Against which you can usefully compare the following (although, of course, they're not writing in response to Alford) ...


Kenneth A. Kitchen (2003):

"[...] [The] ancient Near East did not historicize myth (ie., read it as an imaginary 'history'). In fact, exactly the reverse is true - there was, rather, a trend to 'mythologize' history, to celebrate actual historical events and people in mythological terms. Compare the growth of legends about 'Sesostris' or about the Hyksos kings in Egypt; the growth of traditions about Sargon of Akkad; or the divinization of Dumuzi in Mesopotamia, among others [1]" (p. 262).



[1] On the fallacy of historization of myth versus the mythical expression of history, cf. long ago Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (1966; reprint, 2000), 89 and n. 7.



James K. Hoffmeier (1997):

"Working on the mistaken assumption that the sea was called sop, 'Sea of the End', Snaith believed that creation-myth language associated with defeating a sea monster was used in the 'Song of the Sea' (Exod. 15:1-21). Batto expanded on Snaith, opining that 'Such mythological motifs account rather patently for the presence of yam (Sea dragon) in the poem' and that 'earth' in 15:7 really stood for 'the Underworld'. For Batto, and Ahlstrom, the mythological nature of this poem renders the events described therein as 'historicized'. The mythic language contributes to Ahlstrom's radical conclusion that the exodus material is 'fictional historiography' and 'is definitely not one of empirical history'.

"Several critical observations are in order. First, the poetic or hymnic description of the sea passage of Exodus 15 does not disagree with the main points of the narrative version in Exodus 14:21 to 31 despite the apparent presence of mythological terms. Second, when Hebrew writers elsewhere used mythic allusions or language, it applied to specific historical realities. For instance, both Isaiah 30:7 and Ezekiel 29:3 liken the Saite Pharaoh and his might to Rahab and Tannim [1].

"The setting of Isaiah's oracle is thought to be Sennacherib's invasion of Judah in 701 BC and the Twenty-fifth Dynasty's attempt to intervene by sending Tirhaka (Taharka) to engage the Assyrians, or in response to Hoshea of Samaria's appeal to Egypt prior to the northern kingdom's demise in 722 BC. In either case, Isaiah attaches the mythological Rahab, whom Yahweh had defeated at creation, to a weak Pharaoh of the Third Intermediate Period who could not withstand the power of Assyria. Ezekiel uses the 'great Tannim' (as in Gen. 1:21) in much the same way as Isaiah did with Rahab. The historical context of this oracle is 586 BC, the time of Jerusalem's destruction at the hand of Chaldeans [2]. Once again, an appeal to Pharaoh's help was made (Ezek. 17:15), and Apries (Hophra) offered a feeble response (Jer. 37:5, 44:30; Ezek. 30:20-25) [3].

"These two examples demonstrate that the Hebrew writers could use mythic language and images to depict specific historic situations. Evidently, the use of this type of language in the Hebrew scribal tradition in no way detracted from the historicity of the events being discussed. Interestingly, Ahlstrom in his monumental, posthomously published History of Ancient Palestine mentions the fall of Jerusalem and Apries's role in trying to assist Judah, stating, 'the Egyptian army was of no help'. This is precisely the point of Ezekiel's application of Canaanite mythological symbols to Pharaoh Hophra and Egypt's military frailty at the end of the sixth-century BC. Clearly in this case Ahlstrom did not reject the historic value of a text because it utilized mythic terminology regarding Pharaoh. I maintain the same is true of Exodus 15. There may be mythological images used in the 'Song of the Sea', but that should not automatically render its content unhistorical. Rather, mythic language was a tool in ancient Israel's historiographical repertoire.

"Another line of mythological investigation of the exodus sea event has concerned Egyptian, as compared with Canaanite or Mesopotamian, sources. It is suggested that the 'Sea of Reeds' (s i3rw) or 'Field of Reeds' (sht i3rw), which are closely related in Egyptian funerary texts, stand behind the Hebrew yam sup. Towers points to the Coptic B version where yam sup is normally translated as pyom n sa(i)ri, 'Sea of Reeds'. In Exodus 15:22 and 23:31, the variant translation pyom n h3h occurs in Coptic B, which Towers believed to be the writing for Egyptian s n h3 or h3h3. In the Pyramid Texts, these two lakes are found in parallelism, which suggests to Towers [1959] that it was an obviousy synonym for pyom n sa(i)ri. The deceased, in Egyptian funerary literature, would pass through the lake or marsh and be purified in its waters before ascending to new life in the realm of Re or Osiris. Towers and others associate the regeneration of the Egyptian dead with the Israelites' passage through the 'Sea of Reeds' where they were born as a nation.

"My response to the theorized Canaanite and Mesopotamian mythological influence on the passage through the sea accounts apply as well to an Egyptian theological perspective. A mythological connection is an intriguing possibility, especially in light of the Coptic B variants, but that could represent a Coptic or Egyptian scribal interpolation. The Hebrews may well have attached such symbolic national-birth motifs to the exodus story, and in the process employed various Near Eastern mythological images and terminology, which it did with reference to historical reality, not concocted events" (pp. 213-214).



[1] Based on his book Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition [1992], it is clear that Batto realized that the biblical writers could use mythic images and language to describe real historical situations. See his treatment of Ezekiel 29. In chapter 6, 'Egypt and Gog as Mythic Symbols in Ezekiel', (cf. 163-166). In his JBL article, however, Batto dismissed the historicity of the sea crossing because of the presence of mythic language. He thus displays an inconsistent method of interpreting mythic material in the OT.

[2] Ezekiel 29:3 precisely dates the oracle to 'the tenth year the tenth month'. Concerning the accuracy of Ezekiel's dates, see K.S. Freedy and D.B. Redford, "The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian and Egyptian SourceS", JAOS 90 (1970) 462-485.

[3] Anthony Spalinger believes that only a "small relief army" was dispatched to Judah [...].