THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE EXODUS,

BY

ALAN H. GARDINER.

The immortal discovery of Champollion owes no small part of its intellectual significance to the fact that it was achieved in the very teeth of tradition. The greater bulk of classical authority, inflated by the obscurantist preferences of medieval mystery-mongers, had misconstrued Egypt into a home of recondite wisdom and its hieroglyphic inscriptions into symbols of deep hidden truths. To such views as these except in circles deliberately hostile to the results and methods of science the decipherment of the hieroglyphs put an end for ever. A century of research based upon that decipherment has taught us that it is to the monuments and their inscriptions, rather than to tradition, that we must look for authentic historical information, and the credit of authority has sunk with the progress of archaeology. Only in one field, namely that of the Biblical relations of Egypt, does traditional authority still exercise an undue influence. It is, therefore, in the spirit of Champollion (who, despite his deep interest in ancient geography, never seems to have attacked this particular theme) that I shall attempt to estimate the value of the Hebrew tradition as to the route of the Exodus through a comparison with the facts revealed by recent research.

It is not to be denied that much honest endeavour and critical acumen have been devoted to the elucidation of the Exodus problems with the help of archaeology, and not least of all by such enlightened theologians as, for example, the late Canon Driver. But when all is said, the

spirit of tradition still lies heavy upon the subject and enforces concessions which would not be tolerated in historical fields uncompromised by religious conservatism. It has become the fashion solemnly and conscientiously to debate the very fact of the Exodus and finally, with many reservations, to pass the verdict that a legend presenting the early history of Israel in so inglorious a light must have had some basis in reality. But then, with singular inconsequence, the same authors proceed to treat of the Exodus geography just as though they were discussing the details of an indubitable and well-attested historical event.

It does not enter into my plan to elaborate the case for or against the historicity of the Exodus, but it will conduce to clearness if I outline the opinions which I hold upon the subject. That Israel was in Egypt under one form or another no historian could possibly doubt; a legend of such tenacity representing the early fortunes of a people under so unfavourable an aspect could not have arisen save as a reflexion, however much distorted, of real occurrences. But the Hyksos invasion and the subsequent expulsion of the Hyksos afford quite sufficient basis for the origination of the legend. Nor would it make the slightest difference to this assertion should it be proved that the Hyksos were racially quite unrelated to the Israelites, for nations inherit with all possible ease the traditions of the lands which in course of time they come to occupy. Would it not, indeed, be strange if the whole episode of the Hyksos had left no trace in Hebrew legend? When, further, it is taken into consideration that the date of Joseph, according to any reasonable computation, falls within the Hyksos period, surely little doubt can be entertained but that the fortunes of the Shepherd kings are somehow imaged in the Exodus story.

But the mention of the town of Raamses-Rameses introduces an ingredient of later date, and it is not impossible that, as the quotations from Manetho and Chaeremon in Josephus suggest, some further events at the beginning of

the Nineteenth Dynasty may have become blended with the memory of the Hyksos. Illustrative material indicating the kind of relations existing between Egypt and the Beduin tribes on its borders is found in the papyri, for example in Anastasi VI. But not a vestige of evidence points to any serious occupation of Egyptian territory such as could have resulted in a drama resembling that enacted in the book of Exodus. Until there emerges evidence of a character wholly different from that already available, I submit that the details of the story ought to be regarded as no less mythical than the details of the creation as recorded in Genesis. At all events our first task must be to attempt to interpret those details on the supposition that they are legend.

Instead, therefore, of comparing each place-name as it occurs with some supposed corresponding site in Egypt or the desert, I shall first survey the legend as a whole, and attempt to discern the general movement underlying it. The relevant passages will be quoted in succession, Driver's improvements () on the Revised Version being incorporated; but no regard will be paid to the sources as distinguished by modern critics, my aim being to understand, so far as possible, the legend in the form in which it is presented in the completed Pentateuch.

a. Ex., x11, 37. And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth.

b. Ex., xm, 17-18. And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not by the way to (2) the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt but God led the people about, in the direction of (3) the wilderness to (4) the Sea of reeds (5).

(In his work entitled The book of Exodus (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges), 1911.

(2) R.V.: ofn.

c. Ex., x, 20. And they took their journey from Succoth, and encamped in Etham, in the edge of the wilderness.

d. Ex., xiv, 1-4. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn back and encamp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, before Baal-zephon: over against it shall ye encamp by the sea. And Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, They are perplexed (1) in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in. And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he shall follow after them.

e. Ex., xiv, 9 foll. And the Egyptians pursued after them.... and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth, before Baal-zephon.

What follows may be paraphrased. The children of Israel cry out unto the Lord saying that it would have been better to serve the Egyptians than to die in the wild

erness.

After the Lord had bidden the Israelites to go forward :

f. Ex., XIV, 21 foll. Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all the night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground.

The Egyptians do likewise, and Moses stretches his hand over the sea and the sea returns to its wonted flow (v. 27):

.when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians were fleeing (2) against it; and the Lord shook off (3) the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.

g. Ex., XV, 22-23. And Moses led Israel onward from the Sea of reeds, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water. And when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah...

:

h. Ex., xv, 27-16, 1. And they came to Elim, where were twelve springs of water, and threescore and ten palm trees and they encamped there by the waters. And they took their journey from Elim, and all the congregation of the children of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departing out of the land of Egypt.

We need pursue the story no further. Hereafter come the incidents of the quails (xvi, 13) (1) and the manna (XVI, 14), the smiting of the rock by Moses, the battle with the Amalekites at Rephidim (xvII, 8) and finally the arrival at mount Sinai (xIx, 1-2). At this point the book of Exodus abandons geography for other interests, and the story of the Israelitish wanderings is not resumed until the book of Numbers. Num., xxxIII, reiterates the early stages without serious variation (2); I shall only quote:

i. Num., xxxiii, 8. And they journeyed from before Hahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness; and they went three days' journey in the wilderness of Etham (3), and pitched in Marah.

If b is temporarily left out of account, the remaining passages present a coherent and intelligible narrative. The leit-motif of the dangers of the desert alternates with that of the hated Egyptian bondage. Two successive

(1)It seems to have been Mr. Villiers-Stuart who first pointed out the importance of the quail incident as favouring the northern theory of the Exodus. I quote from Sir W. Willcocks' suggestive but utterly uncritical book From the Garden of Eden to the crossing of the Jordan, 1919, p. 69: That the Israelites were encamped on the shore of the Mediterranean sea after their delivrance is proved by the fact that quails fell into their camp. This has been insisted on by Mr. Villiers-Stuart, and is absolutely unanswerable. Quails fly across the Mediterranean and drop down nearly exhausted on the southern shore in myriads. That any quails would be idiotic enough to leave the scrub and shelter of the Mediterranean shore and fly over the desert of Sinai to drop down on the shores of the Gulf of Suez in absolutely desert land is not to be accepted for a second.»

(2) It is impossible to discuss here the strange statement Num., xxxIII, 10: And they journeyed from Elim, and pitched by the Sea of reeds." (3) No importance is to be attached to this variant of the wilderness of Shur» (g); Lxx has autoí, presupposing an original reading hẽm.