Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

a

have taken place in any part of the granitic region, appears perfectly absurd.

But the real reason which will induce many modern travellers to prefer the Ras Safsâfeh is, that it is the seat peculiarly fitted for the representation of a great drama of imposture. I have not been anxious to display the evidence of this, because I well know that to place this fact in the clear light which it admits, would be to consecrate the Ras Safsâfeh, as a precious idol, in the estimation of all the pupils of rationalism and infidelity.

It is possible that Canon Stanley (himself a warm admirer of the charming volume of Essays and Reviews, as is evident from his recent book of Lectures) may have had a clear perception of this fact. Moses informs us that the words of the decalogue were repeated by the voice of God, in the Hebrew language, from the summit of Mount Sinai. Canon Stanley notices “the reverberation of the human voice, which can never be omitted in any enumeration of the characteristics of Mount Sinai.” He proceeds to remark in that blank verse, which forms one of the most fascinating beauties of his singularly poetical style; and which it is a self-immolation to print as prose,—that,

" From the highest point
Of Râs Sufsâfeh to its lowest peak,
A distance of about sixty feet, the page
Of a book distinctly, but not loudly, read,
Was perfectly audible; and every remark
Of the various groups of travellers descending,
From the heights the same point rose clearly to

Those immediately above them.!!! Hence we may fairly infer that the voice of a merely human Stentor (and the Nomade tribes are famous for the tremendous powers of their vociferation) might have been heard from the Ras Safsafeh into the plain below, and have been mistaken by a credulous people for the voice of the Deity.

If the Ras Safsâfeh were the real Sinai, the evidence of imposture on the part of Moses would be so decisive, that I should feel some difficulty in blaming any one, who (believing this peak to be the real Sinai, and forming the natural conclusions from such premises) should trample on the Pentateuch with as much indifference as he would trample on the Koran, the Zendavesta, or the Vedas. But this singular aptitude for the deceptious miracles of a false prophet, will of course endear the spot to the cohorts (daily increasing in England) of rationalism and scepticism, and induce.them (in defiance of an overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary) to contend that the Ras Safsâfeh is the genuine Sinai.

Ill. Assuming apparently that the want of space, in the Wadys of the granitic region, is the only, or at least principal, objection to that part of the peninsula, W. 0. endeavours to invalidate this objection by shewing that there were equal difficulties to encounter in the admitted

8 Sinai and Palestine, p. 13.

[ocr errors]

route of the Israelites, before they arrived at the plain of Murkhah ; from which I have supposed them to turn off (instead of entering the granitic Delta) into the Debbet Er-Ramleh. He observes that, if the Israelites can be " safely led from Shur to a Pi Hahiroth, south of Jebel Attakah, and then (having crossed the Red Sea) by Murkha to Debbet er Ramleh, he thinks there is no need to be afraid of

any

difficulties that the granitic region offers."

To this I reply, that, as to the march from Shur to the plain called by some writers Baidea, and by others the Wady Tawarik, the difficulties attached to this route really constitute its chief recommendation; because they coincide with the motives suggested in Exod. xiv. 3, for this deviation from the ordinary and direct tract. On this account it has been preferred by almost all orthodox writers; and hence the passage of the Red Sea from the plain of Baidea has been rightly termed, by the late Dr. Kitto, the orthodox alternative,in contradistinction to the northern passage by Suez, which he terms the sceptical. The latter is, of course, preferred by Dean Milman and Canon Stanley, as being most in accordance with their rationalistic views.

Difficulty, in this particular instance, therefore, constitutes no objection. We believe that a great miracle was performed; and, if so, this was the proper site.

The only other peculiar difficulty is in the passage froń Wady Gharendel to the plain of Murkhah. Here some tolerably narrow Wadys are to be threaded through; but these were merely the gates to lead to a more open region; and there is an enormous difference between a passage of two days through a difficult country, and the pitiable folly of rejecting the open country of the Debbet er Ramleh, and the best pasture grounds (as I shall shortly shew) in the Peninsula, to rush into the dangerous defiles of the granitic region, and encamp for nearly twelve months in such a pit or den, as the plain of Er-Raheh.

Upon the same principle on which he endeavours to rebut the objections to the granitic region from want of space, W. 0. replies to another, which has been alleged against it, from want of pasture for the

very much cattlementioned by Moses. “Nor is the want of grass at present of any importance; there is an abundance of plants suitable for pasturage. As Wady Gharandel and Wady Feiran are the only fertile spots between Suez and any Sinai, a little grass or a few shrubs more or less are, I think, of no consequence.'

From this I am compelled to infer that W.O.'s knowledge of the peninsula is chiefly confined to the route which he himself travelled. When he speaks of Any Sinai, he appears to lay completely out of sight the Jebel el-'Ojmah, which is certainly the true one. About this mountain, and on the route to it from Murkhah (along the Jebel et-Tîh, of which the Jebel el-'Ojmah forms the principal elevation) are, according to Burckhardt, the best pasture grounds in the whole of the Sinaitic peninsula. This great explorer, speaking of the Tủh chain observes, “These chains form the northern boundaries of the Sinai mountains” (by this he seems to have meant the mountains around the convent of St. Catherine), “and are the pasturing-places of the Sinai

:

Bedouins, They are inhabited by the tribes Terabein and Tyaha, the latter of whom are richer in camels and flocks than any other of the Towara tribes. The vallies of these mountains are said to afford excellent pasturage, and fine springs, though not in great numbers."

It appears then, in the neighbourhood of the actual Sinai, there was such an abundancy of excellent pasturage, as suffices for those tribes of the peninsula, which, at the present day, are richest in cattle. We may also infer that this pasturage is wanting round the plain of Er-Raheh; since Burckhardt informs us that the Sinai Arabs (meaning I presume the Arabs located round this plain) came to the Tih mountains in search of pasturage.

IV. But, after all, though the want of space and of pasturage are important objections to the granitic region, they are neither the only, nor the principal objections.

The writers who support the claims of the Ras Safsâfeh must ew us:-1. A Mount HOREB, so closely connected with Sinai as to account for the fact that Sinai itself is frequently called Horeb. 2. At the foot of this Mount Horeb, they must shew us a REPHIDIM,-a battle-field, in which half a million of men might have disputed for the supremacy of Amalek or Israel. And, 3. The Sinai of their selection must be so situated, that the Israelites, on quitting their encampment before it, would at the end of their first day's march have reached the desert of Paran, the modern desert of Et-Tîh. The claims of any mountain which does not agree with all these criteria, are perfectly ridiculous. All of them are to be found united in the Jebel el-'Ojmah. In connexion with the Ras Safsâfeh, I defy any person living to point out ONE.

V. My letter has already extended to such a length, that I must reply very briefly to some minor points. With respect to the meaning of the word “Negeb,I trust, at some future time, to convince M. R. E. that the error is on his side, not mine. The "

difficulties ” alluded to by W. 0. were historical, not geographical, and have no relation to the present enquiry.

With respect to the two essays, “On the Origin of the Phænicians," and “The Doom of Amalek,” I have deferred their publication for the present, for reasons which any one acquainted with the present state of the Church will readily appreciate.

I have only to add, that I trust neither W. O. nor M. R. E. will feel offended at the free manner in which I have combated their opinions wherever I have happened to differ from their views. I feel (as every one interested in the cause of Biblical illustrations must necessarily do) most earnestly obliged to them for the light which they have thrown upon a very important subject.

HENRY CROSSLEY.

HOW SCRIPTURE SHOULD BE TREATED!

In a letter published in the last October number of the J. S. L. (p. 186), I intimated an intention of controverting Mr. Constable's very erroneous notions respecting the last journey of Christ to Jerusalem. A passage, however, in that gentleman's correspondence in the subsequent January number (p. 436), has induced me to change this intention; and, in order to avoid the imputation of inconsistency and caprice, it seems desirable that I should be permitted to explain the reason which has induced me to give up my original design.

Mr. Constable, in the letter just alluded to, observes with some pathos, that he “cannot approve of my mode of treating Scripture.” This was assuredly a serious charge, and the accusation implied in it was the very last which I should have expected that any person of ordinary judgment could have made against me; since, in an age when the clergy are producing such choice volumes as the Essays and Reviews, -I, a layman, have (as I am told) seriously imperilled the reception of my Biblical illustrations, by strictly adhering to the sense and spirit of the Thirty-nine Articles. This may very possibly be the case; for between the two extreme parties, whose respective tenets have a strong tendency to semi-papistry and semi-atheism, the orthodox members of the Church may possibly be in a minority. Of this they have no reason to be ashamed. In these days (with the popular cry against it) orthodoxy is not the refuge of the weak and uninquiring, but a dangerous position chosen by those who, confident in themselves and careless of all antagonism, are (from their reliance on a just cause) equally prepared for attack and defence.

This rigid adherence to orthodoxy, in the midst of its unpopularity, stood me, however, in little stead, as a protection from the censure of the still more orthodox (?) Mr. Constable; and the rudeness of this gentleman's attack surprised me the more; since (considering the singular manner in which he had laid himself open throughout the controversy on Jewish orthodoxy) I felt that I had treated him with great consideration, and unusual forbearance.

When courtesies of this sort begin to be bandied in a discussion, it is of course desirable to avoid their repetition.

Nothing would be easier than for me to defend myself against Mr. Constable's charge, and to expose the misrepresentatious on which it is founded; but he has saved me all trouble on this score, by an invaluable example (contained in the same letter) of the mode of treating scriptural authorities, which he himself prefers as more in accordance with the plain-dealing absolutely required in sacred investigations.

Throughout the controversy on Jewish orthodoxy he had uniformly asserted that the Sadducees “ were never mentioned in the New Testament except in terms of condemnation;" and he had alleged this as a reason to prove their heterodoxy as a sect. It might have been expected that he would have favoured us with examples ; —such, for instance, as were contained in that extraordinary list of withering denunciations, which I had myself collected against the rival sect of the Pharisees (J. S. L., October, 1860, pp. 158, 160). Instead of this, he (with an enviable coolness) referred us to Cruden's Concordance, for the authorities which he relied on! When it was hinted to him that the reference to Cruden was scarcely satisfactory, he at length endeavoured to produce an instance in corroboration of his bold and confident assertions.

With grief and sorrow, I am compelled to say, that this memorable example, which is cited with as much ostentation as if it were an avalanche hurled against the heads of all opponents of his opinions, is neither more nor less than Matt. iji. 7, which, being referred to, is in the words following; --"But when he" [John the Baptist] "saw many of

“” the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” — In citing this passage, Mr. Constable omits all mention of the Pharisees, and leaves his readers to infer that the epithet "generations of vipers” was applied to the Sadducees alone, and in their sectarian capacity. So completely was he at a loss for evidence to support his statement, that the example which he cites to establish Sadducean heterodoxy applies in an equal degree to the Pharisees, whom he had positively and peremptorily declared to be the orthodox sect. In such an unhappy position is he placed, that he can only wound the Sadducees through the bowels of his own friends the Pharisees. It is evident that the language of the Baptist applies to no sectarian opinions. His denunciation was directed against the whole Jewish people (as comprised almost entirely in its two great sects): and, this being plain, it must evidently have been addressed against moral, not against schismatic delinquency. Yet Mr. Constable, for want of better arguments, is content to cite that text in support of his opinions.

He expunges

the word “Pharisees" from the record, and makes the judgment apply merely to the Sadducees. The words of the Baptist applied to morals and conduct, and Mr. C. applies them to opinions.

If such is the mode of dealing with Scripture, approved by Mr. Constable in theory and practice, I am but too happy that he does not approve of mine.

of mine. I feel that I must no longer venture to compete with him in his novel dialectics.

“Nec nos obniti contra, nec tendere tantum sufficimus." It is but too plain that new discussions between myself and Mr. Constable would not be attended with a profitable result. Declining, under

any

circumstances, any further contest with so expert a Retiarius, I leave the arena free to his exertions, and shall wait, as a quiet spectator, till he involves himself in the meshes of his own net.

It has happened, unfortunately, that our respective contributions to the J. S. L. have, in deference to the rules of that periodical, in the late series, (as insisted on by Dr. Burgess) appeared under the same initials (H. C.) I beg now to state that I am only answerable for anything which is contained in the following list of papers, comprising all my contributions to the J. S. L., except such articles in the Correspondence as have appeared under my own name:

« ZurückWeiter »