I thought this would be an interesting question to take up for those of you who, like myself, have an interest in biblical archaeology. Like the Ark of the Covenant (and, to a lesser extent, Noah's Ark), the location of the Mount Sinai of the Scriptures has been a source of controversy for generations. Unlike the Ark of the Covenant, for which many explanations have been formed (see my Ark of the Covenant series on the sidebar), only two real contenders for the Scriptural Mount Sinai have ever been put forward: the traditional site is a mountain in the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula called Jebel-Musa ("mountain of Moses") on which is situated the famous Byzantine monastery of St. Catherine. The other site, put forward as the true location of Sinai on and off in recent centuries, is a mountain called Jebel-al-Lawz in the Hejaz region of what is now Saudi Arabia, just across the sea from the Sinai Peninsula over the Gulf of Aqaba. There are other sites put forward by different people, but these two are the only real contenders.Let me first say, before examining the merits of either of these two positions, that I do not believe that there is any theological import to either. There is no theological, historical or ecclesiological reason why I ought to be in favor or one site over another. It certainly sometimes happens that long-standing Catholic traditions about locations and relics and things of that nature can turn out to be errant (like the "Donation of Constantine"). It is also true that longstanding Catholic archaeological traditions are very often trustworthy; each case is individual. The important thing is that nothing regarding my faith or the powers of the Church is dependent in any way on the location of Mount Sinai. Therefore, I am open to either possibility. To tell you the truth, my mind is not made up on which is really the true location.
In this article, I will look at just the historical evidence for the traditional site, in the Egyptian Sinai at Jebel-Musa. I will go over the historical proofs cited for this location and then critique them. Next time, I will look at the Scriptural evidence for or against the traditional site.
First, what about the establishment of the monastery out there in the Sinai? Why did the first monks choose to settle there, and does this say anything about the historical veracity of the site? Christian monks had been in the Sinai since the earliest monastic periods. It was the Empress St. Helena (c. 330) who decided to establish a monastery on the spot in order to protect the desert monks from raids by local nomads. The reason the present location was chosen was because the local monks pointed out to St. Helena what they believed to be the location of the burning bush, and thus the monastery was erected around that site. This shows that by 330, there was already a tradition that Jebel-Musa was Mt. Sinai. Later polemicists (from about 1750 on) claimed that Constantine used a seer to find the site, but this seems unsubstantiated.
Justinian replaced the monastery-church with a larger, fortified monastery in 550 (it did not take the name St. Catherine's until the 13th century). So it is clear that from the earliest Christian ages, Christian pilgrims and monks believed that Jebel-Musa was Mount Sinai. But between the time of Moses (1400 BC) and the establishment of the church by Helena (330 AD) is a stretch of time almost 1700 years long; is the fact that early Christian hermits thought Jebel-Musa was Mount Sinai any real proof of the fact? Is there any earlier, Jewish evidence that Jebel-Musa is Mount Sinai?
Rabbinic literature of the period 100-200 AD describes Mt. Sinai as being 36 Roman miles from Paran; a later Christian pilgrim Egeria, who visited Jebel-Musa around 381-384, stated in her diary that the distance was 35 Roman miles, almost exactly the same distance as specified by the rabbis. This seems to indicate that well before the Christian monastic period, Jewish sages (at least prior to 100 AD) had identified Jebel-Musa as Mount Sinai. Furthermore, Josephus, writing in the 1st century, says in his work Against Apion that "Moses went up to a mountain that lay between Egypt and Arabia, which was called Sinai...." (Against Apion, 2:2 [2:5]). This demonstrates that in Josephus' time (c. 60 AD), it was a common assertion among learned Jews that Mt. Sinai was located "between Egypt and Arabia," which would seem to indicate the geographic Sinai Peninsula. This does not point to Jebel-Musa specifically, but shows that the site was at least believed to be in the Sinai Peninsula. Furthermore, the fact that Josephus repeats the teaching of the rabbis shows that the belief must go back even earlier than that, since Josephus is repeating what was standard rabbinic belief. Thus, I think we could safely say that the earliest confirmed placement of Mt, Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula in Judaism can be placed sometime between 100 BC - 30 AD (the Pharasaic period).
We know that historically, no other location was proposed for Mount Sinai other than Jebel-Musa until 1845, when another site was put forth by Prussian Egyptologist Karl Richard Lepsius. So, we have no other contenders for the title of Mount Sinai from around 100 BC to 1845 AD, an impressive span of time. But again, even at our earliest confirmed dating of Sinai as Jebel-Musa (c. 100 BC), we still have at least a 1300 gap between the events of the Exodus and the placement of Mount Sinai, a very long period in which the territory of the Sinai was ruled by the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Ptolemies and finally the Romans. Not to mention the fact that it was always home to bands of marauding tribes. That is a long, and confused history, and the possibility exists that place names could have gotten mixed up or lost over the ages.
Map of the traditional Exodus route, Jebel Musa in the south Even so, though we have a placement of Mount Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula by about 100 BC, it is not until the rabbinic literature of the century from 100-200 AD that we have any identification of Mount Sinai specifically with Jebel-Musa. This is a very long gap of time from the original events and leaves much uncertainty in our designation of Jebel-Musa as Mount Sinai.
Now, though we have not yet gone into the Scriptural evidence, what can we say about the historical evidence? Let's look at the pro's and con's of the Jebel-Musa site.
Historical Evidence in Favor of Jebel-Musa
1) Earliest site identified with Mount Sinai and no other claimants until 1845.
2) Hallowed by Christian and Jewish tradition.
All the evidence in favor of Jebel-Musa boils down to these two points: tradition, and the fact that there were no other claimans to the title until recently. But do these facts alone establish the veracity of the claim? Let's look at some of the historical evidence against Mount Sinai being Jebel-Musa:
Historical Evidence Against Jebel-Musa
1) Josephus says that Mount Sinai was "the highest of all the mountains thereabout," (Antiquities of the Jews, 2:12) which if true, would point not to Jebel-Musa (7,497 feet), but to a nearby mountain, Mt. Catherine (8,625 feet). It should be pointed out that the monastery of St. Catherine is at the foot of Mt. Catherine, not at the foot of Jebel-Musa, but it is Jebel-Musa that is today held to be the biblical Mount Sinai.
2) Sinai appears to have been part of the Egyptian empire at the time; if this is true, it would not make sense for Moses to flee to the Sinai if it was part of Egypt. The Exodus implies that Moses took the people "out of the land of Egypt," not into an adjacent territory that was still part of Egypt. How would that deliver them? This seems to indicate that Mount Sinai was not in the Sinai Peninsula.
3) Jebel-Musa is situated in the center of a great mass of mountains; there are no plains nearby that would be able to support the massive amounts of people and animals that the Exodus requires.
At best, it seems that the historical evidence in favor of Jebel-Musa is of the weakest kind (an argument from silence) and that the three arguments against it are very weighty. But are they insurmountable? Next time, we will look at the Scriptural evidence regarding Jebel-Musa and see if we can throw any light on the matter.
Now, though we have not yet gone into the Scriptural evidence, what can we say about the historical evidence? Let's look at the pro's and con's of the Jebel-Musa site.
Historical Evidence in Favor of Jebel-Musa
1) Earliest site identified with Mount Sinai and no other claimants until 1845.
2) Hallowed by Christian and Jewish tradition.
All the evidence in favor of Jebel-Musa boils down to these two points: tradition, and the fact that there were no other claimans to the title until recently. But do these facts alone establish the veracity of the claim? Let's look at some of the historical evidence against Mount Sinai being Jebel-Musa:
Historical Evidence Against Jebel-Musa
1) Josephus says that Mount Sinai was "the highest of all the mountains thereabout," (Antiquities of the Jews, 2:12) which if true, would point not to Jebel-Musa (7,497 feet), but to a nearby mountain, Mt. Catherine (8,625 feet). It should be pointed out that the monastery of St. Catherine is at the foot of Mt. Catherine, not at the foot of Jebel-Musa, but it is Jebel-Musa that is today held to be the biblical Mount Sinai.
2) Sinai appears to have been part of the Egyptian empire at the time; if this is true, it would not make sense for Moses to flee to the Sinai if it was part of Egypt. The Exodus implies that Moses took the people "out of the land of Egypt," not into an adjacent territory that was still part of Egypt. How would that deliver them? This seems to indicate that Mount Sinai was not in the Sinai Peninsula.
3) Jebel-Musa is situated in the center of a great mass of mountains; there are no plains nearby that would be able to support the massive amounts of people and animals that the Exodus requires.
At best, it seems that the historical evidence in favor of Jebel-Musa is of the weakest kind (an argument from silence) and that the three arguments against it are very weighty. But are they insurmountable? Next time, we will look at the Scriptural evidence regarding Jebel-Musa and see if we can throw any light on the matter.
6 comments:
IS MOUNT SINAI IN SAUDI ARABIA?
http://www.ldolphin.org/franz-sinai.html
Inscriptions with pictures of moon worship objects are found all over the southern peninsula. “The Sinaite inscriptions,” says Dr. Robinson, “are found on all the routes which lead from the west towards Sinai, as far south as Tûr. They extend to the very base of Sinai, above the Convent el-Arba’in: but are found neither on Gebel Mousa nor on the present Horeb,nor in St. Catherine, nor in the valley of the Convent; while on Serbal they are seen on its very summit.”[12] Yahweh had expressly forbidden idols or other objects to be used in worship. It is quite odd that inscriptions and moon votive objects appear on most every mountain in the peninsula except for that of the very mountain which tradition identifies as ‘Mount Sinai.” This oddity may suggest that the mountain was “cleansed” of pagan votives and idols and inscriptions when the sacred mountain was dedicated solely to Yahweh. Such action is consistent throughout the Bible (ie, II Chron. 34:3-7, Exodus 32:20 ).
Please check out my whole article at: http://curtisdward.wordpress.com/the-true-biblical-mount-sinai-jebel-musa/ (I also posted much of the content on Wikipedia)
Edward Robinson insisted that to the exclusion of all other plain-mountain combinations in south Sinai only the Plain of ar-Raaha next to Jebel Musa could have accommodated the the large number of Israelites recorded in the Bible. Edward Hull stated that, “this traditional Sinai in every way meets the requirements of the narrative of the Exodus.” Hull found the capacity of the Plain of ar-Raaha at Jebel Musa especially persuasive. He stated that the amphitheater leading to the base of the granite cliff of Ras Sufsafeh, made an even more compelling argument for the location of the camp and the mount from which the laws of God was delivered to the Israelites camped below. [36]
F. W. Holland stated (Recovery of Jerusalem, 524): “With regard to water-supply there is no other spot in the whole Peninsula which is nearly so well supplied as the neighborhood of Jebel Musa. Four streams of running water are found there . . . In addition to these streams there are numerous wells and springs, affording excellent water throughout the whole of the granitie district.” [37]
Josephus wrote that “Moses went up to a mountain that lay between Egypt and Arabia, which was called Sinai….”
Paul’s remark in Galatians 4:25 is quite consistent with Mt. Sinai’s traditional placement on the Sinai Peninsula inasmuch as in Paul’s time, “Arabia” covered a wide area that “included the Sinai Peninsula” as well as what we now call Saudi Arabia[38]
Calculating the travels of the Insraelites the Bible Atlas states, “These distances will not, however, allow of our placing Sinai farther East than Jebel Musa.” [39]
Some point to the absence of matertail evidence left behind in the journey of the Insraelites but Dr. Beit-Arieh wrote, “Perhaps it will be argued, by those who subscribe to the traditional account in the Bible, that the Israelite material culture was only of the flimsiest kind and left no trace. Presumably the Israelite dwellings and artifacts consisted only of perishable materials. [40]
Josephus says that Sinai is “the highest of all the mountains thereabout,” and again is “the highest of all the mountains that are in that country, and is not only very difficult to be ascended by men, on account of its vast. altitude but because of the sharpness of its precipices: nay, indeed, it cannot be looked at without pain of the eyes, and besides this it was terrible and inaccessible, on account of the rumor that passed about, that God dwelt there” (Ant., II, xii, 1; III, v, 1). Mount Katherine, rises to 8,550 ft. above the sea and it’s sister peak, Jebel Musa (7, 370 ft.), is not much further behind in heighth, but is more conspicuous because of the open plain called er Rachah (“the wide”) to its Northwest forming a plain suitable for a natural camp at the foot of the mountain. Mount Katherine and Jebel Musa are both much higher than any mountains in the Sinaitic desert, or in all of Midian. The highest tops in the the desert to the North are not much over 4,000 ft. Those in Midian, East of Elath, rise only to 4,200 ft. Even Jebel Serbal at its highest is only 6,730 ft. above the sea.
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE AGAINST JEBEL MUSA
In all Christian love I would like to submit a brief rebuttal against your three Historical Evidences against Jebel Musa. I will not reproduce your three evidences here but readers can read them above (typed in red) and then read my rebuttal below.
1. Your historical evidence against the traditional site not being the highest mountain no longer holds water.
The traditional Mount Sinai, located in the Sinai Peninsula, is actually the name of a collection of sharp peaks of the SAME MOUNTAIN, (Jebel Musa. Jebel Katherina, Ras Sufsafeh ) and are sometimes referred to as the Holy Mountain peaks. For example the sharp twin peaks of Jebal Musa and Mount Saint Katherines is only 1 minute or 0.2 miles apart on the same mountain.
Some consider the whole mountain as Mount Sinai while others prefer to call just one of the peaks of the mountain "Mount Sinai."
Some think Moses communed with God on one peak and then moved over to the other peak to pronounce the laws he received to the children of Israel in the plain below.
Josephus wrote alluding to the peaks saying, “because of the sharpness of its precipices: nay, indeed, it cannot be looked at without pain of the eyes.” Some Bedouins in the area assert the name Sinai came from the Arabic word for “tooth” (sinn) because the jagged peaks resemble the the teeth through which the mouth of God spoke.
Therefore if Jebel Musa, Jebel Katherina (Mount Catherine) and Ras Sufsafeh are three peaks of the same mountain, then when Josephus writes that Mount Sinai was "the highest of all the mountains thereabout" he would be referring to this traditional mountain of three peaks.
Mount Sinai (Jebel Musa, Mount Katherine, Ras Sufafeh) is much higher than any mountains in the Sinaitic desert, or in all of Midian. The highest tops in the the desert to the North are not much over 4,000 ft. Those in Midian, East of Elath, rise only to 4,200 ft. Even Jebel Serbal at its highest is only 6,730 ft. above the sea.
2.Your historical evidence against the traditional site being part of the Egyptian Empire no longer holds water.
The remote site of Serabit el-Khadem in the Sinai Peninsula is home to a remote mining camp which “was used for a few months at a time, every couple of years at best, more often once in a generation…The journey to the mines was long, difficult and dangerous: the miners suffered from thirst, wild beasts, and snakes. The Egyptians felt the need for divine aid in their efforts, and built a shrine.”
Bright says the children of Israel could have easily avoided “collision with Egyptian troops, for the Egyptians did not maintain a permanent garrison at the mines. Except at intermittent periods when mining parties were at work, the Hebrews could have passed unmolested.”
They could have even rested at these camps for awhile. These camps are covered with proto-Sinaitic and semetic inscriptions.
“The Bible says that once the Israelites left Succoth they were "out of Egypt" (Ex. 13: 18-20). The Land of Goshen was the eastern limits of the Land of Egypt. Apparently the fortresses on the Eastern Frontier Canal was the border between Egypt and the Sinai (Hoffmeier 1997: 164-175). Sir Flinders Petrie, the Father of Palestinian Archaeology, states that the copper and turquoise mines in Sinai were "in the desert outside the territorial border of Egypt, which passed to the east of the delta" ( cited in Williams 1990: 56).” (Gordon Franz).
3. Your historical evidence against the traditional site not having plains big enough to support the massive amounts of people and animals that the Exodus requires no longer holds water.
Edward Robinson insisted that to the exclusion of all other plain-mountain combinations in south Sinai only the Plain of ar-Raaha next to Jebel Musa could have accommodated the the large number of Israelites recorded in the Bible. Edward Hull stated that, “this traditional Sinai in every way meets the requirements of the narrative of the Exodus.” Hull found the capacity of the Plain of ar-Raaha at Jebel Musa especially compelling, persuasive and convincing. He stated that the amphitheater leading to the base of the granite cliff of Ras Sufsafeh, made an even more compelling argument for the location of the camp and the mount from which the laws of God was delivered to the Israelites camped below. There was sufficient room for the number of Israelites numbered in the Bible to have camped here. W. Holland stated (Recovery of Jerusalem, 524): “With regard to water-supply there is no other spot in the whole Peninsula which is nearly so well supplied as the neighborhood of Jebel Musa." Then again just eight short miles from this site was another plain with more than enough room for massive herds of sheep and cattle.
I believe that too many people are stuck on tradition even when the best of evidence points to a different hypothesis. Conservative Christian here and I believe that the best case is for the mountain of the lord to be In northern Saudi Arabia
Post a Comment