Last year I digressed from my normal blog posts about Biblical history and Bible prophecy to tell you all about my daughter Hope and Miller Welding’s – Building the Future Contest. Linked (here)
Thanks in no small part to many of you who read this blog, Hope was selected as Miller Welding’s winner of the contest. Earlier this year Miller sent down a film crew to interview Hope about the contest and here love of welding. For those interested, you’ll find the youtube video here:
Winnie and I thank all of you who voted and commented.
If there is one unsung secular hero of Biblical history, I would say that honor belongs to Darius, son of Hystaspes, the great Persian king during whose reign Persia reached the height of its glory and power.
This week as I respond to the challenges and criticisms of Rick Lanser about my view of the 2nd temple era as described in his article The Seraiah Assumption we will take a closer look at Darius ‘the great’ and the profound influence this amazing Persian king had on the course of Jewish history. In the course of this exploration we will also get a clearer understanding of the Persian history described in the Bible. More importantly though, I hope the elucidation of this subject will give you a greater appreciation for the accuracy of the Bible and the congruency with which it describes historical people and events.
To help fill some of the context of what Mr. Lanser and I disagree about regarding 2nd temple era history, this week I’d like to provide you with a summary of the three foundational areas where Mr. Lanser takes issue with my view of the 2nd temple era history as described in his article The Seraiah Assumption and the Decree of Daniel 9:25.
For those just joining this conversation, Mr. Lanser is the editor of Bible and Spade magazine, the publication of the respected apologetics ministry Associates for Biblical Research. This article is Part III of my response to Mr. Lanser’s article. The other parts of this series can be found here:
Mr. Lanser’s article is part of a research project that he is writing about Daniel 9 and the prophecy of 70 Sevens. To get the full context of the following quote, please see Mr. Lanser’s article here: The Seraiah Assumption and the Decree of Daniel 9:25. Here is Mr. Lanser’s summary of how he understands my position:
Inspecting the Foundation Let us now examine the foundation on which Struse has built his case against Artaxerxes I Longimanus. We will do this by first identifying key assumptions he makes, then look for principles based on surrounding context by which to evaluate them. I identified three foundational assumptions in his articles:
Name sequences in genealogies identify fathers and their immediate sons. On this basis it is claimed from Ezra 7:1 that Seraiah, the last high priest before the exile, was the father of Ezra and brother of Jehozadak. We can call this the Seraiah Assumption.
The reign of Darius I of Persia sets the historical context into which everything in Ezra 4 through 6 must be placed. Therefore, the “Artaxerxes” mentioned in 4:7 and 6:14, as well as the “Ahasuerus” of 4:6, must be contextually understood as titles for Darius. We can call this the Darius Assumption.
Identical names in different genealogy lists can be used to construct a reliable historical chronology. Finding the names of people who arrived in Judea with Zerubbabel and Jeshua repeated in the time of Nehemiah and Eliashib indicates they are the same individuals, requiring Eliashib to overlap with the reign of Darius rather than Artaxerxes. We can call this the Eliashib Assumption.
Before we dig into what Mr. Lanser terms my “Darius Assumption” , an assumption he believes I have erroneously built my view of the 2nd temple era upon, I like to say something about what Mr. Lanser sees as my “assumptions” regarding points #1 & #3 above.
As I’ve stated at the beginning of this series or articles, my interpretational approach requires me to evaluate every passage of scripture in light of the Golden Rule of Bible Interpretation best described by Dr. David Cooper as follows:
“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”
Both of the above Seraiah Assumption and the Eliashib Assumptions that Mr. Lanser claims I have made are predicated (by me) upon the premise that the Bible can and should be taken at face value in its most natural and plain sense. When the Bible plainly states that Ezra was the son of Seraiah, indeed I must assume, based upon my interpretational approach, and absent other clear and contextual evidence to the contrary, that this is exactly what the Bible meant. When the Bible provides generational listings of the Priests and Levites as father son relationships relative to the high priesthood of Joshua, Jehoiakim, and Eliashib, again absent any clearly and contextually defined evidence to the contrary, I am constrained by my interpretational approach to take these generational lists at face value in the most natural and plain sense in which they were conveyed.
One of the irreconcilable differences I have with Mr. Lanser and many of his peers who try to explain this important era in Biblical history is that they nearly all propose that the Bible should not be taken in its most literal sense regarding these subjects. In fact, according to their approach we must view much if not all of the 2nd temple era is in some ways as an exception to a straight forward reading of the text.
As I’ve explained in Part I of this series – Cyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4 and in the following article Darius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore & Build Jerusalem when the Bible provides a reasonable and straight forward account of the Persian history in Ezra 4-6, an account that matches exceptionally well with what we know about secular Persian history, Mr. Lanser and many of his peers instead propose an explanation which requires us to view this account in an incongruent and what he describes as a “not strictly chronological” manner, a so called “thematic” perspective, which allows them to make claims about 2nd temple era Biblical history which I believe are not otherwise accommodated by the text.
When the text states plainly that Ezra was the son of Seraiah, Mr. Lanser and his peers take exception to this plain sense reading of the text and go to great lengths to explain why this passage is not to be taken literally. When the Priests and Levites of Nehemiah 10 & 12 are listed relative to the Joshua, Jehoiakim , and Eliashib, again Mr. Lanser and many of his peers must explain why these passages are not to be taken in the most natural sense as father son relationships and clear generational associations but rather refer to unspecific generational chronology. In subsequent articles I’ll explain why I believe my plain sense interpretational assumptions about Ezra, Seraiah, and Eliashib are the most reasonable and accurate way to interpret these passages. Further, I will show why these accounts of 2nd temple era history are exceptionally congruent and straight forward records which should strengthen your faith in the credibility of the Bible as an accurate clearly written account of real history.
Who was the Darius of Ezra 4-6? So who was Darius, the Persian king of Ezra 4-6? It’s unfortunate that Mr. Lanser adds additional complexity to this subject by misunderstanding and then erroneously stating my position regarding the kings of Persia in Ezra 4-6. As I explained in Part I of this series, Cyrus to Darius, I do not believe that the Ahasuerus of Ezra 4:6 and the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7-23 are references to the Persian king Darius (son of Hystaspes) as Mr. Lanser stated regarding my position in the following quote:
The reign of Darius I of Persia sets the historical context into which everything in Ezra 4 through 6 must be placed. Therefore, the “Artaxerxes” mentioned in 4:7 and 6:14, as well as the “Ahasuerus” of 4:6, must be contextually understood as titles for Darius. We can call this the Darius Assumption….
If you are just joining this discussion I’d encourage you to read my previous two articles here & here as well as Mr. Lanser’s article here to get the full context of this important discussion. The bottom line is that in point #2 above Mr. Lanser’s – “Darius Assumption” is based in large part upon an unfortunate misreading and misunderstanding of my writings on the subject.
A Brief Recapitulation So what do I really believe about the Persian king Darius? Let’s pick up our exploration of Persian history where we left off in our previous two articles. Remember so far we’ve followed the Biblical account of the Jewish people’s return and resettlement of Judah starting in the 1st year of Cyrus (536 BC) with Cyrus’ decree which allowed them to return and build the city of Jerusalem and Yahweh’s desolate sanctuary.
Those efforts to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple were met with harassment, first in the reign of Cyrus’ son Cambyses (Ezra 4:6), the king who the Bible simply identifies as Ahasuerus, and then again in the reign of Bardis the Magian usurper, the Persian king the Bible identifies as Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:7-24).
As described in Ezra 4:7-24, the enemies of the Jewish people met with some success in their efforts to stop the Jewish people’s reconstruction of Jerusalem and the temple. In fact, during the reign of this “Artaxerxes” (Ezra 4:7-24) the Jewish people were forced to stop construction.
In Part II of this series we learned that in the 2nd year of Darius (son of Hystaspes), Yahweh, the living God of the Bible, commanded the Jewish people to return and restart construction on His desolate sanctuary. In defiance of Artaxerxes’ decree the Jewish people obeyed the command of Yahweh as given through the prophets Haggai and Zechariah and construction on the temple resumed.
In the mean time, the enemies of the Jewish people petitioned the new king Darius in an effort to halt construction of the temple and Jerusalem. Darius wisely checked the Persian records for the previous decree of Cyrus and when he found that it did indeed give the Jewish people permission to build Jerusalem and the temple he sent his own decree (which confirmed Cyrus’ original decree) and added his own blessing to the effort. Four years later, in the 6th year of Darius, Yahweh’s house was completed. Here is a brief recapitulation of the Biblical account:
Now when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power. Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.
Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel, even unto them [2nd year of Darius – see Hag. 1 & Zech 1]. Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them. Ezra 4:23 – 5:2
Then Darius the king made a decree, and search was made in the house of the rolls, where the treasures were laid up in Babylon. 2 And there was found at Achmetha, in the palace that is in the province of the Medes, a roll, and therein was a record thus written: 3 In the first year of Cyrus the king the same Cyrus the king made a decree concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, Ezra 6:1-3
6 Now therefore, Tatnai, governor beyond the river, Shetharboznai, and your companions the Apharsachites, which are beyond the river, be ye far from thence: 7 Let the work of this house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews build this house of God in his place. 8 Moreover I make a decree what ye shall do to the elders of these Jews for the building of this house of God: that of the king’s goods, even of the tribute beyond the river, forthwith expenses be given unto these men, that they be not hindered. (Ezra 6:6-8)
12 And the God that hath caused his name to dwell there destroy all kings and people, that shall put to their hand to alter and to destroy this house of God which is at Jerusalem. I Darius have made a decree; let it be done with speed. (Ezra 6:12)
14 And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia. 15 And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king. (Ezra 6:14-15)
Darius and Artaxerxes If you read the above account and the related context from Ezra 4-6 then by now you should have a pretty good grasp of what took place from the decree of Cyrus in 536 BC up until the 2nd year of Darius in 520BC when Yahweh gave His divine command which told the Jewish people to return and build Jerusalem. This events as related by Ezra 4-6, as we’ve seen are a straight forward, contextual, and clearly chronological rendering of Biblical history that matches flawlessly with secular Persian history, with one potential exception.
Let’s now turn to Ezra 6:14-15 and one of the few places in Ezra’s account which gives the reader pause.
14 And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.
15 And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king. (Ezra 6:14-15)
For those of you who have carefully followed this series and hopefully done your Berean duty and verified the context of these passages for yourself, it should be pretty easy for you to understand the people and events described here in Ezra 6:14-15.
The prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah we know was a result of the Yahweh’s “word” or dabar which commanded the Jewish people to return and build Jerusalem. That commandment by Yahweh resulted in the completion of the temple by the 6th year of Darius. Further the text tells us that the Jewish people “builded and finished” the temple by the decrees of the secular rulers Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.
Keep in mind here that as we’ve seen from our exploration of Ezra 4, there is no “thematic” context (as Mr. Lanser and some of his peers assert), that allows us to claim the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7-23 is the Persian king “Artaxerxes” Longimanus. In fact the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 4 did not give a command which resulted in either the building or the finishing of the temple by the 6th year of Darius. It is imperative here to let the Scripture provide its own context. The Persian kings listed in the passage above, are all identified with the effort which resulted in the building and finishing of the temple by the 6th year of Darius (son of Hystapses).
So who is the Artaxerxes of Ezra 6:14?
The answer to this apparent conundrum is actually rather simple if understood in terms of the language this passage was written in. It’s a matter of Hebrew grammar. You see the letter waw attached to the Persian title “Artaxerxes” which we read in the KJV of the Bible as “and” doesn’t always have to be translated as a conjunction but if context dictates it can be used as a hendiadys or in other words, two words with the same meaning. Here is the TWOT Bible lexicon which explains the idiosyncrasies of this Hebrew letter:
519.0 – w (wa) . . . and, so, then, when, now, or, but, that and many others. (ASV and RSV similar.) The vocalization varies.
This is an inseparable prefix which is used as a conjunction or introductory particle which can usually be translated “and.”
The fundamental use of the prefix is that of a simple conjunction “and,” connecting words (“days and years,” Gen. 1:14), phrases (“and to divide” Gen. 1:18) and complete sentences (connecting Gen. 2:11 with verse 12). However it is used more often and for a greater variety of construction than is the English connector “and.”
It is often used at the beginning of sentences, for which reason the KJV begins many sentences with an unexplained “and.” This use may be explained as a mild introductory particle and is often translated “now” as in Exo 1:1 where it begins the book (KJV, ASV; the RSV ignores it completely; cf. Gen 3:1; Gen 4:1).
The item following the prefix is not always an additional item, different from that which preceded: “Judah and Jerusalem” (Isa. 1:1), pointing out Jerusalem especially as an important and representative part of Judah; “in Ramah, and his own city” (1 Sam 28:3), the two being the same place, hence the translation “even” as explanatory.
When the second word specifies the first the construction is called a “hendiadys,” i.e., two words with one meaning. For example, “a tent and dwelling” in 2 Sam 7:6 means “a dwelling tent.” (TWOT 519.0, emphasis mine)
In this series we’ve walked through the context of Ezra 4-6 together. If we take these events described in their most natural and plain sense then we are left with no other reasonable option but to translate the letter “waw” connected to the title “Artaxerxes” as a “hendiadys”.
There is really no mystery here. The author of Ezra was simply providing his readers with additional important context about the Persian king Darius, a king who he wanted us to understand was by his 7th year of reign also known by the title of “Artaxerxes”. I believe that Ezra 6:14 read in light of the context of Ezra 4-6 should have been translated in the following manner:
14 And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and even Artaxerxes king of Persia.
15 And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king. Ezra 6:14-15
It’s congruent, straightforward, and it allows us to follow the Golden Rule of Bible Interpretation. The bottom line is there were no other Persian kings who gave commands that “builded and finished” the temple by the 6th year of Darius, this means that context demands we see the “waw” of Artaxerxes not as a conjunction but a hendiadys.
Defending the Artaxerxes Assumption Let’s now look at some of Mr. Lanser’s objections to understanding the Artaxerxes of Ezra 6:14 as a reference to the Persian king Darius. In the following passage Mr. Lanser uses Ezra 4:7-23 and his belief that his is a reference to Artaxerxes Longimanus as justification for inserting this king into chronology of Ezra 6:14. I quote Mr. Lanser:
Since we have just seen in our detailed examination of Ezra 4 that there is a “reasonable contextual basis” for the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7 being Longimanus, there is reason to add a third king to the chronology of Ezra 6:14–15: it is in keeping with a thematic approach to the passage, like we saw in Ezra 4.
As I’ve shown in my previous two articles Part I –Cyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4 and Part II –Darius & Artaxerxes: The Context of the Word to Restore and Build Jerusalem this is a clearly erroneous interpretation of Ezra 4:7-24. The context of Ezra 4:23-24 does not allow for a non-chronological or thematic view of this passage. Ezra 4 is a clearly chronological recounting of Persian history that does not allow for the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4 to be a thematic reference to the future Artaxerxes Longimanus.
Why Would Ezra 6 Introduce Darius as the Persian Artaxerxes Another of Mr. Lanser’s challenges to my interpretation of Artaxerxes of Ezra 6:14 as a reference to Darius the son of Hystapses is his questioning of why would the author of Ezra refer to Darius consistently up to Ezra 6 but then add the title of Artaxerxes and then refer to him from Ezra 7 onward by only the title of Artaxrexes? Mr. Lanser explains his objection this way:
One is obliged to ask why the writer of the book of Ezra would have even bothered to introduce the name “Artaxerxes” into the narrative at Ezra 6:14, when this king had been uniformly referred to as “Darius” several times earlier in the book (4:5, 4:24, 5:5, 5:6, 5:7, 6:1, and 6:12). If “Darius” and “Artaxerxes” were indeed one and the same person, waiting until this late point in the narrative to introduce an additional designation for Darius does nothing but confuse the reader. Once one comes to terms with the fact there is nothing unbiblical about Seraiah being just an ancestor of Ezra, there is nothing to justify introducing a new label for him. Were it not for the genealogy in Ezra 7:1 seemingly implying that Seraiah ben-Azariah might have been Ezra’s father, one would normally expect “Artaxerxes the king of Persia” in Ezra 6:14 to refer to an entirely different man than Darius on a purely context-driven basis. This is a significant issue which the waw explicativum proposal above fails to address.
Once again this is where the credibility of the Bible’s account really shines. You see, there is a bit of Persian history that I believe explains this change of title. First, to get a better sense of the Greek use of Persian titles, it’s worth noting that the names or titles Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes are the Grecienize form of the original Persian names/titles. Herodutus presents the Greek perspective in the following quote:
Of the above names Darius may be rendered “Worker,” Xerxes “Warrior,” and Artaxerxes “Great Warrior.” And so might we call these kings in our own language with propriety. (Herodotus. The Histories by Herodotus (Enhanced Kindle Edition) (Kindle Locations 7169-7171). Kindle Edition.)
Faucets Bible Dictionary has a similar perspective on the title of Xerxes and Artaxerxes:
Faucets Bible Dictionary = 343 Artaxerxes 343.01 From arta, “great,” or “honored”; Artaioi, Arii, Sansk. Arya, being the old name of the Persians, and kshershe, “a king” = Xerxes = AHASUERUS
As you can see from the above quote from Herodotus, the Greek view saw the titles of Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes as titles that represent specific character traits of the Persian kings. Keep these titles in mind as we I provide you a brief history of Darius that explains why the author of Ezra likely added the title “Artaxerxes” or Great Warrior to the title of “Darius” the Worker after Darius’ 6th year:
According to Herodotus and Darius’ own Behistun Inscription, after the death of Cyrus, Cambyses, his son, took the throne. During Cambyses conquest of Egypt, Darius was a member of his royal bodyguard.
On Cambyses’ return to Persia from Egypt, Cambyses mysteriously died in Syria and his brother Bardiya (a.k.a Smerdis) son of Cyrus took the throne. Darius in his Bisitun inscription claimed that this Bardiya was not really the son of Cyrus but an imposter and with the help of six Persian nobles he executed Bardiya and assumed the throne himself. Darius’ murder of the Cambyses brother (who may or may not have been an imposter) didn’t go over very well in the rest of the Persian kingdom and there were revolts in many of the provinces.
It took Darius a year or two to clean up this mess and assume total control over the kingdom. Ezra’s account likely reflected this intimate knowledge of the realities of what was taking place from the provincial perspective.
Keep in mind that Ezra’s narrative of this aspect of Persian history began in the 2nd year of Darius when Darius (the Worker) was in the thick of trying to attain control over all the provinces of Persia. By the 7th year of Darius he had conquered his foes, expanded his kingdom, and assumed the title of Artaxerxes (the Great Warrior) as seen from the Jewish perspective of the author of Ezra.
In any case, Ezra’s account, far from introducing confusion as Mr. Lanser claims, instead provides accurate details about the rise of Darius the great Persian Artaxerxes to the pinnacle of power in the kingdom of Persia. We’ll look more at the history of Darius and the profound influence his reign had on the restoration and resettlement of Judah and Jerusalem in a subsequent article, but let’s first look at another one of Mr. Lanser’s objections regarding the “Artaxrerxes” of Ezra 6:14 as a reference to Darius the Great.
Scholars Don’t Agree In Mr. Lanser’s article the Seraiah Assumption he really takes issue with my explanation of Ezra 6:14 as a reference to Darius even Artaxerxes. One of his biggest complaints is that he cannot find a single Bible translation which agrees with my rendering of the text. Here are a few excerpts which illustrate Mr. Lanser’s complaints:
Ezra 6:14 and the Waw Explicativum Ezra 6:14 is another verse where the desire to avoid anachronistically introducing Artaxerxes I Longimanus into the narrative has given rise to creative ways of getting around it. One is a particular grammatical argument centered on the Hebrew letter waw. Prefixed to another word, waw is generally translated as a simple connective, “and.” There are places, however, where it can be used as what grammarians term a waw explicativum, where it equates the two items it joins and takes the translation “even.” Applying this understanding to Ezra 6:14b yields:
And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, even Artaxerxes king of Persia (KJV, emphasis added).
The error [of translating Ezra 6:14b as “and Artaxerxes”] is actually found in the English translation of the passage. It stems from presuppositional bias and the erroneous use of the Hebrew letter waw. In order to show that Ezra lived during the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, as they presupposed, the translators used the letter waw to form a conjunction instead of a hendiadys (two words with one meaning), as the context would dictate.
With all due respect to Mr. Struse, it is fair to say that 99% of people without any skin in the game would expect the well-trained professional scholars and translators of the various English versions of the Bible, particularly those who uphold it as the Word of God and take their responsibility to handle it carefully with utmost seriousness, to be in a good position to tell us what “the context would dictate.” To assert “presuppositional bias” and “erroneous use of the Hebrew letter” carries little weight when coming from someone without specialized training. He then goes on:
Since there is no reasonable contextual basis to assume that the Artaxerxes of Ezra 6:14 was another Persian king who helped finish the temple by the sixth year of Darius—especially a future one!—the translators should have used waw to form a hendiadys, not to denote two different people. Their decision to use the waw in this way was premised upon the necessity to show that Ezra was a contemporary of Artaxerxes Longimanus so that their messianic expectations concerning Daniel 9 could be satisfied. There is simply no other reason to add another Persian king to the chronology of Ezra 6:14–15, especially one who lived nearly sixty years after the events described were completed (emphasis added).
Unless he has actually been in touch with some English Bible translators, I doubt Mr. Struse is in a position to know about any premises or messianic expectations which may have influenced their work. Since we have just seen in our detailed examination of Ezra 4 that there is a “reasonable contextual basis” for the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7 being Longimanus, there is reason to add a third king to the chronology of Ezra 6:14–15: it is in keeping with a thematic approach to the passage, like we saw in Ezra 4. How this applies to Ezra 6:14 is discussed by Dr. A. Philip Brown II, whose work we will examine later.
Concluding from the Seraiah Assumption that Ezra’s journey to Jerusalem must have taken place in the seventh year of “Darius ‘the Great’ Artaxerxes of Persia,” Struse insists that his view is the only “reasonable” way of looking at the biblical data, and one who disagrees with it “hopelessly tortures the text” and “creates numerous interpretational inconsistencies”:
In summary, by every reasonable measure of biblical interpretation, Ezra was a contemporary of Darius ‘the Great’, and in fact the most reasonable reading of Ezra 6:13–15 supports this. Trying to stretch Ezra’s chronology to the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus hopelessly tortures the text and creates numerous interpretational inconsistencies which cannot be overcome with any reasonable rendering of the Bible’s chronological record (emphasis added).
Yet, in marked contrast to the certainty expressed above, the translation “even” is not part of any generally accepted English translation of the Bible (cf. the discussion of Anstey below), nor is it given as an alternative translation in the margin notes of any of 15 different English Bibles I checked. Rather, it reflects one individual’s grammar judgment call that hinges on the doubtful validity of the Seraiah Assumption. If the matter was so certain, we would think at least a single English translation would have made a marginal comment about the possibility, but we search for such in vain. This single word change of “and” to “even” is used to justify placing the journey of Ezra to Jerusalem not in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I Longimanus, but in the seventh regnal year of Darius the Great, i.e., 515/514 BC. Taking this approach would make Ezra, accepting via the Seraiah Assumption that he was 56 at the time of the first return under Zerubbabel in the summer of 536 BC, 78 years old when he arrived in Jerusalem in the summer of 514 BC. Though by this assumption Ezra was no spring chicken at his arrival, it sounds possible when contrasted with the alternative, so it is easy to see why this “what if” scenario might be an attractive idea.
Scholarship is Not Always Right Let me say up front that I have a great deal of respect for anyone, man, women, or child who is a dedicate student of Yahweh’s words. As believers all of us are required to be stewards of Yahweh’s holy words. Having said that, scholars, like the rest of us are mere mortals, they still make mistakes, are prone to group think, and frankly have the additional burden of peer pressure in their writings. This peer pressure and group think is more often than not a good thing, but sometimes it leads astray because too much respect is given to the opinion of other men and not enough respect given to the context of Yahweh’s word. I sincerely believe that is what happened in Ezra 6:14.
Mistranslating the Most Important Word in the Bible
Let me give you a glaring example of what happens when group think and tradition takes precedent over accurately representing what the Bible says.
If you had to choose the most important word in the Bible, what word would that be? A good case could be made that that word would be the name of Yahweh the living God of the Bible, wouldn’t it? It’s the single most important and most widely used verbal expression of His identity by which He revealed Himself to us in the Bible.
In the following list there are 26 different translations of Psalm 8:9 by some of the past several centuries most noted Biblical scholars. Of these, every single example has been translated inaccurately. Not only is the translation inaccurate but the scholars who provided the translation knowingly mistranslated this verse. Because of tradition, peer pressure, or possible even some degree of ignorance, these highly educated scholars all decided to replace the personal name of Yahweh, the living God of the Bible, with an impersonal title. Take a look for yourself:
KJV Psalm 8:9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! BBE Psalm 8:9 O Lord, our Lord, how noble is your name in all the earth! CJB Psalm 8:10 ADONAI! Our Lord! How glorious is your name throughout the earth! CSB Psalm 8:9 LORD, our Lord, how magnificent is Your name throughout the earth! DRA Psalm 8:10 O Lord our Lord, how admirable is thy name in all the earth! ERV Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! ESV Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! GNV Psalm 8:9 O Lord our Lord, howe excellent is thy Name in all the world! GWN Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name throughout the earth! JPS Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how glorious is Thy name in all the earth! KJG Psalm 8:9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! LXE Psalm 8:9 O Lord our Lord, how wonderful is thy name in all the earth! NAB Psalm 8:10 O LORD, our Lord, how awesome is your name through all the earth! NAS Psalm 8:9aO LORD, our Lord, How majestic is Thy name in all the earth! NAU Psalm 8:9aO LORD, our Lord, How majestic is Your name in all the earth! NET Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord,20 how magnificent21 is your reputation22 throughout the earth!23 NIB Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! NIV Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! NKJ Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, How excellent is Your name in all the earth! NLT Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, your majestic name fills the earth! NRS Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Sovereign, how majestic is your name in all the earth! RSV Psalm 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is thy name in all the earth! RWB Psalm 8:9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! TNK Psalm 8:10 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is Your name throughout the earth! WEB Psalm 8:9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent {is} thy name in all the earth! BGT Psalm 8:10ku,rie o` ku,rioj h`mw/n w`j qaumasto.n to. o;noma, sou
Now I’ve made no secret that I’m only a high school (homeschooled) educated plumber. But stewardship of Yahweh’s precious words gives me and you the right, nay – the responsibility to translate this verse correctly no matter how many scholars tell us we should replace the holy name of Yahweh with a title.
O Yahweh our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!
– Psalm 8:9
Did you know that this purposeful error in translating Yahweh’s name has been done over 6500 times in nearly every English and Greek translation of our Bibles? The Hebrew text is one of the few that accurately represents our Creators name.
Mr. Lanser is an exceptionally knowledgeable and dedicated scholar of the Bible, yet in his article The Seraiah Assumption, at least half a dozen times when quoting the Bible, he too conformed to group think, peer pressure, or whatever you want to call it, by knowingly using an erroneous translation of the verses which inaccurately replaces the holy name of Yahweh with an impersonal title. Decent well meaning intelligent scholars make mistakes too!
Now let me ask you, are you willing to read Ezra 4-6 in the chronological context we’ve explored in this series so far, and still not accept the possibility that the translators of this passage in all the English versions you choose to consult, out of well meaning tradition, messianic expectation, inadequate attention to context, or some other inexplicable reason might not have erroneously translated this incredibly important passage? I don’t care if you are an “uneducated” man like myself or a Phd in multiple deciples of Biblical studies, we all have the responsibility to show a Berean’s stewardship when reading and interpreting Yahweh’s words.
Context Decides the Artaxerxes Assumption
In my opinion, as informed by my interpretational approach, there is no other way to translate Ezra 6:14 other than by seeing it as an effort by the author of Ezra to inform his readers that Darius son of Hystaspes was also known by the Persian title of Artaxerxes.
Darius ‘the Great’ Artaxerxes So working from the Biblical context we’ve explored so far, Ezra 6 ends with Darius (the worker) in his 6th year, transitioning into Darius the great Persian “Artaxrexes”.
Now once again humor me here. As we read the following passage from Ezra chapter 7, let’s assume the author was just relaying to us a chronological account of Persian and Jewish history in the same organized and detail manner in which the first 6 chapters of the book of Ezra are relayed.
Ezra 6 ended in the 6th year of Darius the Persian Artaxerxes. Ezra 7 opens in the 7th year of Artaxerxes. Using the context provided by Ezra 6, the most natural reading of the opening verses of Ezra 7 is that the Artaxerxes mentioned is none other than the Darius – even – Artaxerxes of Ezra 6:14. Here take a look for yourselves:
14 And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and even Artaxerxes king of Persia.
15 And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.
16 And the children of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication of this house of God with joy17 And offered at the dedication of this house of God an hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs; and for a sin offering for all Israel, twelve he goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel. 18 And they set the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God, which is at Jerusalem; as it is written in the book of Moses. 19 And the children of the captivity kept the passover upon the fourteenth day of the first month. 20 For the priests and the Levites were purified together, all of them were pure, and killed the passover for all the children of the captivity, and for their brethren the priests, and for themselves. 21 And the children of Israel, which were come again out of captivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek YHWH God of Israel, did eat, 22 And kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for YHWH had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel. (Ezra 6:14-22)
Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, 2
The son of Shallum, the son of Zadok, the son of Ahitub, 3 The son of Amariah, the son of Azariah, the son of Meraioth, 4 The son of Zerahiah, the son of Uzzi, the son of Bukki, 5 The son of Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest: 6 This Ezra went up from Babylon; and he was a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which YHWH God of Israel had given: and the king granted him all his request, according to the hand of YHWH his God upon him.
7 And there went up some of the children of Israel, and of the priests, and the Levites, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, unto Jerusalem, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king.
8 And he came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king.
For upon the first day of the first month began he to go up from Babylon, and on the first day of the fifth month came he to Jerusalem, according to the good hand of his God upon him. ( Ezra 7:1-9 )
Transitioning from Reestablishing the Temple to Reestablishing Torah Observance If we allow the Bible to define its own context then this passage informs us that the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 7 is the same Darius – even – Artaxerxes of Ezra 6. More importantly the text informs us of a transition from the building of the temple to the reestablishment of the temple service and the proper observance of the Torah.
Once the temple was completed the next natural step for the Jewish people was for them to start observing the Torah again. I think sometimes we impose on the text some of our own experiential biases. Today, even the poorest of the poor has access to the words of Yahweh as given in what we know today as the Old Testament. In the 2nd Temple Era, before the printing press, knowledge of the Torah was depended on hand copied scrolls or verbal instruction by those who had memorized the Torah.
Just before the destruction of Solomon’s temple by Nebuchadnezzar, knowledge of the Torah was so rare that when a copy was found and given to king Josiah to read by the scribe Shaphan it so profoundly moved king Josiah that he rent his clothes. Here is a brief account:
And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of YHWH. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.
And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. 11 And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes
13 Go ye, enquire of YHWH for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of YHWH that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.
(2 Kings 22:8-13 excerpted)
And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem. 2 And the king went up into the house of YHWH, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of YHWH. (2 Kings 23:1-2)
Notice from this passage that once the Torah was found it was taken up to the temple and read by the king in the presence of the people gathered there.
The 7th year of Artaxerxes With this story in mind now consider and compare the events in the 7th year of Artaxerxes less than 100 years later. The temple had just been completed and dedicated in the 6th year of Darius – even – Artaxerxes. The following year Ezra whom the Bible describes as a “priest and scribe” whom the Bible further describes as the son of Seraiah (the last high priest of Solomon’s temple) is compelled to come up and teach the repatriated Jewish people the Torah. Remember Torah observance and its temple service required a completed and dedicated temple.
So it is only natural that once the temple was completed we find that Ezra “the scribe” felt it his duty as a custodian of the Torah to come up teach the Torah in order that the Jewish people might conduct their lives in accordance with Yahweh’s divine law.
Now let’s look at some of Mr. Lanser’s objections to Ezra traveling to Jerusalem in the 7th year of Darius – even – Artaxerxes
Struse, seeing in the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 6:14 a reference to Darius the Great, is inclined to have Ezra travel to Jerusalem the very next year after the Temple was finished, such that he arrived in “the seventh year of king Artaxerxes” (Ezra 7:7–8), which he equates with the seventh year of Darius I. But this is by no means upheld by the text—and it begs the question of why, if Ezra was 56 when Zerubbabel’s group left for Jerusalem, he did not join them at that time, but waited until he was in his late 70s to make the trip.
As we’ve seen by our contextual chronological exploration of Ezra 4-7, Ezra arriving in Jerusalem in the 7th year of Darius Artaxerxes is indeed supported by a plain reading of the texts. But what about Mr. Lanser’s question of why did Ezra wait so long to join his brethren in Jerusalem?
First of all there is no Biblical evidence that Ezra was not part of the early repatriated Jewish people who returned with Joshua and Zerubbabel. In fact Nehemiah 12 tells us that there was a priest named Ezra who joined Joshua and Zerubbabel on their journey to Jerusalem circa 536 BC.
Now these are the priests and the Levites that went up with Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua: Seraiah, Jeremiah, Ezra, 2 Amariah, Malluch, Hattush, 3 Shechaniah, Rehum, Meremoth 4 Iddo, Ginnetho, Abijah, 5 Miamin, Maadiah, Bilgah, 6 Shemaiah, and Joiarib, Jedaiah, 7 Sallu, Amok, Hilkiah, Jedaiah. These were the chief of the priests and of their brethren in the days of Jeshua. (Nehemiah 12:1-7)
Another objection to Mr. Lanser raises to the 7th year of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7) being the 7th year of Darius I is the contrast between the purity of those who dedicated the temple in the 6th year of Darius with the impurity of those who were married to foreign wives in the 7th year of Artaxerxes. Mr. Lanser believes this short period is not sufficient for the events described. He explains:
One can also draw from Ezra 6:16, 20 a corroborating inference that significant time passed between Ezra 6 and Ezra 7: “And the sons of Israel, the priests, the Levites and the rest of the exiles, celebrated the dedication of this house of God with joy…For the priests and the Levites had purified themselves together; all of them were pure.” At the time of the dedication of the Temple prior to Ezra’s arrival, all of the priests and Levites were “pure,” and able to minister without reproach. Contrast that statement with what we learn in Ezra 9:1:
Now when these things [setting up for Temple worship right after Ezra’s arrival] had been completed, the princes approached me [Ezra], saying, “The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, according to their abominations, those of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians and the Amorites.”
This alerts us that at some point between the completion of the Temple in Darius’ sixth year and Ezra’s arrival, the priests and Levites no longer met the standard of purity portrayed in Ezra 6:16, 20. The implication is that in the intervening time intermarriage with the local pagans had begun. The problem of taking foreign wives was a development that must have taken some years to unfold—a gradual secularism crept in as the passion for holiness seen in the pioneering returnees was diminished as succeeding generations were born in Judea. This was not something that could reasonably have taken place in a single year, between the sixth and seventh years of Darius. It implies that “after these things” required the passing of sufficient time for corruption to take root and begin spreading like leaven, even amongst those who should have been the leaders in resisting it—the priests and Levites.
Context here is again helpful. When the temple was dedicated in the 6th year of Darius, the people were ritually purified. This does not mean they were keeping the entire law or even all of the most important precepts of the law. In fact, the sacrificial system (which the Torah required) could not be instituted until after the temple had been dedicated. How could the reference to “purity” of the people at the dedication of the temple in Ezra 6 be a general reference which included all sins the people might have been guilty of if the temple service that was required to atone for those sins was not yet instituted? The point is that Ezra 6 and the reference to purity must have been seen within the limited ritualistic purity related to the dedication of the temple not a more general reference to the keeping of all precepts of the Torah.
The Son of Jeshua Took Foreign Wives
That a great deal of time did not transpire between Ezra 6 & 7 is also confirmed by Ezra 10:18-19 which tells us that some of the sons of Jeshua (the high priest) were among those guilty of taking strange wives. Taken at face value this verse provides reasonable evidence that Ezra 7-9 took place within one generation of the settlement of Jerusalem after the decree of Cyrus in 536 BC.
18 And among the sons of the priests there were found that had taken strange wives: namely, of the sons of Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren; Maaseiah, and Eliezer, and Jarib, and Gedaliah. 19 And they gave their hands that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their trespass. (Ezra 10:18-19)
Please Note: In a subsequent article of this series we will look at the lineage of Ezra, and the lists of Priests & Levites of Nehemiah in order to address Mr. Lanser’s claim (#1 & #2 as quoted at the beginning of this article) that taking these passages at face value is an “assumption” not warranted by the text.
In Summary I hope this article has provided you the grounds to appreciate a straight forward natural reading of the Biblical text related to 2nd temple era, especially as it relates to the identity of the Persian king Darius who the Bible also identifies as Artaxerxes. I also hope that you won’t take my word for this fascinating and important era in biblical history, but that this article encourages each of you to do your Berean duty and, “see if these things be so”.
Maranatha!
Next Time
Yahweh willing in my next article we will look more closely at the Biblical and historical use of the Persian titles Darius, Xerxes, Artaxerxes, and Ahasuerus. Along the way we’ll be addressing some more of Mr. Lanser’s objections to the use of Artaxerxes as a title that refers to the Persian king Darius I (son of Hystaspes) as exemplified by the following quote from Mr. Lanser’s article The Seraiah Assumption:
Calling Artaxerxes a title like “Caesar,” however, is incorrect. It is actually a throne name, which has a different significance. According to the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/throne%20name), a throne name is defined as “the official name taken by a ruler and especially an ancient Egyptian pharaoh on ascending the throne.” Specifically about Artaxerxes, the Encyclopaedia Iranica (http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/artaxerxes-throne-name-of-several-persian-kings-of-the-achaemenid-dynasty) observes: “ARTAXERXES, throne name of several Persian kings of the Achaemenid dynasty.” The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Artaxerxes) notes: “[Artaxerxes] was borne by three kings of the Achaemenian dynasty of ancient Persia; though, so long as its meaning was understood, it can have been adopted by the kings only after their accession to the throne” [i.e., it was a throne name] (brackets and emphasis added). Recall also that Jacob Myers informed us that the three kings of Persia bearing that name were Longimanus, Mnemon and Ochus. I am unaware of a single authority who claims that Darius should be included. The point to take away is that “Artaxerxes” was a name replacement adopted by a king when he took the throne, not a title. A throne name is like the way Popes take on a new name when elected to that office. Newly elected Popes set aside their birth names and are henceforth known by the new one. A throne name is not the same thing as a title for their position, which is “Pope.” The very fact that the Scriptures refer to “King Artaxerxes” also illustrates this distinction between title and throne name, for if “Artaxerxes” was just a Persian term for “king,” he was in effect being called “King King.” That makes no sense.
Behistun Inscription – wikipedia
For further reflection I leave you this week with a quote from Darius I (son of Hystaspes) written at his direction on the cliffs of Mount Behistun in the Kermanshah Provice of present day Iran as well as two verses from the book of Ezra.
Line #1 I am Darius [Dâryavuš], the great king, king of kings, the king of Persia [Pârsa], the king of countries, the son of Hystaspes, the grandson of Arsames, the Achaemenid. (For a full rendering of the Behistun Inscription see the following link: Translation of the Behistun Inscription
Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, (Ezra 7:1)
12 Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra the priest, a scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect peace, and at such a time. (Ezra 7:12)
Authors Note: This is a multi-part series of articles responding to the Associates for Biblical Research criticism of my view of 2nd temple history as presented in an article on their website entitledThe Seraiah Assumption.
The Jubilee Code -
"A book that will show you real Biblical evidence for Yahweh's guiding in hand history bringing about His redemptive plan for mankind."
In my ongoing effort to untangle the claims and criticisms raised by Rick Lanser in his recent article The Seraiah Assumption (published at the Associates for Biblical Research website) this week we will be exploring the context of Ezra 5-6 as it relates to the Persian king Darius (son of Hystaspes) and as it relates to Ezra, Nehemiah, and a divine command given by, Yahweh the living God of the Bible, telling the Jewish people to – return – and build His house.
This important aspect of 2nd temple era history is for the most part ignored by Mr. Lanser in his article The Seraiah Assumption and this oversight along with his errors concerning the chronology of Ezra 4 (See Part I of this series) creates unnecessary confusion regarding the events leading up to Ezra and Nehemiah’s arrival in Jerusalem during the reign of a Persian “Artaxerxes”.
Here are a few related quotes from Mr. Lanser article The Seraiah Assumption which illustrate how his misunderstanding of Ezra 4 helped influence his interpretation of Ezra 6. I’d encourage those just joining this conversation to read Mr. Lanser’s entire article (here) so you can get the full context of these quotes. Further these quotes show why trying to explain Ezra 6:14 and the “commandments” mentioned there without providing the background context of Ezra 4-6 leads to some pretty serious interpretational errors that unnecessarily confuse the subject. I quote Mr. Lanser:
But as illustrated by our examination of Ezra 4 above, his context is too limited. It needs to be expanded beyond the immediate chronological context of Ezra 6:14, to include proper regard for the writer’s thematic context. When this is done, it provides the third “commended” king of Persia—Artaxerxes I Longimanus—that Austin could not find under the constraints of his purely chronological approach….
We are to understand that the writer presents the commandment of God in Ezra 6:14 as a single overarching decree, yet manifested through the individual edicts issued by Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes. This one decree of God—the word is a singular noun—is not completely unfolded until Artaxerxes contributes his part, notwithstanding that it is somewhat removed in time from the earlier contributions of Cyrus and Darius….
Before moving on, one more point can be made: since Ezra 6:14 tells us the one command of God had three kings involved in its outworking, we cannot say the decree of Daniel 9:25 had fully “gone forth” until Artaxerxes Longimanus added his contribution. We have to wait until Artaxerxes’ reign to find Daniel’s prophesied decree.(Rick Lanser – excerpts taken from his article The Seraiah Assumption)
Summary and Review of the Context of Ezra 4 In Part I of this series Cyrus to Darius: The 2nd Temple Context of Ezra 4 we learned that author of Ezra 4 provided a congruent and chronological summary of events which took place from the reign of the Persian king Cyrus up to the reign of Darius (son of Hystaspes). We learned that Cyrus gave the initial decree which allowed the Jewish people to return and build the city of Jerusalem and the temple. Then during the reign of the Persian Ahasuerus in Ezra 4:6 (Cambyses), counselors for the enemies of the Jewish people tried to stop these construction efforts to no effect.
Subsequently during the reign of a Persian Artaxerxes in Ezra 4:7-23 (Bardis), the enemies of the Jewish people were successful and construction on the temple was stopped. Ezra 4:24 tells us that construction was stopped until the 2nd year of the reign of Darius.
23 Now [‘edayin]when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power.
24 Then [‘edayin] ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia. (Ezra 4:22-24)
The Prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah Ezra 4 closed with the nearly hopeless state of affairs in Jerusalem. The Jewish peoples efforts to restore Yahweh’s house had come to a standstill. The Persian king Artaxerxes (Bardis – the magian userper) had commanded that construction be stopped and the enemies of the Jewish people had done so by force of arms.
Then just when all hope seemed to be lost, once again Yahweh the living God of the Bible, reached down into the affairs of mankind to set in motion His redemptive plan for mankind.Ezra 5 opens with Haggai and Zechariah prophesying to the Jewish people. The text doesn’t say what was prophesied but the result was immediate. Here take a look:
Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel, even unto them.
Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them. (Ezra 5:1-2)
So what do you think these prophets said that so challenged Joshua, Zerubbabel, and the Jewish people that they defied king Artaxerxes orders to stop construction? To find the answer we need to turn to the books of Haggai and Zechariah.
In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month, came the word [dabar] of YHWH by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, saying,
2 Thus speaketh YHWH of hosts, saying, This people say, The time is not come, the time that YHWH’S house should be built.3 Then came the word of YHWH by Haggai the prophet, saying,4Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your cieled houses, and this house lie waste?5 Now therefore thus saith YHWH of hosts; Consider your ways….
Thus saith YHWH of hosts; Consider your ways. 8 Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith YHWH.
9 Ye looked for much, and, lo, it came to little; and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why? saith YHWH of hosts. Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house. 10 Therefore the heaven over you is stayed from dew, and the earth is stayed from her fruit. 11 And I called for a drought upon the land, and upon the mountains, and upon the corn, and upon the new wine, and upon the oil, and upon that which the ground bringeth forth, and upon men, and upon cattle, and upon all the labour of the hands.
12 Then Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, with all the remnant of the people, obeyed the voice of YHWH their God, and the words of Haggai the prophet, as YHWH their God had sent him, and the people did fear before YHWH.13 Then spake Haggai YHWH’S messenger in YHWH’S message unto the people, saying, I am with you, saith YHWH.
And YHWH stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and did work in the house of YHWH of hosts, their God, In the four and twentieth day of the sixth month, in the second year of Darius the king. (Haggai 1:1-15, excerpted for brevity)
Doing What is Right in the Face of Adversity A few things to notice from Haggai 1. First of all it is apparent that Yahweh was displeased with attitude of the Jewish people related to their efforts in building His house. Notice they were “building” their own houses. In fact construction activities were taking place in the city of Jerusalem but the people had their priorities wrong. They were building their own houses while Yahweh’s house lay desolate.
How many times in life have we excused our own lack of service to Yahweh by complaining about our circumstances? “I would have been nicer to that person if they hadn’t been so mean.” “I would have helped that person but I just lost my job.” “I would have done the right thing but the “law” says I can’t.”
That is what Yahweh was dealing with here regarding the construction of His house. His people weren’t really all that interested doing His work. They were just looking for excuses. Remember they’d been “building” the temple since the 2nd year of Cyrus and they still hadn’t even completed the foundation yet. When Artaxerxes said that they couldn’t build Yahweh’s house any longer they simply used that “law” as an excuse for not doing what was right in Yahweh’s eyes.
There is a valuable lesson here. Notice the text indicates their poor lot in life was in part related to their unwillingness to do what was right in Yahweh’s eyes. Yahweh was punishing their bad attitude and improper priorities.
Another thing worth noting here was that the counselors hired to represent the enemies of the Jewish people before the kings of Persia, framed the activities of the Jewish as if they were building the city of Jerusalem in an effort to rebel against the king of Persia, when in fact it was their half hearted efforts to build the temple that were really the concern. This just illustrates an important fact of life.
This life is a spiritual battle not against flesh and blood but against the “principalities, powers, and against the rulers of the darkness of this world.” Satan didn’t care if the Jewish people were building their own houses. What the adversary did care about was the reestablishment of Yahweh’s house and spiritual significance of that house. The temple of Jerusalem was the beating heart of the city of Jerusalem.
Building Yahweh’s House Was Building Jerusalem
This raises a curious point. Today most scholars claim that building the temple in Jerusalem was not “building” Jerusalem, despite the fact that the enemies of the Jewish people thought so (Ezra 4), Yahweh thought so (Zech 1; Hag. 1), and Daniel thought so (Dan. 9:4-22). To me such claims seems like a distinction without a difference. To claim building the temple was not “building Jerusalem” makes about the same sense as saying the development of the human heart in a baby is not part of the divine “building” process of our body that Yahweh encoded into the DNA of this human tabernacle. By any objective measure, building the temple in Jerusalem was indeed, “building” Jerusalem.
Zechariah receives the “word” of Yahweh
As stated in Ezra 5, it just wasn’t Haggai that received the word of Yahweh which commanded the Jewish people to return and build the temple. Zechariah also received a similar message to share with the Jewish people.
In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word [dabar]of YHWH to Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo the prophet, saying,2 YHWH hath been sore displeased with your fathers. 3 Therefore say thou unto them, Thus saith YHWH of hosts; Turn ye unto me, saith YHWH of hosts, and I will turn unto you, saith YHWH of hosts….
Upon the four and twentieth day of the eleventh month, which is the month Sebat, in the second year of Darius, came the word [dabar] of YHWH unto Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo the prophet, saying,…
12 Then the angel of YHWH answered and said, O YHWH of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years?13 And YHWH answered the angel that talked with me with good words and comfortable words.
14 So the angel that communed with me said unto me, Cry thou, saying, Thus saith YHWH of hosts; I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy.15 And I am very sore displeased with the heathen that are at ease: for I was but a little displeased, and they helped forward the affliction.
16 Therefore thus saith YHWH; I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith YHWH of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem.17 Cry yet, saying, Thus saith YHWH of hosts; My cities through prosperity shall yet be spread abroad; and YHWH shall yet comfort Zion, and shall yet choose Jerusalem. (Zechariah 1:1-3, 7, 14-17)
There is so much important information here which grounds our understanding of the 2nd temple era on a solid contextual foundation.
First all notice that like the word give to Haggai this “word” (dabar) of Yahweh also came in the 2nd year of Darius. This word told the Jewish people that Yahweh had returned to Jerusalem with “mercy” and that His house would be build and that a line would be “stretched forth upon Jerusalem.” In other words, Yahweh told the Jewish people that His house, the very heart of Jerusalem, was to be built and this effort was in fact building or stretching a construction “line” upon Jerusalem.
Notice here that the text indicates that up to this 2nd year of Darius, Jerusalem and the Jewish people and their activities were under a cloud of divine “indignation”. That divine indignation the text tells us began 70 years earlier and then ended here in the 2nd year of Darius when Yahweh “returned to Jerusalem with mercies”. What is so neat about this statement is that it once again confirms just how accurate the Bible’s chronological record is when it relates history.
If we count 70 years back from the 2nd year of Darius (son of Hystaspes) in 520 BC we arrive at roughly 589 BC and what Ezekiel 8-10 describes as the departure of Yahweh’s divine presence from Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem. How awesome is that. 70 years after departing from Jerusalem and the temple, here is Yahweh the living God of the Bible, telling Zechariah and Haggai the prophets that He had “returned” to Jerusalem with mercies and He wanted construction on His house restarted.
As you look at the following chart remember that Part I of this series showed how the author of Ezra 4 gave an incredibly accurate summary of events between the reigns of Cyrus and Darius, a summary which fits congruently with secular Persian history. In the chart below both of those important ‘bookends’ (Cyrus & Darius) of this chronology are further emphasized by marking the end of a 70 year period of time. That’s how cool the Bible!
The Temple Completed in the 6th Year of Darius
Four years after Yahweh had returned to Jerusalem with mercies and commanded the Jewish people to return and build His house, that house was completed. The beating heart of Jerusalem was once again serving it’s purpose in the city of peace. That’s what happens when we listen to Yahweh and do what’s right even in the face of adversity. As the Paul wrote to the Romans:
If God be for us, who can be against us? (Romans 8:31b)
Darius Rebukes the Enemies of the Jewish People
Let’s back up here for just a few moments now that we understand the context of Yahweh’s divine command to restore (return) and build the temple as given through the prophets Haggai and Zechariah. We left off in Ezra 5 with the following verses for which you now known the fascinating back-story and context.
Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel, even unto them.
Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them. (Ezra 5:1-2)
Once construction on the temple resumed it didn’t take long for the enemies of the Jewish people to try and stop this divinely sanctioned effort. This time though the Jewish people held firm, they were more afraid of Yahweh than the former decree of the Persian king Artaxerxes. So the matter was taken to king Darius and the Jewish people claimed precedence in the former decree of king Cyrus who had given them permission to build both the city and the temple.
Darius had a different attitude than the Magian usurper Bardis, so he made a search of the records and found the decree of Cyrus granting the Jewish people the right to return and build. Darius then wrote his own rather scathing letter to these enemies of the Jewish people telling them to leave the Jewish people alone or else! Here is an excerpt with some of the highlights. I’d encourage you to read all of Ezra 5 & 6 to get the full context.
Then Darius the king made a decree, and search was made in the house of the rolls, where the treasures were laid up in Babylon2 And there was found at Achmetha, in the palace that is in the province of the Medes, a roll, and therein was a record thus written:
In the first year of Cyrus the king the same Cyrus the king made a decree concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, Let the house be builded, the place where they offered sacrifices, and let the foundations thereof be strongly laid; the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits;…
Now therefore, Tatnai, governor beyond the river, Shetharboznai, and your companions the Apharsachites, which are beyond the river, be ye far from thence: 7 Let the work of this house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews build this house of God in his place. (Ezra 6:1-7 )
Finally Ezra 6:13-15 provides another chronological panoramic by summing up the chronology from Ezra 5 (the prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah the word-dabar of Yahweh) and those who gave commands which resulted in the completion of the temple by the 6th year of Darius.
Then Tatnai, governor on this side the river, Shetharboznai, and their companions, according to that which Darius the king had sent, so they did speedily.
And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.
And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king. (Ezra 6:13-15)
Let’s unpack this a bit more to make sure we can understand exactly what these verses are saying. Verse 13 tells that the enemies of the Jewish people obeyed the threatening letter of Darius and they left off harassing the Jewish people.
Verse 14 summarizes the history up to that point. First of all it points out that prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah was the catalyst that spurred the Jewish people’s return to the building efforts, the result of which was their “prospering” as Yahweh promised in Haggai 1 and Zechariah 1. The text further clarifies that building – and – finishing of the temple was the result of a command by the “God of Israel” and also the commands of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes.
For right now let’s not deal with the curious inclusion of Artaxerxes as one of those who helped build and finish the temple by the 6th year of Darius. We’ll explore that subject in the next part of this series, for now let focus on the other “commandments” first. Based upon the context we have explored in Ezra 4-6 does the Bible identify specific commands related to Yahweh, Cyrus & Darius which resulted in the building and finishing of the temple by the 6th year of Darius? Sure it does. Here are the commands as they took place chronologically.
Cyrus In 536 BC Cyrus ended the 70 years captivity of the Jewish people in Babylon. He allowed them to return and build the temple and the city of Jerusalem.
That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. (Isaiah 44:28)
Yahweh After construction was stopped on the temple by the Persian king “Artaxerxes”, Yahweh in the 2nd year of Darius (520 BC) personally commanded Israel to return and build. This “commandment” was given as a word (dabar) of Yahweh through the prophets Haggai and Zechariah.
In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month, came the word [dabar] of YHWH by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, ….
Thus saith YHWH of hosts; Consider your ways.8 Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith YHWH. (Haggai 1:1-8 for brevity)
Upon the four and twentieth day of the eleventh month, which is the month Sebat, in the second year of Darius, came the word [dabar] of YHWH unto Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo the prophet, saying,…
Then the angel of YHWH answered and said, O YHWH of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years?
13 And YHWH answered the angel that talked with me with good words [dabar]and comfortable words [dabar]….
Thus saith YHWH of hosts; I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy….
Therefore thus saith YHWH; I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith YHWH of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem. (Zechariah 1:7-16 exerpted for brevity)
14 And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo.
And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia. 15 And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king. (Ezra 6:14-15 excerpted for brevity)
Darius
In 520 BC Darius confirms Cyrus’ original decree and encourages the Jewish to continue their efforts to build the temple which Yahweh had commanded them to do. Four years later in the 6th year of Darius the temple was completed.
Now therefore, Tatnai, governor beyond the river, Shetharboznai, and your companions the Apharsachites, which are beyond the river, be ye far from thence:
Let the work of this house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews build this house of God in his place. Moreover I make a decree what ye shall do to the elders of these Jews for the building of this house of God: that of the king’s goods, even of the tribute beyond the river, forthwith expenses be given unto these men, that they be not hindered.
Also I have made a decree, that whosoever shall alter this word, let timber be pulled down from his house, and being set up, let him be hanged thereon; and let his house be made a dunghill for this. And the God that hath caused his name to dwell there destroy all kings and people, that shall put to their hand to alter and to destroy this house of God which is at Jerusalem. I Darius have made a decree; let it be done with speed. (Ezra 6:6-12)
Comparing and Contrasting with The Seraiah Assumption
Now after exploring the context of Ezra 4-6 in a congruent and chronological manner consider the following quotes by Mr. Lanser once again. Do you think they represent an accurate explanation of the events Ezra 4-6 relates:
We are to understand that the writer presents the commandment of God in Ezra 6:14 as a single overarching decree, yet manifested through the individual edicts issued by Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes. This one decree of God—the word is a singular noun—is not completely unfolded until Artaxerxes contributes his part, notwithstanding that it is somewhat removed in time from the earlier contributions of Cyrus and Darius….
Doing this equates the command of God with the three-fold human command (singular!) of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes. That Brown’s view of the waw explicativum is possible does not necessarily make it so, of course, but it does show that Struse and Austin are not being equitable in the way they evaluate the translation possibilities. Fair-mindedness towards the data requires that they not insist their preferred view of this grammar question is the only one possible.
Before moving on, one more point can be made: since Ezra 6:14 tells us the one command of God had three kings involved in its outworking, we cannot say the decree of Daniel 9:25 had fully “gone forth” until Artaxerxes Longimanus added his contribution. We have to wait until Artaxerxes’ reign to find Daniel’s prophesied decree.
The claims Mr. Lanser makes in the statements above is why understanding the entire context of subject is so important. The commandment of God in Ezra 6:14 is not an ambiguous overarching thematic decree. Rather it was a very specific word (dabar) to restore and build Jerusalem given within a very specific sequence of chronological events and relayed through the mouths of the two prophetic witnesses of Haggai and Zechariah. That word (dabar) given in the 2nd year of Darius by Yahweh, the living God of the Bible, commanded the Jewish people to return and build His house, the beating heart of Jerusalem.
This context is so important lets summarize one last time:
23 Now [‘edayin] when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power.
24 Then [‘edayin]ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia. (Ezra 4:23 – 24)
Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel, even unto them. Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them. (Ezra 5:1)
In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month, came the word [dabar] of YHWH by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, ….
Thus saith YHWH of hosts; Consider your ways.8 Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith YHWH. (Haggai 1:1-8 for brevity)
5 But the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews, that they [the enemies of the Jewish people] could not cause them to cease, till the matter came to Darius: and then they returned answer by letter concerning this matter. (Ezra 5:5)
Ezra 6:1 Then Darius the king made a decree, and search was made in the house of the rolls, where the treasures were laid up in Babylon….
7 Let the work of this house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews build this house of God in his place.8 Moreover I make a decree what ye shall do to the elders of these Jews for the building of this house of God: that of the king’s goods, even of the tribute beyond the river, forthwith expenses be given unto these men, that they be not hindered. ( Ezra 6:7-8 )
13 Then Tatnai, governor on this side the river, Shetharboznai, and their companions, according to that which Darius the king had sent, so they did speedily.
14 And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finishedit, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.15 And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king. (Ezra 6:13-15)
Summary
In our exploration of the book of Ezra to date, we’ve learned that it is a straightforward and chronological account of the events relating to the building of the city of Jerusalem and the Temple starting in the 1st year of the Persian king Cyrus (536 BC) and continuing through to the 6th year of the Persian king Darius (son of Hystaspes) in 516 BC. The central focus of these events being Yahweh’s divine word (dabar) commanding the Jewish people to return and build His desolate sanctuary. This divine word we have learned came at the end of His 70 years of divine anger.
As I’ve demonstrated in my book The Jubilee Code: Prophetic Milestones in Yahweh’s Redemptive Plan, a reasonable case can be made that the 70 years of Babylonian captivity, the 70 years of divine anger, and the 70 years between the destruction of the Solomon’s temple and rebuilding and dedication of the 2nd temple, were a trifecta of 70 years periods which all had their origins within the 70th Jubilee cycle from Adam.
This important chronological information further underscores the significance of the timing of Yahweh’s divine “word” commanding the Jewish people to return and build His desolate sanctuary. In a future part of this series I’ll show why this divine word to return and build, given at this pivotal point in Biblical history, began the 70 “Weeks” of Daniel 9:24-27 and the Bible’s most famous countdown to the Messiah. The chart to the left demonstrates the significance of these events within the Bible’s larger chronological cycles.
I invite you to join me next time as we continue our investigation of this thrilling and important period in Biblical history.
Maranatha!
Authors Note: This is a multi-part series of articles responding to the Associates for Biblical Research criticism of my view of 2nd temple history as presented in an article on their website entitledThe Seraiah Assumption.
Next Time
Now that we’ve laid a contextual chronological foundation for Ezra 4-6, Yahweh willing in Part III of this series we will explore the crux of the Artaxerxes Assumption. Who was the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 6:14 and why was his name added amongst those who “building and finished” the temple by the 6th year of Darius? In this upcoming article we will also address some the following related challenges and pointed criticism raised by Mr. Lanser in his article The Seraiah Assumption:
One is obliged to ask why the writer of the book of Ezra would have even bothered to introduce the name “Artaxerxes” into the narrative at Ezra 6:14, when this king had been uniformly referred to as “Darius” several times earlier in the book (4:5, 4:24, 5:5, 5:6, 5:7, 6:1, and 6:12). If “Darius” and “Artaxerxes” were indeed one and the same person, waiting until this late point in the narrative to introduce an additional designation for Darius does nothing but confuse the reader.
Ezra 6:14 and the Waw Explicativum Ezra 6:14 is another verse where the desire to avoid anachronistically introducing Artaxerxes I Longimanus into the narrative has given rise to creative ways of getting around it. One is a particular grammatical argument centered on the Hebrew letter waw. Prefixed to another word, waw is generally translated as a simple connective, “and.” There are places, however, where it can be used as what grammarians term a waw explicativum, where it equates the two items it joins and takes the translation “even.” Applying this understanding to Ezra 6:14b yields:
And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, even Artaxerxes king of Persia (KJV, emphasis added).
The error [of translating Ezra 6:14b as “and Artaxerxes”] is actually found in the English translation of the passage. It stems from presuppositional bias and the erroneous use of the Hebrew letter waw. In order to show that Ezra lived during the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, as they presupposed, the translators used the letter waw to form a conjunction instead of a hendiadys (two words with one meaning), as the context would dictate.
With all due respect to Mr. Struse, it is fair to say that 99% of people without any skin in the game would expect the well-trained professional scholars and translators of the various English versions of the Bible, particularly those who uphold it as the Word of God and take their responsibility to handle it carefully with utmost seriousness, to be in a good position to tell us what “the context would dictate.” To assert “presuppositional bias” and “erroneous use of the Hebrew letter” carries little weight when coming from someone without specialized training.
Book 1
Book I - Description
The 13th Enumeration
"A book that will change how you look at the Bible's Messianic Symbolism."
The Jubilee Code -
"A book that will show you real Biblical evidence for Yahweh's guiding in hand history bringing about His redemptive plan for mankind."
Authors Note: This is a multipart series answering the criticisms and challenges posed by Rick Lanser’s article The Seraiah Assumption as published on the Associates for Biblical Research website here: The Seraiah Assumption .
Mr. Lanser’s article directly challenges my assertion that Ezra and Nehemiah were contemporaries of the Persian king Darius also known as ‘the great’ Artaxerxes.
Introductory Remarks Over the coming weeks, as I respond to Mr. Lanser’s – Seraiah Assumption, please keep in mind that this subject is the basis for the 70 “weeks” prophecy, the only prophetic utterance in the Bible which gives us a specific and chronologically verifiable date that proves Yeshua (Jesus) is the Bible’s promised Messiah. This is an incredibly important subject that we need to have clarity about. Further, Daniel 9 and the 70 “weeks” are the prophetic foundation upon which we base much of our beliefs about Yeshua’s 2nd coming, the rapture, the wrath of God, Israel’s restoration, and the coming messianic age. That’s a lot of weight resting on little understood and even less talked about bit of 2nd temple era history.
As we explore this wonderful history my understanding of the evidence will be filtered through the Golden Rule of Bible Interpretation as described by Dr. David L. Cooper. His interpretational framework is as follows:
“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”
I want to make clear here, that I will first seek a “plain sense” interpretation, that a layman like myself would be able to understand and comprehend. This approach will see every word in a passage in its most primary, ordinary, usual, and literal meaning – unless – the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths – clearly indicate otherwise. I want to emphasis this, I will only look for an alternative meaning to “plain sense” reading of the text when the passage in question is contradicted by – clear and contextual – evidence found elsewhere in the Bible.
If any of us are to solve the challenges posed by Mr. Lanser’s article The Seraiah Assumption we must have a clear and contextual understanding of the history and chronology in question. To help facilitate such a contextual understanding of the subject, this week we will explore the Persian history as described in Ezra 4-6 and I’ll offer another perspective on Mr. Lanser’s claims and in at least one instance I’ll clarify where he has mistakenly misrepresented my position.
Let’s start with a brief overview of 2nd temple era to get a solid contextual fixing point.
Cyrus Ends the 70 Years Captivity of Judah One of the fastest ways to get off track when reading the Bible as it relates to its history is to ignore its chronological context. To clearly understand Ezra and Nehemiah’s place in Biblical history, we need to know a bit of the back story leading up to their importance in the events related to the restoration of Jerusalem and the Temple during what is commonly known as the 2nd temple era.
So with this in mind here are the Biblical passages which set the context for our understanding the book of Ezra. Please take a moment to read these important passages.
Therefore thus saith YHWH of hosts; Because ye have not heard my words, Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith YHWH, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations…
And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith YHWH, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations. And I will bring upon that land all my words which I have pronounced against it, even all that is written in this book, which Jeremiah hath prophesied against all the nations. (Jeremiah 25:8-13 – excerpted for brevity)
Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word [dabar] of YHWH by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, YHWH stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, 2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, YHWH God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of YHWH God of Israel, (he is the God,) which is in Jerusalem. (Ezra 1:1-3)
That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. (Isaiah 44:28)
Babylon 536 BC The book of Ezra opens with the statement that the Persian king Cyrus was used by Yahweh, the living God of the Bible to punish Babylon and end the 70 years captivity of Judah. According to the text, not only did Yahweh cause Cyrus to end the 70 years captivity of Judah in Babylon, but He also compelled Cyrus to allow the repatriated captives to restore the city of Jerusalem as well as rebuild the very beating heart of that city, Yahweh’s house, the temple which had been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon. This restoration process began what is commonly known today as the 2nd temple era. The leaders of the repatriated captives were Zerubbabel (the governor) and Jeshua the high priest.
Ezra 1 and 2 informs us of the Judean captives who left Babylon and traveled to Jerusalem. Chapter 3 opens in the 7th month of the 1st year of Cyrus with the Judean captives assembling “as one man” at Jerusalem to set up an altar for sacrifices and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. Ezra 3:8 opens in the 2nd year of the Jewish people’s return to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel the governor and Jeshua the high priest organizing the Levites into a work parties in order to restart construction of the temple. Ezra chapter 3 ends with the following description:
Now in the second year of their coming unto the house of God at Jerusalem, in the second month, began Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and the remnant of their brethren the priests and the Levites, and all they that were come out of the captivity unto Jerusalem; and appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to set forward the work of the house of YHWH…
And when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of YHWH, they set the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites the sons of Asaph with cymbals, to praise YHWH, after the ordinance of David king of Israel.
And they sang together by course in praising and giving thanks unto YHWH; because he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever toward Israel. And all the people shouted with a great shout, when they praised YHWH, because the foundation of the house of YHWH was laid.
But many of the priests and Levites and chief of the fathers, who were ancient men, that had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice; and many shouted aloud for joy: So that the people could not discern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping of the people: for the people shouted with a loud shout, and the noise was heard afar off. (Ezra 3:8-13 excerpted)
Before we move on to Ezra 4 and some of the complexities raised in Mr. Lanser’s article The Seraiah Assumption, there are a few things worth highlighting from the passages we’ve explored so far.
Cyrus (because of Yahweh’s divine will) ended the 70 years captivity of Judah in Babylon.
Cyrus’ “proclamation” allowed the Jewish people to restore both the city and temple of Jerusalem.
In the 7th month of the 1st year of their return the Jewish people kept the Feast of Tabernacles
In the 2nd month of the 2nd year of their return the priests and Levites laid the foundation of 2nd temple.
The Harassment Begins So the Jewish people are back in their land and construction on the 2nd temple was begun by the priests and Levites. Ezra 4 tells us that it wasn’t long after construction began, that the enemies of the Jewish people began to harass them in an effort to thwart reconstruction of the Yahweh’s house. Ezra describes it this way:
Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the LORD God of Israel; Then they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, Let us build with you: for we seek your God, as ye do; and we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assur, which brought us up hither.
But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the LORD God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us.
Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building, 5 And hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia. (Ezra 4:1-5 – excerpted for brevity)
Ezra 4:1-4 tells of the initial effort of Judah’s enemies to hinder the temple construction. Verse 5 summarizes by saying these enemies hired counselors to facilitate this harassment and this harassment lasted from the reign of Cyrus until the reign of Darius the Persian. The following chart provides you with a handy reference guide for the commonly accepted succession of Persian kings and their dates and lengths of reign.
[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]
As you can see from this chart between Cyrus and Darius (son of Hystaspes) there are only two Persian kings noted in the historical record. This is important as we continue reading Ezra 4. Remember, my interpretive method demands that I accept it at face value in its most natural and plain sense.
So after Cyrus’ initial proclamation, Ezra 4:6 opens with the introduction of a new Persian king titled Ahasuerus during whose reign the enemies of the Jewish people continued their harassment. Now there are at least two ways to read this next passage.
The first is to conclude that Ezra 4:5 summarized the efforts of the Jewish people’s enemies to hinder the construction between the reign of Darius and Cyrus and that verses 6-23 provide further details about that harassment that took place during those roughly 16 years.
The 2nd way to look at this passage is to conclude that Ezra 4:6 onwards, ignores the Persian kings Cambyses and Bardis and jumps into the future describing unrelated harassment which took place after the reign of Darius sometime during the reign of a yet future Persian king who the Bible only describes as “Ahasuerus”.
And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. (Ezra 4:6)
It’s worth noting here that regarding the Persian king named Ahasuerus the Bible does not indicate the efforts to hinder construction efforts were successful. But it was a different story altogether when Ezra 4:7 introduces a new Persian king named Artaxerxes. This Persian Artaxerxes king listened to the enemies of the Jewish people and after reading their letter he stopped construction of the temple.
Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until another commandment shall be given from me. Take heed now that ye fail not to do this: why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?
Now when [‘edayin] the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power. (Ezra 4:21-23)
All Construction of Jerusalem Stopped So it seems that the enemies of the Jewish people had won. This Persian Artaxerxes ordered all construction to be stopped until he gave further notice. Ezra 4 concludes with verse 24 as follows:
Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia. (Ezra 4:24)
In keeping with our attempt to see this from at least two points of view Ezra 4:24 could be understood in at least two ways:
The first and what I believe to be the most natural reading of the text is that Ezra 4 is a chronological explanation of successive events which took place during the reigns of the Persian kings Cyrus, Cambyses, Bardis, and Darius. Ezra 4:24 is the summary end cap of this successive chronological events. In other words, Cyrus gave permission for the Jewish people to rebuild the city and temple of Jerusalem. Then during the reign of Cyrus’ son Cambyses, counselors hired by the Jewish peoples enemies petitioned Cambyses to stop the temple construction. When that effort failed they tried again during the reign of the next Persian king who secular history identifies as the magian usurper Bardis. This attempt was successful and all construction stopped until the 2nd year of the reign of Darius king of Persia. (As we will subsequently learn it was during the 2nd year of Darius (son of Hystaspes) that Yahweh the living God of the Bible commanded the Jewish people to return and build the temple.)
The second way to look at this verse is how Mr. Lanser chooses to interpret it. I’ll let him describe it in the following quotes from his article The Seraiah Assumption:
To summarize this point, to understand Ezra 4:6–23 “contextually” does not require a strictly chronological approach. The mentions of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes are deliberate anachronisms introduced by the Spirit-inspired compiler of the records of Ezra-Nehemiah that would have been self-evident to his history-informed audience. There is no need to reinterpret the translated name of Ahasuerus or the throne name of Artaxerxes as forced references to Darius the Great. These names can be understood just as given elsewhere in Scripture, where they refer to Xerxes I and his son Artaxerxes Longimanus respectively. The plain sense is the right sense, and supports our contention that the Seraiah Assumption is the wrong way to approach the genealogy of Ezra in Ezra 7:1. (http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2019/04/17/The-Seraiah-Assumption-and-the-Decree-of-Daniel-925.aspx)
The Thematic Context of Ezra 4:6–23 Now we come to the conclusion of Ezra 4:24b: “…and it was stopped until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.” These words are the contextual key to the chapter. They directly connect verse 24 with verse 5, “all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.” The intervening verses 6 through 23 of Ezra 4 therefore constitute a parenthetical sidebar set between verses 5 and 24, continuing the theme of Samaritan-led opposition but now expressing it in their efforts to stymie the Jews in rebuilding the city instead of the Temple. The word “now” which leads off 4:6 has almost the sense of our expression “by the way…”—it introduces a jump to a tangential topic, which nevertheless has some relationship to what had already been discussed…..
In the above passage Mr. Lanser claims that Ezra 4:1-24 does not need to be read in strictly chronological manner. He suggests instead that verses 1-5 have in view the construction efforts of the Jewish people from reign of Cyrus (the Great) unto the start of the reign of Darius (son of Hystaspes) roughly 536-521 BC. Verses 6-23 he suggests are a parenthetical insertion that is not chronologically related to the verses 1-5 but describe events which transpire in the reigns of Xerxes (son of Darius) and Artaxerxes (son of Xerxes) over 40 and 60 years later respectively. After this chronological leap into the future, Mr. Lanser suggest that verse 24 jumps back from the future to the 2nd year of the reign of Darius (son of Hystaspes) in 520 BC.
This chronological incongruence Mr. Lander asserts is justified by his understanding of the use of the titles Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes elsewhere in Scripture.
If we apply Dr. Coopers approach to Ezra 4 we must first attempt to understand the passage in its most natural and plain sense given in the immediate context. Only when that fails are we justified in searching for an interpretation that goes beyond the plain sense meaning of the text.
Let me show you, why taking Ezra 4 at face value in its most natural sense as a congruent and chronological testimony of real Persian history is the best approach. In fact, as you’ll see Ezra 4 proves how important it is to stick to the Golden Rule of Bible Interpretation as the go-to-method of reading the Scripture. To demonstrate this, let’s look at Ezra 4:21-24:
21 Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until another commandment shall be given from me.
22 Take heed now that ye fail not to do this: why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?
23 Now [‘edayin] when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power.
24 Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia. (Ezra 4:21-24)
To refresh the context of the above passage keep in mind that Ezra 4:7 opens with the enemies of the Jewish people writing to a Persian “Artaxerxes” in an effort to stop construction of Jerusalem. Their claim was that the Jewish people were building the city (which Cyrus’ original proclamation allowed) and if Artaxerxes didn’t put a stop to the effort it would result in hurt to the king. The king believed the council of these evil men and ordered a stop to the construction efforts. Verse 23 tells us that Artaxerxes’ letter was delivered to the Jewish people in Jerusalem and their construction efforts were stopped “by force and power”.
Carefully notice, that verse 23 opens with the Aramaic word ‘edayin which means: then, afterwards, thereupon, from that time. In this case ‘edayin’ at the opening of the sentence is used to chronologically connect verse 23 to the events which chronologically precede it. To the extent that Mr. Lanser believes the events of Ezra 4:6-23 are all chronologically related, the use of ‘edayin’ confirms it. I agree with him.
But verse 23 presents a problem for Mr. Lanser’s interpretation. The Aramaic word ‘edayin’ is used 57 times in the Old Testament. 56 of those occurrences, including the “now” of Ezra 4:23, clearly refer to successive events which take place in chronological order. In most cases the events described by the word ‘edayin’ transpire directly after previously described events of the text. The only other occurrence of the world ‘edayin’ found in the Bible is Ezra 4:24 and is represented by the English word “then”.
If we use a consistent Hermeneutics we must translate ‘edayin’ in Ezra 4:24 in the same manner we translated it in verse 23 – as well as the other 55 other occurrences of the word found in the Old Testament. There is simply no other reasonable way to see ‘edayin’ other than a chronological synchronism which connects successive events. By placing ‘edayin’ at the beginning of both verse 23 & verse 24 the author of Ezra wanted to ensure there was no confusion about the chronological order of events.
23 Now [‘edayin] when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power.
24 Then[‘edayin] ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia. (Ezra 4:22-24)
For those who would like to verify this for yourselves, here are the references for every occurrence of the word ‘edayin found in the Bible. (Ezra 4:9, 23f; 5:2, 4f, 9, 16; 6:1, 13; Dan 2:14f, 17, 19, 25, 35, 46, 48; 3:3, 13, 19, 21, 24, 26, 30; 4:7, 19; 5:3, 6, 8f, 13, 17, 24, 29; 6:3ff, 11ff, 18f, 21, 23, 25; 7:1, 11, 19)
What this contextual evidence demonstrates is that the Persian “Artaxerxes” mentioned in Ezra 4:7-23 is in fact a Persian king who ruled at some point previous to Darius (son of Hystaspes) and that by no natural reading of the text could this refer to the Persian king Artaxerxes (Longimanus). So let’s look at Ezra 4 in its natural chronological sense.
Ezra 4 opens with Jewish people beginning their construction on the temple based upon the original proclamation of Cyrus. The text then tells of efforts of their enemies to undermine those efforts. Verse 5 informs us that these enemies hired councilors to harass the Jewish people from the reign of Cyrus until the reign of Darius. Verses 6 onwards describes how these councilors petitioned a Persian king named Ahasuerus (Cambyses) to stop construction, when that did not produce results, Verses 7-23 describes how these councilors then petition a subsequent Persian king named Artaxerxes (Bardis). Their efforts to undermine the temple construction were successful with this “Artaxerxes” and in verse 24 it tells us that ‘then’ (‘edayin’) they were able to stop construction on the temple and it stopped until the 2nd year of Darius (son of Hystaspes).
23 Now [‘edayin] when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power.
24 Then [‘adayin] ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia. (Ezra 4:24)
Ironically, Mr. Lanser notices that the author of Ezra likes to give an overview of events and then fills in the details afterwards but fails to appreciate this habit as it applies to the summary of events in Ezra 4:1-5 and the subsequent details of verses 6-23. He rightly observed when quoting Brown in another place in his article:
“Having discussed the chronological anomaly above, Brown moves on to another which shows that the author of Ezra-Nehemiah displays a penchant for first telling where he is going, then explaining how he gets there.”
As you’ve seen this penchant for “first telling where he is going” that is exactly what happened in Ezra 4. The book opens with a general overview of events between Cyrus and Darius and then the author fills in the details by telling us “how he gets there”. Now take a look at our original chart which we can now update to reflect the new information we have learned by applying this plain sense reading of the text.
Misquoted and Misunderstood Before moving on there, are a couple places where Mr. Lanser seems confused about my interpretation of Ezra 4:6-7 as it relates to Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes. He states the following in his article The Seraiah Assumption:
Just as in the case of Ahasuerus in verse 6, it is alleged that Artaxerxes in verse 7 is a title for Darius the Great. But why would the same king bear two different titles? That this is Struse’s understanding is clear from this statement in his “Queen of 127 Provinces” article: “The common thread of all the above references is that Darius ‘the Great’, also known as Artaxerxes or Ahasuerus…” (emphasis added). Why would Ezra 4:6–7 mention the same king twice, by different names, in back-to-back verses that bear every indication of talking about different people? I cannot follow this logic, and feel constrained to search for a better solution. By suggesting that both Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes are titles for Darius I, Struse has expanded the identifying terms as necessary to maintain his theory. But a theory that cannot be falsified is one that cannot be proven, either. (Lanser – http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2019/04/17/The-Seraiah-Assumption-and-the-Decree-of-Daniel-925.aspx)
I want to make clear here that I’ve never stated or frankly ever seriously entertained the idea that the Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:6 & 7 were references to Darius (Hystaspes) also known as ‘the great’. I’m not sure how Mr. Lanser arrived at this conclusion from reading my article Queen of 127 Provinces. I clearly did not intimate such an belief in that article. Those who would like to verify this for yourselves, can read the article here: Queen of 127 Provinces.
As we’ve learned in this article the Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes of Ezra 4, based upon the immediate context, can only be references to Cambyses and Bardis respectively. The quote provided by Mr. Lanser above is taken out of context and the chronology of Ezra 4 is not the subject under consideration. As I demonstrated in Queen of 127 Provinces, and Yahweh willing, will more fully elucidate in a subsequent article in this series, I do believe there is reasonable evidence which demonstrates that Darius (Hystaspes) was also known by the Greek titles of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes. But to be clear – Darius is not who the Scripture has in view in Ezra 4:6 & 4:7.
Skipping the Context of the Divine Command to Restore and Build Unfortunately for readers of Mr. Lanser’s article The Seraiah Assumption, when explaining what he terms the “Darius Assumption” he skips the context of Ezra 5 & 6 which is critical to understanding the context of Darius’ place in the 2nd temple era. This is in my opinion a great oversight which in addition to his misreading of Ezra 4 severely handicaps Mr. Lanser’s understanding of the 2nd temple era.
Yahweh willing, in my next article in this series we will look at how Yahweh’s divine command to restore and build Jerusalem, as witnessed by the two prophets Haggai and Zechariah, provides the missing context which is necessary to have an accurate understanding of the efforts of the Jewish people in rebuilding Jerusalem and the temple during the reign of Darius (the son of Hystaspes). This information will further enhance our understanding of the Persian era and provide us with further grounds upon which to establish a reasonable and accurate understanding of the 2nd temple era and Ezra and Nehemiah’s place in it.
Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel, even unto them. 2 Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them. 3 At the same time came to them Tatnai, governor on this side the river, and Shetharboznai, and their companions, and said thus unto them, Who hath commanded you to build this house, and to make up this wall? (Ezra 5:1-3)
Key Points to Remember:
Cyrus (because of Yahweh’s divine will) ended the 70 years captivity of Judah in Babylon.
Cyrus’ “proclamation” allowed the Jewish people to restore both the city and temple of Jerusalem.
In the 7th month of the 1st year of their return the Jewish people kept the Feast of Tabernacles
In the 2nd month of the 2nd year of their return the priests and Levites laid the foundation of 2nd temple.
The enemies of the Jewish people hired counselors to thwart their building efforts starting after the decree of Cyrus (536 BC) and continuing until the 2nd year of Darius (520 BC).
The most natural reading of Ezra 4 shows a congruent and chronological description of events from the reign of Cyrus until the reign of Darius (Son of Hystaspes).
This natural chronological flow of history is confirmed by the author of Ezra use of the Aramaic word ‘edayin. This word is used exclusively in the Bible to describe successive chronological information.
This then allows us to reasonably conclude that the “Ahasuerus” of Ezra 4:6 was the Persian king Cambyses (son of Cyrus).
This also allows us to reasonable conclude that the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 4:7 is a reference to the Persian usurper king Bardis who was deposed by Darius (son of Hystaspes).
The Jubilee Code -
"A book that will show you real Biblical evidence for Yahweh's guiding in hand history bringing about His redemptive plan for mankind."
Over the past year I’ve had the privilege of corresponding with Rick Lanser of the well respected Christian apologetics ministry – Associates for Biblical Research (ABR). Through their Biblical research and archaeological endeavors, ABR is an organization at the forefront of Biblical apologetics. Besides their great website they are the authors of the respected periodical Bible and Spade magazine.
Mr. Lanser is the Executive Editor of Bible and Spade magazine and author of numerous articles at their very informative website: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/
Last year I was intrigued by an ongoing research project by Mr. Lanser entitled, The Daniel 9:24-27 Project: The Framework for Messianic Chronology. As regular readers of this blog know, I am passionately interested in the 70 Sevens prophecy so naturally I was drawn to Mr. Lanser’s articles. As part of his research project, on a monthly basis all last year Mr. Lanser laid the chronological foundation for the life of Yeshua. In my opinion he did a fantastic job in showing why 30 AD is the most reasonable date for the death and resurrection of Yeshua.
Several times last year I wrote to Mr. Lanser offering comments and some constructive criticisms on this effort and he was gracious and thorough in his responses. We had a very nice and cordial conversation on several topics related to this subject.
At some point Mr. Lanser unbeknownst to me ran across articles on my website related to 2nd Temple chronology, Ezra, Nehemiah, and their chronological relationship to Persian kings “Artaxerxes”. This past week Mr. Lanser wrote to me letting me know that these article really challenged him to dig into the subject and while he respected my research related to the 2 temple era he was publishing a critical article about it on the ABR website. His article is entitled: The Seraiah Assumption and the Decree of Daniel 9:25
I’ve read Mr. Lanser’s article and it is a very in-depth, yet critical exploration of my premise that the most reasonable reading of the Bible’s 2nd temple era chronology places Ezra and Nehemiah as contemporaries of Darius ‘the great’ Artaxerxes. As many of you who regularly read this blog know, Ezra and Nehemiah and their chronological relationship to the Persian era, is the bedrock upon which Daniel 9 and the prophecy of 70 Sevens rests. Mr. Lanser, like few other scholars today, understands just how important this chronology is to our view of Daniel 9 and the 70 Sevens as well as so many other related chronological and eschatological subjects.
While I would have preferred a more agreeable view of my writings on the 2nd temple era chronology, I am frankly thrilled that someone of Mr. Lanser’s knowledge and standing was willing to take a serious look at this most important subject. Like most of my critics Mr. Lanser has challenged me to look at the subject from another perspective and caused me to dig deeper into this wonderful subject than I’ve heretofore done. Just as importantly though, is the fact that Mr. Lanser has done all of us a great favor by bringing this often neglected subject out into the open where it can be discussed and better understood by the body of Christ.
For this I am and will be indebted to Mr. Lanser.
My hope is that those of you reading theses words will honor Mr. Lanser’s effort by carefully reading his explanations and criticisms of my work. Frankly, if you’ve ever read, preached, or talked to someone about Daniel 9 and the 70 Sevens prophecy then this is no less than your Berean’s duty. It’s just good stewardship.
Over the coming weeks I will be responding to the pertinent points of Mr. Lanser’s criticism in an effort to further clarify and refine my perspective on this very important subject. After reading Mr. Lanser’s article I believe there are several critical points of chronology and textual interpretation where he has made some serious errors and I will be addressing them in the same respectful but direct manner that he has shown in his article The Seraiah Assumption.
For ease of reading and hopefully clarity I won’t be responding to all of the points raised in Mr. Lanser’s article at one time. Instead, Yahweh willing, I will be responding to the important points of his articles one at a time over the coming weeks. In each article I hope to break the subject down into building blocks which stand alone in their own right, each of which we can then use to build a more thorough and contextual understanding of this very important subject.
The Persian Chronology of Ezra 4 To start with my first article will look at Mr. Lanser’s interpretation of Ezra 4 and its foundational context for understanding the Persian era and its relationship to Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s place in it. It is here that I believe Mr. Lanser makes a critical interpretational error which charts his exploration of the subject on an erroneous course. Out of respect for Mr. Lanser I’ve invited him to respond to these articles if he thinks it necessary to bring further clarity to his position and the subject in general.
I’d also like to hear your thoughts on this subject as we explore it over the coming weeks. Please keep you comments edifying. As I’ve stated in the past I will not tolerate any personal insults or innuendo at this blog. You are welcome to disagree or be critical of my or anyone’s interpretation but if you’d like your comments posted please keep them edifying and related to the subject at hand.
Finally, it is my hope that this investigation will ultimately strengthen your faith in the Bible as an accurate testimony of past, present, and future history as it relates to Yahweh’s wonderful redemptive plan for mankind.
I look forward to exploring this subject with you over the coming weeks,
Maranatha!
Authors Note: This is a multi-part series of articles responding to the Associates for Biblical Research criticism of my view of 2nd temple history as presented in an article on their website entitled The Seraiah Assumption.
The Jubilee Code -
"A book that will show you real Biblical evidence for Yahweh's guiding in hand history bringing about His redemptive plan for mankind."
To my Jewish, Messianic, and Christian brethren who remember Yeshua’s death and resurrection in the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, I wish you a blessed and meaningful week. And to my Christian brethren who celebrate Easter in remembrance of Yeshua, I also wish you blessed and meaningful celebration.
This week, I’d like to share with you why all of us who remember Yeshua’s death and resurrection during this time of year find common grounds in the Messianic symbolism of the Exodus story. What is awesome about this subject is that we serve a living God who choose the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as a special people, whose lives and history would be living testimony to Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind, through Yeshua (Jesus). This living witness to Yahweh’s redemptive plan is no place better demonstrated than in the story of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt. It is this story that provides the template upon which Jewish, Messianic, and Christian believers find common ground upon which to view the living God of the Bible at work redeeming His people, in the past, present, and future.
So today I want to tell you about the Spirit of Prophecy, I want to tell you about Yahweh’s Salvation (His Yeshua) and how He is so awesomely and beautifully symbolized in the Exodus story.
In the New Testament we learn that Yeshua was understood by the early church to be represented in Passover as the “lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world”. Thankfully the story of our redemption didn’t end with the death of Yeshua. It was His miraculous resurrection that made His death relevant as the means to our salvation.
I’ve spent the last couple of months looking at the Exodus story as it relates to the Reed Sea crossing and the location of Mount Sinai. With this foundation in Biblical history let me ask you a question. If the killing of the Passover lambs represented Yeshua’s death and mankind’s atonement for sin, then what part of the Exodus story do you believe represents the resurrection? For those who might not be sure, here are a few verses which provide us with the answer:
Our fathers understood not thy wonders in Egypt; they remembered not the multitude of thy mercies; but provoked him at the sea, even at the Red sea. Nevertheless he saved them for his name’s sake, that he might make his mighty power to be known. He rebuked the Red sea also, and it was dried up: so he led them through the depths, as through the wilderness. And he saved them from the hand of him that hated them, and redeemed them from the hand of the enemy. (Psalm 106:7-10)
Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; The oath which he sware [Shaba] to our father Abraham, (Luke 1:68-73)
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. (Romans 5:8-9)
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:1-4)
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: (Romans 6:3-5)
They forgat God their savior [yasha], which had done great things in Egypt; Wondrous works in the land of Ham, and terrible things by the Red sea. (Psalm 106:21-22)
But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour. (Titus 3:4-6)
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:12)
Pretty compelling, isn’t it? Israel’s redemption, yeah their salvation was wrought through the waters of the Reed Sea crossing. As evidenced in the New Testament passages above that symbol of salvation and redemption was the prophetic template upon which Yeshua’s resurrection was themed. In the Old Testament those events were immortalized in the Biblical holy days of Passover, Feast of Unleavened Bread, and Firstfruits. We’ll explore some of the wonderful threads of these prophetic shadows and types of the Exodus and the Reed Sea crossing in more detail below but I have another question for you related to the location of Reed Sea crossing.
If Passover sacrifices represent Yeshua’s death for the sins of mankind in the Exodus events’ chronology and the Reed Sea crossing represents the resurrection, rebirth, and the salvation of mankind, then why are those events separated by 3-4 weeks in the Aqaba crossing theory? In other words, if we are to believe the Reed Sea crossing took place in the Gulf of Aqaba such an itinerary inadvertently separates the messianic redemptive symbolism of the Exodus events from the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the very Biblical mow’ed (divine appointment) given to represent mankind’s restoration and redemption. How is this possible?
I don’t believe it is possible. As I will demonstrate in the rest of this article, the congruency of the Bible’s messianic symbolism makes the Aqaba theory untenable for reasons besides those I’ve explored in my articles the last several weeks. The most compelling reason (as it relates to our faith in Yeshua and Yahweh’s redemptive plan), is described by the apostle Paul to the Corinthians:
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:… (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not….. (1 Corinthians 15:12-15)
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. (1 Corinthians 15:20-23)
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? (1 Corinthians 15:29)
Pretty powerful and sobering words, aren’t they? You see by taking the Reed Sea crossing out of the Passover week we in effect make the Feast of Unleavened Bread and Firstfruits, the Bible’s premier symbols of Yahweh’s redemptive plan, worthless and vain. If we try to claim this 7 day feast, this divine mow’ed, is prophetic picture of the Messiah, according to Paul’s judgment, we are bearing false witness. Without the Reed Sea crossing, the Exodus is only a symbol of death and thus irrelevant to the Bible’s overall redemptive message.
Today, I want to reassure you regarding the congruency of the Bible’s redemptive message. I want to give you new confidence that in fact the Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and Firstfriuts are one of the most important, if not the most important, of the Bible’s prophetic pictures of Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind through His Yeshua.
As we explore this important subject I want to stress that my goal here is to strengthen your faith in the credibility of the Bible’s redemptive message. That message is that Yahweh loves each of you and from the foundation of the world he set in motion a redemptive plan for all of us which is beautifully and a congruently witnessed in the collection of 66 books we know today as the Bible.
The Water of Judgment and Redemption To start off with, let’s look at the symbolism of water in the Bible. As we will see it is a powerful agent, both literally and metaphorically, in Yahweh’s redemptive plan. First let me take you to the book of Job, one of the oldest books in the Bible where we find a fascinating description of water and its regenerative nature in what could be argued is a messianic redemptive context:
For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease. Though the root thereof wax old in the earth, and the stock thereof die in the ground; Yet through the scent of water it will bud, and bring forth boughs like a plant. But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he?
As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up: So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep. O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me! If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands. For now thou numberest my steps: dost thou not watch over my sin? My transgression is sealed up in a bag, and thou sewest up mine iniquity. (Job 14:7-17)
Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the YA – YHWH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation. Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation. (Isaiah 12:2-3)
Mankind’s 911 Moment Water is not just used in a regenerative and life giving sense as described by the passage in Job. Sometimes, like in Genesis 9, water is used as a form of judgment and deliverance.
And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off [karath] any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. (Genesis 9:9-11)
Here is Genesis 9:11 we find the first occurrence of the Hebrew word karath (to cut or cut off) used to describe the destruction of mankind by the waters of the flood. It is here, where we also find that Yahweh makes a covenant with Noah and his “seed” for all their generations. This covenant promised that Yahweh would never again destroy all mankind with a flood of water. The token of this covenant was the rainbow.
So in this instance we see water used as an agent of judgment and redemption (deliverance). For those with the faith of Noah and his family, water was the means of their deliverance. For those without faith the water condemned them to death.
The apostle Peter describes the redemptive nature of water in the days of Noah and relates it to the redemptive and regenerative symbolism of baptism and the resurrection of Yeshua. Carefully notice in this passage that the “figure” of baptism is directly related to the “resurrection” of Christ.
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 3:18-21)
What powerful symbolism!
Daniel 9 & the Covenant and Mercy of Yahweh To further elucidate the wonderful symbolism of water and the symbolic relationship to Yahweh’s redemptive plan, let’s turn to the most important messianic prophecy in the Bible found in Daniel chapter 9. In Daniel is recorded the only prophetic passage in the Bible which tells us specifically when Yahweh’s redeemer would come to save mankind from their sins. As I’ve explained in my article Seven, 70, & Sevens: Daniel 9 & the Bible’s Messianic Symbolism and in my book Daniel’s 70 Weeks: The Keystone of Bible Prophecy, Daniel 9 opens with Daniel’s plea to Yahweh to remember His “covenant and mercy”. That covenant we learned was in fact a call for Yahweh to remember the oath he sware (shaba) with Abraham which promised through his “seed” all nations of the earth would be blessed. As Daniel 9 unfolds Yahweh goes on to reveal to Daniel when that promised Seed would come and the redemptive nature of the messiah’s mission:
Seventy weeks [sevens] are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to:
finish the transgression
and to make an end of sins
and to make reconciliation for iniquity
and to bring in everlasting righteousness
and to seal up the vision and prophecy
and to anoint the most Holy.
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment [dabar-word] to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks [sevens/70], … (Daniel 9:24-25)
It’s in Daniel 9:26 though that we find a connection to the flood of Noah and redemptive purpose of Yahweh. Here take a look:
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off [karath], but not for himself: (Daniel 9:26)
After telling us when the Messiah would come and what He would accomplish, Daniel 9:26 tells us that the Messiah would be karath “cut off” but not for himself. To a reader steeped in the Hebrew Scriptures the use of karath here in Daniel 9:26 might naturally lead one to think of destruction of mankind by their being karath (cut off) by the waters of the flood. Notice in Daniel 9:26 it implies that the Messiah was cut off but not for himself. (He made reconciliation for the sins of others). Contrast that with the days of Noah where mankind was indeed karath (cut off) for their own sins.
But there is an even more thrilling connection between the waters of Noah’s flood and the deliverance of mankind. You see the ark rested and mankind (Noah and his family) was delivered from the waters of the flood on 17th day of the 1st month. As I’ve explained in my articles The Story of Halloween and Part II of that series The Flood, the Exodus of Israel, and the Coming of the Messiah, a reasonable case can be made that 17th day of the 7th month of the calendar used in Noah’s day would have equated to the 17th day of the 1st month of the post Exodus calendar. (In Noah’s day the calendar year began in the fall.)
In other words mankind’s deliverance from Yahweh’s judgment (by the waters of the flood) took place during the same week and month of the year (possibly the very same day of the week) that Israel crossed the Reed Sea as well as the same week and month that Yeshua of Nazareth died for our sins and then rose again from the grave. How is that for a congruent Biblical redemptive theme!
The Waters of Baptism Let’s dig into the subject of baptism and its redemptive symbolism. In the following passage we see that there is no question that the waters of baptism symbolize the washing away of sin, and the restoration and rebirth of mankind by Yeshua’s death and resurrection. Let’s start by looking at Yeshua’s own words where he talks about his baptism and then the words of Paul were he explains Yeshua’s baptism was a symbol of His death.
But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. (Matthew 20:22-23)
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: (Romans 6:3-5)
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (Revelation 1:5)
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16)
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. (Romans 5:8-9)
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 3:18-21)
And finally let’s complete the picture by once again letting the apostle Paul lead the way as he explains how Israel’s crossing of the Reed Sea was a picture of their baptism accomplished by the leading and power of Christ.
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:1-4)
Our fathers understood not thy wonders in Egypt; they remembered not the multitude of thy mercies; but provoked him at the sea, even at the Red sea. Nevertheless he saved them for his name’s sake, that he might make his mighty power to be known. He rebuked the Red sea also, and it was dried up: so he led them through the depths, as through the wilderness. And he saved them from the hand of him that hated them, and redeemed them from the hand of the enemy. (Psalm 106:7-10)
This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush. He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years. This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. (Acts 7:35-37)
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. (1 Peter 1:19-21)
He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. (Luke 24:6-7)
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. (Mark 16:9)
The Reed Sea Crossing and the Resurrection By these (and other) marvelously congruent witnesses we can reasonably claim that Israel’s crossing over the Reed Sea was means by which Yahweh the living God of the Bible saved His people. This “baptism” through the waters of the sea saved Israel and delivered them from Pharaoh’s hatred and their servitude to Egypt. Israel entered the waters of the Reed Sea slaves to Pharaoh and they came out of those waters born again as the servants of the living God of the Bible. The Reed Sea crossing broke the power Pharaoh had over the children of Israel.
The witnesses above also inform us that the Exodus story was a type or shadow which was fulfilled in Yeshua of Nazareth. Yeshua’s death and resurrection were the means by which Yahweh saved mankind from their sins. These verses further explain that baptism is a symbol of Yahweh’s redemptive work at Calvary. Just as the waters of the Reed Sea delivered Israel from the hand of Pharaoh in Egypt, Yeshua’s death and resurrection were the means by which mankind was delivered from the hate of Satan (the god of this world) and certain death wrought by our sins. These pictures are the underlying theme of Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind. Let’s now look at that plan in terms of the Bible’s prophetic words.
The Spirit of Prophecy and the Feast of Unleavened Bread The book of Revelation provides us with an often overlooked key that helps us understand the Bible’s prophetic redemptive message. In Revelation 19:10 it tells us that the “spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus” (Yeshua). As I’ve often repeated at this blog, the Hebrew word for Jesus is Yeshua. Yeshua is a combination of two Hebrew words. The first is the proper name of Yahweh the living God of the Bible and the second part of the name of Yeshua comes from the Hebrew word Yasha (salvation). So when Revelation tells us the “spirit” of prophecy is the testimony of Yeshua, it is literally telling us that the spirit of prophecy is Yahweh’s Salvation.
This spirit of prophecy then is Yahweh’s Salvation (Yeshua) – His redemptive plan for restoring mankind to their intended state. This is the underlying thread which congruently binds the entire prophetic message of the Bible. So any time you have a prophetic passage, you’ll find within that prophecy a thread of Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind.
One of the best panoramic summations of Yahweh’s redemptive plan (and one of my favorite) was given by the apostle Peter in Acts 3 after he had healed the lame man in Solomon’s porch in the Temple. Absorb these wonderful words for a moment and I’ll do my best to explain how they relate to the Spirit of Prophecy and the Exodus:
And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?
13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. 14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; 15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
….But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. 19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. 24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. 25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. (Acts 3:12-26)
As Peter understood it, Yahweh’s redemptive plan through Yeshua was preached by all the prophets since the world began. This prophet Yeshua, (likened unto Moses), was also the fulfillment of Yahweh’s shaba (oath) – His oath of sevens – which he swore with Abraham that through his “seed” all nations of the earth would be blessed . Peter further explains it was through the resurrection of Yeshua from the grave that Yahweh blessed Israel by turning them from their iniquities. (For more on the wonderful congruency of Yahweh’s redemptive plan (His Oath of Sevens), Daniel 9 & the Bible’s messianic symbolism please see my article Seven, 70, & Sevens: Daniel 9 and the Bible’s Messianic Symbolism.)
[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]
The Spirit of Prophecy in Yahweh’s Mow’ed As Peter explained above, Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind was spoken about by all His prophets since the world began. Chief among those prophets was Moses and some of the most vivid prophetic pictures of Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind are found in the 7 Biblical holy days Yahweh gave to Moses for the children of Israel to keep. These Biblical holy days, or as the Bible describes them Feasts of Yahweh (also Mow’ed or divine appointments), became the template which Yeshua has fulfilled in the past (the spring holy days) and will fulfill in the future (the fall holy days). The chart below gives an overview.
What’s special about the spring holy days and the count to Shavuot (Pentecost) is that they commemorate real Biblical history. Not only did they commemorate real history but they were so important, Yahweh ordered Israel to keep these feast days throughout all their generations and further He re-organized the Biblical calendar to being in the month these spring commemorations commence. With these instructions Israel became the custodian of Yahweh’s redemptive picture for mankind. A few verses illustrate this:
This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: (Acts 7:37-38)
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (Romans 3:1-2)
Think about the amazing congruency of these redemptive pictures, these oracles that the Jewish people safeguarded for us:
In the days of Noah mankind was judged by Yahweh with the waters of the flood. Only eight souls were delivered from this judgment by Yahweh sealing them in the ark. Noah’s family was delivered from the waters when the ark rested on 17th day of the 7th month. In terms of the post Exodus calendar this equated to the 17th day of the first Biblical month.
In the days of Moses, Israel was delivered from the hand of Pharaoh and their servitude to Egypt when they passed through the Reed Sea. Taken in its most reasonable and plain sense reading of the text, Israel left Egypt the morning of the 15th day of the 1st month. Their journey to the Reed Sea took two or possibly three days which then dates their passage through the Reed Sea to the morning of the 17th or 18th day of the first Biblical month.
In the days of Yeshua, He and His disciples ate the Passover (as required by the law) at even on the 14th of Nisan which began the 15th day of the 1st month. Two or three days later (depending on your view of the chronology) Yeshua rose from the grave on the 1st day of the week which would have been the 17th or 18th day of the 1st Biblical month.
According to the law given to Moses, Israel was commanded to begin their countdown to Shavuot (Pentecost) on the 1st day of the week following the Sabbath day which fell within the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The apostle Paul makes it clear that He saw Yeshua as a type of this Firstfruits harvest.
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. (1 Corinthians 15:20-23)
Israel entered the wilderness of Sin on the 15th day of the 2nd month. The following day Yahweh provided manna for Israel to eat. Based upon the chronology provided in the text of Exodus, this made the 16th day of the 2nd month the 1st day of the week. If we run this chronology backwards to the Exodus of Israel from Egypt we find that the 1st day of the week (within the Feast of Unleavened Bread) fell on the 17th day of the first month – the very same day Israel may have crossed the Reed Sea and the very same day 1500 years later that Yeshua rose from the grave.
40 Years in the Wilderness Let me give you one more example of the Bible’s messianic symbolism that has a fascinating connection to the Reed Sea crossing. After Israel crossed over the Reed Sea, Yahweh caused them to wander in the wilderness for forty years. How accurate do you believe the following verses are?
And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcases be wasted in the wilderness. After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise. (Numbers 14:33-34)
Nearly ten years ago I asked myself the same question. I wondered if it was theoretically possible to see if the Bible was speaking in general terms or if it really meant to convey a more specific period of time. You see the Bible tells us that Israel crossed over into the Promised Land on the 10th day of the 1st month at the end of 40 years wandering. We know from the Exodus account that Israel officially entered the wilderness after passing through the Reed Sea.
I used as my working theory the assumption that Israel crossed over the Reed Sea on the 17th day of the 1st month (in keeping with the chronology and symbolism we’ve discussed above). Adding 40 years (14609.6 days) to the starting date of the 17th day of the 1st month resulted in the expiration of the 40 years on the 9th day of the first month. In other words, it appeared based upon my calculations that those 40 years of wandering in the desert ended the day before Israel crossed over the Jordan river into the promised land.
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. (Joshua 4:19)
Now I could have miscalculated but if I got the calculations correct it shows that when Yahweh said Israel would wonder in the wilderness for 40 years, He meant exactly 40 years. Think about his in terms of the Aqaba crossing theory. If proponents of the Aqaba theory are correct then the Reed Sea crossing took place at some point in the middle of the 2nd month. By this starting point for the 40 year countdown Israel would not have wondered in the wilderness the full forty years. For those interested in checking my work the following 188 page PDF file shows every day of the 40 years including month and year intercalations.
Israel camped at the Jordan river on the 7th day of the 1st month – exactly 40 years from the day of the Exodus.
Israel crossed over the Jordan and entered the Promised Land on the day after their 40 years expired. (This assumes the 17th day of the 1st month of the Exodus was the day Israel crossed the Reed Sea)
(Please note that in the provided chart I stated regarding the 10th day of the 1st month as the day Israel crossed the Jordan — “Israel crossed over the Jordan exactly 40 years to the day from crossing over the Red Sea”. I don’t remember why I worded it that way but it appears that back then my original basis would have been the 18th as the start of the 40 years. In any case it is a bit confusing. I did not have time to modify my original chart to make my statement more clear so I wanted to mention that here in the hopes of avoided any further confusion. In any case please take my calculations with a Berean’s skepticism and do your own due diligence.)
The Messianic Symbolism of the Crossing the Jordan Now consider the events of the Jordan river crossing in a symbolic sense. Moses, (through whom came the law) was not allowed to enter the Promised Land. That privledge and responsibility was given to Yeshua who Israel had to follow by faith(Joshua = Jesus = Yeshua are all the same name). So this Old Testament Yeshua led Israel through the Jordan river exactly 40 years from the day of the Reed Sea crossing.
When the priest’s feet touched the waters of the Jordan the text tells us those waters back up all the way to Adam which is beside Zaretan. I can’t help see some redemptive symbolism here.
We know from multiple references which I’ve shared in this article that water is used as symbol of redemption, salvation, and judgment. Here in the book of Joshua we have the Old Testament Yeshua (Yahweh’s Salvation) leading Israel into the Promised Land after the waters of the river Jordan (meaning = ‘descender’) backed up to the city Adam (who brought sin into this world) and the city Zaretan (meaning = their distress).
Would it be too far fetch to say here that Israel’s crossing over the Jordan into the Promised Land was a symbol of Yeshua’s death and resurrection which brought cleansing and redemption to mankind after sin and distress entered the world in the days of Adam? Let’s take the symbolism one step further. What did Yahweh commanded Yeshua to do after crossing over the Jordan River? He commanded him circumcised the men of Israel. How appropriate then the words of Paul when taking about how new believers being spiritually circumcised by Yeshua.
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11-12)
And to cap off this symbolism, just a few days later Yeshua and the Children of Israel celebrated their first Passover in the Promised Land. Now how is that for an amazingly congruent picture of Yahweh’s redemptive plan through Yeshua?
Yahweh’s Salvation indeed!
My Final Thoughts on the Exodus and the Reed Sea Crossing My hope is that the information I’ve shared with you in this article strengthens your faith in the Bible as a testimony of Yahweh’s wonderful redemptive plan through Yeshua. I also hope its spurs your interest in searching these things out for yourself. If you do I believe that you’ll have a renewed appreciation for the Exodus story and it chronology as a compelling and amazingly congruent foreshadowing of Yahweh’s Salvation – Yeshua.
For those of you who believe the Reed Sea crossing took place in the gulf of Aqaba, I hope you’ll take another look at the subject in light of the “spirit of prophecy”. The Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the Feast of Firstfruits find their prophetic origins in the Exodus story. Without the symbolism of the Reed Sea crossing these divine appointments lose their redemptive and prophetic context. I hope you’ll consider that the real importance of the Reed Sea crossing and the Mount Sinai is not their geographical location but rather their prophetic context as templates or symbols of Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind.
May that context be your guiding light in this matter.
Maranatha!
For those of you just joining us this is an ongoing series exploring the location of Mount Sinai and the Red Sea Crossing. I’d encourage you to first read Part I-III including the comments as they provide valuable context and information related to this subject. The following link will take you to those earlier articles.
The Jubilee Code -
"A book that will show you real Biblical evidence for Yahweh's guiding in hand history bringing about His redemptive plan for mankind."
Necessary Housekeeping I shouldn’t have to say this, most of you who read this blog are believers. I welcome your comments and thoughts – even your disagreements about anything I or someone else has written or said about Biblical history or Bible prophecy. I want to make something clear though, this blog has not and never will allow unedifying comments about anyone – believer, non-believer, fellow reader, or someone I’ve written about. For some reason the subject of Mount Sinai and the Red Sea crossing has brought out the worst in some of you. If you feel you must insult, gossip or slander me, Joel Richardson, or anyone else, your comments are not welcome here. You can take that nonsense somewhere else.
This blog is just one man’s opinion about Biblical history and Bible prophecy. If you disagree with me that’s great. I’ve told you repeatedly over the years that you should never take my word as the final word about anything Biblical. It is your responsibility as a steward of Yahweh’s word to do your own due diligence. I write about Biblical history and Bible prophecy because I am passionate about these subjects and I believe what the Bible has to say about them. If you get all bent out of shape because I’ve challenged some of your sacred cows, you’d best find someone else’s opinions to read.
For those who don’t allready know from my writings, I believe that mankind (all of us) is hopelessly flawed due to sin and our only hope is Yahweh’s Yeshua – His Salvation (The Hebrew meaning of the word Yeshua/Jesus is “Yahweh’s Salvation”) I believe every one of the Bible’s 66 books has a unique and important place in demonstrating Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind. This blog explores the threads of that amazing redemptive plan.
I believe that message is worth sharing and I do so feely. There has not and never will be a shopping cart, a donation button, or products for you to purchase from this site. I don’t want your money and I will not merchandize my opinions about Yahweh’s wonderful word on this site. I invite any of you to be a part of this adventure with me as I explore Yahweh’s wonderful word. I likely will not be correct about everything I believe. If you’d like to express your thoughts or disagreements please do so in a forthright and edifying manner.
Thank you, William
For those of you just joining us this is an ongoing series exploring the location of Mount Sinai and the Red Sea Crossing. I’d encourage you to first read Part I-III including the comments as they provide valuable context and information related to this subject. The following link will take you to those earlier articles. Part I – Is Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia? Part II – The Reed Sea Crossing: Which Gulf of the Red Sea Part III – Israel’s Crossing of the Reed Sea: The Geographical & Chronological Context
Telling the Whole Story
I don’t know about you but I hate the feeling of being misled. When I’m not given all the information necessary to make an informed decision it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. I’m not even talking about maliciously withholding facts. It can be well intentioned, it doesn’ really matter, the bottom line is I like to understand a subject, both its positive and negative aspects, before committing myself to an idea or course of action.
Regarding the Red Sea crossing in the Gulf of Aqaba it often seems as if it is being sold like a really good looking used car. When I first heard about it from one of Ron Wyatts presentations, I thought it made so much sense. Frankly it looked to me like the Ferraris of Red Sea crossing theories. It sure looked good at a distance! It wasn’t until years later when I popped the hood for myself and took a closer look that all sorts of problems become apparent.
If you are one who believes that the geographical and chronological context doesn’t really matter in this discussion, that Yahweh’ simply performed a miracle and Israel’s Exodus from Egypt and their subsequent desert journey to the Gulf of Aqaba does not need to conform to an reasonable laws of nature, that in fact, the entire journey was miracle then please don’t read any further. I don’t say this flippantly or lightly, I’m serious. I have no desire to offend you with real facts and physical realities. I’ve written about many controversial aspects of Biblical history and chronology over the past 10 years and this subject by far has offended more of you than any other subject I’ve explored. I personally believe there are real problems with the Gulf of Aqaba crossing theory that need to be addressed, problems that go far deeper than those I’ve already discussed in the first three parts of this series. In my opinion, unless and until these challenges are addressed in a reasonable and balanced (and edifying manner), the Gulf of Aqaba crossing of the Red Sea should be taken with a Berean’s skepticism.
Theory #1 – Israel’s Journey to the Reed Sea at Nuweiba beach on the Gulf of Aqaba One of the most challenging aspects of the Gulf of Aqaba crossing is the unrealistic claims proponents of this theory make about Israel’s journey across the Sinai. To start with let’s look at the Nuweiba beach crossing itinerary. Most of you have probably seen a map of the Exodus itinerary and the Nuweiba beach crossing similar to this one:
Courtesy Google Earth
Along with a picture similar to this one most accounts go on to tell you that it is between 200-250 miles to Nuweiba beach crossing, which according to the Exodus itinerary could have easily been accomplished in the 25-30 days between the Exodus of Israel from Egypt and Israel’s arrival in the Wilderness of Sin.
Remember Israel left Egypt on the 15th day of the 1st month and arrived in the Wilderness of Sin (after the Reed Sea crossing) by the 15th day of the 2nd month. (This is actually 29 days because the Biblical month is only 29.53 days not 30) In any case here are the Biblical citations for context:
And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. (Exodus 12:17)
And they took their journey from Elim, and all the congregation of the children of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departing out of the land of Egypt. (Exodus 16:1)
Pretty straight forward right? Israel left Egypt on the 15th day of the 1st month and arrived in the wilderness of Sin (after the sea crossing) on the 15th day of the 2nd month. According to this version of events this means Israel had roughly 29 days to cross the wilderness of Sinai, cross the Gulf of Aqaba (at Nuweiba beach) and arrive in Wilderness of Sin by the 30th day after the Exodus. 250 miles divided by those 29 days gives them a reasonable pace of less than 10 miles per day. That’s pretty doable isn’t it?
Looking under the Hood Here is what nearly all of these Nuweiba crossing theories are not telling you. At the time of the Exodus the “tongue of the Egyptian Sea (Yam)” as Isaiah 11:15 described it, extended all the way up to Lake Timsah. Further as we learned in Part II of this series, during the reign of Seti and Rameses a wall (shur) was built between this extension of the Heroopolictic Gulf (Suez) and the Mediteranian Sea. In effect these natural and manmade barriers imprisoned Israel in the land of Egypt. These contextual facts explain why Israel needed permission to leave the land of Egypt.
By not telling you this important information, the Gulf of Aqaba proponents present an itinerary substantially less complicated than the Biblical reality. Most in fact (I assume unknowingly) present an Exodus with two Reed Sea crossings, one first through the Heroopolictic (Suez) Gulf of the Reed Sea and another through the Aelantic (Aqaba) Gulf of the Reed Sea. This is a great oversight to say the least. For those who place the Exodus farther north of the Herooplictic Gulf, they also fail to mention that this part of ancient Egypt was fortified with a wall. Again they present their maps as if no such obstacles existed.
Courtesy Google Earth
(Please note this map is only meant to convey a general idea of the obstacles involved not their exact nature and location)
Obviously Israel didn’t cross the Reed Sea twice, therefore the Exodus (according to Aqaba proponents) must have taken place further north and it must have taken place through Egypt’s wall (shur). This obstacle alone in the most optimistic scenario would have added 3-7 days to Israel’s Exodus from the land of Egypt proper (depending on the size of the gate). This doesn’t even include the 2-3 days march from Rameses/Goshen to this frontier wall.
To help you better understanding the real world implications of the proposed Nuweiba beach Aqaba crossing lets break down Israel’s journey from Goshen/Rameses to Nuweiba beach into stages.
Stage #1 Israel’s journey from Goshen / Rameses to the shur or wall of Egypt.
Here is a summary of the Biblical account.
And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle. (Exodus 12:37-38)
According to the following Google map it is roughly 40 miles due west from the ancient Egyptian city of Rameses to ancient extension of the Heroopolictic (Suez) Gulf that Isaiah’s described as the “tongue of the Egyptian sea (yam)”. This distance is as the crow flies. It would have been closer to 60 miles if Israel had traveled along the Egyptian highway from Rameses.
Courtesy Google Earth
Once Israel reach the shur or wall of the Egyptian frontier they would have had to pass through the fortified gates of this barrier. Keep in mind Israel did not pass through the main frontier gate to the north, the so called way of Philistines (Egyptian Way of Horus) because the Biblical account specifically states Yahweh did not lead them that way.
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: (Exodus 13:17)
This would mean that Israel would have (theoretically) passed through a lesser gate further south, one which let into the wilderness of Sinai. At this point we don’t know how big the gates of Egyptian’s northeastern frontier were. We do know these were defensive positions and the smaller the gates the more defensible.
Historically speaking we know ancient Babylon’s main gated entrance was 100’ wide with a long narrow passage that was lined with guard towers and fortifications protecting it. So for the sake of argument lets assume 100’ wide would be the maximum size and possibly 10’ wide a minimum.
Further for this example let’s be generous and make this lesser frontier gate 100’ wide. Based upon my rough chart from Part II of this series, Israel’s multitude when passing through this gate would have made a column equivalent to 75 miles long. Giving the Aqaba theory every advantage, lest say it only took 3-4 days to get all the people and flocks through this frontier gate even though a more realistic scenario would have require well over a week to pass through.
Based upon these rough estimates we can assume it took roughly 6 days for Israel to get from Rameses to a point outside the walls of Egypt proper.
Stage #1 = 6 days – Days left to reach the Wilderness of Sin = 23
Stage #2 Our next stage in Israel’s journey to the Aqaba crossing at Nuweiba beach by most accounts takes them across the Sinai deserts in a roughly diagonal course from Egypt’s walled frontier to the wadi canyon system that leads to the Nuweib beach crossing of the Gulf of Aqaba. Based upon most maps you see of this itinerary it is represented as roughly a journey of 170 miles. The following Google map gives you an idea of the distance and geography.
Courtesy Google Earth
What is not explained is this version of Israel’s itinerary is that it is represent as the crow files and does not take into account the natural desert topography of the land.
Let be realistic, there was no ½ mile wide highway for Israel to use when they left Egypt. They might have used parts of existing trade routes between Egypt and tip of the Aelantic Gulf (Aqaba) but for the most part they were traveling cross country or on small caravan routes.
Take a look at three topographical maps showing the natural terrain Israel would have had to cross based upon the itinerary most of the Gulf of Aqaba Crossing proponents suggest. The maps all show the same area but the first starts as a panoramic and then zooms into a close up. Note the yellow measuring bar for context:
Courtesy Google Earth
Courtesy Google Earth
Courtesy Google Earth
Now consider that every mile of Israel’s journey across such terrain would have met ravines, hills, and canyons that would have required them to go over or around. I challenge any of you to take Google earth and zoom in to it highest 3D resolution and see for yourselves what Israel would have had to cross if they took that journey today. Remember all of these obstacles after 3500 years of erosion are less severe than what Israel would have encountered during their journey.
Refer again to my chart above. Each time Israel reached a hill they had to go around it added to the length of their journey. Each time they passed through a wash or ravine 100’ wide (and there are many of them in such a proposed itinerary) it would have taken Israel at least two days for all of the people and animals to pass through. Here is the reality of such a desert journey.
Such a journey would have been 20-50% longer than what most Gulf of Aqaba crossing maps suggest. Forget about 10 miles a day in such terrain. Some days they would have been most fortunate to make 3 or 4 miles with their flocks and children in tow. Again I encourage you to use Google maps yourself and pick a path through the desert wilderness obstacles between Egypt and the wadi’s leaking to Nuweiba beach.
Keeping their Livestock Alive As an aside without claiming it was a mircle can someone tell me how Israel kept their great multitude of cattle alive on such an extended and fast paced desert journey? Keep in mind that as good shepherds their flocks would have gone first so that any available grazing would have been eaten before it was trampled by the following hordes of people. Unless you believe the Israel carried feed and water for their animals (in addition to their own food and water) the pace of Israel’s journey across the Sinai would not have been dictated by the people but by their animals. Anyone with a little bit of desert ranching background would known that animals in the desert need water (and lots of it) every single day. They might go without food for a few days but even in the spring when Israel left Egypt they would have needed water for their flocks every single day. Not a single account of the Aqaba crossing that I’ve read in the last decade has explained how Israel got their flocks across the deserts of Sinai in the time required without killing them. Not to mention how that many people carried enough water for themselves, their children, and their flocks for such a fast paced and lengthy journey.
Again let’s give the Aqaba theory every advantage and only increase the length of Israel’s journey from the shur (wall) of Egypt to the Wadi’s leading to Nuweiba beach by only 20%. This means then that the actual distance traveled would have been roughly 205 miles. Instead of the 10 miles per day most Aqaba theories suggest lets increase Israel’s speed across the Sinai to 15 miles a day. At this blistering pace it would have taken Israel 14 days to get across the Sinai and to the canyon wadis leading to Nuweiba Beach.
Stage #2 = 14 days – Days left to reach the Wilderness of Sin = 9
Stage #3 – The path through Wadi Watir to the Nuweiba beach crossing. Now lets look at the most complicated part of their journey to Nuweiba beach, that is Israel’s proposed passage through Wadi Watir which empties onto Nuweiba beach. Here is a current 3D map overview from Google earth.
Courtesy Google Earth
Most maps showing Israel’s path through Wadi Watri are similar to the one above. This map shows Wadi Watri and the series of other wadi’s that you can approach it from the North. The total distance appears to be roughly 34 miles according to the map above. What do you think happens when you zoom in on this map and actually calculate the real length of those wadis? The length of such a journey goes from 34 miles to over 51 miles long, over 50% longer! I challenge you to see for yourself.
Courtesy Google Earth
But that’s not all the bad news for the Nuweiba crossing theory. Take a look at a close up of the wadi. Even today after 3500 year of erosion and infill, there are numerous locations where the wadi walls are only 100 feet wide. There are even places were the wadi narrows to 50’. Here is one particularly nasty section of the wadi. Notice also the clear evidence of infilling of the wadi after 3500 years of erosion.
Courtesy Google Earth
Can you imagine how narrow that canyon system must have been when Israel must have walked it confines 3500 year ago according to the Aqaba theory?
Think about the real physical implications of this context. At 50’ wide that column of Israel’s passing through just that one point would have been (in the most optimistic scenario) equivalent to 85 miles in length. In more realistic scenario that column would have extended the equivalent of 236 miles. At 15 miles per day, to pass through just that one obstacle it would have taken as little as 6 days and as many as 15 days. For the sake of this example let’s take the average between the best and worst case scenario and assume those restrictions only added 10 days to Israel’s time in the wadi system leading to Nuweiba beach.
Now if we take the 50 miles of actual distance in the wadi’s leading to Nuweiba beach this would require at least 3 more days at 15 miles traveled per day. This gives us a total of 13 days to pass through an obstacle that most Aqaba proponents only show as a 30-35 mile journey.
Let’s say that Israel by some miracle could have carried all the food and water necessary to survive in this canyon system for those nearly two weeks. If the sheep and cattle went first into that canyon system can you tell me what they eat and drink at Nuweiba beach while they waited two weeks for all of Israel’s multitude to reach the beach.
Even if the cattle and sheep waited behind until all the people had made it into the canyon system (contrary to normal modes of such travel) we are still left with the problem of feeding and watering those flocks while they wait and then the further problem of the 4-7 day journey through the canyons with no food or water to eat (assuming they were rushed and their numbers did not exceed several hundred thousand head.)
Even if you cut Israel’s time through the canyon system in half there is no reasonable way to get their herds of cattle and sheep of such a great magnitude though this obstacle alive. This is not just an unrealistic scenario but an impossible one.
Our First Wilderness Trek This reminds me of an adventure from my youth. Okay, maybe it wasn’t a wilderness trek but it sure felt like it at the time. I was in my early teens and our stepfather took my brothers and sister and I on a week long wagon trip to a canyon in the Chiricahua Mountains of Arizona. I remember it was an old farm wagon painted green with metal hand break next to the wooden wagon and our two big white mules were engines of this iron rimed, wooden spooked method of transportation. The trip took about a week and we made 10 or 15 miles a day depending on the terrain. We were still pretty much city kids at the time and it was truly a great adventure.
Much of the journey was along the side of the asphalt road from our house in Hereford to the Chiricahua Mountains. Part of that journey thought was on dirt roads. Every now and then we had to pass through dry washes that crossed the road. Once those iron wheels of our wagon hit that sand our mules would lung into their harnesses, their muscles bulging, hooves digging into the soft sand as they pulled that wagon through the difficult stretch of road. I can tell you it was no easy task, even with our lightly loaded wagon.
Now picture in your mind the bottom of that 50 plus miles of Wadi canyon system leading to Nuweiba beach. Think about what would have happened to the sand and dirt of that wadi after millions of feet and hooves had churned it to a powdery quick sand like consistency. Consider the hellish, choking clouds of dust that the multitude stirred in the tight confines of the canyon as the Iraelites tried to make it through those hot grasping sands. Anyone who has traveled down a sandy wash that has been churned by cattle or people will tell you it is slow and painful going.
Now suppose that Israel did in fact make it through such a terrible obstacle in the time Aqaba proponents claim. How did Pharaoh pass such and obstacle with his horses and iron wheeled chariots in the short amount of time required without killing the horses? Again this requires us to suspend any reasonable rendering of the facts.
But let’s give the Aqaba theory every advantage once more. Let’s assume it didn’t take the 13 days for Israel and their flocks to make it through Wadi Watir to Nuweiba beach but instead by some miracle it only took a week.
Stage #3 = 7 days – – – Days left to reach the Wilderness of Sin = 2
Stage #4 – Israel Crosses the Reed Sea at Nuweiba So now after an unrealistic mad dash across the Sinai Peninsula Israel’s multitudes reach the supposed crossing of the Reed Sea at Nuweiba beach on the Gulf of Aqaba. Keep in mind for context sake this trek was the equivalent of the combined populations of Tucson & Phoenix (Arizona’s two largest cities) crossings the deserts between Phoenix and the Pacific ocean and arriving in San Diego in just 28 days.
Now as we explored in last weeks article (here), Israel and all it’s multitudes had to cross the Gulf of Aqaba at a location just as wide as Arizona’s Grand Canyon and half as deep. By the way, for those wondering, Ron Wyatt’s supposed “land bridge” does not exist. Ron supposedly used a “fish finder” in the shallows of the Gulf of Aqaba and then extrapolated his depth measurements all the way across. The following bathymetric chart comes from the Israeli Nathional Bathymetric Survey of the Gulf of Aqaba.
Courtesy Israel National Bathymetric Survey
The chart speaks for itself. In any case, my last article showed that the Aqaba proponents would have Israel crossing this grand canyon of Aqaba in less than two hours. (See Part III of this series for details)
[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]
Again let’s extend every advantage to the Aqaba crossing theory. Let’s assume for our current example that Israel and all their multitudes did indeed make it down and out of the 11 miles of this ocean canyon in less than two hours.
Stage #4 = 1 Day – – – Days left to reach the Wilderness of Sin = 1
Stage #5 – The Journey to the Wilderness of Sin As you can see we are just about out of time for Israel to reach the Wilderness of Sin. For those die hard Aqaba proponents who still think its possible, here is the Biblical account of this final part of the journey.
And they departed from before Pihahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and went three days’ journey in the wilderness of Etham, and pitched in Marah. And they removed from Marah, and came unto Elim: and in Elim were twelve fountains of water, and threescore and ten palm trees; and they pitched there. 10 And they removed from Elim, and encamped by the Red sea. And they removed from the Red sea, and encamped in the wilderness of Sin. (Numbers 33:8-11)
The above account tells us that after the Reed Sea crossing Israel journeyed 3 days into the wilderness of Etham and pitched at Marah. After Marah they then moved on to Elim, after Elim they retraced their 3 days journey into the wilderness and camped back at the Reed Sea. After returning to the Reed Sea they then moved on to Wilderness of Sin. By the most generous count this itinerary required at least 6 days to reach the Wilderness of Sin.
Itinerary Incongruence
I’ve got to protest some incongruence here. Without blushing nearly all the Aqaba proponents claim that the three encampments described in the Bible between Rameses and the Reed Sea took as many as 30 days to a accomplish. (As we’ve seen above, this is in no way a reasonable representation of the facts described in the Biblical account.) And yet, the same Aqaba theory supporters go on to claim without equivocation that the four encampments after crossing the Reed Sea took only 6 days or less. Now come on, that is a double standard if I ever saw one. How do three encampments cover nearly a month of time yet four encampments after the Reed Sea crossing only require 6 days?
In any cases my protestations notwithstanding, lets again give the Aqaba theory every advantage and assume for this example it only took six days for the Israelites to go “three days into the wilderness”, camp at Marah, then at Elim, return to the Reed Sea, and then move on to the Wilderness of Sin.
Stage #5 = 6 days – Israel arrives in the Wilderness of Sin 5 days late.
Conclusion Even given every advantage to the Nuweiba crossing theory (to the point of making it a quasi miracle), by no even unreasonable approximation of those events could Israel have arrived in the Wilderness of Sin by the 15th day of the 2nd month.
Theory #2 – Crossing the Gulf of Aqaba at the Straights of Tiran Some have argued that indeed, the Nuweiba Crossing is not realistic but Israel certainly could have crossed the Gulf of Aqaba in the lower Sinai at the Straights of Tiran. To be sure this itinerary would remove the challenges of Israel and their march through wadi Watir to Nuweiba beach. This theory comes with its own set of problems though. First off, Stage #1, #5, & #6 would be the same. The only difference would be the Straights of Tiran are not as deep as Nuweiba.
In any case, it still took at least 6 days for Israel to get past the shur (wall) of Egyptian frontier and then the 6 days for Israel to reach the Wilderness of Sin after the Reed Sea crossing. This leaves only 17 days for Israel to make their journey from the Egyptian frontier to the Staights of Tiran. The distance traveled as the crow flies along the western and then southern shore of the Sinai Peninsula is roughly 275 miles. Instead of the 20% additional length to make such a journey a reasonable approximation of the real distant traveled lets only allow a 10% additional distance traveled. This would make the journey just over 300 miles in 16 days. Now lets assume they didn’t really have to cross ravines or valleys nor go around any hills or other obstructions. Basically let’s assume they traveled down the coast of Sinai on ½ wide modern freeway. Such a journey would have still required them to travel nearly 20 miles a day for every one of those 16 days with no days to rest and recuperate. As most ranchers and cattlemen know any faster than 15 miles a day and the cattle don’t really have time to adequately graze along the way. This would have been further compounded by the desert environment of the Sinai. Again such a journey steps outside all known reasonable constrains of human and livestock movement.
Pharaoh Gives Chase And if you thought the above was stretching the bounds of reason, consider that Pharaoh and his army of chariots had to accomplish the same journey in even less time. Only they would have had the additional difficulty of being required to carry all of the necessary feed for their horse and livestock because there would not have been a blade of grass within miles of where Israel passed. (By the way, a similar challenge is posed by the Nuweiba beach crossing.) How this was accomplished has yet to be explained by any Aqaba crossing theories that I’m aware of.
In any case consider what the Bible says about Pharaoh’s pursuit of the Israelites:
And they took their journey from Succoth, and encamped in Etham, in the edge of the wilderness. ..
And YHWH spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn and encamp before Pihahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baalzephon: before it shall ye encamp by the sea. For Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, They are entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in. And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am YHWH. And they did so.
And it was told the king of Egypt that the people fled: and the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people, and they said, Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us? And he made ready his chariot, and took his people with him: And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them. And YHWH hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand. But the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pihahiroth, before Baalzephon. (Exodus 13:20 – 14:9)
If you’ve read the above passage very carefully you’ll see that the Aqaba proponents cannot take this passage in its most natural and reasonable chronological sense. Note that Exodus 13 (above) tells us that Israel camped at Etham “in the ege of the wilderness”. At this encampment Yahweh told Moses that they were to turn back and encamp “before Pihahiroth between Migdol and the sea, over against Baalzephon”.
The text indicates that Israel’s turn back towards Pihahiroth would be the catalyst which would cause Pharaoh to think Israel had become entangled in the land. Remember Yahweh is telling this to Moses at Etham before their turn was made.
Yahweh was setting a trap for Pharaoh Now the most natural reading of this passage indicates that after Israel made the turn towards Pihahiroth that Pharaoh heart was hardened and he gathered his army and gave chase. If as the Aqaba proponents claim, Etham and Phihahiroth are on the Aqaba side of the Sinai Peninsula, this presents them with the difficult challenge of explaining how Pharaoh had learned that Israel made the turn from Etham towards Pihahiroth. Even more challenging (impossible) would be how Pharaoh after learning of Israel’s turn, managed to cross the entire Sinai Peninsula with his army in the short period of time it took Israel to leave Etham and arrive at Pihahiroth.
Winged Chariots Okay lets forget about the passage from Exodus 13-14 for the moment. Instead let’s assume Etham was not a chronological marker but instead (for whatever reason) Pharaoh had a vision and decide to give chase several days after Israel had passed through the frontier fortifications of northeastern Egypt. If Israel was traveling at 20 miles per day for 16 days then how fast did Pharaoh have to travel to cover the distance from Rameses to Pihahiroth (near the Straights of Tiran) in several days less time? Again such considerations cause the Aqaba theory to break down and we are left with the explanation that both Israel’s and Pharaoh’s journey across the Sinai to Aqaba were of supernatural origins.
Conclusions As we’ve seen the Straights of Tiran crossing of the Reed Sea also requires us to suspend disbelief and believe a version of events that supersedes any reasonable rendering of the Exodus from Rameses to Pihahiroth.
Theory #3 – The Traditional Reed Sea Crossing For any student of Yahweh’s words, our interpretive method is key to how approach complex and difficult subjects such as the Reed Sea crossing. Without a methodical approach our interpretations can become wildly inconsistent. One of the best approaches I’ve ever come across in my studies is the so called Golden Rule of Biblical Interpretation By Dr. David L. Cooper. If applied correctly this rule helps holds our assumptions and speculations in check. The Gold Rule states:
“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.” – Dr. David L. Cooper (1886-1965)
So in this final part of our exploration of the Exodus and the Reed Sea crossing let look at the subject in light of the Golden Rule and see if makes common sense in its most plain and reasonable rendering of the Exodus account. In other words lets do your best to take the events described and see if there is a way to take them at face value without embellishment. Let’s start with a summary from Exodus 13:
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: 18 But God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea: and the children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt. (Exodus 13:17-18)
First of all we know from the Biblical account as well as ancient Egyptian writings that the way of the Philistines was the main coastal trade route between Egyptian Nile Delta and the Middle East. This well know trade route was called the way of the Sea (the Philistine or Mediterranean Sea) and was known by the Egyptian’s as the Way of Horus. Mark Miller of www.ancient-origins.net in his article – Newly Discovered Fortress on Way of Horus in Egypt Stood Sentinel Against its Enemies provides a valuable description of this Way of Horus and its fortress. ( see https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/newly-discovered-fortress-way-horus-egypt-stood-sentinel-020165)
…This i[s]f the fifth excavated fort of 11 fortresses described in the Way of Horus inscriptions on the walls of the Temple of Karnak at Luxor. The others forts have not been found yet. The fortresses and the Horus Military Route protected ancient Egypt’s eastern borders.
Egyptians fortified the route, also called the Way of Horus, with two parallel walls. The 11 fortresses acted as sentinel lookouts and early alert points before any hostile army could reach the fortified city at Tharu and Egypt proper. There may have been a bustling economy with a commercial and customs zone where taxes may have been collected before people reached the delta, Abdel-Maqsoud said.
“The Ways of Horus was a high road secured by a network of fortresses and provided with water reservoirs, as well as supply and custom stations that were established along the route between the Eastern Delta and South Palestine. It was a vital artery through which the military and commercial traffic between Egypt and Asia flowed,” wrote Abdul Ahman al-Rayedi in his book The Inscriptions of the Way of Horus .
The fort at Qantara was 550 by 275 yards (502 by 251 meters) of mud brick that had several towers standing 13 feet. The towers date from the time of Ramses II, who lived from 1304 to 1237 B.C. AncientMilitary.com says New Kingdom Egypt attained its most military power under Pharaohs Seti I and Ramses II.
The following map gives us an rough idea of the location of the Way of Horus:
As I’ve demonstrated a reasonable reading of the texts which describe the Exodus and the Reed Sea indicates that both Gulfs what we know today as the Red Sea (gulf of Aqaba & Suez a.k.a Heroopolicitc & Aelantic gulfs) were known as the Reed Sea. Thus when Exodus 13 above describes the “way of the wilderness of the Reed Sea” a reasonable case can be made that it was describing a way or a trade route through that track of land known as the Reed Sea wilderness because in fact this wilderness area was surrounded on three sides by what the Bible describes as the Reed Sea.
The above descriptions provides us with several important geographical points which when combine with what we’ve already explored indicates that Israel after leaving Goshen/Rameses did not go North towards the main fortified highway out of Egypt towards the Promised Land. This information limit’s Israel’s exodus route to someplace south of the Way of Horus and its fortifications but still within the frontier walls of Egypt and the ancient extension of the Heroopolictic gulf (suez), that so called tongue of the Egyptian Yam as Isaiah described it. Let turn now to another couple of passages which add more details.
From Rameses to Succoth
And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle. And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought forth out of Egypt, for it was not leavened; because they were thrust out of Egypt, and could not tarry, neither had they prepared for themselves any victual. (Exodus 12:37-39)
And they took their journey from Succoth, and encamped in Etham, in the edge of the wilderness. And YHWH 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: He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people. (Exodus 13:20-22)
And the children of Israel removed from Rameses, and pitched in Succoth. And they departed from Succoth, and pitched in Etham, which is in the edge of the wilderness. And they removed from Etham, and turned again unto Pihahiroth, which is before Baalzephon: and they pitched before Migdol. And they departed from before Pihahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and went three days’ journey in the wilderness of Etham, and pitched in Marah. (Numbers 33:5-8)
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: 18 But God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea: and the children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt. (Exodus 13:17-18)
From the above passage we learned that Israel left Rameses/Goshen in haste before even their bread had a chance to rise. The text also tells us that Yahweh provided a cloud by day and pillar of fire by night to guide Israel. This then allows for the possibility that Israel could travel at night as well.
Israel’s first camp was Succoth and their second was Etham. Without any additional context the most natural reading of these passages indicates two stops or 1-2 days before Israel reached the edge of the wilderness at Etham. Without further context there is no reasonable plain sense way to claim these two encampments represented the three plus week journey from Rameses to the Gulf of Aqaba as many Aqaba proponents claim.
The Edge of the Wilderness of Etham Carefully note here that Israel was only at the edge of the wilderness when they camped at the Reed Sea. Only after crossing over the Reed Sea did they enter “into the wilderness” of Etham. This indicates that they were not yet in the wilderness, but were still in Egypt proper. That wilderness of Etham (also called the wilderness of the Wall (shur) was on the other side of the Reed Sea.
And they departed from before Pihahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and went three days’ journey in the wilderness of Etham, (Numbers 33:8)
So Moses brought Israel from the Red sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water. And when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter: therefore the name of it was called Marah. (Exodus 15:22-23)
Again if we take this passage in its most natural sense, the edge of the wilderness of Etham (aka shur) was just the distance Israel and it’s multitudes could have traveled by foot (from Rameses) including two encampments or rest stops. This distance fits with what we know today is roughly a 1-2 day journey from Rameses to their frontier wall and the natural barrier of the Heroopolicitic gulf extension of the Reed Sea.
It’s worth noting here that if Israel did indeed travel by night for part of their hasty departure from Rameses/Goshen then the two encampments may have only been rest stops, not all night encampments. Theoretically at least there could have been more than one encampment in a 24hr. period. At the most this gives us roughly 30-40 miles from Rameses/Goshen to the edge of the Wildeness of Etham.
And the children of Israel removed from Rameses, and pitched in Succoth. And they departed from Succoth, and pitched in Etham, which is in the edge of the wilderness. And they removed from Etham, and turned again unto Pihahiroth, which is before Baalzephon: and they pitched before Migdol. And they departed from before Pihahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and went three days’ journey in the wilderness of Etham, and pitched in Marah. (Numbers 33:5-8)
And YHWH spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn and encamp before Pihahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baalzephon: before it shall ye encamp by the sea. 3 For Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, They are entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in. (Exodus 14:1-3)
After their encampment at Etham the Biblical narrative indicates that Israel turned back (shuwb) towards Pihahiroth and camped at Migdol “which is before Baalzephon”. In the most plain sense reading of the text this would make Israel travels from Rameses/Goshen to the edge of the wildness of Etham (before the Reed Sea) a journey of roughly 2-3 days. A very possible itinerary that takes into account real geographical and chronological realites.
And they took their journey from Succoth, and encamped in Etham, in the edge of the wilderness. 21 And YHWH 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: 22 He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people.
And YHWH spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn and encamp before Pihahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baalzephon: before it shall ye encamp by the sea. 3 For Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, They are entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in. 4 And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am YHWH.
And they did so. 5 And it was told the king of Egypt that the people fled: and the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people, and they said, Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us? 6 And he made ready his chariot, and took his people with him: 7 And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them. 8 And YHWH hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand. 9 But the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pihahiroth, before Baalzephon. (Exodus 13:20 – 14:9)
Trapped at the Reed Sea At this point we find Israel trapped between the Reed Sea, the wildeness and the Pharaoh’s approaching chariots and soldiers. It’s worth reiterating here, that in the passage above, if taken in its most natural chronological rendering Yahweh spoke to Moses and told him to turn back towards Pihahiroth so that Pharaoh would think they had become entangled in the land. In other words, instead of leaving Egypt though one of its northeastern border gates, Yahweh purposely had Moses turn south to a point behind the waters of the Reed Sea and draw Pharaoh into a trap. Moses did as Yahweh commanded and Pharoah took the bait. He came after them with a vengeance.
Think about it this way. Yahweh gave Moses the instructions to trap Pharah in Etham, before they turned back and camped at Pihahiroth at the Reed Sea. If this took place as the Aqaba proponents claim, on the other side of Sinai at the gulf of Aqaba, there is no way to take this passage naturally or chronologically. If Etham was at or near the Aqaba Gulf how in world did Pharaoh learn of Israel’s turn back towards Pihahiroth. Even more impossible was how then did Pharaoh manage to assembly his armies and race across the Sinai in a fraction of the time it took Israel to make that journey? I know many explain Israel’s dash across the Sinai Peninsula to Aqaba as Yahweh lending “wings” to their feet. But how does that explain Pharaoh’s chase.
On the other hand if taken plainly, based upon what we know of ancient Egyptian history, geography and the Biblical text, Pharaoh after learning that Israel had turned back towards Pihahiroth, he could have made a mad dash with his chariots from Rameses/Goshen to Reed Sea and his northeastern frontier border in less than a day and there corner Israel at the edge of he wilderness of Etham and the Reed Sea.
Crossing the Reed Sea So Israel is trapped at the Reed Sea with no hope of escape, they were in their own minds dead men walking. Yet Yahweh had a plan to rescue his people. All night he caused a wind to blow back the waters of the Reed Sea. Then in the morning, in that three hour window before the break of day, Israel’s crossed over and were saved from the wrath of Pharaoh. Those same waters which provided a way of escape for Israel, were the means by which Yahweh judged Pharaoh and his armies. Only the waters of the ancient extension of the Heroopolitic Gulf provide the location where these events can be taken in their most natural and plain sense as described in the Biblical text.
In Summary Using the Bible’s plainly stated facts and known historical facts from ancient Egypt, a reasonable case can be made for Israel crossing the Reed Sea near Egypt’s northewestern frontier. The Aqaba crossing theory has no such advantage. The Reed Sea crossing in northweastern Egypt is the only explanation which reasonably explains the following facts:
Israel’s escape from Egypt’s northeastern frontier fortifications in a timely manner.
The ancient extension of Reed Sea up to and including the Bitter lakes region around lake Timsah
Israel’s three camps before reaching the Reed Sea – verses Israel’s four camps after
Israel’s passing through the Reed Sea in less than 3 hours
Israel’s journey from Rameses/Goshen to the edge of the wilderness of Etham
Israel’s entering into the wilderness of Etham – after – crossing over the Reed Sea
Yahweh’s plan to trap Pharoah by telling Moses to turn Israel back towards Pihahiroth
Pharaoh’s ability to catch Israel after learning they had turned and become “trapped” in the land
In Conclusion In my opinion, the Aqaba theory of the Reed Sea crossing demands that we view the much of the Exodus narrative in some state of suspended disbelief. Where the theory cannot be explained in the Biblical narrative, miracles are invented to provide a tenuous bridge between Aqaba theory and the physical and geographical realities. I don’t know if the lower Sinai is the true location of the mount Sinai described in the Bible but based upon what I’ve explore in this series, Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia does not allow the Biblical facts to be taken in their most plain and natural sense.
Epilogue – The Exodus and Reed Sea Crossing: Symbols of the Bible’s Redemptive Message I know some of you probably think that in this series I’ve been a bit sharp in my criticism of Joel Richardson’s book and his claims about the “true” location of Mount Sinai. Others of you are wondering why I’ve spent so much time on this subject when geography seems but a minor aspect of the Bible’s overall message. As I’ve tried to share with all of you over the years I believe the Bible is a divinely ordered testimony of Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind. It is the story of His Yeshua (Salvation).
I believe that unintentionally, Mr. Richardson and many of his peers by claiming that Mount Sinai is located on the other side of the Gulf of Aqaba, have inadvertently voided one of the Bible’s most important symbols of Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind. Yahweh willing in a couple of weeks, hopefully in time for Passover, I’ll share with you why the Exodus and the Reed Sea crossing are powerful symbols of Yahweh’s redemptive plan for mankind and why taking what the Bible says about the Exodus chronology in its most natural and plain sense is essential to allowing that symbolism to be understood as it was intended.
[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]
Addititional Research – Toponyms of the Exodus For those still not convinced by my arguments for the traditional location for the Reed Sea crossing, I would encourage you to read an article (here) by Dr. David A. Falk entitled: What We Know about the Egyptian Places Mentioned in Exodus. Dr. Falk provides reasonable scholarly research which shows how the place names mentioned in the Exodus account can be found in Egypt proper. Dr. Falk even shares an historical account of the word suph (reeds) connected to waters around the ancient Reed Sea of the Biblical account. Here are a few excerpts (in green) from Dr. Falk’s article:
Rameses
Only one city in antiquity had the name Ramesses: Piramesses, which was identified by the Egyptian Egyptologist Labib Habachi (1906-1994) at the archaeological site of Qantir and was conclusively proven to be Piramesses by the wealth of inscriptional material found there.[3] “Pi/Pr” – Linguistic Conversions between Languages The Bible calls this site Ramesses rather than Piramesses; this is not unusual, given the minor differences that occurred when Egyptian was reflected in Hebrew. In particular, Hebrew sometimes dropped the pi/pr, “house/estate of” opening that was very common in Egyptian toponymy, e.g., Pi-Amun, Pi-Wadjet, Pi-Thoth, Pi-King-of-Upper-and-Lower-Egypt-Neferirkare, etc.[4] It should be noted that even in Egyptian the pi/pr was also omitted on occasion.[5]
Goshen
Israelites in Goshen The fact that the delta region was filled with Levantine Asiatics until the mid-19th dynasty fits well with the biblical account of conditions in Egypt up to the exodus since the area around Avaris and Piramesses, what the Bible refers to as Goshen (or “the land of Ramesses,” Gen 47:11), is where the Israelites are said to have dwelt (e.g., Gen 47:6, 27; Exod 8:18, 9:26). But as the term Goshen only appears in the Bible, we do not know if the term has an Egyptian origin or if it is only an Israelite term.[12]
Pithom
Pithom (Etham) and Sukkot Pithom, also called Etham,[13] was located in the Wadi Tumilat[14] to the east of the Nile Delta, and is identified by scholars with Tell el-Retabah. In ancient times, the road between Piramesses and Pithom would have been about 65 km (40 mi) or approximately 2 days of travel by foot. The wadi provided way stations for semi-nomadic tribes from the Levant and, like the delta in general, had a significant Semitic-Asiatic population during the Second Intermediate Period.
PiHahiroth
Pi-Hahiroth Pi-Hahiroth[26] reflects the Egyptian pr-ḥwt-ḥrt.[27] The toponym follows Egyptian convention beginning with the hieroglyphic pr-ḥwt, “estate of the temple”[28] or “house of the precinct.” It ends with the goddess determinative[29] indicating that the final element, ḥrt, is theophoric. The name should mean “Estate of the Temple of (the goddess) Heret,” but no such goddess is known.
Early Egyptologists suggested that it might mean “House of (the goddess) Hathor,” assuming that the word ḥrt was an unusual or mistaken spelling of Hathor. William F. Albright suggested that it might mean “the mouth of the canals,” perhaps based on the Akkadian word ḫirītu, meaning “ditch or canal” (CAD 6:201), yet this creative solution ultimately does not solve the problem of the theophoric name.[30]
I would argue that ḥrt may be an abbreviated spelling of ḥry(t)-tp, “the one who is on top.”[31] The term ḥry(t)-tp is one of the epithets of the Uraeus serpent goddess, Wadjet,[32] and therefore, the name would mean, “Estate of the Goddess, who is on top (=Wadjet).”
Location The toponym pr-ḥwt-ḥrt appears in one extra-biblical text, Papyrus Anastasis III (3:3):
The (Sea of) Reeds (pȜ–ṯwfy) comes to papyrus reeds and the (Waters-of)-Horus (pȜ–ḥr) to rushes. Twigs of the orchards and wreaths of the vine-yards [ … ] birds from the Cataract region. It leans upon [ … ] the Sea (pȜ ym) with bg-fish and bȗrἰ-fish, and even their hinterlands provide it. The Great-of-Victories youths are in festive attire every day; sweet moringa-oil is upon their heads having hair freshly braided. They stand beside their doors. Their hands bowed down with foliage and greenery of Pi-Hahirot (pr-ḥwt-ḥrt) and flax of the Waters-of-Horus. The day that one enters (Pi)ramesses (wsr-mȜˁ-rˁ stp-n-rˁ) l.p.h., Montu-of-the-Two-Lands. (P. Anastasis III 2:11-3:4)
The Jubilee Code -
"A book that will show you real Biblical evidence for Yahweh's guiding in hand history bringing about His redemptive plan for mankind."
Part III – Exploring the Claim that Mount Sinai is in Saudi Arabia
One of the most inspiring aspects of the Exodus account is Israel’s crossing of the Reed Sea (Yam Suph). I think all of us in some manner, when we picture this event, see Moses standing at the edge of a vast body of water, his arms and staff held high, the rushing torrents of the sea splitting from one shore of the Reed Sea to the other, then miraculously the two vast walls of water stand suspended, down the center of this sheer canyon hall the Israelites walked safely to the other side.
(Authors Note: This is an ongoing series exploring the location of Mount Sinai and the Red Sea Crossing. For those just joining the discussion I’d encourage you to read Part I & Part II of this series, it provides important context to this subject. Additionally Joel Richardson author of Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia: The True Location of Revealed who’s book we have been exploring in this series has graciously taken time to offer his thoughts and corrections to Part I of my article. You’ll find his thoughts in the comment sections, so be sure to check that out as well. Additionally many of you have written in and offered comments, suggestions, and criticisms. I thank you. I’m not ignoring you, I’m trying to work through the backlog comments and emails and I will respond it just may take me awhile. Thank you for your understanding.)
The irony of this picture is that such a vision of events must disregard the plainly stated facts in favor of a poetic version. In essence, we must claim the following passage is not to be taken literally.
And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and YHWH caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that 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. (Exodus 14:21-22)
The above passage tells us that an East wind blowing all night caused the Reed Sea to be parted. If you believe as many do, that the Reed Sea crossing took place in the gulf of Aqaba at Nuweiba beach then there is simply no way for the above passage to be taken literally. There is no force of wind on earth strong enough to divide the 10 miles of the Gulf of Aqaba which reaches a depth of just over 2500 feet in the waters off Neweiba.
Keep in mind, that this wind was blowing all night long directly towards the Israelites. We can’t even claim the pillar of smoke and fire protected Israel from the wind, because that pillar was between Israel and the armies of Pharaoh.
The bottom line is, that if we are to believe that the Israelites crossed through the Gulf of Aqaba, we are compelled to disregard a plainly stated version of the events in favor of a poetic version. Is this proper exegesis of the text? I personally don’t think so but let’s explore the events related to the Reed Sea crossing get a clearer picture of what transpired.
Timing the Reed Sea Crossing In Exodus 14, there are some fascinating clues which provide us with a timeline of events related to the Reed Sea Crossing. With these clues we can get a pretty good idea of what part of the day Israel entered the Reed Sea as well as when the armies of Pharaoh were drowned. This information will go along way to helping us understand the type of obstacle Israel encountered when they crossed the Reed Sea.
First we need to understand a little bit about how the Bible divided the nighttime portion of the 24 hour period of time we call a day. In Biblical times the night was divided into four periods of time (sometimes only three) called “watches”. These so called watches were roughly divided by our modern method of reckoning of time as follows:
1st Watch = 6-9 pm (evening watch)
2nd Watch = 9-12 pm (midnight watch)
3rd Watch = 12-3 am (cock-crow watch)
4th Watch = 3-6 am (morning watch)
Exodus 14:21-22 tells us that a “strong east wind” blew all night long. For the sake of this example let’s assume that “all night” meant the wind blew from 6pm (sundown) until 3am or from the evening watch until the cock-crow watch (about 9 hours). Exodus 14:24 tells us that sometime during the “morning watch” the Egyptians had followed the Israelites into the waterless bed of the Reed Sea. Then Exodus 14:27 tells us that when the morning (Hebrew boqer = break of day) appeared, the sea had returned to its normal “strength”.
And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. And it came to pass, that in the morning watch YHWH looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily:…
…and YHWH said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen. And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and YHWH overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. (Exodus 14:23 – 27 excerpted)
But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. (Exodus 14:29)
So putting this information in its most natural and reasonable sense, we learn that a east wind blew the Reed Sea back all night until the morning watch. No more than three hours later by the break of day the Reed Sea had returned to its normal level. Within this three hour window of time every man, women, and child of Israel (not to mention all the livestock) had crossed the Sea and Pharaoh’s chariots and horsemen had reached the “midst” of the Reed Sea under heavy duress from Yahweh.
And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. And it came to pass, that in the morning watch YHWH looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians,… (Exodus 14:23-24)
If Israel’s multitudes (2 million + livestock) crossed the Reed Sea in a column ½ mile wide, in the most optimistic scenario, it would have taken an hour before the last Israelite had even started their journey across the Reed Sea. Under this scenario the crossing (wherever it took place) had to have been accomplished by the Israelites in less than two hours. Further, this means that the Egyptians didn’t enter the Reed Sea until at least the 2nd or 3rd hour of the morning watch.
A Bit of Arizona Grand Canyon Perspective Many of you have probably visited the Grand Canyon of Arizona at some point in your life. On average the Grand Canyon is 10 miles wide and nearly a mile deep. I am sure that some of you have been in awe of this majestic vista when you viewed it for the first time. Words do not adequately convey its grandeur nor is it a sight easy to forget.
Courtesy of Wikipedia
Now picture in your mind a canyon half as deep as the Grand Canyon, but the same distance across and filled with water to its very brim. That’s the gulf of Aqaba at Newibea beach. If you believe that Israel crossed the Gulf of Aqaba at Newibea beach then you must also believe that somehow in two hours or less nearly 2 million people and an enumerable number of livestock crossed this 2500’ deep chasm nearly as wide as the Grand Canyon. To put that in a little bit better perspective, that crossing by Israel would be the same a taking every living soul in Tucson & Phoenix (Arizona’s two largest cities) and getting them across the Grand Canyon (half as deep) in two hours or less. That doesn’t even account for the additional mile of elevation change (2500’ down and 2500’ back up) nor any ravines, canyons, or other obstacles encountered along the way. This explanation demands that we as Bereans suspend disbelief and disregard nearly all the plainly stated chronological facts of the crossing in favor of a version of events which are physically impossible.
I should make clear here, that I have no problem believing in miracles. I believe, Yeshua literally turned water into wine, raised the dead, and walked on water of the Galilean Sea. He did indeed transcend, what we understand to be the natural laws of “nature”. And to be clear, there are many other examples of such occurrences throughout the Bible.
That being said, taking plainly stated reasonable facts from the Biblical account and rendering them into a version of events that requires miracles where natural events were described, in my opinion, undermines the credibility of the Biblical account. Further, it requires us to view those plainly stated facts as errors and replace those erroneous facts with poetic license. Let me give a few examples why literal verses poetic context is so important.
The Walls of Water I know many believe that only a deep water crossing satisfies the description of the walls of water that constrained the Israelites as they crossed the Reed Sea. But is this view Scriptural or more a product of sensationalism? Let’s explore this subject some. Here is Mr. Richardson’s take on the subject:
The Bible doesn’t allow us to reimagine this event as some otherwise naturally occurring phenomenon that the Lord caused to happen at just the right moment. Those who seek to do so tend to only emphasize the blowing of the “strong east wind,” while minimizing many of the other references found throughout Scripture. Among these descriptions are the references to the high walls of water that formed on either side of the Israelites. As Douglas Stuart, Old Testament professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, rightly states:
The text, however, says that the wind actually pushed one part of the sea away from the other part (“drove the sea back . . . the waters were divided,” v. 21) and created a “wall of water on their right and on their left.” The term used for “wall” here, hōmāh, connotes a very large wall—not a small stone wall or retaining wall but always a massively large (usually a city) wall, towering above the Israelites, who marched on dry land with walls of water on either side of them. It is clear from the descriptions given that the sea through which the Israelites walked was deep water, not something shallow. A city-wall sized wall of water on either side of them implies the division of a deep body of water, not merely the drying out of a shallow one or the drying out of wet terrain. Even the use of the term yam (“sea”) here implies the depth of the water. Yam is never used for swamps or mud flats but is used consistently to describe large bodies of water (what we would call either lakes or oceans).Richardson, Joel. Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed (Kindle Locations 342-353). WinePress Media. Kindle Edition.
As we learned in Part II (here) of this study Mr. Stuart as quoted above is incorrect in his claims here about the word Yam. Yam is in fact used to describe the shallow bronze “sea” made for Solomon’s temple. Yam is also used to describe the tongue of the Egyptian Sea (Heroopolictic gulf or gulf of Suez), which in ancient times extended all the way up to the Bitter Lakes region.
Further, Stuart, as quoted above, is wrong on two accounts about homah (chomah), the Hebrew word for “wall”. First of all, the Hebrew word for “wall” as given in Exodus 14 is not “always” used to describe a “massively large (usually a city) wall…” as he stated. In Samuel 25:16 a form of the word is used to describe David’s men as a wall unto men of Nabal. In the Song of Solomon, the same word is used to figuratively describe a young girl.
Secondly, and more to the point, the actual form of the Hebrew word for “wall” as found in the Exodus 14 account is used more often to describe wrath, fury, and indignation (mostly Yahweh’s) than it is used to describe a wall. You see, this form of the word is a bit more nuanced than the English version of the text suggests. The Hebrew word has at least three different meanings, they are: Wall, wrath/fury/indignation, and sun.
Interestingly the different meanings of this word as given in the Hebrew and English version of our Bibles are based upon the vowel pointings or cantilation marks added by the Mesoretes in the Middle Ages. In other words, as the chart below reflects, the Mesoretes added their own interpretational bias to the Hebrew word to provide it with what they thought was the best meaning of the word as given in the context of the Hebrew passage where it was found.
Were the Mesorets correct, when they gave the meaning “wall” to the text in Exodus 14? As a layman, it looks that way to me. But the fact of the matter is, this Hebrew word may well have had deeper richer more nuanced meaning when given in the Exodus account. Here see what you think:
When the Walls Came Crashing Down In any case, to the Israelites those walls of water (whatever their height) were indeed a deliverance from certain death, but to the Egyptian’s armies those walls of water were nothing less than the instruments of Yahweh’s righteous indignation directed towards the oppressors of His chosen people.
From a practical standpoint the Egyptians could have drowned in less than 8 feet of water. To satisfy the literally meaning of wall here in the text of Exodus 14 does not require 2500′ walls of water.
Anyone who has seen the destructive force of a flashflood or tsunami first-hand knows the chances of surviving such a force coming at you from two directions at the same time, while you are in the “midst” of a sea (whatever its depth), are slim to none . When that East wind stopped pushing the waters of the Reed Sea to the North and South, those waters would have come rushing back as two raging walls picking up dirt, rocks, and other debris along the way.
To give you a practical understanding of the force involved, the average flash flood travels at 7-10 miles per hour and a tsunami at 10-20 miles an hour. At ten miles per hour water exerts more force that a 250 mph wind.
In either case, if you were the Egyptians, it would have been a truly fearsome sight to see and hear those walls of water 30, 20, or even 10 feet high – miles up the bed of the Reed Sea come rushing back towards you at 10 or 20 mph, all the while you, trapped right in the midst of that sea with no possibility of reaching the shore, stood in terror as those walls of water enveloped you.
Sunk to the Bottom of the Sea This leads to another point often brought up, when discussing this subject. In Exodus 15, Moses, upon Israel’s safe crossing of the Reed Sea and the destruction of Pharaoh’s army, sings a song of praise unto Yahweh. In that song, Moses describes Yahweh’s parting of the Reed Sea as a blast of His nostrils and Pharaoh’s army is described as sinking into the depths of the sea.
Both of these descriptions are often used (by those who believe in a Gulf of Aqaba crossing) as proof that the body of water crossed by the Israelites must have been a deep body of water and thus the Heroopolis Gulf (Suez) of the Red Sea or as Isaiah described it the “tongue” of the Egyptian Sea would not qualify.
The context here should not be forgotten. Moses in Exodus 15 is singing a poetic song of praise to Yahweh. Such poetry is not bound by a strictly literal interpretation of events. The Egyptians sinking into the depths of the sea is a perfect example of such poetry.
Unless Pharaoh’s chariots were equipped with water skis and Pharaoh’s horses could walk on water, they didn’t literally sink into the depths of the Reed Sea, they were already there! When they were consumed by those raging walls of water they were already standing on the dry bed of the Reed Sea.
The Song of Solomon In case you need further convincing there are some examples of poetic license in the Bible which were never intended to be taken in a strictly literal sense. Some of the Bible’s most extravagant poetry is found in the Song of Solomon like the following passage, where the prince’s daughter is described:
The Song of Solomon –
Thy neck is as a tower of ivory; thine eyes like the fishpools in Heshbon, by the gate of Bathrabbim: thy nose is as the tower of Lebanon which looketh toward Damascus…
This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes. (Song of Solomon 7:4-7)
No reasonable student of the Bible takes these descriptions in their most literal sense. Why then should we demand that the Song of Moses in Exodus 15 be taken in a strictly literal sense, especially when that requires us to discard the most natural and reasonable description of events given in Exodus 14? Here is an excerpt of Moses’ song for comparison. As you read it really think about what Moses meant to be taken literally and what he intended to be poetic.
The Song of Moses –
Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto YHWH, and spake, saying, I will sing unto YHWH, for he hath triumphed gloriously:
…the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. … Pharaoh’s chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: …depths have covered them: they sank into the bottom as a stone …thy right hand, O YHWH, hath dashed in pieces the enemy. …thou sentest forth thy wrath [charown], which consumed them as stubble. …And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, …the floods stood upright as an heap, …and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea. …Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them: … they sank as lead in the mighty waters. (Exodus 15:1-10 excerpted)
As you can see here, Moses is clearly using poetic language to describe the real events of the Reed Sea crossing. To demand that this description of the events be taken in its most literal sense, in my opinion is not reasonable exegesis of the text.
One aspect of this Song I’d like to bring your attention to is the description of the destruction of Pharaoh’s armies by the waters of the Reed Sea as a result of Yahweh’s wrath – his charown.
It is hard to dismiss as coincidence that the Hebrew word for those destructive “walls” of water in Exodus 14 is also used in the Bible to describe Yahweh’s wrath, indignation, and fury. It is truly a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God.
Chemah indeed!
Behold, a whirlwind of YHWH is gone forth in fury [chemah], even a grievous whirlwind: it shall fall grievously upon the head of the wicked. Jeremiah 23:19
Was Josephus Right or Wrong? Over the years as I’ve tried to untangle some of the claims and counter claims regarding the location of the Reed Sea crossing and Mount Sinai, an account describing the topography near the Reed Sea crossing by the first century Jewish historian Josephus keeps coming up. Mr. Richardson gives a good example of how many of his peers view Josephus’ account:
Josephus’s Reed Sea Outside of the Bible, further evidence for the crossing at the Gulf of Aqaba may be found in the testimony of Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian. Josephus specifically describes the location of the miraculous sea crossing as having been closely surrounded on both sides by impassably tall and rugged mountains: (Richardson, Joel. Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed (Kindle Locations 473-476). WinePress Media. Kindle Edition.)
For further reference here is Josephus’ account:
Now when the Egyptians had overtaken the Hebrews, they prepared to fight them, and by their multitude they drove them into a narrow place; for the number that pursued after them was six hundred chariots, with fifty thousand horsemen, and two hundred thousand footmen, all armed. They also seized on the passes by which they imagined the Hebrews might flee, shutting them up {b} between inaccessible precipices and the sea; 325 for there was on each side a ridge of mountains that terminated at the sea, which were impassable by reason of their roughness, and obstructed their flight; therefore they pressed there upon the Hebrews with their army, where [the ridges of] the mountains were closed with the sea; which army they placed at the pass where the mountains abuts the sea, that so they might deprive them of any passage into the plain. (Antiquities of the Jews 2:324-325)
What most commentators don’t tell you is, that Josephus limits this location to the “third day” from Israel’s departure from Ramsees. Those like Mr. Richardson, who do mention the chronological limiting statements of Josephus often dismiss Josephus’ statements as errors. Here is how Mr. Richardson explains this conundrum:
Some have objected to using Josephus as a support for an Aqaba crossing because elsewhere he states that the journey out of Egypt to the Yam Suph took only three days.15 Josephus’s error is likely because he determined the time it took to reach the Yam Suph by assuming that the Israelite’s two encampments meant two nights at camp and three days of actual travel. His erroneous calculations, however, do not do away with the fact that he viewed the sea crossing to be at Aqaba. (Richardson, Joel. Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed (Kindle Locations 485-490). WinePress Media. Kindle Edition.)
To cherry pick the evidence in this way leaves a big credibility gap. Either Josephus had a good idea of what happened and where it happened or his account is hopelessly flawed and none of it should be trusted. In my opinion, if we are going to use Josephus’ accounts as part of our evidence for the location of the Reed Sea crossing then we must make a reasonable effort to include all his chronological and geographical statements into the matrix. Absent additional clarifications from Josephus’ own writings we do not have the luxury of picking and choosing the part of his account we want to believe.
Below are several maps showing the topography of Egypt, the Reed Sea, and the only geographical features that might be considered “mountains” within a “third day” journey from Ramses/Goshen. Keep in mind as you look at these maps, that they do not account for nearly 3500 years of erosion nor the leveling/construction efforts of the Egyptians. (For example the ridges along Wady Tumilat which are heavily populated today). You can draw your own conclusions as to whether Josephus’ account is credible or not.
Red bars indicate hills, ridges, and cliffs.
Courtesy Google Maps
[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]
Courtesy Google Earth Maps – Showing the once extensive cliffs of Jebel Attaga and 3500 years of erosion
So the Hebrews went out of Egypt, while the Egyptians wept, and repented that they had treated them so harshly. Now they took their journey by Letopolis, a place at that time deserted, but where Babylon was built afterward, when Cambyses laid Egypt waste: but as they went away hastily, on the third day they came to a place called Baalzephon, on the Reed Sea; (Antiquities of the Jews 2:315)
…and they [the Egyptians] thought they should easily overcome them, as they had no armour, and would be weary with their journey; so they made haste in their pursuit, and asked of everyone they met which way they were gone. And, indeed, that land was difficult to be travelled over, not only by armies, but by single persons. As also he led them this way on account of the Philistines, who had quarrelled with them, and hated them of old, that by all means they might not know of their departure, for their country is near to that of Egypt; (Antiquities of the Jews 2:321-322)
Why is Saudi Arabia and the Gulf of Aqaba So Attractive One of the things that makes the Gulf of Aqaba crossing and the mountains of Saudi Arabia so attractive as the location of the Reed Sea crossing and Mount Sinai, are some of the anecdotal claims (historical and geographical) made about the area and its history. Let’s look at some of those claims.
Where was the Midian Homeland of Jethro and Moses? A confusing aspect of this discussion is the question of the location of the Midian homeland of Jethro and Moses. Unfortunately, this specific question gets confused with the more general question of the boundaries of ancient Midian territory.
According to the Biblical text, the Midianites were ruled by several kings or princes. In the Biblical record, these kings often banded together to attack Israel or defend their own territory. In any case, there is no indication from the Biblical text that there was a single capital city of Midianites, nor is there any indication in the Bible (that I’m aware of) that Jethro (Reuel) was associated with any particular city of the Midianites.
This is important to keep in mind. Jethro was a priest or prince of the Midianites, but he also had flocks of sheep. In a desert environment, those who shepherd flocks must continually move their flocks in order to find them food and so that the ground does not become overgrazed. This would have required a nomadic lifestyle. In Jethro’s case, it was his daughters who shepherded his flocks. It’s also worth mentioning that at their initial encounter with Moses, the particular watering hole was used by other (Midianite?) shepherds.
A City or Territory? Take a look at the map below. The map provides a rough idea of the territory of the Midianites based upon Biblical and historical sources. As you can see, Midianite territory was a rather large expanse, the borders of which varied over the centuries as they lost or gained land based upon conquest and defeat. There wasn’t just one capital city of the Midianites, as stated above the Midianites were ruled by several kings. If Jethro was associated with a city of the Midianites, what Biblical facts allow us to assume that Jethro was associated with the ancient city of Madian/Madiam/Midiam, the city known today by the name of al-Bad?
Joel Richardson sums up this challenge in the following quote from Chapter 5 of his book:
Beyond being east of the Gulf of Aqaba, the Bible gives us a second critical witness regarding the location of Mount Sinai. As we will see, Scripture describes Mount Sinai as being either within the territory of, or beside the land of Midian. Thus, determining where Midian was located is essential. (Richardson, Joel. Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed (Kindle Locations 535-537). WinePress Media. Kindle Edition.)
In the following passage Mr. Richardson goes on to argue against the traditional site of Mount Sinai by claiming that the city of al-Bad (the ancient location associated with Madian/Madiam/Midiam) was the ancient capital of the Midianites.
Some have suggested that because many translations place Sinai west of Midian, this rules out Jebel al-Lawz as it is roughly twelve to fifteen miles east of the ancient capital city of Midian, now called al-Bad. This argument has also been used to support the traditional site, pointing out that it is indeed to the west of Midian. The obvious problem of course is that Moses did not place Jethro’s flocks on a boat and sail west across the Gulf of Aqaba. Instead, if he had gone to the traditional site, he would have had to have traveled well over a hundred miles north, then over another hundred miles southwest to reach the mountain. (Richardson, Joel. Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed (Kindle Locations 557-561). WinePress Media. Kindle Edition.)
There is certainly no indication within the text that Moses traveled through multiple deserts, through the territories of multiple foreign peoples to reach the mountain. (Richardson, Joel. Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed (Kindle Locations 568-569). WinePress Media. Kindle Edition.)
There are several difficulties with Mr. Richardson’s claims above.
First, if you are not careful you might miss the fact that Mr. Richardson inserts an unproven assumption into his arguments, which assumption he then uses as proof that the Sinai Peninsula could not have been the true location of Mount Sinai. In the passage above Mr. Richardson conflates “Midian” the territory with “Midian” the city. He then goes on to claims this location as the ancient capital of the Midianites and the implied home of Jethro and Moses. I can see no way to make such a determination from the Biblical text. Take a look for yourself:
Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well.
Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters: and they came and drew water, and filled the troughs to water their father’s flock. And the shepherds came and drove them away: but Moses stood up and helped them, and watered their flock. And when they came to Reuel their father, he said, How is it that ye are come so soon to day? And they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds,…
And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter…
Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb. (Exodus 2:15 – 3:1 excerpted for brevity)
As you can see from the above text, there is no basis to claim that the “land of Midian” refers to an ancient capital city of Midian. Midian is first described as a “land” or territory. At no point in the text does it clearly transition to a specific city in the land of Midian, let alone a city named “Midian”.
This means that any (Biblcial) argument that uses “Midian” the territory as toponym for “Midian” the city is purely speculative and without Biblical support. Further, any argument that depends on this city of “Midian” as it relates to a specific geographical location is also speculative and must be considered with caution.
I can’t help but wonder why Jethro couldn’t have been a priest or prince of some northern part of Midianite territory? If Jethro was indeed associated with a particular city, (which the Bible does not clearly indicate) why couldn’t that city have been in the northern parts of Midianite territory, where it overlapped with the Edomites and Amalekites?
Consider the following passages that indicate the Midianites (a.k.a. Kenites or Shechemites) dwelt in the general area of northern Midian territory and southern Israel. Also note, the Kenites according to the book of Samuel and the account of Josephus, dwelt in the midst of the Amalekites which at that time was southern Israel. Also consider that the Kenites weren’t just a branch of Midianite descendants from Jethro, but were also a people present in the land when Yahweh promised to Abraham that his seed would someday inherit their land. (see Gen. 15:14 below).
To me at least, this seems to suggest that Jethro and his descendants occupied the northern part of the Midianite kingdom.
In the same day YHWH made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river [nahar] of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The [land of the]Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,… Genesis 15:18-19
And the children of the Kenite, Moses’ father in law, went up out of the city of palm trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which lieth in the south of Arad; and they went and dwelt among the people. (Judges 1:16)
Now Heber the Kenite, which was of the children of Hobab the father in law of Moses, had severed himself from the Kenites, and pitched his tent unto the plain of Zaanaim, which is by Kedesh. 12 And they shewed Sisera that Barak the son of Abinoam was gone up to mount Tabor. (Judges 4:11-12)
And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Raguel the Midianite, Moses’ father in law, (Numbers 10:29)
And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them: for ye shewed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites. 7 And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt. 8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. (1 Samuel 15:6-8)
But when Saul had conquered all these Amalekites that reached from Pelusium of Egypt to the Red Sea, he laid waste all the rest of the enemy’s country: but for the nation of the Shechemites, he did not touch them, although they dwelt in the very middle of the country of Midian; for before the battle, Saul had sent to them, and ordered them to depart from there, lest they should be partakers of the miseries of the Amalekites; for he had a just occasion for saving them, since they were of the kindred of Raguel, Moses’ father-in-law. (Antiquities of the Jews 6:140)
From Arabia to the Wall of Egypt By the way, did you note in 1 Samuel 15:6-8 above, that it indicates that Amalekite territory extended from Hivilah (a place in Arabia) unto the Shur (wall) that is over against Egypt. Fascinating, isn’t it, that there was a place in or by the border of Egypt called the “Wall”. As we learned in Part I & Part II of this series Egypt’s northeastern frontiers at the time of the Exodus were indeed protected by such a shur or wall. Naturally any “wilderness” inside or outside that Shur would have been called the “wilderness of Shur” or the Wilderness of the Wall. Pretty neat stuff!
The Journeys of Moses Based upon the assumption that Midian was a city (not a territory), and the further assumption that Moses fled to this ancient capital city or the area surrounding it, Mr. Richardson puts forth an argument that the distance from Midian (the city) to Mount Sinai (traditional location) was too great for Moses to take Jethro’s flock there to graze. He argues as follows:
One could very reasonably say that Moses walked fifteen or perhaps even as much as thirty or more miles to graze his flocks somewhere within Midianite territory, but 450 to 500 miles is an extreme stretch to say the least. Without the text directly stating that Moses went on such an incredibly extended journey, we have no basis to make such claims. This problem is greatly amplified when many years later, Jethro visited Moses and all of Israel as they were camped at the mountain: (Richardson, Joel. Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed (Kindle Locations 573-577). WinePress Media. Kindle Edition.)
In my opinion there are several problems with this statement.
First of all, it seems rather incongruent to make the argument that it is an “extreme stretch” for one man and his flocks to have made the journey from Midian (the city) all the way to Mount Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula. Yet, Mr. Richardson indicates that he believes it utterly reasonable for the entire host of the Children of Israel, their sheep, and other livestock to make the equally difficult and lengthy journey from Egypt to area around Midian (the city).
Second, arguing against the traditional Sinai (or any Sinai) location, based upon unproven assumptions about Midian (the city) and Jethro’s & Moses’ relationship to that city is a speculative exercise that only confuses the subject.
Third, the above argument used by Mr. Richardson assumes that the traditional location of Mount Sinai is the only option to consider. If Mt. Sinai was further North, as some scholars suggest, and Jethro’s shepherding was in the northern part of Midianite territory, many of the challenges to Moses’, Jethro’s and Israel’s itineraries would disappear.
My point here is, that any exploration of this subject needs to consider all the available facts without unhelpful and misleading arguments that only support a single line of investigation. This is a fascinating and complex subject and a reasonable and balanced approach (in my opinion) is the best way to work out the complexities.
The Territory of Midian in Summary In summary, the above evidence suggests that Midianite territory included the area around the northern part of the Aelantic Gulf (Aqaba) including parts of what is known today as southern Israel. In my opinion, the most reasonable rendering of the available facts suggests, that it was this part of Midianite territory to which Moses fled when leaving Egypt. Further, it provides a more central location from which the events described likely took place.
Who Was Shuaib? This leads to a related subject concerning Jethro, the father in-law of Moses. One of anecdotal claims often stated as evidence that Jabal al-law and the mountains of Arabia are the real Mount Sinai is the so called “cave of Jethro”. Mr. Richardson explains it this way:
The Caves of Jethro Several very important archeological sites in al-Bad are closely associated with Moses or his father-in-law Jethro, who the Muslims call Shuaib (transliterated variously as Shuy’ib, Sho’aib, or something similar). In fact, another name for al-Bad is Muhgair al-Shuaib, which means, the “Caves of Jethro.” At the center of this small town is a cluster of caves hewn into the hillside that are believed to be the ancient home of Jethro and Moses. (Richardson, Joel. Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed (Kindle Locations 690-694). WinePress Media. Kindle Edition.)
I think it should be noted here, that association between Shuaib and Jethro is unproven historical speculation and without any Biblical merit. Mr. Richardson is mistaken in his claim (above) that Muhgair al-Shuaib means “Caves of Jethro” this is simply not accurate. Muhagair al-Shuaib in Arabic simply means the Cave of Shuaib.
Name meanings:
Shuaib = “who shows the right path”
Jethro = “his abundance”
Reuel (Jethro) = “friend of God”
A few other interesting anecdotes about Shuaib are worth noting. While Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, the 8th century Islamic historian, claims that Shuaib’s name translated in Syrian is Yahrun (Jethro), classical Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir Shu’ayb seems to contradict this by claiming that (Shuaib) prophesied to the Madyan people four generations after Abraham. (This would place him several centuries before the time of Moses and Jethro.) Neither historian provides any more context for their claims (that I could find).
Further, Islamic tradition also states that Shu’aib was sent to Madyan to tell them to repent of their evil. This implies that he did not live there. If indeed Madyan is the present day al-Bad, the fact there is a “cave of Shu’aib” near al-Bad does not prove that this was Shu’aib’s home town. After the people of Madyan refused to listen to Shu’aib, Islamic tradition claims that Allah sent judgment to destroy the Madyan people. According to tradition Shu’aib was not present when that judgment fell.
It should also be noted that Arabic traditions places the tomb of Shuaib in Jordan, lower Galilee or by some accounts the Sinai Peninsula. No tradition, that I’m aware of, places Shuaib’s tomb in the ancient city of Madyan (present day al-Bad).
The following are Quaranic references to Shu’aib:
[7:85] And to Madyan (We sent) their brother Shu’aib. He said: O my people! Serve Allah, you have no god other than Him; clear proof indeed has come to you from your Lord, therefore give full measure and weight and do not diminish to men their things, and do not make mischief in the land after its reform; this is better for you if you are believers:
[11:84] And to Madyan (We sent) their brother Shu’aib. He said: O my people! Serve Allah, you have no god other than He, and do not give short measure and weight: surely I see you in prosperity and surely I fear for you the punishment of an all-encompassing day.
[29:36] And to Madyan (We sent) their brother Shuaib, so he said: O my people! Serve Allah and fear the latter day and do not act corruptly in the land, making mischief. [29:37] But they rejected him, so a severe earthquake overtook them, and they became motionless bodies in their abode.
Local traditions and toponyms notwithstanding, there is no real contextual Biblical or archeological evidence (that I’m aware of) to back up the claims that Madyan (the present day al-Bad) was the home of Jethro or even the general location where Moses fled to when he left Egypt.
The Borders of Israel and Egypt The Exodus has so many interrelated topics and complexities. One which I had not been aware of until reading Mr. Richardson’s book was the subject of the borders of Israel and Egypt. In his book Mr. Richardson claims the “brook of Egypt” was the border of Egypt. Further, that this border extended to the Gulf of Aqaba arm of the Reed Sea. Mr. Richardson explains it this way:
The Border of Egypt Before we conclude our discussion of what the Bible says on this matter, we must also consider another critical Scriptural proof for a crossing at the Gulf of Aqaba. The Bible is quite clear in defining the border of Egypt. It is “the Brook of Egypt, now known as the Wadi el-Arish, the natural boundary between the southwestern Negev and the northeastern Sinai Peninsula regions.”19 Wadi el-Arish is 140 miles east of Port Said, Egypt (the northern end of the Suez Canal) and thirty miles west of the Gaza Strip. (Richardson, Joel. Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed (Kindle Locations 499-504). WinePress Media. Kindle Edition.)
When the Lord defined the promised land to Abram, He defined it as extending “from the river of Egypt [in the southwest] as far as the great river, the river Euphrates [in the north]” (Genesis 15:18). In other passages, we find the terms “the river of Egypt” and “the border of Egypt” used interchangeably. (Richardson, Joel. Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed (Kindle Locations 504-506). WinePress Media. Kindle Edition.)
Second, when the Bible specifically mentions the location of the Red Sea, it is always beside the city of Eilat and the land of Edom. (Richardson, Joel. Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed (Kindle Locations 525-526). WinePress Media. Kindle Edition.)
I admit, I’d never heard of the “brook of Egypt” as defining the border of Egypt as explained by Mr. Richardson . As I’ve been researching these claims, there are several things which I believe need further explanation.
First of all, none of the passages regarding the “brook of Egypt” that I could find are actually used to specifically define the border of Egypt, but rather they define the border of Israel at specific times during their ongoing inheritance of the land. This is an important distinction to make, because Yahweh did not allow Israel to inherit all of the Promised Land at once but rather “little by little”. This means that the borders of Israel have and will continue to change until the coming of the Yeshua. Let’s explore this a bit more.
The Nile Is the Future Border of Israel Let’s start by looking at the original promise Yahweh made with Abraham. As we unpack this, I think you’ll see another perspective on the subject. Here is Yahweh’s original land promise to Abraham concerning Israel’s future border with Egypt.
In the same day YHWH made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river [nahar] of Egypt unto the great river, the river [nahar] Euphrates: (Genesis 15:18)
Please note, that the word used here for river is nahar. This word is most often, though not exclusively, used to refer to the river Euphrates. It is also important here not to confuse the Hebrew word nahar (river) with the Hebrew word Nachal (river, stream, brook, wadi, or valley). The word nahar in the Bible seems to be used mostly to refer to substantial rivers, not streams or brooks.
In contrast, nachal has a wide range of meanings including: stream, (streams as a division of a nahar-river), brook, flood, valley, and inheritance. There is not one clear example (that I’m aware of) of nahar (river) being used to describe the “brook of Egypt”. On the other hand nachal is used in the Bible to describe the seven branches of the Nile River (nahar).
The following verses give you a sense of how nahar is used in reference to the Nile River.
And YHWH spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams [nahar], upon their rivers [ye’or = canals], and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone. (Exodus 7:19)
And YHWH spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch forth thine hand with thy rod over the streams [nahar], over the rivers [ye’or = canals], and over the ponds, and cause frogs to come up upon the land of Egypt. (Exodus 8:5)
And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, YHWH of hosts. And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river [nahar] shall be wasted and dried up. And they shall turn the rivers [nahar] far away; and the brooks [ye’or = canals] of defence shall be emptied and dried up: the reeds and flags shall wither. The paper reeds by the brooks, by the mouth of the brooks, and every thing sown by the brooks, shall wither, be driven away, and be no more. (Isaiah 19:4-7)
And YHWH shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river [nahar] , and shall smite it in the seven streams [nachal], and make men go over dryshod. (Isaiah 11:15)
Regarding Mr. Richardson’s claim above, that the “border of Egypt” and “river [nachal] of Egypt” are used interchangeably, I cannot find any clear example of such a usage.
Borders and Inheritances As I was examining the Scriptures related to “brook (Nachal) of Egypt”, I learned something rather interesting. Some of you may have been aware of this, but it was surprising to me. The Hebrew nachal doesn’t just refer to small rivers, streams, brooks, floods, or valleys. In the original Hebrew (without vowel pointings / cantilation marks) the word nachal is also used to describe Israel’s inheritance. Here take a look:
As you can see from the above definitions of the word Nachal, it can be used to refer to a brook, wadi, valley, stream, as well as a land/border inheritance. This makes me wonder if the verses which have been translated “brook of Egypt” might also have the underlying connotation of “inheritance” in Egypt as it relates to Yahweh’s promise to Abraham that his seed would inherit the land all the way to the nahar (Nile River) of Egypt. You might also make the argument that instead of “brook of Egypt” the passages could also read the “valley of Egypt”. Something worth considering at least!
And YHWH appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of: Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; (Genesis 26:2-4)
I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee. By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit [nachal] the land. And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee. (Exodus 23:29-31)
Also at the same time Solomon kept the feast seven days, and all Israel with him, a very great congregation, from the entering in of Hamath unto the river [nachal] of Egypt. (2 Chronicles 7:8)
Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit [nachal]it for ever. (Exodus 32:13)
And the border shall fetch a compass from Azmon unto the river [nachal] of Egypt, and the goings out of it shall be at the sea. (Numbers 34:5)
And he said, If now I have found grace in thy sight, O Lord, let my Lord, I pray thee, go among us; for it is a stiffnecked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance [nachal]. (Exodus 34:9)
Notwithstanding the land shall be divided by lot: according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit [nachal]. (Numbers 26:55)
These are the countries which Moses did distribute for inheritance [nachal] in the plains of Moab, on the other side Jordan, by Jericho, eastward. (Joshua 13:32)
And YHWH shall inherit [nachal] Judah his portion in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again. (Zechariah 2:12)
The Reed Sea and the Future Border of Egypt In light of this, consider once again the following verses as they pertain to Israel’s future borders.
In the same day YHWH made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river [nahar] of Egypt unto the great river, the river [nahar] Euphrates: (Genesis 15:18)
I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee. By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit [nachal] the land. And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee. (Exodus 23:29-31)
As we learned in Part II of this series, when the Bible refers to the Red (Reed) Sea, it is not just a reference to the Aelantic (Aqaba) Gulf of the Red Sea, but the Herooplictic (Suez) Gulf as well. So in Exodus 23 above, the Reed Sea without further context, must be taken as reference to both gulfs of the Red (Reed) Sea.
In other words, Israel’s future southern border most likely will not be a sharp triangle from the “brook of Egypt” (Wadi el-Arish) to the tip of the Gulf of Aqaba, but rather it will include all of the Sinai Peninsula from the Nile River to the Gulf of Aquaba.
Future Israel indeed!
Will Future Israel Include Mount Sinai This brings me to a final point, that has nagged me about the discussion of Mount Sinai’s geographical location. As important as Mount Sinai is to the history of Israel and the Biblical narrative, why would it not someday be included within the future borders of Israel?
Based upon the above Biblical geographical descriptions, it appears to me that the only place where Mount Sinai would not be included in the future borders of Israel is if it was located in present day Saudi Arabia.
Please I encourage you to do your Berean duty and see if these things be so.
The Jubilee Code -
"A book that will show you real Biblical evidence for Yahweh's guiding in hand history bringing about His redemptive plan for mankind."
Part II – Exploring the Claim that Mount Sinai is in Saudi Arabia
Gate of the Temple of Edfu
Part I (here) of this series explored the likely geographical context of Egypt at the time of the Exodus. We saw that Israel was contained in the land of Egypt by an ancient extension of the Red Sea which reached up to the area of the present day Lake Timsah. Further, we learned that the Egyptians extended this natural barrier with a wall (shur), motes (canals), and guard towers (migdol) to protect their northeastern frontier, the result of which made for a virtual prison for the children of Israel.
There were only two ways for all the multitude of Israel to have left Egypt: One was through the “Shur” or wall of Egypt’s northeastern frontier, the other through the northern extension of the Heroopolictic (Suez) Gulf of the Red Sea.
(Authors Note: This is an ongoing series exploring the location of Mount Sinai and the Red Sea Crossing. For those just joining the discussion I’d encourage you to read Part I of this series, it provides important context to this subject. Additionally Joel Richardson author of Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia: The True Location of Revealed whose book we have been exploring in this series has graciously taken time to offer his thoughts and corrections to Part I of my article. You’ll find his thoughts in the comment sections, so be sure to check that out as well.)
The Challenge of an Aqaba Gulf Crossing of the Red Sea If Israel’s crossing of the “Sea” took place at the Aelantic (Aqaba) Gulf of the Red Sea as many claim, then Israel would have had to leave Egypt through one of its fortified gates. (Unless there were two Red Sea crossings, one first through the Heropoolictic gulf of the Red Sea and then another crossing through the Aelantic (Aqaba) gulf of the Red Sea.)
Assuming for the sake of argument, that the generally accepted number of 2 million souls left Egypt and, further assuming, that this multitude took with them half a million head of livestock, the following are some rough numbers on how long it took Israel to exit the northeastern frontier fortifications of Egypt on their way to the gulf of Aqaba:
Keep in mind, as you pursue this chart that the average walking speed of an adult is 2.5 – 3 mph and the average walking speed of cattle is 2 – 2.5 mph. Also, if Israel passed through one of Egypt’s gates, one must take into account traffic flow and congestion. Much like fluid dynamics, the average speed (flow rate) would be reduced significantly at any point where flow is restricted. Keep this in mind for later, because as we will see in the next part of this series it will be another key factor in determining the likelihood of the Nubia beach crossing of the Gulf of Aqaba.
Which Gulf of the Red Sea The chart above gives us an idea of some of the logistical challenges facing any theory of the Red Sea crossing (including a gulf of Suez crossing). Let’s now look at some details related to the Biblical narrative that might help us determine which gulf of the Red Sea this event likely took place on.
Remember in Part I of this article, we learned that the Greco-Romans world of the apostle Paul’s day considered both the Heroopolicitic and the Aelantic gulfs as part of the Red Sea. Further, the translators of the Septuagint used the Greek designation Eyrthraean (Red) Sea to describe the location where Israel crossed the Sea after their exodus from Egypt. This designation, while not an exact transliteration, was an accurate (though generic) description of the location of the bodies of water the Hebrew Old Testament describes as the Yam Suph or Reed Sea. This is confirmed by New Testament use of Eyrthraean Sea to also describe the Red Sea crossing.
In support of the Gulf of Aqaba crossing, Mr. Richardson in Chapter 4 of his book Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed makes the following observation regarding the Hebrew term Yam:
The first point that we must note is that throughout the biblical narrative, the location of the miraculous crossing is repeatedly called a sea. The Hebrew word, yam is used throughout the Bible to refer to deep bodies of water, such as the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, occasionally the Sea of Galilee, or even the Dead Sea. It is never used of shallow lakes or marshes such as some of the crossing sites suggested north of the Gulf of Suez. (Richardson, Joel. Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed (Kindle Locations 335-339). WinePress Media. Kindle Edition.)
Unfortunately the above statement is not entirely accurate nor does it convey the entire range of the Hebrew Yam as used in the Scripture. First of all, in the Old Testament the Hebrew word Yam is used nearly 80 times to refer to West as in direction. The reason for this is because the Yam Sea (Mediterranean) is to the west of Israel, therefore Yam is often used as a colloquial term to refer to the west, westerly, or western. For example when the Bible describes the locusts being blown out of Egypt, they are being blow by a “Yam” (Westerly) wind.
Yam is also used in the Bible to refer to the bronze “sea” made by Solomon for the temple, (hardly a deep body of water). And in Jeremiah yam is used to describe the Euphrates River.
Finally, yam is used to describe the very part of Egypt where traditionalists, like myself, believe the Red Sea crossing took place, that is – in the “tongue” of the Egyptian Sea, i.e. the gulf of Heroopolis (Suez), that part of ancient Egypt we know today as the Bitter Lakes
And YHWH shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea [yam]; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dryshod. (Isaiah 11:15)
Notice this passage describes the Nile delta (seven streams) and the gulf of Heroopolis (Suez) the “tongue of the Egyptian sea”. A reasonable case can be made that this fantastic prophecy was fulfilled when the Heroopolictic gulf receded by nearly 50 miles from its extension at Lake Timsah in ancient Egypt to its present location at Suez today. For those wondering, the Hebrew word lashown (tongue) is also used to describe a bay or tongue of the Dead Sea.
In summary, Yam is not always used to refer to a deep body of water. In fact, as in Isaiah 11:15 demonstrated, it was used to describe the very location where traditionalists believe the crossing of the Red Sea took place or as the Hebrew Bible describes it the “Reed Sea”. For clarity’s sake it should be noted that proposed crossing in the Heroopolictic (Suez) gulf of the Red Sea is also known as the “Reed Sea Hypotheses”.
[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]
Losing the Reed (Suph) Sea In Chapter 3 – Losing the Yam Suph, Mr. Richardson gives additional reasons why he believes the Reed Sea Hypotheses, in the words of Professor Bernarad F. Batto, “must finally be laid to rest”.
“Despite its popularity, this Reed Sea hypothesis rests upon flimsy evidence indeed. A review of that evidence, plus new considerations make it clear that the hypothesis [the Reed Sea Hypotheses] must finally be laid to rest.”8 Glen Fritz, whose very thorough work The Lost Sea of the Exodus,9 rightly refers to the Reed Sea Hypothesis as being built upon nothing more than “linguistic conjectures and not biblical geography”10 These argue that the correct translation is something more akin to the “Sea of the End.”11 As Fritz points out, of the 116 total times that the Bible uses the word Suph or one of its variants, there are only four instances that can be argued to connect the word to reeds or some kind of plant.12 Alternately, the word is used eighty-seven times to mean “end,” “cease,” “perish,” “fulfill,” “consume,” “hinder part,” or something similar.13 In this view, Yam Suph is thus the sea at the southern-most end of the promised land.14 Alternately it is: “that distant scarcely known sea away to the south, of which no men knew the boundary. It was the sea at the end of the land.”15 As we will see, this view synthesizes perfectly with the consistent testimony of Scripture. When we understand the Hebrew phrase Yam Suph to refer to the body of water known today as the Gulf of Aqaba, the same body of water that is consistently used in Scripture to refer to the southeastern border of Israel, then so much of the accumulated haze and confusion simply disappears. [Insertion added by WS for clarity] Richardson, Joel. Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed (Kindle Locations 287-301). WinePress Media. Kindle Edition. )
Moses hidden in the Suph While indeed the word “suph” is used in the sense of the end or the end of something. It should be noted for context’s sake that the first usage of this word is found in Exodus 2:3 where it describes the Suph or reeds (flags) Moses was hidden in by his mother, the same plants where Pharaoh’s daughter later found him.
Consider the chronological evolution of the word Suph in the Bible. Suph (reeds or flags) was first used to describe water plants, then a body of water, and still later used to describe the end of something.
And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags [suph] by the river’s brink. (Exodus 2:3)
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 [suph], she sent her maid to fetch it. (Exodus 2:5)
It is also worth noting that Jonah, when recounting his terrifying journey into the belly of the giant fish, described water plants or suph which wrapped around his head. So even long after the Exodus account the word “suph” was still used to refer to water plants of some kind.
The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds [suph] were wrapped about my head. (Jonah 2:5)
Symbolically, I find it really neat that Moses was delivered from the sentence of death by being placed amongst the suph (reeds) of the Nile. Then eighty years later, Moses and Israel were delivered when Yahweh’s parted the suph (reed) sea.
Notice in the Isaiah 19 below that the prophet confirms his prophecy from chapter 11 (see above). In chapter 19 Isaiah prophecies that the “water shall fail from the sea” and the “and the brooks (canals) of defence (matsowr = Egypt) shall be emptied and dried up: the reeds and flags [suph] shall wither.”
This passage again confirms a reasonable view of the geological history of the gulf of Heroopolis (Suez). The canals of defense which Egypt built on the outside of their shur (wall) on the Northeastern frontier did indeed dry up, the gulf of Suez receded by 50 miles, and what was once a fortified frontier became wilderness that could be crossed on foot without restriction.
And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, YHWH of hosts. And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be wasted and dried up. And they shall turn the rivers far away; and the brooks [canals] of defence shall be emptied and dried up: the reeds and flags [suph] shall wither. The paper reeds by the brooks, by the mouth of the brooks, and every thing sown by the brooks, shall wither, be driven away, and be no more. (Isaiah 19:4-7)
The Hebrew Usage of Cuwph (Suph) In the following chart, you’ll find Suph or Cuwph as it is used in the OT. In this chart I’ve only provided Hebrew words variants that included the same root spelling as used to describe the Exodus (Reed) Sea crossing. Especially note the chronological usage of the word.
Locusts and the Yam Suph (Reed Sea) Another consideration when trying to determine the location of the Hebrew Yam Suph (Reed Sea) is the statement of Exodus 10:19 where it describes a strong west (yam) wind which drove all the locusts in the land of Egypt into the Yam Suph (Reed Sea). In his book Mr. Richardson claims this verse proves that the Yam Suph mentioned in this passage is the gulf of Aqaba. His arguments are summed up in four points as follows:
1. The Sea of Reeds (Bitter Lakes region) is far too limited a body of water for this to take place. 2. The locusts were “said to no longer be in the land of Egypt”. 3. The Bible does not say they drowned only the wind drove them that direction 4. The shape of the land of Egypt
The following is an excerpt from Mr. Richardson’s book to give you an idea of his arguments:
The single exception in all of the Bible that traditionalists consistently use in their attempt to prove that Yam Suph may at times refer to the marshy lakes north of the Gulf of the Suez is Exodus 10:19: “So the Lord shifted the wind to a very strong west wind which took up the locusts and drove them into the Red Sea; not one locust was left in all the territory of Egypt.” The common assumption is that this west wind drove the locusts to their deaths into the marshes and lakes north of the Gulf of Suez. There are four problems with this. Richardson, Joel. Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed (Kindle Locations 446-450). WinePress Media. Kindle Edition.
The fourth problem concerns the shape of the land of Egypt. Again, we note that the text says that the locusts covered the entire land of Egypt. Since the traditionalist argument is that the Yam Suph here refers to the “Reed Sea,” specifically the marshy lakes to the north of the Suez, this would mean that the locusts in southern Egypt would have had to have been blown in a northeastern direction, whereas the locusts around the northern Nile Delta would have had to have been blown in a south-westerly direction. Winds do not blow in opposite directions at the same time however. Since the winds were said to be blowing from the direction of the Mediterranean Sea, they would have blown in a south-westerly direction, and thus driven the locusts toward the Gulf of Aqaba. Richardson, Joel. Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed (Kindle Locations 460-465). WinePress Media. Kindle Edition.
And YHWH turned a mighty strong west wind, which took away the locusts, and cast them into the Red sea; there remained not one locust in all the coasts of Egypt. (Exodus 10:19)
To help you wrap your mind around what is being described here, below is a map of the land of Egypt. Remember that the Scripture states the locusts covered “all the land of Egypt” and all the land of Egypt includes both upper and lower Egypt.
[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]
Part of the confusion surrounding this subject is that many commentators limit the Reed (Red) Sea to either the Heroopolictic (Suez) or Aelantic (Aqaba) gulfs of the Red Sea. This confusion is further compounded by those not acquainted with the fact that in ancient times the Heroopolictic (Suez) gulf of the Red Sea extended all the way up to what we know today as the Bitter Lakes. Just as the Greco-Romans like Pliny understood there were two gulfs of the “Red Sea” the Hebrew writers also understood there were two gulfs in the Sea south of Israel, only at the time of the Exodus they were known in general as the “Reed Sea”. Exodus 10:19 proves this. Here take a look:
And YHWH turned a mighty strong west wind, which took away the locusts, and cast them into the Red sea; there remained not one locust in all the coasts [gebuwl = borders or territory] of Egypt. (Exodus 10:19)
Take a look at the map above again. The map reflects all the gebuwl or land of Egypt. There is only one way to understand Exodus 10:19 in its most reasonable and natural sense. As you can see from the map, if a west wind drove the locusts into the “Reed Sea” then all of what we know today as the “Red Sea” was considered the “Reed Sea” at the time of the Exodus.
There is no way to reasonably claim the locusts in all the land of Egypt were driven by a west wind into the most northern part of the Heroopolicitic gulf (Suez). That as Mr. Richardson rightly states would have required the wind to blow from different directions and thus converging on just one location.
Notice also in the map above, the Aelantic gulf (Aqaba) is half the size of the gulf of Heroopolis (Suez). It would be even more unlikely for a west wind (Mr. Richardson claims a southwest wind) to have driven all the locusts in the land of Egyp into or even towards the gulf of Aqaba.
Again the only way to take this passage literally is to understand that all of the water which we know today as the Red Sea (including its gulfs) was in fact understood at the time of the Exodus as the Reed Sea.
Cast into the Sea There are a couple of more details related to this aspect of the subject that need to be addressed. While Mr. Richardson is correct (quoting Stuart) that the Bible does not say the locusts were “drowned” in the Reed Sea, I believe it is also incorrect to say, as Douglas Stuart notes, that the text only states that the, “…wind blew them in that direction out of Egypt.”13
In looking at nearly 30 different translations of the verse, I cannot find a single one which does not state the locusts where driven, cast, blown, thrown, carried, etc. “into the Red Sea”. I’m not a Hebrew scholar, but it is hard for me to believe all 30 of these scholars somehow mistranslated this passage and it should have only read, “the locusts were blown towards the Red Sea”. In any case, whether they were blown “into” the Reed Sea or “towards” the Reed Sea, the only way this makes sense is if the body of water in question was the Red Sea proper – including its gulfs of Heroopolictic (Suez) and Aelantic (Aqaba).
Blown Out of the Land of Egypt Another important topic related to the locusts as well as Israel’s Exodus from Egypt is the question of what is meant by the phrase “out of Egypt”. In respect to the locusts Mr. Richardson explains it this way:
Second, once they [the locusts] were driven out, they were specifically said to no longer be in the land of Egypt. As we will discuss below, the Bible defines the land of Egypt as including the lakes to the north of the Suez. (Richardson, Joel. Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed (Kindle Locations 454-456). WinePress Media. Kindle Edition.) [Insertions added by WS for clarity]
The Border of Egypt A little bit later in the chapter, Mr. Richardson further explains regarding the borders of Egypt:
The Border of Egypt Before we conclude our discussion of what the Bible says on this matter, we must also consider another critical Scriptural proof for a crossing at the Gulf of Aqaba. The Bible is quite clear in defining the border of Egypt. It is “the Brook of Egypt, now known as the Wadi el-Arish, the natural boundary between the southwestern Negev and the northeastern Sinai Peninsula regions.”19 Wadi el-Arish is 140 miles east of Port Said, Egypt (the northern end of the Suez Canal) and thirty miles west of the Gaza Strip. When the Lord defined the promised land to Abram, He defined it as extending “from the river of Egypt [in the southwest] as far as the great river, the river Euphrates [in the north]” (Genesis 15:18). In other passages, we find the terms “the river of Egypt” and “the border of Egypt” used interchangeably. (Richardson, Joel. Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed (Kindle Locations 499-506). WinePress Media. Kindle Edition.)
In light of all this, there is another critical proof that the exodus sea crossing had to have taken place on the eastern side of the Sinai Peninsula. The Bible informs us that when the Israelites reached the Red Sea, they were no longer in Egypt. Scripture says that, “when Pharaoh had let the Hebrews go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines” (Ex. 13:17), instead the Lord led them, “by the way of the wilderness to the Red Sea” (Ex. 13:18a). Then Moses recorded that “the sons of Israel went up in martial array from the land of Egypt” (v. 18b). So somewhere during their march to the Red Sea, the Israelites had crossed out of the land of Egypt. This is reiterated again in the next chapter where it says that as Pharaoh and his armies drew close to the Israelites by the Red Sea, they “became very frightened” and said to Moses, “Is it because there were no graves in Egypt that you have taken us away to die in the wilderness? Why have you dealt with us in this way, bringing us out of Egypt?” (Ex. 14:10-11). Again, this point is critical. The Israelites had not yet crossed the sea, yet they were already outside of the land of Egypt. As we saw above, the Bible places the border of Egypt some 140 miles east of the Nile Delta. Therefore unless we wish to contradict the scriptural definitions of the land of Egypt, it is impossible to say that the Israelites were outside the land of Egypt, while remaining back near the marshy lakes close to the Nile Delta. (Richardson, Joel. Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed (Kindle Locations 510-520). WinePress Media. Kindle Edition.)
So what exactly was meant when the Bible tells us Israel left the land of Egypt? Mr. Richardson makes the point that because the text says that Israel was “out of the land of Egypt” before they crossed the Red Sea and since he believes the Bible places the border of Egypt 140 miles east of the Nile Delta (at the brook of Egypt) then this means that Israel must have been at the gulf of Aqaba the day before crossing the Yam Suph (Reed Sea). Here are a couple of verses that he believes illustrate his point.
But God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea: and the children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt. (Exodus 13:18)
And they said unto Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt? (Exodus 14:11)
The challenge to such a hypothesis is that Exodus 12 tells us that all Israel “left Egypt” the 15th day of the 1st month. In other words, the phrase “out of Egypt” simply means they left the part of Egypt they were living in at the time, i.e. Rameses (Exo. 12:37). They clearly did not travel all the way across the Sinai Peninsula in one day. Nor did they even make it out of the Nile river valley. In fact, as the chart at the beginning of this article demonstrates, all Israel wouldn’t have even made it to, let alone through, the gates of Egypt’s Northeastern frontiers on the first day of their journey. The following verses demonstrate that the phrases “out of Egypt” did not refer to Israel geographical location relative to the borders of Egypt, but rather their location relative to their habitation in Egypt.
And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. (Exodus 12:17-18)
And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of YHWH went out from the land of Egypt. (Exodus 12:41)
And it came to pass the selfsame day, that did bring YHWH the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies. (Exodus 12:51)
In summary, the phrase “out of Egypt” is not a statement of Israel’s location relative to the borders of Egypt, but rather describes Israel’s location relative to where they were kept in bondage in Egypt. These verses do not support a Gulf of Aqaba crossing.
I hope this exploration of the subject has given you another perspective on these challenging topics. I encourage each of you to search the Scriptures to see if these things be so.
Yahweh willing in Part III of this series I hope to explore some of the following subjects:
1. The curious Hebrew word for “wall” 2. Why the text tell us the wind blew all night
3. Josephus’ chronological and geographical statements about the Exodus 4. The Song of Moses 5. What was meant when the text states: The Egyptian’s sunk like stones 6. Who were the Midianites, Shechemites, and Kenites? 7. How does the Bible define the borders of Egypt? 8. The unusual Hebrew usage of Nahar and Nachal 9. The three Exodus Itineraries
The Jubilee Code -
"A book that will show you real Biblical evidence for Yahweh's guiding in hand history bringing about His redemptive plan for mankind."
There are few stories in the Bible that capture our imagination more than the Exodus. It’s a story of the oppressed and the oppressor, of a tribe of shepherds who once favored, fall into disfavor when the winds of circumstance blow from another direction. It was those divine winds of circumstance that cast the once wealthy descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob into the crucible of slavery and oppression, and through which Yahweh, the living God of the Bible forged a nation of people with a special purpose in His redemptive plan for mankind.
Who doesn’t remember the Exodus stories of their youth? Of the faith and love of Moses’ mother, in order to save her precious son, cast him adrift in the reeds of the Nile rather than see him sacrificed by the calloused hands of the merciless Egyptians.
Who can’t remember at least some of those ten ghastly plagues Yahweh cast upon Pharaoh and the Egyptians because they wouldn’t let His people go. Which of us doesn’t shiver just a little when we picture the blood painted on the doors of Israel’s houses and the grim angel of death as it carried out the bloody sentence upon all of the firstborn in the land of Egypt who were not protected by the sacrificial blood of the lamb, on that fateful night?
And finally, in some way, I think, we can all related to the climax of the story as we stand with Israel on the shores of the Red Sea, our backs to the approaching enemy and we look in vain for a way out of our terrifying circumstances. Then with no hope in sight, Yahweh opens a way to deliverance. That’s the story of the Exodus!
Skeptical that Mount Sinai is in Arabia With those wonderful and terrible pictures in mind, this week I want to explore the Exodus and the Red Sea crossing, with a goal in mind of providing as strong a historical and Biblical context to these events as I can. Although I’ve long had an interest in this subject, this article was inspired in part by Joel Richardson’s new book – Mount Sinai In Arabia: The True Location Revealed.
It is only fair to Mr. Richardson here to give you a bit of background to this article. A few months ago Mr. Richardson tweeted something about the location of Mt. Sinai that sparked my interest. I replied and we had a bit of back and forth on the subject. Mind you, I think it would be really cool if Mt. Sinai was in Saudi Arabia, but I’m not convinced this is the best understanding of the evidence. In fact, I am very skeptical of these claims. Our back and forth reflected this. But our conversation didn’t end in animosity, because Mr. Richardson did something that is rather rare today. Instead of blowing my criticisms off, he emailed me and asked if I’d give him some constructive criticism on parts of his forthcoming book related to our discussion.
To be up front, for reason we’ll explore in this series of articles, I still don’t agree with Mr. Richardson on the location of Mt. Sinai, but I definitely have a great deal more respect for him. Hats off to a brother in Christ who showed a bit of humility in his willingness seek out another point of view.
If you are interested in this subject I’d encourage you to read Mr. Richardson’s book. He makes a forceful case for Mt. Sinai’s location in Saudi Arabia. You’ll find an array of arguments (some stronger than others) that need to be explored and considered. No matter which side of this subject you take it’s a fascinating subject worthy of any Berean’s time and effort to better understand.
Vectors of Exploration So, is Mt. Sinai really in Saudi Arabia? In this series of articles we’ll look at some of Mr. Richardson’s arguments in the light of the historical and Biblical context to see if these things be so.
In his book Mr. Richardson approaches the subject of the location of Mt. Sinai from two main angles of exploration. Those vectors include the location of the Red Sea crossing and geographical context of Arabia in light of the Biblical and historical evidence. Mr. Richardson uses these lines of exploration (to good effect I might add) to make his case for the “true” location of Mr. Sinai. His related conclusions are summed up in the following:
As we will see, the first clear reason to believe that Mount Sinai may now be found in modern day Saudi Arabia is because the Bible very specifically locates the Exodus sea crossing at the Gulf of Aqaba, also commonly known as the Red Sea….
Beyond being east of the Gulf of Aqaba, the Bible gives us a second critical witness regarding the location of Mount Sinai. As we will see, Scripture describes Mount Sinai as being either within the territory of, or beside the land of Midian. Thus, determining where Midian was located is essential. (Richardson, Joel. Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed (Kindle Locations 240-242 &535-537). WinePress Media. Kindle Edition.)
Because of the importance these lines of exploration play in Mr. Richardson’s thesis, I think some geographical and historical context related to the “Red” Sea, Egypt, and Arabia will be essential as we explore Mr. Richardson’s arguments. As part of this evidence we will closely examine how the New Testament authors understood the subject as well as their Greco-Roman contemporaries.
Why the Red Sea? Did you know that the some of the first historical references to the term “Red” Sea come from the Greek’s and Romans? Now this is not the “Red” Sea you are probably picturing in your mind. You see, to the Greek’s and later to the Roman’s all of the bodies of water surrounding the Arabian Peninsula were part of the Erythraean Sea. Erythraean was the Greekword for Red.As reflected in the map below, they called the gulf on the western side of the Arabian Peninsula the “Arabian Gulf” and the gulf on the eastern side of the Arabian Peninsula the “Persian Gulf”. It’s important to keep in mind here that both gulfs were part of the Erythraean (Red) Sea proper.
No one really knows why the Greeks called these bodies of water the Erythraean (Red) Sea, but historians through the centuries theorized several reasons.
They called it the Red Sea, because of the seasonal bloom of red algae sometimes observed.
They called it the Red Sea, because of the red corral found in some of its waters. Æschylus, in the Prometheus Loosed as quoted by Strabo seems to confirm this view in the following quote: “There [is] the sacred wave, and the coralled bed of the Erythræan Sea,…. “(The Geography of Strabo (Volume I, II & III of 3): Literally Translated, with Notes (Kindle Locations 795-798). Transcript. Kindle Edition.
They called it the Red Sea, because Arabia was associated with the Edomites. Edom comes from the Hebrew word for “Red”.
For chronological context’s sake, keep in mind that the Greek or Hellenistic period began in the 4th century (roughly 323 BC) about the time of their conquest of Ptolemaic Egypt. Although their empire faded in 31 BC and the Battle of Actium, Greek thought was absorbed by the Roman Empire and has had considerable influence to this day.
The following map is based upon a Greek journal titled: Periplous of the Erythraean Sea (1st century AD). It reflects the Greek view of the Arabian Peninsula and the Erythraean Sea at the time.
Courtesy of Wikipedia.org
The Greek Influence on the Septuagint From a Biblical point of view, nowhere was this influence felt more than with the Septuagint version of the Bible. The Septuagint originated roughly 100 years into the Hellenistic period and in the very same location where historians attribute Greece’s rise to power, that is Ptolemaic Egypt. Traditionally, the Septuagint is thought to have originated in the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt circa 285-246 BC. (For more on this see Paul Lawrence’s: A Brief History of the Septuagint on the ABR website.)
The reason this is important to our exploration of Mt. Sinai and the Red Sea crossing is that it is from the Septuagint that we get one of the earliest, if not the earliest, records of the bodies of water surrounding the Arabian Peninsula being called the Erythraean or Red Sea. Further, the New Testament confirms in two places that this “Erythraean Sea” was the location of Israel’s miraculous deliverance.As Mr. Richardson notes in his book, the Mesoretic text of the Old Testament on the other hand identifies these waters with the Yam Cuwph (Suf). Cuwph in Hebrew means reed or end. (We’ll explore idiosyncrasies of this Hebrew word in more detail later.)
In any case, we can pretty safely attribute the Hellenistic influence of the Septuagint for the Old Testament’s identification of the Red Sea with the bodies of water where the events of Exodus took place. The question is how do we relate the Greek Red Sea with the ancient Hebrew’s Yam Cuwph or Reed Sea?
Greco-Roman Confusion? In order to answer these questions in the context of Mr. Richardson’s book, we need to look at his understanding of the Greco Roman world view of the Red Sea and Arabia, because this view informs the premises of his book. Here is how Mr. Richardson explains the subject:
The “Red Sea” was essentially a catch-all term used to refer to that distant sea that was very far south. It gets even more complicated though. The Greek geographers of this period actually did not have clarity regarding the piece of land known today as the Sinai Peninsula. The classical Greco-Roman geographers seem to have combined the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba into a single inlet that they called the Gulf of Arabia. In the Greek conception of the world then, there was simply Egypt in the west and the Arabian Peninsula to the east. The piece of land today called the Sinai Peninsula was so obscure that it was almost as if it didn’t even exist. (Richardson, Joel. Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed (Kindle Locations 264-268). WinePress Media. Kindle Edition.)
In the fifth century BC, the Greek historian Herodotus used the term “Arabia” to identify the Arabian Peninsula. In fairness, however, as we have discussed elsewhere, even though Herodotus was not aware that the Sinai Peninsula even existed, he still would have viewed it to be part of Arabia. In the writings of Strabo, another Greek historian-geographer who lived in the first century BC, the Arabian Peninsula continued to be the heartland of Arabia and was called Arabia Felix (meaning “happy,” “blessed,” “fortunate Arabia”). Another smaller region in southern Jordan was called Arabia Deserta. So while it is most certainly possible that in Paul’s day references to Arabia could have been pointing to the Sinai Peninsula, this would have been much more of a secondary reference. If no qualifier was given, the Arabian Peninsula would likely have been understood as the primary region.(Richardson, Joel. Mount Sinai in Arabia: The True Location Revealed (Kindle Locations 1041-1048). WinePress Media. Kindle Edition.)
In the above statements Mr. Richardson seems to be under the impression that the Greco-Roman world had a rather vague or limited understanding of geographical location related to their Red Sea and the Sinai Peninsula. A careful reading of the Greek and Roman historians does not seem to bear this out. The following are a couple of examples:
The Histories by Herodotus (484 -425 BC) In Arabia, not far from Egypt, there is a long and narrow gulf running inland from the sea called the Erythraean, of which I will here set down the dimensions. Starting from its innermost recess, and using a row-boat, you take forty days to reach the open main, while you may cross the gulf at its widest part in the space of half a day. In this sea there is an ebb and flow of the tide every day. My opinion is that Egypt was formerly very much such a gulf as this— one gulf penetrated from the sea that washes Egypt on the north, and extended itself towards Ethiopia; another entered from the southern ocean, and stretched towards Syria; the two gulfs ran into the land so as almost to meet each other, and left between them only a very narrow tract of country.(Herodotus. The Histories by Herodotus (Enhanced Kindle Edition) (Kindle Locations 1773-1782). Kindle Edition.)
Pliny the Elder, a Roman contemporary of Yeshua and the Apostle Paul had this to say about geographical location of the Red Sea and the geography of the Gulf of Arabia.
CHAP. 12. — THE COASTS OF ARABIA, SITUATE ON THE EGYPTIAN SEA. Beyond the Pelusiac Mouth is Arabia3597[petraea], which extends to the Red Sea, and joins the Arabia known by the surname of Happy3598[Arabia Felix], so famous for its perfumes and its wealth. This3599 is called Arabia of the Catabanes3600, the Esbonitæ3601, and the Scenitæ3602; it is remarkable for its sterility, except in the parts where it joins up to Syria, and it has nothing remarkable in it except Mount Casius3603. The Arabian nations of the Canchlæi3604 join these on the east, and, on the south the Cedrei3605, both of which peoples are adjoining to the Nabatæi3606.
The two gulfs of the Red Sea, where it borders upon Egypt, are called the Heroöpolitic3607[gulf of Suez] and the Ælanitic3608[gulf of Aqaba]. Between the two towns of Ælana3609 and Gaza3610 upon our sea3611[Mediteranian], there is a distance of 150 miles. Agrippa says that Arsinoë3612, a town on the Red Sea, is, by way of the desert, 125 miles from Pelusium. How different the characteristics impressed by nature upon two places separated by so small a distance!(Pliny the Elder [23-79 AD]. The Natural History of Pliny, Volume 1 (of 6) / by Pliny, the Elder (Kindle Locations 6928-6948). )((Inserts in brakets [] were added by WS for clarity))
Here is a visual of how the Arabian provinces were divided in the Roman times.
From the above quotes you get the sense that the Greco-Roman geographers did in fact have a rather clear understanding of the Egyptian and Arabian geography.
A couple things to note from these 1st century geographers: First, they understood the Erythraean Sea (Red Sea) to have two gulfs. Pliny described them as the Heroopolitic and the Aelanitic. Further, he understood that the Heroopolitic gulf (today known as the Suez) to be the border between Egypt and Arabia.
What is fascinating about this information is that other Greco-Roman historians as well as archeologists of the modern age identify Heroopolitic gulf and its city Heroopolis with the ancient treasure city of Phitom mentioned in Exodus.
There are a couple neat facts about this information. First, Heroopolis was an important harbor on the Arabic gulf (gulf of Suez) in the Red Sea. This harbor was located all the way up in the area of what today is known as Lake Timsah in the Bitter Lakes of Egypt. This shows that the Red Sea in the days of the Greeks and Romans (and before) terminated much further north than its present location at Suez. (Keep this in mind for later because it becomes quite important information as we look at the route Israel took when they left Egypt.)
Strabo Defines Arabia and the Red Sea The Greek geographer Strabo who lived from 63 BC – AD 23 confirms the status of Heroopolis as located on “recess” of the Arabian Gulf (gulf of Suez).
…They [who accuse Homer of ignorance] are again mistaken when they say that he was not aware of the isthmus between the sea of Egypt and the Arabian Gulf, and that his description is false,… (Strabo. The Geography of Strabo (Volume I, II & III of 3): Literally Translated, with Notes (Kindle Locations 725-726). Transcript. Kindle Edition.) ((Inserts in brakets [] added by WS for clarity))
In addition to the length, the recess of the Gulf [Arabic Gulf ] is distant from the sea at Pelusium only three or four days’ journey across the isthmus. [Pelusium is a famous city on the Nile Delta near the Mediterranean Sea.](Strabo. The Geography of Strabo (Volume I, II & III of 3): Literally Translated, with Notes (Kindle Locations 849-850). Transcript. Kindle Edition.)
Egypt too [he says] was formerly covered by sea as far as the marshes near Pelusium, 321 Mount Casius, 322 and the Lake Sirbonis. 323 Even at the present time, when salt is being dug in Egypt, the beds are found under layers of sand and mingled with fossil shells, as if this district had formerly been under water, and as if the whole region about Casium and Gerrha324 had been shallows reaching to the Arabian Gulf. The sea afterwards receding left the land uncovered, and the Lake Sirbonis remained, which having afterwards forced itself a passage, became a marsh. (Strabo. The Geography of Strabo (Volume I, II & III of 3): Literally Translated, with Notes (Kindle Locations 1227-1232). Transcript. Kindle Edition.)
Now the latitude of Heroopolis is about the same as Alexandria, or rather more south. (Strabo. The Geography of Strabo (Volume I, II & III of 3): Literally Translated, with Notes (Kindle Locations 2038-2039). Transcript. Kindle Edition.)
There is said to be a passage thence across, of 1260 stadia, to the city Aila623 (Aelana), situated on the innermost recess of the Arabian Gulf. This recess has two branches, one, in the direction of Arabia and Gaza, is called Ailanites, from the city upon it; the other is in the direction of Egypt, towards Heroopolis, 624 to which from Pelusium is the shortest road (between the two seas).(Strabo. The Geography of Strabo (Volume I, II & III of 3): Literally Translated, with Notes (Kindle Locations 27453-27457). Transcript. Kindle Edition.)
I return to the opinions of Eratosthenes [Greek scholar 276-195BC], which he next delivers respecting Arabia. He is speaking of the northern and desert part, lying between Arabia Felix, Cœle-Syria, and Judæa, to the recess of the Arabian Gulf. From Heroopolis, situated in that recess of the Arabian Gulf which is on the side of the Nile,…(Strabo. The Geography of Strabo (Volume I, II & III of 3): Literally Translated, with Notes (Kindle Locations 27665-27668). Transcript. Kindle Edition.)
Here is a map reflecting Strabo’s view of Egypt and Arabia’s geography. [DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]
Frontier Fortifications Before we really dig into the specific details of Mr. Richardson’s arguments regarding the location of the “Red Sea” and Mt. Sinai, there is one more piece of historical information that we need to explore so that you will better understand the context of Israel’s captivity in Egypt and their Exodus. I believe this context will dramatically change how you view Israel’s captivity and the route they took when leaving the land of Goshen.
And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith YHWH God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness. And Pharaoh said, Who is YHWH, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not YHWH, neither will I let Israel go. (Exodus 5:1-2)
Have you ever thought about how Pharaoh kept Israel from leaving Egypt? I mean, why couldn’t they just immigrate in mass or a few families at a time? From the verses above it kind of sounds like the Israelites were prisoners. How could Pharaoh have kept all Israel prisoner?
These circumstances make a lot more sense when you understand that it just wasn’t possible for Israel to leave Egypt without Pharaoh’s permission. In fact it is likely that the Israelites would have needed today’s equivalent of a passport. Let me explain.
As we learned from the history we’ve explored above, Eastern Egypt was protected with the natural barrier of the Red Sea all the way up to city of Heroopolis (the Biblical Phitom) near present day lake Timsah. Between Heroopolis and Pelusium (on the MediterranianSea) there were roughly 40 miles of land not guarded by the natural barrier of the Red Sea. According to archeologists, during the reign of Seti I, due to concerns of invasion from their Asiatic neighbors, a frontier wall (included moats) was constructed across this northeastern section of Egypt’s frontier border. This wall had guard towers and was garrisoned with soldiers. While this frontier fortification did indeed keep unwanted guests from entering Egypt from the east it also kept anyone from leaving Egypt without Pharaoh’s permission.
So when the Bible describes Moses asking permission for Israel to leave Egypt, this permission was in fact necessary because no individual could leave Egypt without passing through the gates of the frontier wall, much less hundreds of thousands Israelites who were valuable slaves.
With the same object he constructed on his north-eastern frontier a wall or fortress “to keep out the Sakti,” who continually harassed the people of the Eastern Delta by their incursions.(Rawlinson, George. The History of Ancient Egypt: The Land & The People of Egypt, Egyptian Mythology & Customs, The Pyramid Builders, The Rise of Thebes, The Reign of the … The Ethiopians & Persian Conquest (Kindle Locations 1010-1011). Madison & Adams Press. Kindle Edition.)
Seti was not dazzled with his military successes. Notwithstanding his triumphs in Syria, he recognized the fact that Egypt had much to fear from her Asiatic neighbours, and could not hope to maintain for long her aggressive attitude in that quarter. Without withdrawing from any of the conquered countries, while still claiming their obedience and enforcing the payment of their tributes, he began to made preparation for the changed circumstances which he anticipated by commencing the construction of a long wall on his north-eastern frontier, as a security against invasion from Asia. This wall began at Pelusium, and was carried across the isthmus in a south-westerly direction by Migdol to Pithom, or Heroopolis, where the long line of lagoons began, which were connected with the upper end of the Red Sea.(Rawlinson, George. The History of Ancient Egypt: The Land & The People of Egypt, Egyptian Mythology & Customs, The Pyramid Builders, The Rise of Thebes, The Reign of the … The Ethiopians & Persian Conquest (Kindle Locations 2275-2285). Madison & Adams Press. Kindle Edition.)
Seti I – Temple Relief Wikipedia.org
We may conclude that Seti was of the true Egyptian race, with perhaps an admixture of more southern blood; while Ramesses, born of a Semitic mother, inherited through her Asiatic characteristics, and, though possessing less energy and strength of character than his father, had a more sensitive temperament, a wider range of taste, and a greater inclination towards peace and tranquillity. His important wars were all concluded within the limit of his twenty-first year, while his entire reign was one of sixty-seven years, during fifty of which he held the sole sovereignty. Though he left the fame of a great warrior behind him, his chief and truest triumphs seem to have been those of peace—the Great Wall for the protection of Egypt towards the east, with its strong fortresses and “store-cities,” the canal which united the Nile with the Red Sea, and the countless buildings, excavations, obelisks, colossal statues, and other great works, with which he adorned Egypt from one end to the other.(Rawlinson, George. The History of Ancient Egypt: The Land & The People of Egypt, Egyptian Mythology & Customs, The Pyramid Builders, The Rise of Thebes, The Reign of the … The Ethiopians & Persian Conquest (Kindle Locations 2425-2432). Madison & Adams Press. Kindle Edition.)
There lay still further to the NORTHEAST, on the western border of the lake called Sirbonis, a place important for the defence of the frontier, called ANBU, that is “THE WALL,” “THE RAMPART WALL,” “THE CIRCUMVALLATION.” It is frequently mentioned by the ancients, though not under its Egyptian appellation, but in the form of a translation. The Hebrews call it SHUR, that is, “WALL,” and the Greeks Gerrhon, Gerrha which means “THE FENCES” or “ENCLOSURES.”….
Whoever travelled EASTWARDS from Egypt, in order to leave the country, WAS OBLIGED to pass the place of “the walls,” before he was ALLOWED to enter the “road of the Philistines,” as it is called in Holy Writ, on his further journey. An Egyptian garrison, under the command of a captain, BLOCKED THE PASSAGE THROUGH THE FORTRESS, which only opened and closed on the suspected traveller AFTER A PREVIOUS COMMUNICATION FROM THE ROYAL AUTHORITIES. Anbu — Shur — Gerrhon formed at the same time the first terminal point of the great military road, which led from the Delta…to the…desert ….(A History of Egypt Under the Pharaohs, by Henry Brugsch-Bey. Vol.I, second edition. John Murray, London. 1881, pps. 238-239.)
“Accounts of this wall indicate a project on the scale of the frontier wall of Britain, built by the Roman emperor Hadrian” — and known to history as “Hadrian’s Wall.”(The Egyptian Pyramids, McFarland and Co., Jefferson, N.C. 1990, p. 198.)
Relief of Amenemhat I – Wikipedi
From recent discoveries we know that though Amenemhet I, the Enemy of the Petrograd papyrus, was regarded as the saviour of Egypt, and was the builder of the great wall in the Eastern Delta made to keep back the Asiatics, yet the war of liberation had already begun under his predecessors of the Xlth Dynasty, the Antefs and Mentuhotps of Thebes, and the retirement of Abram may conceivably have been due to pressure by the Egyptian armies. (Peet, T.E. Egypt and the Old Testament (Kindle Locations 508-513). Liverpool, University Press of Liverpool ltd.. Kindle Edition.)
The Chronological Context of Egypt and the Exodus To help you understand the context of the quotes above related to Amenemhet I and Seti I, the great wall and the Exodus, the following chart shows the Egyptian Dynasties XVIII and XIX. According to the MT text of the Old Testament, the Exodus took place about 1488 BC. (These charts were adapted by this author based upon the charts of D. Davidson and C. Aldersmith. – WS)[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]
Click on Image to Enlarge
In Summary From the historical references we’ve explored in this article, it is clear that the Greco-Roman world of the apostle Paul’s day understood that the Erythraean Sea or Red Sea was a body of water which surrounded Arabia. Further they understood that this Red Sea included the Heroopolitic gulf (Suez) and Aelantic gulf (Aqaba) and further that this Heroopolactic gulf (Suez) was the border between Egypt and Arabia.
So in the New Testament when Stephen and the author of Hebrews mentions the “Erythraean” or Red Sea as the location of the Exodus sea crossing, that term in context of their day included both the Heroopolitic (Suez) and Aelantic (Aqaba) gulfs of the Erythraean Sea. The bottom line is that what we know today as the Sinai, both the New Testament and the Greco-Roman historians understood to be part of Arabia. The question remains though, – in which part of Arabia was Mt. Sinai located? We’ll explore this question in more detail in Part II of this series.
Gate of the Temple of Edfu
A Fun Challenge: How did Israel Leave Egypt? We’ll continue our exploration of the Exodus, the Red Sea crossing, and the location of Mt. Sinai in Part II of this series, but as you think about the information I’ve shared in this article I challenge you with an exercise in logistics.
There are two main theories today regarding the Gulf of Aqaba as the location of the Red Sea crossing. These theories are best represented by Ron Wyatt and Bob Cornuke. If you take a look at both their maps or drawings of the proposed Red Sea crossing you’ll notice they make no mention of the ancient position of the Heroopolitic gulf of the Erythraean (Red) Sea or the frontier wall in their Exodus route itineraries. (Mr. Richardson does not cover this subject in this book.)
Gate of Ptolemy II Euergetes
In any case, here is a fun challenge for those of you who’ll accept it. Most scholars claim that roughly 2 million Israelites left Egypt plus a great deal of cattle and livestock. Assuming each person or animal took up only 4 sq. ft., and assuming they only took 500K livestock with them when they left, how many miles long would the column of Israelites and livestock have been when they passed through the frontier gate of Egypt into the wilderness of Sinai (if said gate was 100’ wide). And as a secondary exercise, with the above information in mind, how long would it have taken this column of Israelites to leave Egypt proper (the Nile river valley) and enter the wilderness of Sinai based upon Ron Wyatt’s or Bob Cornuke’s itineraries of the Exodus. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. We’ll consider the implications of this logistical challenge in our next article.
In Part II we we’ll look at several subjects related to Mr. Richardson’s book – including:
The Hebrew usage of Yam Cuwph
The Logistics of Israel’s exodus through the Northwestern frontier
What was meant by “out of Egypt” as it relates to the Red Sea crossing.
The Red Sea and the Locusts
Yahweh willing until next time – Maranatha!
A Favor to Ask I have a favor to ask. If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know that you can download all of my books and articles free of charge. I don’t ask for donations or allow advertisements on this blog. This effort is a labor of love for me as a testimony to Yahweh’s wonderful redemptive plan for mankind through Yeshua. I don’t want your money but if you would take a moment to share the articles you read on this blog with your friends and family on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media I would greatly appreciate your help. Together we can share the Biblical evidence for Yahweh’s wonderful redemptive plan for mankind. Thank you for your help in this effort!
* * *
FREE Book Download:
If you would like to learn more about Biblical history and Bible prophecy, you might also appreciate my books in the Prophecies and Patterns series.
At the following link you may download one of the three books shown below. If you like the book and would like to download the other two, all I ask is that you subscribe to my blog. I won’t share your email or spam you with advertisements or other requests. Just every couple of weeks I’ll share with you my love of Biblical history and Bible Prophecy. Should you decide you no longer wish to be a subscriber you can unsubscribe at any time.
Click the following link to download your Free book: Book Download
I hope you’ll join the adventure!
Book 1
Book I - Description
The 13th Enumeration
"A book that will change how you look at the Bible's Messianic Symbolism."
The Jubilee Code -
"A book that will show you real Biblical evidence for Yahweh's guiding in hand history bringing about His redemptive plan for mankind."
Editors Note:Below are some additional quotes I dug out that might be of interest to some of you. They give a more nuanced view of the how Egypt and Arabian were viewed in the Greco-Roman period as well as some related miscellaneous information.
At last nothing remained to the invaders but their great fortified camp, Uar or Auaris, which they had established at the time of their arrival upon the eastern frontier, and had ever since kept up. In this district, which was strongly fortified by walls and moats, and watered by canals derived from the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, they had concentrated themselves, we are told, to the number of 240,000 men, determined to make there a final stand against the Egyptians.(Rawlinson, George. The History of Ancient Egypt: The Land & The People of Egypt, Egyptian Mythology & Customs, The Pyramid Builders, The Rise of Thebes, The Reign of the … The Ethiopians & Persian Conquest (Kindle Locations 1496-1499). Madison & Adams Press. Kindle Edition.)
Amenemhat [I] ruled over the WHOLE LAND OF EGYPT with power and might, “from the Elephant-city even to the Athu, or lakes in the lowlands;” and that he was wise in thought and deed we learn from many a phrase in the long since faded papyri of ancient origin. Let us first consider the childlike simple narrative OF HIS CONTEMPORARY, the Egyptian SINEH [SINUHE], who, from some unknown cause, left the court of his lord and king, and TOOK THE ROAD TOWARDS THE NORTHEAST TO ESCAPE OUT OF THE LAND OF HIS FATHERS. Manifold dangers threatened him in his flight, from the keepers of the roads, and from foreign tribes, who, leading an unsettled nomad life on the eastern frontiers of the kingdom, caused the wanderer much care and disquietude. THERE IN THE EAST THE OBSTRUCTION OF THE GREAT “WALL” BARRED THE OPEN ROAD. What the Egyptians called ANBU, i.e. “wall,” was called in other languages better known to us, SHUR (Hebrew, “wall”) or Gerrhon (Greek, “enclosure,” “bounds”), both designating the fortress at the entrance of the narrow causeway between the Egyptian (Mediterranean) Sea and the Lake Sirbonis, through which the OLD HIGH ROAD LED FROM THE LAND OF KEMI [EGYPT] TO THE CITIES OF THE RUTEN. Sineh escapes the vigilance of the watchmen on the “Wall,” and enters the barren, desolate wilderness. — (A History of Egypt Under the Pharaohs, pps.146-147.)
…we must admit that formerly, under the dominion of the Romans, the Red Sea extended MUCH FARTHER NORTH than it does now; but that then the RETREAT OF THE SEA, and the changes in the surface of the soil had already begun to be felt.
Not only were the BITTER LAKES UNDER WATER, but I believe we are compelled to admit with Linant Bey, who derives his arguments from GEOLOGY, that Lake Timsah, and the valleys of Saba Biar and Abu Balah were, under the Pharaohs, PART OF THE SEA. Some traces of this may be seen on the map of the French engineers drawn at the end of last century [18th]. Contiguous to Lake Timsah there is a narrow extension towards the west which has the appearance of the HEAD OF A GULF. Thus the sea would have extended as far as the place now called Magfar….
It must have been at the head of the gulf…that the upheaval of the soil, and the RETREAT OF THE SEA were first felt. Gradually, the water sank, the communication with the gulf was partly cut off, and there remained SALT MARSHES such as are seen at present in several parts of the Delta, and which were called by Strabo and Pliny THE BITTER LAKES. — (The Store-City of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus, by Edouard Naville. Second edition. Messrs. Trubner and Co., London. 1885, p. 21.)
An interesting commentary on the legend has been furnished by a papyrus lately acquired by M. Golénischeff, and dating from the age of Thothmes iii. On the last page is a sort of Messianic prophecy, the hero of which has the name of Ameni, a shortened form of Amenôphis. “A king,” it says, “will come from the south, Ameni the truth-declaring by name. He will be the son of a woman of Nubia, and will be born in…. He will assume the crown of Upper Egypt, and will lift up the red crown of Lower Egypt. He will unite the double crown…. The people of the age of the son of man ( sic ) will rejoice and establish his name for all eternity. They will be far from evil, and the wicked will humble their mouths for fear of him. The Asiatics (Âmu) will fall before his blows, and the Libyans before his flame. The wicked will wait on his judgments, the rebels on his [pg 095] power. The royal serpent on his brow will pacify the revolted. A wall shall be built, even that of the prince, so that the Asiatics may no more enter into Egypt.” (Sayce, A. H. (Archibald Henry). The Egypt of the Hebrews and Herodotos (pp. 74-75). Kindle Edition.)
It can hardly be doubted that the epithet Erythraean (which means red,…) first designated the Arabian Gulf or Red Sea, and was afterwards extended to the seas beyond the Straits by those who first explored them. The Red Sea was so called because it washed the shores of Arabia, called the Red Land (Edom), in contradistinction to Egypt, called the Black Land (Kemi), from the darkness of the soil deposited by the Nile. (McCrindle, John. The commerce and navigation of the Erythraean sea (Kindle Locations 2873-2880). Calcutta, Thacker, Spink & co.; [etc., etc.]. Kindle Edition.)
Psammetichus left a son called Necos, who succeeded him upon the throne. This prince was the first to attempt the construction of the canal to the Red Sea—a work completed afterwards by Darius the Persian—the length of which is four days’ journey, and the width such as to admit of two triremes being rowed along it abreast. The water is derived from the Nile, which the canal leaves a little above the city of Bubastis, near Patumus, the Arabian town, being continued thence until it joins the Red Sea. At first it is carried along the Arabian side of the Egyptian plain, as far as the chain of hills opposite Memphis, whereby the plain is bounded, and in which lie the great stone quarries; here it skirts the base of the hills running in a direction from west to east, after which it turns and enters a narrow pass, trending southwards from this point until it enters the Arabian Gulf. From the northern sea to that which is called the southern or Erythraean, the shortest and quickest passage, which is from Mount Casius, the boundary between Egypt and Syria, to the Gulf of Arabia, is a distance of exactly one thousand furlongs. But the way by the canal is very much longer on account of the crookedness of its course. A hundred and twenty thousand of the Egyptians, employed upon the work in the reign of Necos, lost their lives in making the excavation. He at length desisted from his undertaking, in consequence of an oracle which warned him “that he was labouring for the barbarian.” The Egyptians call by the name of barbarians all such as speak a language different from their own. Herodotus.The Histories by Herodotus (Enhanced Kindle Edition) (Kindle Locations 2917-2928). Kindle Edition.
Thus I give credit to those from whom I received this account of Egypt, and am myself, moreover, strongly of the same opinion, since I remarked that the country projects into the sea further than the neighbouring shores, and I observed that there were shells upon the hills, and that salt exuded from the soil to such an extent as even to injure the pyramids; and I noticed also that there is but a single hill in all Egypt where sand is found, namely, the hill above Memphis; and further, I found the country to bear no resemblance either to its borderland Arabia, or to Libya—nay, nor even to Syria, which forms the seaboard of Arabia; but whereas the soil of Libya is, we know, sandy and of a reddish hue, and that of Arabia and Syria inclines to stone and clay, Egypt has a soil that is black and crumbly, as being alluvial and formed of the deposits brought down by the river from Ethiopia. (Herodotus. The Histories by Herodotus (Enhanced Kindle Edition) (Kindle Locations 1782-1788). Kindle Edition.)
Now the Nile, when it overflows, floods not only the Delta, but also the tracts of country on both sides the stream which are thought to belong to Libya and Arabia, in some places reaching to the extent of two days’ journey from its banks, in some even exceeding that distance, but in others falling short of it. (Herodotus. The Histories by Herodotus (Enhanced Kindle Edition) (Kindle Locations 1839-1842). Kindle Edition.)
The other starts from the country of the Persians, and stretches into the Erythraean sea, containing first Persia, then Assyria, and after Assyria, Arabia. It ends, that is to say, it is considered to end, though it does not really come to a termination, at the Arabian gulf—the gulf whereinto Darius conducted the canal which he made from the Nile. (Herodotus. The Histories by Herodotus (Enhanced Kindle Edition) (Kindle Locations 4555-4557). Kindle Edition)
From Heroopolis, situated in that recess of the Arabian Gulf which is on the side of the Nile, to Babylon, towards Petra of the Nabatæi, are 5600 stadia. The whole tract lies in the direction of the summer solstice (i. e. east and west), and passes through the adjacent Arabian tribes, namely Nabatæi, Chaulotæi, and Agræi. Above these people is Arabia Felix, stretching out 12,000 stadia towards the south to the Atlantic Sea. (Strabo. The Geography of Strabo (Volume I, II & III of 3): Literally Translated, with Notes (Kindle Locations 27667-27670). Transcript. Kindle Edition.)
On this quarter Egypt is difficult of access, i. e. from the eastern side towards Phœnicia and Judæa, and on the side of Arabia Nabatæa, which is contiguous; through which countries the road to Egypt lies. The country between the Nile and the Arabian Gulf is Arabia, and at its extremity is situated Pelusium. But the whole is desert, and not passable by an army. The isthmus between Pelusium and the recess of the Arabian Gulf near Heroopolis is 1000 stadia; but, according to Poseidonius, less than 1500 stadia in extent. Besides its being sandy and without water, it abounds with reptiles, which burrow in the sand. (Strabo. The Geography of Strabo (Volume I, II & III of 3): Literally Translated, with Notes (Kindle Locations 28496-28500). Transcript. Kindle Edition.)
On setting out from Pelusium, the first canal met with is that which fills the lakes, “near the marshes,” as they are called. There are two of these lakes, situated upon the left hand of the great stream above Pelusium in Arabia. He mentions other lakes also, and canals in the same parts beyond the Delta. The Sethroïte Nome extends along one of the two lakes. He reckons this as one of the ten nomes in the Delta. There are two other canals, which discharge themselves into the same lakes. 25. There is another canal also, which empties itself into the Red Sea, or Arabian Gulf, near the city Arsinoë, which some call Cleopatris. 843 It flows through the Bitter Lakes, as [Pg 244] [CAS. 804] they are called, which were bitter formerly, but when the above-mentioned canal was cut, the bitter quality was altered by their junction with the river, and at present they contain excellent fish, and abound with aquatic birds. (Strabo. The Geography of Strabo (Volume I, II & III of 3): Literally Translated, with Notes (Kindle Locations 28522-28531). Transcript. Kindle Edition.)
After Heliopolis is the “Nile above the Delta.” The country on the right hand, as you go up the Nile, is called Libya, as well as that near Alexandreia and the lake Mareotis; the country on the left hand is called Arabia. The territory belonging to Heliopolis is in Arabia, but the city Cercesura is in Libya, and situated opposite to the observatory of Eudoxus. For there is shown an observing station in front of Heliopolis, as there is in front of Cnidus, where Eudoxus marked certain motions of the heavenly bodies. This is the Letopolite Nome. (Strabo. The Geography of Strabo (Volume I, II & III of 3): Literally Translated, with Notes (Kindle Locations 28579-28583). Transcript. Kindle Edition.)
I have said elsewhere, 861 that in sight of the pyramids, on the other side in Arabia, and near the stone quarries from which they are built, is a very rocky mountain, called the Trojan mountain; beneath it there are caves, and near the caves and the river a village called Troy, an ancient settlement of the captive Trojans who had accompanied Menelaus and settled there. (Strabo. The Geography of Strabo (Volume I, II & III of 3): Literally Translated, with Notes (Kindle Locations 28632-28635). Transcript. Kindle Edition.)
Egypt was from the first disposed to peace, from having resources within itself, and because it was difficult of access to strangers. It was also protected on the north by a harbourless coast and the Egyptian Sea; on the east and west by the desert mountains of Libya and Arabia, as I have said before. 892 The remaining parts towards the south are occupied by Troglodytæ, Blemmyes, Nubæ, and Megabari, Ethiopians above Syene. These are nomades, and not numerous nor warlike, but accounted so by the ancients, because frequently, like robbers, they attacked defenceless persons. Neither are the Ethiopians, who extend towards the south and Meroë, numerous nor collected in a body; for they inhabit a long, narrow, and winding tract of land on the riverside, such as we have before described; nor are they well prepared either for war or the pursuit of any other mode of life. (Strabo. The Geography of Strabo (Volume I, II & III of 3): Literally Translated, with Notes (Kindle Locations 28853-28860). Transcript. Kindle Edition.)
Another place situated on the same territory of the Sethroite nome, bears on the monuments a purely Semitic name, Maktol, or Magdol; this is nothing else than the Hebrew Migdol, with the meaning of a ‘ town,’ or fortress, out of which the Greeks formed on their side the well-sounding name Magdolon. That the ancient Egyptians were well acquainted with the meaning of this word, which was foreign to their language, is conclu- sively proved by the masculine article being placed before it, and the sign of a wall which was added to the foreign word when written in Egyptian.
The site of this Migdol, of which mention is made in the Bible, not only in the description of the exodus of the Jews out of Egypt, but also in occasional passages, was distinctly stated to be at one of the most northern points of the inhabited country of the Egyptians ; and as it also bore on the monuments the native name of Samut, must be sought in the heaps of rubbish at Tell-es-Samut on the eastern side of Lake Menzaleh. With this fortress Migdol, between which and the sea King Ramses III. once tarried with a portion of his infantry, as a not inactive witness of the victory of his Egyptian fleet over the confederated sea faring people of the islands and coasts of the Medi terranean, the list of defences, which were intended to protect the country on the east, is not yet closed. There lay in the direction of the north-east, on the western border of the so-called Lake Sirbonis, an important place for the defence of the frontier, called Anbu, that is ‘ the wall,’ ‘ the circumvalla-tion.’ It is frequently mentioned by the ancients, not under its Egyptian appellation, but in the form of a translation. The Hebrews call it Shur, that is ‘ the wall,’ and the Greeks ‘ to Gerrhon,’ or ‘ ta Gerrha,’ which means c the fences,’ or ‘ enclosures.’ This remark will at a stroke remove all difficulties which have hitherto existed with reference to the origin of this word, which in spite of difference in sound nevertheless refers to one and the same place.
Whoever travelled eastwards from Egypt to leave the country, was obliged to pass the place called ‘ the walls,’ before he was allowed to enter the road of the Philistines, as it is called in Holy Writ, on his further journey. An Egyptian garrison, under the command of a captain, guarded the pas sage through the fortress, which only opened and closed on the suspicious wanderer if he was fur nished with a permission from the royal authorities. Anbu-Shur-Gerrhon was also the first stopping-place on the great military road, which led from the Delta by Chetam-Etham and Migdol to the desert of Shur. From Anbu, passing by the fortress of Uit, in the land of Hazi, or Hazion (Kassiotis of the ancients), the traveller reached the tower, or Bechen, of Aanecht (Ostrakene), where occurred the boundary of the countries of Kemi and Zaha. (Brugsch, Heinrich. The true story of the Exodus of Israel : together with a brief view of the history of monumental Egypt (pp. 72-75). Boston : Lee and Shepard ; New York : Charles T. Dillingham. Kindle Edition.)
Herodotus on Arabia and Egypt
Psammetichus left a son called Necos, who succeeded him upon the throne. This prince was the first to attempt the construction of the canal to the Red Sea—a work completed afterwards by Darius the Persian—the length of which is four days’ journey, and the width such as to admit of two triremes being rowed along it abreast. The water is derived from the Nile, which the canal leaves a little above the city of Bubastis, near Patumus, the Arabian town, being continued thence until it joins the Red Sea. At first it is carried along the Arabian side of the Egyptian plain, as far as the chain of hills opposite Memphis, whereby the plain is bounded, and in which lie the great stone quarries; here it skirts the base of the hills running in a direction from west to east, after which it turns and enters a narrow pass, trending southwards from this point until it enters the Arabian Gulf. From the northern sea to that which is called the southern or Erythraean, the shortest and quickest passage, which is from Mount Casius, the boundary between Egypt and Syria, to the Gulf of Arabia, is a distance of exactly one thousand furlongs. (Herodotus. The Histories by Herodotus (Enhanced Kindle Edition) (Kindle Locations 2917-2924). Kindle Edition.)
The city is divided into two portions by the river which runs through the midst of it. This river is the Euphrates, a broad, deep, swift stream, which rises in Armenia, and empties itself into the Erythraean sea. (Herodotus. The Histories by Herodotus (Enhanced Kindle Edition) (Kindle Locations 1427-1428). Kindle Edition.)
Further, it is a distance of eighteen hundred furlongs from Thebes to the place called Elephantine. The greater portion of the country above described seemed to me to be, as the priests declared, a tract gained by the inhabitants. For the whole region above Memphis, lying between the two ranges of hills that have been spoken of, appeared evidently to have formed at one time a gulf of the sea. It resembles (to compare small things with great) the parts about Ilium and Teuthrania, Ephesus, and the plain of the Maeander. In all these regions the land has been formed by rivers, whereof the greatest is not to compare for size with any one of the five mouths of the Nile. I could mention other rivers also, far inferior to the Nile in magnitude, that have effected very great changes. Among these not the least is the Achelous, which, after passing through Acarnania, empties itself into the sea opposite the islands called Echinades, and has already joined one-half of them to the continent. In Arabia, not far from Egypt, there is a long and narrow gulf running inland from the sea called the Erythraean, of which I will here set down the dimensions. Starting from its innermost recess, and using a row-boat, you take forty days to reach the open main, while you may cross the gulf at its widest part in the space of half a day. In this sea there is an ebb and flow of the tide every day. My opinion is that Egypt was formerly very much such a gulf as this— one gulf penetrated from the sea that washes Egypt on the north, and extended itself towards Ethiopia; another entered from the southern ocean, and stretched towards Syria; the two gulfs ran into the land so as almost to meet each other, and left between them only a very narrow tract of country. Now if the Nile should choose to divert his waters from their present bed into this Arabian gulf, what is there to hinder it from being filled up by the stream within, at the utmost, twenty thousand years? For my part, I think it would be filled in half the time. How then should not a gulf, even of much greater size, have been filled up in the ages that passed before I was born, by a river that is at once so large and so given to working changes? Thus I give credit to those from whom I received this account of Egypt, and am myself, moreover, strongly of the same opinion, since I remarked that the country projects into the sea further than the neighbouring shores, and I observed that there were shells upon the hills, and that salt exuded from the soil to such an extent as even to injure the pyramids; and I noticed also that there is but a single hill in all Egypt where sand is found, namely, the hill above Memphis; and further, I found the country to bear no resemblance either to its borderland Arabia, or to Libya—nay, nor even to Syria, which forms the seaboard of Arabia; but whereas the soil of Libya is, we know, sandy and of a reddish hue, and that of Arabia and Syria inclines to stone and clay, Egypt has a soil that is black and crumbly, as being alluvial and formed of the deposits brought down by the river from Ethiopia. (Herodotus. The Histories by Herodotus (Enhanced Kindle Edition) (Kindle Locations 1764-1788). Kindle Edition.)
Passing over these monarchs, therefore, I shall speak of the king who reigned next, whose name was Sesostris. He, the priests said, first of all proceeded in a fleet of ships of war from the Arabian gulf along the shores of the Erythraean sea, subduing the nations as he went, until he finally reached a sea which could not be navigated by reason of the shoals. (Herodotus. The Histories by Herodotus (Enhanced Kindle Edition) (Kindle Locations 2417-2420). Kindle Edition.)
Red Sea—a work completed afterwards by Darius the Persian—the length of which is four days’ journey, and the width such as to admit of two triremes being rowed along it abreast. The water is derived from the Nile, which the canal leaves a little above the city of Bubastis, near Patumus, the Arabian town, being continued thence until it joins the Red Sea. At first it is carried along the Arabian side of the Egyptian plain, as far as the chain of hills opposite Memphis, whereby the plain is bounded, and in which lie the great stone quarries; here it skirts the base of the hills running in a direction from west to east, after which it turns and enters a narrow pass, trending southwards from this point until it enters the Arabian Gulf. From the northern sea to that which is called the southern or Erythraean, the shortest and quickest passage, which is from Mount Casius, the boundary between Egypt and Syria, to the Gulf of Arabia, is a distance of exactly one thousand furlongs. But the way by the canal is very much longer on account of the crookedness of its course. A hundred and twenty thousand of the Egyptians, employed upon the work in the reign of Necos, lost their lives in making the excavation. He at length desisted from his undertaking, in consequence of an oracle which warned him “that he was labouring for the barbarian.” The Egyptians call by the name of barbarians all such as speak a language different from their own. Necos, when he gave up the construction of the canal, turned all his thoughts to war, and set to work to build a fleet of triremes, some intended for service in the northern sea, and some for the navigation of the Erythraean. These last were built in the Arabian Gulf where the dry docks in which they lay are still visible. (Herodotus. The Histories by Herodotus (Enhanced Kindle Edition) (Kindle Locations 2918-2930). Kindle Edition.)
The Persians inhabit a country upon the southern or Erythraean sea; above them, to the north, are the Medes; beyond the Medes, the Saspirians; beyond them, the Colchians, reaching to the northern sea, into which the Phasis empties itself. These four nations fill the whole space from one sea to the other. West of these nations there project into the sea two tracts which I will now describe; one, beginning at the river Phasis on the north, stretches along the Euxine and the Hellespont to Sigeum in the Troas; while on the south it reaches from the Myriandrian gulf, which adjoins Phoenicia, to the Triopic promontory. This is one of the tracts, and is inhabited by thirty different nations. The other starts from the country of the Persians, and stretches into the Erythraean sea, containing first Persia, then Assyria, and after Assyria, Arabia. It ends, that is to say, it is considered to end, though it does not really come to a termination, at the Arabian gulf—the gulf whereinto Darius conducted the canal which he made from the Nile. Between Persia and Phoenicia lies a broad and ample tract of country, after which the region I am describing skirts our sea, stretching from Phoenicia along the coast of Palestine-Syria till it comes to Egypt, where it terminates. This entire tract contains but three nations. The whole of Asia west of the country of the Persians is comprised in these two regions. Beyond the tract occupied by the Persians, Medes, Saspirians, and Colchians, towards the east and the region of the sunrise, Asia is bounded on the south by the Erythraean sea, and on the north by the Caspian and the river Araxes, which flows towards the rising sun. Till you reach India the country is peopled; but further east it is void of inhabitants, and no one can say what sort of region it is. Such then is the shape, and such the size of Asia. Libya belongs to one of the above-mentioned tracts, for it adjoins on Egypt. In Egypt the tract is at first a narrow neck, the distance from our sea to the Erythraean not exceeding a hundred thousand fathoms, in other words, a thousand furlongs; but from the point where the neck ends, the tract which bears the name of Libya is of very great breadth. For my part I am astonished that men should ever have divided Libya, Asia, and Europe as they have, for they are exceedingly unequal. Europe extends the entire length of the other two, and for breadth will not even (as I think) bear to be compared to them. As for Libya, we know it to be washed on all sides by the sea, except where it is attached to Asia. This discovery was first made by Necos, the Egyptian king, who on desisting from the canal which he had begun between the Nile and the Arabian gulf, sent to sea a number of ships manned by Phoenicians, with orders to make for the Pillars of Hercules, and return to Egypt through them, and by the Mediterranean. The Phoenicians took their departure from Egypt by way of the Erythraean sea, and so sailed into the southern ocean. (Herodotus. The Histories by Herodotus (Enhanced Kindle Edition) (Kindle Locations 4556-4572). Kindle Edition.)
Those of the Milesians whose lives were spared, being carried prisoners to Susa, received no ill treatment at the hands of King Darius, but were established by him in Ampe, a city on the shores of the Erythraean sea, near the spot where the Tigris flows into it. Miletus itself, and the plain about the city, were kept by the Persians for themselves, while the hill-country was assigned to the Carians of Pedasus. (Herodotus. The Histories by Herodotus (Enhanced Kindle Edition) (Kindle Locations 6635-6638). Kindle Edition.)
(i.) The Phoenicians, with the Syrians of Palestine, furnished three hundred vessels, the crews of which were thus accoutred: upon their heads they wore helmets made nearly in the Grecian manner; about their bodies they had breastplates of linen; they carried shields without rims; and were armed with javelins. This nation, according to their own account, dwelt anciently upon the Erythraean Sea, but crossing thence, fixed themselves on the seacoast of Syria, where they still inhabit. This part of Syria, and all the region extending from hence to Egypt, is known by the name of Palestine. (Herodotus. The Histories by Herodotus (Enhanced Kindle Edition) (Kindle Locations 8096-8100). Kindle Edition.)
On the Libyan side, the other ridge whereon the pyramids stand is rocky and covered with sand; its direction is the same as that of the Arabian ridge in the first part of its course. Above Heliopolis, then, there is no great breadth of territory for such a country as Egypt, but during four days’ sail Egypt is narrow; the valley between the two ranges is a level plain, and seemed to me to be, at the narrowest point, not more than two hundred furlongs across from the Arabian to the Libyan hills. Above this point Egypt again widens. From Heliopolis to Thebes is nine days’ sail up the river; the distance is eighty-one schoenes, or 4860 furlongs. If we now put together the several measurements of the country we shall find that the distance along shore is, as I stated above, 3600 furlongs, and the distance from the sea inland to Thebes 6120 furlongs. Further, it is a distance of eighteen hundred furlongs from Thebes to the place called Elephantine. The greater portion of the country above described seemed to me to be, as the priests declared, a tract gained by the inhabitants. For the whole region above Memphis, lying between the two ranges of hills that have been spoken of, appeared evidently to have formed at one time a gulf of the sea. It resembles (to compare small things with great) the parts about Ilium and Teuthrania, Ephesus, and the plain of the Maeander. In all these regions the land has been formed by rivers, whereof the greatest is not to compare for size with any one of the five mouths of the Nile. I could mention other rivers also, far inferior to the Nile in magnitude, that have effected very great changes. Among these not the least is the Achelous, which, after passing through Acarnania, empties itself into the sea opposite the islands called Echinades, and has already joined one-half of them to the continent. In Arabia, not far from Egypt, there is a long and narrow gulf running inland from the sea called the Erythraean, of which I will here set down the dimensions. Starting from its innermost recess, and using a row-boat, you take forty days to reach the open main, while you may cross the gulf at its widest part in the space of half a day. In this sea there is an ebb and flow of the tide every day. My opinion is that Egypt was formerly very much such a gulf as this— one gulf penetrated from the sea that washes Egypt on the north, and extended itself towards Ethiopia; another entered from the southern ocean, and stretched towards Syria; the two gulfs ran into the land so as almost to meet each other, and left between them only a very narrow tract of country. Now if the Nile should choose to divert his waters from their present bed into this Arabian gulf, what is there to hinder it from being filled up by the stream within, at the utmost, twenty thousand years? For my part, I think it would be filled in half the time. How then should not a gulf, even of much greater size, have been filled up in the ages that passed before I was born, by a river that is at once so large and so given to working changes? (Herodotus. The Histories by Herodotus (Enhanced Kindle Edition) (Kindle Locations 1759-1782). Kindle Edition.)
Raising the Challenge
Wow, this year sure went by fast. I can hardly believe It’s been a year now but my original $500 challenge still has not be claimed. Although no one has been able to help me find evidence of how one of the listed authors (below) have addressed the Artaxerxes Assumption, I am still hopeful. To encourage you to keep looking I’ve upped the challenge to $1000. You can read about the terms and conditions below.
On an encouraging note, Nelson Walters of The Gospel in the End Times saw the need to address the Artaxerxes Assumption as it relates to his teachings on Daniel 9 and the Prophecy of 70 Sevens. He courageously stepped forward when many of his peers have continued to remained silent. Although I disagree with Nelson I have a great deal of respect for his efforts in trying to resolve the Artaxerxes Assumption. We had an edifying discussion about the subject which help raise awareness of this most important topic.
Hopefully, more of our peers who teach or write about Daniel 9 and the Seventy Weeks prophecy will follow Nelson Walters example. For those interested you’ll find Nelson Walters explanation of the Artaxerxes Assumption below. My rebuttal to Nelson’s explanation is also provided.
Terms and Conditions of My Artaxerxes Assumption Challenge
I need some help. For nearly two decades now I’ve been searching the works of some of the most respected Biblical scholars, looking for answers for what I’ve termed, the Artaxerxes Assumption. As I’ll explain in a moment, the Artaxerxes Assumption is a pivotal piece of Biblical history and to date I’ve only found a few scholars who have attempted to addressed the subject. I’ve come to realize, as much as I hate to admit it, that I can’t read every book or publication that might have been written on the subject so I’m asking for your help.
Here’s the offer. I’m offering $500 $1000 to the first person who can help me find one of today’s leading Biblical authors who has (at some point previous to 1/25/2018 and my original challenge) addressed several pertinent subjects which have direct bearing on the Artaxerxes Assumption. For right now I want to focus on the list of authors provided at the end of this article. If this challenge is successful I may expand the search at a later date.
Note: If you are one of these authors in the list below, and have not addressed the challenges related to the Artaxerxes Assumption, but would like to have the opportunity to address the subject I’d be happy to post your thoughts on the subject at this blog and at my site www.danielsseventyweeks.com. (Please note your explanations will not qualify for the $500 $1000.)
If you are an author not listed in this article and would also like to have an opportunity to share your thoughts on the Artaxerxes Assumption I’d like to hear from you as well. (Please note your explanations will not qualify for the $500 $1000.) There are some additional terms and conditions, but I’ll explain them below.
The Keystone of Bible Prophecy For a better understanding of the importance of the Artaxerxes Assumption, let me give you a brief overview of the subject. Most Christians have heard of the prophecy of 70 Weeks found in Daniel chapter 9. This prophecy is an amazingly specific prediction of when the Messiah will come. In fact, it is the only prophecy in the Bible which provides a specific chronologically verifiable starting point from which we can determine a date for the coming of the Messiah Yeshua (Jesus). No other prophecy in the Bible provides this information. To give you a sense of the importance of this prophecy, here are a couple of quotes from two highly knowledgeable and respected prophecy teachers:
“The interpretation of the revelation of Daniel concerning the seventy weeks (Daniel 9:24-27) constitutes one of the determining factors in the whole system of prophecy…. The interpretation of this passage inevitably colors all other prophetic views, and a proper understanding of it is the sine qua non of any student of prophecy.” – John F. Walvoord
“I am convinced that in the predictions of 70 weeks, we have the indispensable chronological key to all New Testament prophecy” – Alva J. McClain
Pretty powerful statements, don’t you think? Not only does this great prophecy tell us when the Messiah will come, but as these two scholars acknowledge, the 70 Weeks prophecy is in fact the basis upon which much of our eschatological (end times) understanding rests. In other words, our understanding of the 70 Weeks prophecy is largely responsible for how we see the 1st and 2nd coming of the Messiah. It influences how we see the end of this age, the great (7 year) tribulation, the rapture, the Anti-Christ, the Jewish people’s return to the Promise Land, and even the millennial reign of Christ.
So with this heavy theological weight resting on it, it is only reasonable to expect that the starting point of this prophecy would be established upon a rock solid incontrovertible foundation so that the eschatological interpretations we build upon that footing can be confidently shared as proof of the exceptional nature of the Bible’s prophetic record.
The Artaxerxes Assumption
This is where the Artaxerxes Assumption enters the picture. Today, the vast majority of interpretations of the 70 Weeks prophecy rests on a well-meaning assumption about the chronology of Ezra, Nehemiah, and a Persian king named Artaxerxes Longimanus.
Surprisingly, this assumption about Artaxerxes Longimanus didn’t originate in our generation. In fact, this intriguing chronological conundrum originated nearly 2000 years earlier with the Messianic expectations of the Jewish people in the 1st century BC & AD. 300 years ago one of the most renowned scientists of all time had this to say about the subject:
Those Jews who took Herod for the Messiah, and were thence called Herodians, seem to have grounded their opinion upon the seventy weeks of years, which they found between the Reign of Cyrus and that of Herod: but afterwards, in applying the Prophesy to Theudas, and Judas of Galilee, and at length to Barchochab, they seem to have shortened the Reign of the Kingdom of Persia.”
Anyone care to guess who made the quote above? It may come as a surprise to some, but it was Sir Isaac Newton who wrote those words in his book Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended. What’s fascinating about Newton’s discovery is that those early messianic expectations resulted in a series of assumptions which caused the Jewish people to eclipse over two centuries of Persian history. (For more on this subject see my recent article Sir Isaac Newton and Rabbinic Forgeries Hypothesis)
Now two millennia later those assumptions are still influencing how we view the Bible and the chronology of the 2nd temple era. As Mark Twain is purported to have said,
“History doesn’t repeat itself but it does rhyme”.
To get to the real root of the problem, it is imperative to understand the prophecy within the context of the 2nd temple era. The starting point for the prophecy of Daniel 9 (which was the basis for each of the failed messianic claims noted by Newton) began with a “commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem”.
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks,… (Daniel 9:25a)
As explained in my article A Divine “Command” to Return and Build Jerusalem and in my book Daniel’s 70 Weeks: The Keystone of Bible Prophecy there was only one “commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem” the Jewish people would have readily recognized. That command was the Divine command given by YHWH, proclaimed by Haggai and Zechariah and witnessed by Ezra 6:14.
Here is how the “Artaxerxes Assumption” enters the picture. The Divine command “to restore and to build Jerusalem” was given in the 2nd year of Darius who was also known historically as “Artaxerxes”. (Newton incorrectly attributed the commandment to Cyrus). When the Asmonaeans calculated the 70 weeks of Daniel from the 2nd year of Darius (Artaxerxes) it allowed them to claim that Judas Maccabaeus was the promised messiah. When Judas failed to usher in the Messianic kingdom, the prophecy was recycled for the next Jewish messianic figure.
Since the Divine command was given in the 2nd year of Darius also known as “Artaxerxes”, the next generation of Jewish messianic expectants just shifted the prophecy to the 2nd year of another Persian Artaxerxes so they could make their calculations work. With the end of the Bar Cochab rebellion in the first part of the 2nd century, the use of Daniel 9 to claim the start of the Messianic era had run its course, the Rabbinic calendar was reset, and 241 years of Persian history were erased from Jewish history. Along with that rewriting of 2nd temple history, the chronological context of the prophecy of Daniel 9 was left hopelessly muddled.
click on image to enlarge
To this day, the Rabbinic calendar still reflects the chronological mistakes originating in the expectations of those early messianic believers. Unfortunately, the “Artaxerxes Assumption” of the 1st centuries BC/AD set in motion the chronological confusion which our generation has inherited. It seems many Christian chronologists today have borrowed some of the historical errors of the early messianic expectants, most being unaware of the Biblical facts and chronology that gave rise to those errors.
This confusion was further compounded around the turn of the twentieth century, when a Scotland Yard investigator named Sir Robert Anderson wrote a wonderful book on the 70 Weeks prophecy of Daniel 9 entitled The Coming Prince.
In his explanation of this great prophecy, Anderson revitalized the “Artaxerxes Assumption.” This time instead of erasing the Persian chronology like his Jewish predecessors, Anderson stretched the Biblical chronology of Ezra and Nehemiah by inserting a 58 year gap between Ezra 6 & 7. Like his 1st century predecessors, Anderson borrowed the title of Artaxerxes from Darius ‘the Great’ and applied it to the Persian king Longimanus. Today, Anderson’s chronology is the basis for most scholars’ writings on the subject of Daniel 9. Regrettably, his good intentions were a little short on reasonable chronological evidence from the Bible.
First, Anderson ignored the contextual relevance of YHWH’s command “to restore and to build Jerusalem.” Unlike his 1st century Jewish messianic predecessors, Anderson saw no reason to begin the prophecy with the words of YHWH the living God of the Bible. Next, Anderson assumed the “Artaxerxes” of Nehemiah and Ezra was Artaxerxes Longimanus because that was the only way he could show that the prophecy of 70 Weeks was fulfilled in Yeshua (Jesus). Unfortunately, Anderson did not base this assumption upon any real solid Biblical evidence , but instead provided this well-meaning but unsubstantiated statement of the Christian historian Rawlinson, found in Rawlinson’s translation of Herodotus, vol. 4, p.217 . This quote as taken from Anderson’s The Coming Prince is as follows:
Artaxerxes I. reigned forty years, from 465 to 425. He is mentioned by Herodotus once (6. 98), by Thucydides frequently. Both writers were his contemporaries. There is every reason to believe that he was the king who sent Ezra and Nehemiah to Jerusalem, and sanctioned the restoration of the fortifications.” – RAWLINSON, Herodotus, vol. 4., p. 217.
“Every reason to believe” even coming from a Biblical historian of Rawlinson’s stature does not exactly constitute proof that Artaxerxes “was the king who sent Ezra and Nehemiah to Jerusalem.” But that statement is the main thrust of Anderson’s arguments for his Artaxerxes Assumption. (Since I first wrote this article I’ve learned that Anderson did try to address some of the challenging aspects of the Artaxerxes Assumption in the appendices of his book The Coming Prince. You can read about that here: Eliashib, Artaxerxes, and Sir Robert Anderson)
Anderson, by all accounts, was an exceptional Biblical scholar. To be fair to Anderson, his assumption was understandable, considering Ussher, Newton, Rawlinson, and Josephus were of the same general opinion concerning “Artaxerxes” and his contemporaneous relationship to Ezra and Nehemiah.
I mean, what kind of person argues with the opinion of some of the greatest Biblical chronologists of all time? Okay, I must admit this homeschooled high school educated plumber is raising his hand timidly from the back of the room. But with all due respect to these great men, it seemed to have been a case of each thinking the other had done his homework.
In the case of Daniel 9 and the Artaxerxes Assumption, it seems their messianic zeal, like their 1st century Jewish counterparts, have caused them to make an assumption which so far seems to be unsupported by a reasonable rendering of the Bible’s chronology. I appreciate the fact that so many well respected and incredibly intelligent scholars believed Ezra and Nehemiah were contemporaries of Artaxerxes Longimanus and I understand the convenience of this assumption, but is that sufficient proof upon which to establish the most important prophecy in the Scripture? Where is the reasonable Biblical evidence for such a pivotal determination? Where is the application of the Golden Rule of Biblical Interpretation most of my peers hold so dear?
Since I learned of Newton’s discovery and its associated Artaxerxes Assumption, I’ve been trying to understand how other authors and scholars who have studied the subject of Daniel 9 have reconciled the Bibles 2nd temple era chronology with an interpretation of Daniel 9 which sees Ezra and Nehemiah as contemporaries of the Persian king Artaxerxes Longimanus. What Biblical evidence is there for this association? How did they reconcile the chronological statement of the Bible and secular history which seem to refute this assumption?
Your Help is Needed
So this is why I need your help. As I said before I can’t read every article or book ever written on the prophecy of Daniel 9, nor can I email, tweet, or facebook every author who has written on the subject asking if they would be willing to share with me the Biblical evidence they used to solve their Artaxerxes Assumption.
So I’m hoping with your help we might be able find out how these authors solved the Artaxerxes Assumption in their own explorations of the subject.
Here is what I’m looking for in order for you to win this challenge. In any of the currently existing written works of the authors listed in the table below I am looking for examples where they have explained (Scripturally) the chronological challenges posed by the following six Biblical subjects related to the Artaxerxes Assumption:
Biblical Challenges to the Artaxerxes Assumption
The statement of Ezra 6:13-15 and the identity of “Artaxerxes”
The identities of the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 4:7, 8:1; Nehemiah 2:1
The age of Ezra whose father died in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar
The age of the priests and Levites of Nehemiah 10 & 12
Nehemiah 12:26 & the age of the 2nd temple porters of Neh. 11:19 & 12:25-27
The chronological flow of Ezra 6 & 7
In order to collect the $500 $1000 you must be the 1st person to post in the comments section of this blog post, excerpts from the currently existing works (as of 1/25/2018) of any one of the authors listed in the table below which clearly explain how they reconciled the above six Biblical challenges to the Artaxerxes Assumption. In order for your entry to be considered valid the excerpted explanations you present from one of these authors must adhere to the following guidelines:
The quotes provided must adhere to fair use guidelines and must be referenced.
The author’s interpretation quoted must adhere to the Golden Rule of Bible interpretation as described by Dr. David L. Cooper:
“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.” – Dr. David L. Cooper
The author’s answers cannot contradict another passage of Scripture.
The author’s explanation must adhere to the Exponential Decay Curve as explained by Ed Hindson and Thomas Ice in their book, Charting the Bible Chronologically – unless a reasonable argument, with supporting Biblical evidence and examples, can be made as to why an exception to this rule is justified in the case of any 2nd temple era individuals or groups.
Any quoted explanation which uses as its basis an explanation which questions the integrity of the original Biblical texts will also be disqualified. (This does not include reasonable questions regarding differing interpretations of the text.)
Additional Prizes:
In addition to the $500 $1000 reward I’m also offering a free printed copy of one of my Prophecies & Patterns series books (your choice) to the first 25 readers of this blog who can find an author listed in the table below who has addressed (prior to my original challenge) in any manner two of the six Biblical challenges (listed above) related to the Artaxerxes Assumption. (You must post their explanations in the comment section of this blog post.) I’ll send the printed book anywhere in the world the US postal service delivers.
Stewardship as the Time Draws Near
In closing, I wish to stress that for those of us who are earnestly looking for the return of Yeshua, an accurate understanding of the prophecy of 70 Weeks is of paramount importance. As faithful stewards of Yahweh’s prophetic words, it is imperative that as this age draws to a close our prophetic worldview be based upon real Biblical evidence that does not call into question the credibility of the Biblical record.
My hope is that this challenge, will ultimately result in all of us holding each other to a higher standard of prophetic interpretation. No prophecy in the Bible is of any private interpretation and must find its foundation in the inspired words of the sixty six books we call the Bible. I’m asking for your help to ensure that the 70 Weeks, the Bible premier prophecy, is established upon such a secure foundation.
I hope you’ll join me in this worthy endeavor.
Maranatha!
Further Terms and Conditions:
This challenge is void where prohibited. You must be 18 years or older to participate. The $500 $1000 dollars reward will be sent as a check anywhere in the 50 US states or its territories. If you live outside the United States and would like to participate I will award the money in your name to a Biblically based charity of your choice (I reserve the right to exclude any charity that I do not approve of).
Authors Who Wish to Respond
If you are an author who has written about the prophecy of 70 Weeks (listed in this article or not) and would like the opportunity to share your perspective on the six points related to the Artaxerxes Assumption, I’d love to hear from you. All I ask is you abide by the five guidelines above, you answer the six points, and you keep your explanations on topic, respectful, and as brief as possible. I also ask that you use your real name. If your explanation abides by all the terms outlined in this article I will provide you a dedicated blog page in your name where you can share your perspective.
Any explanations or comments that do not adhere to the above guidelines or that are in any way derogatory towards an individual or group will be rejected without explanation. Authors can email their explanation of the following six point of the Artaxerxes Assumption to me at williamstruse@danielsseventyweeks.com
I look forward to hearing from you and seeing the subject through your eyes.
Reminder:
To have your explanation published on this site please explain the following six points as they relate to the Artaxerxes Assumption, using the guidelines outlined above:
Biblical Challenges to the Artaxerxes Assumption
The statement of Ezra 6:13-15 and the identity of “Artaxerxes”
The identities of the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 4:7, 8:1; Nehemiah 2:1
The age of Ezra whose father died in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar
The age of the priests and Levites of Nehemiah 10 & 12
Nehemiah 12:26 & the age of the 2nd temple porters of Neh. 11:19 & 12:25-27
The chronological flow of Ezra 6 & 7
Further Research on the Artaxerxes Assumption: For those looking for more information on the Artaxerxes Assumption you can download my book Daniel’s 70 Weeks: The Keystone of Bible prophecy for free by clicking on the following link: Book Download. You’ll also find several articles I’ve written about the subject in menu listed on the right side of this page.
For a different point of view on the subject I would also recommend Dr. Floyd Nolan Jones’s book The Chronology of the Old Testament. Dr. Jones is one of the few Biblical scholars I’ve had the privilege of corresponding with who has tried to solve the Artaxerxes Assumption. Though I do not agree with his ultimate conclusions, he at least acknowledges the importance of the subject to Biblical history and Bible prophecy.
For another perspective, David Austin at Creation.com has written an excellent article on the subject. Although I do not agree with his conclusions regarding Daniel 9 and a shorten Persian chronology, his article Darius is Artaxerxes provides a lot of good information on the subject.
Book 1
Book I - Description
The 13th Enumeration
"A book that will change how you look at the Bible's Messianic Symbolism."
The Jubilee Code -
"A book that will show you real Biblical evidence for Yahweh's guiding in hand history bringing about His redemptive plan for mankind."
List of authors who may have written about the Artaxerxes Assumption:
· Alan Kurschner
· Joel Rosenberg
· Andrew B. Ray
· John Hagee
· Andy Woods
· John MacArthur
· Arnold Fruchtenbaum
· John Walvoord
· Barry Horner
· Jonathan Bernis
· Bill Cloud
· Jonathan Cahn
· Bill Koenig
· Joseph Farah
· Bill Salus
· Josh McDowell
· Billy Crone
· Ken Johnson
· Billy Hallowell
· Larry Spargimino
· Bob Theil
· Mark Biltz
· Brian Godawa
· Mark Hitchcock
· Britt Gillette
· Mark Toben
· Bryant Wright
· Matthew Hagee
· Carl Gallups
· Michael Heiser
· Charles Dyer
· Michael Brown
· Chuck Missler
· Michael Rydelnik
· Dave Williams
· Michael Vlach
· David James
· Michael Youssef
· David Jeremiah
· Mitch Glaser
· David Limbaugh
· Nathan Jones
· David Reagan
· Paul McGuire
· Derrick Gilbert
· Perry Stone
· Don Perkins
· Rabbi K.A. Schneider
· Douglas Hamp
· Randall Price
· Douglas Stauffer
· Ray Bentley
· Douglas Woodward
· Robert Jeffress
· Ed Hindson
· Rodrigo Silva
· Frank Turek
· Ron Cantor
· Gary Stearman
· Ron Rhodes
· Greg Laurie
· Russell Stendal
· Hank Hanegraaff
· Ryan Speakman
· Jack Kelley
· Samuel Whitefield
· Jake McCandless
· Sid Roth
· James Prasch
· Stan Guthrie
· James White
· Terry James
· Jan Markell
· Thomas Horn
· JD Hall
· Thomas Ice
· Jeff Kinley
· Tim LaHaye
· Jim Fletcher
· Troy Anderson
· Joel Richardson
· Walid Shoebat
A Favor to Ask I have a favor to ask. If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know that you can download all of my books and articles free of charge. I don’t ask for donations or allow advertisements on this blog. This effort is a labor of love for me as a testimony to Yahweh’s wonderful redemptive plan for mankind through Yeshua. I don’t want your money but if you would take a moment to share the articles you read on this blog with your friends and family on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media I would greatly appreciate your help. Together we can share the Biblical evidence for Yahweh’s wonderful redemptive plan for mankind. Thank you for your help in this effort! [DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_PLUS]
* * *
FREE Book Download:
If you would like to learn more about Biblical history and Bible prophecy, you might also appreciate my books in the Prophecies and Patterns series.
At the following link you may download one of the three books shown below. If you like the book and would like to download the other two, all I ask is that you subscribe to my blog. I won’t share your email or spam you with advertisements or other requests. Just every couple of weeks I’ll share with you my love of Biblical history and Bible Prophecy. Should you decide you no longer wish to be a subscriber you can unsubscribe at any time.
Click the following link to download your Free book: Book Download
Last year I digressed from my normal blog posts about Biblical history and Bible prophecy to tell you all about my daughter Hope and Miller Welding’s – Building the Future Contest. Linked (here) 
Part I – Exploring the Claim that Mount Sinai is in Saudi Arabia
