the question with reference to my view of it, with which he had become acquainted, and in opposition he especially mentions the arguments which he had formerly maintained in favour of Gebel Sefsâf. He comprehends these under the three following heads, which he extracts from the Mosaic narrative, as being eminently striking, and which must therefore also now be pointed out: “1st. A mountain summit overlooking the place where the people stood. 2nd. Space sufficient adjacent to the mountain for so large a multitude to stand and behold the phenomena on the summit. 3rd. The relation between this space where the people stood and the base of the mountain must be such that they could approach and stand at ‘the nether part of the mount,’ that they could also touch it; and that further bounds could appropriately be set around the mount, lest they should go up into it, or touch the border of it.” Of these three heads, the first would speak against Gebel Mûsa, and not against Serbâl. This last, says Robinson, is excluded by the second and third head. Now with respect to the second, I must only call to mind that the encampment of the people at Sinai is not related in a different manner from all the previous stations. If, therefore, we take such a circumscribed view of the encampment as to believe that we must provide for sufficient _space_ for the settlement of such a great people, we should then have to indicate a plain of Râha at all the previous stations, especially in Raphidîm (which by almost unanimous opinion was situated at the foot of the Serbâl), because here manifestly they remained for a considerable time, Moses was visited by Jethro, by his advice divided the whole people into tens, and organised them according to a form of law, from which we should be compelled to conclude that there, for the first time, existed a distinct locality for each individual. He who imagines a multitude of two millions of men, about as many as the inhabitants of London, or of the whole of Egypt at the present day, placed in an enclosed camp composed of tents, of which they must have had two hundred thousand, if we reckon one for every ten, like a huge, well-arranged military camp, even to him the plain of Râha would appear too small; but he who assumes that a comparatively small number could assemble round the chief quarters of Moses, but that all the others must have sought for shady places, caves in the rock-precipices, and the scanty herbage of the adjacent valleys, can as easily imagine the camp to have been placed in Wadi Firân, or at any other station. Wadi Firân besides, as far down as El Hessue, even if we only take its most fertile portion (more inviting as a settlement than any other spot), would offer, in combination with the broad Wadi Aleyât, just as large, and at all events a far more habitable space, for a combined encampment than the plain of Râha. Indeed, if it be true that we can gain anything from such single facts, such an encampment would render it still more comprehensible why the people were led _out of the camp_ towards God at the foot of the mountain in the upper portion of Wadi Aleyât, in order to have a complete survey of the mountain. To obtain such a view would be impossible at Gebel Mûsa, and unnecessary at Gebel Sefsâf. Finally, the command not to ascend the mountain, which is expressed still more imperatively, that no one “should touch the border of the mountain,” applies to every mountain, which rises simply before the eyes, and whose means of access can be shut out by a fence. Immediately beyond the fence lies the border of the mountain.
With reference to this last point, Robinson appeals to my own map of Serbâl, and the description of Wadi Aleyât, by Bartlett (Forty Days in the Desert, p. 54, 59). It would be difficult, however, to prove from my map that the people could not have spread themselves out at the foot of the mountain, and Bartlett seems to me rather to share my opinion. As this traveller is so well known by his descriptions of countries, which are both beautifully illustrated and clearly and graphically described, and as he is just one of the few who have examined the localities with his own eyes in reference to the question started by me without holding any previous views on the subject, it may not be inappropriate to insert here those words relating to it, from a book cited by Robinson in favour of his own view; so much the rather, as I could not possibly have placed the chief heads of the question in a more convincing point of view.
He says, p. 55[412]: “If we endeavour to reconcile ourselves to the received but _questionable system_ which seeks to accommodate the miraculous with the natural, _it is impossible_, I think, _not to close with the reasoning advanced in favour of the Serbâl_. There can be no doubt that Moses was personally well acquainted with the Peninsula, and had even probably dwelt in the vicinity of Wadi Feirân during his banishment from Egypt; but even common report as to the present day, would point to this favoured locality AS THE ONLY FIT SPOT _in the whole range of the desert for the supply, either with water or such provisions as the country afforded_, of the Israelitish host: on this ground alone, then, he would be led irresistibly to fix upon it, when meditating a long sojourn for the purpose of compiling the law. This consideration derives additional force when we consider the supply of wood and other articles requisite for the construction of the tabernacles, and which can only be found readily at Wadi Feirân, and of its being also, in all probability, from early times a place visited by trading caravans. But if Moses were even unacquainted previously with the resources of the place, he must have passed it on his way from the sea-coast through the interior of the mountains, and _it is inconceivable that he should have refused to avail himself of its singular advantages for his purpose_, or that the host would have consented, without a murmur, to quit, after so much privation, this fertile and well-watered oasis for new perils in the barren desert, or that he should, humanly speaking, have been able either to compel them to do so, or afterwards to fix them in the _inhospitable, unsheltered position of the monkish Mount Sinai, with the fertile Feirân but one day’s long march in their rear_. Supplies of _wood_, and perhaps of _water, must, in that case, have been brought of necessity from the very spot they had but just abandoned_. We must suppose that the _Amalekites_ would oppose the onward march of the Israelites, _where they alone had a fertile territory_ worthy of being disputed, and from which Moses must, of necessity, have sought to expel them. If it be so, then in this vicinity, and no other, we must look for Raphidîm, from whence the Mount of God was at a very short distance. We seem thus to have a _combination of circumstances, which are met with nowhere else_, to certify that it was here that Moses halted for the great work he had in view, and that the scene of the law-giving is here before our eyes in its wild and lonely majesty. The principal objection to this is on the following ground, that there is no open space in the immediate neighbourhood of the Serbâl suitable for the _encampment_ of the vast multitude, and from which they could ALL OF THEM AT ONCE have had a view of the mountain, as is the case at the plain Er Rahah at Mount Sinai, where Robinson supposes, principally for that reason, the law to have been given. _But is this objection conclusive_? We read, indeed, that Israel ‘camped BEFORE THE MOUNT,’ and that ‘the Lord came down in sight of all the people;’ moreover, that bounds were set to prevent the people from breaking through and violating even the precincts of the holy solitude. Although THESE conditions are more LITERALLY fulfilled at Er Rahah, yet, if we understand them as couched in general terms, _they apply perhaps well enough to the vicinity of the Serbâl_. A glance at the view, and a reference to this small rough map[413], will show the reader that the main encampment of the host must have been in Wadi Feirân itself, from which the summit of the Serbâl is only here and there visible, and that it is by the lateral Wadi Aleyât that the base of the mountain itself, by a walk of about an hour, is to be reached. It certainly struck me, in passing up this valley, as a very unfit, if not impracticable spot for the encampment of any great number of people, _if they were all in tents_; though well supplied with pure water, the ground is rugged and rocky—towards the base of the mountain awfully so; but still _it is quite possible that a certain number might have established themselves there, as the Arabs do at present_, while, as on other occasions, the principal masses were distributed in the surrounding valleys. I do not know that there is any adequate ground for believing, as Robinson does, that because the people were warned not to invade the seclusion of the mount, and a guard was placed to prevent them from doing so, that THEREFORE THE ENCAMPMENT ITSELF pressed closely on its borders. Curiosity might possibly enough lead many to attempt this even from a distance, to say nothing of those already _supposed to be located_ in the Wadi Aleyât, near the base of the mountain, to whom the injunction would more especially apply. Those, however, who press closely the literal sense of one or two passages, should bear in mind all the difficulties previously cited, and the _absolute destitution of verdure, cultivation, running streams, and even of abundant springs, which characterise the fearfully barren vicinity of the monkish Sinai_, where there is indeed room and verge enough for encampment, BUT NO RESOURCES WHATEVER. If we take up the ground of a CONTINUAL AND MIRACULOUS PROVISION _for all the wants of two millions of people_, doubtless they may have been subsisted there as well as in any other place; _otherwise it seems incredible_ that _Moses_ should ever have abandoned a spot, offering such _unique advantages as Feirân_, to select instead _the most dreary and sterile spot in its neighbourhood_.”
This was the distinct impression, and one frankly offered, after comparing those localities with the Biblical narration, by a man who nevertheless finally remains doubtful whether, in spite of all the reasons cited, it would not be more advisable to follow “the other system,” in accordance with which we must assume it to be an uninterrupted miracle from the beginning to the end, even though this is not expressed in the Bible (see p. 19 of the work cited), whereby, assuredly, all considerations about the most probable _human_ course of that great historical event become worthless. The author then passes to some _individual points_, which he himself only calls attention to as such; in which he deviates from my mode of comprehension, since, for instance, he feels himself obliged to place the attack of the Amalekites somewhat farther down the valley towards El Hessue. The various possibilities in the explanation of the shorter marches oblige us always to point out again, that it is only by taking a view of the most essential points of the question, as a whole, that we can arrive at a positive conviction; this would necessarily drive those objections into the background, which might arise from regarding it only from any individual point.
Shortly after Robinson, in the year 1843, Dr. John Wilson travelled through Palestine and the Peninsula of Arabia Petræa; he published his extensive travels (_The Lands of the Bible_, 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1847), but did not by any means attain the high standing point held by his learned predecessor. Nevertheless, I cannot but accord with some of the objections which (vol. i. p. 222, &c.) he makes to Robinson’s assumption that Sefsâf is the Mount of the Law. He coincides with the tradition in recognising the Mount of the Law in Gebel Mûsa. In Serbâl, on the contrary, he believes that he recognises the Mount Paran of the Bible (p. 199), which we could only suppose, if we admit Mount Paran to be another expression for Sinai, and if we identify the last with Serbâl. At the close of the second volume (p. 764, &c.) the author adds a note in the Appendix, in which he guards himself against my different view as to the position of Sinai. He does not, however, here touch upon the most essential arguments which I have everywhere placed in the foreground, but only speaks of individual points, some of which can be easily overcome, and of others which have no influence on the chief question. He places DAPHKA, which is not once mentioned in the principal account, and therefore assuredly must have been a subordinate spot, in Wadi Firân, and Raphidîm, “the places for rest,” in the barren sandy Wadi e’ Scheikh, because there was _no_ water there. But, that I may use his own weapons, what has become of the spring of Moses? “_Few in the kingdom of Great Britain_ at least,” says the author, “will be disposed to substitute the _Wadi Feirân_, with clear running water, for _Rephidim_, where there was no water for the people to drink.” I think he wrongs his countrymen in making them deviate so universally from the almost unanimous tradition, and reject as a rationalistic explanation what is admitted even by the learned Fathers of the Church, who place Raphidîm in Firân, and consequently regard the spring there as belonging to Moses; besides, independently of H. BARTLETT, many others of his countrymen have distinctly declared themselves in favour of my view, which includes this point, among whom I may mention Mr. HOGG (see below, concerning his pamphlet about this particular point), the Rev. Dr. CROLY, and the author of the Pictorial Bible. If he is of opinion that I had overlooked the fact that the Wilderness of Sin and the Wilderness of Sinai had different meanings, I refer him to my pamphlet, p. 47, where precisely the opposite occurs; I have not either left unnoticed the words “_out_ of the Wilderness of Sin” (p. 39), which has not either been done by Eusebius nor St. Jerome, who equally make the Wilderness of Sin extend as far as the Wilderness of Sinai. The fight with Amalek, as it is related in Exodus, presupposes a universal, obstinate, and probably a prepared contest; that the principal attack of the front was immediately supported by an attack of the rear-guard is not excepted, as it is added besides in Deuteron. xxv. 18; the double attack besides appeared distinctly indicated in the words קָרְךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וַיְזַנֵּב ἀντέστη σοι ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, καὶ ἔκοψέ σου τὴν οὐραγίαν. At Elim, certainly, twelve _springs_ עֵינֹת not _wells_ are mentioned; but this does not alter the case, as nevertheless we cannot imagine twelve _rushing_ springs like those in the Wadi Firân, but as the author (vol. i. p. 175) himself observes, only _standing_ water underground, which must be specially dug for—therefore, in fact, wells. Their great number alone remains worthy of consideration, from which we may conclude that it was an important place. I knew the Sheikh Abu Zelîmeh very well; but that would not prevent the existence of a connection between the name and the locality, although I do not lay the slightest weight on such accordance of names.
The author omits some other reasons, which he believes he can prove in opposition to my views; these might perhaps have referred precisely to the chief points of the whole question, which had hitherto remained uncontested. The author now perhaps feels himself obliged to repeat his arguments, with reference to the separate remarks of one of his countrymen, Mr. John Hogg, who handled the subject in a very complete manner, and worked it out still further, first in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_, March, 1847, and afterwards in the _Transact. of the R. Soc. of Literature_, 2 Ser. vol. iii. p. 183-236 (read May, 1847, Jan. 1848), under the title: _Remarks and Additional Views on Dr. Lepsius’s Proofs that Mount Serbâl is the true Mount Sinai; on the Wilderness of Sin; on the Manna of the Israelites; and on the Sinaitic Inscriptions_. This learned author combines the earliest testimonies about the tradition, and from them endeavours to prove, that before the time of Justinian it was in favour of Serbâl, and not of Gebel Mûsa. He seems, in fact, to have succeeded in proving this, but we shall return, to this question below.
Since then the comprehensive work of my respected friend CARL RITTER has appeared, which is executed with his usual mastery of the subject: _Vergleichende Erdkunde der Sinai-Halbinsel, von Palästina und Syrien, erster Band_, Berlin, 1848. Although he has employed and worked out all imaginable authorities, from the most ancient to those of modern date, and has formed a complete picture of the Peninsula as a whole and in details, with a clear perception and steady hand, both in its geographical bearing and in the historical relations of its population, he has nevertheless not neglected the question now under consideration, in which geography and history are more intimately connected than in any other. Sinai is to the Peninsula of Sinai what Jerusalem is to Palestine, and as it is certain that the erection of the church on Gebel Mûsa in the sixth century, from a belief that it was founded on the spot of the law-giving, caused the _historical_ centre of the Peninsula, which previously coincided indisputably with the town of Pharan and its forest of palms (the natural _geographical_ centre), to be sundered for the first time, and gradually, since the tenth century, from this, and to be removed several days’ journey farther to the south,—so it is equally certain that the decision of the question, whether this was a _first_ or _second_ separation between the historical and geographical centre, must bear most essentially on the comprehension and delineation of the earliest history of the Peninsula, and might even exercise an influence not only on the future form of Sinaitic literature, but even on many relative conditions of the Peninsula itself, which are in no small degree regulated by the objects aimed at by the constantly increasing number of travellers. Ritter’s representation was compelled at the very outset to decide for one of these two views. At the same time, the new view, proffered at the latest termination of the preliminary works of merit, and in opposition to what had been held with implicit faith for the last thousand years, and maintained without exception by all recent writers of travels, now first appeared in the form of an occasional and necessarily imperfect traveller’s account, and might very naturally lay even less claim to a favourable hearing, not having hitherto received critical examination from any quarter, nor been noticed by later travellers. For this reason I so much the more value the careful and impartial examination of the grounds in favour of Serbâl being Mount Sinai, for which Ritter has granted a place in his work.
He does this at p. 736, &c. He here rejects the opinion that the tradition of the convent on Gebel Mûsa, known only since the sixth century, could have any weight in forming a decision; “the tradition of the still older convent of Serbâl, and of the town of Serbâl in Wadi Firân, might be said to have existed just as truly, but has only been lost _to us_.” Other reasons, therefore, derived from nature and history, must speak in its favour. He then cites the view adopted by Robinson, who places Raphidîm in the upper part of the Wadi e’ Scheikh; but with justice he places in opposition to this, that it then encroaches upon the farther march, and would be mentioned; and shortly afterwards he says, in as convincing a manner, that we cannot then conceive how the people could have murmured for want of water, already one day’s journey beyond the Firân, which was so richly supplied with water, while this can be easily explained on the long way from Elim, as far as the neighbourhood of Firân. Ritter therefore agrees with me and the old tradition in regarding the wonderful brook of Firân as the spring of Moses. He only thinks, if Moses struck the spring out of the rock, it must then have been at the beginning, and not at the termination of the present brook, and he therefore transfers Raphidîm into the uppermost portion of Wadi Firân, whose fertility did not exist before the appearance of the spring. With respect to the position of the Mount of the Law, he evades positive decision for the time. “Already,” he says, “in both the almost contemporaneous narrators, Jerome (Procopius?) and Cosmas, we see the division of the views entertained about these localities, neither of which, even in the most recent double view, it appears by decisive and sufficient grounds, can be preferred, by us at least, alone before the others. Since each of these two modes of explanation of a text so indeterminate in topographical respects, and of a locality still known so imperfectly, can only serve as _hypothetical probabilities_ in a more exact interpretation, allow me to point out cursorily our _hypothetical view_ of this affair, which will perhaps never be placed in a perfectly clear light.”
It amounts finally to this, that _the_ “Mount of God,” where Moses was encamped when he was visited by Jethro in Raphidîm, _could have in no case meant the convent mountain of Sinai_ (_i. e._ _Gebel Mûsa_), although this, on a later occasion, is even thus called, as that of the true God, _but from which they at that time under every supposition were far removed_, though _probably_ it might have been a designation for the overtowering and far nearer _Serbâl_ when they were still in the camp at “Raphidîm.” He afterwards acknowledges that before the 19th chapter there was an _interruption of the connection_ with the preceding chapters, but seeks a reason for this in a _gap_ in the text, while I would rather assume that there was a short _interpolation_. Let the progress of the people from the Feirân valley into the upper valley of the Scheikh, and to Gebel Mûsa, the true Sinai, be thrown into this gap. This at first is only called “the Mount” (Exodus xix. 2), and becomes a “Mount of God” for the first time _after_ the law-giving (which, however, the following verse, xix. 3, contradicts), while Serbâl might have been called “the Mount of God” from a heathen deity there worshipped. “Both mounts, the Mount of God (Serbâl) in Raphidîm, and the mount in the Wilderness of Sinai, are therefore just as different by name as they appear removed from each other by the last day’s marches between both places of encampment.” He regards the general natural conditions of the country about Gebel Mûsa on account of the greater security and coolness, and from the pasture-land bearing a greater resemblance to the Alps, as more adapted for a longer sojourn of the people. The name of HOREB only, which is already mentioned in Raphidîm, might serve as an objection, yet he sees no sufficient ground not to extend this name to some of the lower mountains attached to Serbâl itself, for already ROBINSON, HENGSTENBERG, and others, comprehend it as a general designation.
So far as I know, this is the first time that it has been attempted to prove that there were _two_ Mounts of God, Serbâl _and_ Gebel Mûsa. This, however, certainly is the _necessary result, though not yet expressed by others, which all must arrive at who place Raphidîm in Firân_. In this, it appears to me, lies a main proof with reference to the criticism of the text, that _both_ Mounts of God are to be recognised in _Serbâl_. We must not lay too much stress on the greater security of the plain of Râha for a “harnessed” (Exodus xiii. 18) army of 600,000 men, after it had set firm footing in the land, besides Serbâl must have at all times offered an admirable place of reserve. The cold in the high mountain range, which, according to RÜPPELL and ROBINSON, freezes the water into ice in the convent (5000 feet above the sea) even as late as February (Ritter, p. 445, 630), would have alone rendered an open encampment on the plain of Râha during the winter impossible, for a population lately accustomed to the Egyptian climate. But with respect to the vegetation in those districts, which has indeed been differently described by different travellers, the idea that not the slightest doubt existed as to this having been at one time the sojourn of the Israelites, may have partly caused many to presuppose the existence of more herbs in the neighbourhood than they momentarily saw; partly, no doubt, the season of the year occasions some variations. I therefore only observe that I visited the Peninsula about the same time of the year in which, according to the Mosaic narration, the Israelites also went thither.
Ritter, finally, has expressed his views on the Sinai question on another occasion in a popular essay, “The Peninsula of Sinai, and the Path of the Children of Israel to Sinai,” in the “Evangelical Calendar,” Almanack for 1852, published _by F. Piper_, p. 31, &c. Here also he places Raphidîm in Firân, and traces the _Mount of God_ at _Raphidîm_ in _Serbâl_. But in opposition to the identity of Serbâl and Sinai, he here adduces principally the two following reasons. As it has been now proved that the so-called Sinaitic inscriptions have a Pagan origin, and that they indicate that Serbâl, to which they principally refer, was the “centre of an ancient worship,” then this remarkable mount, if already a holy mount of the _idolater_, could not have been at the same time a “Mount of _Jehovah_” (p. 51), and further (p. 52), “Israel’s holy Mount of God was not situated in the territory of _Amalek_, like Serbâl, but in the eastern and southern territory of _Midian_, for it is said expressly (Exodus iv. 19), that the Lord commanded Moses in Midian to go to Egypt, and to lead the people to sacrifice to him upon this Mount Horeb and Sinai in Midian” (Exodus iii. 1-12). With respect to these two points however, the first, namely that Serbâl was also a _holy_ mount for the Semitic people ruling over the Peninsula at a later period, seems to me a reason of great weight _in favour_ of Serbâl-Sinai, as indeed also already, _before_ the law-giving, it was not called “Idol Mount,” but _Mount of God_ (Exodus iii. 1, iv. 27, xviii. 5), just as much as _after_ the law-giving (Exodus xxiv. 13, 1 Kings xix. 8), and a heathen readoption at a later period of the worship of this mount must certainly be less surprising. But that Moses dwelt with Jethro in MIDIAN, when the Lord spoke to him, offers no ground to place the Mount of the Law in Midian, for that is nowhere said. We only know that Raphidîm, where Moses was visited by Jethro out of Midian, was situated in the territory of the _Amalekites_, as these here made the attack. Eusebius, who (s. v. Ῥαφιδίμ, see note, p. 313) expressly places Raphidîm and Choreb in Pharan, says (s. v. Χωρήβ) that this Mount of God lay in MADIAN. In the Itinerar. Antonini, c. 40, also, Pharan is placed in MADIAN.
I trust these remarks, in which I think I have touched upon all the essential objections of the respected author, may prove to him how high a value I place on each of his arguments, as being those of one who is more competent to judge in this field than any other person. Ritter’s long proved acuteness for tracing the correct view of such questions, would have excited more consideration in me against my own view of the subject, than all the reasons he has adduced, which, taken singly at least, seem to me refutable, had I not in _this_ case, at any rate, had the advantage of a personal view of the localities, without any preconceived influence; this might render my judgment of earlier narrators more independent than could be the case with him.
APPENDIX C. (P. 306.)—Robinson gives the distances from Ayûn Mûsa to the point where Wadi Schebêkeh and Wadi Tâibeh meet, vol. iii. Div. ii. p. 804; these accord with BURCKHARDT, p. 624, 625, who also records the more remote points as far as Wadi Firân; these last are confirmed by mine, if we calculate his circuitous route by Dhafari. Robinson’s calculation, p. 196, does not, however, take into consideration the circuitous route, from four to five hours longer from the Convent, through Wadi e’ Scheikh, for Burckhardt passed over the Nakb el Haui in eleven hours to Firân, while we occupied sixteen, without including the short way round through the Kteffe valley. After this the distances stand thus: From Ayûn Mûsa to Ain Hawâreh 18 hours 35 minutes; then to Wadi Gharandel, 2 hours 30 minutes (not from one hour and a half to two hours from Robinson’s place of encampment as it is calculated above, p. 307); to the outlet of the valley near Abu Zelîmeh, 7 hours 12 minutes; to the sea, 1 hour; to Wadi Schellâl, 4 hours 15 minutes; to Firân, 13 hours 45 minutes; to the Convent, 16 hours. Robinson cannot remove the encampment in the Wilderness of SIN to a more southern point than the outlet of WADI SCHELLÂL, because the people here, according to him, stept forth out of the Wilderness of Sin. For the same reason he is compelled to place ALUS in FIRÂN. On the other hand, in my opinion, not alone is the encampment at the sea not different from that at the outlet of the valley at Abu Zelîmeh, but the Wilderness of Sin mentioned in the Book of Exodus, which extended as far as Sinai, and ended with Raphidîm, is also the same as the two stations mentioned in the Book of Numbers, Daphka and Alus, and therefore in the last passage should as little have been mentioned as peculiar places of encampment, as the Red Sea. The Wilderness of Sin accordingly, like the Wilderness of Sûr, embraced three days’ journey. The stations, and their remoteness from each other, stand therefore as follows:
According to ROBINSON.
HOURS. MIN.
I. 6 12 } three Stations from Ayûn Mûsa to Ain II. 6 12 } Hawâreh = MARAH. III. 6 12 }
IV. 2 30 to Wadi Gharandel = ELIM.
V. 8 12 to the Sea.
VI. 4 15 to Wadi Schellâl = Wilderness of SIN.
VII. 7 } two Stations to Firân = DAPHKA and ALUS. VIII. 7 }
IX. 8 } two Stations to the Plain of Râha = Raphidîm X. 8 } and SINAI.
According to _my_ assumption.
I. 7 } three Stations to Wadi Gharandel = MARAH. II. 7 } III. 7 }
IV. 7 12 to the Outlet of the Valley near Abu Zelîmeh = ELIM.
V. 6 } three Stations to Firân, _i. e._ by DAPHKA and VI. 6 } ALUS to Raphidîm at SINAI. VII. 6 }
It is easy to imagine why the latter stations are somewhat shorter than the first, on account of the greater difficulty of the road. According to Robinson, the fourth station would be scarcely explicable. Why did the people murmur so near the twelve springs of Elim? How would precisely that strikingly long journey of more than eight hours, from Elim to the sea, not have been mentioned at all? And how was it possible that the days’ marches should have constantly increased in length amidst the lofty mountains and difficult ground?
APPENDIX D. (P. 314 and 318.)—The expounders of this passage take the words: בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְׁלִישִׁ֔י “_In the third month_,” as if it were written, “_On the first day of the third month_,” and therefore refer the following “_the same day_,” equally to the _first_ day of the month. See GESENIUS, Thesaur. p. 404, b: “tertiis calendis post exitum,” and p. 449, b: tertio novilunio, _i. e._ calendis mensis tertii. Ewald, Gesch. des V. Isr. ii. p. 189. “_The Day (?) of the third month_ (_i. e._ _however of the new moon, therefore the first day_.”) But the Seventy at all events have not understood it in this manner, as they translate: Τοῦ δὲ μηνὸς τοῦ τρίτου τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ. It also appears that the Jewish tradition have not comprehended it thus, as the LAW-GIVING, which according to Exod. xix. 11, 15, occurred on the _third_ day after their arrival, is even now solemnised by the Jews on the fifth or sixth day of the third month, simultaneously with the appointed harvest-feast, on the fiftieth day after the Exodus (Leviticus xxiii. 15, 16); in accordance with this, the arrival at Sinai must have happened on the _third_ day of the third month. We cannot, however, but perceive, how חֹדֶשׁ without addition, might here be employed for _new moon’s day_, although in all other passages of customary speech it had lost this etymological signification, and only meant _month_; even in passages where the _new moon’s day_ itself was spoken of, as in Exod. xl. 2, 17; Numb. i. 1; xxxiii. 38, where everywhere בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ is especially added to it, “on the _first_ (day) of the month,” whereas passages like Numb. ix. 1, and xx. 1, cannot naturally be cited, because here, there lies as little reason as in Exod. xix. 1, to understand _first_ of the month, and the Seventy also do not translate, ἐν ἡμέρᾳ μιᾷ, or νουμηνίᾳ as in the former passages, but only in the simple sense of the words ἐν τῷ μηνὶ τῷ πρώτῳ. Our passage, Exod. xix. 1, therefore, would alone remain, from which it would be possible to conclude that there was such a double and equivocal employment of חֹדֶשׁ, because here certainly the following words, “the same day,” indicate a particular single day, which particular day, nevertheless, cannot be guessed from our present text. But in my opinion this is exactly an additional and not unimportant reason, to assume either a transposition or a later insertion of these two verses. The last is also assumed by EWALD, in so far as he, indeed (Gesch. des V. Isr. p. 75), ascribes the account, xix. 3-24, but not the two first verses, to the oldest sources. I have already mentioned above (p. 316) that JOSEPHUS (Ant. iii. 2, 5), who also does not understand the words from the _first_ day of the month, transposes the passage, and indeed _to that very place_ whither I, ignorant of this, had already placed it in my earlier printed account, p. 48, namely, _immediately after the battle of the Amalekites_, to which “the same day” most naturally refers. If this is correct, then the original text ran thus: that the Israelites at Raphidîm, in Wadi Firân, where they fought the battle, were not only near Horeb, but also near Sinai, that is to say, that both Mounts of God are one; and that, in fact, Moses first at Sinai received the visit of Jethro, and, as appears most natural, first at Sinai organised his people; but at the same time it must be allowed that Sinai, or Horeb, was no other mountain than SERBÂL.
Supposing that, in this manner, we have correctly understood the original connection, it did not first of all require any statement of the month; this would probably be only added upon the isolation of the following section referring to the law-giving. In this case, only three exact dates for the journey could exist. The people pass out from Ramses in the first year, the first month, on the fifteenth day; they proceed from Elim, which is half-way, just one month after, in the first year, second month, on the fifteenth day. The days of rest at the stations are unknown, but if we assume that the people proceeded without sojourning, then they came to Raphidîm on the third day from Elim; received the water, and were attacked by Amalek on the fourth, fought on the fifth till after sunset to the commencement of the sixth day, and on the same sixth day (for the Hebrew day began in the evening) encamped at Sinai. This would have been in the first year, in the second month, on the twentieth day. Now as the retreat from Sinai followed in the second year, in the second month, the twentieth day, then the sojourn at Sinai would have lasted exactly _one year_. This coincidence was perhaps originally as little the result of accident as the duration of just _one month_ between the first departure from RAMSES and the second from ELIM.
APPENDIX E. (P. 319.)—Two inscriptions in marble, referring to the foundation of the convent, still exist, which are let into the external wall facing the convent-garden, one in _Greek_, the other in _Arabic_. BURCKHARDT (Trav. p. 545) says: “An Arabic inscription _over the gate_, in modern characters, says that Justinian built the convent in the thirtieth year of his reign, as a memorial of himself and his wife Theodora. It is curious to find a passage of the Koran introduced into this inscription: it was probably done by a Moslem sculptor, without the knowledge of the monks.” The Arabic inscription is certainly over the small door leading into the garden. But if Burckhardt saw it here, it is inconceivable that he did not see the _Greek_ inscription beside it, let into the wall with a similar border and shelter. ROBINSON saw neither of them (i. p. 205); RICCI caused the Greek inscription to be copied, and from his copy this has been communicated and translated by LETRONNE in the _Journ. des Sav._ 1836, p. 538, with some slight deviations. But as early as 1823, another copy, which escaped Letronne, was published by Sir Fr. Henniker (_Notes during a Visit to Egypt, &c._ p. 235, 236), which, however, is very inaccurate, although it endeavours to render the written characters themselves. The _Arabic_ inscription, as far as I am aware, is still quite unknown. I have taken an impression of both on paper, and offer a faithful representation of them here. The Greek runs thus:
Ἐκ βάθρων ἀνηγέρθη τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦτο μοναστήριον τοῦ Σιναίου ὄρους, ἔνθα ἐλάλησεν ὁ θεὸς τῷ Μωυσῇ παρὰ τοῦ ταπεινοῦ βασιλέως Ῥωμαίων Ἰουστινιανοῦ πρὸς ἀΐδιον μνημόσυνον αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς συζύγου τοῦ Θεοδώρας· ἔλαβε τέλος μετὰ τὸ τριακοστὸν ἔτος τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ, καὶ κατέστησεν ἐν αὐτῷ ἡγούμενον ὀνόματι Δουλᾶ ἐν ἔτει ἀπὸ μὲν Ἀδὰμ ͵ϛκαʹ ἀπὸ δὲ Χριστοῦ φκζʹ.
“This holy convent of Mount Sinai, where God spoke to Moses, was built from the foundation by Justinian, the lowly king of the Romans, in eternal remembrance of the same, and of his consort Theodora; it was completed in the thirtieth year of his reign, and he placed a chief in the same, one of the name of Dulas, in the year 6021 since Adam, 527 since Christ.”
LETRONNE read in the second line ἐν ᾧ πρῶτον in place of ἔνθα, and in the seventh line κατέστησε τὸν in place of κατέστησεν. The written characters indicate about the twelfth or thirteenth century. As the Emperor Justinian reigned from 527-565, it is assumed by the writer that the determination to found the convent, and at the same time the appointment of his abbot Dulas, occurred in the first year of the reign of the emperor, although the completion of the edifice is not placed before the thirtieth year of the same, _i. e._ 556 after Christ. The year 6021 from the creation of the world corresponds to the year 527 after Christ, according to the Alexandrine era of PANODORUS and ANIANUS.
The Arabic inscription is this:
انثا دير طور سينا و كنيسة جبل المناجاة افقير لله الراجي عفو مولاه الملك المهذب الرومي المذهب يوستيانس تذكارا لى ولزوجته ثاوضوره علي سرور الزسان حني برث اللّه الارض ومن عليها وهو خير الوارثين وتم بناوه بعد ثلاثين سنة من ملكة ونصب له ريسا اسبه ذولاس جري ذلك سنا ٦٠٢١ لادم الوافق لتاريخ السيد المسيح سنة ٥٢٧
“The convent of TÔR (Mount) Sina, and the Church of the Mount of the Interview, was built by the dependent on God, and hoping in the promise of his Lord, the pious King of the Greek Confession, Justianus (for Justinian), in remembrance of himself and his consort Theodora to last for all times, in order that God might inherit the earth, and who upon it: for _he is the best of the heirs_. And the building was completed after thirty years of his reign. And he appointed it a chief, with the name of Dhulas. And this happened after Adam 6021, which corresponds with the year 527 of the era of the Lord Christ.”
The written characters of the inscription, according to the learned judgment of the consul, Dr. WETZSTEIN, who has also most kindly taken upon himself the re-writing and translation of the inscription here communicated, indicate that it did not exist before the year 550 of the Mohammedan era, which thus refers to the period when the Greek inscription was also composed. The passage in the Koran which BURCKHARDT already mentions, is to be found, Sûr. 21, v. 18.
Another large stone is immured in the same wall, but much higher up, over a far larger gate, now built up, at a spot behind which the kitchen is at present situated, the ornamental part of which [Illustration] might lead us to infer that another still older inscription might still exist here. Unfortunately I was unable to bring a ladder to the spot to examine the stone more accurately. It is to be hoped some future traveller may accomplish this.
APPENDIX F. (P. 319.)—The history of the _Palm-wood of Pharan_ forms the central point of the history of the whole Peninsula. The accounts of it given by the Greeks and Romans furnish a new proof for this, although their geographical determinations in great measure have not hitherto been correctly comprehended. Thus the POSEIDION of Artemidorus, Diodorus, and Strabo, is generally placed at the extremity of the Peninsula, which is now called RÂS MOHAMMED; also by Gosselin, Letronne, and Grosskurd, who nevertheless had already recognised the manifestly incorrect comment of the Strabonic manuscripts (p. 776: τοῦ [Ἐλανίτου] μυχοῦ). As Poseidion was situated _within_ (ἐνδοτέρω) the Gulf of Suez, and here the _west coast_ of the Peninsula was to be described, this altar of Poseidion therefore of necessity was situated either at RAS ABU ZELÎMEH, the harbour of Faran, or at RAS GEHAN, whence there was a more southern and shorter communication with Wadi Firân through Wadi Dhaghadeh. That the _palm-grove_ (Φοινικών) of those authors is not to be sought at TÔR, but in the Wadi Firân, has been already justly acknowledged by Tuch (Sinait. Inschr. p. 35), although he still places Poseidion at Râs Mohammed (p. 37). It was the SERB BAL, the _palm-grove_ of Baal, from which the mountain first received its name. It appears, in earlier times, while the grove itself was still called by the inhabitants SERB BAL, that the name of Faran was especially employed for the harbour at Abu Zelîmeh, and for a Pharanitic settlement on the site of ancient ELIM, near the present Gebel Hammâm Faraûn, still always called FARAN by the Arabic authors. (See note, p. 307.) Here also, probably, was the spot where ARISTON landed under Ptolemy Philadelphus, and founded POSEIDION.
Artemidorus (in Strabo, p. 776) and Diodorus (3, 42) mention Μαρανῖται, in place of which Gosselin, Ritter, Tuch, and others, read Φαρανῖται. As the MARANITES, however, inhabited the _eastern coast_ of the Peninsula, and are said to have been totally destroyed by the Garindæes, I cannot see any support for this supposition. The ravine of PHARA, mentioned by JOSEPHUS (Bell. Jud. 4, 9, 4), in Judæa, does not belong hither.
The name of the PHARANITES on the western coast of the Peninsula first appears in Pliny (H. N. 37, 40), for there is no reason to regard the _Pharanitis gens_, whom he places in _Arabia Petræa_, as differing from the _Pharanitai_ of Ptolemy. That the northern station PHARA (circa ten hours west of Aila) has nothing to do on the tablet of Peutinger with the Pharanitic palm-grove, is placed beyond a doubt by Ritter (p. 147, &c.).
Ptolemy, in the third century, is the first who mentions a _place_ called PHARAN (κώμη Φαράν); but on account of the detailed comparison not agreeing, the basis and the connection of his statements deviating widely from the true conditions, they have for that very reason hitherto remained in obscurity. His construction of the Peninsula becomes clear at once, when we take into account that he has evidently taken the blunt angle of the coast at RAS GEHAN (whither by his latitude he removes Cape Pharan, instead of to Hammâm Faraûn) to be the most southern point of the Peninsula, from which the more remote coast runs up again towards the north-east. Thereby the Peninsula, according to him, becomes about 50′ too short, although the longitude of his point corresponds with the true one. The real extremity (Râs Mohammed) now corresponds with the point whither he places the bend of the Elanitic Gulf (ἐπιστροφὴ τοῦ Ἐλανίτου κόλπου). The whole of the Elanitic Gulf (Gulf of Akaba) contracts with him into a small angle (μυχός) of 15′, because all is pushed too far to the north. The coast from the “bend” as far as Ὄννη in reality corresponds with that from RAS FURTAK (the άκρωτήριον τῆς ἠπείρου of Diodorus and Artemidorus, in front of which was situated the island of Phokes) to ʾAIN UNEH, and his Elanitic Gulf, the north part of which (ἐπιστροφή) he places 66° lon., 29° lat., now assumes the form of the gulf whose innermost point is now marked by ʾAIN UNEH. He imagines the Bay of Pharan (μυχὸς κατὰ Φαράν) to be from Cape Faran (ἀκρωτήριον Φαράν) to the inland town of the same name, as the angle of Elana, and the innermost angle of Heroonpolis north of Arsinoë. From this same construction of the Peninsula it followed that the RAITHENES, who were situated below the Pharanites, on the same coast near Tôr (even now called Ῥαιθοῦ), are now placed on the coast facing Arabia (παρὰ τὴν ὀρεινὴν τῆς Εὐδαίμονος Ἀραβίας), therefore on the eastern, in place of the western coast of the Peninsula; and finally, as the natural result of this, he makes the primitive chain of mountains extending from Faran to Râs Mohammed (ὄρη μέλανα) run towards Judæa, therefore up towards the north-east, in place of down towards the south-east.
From all this, it is evident, that the place PHARAN of Ptolemy is identical with the well-known Pharan in the Wadi Firân, and the Phœnikon of Artemidorus and Strabo. Still less can we doubt that the PHARAN of Eusebius also (s. v. Ῥαφιδίμ), and of Jerome, which is expressly (s. v. Φαράν) called a _town_ (πόλις, _oppidum_), and situated (certainly somewhat too near) three days’ journey from Aila, was the town in Wadi Firân, although by a confusion with the Biblical wilderness of Paran, it is added that the Israelites on their way back from Sinai went past this Pharan. (Compare Ritter, p. 740.)
According to the manuscript of the monk AMMONIUS (Illustr. Chr. Martyr lecti. triumphi ed. Combefis. Paris, 1660), the town of Pharan was converted to Christianity in the middle of the fourth century by a monk Moses, born in Pharan itself, but his narration, which is evidently an invention, and belongs to about 370, must by no means be employed as an historical authority for that period, and seems to rest chiefly on some passages of a romance of Nilus, which was written for an edifying object, and his seems to have been composed with a similar intention. In NILUS, who is placed about 390, but over whose period and writings much uncertainty still hangs, a Christian counsellor (βουλή) of the town of Pharan is mentioned (Nili opp. quædam, 1539. 4o). Soon after this, since the first half of the fifth century, Le Quien, from authorities of very unequal value indeed (Oriens, Christ. vol. iii. p. 751), cites a list of _bishops of_ PHARAN, who can be followed down to the middle of the twelfth century. (See Reland, Palæst. vol. ii. p. 220.) All the monks of the entire mountain range were subordinate to these bishops.
With reference to the foundation of the present convent on Gebel Mûsa, it is indeed ascribed to the Emperor JUSTINIAN by SAÏD BEN BATRIK (Eutychius), who wrote about 932-953 (D’Herbelot, s. v.), as well as in the convent inscriptions of the twelfth or thirteenth centuries, which have been communicated above; but this is most decidedly contradicted by the far more reliable testimony, peculiarly valuable here, of PROCOPIUS, who was the _cotemporary_ of Justinian. He says, in his special treatise about the buildings founded by Justinian (Proc. ed. Dind. vol. iii. de ædif. Just. p. 326), that the emperor built a _church_ to the mother of God, “_not_ upon the summit of the mountain, but _a considerable way below it_” (παρὰ πολὺ ἔνερθεν, in accordance with the locality, which can only mean on the intermediate space of ground half-way up the mountain, where the chapel to Elijah now stands). Separated from this he had also erected a very strong castle (φρούριον) at the foot of the mountain (ἐς τοῦ ὄρους πρόποδα), and provided it with a good military guard to check the incursions of the Saracens into Palestine. As Procopius directly before and afterwards, as well as throughout the whole paper, distinguishes very exactly between the _convents_ and the _churches_, and the military _guard-houses_, it is evident that, according to him, Justinian did _not_ found the present convent together with his church. The military castle was, however, probably at a later period employed, and rebuilt into a convent. Besides, the church founded by Justinian higher up the hill was not dedicated, like the present convent church, to St. KATHARINE (see Le Quien, vol. iii. p. 1306), but to MARY. What is said by Eutychius (who ROBINSON first cited, though he placed him somewhat too early, still in the tenth century), both about the building of the convent, and in still more direct contradiction with Procopius, about a church built upon the _summit of the mountain_, deserves therefore no more credit than the conversation between the emperor and the architect, which is communicated. As little must we ascribe to Justinian, on the statement of Ben Batrik, the foundation of the convents of RAYEH (at Tôr) and of KOLZUM (a _bishop_ of Clysma, by name Poemes, is inserted at the Constantinopolitan Council as early as 460; see Acta Concil. ed. Harduin, ii. 696, 786), as in this case he would undoubtedly have been mentioned by Procopius. PHARAN is not mentioned by Procopius. On the contrary, he narrates (de bell. Pers. i. 19, 164; de ædif. 5, 8) the important fact, that the Saracen Prince Abocharagos, reigning there, had presented the Emperor Justinian with a large palm-grove (φοινικῶνα), situated in the centre of the land (ἐν τῇ μεσογαίᾳ). On closer consideration of this account, scarcely a doubt can remain that the palm-grove of PHARAN is here understood, not the place on the coast Φοινίκων κώμη, mentioned by Ptolemy (vi. 7, 3), or a palm-grove totally unknown to us, also situated in the midst of a solitary wilderness, wholly unprovided with water. According to Ammonius and Nilus all the inhabitants of Pharan had then become Christian, and a church at all events existed there; thereby it is easier to understand the gift made by Abocharagos, which Justinian himself presented to the Phylarch of the Palestinian Saracens. No doubt the foundation of the castle in the higher mountains, for watching over those Saracens, was in connection with this.
Next to Procopius, COSMAS INDICOPLEUSTES is by far the most authentic authority of that period. He was not only both a _cotemporary_ of Justinian, but likewise describes (about 540) what he himself saw upon the Peninsula. His work is the only one containing detailed geography belonging to that period, and his unassuming narration bears everywhere the marks of unvarnished truth. It is so much the more remarkable that he neither mentions a convent edifice, nor indeed the localities at Gebel Mûsa, but only PHARAN, although he had the path of the Israelites especially in view. (See below more of this.) That on the other hand ANTONINUS PLACENTINUS, who is held by others to be the _b. Antoninus Martyr_, nevertheless in his ITINERARIUM (_Acta Sanctor. May_, vol. ii. p. x-xviii), which is placed by Ritter about 600, should again speak of a convent at the thorn-bush (Procopius does not yet make mention of the thorn-bush), between Horeb and Sinai, therefore on the site of the present convent, appears rather to lead us back to the opinion so decidedly expressed by PAPEBROCH, who first published the Itinerary, that this narrative, which has excited such various considerations, though so learnedly defended, does not belong to an earlier period than the eleventh or twelfth centuries. At all events, it would be very desirable if the writings of Ammonius, Nilus, and Antoninus, that have been cited, and so many others attributed to the first Christian centuries, were submitted to a more searching and connected criticism than has hitherto been the case.
The earliest bishop of Mount Sinai to whom we can refer, is not to be found before the eleventh century, Bishop Jorius, who dies 1033 (Le Quien, iii. 754). The name in the second Constantinopolitan Council (a. 553), signed _Phronimus episc. Synnaii_ (Acta Concil. ed. Harduin, vol. iii. p. 53), or SYNAITANORUM (p. 206), and in the fourth council (a. 870), the one named _Constantinus_ ep. SYNAI (Harduin, vol. v. p. 927), have been incorrectly brought hither (Ritter, Abhandl. der Berl. Akad. 1824, p. 216. Halbinsel Sinai, p. 96), as they belong to SYNAUS, or SYNNAUS, in Phrygia.
APPENDIX G. (P. 320.)—It must be most absolutely denied that an interrupted and distinct tradition about the position of Sinai in the Peninsula was preserved as late as the Christian times. The name Choreb, or Sinai, appears even at a very early period to have been understood for the whole of the lofty range in the Peninsula, which was constantly regarded from a distance as one single mountain. No one before the time of the Christian hermits attached any interest in connecting a fixed geographical notion with the name that had been transmitted. We only read of ELIJAH that he fled to the “Mount of God Choreb,” and there (1 Kings xix. 9) went into the same cave (for it is presupposed that it is known) in which the Lord had already appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai (2 Exodus xxxiii. 22). The native Arab tribes by degrees became so much changed, that not one of the Old Testament names remained in its original position. The Greeks and Romans only knew _one_ spot on the whole Peninsula, the _Palm-wood of Pharan_, because this spot only, and the harbour leading to it, was of any importance since the mines of that wilderness had been exhausted. Firân must of necessity have been the earliest central point for the Christian hermits also; that mountainous wilderness, affording necessary means of sustenance, in the greatest retirement, must have appeared better adapted for them than any other district, since here we also find the most _ancient church_ of the Peninsula. When gradually the individual Biblical localities began to be more accurately investigated, people had no other means for forming their determinations than we possess now, and besides understood far less to employ these means, since all acute criticism of the Biblical passages, which could alone give them information, at that time lay far removed. They understood the name SINAI as an indeterminate appellation for the whole range; but when they searched for Sinai in a single mountain, SERBÂL then must have immediately presented itself. Thither also points all that we read about the matter in authentic writings during the first centuries, but to these the writing of the monk Ammonius certainly does not belong in the opinion of those who examine accurately, and hardly the edifying romance of Nilus. What JOSEPHUS (Ant. iii. 5) says of Sinai (τὸ Σιναῖον) may very well refer to Serbâl, at all events not to Gebel Mûsa, as has been already shown by HOGG (in several passages, p. 207). According to EUSEBIUS, Choreb and Raphidîm were situated _at_ PHARAN (ἐγγὺς Φαράν, see note, p. 313), and Sinai near Choreb (παράκειται τῷ ὄρει Σινᾶ, see above). JEROME (s. v. _Choreb_) regards both mounts as one, which he likewise places _at_ PHARAN, and consequently recognises in SERBÂL. The account by NILUS also, about the Saracenic attack at Sinai, either does not belong to the time in which it is placed (c. 400), or refers to SERBÂL, for here a _church_ (ἐκκλησία) is frequently (p. 38, 46) mentioned, which at that time did not exist at Gebel Mûsa, and Nilus, that _very same_ night in which the scattered slain had been buried, goes down to Pharan, which would have been impossible from Gebel Mûsa. Finally, COSMAS INDICOPLEUSTES, who traversed the Peninsula about the year 535, probably immediately before the building of the Justinian church, passes through Raithu, _i. e._ Tôr, which he regards as Elim, although he only found a few palm-trees there (the present considerable plantations are, therefore, of more recent date), and across the present Wadi Hebrân to Raphidîm, which is now called PHARAN. Here he was at the termination of his Sinai journey. From this spot Moses went with the elders “upon the Mount Choreb, _i. e._ Sinai, which is about 6000 paces (one mile and a half) distant from Pharan,” and struck the water out of the rock; here also the tabernacle of the congregation was built, and the law was given; thereby the Israelites besides received the Scripture, and had leisure to learn it for their application; thence we may date the numerous rock-inscriptions which are still to be found in that wilderness (especially at Serbâl). (Εἶτα πάλιν παρενέβαλον εἰς Ῥαφιδίν, εἰς τὴν νῦν καλουμένην Φαράν· καὶ διψευσάντων αὐτῶν, πορεύεται κατὰ πρόσταξιν θεοῦ ὁ Μωϋσῆς μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ ἡ ῥάβδὸς ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ, εἰς Χωρὴβ τὸ ὄρος, τουτέστιν ἐν τῷ Σιναΐῳ, ἐγγὺς ὄντι τῆς Φαρὰν ὡς ἀπό μιλίων ἕξ· (Burckhardt, _Trav. in Syr._ p. 611, when he descended Serbâl, occupied two hours and a half, from its base to Wadi Firân) καὶ ἐκεῖ πατάξαντος τὴν πέτραν, ἐῤῥύησεν ὕδατα πολλὰ καὶ ἔπιεν ὁ λαός.—Λοιπὸν κατεληλυθότος αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ ὄρους προστάττεται ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ποιεῖν τὴν σκηνήν), etc. (_Topograph. christ._ lib. v. in the _Coll. nova patr. ed. B. de Montfaucon_, tom. ii. p. 195, _seq._)
This testimony of an unprejudiced traveller is expressed with as much distinctness, as it is worthy of confidence and without suspicion. At the commencement of the sixth century, therefore, according to this eye-witness, it was believed that the law had been given on SERBÂL. Cosmas has so little doubt about the matter, that he does not even mention the southern range. Nevertheless, we must admit that the monkish population had already spread over the whole of the mountain range, especially among the districts in a sheltered situation about Gebel Mûsa; and we need not be surprised that a different view was formed among the monks there situated, according to which Moses turned to the south, instead of towards the north, coming from the height of Wadi Hebrân (for the idea that Elim was Raithu was a fixed conviction already cherished by the convent, prematurely founded there). Such changes are of frequent occurrence in Christian topography. But however closely Horeb and Sinai, Raphidîm and the Mount of the Law, appear in the representation, it follows again from this, that associated with Sinai, the rock from which the water flowed was moved farther south. The monks were not deterred by the verses at the commencement of the 19th chapter from transferring the rock of Raphidîm, and consequently Raphidîm itself, as well as the thorn-bush of Horeb, also to Gebel Mûsa, their new Sinai; there in Wadi Leg ́a (Robinson, i. p. 184) it is still shown for the admiration of travellers. Thus the unlettered apprehension of the monks that Raphidîm was situated at Sinai, approached nearer to the truth on this head than the more recent verbal criticism.
The legate of Justinian now found it appropriate to found his castle in that secure position, and to build a church at that very spot for the hermits who were dwelling around it. It is quite conceivable that this alone would have contributed to attract many new hermits thither, and to originate a new view about the position of the Mount of the Law, if this had not previously existed. But how both views accommodated themselves to each other during the centuries immediately succeeding, we have absolutely no distinct proofs. At all events, while Mount SINAI is frequently mentioned after the foundation of the bishopric of Pharan, we must be guarded not to understand it to be Gebel Mûsa, unless something further is said. Ordinarily, the lofty range of the Peninsula seems in general to be understood by it. When, for example, as early as the year 536, therefore probably before the erection of the church, at the _Concilium sub Mena_ at Constantinople, one _Theonas, presbyter et legatus S. Montis Sinai et deserti Raithu et S. ecclesiæ Pharan_ (Θεωνᾶς ἐλεῷ θεοῦ πρεσβύτερος καὶ ἀποκρισιάριος τοῦ ἁγίου ὄρούς Σινᾶ καὶ τῆς ἐρήμου Ῥαιθοῦ καὶ τῆς κατὰ Φαρὰν ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας. Harduin, vol. ii. p. 1281) is named, the church of Pharan, at that time the still undoubted, most important central point and bishopric would have been first mentioned, if the monks scattered over the whole range and the plain of Raithu had not been regarded more comprehensive, and on that account placed first. LE QUIEN (iii. p. 753) mentions the _Episcopi Pharan sivi Montis Sinai_ in succession, and, as the earliest with the last designation, the above-mentioned Bishop Jorius († 1033). Since then, and even since Eutychius (c. 940), the designation of the single Gebel Mûsa, as Sinai, is indeed beyond all doubt.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Chronologie der Ægypter. Vol. i. Berlin, 1849.
[2] On the sudden death of Bishop Alexander, which happened shortly after our departure from Palestine, Gobat, as is known, was selected by H. M. the King of Prussia to be Bishop of the Evangelical Bishopric of Jerusalem, which he has administered, by the blessing of God, efficaciously ever since 1846.
[3] Previous to my departure from Alexandria, the firman of the Viceroy was presented to me, with unlimited permission to make all the excavations which I might think desirable, and with instructions to the local authorities to render me assistance. All the workmen and aid necessary for forming and transporting our collection of antiquities, were demanded in return for money, through virtue of our firman, from the Sheikhs of the neighbouring villages, or the Mudhirs of the provinces, by the Kawass, who had been given us by the government, and they were never refused. The monuments from the southern regions were transported from Mount Barkal to Alexandria on government boats, and three sepulchral chambers near the great Pyramids of Gizeh were also added, which were carefully taken to pieces by the aid of four workmen, sent expressly for the purpose from Berlin, and were put on board a vessel opposite Old Cairo. I also received, before my departure from Egypt, a written permit for the exportation of the collection; and the objects themselves were presented from the Viceroy to H. M. the King of Prussia.
These peculiar favours, at a time when all private travellers, antiquarian speculators, and even diplomatic persons, were expressly forbidden by the Egyptian Government to make any collection, or to export antiquities, have caused many unfavourable judgments to be passed on our expedition. We have been chiefly accused of a thirst for destruction, which, under the given circumstances, would presuppose a peculiarly barbarous feeling to have existed in our party; for as we did not, like many of our rivals, excavate and transport the monuments, the greater part of which had previously been invisible, hurriedly and by night, and with bribed assistance, but leisurely, and with open aid from the authorities, and before the eyes of numerous travellers, all disregard in our treatment of the remaining monuments, of which perhaps they formed a part, would certainly have been so much the more blameable, since it was so easy to avoid it. We might, however, trust to a more correct judgment than what is usually possessed by the greater proportion of ordinary travellers or collectors, with regard to the value of the individual monuments; besides, we were not, after all, in danger of being deceived in this matter by personal self-interest, as we made our selection of the monuments not for ourselves, but commissioned by our government, for the Royal Museum in Berlin, therefore for the benefit of science, and a public eager after knowledge.
The collection, which chiefly on account of its historical value, may be placed on an equal footing with the most important European museums, was incorporated immediately on its arrival with the Royal collections, without my remaining myself officially connected with it; and it is already arranged and exhibited to the public. A more accurate examination is best fitted to place the inconsiderate accusations of more recent, and even German tourists, in their proper light, some of whom have gone so far, for example, very recently, Herr Julius Braun, in the _Algemeiner Augsburg Gazette_, as to charge us with the mutilation of the gods, which happened more than 3000 years ago, in the temple of El Kab. Besides, it would prove an entire ignorance of Egyptian affairs at the present time, or of that which chiefly lends the monuments of antiquity their real interest to us, if all were not desirous to preserve in the public museums of Europe, as many as possible of the treasures of those countries, which are really as valuable, as they are undervalued in their own home, and numbers of which are still daily destroyed.
[4] The journal of this expedition up the Nile has been since published under the title Expedition zur Entdeckung der Quellen des Weissen Nil, 1840-1841. By Ferd. Werne. With a Preface by Karl Ritter. A map and a table of figures. Berlin: G. Reimer 1848. 8vo.
[5] Abbas Pascha has been Viceroy of Egypt since the death of Ibrahim Pascha in 1848.
[6] This paper—An account of the river Goschop, and of the countries of Enarea, Caffa, and Doko, given by a native of Enarea (with a map)—has been translated by Ritter, and was communicated to the Geographical Society at Berlin on the 7th January, 1843, and was printed in the monthly reports of this society in the latter part of the year. P. 172-188.
[7] On our departure for Upper Egypt, we had minutely examined 130 private tombs, and had discovered the remains of 67 Pyramids.
[8] See my essay, _Sûr l’ordre des colonnes piliers en Egypte_ et ses rapports avec le second ordre Egyptien et la colonne Grecque (avec deux planches), in the ninth volume of the Annales de l’Institut. de Corresp. Archéol. Rome, 1838.
[9] See p. 118.
[10] _Proskynemata._ “Sometimes travellers who happened to pass by a temple inscribed a votive sentence on the walls, to indicate their respect for the deity, and solicit his protection during their journey, the complete formula of which contained the adoration (_proskunéma_) of the writer, with the assurance that he had been mindful of his wife, his family, and friends; and the reader of the inscription was sometimes included in a share of the blessings it solicited. The date of the king’s reign, and the day of the month, were also added, with the profession and parentage of the writer.”—_Wilkinson’s Ancient Egypt_, vol. iii., p. 395.—TR.
[11] “Every Pharaoh was the Sun of Egypt, and over his name bore ‘Son of the Sun;’ and as the sun was Phra, so each king was called Phra. Each monarch by law inherited his father’s throne in lineal succession, so that the incumbent was Phra son of Phra.”—_Gliddon’s Ancient Egypt_, p. 32.—TR.
[12] The colours have now, alas! almost entirely disappeared. Owing to the unequal grain of the stone all the representations were prepared with a thin layer of lime for the groundwork, before they were painted; this lime has peeled off in the transport and by the action of the damp sea air, so that the rough sculpture alone remains. In the Work on the Monuments of the Prussian Expedition (Div. II., sheet 19-22), the colours have been given faithfully, as they were preserved in their original freshness when covered by the sand.
[13] After our return from the south, two entire sepulchral chambers, besides the one here mentioned, were taken to pieces and brought to Europe. All three are now reconstructed, with the other monuments, in the New Museum at Berlin. _See_ Letter XXXV.
[14] A separate essay, Ueber den Bau der Pyramiden, was sent by me to the Royal Academy of Sciences in 1843, and it was printed in consequence of a resolution of the 3rd of August of that year. See the Monthly Report (Monats Bericht) of the Academy, 1843, p. 177-203, with three Plates.
[15] I have spoken more at length on this in my Chronology of the Egyptians, vol. i., p. 294.
[16] We have been told on good authority that this statue is not composed of granite, but of limestone from the neighbouring hills.—TR.
[17] Compare my essay, _Ueber die ausgedehnte Anwendung des Spitzbogens in Deutschland im 10 und 11 Jahrhundert_, as an Introduction to H. Gally Knight’s Entwickelung der Architectur vom 10 bis 14 Jahrhundert unter den Normannen, translated from the English; Leipzig, 1841, at G. Wigand’s; and my father’s treatise, _Der Dom zu Naumburg_, by C. P. Lepsius; Leipzig, 1840 (in Puttrich’s Denkm. der Bauk., ii., Lief. 3, 4)
[18] He among them blushes, who cannot show many strokes upon his body, for non-payment of tribute.—TR.
[19] _Kaftan_, an open tunic.—TR.
[20] _Tarbusch_, red cap.—TR.
[21] The Germans generally calculate distance by the _hour_, which corresponds to about three English miles, as this distance can be traversed at a foot pace within that space of time.—TR.
[22] About twopence-halfpenny English money.
[23] Compare my Chronology of the Egyptians, i., p. 262, &c.
[24] According to Linant, the difference amounts to 22 metres, that is, 70 feet Rheinland (72 English). In June, 1843, an engineer of the Viceroy, Nascimbeni, who was engaged in making a new map, and levelling the Faiûm, visited us in our camp, at the Pyramid of Mœris. He had only found a descent of 2 metres (6 feet 6 inches English) from Illahûn to Medînet, but from thence to Birqet-el-Qorn, 75 metres (246 feet English). I am not aware that anything has been published about this considerable difference of measurements. Sir G. Wilkinson, in his Mod. Eg. and Thebes,