Sea of Reeds vs. Red Sea

[wil]

I've read that their is no reference in the Hebrew to the Red Sea during Exodus. That that translation came later into the Latin and then the KJV.

And that there is quite a bit of discussion as to the direction the trek took and where the crossing occurred.

Anyone have any insight they can provide?

[flowperson]

Hi wil...

I've read some analyses that the trek was actually referring to a passage through marshlands where there were hidden land bridges which allowed the passage of small groups through the swampy areas, but would not allow the passage of chariots and other methods of transport that are needed to support armed forces which would become bogged down and swamped..

The speculations I've come across seemed to point to the reed lands in the south of ancient Shinar (Sumer/Iraq) and that the escape and Red Sea episode were actually based upon folk stories regarding Hebrew bands that were escaping the diaspora in Babylon by traversing the swamps in the Basra region. But the time scales don't jibe with that interpretation, so it would have had to have been an episode(s) earlier than that has been lost to history. But hey...the Red Sea story works, and that's what the best mythologies require. The good guys escape and the bad guys perish.

There is also the possibility that this recollects something far older and more hidden. The name "Hebrew" derives from the Chaldean (Sumerian) root word "hibaru" which when translated roughly means, "those who cross over". So evidently somewhere in the mists of past events the early bands of the Judaic tribal nation "crossed over" somewhere for some purpose. It's my opinion that storytellers have been speculating as to the truth of the matter for millenia, but it is also clear that this remembered event is key to understanding a part of the origins of the Hebrew tribes.

flow....

[Thomas]

Hi Wil –

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary traces the route of Exodus, and archeology suggests that rather than flee the direct northern route, along the Road of the Philistines following the coast and passed the Egyptian fortress at Zilu, the Hebrews took a secondary inland and southern route, down towards the swampy lake region beyond the northern tip of the Red Sea. The 'best bet' location of the Sea of Reeds (mistranslated in the Septuagint as Red Sea) is the swampy area around one of the major lakes, Lake Bahah.

Here it gets even more interesting. Following the route, it would appear that the Hebrews swung further south yet, and one suggestion is that this was a tactical move, which forced the pursuing Egyptians into a last-chance and long-shot desperate attempt to 'head them off' by advancing directly on them through the Reed Sea, rather than following around it. This is not so far-fetched. We know, from Scripture itself, that the Hebrews panicked at the Egyptian approach and their apparent flight into an ever deeper wasteland. Many doubted Moses and wanted to turn back, to return to Egypt. The Egyptians, informed by their scouts, would sense victory in their grasp, and risk the inevitable disorder of a marsh attack, banking on the inability of a demoralised and panicy bunch of civilians to stand against them.

It was a bold, and had it succeeded, a brilliant move, but it did not, it failed, at some considerable cost, and the Hebrews made away.

The question then, is what kind of reversal did the Egyptians suffer?

According to the P account, Moses parts the Sea with his rod, the people walk through on dry land, the Egyptians follow and are drowned in a Noah-like deluge. According to the J account, the LORD sends a wind which opens a path through the sea during the night, the people cross, and the wind subsides and the sea returns with the morning, but remains severe enough to cause the Egyptians, pursuing by boat, to founder, the fleet sunk. (Echoes of the kami-kaze, the Divine Wind that saved Japan from the Mongol invasion?)

Whatever the extent of the reversal, it was significant enough to stop the pursuit. It must have been more than simply becoming bogged down, as one cannot envisage a mud-stuck soldier waving his fist at a peasant running over a distant hill. It took 10 plagues to get Israel free, it would take more than getting wet to stop Pharoah's pursuit. One might resonably assume that a marsh crossing proved impossible for the army, and that they suffered considerable losses in men and material in trying it. One might, by extension, suppose that rather than continual attrition (rarely morale-boosting for the observer), the Egyptians suffered a single and catastrophic reversal at a single crossing place, which would have convinced the Hebrews that God was on their side, and nothing could stop them now.

One might also reasonably allow the victor to make, perhaps, something more of the event than might be historically accurate. Whatever happened, the Hebrews entered the Sea of Reeds as an uncertain people in full flight, and emerged a victorious army, convined that their God was the God of all, and they swept all Canaan before the implacable tide of their advance.

The LORD in the J account can be counter-pointed to the Baal of the Ugaritic texts, a god who deploys the elements according to his purpose and his will, to lead his people and destroy his enemies. God is a Great Wind, an Earthquake, a passing Leviathon, a Pillar of cloud by Day and Fire by Night, a Storm, Thunder and Lightning that shrouds the peak of his Sacred Mountain.

Only later, on the tongues of the Prophets, in the Psalms and Israel's Wisdom literature would God reveal Himself as parent and spouse, His Wrath and Vengence tempered by His Mercy and Love.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Oh, sorry Flow... you'd posted while I was composing mine. Didn't mean to step on your toes.

Thomas

[flowperson]

Thomas...Not to worry. My feet have been abused in so many ways that it matters not these days. Now...I guess I must order some steel toed versions. I'm sure that others here aren't surprised that our versions would differ. Different strokes...different folks.

flow....

[Thomas]

Hi Flow –

I'm not sure our versions differ that much, certainly not in essence, and that is what counts.

You're idea of the recollection of a 'crossing' having such a profound impact on the psyche of a people is more important than the material fact. Such ideas might exagerate the detail, might even relocate events in time and space, but I think there would have to be some founding event ... I don't think there is a culture whose self-identity is entirely fabricated, although certainly all tend to embellish.

Now if we found an ancient manuscript that said, 'there was an Egyptian, an Israelite and a Canaanite, drinking in a bar ...' then I'd really be in trouble!

Thomas

[flowperson]

Hi Thomas...Yeah, probably not much writing being done as far back as I'm thinking. I don't believe that the proto-Hebrew alphabet was even invented until around 1,200 bce, which is the time that the Hebrews were supposedly first noticed (archaeologically) in the hills of Judea. The proto alphabet was discovered by Sir Flinders Petrie ( U. of Chicago) in the Arabian penninsula near copper workings around 100 years ago and it seemed to be a pictographic adaptation of Phoenecian writing.

You are of course correct. This passage or crossing-over, whatever and whenever it was, was probably related as oral history for millenia before it was ever written down, and may even date back to when modern versions of homo sapiens trekked out of Africa over the Palestinian land bridge which became Palestine. I told you I thought it goes back a long way. Tribal peoples always are concentrated upon remembering their ancestors' travails in order to gain perspectives on their present and possible futures. It's the way that our brains and our memories work to make futures possible.

By the way, that classic film, The Ten Commandments from the 50's was on the TV here on Christmas night. Always one of my faves, and the Red Sea scene is stupendous. It's very difficult to beat a good story line and superbly produced images to continue important legends.

flow....

[Quahom1]

At the point of the parting of the Red "Reed sea", is a known fact that it happens often. A ten knot wind blowing from the north down can in fact part a finger of the sea to the point of the lake bed being nearly dry. It pushes the water apart. It is a documented fact.

Now question is, is it the point of crossing for the exodus? And could it kill an entire army? Or is this the place that the exodus miracle occured in the first place?

Big part of the sea or small fingerling of the lake, does it matter? a man caught in quagmire will drown just as fast as a man caught in full waves...

As soon as a horse gets a hoove stuck, he tends to panic. A man locked into wet mud tends to do the same. Desert warriors, with desert horses, suddenly finding themsleves knee deep in lake mud?...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

I've read that their is no reference in the Hebrew to the Red Sea during Exodus. That that translation came later into the Latin and then the KJV.

And that there is quite a bit of discussion as to the direction the trek took and where the crossing occurred.

Anyone have any insight they can provide?

This is where when in doubt, we should bring to bare those more educated than us on the matter of the exodus...namely Dauer and Bannanabrain...

Let us ask them of the "Exodus".

v/r

Joshua

[kiwimac]

The following is interesting;

The problem is that the biblical account never refers to the Red Sea by name. In fact, nowhere in the entire Old Testament Hebrew text is the body of water associated with the exodus ever called the "Red Sea."

Instead in the Hebrew text the reference is to the yam suph. The word yam in Hebrew is the ordinary word for "sea," although in Hebrew it is used for any large body of water whether fresh or salt. The word suph is the word for "reeds" or "rushes," the word used in Ex. 2:3, 5 to describe where Moses' basket was placed in the Nile. So, the biblical reference throughout the Old Testament is to the "sea of reeds" (e.g., Num 14:25, Deut 1:40, Josh 4:23, Psa 106:7. etc.).

Now the simple fact is, we do not know exactly what body of water is referenced by yam suph in Scripture, which is the origin of much of the debate. The translation "Red Sea" is simply a traditional translation introduced into English by the King James Version through the second century BC Greek Septuagint and the later Latin Vulgate. It then became a traditional translation of the Hebrew terms. However, many modern translations either translate yam suph as "Sea of Reeds" or use the traditional translation and add a footnote for the Hebrew meaning.

This gives rise to various opinions for the route of the exodus based on landmarks mentioned in the accounts. Historians have not positively identified the cities of Ramses and Pithom mentioned in the Exodus account (1:11), but many locate them in the Nile Delta near an archaeological site identified as the store city of Ramses. The route of the escape is then generally identified, at least in the early stages of the flight from Egypt, to be south from the store city of Ramses in the eastern Nile delta to the Bitter Lakes region. (see -note-)

These are shallow lakes and marshy areas just to the north of the Gulf of Suez. The crossing of the sea would then be across these lakes and marshes, the yam suph where the miracle of deliverance occurred.

Source

From a Jewish question and answer site the following:

Stephen Tenzer in Germantown, MD wrote:

Dear Rabbi, I recently read a book which claimed that the Israelites did not cross the Red Sea, as is commonly believed, but rather crossed the Sea of Reeds. "Red Sea," according to the author, is a mistranslation. This was news to me. My English translation of the Bible refers to the Red Sea, while the Hebrew refers to "yam suf." I remember from Hebrew School that "yam" means "sea." What does "suf" mean? Did the Israelites cross the Red Sea, the Sea of Reeds, or some other sea?

Dear Stephen Tenzer,

"Soof" means "reeds." The Jews crossed the "Yam Soof" which means the "Sea of Reeds."

There are several views in our commentaries as to what the Yam Suf is. It may have been the Gulf of Suez, which branches up from what is today called the Red Sea. Others identify it with the large delta at the mouth of the Nile in the North of Egypt; interestingly, in ancient Egyptian, the swampy Delta districts were called "sufi."

• Sources:
• "The Living Torah" by Rabbi A. Kaplan, Exodus 10:19, 13:18
• Artscroll Chumash Stone Edition, Exodus 13:18

Source

[17th Angel]

Some say that it was like an inlet to the red sea? Such as the river Abraham traveled ? Not sure where, but I can remember someone saying something along the lines of; "the tongue of the Reed Sea, goes forth from the Red Sea."

[wil]

Namaste all, thanx for the responses. The contemplation continues...

Originally Posted by Quahom1

we should bring to bare those more educated than us...namely Dauer and Bannanabrain...

hence my judicious placement of the thread.

Originally Posted by thomas

You're idea of the recollection of a 'crossing' having such a profound impact on the psyche of a people is more important than the material fact.

I'd like to learn more about them breaking into song at the other side...it was supposed to be a new song...and thousands suddenly singing... not to long ago we'd attempt that by xeroxing and trying to distribute the words...today maybe putting up big screens and projecting the tune...I'm still wondering how it was accomplished then...

At one time I contemplated the crossing symbolizing a birth..the metaphor seemed pretty strong...leaving bondage to freedom...parting of the red sea...singing out at the other side....

[flowperson]

Hmmmmm...no music where they escaped from, but there was music on the other side after they "crossed over"...hmmmmm ! A spontaneous expression of joy...or some real change in their environmental circumstances ?

flow....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Hmmmmm...no music where they escaped from, but there was music on the other side after they "crossed over"...hmmmmm ! A spontaneous expression of joy...or some real change in their environmental circumstances ?

flow....

Greensong (the song of nature in harmony with heaven).

[bananabrain]

umph -

well, i guess i don't really know what i'm being asked here. you know what the traditional explanation is, which is that we were there, there was a miracle, we crossed etc. you also know what the people who don't believe in miracles or the sacred nature of the Torah say, which is that there are conflicting accounts, the whole thing's based on some guy getting his feet wet in ur and, really hebrew didn't even happen till later.

suffice it to say that it's not really all that simple. as for hebrew not being around until 1200 BCE, abraham is generally agreed to be around 1800 BCE and the exodus not till around 1400-1200 BCE so that's probably about right as far as the traditional chronology has it.

the word "hebrew" is from abraham's title "Ha-'IBhRI" which means, alternatively "the crosser" or, as some would have it "the contrarian" - or even "the transgressor". that title goes back to his departure from ur to haran, where he "crossed the river", as it says of his family the Torah "your ancestors lived beyond the river" (meaning the euphrates). but i guess the whole of the children of israel really became "ivrim" at the crossing of the "reed sea" or whatever you want to call it. where it is isn't all that important, if you ask me.

b'shalom

bananabrain