The parting of the sea is one of the most famous stories from the Bible. As the book of Exodus recounts, Moses and the Israelites were escaping from slavery in Egypt when they came upon the Red Sea. With the Egyptian army in pursuit, Moses raised his staff and God parted the waters, allowing the Israelites to cross on dry land before closing the sea over the Egyptian army.
Where exactly did this miracle occur?
The Bible simply refers to it as the “Red Sea” but does not specify exactly which body of water it was. Scholars have proposed different theories over the years as to which sea Moses parted:
- The Gulf of Suez – This narrow gulf connects the Red Sea to the Mediterranean and separates the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt. Some believe it was the Gulf of Suez that Moses crossed.
- The Gulf of Aqaba – This gulf forms the northeastern tip of the Red Sea, east of the Sinai Peninsula. Many favor this location as the place where Moses parted the waters.
- The Red Sea proper – Others believe it was the Red Sea itself, the long body of water separating Egypt from Arabia and the Horn of Africa.
- Some other lake or marshland – A few scholars have proposed the Israelites crossed a shallower body of water such as one of the Bitter Lakes or marshy areas north of the Red Sea.
There are merits to each of these arguments which will be explored in more detail below.
Evidence for the Gulf of Suez
The Gulf of Suez is one candidate for the sea crossing. Advocates for this location point to the following reasons:
- The Gulf of Suez is shallow and marshy, making a crossing more feasible.
- It marked the northern boundary of Egyptian controlled territory in the time of Moses.
- After crossing it, the Israelites would have immediately entered the Sinai desert.
- Some scholars think the Hebrew phrase translated “Red Sea” could also mean “Sea of Reeds,” which might refer to the marshy gulf.
On the surface, the Gulf of Suez seems to fit the biblical account rather well. However, there are also some significant problems with this location:
- The Gulf of Suez is too shallow to have “drowned” the Egyptian army.
- It is not wide enough to merit the miraculous crossing description.
- It does not put enough distance between the Israelites and Egypt.
The parting of the sea was meant to demonstrate God’s power over nature and deliverance of His people. For this reason, many scholars have rejected the Gulf of Suez hypothesis as it fails to match the grandeur of the biblical text.
Evidence for the Gulf of Aqaba
The Gulf of Aqaba has emerged as a leading candidate for the location of the sea crossing. Here are some of the reasons in support of this view:
- It is deep enough that drowned the Egyptian army.
- It is wide enough (about 9 miles) to be an impressive crossing.
- It marked the eastern frontier of ancient Egypt.
- Crossing it would take the Israelites into the wilderness of Sinai.
- There are underwater “bridges” of coral that could have been exposed at low tide.
For many scholars, the Gulf of Aqaba best fits the geographical details and scale of the biblical account. The crossing would have been seen as a miraculous deliverance from the Egyptians.
One problem with this location is the fact that the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba was outside Egyptian territory during the time of Moses. This means the Israelites went out of their way to reach it rather than taking a shorter route to the Promised Land. However, proponents argue God may have deliberately led them this way to avoid conflict with the Philistines along the coast.
Evidence for the Red Sea Proper
A number of scholars contend it was in fact the Red Sea itself that Moses parted. Reasons for this view include:
- The Hebrew phrase most literally translates to “Red Sea.”
- It marked the direct route from Egypt to Arabia.
- The Red Sea is over 150 miles wide, making for a truly spectacular miracle.
- The entire Egyptian army could have easily drowned there.
Considering that the body of water is called the Red Sea throughout the rest of the Old Testament, it makes sense Moses would have crossed the Red Sea proper. The crossing would have also served to reinforce God’s omnipotent power over nature.
Critics argue it is highly unlikely the Israelites could have crossed 150 miles on foot overnight. There is also no archeological evidence they went south toward the Red Sea. Nonetheless, the grandeur of parting such a wide sea continues to attract support for this location.
Alternative Locations
While most scholars focus on the three major candidates above, there are some minority theories about other possible locations for the sea crossing:
- Lake Sirbonis – This shallow Mediterranean lake in northern Egypt was once more extensive.
- Bardawil Lagoon – A shallow lake northeast of the Suez Canal.
- One of the Bitter Lakes – These lakes north of Suez formed part of an ancient wetlands region.
- Marshy areas near the Mediterranean coast.
The appeal of these alternative sites is that they fit the idea of the “Sea of Reeds” and a shallow crossing through marshlands. However, most scholars dismiss them due to their small size and proximity to Egyptian settlements. They fail to match the grandeur and symbolism of the Red Sea crossing described in Exodus.
Clues from the Exodus Route
Since the exact location is uncertain, scholars have also looked at the Exodus route for clues as to which body of water the Israelites crossed. There are three main proposals:
- Northern Route – This route has the Israelites leaving Egypt through the Mediterranean coast and crossing a body of water near Lake Sirbonis before heading south into Sinai.
- Central Route – Moses leads the Israelites southeast from the Nile Delta across a southern extension of the Ballah Lakes before turning south into Sinai.
- Southern Route – The Israelites pass through the northeastern Sinai desert to cross the Gulf of Aqaba before looping back into southern Sinai.
The northern and central routes favor crossing points like Lake Sirbonis, Bardawil Lagoon or the Bitter Lakes. A southern route aligns better with the Gulf of Aqaba or Red Sea hypotheses. However, there are problems matching the Exodus account with each of these routes.
Thus, while the route provides clues, even scholars who agree on a general route still differ on the exact location of the sea crossing. The point remains ambiguous and debated.
Extra-Biblical Evidence
Archaeologists have searched for extra-biblical evidence that could corroborate the account of Moses parting the sea. However, thus far, no clear evidence has been found:
- There are no Egyptian records of a large group of Israelite slaves escaping captivity.
- No archaeological evidence has been left by millions of people wandering the Sinai for 40 years.
- There are no remains or artifacts from Egyptian soldiers drowned in a sea crossing.
- Some suggest ancient reefs or land bridges were exposed at low tide, yet these have not been verified.
The lack of archaeological evidence does not necessarily disprove the biblical account. But it also fails to provide independent corroboration. As such, scholars cannot look to archaeology to settle the debate over where Moses parted the sea.
Which Sea Did Moses Part: The Evidence
| Location | Evidence For | Evidence Against |
|---|---|---|
| Gulf of Suez |
|
|
| Gulf of Aqaba |
|
|
| Red Sea |
|
|
This table summarizes the key evidence for and against the three main candidates proposed for the sea crossing site. As shown, each location has merits and weaknesses. There is no scholarly consensus on which option fits the biblical account best.
Historical Difficulties
Beyond the geographical uncertainties, scholars have identified several historical problems with the Exodus account that make it difficult to establish facts:
- There is no evidence of a sudden mass migration of 2-3 million Israelites from Egypt.
- The biblical chronology does not align with known history of Egypt.
- Moses is not mentioned in any Egyptian records.
- The name Rameses does not fit the claimed time period.
- Some cities mentioned did not exist in Moses’ time.
- The Israelites left no traces in Sinai despite 40 years there.
Critical scholars argue these difficulties cast doubt on the historical reliability of Exodus. They suggest it was written centuries after the events as a foundational myth for Israel. However, others counter that the absence of evidence does not disprove it outright. Defenders argue Exodus remains theologically “true” even if particular details are uncertain.
In any case, the historical problems add a further layer of uncertainty around critical details like where Moses parted the sea.
Conclusion
The parting of the sea by Moses is one of the most dramatic episodes in the Old Testament. However, due to the lack of specifics in the biblical account, the exact location where this miracle occurred remains uncertain. Scholars have proposed several possible candidates, including the Gulf of Suez, Gulf of Aqaba and the Red Sea itself. All have strengths and weaknesses when matched against Exodus.
While debated, the Gulf of Aqaba is considered by many the most plausible location based on geography and context. However, others favor the Red Sea or marshy lake areas near Egypt. Archaeological evidence has not definitively settled the question. And historical problems with some Exodus details add to the difficulty.
In the end, the location question comes down to balancing the biblical account with geography, archeology and theology. Lacking conclusive evidence, the debate continues over which waters Moses parted thousands of years ago.