Talk:Crossing the Red Sea

Removal of archaeological points

There was no reason to have this in the opening. On a most basic level, there is no identifiable crossing point at which to look for archaeological evidence. Moreover the realistic expectations of finding evidence remaining of a one-night camp out are slim to say the least. If you want to find drowned Egyptians at the bottom of lakes and seas, that is not a practical search to perform over truly vast areas of water. Thus, making any judgement on whether or not the event occurred on the basis of archaeological evidence is pointless.

More controversially, I have removed the "historicity" section. In principle such a section would be extremely useful, however what was included did not refer to the crossing of the Red Sea, which is what this article is about. Information pertinent to the Exodus story broadly should be included in the relevant article. If the particular comments are especially relevant to the Red Sea crossing, this should be reflected in the written content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.216.50.234 (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yam Suf is NOT the Red Sea, and definitely not the Gulf of Aqaba

This has been discussed so many times it ain't even funny any more. The entire Exodus story plays out in the Eastern Delta region of Egypt, with Yam Suf (Sea of Reeds, from Egyptian Pa-Zufy "the reeds") being the swampy chain of lakes (or one of them) constituting the natural (and almost impregnable) border of Egypt towards the Levant. No serious interpretation of the biblical text combined with the knowledge of the geography of that area from the 13th to 17th Dynasty places any part of the Exodus story at the Gulf of Aqaba. So far only Rktect has done that. I see that this discussion page contains his faked map again (With "Horeb" inserted by himself on the Gulf of Aqaba). Cush (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why, because you say so? Yam Suf has been considered the Red Sea for all of history, including in I Kings. The only reason it came into doubt, and the theory that it was some other "sea of reeds" is because scholars were unwilling to consider that something as extreme as people crossing the Red Sea could have happened.

"I Kings 9:26 identifies 'yam suph' with the Red Sea (at Eilat on the Gulf of Aqaba)." Are you serious that you think identifying it with the Red Sea is something new? I know you're an NC fan, but honestly, read some history books other than Rohl's.

Even if the suf in Yam Suf meant "reed", the name would still mean "Sea of Reed", and not "Sea of Reeds". It simply doesn't wash. Your squabbles with Rktect are irrelevant. Yes, he's obsessed with one particular theory. But so are you. The fact is, you can't delete all references to Yam Suf as the Red Sea just because you want to identify it with him.

The article is called Passage of the Red Sea. Not Passage of the Sea of Reeds. Why don't you propose renaming it. I'll take the other side. But meanwhile, in the article's lead, it should say Red Sea, which is what Yam Suf means. -Lisa (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I've removed the reference to the P document from the lead. The DH has a section in the article. It's POV to insert it into the lead like that. -Lisa (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:

It isn't my POV. Yam Suf has been identified as the Red Sea throughout most of recorded history, including in the Bible itself (in the only place where geographical indications exist). I don't care if Rktect included that as part of his agenda; you can't delegitimize the translation just because Rktect used it as well. -Lisa (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yam Suf does not translate as Red Sea no matter how much you may twist your biblical text. I do know that many older renditions (including the KJV) erroneously translate the term thus but more recent translations all have "Sea of Reeds". The most important point is to note that the Hebrew term literally means Sea of Reeds and that it derives from Egyptian, where the term never refers to the Red Sea to my knowledge. And given the geography of the Eastern Delta region of Egypt in the respective time frame it is obvious that any group flying from Egypt must have somehow crossed the chain of lakes between the Mediterranean and what today is called the Gulf of Suez (cf. map). The ONLY way out of Egypt was to avoid the military strongholds at Tjafanet (Zafane) and Miktol (Migdol) and the heavily guarded road "via maris" to Gaza (the seat of the Egyptian governor).

How about some logic? And the crossing of Yam Suf did not happen close to Elat anyways. Cush (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I can appreciate the view that Yam Suf means literally, 'See of Reeds,' the idea that it is nothing more than a mistranslation is exaggerated. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible, made approximately 200 B.C. or thereabouts, calls Yam Suf the Greek name for Red Sea. In fact, the name Yam Suf is even today used by Israelis when they talk in Hebrew about the Red Sea.

I also have trouble with the assertion that "the more recent translations all" translate it as Sea of Reeds. The 130 scholars involved in the making of the more recent New King James Version saw no problem with "Red Sea," and the phrase is retained in the New International Version, New American Standard Bible, The Message, the Amplified Bible, New Living Translation, English Standard Version, Centemporary English Version, New Century Version, American Standard Version, Holman Christian Standard Bible, New International Reader's Version, and Today's New International Version. The idea that modern scholarship has shrunk back from the erroneous translation in the KJV is at best a gross oversimplification, and at worst a complete distortion.Mitchell Powell (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Is directly quoting the Bible Original Research?

Especially when different possible translations and thus interpretations of the referred content exist? It seems to me that certain editors drag out old and since revised translations out of the Bible to advance a particular POV. Cush (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You keep trying to claim that the KJV is the source of Yam Suf = Red Sea. The fact of the matter is, there's only one place where Yam Suf is placed geographically, and that's in I Kings 9:26, where it's clearly described as being the Gulf of Aqaba, which is one of the two extensions of the Red Sea that straddle the Sinai Peninsula.

"Exegetical and Contextual Facets of Israel's Red Sea Crossing", R. Larry Overstreet, TMSJ 14/1 (Spring 2003) 63-86 ([1]) is one source. Or you can take a JNF page about Eilat ([2]), which discusses the name. [3][4][5][6]. And from that last, which is the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, let me quote:

Scholars have therefore sought to locate the "Sea of Reeds" among one of the several lakes that dot the Isthmus of Suez from the gulf to the Mediterranean. This view, however, is not as certain as its popularity would indicate.

Read on for details. The fact is, while calling it the Reed Sea is a notable view, it doesn't have the support that Red Sea does. And even many of those who want to use the name Reed Sea apply the term to the Red Sea. -Lisa (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just someone answer the question. Preferably someone neutral.

BTW, I suppose you did not bother to actually read the stuff that you referenced. It all clearly positions Yam Suf in the region of the northern Gulf of Suez and the adjacent (modern) Bitter Lakes. Which is just what I had said. You are conducting biblical quote mining. Cush (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The question being addressed in thing section is a touchy one. There is no problem with using Biblical quotations in general, because articles on the Bible without Biblical quotations would be incomplete. But on the other hand, choosing a particular version's quote to advance a particular view flies in the face of what Wikipedia is all about. When relevant controversy exists concerning a Bible verse, the various sides of the controversy need to be addressed fairly, and this is a job that may or may not involve biblical quotes in one or more versions. I'm sorry that I couldn't give a simpler answer, but I hope this helps, and I hope you find me neutral enough. Mitchell Powell (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Name change

Not only was it not discussed, it was against our naming conventions which say " Use names and terms most commonly used, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article". I've reverted it. Dougweller (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha and it wasn't me ;-)

1. The term most commonly used is in fact "Sea of Reeds" for Yam Suph, i.e. used in most Bible editions (all modern ones, and not just English ones)

2. We still have the redirect, so the name change is uncritical, and it educates folks. That is our main objective, isn't it? CUSH 10:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting "crossing the sea of reeds" is 'most likely to be recognised' In any case, Google scholar gives it 43 hits versus 1140 for "Crossing the Red Sea". Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suggest nothing. However, I do assume that anyone who has a minimum interest in the matter knows what the Sea of Reeds is. Of course I am not so sure about that for an American audience. What I know is that only old Bible editions have Yam Suf translated as Red Sea, while all modern editions translate that as Sea of Reeds. I am well aware that public perception is not necessarily up-to-date on this. And what most folks do not consider is that this is a loan word in ancient Hebrew, that was taken from the Egytian language (pa-zufy = the reeds), and of course most people have no clue about the geography of the region in question and thus accept Red Sea as a valid rendition.

Personally, I have no preference, although I consider Red Sea inaccurate. CUSH 12:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Cush--I fail to understand how you can keep saying that all modern editions read "Sea of Reeds." This certainly isn't true with any of the modern translations I've checked: the New International Version, New American Standard Bible, The Message, Amplified Bible, New Living Translation, English Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, New King James Version, New Century Version, 21st Century King James Version, American Standard Version, Young's Literal Translation, John Nelson Darby's Translation, Holman Christian Standard Version, New International Reader's Version, the United Kingdom edition of the New International Version, and Today's New International Version. To say that the most commonly used equivalent term for Yam Suf is "Sea of Reeds" is a distortion of the available facts. Even in modern Hebrew, the term Yam Suf is used for the Red Sea. How did you come to your conclusion?Mitchell Powell (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, boys and girls, the arguement with the modern english bibles is interesting, but the problem is that Tyndale (father of the english bible) used the Luther Bible (father of the German Bible) and in the Luther Bible is written down reed sea. It is clear that Tyndale translated like him (compare an original print of the Tyndale Bible). The problem was that people made a false spelling correction. The idea of crossing the red sea is a typical english interpretation spreaded in english regions. I am sorry, it seems to be a sport for some people to manipulate the bible text. I am German and so I prefer the Luther Bible translation, because the moral core is Ok. And so I must say it is not very important to struggle about this question what was written down: red sea or reed sea, but I say reed sea (= Schilfmeer). Other questions are more important I suppose that it is crazy when you will change words from kill to murder. ... and so on (like modern English Bible revisions does). If there are questions please place these questions on my German talk page (= Deutsh Discussion site) TOO, because I was by accident on this site and I suppose that I will not come back to this site. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What I'm Doing With Bible Quotes

Because there appears to be some fiery debate going on here, I'm going to explain exactly what I'm doing with Bible quotes. Whenever I find a Bible quote on this page from an uncited source, I am going to replace it with the equivalent quote from the World English Bible. This is not because I think this a superior translation (much of its translation in the Old Testament is quite mediocre), but because it is the only version I know of which can be quoted without any doubts about copyright violations. If any editors believe that another version should be substituted, I invite them to substitute whatever version they prefer, as long as this is done in accordance with copyright law, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, and with a citation clearly identifying the source of the text. Mitchell Powell (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the World Bible Translation is exotic and far away from the english bible translation tradition. The problem with copyrights doesn't exists because quotes are not a problem. But you can use for such juristic problems your mind. Do you think it would be a copyright problem when a priest make quotes from the bible when he makes his service? So you will see the arguemnt is false. I can not say clearly which bible would be the best. (And I have looked in a lot of English bibles.) But, I suppose that it would be the best when you will use the King James Bible and not a new revision. Because for science it is the best translation. When you will have problems with the translation it would not be the problem to take another version. All the other new versions are versions of the KJV. So it is the best to use the old link the KJV. On the other Hand the moral core of the KJV is still intact. Only in marginal areas are problematic translations to find. If there are questions please write on my German talk site TOO because I was by accident on this site and I suppose that I will not come back to this site. But you should know that in the next month I suppose I will be in stress, because I will made an important labour for the University. with friendly greetings, Sönke --Soenke Rahn (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Considerations about any "moral core" are irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia and not a religious platform.

Because biblical texts are always open to interpretation and varying translations exist, directly quoting the Bible is WP:OR. Without critical analysis from independent, reliable secondary sources Bible quotes are inadmissible. CUSH 08:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not the time to make a discussion about a moral core. ... (When you would look into encylopedias of totalitary Systems you would say nothing like this.) ... But, I suppose that you are right, when you will write something like where was the route, this will be not the important problem. It is so that some translations are not standard. And I would say the KJV Translation is the standard version. But on the other hand it is not my problem when you make quotes, so that I can localize the passage on another bible. But I would say that some parts of the bible are different translated between bibles. So it can be complicated to write what is written down in the bible when you are using exotic bible translations, but possible the best solution would be to use the KJV and a modern version. Or look into KJV, NIV and NKJV, RSV etc. and compare if there are big problems according the differences you can mark it. But I suppose the biggest problem is the reed sea and the red sea problem in this case. But you must know what you will make, because I will not edit on this article. It was an accident (or random) that I have seen this article and this discussion. And in the moment I am very sorry that I have not the time. I will write a little work about a German dictionary and the influence of several ideologies on it. :-) I hope you will have a lot of fun and you will make a good work in the future too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soenke Rahn (talk • contribs) 17:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC) --Soenke Rahn (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Map

I removed the map of the entire Exodus (i.e. from the Land of Goshen to the Plains of Moab) because it's only marginally useful - what's needed is a map of the Red Sea area itself (i.e., the area around the modern Suez Canal). I see one of the posts on this Talk page has a map that might be useful, and maybe it could be put in? PiCo (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Source Discussion

The Land That I Will Show You: Essays in History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honor of J. Maxwell Miller apparently Some one finds this unreliable source, i have restored it for now as a look through Jstor shows a very positive review in Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. If this user disagrees, i ask him/her to remember we are about verifiability not truth Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The academic consensus about the location of biblical Ramses is Pi-Ramesses. That is not in the Wadi Tumilat. Your fringe ideas have no merit. ≡ CUSH ≡ 12:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

i advise yo to take it up at the RSN then or fringe board which ever it stays for now Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Cush is right, I interpreted the source wrongly. Have fixed it now. PiCo (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible in reality?

Biblical parting of the Red Sea 'could have happened'. There is a possibility that the crossing of the Red Sea was scientifically plausible based on inference of historical remains of the Nile Delta. Komitsuki (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The article does not mention historical remains. It contradicts itself at one point, saying "t the description of the waters parting indeed has a basis in physical laws. and then "Those events did not fit so well with the Biblical account, since both involved a single body of water getting pushed to one side rather than being parted.", and concludes with criticising some other ideas. And despite the title, it argues against it happening at the Red Sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User Komitsuki is probably referring to "historical remains" of the Nile delta itself, not to chariot parts buried in the delta. The Telegraph article mentions some of the techniques used to reconstruct the historical delta: "Analysis of archaeological records, satellite measurements and maps allowed the researchers to estimate the water flow and depth at the site 3,000 years ago."

I see no contradiction in the Telegraph article. The sentence "Those events did not fit so well..." refers to two alternate crossing sites mentioned in the previous paragraph: "The set of 14 computer simulations showed that dry land could also have been exposed at two other nearby sites during a wind storm from the east." The phrase "did not fit so well" refers to the alternatives, not to the primary crossing site.

The Wikipedia and Telegraph articles adequately address usage of the common phrase "Red Sea". CarlDrews (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted text

I have restored well-sourced text deleted in December 2010 with the quip "This is more than anyone wants to read". Please watch this article for such edits.--Wetman (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Restored it again. ^rossnixon 02:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

== Historicity Update I've mentioned Ron Wyatt and the photos he produced. - David Ong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.226.187.44 (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

A little challenge from User:Cush

User:Cush again blanks text (in this diff) that reports, making no claims, and is supported by citations to James Hoffmeier (2008) The Archaeology of the Bible; Kenneth Kitchen (2003), On the Reliability of the Old Testament, James Hoffmeier (2005), Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition, A.J. Spencer (2009), Excavations at Tell el-Balamun 2003-2008, British Museum; British Museum (2010), Tell el-Balamun: A City of the Nile Delta of Egypt, on-line at [7]; Carl Drews and Weiqing Han (2010) Dynamics of Wind Setdown at Suez and the Eastern Nile Delta; The Geological Survey of Israel; Sneh A, Weissbrod T, Perath I (1975) "Evidence for an Ancient Egyptian Frontier Cana" in American Scientist 63(5).

User:Cush doesn't like these sources and suppresses the report. I won't involve myself in an edit war with this: perhaps we need an adult to give it a "time out" here. Do others agree? Should User:Cush be reported? Should we ask for a third opinion? --Wetman (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You know, this particular article has a very looong history (at least 5 years). Its subject refers to just a few lines in Exodus and it is not even clear whether it is notable enough to deserve its own article. The crucial criterion for text inclusion in an article is the availability of reliable verifiable sources. So far only highly speculative material without any substantial academic merit has been dragged here. And since neither the "sojourn" of Israelites in Egypt, nor Moses, nor any Exodus-style migration has any standing in archaeology or history whatsoever, it is best to not just reproduce religious doctrine with a pseudo-scientific coating. In fact, it would be best to merge this article into the Exodus article. Just as there is no real need for a separate Stations of the Exodus article. ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with user Wetman. Kitchen and Hoffmeier are reliable academic sources. Hoffmeier's books are published by Oxford University Press, and Kitchen's is published by William B Eerdmans Publishing Company. People really do want to read from these two authors. CarlDrews (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• James Hoffmeier (2008) The Archaeology of the Bible; Kenneth Kitchen (2003), On the Reliability of the Old Testament, James Hoffmeier (2005), Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition

While Hoffmeier and Kitchen are academics, their ideas on this subject don't represent mainstream academic thinking. We need to reflect the mainstream. Whether they represent a significant minority view is something I don't want to get into (though I think not).

• A.J. Spencer (2009), Excavations at Tell el-Balamun 2003-2008, British Museum; British Museum (2010), Tell el-Balamun: A City of the Nile Delta of Egypt, on-line at [8]

On the basis of a quick look at this on-line, I can't see the relevance to the topic - can you explain?

• Carl Drews and Weiqing Han (2010) Dynamics of Wind Setdown at Suez and the Eastern Nile Delta

This study is poorly based in terms of the area of scholarship it draws on - it ignores both literary and archaeological scholarship.

• The Geological Survey of Israel; Sneh A, Weissbrod T, Perath I (1975) "Evidence for an Ancient Egyptian Frontier Cana" in American Scientist 63(5)

I haven't seen this - can you give a quick summary? PiCo (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the Kitchen text again. It may well be a minority scholarly opinion, so could do with either shortening or a counter-balancing mainstream opinion. Agree? ^rossnixon 02:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's too much - we just need to say that conservative scholars have advanced arguments identifying various locations, in keeping with their wider perception of the Exodus narrative as history. We could even say where these spots are, but there's no need to go into a lot of supporting argument. PiCo (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

A.J. Spencer (2009) explains where Tell el-Balamun is located. Since Hoffmeier refers to Tell el-Balamun on page 86 without saying where it is, this is useful information for the article.

Drews and Han (2010) is a peer-reviewed scientific paper on fluid dynamics. The paper has not been removed from PLoS ONE, nor is it self-published. By my count the paper cites eight archaeological sources (6, 9, 13, 14, 25, 28, 29, 41). The paper is cited here to state the elevation of the El Gisr ridge (20 meters, shown in Figure 4).

Sneh and Weissbrod (1975) contains the Geological Survey map referenced in the article text. Since this section is on the Location of the Crossing, a peer-reviewed map is useful. CarlDrews (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Carl, there are multiple issues with all of this. Not least of all that you are plugging your own paper. Kitchen at al. dwell on the assumptions that the exodus actually happened and that it happened during the reigns of either Seti I or Ramesses II, and that the border canal existed during that time, and that the geography of Egypt's eastern border during that time is as or at least similar to what you propose in your own paper. Instead of finding out about history Kitchen rather seems to be constructing it himself. Your own paper, too, relies on an exodus during the New Kingdom. What exactly are your sources for that except the rather shaky chronology pushed by Kitchen? Also, I am not convinced that T-78 (the exact location of which I could not yet determine despite some effort as you know) is the biblical Migdol. Although a certain latitude is allowed, Kitchen is just speculating too much and is making way too many assumptions (primarily derived from biblical claims) to begin with.

The article as it has been restored now only drags a reader into the various speculations instead of presenting a reader with short summaries of conclusions. The "Location of the crossing" section is highly un-encyclopedic. ♆ CUSH ♆ 21:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I stated my conflict of interest on my Talk page months ago. If the height of the El Gisr ridge is not useful, then that citation can be removed. Google Earth gives the same value, but it's not citable here. Since you asked about the New Kingdom date, here is the verifiable source (Hoffmeier 1996, Israel in Egypt, page 126): "But for those who take the events seriously, the quest remains an intriguing investigation of the biblical and archaeological data. If there is a prevailing view among historians, biblical scholars, and archaeologists, an exodus in the Ramesside era (1279 - 1213 B.C.) is still favored." CarlDrews (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

My problem with the material about Hoffmeier and Kitchen is that it goes on far too long. It's enough to say simply that Hoffmeier puts it in X and Kitchen puts it in Y. (A map would be good if we could have one - the map we have at the moment isn't really all that useful; maybe we could make our own using Google-Earth?).

Cush, I think it's inevitable that readers are going to ask where the crossing was, we can't simply ignore the question. What we do need to do is present the full range of scholarly opinion, and, if possible, give some indication of how much weight each opinion has.

Hoffmeier/Kitchen belong to the extreme evangelical end of the spectrum - which doesn't mean extremist, just that there's nobody with a more uncompromisingly historicising approach, at least not among respectable academics. (I'm excluding people like Ron Wyatt, who isn't in any sense respectable). We need to mention them, but we also need to point out that they approach the question from a point of view which treats the bible as a sober historical record.

From David Ong: "Why don't we exclude Isaac Newton also from physics related articles since he was obviously religious too and meddled with alchemy? Shouldn't you at least discuss the photos he (Ron Wyatt) took of wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea? Regardless of the worldly view of this man he did find evidence that is the photographs. Those photos are not from the Bible are they? (Regardless of weather or not the author treats the Bible as a historical record). To say there is no proof of the Red Sea crossing would be an outright lie and intellectually dishonest since these photos exists. Mention them and the extent they have been cross examined. Even if they haven't been crossed examined it doesn't invalidate them. Only that they haven't been validated or invalidated yet. It's not like there is a ton of other photos and videos of wheels purported to have been taken from the Red Sea from a dozen other authors that you would have to also mention if you do this are they? As far as I can tell this is the only purported evidence of the Red Sea Crossing and it's worth mentioning"

One step over from them, and what I'd call the majority, is the view of people like Meyers (and many others) who agree that the Exodus as described in the bible never happened, and that the search for a crossing place is therefore pointless. The evidence that there was no Exodus is in fact quite overwhelming in its sheer bulk. There's general agreement also that the Book of Exodus is a book of theology, not history. This forces a very different view of the elements that the evangelicals interpret as natural phenomena - the "wind from the east", for example, is not a wind, but rather the Wind of God, as met in the opening of Genesis, and it comes from the east because Yahweh is in Sinai, which is to the east of Egypt. (And Yahweh is a storm god).

So the evangelical view is an unsophisticated one in terms of current scholarship - it reads theology as history, and it ignores the huge amount of literary and archaeological scholarship that has led to the success of the mainstream view.

This, incidentally, is what I meant when I said that the Drews/Han paper was "poorly based in terms of the area of scholarship it draws on." It doesn't touch on such questions as the composition history of the Book of Exodus (a huge area of scholarship, with a developing consensus that it was written c.500-400 BC to justify the reform agenda of the priestly class that had gained control of Jerusalem under the Persians), nor does it touch on what is by now a complete consensus that the Exodus never happened. So while it's no doubt a good paper on fluid dynamics and large water bodies, as biblical scholarship it won't get a hearing outside evangelical circles. PiCo (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

So, this leads to the question whether the extreme end of the evangelical spectrum that produces results that deviate from mainstream scholarship is a source that is reliable and notable enough to be used at such length in article if at all. As I have said, my main problem is mainly with Kitchen who for so long has managed to manipulate Egyptology by introducing "findings" that are rather based on religious dogma (and the 19th-century view of ancient history derived thereof) than on actual archaeology and research of historical records. ♆ CUSH ♆ 01:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm deleting the Kitchen/Hoffmeier material again - it's giving far too much weight to these two authors (I don't question that they're academically respectable, but their view is too much a minority one to merit all this space). The Drews/Han paper is of dubious relevance to the question of where the crossing might have been imagined to have occurred - the biblical text doesn't point to this northern area - and fails to come to terms with the larger question of whether the crossing story is history or theology (on which point I find myself, for the very first time in my life, in agreement with Associates for Biblical Research).PiCo (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crossing the Red Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040113013247/http://www.etana.org/abzu/ to http://www.etana.org/abzu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crossing the Red Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502185851/http://archnet.asu.edu/regions/neareast/general.php to http://archnet.asu.edu/regions/neareast/general.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Archaeological evidence

I don't think this claim belongs to lead. Archaeology is constantly making new discoveries, and not every event in ancient history can or has been proven by finding artifacts. Besides, such claim is disputed because apparently some people found evidence of an Egyptian army drowned in the Red Sea.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

As I said, the lead summarises the article and it is sourced in the article. By the way, if you read fake news you're going to be very confused. If you'd bothered to check you'd see several media sources saying it was a hoax.[9] No such professor, the university didn't carry out such an excavation, the underwater photo was from Mexico in 2014. And the story said it was all found on dry land, so the divers were a clue that it was a hoax. Doug Weller talk 22:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You are right. Apparently I fell for fake news. Thanks for letting me know. Mea culpa.--יניב הורון (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Up. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@IP: there is no way objective evidence can be supernatural in nature. WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Origin myth vs belief?

Why does the resurrection of Jesus article say it is a belief but this article says that the sea parting is an origin myth? They both have the same amount of evidence. Mishael613 (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll grant you the point that the resurrection of Jesus is a myth (even reasonable Christian theologians would agree). But it is not an "origin myth": Jesus was not the mythical founder of a nation. Same as Muhammad is not considered "the father of Arabs". tgeorgescu (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

If this is gonna say origin myth then either they both have to say myth or both say belief. Mishael613 (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. In this case, "origin myth" is very well sourced, while calling the resurrection a myth could be WP:UNDUE. If you seek coherence among Wikipedia articles: WP:NOJUSTICE.

Morals: you have no WP:CONSENSUS for removing "origin myth" from this article, and if you want another article stating that resurrection is a myth, then you go to the talk page of that article and seek consensus for your edit. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think that they should both say myth, I think they should both say belief. It’s a belief Moses parted the sea just as it’s a belief that Jesus rose from the dead or that Odysseus killed a Cyclops. Mishael613 (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Again: you lack consensus for your desired change. What might be a good argument elsewhere is not a good argument at Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

What scholars have said that the resurrection of Jesus is a belief while the crossing of the sea is a myth? The scholars I’m familiar with say either both belief or both myth. Mishael613 (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Honey, you do not make the WP:RULES. You are not allowed to remove "origin myth" from this article. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Never said I wanted to do that, was just asking why it says that and Jesus resurrection says belief when they have the same amount of proof pal Mishael613 (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

... but not the same amount of sourcing. WP:RS matter, according to WP:DUE, not your own musings about amount of proof.

We call it origin myth because mainstream Bible professors and mainstream professors of archaeology (including many Jewish professors) commonly call it an origin myth. So, that's vanilla scholarly jargon, and it is very odd for me to understand why you're fighting against vanilla scholarly jargon in a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia based upon WP:SCHOLARSHIP. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright I guess Mishael613 (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)