(5) Objections. The opposition to the scrip tural account has been of two kinds. Some writers (Wolfenb, Frakm. have at once declared the whole fabulous; a course which ap pears to have been taken as early as the time of Josephus (Antiq. ii:16, 51. Others have striven to explain the facts by the aid of mere natural causes; for which see Winer, Handworterbuch, in Meer Rothes. A third mode of explanation is pursued by those who do not deny miracles as such, and 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 fulfill ment of the divine purposes, follow the account in Scripture implicitly, placing the passage at Ras Attaka, at the termination of the Valley of Wan dering; others, who go on rationalistic princi ples, find the sea here too wide and too deep for their purpose, and endeavor to fix the passage a little to the south or the north of Suez.
According to Mr. Blumhardt the Red Sea at Suez is exceedingly narrow, and it cannot be that the Israelites here experienced the power and love of God in their passage through the Red Sea. The breadth of the sea is at present scarcely a quarter of an hour by Suez. Now if this be the part which they crossed, how is it possible that all the army of Pharoah, with his chariots, could have been drowned? It is his opinion that the Israelites experienced that wonderful deliverance about thirty miles lower down. This opinion is also strengthened by most of the Eastern churches, and the Arabs, who believe that the Israelites reached the opposite shore at a place called Gebel Pharaon, which on that account has received this name. If we accept this opinion, it agrees very well with the Scripture. Still more impor tant is the evidence of Dr. Olin (Travels in the East, New York, 1843). Dr. Olin, agrees with Robinson in fixing Etham 'on the border of the wilderness which stretches along the eastern shore of the arm of the sea which runs up above Suez.' At this point he says the Hebrews were com manded to turn. They turned directly south ward and marched to an exposed position, hemmed in completely by the sea, the desert, and Mount Attaka. A false confidence was thus ex cited in Pharaoh, and the deliverance was made the more signal and the more impressive alike to the Israelites and to Egypt. Admitting the possi bility that the sea at Suez may have been wider and deeper than it is now, Olin remarks, 'it must still have been very difficult, if not impos sible, for the army of Israel, encumbered with infants and aged people, as well as with flocks, to pass over (near Suez) in the face of their ene mies' (i: 346). Besides, the peculiarities of the place must have had a tendency to disguise the character and impair the effect of the miracle.
The passage made at the intervention of Moses was kept open all night. The Egyptians followed the Hebrews to the midst of the sea, when the sea engulfed them. 'The entire night seems to have been consumed in the passage. It is hardly credible that so much time should have been con sumed in crossing near Suez. to accomplish which one or two hours would have been sufficient.' 'Nor is it conceivable that the large army of the Egyptians should have been at once within the banks of so narrow a channel. The more ad vanced troops would have reached the opposite snore before the rear had entered the sea; and yet we know that all Pharoah's chariots and horsemen followed to the midst of the sea, and, together with all the host that came in after them, were covered with the returning waves' (i. 348). Preferring the position at Ras Attaka, Olin states that the gulf is here ten or twelve miles wide. The valley expands into a consid erable plain, bounded by lofty precipitous moun tains on the right and left, and by the sea in front, and is sufficiently ample to accommodate the vast number of human beings who composed the two armies.' An east wind would act almost directly across the gulf. It would be unable to cooperate with an ebb tide in removing the waters—no ob jections certainly if we admit the exercise of God's miraculous agency ;' but a very great impediment in the way of any rationalistic hypothesis. The channel is wide enough to allow of the move ments described by Moses, and the time, which embraced an entire night, was sufficient for the convenient march of a large army over such a distance.' The opinion which fixes the point of transit in the valley or wady south of Mount At taka derives confirmation from the names still attached to the principal objects in this locality. Jebel Attaka, according to Mr. Leider, who only confirms the statements of former travelers, means in the language of the Arabs "the I\lount of De liverance." Baiideah or Bedeah, the name of this part of the valley, means the Miraculous," while Wady el Tih means "the Valley of Wan derings." Pi-hahiroth, where Moses was com manded to encamp, is rendered by scholars "the mouth of Hahiroth," which answers well to the deep gorge south of Attaka, but not at all to the broad plain about Suez' (i. 350). J. R. B.
(6) Date of Passage. Hales places the Exo dus in B. C. 1648, Usher in B. C. 1491, Bunsen in B. C. iszo, and Poole in B. C. 1652. About B. C. 1658 may perhaps be deemed the probable date. (See EXODUS, GEOGRAPHY OF THE; MANNA; SINAI ; WANDERING. But see CHRONOLOGY, which article shows that the latest' conclusions of Egyp tologists put the Exodus about 1200 B. C.)