Computers show how wind could have parted Red SeaUnfortunately, this story is sweeping through the gullible mainstream media like, well, a strong east wind.
(BBC)
New computer simulations have shown how the parting of the Red Sea, as described in the Bible, could have been a phenomenon caused by strong winds.
The account in the Book of Exodus describes how the waters of the sea parted, allowing the Israelites to flee their Egyptian pursuers.
Simulations by US scientists show how the movement of wind could have opened up a land bridge at one location.
This would have enabled people to walk across exposed mud flats to safety.
The results are published in the open-access journal Plos One.
[...]
The problem with this kind of wild guesswork is that it insists on taking stories as literal history when they give every appearance of being legends. Their historical basis, if any, is irrecoverable using such historical tools as we have, and we need not assume any historical basis for them at all. Such notions ("theories" would be a rather generous term) give a naturalistic explanation for something presented in the text as a miracle, but advance no actual historical evidence that such a natural event happened. The argument is simply that if one insists that the story have a factual, non-miraculous basis, one can reinterpret the story to be about an event that happened in this way, even though it is not the event described in the text.
The prose narrative about this particular biblical episode was written centuries after the supposed event. Even the poetic passage in Exodus 15:1-18, which has been argued by Cross et al. to be linguistically and typologically early, is likely generations to centuries after the event. The poem is also heavily influenced by the Canaanite myth of the warrior storm god defeating the chaotic sea dragon, so any event behind it has been thoroughly processed through a mythic template.
The most sensible historical-critical approach to the story of the crossing of the Sea of Reeds is that it is a origins legend based in a creation myth. One need not assume any historical basis for it and any such basis has probably been reworked beyond recognition.
We are being asked to assume, nevertheless, that some historical core lies behind the story and it has been recovered by these scientists, who based it on the widely-held theory that the Israelites took a northern route close to the Mediterranean coast during the flight from Egypt. Is it possible that these scientists are right? Sure, although it would have been an awfully lucky coincidence that this strong, precisely placed wind came along just in time to save the fleeing Israelites and left just in time to thwart the Egyptian pursuers. But the question for the historian is never, "Is this possible?" (pretty much always the answer would be yes), but rather is "What is the evidence and how persuasive is it?" Not very in this case.
One can also believe the story as presented: as a miracle brought about by divine intervention. That's a matter of faith, but I have no quarrel with it as long as it is so labeled.
It is telling, but sadly predictable, that no biblical scholars were even consulted for this BBC story. The Plos One article is here, and it too ignores the scholarly literature on the Exodus traditions apart from a couple of apologetic works. We have encountered the journal Plos One before and I have raised a concern about it here. It makes much of its rigorous peer review process, but it labels itself as a science/medicine journal and I doubt very much that any biblical scholars were involved in the peer review of this piece.