Maps

[alon]

I just got a raised relief topographical map of Israel. That along with maps of Israel in biblical times really helps my understanding of events. It answers many questions as well. Most of us are used to reading biblical stories and thinking of the events alone. If we do consider geography it is in a passing reference, and our view of it is more likely distorted. We know the Hebrews wandered in the desert for 40 yrs. In our minds eye we probably see a land of sand  and maybe barren, flat rock. But this is an extremely rugged, mostly mountainous region. It includes the Great Rift Valley in the south where the Gulf of Aqaba (part of the Red Sea) runs north to the southern tip of modern Israel. By far the easiest route to access all of HaEretz Yisroel would have been along the coast of the Mediterranean to about modern day Gaza, then up the foothills of the coastal plain all the way to the Mt. Carmel range; through any of 3 passes there to the Jezreel Valley and on into the Galil. These were very well established trade routes at the time. The problem is to the south of Mt. Carmel were the Philistines (not up to the Carmel Range because the land just to the south was very swampy then), and in the Jezreel Valley were several cities that, as with the Philistines were not conquered for many years after Joshua. God specifically said He wanted to avoid the Philistines because the Hebrews were not ready for war. The Philistines would have seen the Hebrews as an invasion force (which they were to become) and come out against them.

So they were sent along the eastern edge of the Gulf of Suez. Succoth and Migdol where they camped were both along this route. The gulfs of Suez and Aqaba cut through the land forming a triangle that stands on its head, the tip being where these gulfs split apart the Red Sea. Migdol is at the southern tip. And looking at my topo map there is a narrow, shallow neck at the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba. On the east side is the small plain of Shur. Mara is along the foothills, and the Desert of Sin is actually a mountain pass leading over to Rephidah/Meribah. From there what looks like a smaller rift runs up to the Great Rift and Paran, Hor, and Kadesh Barnea. It is easy to visualize Korach and the other rebels being swallowed up by the land here.

The point I am making is that looking at the character of the land where these stories take place brings a whole new level of understanding! It brings the stories to life. It gives them context. And as we always stress, context gives us a better idea of what is being said. Context is how we discern the truth of the word.

Dan C    

[mosheli]

That sounds like it would also be helpful for searching for sites etc as well as for understanding the story alot more.

Could you post a webcam/phone photograph of it maybe?

This is similar to when we make historical discoveries after searching to find matches and we find how it gives wonderful new light to how we see the story events etc, as well as confirming the text is true despite the claims of sceptics/critics/antis.

What is the reason Migdol in in the southern tip of the Sinai peninsula inverted triangle?
I think the sea crossing was nearby Nuweiba roughly in the middle of the Suez gulf arm of the Red sea.

[alon]

Hebrews Cross the Red Sea

Here is a link to a topo relief map of the likely route I believe the Hebrews took leaving Egypt:

www.bible.ca/archeology/maps-bible-archeology-exodus-route-overview.jpg

It shows the location of what you mentioned as the other likely route (Nuweiba Beach, located just left of the word “Arabia.”

There are several reasons I believe it was the southern route. First, look at the character of the land. Travel down the east side of the Suez along the coastal plain would have been easy travel, where crossing the land mass at any point would have been very rough going. We have to think about the people, a large body of very young to very old carrying all their possessions. They were not broken in to the rigors of the march, nor did they have the skills and discipline needed to cross such terrain and stay together as a unit. And after they cross according to the biblical account they would still have to cross more rugged terrain to get to Marah and the Wilderness of Sin, then across to Meribah. And from there north to Etzion Geber. Had they crossed at Nuweiba it would have been much shorter and easier to go north along the east side of the Gulf of Aqaba.

Going all the way south along the east coastal plain of the Suez, we come to the narrow neck of the inlet to the Gulf of Aqaba, by far the shortest crossing, and also the only place that properly could be called a Red Sea Crossing. From here, all the places mentioned in the biblical account are close by, and travel is still easy. Even crossing the mountains to the east is easy as there is a short pass at the Wilderness of Sin. Then the biblical route, the places named make much more sense.

Why cross at any other place, struggling through rough terrain on both sides only to go south through more rough terrain to get to Mara and then restart the biblical journey? Had they went that route it would have taken many days and as many encampments to get there, none of which are mentioned. So the route itself, the character of the land and the condition of the people all point to the southern route.

Then there is the crossing itself. Here is a map giving an idea of the depth of the water in the Gulf of Aqaba:

ontheworldmap.com/oceans-and-seas/red-sea/large-detailed-map-of-red-sea-with-cities-and-towns.jpg

The darker areas are deeper water. If you magnify the Gulf of Aqaba, you can see the only shallow water crossing is the waters around the inlet in the south. Even though God dried the crossing and held back the waters, this would have still been the best place to cross.

Then there are the Egyptians. They had chariots, which are useful on flat terrain, but worse than useless on rugged terrain or in the mountains. It would have been impossible to catch the Hebrews with chariots by any route other than along that eastern coastal plain.

Then there is the Bible itself:

Numbers 33:7 (ESV) And they set out from Etham and turned back to Pi-hahiroth, which is east of Baal-zephon, and they camped before Migdol.

Pi-hahiroth- H6367 פִּי הַחִרֹת pı̂y hachirôth; mouth of the gorges;

This sounds like the mouth of the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba. There are actually two gorges entering the gulf there.

Exodus 14:2 (ESV) “Tell the people of Israel to turn back and encamp in front of Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, in front of Baal-zephon; you shall encamp facing it, by the sea.

Migdol- H4024 מִגְדּוֹל migdôl; Migdol, a place in Egypt: - Migdol, tower.

So 'Migdol' can either be a place in Egypt, or it can mean a ‘tower,' as in a ‘watchtower.’ At the southern tip of the triangle formed by the Gulfs of Suez and Aqaba stands a mountain perfect to use as a watchtower, as it can monitor sea traffic entering and leaving both gulfs. 



Baal-zephon is thought to have been a Canaanite god who watched over seafarers. Ancient people sometimes viewed mountains as gods, so it’s possible a coastal mountain could be seen as a pagan god who protected mariners.

According to Exodus 14:2 the Israelites encamped in front of Pihahiroth, the Mouth of the Gorges and in front of (the actual term is פָּנִים pânı̂ym, ‘upon the faces of’) Baal-zephon. They were 'between Migdol and the Sea.’ And according to Numbers 33:7 it is east of Baal-zephon. That places them squarely in front of the Straits of Tiran; that narrow channel which is the inlet to the Gulf of Aqaba from the Red Sea. So they crossed the Red Sea just to the south of the very narrowest part of the channel which would have delineated the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba.

Part of this is research, and part of it is me looking at the map and thinking it through. And there have been many proposed routes for the Exodus. Yours and the one I propose here are by far the two best. There actually is an old trade route that crosses the mountains and low desert near Nuweiba, but it is pretty rugged. Not out of the realm of possibility but unlikely for the Hebrews to take; and highly unlikely for an Egyptian army with chariots. And when they reached the other side the Hebrews would still have to deal with the terrain there. The biblical account plus the unlikelihood of God marching them south through those mountains only to march them north again when the better route from that crossing would have been straight north to Etzion Geber where they ended up going anyhow. So that’s my opinion on the Exodus route.

[mosheli]

Thanks Alon. You have some good possible evidences points for the crossing point.

I hope this is not off-topic but just to give the other side's reasons favouring the Nuweiba (middle gulf) route rather than the Tiran (southern end) rough:
- The chariots parts have been found there. Unless the sea rushing back pushed the parts up the gulf, which is unlikely.
- The pillar or pillars was/were there.
- The "mouth of the gorge(s)" matches the canyon/gorge that opens at Nuweiba, and it matches Josephus' similar description. (There are actually a number of different possible meanings of Pihahiroth.
- The Nuweiba crossing point is in a straight line from the Suez canal area to Sinai/Horeb candidate Mt Lawz/Maqla. (Though it says they turned back so they didn't go straight across.)
- The southern route would have required more time travelling.
- They went "not by way of the Philistines" and later "turned back" which seems to fit the Nuweiba route better.
- The Nuweiba crossing is closer to the El-Arish inscription.
- Not sure they were near the Egyptian mining at Serabit el Khadem near Jebel Musa Sinai candidate?
- Nuweiba is claimed to be short for Nuwayba'al Muzayyinah in Arabic which means "waters o Moses open" or "(the) waters of Moses' crossing/opening" or "the open waters of ..." "open water Moses", though another source says it means "bubble/bubbling spring(s)" or "(the) springing water" or "sparkling spring". The first meaning has Baal in it which might link with Baal Zephon?

(The map has Goshen/Gesem/Kessan in the wrong place. Goshen was more likely probably Giza/Agouza in the Cairo area since Jacob matches Khufu/Cheops and the shepherd Philitis "lover of righteousness" of the 4th dynasty.)

[alon]

Nov 15, 2020 1:50:39 GMT -8 mosheli said:

Thanks Alon. You have some good possible evidences points for the crossing point.

I hope this is not off-topic but just to give the other side's reasons favouring the Nuweiba (middle gulf) route rather than the Tiran (southern end) rough:
- The chariots parts have been found there. Unless the sea rushing back pushed the parts up the gulf, which is unlikely.
- The pillar or pillars was/were there.
- The "mouth of the gorge(s)" matches the canyon/gorge that opens at Nuweiba, and it matches Josephus' similar description. (There are actually a number of different possible meanings of Pihahiroth.
- The Nuweiba crossing point is in a straight line from the Suez canal area to Sinai/Horeb candidate Mt Lawz/Maqla. (Though it says they turned back so they didn't go straight across.)
- The southern route would have required more time travelling.
- They went "not by way of the Philistines" and later "turned back" which seems to fit the Nuweiba route better.
- The Nuweiba crossing is closer to the El-Arish inscription.
- Not sure they were near the Egyptian mining at Serabit el Khadem near Jebel Musa Sinai candidate?
- Nuweiba is claimed to be short for Nuwayba'al Muzayyinah in Arabic which means "waters o Moses open" or "(the) waters of Moses' crossing/opening" or "the open waters of ..." "open water Moses", though another source says it means "bubble/bubbling spring(s)" or "(the) springing water" or "sparkling spring". The first meaning has Baal in it which might link with Baal Zephon?

(The map has Goshen/Gesem/Kessan in the wrong place. Goshen was more likely probably Giza/Agouza in the Cairo area since Jacob matches Khufu/Cheops and the shepherd Philitis "lover of righteousness" of the 4th dynasty.)

LOL, I'll give you the rebuttal, but it will be meaningless since this argument has "raged" for a while with no resolution. You make some good points, and I am sure your counter to my counter will be good. The only thing so far I haven't seen anywhere before is my looking at terrain as a "witness" to events. But surely someone somewhere has done that too. The main thing is we both believe the biblical account, and these details are just for the sake of academics. But here 'tis; enjoy:

Thanks Alon. You have some good possible evidences points for the crossing point.

— As do you. Like I said, ours are the more likely of all the proposed routes.

I hope this is not off-topic but just to give the other side's reasons favouring the Nuweiba (middle gulf) route rather than the Tiran (southern end) rough:

—- Not off topic at all!

The chariots parts have been found there. Unless the sea rushing back pushed the parts up the gulf, which is unlikely.

—- Egyptian chariots were fairly lightweight, however I agree it is unlikely they were pushed that far. There are however other explanation for those chariot parts; shipwreck carrying chariots, or ship lightening its load in a storm, just to name 2.

The pillar or pillars was/were there.

—- “Pillars” is open to interpretation as to which ones and where.

The "mouth of the gorge(s)" matches the canyon/gorge that opens at Nuweiba, and it matches Josephus' similar description. (There are actually a number of different possible meanings of Pihahiroth.

—- Josephus would have went off the biblical account as he was not there. And his accounts of “history” are always more than a little suspect. He was a liar and a traitor to his people. And as I said, the "mouth of the gorges" (plural) would match the southern route as well.

The Nuweiba crossing point is in a straight line from the Suez canal area to Sinai/Horeb candidate Mt Lawz/Maqla. (Though it says they turned back so they didn't go straight across.)

—- Actually, they could not get to Nuweiba by a straight line. The terrain is too rough.

The southern route would have required more time travelling.

—- Draw a line (even a straight one) from any point you think they might have been directly north of Suez to the proposed crossing at Nuweiba, hen swing that arc down and you’ll see that it was only 1/4 to 1/3rd further, and by a much easier route. So travel to Tiran would have been much quicker.

They went "not by way of the Philistines" and later "turned back" which seems to fit the Nuweiba route better.

—- Not at all. Both routes turned back, away from Philistia.

The Nuweiba crossing is closer to the El-Arish inscription.

—- Not surprisingly, scholars are still arguing over interpretations of the finds at El-Arish. For us laymen, scholars can cloud more history than time itself! :)

- Not sure they were near the Egyptian mining at Serabit el Khadem near Jebel Musa Sinai candidate?
Nuweiba is claimed to be short for Nuwayba'al Muzayyinah in Arabic which means "waters o Moses open" or "(the) waters of Moses' crossing/opening" or "the open waters of ..." "open water Moses", though another source says it means "bubble/bubbling spring(s)" or "(the) springing water" or "sparkling spring". The first meaning has Baal in it which might link with Baal Zephon?

—- Possible, but really that’s conjecture. And Baal occurs in many place names and descriptions. Ba’al can be a god, however the literal meaning is “owner or lord.” It didn’t come to mean a god (actually several gods) until later through common usage. However Mt. Zephon, also called Ba’al Zephon has been said to be at the southern crossing as well. It could mean any prominant mountain close on to the sea. The real Mt. Zephon was I believe in Phoenicia. Ancient people did not give directions as N/S/E/W. They gave them by reference to landmarks, and Ba’al Zephon was used to indicate north in many writings; to the point that some scholars (in keeping with their job of muddying the historical waters) mistakenly claim the meaning of the term to be “god of the north.”

(The map has Goshen/Gesem/Kessan in the wrong place. Goshen was more likely probably Giza/Agouza in the Cairo area since Jacob matches Khufu/Cheops and the shepherd Philitis "lover of righteousness" of the 4th dynasty.)

—- Actually that’s about where I always heard Goshen to be. But that’s another muddy discussion.

Have fun with it. It's all learnin', and even if we don't resolve the issue (if we do we'll make history), it's a great lesson in biblical interpretation. Everything, including those chariot parts which at one time had me convinced they crossed at Nuweiba must be considered. And in this case I must be humble enough to say "I can be wrong." Heck-fire, I was wrong at least once, by my own admission!

Now to revive my "I Found Out I Was Wrong" thread ...

Dan C 

Edit: my "I Found Out I Was Wrong" thread is once again at the top of the heap.

theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/3384/out-wrong-thread?page=5&scrollTo=26322

One day (when I have a LOT of time) I'm going to have to read that entire thread, just to see how far I've come.

[mosheli]

I wasn't going to post anymore but I've done abit of research and found a few more points that might be of interest/help/use.

Its pretty sure the crossing point was in the Aqaba not the man trunk of the Red Sea or the gulf of Suez or Bitter lakes or Serbonis/Mediterranean or Dead Sea (according to one person), because they left Egypt (stated many times in the chapters) and went "not by way of the Philistines".
Looking at the terrain there are only 5 possible crossing places in the Aqaba: 1 Elat area, 2 Taba/Pharaoh's island area? 3 Haql area, 4 Nuweiba/Wadi Watir area, 5 Tiran area.
But all of them have problems and is not possible to prove/disprove which was the crossing point. (Maybe God only wants it revealed to believers and not to the world like he said in John? Though it is jolly annoying how just about everything in the bible seems so darn difficult to prove or be sure of, and it is not good how believers faith is shaken by world's heavy claims, and it is not good having multiple rival scenarios.)

Tiran area (southern end):

Pros:
- Easy travelling for Israelites and Egyptian chariots down the west coast of Sinai.
- Tiran is relatively high flat land bridge except for the dip in the west near the coast.
- One of Tiran's claimed name meanings "sea waves" could match?
- One of the claimed meanings of Pihahiroth "3-way mouth of water" or "entrance to the water" could fit/match Tiran area.
- Yam Suf/Suph has been related to soph "end".
- Jordan crossing and Red sea crossing paralled in bible. The Jordan crossing was at the southern end near Jericho.

Cons:
- Travelling distance somewhat longer.
- No chariots parts found there.
- The dip in the crossing area in the west near coast.
- Doesn't fit that they "turned back" in my opinion reading the text. And doesn't well fit "not by way of Philistines"?
- Not sure they were near the Egyptian mining operations at Serabit el Khadem?
- The chariots parts are unlikely to have moved up to Nuweiba area by tidal action etc.

Nuweiba (middle part):

Pros:
- Chariots parts & bones found under water there and not found anywhere else. There is also a magnetic anomaly in the sea abit further north of Nuweiba.
- Pillar/Pillars found there.
- Nuweiba name meaning.
- Fits "mouth of gorge(s)" or "bay of Hiroth" meaning of Pihahiroth. And fits Josephus' description.
- In a straight line from Suez area to Mt Lawz/Maqla.
- Fits not went by way of Philistines.
- Closer to El Arish inscription.
- Exodus says in the "heart (central part) of the sea" and "thru the midst of it" which could fit middle of Aqaba? The El-Arish inscription calls it a "pool" which fits (middle) Aqaba?
- There is claimed to be a landbridge or lightly sloping dip in the area?
- 875 m deep could fit the word "deep/depths" in Exodus?
- closer to Vaheb in Suphah (Numbers 21:14) & Suph (Deut 1:1)?

Cons:
- Hard to see 600000 Israelites and Pharaoh's 600 chariots going through the somewhat narrow at places Wadi Watir, and there is no other sizable entrance.

Area opposite Haql (between Taba at top end and Nuweiba in middle part):

Pros:
- A wide opening in the ranges there.
- The magnetic anomaly north of Nuweiba might be near there?

Cons:
- The terrain doesn't look very traversable for Israelites and chariots dspite the opening in the ranges there.

Taba or Elath area (northern end):

Pros:
- Baal Zephon means "lord of the north" which may match the northern end of Aqaba? He was also a god of maritime trade which might fit Eziongeber/Elath area?
- Yam Suf/Suph has been related to soph "end".
- Migdol as Pharoah's Island??
- The chariots parts could have been moved down to Nuweiba area by tidal action etc?
- Narrower width? Shallower depth. Parting miracle less impossible?
- Fits route to Midian/Sinai and fits "turned back" and fits "came to the sea" and "by/at the sea".

Cons:
- Not sure if the terrain is traversable enough between Suez area and Tabe/Elath area?
- A site claims the Egyptians would have gone around the top to cut off the Israelites?
- Bible says "deep/depths" & "heart/midst".

I quite like the Baal Zephon in north one.
But the one thing hardest to ignore/deny is the chariots parts by Nuweiba (and the pillar(s), and the meaning of the name).

[alon]

This might interest you. Excerpted from a recent mailing from the Biblical Archaeology Society:

Exodus: History, myth, folktale, truth

“In biblical studies,” wrote Professor Charles R. Krahmalkov in the pages of Biblical Archaeology Review, “truth is often only a matter of personal opinion, or a test of scholarly perceptions, or a momentary consensus.”

And indeed, when it comes to the Exodus, truth is all of those things and more. … Each scholar advanced the analysis a few steps further, until at last Professor Manfred Bietak, lately of the University of Vienna and an eminent Egyptologist, posited that not only is the Exodus most likely a historic fact, but that it occurred later in time than previously thought. That timeframe brings the Exodus story just inside the roughly 200-year generational span when historians agree that written history based on oral history can be reliably assumed to be true—from the new suggested date of the Exodus in the 12th century B.C.E. to the time of the written accounts of it in the 10th century B.C.E. Instead of being written far too long after the supposed historical events to have any relationship to the truth, the book of Exodus could very well have been written quite reliably from oral history."

This org looks to be pretty good. Since you are interested in history you might want to check them out. I'm not a member; money and time- too little of both.

I've come across the 200 yrs later theory before, and there is solid evidence for it. It solves a lot of objections of the nay-sayers and historically makes more sense. As I recall, during that time Egypt "unexplainably" lost much of its power and influence. (Having the cream of your army drowned would tend to do that to a Pharaoh.) They had to pull back into their borders, thus limiting their sphere of influence. The Negev desert area where the Hebrews wandered was under Egyptian control until then. However afterwards the Hebrews would have been allowed to roam relatively unmolested, especially by Egyptians trying to bring them back. So things worked out, kinda like someone planned the whole thing!

Dan C 

[mosheli]

Thanks Alon/Dan. Biblical history is one of my major interests and gifts or areas of amateur expertise/exprience so I will check out the org. I belong to a few groups and forums but unfortuantely there are mostly sceptics and also most people have their own different favoured dates and places theories so its hard to find anyone who I can enjoy sharing info and ideas with.

On the timing of the exodus I agree with the ca 1400s bc school rather than the 1200s one. The bible has the exodus 480 yrs before Solomon who has a consensus date of ca 900s bc. Some say that the 480 yrs may be 12 generations but this is only theory and not supported by the bible. But that is getting off topic anyway sorry.

A raised relief map of the Sinai peninsula and the seafloor of the Aqaba would help alot with the Red Sea crossing question.