Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

made the sea dry land, and the waters were 'divided.

22 And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

23 ¶ And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen.

24 And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians,

25 And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the LORD fighteth for them against the Egyptians.

26 T And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians,

5 Josh. 4. 23. Psal. 114. 3. 7 Or, and made them to go heavily.

8 Heb. shook off.

upon their chariots, and upon their horse

men.

27 And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the

sea.

28 And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as 'one of them.

29 But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

30 Thus the LORD saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore.

31 And Israel saw that great work which the LORD did upon the Egyptians: and the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD, and his servant Moses.

Psal. 78. 13. 1 Cor. 10. 1. Heb. 11. 29. 9 Psal. 106. 11.

10 Heb. hand.

Verse 2. Turn and encamp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baal-zephon.'-The following verses 3, 4, clearly indicate the nature and object of this movement; and if these are sufficient to account for it as a movement, we have no need, and scarcely any right, to seek other designs. It is important to keep this declared design distinctly in view, because it has necessarily much influence upon all the considerations which bear upon the circumstances connected with the passage of the Red Sea, especially as regards the question, at what point that passage took place. The avowed object, then, was to place the Israelites in a position of so much, and apparently insuperable, difficulty and danger, as should beget a false confidence in the Egyptian king, and lead him into a snare, where his punishment, and the deliverance wrought for the Israelites might produce the greatest moral effect, and where the miracle by which the Lord purposed to obtain reverence for his own great name, would be most signal and impressive. The moral effect would be two-fold-that of teaching the disheartened Israelites, who had not yet learned to trust their Almighty Guide, the extent and sufficiency of that power which was exerted for their protection; and of inspiring the surrounding tribes and nations with such salutary awe, as might prevent them from venturing to molest the Israelites in their march, and as might facilitate their final conquest of Canaan. All these objects were accomplished by this course, which must at first have seemed so unaccountable; and human ingenuity has not yet been able to devise any other by which the same results might be realized. The miracles in Egypt, great and striking as they were, had not been sufficient for these effects, though they had sufficed to procure the release of the Israelites from the house of bondage. Under the influence of such considerations, we may see that the predetermined results would be imperfectly subserved, unless the position into which they were brought by this movement was one of peril and great difficulty-unless that position left them no means of escape but by a miraculous passage being opened for them

through the Red Sea-and unless that passage through the sea took place at a point where there was nothing in the occasionally fordable character of the place, nothing in the conditions of the ebb or flow, to raise a question whether the passage of the Israelites, and the ensuing destruction of the Egyptians, might not be something less than a miracle, or in any way a less signal miracle than the Scripture declares it to have been, or than it was felt to be by the neighbouring tribes and nations.

These conditions are not met by the position near Suez, where many writers have, since the time of Niebuhr, been disposed to place it; and nothing which has transpired since, in the first edition of this work, we declared the grounds of that conviction, has in any degree tended to alter the view we were then led to take of this most difficult question. It is true that Dr. Robinson has since been on the spot, and has declared in favour of the passage at Suez. But he had long before written-more fully than in his Researches-in advocacy of the same view, in the American Biblical Repository for 1832; and his more recent testimony as a traveller does therefore add nothing | more to the weight of authority on that side than previously existed, except that his impressions in viewing the place corresponded with his pre-conceived opinion. Had this view come before us first in his Researches as the conclusion of a mind not pre-occupied, it would have been of more original value than can now be assigned to it. We said this in substance before, in a work we were publishing (Pictorial History of Palestine, p. 187-190), when the report of this learned traveller's principal conclusions was given to the world in the Journal of the Royal Geɔ graphical Society for 1840. This remark having been seen by Dr. Robinson at Berlin, he took occasion, when subsequently in England, to remonstrate with us thereupon; and now, therefore, we gladly avail ourselves of this opportunity of explaining that, in originally making, and in now reiterating this remark, we meant nothing incompatible with the highest respect for his rare ability and great industry of research as a traveller, to whom the public

is infinitely more indebted than to any one who has written on the topography of Palestine since Reland. But we did, and do, mean to say, that a mind previously made up on the subject, and committed to a particular view by the published results of an elaborate investigation, could not possibly come to the examination of the question, on the spot, with that entire freedom from bias which alone could give it weight as a traveller's conclusion. His view as a scholar stood on record, and its facts and arguments were diligently collected and skilfully arranged. We gave them very careful consideration, and it was in presence of them that we reached a different conclusion. His subsequent testimony in the same direction as a traveller, appears to add little or nothing to the value of his previous testimony, as no new fact or argument is produced; and he merely corroborates his former opinion, as was to be expected, when no absolutely constraining evidence on the other side of the question could be produced. We feel bound to point this out, because there are many who will be apt to regard Dr. Robinson's testimony as final on such a question; and it is therefore important to bear in mind that the just respect to which his deliberately formed opinion on this or any other kindred subject is entitled, must not blind us to the fact that this opinion is essentially rather one of those very theories and hypotheses of learned speculation,' which, he says, are far outweighed by accurate inspection and scientific investigation.' We must confess, however, that in a matter avowedly miraculous, we do not see what ocular inspection and scientific investigation' is to prove. The object of all this scientific investigation, from Niebuhr downward, has been to find some place where the ebb of the tide, assisted by a wind, might bring the water so low as to afford the Israelites a safe passage: and hence a place has been fixed upon near Suez, where the ebb alone now leaves a narrow arm of the bay fordable. Since so accomplished a traveller as Niebuhr advanced this view, ordinary travellers, taking no particular interest in the question, have usually assented to his conclusion; but of those who have examined the matter as an interesting point of Scripture history, Dr. Robinson is almost the only one who has concurred in Niebuhr's view. The Abbé Sicard, who explored the whole district for the express purpose of elucidating the questions connected with the Exode, is very decided against it; so is the Rev. T. Lieder, one of the German missionaries of the Church Missionary Society in Egypt-a most competent observer, intimately acquainted with the Arabic language-who devoted much attention to the question, and after spending several days in the locality, concluded that the miraculous passage did not take place at Suez, but did take place eighteen miles farther down, at the place where the mouth of the valley of Bedéa, or Tawirah, opens upon the shore of the Red Sea. It is indeed a remarkable fact, that of the travellers who have been in this quarter since the publication of the Biblical Researches, nearly all have expressed views of the subject opposed to those which the learned author advocates, and in accordance with those which have always seemed to us more compatible with the Scripture narrative. We may instance Mr. Borrer, who, in his Journey from Naples to Jerusalem, examines the question in some detail, and produces reasons not easily answered against the ground taken by Dr. Robinson, and those who agree with him. Even the lively but not unobservant author of Eothen, has a well-considered page or two on the same side. In reference to the view from which we dissent, he says " One among many objections to this supposition is, that the time of a single ebb would not have been sufficient for the passage of that vast multitude of men and beasts, or even for a small fraction of it. Moreover, the creek to the north of this point can be compassed in an hour; and in two hours you can make the circuit of the salt marsh over which the sea may have extended in former times. If therefore the Israelites crossed so high up as Suez, the Egyptians, unless infatuated by divine interference, might easily have recovered their goods from the encumbered fugitives by making a slight detour.' With reference to

[ocr errors]

a still less tenable hypothesis, this writer remarks:- The Cambridge mathematicians seem to think that the Israelites were enabled to pass over dry land by adopting a route not usually subject to the influx of the sea. This notion is plausible in a merely hydrostatical point of view.... but it is difficult to reconcile this theory with the account given in Exodus, unless we can suppose that the words "sea" and "waters are there used in a sense implying" dry land." Of greater importance are the remarks of Dr. Olin, an American divine and traveller, who obviously had in view, when writing, both the facts and arguments of Dr. Robinson and those of the Pictorial Bible, withholds his assent from the former, and re-produces the latter, with the valuable corroboration of his own observation and experience. For this reason we shall quote the substance of his statement, as it will afford at once both our own previous arguments and the corroboration they have since received.

In contending for the upper passage at Suez, Niebuhr and others who adopt the same opinion, appear to be a good deal influenced by the fact that "the miracle would be less if they crossed there than near Bedea." At this point the bay, or narrow part of the gulf, is about twothirds of a mile wide. Opposite to the ancient site of Kolsum, less than half a mile above the town, are some small islands, where, at low water, persons sometimes ford the bay, and with little difficulty if it is not agitated by the wind. A short distance below Suez there is also a shoal, which prevents the passage of all but very small vessels at low tide, and may sometimes be forded by men on foot, though with more difficulty. It is at this narrow pass, and between or upon these shoals, that the passage is presumed to have been made. It is reasonable to believe that a strong wind, concurring with the ebbing of the sea, would lay this shallow channel bare, and allow an easy passage to the Israelites.

"The obvious objection to this hypothesis, arising from the shallowness of the water, which is inconsistent, it might be thought, with the Scripture narrative, is a good deal diminished by the presumed fact, sustained by present appearances, that the channel has been partly filled up, as well as diminished in width, by the encroachments of the sand. The ancient canal, which was certainly connected with the head of the bay four or five miles south of Suez, does not now approach to the water. Without regarding these changes, and supposing the natural features of this locality to have been the same as at present, it must still have been very difficult, if not impossible, for the army of Israel, encumbered with infants and aged people, as well as with flocks, to pass over in the face of their enemies; and the adoption of this theory is not necessarily to be considered as a negation of the miracle. Still it will be admitted that the circumstances here enumerated must have had a tendency to disguise its character and impair its effect. To the Israelites the miracle had been announced beforehand, and they would be likely to perceive and acknowledge the Divine interposition. Not so the pagan Egyptians, who would not so readily recognise anything beyond natural agencies. A lower ebb and a stronger wind than usual were quite enough to drive back the water, and allow armies to pass where camels and footmen could wade through in ordinary times. If, however, the channel was laid bare by the wind acting with the tide, as this opinion presumes, what becomes of the "wall of water on the right hand and on the left?" There might have been water on the right hand below, though hardly" a wall" of water; but how could these agents, acting naturally, produce another "wall" or bulwark of water on the left hand above? We are hardly at liberty to consider this as merely figurative language, meaning only that while the channel was left free to the passage of the Israelites, some water remaining in the upper parts of it near its head protected them against their enemies in that direction. Language much stronger and savouring much more of the miraculous, is used in the song of Moses, in the fifteenth chapter of Exodus. With the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered

66

[graphic][merged small]

together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea." "He made the waters stand as an heap." Ps. lxxviii.

It should be observed that none but a northerly wind could co-operate with the tide in clearing the channel of water in the manner supposed, as the gulf stretches nearly from south to north. "A strong east wind" was employed as the miraculous agent, which would act nearly at right angles with the movement of the tide, and directly across the strait. This seems not to have been an ordinary or periodical, which does not blow from the east, but a special agency called up for the occasion. According to the obvious import of verses 21 to 29, Moses advanced with the hosts of Israel to the sea, and stretched out his rod over the waters in their sight, upon which a strong east wind descended, and formed a channel, into which the Israelites immediately entered. This passage, which was made by a wall of water" on the right hand and on the left," was kept open during the whole night by the continued action of the same agent. The Egyptians followed the Israelites" to the midst of the sea," where Moses again stretched forth his hand, " and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared." The entire night seems to have been consumed in the passage. The Israelites had reached the shore in safety; but the Egyptians who went in after him had only reached the middle of the sea on the return of day, when God again "blew with his wind, and the sea covered them." It is hardly credible that so much time should have been consumed in crossing the narrow arm or strait near Suez, to accomplish which one or two hours would have been sufficient, making due allowance for the tardy movement of multitudes. Nor is it conceivable that the large army of the Egyptians, composed of chariots and horsemen as well as other troops, and forming, as they naturally would on a march, a very long train, should have been at once within the banks of so narrow a channel. The more advanced troops would

naturally have reached the opposite shore before the rear had entered the sea; and yet we know that all Pharaoh's chariots and horsemen followed to the midst of the sea, and, together with all the host that came into the sea after them, were covered with the returning waves.

The several considerations which I have enumerated seem to me to form a very strong-I incline to regard it an insuperable-objection to the theory that fixes upon the narrow arm of the gulf at Suez as the place where the passage was made. I am not able to perceive that the transit from the valley south of Ras Attaka is liable to objections as numerous and grave.

The sea or gulf, at the place in question, is perhaps ten or twelve miles wide. The valley here expands into a considerable plain, bounded by lofty precipitous moun tains on the right and left, and by the sea in front, and is sufficiently ample to accommodate the vast number of human beings who composed the two armies. The opposite shore is a part of the great wilderness of Etham, consisting here of an extensive plain, covered at present with a sandy incrustation, and white in many places with an efflorescence of salt. An east wind would act almost directly across the gulf. It would therefore be unable to co-operate with an ebb tide in removing the waters-no objection, certainly, if we admit the exercise of God's miraculous agency in this transaction. The channel is wide enough to allow of the movements described in the account by Moses, and the time, which embraced an entire night, was sufficient for the convenient march of a large army over such a distance of twelve miles.'

Öther travellers, not feeling the same degree of interest in the scriptural narrative, have nevertheless expressed strong opinions against Niebuhr's conclusion. Thus Turner, a very competent traveller, who had Niebuhr's book with him, and compared his plan on the spot, speaking of the celebrated arm of the Red Sea' which has been so often mentioned, says Niebuhr brings this arm, in his

1

[ocr errors]

map, round to the north-west, whereas it is strictly confined to the north.' On this let us remark that Professor Robinson in his first tractate on this subject, argued upon the basis which this faulty plan of Niebuhr afforded. The east wind of Scripture he first makes a 'north-east' wind, and then shews that, from the peculiar form of the arm of the sea (as represented in Niebuhr), such a wind would drive back the waters, etc. What is more extraordinary is, that after having been on the spot, he uses the same argument, with the same reference to Niebuhr's plan. Now it will be obvious from the inspection of any good map of the gulf,' (and here is a foot reference, 'espe cially Niebuhr's') that a strong north-east wind, acting here upon the ebb tide, would necessarily have the effect of driving out the waters from the small arm of the sea,' etc. Now, in point of fact, it appears from any good map that a north wind only could have that effect; and although Scripture might perhaps call a north-east wind an east wind,' it certainly would not call a north wind an east wind. Again, Turner says:-Those who reduce the passage of the Israelites to a mere manœuvre of Moses, contend that the army passed over this arm at the beginning of the flow of the tide, which, so well had he timed it, overwhelmed the ignorant or incautious Egyptians. The theory is improbable, if not impossible, for the following reasons: It cannot be supposed that Moses knew the ebb and flow of the sea here better than the Egyptians, or that the Egyptians would have been so imprudent as to incur the risk of drowning by following him through the water, when (having over his timid and fugitive companions the advantage of horses and chariots), they could so easily have overtaken them by going only six miles round. The Mohammedans and Greeks in these quarters believe that Moses passed near Suez, but do not do away the miracle by placing the passage over this arm of Passe pour cela. Their authority is not very decisive.' Journal of a Tour in the Levant, ii. 411. To the last remark we may add, that the Moslems and Greeks along this eastern gulf of the Red Sea fix the point of transit at several other places; every one being disposed to assign it the locality nearest to his own abode. The weight of their evidence, and even of their traditions, would fix it at Birket el-Faroun (Pharaoh's Bay), which is much further down than we should ourselves like to place it. The intermediate tradition, which fixes the passage as from near Ras Attaka (Deliverance) across to Ayun Mousa (Fountains of Moses), better deserves attention, not only as having a double tradition in its favour, embodied in long-standing names on both sides the gulf; but as being free from the objections applicable to any place further down or higher up; and where all the conditions of the Scripture narrative are met. Lower down it could not be, because on the other side of the valley of Bedéa the rocks stand out towards the sea, and the beach narrows in such a manner, as to block up the further progress of a large host in that direction, so that they were literally, when they had come so far, shut in by the land,' not only on the right flank (by the Attaka mountains) but in front. Higher up it might be. We are not disposed to contend dogmatically for any particular point. Our argument is, that it was not among the shoals and ebbs at Suez; but we do not say where it was: and our complaint is against those who venture so positively to fix this uncertain site to a spot open, both on religious and historical grounds, to so much objection.

the sea.

[ocr errors]

A great deal has been made of the statement of Eusebius, that the transit took place at Clysma, which has been usually identified with the above-mentioned Kolsum, above Suez. If this were really the case, and if we received this as a tradition of the time, it is not clear that a tradition two thousand years after the event, fixed by no writings or monuments, is entitled to much more credit than the identical Arab tradition which exists at the present day.

But it may further be observed that the identity of Kolsum with Clysma, or at least with the Clysma of Eusebius, is exceedingly doubtful. The site of the ancient

Clysma has been fixed in so many (at least four) different places as to render it probable that the name was not a proper but a generic denomination applied to different towns, or else that there were at least two different, perhaps successive, towns called Clysma, one the parent of the other. Part of this remark applies to the Kolsum, in which the ancient Clysma is supposed to be found. The different Arabian geographers speak of Kolsum in such a way, however, as to shew that there were two towns of that name, one at the extremity of the gulf, near Suez, and the other more than a degree south of Suez, at the foot of a mountain which continues to bear the name to this day. M. Gosselin cites one geographer who expressly says that there were two towns called Kolsum; and, when the traditions speak of a passage as having taken place in the neighbourhood of Kolsum, it is clear that they mean the latter place, from the fact that the bay on the opposite coast has its name (Birket-el-Faroun) from the drowning of the Egyptians, and that this part is more generally pointed out than any other as the place where the Israelites crossed the gulf.

If the reader reverts to the text placed at the head of this note, he will notice that there is scarcely so minute a specification of locality in the whole Bible as that which it affords. One might almost think that the site was thus carefully pointed out in order to render it manifest that the passage of the gulf could not at that spot have been effected by less than a miracle; or, in other words, to preclude such attempts to account for the facts on natural grounds as have actually resulted from our being no longer able to recognise, by the given names, the spot they were intended to indicate. No trace of these names now exists in the locality, but some inferences may be built upon the signification of the names. With respect to piha-Hiroth, it is to be observed that the word

[ocr errors]

ha

pi, mouth, is separate in the original, and the is the definite article. Now as proper names carry no articles in the Hebrew, ♬ hiroth, or rather chiroth, must be regarded not as a proper name, but as a substantive: and we must search for its meaning accordingly. It indicates something cutting deep into the land;' hence a valley, defile, or pass: hence also, mouth of a river, a bay of the sea. Thus we reach the signification before the mouth of the pass,' or of the bay; both of which senses suit admirably the expansion by which the important pass of Bedea (which extends from the valley of the Nile to the Red Sea), opens upon the latter. We are not unaware that some regard the word as Egyptian. But the other names are not Egyptian; and there is no reason why this alone should be so. We have made it a rule to ourselves not to regard any word or name as foreign, which affords a sufficient and satisfactory sense in Hebrew; and in this place the words do not seem to form a proper name at all. MIGDOL indicates a fortress or citadel; and where was there more likely to be a fortress than near the mouth of this important pass which led into the very heart of Egypt? As to Baal-Zephon, over against' which they were to encamp, it seems likely that it was some marked site or object (not necessarily a town) on the other side, that is the eastern side of the gulf, so that encamping on the western shore, they had Baal-Zephon on the other side in front of them. The text will, however, equally allow that BaalZephon should have been upon the ridge of hills which wall in the mouth of the valley of Bedeah on the south, and which would have been before,' or in front of, the Israelites as they came down from the north. We do not however build upon this explanation of names, though it is interesting to observe their agreement with the view we have indicated.

The final result would be that the Israelites turned off at right angles to their former course, and marched hence along the western shore, between Mount Attaka and the sea, till they came to the valley of Bedea, where they could proceed no further without going through the sea, unless they returned to Egypt through the valley. Well might Pharaoh exult when he found them in such a situation, where it seemed quite in his choice to slay them by

[ocr errors]
[graphic][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small]

the sword, or to drive them into the sea, or back through the valley into Egypt.

4. He shall follow after them.'-The facility with which Pharaoh received information from his scouts of the movements of the Israelites, agrees with the circumstances enumerated in reference to the position of his court in the note to ch. xii. 37, and the rapidity with which his forces were collected for the pursuit is remarkably in agreement with other circumstances which remain to be indicated. Great part of the military force of Egypt was in fact concentrated in this region, as the weakest and most exposed frontier of the land. This we learn from Herodotus (ii. 158), who has expressly named the Egyptian nomes in which the military force was quartered. The military tribe or caste was separated into two divisions, the Hermotymbi and the Calasiri, the distinction between which is not known. The former were in the time of Herodotus 160,000 strong, and the latter 250,000. As their increase or decrease was that of a tribe, not of a profession, these numbers imply nothing as to the number in the time of Moses; and are mentioned merely to fix other particulars. These are, that four nomes and a half were possessed by the Hermotymbi within the Delta, and twelve others by the Calasiri; while each of them had only one single nome in all Middle and Upper Egypt, namely, the districts of Chemmis and Thebes. In the Mosaic times,' says Heeren, the warrior caste first appears in Lower Egypt. The rapidity with which the Pharaoh there mentioned could assemble the army with which he pursued the fugitive Israelites evinces clearly enough that the Egyptian warriors of that epoch must have been quartered in just the same district in which Herodotus places them. Historical Researches, v. 134,

135.

6

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

7. Six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt.'-Whenever armies are represented on the monuments of Egypt, they are represented as composed of troops of infantry armed with bow or lance, and of ranks of chariots drawn by two horses. Chariots also appear in Homer as the principal strength of the Egyptian army. Upon the monuments neither a king nor any other person of consequence is represented in any other way than on

foot, in a chariot, upon a throne, or in a litter. The few figures which appear on horses almost all belong to foreigners. In fact war-chariots formed the cavalry of Egypt, and cavalry in our sense of the term cannot be said to have had existence in that country. We have to see what relation the declarations in the present chapter bear to this result. Were the common view, under which riding on horses is superadded to chariots of war in this and the following chapter, the right one, some suspicion against the credibility of the narrative might be created. But a more accurate examination will shew that the sacred writer does not mention Egyptian cavalry at all; that according to him the Egyptian army was composed only of chariots of war; and that he agrees in a wonderful manner with the native Egyptian monuments. And this agreement is the more minute, since the second division of the army could not, in the circumstances of the narrative, take part in the pursuit.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The first and principal passage is that in the present text, in which Pharaoh's preparations for war are fully described. It consists first of chariots, and secondly of chariot warriors. Cavalry are no more mentioned than infantry. This passage, which is so plain, explains the second, in v. 9, where the arrival of the same army in sight of the Israelites is plainly and graphically described. The word rendered horsemen' is literally riders,' and should, according to the connection of v. 7, mean riders in the chariots, not riders on horses. If riders on horses were meant, where would be the chariot-warriors? They would not be omitted since the description is studiously minute, and since it is evidently intended to accumulate circumstances as much as possible. Again, in v. 17, the 'riders' (translated as before horsemen') correspond to the chariot-warriors of v. 7. If there were then chariotwarriors and riders, how strange it is that they are never spoken of together. In v. 23, the three constituent parts of the Egyptian warlike army are fully designated the horses of Pharaoh, his chariots, and his riders.' If riders were here to be understood in the common way of horsemen, it would be surprising that horses and chariots are named, and that chariot-warriors, who are most inportant, are left out. Finally, the meaning of the pas

all

« PoprzedniaDalej »