Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/91

 (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. 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 ), 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 : 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). 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.

 EXOGAMY (Gr. , outside; and  , 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 (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