The Quest for the Red Sea Crossing (2024)

​The Quest for the Red Sea Crossing
From leaving Goshen to crossing the sea.

​Dedicated to my wife

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface .............................................................................
The wanderings of Israel
Chapter One.....................................................................
If you start in the wrong place, you will go to the wrong place.
Chapter Two..................................................................
Where did Pharaoh live?
Chapter Three....................................................................
After leaving Rameses, Israel first goes to Succoth.
Chapter Four.....................................................................
New marching orders.
Chapter Five.......................................................................
“Etham, in the edge of the wilderness.”
Chapter Six ..................................................................
Change of direction.
Chapter Seven...................................................................
Where were Pi-hahiroth and the mouth of the Nile?
Chapter Eight ..................................................................
The Bible forgot the Sphinx and the Great Pyramid?
Chapter Nine....................................................................
The Yam Suph (Red Sea) and the Nile Delta.
Chapter Ten...............................................................
Crossing the Yam Suph

All rights reserved solely by the author, Copyright © 2014. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without the permission of the author. Scripture quotations are taken from The King James Bible (KJB). All quotations, whether from the Bible, archaeologists, or scholars, are italicized. Bold print or underlining used in verses or quotations of others reflects my emphasis. For the meaning of the Bible words in the original languages, I will be using Gesenius’ Lexicon and Strong’s Concordance, hereafter labeled Strong’s. This book was originally published under the name EXODUS, The Route * Sea Crossing * God’s Mountain, by GM Matheny and published by XULON PRESS.

Did the ancient Egyptians leave an account of the Red Sea (Yam Suf) crossing?
Most people who have studied this would respond, “But the ancient Egyptians never monumentalized their defeats.” Yes, and today no one is expecting to find an ancient Egyptian inscription that says, “The God of the Hebrew slaves beat us up.” However, there is an Egyptian legend (not the el-Arish Shrine) that does more than just lend itself to the sea crossing by Israel. It is about a battle between two Egyptian “gods,” and in this battle, the “good god,” who represents Egypt loses (something very rare), and the “bad god,” who represents the foreigners wins, and it takes place at the bottom of the sea. And what is of more interest is that this takes place right in front of the four place names of the Red Sea/Yam Suf crossing, as given in Exodus 14:2. (Pi-hahiroth, Migdol, Baal-zephon, and “the sea.”) But because this Egyptian legend was said to have happened in an unexpected location, it has been passed over. More on this legend further on.
The Quest for the Red Sea Crossing only teaches one sea crossing by Israel and in deep water not multiple sea crossings, or in shallow water as critics have said.
Preface
The wanderings of Israel
Anyone not familiar with this subject will be surprised by how much debate there is about the location of the Red Sea crossing and which route the children of Israel took. When I first realized this debate was raging, I thought, “What is the matter with these people? Surely they could have figured this out by now. Just look on the map!” And I reasoned, “All they have to do is find a few of the place names that are given in the Bible and then backtrack from Mount Sinai with the average distance traveled per day.” So, I got out my Sunday school map of the Sinai Peninsula and looked for Mount Sinai, but to my surprise, it had a question mark next to it. Scholars were not even sure where it was. I believed these encampments could be found: “seek, and ye shall find”. Because I had to learn from scratch, I will explain those things that were new to me.
Which source can we trust?
Reading today’s commentaries on the Bible can be helpful, but there are Bible commentaries (by Jewish historians) that are two thousand years old. A few were written by those who saw the temple service and would have had access to scrolls no longer available. I learned more from them than from reading modern commentaries. There are some things I would not have understood about the Exodus without these ancient writings.
The ancient writers do not always agree among themselves, just as the scholars of today obviously disagree, since there are a dozen different crossing locations for the Red Sea and more than twenty mountains that claim the title Mount Sinai. Where history, archaeology, or traditions contradict each other or the Bible, then the Bible will be the ultimate authority and judge of what is error or correct; it was, after all, the original source of the Exodus. There are times I will quote an ancient source knowing I could not possibly agree with all the legends or traditions written therein. On the other hand, I believe the Bible and I believe the miracles of the Bible--all of them! I believe the biblical account of the Exodus and I interpret it the same way I would interpret an account of an event recorded in a newspaper. I do not believe like the critics who say the Exodus was a “fabricated history” by Jewish priests to provide their people with a past. The Exodus and the miracles of the Bible all happened as stated (I Corinthians 10:1–11), and though one may make an allegory from them, the events are historical.
Thankfully, there are scholars who believe the Bible, but most do not, especially when it disagrees with their theories. Would you expect scholars who do not believe the Bible to find any evidence for the Exodus? How hard would they look for it? How much time and money would you spend looking for something you did not believe existed? They do not like their source of information coming from the Bible that teaches about God, creation, and miracles. Yet, they will readily cherish any papyrus they find in the sand of Egypt, whose author would have believed in Egyptian mythology and worshiped a multitude of Egyptian gods, half of which were animals! Some even inform us that we should not interpret the miracles of the Bible literally. But Christ and His apostles interpreted the miracles of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) literally (Noah and the flood, Lot and the fire and brimstone that rained down from heaven, etc. Luke 17:26–29). They like to tell you that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), as the last page records his death. It is, however, understood that the scribes of that day would have finished this part of Deuteronomy (under Joshua’s supervision) and may have written down other portions during the life of Moses, though under his supervision. However, these same textual scholars will divide the Pentateuch into different parts (Jahwist text, Elohist text, Deuteronomist, Priestly text, hence J, E, D, and P text), which they believe were written by different authors at different times and later combined, and all of them hundreds of years after the time of Moses and the Exodus. But these are imaginary works, and no ancient text has ever been found that backs this up. On the other hand, there are thousands of ancient Hebrew texts in scrolls or fragments, including from the Dead Sea Scrolls, all in the form of our present-day Bible. Christ attributes all the Pentateuch to the authorship of Moses (Mark 1:44, Mark 7:10, Mark 10:2–3, Luke 16:31, Luke 24:27 and 44, John 5:46, and many other verses).
If archaeologists believe the Exodus happened, they still are not in agreement as to when it took place. And when searching for evidence of the Exodus, they will look for artifacts from the time periods of the Late Bronze Age I, 1550-1400 BC or Late Bronze Age II A, 1400-1300 or Late Bronze Age II B, 1300-1200 BC. And unless one can show finds for their particular Bronze Age period, or their personal chronology, his theory will not be accepted but declared invalid. But one needs to realize these “experts” do not agree among themselves as to the date of the Exodus.
It is not the intent of this book to explain who the pharaoh was of the Exodus or the date it took place, though the ancients believed it was during the reign of Ahmose, the first king of the Eighteenth Dynasty. And because the events of the Exodus took place three and a half millennia ago, I do not give “exact dates” that would be argued over, but I round off to the nearest decade or even the nearest century.
Could Israel Have Survived in the Desert?
We are told that it would not have been possible for such a multitude wandering the desert to have lived for more than a few weeks. Yes, and the same could be said about one person in the desert. They forget God, Who supplied water, meat (quail), and daily bread (Nehemiah 9:20). “Yea, forty years didst thou sustain them in the wilderness, so that they lacked nothing; their clothes waxed not old, and their feet swelled not” (Nehemiah 9:21). As others have brought out, the Israelites the critics are looking for never existed, because they do not believe God provided for His people, but the truth is, Israel “lacked nothing”!
The experts believe encampments of such a multitude would have left some sort of rubbish for them to track, but they are still trying to figure out which route the children of Israel followed. There was no thrown away, worn-out clothing, no piles of leftover manna (it melted Exodus 16:21), no broken pottery (discussed later), and no soda bottles or gum wrappers to follow.
The detractors’ inability to find the encampments of Israel is what they offer as proof. But they only recently found (2002) the “workers village” for the pyramids of the Giza Plateau. It is estimated this town housed twenty thousand people and was built out of bricks, whereas the children of Israel lived in tents. And this discovery of the workers village only came after archeologists had searched every inch of the Giza Plateau for the last two hundred years of archaeology.
Traditions
Besides archaeology and history, there are traditions to consider. In truth, traditions are not the most trustworthy sources and may have been created simply to help out the local tourism industry. I once heard a certain city in Europe claimed to have “all seventeen graves” of the original twelve apostles. So though I was not looking for any signs that said “Moses slept here,” still, traditions are expected to have been passed down if one has the right route for the Exodus, and there are more traditions for this route than all the others put together.
A number of quotes in this book come from the book Legends of the Jews (compiled in 1909) and concern for the accuracy of such legends is understandable. This work was compiled by Louis Ginzberg, and in his preface, he said, “In the present work, The Legends of the Jews, I have made the first attempt to gather from the original sources all Jewish legends, insofar as they refer to biblical personages and events, and reproduce them with the greatest attainable completeness and accuracy.” For original sources, he lists both Jewish and Christian writings.
Problems with Place Names
You may be surprised, as I was, by all the spelling differences among maps, even those of today. Sometimes, out in the middle of the desert, it depended on who pronounced the name, an Egyptian or a Bedouin. Sometimes, it was because of the Arabic language, which does not have certain letters that we have in our alphabet. There is no p in Arabic replaced with f and sometimes b, and no v replaced with b. Also, Arabic has some letters we do not have, which at first are hard to pronounce. Only a third of the letters in Arabic have a clear equivalent in our alphabet. Even when another language has the same sounds, one can still confuse the letters of s for z, or g for j; also, c, k, q, and g can get mixed up, and t for d.
One can read books that will say if an Arabic place name has no meaning in the Arabic language, then it was transcribed from another language. But this was not always the case, especially on older maps, which were made by French and German explorers who wrote down Arabic names as they sounded to them, leading to multiple spellings. You probably would not recognize your own name if someone from another country wrote it down as it sounded to him. British archaeologist Sir Wilkinson, who was the first to write down many of the place names out on the Egyptian desert, said, “I have kept in view, as much as possible, the English pronunciation, guiding my mode of spelling by the sound of a word, rather than by its Arabic orthography...now and then introduced a ‘p,’ which letter does not exist in Arabic, but which nevertheless comes near to the pronunciation in certain words.”1
I would like to add something here about the magnitude of the problem involved in finding these names that were written thirty-five hundred years ago in the Bible. First, there are at least eight languages in play, including ancient Egyptian, the Midianite language, and then the Greeks, who changed many names when they conquered Egypt. They were followed by the Romans, who gave many of the sites Latin names, then the Arabs, who conquered Egypt fourteen hundred years ago and gave hundreds of names in the Arabic language, and there are also some Bedouin names. Then, of course, we have Hebrew names from the Bible that we are reading in English. It is also possible there may be a few Turkish names from the Ottoman Empire.
The good news is that most of the place names out on the desert of Egypt are from one language, Arabic. The bad news is that 90 percent of these were transcribed into the Latin or the Roman alphabet, which we use in English. Though this helps us pronounce the names, it does not give us the meanings of the words. Translators do not like working with place names, but they especially do not like it when you cannot give them the original script of the language, in this case, the names written in Arabic. I claim no expertise on any of the original languages, but in most cases, even those who do would not help on this without the original script, and even when I was able to get the names in the original script, they could only explain the definitions of 10 percent or less of the place names. Even Sir Wilkinson only gave the meanings for a few names he wrote down. This was the single biggest problem I had.
The best help I found came from two Egyptian men, one who worked in a bank and the other a librarian, and both spoke English fluently. This will not be thought of as a “scientific method,” but Arabic was their own language and, more importantly, they were already familiar with many of these names, an advantage that the other translators did not have. I also was able to confirm all of the place names they translated with ones I found on the Internet. And when I say I found such and such a place, it means only the application of the place name for the route of the Exodus, not the actual discovery of the site. When I use the words us, we, and our, they will usually refer to my wife, Nancy, and me. She is the one who encourages me and this book is dedicated to her.
Neither the Egyptian hieroglyphics nor the Hebrew script used vowels when originally written, and in most cases, even the Arabic written today does not use vowels. Scholars say the vowel pointing for the Hebrew letters came during the Middle Ages and were added after these place names (and other words) were written. The Hebrews and the Egyptians, of course, did use vowels when speaking, but the placement of vowels in ancient Egyptian writings came later and is more conjecture than science. When it comes to the vowels, some translators will plainly tell you they are not sure, while others leave you with the impression they are fairly certain. Some translators will look to the Coptic or Greek languages, which did have vowels, to see how they spelled place names in Egypt. But those who recorded place names in Egypt did so often hundreds of years after the first time a site was named in hieroglyphics and cannot solve many of the problems. And so translators, when working with Egyptian hieroglyphics, will add vowels according to how they think the word would have been pronounced. This is another reason why it is possible to get a number of spellings for one word. For example, the Egyptian god, Atum, can be found with spellings of Tem, Temu, Tum, and Atem, but without the vowels it is just Tm.
The Border of Egypt
When referring to countries or seas mentioned in the Bible, remember that the boundary lines on today’s maps are not the same as in the days of Moses and of the Exodus of Israel. When you look on a map and view the Red Sea, Egypt, or Ethiopia, their locations are where they are today, not thirty-five hundred years ago. For example, the boundary lines of Israel during the time of King David went all the way to the Euphrates River (II Samuel 8:3), but not today. We will have to look at the boundary lines as described in the Bible, not of those on a modern-day map. Secondly, when a site is located, if not in agreement, you will have to ask yourself the question, “Why?” Is it just because you have seen the site put on a map at a different location, or because the Bible places it there? You will have to be willing to look at the evidence that is brought forth. On my part, there were sites I had real problems with at first, when considering their new locations. Not because the Bible placed them where I had been taught, but because sites and boundaries had been dictated by tradition and repetition, so much so it was hard to imagine them being in any other location.
Some of the modern paintings of Christ are not those of a first-century Jew. Christ was a Jew by His mother, not the long, blond-haired, blue-eyed Anglo-Saxon that some have imagined. If the reader is not open to looking at God’s Word and the ancient Jewish sources (that place things in different locations), then some things will be forced and he will be looking in the wrong places. I believe the biggest hindrance to accepting this route, and therefore the Yam Suf (Red Sea) crossing, will not be because of a lack of evidence, but fighting the traditional “Anglo-Saxon” diagram some have imagined was the route of the Exodus.
Should History and Archaeology be Important to Christians?
I do believe we should put the focus on studying the theology of the Bible, but there is an incredible amount of information in the Hebrew Scriptures about Egypt and the cities there, and it was given by God! In truth, there are things that are “weightier matters,” as Christ said in reference to the weightier matters of the Law of God, but we are not ignore the other things in the Scriptures, “these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone” (Matthew: 23:23). The history and archaeology of the Bible should not be explained by the scholars who do not believe in the supernatural and then sell their books to our young people, who are left with the impression the Bible is not trustworthy.
Some pretend it does not matter if one who writes about the Bible believes in miracles, the creation account, the resurrection, or even God, but this would be as naive as to believe that opposing political parties are unbiased when explaining each other’s views. Any researcher should at least study the Book that claims to be God’s Word and books written by those who believe in it. It only takes one small light at an exit door to show the way out of unbelief and error.
It is my sincere hope that, even with my limitations in this subject, God will be honored and His Name lifted up. “But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets…” (Daniel 2:28). I gladly, therefore, give Him credit for all that is right in this book, but like anyone, I certainly could have made mistakes (hopefully only small ones). There are, however, some things in this book, many things, which I have not read anywhere else on this subject.
What good will it do?
I suppose someone could have asked that when Moses first brought the Ten Commandments down off Mt. Sinai, and three thousand people died because of their idolatry (Exodus 32:28).
The Bible says, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead” (Luke 16:31). Some believe it is a waste of time to show people evidence to get them to believe, for if they believe not the Bible (“Moses and the prophets”), even if someone rose from the dead, they would not believe. This application was not meant for everyone. Lazarus rose from the dead, and “many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus” (John 12:9-11). God is not obligated to do this, nor is He our personal magician to work miracles for us at our will. But when He wants, there are times when He will do things such as the resurrection of Lazarus or smaller things to help the unbelief of some. And it is true that if someone does not want to believe, he will not, even if God works a miracle. We are told not to cast our “pearls before swine.” The chief priests did not believe when Lazarus was raised from the dead, instead, they wanted to kill him (John 12:10). And it is more blessed to believe without seeing Lazarus or Christ raised from the dead, yet the Lord said, “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed…” (John 20:29). I am not teaching you should seek a sign (Matthew 12:39), nor do I know how many this would help, or for whom God would allow such. But the Apostle Paul would have never been saved by preaching alone. He had to be “knocked off his high horse” (Acts 9:3-6) before he would look up. With this said, what is wrong with trying to explain some things to people and giving them reasons to believe? The field of archaeology has been used by some to turn people away from the truth of God’s Word. There are books that will strengthen your faith, and there are books with “oppositions of science falsely so called” (I Timothy 6:20–21) that will take your faith away (I Timothy 6:20, Colossians 2:8). Many of the reasons I have given, and will give, come right out of the Bible, and these things were not written in vain, so hopefully, they will show how accurate God’s Word is.
My purpose is not to try and prove the Bible; it is true already. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God…” (II Timothy 3:16). Ultimately, faith comes from the Bible (Romans 10:17), not from artifacts buried in the sand. I looked for the route of the Exodus not to see if it was true, but because I already believed it was true.
“And the people came up out of Jordan on the tenth day of the first month, and encamped in Gilgal, in the east border of Jericho. And those twelve stones, which they took out of Jordan, did Joshua pitch in Gilgal. And he spake unto the children of Israel, saying, When your children shall ask their fathers in time to come, saying, What mean these stones? Then ye shall let your children know, saying, Israel came over this Jordan on dry land. For the LORD your God dried up the waters of Jordan from before you, until ye were passed over, as the LORD your God did to the Red sea, which he dried up from before us, until we were gone over: That all the people of the earth might know the hand of the LORD, that it is mighty: that ye might fear the LORD your God for ever” (Joshua 4:19–24).
Quotes
Most of my quotes are from books that were published before 1923 (public domain). In a few cases, some were published after 1923, but their copyright was not renewed. In other cases, my quotes fall under “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law, which says that “the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment…” My quotes of this type are all less than one sentence. It sounds as if it would be easy to get permission from others to quote their books, but not if they believe differently than you about the Exodus. Most of my requests to quote a source received no response. I am not saying this to complain, it is understandable. I read all the information I could find, both old and new, pro and con, and surprisingly, in most cases, the older works were more helpful and interesting, especially the ancient writings of the Jews and classical writers.
Miles Per Day
The encampments of the children of Israel are found in their proper order, with a reasonable distance traveled between them and an accessible route for their multitude.
How many miles a day could such a multitude have traveled with wagons (Numbers 7:3–8), children, the elderly, flocks, and all? For those who say Israel could not have traveled more than five or six miles a day because of the need to graze their herds and flocks, they need only look to the covered wagon trains and cattle drives of the western US. Wagon trains, unless hindered by forest, could travel twelve to sixteen miles a day. Cattle drives are said to have averaged fifteen miles a day or more, and their cattle actually gained weight at this pace. Their cattle grazed at noon and at night. Though it was not the norm, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible makes an interesting comment about miles per day from Genesis 31:20–24, saying it “would give him twelve days to travel three hundred English miles.” That would be twenty-five miles a day with children and herds. In truth, they (Jacob and his family) were fleeing from Laban, pushing themselves, but this shows that it was possible, and they sustained it for twelve days.
Western sheep cannot be compared to the sturdy Bedouin sheep of the Middle East. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) website on Bedouin flocks, “Awassi sheep,” said, “flocks may be driven for as much as 35 km (21.75 miles) in 24 hours” (Williamson, 1949). http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/aj003e/AJ003E05.htm#fg21
The longest day’s march we have on the Exodus route is seventeen miles. The rate of fourteen miles a day was about the average on our route in the Eastern Desert of Egypt. There are, however, some scholars who want us to believe the average distance traveled was barely five miles a day, or that Israel traveled the absurd distance of sixty, seventy or more miles a day.
The children of Israel were prepared for this journey, being slaves used to hard work and rough living conditions, and at the start of their journey “there was not one feeble person among their tribes” (Psalms 105:37). In the same chapter, verse 39, it said the cloudy pillar that led them was as a “covering,” which would have given shade during the day on the hot desert and made it possible for them to travel at night. “And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night” (Exodus 13:21, Deuteronomy 1:33).
There are two variables in these miles-per-day averages. We do not know all the stops the Israelites made, nor do we know how long they stayed at each stop to rest. There are two times the Bible says Israel went three days, but only one stop is named (Exodus 15:22 and Numbers 10:33). They would have stopped each day, but no name is given for an encampment except the last one, probably because nothing exceptional happened at these stops or no name existed there. (In the desert, one would not expect to find a name at each location.) But this means there were most likely other stops not mentioned, and we learn that at the third place named after leaving Mount Sinai, forty days had gone by. Three days to get to Taberah (Numbers 10:33), thirty days of eating flesh at Kibroth-hattaavah (Numbers 11:19–20), and at least a week at Hazeroth, where Miriam (Numbers 12:15) had to wait outside the camp. My point is, they were able to rest sometimes between days of travel, which would make a big difference in how many miles a day they averaged. It should not be assumed, therefore, that it was only a one-day’s march between all the stations or that they only passed one night at each encampment.
Maps
The primary map used in this book is an 1844 map by John Arrowsmith, used by permission from the David Rumsey Map Collection, www.davidrumsey.com. I like this map, as it is easy to read. There are other maps, also from the David Rumsey Collection, which will be used because they show a better view of the landscape.
It will be important to keep in mind the geography of Egypt. “Lower” Egypt is in the north, and “Upper” Egypt is in the south. The Nile flows from the south to the north, the opposite of the Mississippi river; it is easy to forget this and become confused. The first time I quote an ancient writer, besides giving his name, I will also give the approximate date he wrote and what his occupation was, but thereafter, unless helpful to the point being made, I may give only the name. Also, as much as possible, I wanted this work to be in the form of a story, not a phone book with only names and addresses, so though I believe it is well researched, it will not be all technical details.
ENDNOTES
1. John Murray. Sir John Gardner Wilkinson. A Handbook for Travelers in Egypt (1867), 42.

We are being told today by some prominent archaeologists that after thirty-five hundred years, we will never find the sites where the children of Israel encamped, and they are right, if we keep looking in the same places! If you like “thinking outside the box” and are not shackled by the status quo, then you will, I believe, find this refreshing, thought provoking, filled with new ideas, and backed up with sound reasons, ancient texts, and biblical references.

Chapter One
If you start in the wrong place, you will go to the wrong place.
Today there are more than a dozen different routes for the Exodus and the Red Sea crossing. I do not want to add to the confusion, but hopefully clear up some things. Obviously, if we have more than a dozen different routes, some over a hundred miles apart, then each route will, of necessity, place the names of the sites that the children of Israel camped at in different locations. There must be something fundamentally wrong to have such a divergence of opinion. There is: they started from the wrong place!
One would think that after two hundred years of archaeology, we would have narrowed it down to a few choices; instead, now there is a growing number of opinions for the route of the Exodus and where Israel crossed the sea. What is wrong?Almost everyone is starting the Exodus from the east side of the Nile Delta. And therefore must have the sea crossing east of that, either at the Bitter lakes, Gulf of Suez, or Gulf of Aqaba.
There are forty-two encampments
Given in the Bible (Numbers 33:1–49) from the time when Israel leaves Egypt until it enters Canaan. These sites include towns, rivers, mountains, wildernesses, springs, and seas. It was surprising to me that most (more than 90 percent) of these place names given in the Bible are placed on maps today, not because researchers had found the site, but because they need it to be somewhere in that vicinity. One can read both scholars and novices declaring there can be “no doubt” on the location of their site, even though each has his site in a different location.
All this uncertainty has been used by critics to say the Bible is not accurate. But if we can find each site in its proper order, attainable distance, description, and name, then the accuracy of God’s Word will shine forth, and it will be a confirmation that we have the right route and location of the Red Sea crossing. The Bible, when listing the names of Israel’s encampments, says, “And Moses wrote their going out according to their journeys by the commandment of the LORD: and these are their journeys according to their goings out” (Numbers 33:2). And it was not in vain that each location, some with their descriptions, has been recorded in the Bible. But until we find where Israel started, people will keep coming up with “new routes” for the Exodus. If one starts in the wrong place, he will end up in the wrong place.And though it could be possible to pick up the trail at a latter location, there would always be doubt if we do not have the right starting place. And I believe archaeologists and Bible scholars have started from the wrong place. This is what lies behind so many different major routes, as the five most popular routes of the Exodus (listed below) all start from the same basic place, the East Nile Delta.
When I say scholars have started from the wrong place, I am not talking about a few miles off, but a three-day journey (by foot) to a place they are not even willing to consider. Even though two ancient Jewish writers place Israel at the location given in this book. Of all the sites that need to be established, this starting point is by far the most important, and until this is found we will continue to read about new theories of which route Israel took.

​The following is a list of the five most popular routes and the crossing places of the Red Sea. These are shown on the map above as:
A. Called the northern route, which goes through one of the lakes on the East Nile Delta.
B. The central route that goes through one of the Bitter Lakes and has many adherents, also many variations.
C. The southern route that goes across the northern tip of the Gulf of Suez.
D. The route that travels across the middle of the Gulf of Aqaba.
E. The route that goes across the southern end of the Gulf of Aqaba.
There are four more routes but only one appears to be believed by many, and that is an Islam belief that Moses and the children of Israel crossed the Nile River (more on this later). There is also a route by the Arabs that is halfway down the Gulf of Suez and then crosses at that location. And one that leaves from Thebes in the south of Egypt and crosses the Red Sea, and another that leaves from the Fayum district on the west side of the Nile. But the five most popular routes are the A–E routes; these also have many variations, especially the A–C routes.
Again, the starting places for these first five routes, A–E, are all from the East Nile Delta. Jacob (Israel) and his sons settled in the “land of Goshen,” and the people who hold to these routes will tell you that the land of Goshen was on the East Nile Delta. Yes, but was it only there? Traditionally, that is where Goshen has been placed, and so much so that it is hard today to imagine it being elsewhere.

The arguments put forth for Israel leaving from the East Delta.
The Bible says they left from “Rameses” (Exodus 12:37, Numbers 33:3).
​ Some would identify this with Pi-Ramesses, an ancient Egyptian capital believed to be on the east side of the Delta and thought to be one of the cities the children of Israel built in Exodus 1:11. Through the years, scholars have moved the site for the city of Raamses from one location to another, but always within the East Nile Delta.*
(*A notable exception to this was a city on the west side of the Delta at a town named Ramsis, about fifty miles southeast of Alexandria. I do not know if this was the biblical city of Raamses (Exodus 1:11), but it is marked on the upcoming map on the west side of the Delta. This site of Ramsis was rejected as the biblical Raamses based on the theory that Israel left from east side of the Delta.1)
However, the Bible says Israel left from “Rameses”, which is the spelling for the land not the city. “And they departed from Rameses in the first month…” (Numbers 33:3). Israel was in Goshen while the plagues fell on the Egyptians (Exodus 9:26). But the “land of Goshen” and the “land of Rameses” are one and the same. The children of Israel are said to have lived in both, and both are said to have been “the best of the land” of Egypt (Genesis 47:4–6, 11). The cities Israel built for Pharaoh were “Pithom and Raamses” (Exodus 1:11). But the children of Israel left Egypt from “Rameses” (Exodus 12:37) which is the spelling, with the Hebrew vowel points, for the land of Rameses, not the city. Again, Israel left from the land of “Rameses”, not “Raamses” which was a city, yet this is ignored. As others have brought out, it would have been hard for the multitude that was with Moses to have gone to any city for they would have overwhelmed it.
(An argument used by those who hold to the Exodus between 1300–1200 BC, or in some case by those who do not believe in the Exodus at all, is the use of certain biblical names such as “Pharaoh” and “Raamses.” We are told these names, or titles, were never used as far back as the time of Joseph or Moses. However the title Pharaoh was used for Thutmose III, who ruled from 1479 BC–1425 BC. But as others have pointed out, it should not be assumed that the city of Raamses (Exodus 1:11) or the land of Rameses (Genesis 47:11) came from a king’s name. Ramesses was a title that many kings of the Nineteenth Dynasty had, and it means “Ra fashioned him,” or “Ra is born,” and other variations. And so the city or land of Rameses may have been named in honor of this god and not a king. Pithom, which was the other city the children of Israel built, was not named in honor of a king but after an Egyptian god, “House of Atum” (Pithom).
(Pharaoh Raamses is known to have ruled Egypt for 66 years, but if this city was named after Pharaoh Raamses, and if this Pharaoh was the one of the Exodus as some believe, then something is not adding up. For Moses was eighty years old when he stood in front of Pharaoh (Exodus 7:7), and the “hard bondage” and the killing of male Hebrew babies, in which time Moses was born, was after the city of Raamses was built.)
Psalm 78:43
Some use Psalm 78:43 as proof the children of Israel were living on the east side of the Nile Delta at the time of the Exodus. “How he had wrought his signs in Egypt, and his wonders in the field of Zoan.” This Psalm is looking back to the time when the ten plagues (“wonders”) fell on the Egyptians, and because Zoan is thought to be the city of Tanis in the East Nile Delta, some believe Moses and the children of Israel must have been close by. But this word “field” (of Zoan) is the same word translated “country” of Moab (Numbers 21:20) and “country” of Edom (Genesis 32:2). Psalm 78 is attributed to Asaph, a contemporary of King David (1037–970 BC), and therefore this Psalm was written when Tanis was the capital of the Twenty-First Dynasty of Egypt and would have been used as another name of the country. Similarly, the capital of northern Israel, which was Samaria, ended up becoming the name of the ten northern tribes (II Kings 17:24, I Kings 16:24, John 4:5, and Acts 8:5). The Bible says the ten plagues were “throughout all the land of Egypt” (Exodus 7:19, 21; 8:16, 17; 9:9, 22, 25; 11:6), except Goshen, not in the back yard (“field”) of a city.
Targum Jonathan (3rd century AD)
Targum Jonathan hen writing about Exodus 12 and Numbers 33, has the Exodus starting at Pelusium, which was at the northeast corner of the Delta. I enjoyed reading the Targums with their traditions, but the Bible says Israel left from Rameses. Where in Egypt is it recorded that Pelusium was called Rameses or any variation of this name? Besides there are real problems with the geography of this route, as on the third encampment, Targum Jonathan has Israel at Tanis, some forty miles west of Pelusium.
Some look to the Septuagint* (an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures)
That Goshen was on the East Delta, for it calls Goshen, “Gesem of Arabia,” with Arabia being on the east side. It also says Joseph met his father in Heroopolis on the east side of the Delta. But meeting him there does not mean he lived there. More will be said later about the place names Gesem, Qes, and the city of Heroopolis.
Joseph’s wife came from Heliopolis, “On” of the Bible (Genesis 41:45), which was by modern day Cairo. And both Josephus2 (1st century AD, Jewish historian) and Artapanus2 (Jewish historian, 3rd–2nd century BC) said the children of Israel also lived in Heliopolis. This would have made Heliopolis a part of Goshen.
(*The Greek Septuagint is not superior to the Hebrew Scriptures. The Septuagint has place names in locations that no one could agree with! In Ezekiel 30:15, it has “multitude of No” as Memphis; well, if it is, no one believes this today. Also in this same verse, it has the place name “Sin” as Sais, and then turns around in the next verse and has “Sin” as Syene, six hundred miles south of Sais, then in verse 6 of that same chapter, the Septuagint took a differently spelled place name and also made it Syene. The translators of the Greek Septuagint, when translating the Hebrew scriptures, did not always write the Hebrew names but gave the Greek names of the cities that were in Egypt at that time and they often guessed poorly.)
Some believe the Sea crossing was at the Gulf of Aqaba
If so then the starting location would have been the East Delta. The evidence that has been brought forth for this is a pillar with an inscription that cannot be read. And a picture of what we are told is a chariot wheel lying on the sea floor, but how do we know it was not the wheel of a ship’s helm or even a brass pulley that fell overboard? (The picture has no ruler to indicate its size.)
Exodus 13:17–18
Some use Exodus 13:17–18, saying Israel was “near” or close to the Promised Land. “God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near.” Gesenius’ Lexicon gave for this word “near” as “something short.” It was the shortest or quickest route, but not that Israel was close by the Promised Land (See the same word in Job 17:12, KJV).

​Goshen was on both sides of the Delta.
​ “He [Joseph] married Aseneth a daughter of the priest of Heliopolis, by whom he begat sons. And afterwards his father and his brethren came to him, bringing much substance, and were sent to dwell in Heliopolis and Sais.”5 This quote is from Artapanus (3rd–2nd century BC), and from what he said, Goshen would have to be on both sides of the Nile. Heliopolis was at the apex of the Delta on the east side of the Nile, but Sais was within the Delta on the west side (see above map). And where the Bible says that Goshen was the “best of the land of Egypt,” this would be true of all the Delta. But it would be hard to understanding why only the east side would be considered such, because both sides are basically the same.

Israel left from the west side of the Nile River!
​ Josephus (1st century Jewish historian) said, “So the Hebrews went out of Egypt....Now they took their journey by Letopolis, a place at that time deserted, but where Babylon was built afterwards, when Cambyses laid Egypt waste….”3 One person I read called what Josephus said, “weird”; another said, “very strange.” (Later it will be explained why all Israel was moved to the west side of the Nile.)
Letopolis is the second nome (district) on the west side of the Delta. “Leto” was a Greek goddess, and “polis” was Greek for city or city-state. But more precisely, Josephus said the children of Israel were in the southern end of Letopolis, across the Nile from a fortress that would later be built and known as Babylon in the area of Old Cairo. A few have thought Josephus called this fort Letopolis, but there is no history of it ever being called this. On the other hand, all know that the second nome of Egypt was Letopolis, and its capital was also named Letopolis, with both on the west side of the Nile. (Later it will be explained why Josephus did not mention the Nile River being between Letopolis and Fort Babylon.)
The names of the capitals of the nomes often became the names of the nomes. Sir Flinders Petrie (The Father of Modern Archaeology) said, “The Egyptian form [Khensu] is the name of the nome; and the Greek [Letopolis] is the name of the capital, from which that of the nome was later formed” (Historical Studies, 1911). Strabo (1st century AD, Greek geographer) said that “Letopolite” (Litopolis) was a “Nome” and on the west side of the Nile (Geography, XVII, 30).
There is little information on exactly where the first and second nomes of Egypt met; some say the second nome covered the area of the Sphinx and Great Pyramid, and some say the first nome (the nome of Memphis) covered that area. But the majority who mention these nomes do not say where the boundary lines were. However, in 1817, Gianbattista Caviglia (Italian navigator and Egyptologist) became the first to clear the sand from the front of the Sphinx since the fall of the Roman Empire, where he found an engraved Greek inscription on the left paw of the Sphinx, dating from 166 AD. “But as a sacred servant of Leto, Who guards with vigilance….”4 The “sacred servant” was the Sphinx, and “Leto” was the second nome.
Josephus has Israel starting from the southern part of Letopolis, which is the area of the Sphinx and Great Pyramid. This may have been the staging area or assembling point for the twelve tribes of Israel. If Israel was living near this area, it would have been advantageous for Memphis (ten miles south), the capital and the largest city of Egypt, for it had need of slaves.
Artapanus (Jewish historian, 3rd–2nd century BC) also has Israel leaving from the west side of the Nile, though he said the Israelites crossed over the branches of the Nile that were in the Delta. This would be unlikely, for the Bible makes no mention of this, and trying to cross the then-multiple branches of the Nile would have been disastrous for the children of Israel and their flocks. This quote of Artapanus came from Eusebius of Caesarea (4th century AD) in his Praeparatio Evangelica (IX, 27). He also has the confrontation between Moses and Pharaoh at Memphis, again on the west side of Nile (IX, 27:12–17), as does Philo of Alexandria (Jewish biblical philosopher, 20 BC–50 AD, The Life of Moses, I, XX, 118) and John, Bishop of Nikiu (7th century AD, Chronicle, 30:2).
Josephus also said that when the Israelites were made slaves, the Egyptians had them build pyramids: “they set them [Israel] also to build pyramids…” (Antiquities, II, 9, 1). Unfortunately, few believe what Josephus said about Israel building pyramids, even though Pyramids were built till the time of Ahmose, the first king of the Eighteenth Dynasty. There are about a hundred pyramids in Egypt (depending on who is doing the counting) and all of them are on the west side of the Nile. How many pyramids the Hebrews built or worked on is not known. Nor am I saying that all the pyramids were built by slaves, but at least during some of the time Israel was in Egypt, according to Josephus, they built pyramids. With all the pyramids on the west side of the Nile, Israel would, of necessity, have been moved to, and lived on, the west side of the Nile.
There may have been another motive in moving Israel to the west side of the Nile.
It was following a change of dynasty when the children Israel became slaves, “And having, in length of time, forgotten the benefits they had received from Joseph, particularly the crown being now come into another family, they became very abusive to the Israelites, and contrived many ways of afflicting them...” (Josephus, Antiquities, II, 9:1). The Bible tells us that the king of Egypt was afraid of them. “Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land” (Exodus 1:10). Most of Egypt’s enemies were on the east side of the Delta, and if the Egyptians were afraid of Israel joining their enemies, it would make perfect sense to move them to the west side of the Nile.
The Book of Jubilees (2nd century BC) says the same thing but adds that the King of Egypt knew that the children of Israel’s “hearts and faces are towards the land of Canaan.” (XLVI, 13) The children of Israel knew their time in Egypt was limited, for they had Joseph’s prophecy (Genesis 50:24) that they knew they would one day return to Canaan. For the Egyptians to have allowed Israel to be on the east side of the Delta, the nearest to Canaan, when they knew Israelite “hearts and faces are towards the land of Canaan,” would not have been wise. But to move them across to the other side of the Nile would keep them farther away from their hearts’ desire and discourage them. Remember, Josephus said the Exodus started from the west side of the Nile and not on both sides of the Delta.
Tradition
The only Synagogue of Moses6 in ancient Egypt was at Dammuh, just north of Memphis (west side of the Nile). The traditions associated with this synagogue have Moses living there and conversing with the king of Egypt from this site. But all this is ignored—not just the tradition, but Josephus, Eusebius, Artapanus, Philo, and John of Nikiu. Why? Because it does not fit the theories they hold to. So what has been said? That the “Field of Zoan” was another name for Egypt at the time Psalm 78 was written, and that when the children of Israel left “Rameses” it was the “Land of Rameses” (Goshen), not the city. This would include the nome of Letopolis, where Josephus said they started from.
ENDNOTES
1. Essay on the Hieroglyphic System of M. Champollion, by J.G. Honoré Greppo (1830), 148 & 153.
2. Josephus (1st century AD, Jewish historian, Antiquities II, 7, 6.). Artapanus (Jewish historian, 3rd–2nd century BC, Praeparatio Evangelica, IX, 23:3)
3. Flavius Josephus. Antiquities, II, 15, 1.
4. Quarterly Review (1818), vol. 19, by Caviglia.
5. Praeparatio Evangelica Tr. Gifford, 9, 23.
6. http://librarum.org/book/34813/239


Chapter Two
Where did Pharaoh live?
I believe the capital of Egypt at the time of the Exodus was Memphis. Though it is possible that even if the location of the capital of Egypt (which changed from time to time) was not at Memphis, the king may still have lived at Memphis, as it was the largest city in Egypt and the administrative center of the country.
As I said in the last chapter, there are traditions and ancient writings that have Memphis as the meeting place between Moses and Pharaoh. Philo (20 BC–50 AD), when referring to the seventh plague that Moses brought on Egypt said, “the country beyond Memphis, where the palace of the king of Egypt is....”1 Artapanus (3rd–2nd century BC) has Moses at Memphis, “And when he was come with Moses to Memphis….”2 Artapanus also said, “Then Aaron, the brother of Moses, having learned about the plot, advised his brother to flee into Arabia; and he took the advice, and sailed across the Nile from Memphis, intending to escape into Arabia.”3 John, Bishop of Nikiu (who lived in Egypt during the 7th century) has the pharaoh of the Exodus offering sacrifice at the temple of Memphis, saying he “went to the diviners who were in Memphis and to the celebrated oracle and offered sacrifice.”4 These writers would have had access to ancient writings that no longer exist, as the classical writers quote the writings of others who no longer exist.
From the biblical account it is clear that Moses and Aaron lived close to Pharaoh. They either came to Pharaoh to announce plagues or are being summoned by Pharaoh to stop plagues. When the last plague came (the death of the firstborn), the children of Israel were ready for an early departure. “And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD’s passover. For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt....And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt” (Exodus 12:11-13). Each family was to put blood on their doorpost from the lamb they had sacrificed. This all points to Christ, who was the “lamb of God,” and was sacrificed in our place, shedding His blood for our sins. And God said, “when I see the blood, I will pass over you.” If Christ is your Savior, your sin debt has been paid by Him.
Pharaoh hastily called Moses back after midnight. “And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon…And he called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, and get you forth from among my people...” (Exodus 12:29–31). If Moses and the children of Israel were not close by, this would have been a problem. Even if they were living just across the Nile from Memphis, it would have been a problem for Pharaoh to call for Moses after midnight and have someone sail across the Nile, get Moses, and then bring him back across the Nile, and then up to Pharaoh’s palace, and then back across the Nile to get ready to leave with the children of Israel that morning. Remember, we are talking about the Nile River, and even when not in a flood stage was at least a kilometer wide.
ENDNOTES
1. Philo. The Life of Moses, I, XX, 118.
2. Eusebius of Caesarea. Praeparatio Evangelica (263–339 AD), IX, 27:12.
3. Ibid. 27:17.
4. John, Bishop of Nikiu (lived in Egypt, 7th century AD).
(1916), Chronicle 30:2.
The Book of Jubilees, 46:13–14.


Chapter Three
After leaving Rameses, Israel first goes to Succoth.
Station No. 1: Succoth
Meaning of name, Strong’s #5523, Succoth = “booths”
One would think that the first place Israel camped at would have been found. But for the place name Succoth, each of the various routes for the Exodus will put this site in a different location; some do not list it at all. Along with the place name Succoth, there are three descriptions in the Bible about this station.
A. In Numbers 33:3, the children of Israel left Rameses and traveled to Succoth. And the Bible says Israel left Egypt “in the sight of all the Egyptians” (Numbers 33:3b). For such an expression to be used, they would have been close by a large population of Egyptians. If Israel passed by a small town east of the Delta out on the desert, no one would say, “in the sight of all the Egyptians.” But if they lived near the biggest city in the country, which was known to have many other towns around it, and if all came out while they left, one could use such an expression as “in the sight of all the Egyptians”.
B. Why would “all” the Egyptians have come out while Israel was leaving? “For the Egyptians buried all their firstborn…” (Numbers 33:4). The Bible says every Egyptian family lost someone and they all would have gone to bury their dead. It will not take weeks to do this as it sometimes could for mummification. Most of the rituals, ceremonies, and mummifications would have been precluded as every family, including those who would normally hold the funerals, now went to the cemetery with their own loss. The Book of Jasher (the date is not certain but its preface claims 70 AD.) says, “all the Egyptians buried their slain for three days” (Jasher 81:6). So all the Egyptians would have been there preparing graves and arrangements the best they could when Israel showed up.
The Egyptians did not just bury their dead anywhere because they, as we do today, had cemeteries. Now the largest cemetery in Egypt was Saqqara, which was on a ridge overlooking Memphis. Several kings were buried there, and a number of pyramids were built there. So, we have “all” the Egyptians seeing the children of Israel, “for” they were burying their dead. All the Egyptians were going to the cemetery and would have been there by the time Israel arrived. It would have been quite a scene: the Egyptians mourning all their firstborn, and the children of Israel in the same place, on their first day of freedom, but instead of burying someone, they were removing a body—Joseph’s.
C. In Exodus 12, which deals with Israel leaving Egypt, it is clear that they had a motive to go to Succoth; they had to get Joseph’s body. Joseph was the great patriarch who had saved Israel, Egypt, and all the surrounding nations from starvation (Genesis 41:57). Before he died, he had made the children of Israel promise that they would take his bones back to the land of Canaan when they left Egypt.
In Exodus 12:37, Israel had arrived at Succoth, and in Exodus 13:19, Moses took the bones of Joseph, and in the next verse, Israel left Succoth. Succoth must have been a place of burial! This last point is seldom mentioned by those who hold to other routes, in connection with the site of Succoth. But I have never seen mentioned: that “all” the Egyptians saw them, “for” they were burying their dead. These three points do not fit with the routes the others have chosen for the location for Succoth.
Testament of Joseph (1st century BC)
Which describes the struggle Joseph had with Potiphar’s wife, and she lived in Memphis (verse 3). “And I sought the Lord early, and wept for the Egyptian woman of Memphis...” (verse 12). “About that time the Memphian wife of Potiphar...” (verse 14). “Now the Memphian woman was...” (verse 16). “Now the Memphian woman pointed me out to her husband….”1 And when Joseph was set free from prison, he lived at Memphis because he worked for the king of Egypt. (Though Joseph was close by Israel (Genesis 45:10), he did not live in the land of Goshen.) It is reasonable to believe that a man of Joseph’s stature in Egypt would have been given a burial in a place of honor, “He [Joseph] was buried in the sepulcher of the kings” 2 (Babylonian Talmud, 3rd century AD). Legends of the Jews said, “Moses knew that he [Joseph] had been interred in the mausoleum of the Egyptian king.”3 Succoth is not some question mark out on the desert but a royal necropolis. But the other routes place it a day’s journey east from the Delta and out on the desert, and they do not have a place for a major burial ground, as was Saqqara.
Israel left Egypt before she came to Succoth
There has been much speculation about where the children of Israel crossed the border of Egypt. “And it came to pass the selfsame day, that the LORD did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies” (Exodus 12:17, 41, 51). Gesenius’ Lexicon gives “in that very day” for the expression “selfsame day.” The Bible says when they left that first day, they also left Egypt! When the Bible talks of the group that also left with Israel, it says, “And a mixed multitude went up also with them…” (Exodus 12:38). It was not necessary to again say they left, as the idea was conveyed in the expression they “went up.” This “went up” is talking about leaving Egypt, and so we have a double declaration in Exodus 13:18, “the children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt.”
It was not necessary to cross the Sinai Peninsula and then the Gulf of Aqaba in order to leave Egypt. It is true that the Egyptians had some control of the Sinai Peninsula and also had mines there, but Israel left Egypt before they ever reached the Peninsula. Israel left Egypt on that first day: the “selfsame day” they went “out of the land of Egypt.”
The classical writers referred to the hills above the Nile valley as Arabia on the east, and Libya on the west. These hills, or cliffs, rise to a height of 150 to 800 feet. The entire Nile valley, varying in width from one to ten miles, lies between two mountain ranges, one called Arabia on the east side of the Nile, and the other called Libya on the west. Almost all Egyptians lived either in the Delta or between these two mountain ranges. Herodotus (Greek historian, 440 BC) places Egypt between these two ranges. “As one proceeds beyond Heliopolis up the country [south], Egypt becomes narrow, the Arabian range of hills, which has a direction from north to south, shutting it in upon the one side, and the Libyan range upon the other.” (History, II) Strabo (1st century AD) said, “From Heliupolis [Heliopolis is at the apex of the Nile Delta], then, one comes to the Nile above the Delta. Of this, the parts on right [west], as one sails up [south], are called Libya, as also the parts round Alexandria and Lake Mareotis, whereas those on the left [east] Rome called Arabia.” (Geography, XVII, 30) So how did the children of Israel leave Egypt on a one day’s march from Goshen? They went up to the hills above the Nile valley, and therefore into what the ancients called the Libyan Desert. Officially, they had left Egypt.
I believe it was a one-day’s march to Succoth, as there were three places Israel encamped before crossing the Red Sea, and this took them, according to Josephus, Artapanus, and Legends of the Jews, three days;* thus, one day’s march between sites. “On the third day they came to a place called Beelzephon, on the Red Sea.”4 (*Some speculate that the sea crossing was on the seventh day of the unleavened bread. But I know of no passage of the Bible that teaches this. Having the crossing of the sea on the seventh day is only a theory, and we all have theories. I think it more likely that after Israel crossed the sea and came out the other side, it would then picture the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. The Passover Lamb of the Exodus is a type for Christ [I Corinthians 5:7], who was buried for three days and then resurrected, and the sea crossing is a type of baptism that pictures the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. [I Corinthians 10:1–2, Romans 6:3–4])
The name Succoth is Hebrew and means “booths” (Strong’s #5523)
But did the children of Israel call this place Succoth because it meant booths, hut, or tent, it being the first place they lived in tents after their departure from Egypt? Or could it have been because it was how they would have pronounced the Egyptian name of this site? Most believe the name Saqqara (Arabic), which was the cemetery of Memphis, was originally named after Sokar, the Egyptian god of the dead. One problem with this belief is that the r in the name Sokar is weak and often not transcribe or used to transcribe l from other languages. However, for the Hebrews, the Egyptian god named Sokar Sk, could have sounded to them as Succoth Sccth (Sokar with weak r, and again, no vowels when written would be Sk). As I said in the introduction, I am no scholar in the original languages, but it at least looks more likely than the Egyptian place name of Tjeku, which some scholars say was what the Hebrews heard when they wrote Succoth. The Tj in Tjeku could, as I understand it, sound like s, and out of all the other routes for the Exodus, Tjeku is the best they have.
Though the name Succoth means “booths” or “tents,” archaeologists will still use it for sites not connected to its meaning. “It is not at all surprising that the Hebrew word should mean tents. We have here an example of what is called ‘popular etymology,’ a philological accident which constantly occurs in mythology and geography. A name passing from a language to another keeps nearly the same sound and the same appearance, but it undergoes a change just sufficient to give it a sense in the language of the people who have adopted the word. The new sense may be totally different from the original”5 (Egyptologist Edouard Naville).
It was an easy day’s march from where Josephus said Israel started from (about ten or twelve miles) and Saqqara held the largest cemetery in Egypt (a fitting place for Joseph, a ruler in Egypt who lived in Memphis), and where “all” the Egyptians would have gone and seen Israel “for” they were burying their dead. I do not claim this is more than a coincidence, but I do claim it is better than anything else I have read!
ENDNOTES
1. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Testament of Joseph, Concerning Sobriety, date ranges from 1st century BC to 2nd century AD.
2. Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sotah Folio 13a.
3. Louis Ginzberg. The Legends of the Jews (1901), vol. III The Long Route.
4. Josephus. Antiquities, II, 15:1. Artapanus. Apud. Euseb. ib. c. 27. Legends of the Jews, III, Pharaoh Pursues the Hebrews.
5. Edouard Naville. The Store-City of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus El Maskhutah (1903), section 7.


Chapter Four
New marching orders.
The reason the children of Israel headed south after leaving Letopolis was to recover Joseph’s body. They were not yet going to Canaan but now they needed a direction to go in. The Bible says, “And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt. But God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea...” (Exodus 13:17–18). This is said at the time the Israelites get Joseph’s body at Succoth, and Israel did not take the shortest route to Canaan. But this verse is often wrongfully coupled with another verse that says Israel “turned again” or “they turn” (Numbers 33:7, Exodus 14:2). However, this is not said at Succoth, but after they are at the site of Etham. At Etham, Israel also receives a change of direction. But at Succoth, Israel has accomplished her duty to get the bones of Joseph and now gets unexpected orders! If Israel was to go to the Promised Land, you would expect the people to go east, but instead, they go “about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea.”
There was no point for them to continue on a southern route now that they had Joseph’s body, nor did they do the expected thing and go straight to the Promised Land. God plainly gave the reason why He was doing this: “Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war.” There was a line of Egyptian forts on the northern route and this would have discouraged the children of Israel, as would the armed Philistines, who were also on this route. God knew they would be afraid; however, God would eventually lead them there after He prepares them. God had patience and He would not rush this, so Israel would not go straight there. Also, when Israel arrived at Etham, God told Moses that there was another motive; He was setting a trap for Pharaoh (Numbers 13:31–14).
Those who believe Israel took the “A” route, or northern route (shortest or quickest), by the Mediterranean Sea need to consider that the Bible says they avoided that area. Some also have the sea crossing of the northern route between two seas, the Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Suf, but repeatedly the Bible says they crossed “the sea,” never the seas.
So what direction did Israel take? “But God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea” (Exodus 13:18). They went in the direction of the Red Sea, and Israel would have traveled north. I will explain later why the Hebrew site name “Yam Suph” (Red Sea) is in this direction when we arrive at the crossing point, but it was a “sea” of deep water!

Chapter Five
Station No. 2: Etham
“And they took their journey from Succoth, and encamped in Etham, in the edge of the wilderness” (Exodus 13:20)
If they headed north from Saqqara (Succoth) as I believe, then where was Etham? Etham was said to be on the “edge of the wilderness”. This would have referred to the ledge of the plateau on the Libyan mountain range that ran from south to north. Israel, in theory, could have encamped anywhere on this ledge that would have been within a day’s march north from Succoth. I searched all the pyramid areas along this line, looking for anything that might possibly have worked for “Etham.” The other routes will have you looking for the Egyptian god “Atum” or for the city of “Pithom” (Exodus 1:11). The scholars have not had much luck with this name and the best they have is “Khetem,” Egyptian for fort, and there are problems with the Kh letters from Khetem working with Etham.1
The name Etham, according to Strong’s #864, means “with them: their plowshare”. If you have ever looked up the meanings of names before, whether in the Bible or otherwise, you know it is possible for some names to have more than one meaning. Strong’s also says that this name is not Hebrew, but “of Egyptian derivation.” When we are told that Pithom means Pi for house, and Thom for the god Atum, I can see how a town, temple, or area might be called this. But I cannot imagine any town, temple, or area that would be called “with them” or “their plowshare” or “with them: their plowshare.” However, Gesenius Lexicon2 and The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia3 both gave for Etham “boundary of the sea.” And where the annual flood (discussed later) came up to the “edge of the wilderness” was “boundary of the sea.”
Most list Etham as a city, but when the children of Israel crossed the Red Sea they went to another Etham, the “wilderness of Etham,” so it would not necessarily be a town. I thought it possible that the “edge of the wilderness” may have been a hint at the meaning of Etham as “boundary of the sea”; both met at the same place, and both were a border. This wilderness not only came up to the farmland of Egypt but was the place the sea rose to when the Delta flooded annually. As such, this wilderness would be the ridges on both sides of the Nile valley, and that’s why we find this name Etham on both sides. Both ridges were the “edge of the wilderness,” and both were Etham, “boundary of the sea.” This would also explain why only after the sea crossing was it said that Israel made a “journey in the wilderness of Etham” (Numbers 33:8), for on the west side, instead of going out on the desert, Israel would have only followed the ridge above the Nile valley, or “edge of the wilderness.”
​

​ Neither Josephus nor the Bible has Israel crossing the Nile River. The Bible does, however, spend time on the crossing of the Jordan River, which, even at flood stage, was much smaller than the Nile, so it seems most unlikely that Israel crossed the Nile, unless it flooded and turned into a “sea.” So anywhere along this “boundary of the sea” and the westward edge of the desert, the children of Israel could have made their camp. Two days will now have passed on their journey, and according to Josephus, one more day remained till they arrived at the location of the sea crossing.
ENDNOTES
1. On the Reliability of the Old Testament, K. A. Kitchen, p.259.
2. Gesenius’ Lexicon quoted Jablonsky (Opuscc. ii. 157), who regards Etham as Egyptian.
3. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915), under E. http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/

Chapter Six
Change of direction.

​ So how can Israel have been in front of Migdol and Baalzephon, and at the same time also in front of Pi-hahiroth, and still have been in the middle of them? Though the pyramids had their secret entrances on the north side, all three of the largest pyramids on the Giza plateau had their fronts facing east, for all had their causeways and temples on the east side, and the Sphinx faced east toward the sunrise. Later, we will find Jewish sources saying Baal-zephon was behind Israel, which was true, yet Israel was also encamped before Migdol and Baal-zephon because they both faced east, or in the direction of the camp of Israel.
Legends of the Jews tells us that Pharaoh and his army “covered in one day the ground which it had taken the Israelites three to traverse.”4 We also learned from Josephus and Artapanus it took three days from the time Israel left till the people arrived at the sea. Israel journeyed for three days but ended up where she started. Pharaoh did not appear to embark till after Israel reached the sea, it even appears he arrived at night (Exodus 14:20). And Israel made a night crossing of the sea.
“And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night…” (Exodus 14:21). Remember, one of the reasons they were given the pillar of fire was to travel at night (Exodus 13:21). It was just before dawn that God began to fight against the Egyptians: “And it came to pass, that in the morning watch [3:00 a.m.–6:00 a.m.] the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians” (Exodus 14:24). And in verse 27, “Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared.”
The Legends of the Jews also tells us that Pharaoh and his troops had positioned themselves at Baal-zephon and sent another detachment of troops to Migdol to block their escape. “Israelites beheld the huge detachments of the Egyptian army moving upon them, and when they considered that in Migdol there were other troops stationed….”5 And, “When he reached the sanctuary of Baal-zephon, Pharaoh, in his joy at finding him spared while all the other idols in Egypt had been annihilated, lost no time, but hastened to offer sacrifices to him….”6 And this was why Moses said, “Pharaoh is behind my flock Israel….”7 Both Migdol (Great Pyramid) and Baal-zephon (Sphinx) would have been behind Israel with Pharaoh’s troops positioned there. The Scriptures tell us that it was at this time the cloudy pillar that had led Israel moved between them and Pharaoh’s armies (Exodus 14:19– 20), blocking the armies of Egypt from attacking them.
The reason Pharaoh came from behind them from the west, instead of up from Memphis in the south, is because at one time there was a large lake blocking the army of the Egyptians (see last drawing). This lake was built by Min, the first king of Egypt, and was just north of Memphis. “Outside the city [Memphis] he dug round it on the North and West a lake communicating with the river, for the side towards the East is barred by the Nile itself”8 (Herodotus, 440 BC, also Diodorus, 1st century BC). Apparently, this lake was used for a port and may have doubled as a moat for defense purposes. This lake was between the Nile and the Libyan ridge on the west, not only keeping the Egyptians from following the Nile north to where the children of Israel were, but also blocking Israel from fleeing to the south.
Josephus adds, “Now when the Egyptians had overtaken the Hebrews, they prepared to fight them…for the number that pursued after them was six hundred chariots, with fifty thousand horsem*n, and two hundred thousand foot-men, all armed. They also seized on the passages by which they imagined the Hebrews might fly, shutting them up between inaccessible precipices and the sea; for there was a [ridge of] mountains that terminated at the sea….”9 The Delta, during the annual flood, needed time to fill up and become a sea, but when the sea was formed, it would have gone up to the Libyan hills (see last map), blocking any escape. Pharaoh “drove them into a narrow place” and Israel found herself “between a rock and a hard place.”

​Migdol
This name is found seven times in the Bible and Strong’s #4024 says “Migdol for tower.” It is translated “tower” three times in the Bible (KJV), but never translated fort; the other four times it is not translated and simply given as “Migdol,” as it is found in the Exodus account (Exodus 14:2 and Numbers 33:7). The ancient Egyptian name for a pyramid was Mir; it was the Greeks who first started calling them pyramids, hundreds of years after the time of the Exodus. So the Hebrew Bible is not going to use the Greek name to describe them. For the Jews, it was Migdol, a tower; they were simply calling it by what it looked like to them, as we would say the Eiffel Tower. Ezekiel, a Jewish poet (2nd century BC), called the pyramids “towers.”10 As did Pliny the Elder (Roman author, 1st century AD), who, when talking about the pyramids of Egypt, said, on the “Libyan side, are the towers known as the Pyramids.”10
Baal-zephon
​ Strong’s #1168 gives “Lord” for Baal and #6828 “north” for zephon, or “Lord of the north.” Baal-zephon was the god of the Assyrians and Phoenicians and was worshipped in Canaan. The center of worship for Baal-zephon was in Syria at Mount Aqraa at the mouth of the Orontes River. Baal-zephon was associated with the sea and believed to have been a protector of mariners. The Sphinx, being situated at the apex of the Delta, where all shipping of the branches of the Nile would have to pass, would have been the expected setting for such an idol.
The name Baal-zephon is given three times in the Bible and all three are at the Red Sea crossing. Some believe this site was a city, while others believe it was an idol. Josephus did not say that Baal-zephon was a city, but only called it a “place.” “[O]n the third day they came to a place called Beelzephon….”12 Other Jewish sources say that Baal-zephon was an idol: “before the idol Zephon” (Targum Jonathan also Targum Onkelos, both 3rd century AD). Remember, Legends of the Jews said that Pharaoh “hastened to offer sacrifices to him [Baalzephon]….”13 And the Sphinx was an idol the Egyptians worshiped, not a monument; the Dream Stele (Sphinx Stele, 1400 BC) has Pharaoh Thutmoses IV “bearing great offerings” to the Sphinx and praying to it.
There is a section in Legends of the Jews that explains how Baal-zephon could be both an idol and a place. This passage is interesting because of light it shines on this and other matters dealing with this location. “Moses…gave the signal to turn back to Pi-hahiroth. Those of little faith among the Israelites tore their hair and their garments in desperation, though Moses assured them that by the Word of God they were free men, and no longer slaves to Pharaoh. Accordingly, they retraced their steps to Pi-hahiroth, where...the great sanctuary of Baal-zephon was situated.”14 First, we see that the Israelites were to “turn back” to Pi-hahiroth, even saying they “retraced their steps to Pi-hahiroth,” ending up where they started! Notice the children of Israel were not happy with this news, “tore their hair and their garments in desperation”; they thought they were going to become slaves again. This could only be because they were headed back to where they had been, Egypt, but “Moses assured them that by the Word of God they were free men and no longer slaves to Pharaoh.” We also find here a “sanctuary of Baal-zephon,” so it was a place, but a place for an idol and its temple. And today, the remains of the Temple of the Sphinx are directly in front of the Great Sphinx.
The legends preserved by the Jews make an interesting comment about this idol. “Of set purpose God had left Baalzephon uninjured, alone of all the Egyptian idols. He wanted the Egyptian people to think that this idol was possessed of exceeding might, which it exercised to prevent the Israelites from journeying on” (Legends of the Jews, III, Pharaoh Pursues the Hebrews; also Targum Jonathan, Exodus XIV). We see that it was an “Egyptian” idol, and that God was letting the “Egyptian” people trust in it—they were in Egypt! The Bible declares that on the night of the Passover, besides smiting all the firstborn, God executed judgment “against all the gods of Egypt” (Exodus 12:12, Numbers 33:4). This is believed to be when God destroyed the idols of Egypt. The Egyptians would have later made new idols, or perhaps even repaired some of the ones knocked down and set back up (see I Samuel 5:3 and the Tempest Stele discussed later). But Baal-zephon could not have been some carry-around idol that was set back up, for of necessity it would have been very large, for it was used as a landmark for a nation. And as quoted above, the reason Baal-zephon was still standing was to give Pharaoh a false hope in this idol. Therefore, the Sphinx would be the only possibility for Baal-zephon, for all believe it was standing when the children of Israel left Egypt! What other idol could it have been? These Jewish sources just quoted said Baal-zephon was the only one left. It was and is still there!
The children of Israel were familiar with Baal-zephon from their time in Canaan before they came to Egypt, and one would expect Israelites to use a name they were familiar with. Just as the Egyptian god Amun was called by the Greeks, Zeus and by the Romans, Jupiter, so the Sphinx was called Baal-zephon by the Jews. (All the other routes have their locations for Baal-zephon, at the least, one day away from where they would have Israel start her journey. The other routes do not have Israel turn “again” unto where she had been, at Pi-hahiroth.)
But why would the Jews pick the Canaanite deity of Baal-zephon to identify with the Sphinx and not one of the other gods of the Canaanites? It is not sure what name the Egyptians originally called the Sphinx, but by 1450 BC, if not before, it had become associated with the Egyptian god Horus, and the Sphinx was called “Horus of the Horizon.” Remember, the name Baal-zephon means “lord of the north.” Some believe the word zephon should be translated as hidden, destroyer, destruction, etc., but in the Hebrew Scriptures the word zephon (Strong’s #6828) is found 153 times, and 116 times it is translated “north,” and all the other times it is either “northward,” “north side,”“northern,” or “north wind.”
Horus was associated with the north, or Lower Egypt. (Again Lower Egypt is north and Upper Egypt is south.) There is a stele called the Shabaka Stone (8th century BC), in which Geb, the lord of the gods, called a council and divided the rule of Egypt between the two gods, Seth and Horus. “He installed Seth as King of Upper [southern] Egypt in the land of Upper Egypt, at the place where he was born, in Su. And Geb made Horus King of Lower [northern] Egypt.”15 Horus later won and became god of Upper and Lower Egypt, but he had already been known as “King of the north.”
The Sphinx is impressive: Its length is 241 feet and its height is 65 feet. But if you look closely, you will notice some things about its head. First, it is smaller in proportion to the rest of its body. It is believed by some to have had renovations and modifications till the times of the Ptolemaic Dynasty (300 BC–30 BC). Perhaps originally it was a lion’s face made into a king’s face, or one pharaoh reshaped it to look like his face. We may never know the reason its head is not in proportion to its body. But there is something on the forehead of the Sphinx that is clearly seen yet seldom talked about. In ancient Egypt the vulture represented upper or southern Egypt. The Uraeus, or cobra, was the symbol of northern Egypt. And on the upper forehead of the Sphinx is clearly seen the Uraeus, or cobra, and it is made from the stone of the Sphinx itself, not something added on later. The tail of the cobra is missing today; perhaps it once sat on the head of the Sphinx, but the outline of the cobra, though defaced, is still seen on the front of the Sphinx. The head part of this cobra has been broken off, as have the nose and false beard of the Sphinx. However, the two-foot limestone piece with the eyes and mouth of the Sphinx’s cobra was found between the paws of the Sphinx and is now in the British Museum.16 It is has the dimensions of: length, 59 centimeters; width, 33 centimeters; height, 30 centimeters.

Pharaohs who ruled the two lands of northern and southern Egypt, could show this by wearing the double crown, which had emblems of the north and south. Or they could wear both the vulture and the cobra on their headdress, as is seen on King Tutankhamun’s grave mask.17 Not every pharaoh and dynasty ruled both Upper and Lower Egypt, but King Tutankhamun did during the Eighteenth Dynasty, so he wore both the symbol of the north (the cobra) and symbol of the south (the vulture) on his headdress. But the Sphinx only has the symbol of the north, the cobra.
Some believe the cobra of the Sphinx was chiseled on during the New Kingdom time, or 1600 BC–1100 BC. The New Kingdom was united and reigned over both Upper and Lower Egypt, whereas Egypt had been divided before this. If it is true that the cobra was engraved into the Sphinx during the New Kingdom, then this would be an even stronger sign that the Egyptians recognized the Sphinx was ruling the north because it would have been expected of a united kingdom to have both emblems of Lower (cobra) and Upper Egypt (vulture). Since the Sphinx only had the cobra (Uraeus) as a permanent part of it, and therefore was a symbol of northern Egypt, it was a clear sign to all that the Great Sphinx was ruling the north, and to the Hebrews, this was Baal-zephon, “Lord of the north”! All four of these place names were found close together, as in the Bible.

​ Is this just a coincidence?

ENDNOTES

Where the woman is attending her corps, a few months later during the annual flood
​a man in his boat is rowing over the same fields.

​
Annual flood before the Aswan Dam.Photograph Giza Pyramids © October 31, 1927.The above picture is used by permission,Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

Before dams were built across the Nile, the Delta flooded every year, from the beginning of July till December, with its highest month in October. When the Nile was flooded, the cities of the Delta, which were built on mounds, looked like islands in the sea. Herodotus who wrote in 440 BC said, “When the Nile comes over the land, the cities alone are seen rising above the water, resembling more nearly than anything else the islands in the Egean sea; for the rest of Egypt becomes a sea and the cities alone rise above water. Accordingly, whenever this happens, they pass by water not now by the channels of the river but over the midst of the plain”1 The last picture has a man rowing a boat between the Great Pyramid and Cairo. It has been suggested he is rowing over his own field. The annual inundation came right after harvest time. There is a sloping area on the east side of the Great Pyramid as seen in the picture, where villages are not inundated by the annual flood.
Red Sea or Reed Sea?
German Egyptologist Heinrich Karl Brugsch, when talking about the Delta, said the “Egyptian word Athu, which again signifies the same as the Hebrew word Souph [Suf], that is, ‘sea-weed, or the papyrus plant,’ and which was applied as a general term to denote all the marshes and lagoons of Lower Egypt….”2 Strong’s #5488 gives for suf, “probably of Egyptian origin,” and then defines suf as “reed, rush, water plant.” The name Yam Suf (Red Sea) was used for the Gulf of Aqaba, where Solomon built his navy (I Kings 9:26), and the word suf can refer to “weeds” (seaweed) that were wrapped about Jonah’s head (Jonah 2:5, he was believed to have been in salt water). But this word most often refers to “reeds,” and it is true that reeds cannot grow in salt water, but it includes freshwater reeds: “And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself at the river; and her maidens walked along by the river’s side; and when she saw the ark among the flags, she sent her maid to fetch it” (Exodus 2:5). The “flags” (reeds) in this verse is the word “suf” and is the same word translated Red in the “Red Sea” of the Hebrew Scriptures. The name that the Egyptians gave the Nile Delta was Ta mehu, “Land of the Papyrus” (papyrus can reach a height of fifteen feet). If we already have a land of reeds (papyrus), and we then add water (flood), we should have a “Sea of Reeds.” What would you call a land of reeds that was flooded and looked like a sea?
In both the Egyptian Book of the Dead and the Pyramid Texts there is a place often mentioned called the “Field of Rushes.” These myths were of their gods and their Egyptian heaven, but the Egyptians associated heaven with things on the earth they were familiar with, and their heaven had both the Nile River and the Delta. At some point during the annual flood, the Egyptians referred to the Land of Papyrus (Field of Rushes) as a lake of papyrus. The following quotes are from the book Horus in the Pyramid Texts, the Egyptian text says, “Lake of Rushes,” and this is the same place as the “Field of Rushes,” which can be seen by comparing the texts. An Egyptian god goes to “purify himself in the Field of Rushes” (found four times on page 29), then in another text we find their gods “have purified themselves in Lake of Rushes…” (found twice on page 43).3 Would not the Egyptian “Lake of Rushes” be translated by the Hebrew words Yam Suf (Sea of Reeds)? How else could they have translated it? The word translated “sea” (yam) in the Hebrew can refer to a freshwater lake, such as the Sea of Galilee, or according to Strong’s, a “mighty river.” Gesenius’ Lexicon3 said there are two times in the Hebrew Scriptures where the Hebrew word “sea” refers to the Euphrates River and two times where it refers to the Nile. Diodorus (1st century BC) said the Egyptians called the Nile an “ocean”.4 Modern Egyptians commonly call the Nile River “El-Bahr” (The Sea)!
It took much less to flood the Delta in ancient times. “They said that when Moeris was king, the Nile overflowed all Egypt below Memphis, as soon as it rose so little as eight cubits. Now Moeris had not been dead 900 years at the time when I heard this of the priests; yet at the present day, unless the river rise sixteen, or, at the very least, fifteen cubits, it does not overflow the lands”5 (Herodotus). Herodotus wrote this in 440 BC, and in his time it took fifteen or sixteen cubits (twenty-four feet) of water above normal height of the Nile to flood the Delta. But in the time of King Moeris, about nine hundred years before, or 1340 BC, it took only eight cubits, or almost 50 percent less. And Israel left before that time leaving the impression it would have taken less water to flood the Delta in the days of Moses.
The sea Israel crossed
My purpose here is to show where these ancient writers would place these names not to agree with their theology, for in some cases I strongly disagree. But even if one does not accept where these ancient texts place these locations, it cannot be denied that those who wrote them believe their accounts, and they have the Nile River going into the Red Sea (“Yam Suph” in Hebrew). Just as the Bible has the Hebrew word "suf" translated "flags" (reeds of the Nile) in Exodus 2:3 & 5, and the same word translated Red in “Red Sea”. And as the ancient Egyptians called their land the “Field of Rushes” but when the annul flood came they called it the “Lake of Rushes”, and I believe the Hebrews would have translated this “Sea of Reeds”.
Legends of the Jews, when speaking of the ark of baby Moses that Miriam put in the Nile, said it was the Red Sea! “And then she abandoned the ark on the shores of the Red Sea” (vol. II, Moses Rescued from the Water). Babylonian Talmud (3rd century AD), also believed the placement of Moses’s ark was in the “Yam Suf” (Sotah 12a). The Qur’an also calls the crossing place the Red Sea; however, one Islam prophet explains that this was the Nile River! His name is Prophet Shu’ayb, and this is found in Hay Al Qulub vol. I, Stories of the prophets, section 13, “An Account of Musa (Moses) and Harun” (Aaron). The pertinent parts are: “Musa and the Israelites came to the bank of the river Nile. The water of river split and made a way to cross the river…and the last man of the Pharaoh entered into the river. Allah ordered the wind to move the water and the mountain of water fell on them.” (See also Akhlaqee-Aaimma, by Sayyed Zafar Hasan Amrohi (r–d). The ancient Targums, Jonathan and Jerusalem (Aramaic translations of the Pentateuch), both connect the Nile to the Red Sea/Yam Suph: “and the Gihon [Nile, see Chapter Seven] had carried into the sea of Suph….” The same for the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Genesis Apocryphon (2nd–1st century BC): “I proceeded by the Red Sea until I reached the extension of the Reed Sea which goes out from the Red Sea, and then I turned southward, until I reached the Gihon River….”6 The person in this account was already on the “Red Sea” and goes to the “extension” of it, which he calls the “Reed Sea,” and then to the Nile, or “Gihon.” He is telling us that in his day the Red Sea was connected to the Nile by the Reed Sea.
Most scholars believe that the Bitter Lakes, at the time of Moses, were connected to the Gulf of Suez. Couple this with what Herodotus said (440 BC) that at the time of the first king of Egypt “none of the land below Lake Moeris [Delta] then showing itself above the surface of the water.”7 At that time, at least during the annual flood, the Delta would have been connected to the Red Sea (Gulf of Suez). Remember that one cannot expect to find boundary lines on a modern-day map for places described thirty-five hundred years ago in the Bible. At one time, the northern part of the Indian Ocean was called the Red Sea. And the Bitter Lakes, including Lake Temsah, were once connected to the Gulf of Suez, and not just by a canal, but from the Gulf of Suez stretching farther inland. The “Red Sea has dried up for a distance of at least 50 miles from its ancient head....The country, for the distance above indicated, is now a desert of gravelly sand, with wide patches about the old sea bottom....At the northern extremity of this salt waste is a small lake, sometimes called the Lake of Heropolis; the lake is now Birket-et-Timsah ‚the lake of the crocodile,’ and is supposed to mark the ancient head of the gulf” (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, “Red Sea”).

This 1903 Heinrich Kiepert map (David Rumsey Historical Map Collection)
has extended the Gulf of Suez up to the area of Heroopolis,
​as many believe it once was.