Tommy Brisco
[Tommy Brisco is a teaching fellow in biblical backgrounds at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.]
Few areas on earth match the splendor and mystery of the Sinai. Incredible beauty awaits the visitor in this land of sparse population and climatic extremes. The Sinai Peninsula is basically a desert, but the varying geological formations make it curiously diverse. Even so, the area is relatively unknown in terms of exploration, Men like E. H. Palmer, Edward Robinson, and Sir Flinders Petrie penetrated the land in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and gave a remarkable amount of information upon which more recent archaeologists and explorers are building.
The Sinai Peninsula is a triangle of land approximately one hundred and fifty miles in length across the top and two hundred and sixty miles in length along the sides. Two arms of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqabah, flank it on the west and east respectively. Travel in the interior of the peninsula is largely restricted to the wadis. It is not unreasonable to assume that the roadways and major tracks of today follow in good measure the ancient tracks. The area is sparsely inhabited primarily by Bedouins who congregate around the major water supplies. The Bedouins (“desert dwellers”) are becoming increasingly sedentary as old life styles give way to more modern habits. However, it is not unusual to come upon a Bedouin woman tending to herds in a wadi as her ancestors have for centuries past.
BSP 7:4 (Autumn 1978) p. 98
The Sinai Peninsula has been inhabited as far back as the Middle Paleolithic period. Flints from the southern Negev and Sinai proper attest to this fact.1 During the Chalcolithic period (ca. fourth millennium B.C.) numerous sites in south Sinai, the southernmost Negev, and the southern Arabah testify to the existence of a civilization with copper metallurgy.2 During
BSP 7:4 (Autumn 1978) p. 99
Early Bronze Age II (ca. 2850-2650 B.C.) Amiran has noted cultural relationships between southern Sinai and Arad, leading her to postulate that miners, smiths, or traders sought out the area, motivated by a search for copper ore.3 This early connection with mining operations in south Sinai and the peoples of the northeast may be significant in light of Moses’ possible associations with Kenites (Jud. 1:16; 4:11) who are generally regarded as smiths.4 Though Rothenberg found no traces from the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1550-1200 B.C.) or Iron Ages (ca. 1200-586 B.C.), an interesting exception is “some apparently Iron Age sherds, discovered in the Wadi Feiran at several copper smelting sites.”5 Could it be that the Semites had long economic relationships with south Sinai, and, if so, would this information bear upon the problem of the location of Mt. Sinai?
Importance of the Sinai Peninsula
The Sinai serves as a land bridge linking Egypt with the great civilizations of Asia. This was the primary value of Sinai historically. The coastal road (a portion of the later Via Maris) was the most important route militarily. It is interesting to note that the most intensive occupations along this route from Egypt to Canaan were Early Bronze Ages I-II (ca. 3150–2650), Late Bronze Age (ca. 1550-1200 B.C.), Hellenistic – Roman Periods (332 B.C.-A.D. 324), and Early Arab Period.6 The end of the Late Bronze Age is the period generally conceded to be the age of the Exodus. The fact of extensive occupation along the route from Egypt to Canaan during this time is striking. One is reminded of God’s warning concerning the “way of the land of the Philistines” (Ex. 13:17).
Egypt was interested in the Sinai for mining purposes also. Although some copper apparently was mined, it was turquoise in southwest Sinai which lured the Egyptians. Two main areas of mining are now known: 1) Wadi Maghareh and 2) Serabit el Khadem. The latter is the site of an Egyptian temple dedicated to Hathor. Alphabetic inscriptions have been found in
BSP 7:4 (Autumn 1978) p. 100
the area which have affinities with the Semitic family of languages of which Hebrew is one.7 The Egyptians apparently employed Semitic laborers to work the site, Attempts have been made to identify Serabit el Khadem with biblical Dophkah (Num. 33:12) on the basis of the similarity of the Egyptian word for turquoise.8
For the biblical student the Sinai finds its greatest significance as the setting for the Exodus. This event is fundamental to the basic core of Israelite faith. Yet a multitude of critical problems surround the Exodus. Especially is this true when one attempts to determine the route taken by the fleeing Israelites. It would seem to be a relatively simple task to take the place names mentioned in Exodus and Numbers and trace the route. But aside from the complex critical problems involved, the isolation and desolation of Sinai throughout the centuries have destroyed the continuity of place names in the Sinai. When it is remembered that most of the sites in Palestine have been identified on the basis of identical, similar, or corrupted forms of the ancient name being retained in the immediate area, the seriousness of such discontinuity becomes apparent.9 Various theories have been proposed, and the problem is far from resolved. To facilitate an understanding of the Sinai and possible routes, a look at the geography of Sinai with attention to ancient tracks will provide a basis for evaluating the three most important theories concerning the Exodus.
The Geography of Sinai
The Sinai Peninsula is composed of three clearly defined geological regions. Each region is therefore geographically different. Although the Sinai is termed a desert, common misconceptions of what a desert is are quickly diminished in light of the varied landscape.
The northern sector of the peninsula, bordering the Mediterranean, consists of a sandy coastal plateau. This area averages twenty miles in extent and is more narrow in the eastern extremity. Near the coast it is often characterized by
BSP 7:4 (Autumn 1978) p. 101
great sand dunes reaching from sixty to ninety feet in height. To the west the sandy area opens out into the desert of Al-Jifar which may be the ancient “wilderness of Shur” (Ex. 15:22). The term “Shur” seems to be connected with a line of Egyptian fortresses built by Amenemhet I (1991-1962 B.C.) of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom.10
The narrow spit of land jutting out from the coast and encompassing Lake Sirbonis (Sabkhat el Bardawil) is of interest. The lake is actually a lagoon about forty-five miles long and thirteen miles wide. The strip of land varies from one hundred to three hundred yards wide. Major C.S. Jarvis characterized the lake as a vast clay-pan which floods with sea water when the Mediterranean waves are large enough.11 This area increasingly is suggested as the scene of the Reed Sea miracle.
The major thoroughfare connecting Canaan and Egypt ran through this coastal area, as suggested above. The southern portion of the Via Maris (biblical “way of the land of the Philistines”) started at Sile (Tell Abu Seifeh, located two miles east of Qantarah) and continued up the coast to the Plain of Sharon from whence it branched out to several important centers.12 To the Egyptians the route was known as the “way of Horus” since many Egyptian pharaohs began their frequent campaigns into Canaan and beyond along this route. An Egyptian pharaoh was considered to be the god Horus incarnate and thus the name. A line of fortresses was established by the Egyptians for military purposes and to protect caravans. Along this route wells were dug. In the early twentieth century Gardiner records that wells had been dug every five to six miles and good but brackish water obtained.13 The second station on this line has been tentatively identified as Migdol (Tell el Her), one of the stations mentioned in the Exodus (Ex. 14:2).14 Again, God’s command to the Israelites not to go by the coastal route “lest the people repent when they see war” (Ex. 13:17) is all the more understandable.
BSP 7:4 (Autumn 1978) p. 102
Tell Kadesh-barnea in the Ain el Qudeirat oasis.
South of the coastal plateau a limestone plateau occupying almost two-thirds of the peninsula rises slowly from north to south. The northern limit is formed by a series of mountains which jut upward from the plain. From west to east these mountains are Gebel Giddi, Gebel Ya’allaq, Gebel Maghara, and Gebel Halal. Ranging from 2,058 feet to 3,200 feet in height, they are rather unimpressive to the eye. Still, Gebel Halal is identified as Mt. Sinai by many of those holding a northern route theory. Lying about twenty-two miles west of Kadesh-barnea (‘Ain el-Qudeirat), the proximity to a well-established locale on the Exodus route makes the claim appealing to many. The southern limit of the plateau is much higher, culminating in the heights of Gebel el-Egma and Gebel et-Tih, which reach about 5,000 feet in height.
Between these two limits of the plateau lies a barren and almost waterless area known to the Bedouins as Badiyat et-Tih, “the Desert of the Wanderings.” The name derives from the biblical accounts of the Israelite wanderings, but it is difficult to associate this particular area with those events. The
BSP 7:4 (Autumn 1978) p. 103
characteristic bare, unending, gravel plain of Et Tih has virtually no vegetation and little water.15 Even in a land noted for its harshness, the Et Tih stands out as most inhospitable. More than likely the Israelites skirted the area either to the north or south.
Two biblical roads cross the plateau. The “way of Shur” (Gen. 16:7) skirts the northern Tih desert going from modern Ismalia by way of Bir Gifgafa and Bir al-Hana to Abu Aweigil and Nitssana. It is probable that the term “Shur,” perhaps meaning “wall,” referred to the previously mentioned line of fortresses which stretched from near modern Suez to near Qantarah.16 The traveler coming from Canaan to Egypt would naturally call this route the “way to Shur” since this line of forts would mark the Egyptian border. The other road is the “way to Mt. Seir” (Deut. 1:2), which may have corresponded to the present Darb el-Haj (Pilgrims Way) used by the Moslem pilgrims on their way from Africa to Mecca. If so, the road ran from near Suez to Elat via Qalat en-Nakhal and Et Themed.17 However, Benno Rothenberg has recently stated that the Darb el-Haj is a purely Moslem highway and coincides with the ancient route only at the eastern beginnings. The Darb el-Shawi is actually the ancient route and runs to the south of the Darb el-Haj until it reaches the Wadi Sudr at which point it branched to the southwest to the Gulf of Suez.18 Rothenberg’s survey of south Sinai found no evidence connecting either of these two roads with the biblical period, however. It is interesting to note that the Darb el-Shawi passes just north of Gebel Sinn Bishr, an impressive mountain often proposed as a candidate for Mt. Sinai by proponents of the Central Route theory.
The southern region of Sinai is by far the most magnificent. Here the sedimentary material of the central plateau yields to a large igneous mass which forms great mountain peaks reaching in some cases to over 8,000 feet in height. Almost in the middle of the region is Gebel Musa, the traditional Mt. Sinai since early in the Christian period. Here rugged peaks are divided by deep wadis, all sprinkled with
BSP 7:4 (Autumn 1978) p. 104
dazzling colors, giving the area elements of strength and beauty one is not likely to forget.
Entrance to the region from the west is obtained by Wadi Sidri or Wadi Feiran. The former joins Wadi Feiran just northwest of the Feiran Oasis. In the area (especially in Wadi Mukkateb) are numerous inscriptions. Many are Nabatean, but a significant number of Christian pilgrims left their marks here on their way to Gebel Musa.
The Feiran Oasis is the largest in the southern peninsula. One of the few true tells in the Sinai (Tell Mekharet) is located here. Pottery from the site may date from as far back as the late Iron Age, but most remains are from the Roman, Byzantine, and Arabic periods. To the southwest, Gebel Serbal (6,825 feet) dominates the area. Some have proposed that this great mass is Mt. Sinai. Others identify Feiran with Rephidim (Ex. 17:1; Num. 33:14), where the Israelites fought the Amalekites. Whether the Amalekites, a nomadic group, ranged this far south is uncertain. Aharoni, noting the similarity of Feiran and Paran (Num 10:12), postulates that the entire southern peninsula originally was called Paran.19 If so, this argument would strengthen the argument that Mt. Sinai was located in the southern portion of the peninsula.
One enters the Gebel Musa region from the north via Wadi esh-Sheikh, Presently the small plain of er Raha (two miles long and two-thirds of a mile wide) appears. Most proponents of the Southern Route prefer this site as the place of the encampment “before the mount” (Ex. 19:2). The plain faces Ras Safsafeh, the northern ridge of the massif of which Gebel Musa is a part. Palmer believed Ras Safsafeh to be Mt. Sinai. Gebel Musa itself is not visible from the plain. The peak of Gebel Musa (7,467 feet) affords a magnificent view of the surrounding area. The highest peak in the area, Gebel Katherina (8,455 feet), has no serious claim to being Mt. Sinai.
Nestled below Gebel Musa is the famous St. Catherine’s Monastery built by the Emperor Justinian in the sixth century A.D. on the supposed site of the burning bush experience (Ex. 3). For centuries pilgrims have come to this monastery to begin the climb to the peak of Gebel Musa.
The southern peninsula is classic in terms of a setting for God’s revelation to Moses. Great granite sentinels, easily seen from some distance, reveal a sense of power, majesty, and mystery. Ancient minds must have regarded the area with awe.
BSP 7:4 (Autumn 1978) p. 105
The Three Main Route Theories in Summary
With this background to the peninsula established, one is now in position to better understand the various proposed theories concerning the route taken by the Israelites. A brief summary is all that is possible with certain indications of general strengths and weaknesses. In broad terms the debate still centers on three main theories. Though each theory has certain variations among its proponents, these differences cannot detain us. All theories are agreed that the originating point was in the northeastern Delta near Wadi Tumilat. Here the Hebrews labored to build Pithom (Tell el-Ertabeh) and Raamses (either San el Hagar or Qantir).
The Northern Theory proposes a route from the northern Delta across the arm of land which separates the Mediterranean from Lake Sirbonis to Kadesh-barnea. This theory is quite popular among scholars today. The Sea of Reeds is usually sought in Lake Menzaleh or Lake Sirbonis. Suggestions for Mt. Sinai along this route include Gebel Halal, Gebel Ya’allaq, and Gebel Maghara. The basic strengths of this route include the suggestion that the immediate objective of the Israelites was the large oasis at Kadesh-barnea. This route would be advantageous for such an objective. The identification of Migdol, Succoth, and Baal Zaphon in the northeastern sector of the Delta strengthens this proposal, especially if one accepts the identification of biblical Baal Zaphon with the temple of later times dedicated to Zeus Casius and located on the arm of land reaching around Lake Sirbonis.20
Objections to this theory include the fact that God warned the Israelites not to travel the northern route. Further, by traveling the narrow strip of land around Lake Sirbonis, the Israelites still would encounter the Egyptians as they returned to the mainland on their way to Kadesh-barnea.21 The suggested identifications of Baal Zaphon (see footnote 20) and Migdol are by no means certain, either. Migdol was a name applied to many fortified sites and could easily have applied to one of the sites further south on the “Wall of Shur.” Finally,
BSP 7:4 (Autumn 1978) p. 106
the explicit statement that Sinai was located eleven days journey from Kadesh-barnea (Deut. 1:2) is difficult to harmonize with any suggested Mt. Sinai in the north.
There are two distinct versions of the Central Theory which must be considered separately. Some have sought Mt. Sinai in northwestern Arabia and have proposed a route from the area of modern Suez via the Darb el Haj to the top of the Gulf of Aqabah. Then it is proposed that the Israelites turned south into modern Arabia. An Arabian site is proposed on the strength of two propositions. First, it is assumed that the theophany on Sinai requires an active volcano on the basis of the description given in Exodus 19:16. Since Sinai has had no active volcanoes in historical memory, northwestern Arabia would be the nearest area displaying the phenomenon. Second, since the father-in-law of Moses, Jethro, is termed a Midianite (“priest of Midian,” Ex. 18:1), it is noted that the Midianites’ original home was in northwestern Arabia. A suggested Mt. Sinai in this area is El Khrob.
Recent comparisons of theophanic descriptions in the ancient Near East have demonstrated that the appearance of divinity on a mountain was often accompanied by thunder and fire. Sinai was not necessarily an active volcano. Further, the range of the Midianites cannot be ascertained precisely. And, as mentioned previously, it is unlikely that the Israelites would cross the harsh Et Tih.
The other version of the Central Route has the Israelites moving southeast out of Egypt near the Bitter Lakes to a point on the Gulf of Suez near Wadi Sudr. Then moving northeast, they passed near Gebel Sinn Bishr (Mt. Sinai?) and made their way to Kadesh-barnea. Another possible Sinai would be Gebel Ya’allaq.
This theory has fewer problems than the two mentioned previously. Yet this route would also move through a portion of Et Tih. Also, Gebel Sinn Bishr has no known associations as a holy mountain. Further, if there are indications that the Israelites went further south, this theory would not be acceptable.
Tradition asserts that the Israelites took a southern route to the majestic extremity of the peninsula. The Southern Theory suggests that after leaving Egypt the Israelites moved southward, hugging the coastline of the Gulf of Suez until they reached the area near modern Abu Zeneimeh. Then they headed southeast, passing near Serabit el Khadem down to the
BSP 7:4 (Autumn 1978) p. 107
Jebel Musa in southern Sinai, the traditional location of Mt. Sinai St. Catherine’s Monastery can be seen to the lower left.
Wadi Feiran. Following this wadi and its tributaries to the region of Gebel Musa, the Israelites met God and received the Law. After their stay at Sinai, they headed northeast to Kadesh-barnea. The Sea of Reeds would be either one of the Bitter Lakes, the north portion of the Gulf of Suez, or even a portion of Lake Menzaleh. The latter suggestion would assume that the Israelites initially headed northeast out of Egypt but were forced south into the Desert of Shur. Possible Sinais include Gebel Serbal, Ras Safsafeh, and Gebel Musa.
Objections to this theory include the assertion that the tradition is relatively late and likely manufactured by Christians. However, evidence exists which indicates that the tradition was established before Christians penetrated the southern area.22 It is also argued that this route would take the Israelites dangerously close to the Egyptian mining operations in the south. But Egyptian operations in this area were not continuous, and there is no evidence of extensive security precautions. This objection is not as crucial as often proposed.
BSP 7:4 (Autumn 1978) p. 108
Concluding Remarks
With the available evidence no definitive conclusions are possible with regard to the route taken by the Israelites through the Sinai. Yet, this writer feels that the present balance of evidence favors a route leading to a Mt. Sinai located in the southern extremity of the peninsula. Although space does not permit full development, a few remarks concerning further indications of a southern route seem pertinent.
Apparently the exact location of Mt. Sinai was lost early in Israel’s history. It is difficult to accept that this could happen if Mt. Sinai was located in the north. Judah’s borders included the area of Kadesh-barnea, thus giving close proximity to the mountains suggested as Mt. Sinai by proponents of a northern theory. Such proximity is difficult to harmonize with the loss of the position of such an important locale.
It is also curious that many of the stations mentioned in the Exodus, including many of those in Numbers 33, are not found again in the biblical material. Neither are they mentioned in extra-biblical documents which could be expected to include some of these sites if a more northern route had been taken. It would appear that these sites were no longer normally accessible, a situation which suits the southern portion of the peninsula much better than the north.
Finally, Aharoni has identified tentatively three sites south of modern Elat with stations on the Exodus. Particularly striking are the identifications of Dizahab (Deut. 1:1) with Dhabab and Jotbathah (Num. 33:33; Deut. 10:7) with Tabeh.23 If either of these identifications is correct, this would suggest strongly that the Israelites took a southern route.
However, no matter what route was taken by the Israelites through the Sinai and no matter where the sacred mountain was located, the Exodus and the giving of the Law remain the two fundamental pillars upon which Israelite faith rested. On the one, the Exodus, the fundamental concept of God’s election of Israel was based. On the other, the giving of the Law, Israel recognized her unique status as a people united in a covenant relationship with God. These two acts of God in history formed the core of her faith.
(Reprinted by permission from the Southwestern Journal of Theology, Vol. 20, No. 1, Fall 1977.)
BSP 7:4 (Autumn 1978) p. 109