of the relations of Moses and Aaron to the court raises many difficult questions (H.P. Smith, O.T. Hist. pp. 57-60). Those who reject Ex. i. 11 and hold that 480 years elapsed between the Exodus and the foundation of the temple (I Kings vi. 1, see Bible: Chronology) place the former about the time of Tethmosis (Thothmes) III., and suppose that the hostile Ḥabiri (Khabiri) who troubled Palestine in the 15th century are no other than Hebrews (the equation is philologically sound), i.e. the invading Israelites.3 But although the evidence of the Amarna tablets might thus support the biblical tradition in its barest outlines, the view in question, if correct, would necessitate the rejection of a great mass of the biblical narratives as a whole.

In the absence of external evidence the study of the Exodus of the Israelites must be based upon the Israelite records, and divergent or contradictory views must be carefully noticed. Regarded simply as a journey from Egypt into Palestine it is the most probable of occurrences: the difficulty arises from the actual narratives. The first stage is the escape from the land of Goshen (q.v.), the district allotted to the family of Jacob (Gen. xlvi. 28-34, xlvii. 1, 4, 6).4 As to the route taken across the Red Sea (Yam Sūph) scholars are not agreed (see W.M. Müller, Ency. Bib. col. 1436 sqq.); it depends upon the view held regarding the second stage of the journey, the road to the mountain of Sinai or Horeb and thence to Kadesh. The last-mentioned place is identified with Ain Kadīs, about 50 m. south of Beersheba; but the identification of the mountain is uncertain, and it is possible that tradition confused two distinct places. According to one favourite view, the journey was taken across the Sinaitic peninsula to Midian, the home of Jethro. Others plead strongly for the traditional site Jebel Mūsā or Serbāl in the south of the peninsula (see J.R. Harris, Dict. Bible, iv. pp. 536 sqq.; H. Winckler, Ency. Bib. col. 4641). The latter view implies that the oppressed Israelites left Egypt for one of its dependencies, and both theories find only conjectural identifications in the various stations recorded in Num. xxxiii. But this list of forty names, corresponding to the years of wandering, is from a post-exilic source, and may be based merely upon a knowledge of caravan-routes; even if it be of older origin, it is of secondary value since it represents a tradition differing notably from that in the earlier narratives themselves, and these on inspection confirm Judg. xi. 16 seq., where the Israelites proceed immediately to Kadesh.

Ex. xvi.-xviii. presuppose a settled encampment and a law-giving, and thus belong to a stage after Sinai had been reached (Ex. xix. sqq.). They are closely related, as regards subject matter, &c. , to the narratives in Num. x. 29-xi., xx. 1-13 (Sinai to Kadesh), and the initial step is the recognition that the latter is their original context (see G.F. Moore, Ency. Bib. col. 1443 [v.]). Further, internal peculiarities associating events now at Sinai-Horeb with those at Kadesh support the view that Kadesh was their true scene, and it is to be noticed that in Ex. xv. 22 seq. the Israelites already reach the wilderness of Shur and accomplish the three days’ journey which had been their original aim (cf. Ex. iii. 18, v. 3, viii. 27). The wilderness of Shur (Gen. xvi. 7, xx. 1; 1 Sam. xv. 7, xxvii. 8) is the natural scene of conflicts with Amalekites (Ex. xvii. 8 sqq.), and its sanctuary of Kadesh or En Mishpat (“well of judgment,” Gen. xiv. 7) was doubtless associated with traditions of the giving of statutes and ordinances. The détour to Sinai-Horeb appears to belong to a later stage of the tradition, and is connected with the introduction of laws and institutions of relatively later form. It is foreshadowed by the injunction to avoid the direct way into Palestine (see Ex. xiii. 17-19), since on reaching Kadesh the Israelites would be within reach of hostile tribes, and the conflicts which it was proposed to avoid actually ensued.5 The forty years of wandering in the wilderness is characteristic of the Deuteronomic and post-exilic narratives; in the earlier sources the fruitful oasis of Kadesh is the centre, and even after the tradition of a détour to Sinai-Horeb was developed, only a brief period is spent at the holy mountain.

From Kadesh spies were sent into Palestine, and when the people were dismayed at their tidings and incurred the wrath of Yahweh, the penalty of the forty years’ delay was pronounced (Num. xiii. seq.). Originally Caleb alone was exempt and for his faith received a blessing; later tradition adds Joshua and in Deut. i. 37 seq. alludes to some unknown offence of Moses. According to Num. xxi. 1-3 the Israelites (a generalizing amplification) captured Hormah, on the way to Beersheba, and subsequently the clan Caleb and the Kenites (the clan of Moses’ father-in-law) are found in Judah (Judg. i. 16). Although the traditions regard their efforts as part of a common movement (from Gilgal, see below), it is more probable that these (notably Caleb) escaped the punishment which befell the rest of the Israelites, and made their way direct from Kadesh into the south of Palestine.6 On the other hand, according to the prevailing tradition, the attempt to break northwards was frustrated by a defeat at Hormah (Num. xiv. 40-45), an endeavour to pass Edom failed, and the people turned back to the Yam Sūph (here at the head of the Gulf of Akabah) and proceeded up to the east of Edom and Moab. Conflicting views are represented (on which see Moab), but at length Shittim was reached and preparations were made to cross the Jordan into the promised land. This having been effected, Gilgal became the base for a series of operations in which the united tribes took part. But again the representations disagree, and to the overwhelming campaigns depicted in the book of Joshua most critics prefer the account of the more gradual process as related in the opening chapter of the book of Judges (see Jews: History, § 8).

Thus, whatever evidence may be supplied by archaeological research, the problem of the Exodus must always be studied in the light of the biblical narratives. That the religious life of Israel as portrayed therein dates from this remote period cannot be maintained against the results of excavation or against the later history, nor can we picture a united people in the desert when subsequent vicissitudes represent the union as the work of many years, and show that it lasted for a short time only under David and Solomon. During the centuries in which the narratives were taking shape many profound changes occurred to affect the traditions. Developments associated with the Deuteronomic reform and the reorganization of Judaism in post-exilic days can be unmistakably recognized, and it would be unsafe to assume that other vicissitudes have not also left their mark. Allowance must be made for the shifting of boundaries or of spheres of influence (Egypt, Edom, Moab), for the incorporation of tribes and of their own tribal traditions, and in particular for other movements (e.g. from Arabia).7 If certain clans moved direct from Kadesh into Judah, it is improbable that others made the lengthy détour from Kadesh by the Gulf of Akabah, but this may well be an attempt to fuse the traditions of two distinct migrations. Among the Joseph-tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh), the most important of Israelite divisions, the traditions of an ancestor who had lived and died in Egypt would be a cherished possession, but although most writers agree that not all the tribes were in Egypt, it is impossible to determine their number with any certainty. At certain periods, intercourse with Egypt was especially intimate, and there is much in favour of the view that the name Mizraim (Egypt) extended beyond the borders of Egypt proper. Reference has already been made to other cases of geographical vagueness, and one must recognize that in a body of traditions such as this there was room for the inclusion of the most diverse elements which it is almost hopeless to separate, in view of the scantiness of relevant evidence from other sources, and the literary intricacy of the extant narratives. That many different beliefs have influenced the tradition is apparent from what has been said above, and is especially noticeable from a study of the general features. Thus, although the Israelites possessed cattle (Ex. xvii. 3, xix. 13, xxiv. 5, xxxii. 6, xxxiv. 3; Num. xx. 19), allusion is made to their lack of meat in order to magnify the wonders of the journey, and among divinely sent aids to guide and direct the people upon the march not only does Moses require the assistance of a human helper (Jethro or Hobab), but the angel, the ark, the pillar of cloud and of fire and the mysterious hornet are also provided.

In addition to the references already given, see J.W. Colenso, Pentateuch and Book of Joshua (on internal difficulties); A. Jeremias, Alte Test. im Lichte d. alt. Orients2 (pp. 402 sqq., on later references in Manetho, &c. , with which cf. also R.H. Charles, Jubilees, p. 245 seq.); art. “Exodus” in Ency. Bib.; Ed. Meyer, Israëliten (passim); Bönhoff, Theolog. Stud. u. Krit. (1907), pp. 159-217; the histories of Israel and commentaries on the book of Exodus. Among the numerous special works, mention may be made of G. Ebers, Durch Gosen zum Sinai; E.H. Palmer, Desert of the Exodus; O.A. Toffteen, The Historic Exodus; fuller information is given in L.B. Paton, Hist. of Syria and Palestine, p. 34 (also ch. viii.); and C.F. Kent, Beginnings of Heb. Hist. p. 355 seq.

(S. A. C.)

1 See the articles on the books in question.

2 There is a lacuna between the oldest traditions in Genesis and those in Exodus: the latter beginning simply “and there arose a new king over Egypt which knew not Joseph.” The interval between Jacob’s arrival in Egypt and the Exodus is given varyingly as 400 or 430 years (Gen. xv. 13, Ex. xii. 40 seq., Acts vii. 6); but the Samaritan and Septuagint versions allow only 215 years (Ex. loc. cit.), and a period of only four generations is presupposed in Gen. xv. 16 (cf. the length of the genealogies between the contemporaries of Joseph and those of Moses in Ex. vi. 16-20).

3 Sec, e.g., J. Orr, Problem of the O.T. pp. 422 sqq.; Ed. Meyer, Die Israëliten, pp. 222 sqq. Some, too, find in the Amarna tablets the historical background for Joseph’s high position at the Egyptian court (see Cheyne, Ency. Bib. art. “Joseph”).

4 For the varying traditions regarding the number of the people and their residence (whether settled apart, cf., e.g., Gen. xlvi. 34, Ex. viii. 22, ix. 26, x. 23, or in the midst of the Egyptians) see the recent commentaries.

5 See further J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, pp. 342 sqq.; G.F. Moore, Ency. Bib. col. 1443; S.A. Cook, Jew. Quart. Rev. (1906), pp. 741 sqq. (1907), p. 122, and art. Moses. Ex. xiii. 17-19 forbids the compromise which would place Sinai-Horeb in the neighbourhood of Kadesh (A.E. Haynes, Pal. Explor. Fund, Quart. Statem. (1896), pp. 175 sqq.; C.F. Kent [see Lit. below], p. 381).

6 So B. Stade, Steuernagel, Guthe, G.F. Moore, H.P. Smith, C.F. Kent, &c. See Caleb; Jerahmeel; Judah; Kenites; Levites; and Jews: History, §§ 5, 20 (end).

7 An instructive parallel to the last-mentioned is afforded by Dissard’s account of the migration of Arab tribes into Palestine in the 18th century A.D. (Revue biblique, July 1905).

EXOGAMY (Gr. ἔξω, outside; and γάμος, marriage), the term proposed by J.F. McLennan for the custom compelling marriage “out of the tribe” (or rather “out of the totem”); its converse is endogamy (q.v.). McLennan would find an explanation of exogamy in the prevalence of female infanticide, which, “rendering women scarce, led at once to polyandry within the tribe, and the capturing of women from without.” Infanticide of girls is, and no doubt ever has been, a very common practice among savages, and for obvious reasons. Among tribes in a primitive stage of social organization girl-children must always have been a hindrance and a source of weakness. They had to be fed and yet they could not take part in the hunt for food, and they offered a temptation to neighbouring tribes. Infanticide, however, is not proved to have been so universal as McLennan suggests, and it is more probable that the reason of exogamy is really to be found in that primitive social system which made the “captured” woman the only wife in the modern sense of the term. In the beginnings of human society children were related only to their mother; and the women of a tribe were common property. Thus no man might appropriate any female or attempt to maintain proprietary rights over her. With women of other tribes it would be different, and a warrior who captured a woman would doubtless pass unchallenged in his claim to possess her absolutely. Infanticide, the evil physical effects of “in-and-in” breeding, the natural strength of the impulse to possess on the man’s part, and the greater feeling of security and a tendency to family life and affections on the woman’s, would combine to make exogamy increase and marriages within the tribe decrease. A natural impulse would in a few generations tend to become a law or a custom, the violation of which would be looked on with horror. Physical capture, too, as soon as increasing civilization and tribal intercommunication removed the necessity for violence, became symbolic of the more permanent and individual relations of the sexes. An additional explanation of the prevalence of exogamy may be found in the natural tendency of exogamous tribes to increase in numbers and strength at the expense of those communities which moved towards decadence by in-breeding. Thus tradition would harden into a prejudice, strong as a principle of religion, and exogamy would become the inviolable custom it is found to be among many races. In Australia, Sir G. Grey writes: “One of the most remarkable facts connected with the natives is that they are divided into certain great families, all the members of which bear the same name ... these family names are common over a great portion of the continent and a man cannot marry a woman of his own family name.” In eastern Africa, Sir R. Burton says: “The Somal will not marry one of the same, or even of a consanguineous family,” and the Bakalahari have the same rule. Paul B. du Chaillu found exogamy the rule and blood marriages regarded as an abomination throughout western Equatorial Africa. In India the Khasias, Juangs, Waralis, Otaons, Hos and other tribes are strictly exogamous. The Kalmucks are divided into hordes, and no man may marry a woman of the same horde. Circassians and Samoyedes have similar rules. The Ostiaks regard endogamy (marriage within the clan) as a crime, as do the Yakuts of Siberia. Among the Indians of America severe rules prescribing exogamy prevail. The Tsimsheean Indians of British Columbia are divided into tribes and totems, or “crests which are common to all the tribes,” says one writer. “The crests are the whale, the porpoise, the eagle, the coon, the wolf and the frog.... The relationship existing between persons of the same crest is nearer than that between members of the same tribe.... Members of the same tribe may marry, but those of the same crest are not allowed to under any circumstances; that is, a whale may not marry a whale, but a whale may marry a frog, &c.” The Thlinkeets, the Mayas of Yucatan and the Indians of Guiana are exogamous, observing a custom which is thus seen to exist throughout Africa, in Siberia, China, India, Polynesia and the Americas.

Authorities.—J.F. McLennan, Primitive Marriage (1865), and Studies in Anc. Hist. (1896); Lord Avebury, Origin of Civilization (1902); Westermarck, History of Human Marriage (1894); A. Lang, Social Origins (1903); L.H. Morgan, Ancient Society (1877); J.G. Frazer, Totemism and Exogamy (1910); see also Totem.

EXORCISM (Gr. ἐξορκίζειν, to conjure out), the expulsion of evil spirits from persons or places by incantations, magical rites or other means. As a corollary of the animistic theory of diseases and of belief in Possession (q.v.), we find widely spread customs whose object is to get rid of the evil influences. These customs may take the form of a general expulsion of evils, either once a year or at irregular intervals; the evils, which are often regarded as spirits, sometimes as the souls of the dead, may be expelled, according to primitive philosophy, either immediately by spells, purifications or some form of coercion; or they may be put on the back of a scapegoat or other material vehicle. Among the means of compelling the evil spirits are assaults with warlike weapons or sticks, the noise of musical instruments or of the human voice, the use of masks, the invocation of more powerful good spirits, &c. ; both fire and water are used to drive them out, and the use of iron is a common means of holding them at bay.

The term exorcism is applied more especially to the freeing of an individual from a possessing or disease-causing spirit; the means adopted are frequently the same as those mentioned above; in the East Indies the sufferer sometimes dances round a small ship, into which the spirit passes and is then set adrift. The patient may be beaten or means may be employed whose efficiency depends largely on their suggestive nature. Among the Dakota Indians the medicine-man chants hi-le-li-lah! at the bed of the sick man and accompanies his chant with the rattle; he then sucks at the affected part till the possessing spirit is supposed to come out and take its flight, when men fire guns at it from the door of the tent. The Zulus believe that they can get rid of the souls of the dead, which cause diseases, by sacrifices of cattle, or by expostulating with the spirits; so too the shaman or magician in other parts of the world offers the possessing spirit objects or animals.

The professional exorcist was known among the Jews; in Greece the art was practised by women, and it is recorded that the mothers of Epicurus and Aeschines belonged to this class; both were bitterly reproached, the one by the Stoics, the other by Demosthenes, with having taken part in the practices in question. The prominence of exorcism in the early ages of the Christian church appears from its frequent mention in the writings of the fathers, and by the 3rd century there was an order of exorcists (see Exorcist). The ancient rite of exorcism in connexion with baptism is still retained in the Roman ritual, as is also a form of service for the exorcising of possessed persons. The exorcist signs the possessed person with the figure of the cross, desires him to kneel, and sprinkles him with holy water; after which the exorcist asks the devil his name, and abjures him by the holy mysteries of the Christian religion not to afflict the person possessed any more. Then, laying his right hand on the demoniac’s head, he repeats the form of exorcism as follows: “I exorcise thee, unclean spirit, in the name of Jesus Christ; tremble, O Satan, thou enemy of the faith, thou foe of mankind, who hast brought death into the world, who hast deprived men of life, and hast rebelled against justice, thou seducer of mankind, thou root of evil, thou source of avarice, discord and envy.” Houses and other places supposed to be haunted by unclean spirits are likewise to be exorcised with similar rites, and in general exorcism has a place in all the ceremonies for consecrating and blessing persons or things (see Benediction).

See Tylor, Primitive Culture; Skeat, Malay Magic, p. 427 seq.; Frazer, Golden Bough, vol. iii. 189; Krafft, Ausführliche Historie von Exorcismus; Koldeweg, Der Exorcismus im Herzogthum Braunschweig; Brecher, Das Transcendentale, Magie, etc. im Talmud, pp. 195-203: Zeitschr. für Assyriologie (Dec. 1893, April 1894); Herzog, Realencykl., s.v. “Exorcismus”; Waldmeier, Autobiography, p. 64; L.W. King, Babylonian Magic; Maury, La Magie; R.C. Thompson, Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia.

EXORCIST (Lat. exorcista, Gr. ἐξορκίστης), in the Roman Catholic church, the third grade in the minor orders of the clergy, between those of acolyte and reader. The office, which involves the right of ceremonially exorcising devils (see Exorcism), is actually no more than a preliminary stage of the priesthood. The earliest record of the special ordination of exorcists is the 7th canon of the council of Carthage (A.D. 256). “When they are ordained,” it runs, “they receive from the hand of the bishop a little book in which the exorcisms are written, receiving power to lay hands on the energumeni, whether baptized or catechumens.” Whatever its present position, the office of exorcist was, until comparatively recent times, by no means considered a sinecure. “The exorcist a terror to demons” (Paulinus, Epist. 24) survived the Reformation among Protestants, with the belief, expressed by Firmilianus in his epistle to St Cyprian, that “through the exorcists, by the voice of man and the power of God, the devil may be whipped, and burnt and tortured.”

EXOTIC (Gr. ἐξωτικός, foreign, from ἔξω, outside), of foreign origin, or belonging to another country. The term is now used in the restricted sense of something not indigenous or native, and is mostly applied to plants introduced from foreign countries, which have not become acclimatized. Figuratively, “exotic” is used to convey the sense of something rare, delicate or extravagant.

EXPATRIATION (from Late Lat. expatriare, to exile, and patria, native land), a term used in a general sense for the banishment of a person from his own country. In international law expatriation is the renunciation or change of allegiance to one’s native or adopted country. It may take place either by a voluntary act or by operation of law. Some countries, as France and England, disclaim their subjects if they become naturalized in another country, others, again, passively permit expatriation whether a new nationality has been acquired or not; others, as Germany, make expatriation the consequence of continued absence from their territory. (See Alien; Allegiance; Naturalization.)

EXPERT (Lat. expertus, from experiri, to try), strictly, skilled, or one who has special knowledge; as used in law, an expert is a person, selected by a court, or adduced by a party to a cause, to give his opinion on some point in issue with which he is peculiarly conversant. In Roman law questions of disputed handwriting were referred to experts; and in France, whenever the court considers that a report by experts is necessary, it is ordered by a judgment clearly setting forth the objects of the expertise (Code Proc. Civ. art. 302). Three experts are then to be appointed, unless the parties agree upon one only (art. 303). The experts are required to take an oath (art. 305), but in practice this requirement is frequently dispensed with. They may be challenged on the same grounds as witnesses (art. 310). The necessary documentary and other evidence is laid before them (art. 317), and they make a single report to the court, even if they express different opinions: in that case the grounds only of the different opinions are to be stated, and not the personal opinion of each of the experts (art. 318). If the court is not satisfied with the report, new experts may be appointed (art. 322); the judges are not bound to adopt the opinion of the experts (art. 323). “This procedure in regard to experts is common to both the civil and commercial courts, but it is much more frequently resorted to in the commercial court than in the civil court, and the investigation is usually conducted by special experts officially attached to each of these courts” (Bodington, French Law of Evidence, London, 1904, p. 102). A similar system is to be found in force in many other European countries; see e.g. Codes of Civil Procedure of Holland, arts. 222 et seq.; Belgium, arts. 302 et seq.; Italy, arts. 252 et seq.; as well as in those colonies where French law has been followed (Codes of Civil Procedure of Quebec, arts. 392 et seq.; St Lucia, arts. 286 et seq.). In Mauritius the articles of the French law, summarized above, are still nominally in force; but in practice each side calls its own expert evidence, as in England.

There is some evidence that in England the courts were in early times in the habit of summoning to their assistance, apparently as assessors, persons specially qualified to advise upon any scientific or technical question that required to be determined. Thus “in an appeal of maihem (i.e. wounding) ... the court did not know how to adjudge because the wound was new, and then the defendant took issue and prayed the court that the maihem might be examined, on which a writ was sent to the sheriff to cause to come medicos chirurgieos de melioribus London, ad informandum dominum regem el curiam de his quae eis ex parte domini regis injungerentur” (Year Book, 21 Hen. VII. pl. 30, p. 33). The practice of calling in expert assistance in judicial inquiries was not confined to medico-legal cases. “If matters arise,” said Justice Saunders in Buckley v. Rice Thomas (1554, Plowden, 124 a), “which concern other faculties, we commonly apply for the aid of that science or faculty which it concerns.” English procedure, however, being litigious, and not, like continental European procedure, inquisitorial, in its character, the expert soon became, and still is, simply a witness to speak to matters of opinion.

There is a considerable body of law in England as to expert evidence. Only a few points can be touched upon here. (1) An expert is permitted to refresh his memory in regard to any fact by referring to anything written by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred or at a time when it was fresh in his memory. This is also law generally in the United States (see e.g. New York Civil Code, s. 1843). In Scotland, medical and other scientific reports are lodged in process before the trial, and the witness reads them as part of his evidence and is liable to be examined or cross-examined on their contents. (2) In strictness, an expert will not be allowed, in cases of alleged insanity, to say that a litigating or incriminated party is insane or the reverse, and so to usurp the prerogative of the court or jury. But he may be asked whether certain facts or symptoms, assuming them to be proved, are or are not indicative of insanity. But in practice this rule is relaxed both in England and in Scotland, and (where it exists) to a still greater extent in America. (3) Foreign law can only be proved in English courts—and the same rule applies in Scotland—(a) by obtaining an opinion on the subject from a superior court of the country whose laws are in dispute under the Foreign Law Ascertainment Act 1861 or the British Law Ascertainment Act 1859, or (b) by the evidence of a lawyer of the country whose law is in question, or who has studied it in that country, or of an official whose position requires, and therefore presumes, a sufficient knowledge of that law. (4) The weight of authority both in England and in America supports the view that an expert is not bound to give evidence as to matters of opinion unless upon an undertaking by the party calling him to pay a reasonable remuneration for his evidence.

Statutory provision has been made in England for the summoning of expert assistance by the legal tribunals in various cases. In the county courts the judge may, if he thinks fit, on the application of either party, call in as assessor one or more persons of skill and experience as to the matters in dispute (County Courts Act 1888, s. 103), and special provision is made for calling in an assessor in employers’ liability cases (act of 1880, s. 6) and admiralty matters (see County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Acts of 1868 and 1869). In the High Court and court of appeal one or more specially qualified assessors may be called in to assist in the hearing of any cause or matter except a criminal proceeding by the crown (Judicature Acts 1873, s. 56), and a like power is given to both these courts and the judicial committee of the privy council in patent cases (Patents, &c. , Act 1883., s. 28). Maritime causes, whether original or on appeal from county courts, are usually taken in the presence of Elder Brethren of the Trinity House, who advise the judge without having any right to control or any responsibility for his decision (see the “Beryl,” 1884, 9 P.D. 1), and on appeal in maritime causes nautical assessories are usually called in by the court of appeal, and may be called in by the House of Lords (Judicature Act 1891, s. 3); a like provision is made as to maritime causes in Scottish courts (Nautical Assessors [Scotland] Act 1894). The judicial committee of the privy council, besides its power to call in assessors in patent cases, is authorized to call them in in ecclesiastical causes (Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, s. 14).

In addition to the authorities cited in the text, see Taylor, Law of Evidence (9th ed., London, 1895); J.D. Lawson, Law of Expert and Opinion Evidence (1900).

EXPLOSIVES, a general term for substances which by certain treatment “explode,” i.e. decompose or change in a violent manner so as to generate force. From the manner and degree of violence of the decomposition they are classified into “propellants” and “detonators,” but this classification is not capable of sharp delimitation. In some cases the same substance may be employed for either purpose under altered external conditions; but there are some substances which could not possibly be employed as propellants, and others which can scarcely be induced to explode in the manner known as “detonation.” A propellant may be considered as a substance that on explosion produces such a disturbance that neighbouring substances are thrown to some distance; a detonator or disruptor may produce an extremely violent disturbance within a limited area without projecting substances to any great distance. Time is an important, perhaps the most important, factor in this action. A propellant generally acts by burning in a more or less rapid and regular manner, producing from a comparatively small volume a large volume of gases; during this action heat is also developed, which, being expended mostly on the gaseous products, causes a further expansion. The noise accompanying an explosion is due to an air wave, and is markedly different in the case of a detonator from a real propellant. Some cases of ordinary combustion can be accelerated into explosions by increasing the area of contact between the combustible and the oxygen supplier, for instance, ordinary gas or dust explosions. Neither temperature nor quantity of heat energy necessarily gives an explosive action. Some metals, e.g. aluminium and magnesium, will, in oxidizing, produce a great thermal effect, but unless there be some gaseous products no real explosive action.

Explosives may be mechanical mixtures of substances capable of chemical interaction with the production of large volumes of gases, or definite chemical compounds of a peculiar class known as “endothermic,” the decomposition of which is also attended with the evolution of gases in large quantity.

All chemical compounds are either “endothermic” or “exothermic.” In endothermic compounds energy, in some form, has been taken up in the act of formation of the compound. Some of this energy has become potential, or rather the compound formed has been raised to a higher potential. This case occurs when two elements can be united only under some compulsion such as a very high temperature, by the aid of an electric current, or spark, or as a secondary product whilst some other reactions are proceeding. For example, oxygen and nitrogen combine only under the influence of an electric spark, and carbon and calcium in the electric furnace. The formation of chlorates by the action of chlorine on boiling potash is a good instance of a complex compound (potassium chlorate), being formed in small quantity as a secondary product whilst a large quantity of primary and simpler products (potassium chloride and water) is forming. In chlorate formation the greater part of the reaction represents a running down of energy and formation of exothermic compounds, with only a small yield of an endothermic substance. Another idea of the meaning of endothermic is obtained from acetylene. When 26 parts by weight of this substance are burnt, the heat produced will warm up 310,450 parts of water 1° C. Acetylene consists of 24 parts of carbon and 2 of hydrogen by weight. The 24 parts of carbon will, if in the form of pure charcoal, heat 192,000 parts of water 1°, and the 2 parts of hydrogen will heat 68,000 parts of water 1°, the total heat production being 260,000 heat units. Thus 26 grams of acetylene give an excess of 50,450 units over the amount given by the constituents. This excess of heat energy1 is due to some form of potential energy in the compound which becomes actual heat energy at the moment of dissolution of the chemical union. The manner in which a substance is endothermic is of importance as regards the practical employment of explosives. Some particular endothermic state or form results from the mode of formation and the consequent internal structure of the molecule. Physical structure alone can be the cause of a relative endothermic state, as in the glass bulbs known as Rupert’s drops, &c. , or even in chilled steel. Rupert’s drops fly in pieces on being scratched or cut to a certain depth. The cause is undoubtedly to be ascribed to the molecular state of the glass brought about by chilling from the melted state. The molecules have not had time to separate or arrange themselves in easy positions. In steel when melted the carbide of iron is no doubt diffused equally throughout the liquid. When cooled slowly some carbide separates out more or less, and the steel is soft or annealed. When chilled the carbides are retained in solid solution. The volume of chilled glass or steel differs slightly from that in the annealed state.

Superfused substances are probably in a similar state of physical potential or strain. Many metallic salts, and organic compounds especially, will exhibit this state when completely melted and then allowed to cool in a clean atmosphere. On touching with a little of the same substance in a solid state the liquids will begin to crystallize, at the same time becoming heated almost up to their melting-points. The metal gallium shows this excellently well, keeping liquid for years until touched with the solid metal, when there is a considerable rise of temperature as solidification takes place.

All carbon compounds, excepting carbon dioxide, and many if not all compounds of nitrogen, are endothermic. Most of the explosives in common use contain nitrogen in some form.

Exothermic compounds are in a certain sense the reverse of endothermic; they are relatively inert and react but slowly or not at all, unless energy be expended upon them from outside. Water, carbon dioxide and most of the common minerals belong to this class.

The explosives actually employed at the present time include mixtures, such as gunpowders and some chlorate compositions, the ingredients of which separately may be non-explosive; compounds used singly, as guncotton, nitroglycerin (in the form of dynamite), picric acid (as lyddite or melinite), trinitrotoluene, nitrocresols, mercury fulminate, &c. ; combinations of some explosive compounds, such as cordite and the smokeless propellants in general use for military purposes; and, finally, blasting and detonating or igniting compositions, some of which contain inert diluting materials as well as one or more high explosives. Many igniting compositions are examples of the last type, consisting of a high explosive diluted with a neutral substance, and frequently containing in addition a composition which is inflamed by the explosion of the diluted high explosive, the flame in turn igniting the actual propellant.

Explosive Mixtures.—The explosive mixture longest known is undoubtedly gunpowder (q.v.) in some form—that is, a mixture of charcoal with sulphur and nitre, the last being the oxygen provider. Besides the nitrates of metals and ammonium nitrate, there is a limited number of other substances capable of serving in a sufficiently energetic manner as oxygen providers. A few chlorates, perchlorates, permanganates and chromates almost complete the list. Of these the sodium, potassium and barium chlorates are best known and have been actually tried, in admixture with some combustible substances, as practical explosives. Most other metallic chlorates are barred from practical employment owing to instability, deliquescence or other property.

Of the chlorates those of potassium and sodium are the most stable, and mixtures of either of these salts with sulphur or sulphides, phosphorus, charcoal, sugar, starch, finely-ground cellulose, coal or almost any kind of organic, i.e. carbon, compound, in certain proportions, yield an explosive mixture. In many cases these mixtures are not only fired or exploded by heating to a certain temperature, but also by quite moderate friction or percussion. Consequently there is much danger in manufacture and storage, and however these mixtures have been made up, they are quite out of the question as propellants on account of their great tendency to explode in the manner of a detonator. In addition they are not smokeless, and leave a considerable residue which in a gun would produce serious fouling.

Mixtures of chlorates with aromatic compounds such as the nitro- or dinitro-benzenes or even naphthalene make very powerful blasting agents. The violent action of a chlorate mixture is due first to the rapid evolution of oxygen, and also to the fact that a chlorate can be detonated when alone. A drop of sulphuric acid will start the combustion of a chlorate mixture. In admixture with sulphur, sulphides and especially phosphorus, chlorates give extremely sensitive compositions, some of which form the basis of friction tube and firing mixtures.

Potassium and sodium perchlorates and permanganates make similar but slightly less sensitive explosive mixtures with the above-mentioned substances. Finely divided metals such as aluminium or magnesium give also with permanganates, chlorates or perchlorates sensitive and powerful explosives. Bichromates, although containing much available oxygen, form but feeble explosive mixtures, but some compounds of chromic acid with diazo compounds and some acetylides are extremely powerful as well as sensitive. Ammonium bichromate is a self-combustible after the type of ammonium nitrate, but scarcely an explosive.

Explosive Compounds.—Nearly all the explosive compounds in actual use either for blasting purposes or as propellants are nitrogen compounds, and are obtained more or less directly from nitric acid. Most of the propellants at present employed consist essentially of nitrates of some organic compound, and may be viewed theoretically as nitric acid, the hydrogen of which has been replaced by a carbon complex; such compounds are expressed by M·O·NO2, which indicates that the carbon group is in some manner united by means of oxygen to the nitrogen group. Guncotton and nitroglycerin are of this class. Another large class of explosives is formed by a more direct attachment of nitrogen to the carbon complex, as represented by M·NO2. A number of explosives of the detonating type are of this class. They contain the same proportions of oxygen and nitrogen as nitrites, but are not nitrites. They have been termed nitro-derivatives for distinction. One of the simplest and longest-known members of this group is nitrobenzene, C6H5NO2, which is employed to some extent as an explosive, being one ingredient in rack-a-rock and other blasting compositions. The dinitro-benzenes, C6H4(NO2)2, made from it are solids which are somewhat extensively employed as constituents of some sporting powders, and in admixture with ammonium nitrate form a blasting powder of a “flameless” variety which is comparatively safe in dusty or “gassy” coal seams.

Picric acid or trinitrophenol, C6H2·OH·(NO2)3 is employed as a high explosive for shell, &c. It requires, however, either to be enclosed and heated, or to be started by a powerful detonator to develop its full effect. Its compounds with metals, such as the potassium salt, C6H2·OK·(NO2)3, are when dry very easily detonated by friction or percussion and always on heating, whereas picric acid itself will burn very quietly when set fire to under ordinary conditions. Trinitrotoluene, C6H2·CH3·(NO2)3, is a high explosive resembling picric acid in the manner of its explosion (to which in fact it is a rival), but differs therefrom in not forming salts with metals. The nitronaphthols, C10H6·OH·NO2, and higher nitration products may be counted in the list. Their salts with metals behave much like the picrates.

All these nitro compounds can be reduced by the action of nascent hydrogen to substances called amines (q.v.), which are not always explosive in themselves, but in some cases can form nitrates of a self-combustible nature. Aminoacetic acid, for instance, will form a nitrate which burns rapidly but quietly, and might be employed as an explosive. By the action of nitrous acid at low temperatures on aromatic amines, e.g. aniline, C6H5NH2, diazo compounds are produced. These are all highly explosive, and when in a dry state are for the most part also extremely sensitive to friction, percussion or heat. As many of these diazo compounds contain no oxygen their explosive nature must be ascribed to the peculiar state of union of the nitrogen. This state is attempted to be shown by the formulae such as, for instance, C6H5·N:N·X, which maybe some compound of diazobenzene. Probably the most vigorous high explosive at present known is the substance called hydrazoic acid or azoimide (q.v.). It forms salts with metals such as AgN3, which explode in a peculiar manner. The ammonium compound, NH4N3, may become a practical explosive of great value.

Mercuric fulminate, HgC2N2O2, is one of the most useful high explosives known. It is formed by the action of a solution of mercurous nitrate, containing some nitrous acid, on alcohol. It is a white crystalline substance almost insoluble in cold water and requiring 130 times its weight of boiling water for solution. It may be heated to 180° C. before exploding, and the explosion so brought about is much milder than that produced by percussion. It forms the principal ingredient in cap compositions, in many fuses and in detonators. In many of these compositions the fulminate is diluted by mixture with certain quantities of inert powders so that its sensitiveness to friction or percussion is just so much lowered, or slowed down, that it will fire another mixture capable of burning with a hot flame. For detonating dynamite, guncotton, &c. , it is generally employed without admixture of a diluent.