Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadMcClintock Biblical Encyclopedia: Exode
Subjects in this Topic:
OF THE ISRAELITES FROM EGYPT TO CANAAN (usually referred to in Hebrews by the phrase äåֹöִéà éְäåָֹä àֶúàּáְּðֵé éִùִׂøָàֵì îֵàֶéֶåֹ îִöִøִéִí , “The Lord did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt," Exo_12:51; to which is often emphatically added, åּáִæְøòִ ðְèåּéָä áְּéָø çֲæָ÷ָä , "with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm," Deu_26:8, to express the miraculous interventions of Providence in the series of events), the great national epoch of the Hebrew people, in fact their "independence day," and as such constantly referred to in all their subsequent history and vaticinations. Several of the Psalms are but a poetical rehearsal of its scenes (e.g. Psalms 114, 136); it is the burden of Habakkuk's lofty ode (Habakkuk 3); and besides the recapitulation of many of its incidents by Moses in Deuteronomy, it constitutes the main topic of one of the books of Scripture. The following account, including especially the date of the event, and the identifications of the place of crossing the Red Sea and of the stations in the desert, is a resume of nearly all the important matters not treated by us under other heads. SEE EXODUS.
I. Date. — The particular Egyptian monarch under whom this great event, the first definite link of the Hebrew with other ancient history, occurred, is so differently identified with those of early profane chronicles, and of the monuments by various Egyptologers, that but little reliance, unfortunately, can be placed upon any of them, based as they almost entirely are upon conjectural adaptations or arbitrary premises. The only one of these hypotheses that seems to afford any independent evidence of agreement is that lately propounded by Osburn (in the Journ. of Sac. Lit. for July, 1860), who conceives that the Egyptian king in question was Sethos II, the grandson of the great Sesostris, but of so odious a character and so inglorious a reign that his sarcophagus was demolished and his cartouche effaced by the early Egyptians themselves. SEE PHARAOH. This king, however, began to reign about B.C. 1240, a date entirely too late for the event under consideration. The historical questions connected with this point are noticed under EGYPT SEE EGYPT.
Hales places the Exode in B.C. 1648, Usher in B.C. 1491, Bunsen in B.C. 1320, and Poole in B.C. 1652. A careful collation of the Biblical elements of the calculation, the only definite and trustworthy data, point to the spring of B.C. 1658 as the most probable date of the beginning of the series of exodic transactions. SEE CHRONOLOGY. As to the account of the Exode given by Manetho, it was confessedly a mere popular story, for he admitted it was not a part of the Egyptian records, but a tale of uncertain authorship (Josephus, c. Apion. 1:16). A critical examination shows that it cannot claim to be a veritable tradition of the Exode: it is, indeed, if based on any such tradition, so distorted that it is impossible to be sure that it relates to the king to whose reign it is assigned. Yet, upon the supposition that the king is really Menptah, son of Rameses II, the advocates of the Rabbinical date entirely base their adjustment of Hebrew with Egyptian history at this period. SEE MANETHIO. II. The Outset. — The Exode is a great turningpoint in Biblical history. With it the patriarchal dispensation ends and the law begins, and with it the Israelites cease to be a family and become a nation. It is therefore important to observe how the previous history led to this event. The advancement of Joseph, and the placing of his kinsmen in what was, to a pastoral people at least, "the best of the land," yet, as far as possible, apart from Egyptian influence, favored the multiplying of the Israelites and the preservation of their nationality. The subsequent persecution bound them more firmly together, and at the same time loosened the hold that Egypt had gained upon them. It was thus that the Israelites were ready, when Moses declared his mission, to go forth as one man from the land of their bondage. SEE JOSEPH.
The intention of Jehovah to deliver the Israelites from Egyptian bondage was made known to Moses from the burning bush at Mount Horeb, while he kept the flock of Jethro, his father-in-law. Under the divine direction, Moses, in conjunction with Aaron, assembled the elders of the nation, and acquainted them with the gracious design of Heaven. After this they had an interview with Pharaoh, and requested permission for the people to go, in order to hold a feast unto God in the wilderness. The result was not only refusal, but the doubling of all the burdens which the Israelites had previously had to bear. Moses hereupon, suffering reproach from his people, consults Jehovah, who assures him that he would compel Pharaoh "to drive them out of his land." "I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched-out arm and with great judgments" (Exo_3:1 to Exo_6:6). Then ensue a series of miracles (Exodus 6-12), commonly called the PLAGUES OF EGYPT SEE PLAGUES OF EGYPT (q.v.). At last, overcome by the calamities sent upon him, Pharaoh yielded all that was demanded, saying, "Rise up, and get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go serve the Lord as ye have said; also take your flocks and your herds, and be gone." Thus driven out, the Israelites, to the number of about 600,000 adults, besides children, left the land, attended by a mixed multitude, with their flocks and herds, even very much cattle (Exo_12:31 sq.). Being "thrust out" of the country, they had not time to prepare for themselves suitable provisions, and therefore they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought forth out of Egypt. SEE MOSES.
On the night of the self-same day that terminated a period of 430 years, during which they had been in Egypt, were they led forth from Rameses or Goshen. They are not said to have crossed the River Nile, whence we may infer that Goshen lay on the eastern side of the river. Their first station was at Succoth (Exo_12:37). SEE SUCCOTH. The nearest way into the Land of Promise was through the land of the Philistines. This route would have required them to keep on in a north-east direction. It pleased their divine conductor, however, not to take this path, lest, being opposed by the Philistines, the Israelites should turn back at the sight of war into Egypt. If; then, Philistia was to be avoided, the course would lie nearly direct east, or south-east. Pursuing this route, "the armies" come to Etham, their next station, "in the edge of the wilderness" (Exo_13:17 sq.). Here they encamped. Dispatch, however, was desirable. They journey day and night, not without divine guidance, for "the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way, and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light, to go by day and night." This special guidance could not well have been meant merely to show the way through the desert, for it can hardly be supposed that in so great a multitude no persons knew the road over a country lying near to that in which they and their ancestors had dwelt, and which did not exceed more than some forty miles across. The divine guides were doubtless intended to conduct the Israelites in that way and to that spot where the hand of God would be most signally displayed in their rescue and in the destruction of Pharaoh. SEE PILLAR.
The Land of Goshen may be concluded, from the Biblical narrative, to have been part of Egypt, but not of what was then held to be Egypt proper. It must therefore have been an outer eastern province of Lower Egypt. It is enough here to say that it was on the eastern side of the Nile, probably in the province of Esh-Shurkiyeh. Rasmeses was the place of rendezvous. But it is evident, from the frequent communications of Moses with the Egyptian court on the one hand, and with the Israelites on the other, that the latter must have been, at the time of starting, congregated at a point not far from the capital. They could only, therefore, have gone by the valley now called the wady et-Tumeylht, for every other cultivated or cultivable tract is too far from the Red Sea. In the Roman time, the route to Gaza from Memphis and Heliopolis passed the western end of the wady et- Tumeylat, as may be seen by the Itinerary of Antoninus (Parthey, Zur Erdk. d. Alt. AEgyptens, map 6), and the chief modern route from Cairo to Syria passes along the wady et-Tumeylut and leads to Gaza (Wilkinson, Handbook, new ed. page 209). Rameses, as we shall see, must have lain in this valley, which thus corresponded in part at least to Goshen. That it wholly corresponded to that region is evident from its being markedly a single valley, and from the insufficiency of any smaller territory to support the Israelites. SEE GOSHEN.
It is not difficult to fix very nearly the length of each day's march of the Israelites. As they had with them women, children, and cattle, it cannot be supposed that they averaged more than fifteen miles daily; at the same time, it is unlikely that they fell far short of this. The three journeys would therefore give a distance of about forty-five miles. There seems, however, as we shall see, to have been a deflexion froum a direct course, so that we cannot consider the whole distance from the starting-point, Rameses, to the shore of the Red Sea, as much more than about forty miles in a direct line. Measuring from the western shore (of the Arabian Gulf south-east of the wady et-Tumeylat, a distance of forty miles in a direct line places the site of Rameses near the ruins called in the present day Abu Kesheib, not far from the middle of the valley. This is in accordance with the location of Robinson and Lepsius. That the Israelites started from a place in this position is farther evident from the account of the two routes that lay before them: "And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not [by] the way of the land of the Philistines, although that [was] near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt, but God let the people turn to the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea" (Exo_13:17-18). The expression used, åִéִּñֵּá , does not necessarily imply a change in the direction of the journey, but may mean that God did not lead the Israelites into Palestine by the nearest route, but took them about by the way of the wilderness. Were the meaning that the people turned, we should have to suppose. Ranceses to have been beyond the valley to the west, and this would probably make the distance to the Red Sea too great for the time occupied in traversing it, besides overthrowing the reasonable identification of the land of Goshen. Rameses is evidently the Rameses of Exo_1:11. It seems to have been the chief town of the land of Goshen, for that region, or possibly a part of it, is called the land of Rameses in Gen_47:11; comp. 4, 6. SEE RAMESES.
1. The direct route thence to the Red Sea was along the valley of the ancient canal. If, however, they rendezvoused near the metropolis, their route would be different. From the vicinity of Cairo there runs a range of hills eastward to the Red Sea, the western extremity of which, not far from Cairo, is named Jebel-Mokattem; the eastern extremity is termed Jebel- Ataka, which, with its promontory Ras Ataka, runs into the Red Sea. Between the two extremes, some. where about the middle of the range, is an opening which affords a road for caravans. Two routes offered themselves here. Supposing that the actual starting-point lay nearer Cairo, the Israelites might strike in from the north of the range of hills at the opening just mentioned, and pursue the ordinary caravan road which leads from Cairo to Suez; or they might go southward from Mokattem, through the wady et-Tih, that is, the Valley of Wandering, through which also a road, though less used, runs to Suez. According to Niebuhr, they took the first; according to ancient tradition, Father Sicard (Ueber der Weg der Israel/ten), Paulus (Samml. 5:211 sq.), and others, they took the iast. Sicard found traces of the Israelites in the valley. He held Rameses to be the starting-point, and Rameses he placed about six miles from ancient Cairo, where Bezatin is now found. Here is a capacious sandy plain, on which Sicard thinks the Israelites assembled on the morning when they began their journey. In this vicinity a plain is still found, which the Arabs call the Jews' Cemetery, and where, from an indefinite period, the Jews have buried their dead. In the Mokattem chain is a hill, a part of which is called Mejanat Musa, "Moses's Station." On another hill in the vicinity ruins are found, which the Arabs name Meravad Musa, "Moses's Delight." Thus several things seem to carry the mind back to the time of the Hebrew legislator. Through the valley which leads from Bezatin (the Valley of Wandering) to the Red Sea, Sicard traveled in three days. He reckons the length to be twenty-six hours, which if we give two miles to each hour (Robinson), would make the distance fifty-two miles. This length is also assigned by Girard (Descrip. Topograp. de la Valise Deuteronomy 1'Egarement).
The valley, running pretty much in a plain surface, would afford a convenient passage to the mixed bands of Israelites. About eighteen miles from Bezatin you meet with Gendelhy, a plain with a fountain. The name signifies a military station, and in this Sicard finds the Succoth (tents) of Exodus, the first station of Moses. The haste with which they left (were driven out) would enable them to reach this place at nightfall of their first day's march. Sicard places their second station, Etham, in the plain Ranaliyeh, eighteen miles from Gendelhy, and sixteen from the sea. From this plain is a pass four miles in length, so narrow that not more than twenty men can go abreast. To avoid this, which would have caused dangerous delay, the order was given them to turn (Exo_14:2). Etham is said (Exo_13:20) to be on the edge of the wilderness. Jablonski says the word means "terminus maris," the termination or boundary of the sea. Now, in the plain where Sicard fixes Etham (not to be confounded with the Eastern Etham, through which afterwards the Israelites traveled three days, Num_33:8), is the spot where the waters divide which run to the Nile and to the Gulf of Suez, and Etham is therefore truly terminus maris.
On the other hand, if, as the position of Rameses, and the nature of the ground between that point and the head of the gulf seems to indicate, they pursued the direct route thence down the valley of the bitter lakes, we may locate Succoth not far from the ruins of Serapeum, and Etham at a point about half way between. that spot and the head of the gulf; for we may suppose that the encumbered multitude made but little progress the first day, whereas on the third their march may have been quickened by apprehensions of the approaching Egyptians in pursuit. SEE ETHAM.
2. At the end of the second day's march, for each camping-place seems to mark the close of a day's journey, the route appears to have been altered from the natural thoroughfare around the head of the gulf. The first passage relating to the journey, after the mention of the encamping at Etham, is this, stating a command given to Moses: "Speak unto the children of Israel that they turn [or 'return'] and encamp [or 'that they encamp again,' åְéָùֻׁáåּ åְéִäֲðéּ ] before Pihahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baal-zephon" (Exo_14:2). This explanation is added: "And Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, They [are] entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in" (Exo_14:3). The rendering of the A.V., "That they turn and encamp," seems to us the most probable of those we have given: "return" is the closer translation, but appears to be difficult to reconcile with the narrative of the route; for the more likely inference is that the direction was changed, not that the people returned: the third rendering does not appear probable, as it does not explain the entanglement. It is most likely that they at once turned, although they may have done so later in the march. The direction cannot be doubted, for thee would have been entangled (Exo_14:5) only by turning southward. not northward. They encamped for the night by the sea, probably after a full day's journey. Pi-hahiroth (the mouth of the hiding- places) Sicard identifies with Tuarek (small caves), which is the name still given to three or four salt springs of the plain Baideah, on the south side of Mount Attaka, which last Sicard identifies with Baal-zephon, and which is the northern boundary of the plain Baideah, while Kulalah (Migdol) is its southern limit. But we would prefer to transpose these names, assigning Migdol to Jebel Attaka, and Baal-zephoen to Jebel Deraj or Klulaih, while Wady Tuwarik will remain for Pi-hahiroth. (See each in its order.) The pass which leads to Suez, between Attaka and the sea, is very narrow, and could easily be stopped by the Egyptians. In this plain of Baideah Pharaoh had the Israelites hemmed in on all sides. This, then, according to all appearance, is the spot where the passage through the sea was effected. Such is the judgment of Sicard and of Raumer (Dea Zug der Israeliten, Leipzig, 1837; for a description of the Valley of Wandering, see also Ritter, Erdkunde, 1:858). It cannot be denied that this route satisfies all the conditions of the case. Equally does the spot correspond with the miraculous narrative furnished by holy writ. A different route is laid down by Niebuhr (Arab. page 407). Other writers, who, like him, endeavor to explain the facts without the aid of miracle, imitate his example. (See below.)
It is no small corroboration of the view now given from Sicard and Ranmer that in substance it has the support of Josephus, of whose account we shall, from its importance, give an abridgment. The Hebrews, he says, took their journey by Latopolis where Babylon was built afterwards when Cambyses Lid Egypt waste. As they went in haste, on the third day they came to a place called Baal-zephon, on the Red Sea. Moses led them this way in order that the Egyptians might be punished should they venture in pursuit, and also because the Hebrews had a quarrel with the Philistines. When the Egyptians had overtaken the Hebrews they prepared to fight them, and by their multitude drove them into a narrow place; for the number that went in pursuit was 600 chariots, 50,000 horsemen, and 200,000 infantry, all armed. They also seized the passages, shutting the Hebrews up between inaccessible precipices and the sea; for there was on each side a ridge of mountains that terminated at the sea, which were impassable, and obstructed their flight. Moses, however, prayed to God, and smote the sea with his rod, when the waters parted, and gave the Israelites free passage. The Egyptians at first supposed them distracted; but when they saw the Israelites proceed in safety, they followed. As soon as the entire Egyptian army was in the channel, the sea closed, and the pursuers perished amid torrents of rain and the most terrific thunder and lightning (Ant. 2:15).
III. Passage of the Red Sea. — This was the crisis of the Exode. It was the miracle by which the Israelites left Egypt and were delivered from the oppressor, All the particulars relating to this event, and especially those which show its miraculous character, require careful examination.
1. It is usual to suppose that the most northern place at which the Red Sea could have been crossed is the present head of the Gulf of Suez. This supposition depends upon the idea that in the time of Moses the gulf did not extend farther to the northward than at present. An examination of the country north of Suez has convinced some geographers, however, that the sea has receded many miles, and that this change has taken place within the historical period, possibly in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah (Isa_11:15; Isa_19:5; comp, Zec_10:11). The old bed is thought by them to be indicated by the Birket et-Timsah, or "Lake of the Crocodile," and the more southern bitter lakes, 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. We are inclined to believe, 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 reasonsably 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 understanding of the event. When the Israelites had departed, 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 by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth, before Baal-zephon" (Exo_14:9). It might be conjectured, from one part of the narrative (Exo_14:1-4), that he determined to pursue them when he knew that they had encamped before Pi-hahiroth, did not what follows this imply that he set out soon after they had gone, and also indicate that the place in question refers to the pursuit through the sea, not to that from the city whence he started (Exo_14:5-10). This city was most probably 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 army, within a few hours. The strength of Pharaoh's army is not farther specified than by the statement that "he took six hundred chosen chariots, and [or 'even'] all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them" (Exo_14:7). The war-chariots of the Egyptians held each but two men, an archer and a charioteer. The former must be intended by the word ùָׁìִùִׁí , rendered in the A.V. "captains."
Throughout the narrative the chariots and horsemen of Pharaoh are mentioned, and "the horse and his rider" (Exo_15:21) are spoken of in Miriam's song, but we can scarcely infer hence that there was in Pharaoh's army a body of horsemen as well as of men in chariots, as in ancient Egyptian the chariot-force is always called HTAR or HETRA, "the horse," and these expressions may therefore be respectively pleonastic and poetical. There is no evidence in the records of the ancient Egyptians that they used cavalry, and, therefore, had the Biblical narrative expressly mentioned a force 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 " encamping by the sea" (Exo_15:9). When the Israelites saw the oppressor's army they were terrified, and murmured against Moses. "Because [there were] no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness?" (Exo_15:11.) Along the bare mountains that skirt the valley of Upper Egypt are abundant sepulchral grottoes, of which the entrances are conspicuously seen from the river and the fields it waters: in the sandy slopes at the foot of the mountains are pits without number and many built tombs, all of ancient times, No doubt the plain of Lower Egypt, to which Memphis, with part of its far-extending necropolis, belonged politically, though not geographically, was throughout as well provided with places of sepulture. The Israelites recalled these cities of the dead, and looked with Egyptian horror at the prospect that their carcasses should be left on the face of the wilderness. Better, they said, to have continued to serve the Egyptians than thus to perish (Exo_15:12). Then Moses encouraged them, bidding them see how God would save them, and telling them that they should behold their enemies no more.
There are few cases in the Bible in which those for whom a miracle is wrought are commanded merely to stand by and see it. Generally the divine support is promised to those who use their utmost exertions. It seems from the narrative that Moses did not know at this time how the people would be saved, and spoke only from a heart full of faith, for we read, "And the Lord said unto Moses, Wherefore criest thou unto me? Speak unto the children of Israel that they go forward; but lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it; and the children of Israel shall go on dry [ground] through the midst of the sea" (Exo_15:15-16). That night the two armies, the fugitives and the pursuers, were encamped near together. Here a very extraordinary event takes place: "The angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face and stood behind them; and it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these; so that the one came not near the other all the night" (Exo_15:19-20). The monuments of Egypt portray an encampment of an army of Rameses II during a campaign in Syria; it is well-planned and carefully guarded: the rude modern Arab encampments bring before us that of Israel on this memorable night. Perhaps in the camp of Israel the sounds of the hostile camp might be heard on the one hand, and on the other the roaring of the sea. But the pillar was a barrier and a sign of deliverance. The time had now come for the great decisive miracle of the Exode. "And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea: and the Lord caused the sea to go [back] by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry [land], and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went through the midst of the sea upon the dry [ground]; and the waters [were] a wall unto them on their right hand and on their left" (Exo_15:21-22; comp. 29).
The narrative distinctly states that a path was made through the sea, and that the waters were a wall on either hand. The term "wall" does not appear to oblige us to suppose, as many have done, that the sea stood up like a cliff on either side, but should rather be considered to mean a barrier; as the former idea implies a seemingly needless addition to the miracle, while the latter seems to be not discordant with the language of the narrative. It was during the night that the Israelites crossed, and the Egyptians followed. In the morning watch, the last third or fourth of the night, or the period before sunrise, Pharaoh's army was in full pursuit in the divided sea (Exo_15:23-25). Delays are now occasioned to the Egyptians; their chariot-wheels are supernaturally taken off, so that "in the morning-watch they drave them heavily." The Egyptians are troubled, they urge each other to fly from the face of Israel. Then was Moses commanded again to stretch out his hand, and the sea returned to its strength and overwhelmed the Egyptians, of whom not one remained alive (Exo_15:26-27). The statement is so explicit that there could be no reasonable doubt that Pharaoh himself, the great offender, was at last made an example, and perished with his army, did it not seem to be distinctly stated in Psalms 36 that he was included in the same destruction (Psalms 36:15). The sea cast up the dead Egyptians, whose bodies the Israelites saw upon the shore. From the song of triumph which Moses sang upon this occasion we learn some other particulars, as that "the depths covered Pharaoh's host, they sank to the bottom as a stone;" language which, whatever deduction may be made for its poetic character, implies that the miracle took place in deep water (Exodus 15; comp. Psa_106:9 sq.). In a later passage some particulars are mentioned which are not distinctly stated in the narrative in Exodus. The place is indeed a poetical one, but its meaning is clear, and we learn from it that at the time of the passage of the sea there was a storm of rain, with thunder and lightning, perhaps accompanied by an earthquake (Psa_77:15-20). To this Paul may allude where he says that the fathers "were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1Co_10:2); for the idea of baptism seems to involve either immersion or sprinkling, and the latter could have here occurred: the reference is evidently to the pillar of the cloud: it would, however, be impious to attempt an explanation of what is manifestly miraculous. These additional particulars may illustrate the troubling of the Egyptians, for their chariots may have been thus overthrown.
Here, at the end of their long oppression, delivered finally from the Egyptians, the Israelites glorified God. In what words they sang his praise we know from the Song of Moses, which, in its vigorous brevity, represents the events of that memorable night, scarcely of less moment than the night of the Passover (Exo_15:1-18; Exo_15:19 is probably a kind of comment, not part of the song). Moses seems to have sung this song with the men, Miriam with the women also singing and dancing, or perhaps there were two choruses (Exo_15:20-21). Such a picture does not recur in the history of the nation. Neither the triumphal song of Deborah, nor the rejoicing when the Temple was recovered from the Syrians, celebrated so great a deliverance, or was joined in by the whole people. In leaving Goshen, Israel became a nation; after crossing the sea, it was free. There is evidently great significance, 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 history 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 Passover, 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 interference for Israel, and an encouragement for the descendants of those who witnessed that great sight. There are events so striking that they are remembered in the life of a nation, and that, like great heights, increasing distance only gives them more majesty. So no doubt was this remembered long after those were dead who saw the sea return to its strength and the warriors of Pharaoh dead upon the shore.
It may be inquired how it is that there seems to have been no record or tradition of this miracle among the Egyptians. 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 years; the dates of the Egyptian dynasties ruling during this period of three hundred years vary fully one hundred. The period to which the Exode may be assigned therefore virtually corresponds to four hundred years of Egyptian 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 conjectured in the two cases, the Israelites must have left Egypt in a period of which monuments or other records are almost wholly wanting. Of the 18th and subsequent dynasties we have as yet no continuous history, 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 calamity, 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. Josephus, indeed, gives us some extracts from the last work of Manetho, who appears, if we may trust the criticisms of the Jewish historian (contra Apionem, § 14, 26), 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 (Wolfenb. Fragm. page 64 sq.) have at once declared the whole fabulous, a course which appears to have been taken as early as the time of Josephus (Ant. 2:16, 5).
Others, who do not deny miracles as such, yet with no small inconsistency seek to reduce this particular miracle to the smallest dimensions. Writers who see in the deliverance of the Hebrews the hand of God and the fulfillment of the divine purposes, follow the account in Scripture implicitly, placing the passage at Ras Attaka, at the termination of the Valley of Wandering; others, who 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 Moses was, according to Robinson, from Rameses 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 effected. This view of the miracle, however, entirely fails to satisfy the Scripture account, and has been amply refuted by Dr. Olin (Travels in the East, N.Y. 1843) and others. (See the account of Mr. Blumhardt's visit, October 1836, in the Church Missionary Record, January 1836; Kitto's Scripture Lands, page 58; Daily Bible Illustrat. 2:95.)
Some have supposed the Red Sea anciently extended farther north, and have sought to identify the localities of the passage on that theory (see Sharpe in Bartlett's Forty Days in the Desert, page 23 sq.); but this is quite improbable and without evidence. Another explanation (Dr. Durbin, Observations in the Fast, 1:254) makes the Israelites to have turned from the vicinity of the bitter lakes to the western side of the head of Suez, and so to have followed the shore to the plain of Baideah let the mouth of wady Tuwarik, and there crossed; but if (as some travelers affirm) there is room for such a passage along the shore by Ras Attaka, the Israelites inight have escaped by the same route by simply retreating, or, if that had been prevented by the Egyptians following along the same path behind them, they uuuight still have fled up the wady Tih, and thence around Jebel Attaka and the head of the sea. A still later view (Captain Moresby, in Aiton's Lands of the Messiah, page 107) places the scene of the passage still farther south, at the mouth of the next valley opening on the Red Sea near Ras Abu Deraj; but it would be difficult to show how the Israelites could have reached this spot from their former position in the edge of the wilderness, and it would also bring them out too far south on the other side of the Red Sea. Indeed, the mountains approach so steeply the shore all along at these points, that they could only have arrived at the valley or plain of Baideash, where we have supposed the passage to have been made, by turning sharply at Ethamm around the western base of Mount Attaka, and so partly back into the wady et-Tih, through which they were immediately pursued by the Egyptiames. The latter thus hemmed them in completely, and drove them forward to the extreme edge of the shore projecting in front of Mount Attaka, around which they were unable to escape. Here it was that Providence opened to them a miraculous path through the deep waters to the opposite point (at the mouth of wady Beyanah), near which are situated the wells of Moses, which doubtless derived their name from the first encampment of the Hebrews after their rescue. SEE RED SEA.
IV. The Route from the Red Sea to Sinai. — When safe on the eastern shore, the Israelites, had they taken the shortest route into Palestine, would have struck at once across the desert in a south-easterly direction to el- Arish or Gaza. But this route would have brought them into direct collision with the Philistines, with whom they were as yet quite unable to cope. Oar they might have traversed the desert of Paran, following the pilgrim road of the present day to Elath, and, turning to the north, have made for Palestine. In order to accomplish this, however, hostile hordes and nations would have to be encountered, whose superior skill and experience in war might have proved fatal to the newly-liberated tribes of Israel. Wisely, therefore, did their leader take a course which necessitated the lapse of time, and gave promise of affording intellectual and moral discipline of the highest value. He resolved to lead his flock to Sinai, in order that they might see the wonders there to be exhibited, and hear the lessons there to be given. At Sinai, and on the journey thither, might the great leader hope that the moral brand which slavery had imprinted on his people would be effaced, and that they would acquire that self-respect, that regard to God's will, that capacity of self-guidance which alone could make liberty a blessing to the nation, and enable Moses to realize on their behalf the great and benign intentions which Godhadled him to form. There were, however, two ways by which he might reach Sinai. By following a south-easterly direction, and proceeding across the desert et-Tih, he would have reached at once the heart of the Sinaitic, region. This was the shorter and the more expeditious road. The other route lay along the shore of the Red Sea, which must be pursued till an opening gave thee means of turning suddenly to the east, and ascending at once into the lofty district. The latter was preferable for the reason before assigned, namely, the additional opportunities which it offered for the education of the undisciplined tribes of recently emancipated slaves.
Moses did not begin his arduous journey till, with a piety and a warmth of gratitude which well befitted the signal deliverance that his people had just been favored with, he celebrated the power, majesty, and goodness of God in a triumphal ode, full of the most appropriate, striking, and splendid images; in which commemorative festivity he was assisted by "Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron," and her associated female band, with poetry music, and dancing. The nature of these festivities gives us full reason to conclude that, if the people at large were still slaves in intellect and morals, there were not wanting individuals in the camp who were eminently skilled in the best refinements of the age. The spot where these rejoicings were held could not have been far from that which still bears the nanme of Ayuen Meisa, "the fountains of Moses," the situation of which is even now marked bv a few palm-trees. This was a suitable place for the encampment, because well supplied with water. Here Robinson counted seven fountains, near which he saw a patch of barley and a few cabbage- plants.
1. In tracing the track pursued by the host, we should bear in mind the limitation that a variety of converging or parallel routes naust often have been required to allow of the passage of so great a number (Robinson, Researches, 1:106). Assuming the passage of the Red Sea to have been effected at the spot indicated above, they eould march froma their point of landing, a little to the E. of S. Here they were in the wilderness of Shur, and in it "they went three days and found no water." The Israelites seem to have proceeded along the coast, probably following the route usually pursued by modern travelers, being at a short distance from the shore and parallel with it. The district is hilly and sandy, with a few water-courses running into the Red Sea, which, failing rain, are dry. "These wadys," says Robinson, "are mere depressions in the desert, weith only a few scattered herbs and shruebs, now withered and parched with drought." SEE SHUR.
At the end of three days the Israelites reached the fountain Marah, but the waters were bitter, and could not be drunk. The stock which they had brought with them being now exhausted, they began to utter murmurings on finding themselves disappointed at Marah. Moses appealed to God, who directed him to a tree, which, being thrown into the waters, sweetens ed them. The people were satisfied and admonished. The present 'Ain el- Hawara has been thought icy most travelers since Burckhardt's time to be Marah. The basin is six or eight feet in diameter, and the water Robinson found about two feet deep. Its taste is unpleasant, saltish, and somewhat bitter. The Arabs pronounce it bitter, and consider it as the worst water in all these regions. Near the spring are numerous bushes of the shrub ghurkud — a low, bushy, thorny shrub, producing a small fruit, which ripens in June, not unlike the blackberry, very juicy, and slightly acidulous. It delights in a saline soil, and is found growing near the brackish fountains in and around Palestine, affording a grateful refreshment to travelers. By means of the berries, or, if they were met ripe, the leaves of this plant, the bitterness may have been removed from the waters of Marah. Not improbably the miracle in the case lae in this, that Jehoasah directed Moses to use the tree (bush) itself, instead of what was usual, the berries, as from the time of year, shortly after Easter, they could hardly have been ripe. Between Ain Howarah and Ayuin Musa the plain is alternately — gravelly, stony, and sandy, while under the range of Jebel Wardan (a branch of et- Tih) chalk and flints are found.
There is no water on the direct line of route (Robinson, 1:127-144). Hawara stands in the lime and gypsum region which lines the eastern shore of the Gulf of Suez at its northern extremity. Seetzen (Reisen, 3:117) describes the water as salt, with purgative qualities; but adds that his Bedouins and their camels drank of it. He argues, from its inconsiderable size, that it could not be the Marah of Moses. This, however, seems an inconclusive reason. It would not be too near the point of landing assumed, as above, as Dr. Stewart argues (page 55), when we consider the encumbrances which would delay the host, and, especially while they were new to the desert, prevent rapid marches. But the whole region appears to abound in brackish or bitter springs (Seetzen, ib. 3:117, etc.; Anmerk. page 430). For instance, about one and three- fourths hours nearer Suez than the wady Ghurundel (which Lepsius took for Marah, but which Niebuhr and Robinson regard as more probably Elim), Seetzen (ib. 3:113, 114) found a wady Tal, with a salt spring and a salt crust on the surface of its bed, the same, he thinks, as the spot where Niebuhr speaks of finding rock-salt. This corresponds in general proximity with Marah. The neighboring region is described as a low plain girt with limestone hills, or more rarely chalk. On this first section of their desert march, Dr. Stanley (Sinai and Palst. page 37) remarks, "There can be no dispute as to the general track of the Israelites after the passage (of the Red Sea). If they were to enter the mountains at all, they must continue in the route of all travelers, between the sea and the table-land of the Tih, till they entered the low hills of Ghurufndel." He adds in a note, "Dr. Graul, however, was told ... of a spring near Tih el-Amara, right (i.e., south) of Hawara, so bitter that neither men nor camels could drink of it. From hence the road goes straight to wady Ghurundel." Seetzen also inclines to view favorably the identification of el Amara with Marah. He gives it the title of a "wady," and precisely on this ground rejects the pretensions of ei- Hawara as being no "wady," but only a brook; whereas, from the statement "they encamped" at Marah, Marah must, he argues, have been a wady. SEE MARAH.
2. The next station mentioned in Scripture is Elim, where were twelve wells of water, and threescore and ten palm-trees. As is customary with travelers in these regions, "they encamped there by the waters" (Exo_16:1). The indications given in the Bible are not numerous nor very distinct. Neither time nor distance is accurately laid down. Hence we can expect only general accuracy in our maps, and but partial success in fixing localities. Elim, however, is generally admitted to be wady Ghurundel, lying about half a day's journey south-east from Marah. The way from Egypt to Sinai lies through this valley, and, on account of its water and verdure, it is a chief caravan station at the present day. It seems certain, at all events, that wady Ghuirundel — whether it be Marah, as Lepsius and (although doubtfully) Seetzen thought, or Elim, as Niebuhr, Robinson, and Kruse — must have been on the line of march, and almost equally certain that it furnished a camping station. In this wady Seetzen found more trees, shrubs, and bushes than he anywhere else saw in his journey from Sinai to Suez. He particularizes several date-palms and many tamarisks, and notes that the largest quantity of the vegetable manna, now to be found anywhere in the Peninsula, is gathered here (3:116) from the leaves of the last-named tree, which here grows "with gnarled boughs and hoary head; the wild acacia, tangled by its desert growth into a thicket, also shoots out its gray foliage and white blossoms over the desert" (Stanley, Sinai and Palest. page 68).
The "scenery" in this region becomes "a succession of water- courses" (ib.); and the wady Taiyibeh, connected with Ghurundel by Useit, is so named from the goodly water and vegetation which it contains. These three wadys encompass on three sides the Jebel Hummam; the sea, which it precipitously overhangs, being on the fourth. They are the principal ones of those which the Israelites, going from north-west to south-east along the coast, would come upon in the following order-wady Ghfurundel, wady Useit, wady Thal, and wady Shubeikeh, the last being in its lower part called also wady Taiyibeh, or having a junction with one of that name. Between Useit and Taiyibeh, the coast-range of these hills rises into the Jebel Hummam, "lofty and precip. itous, extending in several peaks along the shore, apparently of chalky limestone, mostly covered with flints . . its precipices ... cut off all passage alongshore from the hot springs (lying a little west of south from the mouth of wady Useit, along the coast) to the mouth of wady Taiyibeh" (Robinson, 1:150; compare Stanley, Sin. and Palest. page 35). Hence, between the courses of these wadys the track of the Israelites must have been inland. Stanley says "Elim must be Ghurindel, Useit, or Taiyibeh (page 37); elsewhere (page 68) that "one of two valleys, or perhaps both, must be Elim;" these appear from the sequel to be Ghurufndel and Useit, "fringed with trees and shrubs, the first vegetation he had met with in the desert;" among these are "wild palms," not stately trees, but dwarf or savage, "tanmarisks," and the "'wild acacia." To judge from the configuration as given in the maps, there seems to be no reason why all three should not have combined to form Elim. or, at any rate, as Stanley suggests, two of them. Only, from Num_33:9-10, as Elim appears not to have been on the sea, we must suppose that the encampment, if it extended into three wadys, stopped short of their seaward extremities. The Israelitish host would scarcely find in all three more than adequate ground for their encampment. Beyond (i.e., to the south-east of Ghurundel), the ridges and spurs of limestone mountain push down to the sea, across the path along the plain (Robinson, 1:101, and Map). This portion of the question may be summed up by presenting, in a tabular form, the views of some leading travelers or annotators on the site of Elim:
Wady
Dr. Kruse (Anmerk. page 418) singularly takes the words of Exo_15:27, “they encamped there (in Elim) by the waters," as meaning "by the sea;" whereas, from Num_33:9-10, it appears they did not reach the sea till a stage farther, although their distance from it previously had been but small. SEE ELIM.
3. From Elim the Israelites marched, encamping on the shore of the Red Sea, for which purpose they must have kept the high ground for some time, since the precipices of Jebel Hummam — a lofty and precipitous mountain of chalky limestone — run down to the brink of the sea. They therefore went on the land side of this mountain to the head of wady Taiyibeh, which passes down south-west through the mountains to the shore. On the plain of Ras Zetima, at the mouth of this valley, was probably (Stanley, page 37) the encampment "by the Red Sea" (Num_33:10).
4. According to Num_32:11, the Israelites removed from the Red Sea, and encamped next in the wilderness of Sin; an appellation no doubt representing some natural feature, and none more probably than the alluvial plain, which, lying at the edge of the sea, about the spot we now regard them as having reached, begins to assume a significant appearance. The modern name for this is el-Kaa, identified by Seetzen with this wilderness (3, part 3:412). Stanley calls el-Kaa, at its initial point, "the plain of Murkhah," and thinks it is probably this wilderness (page 37). Robinson likewise identifies it with "the great plain, which, beginning near el- Murkhah, extends with greater or less breadth almost to the extremity of the peninsula. In its broadest part it is called el-Kaa" (1:106). Thus they kept along the shore, and did not yet ascend any of the fruitful valleys which run up towards the center of the district. The account in Exodus 16 knows nothing of the foregoing encampment by the sea, but brings the host at once into "the wilderness of Sin;" but we must bear in mind the general purpose there of recording not the people's history so much as God's dealings with them, and the former rather as illustrative of the latter, and subordinate to it. The evident design, however, in Numbers 33 belong to place on record their itinerary, this latter is to be esteemed as the locus classicus on any topographical questions as compared with others having a less special relation to thettrack. Indeed, we may regard the encampment by the Red Sea as bed essentially in the wilderness of Shur itself. SEE SIN (DESERT OF).
The Israelites arrived in the wilderness of Sin on the fifteenth day of the second month after their dep.Arture out of the land of Egypt (Exo_21:1), and being now wearied of their journey and tired of their scanty fare, they began again to murmur. Indeed, it is not easy to see how the most ordinary and niggardly food could have been supplied to them, constituting as they did nearly two millions of persons, in such a country as that into which they had come. It is true that some provision might have been made by individuals ere the march from Suez began. It is also probable that the accounts of encampments which we have are to be regarded as chiefly those of Moses and his principal men, with a chosen body of troops, while the multitude were allowed to traverse the open country and forage in the valleys. Still the region was unfavorable for the purpose, and some have hence concluded that here we have one of those numerical difficulties which are not uncommon in the Old Testament Scripture, and which make many suspect some radical error in our conceptions of the Hebrew system of numbers. The contrast between the scanty supply of the desert and the abundance of Egypt furnished the immediate occasion of the outbreak of dissatisfaction. Bread and flesh were the chief demand; bread and flesh were miraculously supplied; the former by manna, the latter by quails (Exo_16:13). Manna grows in some of the neighboring valleys; but the Israelites were in the wilderness, so that the supply could not have proceeded from natural resources, even had such existed to a sufficient extent for the purpose. The modern confection sold under that name is the exudation collected from the leaves of the tamarisk-tree (tamarix Orientales, Linn.; Arab. tarfa, Hebrews àֵùֶׁì ) only in the Sinaitic valleys, and in no great abundance. If it results from the punctures made in the leaf by an insect (the coccus manniparus, Ehrenberg) in the course of June, July, and August, this will not precisely suit the time of the people's entering the region, which was about May. It is said to keep as a hardened sirup for years (Laborde, Comment. Geogr. on Exo_16:13-14), and thus does not answer to the more striking characteristics described in Exo_16:14-26. Seetzen thought that the gum Arabic, an exudation of the acacia, was the real manna of the Israelites; i.e., he regards the statement of " bread from heaven" as a fiction (Reisen, 3:75-79). A caravan of a thousand persons is said by Hasselquist (Voyages, etc., Materia Medica, page 298, transl. ed. 1766) to have subsisted solely on this substance for two months. SEE MANNA.
5. The next station mentioned in Exodus is Rephidim; but in Numbers Dophkah and Alush are added. The two latter were reached after the people had taken "their Journey out of the wilderness of Sin." Exact precision and minute agreement are not to be expected. The circumstances of the case forbid us to look for them. In a desert, mountainous, and rarely frequented country, the names of places are not lasting. There was the less reason for permanence in the case before us, because the Israelites had not taken the shorter and more frequented road over the mountains to Sinai, but keptsalong the shore of the Red Sea. It still deserves notice, that in Exo_17:1 there is something like an intimation given of other stations besides Rephidim ihu the words "after their journeys." Dophlkah is probably to be found near the spot where wady Feiran runs into the Gulf of Suez. SEE DOPHKAH. Alush may have lain on the shore near Ras Jehan. SEE ALUSH. From this point a range of calcareous rocks, termed Jebal Hemam, stretches along the shore, near the southern end of which the Hebrews took a sudden turn to the northeast, and, going up wady Hibran, reached the central Sinaitic district. On the opposite side, the eastern, the Sinaitic mountains come to a sudden stop, breaking off, and presenting like a wall nearly perpendicular granite cliffs. These cliffs are cut by wady Hibran, and at the point of intersection with the plain which runs between the two ranges probably lay Rephidim. The tabernacle vas not yet set mup, nor the order of march organized, as subsequently (Num_10:13, etc.); hence the words "track" or "route," as indicating a line, can only be taken in the most wide and general sense. SEE REPHIDIM.
This was the last station before Sinai itself was reached. Naturally enough is it recorded that "there was no water for the people to drink." The road was an and gravelly plain; on either side were barren rocks. A natural supply was impossible. A miracle was wrought, and water was given. The Scripture makes it clear that it was from the Sinaitic group that the water was produced (Exo_17:6). The plain received two descriptive names: Massah, "Temptation," and Meribah, "Strife." It appears that the congregation was not allowed to pursue their way to Sinai unmolested. The Arabs thought the Israelites suitable for plunder, and fell upon them. These hordes are termed Amalek. The Amalekites may have been out on a predatory expedition, or they may have followed the Israelites from the north, and only overtaken them at Rephidim; any way, no conclusion can be gathered from this fact as to the ordinary abode of these nomads. It appears, however, that the conflict was a severe and doubtful one, which by some extraordimeary aid ended in favor of the children of Israel. This aggression on the part of Amalek gave occasion to a permanent national hatred, which ended only in the extermination of the tribe (Num_24:20; Exo_17:4-16). In commemoration of this victory, Moses was commanded to write an account of it in a book: he also erected there an altar to Jehovah, and called the name of it “Jehovah, my banner." There is no occasion to inquire whether or not there was space for a battle in the spot where Moses was. It was a nomad horde that made the attack and mot a modern army. The fight was not a pitched battle. SEE AMALEK.
The word Horeb, applied by Moses to the place whence the water was gained, suggests the idea that Horeb was the general, and Sinai the specific name; Horeb standing for the entire district, and Sinai for one particular mountain. Many passages sanction this distinction; but in the New Testament Sinai only is read, having then apparently become a general name, as it is at the present day (Act_7:30-38; Gal_4:24). It is a monkish usage which gives the name Sinai to Jebel Musa, and Horeb to the northern part of the same ridge. SEE HOREB.
6. The route from Rephidim to Horeb is usually supposed to have been by way of wady Feiran, but we can see no good reason for so circuitous a course, supposing that we have correctly located Rephidim. The Israelites may more probably have ascended wady Hibiahn as far as its junction with wady Bughabigh, and through this first south-easterly, and then north- easterly between Jebel Madsus and Jebel es-Sik; thence, in a northerly direction, along the western base of Jebel Katherin, through wady Um- Kuraf, across wady Tulah. Here they may have followed the path be. tween Jebel Humr and Jebel el-Ghubsheh, which comes out at the modern gardens in the recess of the hills. We thus place them before Mount Horeb, in fite capacious plain Rahah, which, having its widest part in the immediate front of that immense mass of rock, extends as if with two arms, one towards the northwest, the other towards the northeast. The review of the plain by so competent a person as Robinson is of great consequence for the interests of scientific geography, and the yet more important interests of religious truth; the rather because a belief prevailed, even among the best informed, that there was no spot in the Sinaitic district which answered' to the demands of the scriptural narrative. Even the accurate Winer (Real-Wort. in art. "Sinai," not "Horeb," as referred to by Robinson, 1:17; 2:550) says, "Whichever mountain may be considered as the place for the promulgation of the law, the common representation still remains false — that at the foot of the hill there spreads out a great plain, on which the people of Israel might assemble" (comp. Rosenmimiler, Alterth. 3:129).
We shall therefore transcribe Robinson's words in extenso: "We came to Sinai with some incredulity, wishing to investigate the point whether there was any probable ground, beyond monkish tradition, for fixing upon the present supposed site. We were led to the conviction that the plain er- Rahah is the probable spot where the congregation of Israel were assembled; and that the mountain impending over it, the present Horeb, was the scene of the awful phenomena in which the law was given. We were surprised as well as gratified to find here, in the inmost recesses of these dark granite cliffs, this fine plain spread out before the mountain, and I know not where I have felt a thrill of stronger emotion than when, in first crossing the plain, the dark precipices of Horeb rising in solemn grandeur before us, we became aware of the entire adaptedness of the scene to the purposes for which it was chosen by the great Hebrew legislator. Moses doubtless, during the forty years in which he kept the flocks of Jethro, had often. wandered over these moanntains, and was well acquainted with their valleys and deep recesses, like the Arabs of the