An inaccurate church tradition continues. It is the claim that Moses parted the Red Sea so that the Israelites could cross it. This tradition is based on an inaccurate translation of the ancient Hebrew name Yam Suph.

The literal translation of Yam Suph is Sea of Reeds, which is the translation still used by rabbis. Rabbi Sam Shor writes, “The parting of the Sea of Reeds left such an indelible mark on the Jewish conscience, that even after the Jewish People had traversed the Sea and had seen the cessation of this supernatural event, they were acutely aware of the presence of G-d, even in the subtle, less obvious miracles that occur each and every day.”

Dr. Nicholas J. Schaser affirms the correct translation of Yam Suph:

The idea that the so-called “Red Sea” was actually a “Reed Sea” is known in Jewish tradition. Rashi (1040-1105) states that the sea was not the large inlet of the Indian Ocean that we call the “Red Sea,” but rather a “pond” or “marsh” filled with “reeds”. Rashi’s note aligns with the ancient Egyptian word sufi, which described the marshlands of the Egyptian Delta.

Still, the Bible also uses “Yam Suf” to refer to what we know as the “Red Sea” today: “King Solomon also built a fleet of ships at Ezion Geber… on the shore of the Red Sea (yam suf), in the land of Edom” (1 Kgs 9:26). Yet, this Red Sea “in the land of Edom” could not be the same body of water that the Israelites crossed leaving Goshen.

From a geographical perspective, rather than crossing the “Red Sea,” it is more likely that the Israelites crossed a marshy “Reed Sea” in northeastern Egypt. In certain parts of the wetlands in the ancient Egyptian Delta, the bodies of water were large and deep enough for people to drown in — think in terms of lakes with lots of reeds, rather than muddy swamps that one could walk through.

Egyptian mythology contains references to the marshlands as “chaos waters” that are the basis for primordial creation — deep, unruly waters in Egyptian thought. Exodus doesn’t preclude “Yam Suf” being both full of reeds, and being big enough to need divine assistance in order to cross.

Dr. Dennis R. Bratcher also affirms the correct translation of Yam Suph. He writes, “The translation ‘Red Sea’ is simply a traditional translation introduced into English by the King James Version through the second century BC Greek Septuagint and the later Latin Vulgate. It then became a traditional translation of the Hebrew terms. However, many modern translations either translate yam suph as ‘Sea of Reeds’ or use the traditional translation and add a footnote for the Hebrew meaning.”

In a research paper published by American Scientific Affiliation (a Christian organization), geologist William Tanner uses both biblical and geological data to explain why the correct translation of Yam Suph is Sea of Reeds instead of Red Sea. Tanner also explains why the Sea of Reeds is not the Red Sea, but, instead, is another body of water within Egypt. Tanner concludes his paper with the following commentary:

“The thesis that the route of the Exodus crossed Great Bitter Lake, but not the Red Sea, was advanced many years ago, in part perhaps because of some of the constraints of distance and time that have been reviewed here, but perhaps largely because of the Hebrew and Greek words that are used in the various manuscripts.

One of the most interesting aspects of this discussion is not whether ‘Sea of Reeds’ is correct (it is, as is easy to verify), but rather why translators continue to use ‘Red Sea,’ when the manuscripts provide a totally different identification, and when the additional details in the available sources require ‘Sea of Reeds’ and do not permit ‘Red Sea.’ How is it that, in many versions, the correct rendition can be given in footnotes, but not in the main text? How does a scholar justify a deliberate switch? And how does the reader, who has no access to the ancient languages, know which version is correct?”

Some Christians claim that the Israelites must have crossed the Red Sea because the Sea of Reeds was allegedly too shallow to drown Pharaoh’s entire army.

In response to that claim, Dr. Schaser writes, “In certain parts of the wetlands in the ancient Egyptian Delta, the marshes were large and deep enough for people to drown in — think in terms of lakes with lots of reeds in them, rather than muddy swamps that one could walk through. Egyptian mythology contains references to the marshes as ‘chaos waters’ that are the basis for primordial creation — large, chaotic bodies of water in Egyptian thought. Exodus doesn’t preclude ‘Yam Suf’ being both full of reeds, and being big enough to need divine assistance in order to cross.”

He also writes, “No need to think of the Reed Sea (wherever it might have been geographically) as being a shallow body of water.”

So why do so many Christians insist on Red Sea instead of Reed Sea even when the correct translation has been presented to them?

Answer: Because Christians are just as fallible and fleshly as non-Christians.

The preceding post is an updated version of a post that was published in January 2016.

Schaser, N.J. (2017, October 29). Red Sea or Reed Sea? Israel Bible Weekly. Retrieved from https://weekly.israelbiblecenter.com/red-sea-reed-sea/

Featured Image by Didier Descouens. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

David Robertson

The “Wanted” posters say the following about David: “Wanted: A refugee from planet Melmac masquerading as a human. Loves cats. If seen, contact the Alien Task Force.”

dododavid.blogspot.com/