[137] To this conclusion, which appears to me the most doubtful, of any, Ritter feels himself driven. The tradition of the present day is different, that Horeb and Sinai are two mountains in close juxtaposition, but also distinctly divided. [138] The three possibilities of getting quit of this difficulty have been tried by Robinson, Ritter, and Josephus. The first places Raphidîm in the neighbourhood of Gebel Mûsa; the second sees an omission between Raphidîm and Sinai, and accepts two divine mountains; the third transposes the passage, and does not mention Horeb at all, but only Sinai. [139] Cf. the comparison and discussion of both opinions in Robinson, vol. i. pp. 197, sqq. All those places where exactly the same is said of Horeb as of Sinai, and no idea of a larger extent of region is admissible, speak against the view of the latter that Horeb is the denomination of the mountain-range or country, and Sinai the name of the particular mount. A Desert of Horeb is never spoken of, as are the deserts of Sur, Sin, Paran, and others. For a contrary view one could cite Acts, vii. 30, compared with Exodus, iii. 1. [The former passage is “And when forty years were expired, then appeared unto him _in the wilderness of Mount Sinai_, an angel,” &c.; the other runs thus, “He led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came _to the mountain of God, even to Horeb_.”--K. R. H. M.] [140] This view is already to be found in the _Itinerarium_ of Antoninus, who finds the convent _between_ Sinai and Horeb. The present monkish tradition that the rock on the plain of Râha is Horeb is already known. The arbitrariness of such views are self-evident. Yet the latter opinion is taken up by Gesenius, (Thesaur. p. 517), Wiener, and others.