Red Sea

VIEW:20 DATA:01-04-2020

RED SEA.—The body of water, over 1000 miles in length, which divides Africa from Arabia. The Biblical interest of the name centres at its northern end in its two projections, the Gulf of Suez, running north-west, and the Bay of Akabah almost due north. The former once extended much farther to the north, along the route of the present Suez Canal. Anciently it was known as the Gulf of Heroöepolis, running as far north as the Bitter Lakes. In this region it is probable that the passage of the sea described in Exo_14:1-31 took place, though it has been located by some at the present Suez, and by others still farther south.
This primitive extension of the gulf to the north, the region of weeds, probably accounts for its name, Yam Suph, ‘sea of weeds’ (Exo_10:19; Exo_15:4), which was later applied also to the eastern extension, the Bay of Akabah (Num_21:4), to the entire body of water now known as the Red Sea, stretching from the Ras Mohammed southward to the straits, and perhaps even to the Persian Gulf (Exo_23:31). No satisfactory explanation of the term ‘red’ (Gr. Erythra, Lat. Rubrum) has been found.
Biblical history is concerned with the western gulf (Suez, 130 m. long) only in connexion with the Exodus. Those who locate Mt. Sinai in the peninsula between the two gulfs, either at Mt. Serhal or at Jebel Musa, trace the route of the wanderings down the eastern shore of this water as far as Ras Abu Zenimeh, or (with Shaw, Pococke, etc.) as far as Tor, and then through the mountain wadys to Sinai. Those who locate the mountain of the Law farther north in the region north of Akahah, trace the wanderings directly eastward from the sea (Jdg_11:16).
The Bay of Akabah, 90 m. long, lies in the southern end of the long trench which extends from the Red Sea proper northward to the Lehanons, the upper portion of which is occupied by the Jordan and the Dead Sea. Between the latter and the Bay of Akabah lies the Arabah. At the northern end was an important maritime highway in the reign of Solomon. At the harbour of Ezion-geber (near to, or perhaps the same as, Elath), at its northern end, Solomon built his navy, with the help of Phœnician seamen (1Ki_9:26), and sent out expeditions to India. Jehoshaphat was less successful (1Ki_22:48).
H. L. Willett.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

Hebrew: Sea of Suph ("seaweed"; like wool, as the Arabic means: Gesenius). The Egyptians called it the Sea of Punt (Arabia). Called "red" probably from the color of the weed, and the red coral and sandstone, not from Edom ("red") which touched it only at Elath; nor from Himyerites (hamar, "red" in Arabic; the Phoenicians too are thought to mean red men, and to have come from the Red Sea), as their connection with it was hardly so dose and so early as to have given the name. An ancient canal, begun by Sesostris, continued by Darius Hystaspes and Ptolemy Philadelphus, joined the Nile to it. Boundaries. On the W. Egypt, Nubia, and Abyssinia; on the E. Arabia; on the N. the isthmus of Suez; on the S. the straits of Bab el Mandeb ("gate of tears") joining it to the Indian ocean; 1,600 English miles long, by an average of 150 broad. The mountains on each side vary from 3,000 to 6,000 ft. high; the tops granite, underneath limestone, on the seashore light colored sandstone.
The northern end ("the tongue of the Egyptian Sea"), since the Exodus, has dried up for 50 miles. The land at the head of the gulf has risen, that on the Mediterranean has fallen (compare Isa_11:15; Isa_19:5). This drying up has caused the ancient canal which conveyed the Red Sea commerce to the Nile (from about Hereopolis on the Birket et Timsah and lake of the crocodile to Bubastis at the Nile), and irrigated the country (wady Tumeylat) to be neglected and ruined. The country about has consequently become a gravely sand desert, with rank marsh land round the old sea bottom, called "the bitter lakes." Near them was the town Heroopolis, from which the gulf of Suez was called the Heroopolite gulf. Ras Mohammed, the headland of the Sinaitic peninsula, divides the Red Sea into two tongues: the western one the gulf of Suez, 130 miles long by 18 broad, narrowing to ten at the head; the eastern one the gulf of Akabah ("a declivity"), 90 long by an average of 15 broad.
Precipitous mountains 2,000 ft. high rise from the shore. The Arabah or Ghor connects it with the Dead Sea and Jordan valley. Anciently the gulf of Akabah was the Sinus Elaniticus, from Oelana or Elath at the northern end. No considerable stream falls into this large sea. The gulf of Suez is the shallowest part. The waters are remarkably transparent, so that the plants, corals, and rocks are visible to a great depth. Its phosphorescence is also noteworthy. This is the most northern part of the ocean where coral reefs are found. These take the outline of the coast, and being covered for some distance with only five or sir feet of water render access to land difficult. The western or Egyptian side of the Red Sea is of limestone formation; gebel Gharib 6,000 ft. high; the porphyry mountain, gebel ed Dukhkhan, inland, is about the same height; gebel ez Zeyt, "the oil ("petroleum") mount," is close to the sea.
On these barren and solitary hills lived many of the early Christian hermits. The patriarch of the Coptic church is chosen from the monks of the convent of Anthony. Sesostris (Rameses II) was the "first who, passing the Arabian gulf in a fleet of long war vessels, reduced the inhabitants bordering the Red Sea" (Herodotus). Solomon built a navy at "Ezion Geber (now dry land), beside Elath on the Red Sea in Edom " (1Ki_9:26). (See EZION GEBER.) Jehoshaphat's ships were wrecked here on the reef Edh Dhahab (Ezion Geber, "giant's backbone"): 1Ki_22:48. Pharaoh Necho built ships in the Arabian gulf, manned by Phoenicians (Herodotus ii. 159). Pliny says their ship were of papyrus, like the Nile boats.
The Arab jelebehs, carrying pilgrims along the coast, have the planks sewed together with coconut fibber, and caulked with the date palm fibber and oil of the palma Christi, and sails of mats made of the dom palm. The Himyerite Arabs formed mostly the crews of the seagoing ships. On the Heroopolite gulf, besides Heroopolis (now perhaps Aboo Kesheyd) at its head, was Arsinoe founded by Ptolemy Philadelphus, and Berenice on the southern frontier of Egypt. On the Arabian coast Mu'eyleh, Yembo (the port of El Medeeneh), Juddah (the port of Mecca), and Mocha. The Red Sea and Egypt after the time of Alexander the Great was the channel of commerce between Europe and India. Subsequently the trade passed round the Cape of Good Hope. But now the overland mail and Suez canal are again bringing it by way of Egypt and the Red Sea. (On Israel's passage of the Red Sea, see EXODUS.)
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

celebrated chiefly for the miraculous passage of the Israelites through its waters. They were thrust out of Egypt, says Dr. Hales, on the fifteenth day of the first month; “about six hundred thousand men on foot, beside women and children. And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks and herds, even very much cattle,” Exo_12:37-39; Num_11:4; Num_33:3. After they set out from Rameses, in the land of Goshen, in the neighbourhood of Cairo, their first encampment was at Succoth, signifying “booths,” or an “enclosure for cattle,” after a stage of about thirty miles; their second, at Etham, or Adsjerud, on the edge of the wilderness, about sixty miles farther; “for the Lord led them not by 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 by the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea,” or by a circuitous route to the land of promise, in order to train them and instruct them, in the solitudes of Arabia Petraea, Exo_13:17-20; Deu_32:10. Instead of proceeding from Etham, round the head of the Red Sea, and coasting along its eastern shore, the Lord made them turn southward along its western shore, and, after a stage of about twenty or thirty miles, to encamp in the valley of Bedea, where there was an opening in the great chain of mountains that line the western coast, called Pi-hahiroth, the mouth of the ridge between Migdol westward, and the sea eastward, “over against Baal-zephon,” on the eastern coast; to tempt Pharaoh, whose heart he finally hardened, to pursue them when they were “entangled in the land,” and shut in by the wilderness on their rear and flanks, and by the sea in their front. The leading motive with Pharaoh and his servants was to bring back the Israelites to bondage, and of the Egyptians in general, to recover the treasures of which they had been spoiled, Exo_14:1-5. So Pharaoh pursued the Israelites by the direct way of Migdol, with six hundred chariots, his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth, over against Baal-zephon. When their destruction, or their return to bondage, seemed to be inevitable, the Lord interposed and fought for Israel. He opened for them a passage across the Red Sea, where it was about twelve miles wide, and brought them through in safety; while he drowned the Egyptians, who blindly followed them to their own destruction, Psa_77:18, &c.
On this memorable deliverance Moses composed a thanksgiving, which he and the Israelites sung unto the Lord. It is also a sublime prophecy, foretelling the powerful effect of this tremendous judgment on the neighbouring nations of Edom, Moab, Palestine, and Canaan, the future settlement of the Israelites in the promised land; and the erection of the temple and sanctuary on Mount Zion, and the perpetuity of the dominion and worship of God.
The precise place of this passage has been much contested. Some place it near Suez, at the head of the gulf; others, with more probability, about ten hours' journey lower down, at Clysma, or the vale of Bedea. The day before the passage, by the divine command, the Israelites encamped beside Pi-hahiroth “between Migdol and the sea, over against Baal-zephon,”
Exo_14:2; Num_33:7. Pi-hahiroth signifies “the mouth of the ridge,” or chain of mountains, which line the western coast of the Red Sea, called Attaka, “deliverance,” in which was a gap, which formed the extremity of the valley of Bedea, ending at the sea eastward, and running westward to some distance, toward Cairo; Migdol, signifying “a tower,” probably lay in that direction; and Baal-zephon, signifying “the northern Baal,” was probably a temple on the opposite promontory, built on the eastern coast of the Red Sea. And the modern names of places in the vicinity tend to confirm these expositions of the ancient. Beside Attaka, on the eastern coast opposite, is a head land, called Ras Musa, or “the Cape of Moses;” somewhat lower, Hamam Faraun, “Pharaoh's Springs;” below Girondel, a reach of the gulf, called Birket Faraum; and the general name of the gulf is Bahr al Kolsum, “the Bay of Submersion.” These names indicate that the passage was considerably below Suez, according to the tradition of the natives. The depth and breadth of the gulf, from Suez downward, is thus described by Niebuhr: “I have not found in this sea, from Suez southward, any bank or isthmus under water. When we departed from Suez, we sailed as far as Girondel, without fear of encountering any such. We had in the first place, the road of Suez, four fathom and half; at three German leagues from Suez, in the middle of the gulf, four fathoms; and about Girondel, near the shore, even to ten fathoms.” Bruce, also, describing the place of passage opposite Ras Musa, or a little below it, says, “There is here about fourteen fathom of water in the channel, and about nine in the sides, and good anchorage every where.
The farthest side, the eastern, is a low sandy coast, and a very easy landing place.” Shaw reckons the breadth of the gulf at this place about ten miles; Niebuhr, three leagues and more; Bruce, something less than four leagues; we may therefore estimate it about twelve miles, from their joint reports. But this space the host of the Israelites could easily have passed in the course of a night, from the evening to the ensuing morning watch, or dawn of day, according to the Mosaical account. And surely the depth of the sea was no impediment, when the Lord divided it by “a strong east wind,” which blew across the sea all that night, and made the bottom of the sea dry land; “and the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground, and the waters were a wall unto them, on their right hand and on their left,” Exo_14:21-22.
In the queries of Michaelis, sent to Niebuhr, when in Egypt, it was proposed to him to inquire upon the spot, whether there were not some ridges of rocks where the water was shallow, so that an army at particular times may pass over; secondly, whether the Etesian winds, which blow strongly all summer from the north-west could not blow so violently against the sea as to keep it back on a heap, so that the Israelites might have passed without a miracle. And a copy of these queries was left, also, for Bruce, to join his inquiries likewise; his observations on which are excellent: “I must confess, however learned the gentlemen were who proposed these doubts, I did not think they merited any attention to solve them. This passage is told us by Scripture to be a miraculous one; and if so, we have nothing to do with natural causes. If we do not believe Moses, we need not believe the transaction at all, seeing that it is from his authority alone we derive it. If we believe in God, that he made the sea, we must believe he could divide it when he sees proper reason; and of that he must be the only judge. It is no greater miracle to divide the Red Sea than to divide the river Jordan. If the Etesian wind, blowing from the north-west in summer, could keep up the sea as a wall on the right, or to the south, of fifty feet high, still the difficulty would remain of building the wall on the left hand, or to the north. Beside, water standing in that position for a day must have lost the nature of fluid. Whence came that cohesion of particles which hindered that wall to escape at the sides? This is as great a miracle as that of Moses. If the Etesian winds had done this once, they must have repeated it many a time before and since, from the same causes. Yet Diodorus Siculus says the Troglodytes, the indigenous inhabitants of that very spot, had a tradition from father to son, from their very earliest ages, that ‘once this division of the sea did happen there; and that, after leaving its bottom some time dry, the sea again came back, and covered it with great fury.' The words of this author are of the most remarkable kind: we cannot think this Heathen is writing in favour of revelation: he knew not Moses, nor says a word about Pharaoh and his host; but records the miracle of the division of the sea in words nearly as strong as those of Moses, from the mouths of unbiassed, undesigning Pagans.” Still skeptical queries have their use; they lead to a stricter investigation of facts, and, thereby tend strongly to confirm the veracity of the history they mean to impeach. Thus it appears from the accurate observations of Niebuhr and Bruce, that there is no ledge of rocks running across the gulf any where, to afford a shallow passage. And the second query, about the Etesian or northerly wind, is refuted by the express mention of a strong easterly wind blowing across, and scooping out a dry passage; not that it was necessary for Omnipotence to employ it there as an instrument, any more than at Jordan; but it seems to be introduced in the sacred history by way of anticipation, to exclude the natural agency that might in after times be employed for solving the miracle; and it is remarkable that the monsoon in the Red Sea blows the summer half of the year from the north, the winter half from the south, neither of which therefore, even if the wind could be supposed to operate so violently upon the waters, could produce the miracle in question.
Wishing to diminish, though not to deny, the miracle, Niebuhr adopts the opinion of those who contend for a higher passage near Suez. “For,” says he, “the miracle would be less if they crossed the sea there than near Bedea. But whosoever should suppose that the multitude of the Israelites could be able to cross it here without a prodigy would deceive himself; for, even in our days, no caravan passes that way to go from Cairo to Mount Sinai, although it would considerably shorten the journey. The passage would have been naturally more difficult for the Israelites some thousands of years back, when the gulf was probably larger, deeper, and more extended toward the north; for, in all appearance, the water has retired, and the ground near this end has been raised by the sands of the neighbouring desert.” But it sufficiently appears, even from Niebuhr's own statement, that the passage of the Israelites could not have been taken near Suez; for,
1. He evidently confounded the town of Kolsum, the ruins of which he places near Suez, and where he supposed the passage to be made, with the bay of Kolsum, which began about forty-five miles lower down; as Bryant has satisfactorily proved, from the astronomical observations of Ptolemy and of Ulug Beigh, made at Heroum, the ancient head of the gulf.
2. Instead of crossing the sea at or near Ethan, their second station, the Israelites turned southward, along the western shore; and their third station at Pi-hahiroth, or Bedea, was at a full day's journey below Ethan, as Bryant has satisfactorily proved from Scripture, Exo_14:2. And it was this unexpected change in the direction of their march, and the apparently disadvantageous situation in which they were then placed, entangled in the land, and shut in by the wilderness, with a deep sea in front, the mountains of Attaka on the sides, and the enemy in their rear, that tempted the Egyptians to pursue them through the valley of Bedea, by the direct route from Cairo, who overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth, opposite to Baal-zephon, Exo_14:2-9.
Niebuhr wonders how the Israelites could suffer themselves to be brought into such a disadvantageous situation, or be led blindfold by Moses to their apparent destruction. “One need only travel with a caravan,” says he, “which meets with the least obstacle, namely, a small torrent, to be convinced that the orientals do not let themselves be led, like fools, by their caravan baschi,” or leader of the caravan. But the Israelites went out of Egypt with “a high hand,” though led by Moses, yet under the visible guidance and protection of “the Lord God of the Hebrews,” who “went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, and by night in a pillar of fire;”
and who, for their encouragement, to enter the passage of the sea miraculously prepared for them, removed the cloud which went before the camp of Israel hitherto, and placed it behind them. “And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to the one, but gave light by night to the other: so that the one came not near the other all the night,” Exo_14:8-20.
Niebuhr wonders, also, how Pharaoh and the Egyptians could be led to follow the Israelites. “Pharaoh must have wanted prudence. if, after having seen so many prodigies in Egypt, he had entered into a sea of more than three leagues wide: all the Egyptians, too, must have been bereft of understanding, in wishing to pursue the Israelites into such a sea.
Doubtless they knew their own country well enough to distinguish the bottom of a large sea, which bounds Egypt on that side, from a desert.” But Pharaoh and the Egyptians probably did not know their situation. The cloud which separated them from the Israelites increased the darkness of the night; and they probably did not enter into the sea till about midnight, by which time the van of the Israelites might have reached the eastern shore. Meanwhile the bed of the sea, now beaten by the feet of the immense multitude of men and cattle that had gone before, might not have been easily distinguishable from the desert. If we ask, Why did the Egyptians venture to pursue the Israelites by night? Why did they not wait till day light, when they could see whither they were going? Niebuhr himself has unwittingly answered the question: Pharaoh wanted “prudence,” indeed, and the Egyptians were “bereft of understanding.” And this is the Scriptural solution; for God hardened the heart of Pharaoh to follow after them, that he might be honoured upon Pharaoh and all his host; and that, by their miraculous destruction, the Egyptians might know that he was the Lord supreme, Exo_14:4-18. The Egyptians did not find out their mistake till the “morning appeared,” or till day-break, when the rear of the Israelites had gained the shore, and the Egyptians had reached the middle of the sea, and their whole host had entered into it: then, indeed, they attempted to fly back, but in vain; for “their chariot wheels were broken off, so that they drave them heavily, and their host was troubled” by the Lord, who looked or frowned upon them through the cloudy pillar of fire, and overwhelmed all their host in the midst of the sea; when the sea suddenly returned to his strength at the signal of Moses stretching forth his hand over it, Exo_14:24-28.
The particulars of this transaction demonstrate, that neither the host of the Israelites, nor the host of Pharaoh, could possibly have passed at the head of the gulf near Suez; where the sea was only half a league broad, according to Niebuhr's own supposition, and consequently too narrow to contain the whole host of Pharaoh at once; whose six hundred chariots alone, exclusive of his cavalry and infantry, must have occupied more ground. Manetho, and the Egyptian writers, have passed over in silence this tremendous visitation of their nation. An ancient writer, however, Artapanus, who wrote a history of the Jews, about B.C. 130, has preserved the following curious Egyptian traditions:— “The Memphites relate, that Moses, being well acquainted with the country, watched the influx of the tide, and made the multitude pass through the dry bed of the sea. But the Heliopolitans relate, that the king, with a great army, accompanied by the sacred animals, pursued after the Jews, who had carried off with them the substance of the Egyptians; and that Moses, having been directed by a divine voice to strike the sea with his rod, when he heard it, touched the water with his rod; and so the fluid divided, and the host passed over through a dry way. But when the Egyptians entered along with them, and pursued them, it is said, that fire flashed against them in front, and the sea, returning back, overwhelmed the passage. Thus the Egyptians perished, both by the fire, and by the reflux of the tide.”
The latter account is extremely curious: it not only confirms Scripture, but it notices three additional circumstances:
1. That for their protection against the God of Israel, the Egyptians brought with them the sacred animals; and by this means God executed judgment upon all the bestial gods of Egypt, as foretold, Exo_12:12, that perished with their infatuated votaries; completing the destruction of both, which began with smiting the first-born both of man and beast.
2. That the recovery of the jewels of silver and jewels of gold and raiment, which they asked and obtained of the Egyptians, according to the divine command, Exo_12:35-36, was a leading motive with the Egyptians to pursue them; as the bringing back the Israelites to slavery had been with Pharaoh and his servants, or officers.
3. That the destruction of the Egyptians was partly occasioned by lightning and thunderbolts from the presence of the Lord; exactly corresponding to the psalmist's sublime description: “The waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee; they were afraid: the depths also were troubled. The clouds poured out water, the air thundered, thine arrows also went abroad. Yea, he sent out his arrows, and scattered them; he shot forth lightnings, hail stones, and coals of fire, and discomfited them. Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils,” Psa_77:16-17; Psa_18:13-15.
The Red Sea derived its name from Edom, signifying “red,” a title of Esau, to whom the bordering country of Edom, or Idumaea, belonged, Gen_25:30; Gen_36:31-40. It was also called Yam Suph, “the weedy sea,” in several passages, Num_33:10; Psa_106:9, &c, which are improperly rendered “the Red Sea.” Some learned authors have supposed that it was so named from the quantity of weeds in it. “But in contradiction to this,” says Bruce, “I must confess, that I never in my life, and I have seen the whole extent of it, saw a weed of any sort in it. And indeed, upon the slightest consideration, it will appear to any one, that a narrow gulf, under the immediate influence of monsoons, blowing from contrary points six months each year, would have too much agitation to produce such vegetables, seldom found but in stagnant water, and seldomer, if ever, found in salt ones. My opinion then is, that it is from the large trees, or plants, of white coral, perfectly in imitation of plants on land, that the sea has taken the name ‘weedy.' I saw one of these, which, from a root nearly central, threw out ramifications in a nearly central form, measuring twenty-six feet diameter every way.” This seems to be the most probable solution that has been hitherto proposed of the name. The tides in this sea are but moderate. At Suez the difference between high and low water did not exceed from three to four feet, according to Niebuhr's observations on the tides in that gulf, during the years 1762 and 1763.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

When the Bible speaks of the Red Sea, it refers only to the northern part where the sea divides into two arms, between which lies the Sinai Peninsular. The western arm is the Gulf of Suez (Num_33:10) and the eastern arm the Gulf of Aqabah (Num_14:25; Num_21:4; 1Ki_9:26; see also EZION-GEBER).

The Red Sea through which the people of Israel passed during their miraculous escape from Egypt was literally the ‘Sea of Reeds’. This was a large shallow expanse of water north of the Gulf of Suez, somewhere near the line of the present-day Suez Canal (Exo_13:18). God saved the Israelites by sending gale force winds that blew all night and dried up enough of the water to form a passage for his people to cross to the other side (Exo_14:21-22).
Just before daybreak, when all the Israelites had crossed over, the Egyptians attempted to follow. By then the wind had dropped and the sea waters began to return to normal, bringing first confusion, then panic, and finally destruction to the Egyptian chariot force (Exo_14:24-28; Exo_15:4).
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.

(ים־סוּף, yam-ṣūph (Exo_10:19 and often), but in many passages it is simply היּם, hayām, ?the sea?' Septuagint with 2 or 3 exceptions renders it by ἡ ἐρυθρἀ θάλασσα, hē eruthrá thálassa, ?the Red Sea?; Latin geographers Mare Rubrum):
1. Name
2. Peculiarities
3. Old Testament References
4. Passage through the Red Sea by the Israelites
Objections
(1) Steep Banks of the Channel
(2) Walls Formed by the Water
(3) The East Winds
(4) The Miraculous Set Aside
LITERATURE

1. Name:
The Hebrew name yam-ṣūph has given rise to much controversy. Yam is the general word for sea, and when standing alone may refer to the Mediterranean, the Dead Sea, the Red Sea, or the Sea of Galilee. In several places it designates the river Nile or Euphrates. Ṣūph means a rush or seaweed such as abounds in the lower portions of the Nile and the upper portions of the Red Sea. It was in the ṣūph on the brink of the river that the ark of Moses was hidden (Exo_2:3, Exo_2:5). But as this word does not in itself mean red, and as that is not the color of the bulrush, authorities are much divided as to the reason for this designation. Some have supposed that it was called red from the appearance of the mountains on the western coast, others from the red color given to the water by the presence of zoophytes, or red coral, or some species of seaweed. Others still, with considerable probability, suppose that the name originated in the red or copper color of the inhabitants of the bordering Arabian peninsula. But the name yam-cuph, though applied to the whole sea, was especially used with reference to the northern part, which is alone mentioned in the Bible, and to the two gulfs (Suez and Aqabah) which border the Sinaitic Peninsula, especially the Gulf of Suez.

2. Pecularities:
The Red Sea has a length of 1, 350 miles and an extreme breadth of 205 miles. It is remarkable that while it has no rivers flowing into it and the evaporation from its surface is enormous, it is not much salter than the ocean, from which it is inferred that there must be a constant influx of water from the Indian Ocean through the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb, together with an outflow of the more saline water beneath the surface. The deepest portion measures 1,200 fathoms. Owing to the lower land levels which prevailed in recent geological times, the Gulf of Suez formerly extended across the lowland which separates it from the Bitter Lakes, a distance of 15 or 20 miles now traversed by the Suez Canal, which encountered no elevation more than 30 ft. above tide. In early historic times the Gulf ended at Ismailia at the head of Lake Timsah. North of this the land rises to a height of more than 50 ft. and for a long time furnished a road leading from Africa into Asia. At a somewhat earlier geological (middle and late Tertiary) period the depression of the land was such that this bridge was also submerged, so that the Red Sea and the Mediterranean were connected by a broad expanse of water which overflowed the whole surface of Lower Egypt.
The evidence of the more recent depression of the land surface in all Lower Egypt is unmistakable. Raised beaches containing shells and corals still living in the Red Sea are found at various levels up to more than 200 ft. above tide. One of the most interesting of these is to be seen near the summit of the ?Crow's Nest,? a half-mile South of the great pyramids, where, near the summit of the eminence, and approximately 200 ft. above tide, on a level with the base of the pyramids, there is a clearly defined recent sea beach composed of water-worn pebbles from 1 inches to 1 or 2 ft. in diameter, the interstices of which are filled with small shells loosely cemented together. These are identified as belonging to a variable form, Alectryonia cucullata Born, which lives at the present time in the Red Sea. On the opposite side of the river, on the Mokattam Hills South of Cairo, at an elevation of 220 ft. above tide, similar deposits are found containing numerous shells of recent date, while the rock face is penetrated by numerous borings of lithodomus mollusks (Pholades rugosa Broc.). Other evidences of the recent general depression of the land in this region come from various places on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. According to Lartet at Ramleh, near Jaffa, a recent beach occurs more than 200 ft. above sea-level containing many shells of Pectunculus violascens Lamk, which is at the present time the most abundant mollusk on the shore of the adjoining Mediterranean. A similar beach has been described by Dr. Post at Lattakia, about 30 miles North of Beirut; while others, according to Hull, occur upon the island of Cyprus. Further evidence of this depression is also seen in the fact that the isthmus between Suez and the Bitter Lakes is covered with recent deposits of Nile mud, holding modern Red Sea shells, showing that, at no very distant date, there was an overflow of the Nile through an eastern branch into this slightly depressed level. The line of this branch of the Nile overflow was in early times used for a canal, which has recently been opened to furnish fresh water to Suez, and the depression is followed by the railroad. According to Dawson, large surfaces of the desert North of Suez, which are now above sea-level, contain buried in the sand ?recent marine shells in such a state of preservation that not many centuries may have elapsed since they were in the bottom of the sea? (Egypt and Syria, 67).

3. Old Testament References:
The Red Sea is connected with the children of Israel chiefly through the crossing of it recorded in Exodus (see 4, below); but there are a few references to it in later times. Solomon is said (1Ki_9:26) to have built a navy at ?Ezion-geber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom.? This is at the head of the Gulf of Aqabah, the eastern branch of the Red Sea. Here his ships were manned by Hiram king of Tyre with ?shipmen that had knowledge of the sea? (1Ki_9:27). And (1Ki_9:28) ?they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold.? But Eloth was evidently lost to Israel when Edom successfully revolted in the time of Joram (2Ki_8:20). For a short time, however, it was restored to Judah by Amaziah (2Ki_14:22); but finally, during the reign of Ahaz, the Syrians, or more probably, according to another reading, the Edomites, recovered the place and permanently drove the Jews away. But in 1Ki_22:48 Jehoshaphat is said to have ?made ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold: but they went not; for the ships were broken at Ezion-geber?; while in 2Ch_20:36 Jehoshaphat is said to have joined with Ahaziah ?to make ships to go to Tarshish; and they made the ships in Ezion-geber.?
Unless there is some textual confusion here, ?ships of Tarshish:? is simply the name of the style of the ship, like ?East Indiaman,? and Tarshish in Chronicles may refer to some place in the East Indies. This is the more likely, since Solomon's ?navy? that went to Tarshish once every 3 years came ?bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks,? which could hardly have come from any other place than India. See SHIPS AND BOATS, II., 1., (2).

4. Passage Through the Red Sea by the Israelites:
Until in recent times it was discovered that the Gulf of Suez formerly extended 30 miles northward to the site of the present Ismailia and the ancient Pithom, the scene of the Biblical miracle was placed at Suez, the present head of the Gulf. But there is at Suez no extent of shoal water sufficient for the east wind mentioned in Scripture (Exo_14:21) to have opened a passage-way sufficiently wide to have permitted the host to have crossed over in a single night. The bar leading from Suez across, which is now sometimes forded, is too insignificant to have furnished a passage-way as Robinson supposed (BR3, I, 56-59). Besides, if the children of Israel were South of the Bitter Lakes when there was no extension of the Gulf North of its present limits, there would have been no need of a miracle to open the water, since there was abundant room for both them and Pharaoh's army to have gone around the northern end of the Gulf to reach the eastern shore, while South of Suez the water is too deep for the wind anywhere to have opened a passage-way. But with an extension of the waters of the Gulf to the Bitter Lakes and Lake Timsah, rendered probable by the facts cited in the previous paragraph, the narrative at once so perfectly accords with the physical conditions involved as to become not only easily credible, but self-evidencing.
The children of Israel were at Rameses (Exo_12:37) in the land of Goshen, a place which has not been certainly identified, but could not have been far from the modern Zagazig at the head of the Fresh Water Canal leading from the Nile to the Bitter Lakes. One day's journey eastward along Wâdy Tumilat, watered by this canal brought them to Succoth, a station probably identical with Thuket, close upon the border line separating Egypt from Asia. Through the discoveries of Naville in 1883 this has been identified as Pithom, one of the store-cities built by Pharaoh during the period of Hebrew oppression (Exo_1:11). Here Naville uncovered vast store pits for holding grain built during the reign of Rameses II and constructed according to the description given in Ex 1: the lower portions of brick made with straw, the middle with stubble, and the top of simple clay without even stubble to hold the brick together (see Naville, ?The Store-City Pithom and the Route of the Exodus,? Egyptian Exploration Fund, 1885; M. G. Kyle, ?A Re-examination of Naville's Works,? Records of the Past, VIII, 1901, 304-7). The next day's journey brought them to Etham on the ?edge of the wilderness? (Exo_13:20; Num_33:6), probably in the vicinity of the modern Ismailia at the head of Lake Timsah. From this point the natural road to Palestine would have been along the caravan route on the neck of land referred to above as now about 50 ft. above sea-level. Etham was about 30 miles Southeast of Zoan or Tanis, the headquarters at that time of Pharaoh, from which he was watching the movements of the host. If they should go on the direct road to Palestine, his army could easily execute a flank movement and intercept them in the desert of Etham. But by divine command (Exo_14:2) Moses turned southward on the west side of the extension of the Red Sea and camped ?before Pihahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, before Baal-zephon? (Exo_14:22 Num_33:5-7). At this change of course Pharaoh was delighted, seeing that the children of Israel were ?entangled in the land? and ?the wilderness? had ?shut them in.? Instead of issuing a flank movement upon them, Pharaoh's army now followed them in the rear and ?overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth,? the location of which is essential to a proper understanding of the narrative which follows.
In Exo_14:2, Pi-hahiroth is said to be ?between Migdol and the sea, before Baal-zephon.? Now though Migdol originally meant ?watch-tower,? it is hardly supposable that this can be its meaning here, otherwise the children of Israel would have been moving directly toward a fortified place. Most probably, therefore, Migdol was the tower-like mountain peak marking the northeast corner of Jebel Geneffeh, which runs parallel with the Bitter Lakes, only a short distance from their western border. Baal-zephon may equally well be some of the mountain peaks on the border of the Wilderness of Paran opposite Cheloof, midway between the Bitter Lakes and Suez. In the clear atmosphere of the region this line of mountains is distinctly visible throughout the whole distance from Ismailia to Suez. There would seem to be no objection to this supposition, since all authorities are in disagreement concerning its location. From the significance of the name it would seem to be the seat of some form of Baal worship, naturally a mountain. Brugsch would identify it with Mr. Cassius on the northern shore of Egypt. Naville (see Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ?Red Sea, Passage of?) would connect it with the hill called Tûssûm East of Lake Timsah, where there is a shrine at the present day visited every year about July 14 by thousands of pilgrims to celebrate a religious festival; but, as this is a Mohammedan festival, there seems no reason to connect it with any sanctuary of the Canaanites. Dawson favors the general location which we have assigned to Pi-hahiroth, but would place it beside the narrow southern portion of the Bitter Lakes.
Somewhere in this vicinity would be a most natural place for the children of Israel to halt, and there is no difficulty, such as Naville supposes, to their passing between Jebel Geneffeh and the Bitter Lakes; for the mountain does not come abruptly to the lake, but leaves ample space for the passage of a caravan, while the mountain on one side and the lake on the other would protect them from a flank movement by Pharaoh and limit his army to harassing the rear of the Israelite host. Protected thus, the Israelites found a wide plain over which they could spread their camp, and if we suppose them to be as far South as Cheloof, every condition would be found to suit the narrative which follows. Moses was told by the Lord that if he would order the children of Israel to go forward, the sea would be divided and the children of Israel could cross over on dry ground. And when, in compliance with the divine command, Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, ?Yahweh caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all the night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them into the midst of the sea, all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen? (Exo_14:21-30). But when the children of Israel were safely on the other side the waters returned and overwhelmed the entire host of Pharaoh. In the Song of Moses which follows, describing the event, it is said that the waters were piled up by the ?blast of thy (God's) nostrils? (Exo_15:8), and again, Exo_14:10, ?Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them.? Thus 3 times the wind is mentioned as the means employed by God in opening the water. The competency of the wind temporarily to remove the water from the passage connecting the Gulf of Suez with the Bitter Lakes, provided it was only a few feet deep, is amply proved by facts of recent observation. Major General Tullock of the British army (Proc. Victoria Inst., XXVIII, 267-80) reports having witnessed the driving off of the water from Lake Menzaleh by the wind to such an extent as to lower the level 6 ft., thus leaving small vessels over the shallow water stranded for a while in the muddy bottom. According to the report of the Suez Canal Company, the difference between the highest and the lowest water at Suez is 10 ft. 7 inches, all of which must be due to the effect of the wind, since the tides do not affect the Red Sea. The power of the wind to affect water levels is strikingly witnessed upon Lake Erie in the United States, where according to the report of the Deep Waterways Commission for 1896 (165, 168) it appears that strong wind from the Southwest sometimes lowers the water at Toledo, Ohio, on the western end of the lake to the extent of more than 7 ft., at the same time causing it to rise at Buffalo at the eastern end a similar amount; while a change in the wind during the passage of a single storm reverses the effect, thus sometimes producing a change of level at either end of the lake of 14 ft. in the course of a single day. It would require far less than a tornado to lower the water at Cheloof sufficiently to lay bare the shallow channel which we have supposed at that time to separate Egypt from the Sinaitic Peninsula. See EXODUS, THE.

Objections:
Several objections to this theory, however, have been urged which should not pass without notice.

(1) Steep Banks of the Channel:
Some have said that the children of Israel would have found an insuperable obstacle to their advance in the steep banks on either side of the supposed channel. But there were no steep banks to be encountered. A gentle sag leads down on one side to the center of the depression and a correspondingly gentle rise leads up on the other.

(2) Walls Formed by the Water:
Much has also been made of the statement (Exo_14:22) that ?the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left?; but when we consider the rhetorical use of this word ?wall? it presents no difficulty. In Pro_18:11 we are told that ?The rich man's wealth is his strong city, And as a high wall in his own imagination.? In Isa_26:1 we are told that God will appoint salvation ?for walls and bulwarks.? Again Nahum (Nah_3:8) says of Egypt that her ?rampart was the sea (margin ?the Nile?), and her wall was of the sea.? The water upon either side of the opening served the purpose of a wall for protection. There was no chance for Pharaoh to intercept them by a flank movement. Nor is there need of paying further attention to the poetical expressions in the Song of Moses, where among other things it is said ?that the deeps were congealed in the heart of the sea,? and that the ?earth (instead of the water) swallowed them.?

(3) The East Winds:
Again it is objected that an east wind does not come from the right direction to produce the desired result. On the other hand it is an east wind only which could have freed the channel from water. A north wind would have blown the water from the Bitter Lakes southward, and owing to the quantity of water impounded would have increased the depth of the water in the narrow passage from the southern end of Suez. An east wind, however, would have pressed the water out from the channel both ways, and from the contour of the shore lines would be the only wind that could have done so.

(4) The Miraculous Set Aside:
Again, it is objected that this explanation destroys the miraculous character of the event. But it should be noted that little is said in the narrative about the miraculous. On the other hand, it is a straightforward statement of events, leaving their miraculous character to be inferred from their nature. On the explanation we have given the transaction it is what Robinson felicitously calls a mediate miracle, that is, a miracle in which the hand of God is seen in the use of natural forces which it would be impossible for man to command. If anyone should say that this was a mere coincidence, that the east wind blew at the precise time that Moses reached the place of crossing, the answer is that such a coincidence could have been brought about only by supernatural agency. There was at that time no weather bureau to foretell the approach of a storm. There are no tides on the Red Sea with regular ebb and flow. It was by a miracle of prophecy that Moses was emboldened to get his host into position to avail themselves of the temporary opportunity at exactly the right time. As to the relation of the divine agency to the event, speculation is useless. The opening of the sea may have been a foreordained event in the course of Nature which God only foreknew, in which case the direct divine agency was limited to those influences upon the human actors that led them to place themselves where they could take advantage of the natural opportunity. Or, there is no a priori difficulty in supposing that the east wind was directly aroused for this occasion; for man himself produces disturbances among the forces of Nature that are as far-reaching in their extent as would be a storm produced by direct divine agency. But in this case the disturbance is at once seen to be beyond the powers of human agency to produce. _
It remains to add an important word concerning the evidential value of this perfect adjustment of the narrative to the physical conditions involved. So perfect is this conformity of the narrative to the obscure physical conditions involved, which only recent investigations have made clear, that the account becomes self-evidencing. It is not within the power of man to invent a story so perfectly in accordance with the vast and complicated conditions involved. The argument is as strong as that for human design when a key is found to fit a Yale lock. This is not a general account which would fit into a variety of circumstances. There is only one place in all the world, and one set of conditions in all history, which would meet the requirements; and here they are all met. This is scientific demonstration. No higher proof can be found in the inductive sciences. The story is true. It has not been remodeled by the imagination, either of the original writers or of the transcribers. It is not the product of mythological fancy or of legendary accretion.

Literature.
Dawson, Egypt and Syria; Hull, Mt. Seir, Sinai and Western Palestine; Naville, ?The Store-City Pithom and the Route of the Exodus,? Egyptian Exploration Fund, 1885; Kyle, ?Bricks without Straw at Pithom: A Re-examination of Naville's Works,? Records of the Past, VIII, 1901, 304-7; Wright, Scientific Confirmations of Old Testament History, 83-117.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

[SEA]




The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.

Red Sea
the usual designation of the large body of water separating Egypt from Arabia. The following account of it is based upon the Scriptures and other ancient and modern authorities. SEE SEA.
I. Names. — The sea known to us as the Red Sea was by the Israelites called the sea (הִיָּם, Exo_14:2; Exo_14:9; Exo_14:16; Exo_14:21; Exo_14:28; Exo_15:1; Exo_15:4; Exo_15:8; Exo_15:10; Exo_15:19; Jos_24:6-7; and many other passages); and specially “the sea of Siph” (יִםאּסוּ, Exo_10:19; Exo_13:18; Exo_15:4; Exo_15:22; Exo_23:31; Num_14:25; Num_21:4; Num_33:10-11; Deu_1:40; Deu_11:4; Jos_2:10; Jos_4:23; Jos_24:6; Jdg_11:16; 1Ki_9:26; Neh_9:9; Psa_106:7; Psa_106:9; Psa_106:22; Psa_136:13; Psa_136:15; Jer_49:21). It is also perhaps written Suphcah', סוּפָה (Sept. Ζωόβ), in Num_21:14, rendered “Red Sea” in the A.V.; and in like manner, in Deu_1:1, סוּ, without יִם. The Sept. always renders it ) ἡ ἐρυθρὰ θάλασσα (except in Jdg_11:16, where סוּ, Σίφ, is preserved). So, too, in the New Test. (Act_7:36; Heb_11:29); and this name is found in the Apocrypha (1Ma_4:9; Wisdom of Solomon 10:18; 19:7) and Josephus (Ant. 8:6, 4). By the classical geographers this appellation, like its Latin equivalent Mare Rubrum or M. Erythroeum, was extended to all the seas washing the shores of the Arabian peninsula, and even the Indian Ocean: the Red Sea itself, or Arabian Gulf, was οΑ῾᾿ράβιος κόλπος, or Α᾿ραβικὸς κ.,, or Sinus Arabicus, and its eastern branch, or the Gulf of ‘Akabah, Αἰλανίτης, Ε᾿λανίτης, Ε᾿λανιτικὸς κόλπος, Sinus Elanites, or S. Elaniticius. The Gulf of Suez was specially the Heroopolitic Gulf, ῾Ηρωοπολίτης κόλπος, Sinus Heroopolites, or S. Heroopoliticus. Dr. Beke (Sinai in Arabia [Lond. 1878], p. 361 sq.) contends (in keeping with his wild notion that the Mizraim of the Bible was not Egypt, but the peninsula of Arabia) that the Gulf of ‘Akabah, and not that of Suez, was the Yam-Suph of the Hebrews, chiefly on the rash assumption that the former only was known to the Israelites, whereas the itinerary of Moses clearly distinguishes Eziongeber on the one from the crossing at the other (Num_33:8; Num_33:10; Num_33:35-36). Among the peoples of the East, the Red Sea has for many centuries lost its old names: it is now called generally by the Arabs, as it was in mediaeval times, Bahr-el-Kulzum, “the Sea of El-Kulzum,” after the ancient Clysma, “the sea-beach,” the site of which is near, or at, the modern Suez. In the Koran, part of its old name is preserved, the rare Arabic word ya1manm being used in the account of the passage of the Red Sea (see also El- Beydawi, Comment. on the Kuran, 7:132, p. 341; 20:81, p. 602). These Biblical names require a more detailed consideration.
1. Yam, יָם (Coptic, iom; Arabic, yamm), signifies “the sea,” or any sea. It is also applied to the Nile (exactly as the Arabic bahr is so applied) in Neh_3:8, “Art thou better than populous No, that was situate among the rivers (yeoraim), [that had] the waters round about it, whose rampart [was] the sea (yam), and her wall was from the sea (yam)?” See also Isa_19:5.
2. Yam-Suph, יִםאּסוּ; in the Coptic version, phiom nshapi; A.V. “Red Sea.” The meaning of suph, and the reason of its being applied to this sea, have given rise to much learned controversy. Gesenius renders it rush, reed, sea-weed. It is mentioned in the Old Test. almost always in connection with the sea of the Exodus. It also occurs in the narrative of the exposure of Moses in the יְאֹר(yet (yeah); for he was laid in supinh, on the brink of the yen;r (Exo_2:3), where (in the suph) he was found by Pharaoh's daughter (Exo_2:5); and in the “burden of IEgypt” (Isaiah 19), with the drying-up of the waters of Egypt, “And the waters shall fail from the sea (yam), and the river (nahloir) shall be wasted and dried up. And they shall turn the rivers (nahar', constr. pl.) far away; [and] the brooks (yeor) of defence (or of Egypt?) shall be emptied and dried up: the reeds and flags (suph) shall wither. The paper reeds by the brooks (yeor), by the mouth of the brooks (yeor), and everything sown by the brooks (yeor) shall wither, be driven away, and be no [more]. The fishers also shall mourn, and all they that cast angle into the brooks (yeor) shall lament, and they that spread nets upon the waters shall languish. Moreover, they that work in fine flax, and they that weave net works (white linen?) shall be confounded. And they shall be broken in the purposes thereof, all that make sluices [and] ponds for fish” (Exo_2:5-10). Suph only occurs in one place besides those already referred to. In Jon_2:5 it is written, “The waters compassed me about, [even] to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds (suph) were wrapped about my head.” With this single exception, which shows that this product was also found in the Mediterranean, suph is Egyptian, either in the Red Sea or in the yeor, and this yeor in Exodus 2 was in the land of Goshen.
The signification of סוּ, suph, must be gathered from the foregoing passages. In Arabic, the word with this signification (which commonly is “wool”) is found only in one passage in a rare lexicon (the Mohkam MS.). The author says, “Suf-el-bahr (the suf of the sea) is like the wool of sheep. And the Arabs have a proverb, ‘I will come to thee when the sea ceases to wet the suf,” i.e. never. The סוּof the יָם, it seems quite certain, is a sea- weed resembling wool. Such sea-weed is thrown up abundantly on the shores of the Red Sea. Furst says, s.v. סוּ, “Ab AEthiopibus herba qumdam supho appellabatur, quae in profundo Maris Rubri crescit, quae rubra est, rubrumque colorem continet, pannis tingendis inservientem, teste Hieronymo de qualitate Maris Rubri” (p. 47, etc.). Diodorus (3 c. 19), Artemidorus (ap. Strabo, p. 770), and Agatharchides (ed. Muller, p. 136, 137) speak of the weed of the Arabian Gulf. Ehrenberg enumerates Fucus latifolius on the shores of this sea, and at Suez Fucmus crispus, F. trinodis, F. turbinatuts, F. papillosus, F. caiaphamnus, etc., and the specially red weed Trichodesmium erythnrceum. The Coptic version renders siuph by shari (see above), supposed to be the hieroglyphic sher (sea?). If this be the same as the sari of Pliny (see next paragraph), we must conclude that shari, like suph, was both marine and fluvial. The passage in Jonah proves it to be a marine product, and that it was found in the Red Sea the nummerous passages in which that sea is called the sea of suph leave no doubt.
3. The “Red Sea,” ἡ ἐρυθρὰ θάλασσα. The origin of this appellation has been the source of more speculation even than the obscure suph, for it lies more within the range of general scholarship. The theories advanced to account for it have been often puerile and generally unworthy of acceptance. Their authors may be divided into two schools. The first have ascribed it to some natural phenomenon, such as the singularly red appearance of the mountains of the western coast, looking as if they were sprinkled with Havana or Brazil snuff, or brick-dust (Bruce), or of which the redness was reflected in the waters of the sea (Gosselin, ii, 78-84); the red color of the water sometimes caused by the presence of zoophytes (Salt; Ehrenberg); the red coral of the sea; the red sea-weed; and the red storks that have been seen in great numbers, etc. Reland (De Mare Rubro, Diss. Miscell. i, 59-117) argues that the epithet red was applied to this and the neighboring seas on account of their tropical heat; as, indeed, was said by Artemidorus (ap. Strabo, 16:4, 20), that the sea was called red because of the reflection of the sun. The second have endeavored to find an etymological derivation. Of these the earliest (European) writers proposed a derivation from Edom, “red,” by the Greeks translated literally. Among them were Fuller (Miscell. Sacr. 4 c. 20); before him Scaliger, in his notes to Festues, s.v. “AEgyptinos” (ed. 1574); and still earlier Genebrard (Comment. ad Psalms 106). Bochart (Phaleg, 4:c. 34) adopted this theory (see Reland, Diss. Miscell. [ed. 1706] i, 85). The Greeks and Romans tell us that the sea received its name from a great king, Erythras, who reigned in the adjacent country (Strabo, 16:4, § 20; Pliny, H. N. 6 c. 23, § 28; Agatharch. i, § 5; Philostr. 3:15; and others). The stories that have come down to us appear to be distortions of the tradition that Himyer was the name of apparently the chief family of Arabia Felix, the great South Arabian kingdom, whence the Himyerites and Homeritae. Himyer appears to be derived from the Arabic “ahmar,” red (Himyer was so called because of the red color of his clothing; “aafar” also signifies “red,” and is the root of the names of several places in the peninsula so called on account of their redness (see Marasid, p. 263, etc.); this may point to Ophir: φοίνιξ is red, and the Phoenicians came from the Erythraean Sea (Herod. 7:89).
II. Physical Description. — In extreme length, the Red Sea stretches from the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb (or rather Ras Bab el-Mandeb), in lat. 12° 40' N., to the modern head of the Gulf of Suez, lat. 30° N. Its greatest width may be stated roughly at about 200 geographical miles; this is about lat. 16° 30'. but the navigable channel is here really narrower than in some other portions, groups of islands and rocks stretching out into the sea between thirty and forty miles from the Arabian coast and fifty miles from the African coast. From shore to shore, its narrowest part is at Ras Benlas, lat. 24°, on the African coast, to Rias Beridi opposite, a little north of Yembo', the port of El-Medineh; and thence northwards to Rias Mohammad (i.e. exclusive of the gulfs of Suez and the ‘Akabah) the sea maintains about the same average width of 100 geographical miles. Southwards from Ras Benas it opens out in a broad reach; contracts again to nearly the above narrowness at Jiddah (correctly Jeddah), lat. 21° 30', the port of Mekkeh, and opens to its extreme width south of the last- named port.
At Ras Mohammad the Red Sea is split by the granitic peninsula of Sinai into two gulfs — the westernmost, or Gulf of Suez, is now about 130 geographical miles in length, with an average width of about eighteen, though it contracts to less than ten miles; the easternmost, or Gulf of el- 'Akabah, is only about ninety miles long from the Strait of Tiran to ‘Akabah, and of proportionate narrowness. The navigation of the Red Sea and Gulf of Suez near the shores is very difficult from the abundance of shoals, coral-reefs, rocks, and small islands, which render the channel intricate, and cause strong currents often of unknown force and direction; but in mid-channel, exclusive of the Gulf of Suez, there is generally a width of 100 miles clear, except the Dedalus reef (Wellsted, 2, 300). The bottom in deep soundings is in most places sand and stones from Suez as far as Jiddah, and thence to the strait it is commonly mud. The deepest sounding in the excellent Admiralty chart is 1054 fathoms, in lat. 22° 30'.
Journeying southwards from Suez, on our left is the peninsula of Sinai; on the right is the desert coast of Egypt, of limestone formation, like the greater part of the Nile valley in Egypt, the cliffs on the sea-margin stretching landwards in a great rocky plateau, while more inland a chain of volcanic mountains (beginning about lat. 28° 4' and running south) rear their lofty peaks at intervals above the limestone, generally about fifteen miles distant. Of the most importance is Jebel Ghirib, 6000 feet high; and as the Strait of Jubal is passed, the peaks of the primitive range attain a height of about 4500 to 6900 feet, until the “Elba” group rises in a huge mass about lat. 220. Farther inland is the Jebel ed Dukhkh an, the “porphyry mountain” of Ptolemy (4, 5, § 27; M. Claudianus, see Muller, Geogr. Min. Atlas 7), 6000 feet high, about twenty-seven miles from the coast, where the porphyry quarries formerly supplied Rome, and where are some remains of the time of Trajan (Wilkinson, Modern Egypt and Thebes, 2, 383); and besides these, along this desert southwards are “quarries of various granites, serpentines, breccia verde, slates, and micaceous, talcose, and other schists” (ibid. p. 382). Jebel ez-Zeit, “the mountain of oil,” close to the sea, abounds in petroleum (ibid. p. 385). This coast is especially interesting in a Biblical point of view, for here were some of the earliest monasteries of the Eastern Church, and in those secluded and barren mountains lived very early Christian hermits. The convent of St. Anthony (of the Thebais), “Deir Mar Antuniyus,” and that of St. Paul, “Deir Mar Bolus,” are of great renown, and were once important. They are now, like all Eastern monasteries, decayed; but that of St. Anthony gives, from its monks, the patriarch of the Coptic Church, formerly chosen from the Nitrian monasteries (ibid. p. 381). South of the “Elba” chain, the country gradually sinks to a plain, until it rises to the highland of Jidan, lat. 15°, and thence to the strait extends a chain of low mountains. The greater part of the African coast of the Red Sea is sterile, sandy, and thinly peopled — first beyond Suez by Bedouin chiefly of the Ma'azi tribe; south of the Kliseir road are the ‘Abab'deh; and beyond, the Bisharis, the southern branch of whom are called by Arab writers Bejt, whose customs, language, and ethnology demand a careful investigation, lwhich would unldoubtedly be repaid by curious results (see El-Makrizi's Khitat, Descr. of the Beja, and Descr. of the Desert of Eydhdb; Quatremree's Essays, on these subjects, in his Memoires Hist. et Geor. sur l'Egypte, ii, 134, 162: and The Genesis of the Earth and of Milan, 2d ed. p. 109); and then, coast-tribes of Abyssinia.
The Gulf of el-'Akabah (i.e. “of the mountain-road”) is the termination of the long valley of the Ghor or ‘Arabah that runs northwards to the Dead Sea. It is itself a narrow valley; the sides are lofty and precipitous mountains of entire barrenness; the bottom is a river-like sea, running nearly straight for its whole length of about ninety miles. The northerly winds rush down this gorge with uncommon fury, and render its navigation extremely perilous, causing at the same time strong counter-currents; while most of the few anchorages are open to the southerly gales. It “has the appearance of a narrow deep ravine, — extending nearly a hundred miles in a straight direction, and the circumjacent hills rise in some places two thousand feet perpendicularly from the shore” (Wellsted, 2, 108). The western shore is the peninsula of Sinai. The Arabian chain of mountains, the continuation of the southern spurs of the Lebanon, skirt the eastern coast, and rise to about 3500 feet; while Jebel Teibet-'Ali, near the strait, is 6000 feet. There is no pasturage and little fertility, except near the ‘Akabah, where are date-groves and other plantations, etc. In earlier days tlis last-named place was, it is said, famous for its fertility. Thle island of Graia, Jeziret Fara'fin, once fortified and held by the Crusaders, is near its northern extremity on the Sinaitic side. The sea, from its dangers and sterile shores, is entirely destitute of boats.
The Arabian coast outside the Gulf of the ‘Akabah is skirted by the range of Arabian mountains, which in some few places approach the sea, but generally leave a belt of coast country, called Tihameh, or the Ghor, like the Shephelah of Palestine. This tract is generally a sandy parched plain, thinly inhabited, these characteristics being especially strong in the north (Niebuhr, Descr. p. 305). The mountains of the Hejtz consist of ridges running parallel towards the interior, and increasing in height as they recede (Wellsted, 2, 242). Burckhardt remarks that the descent on the eastern side of these mountains, like the Lebanon and the whole Syrian range east of the Dead Sea, is much less than that on the western; and that the peaks seen from the east or land side appear mere hills (Arabicu, p. 321 sq.). In clear weather they are visible at a distance of forty to seventy miles (Wellsted, 2, 242). The distant ranges have a rugged pointed outline, and are granitic; at Wejh, with horizontal veins of quartz; nearer the sea many of the hills are fossiliferous limestone. while the beach hills “consist of light-colored sandstone, fronted by and containinng large quantities of shells and masses of coral” (p. 243). Coral also “enters largely into the composition of some of the most elevated hills.” The more remarkable mountains are Jebel ‘Ein-Unna (or ‘Eynuwunna, Mardsid, s.v. “‘Ein,” ῎Οννη of Ptol.), 6090 feet high near the strait; a little farther south, and close to Mo'eileh, are mountains rising from 6330 to 7700 feet, of which Wellsted says: “The coast... is low, gradually ascending with a moderate elevation to the distance of six or seven miles, when it rises abruptly to hills of great height, those near Mowilah terminating in sharp and singularly shaped peaks... Mr. Irwin [1777]... has styled them Bullock's Horns. To me the whole group seemed to bear a great resemblance to representations which I have seen of enormous icebergs” (2, 176; see also the Admiralty chart, and Muiller's Geogr. Min.). A little north of Yembo is a remarkable group, the pyramidal mountains of Agratharchides; and beyond, about twenty-five miles distant, rises Jebel Radwa. Farther south Jebel Subh is remarkable for its magnitude and elevation, which is greater than any other between Yembo' and Jiddah; and still farther, but about eighty miles distant from the coast, Jebel Ras el-Kura rises behind the holy city Mekkeh (Mecca). It is of this mountain that Burckhardt writes so enthusiastically (how rarely is he enthusiastic!), contrasting its verdure and cool breezes with the sandy waste of Tihameh (Arabia, p. 65 sq.). The chain continues the whole length of the sea, terminating in the highlands of the Yemen. ‘The Arabian mountains are generally fertile, agreeably different from the parched plains below and their own bare granite peaks above. The highlands and mountain summits of the Yemen, “Arabia the Happy,” the Jebel as distinguished from the plain, are precipitous, lofty, and fertile (Niebuhr, Descr. p. 161), with many towns and villages in their vallevs and on their sides. The coast-line itself, or Tihameh, “north of Yembo', is of moderate elevation, varying from fifty to one hundlmred feet. with no beach. To the southward [to Jiddah] it is more sandy and less elevated; the inlets and harbors of the former tract may be styled coves, in the latter they are lagoons” (Wellsted, 2, 244). The coral of the Red Sea is remarkably abundant, and beautifully colored and variegated. It is often red, but the more common kind is white; and of hewn blocks of this many of the Arabian towns are built.
The earliest navigation of the Red Sea (passing by the prehistorical Phoenicians) is mentionedl by Herodotus. “Sesostris (Rameses II) was the first who, passing the Arabian Gulf in a fleet of long vessels, reduced under his authority the inhabitants of the coast bordering the Erythraann Sea. Proceeding still farther, he came to a sea which, from the great number of its shoals, was not navigable;” and after another war against Ethiopia he set up a stela on the promontory of Dira, near the strait of the Arabian Gulf. Three centuries later, Solomon's navy was built “in Eziongeber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom” (1Ki_9:26). In the description of the Gulf of el'Akabah, it will be seen that this narrow sea is almost without any safe anchorage, except at the island of Graia near the ‘Akabahl, and about fifty miles southward the Harbor of ed-Dhahab. It is supposed by some that the sea has retired here as at Suez, and that Eziongeber is now dry land. SEE ELATH; SEE EZIONGEBER.
Solomon's navy was evidently constructed by Phoenician workmen of Hiram, for he “sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon.” This was the navy that sailed to Ophir. We may conclude that it was necessary to transport wood as well as men to build and man these ships on the shores of the Gulf of the ‘Akabah, which from their natural formation cannot be supposed to have much altered, and which were, besides, part of the Wilderness of the Wandering; and the Edomites were pastoral Arabs, unlike the seafaring Himyeritcs. Jehoshaphat also “made ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold; but they went not, for the ships were broken at Eziongeber” (1Ki_22:48). The scene of this wreck has been supposed to be ed-Dhahab, where is a reef of rocks like a “giant's backbone” (=Eziongeber) (Wellsted, 2, 153), and tlis may strengthen an identification with that place. ‘These ships of Jehoshaphat were mannled by “his servants,” who, from their ignorance of the sea, may lave caused the wreck. Pharaoh-necho constructed a number of ships in the Arabian Gulf, and the remains of his works existed in the time of Herodotus (p. 159), who also tells us that these ships were manned by Phoenician sailors.
The fashion of the ancient ships of the Red Sea, or of the Phoenician ships of Solomon, is unknown. From Pliny we learn that the ships were of papyrus and like the boats of the Nile; and this statement was no doubt in some measure correct. But the coasting craft must have been very different from those employed in the Indian trade. More precise and curious is El- Maakrizi's description, written in the first half of the 15th century, of the shilps that sailed from Eidhab on the Egyptian coast to Jiddah: “‘Their ‘jelebehs' (P. Lobo, ap. Quatremere, Memoires, ii. 164, calls them ‘gelves'), which carry the pilgrims on the coast, have not a nail used in them, but their planks are sewed together with fibre which is taken from the cocoanut-tree, and they calk them with the fibres of the wood of the date-palm; then they ‘pay' them with butter or the oil of the Palmra Chriisti, or with the fat of the kirsh (Squalus cas'charias; Forskal, Desc?. Animalium, p. 8:No. 19)... The sails of these jelebehs are of mats made of the dom palm” (the Khitat, “Desert of Eidhalb”). The crews of the latter, when not exceptionally Phcenicians, as were Solomon's and Pharaoh- necho's, were without doubt generally Arabians rather than Egyptians — those Himyerite Arabs whose ships carried all the wealth of the East either to the Red Sea or the Persian Gulf. The people of ‘Oman, the south-east province of Arabia, were among the foremost of these navigators (El- Mes'uidi's Golden Meadows, MS., and The Accounts of ‘Two Mohammedan Travellers of the 9th Century). It was customary, probably to avoid the dangers and delays of the narrow seas, for the ships engaged in the Indian trade to trans-ship their cargoes at the Strait of Bab el- Mandeb to Egyptian and other vessels of the Red Sea (Agath. § 103, p. 190; anon. Peripl. § 26, p. 277, ed. Muller). The fleets appear to have sailed about the autumnal equinox, and returned in December or the middle of January (Pliny, H. N. 6 c. 23 § 26; comp. Peripl'. passim). Jerome says that the navigation was extremely tedious. At the present day the voyages are periodical and guided by the seasons; but the old skill of the seamen has nearly departed, and they are extremely timid, rarely venturing far from the coast.
The Red Sea, as it possessed for many centuries the most important sea- trade of the East, contained ports of celebrity. Of these, Elath and Eziongeber alone appear to be mentioned in the Bible. The Heroopolitic Gulf is of the chief interest — it was near to Goshen; it was the scene of the passage of the Red Sea; it was also the seat of the Egyptian trade in this sea and to the Indian Ocean. Heroapolis is doubtless the same as Hero, and its site has been probably identified with the modern Abi-Kesheid, at the head of the old gulf. By the consent of the classics, it stood on or near the head of the gulf, and was sixty-eight miles (according to the Itinerary of Antoninus) from Clysma, by the Arabs called el-Kulzum, near the modern Suez, which is close to the present head. Suez is a poor town, and has only an unsafe anchorage with very shoal water. On the shore of the Ieroopolitic Gulf was also Arsinol, founded by Ptolemy Philadelphus; its site has not been settled. Berenice, founded by the same, on the southern frontier of Egypt, rose to importance under the Ptolemies and the Romans; it is now of no note. On the western coast was also the anchorage of Myos Hormos, a little north of the modern town el-Kuseir, which now forms the point of communication with the old route to Coptos. On the Arabian coast the principal ports are Mu'eileh, Yembo' (the port of el-Medineh), Jiddah (the port of Mekkeh), and Mukh, by us commonly written Mocha. The Red Sea in most parts affords anchorage for country vessels well acquainted with its intricacies, and able to creep along the coast among the reefs and islands that girt the shore. Numerous creeks on the Arabian shore (called “shuram,” sing. “sharm”) indent the land. Of these the anchorage called es-Sharm, at the southern extremity of the peninsula of Sinai, is much frequented.
The commerce of the Red Sea was, in very ancient times, unquestionably great. The earliest records tell of the ships of the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, and the Arabs. Although the ports of the Persian Gulf received a part of the Indian traffic, and the Himveritic maritime cities in the south of Arabia supplied the kingdom of Sheba, the trade with Egypt was, we must believe, the most important of the ancient world. That all this traffic found its way to the head of the Heroopolitic Gulf seems proved by the absence of any important Pharaonic remains farther south on the Egyptian coast. But the shoaling of the head of the gulf rendered the navigation, always dangerous, more difficult: it destroyed the former anchorages, and made it necessary to carry merchandise across the desert to the Nile. This change appears to have been one of the main causes of the decay of the commerce of Egypt. We have seen that the long-voyaging ships shifted their cargoes to Red-Sea craft at the strait; and Ptolemy Philadelphus, after founding Arsinoe and endeavoring to reopen the old canal of the Red Sea, abandoned the upper route and established the southern road from his new city Berenice, on the frontier of Egypt and Nubia, to Coptos, on the Nile. Strabo tells us that this was done to avoid the dangers encountered in navigating the sea (xvii, 1, § 45). Though the stream of commerce was diverted, sufficient seems to have remained to keep in existence the former ports, though they have long since utterly disappeared. Under the Ptolemies and the Romans the commerce of the Red Sea varied greatly, influenced by the decaying state of Egypt and the route to Palmyra (until the fall of the latter). But even its best state at this time cannot have been such as to make us believe that the 120 ships sailing from Myos Hormos, mentioned by Strabo (ii, v, § 12), were other than an annual convoy. The wars of Heraclius and Chosroes affected the trade of Egypt as they influenced that of the Persian Gulf. Egypt had fallen low at the time of the Arab occupation, and yet it is curious to note that Alexandria even then retained the shadow of its former glory. Since the time of Mohammed the Red Sea trade has been insignificant. But the opening of the Suez Canal has lately rendered it the great thoroughfare to India.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores