TiKVIEW BY THE SKCKETARY. 



8t 



I have replied to Professor Sayee in a paper read l>efore this 

 Institute, so need add nothing further on the subject.* 



Mr. Currelly has decided in favour of Gebel Serl)al being the 

 Mount of the Law as against the traditional Gel)el Musiu 

 Before doing so he might have consulted previous authorities of 

 greater weight and knowledge of the Sinaitic region than 

 himself, sucli as Professor Palmer, Sir Charles Wilson and the 

 Eev. F. AV. Holland. To these I may be allowed to add the 

 conclusion ai'ri\-ed at l:)v the members of the Expedition of 

 1883-4. 



AVhat foundation, therefore, is there for the statement of 

 Currelly that " the \ iew that Gebel ]\Iiisa is Sinai is supported l)y 

 tradition alone " ?t He himself recognise> in the same page that 

 Professor Palmer held the view which coincides with that of 

 tradition, but explains that he was " carried away b}- the idea 

 that the great plain of Paha 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 liis 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 AVady Berrah. It appears 

 that some Hakes of snow fell, and, lighting on the black cloaks 

 of his attendant Egyptian fellahin (who had never seen snow 

 Ihikes before), they ran u}) to him enquiring wdiat the liakes 

 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 attril)utes of [manna] described 

 except that it is not food," truh' a splendid inference, arri\'ed at 

 by much careful comparison with the description of manna in 

 Exodus ! Mr. Currelly nnght have been supposed to l)e joking, 

 but this was not so ; it is clear from the statement that he is 

 perfectly serious. 



See Trans. Vict. Inst., vol. xxxi. 

 t p. 251. 



+ p. 230. 



