Notes on the Red vs. Reed Sea Issue in James K. Hoffmeier, Israel In and Out of Egypt (2026)

  

The Hebrew יָמָּה סּוּף (yam sûp) can refer to the Red Sea—that is, the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba—as well as the inland sea on Egypt’s eastern frontier that is known as “the Sea of Reeds,” which will be argued is Lake Ballah. (James K. Hoffmeier, Israel In and Out of Egypt: The Archaeological and Historical Background to the Exodus [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2026], 311)

 

 

Hebrew yam sûp, in recent decades, has been widely accepted as meaning “reed sea” and referring to one of the lakes between the Mediterranean and the Gulf of Suez—that is the Red Sea.

 

. . .

 

With the rise of source criticism in the last century, some scholars have contended that the inconsistency merely reflects the multiplicity of oral and written traditions and their conflation in the Pentateuch. This explanation is not very compelling when one considers that the two terms occur in parallelism in the Song of the Sea, the putative oldest witness to the sea crossing (see next section). Translating yam sûp as “Reed Sea” or “Sea of Reeds” had not been seriously challenged until Batto’s 1983 study. (James K. Hoffmeier, Israel In and Out of Egypt: The Archaeological and Historical Background to the Exodus [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2026], 349)

 

 

There are other reasons for not relying upon the LXX to elucidate the name and location of Israel’s exodus sea. First, the LXX does not actually translate the Hebrew term sûp; rather, it offers a geographical interpretation. Second, its translation of the Hebrew yam sûp is used in Hebrew for the sea through which the Israelites passed (Exod 13:18; 15:4; Josh 24:6), the Gulf of Suez (Num 33:10, 11), and the Gulf of Aqaba (Exod 23:31; Deut 1:40; 2:1; 1 Kgs 9:”6), but the LXX does not translate all occurrences of yam sûp by erythrá thalássē. One such variant is found in Judg 11:16. Jephtha’s retrospective on the exodus and wilderness period is very brief, and it is unclear if he is referring to the sea of passage or the Gulf of Aqaba. Apparently owing to this ambiguity, the LXX simply transliterated the name of the sea as thalássēs siph.

 

The LXX’s inconsistent handling of yam sûp in 1 Kgs 9:26 and Judg 11:16 ought to caution against relying upon it to settle the meaning of the term sûp or the intended location of the sea in Exod 14-15. Therefore, the search for the sea of the exodus should rest primarily on the Hebrew manuscript tradition and not on the LXX. (James K. Hoffmeier, Israel In and Out of Egypt: The Archaeological and Historical Background to the Exodus [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2026], 359)

 

 

François Bovon on the text of Luke 2:14

  

Structurally, the song falls into two parts, as the καί (“and”) demonstrates. It suits the Jewish style of prayer that the second is the longer part. Glory (A), highest (B), earth (B’), and peace (A’) are juxtaposed chiastically. Symmetrically, God stands at the end of the first part, and humanity at the end of the second. The beauty of the song emerges from this “braided” composition.

 

Byzantine manuscripts, ancient translations, and some church fathers read ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία (“among people, good pleasure”) and thus presuppose a tripartite composition. But the most ancient Greek manuscripts and the Latin tradition read ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας (“among people of good pleasure”), which is original, since the other variants attempt to improve on the ambiguous εὐδοκίας (if they cannot be explained palaeographically).

 

Supported by the imprecise Latin translation hominibus bonae voluntatis and the moralization of Christian faith in late antiquity, εὐδοκία (“good pleasure”) was understood anthropologically: God’s peace is for people of goodwill.

 

In Luke εὐδοκία and εὐδοκέω (“to be well pleased”) otherwise always denote the divine will to save. In 1QH 4.32–33 we find the corroborating expression, “the abundance of His mercies towards all the sons of His grace.” Like רָצוֹן, εὐδοκία is, in Luke 2:14, God’s good pleasure. C. H. Dodd has analyzed this concept thoroughly in the New Testament and notes its aspect of divine resolve and choice: “Essentially it is an act of will, not an expression of feeling,” and “then εὐδοκία would indicate, not so much gratification or approval, but divine action, and the action in question is, characteristically, the predestinating act of grace which is the ultimate ground of our salvation.”

 

In Luke, at least, one should not play the will against the emotions. His concept of God is strongly affective. So he has in mind less a resolution than a loving movement of the entire person, which awaits love in return. Εὐδοκία thus has a relational quality; perhaps for this reason, there is no intensive pronoun (“his,” αὐτοῦ): the εὐδοκία of God sets in motion the εὐδοκία of people and waits impatiently for it. This is not synergism in the dogmatic sense, but rather mutual love and recognition.

 

The angels do not speak Jesus’ name, but their prayer (v. 14) comments on his birth (vv. 6–7) and supplements the interpretation of his messianic function (vv. 10–11). Only this eschatological event, interpreted by the Word of God, makes possible the pure joy of the angels and the harmony between heavenly liturgy and earthly peace.

 

The angels sing their praise without a trace of jealousy, and they admit their own inability and feebleness. Their function is to help humans (Heb 1:14), but only deliverance through Jesus can bring salvation to humanity. (François Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50 [trans. Christine M. Thomas; Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002], 90-91)

 

Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger on Psalm 97:7

  

Verse 7c only increases the irony: the gods whose images are adored by their followers have long since acknowledged that they are no gods at all, and there–fore they throw themselves down before the only true God, Yhwh, who, as these nothing–gods hymnically acknowledge before Yhwh in v. 9 in a kind of “self–undivinizing,” has proven himself to be the Most High over all the earth and above all gods.²⁶ Thus Yhwh’s theophany undivinizes the gods and frees the “servants of idols” from their dependence on “worthless idols,” “nothing–gods,” but also denies them the possibility of appealing to these gods, which are no such thing, on behalf of their actions (including both social and political acts). (Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51-100 [trans. Linda M. Maloney; Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005], 475)

 

Robert Alter on Psalm 97:7

  

All gods bow down to Him. For the somewhat ambiguous background of formulations of this sort in this sequence of psalms, see the comments on 95:3 and 96:5. At least on the surface, this clause appears to be a flat contradiction of the two preceding versets, which speak of “idol worshippers” and “ungods.” (For an explanation of the Hebrew background to this latter term, see the note on 96:5). One must allow the possibility that the psalmist thought idol worship absurd, not because the idols were mere sticks and stones, as Deutero-Isaiah imagined them, but rather because they were images of deities who had no real power, who were totally subservient to the one supreme God, and therefore were not worthy of worship. In that case, ʾelilim, “ungods,” would mean something like “paltry pseudo-gods.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:230-31)

 

Robert Alter on Psalm 95:3

  

For a great god is the LORD, / and great king over all the gods. The language here harks back to a period when YHWH was thought of not as the one exclusive deity but as the most powerful of the gods, though it is unclear whether the formulation in this psalm reflects active belief or merely a linguistic survival. In any case, the next two verses proceed to proclaim that YHWH alone is the master of depths and heights, the maker of sea and earth, an idea that would seem to preclude the notion of sundry gods having jurisdiction over the various realms of nature. Scholars attached to the hypothesis of an annual ritual of the coronation of YHWH of course have seized on this psalm as a liturgical text for the rite, but its existence remains conjectural. Later Jewish tradition made this the first in a sequence of psalms chanted as a prelude to the Friday-evening prayer for welcoming the sabbath, evidently because the sabbath was seen as a celebration of creation. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:227)

 

Psalm 93 and the “Prophetic Perfect”

  

93:1 This psalm speaks of Messianic times, but it is couched in the past tense, as if spoken by those of Messiah’s generation. The past tense implies that God has always reigned, it is only we who failed to perceive it. (The Artscroll English Tanach, Stone Edition: The Jewish Bible with Insights from Classical Rabbinic Thought [New York: Artscroll Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 2011], 987)

 

 

Rashi on Psalms 93:1:1

The Lord has reigned They will say in the future.

 

Rashi on Psalms 93:1:2

The world also is established When He reigns, the earth will rejoice. (source)

 

 

Radak on Psalms 93:1:1

ה'. כל אלה המזמורים עד לדוד מזמור הם עתידים על ימות המשיח וכאשר השלים בזה המזמור כי אז יכירו כל העולם כי הוא מלך על הכל ולא יתגאו בני אדם לפניו כמו שאמר נבוכדנצר אעלה על במותי עב אדמה לעליון ושאר מלכים ואז יכירו הכל כי לא ילבש מלכות גאות כי אם האל לבדו ולו לבדו המלוכה ואז ותאזר עוז:

 

5. All these psalms, up to “A Psalm of David,” are speaking of the days of the Messiah. And when he completes this psalm, then all the world will recognize that he is king over all, and human beings will not exalt themselves before him, as Nebuchadnezzar said, “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,” and other kings likewise. Then everyone will recognize that kingship does not wear pride, but God alone does, and to him alone belongs the kingdom. Then, “You have girded yourself with strength.”

 

 

Radak on Psalms 93:1:2

ותכון תבל בל תמוט. כי לא יהיו שם עוד מרגיזי הארץ כי לא תהיה עוד מלחמה:

 

“And the world is established; it shall not be moved.” For there will no longer be any who unsettle the earth, because there will be no more war.

 

James K. Hoffmeier on the Chiasmus in Judges 10:28-42

  

It might be further observed that when the terminology used to describe what happened to each city is read carefully, a further chiasmus emerges:

 

A (28) (took [lkd]) לכד

B          (29) (fought [wylḥm]) וילחם

C                      (30) (smote [wykh]) נכה (ויכה)

D                                  (31) (siege and assault [yḥn, wylḥm]) ויחן וילחם

E                                              (33) (smote him [wykhw]) ויכהו

                                                [The king of Gezer, not Gezer]

D’                                 (34) (siege and assault [wyḥn, wylḥm]) ויחן וילחם

B’         (36) (fought [ylḥm]) וילחם

B’         (38) (fought [wylḥm]) וילחם

C’                     (40) (smote [wykh]) נכה (ויכה)

C’                     (41) (smote ‘wykh]) נכה (ויכה)

A’ (42) (took [lkd]) לכד (James K. Hoffmeier, Israel In and Out of Egypt: The Archaeological and Historical Background to the Exodus [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2026], 57)

 

Commenting on B’ and C’ in the proposed chiasmus:

 

I have no explanation for why B’ and C’ have been reversed from the sequence in the first half of the chiasmus. (Ibid., 57 n. 139)