Читать книгу Buried Cities and Bible Countries - George St. Clair - Страница 17

Table of Contents

As Succoth was the first station of the Israelites in leaving Egypt, and we now know the locality, we begin to be able to trace their route. Starting from Rameses—a city not yet identified, but perhaps near the present Zagazig[11]—two courses were open to them. They might go northward, past the city of Zoan, and then skirt the coast of Philistia—the route generally taken by the great conquerors, and by much the nearer way. But there were objections against taking it, for “it came to pass in the course of those many days that the king of Egypt died” (Exod. ii. 23), and the new Pharaoh, Menephtah, son and successor of Rameses II., was holding his Court at Zoan at this time,[12] and had his chariots and his horsemen about him. Nor must we forget the great wall and its fortresses, which in that direction would bar the way. “It was a wall,” says Mr Poole, “carefully constructed, with scarp and counter-scarp, ditch and glacis, well manned by the best troops, the sentinel on the ramparts day and night.” Prudence would seem to say that this route should not be attempted. The course actually taken appears to have been from Rameses eastward, along the valley Tumilat and the line of the canal which had been made by Seti I. They then encamped at Succoth, probably for the same reason that the British encamped there in 1882, namely, that there was abundance of forage and water, and a defensible position. The next station was “Etham, in the edge of the wilderness,” northward from Pithom-Succoth, we may suppose, for they seem to have been marching (perhaps for a feint) as though they would take the short route through the Philistine country. But then they received the command to “turn back and encamp before Pi-ha-hiroth, between the Migdol and the sea, before Baal-Zephon, over against it by the sea.” They obeyed, and to understand the course they actually pursued, we must take into account some recent geological discoveries. It is not the aim of the present writer to put forth original views of his own, but rather to explain the conclusions arrived at by the ablest investigators. In accordance with this design, it will be desirable here to introduce a paragraph from Major Henry Spencer Palmer, who shared with Colonel Sir Charles Wilson the command of the Sinai Survey Expedition.

“The character and scene of the Red Sea passage—the greatest event which ancient history records—have in all ages been the subject of controversy, according to the variously proposed systems of topography, and the extent to which men have admitted or denied the operation of miraculous agency. Some, holding to the strict interpretation of such passages as, ‘The waters were a wall unto them on their right hand and their left’ (Exod. xiv. 20), ‘The floods stood upright as an heap’ (Ps. xv. 8), ‘He made the waters to stand as an heap’ (Ps. lxxvii. 15), have inferred that the deep sea must have been literally parted asunder, and that through the chasm thus formed the Israelites passed, with a sheer wall of water on either side of them. By such, the scene of the passage has been fixed at six, ten, fifty, and even sixty miles below Suez, and the position of the city of Rameses has been varied to meet the several theories as to the crossing place. The advocates of these views, apparently anxious to aggrandise the miracle to the utmost, and discarding from fair consideration the physical agency which Scripture expressly mentions as the direct means by which the passage was made practicable, have, however, overlooked or evaded the difficulty of explaining how the fugitives, with their flocks and herds, could have travelled over the sharp coral rocks, and vast quantities of seaweed which cover the sea-bottom at these points. The obvious difficulty also, that a short way below Suez, the breadth of the sea becomes too great for the passage to have been effected within the limits of time given in the narrative, without some preternatural acceleration of speed, of which Scripture gives no hint or mention, has never been met satisfactorily. There is the yet greater difficulty that a wind strong enough to have produced upon deep water the extraordinary effect which is supposed, would have been much too violent for any man or body of men to have stood up against it. Lastly, there is the impossible supposition that Pharaoh and his host would have been mad enough to rush to their doom in this fearful chasm.”

Of late years, however, the theory of a deep-water passage has been practically abandoned. Modern critics prefer an intelligent interpretation, according to known natural laws, of the words of Exodus xiv. 21, 22, which lay stress upon the east wind as the direct natural agent by which the sea bottom was for the time made dry land.

Major Palmer mentions the presence of marine shells in the Bitter Lake as showing that it was formerly filled with salt water from the Gulf of Suez. He says further:—“This communication subsequently became broken by the gradual elevation of the neck of land eleven miles long which now separates the lakes from the head of the gulf—an interesting fulfilment of the prophecy in Isaiah xi. 15—‘and the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea.’ Darius, about B.C. 500, restored the connection by cutting a canal through the isthmus, which after a period of disuse was reopened by Ptolemy Philadelphus, about B.C. 250. Traces of Darius’s canal are still seen, in a very perfect state, though its bed has since risen above the level of high water in the gulf. If, as can hardly be doubted, there was a connection, at least tidal, between the lakes and the gulf at the time of the Exodus, the only course eastward from Egypt which would have been ordinarily practicable for the march of hosts, must have passed to the north of the Great Bitter Lake, crossing the belt of dry ground which, interrupted only by the Timsah and Ballah Lakes, extends between it and the Menzaleh Lake, and the Children of Israel must have been following one such route when, at Etham, they were directed to turn and encamp before Pi-ha-horoth.”

These views of Major Palmer’s are shared by M. Naville, by Sir Wm. Dawson, and others, and have been decisively confirmed by the geological survey of the region. In 1883 the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund sent out Professor Hull, the eminent geologist, accompanied by Major Kitchener, R.E., and other competent men, and this party investigated the geology of Lower Egypt, of the Desert of Sinai, the Valley of the Arabah, and the southern portion of Palestine. The results were very remarkable. It appears, for instance, that at a distant period of the past the waters of the seas, lakes, and gulfs of all this region stood some two hundred feet higher than they do now—the proof being found in the fact that at the height of two hundred feet the limestone rocks have been bored into by the well-known “shell-fish,” the pholas, while the sands and gravels at that height contain shells and corals and crinoids, of the same species as those which still inhabit the waters of the Gulf of Suez. With the waters at that height the whole of Lower Egypt would be submerged, together with extensive tracts on either side of the Gulf of Suez. But this occurred in the distant past, probably many ages before mankind dwelt in these regions at all. There was, however, a more recent period, as the land slowly rose out of the waters—and Professor Hull thinks it may have coincided with the time of the Exodus—when the waters were just 26 feet higher than they are at present, and then, although Lower Egypt would not be submerged, the Gulf of Suez must have extended northward as far as the Bitter Lakes, making an arm of the sea about a mile wide and 20 or 30 feet deep.

It is suggested by M. Naville that the Israelites, when they turned back from Etham, came down on the western side of this arm of the sea, and got into a defile, so that they appeared to be caught in a trap. Pharaoh thought so, and said, “They are entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in;” and so he pursued them, and thought to obtain an easy victory. But Moses had clear knowledge of what he was to do. Although the waters of the gulf were for the most part 20 or 30 feet deep, and quite impassable, there was one place (near the present Châluf) where they were quite shallow, where the land now is 26 feet higher than the waters, and where, at that time, reeds were growing. This part of the gulf was a shallow sea of reeds: and what the Hebrew Bible really says is that the Israelites crossed the sea of reeds—yam Souph[13]—which was the former extension of the Red Sea northwards. This place was so shallow that when the north-east wind blew, co-operating with a retreating tide, it was liable to be rendered dry; and because the tribes of the Desert used then to rush in, through this temporary gateway, and carry off the cattle, and plunder the fertile district around Pithom, the Pharaohs had established a watch-tower here—one of their Migdols. The Israelites “encamped between the Migdol and the sea:” then the north-east wind arose and made the passage dry, so that they were able to pass over. Their God had made a way for them. If this explanation, which is now very generally received, should be finally established, it must for ever silence all objections as to the credibility of this part of the Scripture narrative.

[Authorities and Sources:—“The Store-City of Pithom.” By M. Naville, Egypt Exploration Fund. “Sinai.” By Major H. Spencer Palmer, R.E. “The Desert of the Exodus.” By Prof. E. H. Palmer. “Sinai and Palestine.” By Dean Stanley. “Egypt and Sinai.” By Sir J. Wm. Dawson.]