Chapter LV: Appendix: G. (P. 320.)—It must be most absolutely denied that an (1)

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.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Chronologie der Ægypter. Vol. i. Berlin, 1849.

[2] On the sudden death of Bishop Alexander, which happened shortly after our departure from Palestine, Gobat, as is known, was selected by H. M. the King of Prussia to be Bishop of the Evangelical Bishopric of Jerusalem, which he has administered, by the blessing of God, efficaciously ever since 1846.

[3] Previous to my departure from Alexandria, the firman of the Viceroy was presented to me, with unlimited permission to make all the excavations which I might think desirable, and with instructions to the local authorities to render me assistance. All the workmen and aid necessary for forming and transporting our collection of antiquities, were demanded in return for money, through virtue of our firman, from the Sheikhs of the neighbouring villages, or the Mudhirs of the provinces, by the Kawass, who had been given us by the government, and they were never refused. The monuments from the southern regions were transported from Mount Barkal to Alexandria on government boats, and three sepulchral chambers near the great Pyramids of Gizeh were also added, which were carefully taken to pieces by the aid of four workmen, sent expressly for the purpose from Berlin, and were put on board a vessel opposite Old Cairo. I also received, before my departure from Egypt, a written permit for the exportation of the collection; and the objects themselves were presented from the Viceroy to H. M. the King of Prussia.

These peculiar favours, at a time when all private travellers, antiquarian speculators, and even diplomatic persons, were expressly forbidden by the Egyptian Government to make any collection, or to export antiquities, have caused many unfavourable judgments to be passed on our expedition. We have been chiefly accused of a thirst for destruction, which, under the given circumstances, would presuppose a peculiarly barbarous feeling to have existed in our party; for as we did not, like many of our rivals, excavate and transport the monuments, the greater part of which had previously been invisible, hurriedly and by night, and with bribed assistance, but leisurely, and with open aid from the authorities, and before the eyes of numerous travellers, all disregard in our treatment of the remaining monuments, of which perhaps they formed a part, would certainly have been so much the more blameable, since it was so easy to avoid it. We might, however, trust to a more correct judgment than what is usually possessed by the greater proportion of ordinary travellers or collectors, with regard to the value of the individual monuments; besides, we were not, after all, in danger of being deceived in this matter by personal self-interest, as we made our selection of the monuments not for ourselves, but commissioned by our government, for the Royal Museum in Berlin, therefore for the benefit of science, and a public eager after knowledge.

The collection, which chiefly on account of its historical value, may be placed on an equal footing with the most important European museums, was incorporated immediately on its arrival with the Royal collections, without my remaining myself officially connected with it; and it is already arranged and exhibited to the public. A more accurate examination is best fitted to place the inconsiderate accusations of more recent, and even German tourists, in their proper light, some of whom have gone so far, for example, very recently, Herr Julius Braun, in the _Algemeiner Augsburg Gazette_, as to charge us with the mutilation of the gods, which happened more than 3000 years ago, in the temple of El Kab. Besides, it would prove an entire ignorance of Egyptian affairs at the present time, or of that which chiefly lends the monuments of antiquity their real interest to us, if all were not desirous to preserve in the public museums of Europe, as many as possible of the treasures of those countries, which are really as valuable, as they are undervalued in their own home, and numbers of which are still daily destroyed.

[4] The journal of this expedition up the Nile has been since published under the title Expedition zur Entdeckung der Quellen des Weissen Nil, 1840-1841. By Ferd. Werne. With a Preface by Karl Ritter. A map and a table of figures. Berlin: G. Reimer 1848. 8vo.

[5] Abbas Pascha has been Viceroy of Egypt since the death of Ibrahim Pascha in 1848.

[6] This paper—An account of the river Goschop, and of the countries of Enarea, Caffa, and Doko, given by a native of Enarea (with a map)—has been translated by Ritter, and was communicated to the Geographical Society at Berlin on the 7th January, 1843, and was printed in the monthly reports of this society in the latter part of the year. P. 172-188.

[7] On our departure for Upper Egypt, we had minutely examined 130 private tombs, and had discovered the remains of 67 Pyramids.

[8] See my essay, _Sûr l’ordre des colonnes piliers en Egypte_ et ses rapports avec le second ordre Egyptien et la colonne Grecque (avec deux planches), in the ninth volume of the Annales de l’Institut. de Corresp. Archéol. Rome, 1838.

[9] See p. 118.

[10] _Proskynemata._ “Sometimes travellers who happened to pass by a temple inscribed a votive sentence on the walls, to indicate their respect for the deity, and solicit his protection during their journey, the complete formula of which contained the adoration (_proskunéma_) of the writer, with the assurance that he had been mindful of his wife, his family, and friends; and the reader of the inscription was sometimes included in a share of the blessings it solicited. The date of the king’s reign, and the day of the month, were also added, with the profession and parentage of the writer.”—_Wilkinson’s Ancient Egypt_, vol. iii., p. 395.—TR.

[11] “Every Pharaoh was the Sun of Egypt, and over his name bore ‘Son of the Sun;’ and as the sun was Phra, so each king was called Phra. Each monarch by law inherited his father’s throne in lineal succession, so that the incumbent was Phra son of Phra.”—_Gliddon’s Ancient Egypt_, p. 32.—TR.

[12] The colours have now, alas! almost entirely disappeared. Owing to the unequal grain of the stone all the representations were prepared with a thin layer of lime for the groundwork, before they were painted; this lime has peeled off in the transport and by the action of the damp sea air, so that the rough sculpture alone remains. In the Work on the Monuments of the Prussian Expedition (Div. II., sheet 19-22), the colours have been given faithfully, as they were preserved in their original freshness when covered by the sand.

[13] After our return from the south, two entire sepulchral chambers, besides the one here mentioned, were taken to pieces and brought to Europe. All three are now reconstructed, with the other monuments, in the New Museum at Berlin. _See_ Letter XXXV.

[14] A separate essay, Ueber den Bau der Pyramiden, was sent by me to the Royal Academy of Sciences in 1843, and it was printed in consequence of a resolution of the 3rd of August of that year. See the Monthly Report (Monats Bericht) of the Academy, 1843, p. 177-203, with three Plates.

[15] I have spoken more at length on this in my Chronology of the Egyptians, vol. i., p. 294.

[16] We have been told on good authority that this statue is not composed of granite, but of limestone from the neighbouring hills.—TR.

[17] Compare my essay, _Ueber die ausgedehnte Anwendung des Spitzbogens in Deutschland im 10 und 11 Jahrhundert_, as an Introduction to H. Gally Knight’s Entwickelung der Architectur vom 10 bis 14 Jahrhundert unter den Normannen, translated from the English; Leipzig, 1841, at G. Wigand’s; and my father’s treatise, _Der Dom zu Naumburg_, by C. P. Lepsius; Leipzig, 1840 (in Puttrich’s Denkm. der Bauk., ii., Lief. 3, 4)

[18] He among them blushes, who cannot show many strokes upon his body, for non-payment of tribute.—TR.

[19] _Kaftan_, an open tunic.—TR.

[20] _Tarbusch_, red cap.—TR.

[21] The Germans generally calculate distance by the _hour_, which corresponds to about three English miles, as this distance can be traversed at a foot pace within that space of time.—TR.

[22] About twopence-halfpenny English money.

[23] Compare my Chronology of the Egyptians, i., p. 262, &c.

[24] According to Linant, the difference amounts to 22 metres, that is, 70 feet Rheinland (72 English). In June, 1843, an engineer of the Viceroy, Nascimbeni, who was engaged in making a new map, and levelling the Faiûm, visited us in our camp, at the Pyramid of Mœris. He had only found a descent of 2 metres (6 feet 6 inches English) from Illahûn to Medînet, but from thence to Birqet-el-Qorn, 75 metres (246 feet English). I am not aware that anything has been published about this considerable difference of measurements. Sir G. Wilkinson, in his Mod. Eg. and Thebes, vol. ii., 346, states the surface of the water to be about 125 English feet below the bank of the Nile at Beni-suef.

[25] Mémoire sur le lac Mœris, presenté et lu à la Société Egyptienne le 5 Juillet, 1842, par Linant de Bellefonds, inspecteur-général des ponts, et chaussées, publié par la Société Egyptienne. Alexandrie, 1843. 4to. Compare my Chronology, vol. i., p. 262 &c.

[26] The same Domenico Lorda again travelled that year to Abyssinia, and sent six other Abyssinian manuscripts to Herr Lieder from thence, who showed them to me on my return to Cairo. These, also, on my suggestion, were afterwards obtained for the Royal Library. By M. Lorda’s account they contain:

A. ABUSCHER—Almanacco perpetuo Civile-Ecclesiastico-Storico.

B. SETTA NEGHEST—Codice dell’ Imperadore Eeschias.

C. JUSEPH—Storia Civile, ed Ecclesiastica. (?)

D. BERAAN—Storia Civile, ed Ecclesiastica.

E. PHILKISIUS E MARISAK—Due Opere, in un volume, che trattano della Storia Civile.

F. SINODUS—Dritto Canonico.

[27] _Sont_, or Acacia, Mimosa Nilotica.—_Sir G. Wilkinson._—TR.

[28] This letter, addressed to Alexander von Humboldt, has been already printed in the _Prussian Gazette_, Berlin, 9th Feb., 1844.

[29] “Dedicated to King Ptolemy and Cleopatra, his sister, benevolent deities.”—TR.

[30] The emendation, ἀδελφῆς, in this inscription, which dates from the thirty-fifth year of Euergetes (B.C. 136), is of importance in certain chronological determinations of that period. Letronne (Rec. des Inscr., vol. i., p. 33-56) assumed that Cleopatra III., the niece and second wife of Euergetes II., was here meant. Hence alone he concluded that this king, in the official documents written before his expulsion, in the year 132 B.C., only joined the name of his wife, Cleopatra III., to his own, and therefore he fixed the date of all the inscriptions, in which both the Cleopatras, the sister, and the (second) wife are named after the king, in the period after the return of Euergetes (127-117), _e. g._ the inscriptions on the obelisk of Philæ (Rec., vol. 1., p. 333). In this determination of the time, he is followed by Franz (Corp. Inscr., vol. iii., p. 285), who, for the same reason, fixes the date of the inscriptions (c. i., no. 4841, 4860, 4895, 4896) between B.C. 127 and 117, although he was already aware of my correction of the inscription of Pselchis (c. i., no. 5073).

It is indeed singular that only _one_ Cleopatra is mentioned in the inscription of Pselchis; but as it is Cleopatra II., the _first_ wife of the king, who he always distinguishes from his second wife by the appellation of _sister_; it cannot thence be concluded that from the very commencement of his second marriage he expressly excluded all mention of the latter in the documents. This also is confirmed in the most distinct manner by two Demotic Papyri belonging to the royal museum, in which _both_ Cleopatras are mentioned, although the one papyrus is as early as the year B.C. 141, the other, a duplicate, is from the year B.C. 136. All inscriptions which, according to Letronne (Rec. des Inscr., tome i., no. 7, 26, 27, 30, 31) and Franz (Corp. Inscr., vol. iii., no. 4841, 4860, 4895, 4896), from the reasons stated, date between the years B.C. 127 and 117, may, therefore, still be placed, with equal probability, in the years 145 to 132.

[31] Compare Letronne, Recueil des Inscriptions Grecques de l’Egypte, tome i., p. 365, &c. Ptolemy EUPATOR is not mentioned by authors. He was introduced for the first time among the predecessors of Soter II., who were worshipped as divinities, in a Greek papyrus [in Leyden[A]], which was composed in the reign of Soter II., in the year B.C. 105, and he was inserted between Philometor and Euergetes. Böckh, who published the Papyrus (1821), referred the surname of Euergetes to Soter II. and his wife, and considered EUPATOR to be a surname of the deified EUERGETES II. In the same year, Champollion Figeac also wrote about this papyrus, and endeavoured to prove that Eupator was the son of Philometor, who was killed by Euergetes II., on his ascent to the throne. This view was assented to at a later period by St. Martin, Böckh, and Letronne (Rech. pour ser à l’Hist. de l’Eg., p. 124). Meanwhile, the name of EUPATOR was discovered in a second papyrus from the reign of Soter II., as well as in the letter of Numenius on the Philensic obelisk of H. Bankes, from the time of Euergetes II. In both inscriptions the name of Eupator was mentioned; it did not, however, follow, but preceded Philometor, and therefore could not signify his son. Letronne now conjectured (Recueil des Inscr., vol. i., p. 365) that EUPATOR was another surname of Philometor. But then it would not have been καὶ θεοῦ Εὐπάτορος καὶ θεοῦ Φιλομήτορος, but καὶ θεοῦ Εὐπάτορος τοῦ καὶ Φιλομήτορος. In a letter to Letronne, of the 1st Dec., 1844, from Thebes, which is printed in the Révue Archéol., vol. i., p. 678, &c., I communicated to him that I had also found the name of EUPATOR in several hieroglyphic inscriptions, and indeed always _before_ Philometor. The same reason which I had employed against Letronne’s explanation of the Greek name (the passage is not printed along with it in the Révue), namely, the simple repetition of the θεοῦ, did not even permit us in the hieroglyphic list to consider EUPATOR another surname of Philopator. He must have been a Ptolemy who, for a short time at least, was acknowledged as king, but who is not mentioned by authors; and, indeed, according to Franz (Corp. Inscr., vol. iii., p. 285), and also by the acknowledgment of Letronne (Rec., vol. ii., p. 536), he must have been an elder brother of Philometor, who died in a few months, and therefore was omitted in the Ptolemaic canon.

But the son of Philometor, and of his sister, Cleopatra II., mentioned by Justinus and Josephus, who was formerly believed to have been re-discovered in the Eupator of the [Leyden] papyrus, is particularly mentioned in the hieroglyphic inscriptions among the other Ptolemies, in his place between Philometor and Euergetes, and we thence become acquainted with his name, which had not been added by the authors. He is sometimes named PHILOPATOR, sometimes NEOS PHILOPATOR, and he must therefore also be placed in future as PHILOPATOR II. in the series of the reigning Ptolemies. Among fourteen hieroglyphic lists of the Ptolemies, which come down at least as far as the second Euergetes, seven of their number give PHILOPATOR II.; in four other lists, in which his name might appear, he is passed over, and these all seem to belong to the first years of Euergetes II., his murderer, when the omission is easily explained. It is natural that he does not appear in the canon, because neither he nor Eupator lived to witness a change of the Egyptian year during his reign; on the other hand, as was to be expected, he is also named in the protocol of the _Demotic Papyrus_, in which the Ptolemies who are worshipped as divinities are exhibited, and in which Young had also already correctly acknowledged EUPATOR. In fact, he is here cited in all the lists with which I am acquainted (five in Berlin, from the years 114, 103, 99, 89, one in Turin from the year 89), which are of more recent date than Euergetes II., as well as in a Berlin papyrus from the fifty-second year of Euergetes himself (B.C. 118). A comparison also of the demotic lists shows finally that the transposition of the names EUPATOR and PHILOMETOR in the Greek papyrus from the year B.C. 105 (not 106, as Franz writes—Corp. Inscr., p. 285) is not alone an error of the copyist in writing, as this, and other transpositions also, are not unfrequent in the Demotic Papyrus. The different object of the hieroglyphic and the demotic lists makes it conceivable that such deviations were not admissible in the former, as in the latter lists.

[A] _Note._—_Leyden_ in place of _Berlin_, both here and below,
is a correction by the author, April, 1853.—TR.

[32] Wilkinson (Mod. Eg. and Th., vol. ii., p. 275) considers this CLEOPATRA TRYPHÆNA to be the celebrated Cleopatra, the daughter of Neos Dionysos; Champollion (Lettres d’Eg., p. 110) thinks she is the wife of Philometor; but the Shields connected with her name belong neither to Ptolemy XIV., the elder son of Neos Dionysos, nor to Ptolemy VI. Philometor, but to Ptolemy XIII. Neos Dionysos, or Auletes, who is always called on the monuments Philopator Philadelphus. CLEOPATRA TRYPHÆNA was, consequently, the wife of PTOLEMY AULETES.

[33] The inscription alluded to is to be found in the rock-grotto of ECHMIM, and was undoubtedly first engraved before the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. He is also named with double shields and the usual royal titles, but without the surname of Soter upon a _stele_ in Vienna, which was erected in the reign of Philopator. Here, however, he bears a different Throne-shield from that in Echmim, and certainly, strange to say, it is the same which even before his time was borne by Philip Aridæus, and Alexander II., under whom Ptolemy, son of Lagus, was governor of Egypt. He is also mentioned upon a statue of the king in the ruins of Memphis, on which the Horus name of the king also appears, and which probably might have been engraved during his reign. Finally, the SOTERS are also frequently mentioned by their surnames alone at the head of the worshipped ancestors of later kings; as in the Rosetta inscription, and in the bilingual decrees of Philæ (see below, p. 121), 𔌗𓊹𔌗𓊹, while SOTER II. is always written 𓊪𓊹𓏌𓐱𓏏𓐰𓏭𓈖𓐰𓈞𓐰𓂡 _p. nuter enti nehem_, which would correspond to the Coptic ⲡ.ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲧ-ⲛⲉϩⲙ, _deus servator_. In the _demotic_ inscriptions, the first Soters are also designated by _nehem_, and in the singular by the Greek word, _p. suter_.

Although, therefore, it cannot be doubted that the SOTERS who, according to the Demotic Papyrus, were especially worshipped along with the other Ptolemies, not only in ALEXANDRIA and PTOLEMAIS, but also in THEBES, were regarded as the head of the Ptolemaic Dynasty, it is nevertheless so much the more remarkable, that hitherto not a single structure can be pointed out which was erected under Ptolemy Soter when king, although he ruled twenty years in this capacity. In addition to this, the above-mentioned hieroglyphic lists of the Ptolemies commence the series without exception, _not_ with the _Soters_, but with the _Adelphes_; and, as was mentioned before, his shields in Echmim bear _no_ royal title; and in Karnak under Euergetes II., in one and the same representation, Philadelphus is designated as _king_, and the _Soter_, corresponding to him in space, as _no king_. In the _demotic_ series of kings, also, of the Papyrus, the Alexandrine series was wont to omit the Soters, till the reign of Philometor, and to make the _Adelphes_ immediately succeed Alexander the Great. The earliest period that I have met with the Soters is in a Papyrus, from the 17th year of Philopator (B.C. 210), the oldest of the Berlin collection; the Theban worship of the Ptolemies seems to have wholly excluded the Soters. Although the commencement of the royal government is therefore fixed in the year B.C. 305, as is specified in the canon, and most undeniably confirmed by the above-mentioned _hieroglyphic stele in Vienna_, which has been already cited for that purpose by my friend, M. Pinder (Beitr. zur Aelterem Münzkunde, vol. i., p. 201) in his instructive essay, On the Era of Philip upon Coins, it appears, however, to have offered another legitimate opinion, by which not Ptolemy Lagus, but Philadelphus, the first son of the king (if not Porphyrogenitus), was considered the head of the Ptolemies. It may thence be also explained why we find an astronomical Era employed in the reign of Euergetes, that of the otherwise unknown Dionysius, which began from the year 285, the first year of the reign of Philadelphus, while the coins of Philadelphus do not reckon as the commencement of a new era from the beginning of his own reign, nor from the year 305, but from the year of the death of Alexander the Great, or the commencement of the governorship of Ptolemy. (_See_ Pinder, p. 205.)

[34] _See_ Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, Abth. II., Bl. 123-133.

[35] _See_ Denkmäl. Abth. II., Bl. 134.

[36] _Panegyrics_: public religious assemblies which were periodically held in Egypt.—_Kenrick’s Ancient Egypt._—TR.

[37] _See_ Denkmäl. Abth. IV., Bl. 38, 39.—A special essay on these inscriptions is prepared.

[38] The first news of the discovery of these important inscriptions, which had not been noticed by the French-Tuscan expedition, excited some surprise. Simultaneously with the more exact description of them in the _Prussian Gazette_, a short English notice of them appeared, in which the discovery of a second copy of the Rosetta inscription was mentioned, and, indeed, in Meröe. More recently, when M. Ampère had brought an impression of the inscription to Paris, the learned academician, M. de Saulcy, denied that the decree had anything to do with the Rosetta inscription, and felt himself obliged to ascribe it to Ptolemy Philometor. I therefore took an opportunity to point out more accurately, in two letters to H. Letronne (Rev. Archéol., vol. iv., p. i., &c., and p. 240, &c.), as well as in an essay, in the Papers of the German Oriental Society (vol. i., p. 264, &c.), that the document in question had been drawn up in the 21st year of Ptolemy Epiphanes, and that it contained a repetition of the actual decree of the Rosetta inscription, which referred to Cleopatra, who had meanwhile been elevated to the throne.

[39] The name Cleopatra, instead of Arsinoë, in the hieroglyphic inscription, appears solely to rest on an error of the writer, which was avoided in the demotic inscription, for here Arsinoë stands correctly. The hieroglyphic text of the inscription of Rosetta is also less correct than the demotic.

[40] Such designations appear even at an earlier period. Thus, in Thebes, an “Ammon of Tuthmosis (III.)” is mentioned. It thereby appears that one of the kings named was designated for the newly-established worship of these gods. Ramses II. dedicated three great rock-temples in Lower Nubia, at _Derr_, _Gerf Hussên_, and _Sebûa_, to the three greatest gods of Egypt, _Ra_, _Phtha_, and _Ammon_ (See my Memoir on the earliest Cycle of the Egyptian Gods, in the papers of the Academy of Berlin, 1851), and named the places founded there simultaneously after the same gods, accordingly in Greek HELIOPOLIS, HEPHAISTOPOLIS, and DIOSPOLIS. The same Ramses founded a fourth powerful and fortified position, Abusimbel, and called it after himself RAMESSOPOLIS, or the FORTRESS OF RAMESSOPOLIS, as he also founded two towns in the Delta, and called them after his own name. Now it is, undoubtedly, with reference to these new worships, that the gods there adored were named Ammon of Ramses, and Phtha of Ramses. The king himself was worshipped along with those gods, in these particular rock-temples, especially in that of Abusimbel.

[41] Compare passages in Letters XXIV., XXVI., XXVII. A grammar and vocabulary of the Nuba language, as well as a translation of the Gospel of St. Mark into the Nubian tongue, is ready for publication.

[42] Dhorra. _Holcus sorghum._ Kenrick, Anc. Eg.—TR.

[43] I have since then received intelligence of the death of Herr Bauer, which happened only the following year.

[44] Russegger (Reise, 2 Bd., 2 Thl., S. 125) found one specimen of this tree, 95 feet in circumference. He is mistaken when he calls it GANGLES; the tree is called HÓMARA, and the fruit GUNGULES.

[45] _Wakil_, or deputy.—TR.

[46] The poems contain many unusual grammatical forms and expressions, and are composed in a very free, and, as it appears, in some measure, incorrect style.

[47] About six English miles.—TR.

[48] These monuments are now placed in the Egyptian Museum (Berlin). See the ram and sparrow-hawk in the _Denkmäler aus Egypt. und Ethiop., Abth. III., Blatt 90_.

[49] By the pods and their kernels, which we brought away with us, Dr. Klotsch has recognised the _Moringa Arabica Persoon_ (_Hyperanthera peregrina Forskål_). It seems that this tree has hitherto only been known in Arabia, and is indigenous there. The individual trees found near Barkal, which are not mentioned by previous travellers, might perhaps have been introduced from Arabia. This is the more probable, as the immigration of those tribes of the Schaiqîeh Arabs from Heg’âz is still testified in writing.

[50] The expression is, that he has built the Temple 𓂙𓈖𓐰𓏏𓐰𓆑𓋹𓁶𓐰𓇾𓐰𓈅𓐱𓏤𓇳𓐰𓎟𓁧 “to his living image on earth RA-NEB-MA.” The word _chent_ no longer exists in the Coptic language, but is always translated in the Rosetta inscription by εἰκών. The temple, and the locality belonging to it, was also named after the king, but after his Horus name, “The Dwelling of Scha-em-ma.” From this we may trace the origin of the Ram of Barkal and the Lion in the British Museum.

[51] This theory of Dr. Lepsius, of the bed of the Nile having been excavated to a depth of 25 feet in 4000 years, has been examined by Leonard Horner, Esq., F.R.S., in a paper published in the _Edinburgh Philosophical Journal_ for July, 1850. Dr. Lepsius having in a letter, dated 12th April, 1853, addressed to Mr. Horner, expressed a wish that that paper should be reprinted in the present volume, it will be found accordingly in the Appendix.—TR.

[52] King of the Noubadœ and the Ethiopians.—TR.

[53] Denkmäl., Abth. II., Bl. 245, 246.

[54] They are called Salamât, “the Salutations,” by earlier travellers. My attention was called to the correct pronunciation of this word by our old intelligent guide, ʾAuad. The alteration is very great to the Arabs, because سَلَامٌ _salàm_, _salus_, is pronounced with the dental _sin_, صَنَمٌ _sʾanam_, _idolum_, with the lingual _sʾâd_. The plural, which usually is expressed by أصْنامٌ _asʾnâm_, here assumes the feminine form صَنَمَاتٌ _sʾanamât_. It is impossible now to see by the mutilated heads whether they were masculine figures. The stone of which the statues are composed is a particularly hard quartzose friable sandstone conglomerate, which looks as if it was glazed, and had innumerable cracks. The frequent crackling of small particles of stone at sunrise, when the change of temperature is greatest, in my opinion produced the tones of Memnon, far-famed in song, which were compared to the breaking of a musical string.

[55] See note, p. 239.

[56] This King AI was previously a private individual, and afterwards assumed the priest’s title into his Royal Shield. He not unfrequently appears with his wife in the tombs of Amarna, as a distinguished and peculiarly highly venerated officer of King Amenophis IV., that puritanical worshipper of the Sun, who changed his name into that of BECH-EN-ATEN.

[57] The dimensions here stated have been taken from Wilkinson, Mod. Eg. and Thebes, vol. ii., p. 220.

[58] _Apuleii Asclepius sive dialogus Hermetis Trismegisti_, c. 24.—(“Oh Egypt! Egypt! fables alone of thy religion will survive, equally incomprehensible to thy descendants; and words cut into stone will alone remain telling of thy pious deeds, and the Scythian, or one from the Indus, or some such neighbouring barbarian, will inhabit Egypt.”)—TR.

[59] I did not imagine, when I wrote this down, that this crime of blood would so speedily be avenged. See Letter XXXIV.

[60] I have since been informed (_Rév. Arch._, vol. iv. p. 82) that M. Ampère had been expressly sent to Egypt by the Paris Academy, for the purpose of copying the bilingual inscription at Philæ, which I have noticed in my letters. See above, p. 121. The exceedingly abridged representation of the Demotic text, which was communicated by M. de Saulcy in the _Révue Archéologique_, is borrowed from the copy which was taken back to Paris, in which, however, the commencement of the Demotic lines, and along with them the date of the decree, are wanting.

[61] _Rhamnus nabeca_, Wilkinson, Mod. Eg. and Thebes.—TR.

[62] These places were described for the first time accurately, and in an instructive manner, by Wilkinson. Journ. of the R. Geogr. Soc., vol. ii., p. 28, &c.

[63] “Medicine for the soul.”—TR.

[64] These are the exact words of my journal, and as they were understood by Ritter, p. 578. In the printed report, p. 8, it might appear as if Robinson had relinquished the ascent of the whole of this part of the mountain; in the memoir of the Bibliotheca Sacra, this is mentioned as a mistake. But I was only speaking of the actual brow of the mountain which projects into the plain, contrasted with the loftier point, though situated on one side, which was ascended by Robinson.

[65] This account, which I addressed to H.M. the King of Prussia, was printed while I was still absent in 1846, under the title of “_Reise des Prof. Lepsius von Theben nach der Halbinsel des Sinai, vom 4 März bis zum 14 April, 1845_,” _Berlin_, with two maps—a general map of the Peninsula, and a special map of Serbâl and Wadi Firân, which was drawn by G. Erbkam, from my notes, or statements. This printed pamphlet has not been published, but only distributed to a few persons. Its contents, however, have become better known, by a translation into English by Ch. H. Cottrell (“A Tour from Thebes to the Peninsula of Sinai,” &c. London, 1846), and into French by F. Pergameni (“Voyage dans la Presq’ile du Sinai, etc., lu à la Société de Géographie, séances du 21 Avril et du 21 Mai. Extrait du Bulletin de la Soc. Géogr., Juin, 1847.” Paris).

[66] The Nakb el Haui, “the Saddle of Wind,” is an extremely wild and narrow mountain ravine, the depths of which are impassable, on account of its steep precipices. The road must have been constructed with great skill along the western mountain precipice, and is in many places hewn out of the rock; in others, the crumbling ground has been paved with great flat stones. There can be no doubt that this daring path was only made after the erection of the convent, to maintain closer connection with the town of Pharan, which, till that time, could only be reached by the long circuitous route through the Wadi e’ Scheikh.

[67] The _Tamarix Gallica mannifera_ of Ehrenberg. See Wilkinson, Mod. Eg. and Thebes, ii., 401.—TR.

[68] The _Moringa aptera_. See Wilkinson’s Mod. Eg. and Thebes, ii., 404.—TR.

[69] It seems that this convent has not been visited by any very recent travellers. Even Burckhardt, who calls it Sigillye, did not descend to it, but heard that it was well built, spacious, and also provided with a well, plentifully supplied with water. (Trav. in Syria, p. 610.) It is much to be desired that more exact accounts could be obtained of this convent, situated in the middle of the basin of Serbâl, as it probably is one of the oldest, at any rate one of the most important in the Peninsula, as is proved by the rock-road to it from Pharan, constructed with much skill and difficulty.

[70] Denkmäl., Abth. II., Bl. 2, 116, 137, 140, 152; III., 28.

[71] See Appendix B.

[72] I find all whose judgment is of any weight holding this same opinion. Robinson, especially, has the merit of having cleared away many old prejudices of this nature. But even Burckhardt so little allowed his judgment to be guided by the authority of tradition, that he did not scruple to place his reason for transposing the convent of Sinai to Gebel Mûsa, rather on stratagetical considerations. (Trav. in Syria, p. 609.)

[73] 1 Kings xix. 8.—TR.

[74] The name of FIRÂN, formerly PHARAN, is, indeed, evidently the same as PARAN in the Bible; but it is equally certain that this name has altered its meaning with reference to the locality. All other comparisons of names cannot be in the least depended on.

[75] The smaller of the two wells dates as far back as the time of the foundation of the convent. The principal deep well, which supplies the largest amount and the best water, is said to have been first dug by an English nobleman in 1760. (Ritter, p. 610.)

[76] Burckhardt also (Trav., p. 554) observes distinctly that there were no good pasture grounds near the convent, where nevertheless the somewhat numerous small springs, might have led us to expect the ground to have been in a moister condition. With respect to the impression made on Bartlett: see Appendix B.

[77] I was assured of this unanimously by the Arabs. (Compare also Burckhardt, p. 625, and Ritter, p. 769.) Lord Lindsay found “a small wood of Tarfa-trees here, in which blackbirds were singing, and also some plantations of Palm-trees.” It was at the entrance of the same valley “where Seetzen had the pleasure of gathering for himself, and eating for the first time, a great deal of _manna_ from the bushes of Tarfa; he found the ripe produce of the wild Caper shrub growing here in profusion, which was as palatable to the taste as table-fruit.”

[78] Numbers xxxiii. 10.—TR.

[79] Exodus xv. 27.—TR.

[80] See Appendix C.

[81] Exodus xvi. 1.—TR.

[82] These hot springs do not seem to have been originally named HAMMÂM FARAÛN, of PHARAOH, but FARAN, from PHARAN. For EDRISI names those places on the coast FARAN AHRUN, and ISTACHRI TARAN, which no doubt ought to be called FARAN. (See Ritter, Asien, vol. viii., p. 170, &c.) MACRIZI also calls the same spot BIRKET FARAN. (Ritter, Sinai-halbins, p. 64.) The harbour district of Pharan was probably called after the town itself, though distant, and the tradition of Pharaoh’s destruction, so inapplicable to this spot, was perhaps only connected with the alteration of the name of Faran into Faraûn. It remains a striking fact that the Arabian chroniclers, among whom Macrizi himself visited the spot, speak of the town of Faran as of a town on the coast.

[83] That portion of the sandy sea-shore which Robinson regards as the Wilderness of Sin, produces no TARFA shrubs, much less manna. Compare Ritter, p. 665, &c., with respect to the tracts of country where manna is found. It has been already mentioned that EUSEBIUS maintains that the Wilderness of Sin extended as far as Sinai. (Σίν, ἔρημος ἡ μεταξὺ παρατείνουσα τῆς Ἐρυθρᾶς θαλάσσης καὶ τῆς ἐρήμου Σινά.)

[84] Robinson, i., p. 173-196. In opposition to what Wilson adduces with respect to the wide prospect from Gebel Mûsa, we must consider that necessarily a great many places may be seen from a point so little elevated above the immediately surrounding country; from which points, however, the mountain cannot be traced independently and distinctly by the eye.

[85] See Robinson, i., p. 118-196.

[86] Ewald—Gesch. des Volkes Israel, ii., p. 86—also assumes that Sinai was held sacred “even before the time of Moses, as a place of oracles, and the seat of the gods.” Ritter (see Appendix B) considered this to be incompatible.

[87] Exodus iii. 1.—TR.

[88] Exodus iv. 27.—TR.

[89] This is even proved to exist now by Rüppell, who holds Gebel Katherîn to be Sinai. On his journey to Abyssinia (vol. i., p. 127) he relates, in the account of his ascent of Serbâl in the year 1831, as follows:—“On the summit of Serbâl the Bedouins have collected small stones, and placed them in the form of a circular enclosure, and other stones are placed outside on the shelving rock-precipice, like steps, to facilitate the ascent. When we arrived at the stony circle _my guide drew off his sandals, and approached it with religious veneration; he then recited a prayer within it_, and told me afterwards that he had already slaughtered two sheep here as a _thank-offering_, one of them on the occasion of the birth of a son, the other on regaining his health after an illness. From a belief that Mount SERBÂL is connected with such things, it is said _to have been held in great reverence by the Arabs of the surrounding districts since time immemorial_; and it must also at one time have been regarded as holy in certain respects by the Christians, as, in the valley on the south-western side, there are the ruins of a great convent, and of a great many small hermit’s cells. At all events, the wild jagged masses of rock in Serbâl, and the _isolated position of the mountain, is far more striking, and in a certain degree more imposing, than any other mountain group in Arabia Petræa, and for that reason was peculiarly calculated to be the object of religious pilgrimages_. The highest point of the mountain, or the second pinnacle of rock, proceeding from the west, on which the Arabs are in the habit of sacrificing, by my barometrical measurements is 6342 French feet above the level of the sea.”

[90] With reference to this, compare particularly the admirable pamphlet by Tuch: _Ein und Zwanzig Sinaitische Inschriften_. _Leipzig_, 1849. This scholar endeavours to prove from the names of the pilgrims that have been deciphered, that the authors of the inscriptions were native heathen Arabs, who wandered to Serbâl to some religious festivals. And he is of opinion that pilgrimages ceased in the course of the third century at latest. We may also mention that the name itself of Serbâl, which Rödiger (in Wellsted’s Travels in Arabia, vol. ii., last page) derives, no doubt correctly from the Arabic سرب _serb_, palmarum copia, and Baal, “the Palm-grove (Φοινικών) of Baal,” refers to its heathen worship.

[91] Vol. i., p. 198. See Appendix B.

[92] I thought I might have been able to deduce this indirectly from his narrative, _Antiqu._, iii., 2. Now it seems to me that there is nothing that we can extract about his views from this; for which reason the above name should be effaced. Abstractedly considered, it is very probable that he entertained the same views as Eusebius and Jerome. Compare note, p. 316, and Appendix G.

[93] Eusebius, Περὶ τῶν τοπικῶν ὀνομ., etc., s. v. Ῥαφιδίμ, τόπος τῆς ἐρήμου παρὰ τὸ Χωρὴβ ὄρος, ἐν ᾧ ἐκ τῆς πέτρας ἐρρύησε τὰ ὕδατα καὶ ἐκλήθη ὁ τόπος πειρασμός. ἔνθα καὶ πολεμεῖ Ἰησοῦς τὸν Ἀμαλὴκ ἐγγὺς Φαράν.

[94] Hieronymus, de situ et nomin., etc., s. v. Raphidîm, locus in deserto juxta montem Choreb, in quo de petra fluxere aquæ, cognominatusque est tentatio, ubi et Jesus adversus Amalec dimicat _prope Pharan_.

[95] Among the older authors, _Cosmas Indicopleustes_ must be especially named here (about A.D. 535). (Topogr. Christ., lib. v., in the Coll. nov. patr. ed. Montfaucon, tom. ii., fol. 195.) Εἶτα πάλιν παρενέβαλον εἰς Ῥαφιδὶν εἰς τὴν νῦν λεγομένην Φαράν. _Antoninus Placentinus_, who is placed about the year 600 (while the learned _Papebroch_, who published his _Itinerarium_ in the Acta SS., month of May, vol. ii., p. x.-xviii., does not place him earlier than the eleventh or twelfth century), came, as he says, _in civitatem_ (which can only be Pharan) _in qua pugnavit Moyses cum Amalech: ubi est altare positum super lapides illos quos posuerunt Moyse orante_. That the town was enclosed by a brick wall and _valde sterilis_, instead of which Tuch (Sinait. Inschr., p. 38) proposes to read _fertilis_. If Pharan is called an _Amalekitish_ town by _Macrizi_ (Gesch. der Kopten, uebers. v. Wüstenfeld, p. 116), then this can only indicate the same view that Moses was attacked near PHARAN by the Amalekites, to whom this district belonged. Among more recent scholars we must especially mention _Ritter_, as is mentioned in Appendix B.

[96] Exodus xviii. 5.—TR.

[97] Exodus xvii. 6.—TR.

[98] See below, the complete passage by Cosmas. See Appendix G.

[99] Even the name itself, Raphidîm, _i. e._ the _places of repose_, indicate that the place was adapted for rest of some duration.

[100] See Appendix D.

[101] For that reason Robinson and others, who do not allow that any positions of the encampments were omitted, place Raphidîm beyond FIRÂN; and although they make the march through the latter place, they leave it either totally unmentioned, or place ALUS there. We have already mentioned above the objections to this opinion, which have been partly proved by Ritter. On the other hand, Ritter, to remove the difficulty, distinctly admits of an omission in our present text. (P. 742.)

[102] Numbers xxxiii. 10-14.—TR.

[103] Ritter (see Appendix B) is consequently compelled to draw this conclusion; which, in fact, seems to me the most doubtful of all. The present tradition differs from this in holding Horeb and Sinai to be two mounts, situated immediately beside each other but yet apart.

[104] The three possible ways of removing this difficulty have been tried by ROBINSON, RITTER, and JOSEPHUS. The first, places Raphidîm near Gebel Mûsa; the second, assumes there is an omission between Raphidîm and Sinai, and retains _two_ Mounts of God; the third, transposes the separating passage, and does not mention Horeb at all, only Sinai.

[105] See the manner in which Robinson combines, and weighs both views, i., p. 197, &c. All those passages where precisely the same is said concerning Horeb, as about Sinai, are opposed to the more recent opinion that HOREB was the general designation for the mountain range, or for the district, and that SINAI was the individual Mount, while not a single passage requires us to think of a large extent of ground. No mention is ever made of a “WILDERNESS OF HOREB,” as of the WILDERNESSES OF SÛR, SIN, PARAN, and others. We might also cite in favour of the opposite opinion Acts vii. 30 compared with Exodus iii. 1.

[106] This view is found already in the above-mentioned (note, p. 313) ITINERARIUM OF ANTONINUS, who places the convent between Sinai and Horeb. The monks’ tradition of the present day, that the rock projecting into the plain of Râha was Horeb, is well known. The arbitrary character of such assumptions is evident; nevertheless, the latter opinion is maintained by Gesenius (Thesaur, p. 517, Wiener, and others).

[107] St. Jerome expressly says the same thing, since he adds to the words of Eusebius s. v. _Choreb_: Mihi autem videtur quod duplici nomine idem mons nunc _Sina_, nunc _Choreb_ vocetur. Even Josephus evidently considered both mountains to be one, for wherever CHOREB is mentioned in the Bible, he placed Sinai instead; the same is done by the author of the Acts of the Apostles (vii. 30), and also by Syncellus (Chron., p. 190), who says of Elijah, ἐπορεύετο ἐν Χωρὴβ τῷ ὄρει ἤτοι Σιναίῳ. (The following passage within brackets added by the author, April, 1853.—TR.) [There has been an attempt to prove, from the Greek termination Σιναίῳ, that Choreb is only meant to designate here part of the range of Sinai. However, the word cannot be understood thus in the sense of an adjective, as there was no other but the Sinaitic Choreb. Τὸ ὄρος Σιναῖον (Syncell., p. 122; Cosmas, p. 195; ἀνὰ μέσον Ἐλεὶμ καὶ τοῦ Σιναίου ὄρους. Joseph. Ant. Jud. 3, 5: ἄνεισι (Μωυσῆς) πρὸς τὸ Σιναῖον; compare the inscription on the convent, Appendix E) is used just as much as Τὸ ὄρος Σινᾶ. But if, which is not the case, Choreb especially was only called Τὸ Σιναῖον, not Τὸ Σινᾶ ὄρος, we could only infer the reverse, namely, that Sinai must have meant a part of the range of Choreb.] Ewald, especially among modern scholars, brings forward the same opinion of the similarity of the two mounts. He says (Gesch. des. V. Isr., ii., p. 84) the two names, SINAI and HOREB, do not change because they designated points in the same range, situated beside each other; but the name of Sinai is clearly the most ancient, for it was used also by Deborah, Judges v. 5, whereas the name of Horeb cannot be pointed out before the period of the fourth narrator (compare Exodus iii. 1; xvii. 6; xxxiii. 6); but it then becomes very prevalent, as is proved in Deuteronomy, and in the passages of 1 Kings viii. 9; xix. 8; Mal. iv. 4; Psalms cvi. 19, while it says nothing against this view when very late authors reintroduce the name of Sinai, merely from their learned acquaintance with the old books.

[108] If we omit the two verses, Exodus xix. 1, 2, the account, xix. 3, follows most naturally after xviii. 27. “And Moses let his father-in-law depart, and he went away into his own land. And Moses went up unto God; and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain.”

[109] See Appendix D.

[110] See Appendix B.

[111] See Appendix E.

[112] See Appendix F.

[113] See Appendix G.