Yam Suph
Red Sea, Sea of Reeds, Sea of Suph, or Sea of the End?

While word meaning of a place name doesn't change any essential doctrine, it makes a difference in understanding details. For example, Moses' Red Sea crossing comes from translating the Hebrew words "Yam Suph" as Red Sea.  This translation rests in ancient tradition but it's still that - ancient tradition.  Yam is not in question; it means "Sea," which is any large body of water, whether salt or fresh, including in-land lakes.

A modern tradition now exists.  "Yam Suph" is the Sea of Reeds.  This tradition also rests in an assumption; a theory a Hebrew word has borrowed meaning from ancient Egyptian.  They claim "Suph" is the Hebrew word for "rushes" or "reeds" - a Hebraized form of the Egyptian "twf (rush or papyrus)." It's a seemingly probable assumption because this "Red Sea" crossing happened as the Israelites were exiting Egypt. 

"Yam" doesn't match the Egyptian word for Sea so the first word is distinctly Hebrew. Before quickly accepting the text borrowed an Egyptian word for this phrase's second part, it's necessary to consider another possibility.  The Hebrew language already had meaning for the word "Suph."  To discount that meaning, without significant reason, is to violate the natural use of language.  The Hebrew meaning should take first consideration.   A Hebrew lexicon entry for this word typically says something like "probably for reeds or rushes" before noting "Red" as another alternate translation.  But Reeds and Red aren't the primary meaning in those same lexicons, a meaning that doesn't need the "probably" disclaimer.

Suph is a primary root word in Hebrew meaning "come to an end, or cease."  Adding this idea to the word "sea" seemed odd, so it led translators to seek an alternative.  And yet, it's not as odd as it seems at first glance.

The word appears several times in Scriptures where it clearly communicates an end or ceasing:

    Esther 9:28 that these days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, in every clan, province, and city, and that these days of Purim should never fall into disuse among the Jews, nor should the commemoration of these days cease among their descendants.

    Psalms 73:19 How they are destroyed in a moment, swept away utterly [idea of ceasing] by terrors!

    Isaiah 66:17 "Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating pig's flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, declares the LORD.

    Amos 3:15 I will strike the winter house along with the summer house, and the houses of ivory shall perish, and the great houses shall come to an end," declares the LORD.

    Zephaniah 1:2 "I will utterly sweep away [idea of ceasing] everything from the face of the earth," declares the LORD.  3 "I will sweep away man and beast; I will sweep away the birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea, and the rubble with the wicked. I will cut off mankind from the face of the earth," declares the LORD.

    2Chronicles 20:16 Tomorrow go down against them. Behold, they will come up by the ascent of Ziz. You will find them at the end of the valley, east of the wilderness of Jeruel.

    Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.

    Ecclesiastes 7:2 It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting, for this is the end of all mankind, and the living will lay it to heart.

    Ecclesiastes 12:13   The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.

    Joel 2:20  "I will remove the northerner far from you, and drive him into a parched and desolate land, his vanguard into the eastern sea, and his rear guard [idea of the end] into the western sea; the stench and foul smell of him will rise, for he has done great things.

This meaning continued in the related and later used Aramaic language. These Daniel verses show Aramaic use:

    Daniel 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up ca kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,

    Daniel 4:33 Immediately the word was fulfilled [the idea of finished or ended] against Nebuchadnezzar. He was driven from among men and ate grass like an ox, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven till his hair grew as long as eagles' feathers, and his nails were like birds' claws.

    Daniel 4:11 The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.

    Daniel 4:22 it is you, O king, who have grown and become strong. Your greatness has grown and reaches to heaven, and your dominion to the ends of the earth.

    Daniel 6:26 I make a decree, that in all my royal dominion people are to tremble and fear before the God of Daniel, for he is the living God, enduring forever; his kingdom shall never be destroyed, and his dominion shall be to the end.

    Daniel 7:26 But the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end.

    Daniel 7:28   "Here is the end of the matter. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts greatly alarmed me, and my color changed, but I kept the matter in my heart."

Clearly this "end" or "cease" meaning has widespread use for the Hebrew word "Suph."  And yet, we have passages such as Exodus 2:3 & 5...

    Exodus 2:3 When she could hide him no longer, she took for him a basket made of bulrushes and daubed it with bitumen and pitch. She put the child in it and placed it among the reeds by the river bank.

    Exodus 2:5 Now the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river, while her young women walked beside the river. She saw the basket among the reeds and sent her servant woman, and she took it.

Reeds, rushes, papyrus; many plants grew along waterways.  Some Hebrew words under consideration:

    Gome - this is a papyrus reed, see ESV on Job 8:11 and Isaiah 18:2.  The ESV later translates it as "rushes" in Isaiah 35:7."  Yet, here in Exodus 2:3, the ESV makes the word "bulrushes," with some reference works speculating these could be cattails (see Holman Dictionary for example).

    Qanah (sometimes written as qaneh) - this is a common reed. Isaiah 35:7 uses both the prior word and this word in the same verse.

    Suph - A word speculated to mean the same as "bulrushes" or "reeds"

There's no question in Exodus 2:3 it was a papyrus-reed basket holding Moses, the word "gome" appearing in Hebrew, and these sturdy reeds appearing commonly along the Nile Delta.  His mother "placed" the waterproofed basket "among the "suph" by the river bank."  She's assumedly placing the ark among these same riverbank reeds.  And, yes, she did place the craft among the riverbank reeds. Rather than saying this (which would reuse the word "gome") the text uses four Hebrew words: sum [placed], suph [????], yeor [river], safah [bank or lip].  If suph held its normal meaning of "end," this passage would read: "placed it at the end of the river bank."  This, of course, is where reeds grow.  Then, in Exodus 2:5, the matching passage reads: "Now the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river, while her young women walked beside the river [yeor]. She saw the basket in the midst [tawekh] of the end [suph] and sent her servant woman, and she took it."

No solid reason exists here for assuming "suph" translates as reeds, even though it may suggest a similar idea about where she located the basket.  And, yet, these two verses become the primary basis of arguments that Yam Suph must translate as "Sea of Reeds" instead of "Red Sea."  Now we must consider the passages commonly translated as "Red Sea."

Most reference works on the Hebrew language behind these texts note in some fashion a "probably" behind the words "Red Sea."  Others leave "Red Sea" and then make the claim about "Sea of Reeds."  As you read each verse, substitute the original "Yam Suph."

    Exodus 10:19 And the LORD turned the wind into a very strong west wind, which lifted the locusts and drove them into the Red Sea. Not a single locust was left in all the country of Egypt.

    Exodus 13:18 But God led the people around by the way of the wilderness toward the Red Sea. And the people of Israel went up out of the land of Egypt equipped for battle.

    Exodus 15:4   "Pharaoh's chariots and his host he cast into the sea, and his chosen officers were sunk in the Red Sea.

    Exodus 15:22   Then Moses made Israel set out from the Red Sea, and they went into the wilderness of Shur. They went three days in the wilderness and found no water.

    Exodus 23:31 And I will set your border from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the Euphrates, for I will give the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you.

    Numbers 14:25 Now, since the Amalekites and the Canaanites dwell in the valleys, turn tomorrow and set out for the wilderness by the way to the Red Sea."

    Numbers 21:4   From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom. And the people became impatient on the way.

    Numbers 33:10 And they set out from Elim and camped by the Red Sea. 11 And they set out from the Red Sea and camped in the wilderness of Sin.

    Deuteronomy 1:40 But as for you, turn, and journey into the wilderness in the direction of the Red Sea.'

    Deuteronomy 2:1 "Then we turned and journeyed into the wilderness in the direction of the Red Sea, as the LORD told me. And for many days we traveled around Mount Seir.

    Deuteronomy 11:4 and what he did to the army of Egypt, to their horses and to their chariots, how he made the water of the Red Sea flow over them as they pursued after you, and how the LORD has destroyed them to this day,

    Joshua 2:10 For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you devoted to destruction.

    Joshua 4:23 For the LORD your God dried up the waters of the Jordan for you until you passed over, as the LORD your God did to the Red Sea, which he dried up for us until we passed over,

    Joshua 24:6   "'Then I brought your fathers out of Egypt, and you came to the sea. And the Egyptians pursued your fathers with chariots and horsemen to the Red Sea.

    Judges 11:16 but when they came up from Egypt, Israel went through the wilderness to the Red Sea and came to Kadesh.

    Nehemiah 9:9   "And you saw the affliction of our fathers in Egypt and heard their cry at the Red Sea,

    Psalms 106:7 Our fathers, when they were in Egypt, did not consider your wondrous works; they did not remember the abundance of your steadfast love, but rebelled by the sea, at the Red Sea.

    Psalms 106:9 He rebuked the Red Sea, and it became dry, and he led them through the deep as through a desert.

    Psalms 106:22 wondrous works in the land of Ham, and awesome deeds by the Red Sea.

    Psalms 136:13 to him who divided the Red Sea in two, for his steadfast love endures forever;

    Psalms 136:15 but overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea, for his steadfast love endures forever;

Might these related passages reference the Red Sea, the Sea of Reeds, or perhaps something else?  

Bible minimalists, or skeptics, prefer the Sea of Reeds because they can point to the marshy Ballah Lake region of Egypt and claim the Israelite may have waded across.  The Egyptians called the marshy area east of Pi-Rameses "p3 twfy (the rushes)."  Yet "p3 twfy" is a marshy region not a sea (or lake) and it's never identified as the latter.  Here there could be no sea ("Yam") splitting.  In reality, they introduce a new miracle: Pharaoh's army all drowned in shallow water.

Traditionalists claim anyone not accepting the Red Sea are abandoning the word of God and rejecting a major miracle.  Yet linguists are certain; the Hebrew text doesn't say "Red Sea."  This would read "Yam Adom" but the text reads "Yam Suph" and Suph isn't a Hebrew word for "Red."  The only reason Red appears for "Suph" in these Old Testament passages is because translators were trying to identify a specific location, or interpret the text, rather than literally translate it.  This isn't a new tactic; it's common to all translations using some thought-for-thought method.  This works well with a known (or identifiable) true meaning for an original figure of speech or place.  It's problematic when its foundation is speculation. 

Next we'll examine each of the three major possibilities:

The case for "Red Sea" and the related cases for "Gulf of Suez" or "Gulf of Aqaba."  For a seemingly weak possibility, there are many reasons for using "Red Sea." What follows are key arguments and their drawbacks.

Weak supporting arguments:

    -This is the traditional understanding and words that appear in major translations.

      oTraditional use is often wrong and sometimes based in very old errors.

    -It would be a greater miracle because the Red Sea averages 150 miles wide and is a great body of water. 

      oA miracle is no less a miracle, regardless of its size, when it acts outside natural norms and carries out God's purposes.  Pharaoh's army drowning and parted walls of water are a major miracle in any size body of water.

      o150 miles wide makes it impossible that all Israel crossed the Red Sea in one night and morning (Exodus 14:21, 24).  People crossing at a crosswalk - a speed above what most can continue for long periods - is 3.1 miles each hour.  This would take over 48 hours to cross 150 miles.  The space traversed, shown by the biblical text, must be narrower than the Red Sea.  Even the Straits of Tiran, at 820 feet deep, is still far too wide.  (The travel-facts force most to consider the Gulf of Suez or Gulf of Aqaba alternatives).

      oThe main body of the Red Sea is far too south for a large group of people to reach in the short amount of time implied by Scriptures.

      oThere's a deep dug canal on the southern side of the Land of Goshen. This ancient canal would have prevented a large group from crossing on a due south heading to get to the main body of the Red Sea.

Arguments worth examining: 

    -Ancient Greek also uses "Red Sea" for the northern tongues of the Red Sea (see following note in the "Best supporting arguments").  It's unknown where the Red Sea name originally came from, so much speculation exists.  Since ancient Edom's territory extended to Aqaba, some suggest the Gulf of Aqaba was once Yam Edom (Sea of Edom), with Edom meaning "Red," so this later became the Red Sea.

      oThere's no ancient evidence in support of this Edom speculation.  And this provides little reason on why Greeks also applied the name to waters on the opposite side of Sinai (the Gulf of Suez).

    -The Gulf of Aqaba (or Gulf of Eilat), also called Yam Suph, has an average width of 9.3 miles and an average depth of about 3000 feet (and a maximum depth of over 6000 feet).

      oThe suggested "shallow" crossing point at the Gulf of Aqaba (by Ron Wyatt and others), specifically at Nuweiba, is way too steep and deep for a large group to cross with belongings - 2560 feet!  This descent and rise is over a very short crossing distance making for an easy slide down and almost impossible climb up.

    -The Gulf of Suez, biblically also called Yam Suph, is only 12 to 20 miles wide with an average depth of 130ft.  A middle ages Hebrew Commentary called Tafsir, by Rabbi Sa'adia Gaon (died 942 AD), who lived in Egypt, Israel, and Iraq, translated Yam Suph into Arabic as Bahr al Qulzum.  This name is still the current Arabic name for the Gulf of Suez and Red Sea.

      oThere's a deep dug canal on the southern side of the Land of Goshen.  This ancient canal would have prevented a large group from crossing on a due-south heading to arrive at the Gulf of Suez. 

Best supporting arguments:

    -The Greek Septuagint translation, from the inter-testament period (2nd to 3rd centuries BC), is  Eruthros Thalassa, "Red Sea," in almost all instances.

      oA translator in any era can make place-name errors based on their understanding of the referenced location.  Yet, to be fair, the Greeks used Red Sea for any large body of water southeast of the Mediterranean Sea.  This allowed the Red Sea and both its northern tongues to also be "Red Sea."  Later, as the Greeks became aware of them, they applied the same term to the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf.  They readily saw all these bodies of water as connected and one body, namely the "Red Sea."  Based on this broad understanding of the name "Red Sea," the translators selected a nonspecific term that properly characterized the crossing at a large body of water southeast of the Mediterranean Sea.  Unfortunately, without knowing the history, this name becomes misleading for modern translations and understanding.

    -The New Testament keeps the Septuagint's translation of this name in two passages mentioning the Exodus:

      Acts 7:36 This man led them out, performing wonders and signs in Egypt and at the Red Sea (Eruthros Thalassa) and in the wilderness for forty years.

      Hebrews 11:29   By faith the people crossed the Red Sea (Eruthros Thalassa) as on dry land, but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned.

    -In the inter-testament and New Testament eras, Greek speakers still used Red Sea for any large body of water southeast of the Mediterranean Sea.  This allowed continued use of this term as a valid translation of the Hebrew name. 

      oWhile a valid use of the name in that time frame, the question remains: "Does this wording hold a proper meaning for modern translations?"  Remember, translation is an effort to communicate meaning and intent and not necessarily specific words.

    -First century historian Josephus uses Red Sea for Yam Suph in his Greek language history (Antiquities 2:15:3). 

      oHis use likely comes from using the Septuagint as a primary source. 

    -The fourth century Latin Vulgate of Jerome, following the Septuagint, kept Yam Suph as the Latin "Mare Rubrum (Red Sea)" in Exodus 13:18 and Mare Erythrae in other places. The latter is a name based on a legendary king Erythrus, meaning Red, said to have given his name to the Red Sea as far away as the Indian Ocean.

The case for "Sea of Reeds" or "Reed Sea."

    -Rashi (Shlomo Yitzchaki), a medieval French rabbi (lived 1040-1105 AD), was an early promoter of this possibility.  All his surviving writings date to 1475 or later.  He authored a comprehensive commentary on the Tanakh (Scriptures) and the Talmud.  His goal was to clarify the "simple" meaning of the text so a "bright child of five" could understand it.  His commentaries influenced monks and reformers, including indirectly Martin Luther (from reading a previously influenced monk), from the 15th to 17th centuries.

      oHe recognized the tradition Red Sea was only an early translator interpretation, but one not reflecting the meaning of the name.  His choice to use a name with meaning did little to identify the specific historical location or why the name appears in Scriptures referencing multiple places.

      oWhy doesn't this "Sea of Reeds" idea appear until a thousand years after Scriptures' completion and even far after the event itself?  This doesn't mean it couldn't be correct yet it signals caution.

    -The American Jewish English JPS translation formerly used the traditional "Red Sea" for "Yam Suph." Since their "New" 1985 edition (NJPS) it's now "Sea of Reeds." 

      oTheir newer translation draws on some of the same modern research used by Christian translators, so modern use - even by a Jewish source - doesn't have greater significance.

    -It's assumed that Suph means reeds based on being a loan-word from a similar sounding Egyptian word.  

      oThis goes against the normal principle of assuming the word's meaning applies to the people naturally using it unless proven otherwise.  The standard meaning of the word in Hebrew doesn't mean "reeds."

The case for "Sea of Suph."

A little considered possibility is the literal "Sea of Suph" is a proper name.  The Jewish Koren Humah translation of the Tanakh simply allows this to be a literal place-name, leaving Suph without translation.  

Best Supporting Arguments

    -The "Suph" has a disputed meaning and we lack specific information on the precise location of this body of water.  Better to leave it as a place-name - and multiple locations easily have identical names.

      oSince multiple places, or bodies of water, have this name in Scriptures, it's likely the name had meaning - as do most ancient names.  This meaning likely explains why multiple places shared this name.

The case for "Sea of the End" or "Ending Sea"

A Spanish rabbi, Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1167 AD), close to the time the French rabbi speculated Yam Suph meant Sea of Reeds, also wrote on this subject.  He noted there were rabbis who translated Yam Suph as "Sea of the End."  He believed they did so because they believed the sea lies at the end of the world. He said this was a "big error" because "Yam Suph" isn't at the end; the Atlantic Ocean is at the end.  He used this argument to claim the wording must mean something else, then also adopting the "Sea of Reeds" meaning.

His acknowledgment that others understood these two words to mean "Sea of the End" or "Ending Sea" reflects a key fact.  This is the natural and easily arrived at meaning using normal Hebrew use of these words.  While he, and obviously others, wrongly thought "Yam Suph" must mean a Sea at the end of the world.  This isn't so. Even a scholar in the 1984 Biblical Archaeology Review tried to tie the Greek idea of "Red Sea" to this same idea:

    Interestingly enough, the Greeks applied the name Red Sea not only to our Red Sea but also to the Indian Ocean and, later when they discovered it, even to the Persian Gulf . . . Yam sup came to refer to the Red Sea because like other ancient peoples, the Israelites did not distinguish the Red Sea from oceans further to the south. To their way of thinking, the Red Sea-the yam sup-was the sea at the end of the earth" (Biblical Archaeology Review, July-August 1984)

The Greeks echoed Yam Suph's "sea of the end."  Their equivalent term didn't have to mean the end of the world.  They never referred to the Atlantic Ocean by this term.  The Atlantic would easily qualify if this end-of-the-world idea was true.  Greeks used "Red Sea" to label any body of water to the southeast of the Mediterranean.  As their exploration and trade continued eastward, the body of water continued to be the "Sea of the end."  It's better to say the "Red Sea" was their "Sea at the end of the known or explored world" to the southeast.

Returning to the Hebrew "Yam Suph," the ancient Israelites used this term similar to the Greek's "Red Sea."  Here the term meant "Sea at the end," with end defined by the context.  For the Israelites leaving Goshen, the Sea at Goshen's end (whether Lake Timsah or Ballah) was the Sea at Egypt's end.  In their later Sinai Peninsula journey, the Gulf of Aqaba was similarly the "Sea at the end of Sinai." 

One previously given passage, in its context, clearly shows the Israelites knew multiple bodies of water as "Yam Suph."  

    Numbers 33:8 And they set out from before Hahiroth and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and they went a three days' journey in the wilderness of Etham and camped at Marah. 9 And they set out from Marah and came to Elim; at Elim there were twelve springs of water and seventy palm trees, and they camped there. 10 And they set out from Elim and camped by the Red Sea.

In this Numbers travel itinerary, it shows the Israelites having crossed the "Yam (sea)" at the border of Egypt, but after three days journey in the Sinai wilderness again camping by the "Yam Suph."  While the first reference doesn't use Yam Suph, many other passages do, so both places here are "Yam Suph." Following the likeliest route of the Exodus, this would make the first "Yam Suph" a large in-land border lake and the second the Gulf of Suez. 

Upholding a consistent Hebrew use and meaning of "Yam Suph" also works for Bible passages that are consider exceptions or "difficult."  Consider these verses, beyond those previously examined:

    1Kings 9:26   King Solomon built a fleet of ships at Ezion-geber, which is near Eloth on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom.

Here the text calls the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba, near Eilat, "the Red Sea," specifically Yam Suph.  Even the Septuagint translators knew an alternate understanding was possible.  They used a Greek phrase meaning "on the shore of the extremity of the sea."  This accepts Yam Suph's natural Hebrew meaning "on the shore of the end of the sea."  And yet, the NJPS now says "on the shore of the Sea of Reeds in the land of Edom." 

    Deuteronomy 1:1  These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan in the wilderness, in the Arabah opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Dizahab.

Suph appears without the word sea in this Deuteronomy passage. Most translators treat this isolated instance of "Suph" as a proper name, a place-name. It's possible as there are other specific places named in this verse, plus place-names were commonly names with meaning.  This place was likely, literally, at the end (by whatever then-known standard). There's also a place, in Moab, associated with the Arnon valley (the Grand Canyon of Jordan) called "Suphah": see Numbers 21:14. This is likely a place also called after "the end," using "Suph's" primary meaning.  It's not necessarily the same place referenced in Deuteronomy 1:1 as multiple places can have similar names, especially when named using a word with meaning.  Some reference works assume, trying to be consistent with the idea of Sea of Reed, that "Suphah" has a similar meaning: "Apparently a place-name, perhaps meaning 'toward the reeds.' (Holman Dictionary)."   The King James, trying to stay consistent with their use of Red Sea, makes the "Suph" of Deuteronomy 1:1 into that word by supplying a nowhere found "Yam."  Their text then reads "Red Sea," with Sea italicized to show they added this word.   To be fair, the Septuagint, which first started this Red Sea confusion, also did this, as did the later Targum and still later Latin Vulgate texts.  Yet, all the places otherwise noted in this passage are far from the today's Red Sea or any body of water possibly construed as the Red Sea.  The primary meaning is still the preferred possibility of its use as a place-name in Moab.  The best understanding of "Suph" is still the normal Hebrew meaning and not "Reeds."

    Isaiah 19:6 and its canals will become foul, and the branches of Egypt's Nile will diminish and dry up, reeds ["qaneh"] and rushes ["suph"] will rot away. 7 There will be bare places by the Nile, on the brink of the Nile, and all that is sown by the Nile will be parched, will be driven away, and will be no more.

Here the translator assumes that suph still means "reeds," based on the Sea of Reeds Egyptian loan-word supposition.  If the translator literally used "reeds" they would have Isaiah repeating himself, as "qaneh" is clearly the Hebrew word for reeds.  Therefore they use a synonym, rushes, to make it read well. Yet, once again, the natural Hebrew meaning of the word "suph,"meaning "the end" better fits.  Isaiah was saying the reeds at land's end along the Nile, literally the banks of the river, would rot away.  The following verse even stresses this starting with bare Nile River banks and extending to the parched fields surrounding. 

Finally, one isolated passage gives translators a problem...

    Jonah 2:5  The waters closed in over me to take my life; the deep surrounded me; weeds [suph] were wrapped about my head.

Notice the translator changes this one use of suph, as associated with a saltwater sea, into "weeds" or "sea weeds (as in the NIV)."  In this verse the sea isn't the Red Sea or any joining waters.  Neither does this verse refer to an inland lake south of the Mediterranean.  Jonah shipmates threw him into the Mediterranean Sea itself! This happened far out to sea, in extremely deep water, nowhere near shore-based reeds.  Not to mention reeds don't grow in saltwater.   So, still trying to save the "reeds" idea, based on their Egyptian loan-word, they speculate "seaweed."  Changing the "suph" plant to seaweed has no support in any other ancient texts.  Also, in verse 6 which follows, the text says Jonah sank to the "roots of the mountains," meaning deep, an unlikely place for seaweed.  Returning the word to its natural Hebrew meaning allows a reasonable reading of verse 5. "Weeds were wrapped about my head" is three Hebrew words: "suph (the end) chavash (about) ro'sh (head)."  Consider this reading:

    Jonah 2:5 The waters closed over me to take my life; the deep surrounded me; the end was about my head.  6  I sank to the roots of the mountains.  The bars of the earth closed upon me forever; yet you brought my life up from the pit, O LORD my God. (Mine) 

Overall, it's better to keep the primary Hebrew meaning of the word "Suph" in "Yam Suph." The best location for the Sea at Egypt's end, that trapped Israel before entering Sinai, are the large inland lakes to the east of Egypt, loosely along the path of today's Suez Canal.

Imprecise Sea Names appear elsewhere in Scriptures too.  While specific names appear for both the Mediterranean and Dead Seas, note these exceptions:

    Joel 2:20   "I will remove the northerner far from you, and drive him into a parched and desolate land,  his vanguard into the eastern ["qadmoni"] sea, and his rear guard into the western ["'acharon"] sea; the stench and foul smell of him will rise, for he has done great things.  (See also Zechariah 14:8 for another identical use).

"Qamoni," translated "eastern" by the ESV, means former or front. "Arharon," translated "western" by the ESV, means last or rear.  This makes the Dead Sea the "Sea in the Front."  The Mediterranean Sea, in similar fashion, is the "Sea in the Back." There you have it!  We have biblical seas at the front, back, and at the end. Only relative positioning - from where the author is on the ground - allows us to know specifically what specific seas the terms reference.  As I was completing this article, on a Tennessee to Canada road trip, I drove past the Middle River in Virginia.   I immediately thought "Middle to what?"  It shows we still do similar naming today using relative positioning.  Some things never change.  And since you're now wondering... the Middle River joins to the North River which in turn meets the South River.  And since there are obviously rivers still farther south and north (including North River in New Brunswick Canada), all these rivers have names using relative positioning.

 

Remains of the Canal on Goshen's South side (near the ruins of a fortress)

Lake Timsah

Typical map showing alternate routes for the exodus.
Excerpt of map by published by Moody Press, click here for full map.

 

Article by Brent MacDonald, (c)2018
Lion Tracks Ministries (a division of Cottage Cove's Discipleship Training Institute)