SUMMARY: Part 2 of the film critique of Patterns of Evidence: The Red Sea Miracle II by archaeologist Pieter van der Veen followed by a response from the opposing viewpoint of geographer Glen Fritz. See Part 1 here.
“Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD…” – Isaiah 1:18 (ESV)
Comments on the Patterns of Evidence Film The Red Sea Miracle II (2020) by Archaeologist Peter van der Veen
The Red Sea Miracle II (released in July 2020) develops the theme of faith in miracles more fully, both in general and more specifically in relation to the crossing of the Sea. The general discussion is accompanied by drama sequences, presenting the 18th century critical philosopher David Hume and by a conversation between the Christian apologist C. S. Lewis and his famous friend J. R. R. Tolkien. Subsequently, the discussion concentrates on the miraculous crossing at the Yam Suph.
The question is asked if God would have used natural phenomena to save his people as some proponents of both approaches (including Colin Humphreys) have suggested. Based on the Song of the Sea in Exodus 15 the film makers, seeking to direct the general focus of the film towards the Gulf of Aqaba, then argue that Yam Suph must have been a deep water.
Consequently, they argue that the walls that rose on the left and right of the Israelites would have towered high above the heads of the refugees, just as in the classical Hollywood film “The Ten Commandments” by Cecil B. DeMille (1956). As a child, film director Tim Mahoney had watched DeMille’s imposing reconstruction of the event which left a lasting impact on the way he understands the event today. There the Israelites led by Moses (played by Charlton Heston) were faced with sky-scraper high walls of water flanking the Israelites, while they traversed the seabed on dry ground. These imposing water masses then took Pharaoh by surprise and obliterated his entire chariotry.
While Mahoney locates this deep-water body at the Gulf of Aqaba, Cecil DeMille erroneously located the spectacle on the eastern frontier of Egypt, where no such imposing bodies of water ever existed. This is not to say that the shallower lakes on the eastern frontier must always have been of the same depth. Recent study suggests that during the time of the Old and Middle Kingdoms (i.e. between 5000–3500 years BP = c. 3000–1500 BC) these salty lakes were larger and came further inland as indicated by heavy salinization of what is now dry land. Also, the shoreline of the Mediterranean lies further south than in today’s Egypt (Geriesh et al 2015).9
The Egyptian Approach and the Hebrew Approach
As in Part 1, film director Tim Mahoney again highlights the two approaches, the “Egyptian” and “Hebrew” ones. While the former seeks to explain the route taken by the Israelites by referring to ancient Egyptian sources, the latter arrives at its conclusions solely by using the Holy Scriptures.
While according to the filmmakers most proponents of the “Egyptian approach” seek to explain the pillar of cloud, the pillar of fire and the crossing of the sea as natural phenomena, the proponents of the “Hebrew approach” consider these to be signs of divine intervention only. Consequently, the “Hebrew approach”, the one followed by the filmmakers, seems to trust the Bible more. There is an underlying tone in the film that is worrying. It tends to present Egyptology as fundamentally anti-biblical, as it seems to have blinded past searchers for the truth. As a consequence, scholars of this camp are criticized for not trusting the Bible enough. This is difficult to accept.
Firstly, there are scholars on both sides, who believe in miracles. Secondly, evangelical Egyptologists like James Hoffmeier have yielded crucial evidence that supports the veracity of the biblical narrative.10 The afore-mentioned biblical toponyms are one example only. Likewise, the many Egyptian loanwords employed in the first books of the Bible suggest that the biblical writers had a good grasp of the Egyptian language (Noonan 2016).11 This seems to underline the conservative view that the Israelites spent a long time in Egypt and that the traditional author of Genesis and Exodus was trained here as a scribe (cf. Acts 7:22). Indeed, Moses was raised at the Egyptian palace, while Joseph, the key-player of the later chapters of Genesis (37–50), was the second man in command after Pharaoh. The “Egyptian approach” therefore has much to commend itself.
The Weakness of the Hebrew Approach
The “Hebrew approach” is advocated in the film mainly by amateur researchers. Repeated claims like “these conclusions are based on the Bible only” appear to add a superior dimension to this view, as if no additional information from archaeology (let alone from Egyptology) were needed. Lennart Möller (a Swedish scientist and leading proponent of the “Hebrew approach”) is shown in his laboratory but remains largely silent throughout the film and as such adds little to this position. Similarly, a diver, who had previously worked with the late Ron Wyatt (who had claimed to have found the wheels of Pharaoh’s chariotry on the seabed of the Gulf of Aqaba) does not mention any supporting evidence at all. He too never saw the wheels himself. The truth is that they have “miraculously disappeared” (personal communication with David Rohl).
It is difficult to appreciate Wyatt’s role in the film. For so many of his would-be discoveries have turned out to be frauds. Noah’s ark and Sodom and Gomorrah all proved to be natural rock formations, while the spot where Wyatt claimed to have found Israel’s holiest relic in Jerusalem (near Gordon’s Calvary), yielded nothing but late material during recent excavations (pers. comm. With Y. Zellinger, Israel Antiquities Authority).12
The Miracle of the Sea Crossing
As for the phenomena that accompanied the sea miracle, the following questions deserve further scrutiny:
a) Divine intervention through natural phenomena? The film makers doubt that only a strong east wind could have laid bare the seabed, unless it happened through divine intervention. But why should there be a contradiction here? The biblical narrative indeed tells us that it was a strong east wind that turned the sea into dry land (Exod 14:21). Similarly, we have argued on several occasions that probably an earthquake destroyed Jericho at the time of the conquest, a phenomenon that is well attested in the Jordan rift.13 In our opinion it is the time factor in both cases that really matters: both events occurred at the right time for Israel to move on under God’s command.
b) The depth of the sea: the waters of the Yam Suph are described as forming walls on the left and right hand of the traversing Israelites. Yet nowhere the biblical narrative tells us how high these “walls” actually were and how wide the path had been on which the Israelites escaped. The impression that the waters must have been very deep only stems from the Song of Moses in Exodus 15 and may well be a mere literary convention. As an enthronement Psalm, Exodus 15 (vv. 11, 18) employs cosmological descriptions of God’s active role as a divine warrior (vv. 3 and 6) and of his supremacy over the Egyptian forces (e.g. v. 1 “he hurled into the sea”, v. 4 “he cast into the sea”, v. 5 “they went down into the depths like a stone”), while finally leading his people towards the Promised Land to his sanctuary on Zion (vv. 16b–17). The strong east wind of Exodus 14 now becomes the very “blast of God’s nostrils” (v. 8).
While it is true (as one of the Old Testament scholars in the film says) that the ophanic language can be connected with God’s deeds in space and time, the literary figures employed often go beyond what is experienced in the earthly realm. Similarly, in Psalm 18 (dealing with David’s liberation from earthly enemies including Saul, v.1) the psalmist again describes God’s power in cosmological terms (vv. 7ff.) and employs again the metaphor of deep waters (v. 16), while no such waters seem ever to have played a role in the narratives on David’s conflicts with King Saul. By choosing these metaphors the psalmist exalts God’s supremacy over the forces of darkness that seek to annul his divine plan.
c) The miracle at the Jordan river as a parallel: there is another important link to the story of the dividing waters. It is found in Joshua 3:16. It seems to have had a similar impact on the Canaanites as the crossing of the Yam Suph. It seems evident that the crossing of the Jordan was on a smaller scale than the crossing of Yam Suph. But how much smaller? Similar metaphors are employed. Also, at the Jordan the water is “heaping up” (an expression also found in Exodus 15:8), so that Israel could enter the Promised Land on dry ground. Note Israel’s confession: “For the Lord dried up the waters of the Jordan before you until you had crossed, just as the Lord your God had done to Yam Suph, which He had dried up before us, until we had crossed.”
Consequently, we must learn not to read into the biblical narrative what is not actually written there, other than that there existed a body of water called Yam Suph near Migdol and Pihahiroth (i.e. on the northeastern frontier of Egypt) through which the Israelites at the time of the Exodus traversed on dry ground, and in which Pharaoh’s army drowned when the strong east wind diminished and the waters returned.
9 M. H. Geriesh et al., “Implications of climate change on the groundwater flow regime and geochemistry of the Nile Delta, Egypt”, Journal of Coastal Conservation 19:4 (2015), 589–608.
10 For instance: J. K. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition, Oxford, 2005.
11 B. J. Noonan, “Egyptian Loanwords as Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus and Wilderness Traditions”, in J. K. Hoffmeier, A. R. Millard, G. A. Rendsburg (Hgg.), “Did I Not Bring Israel Out of Egypt?” Biblical, Archaeological, and Egyptological Perspectives on the Exodus Narratives, Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 13, Winona Lake, 2016, 49–67.
12 Personal communication in 2010.
13 Zerbst & van der Veen 20183, e.g. 54–55.
A Response by Geographer Glen A. Fritz to the Critique of The Red Sea Miracle II
The critique touched on topics of miracles, natural phenomena, and water depths in the Yam Suph sea crossing, but avoided geographical arguments. It noted that the film depicted the Egyptian approach as relying on “ancient Egyptian sources,” while the Hebrew approach “arrives at its conclusions solely using the Holy Scriptures.” Furthermore, that the Egyptian approach views the pillars of cloud and fire and the sea crossing as natural phenomena, while the Hebrew approach interprets them as divine interventions. Hence, concern was voiced that the Hebrew approach was portrayed as “trusting the Bible more” than the Egyptian approach, which could unfairly taint the latter as being “anti-biblical.”
To help counter this notion, James Hoffmeier was cited as an example of an evangelical Egyptologist who accepts miracles and has provided evidence of the Bible’s veracity. Furthermore, that Egyptology does rely on the Bible in its research of Egyptian toponyms and loanwords.
The Weakness of the Egyptian Approach
In response to this assessment, Egyptologists can be wrong about what the Bible says without being intrinsically anti-Bible. However, the core problem in the Egyptology approach to the Exodus is its emphasis on “ancient Egyptian sources” (which do not mention the Exodus), at the expense of sound biblical geography analysis. The result is Egypt-centric hypotheses based on linguistics and archaeology that only selectively use biblical data. This mindset is seemingly reflected in this critique’s reluctance to weigh the geographical arguments concerning Yam Suph.
This approach arose in the 1870s when Egyptologist Heinrich Brugsch whimsically shifted the “Sea of Reeds” nickname for the Red Sea to Lake Sirbonis on the Mediterranean coast. He then exuberantly predicted that Egyptian data would solve the Exodus enigmas: “The Egyptian monuments contain all of the materials necessary for the recovery of their [the Hebrews’] route…of the different stations with their corresponding names in Egyptian” (Brugsch 1874, 398).
Alan Gardiner, the premier Egyptologist of the early 20th century, also believed that Egyptology could elucidate the Exodus (1922). His supposed Egyptian etymology for the Hebrew suph became the linguistic pillar of the “reed sea” theories. Consequently, “the 19th century etymology-linguistic interpretation of the phrase…became the model for 20th century research” (Vervenne 1995, 418).
Later, famed Biblical Archaeologist W. F. Albright endorsed the Egyptian etymologies for Exodus place names, as well as the idea of divorcing Yam Suph from the Red Sea: “We must give up the now traditional southern crossing [at the Gulf of Suez], and separate the Red Sea completely from the Sea of Reeds in Exodus” (1948, 16).
The Miracle of the Sea Crossing
The main assertion in this critique was that Yam Suph did not have deep water and was, therefore, an Egyptian marsh lake, not the Gulf of Aqaba. Here are the argument summaries:
- An inference was made that the film’s “walls of water” depiction may be an embellishment stemming from the imagination and error of Cecil B. DeMille and Tim Mahoney. It was then oddly noted that Mahoney put the crossing at the Gulf of Aqaba, while DeMille “erroneously located the spectacle on the eastern frontier of Egypt, where no such imposing bodies of water ever existed.” The caveat was added that the shallow lakes on the eastern frontier may have been deeper or larger in antiquity based on geological history.
Comment: The Bible gives an eyewitness account of a deep sea and walls of water (Exodus 14:22, 29), a record that cannot be altered by any cinematic distortions. The geological rationale given for larger and/or deeper frontier lakes was vague, with an off-topic citation (Geriesh et al.). Geological data suggest that the Nile delta was higher, drier, and smaller 3500 years ago, and the Isthmus of Suez lacked permanent lakes prior to the Suez Canal (Fritz 2016, Ch. 9-10). In essence, the “reed sea” crossing sites envisioned by Egyptologists may not have existed at the time of the Exodus.
2. The wind “turned the sea into dry land” implying that the water had to be shallow.
Comment: The Hebrew grammar in Exodus 14:21 indicates that the wind accompanied the event but was not the instrument of the sea parting. The biblical accounts depict a miraculous scenario, not merely a meteorological event.
3. The sea parting was declared to be a miracle of timing, not necessarily one of magnitude.
Comment: The intent of this proposition is to negate the requirement for a deep sea.
4. Scripture fails to give the height of the “walls of water” or the width of the path through the sea, implying that the absence of dimensions minimizes the scale of the phenomena.
Comment: This statement is a diversion known as a “red herring” fallacy. The lack of dimensions does not automatically denote shallow water conditions. The Hebrew word translated here as “wall,” khomah, is also used for fortified city walls. It was likely the tallest suitable descriptor available to the author.
5. The critique asserted: “The impression that the waters must have been very deep only stems from the Song of Moses in Exodus 15 and may well be a mere literary convention.” In essence, subtle doubt was placed on this song’s historicity because its poetic phrases use cosmological and metaphoric language similar to that found in Psalm 18, which had nothing to do with the Exodus.
Comment: References to the depths and the character of Yam Suph are not limited to Exodus 15, as shown in the chart below. In Psalm 18, it is more likely that David reached back to the language of the Exodus sea miracle to help poetically express the gravity of his situation. The fact remains that the Bible used both narrative and poetic forms to document historical events.
6. The parting of the flooded Jordan river at the close of the Exodus was observed to be a parallel, but smaller scale event than the sea crossing. The critique then wondered, “how much smaller?” insinuating that the magnitude of the sea crossing was not much greater because the stories used similar metaphors and the idea of water “heaping up” (Exodus 15:8; Josh. 3:16).
Comment: This point resorts to literary analysis to minimize the Yam Suph event while ignoring more tangible geographical evidence. The Bible never described the Jordan river as having great depths, however, it clearly did so for Yam Suph.
The Only Rebuttal to the Gulf of Aqaba Location
Surprisingly, the critique only supplied one direct rebuttal of the Gulf of Aqaba location for Yam Suph: “The ‘Hebrew approach’ is advocated in the film mainly by amateur researchers….based on the Bible only…as if no additional information from archaeology (let alone from Egyptology) were needed.” The idea was additionally discredited by its association with adventurer Ron Wyatt: “It is difficult to appreciate Wyatt’s role in the film. For so many of his would-be discoveries turned out to be frauds.”
Comment: This ad hominem argument (attacking a person rather than the opinion they hold) implies guilt-by-association, a fallacy known as “poisoning the well.” This ploy uses irrelevant, adverse information to diminish the validity of the Gulf of Aqaba location. Summarily discrediting the man and the hypothesis in this manner is prejudicial and shortsighted, amounting to “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”
An ad hominem attack is inappropriate because the Gulf of Aqaba hypothesis is derived from a corpus of biblical geography references and is not dependent on allegiance to the work of one man. However, the position of the crossing site is less certain. It can only be estimated based on descriptions of the path to the sea (Exodus 14; Josephus Ant. II.xv.3-5) and topographical and bathymetric analysis.
The critique concludes with the caution that “we must learn not to read into the biblical narrative what is not actually written there other than there existed a body of water called Yam Suph near Migdol and Pihahiroth (i.e., on the northeastern frontier of Egypt).”
Conversely, we ought to first heed the biblical geography that identifies Yam Suph as a true sea that marked the southern bound of the Promised Land (Exodus 23:31), rather than relying on linguistic suppositions that devised a “reed sea” at Egypt. Furthermore, anchoring Egyptology-derived Exodus toponyms to this “reed sea” amounts to circular reasoning, where the premises are just as much in need of proof as is the conclusion. If the sea crossing took place at the Gulf of Aqaba, 150 miles from Egypt, Egyptology clearly has little pertinence. In the final analysis, the Exodus route is a geographical problem. Without a coherent geographical framework, archeological investigation lacks the criteria needed for valid conclusions.
References:
Albright, W. F. 1948. Exploring in Sinai with the University of California African Expedition. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 109: 5-20.
Fritz, Glen A. 2016. The Lost Sea of the Exodus: A Modern Geographical Analysis. San Antonio: GeoTech.
Gardiner, Alan H. 1922. The Geography of the Exodus. In Recueil D’Etudes Egyptologiques, 203-245. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honore Champion.
Vervenne, M. 1995. The Lexeme ֹ סוף(suph) and the Phrase סוף ים (yam suph). In Immigration and Emigration Within the Ancient Near East, Festschrift E. Lipinski, eds. K. Van Lerberghe and A. Schoors, 403-429. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Department Orientalistiek.
NOTE: See Part 1 of the Red Sea Miracle Film Critique and response in last week’s Thinker Update, and KEEP THINKING!
TOP PHOTO: High walls of water at the Exodus sea crossing as depicted in Patterns of Evidence: The Red Sea Miracle II. (© 2020 Patterns of Evidence, LLC)
NOTE: Not every view expressed by scholars contributing Thinker articles necessarily reflects the views of Patterns of Evidence. We include perspectives from various sides of debates on biblical matters so that readers can become familiar with the different arguments involved. – Keep Thinking!
