Chapter LII: Appendix: D. (P. 314 and 318.)—The expounders of this passage take the

words: בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְׁלִישִׁ֔י “_In the third month_,” as if it were written, “_On the first day of the third month_,” and therefore refer the following “_the same day_,” equally to the _first_ day of the month. See GESENIUS, Thesaur. p. 404, b: “tertiis calendis post exitum,” and p. 449, b: tertio novilunio, _i. e._ calendis mensis tertii. Ewald, Gesch. des V. Isr. ii. p. 189. “_The Day (?) of the third month_ (_i. e._ _however of the new moon, therefore the first day_.”) But the Seventy at all events have not understood it in this manner, as they translate: Τοῦ δὲ μηνὸς τοῦ τρίτου τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ. It also appears that the Jewish tradition have not comprehended it thus, as the LAW-GIVING, which according to Exod. xix. 11, 15, occurred on the _third_ day after their arrival, is even now solemnised by the Jews on the fifth or sixth day of the third month, simultaneously with the appointed harvest-feast, on the fiftieth day after the Exodus (Leviticus xxiii. 15, 16); in accordance with this, the arrival at Sinai must have happened on the _third_ day of the third month. We cannot, however, but perceive, how חֹדֶשׁ without addition, might here be employed for _new moon’s day_, although in all other passages of customary speech it had lost this etymological signification, and only meant _month_; even in passages where the _new moon’s day_ itself was spoken of, as in Exod. xl. 2, 17; Numb. i. 1; xxxiii. 38, where everywhere בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ is especially added to it, “on the _first_ (day) of the month,” whereas passages like Numb. ix. 1, and xx. 1, cannot naturally be cited, because here, there lies as little reason as in Exod. xix. 1, to understand _first_ of the month, and the Seventy also do not translate, ἐν ἡμέρᾳ μιᾷ, or νουμηνίᾳ as in the former passages, but only in the simple sense of the words ἐν τῷ μηνὶ τῷ πρώτῳ. Our passage, Exod. xix. 1, therefore, would alone remain, from which it would be possible to conclude that there was such a double and equivocal employment of חֹדֶשׁ, because here certainly the following words, “the same day,” indicate a particular single day, which particular day, nevertheless, cannot be guessed from our present text. But in my opinion this is exactly an additional and not unimportant reason, to assume either a transposition or a later insertion of these two verses. The last is also assumed by EWALD, in so far as he, indeed (Gesch. des V. Isr. p. 75), ascribes the account, xix. 3-24, but not the two first verses, to the oldest sources. I have already mentioned above (p. 316) that JOSEPHUS (Ant. iii. 2, 5), who also does not understand the words from the _first_ day of the month, transposes the passage, and indeed _to that very place_ whither I, ignorant of this, had already placed it in my earlier printed account, p. 48, namely, _immediately after the battle of the Amalekites_, to which “the same day” most naturally refers. If this is correct, then the original text ran thus: that the Israelites at Raphidîm, in Wadi Firân, where they fought the battle, were not only near Horeb, but also near Sinai, that is to say, that both Mounts of God are one; and that, in fact, Moses first at Sinai received the visit of Jethro, and, as appears most natural, first at Sinai organised his people; but at the same time it must be allowed that Sinai, or Horeb, was no other mountain than SERBÂL.

Supposing that, in this manner, we have correctly understood the original connection, it did not first of all require any statement of the month; this would probably be only added upon the isolation of the following section referring to the law-giving. In this case, only three exact dates for the journey could exist. The people pass out from Ramses in the first year, the first month, on the fifteenth day; they proceed from Elim, which is half-way, just one month after, in the first year, second month, on the fifteenth day. The days of rest at the stations are unknown, but if we assume that the people proceeded without sojourning, then they came to Raphidîm on the third day from Elim; received the water, and were attacked by Amalek on the fourth, fought on the fifth till after sunset to the commencement of the sixth day, and on the same sixth day (for the Hebrew day began in the evening) encamped at Sinai. This would have been in the first year, in the second month, on the twentieth day. Now as the retreat from Sinai followed in the second year, in the second month, the twentieth day, then the sojourn at Sinai would have lasted exactly _one year_. This coincidence was perhaps originally as little the result of accident as the duration of just _one month_ between the first departure from RAMSES and the second from ELIM.