right next to the buggy in the shed.

Here is an extract from Herodotus that highlights Egypt’s plight when the Nile flooded the country:

When the Nile overflows, the country is converted into a sea and nothing appears but the cities, which look like the islands in the Egean. At this season boats no longer keep the course of the river, but sail right across the plain. On the voyage from Naucratis to Memphis at this season, you pass close to the pyramids, whereas the usual course is by the apex of the Delta and the city of Cercasorus. You can sail also from the maritime town of Canobus across the flat to Naucratis, passing by the cities of Anthylla and Archandropolis. [Herodotus 2.97]

Clearly, here was a country in deep waters and in dire need for civil engineers by the boatloads. Fortunately, the Egyptians were an optimistic and gregarious lot, who only saw this development as an opportunity to take out their boats and have fun. The Nile flooded the land so completely that the whole of Egypt was submerged and just the cities peeked above the water line, making the whole landscape look like the Aegean Sea with its atypical scatter of islands.

Having set this ‘blink and your backyard turns to backwaters’ scenario for Egypt, I would now like to explore a central landmark or geographical feature of this region. It was a water body and it was called the Red Sea. Consider the following extracts:

Eratosthenes adds to what he has said about Ammon and Egypt his opinion that Mt. Casius was once washed by the sea and also that all the region where the so‑called Gerrha now is, was in every part covered with shoal-water since it was connected with the gulf of the Red Sea and that it became uncovered when the seas came together. [Strabo, Geography 1.3.13]

The ‘sea that once washed’ Mt. Casius and also ‘covered with shoal-water’ all the region of the so-called Gerrha mentioned in the above extract, is a reference to the ‘Tongue of the Egyptian Sea.’ The Tongue ceased to exist and the corridor ‘became uncovered’ when the seas at the Pillars ‘came together.’ Yes, the seas that ‘came together’ mentioned here, is a reference to the outpouring at the Pillars. It refers to a cataclysmic seismic event that caused the waters of the Mediterranean Sea to ‘pour out’ at the juncture of Pillars of Hercules and thereby fall. Due to this outpouring at the Pillars, the land about Mount Casius and the Gerrha or saltpans in the entire Samandagi-Antakya corridor in Egypt, was exposed. In short, after this seismic-triggered outpouring, the Mediterranean Sea level fell, and ‘Tongue of the Egyptian Sea’ ceased to exist.

Now, consider the following extract:

But Hipparchus, interpreting the phrase “to be connected with” to be the same thing as “to be confluent with,” that is, that our Mediterranean Sea “became confluent with” the Red Sea because of its being filled up with water, finds fault by asking why in the world it is that, at the time when our Mediterranean Sea, because of the outflow of its waters at the Pillars, underwent its change in that direction, it did not also cause the Red Sea, which had become confluent with it, to make the same change and why in the world the Red Sea continued at the same level into being lowered with the Mediterranean? [Strabo, Geography 1.3.13]

The above extract goes on to say that the Red Sea, although confluent with the Mediterranean, undergoes no change, by this seismicly triggered outpouring at the Pillars. Presumably therefore, Hipparchus assumption that ‘being connected’ was equal to ‘being confluent’ is faulty. In other words, the Tongue of the Egyptian Sea was not confluent to the Red Sea. Based on this we may assume that the Red Sea was quite close but not confluent with the Tongue of the Egyptian Sea.

Clarity on this subject of connectivity and proximity between the two seas in question, comes by with the yet another extract. Apparently, an isthmus separated the Tongue of the Egyptian Sea from the Red Sea. Study the following extract:

Hence it is nothing to marvel at even if, at some time, the isthmus should be parted asunder or else undergo a settling process—the isthmus that separates the Egyptian Sea from the Red Sea—and thus disclose a strait and make the outer sea confluent with the inner, just as happened in the case of the strait at the Pillars of Heracles. [Strabo, Geography 1.3.17]

An isthmus merely a thousand furlongs wide separated the Egyptian Sea or tongue of the Egyptian Sea from the Red Sea. World wise scholars speculated that a seismic triggered settling could very easily have parted the isthmus and make the inner Red Sea confluent with outer Tongue of the Egyptian Sea. Much as they hoped for this to happen, it did not. In was one of those doomsday scenarios that did not pan out. Another doomsday scenario closely related this was the one about the level of the Red sea being higher and if someone were to cut a canal between the two seas, then Egypt will surely be inundated by the waters of the Red Sea.

Talks about parting the isthmus, cutting a canal across it to connect the outer sea or the Egyptian Tongue to the inner Red Sea, so as to facilitate commerce with Arabia and India (via Arabia), were indeed bandied about for long. In fact, various attempts were made by kings through the ages to complete the project. This topic is materially covered in the next chapter.

Moving on, here are a few extracts that suggests that the Red Sea was hard to navigate a shallow sea with ‘tree growing in it.’ Study the following two extracts:

It is said that Philadelphus was the first person, by means of an army, to cut this road, which is without water and to build stations, as though for the travels of merchants on camels and that he did this because the Red Sea was hard to navigate, particularly for those who set sail from its innermost recess. [Strabo, Geography 17.1.45]

Along the whole of the coast of the Red Sea, down in the deep, grow trees like the laurel and the olive, which at the ebb tides are wholly visible above the water but at the full tides are sometimes wholly covered; and while this is the case, the land that lies above the sea has no trees and therefore the peculiarity is all the greater. [Strabo, Geography 16.3.6]

The first extract informs us that the Red Sea was hard to navigate, possibly because of shallow waters. The second extract informs us that trees like the laurel and the olive grew along its shores and they were wholly submerged during full tide.

Compiling all the above information, it become clear that the Red Sea in question was 1000 furlongs from the Tongue of the Egyptian Sea, and that it was shallow difficult to navigate body of water that had trees growing along its banks in such a manner that they get inundated during full tide. In short, the Red Sea mentioned here was in reality a large inland lake that looked like a sea, very much like how the Lake Moeris is described by Herodotus.

Unfortunately, such an inland sea does not exist anywhere close to Antakya. So, where would I fit the Red Sea in my reconstruction?

The answer to the above question is ‘in the Al Ghab depression.’ In fact, exactly such a shallow sea did indeed exist not very far back in the past in this region. Sadly, however, a 100-million dollar reclamation project has effectively wiped out this famous geographical landmark feature from the face of the earth. The Syrian government built dams, irrigation canals and what not and drained the Al Ghab to recover some 85,000 acres of farmland. The indigenous marsh people, who dwelt in this marshy sea and its vicinity, have being resettled on this reclaimed land. New villages have been laid out in ingenious clusters, complete with roads, power and telephone lines. The fishermen's cottages that were thatched with reeds from this sea and were visible until very recently, too have gone. The only trace or evidence of the Red Sea is the watermark that is still visible halfway up the mountainsides.

Modern-day scholars assume that the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf referred to here, were the modern-day Arabian Sea and that the Persian Gulf respectively. This is erroneous. The Red Sea was a shallow inland sea and the Arabian Gulf associated with it, was a long narrow gulf of this inland sea.

Sea of Reeds

Actually, the Bible puts the Red Sea in the proper perspective and at once establishes the true nature of this sea in clear and unambiguous terms, by calling this sea the ‘Sea of Reed.’ Being in essence a swampy sea, this sea was perhaps overgrown with papyrus or byblus reeds and it is conceivable that it looked like a vast undulating sea of reeds. Being in the habit of renaming everything under the sun with descriptive names, the Jews had longed since named it the ‘Yum suph’ or the Sea of Reeds.

Even from amongst the Greek scholar there is Damastes (whom Eratosthenes quotes and who in turn is quoted by Strabo) who suggests the same thing. According to Damastes, the Arabian Gulf (a gulf of the Red Sea) was actually a lake. Here is the reference:

Eratosthenes himself tells us one of the absurd stories of Damastes, who assumes that the Arabian Gulf is a lake. [Strabo, Geography 1.3.1]

As can be seen, even Strabo has difficulty in accepting this concept. This confirms a fact that I have suspected all along. The Red Sea and its Arabian Gulf had ceased to exist long before Strabo’s time. Possibly these too were partially drained by the tectonic event that is said to have caused the outpour at the Pillars and drained the Tongue of the Egyptian Sea. The 100-million dollar reclamation project merely removed what was left of it.

To conclude, in my reconstruction, the Red Sea reassumes or reverts to its original biblical term for this sea. Indeed, I see no earthly reason to doubt the Bible’s accurate, keenly sensitive and descriptive name, the ‘Yum suph’ or ‘Reed Sea’ for this body of water. For the Red Sea was exactly that: A vast undulating Sea of Reeds. The term ‘Red Sea’ or even ‘Erythraean Sea’ was never used in the Bible. It was always Reed Sea. Later however, it was changed to read ‘Red Sea’ in accordance to the vacillating dictates of the biblical archaeologists, a fact that is now readily admitted to by this beleaguered fraternity in these trying days.

Comment

The Reed Sea was a central landmark of Egypt. The burgeoning Jewish population in Egypt knew it well of course, having on many an occasion sat by its shores and wished that they too had a little sea like this one all to themselves, with maybe just a little bit of land to go with it.

While deep in such idle talks, perhaps it was noted by the Jewish men of yore, let us say, by a threesome, bosom buddies who unduly chafed under the ever increasing Egyptian yoke, that the Reed Sea was shallow enough to be waded through, but would readily bog down chariots, if that is, chariots were to follow, say in pursuit. One amongst them, his wit sharpened by a recent lashing, added that the lake was very long but hardy a tenth or so wide. If a man were to wade across, he could put a prodigious distance between him and his pursuers. The chariots, been unable to follow, would have to go all around. Another subversive mind contributed that escaping into the marshy sea was not a novel idea at all. On the contrary, it was the traditional escape route for Egyptian fugitives. Any and everybody who wanted to throw off a pursuer promptly splashed into the Yum suph and took shelter in any one of the numerous islands in the sea. It would therefore be a mistake to make a beeline for the lake. Best to mislead the pursuers at first, say, by going in the opposite direction and later on try and make a dash through the Yum suph, was his considered opinion.

After much deliberation, denunciation, delegating and dilly-dallying, the three compatriots were observed making a hesitant PowerPoint presentation (read drawings in the sand) to a man named Moses whom they knew to be at his wit’s end wondering how he could possibly outwit the pursuing Pharaoh’s chariots, were he to lead the Jews out of Egypt. Much to their horror and delight, Moses did exactly that. He planned an elaborate subterfuge that confused the enemy, confounded its infantry in the wilderness and then made a dash through the Yum suph to successfully evade the Pharaoh’s chariots!

The above-mentioned three compatriots… well, at least their PowerPoint presentation, is entirely fictitious of course! But, without a doubt, the low-lying region known as the ‘Al Ghab’ that extends almost along the entire length of Jabal an Nusayriyah Mountains in Syria and formerly a vast reed-choked sea, was the Sea of Reeds that Moses so famously cleaved!

Diagram: Reed Sea: A shallow, vast marshy sea that previously existed in the Al Ghab region was the Sea of Reeds. The Arabian Gulf was in reality a gulf of the Reed Sea. A narrow, 1000 furlongs wide neck portion or isthmus separated this inland sea from the outer Mediterranean or then called Tongue of the Egypt Sea.

Below, The Madaba mosaic map: The Madaba map would appear to support my brand new reconstruction. It shows Jerusalem Citadel in the mountains (Saladin castle in the Syian mountains) and shows an inland sea, right about where my Reed Sea in the Al Ghab would fit. In short, what we see here is an ancient world map that exactly reflects my hypothesis!