τῆς ἐρήμον παρὰ τὸ Χωρὴβ ὄρος, ἐν ᾧ ἐυ τῆς πέτρας ἐρρύησε τὰ ὔδατα
καὶ ἐκλήθη ὀ τόπος πειρασμός ἔνθα καὶ πολεμεῖ Ἰησοῦς τὺν Ἁμαλὴκ
<g>ἐγγὺς Φαράν</g>. Hieron. de situ et nomin., etc. s.v. Raphidim,
locus in deserto juxta montem Choreb, in quo de petra fluxere aquæ,
cognominatusque est tentatio, ubi et Jesus adversus Amalec dimicat
_prope Pharan_. [Here again the authorities resolve themselves
into one, as the reader knows that, after all, Jerome was only the
translator of Eusebius, and would therefore, of course, agree with him.
The Doctor does not appear to have thought of this.--K. R. H. M.]
[130] Of the older authors there is yet Cosmas Indicopleustes
(A.D. 535) to be particularly mentioned, (Topogr.
Christ, Lib V. in the _Coll. Nov. Patr. ed. Montfaucon_, tom. II. fol.
195,) Ἔιτα πάλιν παρενέ βαλον εἰς Ῥαφιδὶν εἰς τὴν νῦν λεγομένην Φαράν
also Antoninus Placentinus, who is placed about 600, while the learned
Papebroch, who has edited his _Itinerarium_ in the _Acta S.S._, May,
vol. ii. p. 10-18, places him in the eleventh or twelfth century, came,
as he says, _in civitatem_ (which can only be Pharan) _in qua pugnavit
Moyses cum Amalech: ubi est altare positum super lapides illos quos
posuerunt Moyse orante_.” The city is surrounded with a brick wall, and
“_valde, sterilis_” for which Tuch (Sinait. Incr. p. 38) proposes to
read “_fertilis_.” When Pharan is called an Amalekite city by Macrizi,
(History of the Kopts, translated by Wüstenfeld, p. 116), this can only
point to the same conclusion that Moses was attacked near Pharan by the
Amalekites, to whom the territory belonged. Ritter is particularly to
be mentioned among the new school.
[131] See the passage of Cosmas, in a former note.
[132] The name Raphidîm itself, “the resting-places,” indicates that
the place was intended for a longer rest.
[133] Exodus, xix. 1-3.
[134] See Note C, in the Appendix.
[135] Therefore Robinson and others, who admit no hiatus in the resting
stations, place Raphidîm beyond Firân, and do not admit that the latter
is named at all, or place Alus there. What is contrary to this, and has
already been made use of by Ritter, is already mentioned above. On the
contrary, Ritter, to get over the difficulty, considers our present
text to be imperfect (p. 742).
[136] To this conclusion, which appears to me the most doubtful,
of any, Ritter feels himself driven. The tradition of the present
day is different, that Horeb and Sinai are two mountains in close
juxtaposition, but also distinctly divided.
[137] To this conclusion, which appears to me the most doubtful,
of any, Ritter feels himself driven. The tradition of the present
day is different, that Horeb and Sinai are two mountains in close
juxtaposition, but also distinctly divided.
[138] The three possibilities of getting quit of this difficulty have
been tried by Robinson, Ritter, and Josephus. The first places Raphidîm
in the neighbourhood of Gebel Mûsa; the second sees an omission between
Raphidîm and Sinai, and accepts two divine mountains; the third
transposes the passage, and does not mention Horeb at all, but only
Sinai.
[139] Cf. the comparison and discussion of both opinions in Robinson,
vol. i. pp. 197, sqq. All those places where exactly the same is said
of Horeb as of Sinai, and no idea of a larger extent of region is
admissible, speak against the view of the latter that Horeb is the
denomination of the mountain-range or country, and Sinai the name of
the particular mount. A Desert of Horeb is never spoken of, as are the
deserts of Sur, Sin, Paran, and others. For a contrary view one could
cite Acts, vii. 30, compared with Exodus, iii. 1. [The former passage
is “And when forty years were expired, then appeared unto him _in the
wilderness of Mount Sinai_, an angel,” &c.; the other runs thus, “He
led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came _to the mountain
of God, even to Horeb_.”--K. R. H. M.]
[140] This view is already to be found in the _Itinerarium_ of
Antoninus, who finds the convent _between_ Sinai and Horeb. The present
monkish tradition that the rock on the plain of Râha is Horeb is
already known. The arbitrariness of such views are self-evident. Yet
the latter opinion is taken up by Gesenius, (Thesaur. p. 517), Wiener,
and others.
[141] St. Jerome already says expressly the same thing, in adding
to the words of Eusebius, _s.v._ Choreb:--“Mihi autem videtur,
quod _duplici nomine idem mons nunc_ SINA, _nunc_ CHOREB
_vocetur_.” Josephus already evidently took both mountains to be
one, as he everywhere substitutes _Sinai_ where _Choreb_ occurs in
the Bible; so also does the author of Acts (vii. 80); and likewise
Syncellus (_Chron._ p. 190), who says of Elias:--ἐπορεύετο ἐν Χωρὴβ
τῷ ὄρει ἤτοι Σιναίῳ. [The adjective termination of Σιναίῳ shows that
Syncellus meant that Choreb was part of the Sinaitic range. Otherwise,
he would have employed the Hebraic termination:--K. R. H. M.] Of late
scholars, Ewald presents the same opinion concerning the identity of
the two mounts. He says, (Gesch. des V. Isr., vol. ii. p. 84):--“The
two names Sinai and Horeb do not change, because they denoted two
peaks of the same mountain, lying close together, but the name Sinai
is plainly older, which is also used by Deborah, (Judges v. 5), while
the name Horeb is not to be found previous to the time of Numbers (cf.
Exod. iii. 1, xvii. 6, xxxiii. 6), but then becomes very frequent, as
is proved by Deuteronomy, and the passages, 1 Kings viii. 9, xix. 8,
Mal. xii. 22, Psalm cvi. 19, while it does not mean anything to the
contrary, when quite recent writers, for the sake of showing their
acquaintance with ancient literature, re-introduce the original name of
Sinai!”
[142] If we omit the two verses xix. 12, the narrative in xix. 3
continues quite naturally that of xviii. 27; “and Moses let his
father-in-law depart; so he went his way into his own land. And Moses
went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain,” &c.
[143] [See Note C. Appendix.]
[144] [See Note A. Appendix.]
[145] [Note D, Appendix.]
[146] [Note E, Appendix.]
[147] [Note F, Appendix.]
[148] Ritter (p. 31), where he mentions that Sinai appears almost
simultaneously, as Serbâl, with the Egyptian Cosmas, and as Gebel
Mûsa with the Byzantine Procopius, broaches another conjecture, which
I shall here quote:--“Was there, perhaps,” says he, “a different
tradition or party opinion prevailing in Constantinople and Alexandria
on this point among the convents and the monks, which might have arisen
from a jealousy to vindicate the more sacred character of one or other
of the places? It is curious that at the same time such different views
of the question should exist among the most learned theologians of
their time.”
[149] This letter, which is here printed word for word, was addressed
to the General-Director der K. Preuss. Museen, Herr Geh. Legations-Rath
von Olfers. Perhaps its publication may serve at the same time to
spread abroad a just respect for the principles on which the Egyptian
Museum, that part of one of the most grand and newest creations of
Berlin first accessible to the public, has been erected and decorated.
[150] [This might, not without some reason, be considered to assimilate
with the style of painting which has lately made its appearance in
England as a school--I refer to the pre-Raphaelite, which, whatever its
own intrinsic merits may be,--and those, I suspect, are very few,--will
at least have one good effect, that of calling the attention of English
painters to the individualities in their paintings, and obviating the
slurring sketchy style so prevalent at the present time, the upholders
of which, after all, are the persons who condemn the pre-Raphaelites.
The remarks of Dr. Lepsius will therefore apply to this new school of
painting.--K. R. H. M.]
[151] [The Cheta are generally considered to be the Hittites.--K. R. H.
M.]
[152] [Exodus, i. 11.--K. R. H. M.]
[153] It must be from some error that Burckhardt (Travels in Syria, p.
5) only allows the grave of Noah a length of ten feet, although the
same number recurs in Schubert (_Reise in das Morgenland_, Bd. III.,
p. 340). It is well known how continually the number forty is used
by the Hebrews as an indefinite number. The same seems to have been
peculiar to _all Semitic_ nations, at least, it may be pointed out
frequently, and at all times with the Phænicians and Arabs; the numeral
word for four and forty itself points, in these languages, to the
general idea of multitude. Cf. my Treatise on Philological Comparison
(“_Sprachvergleichende Abhandlungen_,”) Berlin, 1836, pp. 104, 139, and
the “Chronology of the Egyptians,” vol. i. p. 15.
[154] See V. Hammer, History of the Osmanli Empire, part II. p. 482.
[155] Cf. Krafft, the Topography of Jerusalem, Bonn, 1846, and Plate
II. No. 33.
[156] The king represented here is explained by Rawlinson (a Commentary
on the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria, London, 1850,
p. 70,) to be the son of the builder of Khorsabad, Bel-Adonim-Sha.
The same king is found on the buildings of Kuyunjik, Nebbi Yûnas, and
Mossul, according to Layard, (Nineveh, vol. ii. p. 142, 144,) who, (p.
400), conjectures that the monument from Cyprus, now in the Berlin
Museum, also belongs to him. (Cf. Bonomi, Nineveh and its Palaces,
London, 1852, p. 127.)
[157] [Hesych. οὐραγίαν, τὴν ὄπισθεν ἀκολουθοῦσαν στρατίαν--K.R.H.M.]
[158] [See Bunsen, Egypt’s Place, vol. 1. p. 209--K.R.H.M.]
[159] [It may be as well to remark that the calculations of longitude
here and on the map are made from the island of Feroe, on the west
coast of Africa, and not from Greenwich.--K.R.H.M.]
[160] [To the Rev. Charles Forster it would appear we are indebted for
the detection of the record of the visit of Cosmas, which, according to
his reading, runs thus:--“μνησ τηθ? Κοσμάν του’ ν Τεβδ ... ναυτιου.”
“Remember Cosmas, the voyager to Tibet.” See that gentleman’s work on
the Primeval Language, Part I. p. 4. The Greek, as the author observes,
is _very_ corrupt.--K.R.H.M.]