Leipzig, 1875. An English translation of the work is appended to the' Histo17_of Eg_ypt,' by the same writer, translated by the late Mr. H. Danby Seymour and Mr. Philip Smith, and published by Mr. Murray, London, 1879. 1 See an article by Mr. Greville Chester in the ' Quarterly Statement of the Palestine
Exploration F1111d,' for July, 1880, p. 134- ~ 11,id. pp. 110--4 INTRODUCTION. xxix
which Succoth is to be sought, since the wilderness, for which Moses was bound, lay south-east of Tanis; we demur, however, to the identification of Succoth with Thuku, 1 and we regard seven and a-half miles, which is half the distance between San and Tel-Defneh, as too short a march for the people to have made in the first freshness of their powers and the first warmth of their zeal. We should incline to double the distance, and to place Succoth at Tel-Defneh, an elevated spot of ground in a marshy district, where the cultivators of the soil would be likely to fix their "booths" of sedge and brushwood. 2 The third station named in the journey of the Israelites is Etham (Ex:. :xiii. 20) "in the edge of the wilderness." Having identified Succoth with " the barrier of Thukot," about seven or eight miles from San, Dr. Brugsch not unnaturally places Etham at Tel-Defneh, seven or eight miles further on in the same direction. Here there was, he says, in the time of Rameses II., a "Khetam," or fort, to guard the passage of the easternmost branch of the Nile, whence (according to him) the Hebrew name, Etham. Khetam, however, with a strong guttural kh, is not Etham, tJnN, which commences with the light breathing, aleph. And Khetam, again, is not a local name, but a descriptive word, meaning " fort" or" stronghold." 3 Consequently there were many Khetams, especially towards the frontier; and even granting the identity of the words, there is nothing to mark the identity of the Biblical Etham with the Khetam, or fortress, at Tel-Dafneh. We should incline to place Etham at El-Kantara, on the line of the Suez Canal, about eleven or twelve miles from Tel-Defneh, almost due east. El-Kantara is truly "in the edge of the wilderness" proper, which com- mences as soon as the Suez Canal is crossed; and the ruins show it to have been a place of some importance in the time of Rameses II. 4 At Etham the Israelites were commanded to change their route. " Speak unto the children of Israel," said God to Moses, " that they turn and encamp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baal-zephon " (Ex. xiv. 2). Dr. Brugsch believes that the "turn" was :made to the left-that from Tel-Defneh the south-east course was changed to a north-east one, and a march made which brought the Israelites close to the Mediterranean Sea at the western extremity of Lake Serbonis. The distance to this point from Tel-Defneh, his Etham, is by the shortest route considerably over forty miles-yet Dr. Brugsch appears to regard this distance as accomplished in one day. 1 We believe that the Egyptian t (th) never replaces the sharp Hebrew sibilant samech,
which is the initie.l letter of Succoth. 2 Succoth is more properly "booths" than " tents," and is so translated in Gen. x...ruii. 17 ;
L~v. xxiii. 42; Neh. viii. 14, 16. The natives of the marsh district to this day lodge in "huts made of reeds"(' Quarterly Statement of Pal. Exp. Fund,' p. 144). ' See Dr. Birch's 'Dictionary of Hieroglyphics,' in vol. v. of Bunsen's 'Egypt's Place, p. 558, ad voc. Khetmu. • Grcville Chester, in the 'Quarterly Statement' above quoted, p 147, XXX INTRODUCTION.
Pi-liahiroth is described (Ex. xiv. 2) as "between Migdol and 'tho sC1a," and as " over against Baal-zephon." Dr. Brugsch finds a Migdol some twenty miles from the western end of Lake Serbonis, to the south-west, and conjectures that Baal-zephon was a. Phoonician settlement, situated at the modern Ras K&Eeroun, the ancient Mons Casius. As this place is distant from his site for Pi-hahiroth some twenty-five miles in the opposite direction from Migdol, he regards the description of E:r.. xiv. 2 as sufficiently answered, and even places the three sites accordingly. Almost all other expositors have felt that the three places must have been very near together -indeed, so near that the encampment beside Pi-hahiroth (Ex. iv. 9) was regarded as" pitching before Migdol" (Num. xx.xiii. 7). Vi' e approach now the main feature of Dr. Brugsch's theory, to which all the rest is subordinate. He believes that the Israelites, having reached the shores of the Mediterranean at the point opposite the western extremity of Lake Serbonis, found stretching before them a long tongue of land, which formed the regular road from Egypt to Palestine, 1 and that immediately, without having to wait for a miracle, they entered upon it. The Egyptians followed them. After the Hebrews, marching on foot, had succeBBfully traversed the entire neck of land to the point where it (as he supposes) re-joined the continent, "a great wave from the Mediterranean took by surprise the Egyptian cavalry, and the captains of the war-chariots." 2 Tlu:own into disorder, their pathway obliterated, they became entangled in the soft mud of the Serbonian Lake, which was, he says, " a lagoon of weeds," 3 and thence called Yam-Suph-they suffered the calamity whicb befel the soldiers of Artaxerxes Ochus,' and to which Milton alludes m • Paradise Lost' 5-they perished in the waters of Serbonis. The objections to this entire view are numerous, and of various kinds. In the first place, it gives no reason for the Pharaoh's sudden resolve to pursue the Israelites, since, instead of being "entangled in the land," they were, according to Brugsch, on the shortest and readiest road leading out of Egypt to Palestine. In the second place, it contradicts the statement 6 that " God led them not the way of the Philistines, but led the people the way of the Yam-Suph," since it makes the way of the Philistines and the way of the Yam-Suph one and the same, and it makes God lead them out of Egypt by the way which conducted most directly to Palestine, or the country of the Philistines. Thirdly, it leaves no place for the miracle of dividing the sea (Ex. xiv. 21), since it regards the tongue of land as a regular road constantly used. Fourthly, it contradicts the natural features
• Brugsch, 'ffistory of Egypt,' vol ii. p. 360 :;-",A Joni:- to~gn~ of Ian~, which in ancie~t times formed the only roe.d from Egypt to Pelestme. ' Tins pomt 18 essential to Dr. Brugsch s theory, since he could not otherwise suppose that tbe Israelites would_ have pent them11elves up in such e. corner e.s that between the Mediterranean e.nd Lake Serbonis. • Il:,id. p. 364. • Ibid p 360 • Diod. Sic. xvi. 46 • Book 11. ll. 592-----4 • Ex ¥.iii 17 INTRODUCTION. xxxi