It is no small corroboration of the view now given from Sicard and Raumer, that in substance it has the support of Josephus, of whose account we shall, from its importance, give an abridg ment. ' The Hebrews,' he says ii. 15), took their journey by Latopolis, where Babylon was built afterwards when Cambyses laid Egypt waste. As they went in baste, 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 pre pared to fight them, and by their multitude drove them into a narrow place; for the number that went in pursuit was 60o chariots, 50,00o horsemen, and 200,00o 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 pur suers perished amid torrents of rain and the most terrific thunder and lightning.' The opposition to the scriptural account has been of two kinds. Some writers (Wolfenb. Fragm. p. 64, sq.) have at once declared the whole fabulous; a course which appears to have been taken as early as the time of Josephus (Antiq. ii. 16. 5). Others have striven to explain the facts by the aid of mere natural causes ; for which see Winer, Handworterbuch, art. 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 fulfilment of the divine purposes, follow the account in Scripture implicitly, placing the passage at Ras Attaka, at the termina tion of the Valley of Wandering • others, who go on rationalistic principles, find the sea here too wide and too deep for their purpose, and endea vour 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), from whom we hesitate to differ, and should hesitate still more, did not his remarks bear obvious traces of being, however the author may be ignorant of the fact, influenced, if not dictated, by some foregone conclusion and certain rationalistic habits of mind. While, how ever, we pay every proper tribute of respect to Dr. Robinson's learning and diligence, we must prefer the authority of Scripture and the obvious facts of the case to all other considerations. 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 represents Moses as having actually conducted his people first out of all danger, and then led them at once into it, by placing the gulf between them and safety. Such a proceeding ill became a prudent leader, having to do with a self-willed and stiff-necked band. But the chief objection to this representation of the route is, that it does not answer to what Scripture requires; for in Exod. xiii. 18, we are told that God led the people about through the wilderness of the Red Sea.' How, according to Robinson, did lie lead them about,' especially through the wilderness of the Red Sea,' which they must merely have touched upon ? The passage Robinson thinks took place across shoals adjacent to Suez on the south and south west,' where the broad shoals are still left bare at the ebb, and the channel is sometimes forded,' a distance of three or four miles from shore to shore ;' or it might have been effected through the arm of the gulf above Suez.' A simple refer ence to the language of Scripture previously cited confutes this supposition; for where, in or near this place, are the deep waters of which Moses speaks ? Besides, is it for a moment to be sup posed that Pharaoh was not well acquainted with the tides of a sea which lay so near his capital ? and would he have been so infatuated as to remain quietly in his position (for the Scripture shews that the two armies were some time in sight of each other) until the Israelites had availed themselves of the ebb, and then, when the flood came, quietly go into the sea and be destroyed? In order to help out his hypothesis, conscious, apparently, that the body of water here was insufficient, Dr. Robin son advances a supposition (but for suppositions his view would look as groundless as it really is), namely, that with the flood-tide the wind was changed. But a perusal of his scriptural refer
ence (Exod. xv. 8-10) shews that this alleged change is without evidence—a pure supposition : the language in the 8th verse has respect to the wind which divided the sea; and the language in the Toth verse in no way implies any change of direction whatever ; the same wind, in the hand of God, could both divide and close the sea.
The great question, however, is the cause or instrument employed in securing the Israelites a passage on dry ground, and overwhelming the Egyptians. On this point we complain of a want of explicitness in Dr. Robinson. He does not deny a miracle, but blends together the miracu lous and the natural, so as to confuse his own and his reader's mind. It (the miracle) was wrought by natural means supernaturally applied.' A north-east wind was brought of God to act on the water as the sea was ebbing, which gave a dry passage to the Israelites. We are therefore to look only for the natural ejects arising from the operation of such a cause.' The sole causes then in the case were a north-east wind, the ebb tide, the flood, and a change of wind to aid the action of the flood. Of these causes, the last, the change of wind, is, as we have seen, a gratuitous assumption. From north-east wind' we must strike out north,' as being another gratuitous assumption—it is a strong east wind' of which Moses speaks. An east wind, however, would by no means effect the purposes needful for Dr. Robin son's hypothesis. Of his remaining causes, the ebb and flood tide, enough has already beeri`said; and, so far as an east wind, acting naturally, would have an effect, it would drive the waters upon the shalloWs, which Dr. Robinson wants dry. But we much question whether his assumed north-east wind' would cause what he requires. It would, he alleges, have the effect to drive out the waters from the small arm of the sea which runs up by Suez, and also from the end of the gulf itself, leaving the shallower portions dry, while the more northern part of the arm, which was anciently broader and deeper than at present, would still remain covered with water. Thus the waters would be divided, and be a wall to the Israelites on the right hand and on the left.' We desire the reader to consult the map appended to Dr. Robin son's first volume. While considering the hypo thesis in question, he must remember that the action of ebb and flood tide rests on no better ground than an assumption ; the Scripture says nothing thereof. Now a wind setting in at the head of the gulf would commence its influence of course at the end of the arm which runs up to the east of Suez, and would, so far as it acted, bear down the waters from the top towards the very place which the hypothesis requires to be dry, namely, the bead of the gulf, thus covering the shallows. But if, to avoid this difficulty, Dr. Robinson fixes the passage in the arm itself, then how could a wind, acting on the waters in the arm, divide' them ? Drive them out, scatter them to some extent, it might, but surely not divide them. Nor does Dr. Robinson secure by his other sup position, namely, the passage over the shallows, such a division as the Scripture requires. Suppos ing the effect which he contemplates to be produced, then there would be on the north side of the shallows so much of the sea as the wind had left in the arm, and so much of the sea as lingered under its driving impulse on the south side of the shallows. With this in his mind let the reader peruse the scriptural account, the waters were a wall to them on the right hand and on the left.' By Dr. Robinson's account there was no wall at all, but such a state of the sea and land as would render the choice of the language employed by Moses most inappropriate. In truth, however, the east wind of which Moses speaks was precisely the influence to bring about the effect which he alleges to have taken place. Acting on the sea at a right angle it would literally divide the waters, causing the mid-way to be dry, and a wall to stand on either side. Such obviously is the view which Moses intended to give. In en deavouring to define and estimate the action of this east wind, however, it must be borne in mind that the Scripture represents the entire affair as miraculous. It was from first to last the hand of the Lord,'—the east wind and its action, as much as the collapse of the sea. The east wind, indeed, is also termed the blast of thy nostrils ;' and so thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them.' The miraculous character of the transaction, as affirmed in Scripture, takes all point from the question of time, which Dr. Robinson says is fatal to the alternative hypothesis, namely, that the Israelites crossed from Wady Tawarik ; since there is no occasion, in order to sustain the narrative of Moses, to calculate whether the interval between the ebb and the flow of the tide afforded sufficient time for the Israelites to cross the bed of the sea, a distance of twelve geographical miles. The passage did not depend on ebb or flow. It was not a question of mere time. The right hand of the Lord was at work.