Exodus 16

INTRODUCTORY.

(1.) Route from Elim to Sinai. Before deciding upon this route it is, of course, necessary to settle the location of Elim and Sinai. We have already presented reasons for the conclusion, in which travellers are now almost unanimously agreed, that Elim was the Wady Gharandel; and there is now, also, an equally general conviction among biblical scholars who have visited the locality, (Lepsius being the only important exception,) that the Mount Sinai of Exodus was the peak Ras Sufsafeh (or Sassafeh) at Jebel Musa, the reasons of which identification will be hereafter given, but are assumed as valid for the present. After leaving Elim, the itinerary of Numbers xxxiii gives us an encampment “by the Red Sea,” which, as already shown, (note on Exodus 15:27,) could only have been in the plain at the mouth of the Wady Taiyebeh . From this station there were three routes through the labyrinth of wadies and mountain passes to Mount Sinai, which, from the geographical features of the country, must be the same now as then: (1,) a lower route, through the desert plain el Ka’a, (or el Ga’ah,) by the coast station Tur, (or Tor,) through the steep and winding Wady Hebran; (2,) an upper route, by Wady Hamer, through the great sandstone belt of the peninsula, past the mysterious Egyptian monuments of Sarabit el Khadim, among the low hills, and into the broad sandy plain of Debbet er Ramleh, (or el Karabeh;) thence along the white southern escarpment of the Tih plateau into Wady es Sheikh, the route followed and so thoroughly described by Robinson; and (3,) an intermediate route through Wady Feiran, whose springs, palm groves, flowers, and bulbuls make it the principal thoroughfare and most delightful spot in the whole peninsula. It is only by a careful study of thorough maps, like those of Kiepert and the British Ordnance Survey, that these alternatives can be apprehended. The lower route may be ruled out at once, from the fact that the steep, rough, narrow Hebran is wholly impracticable for such a miscellaneous host, with women, children, and wagons, not to mention the many days’ march through the vast waterless plain of el Ka’a, of which there is no trace in the record, since there is no mention of the lack of water till Israel came to Rephidim, near Mount Sinai. The upper route is ably defended by Knobel, who plausibly identifies Debbet er Ramleh, the great sandy plain along the Jebel et Tih, with the “Desert of Sin.” Exodus 16:1. But it is very probable that there was at this time an Egyptian mining colony and military station directly in this route, which would be a strong reason for avoiding it; and we have no account of any collision between Israel and Egyptian troops in the desert; and, besides, Palmer says, that the “rugged passes and narrow valleys would have presented insuperable difficulties to a large caravan, encumbered by heavy baggage;” and certainly these wadies would have been impassable to wagons, which from Numbers 7:3. etc . , we see that the Israelites had with them . The middle route, Wady Feiran, could have been entered directly from the coast plain, el Murkha, or indirectly through the Wady Shellal and Wady Mukatteh, the famous valley of the inscribed sandstone tablets, past the beautiful bas-reliefs and turquoise and copper mines of Magharah, down a steep, narrow pass . The objections just made to the upper route would hold good, though with less force, to this indirect entrance to Wady Feiran, and hence the travellers of the “Sinai Survey Expedition” decided for the Wady Feiran, entered directly from the plain of el Murkha. (Palmer’s Desert of the Exodus, vol. i, chap. 14.) As this is the unanimous verdict of the only company of intelligent travellers who have examined all the routes to Sinai, it must have, henceforth, decisive weight with all interpreters of Exodus. Kurtz, Keil, and Murphy, who advocate the upper route, were not at the time of writing aware of these objections, nor of the direct entrance to Wady Feiran.

It is not, however, to be supposed that the whole body of the Israelites moved along this single valley, but rather, that in this were the headquarters and main body of the host. Large detachments, who acted as soldiers, and could thus march with celerity through rough and steep places, probably took the Mukatteh route, and thus acted as a guard on the left flank against the Egyptian troops who may have been posted in Magharah. It is probable, also, that the Israelites entered the great plain of el Raheh, at the base of Sinai, from the northwest, through Wady Solaf, over the pass Nagb Hawa, and from the northeast through the Wady es Sheikh.

(2.) Manna. There is a substance called manna by the Bedouins of the desert now produced in the peninsula of Sinai, and gathered from the twigs of the tamarisk or tarfa tree, which has been supposed by many, as Lepsius, Ritter, etc., after Josephus, to be the same as the manna which was to Israel “bread from heaven.” This substance exudes in transparent drops from the outermost tender twigs of the tamarisk, and soon hardens into a reddish-yellow gum, or waxy substance, which the Bedouins use and sell for a condiment with bread. It often falls upon the ground, and is gathered both from the tree and from the earth. It melts in the sun, but may be kept in a cool place for an indefinite time. It has the flavour of honey, and chemical analysis shows that it is wholly saccharine in composition. Ehrenberg assigned its production to the puncture of an insect, a kind of wood-louse, but this origin is doubted by Lepsius. It is found from the last of May until August in wet seasons only, and Burckhardt calculates that the whole peninsula might, in a favourable season, yield five to six hundred pounds. From this description it will be seen, that while there are some points of resemblance there are many more of irreconcilable diversity between this substance and the manna of the Israelites. From this chapter, and from Numbers 11:7-9, we find that the manna of Israel fell with the dew, and was found on the surface of the open wilderness after “the dew had gone up,” not on and under the branches of the tamarisk . It had the nutritious properties of bread, while the tamarisk manna is a mere condiment. It could be ground in mills; pounded or bruised in mortars, like grain; cooked by baking and boiling; all of which are impossible processes for the tamarisk manna, as much as for gum or wax. It was found all through the wilderness, in regions where, now at least, the tamarisk does not and cannot grow, while the tamarisk manna is confined to a small district of the Sinai wilderness; and even if it were the same substance, the whole peninsula does not now produce enough to sustain a single man. It was produced through the whole year, while the tamarisk manna exudes only in the summer; and, most decisive of all, there was a double supply of this manna on the sixth day and none at all on the seventh. It is certain, then, that the inspired author intends to describe the supernatural production of daily bread for the Hebrew host. It strongly resembled in appearance the substance now known in the same desert as manna, produced from the tamarisk or tarfa tree, and then known by the same or a similar name, (Hebrew, man; Arabic, mennu; Egyptian, menna and mannuhut;) and hence the name given it by the Israelites, who were struck with this resemblance. Exodus 16:15. (Robinson, Bib. Researches, 1: 115; Kurtz, History of Old Covenant, 3: 27; Stowe, in Smith’s Dictionary.)