EXAMINING THE RATIONALE BEHIND VARIOUS SCENARIOS proposed for the route of the Exodus and the location of Mount Sinai reveals a near-universal truth: logical, clear thought is often sacrificed on the altar of desire. The researcher wants to see a particular scheme of events, so that is what they "discover" in their "original research". This drive often betrays itself in the rhetoric used to "prove" a case.

A number of major obstacles hinder consensus. First, nobody wants to have their thinking subjected to intellectual interrogation and be told it is wanting. Every one of us wants to be "right"; we all squirm uncomfortably when someone else has the temerity to probe our logic. We find it very hard to see the flaws in our own ideas. Second - and this is a personal observation - hardly anybody seems to care about logic and clarity of thought. This truism applies not only to the individual "doing the research" but also to the person who critiques the research. The reasons presented for holding to a particular position, together with the reasons presented for rejecting a particular position, are usually slanted according to a preconceived view. As a result, evidence is selectively chosen and the syllogisms become flawed. Where oh where is the disinterested logician?! Possibly Proverbs 26:16 applies here:

The lazy man is wiser in his own eyes than seven men who can answer sensibly.

Laziness comes very easily when it comes to thinking; few, it seems, are even concerned about returning a "sensible answer" in their researches. As long as the argument appears persuasive, that's all that matters. Calm, unprejudiced, unbiased analysis of the evidence just doesn't happen. Leaving aside the question of how one acquires a particular belief in the first place, once acquired forever defended. Nikolai Gogol puts it so well:

Once an idea has got into his head, you can't knock it out of it; however many arguments, as clear as daylight, you may put before him, they all rebound from him like a rubber ball from a wall (Dead Souls).

Another obstacle to impartial logic, hardly ever recognized and never acknowledged, can be found in a fundamental human vice: a spirit of competitiveness, the near-universal and almost uncontrollable desire to outshine others. In a word, egotism. The greatest enemy of truth is bloated egos (John 7:18). And society encourages it! "Our team is wonderful, while yours is the pits" is a sentiment that pervades everything. People spend huge sums on cosmetic surgery because they want to look better than others. In the Old Testament the concept of competitiveness is best expressed by the Hebrew word "qinah", which is generally translated as either "envy" or "jealousy" when describing a vice, and as "jealousy" or "zeal" when referring to a virtue. Possibly the same word is used for two seemingly unrelated concepts for a simple reason: they are actually quite similar, the essence of the concept expressed having to do with what makes one burn with excitement. With human beings, the real mover and shaker is the desire to be seen to be better, smarter, whateverer than others. Proverbs 27:4 says,

Wrath is cruel and anger a torrent, but who is able to stand before jealousy [qinah]?

Someone who is trying to outdo you in any endeavor will stop at nothing to show they are superior. No wonder the author of the Song of Solomon declared that envy is as "cruel as the grave" (8:6). The spirit of envy or competitiveness is potentially more destructive than simple anger. Ecclesiastes 4:4 seems to be saying the same thing. Here it is in the Jewish Soncino translation:

Again, I considered all labour and all excelling in work, that it is a man's rivalry [qinah] with his neighbor.

Why did Amundsen risk all to be the first to reach the South Pole? Why do elite athletes sacrifice comfort and ordinary pleasures in pursuit of gold? Daring adventures and awesome accomplishments are inspired by the desire for personal glory, to be seen as "the best"; in a word, great endeavors are ego-driven. A search for the same concept in the New Testament leads one to the Greek word "eritheia", which the Arndt and Gingrich lexicon, while noting that its meaning is a matter of conjecture, translates as "strife, contentiousness; selfishness, selfish ambition", and adds the comment that it was "found before NT times only in Aristotle. where it denotes a self-seeking pursuit of political office by unfair means". Its usage in the New Testament, where it appears seven times, supports the notion that it overlaps qinah considerably in connotation. In Galatians 5:20 Paul lists it as a "work of the flesh", and in Philippians 1:16 as an evil motivation that leads some people to "preach Christ". In Philippians 2:3 he pleads with believers to ,"Let nothing be done through selfish ambition [eritheia] or conceit". James condemns it outright as a great destroyer of harmony:

For where envy and self-seeking[eritheia] exist, confusion and every evil thing are there (3:16).

John Adams, a keen observer of human behavior, was well aware of this tendency. He described it in brilliant terms:

They worry one another like mastiffs, scrambling for rank and pay like apes for nuts. I believe there is no one principle which predominates in human nature so much in every stage of life, from the cradle to the grave, in males and females, old and young, black and white, rich and poor, high and low, as this passion for superiority (McCullough 2001, p. 170).

Yes, this vice affects Bible students, too. Some are impelled in their search for the "real Sinai" not so much by a longing for truth as a yearning for recognition as a brilliant researcher, as the one who has solved a long-lasting problem, and so on. Unfortunately, the quest for glory readily leads to fudging the facts and twisting the evidence. Saying all this should not be construed as a universal accusation against all writers on the topic of the location of Sinai, or on any other topic one cares to name. It is intended to alert us to a simple truth; just because someone says something doesn't make it true. People may resort to all sorts of illogicality, albeit unwittingly, to support their contention. Beware. Analyze. Think. This author is well aware of this temptation and seeks to resist it at all times.

Circular reasoning

Figuring large in the classical errors made by many Sinai-hunters is the old problem of circular reasoning. An example: Bryant Wood, a respectable biblical scholar and archaeologist, has located Mount Sinai about 22 miles northwest of the modern city of modern Eilat on the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba. In an article titled "What Do Mt. Horeb, The Mountain of God, Mt. Paran and Mt. Seir Have to Do with Mt. Sinai?", he makes the claim,

Gebel Khashm et-Tarif, a mountain explored by the Associates for Biblical Research in 2007. Located ca. 22 miles west-northwest of the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba/Elat, it is the only site thus far proposed that meets all of the Biblical requirements for Mt. Sinai.

In order to "prove" his case, he notes that, based on Deuteronomy 33:2 and Habakkuk 3:3-4, Mt Paran and Mount Sinai are one and the same. (These verses can be read quite differently, but that's another story.) So he concludes, logically enough, that, "The use of Mt. Paran as an alternate name for Mt. Sinai leads to the conclusion that Mt. Sinai should be located in the Wilderness of Paran." (That this is incorrect is made clear in Num. 2:12 which tells that they moved out of Sinai into Paran. Mount Sinai is in the wilderness of Sinai, not in the wilderness of Paran! But for the sake of the illustration here, let's forget that point.) Right, now we are getting somewhere. He says,

The Wilderness of Paran was the area encompassed by the Wadi Paran and its tributaries, extending from approximately the midpoint of the Arabah Valley between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba/Elat, southwest to the Trans-Sinai Highway.

But hang on a moment. On what does he base his conviction as to the location of Paran's wilderness? His point only flies if he knows for sure where the wilderness of Paran was found. But therein lies the rub. Identifying geographical coordinates for each of the wildernesses and the stop-over points named in the Pentateuch is a guessing game based largely on where one believes the crossing occurred and where Mount Sinai is located! Bryant Wood doesn't state how he determined the location of Paran. He has, however, only two options:

•  He accepts the traditional view on the matter. But the traditional location is based on commitment to a Yam Suf crossing just outside Egypt and a location for Mount Sinai in the south of the Sinai Peninsula. (Yes, it's confusing. One needs to remember that "Sinai Peninsula" is a geographical misnomer if ever there was one.)
•  He decided where Mount Sinai must be and then worked from there to figure out the location of Paran.

Either way, circular reasoning is the name of the game.

Another brilliant example of poor logic comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Red Sea. See if you can spot the problem in this passage:

The Scriptural references to the Red Sea are directly connected with its northern gulfs. Those which concern the Gulf of Akabah… are comparatively few and unimportant. In Exodus 23:31, that gulf is simply given as the southern limit of the Holy Land; in 1 Kings 9:26; 2 Chronicles 8:17, it is spoken of in connexion with Solomon's maritime commerce, and in 1 Kings 22:48, in reference to Josaphat's unsuccessful attempt in the same direction; finally, in Jeremiah 49:21, it is mentioned in a prediction of the utter ruin of Edom. The Scriptural references to the Gulf of Suez. are on the contrary both numerous and important, for it is the miraculous passage of that arm of the Red Sea which is described in Exodus 14, celebrated in Moses' Canticle (Exodus 15), and repeatedly referred to in other parts of Holy Writ.

Stop and think. Every scriptural reference cited here clearly associates the Red Sea with the north-eastern Gulf of Aqaba. Not a single passage is called on to establish a Gulf of Suez identity. Then the author asserts, based on nothing more than tradition, that all the many references to the Red Sea in connection with the Exodus refer to the Gulf of Suez! He uses classical circular reasoning. Reasoning unfettered by tradition will acknowledge that in almost every instance (one possible exception only can be found) Scripture points to the Gulf of Aqaba as the Red Sea. Ah, the power of tradition!

More errors of logic could be raised raised (see also "The case of the strange Midianite connection"), but this should be enough to alert the reader to be on the lookout.

Search this site

References and notes

McCullough, David 2001, John Adams , Simon & Schuster, New York

Further reading

Other printed material