OF SIN,” is also applicable to the still more remote question, which of
the two mountains, Serbâl, or Gebel Mûsa, possessed such qualifications
as to have been regarded by the native tribes of the Peninsula, even
before the great event of the Law-giving, as a “HOLY MOUNT,” A MOUNT
OF GOD.[86] For Moses drove the sheep of Jethro from Midian beyond
the wilderness to the “MOUNT OF GOD, CHOREB,”[87] and Aaron met him,
on his return to Egypt, at the MOUNT OF GOD.[88] If we maintain that
the necessary centre of the Sinaitic population must have been, at
all events, the Oasis of FIRÂN, we may also suppose that those tribes
founded a sanctuary, a common PLACE OF WORSHIP, in the vicinity of that
spot, either at the base, or, still more naturally, on the summit of
the mountain which rises up from that valley.[89] This also was the
most appropriate place for the meeting between Moses, who came from
Midian in the East, and Aaron, who came from Egypt. In such a barren and
uninhabited country there was no occasion to search for any peculiarly
secret and remote corner among the mountains for such an interview.
In addition to this, the _Sinaitic inscriptions_, which, as mentioned
above, are found in the greatest numbers, especially on the roads to Wadi
Firân, and in Wadi Aleyât, which leads up to Serbâl, seem to indicate
that in much later times also considerable pilgrimages were undertaken
thither to solemnise religious festivals.[90]
If we now pass at once to the principal point, which must appear as
most decisive to those who look attentively at the general conditions
connected with the march of the Israelites, it must be allowed that
if Moses desired to lead his numerous people to the Peninsula, the
first and chief task he had to perform, in accordance with his wisdom,
and his knowledge of the country, was to _maintain_ them. For however
we may explain the given numbers of the emigrants, which according
to Robinson amounted to two millions, by Lane’s account equal to the
present population of Egypt, we must always admit that there was a
very considerable mass of people who were suddenly to be maintained
in the Sinaitic wilderness without any importation of provisions. How
then can we imagine that Moses would not have kept in view, above
all other places, the only spot in the Peninsula that was fertile and
amply supplied with water; and that he would not have endeavoured to
reach it by the shortest path; but that in place of this, a remote
nook in the mountains should have been sought out, which at that time
could not possibly have supplied the daily necessity of water and other
nourishment, even for only 2000 emigrants and their belongings—I mention
a high number intentionally. Moses would have been wrong to have trusted
here to miraculous aid from God; for this is never manifested until
human wisdom and human counsel, which is not intended to be rendered
superfluous through it, can go no further.
It appears to me that we should not relinquish this inevitable opinion
respecting the position of Sinai, which is opposed to the view hitherto
entertained, and becomes stronger the longer we reflect upon it, and we
ought not to disclaim any more particular historical consideration of
this wonderful occurrence, unless other grounds, as urgent, should afford
proofs against our mode of acceptation. Let us therefore pursue the
narrative still further.
From Elim, Moses reached Raphidîm in a march of three days. Modern
scholars generally agree that the march from Abu Zelîmeh did not pass
again through the same Wadi Schebêkeh or Tâibeh through which they had
descended, back to the eastern sandy plain of E’ Raml, but followed the
customary caravan road which leads to Wadi Firân. How should Moses then
have selected the far longer upper road devoid of water, or even the
still longer, and still more arid, circuitous route along the sea-coast
by Tôr and Wadi Hebrân, instead of at once entering the less arid valleys
of the primitive range which abounded in manna?
He was obliged therefore to go to Wadi Firân; no third way was possible.
This is the urgent reason why Raphidîm (except by Robinson[91]) has
almost as unanimously been transferred to FIRÂN. It seems, however,
impossible that this oasis, if it was traversed, should not have been
once mentioned; therefore even Josephus,[92] Eusebius,[93] Jerome,[94]
and, as it appears, all the older authors and travellers,[95] place
Raphidîm near the town of PHARAN. No spot in the whole land could have
been of greater value for the native tribes who were menaced by Moses
than these orchards of Pharan. We may, therefore, perfectly conceive that
Moses was attacked at this very spot in Raphidîm by the Amalekites, who
were about to lose their most precious possession. He repulsed them, and
Moses could now first say that he had got possession of the Peninsula.
His nearest object was attained. What could have attracted him still
farther from this point?
It is also said, however, in distinct terms, that the people had arrived
here at the MOUNT OF GOD; consequently at the MOUNT OF THE LAW. For it
is said, after the victory at Raphidîm, that Jethro, the father-in-law
of Moses in Midian, heard of all that had happened. “And Jethro, Moses’
father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife unto Moses into the
Wilderness, WHERE HE ENCAMPED AT THE MOUNT OF GOD.”[96] And even before
that, the Lord had said to Moses, “Behold, I will stand before thee there
upon the rock in CHOREB; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall
come water out of it, that the people may drink,”[97] words which could
only have alluded to the wonderful spring of Firân, as has been already
supposed long before my time.[98] It may still further be deduced, that
Moses really found repose here in Raphidîm, because now, by the advice
of Jethro, he organises the hitherto disorderly mass of people to enable
him to govern them.[99] He selects the best qualified men, and places
them over a thousand, over a hundred, over fifty, and over ten; these
are appointed judges of smaller matters while he only retains the most
important for himself.
All this evidently indicates that the journey was past, and the period of
repose had commenced.
The beginning of the following chapter (Exodus xix. 1-3) certainly
seems to contradict this, for it is said, “In the third month, when the
children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same
day[100] came they into the wilderness of SINAI. For they were DEPARTED
FROM Raphidîm, and were come to the desert of Sinai, and had pitched in
the wilderness; and there Israel camped BEFORE THE MOUNT, and Moses went
up unto God, and the Lord called unto him OUT OF THE MOUNTAIN,” &c.
According to this, they decamped between Raphidîm and Sinai. This
favoured the tradition which believed that the Mount of the Law might
be re-discovered in Gebel Mûsa beyond Firân. At the same time, however,
it was not considered that by admitting this we encounter much greater
contradictions with the text. In the first place, the words mention no
more than one day’s journey,[101] not even in the Book of Numbers,[102]
where, nevertheless, between Elim and Raphidîm, not only Alus and Daphka,
but the Red Sea (though this last was near Elim) are particularly
mentioned. From Firân to Gebel Mûsa there were, however, at least two
long days’ journeys, if not more. The “MOUNT OF GOD” has likewise been
already mentioned in Raphidîm, it was there called a rock in CHOREB; and
it is therefore impossible to understand by the Mount of God any other
than “THE MOUNT OF GOD” to which Moses drives the sheep of Jethro.
We should, thus, be obliged to admit that there were _two_ “Mounts of
God;” one, the “MOUNT OF GOD, CHOREB,” in Raphidîm, which would be
SERBÂL, and a “MOUNT OF GOD, SINAI,” on which the law was given, which
would be GEBEL MÛSA.[103]
To admit this would, however, in itself not only be scarcely
conceivable, but most distinctly self-contradictory, inasmuch as it
maintains that the Mount of God, CHOREB, where God first appears to
Moses, is even in anticipation designated as the Mount of the Law (Exodus
iii. 1-12); that further, the general designation, the “MOUNT OF GOD,”
which appears so frequently without a name being appended (Exodus iv.
27, xviii. 5, xxiv. 13; Numbers x. 33), could only have been employed if
there were no more than _one_ such Mount; and, finally, because the name
of SINAI, or MOUNT SINAI, and CHOREB, or MOUNT CHOREB, are continually
mentioned with exactly the same meaning as Mount of the Law-giving.
This evident difficulty has indeed been felt strongly at all times.[104]
Josephus (Ant. iii. 2, 3) forwarded his view by transposing the doubtful
commencement of the xix chapter from its present position _after_ the
visit of Jethro, to _before_ it, so that Moses does not receive his
family in Raphidîm, but in Sinai. By this means certainly the double
difficulty is avoided; on the one hand, because two Mounts of God do not
appear, on the other, that the organisation of the people does not occur
during the journey. He also deliberately omits the statement that in
CHOREB was situated the rock which Moses strikes for the spring of water.
Modern scholars have, on the contrary, proposed either to make Sinai the
general name for the whole of the range, and Choreb the individual Mount
of the Law-giving, or _vice versâ_, Choreb for the more extended, and
Sinai for the limited designation,[105] while the tradition of the monks
refer both names to different mountains situated immediately beside each
other.[106] It seems to me that the comparison of the individual passages
admits of none of these views; in my opinion it is rather clearly proved,
by the names of Choreb and Sinai being used alternately, but with perfect
equality, that _both_ designated _one and the same mountain_ together
with the district immediately surrounding it,[107] so that Choreb
perhaps was the more precise Amalekitish local name, Sinai the more
indeterminate one, derived from its position in the Wilderness of Sin.
But with respect to the departure from Raphidîm, many might think it very
probable that those words, which so strikingly interrupt the natural
sequence of circumstances as to have been intentionally transposed either
by Josephus, or prior to his time, did not originally belong here, but
were placed at the commencement of the account of the Law-giving; if, as
no doubt frequently occurred, this was to be understood by itself alone,
separate from all that preceded and succeeded it.[108] The unusual manner
in which they are connected, since the arrival at Sinai is mentioned
previously to the departure from Raphidîm, and the expression “the same
day,” which is so difficult to explain, while in the other statements of
time a particular day is mentioned, would support the supposition.[109]
Whoever, however, may consider it too bold to assume that we no longer
possess the original composition, can only explain the fresh departure to
be a last and insignificant removal of the encampment, such as we were
obliged to admit to be the case at the departure from Elim to the sea
coast. This removal was either while they advanced from El Hessue (where
they first beheld the water) towards Firân, or from Firân into the upper
portion of Wadi Aleyât, where the camp might have extended far and wide
at the foot of the Mount.[110]
Whoever endeavours to realise the whole progress of the event, with
its essential and necessary characteristics, can only be satisfied by
comprehending it in this manner. He will not be able to blind himself
to the conviction that Serbâl, on account of the oasis at its base,
must have been the necessary object and centre for the pouring in of
the new people, and that the wise Man of God, so well acquainted with
the country, could never have intended to lead the multitude into a
mountain enclosure like the plain at Gebel Mûsa, where they would find
no water, no trees bearing fruit, nor manna, and where they would have
been more easily cut off from all connection with the other parts of
the Peninsula than anywhere else. He will be compelled to acknowledge
that the designation of SINAI as the chief mountain of the Wilderness
of SIN, and the sanctity with which it was regarded, not merely by the
Israelites, but by the native tribes of the country, decidedly points
to Serbâl; further, that the Raphidîm defended by the Amalekites was
undoubtedly situated, together with the spring of Moses in Choreb, in
the Wadi Firân; that consequently the Mount of God at Choreb, where God
appeared to Moses, and the Mount of God at Raphidîm, where Moses is
visited by Jethro, and organises the people, could also be no other than
Serbâl, from which, finally, we must as necessarily deduce that unless we
admit that there were two Mounts of God, the Mount of the Law was also
near Raphidîm, and is recognisable in Serbâl, not in Gebel Mûsa.
In conclusion, if we now once more look back and observe how the
present tradition bears on our account of the event, we perceive that
it refers at once to the foundation of the convent, by Justinian, in
the sixth century.[111] This, however, was by no means the first church
of the Peninsula. At a far earlier period we already find a bishopric
in the town of Pharan, at the foot of Serbâl.[112] Here was the first
Christian centre of the Peninsula, and the church founded by Justinian
also remained dependent on this for the space of several centuries. The
question therefore is, whether the tradition which regards the present
Gebel Mûsa as Sinai can be referred to a time prior to Justinian.[113]
The remoteness of that district, and its distance from frequented roads
of communication, though from its position in the lofty range offering
sufficient subsistence for the trifling necessities of the single,
scattered monks, rendered it peculiarly applicable for individual
hermits, but for the same reason inapplicable for a large people, ruling
the land for a certain period of time, and exhausting all its resources.
The gradually increasing hermit population might have drawn the attention
of the Byzantine emperors to that particular district, and, as it
appears, have fixed the previously wavering tradition to that spot for
future times.[114]
I have, indeed, been in need of a learned foundation for what I have here
said about the position of Elim, Raphidîm, and Mount Choreb or Sinai, but
this I shall not be able to supply even in Thebes; it would, however,
chiefly refer to the history of the earliest tradition before Justinian,
which, even were it to agree in all its parts with the tradition of the
present day, would still hardly suffice to decide anything conclusively.
It seems to me that these questions will always remain unsolved, if
the elements which were at my command—namely, the Mosaic account, a
personal view of the locality, and acquaintance with the history of that
period—should not be considered sufficient to explain them. We shall
only obtain a correct idea of the whole of the external character of the
event, by simultaneously observing these three most essential sides of
the investigation, while, on the other hand, an endeavour to obtain an
indifferent and equal confirmation of each individual feature in the
account now under our consideration, must necessarily lead to the wide
road of false criticism, which always sacrifices the comprehension of the
whole, to the comprehension of the individual part.
[Illustration: MAP OF THE PENINSULA OF MOUNT SINAI TO EXPLAIN THE MARCH
OF THE ISRAELITES FROM ELIM TO HOREB
by R. Lepsius 1845.
G. ERBKAM delᵗ.
Engraved by J. & C. Walker.]
LETTER XXXIV.
_Thebes, Karnak, the 4th of May._
On the 6th of April we quitted Tôr, where we had only spent one night.
During our farther voyage we landed every evening on the shelly and
coralline coast of Africa, till, on the 10th, we arrived at Kossêr, where
excellent Seïd Mohammed of Qeneh was waiting to furnish us with camels
for our return to Thebes. In four days we passed over the broad Rossafa
road, crossing the mountain range, passed Hamamât, and on the 14th of
April once more reached our Theban head-quarters.
We found everything in the most desirable order and activity; but our old
and faithful castellan, ʾAuad, met me with a bandaged head, and saluted
me in a feeble voice. A short time previously he had a narrow escape from
death. I mentioned in a former letter that many years ago he, together
with the whole house of the Sheikh of Qurna, burdened themselves with
a crime of blood, which had not yet been expiated. The family of the
man who had been killed in Kôm el Birât, had, soon after our departure,
seized an opportunity when ʾAuad was returning home from Luqsor one
evening with a relation, to fall upon the two unsuspicious wanderers. The
attack was more aimed at the companion of ʾAuad than at himself, they
therefore called out to him to go away; however, as he did not do this,
but vigorously defended his relation, he received an almost deadly blow
on his head from a sharp weapon, which stretched him insensible on the
ground; the other man was murdered and thrown into the Nile, sacrificed
to the revenge for bloodshed, which had remained unsatisfied seven years.
Since that time there has been peace between the families.
A longer account of our Sinai journey will be despatched to-day, to which
I have also added two maps of the Peninsula, by Erbkam, drawn from my
notes. I now contemplate the difficult task of finishing my account with
Thebes, which, however, I hope to accomplish in about ten or twelve days.
LETTER XXXV.
_Cairo, the 10th of July, 1845._
The first place we halted at after we left Thebes on the 16th of May,
was DENDERA, whose magnificent temple is the last towards the North,
and although of later date, almost confined to the Roman period, it
yet presented an unusual amount of subjects for our portfolios and
note-books. We then spent nine additional whole days upon the remarkable
rock-tombs of AMARNA, from the time of the fourth Amenophis, that royal
Puritan who persecuted all the gods of Egypt, and would only permit the
worship of the sun’s disc.
As we approached Beni-suef, we saw a magnificent steamer of Ibrahim
Pascha’s hastening towards us. We hoisted our flag, and immediately the
red Turkish flag, with the Crescent, appeared on board the steam-boat
in return for our salute. It then altered its course, steered directly
towards us, and stopped.
We were eager for the news which we were about to hear: a boat pushed
off, and pulled to beside our ship. It was, indeed, a joyful surprise
when I recognised my old university friend, Dr. Bethmann, in the fair
Frank who came on board, and who had come hither from Italy to accompany
me on my journey back by Palestine and Constantinople. Ali Bey, the right
hand of Ibrahim Pascha, who was steaming to Upper Egypt, had kindly
taken him into his vessel, and told me he unwillingly parted with his
agreeable travelling companion, to whom he had become much attached even
in their short acquaintance.
His presence, and the assistance he affords me, have become still more
valuable since my other travelling companions have left me behind
alone. They started from hence yesterday. Willingly indeed I would have
accompanied them, as to-day is the third anniversary of my departure from
Berlin, but the taking to pieces of the Pyramid tombs still detains us.
The four workmen, able young men, who were sent to assist me from Berlin,
have arrived, and I immediately took them with me to the Pyramids. We
made ourselves a lodging in a tomb which was in a convenient situation.
A travelling blacksmith’s forge was constructed, some scaffolding was
raised for the windlass, and we set to work vigorously.
The difficulties of the whole affair, however, rest still more in the
petty jealousies, by which we are here surrounded on every side, and in
the different diplomatic influences, which are not unfrequently rendered
abortive by Mohammed Ali’s distinct orders. Herr von Wagner therefore
considered it absolutely necessary that I should by no means quit Egypt
before the transport and embarkation of the monuments was completed, and
I therefore shall be obliged to wait here patiently for several weeks
longer.
LETTER XXXVI.
_Cairo, the 11th July, 1845._
Will you permit me to communicate briefly some ideas which have of late
considerably occupied my attention.[115] I have never lost sight of your
wish to decorate the New Museum in harmony with the monuments which it
contains, and I hope that you continue to entertain these views. I have
had great pleasure in the account Herr Hertel has given me respecting
the arrangement of the Egyptian saloons, and have heard from him that
the facing of the columns is still _in suspenso_. It is very improbable
that such a favourable opportunity will ever recur of having such means
at our disposal on the first formation of a museum as we have in the
arrangement of this Egyptian one, when we shall be able to furnish a
complete whole, and at the same time offer to the public so much that
is new and important in plan, materials, and arrangement. If I remember
rightly, you have expressed a desire to form an _historical_ museum,
such, in fact, as all such museums should be, in conformity with their
purpose and idea, and yet such as nowhere exists. This view, however, in
an Egyptian museum, is at all events attainable in a degree which, even
under the most favourable circumstances, can be but remotely approached
in all other museums, because in no other nation can the date of each
individual monument be so precisely and surely presented as in this, and
because no other collection is distributed throughout so long a period
of time (above 3000 years). I therefore presume that, as a whole, you
wish to arrange the principal saloons historically, so far as this can
be accomplished, and by some method to combine what belongs to the Old,
what to the New, and what to the Greek-Roman Monarchy, in such a manner
at least, that each chamber of any size should have a definite historical
character. I have always borne this in view in forming the collection,
although I by no means believe that this principle should be carried out
pedantically in details. With respect to the plaster casts which you will
probably wish to incorporate as a whole with the existing collection of
casts, it would be very desirable to have a few duplicates made of these
for the Egyptian saloons, for the sake of rendering them complete.
But what especially induces me to write from hence on such matters, is
the notion that even now, or perhaps very soon, you may have made such
progress in the edifice as to be desirous of coming to a decision with
reference to the architectonic and pictorial decoration of the saloons,
and in that case a few observations may not perhaps be unacceptable from
me.
You will, no doubt, select _Egyptian architecture_ for the Egyptian
saloons; this should by all means be carried out in every part, and by
what I hear from Hertel, there is still ample time for this. I think,
for instance, that to produce a general harmonious impression the
architectural style of ranges of columns, which is characteristic of
different periods, should be retained in their historical succession of
series, as well as with all their rich decoration of colouring.