Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Exodus

[Kata Plasma]

Why does the Son of the Sea (Exodus 15:12) say "the earth swallowed [Pharaoh's army]"?

The poem and the narrative of Exodus 14 stress that the Egyptians "sunk like a rock into the depths of the sea" and "sunk like lead into mighty waters." Clearly the waters covered the people (15:5; 10), but in what sense has the earth done the same?

[jimwalton]

In this case the "earth" ('eretz) denotes not only the earth but also the underworld. This usage is common in Ugaritic and Akkadian as well. To be "swallowed by the earth" is "to die."

The image of Death eating or swallowing the living is common. It is figurative of death. Dr. John Walton comments, "This statement may refer to the Egyptian conception of the punishment that awaits wrongdoers in the afterlife. Those who are, at the postmortem judgment, found guilty of wrongdoing and thus unworthy of a blissful afterlife are eaten by a beast known as 'Devouress' or 'Swallower.' By stating that the Egyptians have been swallowed up, the biblical text may be figuratively dooming them to the one fate every ancient Egyptian hoped to avoid."

[YHCH]

This is all basically correct, but I don’t know that Egypt offers the best parallel or background, rather the Ugaritic Mot. Ugarit was right next door and had a much more closely related language and religion to Israel than did the more distant Egypt. I think scholars tended to search for Egyptian and Babylonian parallels before the discovery of Ugarit decades ago, yet those explanations still tend to proliferate.

[jimwalton]

The Israelites had just come out of Egypt, so it would make sense they would use Egyptian imagery to speak of the death of the Egyptians. Even if you don't believe in the Exodus (I do), if they are speaking of the death of the Egyptian armies, it seems apropos to use Egyptian figures of speech.

In any case, the figure of speech also fits biblical usage. In Ps. 63.9 (cf. 55.15), to go down into the earth is to die.

[YHCH]

> In any case, the figure of speech also fits biblical usage. In Ps. 63.9 (cf. 55.15), to go down into the earth is to die.

Oh we definitely agree here, the language is about the underworld, Sheol to the Israelites. And you've already outlined a key factor in how we trace the origin of the specific figurative depictions of death that we see in Israelite religion:

> The Israelites had just come out of Egypt, so it would make sense they would use Egyptian imagery to speak of the death of the Egyptians. Even if you don't believe in the Exodus (I do), if they are speaking of the death of the Egyptian armies, it seems apropos to use Egyptian figures of speech.

The Israelites don't speak an Egyptian dialect, but a dialect of Canaanite (or West Semitic). And Israelite religion in general shows fewer parallels with Egyptian religion than it does with Ugaritic religion, with which it shares common West Semitic source material.

John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan:

Mot is depicted in the Ugaritic texts as having a large throat which is insatiable in swallowing people up and delivering them up to the underworld. Similar language is used in the Old Testament of Sheol, the word nepeš (cognate to Ugaritic npš, which is used of Mot) being used of its throat. However, although language suggestive of personification is use of Sheol, this does not mean that Sheol is actually a person in the way that Mot was. Thus, of Mot we read such things as 'even as Mot has jaws reaching to earth, lips to heaven and a tongue to the stars, Baal will enter his stomach and go down into his mouth as the olive, the produce of the earth and fruit of the trees is swalled' (KTU 1.5.II.1-6); 'verily you must come down into the throat of Mot son of El, into the miry gorge of the hero beloved of El' (KTU 1.5.I.6-8). Similarly, in the Old Testament we read of Sheol: 'Therefore Sheol has enlarged its throat and opened its mouth beyond measure; and down go her nobility, and her multitude, her throng and the strength of her heart' (Isa. 5.14); 'And even though the treacherous one is presumptuous, the arrogant man shall not abide. His throat is as wide as Sheol; like death he has never enough. He gathers for himself all nations, and collects as his own all peoples; (Hab. 2.5). Sheol is also referred to as swallowign people up in Prov. 1.12, and its insatiable appetite is alluded to in Prov 27.20 and 30.15b-16. In Ps. 49.15 (ET 14) death is a shepherd and those who go to Sheol are like sheep, 'Like sheep they are appointed for Sheol; Death shall be their shepherd...' Although this is only poetic language, it recalls what is said of the god Mot in the Baal text, KTU 1.6.II.21-23, ngš. 'ank. 'al'iyn b'l 'dbnn 'ank. <k> 'imr. bpy kll'i. bṯbrn q<n>y. <n>ḫt'u hw, 'I myself came upon the victor Baal, I myself made him as a lamb in my mouth; he himself like a kid in my jaws was carried away'. The same word 'mouth' (pî) is used of Sheol in Ps. 141.7.

An interesting verse in this connection comes from the so-called Isaiah apocalypse in Isa. 25.8, where we read that God 'will swallow up death forever'. There is an evident irony here, for, as we have seen, it is elsewhere Death of Mot that does the swallowing, but here it is the swallower that is to be swallowed up.

Mark S. Smith also notes similarities to the Baal Cycle in his Origins of Biblical Monotheism:

"ancient Israel inherited the names of some of the cosmic enemies from West Semitic culture (which it shares with Ugarit). Baal confronts four foes with basically the same names in the Ugaritic material and Yahweh in the Bible: Sea (Hebrew yām, Ugaritic ym); biblical Leviathan (liwyātān) and Ugaritic ltn; biblical tannīn, Ugaritic tnn (tunnanu in the Ugaritic polyglot, spelled Tunnanu in the English translation later); and biblical Mawet and Ugaritic Mot, both literally meaning "Death."

So if one takes the view, as I do, that the Israelites emerged in the highlands of Canaan, and Exodus is a cultural memory of Egyptian withdrawal from Canaan during the Bronze Age Collapse, then Mot is the only real candidate. If you believe Exodus is historical, then there's room to assume it instead references an Egyptian god (assumedly Ammit). But even if Exodus were historical, which is a whole conversation unto itself, the linguistic evidence above suggests the Israelites were so wholly immersed in West Semitic culture when the biblical texts were written (sharing both cultural and religious similarities as well as a language with Ugarit and neighboring nations) that Mot is at least as valid a candidate as any Egyptian deity.

[jimwalton]

> The Israelites don't speak an Egyptian dialect, but a dialect of Canaanite (or West Semitic). And Israelite religion in general shows fewer parallels with Egyptian religion than it does with Ugaritic religion, with which it shares common West Semitic source material.

Yes, this is true, but the Israelites did use Egyptian source material. The ark of the covenant was very similar to Egyptian barques. In Egyptian festivals the images of the gods were often carried in procession on portable barques. Paintings portray these as boxes about the size of the ark carried on poles and decorated with or flanked by guardian creatures. A similar sized chest with rings (for carrying with poles) was found in Tutankhamun’s tomb.

In like manner, the tabernacle itself had some architectural similiarities to the portable pavilions of the Egyptians. One was found in the Gaza region dating to 2600 BC. The pavilion of Hetep-heres is well preserved along with a chair, bed, and headrest.

> John Day

Excellent quote from John Day. Thank you. I saved it in my notes.

> Mark S. Smith

I don't completely agree with Smith, or his work. Similarity doesn't necessarily mean or require derivation. The evidence doesn't convincingly lead me to agree with him that "ancient Israel inherited the names of some of the cosmic enemies from West Semitic culture."

> So if one takes the view, as I do, that the Israelites emerged in the highlands of Canaan, and Exodus is a cultural memory of Egyptian withdrawal from Canaan during the Bronze Age Collapse, then Mot is the only real candidate.

As you probably know, I don't conform to this perspective. I believe the Israelites emerged from Egypt and conquered the highlands of Canaan, and the Exodus is a historical event.

> the Israelites were so wholly immersed in West Semitic culture

The Israelites were Aramean by descent, and lives in Canaan before their descent to Egypt, so I would expect them to share many features, including language, of the Western Semites.

> when the biblical texts were written

This is another entire conversation of its own. I am not of the perspective that they are exilic in origin.

> Mot is at least as valid a candidate as any Egyptian deity.

Yes, it's possible. Thanks for the great information.