Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume II.djvu/1024

 1004 SINAI. must suffice. There seems, then, to be no question that the site of Horeb was traditionally known to the Israelites for many centuries after the Exodus (1 Kings, xix. 8); and if so, it is improbable that it was subsequently lost, since its proximity to Elath and Ezion Geber, which were long in their posses- sion, would serve to ensure the perpetuity of the tradition. It is worthy of remark that Josephus nowhere uses the name Horeb, but in the passage parallel to that above cited from the 1st book of Kings, as xiniformly throughout his history, substi- tutes rb ^luatou opos, — so far confirming the iden- tity of locality indicated by the two names, learnedly maintained by Dr. Lepsius, who holds Horeb to be an Amalekite appellative equivalent in signification with Sin, both signifying "earth made dry by draining off the water," which earth he finds in the large mounds of alluvial deposit in the bed of Wady Faran, at the northern base of Serbal, his Sinai. Buxtorf, however, cites rabbinical authorities for another etymology of Sinai, derived from the nature of the rock in Uie vicinity. (See Shaw's Travels, 4to. p. 443. and note 7.) Josephus does not in any way identify the site; but Eusebius and St. Jerome have been erroneoasly understood to describe Serbal under the name Sina, when they say that Pharan was south of Arabia, next to the desert of the Saracens, through which the children of Israel journeyed when they decamped from Sina (Onomast. s.v. Phamn.); for they obviously confound the city of Paran with the wilderness mentioned in Numbers (xii. 16, xiii. 3); and the description is so vague as to prove only their ignorance, if not of the true site of the city Pharan (which they place 3 days east of Aila), at least of the utter want of all connection between this and the desert of Zin, which is Paran ; and in this, as in other passages, on which much reliance has been placed in this discussion, it is clear that they are not writing from any local knowledge, but simply draw- ing deductions from the Scripture narrative (see e. g. Onomast. s. v. Raphadim), which we are per- haps equally competent to do. The earliest Chris- tian writer, then, who can be quoted as a witness to the true site of the " Jlountain of the Law " is Cosmas Indicopleustes (circ. A. d. 530), who un- doubtedly describes Mount Choreb, in the Sinaic (desert ?), as near to Pharan, about 6 miles distant; and this Pharan must be the Pharan of the eccle- siastical annals, whose ruins at the foot of Mount Serbal have been noticed above. This then is direct historical testimony in favour of a hypothesis first started by Burckhardt in modern times, advocated by Dr. Lepsius, and adopted by Mr. Forster and others. But then it appears to be the only clear historical evidence, and must therefore be compared with that in favour of the existing tradition, which, as it is accepted in its main features by Drs. Piobin- son and Wilson, Eitter, Mr. Stanley, and other emi- nent scholars, is obviously not unworthy of regard. Tiiat the present convent of St. Catharine w.os ori- ginally founded by the emperor Justinian (about A. D. 556), is as certain as any fact in history; and it is equally difficult to imagine that, at so short an interval after the journey of Cosmas, the remem- brance of the true Sinai could have been lost, and that the emperor or the monks would have acquiesced in what they knew to be a fictitious site ; for the mountain had long been regarded with veneration by the monks, who, however, had erected no monastery before this time, but dwelt in the mountains and valleys about the bush in which God appeared to SINAL Moses (Eutychii Annates, torn. ii. p. 163; comp. Procopius, De Aedificiis Jiostiniani, v. 8); so that when their monasteries are mentioned in earlier times, it is clear that the monastic cells only are to be understood. On the whole, then, the testimony of Cosmas can hardly avail against a tradition which was not originated, but only perpetuated, by the erection of Justinian's mon.astery. To this historical argument in favour of the existing traditions a topo- graphical one may be added. If Rephidim is cor- rectly placed by Dr. Lepsius and others at Wady Faran, at the foot of Serial, it seems to follow in- contestably that Serbal cannot be Sinai ; for what occasion could there be for the people to decamp from Eephidim, and journey to Sinai, if Rephidim were at the very base of the mount ? (Exod. xix. 1,2). Dr. Lepsius feels the difficulty, and attempts to remove it by insinuating that the sacred narra- tive is not to be implicitly trusted. That Horeb is mentioned in connection with Rephidim is certainly a palpable difliculty {Exod. xviii. 1 — 6), but in a choice of difficulties it is safer to adopt that which does least violence to the sacred text. By far the strongest argument in favour of the identity of Serbal with Sinai is to be found in the celebrated inscriptions with which the rocks on that mountain and in the surrounding valleys are covered. Not that anything can be certainly determined from these mysterious records, while the art of deciphering them is still in its infancy. The various theories respecting them cannot here be discussed; the works containing them are referred to at the end of the article : but it may be well to put on record the whole of the earliest testimony concerning them, and to offer for their elucidation an observation suggested by an early writer which has been strangely over- looked in this discussion. It is an interesting theory of Cosmas Lidicopleustes, that the Israelites, having been instructed in written characters in the Deca- logue given in Horeb, were practised in writing, as in a quiet school, in the desert for forty years: " from whence it comes to pass," he proceeds, " that you may see in the desert of Jlount Sinai, and in all the stations of the Hebrews, all the rocks in those parts, which have rolled down from the moun- tains, engraven with Hebrew inscriptions, as I my- self, who journeyed in those parts, testify; which certain Jews also having read, interpreted to us, saying that they were written thus. ' The pil- grimage (airepais) of such an one, of such a tribe, in such a year, and such a month,' — as is frequently written in our hostelries. For they, having newly acquired the art, practised it by multiplying writing, so that all those places are full of Hebrew inscrip- tions, preserved even unto this time, on account of the unbelievers, as I think; and any one who wishes can visit those places and see them, or they can in- quire and learn concerning it that I have spoken the truth." (Cosmas Indicopleustes, de Muiido, lib. V. apud Jlontfaucon, Collectio Nova Patruvi, torn. ii. p. 205.) On this it may suffice to remark, that while it is certain that the characters are neither the original nor later Hebrew, — i. e. neither Phoenician nor Chaldaic, — still the Jews in Cosmas's company could decipher them. We know that they are for the most part similar to the ancient Arabian (the Hamyaritic or Hadramutic) character, with which the whole region in the south of the Arabian peninsula teems. If, then, Mr. Forster's ingenious and very probable conjecture of the identity of the rock-hewn inscription of Hissn Ghorub with that