Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub
[graphic][merged small]

Katerin, and commences his ascent. He may rest on the way by a beautiful fountain, to which a superstitious legend is annexed; and at length reaching the top he finds a ruined chapel marking the spot where the body of St. Catherine was found. The view from the top is similar in kind with that from Jebel Musa, but is more extensive. It is indeed a most commanding height, being above a thousand feet more lofty than that of the peak of Jebel Musa and the highest point of Horeb. The gulf of Suez and the mountains of Africa alone bound the vision on the south-west, while upon the east the sight embraces the gulf of Akabah and its stern mountain coast. It is,' says Mr. Borrer, a view of wild and magnificent grandeur; a sea of rocky heights, of such savage sterility no other point of the world can surely command. It is, indeed, a great and terrible wilderness.'

6

The question, Which of all these summits was the particular mountain which Moses so often ascended, and on which the Law was delivered? is one of great interest, and has of late years been much discussed. The claims of Jebel Musa, Jebel Sufsafeh, Jebel Katerin, and Jebel Serbal, have respectively been warmly advocated. We have had, and still retain, a disposition to look favourably upon the claims of the last named mountain, which appears at one time, from various inscriptions and other circumstances, to have been regarded as the Sinai of Scripture-certainly as a place of pilgrimage; and it is difficult to see on what grounds any mountain of Sinai should have been a place of Christian pilgrimage, but from its connection with the transactions recorded in the Pentateuch. That it stands so much apart, in solitary magnificence, from the central group of mountains, and in the more open region, where space for encampment for the numerous hosts of Israel should more naturally be found, are also circumstances strongly in its favour. But still, as it lies out of the ordinary route, our information concerning this mountain and its surrounding vallies is so defective, and it has been so little regarded with reference to the essential conditions of this question, that we must be content for the present to reserve its claims, and confine our attention to the central summits.

The difficulty which has been most strongly felt has been to find room at all in the vallies of this upper region

for the millions of Israel with their flocks and herds. If a place could be found where they could encamp, then the mountain which should be in face of the camp, and overlooking it, so that what took place on it should be manifest to the people, would be naturally fixed upon as that on which the law was delivered; and we should be the more certain of this if the ascent of the mountain were immediately from the place of encampment. These conditions are demonstrable from the following texts, which we abstain from inserting at length, but which should be carefully considered, Exod. xix. 2, 11, 24; xx. 18; xxiv. 4, 7, 17; xxxiii. 18, 25, 31. A place thus suitable for encampment, Dr. Robinson seems to have discovered, and, with his usual skill, has applied it to the illustration of the question. But to apprehend the matter clearly, it is necessary to remind the reader of the relative position of the peaks which we have already named. The general character of the region has been already described. One of the ridges of which this upper region of mountains is formed, extends about three miles north and south; and it is in the valley on the east side of this ridge that the convent is situated. The ridge as a whole is now called by the monks Sinai; the high peak in which it terminates southward is Jebel Musa (Mount Moses), and is that which subsisting traditions point out as the mount of God;' the peak at the other extremity of this ridge, to the north, is now called by the Christians Horeb, and by the natives Jebel Sufsafeh. We have already shewn that these are incorrect applications of the names Horeb and Sinaithe former belonging to the whole upper region, and the latter to the particular mount from which the law was delivered; but we here point out these names for topographical distinction. Jebel Katerin (Mount Catherine) is not of the same ridge, but is the highest summit of the next adjoining or parallel ridge, which lies on the west of the Sinai ridge. It extends more southward than the Sinai ridge, and its distinguishing summit of Jebel Katerin rises loftily to the south-west of the Jebel Musa, the southernmost and loftiest summit of the Sinai ridge. These data being realized, it remains to state that the two southern summits of the adjoining ridges, namely, Jebel Katerin and Jebel Musa, being the high central summits of the whole region, do not afford around their bases any

place of encampments such as we have stated the scriptural accounts to require. But the case is different with regard to that other northern peak of the Sinai ridge which bears the names of Horeb and Sufsafeh; for it overlooks an ample plain, the discovery of which is due to Dr. Robinson, while the mountain itself seems to answer very completely to the conditions required for the Sinai of Moses. It happened that this plain attracted his attention before he explored the summits, and he was hence qualified to consider their respective relations to it. It was on their first approach by the upper road to the convent that this valley, gradually expanding into a plain, was traversed by them. As they advanced up this valley, the dark and frowning front of Horeb (Sufsafeh) began to appear. 'We were still gradually ascending, and the valley gradually opening; but as yet all was a naked desert. Afterwards a few shrubs were sprinkled round about, and a small encampment of black tents was seen on our right, with camels and goats browsing, and a few donkies belonging to the convent. . . . As we advanced, the valley still opened wider and wider with a gentle ascent, and became full of shrubs and tufts of herbs, shut in on each side by lofty granite ridges, with ragged shattered peaks a thousand feet high, while the face of Horeb rose directly before us. Both my companion and myself involuntarily exclaimed, "Here is room enough for a large encampment!" Reaching the top of the ascent or water-shed, a fine large plain lay before us, sloping down gently towards the S.S.E., enclosed by rugged and venerable mountains of dark granite, naked, splintered peaks and ridges, and terminated at the distance of more than a mile by stern and awful summits, rising perpendicularly, in frowning majesty, from twelve to fifteen hundred feet in height. It was a scene of solemn grandeur, wholly unexpected, and such as we had never seen; and the associations which at the moment rushed upon our minds were almost overwhelming.' Next day the travellers returned from the convent to examine this plain, which is called er-Rahah, more exactly. It proved to be about two miles long, and varying in breadth from one-third to two-thirds of a mile; or equivalent to a surface of at least one square mile. This space is nearly doubled by a recess in the west, and by the broad and level area of Wady Sheikh on the east, which issues at right angles to the plain, and is equally in view of the front and summit of the present Horeb. This examination convinced them that here there was space enough to satisfy all the conditions of the scriptural narrative, so far as relates to the assembling of the congregation to receive the law. Here, too, one sees the fitness of the injunction to set bounds around the mount, that neither man nor beast might approach too near (Exod. xix. 12, 37). The encampment before the mount might probably include only the head-quarters of Moses and the elders, and a portion of the people, while the remainder with their flocks, were scattered among the adjacent vallies.' The view thus taken has been more or less confirmed by later travellers, for however else they differ, they agree that the plain of er-Rahah must have been at least the principal place of assemblage and encampment to the Israelites, if they were at all encamped and the law delivered in this upper region.

It only remains to see how the mountains which have respectively been indicated as 'the mount of God' are suited to this further point in the condition of the question. We have seen the grounds on which the mount called Horeb -Jebel Sufsafeh-claims the preference, although no historical traditions are at this day connected with it. Dr. Olin, who had independently arrived at the same conclusion as Dr. Robinson, describes this mount as rising from a

broad and spreading base into several high and almost perpendicular peaks. It has an aspect of awful and imposing grandeur, and though inferior to the neighbouring summit in elevation, far surpasses it in effect.' It perfectly overlooks the plain. The summit, which as seen from the plain of er-Rahah seems but a point, spreads out into an area of considerable extent, composed of dark gray sun-burnt granite. The view from it is little less extensive than that from the other summit of Jebel Musa; and it commands the place most completely; and every object of sufficient magnitude and every transaction upon its summit must have been distinctly visible to the Israelites encamped below, in the only place where an encampment of a large host is possible. It is indeed most surprising that tradition, which accepts this as the place of encampment, as it could not but do, passes by this mount and goes on to another more remote, and infinitely less suitable. There is not the slightest reason,' says Dr. Robinson, to suppose that Moses had anything to do with the summit which now bears his name. It is three miles distant from the plain in which the Israelites must have stood, and hidden from it by the intervening peak of the modern Horeb. No part of the plain is visible from the summit; nor are the bottoms of the adjacent vallies; nor is any spot to be seen around it where the people could have been assembled' (Researches, i. 154). Against this position, and in behalf of a 'tradition of fifteen hundred years standing,' a vigorous stand has lately been made by Mr. Borrer, in his Journey from Naples to Jerusalem, pp. 333-336. He says that the assertion contained in the last sentence may surely be doubted by any one who has stood upon that summit, upon the brink of a tremendous precipice, and gazed down upon the panoramic view of surpassing sublimity, embracing nigh at hand three extensive wadys, and in the distance innumerable smaller ones, intersecting the mountains below in all directions. Among these narrow wadys, shaded from the scorching sun, the multitude of Israel would find for their flocks and herds more vegetation than upon an open plain exposed to the burning heat. Again, among these inferior mountains, covered with loose piles of granite, and traversed by numerous ravines, they would be better enabled to seek for herbage, more likely to discover springs, than among the perpendicular precipices walling in the barren plain of er-Rahah.' True: but all this is admitted. Doubtless, the host of Israel were scattered with their tents, their flocks, and their herds, throughout these wadys including also the plain of er-Rahah. It is only alleged that er-Rahah was the head-quarters of the camp, and the spot to which the people converged from the vallies round to enter into covenant with Jehovah and witness the delivery of his law.

6

But the objector proceeds: From the Scripture narrative may it not be inferred that the camp, or at all events part of it, was not within sight of the top of the mount on which the Lord appeared, for Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet God, and they stood at the nether part of the mount?' Most of this is, however, compatible with the other hypothesis, which the writer supposes himself disproving; and the text cited means, that all the people came from all their various places of encampment, and stood at the nether or lower part of the mount, beyond or outside the limits fixed by Moses.

As to Jebel Katerin, it suffices to say that the objections which have been urged against the claims of the traditional Sinai, apply to it in a still stronger degree; and as no tradition applies to it, there is no probability that it would have been ever named, but for the fact of its being the highest summit among these mountains. [APPENDIX, No. 6.]

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

7 "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9 'Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. 12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Deut. 5. 6.

5 Chap. 23. 12. Rom. 7. 7.

13 Thou shalt not kill.

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.

16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

10

18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off.

19 And they said unto Moses, "Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.

20 And Moses said unto the people, Fear not for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin

not.

21 And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.

22 ¶ And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.

23 Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold.

24 ¶ An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.

25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not 'build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.

26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

Psal. 97. 7. 7 Deut. 5. 16. 12 Deut. 27. 5.

Psal. 81. 10. 2 Heb. servants. 3 Levit. 26. 1. Ezek. 20. 12. Luke 13. 14. 6 Gen. 2. 2. 10 Heb. 12. 18. 11 Deut. 5. 27, and 18. 16.

4 Levit. 19. 12. Deut. 5. 11. Matth. 5. 33. Matth. 15. 4. Ephes. 6. 2. 8 Matth. 5. 21. Josh. 8. 31. 13 Heb. build them with hewing.

Verses 24-26. Altar of earth,' etc.-The building of altars by the patriarchs is frequently mentioned, but no particular account is given of their form or materials. From such incidental notices as do occur it is safe to infer, that the altars here enjoined are intended as a return to the patriarchal simplicity in such erections, and which had probably been forgotten in Egypt; and, at the same time, to keep up in the Hebrew mind a marked distinction between Jehovah and the gods of Egypt, while the forms of Egyptian idolatry were still fresh in recollection.

These rude altars were suited to inculcate the idea that elaborate and figured altars were not necessary in the sacrifices to Jehovah, as they were in sacrifices to most of the heathen gods; and they precluded the occasion for idolatry which such altars were likely to afford. The patriarchal altars could scarcely have been more simple than those here directed to be built; of unhewn stones, or of earth where stone could not well be obtained in the desert. The altar on which Jacob poured his offering of oil at Bethel was only the rude stone which had served

The

for his pillow during the night (Gen. xxviii. 18). injunction in the text against hewn stones was most probably designed as a restriction operating to the exclusion of sculptured figures. How intimately altars were identified with the worship of the god to whom they were dedicated, will appear from the strict injunction laid upon the Israelites to overthrow the altars of the lands they subdued (Exod. xxxiv. 13), and also from the fact that, when they apostatized from their faith and worshipped Baal, they overthrew the altars of the Lord, and built others in their stead (1 Kings xix. 10). The reason for the former injunction would appear to have been, not merely that such altars had been polluted by sacrifices to

idols, but lest the people should be seduced to appropriate or imitate them, and with them the worship to which they were consecrated; and this, at times, they actually did. And that when they turned away to new gods, they erected new, and doubtless more adorned, altars, was probably not merely because a new god required a new altar, but because the simple altars of Jehovah then appeared to their corrupt minds as unsuitable for sacrifices to other gods, as the adorned ones connected with idolworship were declared by God himself to be unsuitable for sacrifices offered to Him. Respecting the prohibition of tools, see the note on Deut. xxvii. 5.

CHAPTER XXI.

1 Laws for menservants. 5 For the servant whose ear is bored. 7 For womenservants. 12 For manslaughter. 16 For stealers of men. 17 For cursers of parents. 18 For smiters. 22 For an hurt by chance. 28 For an ox that goreth. 33 For him that is an occasion of harm.

Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.

2 'If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

5 And if the servant "shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

7 ¶ And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

8 If she 'please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

1 Levit. 25. 39. Deut. 15. 12. Jer. 34. 14. 4 Heb. be evil in the eyes of, &c. 5 Levit. 24. 17. 8 Or, revileth.

11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money. 12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.

14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.

15 T And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:

19 If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit : only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.

20 T And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely "punished.

21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

12

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

2 Heb. with his body.

3 Heb. saying shall say.

6 Deut. 19. 3.

7 Levit. 20. 9. Prov. 20. 20. 11 Heb. avenged. 12 Levit. 24. 20.

Or, his neighbour. 10 Heb. his ceasing.

Matth. 15. 4. Mark 7. 10. Deut. 19. 21. Matth. 5. 38.

[blocks in formation]

27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.

29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.

31 Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.

32 If the ox shall push a manservant or maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

33 ¶ And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein;

34 The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his.

35 And if one man's ox hurt another's, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead or also they shall divide.

36 Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.

13 Gen. 9. 5.

[ocr errors]

Verses 23, 24. Life for life, eye for eye,' etc.-This is the natural law of equity, and it is probable that it was introduced into the law of Moses in conformity with the practice of more ancient times. This law of direct retaliation was also authorized by the legislature of Greece and Rome (Pausan. i. 28; A. Gellius, xx. 1). It is still observed with much exactness among various savage nations. In Guinea (Whidah), for instance, murder is punished with death, the destruction of a limb with the same, incendiaries are burned, etc. The strict and invariable application of such a law must, however, in many supposable cases prove inconvenient, and in others impossible; for which reason particular punishments, and even compensations by way of reparation to the injured party, were introduced. Of this we find some examples in the law itself (Exod. xxi. 22; xxii. 3, 6); and the prevalence of compensation, as now among the Arabs, is evinced by the rarity, in the subsequent Jewish history, of examples of the actual application of the lex talionis. The most marked example is afforded in the excision of the thumbs and great toes of Adonibezek, who had himself thus barbarously treated seventy kings-the captives of his wars (Jud. i. 6, 7).

30. He shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.'-This is the only place in which compensation, in lieu of capital punishment, is expressly permitted; but that it was allowed in other cases, where the law denounced capital or corporal punishment, may be inferred from different passages. Thus in Num. xxxv. 31, 32, such compensation is expressly forbidden in cases of murder, or for enabling the homicide to leave the city of refuge; but the interdiction is not applied to any other offence of man against man. For a statement on the subject of what the Arabs call the price of blood,' see the note on the passage referred to. The practice among

[ocr errors]

the Bedouins may serve in some degree to illustrate this subject, as well as the nice balancing which the law of retaliation operates in producing. In case of murder, the friends of the murdered may, at their option, either retaliate or accept a heavy blood fine. But no other offence is, in practice, liable to capital or corporal punishment. Pecuniary fines are awarded for every offence, and as they are generally heavy, in comparison with the delinquency, the dread of incurring them tends much to keep the wild natives of the desert in order; the nature and amount of the fines which immemorial usage has assigned to particular offences being well known to the Arabs. Burckhardt says, All insulting expressions, all acts of violence, a blow however slight (and a blow may differ in degree of insult according to the part struck), and the infliction of a wound, from which even a single drop of blood flows, all have their respective fines ascertained.' The kadi's sentence is sometimes to this effect:

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
« PoprzedniaDalej »