1. It is usual to suppose that the most northern place at wliich tlie Red Sea could have licen crossed is the present bead of the Gulf of Suez. This supposition de- ])(1h1s upon the idea that in the time of ISloses the gulf did not extend fartlier to the northward than at pres- ent. An examination of the country north of Suez has convinced some geographers, however, that the sea has receded manj- miles, and that this change has taken place within the historical period, possibh- in ful- filment ofthe prophecy of Isaiah (xi,15; xix,5; comp.
EXODE
399
EXODE
Zech. X, 11). The old bed is thought In' them to he indicated by the Birket et-Tims;ih, or "Lake of the Crocodile," and the more southern bitter hikes, the northernmost part of the former corresponding to the ancient head of the gulf. In previous centuries it is not supposed that the gulf extended farther north, but that it was deeper in its northernmost part. A\'e are inclined to Ijelieve, however, that such a change, if it ever took place, cannot materially affect the question of the place of the Israelites' passage.
From Pi-hahiroth the Israelites crossed the sea. The only points bearing on geography in the account of this event are that the sea was divided by an east wind, whence we may reasonably infer that it was crossed from west to east, and that the whole Egyptian army perished, which shows that it must have been some miles broad. Pharaoh took at least six hundred chariots, which, three abreast, would have occupied about half a mile, and the rest of the army cannot be supposed to have taken up less than several times that space. Even if in a broad formation some miles would have been required. It is more difficult to calculate the space taken up by the Israelitish multitude, but probably it was even greater. On the whole, we may reasonably suppose about twelve miles as the smallest breadth of the sea.
2. A careful examination of the narrative of the passage of the Red Sea is necessary to a right under- standing of the event. When the Israelites had de- parted, Pharaoh repented that he had let them go. News is carried to the monarch which leads him to see that the reason assigned (namely, a sacrifice in the wilderness) is but a pretext; that the Israelites had really fled from his yoke ; and also that, through some (to him) unaccountable error, they had gone towards the south-east, had reached the sea, and were hemmed in on all sides. He summons his troops and sets out in pursuit — "all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen and his army;" and he "overtook them encamping hj^ the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth, before Baal-zephon" (Exod. xiv, 9). It might be conjec- tured, from one part of the narrative (ver. 1-4), that he determined to pu:sue them when he knew that they had encamped before Pi-hahiroth, did not what follows this implj' that he set out soon after thej' had gone, and also indicate that the place in question refers to the pursuit through the sea, not to that from the city wlience he started (ver. 5-10). This city was most probaljly Zoan, and could scarcely have been much nearer to Pi-hahiroth, and the distance is therefore too great to have been twice traversed, first by those who told Pharaoh, then by Pharaoh's armj', within a few hours. The strength of Pharaoh's arm}' is not far- ther specified than Ijy the statement that "he took six hundred chosen chariots, and [or ' even'] all the chari- ots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them" (ver. 7). The war-chariots of the Egj'ptians held each but two men, an archer and a charioteer. The former must 1)6 intended by the word C"::?'.:;, rendered in the A. V. " captains." Throughout the narrative the char- iots and horsemen of Pharaoh are mentioned, and "the horse and liis rider" (xv, 21) are spoken of in ^Miriam's ! song, but we can scarcely infer hence that there was 1 in Pliaraoh's army a body of horsemen as well as of ' men in chariots, as in ancient Egyptian the chariot- I force is always called HTAR or IIETEA, "the horse," and these expressions may therefore be respectivoh' ' pleonastic and poetical. There is no evidence in the records of the ancient Egyptians that they used caval- ry, and, therefore, had the Bililical narrative express- ' I}- mentioned a fores of this kind, it might have been thought conclusive of the theory that the Pharaoh of the Exode was a shepherd-king. With this army, which even if a small one, was mighty in comparison with the Israelitish multitude, encumbered with women, children, and cattle, Pharaoh overtook the people " en-