on the other side could have been kept out, and then there would be a continuous lake from sea to sea, and a miracle would have been necessary, at all hazards, in or- der to effect the passage anywhere. The Hebrews had no occasion to " turn" at all, for that matter. (3.) In that case Pharaoh's observation (ver. 3, 4), "The children of Israel are entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in," would have been very inapt ; at least, its force is not at all clear; for, go which way they might, the material obstacle would be the same, viz. the water merely. (4.) There is no local or historical tradition confirmatory of this spot; in short, circumstances on this theory are all so uncertain and ill-defined that we may safely dismiss it as altogether hypothetical. If we are to determine anything definite concerning the place of the transaction, it must be based upon the known re- lations of the localities as they now exist.
Kalisch thinks (Comment, on Exod. ad loc.) that the Israelites turned northward*; but in that case likewise, as Shaw long since observed (Travels, p. 311), they could not in any proper sense have become "entangled in the land" nor "shut in by the wilderness," for all would have been free before them to escape ; in fact, they would have been only pursuing a more direct route to Canaan.
3. At Suez. — This location of the event in question has a far greater array of names in its support, among the most notable of whom is Dr. E. Robinson (in the Biblical Repository, 1832. p. 753 sq., repeated in hhBibl. Res. i, 80), who followed in the wake of Xiebubr (Trgv- els in Arabia, translated by Heron [Edinb. 1792]. i, 198, 451), and whose views have been substantially repro- duced by the latest writers. Other important authori- ties on the same side are Laborde (Commentain Geo* graph ique, p. 77), who cites, as having adopted it with some modification, the earlier writers. Le Clerc, G. Baer, Du Bois Aimee, Salvator, etc., to whom we add the au- thor of Murray's Hand-book for Egypt (ed.1873 ). p. 279; Keil, Comment, on the Pentateuch (Clarke's translation, Edinb. 1866, 3 vols. 8vo), ii, 46 sq. The obvious purport of the arguments adduced in favor of this as the place of the Israelites' passage is, notwithstanding the dis- claimer of most of its advocates, to reduce the miracle to its minimum terms, and to find a spot where it is practicable by merely natural forces. This has created a prejudice against it in the minds of most readers, and induced a controversy not always temperate or logical. Let us look at the arguments on both sides from scriptu- ral sources purely.
In favor of this view we may say that — (1.) The dis- tance from Belbeis (assuming that to correspond sub- stantially with the site of Rameses) sufficiently agrees with the requirements of a three days' march, being about fifty miles in a straight line. (2.) The general direction is about the required one for the Israelites at the outset. (3.) The adjoining localities are thought to correspond with those of the Scripture account : thus it is generally agreed that Migdol (the tower) answers to some fortress on Jebel Atakah. (4.) There are shoals reaching nearly or quite across the channel at this point, so that an east wind might readily lay it bare; and it is, moreover, so narrow that the Israelites could easily cross in the few hours presumed to have been occupied in the passage.
Other features of this locality do not well tally with the requirements of the case, and some appear abso- lutely to contradict the Biblical statements. Even the above coincidences— especially the last— when more closely examined, do not prove satisfactory. (1.) The direction to "turn" from the regular course hitherto pursued by the fugitives does not admit of an adequate explanation on this view. The word is an emphatic one, not the ordinary ">ID, or (1^3, to turn aside or au-ay, but 3VJJ, to return, turn back, viz. actually retro- grade. (Ewald, who treats the record in his usually ar- bitrary and irreverent manner, is yet too good a scholar
RED SEA
968
[{ED SEA
not to feel the force of this expression, which he con- strues by saying thai Moses "led the- host half-way back" [///.</. of Israeli translated by Martineau, London, 1869,5 vols. 8vo), Li, 69 j ). At least a marked digression or detour is required to meel the significance of this term. Bui Suez U directly on the beaten track of all ages, and precisely in the line which the Israelites had already Keen pursuing. 1 1 is true the immemorial Haj route does nol acl ually come down to the Tillage of Suez itself, as, ol i ourse, it does not cross the head of the gulf there: it passes a mile or two above, so as to avoid the Bui t his small divergence would be quite incon- siderable in the direction of a whole day's march; for the order to "turn," be it observed, was given at Hi ham before setting oul the third day, not near its close, or in the vicinity of the sea, where the difference in direction might have been more perceptible. This last consid- eration is, therefore, altogether too insignificant to justi- fy the Hebrew term. (2.) None of the places given in the Biblical account as fixing the spot determine it at Suez. Even Jebel Atakah, ifMigdol, is too far away to be naturally selected for such a minute specification of the immediate scene. Any point from Ras Atakah to the south end of the Bitter Lakes would be "east"