Skip to main content

Full text of "The Hebrew migration from Egypt"

See other formats 


m 


c*a«i  .:3JiE,'i>t->.-,»,v,.r-; 


Wm>, 


■(^:s^^;/x^i^Mi^,/:w.->i^n»>  ■  •'*■  • -^ ;,"-'.' y-'^y^ 


^o._. 


I 


THE 


HEBREW  MIGRATION  FROM  EGYPT 


SttUantpiu  prtSB 

BALLANTVNE   AND    HANSON,   EDINULRlill 
CHANDOS    STREET,   LONDON 


THE 


HEBREW  MIGRATION 


FROM    EGYPT 


"  It  were  better  to  have  no  opinion  of  God  at  all  than  such  an  opinion  as  is 
unworthy   of  Him  ;    for  the  one  is  unbelief,  the  other  is  contumely 
and  as  the  contumely  is  greater  towards  God,  so  the  danger  is  greater  towards 
men." — Bacon. 


L.ONDON 

TRLJBNER    AND    CO.,    LUDGATE    HILL 

1879 

[All  Rii^hts  Reserved] 


PREFACE. 


TT  may,  perhaps,  be  convenient  to  preface  this  treatise  by 
-'■  a  few  words.  It  is  an  attempt  to  give  an  intelligible,  and, 
at  the  same  time,  a  liistorically  true  accoimt  of  the  Hebrew 
settlement  in  Egypt,  the  servitude,  with  the  subsequent 
movement,  of  the  liberated  captives  to  the  region  on  the 
east  of  the  Jordan — a  movement  which,  for  want  of  a  better 
term,  I  have  called  a  migration. 

In  fulfilling  this  task,  I  have  confined  myself  to  an 
examination  of  the  early  Hebrew  traditions,  as  set  forth  in 
records  still  preserved  to  us,  comparing  the  inferences 
deducible  therefrom  with  the  opinions  entertained  in 
Palestine  down  to  the  fourth  century  of  the  Christian  era, 
and  vnth.  local  traditions,  which  can  be  carried  back  from 
the  present  day  to  the  time  of  the  Jewish  dispersion. 

I  have  found  it  necessary  to  introduce  this  inquiry  with 
some  general  remarks  on  the  nature  of  the  religion  of  the 
Hebrew  nomads.  So  much  light  has  been  thrown  of  late 
years  upon  this  interesting  subject  by  the  Dutch  and 
German  schools,  that  the  views  I  have  expressed  will  not 
surprise  those  who  have  followed  the  recent  progress  of 
Biblical  criticism.  It  is,  however,  right  I  should  add,  that 
with  the  gTeat  bulk  of  this  portion  of    Dutch   and   German 

b 


vi  PREFACE. 

literature  I  am  unfauiiliar.  It  may  be,  that  in  the  course 
of  this  work  I  liave  expressed  opinions  which,  though 
original  in  the  sense  of  not  having  been  boiTOwed,  may 
already  have  found  expression  elsewhere.  If  such  should 
be  the  case,  I  trust  I  shall  be  acquitted  of  dishonesty.  I 
have  invariably  acknowledged  my  indebtedness  when  I 
have  availed  myself  of  the  labours  of  others. 

I  have  passed  unnoticed  the  multitudinous  works  of 
those  who  have  taken  the  liberated  Hebrews  into  the 
Sinaitic  peninsula,  and  speculated  according  to  their  fancies 
(ju  tlie  wanderings  in  the  Desert.  I  trust  that  I  shall  not 
be  considered  discourteous  on  this  account.  My  views 
differ  so  completely  from  theirs,  that  no  good  purpose  would 
have  been  served  by  directing  attention  to  opinions  only 
for  the  purpose  of  assailing  them.  Whether  the  vei-sion  of 
the  Hebrew  migration  given  by  me  or  tliat  hitlierto  re- 
ceived should  command  acceptance,  must  in  the  last  resort 
depend  on  the  original  historical  materials  upon  wliich  tlie 
story  must  be  founded. 

JVovember,.i  879. 


CONTEXTS. 


PAGE 
I 


Introduction 

Objects  of  the  inquiry— Leading  features  of  Hebrew  traditions— 
Tiie  religion  of  tbe  Hebrew  notuads— Its  Henothelsm— No  belief  in 
a  Future  State— Tbe  Tetragranimaton— Errors  'arising  from  its 
interpretation  as  Lord — Materials  for  this  inquiry. 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  Settlement   in  Egypt — The   Bondage 26 

The  accounts  given  by  Manetho— Period  of  sojourn  in  Egypt,  and 
date  of  Exodus— How  the  settlement  began— The  story  of  Joseph- 
Its  true  interpretation. 

CHAPTER   IT. 
The  Departure  from  Egypt 47 

Possible  cause  of  liberation  of  the  Captives— The  passage  of  the 
Ked  Sea — Not  mentioned  in  the  early  traditions  of  the  Exodus— Pro- 
bable origin  of  legend — Brugsch  Bey's  views  respecting  scene  of  the 
occurrence— The  Jam  Suph — Interpretation  of  name — Its  locality — 
Jephthah's  account  of  the  migration  from  Egypt. 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  Region  from  which  the  Exodus  took  place      ...       87 

Places  named  in  Hebrew  traditions — Variety  of  suggestions  for  their 
identification — Brugsch  Bey's  views — The  region  of  the  Captivity  pro- 
bably in  the  neighbourhood  of  Zoan-Tanis. 


viii  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

PAGE 

The  Composition  of  the  Emigrants 102 

Israel  and  Judah  always  distinct — Their  rivalry — Early  traditions 
in  which  "  Beni-Israel"  and  "  Hebrews"  are  respectively  mentioned — 
Allusions  to  the  "Hebrews"  in  the  historical  books — The  "Mixed 
Multitude  " — The  visit  to  Egypt  by  a  tribe  of  sbe])herds — The  Shasu 
from  the  land  of  Aduma. 


CHAPTER  V. 

The  Region  thaversed  by  the  Emigrants — The  Mount  of 

Elohim 122 

Accepted  account  of  the  migration— The  Book  of  Numbers— The 
Tih  and  the  Sinaitic  Teuinsula- The  Araba— The  Mount  of  Elohim — 
Allusions  to  it  subsequent  to  the  settlement  in  Palestine — The  Song  of 
Deborah— The  Blessing  of  Moses— Habakkuk— The  Parable  of  Elijah 
— St.  Paul — The  limits  of  Arabia — Josephus'  description  of  Mount 
Sinai,  and  account  of  the  flight  of  Moses  from  Egypt— The  Troglo- 
dytes—Midian. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Eai!ly  Traditions  of  the  Migration 161 

The  flight  of  Moses  to  Midian— Situation  of  Midian— The  route 
from  Ranieses  to  the  Mount  of  Elohim— The  JwidiAar  of  Shur—Marah 
— Elim-Eiath — The  Sinaitic  Peninsula — Egyptian  occupation — Sarbut- 
el-Khadem— Diversity  of  opinion  respecting  the  true  Sinai— The 
Hajj  route  across  the  Tih — Abiar  Alaina,  Marah— 3//(/Wi«/-  of  Sin— 
The  Araba— The  names  given  to  the  Mount  of  Elohim— Sinai — 
Choreb—Paran-The  battle  with  the  Amalekites— Philological  charac- 
teristics of  names  of  places  in  traditions  of  the  migration. 


CHAPTER   VII. 
The  Valley  of  Moses 


209 


Tlie  Nabnthroan  capital  — The  -Sfi— Ain  Mftsa — Aaron's  Plains— 
The  Deir— Mount  Hor — Earliest  traditions  respecting  Mount  Seir— 
The  Kenites. 


CONTENTS.  ix 

CHAPTER   VIII. 

PA6B 

The  Local  Traditions  of  Edom 228 

Eusebius  and  Jerome— The  Ononiasticon — Choreb — Hor— Kadesh — 
Pharan — Petra— The  rock  struck  by  Moses — The  Peutinger  Table — 
The  Targumists — Kadesh-Rekam-Petra — The  Waters  of  Contra- 
diction— Ignorance  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome  respecting  the  precise 
situation  of  Mount  of  Elohim — The  Crusaders — The  expeditions  of 
Baldwin  into  Arabia  Tertia — Fulcher  of  Chartres — Albert  of  Aix — 
Arabian  and  Egyptian  authorities — Expedition  of  Sultan  Bibors  to 
Petra — *'  Villages  of  the  Children  of  Israel." 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Edom — Judah 259 

Saul's  campaign  against  the  Amalekites — The  scenes  of  David's 
adventures,  when  puisued  by  Saul — En-gedi — The  city  of  Palms — The 
boundaries  of  Judah — The  position  of  Kadesh. 


CHAPTER  X. 

The  Traditions  of  the  Patriarchs .     287 

The  Hebrew  settlement  in  Edom — The  Negeb — No  settlement  in 
Palestine — Identity  of  traditions  of  Abraham  and  Isaac — The  league 
with  Abimelech — The  wells  of  Esek  and  Sitnah — Hagar — Beer-lahai- 
roi — Gerai- — Bered — Gedor — ThePhelisti — The  Simeonite  emigration — 
The  tiachal  Gerar — Beer-sheba — Haran — The  Canaan  of  the  Patriarchs 
— Egyptian  records — Shur. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

The  Route  from  Elim — The  Mount  of  Elohim      .     .     .     .     316 

The  Araba — Kibroth-hat-Taavah — El  Daba — Eephidim — Hazeroth 
— The  Stk — The  Ear-ha-Har — The  Shechinah — Death  of  Miriam — 
Oblivion  into  which  the  Mount  of  Elohim  fell — Semitic  conceptions  of 
localisation  of  Deity — Deuteronomist's  account  of  Aaron's  death — The 
w  ells  of  Beui-Jaakan — TLe  phenomenon  of  the  burning  bush. 


X  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XII. 

PAGE 

TiiE  Stat  at  Kadesii  and  the  Journey  rouxd  Edom    .     .     343 

The  contemplated  invasion  of  Southern  Canaan — The  report  of  the 
Spies — Dissatisfaction  of  the  people — The  invasion  of  Canaan  and 
defeat  of  the  Hebrews — The  unsuccessful  negotiations  with  the  King  of 
Edom — The  route  from  Kadesh  to  Moab — The  dispossession  of  the 
Amorites — No  details  of  this  conquest  preserved  in  Cis-Jordanic  tradi- 
tions— Apostasy  of  the  emigrants  in  Moab — Its  explanation. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

The  Tuans-Jorpaxic  Settlement 359 

The  story  of  the  partition  between  Reuben,  Gad,  and  half  JIanasseh — 
Its  Cis-Jordanic  origin — How  the  settlement  was  really  effected — The 
subsequent  movement  across  the  Jordan — The  first-born  of  Israel 
retained  possession  of  the  left  bank — Reuben — Manasseh — Confusion 
arising  in  later  times  from  misunderstanding  tribal  designations — 
The  Cis-Jordanic  version  of  the  settlement  on  the  east  of  the 
Jordan. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

TiiK  Wanderings 374 

The  wanderings  in  the  Desert  had  no  place  in  the  traditions  of  the 
migration — IIojv  the  belief  subsequently  arose — The  difference  between 
the  Cis-  and  Trans-Jordanic  versions  respecting  the  boundary  line  sepa- 
rating "the  Wilderness"  from  "  the  Promised  Land" — The  introduc- 
tory portion  of  the  Book  of  Joshua — Interpretation  of  the  words 
wiiich  have  been  translated  "  wander" — The  "forty  years,"  and  the 
supply  of  manna. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

The  Trans-  and   Cis-Jordanic    Traditions  respecting    the 

Death  of  Moses 392 

The  Mount  Abarim — The  land  of  Moab  — The  nachal  Zered — The 
Anion — Story  of  Elijah  and  the  ravens — The  nachul  lla-Arabim — The 
Valley  of  Willows — Mount  Nebo — The  narrative  of  Balaam  and  Balak 
— Fragment  of  ancient  Itinerary  of  places  on  the  border  of  the  Wilder- 
ness— .Sbittim — The  Pisgah — The  topography  of  region  south  of  the 
Aruou — Cis-Jordauic  version  of  original  story  of  death  of  Moses. 


CONTENTS.  xi 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

PAGE 

Conclusion 416 

The  only  reliable  materials  for  construction  of  story  of  the  migra- 
tion— Earliest  sources  of  history — The  story-tellers  and  bards — Hetero- 
geneous elements  of  Jewish  history — The  land  of  the  Hebrews — 
Religion  of  the  Hebrews  and  its  influence  on  their  early  traditions — 
The  stories  told  and  preserved  must  have  been  intelligible — Original 
story  of  the  settlement  in  Egypt  and  migration — Its  subsequent  moui- 
fications — The  Mount  of  Elohim — The  land  in  which  it  must  have 
stood — The  three  stages  of  the  migration — Final  amalgamation  of  dis- 
tinct traditions  and  consequent  confusion — Mischievous  consequences 
flowing  from  accepted  mode  of  dealing  with  the  Pentateuch. 


]Map  to  Illustrate  Hebrew  Migration  ....       Frontispiece 
Map  of  Petra 216 


THE    HEBREW    MIGRATION 


EGYPT, 


INTEODUCTIOK 

I  ^HE  story  of  the  Exodus  is  one  of  the  oldest  in  the 
"*-  world.  It  is  also  one  of  the  least  understood.  That 
this  should  he  so  has  arisen  from  a  variety  of  causes.  The 
story  itself  is  told  in  a  hook  which,  it  is  alleged,  contains 
exclusively  the  Word  of  God ;  and  writings  placed  on  so 
lofty  a  pinnacle  necessarily  stand  heyond  the  pale  of  human 
criticism.  It  has  also  been  the  accepted  behef  that  the 
Books'""  in  which  the  story  we  refer  to  is  to  be  found  were 
written  by  Moses ;  tha,t  he  occupied  the  exceptional  position 
of  a  divinely-appointed  historian  ;  and  it  has  consequently 
been  not  illogically  inferred  that  the  materials  must  be  so 
far  homogeneous  and  the  narrative  so  far  continuous,  that 
the  same  stories  cannot  be  told  in  different  forms,  nor  the 
same  events  recorded  as  having  happened  at  different  places 
and  different  times.  Any  objections  based  on  the  im- 
probability or  the  unintelligibility  of  the  story  as  presented 
under  this  mode  of  treatment  are  overruled  as  equally 
irrelevant  and  untenable,  since  nothing  can  be  advanced 
by  man  which  can  shake  the  accm^acy  of  statements 
presumably  made  by  God.  If  the  narrative  of  Moses 
is  fragmentary,  unconnected,  and    in  places  contradictory  ; 


*  The  Pentateuch,  or   Five    Books  of    Moses — Genesis,   Exodus, 
Leviticus,  Numbers,  and  Deuteronomy. 

B 


2  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

and  if  it  apparently  represents  the  Deity  and  His 
chosen  people  in  colours  which  are  irreconcilable  with 
the  assumed  moral  excellence  of  the  one  and  the  supposed 
sanity  of  the  other,  it  is  concluded  that  the  distorted  picture 
is  the  result  of  our  want  of  appreciation,  or  it  may  be  our 
lack  of  faith.  The  consequence  is,  that  the  accepted  version 
of  the  Hebrew  migi'ation  from  Egypt  to  the  region  on  the 
east  of  the  Jordan  labours  under  the  greatest  defect  which 
can  attach  to  a  liistoricaL  production.  As  measured  by  ordi- 
nary canons,  it  is  totally  incomprehensible. 

It  is,  however,  legitimate  to  ask  whether  tliis  most 
interesting  story  is  as  unintelligiljle  as  it  is  represented, 
and  to  inquire  whether  the  materials  placed  at  our  disposal 
are  not  amply  sufficient  for  the  construction  of  a  narrative 
which  will  not  shock  by  its  distorted  representation  of  the 
ways  of  R'ovidence,  and  will  not  repel  by  its  hopeless 
improbability.  The  alleged  wanderings  of  the  Israelites 
hive  liitherto  been  shrouded  in  a  mystery  which  is  sup- 
posed to  be  impenetralile.  The  object  of  the  present 
ijKjuiry  will  be  to  lift  the  cloud. 

For  many  reasons  it  is  worth  Mhile  to  attempt  to  solve 
a  mystery  which  has  lutherto  been  regarded  as  inscrutable. 
Historical  accuracy  is  of  importance  in  all  matters,  great 
and  small ;  but  its  attainment  is  specially  desirable  in  con- 
nection with  an  event  which  exercised  so  great  an  influence 
on  the  future  of  mankind  as  the  migration  of  the  Hebrews 
from  Egypt  to  Canaan.  CJreat  advantage  also  arises  from 
an  accurate  concoijtion  df  tlie  materials  out  of  wliich  the 
early  history  of  the  i)cnj)le  of  Israel  came  to  be  formed, 
and  the  manner  in  whieli  those  materials  came  in  time 
to  be  welded  together  ;  the  opportunity  for  forming  sucli 
conceptions  licing  ])n'-t'iiiiii('nlly  atliti'ikMl  by  the  carefully 
preserved  traditiims  of  the  most  salient  events  wliich 
occurred  between  the   departure  from  Kgyi)t   and  the  arrival 


FROM  EGYPT.  3 

in  the  Trans-Jordanic  region.  But  especially  is  such  a  task 
worth  undertaking  with  the  view  of  rendering  justice  to  the 
Deity  to  whom  men — and  these,  for  the  most  part,  pious  men — 
attribute  the  most  capricious  and  preposterous  conduct  in 
achieving  a  work  which  was  the  turning-point  in  the 
national  existence  of  a  people  declared  to  be  specially  His 
own.  Whether  the  Almighty  interposed  more  directly  in 
the  movement  by  which  the  Hebrews  quitted  Egypt  and 
ultimately  settled  in  Canaan,  than  in  the  invasion  of 
England  by  the  Normans,  or  in  the  discovery  of  America  by 
Columbus,  is  a  question  with  which  it  is  unnecessary  to  deal 
in  this  inquiry.  But  whether  His  interposition  was  general 
or  special,  it  is  equally  desirable  to  demonstrate  from  the 
records  of  the  people  of  Israel  that  in  their  opinion  the  conduct 
of  their  protecting  God  was  neither  so  vacillating  nor  so 
irrational  as  it  is  now  almost  universally  believed  to  have 
been.  If  there  be  any  point  more  strongly  dwelt  upon  than 
another  in  the  accepted  version  of  the  "  Wanderings"  it  is  that 
God  personally  interposed  for  the  guidance  of  the  host  by  means 
of  a  pillar  of  fire  by  night  and  a  pillar  of  cloud  by  day;  and  we 
are  asked  to  marvel  at  this  extraordinary  solicitude  upon 
His  part  for  His  chosen  people,  who  it  is  inferred  would 
have  lost  their  way  but  for  this  miraculous  assistance.  And 
yet  in  the  same  breath  we  are  taught  that  this  Heaven- 
guided  people  were  led  to  and  fro  for  nearly  forty  years  in  a 
region  which  may  be  roughly  estimated  at  one  hundred 
miles  square,  adjacent  to  Canaan  and  to  Egypt,  and  furnishing 
the  only  line  of  communication  between  the  latter  powerful 
kingdom  and  the  East — a  region  which  they  could  at  any 
time  have  quitted  in  less  than  a  week ;  and  further,  that 
they  were  conducted  in  this  miraculous  manner  "  nowhere," 
for  no  other  purpose   than  that  of  letting  them   die   out."^ 


*  Numbers  xiv.  29*33. 
B  2 


4  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

Whatever  may  liave  been  the  shortcomings  of  the  Israelites, 
and  however  wanting  in  faith,  tliey  would  not  only  have 
been  justified  in  abandoning  a  protecting  God  who  treated 
them  in  this  manner;  but  they  would  most  assuredly  have 
done  so,  and  have  returned  to  the  flesh-pots  of  Egyi)t,  instead 
of  wearily  trudging  about  in  the  wilderness  until  they 
perished.  It  is  only  just  to  the  memory  of  the  Hebrews  to 
say  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  traditions  they  have  left  us 
to  support  the  behef  that  they  were  ever  treated,  or 
even  thought  they  were  treated,  in  so  scurvy  a  fashion.  It 
was  reserved  for  the  ingenuity  and  the  piety  of  a  later  age 
to  make  the  Creator  of  Heaven  and  Earth  play  the  part  of 
a  wdll-o'-the-wisp. 

One  of  the  results  of  modern  Biblical  criticism  has  been 
to  establisli  the  non-Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 
There  are  many  who  are  unconvinced,  or  who  affect  to  be 
unconvinced,  fearing  to  make  a  concession  which  might 
endanger  the  foundation  upon  which  rests  the  claim  of  the 
Scriptures  to  be  regarded  as  the  Word  of  God.  Others, 
more  thoughtfid  or  more  honest,  admit  that  the  work  of 
many  hands  in  the  creation,  and  the  compilation  of  the 
Books  of  the  Law,  is  too  apparent  to  allow  of  contradiction ; 
but  urge  that  the  fact  of  their  not  having  been  written 
by  Moses  is  nevertheless  reconcilable  with  tlie  doctrine  of 
Inspiration  in  the  broad  sense  of  that  most  elastic  word. 
Without  expressing  an  opinion^ upon  this  knotty  point,  it 
will  perhaps  be  admitted  even  by  those  who  believe  that 
God  "  caused  all  Holy  Scriptures  to  be  \\Titten  for  our  learn- 
ing," that  men  are  not  relieved  from  the  responsibility  of 
exercising  the  intelligence  wath  wliich  God  has  endowed 
them  in  order  to  ascertain  how  they  came  to  be  wi-itten,  and 
what  it  is  they  mean. 

And  tlie  fulfilment  of  tin's  duty  is  necessary,  not  only  for 
the   attainment    of  historical  trutli,  b\it    in    order   to    make 


FROM  EGYPT.  5 

amends   to    the    Deity    whose   character    is    so    habitually 
maligned  by  well-meaning  men  who  quietly  fold  their  hands, 
and  sheltering  themselves  behind  the  statue  of  a  "  Divine 
historian,"  coolly  throw  the  responsibility  of  their  calumnies 
on  the  Being   whom  they   traduce.      Only  one   illustration 
out   of    many  is    supplied    by  the   accepted    story   of  the 
manner   in  which  the    Hebrews    were  led   from   Egypt   to 
Canaan.     It  is  possible  the   Deity  may  regard  with   indif- 
ference  or    contempt    the    imputations    of    cruelty,   deceit, 
vacillation,  and  injustice   so   freely  lavished   upon  Him  by 
His   "  servants ;"    but    still    it    would    seem   only    prudent 
to   endeavour  to  regard  Him  in   a  more   favourable  light. 
When  a  conscientious,  painstaking   man  conceives   himself 
compelled   to  convict  the  Almighty  out  *of  His  own  mouth 
of  some  astounding  piece  of  rascality,  he  would  do  well  to 
ask  himself  whether  he  has  heard  aright,  or  whether  it  is 
really  the  Deity  who  has  spoken,  instead  of  holding  up  the 
crime  to  the   admiration   of  mankind,  and   thereby  sapping 
the  foundations  upon  which   all  religion  and  morality  must 
ultimately  rest.     Men  cannot  play  fast-and-loose  with  the 
principles  of  truth  and  justice   without  necessarily  demora- 
lising those   who  listen  to  them,  and  the  pages  of  history 
furnish  only  too  abundant  illustrations  of  the  evil  conse- 
quences of  presenting  a  cruel,  vindictive,  and  treacherous  Deity 
for  the  admiration  and  imitation  of  mankind.     The  sophism 
that  God's  justice   is   not   as   man's  justice  does   not  need 
refutation.      Unless  there  be  a  common  standing-ground  for 
the  judge  and  the  accused  at  that  final  tribunal  before  which 
we  must  all  appear,  Divine  Justice,  so   far  as  the   human 
race  is  concerned,  would  be  a  mockery  and  a  snare. 

If  we  place  for  a  moment  on  one  side  the  assumption 
that  the  Books  ascribed  to  Moses  were  written  by  him,  and 
if  we  take  into  consideration  the  social  condition  of  the 
Israelites  on  quitting  Egypt,  the  then  low  standard  of  educa- 


6  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

tion  and  tlie  ir,'norance  of  the  art  of  alphabetical  writing 
even  in  Egyjit,  we  should  be  led  to  conclude  that  the  events 
connected  with  the  journeyings  of  the  Israelites  were  not 
simultaneously  recorded  in  a  consecutive  history.  We  should, 
in  fact,  anticipate  that  the  recollection  of  the  most  notable 
events  was  preserved  in  traditions  which  in  later  times  came 
to  be  committed  to  ^vriting.  In  these  traditions  we  should 
not  expect  to  meet  with  more  than  general  allusions  to 
remarkable  occurrences,  we  should  look  for  no  attempt  at 
chronology,  and  we  should  not  be  surprised  if,  in  the  event 
of  the  progress  of  the  expedition  having  undergone  a  pro- 
tracted check,  the  non-eventful  current  of  a  nomadic  exist- 
ence supplied  during  that  time  no  materials  worthy  of 
preservation  in  the  recollections  of  the  people. 

But  possessing  as  we  do  a  knowledge  of  the  diverse 
elements  of  whicli  the  Jewish  nation  came  to  be  composed  ; 
the  existence  in  early  times  of  distinct  tribes ;  the  settle- 
ments effected  on  opposite  sides  of  the  Jordan ;  and,  at  a 
later  period,  the  establishment  of  the  two  gi-eat  and  antago- 
nistic nations  of  Judali  and  Israel ;  we  should  not  be  asto- 
nished if  we  found  in  the  records  handed  dow^n  to  us  tra- 
ditions apparently  dissimilar,  but  really  identical — stories  told 
with  more  or  less  variation,  and  exhibiting  differences,  some- 
times merely  of  dialect,  which  betrayed  not  necessarily 
different  origins,  but  a  diversity  of  channels  through  which 
they  were  transmitted. 

But  as,  in  process  of  time,  these  traditions  were  committed 
to  writing — that  duty  being,  in  all  probability,  discharged 
by  men  of  tlie  priestly  caste — we  should  expect  tlie  records 
to  assume  what  may  l)e  termed  a  priestly  tinge.  Events  of 
great  imitortance,  departures  on  momentous  journeys,  arrivals 
at  places  whicli  became  the  scenes  of  memorable  incidents, 
would  Ije  assumed  to  have  happened  on  the  occasion  of 
particular  festivals ;    and    thus  the  history   M'ould    become 


FROM  EGYPT.  7 

invested  witli  an  apparent  minuteness  and  accuracy  of  detail 
which  from  its  traditional  origin  it  could  never  have  pos- 
sessed. 

One  other  and  pre-eminently  striking  feature  might  witli 
confidence  be  looked  for  in  these  traditions.  The  great  his- 
torical fact  could  never  be  forgotten  by  the  Hebrew  settlers 
on  botli  sides  of  the  Jordan — that  they  had  quitted  Egypt 
as  slaves,  and  forced  their  way  into  their  new  home  as  con- 
querors ;  and  it  lay  at  the  foundation  of  their  religious  belief 
that  their  protecting  God  had  given  them  this  land  in  com- 
pliance with  a  solemn  covenant.  Looking  back  therefore 
on  the  past  from  the  standpoint  of  the  present,  there  would 
arise  an  irresistible  tendency  to  mould  their  traditions  into 
shapes  conformable  with  this  belief.  Bufe  there  were  many 
stern  and  unpalatable  facts  which  no  ingenuity  could  recon- 
cile with  the  assumption  that  their  God,  in  leading  them  out 
of  Egypt,  and  conducting  them  into  the  land  which  He  liad 
sworn  to  give  them,  had  not  only  taken  the  control  of  the 
expedition  into  His  own  hands,  but  had  used  His  presum- 
ably invincible  power  to  give  effect  to  His  designs.  It  w^as 
impossible  to  blink  the  fact  that,  notwithstanding  the  alleged 
daily  visible  interposition  of  the  Deity,  the  Hebrews  made 
neither  a  more  rapid  nor  a  more  successful  advance  tlian 
might  have  been  expected  if  God  had  left  them  to  their 
own  unaided  resources.  In  truth,  it  was  quite  the  other 
way.  Less  than  a  week  w^ould  have  sufficed  for  the  libe- 
rated captives,  after  quitting  Egypt,  to  enter  the  smiling 
vineyards  and  mellow  cornfields  of  Philistia ;  and,  as  they 
are  said  to  have  marshalled  six  hundred  thousand  fiohtino- 
men,'"  which,  with  women,  children,  young  and  old,  must 
have  raised  the  number  of  the  emigrants  to  between  two  and 
tln-ee  millions,  the  materials  for  a  successful  invasion  were 

*  Exodus  xii.  37. 


8  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

ready  at  hand,  even  throwing  out  of  account  tlie  direct  co- 
operation of  the  Almighty.  It  was,  however,  only  too  noto- 
rious that  the  Israelites  did  not  march  directly  towards  the 
land  of  promise  ;  and  this  came  to  he  explained  by  the  naive 
assumption  that  God  was  apprehensive  that,  if  brought  into 
immediate  conflict  with  their  enemies,  His  chosen  peo])le 
would  be  terrified  and  return  to  Egypt,  thereby  frustrating 
His  great  design/'  It  was  also  a  fact  indelibly  impressed 
upon  the  memory  of  the  people,  that  the  interval  whicli 
elapsed  between  the  Exodus  from  Egypt  and  the  crossing  of 
the  Jordan  was  so  considerable,  that  the  generation  which 
quitted  Egypt  died  out  before  the  land  of  promise  was 
reached ;  and  it  became  necessary  to  explain  a  circumstance 
so  apparently  irreconcilable  with  the  design  and  with  the 
antecedent  conduct  of  the  protecting  Deity  by  assuming 
that  the  perverseness  and  querulousness  and  want  of  faitli 
on  the  part  of  the  liberated  captives  were  so  great,  that  the 
boon  especially  intended  for  them  was,  on  reconsideration  by 
the  Deity,  withheld  and  given  to  their  children — not  even 
Moses  nor  Aaron  escaping  this  manifestation  of  the  Divine 
displeasure.  But  as  the  precise  length  of  this  interval  was 
forgotten,  the  non-existence  at  that  period  of  any  era  to  fui-^ 
nish  a  basis  of  computation,  and  the  monotonous  tenour  of  a 
nomadic  life  rendering  it  equally  difficult  and  apparently 
useless  to  jn-eserve  a  record  of  time,  tradition  availed  itself 
of  a  general  form  of  expression  to  fix  the  period  passed  in 
the  wilderness,  and  called  it  forty  years,  t 


*  Exodus  xiii.  17. 
t  Bredow,  in  his  i>reface  to  "  Syncellus,"  thus  explains  the  use  of 
the  word  "  forty"  in  the  Hebrew  language,  to  express  an  unknown  but 
considerable  period  :  "  Causam  hujus  modi  loquendi,  non  in  casu  cui 
quidcm  in  usu  dicondi  niniiuni  arbitriuni  est,  sed  in  etyniologia  reperire 
posse  arbitror.  Nam  D*yn")S  arlniliciin,  quadraginta  et  nanX  arhch, 
niultitudo  ab  eadem  origiue  2")  rah,  multiim,  deducenda  esse  videntur. 
Fortasse    principio     multitudinem    non    stricto    tinitam    significant 


FROM  EGYPT.  9 

But  if  the  result  of  a  careful  examination  of  tlie  records 
preserved  to  us  of  this  portion  of  Jewish  history  is  to 
establish  that  all  the  materials  we  possess  are  stamped  with 
those  characteristics  which  we  would  have  looked  for  on  the 
assumption  that  it  was  not  written  by  Moses  or  a  co- 
temporary,  and  was  not  a  connected  and  consecutive  narrative ; 
if  we  find  that  it  is  made  up  of  disjointed  fragments  bearing 
a  strong  family  likeness  ;  if  we  hear  the  same  stories  told, 
or  the  same  events  recorded,  with  only  such  trifling  differences 
as  might  be  expected  in  a  later  compilation  of  the  traditions 
of  a  people  composed  of  different  elements ;  if  tliroughout 
we  notice  the  colouring  which  can  alone  be  imparted  when 
the  past  and  not  the  present  is  depicted,  and  which  is  sug- 
gested by  the  wisdom  which  follows  the  event ;  if,  in  a  word, 
we  find  that  the  whole  considered  in  its  entirety  presents 


paulatim  vero  nomen  certi  numeri  factum  est,  qnanquam  significa- 
tione  infinitae  multitudinis  non  omissa."  Bredow  cites  a  great  many 
instances  in  which,  the  number  "  forty"  is  employed  in  the  Old 
Testament,  But  still  more  may  be  found  by  referring  to  Cruden's  Con- 
cordance, or  to  Tlie  Eiiglishmaii's  Hebrew  and  Chaldee  Concordance 
^a  most  valuable  book.  In  some  cases  the  indefinite  sense  in  which 
the  word  is  used  is  intrinsically  apparent ;  as,  for  example,  when  the 
life  of  Moses  is  divided  into  three  periods  of  forty  years.  He  was 
forty  when  he  fled  from  Egypt,  eighty  when  he  returned  to  liberate 
Israel,  and  a  hundred-and-twenty  when  he  died.  Again,  Israel  is  said 
to  have  enjoyed  peace  forty  years  after  the  Mesopotamian  captivity 
(Jadges  iii.  1 1) ;  forty  years  after  the  victory  of  Deborah  (Judges  v.  31) ; 
and  forty  years  after  the  subjection  of  the  Midianites  (Judges  viii.  28). 
In  other  instances,  the  number  forty,  if  taken  literally,  is  hopelessly  in- 
consistent with  admitted  facts ;  as,  e.g.,  where  Absalom  is  said  to  have 
come  to  David  after  "  forty"  years  (2  Sam.  xv.  7).  A  similar  illustra- 
tion to  the  last  is  afforded  in  the  brief  inscription  on  the  Moabite 
stone,  where  it  is  said  that  "  Omri,  the  king  of  Israel,  took  the  land  of 
Medeba,  and  the  enemy  occupied  it  in  his  days,  and  in  the  days  of  his  son, 
forty  years."  But  according  to  the  Book  of  Kings,  Omri  reigned  only 
twelve  years,  and  Ahab  his  son  twenty -two  years  (i  Kings  xvi.  23-29) ; 
so  that  we  have  here  a  proof  that  the  word  was  used  as  late  as  the 
ninth  century  b.c.  in  the  Jordanic  region  in  a  broad  and  indefinite 
sense. — Ginsburg,  The  Moabite  Stone,  1871. 


lo  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

such  a  confusion  of  times,  events,  and  places  (not  to  speak 
of  legislation)  as  to  render  it,  humanly  speaking,  impossible 
that  any  one  could  ever  have  intended  it  to  furnish  a  conse- 
cutive or  consistent  narrative  ;  then  we  should  be  compelled 
to  conclude  that  the  common  assumption  that  it  is  such  a 
narrative,  and  was  the  work  of  a  single  hand,  is  erroneous ; 
and  if  we  desired  to  gather  a  clear  idea  of  the  events  of 
wliich  it  treated,  we  should  equally  be  compelled  to  deal 
\\\\\\  its  materials  as  we  found  them,  and  as  we  should 
unquestionably  deal  with  them  in  any  ordinary  records. 

It  would  be  outside  the  scope  of  this  essay  to  enter  into  a 
detailed  explanation  of  the  religion  of  the  people,  the  course 
of  whose  journeyings  we  propose  to  follow  from  the  Xile  to 
the  Jordan.  But  as  it  is  difficult  to  form  a  correct  idea  of  the 
general  tone  of  the  records  we  are  about  to  examine  without 
at  least  some  broad  conceptions  upon  this  point,  it  may  be 
convenient  to  offer  the  follo^^^ng  observations. 

Tlie  religion  of  the  Hebrews,  at  the  period  of  which  we 
are  about  to  treat,  and  for  long  centuries  afterwards,  was  in 
one  sense  Polytheistic,  in  another  sense  Henotheistic,  but  in 
no  sense  Monotheistic.  Polytlieism  is  the  belief  in  the 
existence  of  many  gods.  Henotheism  is  the  worship  of  one 
god  out  of  a  number,  whose  existence  and  powers  are  never- 
theless unquestioned.  Monotlieism  is  the  belief  in,  and 
worship  of,  one  God,  to  the  absolute  exclusion  of  any  other 
deity.'^^  The  Israelites  never  dreamt  of  denying  that  other 
tribes  or  nations  had  their  gods.  It  was  part  of  their  belief 
that  each  nation  or  people  had  its  protecting  god  or  gods, 
and  that  the  obligations  existing  respectively  between  the 
protectors  and  the  protected  were  matters  exclusively  of 
national  concern.     Tlie  flippancy  with  which  Naomi,  when 


*  See  on  these  distinctions,  Max  Miiller,   (y/itps  from  a   Geiman 
Workshoi),  i.  353,  354. 


FROM  EGYPT.  ir 

returning  from  Moab  to  her  home  in  Judah,  tells  her 
daughters-in-law  to  return  to  their  people  and  their  Gods, 
and  the  levity  with  which  Euth  declares  that  she  will  never 
part  from  her  mother-in-law — "  Thy  people  shall  be  my 
people,  and  thy  God  my  God,'""" — only  so  strike  us  because 
the  language  of  the  two  women  is  measured  by  our  own 
standard  of  relioious  thought.  But  it  never  occurred  to 
Naomi  to  suggest  to  her  daughters-in-law  to  worship  false 
gods,  or  what  she  considered  to  be  such,  or  to  Ruth  to 
express  her  readiness  to  exchange  her  religion  for  the  pre- 
sumably diffeient  religion  of  Naomi.  They  only  severally 
gave  expression  to  the  acknowledged  principle  that  residence 
with  a  "  people"  necessarily  involved  the  service  of  that 
people's  Gods.  The  choice  of  apeople  carrietl  with  it  the  accept- 
ance of  the  national  deity.  "  Qui  sentit  commodum  sentire 
debet  et  onus,"  was  a  maxim  which  lay  at  the  very  founda- 
tion of  the  Semitic  religions.  A  stranger  could  not  benefit 
by  the  prosperity  of  a  people  without  serving  the  Gods  to 
whom  that  prosperity  was  believed  to  be  due. 

The  religious  obligations  of  the  Semitic  tribes  were  care- 
fully prescribed  by  covenants,  and  foremost  amongst  the 
obligations  imposed  upon  the  Israelities  was  the  duty  of 
worshipping  no  other  God  in  the  presence  of  the  protecting 
deity .t     It  never  occurred   to  the  Israelites  that  their  God 


*  Ruth  i.  10-16.  The  same  word  Eloah  (the  poetic  form  of  Elohim), 
is  used  by  Naomi  when  speaking  of  the  "  Gods"  of  Moab,  as  by  Ruth 
when  declaring  her  willingness  to  accejat  the  country  and  the  "  Gods" 
of  Naomi's  choice. 

t  The  literal  translation  of  the  concluding  words  of  the  First  Com- 
mandment, "  Thou  shalt  have  n:o  other  God  before  me,"  is  "  before 
my  face."  When  an  Israelite  was,  for  example,  in  Moab,  he  was  no 
longer  "  coram  deo  suo,"  and  he  could  worship  the  Elohim  of  Moab 
without  offence.  Indeed,  but  for  this  qualification,  which  there  is 
every  reason  to  believe  was  recognised  by  all  the  Semitic  tribes,  com- 
mercial and  social  intercourse  would  have  been  impossible  between 


12  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

would  punish  the  individuals  of  a  different  people  because 
they  did  not  serve  him,'"'  or  because  they  worshipped  then- 
own  deities,  since  from  the  Hebrew  standpoint  there  was  no 
obligation  upon  their  part  to  do  the  one,  or  to  abstain  from  the 
other.t  But  they  did  expect  that  when  their  own  interests  and 
those  of  others  conllicted,  their  God  would  make  his  power  felt 
in  their  behalf,  and  that  when  they  made  war  on  their  neigh- 
bours in  order  to  dispossess  them  of  their  territory,  he  would 
fight  their  battles  for  them,  and  discomfit  their  enemies.^ 


members  of  different  "  nations."  Care  must  be  taken,  however,  not  to 
confound  the  presence  of  an  individual,  or  even  of  a  number  of  indivi- 
duals in  a  "  strange"  land,  with  the  temporary  presence  of  a  "  people" 
or  "  tribe"  in  such  a  land.  The  materiality  of  this  distinction  will 
become  apparent  in  the  course  of  this  inquiry.  David  fully  recog- 
nised this  intimate  connection  between  residence  with  a  people  and  the 
worship  of  that  people's  Elohim,  when  appealing  to  Saul  to  readmit 
him  to  his  friendship,  and  to  permit  him  to  return.  "  They  have 
driven  me  out  this  day  from  abiding  in  the  inheritance  of  Jahveh, 
saying,  Go  serve  other  Gods." — i  Sam.  xxvi.  19. 

*  Jahveh,  the  protecting  God  of  Israel,  is  frequently  represented  as 
being  angry  with  his  people  ;  and  in  like  manner,  in  the  inscription  on 
the  Moabite  Stone,  Chemosh,  the  god  of  Moab,  is  stated  to  have  been 
angry  with  his  people,  and  to  have  punished  them  by  handing  them 
over  to  their  enemies. — The  Moabite  Stone,  Ginsburg.  The  feeling 
of  anger  which  the  Monotheist  believes  is  excited  in  the  breast  of  the 
Deity  cy  the  wickedness  of  any  of  his  creatures,  was  never  attributed  by 
the  Israelites  to  their  protecting  God,  save  through  their  own  default. 
Jahveh  might  wreak  vengeance  on  a  strange  people,  but  not  for  offences 
committed  against  him,  but  to  punish  it  for  wrongs  done  to  Israel. 

t  The  Monotheistic  gloss  that  the  Canaanites,  and  the  many  other 
'ites  whom  the  Hebrews  are  credited  .with  exterminating,  were  thus 
dealt  with  because  they  were  idolaters  and  served  other  gods  than  the 
God  of  the  Israelites,  is  without  the  shadow  of  a  shade  of  support  in 
the  Hebrew  records.  More  truly  good,  pious,  and  enlightened  men 
have  made  shipwreck  upon  this  rock  than  probably  upon  any  other. 

X  This  quaint  beUef,  which  was  by  no  means  illogical  under  a  system 
of  Heuotheistic  Polytheism,  when  the  people  who  were  despoiled  and 
e.'ctcrminatod  were  not  the  people  of  the  God  who  made  his  power  felt 
at  their  expense,  has  been  engrafted  on  Monotheism  with  very  ludi- 
crous results.  When,  for  example,  one  Monotheistic  people  makes  war 
on  another  with  the  object  of  "  annexing"  a  portion  of  its  territory,  if 


FROM  EGYPT.  13 

This  belief  in  a  special  protecting  deity  had,  however,  an 
irresistible  tendency  to  intensify  the  anthropomorphism 
which  all  men,  more  or  less,  manifest  in  their  conceptions  of 
the  Almighty.  The  protecting  God  became  clothed  with 
the  characteristics  of  humanity.  He  rejoiced  with  his 
people  in  their  prosperity,  he  grieved  with  them  in  their 
adversity.  He  was  by  turns  vindictive  and  indulgent,  easily 
irritated,  no  less  easily  appeased.  At  times  blind  in  his 
fury,  at  others  amenable  to  the  voice  of  reason  and  ready  to 
admit  the  cogency  of  argument.'""  But  the  Israelites 
specially  delighted  to  think  of  their  deity  as  a  warrior  using 
his  might  to  crush  and  annihilate  their  enemies,  or  exer- 
cising his  power  to  modify  or  suspend  the  laws  of  Nature 
for  their  special  benefit,  or  for  the  discomfiture  of  their 
adversaries.  The  belief  that  these  laws  could  be  thus  sus- 
pended was  at  that  period  universal,  but  was  specially  rife 
amongst   the   nomadic  tribes,t   and   the  Israelites  were  far 


the  raid  is  successful,  "  Te  Deums"  are  sung,  and  heartfelt  thanks 
expressed  to  the  Deity  for  His  all-powerful  aid  ;  but  if  unsuccessful,  it 
is  at  once  concluded  that  the  Divine  co-operation  in  the  contemplated 
rapine  and  robbery  was  withheld  on  account  of  the  antecedent  back- 
sliding of  the  aggressors.  The  "  Te  Deums"  are  then  sung  by  the 
other  side. 

*  Numbers  xiv.  13-20. 
t  All  travellers  concur  in  stating  that  none  are  more  credulous  in 
this  respect  than  the  Bedouin  tribes,  and  none  more  easily  imposed  on 
by  an  affected  possession  of  magical  powers.  Palmer  relates  an  anec- 
dote which  fairly  illustrates  the  credulity  of  the  denizens  of  the 
desert.  "  Taking  advantage  of  this  incident  (the  capture  of  a  snake), 
we  determined  to  amuse  the  Arabs  and  ourselves,  by  giving  them  an 
entertainment  of  magic;  so  after  dinner  we  displayed  the  box  con- 
taining the  jar  of  sj^irit  in  which  we  had  preserved  the  reptile,  and 
opening  it  with  great  mystery  and  pomp,  produced  an  excellent  toy 
imitation  of  a  serpent  which  we  had  purchased  at  Cremer's,  and  allowed 
it  to  curl  and  writhe  in  the  light  of  a  magnesium  torch,  to  the  huge 
delight  of  the  Arabs,  who  did  not  for  a  moment  suspect  any  deception. 
So  convinced  were  they  of  the  reality  of  the  exhibition,  that  not  one 
amongst  them  could  be  found  hardy  enough  to  carry  the  locked  box 


14  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

from  claiming  for  their  protecting  deity  exclusive  powers  in 
this  respect.  The  effect  of  this  condition  of  mind  was  to 
invest  with  the  marvellous  even  the  most  natural  occur- 
rences. The  unexpected  discovery  of  a  spring  ])y  the  thirsty 
wayfarers  on  their  journey  from  Eg}'pt,  was  referred  to  the 
direct  interposition  of  the  deity ;  the  supply  of  a  novel 
article  of  food,  only  to  be  found  in  the  desert,  became  a 
supernatural  boon  granted  for  their  special  behoof. 

The  belief  in  the  unremitting  personal  intervention  of 
the  national  God  not  only  led  to  liis  glorification  when  the 
cause  of  the  people  triumphed,  but  to  the  comparative  exalta- 
tion of  those  who  had  vainly  sought  to  oppose  it.  Cheap 
victories  do  not  redound  to  the  glory  of  the  conquerors,  and 
it  became  necessary  to  show  that  the  vanquished  were 
foemen  worthy  of  the  victor's  steel.  There  was  nothing 
irreverent,  according  to  a  Hebrew's  conceptions,  in  pitting 
his  God  against  the  powerful  monarch  of  Egypt  supported 
by  his  Gods ;  or  in  presuming  that  tlie  former  would  be 
actuated  not  only  by  a  love  of  his  people,  but  by  an  intelli- 
gible amour  'pro'prc  in  exerting  himself  to  obtain  the  victory. 
And  even  now,  although  we  know  how  it  will  end,  it  is  im- 
possible to  ■  read  without  interest  the  narrative  of  the 
Homeric  struggle  on  the  issue  of  which  the  liberation  of 
the  Hebrews  is  said  to  have  depended.  The  respective 
Gods  of  Israel  and  of  Egj'pt  armed  their  champions  \s\\\\ 
the  necessary  means  of  working  miracles,  and  to  the  Pharaoh 


back  again  into  the  tent This  piece  of  trifling  gained  us  an 

immense  reputation  in  the  desert,  and  as  we  passed  from  tribe  to  tribe 
the  story  was  repeated  with  various  additions,  until  some  time  after 
we  heard  one  Sheikh  declaring  to  a  knot  of  Azazimeh  Arabs  who  had 
visited  our  camp,  that  Captain  Drake  was  in  the  constant  habit  of 
watching  serpents'  holes,  and  that  having  enticed  the  inmate  out  of 
his  concealment,  he  made  a  practice  of  placing  it  in  his  bosom  aud 
occasionally  producing  it  for  the  pleasure  of  allowing  it  to  bite  his 
face." — Desert  of  the  Exodus,  p.  310. 


FROM  EGYPT.  15 

was  assigned  the  office  of  assessor  iu  this  singular  trial  of 
strength.  For  some  time  the  issue  was  doubtful.  The 
marvels  of  Moses  and  Aaron  were  successfully  capped  by 
those  of  the  magicians ;'"  and  the  Pharaoh,  puzzled  and 
bewildered,  not  unnatm-ally  found  himself  unable  to  decide 
between  the  rival  thaumaturgists.  But  tliis  seeming  equality 
of  strength  was  only  imagined  in  order  that  more  abundant 
opportunities  might  be  afforded  to  the  God  of  the  Hebrews 
of  displaying  his  superiority,  and  again  and  again  he  was 
supposed  to  have  used  his  influence  to  blind  the  perceptive 
faculties  of  the  Pharaoh  to  tlie  end,  that  still  more  astound- 
ing proofs  should  be  given  of  his  supernatural  powers.  In 
all  this  there  was  nothing  to  shock  the  religious  or  the  moral 
sense  of  an  ignorant  and  a  barbarous  people.  It  never 
occurred  to  them  that  feats  which  alone  seemed  wonderful 
when  connected  with  human  agency,  became  puerile  and 
contemptible  when  associated  with  the  Creator  of  Heaven 
and  of  Earth  ;  for  the  simple  reason  that  they  looked  on  their 
God  as  only  one  of  several  Elohim.f  It  never  struck  them 
that  it  was  equally  inconsistent  with  divine  and  human 
justice  that  an  innocent  people  should  be  made  to  suffer  for 


*  Exodus  vii.  11,  22  ;  viii.  7,  18. 
t  D"'n^X  Elohim,  the  plural  of  mhii  Eloah.  The  singular  is  but 
rarely  used,  and  chiefly  in  poetry.  It  has  been  suggested  thsit  EloJiim, 
Gods,  is  simply  the  "  plural  of  majesty,"  and  so  came  to  be  ajjplied  to 
the  one  God,  whilst  others  find  in  its  use  an  indication  of  the  Trinity. 
The  real  explanation  is  to  be  found  in  the  Polytheistic  notions  of  the 
early  Hebrews.  When  their  religion  became  purified,  it  was  presumed 
tliat  whenever  "  Elohim"  was  applied  to  the  God  of  Israel,  the  one 
God  could  alone  have  been  meant.  The  word  Elohim  is  constantly 
used  to  denote  "  the  gods"  of  other  nations ;  or,  as  they  are  termed, 
"  false  gods."  The  operations  of  Nature  were  various  and  many,  and. 
the  causes  which  produced  them  were  to  the  Semitic  mind  divine  and 
awe-inspiring.  Hence  the  word  Elohim  came  to  be  applied  to  those  divine 
and  incomprehensible  powers.  The  etymology  of  the  word  is  very 
obscure,  and  has  given  rise  to  much  speculation. 


l6  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

the  obstinacy  and  perverseness  of  a  monarch,  that  obstinacy 
and  perverseness  being  actually  occasioned  by  supernatural 
intluence,  against  wliich  it  was  naturally  useless  for  tlie 
unfortunate  ruler  to  contend.  According  to  their  ideas, 
when  contrasting  in  later  times  their  position  in  Canaan  with 
the  state  of  servitude  to  which  their  ancestors  had  been 
condemned  in  Egypt,  it  seemed  indispensable  that  the  depar- 
ture from  the  latter  country  should  have  been  brought 
about  by  the  direct  interposition  of  their  protecting  deity, 
and  it  was  due  to  him  to  make  his  part  in  the  transaction 
as  striking  as  possible.  It  was  necessary  that  the  liberation 
should  be  effected  with  an  outstretched  arm,  and  that  the 
Egyptian  and  other  nations  should  be  made  to  know  that 
the  God  of  the  Hebrews  was  the  most  powerful  of  all  Gods. 
They  would  have  dismissed  as  hypercritical  and  ii-relevant 
the  objection  that,  despite  these  exhibitions  of  supernatural 
power,  the  Gods  of  Egypt  were  not  deposed,  nor  did  the 
religion  of  tlie  people  of  that  country  sustain  any  percep- 
tible change  ;  and  they  would  have  been  but  little  embarrassed 
had  they  been  told  that  the  Exodus  with  its  many  portents, 
ending  in  the  destruction  of  an  Egj'ptian  king  and  an 
Egyptian  arniy,  had  left  beliind  it  no  traces  in  the  annals  of 
the  Pharaohs. 

In  forming  a  general  opinion  of  the  religion  of  the 
Hel)rews,  for  the  purpose  of  rightly  estimating  the  character 
of  the  traditions  which  will  engage  our  attention,  it  is 
essential  to  bear  in  mind  that  this  people  had  no  belief  in  a 
future  state  of  reward  and  ]»iniishment.  Their  God  could 
reward  them  with  length  of  days,  by  giving  them  the 
victory  over  their  enemies,  by  making  them  prosperous, 
contented  and  happy  ;  or  he  could  punish  them  by  cutting 
them  off,  by  giving  them  over  into  the  hands  of  their 
adversaries,  by  making  them  suffer  through  pestilence  or^, 
famine,  and  by  rendering  then-  condition  generally  miserable 


FROM  EGYPT.  17 

or  intolerable.  He  might  also  execute  his  vengeance  through^ 
successive  generations,  "  visiting  the  sins  of  the  fathers  upon 
the  children,"  But  his  power  in  dealing  with  them,  whether 
for  good  or  evil,  was  limited  by  the  grave.  If  the  Hebrews 
were  unable  in  time  of  tribulation  to  console  themselves  by 
anticipating  the  pleasures  of  Heaven,  they  were  at  all  events 
spared  all  apprehensions  of  the  pains  of  Hell.'" 

A  creed  in  the  sense  in  which  that  term  is  understood  by 
Christian  sects  found  no  place  in  the  religion  of  the  Hebrew 
shepherds.  They  never  doubted  the  existence  of  the 
Elohim  any  more  than  they  doubted  the  various  i)henomena 
of  Nature  which  they  witnessed  in  constant  operation  before 
their  eyes.  They  had  not  reached  that  point  of  intellectual 
development  when  philosophy  become^  confounded  witli 
religion,  when  the  reason  must  be  subordinated  to  the  will, 
when  divine  favom*  is  thought  to  be  alone  attainable  by 
professing  to  know  the  unknowable,  and  to  be  firmly 
convinced  of  what  is  beyond  the  range  of  human  compre- 
hension ;  when  the  involuntary  operations  of  the  mind  may 
supply  the  fitting  grounds  for  divine  punishment,  and  when 
the  liighest  efforts  to  fashion  human  conduct  in  supjDosed 
conformity  with  the  will  of  the  Almighty  can  merit  no 
reward.  The  Hebrew  nomads  were  only  rude  barbarians, 
who  thought  that  if  they  observed  their  duties  to  their 
protecting  God,  he  would  recompense  them  for  their  fidelity .t 

With  these  conceptions  of  the  mode  in  which  divine 
justice  was  administered,  it  is  not  difficult  to  understand  how, 


*  It  will  be  recollected  ttat  eveu  at  the  commencement  of  the 
Christian  era  the  Sadducees,  one  of  whom  was  then  High  Priest,  denied 
the  immortality  of  the  soul  (Matt.  xsii.  23).  They  took  their  stand 
on  the  law  as  laid  down  in  the  Pentateuch.  The  Pharisees,  who  held 
the  opposite  view,  were  compelled  to  rely  upon  "  traditions"  which 
they  alleged  had  been  handed  down  from  the  time  of  Moses, 
t  Exod.  xxiii.  20,  26. 
C 


1 8  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

when  tlie  traditions  of  the  migration  came  to  be  moulded 
into  shape,  they   should  have  assumed   their  present  com- 
plexion.    The  vicissitudes  were   numerous,   victory  did  not 
always  crown  the   arms   of    the  divinely  protected  people, 
pestilence  thinned    their    ranks.       Their   original    plan    of 
entering  the  land  which  their  God  had  sworn  to  give  to  them 
was  frustrated ;  they  were  compelled  to  travel  many  weary 
miles,  to  traverse  or   to   skirt   the   territories  of   numerous 
tribes,  some  of  which  treated  them  as  friends,  whilst  others 
dealt  with  them  as  foes  ;  and  finally,  a  considerable  period 
elapsed  before  a  new  generation  made  its  home  amongst  the 
liills  which  their  fathers  might   have    seen  on  the  distant 
horizon  when   quitting  for  ever   the   land  of  Goshen.     All 
this  needed  explanation,  and  it  was  found  in  the  presumed 
misconduct  of  those  w^ho  had   been  victoriously  led  out  of 
Egypt.     It  was  treasured  up  in  the  dim  memories  of  those 
\\\\(-)   entered    Canaan,  that   the   half-hearted  captives  w^ere 
terrified  when  they  found  themselves  compelled  to  accept 
the  hardships  of  life  in  the  desert.     They  clamoured  to  be 
led  back  to  Egypt,  where,  if  tliey  were  hard  worked,  they  had 
at  least   a   sufficiency  to   eat   and    drink.     Their   sanitary 
condition,  when   lea\dng  Egypt,    there    is    every   reason  to 
believe  was   far   from  good ;  and  whatever  may  have  been 
their  numbers,  the  relative  mortality  was  no  doubt  consider- 
able.    But  whether  they  were  hungry  or  thirsty,  dpng  of 
pestilence,  or  harried  by  tlieir  enemies,  the  explanation  from 
the   Hebrew  standpoint  was  equally  simple  and  unanswer- 
able— they  must  have  deserved  it.     Their  God  would  never 
have  so  treated  them  unless  they  had  displeased  him,  and 
therefore  they,  and  not  he,  were  to  blame  because  the  land 
of  promise  was  not  entered   with   greater  speed   or  under 
more  favourable  circumstances.      By  this  train  of  reasoning 
the  belief  in  the  majesty  and  power  of  the   protecting  deity 
was  maintained  unimpaired. 


FROM  EGYPT.  19 

What  was  the  name  by  which  the  Hebrews  knew  the 
deity  under  whose  protecting  care  they  quitted  Egypt  and 
entered  Canaan  ?  This  question  will  probably  never  bo 
answered  with  certainty.  The  tradition  has  been  recorded 
that  the  name  by  which  the  deity  was  known  to  the  parent 
stock  from  which  Israel  sprang  was  different  from  that  by 
which  he  was  called  in  later  times ;  and  it  is  stated  that 
this  change  was  made  when  Moses  received  his  mission.'"" 
This  statement  should,  however,  be  received  with  caution. 
If  the  latest  name  of  Israel's  God  was,  as  some  contend,  of 
Canaanitish  extraction,  it  is  still  perfectly  intelligible  that  it 
should  be  relegated  back  to  the  period  when  the  people  of 
Israel  quitting  Egypt  first  made  their  appearance  in  the 
field  of  history,  on  the  eve  of  the  covenant  with  their 
protecting  God.  It  is  certainly  a  significant  fact  that  Amos, 
a  prophet  of  the  eighth  century  B.C.,  deliberately  charged  the 
Israelites  with  worshipping  whilst  in  the  wilderness  a  deity 
named  Chiun,  who  has  been  identified  with  Saturn.t  The 
question  thus  raised  is,  however,  too  wide  and  important 
to  be  discussed  here,  and  involves  other  considerations 
besides  a  mere  change  of  name.  It  may  be  convenient  to  take 
for  granted  that  the  name  by  which  their  deity  was  known 
to  the  Israehtes  whilst  in  the  wilderness  was  Jahveh. 

The  pronunciation  and  vocalisation  of  the  Tetragrammaton 
are  lost  in  oblivion.|  The  pious  aversion  to  uttering  the 
sacred  name,  which  seems  to  have  arisen  subsequent  to 
the  Babylonian  captivity,  and  to  have  been  based  on  a  forced 
construction  of  the  Third  Commandment,  became  subse- 
quently so  intensified,  that  as  it  was  unlawful  for  any  one  to 


*  Exod.  vi.  3.  f  Amos  v.  26. 

X  nin*  J  H  V  H.  Every  possible  mode  of  expression  has  been 
suggested.  The  most  common  amongst  Hebrew  scholars,  though  its 
correctness  cannot  be  established,  is  Jahveh.  The  initial  letter  being 
pronounced  Y,  as  it  should  be,  for  example,  in  Jacob,  Jeroboam,  &c. 

C  2 


20  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

utter  it,  and  as  the  early  Hebrew  text  was  wanting  in  the 
vowel  points,  the  true  pronunciation  was  irrecoverably  lost. 
The  Masorites  attached  to  the  name  the  vowel  points  of 
Adonai  (Lord)  in  order  that  the  latter  name  should  be  sub- 
stituted by  the  reader  in  the  synagogue.  To  this  circum- 
stance is  due  the  modern  reading — Jehovah.  That  this  is 
not  the  true  pronunciation — or,  at  least,  that  which  was 
intended  by  the  Masorites — is  evident  from  the  fact  tliat 
when  the  Tetragrammaton  and  Adonai  came  in  conjunc- 
tion, the  former  received  the  vowel  points  of  Elohim 
(God). 

This  undefinable  dread  of  uttering  the  name  of  the  Blessed 
One  led,  however,  to  very  curious  results  ;  and  had  the  effect, 
in  no  inconsiderable!  degree,  of  altering  the  complexion  of  the 
sacred  history  of  Israel.  The  Greek  translators  in  the 
third  century  B.C.  acted  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of 
the  Jewish  people ;  and,  instead  of  transcribing  the  name; 
substituted  the  rendering  Kvplog  (Lord) ;  and  this  example 
was  followed  in  the  Vulgate,  and,  in  modern  times,  in  the 
numerous  translations  of  the  Scriptures  into  the  various 
languages  of  the  world.  To  this  course  no  objection  coidd 
be  offered,  if  the  name  conveyed  in  early  times  the  same 
ideas  as  were  attached  to  it  when  tlie  liberated  Jews  returned 
from  Babylon.      But  this  was  not  the  case. 

It  is  profitless  to  speculate  on  the  etymology  of  the  Tetra- 
•n'ammaton.  All  we  know  for  certain  is,  that  it  was  the 
distinctive  proper  name  ^liicli  the  Israelites  gave  to  their 
deity,  just  as  the  Moabites  gave  to  theirs  the  name  of  Che- 
mosh.*  No  one  will  seriously  contend  that  anything  turns 
on  the  i)artieidar  name  by  which  the  Almighty  is  known  ; 
and  wliatcver  may  be  their  distinctions  of  creed — Christians, 
Jews,  Mdliannuedans,  and   in   f;nt   all  ]Monotheists — neces- 


*  2s  um.  xxi.  29 ;  Jxulges  xi.  24. 


FROM  EGYPT.  21 

sarily  worship  the  same  God,  though  under  different  names. 
It  must,  however,  be  apparent  that  if,  for  example,  the 
Moabites,  whose  national  god  was  Chemosh ;  whose  religion, 
there  is  every  reason  to  believe,  closely  resembled  that  of 
the  Israelites  ■*  and  who  presented  the  same  mixture  of 
Henotheism  and  Polytheism,  had  undergone  the  same  pro- 
cess of  purification  as  their  Jewish  kinsmen,  and  become 
Monotheists — Chemosh  would  probably  have  continued  to  be 
the  name  given  by  them  to  the  One  God,  and  it  would 
have  been  as  good  a  name  as  any  other.  But  if,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  IsraeKtes,  the  ideas  of  the  Moabites  respecting 
the  national  deity  had  become  thus  spiritualised  and  ex- 
tended, it  would  have  been  manifestly  productive  of  error,  in 
dealing  with  the  history  of  that  nation,  to  give  invariably  to 
the  name  Chemosh  that  which  was  only  its  later  and  purer 
signification.  But  this  is  precisely  the  error  which  is  com- 
mitted in  treating  the  earlier  history  of  Israel,  and  to  which 
the  non-reproduction  of  the  name  of  Israel's  God  has  in  a 
large  degree  contributed.  The  substitution  of  the  words 
"  Lord"  and  "  God,"  which  convey  ideas  now  universally 
understood,  naturally  create  the  impression  that,  when  the 
Israelites  referred  to  their  deity,  or  put  words  into  his 
mouth,  they  regarded  him  in  the  same  light.  Such  an  im- 
pression is  erroneous.  In  dealing  with  this  portion  of  the 
history  of  Israel,  we  have  only  to  do  with  Jaliveh,  the  tute- 
lary deity  of  that  people.t 


*  Euth  i.  15,  16;  Judges  xi.  24.  The  Henotheistic  principle,  the 
exclusively  national  character  with  which  the  deity  was  invested,  and 
the  apparent  similarity  in  other  respects  in  the  religions  of  the  Semitic 
tribes  in  and  around  Palestine,  are  strongly  shown  in  the  Idyl  of 
B/uth.  Chemosh  relatively  to  the  Moabites  is  placed  by  Jephthah  on 
the  same  footing  as  Jahveh  to  the  Israelites.— Judges  xi.  24. 

t  A  further  illustration  is  afforded  by  a  legend  which  attached  to  a 
sacred  stone  that  stood  on  the  right  bank  of  Jordan,  called  the  stone 
of  Bohan  Ben  Eeuben.     It  was  said  to  have  been  placed  there  by  the 


22  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

It  would  also  be  beyond  the  scope  of  this  treatise  to  seek 
to  determine  the  precise  times  when  the  several  traditions 
bearing  upon  that  portion  of  the  history  of  Israel  which  is 
about  to  engage  our  attention  were  committed  to  writing, 
and  were  put  together  in  the  form  in  which  we  now  see 
them  in  the  Books  of  Exodus  and  Numbers.  We  should 
be  careful,  however,  not  to  confound  their  commission  to 
^^Titing  with  their  compilation.  The  former  took  place  at 
various  periods  after  the.  art  of  MTiting  was  acquired  by  the 
settlers  in  Canaan.  The  compilation  of  the  scattered  records 
was  probably  effected  at  Babylon,  from  which  place  Ezra 
returned  with  the  Book  of  the  Law  in  his  hand."^'  It  is 
sufficient  to  remark  that  the  compilation  took  place  long 
after  much  in  the  iearly  traditions  had  become  unintelligible. 
It  would  seem  as  if  the  compiler  had  before  him  a  mass  of 
documents  which  he  felt  himself  obliged  to  turn  to  account. 
Some  of  these  related  to  current  history,  others  to  legisla- 
tion ;  some  furnished  comparatively  later  glosses  on  early 
incidents  and  usages ;  others  gave  conflicting  versions  of  the 
same  events.  But  the  compiler,  whether  from  veneration 
for  his  materials,  or  want  of  critical  cUscernment,  or  unac- 
quaintance-  with  the  early  history  of  his  people,  evidently 
felt  himself  debarred  from  exercising  the  right  of  selection, 
and  with  an  ostentatious  disregard  for  continuity  mingled 
them  in  an  extremely  arbitrary  fashion.  Again  and  again 
is  the  thread  of  the  narrative  with  which  he  happens  to  be 


Trans-Jordanic  tribes  on  their  retnrn  fromtlie  invasion  of  Canaan,  lest 
in  aftertimes  the  settlers  in  the  Cis-Jordanic  regions  might'  say  that 
those  who  dwelt  ou  the  opposite  side  of  the  river  had  nothing  to 
do  with  Jahveh,  God  of  Israel — "  For  Jahvch  hath  made  Jordan  a 
border  between  us  and  you,  ye  children  of  Rouben  and  children  of  Gad  ; 
ye  have  no  part  in  Jahvch." — Jos.  xxii.  24,  25. 

*  Ezra  vii.  14.  Rabbinical  tradition  ascribes  to  Ezra  the  compila- 
tion of  the  Old  Testament,  and  it  is  said  that  he  performed  the 
difficult  task  under  the  inspiration  of  God. 


FROM  EGYPT.  23 

dealing  interrupted  in  order  to  wedge  in  some  fragment  of 
legislation,  whilst  elsewhere,  having  before  him  two  different 
records  of  the  same  event,  he  sets  them  both  down,  leaving  to 
his  readers  to  accept  both,  or  possibly  to  reject  either.  Not- 
withstanding the  confusion  which  such  a  course  of  procedure 
necessarily  tended  to  create,  the  compiler  is  entitled  to  the 
thanks  of  posterity  for  having  adopted  it.  Instead  of  one 
we  have  several  authorities  in  support  of  the  events  referred 
to,  and  in  what  are  termed  "  undesigned  coincidences"  we 
acquire  corroborative  evidence  of  statements  which  would 
otherwise  rest  on  the  testimony  of  a  single  witness. 

We  must  not  suppose,  however,  that  we  have  all,  or  even 
approximately  all,  the  materials  which  originally  existed  for 
constructing  this  portion  of  the  history  of  Israel.  The  pro- 
phetic writings  are  replete  with  references  to  the  past,  for 
whose  confirmation  we  look  in  vain  in  the  Pentateuch. 
When,  for  example,  Amos  asks  the  question,"^'  "  Have  ye 
offered  unto  me  sacrifices  and  offerings  in  the  wilderness 
forty  years,  0  House  of  Israel  ?"  and  then  adds,  "  But  ye 
have  borne  the  tabernacle  of  your  Moloch  and  Cliiun  your 
images,  the  star  of  your  god,  which  ye  made  to  yourselves  ;" 
it  is  evident  that  in  the  eighth  century  B.C.  much  was  known 
of  the  rehgious  usages  of  the  Israelites  when  on  their  way 
from  Egypt  to  Canaan  which  was  subsequently  forgotten,  or 
over  which  it  was  deemed  expedient  to  draw  a  veil.  Many 
of  the  early  traditions  were  possibly  lost,  or  with  succeeding 
years  received  accretions  which  it  became  difficult  to  detach 
from  the  original  nuclei,   or  may  have  become  so  distorted 


*  Amos  V.  25,  26.  A  vast  amount  of  ingenuity  has  been  expended, 
mainly  by  German  and  Dutcli  biblical  critics,  on.  the  rendering  and 
interpretation  of  this  passage.  Among  the  latter,  Tiele  has  treated 
the  subject  very  exhaustively  in  his  Vergelijhencle  Geschiedenis,  p.  539 
et  seq.  See  also  the  authorities  he  refers  to.  Kuenen  treats  it  with 
his  usual  ability  in  his  Beligion  of  Israel,  i.  265,  266.  Goldziher, 
Mythology  among  the  Hebrews,  p.  220,  221. 


24  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

as  to  lead  to  their  ultimate  rejection.  Eeference  is  made 
iu  an  early  record  to  the  "  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jaliveh,"* 
which  doubtless  contained  much  that  has  not  been  pre- 
served, and  which  %\  uuld  have  thrown  considerable  light  on 
the  early  history  of  the  Israelites  and  their  kindred  tribes. 
In  fact,  tliough  we  possess  much  more  than  we  could  have 
hoped  for  if  the  compiler  had  been  more  discriminating,  still 
we  possess  far  less  than  is  requisite  in  order  to  draw  a  coiu- 
l)lete  picture  of  the  Israelites  during  the  period  immediately 
preceding  their  settlement  in  Canaan, 

Before  addressing  ourselves  to  our  task,  a  few  words  of 
caution  may  not  be  out  of  place.  Those  who  believe  them- 
selves in  a  position  to  correct  error,  and  to  shake  long- 
established  convictions,  whether  in  respect  to  things  great  or 
small,  are  pre-eminently  exposed  to  the  danger  of  deceiving 
themselves  and  thereby  deceivmg  others.  They  are  un- 
consciously tempted  to  distort  facts,  and  to  strain 
conclusions  in  support  of  their  views.  The  feeling  that  to 
avoid  being  dull  they  must  keep  out  of  the  beaten  track 
operates  as  a  never-ceasing  temptation  to  furnish  continual 
surprises.  They  may  wish  to  act  honestly  ;  but  whenever  an 
awkward  obstacle  presents  itself  on  their  path,  it  requires  an 
effort  to  carry  out  their  good  intentions,  and  that  effort  is 
not  always  crowned  with  success.  The  attainment  of  truth 
is  their  avowed  object,  but  they  are  irresistibly  led  to  regard 
"  truth"  and  the  conclusions  they  seek  to  establish,  as 
identical ;  and  keeping  before  their  eyes  only  the  goal 
towards  which  they  are  hastening,  if  they  find  their  progi'ess 
barred,  they  do  not  hesitate  to  walk  round  the  obstacle  they 
are  bound  to   remove,  if   no  other  way  is  open  to   them  of 


*  Num.  xxi.  14.  It  may  be  remarked  that  the  latter  portion  of  the 
verse  is  very  incorrectly  translated  in  the  Authorized  Version- 
There  is  no  reference  whatever  to  the  Red  Sea. 


FROM  EGYPT.  25 

attaining  tlie   prize  wliicli  they  regard   as   rightfully  their 
own. 

It  will  therefore  be  expedient  for  those  who  follow  such 
an  inquiry  as  the  present,  to  exercise  unflagging  vigilance  ; 
to  err  rather  on  the  side  of  distrust  than  of  confidence ;  to 
accept  no  conclusions  that  are  not  borne  out  by  evidence  ;  to 
view  with  suspicion  inferences  which  are  strained  or  opposed 
to  surrounding  probabilities  ;  and  to  test,  as  far  as  is  possible, 
tlie  streng-th  of  each  separate  link,  with  profound  indifference 
whether  the  result  may  be  the  snapping  of  the  entire  chain. 
In  other  words,  let  us  endeavour  to  attain  truth,  whatever 
form  that  truth  may  assume,  exclusively  for  its  own  sake. 


26 


CHAPTER  I. 

'T^ITAT  a  tribe  of  Semitic  descent  and  nomadic  habits  was 
-*-  enabled  to  exchange  a  state  of  servitude  in  Egypt  for 
the  freedom  of  the  desert,  between  the  fourteenth  and  seven- 
teenth centuries  before  the  Clu*istian  era,  may  be  regarded 
as  a  historical  fact.  It  is  true  tliat  Egyptologists  have 
liitherto  failed  to  discover,  either  on  sculptured  stone  or 
wTitten  papyrus,  any  mention  of  this  occurrence ;  but  although 
this  circumstance  may  tend  to  confirm  our  doubts  respecting 
the  extraordinary  circumstances  under  which  the  Exodus  is 
alleged  to  have  taken  place,  it  does  not  militate  against  the 
actual  happening  of  an  event  which  from  an  Egyptian  point 
of  view  would  have  been  regarded  of  such  trivial  importance, 
and  so  little  deserving  of  record,  as  the  escape  or  liberation 
t)f  a  number  of  slaves. 

Josephus,  in  his  well-known  vindication  of  the  antiquity 
of  his  people,  cites  an  Egyptian  historian  as  a  witness  that 
the  Jews  quitted  Egj^t  under  the  leadership  of  Moses. 
Manetho,  who  lived  in  the  third  century  before  the  Cliristian 
era,  wrote  a  history  of  the  Egyptians,  which  has  long  since 
perished,  and  is  only  known  to  us  by  a  few  scattered  frag- 
ments preserved  in  the  writings  jof  others,  who  either  at  first 
or  second  hand  made  quotations  from  his  work.^'  According 
to  the  account  given  by  Manetho,  Egypt  was  for  upwards  of 
five  hundred  years  subject   to   the  rule  of    some  shepherd 


*  A  list  of  the  Egyptian  dynasties  taken  from  Manetho  appears  in 
the  Epitome  of  Africanus  in  "  Syncellus,"  and  is  referred  to  by 
Eusebius.  The  fragments  respecting  the  shepherd  kings  and  the 
Exodus  are  given  in  Josephus,  Contra  Apion. 


THE  HEBRE W  MIGRA TION  FROM  EGYPT.  27 

tribes,  at  the  end  of  which  time  the  kings  of  Thebais  and 
other  places  in  Egypt  revolted,  and  the  rule  of  the  Hyksos, 
or  shepherd  kings,  was  overthrown.  The  remnant  of 
the  shepherds  thereupon  withdrew  to  a  place  named  Avaris, 
which  contained  an  area  of  ten  thousand  acres,  and 
surrounded  it  by  a  high  and  strong  wall.  Avaris  was 
then  besieged  by  King  Thmosis,  but  unsuccessfully,  and 
thereupon  the  besiegers  and  besieged  came  to  terms.  The 
conditions  were  that  the  shepherds  should  leave  Egypt,  and  be 
permitted  to  proceed  unharmed  in  whatever  direction  they 
pleased.  In  accordance  with  this  arrangement,  the  shepherds, 
"  not  fewer  in  number  than  two  himdred  and  forty  thousand, 
departed,  with  their  families  and  effects,  and  took  their 
journey  from  Egypt  through  the  wilderness  for  Syria ;  but 
being  in  fear  of  the  Assyrians,  who  had  then  the  dominion  over 
Asia,  they  built  a  city  in  that  country  now  known  as  Judtea, 
and  that  large  enough  to  contain  this  great  number  of  men, 
and  called  it  Jerusalem."'" 

From  this  passage  Josephus  concluded  that  the  Israelites 
were  descended  from  the  Hyksos,  and  that  at  one  period 
their  ancestors  were  the  masters  of  Egypt.  The  conclusion, 
however  gratifying  to  the  vanity  of  the  Jewish  historian,  and 
calculated  to  impose  on  those  who  were  unacquainted  with 
the  traditions  of  the  people  of  Israel  must,  however,  be 
discarded  as  groundless.  If  the  Israelites  had  been  the 
masters  and  not  the  slaves  of  the  Egyptians,  they 
would  have  preserved  in  their  traditions  the  memory  of 
so  glorious  a  period  in  their  national  history,  and  could  never 
have  looked  back  on  their  sojourn  in  Egypt  as  a  period  of 
intolerable  servitude.  They-  would  also  have  taken  with 
them  to  Canaan  the  religion  which  we  know  was  that  of  the 
Egyptians  ;  or,  if  their  own  religion  differed  in  any  important 


*  Josephus,  Contra  Apion,  i.  14. 


28  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

respects  from  it,  they  must  have  left  Lehincl  tliem  in  Egypt 
some  vestige  of  their  creed  and  ritual. 

Josephus,  wlio  entertains  no  doubt  that  this  account  was 
taken  l)y  Manetho  from  the  sacred  records  of  the  Egyptians, 
and  therefore  eminently  reliable,  also  gives  us  another  version 
of  the  Exodus  from  the  same  author,  which,  however,  he 
rejects  as  based  on  mere  rumours  and  reports,  and  "  no  better 
than  incredible  fables." 

According  to  tliis  narrative,  Amenojthis,  who  reigned 
some  four  centuries  subsequent  to  the  expulsion  of  the  Hyksos, 
was  desirous  of  seeing  the  gods,  and  was  informed  by  a 
priest  that  he  might  do  so  if  he  removed  all  leprous  and 
unclean  persons  out  of  Egypt.  He  proceeded  to  carry  this 
injunction  into  effect,  and  caused  some  eighty  thousand 
of  these  people  to  be  removed  to  the  quarries  on  the  east 
bank  of  the  Nile.  Some  priests  were,  however,  amongst  them, 
and  their  ill-treatment  and  the  indignity  passed  upon  them 
angered  the  gods.  Tlie  king  subsequently  allowed  the  eighty 
thousand  unclean  persons  to  dwell  in  the  city  of  Avaris, 
and  there  they  cliose  for  their  leader  one  of  the  priests  of 
Heliopolis  named  Osarsiph,  who  made  laws  for  them  in 
opposition  to'  the  usages  of  the  Egj^tians.  He  then  incited 
them  to  revolt,  and  having  made  an  alliance  with  the 
Hyksos  in  Canaan,  he  overran  Egypt  and  drove  Amenophis 
witli  liis  army  into  Ethiopia.  At  the  end  of  tliirteen  years 
Amenophis  returned,  and  the  l(^pei-s  with  their  allies  were 
routed  and  pursued  to  the  confines  of  Syi'ia.  IManetho 
adds  that  the  priest,  Osarsiph,  changed  his  name,  and  was 
called  Moses.^ 

Josephus  is  extremely  indignant  with  Manetho  for  giving 
such  an  absurd  story  a  place  in  history,  and  proceeds  to 
demonstrate  tliat  tlie  historian  "  trifles  and  tells  arrant  lies." 


Josephus,  Contra  Apion,  i.  26. 


FROM  EGYPT.  29 

Posterity  is,  however,  thankful  to  Josephus  for  having  pre- 
served the  fiction  he  contemned,  and  has  detected  in  it  a  closer 
resemblance  to  the  Jewish  tradition  than  that  discovered  by 
the  Jewish  historian  in  the  narrative  of  the  overthrow  and 
departure  of  the  Hyksos. 

Manetho  was  not  exempt  from  the  failings  of  other 
historians,  and,  in  the  absence  of  any  information  respecting 
the  sources  from  which  he  derived  his  facts,  we  must  be  careful 
lest  we  credit  him  with  a  knowledge  which  he  did  not  possess. 
He  lived  at  the  time  wlieu  the  Pentateuch  was  translated 
into  Greek,  and  may  have  been  personally  acquainted  with 
some  of  those  to  whom  Ptolemy  entrusted  this  important  and 
difficult  task.  However  that  may  be,  the  long-established 
intercourse  between  Egypt  and  Judsea  afforded  abundant 
opportunities  to  the  Egyptian  historian  for  learning  that  the 
Jews  believed  that  they  had  quitted  Egy]^)t  as  slaves ;  and, 
under  the  leadership  of  Moses,  had  crossed  the  desert,  and 
after  many  vicissitudes  had  penetrated  Canaan.  Manetho 
found  nothing  in  the  Egyptian  records  to  corroborate  the 
Jewish  version  of  the  cu-cumstances  under  which  the  Exodus 
took  place ;  for  if  he  had  done  so,  and  had  related  it,  we 
may  feel  confident  Josephus  would  have  eagerly  referred 
to  it ;  but  he  doubtless  did  find  a  statement  respecting  the 
removal  of  the  unclean  persons  to  the  right  bank  of  the 
Nile ;  their  employment  at  servile  work ;  their  election 
of  a  chief,  a  priest  of  Heliopolis,  named  Osarsiph ;  their 
revolt,  and  their  subsequent  departure  across  the  desert. 
From  these  data  Manetho  would  conclude  that  the  Osarsiph 
of  the  Eg}-ptian  records  was  the  Moses  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  being  as  desirous  of  finding  a  corroboration  of  the 
Egyptian  materials  of  his  history  in  the  records  of  a  neigh- 
bouring nation  as  Josephus  was  of  strengtliening  the  Jewish 
statement  of  tlie  departure  from  Egypt  by  an  appeal  to 
Manetho,  he  not  improbably  set  down  as  a  fact  what  was 


30  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

after  all  but  his   own  conjecture.     And  the  same  objection 

would   equally  apply  to  the  statement   that  Osarsiph  made 

laws  for  the  rebels  which  were  opposed  to  the  usages  of  the 

Egyptians.     As   the    Egyptians    regarded    aU    others    than 

themselves  as  unclean,  it  must  not  be    concluded    that    the 

leprous  and   unclean   persons  whose  removal    was  ordered 

by   Amenophis   were   all  actually   diseased.     If   they  were 

members   of  a   Bedouin  tribe  which  had  settled  in  Egypt 

they  would  have  come  within  this  opprobrious  designation.'^" 

If   we  have  here  the  Egyptian  version  of  the  Exodus,  it 

must  be  admitted  that  in  the  main  there  are  some  striking 

points  of  similarity  to  the  Jewish  account.     The   strangers, 

according  to   the  former,  are  placed  on  the  eastern  bank  of 

the     Nile,    and    are    employed   as    slaves.     The    gods    are 

indignant   because  some  priests   are  amongst  them  who  are 

driven   across   the  river    and    compelled    to    work    in    the 

quarries.     A   priest   of    Hehopolis   incites  them   to  revolt, 

becomes  their  leader,  and   secures  their  independence.     He 

forms  an  alliance  with  the  shepherds  who  had  been   driven 

out  of  Eg}^t  centuries  before  ;  with  the  aid  of  these  allies 

he  overruns  Egypt,  holds  possession  of  it  for  thirteen  years  ; 

but  ultimately  the  rebels,  together  with  the   shepherds,   are 

driven  forth  into  the   desert.     In  the  Jewish  account  the 

Israelites  are  kept  in  slavery  on  the  eastern  frontier.     Moses 

becomes  their   leader,   and   according   to  a  Jewish  tradition 

preserved  in  the  speech   attril^uted   to  Stephen,    he    "  was 

educated  in  aU  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians."t     The  anger 

of  Jahveh  is  manifested  in  consequence  of  the  treatment  to 

which   the   Israelites  are  subjected,  and  under  Moses  they 

revolt  against  the  Egyptian  authority,  whilst  in  the  connection 

between  Moses  and  Jethro,|  and  the  assistance  received  by 


*  Gen.  xliii,  32  ;  xlvi.  34. 
t  Acts  vii.  22.  X  Exod.  ii.  18  ;  iii.  I  ;  iv.  iS  ;  Judges  i.  16. 


FROM  EGYPT.  31 

the  Israelites  from  the  tribe  of  which  he  was  the  sheikh, 
we  detect  indications  of  an  alliance  between  the  revolted 
Israelites  and  a  nomadic  tribe  which  Manetho  confounds  with 
the  Hyksos  or  shepherds,  to  whom  he  incorrectly  attributes 
some  centuries  previously  the  building  of  Jerusalem.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  Jewish  tradition  to  support  the  statement 
that  Osarsiph,  or  Moses,  together  with  his  followers  and 
allies,  overthrew  the  established  government  and  ruled  Egypt 
for  several  years.  In  respect  to  this  discrepancy,  we  are 
inclined  to  tliink  that  Manetho  confounded  two  different 
traditions  of  what  was  probably  a  single  event — namely,  the 
connection  of  the  Hyksos  with  the  city  of  Avaris  ;  and  he 
attributed  to  the  insurgents  under  Osarsiph  an  achievement 
which  in  earlier  times  marked  the  conclusion  of  the  rule  of 
the  shepherd  kings. 

But  although  the  testimony  given  by  Manetho  in  the 
second  fragment  preserved  by  Josephus  possesses  a  certain 
value,  our  belief  in  the  Exodus  of  tlie  Israelites  from  Egypt 
as  a  historical  fact  must  rest  chiefly  on  the  concurrent 
testimony  of  Jewish  historians  and  prophets  that  such  an 
event  took  place.  The  memory  of  the  occurrence  was  pre- 
served in  the  traditions  of  the  people  of  Israel,  and  it  is 
impossible  to  suppose  that  such  a  belief  could  ever  have 
been  so  generally  established  if  it  did  not  rest  on  a  sub- 
stratum of  fact.  That  the  tribe  which  ultimately  came  to 
be  regarded  as  the  parent  stock  of  the  Jewish  nation  should 
have  fallen  into  subjection  to  the  Egyptians,  to  whom,  by 
the  vicissitudes  of  a  nomadic  existence,  it  had  been  driven 
to  apply  for  food,  was  not  an  improbable  contingency.  That 
it  should  have  succeeded  in  recovering  its  liberty  is  also 
intelligible,  without  supposing  that  the  laws  of  Nature  were 
completely  subverted,  and  that  the  Egyptian  people  were 
one  and  all  most  severely  punished  by  the  Almighty  because 
their  king  exercised  what  no  one  at  that  day  would  have 


32  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

dreamt  of  denying  to  be  his  legitimate  right  over  the  subject 
people. 

Wliat  was  the  date  of  the  Exodus,  and  what  was  the 
length  of  the  sojourn  of  the  children  of  Israel  in  Egypt, 
are  questions  on  wliose  solution  a  vast  amount  of  ingenuity 
has  been  expended,  but  with  the  most  conflicting  results. 
It  is  doubtful  if  either  of  these  points  will  ever  be  satis- 
factorily settled ;  but,  at  aU  events,  pending  the  results  of 
further  researches  in  Egypt,  we  must  content  ourselves  with 
accepting  such  conclusions  as  recommend  themselves  by 
their  probability. 

Nearly  all  the  authorities  concur  in  assigning  the  founda- 
tion of  Solomon's  Temple  to  the  latter  portion  of  the  eleventh 
century  before  om-  era.  Hales  places  it  as  early  as  1027  B.C.; 
Usher  at  i  o  1 2  ;  and  Bunsen  and  others  at  1 004.  It  is 
probable  that  these  dates  are  approximately  correct.  The 
variance  between  the  extremes  is  less  than  a  quarter  of  a 
century.  It  is,  however,  stated  that  Solomon  began  to  build 
the  Temple  in  tlie  480th  year  after  the  Israelites  quitted 
Egypt  -^  and,  if  this  statement  could  be  relied  upon, 
we  should  have  no  difficulty  in  concluding  that  the 
Exodus  took  place,  in  round  numbers,  about  1500  B.C.  For 
many  reasons,  however,  partly  drawn  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  partly  from  other  sources,  this  estimate  of  the  in- 
tei'val  between  the  Exodus  and  the  building  of  tlie  Temple 
must  be  rejected.! 

The  variance  in  the  dates  assigned  to  tlie  Exodus  by  dif- 
ferent authorities  is  very  considerable.     Some  place  it    as 


*  1  Kings  vi.  I.  In  the  LXX.  version  it  is  the  440th  year, 
f  Kuenen  justly  calls  attention  to  the  suspicion  which  attaches  to  the 
round  number  480  =  40  x  12.  Ti.l.  i.i  18.  There  is  no  evidence  in  the 
Old  Testament  records  that  in  the  reign  of  Solomon  the  Jews  possessed 
the  means  of  calculating  the  time  which  had  elapsed  since  the  Exodus. 
For  the  purposes  of  founding  an  era  some  starting-point,  however 


FROM  EGYPT.  33 

early  as  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  B.C. ;  whilst 
others  maintain  that  it  took  place  as  late  as  the  close  of  the 
fourteenth.  Those  who  follow  Usher  in  accepting  the  autho- 
rity of  I  Kings  vi.  i,  conclude  that  the  Exodus  occurred 
in  the  commencement  of  the  fifteenth  century ;  whilst  others, 
as  the  result  of  independent  calculations,  or  of  inferences 
drawn  from  Egyptian  records  and  a  supposed  identification 
of  the  particular  Pharaoh  in  whose  reign  the  Israelites 
quitted  Egypt,  arrive  at  dates  varying  to  the  extent  we  have 
described. 

After  duly  weigliing  all  the  authorities,  the  balance  ot 
probability  seems  to  incKne  in  favour  of  the  date  assigned 
byBunsen,  Lepsius,  and  others — namely,  circa  1320  B.C. 
This  conclusion  rests  in  no  small  degree  on  the  identification 
of  the  King  Amenopliis  (so  named  in  the  list  of  Manetho) 
with  Mineptah  II.,  a  Pharaoh  of  the  nineteenth  dynasty. 
This  Mineptah,  of  whose  existence  independent  evidence  has 
been  brought  to  light  by  Egyptologists,  succeeded  Eameses 
or  Eamses  II.,  the  successor  of  Seti,  the  first  king  of  the 
nineteenth  dynasty.  Mention  is  made  of  the  Israelites 
having  built  the  cities  of  Pithom  and  Eamses;*  and,  al- 
though evidence  of  the  existence  of  these  cities  in  the  time 
of  Seti  is  supposed  to  have  been  discovered  in  papyri, 
still  it  is  thought  that  it  was  under  Eamses  Miamum  or 
Eamses  II.,  successor  of  Seti,  that  the  oppression  of  the 
Israelites  reached  its  greatest  height ;  and  that  it  was  in  the 


arbitrary,  must  be  fixed  on.  The  Greeks  counted  from  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Olympic  Games ;  the  Eomans  from  the  building  of  their 
city.  We  reckon  from  the  birth  of  Christ ;  the  Mohammedans  from 
the  flight  of  the  Prophet  from  Mecca.  The  Exodus  would  have  sup- 
plied a  very  suitable  commencement  to  a  Jewish  era,  but  unfortunately, 
except  in  this  solitary  instance  (i  Kings  vi.  i),  it  is  never  so  employed  in 
Jewish  history,  and  this  fact  is  fatal  to  the  supposition  that  it  was 
treated  as  such  in  Solomon's  time. 

*  Exod.  i.  ij. 


D 


34  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

reign  of  Mineptah  II.,  the  successor  of  Eamses  II.,  that  the 
Exodus  took  place.  This  Mineptah  is  believed  to  have  lived 
in  the  latter  half  of  the  fourteenth  century.  The  Exodus  is 
accordingly  placed,  by  those  who  accept  these  dates,  near 
the  year  i  320  B.C.* 

The  length  of  the  sojourn  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt  is  equally 
a  matter  of  speculation.  If  we  turn  to  the  Old  Testament 
records  the  accounts  are  hopelessly  irreconcilable.  In  the 
Hebrew  text  it  is  stated  that  "  the  sojourning  of  the  children 
of  Israel  who  dwelt  in  Egypt  was  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years."t  In  the  Septuagint  this  passage  is  rendered  "  the 
sojourn  of  the  children  of  Israel  that  they  sojourned 
in  Egypt  and  in  the  land  of  Canaan  was  four  hundred 
and  thirty  years."  In  the  Samaritan  version  it  runs, 
"  the  sojourn  of  the  cliildren  of  Israel  and  their  fathers 
that  they  sojourned  in  the  land  of  Canaan  and  in  the 
land  of  Egypt  was  four  hundred  and  tliirty  years."|  Else- 
where we  find  within  the  limits  of  a  single  chapter  two 
statements  respecting  the  length  of  the  sojourn  which  are 
incompatible.  In  the  narrative  of  the  covenant  made 
between  Jahveh  and  Abraham,  the  former  is  represented  as 
saying,  "  Know  of  a  surety  that  thy  seed  shall  be  a  stranger 
in  a  land  which  is  not  theirs,  and  shall  serve  them,  and  they 
.shall  afliict  them  four  hundred  years  ....  but  in  the  fourth 
generation  they  shall  come  hither  again."§     Here  the  period 


*  Brugscli  Bey  places  the  accessibn  of  Mineptah  II.,  the  supposed 
Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus,  in  13CX)  B.C.,  and  his  death  in  1266  ;  but  he 
admits  that  even  proximate  accuracy  is  unattainable  in  chronology  at 
this  period.  It  is  merely  the  result  of  a  broad  system  of  calculation, 
which  apparently  throws  forward  the  reign  of  Mineptah  II.  into  the 
thirteenth  century. — E(j>jpt  under  the  Pharaohs,  i.  37. 
t  Exod.  xii.  40. 

;J;  St.  Paul  adopts  the  latter  view  when  he  fixes  the  period  between 
the  covenant  and  the  promulgation  of  the  Law   at  430  years  (Gal. 

iii.  17). 

§  Gen.  XV.  1 3-]  6. 


FROM  EGYPT.  35 

of  the  servitude  is  fixed  at  four  hundred  years ;  but  if  this 
be  correct,  the  number  of  generations  must  have  been  much 
in  excess  of  four.      If  we  endeavom-  to  solve  the  difficulty 
by  using    the    data   supplied    respecting    the    ages    of    tlie 
patriarchs,  we   arrive   at  the   singular  conclusion  tliat    the 
length  of  the  sojourn  in  Egjrpt  was  precisely  the  half  of 
430  years.     Abraham  was   75   years  old  when  he  quitted 
Haran,*  and  1 00  when  Isaac  was  born  ;t   Isaac  was   60   at 
the  birth  of  Jacob,|  and   the  latter  was    130  years  of  age 
at    the  time  of    his   presentation   to  Pharaoh.§     From  the 
departure    of    Abraham   from     Haran    to     the    arrival     of 
Jacob's  family  in  Egypt  was  consequently  215  years  (25  + 
60  +   I  30),||  and  this  would  leave  2  i  5  years  for  the  sojourn 
in  Egypt.      This  is,  however,  iiTeconcilable  with  the  state- 
ment in  Gen.  xv.  13;  wliilst,  on  the  other  hand,  if  we  accept 
Gen.  XV.  16,  which  states  that  the  Israelites  quitted  Egypt 
in  the  fourth  generation,  it  is  impossible  to  believe  that  in 
so  short  a  period  the  family  of  Jacob  could  have  multiplied 
into  the  immense  host  (estimated  at  two  millions  and  a  half) 
which  under  the  guidance  of  Moses  quitted  Egypt.lF 

Except  from  a  historical  point  of  view  the  question  is 
of  but  little  importance,  and  perhaps  the  wisest  course 
would  be  to  confess  our  ignorance  of  the  period  which 
elapsed  between  the  settlement  of  the  parent  stock  of 
Israel  in  Egypt,  and  the  recovery  of  its  freedom,  and  tem- 
porary resumption  of  a  nomadic  life.  It  is  extremely 
doubtful    whether    even    by   Moses    or    his    followers    the 


*  Gen.  xii.  4.  f  xxi.  5.         .    +  xxv.  26.  §  xlvii.  9. 

II  The  presumption  which  would  arise  in  favour  of  the  accuracy  of 
430  not  being  a  round  number,  is,  as  Kuenen  points  out,  shaken  by 
this  coincidence,  E.I.  L  162.  See  Bunsen,  Egypt's  Place  in  History, 
i.  i8o  ;  Lepsius,  Chron.  der  Egypter. 

%  The  Bishop  of  Natal  has  dealt  with  this  and  many  other  kindred 
points  in  his  invaluable  work  on  the  Pentateuch. 

D    2 


36  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

precise    length    of    the    sojourn    could    have    been    deter- 
mined. 

The  settlement  on  the  eastern  frontier  of  Egypt  of  a 
portion  of  the  tribes  which  found  their  way  westward  across 
the  desert,  was  probably  gradual.  The  vicissitudes  inci- 
dental to  nomadic  existence  frequently  compelled  the  wander- 
ing shepherds  to  seek  food  from  the  sedentary  popidation  of 
Egypt,  and  it  will  not  surprise  us  to  find  that  they  purchased 
existence  at  the  price  of  freedom.  They  did  not  willingly 
sell  themselves  into  slavery,  but  circumstances  compelled 
them  to  accept  a  condition  of  things  which  had  a  tendency 
to  render  them  dependent.  They  were  compelled  to  give 
some  equivalent  for  the  food  of  which  they  stood  in  need.* 
Temporary  assistance  they  might  secure  by  bartering  their 
cattle  for  corn,  and  the  tribes  might  once  more  return  to 
enjoy  the  freedom  and  encounter  the  perils  inseparable  from 
life  in  the  wilderness.  Contact  with  an  agricultural  popula- 
tion would,  however,  foster  a  desire  to  settle  in  their  vicinity, 
and  thus  it  happened  that  some  of  the  nomads  took  up 
their  abode  in  the  districts  bordering  on  the  delta  of  the 
Nile.t     In  the  beginning  theu'  temporary  settlements  might 


*  The  nomads  were  known  to  the  Egyptians  by  the  generic  name 
Shasu.  They  were  the  sous  of  the  desert,  the  Bedouins,  the 
"shepherds."  "The  land  of  Edom,"  writes  Brugsch  Bey,  "and  the 
neighbouring  hill  country  was  the  home  of  the  principal  races  of  the 
Shasu,  which,  in  the  fifteenth  and^  sixteenth  centuries  before  our  era, 
left  their  mountains  to  fall  upon  Egypt,  with  weapons  in  their  hands, 
or  in  a  friendly  manner  followed  by  their  Hocks  and  herds  to  beg 
sustenance  for  themselves  and  for  their  cattle,  and  to  seek  an  entrance 
into  the  rich  pastures  of  the  land  of  Succoth"  (the  east  of  the  Delta). — 
Eiiypf  under  the  Pharaohs,  i.  216. 

f  This  district  is  called  the  land  of  Goshen.  Much  pains  have 
been  expended  on  determining  its  precise  locality,  but  unsuccessfully, 
for  the  simple  reason  that  it  had  no  determinate  limits.  I  am  inclined 
to  think  it  was  a  descriptive  and  not  a  distinctive  name.  It  is  observ- 
able that  the  border  land  on  the  confines  of  Egypt,  and  the  border  land 
on  the  southern  frontier  of  Palestine,  are  equally  termed  "  Goshen." 


FROM  EGYPT.  37 

be  effected  without  any  loss  of  independence.  The  tents 
could  be  struck  at  a  moment's  notice,  and  the  tribe  might 
regain  the  open  desert.  But  in  process  of  time,  some 
attracted  by  the  comforts  of  a  settled  existence  would  attach 
themselves  more  and  more  closely,  and  more  and  more  per- 
manently, to  the  sedentary  popidation,  and,  abandoning  their 
nomadic  life,  would  take  up  a  position  necessarily  involving 
political  dependence.  From  political  dependence  to  slavery 
was,  however,  three  thousand  years  ago,  but  a  step,  and  those 
who  exchanged  the  desert  for  the  land  of  Goshen  frequently 
purchased  with  their  liberty  the  greater  security  they 
acquired  against  perishing  of  famine. 

In  the  narrative  of  Joseph  and  his  bretlu-en  we  have  the 
traditional  view  of  the  manner  in  which  this  jjrocess  was 
effected  on  the  north-eastern  frontier  of  Egypt.'""  Famine 
compels  some  of  the  nomads  to  seek  food  in  Egypt.  They 
settle  in  the   neutral  zone  which  separates  the  desert  fi'om 


(For  the  former  see  Gen.  xlv.  lo  ;  xlvi.  28,  34 ;  xlvii.  27  ;  1.  8 ;  Exod.  ix.  26. 
For  the  latter,  Jos.  x.  41  ;  xi.  16).  The  name  may  be  derived  from  DtJ'S 
Gesheyn — violent  rain.  The  land  of  Goshen  would  then,  from  a 
Bedouin's  point  of  view,  mean  the  land  where,  as  in  the  region  about 
Hebron,  rain,  or  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Nile,  inundations  furnished  an 
abundant  supply  of  water  for  vegetable  life,  when  the  adjoining  deserts 
were  parched  with  drought.     The  LXX.  render  the  name  Fea-efi. 

*  We  possess  a  curious  record  of  the  reign  of  Mineptah  II.,  the 
supposed  Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus,  which  furnishes  a  striking  proof  of 
the  manner  in  which  the  nomads  sought  for  and  obtained,  in  time  of 
famine,  sustenance  for  themselves  and  their  flocks.  "Another  matter 
for  the  satisfaction  of  my  master's  heart.  We  have  carried  into  effect 
the  passage  of  the  tribes  of  the  Shasu,  from  the  land  of  Aduma  (Edom), 
through  the  fortress  of  Mineptah  Hotephima,  which  is  situated  in 
Thuku,  to  the  lakes  of  the  city  Pi-- turn  of  Mineptah  Hotephima,  which 
are  situated  in  the  land  of  Thuku,  in  order  to  feed  themselves  and 
their  herds  on  the  possessions  of  Pharaijh,  who  is  there  a  beneficent 
sun  for  all  peoples."  This  is  the  report  of  a  high  Egyptian  official,  and 
but  for  its  late  date  might  have  been  the  notification  by  Joseph  of  the 
reception  of  his  famine- stricken  kinsmen.  "Pap.  Anastasi,"  vi.  pp.  4,  5, 
translated  by  Brugsch  Bey,  Egypt,  ii.  127. 


38  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

Egypt  proper,  and  their  example  is  subsequently  imitated  by 
others.  In  course  of  time  the  settlers  gravitate  towards  tlie 
country  on  whose  borders  they  dwell,  and  being  unable  to 
claim  the  political  privileges  (such  as  they  were)  of  the 
EgypDtians  they  sink  into  a  state  of  servitude.  The  colossal 
works  of  the  Pharaohs  were  effected  by  forced  labour,  of  which 
the  former  nomads  were  compelled  to  contribute  a  con- 
siderable share.  The  connection  with  the  desert  tribes  was 
never,  however,  totally '  discontinued.  The  settlers  never 
forgot  what  their  fathers  once  had  been.  The  arrival  from 
time  to  time  of  some  gTcat  Sheikh  with  his  followers  made 
them  long  to  recover  the  freedom  they  had  bartered  away, 
whilst  some  whose  position  was  superior  to  that  of  the  rest, 
whose  liberty  of  action  was  uninterfered  with,  or  again,  some 
^\'ho  succeeded  in  effecting  their  escape,  formed  relations  with 
tlie  members  of  the  desert  tribes.  The  story  of  the  flight 
of  Moses  to  Midian,  and  liis  marriage  with  the  daughter  of 
Reuel,  or  as  he  is  also  called  Jethro,'""  may  illustrate  the  link 
of  connection  maintained  during  the  sojourn  in  Egypt 
between  the  nomads  who  had  lost  their  liberty  and  their 
more  fortunate  kinsmen  who  continued  to  lead  a  pastoral 
life. 

It  is  needless  to  point  out  that  the  narrative  of  Jacob's 
having  sent  ten  of  his  sons  from  Canaan  to  Egypt  to  pur- 
chase corn  is  unhistorical.t  If  there  had  been  a  famine  in 
Canaan  whilst  there  was  "  plenty"  in  Egypt,  it  would  have 
been  absurd  for  ten  persons  to  have  undertaken  the  long  and 
difticult  journey  between  the  two  countries  in  order  to  bring 
back  with  them  sufficient  food  for  a  family  numbering  about 
half  a  hundred  indi\'iduals.  When  famine  strikes  a  country 
it  is  not  by  such  means  that  a  few  households  can  hope  to 
preserve  existence.      The     tradition   in    its    earliest    form 

*  Exod.  ii.  15-21.  f  Gen.  xlii. 


FROM  EGYPT.  39 

represented  the  nomads  as  seeking  sustenance  in  Egypt  ; 
but  when  in  later  times  Jacob  and  his  children  came  to  be 
fixed  upon  as  the  particular  individuals  who  went  there,  it 
became  necessary,  inasmuch  as  Jacob  was  described  as  a 
settler  in  Canaan,  to  explain  the  migration  of  the  entire 
family  on  the  ground  that  there  was  a  famine  in  that 
country.  The  narrative  even  in  its  present  form  is  not, 
however,  without  value.  It  proves  the  impersonal  character 
of  the  patriarch,  and  the  historical  inaccuracy  of  the  state- 
ment that  he  or  the  nomadic  tribes  he  may  be  taken  to 
represent  had  ever  effected  a  settlement  in  Canaan.'"' 

In  the  history  of  Joseph  in  his  character  of  a  high 
Egyptian  official,  some  incidents  are  .mentioned  which 
appear  to  indicate  the  manner  in  which  the  nomadic 
settlers  on  the  frontier  lost  their  liberty.  If  we  accepted 
the  narrative  as  literally  accurate,  Joseph,  whether  he  was 
of  Egyptian  or  Hebrew  origin,  would  be  justly  open 
to  condemnation  as  probably  the  most  oppressive  and 
iniquitous  Minister  that  ever  held  the  reins  of  government, 
and  that  is  saying  a  great  deal.  According  to  the  story, 
Joseph  was  one  of  the  sons  of  Jacob,  and  had  been  sold  into 
slavery  in  Egypt.t  Whilst  in  prison  on  an  unjust  charge  of 
soliciting  the  chastity  of  his  master's  wife,  he  interpreted 
correctly  the  dreams  of  two  of  his  fellow-prisoners.^ 
Some  time  afterwards  Pharaoh  had  a  remarkable  dream, 
which  his  wise  men  and  magicians  were  unable  to  solve  ;  and 
Joseph  having  been  sent  for  explained  it  to  the  king  as  indi- 
cating that  seven  years  of  plenty  in  Egypt  would  be  succeeded 
by  seven  years  of  famine.S     Pharaoh,  to  mark  his  gratitude 


*  See  Gen.  xlvii.  3,  4.  On  their  introduction  to  Pharaoh,  the  sons 
of  Jacob  are  represented  as  saying, "  Thy  servants  are  shepherds,  both 
we  and  our  fathers.  For  to  sojourn  in  the  land  have  we  come,  for  tby 
servants  have  no  pasture  for  their  flocks."  This  could  not  have  been 
true  of  Canaan,  the  "  land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey." 

t  Gen.  xxxvii.  28.  J  Gen.  xl.  §  Gen.  xli.  1-36. 


40  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

for  such  valuable  information,  made  Joseph  ruler  over  the 
land  of  EgjT^t,  with  full  authority  to  turn  to  the  best  account 
the  years  of  plenty  and  make  suitable  provision  for  the 
years  of  famine.''^  Joseph  did  so,  arid  during  the  former 
period  established  depots  of  corn  throughout  the  land.  As 
soon,  however,  as  the  period  of  famine  set  in,  he  turned  his 
precautionary  measures  to  very  singular  account.  The 
famine  being  very  severe,  both  in  Egypt  and  in  Canaan, 
"  Joseph  gathered  up  all  the  money  that  was  in  the  land 
of  Egypt  and  in  the  land  of  Canaan  ;"t  or,  in  other  words, 
he  sold  corn  to  those  who  needed  it.  As  soon  as  "  money 
failed  in  Egypt  and  in  Canaan,"  "  all  the  Egyptians  "|  came 
to  Joseph  and  again  demanded  bread.  Joseph  consented  to 
supply  them,  provided  they  gave  him  their  cattle,  their 
herds,  and  their  beasts  of  burden.^  The  famished  Egyptians 
consented  to  these  terms,  and  thereby  obtained  food  for 
another  year.  At  the  end  of  this  time,  they  were  again 
obliged  to  present  themselves  before  Joseph,  and  confessing 
that  their  "  lord"  having  obtained  all  their  money  and  all 
their  flocks,  nothing  was  left  to  them  but  their  bodies  and 
tlieir  lands,  offered  to  sell  themselves  into  slavery  in  order  to 
avoid  starvation.!!  Joseph  closed  with  their  offer,  he 
"  bought  all  the  land  of  Egypt  for  Pharaoh,  for  the 
Egyptians  sold  every  man  his  field  because  the  famine  pre- 
vailed over  them,  so  the  land  became  Pharaoh's  ;  and 
as  for  the  people  he  removed  them  to  cities  from  one 
end  of  the  borders  of  Egypt  even  to  the  other  end 
thereof."  H 

It  does  not  need  the  knowledge  we  possess  of  the  political 
condition  of  the  Egyptians  at  this  period,  to  feel  satisfied 
that  so  stupendous  a  crime  was  never  committed.     The  govern- 


*  Gen.  xli.  38-45.  f  Gen.  xlvii.  14.  %  Gen.  xlvii.  15. 

§  Gen.  xlvii.  16,  17.         ||  Gen.  xlvii.  iS,  19.         %  Geu.  xlvii.  20,  21. 


FROM  EGYPT.  41 

ment  of  the  Pharaohs  was  no  doubt  despotic  in  the  fullest  sense 
of  the  term,  but  the  despotism  was  tempered  by  a  religion 
which  was  far  from  contemptible,  and  by  a  system  of  morals 
which  now,  after  the  lapse  of  more  than  three  thousand  years, 
commands  admiration.  A  little  reflection  and  a  careful 
examination  of  the  text  will  satisfy  us  that  we  have  in  this 
singular  narrative  the  nucleus  of  the  tradition  preserved  by 
the  people  of  Israel,  of  the  manner  in  which  their  ancestors 
who  settled  on  the  Egyptian  frontier  lost  their  liberty,  and 
passed  into  that  state  of  servitude  which  became  seared  into 
their  memory  during  their  entire  national  existence. 

A  people  preserves  its  own  traditions,  but  it  does  not,  at 
least  in  early  times,  retain  the  memory  of  .events  which  only 
concern  other  nations.  This  particular  narrative,  as  it  is  now 
presented  to  us,  is  a  chapter  of  Egyptian  and  not  of  Jewish 
history.  This  circumstance  would,  even  if  it  stood  alone, 
excite  our  suspicion.  Wlien,  however,  we  look  at  the  text 
we  see  on  how  slight  a  foundation  rests  the  supposition  that 
the  transaction  referred  to  was  one  between  Joseph  and 
the  Egyptian  people. 

It  is  stated  that  there  was  famine  not  only  in  Egypt  but 
in  Canaan,  and  that  Joseph  gathered  up  all  the  money  in 
both  countries..  The  narrative  then  continues,  that  "  when 
the  money  failed  in  the  land  of  Egypt  and  in  the  land  of 
Canaan,  all  the  Egyptians  came  to  Joseph  and  said.  Give  us 
bread !""'  But  to  make  the  sentence  complete  and  the  story 
consistent,  the  passage  should  have  run,  "  all  the  Egyptians 
and  all  the  Canaanites,"  &c.  As,  however,  it  would  have 
been  absurd  to  allege  that  the  Canaanites  had  sold  them- 
selves into  slavery,  all  further  reference  to  them  is  omitted, 
and  we  are  left  in  ignorance  how  they  continued  to 
support  a   famine  which    the  narrative  leads  us  to  believe 

*  Gen.  xlvii.  15. 


42  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

pressed  as  long  and  as  severely  on  them  as  on  the 
Egyptians.''^ 

On  exegetical  grounds  no  less  than  on  that  of  the  in- 
trinsic unpossibility  of  any  people,  especially  the  Egyptians, 
parting  with  their  possessions  and  their  liberty,  in  order  to 
acquire  corn  Avhich  already  belonged  to  them,  we  must  treat 
the  exj^ressiou,  "  all  the  Egyptians,"  as  one  which  found  its 
way  into  the  narrative,  in  order  to  make  the  story  chime 
with  the  redactor's  views  of  what  must  have  occurred. 
From  his  standpoint,  Joseph,  the  Egyptian  Viceroy,  but  the 
son  of  Jacob  and  the  progenitor  of  the  powerful  tribes  of 
Eplu'aim  and  Manasseh,  gave  everything  to  the  members  of 
his  own  family  when  they  were  driven  to  seek  food  in  Egypt, 
but  made  the  harshest  terms  with  the  people  in  whose  land 
the  corn  which  he  doled  out  had  been  actually  produced. 
It  was  thus  that,  according  to  his  view,  Joseph  must  have 
acted,  and  he  consequently  moulded  the  tradition  into  the 
shape  in  which  it  is  now  presented  to  us. 

But  if  we  read  between  the  lines,  it  is  not  difficult  to 
ascertain  the  form  in  which  the  tradition  was  originally 
handed  down.  A  tribe  of  nomads  was  compelled  to  seek 
food  in  Egypt.  It  was  obliged  to  part  with  its  money  and 
its  flocks,  in  order  to  procure  the  means  of  subsistence. 
Having  thus  given  up  its  property,  it  was  unable  or 
unwilling  to  return  to  the  desert;  and  it  cast  longing  eyes 
on  the  border-land  separating  Egypt  from  the  wilderness, 
and  entered  into  negotiations  with  the  Egyptian  Government 
for  permission  to  settle  there.  The  conditions  were  no  doubt 
severe,  but  sucli  as  the  famished  Bedouins  were  oblioed  to 
accept.  They  were  allowed  to  settle  in  Goshen  on  condition 
that  they  should  not  personally  acquire  an  absolute  owner- 


If  the  famine  ceased  in  Canaan,  the  motive  for  the  emigration  of 
Jacob's  family  from  that  country  vanished. 


FROM  EGYPT.  43 

ship  in  the  laud  alloted  to  them  *  and  they  were  furnished 
with  seed  to  sow  the  laud  placed  at  their  disposal,  on  the 
terms  of  paying  to  the  State  one-fifth  of  the  increase.t  It 
may  also  have  been  part  of  the  contract  that  the  settlers 
should  contribute  largely  to  the  construction  of  those  mar- 
vellous monuments,  which  even  to-day  reveal  to  us  the 
Egypt  of  the  Pharaohs.;}; 

Such  were,  we  have  no  doubt,  the  circumstances  under 
which  the  tribe  from  which  the  children  of  Israel  claimed 
descent  came  to  settle  on  the  confines  of  Egypt,  and  subse- 
quently to  lose  its  liberty.  The  process  may,  perhaps, 
have  been  more  gradual  than  is  here  supposed,  but  whether 
the  time  occupied  was  long  or  short,  the  nomads  driven 
from  their  pastures  by  hunger  settled  in*  Goshen  on  condi- 
tions which  very  speedily  rendered  them  so  completely  sub- 
ject to  the  Government  that  they  could  be  removed  at  pleasure 
from  place  to  place,§  and  it  only  needed  a  more  than  ordi- 
narily oppressive  sovereign  to  render  their  position  so  in- 
tolerable that  starvation  in  the  wilderness  might  seem 
preferable  to  existence  prolonged  under  such  hard  conditions. 
That  the  Governor  of  Lower  Egypt,  to  whom  they  were 
indebted  for  permission  to  settle  on  the  borders,  and  who 
provided  them  with  the  seed  with  which  to  utilise  their 
newly-acquired  possessions,  should  have  lived  in  their 
grateful  remembrance  is  not  surprising,  nor  need  it  astonish 
us  that  in  time  their  benefactor  came  to  be  regarded  as  of  a 
common  origin  with  themselves.  They  could  pay  him  no 
higher  compHment  than  to  suppose  that  he  was  one  of  the 
sons  of  Israel,  sold  into  captivity  when  a  child,  but  raised  to 
supreme  power  in  Egypt  by  one  of  those  caprices  of  fortune 
not  uncommon  in  Oriental  life.      But  when  this  belief  came 


*  Gen.  xlvii.  20.       The  law  prohibiting  aliens  from  holding  property- 
is  to  be  found  in  most  codes  down  to  the  present  century. 

t  Gen.  xlvii.  23,  m,.         %  Gen.  xlvu.  25.         §  Gen.  xlvii.  21. 


44  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

to  be  established,  and  the  tradition  came  to  be  transmitted 
to  the  pages  of  history,  the  conduct  of  the  Egyptian  Governor 
needed  harmonising  with  the  assumed  character  and  nation- 
ality of  Jacob's  favourite  son.  The  conditions  under  which 
the  famine-stricken  Hebrews  were  admitted  to  the  land  of 
Goshen,  the  parting  with  their  herds  and  the  bartering  away 
of  their  liberty,  were  transferred  to  an  impossible  contract 
between  the  Egyptian  Viceroy  and  the  Egyptian  people  ; 
whilst  Jacob  and  his  sons  and  their  f  amihes  were  represented 
as  having  gratuitously  received  "  a  possession  in  the  land  of 
Egypt,  in  the  best  of  the  land,  in  tlie  land  of  Eameses,  as 
Pharaoh  had  commanded."^ 

Of  the  length  of  time  passed  in  Egypt  there  is  in  the 
traditions  preserved  to  us  no  indication.  The  Hebrews 
retained  no  recollection  of  the  name  of  the  Pharaoh  who 
ruled  Egypt  when  they  entered  it,  nor  of  the  name  of  his 
successor  who  was  compelled  by  mighty  portents  to  allow 
them  to  depart.  This  cii'cumstance  in  itself  shows  that 
we  are  now  dealing  with  traditions  which  at  the  time 
when  they  were  committed  to  writing  liad  already  become 
obscured  by  the  mists  of  so  many  centuries,  that  it  was 
even  then  impossible  to  determine  who  were  the  exact 
Pharaohs  whose  hospitahty  the  Israelites  had  accepted,  and 
whose  yoke  they  had  thrown  off.  We  are  told  in  general 
terms  that  "  the  cliildren  of  Israel  were  fruitful  and  multi- 
plied, and  waxed  exceeding  .mighty  "t  and  that  "there 
arose  a  new  king  over  Egypt  who  knew  not  Joseph  ;"|  and 
that,  alarmed  at  the  increase  of  the  Israelites,  he  "  made 
their  lives  bitter  with  hard  bondage"^  and  instructed  the 
Hebrew  midwives  (there  were  but  two)  to  destroy  all  the 
male  children  at  tlieir  birth. 11     We  have  here  not  tradition  but 


*  Gen.  xlvii.  ii. 
t  Exod.  i.  7.        X  Exod.  i.  8.        §  Exod.  i.  14.         ||  Exod.  i.  15,  16. 


FROM  EGYPT.  45 

the  explanation  of  a  change  in  the  condition  of  the  Israel- 
ites which  would  otherwise  have  been  unaccountable,  con- 
sidering the  favourable  circumstances  under  which  their 
settlement  took  place  "  in  the  best  of  the  land,  as  Pharaoh 
had  commanded."*  Although,  according  to  what  seems  to 
have  been  the  early  tradition,  the  Governor  to  whom  the 
Israelites  were  so  much  indebted  died  in  a  condition  of 
prosperity,  and  was  buried  in  accordance  with  Egyptian 
usages,t  it  is  said  that  "  a  new  king  arose  who  knew  not 
Joseph,"!  and,  as  it  would  seem,  in  Joseph's  Lifetime  conceived 
and  carried  out  the  design  of  reducing  the  free  Israelites  to 
a  state  of  bondage,  with  the  somewhat  singular  object  of 
checldng  their  increase.  But  what  is  more  remarkable 
still  is,  that  the  Israelites,  though  they  had  "  waxed  exceeding 
mighty,  and  the  land  was  filled  with  them,"^  do  not  seem  to 
have  resented  this  harsh  and  unjust  treatment ;  or,  notwith- 
standing their  numbers  and  the  terror  with  which  they 
inspired  "  the  new  king,"  to  have  struck  a  single  blow  to 
vindicate  their  independence.  The  intrinsic  inconsistency 
and  improbability  of  this  account,  and  the  absence  of  all 
mention  of  any  protest  on  the  part  of  the  Israelites  against 
so  tyi-annical  and  unjust  an  act,  consequently  lead  us  not 
only  to  reject  this  explanation  of  the  commencement  of 
Israel's  servitude  as  uuhistorical,  but  tend  to  strengthen  our 
conclusion  that  the  bondage  commenced  under  the  circum- 
stances we  have  just  noted.  A  people  preserves  a  hvely 
recollection  of  its  wrongs,  and  the  period  and  incidents  of 
then-  bitter  servitude  in  Egypt  were  never  forgotten  by  the 
Israelites.  Their  traditions  told  centuries  afterwards  of  the 
heavy  burdens  which  were  imposed  upon  them,||  and  even 
preserved  the  memory  of  the  system  under  which  their  head 


*  Gen.  xlvii.  11.  f  Gen.  1.  26.  +  Exod.  i.  8. 

§  Exod.  i.  7.  II  Exod.  i.  14. 


46  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION  FROM  EGYPT. 

men  were  made  personally  responsible  for  the  amount  of 
work  done  by  tliose  placed  under  their  control,  and  of  the 
cruel  treatment  to  wliich  they  were  submitted  by  the  Egyptian 
taskmasters.*  But  there  is  not  the  faintest  indication  of 
any  sense  of  injustice  in  compelling  a  people,  hospitably 
invited  by  one  of  the  Pharaohs  to  settle  in  his  territory,  and 
presumably  free,  to  fulfil  the  duties  of  slaves.  Moses,  the 
appointed  messenger  of  Jahveh,  is  nowhere  represented  as 
denouncing  to  Pharaoh  a  course  of  conduct  which  in  the 
guise  in  which  it  is  now  presented  to  us  was  equally 
treacherous  and  iniquitous  ;  and  even  when  Pharaoh  increases 
the  burdens  of  the  unfortunate  Israelites,  the  protest  uttered 
by  their  representatives  is  directed,  not  against  their  unjust 
bondage,  but  against  being  required  to  make  in  the  same 
time  as  many  bricks,  with  straw  gathered  by  themselves,  as 
they  had  previously  done  when  that  commodity  was  supplied 
to  them  by  their  taskmasters.! 


*  E\od.  V.  14.       f  Exod.  V.  15-19. 


I 


47 


CHAPTEE  II. 

'  I  ^HE  story  of  the  servitude  of  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt, 
and  of  the  circumstances  under  which  their  liberation 
was  effected,  is  told  in  the  form  of  a  tolerably  continuous 
narrative  in  the  Book  of  Exodus.  Whatever  may  have  been 
their  original  position  in  the  land  of  Goshen,  they  came  ulti- 
mately to  be  treated  as  slaves ;  and  such  was  their  condition 
at  the  period  when  they  severed  their  connection  with  the 
Egyptian  people.  But,  without  examining*  this  singular  nar- 
rative in  detail,  it  is  easy  to  understand  how  in  after-times, 
when  they  attributed  their  liberation  to  the  supernatural  in- 
tervention of  their  God,  the  natural  though  startHng  plieno- 
mena  which  were  pecuKar  to  Egypt  came  to  be  regarded  as 
the  means  adopted  by  Jahveh  to  convince  the  Pharaoh  of 
the  expediency  of  letting  them  go.  There  was,  however,  one 
fact  connected  with  their  departure  which  was  indelibly 
lixed  on  their  memory — namely,  that  they  were  not  simply 
permitted  to  leave  Egypt,  but  were  "thrust  out" — expelled, 
without  a  moment's  warning.  This  is  recognised  in  the 
words  attributed  to  Jahveh  when  instructing  Moses  to  demand 
theh^  liberation,  and  is  confirmed  in  the  description  of  the 
straits  to  wliich  the  Israelites  were  put  in  the  preparation  of 
food  after  they  were  ejected :  "  Now  shalt  thou  see  what  I 
wiU  do  to  Pharaoh  ;  for  with  a  strong  hand  shall  he  let  them 
go,  and  with  a  strong  hand  shall  he  drive  them  out  of  his 
land."  *     And  later,  before  the  slaughter  of  the  first-born : 

*  Exod,  vi.  I. 


48  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

"  Jahveh  said  unto  Moses,  Yet  will  I  bring  one  plague  more 
upon  Pharaoh  and  upon  Egypt :  afterwards  he  will  let  you 
go  hence.  Wlien  he  shall  let  you  go,  he  shall  surely  thrust 
you  out  hence  altogether."*  And,  as  the  result  of  this  final 
manifestation  of  the  power  of  the  God  of  the  Hebrews, 
"  tlie  Egyptians  were  urgent  upon  the  people  that  they  might 
send  them  out  of  the  land  in  haste ;"  and  "  they  were  thrust 
out  of  Egypt,  and  could  not  tarry ;  neither  had  they  pre- 
pared for  themselves  any  victual."! 

If  the  Israelites  were  correct  in  their  recollection  of 
having  been  expelled  from  Egypt,  we  detect  here  a  strong 
confirmation  of  the  identity  of  the  event  mentioned  by 
Manetho  in  connection  with  the  lepers  and  unclean  persons, 
with  the  Exodus  of  the  Israelites ;  and  this  becomes  still 
further  strengthened  by  the  evidence  that  leprosy  was  rife 
amongst  the  liberated  captives.  But  although  thrust  out 
from  EgyiJt,  it  was  natural  that  the  Israelites  should,  after 
their  settlement  in  Canaan,  regard  the  expulsion  as  an  un- 
qualified blessing ;  and,  though  their  fathers  looked  back 
with  longing  eyes  on  the  flesh-pots  tliey  were  compelled  to 
relinquish,  they  found  it  easy,  not  only  to  represent  their 
expulsion  as  having  been  brought  about  by  tlie  direct  inter- 
vention of  their  protecting  deity,  but  to  condemn  their  fore- 
fathers for  having,  even  when  perishing  in  the  wilderness, 
regarded  their  deliverance  as  a  questionable  blessing.  It 
may  weU  have  been  that,  owing  to  the  prevalence  of  pesti- 
lence or  other  causes,  the  Pharaoli  was  led  to  believe  that 
the  Gods  were  angry ;  and,  in  compliance  with  the  advice 
of  liis  ministers  or  priests,  banished  the  Israelites.  This 
connection  between  their  departure  and  the  supposed  dis- 
pleasure of  the  Gods  was  preserved  in  the  Hebrew  tradi- 
tions, and  ultimately,  by  a  very  easy  transition,  the  assumed 

*  Exod.  xi.  I.  t  Exod.  xii.  33-39. 


FROM  EGYPT.  49 

evidences  of  such  displeasure   came  to  "be  referred  to  the 
direct  interposition  of  Jahveli.^ 

Of  the  various  miracles  declared  to  have  been  worked  in  con- 
nection mth  the  Exodus,  perhaps  the  safe  conduct  of  the  Israel- 
ites through  the  Eed  Sea,  with  the  submersion  of  the  Pharaoh 
and  his  army,  was  the  most  striking  and  the  most  effective. 
Strictly  speaking,  there  are  no  degrees  in  the  miraculous, 
since  all  acts  must  be  equally  easy  to  an  omnipotent  Being. 
But  the  crossing  of  the  Eed  Sea  under  the  circumstances 
stated  possessed  features  which,  if  any  lesson  is  to  be  deduced 
from  a  mii'acle,  would,  one  might  have  supposed,  have  com- 
pletely convinced  not  only  the  Israelites  but  the  Egyptians 
that  the  God  in  whose  name  and  by  wliose  authority  Moses 
acted,  was  the  greatest  of  the  Elohim.  Not  only  was  "  the 
sea  made  dry  land,"  but  "  the  waters  were  a  wall  unto  them 
(the  Israelites)  on  their  right  hand  and  on  their  left."t  But 
even  more  marvellous  than  the  drying-up  of  the  depths  of 
the  sea  were  the  faith  manifested  by  the  Israelites  in  ven- 
turing into  such  a  chasm,  and  the  unreasoning  confidence 
which  induced  the  Egyptians  to  follow  them  along  such  an 
appalling  route.  Overweening  reliance  in  their  protecting 
deity   was,   however,  by  no  means   a  characteristic   of  the 


*  Diodorus  states,  though  on  what  authority  we  know  not,  that  in 
ancient  times  a  pestilence  which  raged  in  Egypt  was  attributed  to  the 
wrath  of  the  gods,  caused  by  the  strange  worship  of  the  great  number 
of  aliens  then  in  the  land.  The  latter  were  thereupon  expelled  ;  some, 
amongst  whom  were  Danaus  and  Cadmus,  going  to  Greece,  whilst  the 
main  body,  led  by  Moses,  went  to  Judeea,  and  colonised  it.  It  is  to  be 
regretted  that  Diodorus  makes  no  mention  of  the  source  from  which 
he  obtained  this  curious  narrative.  It  was  probably  Egyptian.  The 
bracketing  of  Danaus  and  Cadmus  with  Moses  should  not  lead  us  to 
treat  the  whole  story  as  worthless".  It  seems  to  contain  a  nucleus  of 
truth  (Diod.  xl.).  Elsewhere  the  Jews  are  represented  as  a  despic- 
able race  expelled  from  Egypt,  and  hateful  to  the  gods  on  account  of 
their  cutaneous  diseases  (Diod.  xxxiv.). — Browne,  Ordo  Scedorani,  584. 
t  Exod.  x^v.  22. 
E 


50  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

Israelites,  and  one  would  liave  thought  tliat  if  they  had  the 
faith  to  foUow  Moses  into  the  midst  of  the  Bed  Sea,  they 
deserved  a  better  fate  than  that  of  perishing  in  the  wilderness. 
The  passage  of  the  Red  Sea  is  for  the  most  part  treated 
in  one  of  two  ways.  It  is  accepted  as  a  miracle,  and  this 
mode  of  treatment  has  at  all  events  the  merit  of  great  sim- 
plicity, or  it  is  regarded  as  an  occurrence  capable  of  being 
explaine'd  without  any  presumed  interference  with  the  known 
laws  of  Nature.  Those  who  hold  the  latter  view  suggest  that 
the  Israelites  may  have,  passed  round  the  head  of  the 
Gulf  of  Suez  on  the  seashore,  when  the  tide  was  ex- 
ceptionally low,  and  that  the  pursuing  Egyptians  may  have 
been  overtaken  by  the  returning  tide.  There  are  others, 
ag-ain,  who,  wliilst  admitting  that  the  Israelties  were  pursued, 
and  that  the  Egyptian  army  was  overwhelmed,  maintain  that 
tlie  scene  of  the  occurrence  was  not  the  Gulf  of  Suez. 

There  is  yet  another  point  of  view  from  which  the  alleged 
passage  of  the  lied  Sea  by  the  Israelites  and  the  destruction 
of  the  Egyptian  army  may  be  regarded.  It  is  open  to  gi'ave 
doubt  whether  in  the  traditions  of  the  Exodus  any  mention 
was  made  of  this  marvellous  occurrence. 

It  is  impossible  to  read  the  i  ith,  12th,  and  13th  chap- 
ters of  Exodus,  or  at  least  those  portions  M-hich  relate  to 
the  departure  from  Egypt,  without  being  struck  by  the  fact 
that  they  wind  up  the  narrative  to  which  the  preceding 
chapters  are  devoted.  That  narrative  is  tlie  story  of  Israel's 
oppression  in  Egypt,  and  Israel's  complete  liberation  by  the 
hands  of  Jahveh.  Repeated  manifestations  of  the  super- 
natural power  of  Israel's  God  having  failed  to  make  a 
suitable  impression  on  the  Pharaoh  (Jaliveh  having  designedly 
afflicted  the  monarch  with  incurable  obduracy),  the  time 
at  length  arrived  when  it  became  necessary  to  bring  the 
protracted  conflict  to  a  close.  Accordingly,  Jahveh  is  repre- 
sented as  addiessing  Moses  in  the  language  ah-eady  quoted : 


FROM  EGYPT.  51 

"  Yet  will  I  bring  one  more  plague  upon  Pharaoh  and  upon 
Egypt,  afterwards  he  wdl  let  you  go  hence ;  when  he  shall 
let  you  go  he  shall  surely  thrust  you  out  hence  altogether." ^^' 
In  compliance  with  the  divine  commands,  Moses  told  the 
Pharaoh  that  at  midnight  Jahveh  would  pass  through  Egypt 
and  slay  the  first-born  of  man  and  beast  of  the  Egj^tians 
and  their  flocks,  whilst  sparing  the  Israelites  and  their  cattle  ; 
and  that  in  consequence  of  this  exhibition  of  the  divine 
displeasure,  the  king's  servants  would  entreat  him  together 
with  the  people  who  followed  him  to  quit  Egypt,  and  there- 
upon he  would  go  forth.t  The  Pharaoh  refused,  however,  to 
let  the  people  go,  in  order  that  Jahveh's  wonders  might  be 
multiplied,  and  consequently  the  threat  was  carried  into 
execution  the  same  night.  The  first-bojii  were  slain,  and 
"  Pharaoh  rose  up  in  the  night,  he  and  all  his  servants,  and  all 
the  Egyptians."  Moses  and  Aaron  were  sent  for  "  by  night," 
and  ordered  to  go  forth  together  with  the  children  of  Israel. 
"  The  Egyptians  were  urgent  upon  the  people  that  they 
might  send  them  out  of  the  land  in  haste ;"  and  "  the  people 
took  their  dough  before  it  was  leavened,  their  kneading 
troughs  being  bound  up  in  their  clothes  upon  their  shoulders," 
"  because  they  were  thrust  out  of  Egypt  and  could  not 
tarry.";];  The  Israelites  having  thus  been  driven  out  of 
Egypt  without  a  moment's  preparation,  a  retrospective  view 
of  then'  stay  in  the  land  which  they  had  now  finally  quitted 
is  not  inaptly  introduced.  The  language  employed  is  very 
significant :  "  Now  the  sojourning  of  the  children  of  Israel 
who  dwelt  in  Egypt  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years,  and 
it  came  to  pass  at  the  end  of  the  four  hundred  and  thii'ty 
years,  even  the  self -same  day  it  came  to  pass,  that  all  the 
hosts  of  Jahveh  went  forth  from  the  land  of  Egypt.S     It  is 


*  Exod.  xi.  I.  t  Exod.  xi.  4-8.  J  Exod.  xii.  29-39. 

§  THs  is  repeated  iu  the  last  verse  of  the  chapter. 
E    2 


5  2  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

a  night  to  be  much  observed  unto  Jaliveh  for  bringing  them 
out  from  the  land  of  Egypt.  This  is  that  night  to  be  ob- 
served of  all  the  children  of  Israel  in  their  generations."^" 
Then  follow  two  interpolations,  one  referring  to  the  insti- 
tution of  the  passover,  and  the  other  to  the  dedication  of 
tlie  first-l)orn  ;  but  connecting  those  religious  usages  with 
tlie  complete  liberation  of  the  Israelites.  "  And  Moses 
said  unto  the  jieople,  Eemember  the  day  in  which  ye  came 
out  from  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondage  ;  for  by  strength 
of  hand  Jahveh  brought  you  out  from  the  place.  There 
shall  no  leavened  bread  be  eaten  ;"t  and,  in  relation  to  the 
dedication  of  the  first-1)orn  :  "  And  it  came  to  pass  when 
Pharaoh  would  hardly  let  us  go  tliat  Jahveh  slew  all  the 
first-born  in  the  land  of  Egj'pt,  both  the  first-born  of  man 
and  the  first-born  of  beast.  Therefore  I  sacrifice  to  Jahveh 
all  that  opens  the  matrix,  being  males,  but  all  the  first-born 
of  my  children  I  redeem."|  Tlie  thread  of  tlic  original 
record,  thus  broken,  is  not  resumed  till  we  come  to  verse 
20,^  which  tells  us  that  "  they  took  their  journey  from 
Succoth,  and  encamped  in  Etham,  on  the  edge  of  the  wilder- 
ness." But  the  narrator  evidently  thought  that  this  was  a 
fitting  place  in  which  to  foreshadow  the  somewliat  singular 
route  which  -it  was  known  that  the  Israelites  took  on  their 
way  from  Egypt  to  their  future  home,  and  to  record  the 
miracvdous  conditions  under  which  they  were  guided  on 
their  road.  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  mIiou  Pharaoh  had  le 
the  people  go,  that  God,||  led  them  not  through  the  way  of  the 
land  of  the  Philistines,  although  that  was  near ;  for  God 
said,  Lost  peradvcnture  the  j)eople  repent  when  they  see  war, 
and  they  return  to  Egypt.     But  God  led  the  people  about 


*  Exod.  xii.  40-42.  t  Exod.  xiii.  3.  X  I^xod.  xiii.  15. 

§  Exod.   xiii.   20,   seems  originally  to  have    followed  in  succession 
Exod.  xii.  39.  II  Literullij  Elohini. 


FROM  EGYPT.  53 

through  the  way  of  the  wilderness  of  the  Eed  Sea ;  and  the 
children  of  Israel  went  up  harnessed  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt."*  "And  Jahveh  went  before  them  by  day  in  a 
pillar  of  a  cloud,  to  lead  them  the  way ;  and  by  night  in  a 
pillar  of  fire,  to  give  them  light ;  to  go  by  day  and  night. 
He  took  not  away  the  pillar  of  the  cloud  by  day,  nor  the  pillar 
of  fire  by  night,  from  before  the  people."t 

It  is   difficidt  to  imagine  that  the  people  who  held  the 
tradition  wliich  came  to  be  embodied  in  this  form  could  have 
known  anything  of  the  dehverance  of  Israel  from  the  power 
of  Egypt  at   the  Red  Sea.     The  departure  from  Egypt  is 
treated     as    an    accomplished    fact,    and    is    unequivocally 
referred  to  as  what  is  regarded  as  the  final  manifestation 
of  Jahveh's  power,  the  destruction  of  the  Ijrst-born.     Jahveh 
is  represented  as  solemnly  pledging  himself  to   Moses  that 
one  more  plague  would  be  efficacious — nay,  that  it  would  be 
so  efficacious  that  Pharaoh  would  not  merely  let  the  people 
go,  but  would  thrust  them  out  altogether ;  and  it  is  then 
stated  that,  according  to  Jahveh's  word,  they  were  thrust 
out  in  the  night  time,  and  compelled  to  depart  without  time 
being   allowed   for  any  preparations  for  their  journey,  and 
that  the  night  was  to   be  much  observed  unto  Jahveh,  for 
bringing  them  out  from  the  land  of  Egypt.      The  sojourning 
in  Egypt  is  thus  treated  as  a  thing  of  the  past,  and  is  com- 
puted   as    having    lasted   four   hundred    and    thu'ty  years. 
"  And  it  came  to  pass,  at  the  end  of  the  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years,  even  the  self-same  day  it  came  to  pass,  that  all 
the  hosts  of  Jahveh  went  out  from  the  land  of  Egypt."j:    The 
departure  from  Egypt  having  taken  place,  or  in  the  words  of 
the  record,  "  when   Pharaoh  had   let   the  people   go,"  the 
migration   towards    Canaan    commenced.       The    indications 
here   given   of    the  route   subsequently  taken,  and  of    the 


*  Exod.  xiii.  17,  1 8.  f  Exod.  xiii.  21.  X  ^xod.  xii.  41. 


54  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

visiljle  interposition  of  Jaliveh  Miien  gtiiding  the  people  on 
their  way,  demand  very  attentive  consideration. 

When  the  settlement  on  both  banks  of  the  Jordan  was 
effected,  and  it  hecnme  an  established  belief  that  the  pro- 
tecting deity  had  liberated  Israel  from  captivity  in  Egypt  in 
order  to  lead  that  people  into  the  land  which  had  been 
])romised  to  the  seed  of  Abraham,  it  became  necessary  to 
account  for  the  fact  that  a  very  circuitous  route  was  taken 
by  Jahveh  in  leading  his  people  from  Egypt  to  their 
destination.  An  explanation  was  supplied  by  the  suggestion 
that  the  recently  liberated  slaves  woidd  have  been  terrified, 
if  without  any  preparation  they  had  been  obliged  to  engage 
in  war  with  tlie  Pliilistines,  and  would  have  returned  to 
Egypt.  Tlie  narrator  accordingly  states,  that  when 
"  Pharaoh  had  let  the  people  go  (that  is,  when  they  had 
quitted  Egypt),  God  led  them  not  (the  past  tense  is  used) 
through  the  way  of  the  land  of  the  Pliilistines,  although  that 
was  near,"  for  the  reason  stated,  "  but  God  led  the  people 
about  (past  tense)  through  the  way  of  the  wilderness  of  the 
lied  Sea,  and  the  children  of  Israel  went  up  harnessed  out 
of  Egypt."^ 

It  is  universally  assumed  that  this  statement  tliat  "  God 
led  the  people  about  through  the  way  of  tlie  wilderness  of 
the  Red  Sea,"  indicates  that  the  Israelites  were  led  into  the 
region  bordering  on  the  Gulf  of  Suez.  A  closer  examina- 
tion of  the  passage  will  show  this  not  to  be  the  case. 

According  to  one  of  tlie  tra,ditions  transmitted  to  us, 
which  will  at  a  later  period  engage  our  more  particular 
attention,  the  Israelites,  terrified  by  the  reports  brought  to 
tliem  by  the  spies  whom  they  sent  forth  to  explore  the 
promised  land,  refused  to  adopt  Caleb's  counsel  and  "go  up" 
against   the   inhabitants.     Jahveh   was  very  angiy  in  con- 


*  Exod.  xiii.  17,  18. 


FROM  EGYPT.  55 

sequence  of  this  disobedience,  and  threatened  to  "  smite 
them  with  pestilence,  and  disinherit  them."  He  was,  how- 
ever, dissuaded  by  Moses  from  carrying  his  threat  into 
effect,  and  apparently  abandoning  his  intention  of  leading 
the  people  into  Caanan  by  the  route  followed  by  the  spies, 
gave  the  order  to  Moses,  "  To-morrow  turn  you,  and  get  you 
into  the  wilderness  by  the  way  of  the  Eed  Sea."''^  "We  find 
the  same  tradition,  though  told  in  somewhat  different  lan- 
guage, elsewhere,  the  same  order  being  given,  "  Turn  you, 
and  take  your  journey  into  the  wilderness  by  the  way  of 
the  Eed  Sea  ;"t  and  the  narrative  ccntinues,  "  Then  we 
turned,  and  took  our  journey  into  the  wilderness  by  the 
way  of  the  Eed  Sea,  as  Jahveh  spake  unto  me,  and  we 
comjoassed  Mount  Seir  many  days."|  It  is,  however, 
universally  conceded  that  "  the  wilderness"  and  "  the  way 
of  the  Eed  Sea,"  referred  to  in  these  passages,  were  in  the 
neighbourhood  not  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez,  the  north-western 
arm — but  of  the  Gulf  of  Akaba,  the  north-eastern  arm  of 
the  Eed  Sea.  It  was  by  this  route — and  this  is  not  dis- 
puted by  any  one — that  the  emigrants  finally  made  their 
way  to  the  promised  land. 

But,  if  with  this  fact  fixed  in  our  minds,  we  return  to  the 
concluding  passages  of  the  narrative  of  the  Exodus  we  find 
a  striking  confirmation  of  our  impression  that  the  narrator 
regarded  the  severance  between  the  Israelites  and  the 
Egyptians  as  complete,  and  having  conducted  the  former  to 
the  edge  of  the  wilderness,  wound  up  the  story  by  briefly 
surveying  the  direction  followed  and  the  means  adopted  by 
the  protecting  deity  in  leading  the  Israehtes  to  then-  future 
home.  "  When  Pharaoh  had  let  the  people  go,  God  led 
them  not  (through)  the  way  of  the  land  of  the  Philistines, 
but   God  led  the   people   about   (through)   the   way  of  the 

*  Num.  xiv.  6-25.  t  Deut.  i.  40.  J  Deut.  ii.  i. 


56  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

wilderness  of  the  Eed  Sea"  (that  is,  by  the  head  of  the 
Gulf  of  Akaba)  ;  "  and  Jahveli  went  before  them  by  day  in 
a  pillar  of  cloud  ....  and  by  night  in  a  pillar  of  fire 
....  he  took  not  away  the  pillar  of  cloud  by  day  nor  the 
pillar  of  fire  by  night  fi'om  before  the  people." 

It  is  noticeable,  even  to  the  English  reader,  that  a 
different  farm  o^  expression  is  used  in  reference  to  the  lead- 
ing of  the  people  by  "  the  way  of  the  land  of  the  riiilistiues" 
and  by  "  the  way  of  the  wilderness  of  the  Red  Sea."  In 
allusion  to  the  latter  it  is  said  that  "  God  led  the  people 
about."  The  Hebrew  word  signifies  to  "  lead  round  about,"* 
and  we  shall  be  struck  with  the  applicability  of  such  an 
expression  to  the  movement  of  the  Israelites  when  we  pro- 
ceed to  consider  more  particularly  the  course  taken  during 
the  migration  to  Canaan. 

The  expression  "  led  round  about,"  is  incomprehensible, 
if  it  be  assumed  that  the  narrator  wished  to  describe 
the  movement  of  the  Israelites  from  the  place  of  their 
captivity  in  Egypt  to  the  western  shores  of  the  Gulf  of 
Suez.  If  their  starting-point  was  west  of  the  meridian  of 
Suez — that  is  to  say,  of  the  line  of  the  present  Suez  Canal — 
the  direction  taken  by  tlie  captives,  even  if  they  made  for 
this  gulf,  would  in  any  case  have  been  direct  and  not 
circuitous ;  but  if  it  was  to  the  east  of  the  district  now 
ti'aversed  by  the  canal,  they  must  have  penetrated  still  farther 
into  Egypt,  as  a  preliminary  step  to  quitting  it,  a  course 
which  they  were  neither  so  stupid,  nor  even  for  the  purpose 
of  sui)i)lying  their  deity  with  an  occasion  for  the  display 
of  his  supernatural  powers,  so  docile  as  to  adopt. 

The  mention  made  by  the  narrator  of  the  supernatui'al 
means  of  guidance  afforded  by  Jahveli  to  his  i)eople  affords 
a  further  proof  that  he  had  before  his  eyes,  not  the  journey 


*  ^D*  Yahseh  caus.  from  niiQ  Sabab. 


FROM  EG  YPT.  57 

of  the  Israelites  within  Egyptian  territory,  but  through  the 
desolate  region  they  were  compelled  to  traverse  in  order  to 
reach  their  promised  home.  On  the  western  aide  of  the 
Suez  Gulf  the  Israelites  would  have  found  themselves  not 
only  still  in  Egypt,  hut  in  a  region  sufficiently  well 
known  to  render  their  miraculous  guidance  wholly 
superfluous,  whilst  the  distance  to  be  traversed  before 
the  seashore  was  reached  must,  in  any  case,  have  been 
inconsiderable.  The  language  used  by  the  narrator  in 
connection  with  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  the  piUar  of  fire, 
has,  however,  clearly  no  reference  to  the  journey  from 
Eameses  to  Succoth,  and  thence  to  the  place  of  encampment 
on  the  edge  of  the  wilderness.^  It  is  at  this  latter  point 
that  he  considers  the  journeyings  of  the  Hebrews  through 
what  to  them  was  an  unknown  region,  to  have  commenced  ; 
it  is  from  thence  that  Jahveh  plays  the  part  of  a  visible  guide, 
and  he  does  so  by  day  and  by  night  during  a  period  which 
the  narrator  does  not  attempt  to  define,  but  wliich  he 
evidently  regards  as  considerable,  far  greater  than  would 
have  been  necessary  to  enable  the  Israelites  to  reach  what 
is  generally  assumed  to  have  been  their  next  station,  the 
encampment  by  the  shore  of  the  Eed  Sea. 

Let  us  now  turn  our  attention  to  the  story  of  the 
passage  of  the  Eed  Sea.  It  is  contained  in  the  14th 
chapter  of  Exodus.  We  notice,  in  the  first  place,  that  it  is 
not  only  not  a  continuation  of  the  narrative  in  the  preceding- 
chapter,  but  that  it  commences  with  an  apology  for,  or 
explanation  of,  a  change  of  route  which  no  one  accepting  the 
preceding  statement  would  have  expected.  The  former 
narrative,  it  will  be  recollected,  had  taken  the  Israelites  out  of 
Egypt,  or  rather,  having  accounted  for  their  being  thrust 
out,  had  calculated  to  a  day  the  period  of   theii'  stay  in  that 


*  Exod.  xiii.  20. 


58  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

country,  and  liad  conducted  them  to  an  encampment  in 
Etham  on  the  edge  of  the,  wilderness  (ham-midbhar),  this  term 
clearly  denoting  on  tlie  mind  of  the  narrator  a  region  out- 
side the  limits  of  Egyptian  territory.  Tlie  accuracy  of  this 
narrative  was  too  generally  accepted  to  l>e  called  in  question, 
and  it  was  therefore  essential,  in  order  to  make  the  passage 
of  the  Red  Sea  in  the  presence  of  a  pursuing  army  and  the 
destruction  of  the  latter  intelligible,  to  account  for  the 
Israelites,  notwithstanding  their  arrival  at  the  edge  of  the 
wilderness,  finding  their  way  to  the  Egyptian  side  of  the 
lied  Sea,  and  also  to  explain  the  attempt  of  the  Egj^itian 
monarch  to  retake  the  people  wliom  he  had  cast  out. 

The  narrative  is  accordingly  introduced  with  a  statement 
that  Jahveh  ordered  Moses  to  direct  the  Israelites  to  turn — 
or,  literally,  to  "  return," — and  to  encamp  between  Migdol 
and  the  sea,  the  effect  of  which  operation  would  be  to 
induce  Pharaoh  to  say  of  them,  "  They  are  entangled  in  the 
land,  the  wilderness  hath  shut  them  in."*  The  obvious 
folly  of  such  a  movement  on  the  part  of  a  people  desirous  of 
(juitting  Egypt  needed  explanation,  and  Jahveh  is  made  to 
declare  that  his  object  in  exposing  his  people  to  apparent 
danger,  is  to  have  a  further  opportunity  of  "  being  honoured 
upon  Pharaoh  and  upon  all  his  host,  that  the  Egyptians 
might  know"  that  he  was  Jahveh.t  The  bait  was  swallowed 
by  tlie  hapless  monarch,  who  had  in  fact  no  choice  in  the 
matter,  as  Jahveh  once  more  hardened  his  heart ;  and  it 
having  been  "  told  to  the  kin^  that  the  people  had  fled"| 
he  and  his  servants  repented  them  of  having  liberated  their 
Hebrew  slaves,  and  a  strong  force  at  once  went  in  pursuit, 
the  army  being  led  by  the  king  in  person.  The  details  of 
wliat  subsequently  occurred  need  not  occupy  our  attention. 

In  dealing  with  this  narrative,  in  respect  to  its  claim  to 

*  ExoJ.  xiv.  3.  t  Exod.  xiv.  4.  ^  Exod.  xiv.  5. 


FROM  EGYPT.  59 

occupy  a  place  in  the  traditions  of  the  Exodus,  we  are 
struck  by  its  incongruity  with  the  story  which  the  latter 
embody.  The  destruction  of  the  Egyptian  monarch  with  his 
army  in  the  sea,  furnishes  an  anticlimax  to  the  slaughter  of 
the  first-born.  Again,  this  act  of  divine  vengeance,  unlike 
"  the  plagues,"  is  absolutely  purposeless,  save  for  the  sake 
of  gratifying  the  inordinate  vanity  of  Jahveh.  The  scheme 
of  the  story  of  Israel's  servitude  and  liberation  which  we 
liave  recently  considered  is  logical  and  harmonious  through- 
out. A  request  is,  in  the  first  instance,  made  of  the  Pharaoh 
to  allow  the  Hebrews  to  depart  and  make  a  three  days' 
journey  into  the  wilderness,  in  order  to  sacrifice  to  their  God. 
This  request  is  refused,  and  it  thereupon  becomes  necessary 
to  convince  the  king  that  the  God  of ^  the  Hebrews  is  so 
powerful  that  he  can  insist  upon  his  wigiies  being  attended 
to.  A  succession  of  "  plagues"  is  the  result,  but  between 
each  chastisement  the  Pharaoh  is  apparently  afforded  a  locus 
pcenitentim.  His  heart  is  invariably  hardened,  so  that  these 
opportunities  of  giving  way  are  delusive  ;  but  it  is  nowhere 
suggested  that  if  he  had  "  hearkened"  to  Moses  and  "  let  the 
people  go,"  he  and  his  people  would  nevertheless  have  been 
made  the  objects  of  Jahveh's  vindictiveness.  The  "  plagues" 
are  a  means  to  an  end,  that  end  being  the  liberation  of 
Israel ;  and  that  end  is  declared  to  have  been  accomplished,  as 
weU  it  might  be,  when  the  manifestation  of  Jahveh's  power 
culminated  in  the  instantaneous  destruction  of  "  all  the  first- 
born in  the  land  of  Egypt,  from  the  first-born  of  Pharaoh 
that  sat  on  his  throne,  unto  the  first-born  of  the  captive  that 
was  in  the  dungeon,  and  all  the  first-born  of  cattle."*  We 
are  not  considering  whether  anything  of  the  kind  ever  took 
place,  but  whether  those  who  beUeved  that  it  did  take  place, 
and    who    made  this   unexampled    proof  of   divine   power 

*  Exod.  xii.  29. 


6o  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

and  divine  vengeance  the  cause  of  Israel's  liberation  from 
Egypt  would  have  destroyed  the  whole  force  and  moral  of 
this  story,  and  brought  the  liberated  people  back  again  for 
the  sake  of  taking  them  through  a  sea  which  did  not  lie  in 
their  path,  and  of  submerging,  together  with  his  army,  the 
king  who  a  day  or  two  previously  had  not  only  felt  the 
terrific  weight  of  Jahveh's  arm  in  the  universal  destruction  of 
the  first-born  throughout  the  kingdom,  but  had  by  freeing — 
nay,  thrusting  out — his  people  given  a  conclusive  acknowledg- 
ment of  his  superiority  to  the  Gods  of  Egypt. 

It  is  furtlier  noticeable  that  in  seeking  to  account  for  the 
institution  of  the  religious  rites  of  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread,  the  paschal  lamb,  and  the  dedication  of  the  first-born 
a  connection  is  drawn  between  the  circumstances  under  which 
the  liberation  from  Egyptian  ser^dtude  was  alleged  to  have 
taken  place  and  those  usages.  We  are  not  now  concerned  with 
the  cogency  of  these  explanations;  it  is  sufficient  to  point  out 
that,  whether  rightly  or  wrongly,  the  festival  of  unleavened  bread , 
tlie  sacrifice  of  the  paschal  lamb,  and  the  dedication  of  the 
first-born,  came  to  be  associated  in  the  minds  of  the  settlers 
in  Palestine  with  occurrences  supposed  to  have  signalised 
the  departure  of  their  ancestors  from  Egypt.  It  is,  however, 
a  very  significant  fact,  that  the  final  triumph  of  Jahveh  over 
the  Egyptians  at  the  Red  Sea,  and  the  miraculous  conduct 
of  the  Israelites  through  its  depths  (supposing  such  a  tradi- 
tion to  have  been  generally  accepted),  did  not,  like  tlie 
sprinkUng  of  blood  on  the  door7posts,  the  slaughter  of  the 
Egyptian  first-born,  and  the  hurried  departure  of  the  captives 
with  their  unleavened  bread,  find  a  commemoration  in  any 
religious  rite,  or  give  occasion  for  any  ceremonial  usage 
which  would  have  tended  to  keep  that  great  event  alive  in 
the  memory  of  the  people.  When  the  traditions  of  tlie 
Exodus  came  to  be  moulded  into  the  form  in  which  we 
now  find  them,  under   the   infiuence  of  the  paramount  idea 


FROM  EGYPT.  6i 

that  the  liberation  of  Israel  from  "  the  house  of  bondage" 
was  the  inauguration  of  Israel's  independent  existence  and 
adoption  as  Jahveh's  people,  it  is  easy  to  understand  how 
attempts  should  be  made  to  account  for  the  institution  of 
rites  whose  origin  was  even  then  lost  in  the  oblivion  of  the 
nomadism  from  wliich  they  sprang,  and  to  connect  their 
introduction  with  the  crowning  act  of  Israel's  conversion 
into  a  free  people.  If  sucli  a  conclusion  recommends  itself, 
it  furnishes  an  additional  reason  for  disallowing  to  the  narra- 
tive of  the  passage  of  the  Eed  Sea  a  place  in  the  story  of 
the  Exodus. 

If,  however,  the  story  of  this  extraordinary  event 
was  accepted  in  early  times  by  the  children  of  Israel, 
it  is  a  most  remarkable  fact  that  it  is  not  referred 
to,  except  in  records  of  a  comparatively  late  date.  Tlie 
prophets,  if  we  except  the  later  Isaiah,  who  lived  at  the  time 
of  the  liberation  of  the  Jews  by  Cyrus,*  apparently  knew 
nothing  of  this  miraculous  occurrence,  though  they  make 
frequent  allusions  to  the  liberation  from  Egypt  and  the 
sojourn  in  the  wilderness.  Unequivocal  reference  is  made 
to  the  passage  of  the  Eed  Sea  in  only  a  few  places.  Thus 
in  a  speech  attributed  to  Joshua,  that  leader  reminds  the 
Israelites  with  gTcat  particularity  of  the  incidents  connected 
with  their  preservation  fi'om  the  pursuing  Egyptians,  and  the 
submersion  of  the  latter  in  the  sea.f  The  reference  to  this 
occurrence  in  Deuteronomy   is  equally  unmistakable.^     In 

*  Only  the  most  uncompromising  champions  of  what  is  taken  for 
orthodoxy  now  venture  to  deny  that  the  Book  of  Isaiah  is  the  work  of 
two  persons,  the  one  a  contemporary  of  Hezekiah,  cir.  B.C.  725 ;  the 
other  of  Cyrus,  cir.  B.C.  536  [c.  c.  i.-xxxix.  constitute  the  work  of  the 
former,  c.c.  xl.-lxvi.  that  of  the  latter].  How  the  two  works  came  to  be 
bracketed  together  we  have  no  means  of  telling.  Perhaps  the  prophets 
bore  the  same  name.  The  second  in  order,  called  "  the  Great 
Unknown,"  is,  for  the  sake  of  distinction,  generally  termed  the  later 
Isaiah. 

t  Josh.  xxiv.  6.  X  Deut.  xi.  4. 


62  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

some  of  the  Psalms  also,  the  poet  manifests  his  acquaintance 
■with  the  details  of  the  story ."^  Isaiah,  the  contemporary  of 
Cyrus,  used  language  which  indicates  familiarity  with  the 
statement  that  Moses  divided  the  sea  ;t  and  Nehemiah,  who 
quitted  Babylon  in  the  latter  half  of  the  fifth  century,  treats 
the  story  as  authentic.|  It  should  also  be  stated  that  the 
author  of  the  Itinerary  in  Numbers  declares  that  the 
Israelites  passed  through  the  midst  of  tlie  sea.§ 

None  of  these  authorities  can,  however,  be  shown  to  be 
earlier  than  the  close  of .  the  seventh  century  B.C.,  and  most 
of  them  are  much  later.  If  Joshua  addressed  to  his 
followers  the  speech  ascribed  to  him,  the  question  woiild  be 
settled,  because  if  he  quitted  Egypt  with  the  Israelites,  he 
must  have  had  amongst  his  hearers  some  at  least  who  were 
eye-witnesses  of  the  miracle.  But  one  of  the  residts  of 
recent  Bibhcal  criticism  is  to  demonstrate  that  the  concluding, 
like  the  introductory,  chapters  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  are 
compositions  of  a  very  late  date.  The  Book  of  Deuteronomy 
(with  the  exception  of  the  opening  and  concluding  portions) 
is  shown  to  be  a  work  of  the  close  of  the  seventh  century, 
immediately  preceding  the  faU  of  the  Jewish  monarcliy.|| 
The  date  of  the  Psalms  referred  to  is  unknown,  but  every- 
thing points  to  the  period  of   the   Babylonian   exile.     The 


*  Psalms  Ixvi.  6  ;  Ixxviii.  1 3  ;  cvi.  9. 
t  Isaiah  Ixiii.  12-13.  X  Nek  ix.  11.  §  Num.  xxxiii.  8. 

II  "  There  is  one  point  upon  which  there  exists  now  almost  unanimous 
agreement  among  the  critics  of  the  liberal  school — namely,  the  age  of 
Deuteronomy  ;"  which  is  placed  in'  the  latter  half  of  the  seventh 
century  B.C. — Colcnso,  Pentateuch,  vi.  24.  The  Bishop  of  Natal  believes 
it  to  have  been  written  either  in  the  latter  part  of  Manasseh's  reign,  or 
in  the  early  part  of  Josiah's.  Graf  says  that  "among  the  most 
generally  admitted  results  of  the  historical  criticism  of  the  Old 
Testament,  for  all  who  do  not  take  up  a  position  of  antagonism  against 
these  results  altogether,  may  be  reckoned  the  composition  of 
Deuteronomy  in  the  reign  of  Josiah."  "The  Book  of  Deuteronomy, 
from  internal  evidence,  cannot  have  been  written  earlier  than  the 
seventh  century  before  the  present  era,  and  is  probably  the  'Book  of  the 


FROM  EGYPT.  63 

apparent  corroboration  by  the  second  Isaiah  and  Nehemiah 
does  not  call  for  comment,  because  unquestionably  in  their 
time  the  story  had  secured,  probably  through  the  Deuterono- 
mist,  an  unassailable  position  in  the  sacred  history  of  Israel. 
The  testimony  of  the  author  of  the  Itinerary"^  is  valueless, 
because,  as  we  shall  have  occasion  to  show  at  a  future 
stage  of  our  inquiry,  he  lived  long  posterior  to  the  epoch  whose 
events  he  professed  to  record.  The  conclusion  already 
forced  upon  us  that  the  story  of  the  passage  of  the  Eed 
Sea  occupied  no  place  in  the  original  traditions  of  the  Exodus 
is  therefore  indu-ectly  confirmed  by  the  absence  of  all  allusion 
to  it  in  records  of  unmistakable  antiquity. 

The  first  jjortion  of  Exod.  xv.  contains  a  song  of  triumph 
ascribed  to  Moses,  but  which,  with  the  exception  of  the 
introductory  verse,  is  the  product  of  a  comparatively  late 
period.  Somewhat  similar  passages  to  those  in  this  Psalm 
have  been  found  in  the  Book  of  Job  and  in  the  writings  of 
the  Prophets  Habbakuk,  Isaiah,  and  Jeremiah,  but  its  anti- 
quity must  be  antecedently  established  in  order  to  justify 
the  inference  that  the  individuals  referred  to  borrowed  its 
language.  But,  independently  of  this  preliminary  objection, 
it  is  somewhat  singular  that  in  the  points  of  correspondence 
relied  on  there  is  obviously  no  reference  to  the  miracle  said 
to  have  been  worked  at  the  Eed  Sea.  Wlien,  for  example, 
the  poet,  in  giving  instances  of  the  omnipotence  of  God, 
speaks  of  Him  as  the  Being  who  "stretches  out  the  nortli 
over  the  empty  place,  and  liangeth  the  earth  upon  nothing,"! 
who  "  bindeth  up   the  waters  in  thick  clouds,"|  who  "  com- 

Law,'  or  Book  of  tlie  Covenant  found  in  the  Temple  during  the  reign 
of  Josiah."  (2  Kings  xxii.  8 ;  xxiii.  2)— Kalisch,  Leviticus,  pt.  i.  43. 
See  also  Kuenen's  Religion  of  Israel'.  Certain  portions  of  the  book, 
especially  in  the  introductory  and  concluding  chapters,  consist  of  much 
older  records,  wliicli  were  subsequently  incorporated  by  a  compiler, 
probably  during,  or  subsequent  to,  the  Babylonian  captivity. 

*  Num.  xxxiii.  f  Job  xxvi.  7.  J  Job  xxvi.  8. 


64  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

})assetli  the  water  witliin  bounds,"*  and  who  "  divided  the  sea 
with  liis  power,"t  it  is  evident  that  reference  is  made  to  the 
works  of  creation.  When  one  of  the  Psalmists  exclaims 
in  the  same  strain,  "  Thou  didst  diWde  the  sea  by  thy 
strength,";};  "  thou  didst  chase  the  fountain  and  the  flood, 
tliou  (h-iedst  up  mighty  rivers,"  "  thou  hast  prepared  the 
li'dit  and  the  sun,  thou  hast  set  all  the  borders  of  tlie 
earth,  thou  hast  made  summer  and  wanter,"^  it  is  equally 
apparent  that  he  is  not  referring  to  a  solitary  and  capricious 
exercise  of  divine  power.  And,  in  like  manner,  when 
the  later  Isaiah  appeals  to  those  who  have  "  forgotten 
Jahveh  tlieir  maker,  that  stretched  forth  tlie  lieavens  and 
laid  the  foundation  of  the  eartli,"  and  adds  "  but  I  am 
Jahveli,  thy  God,  that  divided  the  sea  whose  waves  roared, 
Jahveh  of  Hosts  is  his  name,"||  it  is  idle  to  suggest  that  the 
prophet  is  referring  to  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea.  Very 
similar  language  is  used  by  the  earlier  prophet  Jeremiah, 
where  no  one  can  doubt  that  allusion  is  made  to  the  power 
daily  exercised  by  God  over  the  depip.  "  Thus  saith  Jahveh, 
wliich  giveth  the  sun  for  a  light  by  day  and  the  ordinances 
of  the  moon  and  stars  for  a  light  by  night,  which  divide  the 
sea  when  the  waves  thereof  roar,  Jaliveli  of  Hosts  is  liis 
name."1[  '  Again,  when  Habakkuk,  in  an  extremely  lieautiful 
song  of  praise,  asks,  "  Was  Jahveh  displeased  against  the 
rivers  ?  was  thine  anger  against  the  rivers?  was  thy 
wratli  against  the  sea,  that  thou  didst  ride  upon  tliy 
horses  and  thy  chariots  of  salvation  ?  The  mountains  saw 
thee,  and  tliey  trembled ;  the  overflowing  of  the  waters 
passed  by,  the  deep  uttered  his  voice,  and  lifted  up  his 
hands  on  high,"**  it  is  not  only  preposterous  to  suggest  that 
the  prophet  has  the  passage  of  tlie  Red  Sea  in  his  mind, 
l)ut  it  brings  him  into  undeserved  contempt  by  suggesting 

*  Job  xxvi.  lo.      t  Job  xxvi.  12.     :J:  Ps.  Ixxiv.  13.     §  Ts.  Ixxiv.  15-17. 
II  Isaiah  li.  1315.  K  Jer.  xxxi.  35.         **  Hab.  iii.  S-io. 


FROM  EGYPT.  65 

that  the  concluding  words  refer  to  the  walls  of  water  formed 
on  each  side  of  the  retreating  Israelites.  The  song  gene- 
rally attributed  to  Moses  must  be  referred  to  a  far  later 
period  of  Israel's  religious  development,  and  be  classified  with 
those  Psalms  in  which  when  singing  the  praises  of  Jahveh 
the  poet  conjures  up  the  memories  of  wliat  he  believes 
to  be  the  events  of  the  past.  The  language  which  he 
puts  into  the  mouth  of  the  "  enemy,"  "  I  will  divide  the 
spoil ;  my  lust  shall  be  satisfied  upon  them ;  I  will  draw 
my  sword,  my  hand  shall  destroy  them."*  leads  one  to  con- 
clude that  in  his  poetic  ardour  he  overlooked  the  fact  that 
the  released  captives  could  have  possessed  nothing  and 
taken  nothing  with  them^when  "  thrust  out"  save  by  the 
sufferance  of  the  Egyptian  monarch,  and  that  the  object  of 
the  supposed  pursuit  was  not  to  destroy  the  fugitives  with 
the  sword,  but  to  regain  possession  of  useful  slaves. 

In  the  narrative  of  the  pursuit  of  the  Israelites  by  the 
Egyptians  through  the  sea,t  it  is  somewhat  curious  that 
the  name  of  the  sea  where  the  miraculous  occurrence  took 
place  is  nowhere  mentioned.  And  this  is  all  the  more 
remarkable  and  important  when  we  recollect  the  isolated 
character  of  the  fragment,  and  its  total  want  of  connection 
with  the  narrative  which  precedes  it.  Nor  can  it  be  said 
that  mention  having  been  made  of  the  Eed  Sea  in  the  pre- 
vious chapter,^  it  became  unnecessary  to  repeat  the  desig- 
nation, for  the  reference  there  made  is,  as  we  have  shown, 
to  the  route  by  winch  the  Israelites  ultimately  made  their 
way  to  Canaan,  and  not  to  the  neighbourhood  in  which  they 
found  themselves  on  quitting  Egypt.  The  circumstance 
that  the  narrator,  in  order  to  take  the  Israelites  to  tlie  sea, 
found   it  indispensable  to   mtike  them   "  turn    about'  from 


*  Exod.  XV.  9.  f  Exod.  xiv. 

X  Exod.  xiii.  18. 

F 


66  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

their  original  coui'se*  affords  a  further  proof  that  the  Eed 
Sea  spoken  of  in  the  former  narrative  was  not  in  his 
mind. 

If  we  have  satisfied  ourselves  that  the  passage  of  the  Eed 
Sea  had  no  place  in  the  traditions  of  the  Exodus,  it 
becomes  of  no  practical  importance  to  ascertain  how  the 
legend  arose,  or  where  the  occurrence  was  supposed  to  have 
taken  place.  Before  dismissing  the  subject,  it  may,  how- 
ever, be  worth  while  to  make  a  few  remarks  upon  these 
points. 

According  to  the  narrator,  Jahveh  said  to  Moses,  "  Speak 
unto  the  children  of  Israel  that  they  turn  and  encamp  before 
Pi-hahiroth,t  between  Migdol  and  the  sea,  over  against  Baal- 
zephon :  before  it  shall  ye  encamp  by  the  sea."  If  we  could 
determine  the  locality  of  any  of  these  places,  we  should  have 
no  difficulty  in  ascertaining  the  precise  sea  that  was  present 
to  the  narrator's  mind. 

It  is  very  doubtful  whether  Pi-hahiroth  is  a  proper  name. 
It  literally  means  "  the  mouth  of  caverns,"  and  is  never 
again  mentioned  except  in  the  Itinerary  in  Numbers  xxxiii.| 
It  renders  us  no  assistance.  It  is  different  with  Migdol. 
This  word  signifies  in  Hebrew  a  "  tower,"  but  there  is  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  it  was  a  distinctive  name  given  to  a 
well-known  Eg}q)tian  city.      Migdol  is  referred  to  by  the 


*  Exod.  xiv.  2  ;  Num.  xxxiii.  6-8.  The  author  of  the  Itinerary 
uncoDsciously  renders  this  very  clear/  for  he  makes  the  Israelites  quit 
Etham  to  reach  a  point  from  whence,  by  crossing  the  Red  Sea,  they 
again  entered  the  wilderness  of  Etham. 

t  The  Septuagiut  rendering  of  the  name  as  it  occurs  here  is  rijs 
€7ravXtwj,  but  in  Num.  xxxiii.  7  it  is  given  as  kixl  to  oto/uo  'Elpcjd,  and  in 
the  following  verse  Wipud. 

X  According  to  the  text  in  its  present  form  the  author  of  the 
Itinerary  calls  the  place  Pi-hahiioth  in  verse  7,  and  simply  Hahiroth  in 
verse  8.  The  Septuagiut  traujlatiou  takes  the  same  form.  (See  pre- 
ceding note.) 


FROM  EGYPT.  67 

prophets  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  *  and  was  evidently  known 
to  them  as  a  town  on  the  north-eastern  frontier  of  Egypt. 
The  words  of  Ezekiel,  "I  will  make  the  land  of  Egypt 
utterly  waste  from  Migdol  to  Syene,  even  unto  the  borders 
of  Ethiopia,"  indicate  that  he  regarded  the  former  as  the 
extreme  north,  and  the  latter — which  has  been  identified  as 
Assonant — as  the  extreme  south  of  Egypt.  In  the  Itinerary 
of  Antoninus  Martyr,  a  town  named  Magdolo  is  mentioned 
as  distant  from  Pelusium  twelve  Eoman  miles  on  the  road 
to  Serapeum,  which  latter  place  was  near  the  western  shore 
of  the  Suez  G-ulf.  Pelusium  was,  however,  an  Egyptian  frontier 
town  of  considerable  strength  under  the  twenty-sixth  dynasty, 
in  the  seventh  century  B.C.,  and  was  situated  close  to 
the  Mediterranean,  to  the  east  of  the  Pelysiac  mouth  of  the 
Nile ;  and  there  seems  good  reason  for  supposing  that 
Migdol  was  substantially  identified  with  Pelusium  by  the 
prophets  whom  we  have  quoted.  However  this  may  be,  the 
reference  made  by  Jeremiah  to  the  adjoining  districts,  in 
which  the  Jewish  captives  (his  contemporaries)  were  interned, 
leaves  no  doubt  that  the  Migdol  mentioned  by  him  was  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  the  Mediterranean,  and  on  the  Egyp- 
tian frontier  looking  towards  Syria. 

But  although  it  is  universally  conceded  that  the  Migdol 
of  the  Hebrew  prophets  and  the  Magdolo  of  later  authorities 
was  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  Pelusium,  it  is  urged 
that  a  second  Migdol  existed  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Suez 
Gulf ;    and    that  it  was  between  the  latter  town  and   the 


*  Jer.  xliv.  i  ;  xlvi.  14.  Ezek.  xxix.  10 ;  xxx.  12.  The  rendering  in 
the  Authorised  Version,  "  from  the  tower  to  Syene,"  in  both  these 
passages  in  Ezekiel,  is  confessedly  incorrect.  The  word  Migdol  is 
not  preceded  by  the  definite  article,  which  would  be  required  to  give  it 
the  signification  "  the  tower." 

j"  Assouan  is  on  the  Nile,  immediately  below  the  first  cataract. 

F  2 


68  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

Red  Sea  that  the  Hebrews  encamped  previous  to  their  mira- 
culous delivery  from  the  pursuing  Egj'ptians.  It  is  true  no 
evidence  of  the  existence  of  such  a  Migdol  is  attainable  -^ 
hut  it  would  be  dangerous  to  attach  much  importance  to  the 
fact  that  no  traces  of  what  may  have  been  an  insignificant 
town  are  discoverable  after  the  lapse  of  three  thousand  years. 
The  negative  e\ddence  assumes,  however,  considerable  weight 
when,  as  is  stated,  the  researches  of  Egyptologists  fail  to  dis- 
cover any  records  of  a  second  town  of  that  name.  In  deal- 
ing with  the  locality  of  the  region  fi-om  M-liich  the  Exodus 
took  place,  we  shall  have  occasion  to  refer  once  more  to  the 
probable  site  of  Migdol. 

A  few  years  since  an  English  Egyptologist, t  when  de- 
ciphering one  of  tlie  papyri  in  the  British  Museum,  found 
a  reference  to  a  deity  styled  Baali-zapouna,  which  is  sup- 
posed, not  without  reason,  to  be  identical  with  the  Baal- 
zephon  mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Exodus.  Tlie  name  is 
Semitic,  and  not  Egyptian,  and  signifies  "The  Lord  of  tlie 
North."  Further  investigation  by  Brugsch  Bey  has  led  that 
eminent  Egyptologist  to  the  conclusion  that  a  lofty  headland 
on  the  shore  of  the  ^lediterranean  to  the  east  of  the  ancient 
Pelusium,  known  as  Mount  Casius,  was  dedicated  to  the 
worship  of  this  deity.  If  this  conclusion  be  correct — and 
the  evidence  in  support  of  it  is  unquestionably  very  weighty 
— the  inference  w^ould  be  irresistible  that  the  Migdol  re- 
ferred to  in  Exodus  was  tlie  ]\Iigdol  of  the  Prophets,  and 
that  "  the  sea,"  between  which  and  the  town  the  Israelites 
were  ordered  to  encanij),  mms   the  Mediterranean.      Brugsch 


*  En  remarquant  que  ce  Migdol  (that  near  Pelusium)  est  la  seule 
place  de  ce  nom  que  j'ai  rencontrce  dans  les  textes  geographiques  parmi 
un  nomhre  de  plus  de  trois  tnilles  noma  propres  geographiques,  il  en 
resulte  de  la,  la  prol)abilite  que  le  Migdol  du  propliete  Ezechiel 
ne  difPere  pas  du  Migdol  de  I'E.xode. — Brugsch  Bey,  L'Exodc  et  Ice 
Monuments  Egyptlens,  20. 

t  Mr.  Goodwin. 


FROM  EGYPT.  69 

Bey,  however,  goes  farther ;  for  he  professes  to  identify  Pi- 
hahiroth  with  the  "  Khirot,"  or  lagunes,  of  which,  on  the 
papyri,  BaaU-zapouna  w^as  declared  to  be  lord.  These 
"  Khirot"  were  swamps,  or  lakes,  which  in  the  vicinity  of 
Mount  Casius  skirted  the  Mediterranean  Sea.  On  these 
data  Brugsch  Bey  has  propounded  an  explanation  of  the  pas- 
sage of  the  Eed  Sea  which  is  deserving  of  notice. 

In  ancient  times,  if  we  may  trust  the  evidence  of 
historians,  a  sheet  of  water  existed  on  the  south  side  of 
Mount  Casius,  and  separated  by  a  well-defined  but  narrow 
strip  of  land  from  the  Mediterranean  Sea.  Diodorus 
Siculus  declares,  though  on  what  authority  we  know  not, 
that  it  was  two  hundred  stadia  in  length,  comparatively 
narrow,  but  of  a  prodigious  depth.  This  .was  the  Serbonian 
lake.*  It  is  also  mentioned  by  Herodotust  as  being  in  the 
vicinity  of  Mount  Casius,  and  as  the  place  where  Typlion 
(Zephon)  was  reported  to  have  been  concealed.  This  lake 
no  longer  exists.  It  has  been  filled  by  the  drifting  sands  of 
the  adjoining  desert. 

If  we  may  further  trust  the  testimony  of  Diodorus,  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  Serbonian  lake  was  fraught  with 
considerable  danger  to  unwary  travellers,  and  even  proved 
fatal  to  armies.  The  narrowness  of  the  lake,  and  the 
treacherous  natm-e  of  the  soil  forming  its  borders,  led  the 
incautious  to  advance  into  quagmires  from  which  they  after- 
w'ards  found  it  impossible  to  extricate  themselves  ;  and  thus  it 
happened,  according  to  Diodorus,  that  whole  armies  had  been 
swallowed  up.;j;  Elsewliere  he  mentions  that  the  Persian 
king,  Artaxerxes,  wlieu  about  to  invade  Egypt,  lost  a  portion 
of  his  army  in  this  region  owing  to  his  ignorance  of  the 
dangerous  locality. 

Strabo    states    that    when    he    ^^'as    at    Alexandria    an 

*  Diod.  Sic.  i.  30.  t  Her.  iii.  5,  %  Diod.  xvi.  46. 


70  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

exceptionally  high  tide  occurred  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  Pelusium,  which  had  the  effect  of  inundating  the  adjoin- 
ing country,  converting  the  headland  of  ]\Iount  Casius  into 
an  island,  and  rendering  it  possible  for  ships  to  sail  over  the 
road  leading  to  Palestine.'^ 

Brugsch  Bey,  relying  on  these  authorities,  suggests  that  the 
Israelites,  having  encamped  between  Migdol  and  the  sea 
(the  Mediterranean)  opposite  the  lagunes  (Pi-hahiroth) 
advanced  towards  Mount  Casius  along  the  narrow  tongue  of 
land  separating  the  lake  from  the  sea,  which  he  states  at 
that  time  furnished  the  route  from  Egypt  to  Palestine ;  that 
they  were  pursued  along  this  route  by  the  Pharaoh  and  his 
army;  and  that  at  the  time  when  they  reached  the  headland 
in  safety,  a  high  tide,  similar  to  that  mentioned  by  Strabo, 
swept  across  the  road  then  occupied  by  the  Egyptian  army, 
and  overwhelmed  the  latter.  That  this  occurrence  was 
described  in  the  history  of  Israel  as  the  passage  of  the  Eed 
Sea  is  explained  by  Dr.  Brugsch  in  the  following  manner  : — 
The  Serbonian  lake  was  remarkable  for  its  gi-owth  of  reeds> 
and  Jam  Suph  in  Hebrew,  which  is  translated  the  "  Eed 
Sea,"  should  be  rendered,  at  least  in  this  instance,  the  "  sea 
of  reeds"  or  "  of  weeds."  By  the  Jam  Suph,  in  which, 
according  to  the  Biblical  records,  the  P]gyptians  were  over- 
wlielmed,  and  through  which  the  Israelites  were  conducted 
in  safety,  was  meant  the  Serbonian  lake. 

Brugsch  Bey  treats  the  destruction  of  the  Egyptian  army 
as  a  liistorical  fact,  though  he  affords  a  rationalistic  expla- 
nation of  the  supposed  miracle.  His  theory  may  therefore 
be  fairly  dealt  with  on  the  basis  which  he  himself  supplies.t 

Whatever  may  be  the  value  of  the  testimony  of  Diodorus 


*  Strab.  i.  58. 
f  "  Le  m'racle  il  est  vrai  cessc  alors  d'etre  un  miracle:  Mais  avouerons 
le  en  toute  sincerite  la  Providence  divine  maintient  toujours  sa  place  et 
son  autorit^." — VExtide  d  les  Hon.  E(jy2't,  32. 


FROM  EGYPT.  71 

Siciilus  to  the  loss  of  entire  armies   in  the   Serbonian   lake, 
it  is  substantially  discarded  by  Dr.  Brugsch  as  irrelevant  to 
the   issue   before   him.      This  is  not   very  apparent   to  the 
ordinary  reader,  and  the  voluminous  quotation*  from  Diodorus 
has  unquestionably  a  tendency  to  create  an  impression  that 
lie     was    in     some     sort    a    corroborative    witness    of    the 
Biblical   account   of  the  destruction  of  the  Egyptian  army. 
If  armies  ever  were  lost  through  marching  incautiously  into 
this    Serbonian    bog,    it    may    be    affirmed     with    absolute 
certainty  that  those  of  Egypt  were  not  among  the  number. 
It  is   at   least  conceivable   that  a    Persian    king,  invading 
Egypt,  might  lose  some  of  his  troops  under  the  circumstances 
mentioned  by  Diodorus ;  but  it  is  totally  incredible  that  an 
Egyptian  ruler  should  lead  his  army  into  a  lake  or  quagmire 
on    his   own  frontier,  the  position  of  which  was  well  known, 
and   whose  perils  were   even   then    indicated    by   a   name 
(Khirot)    familiar  to   every  resident   in   the    country.     Dr. 
Brugsch  doubtless  felt  this  difficulty  ;   and  contenting  himself 
with  the   favourable,  though  delusive,  impression  Diodorus 
could  not  fail  to  create,  prudently  abstained  from  any  appli- 
cation of  his  testimony. 

It  is  on  the  evidence  given  by  Strabo  of  the  exceptionally 
high  tide  near  Pelusium  that  Dr.  Brugsch  exclusively 
relies  as  affording  a  plausible  explanation  of  the  destruction 
of  the  Egyptian  army.  What  occurred  at  one  time  might 
liave  occurred  at  another,  and  it  may  be  frankly  conceded 
that  if  the  Egyptian  army  was  surprised  by  such  a  tide  as 
that  spoken  of  by  Strabo,  a  great  catastrophe  would  doubt- 
less have  been  the  consequence. 

But  if  we  accept  this  explanation,  and  treat  the  Biblical 
account  of  the  destruction  of  Pharaoh  and  his  army  when  in 
pursuit  of  the  Israelites  as  having  some  foundation  in   fact. 


*  L'Exode  et  les  Mon.  Egypt,  29. 


72  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

we  are  met  by  a  number  of  difliculties.  AVe  have  to  account 
for  the  presence  of  the  Israelites  on  the  route  leading  direct 
to  Philistia,  and  leading  nowhere  else,  notwithstanding  the 
distinct  statement  that  this  route  was  avoided ;  and  we  have 
to  explain  how  the  submersion  of  an  army  by  the  waters  of 
the  MediteiTanean  could  be  regarded  either  then,  or  at  any 
future  time,  as  a  swallowing  up  in  a  lake  of  reeds.  Even 
supposing  that  the  retreating  captives  called  the  narrow 
papyrus-covered  lake  which  lay  on  their  right  as  they 
treaded  the  nari'ow  causeway  to  Mount  Casius  the  Jam 
Supli,  they  could  not  have  been  blind  to  the  apparently 
limitless  extent  of  the  great  and,  at  the  time,  possibly 
turbulent  sea  which  stretched  away  in  every  direction  on 
their  left.  They  might  have  been  led  to  fancy  that  their 
(xod  had  cleft  for  them  a  way  through  the  waters  to  enable 
them  to  pass  through  on  dry  land,  but  those  waters  would 
assuredly  have  never  been  regarded  as  those  of  the  marshy 
lagune  which  sej)arated  them  by  only  a  trifling  distance 
from  the  adjoining  desert.  And,  finally,  when  from  the 
headland  of  Mount  Casius  they  saw  the  mighty  waves  of 
the  Mediterranean  enveloping  their  pursuers,  they  could  not 
by  any  intelligible  mental  operation  have  concluded  that 
their  destruction  was  accomplished  liy  the  stagnant  marsh 
which  became  itself  swallowed  up  in  the  advancing  sea. 

But  what  shall  w^e  say  to  the  suggestion  tliat  the 
Israelites  gave  to  the  Serbonian  lake  the  name  of  the 
Jam  Siq)h.  If  this  name  occutred  nowhere  else  in  tlic 
Scriptural  records,  it  might  no  doubt  be  urged  with  some 
plausibility  tliat  a  lake  overgi'own  with  reeds  was  called  by 
this  appellation.  But  the  name  is  of  tolerably  frequent 
occurrence,  aii<l  Dr.  Brugsch  Mould  frankly  admit  that 
elsewhere  than  in  reference  to  the  destruction  of  the 
Egyptian  army  it  is  applied  to  a  sea  far  distant  from 
the  Serbonian  lake. 


FROM  EGYPT.  73 

It  is  a  somewhat  singular  fact  that  no  sufficient,  at  all 
events  no  perfectly  satisfactory,  explanation  has  been  afforded 
of  the  designations  given  respectively  by  the  Phoenicians  and 
the  Greeks  to  the  Gulf  which  washes  the  western  shores  of 
Arabia  and  the  south-eastern  coast  of  Egypt.  When  skirting 
the  southern  spurs  of  the  Idumcean  range,  on  their  way  to 
the  Trans-Jordanic  region,  we  are  told  that  the  Israelites 
passed  by  the  way  of  the  Jam  Siij^h*  and  at  a  later  period, 
when  the  Jewish  monarchy  was  at  the  zenith  of  its  glory, 
King  Solomon  had  a  fleet  of  ships  at  Ezion  Gaber,  at  the 
head  of  the  Jam  Suph,  in  the  land  of  Edom.t  That 
reference  is  made  in  these  passages  to  what  is  now  known 
as  the  Eed  Sea  is  not  contested  by  any  one ;  but  why  the 
Semites  should  have  called  it  the  Jam  Swph,  and  the  Greeks 
7]  epudpa  6n\n(j(Ta,'\.  which  latter  designation  is  rendered  the 
"  Eed  Sea,"  raises  difficulties  which  have  never  been  satisfac- 
torily solved. 

Into  a  consideration  of  this  difficult  question  it  would  not 
be  necessary  to  enter  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  Dr. 
Brugsch's  view,  because  it  is  sufficient  to  point  out  that  what- 
ever may  have  been  the  reasons  which  prompted  the  Hebrews 
to  call  what  is  now  known  as  the  Eed  Sea  the  Jam  Sujpli,  it  is 
preposterous  to  suppose  that  they  would  have  given  the  same 
name  to  an  insignificant  swamp  on  the  Egyptian  frontier. 
Wherever  the  name  was  used  as  a  distinctive  appellation,  it 
must  have  been  applied  to  one  and  the  same  sea.  And  it 
is  all  the  more  singular  that  Dr.  Brugsch  has  not  noticed,  or 
if  he  noticed  has  not  combated  this  difficulty,  inasmuch  as 
he  conducts  the  Israelites  from  Mount  Casius,  in  a  south- 
westerly direction  by  way  of  the  Bitter  Lakes,  one  of  which 
he  identifies  as  Marah,^  to  the"  head  of  the  Isthmus  of  Suez, 
and  justifies  tliis  erratic  course  as   being  a  fulfilment  of  the 


*  Deut.  ii.  I  ;  Num.  xiv.  25.  t  i  Kings  ix.  26. 

X  Her.  i.  i  ;  Diod.  Sic.  iii.  28.  §    L'Exode,  34. 


74  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

j)rovidential  design  that  "  God  led  the  people  about  through 
the  way  of  the  wilderness  of  the  Red  Sea,"  or,  as  he  trans- 
lates the  passage,  "  by  the  way  of  the  wilderness  towards  the 
sea  of  reeds."  In  other  words,  having  been  miraculously 
preserved  at  the  Jam  Suph,  "  the  sea  of  reeds,"  afterwards 
known  as  the  Serbonian  lake,  the  Israelites  were  conducted 
to  another  Jam  Su])h,  the  Suez  Gidf  of  the  Eed  Sea. 

It  has  been  necessary  to  examine  Dr.  Brugsch's  theory  in 
detail  and  to  state  the  grounds  for  rejecting  it,  because  he 
is  unquestionably  entitled  to  the  credit  of  showing  that  the 
Aligdol  of  the  narrative  in  Exodus  was  the  ]\Iigdol  close  to 
Pelusium,  and  that  the  scene  of  the  encampment  of  the 
Israelites  present  to  the  narrator's  mind  lay  between  that 
town  and  the  Mediterranean  Sea. 

If  we  are  correct  in  refusing  to  give  to  the  story  of  the  passage 
of  the  Eed  Sea  a  place  in  the  traditions  of  the  Exodus,  we 
nevertheless  cannot  deny  that  at  least  as  early  as  the  seventh 
century  B.C.  it  commanded  respect  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah, 
and  received  a  place  in  history.  If,  however,  the  Hebrews 
were,  according  to  the  conception  of  the  framer  of  the 
original  narrative,  encamped  on  the  shores  of  the  Mediterra- 
nean on  the  eve  of  their  deliverance  from  the  king  of  Egypt 
and  his  army,  it  is  desirable,  if  j)ossible,  to  discover  how  the 
belief  subsequently  came  to  be  established  that  the  scene  of 
the  miracle  was  the  Eed  Sea. 

We  have  already  noticed  the  all-im])ortant  fact,  that  in 
the  prosaic  account  in  Exodus*  no  mention  is  made  of  the 
"  Eed  Sea."  The  narrator  invariably  uses  the  term  "  the  sea," 
and  this  no  longer  surprises  us  if  we  have  satisfied  our- 
selves that  according  to  his  idea  the  Hebrews  were  encamped 
close  to  the  Mediterranean.  When  we  turn  to  the  Psalm 
ascribed   to  Moses,  we  find  that   tlie  expression  Jam  Suph 

*  Exod.  xiv. 


FROM  EGYPT.  75 

only  occurs  once,^  that  it  is  wanting  in  the  nucleus  of  the 
song  variously  ascribed  by  tradition  to  Mosest  and  to 
Miriam,^  and  that  even  in  the  gloss  wliich  follows  the  Psalm 
and  explains  its  subject  no  distinctive  name  is  given  to  the 
sea  where  Pharaoh  and  his  army  were  said  to  have  perished.§ 
All  these  omissions  are  very  remarkable,  and  they  cannot 
with  any  appearance  of  probability  be  considered  accidental. 
It  would  assist  us  greatly  in  our  investigation  if  we  could 
determine  with  some  approach  to  certainty  how  it  was  the 
Eed  Sea  came  to  be  called  the  Jam  Suph.  The  generally 
accepted  view  is  that  Su2oli  means  "  weeds,"  and  that  the 
Eed  Sea  received  this  title  from  its  quantity  of  sea- weed.  In 
other  passages  in  the  Scriptures,  Suph  is  believed  with  much 
plausibility  to  mean  "  rushes"  or  "  reeds,"  ^nd  it  is  concluded 
that  when  connected  with  the  word  Jam  it  means  a  sea 
remarkable  for  the  quantity  of  its  vegetable  productions.  || 


*  Exod.  XV.  4.       t  Exod.  xv.  2.      %  Exod.  xv.  21.      §  Exod.  xv.  19. 

II  fjlD  D*  Jam  Su^^h,  which  is  universally  rendered  the  Eed  Sea,  is  sup- 
posed to  mean  literally  the  sea  of  weeds.  This  conclusion  has  been 
arrived  at  because  elsewhere  in  the  Hebrew  records  the  word  Suph 
signifies,  or  is  believed  to  signify,  reeds  or  weeds  (Exod.  ii.  3-5  ;  Isaiah 
xix.  6 ;  Jon.  ii.  5).  This  inference  is  supposed  to  be  corroborated  by 
the  Coptic  name  given  to  the  Red  Sea,  Schari,  which  is  interpreted 
"  reedy,"  or  "  weedy;"  aapi,  according  to  Theophrastus  (Hist.  Elanf. 
iv.  9)  having  that  signification  (Pliny  xiii.  23-45).  Others,  however, 
have  apparently  on  good  grounds  questioned  this  rendering  of  the  Coptic 
word  {Journ.  Asiatique,  1834,  i.  p.  349;  Peyron,  Lex.  Copt.  304; 
Gesenius,  Thesaurus,  s.  v.).  Misled  by  the  title  "  sea  of  weeds"  some 
writers  have  brought  themselves  to  believe  that  the  Red  Sea  was 
remarkable  for  its  abundance  of  sea-weed ;  but  observant  travellers 
have  failed  to  notice  this  peculiarity.  Assuming  that  the  word  Saph 
is  correctly  translated  "  flags,"  or  "  weeds"  (in  Exod.  ii.  3-5,  and 
Isaiah  xix.  6),  it  is  fairly  open  to  question  whether  it  can  be  rendered 
"  weeds"  in  Jon.  ii.  5.  In  the  Authorised  Version  thispassage  is  as  follows: 
"The  depth f)  closed  me  round  about;  the  weeds  were  wrapped  about 
my  head."  In  the  Septuagint  we  have,  "  The  lowest  deep  comiDassed 
me,  my  head  went  down  to  the  bottom  of  the  mountains;"  and 
Jerome  renders  the  passage  "  Pelagus  operuit  caput  meum."  It  is 
certainly  not  easy  to  imagine  how  Jonah,  whilst  in  the  whale's  belly, 


76  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

It  may  well  seem  presimiptuous  to  challenge  an  interpre- 
tation supported  by  a  great  consensus  of  authority,  but  still 
when  we  recollect  how  frequently  the  origin  of  names  has 
been  lost  in  antiquity,  we  may  be  excused  for  hesitating  to 
accept  on  etymological  gi'ounds  an  explanation  which  otherwise 
has  nothing  to  recommend  it.  The  sea  in  question,  there  is  no 
reason  to  doubt,  was  known  to  the  nomadic  tribes  as  the 
Jam  Suph  long  before  the  Hebrews  entered  Egypt ;  and  if 
the  \\ord  Siqjh  was  descriptive,  it  is  not  unreasonable  to 
suppose  that  it  was  descriptive  of  something  wliich  would 
be  pre-eminently  striking  to  the  senses  of  the  denizens  of 
the  desert.  The  evidence  of  travellers  does  not,  however, 
sujDport  the  suggestion  that  the  Eed  Sea  is  remarkable  for  an 
excessive  supply  of  sea-weed,  nor  does  it  seem  likely,  even 
if  it  were  so,  that  such  a  circumstance  would  make  much 
impression  on  a  Bedouin's  mind. 

We  find  elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  notably  in 
the  poem  ascribed  to  an  inliabitant  of  a  land  in  close  proxi- 
mity to  the  north-eastern  arm  of  the  lied  Sea,  a  term  wldch 
certainly  might  by  a  very  intelligible  process  be  combined 

could  fancy  "  weeds"  being  wrapped  about  bis  head  (on  this  point  see 
some  quaint  remarks  by  Guarin,  a  Benedictine  monk,  in  his  Lex. 
Heb.  et  ChaM.  s.v.,  C|1D) ;  besides,  the  Mediterranean,  and  not  the 
Jam  Stiph,  was  the  scene  of  his  adventure.  I  do  not  think  that  a 
sufficient  cause  has  been  shown  for  concluding  that  by  Jam  Snph  thf 
Hebrews  meant  the  weedy  sea.  We  must  rather  look  for  the  meaniiiL; 
in  npID,  Suphah,  "  the  whirlwind,"  for  the  reasons  stated  above ;  or  in 
PjlD,  Soph,  signifying  the  "end"  or  "extremity"  (2  Chron.  xx.  16; 
Daniel  iv.  1 1  (8)).  Captain  Burton'  states  that  according  to  the 
Bedouins  the  eastern  Gulf  of  the  Red  Sea  is  called  Ya'kkalj  el  Bahr, 
not,  as  is  generally  supposed,  after  the  steep  detile  which  here  descends 
from  the  Tih  to  the  seashore,  but  because  at  this  jwint  the 
sea  "heels,"  or  terminates  {Midiau  Bevisited,  i.  229).  if  this  be 
so,  the  present  name  of  the  Gulf  may  be  an  Arabic  rendering  of 
Ji(7n  Sofih,  if  C|1D  was  used  in  the  early  traditious  of  the  Exodus  to 
signify  the  "end"  of  the  sea,  or  the  jioint  where  it  turned  back  from 
the  land.  Tlie  high  authority  of  Ibu  Ezra  may  be  cited  in  support  of 
the  latter  construction. 


FROM  EGYPT.  77 

with  the  word  "  sea."  That  term  is  Suphah,  and  signifies 
a  whirlwind  or  a  tempest.  In  the  Book  of  Job  it  occurs 
several  times,  and  in  one  passage  the  poet  exclaims,  "  Out  of 
the  south  Cometh  the  whirlwind  {Suphah),  and  cold  out  of 
the  north."*  It  is  also  used  by  the  Prophets  Isaiaht  and 
Hoseaj,  and  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs,^  and  always  in  the 
same  sense. 

Now  let  us  inquire  whether  there  was  any  special  reason 
why  an  inhabitant  of  Idumsea  should  have  regarded  the 
south  as  a  region  of  whirlwinds,  or  why  the  gulf  stretch- 
ing southwards  from  Edom  should  have  been  called  the 
Jam  Suph  in  the  sense  of  the  Sea  of  Tempests. 

The  Gulf  of  Akaba,  known  to  the  ancients  as  the 
Q^lanitic  Gulf,  and  forming  the  north-eastgrn  tongue  of  the 
Eed  Sea,  is  a  narrow  gorge  bounded  on  both  sides  by  preci- 
pitous mountains,  rising  occasionally  to  the  height  of  two 
thousand  feet.||  This  gorge  is  the  natural  continuation  of 
the  gi'eat  valley  of  the  Araba,  which,  lying  between  the 
cliffs  of  the  table-land  of  the  Till  on  the  west  and  the 
mountains  of  Idumsea  on  the  east,  extends  from  the  head 
of  the  Gulf  until  it  somewhat  abruptly  and  precipitously 
drops  into  the  basin  of  the  Dead  Sea.  Under  such  condi- 
tions the  frequency  of  storms  in  the  Gulf  of  Akaba 
might  with  confidence  be  anticipated  by  any  one  versed  in 


*  Job  xxxvii.  9;  also  in  xxi.  18;  xxvii.  20.  Job  lived  in  the  land  of 
Uz,  which  was  on  the  eastern  slopes  of  the  Idumsean  hills,  and  to 
the  north-east  of  the  head  of  the  Red  Sea. 

t  Isaiah  xvii.  13.  J  Hos.  viii.  7,  §  Prov.  x.  25. 

II  The  Gulf  of  Akaba  has  the  appearance  of  a  narrow  deep  ravine 
extending  nearly  a  hundred  miles  in  a  straight  direction,  and  the 
circumjacent  hills  rise  in  some  places  two  thousand  feet  perpendicularly 
from  the  shore  ("Wellsted,  Arabia,  ii.  108).  The  valley  of  the  Araba 
supplies  a  funnel,  through  which  an  intermittent  but  powerful  draught 
of  the  colder  air  from  the  north  is  frequently  turned  on,  whilst  the 
clefts  in  the  mountains  lining  the  Gulf  act  as  so  many  windsails. 


78  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

the  science  of  physical  geogi-aphy,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact 
there  is  probably  no  sea  which  possesses  a  M'orse  reputation  in 
this  respect,  or  is  beset  with  greater  dangers  to  the  navigator.* 

That  these  atmospheric  disturbances  should  have  failed 
to  attract  the  attention  of  those  frequenting  the  shores  of 
the  CElanitic  Gulf  is  unlikely,  and  if  it  be  conceded  that 
the  Semitic  tribes  gave  it  a  descriptive  name,  and  if  we  find 
that  such  name  was  identical  with  tliat  which  they  applied 
to  tempests,  we  have  at  least  some  grounds  on  which  to  base 
the  conclusion  that  by  the  Jam  Suph  the  Hebrews  meant 
the  Sea  of  the  Supha,  the  Sea  of  Tempests — the  Tempes- 
tuous Sea. 

If  we  now  return  to  the  Song  of  Moses,  we  may  perhaps 
find  an  explanation  of  the  apparent  occm'rence  in  one  place, 
and  in  one  place  only,  of  mention  of  the  Red  Sea.  The 
bard  sinss — "  Pharaoh's  chariots  and  liis  host  hath  he  cast 


*  All  accounts  agree  as  to  the  prevalence  of  storms  in  this  Gulf. 
"  The  Gulf  of  Akaba  is  unfit  for  navigation,  owing  to  the  almost 
incessant  and  violent  north  winds  and  the  numerous  reefs.  During 
the  recent  survey  the  Palinurus  was  blown  from  her  anchors  three 
different  times"  {Horsburgh's  Sailing  Directions,  quoted  on  map  of 
Arabia  Petra^a  in  Keith  Johnston's  National  Atlas).  See  Wellsted's 
description  of  the  storms  in  the  Gulf  when  engaged  on  this  survey, 
Arabia,  ii.  113-131,  135,  136.  He  thus  explains  their  prevalence 
and  severity  :  "  On  looking  over  a  map  of  this  portion  of  the  globe, 
we  perceive  that  one  straight  and  continuous  valley  extends  from  the 
Dead  Sea  to  the  entrance  of  the  Gulf  o£  Akaba.  The  northerly 
wind  which  prevails  during  the  greater  part  of  the  year  naturally 
takes  the  direction  of  the  valley.  Fiadiug  no  other  outlet,  however, 
than  its  southern  termination,  it  acquires  there  its  extraordinary  force 
and  strength,  and  although  the  body  of  water  exposed  to  its  iuHuence 
is  not  greater  than  in  some  large  rivers,  yet  having  none  of  their 
sinuosities,  the  course  of  its  waves  is  unintercepted  to  the  entrance  of 
the  Straits,  and  finding  but  a  small  outlet  the  water  returns  by  a 
violent  effort  in  a  powerful  current"  (ii.  133).  Capt.  Burton  gives  a  vivid 
description  of  this  "  Spitfire  Gulf,"  as  he  calls  it  {Midian  lievisHcd, 
i.  247-264).  See  also  his  daily  record  of  Observations  in  this  Gulf 
(App.  ii.  290-294). 


FROM  EGYPT.  79 

into  the  sea  ;  his  choseu  captains  also  are  drowned  in  the 
Jam  Suph."*  May  we  not  be  wrong  in  rendering  the  con- 
cluding words  "  Red  Sea,"  and  in  inferring  that  the  bard  here 
made  use  of  a  proper  name  ?  Is  it  not  at  least  as  jjrobable 
that  in  employing  the  parallelism  so  universal  in  Hebrew 
poetry,  and  in  repeating  in  the  second  stanza  of  the  verse 
the  idea  already  expressed  in  the  first,  he  simply  varied  it 
by  substitutmg  for  "  the  sea,"  "  the  tempestuous  sea  ?"  But 
if  this  be  so,  we  may  have  here  the  key  wliich  explains  how, 
in  later  times,  when  nothing  remained  but  the  naked  story 
in  which  the  sea  was  unnamed,  and  the  song  of  triumph  in 
which  it  was  apparently  once  named,  the  idea  should  have 
arisen  that  the  Jam  Siiph,  properly  so-called,  which  was 
undoubtedly  associated  ^\dth  the  journeyings  from  Egypt  to 
Canaan,t  was  the  scene  of  the  miraculous  occurrence  which 
was  recorded. 

If  we  yield  to  the  temptation  of  endeavouring  to  ascertain 
the  origin  of  the  story  of  the  passage  of  the  Israelites  on 
dry  land  through  the  midst  of  the  sea,  and  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  pursiung  host  of  Egyptians,  we  venture  on  an 
inquiry  so  extremely  speculative  that  any  conclusions,  what- 
ever they  might  be,  would  possess  no  real  value.  We  know 
how  great  a  part  the  physical  peculiarities  of  a  country  plays 
in  the  creation  of  legendary  lore  ;  how  a  rent  in  a  cliff  is 
attributed  to  the  falchion  of  some  doughty  giant  or  demi-god  ; 
and  how  a  water-fed  depression  on  a  mountain-top  is  made 
to  supply  an  approximate  drinking-bowl  for  the  devil.  It  is 
very  probable  that  in  the  communication  between  Egypt 
and  southern  Palestine,  subsequent  to  the  Hebrew  settle- 
ment, the  Jewish  travellers  were  struck  by  the  peculiarity 
of  the  route  wliich,  where  •  it  intervened .  between  the 
Mediterranean  and  the  Serbonian  lake,  had  the  appearance 


*  Exod.  XV.  4.  t  Kuni.  xiv.  25;  Deut.  ii.  i. 


So  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

of  passing  through  tlie  midst  of  the  sea.  That  it  shouhl 
have  been  made  by  Jahveh  to  assist  the  Hebrews  in  their 
escape  from  Egypt  was  an  inference  equally  natural  and 
tempting,  and  the  story  of  the  destruction  of  Pharaoh  and 
his  army  either  came  to  be  evolved  out  of  an  ambiguous  cry  of 
triumph,  which  by  some  was  attributed  to  ]\Ioses  and  by 
others  to  Miriam,''^  or  was  based  on  some  comparatively 
insignificant  occurrence  which  the  bard  and  the  story-teller 
magnified  into  the  form  in  which  we  now  see  it. 

The  question  how  the- legend  came  to  originate  is,  however, 
of  very  subordinate   interest.      The   main   point  to  be  kept 
in  mind  is  that,  so  far  as  we  have  any  opportunity  of  judging, 
the  story  of  the  passage  of  the  Eed  Sea  had  no  place  in  the 
original   traditions  of  the  Exodus.     Those  who  made  their 
way  to  the  Trans-Jordanic  region  before  entering  Canaan  were 
io-norant   of  tliis  miraculous   interposition   of  their  God  on 
their  behalf.     They  had  no  knowledge  of  the  encampment 
between  Migdol  and  the   sea,   or   of  their  passage  on  dry 
land  between  upreared  walls  of  water.     When  the  story  of 
tlk'ir   departure    from   Egyj^t  came  to   be  duly  formulated, 
it  told  how,  after  repeated  manifestations  of  Jahveh's  power 
at   the   expense   of  the   Egyptians,  they  were  finally  thrust 
out;    how'  they   quitted   Egypt  in   haste,   and    how    they 
encamped   in   the   edge  of  the  wilderness  pre^dous  to  com- 
mencing their  protracted  and  arduous  journeyings.  It  told  how 
they  were  amicably  received  by  the  Midianite  tribe  of  whicli 
Jethro  was  the  Sheikh ;  and  how  when  he  M'as  informed  of 
"  all   that  Jahveh  had  done  to  Pharaoh  and  the  Egyptians 
for  Israel's  sake,"  he  said  :  "  Blessed  be  Jahveh,  who  liatli 
delivered  you  out  of  the  hand  of  the  Egyptians,  and  out  of 
the  hand   of  Pharaoh  ;   who  hath  delivered  tlie  people  from 
under  the  hand  of  the  Egyptians,"t  no  allusion,  direct  or 

*  Exod.  XV.  1,21.  t  Kxod.  xviii.  lo. 


FROM  EGYPT.  8i 

indirect,  having  been  made  either  by  liis  informants  or 
himself  to  the  stupendous  miracle  at  the  Eed  Sea.  The 
story  told  how,  when  they  quitted  Egypt,  they  were  not  led 
into  the  promised  land  by  Philistia,  thougli  it  was  near,  but 
by  a  circuitous  route  by  way  of  the  Jcum  Suph,  which  inferen- 
tially  was  distant ;  a-nd  it  told  how,  after  many  years  of  trials 
and  privations,  they  at  last  reached  their  promised  home. 

And  it  is  curious  how  this  story,  the  details  of  which  it 
will  be  our  duty  to  examine,  finds  a  confu^mation  in  a  record 
of  unquestionable  antiquity.  In  his  fruitless  negotiations 
with  the  king  of  the  Ammonites,  Jephthah  gave  a  singularly 
clear  and  succinct  review  of  the  course  followed  by  the 
Israelites  from  the  time  of  their  departure  from  Egypt  until 
their  conquest  of  the  territory  of  the  Am^orites — the  terri- 
tory then  claimed  by  the  king  of  Amnion.  "  When  Israel 
came  up  from  Egypt,  and  walked  tlirough  the  wilderness 
unto  the  Jam  Suph,  and  came  to  Kadesh,"'^  messengers  were 
sent  to  the  king  of  Edom  and  to  the  king  of  Moab  soKciting, 
in  vain,  permission  for  Israel  to  pass  through  their  territories. 
In  consequence  of  their  refusal,  Israel  was  compelled  to  abide 
in  Kadesh,  but  ultimately  compassed  Edom  and  Moab,  and 
having  failed  to  obtain  permission  fi'om  Sihon,  king  of  the 
Amorites,  to  pass  through  his  dominions,  made  war  on  him 
and  dispossessed  him.  Now  it  is  very  noticeable  that 
Jephthah  here  follows  the  same  route  which  is  shadowed 
forth  in  the  concludino-  verses  of  Exodus  xiii.,  which  wind 
up  the  narrative  of  the  Exodus,  and  which  is  elsewhere 
referred  to  with  more  particularity :  "  Wlien  Israel  quitted 
Egypt,  and  walked  through  the  wilderness  unto  the  Jam 
Suph."  Is  it  conceivable  that  by  "  the  wilderness "  Jephthah 
could  have  meant  the  perfectly  well  known,  doubtless  well 
populated,  and  undeniably  Egyptian  territory  which  inter- 


*  Jud.  xi.  1 6. 
G 


82  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

vened  between  the  city  of  Rameses  and  the  shore  of   the 
Suez    Gulf  ?     But  if  he  did  not  mean,  and  by  no  possibility 
could  have   meant,  the  region  on  the  west  side  of  the  Gulf 
of  Suez,  he  must  have  referred  to  that  lying  on  the  east  of 
the  Egyptian  frontier  ;  and  by  the  Jam  Swph,  to  which  Israel 
walked  through  the  wilderness,  he  must  equally  have  meant 
that  portion  of  what  is  now  called  the  Eed  Sea  to  M'liich 
reference   is   beyond   all    question   made   in   the    Books   of 
Numbers  and  of  Deuteronomy,  which  it  is  no  less  apparent 
is  alluded  to  in  Exodus  xiii.,  which  was  not  far  distant  from 
Kadesh,  and  which  is  to-day  known  as  the  Gidf  of   Akaba. 
But  if  this  is  the  only  possible  interpretation  which  can  be 
put  on  the  language  attributed  to  Jephthah,  is  it  conceivable 
that  he  was  acquainted  with  the  reputed  passage  of  Israel 
through  the  Eed  Sea  ?      It  may  be  urged  with  great  cogency 
that  there  was  no  more  necessity  for  Jephthah  to   refer  to 
this   incident   in   his    negotiations   "with    the    king    of    the 
Ammonites  than  to  any  of  tlie  others,  no  less  miraculous 
in  their  kind,  which  tradition  associated  with  Israel's  sojourn 
in    the  desert.      But  wliilst  freely  admitting  this,  we  still 
must  ask  how  it  was  possible  that  Jephthali,  if  he  knew  of 
the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea,  could  represent  Israel  as  quitting 
Egypt  and  walking  through  the  ivildcrness  in  order  to  arrive 
at  a  sea  identified  by  him  as  the  same,  and  called  by  him  by 
the  same  name,  as  that  in  which  Israel's  miraculous  deliver- 
ance took  place  ?      Nor  are  we  justified  in  attempting  to 
overcome  this  difficulty  by  crediting  Jephthah,  not  only  with 
the  knowledge  we  possess  that  the  Red  Sea  bifurcates   into 
the  Gulfs  of    Suez  and  Akaba,   but  by   further    assuming 
that  the  term  Jam  Suph  was  applied  by  the  Israelites  to  tlie 
entire  Gulf,  wliicli    we  now  call  the  Red  Sea.      So   far  as 
we  have  any  evidence  to  guide  us.  Jam  Suph  was  exclusively 
applied  by  the  Hebrews  to  the  Gulf  of  Akaba,  and  possibly 
to  the  limitless  waste  of  waters  into  whicli  it  opened.    Tliere 


FROM  EGYPT.  83 

is  but  one  solitary  instance  in  the  Hebrew  records  in  which 
the  Gulf  of  Suez  is  unmistakably  referred  to,  and  it  is 
there  called  "  the  Egyptian  Sea."  It  is  Isaiah,  who 
"  prophesied "  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah  about  the  middle 
of  tlie  eighth  century  B.C.,  who  thus  designates  it.*  On  the 
other  hand,  we  find  the  Jam  Suph  named  as  a  Ipoundaiy, 
when  it  is  apparent  the  Gulf  of  Akabat  can  alone  be 
referred  to,  and  where,  if  the  name  was  used  in  the  extended 
sense  now  given  to  it,  its  description  as  a  landmark  would 
have  been  equally  erroneous  and  delusive.  In  the  course  of 
our  investigation  of  the  story  of  Israel's  "  wanderings,"  we 
shall  find  further  grounds  for  our  conclusion  that  the 
denomination  Jam  Suph  was  exclusively  applied  to  the 
Gulf  of  Akaba,  wliich  it  would  be  incwivenient  now  to 
anticipate.  If  Jephthah  believed  that  Israel  had  crossed 
any  portion  of  what  he  knew  as  the  Jam  Suph,  it  is  incom- 
prehensible that  he  should  have  treated  that  sea  without 
any  qualification  as  marking  an  important  step  in  Israel's 
journeyings,  and  affirmed  that  Israel,  after  quitting  Egjrpt, 
had  traversed  the  wilderness  to  reach  it.  It  is  impossible 
for  any  unprejudiced  person  to  read  the  language  ascribed  to 
the  Hebrew  "  Judge,"  and  to  compare  it  with  the  passages 
already  referred  to,  without  arriving  at  the  conclusion  that, 
according  to  the  received  traditions,  at  all  events  amongst 
those  tribes  which  subsequently  settled  on  the  east  of  the 
Jordan,  the  captives  in  Egypt  were  thrust  out,  or  at  least 
permitted  to  depart  peaceably,  they  set  out  on  their  way 
without  any  subsequent  molestation,  and  not  until  they  had 
crossed  a  region  which  they  called  "the  ivilderncss'  (hant- 
midhhar)  did  they  set  eyes  on  the  Eed  Sea  (Ja7n  Siq)Jt). 

It  would  be  interesting  to  ascertain,  if  possible,  at  what 
time  the  belief  arose  that  the  Hebrews  passed  through  tlic 


*  Isa.  xi.  15.  f  Esod.  sxiii.  31, 

G    2 


84  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

midst  of  the  Jam  Supli,  properly  so-called,  and  that  Pharaoh 
and  his  army  were  overwhelmed  in  its  waters.  On  the  eastern 
side  of  the  Jordan,  and  most  probably  also  in  the  kingdom 
of  Israel,  this  tradition  had  no  place  in  any  form  whatever. 
No  allusion,  however  remote  or  indirect,  is  made  to  the 
occurrence  by  the  Prophets,  the  scene  of  whose  labours  was 
confined  to  the  northern  kingdom.  In  the  kingdom  of 
Judah,  or  before  its  foundation,  amongst  "  the  men  of 
Judah,"  the  legend  in  its  original  form  placed  the  scene  of 
the  occurrence  in  what  "was  called  Kar  t^o^rtv,  "  the  sea," 
and  sometimes  "  the  Great  Sea," — the  Mediterranean.*  Tlie 
striking  event  offered  an  appropriate  subject  for  treatment 
by  the  bard,  and  w^as  celebrated  in  the  so-called  Song  of 
Moses.t  In  repeating  liimself  in  strict  conformity  with  the 
canons  of  Hebrew  poetiy,  he  sang,  "  Pharaoh's  chariots  and 
his  host  hath  he  cast  into  the  sea,  his  chosen  captains  also 
are  drowned  in  the  tempestuous  sea"  (Jam  Sujjh).  Time 
rolled  on,  and  men  undertook  the  task  of  ■s\Titing  history, 
with  the  aid  of  records,  the  meaning  of  which  had  become 
oljscured,  or  occasionally  even  totally  lost.  That  the  Hebrews 
in  their  migration  from  Egypt  had  followed  the  direction 
indicated  in  Jephthah's  address  to  the  king  of  the  Ammonites 
was  a  fact  about  which  there  could  be  no  dispute.  They 
unquestionably  went  by  the  way  of  the  Jam  Suph — the 
Oulf  of  Akaba — on  their  road  to  Canaan.t  But  the 
legend  of  the  passage  through  the  sea,  with  the  sul)sequent 
destruction  of  the  Egyptian  army,  could  not  be  omitted  from 
the  narrative.  It  commanded  credence  in  Judah,  and  it  is 
exclusively  to  scribes  and  bards  of  the  southern  kingdom 
that  we  owe  the  later  references  to  the  marvellous  incident  ; 
whilst  it  is  to  one  of  the  Babylonian  exiles  that  we  are 
probably  indebted  for  the  compilation  of  the  ancient  records 


*  Exod.  xiv.  t  Exoi.  xv.  ^  Num.  xiv.  25  ;  Dout.  i.  40. 


FROM  EGYPT.  85 

in  the  form  in  wliich  we  now  possess  tliem.*  The  general 
conception  of  the  direction  taken  by  the  released  captives 
had  a  tendency  to  exclude  the  idea  that  the  miracle 
had  been  performed  in  "  the  Great  Sea,"  and  the  ambiguous 
expression  of  a  bard  supplied  a  natural  and  obvious  mode  of 
connecting  it  with  the  sea  by  whose  shore  Jahveh  had  led 
his  people  to  their  promised  home.  The  time  when  this 
change  was  wrought,  so  far  as  we  have  the  means  of  judging, 
was  subsequent  to  the  fall  of  the  northern  kingdom,  and  on 
the  eve  of  the  overthrow  of  that  of  the  south;  whilst  we 
must  even  pass  on  to  the  later  days  of  the  Babylonian 
exile  to  find  the  narrative  assume  its  final  form.  Wliether 
at  this  time  the  Jmn  Siqyh  became  identified,  not  with  the 
Gulf  of  Akaba  but  with  the  Gulf  of  Sugz — the  Egyptian 
Sea — is  a  question  involved  in  considerable  doubt.  The 
languao-e  in  which  the  narrative  is  resmned  after  Miriam's 
Song  would  seem  to  place  it  beyond  chspute  that  the  Jam 
Suph  is  identified  as  the  Suez  Gulf,  and  that  having  passed 
through  it  the  captives  entered  the  wilderness  :  "  So  Mosest 
brought  Israel  from  the  Eed  Sea,  and  they  went  out  into 
the  wilderness  of  Shur,  and  they  went  three  days  in  the 
wilderness  and  found  no  water."  But  placing  geographical 
ignorance  out  of  account,  everything  indicates  that  the 
introductory  sentence  is  simply|  used  as  a  bracket.      When 


*  Ezra  vii.  6,  11,  14,  21.  f  Exod.  xv.  22.  Literally  "And  Moses." 
+  We  must  be  careful  to  avoid  crediting  the  ancients  with  our 
knowledge  of  geography.  Maps  were  unknown  in  Palestine,  and  the 
Hebrew  scribes  had  no  more  idea  of  the  configuration  of  the 
coast-line  of  the  Red  Sea,  with  its  two  gulfs,  than  we  have  of 
the  precise  boundaries  of  the  lands  adjoining  the  Arctic  Sea.  One 
is  apt  unconsciously  to  suppose  that  those  with  whose  writings  we 
are  now  dealing  had  present  to  their  mind  the  Gulfs  of  Suez  and 
Akaba,  and  could  not  by  any  possibility  confound  one  with  the  other. 
But  this  was  not  so.  All  that  was  known  was  that  a  sea  washed  the 
eastern  shores  of  Egyjjt,  and  it  was  called  in  Jud^a  the  Egyptian  Sea 


86  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION  FROM  EG  YP  T. 

we  proceed  at  a  later  stage  to  consider  the  locality  of  the 
wilderness  of  Slmr,  we  shall  find  that  it  was  not  contiguous 
to  the  Suez  Gulf.  The  grammatical  construction  of  the 
sentence,  "  So  Moses  hrought  Israel  from  the  Eed  Sea,  and 
they  went,"  &c,,  is  strained,  if  not  incorrect.  The  words^ 
■And  they  went  out  into  the  wilderness  of  Shur,"  tSft.', 
must  he  treated  as  the  continuation  of  the  narrative  of 
the  Exodus  from  Egypt :  "  And  the  children  of  Israel 
journeyed  from  Rameses  to  Succoth,"*  "  and  encamped  in 
Etham,  on  the  edge  of  the  wilderness,"t  "  and  they  went  out 
into  the  wilderness  of  Shur,  and  they  went  three  days  in 
tlie  wilderness  and  found  no  water."j 


(Isa.  xi.  15),  and  that  a  sea  readied  the  southern  extremity  of  Edom, 
and  it  was  called  the  Jam  Suph,  but  probably  very  few  were  aware 
that  these  seaa  united  into  a  greater  one.  How  erroneous  were  the 
ideas  entertained,  even  so  late  as  the  beginning  of  this  century,  re- 
specting the  configuration  of  the  upper  end  of  the  Red  Sea,  is  shown 
bv  the  representation  in  maps  of  that  period  of  the  Gulf  of  Akaba 
splitting  into  two  distinct  arms,  similar  to  the  bifurcation  of  the  Eed 
Sea  into  the  Gulfs  of  Suez  and  Akaba. 

*  Exod.  xii.  37-39.  t  Exod.  xiii.  20.  J  Exod.  xv.  32. 


87 


CHAPTER   III. 

IS  it  possible  to  ascertain  the  particular  region  of  Eg}q3t 
which  was  the  scene  of  the  Hebrews'  servitude — or,  at 
least,  the  locality  from  wliich,  according  to  tradition,  the 
Exodus  took  place  ?  This  is  by  no  means  easy ;  and,  until 
Egyptology  has  made  further  advances,  and  Egyptologists 
evince  greater  unanimity  than  they  have  hitherto  done  in 
their  interpretation  of  the  relics  which  the  most  ancient  of 
known  kingdoms  has  left  behind  it,  and  m  the  inferences 
they  draw  from  them,  w^e  must  content  om^selves  with  such 
conclusions  as  appear  to  recommend  themselves  by  then- 
greater  probability. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  narrative  of  the  servitude  in 
Egypt  it  is  stated  that  the  Israelites  were  employed  in  build- 
ing the  treasure  or  store  cities,  Pithom  and  Eaamses  ;  and 
as  there  is  no  question  that  the  latter  was  identical  with  the 
Eameses  from  which  the  Exodus  took  place,t  we  may  con- 
fine our  attention  to  determining,  if  possible,  the  locality  of 
one  or  both  of  the  two  cities  in  whose  construction  the 
forced  labour  of  the  Hebrews  was  turned  to  account  by  the 
Egyptian  Government. 

In  dealing  with  this  part  of  our  suljject,  we  are  compelled 
to  place  ourselves  almost  unreservedly  in  the  hands  of 
Egyptologists.  We  must  accept  with  thanks,  and  by  a  pro- 
cess somewhat  akin  to  faith,  "believe  whatever  they  are  good 
enough  to  tell  us.      But  Egyptology  is  still  in  its  infancy. 

*  Exod.  i.  II.  t  Ezod.  xii.  37. 


88  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

The  vast  mine  of  Eg}^tian  memorials  is  scarcely  penetrated 
much  less  explored ;  and  when  we  so  often  see  the  certain- 
ties of  the  day  overtln-own  by  the  discoveries  of  the  morrow, 
we  may  he  excused  if  we  temper  our  faith  witli  a  little  cau- 
tion. Nor  is  the  wisdom  of  such  a  course  less  apparent 
when  we  notice  how  frequently  Egj-ptologists  fail  in  con- 
vincing each  other.  AVlien  the  teachers  disagi-ee,  the  dis- 
ciples may  he  pardoned  if  they  maintain  an  attitude  of 
reserve. 

Various  sites  have  beeen  assigned  to  Eameses.  It  has 
been  identified  with  On,  the  later  Heliopolis ;  with  old 
Cairo,  and  with  Memphis ;  whilst  Lepsius  placed  it  at  Abu 
Kesheyd,  in  the  Wady  Tumeylat — the  valley  through  which 
ran  the  canal  which  in  ancient  times  connected  tlie  waters 
of  the  Nile  with  those  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez  by  way  of  tlie 
Lake  Timsah.  On  the  strength  of  a  passage  in  the 
Septuagint  Version,*  it  lias  been  thought  to  be  the  same  as 
Heroopolis ;  and  tlie  latter  city  has  been  variously  placed  in 
the  valley  of  the  old  canal,  and  Itetween  Lake  Timsah  and 
the  Suez  Gulf.  Other  authorities,  no  less  entitled  to 
respect,  place  Earaeses  in  the  west  portion  of  the  Wady  Tu- 
meylat, and  reject  the  hypothesis  advanced  by  Lepsius,  and 
supported  by  Ebers,  that  it  stood  on  the  site  of  Abu  Kesheyd, 
in  the  eastern  division  of  that  valley.  Pithom,  like  Eameses, 
has  also  been  a  good  deal  pushed  about.  Some  have  identi- 
fied it  with  the  Patumos  which  Herodotus  placed  on  the 
(Jreat  Canal, t  which  city  they  regarded  as  the  same  as  the 
Thouni  mentioned  in  the  Itinerary  of  Antoninus.  Others 
have  declared  it  to  be  Heroopolis,  and  place  it  near  the 
head  of  the  Great  Bitter  Lake ;  whilst  equally  eminent 
scholars,  though  admitting  the  identity  of  Pithom  with 
Heroopolis,  give  a  site  to  the  latter  city  as  far  south  as  Suez. 


*  Gen.  xlvi.  28.  khG'  'H^icoi'  -uiiKiv,  eij  yfji/  'Vnfjifa-crtj.        f  Herod,  ii.  15S. 


FROM  EGYPT.  89 

Speaking  generally,  the  drift  of  these  speculations  is  to  place 
the  region  occupied  by  the  Hebrews  at  the  time  of  tlie 
Exodus  to  the  south-west  of  the  modern  town  of 
Ismaila,  Those  who,  accepting  the  Mohammedan  view, 
identify  Eameses  with  Memphis,  or  who,  with  Josephus, 
suppose  it  to  have  been  the  same  as  Latopolis  (old  Cairo),* 
fix  the  place  of  departure  of  the  Israelites  at  a  point  almost 
due  west  of  the  head  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez. 

The  most  recent  theory  respecting  the  site  of  Eameses  is 
that  propounded  by  Brugsch  Bey,  He  affirms,  and  certainly 
in  no  hesitating  tone,  that  the  Eameses  of  the  Exodus  is 
identical  with  the  Zoan  of  later  Hebrew  authorities,  the 
Tanis  of  the  Greeks,  and  known  in  the  time  of  the  Pharaolis 
as  Pi-ramses,  the  city  of  Eamses.  Zoan  was  situated  on 
the  right  bank  of  the  Tanaitic  branch  of  the  Nile,  and  is 
now  but  a  short  distance  from  the  southern  border  of  Lake 
Menzaleh.  In  ancient  times  the  Tanaitic,  like  the  still  more 
eastern  arm  of  the  Nile  the  Pelusiac,  found  its  way  to  the 
Mediterranean  through  a  low-lying  but  fertile  district,  and 
the  plain  extending  in  a  north-eastern  course  from  the  city 
between  the  two  branches  of  the  Nile,  appears  to  have  been 
the  "  field  of  Zoan,"  to  which  allusion  is  made  in  one  of  the 
Psalms.t 

At  Zoan,  or  Zan  as  it  is  now  called  by  the  Arabs,  have 
been  found  the  ruins  and  the  relics  of  what  was  undoubtedly 
at  one  time  a  great  city.  Broken  or  prostrate  columns,  statues, 
steles,  and  obelisks  of  Syenite  granite,  testify  to  the  grandeur 
of  this  Egyptian  town,  and  to  the  recklessness  and  magnificence 
of  the  monarchs  who  conveyed  from  the  border  of  Ethiopia 
the  stupendous  monuments  whose  fragments  are  now  seen 
close  to  the  waters  of  the  Mediterranean.  A  ruined  gateway 
of  OTanite  bearing  the   cartouche   of   Eamses    II.  indicates 


*  A.  J.  ii.  15,  I.  t  Ps.  Ixxviii.  12,43. 


90  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

what  was  once  tlie  entrance  to  a  spacious  temple ;  and  the 
obelisks,  of  which  there  are  ten  if  not  twelve,  a  ninnber  un- 
exampled in  any  other  Egyptian  city,  bear  the  shield  of  the 
same  monarch.  Nor  are  the  traces  of  the  contributions  of 
other  Pharaohs  wanting.  The  cartouches  of  Usurtasen  III. 
and  of  Mineptah  II.,  the  successor  of  Eamses  II.,  are  to  be 
seen  on  some  of  the  sculptured  remains.  The  former  testifies 
to  the  existence  of  the  city  under  a  ruler  wliose  epoch 
cannot  be  determined  ;  the  latter  brings  before  our  eyes  the 
monarcli  in  whose  reign  it. is  now  generally  believed  that  tlie 
Exodus  took  place. 

With  much  particularity  of  detail,  and  with  a  conclusive- 
ness which  to  those  who  are  unacquainted  with  the  ancient 
Egy]3tian  language,  seems  perhaps  suspiciously  complete, 
Brugsch  Bey  demonstrates  the  identity  of  Pithom,  Succotli, 
and  Etham  ^^'ith  places  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Zoan,  and 
having  thus  established  his  premises,  confidently  appeals  to 
tlie  world  to  accept  his  conclusion  that  Zoan  was  the 
Pi-ramses,  the  city  of  Piamses,  which  the  captive  Hebrews 
assisted  in  building  during  the  reign  of  Eamses  II.  Pithom, 
he  alleges,  was  the  principal  town  in  the  district  of  Sukot,  the 
town  being  so  called  because  it  was  dedicated  to  the  solar 
god  Tom,  who  was  also  specially  worshipped  at  On 
(Heliopolis),*  the  district  receiving  the  essentially 
Semitic  name  which  signifies  "  tents,"  from  the  circumstance 
of  its  being  frequently  made  the  camping  ground  of  the 
nomadic  tribes  of  the  adjoining  desert.f  Etham  is  the  Hebrew 
pronunciation  of  the  Egyptian  Khetam,  wliich  signifies 
"  fortress,"!  of  which  there  were  many  in  Egypt,  but  notably 
one  frequently  alluded  to  in  the  province  of  Zor  (Zoan), 
whilst  iMigdol  is  ]»laced  on  the  site  of  Magdola,  a  few  nules 
south  of  Pelusium,  and  is   identified  with  the  present  Tel- 

*  L'Exodc,  15.  t  IbM,  12.  +  Ibid.,  25. 


FROM  EGYPT.  91 

es-Semoiit,*  the  ancient  Egyptian  name  having  been  Samout, 
which,  like  the  Hebrew  Migdol,  signifies  "  a  tower,"  But 
BrugschBey  carries  his  case  even  farther,  for  he  translates  from 
a  papyrus  in  the  British  Museum  a  letter  giving  an  account 
of  the  pursuit  of  two  slaves  by  an  Egyptian  officer,  in  which 
the  latter  mentions  seriatim  the  places  visited  by  the  Hebrews 
on  quitting  Eameses.  This  official  quitted  the  royal  palace 
on  the  ninth  day  of  the  month,  he  arrived  on  the  tenth  at 
the  barrier  of  Sukot,  on  the  twelfth  he  reached  Khetam,  and 
there  he  was  told  by  some  persons  who  came  from  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  the  lakes  of  Suph  that  the  fugitives  had  passed 
through  the  country  of  "  the  wall"  to  the  north  of  Migdol  of 
the  king  Seti  Mineptah.  Like  the  Hebrews,  the  Egyptian 
official  quitted  Ptameses  and  passed  by  way  of  Succoth  to 
Etham,  where  he  heard  that  those  of  whom  he  was  in  pur- 
suit had  also,  like  the  Hebrews,  turned  and  made  their  way 
to  the  north  of  Migdol  towards  the  region  of  the  Jam 
Suph.  It  occasions  no  surprise  that  Brugsch  Bey  should 
attribute  the  preservation  of  this  precious  letter  to  the 
intervention  of  Providence.t 

But,  unfortunately,  those  who  are  best  qualified  to  appre- 
ciate the  nature  of  the  evidence  given  by  Brugsch  Bey 
refuse  to  acceiDt  either  his  facts  or  his  conclusions,|  and 
therefore  the  question  of  the  place  from  which  the  Hebrews 
took  their   departure,  and  the  direction  which  they  followed 


*  L'Exode,  20. 

t  "  Un  heureux  hasard — disons  plutot  la  Providence  divine — nous  a 
conserve  dans  un  des  papyrus  du  Musee  Britannique  le  souvenir  le 
plus  precieux  de  I'Epoque  contemporaine  du  sejour  des  Hebreuxen 
Egyijte." — L'Exode,  27. 

X  Dr.  Birch,  in  referring  to  Brugsch  Bey's  theory  that  the  Exodus 
took  place  towards  the  Mediterranean,  observes :  "  The  difficulties  of 
reconciling  the  Scriptural  account  as  to  the  time  passed  in  the  transit, 
as  well  as  that  of  allowing  the  philological  coincidence  of  some  of  the 
Hebrew  and  Egyptian  names,  have  caused  this  brilliant  discovery  of 
the  supposed  direction  of  the  Exodus  not  to  be  universally  admitted 


92  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

on   their  way  to   "  the  edge  of  the  wilderness"   cannot  be 
regarded  as  conchisively  disposed  of. 

The  author  of  Psalm  Ixxviii.  uses  an  expression  which  raises 
a  strong  presumption  that,  according  to  tradition,  tlie  marvels 
which  preceded  the  liberation  of  Israel  were  worked  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Zoan.  "  Marvellous  things  did  he  in  the 
sight  of  their  fathers  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  in  the  field  of 
Zoan  ;"  and  in  a  subsequent  verse,  "  How  he  had  wrought  his 
signs  in  Egypt  and  his  wonders  on  the  field  of  Zoan." 
Now,  as  there  is  no  qviestion  of  the  identity  of  Zoan  and 
Tanis  and  the  modern  Zan,  it  would  follow,  if  the  Psalmist 
correctly  represented  the  tradition,  and  if  the  tradition 
was  itself  con-ect,  that  the  place  of  abode  of  the  captive 
Hebrews  must  have  been  in  the  region  adjoining  the  north- 
eastern frontier  of  Egypt.  There  is,  however,  a  possibility 
that  the  Psalmist  was  inaccurate.  Zoan  was  unquestionably 
a  city  of  considerable  political  importance  some  two  centuries 
after  the  Exodus,  when  it  became  the  capital  under  the 
twenty-first  dynasty.  Pi-biseth  or  Bubastis  appears  to  have 
been  the  seat  of  government  under  the  following  dynasty, 
but  Zoan  again  became  the  residence  of  the  Pharaohs  with 
the  accession  of  the  twenty- third  dynasty  at  the  close  of 
the  ninth  century  B.C.  It  is  evidently  so  spoken  of  by  the 
earlier  Isaiah,"*^  and  it  is  one  of  the  cities  marked  out  for 
destruction  by  Ezekiel.t  It  is  therefore  quite  possible  that 
the  author  of  Psalm  Ixxviii.,  if  he  lived  at  a  time  when  Zoan 
was  the  capital  of  the  Egyptian  Jcings,  might  have  assumed 
that  the  city,  which  was  the  residence  of  the  Pharaoh   and 


by  those  who  have  studied  the  antiquities  of  Egyj^t  or  Biblical 
geography," — Egypt,  135.  Dr.  Birch  identifies  Pithom  and 
Rameses  with  the  fortresses  Pa-Khatem-en-Tsaru,  or  the  citadel  of 
Tanis,  and  Paramessu,  which  were  erected  on  the  line  of  the  great 
wall  constructed  between  On  and  Pelusium. —  Egypt,  125. 

*  Isaiah  xix.  13;   xxx.  4.  f  Ezck.  xxx.  14. 


FROM  EGYPT.  93 

his  court  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus,  was  the  same  which  in 
his  own  time  was  well  known  to  be  the  capital  of  the 
Egyptian  empire.  This  element  of  uncertainty  cannot 
therefore  be  thrown  out  of  account  in  estimating  the  value 
of  the  evidence  of  the  Psalmist, 

According  to  the  received  tradition,  the  Hebrew  colony 
whose  departure  from  Egypt  now  engages  our  attention, 
was  originally  permitted  to  settle  in  a  district  which  was 
called  the  land  of  Goshen.  It  is  generally  admitted  that 
this  district  lay  on  the  north-eastern  frontier  of  Egypt,  and 
probably  comprehended  the  pasture-land  wliich  there  stretched 
between  Zoan  and  Pelusium,  part  of  wliich  the  subsidence 
of  the  Mediterranean  coast  has  since  converted  into  a 
lake  during  one  portion  of  the  year,  and  a  desert  during  the 
remainder.  This  region  is  spoken  of  as  "  the  land  of 
Eameses,"*  and  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  conclude  was, 
according  to  tradition,  identical  with  that  from  wliich  the 
Hebrews  ultimately  took  their  departure.  If,  however,  the 
land  of  Goshen  and  the  land  of  Eameses  were  identical, 
and  if  the  departure  from  Eameses  was  either  from  "  the 
land  of  Eameses"  or  from  the  city  bearing  the  same  name, 
but  which  was  almost  certainly  in  "  the  land,"  we  have  not 
only  very  strong  evidence  that  the  Exodus  took  place  from 
north-eastern  Egypt,  but  we  have  very  powerful  confirmation 
of  the  accuracy  of  the  Psalmist  in  naming  "  the  field  of 
Zoan"  as  the  scene  of  the  wonders  which  were  said  to 
have  preceded  the  liberation  of  Israel. 

In  the  fragments  from  Manetho  preserved  to  us  by 
Josephus,  mention  is  made  of  a  town  called  Avaris. 
Manetho  states  that  this  city  was  built  by  the  Hyksost  wlio 

*  Gen."xlvii.  11. 
f  The  name  Hyksos  is  said   to  be  compounded  of  Hj^k  or  Hak, 
a  ruler,  and  Sliasu,  the  appellation  given  by  the  Egyptians  to  the 
nomad  tribes — that  is,  the  shepherds.     Manetho,  cited  by  Josephus, 
Contra  Apion,  i.  14- 


94  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

made  themselves  masters  of  Lower  Egypt,  and  that  when 
their  rule  was  subsequently  overthrown  this  city  was  the 
last  stronghold  from  which  they  were  driven.  Tliis  is  to 
some  extent  confirmed  by  a  papyrus  in  the  British  Museum, 
in  which  it  is  recorded  that  Egypt  fell  into  the  hands  of 
the  lepers  ;  that  king  Easekuen  ruled  only  in  Upper  Egypt  ; 
that  the  lepers  possessed  On  (Heliopolis) ;  whilst  their  ruler 
estabhshed  liis  court  at  Haouar  (Avaris).*  The  shepherds, 
or  lepers,  were  expelled  by  Aahmes  or  Amosis,  the  first  king 
of  the  eighteenth  dynasty ;  and  as  it  appears  that  several  naval 
actions  took  place  on  the  waters  of  Haouar,  it  is  concluded 
that  this  city  was  on  the  Tanaitic  branch  of  the  Nile. 
Avaris  was  captured  in  the  third  naval  engagement,  and  the 
Hyksos  were  expelled. 

Manetho  also  speaks  of  Avaris  as  the  town  to  wliicli  at 
a  much  later  period  king  Amenopliis  removed  the  lepers 
whom  he  had  previously  employed  in  the  quarries  on  tlie 
east  bank  of  the  Nile,  and  who  took  for  theii'  leader  Osar- 
siph,  the  priest  of  On,  They  are  said  to  have  revolted,  and 
with  the  aid  of  the  expelled  Hyksos  to  have  ravaged  Egypt 
during  a  period  of  tliirteen  years,  when  they  were  subdued 
and  driven  out  of  the  country. 

Some  years  since,  M.  de  Eoug^  established,  on  what 
seem  to  be  substantial  grounds,  the  identity  of  Zoan  and 
Avaris.  Zoan  is  the  Semitic  equivalent  of  the  Egyptian 
Ha-awar  or  Pa-awar,  and  signifies  "  the  place  of  departure." 
How  it  came  by  tliis  name  cannot  be  determined  with  cer- 
tainty. It  may  have  been  so  called  because  from  its  conti- 
guity to  the  frontier  it  was  the  place  frum  which  caravans 
set  out  for  the  East,  or  because  it  was  the  city  from  whicli 
the  Hyksos  took  their  final  departure.  Again,  it  may  liave 
received  its  Semitic  appellation  as  being  the  spot  from  which 


*  Birch,  Egxjid,  75. 


FROM  EGYPT.  95 

the  Exodus  took  place.  If  the  name  Ha-awar  be  as  old  as 
the  time  of  the  shepherds,  the  latter  gloss  is  untenable  ;  but 
it  is  at  least  remarkable  that  no  mention  is  made  of 
Ha-awar  or  Zoan  by  either  of  those  names  in  the  traditions 
of  the  Exodus,  i£  that  city  or  either  of  them  (if  they  were 
distinct)  had  been  connected  with  the  departure  of  the 
Israelites.  In  the  account  of  the  sending  forth  of  the  spies 
from  the  Hebrew  camp  in  the  desert,  it  is  stated  that  they 
came  to  Hebron,  the  name  of  which  city  previous  to  the 
settlement  in  Canaan  was  Kirjath-Arba."^  Although  this 
prolepsis  sufficiently  indicates  the  composition  of  the  record 
in  its  present  form  subsequent  to  the  Hebrew  incursion,  a 
still  later  writer  has  added,  though  on  what  authority  we 
know  not,  the  statement  that  Hebron  was  built  seven  years 
before  Zoan.  Hebron  is,  however,  referred  to  in  connection 
with  Abraham,  and  hence  it  would  follow  that  Zoan  must 
have  been  built  previous  to  the  Hebrew  settlement  in 
Goshen.  But  even  admitting  the  antiquity  of  Zoan,  the 
time  at  wliich  it  received  its  Semitic  name  would  still 
remain  uncertain.  It  might  have  been  called  Zoan  by  the 
Hyksos,  or  by  the  Hebrews  during  their  stay  in  Egypt ;  but 
it  is  at  least  singular  that,  although  all  the  evidence  inchcates 
that  it  stood  in  the  region  occupied  by  the  Hebrews  previous 
to  their  departure,  and  although  its  monumental  remains 
prove  that  it  was  a  city  of  great  importance  in  the  reigns  of 
Eameses  II.  and  his  successor  Mineptah — the  supposed 
Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus — it  is  never  mentioned  eo  nomviu  in 
the  traditions  we  are  now  examining.  Those  traditions 
speak  of  the  city  of  Eaamses,  and  the  departure  from 
Eameses,  names  we  should  expect  to  find  employed  if  the 
Hebrews  inhabited  the  neighbourhood  of .  a  city  which 
Eamses    II.  undoubtedly  took  great  trouble   to   adorn,  and 


*  Num.  xiii.  22. 


96  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

which  it  is  stated  was  at  one  time  called  by  the  Egyptians 
Pi-ramessu.  If,  however,  the  Semitic  name  Zoan  had  then 
been  borne  by  this  city,  it  seems  not  unreasonable  to  conclude 
that  the  Hebrews  would  have  used  it  in  preference  to 
"  Kameses ;"  but  when  we  find  that  they  did  not  do  so,  and 
when  we  further  find  that  in  later  times  the  plain  around 
this  great  city  was  regarded  as  the  scene  of  the  marvels 
which  preceded  the  Exodus,  and  that  the  city  was  called  by 
the  Semitic  name  Zoan,  it  raises  a  possibility,  some  might 
perhaps  be  inclined  to  tliink  a  probability,  that  the  name 
became  a  standing  memorial  as  well  in  the  Hebrew  as  in 
the  Egyptian  language,  Zoan  (Ha-awar),  of  that  great  event 
which  marked  the  severance  between  Israel  and  Egypt. 

There  seem  therefore  to  be,  on  the  whole,  probable 
grounds  for  concluding  that  the  Hebrew  colony  wliich  was 
either  "  thrust  out"  of  Egypt,  or  permitted  to  depart,  inha- 
bited the  region  lying  between  the  Tanaitic  branch  of  the 
Nile  and  "  the  wilderness ;"  that  its  members  were  engaged 
in  forced  labour,  either  in  the  city  which  was  then,  or  sub- 
sequently came  to  be,  known  as  Zoan,  or  in  other  Egyptian 
towns  or  fortresses  in  the  same  region ;  and  that  when  they 
took  their  departure  they  followed  the  ordinary  easterly  route 
leading  directly  to  the  midhhar,  or  "  wilderness,"  which  lay 
outside  the  Egyptian  frontier.  In  other  words,  they  qiutted 
Egypt,  as  might  naturally  be  expected,  by  the  shortest  road. 
The  chief  grounds  upon  which  Biblical  scholars  have  liitherto 
placed  Rameses  farther  south — namely,  in  the  valley  of  the 
ancient  canal,  or  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Mempliis — have 
been  supplied  by  the  necessity  of  giving  a  rational  explana- 
tion of  the  march  to  the  western  coast  of  the  Suez  Gulf 
in  order  to  supply  an  occasion  for  "  the  passage  of  the  Red 
Sea."  It  was  universally  felt  that  it  would  have  been  a 
little  too  absurd  to  suggest  that  Moses  would  have  led  the 
children  of  Israel  from  the  field  of  Zoan,  which  lay  close  to 


FROM  EGYPT. 


97 


the  Mediterranean,  due  south  through  Egyptian  territory, 
some  eighty  or  ninety  miles  (even  if  he  had  been  permitted 
to  do  so),  for  the  mere  sake  of  placing  a  broad  Gulf  between 
them  and  the  region  towards  wliich  he  was  leading  them ; 
when,  by  following  an  easterly  course,  not  more  than  twenty 
miles  needed  to  be  traversed  to  cross  the  Egyptian  frontier. 
It  is  alleged  that  in  ancient  times  the  waters  of  the  Gulf 
of  Suez  flowed  into  the  great  Bitter  Lake ;  but  it  may  well 
be  doubted  whether  what  was  known  as  "the  Egyptian 
Sea"*  was  deemed  to  extend  farther  north  than  the  site  of 
the  modern  Suez.  Assuming  that  Eameses  was  in  the  valley 
of  the  ancient  canal,  the  southerly  march  on  the  western  side 
of  the  Bitter  Lake,  and  of  the  extension  more  or  less  broad 
and  deep  of  the  Suez  Gulf,  would  still  be  unaccountable 
on  any  rational  grounds.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  Ptameses 
was  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Memphis,  then  a  very  slight 
deflection  to  the  south  would  have  brought  the  Israelites  to 
the  shore  of  the  Gulf.  The  imperative  necessity  of  cross- 
ing the  Bed  Sea  has  heretofore,  despite  all  the  evidence 
pointing  in  another  direction,  irresistibly  dragged  the  Hebrews 
into  a  region  of  Egypt  which  it  is  nowhere  stated  or  sug- 
gested that  they  ever  visited.  Even  those  who  would  not 
dream  of  questioning  the  authority  of  the  Psalmist  sur- 
mount the  diiftculty  raised  by  his  testimony  by  suggesting'- 
that  the  earlier  plagues  may  have  been  witnessed  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Zoan,  but  that  the  Pharaoh  moved  his 
comt  subsequently  to  a  city  farther  south,  from  which  latter 
point  the  Exodus  took  place. 

When  the  Israelites  quitted  Eameses,  they  "journeyed  to 
Succoth  ;"  and  when  "  they  took  their  journey  from  Succoth" 
they  "  encamped  in  Etham,  in  -the  edge  of  the  wilderness." 
If  we  accept  the  views  of  Brug-sch  Bey,  we  shall  have  no 


*  Isaiah  xi.  15. 
H 


98  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

hesitation  in  identifying  Succoth  with  the  Egyptian  Sukot, 
a  district  lying  to  tlie  east  of  Zoan,  and  Etham  with  tlie 
Khetam  or  fortress  which,  according  to  tliis  Egyptologist,  stood 
on  the  Pelusiac  bank  of  the  Nile,  in  the  close  neighbourhood 
of  the  town  Tabenet,  of  which  mention  is  made  l)y  Hero- 
dotus* as  Daphne,  and  which  to-day  is  known  as  Tell- 
Defennah.  Outside  Khetam  lay  the  open  country  south  of 
Migdol,  stretching  towards  the  wilderness. 

It  is  impossible,  however,  to  shut  our  eyes  to  the  ex- 
clusively Semitic  character  of  tlie  words  "  Succoth"  and 
"  Etham ;"  and  although  we  should  not  feel  surprised  if 
places  in  a  district  which  we  have  reason  to  believe  were 
occupied  during  a  long  period  by  the  Hebrews  received 
Semitic  names,  we  must  view  witli  some  suspicion  an  ex- 
planation which,  whilst  admitting  that  Succoth  is  pure 
Semitic,  accounts  for  the  use  of  Etham  by  assuming  it  to  be 
a  Hebrew  pronunciation  of  the  Egyptian  "  Khetam."  There 
is  still  another  reason  \\\\y  we  should  hesitate  to  lay  much 
stress  on  this  philological  demonstration  of  the  route  of  the 
Hebrews.  The  Egj'ptian  Suku.f  or  Sukot,  was  a  name  given 
to  an  entire  district,  in  the  Sethroitic  Nome,  lying  between  the 
Tanaitic  and  Pelusiac  branches  of  the  Nile — this  name,  sig- 
nifying "  tents,"  being  so  given,  according  to  Dr.  Prugsch, 
in  consequence  of  the  encampments  of  the  nomadic  tribes 
which  wore  permitted  to  settle  there|.  But  if  this  were  so, 
we  should  not  expect  the  name  of  an  extensive  district  to  be 
named  as  a  stage  in  the  journey.  In  order  to  obviate  this 
difficulty,  Brugsch  suggests  that  the  place  referred  to  as 
Succoth  was  Segor,  or  Segol,  "the  close"  of  Succoth — a 
kind  of  fortress  commanding  the  communications  between 
the  district  of  Zoan-Kameses  and  that  of  Succoth^. 

It   would     ]kt1i;ii)s    l)e   safer   to    admit     our    uncertainty 

*  Her.  ii.  30-107.         f  Egyptologists  read  this  name  Thuku. 
X  VExodc,  25.  §  Ibid. 


FROM  EGYPT.  99 

respecting  these  two  places,  even  tliough  we  sliould  be 
satisfied  that  the  Exodus  took  place  from  the  region  about 
Zoan.  The  names  Succoth  and  Etham  present  certain 
characteristics,  which  in  the  course  of  our  inquiry  we  shall 
find  are  common  to  many  of  the  names  preserved  in  the 
earliest  traditions  of  the  "  journeying"  toward  Canaan.  That 
Succoth  was  descriptive  and  meant  "  tents"  there  can  be  no 
doubt,  but  whether  the  place  was  so  called  by  the  Hebrews 
from  their  having  found  themselves  obliged  to  erect  tents, 
or  leafy  bowers,  for  their  accommodation,  or  whether  the 
the  name  was  already  of  old  standing,  we  cannot  say.  But 
Etham  we  cannot  safely  accept  as  a  reproduction  of  the 
Egyptian  Khetam.  The  latter  word  was  extremely  common, 
signifying  simply  "  fortress,"  and  whatiever  direction  the 
Israelites  had  taken  on  quitting  Egypt,  a  convenient  Khetam 
might  have  been  found  to  fit  in  with  the  Etham,  in  the  edge 
of  the  wilderness.  It  seems  probable  that  Etham  is  not  a 
I^roper  name.  It  is  very  noticeable  that  the  word  is  not 
preceded  by  the  preposition  "  to,"  as  is  the  case  with  Succotli, 
the  preceding  station,  and  Marah  and  Elim,  the  next  stages 
noted  in  the  journeyings.  They  "  encamped  in  Etham,  in 
the  edge  of  the  wilderness."  May  not  this  word  be  an 
obsolete  archaism,  signifying  "the  neighbouring"  or  "adjoining 
places."  The  passage  would  then  run,  "  and  encamped  in 
the  neighbouring  places  in  the  edge  of  the  wilderness."'^  It 
is  remarkable  that  Etham  is  nowhere  else  mentioned  save 
by  the  author  of  the  Itinerary  in   Numbers  xxxiii.,  wlio,  as 


*  DnX  Etham,  seems  to  have  been  formed  in  an  early  dialect  from 
ns  'Eili,  "near,"  and  would  signify  the  "near  places."  I  am  certainly 
at  a  loss  to  understand  how  Brugsch  Bey  renders  Etham  as  the 
equivalent  of  the  Egyptian  Khetam,  as  in  the  table  of  equivalents  of 
the  Egyptian  and  Hebrew  characters  the  initial  letter  of  Khetam  is 
given  by  him  as  the  Greek  x  ^i^^l  ^lie  Hebrew  H.  and  in  Entrlish  is 
rendered  Kh. — Egypt,  ii.  321.  Etham,  on  the  other  hand,  commences 
with  a  vowel,  or  a  letter  having  a  vowel  sound. 

H  2 


loo  ^        THE  HEBREW  MIGRATIOX 

will  suljsequently  be  sliown,  is  wholly  unreliable.  Besides, 
we  know  from  a  number  of  sources  that  the  wilderness, 
trending  eastwards  from  the  Egj'ptian  frontier,  was  called  the 
wilderness  of  Shur,  and  is  so  styled  in  the  same  record  iu 
wliicli  the  word  Etham  occurs. 

In  the  fact  that  only  one  halting  stage  is  recorded  between 
the  place  of  the  Hebrews'  captivity  and  the  edge  of  tlic  wilder- 
ness {ham-miclhliar),  tends  to  confirm  the  conclusion  that  the 
Exodus  took  place  from  that  part  of  Egypt  adjoining  the 
north-eastern  frontier.  If  it  be  correctly  stated  that  at  the 
time  of  the  Exodus  the  waters  of  the  Suez  Gulf  extended 
to  the  great  Bitter  Lake,  or  possibly  to  Lake  Timsah,  the 
route  from  Egypt  to  the  East  must  have  run  between  the 
last-named  lake,  or  probably  between  the  more  northern 
Lake  of  Balali,  and  the  Pelusiac  branch  of  the  Xile. 
Through  this  comparatively  narrow  isthmus  there  is  every 
reason  to  believe  that  the  Israelites  passed,  in  order  to  reach 
"  the  edge  of  the  \\alderness  ;"  and  if  they  succeeded  in  doing 
so,  having  encamped  only  once  on  tlie  road,  the  place  of  their 
departure  could  not  have  been  far  distant. 

It  will  be  seen  therefore  that  the  broad  view  propounded  by 
Brugsch  Bey  has  much  to  support  it.  Whether  the  city  of 
Zoan-Tanis  was  tlie  treasure  city  Baamses  which  the 
Hebrews  were  engaged  iu  building,  or  was  some  smaller 
town  or  fortress,  we  leave  to  Egyptologists  to  determine. 
We  believe  that  the  land  of  Goshen  or  of  Barneses,  where, 
according  to  tradition,  the  Hebre>vs  were  allowed  to  settle, 
was  tlie  same  from  wbii  li  tlie  Exodus  took  place,  and  was 
situated  on  the  north-eastern  frontier  of  Egypt ;  and  that  on 
taking  their  departure  the  Hebrews  directed  their  stej)S 
between  that  portion  of  the  Pelusiac  arm  of  the  Xile  which 
has  long  since  been  efTaced  by  Lake  Menzaleh,  and  what  are 
now  known  as  the  liitter  Lakes  towards  the  broad  and 
inhospitable  region    known    to    them   as   "  the    wilderness." 


FROM  EGYPT.  loi 

Such  a  route  would  have  taken  them  at  no  great  distance 
from  Migdol,  and  hence  the  facihty  with  which  the  legend  of 
the  passage  of  "  the  Sea,"  the  Mediterranean,  came  to  .he 
engrafted  on  the  original  tradition.  We  must,  however, 
decline  to  accept  the  identification  of  the  Sethroitic  Nome 
under  the  name  of  Suku  mth  Succoth,  and  one  of  the  many- 
Egyptian  Klietam  "  fortresses,"  with  "  Etham,  in  the  edge  of 
the  wilderness."  But  this  is  comparatively  unimportant.  In 
conducting  such  an  inquuy  as  the  present  it  may  be  con- 
venient to  keep  in  mind  that  we  are  separated  by  an  interval 
of  more  than  thirty  centuries  from  the  events  recorded  ;  and 
that  during  that  time,  even  assuming  that  the  traditions 
remained  unaltered,  some  changes  must  have  taken  place  in 
topical  nomenclature.  We  shall  do  well ,  to  recollect  that 
we  are  not  following  the  track  of  an  advancing  army  w^th  a 
special  correspondent's  letter  in  one  hand,  and  an  Ordnance 
map  in  the  other.  We  must  not  assume  that  we  are  bound 
to  identify  every  halting-place,  nor  should  we  think  that  our 
character  for  acumen  and  accuracy  will  be  forfeited  if  we 
fail  to  track  the  Israelites  from  stage  to  stage  with  unerring 
precision.  If  we  would  achieve  the  possible,  we  must  not 
strain  at  the  impossible.  We  must  not  only  rest  content, 
but  shall  have  every  reason  to  be  content,  if  we  succeed 
in .  obtaining  a  broad  and  generally  correct  view  of  the 
direction  taken  by  the  Hebrews  in  the  course  of  a 
migration  which  was  destined  to  exercise  so  great  an 
influence  on  the  human  race. 


I02 


CHAPTER     IV. 

"OEFOEE  following  the  released  captives  into  the  desert 
^^  it  would  seem  an  almost  indispensable  preliminary  to 
determine,  with  some  approach  to  certainty,  their  numbers 
and  their  race.  As  regards  the  former  our  information  is 
certainly  precise,  but  overwhelming  reasons  oblige  us  to 
reject  the  statement  that  the  fighting  men  numbered  six 
hundred  thousand,*  which  would  give  between  two  and 
three  millions  as  the  number  of  all  the  captives  who  quitted 
Egypt.  In  dealing  with  figures  Orientals  are  proverbially 
reckless,  and  the  Hebrews  proved  no  exception  to  this  rule. 
Xo  nomadic  tribe  would  have  ventured  to  attack  so  formid- 
able a  host,  mucli  less  have  succeeded  in  defeating  it.  Xo 
leader  with  such  a  force  at  his  back  would  have  brooked  a 
refusal  of  permission  to  pass  through  the  Iduma^an  valleys."'' 
In  fine,  if  the  Hebrews  marshalled  such  an  enormous  army,  it 
is  inexplicable  t]\at  they  did  unl  at  once  attempt  to  penetrate 
Canaan  by  the  nearest  route,  or  when  they  did  make  the 
attempt  that  they  did  not  sweep  before  them  the  moun- 
taineers wlio  barred  the  way.| 

A  different  question  arises  mIu-u  we  inquire  who  were  the 
people  wlio  were  thrust  out  of  Egypt.  According  to  the 
generally  accepted  view,  the  tM'elve  sons  of  Jacob  settled 
with  their  families  in  Egypt,  and  those  who  were  led  out  of 
that  country  were  their  descendants.  It  is  also  an  accepted 
belief   that  on    quitting   Egypt   the    released   captives   were 


*  Exod.  xii.  37.  t  Xiuu.  XX.  tS.  :J:  Xum.  xiv.  45  ;    Deut.  i.  44. 


THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION  FROM  EGYPT.         103 

divided  into  distinct  tribes — thirteen  in  number — two 
tribes,  Ephraim  and  Manasseh,  having  sprung  from  the 
loins  of  Joseph.      Much  of  this  we  must,  ht)wever,  discard. 

Assuming  that  those  who  quitted  Egypt  were  the  reputed 
descendants  of  Jacob,  to  whom  also  the  name  of  Israel  was 
given,  then  the  multitude  would  properly  be  termed  the 
Beni-Israel — -the  children  of  Israel.  But  we  cannot  ignore 
the  fact  that,  previous  to  the  fall  of  tlie  northern  monarchy 
at  the  hands  of  the  Assyrians  at  the  close  of  the  eighth 
century  B.C.,  the  style  of  Beni-Israel  was  exclusively  borne 
by  those  who  were  the  subjects  of  the  northern  kingdom, 
and,  previous  to  the  establishment  of  the  foundation  of  the 
monarchy,  more  especially  by  the  members  of  the  tribes  of 
Ephraim  and  Manasseh.  The  rival  tribe ^of  Judah  makes  a 
brief  appearance  on  the  scene  in  connection  with  the  invasion 
of  Canaan ;  it  then  passes  into  obscurity.  It  is  not  referred 
to  in  tlie  Song  of  Deborah.*  We  have  a  slight  glimpse  of 
it  in  captivity  to  the  Philistines,  in  the  story  of  Samson  ;t  it 
emerges  at  the  time  of  the  foundation  of  the  monarchy,  the 
crowns  of  Israel  and  Judah  are  united  on  David's  head,  only 
to  be  separated  on  the  accession  of  his  grandson  Eehoboam, 
and  from  that  date  to  the  time  of  the  overthrow  of  the 
kingdom  of  Israel  an  unceasing  antagonism  existed  between 
the  two  peoples.  It  is  difficult  to  imagine  that  dming  the 
subsistence  of  the  northern  kingdom  its  people  would  have 
admitted  the  claim  of  those  of  the  southern  to  be  "  children 
of  Israel."  Israel  regarded  Judah  with  a  contempt  which  it 
was  at  no  pains  to  conceal.^ 


*  Judges  V.  .f  Judges  xv.  11. 

+  The  epitome  given  in  2  Kings  xiv.  of  the  reign  "  of  the  good  king" 
Amaziah  of  Judah,  throws  a  singular  light  on  the  relationship, 
political  and  religious,  which  subsisted  between  the  two  sections  of 
what  are  popularly  known  as  "  the  children  of  Israel,"  about  a  century 
before  the  overthrow  of  the  northern  kingdom.     Amaziah  having  con- 


104  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

In  (lealin^^f  Mitli  tlie  records  of  tlie  Hebrew  migration 
from  Egypt  it  will  l>e  necessary,  at  all  events,  to  avoid 
starting  with  the  assumption  that  the  children  of  Israel  and 
those  of  Judali  were  so  inseparably  connected  from  the  time 
of  their  quitting  Egypt  until  the  severance  of  the  monarchy 
on   the  death  of   Solomon,  that  the   traditions  of  the  one 


ceived  the  idea  of  ravaging  Edom  mobilised  his  army,  which  amounted 
to  three  hundred  thousand  men.  This  force  being  thought  insufficient, 
he  hired  an  additional  hundred  thousand  men  from  the  king  of  Israel 
for  a  hundred  talents  of  silver.  When  about  to  commence  the  cam- 
]»aign,  "  a  man  of  God"  informed  Amaziah  that  the  war  would  not  be 
successful  if  he  received  the  co-operation  of  the  Israelites,  for  "  Jahveh 
was  not  with  Israel."  The  king  reluctantly  followed  the  seer's  advice, 
dismissed  his  mercenaries,  and  successfully  ravaged  Edom,  slaying 
ten  thousand  in  battle,  and  taking  ten  thousand  alive,  whom  he 
butchered  by  casting  them  down  from  the  top  of  a  rock.  The 
Israelites  who  were  sent  home  were,  however,  so  much  dissatisfied, 
that  they  fell  upon  the  cities  of  Judah  and  smote  three  thousand  of 
thera  (the  figures  in  this  narrative  are  perfectly  dazzling)  and  took 
much  spoil.  The  pious  king  returned  in  triumph  from  Edom,  bringing 
with  him  the  gods  of  the  Edomites,  and  "  set  them  up  to  be  his  gods." 
(His  biographer  admits  that  though  "he  did  that  which  was  right  in 
the  sight  of  Jahveh,"  it  was  "  not  with  a  perfect  heart.")  Elated  by 
his  victory  over  the  Edomites,  the  king  of  Judah  sent  a  message  to  the 
king  of  Israel,  "  Come,  let  us  look  one  another  in  the  face,"  which 
would  seem  to  have  been  the  Hebrew  way  of  provoking  war  when  a 
lasus  helU  happened  to  be  wanting.  The  reply  of  the  king  of  Israel 
was  certainly  not  what  in  the  language  of  modern  diplomacv  would 
be  termed  "  reassuring."  It  ran — "  The  thistle  that  was  in  Lebanon 
sent  to  the  cedar  that  was  in  Lebanon,  saying,  Give  thy  daughter  to 
my  son  to  wife :  and  there  passed  by  a  wild  beast  that  was  in  Lebanon, 
and  trod  down  the  thistle."  Then  followed  advice  to  the  king  of  Judah 
to  be  content  with  his  victory  over  the' Edomites,  and  not  to  "  meddle 
to  his  hurt,"  lest  "  he  should  fall,  and  Judah  with  him."  Tlie  delicate 
metaplior  of  the  cedar  and  the  thistle  was,  however,  too  much  for 
Amaziah  ;  he  repeated  his  challenge  to  the  king  of  Israel  to  come  and 
look  him  in  the  face.  The  latter  accepted  the  challenge,  invaded 
Judah,  the  kings  looked  each  other  in  the  face  at  Beth-shemesh,  and 
the  army  of  the  king  of  Judah  was  routed.  The  sequel  of  the  story  is 
curious.  The  king  of  Israel  took  Jerusalem  by  assault,  and  sacked 
the  Temple,  carrying  off  "  all  the  gold  and  silver,  and  all  the  vessels 
that  were  found  in  the  house  ol  Jahveh." 


FROM  EGYPT.  105 

would  necessarily  tally  in  every  respect  witli  those  of  the 
other,  and  that  in  the  records  of  the  tribes  which  formed  the 
northern  kingdom  the  expression  "children  of  Israel"  woidd 
necessarily  be  intended  to  include  those  who  colonised  the 
southern  portion  of  Canaan.  Assuming  that  the  ancestors 
of  those  who  subsequently  occupied  Palestine  from  Mount 
Hermon  to  the  southern  slopes  of  the  hills  of  Judah  quitted 
Egypt  together,  it  may  seem  of  little  consequence,  whether 
they  were  known  collectively  as  Israelites  or  not.  But  it  is 
of  some  importance  to  ascertain  whether,  in  the  records  we 
possess,  the  term  "  children  of  Israel"  is  used  in  the  extended 
sense  in  which  it  is  popularly  employed.  That  in  later  times 
-Tudah  deemed  itself  of  the  house  of  Israel  is  beyond  all 
doubt,  and  that  some  centuries  after  the  disappearance  of 
Israel  proper  it  claimed  to  be  the  heir  and  sole  represen- 
tative of  the  people  of  Israel,  is  a  great  historical  fact.  But 
before  the  subjugation  of  the  northern  kingdom  the  dis- 
tinction between  Israel  and  Judah  was,  save  during  the 
brief  period  when  the  kingdoms  were  united  under  David 
and  Solomon,  as  sharp  and  well-defined  as  it  was  well 
possible  to  be,  between  two  people  who  shared  the  belief 
tliat  they  had  been  led  out  of  captivity  in  Egypt,  and  by  the 
aid  of  the  same  protecting  God  had  obtained  possession  of 
the  land  in  which  they  had  established  themselves.  In 
presence  of  the  story  which  makes  Jacob  (Israel)  the  common 
ancestor  of  all  who  quitted  Egypt,  it  is  impossible  to  account 
for  some  of  the  tribes  in  after-times  arrogating  exclusively  to 
themselves  the  proud  title  of  "  Israel,"  and  for  the  people  of 
Judah  acquiescing  in  this  special  appropriation  of  a  common 
designation.  We  are,  however,  confronted  by  the  fact  that 
such  was  the  case,  and  we  are  necessarily  driven  to  suspect 
that  if  the  records  of  Israel  had  not  been  transmitted  to  us 
through  the  hands  of  Judah  this  singular  fact  might  be 
satisfactorily  explained.     The  consideration  of  this  interest- 


io6  THE  HEBRE IV  MIGRA  TION 

ing  question  does  not,  however,  come  within  the  scope  of  tlie 
present  inquiry. 

In  the  account  of  the  departure  from  Egypt,  it  is  stated 
that  when  "  tlie  chikb-en  of  Israel  journeyed  from  Rameses" 
"a  mixed  multitude  went  up  also  with  them,  and  flocks  and 
herds,  even  very  much  cattle.'"'""  Elsewhere  we  find  this 
"mixed  multitude"  again  referred  to.  Whilst  in  the  wilderness 
it  is  stated  that  "  the  mixed  multitude  that  was  among  them 
fell  a  lusting  :  and  the  cliildren  of  Israel  also  wept  again,  and 
said.  Who  sliall  give  us  flesh  to  eat?"t  Who  were  those  who 
are  spoken  of  as  a  "  mixed  multitude  ?" 

It  is  universally  assumed  that  as  the  children  of  Israel 
are  supposed  to  have  included  all  the  descendants  of  Jacob — 
that  is  to  say,  tlie  thirteen  tribes — the  "  niLxed  multitude" 
must  have  comprehended  Egyptians  and  others,  not  of 
IsraeUtish  descent,  who  elected  to  unite  tlieir  lot  with  that 
of  the  departing  captives.  But  for  many  reasons  this  is 
extremely  improbable.  It  was  in  presumed  obedience  to  the 
God  of  the  Hebrews,  and  with  the  ostensible  object  of 
worsl lipping  the  God  of  the  Hebrews,  that  the  Exodus  took 
place ;  and  it  is  therefore  very  unlikely  that  any  save 
Hebrews  would  liave  desired,  or  woukl  have  been  permitted, 
to  quit  Egypt 'with  the  emanciitatfd  slaves.  Independently 
of  this  natural  presumption,  it  is  noticeable  that  no  allusii-n 
is  made  subseipiently  to  the  presence  of  any  other  than  a 
Hebrew  with  the  departing  host ;  nor  does  any  one  of  the 
"  mixed  multitude"  which  quitted  EgyT)t,  if  it  was  composed 
of  others  than  those  wliose  deliverance  was  accom])lislied  by 
Jahveh, leave  any  trace  in  the  histories  of  Israel  and-Iuduli.  The 
"mixed  multitude,"  nevertheless,  although  no  pointed  allusion 
is  ai)parently  made  to  any  of  those  who  composed  it,  played 
a  not  unimportant  })art  in  the  migration  towards  Canaan.   It 

*  Exod.  xii.  38.  t  Xum.  xi.  4. 


FROM  EGYPT.  107 

is  sufficiently  numerous  to  be  spoken  of  as  accompanying 
the  children  of  Israel  on  their  departure,  and  it  is  rather 
invidiously  referred  to  as  having  set  the  bad  example  subse- 
quently followed  by  the  children  of  Israel,  of  lusting  after 
more  solid  food  than  manna.  It  is  impossible  to  imagine 
that  it  was  composed  of  men  of  a  race  different  from  that  of 
the  "  children  of  Israel," 

The  allusions  made  to  "  the  Hebrews"  in  the  earlier  por- 
tion of  the  narrative  of  the  bondage  in  Egypt,  might  perhaps 
appear  to  offer  to  some  extent  a  solution  of  the  question 
before  us.  Israel  here  seems  to  be  included  amongst  the 
Hebrews,  whilst  the  latter  are  not  regarded  as  necessarily 
Israelites.  The  sufferings  of  the  Hebrews  are  incidental  to, 
and  consequent  upon,  those  of  the  Israelites.  The  latter 
were  prosperous  and  flourishing  when  "  a  king  arose  who 
knew  not  Joseph."*  But  Joseph  had  then  been  a  long  time 
dead ;  it  is  therefore  evident  that  Joseph  is  here  treated  as 
a  synonym  for  Israel,  as  in  later  times  the  tribes  of  Manasseh 
and  Ephraim,  his  sons,  were  regarded  as  specially  constituting 
the  Beni-Israel.  No  notice  whatever  is  taken  of  the  other  sons 
of  Jacob,  who  on  the  invitation  of  Joseph  and  under  his  pro- 
tection were  said  to  have  settled  in  Egypt.  It  is  the  "  children 
of  Israel"  who  fill  the  land;t  it  is  they  who  excite  the 
alarm  of  the  Pharaoh,  lest  they  become  "  more  and  mightier" 
than  the  Egyptians  -^  it  is  against  them  that  the  king  adopts 
strong  measures  by  setting  taskmasters  over  them  and  making 
"  their  lives  bitter  with  hard  bondage."^  This  is  the  tradi- 
tion of  Israel,  and  it  is  throughout  marked  by  the  conscious- 
ness that  the  descendants  of  Joseph  constituted  the  elite  and 
the  bulk  of  the  stock  of  Abraham  in  Egypt.  But  there  were 
others  besides  Israelites  in  bondage,  though  the  latter  in 
their  traditions  thought  proper  to  ignore  them.     There  were 


*  Exod.  i.  8.         t  Exod.  i.  7.         j  Exod.  i.  9.         §  Exod.  i.  11- 14. 


io8  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

others  whose  posterity  in  after-times  claimed  \\\\\\  the 
children  of  Israel  descent  from  a  common  ancestor,  avIio 
relied  on  the  covenant  which  tradition  declared  that  the 
Elohim  had  made  with  their  father  Abraham.  These  were 
"  Hebrews ;"  they  embraced  not  only  the  descendants  of 
Joseph  but  all  of  Terahitic  descent,"^^  as  well  those  held  in 
captivity  in  Egypt  as  those  wlio  had  never  ])arted  with 
their  liberty  and  were  even  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus  in 
]iossession  of  the  lands  M'hich  the  Elohim  of  the  Hebrews 
had  given  them.  Joseph  himself  is  represented  as  declaring 
that  he  had  been  "  stolen  out  of  the  land  of  the  Hebrews."t 
He  was  "  the  Hebrew"  boy,  falsely  accused  of  soliciting  the 
chastity  of  Potiphar's  wife. 

When,  previous  to  the  settlement  in  Canaan  a  severance 
took  place  between  those  who  ultimately  became  known 
respectively  as  "  Israel"  and  "  Judah,"  their  traditions  assumed 
in  many  particulars  different  complexions.  The  former, 
owing  to  causes  which  can  only  be  adequately  dealt  with 
in  an  examination  of  the  Hebrew  settlement  in  Canaan, 
claimed  tlie  title  of  Ucni-Isracl,  Mdiilst  the  latter  were 
content  to  bear  the  generic  designation  of  Hebrews  in  addi- 
tion to  the  patronymic  styles  of  their  tribes.  The  former, 
consciously  or  unconsciously,  moulded  their  traditions  so  as 
to  make  it  appear  that  when  they  quitted  Egypt  they  bore  the 
appellation  of  Ueni-Israel  ;  the  latter,  being  exposed  to  no 
such  influences,  recollected  that  in  common  with  their 
])rethren,  from  whom  they  became  subsequently  separated, 
they  bore  the  name  of  Hebrews. 

Xow  in  the  opening  chapters  of  the  Book  of  Exodus  we 
discover  clear  traces  of  the  two  classes  of  tradition  to  which 
we  refer.  Tlie  narrative  of  the  bondage  in  Egypt  begins  at 
Exodus  i.  7,  and  continues  without  interruption  to  verse  i  4. 

♦Gen.  xii.  27-31.  f  Gen.  xl.  15. 


FROM  EGYPT.  T09 

At  the  latter  verse,  however,  a  break  occurs,  and  we  find 
that  the  compiler  has  found  it  expedient  to  make  use  of  a 
different  record.  In  Exodus  i.  7-14  we  read  a  statement 
that  "  the  children  of  Israel  were  fruitful  and  increased 
abundantly,"  and  "  waxed  exceeding  mighty  ;"  that  "  a  king 
arose  who  knew  not  Joseph ;"  and  that  apprehensive  lest 
they  should  multiply  and  join  the  enemies  of  Egypt  he  "  set 
taskmasters  over  them  to  afflict  them  with  their  burdens," 
and  "  made  their  lives  bitter  with  hard  bondage."  In 
this  record  it  is  noticeable  that  the  captives  are  spoken  of 
exclusively  as  the  children  or  people  of  Israel,  and  are 
so  styled  even  by  the  Pharaoh,  and  that  the  mode  of 
checking  their  increase  was  by  afflicting  them  with  burdens, 
an  expedient  which,  it  is  added,  » proved  wholly  in- 
effectual. 

In  the  concluding  verses  of  the  chapter  (verses  15-22) 
we  find  not  only  a  different  account  of  the  means  adopted 
to  check  the  multiplication  of  the  captives,  but  we  look  in 
vain  for  any  allusion  to  the  "children  of  Israel."  The 
oppressed  people  are  now  spoken  of  exclusively  as 
"  Hebrews."  In  an  abrupt  and  disconnected  manner  the 
king  of  Egypt  is  described  as  speaking  to  the  "  Hebrew'' 
midwives,  Shiphrah  and  Puah,  and  directing  them  when  they 
do  then-  office  to  the  "  Hebrew"  women  to  kill  the  male 
offspring.  The  midwives,  however,  disobeyed  the  king, 
excusing  themselves  on  the  ground  that  owing  to  a  consti- 
tutional difference  between  the  "  Hebrew"  and  the  Egyptian 
women,  their  services  were  anticipated  by  Nature  before 
then-  arrival.  The  result  was  that  "  the  people  multiplied 
and  waxed  very  mighty  ;"  and  the  king  then  "  charged  all 
his  people"  that  every  male  child  should' be  cast  into  the 
river. 

The  next  chapter  contains  an  epitome  of  the  life 
of    Moses     from     his     birth    to     his     flight     to     Midian, 


no  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

and  marriage  witli  the  daughter  of  Pieuel.  In  tliis  nar- 
rative we  are  also  struck  by  the  singular  circumstance 
that  no  mention  is  made  of  the  "  cliildren  of  Israel,"  hut  that 
the  captives  are  invariably  referred  to  as  "  Hebrews."  The 
parents  of  Moses  are  described  as  of  the  tribe  of  Levi. 
The  mother  exposes  her  child  in  the  river,  and  when  the 
child  is  seen  by  Pharaoh's  daughter,  she  exclaims,  "  This  is 
one  of  the  Hebrew  children."*  His  sister,  who  watches 
the  child,  then  appears,  and  asks  the  Princess,  "  Shall  I 
go  and  call  to  thee  a  nurse  of  the  Hebrew  women  ?" 
and  the  latter  having  assented,  the  mother,  a  Levite 
woman,  is  brought  and  engaged  to  nurse  the  child.  Years 
afterwards,  when  Moses  was  grown,  it  is  said  he  saw  an 
Egyptian  smiting  "  a  Hebrew,  one  of  his  brethren,"  and  on 
the  following  day  he  saw  "  two  men  of  the  Hebrews" 
striving  together,  when  having  interposed,  he  was  reminded 
of  the  murder  he  had  committed  on  the  previous  day,  and 
he  thereupon  fled  to  Midian. 

In  this  narrative,  as  in  that  of  the  Pharaoh  and  the  midwives, 
with  which  it  is  closely  connected,  we  see  in  the  different 
designations  given  to  the  captives  conclusive  evidence  that 
the  traditions  embodied  in  it  grew  u])  and  were  moulded 
amongst  people  different  from,  and  at  the  time  apjiarently 
unconnected  with,  those  who  called  themselves  the  children 
of  Israel.  It  would  also  seem  that  the  tribe  of  Levi,  whicli 
is  now  reckoned  amongst  tlie  "  children  of  Israel,"  did  not  in 


*  There  is  a  visible  connection  between  the  story  of  the  finding  of 
Moses,  and  the  singular  order  attribnted  to  Pharaoh  to  despatch  the 
male  Hebrew  children  by  casting  them  into  the  river.  Both  traditions 
have  had  a  common  source,  but  one  of  them  in  time  became  modified. 
The  finding  of  Moses  in  the  river  was  at  first  explained  by  attributing 
to  Pharaoh  the  order  referred  to,  and  hence  his  daughter  on  seeing  the 
child  concluded  it  was  a  Hebrew  child.  Another  version  then  grew 
up  that  the  mother  put  the  child  in  the  river,  not  in  compliance  with 
the  Royal  decree,  but  in  order  to  save  him  from  destruction. 


FROM  EGYPT.  iir 

early  times  claim  that  proud  distinction."^  The  "  Israelitish" 
record,  broken  by  the  compiler  at  Exod.  i.  14,  to  interweave  the 
''  Hebrew"  narratives  of  Pharaoh's  design  to  check  the  multi- 
plication of  the  captives,  not  by  hard  bondage  but  by  killing 
the  male  children,  and  of  Moses'  early  life,  is  resumed  at  Exod. 
ii.  23,  and  continued  to  the  end  of  the  chapter.  The  appella- 
tion "  Hebrew"  vanishes,  wliilst  that  of  the  "  cliildren  of 
Israel"  is  restored.  In  chrect  continuation  of  the  narrative, 
Exod.  i.  7-14,  it  is  said  that  "  it  came  to  pass  that  the 
king  of  Eg}7)t  died,  and  the  cliildren  of  Israel  sighed  by 
reason  of  the  bondage,  and  they  cried,  and  their  cry  came  up 
unto  God  by  reason  of  the  bondage,"  "  and  God  looked  upon 
the  children  of  Israel,  and  had  respect  for  them."  There  is 
no  suggestion  of  any  complaint  of  th^  far  more  serious 
hardship  of  the  wholesale  slaughter  of  their  male  children. 
It  would  thence  appear  that  in  the  traditions  of  "  Israel" 
the  story  of  Pharaoh's  destruction  of  the  male  offspring  of 
his  captives  had  no  place. 

The  expression  "  Hebrews"  occurs  five  times  in  the  Book 
of  Exodus,  exclusive  of  the  instances  already  noticed,  and  in 
all  these  cases  is  employed  as  descriptive  of  the  Elohim  who 
demands  the  Liberation  of  those  who  were  kept  in  bondage 
in  Egypt.  It  is  "  the  God  of  the  Hebrews,"  in  whose  name 
Moses  and  Aaron  speak,t  when  demanding  permission  for 
the  children  of  Israel  to  go  a  three  days'  journey  into  the 
wilderness  to  serve  then-  God.  When  Pharaoh  asks,  who  is 
Jahveh  ?  the  envoys  reply,  "  The  God  of  the  Hebrews  has 
sent  us,"|  and  it  is  over  and  over  again  stated  that 
"  the  God  of  the  Hebrews"  is  not  only  the  God  of  Jacob 
but  is  the  God  of  Abraham  and  Isaac,  and,  by  implication, 
of  all  their  descendants.     We   see  therefoi-e   that  even   in 


*  But  it  is  at  least  as  probable  that  this  reference  to  the  tribe  of 
Levi  is  the  work  of  a  later  writer. 

t  Exod,  iii.  18.  J  Exod.  v.  3. 


1 1 2  THE  HEDRE IV  MIGRA  TION 

traditions  which  furnish  intrinsic  evidence  of  having  been 
derived  from  Israel,  the  liberating  God  is  styled,  not  exclu- 
sively the  God  of  Israel,  but  the  God  of  the  Hebrews,  and 
that  it  is  in  this  larger  and  more  compreliensive  character 
that  he  interposes.  But  this  interposition  in  the  larger 
character  tends  to  fortify  our  conclusion,  that  from  an 
Israelite's  point  of  view  there  were  non-Israelites  in  Egypt, 
whose  liberation  then-  God  was  equally  anxious  to  secure, 
descendants  of  Abraham,  to  whom  the  generic  appellation 
Hebrews  was  applied.  If,  however,  we  place  ourselves  in 
the  position  of  those  who  settled  in  southern  Palestine,  and 
who  subsequently  were  known  as  "  the  men  of  Judah,"  we 
can  equally  understand  how,  in  accordance  with  their 
traditions  also,  the  liberating  deity  was  the  God  of  the 
Hebrews,  whilst  the  people  liberated  bore  the  same  compre- 
hensive title. 

The  designation  "  Hebrews"  next  appears  several  times  in 
the  records  of  the  events  preceding  the  foundation  of  the 
monarchy  of  Judah,  and  then  vanishes  completely.  We 
shall  refer  briefly  to  those  instances  in  which  the  word 
is  used,  because  tliey  tlirow  some  light  upon  the  point  under 
consideration. 

In  the  accounts  given  of  the  wars  witli  the  Pliilistines 
whieli  resulted  in  the  liberation  of  Israel  and  Judah  fi'om 
their  oppression,  frequent  allusion  is  made  by  the  Philistines 
to  their  adversaries,  but  invariably  as  Hebrews.  "  "What 
meaneth  the  noise  of  this  great^shout  in  the  camp  of  the 
Hebrews  ?"*  "  0  ye  Philistines,  be  ye  not  servants  unto  the 
Hebrews  as  they  have  been  unto  you."t  "  There  was  no 
smith  found  throughout  all  the  land  of  Israel,  for  tlie 
Philistines  said,  Lest  the  Hebrews  make  tlieni  s^\■or(ls  or 
spears."!  "  And  the  Philistines  said,  Beliold   the  Hebrews 

*  1  Sara.  iv.  6.  f  i  Sam.  iv.  9.  X  i  Sam.  xiii.  19. 


FROM  EGYPT.  113 

come  forth  out  of  the  holes  where  they  have  hid  them- 
selves ;"*  apparently  in  connection  with  the  previous 
statement  that  "  the  men  of  Israel  saw  they  were  in  a  strait, 
and  the  people  did  hide  themselves  in  caves,  and  in  thickets., 
and  in  rocks,  and  in  high  places,  and  in  pits  ;"t  and  on  the 
eve  of  the  battle  in  which  Saul  was  slain,  tlie  princes  of  the 
Philistines  asked  in  reference  to  David  and  his  followers, 
whose  aid  had  been  accepted  by  Achish,  "  Wliat  do  these 
Hebrews  here  ?  .  .  .  .  make  this  fellow  return  ....  lest 
in  the  battle  he  be  an  adversary  unto  us.";j; 

We  find,  however,  that  the  designation  "  Hebrews"  is  not 
employed  by  the  Philistines  alone.  Saul  and  his  son 
Jonathan  having  attacked  the  enemy  with  a  force  of  three 
thousand  men,  and  captured  a  garrison,  thereupon  "  Saul 
blew  the  trumpet  throughout  all  the  land,  saying, '  Let  the 
Hebrews  hear."§  The  Philistines  afterwards  marshalled  a 
mighty  host  and  advanced  against  Saul,  the  result  of  which 
was  that  "  when  the  men  of  Israel  saw  that  they  were  in  a 
strait,  they  liid  themselves  in  caves,"  &c  "  and  some  of 
the  Hebrews  went  over  Jordan  to  the  land  of  Gad  and 
Gilead."||  In  the  succeeding  chapter,  in  an  account  of  a 
battle  with  the  Philistines,  it  is  stated  that  "  the  Hebrews 
that  were  with  the  Philistines  before  that  time,  which  went 
up  with  them  into  the  camp,  even  they  also  turned  to  be 
with  the  Israelites  ....  likewise  all  the  men  of  Israel 
which  had  hid  themselves  in  Mount  Ephraim,"  &c.^ 

It  would  appear  therefore  from  these  passages,  that  at  a 
comparatively  early  period — namely,  before  the  establish- 
ment of  the  monarchy — those  who  constituted  what  are 
termed  the  tribes  of  Israel  were  known  by  the  Philistines 
collectively  and  individually  as  Hebrews,  whilst   those  who 


*   I  Sam.  xiv.  11.  f  i  Sam.  xiii.  6.  +    i  Sam.  xxix.  3  4. 

§  I  Sam.  xiii.  3.  ||    i  Sam.  xiii.  7.  «[  i  Sam.  xiv.  21,  22. 

I 


1 1 4  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

claimed  the  title  of  "  children  of  Israel"  gave  the  same 
desisrnation  to  those  who  were  united  with  them  by  ties  of 
lineage,  by  similarity  of  traditions,  and  by  the  same  strong 
motives  to  cast  off  the  oppressor's  yoke,  but  who  at  the 
same  time  were  not  deemed  "  Beni-lsrael."  It  is  easy 
therefore  to  understand  how,  during  David's  reign,  even  a 
Benjamite  was  found  to  lead  a  rebellion  to  the  cry,  "  Every 
man  to  his  tents,  O  Israel  ....  we  have  no  part  in  David, 
neither  have  we  inheritance  in  the  son  of  Jesse  ;"*  and  to 
succeed  in  inducing  "  every  man  of  Israel"t  to  separate  him- 
self from  Davad  and  from  the  men  of  Judah ;  and  how  at  a 
later  period,  on  the  accession  of  Iichoboam,  "  when  all 
Israel  saw  that  the  king  hearkened  not  unto  them,"  the 
people  uttered  the  same  cry  and  the  same  disavowal,  the 
final  severance  from  Judah  took  place  ;  "  but  as  for  the 
children  of  Israel  which  dwelt  in  the  cities  of  Judah, 
Eehoboam  reigned  over  them."| 

This  digression  has  been  necessary  in  order  to  show  that, 
although  the  two  great  nations  of  the  Hebrew  race  which 
settled  in  Palestine  had  common  traditions  of  the  servitude 
from  which  their  fathers  were  liberated,  each  section  came 
to  be  known  by  a  special  title  which  was  not  claimed  by 
the  other ;  that  the  generic  appellation,  although  given  by 
tlie  Philistines  equally  to  the  members  of  the  tribe  of  Judah, 
who  hail  long  been  subject  to  them,  and  to  the  Israehtes, 
was  apparently  employed  by  the  latter  to  designate  men  of 
a  common  race,  who  were  united  with  them  in  casting  off 
the  yoke  of  the  Philistines,  and  who  most  unquestionably 
were  the  people  of  Judah. 

The  contradistinction  between  the  two  gi-eat  families  of 
Israel  and  Judah  was  not  then  the  result  of  political  dif- 
ferences arising  on  the  death  of  Solomon,  but  ran  back  to  a 

*  2  Sam.  XX.  1.  t  2  Sam.  ix  2.  +  i  Kiugs  xii.  i6,  17. 


FROM  EGYPT.  115 

much  earlier  period.  When  their  common  ancestors  quitted 
Egypt  together,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  they  acknow- 
ledged a  common  lineage,  and  that  they  enjoyed  the  equality 
springing  from  a  common  servitude,  though  certain  tribal 
distinctions  may  have  existed  amongst  them.  At  this  period 
they  were  content  to  be  known  in  their  entirety  as  Hebrews. 
Subsequently  the  body  of  emigxants  was  split  up.  One 
portion  colonised  the  region  east  of  the  Jordan  and  northern 
Palestine,  whilst  another  section  effected  a  settlement  in  the 
south.  During  the  long  period  which  intervened  between 
the  invasion  of  Canaan  and  the  struggle  for  independence 
which  residted  in  the  foundation  of  the  kingdoms  of  Israel 
and  Judah,  these  two  gi^eat  sections  were  completely  discon- 
nected. The  Judges  of  Israel  exercise  no  dominion  over  the 
men  of  Judah,  nor  do  the  latter  co-operate  with  the  Beni- 
Israel  in  their  constantly  recurring  conflicts  ^A\X\  their  enemies. 
Deborah  is  apparently  unaware  of 'the  existence  of  Judah, 
or  at  all  events  it  does  not  occur  to  her  to  mention  it  in  the 
sj)irit-stirriiig  lyric*  in  which  she  refers  by  name  to  the  tribes 
-.vhich  either  did  take  part  or  omitted  to  take  part  in  the 
•■reat  struo-gle  against  the  Canaanite  forces  under  the  com- 
nand  of  Sisera.  The  tribe  of  Simeon,  which  united  its 
.■ortunes  with  tbat  of  Judah, t  and  settled  in  southern  Pa- 
lestine, is  equally  unnoticed  by  the  "mother  of  Israel." 
Wlien  at  last  Judah  emerges  from  obscurity,  we  look  in  vain 
for  its  recognition  as  "  Israelite."  Its  people,  known  to  the 
Philistines,  and  apparently  to  their  neighbours,  the  children 
of  Israel,  as  "  Hebrews,"  with  the  achievement  of  their 
independence  designate  themselves  by  a  title  based  upon 
their  traditions,  and  of  which  they  are  no  less  proud  than 
their  kinsmen  of  the  north  are  of  that  of  "  Beui-Israel." 
They  know  nothing  of  the  circumstances  under  which  the 


•lud.  V.  t  Jud.  i.  3. 

I  2 


,  1 6  THE  HE  ERE  IV  MIGRA  TION 

latter  came  to  assume  this  title,  and  its  validity  or  other- 
wise gives  them  very  little  concern.  They  are  the  "  men  of 
Judah,"  and  as  such  are  distinct  from  the  "  children  of 
Israel."  Whilst  Samuel  still  lived  we  find  Saul  numbering 
"  the  cliildren  of  Israel"  and  "  the  men  of  Judah"  sepa- 
rately.'^ When  David  vanquishes  Goliath,  "the  men  of 
Israel  and  of  Judah  arose  and  shouted."t  "WHien  Said  is 
slain,  the  "  men  of  Judah,"  without  any  communication  with 
the  "  children  of  Israel,"  anoint  David  king  over  the  house 
of  Judah  ;;j:  whilst  IsliLosheth,  the  son  of  Said,  is  simul- 
taneously, and  without  any  protest  from  Judah,  made  king 
over  "  all  Israel."  §  A  few  years  later,  when  Ishbosheth 
was  murdered,  "  all  the  elders  of  Israel  came  to  the  king 
to  Hebron  ;  and.  king  David  made  a  league  with  them  in 
Hebron  before  Jahveh  :  and  they  anointed  David  king  over 
Israel."  II  And  finally,  when  Israel,  wearied  by  the  exac- 
tions of  Solomon,  failed  to  secure  any  promises  of  amend- 
ment from  his  successor  Eehoboam,  it  separated  itself  from 
Judah,  taking  with  it  the  title  with  which  it  had  never 
parted,  and  leaving  Judali  in  undisturbed,  and  apparently 
contented,  enjoyment  of  the  designation  by  which  its  people 


*  I  Sam  xi.  8.     t  i  Sam.  xvii  52.     J  2  Sam.  ii.  4.     §  2  Sam.  ii.  10. 

II  2  Sam.  V.  3.  This  league  is  referred  to  by  Kehoboam's  son 
Abijah,  on  his  accession  to  the  throne  of  Judah,  2  Chron.  xiii.  He 
declared  war  against  Jeroboam,  and  brought  into  the  held  an  army  of 
four  hundred  thousand  men.  whilst  the  forces  of  Israel  amounted  to 
"  eight  hundred  thousand  chosen  n^eu,  mighty  men  of  valour."  Before 
the  battle  Abijah  made  an  ineifectual  appeal  to  "  Jeroboam  and  all 
Israel "  to  acknowledge  the  fact  that  "  Jahveh,  God  of  Israel,  gave  the 
kingdom  over  Israel  to  David  for  ever,  even  to  him  and  to  his  sons,  by  a 
covenant  of  salt."  In  the  battle  which  ensued  Abijah  was  victorious, 
and  "there  fell  down  slain  of  Israel  five  hundred  thousand  chosen  men." 
Considering  that  the  territory  of  Israel  and  Judiih,  taken  together,  did 
not  much  exceed  one  hundred  and  twenty  miles  in  length,  by  about 
iorty  in  breadth,  the  extravagance  of  these  figures  is  apparent,  but 
it  is  impossible  to  deny  a  tribute  of  admiration  to  the  audacity  of  the 
historian   who  employed  them.     The  older   writer,  to  whom   we  are 


FROM  EGYPT.  117 

were  known  before  the  union  of  the  two  kingdoms  had  taken 
place. 

Although  we  may  satisfy  ourselves  that  the  captives  in 
Egypt  were  known  by  a  common  generic  title,  the  "  Hebrews" 
— in  some  sort  the  equivalent  of  the  Egyptian  expression, 
"  Shasu"- — -and  that  the  distinctive  appellations,  Israel  and 
Judah,  were  the  creations  of  a  much  later  age,  still,  in  seek- 
ing to  appreciate  fidly  the  meaning  of  the  expression  "  a 
mixed  multitude,"  we  must  consider  the  possibility  of  the 
captives  having  been  accompanied  by  men  of  a  common 
race  with  themselves,  but  who  had  not,  like  them,  been  re- 
duced to  servitude. 

We  have  already,  in  connection  with  the  Hebrew  settle- 
ment in  Egypt,  directed  attention  to  a  y^x^  singular  docu- 
ment of  the  reign  of  Mineptah  II.,  the  supposed  Pharaoh 
of  the  Exodus.*  It  briefly  states  that  permission  has  been 
accorded  to  some  tribes  of  the  Shasu,  from  the  land  of 
Adiima,  to  enter  the  land  of  Thuku  to  obtain  sustenance  for 
themselves  and  their  herds.  We  are  therefore  tempted  to 
inquire  whether  we  may  not  have,  in  the  Shasu  here  referred 
to,  "  the  mixed  multitude"  of  the  traditions   of  Israel  ? 

When,  subsequent  to  the  settlements  on  both  sides  of  the 
Jordan,  the  descendants  of  those  who  had  been  kept  in 
servitude    in   Egypt   conjured    up    in    their    traditions   the 


indebted  for  the  record  in  the  Book  of  Kings,  though  he  aUudes  to  the 
war  between  Judah  and  Israel,  makes  no  allusion  to  this  wonderful 
battle  (i  Kings  xv.  i,  8).  Israel  maintained  its  independence  not- 
withstanding the  crushing  defeat,  but  we  are  told  in  a  general  way 
that  "Abij  ah  waxed  mighty,  and  married  fourteen  wives,  and  begat 
twenty-two  sons  and  sixteen  daughters"  (2  Chron.xiii.  21),  a  degree  of 
domestic  prosperity  which,  however,  seems  rather  dearly  purchased  by 
the  slaughter  of  half  a  miUion  of  men.  It  was  not,  however,  un- 
worthy of  mention,  when  it  is  kept  in  mind  that  Abijah  only  reigned 
a  little  over  two  years  (i  Kings  xv.  1-9).  The  earlier  histoi-ian  is 
silent  as  to  Abijah's  j^rowess  both  in  love  and  war. 
*  See  ante,  p.  yj. 


ii8  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

triumphant  manner  in  Avhich  their  Clod  had  led  them  ont 
of  the  house  of  liondage,  it  was  certainly  not  unnatural  tliat 
their  liberation,  and  the  surrounding  circumstances  so  far  as 
they  exclusively  concerned  themselves,  were  alone  deemed 
worthy  of  retaining  a  place  in  their  memories.  Assuming, 
for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  others  of  a  common  race,  but 
wlio  had  not  like  them  been  reduced  to  slavery  in  Egypt, 
accompanied  tliem  across  the  wilderness,  the  fact  might 
perhaps  be  recorded,  but  it  would  be  treated  as  of  trifling 
importance.  In  the  tra'ditions  of  the  several  sections  into 
which  the  descendants  of  the  captives  were  ultimately  split 
up,  it  might  be  that  one  section  came  after  a  time  to  treat 
the  others  as  deserving  no  higher  or  more  distinctive  appella- 
tion than  that  of  a  "  mixed  multitude ;"  but  if  the  entire 
body  of  captives  was  accompanied  by  a  tril»e  wliicli  liad  not 
shared  their  sorrows,  then  another  explanation  of  the  term 
"  mixed  multitude"  would  present  itself. 

And  there  are  many  circumstances  which  would  lead  us 
to  conclude  that  the  captives  did  not  quit  Egypt  unaccom- 
panied. According  to  the  story  in  its  present  shape,  Moses 
returned  from  Midian  alone,  and  with  the  co-operation  of 
his  brother,  and  by  virtue  of  the  gift  of  thaumaturgy, 
succeeded  in  compelling  the  Pharaoh  to  liberate  his  Hebrew 
slaves.  We  cannot,  however,  accept  this  account  as  his- 
torical. It  is  in  the  remotest  degree  improl)able  that  one  of 
the  despised  Shasu — in  the  company  of  whom  to  partake 
of  food  was  reckoned  an  abomination  amongst  the  Egj'ptians* 
— crossing  tlie  fri)nticr  unaccompanied,  could  have  been  per- 
iiiitt('(l  tn  iiiaiiitaiii  with  tlic  mighty  sovereign  of  Eg}'pt  the 
intimate  ])ersonal  intercourse  of  which  we  have  so  detailed 
an  account  in  the  Book  of  Exodus,  or  even  that  he  could, 
through  the  intervention  of  Egyptian  officials,  have  exercised 


*  Gen.  xliii.  32  :  xlvi.  34. 


FROM  EGYPT.  119 

an  influence  sufficiently  powerful  to  obtain  the  liberation  of 
a  large  body  of  slaves.  But  the  case  assumes  a  different 
complexion  if  we  suppose  that  Moses  came  as  the  Sheikh  of 
a  pastoral  tribe,  with  numerous  followers,  and  accompanied 
by  herds  of  cattle.  It  might  well  be  that  distress  compelled 
the  tribe  to  seek  sustenance  on  the  Delta,  and  that  the 
Sheikh  came  as  a  supplicant  to  beg,  or  more  probably  to 
purchase,  food  for  his  people  and  pasturage  for  their  flocks. 
But  it  is  perfectly  intelligible  that,  between  the  Shasu  from 
the  desert  and  the  Shasu  detained  in'  captivity,  there  should 
exist  strong  ties  of  sympathy,  and  that  an  effort  should  be 
made  by  the  former  to  obtain  the  liberation  of  the  latter,  an 
effort  which  special  circumstances  then  existing  might  con- 
spire to  aid.  And  if  we  attentively  study  the  tradition  of 
the  grounds  upon  which  Pharaoh  w^as  requested  to  let  the 
people  go,  w^e  may  discover  how  extremely  probable  it  is 
that  what  w^as  ultimately  accomplished  was  done  through 
the  intervention  of  a  friendly  tribe  which  happened  at  the 
time  to  visit  the  Egyptian  frontier. 

The  motive  of  departure  advanced  by  Moses  was  that  tlie 
captives  should  make  a  brief  journey  into  the  wilderness  in 
compliance  with  the  command  of  the  God  of  the  Hebrews,  to 
offer  him  sacrifices,  and  thereby  avert  the  danger  of  his  "  falling 
upon  them  with  pestilence  or  with  the  sword."^  That  such  a 
request  should  have  been  preferred  by  the  Sheikh  of  a  tribe 
received  under  the  cncumstances  set  forth  in  the  document 
to  which  we  have  referred,  is  in  the  highest  degree  probable, 
whilst  the  likelihood  of  its  being  granted  by  the  Egyptian 
ruler  would  depend  upon  surrounding  circumstances.  The 
sanitary  condition  of  the  captives  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus, 
there  is  every  reason  to  believe,  was  very  indifferent.  The 
frequent  allusions   to  leprosy  indicate  the  jjreseuce  amongst 

*  Bxod.  V.  iii. 


I20  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

them  of  that  terrible  disease  ;  and  it  is  not  only  possible,  but 
highly  probable,  that  representations  should  have  been  made  on 
the  one  hand  and  should  have  been  entertained  on  the  other, 
which  rested  on  the  expediency  of  affording  to  the  captives  the 
opportunity  of  offering  sacrifice  to  their  God  on  a  mountain, 
distant  a  few  days'  journey  from  the  Egj'ptian  frontier.  If 
the  request  was  granted,  the  released  captives  would 
accompany  their  lil^erators.  Together  with  "  the  Shasu  fi-om 
the  land  of  Adunia"  they  would  turn  their  steps  towards 
"  the  land  of  the  Hebrews,"  from  which,  according  to  one 
tradition,  the  progenitor  of  the  Beni-Israel  was  stolen.*  In 
the  words  of  tlie  record  still  preserved  to  us,-  "  a  mixed 
multitude  went  up  also  with  them ;  and  flocks  and  herds, 
even  very  much  cattle."t  The  difficulty  of  reconciling  the 
presence  of  herds  witli  the  servile  status  of  the  Hebrews 
and  the  oppression  to  wliich  they  were  subjected,  then 
disappears,  and  we  discover  a  ready  explanation,  not  only  of 
the  heterogeneous  elements  of  which  the  departing  tribes 
were  composed,  but  of  the  material  wealth  which  the  captives 
liad  the  appearance  of  possessing  at  the  very  moment  of 
their  release  from  a  terrible  servitude.  We  must  not  be  too 
hasty  ill  arriving  at  conclusions,  Ijut  it  is  excusable  to  enter- 
tain a  very  strung  belief  that  in  tliis  jiapyrus  scroll,  now 
more  than  three  thousand  years  old,  is  preserved  the  record 
of  the  arrival  and  reception  of  tlie  Sheikh  through  whose 
instrumentality  Israel  was  delivered  from  the  house  of 
Ijondage,  and  under  whose  guidance  the  Hebrews  were  led 
through  the  desert  which  interposed  between  Egy]jt  and 
their  future  home. 

As  it  is  principally  the  object  of  this  inquiry  to  ascertain 
the  route  followed  by  the  Hebrews  in  their  migi-ation  from 
P^gypt  to  the  Trans-Jordanic  region,  no  reference  will  be  made 

*  Geu.  xl.  15.  t  Exod.  xii.  38. 


FROM  EGYPT.  121 

to  any  of  the  events  alleged  to  have  happened  in  "  the 
wilderness,"  or  to  any  of  the  chief  actors,  except  so  far  as 
may  be  necessary  to  elucidate  the  subject  engaging  our 
attention.  Wliat  was  the  religious  cultus  of  the  Hebrews  in 
the  desert,  what  were  the  changes  which  it  underwent, 
and  what  the  circimistances  under  which  those  changes  were 
effected,  are  questions  of  an  importance  which  demands 
that  they  should  be  treated  separately.  Nor,  for  similar 
reasons,  shall  we  touch  upon  the  personal  history  of  Moses,  or 
on  the  parts  which  he  played  as  a  legislator  and  as  a  leader. 
We  shall  assume,  for  all  the  purposes  of  our  search,  that 
Moses  filled  the  positions  popularly  assigned  to  him. 


122 


CHAPTER  V. 

NO  portion  of  sacred  history  has  excited  gi-eater  emulation 
on  tlie  part  of  pious  and  industrious  men,  with  a  view 
to  its  complete  elucidation,  than  the  story  of  "  the  wanderings" 
of  the  Israelites.  Every- passage  in  tlie  Pentateuch  bearing 
on  this  important  subject  has  been  carefully  studied  ;  the 
name  of  every  place  has  been  duly  recorded  ;  whilst  those 
who  have  been  enabled  to  visit  tlie  Sinaitic  peninsula  and 
Idumsea,  have,  with  the  Bible  in  their  hands  in  place  of  a 
guide-book,  sought  to  follow  in  the  track  of  the  released 
captives,  and  have  in  some  places  established  such  an  identity 
of  names,  and  in  others  such  an  identity  of  physical  charac- 
teristics, as  (to  their  own  satisfaction,  at  least)  to  remove  all 
doubt  that  the  Israelites  must  have  passed  by  these  particular 
points  on  the  way  to  their  promised  home.  P>ut  there  is 
one  spot  in  the  Itinerary  where  there  is  a  break  in  the  trail, 
and  at  this  point  even  the  most  honest,  painstaking,  and 
ingenious  are  compelled  to  trust  exclusively  to  their 
imagination.  It  is  not  very  difficult  to  give  a  tolerably 
intelligible,  though  not  necessarily  accurate,  description  of 
the  track  followed  from  P^gypt  to  a  mountain  in  the 
Sinaitic  peninsula.  Nor  does  jt  impose  a  great  task  on 
the  ingenuity  or  the  imagination  to  follow  in  fancy  the 
course  of  tlie  Israelites  from  a  mountain  on  tlie  western 
border  of  Iduma'a,  known  as  Mount  Hor,  in  a  southerly 
direction,  through  a  broad  desert  valley  to  the  head  of  the 
eastern  branch  of  the  Ped  Sea,  and  thence  by  a  north- 
easterly course  to  the  Trans-.Iordanic  region.  But  unfortu- 
nately between  the  arrival  at  Mount  Sinai  and  the  dejiarture 


THE  HEBRE W  MIGRA TION  FROM  EGYPT.  123 

from  Mount  Hor  an  interval  of  close  on  forty  years  is 
supposed  to  have  occurred,  and  the  difficulty  is  to  give  a 
rational  account  of  the  apparently  purposeless  wanderings  of 
tlie  Israelites  during  this  long  period.  The  attempt  has 
heen  made  scores  of  times,  and  those  who  take  pleasure  in 
viewing  the  revels  of  the  human  fancy  will  do  well  to 
compare  the  various  maps  designed  and  narratives  told  to 
illustrate  the  wanderings  in  the  desert,  which  have  from  time 
to  time  been  supplied  for  the  instruction  of  both  Jew  and 
Gentile.  In  one  particular,  and  in  one  alone,  do  these  maps 
and  narratives  agree.  They  ascribe  to  the  Heaven-conducted 
host  an  aimless,  senseless  moving  to  and  fro  through  an 
inhospitable  region,  which  is  irreconcilable  with  the  presumed 
sanity  of  the  people.^ 

The  accepted  account  of  the  "  wanderings"  of  the  Israelites 
in  the  desert,  their  arrival  in  the  Trans-Jordanic  region, 
their  subsequent  invasion  of  Canaan,  and  its  partition 
amongst  the  twelve  tribes,  is  familiar  to  every  one.  There 
are,  however,    many    reasons    why    this    account    must    be 

*  Professor  Porter,  who  contributes  the  article,  "  The  Wilderness  of 
Wandering,"  to  the  third  edition  of  Kitto's Biblical  (7^cZopcefZm,remarks : 
"  It  will  be  observed  from  a  careful  examination  of  the  narratives  that 
the  more  direct  line  of  route  to  the  point  of  ultimate  destination  was 
rarely,  if  ever,  followed.  The  people  appear  to  have  directed  their 
course  now  to  the  right,  now  to  the  left :  they  even  turned  back,  and 
passed  and  repassed  the  same  places,  in  obedience,  no  doubt,  to  their 
divine  Guide.  They  also  spent  much  more  time  than  was  required  for 
the  mere  purposes  of  travel."  Then  follow  some  illustrations  of 
the  eccentricity  of  the  course  followed  by  the  Israelites.  "  To  some 
this  may  seem  strange  and  inconsistent,  but  it  is  the  theory  most  in 
accordance  with  the  physical  geography  of  the  desert  and  the  state- 
ments of  the  divine  historian."  It  seems  scarcely  just  to  the  Almighty 
to  make  Him  responsible  if  a  "theory"  "  seems  strange  and  incon- 
sistent," and  to  anticipate  objections  by  references  to  "  divine 
guidance"  and  the  authority  of  "  the  divine  historian."  It  is  only 
fair  to  the  Professor  to  say,  that  all  who  have  attempted  to  construct  the 
Itinerary  of  the  Israelites  from  Sinai  to  Mount  Hor,  have  been  com- 
pelled to  throw  the  divine  aegis  over  their  "  incomprehensibilities." 


124  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

rejected  as  imhistorical.  The  very  uumljers  of  the  libe- 
rated captives  startle  us  by  their  extraordinary  magnitude. 
Accej)ting  tlie  Scriptural  data,  the  Israelites  must  have  num- 
bered between  two  and  three  millions.  Though  the  impos- 
sibility of  such  a  multitude  obtaining  subsistence  in  the 
desert  may  be  overcome  by  an  appeal  to  the  miraculous, 
even  the  most  credulous  might  ask  how  provision  was  made 
for  the  large  flocks  and  herds  by  which  they  were  accom- 
panied, and  for  whose  subsistence  the  narrator  fails  to  mention 
that  any  miraculous  interposition  took  place.""" 

This  host  was  said  to  have  been  divided  into  twelve — or, 
taking  the  subdivision  of  the  descendants  of  Joseph  into 
the  separate  clans  of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh — into  thirteen 
tribes.  These  tribes,  whatever  may  have  been  their  ri\alry, 
are  nevertheless  represented  as  acknowledging  a  common 
leader,  and  as  constituting  in  their  entirety  a  united  people 
or  nation  welded  together  by  a  common  religion  and  a 
common  political  purpose — the  invasion  and  partition  of 
"  the  promised  land."  The  period  of  their  sojourn  in  the 
wilderness  is  stated  to  have  been  forty  years,  during  which 
time  all  those  who  had  quitted  Egypt  perished,  save  Joshua 
and  Caleb.f  Of  the  events  which  happened  during  these 
forty  years,  with  the  exception  of  the  first  and  the  last  of 
the  series,  we  are  told  nothing.  On  their  arrival  in  tlie 
Trans-Jordanic  region  they  overcame  the  possessors  of  the 
territory  on  the  eastern  bank  of  the  river,  and  its  rich 
pasture-land  was  thereupon  allotted  to  the  tribes  of  Eeuben 
and  Gad,  and  half  the  tribe  of  Manasseh.  On  the  eve  of 
tlie  invasion  of  tlie  Cis-Jordauic  region  Moses  is  said  to 
have  died,  and  the  leadership  of  the  Israelites  having 
devolved  on  Joshua,  the  united   tribes   under    his    guidance 


*  Bishop  (yolenso,  Pentateuch  and  Book  of  Joshua.     Part  I. 
t  Those  under  twenty  years  of  age  at  the  Exodus  were  excepted. 


FROM  EGYPT.  125 

crossed  the  Jordan,  and  prosecuted  the  invasion  of  Canaan 
with  such  success  that  he  was  enabled  to  allot  to  the  diffe- 
rent tribes  their  several  portions  of  the  conquered  country  ; 
tlie  Trans-Jordanic  tribes  of  Eeuben,  Gad,  and  half  of 
Manasseh,  which  had  aided  in  the  invasion,  thereupon 
returning  to  their  recently  allotted  homes  on  the  eastern 
bank  of  the  river. 

If  we  accepted  with  unwavering  confidence  the  minute 
historical  details  given  in  the  Book  of  Numbers  respecting 
the  numbers,  the  composition,  and  the  journeyings  of  the 
host  which  quitted  Sinai  under  the  leadership  of  Moses,  we 
might  endeavour  to  reconcile  ourselves  as  best  we  could  to 
the  meagre  information  afforded  us  by  the  historian  respect- 
ing the  doings  of  the  Israelites  during  a  period  which  it  is 
impossible  to  suppose  was  destitute  of  stirring  incident,  or 
unmarked  by  features  which  would  have  been  replete  with 
interest  to  tlie  student  of  the  religion  of  Israel.  It  is  im- 
possible to  read  the  Book  of  Numbers  without  arriving  at 
tlie  conclusion  that  it  omits  much  with  which  the  Prophets 
of  the  seventh,  eighth,  and  ninth  centuries  B.C.  were  well 
acquainted  respecting  the  religious  practices  of  the  Hebrews 
before  they  entered  Canaan  ;  and  that  it  contains  much  whicli 
tradition  was  but  little  likely  to  preserve,  but  wdiich  the 
mistaken  zeal  of  a  late  compiler  would  be  easily  led  to 
supply.  The  fourth  Book  of  the  Pentateuch  is  not,  how- 
ever, exclusively  the  production  of  the  comparatively  recent 
age  in  which  the  redactor  Hved.  It  contains  embedded  in  it 
some  very  interesting  records  of  considerable  antiquity, 
the  significance  and  historical  importance  of  which  had 
passed  into  oblivion  at  the  time  when  the  Book  was  com- 
piled. We  find,  for  example,  repetitions,  though  under  other 
forms,  of  traditions  with  which  we  have  already  been 
made  familiar  in  the  Book  of  Exodus.  Different  versions 
are   given   of  the  establishment  of  the  tribunal  of    seventy 


126  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

Elders,*  of  the  flight  of  quails,t  and  of  the  mii-actdous  supply  of 
water  at  Meribah;|  but  we  are  surprised  at  noticing  that, 
whereas  in  Exodus  these  events  are  recorded  as  preceding  the 
arrival  at  Mount  Sinai,  they  appear  in  the  Book  of  Xumbers 
to  have  occurred  subsequent  to  the  departure  of  the  people  from 
the  neighbourhood  of  that  mountain.  The  seditious  conduct  of 
Aaron  and  Miriam§  rests  doubtless  on  an  old  tradition,  but  is 
hopelessly  unintelligible  upon  the  assumption  that  they  stood 
to  Moses  in  the  relation  of  brother  and  sister,  and  that  they 
were,  like  him,  entrusted  with  a  divine  mission ;  whilst  the 
tribute  paid  to  the  meekness  of  Moses,  "  above  all  the  men 
wliich  were  upon  the  face  of  the  earth,"||  indicates  the  com- 
piler of  a  later  age. 

In  reading  the  Book  of  Numbers  we  are  struck  by  the 
difference  of  style  in  the  writer  when  giving  an  account 
of  the  assembling  of  the  tribes,  the  names  of  theii'  respective 
chiefs,  the  numbers  of  those  composing  the  tribes,  the 
order  observed  on  the  march  and  in  encampment,  and  of  the 
journe}4ngs  and  stations  of  the  people  until  their  arrival  in 
the  plains  of  Moab  ;  and  that  when  he  is  recounting  some  of 
the  incidents  which  occurred  in  the  wilderness.  The  former 
is  clear,  unhesitating,  and  explicit,  and  such  as  might  be  met 
with  in  official  records  published  at  the  present  day ;  the 
latter  is  disjointed,  faltering,  and  in  several  instances  un- 
intelligible. Sometimes  different  versions  of  the  same  story 
are  given ;  sometimes,  by  a  process  of  blending  the  same 
language,  is  unnecessarily  repeated.  The  cause  of  this 
difference  is  not  difficult  to  find.  Tradition  preserved  little 
or  any  materials  for  a  minute  history  of  the  census  of  the 
population,  their  precise  order  of  marching,  or  the  names  of  all 
the  places  which  they  stopped  at  on  their  way  to  their  future 
goal.     The  compiler,  or  it  may  be   some  priestly  scribe,  who 

*  Num.  xi.  i6,  17  ;  Exod.  xviii.  13-26.  f  Num.  xi.  31-33  ;  Exod.  xvi.  13. 
J  Num.  XX.  7-13;  Exod.  xvii.  5-7.       §  Num.  xii.       ||  Num.  xii.  3. 


FROM  EGYPT.  127 

preceded  him,  felt  that  this  was  an  omission  which  should  be 
supplied,  and  with  a  running  pen  produced  that  portion  of 
the  history  which  by  its  very  minuteness  of  detail  seems  to 
indicate  the  work  of   an  eye-witness.      But  it  is   observable 
that  the  portion  to  which  we  refer  contains   nothing  which 
admits   of  either  corroboration  or  refutation,  and,  we  might 
add,  nothing  either  interesting  or  instructive.     Any  person 
who  chose  to  take  the  trouble  might  re-write  this  portion  of 
the  history,  and  altering  the  numbers  of  the  members  of  the 
several  tribes,  the  names  of  the  leaders,  the  positions  occupied 
by  the  tribes  on  the  march  and  in  the  camp,  and  the  names 
of  the  various  halting-places  of  the  travellers,  yet  produce  a 
composition  which,  so  far  as  we  have  any  means  of  judging, 
would  be  equally  veracious.      But  it  is  leas  easy  to  write   a 
history  of  what  was  actually  done  by  the  Hebrews  on  their 
jom-neyings,  in  the  absence  of  materials ;  and  this  task  was 
abandoned  by  the  writer  who  was  so  well  acquainted  with 
the  order  of  the  tribes  on  the  line  of  march,  and  who  could 
even  enumerate  the  various  halting-places,  from  the  departure 
from  Egypt  to  the  arrival  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Jordan.* 
It  has  been  already  observed  that  we  know  nothing  of  what 
occurred  in  the  wilderness  save  during  the  first  and  the  last 
of    the  forty  years  wliich  were  supposed    to  have  elapsed 
between  the  Exodus  and  the  arrival  opposite  Jericho  ;  but 
it  would  perhaps  be  more  correct  to  say  that  the  compiler 
compressed  the  traditions  preserved    in  the  records  at  his 
disposal  within  the  periods  we  have  mentioned,  because  he 
did  not  know  exactly  where  to  put  them,  and  naturally  used 
them  in  the  beginning  and  the  ending  of  his  story.     The 
dates  of  none  of  the  incidents  alleged  to  have  happened  in 
the  wilderness  were  fixed  by  tradition.      Nor  was  anything 
approaching  a  consecutive  history  of  the  journeyings  in  the 

*  Num.  xxxiii. 


128  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

wilderness  ever  preserved.  All  that  was  really  retained  by 
tradition  was  the  conviction  that  the  time  passed  there  was 
sufficiently  long  to  permit  of  the  death  of  nearly  all  who 
had  quitted  Egypt, 

Before  quitting  "  the  edge  of  the  wilderness,"  it  will  be 
advisable  to  acquaint  ourselves,  so  far  as  possible,  with  the 
physical  characteristics  and  general  topography  of  the  region 
we  are  about  to  penetrate.  This  task  is,  however,  by  no 
means  so  easy  as  might  at  first  sight  appear.  There  is  every 
reason  to  believe  that  considerable  changes  have  taken  place 
since  early  times  in  the  country  stretching  from  the  south  of 
Palestine  towards  the  Eed  Sea ;  and  we  can  at  best  but 
speculate  on  the  extent  of  those  changes  since  the  Exodus 
took  place.  We  may  find  the  traces  of  former  cultivation 
and  of  liimian  labour  in  districts  which  are  now  solitary 
wastes ;  but  we  cannot  determine  at  what  period  the  dismal 
transformation  took  place.  Nor  even  in  seeking  to  make 
ourselves  acquainted  with  the  present  condition  of  the  region 
lying  between  Egypt  and  Arabia,  is  the  information  at  our 
command  as  ample  as  might  be  supposed.  The  Sinaitic 
peninsula  has  been  carefully  explored,  but  the  same  cannot 
be  said  of-  the  plateau  lying  between  it  and  southern  Pales- 
tine. For  centuries  past  it  has  been  annually  traversed  by 
Egyptian  pilgrims  on  their  way  to  and  from  Mecca,  but  those 
who  conduct  or  accompany  the  Hajj  neither  know  nor  care 
to  know  anything  of  the  country  outside  their  beaten  track. 
Travellers  who  have  crossed  "  the  Till" — for  so  this  region 
is  named — have  generally  allowed  their  attention  to  be  so 
much  engrossed  by  the  "  Holy  Places,"  in  Palestine  or  in 
the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  to  which  or  from  Mdiich  they  were 
directing  their  steps,  that  they  could  spare  little  or  none  for 
the  wild  and  desolate  region  which  they  simply  associated 
in  their  minds  with  the  scene  of  Israel's  purposeless  wan- 
derings.    This  dearth  of  precise  information  respecting  the 


FROM  EGYPT.  129 

topography  of  the  Tih  is  fortunately  of  but  little  importance 
in  the  present  inquiry. 

The  region  penetrated  by  the  Hebrews  on  quitting  Egypt 
may  be  roughly  described  as  triangular  in  shape,  the  apex 
pointing  southwards,  the  base  or  northern  boundary  being 
formed  by  the  Mediterranean,  and  the  southern  slopes  of 
the  hUls  of  Judsea,  the  western  side  by  the  Gulf  of  Suez, 
together  with  the  isthmus  of  the  same  name,  and  the  eastern 
side  by  the  Gulf  of  Akaba  and  a  broad  valley  named  the 
Araba.  If  a  line  be  drawn  across  the  triangle  from  the  head 
of  the  Gulf  of  Suez  to  that  of  the  Gulf  of  Akaba,  a  smaller 
triangle  will  be  formed  within  the  greater  one,  having  the 
same  apex,  the  sides  of  which  will  be  formed  by  the  two 
arms  of  the  Red  Sea  which  we  have  just. named,  and  the 
base  by  the  region  lying  between  tliis  imaginary  line  and 
the  Mediterranean  coast  and  Southern  Palestine.  The 
distance  from  the  head  of  one  Gulf  to  that  of  the  other  is 
about  one  hundred  and  twenty  miles,  and  the  line  we  have 
traced  would  roughly  mark  the  direction  of  the  route  taken 
l)y  those  quitting  Egypt  who  were  desirous  of  proceeding  to 
the  head  of  the  Gulf  of  Akaba.  The  caravan  of  pUgrims 
proceeds  annually  from  Egypt  by  the  route  we  have  indi- 
cated on  its  way  to  Mecca. 

The  features  of  the  entire  region  lying  between  the  south 
of  Judrea  and  the  apex  of  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  are  very 
singular.  The  loose  and  shifting  sands  which  are  popularly 
connected  with  the  idea  of  a  desert,  and  so  strikingly  impress 
the  traveller  in  Egypt,  are  almost  unknown.  From  the 
shores  of  the  Mediterranean  and  the  spurs  of  the  hills  of 
Judaea  a  plateau  extends  in  a  southerly  direction,  at  first 
interspersed  with  slight  eminences,  but  gradually  becoming 
deeply  seamed  by  gullies ;  whilst  the  entire  table-land 
becomes  more  and  more  elevated  above  the  level  of  the  sea. 
Towards  the  east  these   inequalities  become   most   strongly 

K 


I30  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATIOX 

marked,  the  suvfaee  of  the.  phiteau  l)eing  fissured  by  deej) 
ravines,  till  at  length  the  steppe  comes  to  an  ahrui)t  termination 
in  a  range  of  precipitous  cliffs  running  in  a  line  nearly  north 
and  south,  and  forming  the  western  wall  of  a  wide  and 
desert  valley  which  lies  at  the  foot  of  the  Iduma?an  range. 

Tlie  ])ortion  of  this  great  plateau  trending  westward 
towards  tlu'  Istlmuis  of  Suez  is  less  rugged  in  its  features, 
and  bears  traces  of  having  in  former  times  been  submitted 
to  cultivation.  The  channels  which  drain  the  water-shed, 
and  converge  towards  the  Mediterranean,  appear  in  past 
times  to  have  been  turned  to  account  in  establishing  a  system 
of  artificial  irrigation  ;  and  it  is  not  only  possible,  but  pro- 
bable, that  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus  the  fields  and  vine- 
yards of  Judiea  stretched  much  farther  into  what  is  now 
known  as  the  Desert  of  Et  Tili  than  they  do  at  ]iresent. 
p]ven  now,  however,  the  region  which  we  are  descril)ing  is 
far  from  barren.  Covered  by  a  light  soil,  it  produces  a 
sufficiency  of  pasturage  for  the  flocks  of  the  six  thousand 
licdouins  who  form  the  estimated  population  of  this  region  ; 
whilst,  in  sonic  tavomcd  valk'ys  and  gullies,  the  labour  of 
the  agriculturist  is  not  expended  in  vain.  It  is  believed 
that  wood  was  tolerably  plentiful  in  the  Tih  in  early 
times.  The  improvidence  of  the  Redouins,  and  the  high 
prices  paid  by  the  Egyptians  for  fuel,  have,  however,  caused 
it  to  vanish.  AVitli  the  disappearance  of  wood  tlie  climate 
of  the  Tih  became  less  liuiiiid,  and  a  further  evil  was 
thereby  occasioned  in  diniinisliing  llie  ])roduetiveness  of  the 
soil. 

The  sonllieiu  liovdev  of  the  steppe,  like  tlie  eastern,  is 
marked  by  })recipitous  clitls.  Sweeping  downwards  from 
the  head  of  the  (Julf  of  Akaba  it  describes  an  arc,  the 
further  extremity  of  which  approaclu^s  the  head  of  tlic  Sue/ 
(lulf.  These  cliffs  attain  their  greatest  altitude  in  the 
nei<rlibourliou(l    of    the    Eastern    (iulf:    and    lieing    composed 


FROM  EGYPT.  131 

chiefly  of  limestone  they  present  to  persons  viewing  tlieni 
from  the  south  the  appearance  of  mountains  of  sn(nv. 
The  semihmar  range  thus  formed  by  the  abrupt  ter- 
mination of  the  ])lateau  on  the  south  is  called  the  Jebel 
Et  Tih. 

The  tract  lying  between  this  mountainous  range  and  the 
coast-line  formed  by  the  two  arms  of  the  Eed  Sea,  consti- 
tutes the  Sinaitic  region,  in  which  stands  the  cluster  of 
mountains  whose  several  peaks  advance  rival  claims  to  the 
honour  of  being  the  "  ]\Iount  of  God,"  Separated  from 
Jebel  Et  Tih  by  a  narrow  belt  of  sand,  tlie  mountains 
forming  the  Sinaitic  group  rear  themselves  to  heights  vary- 
ing between  six  tluousand  and  nine  thousand  feet,  whilst 
their  spurs,  particularly  on  the  western  side,  support  lesser 
eminences,  and  form  the  valleys  and  the  passes  through 
w^hich  these  mountains  are  approached.  The  Sinaitic  moun- 
tains are  of  granitic  formation,  and  ofter  scarcely  any  vestige 
of  verdure,  fhiilt  up  of  bare  naked  crags  they  present  a 
picture  of  utter  desolation.  By  one  traveller  they  have 
been  termed  "  tlie  Alps  unclothed."*  They  are  suggestive  of 
chaos,  not  of  creation.!  Animal  life  is  almost  entirely 
absent  from  this  dreary  region.  The  silence  is  so  complete 
that  the  slightest  sound  is  au.dible  at  a  considerable  distance. 
The  Bedouins,  with  excusable  exaggeration,  believe  it 
possible  to  make  the  human  voice  heard  from  the  mountain- 
tops  across  the  Gulf  of  Akaba. 

Into  this  barren,  w^aterless,  .  and  apparently  heaven-for- 
saken region,  tradition  to-day  declares  that  the  liberated 
Hebrews  penetrated  after  quitting  Egypt,  and  at  the  foot 
of  one  of  these  naked  masses  of  rock,  already  hallowed  in 


*  Notes  dnrmg  a  Visit  to  Egypt.    Sir  F.  Henniker,  p.  214. 
f  "If  I  wei-e  to  make  a  model  of  the  end  of  the  world,  it  would  be 
from  the  valley  of  the  convent  of  Monnt  Sinai." — Il)ld.  p.  225. 

K  2 


132  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

the  Bedouin's  niind  as  the  abode  of  the  Elohini,"'^  assembled 
to  hear  from  His  very  lips  the  dread  commands  of  their  pro- 
tecting God, 

The  pleasure  which  men  experience  in  viewing  scenes 
which  have  acquired  historic  interest  is  perhaps  second  to 
none  which  depend  on  the  imagination.  This  pleasure, 
however,  becomes  greatly  enhanced  by  the  addition  of  the 
element  of  religious  enthusiasm.  It  is  the  same  feeling 
whicli  leads  the  Christian  traveller  to  turn  Ids  steps  towards 
the  Holy  Land,  which  sup])orts  the  Moslem  pilgrim  on  his 
weary  march  to  Mecca,  which  prompts  the  lover  of  ancient 
history  to  explore  the  ruius  of  Egypt  and  of  Eome,  to  scale 
the  Acropolis  at  Athens,  or  standing  in  the  Troad  on  the 
hill  of  Hissarlik  to  trace  in  fancy  the  windings  of  the 
Scamander,  and  survey  the  adjacent  shores  once  furrowed 
by  the  keels  of  the  Grecian  ships.  So  universal,  so  inex- 
tinguishable is  this  craving  to  associate  oneself,  however 
distantly,  with  the  scenes  of  the  mighty  past,  and  to  toucli 
or  even  to  see  objects  which  have  been  touched  or  seen  by 
those  who  have  long  since  passed  away,  but  whose  names 
remain  imperishable,  that  the  craving  is  supplied  when  the 
means  of  supply  are  notoriously  wanting,  and  men  must  care- 
fully abstain  from  inquiry  lest  their  sagacity  should  entail 
the  loss  of  a  coveted  pleasure.  There  is  not  an  event  in 
our  Great  Master's  career  the  scene  of  which  has  not  been 
carefully  localised  for  the  behoof  of  the  j)ious  pilgrim  and 
the  curious  traveller.  Shrines,  grottoes,  and  churches  mark 
the  exact  sites  of  every  recorded  action  of  his  life,  from  liis 
birth  in  the  stable  to  his  death  on  the  cross.  The  sceptical, 
with  facts  in  one  liiiiid  and  reason  in  tlie  other,  (U'luolisli 
the  historical  reputation  of  tJie  Holy  Places,  without  liow- 
ever  adding  to  tlieir  own  enjoyment.  The  credulous 
greedily,  and  the  practical  i)hilosophically,  accept  what   they 

*  Exod.  Hi.  I. 


FROM  EGYPT.  133 

are  told,  and  more  or  less  readily  conjure  up  the  scenes  with 
which  the  places  are  declared  to  be  associated ;  whilst 
perhaps  the  more  cautious  turn  their  steps  towards  Nazareth, 
wliich  beyond  all  contradiction  they  know  was  Ms  home 
during  the  greater  portion  of  his  life  ;  or  wander  by  the  Sea 
of  Galilee  with  the  certain  conviction  that  the  scenes  before 
their  eyes  must  have  again  and  again  met  his  view  whilst 
he  was  still  on  the  threshold  of  his  great  Mission,  and  was 
laying  the  foundations  of  a  religion  which,  even  after  the 
lapse  of  nearly  two  thousand  years,  the  misdirected  zeal  of 
its  votaries  has  proved  ineffectual  to  destroy. 

The  identification  of  the  "  Mount  of  God"  has  perhaps 
a  wider,  if  not  a  deeper,  interest  than  that  of  any  other  spot 
referred  to  in  sacred  history.  To  the  Jew,  to  the  Christian, 
and,  though  in  a  less  degree,  to  the  Mohammedan,  it  must 
ever  be  a  matter  of  concern  to  determine,  if  possible,  the 
scene  of  the  conclusion  of  the  covenant  between  God  and  His 
chosen  people.  Beliefs  productive  of  real  pleasure  and  pious 
enjoyment  should  not  be  rudely  or  wantonly  assailed  ;  and  if 
we  find  ourselves  compelled  to  give  to  the  Mount  of  God  a 
site  different  from  that  popularly  assigned  to  it,  it  becomes 
a  duty  to  state  fully  the  grounds  for  doing  so.  Many  would 
more  readily  give  up  a  dogma  than  relinquish  a  shrine,  and 
would  repeal  a  commandment  sooner  than  acknowledge  that 
they  had  invested  a  mountain  with  a  sanctity  having  no 
other  foundation  than  that  supplied  by  then  owe  imagination. 

In  the  general  description  of  the  physical  characteristics 
of  the  great  triangular-shaped  region  lying  between  Egypt 
and  Edom,  mention  has  been  made  of  a  broad  and  desert 
valley  which  separates  the  abrupt  precipitous  wall  of  the 
Tih  plateau  on  the  one  side  from  the  Idumaean  range  on 
the  other.  This  valley  bears  to-day  the  name  by  which  it 
may  have  been  known  to  the  Hebrews,  the  Araba ;  and 
whatever  else  may  be  in  doubt  respecting  the  course  of  their 


134  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

peregi'iiuitioiis,  it  is  uLsulutely  certain  that  they  iiiarcheil 
{probably  more  than  once)  along  this  desert  plain.  The 
Araba  is  the  direct  continuation  of  the  Jordan  valley,  which, 
starting  fnjui  the  mountain  range  of  the  Lebanon,  follows 
a  southerly  direction  till  it  terminates  in  the  Dead 
Sea,  from  the  southern  extremity  of  which  the  Araba 
ascends  by  a  series  of  wall-like  terraces,  until,  having  at- 
tained a  height  of  nearly  600  feet  above  the  sea-level, 
it  gradually  descends,  till  it  disappears  in  the  (hdf 
of  Akaba.  The  valley  of  the  Jordan,  as  is  well  known, 
begins  to  sink  beneatli  the  level  of  the  ocean  not  far  fi'om 
the  river's  source,  and  the  surface  of  the  Dead  Sea  into 
which  the  river  empties  itself  is  upwards  of  i  300  feet 
below  the  level  (if  tlie  Mediterranean,  whilst  its  liottom  is 
2600  beneath  the  same  level.  From  these  figures  it 
will  api)ear  that  from  the  highest  point  of  the  Aralia 
to  the  shores  (jf  the .  Dead  Sea  is  a  fall  of  nearly  1 900 
feet,  whicli  is  more  or  less  altrupt ;  whilst  the  fall  of  nearly 
600  feet  from  the  same  point  to  the  Eed  Sea,  being 
extended  over  a  distance  of  nearly  a  hundred  miles,  is 
necessarily  gradual.  Were  it  not  for  the  anomalous  de- 
pression of  the  Jordan  valley,  which  emj)ties  tlie  river 
into  a  hole,  that  seems  to  have  been  occasioned  by  a 
falling  in  of  the  earth's  crust,  'the  Jordan  would  have 
found  its  way  along  the  Araba,  and  passing  between  the  lime- 
stone cliffs  of  the  Till  on  the  right  hand  and  the  Idunuean 
iiioiintains  on  (lie  lift,  liave  tlowed  into  tlie  Eastern  (Jiilf  of 
the  Red  Sea.  Whetlu'v  in  ]iiv-liistoric  times  it  actually  did 
so,  geologists  may  be  able  to  determine. 

The  title  <»f  Alalia  was  given  in  pre-]\losaic  limes  to  ilie 
lower  ])oition  of  the  Jordan  valley  ;  at  the  present  day  it  is 
confined  to  its  continuation  south  of  iht'  Dead  Sea.  The 
breadth  of  this  valley  varies  between  l\v()  and  four  miles. 
The  surface  is  nigged  in  its   southern    |iiirlinii,  lieiiig    marked 


FROM  EGYPT.  i35 

by  numerous  sand-hills,  whilst  the  northern  is  intersected  by 
what  have  not  inaptly  been  called  dry  watercourses.  It  is 
extremely  barren,  a  scanty  growth  of  tamarisks  and  acacia 
shrubs,  sprouting  in  a  mass  of  gravel  and  Hint,  furnishing 
almost  the  sole  .vegetation/"  It  is  moreover  waterless, 
the  springs  of  Ain  el  Weibeh,  situated  in  the  upper  third  of 
the  valley,  being  almost  the  only  fountains  whose  existence 
have  been  deemed  worthy  of  being  recorded.  On  the  west 
side  it  is  flanked  by  the  limestone  cliff  of  the  Till,  rising  at 
places  to  a  height  of  nearly  two  thousand  feet,  and  inter- 
sected by  ravines,  which  are  for  the  mosl^  part  impassable ; 
and  on  the  east  by  the  mountainous  range  of  Edom,  pene- 
trated by  numerous  valleys,  wliich  in  past  times  furnished 
the  highways  by  which  that  country  was  entered  from  the 
west. 

Speaking  generally,  and  subject  to  limitations  to  be  noted 
hereafter,  the  land  of  Edom,  or  Seir  as  it  is  sometimes 
termed,  given  by  the  Elohim  as  an  inheritance  to  the  elder 
branch  of  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  was  a  narrow  strip 
of  territory  lying  between  the  Araba  on  the  west  and  the 
great  desert  of  Arabia  on  the  east,  its  northern  boundary 
resting  on  Moab  and  the  Dead  Sea,  whilst  its  southern 
reached  to   the  head  of  the   (lulf  of  Akaba.      Elatli,  a  port 


*  "  E  una  vasta  piauura  di  sabbia  sparsa  cli  ciotoUi,  clie  si  stende 
davanti  a  noi  e  si  perde  all'  orizzonte  in  una  sfumatura  iucertu  di 
dune,  di  monti   lontani  velati  di .  una  cortiua  di  rena   sollevata  dal 

vento La  pianura  e  monotona.    Qua  e  la  qualche  acacia  a  cono 

rovesciato,  qualche  cespu^^lio  di  crocifera  spinosa,  ed  un  fiore  curioso  la 

Philipia  tubulosa,  che  gli  Arabi  chiamano,  Tarthuth La  valle 

o  la  pianura,  giacche,  I'Arabah  e  valle  perche  chiusa  fra  i  monti,  ma 
per  la  sua  vastita,  ha  I'aspetto  di  una  ijianura,  i-imane  per  cosi  dire 

divisa  in  due  zone  i^er  il  lungo II  suolo  e  ricoperto  per  breve 

tratto  di  un  'crba  die  cresce  a  mazzi,  chiamata  dagli  Arabi,  ILilji." 
— Arconati  Yisconti,  Blar in  <Ii  tin  Via(/(jiu  in  Arabia  I'clraa,  Torino, 
1872,  4to,  pp.  327-330. 


136  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

at  this  point  of  the  Gulf,  was  in  early  times  spoken  of  as  in 
Idumtean  temtory.  Solomon  (Edom  having  previously  been 
ravaged  by  David)  subsequently  converted  it  into  a  haven 
for  his  ships."'' 

Tlie  western  boundary  of  Idumtea  consists  of  a  moun- 
tainous range,  descending  somewhat  precipitously  into 
tlie  Araba,  whilst  on  the  east  the  mountain  slopes 
become  gradually  transformed  into  fertile  plains,  until  they 
are  lost  at  the  distance  of  from  twenty  to  thirty  miles  in  the 
sands  of  the  Arabian  desert.  Geologists  describe  the 
Idunueau  range  as  composed  of  porphyi-itic  rock  surmounted 
by  sandstone,  and  the  varied  colours  of  the  latter,  ranging 
between  yellow  and  red,  have  excited  in  all  times  the 
admiration  of  travellers,  and  are  supposed  to  supply  an  expla- 
nation of  the  name  by  which  the  country  was  known.t  The 
contrast  between  the  sterility  of  the  Araba  and  Tih  and 
the  fertility  of  Edum,  becomes  at  once  apjjarent  as  soon  as 
the  traveller  penetrates  one  of  the  valleys  issuing  from  the 
plain.| 

According  to  ancient  tradition,  Seir  was  originally 
inhabited  by  the  Horites,§  who  were  van([uished,  if  not 
completely  dispossessed,  by    the    children    of    Esau.||      The 


*  I  Kings  ix.  26.  f  Edom  signifies  red. 

X  *'  The  first  thing  that  struck  me  on  turning  out  of  the  Araba  up 
the  defiles  that  lead  to  Petra,  was  that  we  had  suddenly  left  the 
desert.  Instead  of  the  absolute  nakedness  of  the  Sinaitic  valleys,  we 
found  ourselves  walking  on  grass  sprinkled  with  Howers,  and  the 
level  platforms  on  each  side  were  filled  with  sprouting  corn"  (Dean 
Stanley,  Sinai  and  Falestinc,  p.  88).  "  The  country  is  extremely  fertile, 
and  presents  a  favourable  contrast  to  the  sterile  region  on  the  opposite 
side  of  the  Araba.  Goodly  streams  flow  through  the  valleys,  which  are 
filled  with  trees  and  Howers,  while  on  the  uplands  to  the  east  rich 
pasture-lands  and  corn-Helds  may  everywhere  be  seen"  (Palmer's 
Desert  of  the  Exodits,  ii.  430).  See  also  Laborde,  Voyage  de  VArahie 
Petree  ;  and  Arconati,  Diario  dl  tin  Viaggio  in  Arabia  Petnva. 
§  (Jen.  xiv.  26;   xxxvi.  20.         ||  Deut.  ii.  12. 


FROM  EGYPT.  137 

former  were  so  called  because  they  dwelt  in  caves.  In 
strictness  the  name  should  be  ^-ritten  Chorites,  being  derived 
from  a  word  signifying  a  hole  in  the  earth  or  in  a  rock — a 
cave  or  cavern.*  The  practices  of  the  Chorites  in  this 
respect  were  adopted  by  their  conquerors,  and  the  cave 
dwellings  of  Petra  still  excite  the  surprise  and  provoke  the 
speculation  of  the  astonished  traveller. 

It  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that  the  mountain  associated 
by  Hebrew  tradition  with  the  conclusion  of  the  covenant 
between  Jahveh  and  his  chosen  people  is  situated  between 
the  meridians  of  Egypt  and  Idumtea ;  -and  we  may  add, 
almost  equal  unanimity  exists  in  placing  it  in  the  Sinaitic 
region  south  of  the  semilunar  wall  of  the  Tih  steppe.t 
Here,  however,  the  unanimity  disappears.  The  Sinaitic 
group  is  composed  of  several  mountains,  whilst  these 
mountains  are  again  subdivided  into  peaks  and  bluffs,  and 
each  has  its  supposed  traditions  and  its  claims  to  the  title 
of  being  the  true  Sinai  on  which  Moses  conversed  with 
God,  and  received  from  His  hands  the  two  tables  of  stone 
containing  the  Ten  Commandments. 

In  ascertaining,  or  at  least  in  seeking  to  ascertain,  the 
precise  locality  of  the  Mount  of  God,  we  must,  as  in  con- 


*  "lin  Ghor,  hence  nn  Chori,  a  Horite.  Job  xxx.  6 :  i  Sam.  xiv.  1 1 . 

f  Dr.  Beke  suggested,  so  far  back  as  1834,  that  Mount  Sinai  was 
to  be  found  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Petra,  but  to  its  eastward.  He 
arrived  at  this  conclusion  in  a  somewhat  singular  way.  He  contended 
thattheland  of  Mizraim,  in  which  the  Hebrewswere  detained m bondage, 
was  not  Egypt,  but  lay  in  the  Tih  plateau,  and  that  the  Red  Sea  which 
they  crossed  was  the  Gulf  of  Akaba.  He  accordingly  assigned  a  por- 
tion of  their  wandering  to  the  Arabian  desert.  He  also  entertained 
the  belief  that  Sinai  would  be  found  to  be  an  extinct  volcano. 
Shortly  before  his  death  he  made  a  voyage  to  the  Red  Sea,  and  on 
landing  at  Akaba  fixed  on  a  mountain  in  its  neighbourhood,  Jebel 
Baghir,  as  being  the  true  Sinai.  It  is  not  supposed  that  he  made  any 
converts  to  this  view. — Origines  Bibliccc,  1834,  chap.  viii.  Sinai  in 
Arabia.  187S. 


1 38  THE  HEBRE  \ I '  .]//(JA\  I  TlOX 

{luctiiin  any  other  investigation,  seek  the  best  evidence,  ami 
he  careful  to  avoid  being  misled  by  tlie  apparent  weight  of 
a  mass  of  testimony  which  may  in  truth  consist  of  only 
a  single  atom,  wliose  value  is  ])ossil)ly  worthless.  If  A,  !>, 
and  C  give  accounts  of  a  transaction  of  which  they  have 
had  personal  cognisance,  and  those  accounts  substantially 
correspond,  the  combined  weight  of  their  testimony,  assum- 
ing them  to  be  s}ieaking  in  good  faith,  is  greater  than  that 
<if  tlie  testimony  of  either  standing  alone.  But  if  1>  only 
rei)eats  what  he  has  been  told  by  A,  and  C  what  he  has 
been  told  by  B,  the,  value  of  their  combined  testimony 
depends  solely  on  that  of  the  evidence  of  A,  the  original 
narrator.  An  unbroken  tradition  of  aljout  fifteen  centui'ies 
places  the  Mount  of  (lod  in  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  but  the 
strength  of  the  entire  chain  of  tradition  depends  on  the 
links  forged  in  the  early  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  and 
their  connection  with  the  previous  chain  which  spans  over 
an  equally  great  distance  of  time.''^ 

In  Hebrew  tradition  the  Mount  of  God  was  known  by 
two  difierent  names,  Sinai  and  Horeb.  Ewald  was  of 
opinion  that  the  former  was  the  more  ancient  of  the  two ; 
liut  this  is  ojien  to  ([uestion.  There  seems,  however,  good 
reason  for  concluding  that  Sinai  was  the  name  used  in 
Israel,  whilst  Horeb  was  the  designation  adojjted  in  Judaii. 
In  the  Song  of  Deborah,  one  of  the  most  ancient  fragmenta 
in   the   Old    Testament,   the    ])roj)hetess  of  Israel  uses  the 


*  Demi  Stanley,  ivt'orriiii,'  to  the  uuiiu'ruus  sites  cuuuectod  with  the 
hlHtory  of  Moses,  especially  by  traditions  having  a  Christian  sourco, 
justly  remarks:  "  When  we  remember  how  many  of  these  sites  havi' 
evidently  been  selected  tor  the  sake  of  convenience  rather  than  of  truth, 
it  is  not  easy  to  trust  a  tradition  that  has  descended  thronph  such 
channels  even  for  fifteen  huudred  years,  unless  it  can  render  ^ikmI 
its  claim  to  be  the  otrs|.iiiig  of  auollirr  wlii.li  requires  for  its 
genuineness  another  fifteen  hundred  still."' — ,S'.  <utd  V.  y.  j^. 


FROM  EGYPT.  139 

word  Sinai.  In  the  Blessing  of  Moses,  interpolated  between 
the  thirty-second  and  thirty-fourth  chapters  of  Deuteronomy, 
Sinai  is  spoken  of  as  the  dwelling-place  of  Jahveh.  Else- 
where in  Deuteronomy  the  Mountain  of  God  is  invariably 
called  Horeb.*  In  the  account  given  of  the  flight  of  the 
prophet  Elijah  from  the  vengeance  of  Jezebel,  wife  of  the  king 
of  Israel,  which  is  evidently  from  a  Judaic  source,  the  Mount 
is  called  Horeb,t  and  it  is  also  tlius  named  in  Psalm  cvi.  In 
the  book  of  Exodus  we  find  both  names,  but  they  are  not 
indifferently  used  in  what  ajjpear  to  l>e  the  same  narratives. 
Perhaps  we  should  not  very  much  err  in  concluding  that  in 
the  traditions  of  the  Israelitish  section  of  the  people  the 
Mountain  of  God  was  known  as  Sinai,  wliilst  in  those  of 
Judah  it  was  styled  Horeb.  In  the  subsequent  assimilation 
and  fusing  together  of  these  traditions  in  the  books  of 
Exodus  and  Numbers,  the  original  distinction  became  pro- 
bably almost  effaced,  a  consequence  all  the  more  likely  to 
occur  as  the  names  were  confessedly  applied  to  the  same 
mountain. 

Considering  the  stupendous  nature  of  the  manifestations 
declared  to  have  taken  place  at  Mount  Sinai,  and  that  from 
this  place  Jahveh  is  supposed  to  have  given  to  his  people 
the  comprehensive  code  which  he  intended  to  provide  for 
their  religious  and  social  wants  in  all  after-time,  it  must 
be  admitted  that  the  descendants  of  the  emigrants  from 
Egypt  apparently  manifested  very  little  interest  in  this 
marvellous  locality.  The  allusions  made  to  the  Mount  of 
God  subsequent  to  the  settlement  in  Canaan  are  very 
scanty,  and  are  couched  exclusively  in  the  language  of 
poetry  or  rhapsody.  No  pilgrimages  seem  to  have  been 
undertaken   to  the   celebrated  Mount ;  and    if  we  were  to 


*  Deuteronomy  is  a  work  of  the  seventh  century,  and  was  produced 
in  Judah,  sec  anli',  p.  62,  iboic 

t  I  Kinys  xix.  8. 


I40  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

judge  from  the  pages  of  Jewisli  liistory  it  would  appear  to 
liave  been  forgotten.  We  should  not,  however,  therefore 
conclude  that  there  A\'as  not  in  fact  a  mountain  credited 
Avitli  lieing  tlie  abode,  or  having  been  the  abode,  of  God  ;  but 
we  might  profitably  ask  ourselves  whether  it  is  probable 
that  the  people  wlio  settled  in  Canaan  entertained  the  belief, 
which  is  now  attributed  '  to  them,  that  their  laws  were 
delivered  by  God  liimself  from  a  mountain  not  a  hundred 
miles  distant  from  their  own  frontier,  and  yet  have  evinced 
so  little  interest  and  curiosity  about  it.  There  is  one 
instance  in  which  the  Mount  of  God  is  apparently  referred  to 
as  a  place  accessible  to  the  inhabitants  of  Juda:'a — namely,  in 
the  account  given  of  the  \4sit  made  to  Horeb  by  the  pro^Jiet 
Elijah."^  Even  this  narrative  is  very  far  from  prosaic ;  it 
abounds  with  tlie  marvellous,  and  places  tlie  "  man  of 
God"  and  the  "  Mount  of  God"  in  a  supernatural  sphere. 
In  dealing  M-ith  the  question  of  the  locality  of  Mount  Sinai 
we  have  therefore  but  scant  materials,  and  must  endeavour- 
as  best  we  can  to  ascertain  the  particular  region  in  which 
the  Mount  of  God  was  popularly  believed  in  Israel  and  in 
Judah  to  be  situated,  and  having  done  so,  inquire  whether  such 
situation  is  reconcilable  or  irreconcilable  with  tlie  traditions 
of  the  route  taken  by  the  Israelites  on  quitting  Egypt. 

In  tlie  Song  of  I)el)ora]i,  a  lyric  which  probably  dates 
from  the  twelfth  or  thirteenth  century  before  our  era,t  the 
prophetess  is  represented  as  celebrating  a  victory  gained  by 
Israel  over  the  Canaanites,  a  victory  which  she  attributes  to 
the  intervention  of  Jahveh.  The  protecting  God  is  described 
])y  the  poetess  as  quitting  Iiis  abode   to  come  to    tlie  assist- 


*   I  Kings  xix. 
t  Judges  V.  "D'apres  les  calculsles  plusmodestes  il  jicut  remontro 
au  douzienie  siucle  avant  notre  ere." — Keuss.   La  BiOlv.  Noxi:  Trad. 
Hist,  (li-ti  Innteliles.     IntrodKcl.  p.  105. 


FROM  EGYPT.  141 

ance  of  his  people.  "  Jaliveh,  when  thou  wentest  out  of 
Seir,  when  thou  marchedst  out  of  the  field  of  Edom,  the 
earth  trembled  and  the  heavens  dropped,  the  clouds  also 
dropped  water.  The  mountains  melted  from  before  Jaliveh, 
even  that  Sinai  (or  Sinai  itself)  from  before  the  God  of 
Israel."  Here  we  have  a  revival  by  the  bard  of  the  primi- 
tive belief  of  the  nomads  that  the  Elohim  dwelt  in  a 
mountain,  and  beyond  all  doubt  this  mountain  was  believed 
to  be  in  the  Idumsean  range.  It  is  from  Seir  that  Jaliveh 
goes  forth,  it  is  from  Edom  that  he  marches  to  the  aid  of  liis 
people.  His  departure  is  attended  with  mighty  portents  : 
the  earth  trembles,  the  heavens  drop,  and  the  mountains 
melt,  including  Sinai  itself.  It  is  not  perhaps  an  extrava- 
gant conclusion,  that  if  all  we  knew  of  Sinai  was  that  it 
was  "  the  Mount  of  God"  and  reputed  abode  of  Jahveh, 
and  had  no  other  evidence  respecting  its  locality  save 
Deborah's  Song,  we  should  unhesitatingly  place  it  in 
Idumsea. 

The  Blessing  of  Moses,*  a  composition,  at  least  in  its 
present  form,  of  a  later  epoch  than  the  Song  of  Deborah, 
commences  with  the  following  words  : — "  Jahveh  came 
from  Sinai,  and  rose  up  from  Seir  unto  tliem ;  he  shined 
forth  from  Mount  Paran,  and  he  came  with  ten  thousands 
of  saints"  (A.  V.).  In  this  passage,  as  in  that  to  which 
attention  has  just  been  directed,  we  notice  the  apparent 
collocation  of  Sinai  with  Seir,  if  not  indeed  their  absolute 
identification.  It  is  one  of  the  characteristics  of  Hebrew 
poetry  to  repeat  the  same  idea;  or  to  affirm  the  same  state- 
ment, in  successive  stanzas.  This  parallelism  is  noticeable 
throughout  the  Psahns,  where  each  verse  consists  of  two 
stanzas,  the  latter  being  generally  a  recitation  of  tlie  senti- 

*  Dent,  xxxiii. 


142  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

ment  expressed  in  the  former,  lu  the  verse  just  (jiKilod 
from  Deborali's  Soiiff,  this  peculiarity  is  well-marked : — 

"  Jahveh,  when  thou  wentest  out  of  Seir; 
When  thou  marchedst  out  of  the  field  of  Edom." 

As  the  identity  of  Seir  with  Edom  is  incontestable,  it  is 
evident  that,  in  accordance  witli  the  canons  of  Hel)rew 
poetry,  tlie  poetess  simply  repeated  herself,  though  in  some- 
what different  language.      So  also  in  the  verses : — 

"  The  earth  trembled  and  the  heavens  dropped : 
The  clouds  also  dropped  water. 
The  mountains  melted  from  before  Jahveh  : 
Even  that  Smai  from  before  Jahveh,  God  of  Israel." 

The  Blessinof  of  Moses  heh^ni'S  to  the  same  class  of 
poetry,  and  is  marked  ])y  the  same  characteristic,  though  in 
])ortions  it  has  evidently  suffered  from  later  emendations  : — 

"  Jahveh  came  from  Sinai  : 
And  arose  from  Seir  unto  them. 
He  shined  forth  from  Mount  Paran  : 
And  he  came  from  Meribah  Kadcsh."* 

Here,  in  confdrmity  witli  the  canon  we  luive  just  noticed, 
we  slimild,  in  tlie  absence  of  all  conflicting  evidence,  and 
witli  minds  perfectly  unprejudiced,  have  no  liesitation  in 
identifying  Sinai  with  Seir,  just  as  in  the  Song  of  Deltorali 
Seir  and  Edom  were  treated  as  syupnymous. 

In  the  passage  just  quoted  the  poet,  pursuing  the  .same 
train  of  tlmuglit  expressed  in  dalivcirs  ]»roce('diug  from 
Sinai  and  arising  out  of  Seir,  adds — 

"  He  shined  forth  from  Lfount  Paran, 
And  he  came  from  Meribah  Kadcsh." 

The  word    Paran  is  derived   from  the  Hebrew  Par   or  rh(a\ 


*  This  is  Ewald'a  rendering  of  the  jiassage,  and  it  is  generally 
considered  to  he  correct  (Gcs-rh.  d.  V,  Iiiracl.  ii.  257).  See  similar 
expression.s  in  Nnm.  xxvii.  14;    Dent,  xxxii.  51. 


FROM  EGYPT.  143 

signifying  a  cave,^  and  jMount  Paran  consequently  signi- 
fies "  the  Mount  of  Caves."  Meribah  Kadesh,  or  Meribah 
in  Kadesh,  is  a  place  where  it  is  stated  that  the  jjeople 
murmured  for  want  of  water,  and  where  it  was  supplied 
miraculously  by  Moses.  ]\Ieribali  is  said  to  signify  strife  or 
contention,  and  the  place  was  so  called,  according  to  one 
tradition,  because  the  peoplet  (and  according  to  another,  be- 
cause Moses  and  Aaron)  trespassed  there  against  Jahveh,  and 
through  want  of  faith  contended  against  him.|  Kadesh 
signifies  "  holy,"  and  would  seem  to  apply  to  the  region  in 
which  the  mh^acle  was  effected. 

The  conclusion  we  would  therefore  draw  from  the  entire 
passage  which  has  been  quoted  fi^om  the  Blessing  of  Moses, 
is  that,  m  the  opinion  of  the  poet,  Sinai  and  Seir  were  sub- 
stantially identical,  and  that  Moimt  Paran  or  Mount  of  Caves 
and  Meribah  Kadesh,  where  according  to  tradition  water  was 
miraculously  drawn  from  the  rock,  were  so  closely  connected 
with  each  other  and  with  Sinai  and  Seir,  as  to  admit  of  being- 
spoken  of  collectively  as  the  region  from  whicli  Jahveh 
"  came,"  "  rose  up,"  and  "  shone  forth." 

The  conclusion  that  Meribah  Kadesh,  the  scene  of  the 
miraculous  supply  of  water,  was  not  only  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  IVIount  Paran  but  of  Mount  Sinai  and  Seir,  becomes, 
however,  considerably  strengthened  by  the  tradition  that  it 
was  at  Mount  Horeb  (the  Mount  of  God)  that  tlie 
miraculous  supply  of  water  was  obtained,  and  that  the  place 


*  The  root  of  J"1X3  Paran  is  "IXQ  Par,  but  the  word  has  two  sio-nifi- 

cations,    "  to   adorn,    to    be   beautiful,"     and    "  to   dig,    to    bore." 

Some,  accepting  the  former,  regard  Paran  as  a  region  abounding  in 

foliage;  others,  adopting  the   latter   derivation,   treat   the   word   as 

meaning  a  place  noted  for  its  caves.     The  latter  is  the  more  reasonable 

interpretation  of  the  two,  and  will  be  found  to  be  descriptive  of  the 

place  known   in  the   traditions   of  the   Exodus    as  the   midhlwr  of 

Paran. 

f  Exod.  xvii.  7.  X  Num.  xx.  12:  xxvii.  14. 


144  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

where  it  was  so  oljtained  was  called  Massah  (sifrnifyin}]; 
temptation)  and  Meribah  (strife).*  Elsewhere  we  find  this 
tradition  repeated  in  another  form,  the  place  of  the  miracle 
being  called  Kadesh  (the  holy).t  We  sliall  have  occasion 
subsequently  to  examine  the  identity  of  these  traditions,  and 
to  disprove  the  assumption  that  the  same  miracle  was 
believed  to  have  been  repeated  at  two  different  places  after 
an  interval  of  thirty-eight  years  under  identical  circum- 
stances, such  circumstances  giving  to  the  two  places  the 
same  name. 

Of  the  contiguity  of  Paran  and  Kadesh,  if  not  of  their 
identity,  and  of  their  being  situated  in  the  Idumaean  region, 
we  have  abundant  evidence.  In  what  is  known  as  "  the 
Battle  of  the  Kings,"  Chedorlaomer  and  his  allies  are  said 
to  have  smitten  "  the  Horites  in  their  Mount  Seir,  unto  El- 
paran  (the  tree  of  Paran),  wliich  is  by  the  Avilderness,  and 
they  (the  allies)  returned  and  came  to  En-Mishpat,  which  is 
Kadesh."t  The  tradition  respecting  the  settlement  of  the 
elder  branch  of  Abraham's  descendants,  which  has  come  down 
to  us  in  two  forms,§  Ishmael  representing  that  branch  in 
the  one  and  Esau  in  the  other,  assigns  Paran  and  Seir  as 
the  region  occupied  by  them.  Tlie  s])ies  who  set  o\it  from 
Kadesh  to  explore  Canaan,  are  said  to  have  returned  "  unto 
the  wilderness  of  Paran  to  Kadesh,"||  the  identity  of  which 
places  is  further  confirmed  by  th^  Septuagint  version  of 
Num.  xxxiii.  36,  which  states  that  "  they  (the  children 
of  Israel)  removed  from  tlie  wilderness  of  Zin  and  pitched  in 
the  wilderness  of  Paran,  which  is  Kadesh  ;"1[  whilst  the  locality 


*  Exod.  xvii.  6,  7.         f  Num.  xx.  1-13.         %  Gon.  xiv.  6,  7. 
§  Gen.  xxi.  21  ;  xxxvi.  1-8.  ||  Num.  xiii.  26. 

^  The  words  contained  in  the  Septuagint  appear  to  have  been 
accidentally  omitted  from  the  Hebrew  text.  Elsewhere  the  wilderness 
of  Zin  and  that  of  I'aran  seem  to  Vje  regarded  as  identical  (compare 
Num.  xii.  16  with  xvii.  21);  and  both  were  identified  with  Kadesh 
(Num.  xii.  16;  xvii.  21-26;  33-36.  A.V.). 


FROM  EGYPT.  145 

of  Kadesli  is  absolutely  determined  by  the  statement  that  it 
stood  on  the  border  of  Edom,  and  was  the  place  from  which 
the  Israelites  despatched  messengers  requesting  permission 
to  pass  through  the  Idumfean  territory.*  The  immediate 
proximity  of  Sinai  and  Parau  is  indicated  by  the  statement 
that  when  the  children  of  Israel  commenced  their  journey 
out  of  the  wilderness  of  Sinai,  the  cloud  rested  in  the 
wilderness  of  Paran.t 

The  extract  made  fi-om  the  Song  of  Deborah  is  repeated 
almost  HteraUy  in  the  68  th  Psalm,  with,  however,  the 
significant  exception  that,  although  Sinai  is  named,  all 
mention  of  Seir  and  Edom  as  the  place 'from  which  Jaliveh 
went  forth  is  omitted.  This  may  have  been  due  to  the 
more  spiritual  view  taken  by  the  later  poet  of  the  abode 
of  Jahveh,  and  an  unwillingness  to  give  support  to  the  early 
superstition  that  God  dwelt  in  the  mountains  of  Seir. 

Habakkuk,  a  prophet  of  the  latter  half  of  the  seventh 
century  B.C.,  uses  the  expression  "  God  came  fi-om  Teman, 
and  the  Holy  One  from  Mount  .Paran,"J  and  though  this 
is  not  to  be  inter^jreted  literally,  it  is  nevertheless  a  spiritual 
adoption  of  the  primitive  belief  of  Israel.  Teman  was, 
however,  the  southern  part  of  Edom,  which  is  to-day  known 
as  Es  Sherah  as  distinguished  from  the  northern,  in  the 
neighboui-hood  of  the  Dead  Sea,  known  to  the  Israelites 
as  Jebal,  and  called  Gebalena  by  the  Romans.  The  region 
of  Teman  included  the  Idumaean  range  as  far  nortli  as 
Mount  Hor. 

The  primitive  belief  that  Jahveh  dwelt  in  Seir  also 
finds  expression  in  the  language  of  Isaiah,  when,  in  pro- 
nouncing "  the  Burden  of  Dumah,"  he  exclaims,  "  He 
calleth  to  me  out  of  Seir,  Watchman,  what  of  the  night?" 
The    spiritual     conception     entertained    of    God    by     tliis 


*  Num.  XX.  16.  t  ^um.  x.  12,  13.  +  Hab.  iii.  3. 

L 


1 46  77//:  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  'HON 

prophet  excludes  the  supposition  that  he  believed  Seir 
to  be  the  abode  of  the  Deity.  He  seems  merely  to  have 
adopted  language  which  would  liave  been  intelligible  to  his 
hearers. 

There  is  one  other  passage  in  the  utterances  or  writings 
of  this  prophet  which  deserves  notice  in  connection  \ni\\  the 
subject  under  consideration.  In  announcing  the  retribution 
wli it'll  would  fall  on  the  Assyrians  for  their  oppression  of 
.1  udah,  the  prophet  exclaims  :  "  Jahveh  of  hosts  shall  stir 
up  a  scourge  for  him  accordmg  to  the  slaughter  of  i\Iidian, 
at  the  rock  of  Oreb."''''  The  English  reader  might  suppose 
that  Isaiah  had  dropped  the  initial  letter,  and  was  referring 
to  the  rock  of  Horeb  from  which  the  water  was  miraculously 
drawn  ;  but  this  is,  at  all  events,  very  doubtful.  If  the 
prophet  refers  to  the  execution  of  the  Midianite  prince 
Oreb  by  Gideon,  u])on  the  rock  which  thenceforth  bore  his 
name,t  then  tlie  allusion  is  irrelevant  to  the  present  inquiry. 
But  if  reference  is  made  to  the  slaughter  of  the  Edomites 
a  century  previously  by  Amaziah,  when  ten  thousand  cap- 
tives were  said  to  have  been  thrown  down  from  the  top  of 
a  rock  (Selah),+  generally  identified  with  the  precipices 
overhanging  Petra,  then  the  mention  of  Oreb  would  furnish 
additional  evidence  of  the  rock  of  Horeb  being  in  Seir. 
Independently,  however,  of  the  different  etymology  of  the 
words,§  much  more  striking  in  Hebrew  than  in  Euglish,  the 
passage  is  t(jo  ambiguous||  to  lie  used  in  the  present  inves- 
tigation. 

The  only  seeming  historical  allusion  to  the  Mount  of  God 
subsequent   to   the  settlement  in  Canaan  is  connected  with 


*  Isa.  X.  26.         t  Juil.  vii.  25.         +  2  Kings  xiv.  7  ;  2  Chrou.  xxv.  12. 
§  a^'n  Ghoreh.  21)]}  Oreb. 
!|  The  Septuagint  rendering  is  tp  ToVto  6Xiil/fcos ;  the  corresponding 
words  in  Jiid.  vii.  25  are  rendered  «V  Soi')^  'Q/ji;/^. 


FROM  EGYPT.  147 

an  event  in  the  life  of  Elijah/''  The  prophet  having  fled  from 
Samaria  to  escape  the  vengeance  of  Jezebel,  is  represented  as 
having  gone  to  Beersheba,  a  town  in  the  south  of  Judah. 
There  he  left  his  servant,  proceeded  a  day's  journey  into  the 
wilderness  {midh]iar),\  and  sat  down  under  a  juniper-tree  to 
die.  An  angel  then  appeared  and  supplied  him  with  food, 
which  having  partaken  of,  he  "  went  in  the  strength  of  that 
meat  forty  days  and  forty  nights  unto  Horeb,  the  Mount  of 
God."  On  reaching  the  mount  he  lodged  in  the  cavern|  there, 
when  the  word  of  Jahveh  came  to  him  and  inquired  with 
what  object  he  had  come.  Having  replied,  he  was  told  to 
"  go  forth,  and  stand  upon  the  mount  before  Jahveh."  Then 
followed  certain  manifestations.  A  strong  wind  rent  the 
mountain,  the  wind  being  followed  by  an  earthquake,  the 
earthquake  by  a  fire,  and  the  fire  by  a  still  small  voice.  But 
Jahveh  was  not  in  the  wind,  nor  in  the  eartliquake,  nor  in  the 
fire,  but  in  the  still  small  voice  ;  and  Elijah,  emerging  from 
the  cavern,  received  the  commands  of  Jahveh. 

This  incomparably  beautiful  parable,§  the  spiritual  depth 
and  bearing  of  which  are  overshadowed  and  ignored  by  those 
who  persist  in  treating  it  as  a  prosaic  statement  of  a  succes- 
sion of  miraculous  occurrences,  renders  us  comparatively 
little  assistance  in  its  English  guise.  A  journey  of  forty 
days  was  as  little  necessary  to  enable  the  prophet  to  reach 


*   I  Kings  xix.  1-18. 

t  Midhhar  does  not  n^essarily  imj^ly  a  barren  desert,  it  may  mean 
a  plain  fit  for  pasturing  flocks. 

X  It  is  important  to  note  that  the  definite  article  is  used  in  the 
Hebrew  text,  evidently  to  denote  a  particular  cavern  hallowed  by 
tradition,  and  probably  referred  to  in  Exod.  xxxiii.  22. 

§  "  Pour  bien  apprecier  ce  quil  y  a  de  sublime  dans  cette  parabole 
(car  e'en  est  une  et  la  plus  belle  de  toute  la  litterature  Hebraique)  il  faut 
se  rappeler  que  partout  ailleurs  dans  I'Ancien  Testament  c'est  dans 
la  tempete  que  le  Dieu  d'Israelse  revele,  et  nulle  part  I'esprit  du  vraie 
prophetisme  n'est  peint  comme  il  Test  ici"  (Reuss,  La  Bible,  N.  T.  H. 
Jes/.,  p.  493). 

L  2 


1 48  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

tlie  mountains  in  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  as  those  in  Edom, 
and  a  person  r|uitting  Judah  for  either  destination  might 
equally  pass  by  way  of  Beersheba.  But  it  is  not  unworthy 
of  notice  that,  before  the  time  of  Elijali,  communication  had 
been  opened  between  Judah  and  Elath,  or  Ezion-gaber,  at  the 
head  of  the  Gidf  of  Akaba,*  and  the  caravan  route  followed 
ill  all  jiroljability  the  course  adopted  centuries  later  in  the 
western  Eoman  road  between  Haila  (Elath)  and  Jerusalem ,t 
and  which  cannot  be  far  divergent  from  the  track  of  modern 
travellers  in  proceeding  from  Hebron  to  the  middle  of  the 
Araba.  This  route  passes  through  the  midbhar  of  Beersheba. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  have  no  indication  in  ancient  times 
of  any  route  from  Judah  across  the  Tih  plateau  to  the 
Sinaitic  region  ;  nor  of  the  journey  having  been  undertaken 
either  for  business,  pleasure,  or  pious  purposes,  by  any 
individuals  whatever.  It  is,  of  course,  quite  possible  to 
proceed  direct  across  the  plateau,  following  the  bindings  of 
the  Wadys,  and  to  emerge  through  one  of  the  passes  in  the 
southern  wall  of  the  Tih  into  the  Sinaitic  region,  and  many 
travellers  have  done  so.  But  there  is  no  evidence  of  such  a 
journey  having  been  undertaken  in  pre-Christian  times. 

It  may  be  urged  with  jilausibility  that  this  is  begging 
the  entire  question,  and  thattliis  is  precisely  the  journey  which 
wasundcrtaken  1  )y  the  prophet  Elijah.  The  truth  is,  this  account 
gives  no  apparent  indication  whatever  of  the  locality  of  Horeb. 
That  mountain  might,  so  far  as  the  narrative  is  concerned,  be 
in  Muinira,  in  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  (fr  on  the  banks  of  the 
Nile.  But  let  us  examine  the  narrative  a  little  closer,  and 
ascertain  whether  we  rightly  interpret  the  propliet's  language. 

One  may  lie  permitted  to  doubt  whether  the  rendering,  lie 
"  went  in  the  strength  of  tliat  meat  forty  days  and  forty  nights 


*  I  Kings  ix.  26. 
f   Tahiihi  JfiiH'nirin  Ppiiti'ii(/rri(/ijfi.    EiJ.  i\raiiiu'rt  Lips,  1S24. 


FROM  EGYPT.  I49 

unto  Horeb,  the  Mount  of  God,"  is  correct.  The  narrative, 
though  spiritualised,  is  transparently  modelled  on  the 
accepted  tradition  of  Moses  at  Sinai.  Moses  saw  a  burning 
bush,  Elijah  beheld  a  fire  ;  Moses  hid  his  face,  Elijah  wrapped 
his  head  in  his  mantle.  Moses  was  placed  in  a  "  cleft  of  the 
rock"  when  Jahveh  passed  by,  Elijah  stood  in  the  entrance 
of  tlu  cave,  which  tradition  doubtless  affirmed  to  be  "  the 
cleft."  The  thunders  and  lightnings  when  Moses  was  oi) 
the  mount  had  their  counterpart,  when  Elijah  was  present,  in 
the  whirlwind  and  the  earthquake.  Moses  remained  in  the 
mountain,  without  food,  forty  days  and  forty  nights  ;  and  in 
order  to  make  the  parallel  complete,  the  abode  of  Elijah; 
under  the  same  circumstances,  on  the  mount  should  have 
lasted  the  same  period.  If  therefore  all  we  knew  on  the 
latter  point  was  that  a  similar  fast  was  ascribed  to  Elijah, 
we  would  unhesitatingly  conclude  that  the  prophet,  like 
Moses,  fasted  during  the  whole  of  that  period  upon  the 
Mount  of  God. 

The  translation  in  the  Authorised  Version  conveys  the 
idea  that  the  journey  of  Elijah  from  the  wilderness  of 
Beersheba  to  Mount  Horeb  occupied  forty  days  and  forty 
nights,  during  which  time  the  prophet  was  miraculously 
sustained  by  the  food  supplied  by  the  angel  of  Jahveh. 
Notliing  is  apparently  said  of  the  time  he  remained  on  the 
mount  whiLst  he  lodged  in  the  cave,  or  of  his  means  of  sub- 
sistence whilst  there ;  and  his  return  journey  is  referred  to 
as  a  matter  of  course,  not  necessitating  miraculous  inter- 
vention on  the  part  of  the  Deity,  or  comment  on  that  of  the 
narrator.  These  apparent  omissions  give  a  certain  incom- 
pleteness to  the  narrative  in  its  accepted  form. 

The  Hebrew  text  of  the  passage  to  which  attention  is 
now  directed  is  in  some  respects  peculiar.  The  verb  ren- 
dered "  he  went,"  in  the  sense  of  journeying,  is  constantly 
used  in  the  Old  Testament  to  imply  a  continuing  state  of 


ISO  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATIOX 

existence  ;*  wliilsL  the  preposition  translated  "  unto"  is 
frequently  employed  to  convey  the  idea  of  duration,  being 
perhaps  more  often  a])plied  to  time  than  to  space.t 

It  would  therefore  seem  that  the  more  correct  rendering 
of  tins  jiassage  should  be  as  follows  :  "And  he  arose  and 
did  eat  and  drink,  and  subsisted  on  the  strength  of  that  meat 
furty  days  and  forty  nights  while  (jn  the  Mount  of  God 
(Horeb),  and  ho  entered  therej  into  the  cave  and  lodged 
there."     And   this  rendering   is  justified   not  only  on  the 

*  -q^n  halech.  Like  the  Freuch  "alien"  Illustrations  of  the 
idiomatic  employment  of  this  verb  will  easily  suggest  themselves. 

+  As  regards  the  use  of  the  verb  in  the  sense  referred  to,  there  is  a 
great  abundance  of  illustrations.  One  "  who  walketh  (liveth) 
uprightly"  (Ps.  xv.  2),  who  "walks  according  to  the  counsel  of  the 
wicked"  (Ps.  i.  j).'  who  is  "living  in  wind  (vanity)  and  lying" 
(Mic.  ii.  11);  and  with  a  similar  signification,  "  the  child  Samuel  grow 
on  more  and  more"  ( I  Sam.  ii.  26),  "  David  waxed  stronger  and 
stronger"  (2  Sam.  iii.  1),  "  JMordecai  waxed  greater  and  greater" 
(Esther  ix.  4),  "  Jehoshaphat  waxed  great  exceedingly"  (2  Chron. 
xvii.  12).  See  other  illustrations  s.  v.  ^Ipn  halech,  Geseinns,  Lexicon 
{Heb.  and  Chalcl.,  and  Thcmnrus,  &c.).  With  respect  to  the  preposition 
here  employed,  its  jirimitive  and  more  general  meaning  would  seem  to 
be  "  during,"  or  "  while,"  or  "as  long  as."  Thus,  "  so  long  as  the 
whoredoms  of  Jezebel  (last)"  (2  Kings  ix.  22);  and  in  a  passage 
immediately  preceding  the  narrative  now  under  consideration,  and 
evidently  the  work  of  the  same  writer,  "  and  it  came  to  pass  in  the 
meanwhile,"  or  more  literally,  "while  so  and  while  so"  (i  Kings 
xviii.  45),  "during  a  moment"  (Job  xx.  5),  "while  they  waited" 
(Jud.  iii.  26),  "until  the  morning"  (Jud.  vi.  31),  "until  the 
evening"(Lev.  xv.  5),"  within  thirty  days,"  &c.  (Dan.  vi.8, 13).  See  Le.v. 
II.  and  G.  u.  y.  ny  ad.  Gesenius  observes,  the  "particle  ^N  el  and  this 
differ  properly  in  this  respect :  that  7X  signifies  nothing  but  motion 
and  direction  toirdrdu  some  limit.  "]]}  on  the  contrary  signifies  an 
actual  arrival  (/»//"  ^»  such  limit."  The  limit  is  excluded  in  the  former, 
included  in  the  latter.  The  Septuagint  version  renders  the 
paH.sagc — "  ffoi  o/jovf  Xoipjiji  ;"  (US  implies  the  idea  of  duration,  being 
rendered  "  until,"  "whilst,"  "  as  long  as,"  and  thus  distinguished  from 
irpos,  the  translation  given  to  7S  and  signifying  simply  "to"  a  place. 

X  The  A.  V.  gives,  "  and  he  came  thither  unto  a  cave."  The  Hebrew 
verb  here  employed  xi3  /'fc,  signifies  "  to  come  in,"  "  to  enter."  See 
Gesenius,  ^•.  '■•  'I'lic  Septuagint  gives  the  true  spirit  of  the  pas.-<agc, 
"  Koi  titTf}\6<i'  tKfi  <i\  TO  frniiXninv." 


FROM  EGYPT.  151 

grounds  just  stated,  but  because  it  is  the  only  one  which 
relieves  the  parable  of  incompleteness,  and  perfects  the 
pendant  drawn  on  the  lines  of  the  original  picture  of  Moses 
on  the  Mount  of  God. 

But  if  this  be  the  correct  translation  of  the  passage,  it 
sheds  indirectly  considerable  light  on  the  probable  locality 
of  the   Mount  of    God.     The   writer   represents   Elijah   as 
leaving   his  servant  at   Beersheba,  and   proceeding  a  day's 
journey  into  the  wilderness.     There  he  received  from  the 
angel  food  which  enabled  him  to  fast  forty  days  and  forty 
nights    on   Mount   Horeb.      It   is    therefore   reasonable   to 
infer  that  the  wi-iter  assumed  the  propfiet  to  have  reached 
a   point  which  he  believed  to  be  not  far   distant  from  the 
mountain,  since  it  was  a    suitable  place   for   receiving  the 
food  which  was  to  constitute  his  sole  support  during  his 
protracted    stay   whilst  there.*     This   point  was,  however, 
far    distant    from    any  of    the  mountains  in    the    Sinaitic 
peninsula,  wliilst  it  was  not  far  from  the  Idum?ean  range- 
Beersheba    was   the   most   southern   point   of    Judah,    and 
within  two  days'  journey  of  the  middle  of  the  Araba.  We  do 
not  look  for   extreme   accuracy   of  detail  in  parables  ;   we 
must  be  content  with  broad  features.      The  writer  repre- 
sents Elijah   as  having  quitted  Judah  and  proceeded  into 
the  midbhar,  a  distance  which  is  stated  as  a  day's  journey. 
All  that  was  intended  to  be  conveyed  is  that  he  journeyed 
to  a  point  where,  faint  and  exhausted,  he  lay  down  under  a 
tree,  expecting  death.      Such  a    jom-ney,  assuming  that  he 
had  taken  a  south-eastern  coiirse,  would  have  brought  him 
in  two  days'  time  to   the  wide  valley  skirting  the  base  of 
the  Idumwan  chain. 


*  It  is  assumed  that  the  writer  of  the  parable  was  acquainted  with 
the  precise  locality  of  Mouut  Horeb,  aud  that  the  Beer^sheba  present  to 
his  mind  was  that  which  lay  some  four-and-tweuty  miles  south  of 
Hebron.     But  both  these  assumptions  may  be  erroneous. 


r  5  2  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

Tlie  main  value  which  tlie  naiTative  possesses  in  con- 
nection with  the  locality  of  the  Mount  of  God  rests  on  its 
consistency  with  the  evidence  already  examined,  which 
places  Sinai  in  Seir,  and  its  inconsistency  with  the  general 
conception  of  the  situation  of  that  mountain  in  the  south  of 
the  Sinaitic  peninsula.  One  of  the  main  features  of  the 
parable  must  be  ignored,  and  the  miraculous  part  be  sup- 
posed to  have  taken  place  on  the  journey,  and  not  on  the 
mountain,  in  order  to  conduct  the  prophet  to  a  region  which, 
so  far  as  we  possess  any  information,  was  wholly  unknown 
to  the  inhabitants  of  Judeea. 

The  narrative  of  Elijah's  visit  to  Horeb  is  preserved  by 
Josephus,  and  as  told  by  the  Jewish  historian  curiously 
confirms  our  impression  that  the  mountain  was  in  Iduma-a. 
After  mentioning  the  steps  taken  by  Jezebel  to  slay  Elijah, 
Josephus  says  that  the  latter  "  was  affrighted,  and  fled  to 
the  city  called  Beersheba,  which  is  situated  at  the  utmost 
limits  of  the  country  belonging  to  the  tribe  of  Judah  toicards 
the  land  of  Edom,  and  there  he  left  his  servant  and  went 
away  into  th€  desert.  He  prayed  also  that  he  might  die, 
for  that  he  was  not  better  than  his  fathers,  nor  need  he 
be  very  desirous  to  live  when  they  were  dead.  And  he  lay 
and  slept  under  a  certain  tree,  and  when  somebody  awakened 
him  and  he  was  risen  up,  he  found  food  set  by  him  and 
water,  so  when  he  had  eaten  and  recovered  his  strength  by 
that  his  food,  he  came  to  that  mountain  which  is  called 
Sinai  (to  ^ivaiov),  where  it  is  related  that  Moses  received 
his  laws  from  Ciod,  and  finding  there  a  certain  hollow  cave 
he  entered  into  it,  and  continued  to  make  his  abode  in  it."* 
Jose]»h>is,  wlio  was  not  overburdened  with  credulity,  or  at 
all  events  deemed  it  advisaWe  in  WTiting  for  the  Gentile 
world  to  omit  as  much  as  possible  of  the  marvellous,  has,  it 

♦  A.  .1.  viii.  13.  7. 


FROM  EGYPT.  i53 

will  be  seen,  considerably  toned  down  the  original  story. 
The  angel  of  Jahveh  becomes  a  "  somebody,"  and  nothing  is 
said  of  the  forty  days'  fast.  But  his  reference  to  the  rela- 
tive situation  of  Beersheba  to  Edom  would  be  unintelligible 
unless  he  understood  that  the  prophet  was  directing  his 
steps  towards  that  country.  In  Elijah's  time  the  dominions 
of  the  Edomites  did  not  extend  west  of  the  Araba,  between 
which  and  Beersheba  stretched  the  north-eastern  portion  of 
the  Tih  steppe.  Beersheba  was  "  towards  Edom  ;"  that  is  to 
say,  it  lay  in  the  route  of  a  traveller  quitting  Judah  for  that 
country.  It  would  seem  therefore  that  Josephus  repre- 
sented the  prophet  as  quitting  Beershebii  in  the  direction  of 
Edom,  "where  he  came  to  that  mountain  which  is  called 
SinaL" 

There  is  only  one  reference  in  the  writings  of  the  New 
Testament  to  the  locality  of  Mount  Sinai,  and  it  is  of  a 
very  general  character.  St.  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians,  wrote  :  "  For  these  are  the  two  covenants ;  the 
one  from  the  Mount  Sinai,  which  gendereth  to  bondage, 
which  is  Agar.  For  this  Agar  is  Mount  Sinai  in  Arabia."* 
What  country  or  region  was  referred  to  by  the  Apostle  as 
Arabia  ? 

In  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  Arabia  is  invari- 
ably identified  with  the  east — that  is,  the  east  of  the  meridian 
of  the  Jordan  valley.  According  to  tradition,  the  descendants  of 
Abraham  through  Hagar  and  Keturah  migrated  to  the  east 
country  (Kedem)."t  Ishmael  (or  perhaps,  according  to  another 
form  of  the  tradition,  Esau)  occupied  Seir.  Midian  and  the 
other  sons  of  Keturah  moved  farther  south,  to  the  region  on 
the  eastern  coast  of  the  Gulf  of  Akaba  and  the  Eed  Sea.  In 
the  story  of  the  sale  of  Joseph  by  his  brethren,  the  pur- 
chasers   are    indifferently    spoken    of     as    Ishmaelites    and 

*  Gal.  iv.  24,  25.  t  Gen.  xxv.  6. 


1 54  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

Midiaiiites.'"'  The  east  country  would  therefore  seem  to 
have  been  tlie  country  lying  to  the  east  of  the  Araba  and 
the  Ked  Sea. 

In  the  time  of  Solomon  we  first  find  any  mention  of 
Arabia.  Tlie  kings  of  Arabia,  or  of  Ereb,  send  him  gifts.t 
Elsewhere  the  country  and  the  people  are  occasionally  referred 
to,  but  in  every  instance  we  are  led  to  conclude  that  the 
region  was  deemed  to  lie  to  the  east  or  south-east,  and  not 
to  the  south  of  Judaea.  We  have  already  noticed  the 
allusion  of  Isaiah  to  tlie  slaughter  of  Midian  at  the  rock  of 
Oreb.  In  his  account  of  the  massacre  of  the  Edomites  by 
Amaziah,  Josephus  .  states  that  the  king  "  brought  his 
prisoners  to  the  great  rock  which  is  in  Arabia,  and  threw 
them  down  headlong  "%  that  is,  from  the  precipices  of  Petra. 
In  Hebrew,  Arabia  and  Oreb  are  spelt  with  the  same 
letters,  though  with  a  slight  difference  in  the  vowel  points.§ 
It  is  not  improbable  that  Isaiah  wrote  "  the  rock  in  Arabia,"]] 
meaning  a  place  well  known  as  late  as  the  time  of  Josephus. 
However  this  may  be,  the  name  of  Arabia  was,  down  to  the 
commencement  of  the  Christian  era,  applied  by  the  Jews  to 
Idunnea  and  the  region  lying  to  its  east  and  south;  but,  so  far 
as  we  liave  any  evidence,  never  to  the  country  lying  to  the  south 
of  Palestine  and  enclosed  between  the  two  arms  of  the  Ked  Sea. 

The  earliest  Greek  geographers  only  knew  of  an  Arabia 
lying  to  the  east  of  the  meridian  of  the  Jordan  valley. 
Strabo  and  Eratosthenes  give  the  name  Arabia^  to  the  gTeat 
peninsula  lying  between  the  Eed  Sea  and  the  Persian  Gulf, 
together  with  the  region  on  the  north  extending  from 
bbuiKra  and  Palestine  on  the  west,  to  \\w  luiplu-ates  on  the 


*  Geu.  xxxvii.  28. 

t   I  Kings  X.  15;  2  Chron.  ix.  14.  X  Jos.  A.  J.ix.  9.  i. 

§  3"iy  Artihid.  2"}]}  Onb.      Thu  vowel   jxjiuts  were   supplied  by  the 

Masuntes  some  centuries  idler  the  eoinnieneement  of  the  Christiuu  era. 

II   Isa.  X.  26.  ^]  SI  rail.  xvi.  767   :   Diml.  Siculus.  ii.  48. 


FROM  EGYPT.  i55 

north-east.  The  peninsula  they  styled  Arabia  Felix,  whilst 
the  northern  region,  from  its  physical  characteristics,  was 
called  Arabia  Deserta.  The  same  classification  was  adopted 
by  Pliny.*  In  the  second  century  Ptolemy  introduced 
to  the  notice  of  the  world  a  third  Arabia,t  to  which 
he  crave  the  name  of  Arabia  Petriea,  from  Petra,  the 
Idumtean  metropolis ;  and  in  this  third  subdivision  he  seems 
to  have  included  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  and  Iduma^a.  He 
had  doubtless  good  grounds  for  placing  Iduma?a  in  Arabia, 
but  the  extension  of  the  latter  to  the  confines  of  Egypt  and 
the  Gulf  of  Suez  was  whoUy  arbitrary.  Oriental  geogTaphers 
give  the  name  Arabia  to  the  great  region  between  the  Red 
Sea  and  the  Persian  Gidf,  together  with  Idumaa  and  the 
deserts  lying  on  its  eastern  side,  whilst  they  assign  the 
northern  portion  of  Arabia  Deserta  to  Syiia,  and  give 
the  Sinaitic  peninsula  and  the  Till  plateau  to  Egypt. 

The  earliest  geographers  of  Arabia  exclude  the  Sinaitic 
peninsula  and  the  Tih  plateau  from  their  domain,  and  one 
of  the  most  celebrated  (Isstachri),  who  lived  in  the  tenth 
century,!  bases  the  exclusion  on  the  grounds  that  water  and 
pasturage  were  ahke  wanting  in  this  region.  The  name  Arabia 
Petrtea,  by  which  it  is  now  known,  is  never  applied  to  it  by 
the  natives  even  at  the  present  day.  This  title  was  the 
result  of  an  accident,  and  arose  from  the  hasty  application  of 
the  name  of  the  ancient  Petra,  the  Idmmean  capital,  to  the 
whole  country.  Mohammed,  though  his  followers  advanced 
as  far  as  the  head  of  the  Gulf  of  Akaba,  never  penetrated 
the  Sinaitic  peninsida.  It  was  peopled,  so  far  as  it  could  be 
said  to  have  been  peopled  at  all,  by  Coptic  Cliiistians  down 
to  the  middle  of  the  seventh  century,  when  it  fell  under  the 


*  Plin.  vi.  8,  par.  32.  f  Ptol.  Geogmiihla,  v.  16. 

+  Isstachri,   Da.s  Buchdcr  Lander,  B-nmhurg,  1848,  pi>.  31,  32  ;  also 
note  19,  p.  14c- 


J  56  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

Moslem  domination.  A  century  previous  to  this  event, 
Justinian  built  the  great  convent  of  Sinai,  apparently  as  a 
memorial  of  himself  and  as  a  tribute  to  tlie  piety  and  virtue 
of  Theodora.*  At  this  time  the  population  consisted  almost 
exclusively  of  monks  and  hermits.  No  Arabian  had  yet 
passed  westward  of  the  Idumnean  hills.t 

It  will  tlius  1)0  seen  thf^t  if  St.  Paul  liad  spoken  of  the 
Sinaitic  peninsula  as  Arabia,  he  would  have  committed  a 
I)rolepsis  'X  that  is  to  say,  he  woidd  have  given  it  a  name 
which  it  did  not  receive  until  a  century  after  liis  death. 
But  if  he  did  not  refer  to  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  he  must 
have  had  ldum»a  in  his  mind,  because  all  the  Hebrew 
traditions  concur  in  stating  that  the  covenant  was  made 
at  the  Mount  of  God  before  the  Israelites  had  passed  round 
Edom  on  their  way  to  Moab,  and  save  in  the  Sinaitic 
peninsula  and  the  Tih  there  are  no  mountains  between 
Egypt  and  Edom. 

We  have  now  (with  the  exception  of  the  traditions  of  the 
Exodus)  examined  all  the  evidence  to  be  found  in  Scriptural 
records  bearing-  on  the  locality  of  Mount  Sinai,  and  it  points 
conclusively  in  one  dii-ection.      Seir  is  the  dwelling-place  of 


*  Burcbardt  mentions  an  Arabic  inscription  over  the  gate  of  the 
convent,  to  the  effect  that  Justinian  built  4;he  convent  in  the  thirteenth 
year  of  his  reign  as  a  memorial  of  himself  and  Theodora  (Syria,  p.  545). 
A  Greek  inscription  to  the  same  effect  is  also  to  be  seen.  "  This  holy 
convent  of  Mount  Sinai,  where  God  spoke  to  Moses,  was  built  from 
the  foundation  by  Justinian,"  &c.  Copies  of  both  inscriptions  will  be 
found  in  the  Appendix  to  Lepsius'  Letters  from  Eg)jpf. 

t  Hitter,  Die  Erdkandr,  xiv.  5-8. 

4.  It  is,  ot  course,  impossible  for  any  one  to  commit  a  prolepsis.  But 
when  an  ajjparent  prolepsis  occurs  in  any  writing,  it  can  only  be  ex- 
plained in  one  of  two  ways  :  either  the  writing  is  of  a  later  date  than 
that  which  is  supposed,  or  the  writer's  meaning  is  misunderstood. 
In  the  present  instance  the  latter  explanation  is  the  true  one.  By 
Arabia,  St.  Paul  did  not  mean,  because  he  could  not  have  meant,  the 
Sinaitic  peninsula. 


FROM  EGYPT.  157 

Jahveh,  Sinai  is  the  ]\Iount  of  God.  In  the  eyes  of  the 
Poet,  the  Prophet,  the  Historian,  and  the  Apostle,  the  two 
were  so  inseparable  as  to  be  absolutely  identified  both 
physically  and  metaphorically.  These  men  may  have  been 
ignorant.  They  may  have  been  under  a  delusion.  The 
spirit  of  rhapsody  may  have  led  them  to  confuse  places 
geographically  distinct,  and  far  removed  the  one  from  the 
other  •*  but  unquestionably,  if  human  language  is  to  be 
interpreted  by  its  only  intelligible  meaning,  then  one  and  all 
beKeved,  and  desired  to  convey  the  belief,  that  Mount  Sinai 
was  in  Idumaea. 

But  there  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  any  of  the 
writers  we  have  quoted  had  more  than  a  general  idea  that 
the  Mount  of  God  was  in  the  Idumsean  range.  Accepting 
the  voice  of  tradition,  they  placed  it  in  Seii' ;  or,  speaking 
more  generally,  in  Arabia.f 

Josephus,  neither  in  his  paraphrase  of  the  Scriptures  nor 
in  his  history  of  the  Jewish  wars,  gives  any  direct  informa- 
tion respecting  the  locality  of  the  mountain,  though  he  affects 
to  speak  of  it  as  a  place  whose  general  characteristics  w^ere 
well  known.      "  It  is  the  highest  of  aU  the  mountains  there- 


*  The  learned  contributor  of  the  Article  "  Paran,"  in  Smith's  Bible 
Dictionary,  in  commenting  on  the  similarity  of  the  language  in  the 
Song  of  Deborah  (Jud.  v.  4,  5),  ia  the  Blessing  of  Moses  (Deut. 
xxxiii.  2),  and  in  the  book  of  the  prophet  Habakkuk  (Hab.  iii.  3), 
remarks:  "We  may  almost  regard  this  lofty  rhapsody  as  a  common- 
place of  the  inspired  song  of  triumph,  in  which  the  seer  seems  to  leave 
earth  so  far  beneath  him  that  tbepreciseness  of  geographical  detail  is 
lost  to  his  view."  It  does  seem  rather  hard  on  the  "  seer"  to  suggest 
that  he  talked  nonsense,  because  he  lost  sight  of  geographical  details 
which  no  one  heard  of  till  many  centuries  after  his  death.  Surely, 
even  putting  all  claims  to  inspiration  on  one  side,  it  would  not  be  so  very 
unreasonable  to  give  these  people  credit  for  knowing  what  they  were 
speaking  about. 

t  This  singular  oblivion  of  the  precise  locality  of  Mount  Sinai  will 
be  dealt  with  at  a  lat«r  staee  of  our  inquiry. 


158  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

abouts,  and  tlie  Ijest  for  })astuiage,  tJie  herbage  being  there 
very  good,  and  it  had  not  been  fed  upon  before "  (the 
time  of  tlie  appearance  of  God  in  tlie  burning  busli), 
"  because  of  tlie  opinion  men  had  that  God  dwelt  there, 
the  shepherds  not  daring  to  ascend  it."'"'  And  elsewhere  he 
writes  :  "  Mount  Sinai  is  the  highest  of  all  the  mountains 
that  are  in  that  country,  and  is  not  only  very  difficult  to  be 
ascended  by  men,  on  account  of  its  vast  altitude,  liut  because 
of  the  sharpness  of  its  precipices  also  ;  nay,  indeed,  it  cannot 
be  looked  at  without  pain  of  the  eyes ;  and  besides  this,  it 
was  terrible  and  inaccessible,  on  account  of  the  rumour  that 
passed  about  that  God  dwelt  there."t  Josephus  does  not, 
however,  say  in  what  particular  region  the  mountain  stood, 
which  he  most  undoubtedly  would  have  done  if  lie  had  ever 
seen  it  or  even  knew  where  to  find  it. 

In  giving  an  account  of  the  escape  of  Moses  from  Eg}''pt, 
he  ^^Tites  :  "  He  took  his  flight  tlirough  the  desert,  and  when 
he  came  to  the  city  of  Midian,  which  lay  ujion  the  Eed 
Sea  (the  Gulf  of  Akaba),  and  was  so  denominated  from  one 
of  Abraham's  sons  by  Keturah,  he  sat  down  liy  a  well,  and 
rested  himself  after  his  laborious  journey."!  Wliilst  Moses 
was  there  the  seven  virgin  (laugliters  of  Eaguel  the  priest 
came  to  the  well  to  draw  water,  and,  adds  Josephus,  "  these 
virgins  took  care  of  their  father's  flocks,  which  sort  of  work 
it  M'as  customary  and  very  familiar  for  women  to  do  in  the 
country  of  the  Troglodytes."§  The  Troglodytes  (dwellers 
in  caves)  were,  at  least  in  this  part  of  the  world,  to  be  found 
only  in  the  mountains  of  Edom,  and  it  would  seem  tliere- 


*  yl.  J.  ii.  f2.  I.  t  /I.  J.  ill.  5.  I.  +  J. /.  ii.  II. 

§  T^uyXoSDToi  is  the  Greek  counter[)art  of  the  Hebrew  ^in  liorites. 
Elsewhere,  Josephus  states  that  the  Jlidianites  "  took  pos-session  of 
'I'rot^lodytis  and  the  country  of  Arabia  Feli.x.  as  far  as  it  n'aclies  to  the 
Red  Sea"  {A.  J.'u  15  ;  ii.  9.  3).  But  Arabia  Felix,  accordiui^  to  every 
authority,  ancient  and  modern,  was  to  the  east  of  the  Red  Sea  and 
^UmiticGulf. 


FROM  EGYPT.  159 

fore  that  Midian  and  Edom  were  identified  in  tlie  mind  of 
Josepluis.  In  this  country,  occupied  by  "  dwellers  in  caves," 
Moses  took  up  his  abode,  and  Eaguel  having  married  him  to 
one  of  his  daughters,  gave  him  charge  of  his  flocks. 
Josephus  then  continues:  "Now  Moses,  when  he  had  obtained 
the  favom-  of  Jethro,  for  that  w^as  one  of  the  names  of 
Eaguel,  stayed  there  and  fed  his  flocks,  but  some  time  after- 
wards taking  his  station  at  the  mountain  called  Sinai,  he 
drove  his  flocks  thither  to  feed  them."  The  conclusion  is 
irresistible  that  Sinai  was,  according  to  the  belief  of 
Josephus,  in  the  country  of  the  "  dwellers  in  caves," 
where  Eaguel  was  priest  or  chief  ruler,  and  that  the  people 
whom  he  ruled,  though  following  pastoral  pursuits,  were 
not  of  nomadic  habits.  According  to  the  idea  of  Josephus, 
Moses  in  flying  from  Egypt  had  to  cross  deserts  to  reach 
the  country  in  which  he  made  his  home  ;  but  when  "  tlurc 
finding  his  flock,"  "  he  took  his  station  at  the  mountain  called 
Sinai."  In  his  paraphrase  Josephus  represents  Moses  as 
going  to  the  city  of  Midian.  The  earlier  form  in  which 
the  tradition  is  handed  down,  that  he  went  to  the  "  land  of 
Midian,""""  is  the  more  accurate,  and  this  land  unquestion- 
ably lay  to  the  east  of  the  Araba.  Whetlier  it  included  both 
Idunifea  and  the  country  lying  between  the  ^lanitic  Gulf 
and  the  Ai-abian  deserts  is  a  question  of  minor  importance.f 
In  the  account  of  the  insurrection  against  the  Eoman 
authority,  in  which  Simon  of  Gerasa  took  part,  Josephus 
states  that  Simon  "  overran  the  Acrabattene  toparchy  and 
the  places  that  reached  as  far  as  the  great-  Idumasa,  for  he 
built  a  wall  at  a   certain  village   called  Nain,  and   at  the 


*  Exod.  ii.  15. 
t  It  is  very  questionable  whether  the  supposed  differences  between 
Ishmaelites,  Edomites,  and  Midianites,  and  the  assignment  of  different 
regions  to  the  descendants  of  Ishmael,  Esau,  and  Midian,  rest  upon 
any  solid  foundation.     See  next  Chapter. 


i6o  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION  FROM  EGYPT. 

valley  called  Paraii  lie  enlarged  many  of  the  caves."*  Paran, 
which  we  have  seen  to  be  so  intimately  connected  with 
Sinai  and  Seir,  was  thus,  according  to  the  testimony  of  the 
Jewish  liistorian,  remarkable  for  its  cave  dwellings,  and  was 
situated  in  Idumtea. 

Having  now  exposed  all  the  evidence  procurable  on  the 
vexed  question  of  the  loc'ality  of  Sinai  down  to  the  time  of 
the  final  dispersion  of  the  Jews,  it  only  remains  to  inquire 
whether  the  apparent  conclusion  that  tlie  ]\Iount  of  God 
was  in  Edom  is  reconcilable  with,  or  opposed  to,  tlie  tradi- 
tions of  the  Exodus. 

*  li.  J.  iv.  g.  4. 


i6i 


CHAPTER  VI. 

MOSES  is  represented  in  the  Book  of  Exodus  as  flying 
from  justice,  and  taking  refuge  in  the  land  of  Midian."^ 
There  he  married  the  daughter  of  Reuel,  the  priest  or  prince 
of  Midian,  and  whilst  in  charge  of  his  father-in-law's 
herds,  "  he  led  the  flock  to  the  backsid*e  of  the  desert,  and 
came  to  the  Mountain  of  God,  even  to  Horeb."t 

Midian  is  said  to  have  been  one  of  the  sons  of  Abraham 
and  Keturah,  and  with  the  other  children  of  the  patriarch 
to  have  been  sent  away  into  the  east  country 4  In  other 
words,  a  people  claiming  descent  from  Abraham  settled  in 
the  country  to  the  east  of  the  Araba.  In  another  form  the 
tradition  represents  the  Ishmaelites  as  having  taken  the 
same  direction  ;§  whilst  in  still  a  third,  Esau,  the  eldest  son 
of  Isaac,  is  represented  as  settling  in  Edom.||  From  the 
earliest  times,  however,  the  Ishmaelites  and  the  Midianites 
appear  to  have  been  regarded  as  identical,  for  in  the  story 
of  the  sale  of  Joseph  by  his  brethren,  the  merchantmen  who 
were  on  their  way  from  Gilead  to  Egypt  are  indifferently 
described  as  Ishmaelites  and  Midianites  ;1[  and  in  the  account 
of  the  victory  of  Gideon  over  the  Midianites,  the  latter  are 
said  to  have  worn  golden,  earrings  because  they  were 
Ishmaelites."^"^  "  Midianites"  would  seem  therefore  to  have 
been,  like  "  Ishmaelites,"  a  generic  term  given  to  the  great 


*  Exod.  ii.  15.  t  Exod.  iii.  i.  X  Gr«"-  "^^^  ^• 

§  Gen.  xxi.  21  ;  xxv.  12-18.        ||  Gen.  xxxvi.  1-8.       IT  Gen.  xxxvii 
**  Jud.  viii.  24. 
M 


l62  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

bulk  of  the  people  inhabiting  the  east  country  (the  east  of 
the  Araba).  They  were  the  Beni-Kedem,  the  children  of  the 
East.  In  the  narrative  of  Balaam,  the  son  of  Beor,  the 
elders  of  Moab  take  counsel  with  the  elders  of  Midian  ; 
but  it  is  the  king  of  ]\Ioab  alone  who  sends  the  messengers, 
including  the  elders  of  ]\Ioab  and  of  Midian,  in  search  of 
the  seer."'"  In  the  celebrated  prophecy  ascribed  to  Balaam, 
though  vengeance  is  denounced  on  Moab  and  Edom,  no 
reference  is  made  to  Midian.t  Amalek  is  marked  out  for 
destruction,  and  when  "  he  looked  on  the  Kenites,  he  said. 
Strong  is  thy  dwelling-place,  and  thou  puttest  thy  trust  in  a 
rock,  nevertheless  the  Kenite  shall  be  wasted."+  Elsewhere 
the  Midianite  priest,  who  was  father-in-law  to  Moses,  is  spoken 
of  as  a  Kenite,§  and  we  therefore  have  a  confirmation  of  the 
statement  of  Josephus  that  the  people  of  the  land  wliere 
Moses  took  up  liis  abode  Avere  "  dwellers  in  caves."  In 
the  account  of  the  licentious  worship  of  Baal-peor  into 
which  the  Israelites  were  seduced,  the  daughters  of  Moab 
and  the  Midianitish  women  are  evidently  treated  as 
identical.  1|    - 

Everything  therefore  indicates  that  the  land  of  Midian,  to 
which  Moses  is  said  to  have  fled,  was  to  the  east  of  the 
Araba,  and  it  is  at  least  singular  that  one  of  the  names 
ascribed  to  Moses'  father-in-law,  l{euel,1[  was  that  of  one  of 
the  descendants  of  Esau,"^*  Avho,  according  to  tradition,  settled 
in  Edom. ft 

Wliilst  tending  Eeuel's  flock,  Moses  led  it  "  to  the  back- 
side of  the  desert"  {midhhar),  and  then  came  to  the  JMount 
of   God,      The    Hebrew   word    translated    "  the   backside," 


*  Num.  xxii.       t  Num.  xxiv.  17,  1 8.       J  Num.  xxiv.  20,  21. 
§  Jud.  i.  16.         II  Num.  xxv.         IT  Exod.  ii.  18.       **  Gen.  xxxvi.  10. 
tt  It  is  not  suggested  that  a  son  of  Esau  was  the  father-in-law  of 
Moses,  but  simply  that  one  of  the  names,  by  which,  according  to  tradi- 
tion, the  "  priest  of  Midian"  was  known,  was  Edomitish. 


FROM  EGYPT.  163 

signifies  to  the  westward  of  the  desert,*  and  all  that  can  be 
fairly  gathered  from  this  passage  is  that  the  mountain  was 
to  the  M^est  of  the  usual  pastures  of  the  flock,  and  within 
easy  distance  of  them.  In  order  to  j)lace  Horeb  in  the 
Sinaitic  peninsula,  it  is  necessary  to  extend  the  land  of 
Midian,  wliich  on  all  hands  is  admitted  to  have  been  east 
of  the  meridian  of  the  Araba,  in  a  westward  direction,  so  as 
to  include  the  Sinaitic  region.  It  is,  in  fact,  suggested  that 
Eeuel  or  Jethro  was  the  Sheikh  of  a  nomadic  tribe,  who  in 
search  of  pastures  visited  the  Sinaitic  mountains  at  the  time 
when  Moses  fled  from  Egypt.  Tliis  explanation  of  the 
difficulty  of  extending  "  the  land  of  Midian"  to  the  Sinaitic 
peninsula  is  plausible,  but  it  is  altogether  unsupported  by 
evidence.  It  is  simply  coined  to  meet  the  requirements  of 
the  Coptic  tradition,  which  places  the  Mount  of  God  in  that 
region.  It  is  also  necessary  to  assume  that  the  barren, 
desolate  region  which  to-day  meets  the  eye  was  sufficiently 
fertile  in  the  Mosaic  time  to  induce  a  powerful  chief  to  quit 
the  pastures  of  the  east  country,  and  settle  amongst  the 
Sinaitic  mountains  during  the  forty  years  supposed  to  have 
elapsed  between  the  arrival  of  Moses  and  the  theophany  on 
the  mount ;  and  that  having  seen  the  Israelites  arrive  under 
the  guidance  of  Moses,  Eeuel,  accompanied  by  his  people  and 
his  flocks,  turned  his  back  on  the  holy  mountain  with  its 
adjacent  jjastures,  "  and  went  his  way  into  his  own  land."t 
It  must  be  admitted  that  the  narrative,  viewed  in  this  lioht, 
is  beset  with  the  greatest  improbabilities. 

Let  us  now  foUow  the  course   taken  by  the  Hebrews   on 
quitting  Egypt. 

*  inN  aclmr,  also  "I'lDS  achor.  The  spectator  was  supposed  to  be 
looking  towards  the  east,  hence  that  which  stood  behind  was  west, 
that  to  the  right  south,  that  to  the  left  north,  whilst  "  before"  signified 
the  east.  Michaelis,  Diss,  de  locormn  differentia,  ratione  anticce,  posficoi, 
dextrce,  sinistrce.  Hale,  1735.  Gesenius,  Le,x'.  Heh.  s.  v.  ^^N  acliar. 
t  Exod.  xviii.  27  ;  Num.  x.  29,  30. 
M  2 


ir,4  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

According  to  the  tradition  preserved  in  Exodus,  tlie 
Israelites  proceeded  into  the  wilderness  of  Shur,  and  tliey 
went  three  days  in  the  wilderness,  "  and  found  no  water  ;"* 
they  next  arrived  at  Marah,  where  to  their  mortification  the 
water  was  bitter  ;t  and  it  is  next  recorded  that  "  they  came 
to  Elim,  where  there  were  twelve  wells  of  water  and  three- 
score palm-trees,  and  they  encamped  there  by  the  waters  ;"t 
and  on  quitting  Elim  they  "  came  into  the  wilderness  of  Sin, 
which  is  between  Elim  and  SLnai."§  In  this  wilderness  the 
Israelites  murmured  in  consequence  of  want  of  food,  and 
received  manna  and  quails  ;||  and  on  journeying  from  the 
wilderness  of  Sin  "  they  pitched  in  Eephidim,"1[  where  there 
was  no  water  to  drink,  their  consequent  discontent  being 
removed  by  the  miraculous  supply  at  Horeb,  which  was 
Sinai.**  At  this  place,  whilst  encamped  at'  the  Mount  of 
God,  Jethro  came  to  meet  Moses,  bringing  with  liim  Zipporali 
and  her  two  sons ;  here  Jethro  offered  sacrifice,  and  praised 
Jahveh  as  greater  than  all  Gods,  and  here  a  solemn  league 
was  concluded  "  before  Crod,"  between  Aaron  and  the 
Israelitish  elders  and  Jethro  and  his  people.tt 

In  the  detailed  account  set  forth  in  tlie  thirty-third  chapter 
of  the  Book  of  Numbers  the  same  itinerary  is  followed.  On 
crossing  the  Red  Sea,  the  Israelites  went  three  days'  journey 
into  the  wilderness,  here,  however,  called  that  of  Etham, 
and  pitched  in  Marah  ;J|  removed  thence,  and  came  to 
Elim,  noted  for  its  fountains  and  ])alni-trees,§§  and  encamped 
by  the  Red  Sea  ;||||  thence  tliey  moved  into  the  wilderness 
of  Sin.li^  Two  camping-places  are  then  mentioned — not 
recorded  in  Exodus — Dophkah  and  Alush.***  On  quitting  the 


*  Exod.  XV,  22.               t  Exod.  xv.  23.  X  Exod.  xv.  27. 

§  Exod.  xvi.  I.               II  Exod.  xvi.  2-15.  IT  Exod.  xvii.  1. 

**  Exod.  xvii.  6.             ft  Exod.  xviii.  1-12.  %%  Num.  xxxiii.  8. 

§§  Num.  xxxiii.  9.         |{||  Num.  xxxiii.  10.  HI!  Num.  xxxiii.  11. 
♦**  Num.  xxxiii.  12,  13. 


FROM  EGYPT.  165 

latter  the  Israelites  halted  at  Eephidim,  where  there  was  no 
water  to  drink ;  and  having  departed  thence,  encamped  in 
the  wilderness  of  Sinai.*  A  number  of  stages  are  then 
mentioned  which,  with  very  few  exceptions,  rest  on  the 
sole  authority  of  the  compiler  of  this  itinerary,  and  are 
incapable  of  identification,  until  at  length  the  travellers 
appear  at  Ezion-gaber,  a  port  at  the  head  of  the  Gulf  of 
Akaba.t  From  this  point  tliey  are  conducted  into  the 
wilderness  of  Ziu,  which  is  Kadesh ;+  from  Kadesh  to 
Mount  Hor,  on  the  edge  of  the  land  of  Edom,§  and 
thence  they  pass,  by  way  of  Zalmonah,  Punon,  and  Oboth 
into  Moab.||  This  latter  portion  of  the  itinerary  would 
apparently  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  at  the  end  of  their 
journeyings  the  Israelites  proceeded  by  way  of  the  Araba, 
from  the  head  of  the  ^lanitic  Gulf,  past  Mount  Hor,  and 
entered  Moab  by  passing  tln^ough  northern  Edom,  or 
between  it  and  the  Dead  Sea. 

We  find  elsewhere  no  additional  information  respecting 
the  journeyings  of  the  Israelites  between  Egypt  and  Sinai, 
but  what  we  are  told  of  their  route  on  quitting  the  holy 
mountain  is  not  devoid  of  value.  For  the  purpose  of 
identifying  a  locality,  evidence  tending  to  fix  a  route  from  it 
is  as  valuable  as  evidence  respecting  a  route  towards  it. 

It  is  stated  that  "  the  children  of  Israel  took  their 
journeys  out  of  the  wilderness  of  Sinai,  and  the  cloud 
rested  in  the  wilderness  of  Paran."1[  Wliilst  encamped 
there,  the  spies  were  despatched,  "  and  they  searched  the 
land  from  the  wilderness  "of  Zin  unto  Eehob,  &c. ;"  and 
"  they  returned  and  came  to  all  the  congregation  of  Israel, 
unto  the  wilderness  of  Paran  to  Kadesh."**  These  state- 
ments would  point  to  the  conclusion  that  the  wildernesses  of 

*  Num.  xxxiii.  14,  15.  f  Num.  xxxiii.  35.  %  Num.xxxiii.  36. 

§  Num.  xxxiii.  37.         ||  Num.  xxxiii.  41-48.         IF  Num.  x.  12. 
**  Num.  xiii.  21-26. 


1 66  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

Sinai  and  of  Parau  and  of  Zin  were  in  close  proximity, 
and  that  Kadesli,  which  is  here  identified  with  the  wilder- 
ness of  Parau,  and  elsewhere  with  the  wilderness  of  Zin,* 
was  a  convenient  place  relatively  to  Canaan  from  which  the 
spies  could  set  forth.  Elsewhere,  however,  we  are  positively 
informed  that  Kadesh  was  on  tlie  border  of  Edom,  and  on 
its  western  side.t  If  it  was  from  Kadesh  that  the  spies 
were  sent  to  explore  Canaan,  it  was  equally  from  Kadesh 
that  messengers  were  despatched  to  request  a  free  passage  for 
the  Israelites  through  Edom. 

The  evidence  supplied  by  the  opening  chapters  of  the 
Book  of  Deuteronomy  is  singulai'ly  confirmatory  of  that  we 
have  just  examined.  We  are  told  nothing  of  the  jom-ney 
from  Egypt  to  Sinai,  or  Horeb  as  it  is  here  called ;  but 
Moses  is  represented  as  reminding  the  Israelites  of  their 
journey  on  quitting  the  Mount  of  God  :  "  AMien  we 
departed  from  Horeb,  we  went  through  all  that  gi'eat  and 
terrible  wilderness  wliich  ye  saw  by  the  way  of  the 
mountain  of  the  Amorites,  and  we  came  to  Kadesh-barnea."t 
Hei'e  the  spies  were  sent  forth. §  The  people  murmured 
when  they  returned  with  their  report  ;||  an  unsuccessful 
attack  was  made  on  the  Amorites,  who  destroyed  the 
Israelites  in  Seii-,  even  unto  Hormah.^  After  an  abode  in 
Kadesh  of  many  days,**  the  Israelites  "  turned  and  took 
theu'  journey  into  tlie  wilderness  by  way  of  the  lied  Sea, 
and  compassed  Mount  Seii-  many  days  ;tt  and  "  passed  by 
from  tlie  children  of  Esau,  which  dwelt  in  Seir,  through  the 
way  of  the  plain  from  Elatli,  and  from  Ezion-gaber,  and 
passed  by  tlie  way  of  the  wilderness  of  Moab."+l  Here  the 
jom-uey  from  Horeb  to  Kadesh-barnea  is  said  to  have  been 
through  "  a  great  and  terrible  wilderness,"  whicli  was  seen 


*  Num.  xxxiii.  36.  t  Num.  xx.  16.  %  Deut.  i.  19. 

§   Deut.  i.  22-25.  II  iJfiit.  i.  26.  U  Deut.  i.  43,  44. 

**  Deut.  i.  46.  ft  Deut.  ii.  i.  W  Deut.  ii.  8. 


FROM  EGYPT.  167 

by  way  of  the  mountain  of  the  Amorites,  which  latter  was 
contiguous  to  the  Iduma^an  mountains,  because  the  vic- 
torious Amorites  are  reported  as  having'pursued  the  IsraeKtes 
into  Seii'.*  Nothing  is  said  of  the  time  occupied  in 
the  journey  from  Horeb  to  Kadesh-barnea,  nor  are  any 
stations  mentioned  between  these  places.  A  statement  is 
made  elsewhere,  wliich  is  so  singularly  disconnected  with 
the  matter  wliich  precedes  and  follows  it,  that  it  has  all  the 
appearance  of  an  interpolation  by  even  a  still  later  writer  than 
the  compiler  of  the  introductory  chapters  of  Deuteronomy : 
"  There  are  eleven  days'  journey  from  IJoreb  by  the  way  of 
Mount  Sen-  unto  Kadesh-barnea."t  It  would  be  interesting 
to  know  the  circumstances  under  which  this  gloss  was  in- 
serted, and  where  were  situated  the  Horeb  and  the  Kadesh- 
barnea  which  were  present  to  the  -vvriter's  mind. 

Now,  let  us  examine  more  attentively  the  account  of  the 
route  taken  by  the  Israelites  on  entering  the  wilderness,  and 
ascertain  whether  here,  if  nowhere  else,  we  can  find  any 
indications  that  the  Mount  of  God  stood  in  the  Sinaitic 
peninsula.  AU  the  evidence  hitherto  has  led  us  to  place  it 
in  the  Idumiean  mountains.  Is  this  evidence  set  aside  or 
confirmed  by  aU  that  tradition  has  preserved  to  us  of  the 
direction  taken  by  the  escaped  captives  on  quitting 
Egypt  ? 

According  to  the  tradition  in  Exodus,  the  Israelites  went 
three  days  into  the  wilderness  of  Shur,  without  finding  water ; 
they  were  more  successful  when  they  arrived  at  Marah, 
but  the  water  was  extreniely  bitter ;  and  they  then  pro- 
ceeded to  Elim,  where  they  found  twelve  fountains  and  seventy 
palm-trees,  and    "  they    encamped    there    by    the    -waters." 


*  The  word  nbX  amori,  which  is  always  used  in  the  singular, 
Amorite,  signities  "  a  dweller  on  the  heights"— a  highlauder  ;  it  does  not 
api)ear  to  have  been  always  used  as  the  designation  of  a  distinct  tribe. 

t  Deut.  i.  2. 


1 68  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION. 

The  same  account  is  given  in  the  Itinerary  in  the  Book 
of  Numbers,  save  that  the  wilderness  of  Shur  is  called  that 
of  Etliam  ;  and  tlie  ambiguity  of  the  statement  tliat  when 
at  Elim  tlie  Israelites  encamped  by  the  waters,  is  cleared 
away  by  tlie  information  that  Elim  was  by  the  Eed  Sea. 

Where  was  the  mlderness  of  Shur  into  which  the 
Israelites  made  what  is  termed  a  tliree  days'  journey  ?  On 
tliis  point  we  possess  information  from  several  sources.  The 
descendants  of  Ishmael  are  said  to  have  "  dwelt  from 
Havilah  unto  Shur,  that  is  before  Egypt,  as  thou  goest  toward 
Assyria."*  Abraham  is  said  to  have  "dwelt  between  Kadesh 
and  Shur,  and  sojourned  in  Gerar,"t  Shur  being  necessarily  on 
the  west  and  Kadesh  on  tlie  east  of  the  region  occupied 
by  the  patriarch.  Saul  is  described  as  having  "  smote  the 
Amalekites  from  Ha\ilah  until  thou  comest  to  Shur,  that 
is  over  against  Egypt  ;"j  and  David  is  said  to  have  "invaded" 
several  tribes  which  had  been  in  early  times  "  tlie  inhabi- 
tants of  the  land  as  thou  goest  to  Shur,  even  unto  the  land 
of  Egypt  \\  that  is  to  say,  the  country  which  the  traveller 
would  pass  through  on  his  road  from  Judali  to  Egypt.  It  is 
therefore  clear  that  Shur  stood  somewhere  to  the  east  of 
Egypt.  The  wilderness  of  Shur  must  consequently  have  formed 
at  least  part  of  tlie  region  of  the  Till,  a  position,  we  may 
add,  which  is  generally,  if  not  indeed  universally,  assigned 
to  it. 

The  expression  "  three  days'  journey"  must  not  be  taken 
literally.  Elsewhere  we  have  seen  it  used  to  convey  the 
idea  of  a  journey  occupying  a  brief  but  undefined  term,||  and 


*  Gen.  XXV.  i8.  This  passage  is  somewhat  ambiguous.  It  means, 
as  is  most  probable,  that  a  traveller  from  Judiea  to  Assyria  would 
descend  the  Araba,  and  thus  have  on  his  right  hand  between  him  and 
Kgypt  the  plateau  of  Et  Tib,  known  as  the  vu'dbhar  of  Shur.  If  the 
traveller  cross  the  Jordan  on  his  way  to  Assyria,  this  reference  to 
Sliur  and  Egypt  is  unintelligible. 

t  Gen.  XX.  i.        %  i  Sam.  xv.  7.        §  i  Sam.  xxvii.  8.        ||  Exod.  v.  3. 


FROM  EGYPT.  169 

probably  corresponded  to  the  English  idiom  of  "  a  few  days." 
Independently  of  this  consideration,  it  is  needless  to  say 
tradition  does  not  preserve  a  record  of  minute  divisions  of 
time.  All  that  we  can  reasonably  conclude  is,  that  the 
Hebrews  journeyed  in  the  wilderness  of  Sliur  for  some  days 
without  finding  water.  As  they  did  not  go  to  Canaan  by  the 
nearest  way,  they  must  consequently  have  followed  an 
easterly  or  a  south-easterly  course.  The  former  would 
have  led  them  across  the  Tih  along  a  route  varying,  perhaps, 
but  little  from  that  followed  annually  by  the  Egyptian  Hajj 
on  the  way  to  Mecca.  The  latter  would  have  taken  them 
into  the  Sinaitic  peninsula.  The  "  three  days'  jom^ney"  into 
the  wilderness  of  Shur  raises,  however,  a  strong  presump- 
tion that  they  must  have  taken  the  easterly  route,  because 
in  order  to  enter  the  Sinaitic  region  they  would  have  been 
compelled,  immediately  after  crossing  the  Egyptian  frontier, 
to  turn  southwards  and  pass  between  the  Suez  Gulf  and  the 
western  declivities  of  that  semilunar  wall  of  the  Tih 
plateau  which  has  been  described  as  stretching  across  the 
peninsida  between  the  respective  heads  of  the  two  Gulfs  of 
the  Eed  Sea.* 

Having  been  for  some  days  in  want  of  water,  the  Israelites 
reached  Marah,  with  its  bitter  spring,  and  the  next  place  of 
sufficient  importance  on  their  journey  to  retain  a  place  in 
their  memory  was  ELim,  with  its  fountains  and  its  palm- 
trees,  on  the  shores  of  the  Eed  Sea.  Where  was  Elim,  the 
first  place  at  which  the  Hebrews  appear  to  have  found  a 
suitable  camping-gTound  frorii  the  time  that  they  entered 
the  wilderness  of  Shur  ? 


*  "  There  can  be  no  dispute  as  to  the  general  track  of  the  IsraeUtes 
after  the  passage.  If  they  were  to  enter  the  mountains  (Sinaitic)  at 
all,  they  must  continue  in  the  route  of  all  travellers  between  the  sea 
and  the  table-land  of  the  Tih,  till  they  entered  the  low  hills  of 
Ghurundel"  (Stanley,  S.  and  P.,  p.  27)-  Nor  can  there  be  any  dispute 
about  this,  if  it  be  conceded  that  they  entered  the  Sinaitic  region. 


1 70  THE  HKBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

The  word  Eliin  signifies  "  trees,"  or  probably  "  pabu- 
trees,"  being  one  of  the  jDlural  forms  of  El,  which  is  only 
once  used  in  the  singular,  in  the  expression  El  Paran.* 
Another  plui-al  form  of  the  same  word  is  Elath,  sometimes 
written  Eloth.t  Elim,  as  applied  to  a  place,  is  only  found 
in  the  passages  in  Exodus  and  Numbers  to  which  we  are 
now  dii-ecting  attention.^  Elath  is  spoken  of  in  Deutero- 
nomy as  one  of  the  stations  of  the  Israelites  when  encom- 
passing Edom,§  and  is  more  particularly  described  in  the 
historical  books  as  a  port  at  the  head  of  the  eastern  arm  of 
the  Red  Sea.||  No  mention  is  made  of  Elath  in  the  records 
which  contain  references  to  Elim,  and  none  to  Elim  in  those 
in  which  we  find  Elath  spoken  of.  This  is  all  the  more 
remarkable  in  the  list  of  the  journeys  in  the  Book  of 
Numbers,  from  its  apparent  exhaustiveness  and  perspicuity 
of  detail.  The  waiter  includes  in  the  list  of  stations  Ezion- 
gaber,  which  in  Deuteronomy  is  placed  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Elath,  but  nevertheless  omits  to  mention  the  latter 
place. 

Of  tlie  locality  of  the  Elath  referred  to  in  Deuteronomy 
and  the  historical  books  there  is  no  doubt  whatever.  Situated 


*  Gen.  xiv.  6. 

t  Dp^N  EHin,  nVs  Elath,  n^^X  Elofh,  are  so  many  plural  forms  of 
7^S  El,  which  amongst  other  significations  has  that  of  a  tree,  hence 
rendered  in  the  plural  a  palm  tjrove.  'This  word  has  been  regarded, 
even  by  those  who  seem  never  to  have  suspected  the  identity  of  Elim 
with  Elath,  as  applicable  to  both  places;  Elim,  on  account  of  its 
seventy  palm-trees ;  Elath,  because  the  port  at  the  head  of  the  Gulf 
of  Akaba  was  noted  for  the  i:)alm  grove  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the 
fortress  (Fiirst,  Led:.  Ileh.,  on  meaning  of  both  words).  Gesenius  notes 
also  the  api)licability  of  the  name  Elim  to  the  station  at  which  tlie 
IsraeUtes  encamped,  whilst  in  referring  to  Elath,  besides  noting  the 
palm  grove  near  the  castle  of  Akaba,  directs  attention  to  the  Arabic 
interpretation  of  1  Kings  ix.  26.  "And  Solomon  built  ships  (ijt  sylva 
Wal)  in  the  grove  Wal  near  the  city  of  Elath"  (Ges.,  Thesaurus,  a.  v. 
Elath). 

X  Exod.  XV.  27  ;  Num.  xxxiii.  9.  §  Dout.  ii.  S. 

II  I  King.s  ix.  26;  2  Kings  xiv.  22  ;  xvi.  6. 


FROM  EGYPT.  171 

at  the  head  of  the  Eastern  Gulf  of  the  Eed  Sea,  known  to 
the  Greeks  as  'EXai/a,  and  subsequently  converted  by  the 
Eomans  into  Haila  or  ^la,  it  gave  the  name  to  the  gulf  on 
whose  shores  it  stood — Sinus  ^laniticus.  It  became  a  place 
of  considerable  importance  in  the  reign  of  Solomon,'''  its 
value  was  recognised  under  the  Koman  rule,  and  during  the 
Byzantine  supremacy  it  was  an  Episcopal  See.  It  was  one 
of  the  few  spots  in  the  world  where,  in  early  times.  Chris- 
tians and  Jews  succeeded  in  living  in  amity,  this  friendly 
relationship  being  continued  after  the  region  fell  under  the 
Moslem  sway.t  Its  commercial  importance  as  a  seaport  has 
long  been  a  tiling  of  the  past,  and  for  several  centm-ies  it 
has  been  known  only  as  a  station  of  the  Egyptian  Hajj. 
The  name  has  been  changed  from  Aila  to  Akaba,  the  latter 
being  also  the  designation  given  to  the  steep  and  gloomy 
defile  which  at  this  point  cleaves  the  wall  of  the  Till,  and 
through  which  the  caravan  descends  fi'om  the  table-land  to 
the  sea-shore.  The  gulf  formerly  known  as  the  ^lanitic  is 
now  called  that  of  Akaba. 

Though  all  traces  of  the  former  gi'eatness  of  Elath  have 
vanished,  the  natm-al  characteristics  of  the  place  vary  but 
little  from  those  by  which  it  was  known  in  the  earliest 
times.  A  few  hundred  yards  from  the  shore  at  present 
stands  a  dilapidated  castle,  which  affords  shelter  to  a  garrison 
of  some  thirty  or  forty  Egyptian  soldiers.  Close  by  is  a 
grove  of  date-bearing  palm-trees.  The  neighbourhood  is 
extremely  fertile,  and,  it  is  stated  on  ancient  Arabian  autho- 
rity, J  was   in    more  prosperous  times  distinguished  by   its 


*  lu  paraphrasing  the  account  in  i  Kings  ix.  26,  Joseplius  writes, 
"  The  king  built  many  ships  in  the  Egyptian  bay  of  the  Red  Sea,  in  a 
certain  place  called  Ezion-gaber.  It  is  now  called  Berenice,  and  is  not 
far  from  the  city  of  Eloth  (AtXai/;/)."  Josephus  evidently  regarded  the 
Sinaitic  peninsula  as  part  of  Egypt. 

t  Ritter,  Erdkiuulf,  xiv.  296. 

+  Isstachri,  cited  by  Ritter,  Erdkuude,  xiv.  302. 


1 72  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

numerous  gardens.  Water  is  abundant.  A  deep  well 
within  the  walls  of  the  castle  supplies  the  wants  of  the 
gairison,  but  the  traveller  who  takes  the  trouble  of  scooping 
up  the  gravel  of  the  beach  is  rewarded  with  a  plentiful 
supply  of  fresh  water.  There  are  no  streamlets  from  the 
neighbouring   mountains    on    the   east ;  the   rainfall  would 

seem  to  be  absorbed  in  the  gravelly  soil  before  reaching  the 

* 
sea. 

If  a  person  of  ordinary  intelligence,  who  had  never  heard 
of  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  was  forced  to  content  himself 
with  the  evidence  supplied  by  the  records  and  the  traditions 
of  the  Jewish  people  respecting  the  course  taken  by  the 
Israelites  on  quitting  Egypt,  it  is  impossible  to  imagine  he 
could  arrive  at  any  other  conclusion  than  that  Elim,  with 
its  fountains  and  its  palm-trees,  was  the  Elath  of  later 
times.  The  necessities  of  the  hybrid  Coptic  legend,  how- 
ever, rendered  it  essential  that  the  Israelites  should  be 
dragged  dowai  into  the  desolate  region  lying  to  the  south  of 
the  Till,  and  Elim  with  its  fountains  and  palm-trees  had  to 
be  discovered  and  placed  by  the  shore  of  the  Suez  Gulf. 

It  would  be  foreign  to  our  purpose  to  follow  the  wander- 
ings, not  of  the  Israelites,  but  of  the  many  curious  and  pious 
persons  who  since  Cosmas  Indicopleustisf  and  Antonmus 
Martyr|  have  visited  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  and  accepted 
with  credulity  the  stories  of  ignorant  monks,  or  by  personal 
investigation  brouglit  themselves  to  believe  that  they  had 
determined  with  precision  the  track  of  the  released  captives, 


*  Accouuta  of  Akaba  will  be  found  in  the  works  of  Riippell,  Laborde, 
Robinson,  Stanley,  Rittcr,  Burton,  and  others.  Stanley  says  :  "  Akaba 
stands  on  the  site  of  the  ancient  Elath — the  Palm  Trees — so  called 
from  its  beautiful  grove"  (S.  and  P.  p.  84). 

f  Cosmas  Indicopleustis,  Christ.  Topogr.  sive  Christianorum  de 
niundo  opinio,  in  Bern,  do  Montfaucon,  Collectio  Nova  Patrum,  8fc. 
Paris,  1706. 

+  ItiiwraelDescriptionesl'crrceSanclai.     Genevas,  1S77. 


FROM  EGYPT.  173 

and  ascertained  the  exact  stations  at  which  they  halted  on 
their  route.  One  and  all  set  forth  with  a  postulate  the 
accuracy  of  which  they  never  dreamed  of  questioning,  and 
once  landed  in  the  Sinaitic  region,  that  region  was  obliged 
to  accommodate  itself  to  the  exigencies  of  the  Jewish  tra- 
ditions. The  land  of  Midian  was  carried  westwards  from 
beyond  the  Idumaean  mountains  and  vElanitic  Gulf  in  order 
to  enable  the  shepherd  Moses  to  stray  with  liis  flock  on 
the  Mount  of  God.  The  Amalekites  who  inhabited  the 
mountainous  region  at  the  south-west  of  the  Dead  Sea, 
were  exceptionally  transported  across  the  Tih  steppe  in  order 
to  be  vanquished  by  the  Israelites,''^  within  sight  of  the 
waters  of  Suez.  The  barren  crags  of  the  Sinaitic  range 
were  clothed  in  fancy  mth  pristine  verdure  to  tempt  Jethro 
from  the  land,  to  which  he  subsequently  returned,  and  to 
feed  the  flocks  which  accompanied  the  Israelites  on  quitting 
Egypt.  In  a  word,  whenever  the  narrative  and  the  facts 
failed  to  correspond,  the  curious  and  the  pious  investigators 
unanimously  decided  that  it  was  so  much  the  worse  for  the 
facts.  And  to  this  conclusion  they  were  necessarily  driven 
by  the  premises  from  which  they  started. 

And  yet  there  was  much  which  was  calculated  to  arouse 
the  suspicion  that  the  retreating  Hebrews  could  not  have 
entered  the  Sinaitic  peninsula.  It  is  alike  opposed  to 
probabiKty  and  to  fact  to  assume  that  the  territory  of 
Egypt,  and  the  dominion  of  the  Pharaohs,  tenninated  on  the 
east  at  an  imaginary  line  drawn  from,  the  head  of  the  Gulf 
of  Suez  to  the  Mediterraneant  Sea.  It  is  generally  taken  for 
granted  that  when  the  Israelites  crossed  the  Eed  Sea  they 
found  themselves  beyond  the  reach  of  molestation  by  their 
former  opf)ressors,  and  free  to  roam  through  a  region  unoc- 
cupied, save  by  some  wandering  Bedouin  tribe.      It  would 

*  Exod.  xvii.  8-13. 


174  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

seem  to  he  supposed  tliat  tlie  Egyj)tians  never  liad  tlie 
curiosity  to  pass  round  tlie  head  of  tlie  Suez  (lulf,  and  to 
explore  the  opposite  coast ;  or  the  enterprise  to  utilise  its 
harbours,  and  to  develop  the  resources,  if  any,  of  the  ad- 
joining littoral.  It  is,  however,  placed  beyond  the  pale  of 
dispute  that  they  did  both  the  one  and  the  other  many  long 
centuries  before  the  captivity  of  the  Israelites  commenced, 
and  when  the  tradition  of  Abraham's  visit  to  Egypt  was 
still  unknown  to  the  Semitic  tribes. 

If  the  traveller  from  Suez  bent  on  visiting  the  Sinaitic 
mountains  deviates  a  very  little  from  his  course  whilst 
passing  between  the  south-western  corner  of  the  Till  and 
the  shore  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez,  a  very  curious  spectacle  meets 
his  view.  A  small  valley  bearing  to  his  left  in  an  easterly 
direction,  will  lead  him  to  a  somewhat  steep  hill.  On 
ascending  tliis  hill,  he  will  see  what  at  first  strikes  him  as  a 
cemetery.  The  surface  of  the  gi"ound  is  covered  with  stones, 
from  five  to  seven  feet  in  length,  some  upright,  some  lying 
on  the  ground,  the  former  standing  on  jiediments.  The 
stones  are  rectangular  in  shape,  rounded  at  the  top,  and 
covered  on  all  sides  with  hieroglyphics.  In  the  midst  of  these 
steles  are  seen  the  ruins  of  a  building.  The  shafts  of  the 
pillars  which  project  above  the  rubbish,  and  the  inner  sur- 
face of  the  walls  are  deeply  carved  with  Egyptian  characters. 
Close  by  are  three  catacombs  hewn  out  of  the  rock, 
apparently  for  the  reception  of  mummies,  the  interior  being 
also  covered  with  hieroglyphics.  To  the  east  and  M-est  of  the 
ruined  temj)le  are  found  largo  mounds  of  slag,  the  produce  of 
smelting  operations  conducted  at  tliis  place  thousands  of 
years  ago,  the  copper  mines  which  su] (plied  the  ore  being 
found  in  the  neighl)ouring  mountains.  This  ivinarkable  place 
is  called  Sarbut  el  Khadem. 

Egyptologists  declare  that  the  oldest  inscriptions  found 
here  carry  us  as  far  l(ack  as  the  twelfth  Manethonic  dviiustv 


FROM  EGYPT.  175 

(the  last  of  the  old  monarchy),  anterior  to  2000  B.C.,  whilst 
the  latest   stele  exhibits  the   shields  of  the  last  king  of  the 
nineteenth  dynasty,  a  monarch  who  reigned  probably  a  short 
time  after  the   Exodus   of   the  Hebrews.      Speaking  gene- 
rally, the  copper  mines  in  the  mountainous  region  on  the 
western  side  of  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  through  which    the 
Israelites   must  have  passed   if   they  entered  this  country, 
were,  according  to  the  steles  of  Sarbut  el  Khadem,  worked 
by  the  Egyptians   for   at  least  a  thousand  years  before  the 
Israelites   quitted  Egypt,  and  appear   to   have   been     con- 
tinuously worked  down  to  the  very  time  of  their  departm^e. 
To  the  south-west  of  Sarbut  el   Khadem,   but  separated 
from  it  by  a  hilly  range,  is  a  gorge  called  the  Wady  Mag- 
hara.     This  gorge  opens  into  the  broad  valley  known  as  the 
Wady  Mokkateb,  or  "  valley  of  inscriptions,"  which  affords  to 
the  traveller   the  easiest  route  for  penetrating  the  Sinaitic 
region,  and  would  proba1;)ly  have  been  turned  to  account  by 
the  Israelites  if  they  entered  the  peninsida.      In  the  Wady 
Maghara   are  found  the   traces  of   copper  mines  worked  in 
ancient  times,  whilst  on  the  rocks  overhanging  the  excavations 
made  in  search  of  ore  have  been  discovered  designs  belono-- 
ing  to  the   earliest  class  of  Egyptian   antiquities.       These 
prove,  according  to  tlie  statements  of  Egyptologists,  that  these 
mines   were  worked  before  the  pyramids   of  Ghizeh  were 
reared,   or   more    than     three    thousand   years    before    the 
Christian  era ! 

It  is  therefore  abundantly  evident,  if  the  Israelites  having 
either  passed  round  or  crossed  the  head  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez 
took  a  south-easterly  direction  and  entered  the  Sinaitic 
region,  they  must  have  passed  through  territory  occupied 
by  the  Egyptians.  If  the  departure  was  hostile,  it  is  scarcely 
conceivable  that  their  leader  would  have  taken  them  by  this 
route,  and  still  less  so  that  they  should  have  passed  un- 
molested,  or  at    least    without   some  event    happening  in 


176  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

connection  with  the  Egyptians  worthy  of  being  preserved  in 
tradition.  If  the  departure  was  permissive  these  difficulties 
do  not  arise,  and  we  would  simply  be  left  to  deal  with  the 
broad  questipn  whether  the  evidence  indicates  that  the 
Israelites  entered  the  peninsula.  We  cannot,  however,  avoid 
noticing  the  significant  silence  in  the  Mosaic  books  respecting 
the  Egyptian  occupation  of  the  region  which  they  traversed. 
This  is  considered  by  some  conclusive  that  the  hieroglyphic 
inscriptions  at  Sarbut  el  Khadem  and  in  the  Wady  Maghara 
are  of  a  later  date  than  the  Exodus.  The  unprejudiced 
will  see  in  it  another  proof  that  the  peninsula  was  never 
visited  by  the  departing  Israelites.  "^^ 

However  ingenious  may  be  the  explanations  offered  for 
the  unopposed  entrance  of  the  Israelites  tlirough  Egyptian 
territory  into  the  heart  of  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  and  for 
the  silence  of  the  Hebrew  traditions  respecting  the  Egyptian 
colonists,  the  difficulty  raised  by  tlie  reported  A-ictory  of 
the  Israelites  over  the  Amalekites  is  not  so  easily  disposed 
of.  This  battle  is  supposed  to  have  been  fought  at 
Rephidim,t  'which  was  a  station  between  Elim  and  Sinai. 
If,  however,  the  latter  mountain  was  in  the  peninsula  which 
now  bears   the  name,  the  battle  must  liave  been  fought  in 


*  Laborde  was  sorely  exercised  by  the  silence  of  Moses  in  this 
respect,  and  he  therefore  incontinently  rejected  the  alleged  antiquity 
of  the  memorials.  Had  they  existed  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus, 
Laborde,  with  a  not  unjust  appreciation  of  the  Hebrew  character, 
suggested  that  the  Israelites  would  have  plundered  the  colonists,  over- 
turned the  memorials,  and  sung  a  song  to  celebrate  their  victory 
{Conip.  Geog.  sur  VExode,  Paris,  1841,  fol.  p.  131,  app.  pp.  9-17)- 
Rittcr  was  also  staggered  by  the  absence  of  any  allusion  to  the 
Egyptian  settlements,  and  thus  explains  the  difficulty  :  "  It  was  by  no 
means  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  Israelites  turned  out  of  their  way 
to  Sarbut  cl  Klaadem — a  point  so  difficult  to  reach;  or  if  they  took  the 
lower  route,  that  they  went  up  the  Wady  Maghara  as  far  as  the 
Egyptian  settlements  there"  {Erdkundc,  xiv.  802). 
t  Exod.  xvii.  8-1 6. 


FROM  EGYPT.  177 

its  western  section,  and  within  the  region  bounded  on  the 
north-east  by  the  semilunar  wall  of  the  Tih,  and  on 
the  west  and  south  by  the  Suez  Gulf.  But  this  was  the 
very  region  which  is  indisputably  proved  to  have  been 
occupied  at  the  time  by  Egyptian  colonists. 

But  who  were  these  Amalekites,  and  what  ground  is  there 
for  believing  that  either  on  this  or  on  any  other  occasion 
they  were  found  in  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  ?  Amalek  was, 
according  to  tradition,  a  grandson  of  Esau  and  one  of  the 
Dukes  of  Edom.*  The  connection  with  Edom  was  never 
completely  lost,  Josephus  frequently  treating  Edomites 
and  Amalekites  as  apparently  identical.f  The  Amalekites, 
however,  were  to  be  found  to  the  south-east  of  Canaan,  for 
the  spies  on  returning  to  Kadesh  reported  that  they,  together 
with  the  Canaanites,  barred  the  route  by  which  the  Israelites 
at  first  proposed  to  enter  the  promised  land.|  In  later  times 
Saul  conducted  a  campaign  against  them,  and  having 
first  induced  the  Kenites,  who  were  an  Idumaan  tribe,  to 
sever  then-  connection  with  the  Amalekites,  he  "  smote  them 
fromHavilah  unto  Shur,  which  is  over  against  Egypt  ;"5  that 
is,  throughout  the  great  region  traditionally  assigned  to  the 
descendants  of  Ishmael.||  This  is  simply  the  language  of 
Oriental  exaggeration,  and  only  means  that  the  king  of 
Israel  fought  a  successful  battle  with  some  nomadic  tribes 
under  the  leadership  of  the  Amalekite  king.  It  is  not 
suggested  that  the  campaign  was  carried  into  the  Sinaitic 
peninsula.  If  the  captive  king  and  the  herds  were  brought 
to  the  camp  of  the  Israelites  at'  Gilgal,1[  which  was  on  the; 
right  bank  of  tlie  Jordan,  this  victory  could  not  have  taken 
place  at  a  great  distance  from  that  spot."* 


** 


*  Gen.  xxxvi.  12.  ^  A.  J.  ix.  9.  1-2.  %  Num.  xiii.  29. 

§  I  Sam.  XV.  7,  II  Gen.  xxv.  18.  IT  i  Sam.  xv.  12. 

**  A  mount  of  the  Amalekites  is  referred  to  during  tlie  period  of  the 
Judges  as  being  in  the  land  of  Ephraim  (Jud.  xii.  1  5\ 

N 


1 78  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

Now,  after  allowing  the  widest  latitude  for  the  assumed 
nomadic  habits  of  the  Amalekites,  is  it  within  the  bomids 
of  possiliility  that  they  should  have  been  encountered  by 
the  Israelites  at  the  entrance  to  the  Sinaitic  region  south  of 
the  Tih,  ready  to  give  battle,  without  any  apparent  object, 
to  a  host,  as  we  are  asked  to  believe,  numbering  more  tlian 
half  a  million  fighting  men  ;  and  that  only  a  year  later  (if  so 
much)  this  ubiquitous  and  irrepressible  tribe,  notwithstand- 
ing their  defeat,  again  confronted  the  Israelites  in  the 
mountainous  region  to  the  south-east  of  Canaan,  and  utterly 
defeated  them,  "  chasing  them,  as  bees  do,  and  destroying 
them  in  Seir,  even  unto  Hormah  ?"*  If,  as  is  stated,  a  battle 
was  fought  between  the  Israelites  and  Amalekites  not  far 
from  Mount  Sinai,  is  it  not  evident  from  all  we  can  gather 
respecting  the  Amalekites,  the  Egyptians,  and  the  mountain, 
that  the  battle  could  not  have  been  fought  nor  the  moun- 
tain have  been  situated  in  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  ? 

It  might  at  least  be  expected  that  those  who  treat  as 
indisputable  the  passage  of  the  Israelites  through  the  Sinaitic 
peninsida  would  be  able  to  point  with  something  approach- 
ing unanimity  to  the  more  noteworthy  of  the  stations  men- 
tioned in  the  ancient  narratives,  that  they  would  refer  to 
the  still  existing  traces  of  ancient  names,  and  that  they 
would  \\\\\\  tiiuiii])li;iut  acclamation  indicate  the  mountain 
which  was  honoured  by  the  visiljle  presence  of  the  Almighty. 
It  might  also  be  not  unreasonably  hoped,  that  having  led  the 
Israelites  from  Egypt  into  tlie  midst  of  the  Sinaitic  region,  they 
wduld  also  lead  them  out  again  l»y  a  route  t)f  whicli  some 
faint  indications  might  be  found  in  the  Hebrew  traditions. 
Singularly  enough,  however,  not  one  of  these  modest  ex])ec- 
tations  is  realised. 

Those   who   take    the   trouble   of   reading  a   few  of  tlie 


*  Numb.  xiv.  45  ;  Deut.  i.  44. 


FROM  EGYPT.  179 

multitudinous  works  on  the  Hebrew  Exodus  will  be  amply- 
recompensed  by  the  versatility  displayed  by  the  authors  in 
determining  each  for  himself  the  course  taken  by  the 
Israelites.  Marah,  the  station  where  the  bitter  water  was 
found,  is  placed  by  some  at  Howara,  by  others  at  Ghu- 
rundel ;  whilst,  according  to  a  third  authority,  it  is  to  be  found 
at  a  place  distinct  from  the  two."^  Elim,  with  its  palm- 
trees  and  fountains,  is  unhesitatingly  placed  by  one  authority 
in  the  Wady  Ghurundel  ;t  whilst  another,  no  less  celebrated, 
identifies  it  with  the  harbour  of  Abu  Zelemah,  on  the 
eastern  coast  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez.|  Some  declare  it  is  to 
be  found  in  the  Wady  Useit ;  others  are  no  less  positive 
that  it  stood  in  the  Wady  Tayibeh.  The  Wady  Feiran  is 
confidently  claimed,  on  the  strength  of  some  fancied  resem- 
blance in  the  name,  as  identical  with  the  Pharan  or  Paran 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of 
Sinai,  and  the  same  authority  has  no  hesitation  in  declarino- 
that  the  neighbouring  mountain — Serbal — was  the  Mount  of 
God.§  Others  go  farther  afield,  and  discover  the  true 
Sinai  in  one  of  the  three  summits  of  the  Jebel  Musa  block — 
Om  Shomar,  St.  Catherine,  and  Eas  Sufsaveh.  Each  moun- 
tain has  its  traditions  and  its  shrines,  and  it  may  with 
perfect  truth  be  said  that  the  claims  preferred  on  behalf  of 
one  are  quite  as  good  as  those  advanced  for  any  of  the 
others.  1 1 

Having,    however    arbitrarily,    and    with    however  little 


*  "  Marah  must  be  either  Howara  or  Ghurundel ;  Elim  must  be 
Ghurundel,  Useit,  or  Tayibeh." — Stanley,  S.  ayid,  P.,  p.  37. 

t  Robinson,  Bib.  Bes.        X  Lepsius. 

§  Le-psins' Letters  from  Egypt.  Let.  33.  Burchardt  held  the  same 
opinion  about  Serbal. 

II  Captain  Burton,  not  inaptly,  thus  sums  up  the  claims  of  each  of 
the  various  mountains  in  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  to  be  "  the  true  Sinai." 
"  It  is  evident  that  Jebel  Serbal  dates  only  from  the  early  days  of 
Coptic  Christianity,  that  Jebel  Musa,  its  Greek  rival,  rose  after  the 

N   2 


i8o  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

unanimity,  followed  the  track  of  the  Israelites  from  the  Red 
Sea  to  IVIount  Sinai,  the  most  painstaking  confess  that  they 
are  unable  to  follow  them  any  farther."'^  There  is  not  even  a 
pretence  of  identifying  the  course  followed  on  the  long  and 
weary  road,  which  must  have  been  traversed  by  the  Israelites 
if  they  made  their  way  from  any  of  tlie  mountains  in  the 
Sinaitic  peninsula  to  Kadesh,  the  place  identified  with  the 
\nlderness  of  Paran  and  of  Zin,  from  which  the  spies  set 
forth  to  explore  the  land,  and  w^here  the  Israelites  awaited 
their  return.  The  difficulty  has  been  ascribed  to  reticence 
in  the  Hebrew  traditions.  The  true  explanation  is  to  be 
found  in  the  fact  that  there  was  no  such  journey  under- 
taken.    There  was  no  story  to  tell. 

Let  us  now  join  the  Israelites  at  a  stage  in  their  journey 
which  is  accepted  on  all  hands — the  region  at  the  head  of 
the  Gulf  of  Suez  ;  and  dismissing  from  our  notice,  as  if  it 
were  non-existent,  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  inquire  whether 
not  only  an  intelligible,  but  in  many  respects  a  circumstantial, 
account  of  their  route  is  not  supplied  from  their  departure 
from  Egypt  to  their  arrival  at  Mount  Sinai ;  and  thence 
(after  their  attempt  to  enter  Palestine)  on  their  march  round 
the  south  "  coast"  of  Edom  to  the  liorder  of  the  Arabian 
desert,  on  their  way  to  IMoab. 

Having  reached  the  edge  of  the  wilderness,t  the  Israelites 
entered   the   wilderness  of  Shur.;|;      During  "a  three  days' 


visions  of  Helena  in  the  fourth  century  while  the  building  of  the 
convent  by  Justinian  belongs  to  a.d.  527.  Ras  Sufsaveh,  its  rival  to 
the  north,  is  an  atfair  of  yesterday,  and  may  be  called  the  invention  of 
Robinson;  and  Jebel  Katerina,  tothesouth,  is  the  property  of  Ruppell" 
{Midian  Revisited,  i.  237). 

*  "  So  tar  as  concerns  the  route  taken  by  the  children  of  Israel,  we 
are  able  to  indicate  with  a  feeling  of  certainty  (?)  but  three  or  four 
stations,  and  trace  them  to  Serbal  or  to  Sinai ;  but  after  the  time 
that  they  received  the  Law,  their  course  is  to  us  terra  incognita,  and 
rests  on  mere  hypothesis"  (Ritter,  Erdkunde,  xiv.  729). 
f  Exod.  xiii.  20.  J  Exod.  xv.  22. 


FROM  EGYPT.  iSi 

journey"  they  sought  in  vain  for  water,  and  subsequently 
they  came  to  Marah,  with  its  bitter  spring.*  We  cannot 
expect  to  discover  with  certainty  each  place  preserved  in 
the  Hebrew  traditions,  but  those  who  set  store  by  striking 
resemblances  will  probably  have  no  difficulty  in  satisfying 
themselves  of  the  identity  of  the  spot  where  the  weary  and 
parched  Israelites  found  the  bitter  water. 

In  the  year  1658  Thevenot  crossed  the  plateau  from 
Suez  to  Akaba,  and  gave  an  account  of  the  Hajj  stations. 
The  entire  journey  occupied  six  days,  of  which  sixty-seven 
hours  were  spent  in  travelling.!  The  first  day,  of  seven  and 
a  half  hours,  no  water  was  found ;  the  second  day,  of  ten 
hours,  the  result  was  the  same ;  but  the  third  day  brouglit  the 
traveller  to  Kalaat-el-Nakhl,  which  may  be  considered  the 
half-way  house  of  the  caravan  across  the  desert.  Here  was 
a  palm  grove,  a  castle  for  the  protection  of  the  pilgrims,  and 
a  well  of  excellent  water.  On  the  fourth  day,  of  fourteen 
hours,  Thevenot  reached  Abiar  Alaina,  where  he  noted  that 
the  water  was  bitter  ;  on  the  fifth  day  he  arrived  at  the  top 
of  the  pass  leading  downwards  to  Akaba  ;  and  on  the  sixth 
he  reached  Akaba,  the  ancient  Elath,  on  the  head  of  the 
Gidf.| 

In  1 72 1  Dr.  Shaw  made  the  journey  from  Suez  to  Akaba 
in  five  days.  No  water  was  obtained  till  the  third  day,  when 
he  arrived  at  Nakhl ;  and  on  the  following  day  he  reached  a 
place  he  calls  Ally.  He  adds,  that  on  this  day's  journey  no 
water  was  found.^ 

Dr.  Pococke,  afterwards  Bishop  of  Meath,  stated,  on  the 


*  Exod.  XV.  23. 
t  This  corresponds  with  the  estimated  time  (sixty-eight  hours)  in  the 
Tabula  Peiitingeriana. 

l  Quoted  by  Ritter,  Erdkunde,  xiv. 
§  Thomas  Shaw,  D.D.,  Travels  in  Barhanj  and   the  Levant,]}.  477. 
London:  1757. 


1 82  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

authority  of  one  wlio  had  accoinpaiiied  the  Egyptian  Hajj 
foiu'teen  times,  that  on  the  third  day  the  caravan  reached 
Newhail  (Nakhl),  where  there  was  water.  It  halted  there 
twenty-four  hours.  On  the  following  day  it  reached  Allahaih, 
where  the  water  was  only  fit  for  beasts.  The  next  day's 
march  brought  it  to  Soot,  with  no  water  ;  and  on  the  follow- 
ing one  it  arrived  at  Achaba,  wliere  the  water  was  plentiful 
and  good.* 

Burckhardt  crossed  the  Tih  steppe  in  1812,  from  east  to 
west,  entering  it  through  a  defile  opening  into  the  middle  of 
the  Araba,  and  at  a  day's  joiuiiey  from  Nakhl  (on  the  east) 
he  found  the  spring  of  Et  Themed,  the  water  of  whieli 
liad  a  sulphurous  taste. 

A  list  of  the  Hajj  stations  was  given,  in  1658,  by  the 
Turkish  hist(jrian,  Haji  Klialifeh,  who,  as  his  title  implies, 
made  the  pilgrimage  to  Mecca.  They  are  thirteen  in 
number  between  Cairo  and  Akaba,  the  caravan  having 
apparently  moved  very  slowly.  Nakhl,  with  its  castle 
and  wells,  is  the  seventh  station  ;  and  the  tenth  station  is 
Abiar-el-Ala,  "  tlie  springs  of  the  height."t  The  Turkisli 
historian  makes  no  comment  on  the  quality  of  the  water  at 
these  wells. 

The  stations  of  tlie  Hajj  at  the  present  day  are  eight  in 
number,  between  Suez  and  Akaba.  The  second  station  be- 
yond Nakhl  is  Et  Themed,  where  the  water  has  a  sulphurous 
taste.  There  can  be  no  question  that  this  is  the  same 
to  which  r)urckhardt  refers,  and  is  probably  identical 
with   Abi;ir-el-Ala  of  the  Haji   Khalifeh,  the  Abiar  Alaina 


*  K.  Pococke,  D.D.,  Description  of  the  East,i.  265.     London  :  1743. 

t  Wellsted  translates  Abiar-el-Ala,  "The  exalted  wells"  {Arabia,  2, 
aj){j.).  The  Haji  makes  iiieutiou  of  two  wells  at  the  place,  one  called 
Boreh,  and  the  other  Alani,  but  this  is  probably  an  error,  Boreh  and 
Alani  forming  together  Abiar  Alaina,  the  name  by  which  the  wells  are 
Tiow  known. 


FROM  EGYPT.  183 

of   Thevenot    and    Ally    of  Shaw,    and     the     Allahaih    of 
Pococke. 

Now,  if  the  Israelites  proceeded  across  the  plateau,  it  is 
easy  to  understand  how  their  three  days'  journey  should 
have  been  made  without  water.  Whether  they  refreshed 
themselves  at  Nakhl  we  have  no  means  of  knowing,  because 
the  tradition  that  they  went  three  days'  journey  without 
water  does  not  exclude  the  possibility,  or  even  the  pro- 
bability, of  their  having  obtained  good  water  at  the  end  of 
that  time.'""  The  next  station  which  was  preserved  in  their 
memory  was  that  at  which  the  water  was  extremely  bitter. 
Is  it  not,  to  say  the  least,  extremely  probable  that  this  was 
the  spring  referred  to  by  Thevenot  and  Pococke  and  the 
Haji  KhaUfeli,  the  Abiar  Alaina,  Abiar-el-Ala,  "  the  springs 
of  the  liiglilands  ?" 

It  may  be  said  that  there  is  here  no  trace  of  the  name 
by  wliicli  the  Israelites  knew  the  bitter  spring.  This  is  true  ; 
but  then  the  names  of  places  not  infrequently  change  after 
the  lapse  of  thousands  of  years.  The  Israelites  may  have 
called  the  place  Marah,  and  the  denizens  of  the  steppe  may 
have  been  ignorant  of  the  fact.  Or,  as  is  more  probable,  it 
may  have  been  abeady  known  as  Marah,  and  either  the 
Israelites  or  the  compilers  of  the  traditions  may  have 
jumped  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  so  called  because  the 
water  was  bitter.f  There  is,  however,  another  conjecture. 
If  the  word  Amorite  is  rightly  deemed  to  signify  generically 
a  mountaineer,  "  Marah"  may,  like  "  Amorite,"  have  been 

*  No  stations  are  mentioned  in  the  three  days'  journey. 

t  The  authors  and  compilers  of  the  Old  Testament  records  are  ex- 
tremely unreliable  on  questions  of  philology,  indeed  it  may  be  said  that 
they  are  invariably  wrong.  '^"^'?  Marah,is  thus  apparently  derived  from 
"•"D^  Marar,  to  be  bitter.  This  seems  improbable.  Elsewhere  words 
signifying  "bitter,"  or  "bitterness,"  contain  the  repetition  of  the  letter 
Eesh  (Dent,  xxxii.  32;  Job  xx.  25)  ;  "  the  gall  of  vipers"  (Exod.  xii.  8); 
"  bitter  herbs"  (Gen.  xlvi.  11  ;  Exod.  vi.  16;  Num.  xxvi.  57).  Marah  is 
not  an  uncommon  name  in  the  Tih  steppe. 


1 84  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

derived  from  an  unused  root,*  signifying  a  height  or  eleva- 
tion, and  thus  the  name  of  the  springs  Abiar-el-Ala=Abiar 
Alaina,  would  be  simply  an  Arabic  rendering  of  the 
ancient  Semitic  title — the  springs  of  the  highlands.  Too 
nmch  stress  should  not,  however,  be  placed  on  what  may 
after  all  be  only  a  fanciful  analogy.t 

It  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose  to  show  that  if,  as  is  here 
contended,  the  Israelites  proceeded  in  a  direct  course  across 
the  Tih,  the  incidents  of  their  journey  woidd  have  been  similar 
to  those  recorded  in  these  traditions.  In  the  first  portion  of 
their  journey  they  would  have  looked  in  vain  for  water,  and 
in  the  latter  portion  they  would  not  improbably  have  come 
across  the  bitter  springs  well  known  to  travellers  and  to 
pilgiims.  After  quitting  Marali,  the  next  notable  place 
must  have  been  Elath,  at  the  head  of  the  eastern  arm  of  the 
Eed  Sea.  The  next  station  recorded  in  the  Hebrew  tradi- 
tion is  EHm. 

If  the  objective  point  of  the  Israelites  on  quitting  Eg}'pt 
was  the  Mount  of  God,  and  if  that  mountain  was  in  the 
Idumaean  range,  then  the  route  from  the  north  of  the  Bitter 
Lakes  to  the  head  of  the  (lidf  of  Akaba  was  preferable  to 


*  "lbs  cmor.  The  initial  vowel  is  very  short.  This  is  the  view  taken 
by  Simonis  with  respect  to  the  derivation  of  Amorite.  See  also  s.  v. 
Gesenius,  Lex,.  Heh.  and  Chuhl.  and  Thesaurus. 

t  In  connection  with  the  well  of  Abiar  Alaina,  and  the  etymology  of 
the  name,  it  may  strike  many  persons  as  a  curious  coincidence  that 
the  Bedouins  have  a  tradition  that  the  wood  with  which  Moses 
sweetened  the  water  was  the  aloe.  The  gum  of  the  aloe  is,  however, 
as  every  one  knows,  extremely  bitter,  and  it  is  not  easy  to  imagine  how 
the  Bedouins  could  have  got  it  into  their  heads  that  the  aloe,  of  all 
woods,  could  have  been  used  to  remove  the  bitter  taste  of  the  water 
at  Marah.  But  if  Allai  or  Alaina,  be  the  Arabic  rendering  of  the 
Semitic  Marah,  a.  "  height,"  or  "  highland,"  then  it  is  conceivable  that 
the  Arabic  name  furnished  the  origin  of  the  tradition  that  the  aloe 
was  the  wood  employed  by  Moses  to  render  the  water  drinkable  by  his 
followers.  Ahiar  signitios  the  well,  or  wells,  from  Blr,  the  Arabic 
closely  following  the  Hebrew. 


FROM  EGYPT.  185 

any  other.  It  was  one  which  was  well  known  to  the 
Egyptians  in  their  communications  with  the  east  country,* 
it  was  less  perilous  for  the  Israelites  than  a  more  northerly 
course  on  the  borders  of  Philistia,  and  it  had  the  advantage 
of  placing  the  released  captives  at  the  southern  entrance  to 
that  broad  but  desolate  valley  (Araba)  which  led  to  the  foot 
of  the  mountain  to  which  they  were  directing  their  steps. 

Having  reached  EKm,  with  its  abundant  supply  of  water 
and  its  pleasant  palm  groves,  the  Israelites  probably  rested 
for  some  days,  and  refreshed  themselves  after  their  weary 
jom^ney  across  ■  the  Till.  They  "  encamped  there  by  the 
waters"  of  the  eastern  arm  of  the  Eed  Sea.  To  the  south 
stretched  the  ^lanitic  Gulf,  whilst  to  the  north  opened  out 
before  their  eyes  a  broad  vaUey  shut  in  on  both  sides  by 
mountains. 

On  departing  from  Elim,  "  the  congregation  of  the  children 
of  Israel  came  unto  the  wilderness  of  Sin,  which  is  between 
Eb'm  and  Sinai."t  Wliere  was  this  wilderness  which  was 
situated  l)etween  Elim  and  the  Mount  of  God  ?  Was  it 
between  some  point  on  the  eastern  shore  of  the  Gulf  of 
Suez  and  one  of  the  mountains  in  the  Sinaitic  peninsula, 
or  was  it  between  the  head  of  the  ^lanitic  Gulf  and  some 
mountain  in  Idumsea  ?  If  we  are  right  in  identifying 
Elim  with  Elath,  it  must  have  been  the  latter.  Let  us  con- 
sult the  traditions. 

It  is  impossible  to  avoid  being  sometimes  struck  in  the 
Hebrew  records  by  the  repetition  of  names  which  bear  a 
striking  resemblance  to  each  other,  sometimes  by  reference 
to  the  same  places  under  different  names.  That  this  should 
be  the  case  in  traditions  flowing  through  different  channels, 


*  Captain  Burton  remarks  that  this  is  the  oldest  route  in  the  world, 
and  still  wants  a  detailed  survey  {Midian  Rwiaited,  i.  124). 
+  Exod.  xvi.  I. 


1 86  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

even  though  they  had  a  common  source,  is  not  to  be  wondered 
at.  We  liave  seen  liow  tlie  Mount  of  God  came  to  be 
known  by  the  different  names  of  Sinai  and  Horeb.  We 
liave  found,  to  all  appearances,  how  the  resting-place  whose 
memory  had  been  preserved  on  account  of  its  fountains  and 
its  trees,  was  called  by  the  cognate  though  apparently 
dissimilar  names  Elim  ancl  Elath,  and  it  certainly  would  not 
astonish  us  to  discover  that  the  name  of  the  same  ^^'ilder- 
ness  had  been  handed  down  in  two  forms  so  closely 
resembling  each  other  as  Sin  and  Zin. 

The  first  of  these  names  is  found  in  the  tradition  in  the 
Book  of  Exodus.*  On  quitting  Elim,  the  Israelites  entered 
the  wilderness  of  Sin ;  they  there  received  manna  and  quails. 
"  They  journeyed  from  the  wilderness  of  Sin,t  according  to 
their  journeys  ;"  "  pitched  in  Eepliidim  ;"  murmured  for 
want  of  water,  and  obtained  the  miraculous  supply  from 
the  rock  in  Horeb,  the  place  receiving  the  name  of  "  Massah 
and  Meribah  because  of  the  chiding  of  the  children  of 
Israel,  and  because  they  tempted  Jahveh."|  It  is  further 
recorded  in  this  tradition  that  "  the  children  of  Israel  came 
unto  tlie  wilderness  of  Sin  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the 
second  month  after  their  departure  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt."^ 
As  their  departure  was  said  to  have  taken  place  on  the 
fifteenth  day  of  the  first  month,  their  arrival  in  the  wilder- 
ness of  Sin  would  be  a  month  after  quitting  Egj^it.  No 
mention  is  made  of  the  wilderness  of  Zin  in  the  Book  of 
Exodus.|| 

*  Exod.  xvi.  ;  xvii. 
t  This  passage  should  perhaps  more  fitly  be  transUited,  "journeyed 
through  the  wildoruess  of  Siu." 

X  Exod.  xvii.  7.  §  Exod.  xvi.  i. 

II  No  reliance  can  be  placed  upon  statements   respecting  certain 

occurrences  having  taken  place  on  particular  days.     Such  minutiaj  are 

not  preserved  in  traditions  ;  but  when  in  later  times  the  trail itions  of 

the  migration  came  to  be  moulded  into  shape,  it  was  found  convenient 


FROM  EGYPT.  187 

In  the  Book  of  Numbers  a  tradition  is  recorded  in  which 
reference  is  made  to  the  wilderness  of  Zin :  "  Then  came 
the  children  of  Israel,  even  the  whole  congregation,  into  the 
desert  of  Zin,  in  the  first  month,  and  the  people  abode  in 
Kadesh,  and  Miriam  died  there."*  Whilst  in  this  place 
"  there  was  no  water  for  the  congregation ;"  the  people 
rebelled,  and  Moses,  by  command  of  Jahveh,  smote  the 
rock,  and  the  water  came  forth  abundantly.  "  This  is  the 
water  of  Meribah,  because  the  children  of  Israel  strove  with 
Jahveh,  and  he  was  sanctified  in  them."t 

Those  who  wilfully  shut  their  eyes  to  the  abundant  proofs 
of  the  disconnected  and  fragmentary  nature  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch— who,  despite  the  evidence  of  their  senses,  deny  that 
the  same  stories  are  frequently  told  twice  and  sometimes 
three  times  over,  in  somewhat  different  language,  and  who 
believe  that  the  Mosaic  books  contain  a  well-connected  and 
consecutive  history — mil  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that 
the  wilderness  of  Zin  here  referred  to  was  not  reached  by 
the  Israelites  till  nearly  forty  years  after  the  departure  from 
Egypt,  t  But  let  us  see  what  the  Hebrew  records  say  upon 
this  point. 

According  to  the  tradition  in  the  Book  of  Numbers,  "  the 
congregation  gathered  themselves  together  against  Moses  and 
Aaron,"  in  consequence  of  the  want  of  water  ;  they  demanded 
why  they  had  been  brought  into  the  wilderness  with  their 
cattle  to  die  ?  and  asked  "  wherefore  have  ye  made  us  to 
come  out  of  Egypt,  to  bring  us  into  this  evil  place  ?  it  is  no 


to  assume  that  arrivals  aud  deiDartures  synchronized  with  the  occur- 
rence of  the  new  or  the  full  moon,  dates  of  considerable  importance  in 
the  religious  calendar  of  the  Hebrews. 

*  Num.  XX.  I.  t  Num.  xx.  13. 

X  According  to  the  marginal  chronological  annotation  of  the 
Authorised  Version,  the  events  recorded  in  Num.  xx.  took  place 
thirty-eight  years  after  the  Exodus.  Curiously  enough,  no  one  knows 
who  is  responsible  for  the  Authorised  Version  marginal  chronology. 


1 88  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

place  of  seed,  or  of  figs,  or  of  vines,  or  of  pomegranates  ; 
neither  is  there  any  water  to  drink."*  This  was  language 
natural  enough  in  the  mouths  of  people  who  had  only  a 
short  time  before  quitted  Egypt,  but  it  is  totally  inconceiv- 
able as  coming,  not  from  the  released  captives  (for  they  had, 
according  to  the  accepted  theory,  almost  entirely  died  out), 
1  )ut  from  tlie  new  generations,  composed  of  those  who  quitted 
Kgypt  in  early  youth  or  had  been  born  in  the  wilderness, 
and  who  at  this  very  time,  we  are  asked  to  believe,  had 
passed  close  on  forty  years  rambling  objectlessly  about 
within  less  than  a  week's  journey  of  the  country  which 
they  regretted  having  ever  left,  and  to  which  they  clamoured 
to  retm-n.  Even  if  the  story  stopped  here  we  should  have 
little  hesitation  in  concluding  that  this  exhibition  of  popular 
discontent  took  place  very  shortly  after  the  departure  from 
Egypt,  hut  call  doubt  is  removed  by  the  statement  that  the 
discontent  was  allayed  by  the  miraculous  supply  of  water  from 
the  smitten  rock,  and  that  the  place  was  called  Meribah 
because  the  Israelites  strove  with  Jahveh.  In  the  tradition 
in  Exodusf  aw  are  told  that  this  miracle  was  performed  at 
Horeb — that  is,  at  Sinai — and  that  the  Israelites,  having 
journeyed  from  or  through  the  wilderness  of  Sin,  were  at 
liephidim,  and  also  that  the  place  received  the  name  of 
Meribah.  The  apparent  difficulty  arising  in  both  traditions — 
the  one  making  the  scene  of  the  discontent  Eephidim  and 
the  other  Kadesh,  whilst  in  both  the  water  is  stated  to 
have  been  supplied  from  the  rock  in  Horeb — is  easOy  ex- 
plained  by  supposing  that  the  Israelites  were  encamped  in 


*  Num.  XX.  This  is  curiously  confirmatory  of  the  conclusion  that 
the  captives  accompanied  from  Egypt  another  tribe,  and  were  led 
to  believe  that  on  crossing  the  wilderness  they  would  reach  a  fertile 
country.  There  is  no  tradition  of  any  manifestation  of  discontent 
until  after  quitting  Elim-Elath. 

t  Exod.  .wii. 


FROM  EGYPT.  189 

a  valley  or  plain  supplied  by  a  stream  wliich  flowed  from  the 
smitcen  rock.''"'  Both  traditions,  however,  concm^  in  stating 
that  the  water  thus  supplied  was  called  the  water  of 
Meribah.  It  is  simply  puerile  to  suggest  that  two  miracles, 
identical  in  their  nature  and  in  the  circumstances  which 
occasioned  them,  were  performed  at  different  times  and 
places,  and  that  the  latter  were  nevertheless  known  after- 
wards by  the  same  name. 

It  will  no  doubt  be  objected  that  in  the  Itinerary  con- 
tained in  Numbers  mention  is  not  only  made  of  two  distinct 
deserts  of  Sin  and  Zin,  but  they  were  to  all  appearance  at  a 
great  distance  from  each  other,  and  'were  visited  by  the 
Israelites  at  periods  separated  by  a  considerable  interval  of 
time.  In  this  record  the  Israelites  are  represented  as  having 
entered  the  wilderness  of  Sin  only  a  few  days  after  crossing 
the  Eed  Sea  ;t  whereas  they  only  reached  the  wilderness  of 
Zin  on  the  eve  of  Aaron's  death,  which  it  is  stated  took  place 
in  the  fortieth  year  after  the  departure  from  Egypt.  J 

We  have  already  alluded  to  the  suspicion  with  which  this 
list  of  stations  must  be  received.  The  compiler  tells  us 
nothing  new  or  instructive ;  he  adds  nothing  to  the  infor- 
mation we  already  possess  through  tradition  ;  he  sheds  no 
liglit  on  what  nevertheless  must  have  been  an  eventful 
history.  He  introduces  a  number  of  new  names,  but  he 
can  tell  us  nothing  connected  with  the  places.     He  appears 


*  That  this  is  the  correct  explanation  appears  from  Exod.  xvii.  5,  6, 
"  And  Jahveh  said  unto  Moses^  Qo  on  before  the  feo'ple,  and  take  with 
thee  of  the  elders  of  Israel ;  and  thy  rod,  wherewith  thou  smotest  the 
river  [note  the  absence  of  any  allusion  to  the  Red  Sea  having  been 
smitten],  take  in  thine  hand,  and  go.  Behold,  I  will  stand  before  thee 
there  upon  the  rock  in  Horeb ;  and  thou  shalt  smite  the  rock,  and 
there  shall  come  water  out  of  it,  that  the  people  may  drink."  The 
water  from  the  rock  flowed  to  Rephidim,  where  the  people  were 
encamped.     See  also  Deut.  ix.  21. 

t  Num.  xxxiii.  8-1 1.  J  Num.  xxxiii.  36-38. 


I90  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

to  have  been  anxious  to  make  the  numljer  of  stations  at 
which  the  Israelites  encamped  after  crossing  the  lied  Sea 
correspond  witli  the  traditional  number  of  years  passed  in 
the  wilderness.  In  using  the  records  at  his  disposal,  he 
aimed  at  estabHshing  a  verbal  harmony  without  caring  about 
substantial  consistency,  of  which  he  seems  to  have  been 
unable  to  form  any  judgment.  Perhaps  we  shaU  not  err  in 
ascribing  this  curious  work  to  a  pious  and  industrious  scribe 
resident  in  Babylon,  and  profoundly  ignorant  of  the  relative 
positions  of  the  localities  to  which  he  referred.  He  treated 
the  deserts  of  Sin  and  Zin  as  distinct  and  geographically 
far  apart ;  but  it  is  nevertheless  easy  to  show,  even  from  his 
own  record,  that  they  were,  if  not  identical,  certainly  con- 
tiguous. 

Having  quitted  Eephidim,  which  in  tlie  Exodus  tradition 
appears  to  have  been  in  or  close  by  the  wilderness  of  Sin, 
but  wliich  this  scribe  sepai-ates  from  that  desert  by  two 
stations  not  elsewhere  mentioned — Dophkah  and  Alush* — 
he  states  that  the  Israelites  encamped  in  the  wilderness  of 
Sinai.  Thence  they  proceeded  to  Kibroth-hattaavah  and 
Hazeroth  ;t  and  from  Hazeroth  to  a  long  series  of  places 
not  elsewliere  mentioned,  until  in  the  fortieth  year  after  the 
Exodus  tliey  are  Ijrought  to  tlie  wilderness  of  Zin.|  But 
on  turning  to  the  old  records  wliich  the  author  of  the 
Itinerary  had  at  his  disposal,  we  find  tliat  Kibrotli-hattaavah 


*  Num.xxxiii.  12, 13.  Doplikali  and  Ahish  seem  tobe  a  transposition  of 
Elim  and  Rcphidim,aad  the  places  may  have  been  thus  arranged  in  some 
ancient  record,  now  lost  to  us,  of  the  return  journey  down  the  Araba 
from  Mount  Hor,  previous  to  compassing  Edom  (Num.  xxi.  4).  It  is 
noticeable  that  the  name  Dophkah  in  the  Hebrew  text  npDT  was  read 
by  the  LXX.  nDQT  Va(f)aKa,  and  between  Kaphaka  and  Raphidim, 
as  the  LXX.  transcribe  Repliidim,  there  is  a  very  close  resemblance. 
CI7S  Alnsh,  is  not  only  very  like  DP^S  Elim,  but  it  was  not  improbably 
another  variant  of  that  word,  similar  to  p]lath. 

t  Num.  xxxiii.  15-17.  4.  Num.  xxxiii.  36. 


FROM  EGYPT.  191 

was  so  called  because  the  people  died  there  from  eating 
quails,  probably  to  excess/'"  and  that  these  quails  were  "  sent" 
in  the  wilderness  of  Sin,  between  Elim  and  Sinai.t  We 
also  learn  that  from  Kibroth-hattaavah  they  proceeded  to 
Hazeroth,;];  and  thence  to  the  ^^dlderness  of  Paran,§  which 
is  identified  with  the  wilderness  of  Zin  from  which  the 
spies  were  sent  forth.  ||  Of  the  wilderness  of  Paran  or  Zin 
or  of  Kadesh  our  author  makes  no  mention  after  recordino- 
the  departure  from  Hazeroth,  because,  according  to  Ms  ideas 
of  harmony,  it  was  preferable  to  bring  these  places  in  at  the 
conclusion  of  the  traditional  term  of  the  stay  in  the  wilder- 
ness. Having,  however,  stated  that  the  'Israelites  proceeded 
from  Kibroth-hattaavah,  which  was  by  all  accounts  in  the 
desert  of  Sin,  to  Hazeroth,  wliich  was  the  next  station  to 
the  desert  of  Paran  or  of  Zin,  he  has  written  all  that  is 
necessary  for  our  purpose  to  show  that  even  by  his  own 
admission  the  deserts  of  Sin  and  Zin  must  have  been  con- 
tiguous.lT  As,  however,  the  spies  "  searched  the  land  from 
the  wilderness  of  Zin  unto  Piehob,"  the  wilderness  of  Sin, 
which  was  close  by,  if  not  identical  with  that  of  Zin,  and 
which,  we  are  authoritatively  informed,  was  between  Elim  and 
Sinai,  could  not  have  been  in  the  Sinaitic  peninsula.  The 
same,  train  of  reasoning  equally  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  it 
must  have  been  to  the  north  of  the  head  of  the  ^lanitic  Gulf .-^^ 

*  Num.  xi.  34.     t  Exod.  xvi.  14.      J  Num.  xi.  35.     §  Num.  xii.  16. 

II  The  valley  of  the  Araba  appears  to  have  been  known  to  the 
nomads  as  the  7nidbhar  of  Sin  or  of  Zin.  The  allusions  to  this 
midhhar  subsequent  to  the  arrival  at  Sinai  deal  with  the  upper 
portion,  and  as  in  the  records  in  which  they  are  contained  the  name 
Zin  is  invariably  used,  it  would  appear  as  if  the  name  was  confined 
to  that  region. 

IF  Num.  xiii.  21-26. 

**  One  of  the  curious  results  of  accepting  the  statements  in  the 
Itinerary,  is  that  as  the  emigrants  did  not  reach  the  midhhar  of  Zin 
until  immediately  before  the  death  of  Aaron,  the  spies  who  set  out 
from  this  midhhar  (Num.  xiii.  21)  could  not  have  undertaken  their 
mission  until  nearly  forty  years    after  the   departure   from  Egypt 


192  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

On  quitting  Elini  the  Israelites  must  have  proceeded  along 
the  Araba.  They  had  descended  from  the  Tih  plateau  by 
a  steej)  defile,  and  certainly  did  not  retrace  their  steps. 
They  had  no  inducement  for  following  the  eastern  coast  of 
tlie  Gulf  in  a  southerly  direction,  and  there  consequently 
only  remained  two  routes  between  which  to  choose.  One 
led  to  the  eastward,  round  the  soutliern  spurs  of  the  Idu- 
mncan  range,  by  a  valley  known  at  the  present  day  as  the 
Wady  el  Yitm  ;^  the  other  lay  open  between  the  wall  of 
the  Tih  and  the  mountains  of  Edom — the  broad  valley  of 
the  Araba.  Tlie  former,  though  turned  to  account  by 
the  Israelites  at  a  later  period  of  their  migi'ation,  was 
now  disregarded.  The  liberated  captives  marched  up  the 
Araba. 

The  valley,  at  its  southern  entrance,  is  about  three  miles 
broad,  and  conveys  to  a  spectator  standing  on  the  shore  of 
the  Gulf  the  appearance  of  being  covered  with  verdure. 
This  idea  is  quickly  dispelled  on  entering  "  the  plain."  The 
sandy  and  gravelly  surface  is  found  to  be  rather  thickly 
sprinkled  wit]i  tarfa  bushes.  Of  grass  or  other  vegetation 
there  is  none,  and  water  is  sought  for  in  vain  to  refresh 
either  man  or  beast.  At  certain  seasons  of  the  year  the 
shrubs  which  grow  on  the  sand-liills  of  the  Araba  produce  a 
sweet  substance,  which  by  the  Bedouins  is  termed  "  manu." 
This  product  is  also  found  in  the  'Sinaitic  peninsula.  It  is 
not  met  with  on  the  table-land  of  the  Tih.f 


(Num.  xxxiii.  36-38).  But  the  forty  years'  delay  in  the  wilderness  was 
supposed  to  have  been  the  punishment  for  the  disobedience  of  the 
Israelites  on  the  return  of  the  spies  (Num.  xiv.). 

*  The  name  is  a  corruption  of  El  Yatim,  according  to  Captain 
Burton,  and  should  be  thus  written  {3Iidi<i)i  licvlsited,  i.  235). 

t  An  exhaustive  account  of  manna,  its  various  kinds,  the  regions 
where  and  the  plants  on  which  it  may  be  gathered,  with  references  to 
the  various  authors  who  have  written  on  the  subject,  will  be  found  in 
B.itier' a Erdkunde,  xiv.  pp.  665-695.  See  also  the  Biblical  Dictionaries 
of  Smith  and  of  Kitto,  with  the  authorities  there  referred  to. 


FROM  EGYPT.  I93 

If  we  are  right  in  oiu-  conclusions,  this  was  the  wilder- 
ness of  Sin  which  lay  between  Eiini  and  Sinai,  and  here  for 
the  first  time  the  Israehtes  partook  of  manna.  Now  it  is 
not  very  difficult  to  form  a  plausible  conjecture  how  the 
wdlderness  came  to  receive  this  name. 

The  Mount  of  God,  as  has  been  already  observed,  was 
known  according  to  one  set  of  traditions  as  Sinai,  and 
according  to  another  as  Horeb.  With  respect  to  the  deri- 
vation, of  these  words,  the  ablest  scholars  cannot  speak  with 
confidence.     There  is  still  a  wide  field  for  suggestion. 

According  to  a  tradition  of  great  anti^quity,-^?-  Jahveh  ap- 
peared to  Moses  on  the  mount  in  a  burning  bush,  and  it  would 
therefore  not  be  very  strange  if  the  mountain  was  known  by  a 
name  associating  it  with  this  miraculous  occurrence.  The 
Hebrew  for  "  bush"  is  sciuli,  and  the  Mount  of  the  Bush  would 
as  probably  as  not  be  Mount  Sinai.t  In  the  same  manner  the 
mountain  mioht  have  been  known  in  other  traditions  in 
connection  with  its  caves,  if  it  possessed  this  peculiarity,  and 
be  termed  "  Choreb,"  Mount  Choreb  (Horeb)  being  thus 
synonymous  with  Mount  Paran.| 

Now  the  Israelites,  or  the  nomads  before  them,  could  not 


*  Exod.  iii.  2. 

t  npp  Seneh,  a  "  bush;"  ^J''p  Sinai,  the  name  of  the  mountain. 
Gesenius  thinks  Sinai  may  be  derived  from  an  unused  root  |'p  Sin, 
"to  be  muddy."  He  says  "  Smai,  perhaps  '  clayey,' '  miry  ;' "  but 
there  is  no  suggestion  in  the  Hebrew  records  that  the  Mount  of  God 
had  these  characteristics.  Fiirst  derives  the  word  from  |*D  Sun 
a  fissure  {Ileb,  and  Cliald.  Lex.  s.  v.),  in  reference  to  the  divisions  in  the 
granitic  mass  in  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  of  which  Jebel  Catherine  is  the 
south-western  peak.  Buxtorf,  as  it  seems  to  me,  with  much  more 
probabilit)%  refers  the  name  of  the  mountain  to  the  bush  n3D  Seneh, 
in  which  God  appeared  to  Moses  (Lex.  Chald.  Talm.  et  Bahhiuicum,  s.v. 
Fischer  Lipsise,  1869-75). 

;i;Geseniu3  identifies  3"in  Choreb  withSlh  ^/io?-e6,"dry,"butitseems 
at  least  as  likely  that  it  is  derived  from  "lin  Chor,  a  hole  or  cavern; 
hence  '•in  Chori,  a  Horite  or  cave-dweller.  The  word  is  used  in  the 
sense  of  a  mausoleum  or  resting-place  for  the  dead,  if  we  accept  the 

O 


1 94  THE  HEBRE IV  MIGRA  TION 

fail  to  have  been  struck  by  the  peculiarity  of  the  Araha  to 
which  we  have  referred — the  abundance  of  low  bushes  ; 
and  if  they  gave  to  the  desert  a  name  in  connection  Mith 
this  characteristic,  it  would  not  improbably  be  "  Sin."  The 
other  name  by  which  tliis  wilderness  appears  to  have  been 
known,  "  Zin,"  would  have  had  the  same  signification.*  The 
difference  in  spelling  and  pronunciation  is  easily  accounted 
for  by  a  difference  of  dialect.  The  Septuagint  renders  both 
words  indifferently  StV. 

Having  advanced  up  the  Araba  through  the  wilderness 
or  midhhar  of  Sin,  the  Israelites  found  themselves  shut  in 
between  the  precipitous  cliffs  of  the  Till  on  their  left  and 
the  mountains  of  Edom  on  their  right.  When  in  this  region 
an  engagement  is  commonly  supposed  to  have  taken  place 
with  the  Amalekites.  If  we  accepted  as  conclusive  of 
priority  of  time  the  order  in  which  the  event  is  spoken  of  in 
Exodus,t  we  sin  mid  infer  that  this  Ijattle  was  fought 
previous  to  the  arrival  of  the  Israelites  at  Sinai.  This  is, 
liowever,  extremely  improbable,  because  we  are  told  that  when 
the  Israelites  encamped  at  the  IMount  of  God,  Jethro  came  to 
meet  Moses,  and  in  his  thanksgiving  to  Jahveli  dwelt  upon 


Masoretic  Kcrl  in  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  25.  This  passage  goes  far  to  support 
the  view  I  venture  to  express,  that  the  name  given  to  the  mountain  in 
southern  Palestine  was  associated  with  artificial  caves,  which  may 
have  been  used  as  habitations  for  the  living,  or  final  resting-places  for 
the  dead.  (See  Fiirst,  Lex.  Heh.  s.  v.) 

*  *y'i  Zini,  is  interpreted  in  the  Talmud,  "Lesser  Palms."  According 
to  the  Talmudists  the  desert  of  Zin  was  so  called  after  a  mountain  of  the 
same  name  which  was  noted  for  its  dwarf  palms,  B((ra  Buthra,  fol.  69,  2. 
In  the  Targum  of  Palestine  this  mountain  is  called  the  Iron  Mountain, 
and  the  "  Desert  of  Zini"  the  "  Desert  of  Palms."  The  palms  of  this 
mountain  were  so  small  that  it  was  said  they  were  only  tit  to  make  a 
bunch  to  hold  in  the  hand  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  Succah,  iii.  i  ; 
Lightfoot  ii.  325.  Subsequent  to  the  settlement  in  Canaan,  the  name 
"  midbhar  of  Zin"  appears  to  have  been  given  to  the  upper  portion  of 
the  Araba  (the  Ghor),  near  the  Dead  Sea. 
t  l^xod.  xvii.  8. 


FROM  EGYPT. 


195 


the  liberation  from  the  hands  of  the  Egyptians,  whilst  making- 
no  reference  to  the  discomfiture  of  the  Amalekites."^  It  is 
impossible,  however,  to  suppose  that  if  the  latter  event  had 
then  taken  place,  it  would  have  been  passed  over  in  silence 
by  Jethro  when  praising  Jahveh  for  all  that  had  been  done 
for  Israel.  The  point  is  of  no  practical  moment,  but  it  may 
be  convenient  now  to  add  some  remarks  to  those  already 
made  respecting  the  battle  with  the  Amalekites  in  its  bear- 
ings on  the  locality  of  the  Mount  of  God. 

We  have  accounts  of  two  battles  between  the  Israelites 
and  the  Amalekites  ;  in  tlie  one  the  former  are  represented 
as  having  been  victorious,  in  the  otlier  the  latter  defeated 
their  adversaries.  The  first  engagement  would  seem  to  have 
taken  place  at  Eephidim,  in  or  near  the  wilderness  of  Sin,t 
the  second  at  or  near  Kadesh,  in  the  wilderness  of  Zin.t  In 
the  latter,  the  Amalekites  are  said  to  have  been  assisted  by  the 
Canaanites,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  engagement 
and  defeat  of  the  Israelites  arose  from  an  attempt  on  the  part 
of  the  latter  to  enter  Canaan  from  the  south-east.  About 
this  there  seems  no  dispute. 

But  assuming  that  there  were  two  battles  fought  at 
different  times  between  the  Israelites  and  the  Amalekites, 
have  we  not  the  strongest  confirmation  that  tlie  desert  of 
Sin  in  the  one  tradition  and  the  desert  of  Zin  in  the  other 
were  identical,  since  it  was  in  or  near  tlie  one  that  the 
Israelite  victory  was  said  to  have  been  won,  whilst  it  was  in 
or  near  the  other  that  the  defeat  was  reported  to  have  been 
sustained  ?  Is  not  this  obvious  solution  preferable  to  the 
accepted  theory  which  places  the  desert  of  Sin  and  Eephi- 
dim near  the  north-western  entrance  to  the  Sinaitic 
peninsula,  and  transports  the  Amalekites  across  tlie  Tih 
steppe  to  fight  a  battle  with  the  Israelites  in  territory  which 


*  Exod.  xviii.  x.  t  Exod.  xvii.  8.  %  Num.  xiv.  40--45. 

O    2 


196  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

there  is  every  reason  to  believe  was  at  the  time  occupied  by 
the  Egyptians,  and  then  transports  them  back  again  in  order 
to  offer  a  successful  resistance  to  the  invasion  of  Canaan  ? 
Not  the  least  curious  feature  in  this  supposed  movement  of 
the  Amalekites,  is  that  it  must  have  taken  place  in  the  first 
year  after  the  Exodus,  through  a  region — the  Till  steppe — 
which  for  thirty-eight  years  afterwards  is  commonly  supposed 
to  have  been  exclusively  appropriated  by  the  Israelites  for 
the  purposes  of  wandering  about. 

Josephus  has  something  to  tell  us  about  the  first  battle,  in 
which  the  Israelites  were  victorious,  wliich  is  worthy  of 
notice  ;  not  that  he  possessed  much  better  sources  of  informa- 
tion than  we  do,  but  because  it  is  instructive  to  learn  what 
was  the  general  conception  formed  by  a  Jew  living  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Christian  era  respecting  the  route  followed 
by  the  Israelites  on  leaving  Egypt.  In  his  paraphrase  of  the 
"  journeyings,"  from  the  crossing  of  the  Eed  Sea  (whicli, 
curiously  enough,  he  puts  on  all-fours  with  the  passage  of 
Alexander  through  the  Pamphylian  Sea,"'')  to  the  arrival  at 
Sinai,  he  says  notliing  to  convey  the  idea  that  the  Sinaitic 
peninsula  (south  of  the  Till)  was  present  to  his  mind  as  the 
region  through  wliicli  the  released  captives  passed.  His 
allusion  to  the  supply  of  quails  is,  on  the  contrary,  couched  in 
language  which  apparently  excludes  the  possibility  of  liis 
belief  that  tlie  so-called  Sinaitic  region  was  the  scene  of  this 
providential  intervention ;  for  he  says,  "  a  little  time  after  came 
a  vast  number  of  quails,  whicli  is  a  bird  more  plentiful  in 
this  Arabian  Gulf  than  anywhere  else,  flying  over  the  sea.'f 
In  using  the  expression  Arabian  Gulf,  it  may  be  suggested  that 
tlie  Jewish  historian  meant  what  is  to-day  known  as  the 
Red  Sea,  and  that  consequently  his  remark  would  apply  with 
equal   probability    to  the    Heroopolitan  (Suez)    and    to   the 

^A.J.  ii.  i6,  5.  t  A.  J.  iii.  i,  S- 


FROM  EGYPT.  197 

^lanitic  (Akaba)  Gulf,  This  is  scarcely  so.  For  the  reasons 
already  given  respecting  tlie  conception  entertained  of 
Arabia  in  the  first  century,  it  is  extremely  improbable  that 
he  would  have  spoken  of  the  Egyptian  arm  of  the  Eed  Sea 
as  the  Arabian  Gulf,  whilst  the  words  "  flying  over  the  sea" 
appear  to  imply  that,  in  his  opinion,  the  quails  came  from 
Arabia  and  not  from  Egypt.* 

But  in  his  remarks  upon  the  encounter  between  the 
Israelites  and  the  Amalekites  there  can  be  no  question  that, 
according  to  his  view,  the  battle  was  fought  in  the  region 
south  of  the  Dead  Sea.  In  a  narrative  containing  more 
than  the  ordinary  amount  of  fringe  with  which  Josephus 
delighted  in  adorning  his  stories,  he  tells  his  readers  that  the 
fame  of  the  Hebrews  having  spread  abroad  in  consequence 
of  the  circumstances  under  which  they  quitted  Egjrpt,  "  the 
inhabitants  of  those  countries"  sent  ambassadors  to  each  other, 
with  exhortations  to  take  measures  for  their  common  defence  : 
"  Those  who  induced  the  rest  to  do  so  were  such  as  inha- 
bited  Gobolitis  and  Petra ;  they  were  called  Amalekites."t 
Gobolitis  was  the  name  given  to  the  region  on  the  east  of 
the  Araba  between  the  Dead  Sea  and  Petra,  and  although 
we  cannot  accept  as  conclusive  the  statement  of  Josephus 
that  the  Amalekites  at  this  time  inhabited  Gobolitis  and 
Petra,  stiU  it  is  strong  evidence  that,  in  his  opinion,  the 
first  battle  with  the  Amalekites  was  fought  in  that  neigh- 
bourhood, and  consequently  that  this  was  the  region  in 
which,  according  to  his  ideas,  the  Israelites  naturally  found 
themselves  when  on  quitting  Elim  they  approached  the 
Mount  of  God. 


*  It  is  stated  in  Num.  xi.  31,  that  "  a  wind  from  Jahveh  brought 
quails  from  the  sea  ;"  but  as,  according  to  the  generally  accepted 
view,  the  Israelites  had  then  long  left  the  Gulf  of  Suez  behind  them, 
this  must  have  been  the  Gulf  of  Akaba. 

t  A..  J.  iii.  2,  I.  Gobolitis  is  identical  with  the  later  Gebalena.  In 
the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  it  is  substituted  for  Seir  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  2. 


198  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

Following  tlie  tradition  in  the  Book  of  Exodus,  the  next 
event  recorded  is  the  meeting  of  Jethro,  or  Eagiiel,  the 
priest  of  Midian,  wdth  Moses.  Having  "  heard  of  all  tliat 
God  had  done  for  Moses,"  he  came  with  Zipporah  and  her 
two  sons  "  unto  Moses,  where  he  encamped  at  the  Mount  of 
God."  *  The  first  part  of  the  journey  was  now  completed  ; 
the  Israelites  had  reached  the  mountain,  where  on  seeking 
permission  to  quit  Egypt  they  proposed  to  sacrifice  to  Jahveli 
their  God,  From  what  region  did  Jethro  come  to  meet  his  son- 
in-law,  bringing  with  him  the  wife  and  children  of  the  latter  ? 

When  this  portion  of  the  narrative  is  connected  with  the 
introduction  which   tells   of    Moses'  flight    to    Midian,  his 
reception  by  Jethro,  his   occupation  as  a  shepherd,  and  his 
interview  with  Jahveh  on  the  Mount  of  God,  there  can  be 
no   doubt  that  Jethro's    "  own   land"  was  in  the  immediate 
neighbourhood  of  the    mountain,   and    that    a    very  short 
journey  was  necessary  upon  Jetliro's  part  to  enable  him  to 
join   Moses   when  encamped  at  the  foot  of  Sinai.     Without 
recapitulating,  however,  what  has  been  urged   to   show  that 
Midian    was  -unquestionably  on   the  east  of  the  Ai-aba,  and 
that  the  particular  portion  of  Midian    here  referred   to  was 
that   in   wliich  "  cave-dwellers  "  were  found,  which  is  called 
Troglodytis  by  Josephus,  and   in   the   Biblical   narrative  is 
spoken  of  as   the  abode  of  the   Kenites,  whose  priest  was 
Jethro,  we   are  struck   by  this  ciu'ious   fact.      If  we    have 
followed  the  correct  track  of  the  Israelites  thus  far,  and   if 
we  are  right  in  placing  Sinai  in  Seir,  nothing   can   be  more 
consistent  with   all  tlie   evidence   hitherto  examined    than 
that  Jetliro,   the   Midianite  or   Kenite  Sheikh,  should  come 
from    Petra  or  its   neighbourhood,  and  meet  Moses  and  the 
IsraeHtes  in  the  Aral»a  ;  or,  more  probably  still,  in  one  of  the 
valleys  leading  from  the  Araba  into  the  Idumiean  mountains, 

*  Exod.  xviii.  1,2. 


FROM  EGYPT.  199 

into  -which,  as  will  subsequently  be  shown,  they  entered  in 
quest  of  the  water  supplied  by  "  the  brook  which  descended 
from  the  Mount  of  God."  *  But  further,  the  indications 
which  have  hitherto  led  us  to  trace  the  Israelites  across  the 
Tih  to  Elim,  and  from  thence  along  the  Araba  towards 
Mount  Sinai,  receive  overwhelming  corroboration  by  the 
circumstance  that  we  discover  Jethro,  who  at  this  point 
meets  the  Israelites,  precisely  in  the  very  locality  where 
following  the  Scriptural  records  and  the  account  of  Josephus 
we  should  expect  to  find  him. 

One  of  the  oldest  traditions  of  the  Jewish  people  referred 
the  institution  of  their  supreme  judicial  council — the  San- 
hedrin — not  to  Moses,  but  to  his  father-in-law.  There  are 
in  effect  three  distinct  accounts  of  the  origin  of  tliis  cele- 
brated tribunal ;  but  we  shall  probably  not  err  in  conclud- 
ing that  the  version  given  in  Exodusf  is  the  most  ancient, 
and  that  tlie  Israelites  borrowed  their  system  of  administer- 
ing justice  from  the  friendly  tribe  which  they  encountered 
in  tlie  neighbourhood  of  Mount  Sinai,  of  wliich  Jethro  was 
cliief,  and  with  which  they  made  a  league.! 

The  three  accounts  of  the  institution  of  the  Sanhedrin 
concur  in  stating  that  it  took  place  close  to  Sinai,  but  in 
one  it  is  referred  to  Jethro,^  in  the  second  to  Jahveh,||  and 
in  the  third  to  Moses.H  For  the  pm-poses  of  our  present 
inquiry   it   is,  how^ever,   only  necessary   to    notice   that   tlie 


*  Deut.  ix.  21.  t  Exod.  xviii.  13-26. 

X  The  section  of  a  tribe  of  the  Shasu,  which  came  from  the  land  of 
Aduma  (vide  ante,  p.  37),  and  was  hospitably  received  by  the  officer  of 
Mineptah  II.,  was  in  all  probability  Kenite.  On  approaching  its  home 
it  was  met  by  Jethro,  the  Sheikh  of  the  entire  tribe,  accompanied  by 
the  wife  and  children  of  Moses.  The  released  captives  who  had 
accompanied  "the  mixed  multitude,"  the  Kenites,  were  thereupon 
presented  to  "  the  prie>>t  of  Midian,"  and  through  their  elders  a  treaty 
of  amity  was  concluded  with  Jethro  and  his  people  (Exod.  xviii.  12). 
§  Exod.  xviii.  19.  ||  Num.  xi.  16.  IT  Deut.  i.  9. 


200  THE  HEBREW  MICE  A  TION 

second  account  apparently  makes  the  appointment  of  tlie 
seventy  judges  take  place  in  the  region  where  the  quails 
were  sent  ;  wliilst  the  third  account  places  it  at  Horeb,  pre- 
vious to  the  departure  from  thence  "  by  way  of  the  moun- 
tain of  the  Amorites/'  "  through  the  great  and  terrible 
wilderness,"  to  Kadesh-barnea.  As,  however,  there  can  be 
no  question  that  the  region  referred  to  in  the  first  account 
must  be  identical  with  that  spoken  of  in  the  second  and 
third  accounts,  we  have  further  confirmation  of  our  conclu- 
sion that  Jethro  met  Moses  in  or  near  the  Araba,  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Kibroth-hattaavah. 

It  is  impossible  to.  avoid  being  struck  by  a  very  singular 
peculiarity  in  tlie  names  of  the  places  at  whicli  the  Hebrews 
rested  during  their  journeying  through  "  tlie  M-ilderness." 
These  names  are  descriptive  of  the  places  to  which  they 
are  applied  ;  they  are  such  as  miglit  have  been  given  by  the 
travellers  to  spots  as  yet  unnamed,  or  with  whose  names 
they  were  unfamiliar,  and  they  very  frequently  occur  in  the 
plural  form.  In  the  examination  of  their  etymology  it  will 
further  be  found  that  they  are,  without  exception,  archaic. 
Unlike  "  proper "  names,  they  have  roots  from  which  their 
signification  can  be  gathered,  but  they  are  for  the  most  part 
roots  wliich  in  later  times  became  obsolete.  It  is  impossible 
to  resist  tlie  conclusion  that  we  are  here  dealing  with  mate- 
rials of  gi-eat  antiquity. 

The  very  fact,  liowever,  that  the  places  mentioned  in 
these  traditions  received  their  names  in  this  manner,  should 
prepare  us  for  at  least  the  possil)ility  of  the  same  place 
receiving  dillerent  descriptive  names  in  different  traditions, 
;ind  also,  a  fortiori,  of  the  same  name  being  differently 
])r(jnounced,  and  in  course  of  time  dift'erently  written,  by  the 
iiieml)ers  of  ditlercnt  sections  of  the  same  people.  We  may 
not  doul)t  that  those  wlio  quitted  Egypt  spoke  the  same 
laugiuige,  but  it  is  no  less  certain  that  after  the  settlement 


FROM  EGYPT.  201 

in  Palestine,  if  not  before,  there  were  to  be  found  differences 
of  dialect  and  of  ])atois  which  have  left  their  traces  in  the 
records  of  some  of  their  oldest  traditions.  That  such  dif- 
ferences existed  does  not,  however,  rest  alone  on  the  natural 
presumption  of  the  philologist.  It  is  evidenced  by  unmis- 
takable proofs  in  the  Hebrew  language.  In  one  remarkable 
instance  the  difference  of  fcdois  between  the  tribes  which 
settled  on  the  opposite  sides  of  the  Jordan  is  the  subject  of 
special  mention.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  difference  in 
this  case  lay  in  the  use  of  sibilants.'" 

In  the  Book  of  Exodus  the  various  halting-places  of  the 
Israelites  noted  between  Eameses  and  the  Mount  of  Elohim 
are  as  follows  : — Succoth,  Etham,  Marah,  EKm,  the  midhhar 
of  Sin  ("  which  is  between  Elim  and  Sinai"),  Eephidim,  and 
Horeb,  also  called '  Sinai,  whence  the  water  of  Massah  and 
Meribah  was  caused  to  flow  for  the  people  at  Eephidim. 
From  Eephidim  the  Israelites  passed  into  the  desert  of 
Sinai,  and  pitched  before  the  mount.  We  have  omitted 
from  this  list  the  names  of  the  places  mentioned  in  the 
account  of  the  detour  made  for  the  purpose  of  "  the  passage 
through  the  sea."  Our  reasons  for  doing  so  have  been  already 
fully  stated. 

In  the  traditions  in  the  Book  of  Numbers,  which  deal 
with  occurrences  stated  in  the  Book  of  Exodus  to  have 
happened  previous  to  the  arrival  at  the  Mount  of  God,  the 
following  places  are  noted  : — Taberah,  Kibroth-hattaavah, 
Hazeroth,  the  midhhar  of  Paran  (in  which  was  Kadesh),  the 
midhhar  of  Zin  (the  same  as  -that  of  Paran,  for  Kadesh  was 
also  in  it),  the  unnamed  rock  from  which  Moses  caused  the 
water  to  flow,  the  water  however  being  called  that  of 
Meribah.  No  allusion  is  made  in  these  traditions  to  the 
journeying  of  the  Hebrews   from   the  time  of  their  quitting 

*  Jud.  xii.  6. 


202  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

Egypt  to  tlieir  arrival  at  the  place  where  they  obtained  the 
supply  of  quails  l)rought  by  "  a  wind  from  the  sea."  "We 
must  not  necessarily  conclude  that  it  was  wanting  in  the 
records  wliicli  the  comj)iler  had  at  his  disposal.  It  may 
ha^'e  been  present,  but  possibly,  being  substantially  identical 
with  that  in  Exochis,  have  been  rejected  as  involving  un- 
necessary repetition.  But  it  is  at  least  as  probable,  that 
even  before  his  time  these  traditions  had  become  pruned  and 
moulded  into  their  present  shape.  However  tliis  may  be, 
they  assumed  a  form  calculated  to  create  false  impressions  in 
the  minds  of  those  who  were  ignorant  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  traditions  originated,  and  who  were  easily  misled 
by  differences  of  names  whose  original  identity  had  become 
buried  in  the  oblivion  of  centuries. 

Let  us  now  examine  these  names,  and  ascertain  whether 
in  their  philological  aspect  they  tend  to  confirm  or  to  over- 
throw the  conclusion  we  have  already  drawn  respecting  the 
identity  or  contiguity  of  many  places  hitherto  regarded  as 
distinct  and  far  apart. 

The  names.  Succoth,  Etham,  and  ^larali  call  for  no  further 
comment.  Their  probable  meanings  have  been  already  dis- 
cussed. Elim  has  been  shown  to  be  one  of  the  plural  forms  of 
Yl,  of  wliich  the  otlier  is  Elath  or  Elotli ;  and  consequently, 
pliilologically  speaking,  we  shmiM  1)l'  led  to  infer  that  tlie 
well-kiKiwii  ]i()it  at  tlie  lieadof'the  CJulf  of  Akaba  was 
known  by  these  ai)parently  dissimilar  but  really  identical 
names,  provided  the  traditional  evidence  pointed  in  the  same 
direction.  On  (piitting  Elim,  the  Israelites  entered  the 
wilderness  lying  between  that  place  and  Sinai,  antl  encamped 
at  Rephidim.'" 

This  word,  only  fV)und  in  two  places  in  the  Hebrew 
records,  is  supposed  to  mean  "  jjrops"  or  "  supports,"  and  to  be 

*  Exod.  xvii.  I. 


FROM  EGYPT.  203 

derived  from  tlie  root  Ecqilmd,  to  support,  in  the  sense  of 
refreshing  a  weary  person.  The  cognate  name  Arphad  is 
therefore  deemed  not  ill  applied  to  a  fortified  city*  This 
derivation,  even  if  it  be  correct,  gives  us  by  itself  no  clue 
to  the  grounds  upon  which  the  place  at  which  the  Hebrews 
encamped  was  called  by  this  singular  name.  The  place  of 
encampment  was  assuredly  not  a  city,  and  we  can  only  con- 
clude that  it  was  called  Eephidim  because  there  were  there 
several  Rephids,  or  whatever  the  singular  of  the  word  may 
have  been. 

In  the  tradition  in  the  Book  of  Numbers  we  are  told 
that  the  people  journeyed  from  KiBroth-hattaavah  to 
Hazeroth.t  It  was,  however,  at  Kibroth-hattaavah  that 
they  suffered  from  eating  the  quails,  which  in  the  Exodus 
tradition  were  "  sent"  on  the  journey  from  Elim  to  Sinai, 
and  immediately  before  the  arrival  at  Eephidim ;  and  on 
removing  from  Hazeroth  they  pitched  in  the  wilderness  of 
Paran,|  or,  as  it  is  elsewhere  in  the  Book  of  Numbers  termed, 
the  wilderness  of  Zin,§  in  which  place  they  obtained  the 
miraculous  supply  of  water.  Now  on  turning  back  to  the 
record  in  Exodus,  we  find  that  they  removed  from  Eephidim 
where  they  received  tlie  water  from  the  rock  in  Horeb,  and 
came  to  the  desert  of  Sinai,  and  pitched  in  the  wilderness.  || 
Judging  by  the  similarity  of  the  events  recorded  we  would 


*  Hebraists  are  far  from  agreed  upon  tlie  derivation  of  the  word 
Eepliidim,  D''T'S"!  Thus  Geseuius  refers  it  to  TQ~I  Bajjhad,  to  spread  out 
as  a  couch  {Thes.  s.  v.).  Fiirst  a^lopts  the  same  view,  whilst  Buxtorf, 
accepting  the  apparent  interpretation  of  the  Tar'gum  of  Jonathan, 
refers  the  word  to  the  circumstance  that  at  Rephidim  the  Israelites 
loosened  their  hands  from  the  Law— i.e.,  abandoned  their  God — thus 
deriving  it  from  ns")  Baphali,  to  loosen  or  to  withdraw  the  hand  from 
any  one  (Lex.  dial.  Talm  et  Bab.,s.  v.).  See  also  for  this  interpretation 
Talm.  Bech.  5b. 

t  Num.  xi.  35. 
1  Num.  xii.  16.  §  Num.  XX.  1-6.  ||  Exod.  xix.  2. 


204  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

therefore  be  led  to  suspect  that  Hazeroth  in  the  one  tra- 
dition takes  the  place  of  Eephidim  in  tlie  other. 

Hazeroth  is  the  plural  of  Hazcr.  It  also  occurs  in  the 
form  Hazerim,  the  two  words  thus  presenting  a  close 
analogy  to  tlie  plural  forms  Elim  and  Elath.^  Hazer,  or 
more  correctly  Chazer,  an  "  enclosure,"  is  derived  fi'om  the 
unused  root  chazer,  to  surround  Avith  a  wallt  or  fence. 
This  word  also  signifies  "  to  be  green,"  from  whence  its 
derivation  may  be  used  to  mean  "  a  pasture."  The  word 
Hazar  is  of  sufficiently  fi-equent  occurrence  in  the  Hebrew 
records,  and  is  generally  accompanied  with  anotlier  name. 
We  find,  for  example,  Hazar  Addar  "  the  village"  or  "  en- 
closure of  Addar ;"  Hazar  Susah,  also  called  Hazar  Susim, 
Hazar  Enan,  Hazar  Shual,  &c.  It  has  been  suggested 
with  much  plausibility  that  the  word  may  have  been 
applied  to  those  rude  collections  of  temporary  dwellings 
which  are  constructed  by  the  Bedouins  of  loose  stone  walls, 
and  serve  to  support  canvas  coverings  ;t  and  whether  we 
accept  this  signification  or  that  of  "  enclosures,"  we  can 
equally  understand  liow  tlie  Israelites  should  have  applied 
the  name  to  a  place  where  some  changes  had  been  made  to 
furnish  a  suitable  resting-place,  both  as  regards  convenience 
and  protection,  for  a  nomad  tribe.  It  was,  however,  between 
Elim  and  Sinai,  apparently  at  Eephidim,  that  the  Israelites 
met  the  Kenites  under  the  guidance  of  their  Sheikh  Jethro, 
and  concluded  a  league  with  them^  on  tlie  eve  of  proceeding 
into  the  wilderness  of  Sinai  and  encamping  before  the  mount ; 
and  it  was  in  Hazeroth  they  rested  previous  to  pitcliing  in 
the  wilderness  of  Paran.||  We  should  therefore  be  justified 
in  inferring  that  the   words  Eephidim  and   Hazeroth  were 

*  Deut.  ii.  23. 
t  "^^1  Chazer,  signifies  to  enclose  with  a  hedge  or  wall,  and  Hebraists 
are  agreed  in  referring  the  words  Hazerim-Hazeroth,  to  this  root. 
X  l^iihner' 8  Desert  of  the  Exodus,  Y>  322. 
§  Exod.  xviii.  12.  ||  Num.  xii.  16. 


FROM  EGYPT.  205 

used  to  convey  the  same  idea — namely,  "  supports,"  or 
"  fences,"  or  "  enclosures,"  and  constituting  a  species  of 
rude  encampment  in  which  loose  stone  walls  and  probably 
green  bushes  supplied  the  place  of  tents.  This  inference 
would,  however,  become  irresistible  if  we  found  that  the 
wilderness  of  Sinai  and  the  wilderness  of  Paran,  the  former 
being  contiguous  to  Eepliidim  and  tlie  latter  to  Hazeroth, 
were  identical. 

One  of  the  names  of  the  Mount  of  Elohim  was  Horeb 
(Choreb),  so  called,  as  we  venture  to  think,  from  its  caves. 
All  the  evidence  at  our  disposal  points,  as  we  have  shown, 
to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  in  the  Iduma?an  range  ;  and 
we  know  that  these  mountains  were  inhabited  by  a  people 
who  were  called  Horites  (Chorites),  because  they  dwelt  in 
caves.'^  The  tradition  that  Jahveh  appeared  to  Moses  in  a 
burning  bush  upon  this  mountain  appears  to  have  led  some 
of  those  who  settled  in  northern  Palestine  to  substitute 
Sinai  for  Horeb,  the  latter  name  being,  however,  retained  in 
southern  Palestine.  The  sections  into  wliich  the  parent 
stock  from  Egypt  split  up  were,  however,  numerous,  and  the 
name  of  the  Mount  of  God  was  preserved  by  tradition  in 
other  forms  than  those  of  Horeb  and  Sinai.  It  was  also 
called  Mount  Paran,t  which  was,  however,  only  a  different 
rendering  of  Mount  Horeb.  As,  however,  the  identity  of 
Horeb  and  Sinai  is  not  contested,  the  midhlmr  of  Horeb  and 
the  Tnidbhar  of  Sinai  would  mean  the  same  place;  and  if  we  are 
correct  in  concluding  that  Mount  Horeb  and  Mount  Paran 
were  the  same,  and  were  identified  throughout  the  Hebrew 
records  with  Mount  Sinai,  it  necessarily  follows  that  the 
wilderness  of  Paran — i.e.,  of  Horeb — must  have  been  equally 
the  wilderness  of  Sinai. 

We  have   seen,  however,  that   mention   is  made  in  the 


*  Dent.  ii.  12.  t  Deut.  xxxlii.  2  ;  Hab.  iii.  3. 


2o6  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

Book  of  Exodus  of  a  midhhar  of  Sin,  and  also  of  a 
midhhar  of  Sinai  ;  whilst  in  the  Book  of  Numbers  reference 
is  apparently  made  to  neither,  though  tlie  midhhar  of  Zin 
is  recorded  as  one  of  the  j)laces  in  which  the  Hebrews  en- 
camped, No  difficulty  wliatever  arises  in  respect  to  the 
midhhar  of  Zin,  It  is  indisputably  identified  with  the 
midhhar  of  Paran,  which  we  have  just  seen  was  the 
midhhar  of  Sinai ;  Ijut  the  fact  that  it  was  called  in  this 
tradition  the  midhhar  of  Zin  shows  that  there  were  differ- 
ences of  dialect  amongst  those  who  had  common  traditions, 
and  that  the  same  midhhar  which  \vould  be  called  Zin  by 
some  would  be  called  Sin  by  others,  just  as  the  Shibboleth 
of  the  Gileadites  was  called  Sibboleth  by  the  Ephraimites,* 
An  interesting  question  still  remains  for  consideration, 
wliether  tliere  was  any  difference  between  the  midhhar  of 
Sin,  mentioned  in  the  tradition  in  Exodus  as  intervenins 
between  Elim  and  Sinai,  and  the  midhhar  of  Sinai  spoken 
of  in  the  same  tradition.  Tliis  will  be  dealt  with  M'hen 
referring  more  particularly  to  the  topography  of  the  region 
in  which  this  or  these  midhhars  were  situated. 

Kadesh,  which  in  the  Book  of  Nunilierst  is  stated 
indifferently  to  have  been  in  the  midhhar  of  Paran  and  in 
the  midhhar  of  Zin,  is  not  referred  to  eo  nomine  in  the 
Book  of  Exodus,  The  word,  like  the  rest  which  have 
engaged  our  attention,  is  descriptive.  It  signifies  "  holy,"  or 
"  dedicated  to  God."  That  such  a  title  should  be  given  to 
the  region  at  the  foot  of  the  JMount  of  God — that  is  to  say, 
to  the  portion  of  the  midhhar  of  Paran  where  the  Hebrews 
were  dedicated  to  Jahveh  by  a  solemn  covenant — is  at  least 
probable.| 

*  Jiul.  xii.  6.  t  Num.  xii.  i6;  xiii.  21,  26. 

X  t^'li^  Kadesh.     This  word  has  the  meaning  of  "holy,"  l)ut  it  is 

fairly   open   to   doubt   whether   this  was    its    original    signification. 

Perhaps  it  meant  simply  "  dedicated,"  and  dedication  to  the  service  of 

God  came  in  time  to  be  considered  synonymous  with  "  holy."     There 


FROM  EGYPT.  207 

There  are  two  other  names  in  the  record  in  Numbers 
which  demand  a  passing  remark.  Taberah  we  know  nothing 
of  beyond  the  statement  that  in  this  place  Jahveh  consumed 
with  fire  some  of  his  discontented  people,"^  but  it  may  possibly 
refer  to  the  event  recorded  at  greater  length  in  the  narrative 
of  the  rebellion  of  Korah  and  bis  associates.t  The  deriva- 
tion of  the  word  is  unknown.  Kibroth-hattaavah,  the 
name  given  to  the  place  where  the  people  were  punished 
by  being  afforded  the  opportunity  of  surfeiting  themselves 
with  the  flesh  of  quails,  is  interpreted  the  "  graves  of  lust,"| 
the  place,  according  to  the  tradition,  having  been  named  after 
the  graves  of  those  who  perished.^  If  we  are  right  in 
identifying  the  two  traditions  now  engaging  our  attention, 
this  place  was  between  Elim-Elath  and  Sinai — that  is,  to 
the  north  of  the  Gulf  of  Akaba — across  which,  by  means  of 
a  strong  wind,  the  quails  were  carried  to  the  camp  of  the 
Hebrews.  It  would  also  seem  to  follow  that  it  could  have 
been  at  no  considerable  distance  from  the  sea. 

Thus  far,  then,  we  have  found  that  whilst  every  reference 
made  to  the  ]\Iount  of  God  by  those  who  lived  subsequently  to 
the  settlement  in  Canaan  places  it  in  Iduma^a,  the  traditions 
of  those    who   quitted    Egypt    are  alone  intelligible  on  the 


were  a  class  of  persons  termed  D*unu>  Kecleshim  (male  and  female), 
so  calle(R  because  they  were  "  dedicated,"  but  whose  service  totlie  Deity 
was  in  the  highest  degree  impure.  The  prophetic  books  are  replete 
with  protests  against  their  practices.  See  also  Dent,  xxiii.  18,  It 
seems  probable  that  the  place  so  frequently  referred  to  by  this  name 
in  the  traditions  of  the  Hebrew  migration,  was  so  called  because  the 
Hebrews  were  there  dedicated  to  Jahveh. 

*  Num.  xi.  3.  t  Num.  xvi. 

X  mxri  Tavali,  if  we  accejit  as  correct  the  interj^retation  given  of  the 
name  in  the  Hebrew  records,  would  thus  be  derived  from  niX  avah,a. 
lono:ing  desire.  The  former  word  is  frequently  used  in  this  sense. 
The  rendering  in  the  Authorised  Version  should  be  Kibi'oth-hat-Tavah, 
hat  being  simply  the  definite  article,  "  Graves  of  the  Tavah." 
§  Num.  xi.  34. 


2o8         THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION  FROM  EGYYT. 

assumption  that  tlie  mountain  stood  in  tlie  same  region. 
By  crediting  the  Hebrews  with  avoiding  the  Egyptian  set- 
tlements which  blocked  up  the  entrance  to  the  Sinaitic 
peninsula  and  following  a  direct  track  across  the  Tih,  we 
have  seen  how  they  would  have  arrived  at  Elath  at  the 
tune  they  are  supposed  to  have  arrived  at  Elim.  "We  have 
also  found  that  this  tallies  literally  witli  the  statement 
ascribed  to  Jephthah,  that  "  Israel  came  up  from  Egypt,  and 
walked  through  the  wilderness  unto  the  Eed  Sea,  and  came 
to  Kadesh,"  which  was  in  the  midhlmr  of  Paran  or  Zin  or 
Sinai.  We  also  know  tliat  between  Elim-Elath  on  the  lied 
Sea  and  Kadesh-Sinai  certain  events  happened  ;  wliich,  since 
Kadesh  was  the  place  from  which  the  spies  were  sent  forth, 
and  also  from  which  the  Hebrews  turned  in  order  to  pass 
round  the  south  boundary  of  Edom^  must  almost  certainly 
have  occurred  on  the  east  of  the  Tih  steppe.  The  meeting 
with  the  Kenites;  the  battles  with  the  Amalekites  (one  of 
which  took  place  at  Eephidim  and  the  other  at  Kadesh) ;  tlie 
flight  of  quails  brought  up  from  the  sea ;  the  miraculous 
supply  of  water,  which  according  to  one  tradition  flowed 
from  the  rock  in  Horeb  to  Eephidim,  and  in  the  other  to 
Kadesh  (hence  Kadesh-Meribah),  which  must  have  been  in 
close  proxunity  to  Hazeroth,  and  which  in  both  is  named  the 
water  of  Meribali  ;  in  a  word,  all  the  evidence,  whether 
considered  in  its  entirety  or  its  details,  jjoints  in  one  direc- 
tion, and  in  one  direction  alone. 

Having  now  compared  the  opinions  of  the  settlers  in 
Canaan  down  to  the  commencement  of  the  Christian  era, 
respecting  the  locality  of  Mount  Sinai,  with  the  traditions 
which  their  ancestors  brought  witli  them  from  "  the  wilder- 
ness," let  us  acquaint  ourselves  more  closely  ^\'ith  the  topo- 
graphy and  the  general  features  of  the  region  in  which, 
according  to  all  the  previous  indications,  the  Mount  of  God 
was  situaied. 


209 


CHAPTEE  YII. 

'T^HE  broad  and  desolate  valley  running  in  a  dii'ection 
-*-  almost  due  north  from  tlie  head  of  the  Gulf  of  Akaba, 
known  apparently  from  very  ancient  times  as  the  Araba,  has 
been  abeady  described  with  sufl&cient  particidarity.  It 
furnishes  the  natural  highway  for  travellers  passing  between 
the  Gulf  and  the  Dead  Sea,  and  is  well  known  throughout 
its  entire  extent.  The  general  features  are  everywhere  the 
same.  The  sand  and  flint,  of  which  its  surface  consists,  are 
covered  by  the  sparsest  verdure;  the  Arabian  acacia,  the 
tarfa  (or  manna-bearing  tamarisk),  and  an  occasional 
stunted  palm,  with  a  scanty  supply  of  sand-grass,  fm-nishing 
the  sole  vegetation.      It  is  almost  waterless.'"' 

The  moantainous  region  which  bounds  this  vaUey  on  the 
east  is  very  little  known.  The  area  is  inconsiderable, 
nowhere  probably  exceechug  thirty  miles  in  breadth  ;  and 
of  physical  obstacles  to  exploration  there  are  absolutely 
none.  Yet  it  would  be  literally  correct  to  say  that  the 
topography  of  Smith's  Sound,  leading  to  the  North  Pole,  is 
more  familiar  to  geographers  than  that  of  the  picturesque 
hills  and  valleys  of  the  land  of  Edom. 

For  many  reasons  tliis  is.  to  be  regretted.  No  land, 
scarcely  excepting  Palestine  itself,  is  richer  in  its  historical  asso- 
ciations and  in  its  memorials  of  a  mighty  past  than  Idumtea. 
Occupied  in  the  earliest  times,  at  least  on  its  western  border, 
by  a  people  who  obtained  the  generic  appellation  of  Horites 


*  See  ante,  p.  135,  note. 
P 


2IO  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

(Chorites)  from  the  fact  of  their  dwelling  in  eaves,  it  subse- 
quently passed  into  the  hands  of  nomadic  tribes  claiming 
descent  from  the  eldest  son  of  Isaac.  To  them  it  was  given 
by  Jahveh,  and  its  fertility,  especially  when  compared  with 
the  adjoining  deserts,  fully  justified  the  description  of  its 
soil  and  climate  as  being  "  of  the  fatness  of  the  earth,  and 
of  the  dew  of  heaven  from  above."*  In  process  of  time,  and 
as  yet  some  centuries  before  the  Christian  era,  the  Edomites 
gave  place  to  the  Nabathteans — a  very  remarkable  people, 
who  brought  with  them  from  the  east  a  high  order  of  ci"vali- 
sation.  Abandoning  their  nomadic  habits,  they  not  only 
developed  to  the  utmost  tlie  industrial  resources  of  the 
country,  but  established  commercial  relations  with  the 
Western  world  ;t  and  when,  at  the  commencement  of  the 
second  century  of  the  present  era,  the  Eomans  secured 
possession  of  the  country,^  its  capital,  Petra  Adriana,  became 
the  emporium  through  which  passed  the  chief  products  of  the 
East  on  their  way  to  the  principal  cities  of  the  Eoman 
Empire.^     A  few  centuries  later,  the  tide  of   IMoslem  in- 


*  Gen.  x^rvii.  39. 

t  Two  expeditions  were  sent  against  tiie  Nabatlia;ans  so  early  as  the 
close  of  the  fourth  century  B.C.,  by  Antigonus,  one  of  Alexander's 
successors.  The  first  was  commanded  by  Athengeus,  the  second  by  his 
son  Demetrius.  The  inhabitants  of  >Petra,  happening  to  be  absent  at 
some  fair,  Athenajus  carried  off  large  quantities  of  frankincense  and 
myrrh,  and  four  hundred  talents  of  silver  (Diod.  Sic,  xix.  94-99). 

;j:  Under  Trajan,  a.d.  105,  the  kingdom  of  Arabia  was  subjugated  by 
Cornelius  Palma,  the  then  Roman  Governor  of  Syria  (Dio.  Cass.. 
Ixviii.  14;  Amm  Marcell.,  xiv.  8).  Adrian,  Trajan's  successor,  conferred 
on  Petra  certain  municipal  privileges,  and  many  coins  are  still  extant 
bearing  the  inscription,  'AS/jidj/rj  n«Vpa  MTjrpoTroXtr  (Mionnet,  Descript. 
dp  MedaiUrs  AntiqTCs,  v.  587). 

§  We  learn  from  Strabo  that  the  merchamlise  of  Arabia  and  India 
was  transported  on  camels  from  Leuke  Kome  (a  port  on  the  eastern 
coast  of  the  Red  Sea)  to  Petra,  and  thence  across  the  Tih  to  Rhino- 
clura,  a  Mediterranean  port  at  the  mouth  of  the  Wady-el-Arish 
(Strab.  xvi.  4;  xviii.  23). 


FROM  EGYPT.  211 

vasion  swept  across  the  land.  The  blight  was  universal 
and  complete.  Everything  not  absolutely  indestructible 
perished.  The  peaceful  arts,  of  which  so  many  rich  memo- 
rials have  been  left,  were  extinguished  ;  lawless  hordes,  the 
sole  end  of  whose  existence  was  rapine,  and  whose  tradi- 
tional instincts  led  them  to  regard  as  disgraceful  every  form 
of  honest  labour,  speedily  converted  what  was  a  garden 
into  a  wilderness,  and  what  was  an  unrivalled  city  into  a 
mass  of  ruins.  But  neither  fanaticism  nor  barbarism, 
neither  rapacity  nor  neglect,  could  obliterate  the  traces  of 
the  civilisation  which  had  been  only  too  completely  super- 
seded. The  earhest  inhabitants  had  excavated  for  them- 
selves caves  in  the  living  rock ;  their  successors  had  followed 
in  their  footsteps,  and  had  hewn  their  temples  and  their 
palaces  in  the  porphyry  and  sandstone  precipices  which 
encircled  their  city.  It  would  need  an  earthquake  to  de- 
stroy Petra,*  and  so  long  as  the  mountains  of  Idumtea 
stand  the  relics  of  Horites,  Edomites,  Nabathajans,  and 
Romans  may  be  regarded  as  heirlooms  secured  to  endless 
posterity. 

In  the  early  part  of  the  present  century  Burckhardt,  in 
the  course  of  his  travels,  stumbled  on  the  ruins  of  Petra. 
Since  then  it  has  been  frequently  visited,  and  the  city,  its 
approaches,  and  its  most  notable  monuments  are  now 
familiar  to  those  who  study  the  records  of  Eastern  travel. 
But,  with  the  exception  of  its  ancient  capital,  little  is 
known  of  the  interior  of  Idumsea.  Travellers  from  the 
Sinaitic  peninsula  to  the  Holy  Land,  or  vwe,  versd,  when 
proceeding  through  the  Araba,  quit  that  great  highway  by 
some  valley  on  the  eastern  side  which  conducts  them  to 
Petra ;  they  thence  return  by  a  different  route  to  the  Araba, 
and  having  looked  at,  or  in  some  cases  ascended,  the  adjacent 


*  Arconati,  Dlario  di  un  Viaggloin  Arabia  Petrooa. 
P  2 


2 1 2  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

Jebel  Hariiii  (Mount  Hor),  proceed  on  their  travels,  Laborde, 
who  visited  Petra  more  than  half  a  century  ago,  and  gave 
to  tlio  -world  a  rich  portfolio  of  drawings,  together  with  a 
map  of  the  mountain-embedded  city,  made  liis  way  back 
by  a  route  on  the  eastern  side  of  Idumcea,  regaining  the 
Araba  near  the  head  of  the  Gulf  of  Akaba,  by  a  valley  named 
the  Wady  El  Yitm.  Of -the  interior  of  the  country,  save  at  the 
capital,  he  appears  to  have  seen  little  or  nothing ;  nor  have  suc- 
ceeding travellers  been  much  more  fortunate.  The  valleys  of 
Idumtea  still  remain  unexplored.  The  explanation  is  very 
simple.  The  country  is  occupied  by  tribes  whose  members 
pursue  robbery  as  a  fine  art.  The  traveller  must  resign  himself 
to  being  fleeced  in  order  to  avoid  being  violently  plundered, 
and  he  must  lie  prepared  to  risk  his  life  if  he  desires  to  protect 
his  purse.  It  requires  no  ordinary  boldness  to  travel  from 
the  beaten  track. 

It  will  therefore  be  readily  understood  ho\v  valuable  an 
acciuaintance  with  the  topography  of  this  mountaino\is 
country  would  have  proved  in  such  an  inquiry  as  that  in 
which  we'  are  now  engaged.  We  have  now  brought  the 
Hebrews  to  an  adjacent  region,  in  wliicli  liy  the  force  of 
circumstances  they  were  compelled  to  remain  some  time, 
and  wliere  some  notable  events  took  place  M'hich  exercised 
an  immense  influence  on  tlieii*  ^subsequent  history.  It  was 
in  this  region  that  they  met  with  the  Kenite  Sheikh  whom 
tradition  connects  so  closely  with  then*  gi^eat  lawgiver ;  it 
was  here  that  tliey  were  formally  dedicated  to  their  protect- 
ing God,  and  concluded  with  him  a  solemn  covenant;  it 
was  from  tliis  region,  as  a  base,  that  they  first  attempted  t(i 
enter  C'anann  ;  it  was  equally  from  it  that  they  set  out  by  a 
circuitous  route  to  seek  possessions  on  tlie  east  bank  of  the 
.Tonhin. 

The  traveller  jiroceetling  from  the  head  cit"  the  CJulf  along 
the   course   of   the  Araba — at  the  same  time  a  valley  and  a 


FROM  EGYPT.  213 

plain — reaches  at  nightfall/'"  or  at  an  early  hour  on  his 
second  day's  march,  a  swamp  which  compels  liim  to  skirt 
more  closely  the  adjoining  slopes.  He  notices  in  its 
vicinity  the  traces  of  a  Bedouin  cemetery .t  The  place  is 
named  El  Daha.|  Little  presents  itself  to  vary  the  mono- 
tony of  the  desert  as  the  traveller  proceeds  onwards  on  his 
journey,  treading  his  way  over  the  gravelly  soil,  or  crossing 
at  no  infrequent  intervals  the  sand-dunes  which  intercept 
his  path.  The  mountains  on  his  right  gradually  diminish  in 
altitude,  but  only  to  allow  others  still  higher  to  rear  them- 
selves in  the  background.^  On  the  thii'd  day  he  reaches  a 
valley  debouching  from  the  mountains  into  the  plain.  A  few 
minutes'  walk  serves  to  convince  him  that  he  has  quitted  the 
desert.  He  sees  a  spring  of  clear  water  issuing  from  a  cluster 
of  acacias,  whilst  a  few  palm-trees  invite  him  to  repose 
beneath  their  shade. ||  If,  instead  of  penetrating  the 
Iduma^an  mountains  at  this  point,  he  continues  his  course 
along  the  Araba,  he  passes  a  green  meadow,  the  only  patch 
of   fertility   to  be  found  in  the  great  valley ,11  and  on   the 


*  Defl&eh  was  the  first  halting-place  of  Arconati  after  leaving  Akaba, 
at  least  this  was  the  name  given  to  the  place  by  his  attendant 
Bedouins.  He  mentions  nothing  about  it  save  that  his  party  encamped 
close  to  a  group  of  acacias.  In  a  footnote,  Arconati  remarks  that 
DefBeh  is  not  mentioned  by  Buckhardt,  Laborde,  or  Robinson.  On  the 
following  morning  he  reached  the  swamp  (Diario,  p.  324). 

f  Un  cimetiere  Arabe  indique  la  continuation  d'un  ancien  usage 
conserve  par  les  tribus  avec  perseverance  (Laborde,  Voyage  de  VArabie 
Petree,  p.  53). 

X  Travellers  vary  considerably  in  the  names  they  give  to  the  places 

they  visit.     This  arises  from  the  difficulty  of  rendering  phonetically 

into  their  own  language  the  names  uttered  by  the  Bedouins.    It  seems 

to  me  that  the  place  which  Laborde  marks  on  his  map  as  El  Daba  is 

the  Deffieh  of   Arconati,    and   in  another   map    reaj^pears  as  Taba. 

Any  of  these  names  would  fairly  correspond  with  the  Tavah  of  the 

Hebrew  tradition,  the  place  of  the  Kibroth  (graves). 

§  Arconati,  Diario,  p.  332. 

Ij  Diario,  p.333;  Laborde,  Voyage  de  VArabie  Petree,  p.  79- 

^  Diario,  p.  334. 


2 1 4  THE  HEBRE IV  MIGRA  TION 

following  day  he  comes  to  the  entrance  of  another  Wady, 
leading  into  the  region  on  his  riglit.  The  fii'st-mentioned 
valley  is  called  Wady  Gharandel ;  the  second,  Wady  Marhade. 
The  latter  conducts  the  traveller  to  Petra. 

Whilst  still  in  the  Araba,  at  the  entrance  of  Wady 
Marhade,  the  traveller  sees  to  the  north  and  on  the  east  of 
the  "  plain"  a  mountain,  towering  above  its  neighbours.  It 
presents  the  appearance  of  a  truncated  cone,  and  though  still 
at  a  considerable  distance  it  attracts  notice  by  the  singular 
richness  of  the  colours  reflected  from  its  peaks/"  This 
mountain  is  called  Jebel  Neby  Harun,  the  ]\lount  of  the 
Prophet  Aaron,  and  is  identified  by  tradition  with  that  on 
which  the  High  Priest  died,  and  which  in  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  is  styled  Hor  Ha-Har,  the  Mount  of  Mounts — 
KaT  'i^oyy]v,  the,  mountain  ;  or,  as  it  is  rendered  at  the  pre- 
sent day,  JNIount  Hor. 

Let  us  follow  the  traveller  through  the  Wady  Marhad^ 
into  Petra,  not  for  the  sake  of  examining  its  ruins,  however 
magnificent  and  interesting,  but  solely  to  make  om-selves 
acquainted  with  the  natural  physical  characteristics  of  this 
region — characteristics  which  we  may  fairly  conclude  existed 
three  thousand  years  ago.  WincUng  his  way  thi-ough  a 
labyrinth  of  passes,  the  traveller  is  struck  by  the  contrast 
presented  to  the  desert  wliich  be  has  quitted.  The  vegetation 
becomes  gva(bially  UKjre  and  more  luxuriant,  and  he  picks 
his  steps  amidst  thickets  of  oleanders;  tamarisks,  and  red 
poppies.t  ]\Ieantime  the  rocks  forming  the  sides  of  the 
valleys  assume  the  most  varied  hues,  the  sandstone,  which 
here    sui-mounts    the   prophyiy,   presenting   the  constantly 


*  "  Alto  e  frast;ii,'liato  che  sorge  al  di  sopra  degli  altri.     E  aucora 
loutano  e  velato  di  tiute  cerulee"  (Dinrin,  p.  339). 
t  Aicuuati,  Diario,  i>.  349. 


FROM  EGYPT.  215 

changing  tints  of  red  and  yellow,  white  and  violet.^  A 
day's  journey  serves  to-  bring  him  into  the  heart  of  Petra, 
which,  bounded  on  the  east  and  west  by  precipitous  moun- 
tains, lies  in  an  expansion  of  a  valley  which  to-day  bears  the 
name  of  Wady  Musa — the  valley  of  Moses.t  The  precipices 
partly  enclosing  the  city  are  pierced  with  caverns  hewn  out 
of  the  rock,  and  of  many  of  these  excavations  all  that  is 
known  is  that  then'  antiquity  must  reach  to  the  period 
when  the  inhabitants  of  this  region  were  known  as  "  dwellers 
in  caves."  To  the  west,  and  towering  above  the  city  of 
caverns  and  of  rock-cut  palaces,  is  seen  the  ii-regular  summit 
of  Mount  Hor. 

Most  marvellous,  however,  of  all  the  physical  features  of 
the  valley  of  Moses  is  a  chasm  which  pierces  the  mountains 
on  the  east,  and  leads  into  the  city  of  Petra.  This  is  called 
the  Sik.  As  well  to  appreciate  its  natural  beauties  as  to  enjoy 
the  surprise  occasioned  by  the  glories  of  the  ancient  city 
suddenly  bursting  on  the  view,  the  traveller  should  enter 
the  gorge  from  the  east. 

Not  far  distant  from  the  eastern  mouth  of  the  Bik  is  the 


*  "  Le  rocce  che  ci  circondano  sono  di  arenaria  variegata,  veuata  di 
rosso,  di  bianco,  di  giallo,  di  viola,  tutte  le  tinte  sono  di  nna  vivezza 

straordinaria Le   colorazeoni   dell'   arenaria    sono    veramente 

straordinarie,  la  venatura  piu  frequente  si  compone  di  piccole  onde 
blanche  e  rosso  mattoue,  la  venatura  bianca  si  sfnma  in  viola  cbiaro, 
la  rosa  in  color  ruggine  ed  in  bruno"  {Diario,  pp.  350,  352). 

f  Strabo  thus  describes  Petra :  "  The  metropolis  of  the  Nabatheeans  is 
Petra  so  called,  for  it  lies  in  a  place  in  other  respects  plain  and  level,  but 
shut  in  by  rocks  round  about ;  precipitous  indeed  on  the  outside 
but  within  having  copious  fountains  for  a  supjoly  of  water  and  the 
irrigation  of  gardens.  Beyond  this  enclosure  the  region  is  mostly  a 
desert,  especially  towards  Judaaa  (Strabo,  xvi.  4-21).  Pliny  gives 
the  following  description  of  the  Nabathasan  capital ;  "  The  Naba- 
thgeans  inhaoit  the  city  called  Petra,  in  a  valley  less  than  two  miles 
in  amplitude,  sun-ounded  by  inaccessible  mountains,  with  a  stream 
flowing  through  it"  {H.  N.  vi.  28,  32). 


2i6  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

village  of  Elji,  whose  rude  hovels  are  built  with  the 
broken  fragments  of  the  palaces  of  Petra.*  A  quarter  of 
an  hour's  walk  to  the  north-east  of  the  village  a  stream  of 
ft'ater  may  be  seen  bm-sting  forth  from  beneath  a  rock.  It 
bears  the  name  of  Ain  Musa,t  the  Spring  of  Moses.  The 
rivulet  thus  formed  takes  a  westward  course,  where  it  is 
speedily  joined  by  a  stream  from  an  adjacent  Wady,  and 
with  the  waters  of  some  other  springs  it  assumes  gradually 
increasing  proportions  till  it  passes  between  some  rocks.  At 
this  point  the  valley  closes  in,  the  sides  being  formed  by 
sandstone  cliffs  some  fifty  feet  in  height  and  about  fifty 
yards  apart,  the  brook  making  its  way  along  a  bed  tliickly 
fringed  with  oleanders.^  The  sides  of  the  cliffs  are  pierced 
with  caves,  which  may  have  equally  served  the  purposes 
of  habitations  for  the  living  and  tombs  for  the  dead. 
Here  also  the  evidences  of  the  later  rock  sculpture  of  the 
Nal  >atlut'ans  and  the  Eomans  begin  to  manifest  themselves. 
The  valley  continues  to  contract  for  about  a  quarter  of  a 
mile,  and  then  suddenly  expands  into  what  appears  to  be  a 
cul-de-sac  closed  in  by  cliffs  of  red  sandstone.  The  brook 
crosses  this  space,  and  then  disappears  in  a  narrow  cleft  in 
the  rocks  hardly  perceptible  to  the  eye.  This  cleft  marks 
tlie  commencement  of  the  Sih  of  the  Wady  Musa. 


*  DiariOy-p.  375. 
t  "  Ain  Monsa  is  a  copious  sj^ring,  rushing  from  inuler  a  rock  at  the 
eastern  extremity  of  the  Wady  Mousa.  There  are  no  ruins  near  the 
spring ;  a  Httle  lower  down  in  the  valley  is  a  mill,  and  above  it  is  the 
village  of  Badabde,  now  abandoned.  Proceeding  from  the  spring  along 
the  rivulet  for  about  twenty  minutes,  the  valley  opens  and  leads  into 
a  plain  about  a  quarter  of  an  hour  in  length  and  ten  minutes 
in  breadth,  in  which  the  rivulet  joins  mth  another  descending 
from  the  mountain  to  the  southward.  Upon  the  declivity  of  the 
mountain  in  the  angle  formed  by  the  junction  of  the  two  rivulets, 
stands  Elji,  the  principal  village  of  the  Wady  Mousa"  (Burckhardt. 
iSyria,  p.  420). 

J  Robinson,  Bib.  Bes.,  ii.  129;  3rd.  Ed. 


;-*.i 


,^  ^  k 


> 


\ 


*   -4 


'% 

K^ 

^ 

% 

m 

''  -, 

Af'- 

■■?>■ 

'      -3 

S 

/ 

^ 

^  -  '     / 

Ph 

•ID    , 

a 

— -'. 'J 

-q 

^„ 


^ 


.-^^^  <r; 


> 


ro 


2&. 


ui 
o 

H 

Ph 

DC 
O 

Ph 

CQ 

<• 

■w 

o 

_J 

^ 

r) 

o 

s  ■'^- 


FROM  EGYPT.  217 

The  Sik  is  a  stupendous  chasm,  narrow  and  tortuous,  of 
about  a  mile  in  length.  It  is  probably  the  result  of  some 
natural  convulsion  which  rent  the  sandstone  cliff  in  twain, 
and  apparently  serves  no  other  purpose  in  Nature  than  that 
of  giving  a  free  passage  to  the  brook  which  flows  from  Ain 
Miisa.  Its  course  is  westward.  The  descent  of  the  bed  of  the 
gorge  is  somewhat  rapid.  The  cliffs  which  form  the  sides  are 
at  the  entrance  not  more  than  twelve  feet  apart,  and  about  a 
hundred  feet  in  height ;  but  they  gTadually  increase  in  alti- 
tude, and  are  supposed  to  attain  at  the  western  extremity 
of  the  ravine  an  altitude  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  feet.*  The 
Ijrook  flows  through  the  entire  course  of  the  Bik,  watering 
thickets  of  oleanders,  which  almost  choke  up  the  passage, 
whilst  figs  and  tamarisks  sprout  forth  between  the  crevices 
in  the  rocks,  and  rich  festoons  of  creeping  plants  clothe  the 
walls  of  the  chasm.  At  some  places  the  overhanging  cliffs 
approach  so  closely  as  to  intercept  the  view  of  the  sky,  and 
it  is  only  on  emerging  from  the  opposite  extremity  of  the 
gorge  that  the  direct  rays  of  sunlight  again  cross  the  field  of 
the  traveller's  vision.t  The  Sik  terminates  in  a  broader  ravine, 
which  it  enters  nearly  at  right  angles.  On  emerging  from 
the  SiJi  the  traveller  sees  the  marvellous  faqade  of  one  of 
the  principal  glories  of  Petra,  hewn  in  the  face  of  the  oppo- 


*  Robinson,  B.  E.,  ii.  516.  The  heiglit  of  the  walls  of  the /Sffc 
is  still  a  matter  of  speculation,  and  travellers  have  varied  con- 
siderably in  their  estimates.  Robinson  follows  Burckhardt  {Syria, 
p.  422)  in  his  calculations.  Irby  _  and  Mangles  gave  from  400  to 
700  feet  {Egypt,  Syria,  and  Holy  L&nd,  p.  414) ;  Arconati  Visconti, 
100  to  120  metres  {Diario  di  tin  Viaggio,  p.  362). 

f  "  L'arenaria  (del  Sik),  e  rossa  tutta  come  mattone,  ore  piu  laccosa 
venata  di  strisce  brune,  violacee  e  bianche,  strisce  tortuose  a  desegni 
arabeschi  i  piv\  bizarri :  talvolta  le  pareti  si  accostano  verso  la  cima  e 
iutercettano  la  vista  del  cielo"  {Diario,  p.  362  ;  Stanley,  Sinai  and 
Palestine,  p.  87). 


2 1 8  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

site  precipice,  the  rock-cut  temple  known  as  the  Khuzneh 
Phar'un,  the  treasury  of  Pharaoh.* 

Before  quitting  the  Siik  the  traveller  notices  that  the 
ancient  inhabitants  of  the  city  took  no  ordinary  pains  to 
utilise  the  water  which  flows  through  the  ravine.  A  channel 
is  cut  in  the  rock  at  the  base  of  the  southern  wall,  whilst 
the  remains  of  a  conduit  are  still  to  he  seen  high  up  on  the 
opposite  side  of  the  chasm.  Suitable  provision  aj)pears  to 
have  been  made  by  means  of  aqueducts,  for  not  only 
carr)'ing  off,  but  turning  to  account,  the  excess  of  water  in 
the  rivulet  during  the  rainy  season.^ 

The  brook  follows  the  course  of  the  broader  ravine  into 
which  the  8ik  opens,  and  between  precipices,  pierced  by  caves, 
takes  a  north-westward  course  till,  after  passing  the  remains 
of  an  amphitheatre  capable  of  accommodating  upwards  of 
three  thousand  spectators,^  and  whose  benches  are  hewn  out 
of  the  living  rock  (the  ravine  then  turning  to  the  west),  it 
enters  the  area  in  which  the  city  stood. 

The  cliff-bound  valley  here  terminates,  and  opens  into 
an  irregular  plain,  bounded  on   the  east  and  west  by  sand- 


*  The  association  by  the  Bedouins  of  many  of  the  relics  of  Petra 
with  the  Pharaohs  is  very  singular,  and  in  truth  iuexi^licable.  The 
rulers  of  Egypt  at  no  period  occupied  the  Iduma^an  city  ;  none  of  the 
structures,  the  traces  of  which  still  remain,  can  by  any  possibility 
have  owed  their  existence  to  any  of  them.  The  Bedouins  themselves 
can  in  no  way  account  for  connecting  certain  of  the  monuments  with 
the  Pharaohs.  Thus,  there  are  the  Zub  Phar'un,  the  Khuzneh 
Phar'un,  etc.,  and  hence  in  a  general  way  the  ancient  city  is  associated 
witli  the  Pharaohs.  Arconati  remarks  :  "  Secondo  gli  Arabi,  i  Faraoni 
ed  i  Christiani  sono  gli  autori  di  tutti  i  monunienti  che  non  sono  dell' 
epoca  Musulmana.  Non  credo  pero  che  di  Faraoue  se  ne  facciano  uu' 
idea  abbastanza  chiara"  (Diario,  p.  383).  It  appears  to  me,  for  reasons 
which  will  become  ajiparent  at  a  later  stage  of  this  inquiry,  that  the 
name  Phar'un  is  a  relic  of  the  most  ancient  name  of  the  city,  Pharau, 
and  that  the  objects  now  associated  with  the  Pharauhs  were  origi- 
nally spoken  of  as  being  in  Pharan. 

t   Ilubiiisuu,  U.  U.,  ii.  131.  +  Burckhardt,  Sijriii,  p.  427. 


FROM  EGYPT.  219 

stone  precipices,  but  extending  to  the  north  and  south 
by  constantly  undulating  ascents  towards  higher  table- 
lands.-^ Through  the  midst  of  this  plain  the  brook  makes 
its  way  towards  the  cliffs  bounding  the  city  on  the  western 
side,  and  about  midway  across,  the  remains  of  stout  walls 
bordering  the  banks  give  grounds  for  conjecture  that  its 
course  was  here  bridged  over.  It  pierces  the  western  cliff 
by  a  chasm  somewhat  similar  in  character  to  the  Sik, 
though  somewhat  broader  and  less  regular.  Its  walls  are 
full  of  tombs,  and  its  sides  are  rent  at  frequent  intervals  by 
similar  chasms  in  the  sandstone  rocks.  The  ravine  is 
choked  with  oleanders  and  other  shrubs,  and  beyond  a  com- 
paratively sliort  distance  it  has  never  been  explored.  It  is 
unknown  what  direction  is  afterwards  taken  by  the  brook, 
or  what  ultimately  becomes  of  the  swollen '  waters  of  the 
stream  which  takes  its  rise  in  the  Ain  Musa.t  For  obvious 
reasons  Petra  has  been  visited  by  travellers  in  the  summer, 
and  at  such  time  the  brook  is  almost  dry.  It  w^ould 
be  interesting  to  know  its  proportions  in  the  rainy 
season. 

The  city  of  Petra,  though  bounded  by  lofty  cliffs  on  the 
east  and  west,  lies  comparatively  open  towards  the  north 
and  south.  On  the  north,  the  ground  ascends  with  many 
irregular  eminences  and  seamed  by  various  wadys  towards 
the  Sutiih  Beida,  or  "White  Plains,^  whilst  on  the  south  it 
equally  mounts,  but  much  more  rapidly,  to  a  plateau  higher 
than  that  on  the  north,  and  named  the  Sutuh  Harim,  or 
"  Aaron's  Plains."^  This  plateau  runs  round  the  extremity 
of  the  western  cliff  of  the  city,  and  is  gradually  lost  in  the 
slopes  of  Mount  Hor.  A  road  emerges  from  the  south- 
western corner  of  the  area  of  Petra,  and  ascending  a  long 


*  Eobinson,  B.  B.,  ii.  135.  f  Ibid.  B.  B.,  ii.  137. 

X  Ibid.  ii.  1 38.  §  Ibid.  ii.  129. 


220  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

narrow  gorge  reaches  this  plateau,  where,  after  skirting  the 
southern  slopes  of  JMount  Hor,  it  divides  into  two  paths 
leading  to  the  Araba ;  that  on  the  left  being  by  way  of  the 
Wady  Abu  Kusheibeh,  that  on  the  right  by  the  Wady 
Er-Euba'y.^- 

The  rocks  whicli  shut  in  Petra,  and  are  rent  by  the 
various  chasms  and  ravines  which  both  from  east  and  west 
lead  towards  the  city,  are  of  reddish  sandstone,  the  softness 
of  the  material  greatly  facilitating  those  excavations  and 
rock  sculj)tures  which  have  rendered  Petra  so  famous.  The 
forms  of  the  cliffs  are  irregular  and  grotesque,  and  may  be 
regarded  as  culminating  in  the  adjacent  pinnacles  of  Mount 
Hor.  The  most  striking  peculiarity  of  the  rocks  is,  however, 
tlieii"  bright  and  varied  colourings.  "  They  present,"  WTites 
Eobinson,  "  not  a  dead  mass  of  didl  monotonous  red,  but  an 
endless  variety  of  bright  and  living  hues,  from  the  deepest 
crimson  to  the  softest  pink,  verging  also  sometimes  to  orange 
and  yellow.  Tliese  varying  shades  are  often  distinctly 
marked  by  waving  lines,  imparting  to  the  surface  of  the 
rock  a  succession  of  brilliant  and  chancjiniT  tints,  like  the 
hues  of  watered  silk,  and  adding  greatly  to  the  imposing 
effect  of  the  sculptured  monuments."  "  This  display  of 
colours,"  he  adds,  "  is  strikingly  exhibited  along  the  paths 
leadiii"  to  the  Deir  and  to  Mount  Hor."t 


*  Robinson,  B.  2?.,  ii.  1 39. 
t  Bih.  Res.,  ii.  140.     Stanley  thus  describes  the  rocks  of  Petra  : 
*'  We  found  ourselves  insensibly  encircled  with  rocks  of  deepening  and 

deepening  red The  colours,  though  not  gaud}',  or  rather  because 

they  are  nut  gaudy,  are  gorgeous When  one  cornea  in  face  of 

these  very  cliffs  themselves,   then  they  are  a  gorgeous  though  dull 

crimson,  streaked  and  suffused  with  purple The  rocks  are  almost 

precipitous,  or  rather  they  would  bo,  if  they  did  not,  like  their  brethreu 
in  all  this  region,  overlap  and  crumble  and  crack  as  if  they  would 
crush  over  you"  (Stanley,  Sinai  and  Palestine.  London :  i86(>. 
pp.  87-89). 


FROM  EGYPT.  221 

The  Deir,  or  "  Convent,"  is  a  rock-cut  temple  hewn  oiit  of 
a  cliff  which  springs  from  the  plateau  overlooking  the  north- 
west comer  of  the  city.  It  is  reached  by  a  narrow  and 
steep  /S^^^'-like  chasm  wliich  pierces  the  western  cliff  near 
its  northern  extremity.  The  Deir  has  a  south-western 
aspect,  Mount  Hor  towering  above  and  in  front  of  it. 
Its  external  architecture  is  florid,  and  too  profusely  orna- 
mented; the  interior  consists  of  a  single  excavated  chamber, 
square,  and  with  perfectly  smooth  walls.  In  one  side  there 
is,  however,  a  broad-arched  niche,  above  which  the  traces  of 
a  cross  have  been  discerned.  The  Deir  may  have  been 
adapted  to  Christian  uses,  but  there  is  no  reason  for  doubting 
that  it  was  a  temple  in  pre-Christian  times.  But  just  as  the 
niche  and  the  cross  are  no  evidence  that  the  chamber  was 
originally  hewn  in  the  rock  to  serve  the  purposes  of  a 
Christian  temple,  so  the  sculptured  fac^.ade  on  the  exterior 
does  not  necessarily  refer  its  origin  to  the  period  of  the 
Antoniues.  At  what  time  it  first  acquired  a  character  for 
sanctity  is  unknown,  nor  can  we  say  whether  the  regular 
square  chamber  always  possessed  the  same  proportions. 
But  one  or  two  points  in  connection  with  the  Deir  are  not 
unworthy  of  notice.  It  lay  outside  the  city,  in  a  place 
very  diliicult  of  access.  The  path  to  it  leads  through  a 
steep  gorge,  with  intricate  windings,  and  is  alone  rendered 
practicable  by  steps  hewn  out  of  the  rock  with  immense 
labour.  It  is  not  easy  to  understand  what  motive  either 
Romans  or  Nabathajans  could  have  had  for  constructino-  a 
temple  in  so  strange  a  place.-  If  it  had  an  eastern  aspect 
it  might  be  connected  with  solar  worship,  and  we  might  sup- 
pose that  the  priests  of  the  cliff-ght  city  placed  theii'  temple 
on  the  summit  of  the  western  heights  in  order  that  they 
might  adore  the  rising  sun.  But  its  aspect  is  south-west ; 
its  occupants  could  see  absolutely  nothing  but  Mount  Hor 
rising  above  them   in  all   its   sohtary    majesty.     But   wliy 


2  2  2  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

sliould  Mount  Hor  have  been  kept  in  view  ?     This  supplies 
matter  for  curious  speculation.* 

The  mountain  Jebel  Neby  Harun,  as  it  is  called  by  the 
Arabs,  is  situated  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Araba,  about 
midway  between  the  Gulf  of  Akaba  and  the  Dead  Sea, 
and  almostly  directly  interposes  between  Petra  and  the 
great  valley.  It  is  rouQ-lily  estimated  at  about  4800  feet 
above  the  level  of  tlie  sea,  but  to  the  spectator  standing  in 
the  Araba  its  isolation  and  rugged  and  precipitous  peaks 
give  it  an  apparently  greater  altitude.  It  presents  the 
singular  appearance  of  a  mountain  superimposed  on  another. 
The  red  sandstone  of  which  it  mainly  consists  is  traversed 
by  veins  of  red  granite  and  porph^Ty,  the  effect  being  to 
give  a  rich  and  varied  colouring  to  tlie  bare  and  baiTen 
crags  which  seem  piled  upon  each  other  in  chaotic  con- 
fusion.t  Its  ascent  is  unattended  with  any  physical  dith- 
culty,  liut  the  jealousy  and  the  rapacity  of  the  Bedouins 
present  olistacles  which  even  to  the  boldest  have  frequently 
proved  insurmountable.  Burckhardt  was  compelled  to  turn 
back  when  he  had  reached  "  Aaron's  Plains,"  which  seemingly 
top  the  lower  uiuuiitiiiu  from  wliich  the  upper  appears  to 
s])ring.  Iiol)inson,  one  of  the  most  indefatigable  of  travel- 
lers, in  ex]tloring  every  place  invested  with  a  real  or  fancied 
Biblical  interest,  was  also  obliged  to  quit  Petra  and  return  to 
Hebron,  without  ascending  the  celebrated  mount.  Ai-conati 
Visconti,  a  most  careful  and  painstaking  observer,  and  richly  en- 
dowed with  grapluc  power,  was  reluctantly  compelled  to  resist 


*  Dean  Stanley  notices  the  peculiar  position  of  the  Deir  and  its 
difficult  approach,  and.  finds  an  explanation  in  its  connection  with  the 
mountain  hallowed  as  the  burial-place  of  Aaron  (S.  and,  P.,  p.  95). 
But  independently  of,  nay  even  antecedent  to,  this  tradition,  this 
mountain  was  invested  with  a  sanctity  which  may  furnish  a  key  to  the 
site  chosen  for  the  Deir.  It  stands  just  outside  "the  borders"  and 
"  at  the  netlier  partnf  the  mount."     (Exod.  xix.  12,  17.) 

t  Irby  and  Mangles,  E<jijpf,  Syria,  and  Holy  Land,  p.  133. 


FROM  EGYPT.  223 

the  exactions  of  the  Arab  Sheikh — the  self-constituted  custo- 
dian of  the  mountain — and  deny  himself  the  promised  pleasure 
of  ascending  Mount  Hor.  Others  have  been  more  fortunate  ; 
and  although  the  information  at  our  command  is  far  from 
being  as  precise  as  could  be  desired,  we  are  still  enabled 
to  form  a  tolerably  accurate  idea  of  the  general  features  of 
the  Mount  of  Mounts. 

The  mountain  proper  rises  from  a  lofty  base  or  ridge 
commanding  the  Araba  on  the  west,  and  overhanging  on  the 
east  the  city  of  Petra.  This  ridge  may  be  reached  with 
facility  by  more  than  one  Wady,  and  thence  the  traveller  by 
an  ascent  somewhat  more  arduous  can  make  his  way  to  the 
top  of  the  mountain.  The  sides  are  plentifully  covered 
with  juniper-bushes,  which  are  found  even  close  to  the 
summit.  The  rocks,  with  their  strata  of  sandstone  and 
porphyry,  reflect  the  rays  of  the  sun  in  every  imaginable 
tint,  and  here  and  there  flash  them  back  with  all  the  sem- 
blance of  a  lurid  flame.  Near  the  summit  of  the  mountain 
is  a  cavern  formed  by  an  overhanging  ledge  of  rock,  and 
close  by  is  a  small  building  which  is  said  to  enclose  Aaron's 
tomb. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  enter  into  any  further  details  respect- 
ing the  characteristics  of  this  mountain.  The  base  or  nether 
part,  from  which  the  upper  eminence  springs,  is  a  mountain 
in  itself,  and  on  the  south-eastern  side  assumes  the  form  of 
a  plateau,  which  receives  the  name  of  Sutuh  Harun, 
"  Aaron's  Plains." 

It  may,  perhaps,  appear  that  we  have  wandered  far  from 
the  beaten  track  in  entering  the  Idumsean  mountains,  with 
the  object  of  thro^v^ng  any  new  Light  on  the  direction  of  the 
Hebrew  migration  from  Egypt.  Kadesh,  wherever  situated^ 
was,  according  to  tradition,  on  the  frontier  of  Edom ;  it  was 
from'  thence  the  Hebrews  addressed  in  vain  their  request  for 
permission  to  pass  through  that  country,  and  when  that  per- 


224  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

mission  was  refused,  or  when,  according  to  one  account,  Edom 
came  out  against  Israel  with  a  strong  liand,"^'  the  Hebrews 
retraced  their  steps  towards  the  ^lanitic  Gulf,  and  compassed 
Edom,  in  order  to  make  their  way  towards  the  Trans- Jordanic 
region.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  if  any  point  was 
established  more  conclusively  than  another,  it  is  that  the 
Hebrews  did  not  enter  -Edom  on  their  journey  fi"om  Egypt  to 
Canaan.  But  before  accepting  this  conclusion,  we  must  be 
careful  not  to  confound  the  Edom  of  the  Exodus  with  tliat 
of  a  much  later  period. 

According  to  the  accepted  tradition,  the  western  mountains 
of  Idumcca  (or,  as  they  were   collectively  termed,  Seir)  were 
originally  inhabited  by  a   people  styled   Horites   (Chorites), 
Troglodytes  or  cave-dwellers,  who  were  ejected  by  the  de- 
scendants of  Esau.     But  the  literal  accuracy  of  this  belief,  if 
applied  to  the  existing  state  when  the  Exodus  took  ])lace,  is 
open  to   gT^ave  doubt.     The  statement  in  Deuteronomy  that 
the  Horites  were  "  destroyed"  by  the  cliildren  of  Esau,  "  who 
dwelt  in  their  stead,"t  if  it  could  be  referred  to  Moses  or  any 
of  his  contemporaries,  would  be  undoubtedly  entitled  to  great 
weight ;  but  the  concluding  words  of  the  sentence,  "  as  Israel 
did  unto  the   land  of   his  possession,  which   Jahveh   gave 
unto  them,"  clearly  indicates  an  authorship  of  an    unknown 
(late,  but  certainly  subsequent  to  the  settlement  in  Canaan.    In 
the  same  chapter  another  allusion  is  made  to  the  expulsion  of 
the  Horites  by  the  Beni-Esau,  where  it  is  said  that  the  latter 
"  succeeded"  the  former,  and  "  dwelt  in  their  stead,  even  unto 
tliis  day  ;"J  a  form  uf  expression  quite  inconceivable  if  used 
at  tlie  time  in  reference  to  a  people  of   whose  possession  of 
Edom,  assuming  that  they  did  then  possess  it,  the  emigrants 
from  Egypt  could  naturally  entertain  no  doubt.  The  allusidu 
to  the  Horites  in  "  tlie  battle  of  the  kings,"^   is  more  to  the 


*  Num.  XX.  20.  t  Deut.  ii.  12.  %  Deut.  ii.  22. 

§  Gou.  xiv. 


FROM  EGYPT.  225 

purpose,  as  showing  that  they  were  a  distinct  people  which 
preceded  the  descendants  of  Esau ;  because  if  we  accept 
Abraham  and  Esau  as  historical  personages,  then  the  Horites 
were  defeated  by  Chedorlaomer  and  liis  allies  long  before 
Esau  was  born.  The  latter  question  is,  however,  far  too  wide 
to  be  dealt  with  here. 

That  the  Idumpean  mountains  were  inhabited  previous  to 
the  incursion  of  the  tribes  claiming  descent  from  Abraham 
is  very  certain,  but  we  have  no  evidence  to  fix  the  time 
when  these  tribes  secured  possession  of  the  entire  strip  of 
territory  intervening  between  the  Araba,  and  the  eastern 
desert.  There  are,  however,  very  strong  indications  that  this 
result  had  not  been  acliieved  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus. 

We  know  that,  according  to  tradition,  Moses  was  a  son-in- 
law  of  Jethro,  the  Sheikh  of  Midian,  elsewhere  described  as  a 
Kenite  ;  and  that  after  quitting  Elim,  and  between  that  place 
and  Mount  Sinai,  the  Hebrews  were  met  by  this  Sheikh. 
We  also  know  that  an  alliance  was  formed  between  the 
Kenites  and  the  Hebrews ;  that  the  former  aided  in  the 
invasion  of  southern  Palestine,"^  and  were  rewarded  for  their 
co-operation  ;  and  that  at  a  much  later  period  this  assistance 
was  kept  in  kindly  remembrance  by  Saul  when  about  to 
make  "War  against  the  Amalekites.t  We  are  also  aware  that 
at  the  time  of  the  Exodus  the  Kenites  occupied  the  region 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  Mount  Horeb,;];  and  if  we  are  right 
in  our  conclusions  thus  far  in  tracing  the  course  taken  by 
the  Hebrews,  we  should  place  Jethro's  land  on  the  east  of 
the  Araba,  and  probably  not  "far  distant  from  that  desert 
valley.  Of  the  origin  of  the  Kenites  we  are  told  nothing 
They  are  referred  to  as  a  people  occupying  a  region  to  the 
south-east  of  Palestine.  The  most  pointed  allusion  to  the 
locality  of  the  land  of  the  Kenites  is,  however,  that  made  in 


*  Jud.  i.  16.  t  I  Sam.  xv.  6.         J  Exod  iii.  1. 

Q 


226  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

the  prophecy  attributed  to  Balaam,  the  son  of  Beor  :  "  And 
he  looked  on  the  Kenites,  and  took  up  his  parable,  and  said, 
Strong  is  thy  dwelling-place,  and  thou  pattest  thy  nest  in  a 
rock."  If  this  were  a  production  of  the  period  of  the  Exodus, 
it  would  furnish  conclusive  evidence  that  the  Kenites  then 
made  their  habitations  in  a  precipitous  region  difficult  of 
access.  But  although  Biblical  critics  disallow  to  the  prophecy 
of  Balaam  a  greater  antiquity  than  the  eighth  century  B.C., 
it  would  still  prove  that  the  Kenites  at  that  time  were 
believed  to  have  occupied  such  a  region  some  centuries 
previously.  But  if  the  Kenites  who  made  their  nest  in  a 
rock  were  in  effect  Horites — Troglodytes,  cave-dwellers — it 
is  a  significant  fact  that  we  discover,  within  a  few  miles  of 
the  Ai-aba,  a  place  which  even  to  the  present  day  furnislies 
indications  that  its  inhabitants  at  some  early  period  merited 
the  designation  applied  to  the  Kenites. 

In  Balaam's  prophecy  a  distinction  is  drawn  between  i\\Q, 
Edomites,  the  Amalekites,  and  the  Kenites,  and  to  the  writer's 
mind  they  were  consequently  separate  peoples.  It  is  not 
unreasonable-  therefore  to  conclude  that  the  Kenites  were 
the  cave-dwellers  who  are  referred  to  as  having  been  dis- 
possessed by  the  Beni-Esau,  but  who  at  the  time  of  the 
Exodus  occupied  the  mountainous  region  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  the  later  Petra.  They  were  clearly  distinct  from 
the  Edomites,  though  probably,  like  the  IMidianites  witli 
whom  they  were  confounded,  they  claimed  a  descent  from 
Abraham.  They  were  at  all  events  at  this  period  on  terms 
of  amity  with  their  neighbours,  and  it  was  from  Kenite 
territory  tliat  the  messengers  were  sent  on  behalf  of  the 
Israelites,  requesting  permission  to  pass  through  Edom.  It 
is  said  there  were  kings  in  Edom  before  there  were  kings  in 
Israel ;  but  although  there  is  mention  of  a  king  of  Edom  in 
the  traditions  of  the  Exodus,  we  liave  no  information  as 
to  the  extent  of  his  dominions.       "We  know,  however,   that 


FROM  EGYPT.  227 

one  of  the  principal  cities,  if  not  the  capital  of  Edom,  in 
early  and  in  comparatively  late  times,  was  Bozrali  ;^  and 
there  is  good  reason  for  identifying  it  with  the  Arab  village 
Beszeyi'a,  which  lies  in  the  mountainous  region  to  the  south 
of  the  Dead  Sea.  Assuming  that  Bozrah  was  the  capital  of 
the  king  of  Edom  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus,  it  is  quite  con- 
ceivable that  the  Hebrews  should  have  been  amicably 
received  by  a  tribe  occupying  a  district  on  the  east  of  the 
Araba,  on  the  border  of  Edom,  without  being  able  to  secure 
a  free  passage  through  the  territory  in  the  heart  of  wliich 
Bozrah  was  situated.  But  if  Petra  was  occupied  by  the 
Kenites  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus,  it  is  worthy  of  note  that 
the  only  route  from  Petra  to  the  region  to  the  east  of  the 
Dead  Sea  would  have  been  through,  or  at  all  events  very 
close  to,  the  city  of  Bozrah.  It  is  not  very  surprising  that  the 
king  of  Edom  refused  permission  to  the  impoverished  and 
possession-seeking  Hebrews  to  take  this  route.  On  the  whole, 
however,  Edom  did  not  treat  his  brother  Israel  badly ;  he 
permitted  liim  to  pass  through  his  borders,  and  suppHed  him 
Avith  food,  a  concession  not  only  admitted,  but  relied  on,  by 
Israel  with  some  diplomatic  skill  on  a  subsequent  occasion.f 
If  therefore  the  Hebrews,  having  quitted  Elim-Elath, 
proceeded  up  the  Araba,  there  is  not  only  nothing  incon- 
sistent with  the  traditions  preserved  to  us  in  their  having 
penetrated  one  of  the  Idumtean  valleys,  but,  looking  to  their 
friendly  reception  by  the  Kenites,  it  becomes  almost  certain 
they  did  so.  The  Araba  furnished  sustenance  for  neither 
man  nor  beast.  To  find  a  suitable  camping-ground  on  the 
border  of  Edom,  in  which  they  could  abide  many  days, 
they  must  have  entered  one  of  the  Wadys  debouching  from 
the  mountain  range  into  the  desert  "  plain." 


*  Gen.  xxxvi.  33;    I  Ohron,  i.  44;    Isa.  xxxiv.  6;  Ixiii.  i  ;     Jer.  xlix. 
13-22  ;  Amos  i.  12  ;  Micah  ii.  12. 

t  Dent.  ii.  29. 
Q  2 


228 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

T  F  the  Hebrews  in  the '  course  of  their  migration  from 
-*■  Ey}73t  made  their  way  in  a  direct  course  to  the  moun- 
tainous region  on  the  east  of  the  Araba ;  if  they  found  there 
the  Mount  of  Elohim  ;  if  some  of  the  most  remarkable 
events  which  marked  the  sojourn  in  "  the  wilderness " 
occurred  in  this  region ;  then  we  might  be  led  to  expect  that, 
even  after  the  lapse  of  three  thousand  years, we  should  still  find 
in  tradition  or  in  legendary  lore  some  traces,  however  faint, 
of  the  associations  said  of  old  to  have  been  connected  with 
several  of  the  j)laces  which  the  Helirews  ^^sited.  It  be- 
comes therefore  our  duty  to  inquire  whether  there  are  to 
be  found  in  Idumtea  any  traditions  or  legends  which  support 
the  inference  that  here  the  liberated  captives  made  a 
temporary  stay  on  their  road  from  Egj-pt,  and  concluded  or 
renewed  a  covenant  with  the  Elohim  of  their  fathers. 

Should  we  discover  the  existence  of  such  legends,  it  will 
subsequently  be  necessary  to  ascertain,  through  an  examina- 
tion of  the  patriarchal  traditions '  and  Eg}']itian  records, 
whether  Idumava  was  the  country  to  which  those  who  quitted 
Egypt  would  not  only  in  the  natural  course  of  things  direct 
their  steps,  but  where  they  would  in  all  ])rnl)ability 
meet  with  a  peoj)le  claiming  a  common  lineage,  and  if  not 
actually  jjrepared  to  give  them  a  hospitable  reception,  not 
averse  to  speeding  them  on  their  way  with  good  wishes  for 
their  future  prosperity. 

A  tradition  the  origin  of  wliicli  is  unknown,  unless 
indeed  it  is  to  be  found  in  those  records  we  are  now  examin- 
ing, but  which  can  be  traced  from  the  present  day  to  the 


THE  HEBREW  MIGRA  TION  FROM  EGYPT.        229 

early  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  ajffirms  that  the  singular 
chasm  known  as  the  S>ik  was  effected  by  the  rod  of  Moses, 
in  order  to  give  passage  to  the  water  which  gushes  forth 
from  beneath  a  rock,  and  bears  the  name  of  Ain  Musa. 
We  are  not  now  dealing  with  the  credibility  of  the  alleged 
miracle,  but  simply  with  the  existence  and  the  origin  of 
the  tradition  which  records  it ;  and  it  is  impossible  to  avoid 
being  struck  by  the  coincidence  that  in  the  very  region  in 
which,  according  to  all  the  evidence  supplied  by  Scriptural 
records,  Horeb-Sinai,  the  Mount  of  God,  was  situated,  and 
in  whose  vicinity  water  was  said  to  hare  been  miraculously 
supplied ;  and  also  the  region  into  w^hich,  according  to  our 
interpretation  of  the  records  of  the  Exodus,  the  Hebrews 
would  naturally  have  come  ;  we  find  that  a  spring  exists 
whose  waters  appear  to  force  their  way  through  a 
mighty,  and,  if  the  expression  is  permissible,  an  apparently 
supernatm^al  chasm;  that  this  source  is  known  by  immemorial 
tradition  as  the  Spring  of  Moses,  and  the  chasm  as  the  cleft 
made  in  the  rock  by  the  Hebrew  legislator  in  order  that  its 
waters  might  flow  through  to  supply  the  wants  of  his 
exhausted  followers. 

Eusebius,  Bishop  of  Csesarea,  has  left  in  the  Onomasticon 
a  record  of  the  received  opinions  in  Palestine  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  fourth  century,  respecting  the  locality  of 
a  considerable  number  of  the  places  mentioned  in  the 
Scriptures.  The  work  was,  even  for  that  age,  not  dis- 
tinguished by  its  research,  precision,  or  exhaustiveness  ;  and 
in  describing  the  majority  of  the  places  enumerated,  Eusebius 
contented  himself  with  simply  paraphrasing  the  account 
given  in  the  Scriptures,  without  making  any  attempt  to  fix 
the  locahty.  But  in  several  instances  the  ecclesiastical 
historian  was  enabled,  whether  accurately  or  inaccurately  of 
course  we  have  no  means  of  knowing,  to  identify  with 
apparent  confidence  places  referred  to  in  the  Hebrew  records 


::30  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

M'ith  others  well  known  to  those  for  whose  information  the 
Onomastkon  was  prepared.  This  descriptive  catalogue  of 
places,  for  which  we  are  indebted  to  Eusebius,  is  therefore 
alone  valual)le  as  a  j^robably  correct  representation,  so  far  as 
it  goes,  of  the  opinions  held  in  his  time  respecting  the 
localities  referred  to.  A  century  later  the  Onomasticmi  was 
translated  and  amplified  by' St.  Jerome. 

It  would  be  very  interesting  to  know  what  opinion  was 
entertained  by  Eusebius  respecting  the  locality  in  which  the 
pious  pilgrim  would  be  enabled  to  find  the  Mount  of  God. 
It  is,  however,  very  easy  to  see  that,  beyond  a  hazy  notion 
of  the  region  where  the  holy  mountain  stood,  Eusebius  knew 
nothing  whatever  about  it;  and  it  may  with  some  confidence  be 
affirmed  that  he  had  never  met  with  any  one  who  had  \'isited 
it,  or  who  could  with  precision  have  described  its  situation. 
"  Horeb,  the  Mount  of  God,  in  the  region  of  Midian,  near 
Mount  Sinai,  over  Arabia,  in  the  desert."*  This  is  aU  that 
Eusebius  has  to  tell  us  of  Mount  Horeb,  wliilst  Sinai  has 
neither  place  nor  mention  in  the  catalogue.  To  tliis  brief 
description  Jerome  adds :  "  Adjoining  the  mount  and  desert 
of  the  Saracens,  called  Pharan.  For  my  part,  I  think  the 
mountain  M'as  known  by  the  double  name  of  Sinai  and 
Horeb."t 

Now  let  us  contrast  with  this  \"ague  and  unsatisfactory 
information  the  account  which  Eusebius  and  Jerome  m\e 
of  another  mountain  mentioned  in  the  early  records  of 
the  Hel)rew  nation — Mount  Hor.  "  Hor,  the  mountain 
where  Aaron  died,  beside  the  city  of  Petra,  where  unto  tlie 
present  day  is   shown  the   rock  which,  having  been  struck, 


*  Xo}f)r)p,  opoi  Toil  dfoii  iu  rt]  X'^P'^  Mudidfi,  napuKfirai  rw  o/jf t  2ii/a  vTTff) 
TT}v  'Apapiav  in\  ri]s  f'lji'jfxov  (Euseb.  Ononiast.). 

t  "  Cui  jungitur  mons  et  desertum  Saracenoriun  quod  vocatur 
Fharaa.  Mihi  autem  videtur  quod  duplici  nomine  idem  mous  nunc 
Sina,  nunc  Choreb  vocetur"  (Hier.  Onomast.  s.  v.  Choreh). 


FROM  EGYPT.  231 

Moses  supplied  the  people  with  water  ;"*  or,  again,  where 
in  describing  Pharan  (Faran)  it  is  said  to  be  "  distant  from 
Aila  three  days'  journey  towards  the  east."t  In  both  these 
instances  Eusebius  and  Jerome  had  perfectly  clear  ideas  of 
the  localities  to  which  they  were  referring,  and  they  took 
care  to  give  theii"  readers  substantial  information  where  to 
find  them.  Petra  and  Ailali  were  both  places  well  known 
at  that  time  to  people  in  Palestine. 

Now  if  Eusebius  entertained,  whether  rightly  or  wrongly, 
the  belief  that  Mount  Horeb  (which  according  to  him  was 
distinct  from,  since  it  was  "  beside,"  Mount  Sinai)  was,  say 
in  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  and,  a  fortiori,  if  he  entertained  a 
behef  respecting  the  particular  mountain  in  that  peninsula 
which  was  in  truth  the  Mount  of  God,  it  is  impossible  to 
suppose  that  he  would  not  have  given  some  unmistakable 
indication  that  the  Sinaitic  region  was  present  to  his  mind, 
if  he  did  not  even  go  so  far  as  to  state  the  distance  of  the 
mountain  from  some  well-known  place.  The  fact  that  no 
such  unmistakable  indication  is  given,  raises  at  all  events  a 
strong  presumption  that  the  Sinaitic  region  was  absent  from 
his  thoughts ;  whilst  the  generality  of  his  description,  his 
statement  that  Horeb  was  beside  Sinai  (rightly  treated  by 
Jerome  as  an  idle  speculation,  having  no  foundation  in  his 
own  knowledge  or  that  of  Ms  contemporaries),  coupled  with 
his  silence  about  Mount  Sinai,  unmistakably  prove  that 
neither  Eusebius,  nor  apparently  any  one  whom  he  was 
enabled  to  consult,  had  any  definite  conviction  respecting  the 
precise  situation  of  the  celebrated  mountain.     And  it  is  no 


*  "ii/j.  o(>o^  iv  u>'  TfXevrd  'Aapoip  TtKricriov  Uerpas  noXecos,  iv  o)  Kaietseri 
vvv  deiKvvTaL  ij  eVi  Mwi'trecoj  pivaacra  irirpa  (Euseb.).  Or,  mons  in  quo 
moi'tuus  est  Aaron,  juxta  civitatem  Petram,  ubi  usque  ad  prcesentem 
diem  osteuditur  rupes,  qua  percussa  Moyses  aquas  populo  dedit 
(Heii*.  Olio  mast.). 

t  Onomast.,  s.  v.  Parau. 


232  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

less  material  to  observe  that  Jerome,  notwithstanding  his 
desire  to  supplement  the  information  given  by  Eusebius,  was 
only  enabled  to  add  that  the  I\lount  of  God  Mas  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  mountain  and  desert  of  Pharan,  and 
to  state  simply  as  a  matter  of  personal  opinion  that  Sinai 
and  Horeb  were  one  and  the  same  mountain.  If  there  were 
any  precise  data  at  his  coitimaud,  if  he  knew  or  had  heard 
of  any  mountain  respecting  wdiose  identity  with  the  ]\Iount 
of  God  any  definite  opinion  was  entertained,  he  would  never 
have  supplemented  the  statement  made  by  Eusebius  that 
Horeb  was  beside  Sinai,  with  his  own  personal  speculation 
that  they  were  identical,  a  speculation  evidently  based,  not 
upon  knowledge  acquired  respecting  the  mountain  in  question, 
but  upon  liis  interpretation  of  the  Hebrew  story. 

Now  let  us  ascertain  through  the  Onomasticon  what  was 
apparently  the  common  impression  in  Palestine,  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  fomth  century,  respecting  the  locality  of 
the  Mount  of  God. 

According  to  Eusebius,  Horeb  was  in  Midian,  over  Arabia, 
in  the  desert,  and,  as  Jerome  adds,  near  Pliaran  of  the  Saracens. 
On  referring  to  "  Midian,"  we  find  that  it  is  described  as 
including  a  city  and  a  country,  the  former  uf  which  was 
beyond  {irriKtiva)  Arabia,  toward?  the  south,  in  the  desert  of 
the  Saracens  on  the  east  of  the  Pied  Sea.*  The  region  here  in- 
dicated is  uncjuestionably  on  the  east  of  the  meridian  of  Akaba, 
for  had  luisebius  been  referring  to  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  he 
would  assuredly  not  have  described  it  as  on  the  east  of  the 
Ped  Sea,  that  peninsula  being  actually  wedged  in  between 
tlie  Gulfs  of  Suez  and  Akaba.  It  n'ay  be  objected  that, 
although  i\Iidian  when  peopled  by  the  illegitimate  descendants 


*  Mn^tau  Kflrdiht  ('nfKtiva  Tr/s  'Apa^Uis  npos  potou  (v  (prmut  twv  'SapaKijviov 
T^js  €i)vdf)as  Oi'iXdaa-rji  eV  livaroXas  (Euseb.).  ^ladian  est  aiitoni  trans 
Araljiain  ad  meridiem,  in  deserto  Saracenurum  contra  Urientem 
mans  Kubri  ^Uier.  Oiwmast.). 


FROM  EGYPT.  233 

of  Abraham,  was  on  the  east  of  the  Araba  and  ^lanitic 
Gulf,  its  territory  was  subsequently  extended  into  the 
Sinaitic  peninsula;  but  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  demand  that 
some  evidence  should  be  fortlicoming  in  support  of  such  an 
allegation.  There  is  nothino-  in  the  Onomasticon  to  show  that 
Eusebius  had  ever  heard  of  this  westward  extension  of  the 
land  of  Midian. 

The  term  Arabia  appears  to  have  been  applied  in 
Palestine,  not  only  previous  to  the  Christian  era  but  long- 
afterwards,  to  the  territory  lying  to  the  east  of  the  Araba 
and  Eed  Sea,  or  intervening  between  them  and  the  in- 
hospitable deserts  and  unknown  regions  which  bounded  on 
the  east  the  comparatively  narrow  strip  of  territory  with 
which  the  inliabitants  of  Palestine  were  acquainted.  Josephus 
habitually  speaks  of  the  region  which  is  now  known  as 
Idumtea  as  Arabia.  Aretas  the  Iduma^an  is  described  by 
the  Jewish  historian  as  king  of  Arabia,  whose  capital  was  at 
Petra.*  Even  so  late  as  the  twelfth  century  the  Crusaders 
only  knew  of  three  divisions  of  Arabia,  designated  respectively 
Prima,  Secunda,  and  Tertia  ;  the  first,  including  the  region  to 
the  ea^t  of  the  Jordan  valley ;  the  second,  the  country  on  the 
east  of  the  Dead  Sea ;  and  the  third,  the  territory  extending 
southwards  from  Kerak  to  the  Gulf  of  Akaba,  which  they 
also  termed  Syria  Sobal.t  It  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  what 
we  have  already  said  on  the  early  subdivisions  of  Arabia. 

Now  placing  on  one  side  the  presumption  that  Eusebius 
used  the  word  Arabia  in  the  sense  above  referred  to,  we  see 
in  the  description  of  a  place  on  the  east  of  the  Pted  Sea  as 
being  on  the  other  side  of  {hTr^Kuva)  Arabia,  a  natural  and 
apposite  description  of  a  region  wliich  lay  beyond  the 
Idumsean   mountains,  whilst   the    qualification  vwtp — trans 


*  A.  J.,  xiv.  I,  4. 
t  Jac.  de  Vit.  c.  47,  96.     Will.  Tyr.  xi.  26;  xv.  21  ;  xvi.  6. 


234  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

Arabia,  as  applied  to  Mount  Horeb,  by  a  parity  of  reasoning 
equally  indicates  that  the  mountain  was  believed  to  be 
situated  in  or  adjoining  to  Idumiea.  But  let  us  see  what 
Eusebius  has  to  say  about  the  situation  of  some  other  places 
mentioned  in  the  Hebrew  records. 

Kadesh  is  stated  by  Eusebius  to  be  the  place  of  the  Spring 
of  Judgment,  whilst  Kadesh-barnea  is  described  as  being  in 
the  desert  contiguous  to  the  city  of  Petra  in  Arabia,  and  as 
the  same  place  where  Miriam  died,  and  where  Moses  supplied 
w^ater  to  the  people  from  the  stricken  rock.*  Putting 
altogether  on  one  side  the  value  of  the  testimony  of  Eusebius, 
there  can  at  all  events  be  no  doubt  that  he  identified  Kadesh- 
barnea,  the  oft-mentioned  place  on  the  border  of  Edom,  the 
place  from  whence  the  spies  were  sent,  where  Israel  abode  many 
days,  and  where  water  was  supplied  from  the  rock,  with  a 
place  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Petra,  the  well-known  city 
in  Idum?ea,  and  where,  as  he  observes  in  reference  to  the 
adjoining  mountain,  Hor,  the  riven  rock  from  wliich  the  water 
was  obtained,  was  sliown  even  in  his  day. 

But  what  is  meant  by  descril)ing  Kadesh  as  the  site  of  the 
Spring  of  Judgment  ?  In  order  to  understand  this  allusion, 
it  is  necessary  to  examine  one  of  the  oldest  records  in  the 
Pentateuch   in  which  reference  is   made  to  a  spring  wliicli 


*  Eusebius  apparently  regarded  Kadesh  and  Kadesh-barnea  as 
distinct,  at  least  he  treats  them  separately.  Of  the  former  he  simpl}^ 
states  that  at  that  place  was  the  Spring  of  Judgment,  whilst  of  the 
latter  he  writes :  "  Kufifies  Bnpvi7,  fpqfxos  17  napaTfivova-a  n«V/ja  TroXtt  rf/y 
TlaXaaTiirqs,  tv6a  dva^acra  frtXtiiTrjaf  Ma/jia/i,  Koi  Mwi'cr^y  hiacrras  naUi  tijv 
'TTtTpav,  Kol  v8o)p  TTafj()(fi  St\|/'&)in-t  TccTXaaJ.  Koi  dfiKirurai  fis  (TI  j'Gi'  to  fxvt]p.n  rrji 
Mupiay    ilvTodi,  (v6a    Kai    rnvs  up^nvras  '\pa\ijK    KnT«'»co\/re   KnSoXaynpcop." 

Jerome,  on  the  other  hand,  identities  Kadesh  with  Kadesh-barnea. 
"  Cades  ubi  fons  est  judicii,  et  Cades  Uarnea  in  deserto  qui«  con- 
jungitur  civitati  Petra3  in  Arabia,  ibi  occubuit  Maria,  (Miriam)  et 
Moyses  rupe  percussa  aquam  sitienti  populo  dedit.  Moustratur 
ibidem  usque  in  prassentem  diem  sepulchrum  ^lariaa  ;  sed  et  principes 
Amalech  ibi  a  Chodorlaomor  cassi  sunt"  (Onoinast.,  s.  v.  Cades). 


FROM  EGYPT.  235 

was  thus   designated  lono-  before   the   Hebrews  settled    m 

Egypt. 

It  is  stated  in  the  "  battle  of  the  kings"*  that  Chedorlaomer 
with  his  allies  smote  various  tribes  which  there  is  reason 
to  believe  occupied  Idumsea,  and  having  done  so  returned 
(literally,  "  turned"),  "  and  came  to  En-mishpat,  which  is 
Kadesh,  and  smote  all  the  country  of  the  Amalekites,  and 
also  the  Amorites  that  dwelt  in  Hazezon-tamar."  At  this 
point,  it  is  said  the  kings  of  Sodom,  Gomorrah,  Admah, 
Zeboim,  and  Bela  (Zoar),  went  out  against  Chedorlaomer  and 
the  other  kings,  and  joined  battle  with  tliem  in  the  vale  of 
Siddim,  which  it  is  explained  was  "  the  Salt  {i.e.,  the  Dead) 
Sea."  There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  battle  in 
question  was  fought  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Dead  Sea, 
probably  on  its  south  side,  and  therefore  En-mishpat  or 
Kadesh,  so  far  as  the  testimony  of  this  record  goes,  was  not 
far  distant  from  Mount  Seir,  where  the  Horites  are  said  to 
have  been  defeated  by  Chedorlaomer  before  "  tm-ning "  to 
En-mishpat. 

En-mishpat  signifies  the  Spring  of  Judgment,  and  it  would 
therefore  seem  that  in  very  early  times  a  spring  was  called 
by  this  singular  designation  which  at  a  later  period  w^as 
known  to  flow  in  a  place  named  Kadesh.  Eusebius,  how- 
ever, on  the  faith  of  a  tradition  which  must  have  existed  in 
his  time,  declares  that  Kadesh,  where  was  to  be  seen  En- 
mishpat,  the  Spring  of  Judgment,  was  in  the  neighbourliood 
of  Petra,  where  equally  was  to 'be  seen  the  rock  which  had 
been  struck  by  Moses.  When  the  Bishop  of  Csesarea  wrote, 
"  Barnea,  the  same  is  Kadesh  ;  Barnea  in  the  desert  extending 
to  the  city  of  Petra,"  he  must  have  meant  the  region  on  the 
east  of  the  city  and  communicating  with  it  through  the  Sik, 
because    I'otra    is    confessedly    separated    from   the  Araba 

*  Gen.  xiv. 


236  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

by  Mount  Hor  and  the  lower  ridge  of  the  Idnma-an 
range. 

We  can  only  speculate  on  the  reason  why  the  spring 
referred  to  was  called  Eu-mishpat.  Tliere  seems  every 
reason  to  suppose  that  from  times  long  antecedent  to  the 
Exodus,  the  spring  in  question,  or  the  place  whence  the 
waters  flowed,  was  reputed  for  its  sanctity  ;  and  as  it  was 
the  usage  amongst  the  nomadic  tribes  to  make  inquiry  of 
God*  in  the  administration  of  justice,  the  spring  in  question 
probably  carae  to  be  an  accepted  place  for  deciding  causes. 
It  w^as  what  in  modern  days  would  be  called  a  "  Holy  "Well," 
and  if  it  was  not  used  for  the  purpose  of  working  miracu- 
lous cures,  was  doubtless  supposed  by  its  sacred  associations 
to  furnish  a  guarantee  for  the  trutlifidness  of  litigants,  and 
for  the  attainment  of  strict  justice.  Its  w^aters  were  there- 
fore known  for  obvious  reasons  as  those  of  Massah  and 
]\Ieribah,  "  contention"  and  "  strife,"  long  before  the  Israelites 
draidv  of  them,  though  in  after-times  the  latter  found  an 
explanation , of  terms,  whose  signification  had  long  been  lost 
in  oblivion,  in  the  fancied  contention  of  their  ancestors,  or 
of  those  ancestors'  leaders,  with  theii-  protecting  God. 

The  contiguity  of  l*haran  to  Sinai  is  indicated  in  the 
Hebrew  tradition,  and  it  is  also  stated  that  Kadesh  was  in 
the  midbhar  of  I'haran.t  Let  us  now  note  what  is  said  by 
Eusebius  and  Jerome  about  the  situation  of  I*haran,  distin- 
guishing the  paraphrase  of  the  Scriptural  account  from  what 
was  known  to  them  respecting  a  place  which  apparently  in 
their  time  bore  a  similar  name. 

"  Pharan  (Faran)  is  therefore,  as  we  have  said,  on  the 
other  side  of  Arabia  towards  the  south,  and  is  distant  from 
Aila  eastwai-ds  three  days'  journey."     It  is  also  referred  to 


*  Exoel.  xviii.  15  ;  Num.  xv.  34,  35;  xxvii.  5  ;  Lev.  xxiv.  12. 
t  2s  um.  xiii.  26;  xxxiii.  36.     ISc'IjI.  Versiou. 


FROM  EGYPT.  237 

as  the  place  where  Ishmael  lived,  whence  were  sprung  the 
Ismaelites  known  in  the  time  Eusebius  and  Jerome  as  the 
Saracens,  and  was  the  region  which  it  was  believed  came 
within  the  sphere  of  the  operations  of  Chedorlaomer  and  his 
allies.*  But  elsewhere,  under  the  name  Clioreb,  the  Mount 
of  God  identified  with  Sinai,  Jerome  states  that  in  its 
immediate  neighbourhood  was  the  mount  and  desert  of  the 
Saracens,  called  Pharan.t  It  is  therefore  incontestable  that, 
whatever  then*  opinions  may  have  been  worth,  Eusebius  and 
Jerome  placed  Pharan,  which  they  knew  to  be  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Kadesh,  three  days'  j^iu-ney  (travelling 
eastwards)  from  Aila,  the  well-known  port  at  the  head  of 
the  Gulf  of  Akaba.  But  Kadesh  they  placed,  as  we  have 
seen,  in  the  midbhar  adjoining  the  city  of  Petra,  and  conse- 
quently Pharan  must  have  been,  according  to  their  views,  in 
the  same  neighbourhood.  This,  however,  completely  tallies 
with  the  definite  statement  that  Pharan  was  distant  three 
days'  journey  from  Aila  towards  the  east.  In  the  fourth 
century  an  excellent  Eoman  road  connected  Aila  with  Petra, 
and  three  days'  journey  sufficed  to  enable  the  traveller 
to  reach  the  region  to  the  east  of  the  jSTabathaean 
capital. 

The  Peutinger  table  enables  us  to  speculate  on  the  j)lace 


*  ^aoav,  TToXty  ecrrti/  vTrep  Apa^iau,  TrapaKeifievrj  tois  enl  Trjs  epfjfiov  'SapaKTj' 
VOLS,  81  rjs  wSfVcrai'  viol  'Icrpa?;X  arrapavrfi  dno  'Siva  Keirai  8e  Koi  eTreKeiva  ttjs 
'A-pa^ias  em  votov,  airix^i  8'  A'eiXa  irpos  avaroXas  686vTptu)v  ij/nepoji/,  ov  (b-qaXv 
fj  ypa(f)f]  KaTCOKTja-fv  'l(Tp,ar]\.  Aeyerai  8e  koi  Xo8oXay6p.cop  tcaTaa-Krjyp'ai  (Is  rovs 
iv  rfi  ^apav,  fj  ia-riv  fvrfj  epfjiicp  (Euseb.).  Faran^nunc  op2:)idum  trans 
Arabiam  junctum  Saracenis,  qui  in  solitudine  vagi  errant.  Per  hoc 
iter  fecerunt  Hlii  Israel  cum  de  monte  Sina  castra  movissent.  Est 
ergo,  ut  diximus,  trans  Arabiam  contra  Australem  plagani,  et  distat 
ab  Aila  contra  Orientem  itinere  trium  dierum.  In  deserto  autem 
Pharan  Scriptura  commemorat  habitasse  Ismaelem,  unde  et  Ismaelitte 
qui  nunc  Saraceni.  Legimus  quoque  Chodorlaomor  regem  percussisse 
eos,  qui  erant  in  deserto  Pharan  (Hier.  Onomast.). 
f  Onomast.,  s.v.  Choreb. 


238  THE  HEBREW  MIGRA  TION 

wliich  Eusebius  and  Jerome  probably  identified  ^itli  the 
Pharan  of  the  Hebrew  traditions. 

The  Eonian  dominion  having  become  securely  established 
in  what  was  then  known  as  Arabia  Petnea,  a  record  was 
prepared  of  the  principal  stations  on  the  main  road  by 
which  the  country  was  traversed.  This  record  we  now 
possess  in  the  table  of  P'eutinger.*  It  mentions  two  high 
roads  from  Aila,  the  ancient  Elath,  at  the  head  of  the  Gulf 
of  Akaba,  to  Jerusalem,  the  one  taking  an  eastern  course 
by  way  of  Petra,  and  thence  near  the  southern  extremity  of 
the  Dead  Sea,  connected  by  a  cross  route  with  the  Jewish 
capital;  the  otlier  following  a  western  direction  across  the  desert 
of  the  Till.      It  is  with  the  former  that  we  are  concerned. 

The  eastern  route  from  Aila  as  far  as  Petra  is  described  as 
follows : — 


Mille  Pass. 

From  Haila  to  Diana  .... 

16 

„ 

Diana  to  Presidio    .     . 

21 

J) 

Proesidio  to  Hauarra      .     . 

24 

" » 

Hauarra  to  Zadogatta  . 

20 

» 

Zadogatta  to  Petris  (Petra) 

18 

*  The  Tabula  Peutingeriana  was  a  compilation  possibly  begun  in 
the  reign  of  Augustus,  and  finished  under  the  direction  of  the  Con- 
stantines.  It  furnished  in  the  form  of  a  map  the  principal  routes 
throughout  the  Roman  Empire.  The  copy  now  preserved  in  the 
Imperial  Library  at  Vienna  was  the  work  of  a  monk  of  Colmar  in 
the  thirteenth  century,  and  in  the  sixteenth  century  it  passed  into  the 
bands  of  (Conrad  Peutinger,  an  antiquary  of  Augsburg,  whose  name 
is  now  generally  given  to  this  curious  relic.  There  is  no  ground  for 
doubting  that  the  monk  of  Colmar  copied  some  similar  map,  with 
_^what  accuracy  we  have  no  means  of  telling,  but  it  is  no  less  certain 
that  he  introduced  "  glosses  "  into  the  map,  which  were  wanting  in  the 
original.  Thus  in  the  segment  in  which  the  route  above  referred  to  is 
laid  down,  the  Tih  is  stated  to  be  the  desert  in  which  the  children 
of  Israel  wandered  forty  years,  and  Mount  Sinai  is  delineated  to  the 
south  of  that  desert,  although  unconnected  with  any  of  the  Roman 
routes.  It  is  also  declared  to  be  the  place  whore  the  Israelites 
received  the  Law  {Tabula  I'eufingcriayia.  Ed.  iMaunert  Lips,  1824. 
La  Table  de  Pcutiiujur.      Ed.  Desjardins,  Paris,  1869). 


FROM  EGYPT.  239 

On  the  western  route  the  first  station  is  also  Diana,  so  that 
the  routes  probably  bifurcated  at  some  point  a  short  dis- 
tance north  of  Aila. 

On  reading  the  list  of  stations  on  the  eastern  route,  it 
strikes  us  that  Hauarra,  the  tlind  station,  may  have  been 
identified  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome  with  the  Pharan  of  the 
Israelites,  the  former  name  being  regarded  as  the  Eoman 
rendering  of  the  ancient  Hebrew  appellation.  Now  it  may 
well  be  that  in  concluding  tliat  the  Hauarra  of  the  Romans 
was  the  Pharan  of  the  Hebrews,  Eusebius  and  Jerome 
were  in  error,  but  whether  they  so  identified  it  or  not,  or 
whether  such  identification  was  right  or  wrong,  it  is  equally 
apparent  from  the  language  in  reference  to  Pharan  and  Aila 
and  Petra  that  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  either  in  connection 
with  the  Mount  of  God  or  Pharan  or  Kadesh,  was  never 
present  to  their  minds.  That  there  was,  however,  a  Pharan 
somewhere  in  the  Idumsean  mountains,  and  known  by  that 
name  in  the  first  century,  is  distinctly  stated  by  Josephus.* 

This  collocation  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome  of  Kadesh  and 
Pharan  with  the  well-known  city  of  Petra  finds,  how- 
ever, a  curious  confirmation  in  the  Chaldee  Targums,  and  in 
the  writings  of  Josephus.  The  historian  tells  us  that  the 
ancient  name  of  Petra  was  Arke  (ApKr])  or  Ai-ekeme 
('AjOf/c6/uij),  and  was  so  called  after  its  founder  Eekem,  one 


*  B.  J.  iv.  g,  5.  As  the  testimony  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome  in 
respect  to  the  situation  of  Pharan  is  hopelessly  inconsistent  with  the 
location  of  the  Mount  of  God  in  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  it  is  disposed 
of  in  a  very  simple  manner.  "  "When  they  placed  Pharan  three  days' 
journey  east  of  Aila,  they  evidently  meant  west."  It  must  be 
admitted  to  be  a  somewhat  heroic  mode  of  dealing  with  adverse 
testimony  to  contend  that  witnesses  mean  the  direct  contrary  of  what 
they  say.  It  may  be  conceded  that  east  might  be  inadvertently 
written  instead  of  west,  and  that  Hauarra  was  not  the  Roman 
rendering  of  Pharan ;  but  putting  aside  the  fact  that  the  error  of 
Eusebius  was  not  corrected  by  Jerome,  it  is  only  necessary  to  examine 
what  was  written  by  both  about  Kadesh  and  Choreb  to  be  satisfied 
that  they  made  no  such  mistake  as  that  so  coolly  attributed  to  them. 


240  T}IE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

of  the  Midianite  kings  slain  by  the  Israelites.''^  The  former 
of  these  statements  may  have  been  matter  of  common 
knowledge  in  his  time,  tlie  latter  was  doubtless  idle  specula- 
tion. If  we  now  turn  to  the  Chaldee  versions  of  "  the 
battle  of  the  kings,"  we  are  struck  by  a  very  singidar  emen- 
dation on  the  Hebrew  text.  According  to  the  Targum  of 
Onkelos,  Chedorlaomer  and  his  allies,  having  vanquished  the 
"  Horites  who  were  in  the  mountain  of  Seir,  unto  the  plain 
of  Paran,  whicli  lieth  upon  the  desert,  they  turned  and 
came  to  the  plain  of  the  division  of  judgment,  "which  is 
Rekam  ;"  whilst  in  the  Targum  of  the  pseudo-Jonatlian  the 
paraplirase  runs  that  they  smote  "  the  Chorites  (dwellers  in 
caverns)  who  were  in  the  high  mountains  of  Gebala,  unto 
tlie  valley  of  Pharan,  which  was  nigh  upon  the  edge  of  the 
desert,  and  they  returned  and  came  to  the  place  where  was 
rendered  the  judgment  of  Moses  the  prophet,  to  the  foun- 
tain of  the  waters  of  strife,  which  is  Piequam."  Now, 
whether  the  correct  date  to  be  assigned  to  either  or  both  of 
the  Targurns  l)e  the  first  century  B.C.  or  the  fourth  century 
A.D.,  there  can  be  little  doidjt,  looking  to  the  reference  to  the 
defeat  of  the  Horites  {tlie  dwellers  in  caverns)  on  Mount 
Seir,  subsequently  known  as  Gebala,  that  the  Piekam 
referred  to  was  tlie  same  as  that  mentioned  by  Josephus, 
and  declared  by  him  to  have  'been  the  city  subsequently 
called  Petra. 

But  this  is  not  all  that  the  Targurns  tell  us  of  Eekam. 
In  the  rendering  of  Gen.  xx.  i,  they  represent  Abraham 
as  dwelling  "  between  Rekam  and  Hagra,"  which  in  the 
Hebrew  version  is  "  between  Kadesh  and  Shur."  Both 
Targums  also  agree  in  rendering  Num.  xx.  I4,t  "And 
Moses    Sent     messengers     from    Rekam    to    the    king    of 


*  Josephus,  A.  J.  iv.  4,  7;  iv.  7,  i. 
t  "  And  Moses  sent  messengers  from  Kadesh  to  Edom."  Nura.xx.  14. 


FROM  EGYPT.  241 

Edom;"  and  again,  in  the  paraphrase  of  IS'um.  xx.  22,*  tlie 
Israelites  are  represented  as  journeying  "  from  Eekam  to 
Mount  Hor"  (called,  in  the  Targum  of  Jonathan,  Mount 
Umanom).  In  the  opinion  of  the  Targumists,  Eekam  and 
Kadesh  were  consequently  regarded  as  substantially  identical, 
thus  furnishing  a  complete  corroboration  of  the  statements 
of  Eusebius  and  Jerome ;  whilst  tlie  singular  gloss  in  the 
Targum  of  Jonathan  on  the  "  En-mishpat"  of  the  Hebrew 
version  that  it  was  "  the  jDlace  where  was  rendered  the 
Judgment  of  Moses  the  prophet,  the  fountain  of  the  Waters 
of  Strife,  which  is  Eekam,"  is  conclusive*  that  the  Targumist 
was  acquainted  with  the  tradition  mentioned  by  Eusebius, 
that  near  Petra  was  shown  the  rock  which  had  been  riven 
by  Moses,  and  gave  passage  to  the  Waters  of  Strife,  the 
latter  being  those  which  came  from  the  "  En-mishpat,"  the 
Spring  of  Judgment,  which  in  tlie  Hebrew  tradition  was 
identified  with  Kadesh. 

The  evidence  supplied  by  the  Onomasticon,  separating 
carefully  the  information  acquired  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome, 
through  traditions  accepted  in  their  time  from  their  personal 
inferences  drawn  from  the  interpretation  of  the  Pentateuch, 
may  be  summed  up  as  follows : — 

A  mountain  stood  close  to  the  city  of  Petra,  on  which 
tradition  declared  that  Aaron  died,  and  at  Petra  was  shown 
the  rock  from  which  Moses  had  caused  the  water  to  flow. 
Choreb,  the  Mount  of  God,  was  "  over"  or  "  in"  (vTrip) 
Arabia,  to  which  Jerome  added  that  it  was  near  Pharan,  so 
called  by  the  Saracens,  formerly  Ishmaelites.  Pharan  was 
three  days'  journey  from  Aila,  on  the  eastern  road,  and 
over,  or  otherwise  expressed,  in  Arabia,  consequently  not 
far    distant   from   the  place   where    the   smitten    rock  was 


♦  "The  whole  congregation  journeyed  from  Kadesh,  and  came  unto 
Mount  Hor."     Num.  xx.  22. 


242  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

shown,  and  therefore,  according  to  Jerome,  in  the  neighbonr- 
hood  of  the  Blount  of  God.  Kadesh  (En-mishpat)  was  in 
the  desert  adjoining  Petra,  where  the  celebrated  rock  was  to 
be  seen.  To  which  we  may  add  that  Petra  was  identified 
by  Eusebins  and  Jerome  as  the  ancient  Eekam,  whicli,  as  we 
have  seen,  was  treated  by  the  Targumists  as  the  still  more 
ancient  Kadesh,  where  was  the  Spring  of  Judgment  with  its 
Waters  of  Strife.* 

It  may  perhaps  be  said  that  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  ac- 
cepting the  Pentateuch  as  tlie  work  of  ]\Ioses,  regarded 
the  account  of  the  "  journeyings"  as  a  consecutive  narrative, 
and  therefore  believed  that  the  miracle  of  producing  water 
from  the  rock,  performed  at  the  Mount  of  God,t  was  repeated 
after  an  interval  of  many  years  at  a  different  place — Petra 
beino-  the  scene  of  the  latter  miracle  ;  and  that  sucli  was 
the  view  of  these  Fathers,  their  omission  to  fix  with 
precision  the  situation  of  Mount  Horeb-Sinai  might  \\^ 
advanced  with  much  plausibility. 

Now  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  Eusebius  and 
Jerome  did  l)elieve  that  tlie  miracle  was  repeated  after  the 
lapse  of  many  years,  just  as  they  believed  much  more  that 
they  would  have  thought  it  an  unpardonable  sin  to  enter- 
tain any  doubt  about.  Put  though  the  mind  may  be  re- 
duced to  ai)i)arent  subjection  l)y  the  will,  tliere  are  times 
when  it  vindicates  its  independence  and  runs  riot  under  tlie 
very  eyes  ot  its  unconscious  possessor.     Eusebius  and  Jerome 


*  Dean  Stanloj',  mainly  ou  the  strensrth  of  the  evidence  <if 
Eusebius  and  Jerome,  expressed  the  oi)iuion  that  Petra  must  have 
been  the  Kadesh  of  the  Hebrews  {S.  and  P.,  p.  97,  98);  but  as  he  never- 
theless placed  the  Alount  of  God  in  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  his 
identification  of  the  first-named  places  was  open  to  numerou.s 
objections.  "  All  that  is  clear,"  he  writes,  "  is  that  they  (the  Israel- 
ites) marched  northward  from  Mouut  Sinai  (in  the  peninsula), 
probably  over  the  plateau  of  the  Tih"  (Sinai  and  PaUdine,  p.  92). 
f  Exod.  xvii.  6. 


FROM  EGYPT.  243 

would  have  imhesitatingiy  anathematized  any  one  who  ven- 
tured to  allege  that  it  was  the  story  of  the  smitten  rock,  and 
not  the  miracle,  that  was  repeated ;  but  nevertheless  let  us 
see  what  they  wrote :  "Eephidim,  a  place  in  the  desert  near 
Mount  Choreb,  where  waters  flowed  from  a  rock,  and  where 
Joshua  fought  with  Amalek,  near  PharaiC*  With  tlie 
exception  of  the  two  last  words,  the  description  is  a  mere 
summary  of  what  is  stated  in  Exodus  to  have  occurred  at 
Eephidim  ;  but  the  concluding  words  fix  the  locality,  at  least 
according  to  the  views  of  the  Fathers.  Rephidim  was  near 
Pharan,  and  Pharan  was  a  three  days'  journey  from  Aila,  on 
tlie  road  to  Petra.  It  is  therefore  incontestable  that,  if  they 
believed  in  two  distinct  miracles  performed  at  different  places, 
they  were  at  all  events  of  opinion  that  the  first — that  at 
Eephidim,  near  the  Mount  of  God  (juxta  montem  Choreb) 
— was  performed  near  Pharan,  in  Idumnea ;  that  is  to  say,  at 
Petra,  where  the  very  rock  was  shown  in  their  day.  But 
the  second  miracle,  that  recorded  in  the  Book  of  Numbers, 
was  performed  at  Kadesh,  where  Miriam  died ;  which  place 
was,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome, 
contiguous  to  Petra,  and  was  treated  by  them  and  the  Tar- 
gumists  as  identical  with  Eekam.  We  arrive  therefore  at 
this  striking  and  not  unsatisfactory  conclusion,  that  the  Bishop 
of  Csesarea,  and  Jerome — not  as  the  result  of  Scriptural  in- 
terpretation, but  of  information  acquired  from  their  contem- 
poraries, based  upon  existing  trachtions — concurred  in  the 
belief  that  the  two  reputed,  miracles  were  performed  in  the 
same  place — namely,  at  or  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Petra. 

It  would,  however,  be  erroneous  to  conclude  that  either  of 
the  Fathers  was  acquainted  with  the  precise  locahty  of  Mount 
Sinai.  They  had  at  best  but  a  vague  idea  of  the  region  in 
which  it   must  have  stood.      But  this  idea  was  based,  not 


*  Onomasticon,  s.  v.  Bapliidim. 
R  2 


24+  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

upon  any  infoiniation  derived  from  their  contemporaries,  but 
upon  tlieir  own  interpretation  of  the  Scripture  records, 
illustrated  by  existing  traditions,  respecting  places  which 
must  have  been  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  celebrated 
mountain.  If  there  had  been,  however,  any  mountain 
which  in  their  time  was  pointed  out  as  that  on  which  the 
Tables  of  the  Law  had  been  given  to  Moses,  no  one  can  doubt 
it  would  have  been  as  specifically  mentioned  as  that  on 
which,  according  to  tradition,  the  High  Priest  Aaron  died. 
We  possess  therefore  in  the  Onomasticon  very  strong  evidence 
that,  at  the  commencement  of  the  third  century,  the  precise 
situation  of  the  Mount  of  God  was  unknown. 

When,  in  the  seventh  century,  the  tide  of  Mohammedan 
invasion  overwlielmed  Iduniu'a  and  Palestine,  the  former 
country  quickly  passed  into  historical  oblivion.  The  Chris- 
tian communities  which  had  been  established  in  the  dioceses 
of  Ailah,  Petra,  and  I>ozrah,  appear  to  have  made  terms 
with  the  conquerors,  and  perhaps  for  a  time  were  permitted 
to  enjoy  religious  liberty.'"  P)Ut  both  the  country  and  the 
inhabitants  liecame  s])eedily  enveloped  in  an  impenetrable 
cloud  ;  and  when,  nearly  five  centuries  later  the  cloud  was 
temporarily  lifted  by  the  Crusaders,  we  see  the  country 
rich  in  so  many  historical  associations,  and  in  so  many  trea- 
sures of  a  gi'eat  but  forgotten  past ;   inliabited — or  perhaps, 


*  John,  the  Christian  ruler  of  Ailah.  af^reed  to  an  annual  tribute  of 
300  goM  pieces  (Abulfeda,  Annalex  MiiHlemici,  1789,  i.  171).  See 
note  Gibbon's  Decline  and  Fall,  c.  50,  on  the  doubtful  authenticity 
'of  the  "  Diploma  securitatis  Ailensibus,"  which  was  attested  by 
Ahmed  Ben  Joseph.  The  text  of  the  charter  was  published,  in  1630, 
by  Rionita,  but  was  disallowed  by  Grotius  (Bayle,  3/a/(o>«e/).  Mosheini 
pronounced  apainst  it.  Even  if  the  "  Diploma  "  was  spurious,  it 
is  historically  true,  to  quote  the  words  of  Gibbon,  that  "to  his 
Christian  subjects  Mahomet  readily  granted  the  security  of  their 
per.sons,  the  freedom  of  their  trade,  the  property  of  their  goods,  and 
the  toleration  of  their  worship." 


FRO.\f  EGYPT.  245 

more  correctly  speaking,  infested — by  lawless  nomadic  hordes. 
But  though  the  palaces  of  Petra  had  been  reduced  to  ruins, 
though  the  commerce  of  the  Nabathrean  capital  had  long 
since  been  directed  into  other  channels,  neither  fanaticism 
nor  barbarism,  nor  e\-en  all-destroying  Time,  had  obliterated 
the  memory  of  those  curious  traditions  recorded  by  tlie 
Bishop  of  Ciesarea  and  endorsed  by  Jerome. 

In  the  last  year  of  the  eleventh  century  King  Baldwin  I. 
led  an  expedition  from  Hebron  into  the  mountainous  region 
lying  to  the  south   of  the  Dead    Sea.     Fulcher   the  monk 
of  Chartres   accompanied  the  expedition,  and  has  left  to  us 
an  account  of  the  places  visited,  which  if  not  so  exhaustive 
as  might   have   been  desired,  still  conveys  some  interesting 
and  valuable  information.      Directing  tlieh  course  round  the 
south-western  extremity  of  the   Dead    Sea,    the  Crusaders 
entered   a   mountainous    country.      In   five  days'  time  they 
arrived   at  a  rich   and   fertile  valley  through  which  ran  a 
brook,  the  water  of  which  Fulcher  declares  was  sufficient  to 
turn   a   mill.     This  valley  they  were   told   was   the  Wady 
Musa,   and   was    therefore    named    by  the    Crusaders    the 
"  VaUis  Moysi."    From  tliis  brook  they  could  see  the  summit 
of    a    mountain,    on    which   stood   a   monastery  dedicated 
to  Saint  Aaron,  which  they  appear  to  have  been  told  was 
erected   on  the  spot  where  God  conversed  with  Moses  and 
his  brother  the  High  Priest.^  But,  most  extraordinary  of  all, 
they  were   informed   that  the   brook   was  the   same  which 
issued  from  the  rock  struck '  by  Moses.      Fulcher  not  only 
records  these  local  traditions  without  a  suggestion  that  they 
clashed  with   his   preconceived   ideas,  but  clearly  intimates 
that   he  fuUy  believed  them.     In   the  mountain  wdth  the 
monastery  he  thought   he  saw   Mount   Sinai,   and   with  a 
pious  pride,  not  devoid  of  unconscious  Immovir,  he  states  that 

*  Num.  XX.  23. 


246  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

he  watered  liis  horses  in  the  sacred  stream  that  owed  its 
existence  to  the  miraculous  wand  of  Israel's  legislator. 
With  respect  to  the  natives,  he  observes  that  they  fled  at  the 
approach  of  the  Crusaders,  taking  Math  them  their  flocks, 
and  seeking  refuge  in  caves  and  ra\'ines.  The  expedition 
proceeded  no  further,  and  after  a  few  days'  rest  returned  to 
Hebron  *  It  is  stated  however,  on  the  authority  of  Albert 
of  Aix,  that  on  this  occasion  Baldwin  proceeded  a  day's 
journey  south  of  tlie  AVady  Musa,  and  came  to  a  town 
named  Susum ;  but  as  Fulcher  is  silent  on  this  point,  it  is 
more  probable  that  Susum  was  visited  on  a  subsequent 
occasion. 

In  the  years  a.d.  i  i  i  5  and   1 1  1 6,  Baldwin  led  two  suc- 


*  "Tunc  invenimuB  vallem  unam  de  omnibus  frugibus  opulentissi- 
mam,  in  qua  Moysis  etiam  Domino  illuminante,  virga  scilicem  bis 
percussit,  unde  fons  vivus  statim,  ut  legitur,  sic  emanavit,  ut  populus 
atque  jumenta  sufficienter  ex  eo  adaquarentur.  Qui  etiam  nunc 
proHuit  non  minus  quara  tunc,  adeo  ut  molendini,  rivuli  ejus  impetu 
volubiles  semper  tiant,  ubi  ego  ipse  Fulclierius  equos  adaquavi  meos. 
Keperimus  insiiper  in  moutis  aj)ice  mouasterium,  quod  dicitur  saneti 
Aaron,  ubi  Moyses,  et  ipse  Aaron  cum  Domino  loqui  soliti  erant ; 
unde  valde  lastabamur  ciim  loca  tarn  sancta,  et  nobis  incognita 
intuebamur.  Et  quoniam  ultra  vallem  illam,  terra  erat  deserta  et 
inculta  usque  Babylonia?  affiuitatem,  ulterius  progredi  noluimus. 
Vallis  autem  ha;c  bonis  omnibus  erat  opima.  Sed  quia  in  aliis  villis 
prius  morati  tuerainus,  incola)  loci  illius  ablatis  secum  rebus  suis  atque 
pecoribus,  in  montium  diversoria  et  in  caveas  saxeas  pro  nobis  fugientes 
86  intromiserant;  ad  quos  cum  appro pinquaremus,  audacter  se  defende- 
bant"  (Fulch.  Cam.  Gi^sia  Per.  Franc,  xxiii.  Bongars,  Gesta  Dei,  i. 
405.  Han,  161 1 ).  The  words,  "loca  tam  sancta  et  nobis  incognita," 
indicate  tbat  the  Crusaders  were  solely  dej)endent  on  the  natives  for 
,the  int'ornuition  rcconled.  An  unknown  writer  gives  an  account  of  the 
expedition  substantially  identical  with  that  of  Fulcher.  Skirting  the 
south-western  extremity  of  the  Dead  Sea,  which  lay  on  their  left 
hand,  the  Crusaders  passed  through  a  district  rich  in  date-palms,  and 
penetrating  the  mountains  of  Arabia,  arrived  at  the  "  Vallis  Moysi," 
where  Moses  produced  the  water  from  the  rock  ;  and  on  the  top  of  a 
neighbouring  mountain  they  saw  the  "  Uratorium"  in  the  place  where 
it  was  said  that  Moaes  and  Aaron  had  sjnikon  with  (jod  {Gtstu 
Franc.  Expugti.  liar,  xxxviii.,  in  the  Gesta  Dei,  i.  581). 


FROM  EGYPT.  247 

cessive  expeditions  into  Arabia  Tertia.  Of  the  former  we 
know  comparatively  little  save  that,  having  apparently 
crossed  the  Jordan  and  proceeded  along  the  eastern  side  of 
the  Dead  Sea,  he  penetrated  Idumsea  to  a  point  south  of 
Vallis  Moysi,  and  built  a  fortress,  to  which  he  gave  tlie 
name  of  Mons  Eegalis.*  In  tlie  second  expedition  he 
revisited  this  fortress,  and  proceeded  onwards  until  he  reached 
Aila,  the  modern  Akaba.  Fulcher  did  not  accompany  this 
last  expedition,  but  he  records  what  he  was  told  by  Baldwin 
and  his  companions  on  their  return.t  In  Aila  they  identi- 
fied lElim,  the  station  remarkable  for  ^'ts  wells  and  palm- 
trees,  where  the  Israehtes  rested  after  the  crossing  of  the 
Eed  Sea.  Whether  this  identification  was  based  on  local 
traditions  or  upon  their  own  inferences,  we  are  not  informed  ; 
but  it  is  at  all  events  curious  that  the  conclusion,  whether 
correct  or  erroneous,  is  recorded  without  any  intimation  that 
the  discovery  of  Elim,  on  the  east  of  what  is  now  known 
as  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  furnished  matter  for  surprise. 
"  We  rejoiced  greatly,"  says  the  monk,  "  in  what  they  told 
us  when  they  returned;"  and  no  one  was  apparently  found  at 
Jerusalem  to  correct  the  supposed  error  of  placing  Elim  at 
the  head  of  the  Gulf  of  Akaba,      The  expedition  proceeded 


*  Mh.  Aq.  vii.  42,  Gesta  Dei,  i.  307. 
f  "  Invenei'unt  quidem  Helim  civitatem  secus  littus  ejusdem  maris 
(Maris  Rubri)  ubi  populum  Israeliticum,  post  maris  transitum  bospi- 
tatum  legimus  esse,  quse  ab  Hierusalem  septem  dierum  equitis  itinere 

distat Qui    cum  expeditioiiem  sic     factam    nobis  enarrarent, 

delectabamar  etiam  tarn  in  dictis,  qnam  in  cocleis  mariuis,  &c." 
Fulcher  then  proceeds  to  offer  an  opinion  on  the  probable  origin  of  the 
Red  Sea — namely,  that  it  is  a  tongue  thrown  up  from  the  ocean  on  the 
south,  and  reaching  as  far  as  Helim,  "non  longe  a  monte  Synai,  sed 
quantum  potest  eques  aUquis  uno  die  profecisti."  The  monk  of 
Chartres  then  goes  on  to  speculate  on  the  beainngs  of  the  Red  Sea 
to  the  Garden  of  Eden,  and,  as  might  be  expected,  gets  very  rapidly 
out  of  his  depth  (Fulch.  Carnot.  Gesta  Fer.  Franc,  xliii.  ;  Gesfa 
Dei,  i.  426). 


248  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATIOA 

no  furtlier  than  Aila,  wliicli  Fulcher,  on  the  faith  of  what 
he  was  told,  says  was  not  far  distant  from  Mount  Sinai, 
being  about  one  day's  journey  on  horseback,  but  in  wliat 
dii'ection  is  not  stated.  Keeping  in  mind,  however,  tlie 
impression  formed  by  Fulcher  sixteen  years  before,  when  at 
the  Vallis  Moysi,  it  would  seem  probable  that  he  referred 
to  the  same  mountain  which  he  then  saw,  and  which  the 
Crusaders  when  at  Aila  were  probably  told  could  be  reached 
by  way  of  the  Araba  in  a  single  day's  journey.  As  none 
of  the  Crusaders,  either  on  this  or  any  subsequent  occasion, 
had  the  courage  or  the  curiosity  to  make  the  journey  from 
Aila  to  the  reputed  Mount  of  God,  the  information  they 
brought  back  as  to  its  supposed  distance^  from  Aila  is  wholly 
unreliable.  The  monk  of  Chartres  may  not  have  been  well 
versed  in  Biblical  geography,  but  he  appears  to  have  re- 
corded w^hat  he  saw  and  what  he  heard  with  perfect 
candour.'" 

We  obtain,  however,  from  another  source  a  more  specific 
reference  ta  Mount  Sinai.  In  connection  witli  Baldwin's 
expedition  to  Ada  in  i  i  i  5 ,  Albert  of  Aix  states  that  the 
king  proceeded  to  Mount  Ureb,  which  was  commonly  called 


*  "  It  docs  not  argue  highly,"  observes  Robinson  with  much  com- 
placency, "  for  their  (the  Crusaders')  skill  in  Biblical  geography  that 
they  took  the  adjacent  mountain  (in  the  Vallis  Moysi)  with  the  tomb 
of  Aaron  for  Mount  Sinai,  and  the  brook  which  dows  down  the  valley 
for  the  water  which  came  forth  when  Moses  smote  the  rock."  He  then 
adds  the  foot-note,  "  The  same  error,  however,  goes  back  to  the  time  of 
Eusebius  and  Jerome.  Being  once  adopted  by  the  Crusaders,  it  led 
them  afterwards  to  take  Ailah  for  Elim,  with  the  twelve  fountains  and 
seventy  palm-trees"  {Bih.  Ris.,  ii.  565).  He  might,  if  he  had  taken 
the  trouble,  have  traced  the  eri-or  back  to  a  much  earlier  period. 
Even  the  cautious  and  gentle  Ritter  expresses  himself  in  similar 
language,  and  attributes  the  mistakes  of  the  Crusaders  respecting  the 
mountain,  the  brook,  and  the  town  (Aila),  to  "  the  geographical 
ignorance  of  those  times"  {Erdkunde,  xiv.  988). 


FROM  EGYPT.  249 

Mount  Orel.'^  He  then  refers  to  some  project  the  king- 
entertained  of  making  an  expedition  eastwards,  which  how- 
ever he  abandoned,  and  continued  his  course  southwards, 
through  Arabia  Tertia,  till  he  arrived  at  Aila,  identified  as  the 
Elim  of  the  Israelites.  This  was  on  the  Eed  Sea.  The 
record  then  continues  :f 

"  There,  hearing  that  monks  serving  God  dwelt  on  Mount 
Sinai,  he  decided  to  approach  them  by  the  slopes  of  the 
mountain  for'  the  purposes  of  prayer  and  conversation.  But 
having  been  besought  by  the  messengers  they  sent  to  him, 
he  abstained  from  ascending,  lest  possibly  the  monks  sus- 
pected by  reason  of  the  Catholic  king,  should  be  driven  by 
the  infidels  from  their  habitation  in  the  mountain." 

This  passage  has  been  relied  upon  as  indicating  that 
Baldwin  entertained  the  idea  of  visiting  Jebel  Musa,  in  the 
Sinaitic  peninsula,  but  was  dissuaded  from  doing  so  by  the 
monks,  who  sent  messengers  praying  him  to  desist.  But 
this  is  open  to  very  grave  doubt.  Aila  was  separated  by  an 
inhospitable  desert  from  Jebel  Musa,  and  it  was  in  the 
highest  degree  improbable  that  the  monks,  if  there,  would 
have  heard  of  the  arrival  of  the  Crusaders  at  Aila.  But 
assuming  that  they .  had  done  so,  and  that  they  sent  mes- 
sengers to  the  camp,  it  is  inexplicable  that  those  messengers 
should  not  have  corrected  the  error  into  which  tlie  Crusaders 
fell  in  identifying  AUa  with  Elim.     Nor  is  it  by  any  means 


*  "  In  anno  tertio  postquam  Eex  Baldewinus  nuptias  supra  dictas 
regaliter  celebravit,  tempore  antumni  ducentis  equitibus  et  quadrin- 
gentis  assumtis  peditibus,  profectus  est  ad  montem  Oreb  qui  vulgb 
appellatnr  Orel"  {AXh.  Aq.  Hist.  Hier.  xii.  21  ;  Gesta  Dei,  i.  376). 

t  Ibi  in  moute  Siua  Monachos  Dei  servientes  andiens  commorari,  ad 
eos  per  devexa  mentis  causa  orationis  et  allocutionis,  accelare  decrevit. 
Sed  rogatus  eorum  nunciis  ad  se  prajniissis,  miuime  ascendit  ne  scilicet 
mouachi  suspecti  propter  Catholicum  regem,  a  Gentilibus  de  mentis 
babitatione  pellerentur"  {Alb.  Aq.  Hist.  Hier.  xii.  21  ;  Gesta  Dei,  i.  376). 


250  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

clear  that  the  messengers  were  received  at  Aila,  whilst 
BaldMTn's  project  of  reaching  them  "  per  devexa  montis," 
"  by  the  slopes  of  the  mountain,"  seems  singularly  inap- 
plicable to  a  journey  from  Aila  to  Jebel  Musa,  or  any  of  the 
more  distant  mountains  in  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  now  claim- 
ing to  be  considered  the  Mount  of  God.  Looking  to  the 
whole  narrative,  and  especially  to  the  introductory  sentence 
"  profectus  ad  montem  Oreb,"  it  would  rather  seem  that 
either  at  Aila,  or  in  the  Wady  Musa,  Baldwin  entertained  the 
idea  of  \'isiting  some  monks  dwelling  on  Mount  Sinai ;  and 
that,  in  order  to  accomplish  his  object,  all  that  was  necessary 
was  to  ascend  to  them  "  by  the  slopes  of  the  mountain."  This 
might  apply  to  the  Aralia,  if  the  Idumoean  chain  was  re- 
garded as  a  single  mountain  ;  but  it  is  more  probable  that 
when  Baldwin  was  about  to  visit  the  monks  he  was  already 
at  the  foot  of  what  the  chronicler  calls  Sinai,  and  that  he 
was  about  to  ascend  it'""  when  begged  by  the  messengers  to 
desist.f  Fulclier  of  Chartres,  however,  states  that  they  saw 
on  the  top  of  the  mountain  overhanging  the  valley  of 
Moses  a  monastery  dedicated  to  Saint  Aaron,  and  if  this 
word  was  used  advisedly  by  Fulclier,  who  took  part  in  the 
first  expedition,  we  may  have  the  key  to  the  ambiguity  in 
tlie  narrative  of  All)ert  of  Aix,  who  prepared  his  chronicle 
from  the  records  of  others,  and  ifncpiestionably  in  more  than 


*  "  Minimeascendit"  seems  to  imply  that  Baldwin  forbore  climbing 
up  the  mountain. 

f  Guibert  in  connection  with  this  expedition  says:  "  Primos  suos 
post  Regna  reccpta  procinctus,  et  intra  sinus  exercuisse  perhibetur 
ArabicoH.  Ubi  dum  ad  Synai  montis  usque  devexa  procederet,  repperit 
incultum,  et  i^]thiupicis  simile  hominnra  genus.  Ibi  in  ecclesia,  qua; 
sancti  dicebatur  Aaron  oravit,  ubi  sua  Deus  cum  patribus  oracula  cele- 
biavit,  et  excrcitusde  contradictionis  fonte  potavit.  YA  istic  prcsbyteri 
illius  mei  titubavit  opinio  :  non  enim  Synai  sed  mons  Or  dinoscitur  esse, 
retra3  quondam  Arabura  conterminus  urbi  ubi  et  Aaron  hominem 
exuit,  et  aquade  intimo  percusse  rupis  emergit"  (Guiberti,  Hist.  Ui-er. 
vii.  36;  Gesfa  Del,  i.  555). 


FROM  EGYPT.  251 

one  instance  confused  the  accounts  of  different  expeditions. 
It  is  certainly  remarkable  that  the  monk  of  Chartres, 
though  in  his  records  of  Baldwin's  expedition  to  Aila  he 
refers  to  the  distance  of  Mount  Sinai  from  Aila,  yet  makes 
no  allusion  to  the  projected  visit  to  the  monastery.  It 
must,  however,  be  stated,  on  the  other  hand,  that  there  is  no 
intimation  that  the  Crusaders  in  any  of  their  expeditions 
into  Arabia  Tertia  (Idumaa)  came  into  contact  with  any 
Christian  communities,  and  whether  any  such  survived  there 
at  that  time  can  only  be  matter  of  speculation.  If 
Christianity  had  been  crushed  out  in  Arabia  Tertia  previous 
to  the  twelfth  century,  then,  assuming  there  was  any 
foundation  for  the  statement  that  Baldwin  I.  knew  of  the 
existence  of  a  monastic  community  resident  on  Mount 
Sinai,  that  mountain  could  not  have  been  in  Idumsea.  But 
was  it,  then,  extinguished  ?  We  know  that  Christianity 
survived  and  was  tolerated  in  Idum?ea  for  a  considerable 
period  after  the  IMohammedan  invasion  in  the  seventh 
century,  and  it  may  be  that  a  monastery  dedicated  to  the 
High  Priest  of  Israel,  the  Neby  Harun,  held  in  equal 
veneration  by  Moslems  and  Christians,  long  continued  to 
flourish,  though  the  rehgion  of  its  inmates  possibly  acquired 
in  time  a  Mohammedan  tinge.  It  is  easily  intelligible  how 
such  a  community  would  view  with  apprehension  the  visit 
of  the  Cathohc  king  and  his  followers,  and  how  they  would 
dread  a  demonstration  of  the  identity  of  their  religion  with 
that  of  the  hated  infidels.  It  is  not  easy  to  understand 
how  the  monk  of  Chartres  could  have  used  the  word 
"  monasterium,"  and  stated  that  it  was  dedicated  to  Aaron, 
unless  he  had  been  informed  that  monks  actually  occupied  it. 
Assuredly  he  never  would  have  speculated  on  finchng  a 
monastery  iu  what,  to  him,  was  a  Pagan  land.  The  whole 
question  of  the  locality  of  the  Mount  Sinai  referred  to  in 
the  chronicles   of  the   crusades  is   not,  however,  free  from 


2  5  2  THE  HEBRE IV  MICRA  TION 

some  difficulty.  From  the  preceding  remarks  it  will 
appear  tliat  the  general  assumption  that  Baldwin  intended 
\  isiting  a  mountain  in  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  is  open  to  very 
ft  irniidable  ol  )jections. 

The  evidence  of  those  to  whom  we  are  indebted  for 
chronicling  the  expedition  made  by  the  Crusaders  through 
Idumaia  must  not,  of  course,  be  overrated.  Much  of  it  is 
only  the  hearsay  repetition  of  information  received  by  the 
Crusaders  from  the  inhabitants,  information  the  value  of  wliicli 
the  former  naturally  possessed  little  opportunity  of  testing. 
But  wlieu  this  allowance  has  been  made,  we  must  still  con- 
cede to  these  records  the  merit  of  preserving  with  probable 
fidelity  some  notable  facts  connected  "wdth  these  expeditions. 
Thus  no  one  can  douljt  that  in  his  first  expedition  Baldwin 
and  his  followers  reached  a  place  south  of  the  Dead  Sea,  by 
passing  through  a  mountainous  district ;  that  this  place  was 
called  by  the  inhabitants  the  valley  of  ]\Ioses ;  that  a  stream 
ran  through  it,  which  by  local  tradition  was  connected  with 
that  which  Moses  obtained  from  the  rock  ;  and  that  a  neigh- 
boiu'ing  mountain  was  reputed  to  be  that  on  which  Moses 
and  Aaron  conversed  with  God.  We  also  learn  beyond  all 
question  from  these  records,  that  in  the  immediate  neigh- 
bourhood of  the  valley  of  Moses  was  a  mount. lin  Mliich, 
whether  rightly  or  wrongly,  the' Crusaders  took  to  be  Mount 
Horeb  or  Sinai ;  and  that  on  their  arrival  at  tlie  head  of  the 
Gulf  of  Akaba  they  believed  that  in  Aila  they  found  the 
original  Elim  of  the  Exodus.  We  also  know  that  in  this 
latter  expedition  some  connnunications  took  place  between 
the  Crusaders  and  some  holy  men  living  on  a  mountain  re- 
puted to  be  Mount  Sinai ;  and,  independently  of  the  reasons 
already  stated,  it  is  not  an  extravagant  conclusion  that  this 
nioiinlaiu  must  have  been  identical  with  that  m-ai'  tlie  vaHcy 
of  Moses,  which  they  unquestionably  believed  to  be  Mount 
Jloreb,  near  whose  fo(jt  flowed  the  Waters  of  Contiatlietion. 


FROM  EGYPT.  253 

The  allusions  made  by  Arabian  and  Egyptian  writers  to 
the  particular  region  now  engaging  our  attention,  furnish 
but  little  assistance  in  our  inquiry  ;  and,  with  the  exception 
of  some  particulars  respecting  certain  localities,  which  are  of 
service  for  purposes  of  identification,  we  are  told  absolutely 
nothing  about  Idumaja.  Isstachri,  a  writer  of  the  tenth 
century,  refers  to  Ailah  (Akaba),  and  states  that  its  inhabitants 
were  Jews  whose  presence  there  was  tolerated  by  virtue 
of  a  charter  granted  by  ]\Iahomet.  This  is  confirmed  by 
Macrizi,  who  wrote  in  the  fifteenth  century,  but  it  is  doubt- 
ful whether  the  Moslem  writers  may  not  have  confounded 
Christians  with  Jews.  Masudi,  a  contemporary  of  Isstachri, 
in  his  "  Meadows  of  Gold  and  Mines  of  Gems,"  makes  an  allu- 
sion to  Aaron's  grave  which,  assuming  that  he  believed  the 
latter  to  be  in  the  Idumeean  mountains,  raises  a  strong  pre- 
sumption that  he  held  the  same  belief  respecting  Mount 
Sinai :  "  Harun  died,  and  was  buried  on  the  Mount  Mowab, 
which  is  not  far  from  the  mountains  of  Esh  Sherah  (Seir) 
and  from  the  Mount  Sinai.  His  grave  is  w^ell  known ;  it  is 
in  a  frightful  cavern,  in  which  sometimes  at  night  a  great 
murmur  is  heard  which  frightens  every  human  being."'^ 
There  can  be  no  douot  that  Masudi  here  refers  to  Mount 
Hor,  which  by  a  singular  unanimity  of  tradition  is  fixed  on 
as  Aaron's  burying-place ;  and  the  statement  that  it  was  not 
far  from  Mount  Sinai  is  irreconcileable  with  a  belief  that  the 
latter  was  upwards  of  a  hundred  miles  distant  in  what  is  now 
known  as  the  Sinaitic  peninsula.  •  The  substitution  of  Et  Tohur 
for  Sinai  in  what  is  believed  to  be  a  later  text  seems  to  indi- 
cate that  Masudi's  statement  was  subsequently  modified,  or 
rather  interpreted  (not  necessarily  in  bad  faith),  in  order  to 
harmonise  with  the  accepted  Sinaitic  theory.     No  particular 


*  El  Masudi's  Meadows  of  Gold  and  Mines  of  Gems.     Translated 
from  the  Arabic  by  Aloys  Sprenger,  p.  93.     London  :  1841. 


254  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

mountain  in  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  bears  the  name  of  Sinai, 
though  several  claim  to  be  so  regarded.  lUit  one  of  these 
mountains  has  long  been  known  as  Mount  Tur,  or  Tor,  and 
is  so  named  by  Isstachri,  and  it  would  therefore  seem  that 
Tur  was  substituted  for  Sinai  in  a  later  text  of  the  "  Golden 
Meadows,"  on  the  assumption  that  !Masudi  must  have 
intended  to  refer  to  it.'"' 

Abulfeda  mentions  several  places  in  Arabia  Tertia,  some 
of  which  have  been  identified  with  almost  absolute  cer- 
tainty. He  treats  the  Araba  as  the  western  limit  of  Arabia 
between  the  Eed-  Sea  and  the  Jordan  valley,  and  conse- 
quently excludes  from  that  country  the  Sinaitic  peninsula 
and  the  desert  of  Et  Tih.t  Aila  lie  refers  to  with  a  jiarti- 
cularity  which  leaves  no  doubt  that  he  is  speaking  of  tlie 
modern  Akaba,  with  its  fort  garrisoned  by  Egyptian  soldiers 
for  the  protection  of  the  Hajj.  There  are  also  some  other 
places  lying  on  tlie  east  of  the  Araba  noticed  by  him, 
which  demand  a  passing  remark.  He  mentions  Er  Eakim 
as  being  one  of  the  most  celebrated  towns  of  Syria,  the 
dwellings   of    wliicli,  he  says,   are  cut    out   of    the    living 


*  Sprenger  adds  a  foot-note  that  in  another  text  Et  Tohur  takes 
the  place  of  Sinai  (Meadoivs  of  Goldy-p.  92). 

t  The  Sea  of  Colzoum  (the  Red  Sea),  says  Abulfeda,  bounds  the 
peninsula  of  Arabia  from  the  confines  of  the  country  of  Yemen  as  far 
as  Ailah.  Ailah  is  situated  in  the  peninsula  of  Arabia,  in  the  middle 
of  its  western  region ;  the  other  part  of  Arabia  that  looks  westward 
extends  from  Ailah  to  the  frontiers  of  Syria.  Abulfeda,  describing  the 
circuit  of  Arabia,  makes  the  traveller  start  from  Ailah  southwards, 
with  the  Red  Sea  on  his  right  hand,  and  thence  round  the  peninsula 
till  on  the  east  side  he  leaves  the  Euphrates  on  his  right  hand,antl 
thence  passing  to  "  the  country  belonging  to  Aleppo,"  he  turns  south  by 
the  Belka  to  Ailah,  the  point  from  which  ho  started.  All  the  region 
west  of  the  Jordan  valley,  and  of  the  Araba  and  of  the  Red  Sea  from 
Ailah  southwards,  is  consequently  excluded  by  AbuU'eda  from  Arabia 
(Description  of  Arabia,  translated  by  the  Chevalier  D'Arvieux, 
pp.  287-290.     London:  1718). 


FROM  EGYPT.  255 

rock.*  This  was,  in  all  probability,  Petra.  Schaubekli  is  re- 
ferred to  as  a  small  town  rich  in  gardens  lying  to  the  east  of 
the  Ghor,  inhabited  by  Christians,  and  watered  by  two  brooks 
springing  from  separate  fountains.f  This  has  been  supposed 
to  be  identical  with  a  village  lying  between  Petra  and  the 
Dead  Sea,  and  to  have  been  the  site  of  Baldwin's  fort  of 
Mons  Ptegalis.  Moan,  identified  as  Maan,  a  station  of  the 
Syrian  Hajj  nearly  due  east  of  Petra,  is  stated  by  Abulfeda 
to  be  but  one  stage  distant  from  Schaubekh.|  Al  Khrakh 
(Kerak — Carracha  Moab)  is  described  as  a  town  surroimded 
by  walls  and  built  on  a  hill.^  It  is  three  stages  from 
Schaubekh,  and  is  undoubtedly  the  modern  Kerak,  which  the 
Crusaders  called  Petra  Deserti,  and  is  situated  a  short  dis- 
tance to  the  east  of  the  southern  extremity  of  the  Dead 
Sea. 

Now,  if  we  are  correct  in  concluding  that,  under  the 
title  Er  Eakim,  Abidfeda  referred  to  Petra,  we  discover  in  the 
writings  of  this  distinguished  Arabian  a  very  singular  con- 
firmation of  the  statement  of  Josephus  that  Petra  was 
known  to  the  Syrians  as  Eekam,  and  it  is  at  least  probable 
that  the  Eekam  which  the  Targumists  identify  with  Kadesh 
may  be  the  same  place  which  Josephus  and  Abulfeda 
identify  with  Petra  ;  in  which  latter  place,  according  to  the 
traditions  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Crusaders,  the 
Waters  of  Contradiction,  drawn  by  ]\Ioses  from  the  rock, 
were   to   be    found.  ||      It   has   been   suggested  that    by   Er 


*  In  celeberioribus  Syriae  oppidis  est  etiam  ar  Rakim,  oppidulum 
prope  al  Balkaam  situm,  omnes  ejus  domus  surt  saxo  vivo  incise, 

quasi  esseut  solidum  saxum  (Tti?).  S?/n'ce,  p.  11  ;  Lipsiae,  1766 

Isstracliri  gives  a  similar  description  of  tlie  stone  dwellings  of 
Rekam  {Oriental  Geographj,  translated  by  Sir  W.  Ouseley,  p.  46. 
London;   1800). 

t  Tab.  Syrioi,  p.  89.  X  Ibid.  p.  15.  §  Ihid.  p.  89. 

I]  The  Targumists  place  Abraham's  abode  between  Kadesh  and 
Hagra.    Schultens,  in  the  Inde.v  in  Vitam  Saladitii,  s.  v.  Errakiiaiim, 


2  56  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

Ivakim,  ALulfeda  meant  not  Petra  but  Kerak,  but  liis 
explicit  description  of  the  latter  place,  wliicli  in  almost 
every  particular  corresponds  with  those  of  modern  travellers 
who  have  visited  Kerak,  negative  this  assumption.  It  is 
scarcely  possible  that  Abulfeda  could  have  overlooked  so 
important  a  place  as  the  celebrated  Nabathajan  capital  in 
his  description  of  this  part  of  Syria. 

In  his  allusions  to  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  Macrizi  notices 
IMouut  Tot  and  a  place  called  Faran,  not  improbably  the 
modern  Feiran,  but  makes  the  following  sio-nificant  remarks 
respecting  them  :  "  It  is  said  that  Faran  is  the  name  of  the 
mountain  of  Mecca,  and  that  it  is  the  name  of  other  moun- 
tains in  the  Hedjaz,  and  that  it  is  the  place  mentioned  in 
the  books  of  Moses.  But  the  trutli  is,  that  Tor  and  Faran 
are  two  districts  belonging  to  the  soutliern  parts  of  Egypt, 
and  that  it  is  not  the  same  as  the  Faran  mentioned  in  the 
books  of  Moses.* 

M,  Quatrem^re  first  translated  into  an  European  tongue"^ 
an  interesting  account  recorded  by  the  Egyptian  historian 
Nowairi,  of  an  expedition  made  by  Sultan  Bibors  into  Idumaea 
in  the  latter  portion  of  the  thirteenth  century.  Having 
crossed  the  Tih  and  descended  into  the  Araba,  the  Sultan 
proceeded  as  far  as  tlie  entrance  of  the  "Wady  Bul)ai  to  the 


argues  with  much  plausibility  that  Hagra  and  Rekam  (Petra)  were  the 
same,  relying  apparently  on  a  quotation  from  Ibu  Haukel  (Isstachri), 
a  geographer  of  the  tenth  century,  made  by  Abulfeda.  The  latter 
questions  Ibn  Haukcl's  accuracy  as  to  the  precise  situation  of  Hagra. 
It  was,  according  to  the  former,  inhabited  by  the  tribe  of  the  Tsamon- 
dites,  who  are  referred  to  in  the  Koran  as  making  their  dwellings  in 
caves  in  the  mountains.  Arktm  signifies  in  Arabic  variegated  in 
colour,  hence  the  Hvlcnm  of  the  Hebrews  having  the  same  meaning, 
was  doubtless  applied  to  Petra  in  connection  with  the  colouring  of  the 
rocks  (Index  Giocj.  in  Vitam  Saladini.  Schultens,  s.v.  Eifakimum. 
Leyden  :  1732)- 

*  Quoted  by  Burckhardt,  Syria,  p.  617. 
t  Nouvcau  Journal  Asiafiquc,  Paris,  1835. 


FROM  EGYPT.  257 

west  of  Petra.  Having  encamped  there  for  the  niglit,  he 
ascended  the  mountain  on  the  following  morning.  It  is 
described  as  consisting  of  a  soft  kind  of  sandstone  agglo- 
merate, wdth  stripes  of  various  colours — red,  blue,  and  white — 
and  marked  by  excavations  capable  of  being  traversed  by  a 
man  on  horseback.  To  the  left-hand  side  were  seen  stone 
steps  and  the  grave  of  Aaron,  the  brother  of  Moses,  and 
close  by  a  strong  castle.  The  Sultan  then  explored  the 
city  of  Petra  with  its  rock-cut  habitations,  which  receives 
in  this  narrative  the  singular  designation  of  the  "  Villages  of 
the  Children  of  Israel."  On  quitting*  Petra  the  Sultan 
entered  a  valley  called  Medrah,  and  came  to  a  place  named 
Od-dema,  where  was  a  well,  attributed  by  tradition  to  Moses, 
and  from  which  blood  at  first  issued,  and  was  then  followed 
by  water.  Quitting  this  place,  Bibors  arrived  at  Schau- 
bekh  on  the  follo\ving  day,  and  continuing  his  journey  he 
reached  Kerak  on  the  succeeding  one  at  noon. 

This  curious  record  is  important  as  showing  that  the 
Egyptian  Sultan,  dropping  unexpectedly  into  the  midst  of 
the  ruins  of  Petra,  heard  from  the  natives  precisely  the  same 
stories  which  had  been  told  to  the  Crusaders  one  hundred 
and  sixty  years  before.  The  tomb  of  the  prophet  Aaron  was 
still  pointed  out  on  the  adjoining  mountain,  and  the  well  was 
still  shown  wliich  owed  its  origin  to  the  blow  struck  by 
Moses'  rod.  But  the  designation  of  the  rock-cut  caves  of 
Petra  as  the  "  Villages  of  the  Children  of  Israel,"  however 
inappropriate  and  inaccurate,  ^t  all  events  goes  far  to  support 
the  conjecture  that  a  tradition,  whether  well  or  ill  founded, 
survived  in  that  region  to  the  effect  that  in  the  com-se  of 
their  jom-neyings  the  children  of  Israel  had  passed  that  way. 

It  will  be  seen  that  we  gain  not  much  information  from 
the  early  Arabian  and  Egyptian  authorities,  but,  such  as  it 
is,  it  confirms  our  previous  conclusions.  El  Masudi  is  ac- 
quainted with  the  reputed  tomb  of  Aaron,  which  he  places  on 


2s8  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION  FROM  EGYPT. 

a  mountain  near  Es  Sherah,  a  section  of  the  Iduma^an  range, 
and  also  near  Sinai.  Abulfeda  notices  one  of  the  most  cele- 
brated cities  in  Syi'ia  as  Er  Eakim,  where  the  habitations  are 
cut  out  of  the  living  rock,  and  wliich  there  is  no  dithculty  in 
identifying  with  the  Petra  Arekeme  of  Josephus,  and,  so 
far  as  we  have  the  means  of  judging,  with  the  Eekem 
Kadesh  of  the  Targumists.  Macrizi,  thoiigh  well  acquainted 
with  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  and  the  Coptic  pretensions  that 
Mount  Sinai  was  to  be  found  there,  takes  care  to  state 
that,  in  his  opinion,  the  Faran  (Feiran)  of  that  peninsula 
wliich  is  in  Egy^itian  territory  is  not  referred  to  in  the  books 
of  Moses,  and  suggests  that  the  Faran  of  the  Hedjaz  (wliich 
may  be  the  Pharan  of  Idumaea)  was  the  place  \isited  by  the 
Israelites.  And  finally,  the  somewhat  earlier  Egj^Dtian  -svTiter, 
Nowairi,  in  his  account  of  the  expedition  of  Svdtan  Bibors, 
not  only  speaks  of  Aaron's  tomb  on  the  mountain  overhang- 
ing Petra,  but  calls  the  cave-dwellings  the  "  Villages  of  the 
Children  of  Israel,"  and  finds  the  Ain  Musa,  the  spring 
attributed  by  tradition  to  Moses,  on  the  east  of  the  city  on 
the  road  to  Kerak — namely,  in  the  same  place  where  it  was 
said  to  be  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  where  it  was  found  by 
the  Crusaders,  and  where  it  is  pointed  out  at  the  present 
day. 


259 


CHAPTER  IX. 

TOURING  the  long  interval  which  elapsed  between  the 
^-^  Exodus  and  the  foundation  of  the  kingdom  of 
Israel,  complete  silence  is  preserved  in  the  Hebrew  records 
respecting  Edom.  If  we  are  right  in  our  conclusion  that  at 
the  time  of  the  migration  from  Egypt  the  nucleus  of  the 
latter  kingdom — the  Edom  which  in  after-times  extended 
to  the  Araba  and  the  head  of  the  ^lanitic  Gulf — lay  in  the 
territory  intervening  between  the  eastern  borders  of  Petra 
and  the  land  of  Moab,  in  the  midst  of  which  Bozrah  w^as 
situated,  we  have  still  no  means  of  judging  at  what  time  the 
subfSequent  changes  may  have  taken  place.  It  becomes  neces- 
sary, therefore,  to  examine  with  great  attention  the  earliest 
references  which  are  made  to  this  region  subsequent  to  the 
Hebrew  settlement  in  Canaan. 

It  is  stated  that  Saul,  by  the  direction  of  Samuel,  made 
war  on  the  Amalekites  to  punish  them  for  having  attacked 
the  Israelites  on  their  way  from  Egypt  to  Canaan.*  The 
orders  given  by  the  prophet  were  comprehensive.  The 
king  was  to  utterly  destroy  every  living  tiling — man  and 
woman,  infant  and  suckling,  ox  and  sheep,  camel  and  ass. 
In  the  traditions  of  the  Exodus  reference  is  made  to  two 
encounters  with  the  Amalekites ;  in  one  the  Hebrews  are 
represented  as  being  victorious,  in  the  other  they  are  said 
to  have  been  utterly  defeated.f  They  are  most  probably 
only  two  versions  of  the  same  event ;  but,  however  this 
may  be,  such  fearful  retribution  as  that  commanded  by 
Samuel  was  doubtless  intended  to  avenge  a  defeat,  and  not 


*  I  Sam.  XV.  t  Exod.  xvii.  8;  Num.  xiv.  40;  Deut.  i.  44. 

S  2 


26o  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

to  punisli  an  unsuccessful  act  of  aggression  committed 
many  centuries  previously.  The  reverse  sustained  at  the 
hands  of  the  Amalekites  was  one  which  might,  however, 
well  live  in  the  recollection  of  IsraeL  Their  ancestors  had 
succeeded  in  reaching  the  frontier  of  Canaan  in  a  compara- 
tively short  time  after  leaving  Egypt,  and  having  received 
the  reports  of  the  spies  whom  they  sent  to  explore  the  land, 
attempted  to  enter  it,  when  the  Amalekites,  aided  by  the 
Canaanites,  repulsed  them  with  great  slaughter.*  The  after- 
efifects  were,  however,  even  more  serious  than  the  immediate 
loss.  The  Israelites  were  compelled  to  alter  their  route 
to  "  compass  Edom,"  and  turn  their  steps  towards  the  Trans- 
Jordanic  region,  from  which  as  a  base,  many  long  years 
afterwards,  they  successfully  forced  their  way  into  the  pro- 
mised land. 

We  have  already  alluded  to  the  Amalekites,  and  to  the 
singular  statement  of  Josephus  that  they  occupied  the 
region  of  Gobolitis  and  Petra,t  an  assertion  which  amounts 
to  no  more  than  the  expression  of  a  belief  on  the  part  of 
the  historian  that  the  tribe  whicli  blocked  the  way  of  the 
Israelites  inhabited  the  country  to  the  south  of  the  Dead 
Sea.  In  the  report  attributed  to  the  spies,  the  Amalekites 
are  said  to  dwell  in  the  south  (Negeb),  wherever  that  may 
have  been,  the  Amorites  in  the  mountains,  and  the  Canaanites 
by  the  sea  and  by  the  coast  of  Jordan.^  The  Amorites  we 
know,  however,  occupied  a  i>ortion  of  the  Trans-Jordanic 
region  to  the  north  of  Moab,§  far  outside  the  field  in  which 
,the  spies  operated.  If,  however,  tlie  Amalekites  occupied 
the  mountainous  region  between  Tetra  and  the  Dead  Sea, 
and  the  Canaanites  the  region  to  the  west  of  that  sea  and 


*  In  the  record  in  Deuteronomy  the  Amalekites  are  called  Amorites. 
It  is,  however,  evideut  that  the  battle  referred  to  is  the  same  as  that 
recorded  in  Numbers. 

t  A.  J.  iii.  2,  I.  :J:  Num.  xiii.  29.  §  Num.  xxi.  13,  21. 


FROM  EGYPT.  261 

the  Jordan  valley,  it  would  be  intelligible  bow  an  attempted 
invasion  from  Petra  or  its  neighbourhood  would  be  resisted 
by  the  Amalekites,  or  by  a  combination  of  that  tribe  and 
the  Canaanites.  It  is,  however,  stated  that  such  an  alliance 
was  actually  formed  to  resist  the  Hebrews.  The  allies  were 
successful,  and  it  is  noteworthy  that  the  routed  Israelites 
were  pursued  in  Seir,* 

ISTow  let  us  follow  the  campaign  undertaken  by  Saul  for  the 
punishment  of  the  Amalekites.  Having  collected  an  armyf 
(the  figures,  as  usual,  are  preposterous),  he  proceeded  to  the 
Amalekite  territory,  and  before  commencing  hostilities  ad- 
dressed a  request  to  the  Keuites  to  separate  themselves  from 
the  Amalekites,  being  desu'ous  of  sparing  the  former  on 
account  of  the  kindness  which  they  had  shown  to  the  Israel- 
ites on  their  journey  from  Egypt.  With  this  request  the 
Kenites  complied.  This  connection  between  the  Kenites  and 
the  Amalekites  is,  however,  alone  explicable  on  the  assumption 
that  they  were  neighbours  ;  for  it  is  not  suggested  that  an 
alliance  had  been  formed  in  consequence  of  the  threatened 
attack  by  Israel,  and  consequently,  if  we  are  right  in 
identifying  the  Kenites  as  the  cave-dwellers  about  Petra, 
we  find  a  corroboration  of  our  inference  that  the  Amalekites 
occupied  the  adjoining  territory  on  the  east  or  north-east. 

It  is  then  stated  that  Saul  smote  the  Amalekites  "  from 
Havilah  unto  Shur,  that  is  over  against  Egypt."  Is  it 
possible  to  ascertain  where  these  respective  places  were  whicli 
marked  the  limits  within  which  Saul  harried  the  Amalekites  ? 

We  may  dismiss  from  consideration  the  Havilah  referred 
to  in  connection  with  one  of  the  four  rivers  formed  by  the 
stream   which  watered   the   Garden  of  Eden,|  and  also  the 


*  Deut.  i.  44. 
t  I  Sam.  XV.      The  army  numbered  200,000  Israelites  and  10,000  of 
the  men  of  Judah. 

+;  Gen.  ii.  11. 


262  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

Havilah  mentioned  in  the  genealogical  table  of  Gen.  x. 
A  more  precise  indication  is  furnished  in  the  statement  that 
the  descendants  of  Ishmael  dwelt  "  from  Havilah  unto  Shur, 
that  is  before  Egypt,  as  thou  goest  towards  Assyria  ;"*  a 
region  which  precisely  corresponds  with  that  in  which  Saul 
smote  the  Amalekites.  We  will  not  dwell  here  on  the 
singular  light  thus  thrown  on  the  identity  of  the  traditions 
wliich  respectively  assign  to  the  eldest  son  of  Abraham 
(Ishmael)  and  to  the  eldest  son  of  Isaac  (Esau)  the  territory 
lying  to  the  south-east  of  Canaan ;  but  we  must  point  out 
that  the  Amalekites  are  said  to  have  constituted  a  branch  of 
tlie  Beni-Esau,  and  not  unnaturally  occupied  a  portion  of 
the  territory  which  was  identified  with  Esau's  possessions. 

As  no  specific  information  is  given  respecting  Havilah 
in  either  of  the  passages  referred  to,  all  that  can  reasonably 
1)6  concluded  from  the  former  is  that  Havilah  lay  to  the 
east  of  the  Araba,  as  otherwise  the  Ishmaelites,  to  whom  such 
great  things  were  promised,!  would  have  dwelt  in  the 
desolate  wilderness  lying  between  Egypt  and  that  valley, 
and  now  universally  associated  with  the  wanderings  of 
the  Israelites. 

Tt  is  not  so  difficult  to  determine  the  locality  of  Sliur. 
In  the  possage  just  quoted  it  is  spoken  of  as  "  before  Egypt, 
as  thou  goest  towards  Assyria,"  and  as  "  over  against  Egypt." 
If  Shur  was  a  town  it  might  be  possible  to  determine  its  dis- 
tance from  Egyjit ;  but  from  all  the  indications  in  the  Hebrew 
records  it  seems  to  have  been  treated  in  them  as  a  region. 
Let  us  for  a  moment  suppose  that  the  liroad  expanse  c)f 
desert  now  known  ;is  l-^t  Tib  wascalleil  Shnr  by  the  Israelites;^ 
we  will  find  that  it  would  resjKJud  to  the  Biblical  descrip- 
tion  of  Shur   as   Ixung  before  or  over  against  Eg}qit.     The 


*  Gen.  XXV.  1 8.  f  Geu.  xvi.  lO;  xxi.  i8. 

X  The  precise  locality  of  Shur  will  be  considered  subsequently. 


FROM  EGYPT.  263 

Israelites  on  quitting  Egypt  made  a  three  days'  journey  into 
the  wilderness  of  Shur*  Abraham  is  said  to  have  dwelt  be- 
tween Kadesh  and  Shur,t  that  is,  in  the  region  between  Kadesh 
in  Idumasa  and  the  Araba,  which  marked  the  commencement 
of  Shur.  The  Ishmaelites  dwelt  between  Havilah  and  Shur 
— that  is,  between  the  Arabian  desert  and  the  desert  of  the 
Tih.  Saul's  campaign  against  the  Amalekites  was  bounded 
on  tlie  west  by  Shur — that  is  to  say,  not  by  the  Egyptian 
frontier,  but  by  the  barren  waste  of  which  all  that  the 
Israelites  knew,  or  cared  to  know,  was  that  it  lay  over 
against,  or  in  the  direction  of,  Egypt. 

It  is  somewhat  material  to  notice  that  Saul  marshalled 
his  army  for  this  campaign  at  Telaim,  which  is  reckoned  in 
the  Book  of  Joshua  as  one  of  the  cities  of  Judah  towards 
the  coast  of  Edom  southward,;j;  and  apparently  not  far 
distant  from  a  city  named  Kedesh,  wliich  is  equally  in- 
cluded amongst  the  cities  of  Judah.  In  deahng  with  the 
statement  that  Saul  smote  the  Amalekites  from  Havilah  to 
Shur,  "  that  is  over  against  Egypt,"  we  cannot  suppose  that 
the  field  of  the  campaign  extended  from  the  borders  of  the 
Arabian  desert  to  the  Egyptian  frontier ;  and  we  may  there- 
fore treat  it  as  an  Oriental  form  of  stating  that  the  Amale- 
kites were  exterminated  throughout  the  entire  region  which 
they  were  supposed  to  inhabit. 

The  Amalekites  are  constantly  identified  with  the  Edomites 
by  Josephus,  and  we  are  tempted  to  inquire  whether,  in 
different  traditions  of  the  Exodus,  Amalekites  and  Edomites 
may  not  have  been  convertible  terms,  as  Amalekites  and 
Amorites  undoubtedly  were.§  It  is  stated  that  when  Israel 
sought  permission  to  pass  through  Edom,  it  was  not  merely 
refused,   but  "  Edom  came   out   against   Israel,  with  much 


*  Exod.  sv.  22.  t  Gen.  xx.  i.  %  Jos.  xv.  24. 

§  Num.  xlv.  40-45  ;  Deut.  i.  41-46. 


264  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

people,  and  with  a  strong  hand.'"'''  In  this  narrative  it  is 
said  that  "  Israel  turned  away"  from  Edom.t  Is  this  tlie 
correct  version  of  what  occurred  ?  "Was  there  simply  a 
demonstration  by  Edom,  and  did  Israel  prudently  abstain 
from  a  trial  of  strength ;  or  did  Israel  "  go  up"  against  Edom 
and  sustain  a  defeat,  which  in  the  records  that  have  come 
down  to  us  is  represented  as  an  engagement  in  Mdiich  the 
Amalekites  and  the  Amorites  are  iudillerently  named  as  the 
adversaries  of  Israel  ?|  The  fact  that  the  possessions  of 
Amalek,  who  was  said  to  be  Esau's  grandson,^  were  identical 
with  those  given  to  Ishmael  and  his  decendants,||  raises  a  very 
strong  presumption  that  IshmaeHtes,  Midianites,*^  Edomites, 
and  Amalekites  were  designations  indifferently  given  to  one 
and  the  same  people  ;  and  if  so,  Saul's  raid  on  Amalek  was  in 
truth  an  invasion  of  Edom,  with  which  nation  it  is  else- 
where stated  in  general  terms**  that  he  made  war.  It  is 
noticeable  in  the  account  of  the  campaign  the  narrator  states 
that  on  his  arrival  at  a  city,  probably  the  frontier  of  Amalek, 
Saul  "  laid  wait  in  the  valley,"tt  and  at  this  jilace  addressed 
his  re(|uest  to  the  Kenites  to  separate  themselves  from  the 
Amalekites.  We  shall  subsequently  find  that  a  place  called 
"  the  valley,"  nachal,  lay  to  the  east  of  Petra.  After 
defeating  tlie  Amalekites,  Saul  "  went  down"  to  Gilgal,  liav- 
ing  previously  set  up  a  place  at  Carmel.j;|;  Dismissing  for 
the  moment  the  consideration  of  the  locality  of  Carmel,  all 
we  may  fairly  infer  from  this  narrative  is  that  the  tribes 
attacked  by  Saul  inhabited  a  district  to  the  south-east  of 
Judaea,  near,  if  not  in,  Edom  ;  and  if  we  are  correct  in 
identifying  Shur  with  the  Tih  steppe,  that  tins  district  lay 
to  the  east  of  the  Araba.     This  M'ould  tally  with  the  state- 


*  Num.  XX.  20.     t  Num.  xx.  21.      J  Num.  xiv.  40-45  ;  Deut.  i.  41-46. 

§  Gen.  xxxvi.  16.     ||  Gcd.  xxv.  18.      U  Gen.  xxxvii.  28;  Jud.  viii.  24. 

**  I  Sam.  xiv.  47.         ft  •  Sam.  xv.  5.  XX  '  ^ii»i-  ^v.  21. 


FROM  EGYPT.  265 

ment  that  Saul  "  went  down"  with  his  spoil  to  Gilgal,  which 
lay  not  far  from  Jericho  in  the  Jordan  valley. 

It  is  related  of  David,  that  being  apprehensive  of  being 
captured  by  Saul  in  Keilah,  a  Philistine  town,  he  departed 
with  his  band,  and  sought  refuge  in  a  mountain  in  the  wil- 
derness of  Ziph.'^  The  Ziphites  thereupon  informed  Saul 
that  David  was  hidden  "  in  strongholds  in  the  wood,  in  the 
hill  of  Hacliilah,  which  is  on  the  south  of  Jeshimon."t 
Saul  thanked  them,  adding,  "  I  will  go  with  you ;  and  it 
shall  come  to  pass,  if  he  be  in  the  land,  that  I  will  search 
him  out  throughout  all  the  thousands  of  Judah."J  Saul 
accordingly  proceeded  to  seek  for  David ;  but  the  latter, 
having  been  informed  of  the  king's  design,  "  came  down 
from  the  rock,"  and  with  his  band  entered  "  the  wilderness 
{midbhar)  of  Maon,  in  the  plain  {Arciba),  on  the  south  (or  '  the 
right-hand')  of  Jeshimon."^  David  succeeded  in  making  his 
escape,  by  passing  on  one  side  of  the  mountain  whilst  the 
king  went  round  the  other  ;  and  Saul,  having  received  infor- 
mation of  a  threatened  invasion  by  the  Philistines,  was  com- 
pelled to  desist  from  the  pursuit  and  to  return  home.||  It 
is  stated  that  the  rock  received  the  name  of  Sela-hammah- 
lekoth,  and  that  David  subsequently  "  went  up  and  dwelt 
in  the  strongholds  at  En-gedi."^ 

A  different  version  of  this  episode  in  David's  career 
is  given  in  a  subsequent  chapter,^"^  Saul  is  repre- 
sented as  going  down  to  the  wilderness  of  Ziph  and 
encamping  "  in  the  hill  of .  Hachilah,  which  is  before 
Jeshimon."  Whilst  there  David  spared  Saul's  life,  where- 
upon the  king  acknowledged  that  he  had  sinned,  and  having 
blessed  David  they  parted   as  friends.     Is   it    possible  to 


*  I  Sam.  xxiii.  13-15.        t  i  Sam.  xxiii.  19;  Lit.  "on  the  right  hand."' 

X  I  Sam.  xxiii.  23.         §  i  Sam.  xxiii.  24,  25.         ||  i  Sam.  xxiii.  26,27. 

IF  I  Sam.  xxiii.  28,  29.  **  i  Sam.  xxvi. 


266  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

ascertain  witli  ;uiy  ai»})roach  to  probability  the  region  in 
which  this  event  is  said  to  have  occurred  ? 

Of  the  hill  of  Hachilah*  no  mention  is  made  save  in  the 
passage  we  have  quoted,  and  we  must  therefore  endeavour  to 
fix  its  locality  by  that  of  the  places  said  to  have  been  in 
its  immediate  neighbourhood.  In  the  one  account  it  is  said 
to  have  been  "  to  the  right  of,"  and  in  the  other  "  before"  or 
in  view  of,  Jeshimon,  a  place  to  which  reference  is  made  in 
several  passages  both  of  prose  and  poetry.  The  former  are 
to  be  found  in  the  Book  of  Numbers,  exclusive  of  those 
now  quoted  from  the  First  Book  of  Samuel.  In  Numbers 
xxi.  20  Mount  Pisgah  is  said  to  look  toward  Jeshimon,  and 
in  Numbers  xxiii.  2  8  Mount  Peor  is  equally  said  "  to  look 
toward"  the  same  place.f  Pisgah  and  Peor  (they  may  have 
been  identical)  were  in  the  Trans-Jordanic  region,  probably 
on  the  east  of  the  Dead  Sea ;  and  all  we  can  faiily  conclude 
from  these  passages  is  that  Jeshunon  was  within  view 
of  Pisgah  and  Peor.  The  poetical  allusions  to  Jeshimon 
are,  however,  more  important,  and  have  considerable  signiti- 
cance  in  their  bearing  on  the  main  object  of  our  inquiry. 
In  six  different  passages  in  which  the  word  occurs,  distinct 
reference  is  made  to  the  remon  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Sinai,  though  the  rendering  of  ^he  word  Jeshunon,  "  wilder- 
ness" or  "  desert,"  in  the  Authorised  Version  conveys  no  allu- 
sion to  any  specific  place.     The  following  are  the  passages  : — 

"  He  found  him  in  a  desert  land  {midhliar),  and  in  the 
v:aste  Iwwling  ivilderness  (Jeshimon)."    Deut.  xxxii.  i  o. 


*  T  cannot  help  thinkiiiL?  that  the  Havilah  which  was  the  limit  of 
the  Ishniaelite  and  Amalekite  territory,  is  identical  with  the  Hachilah 
mentioned  in  connection  with  the  pursuit  of  David  by  Saul,  and  that 
it  is  simply  owing  to  an  error  in  transcribing  the  original  records 
that  the  names  have  now  become  dissimilar.  np'ln  Havilah  and 
n^On  Hachilah  might  easily  be  mistaken  for  each  other,  and  it  is 
notorious  that  many  similar  errors  occur  in  the  accepted  text, 
t  Lit.  "  iu  presence,"  or  "  in  view  of  Jeshimon." 


FROM  EGYPT.  267 

"  0  God,  when  thou  wentest  forth  before  thy  people, 
when  thou  didst  march  through  the  wilderness,  Selah 
(Jeshimon,  Selah)."     Ps.  Ixviii.  8;  A.  V.,  7. 

"  How  oft  did  tliey  provoke  him  in  the  vjilderness  (midbhar), 
and  grieve  him  in  the  desert  (Jeshimon)."     Ps.  Ixxviii.  40. 

"  But  lusted  exceedingly  in  the  wilderness  (midbhar),  and 
tempted  God  in  the  desert  (Jeshimon)."     Ps.  cvi.  14. 

"  They  wandered  in  the  ivilderness  in  a  solitary  way  (in 
the  viidhhar  in  Jeshimon)."      Ps.  cvii.  4. 

"  I  will  even  make  a  way  in  the  wilderness  {midhhar),  and 
rivers  in  the  desert  {Jeshimon)."     Isa.  xliii.'iQ. 

It  is  of  course  open  to  question  if  Jeshimon,  whether 
occurring  in  prose  or  poetry,  be  a  proper  name.  If  it  be 
not,  then  the  various  passages  in  which  it  occurs  may  be 
dismissed  from  notice ;  if  it  be  a  proper  name,  then  the 
materiality  of  the  references  to  it  cannot  be  overrated. 

It  is  further  stated  that  the  midhhar  of  Maon  where  David 
took  refuge  was  in  the  plain  (Araba),  on  the  south  of 
Jeshimon.  The  significance  of  the  employment  of  the  term 
Araha  must  not  be  overlooked.  The  word  is  invariably 
used  to  designate  the  low  region  of  the  Jordan  valley,  and 
its  continuation  southwards  beyond  the  Dead  Sea,  answering 
to  the  modern  Ghor.  As  there  is  no  other  instance  in  the 
Hebrew  records  where  the  term  is  employed  in  which  this 
application  is  not  incontestable,  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude 
that  in  the  passage  now  under  consideration  the  word  is  used 
in  the  same  sense. 

Of  Maon  and  of  its  people  the  Maonites,  or  the  Mehunims 
as  they  are  called  in  the  Authorised  Version,  sufficiently 
frequent  mention  is  made  to  enable  us  with  tolerable 
certainty  to  ascertain  the  locality  and  the  people  referred 
to.  The  JMehunims  are  bracketed  with  the  Arabians  as  having 
l)een  overtln-own  by   King  Uzziah,*  and  are   spoken  of  in 

*  2  Chron.  xxvi.  7. 


268  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

the  reign  of  Hezekiah  as  settled  of  old  iii  tlie  valley  of 
Gedor,*  whilst  a  subsequent  reference  connects  tliis  valley 
with  Mount  Seii'.t  The  most  specific  reference  to  this 
people  is  made,  however,  in  the  narrative  of  an  invasion  of 
Judah  by  some  neighbouring  tribes  in  tlie  reign  of 
Jehoshaphat.|  According  to  the  Authorised  Version  the 
story  begins  in  tlie  following  words  :  "  And  it  came  to  pass 
after  tliis  also,  that  the  children  of  Moab  and  the  children  of 
Ammon,  and  with  them  other  beside  the  Ammonites,  came 
against  Jehoshaphat  to  battle."  It  is  now  generally  consi- 
dered that  the  reading  "  Ammonites"  is  incorrect,  whilst  the 
translation  "  other  beside"  is  undoubtedly  wTong.  The  Sep- 
tuagint  gives  ot  Mtti/aiot,  from  which  it  would  seem  that  tlie 
Greek  translators  either  found  in  their  text  the  word  ft)r 
Maonites,  or  else  recognised  an  evident  transposition  of  a 
letter.^  The  correct  translation  of  the  sentence  supports  the 
LXX.  version,  as  it  shoidd  run,  "  and  with  them  of  the 
Ammonites,"  or  "  Maonites,"  as  the  case  may  be.  But  as  the 
childi-en  of  Amnion  have  been  already  mentioned  as  joining 
in  the  invasion  of  Judah,  the  repetition  would  be  unmean- 
ing, and  we  may  therefore  conclude  that  the  ]\laonites 
were  mentioned  in  the  original  record. 

In   the   subsequent  part    of    the   narrative    it    is    niatle 
evident   who   were    the  peox»le   who  had  formed  an  alliance 


*  I  Chron.  iv.  41.  f  i  Chron.  iv.  42.  ;|:  2  Cbron.  xx. 

§  D*3iyo  'Mconhn,  instead  of  D*3lDy  Amonim,  the  initial  letters  being 
transjiosed.  Such  errors,  it  is  supposed,  were  not  of  infrequent 
occurrence  in  the  text,  and  arose  from  oversights  on  the  part  of  those 
who  acted  as  scribes.  The  Masorites  notice  sLsty-two  instances  in 
which  they  admit  the  error  has  been  committed,  and  where  the  Kerl, 
or  that  which  is  nad,  differs  from  the  text — the  Chetih,  or  that  which 
is  written.  The  above  is,  however,  not  one  of  the  cases  in  which  a 
different  rcadiuLf  from  the  text  has  the  su])port  of  tlie  ^lasurah. 
Biblical  scholars,  amongst  whom  may  be  numbered  Ewald  and  l)e 
Wette,  are  of  opinion  that  the  correct  reading  is  "  Meonim." 


FROM  EGYPT.  269 

with  Moab  and  Ammon  against  Judah.  In  Jehoshaphat's 
prayer  to  Jahveh  before  the  battle,  the  king  says  :  "  And 
now  behold,  the  children  of  Ammon  and  Moab  and  Mount 
Seir,  whom  thou  wouldest  not  let  Israel  invade,  when  they 
came  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  but  they  turned  from  them, 
and  destroyed  them  not."  Here  the  Maonites  are  not  only 
distinguished  from  the  Ammonites,  but  they  are  called  the 
men  of  Seir  and  identified  with  the  Edomites,  whom,  in 
common  with  the  Ammonites  and  Moabites,  Israel  was 
ordered  to  respect  on  the  journey  to  Canaan.  In  subsequent 
passages  the  distinction  is  equally  strongly  marked,  and 
when  through  the  interposition  of  Jahveh  the  allies  fall 
upon  each  other,  thus  effecting  their  common  destruction, 
the  men  of  Seir  are  the  first  to  fall  victims  at  the  hands  of 
the  Ammonites  and  Moabites.  When  the  news  of  the  inva- 
sion was  brought  to  Jehoshaphat,  he  was  told  "  there  cometh 
a  great  multitude  against  thee  from  beyond  the  sea  on  this 
side  Sp'ia  (the  Dead  Sea),  and  behold  they  be  in  Hazezon- 
tamar,  which  is  En-gedi."  The  inhabitants  of  the  region 
to,  the  south  of  that  sea  must  therefore  have  co-oj)erated 
in  the  invasion. 

Maon  is  included  in  the  Book  of  Joshua  in  a  list  of  the 
towns  of  Judah,  where  it  is  joined  with  Carmel  and  Ziph 
among  the  cities  which  were  "  in  the  mountains ;"  l)ut 
nothinsr  is  there  said  which  can  aid  us  in  determining  its 
locality.* 

It  is  also  mentioned  in  connection  with  David  and  Nabal, 
the  husband  of  Abigail,  David's  future  wife.f  Whilst  David 
was  hiding  from  Saul  in  the  wilderness  of  En-gedi  the 
king  pursued  him,  and  having  had  occasion  to  enter  a  cave, 
David,  who  was  concealed  within,  cut  off  Saul's  skirt,  thus 
proving  to  the  king  that  he  might  have  taken  his  life.      Saul 

*  Jos.  XV.  55.  t  I   Sam.  xxv. 


270  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

and  David  thereupon  became  reconciled,  the  former  return- 
ing home,  and  the  latter  with  his  men  going  up  into  their 
"  hold."*  In  a  succeeding  but  distinct  narrative  it  is  recorded 
that  David  went  down  to  the  wilderness  of  Paran,  and 
whilst  there  he  heard  tliat  Xabal,  a  man  of  Maon,  was  then 
engaged  at  Carniel  shearing  his  sheep.  David  thereupon  sent 
a  message  to  Xabal,  requesting  what  would  to-day  be  called 
hakhshish,  and  reminding  Xabal  that  he  and  his  men  had 
respected  Nabal's  property  :  "  Thy  shepherds,  which  were 
with  us,  we  hurt  them  not,  neither  was  there  ought  missing 
unto  them  all  the  while  they  were  in  Carmel."  Nabal 
refused  compliance  with  the  request,  and  David,  incensed  at 
liis  ingratitude — "  in  vain  have  I  kept  all  that  this  fellow 
hath  in  the  wilderness" — vowed  to  exterminate  him  ami  all 
his  people.  With  the  issue  of  the  story  we  are  not  con- 
cerned. 

Is  the  Maon,  in  whose  wilderness  David  took  refuge  from 
Saul  and  to  which  Nabal  belonged,  the  same  as  that  which 
doubtless  gave  their  name  to  the  Maonites  ?  Everything 
points  to  an  atfirmative  reply.  David's  request  to  Xabal 
was  based  on  the  fact  that  he  and  liis  fellow-outlaws  had  for 
some  time  frequented  the  niidhliar  of  Maon,  and  had 
abstainetl  from  jilundering  Xaljal's  ih)cks  in  the  adjoining 
Carmel ;  but  when  we  find  that  David  was  in  the  wilderness 
of  Paran  when  he  addressed  this  request  to  Nabal — a  region 
which,  as  we  have  ab-eady  seen,  was  to  the  east  of  the  Araba 
and  probably  near  Petra — we  must  conclude  that  the  Maon 
of  Nabal  was  the  Maon  of  the  people  who  aiiled  the  Moabites 
and  Ammonites  in  invading  Judah.  Too  much  stress  should 
not  be  laid  on  the  discovery  of  places  bearing  at  the  present 
day  names  similar  to  those  which  we  find  in  the  Scrij>tural 
records.      It  is,  however,  a  curious  coincidence   that  about 

*  I  Sum.  xxiv. 


FROM  EGYPT.  271 

fifteen  miles  east  of  Petra  is  the  town  of  Maan,  to  which 
Abulfecia  refers  in  the  fourteenth  century,  and  which  to-day 
marks  one  of  the  stations  of  the  Syrian  Hajj. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  mention  is  made  in  the  preceding- 
narratives  of  a  place  named  En-gedi.  David  is  said  to  have 
gone  up  from  the  midhhar  of  Maon,  and  taken  refuge  in 
strongholds  at  En-gedi.'^  Information  is  a  second  time  given 
to  Saul  that  David  is  "  in  the  wilderness  of  En-gedi  ;"t  and 
having  spared  Saul's  life  in  the  cave,  David  and  his  men  "  got 
them  up  unto  the  hold."J  In  the  succeeding  narrative  of 
Nabal,  David  is  represented  as  going  dowa  into  the  wilder- 
ness of  Paran,§  whilst  in  the  next  chapter  another  version 
is  given  of  the  story  of  Saul  and  David  at  En-gedi,  the  scene 
of  the  occurrence  being  the  wilderness  of  Ziph.||  The  points 
of  resemblance  between  this  last  narrative,  especially  as 
regards  the  enumeration  of  the  places  referred  to,^  and  that 
in  wliich  Saul's  vain  pursuit  of  David,  when  a  threatened 
invasion  by  the  Philistines  compelled  him  to  return  home, 
is  recorded,  leaves  no  doubt  that  the  midhhar  of  Ziph  and 
that  of  Maon  were  regarded  as  practically  identical;  wdiilst 
equally  strong  indications  are  afforded,  by  a  comparison  of 
all  these  narratives,  that  the  midhhar  of  Paran  and  tliat  of 
En-gedi  were  not  far  apart. 

It  is  supposed  by  modern  travellers  that  the  ancient 
En-gedi  is  found  at  Ain  Jidy,  a  fountain  situated  about 
midway  on  the  western  shore  of  the  Dead  Sea.**  Josephus 
says  that  En-gedi  was  a  city  on  the  Lake  Asphaltites,  and  he 
gives  its  distance  from  Jerusalem,  which  is  thought  to 
correspond  with  that  intervening  between  the  Jewish  capital 
and  Ain  Jidy.f  f     Jerome  places  En-gedi  at  the  southern  ex- 


*  I  Sam.  xxiii.  29.  f   i  Sam.  xxiv.  I.  J  1  Sam.  xxiv.  22. 

§   I  Sam.  XXV.  i.  ||   i  Sam.  xxvi.  13-25.  IT   i  Sam.  xxvi.  1-3. 

**  Eobinson,  Bib.  Bes.  i.  508.         ff  A.  J.  ix.  i,  2. 


272  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

tremity  of  the  Dead  Sea.*  It  appears  in  early  times  to 
have  been  identified  with  Hazezou-taniart  (which  has  been 
rendered  the  "  pruning  of  the  palms"),  a  place  remarkable 
for  its  palm-trees  ;  and  although,  owing  to  the  improvidence 
of  tlie  inhabitants  of  the  entire  region,  the  palms  have  now 
almost  everwhere  disappeared,  the  Crusaders,  in  the  twelfth 
century,  were  struck  by  their  number  and  luxuriance  on 
entering  the  country  south  of  the  Dead  Sea.|    In  still  earlier 


*  Covim.  Ezech.  xlvii.  lo.  f  2  Chron.  xx.  2. 

J  Albert  of  Aix  states  that  Baldwin,  when  on  liis  expedition  into 
Idumaja,  reached  a  castle  called  after  St.  Abraham,  which  was 
situated  close  to  the  Dead  Sea.  Whilst  there,  and  when  about  to 
penetrate  the  Arabian  mountains,  the  Crusaders  were  informed  that  a 
neighbouring  place,  called  that  of  "  Palms,"  was  well  worth  a  visit. 
"  Intimatum  est  eis  a  quibusdam  incolis,  quomodo,  si  paulo  procederent 
ad  locum  qui  dicitur  Palmarum,  plurimas  opes  et  copias  ciborum 
reperirent."  Thither  some  forty  of  the  Crusaders  proceeded  in  the 
hope  of  carrying  off  booty,  but  with  the  exception  of  some  food  and 
sweet  water  (Albert  expressly  says,  "  nihil  vero  vini  aut  alicujus 
poculi  praster  fontes  ")  they  obtained  nothing.  Thence  they  arrived  at 
the  mountains  of  Arabia.  "  Illic  quidem  in  loco  palmarum  refocillati, 
exurgentes  ad  montana  Arabise  pervenerunt"  (Alb.  Aq.,  Hist.  Hier.  vii. 
41 ;  Geftta  Dei,  i.  306).  The  expedition  on  its  return  again  visited  the 
city  of  Palms,  "  Villa  Palmai-um,"  where  a  profusion  of  dates 
were  seen,  and  thence  by  St.  Abraham's  castle  proceeded  on  its 
journey  back  to  Jerusalem  (Alb.  Aq.  vii.  42).  Fulcher,  who  accom- 
panied the  expedition,  gives  more  particulars  respecting  this  place  so 
noted  for  its  palm-trees.  Having  passed  round  the  Dead  Sea  on  the 
south,  "  girato  autem  lacu  a  parte  Australi,"  the  Crusaders  found  a 
town  which  was  said  to  be  Serjor  (dicunt  esse  Segor),  pleasantly 
situated,  and  great  numbers  of  date-bearing  palms,  "situ  gratissimam, 
et  de  fructibns  ]ialmarum  quos  dactilos  nominaut,  valde  abuudantcm." 
Thence  the  expedition  ascended  the  mountains  of  Arabia,  "  Exhinc 
^rabia3  montana  introire  cepimus."  The  Crusaders  thence  proceeded 
to  the  "  Vallis  Moysi  "  (Fulch.  Carnot,  Gest.  Per.  Franc,  xxiii ;  Gesta 
De?,  i.  405).  An  anonymous  author,  recording  the  same  events,  states 
that  leaving  the  Salt  Lake  on  their  left  hand,  the  Crusaders  passed 
through  a  very  steep  region,  having  an  abundance  of  date-palms,  and 
entered  the  interior  of  Arabia.  "  Relicto  itaque  lacu  a  sinistra,  per 
terram  gratissimam  et  fnictibus  palmarum  quos  dactilos  vocant, 
fertilipsiraara,  interiorera  Arabiam  ingressi  sunt"  {Gesta  Francorum 
Expugn,  Ilicriisolcm,  xxrviii  ;  Gesta  Dei,  i.  581). 


FROM  EGYPT.  273 

times,  the  son  of  Sirach  vaunted  the  palms  of  En-gaddi/'''  and 
in  the  traditions  of  Southern  Canaan  it  was  remembered  that 
"  the  Kenites  went  up  out  of  the  city  of  palm-trees  with  the 
children  of  Judah  into  the  wdlderness  of  Judah."f  It  is 
therefore  permissible  to  question  the  accuracy  of  the  identifi- 
cation of  the  ancient  En-credi  with  the  fountains  bearinQ-  a 
somewhat  similar  name  on  the  west  coast  of  the  Dead  Sea. 
It  is  undoubtedly  very  singular  that  the  En-gaddi  of  the 
son  of  Sirach  may  be  rendered  "  Kadesh,"  and  one  is  in- 
voluntarily led  to  speculate  whether  En-gedi  may  not  be  a 
corruption  of  En-kadesh  of  which  the  still  earlier  name  was 
En-mishpat.;{; 


*  Ecclus.  xxiv.  14.  f  Jud.  i.  16. 

X  The  common  assumption  that  "  the  city  of  Palms"  from  which 
Judah  went  up  to  invade  Canaan  was  Jericho,  rests  on  the  statement 
in  the  Book  of  Joshua  that  all  the  tribes  crossed  the  Jordan  opposite 
that  town.  The  apocryphal  nature  of  this  statement  will  be  dealt 
with  hereafter.  The  city  of  Palm-trees,  from  which  Judah  and  the 
Kenites  operated  in  invading  Southern  Palestine,  was  the  Hazezon- 
tamar  or  En-gedi  referred  to  as  the  point  from  which,  in  the  reign  of 
JehoshajDhat,  the  Moabites  and  Maonites  threatened  Judah  (2  Chron. 
XX.).  The  statement  of  the  Crusaders  (in  preceding  note)  that  they 
found  at  the  southern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea  a  place  known  as  the  Villa 
Palmarum,  which  they  were  told  was  Zegor,  receives  a  certain  con- 
firmation in  the  Talmud.  "There  is  a  story  of  some  Levites  who 
travelled  to  Zoar,  the  city  of  Palms,  and  one  of  them  fell  sick,  and 
there  he  died"  (Jevamoth,  cap.  xvi. ;  Lightfoot  ii,  6).  Zoar  was  by  all 
accounts  at  the  southern  extremity  of  the  Dead  Sea.  Abulfeda 
names  this  sea  the  Lake  of  Zogar  (Tab.  Syr.  12).  Josephus  desci-ibes 
it  as  "  extending  as  far  as  Zoar  in  Arabia"  {B.  J.  iv.  8.  4.)  Jerome,  in 
his  commentary  on  Isaiah  xv.  5,  writes  :  "  Segor  in-finibusMoabitarum 
sita  est  dividens  ab  iis  terram  Philistiim."  En-gedi  lie  placed  at  the 
southern  extremity  of  the  Dead  Sea,  "  ubi  finitur  et  consumitur " 
{Com.  Ezech.  xlvii.  10).  Since  Tamar  and  En-gedi  were  the  same 
(2  Chron.  xx.  8),  and  it  was  from  Tamar  that  Ezekiel  carried  the 
southern  boundary  of  the  land  to  the  waters  of  Meribah  in  Kadesh 
(Ezek.  xlvii.  19),  it  appears  almost  absolutely  certain  that  the  Villa 
Palmarum  of  the  Crusaders  was  the  ancient  city  of  Palms  which  is 
referred  to  in  the  Scriptural  records.     This  also  was,  as  I  conceive, 

T 


274  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

Wliere  was  Ziph,  and  who  were  the  Ziphites  who  in- 
formed Saul  of  David's  hiding-place  ?  Ziph  is  mentioned 
twice  in  the  catalogue  of  the  cities  of  Judah  in  the  Book  of 
Joshua,  The  first  time  it  is  classed  wath  Kedesh  and  Hazor 
amongst  "  the  uttermost  cities  toward  tlie  coast  of  Edom 
southward  ;"*  and  the  second  with  Maon  and  Carmel, 
amongst  the  cities  in  the  mountains.  Whether  two  distinct 
cities  of  the  same  name  were  intended  it  is  impossible  to 
say,  but  there  seem  good  reasons  for  concluding  that  one 
city  was  alone  referred  to.j 

It  is  a  very  remarkable  circumstance  that  not  only  is 
there  a  considerable  difference  between  the  Hebrew  text  and 
the  Septuagint  version  of  the  passage  in  Joshua  in  which 
Ziph  is  first  mentioned,  but  tlie  name  is  converted  by  tlie 
Greek  translators  into  Maii'a^  (seemingly  Maon),  whilst 
Bealoth  is  rendered  BaX^mti'a/i  (Baal-Meon),  In  the  verse 
in  which  Ziph  is  named  a  second  time  the  LXX.  render 
Maon  Maw/o  (Maor)  and  Ziph  06)3  (Ozib), 

In  those  .passages  in  the  Book  of  Samuel  in  which  allusion 
is  made  to  Ziph  and  the  Zipliites,  it  is  also  remarkable  that 


the  "Tamar  in  the  wilderness"  which  was  built  by  Solomon  (i  Kings 
ix.  1 8).  The  Masorites  have,  in  my  humble  judgment,  incorrectly 
substituted  the  Ktri  (Tadmor)  for  th§  Chetih  (Tamar)  of  the  text,  ap- 
parently to  harmonise  it  with  2  Chron.  viii.  4  {Thenius  Exegef. 
Handbuch,  i  Kings  ix.  18),  This  point  is  far  from  unimportant, 
because  if  the  Tamar  in  the  wilderness  which  was  built  by  Solomon 
was  the  city  of  Palm-trees  of  Judah  and  the  Kenitos,  and  the  Hazezon- 
tamar  of  the  period  of  Jchoshaphat,  the  Tamar  of  Ezekiel,  and  the 
Villa  Palmarum  of  the  Crusaders,  then  the  possessions  of  Judah  in- 
dubitably extended  to  the  east  of  the  Araba.  According  to  Pliny,  the 
Essenes  dwelt  on  the  western  shore  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  "below  these 
was  the  town  En-gadda,  the  next  to  Jerusalem  for  fruitfulness  and 
groves  of  palm-trees  '  (G'og.  v,  17).  Solinus  confirms  this,  and  adds 
'*  En-gadda  is  now  destroyed,  but  its  reputation  for  the  famous  groves 
that  are  there  still  endures,  and  in  regard  of  its  lofty  palm-trees  has 
suflfered  nothing  through  age  and  war"  (Solin.  xxxviii.)- 
*  Jos.  XV.  24.  t  Jos.  XV.  55. 


FROM  EGYPT.  275 

the  Septuagint  version  differs  considerably  from  the  present 
Hebrew  text.  In  two  passages  the  "  mountain"  is  substi- 
tuted for  the  "  midhhar  "  of  Ziph,  and  in  four  the  place  is 
described  as  being  in  "  the  land  of  dryness "  or  "  drought,'' 
or  as  being  "  a  parched  region  ;"  whilst  in  one  passage  Ziph 
receives  the  quaKfication  of  rj  Kaivi)  ZiKp — the  new  Ziph,  a 
rendering  due  to  the  Greek  translators  reading  C/iadish,  or 
ChadisJiah,  instead  of  ChorisJiah.  The  former  word  signifies 
"  new,"  but  it  is  a  curious  coincidence  that  it  should  be  idc^n 
sonans  with  the  name  of  a  place  which  seems  to  have  been 
in  close  proximity  to  Ziph.* 

Coupled  with  the  inferences  which  we  are  justified  in 
drawing  from  the  collocation  of  Ziph  with  other  places 
mentioned  in  the  narratives  respecting  David,  we  may  con- 
clude, from  the  preceding  references,  that  the  Ziph  referred 
to  as  one  of  "  the  uttermost  cities  of  Judah  toward  Edom 
southward,"  and  which,  by  the  Greek  translators  is  rendered 
Maon,  is  the  same  in  whose  neighbourhood  David  took  refuge 
from  Saul,  and  was  not  far  from  En-gedi. 

It  still  remains  to  offer  a  few  remarks  on  Carmel,  where 
Nabal  the  Maonite  was  shearing  his  sheep  when  David 
made  an  ineffectual  appeal  for  a  generous  recognition  of  his 
abstention  fi'om  "  lifting"  his  cattle.  The  word  signifies  a 
cultivated  or  fertile  place,  and  is  applied  as  a  proper  name 
to  the  fertile  promontory  on  the  western  coast  of  Palestine, 
which  is  supposed  to  be  closely  associated  with  the  history 
of  Elijah.  This  Carmel  is  clearly  not  referred  to  in  the  list 
of  Judah's  cities,  or  in  the  narrative  about  David  and  Nabal. 
It  is  even  doubtful  whether  it  should  be  regarded  in  the 
latter  passages  as  a  distinctive  name.  The  word  may  have 
been   used   to   designate  the  cultivated  land  which  adjoined 


*  Kedesh,  Jos.  xv.  23.     The  confusion  of  Daleth  T  with  Besh  "1  is 
of  frequent  occurrence  in  proper  names. 

T  2 


276  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

Maon.  Ill  the  Book  of  Josliua,  and  in  that  of  Samuel, 
Maon  and  Carmel  are  closely  associated  ;  but  it  is  a  matter 
of  little  importance  whether  the  latter  term  was  a  proper 
name  or  simply  descriptive  of  the  jjlace  to  which  it  was 
ajjplied.* 

Let  us  now  review  the  preceding  narratives  respecting 
DaAT.d,  and  see  what  light,  if  any,  they  throw  on  the  boun- 
daries of  Edom  at  the  time  of  the  foundation  of  the  Jewish 
monarchy.  David  and  his  men  were  fugitives  ;  they  con- 
stituted an  organised  band,  setting  the  authority  of  Saul  at 
defiance,  and  the  scene  of  their  operations — not  to  use  too 
harsh  a  term — lay,  at  the  time  to  which  these  narratives 
refer,  within  the  territory  of  Judah.  When  Saul,  acting  on 
the  information  of  the  Ziphites,  seeks  David  in  the  hill  of 
Hachilah,  on  the  south  of  Jeshimon,  and  close  to  the  midhhar 
of  Maon,  he  says  :  "  If  he  be  in  the  land,  I  will  search  him 
out  throughout  all  the  thousands  of  Judah,"t  There  is  no 
susrgestion  that  Saul  committed  what  would  now  be  termed 
a  breach  of  neutrality  in  pursuing  David.  But  if  the  wil- 
derness of  Maon,  or  of  Ziph,  or  of  Paran  ;  if  the  hill  of 
Hachilah  on  the  south  of  Jeshimon,  or  the  celebrated  rock 
which  was  called  Sela-hammahlckvfh,^  lay  on  the  east  side 
of  the  Araba  ;  then,  as  it  is  not  pretended  that  David  took 
refuge  in  what  was  then  Edomitish  territory,  the  latter  mu.«it 
have  been  separated  from  the  Araba  by  a  tract  then  belonging 
to  Judah.  But  that  the  region  which  was  the  scene  of  David's 
adventures  with  Saul  and  with  Nabal  the  Maonite  lay  on  the 


*  Satil,  after  the  defeat  of  the  Amalekites,  is  said  to  have  set  him 
up  a  place  on  Carmel  before  proceedinor  to  Gilgal  (i  Sam  xv.  12).  If 
we  were  right  in  concluding  that  Saul's  operations  were  on  the  east 
of  the  Araba,  the  Carmel  would  be  some  noted  place  to  the  south  of 
the  Dead  Sea,  and  the  conclusion  would  correspond  with  the  inference 
above  drawn  that  Carmel  was  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Petra. 
t   I  Sam.  xxiii.  23.  J   i  Sam.  xxiii.  28. 


FROM  EGYPT.  277 

east  of  the  Araba,  is  supported  by  a  very  powerful  com- 
bination of  evidence.  Ziph  is  named  in  the  Hebrew  text  as 
one  of  the  border  cities  of  Judah  on  the  frontier  of  Edom,* 
whilst  in  the  Septuagint  version  the  name  appears  as  Maon. 
Amongst  the  cities  of  Judah  "  in  the  mountains  "  are  Maon, 
Carmel,  and  Ziph,t  a  description  which  might  at  all  events 
be  suitably  applied  to  the  region  on  the  east  of  the  Araba. 
Jeshimon,  if  it  be  the  proper  name  of  a  place,  indicates  some 
spot  not  far  distant  from  Moab,|  whilst  its  situation  in  the 
plain  (Araba)  is  conclusive  that  it  was  in  the  continuation 
of  the  Jordan  valley,  and  probably  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the 
Dead  Sea  where  the  cities  of  "  the  plain"  were  believed  to 
have  been  overwhelmed.  The  poetical  allusions  to  Jeshimon, 
connected  as  they  are  with  the  incidents  which  happened 
during  the  migration  from  Egypt,  all  point  to  the  Sinaitic 
region  which,  according  to  the  evidence  at  our  command,  lay 
on  the  east  side  of  the  great  valley  separating  the  Tih  from 
the  Idumsean  mountains.  The  Maonites  are  shown  to  have 
been  a  people  occupying  a  city,  or  a  district,  south  of  the 
Dead  .Sea,  since  they  joined  with  the  Moabites  and 
Ammonites  in  invading  Judah  from  that  quarter,  and  in  the 
reign  of  Jehoshaphat  were  known  as  the  men  of  Seir,  and 
had  then  become  absorbed  by  the  Edomites,  with  whom  they 
were  identified.^  But  in  close  connection  with  Ziph  and 
Maon  and  Carmel  were  the  midbhar  of  Paran,||  and  the 
mountain  or  the  midbhar  of  En-gedi,1[  the  former  being  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  Petra,.and  the  latter  in  that  of  the 
Dead  Sea  ;  and  if  we  can  rely  on  the  testimony  of  Jerome''^"'' 
as  to  the  situation  of  En-gedi  and  its  ancient  reputation  for 
its  palm-trees,  probably  at  the  south  of  that  sea  and  identical 


*  Jos.  XV.  24.  t  Jos.  XV.  55.  X  Num.  xxi.  20 ;  xxiii.  28. 

§  2  Kings  XX.  II   I  Sam.  xxv.  i.  *f[  i  Sam.  xxiii.  29. 

**  Commen.  Ezech.  xlvii.  10.  Jerome  clearly  indicates  the  south  end 
of  the  sea  by  the  words  "  Ubi  finitur  et  consumitur." 


278  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

\\\\\\  the  Villa  Palmarum  of  the  Crusaders.  Finally,  the 
rock  where  David  succeeded  in  making  his  escape  from 
Saul,  was  known  as  Sela-hammahlckoth^"  and  Sela  was  the 
name  given  to  Petra  until  it  was  changed  by  Amaziah  into 
Joktheel.t  We  discover,  therefore,  a  number  of  coincidences 
in  respect  to  the  several  places  referred  to,  all  of  which  point 
to  the  region  to  the  east  of  the  Araba  and  to  the  south  of  the 
iJead  Sea,  and  which  tend  to  negative  the  assumption  that 
in  the  time  of  Saul  this  territory  was  included  in  the  king- 
dom of  Edom. 

But  let  us  turn  to  the  earliest  evidence  we  possess  respect- 
ing the  limits  of  Judah,  and  ascertain  whether  it  supports  or 
negatives  the  above  conclusions. 

In  the  Book  of  Numbers  the  southern  boundaries  of  the 
Promised  Land  are  thus  described : — "  Your  south  quarter 
shall  be  from  the  wilderness  of  Zin,  along  by  the  coast  of 
Edom,  and  your  south  border'^  shall  be  the  outmost  coast 
of  the  Salt  Sea  easttaard  ;  and  your  border  shall  turn  from 
the  south  to  the  ascent  of  Akrabbim,  and  pass  on  to  Zin  ; 
and  the  going  forth  thereof  shall  be  from  the  south  to 
Kadash-barnea,  and  shall  go  on  to  Hazar-addar,  and  pass  on  to 
Azmon  ;  and  the  border  shall  fetch  a  compass  from  Azmon 
imto  the  river  of  Egyjit,  and  the  goings  out  of  it  shaU  be  at 
tlie  8ea."§  In  tlie  P>ook  of  Josnua,  the  south  border  of 
Judah  is  dascribed  in  very  similar  language : — "  To  the  bor- 
der of  Edom,  the  wilderness  of  Zin  southward,  was  the 
uttermost  jtart  of  the  south  coast,  and  their  south  border 
was  from  the  shore  of  the  Salt  Sea,  from  the  bay  (or  tongue) 
which  looketh  southward ;  ami  it  went  out  to  the  south  side 
to  Maal  eh -akrabbim,  and  ])assed  along  to  Zin,  and  ascended 
uj)  on  tlie  south  side  unto  Kadesh-barnaa,  and  passed  along 


*  I  Sam.  xriii.  28.  t  2  Bangs  xiv,  7. 

X  Note  the  distiuctiou  druwn  Ix'twoen  a  quarter  or  region  and  a 
lorder  or  boundary.  §  Num.  xxxiv.  2-5. 


FROM  EGYPT.  279 

to  Hezron,  and  went  up  to  Adar,  and  fetched  a  compass  to 
Karkaa ;  from  thence  it  passed  towards  Azmon,  and  went 
out  into  the  river  of  Eg}^t ;  and  the  goings  out  of  that  coast 
were  at  the  sea."*  There  are,  however,  in  the  Septuagint 
version  of  the  last  quoted  passages  certain  variances  which 
are  deserving  of  notice.  In  Joshua  xv.  i,  the  borders  of 
Judah  are  said  to  extend  "  from  the  borders  of  Edom,  from 
the  wilderness  of  Zin,  unto  Kadesh,  towards  the  south ;"  and 
in  verse  3,  the  borders,  after  the  ascent  of  Akrabbim,  "  pass 
around  Sena  (or  Zena)  and  go  up  from  the  south  to  Kadesh- 
barnea,  and  go  out  to  Hezron,  and  proceed  up  to  Zarada,  and 
go  out  by  the  way  to  the  west  of  Kadesh,  and  they  go  out 
to  Selmona,"  and  thence  to  the  river  of  Egypt.  It  is  also 
noticeable  that  in  the  LXX.  rendering  of  Num.  xxxiv.  4,  the 
word  Zin  appears  as  YiVvaK  in  the  Vatican  Codex,  whilst  in 
the  Alexandrine  it  takes  the  form  of  Sfffi^a/c — the  name 
which,  according  to  the  Hebrew  text,  is  repeated  a  second 
time  in  the  enmueration  of  the  boundary  marks,  thus 
curiously  enough  in  the  Septuagint  version  of  both  Numbers 
xxxiv.  4  and  Joshua  xv.  3  assuming  the  different  forms  of 
Ei'i'a/c,  Seei'i'afc,  and  Sti'a. 

Many  centuries  later,  and  subsequent  to  the  fall  of  the 
Jewish  monarchy,  Ezekiel,  in  prophecying  the  restoration, 
thus  defined  the  southern  limits  of  the  possessions  of  Israel. 
The  eastern  boundary  terminating  on  the  south  with  the 
East  Sea  (Dead  Sea)  the  southern  border  is  carried  "  from 
Tamar,  even  to  the  Waters  -of  Strife  in  Kadesh,  the  river 
to  the  Great  Sea."t  And  in  another  passage,  "  from  Tamar 
unto  the  Waters  of  Strife  in  Kadesh,  and  to  the  river  to- 
wards the  Great  Sea."  I  In  these  passages,  no  less  than  in 
those  in  the  Books  of  Numbers  and  Joshua,  it  is  signifi- 
cant that  Kadesh  or  Kadesh-barnea,  or  Meribah-kadesh,  is 

*  Jos.  XV.  1-4.  t  Ezek.  xlvii.  19.  %  Ezek.  xlviii.  28. 


28o  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

specially  included  in  the  territory  of  Judah,  and  that  from  this 
place  an  undefined  line  is  drawn  apparently  across  the  Tih 
until  it  reaches  in    the   far  west  the  river  of  Egypt,  the 
Wady  el  Arish,  which  empties  itself  into  the  Mediterranean.* 
If  we  now  turn  to  the  enumeration  of  the  cities  belonging 
to  Judah  towards  the  coast  of  Edom,  we  find,  besides  others 
not  mentioned  elsewhere,  Kadesh,  Ziph,   Hazor,  in   two  or 
three  forms,  Hezron,  Dimonah,  Adadah,  and  Amam,  which 
in  the   LXX.  appears   as   ^y\v.     But  if   we  revert   to   the 
boundaries  of  Judah,t  starting  from  the  south-eastern  corner 
of  the  Dead   Sea   up   to  the  point  where  "  a   compass    is 
fetched,"  that  is  to  say,  an  imaginary  line   is  drawn   across 
the  Tih  till  it  reaches  the  river  of   Egyjjt,  we   discover   a 
number  of  places  familiar  to  us   in  the   traditions   of  the 
Exodus,  and  which,  according  to  the  route  which  tlie  Israel- 
ites   followed,  must  have  lain  on  the  east  of    the   Araba. 
Amongst  these  are  Kadesh  and  Hazeroth — the  Hazors,  else- 
where called  Hazerim,  and  ultimately  corrupted  into  Hezron. 
The  Hazar  Addar  of  the  boundaries   in  the  Book  of  Joshua, 
reappears  as  the  Hazor  Haddadah,  or  the  Adadah,  in  the  list 
of  cities,^  whilst  the  latter  name  is  most  probably  identical, 
with   the  Adar   mentioned   amongst   the   landmarks  in  the 
Book  of  Joshua  ;§  the  Diniunah   of   tlie  cities||  may  be  the 
Azmon  of  the  boundaries,^  the  starting-point  of   the  border, 
which  fetched  a  compass  to  the  river  of  Egypt. 

The  Araba,  it  will  be  recollected,  dips  by  a  series  of  pre- 
cipitate terraces  into  the  hollow  in  which  lies  the  Dead  Sea, 
and  viewing  tlie  physical  characteristics  of  this  region,  and 
assuming  that  at  the  time  of  the  settlement  in  Canaan  the 
Araba  constituted  the  western  boundary  of  Edom,  it  is  taken 
for   granted   that  the  southern  border   of    Judah  springing 


*  Jus.  XV.  21-32.  f  Num.  xxxiv.  2-5;  Jos.  xv.  1-4. 

\  Joa.  XV.  25.  '  §  Jos.  XV.  3  ;  see  note  ante  p.  'Ill 

II    Jos.  XV.  22.  ^1    Jos.  XV.  4. 


FROM  EGYPT.  281 

from  the  extremity  of  the  Dead  Sea  mounted  these  terraces 
(the  Maaleh  Akrabbim)  to  the  Araba  (identified  as  the 
midbhar  of  Zin),  and  thence  either  immediately  or  after 
proceeding  some  fifty  miles  along  the  Araba  ascended  to  the 
plateau  of  the  Tih,  and  thence  continued  a  westward  course 
to  the  Wady-el-Arish — the  river  of  Egypt.  If  this  theory 
be  correct,  the  several  places  noted  subsequent  to  the  ascent 
of  Akrabbim  must  have  been  situated  either  in  the  Araba  or 
on  the  west  of  that  valley. 

There  is  no  ground  for  supposing  that  the  main  features 
of  the  Araba  and  the  Tih  have  undergone  any  material 
change  since  the  time  of  the  Exodus.  The  former  was  then 
as  it  is  now  a  barren,  desolate,  waterless  valley,  shut  in  by 
the  cliffs  of  the  Tih  steppe  on  the  one  side  and  by  the 
mountains  of  Idumaa  on  the  other.  It  fails  to-day,  as  it 
did  three  thousand  years  ago,  to  supply  sustenance  for 
either  man  or  beast.  That  any  tribe,  however  nomadic  its 
habits,  could  have  pitched  its  tents,  or  sought  to  pasture  its 
cattle  for  even  a  few  days  together,  in  this  gravelly  unpro- 
ductive waste,  is  scarcely  within  the  limits  of  probability  ; 
that  any  people  should  have  selected  any  portion  of  it  as 
the  site  of  a  permanent  abode  is  absolutely  inconceivable. 
From  the  neighbourhood  of  the  head  of  the  Gulf  of 
Akaba  to  the  descent  to  the  Dead  Sea  travellers  search 
in  vain  for  the  traces  of  even  the  rudest  town  or  \dllage. 
It  may  with  confidence  be  said  that  any  tribe  compelled  to 
seek  sustenance  in  the  Araba  would  perish  rapidly  of  famine. 

It  has,  however,  been  suggested  that  Kadesh  was  situated 
on  the  western  side  of  this  wilderness,  a  short  distance 
to  the  north  of  Mount  Hor.  This  view  was  advanced  by 
Eobinson,  who  identified  a  fountain  named  Ain-el-Weibeh, 
with  the  waters  of  Meribah  of  the  Hebrew  traditions.^     It 


*  Blh.  Res.  ii.  174-6. 


282  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

is  difficult  to  discover  the  ground  upon  which  this  con- 
clusion was  based,  save  that  the  Ain-el-Weibeh  is  the 
only  spring  of  any  importance  found  in  tliis  region,  and 
that  it  may  be  described  as  •  on  the  border  of  Idumaea. 
It  must  not,  however,  be  forgotten  that  Kadesh  was  ex- 
pressly stated  to  be  a  "  city"*  (the  only  place  which  receives 
this  designation  in  the  traditions  of  the  Exodus),  that  the 
Israelites  remained  there  for  a  considerable  time,  and  that 
its  waters  had  from  a  much  earlier  period  acquired  a 
great  reputation  amongst  the  nomadic  tribes.  The  de- 
scription of  Ain-el-Weibeh  is  not,  however,  such  as  to 
induce  the  opinion  that  at  any  period  it  could  have 
enjoyed  an  exceptional  character  as  a  spring,  or  that  its 
neighbourhood  could  have  been  selected  as  suitable  for  liabi- 
tation  by  any  class  of  people,  whether  nomadic  or  sedentary. 

Ain-el-Weibeh  consists  of  three  fountains  issuing  from 
the  foot  of  some  limestone  hills  on  the  western  side 
of  the  Araba.  The  water  is  not  abundant,  and  that 
supplied  by. two  of  the  sources  has  the  taste  of  sul- 
phuretted liydrogen.  That  of  the  remaining  fountain  is 
described  by  Eobinson  as  clear  and  limpid,  "  Below  the 
springs  is  a  jungle  of  coarse  grass  and  canes,  with  a  few 
palm  trees,  presenting  at  a  distance  the  appearance  of  fine 
verdure,  but  proving  near  at '  hand  to  be  marshy  and 
full  of  bogs."  "We  could  find  here,"  continues  the 
writer,  "  no  trace  of  the  remains  of  former  dwellings."  f 
Considering  tlie  description  of  the  place  it  would  certainly 
have  l)een  very  wonderful  if  lie  tlid. 

It  needs  great  force  of  imagination  to  connect  these  foun- 
tains with  the  En-mishpat  of  the  patriarchal  period,  or  with 
the  waters  which,  standing  on  the  Mount  of  God,  Moses 

•  Num.  XX.  l6.  t  Bih.  Res.  ii.  174. 


FROM  EGYPT.  •  283 

was  declared  by  tradition  to  have  obtained  by  striking  the 
rock  with  his  wand.  But  it  necessitates  a  complete  dis- 
regard of  all  the  evidence  of  the  senses  to  fancy  that  a  spot 
such  as  that  described  by  Robinson  could  at  any  period 
have  been  the  site  of  even  the  humblest  of  cities,  or  the 
resting-place  for  any  lengthened  period  of  even  a  wandering 
tribe.  Ain-el-Weibeh  is  well-known  to  the  Bedouins,  be- 
cause it  is  the  only  place  for  many  miles  round  where  water 
can  be  obtained  in  a  region  which  they  are  anxious  to  quit 
as  soon  as  possible.  But  it  offers  no  temptations  to  remain. 
There  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  it  was  any  different  at 
the  time  of  the  Exodus. 

If,  however,  on  the  assumption  that  the  Edom  of  the  Exo- 
dus and  of  Saul  and  David  extended  to  the  Araba,  we  find 
ourselves  compelled  to  reject  this  hypothesis  that  Kadesh  or 
any  of  the  other  places  enumerated  on  the  southern  border 
of  Judah  were  in  the  Araba,  we  must  seek  for  them  to  the 
west  of  that  valley.  In  doing  so,  however,  we  are  met  at  the 
outset  by  some  very  formidable  obstacles.  If  Kadesh  was 
a  city  which  could  be  correctly  described  as  on  the  border 
of  Edom,  and  from  which  messengers  would  have  been 
despatched  requesting  a  passage  through  that  country,  then  it 
must  have  been  situated  in  some  part  of  the  table-land  of 
the  Till  overhanging  the  Araba.  But  there  is  no  spot  in 
this  region  which  by  any  amount  of  straining  can  be  made 
to  correspond  with  Kadesh.  Nor  would  it  be  possible, 
following  the  traditions  of  the  ■  Exodus,  to  account  for  the 
Israelites  finding  themselves  there.  It  has  accordingly 
been  suggested  that  Kadesh  was  situated  not  far  from  the 
middle  of  the  Tih  steppe,  and  that  it  was  reached  by  the 
Israelites  on  quitting  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  by  following  a 
northerly  course,  through  one  of  the  defiles  in  the  Jebel- 
et-Tih. 


284  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

This  view  was  broached  by  Mr.  Eowland,*  and  has  since 
received  considerable  support.  It  is  open,  however,  to  (amongst 
others)  the  very  serious  objection  that  the  place  identitied  as 
Kadesh  was  not  only  not  on  the  border  of  Edom,  even  sup- 
posing that  the  latter  extended  to  the  Araba,  but  was 
separated  from  it  by  a  tract  of  rugged  ^vilderness  of  even 
greater  extent  than  that  which  lay  between  it  and  the  Egyp- 
tian frontier.  It  is  inconceivable  that  from  such  a  spot 
messages  should  have  been  sent  to  Bozrah,  the  then  capital 
of  Edom,  and  lying  at  the  opposite  side  of  the  mountains, 
forming  the  eastern  wall  of  the  Araba,  for  the  purpose  of 
demanding  a  free  passage  to  the  Trans-Jordanic  region.  No 
object  could  be  served  by  preferring  such  a  request  before 
arriving  at  the  Edomitish  frontier,  as,  ex  hypothesi,  no  per- 
mission was  necessary  to  enable  the  Israelites  to  proceed  as 
far  as  the  Araba.  It  may  also  be  remarked,  that,  according 
to  this  theory,  Kadesh  was  situated  in  the  very  region  where 
the  Israelites  are  supposed  to  have  wandered  purposely  about 
in  order  to  kill  time,  whilst  they  themselves  died  off,  which 
implies  an  amount  of  stupidity  on  their  part,  for  the  traces 
(if  which  one  seeks  in  vain  amongst  their  descendants.  It  is 
needless  to  say  that  if  our  view  of  the  direction  taken  by 
the  Israehtes  on  quitting  Eg}^t  be  correct,  they  never  even 
approached  the  region  in  which,  according  to  this  tlieory, 
Kadesh  was  situated. 

If,  however,  Kadesh  was  not  in  the  Araba,  and  not  in 
the  Tih  plateau,  then  since  it  was  on  the  border  of  Edom, 
it  must  have  lain  to  the  east  of  that  valley,  from  which  the 
western  boundary  of  Edom  must  have  been  separatetl  by  an 
interval  more  or  less  great.  And  it  also  follows  that  this 
intervening  district  must   have   been  that  into  which   the 


♦  G.  Williams,  The  Ilohj  City.     Mr.  Rowland's  speculations  on  the 
site  of  Kadesh  will  be  found  in  the  Appendix,  488-492. 


FROM  EGYPT.  285 

Israelites  penetrated  without  opposition  on  their  way  from 
Egypt,  where  stood  the  Mount  of  Elohim,  and  where,  in 
obedience  to  the  stroke  of  Moses's  rod,  flowed  the  waters  of 
Contention  and  Strife,  where  for  the  first  time,  after  quitting 
the  land  of  their  servitude,  they  came  to  the  "  villages " 
(Hazeroth,  Hazerim)  of  a  semi-nomadic  and  friendly  people, 
and  where  they  found  a  town  of  sufficient  importance  to  be 
designated  a  city,  in  which  they  established  their  head- 
quarters, whilst  they  projected  an  invasion  of  Canaan  from 
the  south,  and  failing  in  that,  made  an  ineffectual  attempt 
to  secure  a  free  passage  through  the  neighbouring  country 
on  the  East  which  lay  across  their  direct  path  to  the  pas- 
tures beyond  the  Jordan. 

But  as  the  result  of  our  investigation  we  acquire  some- 
thing more  valuable  than  a  better  knowledge  of  the  western 
limits  of  Edom  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus.  We  are  able 
to  correct  our  impression  respecting  the  extent  of  Judah. 
We  are  able  to  appreciate  the  significance  of  the  statement 
that  the  southern  quarter  or  region — not  harder  of  Judah — 
lay  between  the  Midhhar  of  Zin  and  Edom,  and  that  the 
southern  border  commenced  at  the  outmost  coast  of  the  Salt 
vSea  eastward,  and  after  ascending  the  heights,  passed  south- 
ward to  Kadesh-barnea,  and  having  included  Hazar  Addar, 
and  Azmon,  swept  across  the  Tih,  a  region  equally  unknown 
and  uncared  for,  until  it  struck  the  Wady-el-Arish."^^"  In 
drawing  this,  like  the  other  boundaries,  care  was  alone  taken 
to  name  places  where  disputes- might  arise  with  an  adjoin- 
ing people  as  to  the  precise  limits  of  territory.  Thus,  for 
example,  the  boundaries  on  the  north  and  east  are  veiy 
carefuUy  drawn  dov/n  to  the  point  where  the  Jordan 
empties  itself  into  the  Dead  Sea.f  The  southern  boundary 
is  then  taken  up  at  the  lower  end  of  that  sea,  and  several 


*  Num.  xxxiv.  3-5.  +  Num.  xxxiv.  6-J2. 


286         THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION  FROM  EGYPT. 

places  are  named  on  the  confines  of  Edom ;  but  then  the 
broad  interval  extending  to  the  Egyptian  frontier  is  treated 
like  "  the  great  sea  "^^  which  marked  the  western  frontier. 
As  the  seaport  towns  are  not  mentioned  on  the  coast 
of  the  latter,  so  the  possessions  of  Judah  on  the  edge 
of  the  wilderness  are  unnamed.  The  Tih  was  then,  as  it  is 
now,  an  uninviting,  waterless,  unproductive  waste.  Judah 
was  at  perfect  liberty  to  push  her  possessions  into  it  as  far 
as  she  pleased,  there  were  none  who  had  either  the  right  or 
the  temptation  to  challenge  her  frontier  in  that  direction. 


*  Num.  xxxiv.  6. 


28; 


CHAPTEE    X. 

I  ''HE  ramifications  which  we  are  tempted  to  pursue,  as  a 
consequence  of  placing  a  portion  of  the  territory  of 
Judah  to  the  south  of  the  Dead  Sea  are,  however,  too 
numerous  and  too  various  to  be  followed,  in  this  treatise. 
We  should  be  compelled  to  reconsider  the  accepted  opinions 
respecting  the  situation  of  the  Negeb,  or  south  country, 
which  is  universally  regarded  as  lying  exclusively  on  the 
northern  border  of  the  Till.  We  should  be  forced  to  examine 
in  detail  the  patriarchal  traditions,  and  possibly  to  alter  our 
views  respecting  the  first  home  of  the  ancestors  of  the 
Hebrew  nation,  when  they  migrated  westwards  from  the 
land  of  the  Chaldees.  We  should  be  obliged  to  anticipate 
the  story  of  the  invasion  of  Canaan,  and  to  explain  how, 
politically  and  strategically,  the  possession  of  ten-itory  by 
Judah  on  the  east  of  the  Araba  was  as  much  a  matter  of 
necessity  as  the  possession  of  territory  by  Israel  on  the  east 
of  the  Jordan.  We  should  have  to  inquire  into  the  fortunes 
of  the  tribe  of  Simeon,  so  closely  linked  with  Judah,  yet 
playing  apparently  so  small  a  part  in  Judah's  history,  and 
finally  disappearing  from  tlie  scene  on  the  confines  of  the 
Arabian  desert  at  the  close  of  the  eighth  century.*  We 
should  be  forced,  in  the  absence  of  the  records  of  Edom's 
history,  and  aided  alone  by  those  of  the  hostile  kingdoms  of 
Israel  and  Judah,  to  follow  the  territorial  changes  wliich 
took  place,  and  to  trace   the  steps  by  which  Edom,  taking 


*  I  Chron.  iv.  41-43. 


288  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

advantage  of  Judah's  weakness,  and  at  a  later  period  of  her 
overthrow,  appropriated  not  only  the  territory  lying  between 
Edoni  proper  and  the  Araba,  but  extended  her  conquests  to 
the  neighbourhood  of  Jerusalem.  But  inquiries  such  as 
these,  however  interesting  in  themselves,  and  however  cal- 
culated to  fortify  our  conclusions  respecting  Judah's  posses- 
sions in  what  are  now  known  as  the  Idumsean  mountains, 
would  necessarily  lead  us  too  far  afield  in  an  investigation 
having  for  its  object  the  solution  of  the  enigma  of  the 
Hebrew  migration  from  Egypt  to  Canaan. 

It  will,  however,  be  necessary,  though  at  the  cost  of  a 
digression,  to  take  notice  of  some  of  the  earliest  allusions  to 
the  Negeb,  and  some  of  the  places  contained  in  it,  and  to 
ascertain  whether  the  region  referred  to  lay  to  the  south  of 
the  highlands  of  Judea,  or  to  the  south  of  the  Dead  Sea  ; 
and  in  doing  so,  we  must,  so  far  as  it  is  possible,  endeavour 
to  distinguish  the  original  elements  of  the  patriarchal  tradi- 
tions from  the  accretions  and  modifications  which  they 
underwent  subsequent  to  the  settlement  in  Palestine. 

The  tide  of  Semitic  migration  from  the  East  appears  to 
have  been  temporarily  arrested  by  the  comparatively  rich 
pastures  and  fertile  valleys  which  fringe  the  Arabian  desert 
on  the  west,  and  extend  from  the  Jordan  valley  southwards 
along  the  coast  of  the  Eed  Sefi.  In  this  region  we  are  told 
that  the  descendants  of  Terah*  settled,  having,  as  it  would 
seem,  dispossessed  or  absorbed  the  original  inhabitants.  The 
kinship  between'  the  various  peoples  of  Terahitic  descent  was 
generally  acknowledged  inter  sc,  thougli  thi'ir  res]ieitive 
rivalries  and  animosities  led  to  claims  of  precedence  on  the 
one  hand  and  imputations  of  spurious  origin  on  the  other, 
whicli  severally  had  no  more  solid  foundation  than  the 
promptings    of    vanity   or  the  suggestions  of    malevolence. 

*  Gen.  xi.  27. 


FROM  EGYPT.  289 

Thus  the  Moabites  and  Ammonites  were  declared  to  have 
sprung  from  the  incestuous  intercourse  of  Lot  with  his 
daughters  *  Ishmael,t  who,  like  EsauJ  and  Jacob,  was  the 
ancestor  of  twelve  great  families,  was  declared  to  be  the  son 
of  a  slave.§  Esau,  whose  identity  with  Ishmael  is  apparent, 
was  said  to  have  sold  his  birthright  to  Jacob.  ||  The  Mi- 
dianites  and  others  who,  equally  with  the  rest,  claimed 
descent  from  Abraham,  were,  like  Ishmael,  derived  from 
children  born  to  the  patriarch  by  a  concubine,1[  and  not  a 
wife.  Unfortunately,  however,  all  this  information  is  derived 
exclusively  from  the  records  of  Israel  and  Judah,  and  we 
have  no  opportunity  of  knowing  what  these  various  tribes 
would  have  had  to  say  in  respect  to  their  own  or  their 
kinsmen's  genealogies. 

But  there  is  one  great  fact  conveyed  to  us  by  these  several 
traditions — namely,  that  an  important  section  of  the  de- 
scendants of  Abraham  settled  in  the  region  to  the  south  of 
the  Dead  Sea,  and  here  the  Israelites  found  a  powerful 
people  on  their  road  from  Egypt — a  people  whom  they 
claimed  as  brethren,**  and  whom  they  were  forced  to  admit 
belonged  to  the  elder  branch  of  Abraham's  descendants.tt 
Despite  all  that  could  be  said  to  the  contrary,  the  Beni- 
Esau  multiplied  and  prospered,  and  apparently  succeeded  in 
establishing  a  kingdom||  whilst  the  Beni-Jacob  were  making 
bricks  for  Egyptian  taskmasters  in  the  land  of  Eameses. 
It  is  not  unreasonable  to  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  Beni- 
Esau  took,  or  at  all  events  believed  that  they  took,  the  pos- 
sessions of  their  reputed  ancestor. 

Now,  it  is  a  very  singular  fact  that  in  the  story  of 
the  settlement  in  Egypt,  although  Jacob    and    his    family 


*  Gen.xix.  30-38.     f  Gr^n.  xxv.  16;  xvii.  20.     %  Gen.  xxxvi.  11, 13, 14. 
§  Gen.  xvi.  3,  6.  !|  Gen.  xxv.  ■^■^.  1[  Gen.  xxv.  6. 

**  Num.  XX.  14.    ft  Gen.  xxxiii.  3.    W  Gren.  xxxvi.  31  ;  Num.  ix.  14 

U 


290  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

are  represented  as  coming  from  the  land  of  Canaan,  there 
is  no  suggestion  that  they  left  any  possessions  behind 
tlieni  *  Nor  is  it  at  all  probable,  if  the  number  of  the 
family  be  correctly  given — seventy  souls — that  they  could 
have  done  so.f  When,  some  centuries  later,  Israel  and 
Judah  successfully  inv-aded  the  Promised  Land,  it  was 
exclusively  inhabited  by  hostile  peoples ;  they  nowhere  met 
any  claiming  a  common  descent  witK  themselves,  nor  did 
they  seize  on  a  single  place  which  they  claimed,  not  by 
right  of  conquest,  but  as  having  originally  belonged  to  their 
ancestor  Abraham.  They  appropriated  the  entire  country 
by  virtue  of  a  covenant  which  they  alleged  had  been  made 
between  Jahveh  and  their  ancestor,  but  they  did  not  believe 
that  any  portion  had  been  reduced  into  possession  until 
they  by  force  of  arms  expelled  or  vanquished  the  in- 
habitants. If,  on  tlie  removal  of  Jacob's  family  from 
Canaan  to  Egypt,  any  "  possessions"  had  been  left  be- 
hind, the  fact  would  assuredly  have  been  preserved  by 
tradition ; '  and  when  we  find  not  only  no  trace  of  such 
possessions,  Itut  that  the  elder  branch  of  Abraliam's  descen- 
dants peaceably  acquired  and  continuously  retained  the  pos- 
sessions south  of  the  Dead  Sea,  we  have  a  further  reason  for 
concluding  that  these  possessions  were  traditionally  believed 
to  have  been  obtained  by  Abraham,  ami  liy  him  to  have 
been  transmitted  to  his  eldest  son  (Ishmael — Esau).  The 
acquisition  of  Esau's  birthright  by  Jacob  was  a  com- 
j)aratively  late  invention,  in  order  to  give  Israel  prece- 
(Jence  over  Edom,  for  unquestionably  Jacob  and  his  family 
derived  no  material  advantage  from  that  discreditiible  trans- 
action. 

The    traditions    which   connect  the   patriarchs  with    the 
land    of    Canaan   expressly     admit    that    the     original    in- 


*  Assuming  the  land  of  (Janaau  to  be  Palestine.  f  Exod.  i.  5. 


FROM  EGYPT.  291 

habitants  then  possessed  it;  and  although,  if  we  regarded 
these  personages  as  historical,  their  temporary  or  even 
permanent  residence  in  that  country  would  be  perfectly 
intelligible,  still  it  is  more  natural  to  suppose  that  they 
were  believed  to  have  inhabited  the  region  which  came  to 
be  occupied  on  their  supposed  decease  by  those  who  claimed 
to  be  their  descendants.  We  must,  however,  for  reasons 
into  which  it  would  here  be  impossible  to  enter,  reject  the 
historical  character  of  the  patriarchs.  In  any  event,  how- 
ever, we  see  reason  to  conclude  that  those  who  not  only 
claimed  descent  from  Abraham  but  who  believed  that  they 
directly  inherited  his  possessions,  credited  him  with  living 
in  the  same  region  in  which  they  themselves  dwelt. 

The  close  resemblance  between  the  traditions  connected 
with  Abraham  and  Isaac  must  strike  every  one.  The 
family  likeness  throughout  is  complete,  and  many  of  the 
incidents  related  in  the  biography  of  the  one  are  in  almost 
identical  language  related  in  that  of  the  other.  We  are, 
however,  told  much  less  about  Isaac  than  about  Abraham. 
We  are  justified  in  suspecting  that  Abraham  was  a  creation 
of  the  nomadic  mind,  whilst  Isaac  was,  so  to  speak,  of 
Phcenician  or  Canaanitish  extraction. 

Passing  over  the  alleged  visits  of  Abraham  to  Canaan  and 
Egypt,  a  tradition  tells  us  that  Abraham  and  Lot,  respec- 
tively the  son  and  grandson  of  Terah,  prospered  so  greatly 
that  "  the  land  was  not  able  to  bear  them  that  they  might 
dwell  together,"  and  they  accordingly  separated.*  In  more 
prosaic  language,  the  nomads  who  had  come  from  the  East, 
found  the  region  in  which  they  first  settled  insufficient  for 
their  wants,  and  a  section  moved  on  into  a  new  country. 
Lot  selected  "  the  plain  of  Jordan."  "  He  journeyed  east," 
and  the  uncle  and  nephew  separated;  or,  in  other  words,  the 


*  Gen.  xiii. 
U  2 


292  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

people  which  in  after-times  claimed  descent  from  Lot — 
the  Moabites  and  Ammonites — forced  their  way  into  the 
region  lying  to  the  east  of  the  Dead  Sea.  But  Lot  having 
made  this  choice,  what  was  the  territory  which  was  left 
to  Abraham  ?  We  are  informed  that  Abraham  dwelt  in 
the  land  of  Canaan,  but  if  "  the  Canaanite  was  then  in  the 
land "  tliis  was  not  possible,  and  we  are  therefore  led  to 
suspect  tliat  the  country  in  which  the  patriarchs  were 
unable  to  subsist  together  was  on  the  south  of  the  Dead 
Sea  ;  and  if  this  region  was  occupied  by  the  parent  stock  of 
the  nomads,  the  tide  of  migration,  if  withstood  by  the 
inhabitants  of  Palestine,  would  naturally  roll  up  the  eastern 
side  of  the  Dead  Sea  and  into  the  Jordan  valley. 

In  the  ancient  record  of  the  battle  of  the  kings,* 
Abraham  the  Hebrew  appears  as  the  confederate  of  ]\Iamre 
the  Amorite  and  others  aiding  the  kings  of  the  Plain 
against  Chedorlaomer  and  his  allies,  and  in  a  much  later 
production  he  is  represented  as  "  pitching  his  tent  in  the 
plain  of  ]\Iamre,"  which  by  a  still  more  recent  gloss  is  said 
to  have  been  identical  with  Hebron.f  From  this  we 
wuuld  gather  that  in  very  early  times  the  nomads 
formed  an  alliance  with  a  section  of  the  original  in- 
haliitants  against  a  common  enemy,  who  from  whatever 
quarter  ()])erating  ravaged  the  country  between  the  lower 
Jordan  and  tlie  ^ianitic  Gulf.  But  the  most  definite 
iiit'orniatidn  liaiidi-d  down  respecting  the  habitation  of 
Aljrakam  is  that  which  places  his  abode  in  the  Negel) 
or  south  country,  and  even  localises  it  with  much  apparent 
precision.  He  "dwelt  between  Kadesh  and  Shur,  and 
sojourned  in  Gerar."+ 

Before  proceeding  to  consider  the  respective  situations  of 
these  i)lace3,  let  us  briefly  notice  some  of  the  events  related 

*  (jeu.  xiv.  t  Gun.  xiii.  iS.  X  Cou.  xx.  i. 


FROM  EGYPT. 


293 


of  Abraham  and  of  those  who  were,  according  to  tradition, 
closely  connected  with  him. 

At  the  time  when  Abraham  was  sojourning  in  Gerar, 
Abimelech,  the  king  of  that  country,  conceived  a  passion  for 
Sarah,  Abraham's  wife.*  The  same  story  is  told  of  the 
patriarch  on  the  occasion  of  a  visit  to  Egypt,!  and  again  of 
Isaac  and  Eebekah,  when  the  same  Abimelech,  under 
precisely  the  same  misapprehension  that  the  wife  was  the 
sister,  sought  her  in  marriage ;  J  but  in  ^he  last-mentioned 
narrative  the  kins;  of  Gerar  is  called  the  king  of  the 
Philistines.  But  this  was  not  the  only  incident  in  Abra- 
ham's relations  with  the  king  of  Gerar  which  repeated 
itself  in  the  history  of  Isaac.  Wliilst  Abraham  was  in 
Gerar  a  quarrel  arose  between  his  servants  and  those  of  the 
king,  respecting  the  possession  of  a  well,  and  subsequently 
Abraham  made  a  covenant  with  Abimelech  respecting  a 
different  well,  giving  to  the  king  seven  ewe  lambs  as 
witness  that  he  had  dug  it.  "  Wherefore,"  it  is  added,  "  he 
called  the  place  Beer-sheba,  because  there  they  sware  both 
of  them."§  In  like  manner  we  are  told  that  when  Isaac 
dwelt  in  "  the  vaUey"  of  Gerar,  he  digged  again  the  wells 
wdiich  it  is  said  had  been  dug  in  the  days  of  his  father 
Abraham,  but  which  the  Philistines  had  stopped,  and  gave 
to  them  the  same  names  which  had  been  given  by  Abraham. 
Disputes  arose  between  the  herdsmen  of  Gerar  and  those 
of  Isaac  respecting  the  wells,  whereupon-  Isaac  called 
the  name  of  one  well  Esck,  "  because  they  strove  with 
him,"  and  the  name  of  the  other  Sitnah,  because  they 
contended  for  the  possession  of  it  also.  Isaac  thereupon 
"  removed  from  thence"  and  digged  another  well,  to  which 
he   gave  the   name   of  Ptehoboth,  and  "  he   removed   from 


*  Gen.  XX.  2-16.  t  Gen.  xii.  10-20.  I  Gen.  xxvi.  6-1 1. 

§  Gen.  xxi.  22-32. 


294  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

thence  and  went  up  to  Beer-sheba ;"  and  there  Jahveh 
appeared  to  liim,  telling  him  to  fear  not,  and  that  his  seed 
would  he  multiplied  for  his  father's  sake.  Whilst  at  Beer- 
sheba,  Abimelech  came  to  him  from  Gerar.  This  proceed- 
ing elicited  from  Isaac  the  question, "  Wherefore  come  ye  to 
me,  seeing  you  hate  me,  and  have  sent  me  away  from  you  ?" 
Thereupon  Abimelech,  with  "  Phicliol  the  captain  of  his 
army,"  proposed  a  league,  which  was  concluded  with  the 
usual  formalities,  and  Abimelech  and  his  companions  de- 
])arted  in  peace.  On  the  same  day  Isaac's  servants,  having 
dug  a  well  and  found  water,  Isaac  called  it  "  Sliebah,"  the 
well  of  "  the  oath,"  and  "  therefore  the  name  of  the  city  was 
called  Beer-sheba  unto  this  day."* 

In  reviewing  these  narratives,  we  have  no  difficulty  in 
detecting  the  ascription  of  the  same  legends  to  different 
individuals.  There  was,  for  instance,  some  noted  well  which 
received  the  name  of  Shaba  or  Sheba,  and  different  accounts 
were  given  how  it  obtained  this  name.  According  to  one,  it 
was  because  Abraham  dug  it  and  purchased  the  undisputed 
title  to  it,  by  giving  to  Abimelech  the  king  of  Gerar  seven 
ewe  lambs,  Shoha  signifying  seven ;  whilst,  according  to 
another,  it  was  so  named  by  Isaac  because  it  was  dug  by  his 
servants  on  the  same  day  on  which  Abimelech,  having  found 
him  in  the  land  to  which  he  had  removed,  made  a  covenant 
of  peace  with  him,  Sheba  signifying  an  oatli.  But  Mhilst 
still  in  the  valley  of  Gerar,  and  before  "  he  went  up  to  Beer- 
sheba,"  we  are  told  that  Isaac  reopened  wells  which  had 
been  originally  dug  by  Abraham,  and  again  gave  to  them  the 
names  which  they  received  from  his  father.  In  the  narrative 
of  Abraham  Me  look  in  vain  for  any  mention  of  these 
names,  but  we  discover  the  singular  circumstance  that  dis- 
putes arose  between  Abraham's  servants  and  those  of  Abime- 

♦  Gen.  xxvi.  15-33. 


FROM  EGYPT.  295 

lech  respecting  some  wells,  and  that  there  were  similar 
differences  between  those  of  Isaac  and  the  herdsmen  of  the 
king.  In  consequence  of  the  latter,  Isaac  named  the  wells 
Esek  and  Sitnah,  "  contention"  and  "  strife,"  and  it  is  not  an 
unreasonable  conclusion  that  in  the  tradition  of  Abraham  as 
it  originally  stood,  these  or  names  having  a  similar  meaning 
found  a  place.  We  are,  however,  here  brought  once  more 
into  the  presence  of  the  celebrated  "  Waters  of  Contention 
and  Strife,"  "  of  Massah  and  Meribah,"  the  waters  of  Kadesh. 
These  wateTs  had  evidently  a  tradition  *  attached  to  them, 
which  was  carried  back  prior  to  the  Exodus,  and  which  con- 
nected their  names  with  the  disputes  wliich  arose  between 
the  reputed  ancestors  of  the  Hebrews  and  the  original 
inhabitants  of  the  land. 

It  is  related  of  Hagar,  that  having  conceived  by  Abraham, 
she  despised  Sarah,  and  fearing  punishment  at  the  hands  of 
the  latter,  fled  from  the  patriarch's  house.  The  angel  of 
Jahveh  found  her'"  by  the  fountain  in  the  midbhar,  on  the 
way  to  Shur,"  ordered  her  to  return,  and  told  her  that  she 
was  with  child,  and  that  her  seed  would  "  be  multiplied  ex- 
ceedingly, that  it  should  not  be  numbered  for  multitude." 
It  is  added  that  "  she  called  the  name  of  Jahveh  that  spake 
unto  her.  Thou  God  seest  me ;  for  she  said,  Have  I  also  here 
looked  after  him  that  seeth  me  ?  Wherefore  the  well  was 
called  Beer-lahai-roi  ;  behold,  it  is  between  Kadesh  and 
Bered.""" 

Elsewhere  we  find  a  different  version  of  the  same 
tradition.  Ishmael  is  a  full-grown  boy,  and  in  consequence 
of  Hagar's  "  mocking"  Sarah  she  and  her  son  are  turned  out 
of  doors.  It  is  related  that  she  departed  and  wandered  in 
"  the  wilderness  of  Beer-sheba"  (a  place,  by  the  way,  according 
to  the  sequence  of  events  recorded,  not  yet  thus  named). 

*  Gen.  xvi.  4-14. 


296  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

The  contents  of  her  %yater-bottle  being  exhausted,  she  laid 
tlie  boy  under  a  shrub,  and  removed  some  distance  off  to 
avoid  seeing  him  die.  The  angel  of  "  Eloliim  thereupon 
spoke  to  her  from  heaven,  promised  that  her  son  would 
become  "  a  great  nation,"  and  "  Eloliim  opened  her  eyes, 
and  she  saw  a  well  of  water,"  where  she  filled  her  bottle 
and  gave  the  lad  to  drink.  The  narrative  concludes  :  "  And 
Eloliim  was  with  the  lad,  and  he  grew  and  dwelt  in  the  wil- 
derness, and  he  became  an  archer,  and  he  dwelt  in  the 
wilderness  of  Paran,  and  liis  mother  took  liim  a  wife  out 
of  the  land  of  Egypt."^ 

Mention  is  again  made  of  the  fountain  to  whicli,  accord- 
ing to  tradition,  Hagar  had  given  the  name  of  Beer-lahai-roi. 
It  is  related  that  Isaac  "  came  from  the  way  of  the  well 
Lahai-roi,  for  he  dwelt  in  the  south  country  (Negeb),  and 
went  out  into  a  field  to  meditate,"  when  lifting  up  his  eyes 
he  saw  the  camels  of  his  father's  servant  approaching.  The 
steward  had  returned  from  the  house  of  Bethuel,  in  Mesopo- 
tamia, bringing  with  him  Eebekah.f  It  is  also  stated  that 
on  Abraham's  death  Isaac  inherited  his  possessions,  the  ille- 
gitimate offspring  having  been  sent  into  the  East  country 


♦  Gen.  xxi.  9-21.  "We  have  here  another  indication  of  the  tendency 
to  impeach  the  purity  of  Abraham's  descendants  through  Hagar.  It 
was  not  sufficient  that  she  should  be  a  shive,  but  she  must  also  be 
an  Egyptian  ;  or,  according  to  another  tradition  which  makes  Ishmael 
the  ancestor  of  his  race,  his  wife  was  an  Egyptian. 

f  Gen.  xxiv.  62,  63.  The  accepted  view  that  a  country  so  dis- 
tant as  Mesopotamia,  that  is,  the  region  between  the  Tigris  and 
Euphrates,  is  here  referred  to  is,  I  venture  to  think,  erroneous. 
Aram-Naharaim,  "Aram  of  the  two  rivers,"  was  probably  the  country 
to  the  north-cast  of  Edom  and  Moab.  It  was  there  that  the  king  of 
Moab  sought  Balaam  the  seer  (Num.  xxii.  5 ;  Deut.  xxiii.  4),  and  it 
was  the  ruler  of  the  same  country  who  oppressed  the  Israelites 
(Jud.  iii.  8).  It  was  also  known  as  Padan-aram,  the  house  of  Jacob's 
father-in-law,  Laban,  the  land  of  the  Beui-Ivodem  (Gon.  xxix.  l).  May 
it  not  have  boon  AraniXalidrim,  Aram  of  the  Nahoritos  (Gen.  xxii.  20, 
21),  p  Cheth  being  transcribed  n  Uc. 


FROM  EGYPT.  297 

{Kedem)  with  gifts,  and  that  he  dwelt  by  the  well  Lahai- 
roi.* 

Now  it  is  a  matter  of  some  interest  to  ascertain,  if  possible, 
where  this  fountain  was  supposed  to  be  situated.  With  the 
explanation  of  its  name  we  need  not  trouble  ourselves,  but  it 
is  more  probably  supplied  by  the  second  than  by  the  first 
of  the  two  narratives  to  which  we  have  referred.t  It  was 
"  between  Kadesh  and  Bered  ;"  it  was  in  the  Negeb,  or 
south  country.  It  was  in  the  possessions  w^hich  Isaac  was 
said  to  have  inherited  from  his  father  Abraham,  and  if  we 
are  correct  in  treating  the  two  narratives  of  Hagar  as 
different  versions  of  the  same  tradition,  it  was  apparently  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  the  wilderness  of  Paran. 

That  Hagar  could  not  have  been  supposed  to  have  jour- 
neyed far  from  Abraham's  house  when  her  water-bottle  was 
exhausted,  is  a  reasonable  assumption,  and  it  would  therefore 
appear  that  the  fountain  or  well  of  Lahai-roi  was  at  all 
events  in  the  region  where  Abraham  dwelt.  The  patriarch, 
as  we  know,  having  "journeyed  to  the  south  country  {Negeb), 
dwelt  between  Kadesh  and  Shur,  and  sojourned  in  Gerar," 
and  the  w^ell  of  Lahai-roi  was  between  Kadesh  and  Bered. 
The  place  Kadesh  is  common  to  both  descriptions,  but  where, 
it  will  be  asked,  was  Bered  ?  The  names  Gerar  and  Bered 
are  extremely  dissimilar  in  English  characters,  but  it  is  far 
different  in  Hebrew.  The  occurrence  of  the  name  Bered 
only  furnishes  one  out  of  many  instances  in  which  in 
deciphering  and  copying  the.  ancient  scrolls  in  which  the 
Hebrew  records  were  preserved,  the  same  name  came  in 
different  places  to  assume  different  forms.| 

There  is  every  reason  for  believing  that  the  Bered  which 

*  Gen.  XXV.  5,  6,  11. 

t  In  connection  witli  the  Elohim  opening  Hagar's  eyes  and  causing 
her  to  see  the  well. 

X  1"'J  Gerar,  113  Bered.  In  the  Rabbinical  Hebrew  characters  the 
Beth  and  Gimel  resembled  each  other  still  more  closely. 


298  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

in  the  tradition  concerning  Hagar  is  associated  with  Kadesh, 
is  identical  with  the  Gerar  where  Abraham  sojourned,  and 
whicli  apparently  lay  between  Kadesh  and  Shur;  and  it 
therefore  becomes  material  to  ascertain  where  Gerar  was, 
with  the  view  of  fixing  more  precisely  the  locality  of  Kadesh, 
in  wliich  we  are  so  much  interested,  and  incidentally  of 
throwing  some  light  on  the  situation  of  the  Negeb  M'here 
Abraham  is  believed  to  have  dwelt. 

The  statement  that  Abimelech,  after  concluding  the 
covenant  with  Abraham  at  Beer-sheba,  "  returned  into  the 
land  of  the  Philistines,"  and  in  the  narrative  of  Isaac  the 
allegation  that  he  was  "  king  of  the  Philistines,"  have  not 
unnaturally  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Philistines  of 
the  patriarchal  traditions  were  the  same  as  the  well-known 
people  who  inhabited  the  seaboard  between  Judaea  and  the 
Mediterranean,  and  as  a  result  of  this  assumption  Gerar  has 
been  placed  in  this  region.  There  are,  however,  strong 
reasons  for  calling  in  question  the  soundness  of  this  rea- 
soning. 

"Without  allowing  ourselves  to  be  entangled  in  a  disquisi- 
tion on  the  origin  of  the  extremely  interesting  people  who 
play  so  prominent  a  part  in  Hebrew  history,  it  may  suffice 
to  point  out  that  the  name,  in  its  etymological  signification, 
means  simply  the  "  wanderers"  or  "  strangers,"  and  is  fre- 
quently rendered  l)y  the  Greek  translators  a\\o<^v\oi — that 
is  to  say,  "  other,"  or  "  strange  tribes."  That  it  was  in  this 
generic,  rather  than  in  its  later  specific  sense,  that  the  de- 
signation was  used  in  the  patriarchal  narratives,  appears 
from  the  surrounding  circumstances.  Abimelech,  though 
said  to  be  accompanied  on  his  visits  to  Abraham  and  to 
Isaac  by  "  Phichol,  the  chief  captain  of  his  host,"  is  pre- 
eminently the  cliief  of  a  pastoral  people.  He  is  rich  in 
HDcks  and  herds,  and  the  differences  which  arise  between 
his  servants  and  those   of  the    patriarchs  relate  to  the  pos- 


FROM  EGYPT.  299 

session  of  wells,  whose  acquisition  would  be  specially 
valuable  in  the  eyes  of  a  nomadic  or  pastoral  people.  It  is 
manifestly  difficult  to  reconcile  these  characteristics  with 
those  of  any  nation  which  occupied  the  rich  agricultural 
region  forming  the  south-western  portion  of  Palestine. 

We  find,  in  the  Book  of  Chronicles,  a  reference  to  a 
place  apparently  having  the  same  name  as  that  of  which 
Abimelech  was  king.  In  a  passage  to  which  we  have 
already  directed  attention,  it  is  related  that  in  the  reign  of 
Hezekiah,  the  Simeonites  "  went  to  the  entrance  of  Gedor, 
unto  the  east  side  of  the  valley,  to  seek* pasture  for  their 
riocks."  There  they  found  good  pasture,  "  for  they  of  Ham 
had  dwelt  there  of  old,"  and  they  smote  the  Mehunim 
(Maonites)  who  were  found  there,  "  and  dwelt  in  their 
rooms,"  and  "  some  of  them  went  unto  Mount  Seir.""^'  There 
can  be  no  reason  for  doubting  that  Gedor  and  the  valley 
here  referred  to  lay  to  the  east  of  the  Araba,  and  that  the 
Maonites  who  were  expelled  were  the  same  people  who 
united  with  the  Moabites  and  Ammonites  in  the  invasion  of 
Judah  in  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat.f 

But  on  turning  to  the  Septuagint  version,  we  find  that 
Gedor  of  the  above  passage  appears  as  Gerar,  or  literally 
Fepapa  (Gerara) ;  and  on  reverting  to  the  Greek  rendering  of 
the  name  of  the  place  of  which  Abimelech  was  king,  we  find 
it  is  reproduced  in  the  same  form.|  Tliis  coincidence  would 
in  itself  be  entitled  to  but  little  weight,  because,  even 
assuming  that  Gerar  was  the  name  of  the  place  to  which 
the  Simeonites  went,  it  may  have  been  quite  distinct  from 


*  I  Chron.  iv.  39-43.  t  2  Chron.  xx. 

J  The  names  Gerar  and  Gedor  in  Hebrew  resembled  each  other  so 
closely  that  it  may  have  been  impossible,  in  the  absence  of  anything 
to  assist  him,  for  the  scribe  to  distinguish  one  from  the  other.  113 
Gerar,  113  Gedor. 


300  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

the  Gerar  of  the  patriarchs.  But  there  are  some  points  of 
resemblance  between  these  independent  and  far-distant 
references  to  Gerar  or  Gedor  which  cannot  fail  to  arrest  our 
notice. 

Gedor  was  rich  in  pastures,  and  pre-eminently  fitted  for  a 
pastoral  people ;  and  the  same  description  equally  applied  to 
Gerar.  Gedor  had  been  inhabited  of  old  by  a  people  said 
to  be  the  descendants  of  Ham,  and  therefore  of  a  different 
race  from  the  Hebrews,  who  claimed  descent  from  Shem. 
Gerar  was  the  country  of  the  Phelisti,  "  the  wanderers," 
"  the  strangers,"  the  "  other  tribes  ;"  it  was  the  strange  land 
in  which  Abraham  sojourned  on  coming  from  the  far  East. 
Gedor  had  a  valley  which  separated  it  from  the  adjoining 
territory  on  the  west ;  for  it  is  said  that  the  Simeonites 
"  went  to  the  entrance  of  Gedor,  even  unto  the  east  side  of 
the  valley,  to  seek  pasture  for  their  flocks ;"  and  this  valley, 
or  Ge  (strictly  "  ravine"),  was  apparently  some  well-known 
defile,  in  order  to  merit  this  specific  mention.  But  in  the 
narrative  of  Isaac"^"  we  are  informed  that  wlien  the  patriarch 
quitted  the  country  of  the  king  of  Gerar,  "  he  pitched  his 
tent  in  the  valley  of  Gerar,  and  dwelt  there,"  and  reopened 
the  wells  of  Abraham ;  and  here  in  this  valley  arose  the  dis- 
putes respecting  the  possession  of  springs,  which  led  to  their 
being  named  Esek  and  SitnaK,  the  synonyms  of  Massah 
and  IMerilxih.  "  The  valley,"  here  called  Nachal,  not  Ge,  is 
also  treated  in  this  passage  as  an  important  and  distinctive 
place.  These  points  of  resemblance  in  the  description  of 
Gedor  and  Gerar,  it  must  be  admitted,  are  entitled  to  great 
weight,  and  go  far  to  establish  the  accuracy  of  the  LXX. 
rendering  of  the  name  in  the  Book  of  Chronii'les,  and  the 
identity  of  the  region  in  which  the  patriarchs  were  believed 
to  have  sojourned   as  strangers,  with  tliat  wliich   was   suc- 

•  Gen.  xxvi.  17. 


FROM  EGYPT.  3°! 

cessMly     invaded     by    the     Simeonites    in     the    reign    of 
Hezekiah.'^ 

It  may  possibly  be  objected  that  the  tradition  connected 
with  Beer-sheba  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  location  of 
Gerar  to  the  east  of  the  Araba.  It  is  believed  that  the  site  of 
the  ancient  Beer-sheba  has  been  found  at  a  place  some  thirty 
miles  south  of  Hebron,  and  almost  equi-distant  between  the 
head  of  the  Araba  and  the  Mediterranean,  f  Without  dis- 
cussing the  accuracy  of  this  identification,  we  may  remark 
that  there  are  as  many  difficulties  in  bringing  to  that 
place  for  the  purposes  of  a  covenant  cont?erning  a  well,  the 
king  of  the  Philistines,  properly  so  caUed,  as  the  king  of  a 
pastoral  people  inhabiting  the  region  between  the  Araba 
and  the  Arabian  desert.  But  we  must  direct  attention  to 
the  fact  that,  according  to  both  the  traditions  connected 
with  the  "  well  of  the  oath"  or  the  "  well  of  the  seven,"  it 
was  not  situated  in  the  country  of  Abimelech.  That  which 
ascribes  its  nomination  to  Isaacij;  is  the  more  complete  of 
the  two.  According  to  it  Isaac,  when  dwelbng  in  Gerar, 
became  so  prosperous  as  to  excite  the  apprehensions  of 
Abimelech, — "  Go  from  us,  for  thou  art  much  mightier  than 
we ;"  in  other  words,  the  Hebrew  nomads  became  so 
numerous,  that  they  were  compelled  to  move  onwards. 
Isaac  then  quitted  Gerar,  and  "  he  pitched  his  tent  in  the 
valley  of  Gerar,"  but  subsequently  "  he  went  up  from  thence 
to  Beer-sheba."  To  this  latter  place  he  was  followed  by 
Abimelech,  not  for  the  purpose  of  raising  any  question  about 
the  right  of  possession   in  a  well,  but  to  make  a  friendly 


*  It  may  be  only  a  curious  coincidence,  but  Stephen  of  Byzantium 
notices  a  plain  called  Syrmcedn  (Sup/xaloi/)  as  lying  between  the 
Nabathasans  and  the  nomads  (s.  v.),  and  a  place  named  Gea  (Tea),  as 
being  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Petra  (s.  v.).  Stephani  Byzantii 
Ethriicorum  quce  stipersunt.    Ex  recens.  Aug.  Meinekii.  Berolini,  1849. 

f  Bir-es-Sebd,  "the  well  of  the  lion."  J  Gen.  xxvi. 


302  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

alliance.  "  We  have  not  injured  you  whilst  you  were  with 
us,"  said  Abinielech,  "  swear  now  that  you  will  not  injure 
us."  An  alliance  was  accordingly  concluded  between 
Isaac  and  Abimelech — that  is  to  say,  between  the  Hebrew 
nomads  and  the  people  of  a  different  race,  who  had  per- 
mitted them  to  abide  for  a  time  in  their  country,  but  had 
ultimately  compelled  them  to  seek  a  home  outside  their 
frontier.  To  suppose  that  these  people  of  a  different  race 
were  the  inhabitants  of  the  maritime  region  bordering  on 
Palestine,  would  be  to  contend  that  the  original  Terahitic 
migration  came  from  the  West. 

In  the  narrative  of  Abraham  in  connection  with  the 
naming  of  Beer-sheba,*  there  is  less  completeness.  We  are 
not  told  where  Abraham  was  when  Abimelech  and  Phichol 
came  to  him  and  proposed  a  covenant,  but  it  is  noticeable 
that  the  king  makes  the  same  proposal  as  that  ascribed  to 
liim  in  the  tradition  of  Isaac — namely,  the  conclusion  of  a 
friendly  alliance — "  according  to  the  kindness  that  I  have 
done  to  thee  thou  shalt  do  unto  me,  and  to  the  land  wherein 
thou  hast  sojourned."  The  use  of  the  past  tense  in  the 
concluding  words  raises  a  presumption  that  Abraham  had 
then  quitted  the  country  of  Abimelech,  whicli  is  confirmed 
by  the  statement  that  on  thq  conclusion  of  the  covenant 
Abimelech  and  Phichol  "  returned  into  the  land  of  the 
Philistines."  Abraham  is  said  to  have  reproved  the  king  in 
consequence  of  a  well  liaving  been  forcibly  taken  from  liim 
by  tlie  king's  people ;  but  tliis  occurrence  was  evidently  not 
recent,  for  Abimelecli  replied  that  he  had  never  been  informed 
of  it,  and  only  heard  of  it  then  for  the  first  time.  Then 
follows  the  account  of  the  transfer  of  the  seven  e^e  lambs 
to  Abimelech  as  a  witness  tliat  Abraham  liad  diggctl  the 
well    where    they   made   the    covenant,   ami    wliich   on    tliat 

*  Gen.  xxi.  22-32. 


FROM  EGYPT.  303 

account  was  named  Beer-sheba.  It  is,  however,  not  difficult 
to  see  that  in  this  mode  of  accounting  for  the  name  of  the 
well  a  confusion  has  taken  place  between  the  real  covenant 
concluded  between  the  patriarch  and  the  king,  and  the 
previous  contention  respecting  the  possession  of  wells  when 
Abraham  was  still  in  Gerar,  It  seemed  a  fitting  ending  to 
the  story  to  make  Abraham  establish  his  title  to  the  well 
which  was  named  because  of  the  covenant  made  there 
between  him  and  Abimelech. 

Where  was  "  the  well  of  the  oath"  which  tradition 
associates  with  the  covenant  between  i^braham-Isaac  and 
Abimelech  ?  If  we  accept  the  belief  which  in  later  times 
became  established  in  Judsea,  it  was  situated  not  improbably 
in  the  region  to  the  south  of  Hebron.  Isaac,  having  quitted 
Gerar,  settled  in  "  the  valley,"  and  having  been  expelled 
from  the  latter,  "  went  up  to  Beer-sheba,"  a  description 
which  would  tally  with  the  course  of  a  migration  from 
the  east  towards  the  west,  and  would  be  the  reverse  of 
the  course  taken  by  the  Simeonites,  who,  quitting  the 
region  in  which  Beer-sheba  was  situated,  passed  through 
the  valley  of  Gedor  in  order  to  reach  the  country  of 
that  name.  But  there  is  an  obvious  difficulty  in  sup- 
posing that  the  ruler  of  a  pastoral  people  inhabiting  a 
district  amongst,  or  on  the  eastern  side  of,  the  Idumaean 
mountains  would  have  visited  a  nomadic  tribe  on  the 
southern  borders  of  the  hills  of  Judaea  for  the  purpose 
of  making  an  alliance.  Assuming  the  tradition  of  the 
friendly  convention  to  be  well-founded,  we  should  rather 
be  inclined  to  look  for  this  Beer-sheba  in  the  region  in 
which,  as  we  have  shown,  Abraham  had  his  possessions 
where  he  became  mighty  and  powerful,  and  where  it  might 
well  be  that  the  ruler  of  the  pastoral  people  in  the  adjoining 
region  on  the  east  would  seek  him  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
cluding a  treaty  of  friendship  in  consideration  of  the  kind- 


304  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

ness  which  had  been  shown  to  him — that  is,  to  the 
migrating  nomads  on  their  arrival  from  the  far  East. 
Whether  there  was  a  well  associated  with  such  a 
tradition  in  the  region  to  the  south  of  the  Dead  Sea  we 
have  no  means  of  knowing ;  but  the  statement  that,  on 
quitting  the  house  of  Abraham,  Hagar  found  herself  in 
the  midhhar  of  Beer-sheba  when  her  water-bottle  was  ex- 
hausted, would  justify  such  a  presumption — a  presumption 
further  strengthened  by  the  allusion  to  the  wilderness  of 
Parau."^^"  Subsequent  to  the  settlement  in  Canaan,  owing  to 
the  operation  of  causes  which  in  themselves  open  up  a  vast 
and  interesting  field  of  inquiry,  the  scenes  of  some  of  the 
early  nomadic  traditions  became  transported  into  the  new 
home,  whilst  still  other  traditions  grew  up  equally  foreign  to 
the  usages,  both  political  and  religious,  of  the  parent  stock 
from  which  Israel  and  Judah  claimed  descent.  Whether 
from  similarity  of  name,  or  from  some  other  cause,  it  would 
therefore  seem  probable  that  a  place  or  M-ell  lying  between 
the  hills  of  Judtea  and  the  plateau  of  the  Till  came  to  be 
associated  in  later  times  with  the  covenant  between  Abra- 
ham and  Abimelech — an  error  which  became  all  the  more 
easy  when  the  generic  sense  in  which  the  denomination 
Phclisti  was  originally  employed  came  to  be  confounded 
with  the  special  appellation  6f  the  powerful  people  who 
inhabited  the  region  between  the  highlands  of  Judaja  and 
the  Mediterranean  Sea.f 

In  tracing  the  course  of  the  Terahitic  migration  from 
the  East,  it  is  generally  taken  for  granted  that  the  Haran 
where  the  migration  westward  was  temporarily  arrested,  was 
situated  between  the  Euphrates  and  the  Tigris.      It  seems 


♦  Gen.  xxi.  21. 
f  Jerome's  description  of  Segor  (Zoar)  as  being  on  the  borders  of 
Moab  and  separating  it  from  the  "  terra  Pbilistiim,"  would  aeem  to 
support  the  above  view  (Cojre.  la.  xv.  5). 


FROM  EG  YPT.  305 

more  probable  that  Haran  was  the  volcanic  region  which 
runs  nearly  parallel  with  the  eastern  coast  of  the  Eed  Sea 
at  a  distance  of  some  forty  miles,  extending  between  2  8°  and 
25°,  or  even  24°  North  latitude.  This  region  is  still  known 
as  El  Harrah,  the  name  signifying  the  same  as  the  Hebrew 
Haran,  or  more  properly  Charran,  a  place  which  is  burnt 
or  parched.  Very  little  is  known  about  this  singular  tract, 
owing  to  the  predatory  habits  of  the  tribes  by  which  its 
borders  are  inhabited.''"  If,  as  we  are  inclined  to  think,  the 
Terahitic  migration  rolled  up  the  eastern  borders  of  the  Red 
Sea,  and  effected  settlements  to  the  south  of  the  Dead  Sea 
previous  to  overrunning  the  Trans-Jordanic  region  and  the 
"  land  of  Canaan,"  "  the  Harrahs"  would  not  improbably 
constitute  the  region  in  which  Abraham  was  believed  to 
have  sojourned  for  a  time,  and  where  Terah  died  on  the 
long  journey  from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees.t  It  is  noteworthy 
that  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus  no  descendants  of  Abraham 
were  settled  in  Palestine  or  in  the  Trans-Jordanic  region. 
The  northern  border  of  Moab  Avas  formed  bv  the  Arnon,t 
which  emptied  itself  into  the  Dead  Sea.  The  Amorites  who 
occupied  the  territory  on  the  north  bank  of  the  stream  were 
not  of  Terahitic  descent.  Behind  them,  and  farther  to  the 
north,  were  none  claiming  that  lineage.  It  seems  therefore 
inconceivable,  assuming  the  parent  stock  of  tlie  Hebrew 
nation  to  have  come  from  the  land  of  the  Chaldees,  that 
having  crossed  Arabia  or  Syria  the  tide  of  migration  could 
have  flowed  from  the  north .  to  the  south.  The  direction 
must  have  been  quite  the  contrary,  a  conclusion  which  is 
corroborated  by  the  fact  that  the  land  which  lay  on 
the   east  of   the   Eed  Sea   and   Araba   was,  from  the  patri- 


*  For   a  description  of  El  Harrah,  see  Burton,   Land  of  Midian 
Eeviaited,  i.  325  ;  ii.  104,  144. 

t  Gen.  xi.  26-32.  +  Xow  named  the  Wady-el-Mojeb. 

X 


3o6  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

archal  period,    inhaLited   by   tribes   claiming   descent   from 
Abraham.* 

It  is  universally  assumed  that  by  "  the  land  of  Canaan" 
was  always  meant,  even  in  the  earliest  traditions  of  the 
patriarchs,  the  country  lying  between  the  Jordan  valley  and 
the  Mediterranean.  The  accuracy  of  this  conclusion  is  very 
questionable.  We  have  seen  that,  so  far  as  we  have  the  means 
of  judging,  Abraham,  or  the  parent  stock  of  emigrants  from 
the  East,  with  which  he  was  traditionally  associated,  settled 
in  the  region  to  the  south  of  the  Dead  Sea^  and  therefore  if 
the  traditions  in  their  original  shape  stated  that  he  quitted 
Haran  and  came  into  the  land  of  Canaan,t  then  his  land  of 
Canaan  must  have  been  in  Idumava.  In  dealing,  in  however 
cursory  a  manner,  with  tliis  interesting  question,  we  are  beset 
with  the  difficulties  arising  from  the  modifications  under- 
gone by  the  patriarchal  traditions  subsequent  to  the  settle- 
ment in  the  Cis-Jordanic  region,  owing  to  the  natural  tendency 
of  the  settlers  to  associate  their  reputed  ancestors  with 
places  which  had  already  acquired  a  high  reputation  for 
sanctity.  For  example,  if  we  treat  as  historical  and  con- 
nected the  narrative  contained  in  Gen.  xii.,  Abraham  on 
quitting  Haran  entered  Canaan,  commonly  so  called,  from 
the  north-east,  passed  through  the  region  to  the  east  of 
Jericho,  and  travelled  southward,  and  thence,  owing  to  a 
famine,  went  into  Egypt.  We  cannot,  however,  for  reasons  al- 
ready stated,  accept  this  as  an  accurate  account  of  the  course  of 
the  Torahitic  migration.     The  statement  that  on  the  occasion 


*  It  must  be  understood  that  these  observations  do  not  apply  to 
the  ^'cnoral  tide  of  Semitic  migration  from  the  East,  but  only  to  the 
advance  of  that  section  which  is  known  as  the  Terahitic  branch  of  the 
Semitic  race. 

t  Gen.  xii,  5.  The  Septuagiut  (Cod.  Vat.)  difTors  from  the  Hebrew 
text  of  Gen.  xii.  5  in  omitting  the  last  clause,  "  and  into  the  land  of 
Canaan  they  came."  In  the  Alexandrine  Codex  the  passage  is  similar 
to  that  in  the  Hebrew. 


FROM  EGYPT,  307 

of  this  journey  Jahveh  promised  to  give  this  territory  to  Abra- 
ham's seed,  indicates  that  the  record  now  before  us  is  of  a 
creation  posterior  to  the  settlement  on  the  west  of  Jordan 
by  tribes  claiming  descent  from  that  patriarch. 

The  emigrants  from  tlie  far  East  were  probably  well  con- 
tent when,  partly  by  sufferance,  partly  by  violence,  they 
succeeded  in  establishing  themselves  in  the  pleasant  valleys 
of  Iduma3a.  For  them  the  region  lying  to  the  west  of  the 
Dead  Sea  and  stretching  towards  the  Mediterranean  was  a 
terra  incognita,  save  so  far  as  the  fame  of  its  fertility 
and  its  resources  may  have  been  conveyed  by  itinerant 
merchants.  That  it  excited  their  cupidity  we  have  no  evi- 
dence ;  certainly  there  is  no  tradition  of  any  attempt  being 
made  to  take  it  by  conquest.  At  the  period  to  which  we 
refer — namely,  previous  to  the  Hebrew  bondage  in  Egypt 
— the  region  south  of  the  Dead  Sea  was  the  land  of  the 
Hebrews.  It  was  there  that  the  possessions  of  Abraham's 
descendants  were  to  be  found  ;  there  was  situated  the  Mount 
in  which  the  God  of  the  Hebrews  had  his  abode ;  and  it 
was  from  thence  that  came  the  stock  whose  descendants 
subsequently  quitted  Egypt  under  the  circumstances  which 
furnish  the  subject-matter  of  the  present  inquiry. 

In  the  account  of  the  Hebrew  settlement  in  Egypt,  it  is 
stated  that  Jacob  and  his  family  were  driven  by  famine  to 
quit  Canaan  and  accept  the  protection  and  hospitality  of 
the  Pharaoh.  Here,  again,  we  are  compelled  to  reject  the  ac- 
cepted belief  that  the  land  between  the  Mediterranean  and  tlie 
Jordan  was  referred  to.  The  stock  from  which  the  Hebrew 
captives  in  Egypt  was  derived  had  no  possessions  in  this 
resfion,  and  therefore  if  the  name  Canaan  occurred  in  the 
tradition  in  its  early  form,  some  other  country  must  have 
been  intended — namely,  the  territory  lying  on  the  east  of  the 
Araba,  the  land  of  the  Hebrews. 

Let  us  now  turn   to  the   records  of  Egyptian  history,  and 

X  2 


3o8  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

ascertain  whether  they  throw  any  light  upon  this  interesting 
question. 

From  a  period  long  anterior  to  the  Exodus,  the  nomad 
tribes  of  Arabia  w^ere  known  to  the  Egyptians  as  the  Shasu, 
and  their  principal  home  was  called  the  land  of  Aduma, 
probably  the  Edom  and  Idumsea  of  later  times.  At  the 
commencement  of  the  nineteenth  dynasty  these  tril)es,  either 
trespassing  on  the  indulgence  of  previous  Pharaohs  in 
tolerating  their  settlement  in  the  region  adjacent  to  the 
Delta,  or  emulating  the  prowess  of  the  Hyksos,  assumed  so 
formidable  an  attitude  as  to  provoke  a  war  at  the  hands  of 
Seti,  the  first  Idng  of  that  dynasty  and  father  of  Eamses  II., 
the  celel)rated  Sesostris.  The  records  of  this  war  are  still 
preserv^ed  in  the  illustrations  and  inscriptions  which  adorn 
the  walls  of  the  great  hall  of  the  temple  at  Karnak. 

Egyptologists  have  deciphered  and  interpreted  the  in- 
scriptions, wliilst  tlie  ilhistrations  furnish  a  key  by  whicli  it 
is  possible  to  form  a  general  idea  of  the  nature  of  the 
country  in  which  the  campaign  took  place.  The  inscription 
which  records  the  first  victory,  states  that  "  in  the  first  year 
of  King  Seti  there  took  place,  by  the  strong  arm  of  Pharaoh,* 
the  annihilation  of  the  hostile  Shasu,  from  the  fortress  of 
Khetam  of  the  land  of  Zalu,  as  far  as  Kan'aan ;"  and  in  the 
accompanying  illustration  the  boundary  of  the  land  of  the 
Shasu  is  marked  by  the  hill-fortress  of  Kan'aan,  near  which 
a  stream  is  represented  falling  into  a  lake. 

There  can  be  no  question  that  the  illustration  of  the  lake 
^\•ith  the  river  flowing  into  it  was  intended  to  represent  the 
Dead  Sea  with  one  of  its  affluents,  and  we  are  therefore 
forced  to  conclude  that  the  hill-fortress  of  Kan'aan  was  in 
the  vicinity  of  that  sea,  Brugsch  Bey  suggests  that  it  was 
in   the  Araba,  but  it  seems  much  more  probable  that   the 


Brugsch  Bey,  Egyj't  under  the  Tharaohs,  ii.  13. 


FROM  EGYPT.  309 

stronghold  of  the  Shasu  of  the  land  of  Aduma  lay  between 
the  Araba  and  the  Arabian  desert,  and  near  the  southern 
extremity  of  the  Dead  Sea,  Specific  mention  of  this  hill- 
fortress  of  Kan'aan  is  made  in  the  great  Harris  papyrus, 
where  it  is  spoken  of  as  being  in  the  land  of  Zahi.  The 
name  Aduma  appears  to  have  been  applied  in  the  same 
wide  sense  in  which  Edom  and  Midian  were  used  in  the 
early  Hebrew  traditions ;  or  like  Kedem — the  east  country. 
The  Shasu  were  from  the  land  of  Aduma,  so,  without  neces- 
sarily implying  any  connection  between  the  w^ords,  they 
were  the  Beni-Kedem,  the  children  of  the  East.  The  land 
of  Zahi  was  a  region  wliich  evidently  included  the  districts 
to  the  south  of  the  Dead  Sea, 

It  is  at  all  events  a  significant  fact,  that  not  only  are  no 
traces  to  be  seen  in  the  Egyptian  records  of  the  application 
of  the  name  Canaan  to  the  country  lying  between  the 
Mediterranean  and  the  Jordan  valley,  but  we  invariably  find 
that  tliis  country  is  termed  the  land  of  the  Euthen,  or 
Eutennu  or  Lutennu,  It  was  thus  known  in  the  time  of 
Thutmes  III.,  a  Pharaoh  of  the  eighteenth  dynasty  (circa 
1600  B.C.),  and  it  was  similarly  designated  so  late  as  the 
period  of  the  Exodus.  There  is  no  mention  of  the  Eutennu 
seeking  sustenance  in  Egypt,  or  yielding  to  the  temptation  of 
effecting  a  settlement  on  the  Egyptian  frontier.  The  case  is 
far  different  with  the  Shasu.  Independently  of  the  hostile 
incursions  which  provoked  the  first  Seti  to  war,  there  are 
unmistakable  proofs  that  the- nomads  obtained  from  time  to 
time  permission  to  enter  the  rich  pastures  on  the  east  of  the 
Delta.  In  the  very  curious  and  interesting  document  of 
the  reign  of  Mineptah,  the  successor  of  Eamses  II.,  already 
referred  to,  we  find  almost  a  paraphrase  of  what  w^as  stated 
to  have  occurred  when  Jacob  and  his  family  came  from 
Canaan  to  Egypt,  It  is  apparently  the  report  of  a  liigh 
Egyptian  official. 


3 lo  THE  HEDRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

"Another  matter  for  the  satisfaction  of  my  master's 
heart.  We  have  carried  into  effect  the  passage  of  the  tribes 
of  tlie  Sliasu  from  the  land  of  Adimia  through  the  fortress 
(Klietam)  of  Mineptah  (Hotephima)  to  the  lakes  of  the  city 
Pitom,  which  are  situated  in  the  land  of  Thuku,  in  order  to 
feed  themselves  and  to  fped  their  herds  on  the  possessions 
of  Pharaoh,  who  is  there  a  beneficent  sun  for  all  peoples."* 

From  this  curious  record  we  learn  not  only  how  tlie 
Hebrew  settlement  in  Egypt  came  to  be  effected,  but  we 
have  unmistakable  proof  who  the  relieved  nomads  were, 
and  from  v/hat  region  they  came.  They  came  from  the  land 
of  Adimia,  and  that  land  beyond  all  question  was  not 
Palestine.  They  were  termed  generically  Shasu,  and  half 
a  century  previously  they,  or  the  people  with  whom  they 
were  identified,  possessed  a  hill-fortress  called  Kan'aan  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  the  Dead  Sea.  It  is  not  easy  to 
carry  further  the  demonstration  that  the  nomadic  tribes 
which  from  time  to  time  obtained  relief  from  the  Pharaohs, 
and  which -were  permitted  to  pasture  their  flocks  on  the 
north-eastern  frontier  of  Egypt — or,  as  the  Hebrew  records 
express  it,  in  tlie  land  of  Goshen — came  from  the  country 
lying  on  the  east  of  the  Araba ;  and  it  is  at  least  probable 
that  the  Canaan  referred  to  in  the  earliest  patriarchal  tradi- 
tions was  the  same  to  wliich  reference  was  made  in  the 
Egyptian  records. 

In  the  patriarchal  traditions  we  find  two  allusions  to 
a  })lace  named  Shur.  Hagar  was  found  by  the  angel  "  by 
tlie,  fountain  on  the  way  to  Shur,"t  which  she  afterwards 
named  Lahai-roi,  and  which  we  are  further  informed  lay 
between  Kadesh  and  Peered;  and  Abraham  is  said  to  have 
dwelt  between  Kadesh  and  Shur.;};       In   the  account  of  the 


*  Pap.  Anastasi,  vi.  pp.  4,  5.     The  above  is  Bnigsch  Bey's  transla- 
tion 01' the  pa3sa<,'e  (E<jijpt  under  the  Pharaohs,  ii.  127). 

t  Gen.  xvi.  7.  J  Gen.  xx.  i. 


FROM  EGYPT.  311 

twelve  tribes  descended  from  Ishmael  it  is  stated  that 
"  they  dwelt  from  Havilah  unto  Shur,  that  is  before 
Egypt,  as  thou  goest  toward  Assyria,'"'^  and  elsewhere  we 
learn  that  Ishmael  settled  in  the  midbhar  of  Paran.t 
In  dealing  with  these  traditions  we  should,  in  the  absence  of 
other  evidence,  be  inclined  to  conclude  that  Shur  was  the 
name  of  a  place  or  region  familiar  to  those  amongst  whom 
these  traditions  grew  up — a  presumption  which  w^oidd,  how- 
ever, be  rebutted  if  it  could  be  shown  that  the  traditions 
underwent  modifications  in  later  times.  A  priori  we 
should  therefore  infer  that  Shur  was  known  eo  nomine  to 
the  nomads  who  had  come  from  the  East,  and  that  it 
admitted  of  being  spoken  of  for  the  purpose  of  fixing,  as 
in  the  case  of  Hagar,  the  way  or  road  in  which  she  found 
the  fountain  of  Lahai-roi ;  or  in  that  of  Abraham,  one  of  the 
limits  of  the  district  within  which  he  dwelt;  or  in  that  of 
Ishmael  and  his  descendants,  the  region  in  which  they 
exercised  dominion.  But  it  is  obviously  in  the  highest 
degree  improbable  that  the  nomads  could  in  any  of  these 
instances  have  referred  to  an  insignificant  Egyptian  forti- 
fication known  to  its  possessors  by  an  entirely  different 
name,  J  and  with  whose  existence  it  is  not  unreasonable  to 
conclude  they  were  wholly  unacquainted ;  whilst  if  we  are 
correct  in  placing  the  scenes  of  the  events  referred  to  in  the 
patriarchal  traditions  to  the  east  of  the  Araba,  it  would 
have  been  equally  delusive  and  uninstructive  to  refer  to 
a  place    in    a    foreign    country,    distant    upwards    of    one 


*  Gen.  XXV.  18.  t  Gen.  xxi.  21. 

X  Brugsch  Bey  states  that  a  small  fortification  existed  on  the 
Egyptian  frontier  not  far  from  the  Serbonian  lake,  to  which  the 
Egyptians  gave  the  name  of  Anbu,  signifying  a  "wall"  or  "fence," 
and  he  suggests  that  the  Hebrews  translated  Anbu,  Shur,  which  in 
their  language  had  the  same  meaning.  "  It  is  this  Shur,"  says  the 
Bey  with  confidence,  "  which  is  mentioned  in  Holy  Scripture " 
{L'Exode,  14). 


3 1 2  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

hundred  and  twenty  miles,  and  separated  from  the  scene 
of  events  by  an  inhospitable  desert.  Let  us  see  if  no 
other  explanation  can  be  found  wliicli  is  more  reconcil- 
able "udth  the  probabilities  of  the  case  and  with  the 
evidence  at  our  command. 

The  nomads  who  made  their  way  westwards  across  the 
steppes  and  deserts  of  the  Araljian  peninsula  found  their 
further  advance  arrested  in  the  more  southerly  region 
by  the  Eed  Sea.  On  following  its  shore  in  a  northerly 
tlirection  they  saw  beyond  its  waters  lofty  mountains,  and 
finally  they  discovered  that  it  terminated  in  a  narrow  gulf, 
the  opposite  side  of  which  was  formed  by  precipices  de- 
scending to  the  water's  edge.  Above  the  head  of  this  gidf 
opened  a  broad  and  desolate  valley,  apparently  a  continua- 
tion of  the  chasm  in  which  were  contained  the  waters  of 
the  narrow  sea,  and  bounded  on  its  western  side  by  a  con- 
tinuous but  rugged  wall  of  rock.  If  they  had  the 
curiosity  to  scale  this  wall,  they  saw  stretching  before 
them,  towards  the  setting  sun,  a  barren  waste  seared  by 
the  fissures  of  streamless  wadys  and  dotted  by  eminences 
covered  with  a  sparse  vegetation.  But  though  further 
advance  was  thus  repelled,  the  nomads  learned  that  on  the 
opposite  side  of  that  desert  lay  a  powerful  kingdom  teeming 
with  wealtli,  whose  people  could  supply  from  their  granaries 
sufficient  to  meet  the  wants  of  the  famished  tribes  which 
were  from  time  to  time  compelled  to  seek  their  help, 
and  whose  merchants  were  ever  ready  to  purcliase  slaves 
and  every  costly  product  conveyed  to  them  from  the  East. 
Tliat  kingdom  was  Egj-pt,  and  with  that  kingdom  was 
necessarily  associated  the  forbidding  wilderness  by  which  it 
could  alone  be  approached.  To  the  pastoral  tribes  which 
settled  amongst  the  mountains  of  Iduma\a  the  vast  unin- 
habitable table-land  was  simply  known  as  a  region  which 
was  over  against  Egypt — a  region  whose  precipitous  wall 


FROM  EGYPT.  3' 3 

reared  in  front  of  their  mountain  slopes  seemed  a  visible 
protest  against  any  advance  in  that  direction. 

The  word  Shur  in  ancient  Hebrew  and  in  modern  Arabic 
signifies  "  a  wall,"  and  it  is  certainly  no  extravagant  pre- 
sumption to  suppose  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  region  on 
the  east  of  the  Araba  gave  this  name  to  the  long  line  of 
cliffs  supporting  the  table-land  across  which  lay  the  road  to 
Egypt.     If  we  accept  this  explanation,  there  is  no  difficulty 
in  understanding  the  reference  to  Shur  in  the  patriarchal 
traditions,  and  reconciling  them  with  those  conclusions  already 
forced  upon  us  respecting  the  region  in  which  the  events 
related  are  supposed  to  have  taken  place.     If  Abraham  was 
said  to  have  dwelt  between  Kadesh  and  Shur,  it  would  be 
another  way  of  saying  that  the  nomads  settled    in    some 
portion  of  western   Idumsea.     In  like  manner,  the  fountain 
of  Lahai-roi  would  be  in  the  same  region,  and  lie  in  the 
path  of  any  one  proceeding  westwards  or  in  the  direction 
of  Egypt.    And,  again,  Ishmael  and  his  descendants,  who  dwelt 
from  Havilah  unto  Shur,  that  is  before  Eg}^t,  were  thought 
to    have    occupied    a    region  lying  between  Havilah,  some 
unknown  place  to  the  east  of  the  Araba,  and  Shur  the  great 
wall  which  was  reared  as  it  were  a  rampart  before  Egj-pt. 
In  all  these  instances,  assuming  the  traditions  to  have  had 
their  original  home  in  the  region  where  the  descendants  of 
the  patriarchs  undoubtedly  settled  previous  to  the  Hebrew 
captivity  in  Egypt,  the  Shur  thus  treated  as  a  well-known 
and  clearly  marked  boundary,  and  "  objectively"  referred  to 
by  the  inhabitants  of  that  region  as  being  "  before  Egypt," 
was    therefore  in  all  probability    the  great  natural  barrier 
extending  from  end  to  end  the  entire  length  of  the  western 
side  of  the  Araba. 

The  next  allusion  to  Shur  is  in  the  traditions  of  the 
Exodus.  On  quitting  Egypt  the  Israelites  traversed  the 
wilderness  of  Shur,  and  proceeded  three  days  without  fiudmg 


314  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

water. "^  It  is,  however,  apparent  that  a  wilderness  so  ex- 
tensive could  have  been  none  other  than  that  now  known  as 
the  Tih,  and  we  are  therefore  justified  in  concluding  that 
the  immense  wilderness  stretching  from  the  western  wall  of 
the  Araba  to  Egypt  was  known,  at  all  events  to  the  nomads, 
as  the  midhhar  of  Shur.  This  is  undoubtedly  the  wilder- 
ness referred  to  by  Jephthah  as  having  been  "  walked 
through"  by  Israel  on  the  way  from  Egypt  to  the  Eed  Sea.t 
An  account  is  given  of  a  fiUibustering  raid  made  by 
David,  when  under  the  protection  of  the  Philistines,  on  some 
tribes  which  apparently  enjoyed  the  friendship  of  the 
latter.j  It  is  recorded  that  "  David  and  his  men  invaded 
the  Geshurites,  and  the  Gezrites  (Gerzites,  Hcb.),  and  the 
Amalekites,  for  those  nations  were  of  old  the  inhabitants  of 
the  land,  as  thou  goest  to  Shur,  even  unto  the  land  of  Egypt." 
On  his  return,  David  exhibited  his  prudence  at  the  expense 
of  his  candour,  by  teUing  Achish  that  he  had  come  from 
attacking  "  the  south  of  Judah,  and  the  south  of  the  Jerah- 
meelites,  and  the  south  of  the  Kenites."  In  effect  he  "  saved 
neither  man  nor  woman  alive,  lest,"  to  quote  his  own  words, 
"  they  should  tell  on  us."  Erom  the  name  of  the  tribe 
first  mentioned  it  would  seem  that  it  was  called  after  the 
territory  on  whose  border  it  lived,  and  that  it  and  the  others 
on  which  David  made  the  raid'  inhabited  the  comparatively 
fertile  strip  of  land  intervening  between  southern  Philistia 
and  the  wilderness.  The  references  to  Shur  in  connection 
with  Saul's  campaign  against  the  Amalekites^  have  been 
already  alluded  to.||  They,  like  the  others,  equally  point  to 
the  conclusion  that  Shur  embraced  the  table-land  extending 
from  the  Egyptian  frontier  to  the  Araba. 


*   Exod.  XV.  22. 

t  Jiid.  xi.  1 6.  +1  Sam.  xxvii.  8-12 

§  J  fciam.  XV.  7.  ||  See  ante,  p.  20-. 


FROM  EGYPT.  31 5 

In  reviewing  our  cursory  examination  of  tliis  portion  of 
the  patriarchal  traditions  we  conclude  that  Abraham  and  Isaac 
were  supposed  to  have  settled  permanently  or  ultimately  in 
the  same  region,  which  was  called  the  Negeb,  or  south  country  ; 
that  this  was  in  the  vicinity  of  a  district  known  as  Gerar ; 
and  while  in  the  case  of  Abraham  the  place  of  permanent 
abode  was  localised  between  Kadesh  and  Shur,  in  that  of  Isaac 
it  was  placed  near  the  well  of  Lahai-roi,  which  was  between 
Kadesh  and  Bered,  and  must  have  been  in  the  same  region 
where  Abraham  dwelt.  In  respect  to  the  locality  of  the  Negeb 
here  referred  to,  and  the  places  enumerated,  we  infer  that 
the  Gerar-Bered  of  the  patriarchal  traditions  was  identical 
with  the  Gedor  of  the  Simeonite  emigration,  and  lay  to  the 
east  of  the  Araba,  and  probably  consisted  of  the  rich  pas- 
tures found  on  the  eastern  borders  of  southern  Idumaea,  and 
was  separated  from  the  region  bounding  it  on  the  west  by  a 
remarkable  valley  or  ravine,  in  or  near  which  were  springs 
which  were  known  as  the  waters  of  "  strife"  and  "  conten- 
tion." But  regarding  the  Kadesh  and  Gerar  of  Abraham  as 
identical  with  the  Kadesh  and  Bered  of  Hagar,  we  conclude 
that  the  first-named  of  these  places  (Kadesh)  could  not  have 
been  far  distant  from  the  second,  and  was  therefore  in  or 
near  "  the  valley"  adjoining  Gerar,  where,  according  to 
tradition,  the  herdsmen  of  the  ruler  of  that  country  dis- 
puted with  those  of  the  patriarchs  respecting  the  user  of 
certain  springs.  But  the  patriarchal  place  of  abode  near 
the  well  of  Lahai-roi  was  in  the  same  region,  and  was  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  the  midhhar  of  Paran,  where  Ishmael 
removed  and  settled  on  his  expulsion  from  his  paternal  home  ; 
and  we  therefore  infer  that  all  these  places  were  situated  on 
the  east  of  the  Araba,  and  that  the  Negeb  in  which  lay  the 
possessions  of  the  patriarchs  was  in  the  same  region,  on  the 
south  of  the  Dead  Sea. 


3i6 


-CHAPTER    XL 

T  ET  us  once  more  return,  and  take  up  the  broken  thread 
— '  of  the  narrative  of  the  migration  from  Eg}'pt,  If,  on 
the  one  hand,  following  the  traditions  of  the  Exodus,  we  have 
been  constrained  to  lead  the  Hebrews  across  the  table-land 
of  the  Till  to  tlie  head  of  the  ^lanitic  Gulf,  on  the  other 
we  are  gi-atified  by  finding  that  this  route  corresponds  with 
the  ancient  traditions  respecting  the  locality  of  the  Mount 
of  God.  But  as  the  result  of  our  further  investigation  of 
traditions  which  still  live  in  Idumsea,  and  which  may  be 
traced  with  unbroken  continuity  to  the  dawn  of  the 
Christian  era,  we  see  that  the  region  lying  on  the  east  of  the 
Araba  was  regarded  as  the  scene  of  the  great  miracle  attri- 
l)uted  to  Moses  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Mount  of  God, 
and  that"  there  was  situated  the  midhhar  from  which  the 
spies  were  believed  to  have  been  sent  fortli  to  explore  the 
land  of  Canaan.  Pursuing  pur  inquiries  into  the  early 
history  of  Edom  and  its  situation  relatively  to  Judah,  we 
have  seen  that  there  is  notliing  incompatible  with  the  tradi- 
tion that  the  emancipated  Hebrews  never  penetrated  beyond 
its  borders,  in  supposing  that  they  entered  and  temporarily 
occupied  the  region  in  immediate  proximity  to  the  Araba  on 
the  east ;  wliilst  our  brief  review  of  the  patriarchal  traditions 
points  to  the  same  quarter  as  that  in  wliich  the  released 
captives  would  find  tribes  claiming  a  common  descent,  pre- 
pared to  sympathise  with  them  in  their  misfortunes,  and 
possibly  to  assist  them  with  material  aid.  If  the  records  of 
the  Exodus,  fragmentary  and  disconnected  though   they   be, 


THE  HEBRE W  MIGRA TION  FROM  EGYPT.        317 

indicate  in  no  uncertain  fashion  the  course  taken  by  the 
liberated  Hebrews,  the  still  earlier  traditions  of  the  Hebrew- 
race  point  with  no  less  certainty  to  the  region  to  which 
they  would  direct  their  steps  on  quitting  the  land  of  their 
bitter  servitude,  and  where  they  woidd  find  the  Mount  of 
Elohim,  already  sacred  to  the  Hebrews'  God."^'' 

On  quitting  Elim,  the  Israelites  entered  the  wilderness  of 
Sin,  which  lay  between  Elim  and  Sinai ;  but  if  Elim  lay  at 
the  head  of  the  ^lanitic  Gulf,  the  midhhar  of  Sin  was  un- 
questionably the  Araba  ;  and  if  the  latter  lay  between  Elim 
and  Sinai,  the  mountain  must  have  been  contiguous  to  it. 
As,  however,  the  Araba  terminates  at  its  upper  extremity  by 
dropping  into  the  hollow  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  as  on  the 
western  side  the  cliffs,  though  precipitous,  nowhere  present 
the  appearance  of  a  distinct  mountain,  Sinai  must  be  sought 
for  on  the  eastern  border,  and  probably  at  some  distance 
from  Elim,  because  a  wilderness  interposed  which  was  not 
traversed  in  a  single  day,  and  in  which  some  notable  events 
took  place.  Here — that  is  "to  say,  on  the  journey  between 
Elim  and  Sinai — the  Israelites  for  the  first  time  obtained 
manna,t  and  here,  according  to  tradition,  were  the  graves  of 
those  who  perished  from  eating  the  quails  which  had  been 
carried  by  the  wind  across  the  adjoining  sea.J     ' 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  some  spot  in  the  wilderness 
between  Elim  and  Sinai  came,  by  reason  of  some  physical 
peculiarities,  to  have  attached  to  it  the  legend  that  there  the 
Israelites  perished  in  great  numbers,  and  that  the  place  of 
their  sepulture  was  there  to  be  seen.  The  legend  had  possibly 
some  foundation  in  fact.  But,  however  this  may  be,  it 
is  somewhat  curious  that  at  about  a  day's  journey  from 
Akaba  the  bed  of  the  Araba  is  converted  into  a  marsh, 
which   is   known   to   the   Arabs   as   El  Daba,  or  Taba,  or 

*  Exod.  iii.  i. 
t  Exod.  xvi.  12-15.  +  '^um.  xi.  34. 


3 1 8  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

Deffieh,  and  is  chosen  for  a  cemetery.  It  would  seem  to 
correspond  with  the  Kibroth-hat-tavah  of  the  Hebrew  tradi- 
tion. 

According  to  the  narrative  in  Exodus,  the  Israehtes  next 
arrived  at  Kephidim  ;  "^^  whilst,  according  to  that  in  Numbers, 
the  next  station  was  IJazeroth  ;  f  and  in  the  former  record 
the  succeeding  events  take  place  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
Mount  of  God,  whilst  in  the  latter  they  occur  in  the  midhhar 
of  Paran.J  Where  was  or  were  Rephidim-Hazeroth  ?  To 
this  question  it  is  impossible  to  give  a  positive  reply. 
Looking  to  the  plural  forms  of  the  words,  it  is  doubtful 
whether  any  precise  spot  was  thus  designated  ;  and  all  we 
can  fairly  conclude  is  that  the  Rephidim-Hazeroth  were 
reached  through  some  valley  opening  from  the  mountain 
rauf^e  on  the  right-hand  side  of  the  Araba.  But  it  was  at 
or  near  these  places  that  the  Kenite  Sheikh  met  Muses  and 
the  Israelites  when  they  were  encamped  before  the  Mount 
of  God  ;  and  as  we  have  identified  the  Kenites  with  the 
Troflodytes  (cave-dwellers),  we  can  have  no  hesitation  in  re- 
ffardiufT  them  as  the  then  inhabitants  of  Petra.  Moses  was, 
however,  the  Sheikli's  son-in-law,  and  we  here  find  an  addi- 
tional reason  why  he  should  have  led  them  to  this  spot,  aiul 
why  the  people  under  his  leadership  should  have  been  so 
well  received  by  the  Kenites.  The  Israelites  would  there- 
fore seem  to  have  quitted  the  Araba  in  the  neiglibourliood 
of  Petra,  and  to  have  established  themselves,  at  least  for  a 
time,  in  or  near  what  was  afterwards  the  site  of  the  Naba- 
tluran  capital. 

"When  we  picture  to  ourselves  Petra  with  the  Sik,  anil  tlie 
brook  winding  its  way  through  chasms  apparently  cleft 
expressly  to  give  it  passage  through  mountains  of  living 
rock,  we  can  have   no  difficulty  in  understanding  how  either 

*  Exotl.  xvii.  I.  t  Num.  xi.  35. 

I  Num.  xii.  16. 


FROM  EGYPT.  319 

at  the  time,  the  thirsty  wayfarers,  emerging  from  the  Araba, 
came  to  believe  that  their  leader  had  gone  on  before  them 
to  the  Mount  of  God,"*  and  with  his  wand  had  cleft  the 
mountain  in  order  to  give  passage  to  the  water  of  which 
they  stood  in  so  much  need ;  or  how,  in  after-times,  the 
legend  that  he  had  done  so  came  to  be  suggested  by  the  extra- 
ordinary physical  peculiarities  of  the  region.  The  course  of 
the  brook  on  quitting  Petra  is  unknown  ;  it  is  not  neces- 
sary that  the  Israelites  should  have  penetrated  as  far  as  the 
cave-abounding  city  before  slaking  their  thirst  in  its 
waters. 

We  have  now,  following  the  traditions,  arrived  in  the 
immediate  neighbourhood  of  the  Mount  of  Elohim,  indif- 
ferently called  Sinai,  Horeb,  Paran  ;  and  we  can  no  longer 
postpone  the  attempt  to  ascertain,  if  possible,  its  locality. 
It  is  perhaps  needless  to  say  that  our  investigations  point 
but  to  one  conclusion — namely,  the  identification  of  the* 
Mount  of  God  with  Mount  Hor,  the  Har-Ha-Har,  the  Mount 
of  Mounts. 

Assuming  that  we  have  rightly  followed  the  track  of  the 
Hebrews,  we  can  have  no  hesitation  in  arriving  at  this  con- 
clusion, because  there  is  confessedly  no  mountain  in  the  region 
where,  ex  hijpothcsi,  the  emigrants  have  now  arrived,  whieli 
so  fully  satisfies  the  requirements  of  Mount  Sinai.  It  is 
the  loftiest  of  the  mountains  which  overhang  the  Araba,  and 
lying  to  the  west  of  Petra  its  position  corresponds  with  that 
of  the  mount  to  which  Moses  led  the  flock  of  his  father-in- 
law  on  "  the  back  side  of  the  desert."t  But  there  are  other 
reasons  why,  independently  of  the  conclusions  already 
arrived  at  respecting  the  track  of  the  Hebrews,  we  are  leil 
to  identify  Mount  Hor  with  Mount  Sinai. 

We  have  already  pointed  out  that  as  on  (putting  Elim  the 

*  Exod.  xvii.  5.  t  Exod.  iii.  i. 


320  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

Israelites  entered  the  wilderness  between  that  place  and 
Mount  Sinai,  tlie  latter  mountain  must  almost  certainly 
liave  stood  on  the  border  of  the  Araba.  We  have,  however, 
a  somewhat  singular  confirmation  of  this  inference  in  the  nar- 
rative of  the  first  occasion  on  which  the  liberated  slaves  were 
gratified  and  encouraged  by  seeing  "  the  glory"  of  their 
God. 

Tlie  Israelites  had  journeyed  across  the  great  wilderness 
of  Shur  by  the  direct  and  well-known  route,  and,  descending 
through  the  steep  defile  overhanging  Elim-Elath,  had  en- 
camped for  a  time  at  the  head  of  the  gulf.  They  then 
turned  their  footsteps  towards  tlieir  promised  home,  the 
attractions  of  which  had  been  held  out  to  them  by  their 
leaders  as  an  inducement  to  brave  the  terrors  and  perils  of 
their  journey  on  leaving  Eg}^t.*  Until  they  quitted  the 
desolate  table-land  of  the  Tih,  and  left  the  track  familiar  to 
the  caravans  trading  between  Egypt  and  the  East,  they 
scarcely  regarded  themselves  as  having  left  the  land  of  their 
bondage  ;  and  on  setting  out  from  Elim  they  seem  to  have 
expected  to  enter  at  once  into  tliat  country  of  figs  and 
l)omegranates  whicli  was  their  promised  haven.  On  entering 
the  Araba,  and  looking  onwards  over  its  desolate  waste, 
their  disappointment  was  immense,  and  the  crushed  spirit  of 
the  slaves  induced  a  bitter  regret  at  having  left  the  country 
in  which  they  were  at  all  events  sufficiently  fed.  They 
murmured,  and  apparently  hesitated  to  proceed,  when  their 
leaders  encouraged  them  by  saying,  "  At  even,  then  ye  shall 
ktiow  that  Jahveh  hath  brought  you  out  from  the  land  of 
Egj'jTt,  and  in  the  morning,  then  shall  ye  see  the  glory  of 
.Iahveh."t     Then  followed  a  specific  promise  :  "  Jahveh  shall 


•  Tliis  strongly  corrolioratea  the  inference  that  the  liberated  captives 
were  accompuiiinl  by  loaders  well  acquainted  with  the  region  to  which 
they  were  taking  them  -namely,  the  land  of  Aduma. 
t  Exod.  xvi.  6,  7. 


FROM  EGYPT.  32 j 

give  you  in  the  evening  flesh  to  eat,  and  in  the  morninc. 
bread  to  the  full/'-  and,  on  the  foUowing  day,  "Aaron  spak^ 
unto  the  whole  congregation  of  the  children  of  Israel,  and 
they  looked  toward  the  wilderness,  and  behold,  the  glory  of 
Jahveh  appeared  in  the  cloud."t     In  order  to  fully  appre- 
ciate the  meaning  of  this  narrative,  it  is  necessary  to  collate 
It  with  the  corresponding  tradition  recorded  in  the  Book  of 
Numbers.^     The  Israelites  obtained  manna  for  the  first  time 
on  entenng  the  Araba,  and  they  appear  to  have  been  dis- 
satisfied with  it  as  a  substitute  for  the  .food  to  which  they 
had  been  accustomed.     They  rebelled,  and  possibly  threatened 
to  return ;  and  then  it  was  that  Moses  told  them  that  if  they 
only  proceeded  on  their  journey  they  would  be  rewarded  at 
even  by  finding  themselves  in  a   region  where  they  would 
obtain  everything  necessary  for  their  wants  ;  when  they  would 
be  practicaUy  convinced  that  they  had  in  very  truth  quitted 
ihe  land  of  Egypt,  and  entered  the  fertHe  and  productive 
country  to  which  he  promised  to  conduct  them.     And  fur- 
thermore, he  promised  them   that   on   the   morning  of  the 
following  day  they  would  witness  with  their  own  eyes  tl  e 
glory  of  the  God  who  was  prepared  to  take  them  under  his 
special  care.      The  slaves  yielded,  and   proceeded   on   their 
journey.       At   nightfaU   they   reached   one   of   the   valleys 
opening  into  the  fertde  region  on  the  east  of  the  Araba 
and  on  the  foUowing  morning,  when  "they  looked  towards' 
the  wilderness,"§  they  saw  the  first  rays  of  the  risin.  sun 
dissipating  the  cloud  which  enveloped  the  simimit  of  Mount 
Hor,   and  producing  on  its  striated   rocks  that  marvellous 
play  of  brilliant  colours  which  stiU  continues  to  arrest  the 
attention  of  the  traveller  ascending  the  Araba  from  the  south 
It  wiU  be  recoUected  that  when  Moses  received  his  mission 
from  Jahveh  to  proceed  to  Egypt,  with  a  view  to  the  libera- 

§  Exod.  xvi.  10. 


Y 


322  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

tion  of  the  Israelites,  certain  difficulties  presented  themselves 
to  the  mind  of  the  former.  In  the  first  place,  the  captives 
might  refuse  to  accept  his  leadership  ;  and  in  the  next,  the 
Pharaoh  might  refuse  to  allow  the  people  to  depart.  It  be- 
came necessary,  therefore,  that  the  appointed  leader  should 
be  armed  with  conclusive -credentials,  and  that  he  should  be 
in  a  position  to  offer  an  adequate  inducement  to  the  Hebrews 
to  quit  Egypt  under  his  guidance.*  The  credentials  con- 
sisted mainly  in  the  gift  of  thaumaturgy,  but  one  of  the 
"  tokens"  indicated  was  that  when  the  captives  had  been 
led  out  of  Egypt  they  shoidd  serve  the  Eloliim  on  the  par- 
ticular mountain  where  Moses  received  his  mission.t  The 
inducement  offered  to  the. Israelites  to  quit  Egypt,  indepen- 
dently of  the  natural  desire  to  acquire  freedom,  was  that 
they  should  be  led  into  a  land  flowing  with  milk  and 
honey.  In  after  times,  when  the  successful  invasion  of  the 
Trans-  and  Cis-Jordanic  regions  had  been  efiected,  it  was 
assumed  that  the  occupatinn  of  tliese  extensive  territories  was 
the  prize  held  up  before  the  eyes  of  the  oppressed  slaves. 
But  not  only  is  this  opposed  to  probability,  but  it  is  nega- 
tived by  indelible  traces  still  found  in  the  ancient 
traditions.  A\'e  know,  as  a  matter  of  history,  that  during 
the  period  of  the  Hebrew  settlement  in  Egypt  wars  were 
not  infrequent  between  the  powerful  Pharaohs  and  the  in- 
habitants of  Palestine,  and  that  treaties  were  concluded  on  a 
footing  \\\\\<c\\  recognised  tlie  prowess  and  the  ilignity  of 
the  respective  adversaries.^  It  would  therefore  have  been 
perfuctly  ])re]K)sterous  for  Moses,  however  great  his  connnand 
or  magical  powers,  to  have  sought  to  persuade  the  elders  of 
Israel,  and  through  them  the  people,  to  quit  Egypt  in  tlie 


•  Exod.  iii.  11-22  ;  iv.  I-17.  f  Exod.  iii.  12. 

X  iiiey  the  treaty  botwt  en  Hamses  II.  (Scsostris)   and  the  king  of 
Kbita,  trausluted  by  Guodwiu  [liccords  ut  the  Pant,  iv.  25). 


FROM  EGYPT.  323 

hope   of   being    able   forthwith   to   overrun   and    occupy    a 
country  whose  people  and  whose  resources  were  not  despised 
by  their  masters,  the  Egyptians.     And   so  far  as   we   can 
judge    from    the    evidence    before   us,    Moses   did    nothing 
of  the  kind.     There  was  not  the  slightest  suggestion  that 
the  Israelites  were  about  to  exchange  the  hardships  of   cap- 
tivity for  the  perils  of  an  arduous  invasion.     Wliat  they  did 
anticipate  was  that  they  would  find  a  home  amongst  kindred 
tribes,  and  possibly,  with  the  assistance  of  those  whom  they 
regarded  as  brethren,  be  enabled  to  e^stablish  themselves  in 
some  region  where  the  struggle  for  existence  would  prove 
less  keen  than  in  the  country  where  they  had  forfeited  their 
political  freedom,  and  where  they  were  compelled  to  eat  the 
bitter  bread  of  servitude.     But  Palestine  was  far  removed 
from  their  thoughts.      So  little  did  they  know  about  it,  that 
they  were  at  a  later  period  obliged  to  send  spies  to  acquaint 
themselves  with  the  nature  and  character  of  the  inhabitants, 
and  with  the  resources  of  the  country.     They  had  absolutely 
no  connection  with  its  people.     The  only  land  of   which  the 
son-in-law  of  Jethro  could  tell  them  was  that  where  he  him- 
self had  lived,  a  land  which  supplied  the  wants  of  a  pastoral 
people — a  land  in  which  they  would  receive  a  welcome,  and 
where  they  would  find  the  mountain  on  which  dwelt  the  God 
who  grieved  for  them  in  their  affliction,  who  bethought  him 
that  they  were  of  the  same  kindred  with  those  who  lived  and 
prospered  in  the  well-watered  and  fertile  region  which  that 
mountain  overlooked  ;  who  was  prepared  to  take  them  under 
his  gracious  protection,  and  to  renew  Vvith  them  the  covenant 
he  had  made  with   their  fathers.     From  the   land   of   the 
Hebrews  they  had  come  ;  to  the  land  of  the  Hebrews,  the 
abode  of  the  God  of  the  Hebrews,  they  were  about  to  return. 
"  Thou  shalt  come,  thou  and  the  elders  of  Israel,  unto  the 
king  of    Egypt,  and  ye  shall  say  unto  him,  Jahveh,  God  of 
the  Hebrews,  hath  met  with  us;  and  now  let  us  go,  we  be- 

Y    2 


324  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

seech  thee,  three  days'  journey  into  the  wilderness,  that  we 
may  sacrifice  to  Jahveh  our  God."^ 

A  consideration  of  Ai-k  worship,  which  from  the  records  in 
the  Pentateuch  would  seem  to  have  been  so  intimately  con- 
nected with  the  religion  of  the  Hebrews  during  their  migra- 
tion fi-om  Egypt,  does  not  come  within  the  scope  of  the  present 
inquiry.  It  is  generally  assumed  that  the  visible  manifes- 
tation of  the  glory  of  God,  the  Shechinah  of  the  Targiimists, 
appeared  over  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  or  in  the  Tabernacle. 
Without  entering  into  the  inquiry  how  or  when  Ark  worship 
came  to  be  established,  it  will  be  universally  conceded  that 
the  visible  manifestation  of  the  Deity  could  not  have  taken 
place  above  the  Ark  before  the  latter  was  constructed,  and  it 
is  not  sugfrested  that  the  Ark,  or  the  Tabernacle  which  con- 
tained  it,  was  introduced  until  subsequent  to  the  promulga- 
tion of  the  Law  on  Mount  Sinai.  The  word  Shechinah  is 
derived  from  the  Hebrew  scJiaclian  (to  dwell),  and  as  applied 
to  the  Deity,  means  the  place  of  bis  abode.  The  object  in 
constructing  tlie  Tabernacle  was  that  Jahveh  might  "  dwell  " 
among  his  people.f  Again,  there  is  the  promise,  "  I  will 
dwell  among  the  children  of  Israel,  and  be  their  God  ;"|  and 
in  the  decree  of  Cyrus  for  the  building  of  the  second 
temple  at  Jerusalem,  the  Persian  monarch  is  represented  as 
saying,  "  The  God  that  hath  caused  his  name  to  '  dwell' 
there."S  I'ut  whilst  the  released  Hebrews  were  still  on  their 
way  to  tlie  Mount  of  (iod,  they  naturally  entertained  the 
belief  that  Jahveh  "  dwelt"  there,  and  they  were  not  im- 
probably led  to  expect  that  some  manifestation  would  take 
place  upon  that  mountain  in  order  to  justify  the  story  which 
Moses  had  inld  them  of  his  mission.  But  all  doubt  is 
removed  on  this  pitint  by  the  statement   thati  on  the  conclu- 


*  Exod.  iii.  18. 
t  Exod.  XXV.  8.  X  l^xod.  xxix.  45.  §  Ezra  vi.  12. 


FROM  EGYPT,  325 

sion  of  tlie  covenant  between  Jaliveh  and  the  people, 
"  Moses  went  up  into  the  mount,  and  a  cloud  covered  the 
mount,  and  the  glory  of  Jahveh  abode  ('  dwelt')  upon 
Mount  Sinai,  and  the  cloud  covered  it  six  days.""""  It  is 
then  added,  that  on  "  the  seventh  day  he  called  unto  Moses 
out  of  the  midst  of  the  cloud,  and  the  sight  of  the  glory  of 
Jahveh  was  like  devouring  fire  on  the  top  of  the  mount  in 
the  eyes  of  the  children  of  IsraeL"t  This  is  not,  however, 
the  only  version  of  what  is  said  to  have  occurred  on  the  con- 
clusion of  the  solemn  covenant.  In  the  same  chapter,  but 
coming  from  a  different  source,  the  record  of  the  tradition 
takes  the  following  form  : — "  Then  went  up  Moses  and 
Aaron,  ISTadab  and  Abihu,  and  seventy  of  the  elders  of  Israel, 
and  they  saw  the  God  of  Israel ;  and  there  was  under  his 
feet  as  it  were  a  paved  work  of  a  sapphire  stone,  and  as  it 
were  the  body  of  heaven  in  his  clearness.  And  upon  the 
nobles  of  the  children  of  Israel  he  laid  not  his  hand  :  also 
they  saw  God,  and  did  eat  and  drink."| 

We  are  now  able  to  appreciate  what  took  place  on  the 
journey  from  Elim  to  Sinai,  where  Aaron  called  on  the 
children  of  Israel  to  appear  for  the  first  time  "  before 
Jaihveh,"  and  when  they  "  looked  toward  the  wilderness,  and 
behold,  the  glory  of  Jahveh  appeared  in  the  cloud."^  They 
then  saw  what  in  after-times  came  to  be  known  as  the 
Shechinah,  and  what  they  were  readily  induced  to  believe 
was  the  manifestation  of  the  glory  of  their  protecting  God. 
But  the  voice  of  tradition  afterwards  represented  in  varied 
language  the  astounding  phenomenon.  Whilst  some,  in  whom 
the  sentiment  of  awe  was  predominant,  pictured  to  them- 
selves the  Divine  manifestation  "  under  the  semblance  of 
"devouring  fire;"  others,  with  a  keener  sense  of  the  Beautiful, 


*  Exod.  xxiv.  15,  16. 
t  Exoi  xxiv.  17.  X  Exod.  xxiv.  9-1 1.  §  Exod.  xvi  10. 


326  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

aiitl  a  closer  aitj>ioach  to  the  True,  treasured  up  the  recollec- 
tion that  the  glory  of  their  God  seemed  to  rest  on  a  pave- 
ment of  sapphire,  and  to  be  lost  above  in  the  azure  vault  of 
heaven- 
It  has  1x36  n  noticed  that  the  expression  Hor-ha-Hnr,  ren- 
dered "  Mount  Hor,"  is  tlie  only  instance  in  the  Hebrew 
where  the  name  precedes  the  designation.  This  fact, 
coupled  Mith  the  notorious  unreliability  of  the  Masoretic 
j)ointing  in  proper  names,  may  well  induce  a  doubt  whether 
in  thus  describing  the  mountain  the  relaters  of  the  early 
traditions  intended  to  give  it  a  specific  name.  What  they 
did  call  it  Avas  much  more  probably  Har-ha-Har,  "  Mount, 
the  Mount,"  which  would  seem  to  have  been  an  idiomatic 
form  of  denoting  a  mountain  pre-eminently  distinguished.  It 
is  thus  used  to  denote  the  range  of  the  Lebanon,  on  the 
northern  border  of  Israel;*  and  in  the  traditions  of  the 
Exodus,  if  used  in  this  sense,  could  alone  have  been  applied 
to  the  Blount  of  God.  This  conclusion,  however,  corre- 
sponds with  tlie  chain  of  reasoning  which,  as  has  been  shown, 
points  to  the  site  of  Sinai, on  the  east  of  the  Araba.  Mount  Hor 
overlooks  this  valley,  and  if  Mount  Sinai  stood  in  the  same 
region,  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  the  voice  of  tradition 
would  have  given  to  any  neighbouring  mountain  the  proud 
designation  of  Har-ha-Har — the  mountain,  /car'  i^oKvv.  At 
the  commencement  of  the  Christian  era,  the  situation  of  the 
mountain  on  wliidi  tradition  declared  that  Aaron  had  died 
was  well  known  in  Judaea  ;  but  it  is  significant,  and  to  a 
certain  extent  corroborative  of  our  reading  of  its  Hebrew 
designation,  that  the  great  Jewish  historian  does  not  name 
it  as  Hor,  Imt  simply  delfecribes  it  as  a  very  liigii  mountain 
overlooking  the  metropolis  of  the  Arabs,  previously  known 
as  Arke,  but  then  called  Petra.t 

*  iS'um.  xxxiv.  7.  f  A.  J.  iv.  4.  7. 


FROM  EGYPT.  327 

To  the  identification  of  Mount  Hor  with  Mount  Sinai  it 
will  be  objected  with  much  force  that  it  is  strange,  and 
apparently  unaccountable,  that  the  Mount  of  God  should  have 
been  termed  in  certain  traditions  Sinai  or  Horeb,  and  never 
by  the  peculiar  designation  Hor,  or  Har-ha-Har,  whilst  in 
those  connected  with,  or  referring  to,  the  death  of  Aaron  the 
latter  expression  should  be  invariably  employed.  It  would 
be  no  less  idle  than  disingenuous  to  attempt  to  ignore  the 
gravity  of  this  objection.  It  must  therefore  be  carefully 
considered. 

It  will  be  seen  that  it  rests  primd  facie  on  the  assumption 
that  the  Pentateuch  is  the  work  of  a  single  hand,  and  that 
the  various  traditions  we  have  found  it  necessary  to  examine 
form  a  continuous  narrative.  But  its  fragmentary  character 
has  been  already  demonstrated,  and  if  the  Mount  of  God 
came  to  be  known  in  different  traditions  as  Sinai  and  Horeb, 
it  is  certainly  not  impossible  that  in  still  another  tradition 
it  should,  in  connection  with  a  particular  event,  be  referred 
to,  not  by  either  of  its  specific  names,  but  by  an  expression 
denoting  its  pre-eminence.  It  will  be  admitted  that  "  the 
Mount  of  Mounts  "  would  have  been  no  inappropriate  mode 
of  describing  the  Mount  of  God,  and  it  is  important  to  note 
that  the  mountain  on  which  Aaron  was  said  to  have  died, 
and  from  which  the  Israelites  set  forth  to  compass  the 
land  of  Edom  when  they  failed  to  obtain  permission  to  pass 
through  that  country,  is  by  a  number  of  circumstances  very 
closely  connected  with  thjB  Mount  of  God. 

It  was  at  Kadesh  the  Israelites  abode  many  days,  and 
from  that  point  they  turned  and  took  their  journey  by 
the  way  of  the  Eed  Sea.  Kadesh  was,  however,  in  close 
proximity  to  Mount  Hor,  and  both  equally  stood  on  the 
border  of  the  kingdom  of  Edom.*     But  Kadesh  was  also, 

*  Num.  XX.  16,  22,  23. 


328  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

as  we  have  seen,  in  the  immediate  neiglibourhood  of  Mount 
Sinai,  and  we  are  consequently  left  to  choose  between  two 
difficulties — namely,  to  identify  Mount  Hor  with  Mount 
Sinai,  notwithstanding  the  objection  above  referred  to,  or  to 
regard  them  as  distinct  mountains  but  in  the  same  region. 
For  many  reasons  it  seems  preferable  to  adopt  the  former 
alternative.  If  ]\Iount  Sinai  stood  in  Seir,  everything  points 
to  its  identification  with  that  lofty  mountain,  associated  by  a 
still  existing  tradition  with  the  death  of  Israel's  High  Priest. 

It  is  related  of  Miriam  that  she  died  in  Kadesli,'"'  and  of 
Aaron  that  he  died  on  Mount  Hor.t  We  have  elsewhere 
stated  our  reasons  for  suspecting  that  in  some  of  the  early 
traditions  which  in  later  times  became,  so  to  speak,  absorbed 
by  others  possessing  greater  elements  of  vitality,  Miriam 
played  a  much  more  prominent  part  in  the  migration  from 
■Egypt  tlian  from  the  materials  now  at  our  command  would 
seem  to  be  assigned  to  her.  It  is  at  all  events  somewhat 
curious  that,  according  to  the  voice  of  tradition,  she  and 
Aaron  vanish  from  the  scene  apparently  about  tlie  same 
time,  and  at  or  near  the  same  place ;  and  from  this,  no  less 
than  from  otlier  circumstances,  we  might  be  tempted  to 
in<juire  wliether  we  might  not  find  Miriam  connected  in  the 
traditions  of  some  of  the  sections  of  the  Hebrew  nation  with 
much  that  is  associated  in  the  existing  records  with  Aaron. 
This  in(iuiry  cannot,  liowever,  owing  to  absence  of  materials, 
be  nnw  instituted. 

That  Joscjtlius  -[jossessed  sources  of  information  in  dealing 
with  even  the  earlier  portions  of  the  history  of  liis  people 
wliich'are  no  longer  available  there  can  be  no  doubt,  and 
there  would  seem  to  have  been  still  preserved  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Christian  era  traditions  of  which  we  seek 
in  vain  tlie  truces  in  the  lUblical  records.  What  he  tells 
Ud  resuectinjj  the  death  of  Miriam  is  somewhat  curious. 
•  Num.  xjc.  I.  f  Num.  xx.  28. 


FROM  EGYPT.  329 

"  Miriam,"  writes  Joseplius,  "  was  buried  upon  a  certain 
mountain  which  they  called  Sin.'"^  We  have  it,  however, 
not  only  on  the  authority  of  the  Biblical  records,  that  she 
died  at  Kadesh,  which  is  identified  by  the  Targumists  with 
Eekam — the  latter  being  in  its  turn  identified  by  Joseplius 
and  others  with  Petra — but  we  have  the  statement  of 
Eusebius  that  in  his  time  the  place  of  her  sepulchre  was 
showTi  at  Kadesh.t  We  are  consequently  brought  face  to 
face  with  the  very  singular  fact  that,  according  to  a  tradition 
extant  in  the  time  of  Joseplius,  Miriam  was  buried  on  a 
mountain  named  Sin,  which  must  hdve  been  close  to  the 
supposed  place  of  her  death,  Kadesh-Eekam-Petra.  It  is 
impossible  to  avoid  the  conclusion  that  "  the  mountain," 
Har-ha-Har,  was  believed  to  be  the  last  resting-place  of  Aaron 
according  to  one  tradition,  and  of  Miriam  according  to  ano- 
ther; and  that  this  mountain  was  said  to  be  named  Sin,  a 
name  in  the  Hebrew  practically  indistinguishable  from  Sinai. 

A  much  more  formidable  objection  may  be  advanced  to 
the  identification  of  Hor  with  Sinai,  on  the  ground  that  if 
these  mountains  were  the  same,  some  intimation  to  that 
effect  would  appear  in  the  Scriptural  records,  or  in  the 
writings  of  Joseplius.  Mount  Hor  must  at  all  events  have 
been  perfectly  familiar  to  the  inhabitants  of  Jud?ea,  if, 
indeed,  it  was  not  actually  included  within  the  south  quarter 
of  Judah  ;  and  it  may  well  seem  incredible  that  the  tradi- 
tions connected  with  the  deaths  of  Aaron  and  of  Miriam 
should  have  survived  in  connection  with  the  mountain,  and 
should  have  apparently  overshadowed,  nay,  completely  ob- 
literated, the  recollection  of  the  far  more  striking  associations 
connected  with  the  Mount  of  God. 

In  order  to  deal  completely  with  this  objection,  it  would  be 
necessary  to  undertake  a  more  minute  examination  of  the  reli- 


*  A.  J.  iv.  4,  6.  t  Onomasticon,  s.  v. 


330  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

gion  of  tlie  nomad  tribes  which  had  settled  on  the  western 
fringe  of  Arabia  at  the  period  (jf  wliicli  we  are  now  treating 
tlian  is  possible  in  this  essay.  But,  without  entering  into 
details,  it  may  be  possible  to  explain  a  break  in  the  traditions 
of  Israel  wliich  primd  facie  would  seem  incredible. 

However  extraordinary  the  fact  may  seem,  everything 
indicates  that  the  Hebrew  settlers  in  the  fertile  regions,  on 
l)oth  sides  of  the  Jordan,  forgot  everything  connected  with 
the  locahty  of  the  Mount  where  they  had  concluded  a 
covenant  with  their  protecting  God.  They  never  performed 
pilgrimages  to  it,  tli^y  never  referred  to  it  except  in  general 
terms  as  being  in  Seir,  and,  so  far  as  the  Biblical  records 
can  be  trusted,  it  passed  into  complete  obKvion.  The 
account  of  the  visit  of  the  prophet  Elijah  is  a  transparent 
parable  drawn  on  the  lines  of  the  narrative  of  Moses,  and 
at  the  commencement  of  the  Christian  era  all  that  Paul  and 
Josephus  knew  about  the  mountain  was  that  it  was  somewhere 
in  Arabia — that  is,  east  of  the  Araba.  Two  centuries  and  a 
half  later  Eusebius  was  unable  to  give  more  specific  informa- 
tion respecting  the  Mount  of  God,  and  when,  a  little  later,  the 
(-oi)ts  found  it  convenient  to  place  the  mountain  in  the 
Sinaitic  peninsula,  there  was  no  one  in  a  position  to  oppose 
their  pretensions.  If,  however,  there  was  a  Mount  Sinai,  it 
must  have  stood  somewhere,  an'd  whether  it  was  in  the 
])eninsula  so  called,  or  in  the  Iduma^an  range,  or  elsewhere, 
we  are  equally  compelled  to  face  the  oblivion  and  neglect 
into  which  it  unquestionably  fell. 

The  causes  of  this  oblivion  were  various.  They  were  due, 
however,  mainly  to  tlie  principles  on  which  the  religion  of  the 
Semitic  tribes  rested,  and  ini  tlir  ;mtlii'(i]Miiii(>ipliism  and 
localisation  wliich  characterised  their  C()ncei)tion()f  the  Deity. 

The  religion  of  the  Semites,  not  excluding  the  races  then 
settled  in  Palestine,  rested  exclusively  on  contract.  A 
covenant  was  made,  with  all  the  necessary  formalities  observed 


FROM  EGYPT.  331 

in  ordinary  contracts,  between  the  protecting  deity  on  the 
one  hand  and  the  protected  people  on  the  other.  But  for 
this  ceremony  it  was  indispensable  that  there  should  be  a 
lociLs  where  the  protecting  deity  would  be  believed  to  be 
actually  present,  and  where  the  covenant  might  be  duly 
concluded.  But  the  beliefs  entertained  by  distinct  indepen- 
dent tribes  in  distinct  independent  deities,  necessarily  led  to 
the  multiplication  of  these  loci,  an  effect  further  enhanced 
by  the  variety  of  superstitions  respecting  the  character  of 
the  hens  in  which  the  deity  was  supposed  to  dwell.  Thus, 
the  deity  might  be  found  on  a  mountain,  or  in  a  tree,  or  in  a 
stone,  or  at  a  well.  The  multiplicity  of  holy  places  had,  how- 
ever, an  obvious  tendency  to  detract  from  the  reputation  of 
each,  regarded  individually,  whilst  the  necessity  of  having  the 
deity  ready  at  hand  for  the  purposes  of  consultation,  for  the  re- 
newal of  covenants,  for  the  decision  of  causes,  &c.,  led,  amongst 
other  consequences,  to  the  conception  that  he  might  accom- 
pany a  nomadic  tribe,  and  dwell  like  its  members  in  a  tent. 
If  the  Israelites  were  led  to  believe  that  they  would  find 
the  God  who  was  prepared  to  take  them  under  his  special 
care  on  a  particular  mountain,  it  was  totally  opposed  to  their 
conceptions,  that  after  having  entered  into  an  engagement  to 
serve  him,  they  could  proceed  on  their  journey  and  leave 
him  behind.  It  was  part  of  the  covenant  that  Jahveh 
should  accompany  his  chosen  people,  fight  their  battles  for 
them,  and  destroy  their  enemies.  We  find  Moses  address- 
ing Jahveh-^"  If  thy  presence  go  not  with  me,  carry  us  not 
up  hence.  For  wherein  shall  it  be  known  here  that  I  and  thy 
people  have  found  grace  in  thy  sight  ?"  And  Jahveh  pro- 
mises— "  My  presence  shall  go  with  you."'""  Elsewhere  the 
promise  takes  the  form — "  Behold,  I  send  an  angel  before 
thee,  to  keep  thee  in  the  way  ;"  and  "  I  will  send  my  fear  be- 
fore thee,  and  will  destroy  all  the  people  to  whom  thou  shalt 
*  Exod.  xxxiii.  14,  15. 


332  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

come."*  But  in  those  records  which  deal  vnXk\.  the  construction 
of  the  Tabernacle,  however  late  their  date,  we  have  a  com- 
plete recognition  of  the  existence  in  early  times  of  the  belief 
that  on  quitting  Sinai  the  protecting  Deity  personally  accom- 
jtanied  his  people — "  Let  them  make  me  a  sanctuary,  that 
I  may  dwell  among  them  ;"t  and  in  the  reign  of  David 
tlie  words  of  Jahveh  are  conveyed  through  tlie  prophet 
Xathan — "  "^^^lereas  I  have  not  dwelt  in  any  house  since  tlie 
time  that  I  brought  up  the  children  of  Israel  out  of  Egj'pt, 
even  to  this  day,  but  have  walked  in  a  tent  and  in  a 
tabernacle."! 

The  generally  accepted  doctrine  that  the  Almighty  con- 
cluded on  Mount  Sinai  a  covenant  with  a  numerically  small 
and  insignificant  section  of  the  human  race,  and  that  he 
there  promulgated  a  religion  which,  save  for  His  intervention, 
would  never  have  been  known  to  mankind,  has  necessarily 
tended  to  invest  the  mountain  with  an  importance  which 
pre-eminently  distinguishes  it  above  all  the  mountains  in  the 
world.  To  tliose  who  entertain  this  view,  it  seems  perfectly 
unaccountable  that  the  people  so  highly  favoured  sliould 
have  apparently  consigned  to  oblivion  the  mountain  on  wliich 
so  unexampled  a  manifestation  of  the  Divine  interest  in  their 
welfare  took  place,  standing  as  it  must  have  done  within 
c()ni])aratively  easy  reach  of  their  own  frontier ;  and  it  may 
at  once  be  conceded,  tliat  if  tlie  Hebrew  emigrants  from 
Egyi)t  entertained  the  belief  with  which  they  are  credited, 
their  subsequent  treatment  of  IMount  Sinai  furnishes  the 
most  striking  instance  in  the  history  of  the  world  of  human 
indillerence  and  neglect.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  un- 
doubted historical  fact  that  when  the  Israelites  turned  tlieir 
backs  on  Mount  Sinai  (wherever  situated)  they  troubletl 
themselves  no  more  about  it,  would,  even  if  it  stood  alone, 

•  Exod.  xxiii.  20,  27.  f  Exod.  xxv.  8.  J  2  Sam.  vii.  6. 


FROM  EGYPT.  333 

go  far  to  prove  that  they  did  not  view  what  took  place  at 
the  mountain  in  the  same  light  in  which  it  came  to  be 
regarded  long  centuries  afterwards. 

It  has  been  observed  by  Bishop  Butler  that  passive  habits 
grow  weak  by  repetition,"^  and  undoubtedly  the  passive  habit 
of  reverence  for  a  place  in  which  a  deity  was  supposed  to 
temporarily  abide,  or  where  some  visible  manifestation  of 
his  actual  presence  had  taken  place,  would  become  consider- 
ably weakened  by  a  belief  that  his  place  of  abode  was  being 
continually  shifted,  and  that  visible  manifestations  of  his  pre- 
sence were  of  frequent  occurrence.  But  this  is  precisely  the 
belief  that  was  entertained  by  the  Israelites,  and  not  only  by 
them,  but  by  the  various  tribes  with  which  they  came  in 
contact.  The  "  places "  where  one  protecting  deity  or 
another  could  be  found,  and  where  the  people  might  be 
summoned  to  appear  "  before,"  that  is,  in  the  actual  presence 
of  then-  god,  were  almost  countless  ;  and  consequently  events, 
however  awe-inspiring,  if  of  solitary  occurrence,  came  by  the 
force  of  repetition  to  lose  that  character,  and  the  places 
with  which  they  were  associated  naturally  fell  into  oblivion  or 
contempt.  How  much  the  Henotheism  of  the  Hebrews  con- 
tributed to  the  same  result  can  alone  be  dealt  with  in  an 
examination  of  their  religion  subsequent  to  the  settlement 
in  Canaan. 

And  thus  it  happened  that  when  accompanied,  as  they 
believed,  by  "the  presence"  of  their  protecting  God,  the 
Israelites  set  forth  from  Mount  Sinai,  the  then  abandoned 
home,  the  then  deserted  shrine,  ceased  to  occupy  a  place  in 
their  thoughts.  The  Tabernacle  supplanted  the  mountain, 
and  the  latter  was  forgotten,  save  by  the  poets,  who  in  later 
days  called  to  mind  the  original  dweUing-place  of  the  God 
of   Israel,  and  in  spirit-stirring   language   represented  him 


Analogy  of  Religion. 


334  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

sallying  forth  from   it  like   a  mighty  warrior  to  fight  the 
battles  of  his  people. 

But  the  reputation  for  sanctity  which,  however  arising, 
so  to  speak,  made  Mount  Sinai,  never  entirely  deserted  it. 
Those  who  went  away  might  forget  it,  but  those  who  re- 
mained could  never  divest  themselves  of  a  reverence  for  tlie 
Mount  of  Elohim.  It  continued  to  be  a  holy  mountain. 
Wlien  after  the  lapse  of  time  the  settlement  in  Canaan  liad 
been  effected,  and  it  was  recollected  that  not  even  the 
leaders  of  those  who  had  quitted  Egypt  had  been  permitted 
to  enter  the  Land  of  Promise,  some  consolation  was  found 
in  the  reflection  that  they  were  at  least  permitted  to  see, 
though  at  a  distance,  the  pleasant  hills  and  smiling  valleys 
afterwards  to  be  peopled  by  the  descendants  of  those  whom 
they  had  brought  out  of  the  house  of  bondage.  The  lofty 
mountain  overhanging  the  Araba  (the  mount  of  the  Bush,  the 
mount  of  the  Covenant),  had  been  ascended  by  their  leaders, 
and  from  its  summit  they  must  have  beheld  the  higldands 
of  Juda-a.  Accordingly,  in  the  tradition  of  Judah  it  was 
related  that  Jahveh  had  spoken  to  ]\Ioses  and  Aaron  in  "  the 
Mdunt  of  Mounts,"  and  had  told  tlie  latter  that  he  should 
die  there,  and  on  account  of  his  misconduct  should  not  be 
})ermitted  to  enter  the  Land  of  Promise.'"  It  is,  however, 
noticeable  tliat  througliout  the  traditions  of  the  migration 
from  Egypt  the  only  mountain  on  which  Jahveh  is  ever  re- 
presented as  speaking  with  Moses  or  Aaron  is  the  mountain 
on  which  he  dwelt,  Mount  Sinai ;  and  keeping  this  fact  in 
view,  and  cou])ling  it  with  the  descriptive  designation  of  the 
mountain  on  which  this  conversation  took  jjlace,  Har-ha-Hnr, 
we  tind  a  furlhi-r  cdulirniation  (tf  our  belief  that  tlic  niount 
of  the  Bush  and  tlie  mount  of  Aaron's  disappearance  were 
i(h>ntical.     But  subsequent  to  the  settlement  in  the  Land  of 

♦  Num.  XX.  23,  24. 


FROM  EGYPT.  335 

Promise,  and  when  the  mountain  had  ceased  to  be  the  abode 
of  the  protecting  Deity,  it  still  kept  a  place  in  the  memory 
of  the  people  as  the  scene  of  their  High  Priest's  death,  and 
as  the  spot  from  which  he  had  been  enabled  to  view  the 
land  he  was  not  permitted  to  enter.  The  situation  of  this 
mountain  was  never  forgotten.  It  stood  "  by  the  coast  of 
the  land  of  Edom."*  The  recollection  of  what,  according 
to  our  ideas,  was  the  less  striking  event,  eclipsed  that  of  the 
seemingly  more  important  of  the  two,  but  centuries  elapsed 
before  this  result  was  accomplished.  In  the  traditions  re- 
lating to  the  death  of  Aaron,  and  to  the  turning-point  at 
which  the  emigrants  from  Egypt  were  compelled  to  change 
their  route,  the  mountain  is  distinguished  by  a  title  of  honour. 
It  is,  "par  excellence,  "  the  Mount."  But  as  time  rolled  on 
this  archaic  mode  of  expression  ceased  to  be  intelligible,  tlie 
mountain  was  presumed  to  have  been  called  Hor,  and  the 
last  link  by  which  it  could  be  connected  with  Mount  Sinai 
was  thus  snapped  asunder. 

But  let  us  see  what  the  Deuteronomist  has  to  tell  us  on 
the  subject  of  Aaron's  death.  He  states,  evidently  on  the 
authority  of  some  old  record,  that  "  the  Israelites  journeyed 
from  Beeroth  of  the  children  of  Jaakan  to  Mosera  (A.  V.), 
there  Aaron  died  and  was  buried."t  The  parallel  statement 
in  the  tradition  recorded  in  Numbers  is  that  they  proceeded 
from  Kadesh  to  Har-ha-Har,  where  Aaron  died.t  We  have 
no  difficulty,  therefore,  in  identifying  with  Kadesh  "  the 
wells  {Beeroth)  of  the  cliildren  of  Jaakan."  But  Jaakan 
was  the  grandson  of  Seir,§  that  is  to  say,  Jaakan,  or  the 
place  in  which  the  Beni-Jaakan  lived,  was  in  Mount  Seir. 
The  springs  of  Kadesh,  the  waters  of  Massah  and  Meribah, 
the  wells  of  Esek  and  Sitnah,  had,  it  would  seem,  still 
another  name  by  which  they  were    known — namely,    the, 

*  Num.  sx.  23.  t  Deut.  x.  6.  +  Num.  xx.  22,  28. 

§  Gen.  xxxvi.  27  ;   i  Chron.  i.  42. 


336  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

wells  of  the  Beni-Jaakan.*  Now,  it  is  very  remarkable  that 
the  Deuteronomist  inserts  this  little  scrap  immediately  after 
ffivin'T  an  account  of  the  second  pair  of  Tables,  and  their 
consi<Tnmeut  to  the  Ark  previous  to  the  departure  from 
Mount  Horeb.t  It  is  thus  perfectly  clear  that  in  the 
seventh  century  B.C.  the  opinion,  whether  right  or  wrong, 
obtained  in  Judah  tliat  the  tradition  of  the  Law  took  place 
near  "  the  wells  of  the  Beni-Jaakan,"  otherwise  known  as 
Kadesh,  and  situated  in  Seir,  on  the  border  of  Edom.  But 
where  did  Aaron  die  ?  Following  the  Authorised  Version, 
it  would  appear  that  from  "the  wells  of  the  Beni-Jaakan" 
the  Israelites  proceeded  to  a  place  called  Mosera,  where 
Aaron's  death  took  place.  The  conflict  between  this 
statement  and  that  in  the  Book  of  Numbers  awakens 
our  suspicion.  Nothing  can  be  more  circumstantial  or 
precise  than  the  account  of  Aaron's  death  on  Har-ha-Har, 
which  was  unquestionably  a  mountain.  Where,  it  will 
then  be  asked,  was  Mosera,  and  how  came  this  name  to  be 
employed  apparently  as  a  synonym  for  Har-ha-Har  ? 

If  we  turn  to  the  Septuagint  version,  we  shall  find  that 
the  Greek  translators  interpreted  this  passage  differently  and 
more  correctly.  They  failed  to  see  any  ground  for  inserting 
the  preposition  "  to  "  between  the  words  "  Beni-Jaakan"  and 
"  Mosera,"  and  accordingly  rendered  the  passage — "  And  the 


•  May  not  Jaakan  be  a  corruption  of  Isaac,  the  V  Tzade  having 
been  transcribed  ]}  Aiu  ?  If  this  were  so,  we  should  have  con- 
cluaive  confirmation  that  the  wells  of  Isaac,  afterwards  known  as 
the  wells  of  the  IJoni-Isaac,  were  in  Idunia3a.  According  to  Eusebius, 
the  wells  here  referred  to  were  in  his  time  pointed  out  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Pctra  [Onomasticon,  s.v.  Bij^wd),  and  were  unquestion- 
ably, according  to  Hebrew  tradition,  close  to,  if  not  identical  with,  the 
place  where  Aaron  was  last  seen  by  the  people.  Eusebius  says  that 
Aaron  died  at  the  Bceroth  Beni-Jaakan,  but,  apparently  to  har- 
monise this  statement  with  the  tradition  of  Mount  Hor,  places  the 
wells  on  the  top  of  the  mountain. 

t  Dout.  X.  1-5. 


FROM  EGYPT.  337 

children  of  Israel  took  their  journey  from  Beeroth  of  the 
children  of  Jaakim  Misadai;  there  Aaron  died,  and  there  he 
was  buried  ....  from  thence  they  journeyed  to  Gadgad."-^ 
In  what  sense  the  word  Misadai  or  Mosera,  which- 
ever it  may  be,  is  to  be  understood  we  have  no  means  of 
knowing.  We  can,  however,  have  no  hesitation  in  following 
the  example  of  the  LXX.  in  interpreting  the  Hebrew  text, 
and  coupling  it  with  the  preceding  words  Beni- Jaakan ;  we 
thus  discard  the  suggestion  that  Mosera  was  a  distinct  station, 
as  not  only  unsupported,  but  in  du*ect  conflict  with  the  un- 
equivocal tradition  tliat  the  place  of  Aaron's  death  was  Har- 
ha-Har.  But  if  this  be  the  true  reading  of  the  passage,  what 
a  flood  of  light  is  thrown  on  the  identity  of  Mount  Horeb 
and  Har-ha-Har.  According  to  the  Deuteronomist's  concep- 
tion, after  Moses  came  down  from  the  Mount  of  God  with 
the  second  set  of  Tables  and  placed  them  in  the  Ark,  the 
Israelites  made  their  first  journey  from  the  Beeroth  of  the 
Beni-Jaakan  (Mosera-Misadai)  ;  but  before  the  narrator 
mentions  the  next  station  he  says  that  "  there" — where? — 
at  the  place  where  the  Israelites  were  encamped  when  Moses 
came  down  from  the  mount — "  the  weUs  of  the  Beni- 
Jaakan" — Aaron  died  and  was  buried.  But  the  general 
expression  "  there "  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  belief 
that  Aaron  died  on  the  mountain  at  whose  foot  the 
Israelites  were  encamped.  It  was  "there,"  at  "the  wells 
of  the  Beni-Jaakan" — i.e.,  Kadesh — that  the  people  saw 
Aaron  for  the  last  time,  when  he  was  summoned  to  ascend 
the  mount. 

*  Kai  01  vlo\  'l(TpaT]X  anr^pav  e.<  ^rjpuid  viwv  'laKifj.  Mto-aSat,  (Ke'i  dnedavev 
'Aapav,  KOL  frdc})!]  fKfi,  ....  tKeWev  anrjpav  els  TndydB.  The  LXX.  here, 
as  in  so  many  other  instances,  saw  1  Daleth  where  the  Masorites  saw 
"I  liesh,  hence  Misadai  instead  of  Misarai.  They  also  gave  the  vowel 
point  i  to  the  Vau  where  the  Masorites  supplied  an  0,  and  an  a  after 
the  Samech  where  the  Masoretic  pointing  is  e.  When  names  fell  into 
oblivion,  their  original  vocalisation  was  naturally  lost. 

Z 


338  THE  HEBREW  MIGRA  TIOX 

The  author  of  the  Itinerary  in  the  Book  of  Xunibers  ap  - 
parently  treats  Mosera  as  a  distinct  station,  and  his  authority 
may  possihly  be  cited  to  overthrow  the  conclusion  at  \vliich 
we  have  arrived.  An  attentive  perusal  of  the  Itinerary  will, 
however,  show  that  in  this,  as  in  so  many  other  instances, 
tlie  scribe  was  totally  ignorant  of  the  materials  which  he 
was  manipulating.  According  to  him,  the  Israelites  followed 
the  route  Hashmonah — Moseroth — Beni-Jaakan — Hor-ha- 
gidgad — Jotbathah — Ebronah  —  Ezion-gaber  —  Kadesh  — 
Mount  Hor,'"'  The  juxta-position  of  Moseroth  to  Beni- 
Jaakan,  Hor-hagidgad  and  Jotbathah — the  two  latter  being 
evidently  the  Gudgodali  and  Jotbath  of  the  Deuteronomist+ — 
places  it  beyond  a  doubt  that  the  Moserotli  of  the  one  is  the 
Mosera  of  the  other ;  but  it  is  no  less  clear  that  Mosera- 
Moseroth  is  separated  by  seven  stations  from  Mount  Hor, 
and  not  only  was  it  impossible  for  Aaron  to  have  died  at 
two  places  so  far  apart,  but  it  is  inconceivable  that  any  one 
ever  could  have  thought  he  did.  We  are  also  struck  by  the 
curious  fact  -that  the  author  of  the  Itinerary  takes  the 
Israelites  in  the  wrong  direction — namely,  from  ]\Ioserotli 
to  Beni-Jaakan,  instead  of,  according  to  the  present  inter- 
pretation of  Deut.  X.  6,  from  r.eni-Jaakan  to  Mosera.  How 
this  wonderful  production  found  its  way  into  tlie  Hebrew 
records  can  only  be  accounted  for  by  the  supposition  that  at 
the  time  of  its  compilation  (probably  during  the  Captivity) 
there  were  none  sufUciently  conversant  witli  the  true  inter- 
])retation  of  the  traditions  of  the  Exodus,  or  with  the  topo- 
grajthy  of  the  region  traversed  by  tlie  Israelites,  to  ])oint  out 
its  many  inaccuracies.t 

*  Num.  xxxiii.  30-37. 

t  Deut.  X.  7.  Tills  Gudgodah  is  probably  the  Zadogatta  of  the 
Tabula  Penthujeriana  (see  ante,  p.  238),  close  to  Petra. 

X  It  is  somewhat  singular  that  the  compiler  of  the  Itinerary  leaves 
out  the  word  Bcoroth,  which  jtreeedes  Beui-Jiuikan  in  Deuteronomy, 
and  briugs  in  Most-rotli  out  of  its   order.      This   affords  matter  for 


FROM  EGYPT,  339 

We  may  now  finally  dismiss  from  onr  consideration  the 
locality  of  the  Mount  of  God.  It  has  stood  forth  prominently 
as  a  beacon  to  guide  us  on  our  path,  and  we  have  been 
directed  towards  it  by  the  rays  still  reflected  from  its  earliest 
traditions,  though  they  are  upwards  of  three  thousand  years 
old.  We  have  seen  as  the  residt,  not  of  a  balance  of 
evidence,  but  of  an  accumulation  of  all  the  testimony  which 
possesses  any  real  value,  that  Mount  Sinai  stood  in  what  was 
afterwards  known  as  Idumsea,  and  we  have  also  seen  that  it 
was  to  Iduniffia  that  the  emigrants  from  Egypt  immediately 
directed  tlieir  steps.  Om^  road  has  not  been  free  from  diffi- 
culties, but  by  patience,  we  believe,  that  they  have  been 
successfully  surmounted.  Absolute  exactitude  cannot  be 
hoped  for  even  by  the  most  sanguine  in  such  an  investiga- 
tion as  that  in  which  we  have  been  engaged ;  but  if  doubtful 
points  still  remain  which  seem  to  demand  fm'ther  elucidation, 
if  obstacles  still  obtrude  themselves   which   seem  to  need 


ciirious  speculation.  It  seems  liighly  prol)able  that  in  tlie  original 
text  of  the  Deuteronomist,  the  sentence  ran — "  And  the  children  of 
Israel  journeyed  from  Beeroth  Beni-Jaakan;  there  Aaron  died."  The 
compiler  of  the  Itinerary,  or  some  one  whose  materials  he  used,  may 
have  mistaken  in  the  scroll  before  him  mX3D,  mi  Beeroth  (from 
Beeroth,  "the  wells")  for  flllDD,  Moseroth,  which  latter  he  presumed 
was  the  name  of  a  station  which  preceded  that  of  Beni-Jaakan,  and 
he  thus  made  Beni-Jaakan,  "  the  children  of  Jaakan,"  serve  as  the 
name  of  a  separate  stage  on  the  journey.  The  record  preserved  by 
the  Deuteronomist  is  far  more  intelligible,  from  "  the  wells  of  the  children 
of  Jaakan"  (mi  Beeroth  Beni-Jaakan).  But  at  a  later  date  the  text 
of  the  Deuteronomist  became  corrupted  by  the  interpolation  of 
what  was  intended  by  the  scribe  to  be  a  species  of  marginal  note. 
Seeing  the  conflict  between  the  account  in  the  Itinerary  and  that  in 
Deuteronomy,  he  apparently  inserted  in  the  latter  after  the  words 
Beeroth  Beni-Jaakan,  the  word  Moserah  in  a  suggestive  way  as  a 
place  mentioned  in  a  different  record,  and  which  seemed  to  him  to  have 
been  confounded  by  another  writer  with  "  Beeroth"  Beni-Jaakan. 
The  Masorites  give  eight  instances  in  which  entire  words  have  crept 
into  the  text  (Ruth  iii.  12;  2  Sam.  xiii.  33;  2  Sam.  xv.  21  ;  2  Kings 
v.  18;  Jer.  xxxviii.  16;  Jer.  xxxix.  12;  Jer.  li.  3;  Ezek.  xlviii.  16). 

Z2 


340  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

removal,  we  believe  that  they  are  few  and  insignificant  com- 
l)areJ  with  those  which  even  the  warmest  supporters  of 
existing  theories  are  oLliged  to  admit  beset  their  own  path. 
It  is  unnecessary,  either  for  tlie  vindication  of  God  or  in  the 
interests  of  liistorical  truth,  to  make  the  divinely-led  people 
visit  the  desolate  wilderness  wliich  constitutes  the  greater 
])ortion  of  the  Sinaitic  peninsula.  They  not  only  had  no 
business  there,  but  they  never  went  there ;  and  not  a  single 
passage  can  be  cited  from  the  Scriptural  records,  from  the 
time  of  the  Exodus  to  the  Apostolic  age,  to  show  that  any 
jierson,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile,  ever  thought  they  entered 
that  region.  To  quote  once  more  the  concise  language,  put 
into  the  moutli  of  Jephthah,  on  quitting  Eg}7:)t  "  they 
walked  through  the  wilderness  unto  tlie  lied  Sea,  and  came 
to  Kadesh;"*  and  at  or  near  Kadesh  they  must  have  found  tlie 
Mount  of  God,  if  it  played  any  part  in  the  history  of  the 
emigration  fi'om  Egypt.  To  Je^jhthah's  mind,  Kadesh  and 
Sinai  were  identical ;  or,  in  other  words,  Kadesh  was  the 
l)lace  where  the  emigrants  took  up  their  temporary  abode  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  the  Mount  of  God,  which  it  would  have 
been  a  desecration  for  any  of  the  people  to  have  ascended. 

There  is  something  amusing  in  the  anxiety  which  has 
been  always  manifested  by  the  diligent  searchers  after  "  the 
true  Momit  Sinai,"  to  find  standing-room  for  the  two  or  three 
millions  of  people  who  were  supposed  to  have  encamj^ed  at 
its  foot,  and  to  have  there  heard  the  Ten  Commandments 
uttered  by  the  voice  of  the  Almighty.  Perhaps,  if  their 
reverence  for  the  Deity  was  somewhat  keener,  they  might  be 
struck  by  the  in-ofanity  of  suggesting  that  God  actually 
uttered  for  the  exebisive  benefit  of  a  few  of  his  creatures 
the  precepts  contained  in  the  Decalogue.f  i\Ian  did  not  then 

*  Jud.  xi.  i6. 
t  In  the  125U1  chn]>tor  of  the  Ej^yptiau  Ritual  of  the  Dead,  which 
eiittttid  loug  bct'ure  the  Exodus,  the  suul  of  a  dead  man  is  represented 


FROM  EGYPT.  34i 

want  to  be  made  acquainted  with  the  social  obligations 
contained  in  the  latter  portion,  whilst  the  remainder  im- 
posed special  duties  towards  the  protecting  Deity  which 
were  then  familiar  to  all  the  nomadic  tribes.  But  though 
the  more  thoughtful  might  give  up  the  preposterous  idea 
of  the  Deity  speaking  to  a  number  of  people  with  the 
voice  of  a  man,  they  may  not  so  readily  abandon  the 
numerical  estimate  of  the  released  captives.  To  them  it 
may  be  a  consolation  to  know  that  there  was  ample  ac- 
commodation for  their  numerous  host,  either  in  the  Araba 
or  on  the  east  side  of  Mount  Hof,  in  the  mountain  en- 
closed plain  which  became  the  site  of  the  Nabathcean 
capital. 

The  peculiar  conformation  of  Mount  Hor — a  mount  im- 
posed upon  a  mount — tempts  one  to  inquire  whether  the 
upper  portion  may  not  have  been  exclusively  "  the  Mount," 
so  frequently  referred  to  as  the  place  where  Jahveh  dwelt. 
It  will  be  recollected  that  the  plateau  overhanging  Petra  on 
the  south-west  is  known  as  Sutuln  Harun,  "Aaron's  Plains." 
According  to  an  old  tradition,  Moses  inadvertently  led  his 
flock  to  the  back  side  of  the  midhhar,  and  came  to  the  Mount 
of  God.  This  would  seem  to  indicate  that  he  was  pasturing 
his  flock  on  tlifi  table-land  referred  to  when  he  saw  the  phe- 
nomenon of  the  burning  bush.  It  is  not  necessary  to  sup- 
pose that  this  occurrence  existed  only  in  the  inventive 
imagination  of  the  original  narrator  of  the  story.  The 
play  of  the  sun's  rays  on'  the  red  sandstone  produced  the 
appearance  of  fire,  whilst  the  bushes  on  the  rocks  remained 
unconsumed.  The  optical  illusion  is  one  which  any  curious 
traveller  might  doubtless  easily  witness  for  himself.     When 

as  declaring  in  presence  of  Osiris  tliat  he  lias  not  committed  a  variety 
of  sins.  Amongst  the  number  of  declarations  the  following  may  be 
cited:  "I  have  not  borne  false  witness  in  a  place  of  justice.  I  have 
not  killed.     I  have  not  committed  adultery.     I  have  not  stolen." 


342  THE  HEBRE  \V  MIGRA  TION  FROM  EG  YP T. 

tlie  covenant  was  sul)sef|uently  concliuled,  it  is  possible  that 
the  people  may  have  been  assembled  upon  "Aaron's  Plains," 
and  that  from  thence  Moses  and  his  brother  went  up  to 
take  part  in  the  final  ceremony  by  which  the  compact  be- 
tween the  protecting  God  and  the  protected  people  was  sup- 
posed to  have  been  sealed  ia  nomadic  fashion.* 


*  Exod.  xxiv.  II.  "  And  they  did  eat  and  drink."  One  of  the  oldest 
relics  of  nomadism,  preserved  by  the  Bedouins  to  the  present  day,  is 
the  custom  of  eating  together  on  the  occasion  of  a  league  or  covenant 
between  different  individuals.  A  number  of  illustrations  are  afforded 
in  the  Scriptural  records.  In  the  covenants  between  Isaac  and 
Abimelech  (Gen.  xxvi.  30),  between  Laban  and  Jacob  (Gen.  xxxi.  46), 
between  Jethro  the  Sheikh  of  the  Kenites  and  the  leaders  of  the 
Israelites  (Exod.  xviii.  12),  between  Judah  and  Israel,  when  the 
sovereignty  over  both  kingdoms  was  secured  to  Da%nd  by  a  covenant 
of  salt  (2  Chron.  xiii.  5),  and  in  other  instances  the  contracting  parties 
partook  of  food  together. 


343 


CHAPTER    XII. 

WHEN  the  captive  Hebrews  quitted  Egypt  tliey  had 
very  confused  ideas,  if  indeed  they  had  any  ideas 
at  all,  where  they  were  going.  They  placed  themselves  ex- 
clusively in  the  hands  of  their  leadefs,  and  at  times  they 
bitterly  regretted  what  they  came  to  think  was  misplaced 
confidence.  The  toilsome  journey  across  the  desert  of  Shur, 
with  its  attendant  hardships,  exhausted  their  strength  and 
damped  their  spirits,  and  when  they  toiled  over  the  sand- 
dunes  of  the  Araba  their  patience  at  length  gave  way. 
But  on  entering  the  valleys  of  Seir  the  aspect  of  things 
became  brighter,  and  from  this  point  we  hear  no  more  of 
their  murmurings,  at  least  against  natural  privations."^ 
Here  they  would  seem  to  have  obtained  all  that  was  sufh- 
cient  for  then-  simple  wants,  and  to  have  secured  the  friend- 
ship of  the  Kenites,  in  whose  territory  they  temporarily 
sojourned.  But  this  stay  could  not  be  perpetual.  Althougli 
their  numbers  were  far  less  than  those  popularly  supposed, 
they  found  the  narrow  strip  between  the  Araba  and  the 
eastern  desert  already  occupied  by  tribes  more  or  less  closely 
connected  with  them  by  descent.  It  was  necessary  to  con- 
tinue their  migration,  and  one  of  two  courses  lay  open — 
namely,  to  push  their  way  in  a  north-westerly  direction 
round  the  southern  extremity  of  the  Dead  Sea  into  Canaan, 
or  to  proceed  eastwards  towards  the  pastures  lying  beyond 
the  Jordan.     This  alternative  was  forced  upon  them  at  a 


*  Save  possibly  wlien  tliey  had  to  quit  Kadesh,  and  retracing  their 
steps  descend  the  Araba  to  the  Gulf  of  Akaba  (Num.  xxi.  4,  5). 


344  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

time  after  tlieir  arrival  in   Seir,  the  duration  of  which  we 
liave  no  means  of  estimating. 

As  soon,  however,  as  it  became  apparent  that  the  onward 
movement  should  he  continued,  their  leaders  adojjted  the 
prudent  step  of  despatching  spies  for  the  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining the  resources  of, the  neighbouring  regions,  and  ac- 
(^uainting  themselves  with  the  denominations  and  physical 
characteristics  of  the  tribes  which  inhabited  them.     These 
spies   would  appear    to    have   been  sent  into   the  country 
wliich  subsequently   was  occupied  by  the  tribe  of  Judah, 
and    they   are    said    to    have  made  a  report  favourable  as 
regarded  the  resources  of  the  land,  but  unfavourable  as  re- 
garded the  difficulties  to  be  surmounted.*      Tradition  records 
that   "  the   people"  were  unanimous  in  declaring  that  the 
project  of  invasion  entertained  by  their  leaders  was  hopeless, 
and  once  more  they  bitterly  reproached   Moses  and  Aaron 
for  having  induced  them  to  quit  Egypt.t     But  this  version 
of  what  actually  happened  is  open  to  grave  suspicion,  and 
conflicts  with  another  tradition.      If  the  people  did  in  fact 
refuse  to  invade  Canaan  from  the  south,  we  should  have 
expected  that  they  would  thereupon  have  directed  their  at- 
tention towards  the  Traus-Jordanic  region,  to  which,  as  we 
know,  they  ultimately  turned  their  steps.      But  beyond  all 
(loul)t  the  attempt  at  invasion  was  made.     If  they  refused 
to  listen  to  the  exhortations  of  their  leaders,  it  is  impossible 
to  account  for  the  attack  made  upon  the  Amalekites  and 
Canaanites  who  occupied  the  region  barring  the  entrance  to  the 
Cis-Jordanic  region.;}:    An  endeavour  is  made  in  Deuteronomy 
to  exi)lain  the  inconsistency  on  the  ground  that,  wlieu  the 
people  were  reproached  by  Moses  for  their  want  of  confi- 
dence   in    Jahveli,   and  told  that,  in  consequence    of  their 


*  Num.  liii.  27,  28.  f  Num.  xiv.  1-4. 

+  Num.  xiv.  40-45. 


FROM  EGYPT.  345 

misconduct  they  should  not  be  permitted  to  enter  the  Land 
of  Promise,  they  repented,  and  set  themselves  in  battle 
array,  but  were  then  told  that  Jahveh  was  no  longer  with 
them ;  and  so,  having  rashly  attacked  their  foes,  were  utterly 
routed.  "^  The  record  in  Numbers,  though  not  so  explicit, 
wdll  bear  the  same  interpretation.  But  it  is  easy  to  see 
that  in  later  tunes,  when  the  settlement  in  Canaan  had  been 
accomplished,  the  traditions  naturally  moulded  themselves 
into  a  form  which  made  the  defeat  of  the  Hebrews  not  incon- 
sistent with  the  might  of  their  protecting  God,  and  at  the 
same  time  gave  a  plausible  explanation  of  the  notorious  fact 
that  the  emigrants  from  Egypt  did  not  live  to  enter  Canaan. 
The  so-called  Waters  of  Strife  and  Contention  supplied  the 
basis  for  the  tradition  that  Moses  and  Aaron  were  excluded 
from  the  Land  of  Promise,  and  the  serious  reverse  sustained 
by  the  Hebrews  on  their  first  attempt  to  force  an  entrance 
into  the  land  which  subsequently  became  theirs,  furnished  a 
convenient  foundation  for  the  story  that  the  attack  had  been 
made  in  direct  opposition  to  the  expressed  will  of  their  God, 
through  his  displeasure  at  their  previous  refusal  to  do  that 
to  which  they  subsequently  gave  their  assent.  The  Israel- 
ites were  much  too  superstitious  to  have  ventured  to  attack 
then'  enemies  in  the  teeth  of  an  assurance  from  Moses  that 
Jahveh  would  not  give  liis  assistance,  and  we  must  therefore 
conclude  that  the  response  of  the  oracle  was  propitious,  but 
the  result  disastrous.  The  Israelites  were,  however,  very  in- 
dignant at  being  defeated,-  and  seem  to  have  contemplated 
putting  theii'  leaders  to  death,  electing  a  new  captain,  and 
returning  to  Egypt.t  The  phenomena  attending  the  con- 
clusion of  the  covenant  at  Mount  Sinai  must  have  been 
very  highly  coloured  by  the  voice  of  tradition  since  their 
effect  was  so  speedily  forgotten. 


*  Deut.  i.  41-44.  t  Num.  xiv.  4,  10. 


346  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

All  apparently  different  account  of  this  battle  is  given  in 
a  very  curious  fragment  contained  in  the  Book  of  Numbers. 
It  is  stated  that  when  King  Arad  the  Canaanite  heard  that 
Israel  followed  in  the  footsteps  of  the  spies,  he  fought  against 
the  invaders,  and  took  some  of  them  prisoners  ;  and  thereupon 
Israel  made  a  vow  to   utterly  destroy  the    Canaanites   and 
their  cities,  if  Jahveh  would  deliver  them  into  their  hands. 
Jalivc'h  hearkened   to    the   voice  of  Israel,  the  Canaanites 
were  overcome,  and  they  and  their  cities  were   destroyed, 
wherefore  the  place  was  named  Hormah.*     This  was,  how- 
ever, the  place  to  which,  according  to  the  other  accounts,  the 
Israelites  were  driven  after  their  defeat,  and  was  situated  in 
Seir;  and  the  doubt  is  raised  in  our  mind  whether  the  in- 
vasion may  not  have  been  partially  successful — that  is  to  say, 
whether  a  portion  of  the  invading  force  may  not  have  efiected 
a  lodgment  in  the  enemies'  country.     It  is  about  this  time 
that  the  severance  between  the  two  great  sections,  which 
subsequently  came  to  be  known  as  Judah  and  Israel,  took 
l)lace.     This  is,  however,  a  matter    which   cannot  be   dealt 
with  in  this  treatise.    It  is  somewhat  singular  that  the  author 
of  the  78  th  Psalm,t  repeating  the  "dark  sayings  of  old,"  and 

*  Num.  xxi.  I,  3. 
t  1*«.  Ixxviii.  9.  The  translation  of  this  verse  is  confessedly  very 
difficult.  Ewald  renders  it,  "  The  children  of  Ephraim,  carrying  slack 
l)ows,  turned  back  in  the  day  of  battle."  From  the  Targum  of  the 
pseudo-Jonathan,  it  would  seem  that  the  affair  referred  to  was  a 
cattle-lifting  expedition,  conducted  against  the  Philistines  by  no  less 
than  two  hundred  thousand  of  the  Ephraimites  whilst  still  in  cap- 
tivity in  Egypt.  The  latter  were  all  killod,  because  they  transgressed 
the  woril  of  Jahveh  in  rpiitting  Egypt  throe  years  before  the  appointed 
terniinati.iu  of  their  servitude.  It  was  in  order  to  avoi<i  the  shock  which 
would  have  been  sustained  by  their  brethren  on  seeing  their  bones,  that 
Moses  did  not  lead  the  Israelites  by  the  direct  road  into  Canaan.  It  is 
us  well  to  make  an  explanation  exhaustive  when  one  is  about  it,  and 
the  Targumist  adds  that  these  are  the  dry  bones  restored  to  life  by 
the  word  of  Jahveh  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  prophet 
E/ekiel  {Tunj.  l\tl.  Ex.  xiii.).  The  raid  of  the  Ephraimites  is  probably 
alluded  to  in  i  Chrou.  vii.  21. 


FROM  EGYPT.  347 

referring  to  the  incidents  of  the  migration  from  Egypt,  records 
that  "  the  children  of  Ephraim,  being  armed  and  carrying 
bows,  turned  back  in  the  day  of  battle."  There  is  no  reference 
to  such  an  occurrence  elsewhere  in  the  Scriptural  records,  but 
as  it  is  possible  that  in  this  invasion  of  Canaan  from  the 
south,  the  Ephraimites — that  is,  the  stock  of  the  future  Beni- 
Israel — "turned  back;"  and  as  they  unquestionably  aban- 
doned the  project  of  forcing  their  way  by  this  route  into  the 
coveted  territory  lying  to  the  west  of  the  Dead  Sea,  this  may 
be  the  episode  referred  to. 

The  attempt  to  invade  Canaan  from  *the  south  having 
failed,  the  position  of  the  emigrants  became  one  of  serious 
embarrassment  and  peril.  They  found  it  impossible  to  break 
through  the  hostile  tribes  which  barred  their  advance  in 
that  direction.  They  could  not  remain  where  they  were, 
and  no  course  seemed  open  to  them  but  to  elect  a  captain, 
under  whose  guidance  they  might  retrace  their  steps  to 
Egy]^)t.  For  their  part,  they  had  no  apprehensions  about  the 
reception  they  would  receive  from  their  former  masters.  They 
bore  no  enmity  to  the  Egyptians,  and  they  knew  of  no 
reason  why  the  Egyptians  should  bear  any  enmity  to  them. 
They  were  unacquainted  with  the  marvellous  stories  which 
in  after-times  national  pride  and  piety  conjured  up,  to  repre- 
sent their  God  compelling  the  Pharaoh  to  let  his  people  go, 
and  luring  him  on  from  day  to  day  to  certain  destruction. 
They  had  been  sojourners  in  Egypt,  they  had  been  strangers 
in  that  land,  and  long  centuries  afterwards  the  hospitahty 
they  had  received  was  kept  in  kindly  remembrance.*  It 
was  not,  therefore,  petulance  or  despair  which  at  this  crisis 
prompted  a  return  to  Egypt.  On  grounds  of  expediency, 
many  of  the  Hebrews  may  well  have  thought  that  it  was 
the  wisest  course  to  adopt.     Their  descendants,  looking  back 


*  Deut.  xxiii.  7,  8. 


348  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

from  tlie  theatre  of  accomplished  facts,  judged  them  harshly, 
and  posterity  has  made  it  a  point  of  religious  duty  to  endorse 
that  verdict.  But  the  impartial  historian  will  form  a 
dini'rent  opinion  of  the  men  who  quitted  Eg}'pt.  Enervated 
liy  their  servitude  they  may  have  been,  and  many  amongst 
tliem  were  no  doubt  easily  discouraged.  But  there  was 
sterner  and  stouter  stuff  to  be  found  amongst  their  ranks. 
Tliey  had  leaders  endowed  with  indomitable  energy,  and  the 
very  nature  of  the  existence  led  by  the  mass  of  the  people 
in  Egypt,  rendered  the  latter  all  the  more  docile  instru- 
ments in  their  hands. 

It  was  known  to  the  tribes  then  settled  in  Idumsea  that 
fertile  and  well-watered  plains  stretched  to  the  north-east 
over  the  table-land  wliicli  overhung  the  Jordan.  When 
some  centuries  previously  the  Teraliitic  settlers  to  the  south 
of  the  Dead  Sea  found  the  land  insufficient  to  supply  their 
wants,  the  surplus  population  forced  their  way  into  the 
]ilain  and  adjoining  highlands.*  Their  inroad  was  probably 
not  unresisted  by  the  then  occupants  of  this  region,  but  at  a 
later  period  a  warlike  tribe  known  as  the  Amorites  succeeded 
in  (hiving  the  intruders  back,  deprived  them  of  a  considerable 
jtortion  of  their  recently  acquired  territory,  and  obliged  them 
L(j  withdraw  behind  tlie  Arnon,  an  insignificant  river  empty- 
ing itself  into  the  Dead  Sea.t  '  But  what  had  been  done  in 
times  past  by  the  descendants  of  the  emigrants  from  tlie 
far  East  might  be  done  again.  The  Israelite  leaders  formed 
the  project  of  obtaining  permission  to  pass  througli  the 
intervening  territory  of  Edom  and  Moab,  trusting  by  further 
negotiation  to  secure  a  passage  tlirough  the  land  of  tlie 
Amorites  to  the  sparsely  populated  region  stretclung  to- 
wards the  Syrian  desert.  It  was  necessary,  in  order  to 
attain    tins  object,  to  give  assurances  to  the  kings  of  these 

•  Gen.  xiii.  ii.  f  :Num.  xxi.  26-30. 


FROM  EGYPT.  349 

countries  to  respect  their  territory.  Ties  of  kindred,  no  less 
than  motives  of  expediency,  prompted  tliis  com-se  in  dealing 
with  Edom  and  Moab.  The  Elohim  of  the  Hebrews  had 
given  to  the  children  of  Esau  and  to  the  cliildren  of  Lot 
then  then  possessions,*  though  he  was  not  known  to  them 
by  the  name  of  Jahveh,t  and  they  held  their  territory  by 
virtue  of  covenants  similar  to  that  concluded  between 
Jahveh  and  the  Israelites. 

The  proposals  made  to  the  Edomites  were  not  favourably 
received.  According  to  one  account,  Edom  came  out  with  a 
high  hand  against  Israel,^  but  perhaps  tliis  was  only  another 
way  of  saying  that  the  Edomites  refused  permission  to  pass 
through  their  territory,  and  took  measures  for  its  defence  in 
the  event  of  the  Israelites  attempting  to  effect  their  purpose 
by  force.  The  effect  of  this  refusal  on  the  emigrants  was 
disheartening,  and  for  some  time  at  least  they  were  obliged 
to  continue  at  Kadesh.^ 

If  we  trusted  to  the  accounts  which  were  drawn  up  many 
centuries  afterwards,  with  the  view  of  harmonising  the  tradi- 
tions of  the  Exodus  with  the  belief  that  the  specific  term  of 
forty  years  elapsed  between  the  departure  from  Egypt  and 
the  crossing  of  the  Jordan,  we  would  conclude  that  nearly 
the  whole  of  that  period  was  passed  at  or  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Kadesh.  But  we  know  that  much  hard  work  had 
to  be  done  in  the  region  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  that  some 
powerful  tribes  had  to  be  conquered  and  dispossessed,  and 
we  cannot  therefore  accept  the  theory  that  all  this  was 
accomplished  in  the  course  of  a  few  months.     No  account  of 


*  Deut.  ii.  5,  9,  19. 
t  The  name  of  the  tribal  God  of  Moab  and  Ammon  appears  from 
the  earliest  time  to  have  been  Chemosh.  In  fragments  of  o-reat 
antiquity,  and  dealing  with  occurrences  antecedent  to  the  Exodus, 
this  is  fully  recognised  (Num.  xxi.  26-30).  According  to  Josephus 
the  God  of  Edom  was  named  Kozeh  (J..  /.  xv.  7,  9). 

X  Num.  XX.  20.  §  Deut.  i.  46. 


350  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

time  was  ko])t  in  the  traditions  of  the  migration  ;  all  that 
was  known  was  tliat  a  very  long  period,  expressed  more 
Hcbraico  as  forty  years,*  elapsed  between  the  Exodus  and  the 
crossing  of  the  Jordan. 

We  are  therefore  unable  to   form   any  opinion  how  long 
the  Israelites  remained  at  Kadesh,  or  when  it  was  that  they 
decided  on   once  more  entering  the  Araba,   retracing  their 
steps  towards  the  Red  Sea  (Akaba),  and  marching  round  the 
country  which  they  were  not  permitted  to  traverse.t     The 
term  may  have  extended  over  several  years,  or  only  over  a 
few  months.     According  to  tradition,  the   links  which  con- 
nected the  emigrants  with   some  of   those  who  took  a  pro- 
minent  part  in   the  Exodus  from    Egypt  were  here  broken. 
Aaron    according    to    one  tradition,^  Miriam  according    to 
another,^  died  wlidst  they  were   at  their  place  of  temporary 
sojourn.      Moses     is    represented    as     accompanying    the 
Israelites  to  the  banks  of  the  Jordan ;  under  his  leadership  a 
number   of   important  battles  are  said  to  have  been  fought, 
but  he  too  xlies  outside  the  limits  of   the  Land  of  Promise.|| 
The   circumstances   of   his  death  closely  resemble  those  of 
Aaron's.      Wliether  the   son-in-law   of   the    Kenite   Sheikh 
accompanied  the  Israelites  to  the  Trans-Jordanic  region  will 
be  considered  at  a  later  stage  of  this  inquiry. 

It  would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that  during  the  stay  in  the 
mountains  on  tlie  border  of  the  Araba  the  Hebrews  main- 
tained a  com])lete  isolation  and  formed  no  connections  with 
the  friendly  tribes  amongst  whom  they  sojourned.  It  is  i)ro- 
bable  that  social  alliances  were  formed,  and  we  know  that 
the  Kenites  and  the  tribe  of  Judah  became  closely  united.*! 
AVhcn  at  length  the  resolution  was  taken  liy  at  least  a  sec- 
tion of  the  emigiants  to  make  the  toUsome  joiu-uey  round 


•  See  anic,  p.  8.  f  Xum.  xxi  4;  Dout.  ii.  1. 

X  Num.  xx.  28.  §  Num.  xx.  i.  ||  Dout.  xxxiv.  5. 

H  Jud.  i.  xvi. 


FROM  EGYPT.  351 

the  mountains  of  Seir,  they  were  doubtless  accompanied  by 
some  of  the  people  amongst  whom  they  had  lived. 

Tradition  has  preserved  for  us  but  little  connected  with 
this  journey.  The  Israelites  descended  the  Araba,  and 
having  approached  the  Eed  Sea,  they  probably  turned  off' 
by  the  Wady-el-Yitm.  They  proceeded  for  some  miles 
along  the  valley,  until  they  were  enabled  to  face  northwards 
and  skirt  the  eastern  border  of  Edom.*  This  they  did  with- 
out molestation,  and  they  not  improbably  received  some 
assistance  from  their  brethren.t  At  all  events,  no  further 
record  appears  of  complaints  on  account  of  want  of  food. 
Having  passed  the  limits  of  Edom,  they  followed  in  like 
manner  the  borders  of  Moab  until  they  reached  the  Arnon, 
which  river  at  that  time  constituted  the  frontier  line  be- 
tween Moab  on  the  south  and  the  country  of  the  Amorites 
on  the  north.|  From  the  time  of  emerging  from  the  Wady- 
el-Yitm  to  their  arrival  on  the  border  of  the  Amorites  the 
Israelites  seem  to  have  followed  a  route  parallel  to,  and 
sKghtly  to  the  west  of,  that  taken  for  centuries  past  by  the 
Syrian  Hajj. 

At  this  point  the  journeyings  of  the  Israelites  may  be 
said  to  terminate.  Here  commenced  the  invasion  and  con- 
quest of  that  rich  tract  of  country  lying  to  the  north  of  the 
Arnon,  which  was  said  to  have  been  approjOTated  by  tribes 
respectively  styled  Eeuben,  Gad,  and  Manasseh.  With  the 
circumstances  under  which  that  conquest  was  effected  we 
are  not  concerned,  nor  indeed  have  we  any  materials  for  the 
construction  of  its  history.  It  is  briefly  stated,  in  a  record 
of  Judah,  that  a  request  was  addressed  to  Sihon,  the  king  of 
the  Amorites,  for  permission  to  traverse  his  territory,  in  order 
to  enable  the  Israelites  to  cross  the  Jordan  above  the  Dead 
Sea,  and  thus  to  "  go  in  and  possess  the  land"  which  Jahveh 


*  Deut.  ii.  3.         t  Deu\  ii.  29.         t  Num.  xxi.  13;  Deut.  ii.  24. 


352  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

had  covenanted  to  give  tliem.*  But  tliere  is  no  difficulty 
in  detecting  the  late  origin  of  this  version  of  what  really 
occurred.  Even  if  "  tlie  land"  was  promised,  it  had  yet  to 
be  con([uered  ;  and  however  great  the  confidence  of  the 
Israelites  in  their  protecting  God,  the  king  of  the  Aniorites 
could  not  be  expected  to  share  it.  His  territory  bordered 
on  the  .Tdiilan  and  the  upper  portion  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  it 
would  have  been  preposterous  to  have  asked  him  to  allow  it 
to  be  converted  by  the  possession -seeking  Israelites  into  a 
liase  of  operations  against  the  people  inhal)iting  the  region 
on  the  right  bank  of  the  river.  If  permission  was  sought 
at  all,  it  was  to  follow  the  course  taken  in  respect  to  Edom 
and  Moab — namely,  to  skirt  the  border  of  the  Amorite  ten'i- 
tory,  and  to  push  onwards  through  Gilead.t  The  permission 
was  refused,  and  we  are  briefly  told  that  the  Israelites 
thereupon  made  war  on  the  Amorites,  dispossessed  them 
of  their  entire  territory,  and  then  invaded  Bashan,  a 
region  lying  to  the  north  of  tlie  land  of  the  Amorites, 
and  including  Gilead.  This  latter  campaign  was  equally 
successful,  l)ut  no  details  are  given.  "  We  took,"  writes  the 
Deuteronomist,  "  at  tliat  time  out  of  tlie  hands  of  the  two 
kings  of  the  AuKjrites  the  land  that  was  on  this  side  of 
Jordan,  from  the  river  of  Ai-non  unto  Mount  Hernion,  all  the 
cities  of  the  plain,  and  all  Gilead  and  all  Bashan," — in  a 
word,  the  entire  Trans-Jordanic  region.^ 

Tliis  absence  of  particularity  in  respect  to  the  conquest  of 
an   extensive  region — a  conquest,  moreover,  which  gave    to 


*  Deut.  ii.  27,  29. 

t  Tliia  is  the  fair  construction  of  the  older  account  which  is  recorded 
in  Num.  xxi.  22.     Nothing  is  hero  said  about  crossing  the  Jordan. 

X  Deut.  iii.  8,  10.  The  employment  of  the  expression  "this  side  of 
Jordan,"  as  a]ijiliod  to  the  east  bank  of  the  river,  is  due  to  the  assump- 
tion that  it  is  Moses  wlio  is  speaking.  The  account  in  Numbers  is 
even  more  brief  (Xuni.  xxi.  24,  25,  33,  35). 


FROM  EGYPT.  355 

the  emigrants  from  Egypt  rich  and  almost  boundless  pas- 
tures— apprises  us  that  we  have  reached  a  phase  in  the 
history  of  the  migration  which  held  an  insignificant  place  in 
the  traditions  of  those  who  subsequently  established  their 
home  in  Palestine.  The  latter  came  to  regard  their 
conquests  as  the  great  and  sole  end  aimed  at  when  their 
ancestors  were  led  out  of  Egypt.  But  if  we  possessed  the 
traditions  of  those  who  remained  in  the  Trans-Jordanic 
region  we  should  find  these  conquests,  so  summarily  dis- 
posed of  in  the  records  of  Israel  and  Judah,  dealt  with 
in  a  far  different  manner.  The  settlers  on  the  east  of 
the  Jordan  had  then  entered  what  was  their  Land  of 
Promise ;  they  had  come  into  the  possessions  which  from 
their  stand-point  their  God  had  covenanted  to  give  theni, 
and  their  ambition  was  satisfied.  In  the  struggle  for  ex- 
istence— the  motive  cause  of  all  migrations — they  had 
succeeded,  and  they  were  content.  The  part,  if  any, 
which  they  took  in  the  conquest  of  Canaan  must  be 
treated  of  elsewhere.  The  Trans-Jordanic  tribes  are  re- 
ferred to  by  Deborah,  but  only  to  reproach  them  foi- 
holding  aloof  fi^om  the  struggle  in  which  their  kindred 
were  engaged  with  the  Canaanites.*  Jephthah  the 
Gileadite  is  represented  resisting  the  pretensions  of  the 
Ammonites  to  recover  the  region  to  the  north  of  the 
Arnon,  and  denying  the  charge  that  it  had  been  taken 
from  Moab  by  Israel.  It  had,  in  fact,  been  wrested 
by  the  Amorites  from  the  Moabites,  and  was  in  turn  taken 
from  the  Amorites  by  the  emigrants  from  Egypt.  An 
undisputed  possession  of  three  hundred  years  was,  as 
Jephthah  urged,  sufficient  to  obliterate  whatever  title  Moab 
might  originally  have  had  to  the  coveted  teiritory. 
Jahveh  had    given  it  to  the    Israelites,  just    as    Chemosh 


*  Jud.  V.  16,  17. 
A  A 


354  THE  HEBRE  W  MJCRA  TION 

liad  given  to  ^Moab  the  possessions  south  of  the  Arnon, 
and  from  a  religious,  no  less  than  from  a  political,  point  of 
view  there  could  be  no  ground  for  reopening  the  question.* 

Hmw  were  these  extensive  conquests  effected  on  the  east 
(if  llie  Jordan,  and  how  could  a  body  of  men,  such  as  the 
relea.«ed  captives  of  Egypt  must  have  been,  have  succeeded 
in  overthrowing  the  Amorite  kings  ?  On  these  points,  in 
tlie  dearth  of  materials,  we  can  offer  no  definite  replies.  In 
the  movement  to  the  north-east,  it  is  probable  that  many 
took  part  who  had  not  quitted  Egypt.  We  must  not  con- 
clude that  the  Israelites  proceeded,  like  an  eastern  caravan, 
past  the  borders  of  Edom  and  Moab,  only  halting  for  a  few 
hours'  rest  at  stated  intervals.  We  have  indications  that 
connections,  exercising  important  influences  over  themselves, 
were  formed  between  them  and  the  tribes  with  wliich  they 
came  in  contact.t  Wliether  these  influences  were  pernicious 
or  not,  it  is  difficult  to  believe  tliat  they  coidd  have  operated 
at  all  unless  the  emigrants  were  largely  recruited  fi-om  the 
tribes  to  which  we  refer. 

And  it  is  necessary  here  to  recall  to  niiml  the  broad 
features  of  the  religion  wliicli  tlie  Israelites  took  with  them. 
They  had  made  a  covenant  witli  Jahveh,  by  which  they 
agreed  to  serve  him  exclusively,  in  consideration  of  his  being 
to  them  a  protecting  God,  giving  them  tlie  victory  over  their 
enemies,  and  bringing  them  into  a  land  suitable  to  their 
wants.  There  was  nothing  in  this  religion  new  or  original  : 
it  was  the  religion  of  the  Kenites,  and,  for  that  matter,  the 
religion  of  the  various  tribes  inhabiting  the  region  througli 
which  the  Israelites  passed.  The  ]irotecting  deities  niiglit 
vary  like  the  jiatron  saints  (i{  Christian  communities,  and 
the  mode  of  service — that  is,  the  religious  rites — might  differ 
consideraV)ly  amongst  distinct  tribes ;  but  the  foundations  of 

*  Juil.  xi.  14  26.  t  Num.  XXV. 


FROM  EGYPT.  355 

religion  were  everywhere  the  same.  The  members  of  a 
tribe,  and  the  strangers  who  sojourned  amongst  them,  were 
vmder  an  imperative  obligation  to  render  exclusive  service 
to  the  God  whose  protection  all  equally  shared  and  in  whose 
bounty  all  participated.*  It  is  needless  to  point  out  how 
the  very  act  of  migration,  with  the  accompanying  necessity 
of  accepting  the  hospitality  of  friendly  tribes,  tended  to 
promote  a  conflict  between  the  services  of  different  deities, 
and  to  induce  the  adoption  of  novel  religious  rites. 

In  the  narrative  of  some  occurrences  which  took  place 
whilst  Israel  was  in  the  land  of  Moab,  we  have  an  illus- 
tration of  the  operation  of  the  causes  to  which  we  allude. 
It  is  stated  that  the  Moabites  "  called  the  people  unto  the 
sacrifices  of  their  gods,  and  the  people  did  eat,  and  bowed 
down  to  their  gods ;  and  Israel  joined  himself  unto  Baal- 
peor,  and  the  anger  of  Jahveh  was  kindled  against  Israel."! 
In  what  appears  to  be  a  continuation  of  the  same  narrative, 
the  Moabites  are  called  Midianites,  and  very  strong  indi- 
cations are  afforded  of  the  licentious  nature  of  the  rites 
incidental  to  the  worship  of  Baal-peor.|  But,  however 
consonant  with  established  usage  it  may  have  been  for 
strangers  to  render  service  to  the  national — that  is  to  say,  the 
local — deities,  there  were  amongst  the  leaders  of  Israel  zealous 
observers  of  the  covenant  with  Jahveh  who  felt  that,  as  the 
peojjle  were  migrating  en  masse,  with  their  God  amongst 
them,  it  was  impossible  to  join  in  the  service  of  any  other 
deity  without  offence  to  Jahveh,  and  a  consequent  violation 
of  the  contract  on  the  strict  observance  of  which  they 
relied  for  his  assistance  in  dispossessing  their  enemies  of 
the  territory  which  they  coveted.     Jahveh  was  a  jealous 


*  Lev.  xvi.  29;  xvii.  12,  15;  xxiv.  16,  22;  xxv.  6;  I^um.  ix.  14;  xv. 
14-16,  29,  30.  &c. 

t  Num.  xxv.  1-3.  X  Num.  xxv.  6-18. 

A  A  2 


356  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

(loJ,  and  it  was  Mell  understood  that  he  woidd  punish  the 
])eople  collectively  for  individual  apostasy.  In  the  case  of 
Ziiini  and  Otzlii  the  offence  was  of  the  grossest,  for  it  was 
committed  in  the  camp  ■s\'ithin  siglit  of  the  tal)ernacle,  and 
therefore,  in  tlie  strictest  sense  of  the  term,  before  the  face 
of  Jahveli.*  In  their  case,  the  punishment  was  prompt  and 
signal  ;  tlie  atonement  they  made  for  the  entire  people  was 
accepted  l>y  Jahveli,  and  Phinehas  was  rewarded  for  his  zeal 
by  being  made  by  special  covenant  the  head  of  an  everlast- 
ing priesthood.  The  importance  of  jealously  watching  and 
severely  punishing-  any  infraction  of  the  covenant  may  be 
appreciated  from  the  fact  that,  according  to  the  religious 
conceptions  of  the  time,  the  offence  was  visited  by  the  Deity, 
not  alone  on  the  guilty  individuals,  but  on  the  people 
collectively. 

It  is  stated  that  these  events  occurred  at  Shittim. 
This  }ilace  is  generally  supposed  to  have  been  situated 
on  the  left  bank  of  the  Jordan,  opposite  to  Jericho.  This 
conclusion  is  based  on  the  precise  statement  in  the  Book  of 
Joshua  that  it  was  from  Shittim  that  the  spies  were  sent 
to  Jt'richo,+  and  that  there  the  Israelites  encamped  before 
crossing  the  Jordan.^  For  reasons  which  M'ill  be  stated 
hereafter,  we  must  reject  the  testimony  of  the  author  of 
the  introductory  chapters  of  .toshua.  The  territory  of 
Moal)  iit  the  time  of  the  Exodus  did  not  extend  north 
of  llif  Aiiinii,  and  if  the  apostasy  referred  to  took  place 
at  the  instance  of  the  Moabites,  it  must  have  been  within 
their  country.  We  shall  have  occasion  presently  to  notice 
in  deuiil  the  localities  south  of  the  Anion  referred  to  in  the 
traditions  of  tlie  migration.  AN'e  must,  however,  direct 
passing  attention  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  Shittim.  In 
the    Hebrew  it  is  preceded  by  the    definite    article,    and 


Exoil.  XX.  3;  Deut.  v.  7.  See  ani--,  p.  11. 

t  J<->8.  ii.  1.  +  Jos.  iii.  i. 


FROM  EGYPT.  357 

signifies  "  tlie  acacias,"  and  in  the  Itinerary  (Num.  xxxiii. 
49)  we  find  mention  of  Aljel-has-Sliittim,  "the  meadow" 
or  "  plain  of  the  acacias."  Here  Baal-peor  was  wor- 
shipped, and,  as  will  be  shown  by-and-by,  here,  or 
in  the  immediate  neighbourhood,  were  performed  the 
sacrifices  directed  by  the  seer  Balaam,  the  son  of  Beor. 
Allusion  is  made  by  the  prophet  Micah  to  this  place  of 
"  the  acacias,"  in  connection  with  the  last-mentioned  oc- 
currence.* Independently  of  the  consequences,  both  re- 
ligious and  political,  resulting  from  the  contact  of  the 
emigrants  with  the  Moabites,  it  must  not  be  forgotten 
that  the  former,  on  forcing  an  entrance  into  the  Trans- 
Jordanic  region,  necessarily  absorbed,  or  were  absorbed  by, 
the  tribes  which  they  found  there. 

The  stereotyped  expressions  which  tell  us  that  tlie 
conquests  of  the  Israelites  were  invariably  followed  by 
the  indiscriminate  slaughter  of  entire  populations,  must 
not  be  construed  prosaically.  The  narrators  never  in- 
tended that  they  should  be  understood  literally,  nor  did 
those  whom  they  addressed  fall  into  the  absurd  error  of 
thinking  that  they  did  so.  When  the  Israelites  suc- 
ceeded in  establishing  themselves  on  the  left  bank  of 
the  lower  Jordan,  they  coalesced  with  the  former  in- 
habitants, just  as  at  a  later  period  the  invaders  of  Canaan 
coalesced  with  the  native  population.  The  individuality 
of  the  parent  stock  of  emigrants  suffered  by  the  frequent 
accretions,  and  even  before  the  Jordan  .was  crossed  the 
social  and  religious  character  of  the  people  underwent  a 
considerable  change.  Large  numbers  adapted  themselves 
to  the  pastoral  habits  of  the  tribes  which  they  found 
feeding  their  flocks  on  the  undulating  downs  stretching 
to  the  north-east  from    the   table-land    of    Moab ;    others 

*  Micah  vi.  5. 


35S         THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION  FROM  EGYPT. 

tnini^lod  with  the  sedentary  population  of  the  Jordan 
valley.  The  religion  of  these  settlers  became  in  time 
different  from  that  of  their  kindred  who  crossed  that 
river — that  is  to  say,  they  worshipped  different  Elohim. 
"Whether  they  or  the  settlers  in  Canaan  were  the  apostates 
may  be  open  to  discussion,  but  a  writer  of  the  third  century 
B.C.,  referring  to  the  Trans- Jordanic  tribes,  states  that  they 
adopted  the  worship  of  the  Elohim  of  the  people  amongst 
viiom  they  dwelt,  and  that  in  consequence  they  were 
carried  away  into  captivity  by  the  king  of  Assyria.* 

The  successes  attained  by  the  Israelites  on  the  left  side  of 
the  Jordan  appear  to  have  given  grave  cause  for  apprehen- 
sion to  the  people  of  Moab.  Tlie  emigrants  had  been  per- 
mitted to  pass  through  Moab's  borders  in  search  of  posses- 
sions, but  they  had  prospered  so  amazingly  that  the 
Moabites  became  seriously  alarmed  lest  they,  like  the 
Amorites,  should  be  "licked  up  as  the  ox  licketh  up  the 
grass  of  the  field."t  But  this  state  of  things  did  not 
arise  till  long  after  the  settlement  in  the  Trans- 
Jordanic  region.  "Without  entering  into  the  question  of 
the  date  and  authorship  of  the  narrative  of  Balak  and 
P>alaam,;{;  it  is  noticeable  that  Jephthah,  in  his  negotiations 
with  the  king  of  the  Ammonites,  asks  him  whether  he  is 
mightier  than  his  predecessor  Balak  (who  appe^ars  to  have 
been  a  celebrated  Moabite  monarch),  and  whetlier  the 
latter  ever  strove  against  Israel  whilst  dwelling  in 
He-shbon,  and  in  Aroer,  and  by  the  coasts  of  Arnon, 
durijig  three  hundred  years.^  Jephthah's  chronological 
estimate  may  have  been  faulty,  but  respecting  the  tradi- 
tions of  the  region  in  which  he  lived,  he  most  assuredly 
(lid  not  believe  that  Balak  was  the  contemporary  of  those 
who  quitted  Egj-pt. 

•   I  Cbron.  v.  25,  26.  t  Num.  xxii.  4. 

J  Num.  xxii.,  xiiii.,  xiiv.  §  Jud.  xi.  25,  26. 


359 


CHAPTEE    XIII. 

A  CCOEDING  to  the  accepted  account,  tlie  people  of 
-^^-  Israel,  composed  of  distinct,  weU-defined  tribes, 
crossed  the  Arnon  under  the  leadership  of  Moses,  over- 
threw the  Amorite  kings,  and  possessed  themselves  of  the 
whole  Trans-Jordanic  region  from  the  Arnon  to  the  Lebanon 
in  the  course  of  a  few  months.*  We  are  also  told  that 
within  the  same  brief  period  they  not  only  dispossessed,  but 
exterminated  the  inhabitants.!  It  is  further  stated,  that  when 
the  Trans-Jordanic  region  was  thus  conquered,  the  tribes  of 
Reuben  and  Gad,  and  (impliedly)  half  the  tribe  of  Manasseh, 
preferred  to  Moses  the  modest  request  that  this  region 
should  be  given  to  them  because  it  was  eminently  suited  for 
pastoral  purposes,  and  that  Moses  gave  his  assent  without 
eliciting  any  protest  from  the  remaining  tribes,  who  were 
thus  left  to  find  possessions  for  themselves  on  the  opposite 
side  of  the  Jordan.;];  The  narrator,  conscious  of  the  injus- 
tice of  such  a  mode  of  proceeding,  has  made  the  assent  of 
Moses  dependent  on  an  engagement  on  the  part  of  the 
favoured  tribes  to  aid  the  others  in  the  conquest  of  Canaan, 
and  the  engagement,  we  arer  told,  was  subsequently  fulfilled.^ 
Whether,  however,  we  examine  the  story  told  in  the  Book  of 
Numbers  or  its  apparent  confirmation  in  the  Book  of  Joshua, 
it  requires  no  extraordinary  perspicuity  to  become  aware 
that  we  have  passed  into  the  region  of  romance. 


*  Num.  xxxiii.  38  ;  Jos.  v.  6,  10  ;  Deut.  iiL  8.    t  Num.  xxi.  24,  35. 
X  Num.  xxsii.  1-33.  §  Jos.  i.  16-18. 


36o  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

In  after-times,  when  the  Hebrew  settlement  in  Canaan 
liad  taken  place,  and  when  it  was  notorious  that  many  who 
preserved  the  traditions  of  the  Exodus  had  remained  behind 
in  the  region  beyond  tlie  Jordan — wlien,  in  a  word,  the  exis- 
tence of  tribes  with  common  traditions,  and  holding  posses- 
sions on  both  sides  of  the  river,  was  an  established  historical 
fact — it  became  necessary,  from  a  religious  stand-point,  to 
reconcile  all  that  had  occurred  with  the  prevalent  concep- 
tion of  the  Divine  intervention  in  every  detail  affecting  the 
future  welfare  of  the  chosen  people  of  Jahveh.  That 
•Tahveh  had  driven  out  the  Amorites  on  one  side  of  the 
Jordan,  as  he  subsequently  drove  out  the  Canaanites  on  the 
other,  in  order  to  make  room  for  Ids  peculiar  people,  none 
could  doubt ;  and  it  was  therefore  reasonable  to  conclude 
tliat  he  provided  for  the  easy  and  peaceable  partition  of 
these  possessions  amongst  distinct  and — so  far  as  they 
were  apparently  incapable  of  coalescing  with  each  other — 
conflicting  tribes.  But  inasmuch  as  these  tribes  un- 
doubtedly possessed  so  strongly  marked  an  individuality, 
and  as  their  members  were  probably  not  uninliuenced  by  those 
selfish  feelings  which  have  guided  the  actions  of  all  com- 
munities, whether  large  or  small,  since  the  Morld  began,  we 
must  regard  with  suspicion  an  account  which  rejtresents 
them  a-s  acting  in  concert  to  secure  a  specific  end,  and  sub- 
sequently abstaining  from  equal  participation  in  the  benefits 
obtained. 

"\\  hatever  family  distinctions  may  have  existed  amongst 
the  Hebrew  enngi-ants  M'ho  forced  their  way  into  the  j)astures 
on  tlie  east  of  the  Jordan,  there  can  be  no  doultt  that  tlie 
entirecommunitywasactingwith  atoiuinnn  purjjose — namely, 
tlie  desire  of  finding  the  means  of  existence — and  that  all 
eijually  shared  in  tlie  advantages  resulting  from  their  success- 
ful movement,  liut,  owing  to  circumstances  the  conside- 
ration of  which  does  not  come  witliin  the  scope  of  this  essay, 


FROM  EGYPT.  361 

the  tide  of  migration  was  subsequently  forced  westwards 
across  the  Jordan  valley.  The  pleasant  pastures  on  the 
east  of  the  river  were  not,  however,  deserted.  Many  of 
those  who  had  quitted  Egypt  remained  in  that  region.  These 
latter,  owing  to  circumstances  easily  intelligible,  formed 
quasi-national  or  tribal  communities,  and  became  known  by 
distinctive  names.  This  subdivision  into  tribal  communities 
was,  however,  a  universal  feature  wherever  the  descendants 
of  Terah  set  foot.  The  nomadic  instincts  of  the  race  con- 
flicted with  the  ideas  of  national  union,  and  could  only  be 
overcome  when  the  nomadic  habits  were  entirely  abandoned. 
That  which  had  already  happened  in  Idumaja  and  to  the 
south-east  of  the  Dead  Sea,  was  repeated  on  the  left  bank  of 
the  Jordan.  The  tide  rolled  on,  receiving  an  additional  im- 
petus through  the  migration  of  the  Egyptian  captives.  But 
the  comparatively  small  territory  lying  between  the  Arnon 
and  the  Jabbok  was  insufficient  to  satisfy  the  wants  of  the  new- 
comers. Many  still  pushed  forward  towards  the  north  and 
east.  Following  the  accepted  account,  those  who  settled 
on  the  north  of  the  Arnon  were  termed  the  tribe  of  Eeuben 
or  Eeubel,  and  in  after-times  they  were  not  inappropriately 
regarded  as  the  descendants  of  the  eldest  born  of  Israel,"* 
since  they  constituted  the  first  section  of  those  who,  after 
quitting  Egypt,  secured  distinct  possessions.  This  tribe  was 
not,  however,  composed  exclusively  of  those  who  had  been 
born  in  Egypt,  or  their  descendants.  The  population  which 
it  abeady  found  in  the  country  in  which  it  settled  nuist 
have  largely  outnumbered  it,  and  it  may  well  be  doubted 
whether  it  did  not  receive  its  distinctive  appellation  because 
its  members  served  the  deity  who  was  worshipped  in  the 
region  which  they  acquired.  Eeuben  is  said  to  have  been  the 
eldest  son  of  Leah,  who   so    called  him,  because   "  God  had 

*  Gen.  xxix.  32. 


362  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATIOy 

seen  her  aflliction,"  owing  to  her  previous  barrenness.*  But 
it  is  a  very  curious  fact  that,  so  late  as  the  first  century  of 
the  present  era,  a  man  well  conversant  with  tlie  Hebrew 
Scrij)tures  unquestionably  believed  the  name  to  have  been 
lieubel.'i'  That  tliis  was  the  original  form  of  the  name,  and 
that  it  was  subsequently,  corrupted  into  Reuben,  has  been 
maintained  by  a  German  scholar  of  gi-eat  eminence,  who  has 
further  contended  that  it  must  be  interpreted  "  the  flock  of 
Bel,"  or  "  Baal."|  This  deity,  or  perhaps  more  correctly 
one  of  the  numerous  Baalim,  was  worshipped  in  the  region 
on  the  east  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  appears  to  have  had  a  sanc- 
tuary near  the  Moabite  frontier. 

A  tribe  of  Israel,  with  the  appellation  of  Gad,  is  said  to 
have  settled  in  the  pastoral  region  lying  to  the  north  of  that 
occupied  by  the  Eeubenites.^  That  it  included  some  of 
those  who  had  quitted  Egypt  (or  their  descendants)  is  very 
probable,  but  in  time  it  became  absorbed  by  or  confounded 
with  the  Gileadites.  Jephthah  is  represented  as  a  Gileadite, 
and  though  speaking  on  behalf  of  his  people,  he  still  speaks 
in  tlie  name  of  Israel  ;  at  least  the  title  to  the  territory  in 
dispute  is  based  iipon  the  right  of  conquest,  acquired  by 
those  wlio  came  up  from  Egypt.||  But  in  later  times,  when 
the  kingdom  of  Israel  was  established,  this  identity  between 
Israel  and  the  Gadites,  or  Gileadites,  seems  to  have  dis- 
appeared ;  for  we  find  in  the  celebrated  inscription  on  the 
Moal)ite  stone,  wln'cli  records  a  Mar  between  Moab  and 
Israel,  a  s]iecial  acknowledgment  that  the  men  of  Gad 
(clearly  distinguished  from  the  Israelites)  possessed  from  of 
old  certain  towns  near  the  Moabite  frontier.  Tlds  was  about 
900  B.C. 


■*  Gen.  xxix.  32. 
t  Joscpbus  invariably  gives  the  name  as  'Poi'jSjjXo?,  and  interprets 
it  tktnv  Tov  6fo\),  "  the  pity  of  God." 
X  Kedslob,  Die  Alld'sf.  Nameyi,  86. 

§  Jos.  xiii.  24-28.  II  Jud.  xi.  12-2S. 


FROM  EGYPT.  363 

To  the  north  of  the  region  occupied  by  the  Gadites  was 
the  portion  which  we  are  told  was  formally  allotted  by 
Moses  to  half  the  tribe  of  Manasseh.*  It  included  the 
upper  part  of  Gilead,  and  appears  to  have  extended  north- 
wards to  Hermon,  and  eastwards,  with  no  well-defined  limits, 
over  the  plains  stretching  towards  the  Euphrates.t  A  more 
probable  account  of  the  mode  in  which  these  rich  possessions 
passed  into  the  hands  of  the  Beni-Manasseh  is  preserved  in 
an  historical  fragment  of  earlier  date.|  This  region  was 
said  to  have  been  conquered  by  Jair,  the  son  of  Manasseh, 
though  elsewhere  the  son  of  Manasseh  is  called  Machir,  who 
was  the  father  of  Gilead.^  Nothing  of  importance  turns  on 
the  names,  but  it  is  material  to  observe  that  we  possess  here 
the  record  of  an  old  tradition  that  the  people  or  tribe 
known  as  Manasseh  conquered  this  region ;  that  Gilead 
— the  place  inhabited  by  the  tribe — came,  according  to  a 
common  practice  in  the  Hebrew  genealogies,  to  be  regarded 
as  one  of  the  descendants  of  Manasseh  ;  and  that  the  term 
Gileadite  in  time  superseded  the  earlier  appellation  of  Manas- 
site.  But  Manasseh  and  Ephraim  were  said  to  have  been  the 
two  children  of  Joseph,] |  and  the  descendants  of  both  repre- 
sented those  who  were  in  after-times  specially  known  as  the 
children  of  Israel.  In  this  sense  an  Ephraimite  and  an 
Israelite  were  convertible  terms  after  the  settlement  in 
Canaan,  and  in  the  Trans-Jordanic  region,  in  Jephthah's 
time,  a  Gileadite  and  an  Israelite  were  equally  treated  as 
synonymous.  Manasseh  -was,  according  to  tradition,  the 
first-born  of  Joseph,  and  we  may  rest  confident  that  this 
claim  was  maintained  without  any  qualification  on  the  east 
of  the  Jordan.  But  on  tlie  west  bank,  although  the  reputed 
fact  of  Manasseh's  seniority  was  not  questioned,  it  was  found 


*  Jos.  xiii.  29-31.       t   I  Chron.  ii.  21-24.       +  Num.  xxxii.  39-42. 
§  Num.  xxvi.  29,  30.  11  Gen.  slvi.  20. 


364  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

lonveiiient  to  give  to  Ephraim — that  is  to  say.  to  the  off- 
shoot of  the  same  stock  wiiith  crossed  the  river — precedence 
over  the  elder  branch.*  The  transposition  of  Isaac  for 
Ishmael,  of  Jacob  for  Esau,  was  again  repeated.  The  tide 
of  migi-ation  kept  rolling  onwards  ;  but,  as  we  possess  alone 
the  records  of  those  who  were  carried  to  the  furthest  point, 
it  is  the  lust  in  order  who  are  represented  as  held  in  the 
highest  honour. 

In  the  narrative  of  the  allocation  of  the  Trans-Jordanic 
region,  the  Reubenites  and  Gadites  are  represented  coming 
to  Moses  and  setting  forth  their  claims  to  "  the  country 
which  Jahveh  smote  before  the  congregation  of  Israel,"  and 
wliich  would  seem  to  have  included  all  the  territory  of  tlie 
kings  of  the  Amorites.t  To  the  objection  raised  by  Moses 
that  they  were  bound  to  aid  in  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  the 
supplicants  [)romised  to  leave  their  wives,  children,  and 
flocks,  in  fenced  cities  and  sheep-folds,  behind  them,  and  to 
join  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  invasion  of  the  territory  on 
the  opposite  ^ide  of  tlie  Jordan.^  Moses  thereupon  yielded, 
and  said  that  if  they  did  as  they  promised  they  should  have 
the  laiiil  of  (Jilcad  for  a  posse.ssion.^  The  sequel  to  the 
narrative  is  curious,  for  we  find  that  not  only  the  Keubenites 
and  the  CJadites  obtained  their  coveted  possession,  but  the 
half-tribe  of  Manasseh,  which  did 'not  appear  as  asujijilicant, 
was  made  a  sliarer  with  the  other  two  tril)es  in  the  land  of 
(iilead.  "And  Moses  gave  unto  them,  even  to  the  children 
of  Gad,  and  to  tlie  chihlren  of  lieuben,  ami  unto  half  the 
tribe  of  Manassrh,  the  son  of  Joseph,  the  kingdom  of  Sihon, 
king  of  llie  Amorites,  and  the  kingdom  of  Og,  the  king  of 
r>ashan."||  That  this  half-tribe  sliould  be  so  sjtecially 
favoured,  and  that  without    liaviiig  advanced  any  reijuest,  or 


•  Gen.  xlviii.  14.  f  Num.  xxxii.  4. 

Num.  xxxii.  16-19.        §  Num.  xxxii.  20-22.        11  Num.  xxxii. 


FROM  EGYPT.  365 

accepted  any  conditions,  it  should  have  obtained  possessions 
from  Moses,  necessarily  excites  our  suspicion. 

The  Cis-Jordanic  origin  of  this  story  is  very  manifest. 
We  know  that  in  not  any  age,  and  least  of  all  in  one 
so  barbarous  as  that  with  which  we  are  now  dealing,  could 
those  who  had  just  conquered  and  occupied  a  country  act  in 
the  manner  attributed  to  the  settlers  on  the  east  of  the 
Jordan — namely,  leave  their  families  and  flocks  defenceless, 
and  assist  in  the  invasion  of  a  neighbouring  country  for 
the  exclusive  benefit  of  others.  But  we  further  notice  that 
the  Reubenites  and  Gadites  are  distinguished  from  "  the 
children  of  Israel,"  which  could  hardly  have  been  the  case  if 
this  had  been  a  contemporaneous  record.  "  Wherefore  dis- 
courage ye  the  heart  of  the  children  of  Israel  ?"*  is  the  lan- 
guage in  which  Moses  at  first  replies  to  their  request ;  and 
the  Reubenites  and  Gadites  answer,  "  We  will  build  sheep- 
folds  for  our  cattle  and  cities  for  our  little  ones,  and  we 
ourselves  will  go  ready  armed  before  the  children  of  Israel 
until  we  have  brought  them  into  their  place. "t  This 
"  objective"  way  of  speaking  of  the  children  of  Israel  does 
not  conflict  with  the  possibility  of  Reubenites,  Gadites,  and 
"  children  of  Israel"  having  come  from  the  common  stock 
which  quitted  Egypt,  but  it  tends  to  confirm  our  doubts 
whether  at  the  time  of  the  migration  the  title  "  Beni-Israel' 
had  come  into  use.  The  author  of  the  narrative  clearly  re- 
garded the  Beni-Israel  on  the  west  of  the  Jordan  as  essen- 
tially distinct'  from  the  R&iibenites  and  Gadites  on  the  east, 
and  he  went  so  far  as  to  make  the  title  of  the  latter  to  the 
possessions  dependent,  not  on  the  immediate  grant  of  Moses, 
but  on  the  approval  by  Joshua  and  the  fathers  of  Israel  of 
their  subsequent  conduct.  "  And  Moses  said  unto  them,  If 
the  children  of  Gad  and  the   children   of   Reuben  will  pass 

*  IS'Tim.  xxxii.  7.  •}•  Num.  xxxii.  17. 


366  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

with  you  over  Jordan,  every  man  armed  to  battle  before 
Jahveh,  and  the  land  shall  be  subdued  before  you,  then 
ye  sliall  give  them  the  land  of  Gilead  for  a  possession  ;  but 
if  tliey  will  not  pass  over  before  you  armed,  they  shall  liave 
possessions  among  you  in  the  land  of  Canaan."*  The  con- 
cluding sentence  is  unintelligible.  It  would  have  been 
absurd  to  punish  the  Eeubenites  and  Gadites  for  their 
disobedience  by  making  them  sharers  in  possessions  which 
they  did  not  aid  in  securing. 

The  most  singular  feature  in  the  narrative,  at  least  in  its 
present  shape,  is,  however,  the  mention  of  tlie  half-tribe  of 
Manasseh  as  sharing  with  Reuben  and  Gad  in  the  Trans- 
Jordanic  possessions.  No  explanation  is  given  why  this 
disposition  was  made,  or  why  a  distinct  tribe  should,  with- 
out any  apparent  cause,  have  divided  itself  in  half,  one  por- 
tion electing  to  remain  on  one  side  of  the  river,  whilst  the 
other  was  prepared  to  seek  possessions  on  the  opposite  side. 
An  explanation  may  be  found  in  the  corruption  of  the 
original  text. by  the  interpolation  of  the  words,  "  and  unto 
half  the  tribe  of  Manasseh;"  but  this  inference,  though  possibly 
correct,  does  not  indicate  how  tliis  interpolation  became 
necessary.  In  order  to  S(5lve  the  mystery,  let  us  devote  a 
few  moments'  further  consideration  to  these  Trans-Jordauic 
tribes. 

Excepting  the  statement  that  the  Eeubenites  and  Gadites 
fulfilled  their  engagement  of  assisting  in  the  invasion  of 
Canaan,  these  tribes  to  all  appearances  vanish  into  obscurity 
after  this  event.  Neither,  apparently,  gave  a  judge  to  Israel, 
nor  i)layed  any  i)arl  in  its  history;  and  when  we  are  told  by 
the  compiler  of  the  Books  of  Chroniclest  that  they  were 
carried  into  ca})tivity  by  the  king  of  Assyria,  we  may  be 
excused  for  suspecting  that  his  statement  was  prompted  by 

•  Num.  xxxii.  29,  30.  f  1  Chron.  v.  26. 


FROM  EGYPT.  367 

his  own  idea  of  what  ought  to  liave  taken  place.*  This 
singular  disappearance  of  two  important  tribes  demands  ex- 
planation, and  all  the  more  so  if  the  theory  be  upheld  that 
the  emigrants  from  Egypt  consisted  of  twelve,  or  rather 
thirteen,  distinct  tribes,  pursuing  a  common  purpose,  having 
a  common  religion,  and  with,  to  a  great  extent,  a  common 
future  before  them. 

We  have  had  frequent  occasion  to  point  out  how  the 
same  tradition  came  to  assume  different  forms  ;  how  some- 
times the  story  varied,  whilst  at  others  the  actors  were 
changed.  The  fate  that  befell  individuals  was  shared  by 
tribes,  and  in  some  cases  a  tribe  or  people  came  to  be  known 
by  totally  different  designations.  Thus  we  have  seen  how 
the  Amalekites  of  one  storyt  are  the  Amorites  of  another;! 
how  the  Moabites  and  the  Midianites  are  confounded  to- 
gether ;§  how  the  same  tribe  is  now  treated  as  Midianite,|| 
and  now  as  Kenite  \\  and  how  the  region  said  in  one  record 
to  have  been  occupied  by  the  Beni-Moab**  is  in  another 
assigned  to  the  Beni-Ammon.tt  It  is  unnecessary  to  explain 
the  causes  which  led  to  this  confusion  ;  it  is  simply  sufficient 
to  note  its  existence. 

But  amongst  those  who  settled  in  the  region  beyond  the 
Jordan,  and  who  together  with  the  original  inhabitants 
formed  communities  more  or  less  distinct,  appellations 
arose  which,  in  the  course  of  time  and  owing  to  change  of 
circumstances,  became  confounded  together  or  superseded  by 
other  titles.  According  to  one  tradition,  the  land  of  Gilead, 
as  the  Trans-Jordanic  region  was  commonly  termed,  was 
apportioned  between  Eeuben  and  Gad  ;|j  whilst,  according  to 
another,  it  was  conquered  by  the  tribe  of  Manasseh.SS      Both 

*  The  oldei-  records  in  the  Books  of  Kings  are  silent  on  the  subject, 
t  Num.  xiv.  40-45.  X  Deut,  i.  41,  44.  §  Num.  xxv. 

II  Exod.  iii.  i.      ^  Jud.  i.  16.     **  Deut.  ii.  9-12.     ff  Dent.  ii.  18,  21. 
XX  Num.  xxxii.  i.  §§  Num.  xxxii.  39. 


368  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

stories,  however,  only  recounted   in    dinVrent   language  the 
same  event,     TJie  emigrants  from   Egypt  effected  by  their 
united  eflVirts  a  settlement  in  Gilead,  and  at  least   two   sec- 
tions of   tliem   acquired  different  designations  :    one  that  of 
Reul)en  or  Reubel,  the  other   that   of  Gad.     But  when  the 
territory  on  the  west   of   the   Jordan  was   invaded,  the   ori- 
ginal stock  which  quitted  Egypt  was  presumed  to  have  been 
split  in  two,  one   half  remaining  on  the   east  of   the  river. 
Those  who  went  westwards,  and  who  subsequently  adopted 
the    distinctive    title    of   Beni-Israel,  were  at  first  content 
with  a  different  and  less  comprehensive  patronymic.     They 
were  the  descendants  of  Joseph,  of  whom  some  liad  remained 
l)ehind  on  the  other  side  of  the  Jordan.    It  is  in  this  manner 
that  we  can  understand  liow  half  Manasseh  was  supposed  to 
liave  taken   Gilead,  and  how  the  rights  of  Eeubenites  and 
Gadites,  and  even  their  names,  pass  into  oblivion.     It  is  not 
suggested  that    the  Trans-Jordanic    ^lanasseh  dispossessed 
Reuben  and  Gad,  but  nevertheless  in   that  most  interesting 
record   of  Jephthah  we  find   the  Gileadite  chief  vindicating 
the  rights,  not  of  the  Reubenites  or  the  Gadites,  but  of  the 
CJileadites,  to   that  very  territory  north   of  the  Aruon  which 
was  said  to  have  been  given  to  the  former  tribes.*      But  it 
is  no  less  clear  that  Jephthah  and  his  people  were  identified 
eo  nomine  with  the  Manassites,  >an(l  not  with  the   Reuben- 
ites or  Gadites.     Wiien   the  Ephraimites — that   is   to   say, 
the  section  of  the  original  stock  which  passed  to  the  west  of 
the  Jordan — heai-d  of  Jei»hthah's  victory  over  the  Ammon- 
ites, they    souglit  a  quarrel   with    liim   because   he   had  not 
inviCed    them     to    join    in    tlie     war.     A     battle     ensued, 
in   which   the    Ephraimites  were    worsted,  and    the  Gilead- 
ites  having    seized    the    fords  of    the  Jordan,    slew   forty- 
two    thoiisand     of    the    Ephraimites    when    attempting    to 
retreat    into    their  own   territory.      In   a  passage,   wliich    is 

•  Jud.  xi.  12-28. 


FROM  EGYPT.  369 

unfortunately  very  obscure,  we  are  told  of  something  which 
passed  before  the  conflict  began.  According  to  the  Author- 
ised Version,  "  the  Gileadites  smote  Ephraim  because  they 
said,  Ye  Gileadites  are  fugitives  of  Ephraim  among  the 
Ephraimites,  and  among  the  Manassites  :  and  the  Gileadites 
took  the  passages  of  the  Jordan  before  the  Ephraimites,"  &c. 
This  rendering  is,  however,  generally  condemned.  The  better 
interpretation  would  seem  to  be,  "The  Gileadites  smote 
Ephraim,  for  they  (the  Gileadites)  said.  Ye  (the  Ephraimites) 
are  fugitives  from  Ephraim:  Gilead  to  his  place  between 
Ephraim  and  Manasseh  !  And  the  Gileadites  took  the  passages 
of  the  Jordan,"  &c."^  As  Ephraim  and  Manasseh  occupied 
the  opposite  sides  of  the  Jordan,  the  battle-cry  of  the 
Gileadites,  together  with  their  subsequent  manoeuvre,  becomes 
intelligible,  whilst  at  the  same  time  we  discover  a  singular 
proof  of  the  contempt  in  which  the  elder  branch  of  the 
Beni-Joseph  (Manasseh)  affected  to  hold  the  younger  which 
had  crossed  the  Jordan.  But  for  the  purpose  of  the  ques- 
tion we  are  now  considering  it  is  sufficient  to  note  that  the 
Gileadite  chief  and  his  followers,  and  the  heads  of  tlie 
people  whom  he  represented,  are  completely  identified  witli 
the  Manassites,  and  that  the  existence  of  Eeubenites  and 
Gadites,  whose  territory  was  at  issue  in  the  war  witli 
Ammon,  is  entii-ely  ignored.  It  is  across  Gilead  and 
Manasseh  that  Jephthah  advances  to  invade  the  Ammonite 
territory,  not  across  Eeuben  and  Gad ;  and  it  is  between 
Ephraim  and  Manasseh  that  his  army  threw  itself  when  he 
seized  the  fords  of  the  Jordan.  The  designations  of  Eeuben 
and  Gad  had  become  overshadowed,  if  not  almost  entirely 
extinguished,  by  the  style  of  Beni-Manasseh,  the  descendants 
of  Joseph,  the  original  stock  which  had  come  from  Egypt — 
the  Beni-Israel  in  its  strictly  limited  sense,  of  whom  indeed 
there  were  offshoots,  which  had  crossed  the  Jordan. 

*  See  Reuss,  La  Blhle  Trad.,  Nouv.     Jud.  xii.  4. 
B  B 


370  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

111  tlie  celebrated  Ip-ic  of  Deborah* — a  production  cer- 
tainly anterior  to  the  Monarchy — allusions  are  made  to  the 
Trans-Jordanic  tribes.  In  the  conflict  between  the  Hebrew 
settlers  on  the  west  of  the  river  and  the  Canaanites,  in 
which  Deborah  and  Barak  were  victorious,  these  tribes  took 
no  part,  and  their  inactivity  is  referred  to  by  the  poetess  iu 
terms  of  pointed  sarcasm.  It  is  important  to  observe  how 
they  are  noticed.  Gad  is  not  mentioned  ;  the  section  of  the 
Manassites  is  not  mentioned  ;  the  only  names  we  find  being 
Reuben  and  Gilead.  Let  us  see  how  these  names  are  em- 
ployed. 

The  passage  in  the  Authorised  Version  runs :  "  For  the 
divisions  of    Eeuben  there  were  great  thoughts  of    heart. 
Why  abodest    thou    among    the    sheep-folds    to  hear    the 
l)leatings  of    the  flocks  ?       For    the    divisions    of    Eeuben 
were    great   searchings   of    heart.       Gilead    abode    beyond 
Jordan."     This  translation,  whilst  failing  to  do  justice  to 
the   original,   is   incorrect   in  rendering  the   Hebrew   word 
Pdaguth,    "  divisions."       It  means  "  rivulets."      "With    this 
alteration,  it  would  aj^pear  that   Deborah  was  referring  to 
the   gi-eat   pastoral  region   appropriated   by   those  who   re- 
mained  on  the  left  bank  of    tlie  Jordan   comprehensively 
known  <us  (iilead,  and  tliat  the  result  of  the  mighty  delibera- 
tions  by   the   rivulets  of  Eeuben  to    which   she  ironically 
refers,  wtus  that  Gilead  remained  inactive  on  the  other  side 
of  the  river.     Deborah  ignores  any  tribal  distinctions  on  the 
east  bank  of  the  Jordan,  and  speaks  coDectively  of  those  who 
settled    there   as   Eeubcn-Gilead.     But  what    renders    this 
mode  of  designation  all  tlie  more  striking  is,  that  she  makes 
8i)ecial  mention  of  Machir  as  one  of  those  who  joined  her  in 
the  struggle  witli  the  Cauaanites.     Xow,  Maehir  was  said  to 
have  been  the  eldest  son  of  Manasseh.t  ^vho  was  the  eldest 

•  JuJ-  V.  f  Jos.  xvii.  I. 


FROM  EGYPT.  37 1 

son  of  Joseph ;  and  Joseph  is  reported  to  have  seen 
Machir's  children  before  his  death.'^  Machir  was,  accord- 
ing to  one  account,  the  conqueror  of  Gilead  ;t  but  the 
name  came  in  time  to  be  convertible  with  Manasseh. 
Thus  we  find  the  territory  beyond  the  Jordan  which, 
according  to  one  account,  was  given  to  half  the  Beni- 
Manasseh,|  was,  according  to  another,  assigned  to  half  the 
Beni-]\Iachir.^  The  other  section,  whether  called  Manasseh 
or  Machir  it  matters  not,  crossed  the  river  into  Canaan,  and 
is  referred  to  by  Deborah  by  the  latter  name.  It  was  from 
this  Cis-Jordanic  portion  that  she  received  assistance,  and 
even  in  her  time  the  severance  between  the  two  sections 
had  become  so  complete  that  she  felt  there  was  no 
danger  of  being  misunderstood  in  saying  that  Machir 
(without  any  other  qualification)  was  one  of  her  allies. 
To  her  and  to  those  whom  she  addressed  on  the  west  of 
the  Jordan  the  section  of  the  parent  stock  which  remained 
behind  on  the  east  was  Eeuben-Gilead.  But  when  we  listen 
to  the  representatives  of  Eeuben-Grilead||  the  language  is 
different.  To  them  the  designation  Eeuben  is  apparently 
unknown.  The  people  are  Gileadites-Manassites,  and  their 
leader  vindicates  their  rights  on  the  strength  of  conquests 
made  by  the  children  of  Israel,  the  original  emigrants  from 
Egypt. 

We  see  therefore  that  in  the  settlement  on  the  east  of 
the  Jordan,  the  emigrants  acted  with  a  common  purpose, 
and  secured  an  end  by  wliich  all  equally  benefited.  Nor 
is  this  conclusion  affected  by  the  cu'cum  stance  that  the  tide 
subsequently  rolled  westward  across  the  river.  But  there 
was  no  division  or  allotment  of  the  conquered  territory 
between  particular  tribes   or  families.     The  conception  that 


*  Gen.  1.  23.  f  ITum.  xxxii.  39.  J  Jos.  xiii.  29. 

§  Jos.  xiii.  31.  II  Jud.  xi. 

BB  2 


372  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

such  a  course  of  procedure  was  adopted,  was  the  creation  of 
a  later  age,  wlien  even  the  designations  given  to  the  Trans- 
Jordanic  settlers  came  to  be  confounded  and  misunderstood. 
In  tlie  oldest  traditions,  collected  respectively  on  opposite 
sides  of  the  river,  it  was  found  that  these  settlers  were  spoken 
of  as  Keuben  and  Gad,  JVIanasseh  and  Gilead,  and  it  was 
supposed  that  they  must  have  been  distinct  tribes.  Accord- 
ing to  the  traditions  on  the  west  of  the  river,  Eeuben  and 
Gad  divided  the  Trane-Jordanic  conquests  between  them  ; 
whilst,  following  the  memories  preserved  on  the  eastern  bank, 
Macliii",  son  of  Manasseh,  had  conquered  this  region,  and 
Gilead  was  his  son.*  But  tradition  also  preserved  the  fact  that 
men,  claiming  descent  from  those  who  had  quitted  Egypt, 
had  crossed  the  Jordan  and  effected  a  settlement  in  Canaan ; 
and  as  these  latter  also  claimed  descent  through  ]\Iachir  Beni- 
Manasseh,  the  conqueror  of  the  Trans-Jordanic  region,  the 
conception  arose  that  half  the  trilie  of  Manasseh  remained 
beyond  the  river.  The  substantial  identity  of  this  half- 
tribe  with  those  who  were  known  as  Reuben  (Iieul)el)  and 
Gad  was,  however,  forgotten ;  and  it  became  historically 
necessary  to  apportion  the  Trans-Jordanic  region,  not  only 
between  Reuben  and  Gad,  but  to  give  a  share  to  tlie  half- 
tribe  of  Manasseh.f  But  this  apportionment  was  unknt)wn 
to  the  authors  of  the  earliest  records.  Jephthah  the  Gileadite 
— that  is,  the  Manassite,  since  Gilead  was  reputed  to  l>e  the 
grandson  of  Manasseh — not  only  sjieaks  and  acts  on  behalf  of 
the  whole  body  of  settlers  on  the  east  of  the  river,  but  he  is 
uncopscious  that  they  are  other  than  Manassites  or  Gilead- 
ites.  In  the  traditions  of  his  people,  Manasseh  is  said  to 
have  l)eon  the  eldest  son  of  Joseph,  who  was  personally 
identiiied  with  tlic  Helucw  captives  in  Eg}'pt.j  But,  in  the 
Cis-Jordauic    region,    Reuben   is    made   the    eldest    son   t)f 

•  Jo8.  xvii.  I.  t  Num.  xxxii.  33,  +   Exod.  i.  8. 


FROM  EGYPT.  373 

Jacob,*  who,  in  a  more  extended  sense,  is  identified  with 
the  captives.  The  two  traditions  are  substantially  the  same, 
and  record  the  same  fact — namely,  that  the  first  great  section 
of  those  liberated  from  Egypt,  who  succeeded  in  permanently 
establishing  themselves,  were  those  who  settled  on  the  east 
of  the  Jordan,  and  who  were  known  on  the  opposite  sides  of 
the  river  by  the  respective  designations  to  which  we  have 
referred. 

*  Gen.  xxix.  32. 


374 


CHAPTEE  XIV. 

/'~\  UR  task  approaches  its  conclusion,  and  it  will  probably 
^-^  be  asked,  with  some  feeling  of  disappointment, 
"  If  this  be  a  substantially  correct  version  of  the  Hebrew 
migration  from  Egypt,  what  becomes  of  the  traditional  wan- 
derings of  tlie  cliildren  of  Israel  ?"  The  only  reply  must  be, 
that  they  are  not  traditional,  if  by  that  term  be  meant 
narratives  transmitted  from  hand  to  hand,  from  the  time  at 
which  the  events  recorded  are  supposed  to  have  taken  place. 
The  history  of  the  human  race  is  replete  with  traditions,  but 
it  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  remark  that  aU  traditions  are 
not  true.  Some  are  the  mere  creations  of  the  fancy ;  some 
are  the  expressions  of  pious  fraud ;  wliilst  others,  again,  are 
simply  the  illustrations  of  the  fallibility  of  human  judgment 
and  the  vitality  of  undetected  error.  A  mistake  is  made ;  it 
is  endorsed,  and  in  course  of  time  acquires  a  position  wliicli 
it  is  equally  inconvenient  and  impracticable  to  assail. 

That  "  the  wanderings"  found  ho  place  in  the  early  tradi- 
tions of  the  Hebrew  race,  is  apparent  from  the  attentive 
study  of  all  the  records  which  reproduce  the  impressions 
which  were  first  formed  respecting  the  migi-ation  fi-oni 
Egypt.  liy  the  collation  of  these  records,  the  broad  track 
taken  by  the  released  captives  may  be  followed  with  almost 
absolute  certainty,  and  it  is  precisely  the  track  wliidi, 
having  regard  to  the  ])liysical  peculiarities  of  the  region 
traversed  and  the  i>olitical  conditions  existing  at  that  time, 
one  would  a  jtr^ri  have  expected  the  Heljrews  to  take. 
Wliether  the  special  intervention  of  the  Deity  in  their  favour 


THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION  FROM  EG  YP  T.  37  5 

be  admitted  or  denied,  there  is  at  all  events  nothing  repug- 
nant to  probability  in  supposing  that  they  acted  like  rational 
beings.  Wlien  they  quitted  Egypt  they  were  under  the 
necessity  of  seeking  a  new  home,  and  they  naturally 
concentrated  their  energies  to  secure  that  end.  If  it  be 
contended  that  during  the  greater  part  of  forty  years  they 
did  nothing  of  the  kind,  but  simply  roamed  to  and  fro  in 
a  desolate  wilderness,  dependent  for  their  sustenance  on  the 
daily  recurrence  of  a  miracle,  their  conduct  is  alone  ex- 
plicable on  the  assumption  of  a  faith  unparalleled  in  tlie 
history  of  religion,  or  an  hallucination  unsurpassed  in  the 
records  of  human  folly.  Before,  however,  we  impute  to 
the  Deity  so  whimsical  an  adaptation  of  means  to  an  end  as 
that  attributed  in  the  now  accepted  story,  or  to  tlie  Hebrews 
a  com-se  of  conduct  irreconcilable  with  the  canons  which 
govern  the  actions  of  sane  men,  let  us  briefly  consider  the 
foundations  upon  which  this  marvellous  romance  reposes. 

The  emigrants  from  Egypt  and  their  immediate  descend- 
ants knew  nothing  of  the  wanderings  with  which  it  pleased 
posterity  to  credit  them ;  indeed,  if  we  may  be  permitted  so 
to  express  it,  it  was  inconsistent  with  their  religious  concep- 
tions that  they  could  wander.  They  believed  in  an  ever- 
present  protecting  deity,  one  of  whose  obligations  by  virtue 
of  the  covenant  was  to  lead  them  in  the  right  path  through 
a  region  with  which  they  were  unfamiliar,  but  whose  aid 
they  deemed  it  not  inconsistent  with  prudence  to  supple- 
ment by  human  precautions.^  The  patience  and  the  con- 
fidence of  such  a  people  in  the  judgment  and  good  faith  of 
their  God,  would  have  been  exhausted  before  the  termination 
of  one  year,  much  less  forty,  if  they  found  out  that  he  was 
virtually  leading  them  nowhere. 

But  those  who  insist  that  by  God's  special  providence  the 

*  Num.  X.  29-32. 


376  THE  HEBRE  W  MICE  A  TION 

Israelites  did  wander  for  close  on  forty  years,  are  not  released 
from  the  obligation  of  finding  a  %vilderness  in  which  the 
wandering  took  place,  and  the  plateau  of  the  Tih  has  natu- 
rally supplied  tlie  scene  for  this  gi-otesque  manifestation  of 
the  Divine  "Will.*  But  one  may  be  permitted  to  doubt 
whether  any  of  the  upholders  of  this  view  have  ever  seriously 
considered  the  consequences  which  it  involves.  The  Tih 
was  not  then,  any  more  than  now,  in  the  moon.  It  lay  on 
the  borders  of  a  powerful  and  highly  civilised  peojjle,  and  it 
supplied  the  only  route  by  which  the  communications  of 
that  people  could  be  maintained  with  the  Eastern  world. 
^^'ere  those  communications  suspended  during  forty  years  ? 
did  Arabia  cease  to  send  her  products  to  the  banks  of  the 
Nile  ?  were  the  Ishmaelite  caravans  discontinued  ?  and  did 
the  powerful  riiaruohs  tacitly  assent  to  an  unexplained  and 
unaccountable  Uockade  of  close  on  half  a  century,  in  order 
that  by  God's  providence  those  whom  he  had  taken  out  of 
Egypt  with  a  high  hand  sliould  wander,  wander,  wander, 
until — they  had  died  out  ? 

lUit  what  is  this  steppe  which  was  thus  singularly  utilised, 
and  N\hich  we  are  gravely  told  was  suitable  for  the  hondfide 
wandering  of  the  Israelites,  who,  be  it  remembered,  are, 
according  to  the  accepted  view,  estimated  at  between  two 
and  three  millions  ?  In  size — its  length  or  breadth  nowhere 
e.xceeds  one  hundivd  and  twenty  miles,  and  it  can  be  travei-sed 
in  a  week.  If  tliey  numbered  two  millions,  and  had  formed  a 
column  of  ten  abreast,  allowing  a  yard  in  depth  for  each  rank, 
the  caravan,  exclusive  of  cattle,  would  have  reached  from 
Suez    to  Akaba.     In  respect  to  physical  characteristics,  the 


♦  It  has  been  said  that  the  name  Desert  of  "  et-Tih,"  given  to  this 
region,  Hignities  the  Desert  of  the  Wandering,  and  that  the  title  is  a 
quasi-memorial  of  the  auti.juity  of  the  tradition.  I  am  assured  by  an 
eminent  Arabic  scholar  that  the  name  Tih  is  not  uncommon,  and  that 
elsewhere  it  confessedly  has  not  the  signification  here  given  to  it. 


FROM  EGYPT.  377 

Tih  probably  differs  but  little  from  what  it  was  three  thou- 
sand years  ago.  Its  condition  may  have  been  better ;  it 
could  scarcely  have  been  worse.  But  if  it  was  then  less 
desolate  and  barren  than  now,  it  had  inhabitants  who  must 
have  come  in  contact  with  the  wanderers.  The  significance 
of  the  fact  that  "  the  divine  historian"  tells  us  nothing  of 
what  happened  during  this  long  period  of  straying,  has  been 
singularly  overlooked,  or  intentionally  put  out  of  sight.  "  It 
was  not  the  object  of  the  inspired  leader  of  the  Israelite 
host  to  preserve  a  chronicle  of  events  devoid  of  interest  or 
of  religious  instruction  for  posterity."  But  this  is  to 
invert  the  order  of  reasoning.  One  must  be  satisfied  of  the 
conclusiveness  of  the  evidence  in  support  of  a  given  pro- 
position, before  explaining  away  or  disregarding  the  evidence 
which  is  apparently  irreconcilable  with  it.  This  has  not  been 
done  by  those  who  so  flippantly  treat  as  of  no  importance 
the  silence  of  "  the  divine  historian"  in  respect  to  the 
eccentric  peregrinations  of  the  host  of  which  lie  was  the 
responsible  leader. 

It  would  be  idle  to  attempt  to  ascertain  the  time 
when  the  belief  in  the  "  wanderings"  first  gained  a 
footing  in  Judaea,  though  happily  it  is  not  impossible  to 
explain  the  manner  in  which  the  belief  arose.  Let  us 
review  the  evidence  still  remaining  at  our  disposal  upon 
this  interesting  point. 

The  settlers  in  Canaan  preserved  the  recollection  that  a 
long  period  which,  following  an  early  nomadic  custom  was 
called  "  forty  years,"  had  elapsed  between  the  Exodus  from 
Egypt  and  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan.*  Canaan  was,  in 
their  eyes,  the  Land  of  Promise — the  land  which  Jahveh  had 
covenanted  to  give  to  their  fathers  ;  but,  presumably  for 
their  rebellion  and  disobedience,  tliis  long  period  was  per- 


*  Deut.  i.  3  ;  Jos.  v.  6. 


378  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

mitted  to  elapse  before  tliey,  or  rather  their  children,  were 
brought  into  their  promised  home.  In  the  punishment  thus 
meted  out  even  Moses  and  Aaron  were  made  to  share, 
and  although  the  former  was  represented  as  leading  the 
Israelites  to  victory  in  their  wars  against  the  kings  of 
the  Amorites,  and  as  allotting  the  Trans-Jordanic  region 
amongst  certain  tribes,  lie  was  still  presumed  never  to  have 
set  his  foot  in  the  Promised  Land.  It  would  therefore 
appear  that,  however  rich  and  fertile  the  region  on  the 
east  bank  of  the  Jordan  may  have  been,  and  however 
wortliy  of  acceptance  by  a  section  of  the  children  of 
Israel — nay,  however  positively  it  may  have  been  included 
within  the  possessions  covenanted  to  be  given  to  those 
who  were  led  out  of  Egypt — it  came  to  be  regarded  by 
tliose  wlio  made  their  home  to  the  west  of  the  Jordan 
as  not  included  in  the  Land  of  Promise.  That  such  an 
opinion  should  have  arisen  goes  far  to  disprove  the  existence 
of  that  solidariU  between  the  settlers  on  the  opposite  sides 
of  the  Jordan  (whether  they  be  caUed  Hebrews,  Israelites, 
or  by  specific  tribal  designations)  which  is  commonly  sup- 
posed to  have  subsisted  from  the  time  of  the  Exodus  down 
to  the  Assyrian  captivity. 

Put  such  of  the  parent  stock  as  settled  in  Gilead  could 
never  liave  entertained  the  vie\\'  that  tlie  land  covenanted 
to  be  given  to  their  fathers  lay  on  the  opposite  side  of  the 
Joi'dan,  because  then  ex  lujpothcsi  they  would  never  have 
entered  into  possession  of  it  They  obtained  what  they 
wished  for,  and  what  satisfied  them,  on  the  east  bank  of  the 
rivei';  or,  in  tlitii'  own  religious  phraseolog}',  they  possessed 
the  land  which  Jaliveh  their  God  gave  unto  them.*  Taking 
a  retrosjjective  view  of  the  period  which  elai)sed  during 
the  migi-ation   from    Egypt,    the   traditions   of   tlie    Trans- 

*  Jud.  xi.  24. 


FROM  EGYPT.  379 

Jordanic  tribes  might  declare  it  to  have  been  of  indeter- 
minate length  ;  but  that  period,  whatever  its  duration,  would 
undoubtedly  be  regarded  as  brought  to  a  conclusion  as 
soon  as  their  ancestors  entered  the  territory  which  be- 
came theirs,  and  which  they  were  content  to  possess. 
And  if  these  settlers  held  the  belief  that  Moses  was 
denied  the  satisfaction  of  accompanying  his  followers — 
i.e.,  their  fathers — into  their  future  possessions,  they  could 
never  have  entertained  the  idea  that  he  took  a  prominent 
part  in  the  conquest  of  Gilead. 

Now  let  us  recur  once  more  to  that*  invaluable  record  of 
Jephthah's  negotiations  with  the  king  of  the  Ammonites* 
Having  noticed  the  vain  attempt  of  the  Israelites  to  obtain 
permission  to  pass  through  Edom  and  Moab  on  their  road 
from  Egypt,  Jephthah  states  that  Israel  abode  in  Kadesh. 
At  a  later  but  unnamed  period  he  declares  that  the 
Israehtes  compassed  Edom  and  Moab,  and  "  pitched  be- 
yond the  Arnon,"  and  that  then  followed  the  conquest 
of  the  territory  of  the  Amorites,  "  from  the  wilderness 
to  the  Jordan,"  the  land  which  was  given  over  by  Jahveh 
to  Israel  for  a  possession.  We  should  not  lay  much  stress 
on  the  absence  of  any  allusion  to  the  possessions  acquired 
on  the  west  of  the  Jordan,  because  they  were  not  in  dispute 
between  the  Gileadites  and  the  Ammonites  ;  but  it  is  evident 
from  Jephthah's  language  that  the  period  of  journeying 
through  the  wilderness  terminated,  in  his  opinion,  when  the 
Israelites  crossed  the  Arnon'  and  entered  into  the  posses- 
sions the  title  to  which  he  was  then  vindicating. 

But  we  have  more  precise  information  respecting  the 
stage  at  which  the  jourueyings  thi-ough  "  the  wilderness" 
were,  according  to  the  earliest  traditions,  supposed  to  have 
come  to   a   close.     In  a  record  preserved  in  the   Book  of 

*  Jud.  xi. 


3So  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

Xunibers,  it  is  stated  that  tlie  Israelites,  after  compassing 
Edom,  rested  at  a  place  called  Obotli,  from  whence  they 
proceeded  to  "  Ije-abarim,  in  tlie  wilderness  which  is  before 
Moab,  toward  the  sun-rising,"* — i.e.,  on  the  eastern  border  of 
Moab.  "  From  thence  they  removed  and  pitched  in  the 
valley  of  Zured,  from  whence  they  removed  and  pitched  on 
the  other  side  of  the  Arnon,"  which  formed  "  the  border  of 
Moab,  between  Moab  and  the  Amorites,"t 

We  find  the  valley  of  Zared,  or  Zered,  also  referred  to  in 
the  introductory  portion  of  Deuteronomy.  The  Israelites 
are  directed  to  "  rise  up  and  cross  over  the  brook  {nachal) 
Zered  ;"j  antl  it  is  tlien  added  that  the  space  of  time  which 
had  elapsed  between  the  departure  from  Kadesh-barnea  and 
tlie  crossing  of  the  nachal  Zered  was  thirty-eight  years,  in 
which  time  "  all  the  generation  of  the  men  of  war  were 
wasted  out  from  among  the  host,"§  The  valley  of  Zered 
has  been  generally  identified  with  the  Wady-el-Ahsy,  which 
formed  the  southern  boundary  of  Moab,  and  through  which 
a  stream  flows  into  the  lower  end  of  the  Dead  Sea.  This 
is  an  error,  and  has  arisen  from  treating  Deuteronomy  ii.  9-25 
as  a  continuous  narrative,  instead  of  recognising  two  distinct 
fragments  (9-15  ;  16-25),  the  one  being  merely  a  different 
version  of  the  other.  In  the  latter  a  reference  is  made  to 
Auinion  which  is  not  in  the  former,  and  the  nachal  Zered 
of  the  one  is  replaced  by  the  nachal  Arnon  of  the  other. 
"  Rise  ye  up,  take  your  journey,  and  pass  over  tlie  river 
Anidii  ....  this  day  will  1  begin  to  put  the  dread  of 
tliee  and  the  fear  of  thee  upon  the  nations."||  That  the 
Zered  and  the  Arnon  were  su])stantially  identical  ajipeai-s, 
however,  still  m.-re  clearly  I'loiu  the  previous  record  to 
which  we  hiive  referred.^;     Ije  Abuiiiii  is  distinctly  stated  to 


•  Num.  xxi.  II.  t  Num.  xxi.  12,  13.  J  Deut.  ii.  13. 

§  Dout.  ii.  14.  II  Dout.  ii.  24.  \  Num.  xxi.  11. 


FROM  EGYPT.  381 

have  been  between  Moab  and  the  wilderness  towards  the 
east,  and  could  not  possibly  have  been  reached  by  the  Israel- 
ites without  previously  crossing  the  Wady-el-Ahsy,  which 
is  supposed  to  have  been  the  boundary  between  Moab  and 
Edom.  The  expression  "  they  pitched  in  the  nacJial  Zared, 
from  thence  they  removed  and  pitched  on  the  other  side  of 
Arnon,'"^  is  perfectly  consistent  with  an  encampment  in  a 
valley,  and  the  subsequent  crossing  of  the  stream  or  river 
flowing  through  it.  The  valley  (nachal)  of  Zered,  or  of 
Arnon,  constituted  the  boundary  line  which  in  the  earliest 
traditions,  and  notably  in  those  preserved  on  the  east  of  the 
Jordan,  was  believed  to  have  marked  the  termination  of  the 
journeyings  in  the  wilderness. 

We  have  seen,  therefore,  that  between  the  traditions  pre- 
served by  those  who  settled  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan  and 
the  views  subsequently  entertained  by  the  descendants  of 
those  who  entered  Canaan,  respecting  tlie  terminal  point  of 
the  journeyings  tln-ough  the  wilderness,  a  very  important 
difference  existed.  The  former  considered  that  their  trials 
came  to  an  end  when  they  crossed  the  nachal  Zered,  or 
Arnon ;  the  latter,  on  the  other  hand,  made  the  Jordan  the 
boundary  line  which  had  to  be  crossed  before  they  entered 
into  the  possessions  which  Jahveh  had  covenanted  to  give 
them,  and  they  may  or  may  not  have  believed  that  "  forty 
years"  were  exhausted  when  they  passed  this  river  and 
entered  the  land  of  Canaan. 

But  in  the  course  of  time  the  views  entertained  by  the 
inhabitants  of  Judsea  respecting  the  migration  from  Egypt 
underwent  an  extraordinary  change.  In  the  pious  romance 
which  constitutes  the  first  portion  of  the  Book  of  Joshua, 
we  find  "  the  wilderness"  and  its  privations  assume  marvel- 
lous proportions.      The  writer  lived  at  a  period  so  far  re- 

*  ITum.  xxi.    13. 


382  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

moved  from  that  wliose  events  he  professed  to  record,  and 
was  so  wholly  unacquainted  with  the  physical  features 
and  characteristics  of  the  country  about  which  he  AVTOte, 
that  he  not  only  made  the  forty  years  terminate  wlien  the 
Jordan  was  crossed,  but  he  actually  brought  "  the  wilderness" 
up  to  the  bank  of  that  river,  and  declared  that  the  Israelites 
were  recipients  of  manna  untd  they  set  foot  in  Canaan."*^ 
It  is  needless  to  point  out  that  the  Amorites  who  were 
vanquished  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Jordan  must  have  had 
the  means  of  subsistence,  and  that  the  region  coveted  by  the 
Reubenites  and  Gadites  was  not  one  in  which  it  was  essen- 
tial to  disturb  the  laws  of  Nature  in  order  to  supply  the 
inhabitants  with  food.  Besides  we  know,  from  other  sources, 
that  the  emigrants  from  Egypt  were  willing  to  purchase 
from  friendly  tribes  the  supplies  of  which  they  stood  in 
need,t  and  they  could  not  have  even  temporarily  consorted 
with  Kenites,  Edomites,  Moabites,  Midianites,  and  others, 
without  partaking  of  the  food  at  the  disposal  of  those 
tribes.  But  considerations  such  as  these  were  overlooked 
or  disregarded  by  the  writer  to  whom  we  refer.  He  pro- 
bably found  it  stated  in  an  ancient  record — to  wliieli  we 
shall  have  occasion  to  refer — that  the  children  of  Israel 
were  for  their  disobedience  made  to  "  feed "  for  forty  years 
in  the  wilderness,|  and  as  the  forty  years  were  supposed 
Ity  him  to  liave  terminated  at  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan, 
l>e  probal)ly  thought  he  would  1)C  historically  correct  in  re- 
l)resenting  the  Israelites  as  having  been  fed  on  manna  until 
they  passed  that  river.      But,  whatever  may  have  been  the 


•  Jos.  V.  lo  12.  f  Deut.  ii.  6,  28,  29. 

X  Num.  xiv.  33.  The  reconl  in  Exodus  (chap,  xvi.)  containinfj  the 
statement  that  the  children  of  Israel  ate  manna  forty  years  (Kxod.  xvi. 
35).  is  of  very  late  date.  It  brings  in  the  "  Testimony"— that  is,  the 
Ark — at  a  time  when  it  did  not  exist,  and  gives  an  explanatory  gloss 
oil  the  nature  of  an  omcr. 


FROM  EGYPT.  383 

imprefssions  which  he  formed  or  the  motives  which  actuated 
him,  he  succeeded  in  giving  to  the  migration  from  Egypt  a 
complexion  it  never  originally  possessed,  and  laid  the  foun- 
dation for  those  Unintelligible  wandering-s  which  have  for 
more  than  two  thousand  years  perplexed  the  minds  of  the 
earnest  behevers  in  the  providence  of  God,  and  driven  to 
despair  tlie  painstaking  and  confiding  thousands  who  have 
vainly  endeavoured  to  follow  the  track  of  the  Heaven-con- 
ducted host. 

It  is  needless  to  observe  that  in  the  oft-quoted  address  of 
Jephthah  to  the  king  of  the  Ammonites,  there  is  no  sugges- 
tion that  the  children  of  Israel  "wandered"  on  their  way 
from  Egypt.  There  is  an  intimation  of  a  break  in  the 
journey  at  Kadesh,  but  nothing  more.  They  "  walked 
through  the  wilderness  to  the  Eed  Sea,  and  came  to  Kadesh  ;" 
they  "  abode  in  Kadesh  ;"  and,  again  "  they  walked  through 
the  wilderness,  and  compassed  Edom  and  Moab."  And  if  we 
refer  to  the  only  records  we  possess  respecting  the  migra- 
tion, we  not  only  discover  nothing  inconsistent  with  this 
simple  statement,  but  everything  which  confirms  it.  The 
traditions  preserved  in  the  Books  of  Exodus  and  Numbers 
respecting  the  movements  of  the  Israelites,  as  we  have 
already  shown  at  great  length,  tally  with  Jephthah's  de- 
scription. There  is  confessedly  no  account  given  of  the 
wanderings  themselves,  and  we  are  therefore  reduced  to  the 
simple  inquiry  whether  it  is  stated  in  the  Scriptural  records 
as  a  matter  of  fact  that  the  Israelites  did  wander  in  the  wil- 
derness, and,  if  so,  on  what  authority  such  statement  rests. 

In  the  first  place,  we  must  take  precautions  against  being 
misled  by  words,  and  before  adopting  the  term  "  wander," 
which  is  of  tolerably  frequent  occurrence  in  the  Authorised 
Version  in  connection  with  the  Israehtes'  movements  m  the 
wilderness,  we  must  ascertain  whether  the  idea  implied  by 
that  term  was  conveyed  by  the  Hebrew  words  so  translated. 


384  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

In  an  address  wliich  Caleb  is  said  to  have  made  to  Joshua 
subsequent  to  the  successful  invasion  of  Canaan,  the  former 
refers  to  his  life  having  been  preserved  while  "  Israel  wan- 
dered in  the  wilderness."*  In  the  margin  of  the  A.  A', 
the  correct  translation  "  walked "  is  to  be  found.  The 
Hebrew  wordt  is  of  very  frequent  occurrence,  and  signifies 
to  "  go,"  to  "  walk,"  and  occasionally  implies  a  simple  state 
of  continuance.  Thus,  "  Jahveh  thy  God  walketh  in  the 
midst  of  thy  camp,  to  deliver  thee  ;  "|  meaning,  Jahveh 
"  accompanies"  or  "  is  with"  liis  people.  "  For  the  children  of 
Israel  icalked  forty  years  in  the  wilderness,  till  all  the  people 
tliat  were  men  of  war  were  consumed,"?  does  not  mean  tliat 
they  wandered,  nor  even  that  they  "  walked,"  in  the  sense 
of  constant  motion,  from  place  to  place,  but  simply  that  they 
passed  their  time  in  the  uilderness  during  "  forty  years,"  until 
a  certain  result  was  brought  about — a  result  wliich,  it  is 
important  to  remark,  needed  for  its  realisation  the  simple 
evolution  of  time,  and  not  any  particular  occupation  on  tlie 
l)art  of  the  Israelites. 

It  is  stated  that  when  the  Israelites  murmured  against 
their  leaders,  and  refused  to  invade  Canaan,  Jahveh  was 
very  angry ;  and,  to  punish  them  for  their  disobedience,  told 
tliem  they  sliould  be  consumed,  and  that  their  children 
should  "  wander  "  in  the  wilderness  forty  years.||  The  word 
here  translated  '  wander'II  has  no  such  meaning.  It  signifies 
(as,  indeed,  is  stated  in  the  A.  V.  margin)  to  "  feed"  or  to 
"  pasture,"  and  tlie  passage  was  in  the  original  never  in- 
tended to  convey  any  other  idea  than  that  the  rising 
generation  of  the  Israelites  would  be  (or  rather  were)  com- 
pelled  to  live   fur    forty   yeai"S    in   the  wilderness,  until   tlie 


•  Jos.  xiv.  10.  \  iSn  hahhic'h.  I  Pout,  xxiii.  14. 

§  Jos.  V.  6.  II  Num.  xiv.  2;^.  %   nyt  lidh-ndh. 


FROM  EGYPT.  385 

adults  who  were  responsible  for  the  rebellion  had  died  out. 
That  this  is  the  correct  interpretation  appears  from  the  other 
version  of  the  tradition  which  is  contained  in  the  same 
chaiDter.*  In  it  there  is  no  mention  of  "  wandering"  or 
"  feeding,"  but  Jahveh  simply  declares,  "  Surely  they  shall  not 
see  the  land  which  I  sware  unto  their  fathers ;  neither  shall 
any  of  them  that  provoked  me  see  it."t  The  Israelites 
believed  that,  in  consequence  of  their  disobedience  in  the 
wilderness,  the  adults  were  not  allowed  to  live  long  enough 
to  enter  into  the  promised  possessions,  whilst  the  rising 
generation  was,  according  to  the  Hebrew  conception  of 
vicarious  punishment,  obliged  to  expiate  such  disobedience^ 
by  remaining  in  the  wilderness — i.e.,  in  the  region  outside 
their  future  home,  until  their  fathers  died.  But  there  is 
nothing  here  to  support  the  suggestion  that  they  ever  thought 
they  whiled  away  their  time  in  objectless  straying  in  a 
region  assumed  to  be  uninhabitable  by  man,  under  the  ordinary 
conditions  of  nature. 

It  is  related  that  when  the  tribes  of  Eeuben  and  Gad  sued 
for  the  possessions  which  had  been  conquered  on  the  east  of 
the  Jordan,  Moses  reproached  them,  and  reminded  them  of 
the  consequences  which  followed  the  rebellion  of  the 
Israelites  on  the  return  of  the  spies.  "  And  Jahveh's  anger 
was  kindled  against  Israel,  and  he  made  them  wander  in 
the  wilderness  forty  years,  until  all  the  generation  that  had 
done  evil  in  the  sight  of  Jahveh  were  consumed."?  Moses 
then  continues  :  "  Behold,  ye  are  risen  up  in  your  fathers'  stead 
....  for  if  ye  turn  away  from  after  him,  he  will  yet 
again  leave  them  in  the  wilderness;  and  ye  shall  destroy  all 
this  people."  1 1  We  have  already  stated  our  reasons  for 
assigning  a  comparatively  late  date  and  a  Cis-Jordanic  origin 

*  Num.  xiv.  11-25.  t  Num.  xlv.  23.  +  Num.  xiv.  33. 

§  Num.  xxxii.  13.  ||  Num.  xxxii.  14,  15. 

C  C 


386  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

to  the  narrative  of   the   allotment  of   Gilead  to  lieuben  and 
Gad,  and  we  find  in  the   passage  here  quoted  a  confirmation 
of   this   conclusion.     The   Trans-Jordanic   region  had  lieen 
already  acquired  when    Reuben    and    Gad    preferred    their 
request ;  the  Israelites  had  entered,  and  then  held  by  right  of 
conquest  a   rich  and  fertile  country;  and  yet  we  find  the 
narrator  representing  Moses  warning  Eeuben  and  Gad  that 
their   anxiety  to   obtain   possessions   before    their  brethren 
had  entered  into  their  promised  home  might  excite  the  anger 
of  Jahveh,  and  induce  him  to  punish  the  people — how  ? — by 
"  yet  again  leaving  them  in  the  wilderness."      But  as  at  this 
time  the   Israelites  were  no   longer   in  a  wilderness,  in  the 
general  acceptation  of  that  term,  but  in  the  highly  produc- 
tive region  of  which  they  had  dispossessed  the  Amorites,  we 
have  further  proof  that  the  word   midhhar  was  used  to   de- 
note the  entire  region  which   on  their  way  from  Egj^t  the 
Israelites  were  obliged  to  traverse  before  reaching  their  final 
homes.     The  wilderness   of   the   Trans-Jordanic  tribes  ter- 
minated at  the  Arnon,  that  of   the  settlers  in  Canaan  at  the 
Jordan.      But  in  what  way  was  the  anger  of  Jahveh,  accord- 
ing  to   the   conception   of  the  narrator,  to  l)e   manifested? 
Clearly  in  the  same  form  in  wliich   it  had  been  manifested 
before.     Jahveh  would  assuredly  treat  those  who  had  risen 
uj)   in  their-  fathers'  stead   as  he  had  already  treated  their 
fathers,  and  "  yet  again  leave  them  in  the  wilderness."     But 
tlie  wildest  imagination  could   never  conceive  the  possibility 
of  a  people  wandering  about  in  the  country  bordering  Jordan 
on  the  east ;  and  it  must  be  taken  that  the  warning  put  in 
the  mouth  of  Moses  by  the  narrator  was   simply  intended 
to  convey  the   idea    tliut  Jalivt-h  would  probably  punish  the 
people  by  detaining  them  for  another  long  period  outside  the 
limits  of  the  land  whicli  he  had  promised  to  tliem,  or  might 
possibly  abandon  them  altogether. 

These  considerations  consequently  lead  us  to  examine  with 


FROM  EGYPT.  387 

some  caution  the  word  employed  by  the  narrator,  which  in 
the  Authorized  Version  is  rendered  "  he  made  them  wander.""* 
This  wordt  is  stated,  on  the  high  authority  of  Gesenius, 
primarily  to  signify  "  to  move  to  and  fro,"  "  to  vacillate." 
It  is  applied  to  the  motion  of  the  drunk,  and  of  the  blind, 
to  the  rustling  of  leaves,  and  by  the  prophet  Amos  it  is 
twice  used  to  convey  the  idea  of  fruitless  journeying.j  In 
the  causative  form  it  is  employed  in  the  Book  of  Daniel  iii 
allusion  to  the  movement  of  "  reeling  ;"^  it  appears  in  the 
59th  Psalmjl  in  the  same  sense  in  which  it  is  used  by  Amos  ; 
and  in  Numbers  (in  the  passage  now  under  consideration), 
and  in  the  Second  Book  of  Samuel,  with  sioiiifications  to 
which  we  are  about  more  particularly  to  refer.  It  is  no- 
where employed  to  convey  the  idea  of  "  straying,"  or  of 
objectless  motion  from  place  to  place. 

When  David   quitted  Jerusalem  in  consequence   of   the 
rebellion  of  Absalom,1[  he   was  accompanied   by  a   Gittite, 
named  Ittai.     As  Ittai  was  a  foreigner,  and  presumably  un- 
interested in  the  change  of  government,  David  advised  him 
to  return  and  abide   with   the  new  king — "  Wliereas  thou 
camest  but  yesterday,"  said  David,  "  should  I  this  day  'make, 
thee  go  up  and  down  with   us   [in   the  margin  of  the  A.  \^., 
"  make  thee  wander  in  going"],  seeing  I  go  whither  I  may  : 
return  thee  with  thy  brethren."     David  with  his  followers 
lied  across  the  Jordan,  and  having  been  pursued  by  Absalom 
with  the  army  of  Israel,  a   battle  took  place,  in   which  the 
latter  was  vanquished,  and  Absalom  was  slain.     The  mean- 
ing of  David's  expression,  italicised  in  the  above  passage,  is 
tolerably  apparent.     He  was  uncertain  what  would  be  the 
issue  of  the  impending  struggle  between  hhuself  and  his  son. 


*  Xurn.  xssii.  13.  f  y-IJ  Noo-ay.  +  Amos  iv.  8;  viii.  12. 

§  Dan.  X.  10.  I|  Ps.  Jix.  15. 

■[[  2  Sam.  XV.  13-23. 
CC  2 


388  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

and  he  knew  not  in  wliat  direction  he  might  be  compelled 
to  turn  his  steps.  He  therefore  sought  to  dissuade  Ittai 
from  accompanying  him.  But  he  had  no  idea  of  wandering, 
or  of  Leing  the  cause  of  Ittai's  wandering,  in  the  ordinary 
acceptation  of  that  term. 

But  in  the  passage  in  Nuniljers  wliicli  immediately  occupies 
our  attention,  is  there   any  justification  for   concluding  that 
tlie  word  employed  has  any  larger  signification  than  that  of 
a  change  of  movement  consequent  on  the  non-realisation   of 
the  object  originally  prompting  it  ?    The  prominent  feature  of 
the  migration  from  Egypt,  exhibited    in   all  the  traditions, 
was  the  check  received   on  tlie  return  of   the  sjjies,  through 
the  failure  to  enter  Canaan  from  the  south,  with  the   subse- 
(jiient  refusal  of   the  Edomites  to  allow  a  passage   through 
their  territory,  the  consequent  abode  at  Kadesh,  and  the  re- 
tracing of  tlieir  steps  by  the  Israelites,   when    they  once 
again  proceeded  to  the  Eed  Sea  (Akaba)  previous  to  i)assing 
around  Edom  and  Moab.      It  was  at  Kadesh,  at  tliis  turning- 
jtoint,  that  Jahveh  caused  the  people,  in  consequence  of  their 
tlisobedience,  to    abandon    that    direct  route  by  which  he 
li;ul  lt'(l   them   from    Egyi)t    to   the   possessions    which     he 
had  sworn  to  give  to  them.      But  from  the  Hebrew  religious 
stand-point,  Jahveh  naturally  could  not  commit  any  mistake. 
If  the  Israelites  did  not  immediately  enter  Canaan,  and  if 
they  were  obliged  to  abandon  their  original  route  and  re- 
trace  their  stejis,  the  fault  was  exclusively  theirs ;  and  it 
was  Jahveli  who,  in  consequence  of  their  disobedience  or 
wajit   of  faith,  obliged  them  to  turn   back  and  seek  their 
future   destination  by  another    route.      lUit   as  the  change 
of  purpose  and  of  route  involved  a  long  delay  V)efore  Canaan 
was    ultimately  entered,  tlie    change    of   route  and  the   con- 
se([uent  delay  came  to  be  combined  in  one  complex  idea,  and 
hence  the  employment  of  a  form  of  expression  calculated  to 
convey    the  imi)ression    that  the    change  of  route  was  an 


FROM  EGYPT.  389 

ever-continuing  process  coincident  with  the  whole  period  of 
forty  years.  In  one  sense  it  was  so,  because  the  adoption  of 
the  altered  route  involved  the  subsequent  delay  ;  but  the 
construction  that  the  Israelites  were  made  during  a  long- 
period  to  change  tlieir  course  continuously,  witliout  ever 
having  any  objective  point  to  which  they  were  tending— 
now  moving  north,  now  south,  now  east,  now  west — only  to 
liud  themselves  at  the  end  of  many  years  at  the  place  from 
which  they  started,  is  one  wliich  the  passage  will  not  bear, 
wliich  the  writer  never  intended  it  to  have,  and  which,  more- 
over, would  never  have  been  put  upon  it  by  sane  men  in 
search  of  historical  truth,  if  the  passage  so  construed  occurred 
in  writings  for  which  the  authority  of  inspiration  had  not 
been  claimed.  It  is,  however,  only  just  to  the  author  of 
this  passage  to  say  that  he  is  not  responsible,  because  a  love 
of  the  marvellous,  together  with  a  fantastic  conception  of 
the  ways  of  Providence,  have  led  pious  men  to  attribute  to 
him  a  meaning  which  he  never  intended  to  convey. 

The  author  of  Ps.  cvii."^  employs  a  wordt  which  is  ren- 
dered "  wander,"  but  independently  of  the  ambiguity  of  the 
allusion  which  may  or  may  not  refer  to  the  journey  from 
Egypt,  and  the  uncertain  date  of  the  composition,  it  is 
to  be  observed  that  the  same  word  is  elsewhere  used  in  a 
different  sense.  Wlien  Abraham  said  to  Abimelech,  "  God 
caused  me  to  wander  from  my  father's  house,";};  he  used  the 
term  simply  in  the  sense  of  departure  from  the  paternal 
domicile  in  search  of  another  but  as  yet  undetermined  home. 
In  a  similar  sense,  it  would  seem  to  be  employed  in  the 
narrative  of  Hagar's  expulsion  from  Abraham's  house.  § 

At  the  close  of  the  seventh  century  B.C.,  the  dare 
assigned   to  the  composition  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy, 


*  Ps.  cvii.  4,  40.  t  nyn  Tah-rjah.  +  Gen,  xx.  13. 

§  Gen.  xxi.  14. 


390  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

the  conception  entertained  respecting  tlie  migration  from 
Kgypt  assumed  another  form.  The  religion  of  Israel  had 
hecome  purer,  and  the  author  of  this  Book  formed  a  higher 
and  a  grander  idea  of  Jahveh.  Monotheism  began  to  sup- 
j)lant  Henotlieism ;  the  tribal  deity  gave  place  to  the  Lord  of 
the  Heavens  and  the  Earth.  In  dealing  with  the  traditions 
of  the  migration  from  Egypt,  the  MTiter  adopted  the  literal 
cijiistruction  of  the  forty  years'  stay  in  the  wilderness,  but 
])urified  the  conception  of  the  care  manifested  by  the  pro- 
tecting God  for  his  people.  "He  led  them  in  the  wilder- 
ness during  forty  years* — that  is  to  say,  lie  watched  over 
them,  he  was  with  them,  he  directed  their  steps  so  that 
ultimately  they  shoidd  reach  their  promised  destination. 
lUit  tlie  writer  says  nothing  to  make  one  suppose  he  thouglit 
that  the  Israelites  were  literally  made  to  stray  in  the  wilder- 
ness during  the  period  to  which  he  refers.  On  the  contrary, 
in  tlie  language  of  Oriental  imagery,  he  exaggerates  the  pro- 
vident care  of  the  Deity,  by  representing  the  raiment  of  the 
Israelites  as  not  wearing  out,  and  tlieir  feet  as  unaffected  by 
tlicir  lung  and  arduous  journey.f  That  he  magnified  the 
toil  and  the  dangers  incidental  to  the  physical  task  of  pro- 
ceeding from  Egyj^t  to  Canaan,  even  with  the  detour  round 
Ktlum,  is  very  possible  ;  and  that  the  forty  years'  stay  in  the 
wililerness,  unexplained  as  it  wAs,  had  created  in  Juda?a  the 
impression  that  many  and  grievous  hardships  had  been 
Ixn-ne  by  the  emigrants  of  wliieli  no  record  was  kept,  is 
tolerably  certain  ;  but  there  is  really  no  evidence  that,  even 
so  late  as  the  fall  of  the  Jewish  monarchy,  any  clearly  defined 
idea'  was  entertained  that  the  Israelites  had  occupied  the 
greater  part  of  the  traditional  forty  years  in  straying  about. 
How  the  time  was  passed  was  unknown,  and  this  ignorance, 
coupled  with    the    fantastic   notion    that  the   Israelites    ate 


•  Duut.  viii.  2;  xxix.  5.  f  Deut.  via.  4;  xxix.  5. 


FROM  EGYPT.  391 

nothing  but  manna  from  the  time  they  quitted  Egypt  until 
they  crossed  the  Jordan,  laid  the  foundation  for  the  marvel- 
lous superstructure  of  the  wanderings.  If  men  received  a 
miraculous  supply  of  food  daily,  it  was  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  they  stood  in  need  of  it,  and  this  necessity  could 
only  have  arisen  in  a  wilderness.  But  a  stay  of  forty  years 
in  such  a  region  was  alone  comprehensible  on  the  assump- 
tion that  such  a  period  was  indispensable  to  traverse  it,  or 
that  owing  to  exceptional  circumstances  the  Israelites  were 
unable,  or  were  not  permitted,  to  cross  it  in  a  shorter  time. 
That  in  consequence  of  their"  disobedience  they  were  not 
permitted  to  quit  it  any  sooner,  was  the  universal  belief 
amongst  the  settlers  in  Canaan  ;  or,  to  borrow  the  language  of 
the  author  of  the  concluding  chapters  of  the  Book  of  Joshua, 
they  "  dwelt  in  the  wilderness  a  long  season."*  But  in  time 
the  idea  arose  that,  although  one  portion  of  a  completely 
barren  region  would  be  no  better  than  another,  occasional 
motion  would  be  preferable  to  continuous  rest  ;  and  hence 
came  the  conception  of  the  movements  of  the  Israelites  from 
one  part  of  the  wilderness  to  another — a  conception  which 
became  stremrthened  through  misunderstandino'  the  records 
in  which  were  preserved  the  traditions  of  the  migration. 
Their  fragmentary  and  imconnected  nature  was  lost  sight  of, 
and  they  came  to  be  treated  as  a  continuous  narrative. 
There  seemed  to  be  two  arrivals  of  the  Israelites  at  Kadesh, 
separated  by  a  long  series  of  years.  What  could  be  more 
natural  than  to'  fill  up  the  interval  by  making  the  people 
expiate  their  rebellion  by  wandering  about  until  their  ap- 
pointed punishment  had  been  fulfilled  ? 

*  Jos.  xxiv.  7.  The  same  writer  uses  language  which  excludes  a 
belief  on  his  part  that  the  Israelites  passed  the  forty  years  wandering 
in  a  desolate,  uninhabited  region.  "  For  Jahveh,  our  God,  he  it  is 
that  brought  us  up  and  our  fathers  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  and 
preserved  us  in  all  the  way  wherein  we  went,  andb  avxong  all  the  jieople 
throuqh  whom,  ive  'passed'^  (Jos.  xxiv.  17). 


392 


CHArTEK  XY. 

T  X  treating  of  the  history  of  the  Hebrew  migration  from 
Kgypt,  it  is  of  some  importance  to  ascertain,  if  possible, 
wlietlier  those  who  forced  an  entrance  into  the  Trans- 
Jordanic  region  secured  their  "possessions"  witliin  a  com- 
paratively short  period  after  quitting  the  jtlace  of  their 
(•a]»tivity,  and  also  whether  they  accomjilished  this  great 
work  under  the  leadership  of  Moses.  In  dealing  with  this 
part  of  our  inipiiry,  we  are  equally  embarrassed  by  the 
scantiness  and  the  imperfection  of  the  materials  at  our 
command.  The  records  which  preserve  the  Trans-Jordanic 
traditions  are  far  from  numerous,  and  such  as  they  are  they 
have  passed  not  uninjured  through  Cis-Jordanic  channels. 
We  are  compelled  therefore,  as  best  we  can,  to  distinguish 
the  origmal  stories  from  the  later  embellishments  and 
glosses,  in  order  to  ascertain  what  were  the  beliefs  enter- 
tained by  those  who  established  themselves  on  the  left  bank 
of  the  Jordan.  > 

It  is  no  doubt  specifically  stated  that  Moses  led  the 
Israelites  against  the  kings  of  the  Amorites,  and,  having  dis- 
j.ossessed  them,  that  he  partitioned  Gilead  between  the 
lieubenites,  Gadites,  and  half  the  tribe  of  Manassites.  We 
have  already  set  forth  tlio  grounds  upon  whicli  mc.  must 
reject  this  story  of  the  partition,  and  it  will  therefore 
cause  us  the  less  effort  to  withhold  our  accei)tance  of  the 
statement  that  Moses  was  the  conqueror  of  Gilead  until  we 
have  examined  the  traditions  respecting  the  circumstances  of 
his  death.    It  will  further  be  recollected  that  the  account  of 


THE  HEBREW  MIGRA  TION  FROM  EGYPT.        393 

the  conquest  of  the  Trans- Jordanic  region  is  extremely  bald, 
and  that  according  to  one  statement  it  is  said  to  have  been 
accomplished  under  the  leadership  of  Machir,  and  according 
to  another  under  that  of  Jair. 

In  the  Book  of  Numbers  it  is  recorded  that  Jahveh  said 
unto  Moses,  "  Get  thee  up  into  this  mount  Abarini,  and  see 
the  land  which  I  have  given  unto  the  children  of  Israel ; 
and  when  thou  hast  seen  it,  thou  shalt  be  gathered  unto 
thy  people,  as  Aaron  thy  brother  was  gathered.'"^  In 
Deuteronomy  there  is  a  somewhat  different  version  :  "  Get 
thee  up  into  this  mountain  Abarim,  unto  mount  Nebo,  which 
is  in  the  land  of  Moab,  that  is  over  against  Jericho  ;  and  be- 
hold the  land  of  Canaan,  which  I  give  unto  the  children  of 
Israel  for  a  possession."t  "  And  Moses  went  up  from  the 
plains  of  Moab  (Arahoth  Moah),  unto  the  mountain  of  Nebo, 
to  the  top  of  Pisgah,  which  is  over  against  Jericho  :  and 
Jahveh  showed  him  all  the  land  of  Gilead,  unto  Dan,  and  all 
Naphtali,"  &c.:|:  "  So  Moses  died  in  the  land  of  Moab,  and 
he  buried  him  in  a  valley  in  the  land  of  Moab,  over  against 
Beth-peor  ;  but  no  man  knoweth  of  his  sepulchre  unto  this 
day."§  Where  was  this  Mount  Abarim  {Rar-ha-Aharim)  ?|| 
Are  we  to  look  for  it  opposite  and  in  sight  of  Jericho,  or  are 
we  to  seek  for  it  to  the  south  of  the  Arnon  ?  We  are  not 
now  inquiring  whether  as  a  matter  of  fact  Moses  ever 
accompanied  the  Hebrews  as  far  as  the  land  of  Moab,  even 
as  limited  on  the  north  by  the  Arnon,  but  whether  a 
tradition  arose  that  he  did  so,  and  from  a  mountain  in 
that  country  viewed  the  possessions  he  was  not  permitted 
to  enter.  That  there  was  such  a  tradition  there  can  be  no 
doubt ;  but  the  statement  that  the   mountain   from   which 

*  Num.  xxvii.  12,  13.         t  JDeut.  xxxii.  49.         I  Deut.  xxxiv.  i,  2. 

§  Deut.  xxxiv.  5,  6. 
II  The  word  Abarim  is  preceded  by  the  definite  article,  "the  mount 
of  the  Abarim,"  whatever  that  may  have  meant. 


394  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

liloses  was  said  to  liave  viewed  the  future  home  of  liis 
followers  was  placed  in  ]Moah,  and  not  in  Gilead,  the 
newly  acquired  territory  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  and  that 
he  was  permitted  to  see  Gilead,  which  according  to  other 
accounts  he  is  said  to  have  conquered,  raises  a  strong 
j)resumption  that  Mount  Abarim  was  to  the  south  of  tlie 
Anion.  If  Moses  had '  accompanied  his  followers  into 
Gilead,  and  had  died  there,  it  is  inconceivable  that 
tradition  slioidd  not  have  preserved  so  imj)ortant  a  fact ; 
and  no  less  so  that  the  Trans-Jordanic  settlers  should  have 
forgotten  the  jilace  where  they  buried  their  great  leader, 
though  his  gi\ave  necessarily  lay  within  the  limits  of  their 
lately  acquired  possessions. 

We  have  already  stated  our  reasons  for  identifying  the 
naclml  Zered  with  the  valley  of  tlie  Anion.  Let  us  inquire 
whether  the  heights  of  Abarim  have  any  apparent  connec- 
tion with  the  border  which  separated  "  the  wilderness"  from 
the  possessions  of  those  who  settled  on  the  east  of  the 
Jordan. 

In  (jiie  of  the  Targums  the  nachal  Zered  is  called  "the 
valley  of  willows,"*  and  Isaiah  makes  mention  of  a  "  valley 
of  willows"t  as  lying  within  the  territory  or  on  the  borders 
of  Moal).  In  the  construction  of  "  booths,"  at  the  Feast  of 
Tabernacles,  "  willows  of  tlie  brook"  were  used,  together 
with  "  branches  of  palm-trees  :"|  and  tliere  is  good  reason 
foi-  ,su]i])osing  that  the  willow  was  associated  in  the  Jewish 
mind,  at  all  events  previous^  to  the  Babylonian  captivity, 
with  hajjpiness  and  prosperity.  That  this  was  due  to  the 
tradition    that    tlie    "  valley    of  willows"   marked   the    final 


*  "  Thence  they  journeyed,  and  encamped  in  a  valley  abounding  in 
reeds,  osiers,  and  mandrakes,"  or  "lilies"  {Targ.  Pal.,  Num.  xxi.  ii  ; 
Etlioridpe's  Translation). 

t  isa.  XV.  7.  I  Lev.  xxiil.  40.  §  Ps.  cxxxvii.  2. 


FROM  EGYPT.  395 

encampment  of  the  children  of  Israel  before   quitting  the 
wilderness  is,  to  say  the  least,  not  improbable. 

The  valley  or  brook  referred  to  by  Isaiah  is  called  in  the 
Hebrew  text  Tiachal  Ha-Arahim,  which  is  probaljly  rightly 
construed  "  the  valley  of  willows,"  and  would  seem  to  be 
identical  with  the  nachal  Zered,*  "  the  valley  of  wiUows" 
of  the  Targumist.  But  we  know  that  before  quitting  the 
wilderness  the  Israelites  rested  at  Ije-Abarim,  then  moved 
into  the  valley  of  Zared,  and  then  crossed  the  Arnon  ;t  and 
we  are  therefore  led  to  inquire  whether  the  word  Abarim 
may  not  be  the  result  of  the  transposition  of  a  letter  by  a 
scribe — Abarim  for  Arabim.  There  are  instances  in  which 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  such  errors  have  occurred  in  the 
Hebrew  text,  and  this  would  seem  to  have  been  one  of 
them.  I  The  name  Abarim  occurs  elsewhere,  but  this  fur- 
nishes no  proof  that  the  word  appeared  originally  in  this 
form,  because,  putting  out  of  sight  the  later  date  of  the 
records  in  which  the  name  is  repeated,  it  must  in  any  case 
have  been  necessary  to  harmonise  the  several  passages  so 
far  as  regarded  the  name  of  the  place,  if  any  discrepancy 
existed.  The  point  is  of  some  importance,  because,  if  this 
speculation  should  be  well-founded,  it  would  furnish  a  curious 
corroboration  of  the  identity  of  independent  traditions  in 
bringing  the  migration  through  the  wilderness  to  a  close  at 
a  "  valley  of  willows,"  known  respectively  as  nachal  Zared 
and    nachal   Ha-Arahim,    the    heights    commanding   which 


*  TIT  Zaracl,   an  unused  root  =  to  T^rune  trees,  hence   "TIT  Zered, 

-T  ■*■  VV 

which  signifies  the  luxuriant  growth  of  trees.  We  find,  consequently, 
that  the  nachal  Zered  and  the  nachal  Ha-Arabini  have  a  similar 
meaning — a  valley  remarkable  for  its  trees,  or  adjoining  a  place  having 
this  characteristic. 

f  Num.  xxi.  11-13. 
X  The  Masorites  give  sixty -two  instances  in  which,  in  their  opinion, 
this  error  has  crept  into  the  text. 


396  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

furnished  a  resting-jjlace  for  the  Israelites  before  descemling 
intfj  the  AVady. 

An  allusion  is  apparently  made  to  this  celebrated  valley 
in  a  narrative  told  of  Elijaii,  which  merits  a  passing  refer- 
ence as  illustrating  the  way  in  which  miraculous  legends 
are  formed. 

Elijali,  wlio  was  a  (lileadite — that  is,  an  inliabitant  of  the 
Trans- Jordanic  region — is  said  to  have  foretold  to  Ahab, 
king  of  Israel,  a  long-continued  drought.  He  then  was 
commanded  by  Jahveh  to  turn  eastward,  and  hide  in  the 
michal  Cheritli,  wliicli  was  "  before  the  Jordan,"  to  driidv  of 
the  waters  of  the  brook,  and  food  would  be  brought  to 
]iim  by  ravens.  Elijah  did  so  ;  bread  and  meat  were  brought 
to  him  night  and  morning  by  ravens,  and  lie  drank  of  the 
water  of  the  brook  until  it  dried  up,  and  then  he  received 
the  commands  of  Jahveh  to  go  to  Zeraphath,  in  Zidon.* 

The  word  wliith  is  translated  "ravens"  is,  save  in  the 
jVIasoretic  vowel  punctuation,  identical  with  that  which  is 
rendered  "  willows,"t  and  it  would  seem  therefore  that 
Klij;di  was  told  to  proceed  to  the  naclial  Cherith,  which  was 
nott'(l  fnr  its  willows  ;  and  this  supposition  is  strengthened  by 
considering  the  direction  which  Elijah  was  supposed  to  have 
taken  when  quitting  Ahab,  who  probably  was  at  the  time  in 
Ids  capital,  Samaria.  He  went  eastwards  to  a  valley  which 
was  "  iK'fnie,"  that  is,  to  the  east  of,  the  Jordan.  Xow,  if  he 
was  seeking  to  avoid  Ahab's  vengeance,  it  was  natural  that 
he  should  go  beyond  his  reach;  and  the  "valley  of  willows,' 
the  luaclml  Zared,  lying  as  it  did  outside  the  Trans-Jordanic 
possessions,  would  supi)ly  to  the  Gileadite  a  suitable  place 
of    refuge.      If    this  view  be   correct,  Cheritli  W(.uhl   lie   tlie 


*  I  Kings  xvii.  1-9. 
+  D'3"iy  Arahhn  (willows),  D'2ij;  Orehim  (ravens).     It  is  needless  to 
rciiiin.l  tlio   reader  that  in  the   original   text   there  were    no   vowel 
points,  and  that  the  two  words  were  absolutely  identical. 


FROM  EGYPT.  397 

corruption  or    Cis-Jordanic   evolution    of  the    more  ancient 
name  Zered. 

The  story  of  the  ravens  was  too  strong  even  for  St.  Jerome, 
and  he  suggested  that  the  providence  of  God,  and  a  due 
regard  for  probabilities,  might  be  reconciled  by  reading 
Arabim  for  Orebim,  and  translating  the  word  Arabians* 
Having  been  commanded  to  take  refuge  in  a  valley  on  the 
frontier  of  Arabia,  it  seemed  a  natural  explanation  of  what 
subsequently  occurred  that  the  Arabians  should,  by  the 
Divine  command,  have  fed  the  fugitive  prophet.  Another 
and  more  probable  explanation  of  the  supposed  miracle, 
however,  jjresents  itself.  It  has  been  noticed  by  travellers 
that  a  tree  grows  on  the  banks  of  the  Jordan  and  in  the 
neighbouring  valleys,  named  the  Gharrob  or  Gharh,  which 
produces  on  its  leaves  and  branches  a  gum  that  closely  re- 
sembles the  manna  of  the  Bedouins  which  is  found  on  the 
tarfa   or  tamarisk.t     The  Gharroh  has,  however,  been  iden- 


*  In  the  Comm.  on  Isa.  xv.  7,  Jerome  writes  :  "  Pro  salicibus  in 
Hebrteolegimus  Arahim,  qnod  potest  et  Arabes  intelligi  et  legi  Orhim, 
id  est  villa  in  finibus  eorum  sita  cujus  a  plerisque  accolas  in  Monte 
Oreb  Eliee  praebuisse  alimenta  dicuntur:  quod  nomen  propter  ambi- 
guitatem  transfertur  et  in  corvos,  atqne  Occidentem-,  loca  que 
campestria.'"  The  reference  to  Mount  Horeb  shows  how  completely 
the  Sinaitic  peninsula  was  absent  from  the  mind  of  Jerome,  since  the 
nuchal  Arahim  of  Isaiah,  however  the  designation  be  understood,  was 
declared  by  the  prophet  to  be  on  the  borders  of  Moab. 

t  ■•  One  of  the  most  interesting  productions  of  this  valley"  (Burck- 
hardt  is  referring  to  the  Ghor  and.  the  eastern  side  of  the  Dead  Sea) 
"  is  the  Beyrouk  honey,  or,  as  the  Arabs  call  it,  Assal  Beyrouk.  I 
suppose  it  to  be  the  manna,  but  I  never  had  an  opportunity  of  seeing 
it  myself.  It  was  described  to  me  as  a  juice  dropping  from  the  leaves 
and  twigs  of  a  tree  called  Gharrab,  of  the  size  of  an  olive-tree,  with 
leaves  like  those  of  the  poplar,  but  somewhat  broader  The  honey 
collects  upon  the  leaves  like  dew,  and  is  gathered  from  them,  or  from 
the  ground  under  the  tree"  {Syria,  p.  393).  It  is  to  be  regretted  that 
Burckhardt  had  not  an  opportunity  of  seeing  this  product  or  collecting 
it.  The  Gharrab  has  been  identified  with  the  Salix  bahylonica,  or 
willow  (Sprengel,  Hist.  Bei.Eerh.  i.  270);  and  it  is  found  in  the  valley  of 


398  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION. 

tified  with  tlie  Salix  hahylonica  or  willow,  and  it  would 
therefore  seem  that,  according  to  the  original  story,  Elijah 
was  commanded  to  iiroceed  to  the  well-known  "  valley  of 
wiUows,"  where  he  would  be  fed  by  the  "  willows,"  and 
think  water  from  the  brook.  Either  a  later  writer,  mis- 
taking the  word  Arabim  for  Orebim,  amplified  the  story  by 
declaring  that  the  Orebim  (ravens)  brought  bread  and  flesh 
to  the  prophet  morning  and  night,  or  the  original  narrator 
simply  desired  to  state  that  each  morning  and  night  the 
Arabim  (\villows)  produced  by  the  Divine  command  wliat 
was  necessary  for  Elijah's  sustenance. 

Taking  it,  then,  as  an  established  historical  fact  tliat 
between  the  Trans-Jordanic  possessions  and  Moab  there  was 
a  valley  known  descriptively  as  the  nachal  Ha-Arabim,  and 
having  also  satisfied  ourselves  that  the  emigrants  from  Egypt 
must  have  reached  this  valley  immediately  before  entering 
the  country  of  the  Amorites;  and  finding,  further,  that  they 
encamped  on  the  Ijc-lia-Abarim  (the  heights  of  Abarim) 
before  entering  the  nachal  Zered,  and  thence  "  pitched  on 
the  other  side  of  Arnon,"  it  is  difficult  to  avoid  the  conclu- 
sion that  tlie  Ijc-lia-Abarim  were  the  Ijc-ha-Arahini ;  that 
the  heights  overhung  the  valley  famed  for  its  willows  ;  tliat 
on  descending  from  those  lieights  the  Israelites  encamped  in 
tlie  valley  on  the  Moabite  side  of  the  stream  ;  and  that  tliey 
tlience  removed  and  pitched  their  tents  on  the  other  side  of 
tlif  Arnon,  the  name  borne  by  the  river.  Dut  these  con- 
clusinns  derive  support  from  other  sources. 

Sonie  half-dozen  miles  to  the  east  of  Kerak,  tlie  ancient 
Kir    of  Muab,  a  hilly  range    extends  in   a  north-easterly 


the  Arnon  and  in  those  rnnning  into  it.  The  Hebrew  name  of  this 
nianna-beariug  tree  has  been  preserved  luiehauged,  3"iy  Gh'rh.  the 
initial  letter  Alii  beinj,'  a  gnttural.  The  source  from  which  Elijah 
derived  his  sustenance  phonetically  rendered  in  English  is  Gh'rclim. 


FROM  EGYPT.  399 

direction,  overhanging  the  main  tributary,  or  rather  the 
principal  source  of  the  Arnon.  This  ridge  is  called  to-day 
Jebel-et-Tarfuyeh,  the  mountain  of  the  tarfa-trees.  At  its 
base  flows  a  stream,  known  in  its  upper  portion  as  the  Seyl 
Sayde,  but  which  a  little  lower  down  bears .  the  name  of 
Seyl  Szefye.*  The  word  Szefye  signifies  a  willow,t  and  it  is 
at  least  noteworthy  that  we  find  even  to-day  the  principal 
source  of  the  Arnon  bearing  a  name  in  Arabic  which  corre- 
sponds with  the  imclud  Ha-Aralim  of  the  Hebrews,  identified 
by  us  with  the  nachcd  Zered.  We  find,  in  addition,  that 
this  valley  is  overhung  by  a  hilly  range,  which  bears  the 
name  Jebel-et-Tarfuyeh,  which  not  inaptly  corresponds  with 
the  Ije-Abarim ;  or,  as  we  contend  it  should  be  written, 
Ije-Arabim — "  the  heights  of  the  willow-trees"  of  the 
Hebrew  tradition.  When  it  is  fm^ther  added  that  the  willow 
is  found  in  the  valley  of  the  Arnon,|  we  have  a  combination 
of  coincidences  which  go  far  to  support  the  conclusion  that 
the  modern  Seyl  Szefye  is  the  nachal  Zered,  or  nachal  Ha- 
Arabim  of  the  Biblical  records,  and  that  the  Jebel-et- 
Tarfuyeh  is  the  Ije-Abarim  (Arabim?)  of  the  earliest  tradi- 
tion preserved  in  the  Book  of  Numbers,  and  which  is  in  the 
strictest  sense  "  before  Moab,  toward  the  sun-rising,"  or  east 


*  "  The  principal  source  of  the  Mojib  is  at  a  short  distance  to  the 
north-east  of  Katrane,  a  station  of  the  Syrian  Hajj.  There  the  river 
is  called  Seyl  Sayde  ;  lower  down  it  changes  its  name  to  Efm-el-Kereim, 
or,  as  it  is  also  called,  Szefye"  (Burckhardt,  Syria,  p.  373). 

t  Ezekiel  nses.the  word  Zaphzapha  in  this  sense  (Ezek.  xvii.  5). 

X  Burckhardt  describes  the  valley  of  the  Arnon,  the  Wady  Mojib, 
when  viewed  from  above,  as  resembling  a  deep  chasm,  formed  by  some 
tremendous  convulsion  of  nature,  the  distance  from  the  edge  of  one 
precipice  to  the  opposite  one  being  about  two  miles.  On  descending 
into  the  valley  he  found  some  Defle  and  willow-trees  growing  on  its 
banks  {Syria,  pp.  372,  373).  Burckhardt  also  mentions  a  Wady  through 
•which  flows  an  affluent  of  the  Arnon.  It  is  the  Wady  Wale.  "  The 
banks  of  the  rivulet  are  overgrown  with  willows,  Defle,  and  tamarisks" 
{Syria,  p.  370). 


400  THE  HEBREW  aMIGRATIOX 

of  Kerak,  tlie  chief  city  of  Moab  at  the  time  of  the 
Exodus.* 

It  may  perhaps  appear  that  we  have  been  at  unnecessary 
pains  to  determine  the  precise  point  at  which,  according  to 
the  earliest  traditions,  the  Hebrews  believed  that  they  quitted 
"  the  wilderness,"  and  entered  into  their  possessions  on  the 
east  of  the  Jordan ;  and  that  it  is  a  matter  of  little  im- 
l)ortance  whether  the  name  given  to  a  particular  range  of 
hills  was  Abarim  or  Arabim.  But  the  point  we  have  been 
discussing  has  an  imj^ortant  bearing  on  the  not  uninteresting 
question  whether,  according  to  the  traditions  of  those  who 
settled  in  the  Trans-Jordanic  region,  the  leader  under  whose 
guidance  they  quitted  Egypt  accomjianied  them  into  their 
possessions. 

The  many  curious  travellers  who  have  sought  to  identify 
the  Mount  Nebo,  or  the  Pisgah,   from  whose  summit  Moses 


*  la  further  confirmation  of  the  conclusion  that  the  Abarim  of 
Num.  xxi.  1 1 ,  was  in  the  original  tradition  Arabim,  attention  is  directed 
to  the  Hebrew  text  of  Deut.  xxxiv.  i.  The  opening  verses  of  this 
chapter  seem  to  furnish  the  sequel  to  those  at  the  conclusion  of  Deut. 
xxxii.  In  Deut.  xxxii.  49,  we  find  Jahveh  giving  these  directions  to 
Moses  :  "  Get  thee  up  into  this  mountain  Abarim,  unto  mount  Nebo, 
which  is  in  the  land  of  Moab,  that  is  over  against  Jericho,  and  behold 
the  land  of  Canaan."  In  accordance  with  the  usual  style  of  Hebrew 
composition,  we  should  expect  to  find  it  related  that,  in  comi)liance  with 
Jahveh's  c<jmmund,  "  Moses  went  up  into  the  mountain  Abarim,  unto 
mount  Nebo,  which  is  in  the  land  of  Moab,  that  is  over  against 
Jericho."  B'.it  instead,  we  read,  "  And  Moses  went  up  from  the  plains 
of  Moab,  unto  the  mountain  of  Nebo,  to  the  top  of  Pisgah,  that  is  over 
against  Jericho."  This,  it  must  be  admitted,  is  a  very  important 
variation,  the  ILtr-]ia-Abar!m  of  the  injunction  disappearing,  and 
"the "plains  of  ^loab"  taking  its  place.  On  looking  at  the  Hebrew,  we 
see  that  the  word  rendered"  plains"  is  riD'iy  Arahoih,  a  word  which  is 
simply  a  different  form  of  D3iy  Arabim.  We  cannot  help  suspecting 
tliat  in  the  text  of  Deut.  xxxiv.  i,  as  it  originally  stood,  the  word 
Arabim  was  to  be  found  ;  but  when  the  record  came  to  be  incorporated, 
the  meaning  and  significance  of  the  words  were  forgotten,  and  the 
text  was  altered  in  order  to  give  expression  to  what  may  have  been 
supposed  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  original  author. 


FROM  EGYPT.  401 

is  said  to  have  seen  the  possessions  of  Israel  and  Judah  on 
both  sides  of  the  Jordan,  have  been  compelled  to  admit  that 
they  could  nowhere  discover  a  mountain  fulfilling   all  the 
conditions   set  forth   in  the  Scriptural   records.       Josephus 
describes  Nebo  as  a  very  high  mountain  opposite  Jericho,  and 
commanding  a  prospect  of  the  greatest  part  of   the  land  of 
Canaan.*    According  to  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  the  mountain 
stood  between  Heshbon  and  the  Jordan,t  and  w^ould  there- 
fore be  an  eminence  of  the  mountain  range  which  consti- 
tutes the  western  wall  of  the  plateau  of  Moab.      There  is, 
however,  confessedly  no  prominent  peak  in  this  range  which 
can  with   plausibility  be   selected  as   the  mountain  which 
Moses   ascended  for  the  purpose  of   viewing   the   Promised 
Land.      Seen  from  the  west  of  the  Jordan,  the  table-land  of 
Moab  presents  the  appearance  of  a  wall,  w^ith  an  upper  sky- 
line which  is  perfectly  unbroken.|     The  traveller  approach- 
ing the  river  from  the  east,  proceeds  across  the  plateau  till, 
arriving  at  the  edge  of  the  steppe,  he  looks  down  into  the 
plain  of  the  Jordan.      It   is  not  necessary  for  him  to  ascend 
any   mountain    in    order    to   obtain    a  prospect   of    Canaan. 
It  breaks  upon  him  as  soon  as  he  reaches  the  line   where 
the  table-land  begins  to  drop  into  the  Jordan  vaUey. 

It  is  easy  to  explain  how  the  posterity  of  those  who 
settled  on  the  west  of  the  river,  when  they  came  to  interpret 
the  earliest  traditions  of  the  migration  from  Egypt,  brought 
themselves  to  believe  that  from  some  point  on  that  mountain 
wall  which  bounded  their  view  on  the  east,  Moses  must  have 
looked  down  on  the  land  he  was  not  permitted  to  enter,  and 
that  there  he  must  have  found   his  unknown  grave.      They 


*  A.  J.  iv.  8,  48.  t  Onomast.  s.  v.  Nahan. 

X  "  On  ne  distingue  pas  un  sommet,  pas  la  moindre  cime  ;  seulement 
on  apercoit  ca  et  la  de  legeres  inflexions  comme  si  la  main  du  peintre 
qui  a  trace  cette  ligne  horizontale  sur  le  ciel  eut  tremble  dans  quelques 
endroits"  (Cbateaubriaud,  Itineraire,  iii.). 

D  D 


402  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

did  not  care  to  iii(|iiire  whether  this  belief  was  compatible 
with  liistorical  truth. 

If  any  fact  can  be  regarded  as  more  conclusively  esta- 
blished than  another,  it  is  that  the  kingdom  of  Moab  was  at 
the  time  of  the  Exodus  bounded  on  the  north  by  the 
Anion,*  and  the  Arnon  is  admitted  beyond  all  question  to 
lie  tlie  river  wliich  flows  through  what  is  now  known  as  the 
AVady-el-Mojil),  and  empties  itself  into  the  Dead  Sea  fully 
five-and-twenty  miles  south  of  Jericho.  It  is  also,  if  we 
accept  the  authority  of  the  record  in  the  Book  of  Numbers, 
beyond  question  that  the  Ije-Abarim  were  reached  by  the 
emigrants  from  Egypt  before  they  crossed  the  Zered  or  the 
Arnon,+  and  consequently  these  heights  were  situated  in  tlie 
land  of  Moab,  as  that  country  was  defined  at  the  time  of  the 
miirration,  and  long;  after  the  Hebrew  settlement  on  the  east  of 
the  Jordan.;];  The  only  point  about  which  there  can  be  any 
dispute,  is  whether  the  Har-Abarim  which  IMoses  was  com- 
manded to  ascend  in  order  to  see  the  land  given  to  the 
children  oT  Israel^  was  distinct  from  the  Ije-Abarim,  and 
situated  in  a  dillereut  region. 

The  command  to  ascend  Mount  Abarim||  is  apparently 
separated  by  a  long  interval  of  time  and  by  several  im- 
portant events  from  the  arrival  at  the  Ije-Abarim,1I  and  it 
miglit  therefore  be  unhesitatingly  concluded  that  the  one 
place  was  not  only  distinct  from  tlie  other,  but  that  tliey 
were  far  apart.  But  this  conclusion  wouhl  deiiend  on  the 
assunq)tion  that  the  Book  of  Numbers  was  a  consecutive 
iiawative,  aiul  that  the  parts  of  whicli  it  is  made  up  were  of 
(Mpiul  antiquity.  The  fragmentary  nature  of  the  Pentateucli 
lias,   however,   been   sulUciently  demonstrated  to  render  it 


♦  Num.  .\xi.  13.  15.  t  Ntiiii.  xxi.  11.  X  J'l^-  xi-  '8,  22. 

§  Num.  xxvii.  12.  j|  Num.  xxvii.  12.  H  Num.  xxi.  ir. 


FROM  EGYPT.  403 

needless   to   say  that  we   must  demur  to  inferences  which 
rest  upon  such  a  basis. 

The  statement  of  the  arrival  at  Ije-Abarim  is  followed  by 
the  account  of  the  movement  across  the  Arnon  ;*  then  fol- 
lows an  extract  supposed  to  have  been  made  from  the  Book 
(jf  the  Wars  of  Jahveh  ;  t  and  this  is  succeeded  by  an  enume- 
ration of  certain  journeyings,  not  mentioned  elsewhere,  ter- 
minating at  the  Pisgah,  in  the  land  of  Moab,  looking  toward 
Jeshimon.j  We  next  have  an  account  of  the  message  sent 
to  Sihon,  king  of  the  Amorites,^  followed  by  a  brief  account 
of  the  conquest  of  the  Trans-Jordanic  region  ;||  and  then 
follows  the  Book  of.  Balaam  the  Seer,1[  introduced  by  the 
statement  that  the  Israelites  set  forward,  and  pitched  in  the 
plains  of  Moab,  by  Jericho.*"*  Next  in  order  comes  the  account 
of  the  apostasy  of  the  Israelites  with  the  Midianites  or 
Moabites  ;tt  then  the  record  of  the  census  taken  in  the 
plains  of  Moab  -^  and  then,  after  an  account  of  a  judgment 
given  affecting  the  law  of  inheritance,^^  we  meet  the 
disconnected  fragment  which  tells  us  that  Moses  was 
commanded  to  ascend  Mount  Abarim,  to  see  the  land 
given  to  the  children  of  Israel.||||  There  is  no  record  in 
the  Book  of  Numbers  to  the  effect  that  Moses  did  so. 
We  are,  however,  subsequently  told  that  he  obtained  a 
brilliant  victory  over  the  Midianites,1[1[  and  apportioned  the 
Trans-Jordanic  region  between  Eeuben,  Gad,  and  lialf  the 
tribe  of  Manasseh.*** 

Now  let  us '  briefly  notice  the  contents  .of  some  of  the 
records  which  interpose  between  the  account  of  the  arrival 
at  Ije-Abarim  with  the  subsequent   crossing    of  the  Arnon, 


*  Num.  xxi.  12,  13.        t  Num.  xxi.  14,  15.         +  Num.  xxi.  16-20. 

§  Num.  xxi.  21,  22.         [|   Num.  xxi.  24-35,         ^  Nuni.xxii.  23,  24. 

**  Num.  xxii.  i.  ft  Num.  xxv.  ++  Num.  x.x:\'i. 

§§  Num.  xxvii.  i-ii.      |!||   Num.  xxvii.  12.  Hf  Num.  xxxi. 
***  Num.  xxxii. 

D  D  2 


404  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

and  tlie  mention  of  the  command  to  Moses  to  ascend  the  Har- 
Abarim,  and  view  the  land  given  to  the  children  of  Israel. 

It  is  undoubted  that  when  the  emigrants  crossed  the 
Anion,  or  probably  that  portion  of  the  stream  which  runs 
in  a  north-westerly  direction,  now  known  as  the  Seyl  Szefye,^' 
before  it  enters  the  \yady-el-]\Iojib,  they  arrived  on  the 
frontier  of  the  Amorite  king.  They  tlien  sent  tlie  message 
which  was  rejected,  and  at  tliis  point  the  invasion  of  the 
Amorite  territory  began.  In  no  sense  therefore  can  it  be 
said  that  there  were  any  further  "  journeyings"  by  the 
emigrants,  and  least  of  all  journeyings  subsequent  to  their 
message  to  the  Amorite  king,  which  would  have  conducted 
them  through  tlicir  enemy's  territory  as  far  as  a  point, 
"  tl)e  Pisgah,"  in  view  of  Jericho.  It  was  through  this  very 
region  that  they  requested  to  be  permitted  to  pass,  which  per- 
mission was  refused.  "We  know  therefore  that  we  have,  in 
Numbers  xxi.  18-20,  a  separate  and  independent  fi'ag- 
ment,  about  which  we  shall  presently  have  more  to  say. 
The  statement  in  respect  to  the  message  to  Sihon  is  clearly 
consecutive  upon  that  recording  the  crossing  of  the  Arnon. 

The  conquest  of  the  Trans-.Jordanic  region  followed  the 
unsuccessful  mission  to  the  king  of  the  Amorites,  and 
when  it  was  completed  the  Israelites  found  themselves 
masters  of  CJilead,  their  possessions  reaching  from  the  desert 
on  the  east  to  the  Jordan  on  the  west.  On  the  south,  the 
Arnon  conlinncd  to  be  the  boundary  of  Moab.  At  some 
period,  tlu'  (hitc  of   wliich  we  liave  not  tlie   means   of   deter- 


*  It  is  not  imy>roli:il)lo  that  the  Seyl  Szofye  was  the  Zered,  whilst 
the  valley  into  which  it  flows,  now  called  the  Wady-cl-Mojib,  was 
known  in  early  times  a**  the  valley  of  the  Arnon.  Although  the 
Szefye  may  he  the  principal  source  of  the  Arnon,  it  changes  its  name 
as  soon  as  it  enters  the  valley  running  due  west  to  the  Dead  Sea,  in 
which  it  unites  with  another  stream  which  flows  down  the  eastern 
portion  of  the  valley. 


FROM  EGYPT.  405 

mining,  the  Moabites  appear  to  have  taken  alarm  at  the  in- 
creasing power  of  the  Israelites  on  their  northern  frontier  ; 
and,  if  the  narrative  in  the  Book  of  Balaam  is  to  be  relied 
upon,  they  took  measures  to  arrest  their  tide  of  prosperity. 
I'or  tliis  purpose  they  had  recourse  to  an  expedient  which, 
perhaps  rather  owing  to  the  facility  of  its  application  and 
the  terror  which  it  inspires,  than  to  the  necessary  efficacy  of 
its  operation,  has  in  all  ages  recommended  itself  to  the  clergy 
of  every  religion.  They  engaged  the  services  of  an  individual, 
noted  for  his  sanctity,  to  mould  the  designs  of  Providence  in 
accordance  with  their  own  view^s  of  expediency.  They  em- 
ployed Balaam  to  curse  their  neighbours.  The  danger  which 
threatened  the  infant  nation  was,  however,  happily  averted  ; 
Balaam,  to  the  astonishment  and  disgust  of  the  king  of  Moab. 
blessing  instead  of  anathematising  Israel. 

Whatever  may  be  the  date  of  this  remarkable  composition,"^ 
it  is  based  upon  an  old  tradition,  in  which  Balaam  w^as  re- 
presented as  carrying  out  the  behests  of  the  king  of  Moab, 
and  cursing  Israel  with  all  becoming  ceremonial.t  But, 
however  this  may  be,  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude  that  the 
places  to  which  Balak  was  supposed  to  have  taken  Balaam 
for  the  purpose  of  "  seeing"  the  people  of  Israel,  and  cursing 
them,  were  in  his  own  territory,  and   close  to   the   common 


*  See  an  able  Essay  by  Dr.  Kalish  on  the  Book  of  Balaam  iJiilU 
Studies,  part  i.). 

t  This  would  .appear  from  Deut.  xxiii.  4,  5,  which  excludes  the 
Moabite  and  the  Ammonite  from  the  congregation,  "  because  they 
hired  against  thee  Balaam  the  son  of  Beor  of  Mesopotamia,  to  curse 
thee;  nevertheless,  Jahveh  thy  God  would  not  hearhen  unto  Balaam, 
but  .Jahveh  thy  God  turned  the  curse  into  a  blessing  unto  thee"  (see 
also  Jos.  xxiv.  9,  10).  It  is  stated  that  Balaam  was  slain  by  the 
Israelites  {Num.  xsxi.  8),  and  that  it  was  through  him  that  they  were 
led  into  apostasy  (Num.  xxxL  16).  Josephus  puts  a  gem  of  a  speech 
into  the  mouths  of  the  jVIidianite  maidens,  beginning  'li^u.v,  ^o  KpancrToi 
veavLu>v,  "0  illustrious  young  men,  we  have  hornet)  oi  our  own,'  &c. 
U-  J-  iv.  6,  8). 


4o6  THE  HEBREW  AflGRATION 

frontier.  And  accordingly  we  find  that,  on  the  arrival  of  the 
seer,  Balak  goes  to  meet  Balaam  "  in  a  city  of  Moab,  in  the 
borders  of  Arnon,  in  the  utmost  coast  -^  and  subsequently 
tliey  ])roceed  to  the  high  places  of  Baal  {Bamoth-Baal),  from 
wlience  to  "  see  the  utmost  part  of  the  people."t  Sacrifices  are 
(Udy  offered,  and  Balaam,  in  vain  endeavours  to  curse  Israel.;}; 
The  king  then  proposes  to  try  another  place,  and  they  pro- 
ceed to  the  field  of  Zojjhim,  to  the  top  of  the  Pisgah,  where 
the  intentions  of  the  seer  are  again  frustrated  ;S  and,  lastlv, 
they  go  to  "  the  top  of  Peor,  which  looketh  toward  Jeshimon," 
where  a  final  and  equally  unsuccessful  effort  is  made  to  carry 
out  the  wishes  of  the  Moabite  king.|| 

If,  according  to  the  original  tradition,  Balaam  actually 
cursed  Israel,  it  is  probable  that  the  sacrifices  were  said  to 
have  been  offered  in  only  one  place.  And  there  are  strong 
reasons  for  believing  that  the  Bamoth-Baal  and  the  Zophini 
on  tlie  Pisgah,  and  the  summit  of  Peor,  were  only  different 
descriptive  names  of  a  single  place,  noted  in  J\Ioab  for  its 
sanctity,  anch  where  sacrifices  were  offered  to  the  tutelary 
deity,  here  styled  Ha-Baal-Pcor — the  Lord  Peor,  though 
]irol)ably  also  having  the  specific  name  Chemosh.  In  the  tra- 
il it  ion  recording  the  death  of  Moses,  he  is  said  to  have 
a.scended  ]\Iount  Nebo,  to  the  top  9f  the  Pisgah,!l  and  to  have 
"  died  tliere  in  the  land  of  Moab,"  and  to  have  been  "  buried 
in  the  land  of  Moab,  in  a  valley  against  (or  close  by)  Beth- 
J'eor.**  In  any  case,  it  is  apparent  tliat  the  Pisgah  whore 
;Moses  was  supposed  to  have  died,  was  in  the  land  of  Moal) ; 
and  tbat  the  Pisgah,  or  tlie  top  of  the  Peor,  where  Balaam 
offered  sacrifices,  and  did  or  did  not  curse  Israel,  was  alsi» 
in  the  land  of  Moab,  and  that  the  land  of  Moab  at  the  time 


*  Xum.  xxii.  36.  f  Xuiii.  xxii.  41.  +  Num.  xxiii.  1-13. 

^  Num.  xxxiii.  14-24.  ||   Nnm.  xxiii.  27  ;  xxiv.  25. 

^  Duut.  xxxiv.  1.  **  Dcut.  xxxi\'.  5,6. 


FROM  EGYPT.  4o7 

of  the  events  referred  to,  and  for  many  centuries  afterwards, 
extended  no  further  north  than  the  Arnon. 

A  curious  fragment  of  an  itinerary,  taken  doubtless  from 
some  ancient  record,  is,  as  we  have  seen,  interposed  between  the 
notice  of  the  arrival  at  the  Arnon,  and  the  mission  to  the  king 
of  the  Amorites.*  It,  like  other  fragments  in  this  chapter, 
was  probably  taken  from  an  early  historical  compilation,t 
now  unfortunately  lost.  It  apparently  states  in  detail  some  of 
the  movements  of  the  Israelites  immediately  preceding  their 
arrival  at  the  Amorite  frontier.  It  is  there  recorded  that 
the  Israelites  proceeded  to  Mattanah,  f hence  to  ISTahaliel, 
thence  to  Bamoth  in  the  valley,  in  the  field  of  Moab,  and 
thence  to  the  top  of  the  Pisgah,  which  looketh  toward 
•Teshimon.  We  have  no  means  of  identifying  Mattanah  or 
Nahaliel,  but  we  can  have  no  difficulty  in  recognising 
the  Bamoth  as  the  Bamoth-Baal  in  the  field  of  Moab 
referred  to  in  the  narrative  of  Balaam,  and  in  close 
proximity  to  the  Pisgah,  or  hill  looking  towards  Ha-Jcsliimon 
— the  wilderness.  It  is  unquestionable  therefore,  so  far  as 
the  authority  of  this  fragment  goes,  that  the  Bamoth  and 
the  Pisgah  reached  by  the  Israelites  were  in  Moab,  and  south 
of  the  Arnon. 

This,  liowever,  is  not  all  the  evidence  at  our  command 
respecting  the  locality  of  the  Pisgah.  Keference  is  made 
more  than  once  in  the  Scriptural  records^  to  Ashdoth-hap- 
Pisgah,S  which  is  rendered  in  the  Authorised  Version  in  one 
place  "  the  springs  of  Pisgah."||  In  all  these  passages 
Ashdoth-hap-Pisgah  is  or  are  placed  on  the  east  side  of  the 
Dead   Sea.      Thus  a  boundary  is  drawn   from  "  Chinnereth 


*  Num.  xxi.  18-20.  t  Num.  xxi.  1 4. 

X  Deut.  lii.  17;  iv.  49;  Jos.  xii.  3;  xiii.  20. 
§  Pisgali  is  in  all  these  instances  preceded  by  the  definite  article 
"Ashdoth  of  the  Pisgah." 

II  Deut.  iv.  49. 


4o8  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

(the  Sea  of  Genesareth  or  Galilee)  even  unto  the  sea  of 
the  plain  (Arala),  even  the  Salt  Sea,  under  Ashdoth-hap- 
I'isgah  eastward  ;*  and  again,  "  all  the  plain  on  this  side 
Jordan  eastward,  even  unto  the  sea  of  the  plain  under 
Asliilotli-hap-Pisgah/'t  As,  however,  in  these  passages  the 
boundaries  of  the  Trans-Jordanic  possessions  are  indicated, 
and  as  the  Anion  is  admitted  in  them  to  have  been  the 
border  of  !Moab,  the  inference  is  irresistible  that  the 
Ashdoth-hap-Pisgah  could  not  have  been  far  distant  from 
that  river. 

Ashdoth  is  probably  the  plural  form  of  the  unused  word 
Aslid,  which  is  found  in  the  singular  only  in  the  passage  quoted 
from  the  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jahveh.|  It  has  been  ren- 
dered "a  pouring  out,"  and  in  this  quotation  is  deemed  to 
refer  to  the  streams  of  the  valleys  {nachalim)  going  down 
to  Ar,  and  lying  on  the  border  of  Moab.  That  the  Arnon 
and  its  tributaries  are  referred  to  in  this  most  ancient  frag- 
ment no  one  entertains  a  doubt,  and  as  we  find  elsewhere 
in  the  passages  above  referred  to,  the  same  archaic  word 
employed  {Ashd- Ashdoth)  in  reference  to  brooks  emptying 
themselves  into  the  Dead  Sea  on  its  eastern  side,  and  deno- 
minated Ashdulli-hap-Pisgah,  we  must  regard  the  demon- 
stration as  complete  that  the  Pisgah  from  M'hich  the  Ashdoth 
proceeded  must  have  been  identical  with  the  mountains  or 
liills  in  which  the  sources  of  the  Arnon  are  to  be  found.  It 
is  only  necessary  to  glance  at  a  map  of  the  region  on  the 
east  of  the  Dead  Sea  to  observe  that  tlie  valley  of  the  Arnon, 
or  the  Wady-el-]\lojib,  is  the  main  channel  through  which 
the  adjoining  watershed  is  drained. 

Tl»e  remaining  reeurds  interposing  in  the  P»ook  of 
Xumliers,  before  we  eome  to  tlie  (■(luiiuand  to  Moses  to 
ascend  Mount  Abarim,  call  for  no  particular  comment.     One 

*  Dl'uI.  iii.  17.  t  Dout.  iv.  4<j.  *  ^Nuui.  xxi.  15. 


FROM  EGYPT.  409 

is  a  record  of  Israel's  apostasy  in  serving  the  Elohini  of 
Moab  at  Shittim  \'^  another  is  an  account  of  a  census  taken 
of  the  several  tribes,!  a  composition  probably  not  earlier 
than  the  fifth  century  B.C.;  and  the  third  is  the  judgment  in 
the  case  of  the  daughters  of  Zelopliehad.|  We  then  find  the 
brief  and  disconnected  fragment  which  tells  of  the  command 
to  Moses  to  ascend  Mount  Abarim,  view  the  land  given  to 
the  children  of  Israel,  and  die.^  Is  it  possible  to  resist  the 
conclusion  that  it  originally  followed  in  order  the  record  of 
the  arrival  at  Ije-Abarim,  and  that  in  the  traditions  of  the 
Trans-Jordanic  tribes  Ije-Abarim  was  or  were  regarded  as 
the  place  from  which  Moses  viewed  the  land  Jahveh  had  given 
to  the  children  of  Israel — that  is  to  say,  the  land  of  Gilead.|| 
The  last  chapter  of  Deuteronomy  contains,  though  in  a 
uuitilated  and  corrupted  state,  the  record  in  which  was 
originally  preserved  the  tradition  of  the  Trans-Jordanic 
tribes,  in  respect  to  the  death  of  their  great  leader.  The 
story  begun  in  the  Book  of  Numbers  is  here  completed,  and, 
notwithstanding  the  alterations  the  record   has  undergone, 


*  Num.  XXV.  We  are  here  struck  by  the  curious  coincidence  that 
the  scene  of  Israel's  apostasy  bore  a  name  having  a  meaning  closely 
resembling  that  of  the  word  which,  as  we  suggest,  should  stand  instead 
of  Ije-Abarim — namely,  Ije-Arabim,  "  the  heights  of  the  willows."  Has- 
Shiitiin  signifies,  or  is  supposed  to  signify,  "  the  acacias  ;"  Ha-Arabim 
signifies,  or  is  supposed  to  signify,  "  thy  willows."  Has-Shittim  and 
Ha-Arabim  were,  therefore,  the  names  apparently  given  in  diff"erent 
traditions  to  places  noted  for  a  luxuriant  growth  of  ti'ees  (groves) 
where  Baal-peor  was  worshipped.-  The  modern  Jebel-et-Tarfuyeh 
would  consequently  be  the  Arabic  rendering  of  Has-Shittim  and  Ha- 
Arabim. 

t  Num.  xxvi.  X  Num.  xxvii.  i-ii.  §  Num.  xxvii.  12,  13. 

]|  It  is  especially  noticeable  that  the  command  given  to  Moses  is, 
"  Get  thee  up  into  this  mount  Arabim,"  clearly  denoting  a  reference 
to  a  mount  Abarim  already  mentioned.  But  the  only  apparent 
antecedent,  allusion  to  such  a  mount  is  in  the  reference  to  the  Ije- 
Abarim  (Num.  xxi.  It),  "  the  heights  of  Abarim,"  which  were  in  close 
proximity  to  the  naciial  Zered.  We  have  here  a  further  proof  that 
Num.  xxvii.  12-14  in  the  original  record  followed  Num.  xxi.  11. 


4 1  o  THE  IIEBRE IV  MIGRA  TION 

.•^iitiieient  of  its  original  tenor  remains  to  fix  %vitli  aljsolute 
certainty  the  region  in  which  was  situated  the  mount  tradi- 
tionally associated  with  the  death  of  Moses,  and  to  demon- 
strate the  groundlessness  of  the  conception  which  arose  in 
comparatively  late  times  amongst  those  who  settled  in 
Talcstine,  that  Moses  digd  on  the  eve  of  crossing — not  the 
Arnon,  l)ut  tlie  Jordan. 

The  opening  verse  of  this  cliapter  states  that  Moses  went 
up  from  the  plains  (Araboth)  of  ]\Ioab  unto  the  mountain 
of  Xebo,  to  the  top  of  the  Pisgah,  that  is  over  against 
Jericho,'"'  whilst  in'  later  passages  it  is  said  that  he  died 
there,  and  was  buried  in  a  valley  in  the  land  of  Moab, 
against  Beth-peor,  but  that  his  sepulchre  was  unknown.t 

We  have  already  set  forth  our  reasons  for  suspecting  that 
the  word  here  appearing  as  Araboth  was  another  form  of 
Arabim.  Mount  Nebo  is  here  mentioned,  although  unnamed 
in  the  Book  of  Xumbers ;  and  then  follows  the  specific 
reference  to  the  top  of  the  Pisgah,  which  is  stated  to  have 
Ijeen  al-inni-,  in  sight  of  or  looking  toward  Jericho.  Now, 
if  our  conclusions  respecting  the  locality  of  the  Pisgah  be 
correct,  it  could  not  liave  l)een  accurately  described  as 
being  in  sight  of  or  in  front  of  Jericho.  How  are  we  to 
explain  this  error  or  misstatement  ? 

In  the  first  passage  in  which  the  top  of  the  Pisgah  is 
referred  to,  it  is  described  as  looking  towards  (al-peni)  Jeshi- 
nion.j  This  is  in  tlie  fragment  of  the  itinerary  wliicli 
lirought  the  journeyings  of  the  Israelites  to  a  termination 
on  the  border  of  the  Amorites.  In  the  nan-ative  of  Balaam, 
the  second  place  selected  for  the  sacrifices  was  the  to]i  of 
Pisgah,§  and  the  third  was  "the  top  of  Peor,  wliirh  looketh 
toward  {af-peiii)  .Ieshiinon."||     "We  have  stated  our  reasons  for 


*  Dent,  xxxiv.  i.  f  Doiit.  xxxiv.  5,  6. 

11.  xxi   20.  §   Num.  xxiii.  14.  ||   Num.  xxiii.  28. 


FROM  EGYPT.       '  411 

regarding  the  top  of  Peor  andthe  top  of  Pisgali  as  identical; 
at  all  events  tliey  are  both  described  in  the  same  language 
as  "  looking  toward"  (al-peni)  Jeshimon.  But  if  the  Pisgah 
in  the  land  of  Moab  which  Moses  ascended  to  die,  and 
which  must  have  adjoined  the  valley  in  which  he  was  sup- 
posed to  have  been  buried,  which  valley  was  described  as 
being  against  Beth-peor  ("  the  house  of  Peor"),*  was,  as  it 
is  impossible  to  doubt,  the  same  Pisgah  on  which  Balaam 
was  said  to  have  offered  sacrifices,  then  it  was  in  sight  of 
Jeshimon  (probably  the  wilderness  on  thg  eastern  border  of 
Moab),  and  was  in  all  probability  so  described  in  the  original 
record  of  the  tradition  which  told  of  the  death  of  Moses. 
But  when  this  record  came  to  be  dealt  with  centuries  after- 
wards by  the  descendants  of  those  who  settled  on  the  west 
of  the  Jordan,  they  found  it  impossible  to  reconcile  its 
terms  witli  their  traditional  belief  that  the  Jordan  was  the 
Eubicon  wdiich  they  crossed  in  order  to  enter  the  possessions 
which  Jahveh  had  given  to  them,  and  which  marked  the 
termination  of  their  journeying  through  the  wilderness. 
Moses  never  accompanied  them,  but  Moses  must  have  been 
permitted  at  least  to  see  the  pleasant  land  which  became 
theirs  by  virtue  of  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  and 
renewed  at  Sinai.  In  order  to  do  this,  he  must  have  accom- 
panied their  fathers  to  the  banks  of  the  Jordan,  and  must 
have  seen  the  land  of  Canaan  from  the  eastern  heights 
cummanding  the  valley.  This  being  so,  it  became  evident 
to  the  compiler  that  an  error"  was  committed  in  describing 
the  Pisgah  as  being  al-peni,  in  front  of,  Jeshimon,  and 
the  latter  word  (probably  honestly  regarded  as  a  clerical 
error)  was  altered  to  Jericho. 

Having  ascended  to  the  top  of   Pisgah,  it  is  recorded  that 
Jahveli  showed  to  Moses  all  the  land  of   Gilead   unto   Dan, 


*  Deut.  xxxiv.  6. 


4 1 2  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

and  all  the  possessions  on  the  west  of  the  Jordan,  and  the 
XegeL,  and  tlie  Araha  of  the  valley  of  Jericho,  to  Zoar.  It 
is  needless  to  repeat  that  the  conqueror  of  Gilead,  as  Moses 
is  in  the  Scriptural  records  represented  to  have  been,  did  nut 
require  to  he  shown  the  country  which  he  subjugated ;  nor, 
indeed,  is  there  any  emiuence  on  the  edge  of  the  table-land 
overhanging  the  Jordan  valley,  which,  however  magnificent 
the  prospect  commanded  of  the  country  on  the  west  of  the 
river,  affords  an  extensive  view  of  the  Trans-Jordanic  pos- 
sessions of  Israel.  But  we  are  not  the  less  grateful  to  the 
compiler  for  having  left  uncorrected  the  reference  to  CJilead. 
In  the  original  record,  it  is  probable  that  it  was  the  only 
region  mentioned.  Moses,  according  to  the  belief  of  those 
who  settled  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  was  permitted  to  see 
the  land  of  Gilead,  which  he  was  not  permitted  to  enter. 
For  this  purpose  he  was  directed  to  ascend  Moimt  Abarim 
(Arabim  ?),  in  Moab,'"'  to  the  top  of  the  Pisgah,  looking  to- 
ward Jesliimuii,  an  eminence  equally  turned  to  account  when 
Balaam  wa§  taken  by  the  king  of  Moab  to  a  suitable  placet 
to  hurl  his  maledictions  against  the  Israelites.  Moses  was 
there  supposed  to  have  died,  and,  his  death  occurring  in  a 
strange  land,  tlie  i)recise  place  of  his  burial  was  forgotten.  In 
the  record,  as  it  originally  stoo^,  possibly  the  name  of  the 
individual  was  mentioned];  who  was  supposed  to  have  ren- 
dered the  last  rites  to  the  great  leader  of  the  Hebrews  on  their 
departure  from  the  house  of  bondage.^ 


*  Num.  xxvii.  12,  13.  f  Num.  xxiii.  13.  %  Deut.  xxxiv.  6. 

§  This  passage  has  in  all  seriousness,  even  to  the  present  day,  been 
interi)reted  as  moaning  that  God  actually  buried  Moses.  "  God  buried 
him.  Tlie  penalty  of  .Moses'  sin  was  I'ully  paid  by  his  death,  and  this 
signal  honour  conferred  un  him  alter  his  death  was  doubtless  designed 
to  sustain  the  lawgiver's  authority,  which  without  it  might  have  been 
impaired  with  the  people  in  consequence  of  his  punishment"  {Speaker's 
Coinmentary,  Deut.  xxxiv.  6).  But  did  the  people  see  God  bury  their 
leader,  or  was  there  any  eye-witness  of  this  remarkable  proceeding ;  or, 


FROM  EGYPT.  413 

Whether  the  precise  mountain  or  hill,  the  top  of  the 
Pisgah  or  of  the  Peor,  associated  by  the  Trans-Jordanic 
traditions  with  the  death  of  Moses,  can  be  determined,  may- 
depend  on  the  research  of  future  travellers.  The  task  should 
be  one  of  no  considerable  difficulty.  The  limits  of  the  region 
through  which  the  Israelites  passed  before  quitting  Moab  are 
circimiscribed  within  so  small  a  compass,  and  the  information 
afforded  by  the  traditions  of  the  emigration  and  by  the 
narrative  of  Balaam  are,  considering  all  the  circumstances,  so 
precise  and  exhaustive,  that  it  shoidd  be  comparatively  easy 
to  ascertain  the  Pisgah  from  which  Moses  was  supposed  to 
have  seen  the  land  of  Gilead.  It  doubtless  lay  between  Kir 
of  Moab,  the  Kerak  of  to-day,  and  the  desert  on  the  east,  or 
the  Wady  Mojib  on  the  north.  It  may  have  stood  between 
that  town  and  the  Seyl  Szefye,  the  main  source  of  the  Arnon. 
If  so,  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  range  which  is  now  known  as 
Jebel-et-Tarfiiyeh,  between  which  and  the  Har-Abarim 
(Arabim  ?)  we  have  noticed  a  resemblance.  This  range  is 
continued  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  Seyl  Szefye,  under  the 
name  of  Jebel-el-Ghoweiteh,  as  far  as  the  Wady  Enkeileh, 
which  is  the  eastern  continuation  of  the  Wady-el-Mojib. 
There  is  nothing  in  tlie  traditions  to  lead  one  to  suppose 
that  the  top  of  the  Pisgah  or  of  the  Peor  was  the  summit  of 
a  lofty  mountain.  In  the  narrative  of  Balaam  it  is  stated 
that  the  seer  could  not  view  the  whole  of  the  people  of 
Israel,  but  only  their  utmost  part'"' — that  is  to  say,  only  the 
border  of  their  "territory .t 


if  not,  were  the  people  content  to  take  the  statement  of  some  one  who 
was  not  present  that  the  Creator  committed  the  creature  to  the  ground? 
Are  there  really  no  limits  to  the  disrespect  which  may,  in  the  supposed 
interests  of  religion,  be  shown  to  the  Almighty  ? 
*  jSTum.  xxiii.  13. 
t  A  somewhat  singular  mountain  stands  between  Kerak  and  the 
Wady  Mojib,  and  but  a  short  distance  from  the  latter.  The  ruins  of 
a  temple  near  the  summit  indicate  that  in  past  times  it  may  have 


4  r  4  THE  HEBRE IV  MIGRA  TION 

The  identification  of  the  mountain  or  of  the  range  asso- 
ciated by  tradition  with  the  death  of  Moses  is,  liowever, 
a  matter  of  minor  importance,  even  if  the  search  should 
l)rove  successful.  There  are  many  reasons  whicli  would  lead 
us  to  question  the  grounds  on  which  the  tradition  rested. 
Jiut  what  does  concern  us  is,  that  the  existence  of  the 
tradition  proves  beyond  all  question  that  the  settlers  on  the 
east  of  the  Jordan  were  not  accompanied  there  by  Moses. 
The  story  of  j\Iount  Abarim  (Arabim  ?)  and  the  Pisgah,  and 
the  unknown  place  of  bmial  in  a  valley  in  the  land  of  Moab, 
is  of  Traus-Jordanic  origin  ;  for  had  it  been  created  on  the 
west  side  of  the  river,  we  should  not  have  found  localities 
indicated  which  were,  without  exception,  south  of  the  Arnon; 
it  would  have  been  told  of  places  familiar  to  all,  in  the  region 
overhanging  the  lower  portion  of  the  Jordan  valley.  But 
tlie  narrative  is  not  a  Cis-Jordanic  invention  :  it  is  simply 
a  novel  application  of  an  ancient  tradition.  The  names  could 
not  be  altered,  but  they  received  a  different  signification. 
The  land  of  Moab  was  carried  up  the  left  bank  of  the 
Jordan,  and  the  Pisgah  was  declared  to  be  in  sight  of 
.Fericho. 

Sliould  we  then  be  justified  in  concluding  that  the  settlers 
in  Ciilead  preserved  a  tradition  that  the  migration  from 
l^gypt  to  their  new  possessions  occupied  a  period  which,  in 
nomadic  style,  they  called  forty  years  ?  Not  necessarily. 
Cis-Jordanic  Israel  and  Judah  undoubtedly  believed,  and 
jirobably  with  trutli,  that  a  very  long  and  undetermined 
l)eriod  elaj)scd  between  the  departure  from  Egypt  and  tlu^ 
comiuest  by  tbem  of  their  respective  possessions.  I'>ut 
we    have    m (tiling    to    justify    us    in    concluding    that    the 


lieen  noted  for  its  sanctity.  It  is  described  by  Burckhardt  as  au 
insulated  mountain,  standintr  about  tbreo-qnarters  of  an  hour's  dis- 
tanec  to  the  west  of  the  road  leading  from  Kerak  across  the  Arnon.  It 
is  named  Jebel  Sliiban  W^i/ria,  p.  375).  The  Bamoth-Baal  may  have 
been  here,  and  it  is  jiossible  that  this  mount  was  the  Pisgah. 


FROM  EGYPT.  415 

belief  was  shared  in  Gilead.  Jephthah  is  silent  on 
the  subject.  He  refers  to  a  protracted  stay  at  Kadesh, 
but  says  nothing  about  forty  years  in  tbe  wilderness. 
The  ground  of  Moses'  exclusion  from  the  future  home  of 
his  followers  is  stated  to  have  been  his  misconduct  at  the 
Avaters  of  Meribah  in  Kadesh.*  But  this  must  have  been 
shortly  after  the  departure  from  Egypt.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  forty  years'  punishment  fell  on  "  the  people"  in  conse- 
quence of  their  refusal  to  invade  the  region  which  had  been 
explored  by  the  spies  on  the  west  of  the  Jordan,t  an  episode 
on  which  the  settlers  on  the  eastern  bank  coidd  afford  to 
look  back  with  indifference.  On  the  whole,  therefore,  it 
seems  reasonable  to  conclude  that  the  period  which  elapsed 
between  the  liberation  from  Egypt  and  the  crossing  of  the 
Arnon  was  comparatively  brief,  possibly  not  exceeding  a  few 
years  ;  but. on  tliis  point  we  have  no  data.  That  Moses  did 
not  accompany  the  emigrants  to  the  Trans-Jordanic  region 
is  apparent  from  the  tradition  we  have  noticed  above.! 
Those  who  effected  a  settlement  north  of  the  Arnon  were 
acquainted  with  the  fact,  and  their  descendants  discovered  a 
plausible  explanation  of  his  non-participation  in  the  fruits  of 
their  labours,  by  attributing  to  him  grave  misconduct  on  the 
celebrated  occasion  when  he  produced  the  water  from  the 
rock.  But  though  he  was  punished  by  Jahveh  in  not  being 
permitted  to  accompany  "  the  congregation  of  Israel"  into 
their  promised  possessions,  it  was  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
he  was  allowed  to  proceed  as  far  as  the  highlands  of  Moab, 
and  from  some  eminence  on  the  south  of  the  Arnon  view 
at  least  a  portion  of  the  undulating  plains  which  Jahveli 
gave  for  a  possession  to  the  first-born  of  Israel. 


*  Num.  XX.  12;  xxvii.  12-14.  t  Num.  xiv.  11-39. 

X  How  it  was  he  came  not  to  do  so,  cannot  be  conveniently  brought 
within  the  limits  of  the  present  treatise.  The  history  of  Moses  can 
best  be  dealt  with  in  an  examination  of  the  religion  of  the  Hebrews  in 
the  wilderness. 


4i6 


CHAPTER    XVI. 

THP]  story  of  the  Exodus  lias  now  been  again  re-told. 
To  the  critical  and  inijiartial  must  be  referred  the 
duty  of  determining  whether  the  amended  narrative  is  in 
accordance,  not  with  preconceived  notions  which  may  be 
erroneous,  but  with  the  only  trustworthy  materials  which  lie 
at  our  disposal.  Wliatever  may  be  the  value  which  different 
persons  may  be  inclined  to  attach  to  tlie  Scrijitures,  the 
traditions,  or  the  nuclei  of  the  traditions,  taken  M-ith  them  to 
the  regions  in  which  they  ultimately  settled,  by  those  who 
(juitted  Egypt,  can  supply  the  only  true  foundation  upon 
whicli  the  story  must  rest.  If  these  men  did  not  care  to 
preserve  at  least  an  outline  of  the  circumstances  under  which 
they  were  released  from  servitude  and  made  their  way  to 
their  future  homes,  posterity  cannot  hope  to  supply  the  void. 
If  they  did  preserve  some  materials  for  the  historian,  then 
the  task  of  the  latter  is  lightened  in  proportion  to  their 
extent  and  their  integrity.  In  4ealing  with  such  materials, 
it  l)ecomes,  however,  incumbent  to  take  into  careful  con- 
sidciation  tlie  circumstances  under  which  they  were  formed, 
and  the  ever-varying  conditions  to  Mhich  they  were  ulti- 
mately subjected,  before  they  assumed  their  present  shapes. 
The  Jiistorical  elements  of  an  illiterate  nomadic  tribe  cannot 
in  tlie  necessity  of  things  resemble  those  of  a  cultivated  and 
civilised  people.  History,  like  everything  else,  has  its 
beginnings,  and  those  beginnings,  according  to  the  experience 
(»f  mankind,  have  been  found  to  ln'  universally  the  same. 
Events    ha]ipon    whicli    are    sunicienllv    notable    to    attract 


THE  HEBRE W  MIGRA TION  FROM  EGYPT.         417 

attention  and  to  retain  a  place  in  the  memory.  If  those 
events  affect  the  fortunes  of  the  tribe  or  people,  their 
memory  is  transmitted  from  father  to  son,  and  then  the 
story-teller  and  the  bard  take  up  the  chain.  But  the  later 
links  that  are  forged  differ  in  character  from  those  of  earlier 
construction.  The  first  made  are  rude  and  uncouth ;  the 
last  exhibit  more  care,  and  more  polish.  The  naked 
narrative  of  even  an  interesting  event  does  not  attract  in 
the  same  degree  as  a  judiciously  adorned  account  of  the 
same  transaction.  The  untutored  barbarian  demands,  even 
more  earnestly  than  civilised  man,  that  his  feelings  shall  be 
appealed  to,  and  the  story-teller  met  the  required  want.  If 
lie  contented  himself  with  being  dry  and  accurate  and 
prosaic,  his  occupation  would  be  gone.  He  was  expected  to 
excite  the  emotions  of  his  listeners,  and  he  did  so. 

The  historical  origines  of  the  Hebrew  nation  presented 
these  characteristics.  The  different  sections  or  offshoots  of 
the  parent  stock  which  quitted  Egypt  preserved,  in  somewhat 
dissimilar  forms,  accounts  of  what  were  in  truth  the  same 
transactions.  The  stories  were  told  differently ;  the  names 
of  the  same  places  varied  according  to  the  dialects  of  the 
different  tribes.  Those  who  quitted  Egypt  were  of  diverse 
elements,  though  of  a  common  lineage.  There  were  captives, 
liberated  from  a  long  and  galling  servitude.  There  were 
also  nomads,  who  had  only  temporarily  visited  Egypt  in 
search  of  food.  That  the  one  and  the  other  should  call 
the  same  places  by  different  -descriptive  names,  and  that 
even  the  sections  into  which  the  captives  were  subsequently 
split  up,  should  in  time  vary  the  common  language  which 
they  spoke  by  the  introduction  of  new  dialects,  cannot 
surprise  us.  The  mountain  credited  with  being  the  abode 
of  the  Elohim  was  known  to  some  as  the  Mount  of  Caves, 
whilst  by  others  it  was  distinguished  as  the  IMount  of  the 
Bush.      Of  the   former,  some   expressed   their   meaning  by 

E  E 


4 1 8  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

calling  it  Mount  Choreb,  and  others  named  it  ^loimt  Paran, 
whilst  the  latter  gave  it  the  designation  of  Mount  Sinai. 
A<Tain,  in  the  memories  preserved  of  some  of  the  more 
notable  places  at  which  the  emigrants  rested  on  their 
journey,  some  styled  a  spot,  remarkable  for  its  palm-trees, 
Klim  ;  others,  by  a  very  slight  variation  of  dialect,  Elath ; 
and  others,  again,  possibly  Elish.*  The  Hazerim  of  one 
section,  in  like  manner,  became  the  Hazeroth  of  another ; 
whilst  a  similar  idea  was  conveyed  by  a  third  under  the 
name  of  Eephidim.  The  place  where  the  emigrants  halted 
for  a  considerable  time  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Mount 
of  Elohim,  where  they  planned  and  from  which  they  made 
their  unsuccessful  attempt  to  invade  Southern  Palestine, 
was  variously  named  Kadesh  and  Paran ;  those  who  gave  it 
the  former  title  not  improbably  connecting  it  in  their  minds 
with  their  dedication  to  their  protecting  God,  whilst  others 
associated  it  with  the  rock  excavations  by  which  it  was 
surrounded.  But  although  in  different  narratives  the  names 
varied,  the  broad  features  of  the  stories  have  been  shown  to 
1)0  alike ;  and  thus  by  coincidences,  which  must  have  been 
undesigned,  we  obtain  a  mass  of  corroborative  evidence 
which  enables  us  to  unravel  the  tangled  skein,  and  with 
something  approaching  certainty  to  reconstruct  the  very 
simple  story  of  the  Hebrew  migration  from  Egypt. 

To  this  heterogeneous  character  in  the  elements  out  of 
which  the  early  history  of  the  Hebrew  nation  came  to  be 
formed,  the  nomadic  habits  of  the  parent  stock,  and  the  tribal 
divLsions  into  which  that  stock  became  again  and  again 
split  u]),  mainly  contributed.  Those  who  claimed  descent 
from  Terah  became,  by  the  force  of  circumstances  and  the 
necessities  of  their  pastoral  lite,  ilivided  into  distinct  clans 
or  "  nations."     The  younger  inherited  the  traditions  of  the 


•  The  Alush  of  the  Masorites  (Num.  xxxiii.  13). 


FROM  EGYPT.  419 

elder,  but  those  traditions  were  made  to  accommodate  them- 
selves to  tlie  altered  conditions  under  which  they  were 
preserved.  Tlie  greatness  of  the  parent  stem  was  not  un- 
naturally presumed  to  be  overshadowed  by  that  of  the 
branch ;  the  deeds  of  the  ancestor  were  transferred  to  the 
descendant,  and  liistory  was  made  to  repeat  itself  with 
fantastic  precision.  This  incongruity  was  not,  however, 
apparent  to  those  who  occasioned  it.  The  story-teller 
addressed  himself  exclusively  to  the  members  of  his  own 
tribe,  and  the  latter  only  heard,  or  only  interested  themselves, 
in  what  they  were  told  under  their  own  tents.  If  the 
traditions  of  but  one  tribe  had  survived,  they  would  doubtless 
have  been  consistent  with  each  other,  and  the  incongruities 
wliich  we  have  noticed  would  not  have  appeared.  But  the 
elements  out  of  which  the  Jewish  nation  was  formed  were 
so  diverse,  and  the  tribal  distinctions  so  clearly  marked,  that 
the  same  stories,  though  told  of  different  individuals  or 
narrated  with  trifling  modifications,  have  been  preserved  to 
us  among  the  historical  records  of  this  interesting  people. 
We  have  seen  how  the  Abraham  of  one  set  of  stories  is  the 
Isaac  of  another ;  how  Esau  and  Ishmael  are  counterparts ; 
how  the  descendants  of  the  one  obtain  from  Jahveh  the 
same  possessions  which  are  accorded  to  the  other ;  how  in 
still  another  tribal  tradition  Ishmael  appears  as  Midian,  and 
how  the  descendants  of  the  one  are  regarded  as  identical 
with  those  of  the  other ;  how  Moab  and  Ammon  are  inter- 
changeable ;  how  the  Amorites  of  one  narrative  are  the 
Amalekites  of  another ;  how,  in  fine,  in  every  page  of  this 
singular  mass  of  historical  fragments  the  conclusive  evidences 
of  their  varied  origins  is  made  apparent. 

But  in  lifting  the  veil  which  covers  the  legends  of  the 
patriarchs,  we  have  done  more  than  obtain  a  confirmation 
of  the  soundness  of  the  analytical  method  we  ha.ve  adopted 
in  dealing  with  those  records  which  refer  to  the  migration 

E  E  2 


420  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

from  Egypt.  We  have  thrown  no  inconsiderable  light  on 
the  important  question  of  the  region  inhabited  by  the  stock 
of  those  who  were  reduced  to  slavery  in  Egypt,  and,  inferen- 
tially,  on  the  region  to  wliich  the  latter  directed  their  steps 
on  recovering  their  liberty.  Notwithstanding  the  local 
colouring  which  the  patriarchal  traditions  acquired  in  Judiea, 
we  have  had  no  difficulty  in  showing  that  the  land  of  the 
Hebrews,  the  laud  of  Abraham  and  his  immediate  descendants, 
lay  between  tlie  Araba  and  the  Eastern  desert,  and  was,  in 
fact,  the  land  of  Aduma  of  contemporary  Egyptian  records, 
the  same  land  in  which  the  only  tribes  with  which  the 
released  captives  claimed  lineage  were  to  be  found  when  the 
latter  quitted  Egypt.  It  was  the  land  of  Edom  or  of 
^lidian  in  the  broadest  sense,  though,  with  a  more  limited 
signification,  the  kingdom  of  Edom  was  regarded  as  inter- 
posing between  the  western  mountains  of  Idunuea  and  the 
Arabian  desert. 

Independently  of  the  variety  of  sources  from  which  the 
materials  are  supplied  for  the  construction  of  the  early 
history  of  the  Jewish  people,  the  singular  religion  of  the 
]iarent  stock  contributed  to  colour  the  traditions  with  a  hue 
which,  owing  to  the  subsequent  spiritualisation  of  that  re- 
ligion, is  eminently  calculated  tp  mislead.  If  even  the  least 
observant  traveller  were  at  the  present  day  to  meet  with  a 
tril>e  or  a  people  entertaining  the  religious  views  of  the 
Hebrew  shepherds,  he  would  have  no  hesitation  in  recognising 
its  utterly  selfish  character  and  demoralising  tendency.  But 
the  force  of  liabit  and  a  superstitious  reverence  for  the 
teachings  of  childhood,  lead  men  of  even  the  highest  order 
of  intelligence  to  ignore  the  mighty  chasm  which  separates 
the  religion  of  the  Hebrew  prophets  from  that  of  the  bar- 
liiimus  anil  ruthless  noniads  who  efl'ected  a  settlement  in 
I'alestine.  The  Monotheism  of  a  more  spiritual  age  is 
carried  backwards  in  dettance  of  history,  and  the  Almighty 


FROM  EGYPT.  421 

is  invested  with  tlie  vanity,  the  passions,  and  weaknesses  of 
a  tribal  God. 

According  to  the  Henotheistic  conception  of  the  Hebrew 
shepherds,  their  God  was  distinct  from,  and  superior  to,  all 
other  gods  ;  whilst  they,  in  like  manner,  were  a  distinct  and 
peculiar  people,  separate  from  other  peoples,  and  dedicated 
to  His  service.  The  relative  duties  of  the  Deity  and  the 
people  were  accurately  determined  by  covenant,  the  former 
being  expected  to  interpose  in  all  matters  affecting  the 
interests  of  the  latter.  With  these  ide^s,  it  necessarily  fol- 
lowed that  when  the  main  incidents  connected  with  the 
migration  from  Egypt  came  to  be  related  by  those  who  in  a 
primitive  age  discharged  the  duties  of  historians,  the  elements 
of  the  marvellous  became  multiplied  and  developed,  and 
almost  every  fact  related  by  those  who  quitted  Egypt  came 
to  be  referred  to  the  direct  interposition  of  Jahveh,  either  for 
the  purpose  of  aiding  or  of  punishing  his  people. 

It  has  been  remarked  that  the  miracles  recorded  in  the 
Old  Testament,  for  the  most  part,  admit  of  a  rational  explana- 
tion, and  this  holds  specially  true  of  those  connected  with 
the  departure  from  Egypt  and  the  migration  to  the  region 
beyond  the  Jordan.  The  story  of  the  plagues  is  simply  a 
description  of  phenomena  familiar  to  those  who  quitted 
Egypt,  but  which,  when  the  story  of  Israel's  liberation  came 
to  be  told,  was  not  only  highly  coloured,  but  was  made  a 
means  of  glorifying  the  national  Deity.  It  was  Jahveh  who 
released  the  captives  from  t'heir  bondage,  and  a  ready  ex- 
planation of  the  means  that  were  employed  was  found  in 
occurrences  which  in  the  land  of  Canaan  would  be  regarded 
as  supernatural.  Everything  which  conflicted  with  the 
broad  idea  that  the  Israelites  were  specially  protected,  and 
that  the  Egyptians  were  specially  ill-treated,  was  toned  down 
eliminated,  or  distorted,  in  order  to  produce  a  nan-ative 
gratifying  to  the  national  vanity  and  tending  to   glorify  the 


422  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

national  God.  The  true  story  of  the  cause  of  the  liberation, 
or  possibly  the  expulsion,  of  the  Hebrews  from  Egypt 
became  forgotten,  and  in  its  place  was  substituted  a  far 
different  narrative.  But  even  this  record  has  not  remained 
unaltered.  The  story-tellers  of  at  least  one  section  of  the 
Hebrew  nation,  attributed  to  Jahveh  a  miracle  in  connection 
with  the  Exodus  from  Egypt  of  whose  occurrence  those  of 
the  remaining  sections  were  entirely  ignorant.  The  first- 
born of  Israel — that  is  to  say,  the  settlers  beyond  the 
Jordan,  and  their  kinsmen  who  forced  their  way  westwards 
across  that  river— were  unacquainted  with  the  story  of  the 
passage  of  the  Eed  Sea. 

The  materials  for  future  liistory  brought  with  them  by 
the  emigrants  from  Egypt  were,  in  all  important  respects,  the 
same,  only  they  came  to  be  dealt  with  somewhat  differently 
by  the  settlers  in  different  regions  ;  different  names  were 
given  to  the  same  places,  and  the  same  occurrences  were 
apparently  represented  as  happening  at  different  places  and 
different  times.  But  it  is  only  just  to  say  that  this  con- 
fusion was  not  due  to  the  first  narrators.  The  stories  which 
the  Hebrew  shepherds  and  their  immediate  descendants  de- 
lighted to  listen  to  may  have  abounded  in  the  marvellous, 
but  tliey  must  have  possessed  the  element  of  simplicity  ; 
they  must  liave  been  easily  understood.  A  Bedouin  would 
not  object  to  a  narrative  because  its  incidents  were  in- 
credible— in  fact,  he  wouhl  be  all  tlie  more  delighted  on 
that  account;  but  he  would  reipiire  that  the  incidents 
should  foHow  each  other  in  natural  succession,  that  the 
story  should  have  a  beginning  and  an  end,  and  that  the 
one  should  in  a  natural  way  lead  up  to  the  other.  Even  a 
lairy  tale  must  be  drawn  on  siiiqili'  lines,  not  only  that  it 
may  be  easily  untlerstood,  but  as  easily  recollected  and 
transmitted  by  one  to  another.  It  is  perhaps  needless  to 
say  that  a  narrative  wliich  in  its  present  form  is  hopelessly 


FROM  EGYPT.  423 

unintelligible,  and  which  no  one  has  hitherto  attempted  to 
present  in  a  simple  form,  never  could  have  satisfied  the 
requirements  of  the  children  of  the  emigrants  from  Egypt 
when  they  desired  to  be  told  of  the  liberation  of  their 
fathers,  and  of  their  successful  conduct  by  their  protecting 
Deity  across  the  wilderness  which  interposed  between  tlie 
land  of  their  captivity  and  their  future  home. 

The  story  of  the  migration  from  Egypt,  as  told  originally 
to  the  settlers  beyond  the  Jordan  and  in  Southern  Palestine, 
was  extremely  simple.  There  was  not  much  to  relate,  but 
it  was  told  in  a  fashion  which  recommended  itself  equally  to 
the  comprehension  of  young  and  old.  Divested  of  the  mar- 
vellous, it  was  as  follows  : — A  number  of  Hebrews  were 
driven  by  famine  to  settle  in  Egypt,  and  were  reduced  to 
servitude.  After  the  laj^se  of  a  long  period,  they  obtained 
their  liberty,  and  were  permitted  to  quit  Egypt.  Accom- 
panied by  a  section  of  a  friendly  tribe,  they  made  their  way 
across  a  desert  to  the  land  which  their  ancestors  had  quitted, 
and  at  a  mountain  in  that  land,  reputed  to  be  the  abode  of 
the  Elohim  of  their  people,  they  concluded  a  covenant  with 
their  protecting  God.  They  subsequently  from  this  region 
endeavoured  to  force  an  entrance  into  Palestine,  and  having 
failed,  they  then  sought  permission  to  traverse  a  country  imme- 
diately interposing  between  them  and  the  extensive  pastures 
on  the  east  of  the  Jordan.  Their  request  having  been 
refused,  they  marched  round  this  country,  and  then  success- 
fully invaded  the  Trans-Jordanic  region.  The  story  of  those 
who  afterwards  were  known  as  the  men  of  Judah,  differed  as 
regarded  what  happened  subsequent  to  the  arrival  in  the 
land  of  the  Hebrews.  They  were  unacquainted  with  the 
journey  round  Edom  and  the  conquest  of  the  Trans-Jordanic 
region.  They,  with  the  assistance  of  the  inhabitants  of  the 
country  about  the  Mount  of  Elohim,  forced  their  way 
into  Southern  Canaan. 


424  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

Such  was  the  plain,  unadorned  story.  But  it  received 
considerable  embellishments  before  it  assumed  the  form  in 
'.vliich  it  was  ultimately  committed  to  writing.  The  arrival 
of  the  parent  stock  of  Israel  in  Egypt  in  search  of  food,  was 
made  to  be  consequent  upon  a  special  interposition  of 
Jalueh  in  favour  of  a  Hebrew  boy.  This  boy  was  sold  by 
his  brethren  into  captivity,  but  after  many  vicissitudes 
raised  to  the  highest  office  under  the  Pharaoh,  on  account  of 
his  skill  in  interpreting  a  dream,  and  by  this  means  enabling 
the  Egyptian  Government  to  make  provision  during  a 
period  of  plenty  for  a  succeeding  period  of  scarcity,  Joseph 
M'as  made  the  favourite  son  of  Jacob,  and  Ity  his  invitation 
his  father  and  his  kinsmen  were  represented  as  quitting 
tlieir  home  in  order  to  receive,  according  to  the  command  of 
Pharaoh,  "  a  possession  in  the  best  of  the  land,  in  the  land 
of  Rameses,"  But  this  state  of  prosperity  was  speedily  ex- 
changed for  a  condition  of  servitude.  The  famine-stricken 
Hebrews  were  obliged  to  make  such  terms  as  they  could  in 
order  to  secure  the  means  of  subsistence,  and  they  quickly 
lapsed  into  slavery.  In  the  narrative  taken  with  them  from 
Egj'pt,  the  emigrants  told  the  simple  truth  respecting  this 
transaction  ;  but  when,  at  a  later  period,  the  Eg}7)tian  Viceroy 
was  made  the  son  of  Jacob  and  the  progenitor  of  the  tribes 
of  Israel  (Ephraim  and  j\Ianasseh),  it  was  necessary  to  give 
a  difierent  colouring  to  this  mournful  chapter  in  the  history 
of  tlioso  who  were  represented  as  entering  Egypt  under 
the  most  favourable  auspices.  The  Egyjitians,  and  not  the 
Hebrews,  w^ere  made  the  victims  of  the  Viceroy's  policy;  it 
was  the  people  which  gave  succour  to  the  famished  shepherds, 
ami  not  llie  latter  wjijcli  was  reduced  to  servitude.  This 
ingenious  variation  of  the  original  story  obtained  easy  ac- 
ceptation from  hearers  who  were  neither  inclined  nor  com- 
petent to  criticise  tales  in  which  their  credulity  was  largely 
a])pealed   to.     "We   huNe   seen,   however,   that  in   the   total 


FROM  EGYPT.  4^5 

absence  as  well  of  any  allusions  to  the  circumstances  under 
which  the  Hebrews  lost  their  liberty,  as  of  any  protest  on 
their  part  against  being  treated  as  slaves,  the  proof  that  in 
the  story  of  Joseph's  negotiations  with  the  Eg}^tians  we 
possess  the  nucleus  of  the  tale  which  the  released  captives 
took  with  them  to  the  land  of  their  settlement. 

The  condition  of  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt  was  no  doubt 
almost  intolerable,  and  their  cry  must  have  often  been 
raised  to  the  Elohim  of  their  fathers  to  restore  them  to 
liberty.  But  they  were  not  so  foolish,  or  so  ignorant  of  the 
usages  of  the  time  in  which  they  lived,  as  to  suppose  that  the 
king  of  Egypt  oppressed  them  merely  for  oppression's  sake, 
or  through  apprehension  of  their  proving  a  formidable 
danger  to  his  people.  Slavery  was  a  recognised  institution 
even  amongst  their  own  people,  and  they  could  not  have 
failed  to  see  in  Egypt  many  slaves  pertaining  to  races  dif- 
ferent from  their  own.  But  in  later  times,  when  it  w^as 
thought  expedient  to  be  silent  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  parent  stock  had  parted  with  their  liberty,  explanations 
were  devised  in  order  to  account  for  what  w^ould  otherwise 
have  lieen  unintelligible.  It  gratified  the  national  pride  to 
represent  the  captives  in  Eg}^t  as  having  become  so  nume- 
rous and  powerful  as  to  inspire  the  Egyptian  Government  with 
dread,  and  it  was  related  that  Pharaoh  "  set  taskmasters  over 
them,  to  afflict  them  with  their  burdens,"  v^th  the  object  of 
cliecking  their  increase.  Such  was  the  account  given  by  the 
raconteurs  of  the  tribes  claiming  the  title  of  Israel.  But 
a  different  version  obtained  amongst  other  sections  of  the 
descendants  of  the  captives.  In  a  fragment,  which  unfortu- 
nately is  incomplete,  we  are  told  that  to  attain  the  desired 
end  the  Pharaoh  ordered  the  male  children  of  the  Hebrews 
to  be  slain.  This  would  seem  to  have  been  the  story  which 
survived  in  Judah. 

As  soon  as  the  descendants  of  the   captives   succeeded  in 


426  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

establisliing  themselves  in  their  possessions  on    the   opposite 
sides  of  the  Jordan,   they   necessarily  felt  grateful   to  their 
protecting  Deity  for  enabling  them  to   deprive  tlie  former 
inhabitants  of  tlieir  territory.    Their  religion  was  based  upon 
contract,  and  they  willingly  recognised  the  fact  that  Jahveh 
had   observed   his  engagements.      But  by  a  very  intelligible 
process   the  bards  and   story-tellers  carried  backwards   tlie 
Divine  intervention  in  favour  of   the   protected  people,  and 
made  the  various  incidents  in  their  early  history  so  many 
means  towards  the  accomplishment   of  the   final  end.      The 
covenant  with  Abraham  and  his  seed   for   the  acquisition  of 
Canaan,  which  was  even   at  tlie  period   of   tlie   bondage  in 
Egypt   regarded   by  the  inhabitants   of   Iduniita   as  accom- 
jilished,  was  advanced  a  step   for   the   benefit  of  those  who 
entered  Palestine ;  and   the  later  covenant  which  was  made 
when    the  invasion  of   that   country  was  contemplated,  was 
treated    as  a  simple   renewal  of   the  preceding  engagement. 
Those  who  were  reduced   to   slavery  in    Egypt  claimed   de- 
scent from  -Abraham,  and  as   it  was  inconsistent  with  the 
Semitic  idea  of  the  majesty  and  might  of  the  tutelary  deity 
to    suppose    that   any    misfortunes  'could    happen     to     the 
people   save  by  his   perniissiou   or  direction,  it  was   related 
that  even  at  the  time  of  the  conclusion  of  the  covenant  with 
.Vbraham  the   servitude  in  Egypt  was  predicted  by  Jahveh. 
A\'e  have  seen,  however,  that  although  a  tradition    to    this 
effect  grew  up   amongst  the   descendants   of  the   emigrants 
from   Egypt,   yet   it   assumed  different   shapes  in  ditterent 
tribes,   the   period  of    servitude   being   represented   in    one 
version  as  at  least  twice  as  long  as  in  the  other.      That  even 
whi'u    the   peopk'  were   geographically  separated    from   their 
(Jod,  he  should  feel  for  tliciu    in    their    iitUictioii,  was  a   not 
unreasonable  assum])tion  ;    and  the  i)art  i)layed  by  the   tribe 
«»f   shepherds  which   accompanied   the   captives  from  Egypt 
supplied  a  fitting  illustration  of  the  Divine  intervention. 


FROM  EGYPT.  427 

A  mountain  stood  in  the  land  of  the  Hebrews  which  had 
long  been  sanctified  as  the  abode  of  the  Elohim.  Here 
Jahveh  grieved  for  the  children  of  his  servant  Abraham, 
wdio  groaned  in  bondage  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  great 
wilderness  of  Shur,  and  here  he  entrusted  the  leader  of  a 
tribe  about  to  visit  Egypt  with  the  mission  to  liberate  his 
people.  This  individual  so  highly  honoured  was  Moses,  and, 
according  to  the  traditions  of  Southern  Palestine,  he  was 
born  in  Egypt,  narrowly  escaped  death  as  a  Hebrew  boy, 
was  brought  up  in  the  palace  of  the  Pharaoh,  and  was 
subsequently  compelled  to  fly  from  Egypt  and  take  refuge 
with  a  people  dwelling  in  the  land  of  the  HebreM-s,  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  Mount  of  Elohim.  The  real  circum- 
stances under  which  the  captives  obtained  their  liberty  were 
no  doubt  sufficiently  prosaic.  They  were  probably  not  only 
unattractive,  but  such  as  the  liberated  people  were  only  too 
willing  to  consign  to  oblivion.  If  they  were  turned  out  of 
Egypt  because  they  were  regarded  as  leprous  and  unclean, 
and  because  their  presence  was,  either  rightly  or  wrongly, 
interpreted  as  the  cause  of  pestilence  amongst  the 
Egyptians,  it  was  not  very  likely  that  their  descendants 
would  represent  the  matter  in  this  light.  It  was  gratifying 
to  the  national  pride,  and  more  consistent  with  the  fitness  of 
things,  to  represent  the  influences  at  work  as  supernatural, 
and  specially  called  into  operation  by  the  emissary  of  Jahveh. 
In  this  manner  the  stories  of  the  plagues,  and  of  the 
struggles  for  supremacy  between  the  Elohim  of  the  Hebrews 
and  the  Eloliim  of  the  Egyptians,  as  represented  by  their 
respective  champions,  came  to  be  told. 

The  mountain  where  the  God  of  the  Hebrews  dwelt  was 
the  point  to  which  the  liberated  captives  naturally  directed 
their  steps.  Their  Elohim  had  sent  for  them.  He  required 
that  they  should  come  and  serve  him  at  that  place.  Tliis 
was  the  substance  of  the  message  which   Moses  was   repre- 


428  THE  HEBRE  W  MIGRA  TION 

sented  as  conveying  to  the  elders  of  Israel,  and  to  the  king 
of  Eg\'pt ;  it  was  in  order  that  this  object  should  be  realised 
that  supernatural  ])ressure  was  put  upon  the  Pharaoh  and 
his  people  to  let  tlie  captives  go.  As  soon  as  tlie  Israelites 
(juitted  Egypt,  they  made  their  way  to  the  sacred  mountain. 
That  this  mountain  stood  in  the  country  in  which  their  kins- 
men dwelt,  that  the  sacred  associations  connected  with  it  could 
alone  have  grown  up  amongst  the  people  of  whom  they  were 
a  section,  and  that  they  should  find  in  the  same  region  the 
home  of  their  fathers  and  the  reputed  abode  of  their  God, 
is  only  what  we  should  look  for  in  the  narratives  of  the 
Exodus.  Tliat  this  celebrated  mountain  should  have  been 
sought  for  in  a  land  wliicli  not  only  was  never  part  of  tlie 
possessions  of  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  but  was  beyond 
all  doubt  subject  at  that  time  to  Egyptian  sway,  and  that  in 
this  unknown  region  the  Elohim  of  the  Hebrews  should  have 
been  supposed,  for  ever  so  brief  a  period,  to  have  taken  up  his 
abode,  is  not  only  opposed  to  all  probability,  but  was  so  com- 
pletely at  variance  with  the  religious  conceptions  of  the 
Hel)rew  sheplierds,  that  no  such  siory  could  ever  have  been 
told.  It  would  never  have  entered  the  mind  of  a  Hebrew  to 
represent  his  God  as  dwelling  in  a  strange  land. 

At  the  period  of  the  Exodus  the  tribes  claiming  descent 
from  Abraham  inhabited  the  region  lying  to  the  east  of  the 
Araba,  and  as  the  Egyptian  captives  were  of  the  same 
lineage  they  turned  their  footsteps  towards  this  country.  Not 
only  is  there  a  complete  absence  of  any  sugirestion  tliat  they 
wi'nt.anywliere  else,  but  the  stories  originally  related  are 
alone  intelligiljle  when  read  as  descriptive  of  the  movement 
liaving  taken  place  in  this  direction. 

The  migration  from  Egypt  to  the  Trans-Jordanic  region 
may  be  said  to  have  had  three  stages.  The  first,  from 
Ifameses  to  tlie  IJed  Sea  ;  the  second,  from  that  sea  to  Kadesh  ; 
the  third,  from  Kadesh  to  the  frontier  which  separated  Moal) 


FROM  EGYPT.  429 

from  Gileacl.  Of  the  first  of  these,  we  possess  but  one 
account ;  of  the  second  we  have  two,  if  not  three,  accounts ; 
and  of  the  third,  we  have  more  tlian  one  account,  besides  the 
fragments  of  some  others^ 

The  narrative  of  the  journey  from  Eameses  to  the  Eed 
Sea  is  very  simjDle.  The  captives,  having  been  thrust  out, 
proceeded  to  Succoth,  and  thence  to  the  edge  of  the  wilder- 
ness. Tlirough  this  wilderness  they  proceeded  for  some 
days  without  finding  water ;  continuing  their  journey,  they 
came  to  Marah,  where  the  water  was  bitter  ;  and  subsequently 
to  Elim,  with  its  palm  groves  and  fountains,  on  the  shore  of 
the  Eed  Sea.  In  other  words,  they  crossed  the  Tih  from 
Egypt  to  Akaba. 

The  second  stage  of  the  journey,  from  Elim  to  Mount 
Sinai  and  Kadesh,  was  accomplished  by  marching  up  the 
Araba  to  the  foot  of  Mount  Hor,  and  proceeding  by  one 
of  the  lateral  valleys  to  what  in  after-times  was  tlie 
site  of  the  Nabathsean  capital.  The  region  traversed,  and 
that  where  the  emigrants  made  a  considerable  stay,  were 
not  only  well  known  to  the  Hebrew  shepherds,  but  continued 
to  be  more  or  less  comprehended  within  the  territories  of  the 
settlers  in  Palestine  down  to  the  overthrow  of  the  Jewish 
monarcliies.  Our  information  respecting  this  stage  is  there- 
fore more  extensive  than  in  regard  to  the  first,  and  the 
legends  connected  with  it  are  more  numerous.  The  foun- 
tains and  palm-trees  of  Elim-Elath  came  to  be  respectively 
numbered  so  as  to  correspond  with  the  tribes  of  Israel  and 
the  Sanhedrin.  The  curious  product  found  on  the  shrubs  of 
the  Araba,  known  to  the  Bedouins  as  manu,  supplied  the 
groundwork  of  the  story  that  the  Israelites  were  miraculously 
fed  by  their  protecting  God.  The  singular  marsh  in  the 
lower  Araba,  possibly  known  even  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus 
as  the  Tavah  or  Tabah,  gave  rise  to  the  narrative  that,  dis- 
satisfied with  manna,  the  Hebrews  demanded  more  solid  food  • 


430  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

tliat  their  God  iu  liis  anger  sent  them  quails  in  abundance  ; 
that  they  ate  to  excess,  and  perished  in  great  numbers  ;  and 
that  in  conso(|uence  the  place  was  named  Kibroth-hat-Tavah, 
which  was  interpreted  the  "  graves  of  lust."  In  a  different 
tradition  Tavah  is  unnoticed,  whilst  the  supply  of  quails,  like 
that  of  manna,  is  said  to  have  been  intended  for  the  natural 
sustenance  of  the  people.  In  a  third,  tlie  destruction  of  large 
numbers  of  the  Israelites  is  referred  to  ;  Ijut  the  name  of  the 
place  is  apparently  changed  to  Taberah,  and  is  explained  on 
the  ground  that  the  disaffected  people  were  destroyed  by  fire  ; 
whilst  in  still  a  fourth,  the  physical  peculiarities  of  the  place 
apparently  suggest  the  account  that  the  earth  opened  and 
engulfed  the  malcontents.* 

Pre-eminent  in  the  narratives  dealing  with  this  stage  of 
the  migration,  were  the  descriptions  of  the  phenomena 
attendant  on  the  manifestation  of  the  glory  of  Jahveh  on 
the  Mount  of  Elohim,  and  the  accounts  of  the  miraculous 
supply  of  water  from  the  smitten  rock.  But  the  phenomena 
witnessed  on  the  Mount  where  Jahveh  dwelt,  were,  by  a  very 
simple  operation,  presumed  to  have  been  equally  inseparable 
from  the  Tabernacle  in  which  he  "  walked"  in  company  with 
his  people,  and  the  imaginative  powers  of  the  narrators 
sufficed  to  conjure  up  the  picture  of  the  tulelary  deity  lead- 
ing his  people  in  the  alternate  'manifestations  of  fire  and 
cloud.  But  some  time  elapsed  before  this  version  of  the 
journeyings  through  the  wilderness  was  presented.  In  the 
earliest  story  of  the  departure  from  Kadesh,  for  the  purpose 
of  descending  the  Araba  and  passing  to  the  east  of  Edom, 
it  was"  related  that  an  ineffectual  appeal  was  made  to  Hobab 
the  Kenite,  to  guide  the  Israelites  upon  their  way.t 


*  In  the  narrative  of  Korah's    rebellion,  as  now  presented  to  us, 
we  discover  the  traces  of  the  three  original  stories — the  destruction 
by  fire,  by  engulfment,  and  by  pestilence  (Num.  xvi.). 
t  Num.  X.  29-32. 


FROM  EGYPT.  43 j 

The  region  where  the  celelirated  waters  flowed  was 
specially  rich  in  traditions,  and  many  of  these  were  still 
ancient  when  the  released  captives  from  Egypt  approached 
the  Mount  of  Elohim.  Situated  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
this  mount,  the  spot  where  these  waters  sprang  shared  in 
its  sanctity.  The  source  was  named  the  En-Mishpat,  or 
"Spring  of  Judgment,"  and  tliere,  "before"  the  Elohim, 
causes  were  decided.  The  waters  were  also  known  as  those 
of  Massah  and  Meribah,  or,  in  the  language  of  another 
tribe,  Esek  and  Sitnah,  names  supposed  to  signify  respectively 
Contention  and  Strife.  It  became  necessary  for  the  early 
story-tellers  to  explain  these  terms,  and  even  anterior  to  the 
migration  from  Egypt  they  were  accounted  for  by  connect- 
ing them  with  the  disputes  between  rival  sheikhs  for  the 
possession  of  the  wells.  When  the  stories  of  the  "  journey- 
ings"  came  to  be  told,  another  explanation  was  found. 
Moses  was  declared  to  have  produced  the  waters  with  his 
staff,  and  caused  them  to  flow  through  the  rocky  cliffs, 
wliilst  the  contention  and  strife  were  attributed  to  the 
leaders  or  to  the  people  in  their  relations  with  Jahveh. 

Of  the  third  stage  in  the  migration  there  are  but  few 
traces .  left,  but  such  as  they  are  they  deal  mainly  with 
occurrences  at  the  commencement  and  termination  of  the 
journey.  This  does  not  surprise  us.  The  region  on  the  east 
frontier  of  Edom  was  unfamiliar  to  the  settlers  in  Canaan, 
and  any  traditions  connected  with  this  portion  of  the  journey 
were  speedily  forgotten.  It  was  different  with  Kadesh,  the 
point  at  which  the  movement  commenced,  and  the  northern 
frontier  of  Moab,  where  it  ended.  We  are  told,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  former,  of  the  ineffectual  invasion  of  Southern 
Canaan,  of  the  futile  request  for  permission  to  traverse 
Edom,  and  of  the  deaths  of  Aaron  and  Miriam ;  and,  in 
connection  with  the  latter,  of  the  apostasy  of  the  Israelites, 
and  of  the  death  of  Moses   on  the  borders  of  the  land  he 


432  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

was  not  permitted  to  enter.  That  more  ample  and  more 
accurate  accounts  of  this  final  stage  were  preserved  by  Trans- 
Jordanic  Israel  we  may  feel  perfectly  assured,  but  they, 
together  with  the  detailed  history  of  the  settlement  in 
Gilead,  are  now  lost  for  ever.  That  we  possess  so  mucli  of 
the  story  of  Israel's  passage  through  Moab  and  of  the  death 
of  Moses,  is  due  to  the  necessity  imposed  upon  the  story- 
tellers of  Cis-Jordanic  Israel  of  relating  tlie  events  connected 
with  the  termination  of  the  journeyings  through  the  wilder- 
ness. At  a  later  period,  when  the  scribe  took  the  place  of 
the  verbal  narrator,  the  original  story  was  preserved  but 
modified,  in  order  to  suit  the  supposed  requirements  of 
those  who  settled  on  the  west  of  the  Jordan.  Moses  was 
represented  as  the  conqueror  of  Gilead,  and  from  a  mountain 
overhanging  the  Jordan  was  pictured,  in  his  dying  moments, 
viewing  the  land  of  Canaan. 

Those  who,  operating  whether  from  the  Iduma'an  hills  or 
from  the  table-land  overlooking  the  left  bank  of  the  Jordan, 
forced  their  way  into  Palestine,  thus  carried  w'ith  them  a 
number  of  traditions  bearing  a  close  family  likeness  and 
betraying  a  common  origin,  but  nevertheless  differing,  some- 
times in  the  names  of  individuals,  sometimes  in  the  names  of 
places,  sometimes  in  the  periods  at  which  the  alleged  events 
took  place.  This  confusion  was,  ho\Vever,  intensified  by  the 
gradual  amalgamation  of  traditions  having  a  Canaanitish 
origin,  and  by  the  natural  tendency  of  a  new  race  of  story- 
tellers to  associate  "some  of  the  traditions  with  the  region  in 
which  the  tribes  had  been  settled."^"  But  in  such  an  age, 
and  amongst  an  illiterate  and  semi-barbarous  people,  this 
process  had  a  natural  tendency  to  impair  the  value  of  the 
materials  with  which  the  future  historian  had  to  deal. 
Original    distinctions    became     lost    and    forgotten,    and    a 


*  This  is  specially  the  case  iu  the  history  of  Jacob. 


FROM  EGYPT.  433 

heterogeneous  mass  of  independent  and  apparently  discon- 
nected records  was  collected.  For  after  the  story-teller 
came  the  embryo  historian,  who  contented  himself  with 
committing  to  writing  the  narratives  hitherto  transmitted  by 
oral  tradition.  But  there  were  such  men  both  in  Israel  and 
in  Judah,  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Jordan  and  on  the  left 
bank,  in  Edom  and  in  Canaan ;  and  these  scribes,  acting  in- 
dependently of  each  other,  produced  records  which,  if  read 
separately,  were  probably  fairly  intelligible  and  far  from 
confused,  but  which,  when  in  a  later  age  amalgamated  and 
dovetailed,  became  a  hopeless  compound  of  irreconcilable 
contradictions  and  needless  repetitions.  The  stories  of  one 
tribe  were  welded  with  those  of  another ;  too  glaring  incon- 
sistencies were  pared  down,  according  to  the  judgment  of 
the  manipulator ;  and  the  whole  shaped,  with  the  aid  of 
additions  and  emendations,  into  what  was  intended  to  pass 
for  consecutive  history. 

But  this  was  not  the  whole  extent  of  the  evil.  Long 
before  the  final  redaction  took  place,  a  variety  of  causes — 
partly  natural,  partly  political,  and  partly  religious — conspired 
to  distort  and  corrupt  these  early  records.  The  effluxion  of 
time  caused  the  identity  of  tribes  and  places,  originally  dis- 
tinguished by  somewhat  different  though  cognate  names,  to 
be  forgotten;  and  dialects  changed,  wliilst  the  fact  that  they 
did  so  was  ignored.  The  rivalry  and  antagonism  which 
grew  up  between  the  various  sections  of  the  people  claiming 
descent  from  Abraham,  led  -to  the  distortion  of  traditions  in 
the  interests  of  particular  tribes,  and  the  complexion  of  his- 
tory was  varied  in  order  to  suit  political  requirements,  or  to 
conform  with  the  necessities  of  a  religious  scheme.  The 
severance  between  those  who  settled  on  the  opposite  sides  of 
the  Jordan  was  politically  and  religiously  complete  before 
the  establishment  of  the  monarchy,  though  at  a  later 
period  the  successfid  campaigns  of  the  kings  of  Israel  may 

F  F 


434  THE  HEBREW  MIGRATION 

have  given  tn  their  people,  [jossessions  on  the  left  bank  of  the 
liver.  J3ut,  according  to  the  conceptions  of  Cis-Jordanic 
Israel,  theirs  was  the  land  of  Canaan,  tlieirs  was  the  Land  of 
Troniise.  They  conld  not  deny  the  fact,  that  tlie  first-born 
of  those  who  quitted  Egpyt  held  the  Trans-Jordanic  pos- 
sessions by  virtne  of  a  covenant  with  the  Deity  who  had  letl 
them  through  the  wilderness ;  but  they  found  it  convenient 
to  represent  them  as  nevertheless  receiving  it  as  a  reward 
for  their  services  in  aiding  tlie  younger  but  favoured  branch 
to  expel  the  Canaanites.  The  foundations  were  thus  laid 
for  the  superstructure  of  pious  romance  of  which  nearly  half 
the  Book  of  Joshua  is  composed.  The  story  of  the  migra- 
tion from  Egypt,  many  of  the  details  of  which  had  become 
confused  and  obscure,  was  travestied  for  the  greater  glorifi- 
cation of  God,  and  the  higher  exaltation  of  those  who 
establislied  themselves  in  Canaan,  Tlie  liberated  people 
were  made  to  subsist  exclusively  on  manna  until  they  crossed 
the  Jordan,  during  a  period  which  came  to  be  definitely 
fixed  at  forty  years.  The  meaning  of  the  ancient  nomadic 
expression,  though  understood  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Jordan 
in  tlie  ninth  century  B.C.,*  had  then  been  completely  for- 
gotten in  Judiea. 

Those  who  believe — or,  more  correctly  speaking,  who  fancy 
that  it  is  their  duty  to  believe — that  the  narrative  of  tlie 
Exodus  and  of  the  journeyings  to  the  Promised  Land  was 
contemporaneously  committeil  to  writing  by  Moses  under 
the  direct  inspiration  of  the  Deity,  will  probably  dismiss  the 
views  expressed  in  this  Essay,  and  the  arguments  by  which 
they  are  supported,  as  unworthy  of  consideration.  Tlie  candid 
inquirer  cannot,  lunvcvi'i-,  refuse  to  recognise  inaccuracies 
and  inconsistencies  and  repetitions  ;  he  cannot  ignore  tlie 
]iroofs  that  the  records  before  him  are  the  produce   of  dif- 


♦  The  Moabite  .Stoue  inscription. 


FROM  EGYPT.  435 

ferent  people  and  different  times,  because  he  is  told  upon  no 
evidence  whatever  that  these  disjecta  membra  form  a  perfect 
and  consistent  narrative,  whose  author  is  the  Almighty, 
Indeed,  if  he  is  not  devoid  of  reverence  for  the  Deity,  such 
a  preposterous  and  profane  assertion  cannot  fail  to  awaken 
his  just  indignation. 

It  is  to  those  to  whom  historical  truth  is  dear,  and  who 
can  distinguish  reliance  on  God  from  blind  subservience  to 
the  teachings  of  men,  that  this  work  is  addressed.  If  reli- 
gion be  worth  anything,  it  cannot  treat  truth  as  of  no 
account ;  nor  should  its  professors  affect  to  be  horror-struck 
because  what  their  reason  tells  them  is  truth  is  incompatible 
with  what  tliey  have  been  taught  it  is  their  duty  to  believe. 
It  has  been  well  observed,  that  men  should  take  care  not  to 
confound  faith  in  God  with  faith  in  somebody  else's  faith. 
This  error  is,  however,  much  more  frequently  committed 
than  is  commonly  supposed. 

In  addressing  ourselves  to  our  task,  we  set  before  us  two 
objects — to  ascertain  whether  it  was  possible  to  present  an 
intelligible  account  of  the  Hel)rew  migration  from  Egypt, 
which  would  be  consistent  with  the  historical  records  at  our 
command ;  and  to  explain  the  introduction  of  those  elements 
of  the  grotesque,  the  repulsive,  and  the  impossiljle,  which, 
though  the  creation  of  a  barbarous  and  superstitious  age, 
Ijeing  endorsed  even  at  the  present  day  by  teachers  of  reli- 
gion in  both  Jewish  and  Christian  communities,  bring  the 
Almighty  into  contempt  arid  derision.  The  champions  of 
what  passes  for  orthodoxy,  must  be  well  aware  that  the  most 
deadly  weapons  employed  against  them  are  supplied  out 
of  their  own  armoury.  They  are  guilty  of  the  incon- 
ceivable weakness  of  selecting  positions  which  invite  attack, 
and  are  hopelessly  untenable ;  and  yet  they  express  amaze- 
ment when  they  are  assailed,  and  bemoan  the  strides  made 
by  the  scepticism   which   they   provoke.      In  a  word,  they 


436         THE  HEBREW  MIGRA  TION  FROM  EGYPT. 

drag  their  God  through  the  guttisr,  and  then  raise  their 
hands  in  pious  horror  because  men  refuse  to  fall  down  and 
worsliij)  tlie  hideous  object  tliey  have  set  up. 

The  annals  of  religious  fanaticism  tell  us  how  much 
more  serious  in  past  times  were  the  consequences  of  thus 
vilifying  the  Deity.  But  even  now  they  are  such  as  cannot 
be  contemplated  without  serious  apprehension.  If  the 
highest  object  of  religion  be  to  attain  to  conformity  with  the 
Divine  will,  the  standard  of  conformity  becomes  equally  re- 
pulsive and  demoralising  when  the  Almighty  is  invested 
with  the  attributes'  which  upwards  of  three  thousand  years 
ago  the  nomad  tribes  of  Western  Arabia  gave  to  their  tribal 
Elohim.  But  this  is  what  is  done  by  tliose  who  claim  to  be 
the  vindicators  of  religion.  The  order  of  creation  is  reversed 
— and  man  makes  God  in  his  own  image. 


INDEX. 


A  ARON'S  Plains,  219 
-^~*-     Abarim,  Mount,   293,    398,  402, 

409  note 
Abiar  Alaina,  181  c<  seq.,  184  note 
Abijah,  \  id  note 
Abimelech,  293 

Abraham,  Traditions  of,  291  et  seq. 
Abulfeda,  254,  256 
Aduma,  199,  308 
^l<jlanitic  Gulf,  171,  [73 
Ailah,  237,  243,  244  note,  247-254 
Ain-el-Weibeh,  281 
Ain  Miisa,  216,  229,258 
Akaba,  77,  78,  153-159,  171,  181 
Alush,  190  note,  418 
Amalekites,  173-178,  195,  259-263 
Amaziali,  103  note,  146,  154 
Amorites,  167,  260,  352 
Anbu,  311 
Anthropomorphic   conception    of    God 

held      by    Hebrew    Shepherds,     10 

et  seq. 
Araba,  134,  135,  161,    192,    209,   213, 

281 
Arabia,  I53-IS5,  i97>  233,  254 
Arabia  Petrsea,  155 
Arabini,  395,   396  note,  400  note,  409 

note 
Araboth,  400  note 
Arke,  240 
Arnon,  348,  380 
Ashdoth -hap-Pisgah,  407,  408 
Avaris,  27,  94 


"DAAL-PEOR,  162,  355 

-^     Baal  Zephon,  68 

Balaam,  162,  226,  358,  405 

Baldwin  I.,  245,  251 

Bamoth  Baal,  407 

Battle  of  the  Kings,     144,    224,    235, 

240,  292 
Beer-lahai-roi,  296 
Beer-sheba,  147,  293,  301-304] 
Bered,  297,  315 
Bibors,  Sultan,  256 
Bozrah,  227 


Brugsch  Bey,  theory  of  Passage  of  Red 
Sea,  70  et  seq.  ;  identification  of 
places  connected  with  Exodus,  89, 
91,  98,  of  Sliur  with  Anbu,  311 
note 

r^ANAAN,  Land  of,  306  et  seq. 

^     Carmel,  270,  275 

Casius,  Mount,  68 

Chemosh,  12,  20,  349 

Cherith,  396 

Choreb,  193  7iote 

Cis-Jonlanic    Traditions   of    Death    of 

Moses,  401  etseq.,  414 
Crusaders,  233,  24.4. 

rjABA,  213,  317 

-^     David,  265,  269>  387 

Deborah,  103,  115,  i3^y  14O,  145,  370 

Decalogue,  340 

Deflieh,  213 

Deir,  the,  221 

Deuteronomist  on  Aaron's  Death,  335 

Deuteronomy,  date  of  Composition,  62 

note,  139 
Dialect,  differences  of,  201 
Dophka,  190  note 
Dumah,  burden  of,  145 

T7D0M,     135,     136,    152,    224,    209, 

259 
Elath-Eloth,  135,  170,  171,  184 
Elim,    164,    170,    179,    184,   247,   317, 

320 
Elijah,  140,  147-152,  396 
Elji,  216 

El  Paran,  144,  i  70 
En-gedi,  265,  271,  272 
Eu-Mishpat,  144,  235,  241 
Ephraituites,  346  note 
Era,  33  note 

Esek  and  Sitnah,  293,  295,  335 
Etham,  90,  gg  note,  164 
Et  Themed,   182 

Eusebius,  Onomasticon,  229  d  seq. 
Exodus,  date  of,  32,  33 
Ezion-ijaber,  73,  165 


438 


INDEX. 


l^^ARAX,  256 

-^    Forty  Years,  ite  signification,  8  wo/e 
Fulclier,  245  ti  stq. 

Future  State,  Hebrews  Lad  no  belief  in, 
16 

nAD,  359,  362-372,  385 
"     Gebaleiia,  197 
Gedor,  268,  299,  300,  315 
Gerar,  293,  297,  299,  300,  315     , 
(iharrab,  397  noU 
(nleadites,  362,  368  tt  seq. 
Gilgal,  177 
GolK)litiM,  197 
Gosbeu,  36,  37  note 

HABAKKUK,  145 
Ilacliilah,  265,  266  • 
Hagar,  153,  295 
Hiigia,  240,  256 
Hajj  Route,  129,  1S5  note 
Haji  Kbalifeb,  182 
Haran,  305 

Har-ba  Har,  326,  334,  337 
Harrab,  EI,  305 
Hauarra,  238 
Havilab,  168,  261,  266 
Hazerutb,  igi,  204  note,  318 
Hazezon  Tamar,  2,^5,  269,  272 
Hebrews,  early  religion  of,    10  e(  scg.  ; 
sojourn  in  Egypt,  34 ;    bow  reduced 
to    servitude,    39-43  ;    diverse  ele- 
lueuts  of  those  wbo  quitted  Egypt, 
102     (t  scQ.  ;     distinction   between 
Hebrews   and    Israelites,     107  ;    oc- 
currence  of  word    in    traditions   of 
Exodus,  III,  and  in  bistorical  books, 
112  et  seq.;  probable  way  in  wbicb 
liberation    from  Egypt  obtained,  119 
et  geq. 
Henotbeisni  of  Hebrews,  10,  21,  355 
Hol)ab,  4_^o 
Hor,  Mount,  212,  214,   223,  230,  24I, 

319,  321.  326 
Horeb,  138,  147,  193  7iote,  205,  230 
Horites,  136,  144,  205,  210,  224,  240 
Horniab,  166,  178 
Ilyksos,  27,  9?,  94 

IJE-AfeARIM,  380,  398,  402 

A      Isjuic,  traditions  ot,  291  et  srq. 

Isaiab,  liook  of,  work  of  two  persons, 
61  note 

Isbniael,  153,  161 

Israel  distinct  from  Judah,  103  et  seq. ; 
contempt  for  Judah,  104  note; 
Israel's  version  of  bondage  in 
Ei'jjtt,  108,  109;  distinction  between 
Israel  and  Juduli  very  obi,  114;  no 
Connection  between    tbem  .--avi'  for  a 


brief  period  under  Jlonarcby,    115; 
counted  separately  in  time  of  Samuel, 
116 
Itinerary  (Numbers  xxxiii.),  165,  189, 

338 

TAAKAN,  Beni,  335,  336,  339  note 

^  Jabveh,  distinctive  nameof  <iod  of 
Israel,  19  ;  error  in  its  rendering  as 
Lord-God,  20 

Jam  Suph,  accepted  interpretation  of 
the  name,  75  and  note ;  probable 
derivation,  76-78  ;  possibly  synony- 
mous with  present  Arabic  name  of 
Gulf,  76  note 

.Tebel-et-Tarfiiyeh,  399,  409  no^f,  413 

Jebel  Shihan,  414  note 

Jeboshaphat,  26S 

Jepbtbab,  81,  82,    208,  340,  368,  379, 

383 

Jerome,  Onomasficon,  2^0  et  seq.,  397 

Jesbimon,  265-268 

Jethro,  162,  164,  195,  197,  225 

Jordan  Valley,  134 

Joseph,  story  of,  39,  153,  161 

Josephu-s  26,  152,  159,  177,  196,  239, 
271,  329,  401 

Joshua,  Book  of,  382 

Judah,  silence  respecting,  103;  con- 
tempt in  which  held  by  Israel,  103 
note ;  Judali's  version  of  Egyptian 
oppression,  109;  and  of  Moses' 
early  life,  no;  boundaries  of,  278 

Justice,  Divine,  rests  on  same  founda- 
tion as  Human,  5 

Justinian,  156 


TT'ADESH,    142,    144,  166,  180,  20^> 
^     note,   234,   236,   239,  279,    281, 

283,   3 '5,  327>  340,  349 
K^n'aan,  308 
Kedem,  153,  161 
Keuitcs,   162,  198,  225 
Kerak,  255,    398 
Keturah,  153 
Kibrotb-hattaavah,       191,     200,    203, 

207  note,  213  )iotc,  317 
Korah,  430 
Kozeh,  349 


LOCALISATION  of  Deity,  belief  ii 
331 

llfA'AN,  255,  271 

-^'^     Macrizi,  253,  256 

Magbara,  W.,  i  75 

Wanasseb,  359,  363  et  seq. 

Manetho,  27,  28,  94 

Manna,  192  note,  317,  382,  397 


INDEX. 


439 


Maon,  265,  ^67,  270,  277,  299 

Marah,  164,  169,  179,  iSi,  183  Mo<e 

Massah,  144 

Meribah,  waters  of,  126,  186-189, 
236,  255 

Meribah- Kadesh,  142,  279 

Mesopotamia,  296  note. 

Midian,  slaughter  of,  146,  153 

„        land  of,  159,  163,  198,  232 
,,       son  of  Abraham,  i6i 

Migdol,  66-68 

Mineptah  II.,  n,  37,  117 

Miriam,  328 

"Mixed  Multitude,"  how  composed, 
106  et  seq.,  1 1 7- 1 20 

Moab,  3:56,  402 

Mokkateb,  W.,  [75 

Monotheism,  unknown  to  Hebrews,  10 

Mosera,  336,  339  note 

Moses,  story  of  early  life,  ijo;  his 
mission,  rii,  162,322;  probable 
part  he  played  as  Sheikh  of  tribe 
visiting  Egypt,  iig  et  seq.  ;  blessing 
of,  139;  flight  of,  158-162,  198; 
traditions  respecting  death,  393  ct 
seq.,  409  et  seq.,  412  note 

Mount  of  Elohim,  interest  attaching  to 
its  identification,  i  33  ;  region  where 
situated,  137;  different  names,  1 38, 
335 

Musa,  Jebel,  174 


IVTABATHJIANS,  210,  21^  note 
-^^      Nakhl,  1 81-183 
Nebo,  400  et  seq. 
Negeh,  287,  292,  298 
Nowairi,  2^6 


Numbers,  Book  of,  125-127 


AMSHOMAR,  179 
^^     Oreb,  146,  249 
Orebim,  396,  397  note 


TDALMS,  city  of,  272  note 

-*-  Paran,  142,  143  note,  I45,  157., 
160,  165,  179,  193,  205,  218  note, 
230,  236.  243,  271,  296,  315,  317 

Pelusium,  67 

Peor,  406,  409,  413 

Petra,  154,  197,    21  t,   215,    243,  257, 

3'7 
Peutinser  Table,  148,  237,  238  note 
Philistines,  x  12  et  seq.,  298  et  seq. 
Pi-hahiroth,  66,  69 
Pisgah,  400  et  seq.,  4 10,  413 
Pithom,  88 

Poetry,  Hpbrew,  141,  142 
Polytheism  of  Hebrews,  10 


AUAILS,  supply  of,  126,  430 

T)  AMESES,  88,  89 

-L^     Ras  Sufsaveh,  179  note 

Red  Sea,  names  of,    73,  75,  76  note, 

77-79,  85 
„         passage    of,    50  et  seq.,  58, 
5Q,  61-65,  79,  82,  84 
Rekam,  240,  255 
Religion  of  Hebrews,  ro-17 
Rephidim,    164,  176,    203   note,    24?, 

318 
Eeuben,  359,  364-372,  385 
Ritual  of  the  Dead,  340  note 
Rutennu,  309 


OT.  CATHERINE,  Mount  of,  179 

^    St.  Paul,  153,  156 

Sanhedrii;,  126,  199,  430 

Saul,  168,   177,  259 

Sarbut-el-Khadera,  174,  176 

Seir,  141,  157 

Sela-ham-mahlekoth,  276,  278 

vSerbal,  179 

Serbonian  Lake,  69 

Seti,  308 

Seyl  Szefye,  399,  4O4  note,  413 

Shasu,  37  note,    117,    199    note,    30S, 

310 
Sheehinah,  320,  324,  325 
Shibboleth,  206 
Shihan,  Jebel,  414  note 
Shittim,  356,  409  7iote 
Shur,    164,  168,    180,    240,  261,  310 

et  seq. 
Sihon,  351 

Stk,  the,  215-219,  229,  318 
Simeon,  287 
Sin,  164,  185,  191,  193 
Sinai,  Mount,  138,  141,  145,  153,  r56, 

159,    193  note,  236,  243,  248,  317, 
.319,  327,  330,  339 
Sinai,  Wilderness  of,  165 
Sinaitic  Peninsula,  131,   155 
Succoth,  90,  98 
Sutuh  Beida,  219 

„      HarCln,  219,  341 


rpABERAII,  207,  340 

-*-      Tanis,  89 

Tavah,  2  r  3  7iote,  4  29 

Teman,  145 

Temple,  building  of,  date,  32 

Terah,  288 

Tetragrammaton,  19,  20 

Tih,  Desert  of  the,  i28-r30,  376 

Tih,  Je'ielet-,  131 

Timsah,  Lakp,  too 


440 


INDEX. 


Tor,  Mount,  254,  256 

Traditions  of  Israel  and  Judah,  108 

Trans-Jordauic    Conquests,  354,   359, 

Trans- Jordanic  traditions  respecting 
stay  in  the  Wilderness,  392,  414  ; 
respecting  Moses"  death,  409-4 14 

Troglodytes,  158,  198,  224 

YALLIS  MOYSI,  245,  247      . 

WADY-EL-ARISH,  280 
„      Ghavandel,  214 
„     Marhade,  214 
„      Mdsa,  215,  245 
„     Rflbai,  220,  256 
,,     -el-Yitm,  192  note.,  212,  351 
Wander,   words   so   interpreted,     384 
et  seq. 


Wanderings  of   Israelites,    122,  124, 

374 
Wilderness,  different  beliefs  concerning 

its  extent,  379,  380 
Willows,  Valley  of,  394-397,  399 


■yiTM,  Wady-el-,  192  mte 


7AHr,  308 

^     Zalu,  308 

Zered,  380,  394,  395  note,  404  note 

Zin,  186,  187,  191,  206,  278 

Zini,  194  note 

Ziph,  265,  274 

Zoan,  89,  92,  94,  96 

Zoar,  273  note,  304  note 


THE    END. 


Qr2y 


rWINIKO   IIV   nALI.ANTVNB   AND   HANSON 
LONDON    AND   EDINUURCII 


DATE  DUE 


"INTEDINU.S., 


^he  Hebrew  m.gral.on  ^^^^^^