Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition by James K. Hoffmeier

Author:James K. Hoffmeier [Hoffmeier, James K.]
Language: eng
Format: epub, mobi, pdf
ISBN: 9780195155464
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Published: 2005-10-05T16:00:00+00:00

Marah and Elim

As the text of Exodus 15:23 states, Marah derives its name from the bitter water reached after traveling three days through the desert of Shur without finding water (15:22). As travelers have attested, brackish water is found in many of the wells and springs in Sinai. The Israelites would have traveled south from the crossing area on the northern portion of the Ballah Lakes. Using thirty-two kilometers (twenty miles) as the approximate distance for the average day’s journey (see chapter 6, §III), they would have traveled past the Bitter Lakes, approximately ninety-six kilometers (sixty miles), which would land them in the area of present-day Suez, that is, the northern end of the Gulf of Suez. The lack of drinking water along the Isthmus of Suez is likewise reported in the Egyptian story of Sinuhe. During his flight to Canaan, Sinuhe passed by the Bitter Lakes (km wr) and claims: “An attack of thirst overcame me; I being parched, my throat being dry, and I thought, ‘this is the taste of death.’”76 The story of Sinhue shows that early in the second millennium B.C. sweet water was lacking in the area opposite the Bitter Lakes. Conditions were no different toward the end the same millennium, when the Israelites traveled three days through the desert of Shur and could find no water.

On the basis of his explorations in Sinai in 1816, Burkhardt identified Marah with ‘Ain Hawara, which is located just over two days’ travel south of Suez.77 Robinson, who was influenced considerably by Burkhardt, concurred with this identification. He too journeyed from Suez to ‘Ain Hawara in two days and several hours on the third day, and described the water as “unpleasant, saltish, and somewhat bitter.”78 Other nineteenth-century investigators, such as Arthur Stanley and E. H. Palmer, accepted this identification, as have some more recent commentators.79 This location made sense because they thought that the sea crossing occurred at the very north end of the Gulf of Suez (i.e., the Red Sea), and ‘Ain Hawara was reached on the third day of travel from Suez by both Burkhardt and Robinson.

The problem with equating ‘Ain Hawara with Marah is that it only works if the sea crossing took place near Suez. Moreover, Burkhardt, Robinson, and others suggested that nearby Wadi Gharandel is Elim, the next stop on the itinerary.80 Burkhardt traveled from ‘Ain Hawara to Wadi Gharandel in three hours, whereas Robinson made it in just two and a half hours. This short distance means either that ‘Ain Hawara cannot be Marah or Wadi Gharandel cannot be Elim, as there was no reason to camp at Marah with its bitter water when Gharandel (Elim) lies only a few hours away and the water was good. This short distance can hardly be construed as a day’s journey. The latter site, Robinson learned from local Bedouin, is “still one of the chief watering-places of the Arabs.”81

Alternatively, some more recent scholars, such as Manashe Har-el and George Kelm, propose Bir el-Mura as biblical Marah.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.