Therefore, sinner and unworthy servant though I am, I recount the majesty of Thy wonders and, seized with fear, in compunction I cry aloud to Thee:
Great art Thou, O Lord, and marvellous are Thy works: no words suffice to sing the praise of Thy wonders.
Great art Thou, O Lord, and marvellous are Thy works: no words suffice to sing the praise of Thy wonders.
Great art Thou, O Lord, and marvellous are Thy works: no words suffice to sing the praise of Thy wonders.

From The Great Blessing of the Waters on the Holy Theophany of Our Lord. Excerpted from The Festal Menaion, Mother Mary and Archimandrite [now Metropolitan] Kallistos Ware (St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 2001).

Give thanks for all the good you have witnessed, experienced, and, hopefully, prayerfully, inspired thoughout the year.

Give thanks for all the good that you will witness, experience, and, prayerfully, inspire in the coming year.

Give thanks to have suffered and had your faith made stronger by it.

Give thanks for your future suffering, so that your faith will always increase.

Give thanks always to God, Who loves and saves.

For He loves you, and will save you, if you will have it.

There are two central issues for the geographical interpretation of the texts: Kadesh and Paran. The approximate location of Kadesh is taken from the list of borders in Num 34:3-5/Josh 15:3f. and Ez 47:18. According to this, Kadesh was on the southern border of Judah between the Dead Sea and the “Brook of Egypt” (Wādī Ġazza or Wādī l-ʿArīš). The name appears in ʿAin Qudēs; however, there is more in favor of the oasis and ruins at ʿAin al-Qudērāt ca. 10 km farther north. In the older sources, Kadesh is not of great significance (it is mentioned only in Num 13:26 and 20:1). It acquires this for the first time in Deuteronomy. Presumable reflected in this is an increased significance of Kadesh at that time. This corresponds to the archaeological discovery at Tall al-Qudērāt, a fortress that had existed in various times since the 10th century and was without equal in the region during itls last phase at the close of the monarchy.

Later, in the Roman period, we find Kadesh identified with Rekem, i.e., Petra, and correspondingly, Mount Hor with Ğabal Hārūn near Petra. E. A. Knauf has shown that we have to reckon with this secondary positioning of Kadesh even in Biblical texts (Biblische Notizen 61, 1992, 22-26). The negotiations that Moses held from his location in Kadesh for permission to pass through Edom (Num 21:14-21) have no meaning at all unless Kadesh Petra is meant. At best, passage through a small corner northwest of Edom would come into question, when viewed from the actual, Judean Kadesh. In any case, we now must deal with the question of what is meant by “Kadesh.” The list of borders in Num 34, through which we learn the true location of Kadesh, belongs to an addition of the Priestly Source. That the authors of the original text were also familiar with the content of this document is quite probable in view of the mention of the Wilderness of Zin. Thus, Kadesh in the Priestly Source is still the Kadesh south of Judah. The Mount Hor of the Priestly Source is probably there, as well, one station away from Kadesh. Just as Moses died near the border of the Promised Land, so too did Aaron.

So, there are several things going on here, but the most intriguing, indeed compelling, item is the equation of Kadesh with Petra. Knauf’s article, short as it is, packs alot of information into it in this regard. We’ll get to that in a moment.

First, I feel the need to note some of my own objections to some of the above, as I’ve dealt with several of these subjects in the past. The Shihor of Egypt, the border between Egypt and Israel, was at the easternmost branch of the Nile, not at a further distance from Egypt. Further, I tack otherwise in regards to the Documentary Hypothesis (that is, that it’s malarkey, and further, it is malarchy), describing an alternative perspective on the issue in two separate posts here and here, which I’ll expand upon in the future. My discussion will proceed in keeping with those perspectives. One may follow along or not as one wishes.

Knauf begins by noting the confusion resulting from trying to equat the location of Kadesh as described in Numbers 20, 21, and 33 with that of the “historical” (scare-quotes his) Kadesh in the Negev. As he says, “It is frequently disregarded that the biblical Kadesh is not necessarily, or not always, identical with the ‘historical’ Kadesh” (”Supplementa Ismaelitica 14: Mount Hor and Kadesh Barnea” Biblische Notizen 61 [1992]: 22). Indeed, it could just as easily be stated that the “assured results” of various scholars regarding the location of the Biblical Kadesh are anything but. This would explain the difficulties raised in trying to force various texts to fit into various scholarly paradigms rather than being led by the texts to attempt at gaining the understanding of the authors on where this place was.

The source of all the narrative locational information is, in Knauf’s estimation, the itinerary in Numbers 33. At the important point of Numbers 33.35-45, describing the intinerary leading up to the death of Aaron, Knauf says that this itinerary “only makes sense if all the places, including Kadesh, were located between the gulf of Aqabah and Moab” (ibid. 22). That is, in the very middle of this itinerary situated in a line from along the western coast of the Gulf of Aqabah (Numbers 33.35-36) all the way north into the Arabah to Moab (41-45), Kadesh, if really in the Negev, would require an extensive detour, unlikely and unmentioned. The list of various identifiable stops are not given for a side-trip into the Negev. Knauf places Kadesh at al-Jī, in the valley just east of the Siq (22-23). There would thus be one stage of travel, through the Siq and down Wadi Musa to Jabal Harun, followed by a second stage to reach the Arabah, descending from Jabal Harun. The clincher is in the geography. With Kadesh in the Negev, regardless of the location of Zalmonah, the itinerary would differ from the order in Num 33.41-43: having left Kadesh (at either ʿAin Qudēs or ʿAin al-Qudērāt) and Mount Hor, they would make their way through Oboth (ʿAin el-Wēbeh) to Punon (Fēnān), rather than in the Biblical order of Kadesh to Mount Hor to Zalmonah to Punon to Oboth (Knauf, 22-23).

Anson Rainey and R. Steven Notley in The Sacred Bridge (Carta, 2006) make a hash of this entire sequence through not only placing Kadesh at ʿAin al-Qudērāt, but by making a couple of questionable leaps in associating both Zalmonah and Oboth with particular (late) ruins (see the map on p. 123). Their explanation is interesting (p. 121):

The key to understanding the geography here is the recognition that Israel’s encounter with Edom took place on the western side of the Arabah. This might be a seventh/sixth century BCE outlook since it is now well documented that Edom did move westward in that period (Lindsay 1999). But it could also represent a time in the early Iron Age; the Edomites may have been another element in the Shasu who had roamed the Sinai expanses during the time of the XIXth Dynasty (cf. discussion of Papyrus Anastasi VI, supra). Once the western location of these Edomites is understood, the subsequent itinerary, going around them, makes sense. It also obviates the late Jewish (Targums) and Christian (Eus. Onom. 112:8-12) misconception that Kadesh-barnea was located at or near Petra.

Notice that “might be,” “could,” and “may have been” lead to “makes sense” and “obviates” precisely the kind of historical geographic tradition that these guys otherwise thrive on. Apparently it’s not obscure enough, or people have believed it for too long, for them to leave it alone. Let us note, also, that a Western Edom is never explicitly described in the Bible. Not a single reference to Edom in the Old Testament requires such a reading, and the overwhelming majority forbid it through context. That evidence should be taken more seriously. One really cannot take the “might be,” “could,” and “may have been” above seriously at all. Such is wishful thinking, not argumentation, and certainly not fact. (I confess here to a serious disappointment with The Sacred Bridge; I don’t find it a worthy successor of the Carta Bible Atlas and/or its predecessor the MacMillan Bible Atlas, colorful as it is, precisely for this perpetual attitude of dogmatic assertiveness.)

So, the case seems to be that when the books of especially the Pentateuch were written, the location of Kadesh was understood to be in the vicinity of Petra/Rekem, whether at al-Jī (which valley would make a fine camping site for a few thousand people) or elsewhere nearby. These traditions do not appear to have been misunderstood, judging by the sensible order found in the itineraries. They appear to have been entirely reliably transmitted, both in writing and within the living memory of the communities in the region. Though the precise identifications of many sites have subsequently been lost, what we do have points in a particular direction in this case. That contrary modern hypotheses based on multiple layers of erroneous suppositions fail to support such identification is not surprising: throwing stones in houses of cards built on sand seldom results in helpful solutions.

It will be interesting to investigate further the implications of this identification of Kadesh with the area of Petra, particularly in its effect on understanding it in the descriptions of the southern border of the Promised Land. In light of all the above, I’d say the southern border description in Numbers 34 requires to be understood as a line beginning at the southern shore of the dead sea, going straight south, then bulging eastward a bit to include the area of Zin in which Kadesh is found, and then the line turns west, excluding central and southern Sinai, to come up against the Shihor, the Pelusiac branch of the Nile and the border of Egypt, which ran to the Mediterranean. That will be something to look into some more.

This site already allows simple interrogation in a corpus of about 400,000 biblical references, from the volumes of Biblia Patristica, CNRS Editions, 1975-2000, and unpublished archives of the Center for Patristics Analysis and Documentation (CADP). The Biblindex project is carried out by the Institute of Christian sources, part of the UMR 5189 HiSoMA (History and Sources of the ancient world) of the CNRS and funded mainly by the Cluster 13 of the Rhone-Alpes Regional Council.

Can be consulted on this website:

- Data of the published volumes of Biblia Patristica, Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la littérature patristique, Editions du CNRS (ca. 270,000 biblical references, with updates on 5000 references) : 1. Beginnings to Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, 1975 - 2. The third century (except Origen), 1977 - 3. Origen, 1980 - 4. Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius of Salamis, 1987 - 5. Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Amphiloque of Iconium, 1991 - 6. Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose of Milan, Ambrosiaster, 1995 - 7. Didymus of Alexandria, 2000 - Supplement, Philo of Alexandria, 1982. [The titles marked with a hyperlink can be purchased on the site of CNRS Editions, others are exhausted.]

- Unpublished data from the archives of Biblia Patristica (ca. 100.000 references): these data are unverified (they appear in red)

- Biblical indexes of Bernard of Clairvaux’s thirteen first volumes published in the series Sources Chrétiennes (ca. 13.200 references)

Unfortunately, funding for the project is currently suspended, so that development of the website is in abeyance. The search feature is not intuitive, so read the instructions before attempting to search, otherwise the results are less than ideal.

For anyone familiar with the Biblia Patristica indices, in particular, this is a real source of pleasure. The volumes are very difficult to find. To have the index completely available online, including an additional body of citations, is extremely helpful. This online index will be of great use to those working on Patristic Biblical commentary. Let ’s all hope the project with soon receive funding again, so that it will continue to be of use to all Patristic scholars and students.

Father Elijah: An Apocalypse by Michael D. O’Brien (Ignatius Press, 1996)
This was a real page-turner. This is the tale of a Carmelite monk, a convert from Judaism, who is called to confront the Antichrist. Cameo appearances by Pope John Paul II, (then) Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, and the Archangels Raphael and Michael. It had me completely involved until the last two chapters, which are, admittedly, something of a denouement. Overall, though, it’s a great read. Kind of like a religious spy story. Great fun for a cold winter! Or an age of incipient darkness! Appearances can be deceiving, especially to those who’ve willingly abandoned their spiritual foundation and sense and who avidly pursue the destruction of everyone else’s. What is especially chilling was that much of what is described in its pages is here with us now. Little imagination was necessary to visualize the society described in it’s pages, because It’s setting could be today. That could not have been said when it was written. Closer and closer…. (Let the reader understand.)

Piranesi: The Etchings by Luigi Ficacci (Taschen, 2006)
This is one of Taschen’s 25th anniversary special editions. If you don’t know Taschen books, you’re missing out. They use beautiful thick quality paper, fully illustrated, and mysteriously but thankfully inexpensive. This book, including images of all the known works of Piranesi cost around $10. It is admittedly a small format, roughly (9×7 in, 23×18 cm) but if you’re that into seeing detail, just scan the pictures; they’re so well photographed that the detail in a scan of the images in the book is amazing. It’s Piranesi!

Anathem by Neal Stephenson (William Morrow, 2008)
I positively despised this book. It’s as dated as his other books. He raids religion, specifically monasticism, for the entire framework of his imaginary world, yet roundly bashes religion throughout. Further, pretending to a deep philosophy (which is tedious in direct proportion to its pretention), it is instead laughably philosophically jejune. The story was simply stupid. Reading this was a waste of time. That it made first place in the New York Times bestseller list only means too many people read crap.

Paul: His Story by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor (Oxford, 2004)
Page 2: “Paul was a Galilean by birth.” The supporting note: “Jerome is the only author to assert Paul’s Galilean origins (Commentaria in Epistolam ad Philemon, on vv. 23-4 and De viris illustribus 5). He derived it from a source whose credibility is strengthened by the fact that its creation profited no one.” Uh huh. I put the book aside at that point. Why? Jerome’s commentary on Philemon describes that the parents of Paul and the entire region of Gischala in Judea was destroyed by the Romans, the people were dispersed (though not enslaved) and the family ended up in Tarsus, whence they later sent Paul back to Judea. The whole thing seems solely to have been a concoction to explain why, as Jerome goes at length to desribe, Paul describes himself as a Benjaminite and Israelite, because even in Jerome’s mind, these labels were tied to birth in the places so named. So, Paul, according to this reckoning, must have been born in Israel in Benjamin. The problems with this are several: 1.) As the modern Jerome notes, Gischala is in Galilee, not in Judea, not in Benjamin; had Jerome known that, he would certainly not have valued this fabulam as he calls it, and would not have mentioned it; 2.) There is no record in Josephus, as surely there would be had it happened, of a massive Roman devastation of Galilee in the first decade or so of the common era; 3.) If the Romans had attacked and had taken the people, they would’ve enslaved them as they did to numerous other conquered Jews before and after, which would clash with the account of Paul’s actually having been born a Roman citizen (Acts 22.28), for born citizenship would’ve required at the very least his father to have been a Roman citizen, and certainly not a slave. This failure in reasoning on the very second page of the book elicited no warm and fuzzies for this reader. I’m not about to waste my time on a so-called history that’s essentially a house of cards built on toothpick stilts. I don’t appreciate such flippancy and incaution in such a serious endeavour.

Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament, editors M. Eugene Boring, Klaus Berger, Carsten Colpe (Abingdon, 1995)
I’m very disappointed with this volume. Aside from the unusual expansion of “Hellenistic” to cover things even written in Hebrew in the 8th century AD (cough–false advertising–cough), the truly fascinating and applicable actually really truly Hellenistic literature has been largely ignored. I suspect that this is likely because much Hellenistic literature proper is not already available in English translation, which seems to have been one of the guiding lights of this project. That’s truly unfortunate. I got much more really intriguing Hellenistic input out of the excerpts and discussions in Robert Grant’s Gods and the One God and Peter Green’s Alexander to Actium than from this work, unfortunately. A compilation of real Hellenistic texts that relate to various subjects in the New Testament would be fascinating, and even enjoyable. Forcing the collected material into arrangement by book and chapter and verse of the New Testament writings is also too much. It appears to be out of print. Not such a loss….

Collected Ancient Greek Novels, edited by B. P. Reardon (University of California Press, 2008)
This volume is especially beautiful in contrast to the one just covered. It is ideal as a collection of literature in translation. Leave the works with short, not too wordy introductions, give them good, readable, contemporary translations, bind it in an inexpensive but well-made volume, and let the reader do the rest of the work. This is perfect. Though these “novels” themselves are rather formulaic, they’re not without a certain winsome charm. Some, however, are quite shockingly alien, reminding us that though these works are entirely the product of human minds and hands, the cultures, worldviews, and even thought processes of the ancient world from which they come are not to be easily equated with anything familiar to us in today’s world.

Hermetica by Brian Copenhaver (Cambridge, 1992)
Speaking of alien human worlds! These translations are clear and contemporary, but the meaning is almost completely opaque in some passages. Copenhaver’s book is thus appropriately 49 pages of introduction, 92 pages of translation, and 168 pages of notes. This is the seventeen chapters of the Corpus Hermeticum, and the Asclepius. The notes are a labour of love, it seems. Copenhaver in them seems to be one of those Victorian gentlemen who knows absolutely everything (and them some) about everything (and everything else) and shares it in the most avuncular tone. I love that.

The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Second Edition edited by Hans Dieter Betz (University of Chicago Press, 1992)
Another peek into alien human worlds. This one is beautifully done. The translations include all the bizarre magical language, indications of language, very helpful annotation via footnotes, and also include line drawings of any illustrations from the papyri covered here. Again, this is just how I like it: get out of the way and let the texts speak for themselves. The annotations are not too many, and are short and sweet, mostly dealing with issues of language and pointing to parallels amongst the various papyri. This one is “Volume One: Texts.” It isn’t specified in the Preface what will comprise volume two, but four other works in preparation at the time of its writing are mentioned: 1.) an index of Greek words; 2.) a subject index based on the English translation; 3.) a collection of parallels between the papyri and early Christian literature (this sounds very useful and interesting, and, in fact, fun!); 4.) a comprehensive bibliography. Perhaps 1, 2, and 4 will make up volume two? All four? Perhaps there won’t be a volume two now? One wonders, as it’s been sixteen years already.