left in the bay itself to prevent an enemy from surrounding the passing host on that side, but on the north there would be no such protection. Thus, even on the supposition that the term "wall" is used in verse 22 in the sense of defense, the explanation clearly fails to meet the language of the text: "The waters were a wall unto them on the right hand and on the left." We desire to insist on this fact, and to us it appears decisive of the whole issue. But the phraseology seems to us to be stronger even than this interpretation. The term "wall" (nn) is rarely if ever used in this metaphorical sense of protection, but invariably (1 Sam. xxv, 16, is, we believe, the only doubtful instance) signifies some physical barrier, whether of stone or other material, placed more or less vertically for the purpose of protection. Its meaning is by no means fulfilled in the supposition of a vague water-line, shelving away at a distance on one side. Surely nothing but a desire to minify the preternatural element in the discussion could lead to the adoption of so inadequate an interpretation; for the language, it must be remembered, occurs not in a poetical or figurative connection, but in a plain, prosaic history.* The poetical version

now the ebb is strengthened by a north-east wind, as Tischendorf says, and the flood is driven so much to the south by a north-west wind that the gulf can be ridden through, and even forded on foot, to the north of Suez, (Schubert, Reise,' ii, 269,) and as a rule the rise and fall of the water in the Arabian Gulf is nowhere so dependent upon the wind as it is at Suez, (Wellsted, ‘Arabia,' ii, 41, 42,) yet the drying up of the sea as here described cannot be accounted for by an ebb strengthened by the wind, because the water is all driven southward in the ebb, and not sent in opposite directions. Such a division could only be produced by a wind sent by God, and working with omnipotent force, in connection with which the natural phenomenon of the ebb may, no doubt, have exerted a subordinate influence. The passage was effected in the night, through the whole of which the wind was blowing, and in the morning watch (between three and six o'clock, verse 24) it was finished." (Keil, "Commentary," ad loc.)

*In addition to these difficulties in the way of the crossing at Suez, we call Dr. Vail's attention to the following inaccuracies or inadvertences in the paper referred to: (1.) The distance from Etham to Suez on his map is forty miles, which is double his own maximum estimate of a single day's journey. (2.) His route of the Israelites on setting out from Rameses is north-east, the precise direction of Philistia, which the sacred narrative expressly states was avoided. (3.) His position of Pi-hahiroth east of the head of the gulf, and of Baal-zephon at Suez, is in both cases inconsistent with the statement that the Israelites encamped east (253) of these localities. (4.) The rendering of 3 in verse 21 by "flow back" is not justified by the signification of that verb, which is identical with our "walk," and contains neither the idea of flowing nor that of backward. (5.) His expedi

of the transaction (Exod. xv, 8) uses much stronger language: "The floods stood upright as a heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea." The phraseology here, although figurative, no doubt correctly represents the facts as seen by an eye-witness. Psalm lxxviii, 13: "He made the waters to stand as a heap," shows the same traditional interpretation, and Heb. x, 2, confirms it, "Baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea," that is, wet with the spray.

For these reasons, even if we could find no better crossingplace for the Israelites, we should be disposed to reject the one at Suez as not fairly meeting the scriptural requirements in the case.

3. At Ras Atâkah. This place has been preferred as that of the crossing by the great majority of writers and travelers, including Pococke, Joly, Monconys, Shaw, Ovington, Sicard, Bruce, Arundale, Raumer, Kitto, Olin, Wilson, Durbin, Bartlett, Porter, Bonar, Murphy, etc. It seems to us to meet the demands of the biblical account more perfectly than any other. This cape is situated about six miles, in a direct line, south of Suez, opposite the southern end of Jebel Atâkah. It is a tongue running out more than a mile into the water beyond the average shore line, and continued nearly a mile farther by a shoal, over which the water at ordinary low tide is not more than fourteen feet deep. Beyond this again stretches, for nearly a mile and a half in the same direction, a lower shoal, covered nowhere by more than twenty-nine feet of water at low tide. Opposite this point there reaches out, for about two miles from the eastern shore, a similar shoal, only thirty feet under water at its deepest place. The entire width of the sea at this point is about five miles, while the space where it is not over fifteen feet deep is but three and a half miles, and the channel, itself not over fifty feet deep, is less than three quarters of a mile wide. The sea immediately above and below this spot, in the channel, is about seventy feet deep. Here,

ent of making the Israelites cross the channel at Suez obliquely is a mere maneuver in order to gain a sufficient width for deploying the line of the host. If the channel was drained, as it would be in many places at least, if these flats were bare, they might cross almost anywhere, and would certainly take " "the shortest cut square across.

then, is a place where a strong and continued east wind, of the preternatural character implied in the sacred narrative, might open a passage suitable for the occasion, and leave a mass of water fitly comparable to a "wall on either hand." Moreover, the Israelites would in that case emerge on the shore near

Ayun Mûsa, (Wells of Moses,) the very name of which, in addition to other local traditions, represents the scene of the

event.

A close examination of the text itself confirms this view of the transaction. It says, (verse 21,) "Jehovah caused the sea to go (72177, made it walk) by a strong east wind all night . . . and the waters were divided, (pa, were split.") Similar is the language in verse 16, "Divide it (the sea) and the children' of Israel shall go . . . through the midst of the sea." The statement that the wind blew "all night," gives no just countenance to the inference that the Israelites did not begin the passage til near morning, and therefore could have gone but a very short distance in all, or, at least, when the wind lulled and the miracle ceased. For aught that appears, they may have already walked many miles, or even have continued their march some time the next forenoon, if necessary in order to cross. True, the text says, (verse 27:) "The sea returned at the turning of the morning ( nip, at daybreak, compare Judges xix, 25, 26) to its usual bed, (i, to its perennial flow," but it does not necessarily follow from this that the Israelitish host had at that time all reached the opposite shore. Indeed, rather the contrary is intimated by the statement, given subsequently to this, that "the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea," (verse 29,) as if they continued their march some time after the overthrow of the Egyptians in their rear. Nor is it certain from verse 20 that both camps remained quiet all the night, although such might be the inference at first sight. The true state of the case appears to have been about thus: The Egyptians overtook the Israelites at night-fall, just as they were about to encamp (2, in the act of pitching their tents, or preparing to do so) near the shore of the sea, (verse 9,) and marched down directly upon them, (verse 10.) In their dismay at the prospect of instant destruction, Moses ordered them to press forward immediately, (verse 15, 1997, and they shall pull up stakes, that is, break up their preparations for camp.) While they were doing this the wind sprung up, which did not lull till daylight. As they were marching to the beach the guardian pillar took its posi tion in their rear, (verse 19,) and so followed them all night as a light to their steps, (verse 20.) When they had reached the

middle of the sea, (verse 21,) and the Egyptians were not far behind them, (verse 22,) the morning began to dawn, (verse 24,) and to prevent the enemy from overtaking the fugitives the march of the Egyptians was miraculously retarded, so that they in their panic were about to retreat, (verse 25.) This they would hardly have thought of doing had they been nearly across, or had it been but a little way to the opposite shore: indeed, every reference to their destruction shows that they were yet in the middle of the sea. So, too, was Moses apparently at this juncture, when at his extended rod the water behind the host-who had gained somewhat by the delay of the enemybegan to fall, and the Egyptians actually turned to flee, but were overtaken in the heart of the sea, (verse 27.) while the Israelites continued their march through the channel, still open in front of them, (verse 29,) till they reached the shore, which the following waves soon strewed with the corses of the foe, (verse 30.) From this recital of incidents in the exact order of the text, it appears that the march really lasted some part of the night, and we consequently require a considerable width of water for its occurrence.* *

Ras Atâkah, too, seems to correspond to the geographical features of the case. The point where the Israelites struck the western coast-line of the Red Sea is (as we have seen above) is explicitly defined in three passages of the sacred itinerary, which we translate literally: "Speak to the sons of Israel, and they shall return (7) and encamp before (3) Pi-ha-Chirôth,

*"If God sent the wind, which divided the water and laid the bottom dry, as soon as night set in, the crossing might have begun at nine o'clock in the evening, if not before, and lasted till four or five o'clock in the morning, (see verse 27.) By this extension of the time, we gain enough for the flocks, which Robinson has left out of his calculations. The Egyptians naturally followed close upon the Israelites, from whom they were divided only by the pillar of cloud and fire, and when the Israelites had reached the opposite shore they were in the midst of the sea. So in the morning watch Jehovah cast a look upon them in the pillar of cloud and fire, and threw their army into confusion, (verse 24.") (Keil, “Commentary," ad loc.) "The Israelites would form a column a quarter of a mile in rank and a mile in file. Such a body might cross a channel of six miles in six hours, and, therefore, notwithstanding the roughness of the sea bottom, might easily decamp, set out, and reach the opposite bank in eight. By the time they had reached the shore, their pursuers, with their chariots of war, would be in the middle of the chaunel, where the depression of the bottom and the difficulty of progress were the greatest." (Murphy, "Commentary," ad loc.)