Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

My oldie-but-goodie Gesenius lexicon says "sea-weed, sedge, Jon. 2,6. 
Hence YAM-SW.P, the sea of sedge, i.e. the Arabian Gulf or Red Sea,
which abounds in seaweed..."  I've never been there so I can't verify
this, but considering how long the lexicon has endured and how many
others have been based on it, I would suspect that he did his homework. 
And as has been pointed out, the references in Jonah and the clear
reference to the Gulf of Aqabah seems to preclude the idea that the
expression referred to the Bitter Lakes, unless we want to posit an ad
hoc meaning especially for the occurrences in Exodus.

On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 09:31, David Kimbrough (CLWA) wrote:
> I think it is worth noting that in Jonah (2:5), Suf is used for "sea-weed"
> or "kelp":  "The waters compassed me about, [even] to the soul: the depth
> closed me round about, the weeds (suf) were wrapped about my head."  Bing in
> the "fish's belly", the only reasonable reading of Suf in this context is
> "sea-weed" as there is no reason to expect fresh water reeds to be in the
> stomach a giant fish in the sea.
> 
> It is also not too important that there actually be any seaweed or reeds in
> or near the "Yam Suf".  The Yellow River is not yellow, the Red Sea is not
> Red, the Black Sea, although darker than most due to anoxic conditions, is
> not black, the Pacific Ocean, despite its name, is no more "peaceful" than
> any other Ocean.  There are al kinds of geographical names that in no
> reflective feature it identifies.  This is true of people  I know people
> whose name is "Short" who are rather tall.  It is just a name.
> 
> dkimbrough AT clwa.org
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Kirk [mailto:peterkirk AT qaya.org]
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 8:12 AM
> To: Jonathan D. Safren
> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Yam Suph "Reed" Sea ?
> 
> 
> On 26/01/2004 07:50, Jonathan D. Safren wrote:
> 
> >Peter Kirk wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>The Red Sea may not have reeds growing in it (contrary to Patterson's
> >>TWOT article, they do not grow in sea water, but then Hebrew professors
> >>should not be relied on as authorities on botany), but, as I have seen,
> >>it does have mangroves growing in it - currently only a few, but they
> >>may have been more common millennia ago. This would distinguish the Red
> >>Sea and its branches from the mangrove-less Mediterranean. So if suph is
> >>a more generic term for aquatic plants, this would be a good label to
> >>distinguish the seas.
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >As I wrote in my original posting, Israeli geographer Menashe Harel claims
> >that reeds do not grow by bodies of salt water (I understand him to mean
> the
> >specific bodies of salt water adjoining Egypt and Syro-Palestine, though he
> >may have intended something more general) ...
> >
> 
> I think this is generally true, in fact that mangroves are the only 
> flowering plants which can live in sea water.
> 
> >..., but they do grow by brackish
> >water, such as were the Bitter Lakes before the Suez Canal.
> >Harel is considered one of Israel's foremost geographical authorities, and
> I
> >imagine he wouldn't be wrong on this one.
> >  
> >
> 
> I don't suggest that he is. I was referring to sea water, not to 
> brackish water. Incidentally, the fact that this water is brackish 
> rather than saturated with salt implies that there must have been some 
> way for salt-bearing water to escape to the sea, which would very likely 
> have been through sandy deposits blocking the original channel to the 
> Red Sea.
> 
> >Therefore one must cnsider the possibility that "yam suph" can refer to two
> >different bodies of water in the Bible, that of Ex. 14, and that of 1
> Kings.
> >  
> >
> 
> Well, there cannot be such a neat distinction. BDB suggests that yam-suf 
> refers to the Gulf of Aqaba not only in 1 Kings 9:26, but also in 
> Numbers 21:4, 14:25, Deut 1:40, 2:1 (these are references to DEREK 
> YAM-SUF), and perhaps Judges 11:16, Jer 49:21, and by emendation Deut 
> 1:1. It is possible that all these except the first are references to 
> the Bitter Lakes, but unlikely given the geographical context.
>