Here, at the end of their long oppression, delivered finally from the Egyptians, the Israelites glorified God. In what words thej^ sang his praise we know from the Song of Moses, which, in its vigorous brevitj', represents the events of that memorable night, scarcely of less moment than the night of the Passover (Exod. XV, 1-18 ; ver. 19 is probablj' a kind of comment, not part of the song). Moses seems to have sung this song with the men, Miriam with the women also sing- ing and dancing, or perliaps there were two choruses (ver. 20, 21). Such a picture does not recur in the his- tory of the nation. Neither the triumphal song of Deborah, nor the rejoicing when the Temple was re- covered from the Syrians, celebrated so great a deliv- erance, or was joined in by the whole people. In leaving Goshen, Israel became a nation ; after cross- ing the sea, it was free. There is evidently great sig- nificance, as we have suggested, in Paul's use of this miracle as a type of baptism ; for, to make the analogy complete, it must have been the beginning of a new period of the life of the Israelites.
3. The importance of this event in Biblical histoiy is shown by the manner in which it is spoken of in the books of the O. T. written in later times. In them it is the chief fact of Jewish history. Not the call of Abraham, not the rule of Joseph, not the first Pass- over, not the conquest of Canaan, are referred to in such a manner as this great deliverance. In the Psalms it is related as foremost among the deeds that God had wrought for his people. The prophet Isaiah recalls it as the great manifestation of God's interfer- ence for Israel, and an encouragement for the descend- ants of those who witnessed that great sight. There are events so striking tliat they are remembered in the life of a nation, and that, like great heights, increasing distance only gives them more majesty. So no doubt >vas this remembered long after those were dead who saw the sea return to its strength and the warriors of i Pliaraoh dead upon the shore.
It may be inquired how it is that there f»eems to h.avo been no record or traditii>n of this miracle among tlie Egy])tians. This question involves that of the time in Egyptian history to which this event should ,
be assigned. The date of the Exode, according to different chronologers, varies more than three hundred j'ears ; the dates of the Egyptian dynasties ruling dur- ing this period of three hundred years vary fully one hundred. The period to which the Exode may be assigned therefore virtualh' corresponds to four hun- dred years of Egj'ptian history. If the lowest date of the beginning of the 18th dynasty be taken, and the highest date of the Exode, both which we consider the most probable of those that have been conjec- tured in the two cases, the Israelites must have left Egypt in a period of which monuments or other rec- ords are almost wholly wanting. Of the 18th and sub- sequent dynasties we have as yet no continuous his- torj-, and rarely records of events which occurred in a succession of years. We know much of many reigns, and of some we can be almost sure that they could not correspond to that of the Pharaoh of the Exode. We can in no case expect a distinct Egyptian monumental record of so great a calamitj^, for the monuments only record success ; but it might be related in a papyrus. There would doubtless have long remained a popular tradition of the Exode ; but if the king who perished was one of the shepherd strangers, this tradition would probably have been local, and perhaps indistinct. Jo- sephus, indeed, gives us some extracts from the last work of Manetho, who appears, if we may trust the criticisms of the Jewish historian (cont)-a Apionem, § 14, 2G), to have greatly garbled the account in favor of the Egyptians. See Hyksos.
Endeavors have been made to explain away the miraculous character of the passage of the Red Sea. It has been argued that Moses might have carried the Israelites over by a ford, and that an unusual tide might have overwhelmed the Egyptians. But no real diminution of the wonder is thus effected. How was it that the sea admitted the passing of the Israelites, and drowned Pharaoh and his army ? How was it that it was shallow at the right time, and deep at the right time ? Some writers ( Wotfenb. Fragni. p. 64 sq.) have at once declared the whole fabulous, a course which appears to have been taken as earl}' as the time of Josephus {Ant. ii, 16, 5). Others, who do not deny miracles as such,3-et with no small inconsistency seek to reduce this particular mii-acle to the smallest di- mensions. Writers who see in the deliverance of the Hebrews the hand of God and the fulfilment of the di- vine purposes, follow the account in Scripture implicit- ly, placing the passage at Ras Attaka, at the termina- tion of the Valley of Wandering ; others, w ho go on rationalistic principles, find the sea here too wide and deep for their purpose, and endeavor to fix the passage a little to the south or the north of Suez. The most recent advocate of the passage at or near Suez is the learned Dr. Robinson {Biblical Researches in Palestine). The route taken by JMoses was, according to Robinson, from Ranieses to the head of the Arabian Gulf, through Succoth to Etham. The last place he fixes on the edge of the desert, on the eastern side of the line of the gulf. Instead of passing down the eastern side, at the top of which they were, the Israelites thence marched down the western side of the arm of the gulf, stopping in the vicinity of Suez, where the passage was efl'ected. This view of the miracle, however, entirely fiiils to satisfy the Scripture account, and has been amply refuted h^r Dr. Olin (Trarcls in the £■«»<, N. Y. 184.3)" and others. (See the account of Mr. Blumhardt's visit, Oct. 1836, in the Chin-ch Missionar;i Record, Jan. 1836 ; Kitto's JScrij)- ture Lands, p. lt% ; Dailii Bible Illusirat. ii, 05.) Some have supposed the Red Sea anciently extended fiirther north, and liave sought to identify the localities of the passage on that theory (see Sharpe in Bartlett's Forty Dar/s in the Desert, p. 23 sq.) ; but this is quite im- probable and without evidence. Another explanation (Dr. Durl)in, Observations in the Ea.<>t, i, 254) makes the Israelites to have turned from the vicinity of the bit- ter lakes to the western side of the head of Suez, and