Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Are there any credible historical evidences behind red/reed sea crossing? Besides, of course, the Torah.

share|improve this question
The body of your question contains... no question. Just a link to one, and some meta information. I'm closing this: it can be reopened if improved. – msh210 Nov 23 '11 at 6:01
Anyway, it's pretty much a duplicate of judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/124/… – Isaac Moses Nov 23 '11 at 13:23
Oh, good point, @IsaacMoses. It is. Never mind, then: I guess I won't reopen it after all. – msh210 Nov 23 '11 at 15:39
Not really duplicate. That question ask about exodus in general. I am asking about the red sea. Any mass chariots on the same era on a sea would work. Large number of skeletons on desert having jewish DNA would work too (but that would be for the 40 years wandering in the desert). I like to examine problem one at a time rather than in general. – Jim Thio Nov 25 '11 at 3:01
As this stackexchange deals in traditional Judaism and not archaeology, is this an answerable question within the context of the site? The answer is that the Torah is the evidence. Three million Jewish eyewitnesses are the evidence. This is obviously not the answer the OP has in mind, but it is the correct answer in the context of this site. – yoel Nov 25 '11 at 5:31
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Currently, there is no definitive evidence of the crossing of Yam Suf. This if or a couple of reasons.

  1. There is disagreement about which body of water is called "Yam Suf"
  2. There is disagreement about what sort of evidence would prove that "Yam Suf" happened. The reason for this is that the Midrashim creates many stories with conflicting information as to what we should expect to look for. For example, are we looking for 12 paths, that return back to the same shore, or 1 path that leads to the other side of the yam? Are we looking for evidence of plants and bread being grown into the ocean walls? Are we looking for Egyptian armor and tools, or did those wash ashore to the Israelites for them to use in the war with Amalek later on?

However, there is a person who has created a video which you can find online, which claims to have found wheels and axles of Egyptian chariots in a body of water near egypt and some high cliffs. I'm not linking to it, because I don't think this person needs links to their site.

Interestingly, there are also some computer models that show how a eastern wind could split the sea in a specific part of the Nile Delta, which until now has not been considered as a location for the crossing.

Neither the computer models, nor the research of the guy in the video I mentioned above count as 'credible evidence' in most people's minds.

share|improve this answer
Well, evidence is different than proof. In a sense, you can't really proof anything. You can only do that in Math. Every evidence is a precious peace of a puzzle. That's good enough. – Jim Thio Nov 25 '11 at 8:29
That computer generated evidence do not fit the description that israel see water in their left and right like wall. But a good model. Perhaps if the same computer model is generated on location of the chariots? – Jim Thio Nov 25 '11 at 8:38
Something I have learned from archaeological digs here in Israel, is that how we imagine things to look when described a certain way, do not at all match how things looked 2,000 years ago. I'm not so sure that a "wall" was anything more than a small rising that was knee high. You say wall and I picture something at least 8 feet high. But if you look at some old walls, they can sometimes only be 1 or 2 feet high. (Make's the laws of sukkoth a bit more understandable btw.) – avi Nov 25 '11 at 8:46
Also, regarding the computer model at a different location. The reason why the wind works there is because you have 3 different sources of water converging on the same point. The wind is able to push back the water towards it's source. (the Nile, the Mediteranean, and the lake) Some spot in the middle of the ocean, especially a deep spot, would not be capable of splitting like that. Atleast according to the computer model. – avi Nov 25 '11 at 8:50
yes the sea cannot be too deep. I think I saw a site where a sea that looks like river can also split with correct wind. – Jim Thio Nov 25 '11 at 10:25

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.