at®
» 33
Map of the Ilead of the Gulf of Suez
of ot "before") that mountain in this general sense. As for Pi-hahiroth (whether Hebrew for nmiilh of the ravines, or. as is more likely. Coptic for fhi sedge-plat), it finds no special adaptation to any place in thai neigh- borhood. The attempt to identify it with Ajrud fails utterly, for the Hebrew .and Arabic names have but one radical letter in common. Equally unsatisfactory is every effort to discover Baal-zephon in .any prominent landmark north of Jebel Atakah. (Some writers refer Migdol to Muktdla, but this seems to be an error for the pass Mantulah, and therefore fails of verbal corre- spondence.) There is in that direction nothing but a flat, monotonous tract of sand, with no Btriking name or object to lix upon. (3.) At Suez the Israelites, so far from being hemmed in by barriers on either .-ide and an impassable sea in front, as the Biblical situation evi- dently was. had nothing to do if they wished to escape but to act just as every caravan at Suez now does, sim- ply kee] across the opt n plain around the head of
the bay — an easy, free, and direct passage of some three or four miles at farthest. At Suez it was impossible for them to be either "entangled in the land" or "shut in by the wilderness." The w ay was dear, so far as nat- ural obstacles or intricacy was concerned, and no troop of six hundred cavalry even could effectually cut them off from it : certainly no en- emy in the rear could hinder them, i l.t "A strong east wind Mowing all night" across the head of the gulf t Exod. xiv,21 ) would leave by morning no "wall of wa- ters" either "on the right hand or on the left" of pas- sengers at Suez. As will be seen by inspecting the soundings on the accompa- nying sketch from the ISrit- ish sailing-chart, the chan- nel opposite Suez i- (except, of course, the artificial bed the Swv/. ( anal ) nowhere over four feet deep at low- water, and not more than one twelfth of a mile wide. It could be waded across without any miracle or ex- tra wind at all; in fact, this actually been done. ( )ne traveller hired a man to walk through the water at ebb- tide at Suez, which he ef- fected, holding bis hands over bis bead ( Madden, Travels, ii. 1 13, 150). So all the way down to the bar at the mouth of the creek w hich puts up into Suez the water is at the most only live Or six feel deep ( in one
or two spots '. and generally three or four at ordinary low tide, with a tolerably uni- form width of about one tenth of a mile. Bui a powerful and prolonged east
wind, acting up be mass
of water in tin' outer or broad part of the bay itself, would so greatly lower the tide on the eastern shore, w here I he channel of Suez lies, as to drain the latter al- most, if not absolutely, dry throughout its whole ex- tent. It is true there would
RED SEA
969
RED SEA
be water enough left in the bay itself to prevent an enemy from surrounding the passing host on that side, but on the north there would be no such protection. Thus, even on the supposition that the term "wall" is used in ver. 22 in the sense of defence, the explanation clearly fails to meet the language of the text : " The wa- ters were a wall unto them on the right hand and on the left." We desire to insist on this fact, and to us it ap- pears decisive of the whole issue. But the phraseology seems to us to be stronger even than this interpreta- tion. The term "wall" (HEO) is rarely, if ever, used in this metaphorical sense of protection, but invariably (1 Sam. xxv, 16 is, we believe, the only doubtful in- stance) signifies some physical barrier, whether of stone or other material, placed more or less vertically for the purpose of protection. Its meaning is by no means ful- filled in the supposition of a vague water-line, shelving away at a distance on one side. Surely nothing but a desire to minify the preternatural element in the dis- cussion could lead to the adoption of so inadequate an interpretation; for the language, it must be remem- bered, occurs not in a poetical or figurative connection, but in a plain, prosaic history. The poetical version
Map of the Bay cf Suez.
of the transaction (Exod. xv, 8) uses much stronger language: "The floods stood upright as a heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea." The phraseology here, although figurative, no doubt correct- ly represents the facts as seen by an eye-witness. Psa. lxxviii, 13, " He made the waters to stand as a heap," shows the same traditional interpretation, and Heb. x, 2 confirms it, "Baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" — that is, wet with the spray.
For these reasons, even if we coidd find no better crossing-place for the Israelites, we should be disposed to reject the one at Suez as not fairly meeting the scriptural requirements in the case.