The question now arises : Are there sufficient data to detennine conclusively the mountain-peak to which the name Sinai was given? This is a question not merely of literary curiosity, but of the highest geographical importance. A brief sketch of the geography of the peninsula will best prepare the way for a satisfactory answer, and the identi fication of Sinai.
The physical features of the peninsula are broadly and deeply marked. In form a triangle, it is shut in on two sides by the gulfs of Akabah and Suez, and on the third by the desert of TM Within these outer barriers are others, enclosing what may be termed the shrine. Along the south ern edge of Tih runs, like a vast wall, a bleak limestone ridge ; and south of it again is a parallel belt of sandy plain, appropriately termed Debbet er-Ramleh. A naked gravelly plain called el-Kaa extends along the whole shore of the gulf of Suez. Between el-Kaa, Debbet er-Ramleh, and the gulf of Akabah, lies a group of mountains, triangular in shape, which forms as it were the nucleus of the peninsula, and is now called emphatically el-Ter, 'The mountains.' On the north and west the group has projecting buttresses of ruddy sandstone, on which most of the inscriptions in the written valley' are traced ; but the main body, and all the loftiest peaks are granite, and exhibit a variety of colouring—red, yellow, purple, and green—making them objects of singular beauty when bathed in the bright sun shine. They are all, however, naked and desolate. As the eye wanders over their riven sides, and up their jagged peaks, not a tree, not a shrub, not a blade of grass is seen (cf. Olin, Travels, i. 389). Rugged passes, ahnost as bare and dry and deso late as the granite cliffs overhead, wind from the outer borders up into the centre of the group. On penetrating these ravines, a few acacias are here and there seen in a cranny of the rocks, and a clump of wild palms is occasionally met with fringing a well or fountain. In the heart of these mountains, in nature's profoundest solitude, amid scenery un surpassed for wild and stern grandeur, history, tradition, and geography, have combined to locate Sinai, the mount of the Lord,' and all those won drous events which were enacted round it.
There are three claimants for the name SINAI ; and it will be necessary to examine them suc cessively.
r. Mount Serb& —Its claims are advocated by Lepsius (Letters from Egypt, London 1853), Bartlett (Forty Days in the Desert), Stewart (The Tent and the Khan), and others. The argu ments in its favour may be thus summed up :—It was the most conspicuous mountain in the penin sula, and therefore the best known to the Egyptian colonists. Near its northern base was the oasis of Feiran, which was probably the centre of the primeval Sinaitic population ; and the summit of Serbal would form their natural sanctuary. Moses, knowing such a fertile and well-watered spot as Feiran, would never have led the Israelites past it, but would naturally select it as the place of the permanent camp (Lepsius, pp. 356-363). Besides, it is supposed to be more in accordance with the narration of the wilderness journey than any other mountain ; and it is alleged that early historical tradition is wholly in its favour.
The two last arg,uments are the only ones of any weight ; and neither of them stands the test of critical examination. The basis of Lepsius' argu ment is that Rephidim is identical with Feiran ; and that Moses selected this spot as the site of a permanent camp because it was well watered and fertile ; but the sacred writer tells us that in Rephidim there was no water for the people to drink' (Exod. xvii. t). With strange inconsistency Lepsius affirms that the wonderful fountain of Feiran' was opened by the miracle recorded in Exod. xvii. If so, then how could the place have been well watered previously ? But further : Rephidim was a day's march—probably a short one—from the permanent camp before Sinai (xbc. t). These facts totally overthrow the alleged argument from Scripture.
The historical argument is not more convincing, although Dean Stanley somewhat rashly says : It (Serbal) was undoubtedly identified with Sinai by Eusebius, Jerome, and Cosmas ; that is, by all known writers till the time of Justinian' (S. and P. p. 4o). Eusebius merely states that Rephidim is a place in the wilderness by Horeb, and that there Joshua fought with Amalek near Pharan.* Jerome only translates his words without addition or comment (he renders e'yytis by prope). The language of Cosmas is equally indefinite,t especi ally as it is known that Pharan was a pretty large district, and that Horeb is said to be six miles dis tant from it.:r.