agree with Mr. Currelly in his view that Gebel Serbâl is the mount from which the Law was delivered (Ch. xvii, p. 247). I am in accord with him, and the distinguished travellers above named, in supposing that after the Israelites left their camp by the Red Sea, on the plain of El Markha, they took the route through the Wady Feirân, even to this day well watered and green with palms and herbage; but I fail to see why, if this were the case, Jebel Serbâl was the mount of the Law, or Horeb. The Wady Feirân, although it passes along the northern spurs of Serbâl, was not, as Mr. Currelly supposes, the camping ground of the host, but only their line of march towards the Mount of the Law, or J. Musâ. When our party visited it in 1883, we encamped in the valley at its base and ascended to its summit, and it appeared to present all the conditions required by the narrative, of which, as Mr. Currelly remarks, water supply is the most important. This is here practically abundant. There is not only the fine cascade descending from the little natural basin of water below the summit, but four or five perennial streams fed by the melting snow of winter. Perhaps the most striking point of identification is the Ras Sufsafeh, the lofty vertical cliff at the head of the valley of encampment called the W. el Deir, and answering to the "Mount that might be touched," as it forms the base of Sinai, and shuts off the view of the summit from occupants in the plain; conditions which literally agree with the narrative in Exodus.† As I have more fully dealt with this subject in Mount Seir, and also in my paper read before this Institute, I will not further discuss this position, but will only add that nothing has been written which I have seen, including the essay by Professor Sayce, "Where is Mount Sinai ?" which induces me to change the opinion formed on the spot, that Jebel Musâ, the traditional site of the Mount of the Law, is the true site.‡

Phys. Geol. of Arabia Petræa, pp. 25, 26; Mount Seir, pp. 58, 59. Sayce tried to prove that the Mount of the Law was situated somewhere amongst the Edomite mountains, east of the Arabah. This view is still more improbable than that of Currelly.

66

The impression produced on the writer's mind by the scene may here be quoted: We marched up the wide plain of W. es Sheikh, and afterwards turning to the right, entered the W. el Deir, when we came in front of the grand cliffs of Ras Sufsafeh, rising abruptly from the plain and intersected by several deep clefts . . . I felt satisfied that here was the camping ground of Israel, and in front 'the Mount of the Law.'" Mount Seir, p. 51.

I have replied to Professor Sayce in a paper read before this Institute, so need add nothing further on the subject.*

Mr. Currelly has decided in favour of Gebel Serbâl being the Mount of the Law as against the traditional Gebel Musa. Before doing so he might have consulted previous authorities of greater weight and knowledge of the Sinaitic region than himself, such as Professor Palmer, Sir Charles Wilson and the Rev. F. W. Holland. To these I may be allowed to add the conclusion arrived at by the members of the Expedition of 1883-4.

What foundation, therefore, is there for the statement of Currelly that "the view that Gebel Musâ is Sinai is supported by tradition alone"?† He himself recognises in the same page that Professor Palmer held the view which coincides with that of tradition, but explains that he was "carried away by the idea that the great plain of Raha was the only place in the peninsula where such a vast assembly could have witnessed the giving of the Law." This is a very poor objection; Palmer had better reasons than this for his decision. The Bible narrative does not support the statement that the people " witnessed the giving of the Law"; on the contrary, the summit of Sinai, where the law was delivered to Moses, is expressly stated to have been invisible from the camping ground of the Israelites, and the prophet was lost to sight. The statement is," As for this Moses

we wot not what has become of him." Ex. xxxii, 1.

How little weight ought to be attached to Mr. Currelly's conclusions may be gathered from an event which occurred while crossing the watershed into the Wady Berrah. It appears that some flakes of snow fell, and, lighting on the black cloaks of his attendant Egyptian fellahin (who had never seen snow flakes before), they ran up to him enquiring what the flakes were, in a state of much excitement. Currelly adds quite seriously," May not this be the manna which fell from Heaven when the children of Israel moved along these valleys"? and he deliberately discusses the question, arriving at the conclusion "that snow answers all the attributes of [manna] described except that it is not food," truly a splendid inference, arrived at by much careful comparison with the description of manna in Exodus Mr. Currelly might have been supposed to be joking, but this was not so; it is clear from the statement that he is perfectly serious.

* See Trans. Vict. Inst., vol. xxxi. + p. 251.

‡ p. 230.

It is strange that Professor Petrie should have allowed such a wild idea to be printed in his book, and it is only inserted here to show the extent of his companion s reasoning powers.

This work will prove of the greatest interest to Oriental scholars and Egyptologists as tending to throw additional light on the events of Egyptian history, and the succession of the "Dynasties" --although drawn from a region outside and beyond the Valley of the Nile; and the learned author is to be congratulated on the success of his explorations and the able manner in which he has placed the results within reach of the public.

DISCUSSION.

The CHAIRMAN.-Ladies and Gentlemen, I think I shall be expressing your wishes in thanking Professor Hull for the interesting paper read to us this evening. We have had the advantage of the comments of one who has travelled over the ground in question and formed an opinion on the spot-the opinion of a skilled observer.

In an audience like this, I cannot conceive a more interesting subject for consideration and discussion than that which has to do, not only with the journeyings of the Israelites after the Exodus, but the remains of a religious cult going back, as I understand it, authentically to between 5000 and 6000 B.C. These seem to me to be the two directions into which the paper divides itself. I have not read Professor Flinders Petrie's book, so I do not feel justified in taking up more of your time. I would only express the hope that some interesting comparison may now be possible between the memorial stones or "Bethels," which Petrie describes with those which are to be found in other countries, more especially in Northern Africa, the West of Europe and our own Islands.

Rev. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.R.A.S.-I desire to express my appreciation of the value of the paper which has been presented to us by our Secretary. We cannot all hope to possess the expensive volume on which the lecture has been based. I feel, however, that I must take exception to the use of the term "Bethel" which has been made by Professor Petrie. The Scripture narrative tells us plainly that

it was the "place," and not the stone which Jacob called a "Bethel." It was in that place that Jacob became vividly conscious of the presence of God, and the stone was erected as a memorial of his experiences there. This misuse of the term "Bethel" is the more to be regretted because it is used by infidelity as the origin, in the supposed evolution of Christian doctrine and practice, of the more modern temples and other places of sacred service. I should like to add also that the number he assigns to the Biblical narrative of the Israelites based on the use of the term "alf" is equally at variance with the history of the journeyings of the Israelites through the desert. The number of the men according to Professor Petrie's calculation would be quite incommensurate with the number requisite to carry on the wars which are described in the Biblical narrative. It appears, therefore, that we must rather accept Professor Petrie's theories and reject the plain narrative of Scripture or we must accept the Scripture narrative and reject Professor Petrie's theories. I confess that I prefer the latter.

Deputy Surgeon-General PARTRIDGE.-May I say a word about what is said by Professor Petrie regarding the number of the Israelites who left Egypt being only 5,550 persons. The Bible tells us (Exodus xxx, 11-16), that when the people were numbered every man (above 20) gave a ransom for his soul a half-shekel of silver, the rich not more, the poor not less. We know what was done with this silver; it was made into silver sockets for the boards of the Tabernacle, and the four pillars of the vail (Exodus xxxviii, 27), and for the silver hooks, fillets and chapiters of the Court (Exodus xxxviii, 28). Each socket weighed a talent (Exodus xxviii, 27) 3,000 shekels or 6,000 half-shekels. There were two sockets to each board, and there were 48 boards, so there were 96 sockets, also there were four sockets for the four pillars of the vail. Total, 100 sockets, each socket 6,000 half-shekels. Total, 600,000 half-shekels!

=

=

For the silver hooks, fillets, and chapiters of the Court, 3,550 halfshekels were used (Exodus xxxviii, 28).

So then the amount of silver used was 600,000

3,550

half-shekels

603,550

Now Exodus xxxviii, 26, tells us that the number of men numbered (above 20 years old) was 603,550, which is the exact number of half

shekels used for the court and boards, so the Bible estimate is proved to be absolutely correct, and Professor Petrie's estimate of 5,550 absolutely wrong.

The Levites were numbered separately, and they numbered 22,000over one month old (Numbers iii, 39).

It is interesting to notice, that at the end of the 40 years' wanderings the new generation which entered Canaan, numbered 601,730 (over 20) Numbers xxvi, 51, and the Levites numbered 23,000 (over one month) Numbers xxvi, 62, or 1,000 more altogether than came out of Egypt.

Mr. JOSEPH OFFORD.-Professor Hull in his interesting review of Professor Flinders Petrie's work upon the Sinaitic remains of Egyptian occupation there, has not treated of some important evidence they afford as to certain peoples mentioned in the Old Testament. In reading the Egyptian Sinaitic inscriptions it is curious to notice that two of them relate to XIIth Dynasty expeditions, an echo of which is preserved in the memorial of a certain Khonsovkou found by Mr. Garstang, in Egypt, in 1900.

The new texts which throw light upon the Old Testament, however, are still more interesting because they show that the Egyptians were well acquainted with three tribes which appear in the geographical and ethnographical list contained in Genesis xxxvi. Those are the Lotan or Lotanu, the Horites, and the Aiah. More-over the inscriptions, or a certain papyrus, connect them racially and territorially as does the Old Testament. The first of these valuable inscriptions records a campaign against the Sakimim country and the tribe or people of the Lotanu, who were encountered during an expedition to the land of Monition-Sati which in early Egyptian times denoted near Asia, or rather South Syria.

Immediately the text was translated it confirmed a previous supposition of Professor Max Müller that the people read "as named Tanou" upon the celebrated papyrus relating the travels and adventures of Saneha, should be read Lotanu.

Saneha tells us they occupied two districts which he terms Lotanu simple, and Higher, or Upper Lotanu. The Sinaitic inscription of Senofrit mentions a chief, or Sheikh, named Khebta, or Khebtata, who he says was brother to the Lotanu king. This Sinaitic prince was evidently an ally, if not a sub-official, of Egypt,