Talk:Yam Suph

Azar Natam Yam sea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.8.70.135 (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Excellent
Wow... that was a lot of work. Thanks. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I highly approve the creation of this article. It was always confusing to try to sort out the presentation of the chief scholarly understandings of the biblical phrase Yam Suph from within an article which assumed one of them(the Reed Sea). Yam Suph needed its own home. Thanks for such a fine beginning.Beckersc0t (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What should be discussed here?
Though I do like your even-handed concluding paragraph pointing the reader to other articles' discussion of possibilities for understanding the yam suph, I actually think this article would even be the best place for such a discussion. Crossing of the Red Sea has a lot going on, and is likely to be a hot potato besides. This seems as good a location as any to fill out the shape of the discussion, about this term, in survey as well as in those places it refers to the Exodus Crossing. In that spirit, I moved some of the discussion from a now happily reduced, and hopefully much more coherent Reed Sea article. Edits invited! (It's a good start, but could use some help, and having read some of the literature on this, I'm not sure that the 'storm-wind' suggestion of the blockquote is any more than an idiosyncratic off-the-cuff suggestion).

I'd love to see your Discussion section develop into a brief treatment of the chief alternatives and the time frame of the debate (last 100 years or so), with references to the options' original suggestors or main adherents--a project to which I'll lend my hand as I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Offwalking (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2008 September 15 (UTC)

(The above was added by Beckersc0t who forgot his four tildes)
 * True! Beckersc0t (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, go for it. If we disagree, we'll say so. Time for WP:BOLD! SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice that in Talk:Passage of the Red Sea you wrote "Rashi and ibn Ezra, both Medieval rabbis understood Yam suph as 'Sea of Reeds'". A reference to Rashi, which you're welcome to enhance, already appears in this article. It would be nice also to have what ibn Ezra said. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. I had the information (secondhand) from Propp's 1999 Anchor Bible commentary on Exodus (p. 486-487, I think), but I don't have access to the volume at present. When I tried to look up the actual references, I couldn't find them, which I chalked up to my lack of experience finding things in the Rabbis. If I have any further luck, I'll 'enhance' away.

I had forgotten that the "Reed Sea" option wasn't just a 19th C. proposal. Thanks for the reminder. Beckersc0t (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And we should probably get the actual citation for Rashi as well. I may have Propp's Exodus commentary in my hand this next week, so I'll try again to find the location in Rashi, and an actual quote if possible. Beckersc0t (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wycliffe Bible Exodus 15.4
The early Wycliffe Bible uses 'reed' sea:

"..he castide doun in to the see the charis of Farao, and his oost. Hise chosun princis weren drenchid in the reed see"

Only later Bibles turn 'reed' into 'red' - presumably as result of later printers/translators mistakenly believing that 'reed' was an archaic spelling of 'red'. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.57.7 (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh will you stop offering up your original research on article talk pages? That this theory is plainly ridiculous is not the issue; it is, as you have been told numerous times, that Wikipedia is no place for material which is not outrightly stated by a reliable source: intepretation or synthesis of reliable sources is not valid, credible or otherwise (and this theory is very far from credible). Wikipedia is not a forum for original research yet you continuously present your personal musings as if they have a place here. And stop socking.


 * (For what it’s worth though, regarding your ill though out theory: Wycliffe’s bible is a translation of the Vulgate, which states “currus Pharaonis et exercitum eius proiecit in mare electi principes eius submersi sunt in mari Rubro”. “Rubro” is “red”. Yes "reed" is a spelling, and pronunciation, of "red" (per Reed (name) for example). Wycliffe is saying “red”. The name "Red Sea" in English matches the literal meaning in various tongues of the region, ancient and modern, and association between the biblical passage and this body of water long predates the very existence of the English language, let alone originating in a mistranslation caused by the similarity of two words in English. That there is a question as to whether the body of water referred to in Exodus 15:4 is named from the Hebrew for "reeds" and that the words “red” and “reed” happen to be similar in English is just a coincidence.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes you are quite correct. It's simply a coincidence.

The word 'red' is indeed spelled 'reed' elsewhere in the Wycliffe bible e.g.

Gen 25.25 He that yede out first was reed, and al rouy in the manere of a skyn; and his name was clepid Esau

And Gen 25.30 he seide to Jacob, Yyue thou to me of this reed sething, for Y am ful weri; for which cause his name was clepid Edom

Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Whether I am correct about your theory and that you agree with me that you are wrong is not the important point, hence it being noted in brackets, as an aside. The point is that there should be no discussion of theories by anyone other than a WP:RS. Do not bring original research here; this not a forum, as you well know. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

None of the above.
Its a matter of being literal and following where it takes you. The assumption is that the israelites inhabited and left the eastern delta. No proof of that. That leaves you with the idea of everything happening west. With the Nile being the natural defensive barrier, why would the eastern delta be the best land the Egyptians had to offer? When it came to security issues, what was worse, enemies from outside or enemies within the western delta? The mythological background for the sea of reeds is that of their version of paradise. The egyptian troops were well south and the israelites had time to cross by way of a very wide front that made it possible for them to cross quickly. By the time the cavalry appeared, water was rising, the mud stopped them in their tracks and they could not make it back. All while the traditional eastern wind scared both israelites and egyptians. It explains why they were safe while crossing. Too many issues when it comes to explaining things when it comes to the traditional interpretation.--Rdclmn7 (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Land's End
The Red Sea or Erythraean Sea, Yam sup(h) in Classical Hebrew, can also be translated as the sea at the end of the earth/world or ground/land, i.e. the Arabian Sea around the Sinai Peninsula. 122.148.191.30 (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The phrase Yam Suph in the narrative of the Exodus
Hope my recent edits are not Too Bold. Seems reasonable to concentrate on the context of '"...in the narrative of the Exodus...", while retaining all the other references. Following normal Wikipedia practice, the Intro now simply summerises/simplifies material that appears below in the body. - Snori (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Lead section
With the recent changes the Lead has strayed from the content of the "Translation and location" section. The changes need to be referenced or changed to reflect that section. Editor2020 (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Most of the ideas in the page are nonsense
The whole idea of this sea somehow not being the Red Sea is really weird. It is still the name for it in Hebrew (some people started calling it Red Sea also, but that is because of English, most still say Yam Suf), it isn't and never was a contested idea, so not sure where this came from.

The idea that the word "suf" (reed) could somehow mean "sof" (end) or "sufa" (storm) is complete nonsense, just because two words sound similar does not mean they are related, or somehow "hint" of each other, especially with such a simple word, which is bound to have some words that sound like it.

Not as much a scientific argument, but if the parting of the Red Sea was not in the Red Sea, how exactly did the Israelites get across it? It's not like they had boats, and at least within the story, they somehow get to the other side of it. (It doesn't even matter if it didn't happen, you can assume some level of consistency in the story).

If it is ok, I would like to start this article almost from scratch, as most of it is just wrong. Eylon Shachmon (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)