This visible difficulty has also formerly been felt.[138] Josephus (Ant. 3, 2, 3,) helped himself out of it, by putting the supposed beginning of the nineteenth chapter, from its present place to before the visit of Jethro; so that Moses did not receive his family in Raphidîm, but in Sinai. By this two difficulties would certainly be overcome; one, that there was only one Mountain of God, and the other, that the organisation of the people did not take place during the journey. He also surrenders after some consideration, the statement that the rock, which Moses struck, lay in Choreb.
The new school have, however, set forth the opinion that either Sinai was the general name of the whole range of mountains, and Choreb that of the one mountain where the law was given, or contrarywise, that Choreb signified the wider designation, and Sinai the single mountain,[139] while the monkish tradition gave the names to two mountains lying close together.[140] A comparison of the individual places does not appear to me to admit of either of these views; my opinion leans much more to that of the indiscriminate use of the two names Choreb and Sinai, and that both point out one and the same mountain, and the neighbourhood.[141] Perhaps Choreb might be the particular local Amalekite name, and Sinai a name derived from its situation in the desert of Sin.
As to what concerns the departure from Raphidîm, it must appear very probable to many, that those words, which so completely interrupt the natural continuity of the events, have been purposely displaced either by Josephus, or before him did not originally belong here, but were placed at the beginning of the giving the Commandments, when this (as without doubt, it frequently happened) was taken distinctly from all that went before, or came after.[142] The want of connection, since the arrival at Sinai, is mentioned before the departure from Raphidîm, and the expression so difficult of explanation, “and the same day,” while by other statements of time, a particular day is meant, would support the supposition.[143] Those, however, to whom this acceptation may appear too bold, as it does not agree with the original comprehension of the subject, may understand the new departure as a slight misarrangement of the encampment, as we must already consider that of the departure from Elim to the coast of the Red Sea. This change happened either while they advanced from El Hessue, where the sea was first seen, to Firân, from Firân into the upper part of the Wadi Aleyât, where the camp could spread out, far round the foot of the mountain.[144]
Such a comprehension will alone content those who strive to represent the whole course of events in their essential and necessary points. They will not be able to prevent the conviction, that Serbâl, on account of the oasis at its foot, must have been the aim and centre of the new immigrating population, and that to be fenced in in a mountain-hollow, like the plain at Gebel Mûsa, where the multitude could find no water, no fruit, or manna-bearing trees, and where they were cut off from all connection with the other part of the peninsula more than anywhere else, could never possibly, have been the intention of the wise and learned man of God. It must be acknowledged that the distinguishing Sinai as the principal mountain of the desert of Sin, and the sanctity that it possessed, not only among the Israelites, but also among the native-born races of the country, very decidedly point out Serbâl; further, that the Raphidîm, with the well of Moses of Choreb, which was defended by the Amalekites, undoubtedly lay in the Wadi Firân, that consequently also the mountain of God, Choreb, where Moses was called, and the mountain of God, near Raphidîm, where Moses was visited by Jethro, and organized the people, could be no other than Serbâl, from which finally, it also appears, that if we do not admit of two mountains of God, the Mountain of the Law lay near Raphidîm, and in Serbâl must be recognised, and not in Gebel Mûsa.
In conclusion, let us once more see how far the present tradition agrees with our result; this goes back as far as the founding of the convent by Justinian in the sixth century.[145] This was by no means the first church of the peninsula. At a much earlier period, we find a bishopric in the city of Pharan, at the foot of Serbâl.[146] This was the first Christian centre-point of the peninsula, and the church founded by Justinian was for a long time dependent upon it. It is a question whether the tradition, which sees Sinai in the present Gebel Mûsa can be referred to a time prior to Justinian.[147] For solitary hermits this district is particularly adapted, and exactly for the same reason it would be unfitted for a great civilized and commanding people, who would exhaust all its resources, as it is in a retired spot, distant from all the frequented and connecting roads; but nevertheless, by reason of its situation in the high mountains, it affords sufficient nourishment for the moderate necessities of the solitary scattered monks. The gradually increasing hermit-population might then have attracted the attention of the Byzantine emperor to this very spot, and at that time dying tradition, by these means have revived and fixed for the time to come.[148]
What I have said about the situation of Elim, Raphidîm, and of the Mount Choreb or Sinai, fails certainly in scholarlike proof, which I also shall not be able to send from Thebes; this can only be drawn with any advantage from the course of the earliest traditions before Justinian, which, even if they should coincide in every point with these of the present time, nevertheless would determine nothing positively. It appears to me that these questions must remain ever undecided, since the elements which stood at my command, that is to say, the Mosaic account itself, the examination of the situations and the knowledge of the historical circumstances of that time, were not considered sufficient for their solution. Only, a contemporary examination of these three most essential sides of the researches will allow a correct picture to be obtained of the whole story; while the attempt to give the same authority, without any difference, to each single point of the representation now lying before us, will necessarily lead us into the road of false criticism, which always sacrifices the understanding of the one to the understanding of the whole.
LETTER XXXIV.
Thebes, Karnak.
May 4, 1845.
On the 6th of April we had quitted Tôr, where we stopped one night. We landed every night on the shell and coral-rich African coast during our far voyage, until, on the 10th, we reached Kossêr, where the brave Seïd Mahommed from Qeneh was awaiting us, in order to provide us with camels for our return to Thebes. In four days we passed along the broad Rossaffa road over the mountains by Hamamât, and arrived at our head-quarters in Thebes on the 14th.
We found everything in the most desirable order and activity, only our old, faithful castellan ’Auad came to meet me with head bound up, and greeted me with a weak voice. He had but just escaped from death’s door. I already mentioned, in a former letter, that he and all the rest of the house of the Sheikh at Qurna had incurred a blood-guiltiness which was not yet avenged. The family of the murdered man, at Kôm el Birâh, had, shortly after our departure, seized the opportunity, when ’Auad and a relation were returning home from Luqsor, to surprise the two unsuspecting wayfarers. They thought more of ’Auad’s companion than himself, and therefore called to the latter to depart; but as he would not do it, but defended his comrade lustily, he received an almost fatal blow on the head with a sharp weapon, which stretched him fainting on the ground; the other was murdered, and thrown into the Nile, as an expiation for the seven years’ guilt. Since then there has been peace between the families.