now takes the form of the gulf, the undermost point of which is now denoted by Ἀïn Uneh. The ocean angle of Pharan (μυχὸς κατὰ φαράν) he imagines to extend from Cape Faran (ἀκρωτήριον φαράν) to the inland city of the same name, like the angle of Elana, and the inner angle of Heroonpolis to the north of Arsinoe. From the same construction of the peninsula it came that the Rhainthenians, who were placed along the same coast by Tôr (even now called Ῥαιθοῦ) below the Pharanites, had now to be placed on the coast turned towards Arabia (παρὰ τὴν όρεινὴν τῆς Εὐδαιμονος Ἀραβίas), therefore on the oriental and not the occidental coast of the peninsula; and finally, the primary mountain-chain (ὄρη μέλανα) extending from Faray to Râs Mohammed to Judæa, therefore to the N.E. instead of the S.E.
From all this it is clear that the place Pharan of Ptolemy is identical with the recognised Pharan in the Wadi Firân, and the φοινικών of Artemidorus and Strabo. And it is less to be doubted that also the Pharan of Eusebius (s. v. Ῥαφιδίμ) and Jerome, which is expressly (s. v. φαράν) called a city (πόλις, oppidum), and is placed at the distance of three days’ journey from Aila,—was the city in Wadi Firân, although by a confusion with the Biblical desert of Paran it is added, that the Israelites had returned by this Pharan on their return from Sinai (c. f. Ritter, p. 740).
According to the treatise of the monk Ammonius (Illustr. Chr. Martyr, lecti triumphi ed. Combefis, Paris, 1660,—whose history, undoubtedly fictitious, refers to A.D. 370, but can in no case be used as a historical authority for that time, but seems to rest on some passages of the romance of Nilus, and to have been written for a like praiseworthy purpose,—the city of Pharan was converted to Christianity in the middle of the fourth century, by the monk Moses, a native of the city. By Nilus, placed at about 390, but concerning whose era and writings much uncertainty exists, a Christian council (βουλή) of the city of Pharan is mentioned (Nili app. quædam, 1539, 4to.) Soon after, from the first half of the fifth century, Le Quien, but certainly from sources of very different value (Oriens. Christ., vol. iii., p. 571), cites a series of bishops of Pharan, who can be followed up into the middle of the twelfth century (vide Reland, Palæst, vol. ii., p. 220). The monks of the mountains were all subjected to these bishops.
As to what concerns the founding of the present convent at Gebel Mûsa, it is certainly ascribed to the twelfth or thirteenth year of the Emperor Justinian, as in the inscriptions, by Saïd ben Batrik (Eutychius), who wrote about 932-953 (d’Herbelôt, s. v.), but he is contradicted by the much more trustworthy, and here particularly important testimony of Procopius, the contemporary of Justinian, in the most express manner. He says, in his particular treatise on the buildings founded by Justinian (Procop. ed. Diod. vol. iii. de œdif. Just. p. 326), that the emperor built a church to the Mother of God, “not on the top of the mountain, but a good piece below it” (παρὰ πολὺ ἔνερθεν, which, according to the locality, can only mean on the platform half way down the mountain, where the chapel of Elias now stands). Separated from it, he also found at the foot of the mountain (ἐς τοῦ ὄρους πρόποδα) a very strong castle (φρούριον), with a good garrison, in order to prevent the incursions of the Saracens from the peninsula to Palestine. As Procopius just before and after, as in the whole treatise, makes a careful distinction between convents and churches, and military posts, it is evident, that according to him, Justinian did not found the convent with its church. Probably, however, the military fort was at a later period used as a convent, and built up anew. And the church above, built by Justinian, was not dedicated, like the present one, to St. Katherine (vide Le Quien, vol. iii. p. 1306), but to Maria. What Eutychius (cited first by Robinson, though placed by him somewhat too early in the tenth century) relates, as well regarding the founding of the convent as in direct contradiction to Procopius, concerning a church on the top of the mountain, is therefore no more worthy of credence than the conversation between the emperor and the architect. As little should the convents of Râyeh (near Tôr) and Kolzum (a bishop of Clysma, named Poemen, was present already at the Constantinopolitan council of 460; vide Acta Concil. ed. Harduin, vol. ii. p. 696, 786), be ascribed to Justinian, on the authority of Ben Batrik, as in such a case Procopius would undoubtedly have spoken of it. Pharan is not mentioned by Procopius. On the other hand, however, he informs us of the important fact (de bell. Pers. 1, 19, 164, de œdif. 5, 8), that the Saracen prince, Abocharagos, reigning there, presented the emperor Justinian with a great palm-grove (φοινικῶνα), situated in the middle of the land (ἐν τῇ μεσογαίᾳ). On a more careful examination of that narrative, there can remain scarcely a doubt, that the palm-grove of Pharan is intended here, not the place on the sea called φοινίκων κώμη by Ptolemy (vi. 7, 3), or a palm-grove quite unknown to us, also situate in the middle of a desolate waterless wilderness. According to Ammonius and Nilus, the whole population of Pharan was at that time Christian, and a church was certainly distinguished there; thus the present of Abocharagos, whom Justinian himself made phylarch of the Palestinian Saracens, is more easily comprehensible. Without doubt the founding of the fort in the higher mountains, for the guard against these Saracens, stood in connection with this.
Next to Procopius, Cosmas Indicopleustes is by far the most trustworthy source for that time. He was not only a contemporary of Justinian, but describes (about 540) what he had himself seen in the peninsula.[160] This work is the only larger geography preserved from that age, and his unpretending narrative everywhere bears the character of uncoloured truthfulness. It is more remarkable, that he neither mentions a convent, nor indeed the localities round Gebel Mûsa, but only Pharan, although he had the route of the Israelites particularly in view.
That Antoninus Placentinus, who is considered by others to be St. Anthony martyr, in his Itinerarum (Ada Sanctor, May, vol. ii. p. x-xviii.), which is referred by Ritter to about six hundred, again speaks of a convent at the Thornbush (Procopius does not mention the Thornbush), between Horeb and Sinai; therefore, as the place of the present convent seems to lead us back to the opinion so decidedly expressed by the learned Papebrook, who first published the Itinerary, that this so learnedly defended, yet very doubtful, history belongs first to the eleventh or twelfth century. In any circumstances it would be desirable to submit the writings of Ammonius, Nilus, Antoninus, and some other of the productions of the first centuries of Christianity, to a more searching and connected criticism than has yet been done.
The earliest bishop of Mount Sinai referable to is found in the eleventh century; this is Bishop Jorius, who died in 1033 (Le Quien, vol. iii. p. 754). The Phronimus episc. Synnaii (Acta Concil. ed. Harduin, vol. iii. p. 53), or (Synai tunorum, p. 206), signed at the second Constantinopolitan Council (a. 553), and the Constantinus ep. Synai (Harduin, vol. v. p. 927), named at the fourth council (a. 870), have been referred hither incorrectly (Ritter, Abhand. der Berl. Akad, 1824, p. 216, Peninsula of Sinai, p. 26), as they belong to Synaus or Synnaus in Phrygia.
NOTE F.
([Letter XXXIII.] p. 370.)
That, indeed, an uninterrupted and certain tradition, concerning the position of Sinai in the peninsula, has been preserved to Christian times, must be most decidedly questioned. The name Choreb, or Sinai, seems to have been taken, at a very early period, for the whole of the mountain region of the peninsula, which was generally considered one mountain at a distance. No one took any interest in fixing the name to any geographical idea, until the time of the Christian hermits there. We only read of Elias, that he fled to the “Mountain of God, Choreb,” and there went into that cave (1 Kings, xiii. 9), (for it is taken for granted as known) in which the Lord had already (Exod. xxiii. 22) appeared unto Moses. The native races of Arabs gradually moved, so that of the Biblical names none remained in its place. The Greeks and Romans knew only one place in the whole peninsula, the palm-grove of Pharan, just because this place and its port were alone of any importance, since the mines of the wilderness had been deserted. Also, for the Christian hermits—for which that mountain wild, even without reference to the sacred reminiscences of the place—must have seemed the most fitted of any region, as it provided them with the more necessary sustenance with the greatest solitude. Firan must have been the earliest centre-point; therefore, we also find here the oldest church of the peninsula. When they gradually commenced to seek more definitely for Scripture localities, they had no further materials for its discovery than we possess, with far less power to use these materials properly, as every sharp criticism to examine the passages of Scripture then lay very far off. The name Sinai was indefinitely taken for the whole mountain; if one looked round for any particular peak, that of Serbâl would instantly present itself. To that, everything which we read in the first centuries about it in trustworthy writings points, to which, however, the treatise of the monk Ammonius certainly does not belong, in the estimation of any one who examines it more narrowly, and the excellent Romany, of Nilus, is very doubtful. What Josephus (Aut. iii. 5) says of Sinai (τὸ Σιναῖον), agrees very well with Serbâl, but not at all with Gebel Mûsa, as Hogg has already shown. According to Eusebius, Choreb and Raphidîm lay near Pharan (ἐγγὺς Φαράν), and Sinai beside Choreb (παράκειται τῷ ὄρει Σινᾶ.) Jerome (s. v. Choreb) considers both mountains to be one, which he also places by Pharan, and, therefore, recognises in Serbâl. Also, the narrative of Nilus, concerning the Saracen attack at Sinai, either does not belong to the time in which it is dated (c. 400), or refers to Serbâl; for often (pp. 38-46) a church (ἐκκλησία) is mentioned, which did not then exist on Gebel Mûsa, and Nilus goes down, in the same night in which the murdered people were buried, to Pharan, which could not have been done from Gebel Mûsa. Cosmas Indicopleustes, finally, who travelled in the peninsula about the year 535, just before the building of the church by Justinian, goes from Raithu, i. e. Tor, which he takes for Elim, although he finds but few palms there (the plantations at that place are therefore younger) by the present Wadi Hebrân to Raphidîm, which is now called Pharan. Here he was at the end of his Sinai journey. Hence Moses went with the elders “to the Mountain Choreb,” i.e. Sinai, which was distant from Pharan about 6,000 paces (one and a half miles), and struck the water from the rock; here was the ark of the covenant built and the law given, by which the Israelites obtained writing, and had time to learn it at their leisure, from which the numerous rock inscriptions come which are still found in that wilderness, particularly at Serbâl. (Εἵτα κάλιν παρενέβαλον εἰς Ῥαφιδίν, εἰς τὴν νὔν καλουμένην Φαράν καὶ διψευσάντων αὐτῶν, πορεύεται κατὰ πρόσταξιν Θεοϋ ὁ Μωϋσῆς μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ ἡ ῥαβδὸς ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοϋ, εἰς Χωρὴβ τὸ ὄρος, τουτέστιν ἐν τῷ Σιναΐῳ, ἐγγὺς ὄντι τῆς Φαρὰν ὡς ἀκὸ μιλίων ἔξ.) (Barckhardt [Trav. in Syr. p. 611] required when he descended Serbâl, from its foot to west Faran, 2½ hours,) καὶ ἑκεϊ πατάξαντος τὴν πέτραν, ἐῤῥύησεν ὔδατα πολλὰ καὶ ἔπιεν ὁ λαὸς. Λοιπὸν κατεληλυθότος αὐτοϋ ἐκ τοϋ ὄους προστάττεται ὑπὸ τοϋ θεοϋ ποιεϊν τὴν σκηνήν, etc. Topograph. Christ. lib. V. in the Coll. nova patr. ed. B. de Montfaucon tom. ii. p. 195 sqq.