X marks the spot of Red Sea parting?

by Letters Editor · March 17, 2011

From: David Sleeman, Johannesburg

I found the article on the parting of the Red Sea (January 19) very interesting. In 1954 I was in the Royal Air Force and was posted to the Suez Canal for the better part of a year, so I know the geography of the area fairly well.

Anna Maria Basquez has written a good article, but I find one of her statements puzzling. She says: �The spot where the parting took place is 120km north of the most popularly theorised place in Egypt, which has been the Suez Canal.�

What does this mean? The Suez Canal runs almost exactly north to south, with a few bends from Port Said on the Mediterranean to the town of Suez on the Gulf of Suez. It is 168 km long. Qantara, which she mentioned is about 50km south of Port Said and therefore about 120km north of the Suez itself. Perhaps this is what she meant to say or perhaps what the Colorado scientist meant to say.

Pelusium which is also mentioned, is the large area north east of the Suez Canal�originally salt marshes or the Sea of Reeds. This later became confused with the Red Sea.

As the Catholic News Service graphic showed, the Red Sea is roughly 200km wide or more. But what happened to the Gulf of Aqaba in the graphic? The boundaries of countries are shown accurately apart from those of Israel.

The Gulf of Aquaba is part of the Great Rift Valley, beginning with the River Jordan and the Dead Sea and running down through Africa, as we know. Is there something I am missing here? I do not wish to find fault�the article is still very interesting and worthwhile.