been alluded to; Text p. 508. The date of the tomb of Aaron
goes back beyond the time of the crusaders, who already found
here an oratory or Wely; Gesta Dei p. 581. Fulch. Carnot. ib. p.
405. The old Sheikh who formerly resided on the mountain has
long been dead; his place as keeper of the Wely is now occupied by
an inhabitant of Eljy, who occasionally visits the spot. He was
present during our affair at Wady Musa, and strongly took our
part; probably not being willing to forego the benefit which might
be expectedto accrue to himself, should we ascend the mountain.

NOTE XXXVI. Pages 576, 579.

PETRA. Two or three questions respecting the various names
applied to Petra, and also respecting the application of this name
to other places, remain to be investigated.

Josephus relates, that the most ancient name of Petra was Arke
or Arekeme (Agzý, Apexéun), and that it was so called from its foun-
der Rekem (p), one of the Midianitish kings slain by the Israel-
ites; Num. xxxi. 8. Joseph. Antiq. IV. 4. 7. ib. 7. 1. But this
seems to be somewhat doubtful; for the Targums of Onkelos and
Pseudo-Jonathan apply the name Rekem (p) not to Petra, but
to Kadesh; Gen. xvi. 14. xx. 1. Eusebius and Jerome, indeed,
speak of Rekem as the Syrian name for Petra; but as in another
place they cite Josephus as their authority for this assertion, it
would seem that they in no case speak from their own knowledge;
Onomast. arts. Petra, Recem, comp. art. Arcem.

There seems to be no further very definite ancient notice of
this name; but in the beginning of the fourteenth century, Abul-
feda describes a place called er-Rakim, which in its character
would well correspond to Wady Musa: "Among the noted towns
of Syria is er-Rakim, a small place near the Belka, the houses of
which are all cut in the live rock, as if of one stone;" Tab. Syr.
p. 11. This is accordingly assumed by Schultens and others, as
the Arekem of Josephus and the Petra of the Greeks; Vita Salad.
Index art. Errakimum. Büsching Th. XI. i. p. 508. But the
position near the Belka is inconsistent with such an hypothesis;
and the matter is set at rest by another passage in the same au-
thor. In his Annals, Abulfeda speaks of the same place as near
to Kerak; and relates that Nureddin, marching from Damascus to
Kerak, advanced as far as to er-Rakim and there turned back. It
lay therefore north of Kerak. Abulf. Annal. Musl. ad A. H. 568.
Schult. Excerpt. in Vit. Sal. p. 15. See Gesenius Comm. zu Jes.
xvi. 1. p. 537. The excavated dwellings found by Seetzen, which

Gesenius refers to this place, were situated far to the North both of the Belka and of Jebel 'Ajlûn; Zach's Monatl. Corr. XVIII. pp. 355, 356.

Equally untenable is the hypothesis first suggested by Bochart, which identifies Petra or Wady Musa with the place called by Arabian writers el-Hijr, where are excavated caverns. Bochart was probably led to it by the Chaldee form 7, Gen. xvi. 14. xx. 1; which the Targum of Onkelos there reads instead of Bered and Shur. He and others also read the Arabic name as el-Hajr (a stone), and held it therefore to be synonymous with the name Petra; although it is properly written with Kesrah, el-Hijr, and has no such meaning. See Freytag's Lex. Arab. I. pp. 345, 346. Bochart Geogr. Sacr. p. 688. Bernard on Joseph. Ant. IV. 4. 7. ed. Haverc. Reland. Pal. p. 933.

But apart from all this, the place called el-Hijr lay at least eight days' journey south from Wady Musa, and therefore cannot be brought into any connection with Petra. Edrîsi says that Tebûk lies between el-Hijr and the border of Syria, four days' journey from the latter; and on the present route of the Syrian Haj, Tebuk is also four days south of Ma'ân; Edrisi par Jaubert p. 333. Burckhardt's Travels App. pp. 658, 659. Further, Edrisi, in describing the same Syrian route, places el-Hijr at four days from Tebûk towards Medina; ib. pp. 359, 360. Burckhardt's notices do not mention el-Hijr; probably because the Haj at the present day, south of Tebûk, takes a more western route; ib. p. 659. Beyond el-Hijr, Edrisi makes only one day's journey to the place called Wady el-Kura; though Abulfeda gives it as a distance of five days; Edr. ib. pp. 334, 360. Abulf. Tab. Arab. ed. Hudson, pp. 27, 43. Id. Comm. Rommel, p. 76. Schultens Ind. in Vit. Salad. art. Errakimum.-The supposed identity of elHijr with Petra is properly denied by Bernard and Schultens, as above quoted; and also by Genesius, Comm. zu Jes. xvi. 1. p. 537. The latter however refers by oversight to Rommel's Abulfeda p. 84; where the writer is speaking of another el-Hijr, situated in the interior province Yemâmeh. See Abulf. Tab. Arab. ed. Hudson, pp. 37, 60. Edrisi ib. pp. 154, 155.

Thus far of Arabian writers. We turn now to another question: Whether, as has been assumed, there existed anciently more than one city of the name of Petra? It may first be proper to remark, that as early as the beginning of the fourth century, the general name of Palestine had been so extended as to include the whole of Arabia Petraea, quite to Ailah. Thus at the council of Nicea A. D. 325, among the bishops of Palestine whose

subscriptions are there preserved, is the name of Peter, bishop of Ailah; and Jerome, paraphrasing Eusebius, places Ailah in the extreme borders of Palestine on the Red Sea; Onomast. art. Ailath. Labbe Concil. Tom. II. c. 51. Le Quien Oriens Chr. III.p. 759. Hence Eusebius, writing about A. D. 330, could with propriety speak of Petra, sometimes as a city of Arabia and sometimes as belonging to Palestine. Thus Onomast. art. Petra: "Petra civitas Arabiae in terra Edom;" but under the arts. Arcem and Cades: "Petra civitas nobilis Palaestinae." When therefore in other writers, we find Petra assigned sometimes to Palestine and sometimes to Arabia, this does not in itself imply more than one Petra. Reland Pal. p. 926.-Early in the fifth century, as we have seen, this region took the specific name of the Third Palestine. See Text p. 562.

Cellarius assumes a Petra of the Amalekites, distinct from that of Arabia, on the strength of Judg. i. 36, and 2 Kings xiv. 7; where a Petra (Heb. Sela) is spoken of in connection with the ascent of Akrabbim and with the Valley of Salt; Notit. Orbis II. p. 580. The considerations advanced in the text, show this conjecture to be without solid foundation; see Text p. 573, seq.

At a still earlier period, a Petra of Palestine had been assumed, also as distinct from Petra of Arabia, on the strength of a passage in the works of St. Athanasius; see Geogr. Sacr. Caroli à St. Paulo, Amst. 1711, p. 306. Reland p. 927. The passage is usually referred to as contained in the "Epist. ad solitariam Vitam agentes;" though in the Benedictine edition at least, it is found, not in that epistle, but in the Historia Arianor. § 18, Opera Tom. I. p. 354. Paris 1698: καὶ "Αρειον μὲν καὶ Αστέριον τὸν μὲν ἀπὸ Πετρῶν τῆς Παλαιστίνης τὸν δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ̓Αραβίας ἐπισκόπους, "Et Arium quidem et Asterium, illum Petrarum Palaestinae, hunc ex Arabia, episcopos." In another place Athanasius speaks of Asterius alone as bishop of Petra in Arabia : Αστέριος Πετρῶν ris Apaßías, Tomus ad Antioch. §10. Opera Tom. I. ii. p. 776.

Now, as Reland justly remarks, if there was actually a city called Petra, an episcopal see in Palestine, distinct from that of Arabia, it is certainly very singular, that there should nowhere exist the slightest allusion to it in all the subscriptions of councils, in the various ecclesiastical Notitiae, and in the numerous writings of Eusebius and Jerome, who were cotemporary with Athanasius, and lived in and wrote expressly upon Palestine. This remark affords strong ground to suspect a corruption of the text in the passage of Athanasius; which, as Reland has acutely shown, might very easily take place. Either the word Пlerqov has been

transposed from its proper place, so that we ought to read: zor μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς Παλαιστίνης, τὸν δὲ ἀπὸ Πετρῶν τὴς Αραβίας,—or, as is more probable, the word IIɛzov was at first a gloss in the margin, afterwards inserted in the text in the wrong place. On the latter supposition, no city was originally mentioned, but the text stood thus: τὸν μὲν ἀπὸ Παλαιστίνης, τὸν δὲ ἀπὸ ̓Αραβίας. That this is the true reading is rendered the more probable from the fact, that Athanasius himself in another place uses the very same formula: Μακαρίου ἀπὸ Παλαιστίνης καὶ Αστερίου ἀπὸ ̓Αραβίας, Apol. contra Arianos § 48. Opp. Tom. I. p. 166. (Here we have obviously the corruption Mazagíov for Agɛiov.) The same reading is also supported by two like passages in the historical fragment of Hilarius, where he speaks of the same bishops, p. 188: "Arium ex Palaestina et Stephanum (Asterium) de Arabia ;" and p. 1293: "Arius a Palaestina, Asturus (Asterius) ab Arabia." See Reland Palaest. p. 928.-The preceding considerations seem to me, completely to do away the authority of this isolated and unsupported passage of Athanasius.

One other point of confusion remains to be noticed. We have seen in the text, that the crusaders thought they found Petra in Kerak; to which they accordingly gave the name of "Petra deserti," and established there a Latin bishopric; see Text p. 570. There can be no question that their "Petra deserti" was Kerak; for besides the passages cited in the text, William of Tyre writes expressly, XX. 28: "Secundae Arabiae metropolim Petram, quae alio nomine Crac appellatur;" and again, XXII. 28: "Urbem cui nomen pristinum Petra deserti, modernum vero Crach." So too Jacob de Vitry c. 56, p. 1077: "Est autem Petra civitas munitissima, quae vulgari nomine hodie dicitur Crae et Petra deserti ;" and he goes on to say correctly: "Est autem juxta urbem antiquissimam, quae dicitur Rabbath;" meaning the ruins of Rabba still found two or three hours north of Kerak.-I have also already alluded to the fact, that after the destruction of the ancient Petra, the metropolitan see of the Third Palestine was transferred to Rabbah; as appears from the two later Latin Notitiae, in which the name of Petra is not found, but Rabbah stands as the metropolis; Reland Pal. pp. 223, 226. See Text, p. 569.

But now, as if for the very purpose of confusion, the first of these Notitiae is inscribed: "Sedes tertia Arraba Moabitis, id est, Petra deserti." In another passage of William of Tyre also, we read, XV. 21: "Castrum aedificavit cui nomen Crahc,―juxta urbem antiquissimam ejusdem Arabiae metropolim, prius dictam Raba,-postea vero dicta est Petra deserti." From these two

declarations, Raumer draws the conclusion, first, that besides the Petra of Arabia at Wady Musa, there was also a Petra of Moab, identical with Ar, Areopolis, or Rabbah Moab, which after the destruction of the Arabian Petra, became the metropolis of Palestina Tertia; and secondly, that when Kerak was built up and became the capital of the region, the name and episcopal rank of this Petra of Moab passed over to it. Raumer's Palästina, Ed. 2, p. 424-427.

But this conclusion appears to me not to rest upon solid ground. There is nothing clearer, than that before the days of the crusaders, the ancient episcopal sites of Rabbah or Areopolis, and Charac Moab (Karach, Kerak), were known only by those names. They appear already to have been deserted, and the Christian population rooted out; for the historians of the crusades everywhere speak of them as ruins; and the Latin metropolitan bishop of Petra had under him, besides Kerak itself, only the Greek bishop of Mount Sinai. (Jac. de Vitr. c. 56. p. 1077.) The inscription of the Latin Notitia above cited: "Sedes tertia Arraba Moabitis, id est, Petra deserti," seems to me not to militate against this view. The very expression "Petra deserti," borrowed from the Latin Vulgate, Is. xvi. 1, was of course unknown to the Greeks; and shows that this copy of the Notitia in question, cannot have been made earlier than the time of the Latin bishopric of Petra. Indeed, the previous mention in it of Mons Regalis shows the same. (Rel. p. 222.) Yet the contents manifestly refer to the centuries before the crusades, when Rabbah was still a metropolis with its twelve or thirteen minor dioceses. It seems therefore most probable, that the Latin transcriber and compiler of this Notitia as it stands, found this section inscribed, (like that of the other Latin Notitia, Reland p. 226,) simply: "Sedes tertia Arraba Moabitis ;" and himself added by way of gloss or explanation: "id est, Petra deserti ;" implying only that the former diocese or metropolitan district of Rabbah, was now known as that of Petra deserti; or at least, that he supposed such to be the case.

In respect to the passage of William of Tyre above quoted (XV. 21), where he describes the fortress of Crahc (Kerak) as having been built "near the ancient Rabbah, afterwards called Petra deserti," it is to be remarked, that it stands in direct contradiction both with himself and the other historians of the crusades. His words in this passage are: "Juxta antiquissimam urbem prius dictam Raba, postea vero dicta est Petra deserti." But again he says in XXII. 28: "Urbem cui nomen pristinum Petra deserti, modernum vero Crach." See too the other references above, p. VOL. II. 83