Original Torah: Ancient Words in a Modern Light

Benjamin Fleischer
Exodus in Translation

Dr. Jeffery Tigay

Spring 2000

Manna: Bread from Heaven Or the Tamarisk?

The Hebrew Bible contains numerous miraculous episodes wherein God bends nature to his will. One possibly natural act that has spawned many legends is the miracle of God’s providing manna in the wilderness (Ex 15:27-16:36). Manna was a sweet food ‘rained down’ in the southern Sinai (Ex 16:1) for the Israelites to cook and prepare with other foods (Ex 16:23). It has been a long-asked question what the Israelites experienced in the wilderness, to what event the episode is referring. The text provides few details and cryptic terminology in describing the episode. God’s provision of manna is meant to be seen as miraculous as shown by the Sabbath episode. But what is the historical event behind the narrative? To gain a better picture to what the text is referring one looks to natural phenomena. Two basic approaches to the text are either to show the text as a legendary account of a natural occurrence or to show the miracle as the divine amplification of a natural event. The approach of this paper will be not to explain what happened in the wilderness, but what the manna is to which the text refers. The integrity of the text will generally be maintained.

Biblical Descriptions of Manna

The thesis of this paper is that Exodus 16 is the manna story from which the other scriptural accounts are drawn. Thus, it would be appropriate to first comment on how Exodus 16:14,20-21,23,31 sees manna. Manna is fine and flaky, like frost, becomes infested with maggots when left out, melts in the sun, can be baked, was like coriander seed, white and tasted like wafers in honey. Numbers 11:7 adds that manna was like coriander seed, the color of bdellium, and tasted like rich cream when prepared. Numbers 11:8 adds that it could be ground, pounded, boiled and made into cakes. These are the most concrete descriptions of manna as an earthly product. It is perhaps in verse 15 referred to as lechem which may here mean food or meat rather than the usual bread[1]. We will keep this reading in mind wherever the text reads ‘bread’.

Scientific Explanation

Scholars have come to the conclusion that the most likely natural explanation for manna is found in the Sinai pennisula to this day. It is the excretion of two types of insect that feed on the Tamarisk shrub: Tamarix gallica variety mannifera[2]. The local Bedouins call this extract man (manna). The shrub has been consistently identified over the past 200 years. However, even Josephus[3] and Dioscorides[4] were familiar with a manna that still rained down. The most often quoted scientific data is from a trip to the southern Sinai made by F.S. Bodenheimer in 1927. All opinions since this trip rely on it except for El-Gammal. The conclusions he made have been quoted as the primary source by the Anchor Bible, Cassuto, Donkin, Encyclopedia Judaica, Shurney, and Bates in all sources explicating a scientific explanation. Let us examine the characteristics of this manna in comparison to the biblical description.

Ancient Evidence

The name manna itself, man in Hebrew, has been preserved in Arabic by the Sinai Bedouins who harvest it. This is likely an Aramaic or Syriac expression and hence a late gloss in the text[5]. (The late Egyptian is mnu). Manna in the Torah is called “heavenly grain” (dagan shamayim) and “heavenly bread” (lechem shamayim). This is nicely paralleled by the Bedouins calling it the “dew of heaven”[6] and “manna/gift from heaven” (man-es-simma)[7]. As to the term dagan itself, the meaning is quite explicit. However, lechem as used in the Torah itself has multiple meanings and may mean food in general[8]. The name man may also be understood as “separated from (min)” an insect or tree[9]. It is unlikely that Bedouins knew that it came from an insect since they called it ‘from heaven’. Manna gum was sold in the markets of Egypt perhaps at the time the Israelites were there[10] so that they may have been familiar with it.

Appearance: Size, Color, Texture

Tamarisk manna falls from branches and leaves in drops from pin-head size to pea-sized[11].
Though Ex 16:14 reads “a fine and flaky (mhsps) substance, as fine as frost on the ground”, 1QExodus reads “fine as rime” (khsps)[12]. Rime is hoarfrost, a very fine covering and nicely parallels “fine as frost”. It is thus apparent that the covering of manna was very fine upon the ground and matches Tamarisk manna. The text also compares manna to coriander seeds which are small and yellow-brown[13]; though not white, they are the right shape. Another possible meaning for hsps is ‘revealed’[14] or perhaps ‘crystallization’ or ‘scaliness’[15].

Freshly fallen Tamarisk manna is whitish in color[16]. Older manna (stored for a year) becomes a yellowish or brownish color[17]. Coriander seeds are small and yellow-brown[18]. Thus, the Tamarisk manna continues to be supported by the text. Sarna comments:

“The information about the nature of the manna is provided for those who are no longer familiar with it The comparison with coriander seed relates only to the shape and size, not to its color, which is dark. In Numbers 11:7 the manna is described as having the appearance of bdellium (Heb. Bedolah). It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the term, whose precise meaning is now uncertain. In Genesis 2:12 it is associated with gold and a lapis lazuli, and so should refer to some precious stone. The Septuagint understands the depiction of the manna in this way, as do Rashi and Saadia. Josephus, however, compares the manna “with the spicy herb called bdellium.” The Akkadian cognate budulhu is, in fact, an aromatic resin[19].”[20]

Bdellium is pale yellow or white[21]. Rashbam undersands it as being hard and dry[22]. Taking this into account, Bodenheimer accounts that Tamarisk manna are sticky, solid drops[23]. Burckhardt recounts that manna is like a solid little cake in the cool shadow[24]. Rabbinic legend resolves the contradiction between Number 11:9 and Ex 16:14 regarding the dew by offering that the manna was between two dews[25]. This is explanation is too fanciful to merit scientific explanation.

Taste

Exodus 16:31 describes the taste of manna as “wafers in honey” (though Num 11:8 has rich cream)[26] which Rashbam and Bekhor Shor reconcile by offering that the taste changes from honey to cream when ground[27]. Bodenheimer recounts that Tamarisk manna is sweet as honey and sticky. The Bedouins consider it a sweet-tasting dainty[28].

Melting

Bodenheimer describes Tamarisk manna as melting in the sun or in fire[29]. Due to discrepencies in Bodenheimer’s description, Cassuto attempts to understand melted (we-namas) as “became loathsome” (we-names)[30]. Since there is sufficient evidence that Tamarisk manna melts, it is unnecessary to reinterpret the Masoretic text. The Encyclopedia Judaica adds that some manna melts in the sun while some is eaten by ants[31].

The Manna must be collected between 6am and 8:30am while it is coagulated and before the ants start gathering it[32]. This corroborates the biblical account that manna collected at night, was gathered early in the morning, and melted in the heat of the sun.

Worms

Exodus 16:20 reads “some of them left of it until morning and it became infested with maggots (wyrwm thl’h) and stank.” Exodus 16:24 reads “it did not turn foul [on the Sabbath], and there were no maggots (rymh) in it.” This is in complete contradiction to the known gathering of the manna by ants. Interestingly, today’s Bedouins call the ants dudi (worms) rather than nimleh (ants)[33]. This would then be an acceptable divergence between the text and the natural explanation. Even so, we are still left with the difficulty that Tamarisk manna does not sour and rot[34] six out of seven days of the week. In fact, manna may be stored for over a year if kept away from the ants![35]

Bakable

When the text reads “bake what you would bake”, Cassuto understands “Bake together with the manna” because “manna was [not] their sole food throughout the period” (Ex 16:35); cattle provided milk and meat. (It was those without cattle who murmured)[36]. The question becomes: is manna bakable? Bodenheimer wrote that Tamarisk manna was too soft to be pounded[37]. Donkin understands that manna must have broken leaves in it to be grindable and bakable[38]. The manna Bodenheimer and Burckhardt found at St. Catherine’s monastary was dirty and still mixed with leaves[39]. In fact, today’s Bedouins do cook and prepare manna for food. They clean away the leaves and dirt, boil it, strain it through a coarse piece of cloth, and put it into leathern skins to preserve for following year. Buckhardt was not sure if they made it into cakes or loaves. They then use it to pour over unleavened bread and dip bread into. [40] Thus, manna may be bakable and seems to have been used much like honey with wafers (ktsaphychith bidebash).

The manna would have been pounded with common household millstones still found with today’s Arab Bedouins[41]. It is possible that manna powder and grain was mixed with water to make a paste and then baked into bread. The paste is still used to thicken marmalade[42].

Sustenance

An important objection to the Tamarisk manna theory is that it is not sustantive. Tamarisk manna is composed of mostly sugars[43] . Man cannot live by sugar alone; it is not nutritious enough and has no protein[44]. Furthermore, Tamarisk manna if eaten in high enough quantities causes diarrhea[45] though Bedouins ascribe it medicinal properties! Indeed, the quantity of Tamarisk manna one may gather is about 1.5 kg/day at the peak of its season[46] and is not nearly enough to feed a tribe or even a family[47].

Sinai Bedouins may gather up to 600kg total of manna. However, there are not enough insects to supply food for 40 years for a large people. “I [Bodenheimer] agree therefore, with the opinion of K. von Romer and Weilstead, that explains that the scriptural manna was different from the manna of our times.”[48] However, if we understand the Israelites as being composed of 600 families and using manna as a flavoring and dainty, then the use of Tamarisk manna is reasonable[49].

Chemical Makeup and Medicinal Properties
(see Merck Index)

Tamarisk manna is comprised of sucrose, glucose, fructose and a small amount of pectins[50]. Other mannas are differently composed. El-Gammal reports that manna is sucrose, glucose, dextrin, 20% water. Manna from the Ash or lichen are 40-60% mannitol, 10-16% mannotetrose, 6-16% mannotriose; glucose, mucilage, fraxin[51]. Aphid honeydew contains 34% glucose, 32% sucrose, 29% fructose, 5% trehalose (previous accounts reported 70-80% trehalose)[52]. The cocoons of a parasitic beetle, trehala manna, contains 23-30% trehalose[53]. Thus we see, there are many sources of manna with varying contents. For this purpose, we should restrict our analysis to Tamarisk manna.

The manna of northern Iraq (called gazzo) is used for sweetening pastry and is produced by serveral insects. It contains 0.4% protein[54]. Ash manna is a laxative[55]. Tamarisk manna is an aperient and expectorant; cures teeth-gum ulcers; its seeds, fruit and leaves give diarrhea; its leaves are anti-rheumatic and a fever reducer; its ashes cure skin ulcers. It may help control acute viral hepatitis in men[56]

Measure

The quantity of manna the people were to gather was one omer per person[57]. The family head would go out and gather for his dependents[58], “for as many of you as there are, each of you shall fetch for those in his tent”. Bekhor Shor gives a naturalistic explanation for the quantity gathered. He says that the excess over an omer was thrown off by hand while the needed amount was added[59].

The omer is either 1-2 liters[60] or 3.5 liters[61]. Since a liter of water weights 1 kg, the Anchor Bible figure agrees nicely with the maximum daily gathering per person. A plain reading of the text supports that each family head gathered the appropriate amount for his family. There need not have been a miracle in the quantity gathered[62]. The manna was gathered partly from the ground and partly by beating manna covered branches as the peasants in Kurdistan[63].

Season

The sources are not precise as to when Tamarisk manna falls. The earlier ones report that it falls in August and September. Some report it falls in July and August. The most recent sources report it falling in June and July, perhaps even May.[64] In June, Tamarisk manna flows on branches and leaves that fell from the shrub[65]. Tamarisk manna is produced continuously by the insects but accumulates at night when the ants are not collecting it. Thus, it must be collected in the morning before the ants are active or the sun melts it. Tamarisk manna fall lasts 3-6 weeks at most[66]. A lack of rain in the previous season in important to manna production. The bible says it fell in from the 16^th of Iyar which is late May or early June.

Geography
(see maps)

Tamarisk manna is found in the southern Sinai where the insects are located. It is produced in the lowlands by Najacoccus serpentinus minor and in mountain valleys by Tradutina mannipara[67]. In the Torah the manna episode occurs between Elim and Rephidim (Wadi Gharandel to oasis Feiran). This concurs geographically to where manna has been found[68]. Tamarisk shrubs have also been found in Wadi El Sheikh by Burckhardt[69] and from Wadi Gharandal to Wadi Isla and Wadi Nasib[70]. Post puts the location of T. mannifera through the Sinai and at Wadi Fayran. It also ranges from the South end of the Dead Sea to Petra. Baum has T. mannifera growing in the desert, wadis and coast of Egypt and Jordan and ranging from Wadi Else, Oasis Khargeh, the Arava, and Wadi Abiad. Tamarisk shrubs grow at altitudes less than 3,000 feet.

Timing of Manna Fall

Two important questions then becomes 1) when did manna fall begin, according to the Torah, with regard to Sinai and 2) for what portion of the Israelites’ wanderings did the manna fall? The manna episode takes place in the Torah before Sinai. However, the Sabbath laws are first taught here and are assumed to be known[71] which would imply the episode took place after Sinai. However, if the manna episode were to have taken place after Sinai, then the Israelites who gathered on the Sabbath day should have been liable for death as the man who gathered sticks[72].

The manna narrative itself parallels the Creation account of Genesis[73]. Thus, the Sabbath law as taught in the text is seen as ancient. But this does not answer whether the Israelites were aware of the law beforehand in some form.

Furthermore, it would be problematic for the eating of quail-meat to take place before the institution of the sacrificial cult. This would assume that the manna episode either follows Sinai or foreshadows it[74]. But what actually happened? It is difficult to say. I would prefer to say it happened where the narrative places it: between Elim and Rephidim and before Sinai.

Secondly, though the Torah states that manna fell for 40 years to sustain the Israelites, one may understand this number as an interpolation[75]. That being the case, the Israelite manna fell from Elim till when they entered a settled land, Rephidim. This geography matches nicely with the range of Tamarisk manna production.

Manna According to the Torah

The Bible gives differing accounts of the nature of manna. Yet, even if we are to accept just the Torah’s description of manna we would never find a naturalistic explanation without emendation. Only a dismantling of the text could allow it to agree completely with the properties of Tamarisk manna. Even a careful analysis of the literary structure of the text cannot dispel its miraculous intent with regard to the Sabbath. It would seem improbable that twice as much Tamarisk manna could be gathered on the sixth day even if Moses allowed it or that it would not spoil that day like it would on the others. The Torah has a didactic purpose in recording the manna episode. It intends to show God’s providence and caring relationship for the Israelites, here. In Deuteronomy, the manna episode serves the purpose of humbling man and teaching him that he is always dependent on God for food. In any event, the Sabbath episode is intended to promulgate the laws rather than record history[76]. “It is improbable that the text refers to a miracle on ordinary days and a commandment on the sixth day. For both, a testing is intended to Israel’s faithfulness regarding the laws.” On weekdays the test was not to keep the manna over whereas on the sixth days the manna must be kept over[77].

The manna in Numbers has properties different from both from the Exodus account and the other sources. There, manna has the taste of rich cream. If we assume there is no inconsistency in the Torah account, nothing will ever match this account for manna. “No naturalistic explanation can do justice to the manna tradition as it is presented in biblical literature.”[78] The best we can understand is that the manna episode was “based on a local phenomenon of nature, but was exceptional in regard to scale and details.”[79]

Malina on Manna Throughout the Hebrew Bible

Now that we understand what the biblical basis for manna is, we may attempt to substantiate it by a literary analysis of the manna accounts in the Hebrew Bible. The descriptions of the manna miracle occur in numerous places in the Hebrew Bible and teach different messages[80]. Following is an analysis of the biblical source-texts as analyzed by Malina (1968).

Exodus 16 is composed to four[81] separate story elements[82] according to Malina’s form analysis. The first element consists of the people murmuring against Moses and Aaron, being told they should redress God, the promise of meat and bread, and seeing God’s glory. The second element consists of the people preferring slavery’s meat and bread, God hearing the murmuring and promising meat at night and bread in the morning, the coming of quail and manna, the finding of manna, the collection of an omer per person by the tent-head, the manna melting, the naming of manna and its description, and the duration of manna. The third element consists of YHVH promising to rain bread to prove the people, the promise of doubled produce on the 6^th day, the allocating of the manna, the command and disobedience of not leaving it out, the fulfillment of the doubled bread promise, the proclamation of the Sabbath and preparing for it, the disobedience of the command, the people desisting on the 7^th day, the duration of the manna. The fourth element consists of Moshe’s command to keep some manna as a memorial and putting it in the testimony.

Now that we have waded through that synoptic analysis, Malina then further comments on the subject-matter of these elements and their glosses. The first element does not deal with manna but with finding God in the wilderness. The second element deals with manna as a response to the murmuring. The quail element is mentioned briefly and forgotten; manna is the focus. The description of manna here is not miraculous and the narrative does not make a theological point[83]. The origin of the word “man” is emphasized. The only miraculous mention is the gloss about manna’s continuous supply; the inhabited land (v35a) might well be the next watering hole in the wilderness. The third element Malina calls a halakhic midrash. The author uses the manna tradition to teach the Sabbath precept. Here the manna is doled out in miraculous amounts. The fourth element describes miraculous and manna that lasts till the border of Canaan. It seems to be a later addition to the text.

Malina then quotes P. Skehan’s work on the Hebrew calendar where he derives that the narrative as a whole takes place over one week. It begins in verse 1 on Friday and lasts till verse 25-30 on the Sabbath. That is, the quail arrive in verse 13 after Shabbat and the manna arrives Sunday morning (Malina 19).

In Numbers 11:6-9 the people complain abut eating only manna. Then a description of the manna and its use is given with details not found in Exodus. The manna came down on the dew and tasted like oil cake (is grain like). Thus the accounts are not entirely in sync. The Numbers version may reflect an amplification of the Exodus version. The account is not necessarily miraculous.

In Numbers 21:5 the people again complain to God about lack of food and water. They denigrate the “worthless bread[84]” they are given. This bread is likely the manna. The description of the manna makes it seem like a meager ration. This may, however, be the perspective of the people and not reality.

Deuteronomy 8:3,16 see the manna as an novelty given to the hungry people to teach them man can subsist on anything God decrees. The manna was here supposed to have a humbling effect.

Joshua 5:10-12 sees the manna as lasting till the Israelites celebrated passover at Gigal. Here, the Exodus part four duration is challenged. The manna is perhaps seen as a substitute for the produce of the land. The manna is used for a halakhic midrash on Leviticus 23:3,5-7. Malina sees this midrash as based on the Exodus 16 story.

Psalm 78:23-25 describes the manna and quail as being after the water-from-the-rock episode. The manna is described as being a result of questioning as before. The clouds are then commanded to rain down manna, heaven’s grain. The quail are then sent by strong winds and the people are unsatisfied so God kills some of them. Psalm 105:40-42 sees quail and ‘heaven’s bread’ to come before the water from the rock. The manna is called lechem shamayim which I note is curiously similar to the Bedouin name man-es-simma[85]. Here, the murmuring motif is ignored.

In the context of a prayer of praising God’s fidelity in the exodus, Nehemia 9:13-21 records some account of manna. Here, the manna comes after the Sabbath at Sinai [why aren’t people killed then for gathering?] and before the water from the rock. The manna continued after the sin of the golden calf.

A brief review of the points we have made so far[86]: manna is intimately bound up with food in the desert, a desire to return to Egypt, the complaint is directed incorrectly at Moshe, the giving of the manna is less emphasized than its properties, the manna was meant to humble the people, the manna was the epitome of the wanderings, the manna was God’s response to a test.

Thus, since most scriptural sources seem to be referring to Exodus 16, it would be appropriate to take this as the source text to understand with the other reading reflecting possible variant traditions or misunderstandings.

Quail May Be Explained

An important point to make is that the quail episode is tied to the manna in both biblical accounts[87]. The quail seems from the text to be a one-time phenomenon. Furthermore, it seems that the quail episode corresponds in location and time of year to the migration path of Coturnix coturnix. These quail migrate in huge flocks twice a year land exhausted on the Mediterranean coast. They are easily caught by hand and are said to be tasty[88]. Furthermore, when the Israelites are commanded to prepare for the Sabbath, they are told to boil (bshl) what they may boil and cook what they may cook. The root bshl refers to boiling meat[89]. Thus the commandment includes both boiling meat and baking foodstuffs. It has been pointed out, that since the two episodes are intertwined[90] and both have natural explanations. The lechem that rained down was quail[91]. This would support Malina’s idea that part of the Exodus 16 manna story is a midrash on the earlier mentioned event.

Why Did the People Grumble?

We must ask is why the Israelites were hungry at all. Did they not leave Egypt a month before with bread, grain, and cattle? The Anchor Bible Commentary says that the unleavened bread was used up whereas the cattle and grain were not[92]. Even here, they should have had milk and grain with which to make food. We have already discussed that manna is of little nutritive value. It thus becomes likely that the manna story is not really about lack of food but serves a didactic purpose. Manna was a historic event recast to show that God cares for his people and is a beneficent God as well as war-god.

The manna event must have been remembered before it was applied to teaching the Sabbath. Manna was not a normal food. It was sweet. To this day, the finding of sugars by the Bedouins is an unforgettable experience[93]. The manna was also remembered as like dew which symbolizes divine favor[94].

The Danger of Searching for a Natural Explanation

The benefit of finding a natural explanation is that we may better understand the intent of the text. The danger is that we may subsequently bend the text to fit our proposed explanation. This paper has been full of reinterpretations that would support a natural explanation for manna within the text itself. Sometimes, these may even be at odds with the apparent intent of the text itself. Nearly all commentators are of the opinion that some part of the manna episode is miraculous. Each differs in how he understands the miracle.

Much proof offered for the natural explanation is actually supportive rather than definitive. For example, that Tamarisk manna is called man
to this day by Sinai Bedouins proves nothing. It may be a misplaced tradition rather than a strong support. Cassuto does damage to the text by suggesting that “it melted” be read as “became loathsome” if that reinterpretation is unnecessary. That is, reinterpretations are a clever way of forcing the text to agree with one’s theory. Furthermore, numerous scholars have asserted that the date that manna stopped is a later addition[95]. This approach eliminates whole words from the text to attain the desired meaning. Bodenheimer’s approach is to attribute any verses that do not match the properties of Tamarisk manna to interpolations or misunderstandings within the text[96]. He throws out whole verses essentially to bend the text to his will. Lastly, the Anchor Bible Commentary sees the entire manna episode as a mythologization of honeydew[97]. This last approach recognizes the didactic purpose of the text and concludes that since the text’s purpose is not to provide a history, any properties that do not match the natural explanation must be myth. Thus, though there is much support for the Tamarisk manna theory, it is by no means definitive. At best, it may be seen as the event to which the Torah refers if we are to maintain the integrity of the text.

Other options

Tamarisk manna is not the only explanation for the manna episode. Manna is a widespread phenomenon and consists of different properties in each location[98]. Another possible explanation for the manna episode is the well-known fall of the lichen: Lecanora esculenta. This manna actually falls from the sky and may be baked and cooked and resembles wheat. It is starch with some sugar. It may be mixed with tamarisk manna[99]. Thus, it is commonly cited in scholarly papers. However, it is probably not biblical manna for geographical and temporal reasons[100]. It is not impossible that the lichen once rained down in Sinai though it would be unlikely[101].

New understanding of bible story: Conclusion

In spite of the many objections, Tamarix mannifera is the strongest case for the manna Israelites experienced[102]. Though the text gives varying descriptions of manna and tends to see it as a miraculous occurrence, there is sufficient grounds for supporting that Tamarisk manna was part of the Israelites diet in the historical biblical exodus and gave rise to the manna stories.

Appendix

Once we conclude that Tamarisk manna accounts for biblical manna, we may make further claims. Firstly, any substantial manna fall requires a lack of previous rainfall[103]. This may have implications of our understanding of the Exodus story itself. Tamarisk manna only falls within a certain geography of the southern Sinai. This may help in proposing routes the Israelites took during the exodus.

Tamarisk manna is often used to sweeten bitter water[104]. Since the episode at Marah took place near the manna episode if we assume chronological sequence, it is possible that the stick Moses threw into the water was coated in manna. Furthermore, in Numbers[105], a man is put to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. It is not impossible that the sticks he was gathering were Tamarisk branches coated in manna. Thus, the stick-gathering episode would be a clear parallel to the Exodus episode.

Bibliography

Exodus 1-18 : a new translation with introduction and commentary / William H.C. Propp.

Bible. O.T. Exodus I-XVIII. English. Propp. 1999.

Edition: 1st ed.

Publisher: New York : Doubleday, c1999.

Series: Bible. English. Anchor Bible. 1964 ; v. 2 “Bread from the heavens,” Anchor Bible Reference Library, 1992, XIV:582-600.

“Manna” Encylopedia Judaica, 1972, 833f.

Anchor Bible dictionary IV: (New York : Doubleday, 1992)

Assyrian dictionary: of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: (Chicago, 1964)

Bates M. “Insects in the Diet”, American Scholar 1959: 29:46-49.

Baum, B.R., The genus Tamarix (Jerusalem: XXX Press, 1978.) 70-72.

Bekhor Shor. Perushe Rabi Yosef Bekhor Shor al ha-Torah (Yerushalayim : Mosad ha-Rav Kuk, 1994).

Beuken W.A.M., “Exodus 16:5,23 A Rule Regarding The Keeping of the Sabbath?” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1985: 32: 3-14

Bodenheimer F.S. Ha-Hai be-Arzot ha-Mikra, (Jerusalem, 1956) v2, 297-302.

Bodenheimer F.S., “The Manna of Sinai” Biblical Archeologist 1947: 10:1-6.

Cassuto, U., A commentary on the book of Exodus, trans. Israel Abrahams. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967) 186-199.

Donkin R.A., Manna: An Historical Geography, (London: Dr. W Junk BV Publishers, 1980) 1-11, 72-79.

El-Gammal, S.Y. “Manna of Moses”, Hamdard Medicus 1994: (37)2:17-19.

Haupt, P., “Manna, Nectar, and Ambrosia”, American Journal of Philology 1922: 43:247-249.

Interpreter’s Bible: (New York, Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1957).

Malina B.J., The Palestinian manna Tradition, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968) 1-41.

Merck Index: (Whitestation, New Jersy ,1996).

Milgrom, J. The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990) XX.

Namec V., Jiracek V., “Analysis of an insect product: saccharides of the Iraq manna with special reference to the trehalose content”, Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca. 1975: (72) 4:286-7.

Post, G.E. Flora of Syria, Palestine and Sinai 2d ed. (Beirut: American Press, 1932-1933) 224 and map.

Rashbam, Perush ha-Torah, (New York: Om, 1949)

Sabir D.M., “Information on manna”,Deutsche Lebensmittel-Rundschau, 1984: (80) 5:144-145.

Sarna, N. Exploring Exodus. (New York, Schocken Books, 1986) XX.

Sarna, Nahum. The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991) XX.

Shurney, G. A. Zottola, E. A. “Biblical food processing”.
Journal of Milk & Food Technology.
1976: (39) 6: 439-441.

Wagner H, Hiroshi H, Norman RF. ed. Economic and medicinal plant research (London: Academic Press, 1985).

Translations in this paper have been according to the NJPS 1985 translation

Pictures

Maps of Sinai

Tamarisk

Manna on Tamarisk

Merck Index

Various Scriptural Sources

Benjamin Fleischer

Exodus In Translation

Dr. Jeffery Tigay

Spring 2001

Seeing Justice in the Punishment of Egypt

There is a serious issue in the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. They were brought out by great signs and marvels[1] at the expense of the Egyptians. Furthermore, according to the Torah, the enslavement and judgment of the Egyptians was pre-ordained[2]. That means that the mass destruction and loss of life described in the Torah is part of God’s plan! The Egyptians are made a mockery for the way they treated the Israelites[3] and yet it is not their choice?! Abraham pleaded for the wicked Sodom not to be destroyed. Were there not ten righteous men among the Egyptians that they should be punished so? This paper attempts to understand some 2^nd Temple era responses to the punishment of Egypt in the ten plagues and Sea of Reeds narratives.

Before we move into the topic of how the Torah is later viewed, we must first view it on its own terms. The Israelites are foretold they will be enslaved and despoil the Egyptians[4]. God hears the cry of the slaves and remembers his covenant[5]. This sets in action the redemption of the Israelites. We are told that they will be driven out of Egypt by a greater might[6]. Some explanations for the chastisements are so that the Israelites people will know that it is God who freed them[7]. However, the Egyptians[8] and Pharaoh[9] are to learn of God’s greatness and might. They are to be mocked[10] and humbled[11]. God’s fame is to resound throughout the world[12]. The plagues are not meant to destroy the Egyptians but for God to gain glory[13] and show his power to the Egyptians[14]. Lastly, the chastisements are a punishment of the gods of Egypt[15]. The end result[16] of the chastisements is that the Israelites fear the Lord and have faith in Him and Moses[17].

The first writer of the period under discussion is the Hellenistic historian Artapanus who lived between 250 and 100 BCE[18]. He briefly covers the topic at hand. Pharaoh commands the priests to match the miracle of blood. When they do, he becomes presumptuous and “abused the Jews with every kind of vengeance and punishment.”[19] It is because Pharaoh was acting foolishly in not heeding the lighter plagues that the heavier ones were brought. The King eventually released the Jews because of the disasters and everyone had died[20]. Thus, for Artapanus, the plagues served the purpose of coercing Pharaoh to free the Jews.

The second source for consideration is the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon, which was likely written between 220 BCE and 50CE. For the Wisdom of Solomon (WisSol), the plagues take the form of measure for measure[21]. “Punishment itself comes after all possibilities have been exhausted.”[22]. However, the punishment of the righteous serves the purpose of ‘testing’ or ‘educating’. His reward is in the world to come[23]. The culprit must be made aware of the purpose of his suffering[24]. For example, the first-born are made to have dreams before their deaths[25]. For WisSol, the punishment is in response to a particular wrong and must be thus understood. The underlying principle is “measure for measure”[26]. For every plague, there is an appropriate Egyptian practice which was the cause of the punishment. In the final plague, the slave was killed along with the master because he disbelieved the authenticity of the plagues[27]. When the plague was done, the Egyptians “acknowledged the [Hebrew] people to be God’s son”.[28] The Wisdom of Solomon concludes by equating the suffering of the Egyptian people with the suffering of the Israelite slaves[29].

The third source for discussion is Pseudo-Philo. He likely lived around 1 CE. For Pseudo-Philo, the plagues were a response to the cry of the Israelite people in their bondage[30]. The Egyptians died at the sea because God hardened their perception and they did not recognize the sea[31]. Thus, it was God’s will that the Egyptians be thoroughly punished for the suffering of his people.

Philo himself lived in Alexandria around 20 BCE to 50 CE[32]. Philo saw the plaguing of the Egyptians as the clearest case of judgment passed on good and bad[33]. Philo attributes the plaguing of the Egyptians to a number of reasons. They were to show God’s might[34], to judge/mock the gods of Egypt[35], because Egypt acted like foolish children in their abandonment of justice[36], and to teach Egypt a lesson[37]. The Egyptians eventually saw the king as the cause of the plagues. For if he had given in at first, there would have been none[38]. Thus, the plagues were not ordained at first in the eyes of Philo. They were a necessary response to Pharaoh’s denial of God and justice[39].

Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian who lived from 37 to 100 CE[40]. The overriding theme in Josephus’s commentary is that of Pharaoh’s wickedness[41]. The plagues are a punishment for Pharaoh’s foolish disobedience of God’s will[42]. Pharaoh has only himself to blame[43]; he has lost all reason[44] and aroused divine wrath[45]. Pharaoh was acting plain stupid. He refuses to believe that Moses was God’s messenger. It was for this reason that he rushed to overtake the Israelites at the sea since he saw them as freed by Moses’ magic[46]. God then saved the Israelites, who had no human hope, by killing the Egyptians in the sea[47]. It is Pharaoh’s wickedness that brings calamity upon the Egyptians.

The Greek Bible also discusses the exodus briefly. It was written around 140 to 170 CE[48]. God delivers the Israelites because he heard their groaning[49]. God furthermore has mercy upon whomever he wishes. He chose to show his power and thus punished the Egyptians[50]. The Israelites were able to leave Egypt because they had faith in God[51]. Thus, the Greek Bible sees the plagues as being divine fiat that would give the people the faith in Him to leave.

One of the Church Fathers, Origen lived from 184-253 CE[52]. He gave sermons on Exodus which his students copied down. In one of these, he explains the plagues as the response to the violent slavery imposed by the Egyptians. Pharaoh should have been amazed by the plagues. Origen addresses the issue of free will in Pharaoh’s hardening his heart and resolves that God formed man and may harden his heart if he wishes[53]. The plagues are meant to correct the world. Each one is in response to a particular ill of the Egyptians.[54]. Finally, Origen typifies living in error as Egypt. For Origen, Egypt was sinful and deserved the punishments God inflicted. In the end, the event was just because God ordained it.

The punishment of Egypt has always been rationalized. Even in the Torah text itself it is so. Later commentators on the Exodus story chose to magnify particular explanations within the text. Thus, there is nothing new in the commentaries but in how they approach the text. In the end, since they all assign the text a divine origin, they all see the text as essentially just.

Artapanus 27:27-37 in The Old Testament Pseudopigrapha edited by James H Charlesworth, printed Anchor Bible Reference Library by Doubleday in New York 1985 pp901-902

Encylopedia Judaica, 1972,

Origen, Homilies on Genesis and Exodus; trans. Ronald E. Heine (Washington, D.C. : Catholic University of America Press, c1982) ##

Josephus, The Works of Josephus trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987) p73 ##

Josephus, Flavius. Judean antiquities; trans. Louis H. Feldman (Leiden: Brill, 2000 )

McCarthy D.J. “Plagues and Sea of Reeds: Exodus 5-14” in Journal of Biblical Literature, 1966 pp138-158.

New Catholic encyclopedia. (New York, McGraw-Hill 1967)

Philo “On the Life of Moses, I” trans. CD Yonge in The Works of Philo (Hendrickson Publishers, 1997)

Philo trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. (Cambridge : Harvard University Press ; London : Heinemann, 1929)

Pseudo-Philo in The Old Testament Pseudopigrapha ed. James H Charlesworth, (New York: Doubleday 1985) 10: pp317

Wisdom of Solomon in “The Exodus Story in the Wisdom of Solomon” by Samuel Cheon Journal for the study of the Pseudepigrapha. Supplement series; 23 (Sheffield, England : Sheffield Academic Press, 1997)