It is strange that both Eusebius and .Jerome (followed by Steph. Byz. ; Reland, p. 55G; Kaumer, and others) speak of Paran as a city, which they locate three days' journey east {TTfioQ avciToXciQ, but they must evidently mean ivest) of Aila {Oiwmast. s. v. Faran). They refer, doubtless, to the old town of Faran, in the valley of Fei- ran, at the foot of Mount Serbfil, in the desert of Sinai. In this valley there are still ruins of a town, and indeed of more than one, with towers, aqueducts, and sepul- chral excavations; and here Rlippell found the remains of a church, which he assigns to the 5th century {Rtise ill Nubien, p. 2G3). This was the Pharan or Faran. which had a Christian population, and was the seat of a bishopric so early as A.D. 400 {Oriens Christ, col. 735 ; Reland, Palcest. p. 219, 220, 228). The city is described, under the name of Feiran, by the Arabian historian Edrisi, about A.D. 1150, and by Makriri about A.D. 1-100. The description of the latter is copied by Burck- hardt {Si/ria, p. G16). He mentions it as having been a city of the Amalekites; and the history of the He- brew pilgrimage renders it extremely probable that the Amalekites were actually stationed in this valley, from which they came forth to attack the Israelites, when encamped near it at Rephidim (Exod. xvii, 8). Feiran was thus an important place in early ages (Robinson, i, 12G, 592); but it lies nearly thirty miles beyond the southern boundarv of Paran. Nevertheless it seems to be a trace of the ancient name transferred to an adjoin- ing locality. Some writers even regard it as the source of the designation of the region. Josephus mentions a valley of Paran ; but it was situated somewhere in the wilderness of Judrea ( IVta; iv, 9, 4).
Paran is not strictly speaking "a wilderness." The sacred writers call it midbar ; that is, a pasture-land, as distinguished from an agricultural country. Its princi- pal inhabitants were nomads, though it had a few towns and some corn-fields (Robinson, Bibl. Res. i, 190 sq.). The leading features of its physical geography are as follows: The central section, from Beersheba to Jebel et-Tih, is an undulating plateau, from 600 to 800 feet in height, traversed by bare rounded ridges, and shallow, dry valleys, running on the one side into the Arabah, and on the other to the Mediterranean. The soil is scant}', white, and thickly strewn with nodules of flint. In early spring it is partially covered with grass, shrubs, and weeds ; but during the heat and drought of summer all vegetation disappears, and the whole surface assumes that aspect of dreary desolation which led the Israelites to call it "a great and terrible wilderness" (Deut. i, 19) ; and which suggested in re- cent times the somewhat exaggerated language of Mr. Williams — "A frightfully terrific wilderness, whose hor- rors language must fail to descril)e" (Jloly City, i, App. I, p. 4G4). Fountains are rare, and even wells and tanks are far apart. Tlie plateau rises considerably' towards the north-east ; and, as deep glens descend from it to the Arabah, this section presents the appearance of a scries of parallel ridges extending east and west. Tlicir
southern sides arc mostly bluffs of naked white rock, which seem from a lUstance like colossal terrace-walls. These are the mountains of the Amorites mentioned in Deut. i, 19, 20, to which the Israelites approached through the wilderness, and which formed the southern border of Canaan. Besides these there is a line of bare white hills running along the whole western border of the Arabah, and forming the support of the table-land of Paran. Towards the valley they descend in steep shelving slopes and rugged precipices, averaging about a thousand feet in height; and everywhere deeply fur- rowed by wild ravines. The passes from the Arabah to Paran are difficult, and a comparatively small band of resolute men might defend them against an army. The southern declivities of the mountain of the Amorites would also present serious obstacles to the advance of a large host.
These natural features enable us to understand more fully some points in the historj- of the wilderness jour- ney, and to illustrate many incidental expressions in the sacred narrative. They show why the Israelites feared to enter Canaan from Kadesh until thej- had ascertained \\y the report of the spies that those for- midable mountain-passes were open (Deut. i, 22). They show how the Amorites, " which dwelt in that moun- tain," were able to drive them back when they attempt- ed to ascend (ver. 44 ; comp. Numb, xiv, 40-45). They show how expressive and how natural is the language so often used by Moses at Kadesh. When he sent the spies, " he said unto them, Get you up this waj' south- ward, and go up into the mountain •" "so they icent up . . . they ascended by the south." " Caleb said, Let us go up at once. But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people" (xiii, 17, 21, 22, 30, 31). Again, in describing the defeat of the people — "They rose up early . . . and gat them vp into the top of the mountain, saying. We will yo itp into the place which the Lord hath promised. . . . Moses said. Go not up. . . . But the}' presumed to go up . . . and the Amalekites came down," etc. (xiv, 40,42, 44, 45).