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.