farther to the south, and for this the Wady Tumilat afforded a convenient and well beaten road. Hence if the king's forces had been stationed so much to the north, they could very easily have been cut off from upper Egypt. One of the cities to the south would therefore be much more suitable, either Heliopolis, as the Arabian geographer Kaswini (in Stickel, p. 383) supposes, or what would answer much better to the probable site of Raemses (= Belbeis), the ancient and celebrated Bubastis. All the other references contained in the Pentateuch apply equally well, or even better, to one of these two cities, than they do to Zoan.

$42. Assuming then, for the reasons just assigned, that Belbeis was most probably the starting-point of the procession, we have now to determine the direction which it took. It was to proceed to Sinai. To accomplish this it was necessary that it should go round the northern extremity of the Arabian gulf. Now, if the northern boundary of the gulf was exactly the same in the time of Moses as at the present day, the procession will probably have gone by the caravan-road direct from Belbeis to Suez (Derb el-Bân); and in this case we must look for Succoth about the centre of the road, and Etham to the north of Suez. But, as we have shown in § 39. 1 that it is almost certain, that at that time the northern end of the gulf reached much farther to the north than it does now, viz., to the downs of Arbek, which are almost in a straight line with Belbeis, we are brought to the conclusion that instead of taking a south-easterly direction, the procession travelled due east through the well watered and cultivated district of the Wady Tumilat. The site of the first station, Succoth (which means tents), is then easily determined. The second place of encampment is called Etham, and is further described as being " at the end of the desert." For this we shall have to seek upon the downs of Arbek (§ 39), between the Bitter Lakes and the Crocodile Lake (1). At this point Moses received the command to turn round, and cause the people to encamp with Pihachiroth on the north, Migdol on the west, the sea on

the east, and Baal-Zephon to the south. From the words of the command so much at least may be inferred with certainty, that the procession, which had already arrived at the boundary between Egypt and Arabia, did not go round the northern extremity of the gulf, as Moses at first intended, but remained within the territory of Egypt, going southwards along the western shore of the gulf, and at length arriving at a point, where it was completely shut in, by the sea and mountains in front and on the two sides, and by Pharaoh's chariots in the rear. If we look for a spot on the western shore of the gulf, which answers to this description, we find it in the plain of Suez. This plain is large enough to hold two millions of men; it is bounded on the west and south-west by the mountains of Atakah (§ 37), and these mountains approach so nearly to the sea, which is here considerably widened in consequence of a rapid curve to the west, that very few men could pass side by side along the shore.—If the procession came from the north or north-east, the third place of encampment cannot have been any other than the plain of Suez, and this, too, is the only point at which we can justly suppose that the passage through the sea occurred (2).

(1). The name EтHAM is explained by Jablonsky from the Egyptian, as meaning sea boundary. If it were of Semitic origin, it would necessarily be connected with, perennitas. It would in this case denote a place watered by perennial streams, in contradistinction to the brooks of the desert, which are so quickly dried up. The question, whether the "end of the desert," where Etham was situated, is to be understood as referring to the Egyptian desert (as in chap. xiv. 3. 11), or the Arabian, both of which touched each other at Etham, may perhaps be decided in favour of the latter, when we consider that the whole strip of desert land on the eastern coast of the gulf bore the name of desert of Etham (Num. xxxiii. 8, cf. § 47. 5).

(2). The plain of Suez "is not far from ten miles square; extending with a gentle slope from Ajrud to the sea west of Suez, and from the hills at the base of Atâkah to the arm of the

sea north of Suez" (Robinson i. 65). In the boundaries of the plain which are given here, we think we can discover with comparative certainty the places mentioned in Ex. xiv. 2. The words which we find there are, "speak to the children of Israel that they turn round and encamp before Pihachiroth, between Migdol and the sea, and, before Baal-Zephon, opposite to it shall ye encamp by the sea." Pihachiroth, we find, even by name,

in Ajrud; for Pi is merely the Egyptian article, and hence the place is also called Hachiroth in other passages (Num. xxxiii. 8), and there are many instances of analogous changes (cf. Stickel, p. 391). Migdol, in any case, must be looked for in the direction exactly opposite to the sea (according to Ex. xiv. 2), and therefore near Mount Atakah, whether Migdol (which means a tower) was a fortress upon or by the side of the mountain, or, as Tischendorf supposes, the summit of the Atâkah itself. In the Septuagint it is rendered Mayswλov, and Hengstenberg (p. 59) thinks himself justified in connecting it with the fortress of Magdolum, which stood at a latter period twelve Roman miles to the south of Pelusium. But the supposition that, whereas the other three places mentioned as the boundaries of the encampment were all in the neighbourhood of Suez, the fourth was fifteen geographical miles to the north, is perfectly incredible, and is not rendered a whit more probable by the remark that a frontier-garrison was stationed there. Moreover, apart altogether from the distance, the Israelites would not then have been between Migdol and the sea, but the sea between Migdol and the Israelites. Baal-Zephon (the place of Typhon) cannot be more particularly described; but according to the description contained in Ex. xiv. 2, it must be looked for at the south of the plain of Suez.

The point at which the sea was crossed was, therefore, in all probability, near to Suez. But there are strong reasons for doubting whether the ford of Suez was in existence then, and also whether the sea was then only 3450 feet broad at this spot, as it is now. For if that had been the case, the return of the waters which had been divided by the east wind, would hardly have been sufficient to drown Pharaoh's entire army. It is necessary, however, that the peculiar configuration of the sea at Suez should be kept in mind. If the pathway through the sea went in a south-easterly direction, and not due east (a supposition by

no means improbable, seeing that the direction depended upon the wind which opened the way), then even at present the breadth and the depth would be quite sufficient to hold and to drown an entire army.

The only point in which Du Bois Aymé and Stickel differ from the views we have expressed, is with reference to the last place of encampment, and the spot at which the sea was crossed. They both of them fix upon the supposed ford at Ajrud (§ 39. 1), instead of Suez, as the place where the passage occurred. But there are many objections to this. First of all, the ground about Ajrud does not answer in the least to the description of the last place of encampment, which is given in the text. There is no plain sufficiently large to hold two millions of men, nor is there the steep impassable mountain wall which reached the sea, and caused the Israelites to be hemmed in on three sides. It is true that Du Bois Aymé says (vid. Rosenmüller iii. 265): "The biblical account is in perfect harmony with the position which I have assigned to the Israelitish army; for the chain of mountains, which is visible towards the south, appears to stretch as far as the shore." But in reading these words, we cannot escape the feeling that, in spite of the confidence with which the author speaks, he was conscious of a certain incongruity between the locality referred to, and the description contained in the Bible. Again, the order in which the boundary-points are named in Ex. xiv. 2 does not square with this view, for, according to Ex. xiv. 2, Ajrud must have been situated to the north of the place of encampment, whereas, if Du Bois Ayme's opinion were correct, it would have been to the south-east. He also adds (Rosenmüller iii. 268): "Moreover, there is so little difference between the two opinions (that which fixes upon Ajrud, and that which selects Suez, as the spot at which the Israelites crossed), that it does not matter much which of the two we choose. My opinion rests upon the situation of the castle of Ajrud, before which the Israelites encamped, and the great probability that the sea at Suez was much deeper then, than it is now." This we can fully comprehend, for in the opinion of the learned Frenchman, the sea must have been crossed in a perfectly natural way, without any miraculous intervention on the part of God. But the greater depth of the sea at Suez is, to our mind, one of the very reasons why we should prefer that

spot, not from any love of miracles, but because we are anxious to do justice to the text. Stickel gives the preference to Ajrud for another reason. This keen-sighted scholar would no doubt have fixed upon Suez, -as the description contained in the text, when compared with the shape of the ground, unconditionally requires, were it not that his foregone conclusion, that only three days can have elapsed between the departure of the Israelites from Raemses and their arrival at the opposite shore of the sea (§ 36. 7), compelled him to relinquish such on opinion. For the distance from Etham to the plain at Suez is certainly too great, for any one to bring himself easily to believe, that the Israelitish procession could traverse it in a single day. But we have already pointed out, that the journey from Etham to the point at which the sea was crossed, must have occupied a longer time, seeing that the message was sent from Etham to the palace, and the royal army marched from the palace to the sea, whilst the Israelites were travelling from Etham to the same spot. This must have required at least two days (§ 36. 7).

(3). We shall conclude by giving a short sketch, and, where necessary, our own criticism of the different views which have been entertained, with regard to the crossing of the sea. Among the earliest is one which has lately been defended with great firmness and confidence by K. v. Raumer, and of which v. Lengerke has most remarkably expressed his approval (Kenaan i. 432 sqq.). In all that is essential J. V. Kutscheit also adopts it. It originated with Sicard (cf. Paulus Sammll. v. 211 sqq.), who had travelled by the road in question. Sicard, however, places the city of Raemses, the starting-point of the procession, in the neighbourhood of the village of Besatin (§ 37), whereas Raumer does not regard Raemses as the name of a city, but of the land of Goshen, and supposes the procession to have been first formed in the vicinity of Heliopolis or On, from which point it went southwards to Latopolis or Babylon, and then turned towards the east into the Valley of Error, in the first instance with the intention of following the ordinary caravan road, which leads through this valley to Suez, and then going round the northern extremity of the gulf. Succoth would in this case be in the neighbourhood of the village of Besatin; and Etham, near the fountain of Gandelhi, at which point the caravan road turns