Match Context and Document information

These search terms are highlighted: exodus

URL:	https://www.bible.ca/...story-of-the-old-covenant-1872ad.htm
Depth:	5 clicks away from Home
Size:	110,864 bytes
Modified:	2020-01-28 11:04:27
Categories:	-None-
Title:	bible-archeology-exodus-kadesh-barnea-johann-heinrich-kurtz-history-of-the-old-covenant-1872ad
Description:	-None-
Keywords:	-None-
Meta data:	-None-
Body:	History of the old Covenant Johann Heinrich Kurtz 1872 AD (History of the old covenant: Johann Heinrich Kurtz,1872 AD, Vol 3, Geological survey, p217-254) Between 1872 - 1891, Keil and Delitzsch rejected a transjordan location for Kadesh Barnea on the basis of what Johann Heinrich Kurtz reported in his History of the old covenant:, 1872 AD, Vol 3, Geological survey, p225-226. Keil and Delitzsch said this: "See Kurtz, History of the Old Covenant, vol. iii. p. 225, (History of the old covenant : Johann Heinrich Kurtz,1872, vol, 3 p 225) where the current notion, that Kadesh was situated on the western border of the Arabah, below the Dead Sea, by either Ain Hasb or Ein El Weibeh, is successfully refuted." (Keil and Delitzsch, Num 12:16, footnote) When you read Kurtz's actual evidence that Kadesh Barnea could not be transjordan, this is what Kurtz said: ""This mountain barrier," says Williams, "proved to us beyond a doubt, that we were now standing on the southern boundary of the promised land." They were confirmed in their opinion by the statement of the guide, that a few hours journey towards the south-west would bring them to Kadesh." Kurtz also makes several enormous errors in his account while describing a location of Ein El Weibeh on the western edge of the Arabah Valley. First he thinks Ein El Weibeh is at the same longitude as Beersheba. The intersecting line of the latitude is 30 miles due west of where he is standing. In fact Beersheeba is 40 miles NW of where he is standing. Then he notes the Bedouin says Ein el Qedeis is only 2 hours away, when it is in fact 50 miles away, likely a 3 day journey, knowing the terrain. Exactly why this unknown mountain barrier would have any bearing on locating the southern boundary of the promised land is a mystery, and is purely speculative therefore worthless. The real reason Keil and Delitzsch and Kurtz believe Kadesh cannot be transjordan is because the Bedouin guide told them that Ein el Qedeis preserves the name "Kadesh". This association has since been utterly rejected. Ein el Qedeis was rejected in 1914, in favour of Ein el Qudeirat, located about 6 km NW of Ein el Qedeis. So in the end, the very association of the name in the mind of the Bedouin guide proved absolutely nothing. Keil and Delitzsch relied upon Kurtz's account which was full of errors. This means they have no good reasons why Kadesh Barnea cannot be transjordan even though the reasons sounded convincing at the time. This comedy of errors underscores how little the explorers knew 100 years ago. "In October 1842 (according to the account given by Williams in his "Holy City" p. 487 sqq.), the two friends made an excursion beyond Hebron, for the purpose of putting to the test on the very spot, the accounts which still wavered as to the southern boundary of Palestine. They went from Arar (Araran, Aroer) towards the south-west, and ascended from the table-land of Arar, the first mountain rampart, by which it is bounded on the south. They now found themselves upon a still higher plateau, which stretches from east to west, and is called the Wady Rakmah. It answers to the district of the Dhullam and Saidiyeh on Robinson's map. After going still farther south, they ascended a second mountain-range, from the summit of which a scene presented itself to the view of the most magnificent character. (From statements made by Williams elsewhere, the point at which they now stood was somewhere about the longitude of Beersheba, twenty miles to the south of this place, near 31° north latitude, 32.5° longitude. [www.bible.ca note: these coordinates and location are totally wrong, these coordinates place them in Goshen, Egypt.) A gigantic mountain towered above them in savage grandeur, with masses of linked rock, resembling the bastions of some Cyclopean architecture, the end of which it was impossible for the eye to reach towards either the west or the east. It extended also a long way towards the south; and with its rugged, broken, and dazzling masses of chalk, which reflected the burning rays of the sun, it looked like an unapproachable furnace, a most fearful desert without the slightest trace of vegetation. A broad defile, called Wady Murreh, ran at the foot of this bulwark towards the east, and after a course of several miles, on reaching the strangely formed mountain of Modder a (Maduran), it divided into two parts, the southern branch still retaining the same name and running eastwards to the Arabah, whilst the other was called Wady Fikreh, and ran in a north-easterly direction to the Dead Sea. " This mountain barrier," says Williams, " proved to us beyond a doubt, that we were now standing on the southern boundary of the promised land." They were confirmed in their opinion by the statement of the guide, that a few hours journey towards the south-west would bring them to Kadesh. 26. As you pass along the ordinary road to Hebron, on the western side of the mountainous district of the Azazimeh, the whole of the mountain-slopes between Jebel Araif and Jebel Khalil (or the heights of Hebron) appear to form a continued and unbroken range. But just as the separation of the mountains of the Amorites from the northern wall of the Azazimat, by the Wady Murreh, is concealed by the link which connects the two together to the east of Eboda; so do the projecting ranges of the western wall of the Azazimat keep out of sight an extended desert plain, which runs for many miles into the heart of the Azazimat on the other side of the Jebel Moyleh, and into which several wadys open from the eastern side of the mountain (e.g. the Wady Kesaimeh, the Wady Muweilih [ Moilahi], and the Wady Eetemat). "In the remote background, surrounded by the wilderness, there stands in a state of remarkable isolation the strong rock with its copious spring, —the spot which still bears the ancient name of Kadesh (Ain Kudés) (1), and of which Rowlands was the discoverer." That this is the wilderness of Kadesh, which plays so important a part in the history of the sojourn of the Israelites, is apparently no longer open to dispute (3). From the peculiar configuration of the soil, we may easily understand why this plain, which has a distinct name of its own (viz., Kadésh), should sometimes be regarded as a part of the desert of Paran (et-Tih), and at other times as belonging to that of Zin (the plain of Murreh) (2)." (History of the old covenant: Johann Heinrich Kurtz,1872 AD, Vol 3, Geological survey, p225-226) SECTION IL ISEAEL IN THE DESERT OF PARAN. VIDE J. Rowlands appendix to G. Williams " Holy City," p. 488 sqq.—Fr. Tuch Bemerkungen zu Gen. xw., in the " Zeitschrift der deutsch-morgenländischen Gesellschaft/' vol. i. Heft. ii., p. 160 sqq. (especially p. 169 sqq.)—W. Fries, " über die Lage von Kades und den hiemit zusammenhängenden Theil der Geschichte Israels in der Wüste :" in the " Theologische Studien und Kritiken/' 1854, i. p. 50-90.—Babbi J. Schwarz (of Jerusalem), " das heilige Land/' Frankfort 1852, p. 347 sqq.— Also the works of K. v. Räumer, Robinson, Labor de, and K.Ritter, mentioned at the commencement of § 1. The last-named author has also published a small treatise in Piper's "Evangelischer Kalender," 1854, p. 41-55, entitled " die Wandrung des Volkes Israel durch die Wüste zum Jordan.'* GEOGRAPHICAL SURVEY. § 23. The borders of the biblical desert of Paran corresp ond, on the whole, to the boundaries assigned by the modern Bedouins to the desert of et-Tih (vol. ii. § 12). It embraces the tract of desert between Egypt, Palestine, and the mountains of Seir, which is separated from the Sinaitic peninsula (in the strictest sense) by the border mountains of et-Tih. This broad, desert tract of table-land is completely surrounded by a fringe of desert on a lower level. The desert of Jif ar (or Shur) divides it on the west from the Egyptian territory (§ 2, 5), on the south-west be- yond the mountains of er-Eahah, from the Heroopolitan gulf, and on the north-west from the Mediterranean. On the north it is separated from the mountains of the Amorites, the southern slope of the table-land of Palestine, by the broad valley of Murreh (or the desert of Sin, § 26, 1). On the east it falls abruptly into the Arabah, which divides it from the mountains of the Edomites; and on the south, on the other side of the mountains of et-Tih, stretches the sandy desert-plain of er- Eamleh, out of which the promontories of the mountains of Serbal and Sinai immediately rise. The old Testament furnishes indisputable proofs that the desert of Paran was quite as extensive as this. ( 1.) To Tuch belongs the merit of having been the first to throw light upon what is meant in the Old Testament by the desert of Paran (see his excellent treatise mentioned above).— Such was the nature of the desert between Egypt, Palestine, and Edom, that it could hardly fail to be regarded as one desert, and called by a common name. This was really the case, then, in ancient as well as modern times. That it was situated between Edom, Midian, and Egypt, is evident from 1 Kings xi. 18. A number of passages may be brought to show that on the north it touched the southern boundary of Palestine (e.g. Gen. xxi. 21, compare ver 14 ; Num. xiii. 4, 18, 27, etc.). That it reached as far as the Elanitic gulf on the south-east, is evident from Gen. xiv. 6, where Chedoiiaomer is represented as marching through the mountains of Seir on the eastern side from north to south as far as El-Paran (nj&D'P^), and then turn ing round and proceeding in a northerly direction along the western side of the mountains of Seir to Kadesh (on the southern borders of Palestine). This El-Paran (= Terebinth-grove of Paran), as Tuch has shown ( p. 170), cannot be any other than the ancient El ath or Aileh, at the northern extremity of the Elanitic gulf to which it has given the name. Elath formed the actual gate of Arabia Petrosa, and as such is distinguished here by the cognomen Paran. It is for this very reason that it is described as situated " at the entrance to the desert " (^fòiT^). The march of the Israelites from Sinai to the southern borders of Palestine, which brought them into the desert of Paran at the end of three GEOGRAPHICAL SURVEY. 219 days (Num. x. 12, 33), though, they were still in the desert of Paran when they had reached their destination (Num. xiii. 1? 4, 27), confirms the statement as to its extent from north to south. The mountains of et-Tih (which commence immediately at the western shores of the Elanitic gulf, with the promontory of Eas TJm Haiyeh, and continue in an uninterrupted curve to the vicinity of the gulf of Suez), along with the mountain chain Jebel er-Eahah, which joins them here and runs parallel to the coast of that gulf, form the southern and south-western boundary of the desert of Paran ; and this is rendered the more indisputable by the fact that the table-land enclosed by this mountain chain has just the same character throughout. The desert of et-Tih is certainly divided into two halves by the Jebel el-Oejmeh and the large Wady of el-Arish, which run directly across it from north to south ; but that the western half was formerly regarded as belonging to the desert of Paran, just as it does now to that of et-Tih, is evident from the relation in which the desert of Paran stood to the desert of Shur and to Egypt (Gen. xvi. 14, xx. 1, xxi. 21, xxv. 18), as well as to the country of the Amale- kites. It is obvious from Gen. xiv. 6, and Deut. i. 1, that the Arabah formed its eastern boundary. ( 2.) Notwithstanding the fact that the desert of et-Tih is so compl etely shut in towards the south by the mountains of et-Tih, it is still questionable whether the ancient desert of Paran did not extend still further southwards, viz., to the promontories of Sinai and Serbal, so as to include the present desert of er- Eamleh. Two things might be adduced in support of this. First, the name of the Wady Feiran, which passes round the mountains of Serbal in a northerly direction (§ 5, 3). In this exceedingly fertile v alley there are still to be seen the ruins of a city called Pharan, which was once a place of some importance. But in spite of the similarity in the names, with so clearly defined a natural boundary as the Jebel et-Tih, we are not at liberty to place the boundaries of the desert of Paran so far south as this; still less can we follow Baumer (Zug der Israel- iten, p. 38), who supposes that two deserts of the same name occur in Scripture, the one on the one side and the other on the other side of the mountains of et-Tih. It should be mentioned, however, that he has retracted this opinion in the third edition of his Geography of Palestine. ( 3.) The second argument which might be adduced to prove that the desert of Paran extended further towards the south, is founded upon Num. x. 12, "the children of Israel took their journeys out of the wilderness of S inai, and the cloud descended in the desert of Paran." According to this, the first halting-place after leaving Sinai (the " place of burning," or " graves of lust"), which was reached in three days (Num. x. 33), was in the desert of Paran. But if we turn to Num. xii. 16 (" the people removed from Hazeroth, and pitched in the wilderness of Paran"), the third station from Sinai appears to have been the first which was situated in the desert of Paran. Tuch (p. 177) reconciles the two statements in this way. He assigns them to two different authors, both of whom had the same point in their mind (namely, the northern boundary of the desert of Paran), but " the earlier of whom passed over a series of halting-places, whilst the later supplemented chap. xii. 16, and mentioned the fact that the Israelites reached Paran from Chazeroth by crossing the ridge of the mountain." Ranke (ii. 198 seq.) and HengstenbergÇRvù&am) adopt the same view, except that they maintain the unity of authorship notwithstanding. " Before entering more minutely into the details of the march," says Ranke, "which he does from chap. x. 33 onwards, the author mentions at the very outset (chap. x. 12) the ultimate destination, viz., Paran on the borders of the promised land." Hengstenberg also writes to the same effect : " After the terminus a quo (Sinai) and the terminus ad quern (Paran) have been given, there follow the particulars of the march : the place of burning, the graves of lust, Chazeroth, and the desert of Paran." But this solution appears to us a forced one. The natural course of the narrative in chap. x. compels us to refer ver. 12 to the first place of encampment. The statement contained in ver. 12 is repeated in ver. 33, after a few parenthetical remarks, and carried out still further. We adhere, therefore, to the view already expressed, that, according to Num. x. 12, the first station was situated within the limits of the desert of Paran. Chapter x. 12 gives us the most southerly, and chap. xiii. 1 the most northerly station in that desert. In this case the desert of Paran must undoubtedly have extended farther towards the south, than the principal chain of the mountains of et-Tih. For, according to Deut. i. 2, the entire distance from Sinai to Kadesh (to which we are brought in Num. xiii. 1, compare ver. 27) was GEOGRAPHICAL SURVEY. 221 eleven days' journey ; and if we divide the road from Sinai to Kadesh (on the southern border of Canaan) into eleven equal parts, the end of the third day's journey (chap. x. 33) will fall at any rate to the south of the Jebel et-Tih. But this need not astonish us, for it is well known that, in addition to the principal chain of these mountains (which runs close up to the sea in the vicinity of Bas Um Haiyeh), there is a side branch towards the south, which not only bears the same name, et-Tih, but which also runs in a south-easterly direction, and approaches the sea- coast. The end of the third day's journey falls within the triangle formed by the two branches of the Jebel et-Tih and the coast (according to the measurement afforded by Deut. i. 2), and we have no hesitation in reckoning this triangle as a portion of the desert of Paran, on the ground of the passage before us ( chap. x. 12), for the very same reason that the southern branch of the mountain range is still called Jebel et-Tih. § 24. The large tract of desert which, as we have seen, is . called in the Old Testament by the common name of the Desert of Paran, slopes generally downwards in the direction from south to north, and rises from west to east, until it falls abruptly into the Ar abah. In Deut. i. 19 it is most appropriately designated a " great and terrible desert." In general, it consists of table-land, on which bare limestone and sandstone rocks, dazzling chalk and red sand-hills, are almost the sole relief from the parched and barren tracts of sand, interspersed with gravel and black nint- stones. At the same time, so much water falls in the wadys during the rainy season, that a scanty supply of grass and herbs may be found for the support of passing herds. There are also a few wells and fountains with a constant supply of water. The desert is divided into two halves, an eastern and a western, by the Wady el-Arish (called in the Old Testament " brook of Egypt," by the Greeks, u Rhinokolura") which runs completely from north to south. Although there are several by no means inconsiderable mountains in the western half, it is distin- tinguished from the eastern by a far greater regularity and flatness in the soil. We need not enter into any minute de-; scription of the western half, as the sojourn of the Israelites was confined exclusively to the eastern. In the latter a large mountain-range, the Jebel el-Oejmehj branches off from the Jebel et-Tih, near to the mouth of the Wady el-Arish, and runs parallel to the latter. The southern portion of this eastern half (about two-thirds of the whole) has throughout a similar character to the western. It consists of barren, sandy tableland, the surface of which is broken by but a very small number of isolated mountains. Its slope towards the north-east is indicated by the large Wady el-Jerafeli, which commences at the foot of the Jebel et-Tih? and runs in a north-easterly direction to the Arabah, where it opens into the Wady el-Jib? through which it pours the waters of the desert into the Dead Sea.— But the last part, the northern third of this eastern half, has a totally different ch aracter. There suddenly rises from the plain a strong mountain fastness, of a rhomboid shape and of the same breadth as the "Wady el-Jerafeh, at the point where it joins the Arab ah ; and this mountain covers the whole of the northern portion of the eastern half of the desert. At the present day it is called, after its inhabitants, the mountain country of the Azazimeh, or simply the Azâzimat. § 25. The interior of the mountain district of the Azâzi- meh, which covers an area of about forty square miles, is still almost entirely a terra incognita. The inhospitable character of the district and the rapacity of its dreaded inhabitants have deterred travellers from penetrating further; and it is only quite recently that Rowlands has prepared the way for a more thorough investigation of this land, which is so important for biblical geography.—The Azâzimat forms a square, or, to speak more exactly, a rhomboid mountain fastness, which rises precipitously, almost perpendicularly, from the surrounding valleys or plains on the south, the east, and the north; and it is only on the western side that it slopes off more gradually towards the Wady el-Arish. As it is completely detached on GEOGRAPHICAL SURVEY. 223 every side? and forms a compact mass with, its gigantic mountain groups, it presents the most striking contrast to the desert by which it is surrounded, and would be altogether isolated, " were it not that, towards the north-west, instead of terminating abruptly in a corner column, a line of mountains intervenes, and thus prevents entire separation from the Amorite mountains." The southern boundary wall of this mountain for- tre^o is formed by a range which rises steeply and in an imposing manner from the desert, and runs in a straight line from west to east, and which towers up to an immense height at both the eastern and western ends. The corner column towards the east, quite close to the Arabah, is called Jebel el-Mekrah^ and that towards the west Jebel Araif en-Nahah. The eastern wall rises with equal abruptness from the Arabah, but is intersected by several defiles, which furnish approaches of more or less difficulty into our mountain fortress. The northern boundary wall, Jebel Halal, which had remained altogether unknown until very recently, is cut off almost vertically by a broad defile, the Wady Murren, which runs from east to west, and opens into the Arabah. On the oth er side of this valley, the plateau er-Rakmah, the southern rampart of the Palestinian mountains of the Amorites, rises perpendicularly. The Wady Murreh is as much as ten or fifteen miles broad. At the eastern extremity the solitary mountain of Madurah (Moddera) rises in the very midst of the valley. To the south of this mountain the principal valley bends in a south-easterly direction towards the Arabah, still bearing the name of Wady Murreh, and to the north of the Madurah a side branch of the valley leads through el-Ghor to the Dead Sea, under the name of Wady Fikreh.— When passing through the Wady Murreh, the ascent is constant from the lowest level of the Arabah, and therefore the relative height of the mountain walls, by which it is enclosed on the north and south, is continually diminishing. You proceed westwards, and arrive at length at the link, already referred to, by which the south-western corner of the Amoritish pia- teau of Rakmah is connected with the north-western corner of the Azâzimat. This link is formed by an eminence to the east of Eboda (el-Abdeh), "from which the Jebel Garrah and Jebel Gamar emerge, the former towards the north-west, and the latter to the south-west, and encircle Eboda in the form of an amphitheatre." The western wall of the mountain fortress runs in a straight line from its south-eastern corner (Jebel Araif en-Nakah) to the north-eastern heights, which unite it with the Rakmah, and bears the names of Jebel Yaled and MoyleTi (or Moilahi). It is a lofty mountain range, from three to four hundred feet high, which is intersected by numerous wadys, running parallel to one another from north to south, and all opening into the Wady el-Arish. The road from Sinai to Hebron passes at the foot of this western wall of the Azâzimat, and through the undulating tract of desert land which lies between it and the Wady el-Arish. ( 1.) The reason why the northern boundary of the mountain land of the Azazimeh remained for so long a period unexplored has been satisfactorily explained by Fries (p. 66). " So long," he says, " as the plateau of the Amorites was either ascended on the southeastern side, viz., from the Arabah through the passes near es- Suf ah, or skirted on the western side by the road to Hebron above Eboda and Elusa, the whole district from Jebel Maduran westwards towards the Hebron road could only be given hypotheti- cally in the maps ; and it was made to appear that the modern mountain-land of Azâzimat was a broad and uninterrupted continuation of the Amoritish mountains, extending as far as the mountains of Araif and Mekrah. But our views have necessarily been changed, since G. Williams and J. Rowlands, instead of proceeding towards the south-east to the pass of es-Sufah, set out from Arar, and, after travelling to the southwest along hitherto untrodden roads, and crossing several lofty plateaux, at length reached a point on the edge of the tableland of Rakmah (the last of the Amoritish mountains towards the south-west), which left no room for doubt as to the northern slope of the Azâzimat, and the fact that the division between this mountain land and the Amoritish mountains GEOGRAPHICAL SUKVEY. 225 was carried to a very great distance in the direction from east to west." In October 1842 (according to the account given by Williams in his " Holy City/' p. 487 sqq.), the two friends made an excursion beyond Hebron, for the purpose of putting to the test on the very spot, the accounts which still wavered as to the southern boundary of Palestine. They went from Arar (Araran, Aroer) towards the south-west, and ascended from the table-land of Arar, the first mountain rampart, by which it is bounded on the south. They now found themselves upon a still higher plateau, which stretches from east to west, and is called the Wady Rakmah. It answers to the district of the Dhullam and Saidiyeh on Robinson's map. After going still farther south, they ascended a second mountain-range, from the summit of which a scene presented itself to the view of the most magnificent character. (From statements made by Williams elsewhere, the point at which they now stood was somewhere about the longitude of Beersheba, twenty miles to the south of this place, near 31° north latitude, 32-|° longitude.) A gigantic mountain towered above them in savage grandeur, with masses of linked rock, resembling the bastions of some Cyclopean architecture, the end of which it was impossible for the eye to reach towards either the west or the east. It extended also a long way towards the south; and with its rugged, broken, and dazzling masses of chalk, which reflected the burning rays of the sun, it looked like an unapproachable furnace, a most fearful desert without the slightest trace of vegetation. A broad defile, called Wady Murreh, ran at the foot of this bulwark towards the east, and after a course of several miles, on reaching the strangely formed mountain of Modder a (Maduran), it divided into two parts, the southern branch still retaining the same name and running eastwards to the Ar ab ah, whilst the other was called Wady Fikreh, and ran in a north-easterly direction to the Dead Sea. " This mountain barrier," says Williams, " proved to us beyond a doubt, that we were now standing on the southern boundary of the promised land." They were confirmed in their opinion by the statement of the guide, that a few hours' journey towards the south-west would bring them to Kadesh. § 26. As you pass along the ordinary road to Hebron, on the A VOL. in. p western side of the mountainous district of the Azazimeh, the whole of the mountain-slopes between Jebel Araif and Jebel Khalil (or the heights of Hebron) appear to form a continued and unbroken range. But just as the separation of the mountains of the Amorites from the northern wall of the Azazimat, by the Wady Murreh, is concealed by the link which connects the two together to the east of Eboda; so do the projecting ranges of the western wall of the Azazimat keep out of sight an extended desert plain, which runs for many miles into the heart of the Azazimat on the other side of the Jebel Moyleh, and into which several wadys open from the eastern side of the mountain (e.g. the Wady Kesaimeh, the Wady Muweilih [ Moilahi], and the Wady Eetemat). "In the remote background, surrounded by the wilderness, there stands in a state of remarkable isolation the strong rock with its copious spring, —the spot which still bears the ancient name of Kadesh (Ain Kudés) (1), and of which Rowlands was the discoverer." That this is the wilderness of Kadesli, which plays so important a part in the history of the sojourn of the Israelites, is apparently no longer open to dispute (3). From the peculiar configuration of the soil, we may e asily understand why this plain, which has a distinct name of its own (viz., Kadésh), should sometimes be regarded as a part of the desert of Paran (et-Tih), and at other times as belonging to that of Zin (the plain of Murreh) (2). ( 1.) When Roidands was standing with Williams on the southern slope of the table-land of Rakmah, he learned from the Sheikh who acted as their guide, that Kadesh lay towards the south-west on the other side of the plain of Murreh. Circumstances did not permit the travellers to follow up at the time the clue which they had so unexpectedly found to the situation of this important place. But on a second excursion Rowlands determined to seek out the spot ; and not only succeeded in his immediate object, but was fortunate enough to discover several other important localities. He started from Gaza ; and following the road to Khalasa, at the end of the first three hours' journey towards the S.S.E. he came upon the site of GEOGRAPHICAL STJEYEY. 227 the anc ient Gerar^ in the present Jurf (Torrent) el Jerâr (vol. i. § 63, 1). The next point at which he arrived was Khalasa ( according to Robinson^ the same as Elusa), in which he recognised the Chesil of the Bible. After a further journey of two hours and a half in a south-westerly direction, he found some ruins, which the Arabs called Zepâta. (Robinson also visited this spot, but could not discover the name of the ruins.) Rowlands could not for a moment doubt that this was the site of the ancient Zephath (or Hormah, vid. Josh. xv. 30 and Judg. i. 17). A few hours' journey to the east of Zepâta, the Sheikh informed him that there was an ancient place called Asluj or Kasluj, and the pronunciation of the word reminded him of Ziklag (which was somewhere in the neighbourhood, according to Josh. xv. 31). They proceeded from Zepâta to the south-west, and in a quarter of an hour reached the ancient BIT Riihaibeli (the Rehoboth of the Bible; vid. vol. i. § 71, 3). Ten hours' journey farther south, five hours to the south of Eboda, they reached Moyleh, the chief place of encampment for the caravans ; from which the Moyleh, a mountain in the immediate neighbourhood, takes its name, and in which there was a spring (§ 25). This spring is called Muweilih by Robinson ; but the Arabs called it Moilahhi Kadesah, and pointed out at no great distance the Beit Hajar (House of Hagar), a rock in which there were chambers excavated. In this rock Rowlands discovered Hagar's well (Beer-Lachai), the modern name of which is almost the same as the ancient one, since Moi (water) could very easily take the place of Beer (a well).1 It is worthy of note, that Eabbi Schwarz (das heilige Land, p. 80) also came to the conclusion, quite independently of Rowlands, that Moilahhi was Hagar's well. The name, Moilahhi Kadesah, and the expression in Gen. xvi. 14, "between Kadesh and Bered," both pointed to the fact that the Kadesh in question was in the immediate neighbourhood ; and the rock and spring were soon discovered in the plain which stretches far to the east, but had hitherto been concealed by the mountain-range of the Jebel Moyle. This plain, which we may confidently set down as the ancient desert of Kadesh, embraces a superficial area of about nine or ten English miles in 1 It will be seen from this, that we retract the observations which we made rather hastily in vol. i. § 57, 1. length, and five or six in breadth. The rock with the Ain Kades is situated at the north-east of the plain, where it presents the appearance of a solitary promontory of the Jebel Halal (§25). It is a bare rock, at the foot of which there issues a copious spring, which falls in beautiful cascades into the bed of a mountain torrent, and after flowing about four hundred paces in a westerly direction, is lost in the sand. "I have discovered Kadesh at last," writes Rowlands to Williams. " I look with amazement upon the stream from the rock which Moses smote ( Num. xx. 11), and the lovely waterfalls in which it descends into the bed of the brook below." According to the data furnished by Rowlands (which might, by the by, be more minute)? the site of Ain Kades is about twelve English miles to the E.S.E. of Moilahhi, almost due south of Khalasah, near the point at which the longitude of Khalasah intersects the latitude of Aiii el-Weibeh (in the Arab ah). Ritter's account is decidedly calculated to mislead. He says at xiv. 1085, " The site of Kadesh, therefore, must be on the western slope of the table-land of er- Rakmah, that is to say, near the point at which the names of the Saidiyeh and the Azazimeh meet on Robinson's map ;" and again at p. 1082, " somewhere near 31° north lat., and 32^ long." But this was very nearly the spot upon which Rowl ands and Williams were standing when they discovered the southern boundary of Palestine from the slope of the Rakmah (§ 25, 1).— There is also an irreconcileable discrepancy between this statement and another of Ritter's (xiv. 1088), to the effect that it was " in the neighbourhood of the double well of Birein 011 Robinson's map," though the latter is also quite erroneous. Raumer (Pal. 448), Tuch (186), Winer (Real-lexicon, 1, 642), and Fries, all agree with the account given above of Rowlands' Ain Kades. To the west of Kadesh, Roiolands found the two wells Adeirat and Aseimeh, which were also called Kadeirat and Kaseimeh (in JRobinsoris map : Ain el-Küdeirat and Wady el- Kuseimeh). In these he detected the names of the two border towns Addar and Azmon (Num. xxxiv. 4). The correctness of this conclusion is attested by the fact that Jonathan calls the Azmon of Num. xxxiv. 4 and Josh. xv. 4, Kesam.—Even Zimmermanrìs map, which was not published till 1850, does not contain a single one of the many important discoveries made by Rowlands. GEOGRAPHICAL SUKYEY. 229 (2,) It is greatly to be lamented that Rowlands did not cariy out his extraordinarily successful researches still more minutely, and to a greater extent. For, however much light the results already obtained have unexpectedly thrown upon this terra incognita, there are many questions that force themselves upon us, and which still remain unanswered. For example, he omitted to inquire whether there were not, perhaps, some ruins in the neighbourhood of the Kadesh rock, which might indicate the site of the town mentioned in Num. xx. 14. The country surrounding the plain of Kadesh is also still involved in great obscurity. But what is especially desirable, for the sake of the Biblical history, is a more minute investigation of the plain of Murreh throughout its whole extent, including both the road towards the east, which leads through the Arabah and the mountains of Seir to the country beyond the Jordan, and also the road towards the north to the table-land of Eakmah. For by this means the question might have been definitively settled, as to the relation in which the wilderness of Zin stood to that of Kadesh, the way taken by the spies (Num. xiii.), the road by which the Israelites ascended the mountains of the Amorites ( Num. xiv. 44), and lastly the route referred to in Num. xx. 17 sqq. In general, it is true, there can hardly be any question as to the position and extent of the DESERT OF ZIN (}>*). "We commend especially the remarks of Tuch, who says (p. 181 sqq.) : "According to Num. xiii. 26, Kadesh was within the'limits of the desert of Paran ; but according to chap. xx. 1, and xxvii. 14, it was in the desert of Zin ; and in chap, xxxiii. 36 the Israelites are said to have pitched in ' the wilderness of Zin, which is Kadesh.' From this it clearly follows, that Zin must have formed a part of the still more extensive desert of Paran ; and if the spies, who were sent from the desert of Paran (Num. xiii. 3), surveyed the land 'from the wilderness of Zin unto Rehob' (ver. 21), it must have lain close to the southern border of Canaan. But the relative position of the various localities may be seen still more clearly from Num. xxxiv. 3 sqq. and Josh xv. l sqq., where the southern boundary of Judah from the Dead Sea to the brook of Egypt on the Mediterranean—that is, from east to west—is said to have started from the southern extremity of the Dead Sea, skirted the Scorpion Steps (Maaleh Akrabbim ; that is, as Robin- son correctly observes, the row of cliffs wliicli runs diagonally across the el-Ghor in the form of an irregular curve, and constitutes the boundary between this valley and the more elevated Arabah), whence it passed along to Zin (fi|y), and then upwards to the south of Kadesh-Barnea. If we take this according to the literal signification of the words, it is evident that Zin comprehended the tract of desert which runs from the Ghor in a westerly direction, winding round the steep walls of the mountains of the Amorites, and is bounded on the south by a range which runs parallel to the northern mountain rampart." Hence it consisted chiefly of the broad valley of Murreh, including the Wady Fikreh and the Delta enclosed within the two. It may also have been used in a still wider sense, namely, as including the plain of Kadesh also, since the rampart which separated this plain from the Wady Murreh cannot have been very high, and the desert has very much the same character as the plain. In the absence of positive data, Fries has shown, by acute and happy combinations, that it is at least probable that the road taken by the spies, and also by the Israelites when invading the country of the Amorites (Num. xiii. 22 and xiv. 44),—namely, in a diagonal direction across the valley of Murreh, and thence probably over the connecting link (on the east of Eboda) to the plateau er-Eakmah,—cannot have been one of extraordinary difficulty. " If we bear in mind," he says, "on the one hand, that the Wady Murreh, which at its Madurah stage is already considerably higher than the Arabah, must reach a very high level as it approaches the longitude of Kadesh, and on the other hand, that the plain of Kadesh, judging from the analogy of the neighbouring wadys, must be one stage higher than Moilahhi, which Eussegger found by actual measurement to be 1012 feet above the level of the sea, and if we add to this, that the mountain-ranges of the district in question, when seen from Hebron, do not appear to be very lofty ; we may certainly assume, without risking very much, that even if there was no valley at all which led in a diagonal direction from the Wady Murreh into the plain of Kadesh, the passage across the plateau itself, which is lower here than it is elsewhere, would not be a very arduous one." But even if, contrary to all expectation, the mountain rampart between the plain of Kadesh and the Wady Murreh should be proved to be too difficult a passage, there is nothing in the way GEOGRAPHICAL SURVEY. 231 of the assumption, that the spies and the Israelites in Num. xiv. 44 reached the Hebron road through one of the western approaches to the plain of Kadesh, and thus went up to Canaan. ( 3.) The positive arguments which may be adduced in favour of the identity of Eowlands' Ain Kades and the Biblical Kadesh, will appear as we proceed further with our researches. They are to a great extent so clear and conclusive in their character, that even before the discoveries of Roivlands were published, several scholars (e.g. Rabbi Schivarz, Ewald, and K. Ritter), with more or less assurance, placed Kadesh to the west of the Arabah, in very nearly the same locality in which Eowlands actually found it. Since then, Ewald, Tuch, Winer, and Fries have taken Rowlands' side ; whilst Eitter, who could only refer to the discoveries of Eowlands in a supplement to his work (xiv. 1083 sqq.), seems to have been afterwards in perplexity as to the side he should take. Robinson, on the contrary, and K. v. Raumer adhere to their former opinion, that Kadesh was situated in the Arabah. The former has taken the trouble to enter into a very elaborate refutation of Rowlands' views, in his Notes on Biblical Geography (May 1849, p. 377 sqq.), and Raumer repeats Robinson's arguments with approval in his Palœstina, p. 447 sqq. But Fries has most conclusively demonstrated the weakness of the refutation, in his excellent treatise on the question before us (p. 73 sqq.). See also Eabbi Schwarz, p. 380 sqq. Robinson's first argument is cited by Raumer in the following words : " The Israelites were to avoid the land of the Philistines on their way from Egypt to Canaan ; but if they had taken the route which Eowlands thinks they did, they would have arrived at Beersheba, which was on the borders of Philistia." This objection rests upon nothing but the following unfounded assumptions : ( 1.) That the reason assigned in Ex. xiii. 17 (" And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near ; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt") was still in force, notwithstanding the fact, that since their passage through the Eed Sea (Ex. xv. 14), the nations had been shaken and the Philistines were seized with fear; that Israel was now accustomed to war and victory (Ex. xvii. 8 sqq.), and had received its highest consecration at Sinai ; and that it was now being led, in the second year of its journey through the desert, to make war upon the tribes of Canaan ;—(2.) That it was the Philistines alone who were to be dreaded both then and now, and not the Amontes also, who were at least equally strong and quite as used to war ;—(3.) That the south-western slope of the mountains of the Amorites belonged to the Philistines, along with the neighbourhood of Beersheba, which was decidedly not the case ;—and (4.) That the Israelites, after leaving Kadesh, must of necessity pass by Beersheba, whereas, in fact, if they went up from the plain of Murreh (or desert of Ziii) they would leave it to the west. Raumer says still further: "When the Israelites reached Kadesh, Moses addressed them thus : mountain of the Amorites.' But Eowlands' Kadesh is about fifty miles from the mountains of Southern Judea, which begin to rise between Beersheba and Hebron. When Russegger went from Sinai to Jerusalem, he caught sight of these mountains for the first time when he was in the Wady Euhaibeh, and they were then a considerable distance on0, though he was not half so far away from them as Eowlands' Kadesh is." But there is no reference whatever to these "mountains of Southern Judea," that is to say, to the heights of Hebron. We need only look at either Eaumer's and Eobinson's own maps, on both of which the south-western slope of the mountains of the Amorites reaches as far as the Azazimat, and the only fault is, that there is no space left for the Wady Murreh, which runs between the two. When Russegger was at Euhaibeh, and saw the mountains of Khalil (Hebron) a long way off towards the north, if he could have looked to the east he would have seen the southwestern slope of the mountains of the Amorites (the table-land of Eakmah) at no greater distance than an hour and a half's journey. The appeal to Jerome (Onomastîcon, on En-MisJipat, Gen. xiv. 7) is still weaker. Jerome says : " Significai locum apud Petram, qui fons judicii nominatur;" "and therefore," says Raumer, " Kadesh must be looked for somewhere in the neighbourhood of Petra, whereas Eowlands' Kadesh is about fifty (?) miles away." But if this passage is to be taken as conclusive, it follows that Robinson^ who fixes upon Ein El-Weibeh, and GEOGRAPHICAL SUKYEY. 233 Raumer, who places Kadesh at Ain el-Hasb, are both wrong ; for these places are neither of them near enough to Petra for the expression apud Petram to be applied to them. But Jerome's statement is worth nothing. He knew just as little about the situation of Kadesh as the learned men who have followed him, down to the time of Rowlands. He merely adopted, without any further examination? the rabbinical notion, that En-Zadekeh. (En-Zodokatah), four hours' journey to the south-east of Petra, was the same as En-Mishpat. In the next section we shall show that this is quite a mistake. We have one more argument to answer, which is, apparently at least, of some importance. Raumer says, that a Kadesh was close upon the borders of the land of Edom, whereas Rowlands' Kadesh was twenty-five or thirty miles away from the border." At first sight this appears to be a conclusive argument ; but when we look close, it is nothing but arguing in a circle. It is pretty generally admitted, that the Arabah, from one end to the other, formed the western boundary of the land of Edom. But on what is this notion founded? Chiefly upon the very assumption which it is now adduced to prove, namely, that Kadesh was situated in the Arabah. But as Kadesh has now been discovered on the west of the Azazimat, it necessarily follows that the boundary of Edom was outside these mountains. Even before the discovery made by Rowlands, several men of note ( e.g. Seetzen, Ewald, and Ritter) had emancipated themselves from the yoke of this preconceived opinion, that the Arabah throughout was the boundary of Edom. Seetzen found the name Seir so common on the et-Tih plateau, that he could not resist the temptation to apply this name to the whole of the desert table-land to the west of the Arabah (Ritter, xiv. 840) ; and Rowlands found that even to the present day the border plateau by the Wady Murreh is still called " Serr" The only ground which can be assigned for excluding the mountainous district of the Azazimeh from the territory of Edom, is the fact that the two are so completely separated by the Arabah. But this mountainous district is quite as completely separated from the country of the Amorites by the Wady Murreh. " If we bear in mind the remarkable and, politically considered, extremely important position which the strong mountain fortress of the Azazimeh occupied, standing out as it does in sharp contrast with the desert of Petrsea,1 at the northern extremity of which it was situated ; and being, therefore, brought into all the closer connection with Canaan and Edom, it cannot but appear to us an inconceivable thing that neither the one nor the other of the two opposing powers, which met together there, should have taken possession of so important a tract of table-land. Of Canaan it certainly never formed a part. In the time of the Amoritish supremacy it did not, as we may infer from Judges i. 36, and also from Num. xxi. 1 ; nor during the history of Israel, a fact which can only be explained from Deut. ii. 5. And if the Israelites did hold it at a later period, it was in consequence of the splendid victories which they gained, especially over Edom. There is no mention anywhere of a third contemporaneous power, which held the country from the southern tract of desert to the frontier of Canaan, and therefore had resisted the power of Edom ; and if we should think of filling up the gap with the Ishmaelitish nomads, or, what would be still more plausible, the predatory hordes of the Amalekites, the question would arise, Why should Edom be always mentioned as the neighbouring country, and never Amalek?" (Fries, p. 79 sqq.). The former is the case in every instance in which the southern boundary of Canaan is accurately given (Num. xxxiv. 3, 4 ; Josh. xv. 1, 2, and 21). The whole of the data given here are absolutely irreconcileable with the supposition that the boundaries of Canaan and Edom did not coincide anywhere else, than at the single point where the north-west corner of Edom touches the south-east corner of Canaan. "More minute details are prefaced by a statement of the common characteristic of the whole of the southern boundary line, viz., that it extended to the borders of Edom (K ^4«), or along Edom (K ^p)."—The boundary l ine between Edom and Judah is more precisely described in Josh. xv. 3, where we are told, that after compassing the cliffs of the Scorpions (Akrabbim), which cross the Arabah in a diagonal direction, it passed along to the desert of Zin : the 1 "Apart altogether from the question before us, RoUnson felt obliged to separate the mountains of the Azazimeh, which he has left without a name, from the Tih plateau ; and K. Ritter also, without any reference to this question, and before he knew anything of Kowlands' discovery, described the Jebel Moyle of the Azazimeh as the í boundary stone of the dispersion of the nations.' " (Fries, p. .81.) GEOGRAPHICAL SURVEY. 235 latter, therefore, wliicli unquestionably corresponds to our Wady Murreh) formed a boundary line between Canaan and Edom to the west of the Arabah, extending as far as to Kadesh. The same conclusion is forced upon us by Josh. xv. 21 sqq. ; "for in this case it is stated of all the separate cities of the tribe of Judah, that the boundary line of Edom lay towards the south." And when Joshua's conquests on this side of the Jordan are described in Josh. xi. 17 and xii. 7, as the whole country "from the bald mountain that goeth up towards Seir, even unto Baal- Gad in the valley of Lebanon, at the foot of Hermoii,"—what in the world can " the bald mountain that goeth up to Seir" mean, but the northern mountain rampart of the Azazimat ? How thoroughly appropriate, too, is the expression "the bald mountain " to the " gigantic mountain, with its bare masses of rock or chalk," which Williams and Rowlands saw from the Rakmah plateau (§ 25, 1) ! Hitherto the commentators have not known what to do with this "bald mountain." Keil (on Josh. xi. 17) supposes it to be the cliffs of Akrabbim ; but how inapplicable would the term "inn be to such cliffs as these, and how little are they adapted, from their geographical situation, to show the southern limits of the country on this side of the Jordan ! Baumer observes still further, " When Edom refused a passage to the Israelites, they turned aside and went to Mount Hor. But if Kadesh was situated where Rowlands imagines that he found it, and was also on the western border of Edom, the Israelites, as a single glance at the map will show, must have marched for several days in an easterly direction through the land of Edom, before they could reach Mount Hor." This argument would have some force, if the whole of the desert of et-Tih to the south of the Azazimat, from which it is as completely separated as it possibly can be, must of necessity have formed part of the territory of Edom. But if the domini on of Edom on this side of the Arabah was restricted to the north-eastern mountain fortress (and we can hardly imagine it to have been otherwise), there is no force whatever in Raumer's objection. The Israelites retreated through the Wady Retemât, thus leaving the country of Edom altogether, and reached Mount Hor by going round the south-east of the Azazimat. But another objection to Rowlands' discovery may possibly be founded upon Num. xx. 14 sqq. The Israelites request the king of Edom to allow them a free passage through his land; but this is at once refused. By what road did the Israelites think of passing through ? Tuch supposes the Wady Murreh and Wady Fikreh ; but this solution is inadmissible, since both these wadys merely led by the border of Edom,, between Edom and the Amorites, and therefore could not possibly have led through the land. According to the distinct and unequivocal statement of the Bedouins who accompanied Rowlands, there was an easy road through broad wadys, which led direct from Kadesh to Mount Hor. The point at which this road enters the Arabah is probably to be looked for opposite to the broad Wady Ghuweir of the .es-Sherah mountains, in the neighbourhood of Ain el» Weibeh, where the eastern wall of the Azazimat is intersected by numerous wadys, and where Robinson went up a very accessible pass called Mirzabah. . . . This broad road, which leads through the heart of the Azazimat, and is continued on the other side of the Arabah in the broad Wady Ghuweir of Eastern Edom, passing across Tafileh to Moab, was most probably the route which the Israelites wished to take, and for which they required the consent of Edom. (Compare § 45, 1.) § 27. In Ber ghauts map, Kadesh is placed in the vicinity of Eziongeber, on the Elaiiitic Gulf, probably on the ground of Num. xxxiii. 35, 36. L. de Laborde (Comment, p. 127 sqq.) includes the mountainous district of the Az azimeh in the territory of the Amorites, and transfers Kadesh into the Wady Jerafeh, a day's journey to the north of Eziongeber, and about the same distance to the south-east of Hor. Robinson, on the other hand, is convinced that Kadesh is to be sought in Ein El-Weibeh, in the north of the Arabah (1) ; and K. v. Raumer maintains that it must be looked for in a still more northerly part of the Arabah, somewhere near Aiii El-Hasb (2). But in opposition to all these views, it can be demonstrated most conclusively, that Kadesh was not situated in the Arabah at all (3). The rabbinical tradition, which connects it with Petra, must be at once rejected (4). ( 1) Robinson (ii. 582, 610) has employed all his eloquence GEOGRAPHICAL SURVEY. 237 to convince his readers that Ein El-Weibeh and the ancient Kadesh are one and the same. He says : " We were much struck, while at el-Weibeh, with the entire adaptedness of its position to the scriptural account of the proceedings of the Israelites on their second arrival at Kadesh (Num. xx.). There was at Kadesh a fountain, called also En-Mishpat (Gen. xiv. 7) : this was then either partially dried up or exhausted by the multitude ; so that there was no water for the congregation. By a miracle, water was brought forth abundantly out of the rock. Moses now sent messengers to the king of Edom, informing him that they were in Kadesh, a city in the uttermost of his border, and asking leave to pass through his country, so as to continue their course around Moab, and approach Palestine from the east. This Edom refused; and the Israelites accordingly marched to Mount Hor, where Aaron died; and then along the Arabah to the Eed Sea (Num. xx. 14 sqq.). Here, at el-Weibeh, all these scenes were before our eyes. Here was the fountain, even to this day the most frequented watering-place in all the Arabah. On the north-west is the mountain by which the Israelites had formerly assayed to ascend to the land of Palestine, and were driven back. Over against us lay the land of Edom; we were in its uttermost border; and the great Wady el-Ghuweir, affording a direct and easy passage through the mountains to the table-land above, was directly before us ; while farther in the south Mount Hor formed a prominent and striking object, at the distance of two good days' journey for such a host. . . . Yet the surrounding desert has long since resumed its rights ; and all traces of the city and of its very name have disappeared." ( 2.) K. v. Raumer (Pal. 444), on the contrary, is of opinion that "this fact appears to be irreconcileable with Robinson's hypothesis. The Arabs, who acted as his guides, were not acquainted with any direct road from Ein El-Weibeh to the pass of es-Sufah, but were accustomed to proceed along the Arabah as far north as the Wady el-Khurar, and ascend the pass from that point. Should we not seek Kadesh itself also to the north of Ein El-Weibeh—namely, where the road ascends through the Wady el-Khurar to the pass of es-Sufah ? Must it not have been situated at a point at which the Israelites would be nearer to this pass than at Airi el-Weibeh; and where the pass itself would be in sight ? Is not Ain Hash, which is near Ain el- Khurar, most likely to have been Kadesh ? It is only twelve miles from the pass of Sufah, whereas Ein El-Weibeh is more than twenty miles off. There are no ruins in the latter ; and is it not probable that the ruins at Ain Hasb are the remains of Kadesh ? The water in the pond there evidently indicates the existence of a spring." ( 3.) For a refutation of the hypotheses of Räumer and Robinson (that of Laborde does not stand in need of any), we need only appeal to the two admirable treatises of Tuck and Fries ( especially the latter). There are many passages of the Bible which compel us to look for Kadesh a long way to the west of the Arabah. (1.) The very first passage in which Kadesh is mentioned (Gen. xiv. 7, En-Mishpat, which is Kadesh), is a case in point. " For if we assume/' says Fries', " that En- Mishpat was situated in the northern part of the Arabah, Chedorlaomer must have been close to the very entrance of the vale of Siddim, and would not have required first of all to pass through the country of the Amorites by Engedi in order to reach the territory of the four kings ; still less through the whole of the plain of the Amalekites, which was far away to the west of the Arabah, and to which he is said to have proceeded direct from En-Mishpat. If, in addition to this, we bear in mind the political motives for this expedition, the leading features of which are noticed in Gen. xiv., and which have been discussed in a masterly way by Dr Tucli¿ supposing En-Mishpat to have been either Ain Hasb or Ein El-Weibeh, it would not have been of sufficient importance to be mentioned as the point which Chedor had in view when he left El-Paran (Elath)."—(2.) " Such a supposition is not less at variance with Gen. xvi. 14 ( comp. ver. 7), where the situation of the well of Lâchai Eoi is described. For, whilst the western point mentioned is Bared, which was certainly close by, and is identical with Shur (i.e. Jifar), the eastern point selected would be a spot in the Arabah lying far away, and separated from the road to Shur by the whole of the mountainous district of the Azazimat, which is about eighty miles broad."—(3.) "In Gen. xx. 1 we are either met with precisely the same difficulty, or (considering the distance between Gerar and Ain Hasb) a much greater one ; not to mention the fact, that the connection between Gen. xix. and xx. 1 GEOGRAPHICAL SURVEY. 239 would lead us to expect Abraham to fix upon a spot considerably farther removed from the Dead Sea than Ain Hasb, as the eastern boundary of his place of sojourn."—(4.) " If we turn to the passages in which Kadesh is given as one of the points determining the southern boundary of Canaan (Num. xxxiv. 2-5, Josh. xv. 2-4, Ezek. xlvii. 19), it is absolutely impossible, especially in the case of Ezek. xlvii. 19, where only three points are given, to suppose that the middle point of the three, viz. Kadesh, instead of being in the middle of the line, is to be looked for at Ain el-Hasb or Ein El-Weibeh, in the immediate neighbourhood of Tamar, the most easterly point of the three. And in the other passages also, the disproportion would be immense, if three points were named in a small line drawn diagonally across the Arabah from Akrabbim to Ain Hasb, of not more than ten or twelve miles long ; whereas in all the rest of the southern boundary to the opening of the Wady el-Arish, which is about 120 miles, only three, or at the most five points are named."—(5.) " Judg. i. 36 is also a case in point. P§n ( viz. the rock, which had acquired importance from the circumstance recorded in Num. xx. 8 ;—Petra, which bore the same name, 2 Kings xiv. 7, cannot for a moment be thought of here) answers to our Kadesh, and must of necessity have been situated at a great distance to the west of Akrabbim; since otherwise the boundary line of the Amontes, which is given in this passage, would not be really indicated at all."—(6.) In Num. xx. 23 and xxxiii. 37, where the Israelites start from Kadesh and pass round the territory of the Edomites, Mount Hor is called the border of Edom. But if the whole line from Ain el-Hasb (or Ein El-Weibeh) to Eziongeber formed the western boundary of Edom, it would be an inexplicable, and in fact an unmeaning thing, that this one point should be singled out, when every point in the whole line had just the same claim, and that this alone should be called the boundary of Edom. But if Kadesh was situated to the west of the Arabah, so that the whole of the mountainous district to the north-east was included in the territory of Edom, Mount Hor, which stood just at the point where the Arabah first began to form part of the territory of Edom, and where two of the boundary lines of the Edomitish territory met in a right angle, would undoubtedly be a marked and distinguished point in the boundary of the country, forming as it were a strong rocky watch- tower, which, commanded these two boundary lines,—(7.) If the mountainous district of the Azazimeh belonged to the territory of Edom—and this can be proved independently of the Kadesh question (§ 26, 3)—it'follows, as a matter of course, that Kadesh could not be situated in the northern Arabah.—(8.) "If, in addition to this, we take into consideration the form of the valley of the Arabah, which runs between lofty mountain walls, and in the northern half especially is hedged in by high and perpendicular walls of rock, and at the north-western extremity leads to the wildest precipice and most inaccessible passes of the Amor- itish mountains, it is perfectly incredible that Moses should have contemplated making his attack upon Canaan from this point, and we cannot imagine it possible that the myriads of Israel should have maintained themselves for a whole generation crowded together in such a contracted ^space, between the elevated desert of Paran and the rocky walls of Eastern Edom, and wandering backwards and forwards between the Dead and Red Seas." (Fries, 62 seq.) Since the time of Robinson, indeed, it has become a very common custom to fix upon the pass of es-Safah, the very name of which is supposed to be a relic of the ancient name Zepliatli (i.e. HOT mah, Judg. i. 17 and Num. xiv. 45, xxi. 3), as the point at which Moses intended to enter Canaan, and where the people afterwards made the attempt ( Num. xiv. 40 sqq.). But if we consider the unanimous testimony of travellers with regard to this narrow, steep, and most difficult pass, we cannot but pronounce this an impossibility. It was with the greatest toil that Robinson himself ascended it ( ii. 588). Schubert looks upon it as one of the most painful tasks he ever performed (ii. 447), and says, " The pass was so steep, that I frequently felt as if I was gasping for breath in the midst of a furnace." Tuch adds to this (p. 184), "Robinson ( ii. 590) had a similar description given to him of the more easterly pass of es-Sufei ; and the steep and dangerous ascents from the Dead Sea to the land of Canaan are still better known. And even if these difficult passes do not present insuperable obstacles in the way of peaceful commerce (the Romans not only placed garrisons in the pass of es-Saf ah, the direct road to Petra, for the purpose of defence, but made steps which rendered it both easier and safer), we have still good ground for asking whether they were also adapted for a warlike expedition, as GEOGRAPHICAL SURVEY. 241 points from which to enter upon the conquest of the land ;—these passes, I say, which were not only inaccessible even with the utmost exertions, but which the smallest force would have been sufficient to defend. On this side, Canaan was naturally impregnable ; and if Moses had conducted the people hither, and then urged them to commence the conquest of the land from this point, he would have deserved the charges which pusillanimity unjustly brought against him."—Lastly, (9.) With the Arabah so well known as it is, it does at least appear extremely strange, that if a town of such celebrity, as Kadesh ha« had from the very earliest times, was really situated there, and if the Israelites wandered about in it for thirty-eight years, there should not be the 'slightest trace left of either the name Kadesh, or the names of the other stations mentioned in Num. xxxiii., with the single exception of Mount Hor. ( 4.) The mere fact of the Rabbinical tradition with regard to the situation of Kadesh, which Robinson has involved in greater obscurity, instead of clearing it u p, and which Rabbi Schwarz (p. 376 seq., cf. §, 30, 2) has, entirely misunderstood, has been fully explained by Tuch (p. 179 seq. note). In the Targums, the Peshito, and the Talmud, Kadesh is always rendered Bekam ; and Kadesh-Barnea (Deut. i. 2, 19, etc.) Eekam Geia (n^-l ufi). This Geia, which is placed in apposition (answering to Barnea), is undoubtedly the same as el-Ji, in the neighbourhood of Petra, in the Wady Musa, which is still an important village. Jerome refers to this in the Onomasticon as follows : " Gai in solitudine usque hodie Gaia urbs juxta civitatem Petra" From this it is evident that Bekam was understood to be Petra, as Josephus states in his Antiquities iv. 4, 7 ; vii. 1 ; and in consequence of this, the Jewish tradition identified Kadesh with Petra. All the reasons which we have adduced to show that Kadesh cannot have been situated in the Arabah, apply with tenfold force to,the notion that it was situated in the Wady Musa. § 28. There were three ways open to the Israelites from Sinai to the southern boundary of Canaan, so far as the nature of the ground was concerned; and from these they had to choose. The most easterly led them along the western shore of the Elanitic Gulf to the Arabah, and then through the Arabah to VOL. III. Q the south-eastern border of Canaan. This road is regarded by Robinson as the most probable. But, however well adapted the road through the broad valley of the Arabah may appear, the narrow way along the shore of the Elanitic Gulf appears to be quite as little adapted for a mass of people, comprising no less than two million souls. And, in addition to this, as Raumer has correctly observed (Palestine, 446), such a supposition is inconsistent with Deut. i. 19, where the Israelites are said to have traversed " the whole of the great and terrible desert," by which we can only understand the desert of et-Tih ; and this they would never have touched at all if they had taken the road indicated by Robinson. Raumer himself, who is obliged to bring them to the pass of es-Saf ah, as Robinson has done, supposes them to have crossed the border mountain of et-Tih, and then to have passed through the Wady el-Jerafeh, at the mouth of which they first entered the Arabah. But, according to our previous investigations, this road cannot possibly have been the one selected by Moses. The fact that Canaan was so inaccessible from this side (through the pass of es-Saf ah), is sufficient to stamp both these views as inadmissible (§ 27, 3). And if Kadesh, the immediate object of their journey, was situated where Roivlands discovered its well-preserved names (§ 26), the Israelites will not have gone near the Arabah on this march. It is true that the procession might have turned round from the most northerly part of the Arabah into the Wady Murreh, and so have reached the plain of Kadesh ; but, apart altogether from the fact that this would have been a very roundabout way, it would have led them through the heart of the territory of the Edomites (i. e., through the northern part of the Arabah, § 26, 3), and, according to Num. xx. 14 sqq., this was shut against them. There is left, therefore, only the third (the most westerly) road, which leads from Horeb to Hebron across the mountains of et-Tih and the large tract of table-land of the same name, by the western foot of the Jebel el-Ararf, and which is taken by most of the travellers to Sinai even at the present day. Ewald, Tuch, Winer, R. Schwarz, and Fries are all agreed in this. GEOGRAPHICAL SURVEY. 243 § 29. A tolerably complete catalogue of the resting-places of Israel in the desert is given in Num. xxxiii. The first two, reckoning from Sinai, are the graves of lust (Kibroth-Taavah) (1), and Chazeroth (2). The former of these was reached after a three days' march (Num. x. 33); and, according to Num. x. 12, it was situated in the desert of Paran, probably on the other side of the south-eastern arm of the mountains of et-Tih (vide § 23, 3). The passing remark in Deut. i. 2, where the journey from Horeb to Kadesh-Barnea is said to take eleven days, is of great importance when taken in connection with Num. x. 33 ; for the route ( to Kadesh) taken by the Israelites being known, and the character of the ground being taken into consideration, we are able to determine the situation of Kibroth-Taavah with tolerable certainty. There can be no doubt that the road ran from the plain of er-Eahah (§ 6, 2), through the Wady es-Sheikh (§ 5, 5), to the most northerly point of the arc which it describes, and then turned towards the north-east through the Wady ez-Zalazah, which enters it at that point. The latter wady intersects the south-eastern arm of the Jebel et-Tih, and so leads within the limits of the desert of Paran. The end of the first three days' journey, and therefore the site of the graves of lust, must be sought on the other side of this range of mounta ins, somewhere in the neighbourhood of el-Ain. From this point the Hebron road runs almost in a straight line, from south to north, across the principal arm of the Jebel et-Tih, and the table-land of the same name. And, judging from the analogy of the three days' march to the first station, Chazeroth (which was the second resting- place from Sinai) would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of Bir et-Themed. ( 1.) Even Räumer admits (Pal. 442) that, according to Deut. i. 2, the most natural supposition is, that the Israelites took the nearest road to Kadesh, which leads through Wady Zalazah to el-Ain, and takes eleven days. " There are objections, however," he says, " to this supposition. For example, the Israelites left Sinai, and journeyed three days to the resting-place at the graves of lust. When there, the wind brought them quails from the sea (Num. xi. 31). Does not this seem to indicate a place of encampment by the sea-shore? And so again,, when Jehovah promised to give the people flesh in superfluous abundance, Moses exclaimed, c Shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, to suffice them f—a question which would have sounded very strange in the midst of the desert, at a great distance from the sea, but would be natural enough by the seashore." Now, in Deut. i. l, Di Zahab is mentioned along with Chazeroth, as one of the places where Moses spoke to the people ; and therefore it must have been one of the resting-places of the Israelites. But Di Zahab is probably the modern Dahab, on the western shore of the Elaiiitic Gulf, in pretty nearly the same latitude as Sinai ; consequently, v. Räumer thinks himself warranted in fixing upon this place on the sea-coast as identical with "the graves of lust," and Lengerke (i. 558) agrees with him. But this is certainly by no means a happy combination. What in the world could induce the Israelites to go directly east, instead of directly north ì Räumer replies : Possibly to avoid a second conflict with the Amalekites, who might have attacked them on their road through the Wady es-Sheikh. But it is not only by no means certain, but extremely improbable, that the Amalekites had their seat in the Sheikh valley; and we cannot help thinking, that after the complete victory which the Israelites gained over Amalek (Ex. xvii. 13), they would not have much to fear from that quarter. But even assuming the correctness of both suppositions, the problem is still not solved ; for there would have been no occasion to go so far out of the road as the sea-coast.—The fact that the quails came "from the sea," however, is certainly no proof that the Israelites must necessarily have encamped on the sea-shore ; and the question put by Moses (Shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, to suffice them ?) would not be so very much out of place, if the graves of lust were in the neighbourhood of el-Ain, i. e., not more than twenty miles from the sea, especially if we bear in mind that, according to Num. xi. 5, the lusting of the people was directly and expressly for fish. But lastly, the basis upon which this hypothesis rests is purely imaginary, and therefore the hypothesis itself vanishes altogether. However we may interpret Deut. i. 1, which is certainly difficult and obscure (see GEOGEArHIOAL SUKYEY. 245 Hengsteriberg, Dissertation on Balaam, p. 515 sqq. translation, and Fries, p. 87 sqq.), in any case, it is not affirmed that Moses addressed the people in Di Zahab, and therefore it is not stated that he encamped there with the people. On the contrary, certain prominent points are selected, between which the Israelites were encamped, for the purpose of indicating the locality of either the first or second giving of the law. ( 2.) The majority of commentators regard it as indisputable that the second resting-place, Chazeroth, was the modern Ain el-Hadlierali, about ten miles from the Gulf. But notwithstanding the great similarity between the two names, we must nevertheless reject the conclusion as inadmissible. We repeat our former question: Why go so far round 1 The road by Hadherah would lead them direct to the Arabah, but not to the Wady el-Jerafeh, and still less to the Hebron road. And what becomes of the eleven days' journey of Deut. i. 2 ? When the Israelites reached the graves of lust, they had travelled three of these, and at Chazeroth possibly three more ; hence Chazeroth would be about half-way from Sinai to Kadesh. But Ain el- Hadherah is about forty miles from Sinai in a north-easterly direction ; whereas Eaumer's Kadesh (Ain el-Hasb) is about 165 miles from Hadherah, and Eowlands' about 150.—The next halting-place was Ritmali. Now there is a wady called Eetemât close in the vicinity of Eowlands' Kadesh : and certainly there is as close a resemblance between the two names, if not a much closer one, than between the names Chazeroth and Hadherah. But reckoning the distance, it is absolutely certain that Eetemât cannot be Eitmah, if Chazeroth is Hadherah, and vice versa. One of the two resemblances must be given up as deceptive; and the question is simply, which? We reply: Undoubtedly the latter. For, whatever force there may be in the similarity between the names Chazeroth and Hadherah, it is weakened by the fact that there are no other circumstances to support it; whereas in the case of Eetemath and Eitmah, all the circumstances lead to the same conclusion.—Eabbi Schwarz was led so far astray by a perfectly analogous resemblance between Chazeroth and Ain el-Cliuteirotli (called Ain el-Kadeirat by Eobinson), that he set them down as one and the same. The supposition was confirmed in his opinion by the fact, that rather more than twenty miles to the S.S.E. of this spring, there was another called Ain el-Shahawah, the name of which was evidently identical with Kibroth-Hataavah (the graves of lust). But the fountain of Kadeirat is in the immediate neighbourhood of Wady Eete- rnat (or Ritmali), and therefore cannot possibly be the same as Chazeroth, which must have been several days' journey from Eitmah. § 30. In the list of stations given in Num. xxxiii., Kadesh is the twenty-first name from Sinai, and therefore there were seventeen stations between Chazeroth and Kadesh. Yet the very next station after Chazeroth, the Wady Eetemât or Eitmah, is in the immediate neighbourhood of Kadesh ; and in the historical account of the march in Num. xiii., Kadesh is the very next station after Chazeroth (vid. ver. 27). This apparent discrepancy has long ago been reconciled by nearly every writer in a very simple manner,—namely, by appealing to the fact, which is clear enough from other passages, that Israel encamped at Kadesh twice—the first time on the way from Sinai to the southern border of Canaan (Num. xiii.), the second time after wandering about for thirty-seven years in the desert of Tih (Num. xx.)„ This renders the supposition that there were two places called Kadesh, as unnecessary as it is inadmissible (2). It is equally erroneous to suppose that the Kadesh, mentioned in the list of stations in Num. xxxiii. 36, refers to the first sojourn at Kadesh ( Num. xiii.) (3) : the reference is rather to the second encampment ther% of which we have an account in Num. xx. But the question arises, 'Which of the stations named in Num. xxxiii. ; are we to connect with the first encampment at Kadesh, and what can have given rise to the substitution of another name, in this particular instance, for so current and celebrated a name as Kadesh ? K. v. Raumer fixes upon Tacliatli (Num. xxxiii. 26), and Hengstenberg speaks of Bne-Jaakan (Num. xxxiii. 31), as absolutely certain; but both conjectures are equally arbitrary and untenable (4). The correct view undoubtedly is that of Fries, that Ritiimali denotes the first halt at Kadesh. For the Wady Eetemât, which answers exactly to the ancient Eithmah, forms the entrance to the plain of Kadesh, which GEOGRAPHICAL SURVEY. 247 Bowlands lias so recently discovered. The spies probably set out from this wady (Num. xiii. 2), whilst the rest of the people, who awaited their return, spread themselves out in the plain of Kadesh, where they were both protected and concealed (5). ( 1.) The assertion that Israel encamped twice- in Kadesh, is* pronounced by Ewald (ii. 207) " a perfectly arbitrary assumption, which cannot be defended by a single argument of any worth."—This may be easily explained, when, first of all, with the usual caprice of the critics when dealing with Biblical accounts, everything has been turned upside down, and every argument of any worth has been swept away (car tel est mon bon plaisir). The fact that the Israelites encamped twice at Kadesh, has been proved by K. v. Baumer (Zug der Israelite!!, p, 39, and Palgestina, p. 446), Robinson (ii. 611), and Fries (pp. 53-60). The following are the pro ofs : — (1.) On the twentieth day of the second month (early in May), in the second year of the Exodus^ the people departed from Sinai (Num. x. 11). On their arrival at the desert of Paran, they sent out spies to Palestine (from Kadesh-Barnea, Num. xxxii. 8; Deut. i. 19 sqq. ; Josh. xiv. 7) at the time of the first grapes (Num. xiii. 21), that is, in August. Forty days afterwards, the spies returned to the camp at Kadesk (Num. xiii. 27). The people murmured at the report of the spies ; and Jehovah pronounced the sentence upon them, that not they, but their children only, should enter the promised land, and that only after wandering about for forty years in the desert (Num. xiv. 29 sqq.). At the same time they were ordered to turn back, and go into the desert to the Eed Sea (Num. xiv. 25 ; Deut. i. 40). A departure from Kadesh, therefore, evidently did take place. Thirty-seven years and a half elapsed after this, which are passed over by the historian in perfect silence. But in the first month (of the fortieth year, compare Num. xx. 28 with Num. xxxiii. 38) the whole congregation came—evidently the second time therefore— to Kadesh (Num. xx. 1). — (2.) That there were two arrivals at the southern border of Palestine (i. 0., at Kadesh), is apparent from a comparison of the list of stations in Num.« xxxiii. with Deut. x. 6, 7. In the latter we have an account of a march of the Israelites, in which the stations Bne-Jaakan, Moserah, Gud~ godali^ Jothbatahy follow in succession. The object of th is list is simply.to show the spot where Aaron died, viz.¿ at Moserah. But, according to Num. xx. 22 sqq., and Num. xxxiii. 38, Aaron died upon Mount Hor. This Moserah, therefore, must have been situated somewhere in the neighbourhood of Mount Hor. Now, if we turn to Num. xxxiii., we find that the third station from Sinai was Rithmahj or Eetemath, at the northern extremity of the desert. The twelfth station from this is Moseroth, which is evidently the same as Moserah ; and then follow Bne- Jaakan-j -Gidgad^ Jotbathah^ Ábronah, Eziongeber (at the extreme end of the Elanitic Gulf), Kadesli, and Hor, where Aaron died. This is the place, therefore, at which the stations mentioned in Deut. x. 6, 7 must be inserted. But as we have already found the same stations, Bne-Jaakan, Moserah, Gud- god, Jothbathah, in Num. xxxiii., it follows that the Israelites must have traversed the whole desert from north to south twice, anr1 must have come on two separate occasions to the southern boundary of Palestine. But what does Ewald do to banish these weighty reasons from the sphere of reality into that of non-existence ? " Nothing further" he says, " is required, than to remove the encampment at Kadesh and the following one by Mount Hor, recorded in Num. xxxiii. 36-39, a little further back, and place them after vers. 30, 31, because they do not harmonize with Eziongeber" ! ! — Moreover, he looks upon the coming to Kadesh, of which an account is given in Num. xx. 1, as a repetition of the previous account in Num. xiii. of the first and only arrival at Kadesh, - — in spite of all the express and unanswerable testimonies to the contrary ! (Comp. § 41, 1.) ( 2.) The hypothesis, that there were two different places with the same name, may be proved on every ground to be untenable. Some, for example, suppose the Kadesh in the desert of Paran (Num. xiii. 27) to be the same as the Kadesh-Barnea in Num. xxxii. 8, and Deut. i. 2, 19 ; and that in the desert of Zin (Num. xx. 1) to be equivalent to the Me-Meribah^ or waters of strife (Num. xx. 13),—of which the former was situated in the south of Canaan, the latter in the south of Edom. But " there is one passage in Ezekiel (chap, xlvii. 19) which so completely overthrows this hypothesis, when compared with Numa xxxiv. 4j that it would be quite superfluous to refer to Nunu GEOGRAPHICAL SURVEY. 249 xiii. 22 compared with cliap. xx. 1, or to Dent. x. 6, 7 compared with Num. xxxiii. 30-35, or, lastly, to Num. xxi. 4 compared with Deut. ii. 8, from which passages it evidently follows that the deserts of Zin and Paran were connected, and that on their last departure from Kadesh the Israelites went towards the south, to Ezioiigeber" (Fries, p. 54), Nevertheless, this obsolete view has been reproduced quite lately by Eabbi >Scliiüavz (p. 170 seq. 375 sqq.) ; who seeks to strengthen it by adducing Gen. xiv. 7 and the Eabbinical tradition (yid. § 27,4). In his opinion " En- Mishpat, that is Kadesh," in Gen. xiv. 7, is the same as the waters of Meribah (Num. xx. 13), and the two are identical with Kadesh in the desert of Zin (Num. xx. 1), and with the modern Ain el-Sedakah (called by Robinson, Ain el-Usdakah • or Zodokatha), which is about ten or twelve miles to the south of Petra. He finds a proof of this in the fact that the names ni'nD, &S£>D and np1¥ are synonymous. The second Kadesh, or Kadesh-Barnea^ which was situated in t he desert of Paran, he removes, on the authority of the Eabbinical tradition, which connects Kadesh-Barnea with Eekam Gaia, into the Wady el-Abyad (to the north-west of the mountainous district of the Azazimeh), to which it is said to have given the name Wady Gaian. But there is not the slighest foundation for any of these combinations. They are at variance with Ezek. xlvii. 19. They are irreconcileable with Gen. xiv. 6, 7 ; for it was not till the whole of the mountains of Seir had been conquered that Chedorlaomer proceeded from El-Paran (Elath, Ailah) to En- Mishpat, for the purpose of invading the country of the Amor- ites and Amalekites, whereas the modern Ain el-Zedakah was in the heart of the mountains of Seir. Again, the Eabbinical tradition with regard to Eekam-Gaia has been entirely misunderstood (§ 27, 4); and, lastly, Eithmah, which even Schwarz identifies with Eetemath, and which he regards as the corresponding station to Kadesh-Barnea in the list of stations in Num. xxxiii., is too far from Wady Abyad to be used interchangeably with it as the name of one and the same station. ( 3.) 0. v. Gerlach, who differs fr-om Laborde und agrees with Eobinson, with reference to the situation of Kadesh, follows Laborde in this, that in his Erklärung der heiligen Schrift (i. 509) he speaks of it as the most natural supposition, "that the stations in the desert, which are given in Num.. xxxiii. 16-36? all belong to tlie period, anterior to the return of the spies and the events which occurred at Kadesh-Barnea. Like the modern Arabs, the people passed quickly (! !) from one fountain and oasis to another, and halted at twenty-one places, before they reached Kadesh on the southern border of Canaan, where they met the spies. From this time forth the sacred history is completely silent with regard to the wanderings in the desert, not even the halting-places being given ; and after thirty-eight years we find the people at Kadesh again." It is really inexplicable that a commentator, who is generally so very circumspect, should have been able to adhere to so unfortunate a supposition, which is expressly contradicted on all h ands by the Biblical narrative, and even in itself is inconceivable. But our astonishment increases, when we find that K. Ritter has also adopted it. In the Evangeliseher Kalender, 1854, p. 49 seq., he says : " In the meantime (after the spies had been sent out) the people left their camp at Hazeroth (i.e., Ain el-Hadherah), and proceeded northward towards Canaan." They went first of all past seventeen intermediate stations to Eziorigeber, at the northern extremity of the Elanitic Gulf, and proceeded thence to Kadesh, "the border station at the northern edge of the desert." The latter portion of the journey " is particularly referred to in Num0, xxxiii. 36, but no intermediate encampments are mentioned.'' . . . " That it cannot have been accomplished in a short space of time, is evident from the fact, that the spies who were sent to Canaan had completed their journey throughout the whole length of Canaan, even bey ond the Lebanon to Hamath on the river Orontes, when they met with the Israelites in the1 eventful camp at Kadesh or Kadesh-Barnea." We have met with nothing for a long time which has ca used us so much astonishment as this hypo thesis. (1.) Why should the list in Num. xxxiii. contain the names of so many stations in the short spaces between Chazeroth (i.e., Ain el-Hadherah) and; Eziongeber, and only one single station between Eziongeber andf Kadesh, which was twice m far, whether Kadesh was situated on the eastern or western side of the Azazimeh?—(2.) The spies returned in forty days. And are we to understand that these forty days embrace not merely the eighteen stations between Chazeroth and Eziongeber, but the stations whose names are not given in the far longer journey from Eziongeber to GEOGRAPHICAL SURVEY. 251 Kadesh ? ! As the Israelites were waiting for the return of the spies, and therefore there was no necessity for their hastening to reach the southern border of Canaan, we should not be surprised to find the eighteen stages between el-Hadherah and Eziongeber (a distance of about seventy miles) reduced to the very minimum. What we really find is a want of time. The people pitched their tents eighteen times before they reached Eziongeber ; and even if they passed much more quickly over the longer piece of ground between Eziongeber and Kadesh ( though we are not acquainted with any good ground for such a supposition), there must have been in all thirty or forty stages between el-Hadherah and Kadesh—and consequently the number of encampments would be almost as great as the number of days which were occupied in the journey. Now, consider for a moment how much time must have been required to pitch all the tents, erect the tabernacle, and perform the numerous other things connected with an encampment. Neither Gerlach nor Ritter would call a halt for the night a st ation. We believe that at every station at least three days' rest must have been required. —( 3.) A comparison of Num. • xxxiii. with Deut. x. 6, 7, proves incontrovertibly (vid. note 1) that the procession was at Mount Hor (i.e., Moseroth) before it reached Eziongeber ; and it is well known that Mount Hor is not situated between el-Hadherah and Eziongeber. ... Lastly, (4.) It is stated expressly and repeatedly in the Scriptures themselves (Num. xxxii. 8 ; Deut. i. 19 sqq. ; Josh. xiv. 7), that Moses did not send out the spies till AFTER the arrival of the Israelites at Kadesli-Barnea ! ! ! ( 4.) K. v. Raumer (Zug der Israelite^ p. 41) conjectures that the first halt at Kadesh coincided with the station marked Tachathj in the list of stations in Num. xxxiii. In his opinion, this is rendered probable by the fact that Taehath signifies a lower place (and this would answer to the situation of el-Hasb) ; and still more so by Deut. i. 2 (" there are eleven days' journey from Horeb to Kadesh-Barnea"), since Taehath is exactly the eleventh station from Sinai. But is it necessary to remind the learned author, with what zeal, and certainly with what justice, he opposed the favourite hypothesis that the days' marches and the stations correspond f However, Raumer laid no stress upon this conjecture, and, so far as we know,, never brought it forward again.—Hengstenberg claims a great deal more credit 252 ISKAEL IN THE DESEE.T OF PARAIST. for his discovery that Bne-Jaakan is the station in question. This is said to be no mere conjecture or hypothesis, but a well established and unanswerable result of close investigation, which may be held up with triumph, instar omnium^ in the face of any who take pleasure in foisting contradictions upon the Pentateuch. But on what is this confidence based ? On a comparison of Deut. x. 6, 7, and Num. xxxiii. 30-33. In Deut., where there is not the slightest room to doubt that the direction taken by the procession is from north to south, the order in which the names occur is, Bne-Jaakan, Moseroth, Gudgod, and Jotbathah. In the second passage the order is changed into Moseroth, Bne- Jaakan, Gidgad, Jotbathah. This apparent discrepancy can only be explained on the supposition, that on the occasion referred to in Num. xxxiii. 21, the procession turned round ; and this completely removes the difficulty. The people, on starting from Sinai, travelled from south to north till they came to Moseroth, and thence to Bne-Jaakan, at which point they turned from north to south again, and naturally arrived first of all at Moseroth (which is omitted on principle, as it had been mentioned before), and then passed on to Gidgad, Jotbathah, etc. Now, we find from the historical account in Num. xiv. 25, that the place at which the procession turned was Kadesh ; consequently Bne-Jaakan and Kadesh are one and the same.-—Th is is Hengstenberg's account. But he does not touch upon the main difficulty, namely, the reason why the author in Num. xxxiii. should speak of the very same station, first of all {ver. 31), as Bne-Jaakan, and then immediately afterwards (ver. 36) as Kadesh, and why the author of Deuteronomy, who so constantly uses the name Kadesh-Barnea, should employ another name in chap. x. 6. And so long as this is not explained, we can attach no weight whatever to the argument as a whole. The transposition of the names Moseroth and Bne-Jaakan, which is certainly striking, by no means compels us to regard the latter as another name, employed to denote the first halt at Kadesh (cf. § 31, 2). ( 5.) We append a few remarks in relation to the names of the most northerly station. Beside the simple name Kadesh, we find in Num. xxxii. 8, and constantly throughout Deuteronomy, as well as in other parts of the Old Testament, the compound name Kadesli-Barnea. According to Num. xx. 13, the place GEOGRAPHICAL SURVEY. 253 also received the name Me-Meribah (Strife-water), and in Gen. xiv. 7, it occurs under the name of En~Mislipat (fountain of judgment or decision). From the last-mentioned name, Ewald concludes that in olden time there was an oracle here—a supposition which we have no desire either to contest or defend. The explanatory words, "that is Kadesh" which occur in Gen. xiv. 7, are of more importance to us. They seem to imply that En-Mishpat was the original name, and Kadesh a more recent one, which was not in existence in the time of Abraham. [ Lengerke, on the other h and, explains the names, En-Mishpat and Me-Meribah (erroneously we believe) as synonymous, and therefore regards the use of the former, in Gen. xiv. 7, as &pro- lepsisJ] But if the Kadesh in Gen. xiv. 7 is. a prolepsis, the conjecture is a very natural one, that the place referred to received the name for the first time when the Israelites were sojourning there, as being the place where the holiness of Jehovah was manifested to the people (Num. xviii. 22 sqq.), or to Moses and Aaron (Num. xx. 13 03 ^1^}), by an act of judgment. Possibly this may furnish ano ther explanation of the fact, that in Num. xxxiii. 18 the place is called Bitmah, and not Kadesh ; whereas in Num. xxxiii. 36, after the infliction of the judgment, it is not called Eitmah, but Kadesh. The name Kadesh-Barnea WQ regard as a more precise definition of the situation, by the addition of the name of the Edomitish town alluded to in the message sent to the Edomites (Num. xx. 16) : " We have come to Kadesh, to the town in thy uttermost border." § 31. The stations, whose names occur "between Ritmah and Kadesh (Num. xxxiii. 19-36), undoubtedly refer to the principal quarters occupied by the Israelites (with the tabernacle, the ark of the covenant, and the pillar of cloud) during their thirty-seven years' wandering in the desert. But of all these pla ces, jEzion- c/eber (at the n orthern end of the Elanitic Gulf) and Mount HOT (or Mount Seir, to the west of Petra) are the only two which can be set down upon the map with any degree of certainty (1). The apparent discrepancy between Deut. x. 6, 7, and Num. xxxiii. 30-33—in the former of which the Israelites are said to have come first of all to Beeroth-Bne-Jaakan, and after this to 254 ISRAEL IN THE DESERT OF PAEAN. Moserah, Gudgod, and Jotbathah ; whereas, according to the other, they came first of all to Moseroth, and thence to Bne- Jaakan, Chor-Gidgad, and Jotbathah,—can be very easily explained, if we simply bear in mind the fact that the journeys described in the two passages are very different in their character (2). ( 1.) It is true, there are two other names to be met with in the modern geography of the desert, which strikingly remind us of names which occur in the Bible. Fifteen miles to the south of Wady Ketemat, we find a wady Muzeirah marked upon the maps, and thirty miles to the south of the latter a "Wady el- Gudhagidh. But, however unmistakeable the correspondence between these names and the Biblical stations Moserah and Chor- lm-Gidgad (Gudgod) may be, yet, so far as the situation of these wadys is at present determined, it is impossible that they should coincide with the names in the Bible. When we compare Dent, x. 6 with Num. xx. 22 sqq. and xxxiii. 38, it is evident that Moserah must have been situated in the immediate neighbourhood of Mount Hor, probably in the Arabah, at the foot of the mountain.—In that case, the stations between Moserah and Eziongeber would have to be sought for in the Arabah also. Hengstenberg is undoubtedly correct in calling attention, in connection with the name Bne-Jaakan, to the fact, that we find an Akan (Gen. xxxvi. 27), or Jaakan (l Chr. i. 42), mentioned among the descendants of Seir the Horite, whose land was taken by the Edomites. The station called Bne-Jaakan, therefore, probably denotes the former possessions of this branch of the Horites, but it does not follow that it must of necessity have been situated in the Arabah. If we bear in mind (§ 26, 3) that the territory of the Edomites extended far away beyond the Arabah towards the west, it is very conceivable that the " well of the sons of Jaakan" (Beeroth Bne-Jaakan) may have been on this side of the Arabah. ( 2.) If we look at the difference between the journey described in Num. xxxiii. 30-33, and the one referred to in Deut. x. 6, 7, there is no difficulty in untying the knot, which seems to be formed by a comparison of these two passages. The journey mentioned in Deut. x. 6, 7, was undertaken with a definite object, namely, to pass round Mount Seir, for the purpose of THE PLACE OF BURNING, AND THE GRATES OF LUST. 255 entering the promised land. On this occasion, therefore, an unnecessarily circuitous route will have been avoided, and the shortest possible way selected. The order in which the stations occur, therefore, in Deut. x. 6, 7, is to be regarded as answering to their geographical situation, so that Bne-Jaakan must be sought for on the north, or west, or north-west of Moserah. The journey described in Num. xxxiiL 30-33 was of a totally different character. At this time—that is, during the thirty-seven years' rejection—the Israelites had dispersed themselves in larger or smaller parties over the entire desert, and settled down by any meadows and springs which they could find (we shall enter more fully into this question, and prove our assertion, at § 41). On the other hand, the stations whose names occur in Num. xxxiii. 19-36, are the head-quarters, where Moses encamped with the tabernacle, which made a circuit of the whole desert, to visit the various sections of the nation which were scattered over it, and remained some time with each of them. There was no end to be served by always going in >a straight line ; but when circumstances rendered it advisable, the course might be turned towards the east or west, the north or south, without the slightest hesitation. There is nothing surprising, therefore, in the fact, that on one occasion a zigzag course was taken, viz., from Kadesh to. Mose- roth, and thence to Biie-Jaakan, and that on another occasion, when it was a matter of importance to take the most direct route to a certain point, Bne-Jaakan should come before Moseroth. There is even less difficulty in .adopting this explanation, if we assume, as we are certainly warranted in doing, that one or other of the names in question may have been used to denote a wady in its entire length, and that the point at which the procession touched the wady may not have been the same on both occasions. THE PLACE OF BURNING, AND THE GRAVES OF LUST. § 32. (Num. x. 11-xi. 3.)—On the twentieth day of the second month, in the second year after the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt, the cloud ascended (§ 22, 2), and the Israelites left Sinai, where they had been encamped for almost an entire year (a year all but ten clays, cf. § 4, 5). They set out in the order (1) already prescribed (vid. § 20). The pillar By Steve Rudd: Contact the author for comments, input or corrections. Click to View Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA