Sinai. Professor Palmer found it to be narrow and winding. He also describes the pass at the head of this wády as being a very steep and difficult one.

Information of this kind, although of a negative character, is most valuable; in this case it renders it almost absolutely certain that the children of Israel, as they journeyed to Mount Sinai (Jebel Musa), must have taken the usual route followed by Arabs and travellers across Wády Gharandel, and over the plateau on the N. E. of Jebel Hummam.

After visiting Jebel Musa, Professor Palmer and Mr Drake proceeded to endeavour to trace out the probable route of the Israelites from Mount Sinai to Kadesh. Turning out of Wády es Sheikh at the tomb of Nebi Sáleh, they struck into Wády Sáal, and proceeded to 'Ain Hunherah, which is generally supposed to mark the site of Hazeroth, the second station of the Israelites after they removed from Mount Sinai.

On the way to 'Ain Hudherah, Professor Palmer examined again the curious remains at Erweis el Ebeirig, and writes that he "still found every reason for adhering to his first impression, that they are really relics of the Israelitish camp of Kibroth Hattaavah,' "The graves of lust"-where the people lusted for flesh, and the quails were sent a second time in wrath. In the official report of the Ordnance Survey, Professor Palmer thus describes this remarkable place: "Here the watershed of a broad valley is covered with small enclosures of stones, evidently the remains of a large encampment, though utterly unlike the other traces of Arab camps in the peninsula. On the summit of a neighbouring hill is an erection of rough, unhewn stones, surmounted by a conspicuous white block of a pyramidal shape. These, the Arabs say, are the remains of the encampment of a large pilgrim or Hajj caravan, who, in remote ages, pitched their tents on this spot when on their way to Hazeroth, and who were lost immediately afterwards in the desert of the Tîh, and never again heard of."

While entirely agreeing with Professor Palmer, "that the length of time that has elapsed since the events of the Exodus furnishes no argument against the probability of his conclusion, as there are many monuments in the country in even better preservation, and of a date far anterior," I cannot agree with him in this identification, or in that of 'Ain Hudherah with Hazeroth, because it appears to me improbable that the children of Israel on their march from Mount Sinai to Kadesh should have been led eastwards towards the gulf of Akaba, and into the narrow, winding valleys which lie to the north and east of 'Ain Huthera, rather than across the open plateau of Zeranik, which leads up to Wády Zelleger, and so to the passes of the range of Jebel el Ejmeh.

I cannot hear of any one besides myself having traversed this plateau, which forms the central watershed of the peninsula; I was obliged to make a forced march across it, having run short of both food and water. and I could not examine it so fully as I wished, but I was much struck by the very easy route which it would afford to any large body of persons travelling northwards from Jebel Musa, and also by the large number of primitive dwellings and ancient stone enclosures, such as doubtless gave the name to Hazeroth.

The discovery of these "nawámis," or "mosquito houses," as the Arabs call them, believing that they were built by the children of Israel

to protect themselves from the attacks of mosquitoes, is one of great interest, for they are probably the dwellings and storehouses of the ancient Amalekites whom the Israelites drove out of the land at the battle of Rephidim. Circles of stones, such as we call "Druids' Circles," are not unfrequently to be found near the nawamis, and excavations prove that they were sepulchral monuments. I have also found apparent traces of terraced gardens connected with some of these dwellings, a fact which would seem to imply a certain amount of cultivation, and probably the growth of fruit-trees.

The south-eastern passes, which lead up to the plateau of the Tîh through the range of Jebel et Ejmeh, have not yet been fully explored; but that of El Mírád, or "The Watering-place," which was discovered by Professor Palmef and Mr Drake, is described as not difficult, and was probably that by which the Israelites left the Wilderness of Sinai.

We will now turn to the late Dr Beke's expedition in search of Mount Sinai, and however much I may differ from his opinions, I cannot speak without respect of that veteran traveller. I believe him to have been utterly mistaken, but I know that he was thoroughly earnest in his desire to throw fresh light upon sacred history, and one must admire the zeal and energy which led him when seventy years of age to undertake so arduous a journey, in order to establish the truth of his theory, that Mount Sinai must have been at the time of the exodus an active volcano, the fire from whose crater formed "the pillar of fire" which gave light to the children of Israel by night, and its smoke the pillar of cloud which guided them by day.

Dr Beke himself owned that this theory proved to be a false one; but on his arrival at Akaba he heard of a mountain not far distant called Jebel en Nur, or "The Mountain of Light." This he visited, and at once declared it to be "the true Mount Sinai." On the summit he found the remains of sacrificed animals, and lower down some Sinaitic inscriptions; the Arabs also told him that "on it God spoke to Moses," and therefore they stop and pray towards it. Dr Beke was of opinion that the Egypt of the exodus was not in Egypt at all, but further eastwards, in the Desert of the Tîh; he also held that the children of Israel never entered the southern portion of the peninsula of Sinai, but crossed the Tîh plateau direct to the head of the Gulf of Akaba, which he believed to be the Red Sea of the exodus.

I do not think that these theories will be considered worthy of discussion; but with regard to "The Mountain of Light," I will merely say that it is by no means an uncommon thing for the Bedouins to sacrifice animals on the tops of mountains; that there are many places in the peninsula which their traditions point to in connection with the history of Moses, and God's communications with him; and lastly, that the Sinaitic inscriptions have been proved to be of a very much later date than the time of the exodus, and have nothing whatever to do with the history of the Israelites.

I am astonished to find how many persons still believe in Mr Foster's theory, which he worked out so cleverly (and, I may add, so earnestly and sincerely), that the Sinaitic inscriptions were the work of the children of Israel. Had he visited the peninsula himself, he would have discovered that the grounds on which he based his theory were not trust

worthy; and more than this, he would have seen, as I have seen and copied, most distinct bilingual inscriptions, made indisputably by the same hand; and as these contain both Greek and Sinaitic characters, it is quite clear that the Israelites did not make them. It so happens that the clearest of all the bilingual inscriptions (one cut in a peculiar manner with a chisel, instead of with a rough flint, as most of the inscriptions were) is the very one which Mr Foster has interpreted as containing an account of the battle of Rephidim, and in which he read the names of Moses, Aaron, and Hur.

The Greek names in that inscription are plainly introduced in the Sinaitic inscription with which it is coupled, and thus is afforded a key to the Sinaitic character which, as Professor Palmer could tell you, he or any other orientalist can read without the slightest difficulty. It is not known exactly who the writers were, but they were evidently inhabitants, and not mere travellers, and the inscriptions contain merely their names, with such common expressions as "Peace be to him," or "May he be remembered."

I must not pass by without notice Dr Eber's work on Sinai. He does not appear to have covered any new ground, or to have spent much time in exploring the old. He accepts Jebel Serbal as Mount Sinai, and his views upon the route of the Israelites from the Red Sea to Sinai, and upon the position of the Mount of the Law-giving, are almost identical with those of Professor Lepsius. The great value of his work appears to consist in his remarks as an Egyptologist, and in his skilful manner of handling the literary questions of the exodus. But as his book is known to me only through reviews, I cannot, of course, pretend to criticise it.

He suggests, however, one identification, which appears to me likely to prove of great value, as helping to fix an unknown station in the route of the Israelites. He recognises in Dophka the Egyptian word Maphka, which means copper, and suggests that this place was connected with the districts where copper-mines were worked, either at Serábit el Khadim, or at Wády Maghárah. Professor Palmer hazards a conjecture that the name might have been given to some point on the coast between Wady Taiyebeh and Wady Feiran. My last discovery in the peninsula was an extensive copper-smelting ground exactly half-way between those two spots. I should not, however, myself place Dophka exactly there.

We come now to an entirely new view of the exodus, which is as startling as it is original, and yet it is apparently founded upon evidence which cannot be controverted. Brugsch-Bey, whose name as an Egyptologist is widely known, and whose reputation stands exceedingly high wherever it is known, first in a lecture which was delivered in Egypt, and published at Alexandria, and secondly in a paper read at the Congress of Orientalists held in London last year, has propounded the theory that the passage of the Israelites, and the destruction of the army of Pharaoh, did not take place at the Red Sea at all, but on the shores of the Mediterranean.

After pointing out that we ought not to expect to find on the Egyptian monuments any direct record of the loss of Pharaoh's army, and that if any such record should be found, the facts would probably be purposely misrepresented, for the Egyptians would not care to record a defeat, he adds that we must look for indirect allusions to the exodus; and happily

the monuments, and especially the papyri, have preserved in a remarkable manner this indirect witness to the truth of the Bible narrative. As an example, he quotes an official letter written in the time of Rameses II., which has been deciphered from a papyrus in the Leyden Museum, one passage of which runs thus-"I have obeyed the order given by my Lord, saying, Give corn to the soldiers as well as to the Hebrews, who draw the stone to the great fortress of the city of Rameses, and who are under the orders of the captain Amenemany." The writer of this roll, says BrugschBey, had not the least wish to give us any information bearing on what is now so familiar to us as Hebrew history, but his words, independently written and translated, have obviously a vast importance in their bearing on it.

We read in the Book of Exodus of the groaning of the children of Israel under the burdens of the Egyptians, and of their being employed . under taskmasters in making bricks, and in building for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses (Exod. i. 11). The names of both these cities are found in the Egyptian inscriptions as Pi-Tom, and Pi-Ramses, i.e., "the city of the god Tom" and "the city of Rameses," the prefix Pi meaning "the city."

The papyrus records prove that it was Rameses II., who founded a city called after himself. Hence he may safely be assumed to be the Pharaoh referred to who employed the Hebrews to build it.

The name of the captain being mentioned proves that they worked under armed guards, and drawings at Thebes show the system actually carried on under taskmasters armed with long sticks, one of whom is exclaiming, "The stick is in my hand, be ye not idle."

Rameses was the sanctuary of the god Ammon, and was built not only as a treasure-city, but also as a fortification, to protect the country from the attacks of enemies on the east. Ancient Egyptian records have enabled Brugsch-Bey to identify it as forming one part of the city, Zan, the Zoan of the Psalmist and Tanis of the Greeks, the site of which is known.

There exists in the British Museum a long Egyptian poem, which describes in glowing language the glories of the city of Rameses, and gives a description of the vessels which arrived there, that proves its connection with the sea. And engraved on one of the walls of the great temple at Carnac there is a plan of Tanis, made in the reign of Séti I., the father of Rameses II., in which crocodiles and aquatic plants prove it to be on the Nile, while in one corner the representation of sea-fish show its connection with the sea. The excavations of M. Mariette Bey abundantly prove how important a town it was.

To have fixed the site of Rameses, the starting-point of the children of Israel, is indeed a great gain. But Brugsch-Bey has been enabled to do far more than this.

The monuments record the existence of a province east of it called Thuku, the Succoth of Scripture, of which Pitom was the capital; while the name Goshen is the Phakusa of the Greeks, the Pha being the masculine article usually added to geographical names, and Phakusan being simply "The Goshen," or "Goshen," as the Exodus writes it.

Again, the monuments and papyri prove conclusively that the population of Pitom, Rameses, and Goshen were a mixed population of Phoeni

cian origin, the names of the places in these districts being clearly not Egyptian.

Thus, just as M. Ganneau has discovered in Palestine traces of the old Canaanite inhabitants, so has M. Mariette discovered on the shores of Lake Menzaleh traditions and other evidence of traces of the "mixed people,” some of whom marched out of Egypt with the Israelites.

Another ancient papyrus preserved in the British Museum says—“ We have given a free passage to some tribes of Bedouins from the land of Edom, at the fortress of Pharaoh Maneptah, which is in the district of Succoth, that they and their cattle may find food in the dominion of Pharaoh." Here again we have exact illustration of the settlement of Jacob's family in the same spot, when they were driven by famine from their own country.

We have seen how Brugsch-Bey claims to have fixed the sites of Rameses and Succoth, the two first stations of the Israelites.

Another papyrus throws still further light upon the subject. The writer had pursued two servants of his master who had fled from Rameses. He left that place on the ninth day of the month Epiphi, and reached Succoth on the tenth. On arriving at Chetem, "The Fort," which may be identified with Etham of the Exodus, he was told that the fugitives had passed by a place called "The Wall," north of the Migdol of King Séti Menephthah. Both "The Wall" and Migdol are well known from other documents, and were on the high road to Palestine. Migdol, the Magdolos of the Greeks, may be identified with the Migdol between which and the sea the children of Israel were to "turn and encamp before Pihahiroth, over against Baal-Zephon." About twenty-five miles east of Port Said is situated Lake Serbonis, which a long bar of sand separates from the Mediterranean Sea. At the north-east of this lake stands Mons Cassius, and Brugsch-Bey has, it appears, found evidence that a temple dedicated to the god Baal-Zephon was situated here, while he believes that he has discovered the Egyptian name of which Pihabiroth is the transcription, and that it signifies the same as the Bágalga, or abysses of Lake Serbonis. The Israelites he supposes to have made their way along the bar of sand towards Baal-Zephon, and Pharaoh's host which followed them to have been swallowed up by a sudden rise of the sea, just as, according to Diodorus, Artaxerxes lost his army almost on the same spot.

The wilderness of Shur, or "The Wall," which the Israelites next crossed, going three days without finding any water (Exod. xv. 22), would be that between Lake Serbonis and the head of the Gulf of Suez. The bitter waters of Marah, Brugsch-Bey identifies with the Bitter Lakes in the Isthmus of Suez, and Elim with the Wells of Moses.

He does not attempt to follow the children of Israel further than this towards Sinai.

I am myself utterly incompetent to give any opinion with regard to the etymological identifications, but I believe that the leading Egyptologists have great faith in Brugsch-Bey's translations; and as far as geographical considerations are concerned, I see nothing in his theory contradictory to the Bible narrative. The most startling point is the denial of the passage through what we now call "The Red Sea." But it is only in our translation that the sea through which the Israelites passed