EXODUS, GEOGRAPHY OF THE. The geography of "the Exodus" was for a long time a problem which seemed to be beyond Many critics who knew nothing of the physical conditions of the country, and nothing of the sur roundings were free to declare that so great a niul titude of people could never have passed over the route which the author of the Pentateuch claims that they did pass over, that they never could have been fed in such a wilderness, and that there never was any "manna from IIeaven," etc.
But science came to the rescue and the whole Peninsula of Sinai was carefully surveyed by the officers of the English government. The Ord nance Survey in the Peninsula of Sinai has set tled many questions which were before open to discussion even among scholars, therefore a new presentation of this subject in the light of all available scientific information must be of great value.
1. Gestimony of Sir William Dawson. In this important field we have no higher authority than Sir J. William Dawson, C.M.G., LL.D., F.R.S., who was one of the most eminent among modern geologists. This careful scholar not only studied all the official reports upon this subject, but gave a great deal of time to the actual individ ual investigation of the land, in the light of modern science, and rigidly examined the route over which this people passed. We therefore present the following abridgment of the discus sion of the subject from his pen: (1) The Ordnance Survey. In so far as the journey of the Hebrews from the Red Sea to Sinai is concerned, little remains to be done with reference to the geographical details. The admirable work of the Ordnance Survey, has forever settled all questions respecting the Mount of the Law and the way thither. It has done more than this; for the accurate labors of the scien tific surveyor, while they have dissipated multi tudes of theories formed by unscientific travelers, have vindicated in the most remarkable manner the truthfulness of the narratives in Exodus and Numbers.
Every scientific man who reads the reports of the Survey and studies its maps, must agree with the late Professor Palmer that they 'afford satisfactory evidence of the contemporary charac ter of the narrative.' They prove, in short, that
the narrator must have personally traversed the country and must have been a witness of the events he narrates. More than this; they show that the narrative must have been a sort of a daily journal, written from time to time as events proceeded, and not corrected even to reconcile apparent contradictions, the explanation of which only becomes evident on study of the ground.
(2) From Rameses to the Red Sea. The labors of the Survey did not extend to the route of the Exodus from Rameses to the Red Sea; and on that portion of it, some uncertainty ex isted until a very recent date. More especially was this true in consequence of the theory ad vanced by the learned Egyptologist, M. Brugsch, who, having arrived at the conclusion that the city of Rameses, the point of departure of the Exodus, is identical with ZOAN, (which see), con cluded that the route of the Israelites lay, not to the Red Sea, but along the border of the Medi terranean. Fortunately the recent discovery by M. Naville (`The Store City of Pithom,' Lon don) of the true site of Pithom at Tel el Mask hutah in the wady Tumilat, when conjoined with the fact that Pithom was the chief city of the district of Succoth mentioned in the Exodus, and that it was one of the two 'store cities' or garri son towns, that the Israelites are said to have been compelled to build for Pharaoh in the land of Goshen, has thrown a flood of light on the subj ect.
It marks one stake of the Exodus, and also carries with it the consequence that as Rameses must have been one day's march, or thereabout, to the west of Succoth, it also was in Wady Tum ilat, but at the western end of it. Certain ruins at the entrance of the wady Tumilat, hitherto regarded by many as marking the site of Pithom, are therefore in all probability those of Ratneses. Further, as the monuments at both places indi cate that Rameses the Great (or Rameses II) was their builder, the view held by the majority of Egyptologists, that this king was the Pharaoh of the oppression, is confirmed.