APPENDIX. (continued 2)

Supposing that, in this manner, we have correctly understood the original connection, it did not first of all require any statement of the month; this would probably be only added upon the isolation of the following section referring to the law-giving. In this case, only three exact dates for the journey could exist. The people pass out from Ramses in the first year, the first month, on the fifteenth day; they proceed from Elim, which is half-way, just one month after, in the first year, second month, on the fifteenth day. The days of rest at the stations are unknown, but if we assume that the people proceeded without sojourning, then they came to Raphidîm on the third day from Elim; received the water, and were attacked by Amalek on the fourth, fought on the fifth till after sunset to the commencement of the sixth day, and on the same sixth day (for the Hebrew day began in the evening) encamped at Sinai. This would have been in the first year, in the second month, on the twentieth day. Now as the retreat from Sinai followed in the second year, in the second month, the twentieth day, then the sojourn at Sinai would have lasted exactly one year. This coincidence was perhaps originally as little the result of accident as the duration of just one month between the first departure from Ramses and the second from Elim.

Appendix E. (P. 319.)—Two inscriptions in marble, referring to the foundation of the convent, still exist, which are let into the external wall facing the convent-garden, one in Greek, the other in Arabic. Burckhardt (Trav. p. 545) says: “An Arabic inscription over the gate, in modern characters, says that Justinian built the convent in the thirtieth year of his reign, as a memorial of himself and his wife Theodora. It is curious to find a passage of the Koran introduced into this inscription: it was probably done by a Moslem sculptor, without the knowledge of the monks.” The Arabic inscription is certainly over the small door leading into the garden. But if Burckhardt saw it here, it is inconceivable that he did not see the Greek inscription beside it, let into the wall with a similar border and shelter. Robinson saw neither of them (i. p. 205); Ricci caused the Greek inscription to be copied, and from his copy this has been communicated and translated by Letronne in the Journ. des Sav. 1836, p. 538, with some slight deviations. But as early as 1823, another copy, which escaped Letronne, was published by Sir Fr. Henniker (Notes during a Visit to Egypt, &c. p. 235, 236), which, however, is very inaccurate, although it endeavours to render the written characters themselves. The Arabic inscription, as far as I am aware, is still quite unknown. I have taken an impression of both on paper, and offer a faithful representation of them here. The Greek runs thus:

Ἐκ βάθρων ἀνηγέρθη τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦτο μοναστήριον τοῦ Σιναίου ὄρους, ἔνθα ἐλάλησεν ὁ θεὸς τῷ Μωυσῇ παρὰ τοῦ ταπεινοῦ βασιλέως Ῥωμαίων Ἰουστινιανοῦ πρὸς ἀΐδιον μνημόσυνον αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς συζύγου τοῦ Θεοδώρας· ἔλαβε τέλος μετὰ τὸ τριακοστὸν ἔτος τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ, καὶ κατέστησεν ἐν αὐτῷ ἡγούμενον ὀνόματι Δουλᾶ ἐν ἔτει ἀπὸ μὲν Ἀδὰμ ͵ϛκαʹ ἀπὸ δὲ Χριστοῦ φκζʹ.

“This holy convent of Mount Sinai, where God spoke to Moses, was built from the foundation by Justinian, the lowly king of the Romans, in eternal remembrance of the same, and of his consort Theodora; it was completed in the thirtieth year of his reign, and he placed a chief in the same, one of the name of Dulas, in the year 6021 since Adam, 527 since Christ.”

Letronne read in the second line ἐν ᾧ πρῶτον in place of ἔνθα, and in the seventh line κατέστησε τὸν in place of κατέστησεν. The written characters indicate about the twelfth or thirteenth century. As the Emperor Justinian reigned from 527-565, it is assumed by the writer that the determination to found the convent, and at the same time the appointment of his abbot Dulas, occurred in the first year of the reign of the emperor, although the completion of the edifice is not placed before the thirtieth year of the same, i. e. 556 after Christ. The year 6021 from the creation of the world corresponds to the year 527 after Christ, according to the Alexandrine era of Panodorus and Anianus.

The Arabic inscription is this:

‎‏انثا دير طور سينا و كنيسة جبل المناجاة افقير لله الراجي عفو مولاه الملك المهذب الرومي المذهب يوستيانس تذكارا لى ولزوجته ثاوضوره علي سرور الزسان حني برث اللّه الارض ومن عليها وهو خير الوارثين وتم بناوه بعد ثلاثين سنة من ملكة ونصب له ريسا اسبه ذولاس جري ذلك سنا ٦٠٢١ لادم الوافق لتاريخ السيد المسيح سنة ٥٢٧‏‎

“The convent of Tôr (Mount) Sina, and the Church of the Mount of the Interview, was built by the dependent on God, and hoping in the promise of his Lord, the pious King of the Greek Confession, Justianus (for Justinian), in remembrance of himself and his consort Theodora to last for all times, in order that God might inherit the earth, and who upon it: for he is the best of the heirs. And the building was completed after thirty years of his reign. And he appointed it a chief, with the name of Dhulas. And this happened after Adam 6021, which corresponds with the year 527 of the era of the Lord Christ.”

The written characters of the inscription, according to the learned judgment of the consul, Dr. Wetzstein, who has also most kindly taken upon himself the re-writing and translation of the inscription here communicated, indicate that it did not exist before the year 550 of the Mohammedan era, which thus refers to the period when the Greek inscription was also composed. The passage in the Koran which Burckhardt already mentions, is to be found, Sûr. 21, v. 18.

Another large stone is immured in the same wall, but much higher up, over a far larger gate, now built up, at a spot behind which the kitchen is at present situated, the ornamental part of which might lead us to infer that another still older inscription might still exist here. Unfortunately I was unable to bring a ladder to the spot to examine the stone more accurately. It is to be hoped some future traveller may accomplish this.

Appendix F. (P. 319.)—The history of the Palm-wood of Pharan forms the central point of the history of the whole Peninsula. The accounts of it given by the Greeks and Romans furnish a new proof for this, although their geographical determinations in great measure have not hitherto been correctly comprehended. Thus the Poseidion of Artemidorus, Diodorus, and Strabo, is generally placed at the extremity of the Peninsula, which is now called Râs Mohammed; also by Gosselin, Letronne, and Grosskurd, who nevertheless had already recognised the manifestly incorrect comment of the Strabonic manuscripts (p. 776: τοῦ [Ἐλανίτου] μυχοῦ). As Poseidion was situated within (ἐνδοτέρω) the Gulf of Suez, and here the west coast of the Peninsula was to be described, this altar of Poseidion therefore of necessity was situated either at Ras Abu Zelîmeh, the harbour of Faran, or at Ras Gehan, whence there was a more southern and shorter communication with Wadi Firân through Wadi Dhaghadeh. That the palm-grove (Φοινικών) of those authors is not to be sought at Tôr, but in the Wadi Firân, has been already justly acknowledged by Tuch (Sinait. Inschr. p. 35), although he still places Poseidion at Râs Mohammed (p. 37). It was the Serb Bal, the palm-grove of Baal, from which the mountain first received its name. It appears, in earlier times, while the grove itself was still called by the inhabitants Serb Bal, that the name of Faran was especially employed for the harbour at Abu Zelîmeh, and for a Pharanitic settlement on the site of ancient Elim, near the present Gebel Hammâm Faraûn, still always called Faran by the Arabic authors. (See note, p. 307.) Here also, probably, was the spot where Ariston landed under Ptolemy Philadelphus, and founded Poseidion.

Artemidorus (in Strabo, p. 776) and Diodorus (3, 42) mention Μαρανῖται, in place of which Gosselin, Ritter, Tuch, and others, read Φαρανῖται. As the Maranites, however, inhabited the eastern coast of the Peninsula, and are said to have been totally destroyed by the Garindæes, I cannot see any support for this supposition. The ravine of Phara, mentioned by Josephus (Bell. Jud. 4, 9, 4), in Judæa, does not belong hither.

The name of the Pharanites on the western coast of the Peninsula first appears in Pliny (H. N. 37, 40), for there is no reason to regard the Pharanitis gens, whom he places in Arabia Petræa, as differing from the Pharanitai of Ptolemy. That the northern station Phara (circa ten hours west of Aila) has nothing to do on the tablet of Peutinger with the Pharanitic palm-grove, is placed beyond a doubt by Ritter (p. 147, &c.).

Ptolemy, in the third century, is the first who mentions a place called Pharan (κώμη Φαράν); but on account of the detailed comparison not agreeing, the basis and the connection of his statements deviating widely from the true conditions, they have for that very reason hitherto remained in obscurity. His construction of the Peninsula becomes clear at once, when we take into account that he has evidently taken the blunt angle of the coast at Ras Gehan (whither by his latitude he removes Cape Pharan, instead of to Hammâm Faraûn) to be the most southern point of the Peninsula, from which the more remote coast runs up again towards the north-east. Thereby the Peninsula, according to him, becomes about 50′ too short, although the longitude of his point corresponds with the true one. The real extremity (Râs Mohammed) now corresponds with the point whither he places the bend of the Elanitic Gulf (ἐπιστροφὴ τοῦ Ἐλανίτου κόλπου). The whole of the Elanitic Gulf (Gulf of Akaba) contracts with him into a small angle (μυχός) of 15′, because all is pushed too far to the north. The coast from the “bend” as far as Ὄννη in reality corresponds with that from Ras Furtak (the άκρωτήριον τῆς ἠπείρου of Diodorus and Artemidorus, in front of which was situated the island of Phokes) to ʾAin Uneh, and his Elanitic Gulf, the north part of which (ἐπιστροφή) he places 66° lon., 29° lat., now assumes the form of the gulf whose innermost point is now marked by ʾAin Uneh. He imagines the Bay of Pharan (μυχὸς κατὰ Φαράν) to be from Cape Faran (ἀκρωτήριον Φαράν) to the inland town of the same name, as the angle of Elana, and the innermost angle of Heroonpolis north of Arsinoë. From this same construction of the Peninsula it followed that the Raithenes, who were situated below the Pharanites, on the same coast near Tôr (even now called Ῥαιθοῦ), are now placed on the coast facing Arabia (παρὰ τὴν ὀρεινὴν τῆς Εὐδαίμονος Ἀραβίας), therefore on the eastern, in place of the western coast of the Peninsula; and finally, as the natural result of this, he makes the primitive chain of mountains extending from Faran to Râs Mohammed (ὄρη μέλανα) run towards Judæa, therefore up towards the north-east, in place of down towards the south-east.

From all this, it is evident, that the place Pharan of Ptolemy is identical with the well-known Pharan in the Wadi Firân, and the Phœnikon of Artemidorus and Strabo. Still less can we doubt that the Pharan of Eusebius also (s. v. Ῥαφιδίμ), and of Jerome, which is expressly (s. v. Φαράν) called a town (πόλις, oppidum), and situated (certainly somewhat too near) three days’ journey from Aila, was the town in Wadi Firân, although by a confusion with the Biblical wilderness of Paran, it is added that the Israelites on their way back from Sinai went past this Pharan. (Compare Ritter, p. 740.)

According to the manuscript of the monk Ammonius (Illustr. Chr. Martyr lecti. triumphi ed. Combefis. Paris, 1660), the town of Pharan was converted to Christianity in the middle of the fourth century by a monk Moses, born in Pharan itself, but his narration, which is evidently an invention, and belongs to about 370, must by no means be employed as an historical authority for that period, and seems to rest chiefly on some passages of a romance of Nilus, which was written for an edifying object, and his seems to have been composed with a similar intention. In Nilus, who is placed about 390, but over whose period and writings much uncertainty still hangs, a Christian counsellor (βουλή) of the town of Pharan is mentioned (Nili opp. quædam, 1539. 4ᵒ). Soon after this, since the first half of the fifth century, Le Quien, from authorities of very unequal value indeed (Oriens, Christ. vol. iii. p. 751), cites a list of bishops of Pharan, who can be followed down to the middle of the twelfth century. (See Reland, Palæst. vol. ii. p. 220.) All the monks of the entire mountain range were subordinate to these bishops.

With reference to the foundation of the present convent on Gebel Mûsa, it is indeed ascribed to the Emperor Justinian by Saïd ben Batrik (Eutychius), who wrote about 932-953 (D’Herbelot, s. v.), as well as in the convent inscriptions of the twelfth or thirteenth centuries, which have been communicated above; but this is most decidedly contradicted by the far more reliable testimony, peculiarly valuable here, of Procopius, who was the cotemporary of Justinian. He says, in his special treatise about the buildings founded by Justinian (Proc. ed. Dind. vol. iii. de ædif. Just. p. 326), that the emperor built a church to the mother of God, “not upon the summit of the mountain, but a considerable way below it” (παρὰ πολὺ ἔνερθεν, in accordance with the locality, which can only mean on the intermediate space of ground half-way up the mountain, where the chapel to Elijah now stands). Separated from this he had also erected a very strong castle (φρούριον) at the foot of the mountain (ἐς τοῦ ὄρους πρόποδα), and provided it with a good military guard to check the incursions of the Saracens into Palestine. As Procopius directly before and afterwards, as well as throughout the whole paper, distinguishes very exactly between the convents and the churches, and the military guard-houses, it is evident that, according to him, Justinian did not found the present convent together with his church. The military castle was, however, probably at a later period employed, and rebuilt into a convent. Besides, the church founded by Justinian higher up the hill was not dedicated, like the present convent church, to St. Katharine (see Le Quien, vol. iii. p. 1306), but to Mary. What is said by Eutychius (who Robinson first cited, though he placed him somewhat too early, still in the tenth century), both about the building of the convent, and in still more direct contradiction with Procopius, about a church built upon the summit of the mountain, deserves therefore no more credit than the conversation between the emperor and the architect, which is communicated. As little must we ascribe to Justinian, on the statement of Ben Batrik, the foundation of the convents of Rayeh (at Tôr) and of Kolzum (a bishop of Clysma, by name Poemes, is inserted at the Constantinopolitan Council as early as 460; see Acta Concil. ed. Harduin, ii. 696, 786), as in this case he would undoubtedly have been mentioned by Procopius. Pharan is not mentioned by Procopius. On the contrary, he narrates (de bell. Pers. i. 19, 164; de ædif. 5, 8) the important fact, that the Saracen Prince Abocharagos, reigning there, had presented the Emperor Justinian with a large palm-grove (φοινικῶνα), situated in the centre of the land (ἐν τῇ μεσογαίᾳ). On closer consideration of this account, scarcely a doubt can remain that the palm-grove of Pharan is here understood, not the place on the coast Φοινίκων κώμη, mentioned by Ptolemy (vi. 7, 3), or a palm-grove totally unknown to us, also situated in the midst of a solitary wilderness, wholly unprovided with water. According to Ammonius and Nilus all the inhabitants of Pharan had then become Christian, and a church at all events existed there; thereby it is easier to understand the gift made by Abocharagos, which Justinian himself presented to the Phylarch of the Palestinian Saracens. No doubt the foundation of the castle in the higher mountains, for watching over those Saracens, was in connection with this.

Next to Procopius, Cosmas Indicopleustes is by far the most authentic authority of that period. He was not only both a cotemporary of Justinian, but likewise describes (about 540) what he himself saw upon the Peninsula. His work is the only one containing detailed geography belonging to that period, and his unassuming narration bears everywhere the marks of unvarnished truth. It is so much the more remarkable that he neither mentions a convent edifice, nor indeed the localities at Gebel Mûsa, but only Pharan, although he had the path of the Israelites especially in view. (See below more of this.) That on the other hand Antoninus Placentinus, who is held by others to be the b. Antoninus Martyr, nevertheless in his Itinerarium (Acta Sanctor. May, vol. ii. p. x-xviii), which is placed by Ritter about 600, should again speak of a convent at the thorn-bush (Procopius does not yet make mention of the thorn-bush), between Horeb and Sinai, therefore on the site of the present convent, appears rather to lead us back to the opinion so decidedly expressed by Papebroch, who first published the Itinerary, that this narrative, which has excited such various considerations, though so learnedly defended, does not belong to an earlier period than the eleventh or twelfth centuries. At all events, it would be very desirable if the writings of Ammonius, Nilus, and Antoninus, that have been cited, and so many others attributed to the first Christian centuries, were submitted to a more searching and connected criticism than has hitherto been the case.

The earliest bishop of Mount Sinai to whom we can refer, is not to be found before the eleventh century, Bishop Jorius, who dies 1033 (Le Quien, iii. 754). The name in the second Constantinopolitan Council (a. 553), signed Phronimus episc. Synnaii (Acta Concil. ed. Harduin, vol. iii. p. 53), or Synaitanorum (p. 206), and in the fourth council (a. 870), the one named Constantinus ep. Synai (Harduin, vol. v. p. 927), have been incorrectly brought hither (Ritter, Abhandl. der Berl. Akad. 1824, p. 216. Halbinsel Sinai, p. 96), as they belong to Synaus, or Synnaus, in Phrygia.

Appendix G. (P. 320.)—It must be most absolutely denied that an interrupted and distinct tradition about the position of Sinai in the Peninsula was preserved as late as the Christian times. The name Choreb, or Sinai, appears even at a very early period to have been understood for the whole of the lofty range in the Peninsula, which was constantly regarded from a distance as one single mountain. No one before the time of the Christian hermits attached any interest in connecting a fixed geographical notion with the name that had been transmitted. We only read of Elijah that he fled to the “Mount of God Choreb,” and there (1 Kings xix. 9) went into the same cave (for it is presupposed that it is known) in which the Lord had already appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai (2 Exodus xxxiii. 22). The native Arab tribes by degrees became so much changed, that not one of the Old Testament names remained in its original position. The Greeks and Romans only knew one spot on the whole Peninsula, the Palm-wood of Pharan, because this spot only, and the harbour leading to it, was of any importance since the mines of that wilderness had been exhausted. Firân must of necessity have been the earliest central point for the Christian hermits also; that mountainous wilderness, affording necessary means of sustenance, in the greatest retirement, must have appeared better adapted for them than any other district, since here we also find the most ancient church of the Peninsula. When gradually the individual Biblical localities began to be more accurately investigated, people had no other means for forming their determinations than we possess now, and besides understood far less to employ these means, since all acute criticism of the Biblical passages, which could alone give them information, at that time lay far removed. They understood the name Sinai as an indeterminate appellation for the whole range; but when they searched for Sinai in a single mountain, Serbâl then must have immediately presented itself. Thither also points all that we read about the matter in authentic writings during the first centuries, but to these the writing of the monk Ammonius certainly does not belong in the opinion of those who examine accurately, and hardly the edifying romance of Nilus. What Josephus (Ant. iii. 5) says of Sinai (τὸ Σιναῖον) may very well refer to Serbâl, at all events not to Gebel Mûsa, as has been already shown by Hogg (in several passages, p. 207). According to Eusebius, Choreb and Raphidîm were situated at Pharan (ἐγγὺς Φαράν, see note, p. 313), and Sinai near Choreb (παράκειται τῷ ὄρει Σινᾶ, see above). Jerome (s. v. Choreb) regards both mounts as one, which he likewise places at Pharan, and consequently recognises in Serbâl. The account by Nilus also, about the Saracenic attack at Sinai, either does not belong to the time in which it is placed (c. 400), or refers to Serbâl, for here a church (ἐκκλησία) is frequently (p. 38, 46) mentioned, which at that time did not exist at Gebel Mûsa, and Nilus, that very same night in which the scattered slain had been buried, goes down to Pharan, which would have been impossible from Gebel Mûsa. Finally, Cosmas Indicopleustes, who traversed the Peninsula about the year 535, probably immediately before the building of the Justinian church, passes through Raithu, i. e. Tôr, which he regards as Elim, although he only found a few palm-trees there (the present considerable plantations are, therefore, of more recent date), and across the present Wadi Hebrân to Raphidîm, which is now called Pharan. Here he was at the termination of his Sinai journey. From this spot Moses went with the elders “upon the Mount Choreb, i. e. Sinai, which is about 6000 paces (one mile and a half) distant from Pharan,” and struck the water out of the rock; here also the tabernacle of the congregation was built, and the law was given; thereby the Israelites besides received the Scripture, and had leisure to learn it for their application; thence we may date the numerous rock-inscriptions which are still to be found in that wilderness (especially at Serbâl). (Εἶτα πάλιν παρενέβαλον εἰς Ῥαφιδίν, εἰς τὴν νῦν καλουμένην Φαράν· καὶ διψευσάντων αὐτῶν, πορεύεται κατὰ πρόσταξιν θεοῦ ὁ Μωϋσῆς μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ ἡ ῥάβδὸς ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ, εἰς Χωρὴβ τὸ ὄρος, τουτέστιν ἐν τῷ Σιναΐῳ, ἐγγὺς ὄντι τῆς Φαρὰν ὡς ἀπό μιλίων ἕξ· (Burckhardt, Trav. in Syr. p. 611, when he descended Serbâl, occupied two hours and a half, from its base to Wadi Firân) καὶ ἐκεῖ πατάξαντος τὴν πέτραν, ἐῤῥύησεν ὕδατα πολλὰ καὶ ἔπιεν ὁ λαός.—Λοιπὸν κατεληλυθότος αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ ὄρους προστάττεται ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ποιεῖν τὴν σκηνήν), etc. (Topograph. christ. lib. v. in the Coll. nova patr. ed. B. de Montfaucon, tom. ii. p. 195, seq.)

This testimony of an unprejudiced traveller is expressed with as much distinctness, as it is worthy of confidence and without suspicion. At the commencement of the sixth century, therefore, according to this eye-witness, it was believed that the law had been given on Serbâl. Cosmas has so little doubt about the matter, that he does not even mention the southern range. Nevertheless, we must admit that the monkish population had already spread over the whole of the mountain range, especially among the districts in a sheltered situation about Gebel Mûsa; and we need not be surprised that a different view was formed among the monks there situated, according to which Moses turned to the south, instead of towards the north, coming from the height of Wadi Hebrân (for the idea that Elim was Raithu was a fixed conviction already cherished by the convent, prematurely founded there). Such changes are of frequent occurrence in Christian topography. But however closely Horeb and Sinai, Raphidîm and the Mount of the Law, appear in the representation, it follows again from this, that associated with Sinai, the rock from which the water flowed was moved farther south. The monks were not deterred by the verses at the commencement of the 19th chapter from transferring the rock of Raphidîm, and consequently Raphidîm itself, as well as the thorn-bush of Horeb, also to Gebel Mûsa, their new Sinai; there in Wadi Leg´a (Robinson, i. p. 184) it is still shown for the admiration of travellers. Thus the unlettered apprehension of the monks that Raphidîm was situated at Sinai, approached nearer to the truth on this head than the more recent verbal criticism.

The legate of Justinian now found it appropriate to found his castle in that secure position, and to build a church at that very spot for the hermits who were dwelling around it. It is quite conceivable that this alone would have contributed to attract many new hermits thither, and to originate a new view about the position of the Mount of the Law, if this had not previously existed. But how both views accommodated themselves to each other during the centuries immediately succeeding, we have absolutely no distinct proofs. At all events, while Mount Sinai is frequently mentioned after the foundation of the bishopric of Pharan, we must be guarded not to understand it to be Gebel Mûsa, unless something further is said. Ordinarily, the lofty range of the Peninsula seems in general to be understood by it. When, for example, as early as the year 536, therefore probably before the erection of the church, at the Concilium sub Mena at Constantinople, one Theonas, presbyter et legatus S. Montis Sinai et deserti Raithu et S. ecclesiæ Pharan (Θεωνᾶς ἐλεῷ θεοῦ πρεσβύτερος καὶ ἀποκρισιάριος τοῦ ἁγίου ὄρούς Σινᾶ καὶ τῆς ἐρήμου Ῥαιθοῦ καὶ τῆς κατὰ Φαρὰν ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας. Harduin, vol. ii. p. 1281) is named, the church of Pharan, at that time the still undoubted, most important central point and bishopric would have been first mentioned, if the monks scattered over the whole range and the plain of Raithu had not been regarded more comprehensive, and on that account placed first. Le Quien (iii. p. 753) mentions the Episcopi Pharan sivi Montis Sinai in succession, and, as the earliest with the last designation, the above-mentioned Bishop Jorius († 1033). Since then, and even since Eutychius (c. 940), the designation of the single Gebel Mûsa, as Sinai, is indeed beyond all doubt.