Talk:Passage of the Red Sea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal

Passage of the Red Sea is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.

Project Judaism To-do:

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Historical Context

Is the text of this section valid or warranted? The subject is not whether the Israelites were or were not the Hyksos. The is ample evidence to show they were not. Perhaps the text should include information about the reigning Pharoah at the time, this may have some relevance.

Cobblers 13:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The story would be perfectly plausible if people stuck to it and didn't introduce wild speculations which over time become accepted. The 19th century archaeologist who excavated Pithom and Pi Rameses and speculated they must be the departure point of the Sons of Israel from their brickworks has been corrected by modern archaeologists who have found that they are actually associated with a canal built in the 12th Dynasty but print the myth has become SOPRktect 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The writer of the Historical Context is in error on all points. It cannot be said that from 'recorded history the most likely candidate is'. It either is or it isn't. As it happens the Egyptians did not chase and capture the Hyksos. The reference is invalid. It is also not true that Sinai was at that time part of Egypt. The dividing line between the lands of Shem and Ham was the alignment of the Red Sea to the east of Egypt. Not that it should matter anyway, but crossing the Red Sea was indeed a focal point, and was both physically and symbolically the leaving of Egypt. The story was not rewritten. If and until extra detail can be included regarding the impact of the exodus on Egypt (and this was significant), I therefore propose to delete the section. Cobblers 11:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Extra detail is easy if you follow the script. Assume the author is telling the simple truth that they crossed the Rd Sea. It was a regular trade route from c 2500 BC used to bring Nubian gold in exchange for the linen, papyrus, bitumen, naptha, frankincense and myhr used in mummification at Karnak across the Nile ftom Thebes which at the time of the Exodus was Egypt's capitol. At Timna near Elat Egyptian sites with Hathor temples, faiance and Egyptian potshards dating to the right period have been found. That site has changed the mind of the Israeli archaeologists who have been excavating it since the 80's.

One might also note that the Naturalistic Explanations section is full of what might politely be called crap. Alexander the Great forsooth! PiCo 10:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I didn't touch that section without having the time to rewrite it properly. I actually don't believe the section should be in at all, but then I could be accused of not being neutral. I believe that if a topic involves a 'history' which a major group of people considers real and true, it should not be treated in wiki on the basis of a brief outline followed by a larger section attempting to discredit or ridicule or explain away. So it needs to be handled well if it is to be included. Cobblers 22:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

it might help if the story was thought of as being told in Egyptian rather than Hebrew because Hebrew hadn't been invented yet as a language at the time of the Exodus and thus the names of the stations aren't going to be Hebrew in that remove of antiquity Rktect 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how many people (editors) are actually taking a current interest in this page - not many I think. If you want to do a substantial re-write, just do it as a single edit, with an explanation here on the discussion page. If anyone wants any specific thing back, it'll be easily available via the history page.

Personally, I think this article should begin with a Narrative section, which either quotes the Bible passage in full (I favour the RSV as the language is modern and faithful to the original Hebrew, but I can live with other), or, if you feel that's too long, a summary. You could make a start by simply inserting a section like that at the very beginning of the article. PiCo 00:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I brought in the stations pertenant to the crossing and commented with linguistic references to Gardiner.

In advance of the rewrite, the Alexander paragraph should go. It is not relevant whether someone else waded through a sea, not even provably the same body of water. Cobblers 22:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted from Location of Section

"Exactly which route did the Israelites take, and at what point did they cross the sea? We can't know for sure. However, one author of several works on biblical history offers this perspective: "The crossing of Israel . . . cannot be explained as a wading through a swamp. It required a mighty act of God, an act so significant both in scope and meaning that forever after in Israel's history it was the paradigm against which all of his redemptive and saving work was measured" (Eugene Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1987, p. 66)."

It can be rather easily explained if you think about how humans usually cross bodies of water...they use ships. Nothing prevents this as Hatshepset had just recently built a fleet precisely for crossing the red Sea and voyaging doen to Punt and left it convieniently tethered at Elim, modern Quasir, Thebes red Sea port. Rktect 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Offering this as a closing passage, even with the proviso that it is merely "one perspective" seems to be unnecessary POV, since the quote asserts a miraculous happening is needed to explain the power of the Exodus narrative on Jewish thought. There are many such perspectives which do not require a divine hand. Also the way it starts with a question and answer does not seem very scholarly. It may be that this quote is appropriate in another place/context but simplicity and clarity, as well as avoidance of POV seem to suggest the best thing to do is just remove this quote.

suppose we just take all the miracles out of it and look at it as a defeated enemy, the Hyksos, heading for the copper boom in the Arabah that was going on then.

[edit] New section: Narrative

Added this new section. PiCo 03:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New section: Textual analysis: the documentary hypothesis and narrative of the Red Sea passage

Not actually a new section, just a new name. I've also moved it up to follow the genuinely new section headed "Narrative", which gives a summary of the story - the documentary hypothesis is an analysis of the narrative, so it logically belongs there. PiCo 10:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Did some more work on this section. Any comments welcome. PiCo 10:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are some comments...

The "Documentary Hypothesis" (DH) outlined here already has its own Wikipedia entry. It is extraneous to have such a lengthy write-up of DH on this page about the Exodus, except perhaps as a single-sentence summary and link to the DH entry. (Can someone please second that?)

Furthermore, the present Textual Analysis section of the article leads the reader to believe that the Documentary Hypothesis represents the best and latest scholarship on the origin of Genesis. This is simply not accurate. Though there are plenty of scholars today who accept the DH, and it is still taught in most seminaries, the theory is centuries old.

Though forms of DH were advanced by scholars in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, DH was developed into its present form in the early 1800's by Bleek and Hupfield and was finalized by Julius Wellhausen in 1886. Since then the only fresh activity on DH has been speculation by some scholars such as Friedman, Bloom and Rosenburg about who the theoretical four authors might have been. In other words, this theory has been collecting dust for 120 years.

The real new work on the authorship of Genesis consists of two theories: The Toledoth Hypothesis (also called The Wiseman Hypothesis and "Tablet Theory") and a theory by Olaf Hage that Genesis was composed as an original tablet or scroll and then appended four times in an onion structure around the original core (each time a historical section was added a preface was also added).

Aside from neglecting recent scholarship on the authorship of Genesis, the authors of the Documentary Hypothesis appear to have been completely oblivious to the literary structure of Genesis, including several chiasmas that show a single author deliberately composed whole passages that the DH theorists try to dissect. The authors of DH were also ignorant of more recently discovered literary structures used by ancient authors, particularly the use of colophons to denote the beginning or end of a tablet, when a passage spanned several tablets.

For a cogent example of recent literary analysis, see W.H. Shea's paper, Literary Parallels Between Genesis 1 & 2. The work of Shea and others has demolished the basic premise of the Documentary Hypythesis. Therefore to follow NPOV, if you insist on opening this can of worms in this article, we need to include the other schools of thought on this subject.

I suggest it would be in the best interest of a good article to simply delete the textual analysis section or refer a link to someone's published work on the subject. Cadwallader 01:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section: Locating the crossing

I tried to make this section a bit more solid - but it still needs more citations and maybe more detail. PiCo 12:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted sections

I deleted sections on naturalistic explanations and dating the event - these subjects are already covered in depth in The Exodus and the information given here was extremely thin in comparison. I'll make sure there's a link back to The Exodus. PiCo 23:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Also deleted this recent addition: "Also, numerous claims have been made that chariot wheels and bones (of both humans and horses) have been found at the bottom of the Red Sea. One can find actual photos quite easily by entering 'Red Sea' and 'chariot wheels' into a search engine. While some of the photos of 'wheels' take a little imagination, several photos are quite striking to many and may appear to be actual chariot wheels." There's a few problems with it. First, a protocol problem: it has no citation (advising readers to use Google isn't enough, you have to give a reference through the footnotes section - I can tell you how to do that if you need help). Secondly, you need to do a bit more research on this. There haven't been "numerous" claims, there's only been one - Ron Wyatt and his followers. Wyatt's claim shows up on numerous websites, so it looks like numerous claims, but they all trace back to him. Wyatt's claim is strongly doubted, and not just by sceptics - even sites like Answers in Genesis don't believe him. But what's more serious for the Wyatt claim is that he's never subjected the wheels to scientific analysis - no dating, no examination by experts in Egyptian culture. Therefore, no proof that they really are ancient Egyptian chariot wheels. Wyatt's failure (actually a refusal) to produce his evidence for testing by experts puts his whole claim in great doubt. (Have a look also at the article on Ron Wyatt.PiCo 00:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ron Wyatt is about as substantive a source as Zecharia Sitchen or Graham Hancock. He learned about the finds at Timnah and then tried to sensationalize them to sell books. The Bible is really a much more enjoyable read once you just let the text speak for itself without all the miracles and other religious gloss Rktect 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Cadwallader 01:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC) The paragraph that PiCo deleted was poorly written and uncited. However, PiCo's debunking of the material is not accurate. While it is true that Wyatt first discovered and publicized the site, a scientific investigation and book was published by Lennhart Moller, a Swedish scientist. The Exodus Case, by Lennhart Moller, Scandanavia Publishing House, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2002.

There is a lot of good reference material available on Timnah, its been exavated for almost three decades now and become a regular tourist stop because of its closeness to Elat.Rktect 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Therefore I will re-add the material as a reference to Moller's published works on the subject.

Cadwallader 01:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why those sections were deleted. This is the article that is the most specific in terms of dealing with the Crossing of the Red Sea, and so it should go into the most detail here. If you don't allow vent to these alternate theories, new people will just come along and edit the page where it stands, because their pet theory isn't included here. I haven't been actively maintaining this page, and may not have time to. My next project is to try to include more comprehensive materials about the chronology of Abraham. As it stands now, they've got Hammurabi living ca. 2000 BCE, and that's counter to prevailing scholarly opinion - hence there are also early and late Abraham theories. --ThaThinker 19:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Abraham is best dated from the Book itself The Exodus is 480 years before the 4th year of the reign of Solomon (c 974 BC) and the first arrival in Egypt was 430 years before that. That gives c 1884 BC and that date agrees very well with Genesis 14 which is pretty specific about who is doing what where and when.Rktect 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thirteen Channels

I have always heard the story that the sea was divided in 13 channels, one for each of the 12 tribes of israel and one for the mixed multitude. Does anyone know where this tradition comes from?

There is a rabinnic tradition that they crossed over in twelve places, one for each of the tribes. Another tells it in an even more commonplace way. I'll try to get you references on that, but it may take a few days for me to have time. Naked references, people. Do what you can to avoid them. I guess have two in the main "The Exodus" article to fix up now. Also, even if 90% (reference?) of the scholars subsribe to the Documentary Hypothesis (and I agree that the percentage of scholars supporting this idea does seem to be rather high), many literalists and those who haven't studied the issue much may not agree, so we shouldn't treat them as if they are a tiny minority. --ThaThinker 23:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the main The Exodus article to include external links to rabbinic materials on this subject. Sorry it took longer than I expected. My guess is that that thirteen parts might be an apologetic gloss on the older tradition that the Red Sea was divided into twelve parts, thus leading to the conclusion that it yielded eleven channels. As this is uncomfortable in a twelve tribe structure, thirteen parts could have been a later gloss. BTW, I think the work you guys are doing here with the Documentary Hypothesis is very useful. This also affects the Stations List. Another longer term, collaberative project would include cataloging layers that have been associated with Semitic settlement in site corresponding to the cities Joshua was said to have taken. This is the work Bimson started in flawed form, that should have bearing on WHEN the Exodus was, so that we can begin answering questions of WHAT it was. This idea of the Red Sea being divided into twelve parts can be taken as suggesting the Bitter Lakes and/or the Pelusic branch of the Nile had become silted up, as is recorded in the reign of Rameses II (although I didn't record a reference for this point). In truth, I wish there were a wiki we could work on projects like this, which might eventually lead to a book we could get paid for. I'm also unhappy with the policy that many administrators take here toward information about the 9/11/01 attacks, by prohibiting some valid items allowed by Wikipedia policy regarding them on the main 9/11 page. --ThaThinker 22:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Determining WHEN the Exodus was, so that we can begin answering questions of WHAT it was. and where it was sounds good to me.Rktect 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC) The story should be looked at archaeologicaly and historically though because it really is about a people who have spent 430 years becoming Egyptian people who are now leaving to go to the Arabah and thence to Canaan about a millenia before there were any Hebrews. Rktect 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on documentary hypothesis

This needs a bit of help. It's not clear whether it's talking about the torah as a whole, or specifically about the passage narrative(s). It's also a little questionable as to whether this is an original synthesis of several sources who do not agree upon the points stated. Mangoe 00:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC) If you are familiar with Egypt you know that the way they worship their gods is to carve their image in stone, place it in an ark and house the ark in a sanctuary. The rock in the box may symbolise truth, beauty, wisdom, craftsmanship or any of about 42 some odd other "ideals". The rock in the box for the Sons of Israel is an image of the written Law. Rktect 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Charlton Heston as Moses, parting the Red Sea in the 1956 film The Ten Commandments.

Would it be appropriate to use this image somewhere in this article? -leigh (φθόγγος) 12:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well archaeological, geological, and historical data and accuracy at the time might call for not adding that image, in my opinon. -- Hrödberäht 18:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

It seems like this article is totally based upon a non-historical reading of the Bible (no credence to the idea that this actually happened). I think that there are enough scholars out there who believe that this really did happen to merit it's inclusion. Also there is a gaping hole in that there is no mention of the recent discovery of (possible) chariot wheels at the bottom of the Gulf of Aqaba. This (if it's really what it seems) would be very compelling evidence to support the account as told in the Bible. Perhaps this section needs to be right below the "narrative as in the Bible" section. gdavies 18:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Its entirely possible that it really did happen, but that concept deserves better than the Ron Wyatt treatment.Rktect 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron Wyat, the man who "found" the chariot wheels to which you refer, is a well-known charlatan. The wheels have never ben produced. PiCo 11:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

On that note, i've removed the whole section below

Pharaoh's Drowned Army Confirmation of the actual Exodus route has come from divers finding coral-encrusted bones and chariot remains in the Gulf of Aqaba ONE of the most dramatic records of Divine intervention in history is the account of the Hebrews' exodus from Egypt. The subsequent drowning of the entire Egyptian army in the Red Sea was not an insignificant event, and confirmation of this event is compelling evidence that the Biblical narrative is truly authentic. Over the years, many divers have searched the Gulf of Suez in vain for artifacts to verify the Biblical account. But carefully following the Biblical and historical records of the Exodus brings you to Nuweiba, a large beach in the Gulf of Aqaba, as Ron Wyatt discovered in 1978. Repeated dives in depths ranging from 60 to 200 feet deep (18m to 60m), over a stretch of almost 2.5 km, has shown that the chariot parts are scattered across the sea bed. Artifacts found include wheels, chariot bodies as well as human and horse bones. Divers have located wreckage on the Saudi coastline opposite Nuweiba as well Since 1987, Ron Wyatt found three 4-spoke gilded chariot wheels. Coral does not grow on gold, hence the shape has remained very distinct, although the wood inside the gold veneer has disintegrated making them too fragile to move. The hope for future expeditions is to explore the deeper waters with remote cameras or mini-subs. (ABOVE GILDED CHARIOT WHEEL - Mute witness to the miracle of the crossing of the Red Sea by the Hebrews 3,500 years ago. Found with metal detector. Coral-encrusted chariot wheel, filmed off the Saudi coastline, matches chariot wheels found in Tutankhamen's tomb Mineralized Bone - One of many found at the crossing site (above center). This one Tested by the Dept. Of Osteology at Stockholm University, was found to be a human femur, from the right leg of a 165-170cm tall man. It is essentially 'fossilized' I.e. Replaced by minerals and coral, hence cannot be dated by radiocarbon methods, although this specimen was obviously from antiquity. Chariot wheel and axle covered with coral and up-ended. Exodus 14:25 "And took off their chariot wheels, that they drove them heavily:....." Solomon's memorial pillars WHEN Ron Wyatt first visited Nuweiba in 1978, he found a Phoenician style column lying in the water. Unfortunately the inscriptions had been eroded away, hence the column's importance was not understood until 1984, when a second granite column was found on the Saudi coastline opposite -- identical to the first, except on this one the inscription was still intact! In Phoenician letters (Archaic Hebrew), it contained the words: Mizraim (Egypt); Solomon; Edom; death; Pharaoh; Moses; and Yahweh, indicating that King Solomon had set up these columns as a memorial to the miracle of the crossing of the sea. Saudi Arabia does not admit tourists, and perhaps fearing unauthorized visitors, the Saudi Authorities have since removed this column, and replaced it with a flag marker where it once stood. How deep is the water? THE Gulf of Aqaba is very deep, in places over a mile (1,600m) deep. Even with the sea dried up, walking across would be difficult due to the steep grade down the sides. But there is one spot where if the water were removed, it would be an easy descent for people and animals. This is the line between Nuweiba and the opposite shore in Saudi Arabia . Depth-sounding expeditions have revealed a smooth, gentle slope descending from Nuweiba out into the Gulf. This shows up almost like a pathway on depth-recording equipment, confirming it's Biblical description "...a way in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters." (Isaiah 43:16). The Bible writers frequently refer to the miracle of the Red Sea crossing, for it was an event which finds no equal in history. The Hebrew prophets describe the sea at the crossing site as "...the waters of the great deep .....the depths of the sea..." (Isaiah 51:10). Knowing the exact spot to which the Bible writers were referring, what is the depth there? The distance between Nuweiba and where artifacts have been found on Saudi coast is about 18km (11 miles). Along this line the deepest point is about 800m (2,600 feet). No wonder that Inspired writers of the Bible described it as the mighty waters. And no wonder that not a single Egyptian survived when the water collapsed in upon them. (above right NUWEIBA BEACH - The spot where the crossing began. ) (right Model of depths at crossing site) (left The Saudi side also has a beach area of a similar size see approximate path.) ( below right THE EXODUS ROUTE - With the correct crossing site in the Gulf of Aqaba)

From the article. It's not sourced and looks to be a blatant copy-paste job, the tone is un-encyclopaedic and the information is dubious at best.87.194.99.197 20:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody explain why crossing the Red Sea in the ships already regularly engaged in crossing it for trade purposes is more farfetched than crossing it in chariots? The hull of a ship parts the waters and its decks allow you to cross dry shod The Egyptians buried hundred foot long ocean going ships in their pyramids more than five centuries before the date of the Exodus and wote stories about their voyages to Punt in the 12th DynastyRktect 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Problem with using Hebrew to claim a mistranslation is that Hebrew did not exist as a language when the story was composed, and the people telling it had been living in Egypt for 430 years. The term Red Sea is clearly a reference to the Greek Erythrian Sea so claiming it means Yam Suph or Reed Sea is misguided despite that having become a common myth.

Going to the Egyptian we have language preserved as a textual artifact as the Exodus reaches Bael Zephron the people encamp at :Pi-hahiroth and Migdol at the Gulf of Aqaba

[edit] Looking Egyptian phrases up in Gardiner instead of Hebrew

Discussing a people whose ancestors have lived in Egypt for half a millennium in a time frame thats centuries before Hebrew exists as a language, best practice is to look Pi-hahiroth up in Gardiners Egyptian grammar rather than going to a Hebrew source. Although Pi-hahiroth looks a little different in Egyptian we would expect Pi-hahiroth is transliterated like this: pr r h3 hrwth

Pr means to go forth in Egyptian. pr r h3 means to go forth abroad Gardiner p 580

Gardiner p 582 Hr means face

Gardine p 562 wth means flight

"hiroth" in Egyptian hr wth means face flight

ph3hrwth or pr r h3 hrwth meaning "to go forth abroad, to face flight". For Moses its not the first time he's running from the Law. In the Ten Commandments there is nothing about flight to evade prosecution although its a big part of Sharia law and Egyptian law at the time.

[edit] Comments on The Stations List

There is a lot of speculation on what the stations are as the Sons of Israel leave Egypt. Most of it is simply wrong. A 19th century archaeologost excavaiting Pithom and Pi Rameses found bricks, thought aha, these were made by the Sons of Israel in their slavery under cruel overseers and this is where they left from on their Exodus.

To get this idea to work he had to surmise that the very specific biblical account of the date was a rough estimate, and downgrade it about a century. Then he had to change the route from a crossing of the Red Sea to a crossing of the Sinai. Then he had to ignore that after leaving Egypt it took 2 1/2 months to reach the Sinai which abuts Egypt. He also ignored that while a route across the Sinai to Canaan was possible via the kings highway with its fortified wells, there was no route across the Sinai to Rephidim.

Going by the Biblical account, at the time of the Exodus Thebes was the capitol of Egypt. Across the Nile were the tombs of the ancestors and a temple of Ramesses that promised resurection like the birth of the sun. The commandment to "take my bones with you" would mean removing them from the tomb or place of the days of darkness, and heading toward the sunrise, down the wadi Ham ma3t toward Thebes Red Sea port of Elim and crossing the red Sea headed for Elat at the head of the gulf of Aqaba on the ships of hatshepsets fleet

Station	Biblical Reference	Description	Modern Location
Rameses Egyptian: Lit. guard the birth of the sun	Ex. 12:37, 13:20; Nu. 33:5-6	The Temple at Karnak	Thebes Karnak the tombs of the ancestors
Sukkot Egyptian: the place of the days of darkness	Ex. 12:37, 13:20; Nu. 33:5-6	sww the day Gardiner p 588 kkw darkness Gardiner p 597	Thebes Karnak "take my bones from here with you"
Etham	Ex. 13:20; Nu. 33:6-8	"on the edge of the wilderness"	the wadi Ham ma3t
Pi-Hahiroth	Ex. 14:2-3; Nu. 33:7-8	lit the place of going abroad facing flight,	"between Migdol and the sea, opposite Ba'al Zephon"
Marah	Ex. 15:23; Nu. 33:8-9	lit. 'bitterness'	(a desert station a days walk west	overlooking the Port of Elim)?
Eilim	Ex. 15:27, 16:1; Nu. 33:9-10	Had 12 wells and 70 palm trees	The Port where Hatshepset parked her Red Sea Fleet
By the Red Sea	Nu. 33:10-11	Modern Quasir Thebes Red Sea Port	No stations between Elim and Sin across the Red Sea
Sin Wilderness	Ex. 16:1, 17:1; Nu. 33:11-12	They eat quail and manna, "Between Elim and Sinai"	arrival 2 1/2 months after leaving Elim and Egypt
Dophkah	Nu. 33:12-13	Not mentioned as a station in Exodus	- -
Alush	Nu. 33:13-14	Not mentioned as a station in Exodus	- -
Rephidim	Ex. 17:1, 19:2; Nu. 33:14-15	Mt Horab where Moses does battle with the Amelek	and meets his Father in Law Jethro

[edit] Typo

The Locating the Crossing section says "The mainstream agreement is that the crossing took place on the Reed Sea near the present day-city of Suez, just north of the historical headwaters of the Gulf of Aqaba".

The city of Suez is not on the Gulf of Aqaba; it is at the head of the Gulf of Suez.--Logomachon 07:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Starting Point is near Thebes

In Exodus Ramesses was one of a pair of treasure cities or emporia and the first station of the Exodus. In the story there are two treasure cities; Pithom in the Delta and Ra mes ses at Thebes, Egypt.

Exodus 1:7-14 And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them. Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land. Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Ramesses. But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel. And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour: And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour.

If Ancient Egypt isn't something you have studied intensively there may be some confusion about what is a treasure city. A treasure city or emporia is a port where foreign traders can bring their goods through customs.

In the 19th century archaeologists made speculations about San el-Hagar or Pi-Ramesses and Tell el-maskhuta or Pi-Athom being the places mentioned in the story of the Exodus. These have since been corrected by trained Egyptologists, but the myths have lived on among "biblical archaeologists" and laypeople.

See: Baines and Malek,1987, Atlas of Ancient Egypt, Equinox, ISBN 0-87196-334-5 Pi-Riamsese 166,175,177, removal of capital to, 46, 84, 166.

Under San el-Hagar

...the temple is a mass of inscribed and decorated blocks, columns, obelisks and statues of various dates, some of them even bearing the names of rulers of the old and middle kingdoms (Khufu, Khepren, Teti, Pepi I and Pepi II, Senwosret I), However the majority of the inscribed monuments are connected with Ramesses II and this led P. Monet, the greatest expert on the Tanis monuments to believe this was the site of the ancient Pi-Ramesses, the delta capital of the Ramesids. Nevertheless none of the buildings so far excavated can be shown to have been built before the reign of Pausanes I of the Twenty-first dynasty of Egypt and the inescapable conclusion therefore is that all the ramessid and earlier monuments must have been brought from other places.

Under Tell el-maskhuta

In 1883 E. Neville excavated a large brick built enclosure (some 210 x 210 m) with a badly damaged temple at Tell el-maskhuta, in wadi tumilat. (In the late period a canal through this wadi enabled ships to sail from the Nile into the Red Sea) Most scholars, though not all, identify Tell el-maskhuta with ancient Egyptian Tjeku and Pithom, (probably from per-Atum, The "Domain of Athom") of the Exodus and the capital of the Eighth Lower Egyptian nome.

Pithom is an ancient city in Egypts delta. Its mentioned in Exodus as a treasure city in the same breath as Ramesses. You would have to know that from the Hyksos period onward there are emporia in both the delta and Thebes. In the delta cities like Sais served as "Treasure cities" business or banking centers. At Thebes Elim on the Red Sea also served as a business or banking centers for the Red Sea trade in Frankincense, Myhr, Bitumen and perfumes and ointments such as ben jamin or juniper oil used at Karnak's mortuary temples.

Pithom and Rameses are located at opposite ends of the kingdom. Pi-Athom is an ancient nome capital (see below) in the delta.

Ra mes ses means literally (Ra=sun), (mes=birth), (ses= to guard or observe), the place of observing the birth of the sun, the dawn in the east. During the entire history of Egypt the Red Sea was an important source of the materials used in the mortuary at Karnak. Karnak was where Moses would have gone to get the bones of Joseph

Exodus 13:19 And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him: for he had straitly sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry up my bones away hence with you.

Following the stations list, the Exodus crosses the Red Sea between Elim and Elat. Elim, the sixth station, is Thebes Red Sea port. Elat, the ninth station is at the head of the gulf of Aqaba. There are no stations in the Sinai. The Exodus is dated to the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt and not the Nineteenth dynasty of Egypt The route from Egypt to Elat across the Sinai doesn't exist.

The term "Red Sea" is Greek (Erythrian Sea) not Hebrew. The term "Yam Suph" or reed Sea is speculation on speculation. The Pharoah of the Exodus is not Ramesses, thats another speculation.

Previous Station: None	The Exodus Stations list	Next Station: Succoth

[edit] Moses did not lead

The Torah makes noteworthy mention that Moses would stand in the middle of Israel and not in front. 203.214.137.16 14:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup - August 2007

I've looked over this article. The following things need to be taken care of:

Narative section is too informal and not nuetral enough in its usage. It needs to be rewritten
This article lacks inline citiations for its assertations. Assertations must be cited. The lack of them hurts verifiability.
More context would be useful for those not familiar with the background of this account.

--Lendorien 23:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to Rktect for taking care of many these issues so quickly!--Lendorien 13:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you and I are are looking at the same thing, but the page I see is just a mess! This isn't a matter of what's in the article, but the fact that there are bits and pieces all over the place - at first I thought it was vandalism, but it seems to be in good faith. I've reverted to an earleir version - please, if you want to introduce changes, do it little by little so that others can help you get the page looking right. PiCo 11:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Rktect

I have now had to ervert Rktect's edits twice. As I said in my edit notw, the end result of his changes is to turn the article into gibberish - the structure of his version is disorganised (several passages are repeated, several are truncated), plus most of his new material is OR. Most of the time it's fine for editors to make edits in the etxt, but Rktect, please, try your suggestions out here first and seek help from other editors before introducing them - there are real issues here. PiCo 00:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You had to remove references and footnotes?

Maybe the reason you find the article giberish is that you don't really understand the historical passage of the Red Sea by the Egyptians. It is documented in the Egyptian literature as far back as the Twelfth dynasty of Egypt in the Tale of the shipwrecked sailor.

It has been documented across the Red Sea from Elat all the way down to Punt by Zahrins and others. Some of the references do indeed refer to the original research of the archaeologists who wrote about it in the books I referenced.

If you are unfamiliar with this history try reading some of the references before you get rid of them, or ask me questions about Hatshepsets voyage to Punt.

Read Baines and Mal'k on why the mortuary temples at Karnak required frequent restocking of their supplies of linen, bitumen, frankincense, and myrrh. Egypt began taking nubian gold or nub from Thebes port of Elim to Elat at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba and returning with all the necessities of the afterlife before they had finished building the pyramids. Ask me and I'll be happy to explain the Red Sea trade to you. Meanwhile I'm going to restore the references you vandalizedRktect 06:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Rktect, it isn't possible to vandalise by reverting to earlier versions - vandalism is the introduction of new material, maliciously. It's you who are introducing new material. I know your intention isn't malicious, but your additions are so poorly done that I have to revert them to an earlier version. Possibly I could say that more diplomatically, but I'm too tired to try.

Please note that the earlier version I'm reverting to isn't by me - it's by someone I don't even know. It's simply the last good version, however imperfect, before your edits began. I think you'd find that any editor would do the same.

As to why your edits are poor, the reasons are: (1) the writing is just plain bad - this extends from the structure (you've got the Stations template repeated, once at the head of the article, once at the end) to the grammar (e.g., "Looking at Egyptian Grammar's", which should be a plural, not a genitive); and (2) it's largely OR - you seem set on proving that the Exodus occurred at some specific time or other (although the poor quality of the writing makes it hard to work out just what your point is), and disregard any other views. Please, the point of Wiki is to explain points - other people - not argue your own.

Your footnotes are peculiar - for example, we have a point that "the Israelites leave Egypt, not by "the way of the land of the Philistines," and you footnote it with one book about the ancient Near East and another about the rise of the Greeks. No page refs for either. Not that it matters, as they're irrelevant - this is a quote from Exodus, and all you need to do is direct the reader to the verse it comes from. The rest of your references are the same - irrelevant and missing page refs or explanations.

As I said earlier, if you want to contribute to the article, please come to the talk page and discuss what you want to do. Don't just launch pre-emptive strikes by re-writing entire articles - it's not good wiki-etiquette. PiCo 11:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to take a very WP:NPOV article and add references and footnotes to make it encyclopedic. Speculation: — the Beni Hasan mural depicts Jacob and his sons migrating to Egypt.

the scene involves bearded Semites, riding donkeys and bringing their families and flocks into Egypt. Like the Biblical Israelites, they are wearing multi-colored tunics. (identified with Sidon) The hieroglyphic inscription on this wall calls these people the ‘Amu’.” (Amurru from Hazor in Lebanon) I call this mural “a veritable snapshot of the migration of the Biblical Israelites to Egypt.” So there is nothing here about the mural being a family portrait of Jacob and his sons.

speculation: The eruption of the volcano at Santorini (date disputed, either ca. 1650, 1628, or ca. 1500 B.C.E.) caused many of the natural phenomena referenced as the Egyptian plagues. Tectonic movement associated with the volcanic eruption at Santorini caused the parting of the Reed Sea. Thus its ll about the Hyksos.

The speculation here is that if the 19th century BC Beni Hasan mural should be mentioned in the same breath with semites, then the semites must be related to the sons of Israel.

BAR Beware

From Manetho and Hecataeus of Abdera to Josephus, ancient writers equated the Exodus with the “Hyksos expulsion” around 1500 B.C.E. Today, Prof. Bimson of Trinity College, England, argues for a similar date, and Prof. Donald Redford of Penn State told me on camera that “Flavius Josephus… sensed what I think is correct [i.e.], that the Hyksos and the Hyksos expulsion is what we’re talking about when we are talking about the Exodus

By the time I get through removing the speculative parts, which for the most part depend for their references on a religious description of an everyday event considered miraculous by devout 18th and 19th century archaeologists following in the wake of devout medieval clerics, abbots rabbi's and priests whose data comes from Josephus and Mantheo, the sixth century equivalents of Grahme Hancock and Zachiariah Sitchin, there isn't much article left.

Try tracing back the idea that the stations of the Exodus are in the Sinai, or that it comes from Avaris, or that Pithom and Rameses were where the Sons of Israel were set to work under harsh overseers making bricks, and you invariably come to somebody looking for funding for an exedition. Modern archaeologists have checked all those ideas out, found they don't fly and tended to dismiss the whole story as a fantasy.

Research it in a little more depth and you find there are better studies, most of which include actually attempting to identify a station, put a pin in a map, connect the dots together and take the pins out of the map where they had been misplaced in the past.

I consider removing references and footnotes to be vandalism. In your case you don't appear to be editing to establish a point of view by censoring facts that contravert it but that is the effect of reverting to the previous version without understanding the difference and that has the effect of vandalism. Your characterization of my edits as poorly done I will take as constructive criticism and attempt to explain what I'm doing.

Generally my edits consist of adding references and footnotes, and correcting misstatements of fact. The assumption that the Passage of the Red Sea was limited to the story of the Exodus, mythical, miraculous or not principally associated with the passage from Elim to Elat would not be historically accurate. That's why the references and footnotes are important.

Its important to understand the raison d' etre for the passage of the Red Sea was primarily trade and that that the trade was narrowly focused on supplying mortuary materials gathered from all over the known world to Karnak in return for a flood of Nubian gold (nub) from about the Twelfthth dynasty of Egypt onward. The existing article misses the broad side of the barn here.

If you re-add someone else's information without checking its references or footnotes, you are unwittingly replacing good well cited well researched information with spurious references to a speculation and that is not the proper content for an encyclopedia.

There are really two sets of stations connected with the Passage of the Red Sea. The First set is in Egypt between Thebes and its Red Sea port of Elim. The second set is across the Red Sea in and around Elat and then circumnavigating the borders of Edom and Moab. The speculation that the Exodus begins in the delta and then traces the coast of the Sinai to get to Elat just doesn't work.

There are a number of reasons the 18th and 19th century speculation doesn't work; The Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt capital of Egypt is at Thebes. Ramesses II refers to himself and his horses in his and their titulary as of Thebes, If you leave from Thebes you don't leave from the delta, Pithom and Ramesses are treasure cities or emporia, one emporia Pi Atum is an ancient third dynasty capital in the delta, the other is at Pi hahiroth in the Wadi ham ma maat leading from Thebes to Thebes Red Sea Port Elim, the so called Pi Ramesses is a palace not a capital its a palace and is unihabited at the time of the Exodus, Avaris also mentioned as a point of departure is a Hyksos capital destroyed at the beginning of the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt thus no longer existant at the time of the Exodus, and archaeologists have looked for traces of the Exodus in the Sinai for two centuries and found none.

The more modern thinking is as I have described it tending toward using the textual artifacts of the story of Exodus in the geo-political context of the period.

Where you suggest adding page numbers, that may be useful, but more useful is to first just read the books,... all of them. The Exodus falls right in the middle of a geo-political context that spans millenia in the Penteteuch. I don't think its WP:OR or WP: SYN to collect and compare all the accounts. The Bible borrows from pretty much every bit of literature which precedes it and there are plenty of references to the stations of the Exodus in the original languages.

In terms of the geo-political context discussed in the Dating of the Exodus (a time of dynastic change when war threatens); the ongoing conflicts between the landfolk themselves are paralleled by those of the sea people acting as their allies. It may be a great secret that the Egyptians considered the Red Sea to be a second Nile but they began trying to cut canals over to it in the Pyramid age. Indeed the control of the water is closely tied to the control of the land even in predynastic times. One reason for this is that the Mycenean Greeks, Philistines, Minoans and Libyans controlled the Mediterranean and its coasts having established a number of so called "punic" sites.

Because the Greeks are loosely organized in Gene, Oinkos and Phratre and their sustenence comes as much from raiding and piracy as from trade monopolies its tempting to think of them as crews in the organized crime sense. Michael Grants book, the Rise of the Greeks touches on their presence in Egypt and Palestine as does the Illiad.

As it happens the period from Abraham to Moses covers two major technological advancements which have a lot to do with communication and control. First comes the domestication of the horse, its use by the Hittites and a group of bowman called ibrw who ride bareback with unbound hair accompanying the chariots of the Hittites and Egyptians into battle.

The second is the development of ocean going ships and the gradual emergence of sea people who make their living from the sea just as the land folk make their living from the land. Its worth noting that as earlier as the pallets of narmer and the scorpion king we see illustrations of how control of the water equates to control of the land.

The international trade connection between landfolk and sea people occurs at the emporia

Its a valid criticism that I haven't attempted to explain to you why "the way of the Phillistines" refers to a "right of way", easement or portage through Egyptian territory in order to provide a trade route known as the king's highway connecting Phillistine emporia that serve Egypt's interests.

Nelson Gluck's book is one of the best sources I know for the role of the Nabateans in this and the connection between the Kings highway, Kadesh Barnea, Petra and Elat. It took about a millenia prior to the Exodus to prospect and explore this and another millenia after the Exodus to establish it as a monopoly belonging to Israel rather than Egypt or Phoenicia. In many ways the trade rivalry and dispute over control of Elat is still ongoing, although today its not so much about the bitumen and naptha as it is about the light sweet crude.

In the ANE its the role of the sea people (including the Mycenean Greeks, Minoans, Libyans in the Mediterranean and the fisheaters of Dilmun, Makkan and Meluhha that dock on the quays of Agade) to provide the bulk of the bulk cargos shipped by sea. That includes a kind of monopoly on routes and materials shipped.

By the time the Bible, Ramesses III and Merneptah first speak of the the conspiracy of sea peoples gathering in their nations, they have become fixed in the emporia of (Greece, Anatolia, the Black Sea, Cyprus, Crete, Egypt, Palestine and the Levant and the Erythrian Sea to include the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean the Persian Gulf).

A half millenia later we begin to have in the Parthian stations and the Periplus of the Erythrian Sea the beginnings of the Phoenicia described by Solon, when in the time of Necco he happens to be at the emporia of Sais in Egypt when the Atlanteans return from having circumnavigated Libya and returned through the Pillars of Hercules from the Atlantic having establishing an ocean empire larger than Libya, Asia and Europe combined because it includes the oceans which surround them.

By the time Alexander has passed on to Ptolomy the routes compiled by Marinus of Tyre the sea people's better organized descendants have emporia spread out along every coast line in the ANE about a day's sail apart. Their monopolies include purple dye, glass, spices, fragrances, salt, silk, frankincense, myrrh, the petrolium industry, the arms trade, trade in metals, trade in furniture, the construction industry, international banking,

One of the better known standard references on the ANE fleshs out some of connections to Egyptian Campaigns, the Hyksos, the Peleset, Phillistines, Phoenicians, Pel or Pella of the Amarna letters, the Habiru, 'apiru or rebels, the Hittites and their allies and their routes of march to Elat and Thebes in the coursr of an ongoing conflict that lasts from the Twelfth dynasty of Egypt through the Twentieth dynasty of Egypt with a major focus on the geo-political context of the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt and the Ninetenth dynasty of Egypt.

Nelson Glueck's book "Rivers in the Desert" is a study of the Negev and the Nabateans which involves visiting most of the stations of the Exodus in and around the Negev. It gets into Edom, Moab, the Rephidim, Midian, Timna, Elat, Kadesh Barnea, the Brook of Egypt, The Kings Highway, the Arabah, the Dead Sea, the cleft in the rock at Petra, Dibon, Jehrico, the plains of Medeba, on the tribal level of Lawrence of Arabia, traveling by camel from one bedouin tribe's well to another.

It was written in the forties before all the stations were replaced with military installations. It establishes the connection between Elim and Elat was a trade route which furnished the mortuary temples of Karnak at the capital of Egypt at Thebes with all the necessities of burial by mummification. There are several books in the attached syllabus that touch on the role of emporia in International trade, the antiquity of Egyptian seafaring in ocean going ships, the role of the Red Sea as Egypts other river, the trade with Punt,... and of course the conquest of Nubia which provides the nub that pays for all this trade, that required the wadi ham ma maat be improved with wells and habitations and roads to facilitate the passage of the armies that secured it and in the process covered with graffiti of ships that illustrate the trade.

Where you removed books, and footnotes you clearly haven't read you might have been better served by raising questions or requesting more information. The article isn't titled Exodus, its titled Passge of the Red Sea. The role of the passage of the Red Sea in Exodus can't really be understood if you don't know the geo-political, historical, linguistic, archaeological and cultural context which surrounds it. Providing and understanding the context is exremely relevent.

The trade goods, include amulets carved out of carnelian, and lapis lazuli, from meluhha through makkan, Dilmun and Mari to Allepo, and Quatna, malachite and other semi precious stones, carved into cylinder seals, linen and papyrus coming south from Byblos, purple dye from Tyre, ben jamin or juniper oil and cedar wood from the valley of cedar in Lebanon and bitumen, naphtha from Naphtali, antimomy for kohl or eyeshadow, natron and other metalic salts from the dead sea, and copper from the Arabah, meeting up with Frankincense and Myrrh coming north along the Red Sea both by ship and overland through the mountains, through Khamis Mushat or the city of towers high in the mountains, and ab ha where the agriculture is all terraced up the sides of the mountains and Taif overlooking Mecca and up through Midian to the middle of the trade routes marked by Horab at Elat.

That is reinforced with the archaeological studies collected by Muhammed Abdul Nayeem of "The pre and proto history of the Arabian penninsula" which discusses among all the many pages of arabian archaeology from the first lithics of the first men to thirteen sites near Timna with Egyptian artifacts ranging from Egyptian faience and pottery to a Hathor temple near the emporia at Elat. In this book and "Bahrain therough the Ages" there are articles by Juris Zahrins from the University of Missouri discussing how the savanah of Arabia still remains in places wher you can still see the kites and cairns of the gazelle hunters who traded with Egypt across the Red Sea in the pre dynastic neolithic.

As I moved along from site to site across the desert and through the mountains from tower to tower the length of the red Sea using these books as guides and collecting pictures of fossilized trees, ubaid pottery, the coprolites of the cattle and sheep that traveled with the caravans through the mountains, and bits of Frankincense resin it became clear that the monolithic architecture of the neolithic was mixed with the crenalated towers of the Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, and Arabian traders that followed in eachothers footsteps.

The quote from the "Periplus of the Arabian Sea" should be viewed in that context. Rktect 16:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Mistranslation" section

This seems to be presenting an argument more than encyclopedic information, particularly the lines "which in doing so realistically suggests a less dramatic and non-supernatural event than is traditionally envisioned" and "If the Hebrew people were chased through the Sea of Reeds..." 67.135.49.158 15:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely editorial overkill and should be removed unless cited. It also makes the assumption that being "less dramatic" makes it less important. Either way, the "hand of God" was thought to be helping the Hebrews. If readers think otherwise, they are free to draw that conclusion also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this section should get a major overhaul, starting with the title. It's a good idea to present the options (1) for translating Yam suph and (2) for the locations that might have been understood for a Sea of Reeds. The question of whether Red or Reed sea is a better translation should not be related to to the supernatural/non-supernatural question, since both alternatives are old (Rashi and ibn Ezra, both Medieval rabbis understood Yam suph as "Sea of Reeds". It's quite a straightforward translation of the Hebrew. Suph is in Exodus 2.3-5 as the location of Moses basket in the river.) Beckersc0t (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:R2 2 010223.jpg

Image:R2 2 010223.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources of information on the Red Sea Crossing

I've had my edit saying that the "only information we have on this alleged event is the Bible" by an editor who claims it is OR and POV. Can someone please enlighten me as to what is wrong with the statement? Is it the bit about 'only information', and if so, what have I missed? Or is it 'alleged', in which case it is POV not to have it in the article. --Doug Weller (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)