Exodus 14:20 in the Hebrew Masoretic Text reads:

וַיְהִ֤י הֶֽעָנָן֙ וְהַחֹ֔שֶׁךְ וַיָּ֖אֶר אֶת־הַלָּ֑יְלָה
“And there was the cloud and the darkness, and it lit up the night, without one coming near the other all night.” (UASV)

This verse occurs within the narrative of Israel’s deliverance at the Red Sea (1446 B.C.E.), when the pillar of cloud and fire mediated between Israel and the pursuing Egyptian army. The textual witness to this verse shows variation in how the cloud’s function is described, raising important questions about the transmission of the text and how the ancient versions handled difficult expressions.

The Masoretic Text Reading

The Masoretic Text (MT) preserves a somewhat paradoxical statement: “And there was the cloud and the darkness, and it lit up the night.” On the surface, the juxtaposition of darkness (חֹשֶׁךְ) and illumination (וַיָּאֶר, “it lit up”) may appear contradictory. However, this tension is not unusual in Hebrew narrative when describing phenomena of divine origin. The expression reflects the dual function of the pillar of cloud and fire: providing darkness to one party (Egypt) and light to the other (Israel). This harmonizes well with the immediate context (v. 19), which explicitly notes that the cloud came between the two camps, ensuring that the Egyptians were hindered while the Israelites advanced under divine light.

Thus, the MT preserves a coherent theological and narrative sense: the same cloud produced two opposite effects depending on the observer. The darkness shrouded the Egyptians, while simultaneously illuminating the night for Israel.

The Septuagint Reading

The Septuagint (LXX), however, renders the verse differently:
καὶ ἦν σκοτία καὶ γνόφος, καὶ διῆλθεν ἡ νὺξ
“And there was darkness and blackness, and the night passed.”

Here, the dual imagery of “darkness and blackness” (σκοτία καὶ γνόφος) omits any mention of illumination. Instead, the LXX presents a simplified description, portraying the entire night as one of obscurity until its passing. This rendering eliminates the paradoxical juxtaposition of darkness and light.

Assessing the Evidence

The textual question, therefore, is whether the original reading involved both darkness and light, as preserved in the Hebrew text, or whether the LXX’s removal of the illumination clause reflects an earlier Hebrew Vorlage. Several factors support the superiority of the Masoretic reading:

1. Lectio difficilior principle: The MT preserves the harder reading. The paradoxical phrasing of “darkness” alongside “and it lit up the night” would naturally invite later scribes or translators to smooth out the tension. The LXX appears to do just this by eliminating illumination and rendering the passage more straightforward.

2. Contextual consistency: Verse 19 clearly explains the dual role of the cloud, serving both as darkness for Egypt and light for Israel. The MT reading of verse 20 continues this dual emphasis, while the LXX loses this narrative nuance.

3. Dead Sea Scrolls: While Exodus is sparsely preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls, fragments such as 4QExodb (4Q14) and 4QpaleoExodm provide confirmation of large sections of the Exodus narrative. For Exodus 14 specifically, extant fragments do not directly preserve this verse, meaning the MT must remain the primary witness, with no evidence to suggest a shorter Hebrew Vorlage behind the LXX at this point.

4. Translation technique of the LXX: The Septuagint often simplifies or interprets difficult Hebrew idioms rather than reflecting textual divergence. The omission of illumination in Exodus 14:20 fits this broader translation tendency. The translators may have viewed the juxtaposition as theologically or linguistically confusing and thus rephrased it into a smoother reading.

Other Ancient Versions

The Syriac Peshitta aligns more closely with the Masoretic Text, reflecting both darkness and light, supporting the originality of the MT. The Vulgate, too, translates the dual imagery: “et erat nubes tenebrosa et illuminans noctem” (“and there was a dark cloud and it illuminated the night”). This indicates that Jerome, translating directly from Hebrew, preserved the paradoxical Hebrew expression.

The Targums similarly attempt to explain rather than erase the dual role of the cloud, emphasizing its protective and guiding functions. This again shows that Jewish interpretive tradition recognized and retained the Hebrew’s tension rather than smoothing it out.

Scribal and Exegetical Considerations

The Masoretic wording demands recognition of the divine phenomenon’s two-sided effect, which no doubt struck ancient translators as peculiar. The LXX, in simplifying the passage, reflects more exegetical adjustment than textual preservation. The tendency of scribes and translators to “clarify” difficult passages is well-attested across manuscript traditions, while more difficult readings tend to be original.

Moreover, the syntax of the MT, with וַיְהִי introducing “the cloud and the darkness,” followed by the unexpected illumination clause, is fully consistent with Hebrew narrative style, which often shifts focus abruptly. By contrast, the LXX’s phrase “and the night passed” is narratively redundant, since the very next verse (14:21) already continues with the miraculous dividing of the sea during the night. This redundancy suggests that the LXX smoothing lost the precision of the Hebrew.

Theological Implications of the Textual Evidence

The MT text underscores Jehovah’s active protection of Israel through a supernatural medium that simultaneously hindered the enemy and aided His people. The light was not natural, but divinely mediated illumination, sufficient for Israel’s nighttime journey to the sea crossing. Egypt’s experience of the same pillar was opposite: impenetrable darkness, preventing their approach. This duality is an essential narrative element, confirming the miraculous intervention.

If one were to follow the LXX, the theological point of contrast between Israel and Egypt would be muted, turning the verse into a general statement about night passing in darkness rather than emphasizing divine distinction. Thus, the MT not only preserves the more difficult reading but also maintains the narrative’s theological force.

Conclusion on the Textual Witness

Exodus 14:20 in the Masoretic Text should be considered the original form of the verse. The Septuagint reflects a smoothing translation that eliminated the difficulty of paradoxical imagery. The Syriac Peshitta, Vulgate, and Targums all preserve the Hebrew tension of darkness and illumination, confirming the MT against the LXX alteration.

The verse as preserved in the MT, therefore, accurately conveys the historical and theological reality of Israel’s deliverance: the pillar of cloud and fire manifested Jehovah’s dual action—light to His people and darkness to their enemies—all night long until the crossing of the Red Sea was complete.

You May Also Enjoy

The Transmission of the Old Testament Text: Masoretic Precision, Dead Sea Scrolls, Ancient Versions, and the Reliability of the Hebrew Bible

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS