The theory is not lightly to be set aside ; the main objection to it lies in the itinerary (wliicli appears to have been one of daily marches aloni; a conventional road). Xo satisfactory attempt has been made to trace this itinerary to the E. or N. of the Gulf of 'Akaba.
Setting aside, then, the theorj'of a (trans-'Aljaba) Midianite Sinai as inconsistent with the most natural interpretation of the biblical traditions, we proceed to determine the most likely spot within the peninsula to which those traditions can be referred. And first of all we may clear away the apparent confusion between Horeb and Sinai whicli occurs in the Pent., and has often been perplexing to commentators who had to reconcile such ex- pressions as ' to the minintain of God, even to Horeb' (Ex 3'), with which cf. 1 K 19*, where Elijah is said to have come ' to tlie mountain of God, even to Horeb.' Here and in otlier places 'the mountain of God ' is identified with lloreb, i.e. Sinai and Horeb are practically interclian''e- able. An examination of the sources of tlio narrative will show that Horeb is the term used for the seat of the Deity in E and D, while Sinai is the term used in J and P. According to the sources, then, we can only say that the centre of the worship of J" is in Hoieb according to the northern tribes, and in Sinai according to the southern ; and no further help is forthcoming for the location of Horeb (which may simi>ly mean 'waste').
Heturning to the ijuistion of the actual moun- tain involved in the trailition, we have a remark- able divergence of opinion amongst critics and travellers, not a few of whom (especially Lepsius anil Ebers) have sought to identify the biblical Sinai witli Mt. Serbal, which rises just above the oasis of Feiran to the south. It ma}' be admitted that Serbal is a much more conspicuous object than Jebel Miisa (the traditional mountain of the Law), altliough it is not so lofty. It is also true that tlie centre of early Christian life in the peninsula in the first centuries of the occupation of the holy jilaces is in the Wady
Feiran, which stands for the ancient Paran, the seat of an episcopate and the home of iniiiiiuer- able ascetics, whose caves and rude dwellings may still be traced. We need not be surprised, then, if it should be maintained that the special place of sanctity in the peninsula was not far from the Wadj' Feiran, in which case Serbal can hardly fail to be the holy mountain. In further support of this it is urged that immediately after the battle witli Amaiek the Israelites are said (Ex I'J-) to have come to Mt. Sinai, or at all events to the wilderness which bears the name of that mountain, and it would therefore seem that the mountain w;us at no great distance from Kephidiin, which is almost universally identified with the Wady Feiran. So that, when we combine the biblical statement of the proximity of Itepliidim to Alt. Sinai with the undoubted fact that Feiran is the primitive Christian metropolis, a strong case is made out for identifj'ing the beautiful and imposing Mount Serbal with the biblical Sinai. Various attempts have further been made, by means of quotations from Cosmas Indicopleustes, Eusebius, Jerome, etc., to show that there has been a monastic translation of the accepted site of Sinai from Serbal to Jebel Musa (cf. Lepsius, Tour from Thebes and the Peninsula of Sinai, 1846, tr. by Cottrell ; and Eber.s, Durch Gosen ztim Sinai, 2nd ed. Leipzig, ISSl). And it has been afiirmed in accordance witli this liypothesis that there was no monastery or monastic settlement in the neighbourhood of Jebel Musa before the convent, called popularly after the name of St. Catherine, was buUt by Justinian.
Unfortunately for this ingenious hypothesis, it has been reduced almost to absurdity oy the dis- covery of a document which is in itself one of the most interesting of pilgrim itineraries, and which for the settlement of the early Christian tradition has immense weight. We refer to the document known as the Peregrinatio Silniw, edited in Koine in 1887 by Ganiurrini from an imperfect JIS, and since re[)rinti'd by J. H. Bernard as a volume of the Palestine Pilgrims' Text Society. The pilgrimage in question is dated in the j'ears 385-388 by its editor, and its authorship is assigned with good reason to a lady from Aquitaine. The imperfect MS opens with topographical details which certainly identify the plain of er-Kahah in front of Jebel Musa (' vallem infinitam ingens* planissima et valde piilchraiii, et trans valleni apparebat nions sanctus Dei Syna'). And, in fact, the whole of the route which Silvia describes between Egypt and Sinai, and the holy places which she visits, coincide closely with the route and the sanctities recorded in modern hooks of travel. The theory of the dis- placeiiiciit of tlie traditional Sinai from Serbal to Jebel Musa in the early Christian centuries may therefore be abandoned, and this practically amounts to the final abandonment of the Serbal- Sinai theory itself and the acceptance of the traditional site. Any residual dilliculties which are connected with the account of the Exodus and the last stages of the journey to Sinai are probablv due to unhistorical elements in the tradition. \lt. Sinai must therefore be sought in the cluster of eminences which includes .lebel Katerina, Jebel Musa, etc. Of these the highest is Jebel Katerina, but it docs not appear that any attempt has been successful to find at the foot of Jebel Katerina a suitable place for an Israelite encampment. And in so far as this is the ea.se, (lie traditional site must be allowed to retain the identilication until further light can bo thrown on the subject from unexpected quarters.