[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.]