The Red Sea Crossing

The crossing of the Red Sea has been known as such since the account was first written. However, in recent years, when Hebrew became a living language again, attention was drawn to the Hebrew words for the "Red Sea." The Red Sea is called the End Sea. In Hebrew the word for "sea" is "yam." The word for "end" is "soff." The word for "reed" is "suff." These words are written in the holy scrolls as "YM" and "SF," with no vowels. Hebrew is a consonantal language like all Semitic languages and normally does not need vowels to deliver the meaning. This is an exceptional case where the meaning is changed by the vowel used. In the one case the translation is "the Red Sea" and in the other "the Reed Sea." The confusion in the nomenclature occurred due to the absence of vowels in the holy scriptures. Having realized this, the scholars decided that the Reed Sea made more sense. It was situated where the Suez canal is presently and was very shallow and subject to frequent wind storms. It fitted the bible story quite nicely.


In recent years, Ron Wyatt, an archeologist, investigated the Biblical account and, during the course of those investigations found evidence of a different crossing. The critical finds are those of Egyptian chariot remains in the Gulf of Aqabar. The theory now is that the Israelites crossed through the mountains from Succoth via Wadi Watir, a narrow passage which ended at Nuweiba beach on the shore of the gulf of Aqabar. The wadi and the beach are the only ones of their kind in that region. The wadi is narrow and the beach could accommodate many people. There is a land bridge from that beach across the gulf to the other side which is Saudi Arabia. A land bridge may be described as a strip of the ocean floor which rises up almost to the surface of the water and is permanent unlike the typical sand bar. It is on and near the land bridge that the Egyptian chariot remains and coral covered long bones were found. These remains consist of coral covered axles and wheel spokes. The chariot wheels were gold foil covered and have been left alone by the coral. The wood has disappeared but the gold foil remains as fragile proof of the erstwhile presence of the Egyptian chariots. There are also some coral covered human long bones together with equine remains also covered with coral.



Response by R.W. Bro. White:

This is one of my favourites! My Hebrew and Old Testament professor at Huron Seminary, said that most archeologists and serious Biblical historians are now agreed that the Exodus did not happen. They base this consensus which is little known in popular circles and certainly not taught in Sunday School, on the lack of archeological evidence. Imagine a small picnic in a city park. A week later a serious detective could easily find evidence that it had happened, but there is apparently not a single broken wheel, rusted tool, or shard of pottery to be found in the desert where the huge number of Hebrews, having left Egypt are said to have spent forty years wandering around. This is not a sandy desert where such items might easily hide; it is a rocky desert where they would be exposed eternally, yet modern day Israel's best archeologists who might be said to have an obvious vested interest in proving the Exodus have not been able to find a shred of evidence. In this debate, my much beloved professor declares himself an unappreciated dinosaur. He is a linguist, not an archeologist, but he noted five reasons why, linguistically, Biblical Hebrew appears to have at least some Egyptian origins. The simplest of these (and I am sad to say, the only one I can remember) is that the name "Moses" is linguistically not Hebrew in its form. It is Egyptian, as in the Pharaoh "Thutmoses."


The comment on the linguistic similarity of the Reed Sea and the Red Sea has been noted before. Napoleon Bonaparte who is credited with first suggesting the Suez Canal, during his Egyptian explorations is said to have crossed the Reed Sea. An excellent discussion of this can be found online at www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/08/ "New Evidence from Egypt on the Location of the Exodus Sea Crossing Part I." This all being the case, I am excited by Michael's reference to Ron Wyatt in this regard, and will be interested to see if my professor has any comment on it when I speak to him.


Further comment by R.W. Bro. Diamond: The idea that the exodus never happened takes its root from the lack of artifacts in the Sinai desert. There are two responses here. First: A theory or hypothesis cannot be proven with a negative. Second: The departure from Egypt was a race against time. Hence the unleavened bread.


Also, apart from being short of time the Israelites were travelling on foot which brings us to the most important consideration regarding their possessions which was weight. Jars and plates were far too heavy to be carried being made of ceramic material. Foodstuffs and liquids would no doubt be transported in skin bags and the result of this is that the only detritus left would be biodegradable. Nothing would persist for nearly two thousand years. Add to this the discovery of appropriate artifacts in the gulf of Aqabar and we have the unfolding of a historic event.


CONCLUSIONS

R.W. Bro. Diamond:


I wish to address a suggestion that my worthy brother made in his opening remarks. That of accuracy in repetition. The ancient scholars recited the Hebrew bible word by word with great attention to detail because they believed that they were dealing with the word of G-d. They did this assiduously for hundreds of years until the scribes meticulously consigned the spoken word to print. These words have been carefully copied so that a Hebrew bible today will be the same as one written in the past. The variation occurs in the translation where there are not the same restrictions and a multitude of authors have translated from the Hebrew into all kinds of eg. English, so as to appeal to those of us who are averse to the archaic style of the past.


It is in these translations that changes from the original may be found. A number of instances have been presented suggesting that some of the writings have enough information to be scrutinized by current scientific authorities and be understandable in the light of present knowledge. Not only are they understandable but they are scientifically sound. What each individual does with the information is a personal decision but there is enough to stimulate some very serious thought in terms of the value to be placed on the V.o.S.L.


R.W. Bro. White:

I am impressed with, delighted by, and interested in my friend's investigations. They are of the sort that we all need to undertake when we study our V.o.S.L. Important questions are always of the sort I have suggested: "How did this get here?" "Why is it in here?" and, "What does it mean to us today?" I believe that God has revealed more of his will in the V.o.S.L. than in any other document. The issue for us when we try to understand it is always "How do we best obey that will?"

by R.W. Bro. Michael Diamond FCF, PGR and R.W. Bro. William White, Grand Chaplain for The Committee on Masonic Education
October 2009

--if you are a Mason and enjoyed this essay, consider subscribing to the newsletter:
Free E-mail Masonic Newsletter

*Content
All opinions expressed on this website are of individual Brethren and not in anyway representative of the opinions of any Grand Lodge or Masonic Body.