Brian and Buz: The Exodus Debate

This is the OP for the debate between Buz and myself on the Wyatt/Moller Exodus material. Buz and myself have an understanding that there may be delays in replies to posts made on this thread. I am perfectly happy with this as I know how life can get in the way of EvC forum.Some of the material has been posted before, but I make no apology for reintroducing this material as most of it contains the most common objections to the accuracy of the face value biblical account of the Exodus.Okay, first off I’d like to thank Buz for accepting my invitation to discuss the historicity of the Israelite Exodus from Egypt. I am sure that there will still be many unresolved issues by the end of the debate, but I am equally sure that some issues will be resolved and that the debate will be an informative one for both of us and for other readers.The topic of the debate then is the historical accuracy of the Exodus event as outlined in the Hebrew Bible. For this investigation the historian has three sources to employ. Firstly, there is the Hebrew Bible, secondly archaeological evidence, and finally we have comparative anthropology. I will look at the uses and limitations of these three sources shortly, but before this we need to acknowledge the role of the historian.To begin with, the historian who is investigating the historicity of the Israelite Exodus has to observe the same rules as all other historians who are researching any other historical event. There are certain basic principles that all historians must adhere to if they wish their work to be taken seriously and if they wish to earn the respect of other colleagues. (Ramsey: 3)I think we are all aware that there is no such thing as a completely objective historian; everyone has a particular bias to some degree. In an ideal world the historian would be able to look at as much evidence as possible from an objective stance and then come to a conclusion. But historians tend to research a subject that they already have some opinion on and this is fine as long as the historian is aware that they have to examine both positive and negative evidence, because their synopsis is going to be examined by a range of scholars with a broad range of opinions and knowledge. Any historical hypothesis has to address the possible contrary evidence because, when the hypothesis is up for peer review, you can be sure the critics will be aware of most of the available evidence. So, the first basic principle of historical research (IMO) is that the historian needs to provide sound reasoning for accepting evidence ”X’ over evidence ”Y’, they cannot just randomly choose which evidence is reliable.I’d now like to look at something that there are so many misconceptions, namely, what is history. I have spoke to so many people over the years who really do not know what history is, and I am forever correcting people (to differing degrees) in high schools, university seminars, and even the proverbial man in the street as to what ”history’ actually is. This is something that I have noticed about many websites such as Wyattmuseum, WAR, and others, they do not appear to understand what history is.So, what is history? Well, initially, history is NOT what happened in the past, the past itself has gone forever and cannot be examined (Knauf:27). History is what has been written about the past, it is the text on the page and not the event(s) itself. Thus, historians can only examine the remains of the past, whether it is an artefact or a text, and these remains do not have a context, they are only given meaning and significance by the historian’s own interpretation of the evidence. Since meaning and significance is not an inherent feature of a text or artefact, this means that all histories are products of the human mind.Now, this is important, because since all histories are created in the human mind this opens up the possibility that the ”history’ is partly or completely untrue. For example, an oppressive government can publish histories that portray them in a positive way, thus they do provide a ”history’ but that history is ultimately false. With this in mind, we can apply it to the Hebrew Bible’s narratives concerning the Exodus and conclude that, although these narratives are ”history’, they may be partly or entirely false.The famous historian Edward Carr has some enlightening information. No document can tell us more than what the author of the document thought, what he thought happened, what he thought ought to happen or would happen, or perhaps only what he wanted others to think he thought, or even only what he himself thought he thought. . (Carr:16)I dare say the ”what is history’ question may arise again in this debate, but since this is the OP I don’t want to dwell on it too much at the moment. I would just like to make the point to my opponent that all histories, including the historical narratives of the Hebrew Bible, are constructed by the human mind and as such they are open to the prejudice of their authors.Finally, I need to repeat something about historical theories that I have mentioned at the forum a few times in the past. People simply must understand that any historical theory is never ever proven. When conducting historical research, the historian is aware that they do not have all the evidence available, they are aware that evidence may be uncovered in the future that could falsify their theory, it is exactly the same with a scientific theory. As with scientific theories, historical theories are merely an explanation for the available evidence, therefore the historian knows that they shouldn’t say something such as “this proves that the Israelites helped to build the city of Rameses”. What a good historian would say is “this suggests that it is possible that the Israelites helped build the city of Rameses”, or “this evidence supports the view that the Israelites helped to build the city of Rameses”.Now on to the three sources available to the historian on their quest to discover the historicity of the Exodus, namely, the Hebrew Bible, archaeology, and comparative anthropology.Firstly, we have the Hebrew Bible. Although the Hebrew Bible is not a primary source it is the only source we have that records an Israelite Exodus from Egypt. This means that we have to be extra careful when examining its claims as there is no extant record that directly addresses it.Since we only have one record of the Exodus, we can only go with that account and then test its veracity.The initial problem that we have with the biblical account of the Exodus is the date of its writing down. The earliest extant texts we have of the Hebrew Bible are the Dead Sea Scrolls, usually dated from about 200BCE-70CE. This means that the Exodus account we have was not written early in Israel’s history (Coote: 20) and we also have a gap of as much as a thousand years between our primary and secondary sources (Thompson: 1). Now, this doesn’t automatically mean that the Hebrew Bible is worthless as a source for reconstructing an accurate past, but it does mean that we have to be aware that there are possible problems. For example, if the author was not a direct witness, how did he come by his information? Did he have eyewitness accounts, and if so, how reliable were the witnesses? Do we have the autographs of the author, if not, could the ones we do possess have been edited? There are many other questions, but in relation to the proximity of the authors of the Exodus stories to the actual event we have to be aware that it is accepted that many stories, proverbs, and hymns were passed down orally, from one generation to another before they were written down. After they were put into writing, many of the biblical narratives have been altered and edited to suit the particular purpose of different authors. It is also commonly recognised that changes of various kinds could and often did occur as a tradition was transmitted, additions, deletions, “updating”, combination with other traditions. Modifications could be made at either the oral or the written stage, or both. Each new audience which received a tradition might “hear” in it fresh insights or read into it new applications for its situation, and these insights or meanings were often incorporated into the tradition when it was passed on. (Ramsey: 10)We can see that the Exodus account as we have it is the work of more than one author, with some blatant signs of editing. An example of this follows.In Exodus 12:39, we are told that the Israelites left in a bit of a hurry: With the dough they had brought from Egypt, they baked cakes of unleavened bread. The dough was without yeast because they had been driven out of Egypt and did not have time to prepare food for themselves.However, in Exodus 11-2 we are told that: Tell the people that men and women alike are to ask their neighbours for articles of silver and gold." Apparently they had time to take articles from their neighbours, and they also had time to prepare for battle:Exodus 13:18So God led the people around by the desert road toward the Red Sea. The Israelites went up out of Egypt armed for battle.So, although the huge passage of time between our primary and secondary sources does not mean that the Bible’s version of the Exodus is inaccurate, but it doesn’t mean that we need to be aware that alterations of the text we have may well have taken place, and these alterations would reflect the particular bias of the editor.The next source available to the historian is archaeological evidence.IMO Ron Wyatt was completely clueless about what archaeology actually is, he had no idea how to carry out an archaeological survey and he probably caused a great deal of damage to possible beneficial sites.Even Wyatt’s hangers on have a great deal to learn about what archaeology is and what it can do for biblical studies, so here’s a quick outline of both issues.Archaeology is essentially the recovery of artefacts, and artefacts are specifically the material remains left by human and/or natural activities (Laughlin: 32).Now, here we have a similar situation to what the historian has with his textual evidence, the fact of the matter is that all archaeological remains are mute, they do not have any inherent meaning or context. The meaning and context of any artefact is the product of the archaeologist’s/historian’s mind. This is why we have so many disputes over so much of the evidence that has been unearthed in the tells of Palestine. The remains are normally scrutinised through the particular bias of the ”archaeologist’ who is examining them. Part of the problem for the debate over the origins of ancient Israel is that many of the early ”archaeologists’ were not trained in archaeology, they were mostly American protestant clergy who simply went out there and everything that was dug up was interpreted through comparison with the Bible! Nothing was examined independent of the biblical texts so obviously a lot was going to be discovered that ”supported’ the Bible. Things much improved in the 1970’s with the rise of what is known as the ”New Archaeology’, since the 70’s recovered artefacts were beginning to be examined on their own, but it did take some time before this independent scrutiny took old, even today it goes on, but this extreme form of biased archaeological work usually doesn’t make it into mainstream journals because reviewers point out the errors in this type of approach. This is one reason why Wyatt’s amateur efforts will never have any respect form any mainstream scholars, there are just too many errors in methodology and interpretation of data. Wyatt even ignores much of the biblical text in order to make his alleged ”finds’ look important.Anyway, the basic rule to keep in mind when examining any artefact is that the artefact is mute, and thus everything that is presented about it is merely constructed in the human mind.Before I move on from this very brief description, I’d like Buz and everyone else reading this to be aware (if they aren’t already) of just what an archaeological find means. The recovered artefact has to be taken in context, it must be remembered that everything the archaeologists/historian says about an artefact is in addition to what the artefact itself presents. For example, let’s look at the so-called chariot wheel(s) in the Gulf of Aqabah. Now, that there is a chariot wheel in the Gulf of Aqabah only means that at some time in the past a chariot wheel found its way into the Gulf of Aqabah, everything else that you read about this chariot wheel is in addition to what the actual chariot wheel tells us. A chariot wheel in the Gulf of Aqabah does not mean that there were Israelites in Egypt during the second millennium BCE, how could it mean this? A chariot wheel in the Gulf of Aqabah does not mean that Moses was a real person, or that there is a God who has control over nature, or that the angel of death passed over Egypt. All it means is that some time in the past a chariot wheel found its way into Aqabah. So please be aware of the dangers of jumping to conclusions about an artefact. Please be aware that an artefact is only a tiny part of the over all picture and that the artefact has to be consistent with the rest of the evidence.Finally, regarding the sources available to the historian who is attempting to reconstruct Israel’s past, we come to comparative anthropology.
Comparative anthropology is:” to compare the observations made in all parts of the world, and from the comparison to deduce theories, more or less provisional, of the origin and growth of beliefs and institutions, always subject to modification and correction by facts which may afterwards be brought to light.”Comparative anthropology has its limitations, for example it is an extremely subjective discipline. The famous anthropological episode regarding ancient Israel’s origins was undertaken by British anthropologist Edward Evans-Pritchard. Evans-Pritchard lived with the Nuer people, he learned their language, studied their way of life, and became an expert in their rituals and religion. During this ”participant observation’, which essentially means that the anthropologist is working from first hand experience (Lang: 2), Evans-Pritchard wrote that he felt he was actually ”living in Old Testament times” (Evans-Pritchard: vii). He made many connections between the Nuer religion and that of Judeo-Christian traditions. His work was criticised because many of the ”parallels’ we strained at best, and critics argued that Evans-Pritchard saw the connections because he expected to see them.However, comparative anthropology has its uses. In the Exodus debate we can use what we know about modern pastoral nomad groups and compare this information with that of the ancient Israelites to discover how viable many biblical claims are. One useful piece of information is the fact that modern pastoral nomads can only cover a distance of about 6 miles a day, which, as we will see, severely damages Wyatt’s Aqabah crossing.This is really about it. These are the three sources that scholars use when attempting to reconstruct ancient Israel’s origins. These are very brief outlines and I can expand more if required. But, these descriptions are useful, because we cannot simply make up different rules just because we are talking about ancient Israel. Any investigation into Israel’s past must be conducted in the same manner as any other historical investigation.To begin the critique of the historicity of the Exodus, I initially wish to limit my objections to three particular points.1. Evidence of Israelites in Egypt.
2. The numbers involved in the Exodus.
3. The location of the ”Sea’ crossing.What I hope to demonstrate is that we have no evidence of Israelite in Egypt during the time that the Bible claims they were there. I then wish to argue that the numbers involved in the Exodus are ridiculously high for the time and area of the event, which means that one of the main arguments of Wyatt was that a large clearing would be required and Aqabah happens to have a large clearing. Finally, I wish to argue that the biblical texts do not make it possible for the sea crossing to be any great distance away from Egypt, and Aqabah is over 100 miles away.To begin with then, and this will not take very long, if there was an Exodus from Egypt then we need to have a time when there were Israelites in Egypt. Now, the Bible explicitly claims that the Exodus was 480 years before the 4th year of Solomon’s reign, which, when correlated from information in external kings’ lists gives us an Exodus date of 1446 BCE.So, the first request is for direct evidence of Israelites in Egypt during the 15th century BCE. I wish Buz good luck with this quest because I am supremely confident that I can state categorically that there is no direct non-biblical evidence whatsoever of Israelites in Egypt during the 15th century BCE (Malamat:17).If no direct evidence is presented, then it weakens the entire case.Now we move on to the numbers involved in the Exodus.As we have seen, historical theories have to be presented with rational and reasonable arguments. In regard to the complete absence of any direct evidence for Israelites in Egypt during the 15th century BCE, it may be supposed that it is unreasonable to assume that some 3500 years later that we should expect to find any direct evidence. I would agree but for one thing, the Bible claims that an unbelievably huge number of Israelites left Egypt.We are told that the Exodus group contained 600 000 men of fighting age (Exod. 12:37), and '' counting women, children and old men there would be 2-3 million Israelites in the Exodus group'' (Bright: 130).Now, to anyone familiar with the history of the Ancient Near East (ANE), this is an impossibly high figure to take as being historically accurate. Leading scholar George Mendenhall is bemused when he writes: ''Such a number would have, indeed, caused Egypt's Pharaoh consternation, for not only would there have been very little room for them in Egypt, but a group of this size could likely have taken over Egypt with or without weapons they would hardly have to fear Pharaoh’s army, which was probably at most about 20,000 men'' (Mendenhall: 64-65).The number involved in the Exodus group is even more unbelievable when we have to consider that this huge group all descended from a clan of seventy who entered Egypt just 430 years earlier (some texts, for example the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint both give the length of stay in Egypt as 215 years. (Hughes:17)There are more problems with this figure. The growth rate needing to be sustained over a 430 year period is beyond the realms of possibility in the 2nd millenium BCE.Livi-Bacci tells us that the population growth rate is calculated from the remains of cities, villages, other settlements, and the extension of cultivated land'' (Livi-Bacci: 30)He continues on page 32:In the 10,000 years prior to the birth of Christ, during which Neolithic civilisation spread from the Near East and Upper Egypt, the rate increased to 0.4 per 1,000 (which implies a doubling in less than 2,000 years) and population grew from several million to about 0.25 billion. This rate of ncrease, in spite of important cycles of growth and decline, was reinforced during the subsequent 17 and a half centuries. The population tripled to about 0.75 billion on the eve of the industrial revolution (an overall growth rate of 0.6 per 1000). To give this some perspective, we can look at the research of A. Lucas who used population figures from the Annuaire Statistique 1937-38 and discovered that the average population growth for the years 1907-1937 was just 11.69 per thousand. Even although this is clearly much higher than the growth of 0.4 per thousand that Livi-Bacci mentions, the 11.69 per thousand still casts a large shadow of doubt over the growth rate of the Exodus group. When Lucas applied the 11.69 per 1000 to the 70 of Jacob's clan over a 430 year period he arrived at the number 10, 363, much lower than the 2-3 million that the Bible would have us believe.The impossibility of the growth rate required over a 430 year period for a group to grow from 70 up to 2-3 million is supported from every source I have looked at, here are another couple to prove the point. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: Volume 25, Macropaedia, 1993.Entry PopulationPage 1041
"Before considering modern population trends separately for developing and industrialized countries, it is useful to present an overview of older trends. It is generally agreed that only 5,000,000-10,000,000 humans (i.e., one onethousandth of the present world population) were supportable before the agricultural revolution of about 10,000 years ago.

​

By the beginning of the Christian era, 8,000 years later, the' human population approximated 300,000,000, and there was apparently little increase in the ensuing millennium up to the year AD 1000. Subsequent population growth was slow and fitful, especially given the plague epidemics and other catastrophes of the Middle Ages.

​

By 1750, conventionally the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, world population may have been as high as 800,000,000. This means that in the 750 years from 1000 to 1750, the annual population growth rate averaged only about one-tenth of 1 percent. The reasons for such slow growth are well known. In the absence of what is now considered basic knowledge of sanitation and health (the role of bacteria in disease, for example, was unknown until the 19th century), mortality rates were very high, especially for infants and children. Only about half of newborn babies survived to the age of five years. Fertility was also very high, as it had to be to sustain the existence of any population under such conditions of mortality.

​

Modest population growth might occur for a time in these circumstances, but recurring famines, epidemics, and wars kept long-term growth close to zero. From 1750 onward population growth accelerated. In some measure this was a consequence of rising standards of living, coupled with improved transport and communication, which mitigated the effects of localized crop failures that previously would have resulted in catastrophic mortality. Occasional famines did occur, however, and it was not until the 19th century that a sustained decline in mortality took place, stimulated by the improving economic conditions of the Industrial Revolution and the growing understanding of the need for sanitation and public health measures." Also:The World Book Encyclopedia, World Book Inc, Chicago, 1999.Page 673."Causes: For thousands of years, birth rates were high. However, the population increased slowly and sometimes declined because death rates also were high. Then, during the 1700's and 1800's, advances in agriculture, communication, and transportation improved living conditions in parts of the world and reduced the occurrence of many diseases. As a result, the death rate began to drop, and the population grew rapidly." page 674"In the industrial countries of Europe and North America, many people flocked to the cities and took jobs in factories. In cities and in many rural areas, it was difficult to support a large family. People began to see reasons for having smaller families. As a result, birth rates in these countries began to fall. In the agricultural countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, declines in death rates plunged quickly without corresponding declines in birth rates. As a result, the population of low-income nations and the world increased rapidly."It is not just the external data that suggests the population of 2-3 million for the Exodus group is ridiculously high, some internal information verges on the laughable.In the Book of Numbers 3:42-43 we are told: So Moses counted all the firstborn of the Israelites, as the LORD commanded him. The total number of firstborn males a month old or more, listed by name, was 22,273. How can we take this seriously when, Gray informs us that: The unreality of the numbers is independently proved by comparing them with one another. Thus: the number of male firstborn is 22 273, allowing the number of female firstborn to be equal, the total number of firstborn is 44 546, and, therefore, the total number of Israelites being between 2,000,000 and 2,500,000, the average number of children to a family is about 50! Again, if, as is probable, the firstborn of the mother is intended (cp3:12), then, since the number of firstborn and of mothers must have been identical, there were 44,456 mothers: but the number of women being approximately the same as of men, the women over 20 numbered something over 600,000, and therefore only about 1 in 14 or 15 women over twenty were mothers! (page:13)There’s more internal evidence to suggest that the 2-3 million of the Exodus group is artificial. Current estimates of the population of Canaan at the time of the Exodus are well below three million. Exod. 23:29 and Deut. 7:7, 17, 22 indicate that the Israelites were far fewer in number than the Canaanite population that they were to conquer (Ashley: 60-61).Thus, I think Wyatt’s search for an area near the Red Sea large enough to contain a huge 2-3 million people is a Red Sea herring.But, not only is the search around the Red Sea for an area large enough to contain the 2-3 million not required since the group could not have been as much as 2-3 million, but searching anywhere near the Red Sea is a waste of time because, as has been mentioned many times at the forum, the Bible never claims that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea.The problem began when the authors of the Septuagint rendered Yam Suph as ”Red Sea’, and since early English translations were largely dependant on the Septuagint, the error has continued to exist. Many Bibles do indeed to continue to translate Yam Suph as Red Sea. However, the 1962 edition of the Torah published by the Jewish Publication Society of America, corrected the translation of Yam Suph to read ”Sea of Reeds’This presents Wyatt’s hangers on with a problem because:Initially, the Red Sea can be ruled out, both because the Red Sea has no reeds, and because the lengthy route along the Gulf of Suez would have enabled the pursuing Egyptians to overtake the fleeing Hebrews. ( Eakin: 379)So, if the Red Sea has no reeds, and the Bible insists that the Israelites crossed a sea of reeds, the Aqabah is definitely ruled out on this fact alone. But there is more information from the Bible itself that rules out Aqabah.Numbers 33:-10; (emphasis mine) Here are the stages in the journey of the Israelites when they came out of Egypt by divisions under the leadership of Moses and Aaron. At the LORD's command Moses recorded the stages in their journey. This is their journey by stages:

​

The Israelites set out from Rameses on the fifteenth day of the first month, the day after the Passover. They marched out boldly in full view of all the Egyptians, who were burying all their firstborn, whom the LORD had struck down among them; for the LORD had brought judgment on their gods.

​

The Israelites left Rameses and camped at Succoth.

​

They left Succoth and camped at Etham, on the edge of the desert.

​

They left Etham, turned back to Pi Hahiroth, to the east of Baal Zephon, and camped near Migdol.

​

They left Pi Hahiroth and passed through the sea into the desert, and when they had traveled for three days in the Desert of Etham, they camped at Marah.

​

They left Marah and went to Elim, where there were twelve springs and seventy palm trees, and they camped there.

​

They left Elim and camped by the Red Sea. There are two seas mentioned in this extract, and only one of them has the Israelites passing through it. They left Pi Hahiroth and passed through the sea into the desert, they then travelled for three days before they camped at Marah, they left Marah and then went to Elim, it is only after they leave Elim that they arrive at the Red Sea, long after they have passed through the sea. Geographically, the main objection to equating the sea of the Exodus with the Red Sea is that those places named in the Exodus itinerary prior to arrival at the 'yam sup' would appear to be located in the eastern delta region of Egypt (Batto: 28).Surely this information by itself is enough to falsify the Wyatt proposal?But, if not, and it is a fair bet that it isn’t enough, we can turn to comparative anthropology to further negate Wyatt’s claims.We know that modern Bedouins moving from camp to camp can only cover about six miles a day (Beitzel: 91). These groups are nothing near the size of the Exodus group but we can ignore this for the moment.
Let’s go back to the Numbers 33 reference and see how many days passed before the Israelites ’passed through the sea’.Now Moses was commanded to record all the stages of the Exodus groups and he begins with the first camp at Succoth, so that is one day, day two they move to Etham, day three they camp at Migdol, day four they pass through the sea. Now we only have four days from their leaving Egypt until they cross the sea, a maximum of 24 miles, and that is without taking into consideration that a huge number of 2-3 million people complete with livestock may not have covered that distance, AND not taking into consideration that the Exodus group turned back to Pi Hahiroth: In Exod. 14:1-2 the Israelites are commanded to turn back and encamp within Egypt, the geographical picture is confirmed by the itinerary in Num. 33:1-49. In verse 6, Israel camped at Etham on the edge of the wilderness only then when Israel crosses the sea does she enter the wilderness (Childs: 409).Now ”turned back’ does not need to mean a complete 180 degree about turn, it can mean any turn off their course, but this is academic because even if the Exodus group did march in a straight line towards Aqabah, they would have a way to go because Aqabah is about 120 miles from Egypt as the crow flies (Noth: 108)So, once again, we have concrete proof that the Aqabah crossing is a ludicrous location for the sea crossing, firstly because it has no reeds, and secondly because it is too far away from Egypt to be harmonized with the biblical record.Perhaps it could be argued that no time is given between the encampments before the group passed through the sea, but this is negated by verse 8 where we are told that ”They left Pi Hahiroth and passed through the sea into the desert, and when they had travelled for three days in the Desert of Etham, they camped at Marah..The interesting thing about this reference is that we are told when the Israelites did not camp, the reference clearly states that they travelled for three days before camping at Marah. Moses is told to record all the stages of the journey, he does so and also records when they did not camp, in this case three days. So the claim that there could be any period of time between the first three camps is dismissed.Further support that the sea crossing has to be fairly near Egypt (or even in Egypt) can be found in Exodus 14:5-9:
When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, Pharaoh and his officials changed their minds about them and said, "What have we done? We have let the Israelites go and have lost their services!" So he had his chariot made ready and took his army with him. He took six hundred of the best chariots, along with all the other chariots of Egypt, with officers over all of them. The LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, so that he pursued the Israelites, who were marching out boldly. The Egyptians”all Pharaoh's horses and chariots, horsemen and troops pursued the Israelites and overtook them as they camped by the sea near Pi Hahiroth, opposite Baal Zephon. So, as soon as the Pharaoh had heard that the people had fled he went in pursuit, and apparently caught up with the group quite quickly near Pi Hahiroth, close to Baal Zephon.
Now, although Pi Hahiroth is unknown from other sources and therefore its location is still unknown, we do know for certain where Baal-Zephon is located.From Martin Noth (op. cit. p110: The place which we can locate most certainly is 'Baal-Zephon', by which a sanctuary is clearly meant. This sanctuary of Baal-Zephon, on whose site in the Hellenistic-Roman period a Zues Kasios was worshipped, lay on a low hill in the now uninhabited place 'mahammadije' on the western end of the coastal beach belt which separates the lagoon of what in classical times was called the Sirbonian Sea, the present 'sebhat berdawil', from the Mediterranean Sea. The region concerned is thus near to the Mediterranean coast east of the mouths of the Nile. If then in the closing clause of 14:2, which is obviously rather surprising but not necessarily secondary because of its address in the second person plural, it is expressly stressed that Israel is to camp 'in front of 'Baal-Zephon', the scene is meant to be the neighbourhood of the western shore of the Sirbonian Sea. The further explanation 'between Migdol and the sea' also points to this. Migdol, which occurs as early as the Egyptian sources, lay on the usual route from the delta to Palestine, not far north-east of the Egyptian border fortress 'Tr' and is probably to be located at the present 'tell el-her' whereas in this context the 'sea' must almost certainly be understood to be the Mediterranean Sea,In the verse following the quote of Exodus 14:5-9, we can see that the crossing of the sea takes place, culminating at Exodus 14:29-30: But the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left. That day the LORD saved Israel from the hands of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the Egyptians lying dead on the shore. So, the Israelites have crossed the sea, and the Egyptians are dead, and it did not happen 120 miles away from Egypt.One very interesting piece of ancient evidence that supports the sea crossing being in Egypt can be found in Papyrus Anastasi III, 2, 11-12. This text informs us that ” The papyrus-marshes come to it with papyrus reeds and the Waters of Horus with rushes”[ (Gardiner: 74) This is referring to an area close to the city of Rameses, the exact place where the Israelites were supposed to have helped build in Exodus 1:11. Further support is the possibility that ”etymologically speaking ’suph’ is a loan word from the Egyptian ’twf(y)’ which means ”papyrus/reeds’ (Ward: 340)
I think the evidence is extremely conclusive. The crossing could not be at Aqabah because it has no reeds, it is too far away from Egypt, and we have the biblical texts themselves that suggest the crossing was near or in Egypt, which is supported by a strong piece of external evidence.I conclude from the available biblical and non biblical information that the crossing of the sea at Aqabah has nothing to do with the biblical account of the Exodus.Bibliography:Ashley, T. R. (1993). The book of Numbers. Grand Rapids, Mich., William B. Eerdmans.Batto, B. F., The Reed Sea: Requiescat in Pace Journal of Biblical Literature 102.Beitzel. B J (1985) The Moody Atlas of Bible Lands. Chicago. Moody Press.Bright, J. (1972). A history of Israel. London, SCM Press.Carr, E. H. (1961). What is history? : the George Macaulay Trevelyan lectures delivered in the University of Cambridge, January-March 1961. London, Macmillan.Childs, B. S., A Traditio-Historical Study of the Reed Sea Tradition Vetus Testamentum 20Coote, R. B. (1990). Early Israel : a new horizon. Minneapolis, Fortress Press.Eakin, E.F. (1967) The Reed Sea and Baalism JBL 86, 378-384.Edelman, D. V. (1991). The fabric of history : text, artifact and Israel's past. Sheffield, JSOT Press.Evans-Pritchard, E. (1956). Nuer religion. Oxford, Clarendon Press : Oxford University Press.Gardiner, A.H.S. The Geography of the Exodus Paris, E. Champion.Gray, G. B. (1903) A critical and exegetical commentary on Numbers, Edinburgh : T. & T. ClarkHughes, J. (1990). Secrets of the times : myth and history in Biblical chronology. Sheffield, JSOT Press.Knauf , A. (1991) ” From History to Interpretation” in Edelman 26-64.Lang, B. (1985). Anthropological approaches to the Old Testament. Philadelphia
London, Fortress Press ;
SPCK.Laughlin, J. C. H. (2000). Archaeology and the Bible. London, Routledge.Livi-Bacci, M. (1992). A concise history of world population. Cambridge, Mass ; Oxford, Blackwell.Malamat, A. (1997) ”The Exodus: Egyptian Analogies” in Frerichs, Lesko and Leonard. Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence . Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.15-26.Mendenhall, G.E. (1958) ”The Census lists of Numbers 1 and 26 JBL 77, 64-65.Noth, M. (1962) Exodus, SCM Press London.Ramsey, G. W. (1982). The quest for the historical Israel : reconstructing Israel's early history. London, SCM Press.Thompson, T. L. (1999) The Mythic Past: Biblical archaeology and the myth of Israel. London, Basic Books.

Thread copied to the Brian and Buz: The Exodus Debate thread in the The Great Debate forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.