Chapter LIV: 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.