Likewise, they point out that Mount Sinai is associated with the land of Midian (Exodus 2-3). Proponents for a Red Sea crossing in the Gulf of Aqaba point out the statement by the New Testament Apostle Paul, who mentions “mount Sinai in Arabia” (Galatians 4:25). But which is the right region-and thus which is the right gulf crossing corresponding to it? We know, based on classical historical accounts, that Mount Sinai was the tallest in the region (hence Jabal Mousa in the Sinai, Jabal al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia). (The Nabataeans likewise held Moses in esteem.) Evidence also shows that it was a pilgrimage site for the Nabataeans as early as the third century b.c.e. (Unfortunately, we cannot look to the name Sinai Peninsula for proof of where Mount Sinai was, because it is an apparently more modern term given based on the traditional identification of Jabal Mousa as Mount Sinai.) Jabal Mousa became particularly well-known and regarded as Mount Sinai through the early Christian-Byzantine period, but evidence points to the site being recognized as Mount Sinai by Jewish religious leaders 2,000 years ago. The long-standing traditional identification of Mount Sinai has been Jabal Mousa, “Moses Mountain,” located in the southern part of the Sinai Peninsula. But we will need to spend a little time on it based on how the geographic area relates to the sea crossing, which would have taken place west of it. This article is not intended to establish the exact identity of the mountain.
Unfortunately, in the four hours of screentime, barely a minute was given to briefly mention and dismiss the crossing point that perhaps most naturally comes to mind: the Gulf of Suez.Īt the core of this debate (indeed, an impetus for certain researchers to consider a more distant Gulf of Aqaba crossing) is the identification of Mount Sinai-the location where Moses was first called by God, and the mountain before which the Israelites later encamped and received the Ten Commandments. But surprisingly, only two general crossing options were presented: a Bitter Lakes crossing, termed the “Egyptian approach”-as a more strictly “scientific,” physical explanation on the film and a Gulf of Aqaba crossing, termed the “Hebrew approach”-as a literalistic “biblical” approach on the film. Such was the case with the two-part Red Sea Miracle. The documentaries bring together different minds offering different views and opinions on the historicity, chronology, and location of various events. Patterns of Evidence: Exodus did a fantastic job in presenting the evidence for a historical Exodus that fits squarely with biblical chronology-during the 15th century b.c.e. The Patterns of Evidence documentaries are well-produced, thought-provoking films examining the historical evidence for some of the greatest stories in the Bible-namely, the slavery of the Israelites, the existence of Moses, the Exodus, and the parting of the Red Sea.
0 kommentar(er)
