the tradition of the convent on Gebel Mûsa, only known to us since the
sixth century, can decide anything; “the tradition of the still more
ancient convent of Serbâl, and the Serbâl-city of Wadi Firân, it might
be said, was just as much existing, and has only been lost, as far as
we are concerned.” Therefore, other grounds taken from nature and
history ought to vouch for it. Then he brings up the opinion of
Robinson, who places Raphidîm in the upper part of the Wadi e’ Sheikh,
but forcibly instances against it, that it would then have been visited
and mentioned on the continuation of the journey, and in another place
just as appositely, that one cannot, in that case, understand how the
people could have grumbled about water, only one day’s journey beyond
the well-watered Firân, while this is easily explained on the long way
from Elim to the vicinity of Firân. Ritter therefore takes, with me and
the old tradition, the curious brook of Firân to be the fountain of
Moses. He only objects that, if Moses struck the fountain from out of
the rocks, it must have been at the beginning, not at the end of the
present rivulet, and he therefore places Raphidîm in the uppermost part
of the Wadi Firân, the fertility of which could not have existed before
the fountain was made. As to the situation of the Mount of the Law, he
declines at present to pledge himself to any distinct decision. “We
see,” he says, “already in the almost contemporaneous historians, Jerome
(Procopius?) and Cosmas, the variation of opinion concerning these
localities, _of which no one appears definitely settled before another,
even in the latest double views by according and sufficient grounds, to
us at least_. As both these modes of explanation of a text so obscure in
topographical matters, as a but imperfectly known locality, can only use
_hypothetical probabilities_, as briefly for a more certain explanation;
so let it be permitted to state _our hypothetical view_ on this probably
never-to-be quite settled matter.”
This is to the effect that _the_ “Mountain of God,” where Moses was
encamped, when he was visited by Jethro in Raphidîm, “_could not in any
case be the convent Mount of Sinai, (i. e. Gebel Mûsa,)_ although this
is so named at a subsequent period, as that of the true God, _from which
one was then in every case far distant, but might indeed_ be a
denomination of the high, much nearer _Serbâl_, as one was yet in camp
at Raphidîm.” He, too, perceives an _interruption of the connection_ at
the beginning of the nineteenth chapter with the previous chapters, but
seeks for the cause in _a chasm_ in the text, while I would rather
perceive a short _interpolation_. In this chasm falls the departure of
the people from the valley of Firân for the upper Sheikh valley and to
that of Gebel Mûsa, the true Sinai. This was first simply “the
mountain,” (Exodus, xix. 2,) and only obtained the name of a “Mountain
of God,” _after_ the giving of the law (which, however, is already
contradicted by the next following verse, xix. 3), while Serbâl might
have received the denomination of “Mountain of God” from a heathen idol
there worshipped.
“Both mountains, the Mount of God (Serbâl) in Raphidîm, and the Mount in
the desert of Sinai, are therefore just as various in name, as they are
separated by the last journeys between both camps.” The general features
of nature round about Gebel Mûsa, he considers more fitting for a longer
stay of the people on account of the greater security, coolness, and the
Alp-like pasture land. Only the name Horeb, already comprehended in
Raphidîm, could be an objection, yet there seems to him to be no
sufficient grounds existing, why this name, already considered as a
general term by Robinson, Hengstenberg, and others, should not be
extended to the outer ranges of Serbâl.
The acceptation of _two_ mountains of God, Serbâl and Gebel Mûsa, is, as
far I can tell, here attempted for the first time. It is certainly, the
_necessary, only not yet enounced consequence, for all those who place
Raphidîm in Firân_. In this there seems to me to lie an evident proof
with reference to the critical examination of the text, that both
mountains are again to be found in _Serbâl_. The greater security of the
plain of Râha would not be very high for a “harnessed” (Exodus xvi. 18,)
host of 600,000 men, after they had taken a firm footing, and Serbâl
would also have always offered a safe place of retreat. The cold in the
lofty mountains, causing water to freeze (Ritter, p. 445-630) in
February in the convent (5,000 feet above the sea), according to Rüppell
and Robinson, would alone have made an open camp on the plain of Râha
impossible during the winter, for a population accustomed to the
Egyptian climate, to the vegetation of those districts, which is
certainly differently described by the different travellers; the thought
there is no doubt of the Israelites having at one period been there, may
partially have induced several to accept more shrubs in the
neighbourhood than they actually saw at the time, partly there, no
question that the season of the year may make some difference; I
therefore willingly observe, that I visited the peninsula at about the
same season of the year in which, according to the Mosaic account, the
Israelites came thither.
Finally, Ritter has again spoken upon the Sinai question in a more
popular essay: “The Sinaitic Peninsula, and the Route of the People of
Israel to Sinai,” in the _Evangelischen Kalender_, for 1852, edited by
F. Piper, pp. 31, sqq. Here, too, he places Raphidîm in Firân, and
perceived the mountain of God at Raphidîm, in Serbâl. Against the
identity of Serbâl and Sinai, he brings these two chief objections. As
it has now been perfectly settled that the so-called Sinaitic
inscriptions are of heathen origin, and prove Serbâl, to which they
chiefly point as the “centre of an ancient worship,” this remarkable
mountain could not be “a mountain of Jehovah, if it were already a
sacred mountain of the idolaters” (p. 51). And further on (p. 52):--“The
holy mountain of Israel did not lie in the territory of Amalek, like
Serbâl, but in the east and south parts of the territory of Midian,” for
it is expressly said in Exodus (iv. 19):--“And the LORD said unto Moses,
_in Midian_, Go, return into Egypt,” in order that they should sacrifice
to him on these mountains, Horeb and Sinai, in Midian (Exodus iii.
1-12).” Of these two points, however, the first seems to me a very
important argument _for_ Serbâl-Sinai. Serbâl was also a holy mountain
for the tribes in the peninsula at a later period, as it is not called
“Idol Mountain,” _before_ the giving of the Law, but “Mountain of God”
(Exodus iii. 1, iv. 27, xviii. 5), just as it was _after_ the giving of
the Law (Exodus xxiv. 13; 1 Kings xix. 8), and a subsequent
appropriation of the mountain to a heathen worship is much less
remarkable. No reason is to be found, however, in the fact, that when
the Lord spoke to Moses he lived in Midian with Jethro, to warrant the
placing of the mountain of the Law in Midian, for that it nowhere said.
We only know, that Raphidîm, where Jethro visited Moses from Midian, lay
in the territory of the Amalekites, as they here made the attack.
Eusebius, who (_s. v._ Ῥαφιδίμ) expressly refers Raphidîm and Choreb to
Pharan, says (_s. v._ χωρήβ) that this mountain of God lay in _Madian_.
Also in _Itinerar. Antonini_, c. 40, Pharan is placed in _Madian_.
Would that these observations, in which I believe I have touched upon
almost all the more important grounds of their esteemed author, may
prove to him, how high a value I set upon each of his opinions, as those
of a more competent judge in this field of research than any other.
Ritter’s long, well-known tact for the truth in such questions would
have caused me to have less faith in my own view than all the grounds he
produces, which are generally to be confuted, as it appears, if I had
not in _this_ case the advantage of a personal inspection of the
localities, unprejudiced by any former opinion, which could make it less
independent of former writers, than it is possible for him to have.
NOTE B.
(Letter XXXIII. p. 354.)
Robinson gives the distances from Ayûn Mûsa to the crossing point of
Wadi Shebêkeh, and Wadi Taibeh (vol. iii. Part II. p. 804); these
correspond tolerably well with Burckhardt (pp. 624, 625), who continues
the distances up to Wadi Firân; these last, if we take his round across
Dhafari into consideration, are confirmed by my own. The calculation in
Robinson (p. 196), however, does not comprehend the four or five hours’
longer way round from the convent, through Wadi e’ Sheikh; for
Burckhardt went over the Nakb el Haui in eleven hours to Firân, while we
required sixteen, subtracting the little way through the Ktesse valley.
From this the distances are thus proportioned:--From Ayûn Mûsa to Ain
Hawârah, eighteen hours and thirty-five minutes; thence to Wadi
Gharandel, two hours, thirty minutes (not an hour and a half to two
hours, as it is calculated in the text, from the camp of Robinson); to
the end of the valley, near Abu Zelîmeh, seven hours, twelve minutes;
thence to the sea, one hour; to Wadi Shellâl four hours, fifteen
minutes; to Firân, thirteen hours, forty-five minutes; to the convent,
sixteen hours. The camp in the Wilderness of Sin, Robinson cannot refer
more to the south than to the end of the Wadi Shellâl; because the
people, according to him, here left the Wilderness of Sin, as
necessarily Alus falls with him beyond Firân. On the other hand,
according to my opinion, the camp at the sea is not only not different
from that at the entrance of the valley near Abu Zelîmeh, but the
Wilderness of Sin of Exodus, which reached to Sinai, and ended with
Raphidîm, is also the same with the two stations, Daphka and Alus, in
Numbers, and therefore should have no more been mentioned at the latter
place as particular camp stations than the Red Sea. The Wilderness of
Sin comprehended, accordingly, like the Wilderness of Sur, three days’
journey. The stations and their distances may be thus reckoned:--
According to Robinson:--
I. 6 hours 12 minutes } three stations from Ayûn
II. 6 “ 12 “ } Mûsa to Ain Hawârah =
III. 6 “ 12 “ } Marah.
IV. 2 “ 30 “ to Wadi Gharandel = Elim.
V. 8 “ 12 “ to the sea.
VI. 4 “ 15 “ to Wadi Shellâh, = Desert of
Sin.
VII. 7 “ -- “ } two stations to Firân = Daphka
VIII. 7 “ -- “ } and Alus.
IX. 8 “ -- “ } two stations to the plain of Râha
X. 8 “ -- “ } = Raphidîm and Sinai.
According to my researches:--
I. 7 hours -- minutes } three stations to Wadi Gharandel
II. 7 “ -- “ } = Marah.
III. 7 “ -- “ }
IV. 7 “ 12 “ to the end of the valley near
Abu Zelîmeh = Elim.
V. 6 “ -- “ } three stations to Firân, _i.e._ by
VI. 6 “ -- “ } Daphka and Alus to Raphidîm
VII. 6 “ -- “ } at Sinai.
That the last stations are somewhat shorter than the first, may be
understood from the greater difficulties of the way. Why had the people
murmured, so near to the twelve springs of Elim? How could the
particularly long journey of more than eight hours from Elim to the sea
have passed without being mentioned? And how could the day’s journey
have become continually longer in the high mountains and heavy ground?
NOTE C.
(Letter XXXIII. p 364.)
The commentators on this passage take the words [Illustration: Hebrew]
“In the third month,” as if it were written: “On the first day of the
third month,” and thus make the succeeding words, “on this day,” also
relate to the _first_ day of the month. _Vide_ Gesenius, _Thesaur._ p.
404, b.:--“_tertiis calendis post exitum_,” and p. 449, b.:--_tertio
novilunio_, i.e. _calendis mensis tertii_. Ewald, _Gesch. des v.
Israels_, vol. ii. p. 189:--“_The day (?) of the third month (which is,
however, of the new moon, therefore the first day)_.” But the Seventy
did not understand it thus, in any case, as they translate:--“τοῦ δὲ
μηνὸς τοῦ τρίτου τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ.” The Jewish tradition seems also not to
have taken its meaning thus, as the Jews celebrated the Giving of the
Law, which, according to Exodus, xix. 11, 15, occurred on the third day
after their arrival, upon the fifth or sixth day of the third month,
together with that on the fiftieth day after the harvest-feast
(Leviticus, xxiii. 15, 16), subsequent to the Exode, according to which
the arrival at Sinai must fall on the _third_ day of the third month. It
is not to be understood how [Illustration: Hebrew] without any suffix
should be used for “new-moon day,” though it has lost that analogical
meaning in all the different places, and only signifies _month_, even in
such places where the “day of the new moon” is intended (such as Exodus
xl. 2, 17; Numbers i. 1; xxxiii. 38), where it is particularly added
[Illustration: Hebrew] “on the first (day) of the month,” against which
passages like Numbers, ix. 1, and xx. 1, cannot be produced, because
there is as little ground to understand the _first_ of the month, as in
Exodus xix. 1, and the Seventy do not translate ἐν ἡμέρᾳ μιᾷ, or
νουμηνίᾳ, as in the other passages, but only as the simple sense of the
words is:--“ἐν τῷ μηνὶ τῷ πρώτῳ”. There would only thus remain one
passage, xix. 1, from which one might conclude such an ambiguous use of
[Illustration: Hebrew], because here certainly the following words, “on
_this_ day,” point to a certain single day which is not, however, now to
be guessed from our text. But this, in my opinion, is no unimportant
reason for supposing a transposition or a later interpolation of these
two verses. The latter idea is also accepted by Ewald, as he (Gesch. v.
Isr. vol. i. p. 75) refers the narrative xix. 3, 24, to the oldest
source, but not the two first verses. It has been already mentioned that
Josephus (_Ant._ iii. 2, 5), who also does not understand the words as
referring to the _first_ day of the months, transposes the passage, and,
indeed, _to the same place_ whither I, without knowing it, had placed it
in my former report (p. 48), i.e. _immediately after the battle_ of the
_Amalekites_, to which “this day” most naturally refers. If this be
true, the original text also expressed that the Israelites were not only
by Horeb but by Sinai, near Raphidîm in Wadi Firân, where they fought
the battle, _i.e._ that both the holy mountains are one, and that Moses
received the visit of Jethro first at Sinai; and, as it would seem, in
natural course of events, first organized his people at Sinai, with
which, however, it is also said, that Sinai, or Horeb, was no other
mountain than Serbâl.
Granted that we have in this way understood the original connection, no
naming of the month would be necessary; this was probably added at the
isolation of the succeeding section, referring to the giving of the law.
Under these circumstances, there would only be three exact dates for the
whole journey. The people departs from Ramses on the fifteenth day of
the first month in the first year; it proceeds from Elim, half the
distance, and just one month, on the fifteenth day of the second month
of the first year. The resting days at the stations are unknown; but if
it be taken for granted that the people proceeded without staying, it
came to Raphidîm on the third day from Elim, obtained the water on the
fourth, and was attacked by Amalek, fought on the fifth until after
sunset to the beginning of the sixth day, and on the same day (for the
Hebrew day began at sundown) encamped at Sinai. This would have occurred
on the twentieth day of the second month in the first year. Now, as the
departure from Sinai took place on the twentieth day of the second month
of the second year, the stay at Sinai would have been exactly _one
year_. This coincidence was probably originally just as accidental as
the lapse of exactly _one month_ between the first departure from Ramses
and the second from Elim.
NOTE D.
(Letter XXXIII. p. 369.)
There are yet two marble inscriptions in the wall of the convent towards
the garden referring to the founding of the place, one Greek and one
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.” Certainly the Arabic inscription is
over the little door leading into the garden. But if Burckhardt saw it
here, it is not to be understood how he did not see the Greek
inscription beside it, with a similar border and covering. Robinson did
not see either (vol. i. p. 205). Ricci had copied the Greek inscription,
and it has been printed and translated by Letronne in _Journ. des
Savans_, 1836, p. 538, with a few little variations. But another copy,
which had escaped Letronne, had been published in 1823 by Sir F.
Henniker (Notes during a Visit to Egypt, &c. pp. 235, 236), which is,
however, very inaccurate, though it attempts to give even the manner of
writing. The Arabic inscription has not, as far as I am aware, been made
known at all. I have taken impressions in paper of both, and publish
them here faithfully. The Greek is as follows:--
Ἐκ βάθρων ἀνηγέρθη τὸ ἱερὁν τοῦτο μοναστήριον τοῦ Σιναίου ὄρους, ἔνθα
ἐλάλησεν ὁ Θεὸς τῷ Μωυσῇ, παρὰ τοῦ ταπεινοῦ βασιλέως Ῥωμαίων
Ἰουστινιανοῦ πρὸς ἀἶδιον μνημόσυνον αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς συζύγου τοῦ Θεοδώρας·
ἔλαβε τέλος μετὰ τὸ τριακοστὸν ἔτος τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ, καὶ κατέστησεν ἐν
αὐτῷ ἡγούμενον ὀνόματι Δουλᾶ ἔν ἔτει ἀπὸ μὲν Ἀδὰμ σκά, ἀπὸ δὲ Χριστοῦ
φκζ.
“This holy monastery was erected on Mount Sinai, where God spake unto
Moses, by the humble king of the Romans, Justinian, unto the everlasting
remembrance of himself and of his wife Theodora. It received its
completion in the thirtieth year of his reign, and he set a governor
over it, Dulas by name, in the year from Adam, 6021, and from Christ,
527.”
Letronne read ἐν ᾦ πρῶτον instead of ἔνθα, and κατέστησε τὸν instead of
κατέστησεν in the seventh line. The characters are those of the twelfth
or thirteenth century. As the Emperor Justinian reigned from 527-565, it
is judged by the writer that the decree for the erection of the convent
and the placing of the abbot Dulas falls in the first year of the
government of the emperor, although the completion of the building is
first placed in the thirtieth year of the same, _i. e._ A.D. 556. The
year of the world 6021 answers to A.D. 527, according to the Alexandrian
era of Pandorus and Anianus.[158]
The Arabic inscription is thus:--
[Illustration: Arabic]
“The convent of the Tôr (mountain) Sinai, and the church of the
conference, the pious king Justianus (instead of Justinianus), of Greek
confession, yearning after God, and hoping for the summons of his Lord,
for a memorial of himself and his wife Theodora against the passing of
time, that God may inherit the earth and what is upon it, for _he is the
best of inheritors_. And the erection was ended after thirty years of
his government. And he set over it a chief, named Dhulas. And this took
place after Adam 6021, which agrees with the year 527 of the era of the
Lord Christ.”
The characters of the inscription certify, according to the information
of the Consul, Dr. Wetzstein, who has kindly undertaken the copying and
translation of the inscription, that they are not of a date previous to
550 of the Mahommedan era, which, therefore, brings us back to the time
in which the Greek inscription was made. The passage of the Koran,
mentioned already by Burckhardt, is in Surât, xxi., v. 18.
In the same wall, but much higher up, over a far greater door, now
bricked up, at a place behind which the kitchen is now lying, another
great stone is let in, the ornament of which [Illustration] might lead
to the supposition that there is another old inscription there.
Unfortunately, it was impossible to have a ladder brought thither, to
examine the stone more carefully. May a later traveller succeed in this!
NOTE E.
(Letter XXXIII. p. 370.)
The history of the palm-wood of Pharan forms the centre-point of the
history of the whole peninsula. The accounts of the Greeks and Romans
give a new proof of this, though their geographical determinations have,
for the most part, been incorrectly apprehended. Thus the Poseidion of
Artemidorus, Diodorus, and Strabo, is generally put at the extremity of
the peninsula now called Râs Mahommed, even by Gosselin, Letroune, and
Groskura, who had certainly perceived the incorrect gloss of the
manuscripts of Strabo (p. 776: τοῦ [Ἐλανίτου] μυχοῦ). As the Poseidion
lay _within_ (ἐνδοτέρω) the Gulf of Suez, and as the _western_ coast of
the peninsula is described, this altar of Poseidion necessarily lay
either at Râs Abu Zelîmeh, the haven of Faran, or at Râs G’ehân, where
there was a more southerly and shorter communication by Wadi Dhaghadeh
with Wadi Firân. That the Palm-grove (Φοινικών) of that author is not to
be found by Tôr, but in the Wadi Firân, has already been rightly seen by
Tuch, (_Sinait. Inschr._, p. 35), although he still places the Poseidion
at Râs Mahommed (p. 37). It was the Serb Bâl--the palm-grove of
Baal--from which the mountain first obtained its name. It appears that
at an earlier date the name of Faran was used with particular reference
to the haven near Abu Zelîmeh, and a Pharanitic colony at the place of
ancient Elim, in the neighbourhood of the present Gebel Hammân Faraûn,
still called Farân by the Arabic historians; while the grove itself was
yet called Serb Bâl by the inhabitants. Probably, also, it was here
where Aristo landed under Ptolemæus Philadelphus, and founded the
Poseidion.
By Artemidorus (in Strabo, p. 776), and Diodorus (III. 42), Mαρανῖται
are mentioned, for which Gosselin, Ritter, Tuch, and others, propose to
read Φαρανῖται. But as the Maranites lived on the _eastern_ coast of the
peninsula, and are reported to have been entirely destroyed by the
Garindœans, I can find no support for this conjecture. The gorge Pharan,
mentioned by Josephus in Judæa (_Bel. Jud._ iv. 9, 4), has no connection
with anything here.
The name of the Pharanites on the _west coast_ of the peninsula first
occurs in Pliny (H. N. xxxvii., 40), for there is no reason to consider
the _Pharanitis gens_, which he places in Arabia Petræa, to be other
than the _Pharanitai_ of Ptolemy. That the northern station Phara
(_circa_ ten hours west of Aila) on the table of Peutinger, has nothing
to do with the Pharanitic palm-grove, has been placed beyond doubt by
Ritter, (p. 147 sq.).
Ptolemy, in the third century, is the first who mentions a _place_
called Pharan (κώμη φαράν); yet the grounds and the connection of _his_
calculations so very different from the true relations of the peninsula,
had remained obscure, so that the single comparison were useless. His
construction of the peninsula is immediately intelligible, if it be
considered that he has evidently taken the obtuse coast-angle at Râs
Gehân,--whither he put Cape Pharan according to his latitudes, instead
of Hammân Farûn,--for the most southern point of the peninsula, whence
the more remote coast again runs up to the north-east. By this the
peninsula becomes 50´ too short, although the longitude of his
promontory agrees with that of the right one. The real point (Râs
Mohammed) now answers to the place whither he places the round of the
Elanitic Gulf (ἐπιστροφὴ τοῦ Ἐλανίτου κόλπου). The whole Elanitic Gulf
(Gulf of Akaba) shrinks with him to a little angle (μυχός) of 15´, as
everything is pushed up too much to the north. The coast, from “the
term” up to Οννη answers in fact to that from Râs Furtak (Diodorus’s or
Artemidorus’s ἀκρωτήριον τῆς ἡπείρου, before which the island of Phoke
lay) to Ἀïn Uneh and the Elanitic Gulf, the northern end of which
(ἐπιστροφή) he placed at 66° longitude, 29° latitude,[159] now takes
the form of the gulf, the undermost point of which is now denoted by Ἀïn
Uneh. The ocean angle of Pharan (μυχὸς κατὰ φαράν) he imagines to extend
from Cape Faran (ἀκρωτήριον φαράν) to the inland city of the same name,
like the angle of Elana, and the inner angle of Heroonpolis to the north
of Arsinoe. From the same construction of the peninsula it came that the
Rhainthenians, who were placed along the same coast by Tôr (even now
called Ῥαιθοῦ) below the Pharanites, had now to be placed on the coast
turned towards Arabia (παρὰ τὴν όρεινὴν τῆς Εὐδαιμονος Ἀραβίas),
therefore on the oriental and not the occidental coast of the peninsula;
and finally, the primary mountain-chain (ὄρη μέλανα) extending from
Faray to Râs Mohammed to Judæa, therefore to the N.E. instead of the
S.E.