As far as I can gather, the original article (there
are a few "secondary" sources) is, "Are There Oceanographic
Explanations for the Israelites' Crossing of the Red Sea?"
by Doron Nof and Nathan Paldor, in Bulletin American
Meteorological Society 73 (1992), 305-14. I have a
copy in front of me, so this is not a wild goose chase.
They suggest "two relatively simple physical oceanographic
processes" as "plausible explanations for the biblical
description" of the event. Interested parties will
have to consult the article themselves for details, but
briefly these are:
(1) a moderate storm, producing winds of c. 20 m/sec,
blowing across a long and narrow body of water, causes
the shoreline to recede for a period of time, after which
(when the wind relaxes) the water returns in a "fast gravity
wave that floods the entire receding zone within minutes."
(2) "a tsunami (i.e., a flood resulting from an earthquake
under the sea) that arrived in the Gulf of Suez from the main
body of the Red Sea," involving a "fast gravity wave."
I believe the second scenario, or something similar, has been
suggested before: an archaeologist I know tells me that a
volcanic explosion somewhere in the Mediterranean (sorry, I
can't remember the place or the name of the volcano) has
been connected with the Exodus by some in the past.
I'm just a simple historian and can't judge the scientific
merits of these proposed scenarios. I can report that,
when my students heard about this paper, it generated both
glee (on the part of those students who saw it as "confirming"
the Exodus) and consternation (from students who believed that
the Exodus had to be "miraculous" and beyond any natural
processes). Indeed, one student -- the most literally minded,
ironically -- denied that the Bible allowed any natural means,
such as an east wind blowing all night, until she went back and
read the story again, where indeed there was "a stron east wind
all that night". However, she continued firm in her conviction
that scenario (1) just couldn't be biblical, because the land
wouldn't really be "dry," as the Bible says. No "blow dryers"
built into the scenario, apparently. Ah, the ruminations of
intelligent minds (she's one of the brightest students in her
group) are sometimes beyond the ken of mortals...
It seems to me, from talking with people (including student
people) for years about things like this, that folks who propose
"scientific" explanations for certain biblical events (such as
the dial of Ahaz or Jonah or the resurrection, for that matter)
are bound to be stuck by both horns of a dilemma. On the one
horn, they are impaled because they "don't trust the Bible,"
which says that "God did it," and that's all we can ever know
about it. (I myself saw Kepler impaled by a fundamentalist
magazine because he dared to suggest that the star of Bethlehem
might have involved a triple conjunction. I wrote that magazine
to defend poor Johannes, whose present condition makes it difficult
for him to reply. They had the decency to print my letter, I'm
happy to say.) On the other horn, they are impaled because they
take biblical reports seriously and don't assume they are
all mythical in character; therefore, they are trying to "confirm"
what can't be "confirmed" in "time and space," to borrow Mr.
Schaeffer's words. Ultimately, I would suggest, they are
impaled because they believe in truth and they like to think...
I have long been interested in the types of things reported by
Bernard Ramm in THe Christian View of Science and Scripture, which
contains many instances similar to those I have been discussing.
Participants in this discussion who know of things that would
interest me are invited to send me (off board) leads. Many thanks,
in advance.
Ted Davis
tdavis@messiah.edu