This is to the effect that _the_ “Mountain of God,” where Moses was encamped, when he was visited by Jethro in Raphidîm, “_could not in any case be the convent Mount of Sinai, (i. e. Gebel Mûsa,)_ although this is so named at a subsequent period, as that of the true God, _from which one was then in every case far distant, but might indeed_ be a denomination of the high, much nearer _Serbâl_, as one was yet in camp at Raphidîm.” He, too, perceives an _interruption of the connection_ at the beginning of the nineteenth chapter with the previous chapters, but seeks for the cause in _a chasm_ in the text, while I would rather perceive a short _interpolation_. In this chasm falls the departure of the people from the valley of Firân for the upper Sheikh valley and to that of Gebel Mûsa, the true Sinai. This was first simply “the mountain,” (Exodus, xix. 2,) and only obtained the name of a “Mountain of God,” _after_ the giving of the law (which, however, is already contradicted by the next following verse, xix. 3), while Serbâl might have received the denomination of “Mountain of God” from a heathen idol there worshipped. “Both mountains, the Mount of God (Serbâl) in Raphidîm, and the Mount in the desert of Sinai, are therefore just as various in name, as they are separated by the last journeys between both camps.” The general features of nature round about Gebel Mûsa, he considers more fitting for a longer stay of the people on account of the greater security, coolness, and the Alp-like pasture land. Only the name Horeb, already comprehended in Raphidîm, could be an objection, yet there seems to him to be no sufficient grounds existing, why this name, already considered as a general term by Robinson, Hengstenberg, and others, should not be extended to the outer ranges of Serbâl.