THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOI#'' i >' LIBRARY From the Library of the Diocese of Springfield Protestant Episcopal Church Presented 1917 220.9 T77k cop. 2 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates https://archive.org/details/kadeshbarneaitsi00trum_0 THl HPfliPV Of (hi: KADESH-BARNEA ITS IMPORTANCE AND PROBABLE SITE WITH THE STORY OF A HUNT FOR IT INCLUDING STUDIES OF THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS AND THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE HOLY LAND H. CLAY TRUMBULL D. D. Editor of “ The Sunday School Times ” NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 1884 COPYRIGHT BY H. CLAY TRUMBULL 1883 Grant, Faires k Rodgers Electrotypers or oasis, of Paran, “ which is upon 1 the wilderness,” was the one oasis which is in mid-desert on the great highway across the Wil- derness of Paran ; known in later times as “ Qala’at Nukhl,” 2 or “Callah Nahhar,” 3 or “ Bathn-Nakhl,” 4 or, more commonly, “ Cas- tle Nakhl.” It is there that the great desert roads centre ; and it is at that point that a turn northward would naturally be made ; that indeed a turn northward must be made in following the road Canaanward. And from the Wilderness of Paran u they returned ; ” 5 that is, they went back northward ; but clearly not by the way they had come, for their work in Canaan was yet to be done. They “ came to En-mishpat, which is Kadesh, and smote all the country [the field] of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites that dwelt in p. 34), with his wonted fancifulness, would find in Elana a vestige of “ Elon the Hit- tite,” whose daughter was a wife of Esau. 1 The Hebrew word here is ’al (Sj?), “ upon.” They were not upon the Wilder- ness of Paran until they ascended westward from the ’Arabah. 2 See Thevenot’s Reisen, Part I., Book II., Chap. 17 ; Burckhardt’s Trav. in Syria, p. 450; Map in Lepsius’s Denkmdler, Abth. I.; Stewart’s Tent and Khan , p. 173 ff . ; Palmer’s Des. of Exod., II., 287, 327 ff., and Map; etc. 3 See Shaw’s Travels, p. 477. 4 See quotation from Hajj Chalfa’s Itinerary, in Ritter’s Geog. of Pal., I., 42. Bonar ( Desert of Sinai, p. 383) calls attention to this designation of Chalfa’s, as repeated by Wellsted ( Travels , II., 458), and suggests that Butm may have been intended here, instead of Batn. Butm is shown by Robinson {Bib. Res., III., 15, first edition) to have been the terebinth. By a comparison of the authorities here quoted, it will be seen that this oasis of Nakhl has been variously understood as meaning the Castle of Palms, the Valley of Palms, the Castle of the Wady, and the Terebinth- Vale; yet without any purpose, on the part of any traveler, of identifying its site with the Palm Grove, or Terebinth Plantation of Paran. Any looking for traces of the ancient name in the later one is, however, quite apart from, or the geographical probabilities in favor of the oasis of Nakhl being the site of the oasis which was upon the Wilderness of Paran, and which was the southwesternmost stretch of the march of Kedor-la’omer. 5 Gen. 14 : 7. The Hebrew word used here indicates an abrupt turn in another direction ; not necessarily a return. The word is treated in a note farther on. See Index, s. v. “Turn.” 38 KADESH-BARNEA. Hazezon-tamar,” “ which is En-gedi,” 1 near the west shore of the Dead Sea. All this was prior to a severe battle in the Yale of Siddim, or the Plain of the Dead Sea, 2 with the five kings of the Cities of the Plain. 3 What was their route from the Wilderness of Paran to the Plain of the Dead Sea ? The settlement of this question is an important step toward the locating of Kadesh. The choice of routes in that country was, and is, but limited. “ We must bear in mind,” says Palmer, 4 “ that roads in such re- gions as this are determined by certain physical conditions.” It is practically certain, therefore, that the invading army either turned directly up the ’Arabah, or swept across the desert at the south of the ’Azazimeh mountain tract, and, at Nakhl, turned northward westerly of Jebel 'Araeef en-Naqah. Robinson says 5 emphatically on this point : “ The whole district adjacent to the ’Arabah, north of Jebel ? Araif and el-Mukrah, . . is mountainous ; and is composed ... of steep ridges running mostly from east to west, and present- ing almost insuperable obstacles to the passage of a road parallel to the ’Arabah. In consequence, no great route now leads, or ever has led, through this district; but the roads from ’Akabah, which ascend from Wady el-’Arabah and in any degree touch the high plateau of the desert south of el-Mukrah, must necessarily curve to the west, and passing around the base of Jebel ? Araif el-Yakah, continue along the western side of this mountainous tract.” To have entered Canaan by way of any of the mountain passes at the west of the upper 'Arabah, would have been next to impos- sible for such an army as Kedor-la’omer’s ; 6 especially if, as we 1 2 Chron. 20 : 2. 2 Gen. 14 : 3. 3 Gen. 14 : 8-12. *Des. of Exod., II., 511. b Bib. Res., I., 186/. 6 For the difficulties of these passes, see the testimony of Seetzen, Schubert, Robin- son, and Williams, and the added historical facts, collated by Tuch, in Jour, of Sac. Lit., July, 1848, p 93. See, also, Lord Lindsay’s Letters on Holy Land, II., 46; Olin’s Travels, II., 60; Durbin’s Observ. in East, I., 200; Wilson’s Lands of Bible , I., 340 ; Stanley’s Sinai and Pal., p. 99. KED OR-LA’ OMENS ROUTE. 39 may fairly suppose, that army came with the war chariots which, according to Egyptian, Chaldean, and Assyrian records, played so important a part in the early military movements of Africa and Asia . 1 Those passes were certainly not to be compared, for ease of travel, with the great * highway of commerce at the south and west of the ’Azazimeh mountains. The probability of an ancient road running diagonally across the ’Azazimeh moun- tains from the ’Arabah, was suggested by Wilton ( The Negeb , p. 175 ff.); and the remains of a Roman road in that direction were discovered by Palmer (see Res. of Exod., II., 421 ff.) ; but as this road runs into the other at Abdeh (Eboda) near the western side of the mountain plateau, and is thenceforward identical with it north- ward, its discussion is not essential to the settlement of this question. (For the line of this diagonal road, see Zimmermann’s Karte von Syr. u. Pal., Sect. X.) 1 See Gen. 41 : 43 ; 46 : 29 ; 50 : 9 ; Exod. 14: 7 ff. ; Josh. 11: 4, 6, 9; 17: 16; Judges 4: 3. “And Elam bare the quiver with chariots of men and horsemen,” says the prophet, in foreseeing another visit of the people of that land to the land of Palestine (Isa. 22 : 6). Egyptian inscriptions antedate those of Chaldea and Assyria ; but, as is indicated in the enterprise of Kedor-la’omer, the East was clearly in advance of Egypt in the art and equipments of warfare. The earliest mention, on the monuments, of the horse in Egypt, is in the Inscription of Aahmes ( Rec . of Past, IV., 5-8), which tells of the capture of “a horse and a chariot” in Ethiopia, in the days of Thot- mes I. of the Eighteenth Dynasty, who himself employed horses and chariots in Mesopotamia. But the horse is here designated by its Semitic name “soos” (Ebers’ s Piet. Egypt, II., 249 ; and Philip Smith’s note in Brugsch’s Hist, of Egypt, I., 288). The chariot-driver is also known by the Semitic name “ kazan ” (Brugsch, as above, I., 342) ; and the inference is legitimate, that the horse and chariot were originally brought from the East. Indeed, it is generally agreed by Egyptologists that “the horse had been introduced into Egypt by the Hykshos” some time before its first appearance on the monuments. (See Ebers and Brugsch, as above ; Wilkinson’s Anc. Egyptians, I., 236 and Birch’s note ; Villiers Stuart’s Nile Gleanings, p.296; Wilson’s Egypt of the Past, p. 38; also, Philip Smith’s Anc. Hist, of East, pp. 84-89 ; and Houghton’s Natural Hist, of Ancients, pp. 84-89.) Ebers even notes the Thir- teenth Dynasty as the period of the introduction of the horse, although he proffers no direct proof of this fact {Piet. Egypt, II., 99). Canon Cook ( Speaker's Com., Append, to Exod.) says : “ It is very probable that horses were first introduced under the Twelfth Dynasty, after the reign of Osirtasin.” If, then, the Hykshos introduced horses and chariots into Egypt from Asia, doubtless there were horses and chariots in use in Asia before the Hykshos went to Egypt; and that carries us back to as early a 40 KADESH-BARNEA . Moreover, if Kedor-la’omer had reached the shores of the Dead Sea from the south and east, he would have come to the Vale of Siddim, “ which is [or, is at] the Salt Sea,” 1 and would there have given battle to the kings of the Pentapolis, without passing through the country — or the field — of the Amalekites, and the region of the Amorites, as the sacred narrative assures us was the case. 2 This “field” of the Amalekites was, probably, the country after- wards possessed by the Amalekites, 3 on the southern border of the date as Kedor-la’omer’s. The conclusion is therefore well-nigh inevitable, that such an expedition as Kedor-la’omer’s into Canaan was not undertaken without this agency of warfare. M. Pietrement (Origines du Cheval Domestique p.455,) affirms that the horse was introduced into western Europe, from the East, as early as 9,600 years before the Christian era. That certainly was prior to Kedor-la’omer’s day. It is worthy of note, that the Septuagint renders Bfcn rekhush , in Gen. 14 : 11, 16, 21, by ttjv ltotov, ten hippon, “ the horse,” or “ the cavalry.” 1 Gen. 14 : 3. Whether the Yale of Siddim and the Cities of the Plain were at the southern end or at the northern end of the Dead Sea, is a disputed question. The strongest argu- ments in favor of the northerly site are presented by Grove in Smith’s Bible Dic- tionary, under the various heads “Siddim, the Yale of,” “Sea, the Salt,” and “ Sodom,” and by Tristram, in his Land of Israel (pp. 361-367). In favor of the former generally accepted site at the southern end of the Sea, the best presentation is made by Robinson, in his Biblical Researches (II., p. 187-192), and by Wolcott, in the Bibliotheca Sacra for January, 1868 (Article, “The Site of Sodom”), and again in the latter’s notes on Grove’s articles, in the American edition of Smith’s Bible Dictionary. But whichever view of this question be accepted, the argument con- cerning Kedor-la’omer’s route remains the same. As Wolcott says on that point: “ The northern invaders, after making the distant circuit of the valley on the east and south, came up on the west, and smote Engedi and secured that pass. The cities and their kings were in the deep valley below, whether north or south or opposite is wholly immaterial, as far as we can discover, in relation either to the previous route of conquest, or to the subsequent topographical sequence of the story.” 2 Gen. 14 : 7, 8. 3 sedheh ha’-Amaleqee), “ all the field of the Amalekites.” It is not said here that the Amalekites were smitten, but that their field — the region which subsequently became theirs — was now swept over. As Amalek was a grand- son of Esau (Gen. 36 : 10-12), and there is no mention in the Bible of Amalekites as KED OR- LA ’ OMERS ROUTE. 41 mountains of Judah ; 1 and the Amorites of En-gedi 2 were between that and the Dead Sea plains. The indications of the Scripture narrative, therefore, are, that Kedor-la ? omer’s northward route from the Wilderness of Paran toward the Dead Sea included the great caravan route which passes up from the mid-desert by way of Beer-sheba; the route which is spoken of as “the Way of Shur” — or the road through Canaan to Egypt known as the Shur Road ; 3 and it follows that “ En-mishpat, which is Kadesh,” is to be loca- ted on that road or convenient to it, at some point between the Wilderness of Paran and the southern border of Canaan — where was the field of the Amalekites . 4 an existing people before his day, we may take this reference to them as by anticipa- tion. Tremellius and Junius, in their Genevan Bible, render this passage: “ Incolas agri, qui nunc est HamaleJcitorum ; " “ Inhabitants of the field which now is of the Amalekites.” This view of the passage is taken by Clarius, and Munster, as cited in Grit. Sac. ; and by Lyra, Malvenda, Menochius, and Fischer, as cited in Pool’s Synops. Grit, in loco ; also by Bush ( Notes on Gen. in loco) ; . Keil and Delitzsch ( Bib. Com. in loco) ; Hengstenberg ( Auth . of Pent., II., ,279 ff .) ; De Sola, Lidenthal, and Raphall’s Translation, in loco; Schaff- Lange Com., and Speaker's Com., at Gen. 36: 12 ; Murphy’s Com. on Gen. (at 14 : 7 and 36 : 12) ; Kurtz in Hist, of Old Cov., Ill , 42 ff.; Fairbairn’s Imp. Bib. Die., and Alexander's Kitto s. v. “Amalekites; ” Sayce, in The Queen’s Printers’ Aids to Student of Bible, p. 62 ; and others. Arabic historians claim that there was an Amalek in the fifth generation from Noah, in the line of Ham ; and that his descendants were the early people of Canaan. For references to this tradition, see Abulfeda’s Hist. Anteislam., pp. 16, 178 ; Re- land’s Palaestina, Book I., Cap. 14; Winer’s Bibl. Realworterb., s. v. “Amalekiter; ” Lenormant and Chevallier’s Anc. Hist, of East, II., 145, 288-291, etc. Winer, and Len- ormant and Chevallier (as above), Bevan (Smith- Hackett Bib. Die., s. v. “Amale- kites,”) Ewald (Hist, of Israel, I., 108 /., 248-254; II., 43/.), Yon Gerlach (Com. on Pent., at Gen. 14 : 7), and others, have followed the Arabic tradition in counting the Amalekites named in Genesis 14 : 7 as of an older stock than Esau. But the Arabic traditions have little or no value for the days of the Old Testament, save as they con- form to that source of history. (See a reference to Noldeke on this point in Speaker's Com., at Gen. 36 : 12.) 1 Num. 13 : 29. 2 2 Chron. 20: 2. 3 Gen. 16 : 7 ; 46 : 5-7 ; 1 Sam. 27 : 8. 4 See Fries’s “Ueber die Lage von Kades,” in Stud. xi. Krit., 1854, p. 6. 42 KADESH-BARNEA. 3. A STRATEGIC HALTING-PLACE. , Indeed, what more probable halting-place would there be in this entire region for an invading army which came to take pos- session of the great highways of travel, than the spot where all the roads from east, west, north, and south come together into a common trunk — if such a place there be ? That there is a place answering to this description was first pointed out by Robinson, as already referred to, and his impressions have been verified by subsequent travelers. Coming from Sinai to Palestine by the east- ern route (“ the Way of Mount Seir; ”* or, the Mount Seir Road) Robinson was enabled, after rounding Jebel ’Araeef en-Naqah, from the Wilderness of Paran, “to perceive the reason why all the roads leading across it [the desert] from ’Akabah, and from the convent [at Mount Sinai] to Hebron and Gaza, should meet together in one main trunk in the middle of the desert .” 1 2 The reason is, that the whole face of the region, which is the same now as in the days of Kedor-la’omer, renders this inevitable . 3 Proceeding along this inevitable highway to a plain above Wady Aboo Retemat, called Wady es-Seram, eastward of Jebel el-Helal, and not far from Jebel Muwaylih, Robinson found that here “comes in the great western road from the convent of Sinai to Gaza,” joining those already combined ; and that, therefore, at this point “ all the roads across the desert [including, of course, .the midland road from Egypt] were now combined into one main trunk” 4 A military chieftain as enterprising as Kedor-la’omer would not be likely to overlook such a strategic point as that , when conducting a cam- paign for the purpose of road-seizing. He would naturally halt there, and guard himself against surprises from flank or rear, and also reconnoitre in advance before moving forward to his main 1 Deut. 1 : 2. 3 See page 38, sxipra. 2 Bib. Res., I., 186. * Bib. Res. I., 189-i91. A STRATEGIC HALTING-PLACE. 43 attack in Canaan. In this immediate vicinity, therefore, “ En- mishpat, which is Kadesh ,” 1 should be looked for, so far as we can judge from the Bible story of Kedor-la’omer. This first mention of Kadesh refers to a period four centuries prior to the exodus. It is probable that the name “ Kadesh ” is here used by the writer of Genesis as the name by which the place was known after its occupancy by the tabernacle. An earlier name of this place might seem, from this text, to have been En- mishpat — the Fountain of Judgment ; 2 but even that name may have attached to it after formal judgment had been there passed on rebellious Israel, and on both Israel’s leader and Israel’s high- priest . 3 It is thought by some , 4 that long before the days of Moses, this place “ was a sanctuary upon an oasis in the desert, in whose still solitude an oracle had its seat ; ” and that “ as from Egypt pilgrimages were made to the near oracle of Ammon in the desert, so from Edom and other adjacent districts many oracle seekers, in the most ancient times . . . came to Kadesh,” “ in order to know the decisions of the gods.” But of this there is no proof. It is, at the best, only an inference from the name given it in its first Bible mention . 5 1 Gen. 14 : 7. 2 This view is taken by Grotius, and Fagius, as cited in Crit. Sac. ; by the Speaker’s Com.; Kalisch’s Com. ; all in loco ; also by Ewald {Hist, of Israel , II., 193) ; Ritter {Geog. of Pal., I., 428); Stanley {Hist, of Jewish Ch., I., 202) ; and others. 3 So think : Jerome {Com. on Genesis) ; “ Rashi” {’al ha- Torah) ; Tremellius and Junius {Genevan Bible) ; Patrick {Crit. Com.); Menochius, Fischer, a Lapide, and Bonfrerius, as cited in Pool’s Synops. Crit. ; Bush {Notes on Gen.); all in loco; and many others. “ Rashi ” is wrongly cited by Grotius, as deeming the name En-mishpat the earlier one; and this misquotation is perpetuated through the Critici Sacri, the Synopsis Criticorum , and later works, after the common mistake of failing to verify quotations by a reference to the original. 4 See Ewald, Ritter, and Stanley, as above. 5 In the Targum of Onkelos {in loco), En-mishpat is paraphrased, maishar pelug deena “Plain of Division of Judgment.” This paraphrase is 44 KA DESH-BA RNEA , 4. THE WILDERNESS OF THE WALL. Kadesh next appears in the Bible text as an apparently well- known landmark eastward, or possibly northward, as over against “Bered” and “Shur” on the west, or south. Hagar had fled from the Hebron home of Abraham, down along the caravan road toward Egypt. She had rested by a prominent watering-place of that route — “ the fountain in the Way of Shur.” 1 The location of that fountain is described as “ between Kadesh and Bered .” 2 Again, Abraham moved down from Hebron through the Negeb, desertward ; and he sojourned at a point “ between Kadesh and Shur ; ” 3 also “ at Gerar,” which, again, may have been the point indicated as “ between Kadesh and Shur.” Shur is subsequently referred to in the text as “ before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria ; ” 4 and again as “ over against Egypt ; ” 5 and as “ even unto the land of Egypt .” 6 “ Before Egypt,” here, clearly means “ in the face of” Egypt, east of Egypt . 7 “ As thou goest to Assyria ” means one of two things : understood by “ Rashi” as indicating the opinion of Onkelos that here was a seat of judgment for the surrounding peoples. Rashi’s elaboration of the simple statement by Onkelos, with which Rashi disagrees, is cited by Grotius, and farther elaborated by the fanciful Ewald ; to be adopted and re-elaborated by Stanley and others. i Gen. 16 : 7. The spot by which ' the angel of the Lord found ’ Hagar was not merely * a foun- tain of water,’ as we read in our version, but a well-known spot, ‘ the spring’ of water in the wilderness — 1 the spring in the way of Shur.’ ” (Stanley’s Sinai and Pal., p. 477.) a Gen. 16 : 14. 3 Gen. 20 : 1. 4 Gen. 25 : 18. 5 1 Sam. 15 : 7. 6 1 Sam. 27 : 8. 7 “ The points of the compass were marked by the Jews after the following man- ner: With the face turned to the rising of the sun, before is east; behind [or “ back- side ” (Exod. 3: 1), see Gesenius’s Heb. Lex. s. v. “Achor”] is west; the right- hand is the south; the left-hand the north Theman and Jamin [Yemen], denoting the south, means lying on the right hand.” (Von Raumer’s Palastina, p. 20.) On this subject of orientation see Michaelis’s Dissertatio de Locorum Differentia. Egyptian and Assyrian orientation differed, however, from the Hebrew. THE WILDERNESS OF THE WALL. 45 either, in the direction of Assyria ; that is, northeastward ; or, more probably, on the highway to Assyria ; that is, by way of Damascus. The only feasible highway from Egypt to Assyria, was and is, northward through Syria, and thence southeasterly through Mesopotamia ; never across the trackless Arabian desert . 1 “ Shur ” means “ a wall ; ” and from its meaning, as well as from the various references to it in the text, it would seem clear that Shur was a wall, or barrier, of some kind, across the great north- eastern highways out of Egypt, and this at a point on or near the eastern boundary line of Egypt. A favorite identification of Shur has been in a range of moun- tains a little to the eastward from the Gulf of Suez, having the appearance of a wall, and bearing the name Jebel er-Rahah, being in fact the northwestern end, or extension, of Jebel et-Teeh . 2 “ As 1 See page 35, supra. There seems hardly room for doubt on this point. The physical structure of the region, and all history, biblical and extra-biblical, tends to its proof. Yet Mr. J. Baker Greene, in his nondescript work, The Hebrew Migration from Egypt (p. 168, note), says of this reference to Shur in Genesis 25: 18: “This passage is somewhat ambiguous. It means, as is most probable, that a traveler from Judea to Assyria would descend the Araba [ ! ! ], and thus have on his right hand, between him and Egypt, the plateau of Et Tib, known as the midbhar of Shur. If the trav- eler cross the Jordan on his way to Assyria, this reference to Shur and Egypt is un- intelligible.” And this remarkable statement is a fair illustration of the confused jumbling of that entire work, in its dealings with geography, history, and philology. 2 “ Some twelve or fourteen miles from the coast, and parallel to it, runs Jebel er- R&hah, appearing in the distance as a long, flat-headed range of white cliffs, which forms, as it were, a wall inclosing the desert on the north. Hence probably arose the name of the ‘ Wilderness of Shur ’ (Exod. 15 : 22) ; for the meaning of the name Shur is ‘a wall.’ ” (F. W. Holland, in The Recovery of Jerusalem , p. 527.) This view is accepted by Porter, in Alexander’s Kitto, Art. “Wandering, Wilder- ness of ; ” Bartlett, in his From Egypt to Palestine , p. 186 ; by the Editor of the Queen’s Printers’ Aids to the Student of the Holy Bible , p. 28 ; and others. Rowlands reports the name “ Jebel es-Sffr ” as still given by the Arabs to this mountain range (see Williams’s Holy City, p. 489, and Imp. Bib. Die., s. v. “ Shur”). He is followed in this by Wilton ( The Negeb, p. 6) ; Tuch {Jour, of Sac. Lit. for 46 KADESII-BARNEA. we stand at ? Ay un Musa/’ says Palmer , 1 “ and glance over the desert at the Jebels er-Rahah and et-Tih, which border the gleam- ing plain, we at once appreciate the fact that these long wall-like escarpments are the chief, if not the only, prominent characteristics of this portion of the wilderness, and we need not wonder that the Israelites should have named this memorable spot after its most salient feature, the wilderness of Shur, or the wall.” But a prime objection to this identification is, that Jebel er-Rahah does not stand u before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria.” It is too far south for that. A “ Avail,” better meeting the requirements of the text than this mountain range, is to be looked for ; nor will a search for it be in vain . 2 Inasmuch as there Avas a great defensive Wall built across the eastern frontier of Egypt, “ as thou goest toAvard Assyria ; ” a Wall that was hardly less prominent in the history of ancient Egypt than has been the Great Wall of China in the history of the “ Middle Kingdom ;” it would seem the most natural thing in the Avorld, to suppose that the biblical mentions of the Wall “ that is before Egypt,” had reference to — the Wall that was before Egypt. The earliest discovered mention of this Wall is in an ancient papyrus of the Twelfth Dynasty (of the old 3 Egyptian empire, July, 1848, p. 89) ; Stewart ( Tent and Khan, p. 54) ; Faussett (Bib. Cyc., s. v. “ Shur ”) ; Burton ( Gold Mines of Mid., p. 101) ; and others. Yet this mountain may take its name from the wilderness, instead of giving a name to it, if in fact the name is to be found there. Laborde, indeed, applies the name “ Djebel Soar” to a mountain peak still eastward of the Rahah range (see Map in his Voyage de V Arabie Petrel.) 1 Dcs. of Exod., I., 38/. 2 Others, again, have counted Shur as the name of a town on the Egyptian bor- ders, toward Arabia. So, e. g., Ewald (Hist, of Israel, II., 194, note) ; Kurtz (Hist, of Old Cov., III., 13) ; R. S. Pool (Smith- Hackett Bib. Die., s. v. “ Shur”) ; and others. 3 The terms Old Empire, and Middle Empire, and New Empire are employed dif- ferently by different writers. Lepsius, Bunsen, Ebers, Chabas and others speak of all the dynasties which preceded the Hykshos kings, as the Old Empire. \\ ilkinson, THE WILDERNESS OF THE WALL. 47 prior to the clays of the Hykshos invasion), which was obtained by Lepsius for the Museum of Berlin. This papyrus gives the stoiy of Sineh, or Saneha, an Egyptian traveler into the lands eastward from Egypt. As he journeyed, he came to the frontier Wall “ which the king had made to keep off the Sakti,” or eastern for- eigners. It was a closely guarded barrier. There were “ watchers upon the Wall in daily rotation.” Eluding the sentries in the darkness of the night, he wandered beyond in a dry and thirsty land, like that which the Hebrews found in that same Wilderness of the Wall several centuries after him, when their cry was, u What shall we drink ?” 1 His story was : “Thirst overtook me in my journey; My throat was parched, I said, This is the taste of death .’’ 2 Chabas 3 understands the term “Anbu,” which is here rendered the Wall, and which is of frequent recurrence in the Egyptian records, to refer to a defensive Wall 4 built across the eastern front of Lower Egypt by the first king of the Twelfth Dynasty — - Amenemhat I. And Ebers 5 coincides fully with Chabas in this understanding. Again in one of the Anastasi Papyri, of the Nineteenth Dynasty, preserved in the British Museum, this Wall is mentioned in the report from a scribe of an effort to re-capture two fugitive slaves who had fled towards the eastern desert ; and who, before he could Birch, Brugsch, Rawlinson, Mariette, and others, put the beginning of the Middle Empire at an earlier period than the Hykshos domination. Hence the Twelfth Dynasty would by some be counted in the Old Empire ; by others, in the Middle Empire. 1 Exod. 15 : 22-24. 2 Goodwin’s translation in Rec. of Past, VI., 136. See also Brugsch’s Hist, of Egypt, I., 147. The papyrus itself is given in facsimile in Lepsius’s Denkmaler, Abth. VI., Bl. 104. 3 Etudes sur V Antique Histoire, p. 99 jf. 4 “La muraille defensive ” 5 JEgypt. u. d. Bucli. Mose's, pp. 78-85. 48 KADESH-BARNEA. overtake them, had already “ got beyond the region of the Wall to Uie north of the migdol of king Seti Mineptah.” 1 In explanation of the term Wall as found in this papyrus, Brugsch says that there was at that time “ at the entrance of the road leading to Palestine, near the Lake Sirbonis, a small fortifi- cation, to which, as early as the time of the Nineteenth Dynasty, the Egyptians gave the name Anbu, that is ‘ the wall/ or ‘ fence/ a name which the Greeks translated according to their custom, calling it Gerrhon (to Ei/>/5ov), or in the plural Gerrha ( za Yippa). The Hebrews likewise rendered the meaning of the Egyptian name by a translation, designating the military post on the Egyp- tian frontier by the name of ‘Shur/ which in their language signifies exactly the same as the word ‘Anbu ’ in Egyptian, and the word ‘Gerrhon’ in Greek, namely the ‘Wall.’” 2 That the “Wall” of the Egyptian frontier was not limited to a single small fortress near the Lake Serbonis, as would seem to be intimated in this explanation by Brugsch, is apparent from his own History, while it is also abundantly evidenced from various other sources. 3 In speaking of Aahmes, or Amasis, the first king of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Brugsch says that, having driven out the eastern foreigners from Egypt, the king sufficiently protected the eastern frontier of the Low Country against new invasions by a line of fortresses . 4 And again, Brugsch refers to the Wall as barring the road out of Egypt desertward, in the days of Arnen- 1 Brugsch’s Ilist. of Egypt, II., 138, 389. 2 Ibid . II., 375. 3 Indeed, the very term “Anbu,” which Brugsch gives as the designation of the Wall-fortress, is the plural form ; its singular being “Anb.” (See Renouf ’s Egyptian Grammar , pp. 5, 11; also Bunsen’s “Dictionary” in Egypt's Place in Univ. Hist., Vol. V., p. 345.) And Brugsch finds also the plural form “ Gerrha,” in the Greek. A reference to Brugsch’s Dictionnaire Geographique (p. 52) shows that the ideo- gram for Anb (“ Wall ”) is accompanied with the determinatives of the plural ; and his translation of it there (where it does not affect his theory of the exodus) is in the plural, “les mur allies V 4 Brugsch’s Hist, of Egypt , I., 320. THE WILDERNESS OF THE WALL. 49 emhat I., of the Twelfth Dynasty. 1 One fort could not fairly be called a Wall; nor could it be “a line of fortresses.” As to the period of the original building of this frontier Wall, and as to its precise limits, there has been much confusion among historians; far more than as to the existence of the Wall itself. Diodorus Siculus, writing, nineteen centuries ago, of the wonderful exploits of Sesoosis, or Sesostris (who seems to have been a com- position-hero, made up of the facts and legends of the greater Egyptian sovereigns from the earlier to the later days), records that that king “ walled the side of Egypt that inclines eastward against Syria and Arabia, from Pelusium to Heliopolis, the length being about fifteen hundred stadia ; ” 2 say one hundred and eighty- four English miles. Abulfeda, 3 early in the fourteenth century, gave the Arabic traditions of the building of the Great Wall of Egypt. His Arabic designations of the Pharaohs mentioned (Delukah, Darkon, Ibn-Bekthus, Todas, etc.), do not help to the identifying of the dynasties ; but his narrative evidently has to do with the time of the expulsion of the Hykshos kings, — or the “Amalekites ” as he calls them, — and the domination of their suc- cessors. Of the king Delukah, — “ who is called El- J Ajoos,” or “The Old Woman,” — Abulfeda say£: “And he built before the land of Egypt, from one of its regions at the edge of Aswan, to the other, a Wall contiguous to this end,” — the eastern or Arabian side. It is noteworthy that the Arabic word here used for Wall is “ Sura,” 4 an equivalent of the Hebrew “ Shur.” From the statement of Diodorus, the Wall would seem to have run from Pelusium to Heliopolis; and this statement has been accepted by most of the modern historians of Egypt. Birch, in 1 Brugsch’s Hist, of Egypt, I., 147 ; also in his Diet. Geog., p. 52. 2 ’E telxige tie ml ryv tt pog avaTolag vemvoav irlevpav Trjg Alyvirrov tv pog Tag arro ryg 'Zvpiag ml ryg ’A pa/3'iag kp^oTidg, ano DtjTiovolov pe^pio ‘KTuovTrdfeug, did ryg kpfjuov, to urjKog exl GTaSiovg %iNiovg ml nevTamaiovg. ( Bibl . Hist., I., 57.) 3 In his Historia Anteislamica, p. 102 f. 4 50 KADESH-BARNEA. adopting it, would identify the “Sesoosis” of Diodorus with Raineses II., of whom he says : “ On the eastern side of Egypt he finished a great Wall, commenced by his father Seti, from Pelu- sium to Heliopolis, as a bulwark against the Asiatics.” 1 Graetz 2 and Rawlinson 3 also accept the Wall limits as given by Diodorus. But Abulfeda extends the line of Wall very greatly, and Wilkinson seems inclined to a similar view, which he would sustain out of the facts of his own observing. He says explicitly : “ That such a Wall was actually made by one of the Egyptian monarchs, we have positive proof from the vestiges which remain in different parts of the valley. It was not confined to Lower Egypt, or to the east of the Delta from Pelusium to Heliopolis, but continued to the Ethiopian frontier at Syene ; and though the increase of the alluvial deposit has almost concealed it in the low lands overflowed during the inundation of the waters of the Nile, it is traced in many of the higher parts, especially when founded upon the rocky eminences bordering the river. The modern Egyptians have several idle legends respecting this Wall, some of which ascribe it to a king, or rather to a queen, anxious to prevent an obnoxious stranger from intruding on the retirement of her beautiful daughter : and the name applied to it is Gisr el Agoos, or ‘ the Old Woman’s Dyke.’ 4 It is of crude brick : the principal portion that remains may be seen at Gebel e’ Tayr, a little below Minyeh ; and I have even traced small fragments of the same kind of building on the western side of the valley, particularly in the Fyoom.” 5 Sharpe, 6 on the other hand, referring to Procopius, tells of the remains “ of the Roman Wall,” built in the days of Diocletian as 1 Egypt, p. 125. 2 Gesch. der Juden, I., 378-390. 3 Hist, of Anc. Egypt, II., 325/. 4 Gisr commonly means “bridge,” or “causeway,” or “threshold,” rather than “dyke,” as is shown farther on in this ’work. See Index, s. v. “Gisr.” 5 Wilkinson’s Anc. Egyptians, I., 71. See also his Egypt and Thebes, p. 368. 6 Hist, of Egypt, Chap. XVII., § 39. THE WILDERNESS OF THE WALL. 51 a protection against the inroads of troublesome neighbors from the south of Egypt ; remains which are still to be seen at the east of the Nile, north of the first cataract. And it is certainly not un- fair to suppose that different portions of the Egyptian border were walled at different times against different enemies, and that the remains of any and all of these different walls are liable to be con- nected in the minds of the Arabs, and even in the minds of intelligent discoverers, with the traditions and history of the Great Wall which was “ before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria.” 1 Certainly if one were to judge of the natural probabilities of the case, a Wall of this kind built for the protection of Egypt against Eastern invaders would run from the Mediterranean (say at Pelusium, or east of it) to what we now call the Gulf of Suez, rather than directly to a point as far westward as Heliopolis. But the distance named by Diodorus as the length of the Wall is great enough to admit of a Avail from Pelusium to the Gulf of Suez (across the Isthmus), and thence omvard to Heliopolis ; in other Avords, from Pelusium to Heliopolis, by way of the Gulf. Such a line would doubly fortify the Egyptian frontier. Inasmuch as the Great Canal , 2 built, like the Great Wall, by the ambiguous Sesostris , 3 had its eastern entrance into the Gulf of Suez, with a 1 Gen. 25: 18. 2 For facts as to the Great Canal, its route and its building, see “ Memoire sur le Canal des deux Mers,” in the Napoleonic Description de VEgypte , Yol. I., pp. 21- 186 ; Wilkinson’s Anc. Egyptians, I., 47-49, 110, with references to Strabo, Pliny, and Aristotle ; Brugsch’s Hist, of Egypt, II., 310-323 ; Ebers’s JEgypt. u. die Buck. Mose's, p. 80 ; Glynn’s paper “On the Isthmus of Suez and the Canals of Egypt,” with the discussion following it, in Proceedings of Inst, of Civil Engineers of Great Britain, Yol. X. (1851), pp. 369-375 ; Ritt’s Hist, de I’Isthm. de Suez, pp. 14-41; etc. 3 The Great Canal was certainly cut as early as the days of Setee I., of the Nine- teenth Dynasty; Bunsen {Egypt's Place in Univ. Hist., Vol. II., p. 299) claims that the canal -building was begun as early as the Twelfth Dynasty, by the kings who contributed to the “Sesostris” composition; and Ebers {Piet. Egypt, II., 19) says: “ From the appearance of fortresses and the Great Wall of Egypt, it is supposed that an old canal existed as early as the Fifth Dynasty.” 52 KADESH-BARNEA. branch running northerly toward Pelusium, it would be a most unreasonable supposition that the Great Wall was diagonally across the Great Canal, midway of its course ; or that the Wall built for the protection of Egypt should leave the Canal, with all its importance as a means of communication and transportation, unprotected, and at the mercy of the enemy against whom the Wall was upreared. Such a reflection on the engineering ability and the military foresight of a people like the ancient Egyptians, is not to be seriously thought of. The Great Wall must have touched the head of the Heroopolitan Gulf at the eastward of the Great Canal, in whatsoever direction it may have run after that. As to the confusion concerning the period of the original build- ing of the Wall, a plausible explanation at once suggests itself. At least as early as the Twelfth Dynasty — prior to the Hykshos domination — this Wall was erected to guard against incursions from the East. But, during the Hykshos supremacy it was prob- ably leveled to the ground, or suffered to fall into disuse and decay ; because it was in the direction of the friends rather than the foes of the ruling power of Egypt . 1 On the expulsion of the Hykshos, however, this Wall would hardly fail to be rebuilt at once, and its defenses strengthened, in order to keep out the dreaded enemies from the East. The rebuilding of the Wall would, as a matter of course, be claimed as its original building. That was the way of Egyptian kings . 2 Another element of confusion, which is also an added explana- tion of the twofold origin of the Wall, is found in the ambiguity 1 Yet Manetho, as quoted in Josephus’s Against Apion , Book I., $ 14, tells of a line of defenses erected by a Hykshos king along his eastern border “ for fear of an invasion from the Assyrians.” This, however, may have been a temporary rebuild- ing of the before neglected Great Wall. 2 Thus, for example, the temple of Osiris at Abydos, built by King Usertesen I., of the Twelfth Dynasty, was rebuilt by Setee I. and Rameses II. of the Nineteenth Dynasty, and their names are recorded with much boastfulness, as its real builders. (See Brugsch’s Hist, of Egypt , I., 162 /., and II., 27-29.) 53 THE WILDERNESS OF THE WALL. attaching to the identity of the king mentioned by Diodorus as its builder. Manetho gives the name of “ Sesostris,” as a king in the Twelfth Dynasty ; 1 yet the Sesostris referred to by Diodorus, and by Greek historians before and after him, has been commonly understood to be Raineses II., with more or less of the added glory of his immediate predecessors. Birch 2 and Brugsch 3 would identify Rameses II. with Sesostris. Villiers Stuart 4 prefers an identification with Rameses III. Lenormant 5 thinks that the story of Sesostris was a growth rather than a history, a traditional composition rather than an individual character ; that “ a legend gradually formed in the course of ages, attributing to one person all the exploits of the conquerors and warlike princes of Egypt, both of Thothmes and Seti, as well as of the various Rameses, and magnifying these exploits by extending them to every known country, as legends always do.” Wilkinson 6 is more specific in a plausible explanation of the confusion over Sesostris. “ I . . . . suppose,” he says, “ that Sesostris was an ancient king famed for his exploits, and the hero of early Egyptian history ; but that after Rameses had surpassed them and become the favorite of his country, the renown and name of the former monarch were trans- ferred to the more conspicuous hero of a later age.” Bunsen 7 even attempts to show who were the former monarchs whose exploits gave the start to the story of “ Sesostris.” He would find them in 1 See “ Dynasties of Manetho,” quoted in Cory’s Ancient Fragments , p. 117. 2 “ Sesostris is Rameses II. of the Nineteenth Dynasty.” (Birch in Wilkinson’s Anc. Egyptians , I., 71, note.) 3 In his History of Egypt (II., 35) Brugsch says of Rameses II. : “ This is . . . the Sethosis who is also called Ramesses of the Manethonian record, and the renowned legendary conqueror Sesotris of the Greek historians.” 4 “ Rameses the Third was also a mighty conqueror, and as he lived nearer the commencement of Greek history, he was better known to the Greeks, and was in fact their Sesostris.” {Nile Gleanings, p. 243.) s Anc. Hist, of East, I., 246. 6 Anc. Egyptians, I., 44. 7 Egypt's Place in Univ. Hist., Vol. II., pp. 282-304. 54 KADESH-BARNEA. “ two great kings of the Old Empire : ” Amenemhat II. and Usertesen II. ; called by Manetho, Sesortosis II. and Sesortosis III. Of the first named of these two kings, Bunsen says : “ In Manetho’s lists there is this remarkable notice annexed to the second Sesortosis, that ‘ he is the real Sesostris/ the great con- queror ; the lists, indeed, never mention him by any other name.” But Bunsen adds, that it is the third Sesortosis whom the monu- ments represent as the great hero, and to whom succeeding genera- tions paid divine honors as next to Osiris. Moreover, Bunsen refers to a still earlier Egyptian hero, of the Third Dynasty, called Sesostris, by Aristotle. In view of all this confusion over the per- sonality and the period of the hero Sesostris, it cannot be deemed strange that such undertakings as the Great Wall and the Great Canal should be credited to Setee I. and Rameses II., who clearly had something to do with them, when in reality the work on them had been begun by some of the far earlier component elements of the Sesostrian character — which these later kings would fain monopolize. But apart from all seeming or real discrepancies concerning the date of its building, or the precise direction and extent of its line, the Great Wall itself is an indisputable, positive fact. And that its northern terminus was at or near Pelusium seems equally clear . 1 It is therefore fair to suppose that this frontier fortifying Wall was known to various peoples by their own word for such a Wall (“ Anbu,” “ Shur,” “ Gerrha,” “Sura”), rather- than by one proper name accepted alike in all languages. Nor is it unlikely that the northernmost flank-fortress of this Wall was known as the Wall-fortress, by pre-eminence in that direc- tion. Thus Ptolemy 2 makes mention of “ Gerrhon horion ” 3 — 1 Ebers ( JEgypt . u. die Bitch. Hose's, pp. 82-84) quotes from Lepsius ( Monatsher . der 7c. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin , Mai, 1866) to show that the latter found unmistakable ruins of this Wall below Pelusium ; and he also shows that traces were found along the line of the Suez Canal, during the cutting of that work. 2 Geog., Lib. IV., Cap. 5. 3 Teppov opiov. THE WILDERNESS OF THE WALL. 55 the Boundary- Wall — locating it at a short distance eastward of Pelusium. Josephus seems to have the stretch of the Great Wall in mind when he repeats the story of Saul’s triumph over the Amalekites, as given in 1 Samuel 15:7: “ And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur [the Wall] that is over against Egypt.” Josephus, paraphrasing this narration, tells of the time when “ Saul had conquered all these Amalekites [up to Shur, or the Wall] that reached from Pelusium of Egypt to the Red Sea.” 1 Here Josephus indicates the line of the Wall [called Shur in the Hebrew text] just as the fullest light of the present shows it to have been. Yet, singularly enough, many careful scholars, missing the true meaning of “ Shur,” have supposed that Josephus would identify Pelusium with Shur, and have accepted this identification accordingly, or have argued against it. 2 There is no more reason, however, for claiming that Josephus identified Pelusium with Shur, than that he identified the Red Sea, or the Gulf of Suez, with Shur. Shur, or the Wall, ran from Pelusium to the Gulf of Suez ; and that fact seems to have been recognized by Josephus. 3 It had not been forgotten in his day. 1 Antiq., Bk. VI., Chap. 7, £ 3. 2 See Michaelis, on Abulfeda’s Tabula HZgypti, note 141 ; Gesenius’s Thesaur., s. v. “ Shur ; ” Kurtz’s Hist, of Old Cov., III., 13 ; Sharpe’s Bevision, at Gen. 25 : 18 ; Speaker’s Com., and Schaff-Lange Com., at Gen. 16 : 7. 3 A disputed — and at the best an obscure — reading of the Septuagint, at a similar reference to “ Shur,” in 1 Sam. 27 : 8, possibly has some light thrown on it by this view of the Great Wall of Egypt. As we have it in our English version, the Amalekites and others “ were of old the inhabitants of the land as thou goest to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt.” The critical reading of the Septuagint (as indicated by Tischendorf and others) just here is : cnro avrjKovruv rj and TeXayipnvp TETeixt-apevuv; apo anekonton he apo Gelampsour teteichismenon ; which gives no clear meaning. But the common reading of the Septuagint is : ’ y and Te?.a/ucovp and avrjKovrov Tereixiopevav; he apo Gelamsour apo anekonton teteichismenon; “the [land] from Gelamsour, from the fortifications belonging [or, possibly, reaching] thereto.” It would look as if the LXX. had added a gloss, to indicate that the 56 KADESH-BARNEA. It would even seem that the very name of ancient Egypt, as given to it by the eastern nations beyond it, may have had a refer- ence to the Great Wall which shut it in from the eastward. Ebers, and Brugsch, and Birch, and Fiirst, have shown 1 that the name by which Egypt is called in the language of the Assyrians and the Persians, as well as of the ancient Hebrews and the modern Arabs (all of their records dating later than the building of the Great Wall), is in various shapings of “an original form which consisted of the three letters M-z-r ; ” a form which appears in the Hebrew as in the singular Mazor (nto), 2 and as, in the dual, Mizraim (onvp) 3 — the Two Egypts, Upper and Lower. The idea common to the various designations is an “ enclosure,” a “ fortress,” a “ defense,” a “ wall,” a “ limit,” or a “ boundary.” 4 This desig- nation “ was originally applied only to a certain definite part of Egypt in the east of the Delta;” the very portion which was bounds were up to the old fortified line of Egypt. Nor is it improbable that the Gelamsour was a compound, through an error in transcribing, of ’olam and Shur, of the Hebrew text. 1 See Ebers’s JEgypt. u. die Buck. Hose's (with references to Spiegel, Rawlinson, Lerch, etc.), pp. 85-90; Brugsch’s Hist, of Egypt , I., 18, 231, II., 237-383; Birch’s Egypt , Introduction, p. 7 ; Furst’s Heb. Lex., s. v. “ Mitsraim ” (with references to Herodotus, Diodorus, Strabo, Istachri, Bochart, and Champollion). Fiirst even sug- gests that the name “ Egypt,” or “ iEgyptos” \_AlyvKTof], may have a connection with the Sanskrit “ aguptas,” “ fortified.” This suggestion gives a new force to the state- ment of Manetho (see Josephus Against Apion , Book I.) that JEgyptus was another name of Sethosis, or Sesostris, and that from him the name was given to the country. Thus, Sesostris, the Fortifier, or the Waller, of ACgypt, gave the name the Fortified Land, or the Walled Land, to the Land of Egypt; or, rather, the Land he had Walled gave its name to him as the Waller. 2 2 Kin'gs 19 : 24, and Isa. 37 : 25, translated in A. V. “ besieged places ; ” Isa. 19 : 6, translated “ defense ; ” in all these places probably meaning Lower Egypt. (See Gesenius’s Heb. Lex., s. v. “ Matsor.”) 3 Old Testament, passim , 4 See Gesenius, Fiirst, Ebers, and Brugsch, as above. See also Speaker's Com. at Gen. 10 : 6. Sayce, in a note to Tomkins’s Times of Abraham, p. 213, says : “ Matsor, ‘ fortified place,’ or ‘ fortification ; ’ hence Mitsraim — ‘ the two defenses,’ Upper and Lower Egypt.” THE WILDERNESS OF THE WALL. 57 shut in, fortified, limited, bounded, by the Great Wall from the Mediterranean Sea to the Heroopolitan Gulf. Nor is it strange that the Assyrians called by the name “ Muzur” or the Walled or Fortified Land, that region which was immediately behind the Great Wall that was “ before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assy- ria / 7 1 Sayce is positive on this point. He says : 2 “ Egypt was considered to belong to Asia rather than to Africa. From its division into Upper and Lower came the name Mizraim/the Two Matsors , 7 Matsor being properly ‘ the Fortification 7 which defended the country on the Asiatic side . 77 With the Great Wall standing there across the entrance of Lower Egypt, as a barrier and a landmark between the Delta and the Desert, it follows almost as a matter of course that the region on either side of the Wall should bear the name of the Wall : on the western side was the Land of Mazor, • the Land Walled in ; on the eastern side was the Wilderness of Shur, the Wilderness Walled out. Hence, it comes to pass, that the desert country eastward of Lower Egypt is known in the Bible as the Wilderness of Shur . 3 And this understanding of the term corresponds with the references to this wilderness in the Chaldaic Paraphrase , 4 and in the Talmud , 5 as also with the 1 Gen. 25 : 18. 2 “ The Ethnology of the Bible,” and “ The Bible and the Monuments,” in The Queen’s Printers’ Aids to Student of Bible , pp. 64, 66. 3 Exod. 15 : 22. 4 The Targum of Onkelos, at Exodus 15: 22, reads: “Wilderness of Khagra” ('fcOiny Khagra is a Chaldaic noun derived from the same root as the Hebrew verb Khaghar pjn), “ to bind firmly,” “ to enclose,” “ to gird about.” Compare the Hebrew Khaghor pVin), “a girdle,” and Khaghor pUn), “begirt.” 5 “ In the Talmud, the word Shur is translated by Coub [30 Koobh], and also by Halougah ; the Targum of the Pseudo- Jonathan has also this last name. The Coub of the Talmud is without doubt identical with the country of the same name men- tioned by Ezekiel (30: 5) [Chub], and consequently it is situated between Egypt and Palestine, toward the southwest [from Palestine]. The Talmud gives to this desert nine hundred square parsa. The modern interpreters of the Bible say, that 58 KADESH-BARNEA. modern Arabic identification of the Desert of Shur as the Desert el-Jifar . 1 This recognizing of the Great Wall which was before Egypt as the Shur of the Hebrew Scriptures, throws a new light on the story of the exodus. Indeed the clue which is hereby given to the main facts of the route of that exodus is too important to be over- looked, or to be passed by with a hasty examination ; yet it in- volves quite too much to be fittingly considered in the course of this study of the location of Kadesh. It is, therefore, relegated to a supplemental place in this volume, in order to its fuller and separate treatment in all its varied bearings . 2 5. A TYPICAL TRAINING PLACE. To find that Shur was the great Boundary Wall of Egypt, desert ward, and that Kadesh was a sanctuary-stronghold on the desert-border of the Land of Canaan, is to find a deeper and a pregnant meaning in the inspired record, that “ Abraham to traverse the desert of Shur a journey of seven days is required. Halou§ah is prob- ably the village of Elusa [or, Khalusa], in Palestina Tertia. Ptolemy counts it as an Idumean city. We have seen that the desert of Shur extends from Egypt to the southwest of Palestine ; one can then render Shur by Halouyah in speaking of the side [of the desert] from the town where one would reach it in going out from Hebron as did Hagar.” (Neubauer, Geog. du Talmud, p. 409/.) 1 Kurtz {Hist, of Old Cov., III., 13) says “ that the desert of Shur was the entire tract of desert by which Egypt was bounded on the east. . . . Saadias renders Shur ‘ el Jifar.’ But by the desert of el Jifar the modern Arabians understand the tract which lies between Egypt and the more elevated desert of Et-Tih, and stretches from the Mediterranean to the Gulf of Suez.” On this point, see a quotation from Tuch, farther on in this work. For reference to it see Index, s. v. “Paran.” Niebuhr (Beschr. von Ar alien, p. 400) suggests that the name Toor, “ the well-known haven on the western arm of the Gulf” of Suez, is a reminiscence of “ Shur.” The possibility of this would seem to be in the Egyptian name “Tar,” a “fortress,” being con- founded in the lapse of time with the Arabic “ Toor,” a “ mountain.” This would show vestiges of the Wilderness of the Wall from Elusa to Toor. 2 It will be found from page 325 to page 431. A TYPICAL TRAINING-PLACE . 59 dwelled [or tarried *] between Kadesh and Shur.” 2 That state- ment no longer stands as a casual mention of a stopping-place in the patriarch’s journey ings between two ancient cities, as so many have understood it ; but it is uplifted as a typical, or illustrative, lesson out of his divinely directed experience, for the instruction and the cheer of all his descendants — by generation or by grace . 3 In the sacred story there are three great typical lands : Egypt, Arabia, Canaan. Egypt is the Land of Bondage ; 4 Arabia is the Land of Training ; 5 Canaan is the Land of Best . 6 He who would pass from Egypt to Canaan must needs go through Arabia. Shur is the Wall that separates Egypt from Arabia on the one side. Kadesh is the sanctuary-stronghold that marks the boundary-line between Canaan and Arabia on the other side. To tarry “ between Kadesh and Shur,” is to wait in Arabia between Egypt and Canaan ; is to remain in the Land of Training, between the Land of Bondage and the Land of Best. if, as we may well suppose, the story of Abraham was recorded by Moses during the long years of the Israelites’ tarry in the wilderness , 7 there was a peculiar fitness and force in this reference to the tarry of Abraham in that same region, in the application of its lessons to the Israelites in their experience and needs. They had been brought out of Egypt, the Walled Land of Bondage, in 1 Comp. Gen. 20 : 1 ; Gen. 27 : 44 ; Judges 6 : 18 ; 2 Sam. 15 : 29 ; 2 Kings 2: 2, 4. 6. 2 Geu. 20 : 1. 3 Gal. 3 : 7-9 ; Kom. 11 : 1-6. 4 Exod. 13 : 14; 20: 2; Deut. 5: 6; 6: 12; 8: 14; 13: 5; Josh. 24: 7; Judges 6:8; 2 Kings 18 : 21; Isa. 19: 1-18; Ezek. 29: 6-12; Rev. 11: 8; etc. 5 It was into Arabia that Moses was led, in his training for his work as leader and lawgiver, after his dwelling in Egypt (Exod. 2 : 11-22 ; 3 : 1-6). Elijah the prophet had his training lessons there (1 Kings 19: 1-18). And thither was Paul sent in preparation for his work as the Apostle to the Gentiles (Gal. 1 : 17). See also Deut. 8 : 1-6, 15, 16 ; Gal. 4 : 22-26. e Exod. 3: 7,8; Deut. 1 : 7,8,21; 3: 24-28; 6: 3-12; 8: 7-10; 11: 10 15 ; etc. Also Heb. 3 : 8-11, 16-18; 4: 1-11; etc. i Comp., e. g., Exod. 17 : 14; 24 : 4 ; 34: 27 ; Num. 33 : 2 ; etc. 60 KADESE-BARNEA. the hope of a speedy entrance into the Promised Land of Rest . 1 But on reaching Kadesh-barnea, the sanctuary- stronghold of the border of their expected inheritance, they had been turned back into the wilderness , 2 and were now wearily passing their lives in its desolateness, and under its privations. Their temptation was to see only the dark side of such a lot, and to repine at the divine direction which permitted it. Then it was that this story of Abraham brought its needed lessons for their instruction. Abraham had been promised a possession in Canaan. He had given up everything in order to receive it . 3 But Abraham went down into Egypt, and there even he had wavered in his faith, and had so swerved from the truth, in order to his own protection, as to draw forth a rebuke from Pharaoh for his lack of fearless straightforwardness . 4 The baneful influence of the Land of Bond- age had been felt even by him who could be called the “ Father of the Faithful,” 5 and the “ Friend of God.” 6 Abraham “ went up out of Egypt,” passed through the barriers of the Great Wall, and entered again the Promised Land . 7 But he was not yet fully fitted to possess that land. He was turned back from its southern borders, for a period of needed waiting and preparing in the Land of Training . 8 After actually having a foothold in the Promised Land of Rest, he did not at once establish himself there for a per- manency. On the contrary, “ Abraham journeyed from thence toward the South Country [the Negeb], and dwelled [tarried for a time] between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned [literally, was a stranger] in Gerar ” — which lay between those typical landmarks. How this reminder must have come home to the Israelites to whom it was first spoken by Moses ! What a light it threw on God’s dealings with themselves ! How it swept away all thought of 1 Exod. 3 : 13-17 ; 4 : 29-31. 2 Num. 14 : 26-34 ; Deut. 1 : 19-40. 3 Gen. 12 : 1-7. 4 Gen. 12 : 10-19. 5 Gen. 12 : 13 ; Gal. 3 : 6-9. 6 Gen. 12 : 2, 3 ; 18 : 17 ; 2 Chron. 20 : 7 ; Isa. 41 : 8 ; James 2 : 23. i Gen. 13 : 1-4, 14-18. 8 Gen. 20 : 1. GERAR AND BERED. 61 his harshness or severity toward them ! They could not doubt God’s Jove for Abraham. They knew that Abraham never doubted that love. Yet Abraham, their great progenitor, to whom, and through whom, had come all the promises which gave them hope of a goodly inheritance, 1 even he had been compelled to pass a period in the Land of Training before he finally had a permanent home in the Land of Rest. He had been a patient tarrier “ be- tween Kadesh and Shur,” where they were compelled to tarry. And as they were called to follow in the steps, and to wait in the training-place, of their great forerunner, the call to them was to let the same mind be in them which was also in him ; for in the darkest day of his pilgrimage, as in the brightest, “ he believed in the Lord ; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” 2 In this light of the inspired statement, it would seem that whatever uncertainty there is concerning the geographical position of Kadesh, there need be no doubt as to its typical, or illustrative, signification. And, indeed, this understanding of the case makes it clear that Kadesh is somewhere along the southern boundary of the Land of Canaan, on or near the great highway from Canaan, Egypt ward. And this gives another hint toward the fixing of its site. 6. GERAR AND BERED. Although the precise location of Abraham’s dwelling-place, as he moved downward along the great caravan route toward Egypt, and tarried between Hebron and the desert, 3 is not shown in the text, there are helps to its indicating. At a later day, Isaac seems to have followed in his father’s tracks over this same route, 4 and to have made similar stops in his journeying; for, as he passed between Gerar and Beersheba (two points reached by father and son 1 Gen. 17 : 1-8 ; Exod. 3 : 15-17. 5 Gen. 15 : 6. 3 Gen. 13: 18; 18: 1; 20: 1. 4 Gen.26:l,6. 62 KADESH-BARNEA. alike, in their dealings with the king of the Philistines ), 1 Isaac reopened the wells of water which his father had digged; “and he called their names after the names by which his father had called them .” 2 These wells were obviously not in the city of Gerar — then the chief city of the Philistines ; 3 but in the valley, or wady, of Gerar , 4 and thence along upward, or northerly, toward Beer- sheba . 5 That the land of the Philistines in the days of Abraham corre- sponded with the limits of their possessions in the days of Samson and of David, we have no reason to suppose . 6 The route of neither Abraham nor Isaac would seem to have been, at any time, in the direction of Gaza ; nor would a move have been likely to be called upward, or northward , 7 from Gerar to Beersheba, if Gerar had been near Gaza — as it has been the modern fashion to look for it . 8 It is probable that the range of the Philistines in the i Gen. 21 : 22-33 ; 26 : 26-33. 2 Gen. 26 : 6, 16-18. 3 Gen. 10 : 19 ; 20 : 1, 2 ; 26 : 6-8. 4 Gen. 26 : 17. 5 Gen. 26 : 18-23. 6 See Ritter’s Geog. of Pal., I., 30, 374, 430; Stewart’s Tent and Khan, p. 207/. “ There are no grounds whatever for believing that the country along the Mediter- ranean in the Shephelah or Lowland, which we know to have been inhabited by the Philistines from the age of Joshua downwards, was occupied by them in the times of the patriarchs. On the contrary, we are distinctly informed that not only on Abra- ham’s first arrival at Sichem, and after his return from Egypt, ‘ the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land ’ (Gen. 12 : 6 ; 13 : 7), but that this continued to be the case even two hundred years later, in the days of Jacob (Gen. 34 : 30).” (Wilton’s The Negeb, p. 245/.) “ It [Gerar] was of olde a distinct kingdome from the Philistim satrapies.” (Raleigh’s History of the World, Part I., Book II., Chap. 10, $ 2.) 7 Gen. 26 : 23. The Hebrew word ^SjT_) ya’al , would seem to indicate a northerly, certainly an upward direction. See Tristram’s Bible Places , p. 1/ 8 See Robinson’s Bib. Res., I., 189; II., 43/.; Rowlands’ letter in Williams’s Holy City, p. 488 ; Van de Velde’s Syrien u. Palastina, II., 182 ; his Map of the Holy Land, Sec. VII.; Conder’s Reports, in “Pal. Expl. Quart State.,” July, 1875, pp. 162-165; Thomson’s South. Pal. (Land and Book), pp. 196-198; Kalisch’s Com. on O. T. ; and Alford’s Genesis, at Gen. 20: 1. There are probable references to Gerar in the Geographical Lists of the Temple of GERAR AND BERED. 63 days of Abraham was along the southwestern borders of Canaan, desertward ; including the stretch westerly of the great caravan route between Egypt and Assyria already mentioned, from Beer- sheba 1 on the north, to Wady Jeroor , 2 or the Valley of Gerar, on the south. These two latter points are fairly identified ; as is also Rehoboth , 3 between them. Karnak (see Surv. of West. Pal., “Special Papers,” pp. 189, 193; and Brugsch’s Hist, of Egypt, I., 392 /). Gerar is also referred to in several of the early Christian writings (see Robinson, Stewart, Wilton, Ritter, as above ; and “ List of Metropoli- tan, Archiepiscopal, and Episcopal towns in the See of Jerusalem,” in Appendix to Palmer’s Desert of the Exodus, II., 550 ff.). But none of these references fix the location of Gerar, although some of them clearly seem to put it in the desert, south of Judah. (See also Stark’s (laza u. d. Pliilist. Kuste.) Reland ( Palcestina , p. 805) quotes Cyril in favor of the identification of Gerar at Beersheba ; and calls attention to the fact that the Arabic Version (at Gen. 20 : 1 ; 26 : 1) gives El-Chalutz (El-Khulasah, or Elusa) for Gerar. Hasius ( Regni David, et Sal., p. 290) and Cellarius ( Geog . Antiq., Lib. III., Cap. 13, p. 498) locate Gerar near Beersheba. Of all the more recent suggested identifications of the name Gerar near Gaza, there appears to be nothing more than the natural designation of great heaps of pot- tery, as Umm el-Jerr&r, the Place of Water Pots. Conder’s attempt to show that this is not the meaning in this case is met by Professor Palmer in his editing of the “Name Lists” (p. 420) of the Surv. of West. Pal. Yet “Umm Jerar” appears in Baedeker’s Palestine and Syria (p. 315) as “ the ancient Gerar ; ” and Porter ( Giant Cities of Bashan, etc., p. 209) even claims to have seen “ the Valley of Gerar” as he looked out toward the south of Gaza from “ Samson’s Hill.” 1 See Reland’s Palcestina, pp. 61, 187, 215, 484, 620; Grove, in Smith -Hacketts Bib. Die., s. v. “ Beersheba;” Robinson’s Bib. Res., I., 204 Tristram’s Land of Israel, pp. 376-380; Palmer’s Des. of Exod., II., 386-390; Bartlett’s Egypt to Pal., p. 402/.; Conder’s Tent Work in Pal., II., 92-96; Thomson’s South. Pal. (Land and Book), pp. 297-299. 2 Stewart’s Tent and Khan, pp. 207-212 ; Wilton’s The Negeb, Appendix, pp. 237- 250 ; Thomson’s South. Pal. (Land and Book), p. 198. 3 See Robinson’s Bib. Res., I., 196-198, for important facts tending to this identifi- cation, although he was hindered from accepting it by his theories as to the location of Gerar and Zephath. For reasons and opinions in its favor, see Williams’s Holy City, p. 489 ; Stewart’s Tent and Khan, p. 200 /. ; Bonar’s Des. of Sinai, pp. 313- 315; Kurtz’s Hist, of Old Cov., I., 290 /.; Wilton’s The Negeb, p. 242 /. ; Strauss’s Sinai u. Golg., p. 122; Keil and Delitzsch’s Bib. Com., I., 272 ; Palmer’s Des. of 64 KADESH- B ARNE A. Bered is not identified . 1 And, indeed, it may fairly be questioned whether it was a particular centre of habitation, rather than some more general region. It is thought by some to be another name for Shur, or for Gerar . 2 However this may be, its mention over against Kadesh, in the locating of Hagar’s Well , 3 would seem to place it in the same general direction as Shur . 4 Whatever doubts are yet unsolved concerning the precise loca- tion of Shur, and Gerar, and Bered, enough is made clear to show that both the Well of Hagar and the dwelling-place of Abraham at Gerar, or on his way to it, were on the great caravan route between Egypt and Syria, somewhere between Beersheba, on the north, and Wady Jeroor on the south; and that the site of Kadesh must be sought eastward from their neighborhood, as thus indi- Exod., II., 382-384; Tristram’s Bible Places , p. 13; Thomson’s South. Pal. (Land and Book), p. 198. 1 Yet “Bered ” is one of the places to be found noted on well-nigh all the popular maps of the Holy Land without an interrogation point ! 2 See Fries, in Stud. u. Krit ., for 1854, p. 62 ; and Grove, in Smith-Uackett’s Bib. Die., s. v. “ Bered.” 3 For a proposed identification of Hagar’s Well — Beer-lahai-roi — at Moilahi, see Rowlands’s statement, in the Appendix to Williams’s Holy City, p. 489 ff. This identification is referred to approvingly by Ritter, in Geog. of Pal., I., 432 ; Tuch, in Jour, of Sac. Lit., July, 1848, p. 94; Keil and Delitzsch, in Bib. Com., I., 222; Wilton, in The Negeb, p. 178 ; Thomson, in South. Pal. (Land and Book), p. 199. The fact that Moilahi, or Muwaylih, is a prominent watering-station on the caravan route from Egypt to Syria (as Beer-lahai-roi is declared to have been, Gen. 16 : 7), is confirmed by Robinson (Bib. Res., I., 190, 600). 4 Philo Judteus (Liber de Profugis, I., 577, Mangev’s paging), speaking of the place of Hagar’s Well, in its figurative or symbolic aspects, says : “ And most suit- able indeed is the place of this well, * between Kadesh and Barad ; ’ for Barad on the one hand is interpreted ‘among the profane’ [or, the common] ; but Kadesh, ‘holy.’ For he is on the boundary of the holy and profane who is fleeing from the evil, but not yet fit to consort with the perfectly good.” This would seem to indicate the tra- ditional site of Bered as toward Egypt ; for Egypt was the type of the profane world, as over against Palestine, or the Holy Land. THE MOUNTAIN OF THE AMORITES. 65 cated. This corresponds closely with the indications in the record of Kedor-la’omer’s march and halting-place. 7. THE MOUNTAIN OF THE AMORITES. Not until the days of the exodus does Kadesh again come into sight. But the review-narrative of the journeyings of the Israel- ites, in the opening chapter of Deuteronomy, already referred to , 1 would seem to indicate that Kadesh was the objective point after leaving Sinai, or Horeb, as preparatory to the final move into Canaan. “When we departed from Horeb,” says Moses, “we went through all that great and terrible wilderness which ye saw [became acquainted with] by the Way of [in the Koad of] the mountain [the hill country] of the Amorites; and we came to Kadesh- barnea. And I said unto you, Ye are come unto the mountain [the hill-country] of the Amorites, which the Lord our God doth give unto us. Behold the Lord thy God hath set the land before thee : go up and possess it .” 2 The Amorites, or “Highlanders,” of the Promised Land, were often spoken of as its representative people . 3 They occupied the hill-country (afterwards that of Judah and Ephraim), between the Canaanites proper — or the “ Lowlanders ” 4 — of the plains of Phi- listia and Sharon and Phoenicia on the west, and of the valley of 1 See page 2, supra. 2 Deut. 1 : 19-21. 3 Gen. 15: 16; comp. Num. 14: 45 and Deut. 1: 44; Josh. 10: 5; 24: 15; Judges 6: 10; Amos 2: 9, 10. See Grove in Smith-Hackett Bib. Die., s. v. “Amorite;” also Keil and Delitzsch’s Bib. Com., I., 216; III., 86, 284. 4 The word “ Canaan” is from a Hebrew root Kan' a (#13) meaning, “to bend the knee,” or “ to be low.” It would seem to be employed in this primitive sense in the Bible almost without exception. (See Winer’s Bibl. Bealworterb. and Smith- Hackett Bib. Die., s. v. “ Canaan.”) But there is a secondary meaning of the word, as “merchants,” or “traffickers.” (See Isa. 23: 8; Hos. 12: 7.) This may have grown out of the fact that the Lowlanders of Phoenicia became known as the fore- 66 KA DESH-BARNEA. the Jordan on the east . 1 This hill-country of the Amorites would loom up prominently before the eyes of those who approached Canaan from the south. Traces of its lower limits are even yet found in the names Dhaygat el-’Amureen (the Ravine of the Amo- rites) and Ras ’Amir (the Highland Peak, or Spur); the latter just above Jebel Muwaylih ; 2 and the former a few miles to the north and east of it. If then, Kadesh-barnea was (as would appear from this) just at the southern base of the Amorite hill-country, another indication of its site is secured, in addition to the hints obtained from Gene- sis. It must have been under one of the east and west ranges running across the desert; not lower down than Jebel Muwaylih (which is westward of Ras ’Amir) ; for at Kadesh the Israelites most traders and traffickers of the world ; as we now use the term “ Jew,” or “ Yan- kee,” to indicate the trading faculty. “The population was broadly distinguished into Canaanites, the inhabitants of the Canaan, or ‘lowlands,’ and Amorites, or ‘Highlanders.’ Canaan was originally the name of the coast on which the great trading cities of the Phoenicians stood ; but long before the time of the Israelitish invasion, the name had been extended to denote the dwellers in the plain, wherever they might be. Indeed, passages like Judges 1 : 9 show that it had been extended even farther, and had come to signify tribes which were properly Amorites. Hence it is that the language, spoken alike by the Hebrews and the older inhabitants of the country, is called ‘ the language of Canaan ’ (Isa. 19 : 18). But the earlier use of the name also survived. Thus, in Isaiah 23 : 11, it is said of Tyre that ‘ the Lord hath given a commandment against Canaan, to destroy the strongholds thereof,’ where the Authorized Version has mistranslated ‘merchant-city’ instead of Canaan. . . . The same wide extension that had been given to the name of Canaanite was given also to that of Amorite. It is possible that the title by which the kingdom of Damascus was known to the Assyrians, Gar-’imirisv, originally meant simply “the country of the Amorite.” But the Amorites, of whom we chiefly hear in the Bible, lived far away in the south, at Hebron and Jerusalem (Josh. 10: 5, 6); at Hazezon-tamar (Gen. 14: 7) and Shechem (Gen. 48 : 22 ; 2 Sam. 21 : 2), and even in Bashan on the eastern side of the Jordan (Deut. 3: 8). (Prof. A. H. Sayce in “The Sunday School Times” for June 23, 1883.) 1 Num. 13: 29; Josh. 5: 1; 10: 6. 2 Palmer’s Des. of Exod., II., 380. PAR AN AND ZIN. 67 had not yet entered the hill-country of the Amorites ; they had only come to it. And again it was evidently north of the Jebel ’Araeef range/ around the western end of which Kedor-la’omer swept northward from the Wilderness of Paran 1 2 before he came to “En-mish pat, which is Kadesh .” 3 But how far west or east, on that hill boundary-line, Kadesh was located, demands farther examination. 8. PARAN AND ZIN. In the story of the wanderings it would appear, at one time, that Kadesh was in the Wilderness of Paran ; 4 and again that it was in the Wilderness of Zin ; 5 that it was an eleven days’ jour- ney [or distance] from Horeb by the Way of Mount Seir [or by the Mount Seir Road] to Kadesh-barnea ; 6 and that Kadesh was near the outer edge of the possessions of Edom . 7 What help, or what difficulty, toward fixing the site of Kadesh, is to be found in these indications? The term “ Wilderness of Paran ” seems to be used, in its stricter sense, as including the central and northern portion of the desert region between the mountains of Sinai and the Negeb; the district now known as the “Badiyat et-Teeh Beny Israel” or the “ Desert of the Wanderings of the Children of Israel .” 8 In a larger sense 1 See Robinson’s statement quoted on page 38, supra. 2 See page 22, supra. 3 Gen. 14: 7. 4 Num. 13: 26. 5 Num. 20: 1; 27: 14; Deut. 32: 15. 6 Deut. 1:2. * Num. 20: 14-16. 8 This designation runs back in the Arabian historians as far as we have any track of their name for this desert. Abulfeda (who wrote about the year 1300) gives it in his Tabula AZgypti (p. 1). In comment on this, Michaelis says in his notes: “ Deser - turn, in quo errarunt Israelite, AEgypto proximum, ita vocant Arabes. Si quis sonos Arabicos latine expressos cupiat, hi sunt: Tih Beni Israel .” “The Arabs so call the desert near Egypt, in which the Israelites wandered. If any one wishes the Arabic sounds expressed in Latin letters, here they are : ‘ Teeh Beny Israel.’ ” Seetzen, journeying over this desert in 1807, wrote: “ Et-Teeh, according to 68 KA DESH-BA RNEA, the term may have applied to the entire wilderness region of which this Paran proper was the centre; including the various surrounding districts bearing local designations, such as the Wil- derness of Sinai , 1 the Wilderness of Zin, the Wilderness of Beer- sheba , 2 the Wilderness of Ziph , 3 the Wilderness of Maon , 4 etc. Yakoot, the renowned geographer of Hamah, is the name of the desert which is bounded by the Red Sea, Palestine, and Egypt. It is said to be forty parasangs long and broad, and to be the place where the Israelites lived just so many years [i. e. as forty] ; for which reason it is also commonly called Et-Teeh Beny Israel.’’ (Seet- zen’s Reisen durch Syrien , etc., III., 47 /.) Seetzen adds that the traditional name doubtless came through Arabic sources, as the Bed'ween have no knowledge of the story of the Israelites. Burton, through the necessity laid on him by his advocacy of another region than the Peninsula of Sinai for the place of the Law-giving, has urged that the reference to “wandering” in this designation is not to the wanderings of the Israelites. At first he said, inquiringly, in his Unexplored Syria (I., 28, note) : “ May I suggest that this term, universally translated ‘Desert of the Wanderings,’ may mean with more probability the ‘Desert of the (general) Wandering,’ that is to say, where men wander and may lose their way?” But from this starting-point of honest inquiry he seems to wander and lose his way in that desert (see his Gold-Mines of Midian, p. 98, note), until at last, in a public reference to the death of Prof. Palmer (see “ The Academy,” for May 5, 1883), he could speak sneeringly of him, as one who “ insisted upon translating, with the vulgar, ‘ Tih ’ ‘ by Wilderness of the Wanderings,’ when it simply means a wilderness where men may wander.” This is noteworthy merely as an illustration of “subjective criticism” on the part of those who would conform the facts to their own theories. There is no evidence that the desert in question was ever called “ Et-Teeh ” at an earlier date than we know it to have been called “ Et-Teeh Beny Israel.” If we are to reject the latter half of the record, what right have we to retain the former half? Indeed, it is every way probable that the earlier designation was the Wilderness of Paran ; not the Wilderness et-Teeh — either with or without the Beny Israel. See Ritter’s Geog. of Pal., I., 360, 370-376 ; Burckhardt’s Trav. in Syria, p. 448 ff. ; Palmer’s Des. of Exod., II., 284-289; Tuch in Jour, of Sac. Lit., April, 1848, p. 89/.; Kalisch’s Com. on. 0. T., at Gen. 14 : 5, 6. i Num. 10 : 12. 2 Comp. Gen. 21 : 14, 21. » Comp. 1 Sam. 23 : 14, 24; 25 : 1, 2. * “ It would not be inconsistent with the rules of Scripture nomenclature, if we suppose these accessory wilds to be sometimes included under the general name of Wilde'rness of Paran.” (Hayman in Smith- Ilackett Rib. Die., s. v. “Paran.”) See a discussion, with the same conclusion, in Wilson’s Lands of the Bible, I., 201 f. PAEAN AND ZIN. 69 This would account for the vestige of the name in Wady Fayran 1 in the lower peninsula, — if it be recognized there; and for the reference to it as in the hill-country of Judah in the days of David . 2 In this view of the sweep of the term “ Paran,” it is by no means strange to find Kadesh spoken of at one time as in the general Wilderness of Paran, and again as in, or at, the smaller district of the Wilderness of Zin. And now where was the Wilderness of Zin? It is repeatedly referred to as on the southern border of Canaan, and along the eastern portion of that border . 3 It cannot have been the extensive depression between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of ’Aqabah known as the ? Arabah, and which is a continuation of the basin of the Jordan, known above the Dead Sea as the Ghor ; for that is “ The wilderness of Paran seems to have been a name taken, in a larger and [in a] stricter sense. In the larger sense it seems to have denoted all the desert and moun- tainous tract lying between the wilderness of Shur westward or toward Egypt, and Mount Seir or the land of Edom eastward ; between the land of Canaan northwards, and the Red Sea southwards. ... In its stricter acceptation ... it is taken to denote more peculiarly that part of the desert of Stony Arabia which lies between Mount Sinai and Hazeroth to the west, and Mount Seir to the east.” (Wells’s Hist. Geog. of Old and New Test ., I., 272.) Winer ( Bibl . Realworterb ., II., 193) adopts this view, in substance; also Kalisch, as above. Comp. Gen. 21: 20, 21; Num. 10: 12, 33; 12: 16. 1 “In Wady Feiran, . . . there is an evident reminiscence of the ancient name Paran. The Bedawin are unable to pronounce the letter p, and the word becoming Faran would soon degenerate with them into Feiran.” (Palmer’s Des. of Exod., I., 20.) “ Paran (Num. 10 : 12) is no doubt the Wadi Phiran [Fayran] where formerly the town of Pharan stood.” (Schwarz’s Descript. Geog. of Pal., p. 212). Eusebius and Jerome ( Onomasticon , s.v. “Pharan”) seem to have this place in mind, although, by mistake, they locate it east instead of west of Aila. See, also, Kurtz’s Hist, of Old Cov., III., 191 /. 2 1 Sam. 25 : 1, 2. Bishop Harold Browne, in The Speaker’s Commentary, thinks that Paran should here read Maon ; but Schwarz (s. v. “ Paran ”) understands from Josephus ( Wars of the Jews, Book IV., Chap. IX.) that in the latter’s day “the Desert of Paran extended to the neighborhood of the Dead Sea,” which would include the region of David’s retreat. 3 Num. 34 : 3, 4 ; Josh. 15 : 1, 3. 70 KABESH-BARNEA. always spoken of by its own distinctive name, wliicli is also its description. Robinson has made this clear. He says : 1 “The Hebrew word ; Arabah, signifying in general 4 a desert plain, steppe/ is applied with the article ( the ’Arabah) directly as the proper name of the great valley in question in its whole length ; and has come down to us at the present day in the same form in Arabic, el-’ Arabah. We find the Hebrew ’Arabah distinctly connected with the Red Sea and Elath ; the Dead Sea itself is called the sea of the ’Arabah. It extended also toward the north to the Lake of Tiberias ; and the ’Arbotli (plains) of Jericho and Moab were parts of it . 2 The ’Arabah of the Hebrews, therefore, like the Ghor of Abulfeda, was the great valley in its whole ex- tent.” If, therefore, the ’Arabah had been intended, where the Wilderness of Zin is mentioned, it would surely have been spoken of as the ’Arabah. Directly west of the ’Arabah is a wild mountain region, rising in successive slopes or terraces from the ’Arabah in one direc- tion, and from the Desert et-Teeh in another. It now bears the name of the Arabs who inhabit it, and is commonly known as the ’Azazimeh mountains, or the ’Azazimat . 3 This is a dis- tinct and well-defined local wilderness, fully meeting the con- ditions of the various references to the Wilderness of Zin in the 1 Bib. Res., II., 186. 2 “ Heb. rD-'rn ha- Arabah, in connection with the Red Sea and Elath, Deut. 1 : 1 ; 2 : 8. As extending to the Lake of Tiberias, Josh. 12 : 3 ; 2 Sam. 4 : 7 ; 2 Kings 25 : 4. ‘Sea of the ’Arabah, the Salt Sea,’ Josh. 3: 16; 12: 3; Deut. 4: 49. ‘ Plains of Jericho, Josh. 5, 10; 2 Kings 25: 5. ‘ Plains of Moab,’ i. e., opposite Jericho, probably pastured by Moab though not within its proper territory, Deut. 34: 1, 8; Num. 22: 1. Compare Gesenius Lex. Heb., Art. nmjV’ See also Keil and Delitzsch’s Bib. Com., III., 277 /. ; and Keil’s Handbuch der Biblischen Archaologie, pp. 28-30. 3 See Palmer’s Des. of Exod., “ The Mountains of the ’Azazimeh,” Vol. II., Chap. VII.; Robinson’s Bib. Res., II., 176-179; Kurtz’s Hist, of Old Cov., III., 193/. AN ELEVEN LAYS’ COURSE. 71 Bible . 1 It may fairly be identified as that wilderness, and again as a portion of the Wilderness of Paran in its larger sense . 2 Yet its northeastern portion was probably in Edom, and it is possible that only the remainder was known as Zin. This identification of the Wilderness of Zin would locate Kadesh somewhere in the ’Azazimeh mountains ; and this corre- sponds with all previous indications of its site in the Bible text. 9. AN ELEVEN DAYS’ COURSE. The fact that Kadesh-barnea was “ eleven days ” 3 from Horeb, or Sinai, does not materially aid in its closer locating ; for that distance might be calculated to a point farther east or west, and similarly farther north or south, within a considerable range, ac- cording to the particular route followed. Distances in the East are calculated, almost universally, by time. In illustration of this, when the Arabs saw me use a mili- tary field-glass on the desert, they asked me “ how many hours ahead ” I could see through the glass. And an Arabic geographer even speaks of the river Nile as extending “ one month in the Palmer also calls this entire mountain district “ Jebel el Magrah,” describing it as a plateau, “ seventy miles in length, and from forty to fifty miles broad, commencing at Jebel ’Araif, and extending northward by a series of steps or terraces to within a short distance of Beersheba, from which it is separated by Wady er Rakhmeh.” ( Des . ofExod., II., 288/.) 1 Num. 20 : 1 ; 33 : 36 ; 34 : 3, 4 ; Josh. 15 : 1, 3. 2 “ Zin must have been a part of this wilderness [Paran], namely, the northern part ; the district stretching out from the Ghor southwesterly in high rock masses, and gradually lowering itself near Jebel el-Helal. ,, (Winer’s Bib. Realworterb ., s. v. “ Zin.”) See, also, Hayman, in Smith- Hackett Bib. Die., s. v. “ Zin ; ” Tuch, in Kitto’s Jour, of Sac. Lit., July, 1848, p. 90 /. ; Keil and Delitzsch’s Bib. Com., III., 87 ; Kalisch’s Bib. Com. on 0. T., at Gen. 14 : 6 ; Palfrey’s Led. on Jewish Script, and Antiq., I.. 417, note. * Deut. 1 : 2. 72 KADESH-BARNEA. country of the Mussulmans ; ” 1 that is, its course is equal to a month’s journeying. They have no thought of miles as a standard of measurement ; but rather of the time needed to pass the dis- tance at ordinary rates of travel. It is the caravan speed which is the standard. On regular routes, there are certain conventional day’s distances, fixed by convenience of water and camp-grounds. These may be “ long-days ” or “ short-days,” but long or short, each counts for one. If a man should post on a dromedary over two of those intervals, or five of them, between sun and sun, he would have made not one day’s journey, but two or five days, as it would be reckoned in the East. Thus, for example, it is said that Muhammad ’Alee once rode a dromedary from Suez to Cairo in eleven hours ; making, say, five days’ journey in one day. The fair thing for a day’s caravan journey, as an Oriental looks at it, remains unchanged, whether a traveler hurries or lags in his jour- neying. Whether the Israelites were a week, or two years, in making the distance between Horeb and Ivadesh, the distance by the Mount Seir Road was still “ eleven days.” That could not be changed on their account, or by their action. Almost every traveler in the East has had illustrations of the fixedness of the day’s-journey idea in the minds of Orientals. When I was going north from Jerusalem I was particularly de- sirous of hastening towards Nazareth and the Sea of Galilee, for special reasons ; and my Egyptian dragoman promised to arrange accordingly. I was willing to start early and to ride late for a few days, and yet to pay the full price for the time thus cut out of the usual course. But when it came to planning for the camping- places for each night, it actually seemed impossible for dragoman and muleteers to get it into their heads that it was practicable to stop anywhere else than at the traditionally accepted sites. They were willing to start at any hour I would name, but when they , i “Abd-er-Kashid El-Bakouy,” as cited in Memoirs Relative to Egypt, p. 436. AN ELEVEN DAYS' COURSE. 73 came to the old-time camp-ground they must camp. At last my dragoman entreated me to abandon the effort at the impossible. In my own country I could do as I pleased, he said ; but in their country each day’s journey on the roads they traveled had been fixed by their fathers ; and neither they nor I could change it. So I actually yielded the point because of its seeming impracti- cability, as they looked at it. Had I wished to make a hurried run, day and night, with a single attendant, they could have understood that ; but for a cara- van to attempt to change the division of the road into day’s jour- neys — that was out of the question. And as it is now, so it has been, and so it is likely to be, in the East. When Moses named “ eleven days ” as the stretch between Horeb and Kadesh-barnea by the route they had come, every Israelite knew exactly what he meant, whether we understand it or not. Inasmuch as “a day’s journey” is a conventional term, with its enforced adaptation to particular routes, it is not easy to reduce it to miles as a help to its fixing ; although it would be a very simple thing to calculate its measurement were it once fixed. The average of a day’s journey in the desert region is, say, seven hours’ travel, at the rate of perhaps two and a third miles an hour . 1 This would practically be from fifteen to eighteen miles a day. It would therefore appear that Kadesh-barnea was from, say, one hundred and fifty to two hundred miles from Mount Sinai, by the route here indicated — “ the Way of Mount Seir,” or “ the Mount Seir Road ; ” 2 although, of course, on this particular route, the then well-known daily stretches — because of the suitable stations — may have been exceptionally “ short-day’s ” journeyings. The 1 For estimates of the length of an average day’s travel in the East, see Bosen- miiller’s Bib. Geog ., p. 161 /. ; Bobinson’s Bib. Res., I., 593 /. ; Von Baumer’s Paldstina, p. 21 ; Lane’s Thousand and One Nights , Vol. I., p. 116, note. 2 The Hebrew word translated Way is derekh meaning a “ road,” a “ beaten track,” a “trodden course.” 74 KADESH-BARNEA. correspondence of this measurement with the facts in the case can only be tested when we have fixed the site of Kadesh, and settled the course of the Mount Seir Road. 10. THE WAY OF MOUNT SEIR. The natural roads of a country are God’s great landmarks. They were fixed in the processes of creation ; and they remain comparatively unchanged through all the changes of the centuries. The courses of empire and the advances of civilization are indi- cated beforehand, or they can be tracked in history, by the natural highways along which alone it would be possible for them to move. Hence, when we find in the earliest book of the Bible a reference to an extended military campaign from Elam to Canaan, we can see the route which the ambitious chieftain must have taken ; and again, when we are tracking the course of the Israelites in their exodus or their wanderings, the specific references to the various roads which they followed, or which they avoided, are the best possible helps to a fixing of their route beyond a peradven- ture. This important aid to the elucidation of many of the biblical- geographical problems has been generally overlooked by commen- tators and other scholars who have led in the investigations of this field of knowledge. It would seem as if our English translation of the Hebrew word for “ road,” or “ beaten track,” or “ trodden course,” by the indefinite word “ way,” had unconsciously swayed even those who are familiar with the Hebrew. We use the term “ way ” 1 as meaning, variously, “ direction,” “ progression,” “ dis- tance,” “ means,” and “ method,” even while we do not rule out from its meanings its original signification of u path ” or “ road.” Hence when the Bible speaks of the “ Way of Shur,” or the 1 See Webster’s, Worcester’s, and the Imperial Dictionaries, s. v., “ Way.” THE WAY OF MOUNT SEIR. 75 “ Way of Mount Seir,” it suggests to most readers the idea of a general direction given, or of a diversion from the directest route, rather than the indication of a well-known natural highway, a landmark for all time, under its specific proper name of the time of the Bible’s writing . 1 In the Bible record of the exodus and wanderings of the Israel- ites there are at least nine roads thus indicated, as supplying a skeleton itinerary of the Israelites’ course. As we may fairly translate, or paraphrase the names of these roads, they are : The Wall Road , 2 the Philistia Road , 3 the Red Sea Road , 4 the Mount Seir Road , 5 the Amorite Hill-country Road , 6 the ’Arabah Road , 7 the Edom Royal Road , 8 the Moab Wilderness Road , 9 and the Bashan Road . 10 Again there is the Road of the Spies, or the Road of the Athareem 11 which may be the same as one of the roads already named, but more probably is a road which was known to the Israelites only by this designation. In his review of the course of the Israelites, at the close of their forty years’ wandering , 12 Moses reminds them that, in their original passing from Sinai to Kadesh, they came along two well-known roads of the mountain and desert, which he designates by the specific, and the sufficiently descriptive names, the “ Way of Mount Seir ,” 13 or the “ Mount Seir Road,” and the “ Way of the Mountain of the Amorites ,” 14 or the “ Amorite Hill-country Road.” Ob- 1 Even Grove (in Smith- Hackett Bib. Die., s. v., “ Way”), while recognizing the fact that derekh “in the majority of cases signifies .... an actual road,” is still in- clined to see an indication of direction in its use, and to read “ the road to the Red Sea,” rather than “ the Red Sea Road.” 2 Comp. Gen. 16 : 7 and Exod. 15 : 22. This road, and the two roads immediately following it in the above list, receive full attention in their relations to the exodus, in the Study on the Route of the Exodus,” at the close of this volume 3 Exod. 13: 18. 4 Exod. 13: 18; Deut. 1: 40; 2: 1. 3 Deut. 1:2. 6 Deut. 1:19. 7 Deut. 2:8. 8 Num. 20 : 17. 9 Deut. 2:8. 10 Num. 21 : 33. 11 Num. 21 : 1. 12 See Deut. 1 : 1-19. 13 Deut. 1:2. 14 Deut. 1 ; 19. 76 KADESH-BARNEA. viously these two roads were not parallel, but the one was supple- mental to the other in the journeying of the Israelites ; for, as the text itself indicates, the Mount Seir Road was out from Horeb, and the Amorite Hill-country Road was over the wilderness up to Kadesh-barnea. Mount Seir lay northeasterly from Mount Sinai, while the Amorite Hill-country lay northerly. The one road, therefore, would carry them in a northeasterly direction ; and the other, when they turned toward it, would incline them more or less northwesterly. To identify these two roads is to do much to- ward defining the route of the Israelites, and the more precise location of Kadesh-barnea. At the present time (as doubtless in the time of Moses), three distinct roads, and only three, open out from Mount Sinai north- ward toward Palestine, across the wedge-shaped mountain range that forms the southern boundary of the Desert et-Teeh. These roads are spoken of popularly as the western road, the middle road, and the eastern road. Robinson noted them carefully in his day , 1 as other scholars have noted them since. He said : “ From the Convent of Sinai .... three roads cross by the three great passes of Jebel et-Tih. . . . The easternmost is the road passing by el - ? Ain, and also by the well eth-Themed, west of the mountain Turf er-Rukn. The middle road crosses the Tih by the pass el- Mureikhy, and the western one by er-Rakineh ; ” and he adds to his description of them : “ The above are all the roads we heard of across the desert, from south to north.” It is obvious that only the easternmost of these three roads could have been fairly called the “ Mount Seir Road ; ” for that alone went in the direction of Mount Seir ; and it would seem hardly less certain that that road would have been so called. A noteworthy fact in connection with the effort at identifying the Mount Seir Road, as taken by the Israelites, is the latest con- 1 See Bib. Res., I., 198; also Note XXIV., p. 601/. THE WA Y OF MOUNT SEIR. 77 elusion of the most experienced competent explorer in that desert region, as to the probable route of the Israelites northward from Sinai. The Rev. F. W. Holland, of England, (who has died since this work was begun, 1 ) had no peer in familiarity with the Penin- sula of Sinai, as a whole. He made five visits to that region, including the one when he went as the skilled guide of the Sinai Survey Expedition, of which Professor Palmer’s book (“ The Desert of the Exodus ” 2 ) tells the story so attractively ; and he journeyed on foot , 3 over the peninsula, some five thousand miles in all. Being wedded to no theory of a particular route for the Israelites, he sought, on the occasion of his fifth journey, to study carefully the probabilities of the case in the light of all his obser- vations — of then and before — of “ available roads and passes ” in every district traversed by him. His conclusion was, that the Israelites moved at first northward from Jebel Moosa (Horeb, or Sinai); then turned toward Wady ez-Zulaqah , 4 which heads di- rectly toward Mount Seir, and which is on the easternmost of the 1 It was in consequence of the enthusiastic description of a journey in the desert with Mr. Holland, by a companion of his with whom I crossed the Atlantic in the winter of 1881, that I was tempted to make the journey of which this book is a result. On my finding the wells of which Mr. Holland had been in pursuit, I desired and hoped to communicate with him concerning them ; but I was hardly at my home again before I learned of his death, in Switzerland, whither he had gone just before my reaching England on my way back. 2 See Palmer’s Des. of Exod ., I., 3 /. 3 Palmer {Des. of Exod., I., 195) tells of a messenger coming from Suez to the party at Wady Mukatteb, bringing “ a letter calling Holland home.” The latter “ at once proposed to obey the summons, and starting off on foot, with no other pro- vision than a little bag of flour, reached Suez, a distance of some 110 miles, early in the afternoon of the third day [making “six days ” in “ three ”], having walked the last forty miles without a rest ; thus performing a pedestrian feat which has been rarely equalled, and the memory of which still lives in that country.” 4 Holland calls this, the Wady Zelleger (see Journal of Victoria Institute, Vol. XIV., p. 10). It appears as Wady ez-Zulakah in Robinson’s itinerary of the “ East Route” {Bib. Res., I., 602). 78 EADESH-BARNEA. three roads described by Robinson (which, in fact, might well be called, from its direction, the “ Mount Seir Road ”). After pass- ing El-’Ayn, 1 they turned northward again, as Holland thinks, into Wady el-’Ateeyeh, and along that wady to the Desert et- Teeh. This road is not the one commonly marked out for the Israelites, as running by ? Ayn el-Hudhera to the Gulf of ’Aqabah. That is not in the line of any one of the roads from Sinai to Canaan, but is eastward of them all, and has no trend toward Canaan. It has, in fact, been tracked out for the purpose of taking in certain sup- posed identifications of stations named in the route of the Israel- ites, rather than because of its correspondence with any feasible course likely to have been taken by them Canaanward. Holland raises a new barrier against its acceptance when he says : 2 “ The wadies along that route are confined and winding, and impassable for wagons, six of which, we are told, had been presented by the princes of Mount Sinai, for the service of the tabernacle.” 3 In- deed, he “ finally came to the conclusion that the only available route for the Children of Israel to have taken was that by Wadies Zeleiger [Zulaqah] and el-Atiyeh ; ” for “ these valleys afford the most direct, the best watered, and by far the most easy course from Jebel Musa northward ; and by this [route] one ascends to the plateau of the Desert of Et-Tih without any difficult pass.” 4 “ Having once mounted to the level of the Tih desert, a gradual descent across a succession of large open plains, with abundance of pasturage, would lie before them, and they would reach Jebel Mugrah [Muqrah, at the southern or southeastern border of the ’Azazimeh mountain tract — the “ Wilderness of Zin ”] without 1 There is a Wady el-’Ayn at the western side of the desert, quite distinct from this one at the eastern side. 2 Jour, of Viet. Inst., Vol. XIV., p. 10. 3 Num. 7 : 3-8. 4 See Holland’s report of his latest journey, in Report of the British Association, for 1878, p. 622 Jf. THE WAY OF MOUNT SEIF. 79 any trouble .” 1 Somewhere within that mountain tract, Hol- land would look for Kadesh-barnea ; although he was not biased in favor of any site yet suggested, and he had not himself explored the region in which he would expect to find signs of it. This independent conclusion of so competent an explorer as Holland, as to the route of the Israelites northward from Mount Sinai, is in full accord with all that the Bible narrative has yet indicated to us in our search for the site of Kadesh-barnea ; and it goes to show that the Mount Seir Road, by which the Israelites moved out from the Mount Sinai group, was the easternmost of the three roads which went from that group Canaanward ; a road which headed directly toward the Mount Seir range , 2 and which might indeed have been followed to that range by a caravan with- out wagons, and which was not bound for Canaan. In the days of Moses, as now, it was not always necessary to follow a road to its terminus ; nor was it customary to keep on in a road beyond a point where one must turn from it in order to reach the place for which he had set out. If a man should say, at Hebron, that he had come from Cairo and Suez by the Mekkeh Road (or even if he omitted mention of Suez), it would not be supposed that he had followed the Hajj route across the Sinaitic desert ; nor that he had been to Mekkeh. And when Moses referred to the coming to Kadesh-barnea from Sinai by the Mount Seir Road, he clearly did not mean that the Israelites took in Mount Seir on their way; for that range was not on any route between Sinai and the southern border of Canaan ; but it was a region that they were particularly forbidden to enter . 3 1 Jour., of Viet. Inst., Yol. XIV., p. 11. 2 “ There are now three routes from Sinai to Hebron or Gaza : that by the Rakineh Pass ; [that] by the Mareikhy Pass ; [and that] by the Zaraneh or Zulakeh Pass and El-’Ain. Of these three the Hebrews took the most easterly by El-’Ain, which was called the Way of Mount Seir, to distinguish it from the others.” (Rowlands, in Imp. Bib. Tic., s. v., “ Rithmah.”) 3 “ Meddle not with them,” said the Lord to Israel, concerning the dwellers in 80 KADESII-BARNEA. If Holland is correct, as there seems no good reason for doubt- ing, and the route he has indicated is “ the only available route for the children of Israel to have taken,” with their tabernacle wagons, then we can see clearly just how far they followed the Mount Seir Road, and at what portion of its course they turned northerly or northwesterly into “that great and terrible wilder- ness” with which they became acquainted as they moved across it, to take the Amorite Hill-country Road up to the very borders of Canaan. 11. THE AMORITE HILL-COUNTRY ROAD. To identify the Amorite Hill-country Road 1 is not so easy as to identify the Mount Seir Road ; yet it must be one of two roads across the desert toward Canaan : and whichever of these it may prove to be, its bearing on the location of Kadesh-barnea is prac- tically the same. Coming out on to the desert Et-Teeh from the Mount Seir Road, as described by Holland, the Israelites moving Canaanward would still be limited in their choice of routes by the natural characteristics of thy _ , untry before them . 2 They were on a roll- ing plateau c me rifteen hundred feet above the level of the ? Ara- bah . 3 Th; same conditions which decided the course of Kedor- Mount jieir ; “for I will not give you of their land, no not so much as a foot breadth; because I have given Mount Seir unto Esau for a possession.” (Deut. 2 : 5.) 1 “ re went through all that great and terrible wilderness which ye saw by the Way l the Road] of the Mountain [the Hill-country] of the Amorites and we came to Kadesh-barnea.” (Deut. 1 : 19.) 2 A lough the movements of the Israelites were guided by the pillar of fire and clorlfthey had the skilled guide Hobab to be as “ eyes” to them in picking out the be't desert trails (comp. Num. 9: 15-23, and Num. 10: 29-31.) Thus the wise men from the East guided by the star toward Bethlehem, had thfe choice before them between any two roads which ran in the direction of their pursuit. 3 See Robinson’s Bib. Res., I., 176, with references to Russeger, etc., in a note. THE AMO RITE HILL-COUNTRY ROAD. 81 la’omer’s march into southern Canaan 1 would combine to influence their movements. The main road across the Wilderness of Paran (a “ great and terrible wilderness,” 2 as they considered it) up to the “ Plill-country of the Amorites ” (which began at the centre of the southern boundary of Canaan 3 ) swept from the Red Sea Road 4 (the modern Hajj route from ’Aqabah to Suez), along around the southern base of the ’Azazimeh mountain tract until it joined the Wall Road (the “ Way of Shur ” 5 ) near Jebel Muwaylih, 6 or until it diverged northeasterly, near that point, and passed into the ’Azazimeh tract to the strategic stronghold of Kadesh-barnea, at the very base of “ the Mountain of the Amorites.” 7 Until recently it seemed as if there were no alternative to this route Canaanward, for a caravan that was moving across the Desert et-Teeh from the eastward, or from southeastward. Robin- son emphasized this fact after his first journey over the desert northward. He saw, from the structure of the entire region, that roads from the east or southeast which “ in any degree touch the high plateau of the desert south of El-Mukrah, must necessarily curve to the west, and passing around the base of Jebel ’Araif el- Nakah, continue along the western side of this mountainous tract.” 8 He saw, also, that this would have seemed to be the natural course for the Israelites, were it not that he had fixed, in his own mind, on a site for Kadesh-barnea which was not to be reached by this great natural highway over the desert from Sinai to Canaan. “ In respect to the route of the Israelites in approach- ing Palestine,” he said, 9 concerning this otherwise inevitable high- way, “ we here obtained only the conviction that they could not have passed to the westward of Jebel ’Araif [as other travelers “ must necessarily 99 do] ; since such a course would have brought 1 See page 38, supra. 2 Deut. 1 : 19. 3 See page 75/., supra ; also Judges 1 : 36. 4 Num. 14 : 25 ; Deut. 1 : 40 ; 2 : 1. 5 Gen. 16 : 7. 6 See page 42, supra. 7 See page 65 jf., supra; also Deut. 1 : 20. 8 Bib. Res., I., 186/. 6 *lbid., p. 187. 82 KADESH-BARNEA. them directly to Beersheba, and not to Kadesh, which latter city lay near to the border of Edom.” 1 On the face of it, therefore, the Amorite Hill-country Road would seem to have been that one road which presents itself for a desert-crossing to a northward-bound traveler coming out of the Mount Sinai group by the easternmost or Mount Seir Road. That is the road which leads to the Amorite Hill-country. It is the road, also, which Robinson followed, and which Kedor-la’omer had taken before him. It is obviously the road which the Israel- ites would have taken unless, indeed, they were compelled to go elsewhere for reasons not yet indicated. And as we have seen no reason for doubting that this road would be as likely to lead the Israelites to Kadesh-barnea as it was to lead Kedor-la’omer there, we must accept all these indications of its identity unless we find some specific reason for supposing that the borders of Edom, as well as Kadesh-barnea, did not lie within the ? Azazimeh mountain tract. Of late, a possibility of an alternative road through the ’Azaz- imeh mountain tract, running diagonally northwestward from the southeastern corner of that tract, has been suggested ; and this ought not to pass unnoticed here. Mention has already been made 2 of a road in this general direction running out of the ’Arabah, as suggested by Wilton, and as tracked in a portion of its course by Palmer. But it was reserved for the experienced Holland to note the possibility of such a road out from the Desert et-Teeh. It was on his last visit to the Peninsula that he first 1 This is a marked illustration of unconscious reasoning in a circle. Robinson first decides that Kadesh-barnea is at a certain point in the ’Arabah — because that point lies in the road which was taken by the Israelites. Afterwards he decides that the Israelites did not take the road which would have seemed to be their inevitable route — because, forsooth, that road would not lead them to his fore-determined site of Kadesh-barnea! (Comp. Bib. Res., I., 187 ; II., 174/., 192-195.) 2 See page 39, note, supra. THE BORDER OF EDOM. 83 ascertained that Jebel Muqrah was separated from Jebel Jerafeh, at the southeastern corner of that mass of mountains, instead of the two mountains being in a connected and unbroken range, as was before supposed . 1 Between these two mountains there is a road- way, which Holland thinks finds its course up to the borders of Canaan — to the Amorite Hill-country. He would recognize in this the “ Way of the Spies ; ” but whether he be correct or not, it will be seen that there is a possibility of the Amorite Hill-country Road being yet identified in this route. But, as was said at the start, whichever of the two alternative routes be fixed upon, its bearing on the probable site of Kadesh-barnea is practically the same. Kadesh-barnea being somewhere within the ’Azazimeh mountain block, lying at the base of the southern boundary of the Amorite Hill-country, it would be practicable to reach it from the southeast *by such a road as that now suggested by Holland, or from the west by the route which we understand Kedor-la’omer to have taken, and which has hitherto seemed the more natural, and indeed the only, route to its secluded fastnesses. 12. THE BORDER OF EDOM. When “ Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom,” asking permission for the Israelites to pass through his territory on their final move toward Canaan, he said of their loca- tion, “ Behold, we are in Kadesh, a city in the uttermost of thy border ;” 2 and this raises the question, Where was the western border of Edom ? It ought to be noted just here, that the Hebrew word translated “ city ” 3 does not of necessity involve the idea of a walled town, or even of a town of any sort. Its “ signification is of wide ex- 1 See Holland’s reports of his journey, in Jour, of Viet. Inst., Vol. XIV., pp. 2-11, and Report of Brit. Assoc., for 1878, p. 622 ff. 2 Num. 20 : 16. 3 ’eer (Vy). 84 KADESH-BARNEA . tent, embracing . . . the idea of an encampment,” 1 as well as of a watched and guarded stronghold ; “ a surrounded place,” “ a forti- fied camp.” 2 It is not within the range of probability that the vast host of Israel should have been in a single city, least of all in any city which could have existed in that day on the desert border of Canaan. It is a mistake which scholars have made all the way along in their searching for the route of the Israelites from Egypt to the banks of the Jordan, to look for an identification of any station in the record of the exodus and wanderings in the site of an ancient city . 3 In connection with the visits of the Israelites to Kadesh, there is no indication of any capture of a hostile city there, or of any intercourse with the people of a friendly city. But from the prominence given to Kadesh in the military move- ments of both Kedor-la’omer and the Israelites, it would appear that that place was a natural stronghold, a strategic watching- place on the southern border of Canaan ; and it would, therefore, be a most natural way of stating the case, for the Israelites to say to the king of Edom, u We are in Kadesh, a fortified encampment [a hill -surrounded fastness] in the uttermost of thy border.” The language recorded is quite consistent with that interpretation. It is not difficult to locate Edom as a whole, nor is it difficult to say where was its centre, its kernel, its core. The difficulty lies in fixing the western stretch and boundary, at a given time, of a land which clearly had different boundaries at different periods, and which is nowhere described in its precise limitations, either in the Bible, or — prior to the Christian era — in outside history. Yet the difficulty which does exist is not so great as it has been made to appear. “ Edom ” and “ Seir ” are terms which are often used inter- changeably as the designation of a region occupied by Esau and 1 Gesenius, in Ileb. Lex., s. v. 2 Fiirst, Heb and Chald. Lex. s. v. 3 This point is treated more fully in the Route of the Exodus, infra. / THE BORDER OF EDOM. 85 his descendants . 1 “ Mount Seir / 7 the range of mountains running southward from the Dead Sea, on the east of the 7 Arabah, was a main feature of “ Edom 77 ; 2 but “ Seir / 7 3 and “ the land of Seir / 7 4 and “ the country [or field] of Edom / 7 5 are terms which are clearly not limited to, nor indeed are commonly, if ever, identical with, “ Mount Seir 77 in the Bible text. The practical question for solution is, therefore, What portion of the country at the westward of the 7 Arabah was included in “ Seir / 7 and in “ the country of Edom / 7 in the days of the Israelites 7 wanderings ? Not only is there no suggestion in the Bible that “ Seir 77 and “ the country of Edom 77 were limited to the “ Mount Seir ,7 on the east of the 7 Arabah, but the idea of such a limitation, at any period of the history of Edom, does not seem to have entered a human mind until more than thirty centuries after the days of Moses, when it was given shape in an incidental mention by the great geographer Beland , 6 while he was pointing a caution against counting the boundaries of Edom as alike at all periods of history. At the same time, however, Beland recognized the fact that in some way “ the region occupied by Edom and his posterity [which is], called in Holy Scripture ‘ the field of Edom 7 and ‘ the land of Seir/ . . . was situated between Egypt and Canaan ; so that the southern boundaries of the land [of Canaan], in which was the portion of the tribe of Judah, touched the terminus of the region of Edom . 77 The incidental suggestion of Beland as to the early limits of Edom would probably have had little influence in the field of Bible geography, if it had not been renewed, in another form, by Bobinson, a century and more later, as an argument in support of a site which he had fixed upon as that of Kadesh- barnea — which latter place was at the uttermost border of Edom. 1 See Gen. 32 : 3 ; 36: 1, 8, 9, 19, 21, 43; Num. 24 : 18; Deut. 2: 4, 5, 8, 29; Josh. 24 : 4. 2 Gen. 14 : 6 ; 36 : 8, 9 ; Deut. 2:8; Josh. 24 : 4. 3 Gen. 33 : 14 ; Deut. 1 : 44. 4 Gen. 32 : 3. 5 Gen. 32 : 3. 6 Palaestina , p. 66. 86 KADESII-BA RNEA. Indeed, Robinson himself had held another view than Reland’s prior to his fixing of the site of Kadesh-barnea ; and in an elabo - rate series of articles on Idumea, or Edom , 1 not long before his first visit to the Holy Land, he said of the Mount Seir ranging- field of “ the children of Esau : ” “ It is only proper to add here, that it is not necessary to regard the Edomites as wholly confined to this region. It is not improbable that they also had possession, at least occasional, of the mountains and part of the desert west of the Ghor [the ’Arabah] ; as we know that at a later period they subdued the southern part of Palestine, as far as Hebron ; and also made excursions through or around the land of Moab, and became masters of Bozrah .” 2 But when Robinson had decided in his own mind that Kadesh-barnea was in the ’Arabah, it became necessary to push back the western boundary of the Edomites to a line within which, he had before seen and said, it was “not neces- sary” to regard them as “ wholly confined ; ” for, “ otherwise,” he said, “ the Israelites, in journeying three times between Kadesh and Ezion-geber, must have passed twice through Edom ; which we know was not permitted.” 3 Here again, as in the case of the desert roads, so capable an explorer as Robinson seems unconsciously to be reasoning in a circle with reference to the location of Kadesh . 4 Having settled it in his own mind that the Israelites passed up the ’Arabah toward Canaan, he fixes on a site in the line of that road as the most prob- able one for Kadesh . 5 When he sees, however, that their more natural course would have been in another direction, he decides that they could not have taken that, because it would not have led them by his Kadesh — which he had selected because it was on the way that, in his opinion, they did take . 6 His Kadesh was the 1 In Bib . Repos, for April, July, and October, 1833. 2 Ibid., April, p. 250. 3 Robinson’s “ Notes on Biblical Geography,” in Bib. Sac. for May, 1849, p. 380. 4 See page 82, note, supra. 5 Comp. Bib. Res., II., 173-175 ; 192-195. « See Bib. Res., I., 187. THE BORDER OF EDOM. 87 Kadesh because it was on their road toward Canaan. Their road must have been this road ; because otherwise it would not have passed his Kadesh, which was the Kadesh (Q. E. D.). So about the boundary of Edom. Before he had fixed his Kadesh in the ’Arabah, it was “ not necessary ” to confine the Edomites to the eastward of the ? Arabah ; but when he had fixed his Kadesh in the ’Arabah , 1 it was necessary to confine the Edomites by that boun- dary • for Kadesh was at the extremest westward stretch of Edom. Edom must have been limited to the east of the ’Arabah, because Edom was eastward of Kadesh, and his Kadesh, which was the Kadesh, was in the ’Arabali. His Kadesh must have been the Kadesh, because the Kadesh was at the western border of Edom — where his Kadesh was located (Q. E. D., once more). At last Robinson actually reasoned himself to the conviction that the view which he once held himself, and which had never been generally abandoned by scholars, was no longer a factor in the problem ; and he declared, as if without a thought that his declaration would be questioned by anybody : “ Kow at that time [in the days of the exodus], as all agree , the territory of Edom was limited to the mountains on the east of the ’Arabah .” 2 Because Robinson could safely be followed in so many of his important discoveries and identifications, he has not unnaturally been followed in some of his unconscious errors of identification and reasoning . 3 But in a search for the identification of an unde- 1 Comp. Bib. Rep., April, 1833, p. 250, and Bib. Sac., May, 1849, p. 379 /. 2 Bib. Sac. for May, 1849, p. 380. 3 It is not to be wondered at that Robinson (whose really great service in the cause of biblical geography has fairly entitled him to be called “ the Reland of the Nine- teenth Century ”) should have made more or less errors in his wide and varied iden- tifications ; but it is a matter of surprise that some of those errors should still be blindly adhered to, after they have been shown as errors by proofs that Robinson would, if now living, recognize as indisputable. Take, for example, his locating of Eboda at El-’Aujeli (Bib. Res., I., 191). His guides knew that place “only by the name of ’Aujeh,” but an Arab who was with him said it " was also called ’Abdeh.” 88 KADESH-BARNEA. termined site, we should, of course, put aside, for the time being, mere naked opinions, and look to the Bible text as it stands in its integrity, and to any outside helps to the elucidation of that text. So, now, in the matter of the ancient borders of Edom. The earliest known mention of “ Mount Seir ” is in the Bible record of Kedor-la’omer’s campaign, in the days of Abraham . 1 This was long before the birth of Esau ; and it is said that the Horites, or cave-dwellers, were then its inhabitants . 2 These Horites are said to have been the descendants of Seir ; 3 but it is Afterwards that Arab admitted “ that he knew this name only from M. Linant, who had visited the place a few years before ” {Bib. Res., I., 600). That was shaky proof on which to fix an identification ; yet it was the best that Eobinson could obtain, ex- cept that it was supplemented some weeks later by the assurance of "a very intelli- gent owner of camels,” whom Eobinson met at Hebron. On the strength of this information, with the seeming correspondence of the ruins with such a place as the ancient Eboda must have been, Eobinson declared, “We had no doubt at the time, nor have I now, that these were the ruins of the ancient Eboda , or Oboda ” {Bib. Res., I., 194) ; and he even brushed away the suggestion of Seetzen and M. Callier that the real ruins of ’Abdeh were elsewhere, on the ground that “both these latter trav- elers were [probably] misinformed by their Arab guides” {Bib. Res., I., 600) — instead of taking the word of “ a very intelligent owner of camels ” at three days' distance from the ruins. After all this, Stewart {Tent and Khan, p. 198/.) and Bonar {Des. of Sinai, p. 302 /.) gained information of the existence of an 'Abdeh as distinct from El-’Aujeh ; and finally Palmer visited both places, obtained sketches of them, proved their separateness, established the identification of Abdeh as Eboda {Des. of Exod., II., 348, 386, 407-423) ; so that to-day there is hardly more reason for a question as to the identification of Eboda than of Hebron. Yet notwithstanding all these later discoveries, Murray’s Handbook for Syria and Palestine (p. 100, and Map) continues to give El 'Aujeh as both 'Abdeh and Eboda, without so much as an intimation that the Eobinson location has ever been brought into question. And this is but a single illustration of the difficulty of correcting at popular sources an error in the statements of “the Eeland of the Nineteenth Century .” 1 Gen. 14: 6; Dent. 2: 12. 2 “The Horites, as the name signifies (Heb. 'ijl from a hole, cave), were dwellers in caves; a description of people who were afterwards called by the Greeks Troglodytes, T puyXodvrai, a word of the same signification as Horites, derived from Tp&yAij, a cave.” (Eobinson, in Bib. Repos., April, 1833, p. 250, note.) 3 Gen. 36: 20, 21. THE BORDER OF EDOM. 89 not an uncommon thing for a man to have taken his name from the land in which he lived . 1 The earliest known mention of the land of Edom is in the Egyptian records, at about the same period as Abraham’s. In the story of Saneha, in the Twelfth Dynasty, as already referred to , 2 there are several mentions of “ Atuma,” or “ Aduma,” in such a connection as to point to the identification of this land with ancient Edom ; and the subsequent references to “ Atuma ” and its people in the Egyptian records, all go to justify this identification . 3 This also was long prior to Esau’s birth ; but it in no degree conflicts with the Bible records of Esau’s relations to the names of the lands in which at one time and another he was a dweller. “ Seir ” means “ rough,” “ shaggy,” “ hairy.” 4 “ Esau ” means the same . 5 “ Edom ” means “red .” 6 Esau bore the name “ Edom .” 7 The mountains of Seir were rough and shaggy. The cliffs of Edom were red . 8 It is in perfect accord with Oriental methods of thought and speech to multiply meanings in a name, and to multiply also the applications of a name in its meaning. Esau was the hairy man ; 9 the land of his possession was of a rough and shaggy front . 10 Esau was called Edom, the Bed Man ; he was the man of red hair , 11 the man of the red land, and the I See page 56, note, supra. 2 g ee page 46> y ? supra. 3 See Rec. of Past, VI., 135-150 ; also Lenormant and Chevallier’s Anc. Hist, of East, II., 148, 290 ; and Brugsch’s Hist, of Egypt, I., 146 ff. tSa’eer^y W'), “ hairy/’ “ shaggy,” “ rough.” (Gesenius and Fiirst, s. v.) 5 ’Esaw “ hirsute,” " hairy.” {Hid.) «Edhom. (OiK), “red.” {Ibid.) 7 Gen . 36 . 1} 8 , 19. 8 The very name “ Red Sea ’> is supposed by many to have been taken from the bordering red cliffs of Edom. 9 “ Esau my brother is a hairy man.” (Gen. 27 : 11.) 10 “ The name may either have been derived from Seir the Horite, or, what is perhaps more probable, from the rough aspect of the whole country.” (Porter, in Smith-Hackett Bib. Die., s. v. “ Seir.”) See also any description of Mount Seir. II “ Red, all over like an hairy garment ; and they called his name Esau.” (Gen. 25: 25.) 90 KADESH-BARNEA. man of a red choice : 1 “ Therefore was his name called Edom ” — three times over. And wherever Esau-Edom lived at any time, that land would naturally be called C( the land of Seir,” and “ the field of Edom.” And so it was, according to the Bible story. When Esau had foolishly surrendered his birthright interest in Canaan , 2 and had lost the blessing which by Oriental custom belonged to the first-born , 3 another possession was promised to him by his aged father , 4 and God confirmed that inheritance to Esau in Mount Seir of Edom . 5 But Esau did not remove to his new possession until after the death of his father . 6 Meantime Jacob was away from that region , 7 and Esau remained near his father, occupy- ing the parental domain, which could not as yet pass into the hands of the son who had purchased the first-born’s share in its entail. Esau married and had children long before he permanently left his old home near Beersheba . 8 In the more than twenty years of Jacob’s absence, Esau’s families and flocks and herds were in- creased to him ; and in the enfeebled and helpless state of the father, the resident son must have come into larger prominence, according to Oriental usage , 9 so that it is not to be wondered at that the region 1 “Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage ; for I am faint ; therefore was his name called Edom.” (Gen. 25 : 30.) 2 Gen. 25 : 27-34; Heb. 12 : 16, 17. 3 Gen. 27 : 1-33. 4 Gen. 27 : 34-40. 5 Deut. 2:5; Josh. 24 : 4. 6 Comp, Gen. 35 : 27-29, and Gen. 36 : 1-8. 7 Gen. 27 : 41-45 ; 28 : 5 ; 32 : 3, 4. 8 Gen. 26 : 34, 35 ; 28 : 6-9. 9 An Oriental father gains reflected honor in the prominence and successes of his sons. He even changes his own name in such a way as to include his eldest son’s name, in order to swell the glory of the family of which he is the head. Even where a man is childless he sometimes receives, by courtesy, in the East, the name of father of a hypothetical son ; or in some way the fatherhood idea is attached to his name. (See e. g. Jessup’s Syrian Home Life, p. 99, f., and Thomson’s Land and Book, I., 475.) An illustration of this is given in the case of Abraham. While he was yet childless he was called “ Ab-ram,” “ Father of Exaltation.” He was uplifted in the minds of his fellows as one worthy to be a father. But God gave him a promise of real chil- dren ; and as he did so he added (Gen. 17 : 5) : “ Neither shall thy name any more be called Ab-ram, but thy name shall be Ab-raham, “ Father of a Multitude,” [“ Aboo-ruham,” as the Arabs might write] ; for a father of many nations have I THE BORDER OF EDOM . 91 over which Esau extended his patriarchal stretch came to be known as “ the land of Seir ” [or Esau], and “ the country [or field] of Edom.” 1 There was where Esau was living when Jacob came back from Padan-aram ; for Isaac was not yet dead, and it was not until after his death that Esau removed to Mount Seir. 2 And the record shows, that as Jacob was returning toward Hebron, he “ sent messengers before him to Esau his brother, unto the land of Seir , the field of Edom.” 3 If indeed Esau had been off in Mount Seir at that time, Jacob would hardly have anticipated a meeting with him on his way to Hebron. And when the brothers had met, Jacob spoke of himself as journeying by easy stages toward the home of Esau, in Seir — Esau’s present “Seir,” not Esau’s prospective “ Mount Seir.” “ I will lead on softly,” he said, “ according as the cattle that goeth before me and the children be able to endure, until I come unto my lord unto Seir.” 4 This was obviously no deceitful subterfuge on Jacob’s part. He did not be- gin his new life as “ Israel,” after his night of eventful wrestling, 5 with a lie to his brother Esau. He meant what he said. He would move slowly toward Esau’s home — the land of Seir, as it was now called. It was Esau’s land by possession ; it was Jacob’s land by purchased birthright ; it was as yet their father Isaac’s land in reality. Jacob might safely call it Isaac’s by courtesy, as everybody now called it, in accordance with Oriental custom. “ So Esau returned that day on his way unto Seir,” 6 not unto Mount Seir, but unto his land of Seir; and Jacob followed made thee.” And that new name made all the difference in the world in Abraham’s position before the world — in the East. Thus, according to Eastern customs, Isaac might well have called himself Aboo-Esau, “ Father of Esau ; ” hence it is not strange that the name of Esau was uplifted in the region where he dwelt with his father. 1 Gen. 32 : 3. The word here translated “ country ” is sadheh It means “field,” rather than “ province” or “ kingdom:”- 2 See Gen. 35 : 27-29 ; 36 : 1-8. 4 Gen. 33: 14. 5 Gen. 32: 24-32. s Gen. 32 : 3. e Gen. 33 : 16. 92 KADESH-BARNEA. by easy stages to Shechem , 1 and Bethel , 2 and southward until the brothers were once more near each other, at Hebron 3 and below, in the neighborhood of their childhood’s home and of the outstretching domain of Esau’s, there to remain in filial and fraternal accord until after their father’s death and burial . 4 That the removal of Esau to his divinely assured possessions in Mount Seir was not during the absence of Jacob in Padan-aram, is apparent on the face of the text, and it is evidenced by a number of confirmatory proofs. The mention of Esau’s removal follows immediately on the mention of Isaac’s death and burial . 5 Hot until then was there any reason for Esau’s leaving his bartered birthright inheritance. Moreover, it is distinctly said, that Esau “ went into the country [of Mount Seir, when he did go there] from the face of his brother Jacob ” 6 If Jacob were then living in Padan-aram, his face would hardly have crowded Esau out of lower Canaan. And a reason for Esau’s going “ from the face of his brother Jacob” just then was, that “ their riches were more than that they might dwell together ; and the land wherein they were strangers [sojourners] could not bear them because of their cattle .” 7 But if there was not even one of Jacob’s brown sheep, or ring-streaked or spotted goats , 8 within two hundred miles of Hebron and Beersheba, how could they fill up the possessions of Isaac so that Esau must look elsewhere for pasturage ? Yet then it was — and even until the very day of Jacob’s return — that Esau was a dweller in “ the land of Seir, the country of Edom ; ” 9 not the Mount Seir, or the Edom which was the equivalent of Mount Seir. This designation, of the land of Esau’s occupancy in Southern Canaan, by the name of u Seir,” which existed at the time of Jacob’s return from Padan-aram, was never lost to it. It was 1 Gen. 33 : 17-20. 2 Gen. 35 : 1-8. 3 Gen. 35 : 27. 4 Gen. 35 : 28, 29. 5 See Gen. 35 : 27-29 ; 36 : 1-8. 6 Gen. 36 : 6. i Gen. 36 : 7. 8 Gen. 30 : 25-43. 9 Gen. 32 : 1-3. THE BORDER OF EDOM. 93 found there when the Israelites made their unauthorized raid northward from Kadesh-barnea. “ And the Amorites, which dwelt in that mountain,” said Moses, “ came out against you, and chased you, as bees do, and destroyed you in Seir .” 1 Josephus says that this dwelling-place of Esau at the time of Jacob’s return was a region “ which he had called Roughness, from his own hairiness .” 2 And, as will be fully shown, the traces of that name “ Seir ” are to be found there to-day. This Seir, it is to be noted, was within the boundaries of Canaan proper. But south of Canaan, outside its boundary, the name of “ Edom ” seems to have extended along some distance westward of the ’Arabah from a very early period, certainly before the days of Israel’s occupancy of Canaan. It must have included the northeastern portion of the ’Azazimeh mountain tract, where was the Wilderness of Zin as we have identi- fied it ; hence it is not to be wondered at that Kadesh-barnea, within that tract, is said to be an encircled stronghold on the western border of Edom. To the present time there remain traces of the old name of “Seir” in the region southeastward from Beersheba, and yet northward of the natural southern boundary line of the Land of Canaan. The extensive plain “ Es-Seer ” is there , 3 corresponding with the name and location of the “Seir ” 4 at which, or unto which , 5 the Israelites were chased by the Amorites when they went up in foolhardiness from their Kadesh-barnea stronghold . 6 An 1 Deut. 1 : 44. 2 Antiquities, Book I., Chap. 20, § 3. 3 See Rowlands, in Williams’s Holy City, p. 488 /. ; Palmer’s Des. of Exod., II., 404. 4 Deut. 1 : 44. 5 The Septuagint, Peshitto Syriac, and Vulgate (at Deut. 1 : 44) read “ from Seir,” instead of “ to Seir; ” but this does not affect the location of the place itself; it only touches the question whether the Israelites went beyond that boundary, or only up to that line. 6 This identification of Es-Seer, as the place referred to in Deut. 1 : 44, is approved by Bitter ( Geog . of Pal., I., 431) ; Kurtz (Hist, of Old Cov., III., 209, 294) ; Keil and 94 KADESH-BARNEA. old ruin in the vicinity bears the name of Qasr es-Seer , 1 and again there are seeming traces of the name “ Seer,” through Sa’eed, in the Wady Sa’eedat not far from there, and in the name of the Arab tribe, Sa’eediyeh, inhabiting the old land of Seir . 2 That this “ Es-Seer ” is the “ Seir ” of the days of Moses and Joshua, and hence also the Seir, as distinct from Mount Seir, of the days of Esau, is shown again by its agreement in location with the Seir of a notable boundary-line landmark in the description of Joshua’s conquests in the Land of Promise . 3 “So Joshua took all that land,” it is said; “even from the Mount Halak 4 [the Smooth, or Bald Mountain] that goeth up to Seir ” 5 in the south of Canaan, “ even unto Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon, under Mount Hermon,” in the north. Here, plainly, Seir is within the limits of Canaan, northward of the southern landmark known as the Smooth Mountain ; and this agrees most accurately with the region as disclosed by modern research. The plain Es-Seer, already referred to, is bounded on the south by Wady Feqreh , 6 a wady which ascends southwesterly from the Delitzsch (Bib. Com. on 0. T., III., 250/., 281/.) ; Kalisch (Com. on 0. T., at Gen. 14: 6); Alford (Genesis, etc., at 14 • 6); Wordsworth (Bible with Notes, at Num. 34 : 3) ; Schaff-Lange Com. (at Num. 34 : 3 and Deut. 1 : 44) ; Speaker’s Com. (at Num. 14: 45) ; Wilton (The Negeb, pp. 73 note, 198) ; etc. 1 See Wilson’s Lands of Bible, !., 345 /. Robinson visited this site, but he seems to have run the two names together, and called it “ el-kuseir ” — “ the little castle.” (See Bib. Res., II., 198.) Wilson was an accurate Oriental scholar. 2 See Wilton’s The Negeb, p. 198/. 3 Josh. 11 : 15-17; 12 : 7, 8. 4 The Hebrew is Khalaq “smooth,” “bald,” “bare,” as opposed to “ hairy,” “ rough.” (See Gesenius and Fiirst, s. v.) Thus Jacob was a khalaq man, and Esau was a sa’eer man (Gen. 27 : 11). Our King James Version’s margin, and most modern English translations, recognise this “ Mount Halak ” as the Smooth, or Bald, Mountain. 5 The Smooth Mountain goes up to the Rough Plain ; the Bald Slope to the Hairy Crown; Khalaq to Sa’eer ; Jacob’s boundary-wall to Esau’s early domain. 6 See Robinson’s Bib. Res., II., 178-182; Wilson’s Lands of Bible, I., 340; Palmer’s Des. of Exod., II., 415 ; etc. THE BORDER OF EDOM. 95 ’Arabah, from a point not far south of the Dead Sea, and which separates Palestine proper from the ’Azazimeh mountain tract, or Jebel Muqrah group . 1 The northern wall of this wady is a bare and bald rampart of rock, forming a natural boundary as it “ goeth up to Seir ; ” a landmark both impressive and unique, and which corresponds with all the Bible mentions of the Mount Halak. Canon Williams, accompanying his friend Rowlands, was first among modern travelers to visit and describe this peculiar range. He came toward it from Hebron along “the grand plain called Es-Seer.” Of its appearance, as it first met his sight, he says : 2 “ Having ascended a ridge, a scene of awful grandeur burst sud- denly upon us with such startling effect as to strike us dumb for some moments. We found ourselves standing on a gigantic nat- ural rampart of lofty mountains, which we could trace distinctly for many miles east and west of the spot on which we stood ; whose precipitous promontories of naked rock, forming as it were bastions of cyclopean architecture, jutted forth in irregular masses from the mountain barrier into a frightfully terrific wilderness, [the Wilderness of Zin,] stretching far before us towards the south, whose horrors language must fail to describe. It was a confused chaos of chalk, and had the appearance of an immense furnace glowing with white heat, illuminated as it now was by the fierce rays of the sun. There did not appear to be the least particle of vegetation in all the dreary waste : all was drought and barrenness and desolation . [The Bald Mountain.] Immediately below was a wide and well-defined valley, called Wady Murreh.” This pic- ture of the bare and desolate mountain that goeth up to Seir is the more marked in view of the fact that neither Canon Williams nor 1 Luther’s Version of the Bible renders the references to Mount Halak in Josh. 11: 17 and 12 : 7 as “the mountain which divides the land up to Seir.” This in- volves, however, a slightly different Hebrew text. 2 Holy City , p. 487/. 96 KADESH-BARNEA . his friend Rowlands identified it with the Mount Halak (they proposing another location for that 1 ) ; yet the former wrote : “We. felt no doubt that we were standing on the mountain-barrier of the Promised Land.” Professor Palmer 2 says of this same region ; and this again without a suggestion that it was “ the Bald Mountain ” he was describing : “ The view from the top is very impressive ; as well as the precipitous cliffs which everywhere meet the eye, hu gejorfs, 3 mountains in themselves, rise up on either side of the wady [Murrah] bed. The rocks being of limestone, and not relieved by any verdure , produce a glare that is most distressing to the eyes.” The very name “ Mount Halak ” 4 — the Smooth, or Bald, Moun- tain — seems to be preserved, or revindicated, in an Arabic synonym “ Es-Sufah ,” 5 as the name of a principal pass into Palestine, going up this natural barrier from Wady Feqreh to the plain Es-Serr, or Seir, northward . 6 Frey tag 7 defines “ Es-Sufah ” as meaning “ the hard, dense rock which bears no vegetation ” 8 — smooth and bald. There is a remarkable unity in the reports of travelers as to the correspondence of this mountain-side pass with the Scriptural boundary mark of “ the Mount Halak ; ” a unity all the more remarkable in that not one of them has seemed to have in mind this seemingly self-evident identification. Robinson 9 speaks of this “ ascent to Seir ” as “ a formidable 1 See Holy City , p. 491. 2 Des. of Exod., II., 406. 3 “ A jorf } that is a steep bank formed by the torrent cutting through the soil of the wady -bed” {Ibid., p. 338). See Freytag’s Lexicon Arabico-Latinum, s. v. 4 Heb. pbnn inn ; hahar he-khalaq. 5 sLsLoJb The Speaker’s Commentary (at Num. 34: 3-5) renders this “ Nakb es-Safah,” as the “ Pass of the Bare Rock.” 6 And the pass next to the east of it is “ Es-Sufey,” the diminutive of “ Es-Sufah.” 7 In Arab. Lot. Lex., s. v. 8 Petra dura, crassa, plantas non producens. » Bib. Res., II., 178-181. THE BORDER OF EDOM. 97 barrier, a naked limestone ridge not less than a thousand feet in height and very steep ; ” the path over Es-Sufah being “ upon the naked surface of the rock,” ascending along “ this bare rock,” which is “in many places smooth and dangerous for animals,” the camels making “ their way with difficulty, being at every moment liable to slip.” Von Schubert describes it as “ a high, bald hill .” 1 Lord Lindsay 2 calls it “a precipitous sheet of bare rock, alternately smooth and slippery, and covered with loose stones.” Miss Mar- tineau 3 speaks of “the steep slope being bare shelvy limestone.” Wilson 4 says : “ Not a particle of vegetation was visible on its chalky cliffs, which appeared like a natural rampart to the land.” Olin 5 refers to the slope as “ tolerably smooth,” but “ so steep that it is barely possible for loaded camels to ascend.” Durbin 6 is sure that this mountain formed “the southern boundary of Judea.” “This mountain wall,” is what “ El-Mukattem ” 7 calls it ; and the Pass Sufali he designates as “ a steep, smooth rocky surface.” “ A slip- pery ascent it proved,” says Formby . 8 And Caroline Paine’s testimony 9 is: “The rocks were too smooth to present a very secure foothold for even the cautious camels, and nearly all of those [riders] who generally remained mounted when climbing the rocky passes, preferred trusting to their own feet here.” Is it not clear that this bald and bare northern wall of Wady Feqreh, this natural rampart of Canaan, with its smooth rock passes, Es-Sufah and Es-Sufey, going up to the plain Es-Seer, is “ the Smooth Mountain that goeth up to Seir ” — the western land of Seir, in southern Canaan ? 10 1 Reise in das Morgenland, II., 443. 2 Letters, II., 46. 3 Eastern Life, p. 369. 4 Lands of Bible, I., 342. 5 Travels, II., 62. 6 Observ. in East, I., 197. 7 Lands of Moslem, p. 234. 8 Visit to East , p. 321. 9 Tent and Harem, p. 294. 10 Keil and Delitzsch {Bib. Com. on 0. T., VIII., 123), and Kurtz {Hist, of Old Cov., III., 205), incline to this identification ; although neither of them has seemed to recognize the significance of the remaining name “ Es-Sufah.” 7 98 KADESH-BARNEA. There is a reason which should not be lost sight of for the con- tinuance of the old name of Seir in the south of Canaan after Esau had removed, with all his family, to his divinely assured possession in Mount Seir. Two of the wives of Esau were Ca- naanites ; 1 another wife was of the daughters of Ishmael . 2 The descendants of these wives would naturally have affiliation with the people of their maternal ancestry. Even though Esau took with him all his family and all his substance when he went from Southern Canaan to the region of Mount Seir , 3 it is every way probable that more or less of his descendants of the Canaanitish stock would wander back before long to the fields of their fathers — the fields which they themselves, in some cases, had occupied — west of the Dead Sea and the ’Arabah ; and again that some of those who were of Ishmaelitish, hence of Egyptian , 4 stock, would spread themselves along the upper desert, in the Wilderness of Paran, where Ishmael had roamed Egyptward . 5 Indeed, that something like this was the case with the Amalekite posterity of Edom (if, as seems probable, the Amalekites were descended from both Esau and Seir 6 ) is evident from the Bible text. They were already down in the mountains of Sinai , 7 and up in the hills of southern Canaan 8 in the days of the exodus. Two centuries and a half, it must be remembered, had passed, between the occupancy of Mount Seir by Esau and the appearance of the Israelites on the verge of Canaan. This gave time for great changes in the border lines of nomadic tribes. An Egyptian papyrus of the Nineteenth Dynasty — the supposed dynasty of the 1 Compare Gen. 26 : 34 ; 27 : 46 ; 36 : 2. Concerning the seeming confusion in the several mentions of these wives, see Smith-HacJcett Bib. Die ., s. vv. “ Adah,” “ Aliolibamah,” “ Bashemath.” 2 Gen. 28 : 9 ; 36 : 3. 3 Gen. 36 : 6. 4 Gen. 16 : 3, 15. 6 Gen. 21 : 21. 6 Gen. 36 : 12, 20, 22. See p. 40, /., note, supra. 8 Num. 14 : 45. ’ Exod. 17 : 8. THE BORDER OF EDOM. 99 exodus — refers to “the Shasoo of the country of Aduma'' (the Bed' ween of Edom or Seir) as already at the doors of Lower Egypt, and even as permitted to enter that land as settlers there . 1 And all the indications of the Egyptian records would show that the Edomite Bed'ween roamed freely, at this time, from the 'Arabah to the Delta. As already stated, the region assured to Esau and his descen- dants by the divine promise was Mount Seir, the mountain range on the east of the 'Arabah, a region wholly outside of the limits of Canaan — the birthright inheritance bartered to Jacob. The names “Seir/' and “field of Edom /' 2 applied, for the reasons noted, to the old ranging-field of Esau in southern Canaan, are not to be confounded with Esau's Mount Seir and the old region of Edom proper as it existed before the days of Esau. But Edom proper seems always to have included, in its westward stretch, the 'Arabah and more or less of the mountain region west of the 'Arabah and southward of the natural boundary line between these mountains and Canaan ; southward of Wady Feqreh, with its Azazimeh, or Muqrah, mountain-wall standing over against the wall of Mount Halak. This is fairly to be inferred from the Egyptian references to ancient Edom ; it is consistent with our earliest knowledge of the bounds of Edom ; it is an inevitable deduction from the early Bible mentions of Edom's westward reach. 1 See a translation from this papyrus in Brugsch’s Diet. Geog., p. 642 ; also Hist, of Egypt, I., 247 f. 2 Wilton ( The Negeb , p. 73, note) points out the fact that the word sadheh (rnfr) translated “ field ” or “ country” (of Edom), refers rather to a cultivated plain than to a rugged mountain, hence it is inapplicable to “ Mount Seir ; ” also that it is the word applied proleptically to the domain of the Amalekites in the record of Kedor- la’omer’s march (Gen. 14 : 7) over this very region. In this light, the “ field ” of the Amalekite descendants of Edom in the earlier record is the same as the “ field ” of the ancestor of the Amalekites in the later story. 100 KADESII-BARNEA. Various references to the boundary limits of Canaan, in the Bible text, go to show that the southern line of the Land of Promise ran along the western portion of Edom proper. In de- scribing that line, as it passes southeasterly from the Dead Sea starting-point into the Wilderness of Zin, or the ? Azazimeh moun- tain tract (running along the Wady Feqreh, which marks the natural boundary of Palestine 1 ), the record is, that it shall be “from the Wilderness of Zin, along by the coast of Edom 2 or “from the Wilderness of Zin, which resteth upon the side of Edom.” 3 Again it is said that “ the uttermost [or lower border] cities of the children of Judah toward the coast of Edom south- ward [or Negebward],” 4 stretched along as far westward as Beer- sheba — the old home of Esau-Edom. All this Js utterly incom- patible with the limitations of Edom to the region east of the ’Arabah, but quite consistent with every other indication of the westward reach of Edom into the ’Azazimeh, or Muqrah, mountain tract on the west of the ’Arabah, from the very earliest mention of that country until its final annihilation as a distinct power among the peoples of the world. That the name Edom, in its Greek form “ Idumea,” extended over the upper desert south of Palestine in the later centuries 1 Observe the opinions of Williams, Rowlands, Palmer, and others on this point, at pages 95-97, supra. 2 See Num. 34 : 1 ; Josh. 15 : 1. 3 Speaker’s Commentary rendering. Fries (in Stud. u. Krit. for 1854, p. 77) has shown that * al-yedhee in Num. 34 : 3, rendered in the King James Version “along by the coast of,” does not, like ’al-yadh (T"Sj 7), — as in Exod. 2 : 5 ; Josh. 15: 46; 2 Sam. 15 : 2 ; Dan. 10: 14, — signify contact at a single point, or along a short distance; but means “ along the land of,” “ on a long, yea, the whole stretch,” as for instance in Judges 11 : 26. This fact in itself would seem sufficient to show that peath (^p), “ quarter of,” in Num. 34 : 3, cannot in this instance (as some have claimed) mean “ corner of,” if indeed it ever could have that meaning in a land boundary. * Josh. 15 : 21-28. THE BORDER OF EDOM. 101 before the Christian era, and subsequently, is abundantly shown by references to it in the Apocrypha, the Talmud, and the writings of Pliny, Josephus, Ptolemy, Jerome, and others . 1 Diodorus Siculus, indeed, speaks of the Dead Sea as in the centre of the satrapy of Idumea . 2 And, as has been already noted, all the geographers down to the days of Reland were at one on this point. So far there is no dispute. The only question raised by any scholar is, whether the westward stretch of Edom beyond the ’Arabah was prior to the period of Judah’s captivity . 3 Yet not a particle of evidence is to be found in favor of the westward limitation of ancient Edom by the bounds of the ’Arabah, at any period whatsoever ; while both the Bible text and the Egyptian records give proof that there was no such limitation in the days of the conquest of Canaan. As yet, the precise limits of ancient Edom, westward, cannot be designated with confidence. It is probable, judging from what we know of ancient boundaries generally, that these limits were con- formed to some marked natural features of the country. When the Azazimeh, or Muqrah, mountain tract shall have been care- fully explored, such natural features may be there shown for the marking of the western border of Edom, as have already been pointed out for the southern border of Canaan. Holland had this in his mind on the occasion of his latest visit to the desert ; but the same causes which prevented his following up the search for 1 See Reland’s Pa/., pp. 66-73; Robinson’s “Sketches of Idumea,” Bib. Repos, for April, 1833, p. 252 /. ; Conder’s Art., “ Idumea,” in Encyc. Brit., ninth ed. ; Porter’s Art., “ Edom,” in Smith- Hackett Bib. Die. 2 “K ELrai yap Kara peayv tt/v carpaTreiav rijg ’I dovpaiag.” (Bk. 19, chap. 96.) 3 Dean Stanley says ( Sinai and Pal., p. 94, note) : “To represent Edom as extend- ing west of the ’Arabah in the time of Moses, is an anachronism, borrowed from the times after the Captivity, when the Edomites, driven from their ancient seats, occupied the ‘South’ of Judea as far as Hebron; 1 Macc. 5: 65.” But this charge of anachronism will hardly rest against Moses himself, and the scribes of Meneptah . 102 KADESH-BARNEA. the site of Kadesh-barnea stood in the way of his exploring the region in question for the settlement of Edom’s boundary line. Yet he made a suggestion which may yet prove a valuable one. Finding the natural break in the southwestern corner of that great mountain tract, as already mentioned , 1 he was led to believe that the wady-roadway passing up northerly through the mountains toward the southern border of Palestine “ formed the western boundary of Edom .” 2 However this may prove to be in the light of future explorations, it is evident that the uttermost border of Edom in that direction lay somewhere within that mountain tract ; and that, therefore, Kadesh-barnea was also there . 3 And this is in further confirmation of all that we have before learned of the probable site of Kadesh. 13. A SWEEP TO GAZA. An incidental mention of Kadesh-barnea as a landmark in Joshua’s progress in the conquest of Canaan, will be seen to con- form very well with the other indications of its location. Joshua had captured Lachish and Eglon in southwestern Canaan . 4 Then, pushing eastward, “ Joshua went up from Eglon, and all Israel with him, unto Hebron ; and they fought against it : and they took it .” 5 And so the old home of their ancestors, with the graves of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, was fairly in the possession of the Israelites. There is certainly no doubt about the location of Hebron. That site is fixed beyond a peradventure. And from Hebron “ Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to Debir ; and fought against it ; and he took it, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof [all the enclosures, or strong- 1 See page 82 /, supra. 2 See Holland’s report of his journey, in Report of Brit. Assoc, for 1878, p. 622 jf. 3 Num. 20 : 16. 4 Josh. 10 : 31-35. s Josh. 10: 36, 37. A SWEEP TO GAZA. 103 holds , 1 thereof] ; ... as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir.” As Joshua had been moving eastward to Hebron, his return from Hebron could not have been by moving farther east- ward or southeastward, it must have been by a westerly or a south- westerly course ; hence Debir (or, Debeer) is to be sought in that direction from Hebron. And there Debir has been fairly identified. Debir is a noteworthy place on many accounts. Its more ancient name is said to have been Kirjatli-sepher , 2 or Book-town, or City of Books ; 3 and again Kirjath-sannah , 4 or City of Instruc- tion ; 5 indicating its prominence as a literary and religious centre. Its later name, Debir , 6 is a term sometimes applied to the inner sanctuary of a temple, or the seat of a sacred oracle. And the reference to its outlying strongholds [“ cities and to its excep- tionally secure fastnesses, would seem to show it as a military position of importance. After Joshua’s first capture of it, it seems to have been retaken by the sons of Anak, or other formidable 1 The Hebrew word is } eer (Tjp), an “ enclosed place,” as already shown (see page 83, supra). It is not to be supposed that there were separate “ cities ” connected with Debir ; but it is probable that there were outlying “ enclosures.” 2 Josh. 10 : 38, 39 ; 15: 15 ; Judges 1 : 11. 3 As to this meaning there is no question. See Gesenius and Fiirst, s. vv. “ Qir- jath,” “Sepher.” 4 Josh. 15 :49. 5 Grove (Smith -Hackett Bib. Die., s. v. “Debir”) and Thomson (South. Pal., Land and Book), and some others, render this “ City of the Palm ; ” but Schroder (Die Phonizische Sprache, p. 8, note) shows its most probable meaning as “ City of the Law ; ” as the Arabic sinnah, “ the Law,” would indicate. The Septuagint translates both names, Qirjath-sepher as well as Qirjath-sannah, by “ City of Letters.” Nor is Schroder alone in this rendering. 6 It is a word from a root of varied significations. See Gesenius and Fiirst, s. v. “ Debeer.” Its root meanings include “ behind,” “ inner,” “ to speak,” etc. ; hence it is applied to the inner sanctuary of a temple (see 1 Kings 6 : 5, 19, 22 ; 8 : 6-8 ; 2 Chron. 3 : 16 ; 4 : 7-9) ; or again to the oracle speaking from the sanc- tuary. 104 KADESII-BA RNEA. inhabitants of Canaan ; 1 for it was then that Caleb deemed it a prize worthy of the best efforts of the most heroic, and said : “ He that smiteth Kirjath-sepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife .” 2 And Othniel, who took the city and won its reward, was afterwards a judge of Israel , 3 while his city became a city of the priests . 4 Various sites have been suggested for ancient Debir ; nearly all of them, however, within a few miles range, and all of them westerly or southwesterly of Hebron . 5 Of late the identification at Dha- hareeyeh, a somewhat remarkable village on the road from Hebron to Beersheba has gained confidence, and now has general accept- ance. Knobel 6 was perhaps the first to point to this identification, and Conder , 7 Tristram , 8 and Thomson , 9 strengthened its claims to approval. Robinson , 10 Wilson , 11 Ritter , 12 and Palmer , 13 had, before this, emphasized the importance of the site of the ruins of Dhaha- reeyeh. It is at the junction of the two great roads ; that from Hebron to Gaza, and that from Hebron to the desert and to Egypt — the “ Way of Shur.” “ A castle or fortress apparently once stood here,” says Robinson ; “ the remains of a square tower are still to be seen, now used as a dwelling; and the doorways of many hovels are of hewn stone with arches. It would seem to have been one of the line of small fortresses, which apparently once existed all along the southern border of Palestine.” It is a remarkable fact that to the present day Dhahareeyeh is counted the border town of Palestine. The Teeyahah Arabs who 1 Comp. Josh. 10: 38, 39, and Josh. 15 : 13-15. 2 Josh. 15 : 16, 17. 3 Judges 3 : 9-11. 4 Josh. 21 : 9-15. 6 Smith- Hackett Bib. Die., s. v., “Debir”; Schajff Lange Com. at Josh. 10: 38. 6 As cited in Lange, as above. 7 Tent Work in Pal., II., 93. 8 Bible Places , p. 61. 9 South. Pal. (Land and Book), p. 299/. “ Bib. Res., I., 209-11. 11 Lands of Bible, I., 349-354. 72 Geog. of Pal., III., 193, 288 /. 13 Dcs. of Exod., II., 394-396. A SWEEP TO GAZA. 105 convoy the traveler from Castle Nakhl toward Hebron are unable to carry him by Dhahareeyeh ; unless, indeed, a new agreement is made at that point, by the payment for Dhahareeyeh horses to Hebron, at an added cost beyond the hire of the Teeyahah camels. As Ritter states it 1 : “ The first place of any importance in Pales- tine is the village ed-Dhoheriyeh, five or six hours southwest of Hebron [Robinson called it four hours. I found it about four and a half]. It derives its interest from the fact that here converge the west road leading through Wadi es-Seba and Beersheba, the great highway to Gaza and Egypt, and the great eastern road from Petra and Sinai.” Palmer 2 calls attention to the fact that “ Mur- ray’s Handbook ” 3 says of this important site: “ There is nothing here either to interest or detain the traveler ; ” and he adds : “ But ... we found it, on the contrary, a very interesting place. The dwellings consist for the most part of caves cut in the natural rock, some of them having rude arches carved over the doorways, and all of them being of great antiquity. . . They are exactly like what the old Horite dwellings must have been, and have doubtless been inhabited by generation after generation, since the days of that now forgotten race.” Conder and Thomson would find a resemblance in the meanings of Dhahareeyeh and Debeer. The latter says : “ The Arabic name, edh-Dhoheriyeh, may be translated i ridge , or ‘ promontory/ and hence this signification corresponds with its position, and also with the meaning of the word .” 4 Yet Robinson (or Eli Smith 5 ) ren- ders the word as (i noon.” In fact the Arabic root of this word is as varied in its significations as its Hebrew correspondent, Debeer. It means “ back,” “ behind,” u backbone,” 61 ridge,” “ road through the desert,” “ summer-noon,” “ to conquer,” “ to disclose,” etc . 6 1 Geog. of Pal., III., 193. 2 Des. of Exod., II., 39/. 3 Syria and Pal., p. 99. 4 South. Pal. (Land and Book), p. 300. 5 Bib. Res., III., 208, first ed. 6 See Freytag’s Lex. Arab. Lot s. v. -g b> . 106 KADESH-BARNEA . Hence, while the correspondence of name is not such as to be in itself conclusive, there is enough else to render it more than probable that the important site of Dhahareeyeh is also the site of the im- portant ancient Debir ; and a similarity in the names can easily be found. Yet Dhahareeyeh as it is to-day, with its mud walls, and its wretched people, its multitude of dogs, and its many myriads of fleas, has little to suggest the military stronghold, the literary centre, the sacred metropolis, which once existed there. But herein is an illustrative contrast between the Land of Promise as it was, and as it is. And from Hebron to Debir and beyond, Joshua swept on in his conquering march. “ So Joshua smote all of the hills [the hill- country of Judah], and of the south [the Negeb], and of the vale [the Shephelah], and of the springs [‘ the upper springs and the nether springs/ which were added to Achsah’s dowry (Josh. 15 : 17-19), near Debir]. . . . And Joshua smote them from Kadesh- barnea even unto Gaza.” 1 The only consistent explanation of this statement is, that Joshua moved along southwesterly from Hebron to Debir and Kadesh-barnea ; from Hebron to the southernmost point of the southern boundary-line of Canaan, 2 and thence onward toward Gaza and the sea-coast. And this explanation coincides with all that has before been shown as to the location of Kadesh- barnea. 14. THE PROMISED LAND’S SOUTHERN BOUNDARY. And now for the various mentions of Kadesh-barnea as a boun- dary-line landmark in the Bible story. Both in the incidental refer- ences to, and in the detailed descriptions of, the southern boundary of the Promised Land as a whole, and again of the possessions of the tribe of Judah (before the portion of Simeon was taken from them), the location of Kadesh-barnea conforms to the indica- * Josh. 10 : 40, 41. 2 Num. 34 : 4. THE PROMISED LAND'S SOUTHERN BOUNDARY. 107 tions already noted, at the same time that it is fixed yet more definitely. In Numbers 34: 3-5, Moses declares, from Jehovah, to the Israelites : “ Your south quarter [or, side] shall be [or, extend] from the Wilderness of Zin along by the coast [or, boundary] of Edom [or, which resteth upon the side of Edom].” This general statement of the southern boundary line is followed by a closer description of its salient points. “ And your south border shall be [or, shall start from] the outmost coast [or, the extremity] of the Salt Sea [the Dead Sea] eastward [or, on the east] ; and your border shall turn from [or, on] the south to [or, of] the Ascent of Akrabbim, and [shall] pass on to Zin [or, Zin ward] ; and the going forth thereof shall be from the south [or, the extent of its reach on the south shall be] to Kadesh-barnea [or, south of Kadesh-barnea], and shall go on [or, shall reach forth thence] to Hazar-addar [or, the village, or settlement, of ’Addar], and shall pass on to Azmon [or, ’Azmon ward] ; and the border shall fetch a compass from Azmon unto [or, from ’Azmon the border shall turn to] the river of Egypt [or, Wady-of-Egypt-ward], and the goings out of it shall be at [or, its reach shall be to] the [Mediterranean] Sea [or, seaward].” In Joshua 15 : 1-4, this southern boundary line 1 is re-described with more particularity : “ To the border [or, boundary] of Edom, the wilderness of Zin southward was [or, as] the uttermost part of the south coast.” Or, as some would read this : “ On the south, to the border of Edom [their boundary was], the wilderness of Zin, from the extremity of Teman.” 2 This general descrip- tion is followed, as in Numbers, by a detailed one : “ And their 1 The southern boundary of Judah was also the southern boundary of the Land of Promise as a whole. 2 So, the Arabic translator and Houbigant, as quoted and followed by Geddes, in his Revision, in loco ; also the Latin Revision of Sebastian Schmidt. This point will be fully considered farther on. 108 KADESH-BARNEA. south border [or southern boundary] was from the shore [or, end] of the Salt Sea, from the bay [or, tongue] that looketh [or, turn- eth, or, bendeth] southward [or, Negeb ward] ; and it went out to the south side to Maaleh-acrabbim [or, to the southern boundary of the Ascent of ’Acrabbim], and passed along to Zin [or, Zinward], and ascended up on the south side unto [or, along the south of] Kadesh-barnea, and passed along [or, over] to Hezron, and went up to Adar, and fetched a compass [or, turned itself ] to Karkaa ; from thence it passed toward Azmon [or, ’Azmonward], and went out unto the river [or wady] of Egypt ; and the goings out of that coast [or, the terminations of the boundary] were at the Sea [or, were seaward].” 1 Now let us follow out this boundary line description in the light of present knowledge of the region in question. It is to be borne in mind that this is the southern boundary, not the eastern one ; hence it must be understood as running, or inclining, wes- terly from its very start. The eastern boundary of the Promised Land ends at the southern extremity of the Dead Sea ; 2 and there the southern boundary begins its westerly course. The southern end of the Dead Sea is not a fixed point ; for the ex- tension of water in that direction varies greatly at different times ; 3 1 From the very nature of the Hebrew language, the original description of this boundary line is somewhat vague in its phrasing ; but not so as seriously to becloud its meaning. The alternative readings given above are all justified by competent scholars; most of them, indeed, are quite generally agreed on; as maybe seen by re- ferring to the Septuagint, Critici Sacri, Pool’s Synop. of Crit., Speaker’s Com., Schaff-Lange Com., Keil and Delitzsch’s Bib. Com. Knobel’s Exeget. Handb ., Horsley’s Bib. Crit., Geddes’, Sharpe’s, Wellbeloved’s and Leeser’s Revisions, Bush’s Notes on Num., Crosby’s Notes on Josh., etc. 2 Num. 34 : 10-12 ; Josh. 15 : 5. 3 Lieut. Lynch ( Expedition to Jordan and Dead Sea, p. 309) says: “ The southern end of the sea ... is ever varying, extending south from the increased flow of the Jordan, and the efflux of the torrents in winter, and receding with the rapid evapor- ation, consequent upon the heat of summer.” See also Irby and Mangles’s Travels, p. 353 /. ; Van de Velde’s Syrien u. Pal., II., 136/.; Tristram’s Land of Israel, pp. 300, 331, 337. THE PROMISED LAND'S SOUTHERN BOUND AR Y. 109 but it is sufficiently definite for a starting point of an exten- sive boundary line . 1 Leaving the southern end of the Dead Sea, the boundary line moves westerly. The first landmark noted in that direction is a hill range designated as the Ascent of ’Akrabbim ; or the Ascent, or the Pass, of Scorpions, as it is com- monly understood. Looking westerly from the southern end of the Dead Sea, what range would seem to meet the requirement of this designation? South of the Dead Sea, at a distance of eight miles, more or less, is a “ line of cliffs crossing the whole Ghor, and constituting merely the ascent to the higher plane of the ’Arabah ;” 2 or, possibly forming a natural barrier to the encroaching waters of the Dead Sea, at their greatest height . 3 “ In the absence of any better suggestion,” Robinson was “ inclined to regard ” this cliff- range as the Ascent of ’Akrabbim ; and in this suggested identifi- cation, as in many another, Robinson has been generally followed by subsequent writers. But this low line of cliffs, this mere basin-wall , 4 is directly south of the southern end of the Dead Sea, if, indeed, it is not itself the boundary of the tongue of that sea ; and it does not seem to be in the line of a southern 1 De Saulcy ( Dead Sea, I., 250/.) would identify the peninsula on the east shore of the Dead Sea, which is known as El-Lisan (the Tongue), with “ the tongue that turn- eth southward ” in this description. But although the name itself would seem to give weight to this suggestion, Grove has pointed out (in Smith-HacJcett Bib. Die., Art. “Salt Sea”) the fact that the Hebrew word lashon here rendered “ tongue,” is in two other instances (Josh. 15 : 5; 18 : 19) applied to the upper end of the Dead Sea, and clearly means a tongue of water, not of land ; also that the term “ Lisan ” is probably given to only the southern portion of the peninsula which verges on the tongue of the sea southward. In Isaiah 11 : 15, lashon is applied to the “ tongue ” or arm of “ the Egyptian sea.” Thus we see that in the three places where the meaning of this word in the Bible text is obvious, it is applied to a tongue of water; and it is certainly fair to give it that meaning in the fourth instance. 2 Bib. Res., II., 120. 3 See Irby and Mangles’s Travels, p. 353. 4 Indeed if the Dead Sea were at its greatest height, these “cliffs” would be at the water’s edge; and then what would the “scorpions” do for a climbing place ? 110 KADESH-BARNEA. boundary. It would certainly be well to look for a “ better sug- gestion/’ 1 It has already been shown 2 that the apparent natural boundary of Canaan, or Palestine, on the south, is the mountain-range which forms the northern wall of Wady Feqreh ; “the Bald Mountain that goeth up to Seir .” 3 It is certainly reasonable to suppose that this natural boundary is designated in this instance, as in the other , 4 in the description of the southern coast of the Land of Promise ; especially when the description here accurately conforms to this prominent landmark. To one looking from the southern end of the Dead Sea , 5 the open mouth of this Wady Feqreh shows itself prominently, — in a southwesterly direction, — between the southern end of Khashm Usdum (the Hill of Sodom, sometimes called the Salt Mountain,) on the right hand, and the northern or northwestern end of the low basin-wall to which Robinson has called attention, on the left hand. A southern boundary-line, which is to run westerly, and which is to pass south of , 6 rather than over, the designated Ascent of ’Akrabbim, would therefore properly be supposed to enter this great dividing wady, which runs south of the already recognized 1 A crowning illustration of Robinson’s controlling influence over modern scholar- ship in his field, is given in his ability to induce so many to accept his suggestion that a southern boundary runs north and south. The English-speaking world has been almost a unit on this point since he made the suggestion as his only way of adapting the Bible record to his site of Kadesh-barnea ; although he did not even proffer an argument in its support. 2 See pages 95-97, supra. 3 Josh. 11 : 17 ; 12 : 7. 4 The references to this mountain-wall, in Joshua, would seem to indicate it as the southern limit of “ all that land, the hills, and all the South Country.” 5 See the Map of Dead Sea, in Tristram’s Land of Israel. 6 Keil and Delitzsch {Bib. Com., IV. 151) render Joshua 15: 3, “ To the southern boundary of the ascent of Akrabbim.’’ See, also Schaff-Lange Bib. Com., in loco. Horsley {Bib. Grit.) renders Num. 34: 4, “ And your southern border shall go round by the Hills of Scorpions.” Geddes (Revision) renders it, '• Winding about the south side of Akrabbim.” THE PR OMISED LAND'S SO UTHERN B 0 TJNDAR Y. Ill southern coast-wall of the land to be bounded. In this case, the Ascent of ’Akrabbim might be looked for along the northern wall of Wady Feqreh — the Bald Mountain wall. The Pass es-Sufah, already named as a principal pass of that wall-rampart, has been suggested, 1 with some show of probability, as the Ascent of ’Akrabbim ; 2 yet the more westerly Pass el- Yemen, up the same hillside, has, perhaps, superior claims to this identification, both in its position and in its name — as will be seen in its farther exami- nation. It is possible that in the days of the exodus the range as a whole was known as the Mount Halak, and its westerly pass as the Ascent of ’Akrabbim. Even the word “ ’Akrabbim ” may have had reference to the characteristics of the Ascent, or Pass, or Maaleh ; characteristics which are evident to-day as always. The word is commonly translated “ Scorpions,” and the suggestion is that scorpions abounded there. But while the Hebrew root is not entirely clear, it seems to have the idea of “ wounding the heel,” 3 which is the work of both the scorpion and the serpent ; 4 and from that point the Plebrew root and its Arabic correspondents run out into various meanings, including “ scorpion,” “scourge,” “striking,” “ cutting off,” “ centre,” “ defile,” “ mountain pass.” It was long ago suggested that the Ascent of ’Akrabbim was rather a descrip- tive designation than a proper name ; that it indicated a serpentine or sinuous ascent ; a way that winds and twists scorpion-like. 5 It 1 See Rowlands, in Imp. Bib. Die., s. v., “ Moserah ” ; Knobel’s Exeget. Handb., at Josh. 15 : 3 : and Speaker's Com., at Num. 34 : 4. 2 The reference to “ Akrabattine,” in Idumea, in 1 Mace. 5 : 3, would seem to cor- respond with this view. 3 Gesenius, (Heb. Lex., s. v. u 'Aqrab") thinks that it is “compounded from ’ aqar ppT) ‘to wound,’ and ’ aqeb ‘heel.’” 4 “ Thou shalt bruise his [man’s] heel,” is God’s prophecy to the serpent in Eden (Gen. 3 : 15.) 5 See citations in Pool’s Synops. Crit., from Vatablus, Emanuel Sa, and Mariana, of say three centuries ago. Fiirst ( Heb . and Chald. Lex., s. v. “ ’Aqrab ”) finds the idea of a sinuous course in the word itself. 112 KADESH-BARNEA. is a noteworthy fact that Robinson says 1 of a* similar difficult ascent at another point : “ The ascent is called simply en-Yuldb, or el-’Arkub, both signifying ‘the pass’ up a mountain; and our guides knew no other name. The road rises by zig-zags along the projecting point of a steep ridge, between two deep ravines.” The word ’Arkub, or ’Arqoob, here used, is apparently from the same root as ’aqrab. Its meaning is given 2 not only as “ a tortuous wady course,” and u a mountain defile,” 3 but as the proper name of an Amalekite “ celebrated for breaking and eluding his promises ” — slipping and twisting from the straight way of veracity. 4 This Pass el-Yemen is the more commonly used pass, up the Bald Mountain border of Palestine. It was described first, in modern times, by Seetzen, 5 in 1807. Robinson 6 says of it, in comparison with the two passes eastward of it : “ Of the three passes, that of Es-Sufah is the most direct ; but that of El-Yemen, though the way is longer, is more used on account of the water at the top ; ” good water being there found in unfailing supply : and of course a water supply vmuld always give the pre-eminenee to a pass on the desert border. The location of the Pass el-Yemen is, northward, over against the supposed westerly stretch of the land of Edom, 7 or the Dukedom of Ternan, 8 and its Arabic name, El- 1 Bib, Res., I., 175. 2 Freytag’s Lex. Arab. Lat., s. v. 3 There is apparently a root connection with this word ’Arqoob, in the name ’Aqaba, meaning “a descent or steep declivity,” which is applied to “the long and difficult descent of the Haj route from the western mountain” toward the gulf which has received the name ’Aqabah from this reason. (See Robinson’s Bib. Res., I., 171; Stanley’s Sinai and Pal., pp. 10, 84; Winer’s Bib. Realworterb., s. v. “Elath.”) 4 Pococke ( Descrip . of East, II., 1, 123) refers to the “Acrabane or Serpentine River, which goes out of the Barrady in the field of Damascus.” And this mention is noted by Koehler in his annotations to Ibn ol Wardi’s “De Terra Syriae,” (in Abulfeda’s Tab. Syr., p. 175.) The river referred to is Nahr el-Aqrabiini (See Baedeker’s Pal. and Syr., p. 48.) 5 Reisen III., 7-14; also in Zach’s monatl. Corr. XVII., pp. 133-138, as cited by Robinson. 6 Bib. Res. II., 182. 7 See pages, 100-102, supra. 8 See page 107, supra ; also Gen. 36 : 9-15. THE PROMISED LAND'S SO UTHERN B 0 UNDAR Y 113 Yemen (“ the right hand/’) has a meaning correspondent with the Hebrew name Teman (“at the right hand.”) Moreover, it is just southward of that Pass el- Yemen that a turn would naturally be made in a boundary line that had followed the border of Edom and was to hinge for a yet more southerly stretch in its onward sweep ; for standing out all by itself in the wady which is being followed as the boundary line, or rather at the confluence of two other wadies with that one, there is a notable mountain, Jebel Madurah, around the northwestern side of which the boundary line would turn to move on to its southernmost point, conformably to the directions already quoted from the Bible text. As it is the boundary line of Canaan which is being described, the turning point is naturally noted on the Canaan line rather than on the mountain below it; but the one conforms to the other. In addition to all this, there seems to be a trace of the old name ’Akrabbim still attached to the Pass el- Yemen. Wilson , 1 who went up the Pass el-Yemen understood from the Arabs that its name was “Wadi er-Rakib,” although he afterwards thought that they might have said “Arkub.” But Robinson 2 had before this been told of* a Pass er-Rakib in that direction, although he did not find it, or learn more about it. In either form of the word 3 there is an apparent trace of the name ’Akrabbim. This Pass el-Yemen, or er-Rakib, or Arqoob, is described 4 as “ a deep rent ” in the western end of the lofty Bald Mountain , 5 a 1 Lands of Bible, I., 341. 2 Bib. Res. I., 208. 3 The transposition of consonants is very common in Semitic languages ; so that often an anagram fairly gives a trace of a word which can be formed of its conso- nants. On this point, see Rodiger-Davidson’s Gesenius's Heb. Gram., chap. II., § 19 (5.) Nor is the substitution of a Kaf (as in Rakib) for a Qaf (as in ’Arqoob) at all uncommon. 4 Robinson’s Bib. Res. II., 178-182. 5 “Here [at this chasm, El-Yemen] the higher portion of the ridge [of the barrier wall of Palestine] may be said to terminate ; for although it continues to run on far to the southwest, yet it is there lower and less steep.” (Robinson’s Bib. Res., II., 178.) 8 114 KADESH-BARNEA. u chasm ” which u cleaves the mountain to its base.” The u as- cent” enters a the gorge of Wady el-Yemen; and following it up for a time, then climbs the wall of rock by a steep and difficult path. Seetzen 1 describes this wady as a frightfully wild, deep, and desert valley, strewed with large rocks so thickly, that it is often difficult to find a way between them.” And if that is not a description of a smitten, riven, tortuous, treacherous, heel-wound- ing Maaleh ’Akrabbim, it would be difficult to frame one. At the Ascent of ’Akrabbim, as has been already noted the boundary line is said to “turn,” or hinge , 2 and pass on Zin- ward . 3 In other words, the line still running westerly, takes a more southerly 4 bearing from the part of this Ascent of ’Akrabbim, and passes onward into the ’Azazimeh mountain 5 tract until it reaches Kadesh-barnea, which is the extent of its southern reach — “ the southernmost point of the southern boundary .” 6 At the southern- most point there must be, of course, another turn — north of west- erly — if the line be continued ; and we are told that from Kadesh- 1 In Zach’s Monatl. Corr. XVII., p. 134 /. ; also Bertou, in Bull, de la Soc. Geog., June 1839, p. 323 ; both cited by Robinson as above. 2 The Hebrew word sabhabh in Numbers 34: 4, translated “turn,” means to turn as on a hinge (See Gesenius’s Ileb. Lex. s. v.). 3 See page 107 f, supra. The alternative rendering “from the extremity of Teman,” as the starting point of the Zinward turn, referred to at page 107 /, supra, is more appropriately considered in connection with the restatement of the southern boundary in Ezekiel, as treated far- ther on in this work. 4 Keil and Delitzsch {Bib. Com., III., 251/,) argue that a point farther south than Wady Feqreh was the exit from the ’Arabah of this boundary line, on the ground that the “turn,” or hinge, at the Ascent of ’Akrabbim must have been from a south- erly direction to a more westerly one. But they, like so many others following Rob- inson in this, have made the mistake of supposing that the southern boundary line of the Land of Promise began by running southward instead of westerly. The line, we may take it for granted, started westerly, and at the Ascent of ’Akrabbim made a turn southerly. A hinge is as truly a hinge when it turns from right to left as when it turns from left to right. 5 See page 70,/, supra. 6 Speaker’s Com., at Num. 34: 4. THE PROMISED LAND'S SOUTHERN BOUNDARY. H5 barnea it reaches forth, or passes along, to Hazar-addar, and thence to ’Azmon, and on to the river (or torrent) of Egypt — which it follows to its termination at the Mediterranean Sea ; the coast of that sea bounding the Land of Promise on the west. The “ River of Egypt,” or the “ Torrent of Egypt,” here men- tioned is not the Nile, but the extended water course now known as Wady el-’Areesh, 1 which runs northward through the Desert of the Wanderings, dividing it into eastern and western halves, 2 or which, more properly, may be said to separate the Desert et-Teeh from the Desert el-Jefar 3 — the Desert of the Wanderings on the east, from the Desert of Shur 4 on the west. Its outlet into the Mediterranean is at a point a short distance south of a line drawn due west from the southern end of the Dead Sea. The Nile was rather the centre of Egypt than its boundary; and Egypt was never a part of the Land of Promise. But the Wady el-’Areesh is now and always has been a recognized northeasterly boundary line of Egypt, at the point of that wady’s outgoing, into the Great Sea. The very name ’Areesh means “ boundary,” or “ extremity .” 5 lc ‘The ‘Torrent of Egypt’ [D’HVO bni Nakhal Mitsraim ]; by which name is designated a certain brook, dried up in summer, which falls into the sea not far from [ancient] Rhinocorura, now El ’Areesh, on the confines of Egypt and Palestine. [This stream is] not to be confounded with ( ^ Nehar Mitsraim, the River of Egypt; that is the Nile.” (Rosenmiiller’s Bib. Alterth., III., 65-77.) 2 “ The desert is divided into two halves, an eastern and a western, by the Wady el- Arish (called in the Old Testament 1 brook of Egypt/ by the Greeks, ‘ Rhinokolura ’) which runs completely from north to south.” (Kurtz’s Hist, of Old Cov., III., 193.) 3 “ The Arabians . . . strictly distinguish the desert Jefar (^Lft:s».) from the desert of the Children of Israel CS'V f° rmer still belongs to Egypt, and its boundaries run from Rafah (^*^) the P aapay£ Alyvirrov), in Josh. 15: 4; “River of Egypt” ( norapoq Alyvirrov), in 1 Kings 8: 65; and “ Rhinocoroura ” (’P tvoKopovpa), in Isa. 27 : 12. Diodorus (Bib. Hist., Bk. I., Chap. 60), in describing the origin of Rhinocoroura (Doclc-nose-town) by its settlement with criminals whose noses had been cut off, says distinctly : “ That [town] is situated on the common boundary line of Egypt and Syria.’’ And Diodorus lived more than half-way back from our day to Joshua’s. 2 McCoan, in his Egypt As It Is (p. 2), says : “ Egypt proper is bounded definitely enough on the . . . east by a line drawn from El-Arish to Akabah ; ” and again (p. 65), in describing the former place : “ In size merely a fort and a village, El- Arish owes its rank as a mohafza [having a distinct city government] to its position as the frontier town between Syria and Palestine. The little river of the same name [He calls it a river, as our translators called it], which here forms the actual boun- dary, is dry during the greater part of the year, but after the rains it empties into the Mediterranean a tolerably rapid, though narrow stream.” And the Archduke Lud- wig Salvator (in his Caravan Route between Egypt and Syria, p. 30) says: “ El- Harish is the town of the desert which forms the most advanced post of the Khedive in the direction of Turkish territory.” 3 Wilson ( Lands of Bible , II., 52) reports the Samaritan high priest as saying to him about Solomon : “ Why, do you not know that his kingdom extended from El- ’Arish to Damascus; and from the Great Sea to the Euphrates?” 4 Sir Walter Raleigh says (Hist, of World, Pt. I., Bk. II., Chap. 10, § 2) that “ Epiphanius reports it as a tradition, that at this place [Rhinocorura, now El-Arish] the world was divided by lot betweene the three sonnes of Noah.” 5 Fiirst, in his Hlustrated Bible, in a note on Ezekiel 47 : 19, calls attention to the fact that Epiphanius, the ecclesiastical apologist, speaks of the Wady el-’Areesh as “ Nakhal ” simply : and this would seem a confirmation of the view of so many THE PR OMISED LAND'S SO UTHERN B 0 UNDAR Y. 117 of the Land of Promise is Wady el- J Areesh, would indeed seem to be put beyond fair questioning. The boundary-line landmarks named between Kadesh-barnea and the Torrent of Egypt have not yet been so identified as to find general acceptance ; but this is of minor importance except in con- firmation of the other identifications. The eastern, central, and western points of the southern boundary line being fixed, the intermediary points can easily be located. I think I shall be able to make them clear by a report, farther on, of my researches in that region ; but that is not essential just here. “ Azmon ” is apparently identified in the Jewish Targums 1 with the modern Qasaymeh, a group of springs, or pools, a little to the northeast of Jebel Muwaylih, near the great caravan route — the Way of Shur — between Egypt and Syria, already several times referred to. And enough is shown in the identifications which are conclusive, to prove that Kadesh-barnea is in the heart of the ’Azazimeh moun- tain tract, at some point south of a line drawn from the southern end of the Dead Sea to the mouth of Wady el- ? Areesh ; and this agrees with all that has before appeared concerning its probable location. A point which ought to receive attention in the boundary-line description in Joshua, is the reference to Teman as the portion of Edom lying next to the Wilderness of Zin. As has already been mentioned, 2 the phrase translated (Joshua 15 : 1), tc The Wilder- ness of Zin southward was the uttermost part of the south coast,” scholars, that the simple word “Nakhal,” in this passage of Ezekiel, means the Torrent [of Egypt]. Professor Palmer (as above) inclines to the opinion that the name “ is still perpetuated in the fort of Nakhl,” in mid-desert; although that fort has been commonly understood to be the Fortress of the Palms, from the Arabic {Nakhl, JL^o “palm-trees”), rather than from the Hebrew {Nakhal, bflJ “torrent”). 1 Both the Jerusalem and the Pseudo- Jonathan Targums render “ Azmon,” at Num. 34: 5, as Qesam (DD'p). 2 See page 107, supra. 118 KADESH-BARNEA. might more properly be rendered, “ The Wilderness of Zin south- ward, from the extremity of Teman.” 1 This is the view taken by the Arabic translator, by Houbigant, Geddes, Masius, 2 Sebastian Schmidt, and others. Indeed a restatement of the boundary line in Ezekiel makes this quite clear, in the light of the Septuagint explanatory addition just there. As Crosby 3 says concerning the phrase in Joshua : “ ‘ Teman ’ means ‘ south/ it is true, but as the writer has just used ‘ negeb ’ for * south/ and uses it immediately again in verse 2, it is almost certain that he here means ‘ Teman ’ " for the country of Teman.” “ Teman ” 4 is a Hebrew term meaning literally “ what is on the right hand,” 5 or “the right hand place;” hence “the southern quarter.” As a proper name, it is applied to a region or district of Edom, 6 and also to the progenitor of the people of that region. 7 As in the case of the word “ Negeb,” which designated the arid land southward of Canaan, receiving its meaning of southward from its position Canaanward ; so in the case of Teman, it was probably the portion of Edom which lay directly south, or Teman- ward, of Canaan. 8 This being so, it is to be understood that the 1 The Hebrew word Taiman or Teman, like the word Negeb, although a proper name, is frequently used in the Old Testament as an indication of a point of the compass — southward. 2 Cited in Pool’s Synops. Grit. 3 Notes on Joshua , in loco. * Taiman 5 See Gesenius, Heb. Lex s. v. 6 See Gen. 36 : 34 ; Jer. 49 : 7, 20 ; Ezek. 25 : 13 ; Amos 1 : 12 ; Obad. 9 ; Hab. 3 : 3. 7 Gen. 36 : 11, 15 ; 1 Chron. 1 : 53. 8 Every passage in which a reference to Teman occurs, in the Bible, is consistent with this understanding of its location. In Ezek. 25 : 13, it seems to be named as if it were the western side of Edom, as over against Dedan on the east: in Amos 1 : 12, it is put, as if in the southwest, over against Bozrah in the northeast ; in Obadiah 9, it is set over against Mount Seir ; and in Habakkuk it is used as a parallelism with Mount Paran. Moreover, there even seems to be a trace of the old name in the Pass el-Yeraen (the Pass of the Right, or the Pass of the South, or the Pass which is over against Teman), which goes out from Wady Feqreh northward, up the Bald Moun- tain, over against ancient Teman — as we find Teman referred to in this boundary line THE PROMISED LAND'S SOUTHERN BOUNDARY. 119 southern boundary line of the Land of Promise ran along the border of Edom, or Teman, until it reached the western extremity of that border, whence it ran Zinward toward Kadesh- barnea, “ southwards from the extremity of Teman.” Once more is the southern boundary of the Promised Land accurately described, in Ezekiel’s prophecy of its re-establishment, and that in such a way as to throw added light on the place of Kadesh-barnea, between the eastern and western limits of that boundary. Beginning at the north, the prophet describes the boundary lines, by way of the east around the whole compass. 1 Ending the eastern boundary at the Dead Sea, 2 he outlines the southern boundary with a few salient landmarks, instead of giving all the details supplied in Numbers and Joshua. “And the south side southward [or, on the south Temanward] ; from Tamar [or, Thamar], even to [or, as far as] the waters of strife in Kadesh [or, the waters of Meribah-Kadesh], 3 the river [or, torrentward] to the Great Sea [or, the inheritance (reaches) to the Great Sea]. And this is the south side southward 4 [or, the south side, Temanward].” 5 of southern Canaan. As to the Pass el-Yemen, see Robinson’s Bib. Res., II., 178, 179, 182; Palmer’s Des. of Exod., II., 291, 416. As to Teman, see Wilton’s The Negeb, pp. 123-126. See also page 107, supra. 1 Ezekiel 47 : 13-21. 2 Ezekiel 47 : 18. 3 Num. 20 : 13 ; 27 : 14 ; Deut. 32 : 51. 4 The use of the word Temanward has already been considered (see page 118, supra ) in connection with the boundary line as recorded in Joshua. In the Septu- agint, the phrase pros Noton kai Liba (Trpbg N orov nai Ai(3a), corresponding here with the Hebrew Neghebh Taimanah 3JJ), rendered in our version “ south side southward,” is supplemented by apo Thaiman (a-iro Qaipav ), “from [or, along] Teman,” the Teman (Taiman) of the Hebrew text being reduplicated in the Greek, thus indicating the opinion of the Seventy that in this instance, at least, the proper name Teman was intended as a boundary -line landmark. The Genevan Bible reads, “And the south side shalbe toward Teman.” Van Dyck’s Arabic Bible renders : “ And this is the side of Temin southward. 5 See, also, Ezek. 48 : 28. For various readings here suggested, and for their discussion, see Schaff-Lange 120 KADESH-BARNEA. Apparently, three principal points are here designated on the line of the southern boundary ; one at the eastern end, one in the centre, one at the western end, — between the extreme bounds of the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean • Thamar at the east, Kadesh- barnea in the centre, the Torrent of Egypt at the west. This is what would seem to accord with the method of Ezekiel in his running anew of the entire boundary line of the Holy Land from the north by way of the east, around again to his starting point. Thamar was probably a town at or near the southern end of the Dead Sea, which had come into existence, or into prominence, between the days of Joshua and Ezekiel, and therefore had men- tion by the latter and not by the former. Ptolemy , 1 in an enu- meration of the towns of Judea west of the Jordan, names as the most southerly town in his list, u Thamaro,” which he locates by his somewhat indefinite latitude and longitude 2 corresponding very nearly with the lower end of the Dead Sea. Eusebius 3 refers to “a certain Thamara, a village distant a day’s journey from Mapsis , 4 as you go from Hebron to Ailam, where [at Thamara] is now a Com. ; Speaker’s Com. ; Ilengstenberg’s Com. on Ezek. ; Ilitzig’s Der Prophet Ezekiel; Etc. 1 Geog. Bk. V., chap. 16, § 8. 2 This is Ptolemy’s note of it : “Qa/uapi j . . . . . • Cf 7 A.5 Thamaro 66£ 31 or 66° 20' 31° Reland, in his Palxstina in quoting this gives the latitude at 30B. 3 In his Onomast. s. v. “ Asason Thamar.” 4 Jerome here substitutes “Mempsis.” Robinson (Bib. Res., II., 201 /.), thinks that the place meant was the “Malatha” of Josephus (Antiq. Bk. 18, chap. 6, §2) the “ Moladah ” of the Old Testament (Josh. 15: 26; 19: 2; 1 Chron. 4: 28: Neh. 11: 26.) The site of this place he would identify in the modern el-Milh or Tell Milh; and Wilton (The Negeb pp. 109-114,) sustains him in this identification. Wilson (Lands of Bible, I., 347) and Tristram (Bible Places, p. 19) also accept it. THE PROMISED LAND'S SOUTHERN BOUNDARY. 121 garrison of [Roman] soldiers .” 1 Reland , 2 in mentioning “ Tha- maro” of Ptolemy, says, “ Possibly it is the same as Thamara” [of Eusebius] ; and lie adds that it is given as “ Thamaro,” at this place, in the Peutinger Tables . 3 Reland makes the mistake — in which he has been followed by many — of supposing that Eusebius locates Thamara at a “ day’s journey from Hebron as you go to Aila;” whereas the latter says it is a day’s journey from Mapsis [or Malatha ; or, Moladah] ; ” and Eusebius elsewhere shows that Malatha [Mapsis?] is sixteen miles, or a short day’s journey, from Hebron . 4 Thamara is a day’s distance from this place. Menke , 5 6 in his map carefully plotted from the Onomasticon, locates “ Mal- atha ” on the road from Hebron to Aila, and “ Thamara ” on the Dead Sea near its lower end, about a day’s journey eastward. In his maps, from Ptolemy and the Peutinger Tables and later sources, he identifies “ Thamaro ” with “ Thamara ; ” and “ Maps ” and “ Mapsis ” with “ Malatha.” There would seem little reason 1 The text of the Onomasticon is : ’A aaabv Qapap , evx 9a narti/cow oi ’ Apoppaloi, ovg Karenoipev Xodophoyopup, TrapaaeiTCu ry kprjpc j KaSfiyg. 2 kytrai 6£ rig 0 apapa K&py dieoTcjoa M.axpig rjpipag o56v, amovrov aero Xe/3po)v sig AlXap, rjng vvv <{>povpi6v ectl TO)V CTpaTlUTUV. Jerome renders this: Asason Thamar , in hac habitabant quondam Amorrhxi , quos interfecit Chodorlagomor ; zuxta eremum Cades, est et aliud castellum Thamara; unites diei itinere a Mampsis oppido separatum , pergentibus Ailiam de Chebron , ubi nunc Romanum presidium positum est. 2 Palxstina, p. 1031. 3 The Tabula Peutingeriana is a chart of the military roads of the Roman empire, with the distances noted between the towns. Its date is of the third or fourth centu- ries of our era. 4 ’A papa, 7 xokig ’A poppaiov irapaiceiphij rfi kpfjpqma'kovphy K a&drjg icat eotiv elg hi vvv Kopt] aero TEraprov cypeiov MaAaadi, ryg 6e Xe/?p 33 . 2 Q } 27. 7 Lowrie, in Schaff-Lange Com., at Num. 14 : 1-45. 8 Gen. 14: 7. Supposing the Book of Genesis to have been written during the period of the wanderings, it seems natural for Moses to mention this place, in the 154 KADESH-BA RNEA. the case, it would be eminently fitting to designate the place as Ritlimath on its first visit, and as Kadesh on its second ; especially as the explanation of the correspondence and of the difference is made clear in the context. This finding the probable identity of Kadesh with Rithmah, gives another clue to the locating of Kadesh. The name Rithmah still stands in the desert, in its Arabic form — Aboo Retemat . 1 Rithmah, as has been shown, means Place of Retem. Aboo Retemat means the same. And the wady which bears this name 2 is in the immediate vicinity of the very point already designated as the probable halting place of Kedor-la’omer, because of its being the common junction of all the roads into Canaan on that side of the desert . 3 It is quite in accordance with the tendency of things in the East, to have the original name thus survive all later changes . 4 Moreover the fact that this name Rithmah just here is an ancient one , 5 is further shown by its Arabic form Retemat being applied to a tribe of Arabs 6 who claim the region as their home. record of Kedor-la’omer’s march, as En-mishpat, by which it was now known to the Israelites ; and to add the explanation that it was the place which they had before known as their Kadesh. 2 Robinson’s Bib. Res., I., 189 ; Bonar’s Des. of Sinai , p. 292. 3 See page 42, supra. 4 For example : Accho (Judges 1 : 13) became Ptolemais, but it is now Akka, or Acre ; Bethshan (1 Sam. 31 : 10, 12 ; 2 Sam. 21 : 12), or Bethshean (Josh. 17 : 11, 16 ; Judges 1: 27; 1 Kings 4: 12; 1 Chron. 7 : 29), became Scythopolis, but is now Besan ; Lydda (Acts 9 : 32, 35, 38) became Diospolis, but is now Ludd ; and so on. 5 The Speaker’s Commentary (at Note on Num. 13 : 26) affirms that the broom (retem) “ probably gave a name to many localities,” and mentions one place else- where (in quite another region) which bore another form of this name. But as the form which corresponds with “ Rithmah ” is found only at this one point in all the region where Kadesh may be, or has been, looked for, it certainly is an important element in the locating of Kadesh. It is true that it might have been in half a dozen places ; but in fact it is in only one — in the upper desert. 6 The Beny Retaymat See Burckhardt’s Beduinen und Wahaby , pp. 312, 602. KADESH IN THE LIST OF STATIONS. 155 It appears, therefore, that an examination of the formal list of stations tends to identify Kadesh with Rithmah of that list ; and that there is a reasonable trace of Rithmah in Wady Aboo Retemat, over against the very portion of the ’Az&zimeh moun- tain tract within which all our studies up to this time have com- bined for the locating of Kadesh. And this completes an examination of all the references to Kadesh-barnea in the entire Bible text, which can fairly be looked to as giving any indication of its locality. The very earliest men- tion of this place is in a connection which would seem to put it in the heart of the Azazimeh mountain tract, at some point eastward of Jebel Muwaylih and of Wady Aboo Retemat — near which all the great highways of the desert come together in a common trunk ; and every subsequent mention of the place either points directly to the same locality, or is conformable to it. Unless, therefore, some weighty reasons against this site should be ascertained outside of the Bible text, it would seem to be fixed within the limits named, beyond fair questioning. KADESH-BARKEA. ANCIENT REFERENCES TO IT OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE TEXT. KADESH-BARNEA. 1. IN THE EGYPTIAN RECORDS. Having examined the various Bible references to Kadesh- barnea, in order to its locating, it is important to search the ancient records outside of the Bible, to ascertain if any light is thrown on this site by references to it in them. First in order come the Egyptian records. Indeed it is only there , that there is a possibility of any evidence contemporaneous with the Mosaic narrative. Modern investigations have disclosed much geographical information concerning the lands of the Bible story, in the monuments and papyri of ancient Egypt ; and it would not be unreasonable to hope to find incidental references in those records, to such a point of strategic importance in military movements as Kadesh-barnea would seem to have been from the days of Kedor-la’omer onward. The name Kadesh, or Qodesh, — the Sanctuary, — appears very frequently in the Egyptian records, as designating a stronghold of the Kheta, or Hittites, in the north of Syria ; supposed to be on the Lake of Hums ; and there are good reasons for thinking that the same name is applied at times, in those records, to one site, or more, in the region of Syria, or Upper Canaan (the land of the Rutennu, or the Lutennu, of the monuments), apart from the Hittite sacred stronghold. 159 160 KADESII- B ARNE A . Kadesh on the Orontes, or Kadesh of the Hittites, is a centre of interest in important campaigns of the Pharaohs of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth dynasties ; 1 notably Thotmes III., Setee I., and Rameses II. Its capture by one Pharaoh after another is cele- brated in song and story in the papyri and on the monuments, and is pictured in glowing colors on the temple walls of Egypt. The poem of Pentaur , 2 reciting the valor of Rameses the Great in the overthrow of Kadesh of the Hittites, as repeated again and again in manuscript and in stone, is given a living freshness to the readers of to-day by the graphic pen of Ebers in his historical romance Uarda. This Kadesh, however, is obviously not the Kadesh-barnea of the Negeb. But in the list of conquered towns of Canaan and Syria, in the Hall of Pillars at Karnak , 3 there is clearly a second Kadesh, or Qodesh, or Kedes , 4 apparently (from its order in the list) farther south than Kadesh of the Hittites ; and again there are frequent references on the monuments to a Kadesh of the Amorites, or “ Kadesh in the territory of the Amorites.” Brugsch , 5 and Lenor- mant and Chevallier , 6 are confident that Kadesh of the Hittites and Kadesh of the Amorites are one ; but they do not ignore the fact that a second Kadesh farther south in Canaan is named on the Egyptian monuments. Chabas, on the other hand, would distin- 1 See Brugsch’s Hist, of Egypt, I., 388-401 ; II., 15-18 ; 46-65 ; Rec. of Past, Vols. II., IV., VI., VIII., passim; Wilkinson’s Anc. Egypt., I., 257; Miss Edwards’s Up the Nile, pp. 204, 206, 436-443 ; Villiers Stuart’s Nile Gleanings, pp. 172-177 ; Tom- kins’s “The Campaign of Rameses II. in his Fifth Year against Kadesh on the Orontes,” in Tgans. of Soc. of Bib. Arch., Vol. VII., Part. 3. 2 De Rouge’s Le Poeme de Pen- Ta- Our ; also in Rec. of Past, II., pp. 65-78 ; and in Brugsch’s Hist, of Egypt, II., 56-65. 8 See Brugsch’s Hist, of Egypt,!., 389-394; Conder’s “Palestine before Joshua,” in Surv. of West. Pal., “ Special Papers,” pp. 177-194. * Comp. No. 1 and No. 48 in that list. 6 Geog. des Alt. JEgypt, I., 59-61, 67 ; also Hist, of Egypt, I., 394; II., 16. 6 Anc. Hist, of East, II., 150. IN TIIE EGYPTIAN RECORDS. 161 guish between Kadesh of the Hittites and Kadesh of the Amorites, and he would identify the latter with Kadesh-barnea . 1 This is a claim worthy of our notice. In incidental proof of the non-identity of Kadesh of the Hittites, and Kadesh of the Amorites, — the southernmost Kadesh, — Chabas insists that the Egyptian records show that the country of the Amorites was at some distance southward, from the region of the Orontes; and this the Bible record also shows. Moreover, in the pictured, or sculptured, representation of the campaign against Kadesh of the Amorites, the latter place is “ represented as standing on a hill side, with a stream on one side, and surrounded by trees ;” 2 and thus it is “most plainly distinguished from the Kodesh of the Kheta (Hittites) on the Orontes, which is in a flat country on a recess of a lake, girdled by a double moat with bridges .” 3 Again there are references on the temple walls and in the papyri to a Qodesh, or Kadesh, and a Dapur, or Dapour, or Tapura, in apparent proximity, in the land of Canaan, or the land of the Rutennu . 4 And in an inscription above a representation of the second of these fortresses, in the record of the conquests of Ram- eses II., in his temple at Thebes, it is called “ Dapur in the land of the Amorites ;” 5 as Qodesh is elsewhere called “ Kadesh in the territory of the Amorites .” 6 Among the proposed identifications of these two sites, Chabas , 7 followed by Tomkins , 8 advocates Debir 9 below Hebron, and Kadesh-barnea farther southward. 1 Etudes sur V Ant. Hist., p. 266 f. 2 See Bosellini’s Monumenti, LIII. 3 Tomkins’s Times of Abraham, p. 84 ; also his paper, as above, in Trans, of Soc. of Bib. Arch., Vol. VII., Pt. 3; Wilkinson’s Anc. Egypt., I., 259; Brugsch’s Hist, of Egypt, II., 48-52. 4 See “ Travels of an Egyptian,” in Rec. of Past, Vol. II., p. Ill; Brugsch’s Hist, of Egypt, II., 107-114; Surv. of West. Pal., “Special Papers,” pp. 163-176. 5 Brugsch’s Hist, of Egypt, II., 67 ; Birch’s Egypt , p. 122. 6 Brugsch’s Hist, of Egypt, II., 16. 7 Etudes sur V Ant. Hist., p. 264 jf. 8 Times of Abraham, p. 84. 9 Josh. 10 : 36-39. See also page 103, jf., supra. 11 162 KADESH-BARNEA. Such an identification, on such authority, ought not to be passed without examination, in a search for traces of Kadesh-barnea. There are weighty objections to both these identifications, and equally weighty reasons in favor of other identifications. The order of the narrative in the Anastasi Papyrus , 1 in the course of which Qodesh and Dapur are mentioned together, would indi- cate the upper portion of Samaria and the lower portion of Galilee, rather than southern Judah, as the region referred to ; 2 and the same may be said of the place of the fortresses in the inscriptions on the walls at Thebes . 3 Moreover, the pictured delineations of the two fortresses in question furnish evidence that they are not Debir and Kadesh-barnea, but that they are Tabor 4 and Kedesh-Naphtali ; 5 as can easily be shown. Whether the name “ Tabor ” is or is not connected with the ancient name “ Dapur” or “Tapura,” of the Egyptian records, the name of Debooreyeh , 6 at the western base of Mount Tabor, is clearly a record of the ancient Daberath or Dabareh, of the days of Joshua , 7 and so of the days of the Egyptian records in question ; as also of the Dabira of Eusebius and Jerome . 8 And the fortress 1 See j Rec. of Past, Vol. II., pp. 109-116. 2 See Conder’s “First Traveler in Palestine,” in Surv. of West. Pal., “Special Pa- pers,” 168/ 3 Birch {Egypt, p. 122), and Brugsch (Hist, of Egypt, II., 67, 110), favor this iden- tification, although they do not attempt any proof of it. Conder (as above, p. 169) thinks that Dapour is “probably the Diblath of Ezek. 6: 14;” but he misses the connection with Debooreyeh at Mount Tabor. * Brugsch’s Hist, of Egypt, II., 67. 5 Brugsch (Hist, of Egypt, II., 110) identifies the Kadesh here linked with Dapur as Kedes (the present name of Kedesh-Naphtali.) Conder (as above) claims the identification as his own. 6 See Yon Schubert’s Reise, III., 174; Robinson’s Bib. Res., II., 350 /. ; Wilson’s Lands of Bible, II., 90; Van de Velde’s Reise, II. 324, 331 ; Biickert’s Reise, p. 327 ; Ritter’s Geog. of Pal., II., 314 ; Surv. of West. Pal., “ Name Lists,” p. 125 ; Tris- tram’s Bible Places, p. 235. » Josh. 19 : 12 ; 21 : 28. 8 Onomast. s.v. “Dabira.” This place is apparently the one called “Buria” by William of Tyre (Gesta Dei, p. 1026.) IN THE EGYPTIAN RECORDS. 163 which crowned the mountain would naturally bear the name of the city which it covered and protected. Now Mount Tabor is unique among mountains, rising as it does all by itself from a level plain. And the Egyptian representation of the fortress of Dapur shows just such a mountain as that, separate and distinct from other mountains, and with a citadel crowning its entire surface . 1 This agrees most admirably with the Tabor identification ; but it is quite inconsistent with the identification at Debir below Hebron, the site of which is found in Dhahareeyeh , 2 where is a ridge or hill side, but no such separate mountain summit. And the evidence for the identification of the lower Kadesh, of the Amorites, with Kedesh-Naphtali, in the Egyptian delineation of its fortress, is as distinct and positive as is that in the case of Dapur. As has been already mentioned , 3 the fortress of Kadesh of the Hittites is well known as on a plain, and as surrounded with a bridged moat ; while the lower Kadesh is on a hill-side, with a stream below it. Now the site of Kedesh-Naphtali, which was a royal city when the Israelites entered Canaan , 4 and which was made a city of refuge after their occupation , 5 is described by trav- elers in a manner to conform it peculiarly to the Egyptian pictur- ing. It still bears the name Kedes , 6 and is a short distance northwest of Huleh Lake, or the Waters of Merom. Tristram says of it : “ Situated on an eastern slope, behind it rise the bare but herbage-clad hills, where flocks and herds camped for the greater part of the year. The town stood on a knoll, where it could not easily be surprised. Just below it gushed forth a copious spring, caught in various ancient reservoirs, for the use of man and J See Wilkinson’s Anc. Egypt., I., 243; Rawlinson’s Hist, of Anc. Egypt, I„ 482; also Tomkins’s Times of Abraham, p. 86. 2 See page 103 jf.^supra. 3 See page 161, supra. 4 Josh. 12 : 22 ; 19: 32-37. 5 Josh. 20 : 7-9 ; Judges 7 : 6-12 ; 2 Kings 15: 29; 1 Ohron. 6 : 76. 6 See Robinson’s Bib. Res., III., 364 ff.; Surv. of West. Pal., “ Memoirs,” Vol. I., pp. 226-230. 164 KADESH-BARNEA. beast. Then, down a gentle slope, there were several hundred acres of olive groves ; and beyond these a rich alluvial plain.” This certainly is very like the Egyptian picture, which shows Qodesh of the Amorites “ as standing on a hill side, with a stream on one side, and surrounded by trees .” 1 It is a noteworthy fact, that the Talmud refers to Kadesh- Naphtali as Kadesh of the mountains , 2 which is practically the same as Kadesh of the Amorites. And it certainly accords better with many of the Egyptian references 3 to the Kadesh of the Amorites as in reasonable proximity to the plain of Megiddo, to suppose that this Kadesh, or Kateshu, was Kadesh-Naphtali rather than Kadesh on the Orontes. At all events a careful examination of the facts seems to show unmistakably, that the second Kadesh, or Qodesh, of the Canaan- itish lists in Egypt, is not Kadesh-barnea, as Chabas and Tomkins have suggested. Nor, in fact, have we any reason for supposing that Kadesh-barnea bore the name Kadesh — by which to be noted on the Egyptian records — before the presence there of the sacred tabernacle of the Hebrews. Moreover, as has been shown , 4 it is 1 “ The site is beautiful — the summit and sides of a little ridge projecting from wooded heights on the west into a green plain.” (Porter’s Giant Cities, p. 271.) “ Unlike the many towns we had visited on rocky hill-tops, Kedesh-Naphtali occu- pies a gently-sloping descent to a pretty vale.” (Dulles’s Ride Through Pal., p. 360.) 2 “ Kedesch, dans la montagne de Nephthali,” quoted from the Babylonian Talmud, Makkoth, 9 b., in Neubauer’s La Geographic du Talmud, p. 55. And Porter ( Giant Cities, p. 262) says : “ The Naphtalites were the Highlanders of Palestine.” Naturally, therefore, those who preceded them in that region were “ the Highlanders” — the Amorites — of Canaan; and their Kedesh was the “ Kedesh of the Amorites.” 3 See “ Annals of Thothmes III. Account of the Battle of Megiddo,” in Rec. of Past, II., 37-58. The ‘‘Kateshu” first named in these “ Annals” (pp. 38, 43) would seem to be the lower Kadesh ; while that named in the king’s later progress (p. 51 /.) would seem to be the upper one. See also Brugsch’s Hist, of Egypt , I., 368-386 ; Lenormant and Chevallier’s Anc. Hist, of East, I., 231 /. See page 83 f, supra. IN THE APOCRYPHA. 165 not to be supposed that there was any fortress at Kadesh-barnea to be captured by Hebrews or Egyptians. 2. IN THE APOCRYPHA. Next in order to the Egyptian records, comes the Apocrypha. This contains but a single locating of the southernmost Kadesh ; 1 and that is in a list of places, in Judith 1 : 7-10, to which a mes- sage was sent by u the king of the Assyrians : ” “ To all that were in Samaria and the cities thereof, and beyond Jordan unto Jeru- salem, and Betane, and Chellus, and Kades, and the river of Egypt, and Taphnes, and Ramesse, and all the land of Gesem.” Here it is evident that the geographical order of the places named is from “ beyond the Jordan/’ 2 or, from near the Jordan, southerly and westerly, by way of Jerusalem toward Egypt. After Jerusalem comes “ Betane.” This is probably the Beth- anoth 3 of Joshua 15 : 59, fairly identified by Wolcott 4 in theBayt ’Ainoon of to-day, a short distance north of Hebron ; this latter identification being approved by Robinson 5 and Winer 6 and Palmer 7 and Tristram, 8 and being in keeping with the view of Reland 9 and Grove. 10 Of the important ruins of this site, with their ancient watering-place cisterns, Tristram says : “ Near them was the great highway to Egypt, and traces of the ancient paved 1 “Cades, which is in Galilee,” or Kedesh-Naphtali, is twice mentioned, in I Mac- cabees 11 : 63, 73. One reading of Judith 5 : 4, mentions Kadesh-barnea. 2 “Here this phrase means, not as commonly the country east of the Jordan, but that lying west of the river.” ( Schaff-Bissell Apocrypha , in loco.) 3 So says “ Movers, followed by Fritzsche, Bunsen’s Bibelwerk, and other authori- ties” ( Schaff-Bissell Apoc., p. 169.) The suggestion of Rawlinson (Herod., II., 460) that Batansea, or Bashan, is intended, is quite inconsistent with the geographical order of the text. *Bib. Sac., February, 1843, p. 57/. 5 Bib. Res., III., 281. 6 Bib. Realworterb., s. v. “ Betane.” 7 Survey of West. Pal., “Name Lists,” p. 397. 8 Bible Places, p. 68/ 9 Palxstina, p. 625. 10 Smith-Hackett Bib. Die., s. v. “ Betane.” 166 KADESH-BARNEA. road remain, and marks of wheel-ruts, where no wheeled carriage has passed for centuries.” This indicates a reason for naming this station on the way Egyptward. Next to “ Betane ” is “ Chellus,” or, Chelus. 1 This is naturally thought by Reland 2 and Grove 3 to be the Khulasah, 4 or Chalutza, or Elusa, which was a centre of pagan worship, 5 and lay south- westerly from Beersheba. Winer 6 would find in Chellus the ancient Halhul ; 7 but as this name still stands “ Halhul,” 8 it seems hardly probable that it would have been known, at any time between the early and later period, as “ Chellus.” In a list of episcopal and arch-episcopal towns in the see of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, made up early in the sixth century, 9 two stations at the east of the arch-episcopate of Gaza are named, as “ Chalasa ” and “ Cholus,” 10 or, as “ Elusa ” and “ Elas.” 11 The second of these two stations would correspond yet more closely with Chelus ; and this is not improbably the place referred to as “ el-Khtilus,” in the Arabic version of the Polyglot Bible, as standing for Gerar, in Genesis 20 : 1, 2 ; 26 : 1, as mentioned by Reland, 12 Robinson, 13 and Stewart, 14 rather than “ Elusa ” as they supposed. But which- ever of the three sites be accepted for Chellus, the direction is still southerly and westerly, from above Hebron toward the borders of Egypt. After “ Chellus,” between that and “ the river of Egypt,” or Wady el-’Areesh, comes “ Kades.” And just here is where we should expect to find “ Kades,” or Kadesh-barnea, in view of all 1 Schaff-Bissell Apocrypha, in loco. 2 Palsestina, p. 717. 3 Smith-Hackett Bib. Die., s. v. u Chellus.” *Bib. Res., I., 201 Palmer’s Des. of Exod., II., 385 /., 423, Bartlett’s Egypt to Pal., p. 401 /. 5 Jerome’s Vita Hilarionis. 6 Bib. Realworterb., s. v. “ Chellus.” 2 J 0 sh. 15: 58. 8 Robinson’s Bib. Res. III., 281/.; Jerome’s De Locis Hebraicis, s. v. “Elul.” 9 Quoted in the Appendix to Palmer’s Des. of Exod., II., 550 ff. 10 Ibid., p. 552. 11 Reland’s Palxstina, pp. 217, 218. 12 Ibid., p. 805. 13 Bib. Res., I., 202, note. u Tent and Khan, p. 208. IN THE RABBINICAL WRITINGS. 167 the biblical indications of its site. It is at the southern extremity of Palestine, at the turning point westward of the boundary line toward Wady el-’Areesh. And so the Apocrypha agrees with the Old Testament text in the location of Kadesh-barnea. 3. IN THE RABBINICAL WRITINGS. And now for the help of the rabbinical writings, in our search for light on Kadesh-barnea and its locating. And at first it seems a darkening of counsel that comes to us, in words without know- ledge ; but those words will bear studying. In the Targums, and in the Talmud instead of Kadesh, and of Kadesh-barnea, we find another term substituted ; namely, “ Reqam,” or “ Reqem-Giah,” in several diverse but not mate- rially different forms . 1 The reason and significance of this substi- tutionary term has been a matter of much discussion and of no little confusion among earlier and later commentators. An added element of confusion is the fact that the same term, “ Reqem,” is, in one instance at least, applied in the Talmud to Petra , 2 or the Rock City, at the east, or the southeast, of the Holy Land. Josephus , 3 followed by Eusebius 4 and Jerome 5 and many 1 In the Targums : The Pseudo- Jonathan, at Num. 34 : 4, and elsewhere : KjtT J Dpi, reqam gee’a. The Jerusalem : NJTJ1 Dpi, reqam deg aVd. Onkelos : Dpi, reqam. In the Babylonian Talmud : In Yalkoot, § Ekeb, rVKJ Dpi, reqem gaih. In Siphr6, g Ekeb, and in treatise, Tosiftha, Schebiith, chap. 3, HH’J Dpi, reqem geeah. In the Jerusalem Talmud: In Schebiith, 6: 1, HplJI Dpi, reqem dego'ah. 2 In Gittin, 1 : 1, Dpi, reqem. 3 Antiq., Bk. IV., Chap. 7, $ 1. 4 Onomast., s.vv., “Arcem,” “Petra,” “ Recem.” 5 De Loc. Heb s.vv., “Arcem,” “ Petra,” “ Recem.” 168 KADESLI-BA UNEA. others, suggested that this name Reqam — which he applies exclu- sively to Petra — was given in honor of Rekem, a Midianitish king slain by the Hebrews under Phinehas on the plains of Moab, east of the Jordan . 1 But as this name is applied by the rabbis to Kadesh, the sanctuary of the Hebrews, we may be sure that it had some other signification than this. To suppose that they would call that sacred site by the name of an accursed chieftain slain by the sword of the Lord, is as unreasonable as it would be to sup- pose that the early Christians of Damascus had named a church “ Ananias ” in honor of the husband of Sapphira . 2 That the term Reqam in the rabbinical writings is commonly applied to Kadesh -barnea, and that the location of Kadesh-barnea as thus designated corresponds with the biblical indications of its site — not far eastward of the great caravan route between Egypt and Syria — would seem clear on an examination of those writings. In several name-lists of places given in the Talmud , 3 as marking the boundaries of the Holy Land, the starting point is Askelon. Running northward along the western boundary, and thence east- ward and southward, the line indicated by these lists returns along the southern side, westerly to its starting point — Askelon. On this route, “ Reqem-Giah ” occurs on the southern line, in proxim- ity to Askelon and “ the great road which leadeth to the desert.” But it is also evident, as before noted, that there is a second Reqam — not a second Kadesh — referred to in those writings as on the eastern border of the Holy Land, or just beyond it. This Reqam is probably the “ Petra” mentioned by Josephus, Eusebius, and Jerome ; which mention has been the occasion of so much doubt and confusion. A careful talmudic scholar 4 of two centuries ago touches this 1 Num. 31 : 1-8. 2 Comp. Acts 5 : 1-11 ; 9 : 10. 3 See a table of these lists, facing page 11, in Neubauer’s Geog. du Talmud. 4 Johannis Othonis Lex. Rabbin. Philolog. (Geneva, A. D. 1675), s. v., “ Cadesh- Barnea.” IN THE RABBINICAL WRITINGS. 169 point when he says : u 1 Kadesh-barnea/ and 1 Kadesh ? simply, are translated ‘ Rekam ? by all the Oriental interpreters Rekam was the boundary of the land of Israel, yet so that it was to be esteemed as outside the land. . . . There were two noteworthy places named Rekam on the limits of the land ; one was Kadesh on the southern side ; but the other, Kadesh [Rekam] on the eastern side concerning which Rabbi Nissim speaks in Gittin I., when he says, Rekam [Petra] itself is considered as the east of the world — as Gentile territory, not as Israelitish territory.” The passage in Gittin here referred to, shows that there is an eastern “ Rekam ” (as Josephus and others say Petra is called) ; but it does not show that there is an eastern Kadesh. 1 The learned Lightfoot, 2 tracking this matter “ by the light of the Talmud,” notes that “ the Eastern interpreters ” render Kadesh by “ Rekam, or in a sound very near it ; ” and that there are two places mentioned as Rekam, by those interpreters, “ in the very bounds of the Land, — to wit, the southern and eastern : that is a double Kadesh.” Then he goes on to say, that “ of Kadesh, or Rekam, in the south part, there is no doubt ; ” while in his opin- ion there was not a second Kadesh. His conclusion is : “ That that Kadesh, to which they [the Israelites] came in the fortieth year (which is called Meribah, Numbers 20 : 13), is the same with Kadesh-barnea is clear enough from hence, — that Meribah in Kadesh is assigned for the southern border of the Land (Ezekiel 47 : 19) ; which border of old was Kadesh-barnea (Numbers 34 : 4 ; Joshua 15 : 3).” If, indeed, it could be found that the term Reqam has a signifi- cation applicable alike to Kadesh-barnea and to Petra, it would at once make clear the cause of all this confusion in the references to these two places by Jewish and Christian writers for now twenty 1 See Mischna, with Maimonides’ notes (Amsterdam edition), p. 415. 2 Horx Heb. et Tal. , Yol. I., pp. 19-21. 170 KADESH-BARNEA. centuries, more or less. Is such a solution of the problem practi- cable? We have seen 1 that Sel’a was first applied to Kadesh- barnea, and afterwards to Petra ; and that confusion was possible from the use of that term interchangeably as the designation of the two places. Is there anything like this in the two-fold use of the term Reqam ? It is somewhat strange that no student of this subject has noted the fact that rikham , 2 or rukham, a close equivalent of “ Reqam/’ is to-day an Arabic term for “rock,” and therefore might be applicable, as is the Hebrew Sel’a, to both Kadesh-barnea and Petra. The primitive meaning of the Arabic word rukham is of that which is split or stratified, parted or piled in layers ; and the word is often applied to marble, 3 or lime stone, or alabaster : 4 but it is also used in designation of rock of all kinds. For example, in a modern Arabic work on the geography of Egypt, 5 a reference is made to the “ red rukham,” 6 or the syenite granite, of Aswan ; and a^ain the various rocks of an entire district are treated under O the general head of “ Rukham.” 7 The word “Ruqeem” 8 — almost identical with the Hebrew “Re- qam ” — occurs once in the Quran. 9 Its meaning there has been another puzzle. As Sale 10 says of it : “ What is meant by this word the commentators cannot agree.” But among other proposed explanations, “ some will have it to be the name of the mountain ” 1 See page 124 /, supra. 2 See Lane, Freytag, and the Jesuits’ French Arabic Lexicons, s. v. 3 Abulfeda’s Tab. JEgypt., p. 14. Surv. of West. Pal., “Name Lists,” p. 405. “Rukham, white marble.” Also, Freytag’s Lex. Arab. Lat., s. v. “rukham.” 4 Catafago’s Arabic Die., s. v. “ rukham.” s Fikry’s Geog. of Egypt, Cairo, A. H. 1296. 6 Ibid., Part II., page 74. T Ibid., ‘i*y 9 Sura 18. v. 8. In the Arabic Version of Walton’s Polyglot Bible, at Gen. 14: 7 the word “Ruqeem,” given for “ Kadesh ” is identical with that, as above, from the Quran. 10 In Koran with Notes , p. 238, note. IN THE RABBINICAL WRITINGS. 171 in which was a cave, referred to in the context; while others apply it to a legend of three men shat in a cave by “ the falling down of a vast stone which stopped the cave’s mouth/’ who “ were miraculously delivered by the rock’s rending in sunder to give them passage.” Either explanation consists with the idea of “ Ruqeem ” meaning a rock-mountain with its cave sides, like Petra ; or again meaning a smitten Rock, like that of Kadesh-barnea. It is evident from this showing of the case, that the Arabic term Rikham might not unnaturally be applied interchangeably to the Rock of Kadesh, and to Petra — the Rock City. And now, apart from the fact of the admitted resemblance of the Arabic and the ancient Hebrew, it is worth our while to consider the traces of words, similar in form and meaning to the one in question, in the cognate Syriac and Hebrew. 1 Jerome distinctly states that Petra in Edom is called Rekem by the Syrians ; 2 although Eusebius says that it is the Assyrians who so name it. 3 In the Peshitto Syriac Version, 4 at Numbers 34 : 4, “ Kadesh-barnea ” is supplied by Reqam degaia , 5 and in the accompanying Latin Version this is rendered Recern Superbam — Reqam the Lofty, or perhaps here, the Pre-eminent. A literal rendering of the Syriac would make it simply Reqam of the Plain. We have already seen that the word Reqam, here ascribed to the Syriac, is in use in the talmudic Hebrew ; and this brings us to the question of the meaning of the word in these languages. In both the Hebrew and the Syriac 6 the word ragam 7 means stoning, or to stone. For example, this is the word used of the proposed stoning of Moses and Aaron by the rebellious Israelites at Kadesh-barnea, 8 when the people were dismayed at the report 1 In the tracking of these philological proofs, I am particularly indebted to the scholarly assistance of Mr. John T. Napier, whose services at many other points in my work I have elsewhere acknowledged. 2 Be Loc. Heb., s. v. “ Petra.” 3 Onomast., s. v. “ Petra.” 4 Walton’s Polyglotta. 51 1 5 ^OQ 5 6 See Castellus’s Syriac Lexicon. 7 8 Num. 14: 10. l*k* 172 KADESH-BA RNEA. of the spies ; and again of the stoning of the sabbath-breaker/ in the days following. Furst suggests that the root of this word was a noun regem? “ a stone-heap and he directly suggests its connection with “ Reqem ” 3 — the name of a town in the tribe of Benjamin ; 4 where he thinks it may have referred to existing stone heaps as it similarly might apply to stone structures at Petra. 5 Another accomplished Oriental scholar 6 7 says of the root meaning of reqam : “ Comparing the Arabic ( ^)) ; the Syriac (Sao 5); and the Hebrew (Dpi) ; I should take the radical meaning to be ‘ strike/ ‘ thrust/ whence 2 1 dot/ ‘ excavate/ So in Arabic the verb means ‘ to write ’ (‘ cut letters, or print ’), and ‘ to embroider/ The latter is also the sense in Syriac and Hebrew — ‘ to embroider/ from ‘striking/ or ‘piercing’; whence the meaning of the Hebrew (□pi) seems to be ‘ pierced/ that is perhaps, ‘ excavated/ an appro- priate name for Petra, and for the city mentioned by Abu’l Feda.” It will be seen, farther on, that the root meanings here proposed have like appropriateness with the one suggested by Furst in application both to Petra and to the “ struck ” or “ pierced ” Rock of Kadesh — the “Fountain of Miriam/’ Thus it certainly may be, that the Arabic rikhdm, rukham, and ruqeem ; the Syriac reqam and ragam ; the Chaldee reqam ; and the Hebrew ragam , reqam , and reqem , are vestiges in variety of a common Semitic root/ having reference to “ stone ” or “ rock.” 1 Num. 15 : 35, 36. 2 Dll. Fiirst’s Heb. u. Chald. Worterb., s. v., “ ragam.” 3 Dpi. 4 Josh. 18: 27. Grove, in Smith-Hackett Bib. Die., s. v., “ Rekem,” suggests a trace of this name in the present “Ain Karim,” west of Jerusalem; the reputed home of Zacharias and Elizabeth. This suggestion is adopted by Fausset (Bib. Cyc., s. v.), and Young ( Analytical Concordance ). 5 Yet Furst does not seem to have thought of the connection of Reqem with Petra and Kadesh, as bearing on this suggestion of his. 6 Professor C. H. Toy (of The Harvard University Divinity School), in a private letter to the author. 7 For the close relationship of the various Semitic languages, see Fischer’s IN THE RABBINICAL WRITINGS. 173 That variations similar to these — through changes of the gutturals and palatals, and of the vowels — are frequent in the languages re- ferred to, is a fact familiar to every scholar . 1 If this conclusion be accepted, the mystery of “ Reqem,” as applied alike to the Rock at Kadesh, and the Rock-City Petra, is solved ; and the confusion growing out of the interchange of names is accounted for. And the designation of Kadesh as Reqam de-Geeah , 2 or Reqam of the Plain , 3 is a natural one, as over against Reqam of the Mountains — in Edom, or Moab. That, indeed, the term “ Reqam ” has reference to a place of rock, or of rocks, whenever we know the place referred to, is clear ; and the inference is legitimate that it always means this. As applied to “ Petra,” this is obvious ; and this covers the various mentions of it in Josephus, Eusebius, and Jerome. Ibn Hauqal , 4 an Arabian traveler and geographer, writing in the tenth century, tells of “ Reqem,” 5 a town situated near the Belqa, where “all the walls and houses are of stone, in such a manner that one would imagine they were all of one piece.” Three centuries later, Abulfeda (Aboo’l Feda), a hereditary Emeer of Syria, who wrote works on geography, both as an eye witness and as a student, made mention 6 of this same place, “ Er-Ruqeem, a small town situated near El-Belqa ; 7 the houses of which are all “ Anleitung zum Stadium des Midrasch und Talmud,” pp. 13-34, in Winer's Chal- daische Grammatik. 1 Concerning the interchanging, in Hebrew, and in the other Semitic dialects, of po.(q); ,(g ) ; n (kh) ; see the articles on these letters, in Eli Smith’s “Essay on the Pronunciation of the Arabic,” in Appendix to Robinson’s Bib. Res., III. (first edition) ; also Robinson’s Gesenius, and Adolf Wahrmund’s Handbuch der neu-Arabischen Sprache , I., p. 11, § 36. 2 See page 167 /, supra. 3 Compare the Hebrew K'l, gaye, gaV ; the Arabic x ^ ~^ ,jeeah : which all have the meaning of “ a plain,” or of “ a low-lying place.” 4 Ouseley’s Oriental Geog. of Ebn Haukal, p. 40. N) 6 Tabula Syrix, p. 11. 7 “ El-Belqa is one of the districts of Esh-Sharat, [and is] a fertile land having 174 KA DESH-BARNEA. cut out of the live rock, as though they were one rock .” 1 The Arabic word “Ruqeem ” 2 as given here is identical with that found in the Quran and in the Arabic Version, as already quoted. Elsewhere, Abulfeda 3 refers to this Er-Ruqeem as north of Kerak, and not far from it. Although no attempts to identify this place seem to have been made in modern times, it would appear worthy of notice that Seetzen 4 found a “Bet el Kerm,” in the region re- ferred to by Abulfeda; between Kerek and the Belqa. Burck- hardt 5 visited this place, which he speaks of as “ the ruins of an ancient city called ‘ Beit-Kerm / 6 belonging to which, on the side of the road, are the remains of a temple of remote antiquity.” Again it was visited by Irby and Mangles , 7 who think that the temple was Roman, resembling that which they “ took to have been a palace at Petra.” More recently it was seen by De Saulcy , 8 who speaks of the temple as “ magnificent,” a “ marvelous struc- ture.” Tristram 9 also saw the ruins in passing. Not only is there a suggestion of the name “ Ruqeem ” in the name “ Kerm ” — the consonants in the two words being identical, and the change in their order not an unusual one ; 10 but the very name “ Rakim ” is Heshbon as its metropolis. This [Heshbon] is a little town situated in the valley, planted with trees and grain, and having gardens and tilled fields. That valley, in- deed, stretches even to the. Ghor, or plain of Zoghar. El-Belqa is distant from Jericho one day’s journey to the east.” (Abulfeda, as above.) 1 For other Arabic references to this place, see Gildemeister’s “ Palastinakunde aus Arabischen Quellen,” in Zeitschrift des Deutsch Pal. Ver., Band VI., p. 9. 2 yJI, cr- Ruqeem. 3 Annales Moslem., quoted at third hand in Robinson’s Bib. Res., II., 522. 4 Reisen , I., 411. 5 Travels in Syria, p. 376. e 0.-0 i Travels, p. 458. 8 The Dead Sea, I., 293-296. 9 Land of Moab, p. 125/. 10 Concerning the common transposition of consonants, in Semitic languages, see Rodiger-Davidson’s Gesenius’s Ileb. Gram., Chap. II., § 19 (5). As already stated, Grove and others think that the name “ Karim” (’Ayn Karim), west of Jerusalem, may be a vestige of ‘ Reqem,” by such a transposition of the con- sonants. According to the “ Name Lists ” of the Survey of Western Palestine (page 280), this Karim ( ) differs in one consonant from the “ Qerm ” ( * ^ ), as re- IN THE RABBINICAL WRITINGS. 175 reported by Canon Tristram as still existing in that region ; be- tween Kerak and the Belqa. It has been thought by many that there was a Petra in Moab, as well as a Petra in Edom. Leake, the editor of Burckhardt’s Travels/ has given reasons for believing that the Petra of Moab — which he would identify in Kerek — was referred to by Diodorus Siculus, in his story of the defence of Petra against Demetrius. Yon Raumer 2 has argued strongly in the same direction. Reland 3 and Robinson , 4 while not accepting this conclusion, admit that there are references by Eusebius, Jerome, and Athanasius, which, taken without explanation, would seem to show two Petras ; one in “ Palestine/’ and one in “ Arabia.” Cellarius 5 is positive that there were two. Now if there was a Petra in Moab, it is more than probable that that was the Petra which Josephus 6 tells of as called Arekeme, after the name of its founder ; for the king Rekem, to whom Josephus refers, fell on or near the plains of Moab , 7 and does not seem to have had any connection with Edom. If Arekeme was a compound of Ar and Rekem, as certainly is ported by Burckhardt ( Travels in Syria, page 376), in the land of Moab ; the latter being identical with the Hebrew “ Eeqem ” ; but this difference may be only a seem- ing one. (See Preface to “ Name Lists.”) It is noteworthy, however, that Thomson ( Central Palestine and Phoenicia , — Land and Book, — p. 58) translates the “ Karim ” of Judea as “ vineyards,” while Tristram {Land of Moab, p. 133) gives the same meaning — “ vineyards ” — to the “ Kurm ” near Kerak. And again, Palmer {Res. of Exod., II., pp. 352, 367, 373) has shown that the ancient vineyards of those regions were often composed of “ small stone-heaps, formed by sweeping together in regular swathes, the flints which strew the ground ” ; and that along these the grapes were trained, and they still retain the name of teleildt el-’anab, or ‘grape mounds.’” Moreover, he finds these mounds called also “ rujum el-kurum, or vineyard heaps.” {Ibid., II., 411.) According to this, whether the anagram be rukim or kurim, it might fairly mean ‘‘stone-heaps.” But this is merely incidental. If nothing more, it is certainly curious as a coincidence. 1 Preface, viii.-xi. 2 Paldstina, pp. 451-465 ; also, p. 276. 3 Paloestina, pp. 926-934. 4 Bib. Res., II., 522 ff. 5 Geog. Antiq., Lib. III., Cap. 14., § 29, p. 580. 6 Antiq., Bk. IV., chap. 7, § 1. 7 Num. 31 : 1-12. 176 KADESII-BARNEA. possible, the prefix may have stood for the word meaning “ a city ;” 1 or for the name of a chief city of Moab, sometimes used for Moab itself ; 2 or again for a simple article . 3 In the first case the com- pound word would mean Rock-City ; in the second case Moab- Rock ; in the third case merely The Rock. If again there was a Petra in Moab, it may well be supposed that the Er-Ruqeem of Abulfeda was that Petra ; 4 and that traces of its name are still found in “ Beit Kerm ” and “ Rakim,” near Kerek. But, however this may be, it is clear that wherever we can fix the name Ruqeem, we find that it refers to a place of stones or of rock ; and this w T e may fairly take to be its meaning in all cases. But just here it maybe objected that the Rock of Kadesh was a cliff, rather than a small and detached rock ; and that while the term reqam would possibly apply to the smitten rock ( tsoor ) of Horeb, it would be inappropriate to the more imposing Rock ( Sel’a ) of Kadesh . 5 In answer to this it is sufficient to say that the rabbins did not always distinguish between the two rocks of Horeb and Kadesh ; or rather, that they held that the rock smitten at Ploreb was miraculously carried forward to Kadesh, and thence along all the route of the Israelites, and at last found its place in the Sea of Galilee, where its marvelous power continued to mani- fest itself . 6 The Jewish tradition was that this rock was a “ block of stone, round like a beehive,” and pierced with twelve holes, from which flowed the streams for the twelve tribes . 7 Accompanying the 1 Tjp, eer. 2 Num. 21 : 15, 28; Dent. 2: 9, 18, 29. 3 Sx al ; actually a weak demonstrative pronoun, which passed into an article. 4 Schultens (as quoted in Kohler’s Notes to Abulfeda’s Tabula Syrice, p. 11), and Von Raumer ( Palastina , p. 276), would find Petra in this Er-Ruqeem. 5 See page 124 f, supra. 6 See Baring-Gould’s Legends of Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 294/.; Buxtorfs Syn. Jud., Chap. XI. ; Lightfoot’s Horse Heb., Vol. III., p. 295 ; also Franz Delitzsch’s Notes on “ The Rock that Followed Them,” in “ The Independent.” for Dec. 7, 1882. * According to the Monkish traditions, this Rock was miraculously carried back IN THE RABBINICAL WRITINGS. 177 Israelites in their marches, this rock furnished their water supply in all the desert wastes. When the cloud rested, and the taber- nacle was formally put up, the rock was accustomed to take its place in the tabernacle court. Then the princes of the people would come and direct with their staves the courses of the streams for the several tribes ; and the water would flow so as to give drink to all, “ to each man in the door of his tent.” This rock was called the Fountain of Miriam, and the rabbins held that it was because of Miriam’s death at Kadesh-barnea that once more “ there was no water for the congregation,” 1 and that the Lord directed Moses to speak to the rock that it might again give forth its water as in the days of Miriam’s life. As finally sunken in the Sea of Galilee, this rock, according to tradition, “can still be seen from certain points of view, as before Jeshimon, or as one is ascending to the peak of Carmel, or from the middle door of the old synagogue of Serugnin.” And thence the Foun- tain of Miriam discharges itself at “ the end of the Sabbath ” and “ mingles itself with all fountains.” And wherever those waters flow they carry healing; for “if it should happen that at that moment of time any Jewess should draw some of that water, it would certainly be most efficient to the working of all cure;” for “ whoever drinks from such a fountain as that is healed, even though his whole body were covered with the most loathsome disease.” 2 It would even seem as if the multitude of sick, blind, halt, withered who waited for the troubling of the waters at Beth- to Rephidim when it had accomplished its purpose for the Israelites ; and a rock which is claimed to he this one is shown near Mount Sinai to-day, having traces of twelve fis- sures from which the~water flowed. It is frequently pictured in the reports of travelers, as, for example, in Moncony’s Reisen (a. d. 1696) ; in Shaw’s Travels (a. d. 1738) ; in Pococke’s Description of the East (a. d. 1743) ; in Laborde’s Voyage (a. d. 1830) ; in Newnham’s Illustrations of the Exodus (a. d. 1830) ; and in many other works. Moreover it is often referred to"by Christian travelers as a veritable sacred relic. 1 Num. 20: 1, 2. 12 2 Buxtorf’s Syn. Jud., as above. 178 KADESH-BARNEA. esda 1 were watching for the inflow from the Fountain of Miriam. It is thought that Paul had this well-known rabbinical tradition in mind, when he said of the Israelites in their journeyings : “ They drank of a spiritual Rock which followed them : and the Rock was Christ.” 2 The tradition according to the rabbins was, that a natural rock followed them to supply their bodily thirst. The truth according to Paul was, that a spiritual Rock followed them, to supply their soul thirst. In view of the rabbinical legends attached to the Rock which supplied the Israelites at Kadesh, it would certainly not be strange to find that Rock — and by metonomy the Place of that Rock — referred to in the rabbinical writings by a term which, in its use elsewhere, seems to mean “ smitten rock,” a layer rock,” “ pierced rock,” “ stone heaps,” and “ stone dwellings.” Nor again would it be strange if that term thus applied should cause more or less con- fusion in its possible application to other places of rock, or of rock- dwellings. 4. IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN NAME LISTS. In turning from the Jewish to the early Christian writings, for help in the locating of Kadesh-barnea, we are practically limited to Eusebius and Jerome. The first named of these writers pre- pared, early in the fourth century, his “ Onomasticon,” a Name List of SaCred Places. This being issued in Greek, it was trans- lated into Latin, by Jerome, under the title of “De Locis He- braicis,” who also made some additions to it, before the close of the same century. While examining this source of information, it is important to bear in mind the real value and the evident limitations of both 1 John 5: 2-7. It will be borne in mind that the Revised Text leaves out the ref- erence to an angel's troubling of the water. 2 1 Cor. 10: 4. IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN NAME LISTS. 179 these writers in the fields covered by them. Concerning places of which they had personal knowledge, the facts they give are of great value; and the same may be said of other places concerning which the identification was not in doubt in their day. But beyond the range of their personal knowledge, they had few helps to an understanding of geography; and their work shows their liability to be misled or confused by a similarity of names in different sites, and by vague impressions or hasty conclusions. As Von Raumer 1 says of their combined geographical writing: “ Their work is of double worth, since both authors lived in Pales- tine; but of course they are of slighter authority when they speak of ancient places which neither of the two saw.” And as Conder 2 adds : “ It seems plain that they were far more hasty than modern scholars would be in fixing upon a site of similar name without reference to other requisites;” hence “the instances of incorrect identification are very numerous.” In the day of Eusebius and Jerome, Kadesh-barnea had long passed out of prominence as a place of habitation, although its name was so closely linked with the history of Palestine; and its site — as indicated in our researches thus far — would hardly have been in the line of travel to or from the Holy Land. Petra, on the contrary — the Petra of Edom — was still a centre of political and commercial importance; and its site must have been well known. We have no reason, however, for supposing that either Eusebius or Jerome had been at either Kadesh-barnea or Petra. Indeed Robinson 3 says, that in view of their citing Josephus as authority for the interchanged names of “Petra,” “Recem,” and “Arcem : ” “ it would seem that they in no case speak from their own knowledge,” of these places. It is, therefore, quite reason- 1 Palastina, p. 4. 2 “Early Christian Topography,” in Surv. of West, Pal., “Special Papers,” p. 249/ *Bib. Res., II., 521. 180 KADESH-BARNEA. able to suppose, that both Eusebius and Jerome had vague ideas of the precise location of Kadesh-barnea ; and that the similarity of its rabbinical name “ Reqam ” with the alternative names of Petra, would confuse their ideas of the relations of these two places ; and of other sites linked with them, as already shown in the case of Mount Hor. As a matter of fact, both Eusebius and Jerome seem to have taken Kadesh and Radesh-barnea to be alternative names of the Wilderness of Kadesh ; and that wilderness to be an extensive stretch of desert south of Palestine ; all the way along from the Wilderness of Shur on the borders of Egypt, to the easternmost limit of the Wilderness of Paran — where lay Petra or Reqam, “ the east of the world.” 1 Indeed, in one place, they specifically declare this to be their view of the case ; and, again, several of their mentions of Kadesh are conformed to it. Speaking of Gerar , 2 they say : “ Scripture mentions that it was between Kadesh and Shur ; that is, between two wildernesses, of which one is joined to Egypt — into which [Shur] the people came after crossing the Red Sea ; but the other, Kadesh, extends even to the desert of the Saracens” — of Arabia Felix . 3 Eusebius describes Kadesh- barnea as “ the desert stretching to Petra, a city of Palestine ;” 4 while Jerome adds that Kadesh-barnea is “ in the desert which is joined to [or which actually stretches on until it touches] the city of Petra .” 5 Again, in a mention of “ Arad ,” 6 Eusebius says it is “ situated near the desert called Kadesh;” and Jerome 7 says, “near the desert of Kadesh.” Moreover, both Eusebius and Jerome locate the Well of Judgment 8 [En-mishpat] in Gerar, in the western part of the desert. 1 See page 168 f, supra. 2 Onomasticon., s. v. 3 The desert east of the ’Arabah. See Forster’s Geog. of Arabia, II., 7-32. 4 Onomasticon , s. v., “ Kaddes.” 5 De Loc. Heb., s. v., “ Cades.” 6 Onomasticon , s. v., “ Arama.” 7 De Loc. Heb., s. v., " Arad.” 8 Ibid., s. v., “ Puteus judicii .” Onomasticon , s. v., $p£ap Kpiaeug. IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN NAME LISTS. 181 In another work , 1 Jerome speaks of the monk Hilarion as “ going to the desert Kadesh ” by way of Elusa — a route which would be taken to day by a traveler from Palestine toward the Azazimeh mountain tract, or toward the desert south of those mountains. In no case, however, is Kadesh identified with Petra, either by statement or by implication, in the writings of Eusebius and Jerome ; any more than in the writings of Josephus and the rabbins. From all these facts it would seem, that while there are no con- clusive indications of the precise location of Kadesh-barnea in the Egyptian records, in the Apocrypha, in the rabbinical writings, or in the early Christian name-lists, there is nothing in those extra- biblical sources of information which conflicts v ith the indications already found in the Bible text ; while there is more or less in confirmation of those indications. Vita Hilarionis. K ADE S H-BAKKEA. LATER ATTEMPTS AT ITS IDENTIFYING. KADE S H-BAENEA. 1. WHY IT DROPPED FROM NOTICE. Notwithstanding the importance and early prominence of Kadesh-barnea as a boundary line landmark, and as a point of strategic value on the border of the Holy Land, it seems to have dropped out from the records of travel and of study during a period of six to eight centuries after the days of Eusebius and Jerome ; and the reasons for this fact it is not difficult to surmise. Because Kadesh-barnea was a secluded stronghold, off from the main routes of travel while yet it was near to them, it would natu- rally be passed by without notice, when there was no special occasion for turning aside to it. It was not a station on any of the great Homan roads across the desert, or into and through Palestine, to find a place on all the prominent route- maps, such as the Antonine Itinerary and the Peutinger Tables. It was not in the ordinary routes of pilgrimage to or from Jerusalem or Mount Sinai, to have mention in the devout itineraries, from Bishop ArculPs to that of Sir John Maundeville . 1 Nor was it in the line of the customary approaches to Palestine from the West, during the varying conflicts for the possession of that land, as recorded in the crusading chronicles of the middle ages. No Christian army followed in the track of Kedor-la’omer 1 See Reissbuch des Heiligen Lands ; also, Wright’s Early Travels in Palestine. 185 186 KADESH-BARNEA. or of Moses, in an attempted entry into the Holy Land from the southward ; and, therefore, none needed to seek a stopping-place at the border stronghold which those chieftains recognized as an objective point in such a movement. Meantime, there were no geographical studies of that region, in either Jewish or Christian circles, which gave fresh light to any out-of-the-way location, however important it might be in its rela- tions to the Bible narrative. Hence it is not to be wondered at, that Kadesh-barnea seemed forgotten. 2. A GLEAM DURING THE CRUSADES. In a single instance there is a mention of Kadesh-barnea, in the crusading chronicles of William of Tyre; 1 and naturally this mention is in connection with a movement Egyptward. It was between the second and third crusades, 2 under the reign of Amalric I. (or Amaury I.), the brother and successor of Bald- win III., as king of Jerusalem, A. D. 1167. A state of things which at that time, was, in a sense, advantageous to the Christians, grew out of the discords and conflicts among the Muhammadans of Egypt, Syria, and Asiatic Turkey. The rival khaleefehs of Cairo and Baghdad were in bitter hostility to each other; and both the sultan of Damascus and the king of Jerusalem endeav- ored from time to time to avail themselves of this hostility for personal ends. 3 After the Christian and the Syrian armies had successively invaded Egypt and then withdrawn from it, the sultan of Damas- 1 See his “Historia,” in 'Gesta Dei per Francos , at p. 962 /. 2 As in all such matters, there is a difference in the dividing line recognized by different authorities. Mill (Hist, of Crusades , chap. X.), counts this period between the second and third crusades; so does Cox ( Encyc . Brit., ninth ed., Art. “Cru- sades”); but Michaud (Hist, of Crusades, Bk. VII.), includes it in the third crusade. 3 Various authorities (as above) go to show these facts. A GLEAM DURING THE CRUSADES. 187 cus made a league with the khaleefeh of Baghdad for the subju- gation of Egypt; in order that the sultan might govern it politi- cally, and that the eastern khaleefeh might secure undisputed religious sway in the Muhammadan world. To this end a vast army was raised, and began its move Egyptward. Then it was that Egypt invoked the aid of the Christians, promising to pay a heavy tribute in return for the protection asked for. The kino; of Jerusalem agreed to render the desired assistance. At his summons, there was an assembly at Nablus of all the dig- nitaries of church and state in the kingdom of Jerusalem; and arrangements were speeded for the raising of men and money without stint, for the new campaign. Meantime the report came to king Amalric that the Syrian leader with his allied army u had taken his way through the desert by which the people of Israel came to the Land of Promise ;”* that, in fact, he had crossed the Desert et-Teeh from its eastern to its western borders, entering it, doubtless, by the way which Kedor-la’omer had taken into the Wilderness of Paran. Then king Amalric, gathering all the sol- diers at his disposal, hastened down to intercept him, going “ even to Kadesh-barnea which is in the desert;” but “not finding him he quickly returned,” says the chronicler . 1 2 From further reports of the movements of Amalric, in connec- tion with this invasion of Egypt from the East , 3 it is evident that his own course was Egyptward, and that he went by way of Gaza, from the centre of his kingdom. This mention of Kadesh-barnea would seem, therefore, to show that during the crusading period, as in the days of Jerome and Eusebius, that region was counted the desert, or a portion of the desert, that stretched along the southern boundary of the Holy Land from near its western limits. Another remarkable illustration of the typical character of 1 Gesta Dei, p. 963. 2 Ibid. 3 See Mill’s Hist, of Crusades, chap. X., p. 131 Michaud’s Hist, of Crusades, Yol. III., p. 388 /. 188 KA DESH-BABNEA. Egypt, with its temptations and its bondage, in contrast with Palestine, with its conflicts and its possibilities of rest by faith, is furnished in the story of this Egyptward movement of the new king of Jerusalem. When Amalric had seen the abounding ma- terial treasures of Egypt, he coveted them as more attractive than his straitened and desolate domain in Palestine, and he determined to possess that land. And his purpose and endeavors in this di- rection became the beginning of the end of Christian supremacy in Palestine. It was in connection with this diversion of the strength of the crusaders’ power, that ground was lost on their northern borders, and that Saladin (Salah-ed-Deen), the new leader of the Saracens, was brought into preeminence before his own people, and became a power for the crushing out, for the time at least, of the Christian sway in the Holy Land . 1 It would have been bet- ter for Amalric to have sojourned, like Abraham, between Kadesh and Shur, rather than to have passed hurriedly through Arabia, in the hope of finding a more attractive home in the Land of Bond- age than was available to him in the ancient Land of Promise. 3. NATURAL MISTAKES OF MEDIAEVAL WRITERS. In the lack of any fresh discoveries concerning the site of Kadesh-barnea, it is not to be wondered at that the ambiguous and uncertain references to it in the name-lists of the early Christian writers, together with the duplicating of its synonym Reqam in the early rabbinical writings, continued for centuries to cause con- fusion in both Christian and Jewish attempts at its locating. Nor can it be doubted that every attempt to reconcile these conflicting indications with the clearer disclosures of the Bible text, would inevitably increase the confusion. Those who followed the Onomasticon, would be inclined to look 1 See Michaud’s Hist, of Crusades; Yol. III., pp. 392-406. NATURAL MISTAKES OF MEDIAEVAL WRITERS. 189 for Kadesh-barnea as a wilderness-region south of Palestine, stretching across the desert even to Petra on the east of the ? Ara- bah. Those who turned to the Bible for guidance would be sure that Kadesh-barnea lay far to the westward of the ’Arabah, and on the southern border of the Holy Land proper. Those who would reconcile the Bible and the Onomasticon, or who had been misled by the talmudic references to the two Reqams, must seek for two Kadeshes, or one Kadesh and one Kadesh-barnea ; the one at the east of the southern desert; the other westward. And just this variety of opinions is to be found in the writings of commen- tators, geographers, and travelers, for a series of centuries. The first explicit mention of a Kadesh as distinct from Kadesh- barnea, so far as I know, is by “ Rashi,” 1 in the latter part of the eleventh century. He simply says : “ There were two towns ; the one was called Kadesh, and the other Kadesh-barnea.” 2 He gives no reason for this opinion ; nor does he seem to have any special familiarity with the geography of the Holy Land from personal knowledge. He was apparently misled by the double Reqam in the Talmud — the Rock-Kadesh and the Rock- Petra ; and again his error at this point would be sure to mislead Jewish writers after him, as Eusebius and Jerome were the means of misleading Christian scholars. It is said that Maimonides, who closely followed Rashi in time, “ constructed a map of the frontiers of Palestine.” 3 Such a map I do not find reproduced or referred to in any edition of his works which I have examined ; but there is a rabbinical map, or rude plot, of the Holy Land boundaries, to be found in many old works, 4 and possibly this dates from his time. It simply notes the place of Kadesh-barnea, as west of the lower end of the Salt 1 See page 151, supra. 2 Rashi, *al ha-Torah , at Num. 32 : 8. 3 See Zunz on “ Geographical Literature of the Jews,” in Asher’s Benjamin of Tudela, p. 254. 4 See, e. g. Van Hamelsveld’s Bib. Geog. Vol. I., p. 138. 190 KADESH-BARNEA. Sea; but in such a way as to throw no light on its precise location. The earliest mention of Kadesh-barnea which I find in any Christian writer after Jerome, is in the Latin work of the Domini- can Brocardus, entitled “ Locorum Terrse Sanctse Descriptio,” which was probably written near the close of the thirteenth century. 1 Brocardus had been in the Holy Land ; but apparently not in the desert. His references to Kadesh-barnea are vague and inex- act ; and are evidently controlled by the idea of Eusebius and Jerome, that it was a wilderness-region stretching westward along the desert border of Palestine, from the vicinity of Petra ; or from Kerek, at the east of the Dead Sea, which was then supposed to be the site of ancient Petra. His statements throw no new light on the subject ; they rather go to show the general lack of knowl- edge on this point in his day. Perhaps the earliest map of the Holy Land with any attempt at accurate locations, was that of Marino Sanuto, an Italian geogra- pher 2 and a historian of the crusades, 3 who had visited Palestine. His map was drawn early in the fourteenth century ; and it was long made the basis of the maps of that region. As it extended only to the southern tongue of the Dead Sea, it did not include the region of Kadesh-barnea; but a note which appears at the lower margin of the map, as reproduced in an edition of “ Gesta Dei per Francos/ 7 under date of 1611, refers to the “land of Amalek” as southward of the lower line of the map, and as “ex- 1 “All editors refer this tract to the thirteenth century; some to the early part, and some to the close ; but the weight of authority seems, to lean towards the latter part, or about A. D. 1280” (Robinson’s Bib. Res. II., 539). 2 He also prepared “a map of the world representing the Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts as far as Flanders, probably drawn between 1312 and 1321 ” ( Encyc . Brit., Ninth ed., Art. “ Map ”). 3 His “ Secreta Fidelium ” is in Gesta Dei. BEGINNINGS OF FULLER RESEARCH. 191 tending to the tongue of the Dead Sea and Kadesh-barnea.” This note, which is in substance taken from Sanuto’s “ Secreta Fide- lium,” would seem to indicate that he counted Kadesh-barnea as a westward landmark, oyer against the Dead Sea as an eastern one. 4. BEGINNINGS OF FULLER RESEARCH. There was no lack of pilgrimages to the Holy Land during all the Middle Ages ; nor was Mount Sinai then overlooked as a place of Christian pilgrimage. But the pilgrims generally were intent rather on showing their veneration for sites which were tradition- ally identified, than on discovering anew any sacred place which had long been lost sight of. It was not until near the close of the fifteenth century that a spirit of fresh investigation seemed to be awakened in travelers there as elsewhere ; then, however, the in- vention of printing promoted the quickening of that spirit to a degree quite unexampled before. First among Christian travelers to suggest that they had visited the site of Kadesh-barnea, were Breydenbach and Fabri ; and their suggestion has chief value in the fact that it was a suggestion in this direction, however little it had to rest on. It was in 1483-84 that Dean Breydenbach of Mayence, and Friar Fabri of Ulm, two Roman ecclesiastics, journeyed together from Jerusalem to Mount Sinai by way of Gaza and Beersheba. Among their companions were the Count of Solms and Freiherr Hans Werli von Zimber. Breydenbach and Fabri wrote each his own report of the journey ; l and each wrote the story over again for the benefit of a titled companion. 2 3 These four reports show many discrepancies in the order and distances of places visited ; s 1 Breydenbach’s Itin. Hierosolym. ; Fabri’s Evagatorium. 2 Faber’s Beschreibung , for Hans Werli ; Breydenbach’s Beschreibung , for the Count of Solms. 3 For example, Breydenbach says, that on leaving Gaza they stopped just outside 192 KADESH-BARNEA. such discrepancies, however, as are not to be wondered at in itine- raries of that period, and of that region. Of the two ecclesiastics, Fabri is commonly the more accurate ; yet Breydenbach has had the larger popularity, perhaps from his freer plagiarism from Brocar- dus’s work already mentioned. Both writers have more promi- nence through their place at the dawning of a better day on the field of their research, than any work performed by them would merit on its own account. At some distance below Gaza these travelers came to a place which they thought might be identified with Kadesh-barnea. Fabri says of it : 1 “We came into a land undulating and unequal with hills, but barren. The place also is called in Arabic, Cha- watha . 2 And in it we found many signs and marks that there were once human habitations ; for, above us, we found twelve great walled ancient cisterns, round about which were lying many broken pieces of pottery, and ashes . . . According to the position of that place, I think that it is the region of Kadesh barnea.” Breydenbach goes a little farther, in his inclination to identify this the city for the first night ; and the second night they stopped at Lebhem, “ one mile from Gaza.” Fabri says, that the day following their night at Gazmaha, just outside of Gaza, they journeyed “eight hours” in the direction of Beersheba, and then stopped at Lebhem. He mentions that on this route, at one German mile (nearly five English miles) from Gazmaha, their Arab shaykh left them, on his return to Jerusalem. The place of this incident may have misled Breydenbach in the writing up of his notes. Fabri in another place says that they reached Beersheba some hours before reaching Lebhem. Such discrepancies as these would seem to indicate that while these travelers refer to veritable places visited by them, they are confused as to the distances and order of places, one from another, as might easily be the case in writing up a record from note-jottings. (Comp. Evagatorium, II., 409, 410, and Reissbuch, p. 292). Robinson (Bib. Res., II., 541) says: “On comparing the two accounts, I find that of Fabri to be more full and accurate ; and wherever there is a discrepancy (as at Hebron) the latter is to be preferred.” 1 Evagatorium. II. 411 f. 2 It is more probable that the Arabic name was Hawwddeh ( ) an irregular plural of hawd ( ), meaning “ Cisterns ” — or Place of Cisterns. BEGINNINGS OF FULLER RESEARCH. 193 as the site of Kadesh-barnea. He says of it : 1 “ We came into a place which in the Arabic tongue is called, Cawatha ; but in the Latin, Cades.” Just where this place was is not clear from the several narra- tives. From one record, it would seem to be near Gaza ; from another, to be at two or three days distance southeasterly ; and from yet another, to be below Beersheba. 2 It is thought by some that Tucher, a traveler from Bethlehem to Gaza, in 1479, had re- ferred to this region under the name “ Mackati ; ” 3 although this is by no means sure. On the strength of these notes, Zimmermann, in his large map of Syria and Palestine, 4 which accompanied Ritter’s great work, laid down “ Chawata,” with several alternative names, at a point a little southeast of Gaza ; and the new map of the Palestine Exploration Fund 5 gives “ Khan el-Hawadi ” 6 at about the same point. The whole thing is, however, of little importance except as showing the fact, that in this earliest mention of the possible site of Kadesh-barnea in the record of modern tra- vel, the idea of Eusebius and Jerome, that the region of Kadesh- barnea extended westward to near the Mediterranean border of Palestine, prevailed in the minds of the more intelligent Christian pilgrims, as it had before prevailed in the minds of the crusaders. With the discovery of printing, there came also a new applica- tion of copper engraving, and wood-cutting, for the multiplication of illustrations in printed works; and this facilitated an increase of maps to accompany geographies and Bibles. In the second half of the sixteenth century a rude map illustrating the exodus and wanderings of the Israelites was reproduced, with variations, in popular editions of the Bible in Latin, French, and Eng- 1 Itinerarium, (Spires edition ; pages not numbered.) 2 See note at page 191, supra. 3 Tucher’s “ Beschreibung ” (in Reissbuch, p. 678). 4 Karte von Syrien u. Palastina. 5 Map of West. Pal., Sheet xix. 6 “ The word means hind legs,” says “ Name Lists ” ( Surv . of West. Pal.), p. 361. Possibly Hawwadeh was mistaken for this word by the explorers. See note at p. 192. 13 194 KA DESH-BARNEA . lish. 1 In this map, Kadesh-barnea was represented as on the southern border of Canaan, at a point a little more than half way across from the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean; just where a study of the Bible references to it, unconfused by the guesses of Eusebius and Jerome, would prompt to its locating. 2 But Bible-maps, like Bible-commentaries, were not all con- formed to one pattern then, any more than they are now. In at least one Latin Bible, as early as 1483, 3 the maps, which were exceptionally well wrought, gave two sites for Kadesh; one, as “ Cades-barne,” southerly from Hebron ; another as “ Cades En- mishpat,” farther eastward. Of course the Bible maps reflected the views of geographers for the time being. With the rise of printing and engraving, there was a revival of interest in old-time maps and geographies, as well as a multiplica- tion of new ones. Various editions of Ptolemy’s Geography were re-issued, with accompanying maps. 4 No maps drawn by Ptolemy had been preserved. 5 The earliest known maps plotted from his data are supposed to have been made in the fifth century of our era. The new maps issued with the successive printed editions of his work, while conformed to his data, naturally had more or less additions to them in accordance with the later advances in geo- graphical discovery. For example, in his geography he makes no mention of Kadesh-barnea; but in an edition of it printed at Borne, in 1508, one of the maps has a similar note to that on 1 See, e. g. : Francis Stephens’s French Bible, A. d., 1567 ; Rovillius’s French Bi- ble, A. D., 1569 ; Santander’s Latin Bible, A. D., 1574 ; Selfisch and Bechtold’s Latin Bible, a. d., 1591 ; Barker’s English Bible, A. d., 1599. 2 I am inclined to think that Munster was the author of this map ; as will be seen farther on. A biblical and geographical conclusion of his, is worthy of respect. 3 Christopher Plantin’s Latin Bible, Antwerp. 4 See Ruge’s article “ Map,” in Encyc. Brit., ninth edition. 5 Ruge (as above) says : “No maps appear to have been drawn by Ptolemy him- self.” But Ptolemy ( Geog ., Bk. I., chaps. 21-24,) speaks of his methods of preparing his maps, in a manner to justify the belief that he did prepare them. BEGINNINGS OF FULLER RESEARCH. 195 Marino Sanuto’s, concerning the stretch of the region of the Amale- kites from the tongue of the Dead Sea to Kadesh-barnea, or “ Cades- Bersabee” as it is here called. The maps in other editions of Ptole- my which I have examined 1 contain no mention of Kadesh-barnea. The two centuries following the invention of printing were marked by a revival of geographical study. Some of the maps of that period are of a style and finish to bear comparison with good work of the present day. And the basis of much of our geographi- cal knowledge was then laid by such masters in their line as Mer- cator and Munster and Ortelius, and others less known but not less worthy of praise. The Holy Land came in for its full share of study by the foremost geographers of the time ; but, of course, they had no new data for the settlement of disputed sites, and they naturally gave large weight to the opinions of Bible students of their day and earlier, in such a matter. Their locations of Kadesh- barnea are, therefore, valuable only as showing the current opinions of their time concerning it. Jacob Ziegler, a Bavarian scholar, published a work on the geography of Palestine, with accompanying maps, in 1532. 2 These maps show a close study of the Bible text, and they locate' “ Akrabbim ” at the westward of the lower tongue of the Dead Sea, and u Chades Barneah ” southwesterly of that tongue, mid- way toward the Mediterranean shore ; just where the latest con- clusions of scholars would find it. Gerard Mercator’s first geo- graphical work was a map of the Holy Land, published in 1537. This, by itself, I have not seen ; but Mercator’s later maps of Palestine, so far as I have seen, 3 do not note Kadesh-barnea. 1 Including Strasburg, A. D. 1525 ; Basle, A. D. 1545 ; and later ones. 2 Published, like many a book of that day. without a title. There is nothing in this line beyond; “ Jacobi Ziegleri , Argentorati, apud Petrum Opilionem, 31 D. XXXII.” 3 Including his Atlas Minor, Amsterdam, A. D. 1614, and his larger Atlas, Amster- dam, a. D. 1633. 196 KADESU-BAENEA. Munster’s Cosmography of 1550 1 gives a map of Palestine and of the region below it, on which is laid down the line of Israel’s exodus and wanderings much in the form which soon after ap- peared in popular editions of the Bible, as already noted, 2 and which indeed may have been the foundation of that. The name of Kadesh-barnea does not appear on this edition of the map, but this seems to be an accidental omission ; for the turning-point of the Israelites from the southern border of Canaan is made, without a note, just at the place where Kadesh-barnea is noted in the Bible-maps, midway between the Dead Sea and the Mediter- ranean ; and in a subsequent edition of his Cosmography, 3 Munster locates Kadesh-barnea, Kadesh, and Zin, together at that point, southerly from Hebron. This would seem to show his under- standing of Kadesh-barnea as a “city” in the Wilderness of Kadesh, and both in the Wilderness of Zin, according to the Bible text. Ortelius, of Antwerp, in 1570, took up again the two-fold idea of Kadesh ; and, in the maps accompanying his “ Thcatrum Orbis Terrarum,” he located Kadesh-barnea in its proper place, south of Hebron, as if in conformity to the Bible text ; while, as if to con- form to his understanding of Eusebius and Jerome, he noted “ Zin or Kadesh ” at the southeast of the Dead Sea, not far from the Petra of that day, which was Kerek. And now came a new landmark in the realm of popular bibli- cal geography, in a treatise that had much to do with perpetuating the error of more than one Kadesh. Christian Adrichomius, a Romish ecclesiastic of Holland, availing himself of the earlier geographical works, together with the records of study and travel in the field of the Holy Land, 4 brought much gathered material 1 Cosmog. Geog., B&sle. 2 See page 193/., supra. 3 B&sle, A. D. 1574. 4 Adrichomius gives a long list of authorities consulted by him, including the an- cient geographers, and later writers, such as William of Tyre, Brocardus, Mercator, Yitriacus, and Breydenbach. BEGINNINGS OF FULLER RESEARCH 197 into classified order, under the title of u Theatrum Terrse Sanctae.” His work resembled the Onomasticon in its systematic form, rather than the unsystematic treatise of Brocardus. Its first edition was published at Cologne, in 1590, five years after the author’s death. At once it had popular favor ; and at least five subsequent editions were published within a century. While the accompanying maps of the Holy Land were more in detail and fuller than those published before his day, they were less accurate concerning the region of the Hebrew wanderings ; for they actually gave no hint of two arms to the Bed Sea, and of the peninsula formed by them. His method of solving difficulties concerning the location of Kadesh was eminently simple. It was merely by multiplying the sites. He gave Kadesh, Kadesh-barnea, the Desert of Kadesh, and Kadesh -palm 1 (a name which came from a misreading in the Apocrypha 2 ), as four distinct places. The Desert of Kadesh, or of “ Zin, which is Kadesh,” he located at the south of the Dead Sea, sweeping down toward the Bed Sea; and in that desert he located Kadesh, or Meribah-Kadesh ; also Kadesh-palm. Kadesh-barnea, with Bithmah, he located at its proper place, on the south of Palestine, half-way across to the Mediterranean. With this variety to choose from, it was easy for any one to quote Adrichomius in justification of a favorite site of Kadesh; and Adrichomius became, and long remained, a popular authority in his field. Almost simultaneously with the work of Adrichomius, there came a more modestly pretentious work by Bunting, of Magde- burg, under the title of “Itinerarium Sacrse Scriptune.” First printed in German, in 1591, it was translated, with some re-shap- 1 Edition of 1600, p. 118, a, 21 ; b, 22, 23, 24. 2 Ecclesiasticus 24 : 14. “ I shot upward like a palm tree on the sea-shores,” or “ in Engaddi (ev ar/talolr ; 248, Co., ev TaddL , i. e., ev ’E yyafil ] ev ’Eyyddoic, 296, 308 ; ev Tadoic;, 253 ; Old Lat., in Cades). All are clearly corrections for the first.” (Schaff-Bissell Com. on Apoc., in loco.) 198 XADESIl-BARNEA. ing, into English, as “The Travels of the Holy Patriarchs and Prophets,” etc. ; and it easily held a place for more than a century. This work actually assumed to give the precise latitude and longi- tude of every scriptural site, together with its distance in miles from J erusalem ; and at every before debatable point, including every station of the wanderings, it was as prompt and positive with an unambiguous answer, as is an Arab guide in locating sites in expectation of bakhsheesh. Consistency was evidently of less importance than explicitness in this author’s various locations. In this work, 1 “ Kades-Barnea ” is called “ a city of the Idume- ans ; ” it is said to be “ forty miles from Jerusalem towards the south ; ” its longitude is given at 65° 22' (corresponding with the modern 35° 22'), and its latitude at 31° 29' (the same as at present.) Of “ Zin-Ivades ” it is said : “ This was a great wilder- ness lying between Ezion-Gaber and Kades-Barnea, being 184 miles in length, abounding with thorns and high mountains. Upon the north side thereof lay Mount Seir and Kades-Barnea, and towards the south the Red Sea. It was called Paran and Zin, of the abundance of thorns that grew there; for Zin of Zanan, signifies a sharp thorn ; Zinnim, full of thorns ; and Kadesh, sanctity or holiness. Here Moses and Aaron having struck the Rock twice, at length it brought forth water ; but for their mur- muring and incredulity God would not suffer them to go into the Land of Canaan. This lay 120 miles from Jerusalem toward the south.” Of Rithmah it is affirmed : “ It is distant from Jerusalem 112 miles toward the southeast.” If only these several statements could have been first reconciled, and then believed, the site of Kadesh-barnea would have been settled conclusively two centuries ago. Following Adrichomius and Bunting, in the attempt to reconcile the statements of Eusebius and the indications of the Bible-text by 1 See the English edition, pp. 117, 119, 121. BEGINNINGS OF FULLER RESEARCH. 199 making a distinction between Kadesh-barnea and Kadesh in the Wilderness of Zin, there came Raleigh , 1 of England ; Quaresmius , 2 of Italy ; Blaeu , 3 and Dapper , 4 of Holland ; Heidmann , 5 and Ho- mann , 6 of Germany ; Sanson , 7 of France ; Spanheim , 8 of the Neth- erlands, and others. All of these geographers agreed in locating Kadesh-barnea, southerly from Hebron, where the Bible text locates it. They differed, however, in the location of the “ Zin which is Kadesh ; ” some of them placing this not far eastward of Kadesh-barnea, and others placing it even eastward of the Dead Sea. From travels, meantime, there was little light shed ; although an occasional gleam showed itself through such an opening of the desert closures. Roger, a French missionary, on a map accompa- nying his description of the Holy Land 9 located Kadesh below the Dead Sea, as if in accordance with its noting by Eusebius as reaching toward Petra. It does not appear, however, that he had himself visited that region. At about the same date, Antonio of Castile furnished a map with his record of travels , 10 on which he noted Petra as south of the Dead Sea, and Kadesh as southward from Petra. He, indeed, had a Spanish precedent, in Montano , 11 for the locating of Kadesh-barnea well to the southward, even in the region of Mount Sinai ; although the latter placed the site mid-way between the eastern and western bounds of the peninsula, while Antonio’s map gave no hint of a peninsula. 1 Hist, of World , “Zin-cades ioyneth to Arabia ye Desert, and Cades-barnea to Idumea” (note to Map, Vol. I., p. 218.) 2 Hist. Theolog. et Moral. Terrx Sanctx , p. 25 /. 3 Map in Theat. Orb. Terr. 4 Map in Naukeurige Beschr.van Pal., p. 1. 5 “ Tabula II.” in Palxstina. 6 Map “Judaea” in Atlas Novus. 7 Nicholas Sanson, and afterward his sons William and Adrian published a num- ber of atlases. In the earliest map by Nicholas which I have seen (Map 66, of the editions of 1664) only one site is claimed for Kadesh, and that in its proper place as Kadesh-barnea; butjubsequent maps by the Sansons note two sites. 8 Map “ Palsestina ” in Geog. Sac. et Eccles. 9 La Terre Sainte. 10 El devoto Peregrino. 11 Cited as authority for the maps in Planting Bible, A. d. 1583. 200 KADESH-BARNEA. On the other hand, Christopher Fiirer, of Germany, went over the desert between Egypt and Palestine in 1565-67 ; and after- wards wrote an account of his journeyings in both Latin and German. A later edition of this work, 1 prepared by his brother Jacob, was published in 1646, with carefully-designed maps, and an appended geographical chapter. On these maps, Kadesh and Kadesh-barnea are together on the southern border of the Holy Land, in the proper central position. Again, the map accompany- ing the itinerary of Salomon Schweigger, 2 of Nuremberg, locates Kadesh at the same point, without duplicating it elsewhere. It was in the latter half of the seventeenth century, 3 that Light- foot published his still famous “ Horse Hebraicse, 77 which threw such a flood of new light on many a dark passage in the Bible and in the Talmud. As has already been mentioned, he took up this puzzling question of a double Reqam and a double Kadesh, and although he did not seem to surmise the reason for the appa- rent duplicating (in the name of the Kock-Kadesh and the Kock- Petra), he was pronounced in his conviction that Kadesh and Kadesh-barnea were one, or were coincident. Indeed, on this point his argument from the Bible-text was and is unanswerable ; and it would seem to be overwhelmingly conclusive. 4 A school- boy can understand it. In substance it is this : The gathering place of Israel after its thirty-eight years of wandering was “ Kadesh ; 77 5 not called “ Kadesh-barnea/ 7 but simply Kadesh. That was the “ city 77 Kadesh, on the uttermost borders of Edom, from which the messengers were sent to Edom’s king. That Kadesh was the place of murmuring for water ; and in conse- quence it came to be called “ Meribah, 77 or “ Strife, 77 or “ Meribah- Kadesh. 77 6 Afterwards, Meribah-Kadesh is named as a central or 1 Reis-Beschreib. 2 Reiss- Beschreib. 3 From 1658 to 1674. 4 Horae Heb ., Vol. I., p. 21. 5 Exod. 20 : 1. 6 Comp. Exod. 20: 13, 24; 27: 14; Deut. 32: 51; 33: 8. BEGINNINGS OF FULLER RESEARCH. 201 pivotal point of the southern boundary of the Holy Land . 1 But again it is declared that the pivotal or central point of the southern boundary of the Holy Land is “ Kadesh-barnea ; ” 2 not Kadesh simply, but Kadesh-barnea. It is therefore clear that both “ Kadesh ” and “ Kadesh-barnea ” are identical with “ Meribah- Kadesh and if proving them equal to the same thing does not prove them equal to each other, one of the familiar axioms of mathematics will have to be amended. The force of that argu- ment has never been shaken, indeed it may be said never to have been directly assailed. In this matter, however, as in many another, it has been shown that it is easier to mislead popular opinion by an erroneous state- ment, than to correct popular opinion by a demonstration of that error. Eusebius and Adrichomius were still looked upon as original sources of information concerning the Holy Land and its surroundings ; and many a scholar who turned to them for light was influenced by their misconceptions, even after Lightfoot had made the truth clear to those who followed his processes of reason- ing. Moreover, the old error of two Kadeshes was given a new start, and with fresh life, in the early part of the eighteenth century by the important geographical works of Cellarius 3 and Reland , 4 of Germany, and Wells , 5 of England. Each of these works repeated the old arguments for a double Kadesh, and not one of them met or mentioned the Bible evidence, as presented by Lightfoot, in proof of the identity of Kadesh and Kadesh-barnea. When such leaders as these were newly at fault, it is not to be wondered at that the public generally inclined to the old error. Yet, all this time there were independent investigators who recognized the plain indications of the Bible text despite the vague and misleading suggestions of Eusebius. Prominent among 1 Ezek. 47 : 19 (margin) ; 48 : 28. 3 Not. Orb. Antiq. 4 Palaestina. 2 Num. 34 : 4 ; Josh. 15 : 3. 5 Hist. Geog. of O. T. and N. T. 202 KADESH-BARNEA. these was Hasius, a German mathematician and theologian, whose careful work on the geography of the Holy Land 1 has not had the prominence which its real merit would justify . 2 He recognized Kadesh-barnea as identical with Kadesh in the Wilderness of Zin, and he located it according to the biblical indications, on the southern boundary-line of Judah. Again, Bachiene, a Dutch geographer, approved the identification, by Breydenbach and Fabri, of Kades just below Gaza ; 3 and Ernst F. K. Rosenmuller, a German geographer, adopted the same view , 4 although he sub- sequently 5 wavered in his opinion. It is unnecessary to track these lines of varying opinion through all the realm of biblical geography and biblical comment, down to the period of fresh investigation, on a broader basis of knowl- edge, into the facts of the Bible story. It is sufficient to say, that almost without exception all were agreed in locating “ Kadesh- barnea ” on the southern border of the Holy Land, southerly from Hebron, while some would find another “ Kadesh ” nearer to the Dead Sea. The Bible clearly demanded the westerly location of Kadesh-barnea ; even Eusebius and Jerome, by a liberal construc- tion, justified it ; and scholars were practically a unit in so recog- nizing the truth, down to the days of Reland, and subsequently. The arguments in favor of a second Kadesh were, its necessary proximity to the uncertain borders of Edom, together with the in- ference from the rabbins, and from Josephus, Eusebius, and Jerome, that it was in some way near to Reqam or the Rock, which was supposed to be Petra. To find that the borders of Edom extended westward of the ’Arabah, that the Rock was another name for Kadesh-barnea as well as a name for a strong- 1 Regni Daviclici et Salomoncei Description etc. Nuremberg, A. D. 1739. 2 Singularly enough this valuable work finds no mention in the bibliographical list of Robinson or in that of Yon Raumer. 3 Palaestina, Yol. V., p. 384, note. 4 Scholia in V. T. (Leipzig, a.d. 1795), in loco. 5 See his Bibl. Alterth. (a. d. 1828) III., 86. FRESH HINTS AND SURMISES FROM DESERT TRA VEL. 203 hold of Mount Seir, and that the Bible made Kadesh-barnea iden- tical with Kadesh in the Wilderness of Zin, would at any time have proved sufficient to fix the location of Kadesh-barnea, and of course of Kadesh also, southerly from Hebron, where well-nigh all had been ready to admit was one of the two sites, if two were a necessity. 5. FRESH HINTS AND SURMISES FROM DESERT TRAVEL. Until and during the eighteenth century, the ordinary route of tra- vel between Mount Sinai and Jerusalem, for those who visited those sacred sites, was along the western borders of the peninsula, enter- ing the Holy Land at Gaza. More commonly the route was from Suez to Mount Sinai, and back over the same course ; occasionally the route from Mount Sinai was northward to Castle Nakhl, thence northeasterly to Gaza ; and on rare occasions a Christian crossed the desert to Mekkeh. 1 A direct journey from Mount Sinai to Hebron was almost or quite unknown ; hence there was little op- portunity of exploring the region where all the Bible indications would locate Kadesh-barnea. Yet travelers were tempted then, as now, to find more of the Bible sites, in the line of their own journeying, than a close adherence to the Bible descriptions would fully warrant; and this increased the number of suggested loca- tions of Kadesh. In 1722, Dr. Shaw, an English clergyman, traveled in Egypt, Arabia, and Palestine. He was inclined to locate Kadesh-barnea near Castle Nakhl (which he would identify with En-mishpat), and he argued in favor of this site 2 with more of reason than the advocates of many another site since his day. He recognized this as a prominent oasis in the evident direction of Kadesh-barnea 1 See, for example, Thevenot’s Reisen, Frankfort-on-the-Main, a. d. 1693, and Muller’s Fremdling zu Jerusalem, Vienna and Nuremberg, a. d. 1735. 2 See his Travels, p. 318 ff. 204 KADESH-BARNEA. from Mount Sinai : and according to his calculation of the dis- tance, this oasis was sufficiently far northward. He was on the right track, but he stopped to locate before his full journey north- ward was completed. His identification was approved by Van Hamelsveld, 1 a Dutch geographer of the same century. A little later than Shaw, Bishop Pococke published his exten- sive “ Description of the East,” in report of his own travels and studies. In this, he expressed the opinion that Kadesh and the Wilderness of Zin were perhaps to be found (i about sixten miles from the convent [at Mount Sinai] to the northwest.” 2 His sole reason for this opinion was, that the Prefetto of Egypt had seen there “ exactly such another stone as the rock of Massa and Meribah in Rephidim, with the same sort of openings all down, and the signs where the water ran.” This stone “ was likewise called the stone of Moses,” by the Arabs ; and it was said that “ this must be the rock of Meribah, in the wilderness of Zin or Kadesh, which Moses smote twice, and the water came out abundantly ; [this] being after they returned into those parts from Eziongeber.” And this is the extent of the disclosures concerning the site of Kadesh-barnea down to the beginning of the present century. The first traveler of this century who crossed the desert below Palestine by a route which carried him in the vicinity of the region where the Bible indications, and the well-nigh universal opinion of Bible geographers up to his time, would locate Kadesh -barnea, was Seetzen, a German explorer of more than ordinary powers as an observer. His death in Arabia prevented his giving any com- pleted form to the results of his researches ; but his published letters and journals comprise much information of value. In March and April, 1807, 3 he journeyed southward from Hebron. On the 30th of March, in the vicinity of Wady el-’Ayn, or more accurately, Wady ’Ayn el-Qadayrat, 4 near the common trunk of i Bib. Geog. III., 394. 2 Vol. I., p. 147. 3 Reisen, III., 47 /. 4 See Robinson's Bib. Res., I., 189. FRESH HINTS AND SURMISES FR OM DESER T TRA VEL. 205 the desert-roads, which has been referred to as the probable halt- ing-place of Kedor-la’omer on his northward march/ Seetzen en- countered ’Azazimeh Arabs, or the u Adsasme ” as he calls them. And then, on that edge of the ’Azazimeh mountain tract, he came on a “ flat dry wady,” which was called “ Wadi el-Kdeis.” Al- though Seetzen did not attempt any identification of this name with that of Kadesh, the correspondence of the two names (the Hebrew Qadhesh, and the Arabic Qadees 1 2 — which seems to be that which is noted by Seetzen) is obvious. And this is the first hint of the ancient name in the Arabic nomenclature of the region reported by a modern traveler. Yet an old time Arabic geographer 3 had reported a “ Qadoos ” at one day’s journey south of “ Mesjid Ibraheem” (which Wetzstein understands to be Hebron, but which may be Beer-sheba, as Abra- ham’s “ place of worship ”). These are new gleams of light on a possible identification of the site of Kadesh-barnea. After Seetzen came Burckhardt, a Swiss traveler, who was fitted by nature and by careful training for eminent service in his varied fields of Oriental research. He was in the East during most of the time from 1809 until his death at Cairo in 1817. In 1812, he dis- covered the ruins of ancient Petra, tlie Rock-City which was doubtless one of the Reqams of the Jewish rabbis and the early Christian waiters ; and at the same time he opened up to the modern world the extensive ’Arabah, or the Ghor of the Arabic geographers. In doing this latter service, he suggested that the ’Arabah was Kadesh-barnea; 4 and thereby he not only gave fresh life to the old notion that “ Kadesh” was in that vicinity, but he gave a start to a new error, that “ Kadesh-barnea ” was there in the land of Edom, instead of on the southern border of Judah, west- 1 See page 42, supra. 2 See page 16, supra, note. 3 Maqdisi, as quoted from a manuscript in the Berlin Museum by Wetzstein in u Excursus III.,” in Delitzsch’s Com. on Genesis. 4 Travels in Syria, p. 443. 206 KADESH-BARNEA. ward. “The existence of the valley El-Araba,” he said, “the Kadesh-barnea, perhaps, of the Scriptures, appears to have been unknown both to ancient and modern geographers, although it forms a prominent feature in the topography of Syria and Arabia Petrsea.” Burckhardt did not at any time visit the western por- tion of the upper desert, to become acquainted with the ’Azazimeh mountain tract which Seetzen had skirted, thereby to be able to compare that region with the ’Arabah ; nor did he attempt any argument in proof of his proposed identification of Kadesh-barnea. He simply made the suggestion of the identity of the two places ; but that was enough, from such a man as himself, to give the idea not only currency but popular acceptance. Following Burckhardt, came Riippell, 1 a German naturalist, who, from 1822 to 1831, made important additions to the sum of knowledge concerning the desert region ; but he proffered no sug- gestion as to the site of Kadesh. In 1828, M. Leon de Laborde, a French artist and biblical scholar, with his companion M. Linant, visited the peninsula of Sinai, and supplemented the dis- coveries of Burckhardt in the site of ancient Petra by a series of admirable drawings. 2 Laborde accepted the suggestion of Burck- hardt that the ’Arabah was Kadesh-barnea, 3 and he even located the “ city” of Kadesh at “ Embasch,” 4 at the mouth of Wady Jerafeh, “ the great drain of all the long basin between the ’Arabah and the ridges west of Turf er-Rukn, extending from Jebel et-Tih on the south to the ridge between Jebel ’Araif and el-Miikrah on the north.” 5 Another location of the “city,” or of the “fountain,” of Kadesh, in Burckliardt’s ’Arabah-Kadesh, was made by Karl von Raumer, a German scientist and theologian, who studied and wrote upon the wanderings of the Israelites before he had visited the East, and 1 Reisen. 2 Voyage de l’ Arab. PH. 3 See his Maps, in his Voyage. 4 Comment ., at Num. 33: 36. 5 Robinson’s Bib. Res. I., 180. FRESH HINTS AND SURMISES FROM DESERT TRA VEL. 207 who again discussed the subject in connection with a record of his travels there. It was in 1836 that he proposed an identification of Kadesh in the upper ’Arabah. His description of his location was somewhat confused/ as he apparently supposed Jebel Madurah to be nearer the ’Arabah than it is ; but subsequently he settled on ’Ayn Hash 1 2 as the site for his championship. But all that can be said for or against that site is, that if the Israelites were ever up there in the meshes of that Edomitish net, ’Ayn Hasb would have answered as well as any one of a half dozen spots for Kadesh-barnea. From the days of Burckhardt and Laborde, the records of des- ert travel have been numerous and intelligent, quite beyond any- thing known before that time. Yet, after all, comparatively few travelers have passed up the ’Arabah into the Holy Land, and fewer still have gone directly northward to Hebron from the lower or central desert. Hence the references, from this source, to any supposed site of Kadesh-barnea, are by no means numerous. In 1836, Stephens, an American traveler, went up the ’Arabah, and was naturally inclined to think that Kadesh-barnea must have been somewhere along his route to Hebron. 3 The next year Lord Lindsay, an Englishman, went over the same ground, and had a similar opinion. 4 Von Schubert, who, like Von Raumer and Ruppell, was a German naturalist, was in that region the same year as Lord Lindsay. He thought Kadesh-barnea must have been near Jebel Madurah; 5 and Count Bertou, 6 a Frenchman, who shortly followed him, reported the name “Kadessa” as still lingering there. Other travelers, meantime, may have given their surmises on this point ; but I do not find them recorded, although I have looked for this purpose through the writings of Volney, 7 Ali Bey, 8 Irby and Mangles, 9 Legh, 10 Henniker, 11 and Russegger, 12 1 Her Zug der Israel., pp. 34-37. 2 Palastina, pp. 480-488. 3 Incidents of Travel, II., 112. 4 Letters, II., 22, 50. 5 Reise, II., 444. 6 Quoted by Robinson, {Bib. Res., first ed. II., 659-669). ’ Travels. 8 Travels. 9 Travels. 10 “ Excursion.” 11 Notes. 12 Reisen. 208 KADESH-BARNEA. among those whose routes would have been most likely to suggest an identification of Kadesh-barnea in view of the surmises of their predecessors. 6. ROBINSON’S PROPOSED IDENTIFICATION. And now we come to a new era in biblical geography, as marked by the travels of Dr. Edward Robinson, an American explorer whose observations in Palestine and the Peninsula of Sinai have practically given the base line and trigonometrical stations for all the following surveys of those lands of the Bible. The subsequent work of scholars and explorers in that region has been, in a sense, little more than the testing of his preliminary surveys. “ Robin- son’s Biblical Researches in Palestine and in the Adjacent Re- gions ” have been hardly less important and influential in their field in our day, than were the works in various former times of Eusebius, and Jerome, and Brocardus, and Adrichomius, and Reland, in a similar field. The many unmistakable new-identifi- cations of biblical sites made by Robinson have been either accepted without question, or abundantly sustained by farther examination ; and even his occasional errors of identification have naturally gained a hold on the Bible-studying public hardly less firm and ineradicable than the truths brought out by him. Robinson was impressed with the striking features of the mountain range on the east of the ’Arabah, where Burckhardt had dis- covered the ruins of ancient Petra, and he yielded to the tradi- tional identification of Mount Hor at Jebel Neby Haroon ; l although it was obviously within the limits of the Mount Seir which the Israelites were not permitted to enter. From this divergence he was farther led to believe that the Israelites, instead of going across the “ great and terrible wilderness ” of the Desert Bib. Res., II., 131-173. ROBINSON'S PROPOSED IDENTIFICATION. 209 et-Teeh by any direct route from Mount Sinai to Canaan, actually descended into the ’Arabah, and proceeded northward into a region which he had before recognized as within the probable reach of Edom’s occupancy . 1 And there, in that Edomitish territory, on the open highway, exposed to hostile attack in every direction, and in no sense covered or secluded, was his suggested site for Kadesh- barnea, an objective point of an invading army ; whence to send spies into the enemy’s country beyond it. The precise spot selected by Robinson for the site of Kadesh- barnea was ’Ayn el-Waybeh, a desert spring near the western slope of the ’Arabah, and just above the western bank of the Wady el- Jayb, the peculiar “wady within a wady ” 2 which is “the vast drain of all the ’Arabah ,” 3 and which in the rainy season receives also the water-flow of the Wady Jerafeh which in turn drains the western desert of Et-Teeh. ’Ayn el-Waybeh is in a northwesterly direction from Jebel Neby Haroon, and on the opposite side of the ’Arabah. Referring to Wady el-Jayb, as one crosses it from east to west, Robinson says : 4 “Just on its westward side, where the land slopes up very gradually into a tract of low limestone hills, lies ’Ain el- Weibeh, one of the most important watering places in all the great valley. There are here indeed three fountains, issuing from the chalky rock of which the slope is composed. . . . The three foun- tains are some rods apart, running out in small streams from the foot of a low rise of ground, at the edge of the hills. The water is not abundant ; and in the two northernmost sources has a sickly hue, like most desert fountains, with a taste of sulphuretted hydro- gen. . . . But the southernmost source consists of three small rills of limpid and good water, flowing out at the bottom of a small excavation in the rock. The soft chalky stone has crumbled away, forming a semicircular ledge about six feet high around the 1 See page 86, supra. 2 Bib. Res., II., 120. 14 2 Ibid., II., 118. * Ibid., II., 174. 210 KADESH-BARNEA. spring, and now a few feet distant from it. The intermediate space is at present occupied by earth ; but the rock apparently once extended out, so that the water actually issued from its base.” Yet all this “ rock ” is down in Wady ’Arabah ; and the name of the fountain “El-Weibeh” is according to Robinson’s own rendering, a “ Hole with Water.” 1 It is evident that there is no trace of the former importance or sacredness of “ Kadesh-barnea,” in the name, or in the appearance, of “’Ain el-Weibeh” at the present day. Indeed on this point Robinson says : “We could find here no trace of the remains of former dwellings.” And again : “ The surrounding desert has long since resumed its rights ; and all traces of the city and of its very name have disappeared.” It would, in fact, have been very strange if, at any time, a “ city,” or a settlement of any kind, had been attempted there “ upon the plain, or rather the rolling desert of the ’Arabah ; ” the surface of which, in that very region, is “ everywhere furrowed and torn with the beds of torrents.” 2 And as to the “ rock ” from the “ base ” of which the water is supposed to have formerly issued, Robinson evidently employs the word in a geological rather than a popular sense ; for there is no Rock, no (( Sel’a,” no imposing cliff, down there in the ’Arabah bed. The “ soft chalky stone ” which may have once been the basin wall of the “ Hole with Water,” is a sorry representative of the Sel’a “ before ” which Moses and Aaron “ gathered the congregation together,” when the people had murmured for lack of its accus- tomed water-flow. 3 In support of his identification of ’Ayn el-Waybeh as Kadesh- barnea, Robinson proffered no proofs beyond other suggested iden- tifications in the neighborhood ; all of which identifications must i See Eli Smith’s “Arabic Index,” s. v. “ el-Weibeh,” Bib. Res., III., first edition ; also Robinson’s Index to Bib. Res., II., 591. 2 Bib. Res., II., 121. 3 Num. 20. ROWLANDS' $ DISCOVERY. 211 stand or fall with this one . 1 Thus, for example, he now deemed the ’ Arabah as the “ uttermost border ” of ancient Edom westward, although he had before expressed the opinion that this was not so ; and he gave no reason for a change of his opinion, unless it were that the fixing of Kadesh-barnea at ’Ayn el-Waybeh made a change of the supposed boundaries of Edom a necessary sequence. But whether Robinson had good arguments or none at all in support of one of his identifications, his soundness and accuracy at so many points were sufficient to carry the multitude with him, and to incline even other good scholars in his direction, in every case where his expression of conviction was positive. Hence it came to pass, that ’Ayn el-Waybeh took its place as a proper site for Kadesh-barnea. 7. ROWLANDS’S DISCOVERY. It was just after the first publication of Robinson’s “ Biblical Researches,” that another new element was introduced into the dis- cussion of the Kadesh-barnea question, by a remarkable discovery made by the Rev. John Rowlands, an English clergyman, who was a friend and companion of Canon Williams, then chaplain to Bishop Alexander of Jerusalem. Rowlands had already passed some time in the East, including a winter in Egypt, a summer in Mount Lebanon, and nine months in Jerusalem . 2 He had been twice through the Sinaitic desert, taking both the eastern and western routes, and becoming familiar 1 He even looks at the Smooth Mountain, eight hours distant from ’Ayn el-Waybeh, as the mountain which the Israelites ascended from Kadesh (Num. 14 : 40) ; and he says that the name Es-Sfifah “is in form identical with the Hebrew Zephath” ( Bib. Res. II., 181) ; although it is not easy to see how and hIaoJI can be called “ identical” in either form or meaning. 2 The facts given herewith are obtained from my personal correspondence with Mr. Rowlands, in supplement of the information published in his report of his dis- coveries, as herein referred to. 212 KADESH-BARNEA. with the ’Arabah, as well as with the western route into Palestine. Beginning the study of Arabic under a Syrian priest at Con- stantinople, he acquired sufficient familiarity with the language, not only to write it, but to speak it with tolerable proficiency. His Bible studies had satisfied him of the general location of Kadesh - barnea, on the southern border of Canaan, and he became interested in a search for its site. His first movement in this direction was with his friend Williams, in a trip from Hebron, southward, in October, 1842, under the guidance of “ Sheikh Salim of the Teahars ” 1 (Teeyahah ?) Their discovery of the southern border line of the Promised Land, in the natural barrier of the Smooth Mountain (Mount Halak), as they stood on that wall-rampart, at the westward of Jebel Madurah, has already been cited. 2 It was while they stood there, that Shaykh Selim informed them that at some distance westerly (or southwesterly), there was a place known as “ Kadese,” which they instantly recognized as a term corres- pondent with Kadesh, or Kadesh-barnea, on that same southern boundary line. But they were at that time unable to pursue their investigations farther ; and they returned to J erusalem with only this gleam of horizon-light on the site of Kadesh. It was subsequent to this, that Rowlands made a new and suc- cessful attempt to find the ancient site. On his leaving Jerusalem for his home, he took the route by Hebron and Gaza in order that he might pursue his search on the strength of the hint from Shaykh Selim. His companion on this trip was Mr. Johns, architect of the English church at Jerusalem, and for a time the British vice- consul there. At Gaza, Rowlands sent for two shaykhs of the Terabeen Arabs, a tribe which roams from Gaza to Suez, and east- ward toward, and even into, the ’Azazimeh mountain tract. “ When they came,” he says, 3 “ I explained to them where we 1 See Williams’s Holy City, Appendix, p. 487. 2 See page 95 supra. 3 This, also, is from a letter written to me by Mr. Rowlands, under date of Sept. 20, 1882. ROWLANDS' S DISCOVERY. 213 wished to go, and what we wanted to find, and asked them if they knew any place in their territory or neighborhood called Kadesh, or Kades, or Kades, and they said at once, ‘ La, Hawajah, mafish ‘ No, sir, there is not/ or ‘ there is nothing of the sort/ ‘ Perhaps I do not pronounce it properly, or as you do/ I said ; and I tried ‘ Kodes/ ‘Koodes/ and ‘Kudes’; but they still persisted in say- ing ‘No’ — ‘ La, mafish/ or ‘-feesh’ — ‘No, there is nothing of the sort/ Having tried again various sounds, I happened to say ‘ Kadeis/ or ‘ Kadase/ laying the accent, or emphasis, on the last syllable, and they cried out at once, ‘ Fi, fi, fi/ ‘There is, there is, there is / ‘ Ain Kadeis/ or ‘ Qadeis/ sounding the ‘ K/ or ‘ Q/ somewhat like ‘ G/ that is, hard ‘ G/ I asked them all about it, and what sort of place it was, and whether they would take us by it ; . . . and they agreed to do so/’ This new journey of Rowlands proved eventful in its discoveries. It was then that he identified “ Sebatah ” as the site of ancient Zephath ; 1 that he pointed out “ the grand plain called Es-Serr ” as “ the Seir alluded to in Deuteronomy 1 : 44,” where the Amorites chased the defeated Israelites toward Kadesh-barnea ; and that he called attention to Moilahi, or Moilahhi, as the possible site of Hagar’s Well, or Beer-lahai-roi. 2 His only formal report of this journey was in a familiar letter to his friend Williams, which found a place in the Appendix to the latter’s volume, “ The Holy City,” published several years later. 3 That portion of this letter which describes the visit to “ Kaddese,” or Qadees, is here given in full : “ Now, my dear friend, for Kadesh , my much-talked-of and long-sought-for Kadesh. You may conceive with what pleasure I tell you, that I have at length found this important and in- teresting locality to my entire satisfaction. Our excitement (I can speak at least for mine while we stood before the Rock smitten by 1 Judges 1 : 17. 2 Gen. 16 : 14. 3 In 1845. 214 KADESH-BARNEA. Moses, and gazed upon the lovely stream which still issues forth under the base of this Rock) would be quite indescribable. I cannot say that we stood still- — our excitement was so great that we could not stand still. We paced backwards and forwards; ex- amining the rock and the source of the stream ; looking at the pretty little cascades which it forms as it descends into the channel of a rain torrent beneath ; sometimes chipping otf some pieces of the rock, and at other times picking up some specimens and some flowers along a green slope beneath it. The Rock is a large single mass, or a small hill, of solid rock, a spur of the mountain to the north of it rising immediately above it. It is the only visible naked rock in the whole district. The stream, when it reaches the channel, turns westward, and, after running about three or four hundred yards, loses itself in the sand. I have not seen such a lovely sight anywhere else in the whole desert — such a copious and lovely stream. I took two vials full of it away with me. Shall I send you one ? I think I must do it, if you will not go and see Kadesh yourself. But I must give you some particulars about the locality of Kades, or Kudes, as it is called. I shall therefore first of all describe the position, and then adduce my proofs for its identity with ancient Kadesh-barnea. The waters of Kades, called Ain Kades, lie to the east of the highest part of Jebel Halal, towards its northern extremity, about twelve miles (or four and a-half hours by camel) to the E.S.E. of Moilahhi. I think it must be something like due south from Khalasa. But to the proofs , which is the most important point. 1. Its name Kades, or Kudes (pronounced in English Kaddase or Kud- dase), is exactly the Arabic form of the Hebrew name Kadesh ; the K, as you will find in both the Hebrew and the Arabic, not being the common Kaf, but Kof ; and giving the a sound, somewhat resembling the short u. 2. The locality corresponds with, or falls in the line of, the southern boundary of the ROWLANDS’ S DISCOVERY. 215 Promised Land (Josh. 15 : 1, 8), from the southern extremity of the Dead Sea, by Safaa [Sufah] or Maaleh-Akrabbim, the Wady el-Murra, and the Wady el-Arish, or the river of Egypt. 3. It corresponds also with the order in which the places of the border are mentioned. Adar and Azmon, two places in the border, which we have discovered in the names Adeirat and Aseimeh, sometimes called Kadeirat and Kaseimeh, now, and perhaps always, merely fountains or springs, lie to the west of Kades, and Wady el-Arish, or [the] river of Egypt, succeeds in the same line. 4. It lies east of Jebel el-Halal, or Mount Halah , mentioned somewhere by Jeremiah [Joshua] as the uttermost extremity of the Promised Land to the south. 5. It lies at the foot of the mountain of the Amorites (Deut. 1 : 19). 6. It is situated near the grand pass or entrance into the Promised Land by the Beer Lahai-roi, which is the only easy entrance from the desert to the east of Halal, and most probably the entrance to which the Hebrews were conducted from Sinai towards the Land of Promise. 7. A good road leads to this place all the way from Sinai, and the distance is about five days of dromedary-riding, or about ten or eleven days of common camel-riding, as the Bedouins stated (Deut. 1:2). 8. A grand road, still finer, I was told, by broad wadies, goes from Kades to Mount Hor [Jebel Neby Ha- roon] (Mm. 20 : 22). 9. The nature of the locality itself answers in every respect to the description given of it in Scripture, or rather inferred from it — the mountains to the east of Kades, and some very grand ones to the south, called Jebel Kades, 1 the wil- derness of Kadcsh/ the Rock, the water, and the grand space for encampment which lies to the southwest of it, a large rectangular plain about nine by five, or ten by six miles, and this opening to the west into the still more extensive plain of Paran. But enough of Kadesh. I must hasten on to Suez, without making many notes or comments on our journey 216 KA DESH-BA BNEA , 8. THE CONFUSION OF SITES. There was quite another state of things in the Kadesh-barnca discussion, when the opinion of Robinson and the discovery of Rowlands were fairly before the public. The advantage to begin with, in this new state of things, was largely on the side of Robin- son. He was widely known, and was fittingly recognized as pre- eminent in his sphere. His opinion was published, and, as a mat- ter of course, was generally accepted, before the report of Row- lands was given to the world. Rowlands, on the other hand, had no such commanding position; and his story of his discovery, when it followed Robinson’s claim, was practically hidden in an appendix to a work which was itself made prominent in opposition to Robinson on quite another matter than the site of Kadesh-barnea. 1 Had the case rested with the English-speaking world alone, it seems probable that the discovery of Rowlands would have been permanently left in an eddy caused by the resistless sweep of Rob- inson’s great reputation. But the case was not rested there. However the English and American public might be carried along by the opinion of one leading mind, the critical, thorough, and impartial scholars of Germany were sure to weigh carefully all the evidence in the case before they accepted the conclusions of even such an explorer as Robinson on a point like the identifica- tion of Kadesh-barnea. The first uplifting of the discovery of Rowlands into anything like its due prominence, was by Professor Tuch, of Leipzig, an eminent biblical student and Oriental scholar. In 1847, in a careful study of the campaign of Kedor-la’omer, published in the Journal of the German Oriental Society, 2 Tuch showed conclusively that Ivadesh must have been located in the 1 Williams was the champion of the traditional site of the Holy Sepulchre, as over against Robinson on the other side. 2 Zeitschrift des deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, Vol. I., pp. 160 ff., 169 ff. THE CONFUSION OF SITES. 217 very region where Rowlands had found ’Ayn Qadees; and he was confident that the ancient site had been there discovered. Almost at the same time, Professor Winer, of Leipzig, a foremost biblical cyc- lopedist, accepted the identification, and gave it a place in a new edition of his Biblical Cyclopedia . 1 Tuch’s article was translated by Professor Samuel Davidson, a well-known English biblical scholar, and published in Kitto’s Journal of Sacred Literature . 2 Just then, also, Dr. John Wilson, an Oriental scholar and traveler, de- clared against Robinson’s identification, and spoke favorably of that of Rowlands, in his admirable work “ The Lands of the Bible. 3 ” And now, the site ’Ayn Qadees had such backing as commanded res- pect even in opposition to a site approved by the eminent Robinson. It was in response to these German critics that Robinson came out anew in defense of his own identification, and in opposition to that proposed by Rowlands ; and it was at that time that Robinson’s statements, and his misstatements, concerning both Rowlands and his discovery, introduced an element of confusion into the discus- sion of the Kadesh-barnea question which has continued as a cause of perplexity down to the present day, and which it is one object of this book to eliminate. It is, in fact, hardly to be wondered at, that the judicial faculty of a mind like Robinson’s should have been disturbed by the unexpected evidence of his error in so im- portant an identification as that of a pivotal point in the lower boundary line of Palestine, and in the history of the Israelitish wanderings, coupled with the claim that a comparatively unknown traveler had penetrated the mountain tract which Robinson had not been able to explore , 4 and had actually discovered there the an- cient site of Kadesh with its still existing name. How could such a state of facts fail of prejudicing the chiefly-interested party against a rival identification ? 1 Bib. Realworterb., s. v. “ Kadesch.” 2 For July, 1848. 3 Yol. I., p. 338. 4 See Bib. Res. I., 186; II., 193, note. 218 KADESH-BARNEA. Robinson’s new defense of ’Ayn el-Waybeh, or rather his criti- cisms upon ’Ayn Qadees and its discoverer (for it was in that form that his comments were made), appeared first in an article in the “ Bibliotheca Sacra” for May, 1849, and again in foot-notes to the later editions of his “ Biblical Researches.” 1 Referring to the report of Rowlands, Robinson said, in his magazine article : “ Until recently it has seemed to me, that the very fanciful and amusingly credulous character of the whole narrative would put every one upon his guard ; and furnish in itself the best exposition of the fallacy of the whole matter. But the idea has since been taken up by Prof. Tuch of Leipzig, as falling in with a theory of his own on another topic ; 3 and his article has been translated by Prof. Davidson, and published in England. Winer, also, in the new edition of his ‘ Realworterbuch ’ (art. ‘ Kadesh ’) adopts the same view, relying on the supposed identity of the name. Hence it has become worth while to bring the matter to the test of exam- ination.” And first “ the test of examination ” is to be applied to the dis- coverer, rather than to the discovery. “ Mr. Rowlands appears in his writings, and is described by those who know him,” says Robin- son, “ as a very amiable man ; but fanciful, visionary, and full of credulity.” Then, an anonymous letter received by Robinson is quoted, a^ saying of Rowlands and his report: “His letter in Williams’ Appendix, is a tissue of moonshine.” After the discov- erer, the discovery is examined. An item from the report of Rowlands is quoted, as follows : “ The water of Ivudes, called ’Ain Kades, lies about twelve miles (or four and a half hours by camel) to the E. S. E. of Moilahhi.” On this Robinson com- 1 “ Notes on Biblical Geography,” pp. 377-381. 2 Vol. I., p. 189 ; II., 194. 3 This other topic on which Tuch had a theory, was the location of Kadesh in the days of Kedor-la’omer. Tuch haying shown that Kadesh was in a certain region at that period, was prepared to believe that it might have remained there, even until Rowlands re-discovered its site. THE CONFUSION OF SITES. 219 ments : u Where then is this Kudes ? The reader, perhaps, will be surprised to learn that the spot here pointed out is men- tioned both by Seetzen and in the text of the Biblical Researches, and is inserted on our map. If he will turn to the map he will find marked, in that direction, and about that distance from el- Muweileh, a fountain called ’ Ain el-Kudeirdt ; it is a little east of our route, and is described by us according to the accounts of the Arabs . 1 The Kudeirdt are a tribe or clan of Arabs in this region, who water their flocks at this fountain, and sometimes as far north as Beersheba . 2 Seetzen lodged at one of their encampments . 3 The conclusion is inevitable, that the name Kudes as here presented by Mr. Rowlands is a mere blunder of a tyro in Arabic for el-Ku- deirdt.” A conclusion drawn by Robinson on this “ test of examination ” is : “As therefore the whole hypothesis of a Kadesh in this place rests upon the supposed identity of name ; and the said name is thus shown to be a mere blunder ; it might perhaps be sufficient to let the matter rest here.” Yet to make the conclusion surer, as he looks at it, Robinson presses several added points against the site of “ ’Ain el-Kudeirat ” (which he has decided is Rowlands’s sup- posed “ Kudes,”) prominent among which points is the following : “ According to the scriptural account, both the spies and the Israel- ites on entering the Promised Land from Kadesh, had immediately to ascend a mountain . 4 If Kadesh was at ’Ain el-Weibeh or in the vicinity, all this is a natural and exact representation ; since the ascent from the great valley begins immediately back of that fountain. But if Kadesh be sought at ’Ain el-Kudeirat or any- where in that region, the language of Scripture is wholly inappli- cable. The tract between the latter spot and Beersheba is an open rolling country ; there are swells, but no mountain, to be crossed ; 1 Bib. Res., I., 280. a Bib. Res., II., 619. 3 Ritter, Erdk. XIV., p. 837 /. 4 Num. 13 : 17 ; 14 : 44, 45 ; Deut. 1 : 24, 41. 220 KADESH-BARNEA. and none to be ascended until we reach the mountains of Palestine proper on the north of Beersheba towards Hebron ; a distance from ’Ain el-Kudeirat of about sixty miles, or four days’ march for troops.” Now, apart from the personal criticisms of Mr. Rowlands by Dr. Robinson, there are several remarkable statements in the exceptions here taken to the report of the former’s discovery. So far from having confounded “ Kudeirat” with “ Kudes,” Rowlands distinctly affirms that “ Kadeirat and Kaseimeh, now, and perhaps always, merely fountains or springs, lie to the west of Kades ” 1 It is but fair to presume that Robinson examined his own “map” rather than the report of Rowlands while bringing the latter to “ the test of examination.” And, inasmuch as Seetzen had, long before, heard the name “ Kdeis ” in this region, and as Rowlands had been prompted to this very search by hearing that a similar name was to be found here, it would hardly be fair to suppose that the name itself was wholly based on another so dissimilar as Kudeirat, even if the positive proof to the contrary were not in the very report which Robinson was criticising. Moreover, as Row- lands gave eight distinct reasons for the identification, in addition to the correspondence of name, and noted them separately with Arabic numerals, it is somewhat surprising to learn that “the whole hypothesis of a Kadesh in this place rests upon the supposed identity of name.” As to Robinson’s supplemental series of argu- ments against the site of “ Kades,” as they chiefly rest on his mis- take of supposing that Rowlands had “’Ain el-Kudeirat” in mind, they are practically irrelevant to the case . 2 Robinson admits that he never saw ’Ayn el-Qadayrat, but merely heard about it from the Arabs. Whether or not, therefore, there was a mountain just north of it was fairly an open question ; and again it would have 1 See the text of Rowlands’s report, at page 215, supra. 2 Those which would, otherwise, have any weight, have been forestalled in the earlier geographical studies of this volume. THE CONFUSION OF SITES. 221 no proper bearing on this discussion, in any event, as it was not ’Ayn el-Qadayrat that was proposed as the site of Kadesh-barnea. This being the substance of Robinson’s magazine article, against Rowlands as a discoverer and against the site discovered by Row- lands, its misstatements were condensed for a reappearance in the notes to “ Biblical Researches.” Referring to “ ’Ain el-Kudeirat,” Robinson says : 1 “ This is the spot called by Mr. Rowlands, Kudes and visited by him as Kadesh-barnea. He obviously made out the name Kudes by misunderstanding the name of the tribe who water at this fountain. There is no other foundation for supposing a Kadesh here.” And again : 2 u Mr. Rowlands supposes that he found Kadesh at the fountain el-’ Ain in the high western desert. . . . That fountain is called also ’Ain el-Kudeirat, from a tribe of Arabs who water there. 3 Out of this name Mr. Rowlands, or his Greek dragoman, seems to have made Kudes, and on the strength of this blunder, assumed there the site of Kadesh.” Yet when we bring these notes of Robinson u to the test of examination,” by comparison with Mr. Rowlands’s original report, and his supple- mental statement, we find that : 1. It was not his dragoman who led him into the blunder of confounding “ Kudeirat” with “ Kudes.” 2. His dragoman was not a Greek. 3. He had no dragoman. 4. He made no blunder, on the point in question ; and the proof that he made none was in his original report, which was overlooked by Robinson while he was examining his own map. For any further u test of examination” in this matter, the substantial facts are now before any reader who would decide the point for himself. Robinson’s influence was sufficient to carry along with him a large portion of the English-speaking people, by the mere fact of his opinion rather than by the strength of his argument. If he 1 Bib. j Res. I., 189, note. 2 Ibid. II., 194, note. 3 It is more probable that the tribe of Arabs takes its name from the fountain. That is the common order in the East. 222 KADESH-BARNEA . could say that he still believed in ’Ayn el-Waybeh, why should an average man have any doubt on the subject ? But German scholars were not to be led in that way. They asked for proofs rather than asseverations on a point once fairly in debate. And as a result of their inquiry and investigation, the current of scholarly testimony iu favor of Rowlands’s identification gained steadily and largely in Germany ; nor did that identification lack acceptance and support from reputable and independent scholars in England and America. Even before the discovery of Rowlands was made public, other scholars, including Ewald, and Ritter, and Rabbi Schwarz, 1 had declared, in the light of all modern research, in favor of a location of Kadesh at a more westerly site than the ’Arabah ; the last named of these scholars having proposed an identification of Kadesh-barnea at a “ Wady Gaian,” or “Wady Abiat,” 2 [Wady Abyad] connected with Wady Beerayn, a little to the northward of Wady el-’ Ayn; although he was disposed also to understand that the talmudic refer- ence to a double Reqam involved the acceptance of a second Kadesh. 3 So far as I can see, the first thorough and convincing argument in favor of Rowlands’s site was made by Eries, a German scholar, in an article “ On the Position of Kadesh/’ as published in the German critical magazine “Studien und Kritiken,” in 1854. His work went farther than that of Tuch, in showing the western stretch of Edom, aud in a careful treatment of the Negeb ; more- over he showed the insuperable objections to a location of Kadesh in the ’Arabah. Fries was followed by Kurtz in another masterly exhibit of the facts and arguments in this discussion. Indeed Kurtz had issued the first edition of his work, the “ History of the Old Covenant/' before Fries’s article appeared; but in subsequent editions he quoted freely from Fries, and gave him unstinted credit. 4 1 See Kurtz’s Hist of Old Cov. III., 201. 2 Descript. Geog. of Pal. (American ed.) pp. 23, 39. 3 Ibid., p. 214/. 4 See Hist, of Old Cov., English ed. III., 194-210. THE CONFUSION OF SITES. 223 It would even seem as if these presentations of the case would alone have been sufficient, in the absence of farther argument, to have convinced any impartial student who should examine them. But they were not to be left alone. Bitter, in his new edition of his great geographical work, spoke approvingly of Bowlands’s proposed identification ; 1 as also did Ewald with some qualification . 2 Keil and Delitzsch , 3 Kalisch , 4 Knobel , 5 Lange , 6 Menke , 7 V olter , 8 Strauss , 9 Hamburger , 10 Arnold , 11 Volck and Muhlau , 12 and others among the Germans, accepted it unqualifiedly, or referred to it as thus accepted. Bunsen, also, is cited as of this opinion . 13 Graetz , 14 while evidently misled by some of Bobinson’s misstatements concerning Bowlands and his dis- covery, admitted that the site of Kadesh at ? Ayn Qadees, was veri- fied by subsequent research and argument. Meanwhile among English scholars, Wilton , 15 Wordsworth , 16 Alford , 17 Palmer , 18 Tris- tram , 19 Edersheim , 20 Geikie . 21 and others, came to a similar conclu- sion with the best German scholars, by an independent process of reasoning, or adopted the conclusions of those investigators. The best work in the same line by American scholars was done by 1 Geog. of Pal., Am. ed., I., 429-433. 2 Hist, of Israel , Eng. ed., II., 193, note. 3 Bib. Com. at Gen. 14: 7, and at Num. 13: 11-16; 20: 14-21; also Keil’s Com. on Ezek. at 47 : 19. 4 Hist, and Crit. Com. on O. T. at Gen. 14 : 5-7. 5 Exeget. Handb. at Num. 33 : 36, 37, and at Josh. 15 : 3, 4. 6 Scliaff-Lange Com. at Num. 20 : 1. 7 Bibelatlas, Map No. III. 8 Das Heilige Land, p. 319. 9 Sinai u. Golgotha, p. 123. 10 Real-Encyc. fur Bibel u. Talm., s. v. “ Kades.” 11 In Herzog’s Real-Encyc. Art. “ Kadesch.” 12 See their Gesenius’s Heb. Germ. Lex., eighth ed., s. v. “ Kadesh. “ Kadesh is usually located at the spring ’Ain Kudes ; Robinson, on the contrary, misplaced it at the ’Arabah.” 13 See Clark’s Bible Atlas, p. 26. 14 Gesch. d. Juden. I., 396. 15 See The Negeb passim; also Fairbairn’s Imp. Bib. Die., s. v. “ Kadesh.” 16 Bible with Notes, at Gen. 14 : 5-7. 17 Genesis, etc., at 14 : 5-7. 18 Des. of Exod. II., 350-358 ; 509-520. 19 Bible Places, pp. 3-6. 20 Exod. and Wand. p. 165 /. 24 Hours with Bible, II., 327 f 224 KADESH-BARNEA. President Bartlett/ of Dartmouth College, and Professor Lowrie , 2 of Allegheny. Had it not been, indeed, that the followers of Robinson on this point, in England and America, were men who controlled the avenues to popular biblical knowledge, the question in dispute would have long ago been settled beyond the possibility of a re- opening. Nor would even this advantage have availed them, if it had not been for their constant repetition of Robinson’s undis- puted misstatement concerning Rowlands’s confusion of ’Ayn el- Qadayrat with ’Ayn Qadees ; a misstatement which a single refer- ence by any one of them to the original report of Rowlands w r ould have promptly ruled out of the controversy. Even so valuable a work as the “ Speaker’s Commentary” has aided in promoting popular error on this subject. Its comments on the Book of Numbers were primarily prepared by the Rev. J. F. Thrupp, who held to the westerly site of Kadesh ; but, as he died before his work was completed, his notes were revised by the Rev. T. E. Espin, who followed Robinson in his opinions and in his errors, and changed the direction of the comments accordingly . 3 Espin’s arguments against the identification at ’Ayn Qadees in- clude the utterly baseless idea that ’Ayn Qadees is located at ’Ayn el-Qadayrat ; and it even makes the topographical blunder of claiming that “ [Wady] el- Ain is on high ground,” and that “ from it the spies must have gone down rather than up towards Hebron .” 4 The baselessness of the suggestion that Qadees and Qadayrat were confounded in Rowlands’s identification, would be evident to any- one who turned for himself to the report of Rowlands ; and the absurdity of the claim that one must go down rather than up in passing from either Qadees or Qadayrat towards Hebron, would be seen on the first glance at a sectional view of the country, such as 1 Egypt to Pal., pp. 356-378. 2 Schaff-Lange Com. at Num. 13 : 26. 3 See Speaker’s Com., “ Introduction to the Book of Numbers,” p. 654. 4 Ibid., “ Note on Chap. 13 : 26. THE CONFUSION OF SITES. 225 is given in Stanley’s “ Sinai and Palestine/’ or in Clark’s “ Bible Atlas;” but, on the other hand, he who depended on the “ Speaker’s Commentary ” for information on these points, would inevitably be led astray, and so be prepared to accept the supple- mental commentator’s opinion, that Kadesh is to be identified with ’Ayn el-Waybeh. The same errors that deface the “ Speaker’s Commentary ” stand out quite as prominently in the widely-known “ Bible Atlas ” of the Rev. Samuel Clark, above referred to. This geographical work actually declares 1 that the fountain discovered by Rowlands, and proposed by him as the site of Kadesh, is “ called Ain el- Kudeirat,” and on the strength of this baseless assumption it argues against the identification, reiterating the absurd topographical blunder, “ that the road from the Ain el-Kudeirat into the Holy Land is down hill.” Of course it is not to be supposed that Mr. Clark had either referred to the report of Rowlands on which he was commenting, or that he had compared his own statement of the down-grade towards Hebron with the sectional view of the desert approach of the Holy Land which was presented in his own Atlas; 2 but this reason for his being in error would not guard from the same error those who looked to him for direction in geo- graphical studies. Hr. William Smith’s “ Ancient Atlas,” also a popular standard in its sphere, approves Robinson’s identification, 3 and takes excep- tion to that of Rowlands, although in his maps the geographer notes, as possible sites, both Robinson’s and Rowlands’s, and adds a third one, ’Ayn esh-Shehabeh, between those two ; and in his “ Old Testament History,” 4 he seems to favor each one of these three sites in turn. In “ Smith’s Bible Dictionary,” however, there is evidence that the report of Rowlands has been referred to 1 Bible Atlas, pp. 24-26. 3 Bible Atlas, Plate II., Map No. 4. 3 In notes on Map 39, at page 25. 4 Chap. XIII., Note “ B.” 15 226 KADESH-BARNEA. by the writer on “ Kadesh .” 1 Yet the preference is given by that writer to ’Ayn el-Waybeh, as the nearest approximation to a pro- bable site of Kadesh among the many already suggested. An opinion like this, however poorly supported, in such an avenue of knowledge, would inevitably have more influence with the public generally, than a dozen elaborate essays in sources of critical study. Keith Johnston’s “ Royal Atlas,” also, is conformed to Robinson’s opinion. And what has proved yet more misleading than the “ Bible Atlas ” and the “ Ancient Atlas ” and the “ Royal Atlas ” combined, is the fact that Kadesh-barnea is located at ’Ayn el- Waybeh in the maps of the Teachers’ Bibles, of the Oxford Uni- versity Press, of the Bagsters, and of the Queen’s Printers. By this means, millions of young Bible-students have been started wrong in their Bible geography ; for there are those who would as soon doubt the inspiration of the chronology of the Bible margins, as the geography of the Bible maps. Porter, who has the popular ear through his editing of Murray’s “ Hand-book for Syria and Palestine,” and as the writer of the article “ Kadesh” in Kitto’s “ Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature,” follows Robinson in the claim that Rowlands “was evidently mis- led . . by a fancied resemblance in names,” in his discovery of ’Ayn Qadees, but he is original in his suggestion that the site of that fountain is “in the midst of the desert of Tih .” 2 His opinion is of course made known to multitudes who are unfamiliar with the results of modern critical and geographical research in the lands of the Bible. Fausset, in the “ Englishman’s Critical and Expository Bible Cyclopedia ” 3 adopts Robinson’s identification of ’Ayn el- Way bell, and also his misstatement that ’Ayn Qadees is at Wady el-’ Ayn. Drew, in his “ Scripture Lands ,” 4 and Payne 1 The Rev. Henry Hayman. 2 Alexander’ s Kitto, Art. “ Kadesh.” 3 Art. “ Kadesh.” 4 pp. 75-78. THE CONFUSION OF SITES. 227 Smith in “ The Bible Educator /’ 1 2 also favor Robinson’s site/ while Kitto’s “ Scripture Lands ” 3 accommodatingly approves the identifications of both Robinson and Rowlands ; going back to the old-time idea of a double Kadesh, which was so thoroughly exploded by Lightfoot, two centuries ago. Yet Kitto had earlier argued sensibly against the idea of a two-fold site . 4 A mong the Germans, V on Gerlach 5 would locate Kadesh in the ’Arabah, as would Hitzig , 6 who hesitated between ’Ayn el-Waybeh, and ’Ayn Hasb (somewhat farther north) as advocated by Von Raumer. Indeed it' ought to be said that a number of Germans have, earlier or later, favored the location of Kadesh at some point in the ’Arabah, even though they did not coincide with Robinson, in fixing it at ’Ayn el-Waybeh. Thus Unruli 7 * favored ’Ayn Hasb ; Reuss/ and Berghaus , 9 would find a site at some point near Ezion- geber, where Buddeus , 10 a century ago, suggested it ; and Biissler 11 named Wady Ghuwayr for the location. El-Khaloos, or Elusa, was advocated as the site of Kadesh by an over-positive English writer . 12 Holland inclined to some site at the southeastern point of Jebel Muqrah ; 13 and there indeed is ’Ayn esh-Shehabeh, or Shehabeeyeh, a living spring which has been often named as a possible site for Kadesh , 14 but which no one seems to have visited . 15 Conder 16 sweeps all along the upper 1 Yol. I., p. 231. 2 Payne Smith does not name ’Ayn el-Waybeh, but his description corresponds with its site. 3 See p. 81 ; also “ General Index,” p. 56. 4 See citations from Kitto’s Pictorial Bible , and his earlier editions of Bible Cyclo- pedia, in Bush’s Notes on Numbers, at 20 : 1. 5 Com. on Pent, at Num. 13 : 26 ; 20 : 13. 6 Der Prophet Ezekiel, p. 371. 7 Der Zug der Israel., p. 66. 8 L’ Histoire Sainte, III., 264, note. 9 Special- Karte von Syrien. 10 Hist. Eccles., A. D. 1744. n Das Heilige Land, p. 131. 12 H. C., in Jour, of Sac. Lit. for April, 1860, p. 57. 13 Report of Brit. Assoc, for 1878, p. 622 ff. 14 See Clark’s Bib. Atlas , p. 25; Smith’s Anc. Atlas , Map 39, etc. 15 See Robinson’s Bib. Res., 1., 179. 16 In Quart. Stat. of Pal. Explor. Fund for Jan., 1881, p. 60/. 228 KADESH-BARNEA. ’Arabah in his preferences ; “ say from Petra to Tell el-Milh, at the foot of Nukb es-Sufa.” He strangely suggests a correspond- ence between “ Maderah ” and “ Adar.” Of Americans, there are comparatively few who have made special and independent studies in this direction. Bartlett and Lowrie have been already named as approving Rowlands’s site. On the other hand, Bush , 1 Coleman , 2 Durbin , 3 Barrows , 4 and others, followed Robinson. Olin 5 suggested Wady Feqreh. McClintock and Strong 6 adopted V on Raumer’s location at ’Ayn Hasb, and Abbott and Conant 7 did the same. Crosby , 8 expressed his belief that Kadesh was to be found at some point near Jebel Muqrah ; and this is practically the view of Holland. Naturally, however, the opinion of Robinson carried great weight with his countrymen, especially in the absence of any personal knowledge on their part. It is hardly necessary to follow out farther or more closely than this, the various suggested identifications of Kadesh ; or to multi- ply farther the names of those who have had a part in discussing the subject, or in influencing public opinion by a recorded vote in favor of one site or another. Yet the list would not be even fairly complete, without a mention of the noteworthy and remarkable proposal of Dean Stanley, to find the site of Kadesh in the Rock- City, Petra itself . 9 It is quite needless to detail his nominal argu- ment in favor of his suggestion ; for it was rather the poetry of the idea than any cold reasoning on the subject that led him to carry the host of Israel directly into the stronghold of Edom and the sacred fortress of Mount Seir. In view of all that he has to say of the matter, the only wonder is that he will concede that the 1 Notes on Numbers, at 20 : 14. 2 Hist. Geog. of Bible, p. 109. 3 Observ. in East, I., 197. 4 Sacred Geog. and Antiq., p. 253. 5 Travels, II., 60. 6 Cyclo. of Bib., Theol., Eccles. IAt., s. v. “Kadesh.” * Did. of Relig. Knowl., s. v. “ Kadesh.” 8 Notes on Joshua, p. 146. 9 Sinai and Pal. pp. 92-98. FAILURES TO RE- FIND ROWLANDS' S SITE. 229 “ present ruins are modern,” instead of boldly claiming that the great theatre itself was built expressly for the funeral services on the occasion of the death of Aaron. 9. FAILURES TO RE-FIND ROWLANDS’S SITE. In addition to the confusion of sites by this suggestion of more than a dozen distinct identifications of Kadesh-barnea, and by the statements and misstatements, in direct conflict, of “ authorities ” without number, — a new element of confusion and of doubt was introduced by the repeated failures of explorers to find the locality visited and described by Rowlands, even with the help of all the landmarks noted by him. It was not so much to be wondered at that 7 Ayn Qadees had been passed by without discovery in all the years before attention was called to it specifically ; but it did come to be a cause for wonder that, after its location was fairly de- scribed, it was not to be found or heard from again. As has been already mentioned, the direct route northward from Castle Nakhl to Hebron was taken but rarely by desert travelers. But even when it was taken, now as before, it seemed to throw little or no light on the site which Rowlands uplifted into such pre-eminence. His own report of it was given in a hurried per- sonal letter ; and the many questions asked about points not touched in his description were not replied to by him in any formal statement. Hence one and another European or American traveler made the determined attempt to learn more on the subject by per- sonal research ; but all to little purpose. Dr. Stewart, an English clergyman, passing over the mid-desert route, in 1853, somewhat westward of Seetzen’s course, pressed his Teeyahah guides for information as to the locality described by Rowlands; according to his mistaken understanding of it. 1 There- Tent and Khan , p. 189 /. 230 KADESH-BARNEA. upon, they coolly informed him that the well in question, which he reports as “Ain el-Khades,” was “near the top of the western shoulder of the mountain,” Jebel Helal; and that while “no camels could approach it ... a man with a water-skin slung on his back, could get at it by climbing with his hands and feet.” This “chaffing” of the Arabs, Stewart actually took for solid topo- graphical knowledge, and on the strength of its possession he pro- ceeded to criticise and correct the statements of his more successful fellow-countrymen. “This differs very widely from the glowing description given of it [the mountain-top spring] by the Rev. Mr. Rowlands, in a letter which appears in the appendix of his friend, Mr. Williams’, book ; though it is probable they can be reconciled by supposing the stream, by which he encamped, to come down from the spring near the summit.” And, on the strength of this story from the Arabs, Stewart entered “’Ain Khades,” accordingly, on the map accompanying his really valuable book of travels. Again Dr. William M. Thomson, the veteran and widely- known American missionary, after a quarter of a century’s resi- dence in the East, reported 1 of his search within a few miles of the locality pointed out by Rowlands: “I made diligent inquiries about Kadesh; but both our own Arabs and other Bedawin we met in the neighborhood were either absolutely ignorant of such a place, under any possible pronunciation of the name, or they pur- posely concealed their knowledge of it.” He knew enough of the Arabs, however, to understand that seeming ignorance might really be studied concealment ; and he indulged in no sneers at the claims of Rowlands to have seen that which a subsequent traveler was unable to re-discover. Abeken, a German explorer, who was a companion of Lepsius in the latter’s expedition to Egypt (1842-1846), made a journey at a later date, along this region; and a “Jebel el-Kudeis” is re- 1 South. Pal. (Land and Book,) p. 200. FAILURES TO RE-FIND ROWLANDS' S SITE. 231 ported, as on his authority, in a position corresponding with the “Wadi el-Kdeis” of Seetzen . 1 But this was not the ’Ayn Qadees of Rowlands; and there were even those who would frame an argument against the identification of Kadesh at Qadees, on the strength of this proof of another locality in the same region bear- ing this correspondent name. At length, after nearly thirty years from the discovery by Row- lands, Palmer, the English Oriental scholar, who had already made his important explorations of the lower peninsula, and who had evidenced rare ability in influencing and controlling the Arabs, went out for the express purpose of exploring the Negeb and the desert immediately below it . 2 In this undertaking, he had in mind the re-discovery of the site of Kadesh-barnea, as one of the more important results of his researches ; and, in the minds of those who believed that Rowlands had correctly reported his discovery, there was little doubt that Palmer would now make this truth clear beyond a question. But even he was unable to find any such site as Rowlands had described, or to learn directly about it , 3 and, although he was convinced that in that region was the locality of Kadesh-barnea, and made a convincing argument in its favor, he came at last to believe that Robinson’s gratuitous misstatement concerning Rowlands’s confounding of Qadayrat and Qadees must have been the truth in the case; and he accordingly put himself on record as supposing that Rowlands “ applied the name [‘ ’Ain Gadis,’ as Palmer writes it] wrongly to ’Ain el Gudeirat, 1 Abelcen’s reports seem to have been made through the pages of the Berlin Monatsbericht der Gesellschaft fur Erdkunden; but I do not find there a record of the journey on which this discovery was reported. The mountain is, however, laid down as by his authority on Kiepert’s map in Murray’s Handbook for Syria and Pal., and is referred to in Smith-Hackett Bib. Die., Art. “Kadesh,” note at p. 1522. 2 See his Des. of Exod., II., 283. 3 On this point I had the personal assurance of Professor Palmer, in a conference with him, on my return from the East, in the spring of 1881. It is also made clear by Besant, in his Life of Palmer (p. 101 /.) 232 KADESH-BARNEA. some miles farther northward.” 1 The “ three springs, or rather shallow pools, called themail [‘ cistern-dregs’] by the Arabs,” which Palmer thought were the real ’Ayn Qadees, were certainly not the springs described by Rowlands, nor anything like them. As a reason for this failure of Palmer to find the site which Rowlands had discovered, his accompanying shaykh, the wily Sulayman, afterwards asserted that he had purposely held back the dis- tinguished explorer from a sight of the long-sought wells. 2 Palmer was followed, in 1874, by President Bartlett, an Ameri- can scholar, who was equally intent on ascertaining fche truth con- cerning the discovery of Rowlands, and equally unsuccessful. He also had the crafty Shaykh Sulayman as his escort, who, under the pressure of strong urging, conducted Bartlett to a locality which he said bore the name asked for. It was subsequently proved that the place thus shown to Bartlett was ’Ayn Qasaymeh, 3 one of the two sites named by Rowlands as westward of ’Ayn Qadees. Even at the time, Bartlett was compelled to say of it : “ It will be seen that this locality does not conform to Rowlands’s specification ;” but he was now prepared to believe that Rowlands’s “ narrative shows looseness of statement, both in description of places and in estimates of distances;” 4 and to declare that “ we may at once recognize the description of Mr. Rowlands as somewhat overdrawn, his location confused, and his confidence excessive.” 5 Moreover, Bartlett brought a new element of confusion into the discussion by insisting that there was really no such fountain as ’Ayn el-Qaday- rat in Wady el-’Ayn ; nor indeed a fountain of any sort ; that, in fact, the fountain which both Robinson and Palmer, (and a host of commentators and geographers between them,) had declared was mistaken by Rowlands for ’Ayn Qadees did not have an existence, and therefore could never have been misnamed by Rowlands’s Greek 1 Des. of Exod II., 350. 2 See Bartlett’s Egypt to Pal., p. 359. 3 As will be shown farther on. 4 Egypt to Pal., p. 361. 5 Ibid., p. 367. FAILURES TO RE- FIND ROWLANDS’ S SITE. 233 dragoman, even if Rowlands had had a dragoman, and that dragoman had happened to be a Greek . 1 Bartlett said in defence of this opinion, that neither Palmer nor Robinson, nor indeed Rowlands or any traveler before or after him, claimed to have seen this fountain ; 2 while he had searched the wady thoroughly, and could