[128] I thought to be able to conclude this indirectly from his narrative, (Antiq. III. 2.) It now appears to me that nothing can be elicited, as to his opinion, from it, for which reason the name should be omitted above. In itself it is still probable that he held the same opinion as Eusebius and Jerome.
[129] Eusebius, περὶ τῶν τοκικῶν ὀνομ., etc s.v. Ῥαφιδίμ, τόπος 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 ἐγγὺς Φαράν. 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.