FARAÛN, of PHARAOH, but FARAN, from PHARAN. For EDRISI names those
places on the coast FARAN AHRUN, and ISTACHRI TARAN, which no doubt
ought to be called FARAN. (See Ritter, Asien, vol. viii., p. 170, &c.)
MACRIZI also calls the same spot BIRKET FARAN. (Ritter, Sinai-halbins, p.
64.) The harbour district of Pharan was probably called after the town
itself, though distant, and the tradition of Pharaoh’s destruction, so
inapplicable to this spot, was perhaps only connected with the alteration
of the name of Faran into Faraûn. It remains a striking fact that the
Arabian chroniclers, among whom Macrizi himself visited the spot, speak
of the town of Faran as of a town on the coast.
[83] That portion of the sandy sea-shore which Robinson regards as the
Wilderness of Sin, produces no TARFA shrubs, much less manna. Compare
Ritter, p. 665, &c., with respect to the tracts of country where manna
is found. It has been already mentioned that EUSEBIUS maintains that
the Wilderness of Sin extended as far as Sinai. (Σίν, ἔρημος ἡ μεταξὺ
παρατείνουσα τῆς Ἐρυθρᾶς θαλάσσης καὶ τῆς ἐρήμου Σινά.)
[84] Robinson, i., p. 173-196. In opposition to what Wilson adduces
with respect to the wide prospect from Gebel Mûsa, we must consider
that necessarily a great many places may be seen from a point so little
elevated above the immediately surrounding country; from which points,
however, the mountain cannot be traced independently and distinctly by
the eye.
[85] See Robinson, i., p. 118-196.
[86] Ewald—Gesch. des Volkes Israel, ii., p. 86—also assumes that Sinai
was held sacred “even before the time of Moses, as a place of oracles,
and the seat of the gods.” Ritter (see Appendix B) considered this to be
incompatible.
[87] Exodus iii. 1.—TR.
[88] Exodus iv. 27.—TR.
[89] This is even proved to exist now by Rüppell, who holds Gebel
Katherîn to be Sinai. On his journey to Abyssinia (vol. i., p. 127) he
relates, in the account of his ascent of Serbâl in the year 1831, as
follows:—“On the summit of Serbâl the Bedouins have collected small
stones, and placed them in the form of a circular enclosure, and other
stones are placed outside on the shelving rock-precipice, like steps,
to facilitate the ascent. When we arrived at the stony circle _my guide
drew off his sandals, and approached it with religious veneration; he
then recited a prayer within it_, and told me afterwards that he had
already slaughtered two sheep here as a _thank-offering_, one of them on
the occasion of the birth of a son, the other on regaining his health
after an illness. From a belief that Mount SERBÂL is connected with
such things, it is said _to have been held in great reverence by the
Arabs of the surrounding districts since time immemorial_; and it must
also at one time have been regarded as holy in certain respects by the
Christians, as, in the valley on the south-western side, there are the
ruins of a great convent, and of a great many small hermit’s cells. At
all events, the wild jagged masses of rock in Serbâl, and the _isolated
position of the mountain, is far more striking, and in a certain degree
more imposing, than any other mountain group in Arabia Petræa, and for
that reason was peculiarly calculated to be the object of religious
pilgrimages_. The highest point of the mountain, or the second pinnacle
of rock, proceeding from the west, on which the Arabs are in the habit of
sacrificing, by my barometrical measurements is 6342 French feet above
the level of the sea.”
[90] With reference to this, compare particularly the admirable pamphlet
by Tuch: _Ein und Zwanzig Sinaitische Inschriften_. _Leipzig_, 1849. This
scholar endeavours to prove from the names of the pilgrims that have been
deciphered, that the authors of the inscriptions were native heathen
Arabs, who wandered to Serbâl to some religious festivals. And he is of
opinion that pilgrimages ceased in the course of the third century at
latest. We may also mention that the name itself of Serbâl, which Rödiger
(in Wellsted’s Travels in Arabia, vol. ii., last page) derives, no doubt
correctly from the Arabic سرب _serb_, palmarum copia, and Baal, “the
Palm-grove (Φοινικών) of Baal,” refers to its heathen worship.
[91] Vol. i., p. 198. See Appendix B.
[92] I thought I might have been able to deduce this indirectly from his
narrative, _Antiqu._, iii., 2. Now it seems to me that there is nothing
that we can extract about his views from this; for which reason the above
name should be effaced. Abstractedly considered, it is very probable that
he entertained the same views as Eusebius and Jerome. Compare note, p.
316, and Appendix G.
[93] Eusebius, Περὶ τῶν τοπικῶν ὀνομ., etc., s. v. Ῥαφιδίμ, τόπος τῆς
ἐρήμου παρὰ τὸ Χωρὴβ ὄρος, ἐν ᾧ ἐκ τῆς πέτρας ἐρρύησε τὰ ὕδατα καὶ ἐκλήθη
ὁ τόπος πειρασμός. ἔνθα καὶ πολεμεῖ Ἰησοῦς τὸν Ἀμαλὴκ ἐγγὺς Φαράν.
[94] Hieronymus, de situ et nomin., etc., s. v. Raphidîm, locus
in deserto juxta montem Choreb, in quo de petra fluxere aquæ,
cognominatusque est tentatio, ubi et Jesus adversus Amalec dimicat _prope
Pharan_.
[95] Among the older authors, _Cosmas Indicopleustes_ must be especially
named here (about A.D. 535). (Topogr. Christ., lib. v., in the Coll.
nov. patr. ed. Montfaucon, tom. ii., fol. 195.) Εἶτα πάλιν παρενέβαλον
εἰς Ῥαφιδὶν εἰς τὴν νῦν λεγομένην Φαράν. _Antoninus Placentinus_, who is
placed about the year 600 (while the learned _Papebroch_, who published
his _Itinerarium_ in the Acta SS., month of May, vol. ii., p. x.-xviii.,
does not place him earlier than 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_. That the town was enclosed by a brick wall
and _valde sterilis_, instead of which Tuch (Sinait. Inschr., p. 38)
proposes to read _fertilis_. If Pharan is called an _Amalekitish_ town
by _Macrizi_ (Gesch. der Kopten, uebers. v. Wüstenfeld, p. 116), then
this can only indicate the same view that Moses was attacked near PHARAN
by the Amalekites, to whom this district belonged. Among more recent
scholars we must especially mention _Ritter_, as is mentioned in Appendix
B.
[96] Exodus xviii. 5.—TR.
[97] Exodus xvii. 6.—TR.
[98] See below, the complete passage by Cosmas. See Appendix G.
[99] Even the name itself, Raphidîm, _i. e._ the _places of repose_,
indicate that the place was adapted for rest of some duration.
[100] See Appendix D.
[101] For that reason Robinson and others, who do not allow that any
positions of the encampments were omitted, place Raphidîm beyond FIRÂN;
and although they make the march through the latter place, they leave
it either totally unmentioned, or place ALUS there. We have already
mentioned above the objections to this opinion, which have been partly
proved by Ritter. On the other hand, Ritter, to remove the difficulty,
distinctly admits of an omission in our present text. (P. 742.)
[102] Numbers xxxiii. 10-14.—TR.
[103] Ritter (see Appendix B) is consequently compelled to draw this
conclusion; which, in fact, seems to me the most doubtful of all. The
present tradition differs from this in holding Horeb and Sinai to be two
mounts, situated immediately beside each other but yet apart.
[104] The three possible ways of removing this difficulty have been
tried by ROBINSON, RITTER, and JOSEPHUS. The first, places Raphidîm near
Gebel Mûsa; the second, assumes there is an omission between Raphidîm
and Sinai, and retains _two_ Mounts of God; the third, transposes the
separating passage, and does not mention Horeb at all, only Sinai.
[105] See the manner in which Robinson combines, and weighs both views,
i., p. 197, &c. All those passages where precisely the same is said
concerning Horeb, as about Sinai, are opposed to the more recent opinion
that HOREB was the general designation for the mountain range, or for the
district, and that SINAI was the individual Mount, while not a single
passage requires us to think of a large extent of ground. No mention is
ever made of a “WILDERNESS OF HOREB,” as of the WILDERNESSES OF SÛR, SIN,
PARAN, and others. We might also cite in favour of the opposite opinion
Acts vii. 30 compared with Exodus iii. 1.
[106] This view is found already in the above-mentioned (note, p. 313)
ITINERARIUM OF ANTONINUS, who places the convent between Sinai and Horeb.
The monks’ tradition of the present day, that the rock projecting into
the plain of Râha was Horeb, is well known. The arbitrary character
of such assumptions is evident; nevertheless, the latter opinion is
maintained by Gesenius (Thesaur, p. 517, Wiener, and others).
[107] St. Jerome expressly says the same thing, since he adds to the
words of Eusebius s. v. _Choreb_: Mihi autem videtur quod duplici nomine
idem mons nunc _Sina_, nunc _Choreb_ vocetur. Even Josephus evidently
considered both mountains to be one, for wherever CHOREB is mentioned in
the Bible, he placed Sinai instead; the same is done by the author of
the Acts of the Apostles (vii. 30), and also by Syncellus (Chron., p.
190), who says of Elijah, ἐπορεύετο ἐν Χωρὴβ τῷ ὄρει ἤτοι Σιναίῳ. (The
following passage within brackets added by the author, April, 1853.—TR.)
[There has been an attempt to prove, from the Greek termination Σιναίῳ,
that Choreb is only meant to designate here part of the range of Sinai.
However, the word cannot be understood thus in the sense of an adjective,
as there was no other but the Sinaitic Choreb. Τὸ ὄρος Σιναῖον (Syncell.,
p. 122; Cosmas, p. 195; ἀνὰ μέσον Ἐλεὶμ καὶ τοῦ Σιναίου ὄρους. Joseph.
Ant. Jud. 3, 5: ἄνεισι (Μωυσῆς) πρὸς τὸ Σιναῖον; compare the inscription
on the convent, Appendix E) is used just as much as Τὸ ὄρος Σινᾶ. But
if, which is not the case, Choreb especially was only called Τὸ Σιναῖον,
not Τὸ Σινᾶ ὄρος, we could only infer the reverse, namely, that Sinai
must have meant a part of the range of Choreb.] Ewald, especially among
modern scholars, brings forward the same opinion of the similarity of
the two mounts. He says (Gesch. des. V. Isr., ii., p. 84) the two names,
SINAI and HOREB, do not change because they designated points in the
same range, situated beside each other; but the name of Sinai is clearly
the most ancient, for it was used also by Deborah, Judges v. 5, whereas
the name of Horeb cannot be pointed out before the period of the fourth
narrator (compare Exodus iii. 1; xvii. 6; xxxiii. 6); but it then becomes
very prevalent, as is proved in Deuteronomy, and in the passages of 1
Kings viii. 9; xix. 8; Mal. iv. 4; Psalms cvi. 19, while it says nothing
against this view when very late authors reintroduce the name of Sinai,
merely from their learned acquaintance with the old books.
[108] If we omit the two verses, Exodus xix. 1, 2, the account, xix. 3,
follows most naturally after xviii. 27. “And Moses let his father-in-law
depart, and he went away into his own land. And Moses went up unto God;
and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain.”
[109] See Appendix D.
[110] See Appendix B.
[111] See Appendix E.
[112] See Appendix F.
[113] See Appendix G.
[114] Ritter (p. 31), when he mentions that Sinai was almost
simultaneously regarded by the Egyptian, COSMAS, to be Serbâl; and by the
Byzantine, PROCOPIUS to be Gebel Mûsa; adds another supposition, which I
will mention here. “Might there not,” he says, “have, perhaps, existed a
different tradition or party-view on this matter in convents, and among
the monks at CONSTANTINOPLE and ALEXANDRIA, which might proceed from a
jealous feeling to vindicate the superior sanctity of one or the other
locality? It is remarkable that such different views of the matter should
be held simultaneously by the most learned theologians of their day.”
[115] This letter, which I have had printed here _verbatim_, was
addressed to the General Director of the Royal Prussian Museum, Privy
Counsellor of Legation von OLFERS. This communication may perhaps serve
to spread a correct estimation of the fundamental principles which has
guided the arrangement and decoration of the Egyptian Museum, one of the
grandest and latest works that have been executed in Berlin, and which
has just been rendered accessible to the public.
[116] Burckhardt must have been mistaken when (Trav. in Syr., p. 5) he
states that the tomb of Noah was only 10 feet long, although the same
statement is repeated by Schubert (Reise in das Morgenland, vol. iii.,
p. 340). It is well known how frequently the number 40 is found employed
by the Hebrews as an indeterminate multiple. The same custom seems to
have been peculiar to _all Semetic_ nations; it may at least be pointed
out frequently, and at all periods, among the Phœnicians and Arabians;
even the numerical words for 4 and 40 in these languages indicate the
universal idea of multitude. See my _Sprachvergleichenden Abhandlungen_,
Berlin, 1836, p. 104, 139, and the _Chronologie der Ægypter_, vol. i, p.
15.
[117] See V. Hammer, Geschichte des Osmanischen Reichs, Div. ii., p. 482.
[118] Compare Krafft, Topographie Jerusalems. Bonn, 1846. P. 269, and
Plate II., No. 33.
[119] The king here represented is explained by Rawlinson to be
the son of the builder of Khorsabad, Bel-Adonimscha. (A Commentary
on the Cuneiform Inscr. of Babylonia and Assyria. London, 1850, p.
70.) According to Layard, the same king is found on the buildings of
Kuyung´ik, Nebbi Yûnas, and Mossul (Nineveh, Lond., 1849, p. 142-144);
who (p. 400) supposes that the cypress monument now to be seen in Berlin
belongs to him. (Compare Bonomi, Nineveh and its Palaces. London, 1852,
p. 127.)
[120] _Ægyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte._ (_Egypt’s Place in
Universal History._ Trans. by C. H. Cottrell.)
[121] The great Book of the Dead, at Turin, is upon a single Roll, 57′ 3″
Rhineland feet in length.
[122] Ritschl. The Alexandrian Libraries. 1838. P. 32, &c.
[123] De Myster. viii. 1. According to Böckh, _Manetho_, p. 117. J.
Firmicus also speaks somewhere of 20,000 books of Hermes. Compare Fabr.
_Bib. gr._ ed. Harl. t. i. p. 85.
[124] 1 Kings iv. 30; Acts vii. 22.
[125] Herod. ii. 160.
[126] See the general accounts in Diodor. Sic. i. 69, 96-98; Plut. _de
Is. et Osir._ c. x.; Clem. Alex. Strom. p. 131; Sylb. Cedren. _Hist.
comp._ p. 94 B.
[127] Herod. ii. 91; vii. 94, &c. [Diod. i. 28.]
[128] Diod. i. 29.
[129] Diod. i. 69, 96; iv. 25. [Justin. Mart. ad Græc. c. xiv.]
[130] Diod. i. 96. [Clem. Protr. p. 12; Uireph. Synes, p. 421.]
[131] Ibid.
[132] Diod. i. 29.
[133] Diod. i. 69, 96. Heliodor. Aeth. iii. 14; Clem. Div. i. p. 130.
[Justin. Mart. c. xiv. 17.]
[134] Diod. i. 96.
[135] Diod. i. 98.
[136] Ibid.
[137] Diod. i. 96; Plut. _de Is. et Osir._ c. x. [Plut. Lyc. i. p. 41; F.
Isocr. Laud. Busir. p. 329.]
[138] Plato. _Tim._ p. 21; Diod. i. 69, 96; Plut. _de Is._ c. x.; _Vita
Solon_, c. xxvi. [Justin. Mart. c. xiv.; Cyrill. c. Julian. i. p. 15.]
[139] ii. 177.
[140] Diog. Laert. i. 89.
[141] Strab. xvii. p. 806, 807; Cic. _de fin._ v. 29; Diod. Sic. i. 96;
Plut. _de Is._ c. x.; _de genio Socr._ p. 578; Clem. Al. _Strom._ i. p.
131; Diog. Laert. iii. 6.
[142] Strab. ii. p. 119; xvii. p. 807.
[143] Plut. _de Is._ c. x.; _de placit. philos._ i. 3; Clem. i. p. 130;
Diog. Laert. i. 27. [Theod. Melit. Proem. in Astr. c. xii.; Cyrill. c.
Jul. i. p. 15.]
[144] Diog. Laert. i. 27; Plin. H. N. xxxvi. 17.
[145] Diod. v. 37.
[146] Cic. _de fin._ v. 29; Diod. i. 96; Strab. vii. p. 297; xiv. p. 638;
Plut. _de Is._ c. x.; Diog. Laert. viii. 3, 11; Clem. l. 1. [Justin.
Mart. c. xiv. 19; Isocr. Busir. p. 227.]
[147] Herod. ii. 81; Diog. Laert. viii. 24, 33, 34; Diog. Laert. viii. 4.
[148] Herod. ii. 123; Diog. Laert. viii. 14; Cic. Tusc. i. 16.
[149] Clem. Alex. i. p. 129; Cedren. p. 94, B. [Theod. Melit. Pr. in
Astr. c. 12.]
[150] See preface to the _Todtenbuche der Ægypter_, p. 13, &c.
[151] Cedren. p. 94, B.
[152] Diod. i. 96; Diog. L. IX. 35.
[153] Diog. L. VII. 177.
[154] Diod. i. 96.
[155] Diog. L. VII. 186; viii. 87.
[156] Strab. I. ii. p. 37.
[157] Diog. L. III. 6.
[158] Herod. ii. 143.
[159] Diod. i. 44.
[160] Diod. i. 69.
[161] Plut. _de Is._ c. x.; _de genio Socr._ p. 578, F; Clem. Al. Str. i.
p. 131.
[162] Diod. xvi. 51.
[163] Sync. p. 271, D.
[164] xvii. p. 806.
[165] See respecting this, Letronne. Translation of the 17th Book of
Strabo. (Géographie de Strabon. t. i. Paris, 1819. p. 390.) Compare
the passage in Herodot. ii. 123, where, though not by name, he accuses
Pythagoras and Pherecydes of having ascribed to themselves what they had
borrowed from the Egyptians. The same was related by some of Eudoxus.
Diog. Laert. viii. 89.
[166] _Strom._ vi. p. 260, ed. Sylb. See also Bunsen _Ægyptens Stelle in
der Weltgesch._, Bd. i. p. 34, &c. (_Egypt’s Place in Universal History_,
book i. p. 9.)
[167] Aelian. _Hist. var._ xiv. 34, says, that the Egyptians in ancient
times had priests as their judges.
[168] Clem. Strom. i. p. 131.
[169] [Sacred Scribe.]
[170] The Pastophori do not appear in the train of the priests, and are
expressly separated from the priests (ἱερεῖς) by _Porphyrius_. They were,
as their name implies, the bearers of the small sacred chapels of the
gods which formed the principal furniture of the temple. That is probably
the reason why they appear in the great processions, where the images of
the gods were carried about, not as priests, but as _under-officers_ of
the temple; and they are, therefore, rightly placed by Porphyrius along
with the νεωκόροι, the sweepers of the temple, and the other servants
of the temple (ὑπουργοί). As bearers of the sacred shrines they were
also their watchmen, and, therefore, especially the overseers of the
temple, the watchmen of the temple; therefore their hieroglyphical sign,
according to Horapollo, i. 41, is a house watchman, φύλαξ οἴκου, because
the temple is guarded by him, διὰ τὸ ὑπὸ τούτου φυλάττεσθαι τὸ ἱερόν. But
what could the temple watchmen have had to do with medicine? There is
nowhere even the most distant relation indicated between the pastophori
and the physicians; indeed, their occupations appear necessarily to
exclude them. I therefore believe that there is either some fundamental
error, or a false reading, in the passage of Clemens, which cannot yet be
solved. The pastophori were the principal under-officers, and therefore
were united by their rank with the chanter, the lowest class of the
priests. Was this possibly the reason why the books of medicine, which
succeeded those of the chanter in this canon, were ascribed to them?
There were many more than forty-two sacred books, and they must have all
been lodged among the archives of the temple, without, however, being
assigned to any particular class of priests.
[171] [Diod. i. 70, 73, 96.]
[172] I speak here of the first section of the Papyrus of Sallier, No. 2,
which is communicated in the _Select Papyri in the hieratic character,
from the collection of the British Museum_. London. 1844. Pl. x.-xii.
[173] I procured in Thebes a number of such hymns for the Royal Museum at
Berlin. Several of them were composed in the reign of King Ramses IX.,
in the 20th Dynasty. There was a hymn to Amen-Ra, upon a roll of eleven
pages, in the Egyptian collection of Mr. Sams in London, 1839.
[174] Upon a wooden tablet covered with fine white chalk, in the British
Museum.
[175] In the Book of the Dead, c. 128, 134, 139, &c. [Plut. _de Is._ c.
52.]
[176] Porphyr. _de abst._ iv. 8.
[177] Bunsen, Bd. i. p. 55. (_Eg.’s Pl. in Un. Hist._ bk. i. p. 28.)
[178] See my introduction to the _Todtenbuche der Ægypter_. Leipzig,
1842, p. 17.
[179] Bd. i. p. 47. (_Eg.’s Pl. in Un. Hist._ bk. i. p. 20.)
[180] i. 94, 95.
[181] [Tatian. _or. ad Græc._ c. 1.]
[182] _Annal._ ii. 60.
[183] Champollion, _Lettres écrites d’Egypte et de Nubie_, p. 21, 426.
After the death of Champollion, Salvolini made use of the privately
withheld papers of his master for a particular treatise: _Campagne de
Ramsès-le-Grand (Sésostris) contre les Schéta et leurs alliés. Manuscrit
hiératique appartenant à M. Sallier à Aix en Provence. Notice sur ce MS._
Paris, 1835, 8.
[184] I am indebted for this valuable present to an English lady, Miss
Westcar, who had deposited it a long time ago in the _Bodleian Library_,
Oxford. It contains nine sides, of which, unhappily, the first four are
very much destroyed. The remainder, also, is very hastily written, and
is therefore difficult to decipher. It appears to be poetical, and to be
addressed to a king, whose name unfortunately is lost; the example “of
his ancestors,” _Chufu_, _Snefru Ser_, &c. is held up to him.
[185] 1 Kings vi. 1.
[186] Exodus xii. 40.
[187] Ant. viii. 3, 1: 592; c. Ap. ii. 2: 612 years.
[188] Gen. xv. 13; compare Ap. Hist. 7, 6.
[189] Gal. iii. 17.
[190] Ant. ii. 15, 2; viii. 3, 1. Compare c. Ap. i. 33, where he
calculates 170 years from Joseph to Moses.
[191] Isaac was 40 years old when he married Rebecca; Moses is 40 years
old when he goes to Midian; at 80 years of age he leads the people out of
Egypt, and dies at the age of 120.
[192] Contra. Ap. i. 26.
[193] Manetho had only related that the Hyksos were expelled in the reign
of Tuthmosis. It is the opinion of Josephus alone that they were the Jews.
[194] Compare Exodus xxxiv. 12, 13.
[195] Gen. xvi. 3; xxi. 21.
[196] Gen. xli. 45.
[197] Numb. xii. 1.
[198] Exodus xii. 38. Compare Numbers xi. 4.
[199] p. 760, 824.
[200] C. Ap. ii. 3. Compare Tacit. _Hist._ v. 2. _Aethiopum prolem._
[201] Gen. xlvi. 34.
[202] Numbers xii. 10.
[203] Exodus iv. 6.
[204] Exodus ix. 3, 9.
[205] The Persians also knew no other way of protecting themselves
against this infectious disease of the λέπρη ἢ λεύκη than by driving
those who were attacked by it out of the town, and if they were
_strangers_, out of the country. _Herod._ i. 138.
[206] Plut. _de Is._ c. xxxiii.
[207] Champollion, _Panthéon_, pl. xxxviii.
[208] 1 Kings xii. 2, 28, 30, 32; 2 Kings x. 29.
[209] Exod. i. 11.
[210] Similar perhaps to the command of Pharaoh to drown the Hebrew boys.
[211] Exod. i. 10.
[212] This number, which differs from the one in the original, was
inserted by the Author, April, 1853.—TR.
[213] Bunsen. _Ægypten._ Bd. i. p. 227. (Tr. vol. i. p. 184.) But compare
Bd. iii. p. 109, where this opinion appears to be already modified.
[214] Tatian. _Paraen ad Græc._ p. 129 (Oxon). Clemens Alex. _Strom._ i
21, p. 138. Justin Martyr ad Græc. p. 10, E.
[215] Justin Martyr. Africanus in Eusebius. _Præp. Evang._ x. 10. Clemens
Alex.
[216] Compare the passages of Justin and Africanus.
[217] Contra. Ap. i. 15.
[218] p. 63, B; 123, D.
[219] Euseb. Armen. Canon, vol. ii. p. 105. Aucher.
[220] According to Gen. xii. 4.
[221] _Hist._ v. 2.
[222] Manetho, p. 192, 325.
[223] _Gesch. Isr._ ii. p. 69.
[224] _Ægypten_, i. p. 127, 234. (Tr. vol. i. p. 91.)
[225] _Anecd. græca_, Paris, ed. Cramer, vol. ii. p. 174.
[226] They are cited by Gesenius. _Thesaur. ling. hebr._ p. 1297.
[227] _De la géographie comparée et de l’ancien état des côtes de la mer
rouge_, in the _Description de l’Eg._ ed. Panckoucke, vol. vi. p. 316.
[228] _Mémoires sur l’Eg._ p. 126.
[229] _Gesch. d. V. Isr._ ii. p. 53.
[230] C. Apion. i. 14, 26.
[231] Joseph, c. Ap. i. 14.
[232] Euseb. _Chron._ in Aucher. vol. i. p. 224.
[233] Africanus in Syncellus, p. 61, B, &c.
[234] p. 804.
[235] iv. 5. 53.
[236] ii. 107.
[237] Jos. c. Ap. i. 15.
[238] i. 57.
[239] Diodor. i. 57.
[240] Herod. ii. 141.
[241] Herod. ii. 154. Compare Diod. i. 67.
[242] Herod. iii. 10, 11.
[243] Diod. xvii. 48. Arrian. iii. 1.
[244] Strab. p. 756, 760, 781.
[245] p. 803.
[246] _Gesch. des Volkes Isr._ i. p. 451.—עַבָרִים, _Abarim_, is also
a Palestinian name. Numb. xxvii. 12; Deut. xxxii. 47, 49, &c.
[247] The supposition of Larcher in Herd. t. viii. p. 62; Champollion,
_L’Eg. sous les Phar._ ii. p. 91; and Gesenius, _thes. l. hebr._ p. 1297,
that Αὔαρις is connected by its sound with Ἡρώ (see below on Heroonpolis)
has not even a semblance in itself, even if it were geographically
admissible.
[248] Bd. i. p. 328.
[249] Gesch. Isr. Bd. i. p. 290, 291.
[250] _Mém. sur l’Eg._ p. 124.
[251] Hérod. t. viii. p. 62, 429.
[252] _L’Eg. sous les Phar._ t. ii. p. 90.
[253] _Thes. l. hebr._ p. 1297.
[254] In his map of the Delta.
[255] Joseph. c. Ap. i. 26.
[256] Apollodor. i. 6, 3.
[257] Herod. iii. 5.
[258] Apollon. Rhod. ii. 1215.
[259] [This reading is now adopted also by the last eminent editor of
Stephanus, Meineke (tom. i. p. 559).]
[260] 𓊃𓏏𓁣, Set, is the common hieroglyphical name of Typhon.
[261] Joseph. c. Ap. i. c. 32.
[262] Gen. xlvi. 28.
[263] xvii. p. 804.
[264] Rozière, in the _Descr. de l’Eg._ vol. vi. p. 257, &c.
[265] Ptolem. V. 17. 1. Plin. H. N. V. 11, § 65.
[266] iv. 5. According to other manuscripts, 29° 50′.