Courtesy : Dr. Abdul Sattar Ghauri Al Mawrid Institute
Chapter I
THE STORY OF THE OFFERING
IN THE BIBLE
It is recorded in the Bible that
the Lord asked Abraham to offer his ‘only son’ as a burnt offering. It is quite
clear that it was only Ishma’el who could have been called the ‘only son’,
because it was only he who remained the ‘only son’ of Abraham for fourteen
years, until Isaac was born. The Jewish scholars thought it an honour to be
offered before the Lord; and they did not like it to be attributed to the
actual ‘only son’, Ishma’el, who was not their ‘real ancestor’, but was their ‘uncle
ancestor’. So they managed to manipulate it in favour of their ‘real ancestor’,
Isaac.
According to the narrative of the
Bible the objective of the sacrifice was to ‘tempt’ (test/try) Abraham which
has been explained in the very first sentence. In the holy Qur’an, as well,
there is the mention of ‘tempting’ Abraham:
And recall to mind when his Lord
put Abraham to test with certain commands, all of which he fulfilled. He said:
‘I am going to make you the leader of the humankind.’ He asked: ‘Does this
promise apply to my offspring!’ He answered: ‘My Promise does not apply to the
transgressors.’
It is to be noted that it was
merely a test and was not meant to be carried out verbatim,
which is evident from the story.
THE BIBLE STORY
The story of the ‘Offering of
Abraham his “only son” for Sacrifice’ goes in the Bible as follows:
And it came to pass after these
things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said,
Behold, here I am. (2) And he said, Take now thy son,
thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him
there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
(3) And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and
took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for
the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told
him. (4) Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the
place afar off. (5) And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass
and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.7 (6) And Abraham took the wood of the
burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife8; and they went both of them
together. (7) And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said,
Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold
the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? (8)
And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a
lamb for a burnt offering:9 so they
went both of them together. (9) And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham
built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and
laid him on the altar upon the wood. (10)
And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the
knife to slay his son. (11) And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said,
Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. (12) And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any
thing upon him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not
withheld thy son, thine only son10 from me. (13) And Abraham
lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him
a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took
the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. (14) And Abraham called the name of that place
Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day11, In
the mount of the Lord it shall be seen. (15) And
the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, (16) And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the
Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son,
thine only son: (17) That in blessing I will bless thee, and in
multiplying I will multiply thy seed12 as
the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is
upon the sea shore; and thy seed13 shall
possess the gate of his enemies14; (18) And in thy seed shall all the nations of the
earth be blessed15; because thou hast obeyed my voice.16
THE STATUS OF THE STORY OF THE BIBLE
The above story regarding Abraham’s offering
of his ‘only son’ for sacrifice had been subjected ‘considerably’ to a number
of ‘alterations’ for so many times, as is evident from the following quotation
from the Encyclopaedia Biblica, which is admittedly one of the most reliable
authorities on the subject:
It has become certain that the story has been
considerably altered since E wrote it. The editor or compiler of JE not only
appended vv. 14b-18 (an unoriginal passage, full of
reminiscences), but also introduced several alterations into vv. 1-14a. (2175…).
So far, however, as an opinion is possible,
the form of the Elohist’s story is, apart
from the detail about the ram, all his own. It was suggested, indeed, by
circumstances already related in the traditional narratives; but it was moulded
by himself, and it is bathed throughout in an ideal light. Evidently this pious
writer felt that for the higher religious conceptions no traditional story
would be an adequate vehicle. The course which he adopted shows the writer to
have been a great teacher. He admits the religious feeling which prompted the
sacrifice of a firstborn son.17
The quotation calls for a conscientious
perusal. Putting it forward under separate and specific clauses, it can be
categorized as below:
(a) ‘Alterations’ and ‘additions’ have been
freely exercised in the story.
(b) The act of ‘alterations’ is not merely a
supposition; ‘It has,’ rather, ‘become certain’.
(c) The ‘alteration’ is
in a ‘considerable’ amount.
(d) The main theme of
the story relates to the ‘Elohist’ narrative.
(e) The editor (or, properly saying, ‘the
redactor’), who compiled the story from the ‘Elohist’ and ‘Yahwist’ narratives
etc, (a) ‘not only appended [added] vv 14b- 18,’ (b) ‘but also introduced several
alterations into vv. 1-14a.’ It shows that (a) vv. 14b-18 are the addition from
some redactor and they did not exist in the original story. (b) The redactor ‘introduced several alterations
into vv. 1-14a’ as well. It can thus be concluded that although the story
relates the famous event of Abraham’s offering his only son for sacrifice, the
credibility of none of its details is beyond doubt. Therefore one is to
consider any of the events of the story on its own merit after a careful and
critical analysis.
(f) The editor, being a ‘pious writer’ and
‘a great teacher’, seeing that ‘no traditional story would be an adequate
vehicle’ exercised full liberty and ‘moulded [it] by himself” as he deemed fit
‘for the higher religious conceptions’ of his own.
(g) ‘Sacrifice of a firstborn son’ was
considered ‘religious’.
**********************************************************************************
Foot notes:
6 Al-Quran, al-Baqarah 2:124.
7 Abraham was taking his son to offer him as a burnt offering; and
it is not the whole truth that they were going there for worship. However, if
the worship be taken here to mean sacrifice, it is clearly false to say that he
and the lad will ‘come again’ to them. He was taking his ‘only son’ to offer as
a sacrifice; and as such he and the lad, both of them together, could not have
‘come again’ to them. Having Isaac sacrificed, it could have been only Abraham
to ‘come again’. Anyhow, if it be claimed that Abraham was not telling a lie,
and he before hand knew that a lamb was to be provided for offering in lieu of
the lad, then the whole drama of the so called offering becomes quite
insignificant and the plea of ‘tempting’ becomes quite vague and meaningless.
It shows that this
part of the story is a concocted
one, because it depicts Abraham as a false and deceiving person. It is quite
contrary to the status of a Prophet. A person who is not sincere and dependably
veracious and honest cannot be taken as a Prophet.
8 It again looks unbecoming of the patriarch and Prophet Abraham to
put the heavy load of the wood on the shoulders of his son who is supposed to
be just going to be offered for a sacrifice and keep the lighter one for
himself. It is simply an indifferent ruthlessness, hence unbelievable regarding
the patriarch and Prophet Abraham. As such this episode of the story loses its
credibility.
9 Here again it is not true on Abraham’s part to say ‘God will
provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering.’ He was asked by the Lord to
sacrifice his son and he was going to do so. He did not know before hand that a
lamb would be provided to be sacrificed in his son’s stead; otherwise the
‘temptation’ would have been a mere drama and should have lost all
significance. The clause ‘God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt
offering.’ was obviously a false statement if claimed to be uttered by the
patriarch Abraham and as such it can be taken as if
appended by some redactor. It is
inconceivable of the patriarch and Prophet Abraham that he would try to appease
his son through such mis-statements. It means that this part of the story is
not true.
10 The phrase ‘thine only son’ indicates the stress and significance
of the event of the ‘offering’ the only son by an old man of about a hundred
years, who direly needed the assistance of his young son at this advanced stage
of his life; and who had no other son so far. It reveals the gravity of the
situation and makes the ‘temptation’ perfect.
11 ‘as it is
said to this day’
is obviously a later interpolation inserted, may be, centuries after the
occurrence of the incident by some simple redactor. Some commentators attribute
it to Moses, e.g. This name, Moses adds, gave birth to the proverb, ‘In the
Mount of Jehovah it shall be seen.’ [7th Day Adventist BC, ed. Francis D. Nichol et al. (Hagerstown: Review & Herald
Publishing Association, 1978), 1:353].
But now no credible scholar assigns the
Pentateuch to Moses, as it was not written until the lapse of almost half a
millennium after him (See Appenix-II at the end of this book).
12 The context
dictates that this promise be considered to relate to the son who is being
discussed here and who had just been offered to be sacrificed by Abraham.
However, when ‘thy seed’ be spoken in such an indefinite, unqualified, and
absolute manner, it can also be applied to the others of ‘his seed’ as well.
But it would by all means include Ishma’el and his descendants in the first
place. So the progeny of Ishma’el is definitely included in the promise of
‘Blessing’ and ‘multiplying’.
13 Here again
‘thy seed’ can genuinely be applied only to the progeny of Ishma’el among whom
‘a Prophet’ was to be raised for all the peoples of earth, whereas the Jews do
not extend the blessings of revelation and faith to the whole of humamnity.
They rather keep it restricted unto the children of Israel exclusively.
14 It obviously relates to the progeny of Ishma’el, which captured
almost all of the Arabia and perpetually dominated there. They never went under
the captivity of any of their enemies, whereas the Jews had to suffer the
captivity at the hands of Egyptian Pharaohs. The progeny of Ishma’el never
suffered any exile, whereas the Jews had to suffer ethnic cleansing and exile
at the hands of the Assyrians (in 722 BC) and Babylonians (in 586 BC). As such
the clause of the verse cannot be applied to the seed of Isaac. Not to speak of
possessing ‘the gate of their enemies’, they could not retain and protect their
own gates–and even the gates of their Temple–from their enemies throughout
their history excepting an ignorably short period during the united kingdom.
15 As far as the Jews are concerned, they consider ‘only’ themselves as the ‘Chosen People’, as can
be appreciated from the following excerpts:
[i]
‘You only have I singled out of all the families of the earth’ (Amos 3:2);
[ii]
‘Thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee
to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all peoples that are upon the face
of the earth.’ (Deut. 14:2);
[iii]
‘And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite
them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew
mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou
shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For
they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods:
(…). For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath
chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon
the face of the earth.
The
Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in
number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the
Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he hath sworn unto your
fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out
of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore
that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and
mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand
generations;
(…). And he will love thee, and bless thee,
and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of
thy hand, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep [NIV translates it as: ‘the
calves of your herdsand the lambs of your flocks’], in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee. Thou
shalt be blessed above all people:
there shall not be male or female barren
among you, or among your cattle [This promise looks to be against the fact, as
there may be thousands of the Jews and their cattle ‘barren’]. And the Lord
will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases
of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all them that
hate thee [This again seems to be a credulously wishful statement and is
against the ground reality. It also depicts the base mentality of the so-called
‘People of God’]. And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God
shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them [What a pity for
those unfortunate peoples who fall victim to this God’s ‘Chosen People’!]: (…).
And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and
little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field
increase upon thee. But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and
shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed. And he
shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name
from under heaven: there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou
have destroyed them.’ (Deu. 7: 2, 3, 4a, 6-
10, 13-16, 22-24).
The Jewish Enc. 4:45, as well, has recorded the following lines:
Thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy
God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a particular people unto himself,
above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth. (Deu. 14:2 RV)
It has further quoted from ‘Mek. Yitro, Pes. R. K. 103b, 186a, 200a’:
The Lord offered the Law to all nations; but
all refused to accept it except Israel. (The
Jewish Enc. 4:45)
The Jewish people virtually take it to be
their special privilege. The perpetually prevailing practice among them also
endorses it. As such ‘And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed;’ in no way befits the Jewish people; and has nothing to do with the
entire history of this people. It can thus be appreciated that ‘all the nations
of the earth’ can by no means ‘be blessed’ through the seed of Isaac. The Jews
are rather like a curse for ‘all the nations of the earth’. It is only Ishma’el
who was offered for sacrifice, and it is only he, in whose seed
all the nations of the earth have genuinely
been blessed.
16 Gen. 22:1-18
KJV.
17 Encyclopaedia Biblica, ed. Rev.
T. K. Cheyne, (London: Watts and Co., n.d.), 2:2175,77.
**********************************************************************************
Chapter II
ABRAHAM WAS REQUIRED TO OFFER
HIS ‘ONLY SON’ FOR SACRIFICE
The Bible categorically states that the son,
who was required to be offered for sacrifice, was Abraham’s ‘only son’. It is a
very conspicuous, pivotal, and decisive point and is not to be ignored,
overlooked or taken lightly. The firstborn and the ‘Eldest son of Abraham’18 was Ishma’el. ‘And Abram was eighty-six years
old when Hagar bore Ishma’el to him.’ The Bible says:
Now Sarai, Abram’s wife had borne him no children,
(…).
(3) And after Abram had lived ten years in the
land of Canaan, Abram’s wife Sarai took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid19, and gave her to her husband Abram as his
wife. (…).
(15) So Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram called
the name of his son, whom Hagar bore, Ishma’el. (16) And
Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishma’el to him.20 But when Isaac was born to Abraham, he was
one hundred years old, which means that Ishma’el was already fourteen years old
when Isaac was born. The Bible states:
(15) Then God said to Abraham, ‘As for Sarai your
wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall
be her name. (16) And I will bless her, and indeed I will give
you a son by her. Then I will bless her, and she shall be a
motherof nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.’ (17) Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed,
and said in his heart, ‘Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old?
And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?’ (18) And Abraham said to God, ‘Oh that Ishma’el
might live before thee!’21
Abraham was one hundred years old when his
son Isaac was born to him.22
And as such Ishma’el retained the status of
the ‘only son of
Abraham’ until the age of fourteen years.
If the relevant passage of the Bible, given
in the beginning of this book, be studied again, it will be noted that God has
used in it the words ‘thy son, thine only son’ three times, qualifying the ‘lad’
to be offered for sacrifice; but He has used this son’s name as ‘Isaac’ only
once in all His speech.
Setting aside the words that have been added
by the storywriter and the redactor to complete this narrative, the words
ascribed to God in the said passage are as follows:
Abraham: …Take now thy son, thine only son
Isaac [stress added], whom thou lovest,
and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the
mountains which I will tell thee of. … Abraham, Abraham: Lay not thine hand
upon the lad, neither do thou any thing upon him: for now I know that thou
fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only
son [stress added] from me. … By myself
have I sworn, …, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld
thy son, thine only son [stress added]: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in
multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the
sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall
possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the
earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
The son to be offered for sacrifice has been
mentioned here:
(a) For three times with the pronouns: ‘whom,
him’ (if the interpolation of the word Isaac be ignored, it cannot be determined
by means of these pronouns which of the sons is here meant);
(b) Once with the word ‘lad’ (which also does
not indicate which of the two sons the ‘lad’ was); and
(c) Three times with the words ‘thy son,
thine only son’ (Obviously, it can be none other than Ishma’el, because Isaac could not have been called
‘thine only son’ at any stage of his life).
It is only once that the word Isaac has been
used in it; and this is when the words ‘thy son, thine only son’ have been used
for the first time. Any reader, having a little bit of literary taste together
with objective, unprejudiced and independent thinking, can appreciate that the
word ‘Isaac’ is quite superfluous, irrelevant, and out of place here. Had it
been Isaac, who was required to be sacrificed, it had been sufficient to say:
‘Take now your son Isaac’. God would not have used the phrase ‘thine
only son’, because it was, by all means, a false
statement in favor of Isaac and it is unbecoming that God may have made a false
statement.
‘Thine only son’ and ‘Isaac’ cannot stand
together for a single entity, and could in no case have been used simultaneously,
because, circumstantially, they are quite contradictory to each other. The
structure and use of the words make it quite clear that originally it was the
‘only son’ who was required for offering; and it was the distinctive trait of
‘singularity’, which was conspicuously a prerequisite for the son to be
offered. That’s why ‘Thine only son’, which has been used for three times in
the passage, has been used twice without ‘Isaac’ independently and only once
with ‘Isaac.’ The structure of the phrase ‘thy son, thine only son’ indubiously
declares that the stress is:
(i) on the ‘singularity of the son’, which
shows the intention of the speaker that the son required is the ‘only’ one; and
(ii) on the qualifying pronouns ‘thy, thine’, which shows that the son required
to be offered is ‘your son, O Abraham, and your own one only (and not your
wife’s only)’. Had God meant ‘Isaac’ to be offered for sacrifice, He would have
categorically asserted: ‘Sarah’s only son’ or ‘your only son from Sarah’; and
would, in no case, have said ‘thy son, thine only son’, to confuse him, and subsequently
the whole of the religious world for all times to come. The use of the name
‘Isaac’ in such an ugly and self-contradictory way shows that an interpolation
has been exercised by some unwitty redactor quite unbecomingly.
It would be very useful if, at this juncture,
the reader once again goes through the relevant passage (Gen. 22:1-18) attentively,
and without any reservations. The flow of the passage reveals the intent and
purpose of the speaker quite clearly. The speaker (the Lord) uses the words ‘thy
son, thine only son’ for the boy, required to be sacrificed, in the passage.
The Lord does not use anywhere in the passage the words of merely ‘thy son’
without attaching ‘thine only son’ to them, so that any possibility of
misunderstanding be completely ruled out. Obviously the words ‘thine only son’ and
‘Isaac’ are mutually opposed and contrary words and cannot be used together, as
Isaac had never been an ‘only son’ at any stage of his life. That’s why Abraham
did never use the words ‘only son’ for Isaac. It has been pointed out that the
Jews added deleted, altered, and interpolated freely in the text of the Bible
for ‘theological’ or ‘religious’ purposes. They saw no harm in it. It may also
be borne in mind that it was the ‘religious’ necessity of the Israelites to present
the offspring of Isaac as a chosen and superior people. It is, therefore, easy
to understand that when some ‘pious’ rabbi would have seen the words ‘thy son,
thine only son’ for the first time, he must have inserted the word ‘Isaac’ as
an explanation under his ‘wishful preconception’.
Finding it useful for their purpose, the
later scribes would have included it in the text.
It is strange that the Bible claims ‘Isaac’
to be the ‘only’ son of Abraham. Obviously, it is one of the interpolations, or,
as the Encyclopaedia Biblica puts it, ‘alterations’, as quoted above.23 The scholars and commentators of the Bible
might have discerned that it was a discrepancy (which, they, of course,
discerned)24 and they
ought to have been bold enough to rectify it (but, alas, they have
not been bold enough to rectify it). In spite
of understanding that it was clearly an addition and adulteration of the
redactor of the Bible, they willfully clung to it. Matthew Henry’s Bible
Commentary suggested a revised and improved
rendering of the Hebrew Bible by adding ‘one’ to the ‘only’:
That son whom thou lovest. It
was a trial of Abraham’s love to God, and therefore it must be in a beloved son25, and that string must be touched most upon:
in the Hebrew it is expressed more emphatically, and, I think, might very well be
read thus, Take now that son of thine, that only one of
thine, whom
thou lovest, that Isaac.26
It suggests that the correct translation
required the qualifying words ‘only one’ and not mere ‘only’. Even if the translation suggested by Matthew Henry be adopted, the
sense remains the same. Even the suggested translation, ‘that
only one of thine’, implies that Abraham had got only one son at
that time and no other son had yet been born.
Naturally, it could have been none other than
Ishma’el, who was really the only one son of Abraham until the second son, Isaac, was born; and by that
time Ishma’el was already fourteen years of age. The Biblical scholars have
fruitlessly and futilely tried to evade the real sense of the word. It is,
therefore, imperative that a study of the word ‘only’ be undertaken. In the Hebrew
Bible the word ‘yaheed’ (____) has been
used for ‘only’. The meanings of the word ‘yaheed’ are: ‘sole; lonely; only
(child, son), solitary’ (Strong’s Dic. p.49:3173, Heb.&
Aramaic Dic. of OT, Brill, 2001, 406). In the whole of the OT of the Bible it has been used at the
following four places else:
When I was my father’s son, tender and the
only one (Pr 4:3).
Make mourning as
for an only son (Jer 6:26).
I will make it like mourning for an only son
(Amos 8:10).
(…) as one mourns for his only son (Zec 12:10).
At all these places it can only be translated
with the word ‘only’ and no other meanings go well with the context. It can
thus be appreciated that the Bible uses ‘yaheed’ only in the sense of ‘only’;
and no other meanings can be given to this word according to the usage and
context of the Bible. Some of the commentators of the Bible have afforded ridiculous
expositions to justify this adulteration. One of the renowned Jewish Rabbis,
the French-born Shelomoh Yitschaki, Solomon ben Isaac, commonly known as Rashi (1040-1105 AD), has recorded some
interesting observations on this passage of the Bible in his commentary on the
Pentateuch. He has given it the shape of an
imaginative conversation and has thus exhibited a wonderful skill of subjectively
interpreting or twisting a simple statement according to his presumptions in
his following exposition. No comments on this quotation have been recorded in the
body text of the book. On the spot comments, however fairly lengthy they be,
have been afforded in the footnotes.
Rashi’s comments (with their rejoinders in
footnotes):
thy son. ‘But I have two
sons,’27 Abraham said. ‘Thine
only son,’28 was the reply. ‘But each is the only
one of his mother!’29 ‘Whom
thou lovest,’30 he
was told. ‘But I love both!’31 and
the answer came ‘Even
Isaac.’32 Why did not God name Isaac at once?33 Lest Abraham’s mind reeled under the sudden
shock.34 Further, to make His command more precious to
him.35 And finally, that he might receive a
reward for every word spoken.36
It may also be noted in this connection that
the words ‘thine only son’ signify that no other son (even Isaac) had been born
by that time. It means that Abraham might have offered Ishma’el for sacrifice
when he was about thirteen; because when Ishma’el was fourteen, Isaac had
already been born; and the status of Ishma’el being the ‘only son’ of Abraham
had come to an end.
To recapitulate the theme of the second point,
here are some salient features of it:
1) God had asked Abraham to offer ‘thy son,
thine only son’ for
sacrifice categorically and not one/any of his sons.
2) Abraham’s first-born son was ‘Ishma’el’
and was born when Abraham was 86.
3) Isaac was Abraham’s second-born son and
was born when Abraham was 100.
4) As such, ‘Ishma’el’ remained Abraham’s
only son unto the age of about 14 years, during which period Abraham had no
other son: as Isaac was born when Ishma’el was already of about 14 years. It
also signifies that when Abraham offered his ‘only son’ for sacrifice, Isaac
should not have been born by that time.
5) God had asked Abraham to offer his own
‘only’ son for sacrifice. In the whole of the Bible, God had no where asked
Abraham to offer Sarah’s ‘only’ son for sacrifice, as the learned commentators
of the Bible have tried to make God purport. So the son required to be offered for
sacrifice could have been none other than ‘Ishma’el’.
6) As recorded above, the Encyclopaedia Biblica has
asserted that the story of the offering of Abraham’s only son for sacrifice had
been subjected ‘considerably’ to a number of ‘alterations’ for so many times.
The addition of ‘even Isaac’ to ‘thy son, thine only son’ looks obviously an
‘addition’ by the redactor of the Book.
7) The ‘only son’ required to be offered for
sacrifice, was, and should naturally have been, the beloved son of Abraham, to
make the ‘test’ perfect; or, as the commentator Rashi, puts it, ‘to make His command more precious
to him’. And it has
been discussed in detail elsewhere in this book that Abraham’s beloved son was
‘Ishma’el’ and not ‘Isaac’ (see chapter IV).
8) The son
required to be offered was a ‘lad’, i.e., in his early teens; whereas according
to the commentators of the Bible Isaac was either a child of approximately 3
years (just weaned) or a young man of 20-37 when he was allegedly to be offered
for sacrifice. It means that Isaac was not a ‘lad’ when he was allegedly
required to be sacrificed, whereas the Bible uses the word ‘lad’ or ‘boy’ for
the son required to
be offered. Besides it being a discrepancy,
at no stage of his life Isaac could have been an ‘only lad’ of his father.
***********************************************************************
Footnotes
18 The
Jewish Enc., ed. Isidore Singer (USA: KTAV Publishing
House, Inc.), 6:647.
19 It is not
true that Hagar was a maid, or a slave-girl, or a bond-woman of Sarah. She was
a princess, being the daughter of the Egyptian king, who offered her to Abraham
to serve him and his wife Sarah, and to be brought and reared up in a pious
atmosphere. She had been purposely described by the redactors of the Bible as a
slave girl, as can be appreciated from the following excerpts: That Hagar
appears as a slave-woman is a necessary consequence of the theory on which the
Hebrew myth is based, the notion being that Ishma’el was of inferior origin. (Enc. Biblica, p. 1933). It purports
that slavery was attributed to Hagar to prove Ishma’el inferior to Isaac.
Whereas the fact is that she was an Egyptian princess; as is clear from the
following quotation of the Jewish
Encyclopedia: According to the Midrash (Gen. R. xiv.),
Hagar was the daughter of Pharaoh, who, seeing what great miracles God had done
for Sarah’s sake (Gen. xii, 17), said: ‘It is better for Hagar to be a slave in
Sarah’s house than mistress in her own.’ In this sense Hagar’s name is
interpreted as ‘reward’ (‘Ha-Agar’ = ‘this is reward’). (…). Hagar is held up
as an example of the high degree of godliness prevalent in Abraham’s time, (…).
Her fidelity is praised, for even after Abraham sent her away she kept her
marriage vow, (…). Another explanation of the same name is ‘to adorn,’ because
she was adorned with piety and good deeds (l.c.). (Jewish Enc., 6:138). For further information on this theme
please see footnote 302 (App. I).
20 Gen.
16:1,3,15,16 NASB.
21 Gen.
17:15-18 NASB. It reveals the great degree of Abraham’s love for Ishma’el .
22 Gen. 21:5
NASB.
23 Please see
Chapter I section ‘The Status of the Story of the Bible’.
24 Of course,
some of them, in one way or the other, have noted this discrepancy, e.g.,
William Whiston, translator of The Works
of Flavius Josephus, in his footnote on the phrase ‘Isaac, as
being his onlybegotten’, observes: Note, that both here and Heb. xi. and 17.
Isaac is called Abraham’s only-begotten son, though he at the same time had another
son, Ishmael. The Septuagint expresses the true meaning, by rendering the text
the beloved son. (The Works of Flavius Josephus, tr. W. Whiston, Boston: D Lothrop & Co., nd., footnote 1 on ch.
XIII, paragraph 1, p. 42). In fact ‘rendering the text the beloved
son.’ is quite arbitrary and without any lexical ground. It is rather a sort of
adulteration to translate a word in this manner to satisfy one’s whims or to
get rid of some awkward situation. The original Hebrew word for this ‘only’ is
‘Yacheed’, which, in Arabic, is ‘Waheed’; and literally means ‘only’. New Jerome Bible Com.,
(Bangalore, India: T.P.I., 1994, p. 25) has also made the same arbitrary claim that the use of the ‘thine
only son’ for Isaac is wrong when he observes: ‘Only son’ is inaccurate, since
Abraham will have other sons; already the LXX ton
agapeton correctly interpreted the Hebrew word as
‘favored’ by God. It is remarkable to note here that almost all the translations
of the Bible rendered the word ‘____’ (yacheed) as ‘only’ (which is imperatively required in view of
its primary root ‘___’, i.e.
‘yachad’, that means ‘to be one’ exclusively), except a few brave Jews, who
purposefully corrupted the translation.
25 Who was
none other than Ishma’el, as has been explained in an independent chapter of
this book in detail.
26 Matthew
Henry’s Bible Com., 1:80.
27 The
sentence ‘But I have two sons,’ implies that God was mistaken. He did not know
that Sarah had already given birth to a second son for Abraham. It means as if
Abraham brings to the notice of the mistaken and ignorant God [May God forgive
the writer who used these words to show the implications of the wording of the
sentence.] and declares: ‘But I have two
sons,’. It does not matter to the worthy commentator if God be depicted as
being ignorant; but he is satisfied that he has succeeded in depriving Ishma’el
of his genuinely deserved credit of being offered for sacrifice as the ‘only
son’ and has tried to establish the honour of being offered for sacrifice in
favour of Isaac.
28 The
original Hebrew word for this ‘only’ is ‘____’, i.e.
‘Yawkheed’. Strong’s Dic. of Heb. Bible, entry 3173, p. 49 has recorded its
meanings as: from 3161; sole; also lonely;
only (child, son), solitary. Entry 3161 is ‘___’ (yachad),
which is a ‘primary root’ of ‘____’ (yacheed); and exclusively means: ‘to be (or become) one’. It is
the same word which, in Arabic, is ‘wahada’ with the same meanings. Heb. and Aramaic Dic. of the OT (Leiden: Brill, 2001), p. 406 has also recorded its meanings as: only, single, alone, the only son, the only one. It is quite
inconceivable that a scholar of Rashi’s calibre may not have discerned the
significance of the word. Simply, if a man has, at a time, two sons, none of
them can be called his ‘only son’. Each of them can be called ‘one of his two
sons’. Calling one of them ‘his only son’ is as confusing and irrational as to
ascribe the word ‘one’ for ‘three’. Even some commentators of the Bible have
noted the absurdity of the statement. Richard J. Clifford and R. E. Murphy, in
their Commentary to the Book of Gen. in the New
Jerome Bible Com. (p.25) assert: Only son is inaccurate, since Abraham will have other sons. From the above
discussion it can be safely concluded that by the time Abraham offered the
sacrifice, he had only one son; and it could naturally have been ‘Ishma’el’ and
by no means ‘Isaac’. It is also to be noted that a few of the Jewish
translations (e.g. The Torah According to the Masoretic Text, Philadelphia: Jewish Publn. Society of America, 1967, pp. 35f;
and The Torah A Modern Com., NY: Union of American Hebrew Congregations,1981, pp. 146f. The latter
contains the Hebrew text as well and it has used the same word yacheed ‘____’ in it.) have rendered this word ‘only’ as ‘favored one’, ignoring the primary root. It is obviously a mala fide act. There is another
word in the story that makes the point more clear and definite; and it is
‘lad’. It has been used twice in the relevant narrative of the Bible (Gen.
21:5,12: the former by Abraham himself and the latter by the angel of the
Lord). The original Hebrew word for ‘lad’ is ‘___’ (na’ar) which means: ‘a boy, from the age of infancy to adolescence; by impl. a servant; also (by interch. of sex), a girl (of similar latitude in age):¾ babe, boy, child, damsel, lad’ (Heb.
Dic. In Strong’s Exh. Concordance, entry
5288, p. 79.). It dictates that the son to be offered for sacrifice should both
be a boy of early teens and the only son of his father . Both these pre-requisites are promptly met in the person of Ishma’el,
whereas Isaac meets none of these pre-requisites, to being offered for
sacrifice, as spelled out by the Lord while commanding for the offering. As to
the age of Isaac when he was allegedly made to be offered for sacrifice, it has
amazingly been attributed either earlier than the status of boyhood or after
his teens.
The Jewish commentators of the Bible have
different opinions as to the age of Isaac when he was allegedly offered by
Abraham for sacrifice. W. Gunther Plaut, in his ‘The Torah: A Modern Commentary’
(NY: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1981), p. 146 asserts: According
to the Rabbis, Isaac was thirty-seven years old. However, the story should be
read not in chronological order but rather as an unrelated unit; here Isaac is
a mere boy. The Rabbis took the death of Sarah to be immediately related to the
Akedah [sacrifice]; therefore, with Sarah dying at 127 years of age, Isaac would
be 37, having been born when his mother was 90.
He further records on page 159:
Abraham returned alone from Moriah, and Sarah,
believing Isaac to have been sacrificed, died of grief. ¾ Midrash.
Josephus asserts in his Antiquities, Book I, Chap. XIII,
para. 2, p. 42:
Now Isaac was twenty-five years old. And as
he was building the altar, he asked his father what he was about to offer,
since there was no animal there for the oblation:
The Jewish Enc. (6:617) records:
In Jose ben Zimra’s opinion, the akedah took
place immediately after Isaac’s weaning [at the age of 2 or 3 years].
The Bible asserts:
And Abraham took the wood of the burnt
offering and laid it on Isaac his son.
How is it possible that a child who had just
been weaned, be made to carry such a load of wood? Ellen G. White, in Seventh Day Adventist Bible Com., 1:349, asserts: ‘Isaac was now a young man of 20.’
Whether Isaac be made to be allegedly offered
for sacrifice when he had been ‘just weaned’ or of the age of thirty seven, or
twenty five, or twenty years or whatsoever, in any case, he cannot be called a
‘lad’.
Then whatever the age of Isaac be, he cannot
be called ‘Thine only son’ at any stage of his life, whereas Ishma’el retains
the status of ‘Thine only
son’ and a ‘lad’
until the age of fourteen years. And as such, the statement ‘Thine only son’
becomes quite absurd, if Isaac be considered as required to be offered for
sacrifice.
29 Where has
the phrase ‘his mother’ stepped in
from? It is simply unbelievable that such an erudite scholar can pass so absurd
a comment, on such a simple statement: ‘thine only son’. It is to be noted that
the dialogue is only between God and Abraham. No third person is involved in
this dialogue. In this phrase, God is the first person, because He is addressing
Abraham, and Abraham is naturally the addressee, for whom a second person
pronoun is required. That’s why God has used the II person pronoun ‘thine’ for
Abraham, which by no stretch of sense can be attributed to Sarah, who is a III
Person here. God had not left the ‘only son’ unqualified, so as to leave room
for some speculations or selfassessments. The ‘only son’ is categorically
preceded by a specific qualifying word ‘thine’: which unequivocally means ‘O
Abraham, it is “your” only son, who is
required; and not any mother’s only son.’ As regards Abraham, it is quite
unconceivable about a discreet person of his calibre that he would retort so
indiscreetly as this ‘But each is the only one of his mother!’, to such a self-explanatory phrase as this ‘thine
only son.’ What has this ‘of his mother’ got to do with this ‘thine only son!’.
30 It has been
explained in detail in chapter IV of this book.
31 The learned
speculative and imaginative commentator has made Abraham speak these words. He
put the words ‘But I love both’ into Abraham’s mouth. The word ‘both’ here
obviously means both Ishma’el and Isaac. If a man has two sons, none of them
can be called ‘only’. It is queer that on the one hand Abraham is asked by his
Lord to offer his ‘only son’ for sacrifice; and on the other hand the worthy commentator
puts the words ‘But I love both’ into Abraham’s mouth. These statements are
self-contradictory. As such the words ‘But I love both’ are absurd, arbitrary,
and quite baseless.
32 As far as
the words ‘even Isaac’ are concerned, they are obviously superfluous to and
inconsistent with the flow of the sentence. Had it been Isaac, who was required
to be offered for sacrifice, God should have been discreet enough to say ‘your
son, Isaac’. But when He says ‘thy son, thine only son’, only ‘Ishma’el’ can be
meant. ‘Isaac’ is an unjustifiable interpolation by some crafty but indiscreet
redactor.
33 It should
be noted here that all these imaginative questions and their sequence are the
contrivance of the commentator. There is no hint or mention of them in the
Bible. Had some clumsy redactor not interpolated ‘Isaac’ here, how could the learned commentator
exercise his imaginative creativity to
give his desired meaning to an absurd statement.
34 ‘Lest
Abraham’s mind reeled under the sudden shock.’ What a rare skill of
psycho-analysis!
35 ‘Further to
make His command more precious to him.’ The readers should note the technique
of making their command more precious to someone! ‘And finally that he might
receive a reward for every word spoken.’ What a justification of distorting the statement and disturbing the
proper order and structure of the sentence!
36 As quoted
by Dr. A. Cohen in The Soncino Chumash, (Hindhead, sSurrey: The Soncino Press, 1947), 108.
*********************************************************************************
Chapter III
THE TRADITION OF OFFERING
THE FIRST-FRUIT
OR THE
FIRST-BORN SON
When a human sacrifice was required to be
offered, it was desired to be the ‘first-born’ one. Even if the sacrifice required
to be offered was not a human one, but was of an animal or a fruit, it had to
be first-born animal or the firstfruit.
Some of the authorities are being quoted here
to elaborate the point. A New Commentary on
Holy Scripture asserts:
At the time of Abraham human sacrifice was
customary and frequent among his Canaanite neighbors, and the early legislation
of Ex 2229, which states without modification that first-born
sons are to be given to God37, seems clearly to imply a stage in Israel’s
thought which regarded such sacrifices as a religious duty. 38
The Rev. T.K. Cheyne, while discussing the sacrifice
of Isaac in the entry ‘Isaac’, states: The course that he adopted shows the writer
to have been a great teacher. He admits the religious feeling which prompted
the sacrifice of a firstborn son.39
Marcus Dods records the prevailing tradition
of the time that the most exalted form of religious worship
was the sacrifice of the first-born, because
it was unbecoming to offer to God something which was not truly valuable. (Which of the two sons was truly valuable to
Abraham, has been discussed elsewhere in this book in detail):
Abraham was familiar with the idea that the
most exalted form of religious worship was the sacrifice of the first-born. He
felt, in common with godly men in every age, that to offer to God cheap
sacrifices while we retain for ourselves what is truly precious, is a kind of
worship that betrays our low estimate of God rather than expresses true
devotion.40
Stanley A. Cook observes that the offering of
the firstborn to Yahweh was at one time considered strictly to be as binding as
the offering of firstlings and first-fruits:
The firstborn male enjoyed the privileges of
which he was not to be deprived (…). Not only were the first-fruits as acceptable
an offering as the firstlings, but when (in exceptional cases) a human victim
was required it was a firstborn that was preferred (2K. 3:27). (…). No doubt, strictly, the offering of
the firstborn to Yahweh was at one time considered to be as binding as the
offering of firstlings and first-fruits, and, indeed, the evidence goes to show
that in exceptional cases the offering was actually made.
However, just as the first-fruits were
offered as a part of the whole, it is conceivable that originally the rite of circumcision
was instituted upon the same principle to typify the offering of the firstborn.41
The very first sentence of the above passage
asserts that ‘The firstborn male enjoyed the privileges of which he was not to
be deprived’. The Bible itself has also laid it down categorically in the
following terms:
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and
another hated, and they have born children, both the
beloved and hated; and if the firstborn son be her’s that was hated:
then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that
which he hath, that he may not make the son
of the beloved firstborn before the
son of the hated, which
is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for
the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath:
for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of
the firstborn is his.42
It shows that, according to the Bible itself,
the privilege of the firstborn son is irrevocable. Even if some father, on account
of his inclination towards one of his wives, wishes to deprive the son of the
other wife of his due and legitimate right of the firstborn son, he is not
allowed to do so. And the exalted form of sacrifice was to offer the firstborn
son. Therefore the privilege of being offered to God was Ishma’el’s irrevocable
and irreversible right, which, in no case, could have been transferred to
Isaac. The Book of Jubilees, of course, is not a canonical book; but it is not an outright
rejected book either. Scholars of the Bible liberally quote from it to
establish their point of view without much reservation. S. Tedesche has dilated
upon it in his article on Jubilees, Book of in the Interpreter’s Dic. of Bible Some of the excerpts are afforded below to acquaint the reader
with its real significance:
One of the most important books of the
Pseudepigrapha. It gives a graphic picture of Judaism in the two pre-Christian centuries.
Its purpose was to show that Judaism, as it then was, had been the same from
the very beginning of known history. (…). Emphasis is also placed on Jewish
tenets and customs, and the importance of preserving the difference between
Jews and Gentiles is stressed. (…). The purpose of the author was to do for
Genesis what the Chronicler did for Samuel and Kings¾to
rewrite the facts in such a way that it would appear that the law was
rigorously observed by the patriarchs. (…). His desire was to save Judaism from
the demoralizing effects of Hellenism by [i] glorifying the law and [ii]
picturing the patriarchs as irreproachable; by [iii] glorifying Israel and [iv]
urging her to preserve the separateness from the Gentiles; and by [v]
denouncing the Gentiles and also Israel’s national enemies. The ‘Angel of the
Presence’ reveals to Moses on Sinai the history and religious laws of Gen.
1-Exod. 3 in the form of sermonized translations, or Midrashic Targums, which
show only favorable practices and omit anything derogatory. (…). The contrast
between Jews and Gentiles is sharply drawn, and Israel is warned to keep
separate. (…), and anything is omitted that would put the patriarchs in an unfavourable
light.43
It shows about the Book of Jubilees that:
1) It is One of the most
important books of the Pseudepigrapha.
2) Emphasis is placed on the difference
between Jews and Gentiles and
3) Every effort has been made to depict the
superiority of the Jews and the inferiority of the Gentiles. (…), and
4) ‘The purpose of the author was to do for
Genesis what the Chronicler did for Samuel and Kings’ which means that, as far
as the themes of Genesis are concerned, the Book of Jubilees is
not less reliable than the ‘Chronicles’ is with regards to the ‘Samuel’ and the
‘Kings’.
5) The desire of its author ‘was to save
Judaism from the demoralizing effects of Hellenism by glorifying the law and
picturing the patriarchs as irreproachable; by glorifying Israel and urging her
to preserve the separateness from the Gentiles; and by denouncing the Gentiles
and also Israel’s national enemies.’ It means that he could not have afforded
therein anything, which might have been damaging to the pride and interest of the
Jews.
6) As to the patriarchs, he has tried his
best to extend every favour and respect to them,
7) ‘and anything is omitted that would put
the patriarchs in an unfavourable light’.
It can thus be appreciated that the Book
of Jubilees is not an unimportant book and it could not
include anything in it which be against the interest of the Jews and the
patriarchs; and that’s why the scholars of the Bible liberally quote from it to
strengthen their themes. This Book of
Jubilees asserts:
And he drew near to the place of the mount of
God. (…).
And I called to him from heaven, and said
unto him:
‘Abraham, Abraham;’ and he was terrified and
said: ‘Behold, (here) am I.’ And I said unto him: ‘Lay not thy hand upon the
lad, neither do you anything to him; for now I have shown that thou fearest the
Lord, and hast not withheld thy son, thy first-born son, from me.’44
Then again, in 18:15 of the same book, it is
stated: And the Lord called Abraham by his name a second time from heaven,
(…). And he said: ‘By Myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, Because thou hast
done this thing, And hast not withheld thy son, thy beloved son, from Me, That
in blessing I will Bless thee,45
The editor has afforded a footnote to ‘thy
beloved son’. He asserts in it:
But here c d have
‘thy first-born son’. The ‘c’ and ‘d’ have been
explained in the introduction of
this version of the Book of Jubilees on p.2.
According to it the ‘c’ signifies
the Ethiopic MS (Manuscript) of this book which belongs to the University
Library at Tubingen, and the ‘d’ signifies the Ethiopic MS of this book which belongs to the
National Library in Paris. It makes quite clear that according to vv 11 and 15
of chapter 18 of the Book of the Jubilees, Abraham was asked to offer ‘thy [Abraham
is the addressee of this phrase] first-born
son’ for
sacrifice.
The authorities have thus explained that if,
at all, a physical offering was required under some special circumstances, it should
have been only the first-born son of his father or the first-born animal.
Otherwise, as a general rule, it was required that the first-born son of a
father or a first-born animal should be ransomed and redeemed. A number of other
scholars also maintain the same theme. Some of them are: Peake’s BC.46, NJB.47, Christian Community B.48 As to the fact that Ishma’el is Abraham’s universally acknowledged
firstborn son, it has so explicitly been stated in unequivocal terms in the
Bible and other relevant record that one feels embarrassed in putting forward
some argu- mentation with regard to it. But it is a matter of grave concern
that some scholars of the Bible have felt no hesitation in defying and defiling
this plain fact. So the theme is being undertaken below quite briefly:
Isaac as Abraham’s Son
Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed;
and thou shalt call his name Isaac:49
And Abraham was an hundred years old, when
his son Isaac was born unto him.50
Ishma ‘el as Abraham’s Son
And Hagar bare Abram
[stress added] a son: and Abram called his
son’s [stress added] name, which Hagar bare, Ishma’el. And Abraham was
fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishma’el to Abram [stress
added].51 And Abram took Ishma’el his son [stress
added], and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money,
every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and
circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in
the selfsame day, as God had said unto him. 52
But the son of the slave woman is also your son [stress
added], and I will make his descendants into a great nation.53 I will also give many children to the son of
the slave-girl, so that they will become a nation. He too is your son [stress
added].54
Stress has been added to some words and
phrases of the above sub-heading ‘Ishma ‘el
as Abraham’s Son’, which shows that Ishma’el is as genuinely
and legitimately Abraham’s own real son as Isaac. It thus abundantly makes clear
that according to the Bible, Ishma’el and Isaac, both of them, were Abraham’s
equally real, legitimate, and genuine sons. If somebody arbitrarily claims that
Ishma’el was not Abraham’s son, or had ceased to be his son after being cast
away, it is quite against the facts and without any justification. God told
Abraham that Ishma’el would remain his son even after being settled elsewhere. Ishma’el
was born when Abraham was eighty-six years
old; and Isaac was born when Abraham was a hundred years old. As such, it was Ishma’el
who was the ‘First Born Son of Abraham’. The
privilege of being his father (Abraham)’s first-born son was Ishma’el’s
irrevocable and irreversible right and nobody could have deprived him of it.
Isaac was Abraham’s second-born son and could not have been called the
first-born son of his father at any stage of his life
by any stretch of meanings. Then it was Ishma’el who retained the status of the only son of
Abraham for nearly fourteen years; whereas Isaac could not enjoy the status of an
only son of Abraham for even a single day of his life. The son, asked to be offered for sacrifice had to be Abraham’s ‘only
son’ (as categorically and repeatedly directed in the Bible) as well as his
‘first-born son’ (as required by the prevalent tradition of offering to make
the offering precious). Had God meant to require some ‘only heir’ or ‘Sarah’s
only son’, as some scholars have tried to put these words in God’s mouth, He
could plainly have used these words. He should not have puzzled Abraham by asking
him to offer ‘thy son, thine only son’. How can a
man on earth say that it could, in any way,
or by any stretch of meaning, be Isaac who was required to be offered for sacrifice!
Isaac was neither Abraham’s ‘only son’ nor his ‘first-born’ one at the time of
his birth, or at any stage of his life. He was not the ‘only son of Abraham’ as
long as Abraham was alive, because Ishma’el had throughout been very much alive
together with him until Abraham breathed his last. Now it is unto the reader to
appreciate the truth. It can thus safely be concluded from the fairly detailed above
data regarding the privilege of the first-born son that:
1.
Human sacrifice was customary and frequent among Abraham’s
Canaanite neighbours, and the early legislation of Ex 22:29 also states that first-born sons are to be
given to God.
2.
Not only were the first-fruits as acceptable an offering as the
firstlings, but when (in exceptional cases) a human victim was required it was
a first-born that was preferred (2K. 3:27).
3.
The first-born male enjoyed the privileges of which he was not to
be deprived.
4.
One of the most important books of the Pseudepigrapha, the ‘Book
of Jubilees’, reports God as saying: ‘for now I have
shown that thou fearest the Lord, and hast not withheld thy son, thy first-born
son, from me.’ It means that the son who was offered for sacrifice was the
‘Firstborn son of Abraham’; not only according to the Bible, but also according
to all the available record.
5.
It is a universally acknowledged fact that, inter alia, both Ishma’el
and Isaac are Abraham’s real and legitimate sons.
6.
Only one son of a person can be called his ‘first-born son’; and
it was Ishma’el who was Abraham’s ‘first-born son’; and was born nearly
fourteen years prior to Isaac’s birth.
7.
In addition to being Abraham’s ‘first-born son’, Ishma’el retained
the status of being Abraham’s ‘only son’ for nearly fourteen years, whereas
Isaac had not' enjoyed this privilege at any time of his life. It means that
Isaac could neither have been called ‘the only son of Abraham’ nor his ‘firstborn
son’ at any stage of his life.
8.
God had asked Abraham to offer his ‘only son’ for sacrifice.
Moreover, it should have been the ‘first-born son’ who was customary to be
offered. These prerequisites naturally nominate Ishma’el to be offered for
sacrifice. Isaac does not fulfil any of these conditions. So it could have been
only Ishma’el who was required to be offered for sacrifice; and it could, by no
means, have been Isaac.
9.
The above discussion further suggests that to make the sacrifice
more significant, precious, and for attesting the fidelity of Abraham in true
sense of the word, it could have been his ‘first-born and the only son’ whom
God might have asked Abraham to offer for sacrifice. He was very old. His wife
Sarah was also very old, past menopause, and barren. He did not expect any
further offspring. He had only one son who had now become of a reasonable age
to extend him a helping hand that he extremely needed at such a stage of his
life. He had no ray of future hope if he be deprived of his youthful son Ishma’el.
Had it been one of his two sons who was required to be offered for sacrifice,
and that too his younger son Isaac, who was less useful, less vigorous, less
versatile, and less helpful to him; the test could not have been so grave,
meaningful, and perfect; as it could have been in case of the ‘only and the first-born
son’ to be required for sacrifice.
10.
In a situation like this: where God is going to ‘tempt’ Abraham
through asking him to offer his firstborn and the only son for sacrifice; and
that too, at such a stage of his life: it would be redundant if God adds the
name of Abraham’s son to ‘your son, [your
firstborn son, who is] your only son’. Making the expression
grim-grimmergrimmest with the words ‘your
son, [your firstborn son, who is] your only son’ the
command has been taken to its climax. It would rather mar the effectiveness and
significance of the command if ‘even Isaac’ be inserted into it. The mention of
the name of the only son is a useless addition, and cannot be expected by some eloquent,
impressive and intelligent communicator. This is an ugly instance of
interpolation incorporated by some committed but naive redactor that exposes
his guilty conscience and ulterior ‘holy and pious’ motives.
*********************************************************************************
Footnotes
37 Ex.
22:29-30 (NKJV) reads as:
(29) You shall
not delay to offer the
first of your ripe produce and your juices. The firstborn of your sons you
shall give to Me. (30)
Likewise you shall do with your oxen (stress added) and your sheep. It shall be with its mother seven days; on the eighth
day you shall give it to Me.
Peake’s Commentary on the Bible (p.221) explains it as:
Every first-born is the property of Yahweh.
(…). It [set apart] is the word used also for sacrificing children to Molech.
Since the Canaanite practice, resorted to on occasion certainly, was abhorent
to Israel, it is unlikely that the term was borrowed from them. (…). Though in
Israel the first-born were to be set apart to Yahweh as his, they were not to
be given to him by sarifice, but they were to be ‘ransomed’ from him, a term
which could suggest that they were sacrificed in theory, though not in actual
fact. (…).
The price of the redemption of the first-born
of human beings, which is not stated here, was later fixed at 5 shekels, Num.
18:15f.
Num. 18:15,16 (NKJV) reads as:
(15) Everything
that first opens the womb of all flesh, which they bring to the Lord, whether
man or beast, shall be yours (Levite’s); nevertheless the firstborn of man you
shall surely redeem, and the firstborn of unclean animals you shall redeem. (16) And those redeemed of the devoted things you
shall redeem when one month old, according to your valuation, for five shekels
of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, which is twenty gerahs. The Jewish Encyclopedia (5:396) explains
it as follows: According to Talmudic tradition, the first-born acted as
officiating priests in the wilderness, until the erection of the Tabernacle, when
the office was given to the tribe of Levi. In consequence of the deliverance from the tenth plague, when
‘the Lord slew all the first-born in the land of Egypt’ but spared the
first-born of the Israelites, the following commandment was given: ‘Sanctify
unto me all the first-born whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of
Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine’. The firstborn of clean beasts
were thus made holy and were unredeemable, while the first-born of unclean
beasts and of man had to be redeemed from the priests. (….).
Every Israelite is obliged to redeem his son
thirty days after the latter’s birth. The mother is exempt from this
obligation. The son, if the father fails to redeem him, has to redeem himself
when he grows up. The sum of redemption as given in the Bible (Num. 18:16) is
five shekels, which should be given to the priest.
It may be noted here that this legislation
regarding the redemption of the first-born son relates to the Israelites of the
post-Exodus period. It cannot be made applicable to the patriarchs Abraham and
his first-born son.
38 Charles
Gore, Goudge, Alfred Guillaume, A New
Commentary onHoly Scripture, (London: 1928), 53.
39 Enc.
Biblica, 3:2177.
40 Marcus
Dods, The Expositor’s Bible, (NY: 1903), 1:199,200.
41 Enc.
Biblica, 2:1525,26.
42 Deu.
21:15-17 KJV.
43 The
Interpreter’s Dictionary of Bible (1962), s.v.
‘Jubilees, Book of’, 2:1002-3.
44 The Book
of the Jubilees, 18:11, in The
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the OT in Eng.,
ed. R. H. Charles, (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1968), 2:40.
45 The Book
of the Jubilees, 18:15; 2:40.
46 Peake’s
Com. On Bible, ed. H. H. Rowley, (London: Thomas Nelson &
Sons Ltd., 1967), 193 states:
The story may also have been intended to
explain the early Hebrew custom of ransoming the firstborn of male children
(cf. Exod. 34:20).
47 The New
Jerusalem Bible, Henry Wansbrough, gen. ed. (London: Darton,
Longman & Todd Ltd., 1993), 41 explains: The story as it stands justifies
the ritual prescription for the redemption of the first-born of Israel: like
all ‘first-fruits’ these belong to God;
48 Christian
Community Bible, ed. Patricia Grogan, (Catholic Bishops’ Conference
of the Philippines, 1995), 73 says: In a first reading the text also justifies
the ransom of the firstborn children. As for all first-fruits they belong to
God; but unlike the firstborn of animals which are immolated, children are
redeemed (Ex 13:13).
49 Gen. 17:19
KJV.
50 Gen. 21:5
KJV.
51 Gen.
16:15-16 KJV.
52 Gen. 17:23
KJV.
53 Gen. 21:13
CEV.
54 Gen. 21:13
GNB.
**************************************************************************************
Chapter IV
ABRAHAM WAS REQUIRED
TO OFFER HIS BELOVED SON55 FOR SACRIFICE
The Bible states that the son, who was to be
offered for sacrifice, was the only son whom Abraham loved. It is a conspicuous point and is to be taken
properly. ‘Whom did Abraham love?’ is to be keenly explored before passing some
judgement on it. The first thing to be noted is that ‘Whom thou lovest,’ is not a
simple remark about the relevant son; it is rather a distinguishing attribute.
It should not be loosely applied to any of the sons of Abraham. It
should be applied very conscientiously to the
pertinent son of Abraham after thrashing out his relevance carefully. As far as
Isaac is concerned, the phrase ‘Whom thou
lovest,’ cannot positively be applied to him. No
doubt Abraham might have been showing due paternal affection towards
Isaac—which he ought to have shown—but he did not have any extra-ordinary love
and attachment for him. When Abraham was told about the birth of Isaac:
As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call
her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. And I will bless her, and indeed I
will give you a son by her. Then I will bless her, and she shall be a
mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be from her56;
he was not pleased with it. He rather showed
indifference towards the forthcoming son—his sole desire and topmost priority
being Ishma‘el —as has been reported in the Bible: And
Abraham said to God, ‘Oh that Ishmael might live before you! [Abraham’s deep concern for Ishma‘el and his indifference towards
Isaac is particularly to be noticed]’ (…). And as for Ishma‘el, I have heard
you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him
fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and
I will make him a great nation.57
Commentators of the Bible have genuinely taken
it as a love token by Abraham in favor of Ishma‘el . The Nelson Study Bible has
observed:
What is more, he still loved his son Ishma‘el
(16:15; 17:18).58
The Wycliffe
Bible Com. has noted it as: Sarah
may have feared that Abraham, out of love for
Ishmael, would give the older lad the
prominent place in the inheritance. (…). To drive them out must have been exceedingly
grievous to Abraham, for he loved the boy.59
It shows that Abraham’s love for Ishma‘el was
so obvious that even Sarah was fully aware of it. J. Fawsett puts it as: He [Abraham] bears Ishma‘el upon his heart, and expresses
a laudable concern for him.60
Marcus Dods has recorded beautiful comments
to show that Ishma‘el was the son whom Abraham loved very much. He has also
recorded the justifications for this immense love.
He comments: Abram’s state of mind
is disclosed in the exclamation:
‘Oh, that Ishmael might live before Thee!’ He
had learned to love the bold, brilliant, domineering boy. (…). But there he was,
in actual flesh and blood, full of life and interest in everything, daily
getting deeper into the affections of Abram, who allowed and could not but
allow his own life to revolve very much around the dashing, attractive lad [It may be noted that when Ishma‘el was still a ‘lad’, Isaac had
either not been born, or would have been still a suckling baby].
(…). ‘Oh, that Ishmael might serve Thy turn!’
Why call me again off from this actual attainment to the vague, shadowy, non-existent
heir of promise, who surely can never have the brightness of eye and force of
limb and lordly ways of this Ishmael? Would that what already exists in actual
substance
before the eye might satisfy Thee and fulfil
Thine intention and supersede the necessity of further waiting! Must I again loosen
my hold, and part with my chief attainment?61
It may be appreciated that Abraham shows
profound love for Ishma‘el on account of his being full of promise, potentate
and talent, as has been recorded above. Seventh Day Adventist BD asserts:
When 13 years
later, God announced the imminent birth of Isaac (ch 17:1-8, 15-17), Abraham
interceded on behalf of Ishma‘el, whom he dearly loved.62
Dr. Cohn asserts: I
(…) would be satisfied if only Ishma‘el lived before Thee.63
As for Isaac, Abraham, according to Hasting,
showed an indifference towards him due to lack of these traits in him. Scholars
have plainly acknowledged the weaknesses of Isaac. J. Hastings states in his DB: Isaac is a less striking personality than his
father is. Deficient in the heroic qualities, he suffered indisposition from an
excess of mildness, and the love of quiet (…). He
was rather shifty and timid in his relations
with Abimelech (26:1-22), too easily imposed upon, and not a good ruler of his
household–a gracious and kindly but not a strong man.64
Similar views have been expressed by William
Neil about Isaac:
Isaac is generally referred to in the
commentaries as a colourless personality. Certainly when we compare him with Abraham
and Jacob it is impossible to form a clear picture of him. Few stories are recorded
about him, presumably because there was little known of him that was worth recording,
and in those stories in which he does feature he is generally a minor
participant in the narratives dealing with his more notable father or son.65 It shows that according to the scholars of
the Bible Isaac
had a less attractive and impressive personality
than Ishma‘el, although, according to the Islamic tradition one cannot endorse
it. According to Islam both of them were the prophets of equal status and it is
not proper to prefer one on the other. It may only be due to physical strength and
practical support that Abraham felt more love and attachment towards him.
There is another evidence that confirms the
love of Abraham for Ishma‘el . When Sarah asked Abraham to expel Ishma‘el and
his mother Hagar, Abraham was very much disturbed at it, which showed his grave
concern for his son Ishma‘el. The event has been recorded in the Bible as
follows: Therefore she said to Abraham, ‘Drive out this maid and her son,
for the son of this maid shall not be an heir with my son Isaac.’ And the
matter distressed Abraham greatly because of his son [The editor has recorded here a note: ‘lit.,
was very grievous in Abraham’s sight.’].66
The love of Abraham for his son Ishma‘el is
so evident here that even the Jewish ommentators
of the Bible did not fail to appreciate it. Dr. Cohen makes the following comment
on it:
Scripture points out that this grief was
caused not by the prospect of loosing the woman but on account of Ishmael.67
It will be appreciated from the entire above
discussion that ‘Whom thou lovest,’ could have only been spoken of Ishma‘el and not of Isaac; and
it was only Ishma‘el who was really offered for sacrifice by Abraham because it
was Ishma‘el who was Abraham’s ‘beloved son’. As far as the theme of Abraham’s
offering his ‘only son’ for sacrifice is concerned, fairly sufficient
discussions have been undertaken in the above four chapters. Some relevant
points will be studied in detail in the
coming chapters. At the end of this part of the book it would be pertinent that
a concluding note be recorded as an epilogue to this story of offering and as
the last scene of the episode.
ABRAHAM RETURNED ALONE
WITHOUT THE ‘ONLY SON’
The story concludes with the following last
sentence: So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went
together to Beer-sheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beer-sheba. (Gen 22:19 KJV)
The reflective and conscientious
consideration of the verse guides the heedful reader to these points:
(1) ‘So Abraham returned unto his young men’
shows that during his return home, the ‘only son’, whosever the ‘only son’ had
been, was not with him. W. Gunther Plaut observes:
The text says that Abraham returned from Moriah but omits a mention
of Isaac. (…) Isaac did not come back with his father.68
Ignoring the word Isaac, as discussed in
detail in this book at various places, the verse asserts that the ‘only son’ did
not return with Abraham, because his abode was here near Moriah. Had it been Isaac
who was to be offered for sacrifice, he must have returned with his father. It
shows that the ‘only son’ was Ishma‘el, who dwelt near Moriah, and as such he had not to return
with Abraham.
(2) It may be noted here that Abraham’s
family lived at Hebron; but he spent most of his time at Beer-sheba with his herds
and flocks. He went back there leaving his only son, Ishma‘el, at his residence
at Moriah.
(3) Had it been Isaac who was to be offered
for sacrifice, it was not like him to show any displeasure or disregard towards
his father by parting company with him.
*****************************************************************************
Footnotes
55 The theme
of the chapter is that Abraham was required to offer his ‘Beloved Son’ for
sacrifice and his ‘Beloved Son’ was Ishma‘el and not Isaac. It by no means
implies that Ishma‘el was superior to Isaac
and Isaac was inferior to Ishma‘el. Both of
the Prophets are equally honorable and innocent and the Muslims do not claim
any superiority for one upon the other.
56 Gen. 17:15-16 NKJV in the Nelson
Study Bible, ed. Earl D. Radmacher, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 36-37.
57 Gen. 17:18,20 NKJV in the Nelson
Study Bible, 37.
58 The
Nelson Study Bible, footnote p. 43.
59 The
Wycliffe Bible Com. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1987), 26.
60 John
Fawsett, The Devotional Family Bible, (London: 1811), no paging has been recorded in this 2 centuries
old book.
61 Marcus
Dods, The Expositor’s Bible, 1:160.
62 Seventh
Day Adventist Bible Dic., Rvd. 1979 edn., 526.
63 Dr. Cohen
(the Jewish Commentary) The Soncino Chumash, 81.
64 Hastings’ Dic. of Bible, Rvd. by Frederick
Grant & H. H. Rowley (NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1963), 422.
65 William
Neil, Pocket Bible Com. (HarperSanFrancisco, 1975), 50.
66 Gen.
21:10-11 NASB.
67 Dr. Cohen, Soncino Chumash, 102.
68 The Torah
A Modern Commmentary, ed. Gunther Plaut, NY: Union of American
Hebrew Congregations, 1981, 152.
**************************************************************************************
Chapter V
THE SITES CLAIMED TO BE MORIAH
AS THE PLACE OF OFFERING
The Bible states that Abraham was asked to
offer his only son for sacrifice ‘upon one of the mountains’ which was situated ‘into the land of Moriah;’. It has been recorded in the Bible as follows:
and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the
mountains of which I shall tell you.69
It shows that the place of offering of the
lad for sacrifice was some ‘mountain into the land of Moriah’. The word ‘Moriah’ has been mentioned in the whole of
the Bible at only two places: (i) Gen. 22:2, i.e. and
get thee into the land of Moriah;
and
(ii) II Chron. 3:1, i.e. Then
Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusalem in mount Moriah, where the
Lord appeared unto David his father, in the place that David had prepared in
the
threshing floor of Ornan the Jebosite. Scholars have different opinions as to whether the mention
of Moriah at both the places of the Bible indicates one and the
same place, or they denote different locations. Harper’s BD has assigned two
different places for ‘Moriah’
(p. 654).
The Jewish Enc. asserts: Modern
scholars who distinguish between these two places advance different theories as
to the meaning of the word ‘Moriah.’70
‘Moriah’ has been located at the following places by different
scholars of the Bible and religious devotees:
1) A mountain near Hebron, as
Hastings Revised Dic. of Bible asserts: ‘some scholars
have proposed a location for Moriah
on a mountain near Hebron.’.71
2) Mount Gerizim near
‘modern town of Nablus, 4 km NW of ancient Shechem,’72 (Shechem is ‘about 50 km N of Jerusalem and 9
km SE of Samaria’73) where ‘Samaritan Temple’ was built.
3) Mount Calvary,
where Christ was afterwards claimed to have been crucified as the Devotional
Family BC Asserts: ‘There is no
improbability in the general opinion, that the very spot was mount
Calvary74 where
Christ the great anti-type was afterwards crucified.’75
4) The threshing floor of Araunah the Jebosite
near Jerusalem, which was bought from him by king David,
and where subsequently the ‘Temple’ was built by Solomon. The first three ‘Moriahs’
are being discussed in this chapter. The 4th ‘Moriah’
will be discussed in the next chapter.
a) ON A MOUNTAIN NEAR HEBRON
As regards the
1st ‘Moriah’ located
on a mountain near Hebron, no discussion is
required on it, because: (i) No notable scholar of the Bible considers it
discussible, noteworthy, or mentionable either. (ii) It is contradictory to the
Bible. Abraham had settled either at Hebron itself, or at Mamre76, which is 4 km
N of Hebron77. The Bible
says that Abraham had started his journey from his residence for ‘Moriah’ early in the
morning and after three days’ earnest
journey he was ‘afar
off’ from his destination. Is it conceivable
that even after three days’ earnest journey he could not cover so meager a
distance!
b) AT MOUNT CALVARY WHERE CHRIST IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN CRUCIFIED.
As regards the
2nd Moriah, which is allegedly located at Mount Calvary
where Christ is claimed to have been crucified, no discussion is required on it too, because: (i) No notable
scholar of the Bible considers it discussible, noteworthy, or mentionable
either. (ii) It is also not agreeable with the contents of the Bible. It was
either situated somewhere in the modern city of Jerusalem, but outside the
walls of the ancient city; or quite close to it78. It is not more than twenty miles either from Jerusalem, Beersheba, Hebron or
Mamre. It too could not have taken Abraham more than a few hours to reach here.
How can it be conceived that even after three days’ earnest
journey he could not cover so meagre a distance!
c) AT MOUNT GERIZIM.
As regards the
3rd ‘Moriah’, claimed to be situated at Mount Gerizim near
the ancient city of Shechem, the Samaritans
attached it to the site of the Temple to establish the sanctity and importance
of their sanctuary. The Illustrated Bible
Dic. records: ‘The
Samaritan tradition
identifies the site with Mt. Gerizim (as
though Moriah =
Moreh; cf. Gn. 12:6)’.79 Dummelow’s Com.
On Bible has also noted the similar remarks about it.80 7th Day Adventist Bible Dic. has
afforded a fairly detailed account of the theme: The Samaritans, who
consider Mount Gerizim the holy mountain of God, place the sacrifice of Isaac
on that mountain, and believe that Moriah was Moreh near Shechem; and that it was the site of the
first encampment of Abraham in the land of Canaan, where he built an altar to
the true God (Gen 12:6,7). Such an
identification, they believe,
justifies their separation from Jerusalem,
and their right to worship God on Mount Gerizim (see Jn 4:20,21). It is, of course, entirely without
support.81
Hastings Revised Single Volume Dic. of the
Bible has also afforded a similar observation:
There is some similarity between the names of
Moriah and ‘Moreh,’
the latter located near Shechem (Gn 12:6, Dt
11:30) and Mount Gerizim. And it may have been owing to this that the
Samaritans have claimed Gerizim as Abraham’s mountain (cf Jn 4:20). Gn 22:4 has been often cited to suggest that
Gerizim, a mountain visible for some distance, must be the Moriah of Abraham,
because he ‘lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off.’ 82
The Samaritans were bitterly against the
Southern kingdom of Judah. When the Chronicler attached the name of ‘Moriah’ to Solomon’s
Temple to establish the sanctity and importance of the Judean sanctuary, the
Samaritans, in response to it, attached the name ‘Moriah’ to their
sanctuary at Mount Gerizim or vice versa. S.
R. Driver’s observations in J. Hastings’ Dic. of
Bible conform to this opinion:
In view of the rivalry which prevailed in
later times between the Samaritans and the Jews, the preference of the former
for Gerizim does not count for much; and with regard to the other arguments it
may be doubted whether, in a narrative which cannot be by an eye-witness or contemporary
of the facts recorded, the expressions used are not interpreted with undue
strictness.83
The fertile brains of the Samaritans tried to
explore the probabilities for their claim. It is a common phenomenon that every
idea, howsoever absurd it be, attracts some curious ‘scholars’ and gains their
support. By the passage of time even some unprejudiced scholars, unmindful of
the ulterior motives of the innovators, consider the queer idea quite
objectively and discover some logic in it. In the same way a few scholars do
not outright reject the possibility of its carrying some logic; but most of the
scholars do not find any difficulty in appreciating its absurdity. The name ‘Moriah’ has never been
used for Mount Gerizim in the whole of the Bible. The annals of history and the
realm of knowledge are totally void of any ground for this purposeful
fabrication of the Samaritans. From all the above discussion it would be
appreciated that the Samaritans’ claim about the location of Abraham’s offering
his only son for sacrifice at Mount Gerizim was forged due to some regional,
sectarian, cultic and ethnic
rivalries; and is without any real ground. It
is to be noted that this Moreh was not a barren wilderness. It is a beautiful and
fertile hilly area with thick forests and abundant greenery all around it (the
Bible has also associated it with ‘oaks’). Not very far in its W is the great
sea
(Mediterranean); at some distance in the E is
the river Jordan; within the parameters of twenty to twenty five miles to its
NNE and SSE are the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea. Abraham having lived here
for a fairly considerable time, should have definitely been aware of it. It is
sheer absurdity if he carries a load of fuel wood to Moreh for some so-called
burnt offering. It is rather carrying coal to New Castle. Putting aside all the
above discussion, only this single plea rules out every possibility of
Abraham’s taking his only son to this place to offer him for sacrifice.
After migrating from his homeland in
Mesopotamia, Abraham traveled NW and reached Haran through Paddanaram (i.e.,
the plain of Syria). After staying there for some time he again started his
journey to SSW. Through Halab, Hamath, Damascus, etc he entered the land of
Canaan. Moreh was his first camping station in Canaan where he encamped his
family for some time. He then proceeded further to Egypt84 to explore some suitable base for his
missionary activities. Seeing that Egypt was
not a fertile field for his mission, he came back to Moreh and stayed there for
some time to explore new horizons for his missionary activities. His nephew,
Lot, remained with him throughout this missionary exploration. It was here at
Moreh that they decided to extend their
missionary activities in different lands. Lot chose to work in Edom and Abraham
made his base camp for his mission about twenty miles south of (Jeru-) Salem85 [the name of Jerusalem, in those days, was
mere ‘Salem’] and settled his family in the area of
Mamre, Hebron, and Machpelah. Beersheba, about twenty-five miles SSW of Hebron, was the
pasture of his herds and flocks. The family of Abraham had now ermanently
settled here and had left Moreh for good. The above information about Moreh has
been carefully collected from authentic sources such as atlases, commentaries,
dictionaries, encyclopedias, and the proper text of the Bible. Only two brief
excerpts are being provided hereunder. W. Smith ’s DB states: The oak of Moreh was the first recorded
halting-place of
Abram after his entrance into the land of
Canaan. Gen. 12:6. It was at the ‘place
of Shechem,’ ch. 12:6, close to the mountains of Ebal and Gerizim.
Deut. 11:30.86 Rev. A. H. Gunner and F. F. Bruce explain in
The Illustrated BD:
Dt. 11:30 makes reference to the
‘oak of Moreh’ in the district of Gilgal (i.e. the Shechemite Gilgal). It is
recorded that Abraham pitched his camp there on arriving in Canaan from Harran,
and it was there that God revealed himself to Abraham, promising to give the
land of Canaan to his descendants.87
***********************************************************************
Footnotes
69 Gen. 22:2,
NKJV.
70 The
Jewish Enc., 9:17.
71 Hastings
Dic. of Bible 674-5.
72 New Bible
Dic., II edn., N. Hillyer Revision edn.,
(Leicestor: Inter-Varsity Press, Eng., 1986), 415.
73 New Bible
Dic., II ed., 1099.
74 Matt.
27:33,4 Christian Community Bible, Catholic Pastoral
edn., 1995, p. 66-7 explains:
When they reached the place called Golgotha
(or Calvary) which means the Skull, they offered him wine mixed with gall. Jesus tasted it but would
not take it.
75 John
Fawcett, The Devotional Family Bible Com. (London: Suttaby, Evance & Co, 1811), Vol. I, no paging.
76 The place
‘Mamre’ should not be confused with ‘Moriah’. Both the places have quite different significance and
are located at different sites. F. F. Bruce writes in The Illustrated Bible Dic. on
page 940: A place
in the Hebron district, W from Machpelah (Gn. 23:17,
19; 49:30; 50:13), associated with Abraham (Gn. 13:18; 14:13; 18:1) and
Isaac (Gn. 35:27). Abraham resided for considerable periods under the terebinth of
Mamre; there he built an altar, there he learnt of the capture of Lot, there he
received Yahweh’s promise of a son and pleaded for Sodom, and from there he saw
the smoke of Sodom and its neighbor cities ascend. The site has been identified
at Rametel-Khalil, 4 km N of Hebron.
The same scholar, F. F. Bruce, explains in
his book ‘Places Abraham Knew’ on pp. 41, 43, 46:
In so far as Abraham had a place in Canaan
which could be called his home, it was at Mamre. His family and household could
stay here while he was leading caravans or taking part in pastoral activity
elsewhere. (…). To Jews, Christians and Muslims, however, its fame is based on
the fact that it was here that Abraham stayed and had those dealings with God
which have won for him the name ‘The Friend of God’.
It is also to be noted here that this Mamre
is associated with some terebinth tree or ‘oaks of Mamre’. It means that it was
not an inarable or barren land, fuel wood was abundantly available there, and
Abraham would not have needed to carry wood there for the burnt offering. It can,
therefore, be safely concluded that this Mamre has nothing to do with Moriah, the place of
Abraham’s offering his only son for sacrifice, as some scholars have asserted.
77 New Bible
Dic., II edn., 1:730.
78 Harper’s
Bible Dic. has explained the word ‘Calvary’ (p. 150) as:
the site of Jesus’ crucifixion. Three gospels recorded both the Semitic name of
this site, ‘Golgotha,’ and a translation, ‘Place of the Skull’ (Matt. 27:33;
Mark 15:22; John 19:17). Luke 23:33 records only a shorter and more accurate
translation, ‘Skull.’ The name ‘Calvary’ derives from the Vulgate’s Latin
translation of this word (calvaria). It is likely that the site was so named
because of its habitual use for executions. Less likely is an explanation rooted
in the physical appearance of the place. Apart from the name very little is
confidently known about Calvary. John 19:20 and Jewish and Roman execution
customs indicate that it was located outside Jerusalem’s city walls. Roman crucifixion
customs and the reference to passers-by
(Matt. 27:39) also suggest it was near a thoroughfare, while the fact that the
cross was visible from afar (Matt. 27:55) could indicate an elevated location. Nevertheless
its precise location remains in dispute.
79 The
Illustrated Bible Dic., (Inter-Varsity Press,
1980), 2:1025.
80 J. R.
Dummelow, A Com. on The Holy Bible (NY: The Macmillan Co, 1956), 30 says:
The Samaritans assert that Mt. Gerizim was
the scene of the event, regarding Moriah as Moreh in Shechem.
81 7th Day Adventist Bible Dic., Revised edn., ed. Siegfried H. Horn (Hagerstown: Review &
Herald Publishing. Association, 1979), 760.
82 Hastings
Dic. of Bible Rvd., 674-5.
83 Hastings
Dic. of Bible, s.v. ‘Moriah’ by S. R. Driver, 3:437.
84 It may either
be the North Eastern Egypt or the peninsula of Sinai.
85 (Gn 14:18),
identified with Jerusalem in Ps 76:3 and in early Jewish tradition, which is
accepted by modern interpreters. (J. L McKenzie’s Dic. of Bible, 759).
86 W. Smith’s A Dic. of Bible, 416.
87 The
Illustrated Bible Dic., 2:1025.
***************************************************************************************
Chapter VI
JERUSALEM
AS THE SITE CLAIMED TO BE MORIAH
(THE PLACE OF OFFERING)
The claim of the Biblical Scholars regarding the site of Moriah,
at Jerusalem, requires a fairly detailed discussion.
It was given the name of ‘Moriah’ to attach
importance and reverence to the house of the Lord, commonly known as the
‘Temple’. McKenzie’s Dic. of Bible explains:
The hill on which Solomon’s temple was built
is called Moriah (2
Ch 3:1), the only other incidence of the name; but this is in all probability
due to the theological invention, which identified the Temple, the place of
Yahweh’s dwelling and of Israel’s worship, with the site of the sacrifice of
Isaac.88
In fact the site of the Temple had previously
been without any proper name. It was simply called ‘the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebosite.’
The name ‘Moriah’
was ascribed to it usurpingly to attach reverence and importance to it. G. A. Barrois has expounded the point in the Interpreter’s DB as below: Since
the name Moriah
appears nowhere else in the texts relative to the topography of Jerusalem,
there is good reason to suspect that the author of Chronicles intended to
ascribe an early origin to the royal sanctuary, by identifying the unnamed
hilltop formerly used as a threshing floor with the mountain in the land of Moriah,
where Abraham had made ready to sacrifice his son.89
The Chronicler himself, who has attributed
the name of ‘Moriah’
to the place, does not use this name for the place anywhere else in his
narratives, whereas he has referred to this place at a number of times. Had the
place had its identification with the proper name ‘Moriah’, it must have been used by the Chronicler
at other places as well.
Moreover, it was claimed to be situated in
the city of Jerusalem, which was the most important city for the Jewish people.
Then it was claimed to be the site of Solomon’s Temple, which had always
remained the most important building to the Jewish community ever since its construction.
How could it be that it had nowhere been mentioned with the nomenclature of ‘Moriah’ in the whole of
the Bible except this forgery. Here is the fairly lengthy text of the narrative
from the Bible to acquaint the reader with the background of the event:
(15) And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to
destroy it: and as he was destroying, the Lord beheld, and he repented him of the
evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, it is enough, stay now thine hand.
And the angel of the Lord stood by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.
(…). (18) Then the angel
of the Lord commanded Gad to say to David,
that David should go up, and set up an altar unto the Lord in the threshingfloor
of Ornan the Jebusite. (…). (21) And
as David came to Ornan, Ornan looked and saw David, and went out of the
threshingfloor, and bowed himself to David with his
face on the ground. (22) Then
David said to Ornan, Grant me the place of this threshing-floor,
that I may build an altar therein unto the Lord: thou shalt grant it me for the
full price: that the plague may be stayed from the people. (23) And Ornan said unto David, Take it
to thee, and let my lord the king do that
which is good in his eyes: lo, I give thee the
oxen also for burnt offerings, and the threshing
instruments for wood, and the wheat for the meat offering; I give it all. (24) And king David said to Ornan, Nay; but I will
verily buy it for the full price: for I will not take that
which is thine for the Lord, nor offer burnt
offerings without cost. (25) So David gave to Ornan for the place six
hundred shekels of gold by weight. (26) And
David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace
offerings, and called upon the Lord; and he answered him from heaven by fire
upon the altar of burnt offering. (27) And
the Lord commanded the angel; and he put up his sword again into the sheath
thereof. (28) At that time when David saw that the Lord had
answered him in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite, then he sacrificed
there.90 It may be
observed in the above narrative that the alleged place of ‘Moriah’ has been
mentioned in these few lines for eleven times with the names of (1) the
threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite, or merely (2) the threshingfloor, or (3) the
place of this threshingfloor,
or simply (4) the place, or the pronouns (5) it, (6) there, and (7) therein.
But the proper name ‘Moriah’
has not been attributed to it even for a single time in the whole of the
narrative. It may further be observed that these different words for the place
have been used by different persons as detailed below:
a) The phrase ‘the threshingfloor of Ornan
the Jebusite’: (1) once by the redactor of the book, (2) once by David, and (3)
once by the angel of the Lord [which shows that even the angel of the Lord (and as he was speaking on behalf of God, that even the Lord
Himself) did not know that the name of the site of the
Temple was ‘Moriah’]. (Total: 3 times).
b) The phrase ‘the threshingfloor’: only
once, and that by the redactor of the book.
c) The phrase ‘the place of this
threshingfloor’: only once, and that by David.
d) The word ‘therein’: only once, and that
also by David.
e) The word ‘it’: (1) twice by David, and (2)
once by Ornan the Jebusite. (Total - 3 times).
f) The word ‘there’: only once, and that by
the redactor of the book.
g) The Words ‘the place’: only once, and that
also by the redactor of the book. It means
that neither the angel of the Lord (and as he was speaking on behalf of God, so
it would mean that even the Lord Himself) knew that the name of the place,
where the Solomon’s Temple was to be built later on, was ‘Moriah’, nor the redactor
of the book, or King David, or Ornan the Jebusite knew it. It is simply
unbelievable! Had ‘Moriah’
been the name of the place, and that too, from the times of the Patriarch
Abraham or even before that; and that too, in connection with such a
conspicuous event as that of the offering of his only son for sacrifice at this
place; how could it be possible that the angel of the Lord, and king David, and
the redactor of the book, and the owner of the place, Ornan the Jebusite, might
so indifferently, rather disdainfully, have disregarded even the mention of the
proper name of this place throughout the narrative! Fl. Josephus has also
afforded a narrative of the event in his ‘Antiquities’, which will further
elaborate the point:
When God heard his [David’s] supplication, he caused the pestilence to
cease; and sent Gad the prophet to him, and commanded him to go up immediately
to the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebosite, and build an altar there to
God, and offer sacrifices. When David heard that, he did not neglect his duty,
but made haste to the place appointed him. Now Araunah was threshing wheat; and
when he saw the king and all his servants coming to him, he ran before, and
came to him (…). Now Araunah inquired, Wherefore is my lord come to his
servant? He answered, To buy of him the threshing-floor, that he might therein
build an altar to God, and offer a sacrifice. He replied, That he freely gave
him both the threshing-floor, and the ploughs and the oxen for a burnt
offering; and he besought God graciously to accept his sacrifice; (…); and when
Araunah said he would do as he pleased, he bought the threshing-floor of him
for fifty shekels; and when he had built an altar, he performed divine service,
and brought a burnt offering, and offered peace offerings also. (…). Now when
king David saw that God had heard his prayer, and had graciously accepted of
his sacrifices, he resolved to call that entire place The Altar of all the
People, and to build a temple to God there;91
In the above passage, as in the previous one,
the place allegedly named ‘Moriah’
by the Chronicler has been mentioned seven times; but has nowhere been
mentioned with the name of ‘Moriah’.
Amazingly, when King David himself prescribes a name for the place, he gives it
the name of ‘The Altar of all the People’. Had it been the sacred place whose
name had been ‘Moriah’
even before Abraham, having such a significant tradition attached to it as the
sacrifice of Abraham’s ‘firstborn, and the only, and beloved son’, king David
would definitely have known it and would certainly have used it for the place.
He could never have dared to ignore the mention of this important name and
could never have dared to change it with a second rate name as ‘The Altar of
all the People’. Another aspect of the proposition is also to be looked into. Abraham
lived either at Hebron (Al-Khaleel of today), or at Mamre which is about three
kilometer N. of Hebron. The pasture of his herds and flocks was at Beersheba, which is about
twenty-five miles S of Hebron. The distance between Jerusalem and Hebron is not
more than twenty miles. Abraham had set out for journey early in the morning,
which shows his steadiness, eagerness, promptness, and sense of duty towards
God. If he started his journey from Hebron, he had to travel twenty miles. If
he started from Mamre, he had to travel
only eighteen miles. If he started from Beersheba, he had to travel for about forty miles.
Whatever the starting point of his journey be; as he was travelling on his
donkey, and started the journey early in the morning, and undertook the journey
earnestly; 92 it may have
taken him merely a day or so to reach his destination, had it been in Jerusalem
(which was between eighteen to about forty miles from his every possible place
of residence). But the Bible asserts that even after three days’ journey he was
still ‘afar off’ from the appointed place. It means, as ‘The New Jerome Bible Commentary’
has well observed, that the total journey might have taken him well-nigh seven
days to reach his destination,93 which could in no case have been Jerusalem, because the actual
destination was at such a long distance as to require such a long time. One may
not agree with the ‘New Jerome BC’, but nobody can deny the fact that after three consecutive days’94 earnest journey they had not reached their
destination and were still ‘afar off’ their destination. It rules out the idea
of the ‘Moriah’
being situated at the hilltop at Jerusalem, which was almost one, or, at the
most, two day’s journey. This ambiguity has also been
noted by the scholars of the Bible. The
Illustrated Bible Dic.
explains: The only other mention
of the name occurs in 2 Ch. 3:1, where the site of Solomon’s Temple is said to
be on mount Moriah,
on the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite where God appeared to David (…). It
should be noted that no reference is made here to Abraham in connection with
this site. It has been objected that Jerusalem is not sufficiently distant from
S Philistia to have required a 3 day’s journey to get there,95 and that one of the characteristics of
Jerusalem is that the Temple hill is not visible until the traveler is quite
close, so that the correctness of the Biblical identification is called in
question.96 Peake’s Com. on the Bible has also
discussed the theme in a reasonable way. It asserts: In
v. 2 the scene of the episode is said to be a
mountain ‘in the land of Moriah’,
and it is possible that these words and the obscure phrase in v. 14, ‘in the Mount (i.e the Temple Mount) where
Yahweh is seen.’ (where the Hebrew text has evidently suffered some
corruption), may have been inserted by the Priestly editor to carry back the
sanctity of the Temple site to the age of Abraham. But it is
impossible that the Temple Mount at Jerusalem could have been the scene of the incident
for various reasons.97
In the light of the above information, it can
be asserted that the name of the hilltop on which the Solomon’s Temple was
built, had been ‘the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite’, and not ‘Moriah’; and it had
wrongly been ascribed to it by the Chronicler to attach sanctity and significance to the site of the ‘Temple’. The
concept of some ‘Moriah’
at the site of the Solomon’s Temple is completely void of any ground reality
and is merely a fabrication. S. R. Driver observes in Hastings DB that the location of ‘Moriah’ at Jerusalem is
the idea of the Chronicler. He asserts that it is obviously a
matter of doubtful nature. He rules out the possibility of Jerusalem being the
place of Moriah due
to the fact that it cannot be seen from a distance, whereas the Bible asserts, ‘Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his
eyes, and saw the place afar off.’ His observations are being recorded hereunder:
What was originally denoted by this
designation is very obscure. It is indeed evident that in 2Ch 3:1 the Temple hill is referred to; but this does
not settle the sense of the expression ‘land of Moriah’ in Gn 22:2:
the Chronicler may, in common with the later Jews, have supposed that that was the
scene of the sacrifice of Isaac, and borrowed the expression from Gn 22:2—perhaps to suggest that the spot was chosen already by J” in the patriarchal
age. (…). It is remarkable that, though it is here implied that it is well known
to Abraham, the region is not mentioned elsewhere in the OT. It is difficult,
under the circumstances, not to doubt the originality of the text; (…);
Gerizim, moreover, is an elevation which a traveler approaching from
the S. might ‘lift up his eyes’ (22:4) and
see onspicuously at a distance, which is not the case with Jerusalem.98
L. Reed and A. H. McNeile in their article on
‘Moriah’ in the Hastings’ Revised (One Volume) Dic. of Bible assert that the tradition of identifying ‘Moriah’ with the site of the Solomon’s
Temple is not traceable:
The Chronicler (2
Ch 3:1) leaves no doubt concerning the Jewish tradition that Mount Moriah was the Temple
hill where Solomon built the house of the Lord in Jerusalem and the place of
David’s heophany. Efforts to identify the source of this tradition have been
unsuccessful.99
Michael Avi-Yonah observes in the Encyclopedia Judaica that the
identification of Moriah
with the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite at Jerusalem is farfetched and is
aimed to attach importance to the Solomon’s Temple:
The assumption that Abraham intended to
sacrifice Isaac on the threshing floor of Jebus (Jerusalem), in full view of the
Canaanite city, is farfetched; nor is the Temple Mount visible from afar, as it
is hidden by the higher mountains around it. It seems more probable that the
biblical story left the location of Moriah deliberately vague; the importance of the sacrifice of
Isaac in the series of covenants between God
and Israel made it natural [to the later redactors of the Bible] that at an
early time this supreme act of faith was located on the site destined to become
the most holy sanctuary of Israel, the Temple of Solomon, just as the
Samaritans transferred the act to their holy mountain, Mt. Gerizim.100
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia observes:
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia observes:
This land is mentioned only here [Gen. 22:2], and there is little to guide us in trying
to identify it. A late writer (2 Chronicles 3:1) applies
the name of Moriah
to the mount on which Solomon’s Temple was built, possibly associating it with
the sacrifice of Isaac. A similar association with this mountain may have been
in the mind of the writer of Genesis 22 (see 22:14),
who, of course, wrote long after the events described (Driver). (…). The description
could hardly apply to Jerusalem in any case, as it could not be seen ‘afar off’ by one
approaching either from the South or the West. (…). With our present knowledge
we must be content to leave the question open (W. Ewing).101
It is only the book of Chronicles in the
whole of the Bible, which designates ‘Moriah’ as the site for the Solomon’s Temple (II
Chr. 3:1).
Curiously, as already stated, the Chronicler, while narrating earlier the purchase of the site by
David from Ornan the Jebusite in his I Chr. 21:15-28, does not mention the name of ‘Moriah’ for the place where the Solomon’s Temple
was to be built later. He simply uses the ‘thresingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite’
as the name of the place throughout the narrative for a number of times. Had ‘Moriah’ been the name of
the place, he must have used this name categorically. Actually the source of the
Chronicler for this narrative is II Samuel and he retells the incident from II
Sam. 24:16-25. There too
the name ‘Moriah’
has nowhere been mentioned for the place, as can be appreciated from the
following quotation: And when the angel stretched out his hand
upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord repented him of the evil, and said to
the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the
angel of the Lord was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite. (17) And
David spake unto the Lord when he saw the angel that smote the people, and
said, Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: but these sheep, what have
they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against my father’s
house. (18) And Gad came that day to David, and said unto
him, Go up, rear an altar unto the Lord in the threshingfloor of Araunah the
Jebusite. (19) And David, according to the saying of Gad,
went up as the Lord commanded. (20) And
Araunah looked, and saw the king and his servants coming on towards him: and
Araunah went out, and bowed himself before the king on his face upon the ground. (21) And Araunah said, Wherefore is my lord the
king come to his servant? And David said, To buy the threshingfloor of thee, to
build an altar unto the Lord, that the plague may be stayed from the people. (22) And Araunah said unto David, Let my lord the
king take and offer of what seemeth good unto him: behold, here
be oxen for burnt sacrifice, and threshing instruments and other
instruments of the oxen for wood.
(23) All these things did Araunah, as
a king, give unto the king. And Araunah said unto the king, The
Lord thy God accept thee. (24) And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I
will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer
burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So
David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.102 (25) And David built there an altar unto the Lord,
and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. So the Lord was intreated103 for the land, and the plague was stayed from
Israel.104 Prior to
the Chronicler, the details of the plan of the Temple, the stages and style of
the construction with meticulous drawings, measurements and other details of
the building, had been recorded in I Kings vi-viii and Ezekiel xl-xlvii. The word
‘Moriah’ has
nowhere been used in both of these accounts. The Chronicler was not an
eye-witness of the event. He wrote the details after the lapse of seven
centuries of the event as elaborated later. He gave the name ‘Moriah’ to the place to
sanctify the site of the Temple. Nobody else had ever used the word ‘Moriah’ for the site of
the Temple before him. Afterwards, any one else who used the name ‘Moriah’ for the site of
the Temple, copied it from the ‘Chronicles’. It was the sole source of all the
later credulous writers of so called ‘histories’, who eagerly picked it up
without undertaking any objective and analytical appraisal of the statement and
its sources. This is not ‘history’. ‘Wishful thinking and imaginative
creativity’ may be good qualities for the writer of a piece of literature, but
they are plainly a demerit for a sober and genuine historian and are bound to
damage his credibility. Instead of Moriah, the Bible locates the Temple at mount Zion at some
places, but it is not a unanimous opinion.105
The sole place in the whole of the Bible
where the site of the Solomon’s Temple has been attached to ‘Moriah’ is the book of
Chronicles (II Ch. 3:1). It has
been explained above that it was not based on any objective reality or
historical facts. It was a ‘theological invention’ and was fabricated to attach
reverence and importance to the ‘House of the Lord’.106
It is hoped that the reader of this chapter
of the book and the relevant Appendix III at the end of the book would face no
hardship in concluding that:
(a) The statement of the Solomon’s Temple
having been built at ‘Moriah’
is a blatant forgery of the Chronicler; and
(b) The status, canonicity, historicity, and
credibility of the Chronicler is not above board.
The claim that ‘Moriah’ was the site of Solomon’s Temple is quite
baseless, absurd and arbitrary; and the mention of Moriah in II Chronicles (3:1) should be considered as null and void, being a baseless
invention of the Chronicler. As the last four locations (according to the above
categorization) claimed by the Bible scholars to be the spot of Abraham’s
offering his ‘only son’ for sacrifice stand ruled out through ample
argumentation, there remains only one site in the whole of the Bible (Gen. 22:2); which can be claimed as the genuine ‘Moriah’ where Abraham had offered his ‘only
son’ for sacrifice. A detailed study on the subject is being undertaken in the
next chapter.
**********************************************************************************************
Foot notes
88 John L.
McKenzie’s Dic. of Bible, 586.
89 The
Interpreter’s Dic. of Bible, 3:438-9.
90 I Chr.
21:15-28 KJV. Originally the story had been recorded in II Samuel 24:16-25, which is the source of the Chronicler. Some
of its excerpts have been afforded in this chapter below to enable the reader to
make a comparative study. It will be appreciated that II Samuel has referred to
this place for a number of times, but he has never used the word ‘Moriah’ for it.
91 The Works
of Flavius Josephus, Tr. William Whiston (Boston: D Lothrop
& Co., n.d.): Antiquities XIII: 4, pp. 203-4.
92 W. Gunther
Plaut, The Torah, A Modern Com. (NY: Union of Am.Heb. Congregations, 1981), 154 explains:
Abraham and his followers rose ‘early in the
morning’ and ‘went unto’ the place of which God had told him; (…); it is as if,
while he traveled on, Abraham had looked neither to the right nor to the left,
had suppressed any sign of life in his followers and himself save only their
footfalls.
93 Raymond E.
Brown, The New Jerome Bible Com., (Bangalore, India: TPI, 1994), 25 explains: This may be the
halfway point of a seven-day journey ending in the arrival at the mountain.
94 John
Fawcett, The D. Family Bible, 1811, Vol. I, no paging, notes: and after that long journey (…)
the place was far distant: Mount Moriah; (…). He travels three successive days.
95 Not to say
of three days, the actual journey which is allegedly claimed to be undertaken,
was of not less than a week, as observed by the New Jerome Bible Com. (p. 25);
whereas, in view of the earnestness of Abraham and the distance to be covered
being small, it could not have taken him more than about one day, had the
destination been Jerusalem.
96 T. C.
Mitchell, The Illustrated Bible Dic., 2:1025.
97 Peake’s
Com. on the Bible, 193.
98 Hastings
Dic. of Bible, 3: 437, s.v. ‘Moriah’ by S.R. Driver.
99 Hastings
Dic. of Bible, Revised Single volume edn., 674-5.
100 Enc
Judaica 1997 ed. CD-ROM. Version 1.0, Judaica
Multimedia (Israel) Ltd., S.v. ‘Moriah’.
101 International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia, OR USA: Books For The
Ages, AGES Software, Versioin 1.0 © 1997, 7:924,24.
102 The
Chronicler (I Chr. 21:25) says: ‘So David gave to Ornan for the place
six hundred shekels of gold by weight’, which is obviously an exaggeration of
the Chronicler, which is his common feature—the discrepancy in the two
statements is also to be noted.
103 Archaic
form of ‘entreat’. The NKJV makes the sense clear through his translation: ‘So
the Lord heeded the prayers for the land,’. NIV translates it as: ‘Then the
Lord answered prayer in behalf of the land, and the plague on Israel was
stopped.’.
104 II Sam.
24:16-25 KJV .
105 Hastings’
Dic. of the Bible (4:983) writes: Throughout
the OT there are passages which have no meaning, if Zion and the temple hill
were two separate topographical features. Zion is the holy hill or mountain
(Ps26), the chosen habitation of Jahweh (Ps 911 742 762 847 13213, Is 818 6014, Jer 810, Zec 83).
There He manifests Himself (Ps 147202 536 1285 1343, Am 12); and there He must be worshipped and
praised (Ps 651,2, Jer 316). (….). In 1 Maccabees, written c. BC 100 by some one who was well acquaited with the
localities, Zion is identified with the temple hill (437,38 534 733 etc),
and so it is in 1Es 881 2Es525 Sir2410, and Jth 913 [See also Ps 78 68,69 and Jer 50 28].
106 It would be
quite pertinent to make an objective assessment of the canonicity,
authenticity, and historicity of the book. It has been afforded at the end of
this book as Appendix III under the title of: ‘The Status of the Book of
Chronicles’
*************************************************************************************
Chapter VII
THE ACTUAL SITE OF MORIAH
Or AL-MARWAH
As regards this
Moriah,
which is pronounced by the ’Arabs as ‘al-Marwah’, it is the only
one genuine ‘Moriah’
(Gen. 22:2); [Moriah (Hebrew: מוֹרִיָּה, Modern Moriyya Tiberian Môriyyā ; "ordained/ considered by the LORD") (Arabic: مروة Marwah) is the name given to a mountain range
.jpg) |
| Marwah (Moriah) is located about 350 m (1,150 ft) from the Kaaba. The distance between Safa and Marwah is approximately 300 m (980 ft), so that seven trips amount to roughly 2.1 km (1.3 mi). The two points and the path between them are now inside a long gallery that forms part of the Masjid Al Haram Kaaba. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriah ] that is the actual place where Abraham was
asked to offer his ‘only son’ for sacrifice.
The fact is that the site of Abraham’s
offering his ‘only son’ for sacrifice is unknown to the scholars of the Bible. An objective and analytic study has been undertaken in the
following lines to thrash out the real position of the theme.
THE ACTUAL SITE
OF MORIAH
IS UNKNOWN
TO
THE SCHOLARS OF THE BIBLE.
Some of the quotations from the authorities
on Biblical literature are being afforded hereunder, which show that the scholars
of the Bible are at a loss to locate the actual place where Abraham had offered his only son for
sacrifice:
(i) W.Gunther Plaut, observes in ‘The Torah, A Modern Commentary’: The
original name is obscure and the actual location unknown.107
(ii) L. Reed and A. H. McNeile in their
article on ‘Moriah’
in Hastings’ Revised Dic. of Bible assert that ‘evidence is not available for locating Moriah of Abraham’s
time’: Because the place of origin of the journey is not stated in Genesis,
it is best to conclude that evidence is not available for locating Moriah of Abraham’s time.108
 |
| MARWA MOUNTAIN LOCATION IN MACCA NEAR KAABA ( RIGHT HAND CORNER) |
(iii) New
Jerusalem Bible states that the site of ‘Moriah’ is unknown: But
the text speaks of a ‘land of Moriah’, of which the name is otherwise unattested: the site of
the sacrifice is unknown.109
(iv) A New
Commentary on Holy Scripture explains: The
land of Moriah is
an unknown locality.110
(v) The 7th
Day Adventist Bible Com. observes: The
name seems to have been rather uncommon.111
(vi) The New
Oxford Annotated Bible asserts that the place is
unknown: The mountain in the land of Moriah is unknown.112
(vii) Dummelow’s
Com. on the Holy Bible indicates the uncertainty
regarding the identification of both the places:
The land of Moriah] only mentioned again 2 Ch 3:1, ‘Then Solomon
began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusalem in Mount Moriah.’ It is uncertain
whether the two places are to be identified.113
(viii) The New
Bible Com. states that there is no ground reality to
certify the exact location of this place:
The land of Moriah (2). There is nothing in ancient topography
to certify the exact location of this place, nor yet the mountain itself,114
(ix) The
Wycliffe Bible Com.’s remarks are: The
place of the sacrifice cannot be positively identified.115
(x) The Interpreter’s
Dic. of Bible asserts: The location is
otherwise unspecified.116
(xi) The ‘Harper’s
Bible Dic. has recorded the similar views about it: An
unidentified site in rugged terrain three day’s travel from Beersheba where Abraham
was to sacrifice Isaac.117
(xii) T. K. Cheyne observes in the Enc. Biblica: Great
obscurity hangs about this name,118
(xiii) Rev, B. Vawter, Professor of Sacred
Scripture, De Paul University, Chicago, has asserted in A New CatholicCommentary: ‘The
land of Moriah’ has
never been identified.119
(xiv) Michael Avi-Yonah has also recorded the
same viewpoint in the Encyclopedia Judaica:
MORIAH
(Heb. ___),
an unidentified locality mentioned in the Bible.120
(xv) The
Encyclopedia of Judaism has also made the similar
observation: Moriah; a place,
originally unidentified, to which God sent Abraham:121
(xvi) The
Jerome Bible Com. has observed: The ‘district of Moriah’ is unknown.122
(xvii) Peter R. Ackroyd, Samuel Davidson
Professor of OT Studies, University of London, King’s College, in his article
‘The OT in the Making’ has entered a footnote on his sentence ‘So we have
sanctuary legends (…) and a high place at Jebus (Jerusalem, 2 Sam. 24)
subsequently rightly or wrongly identified with the site of the Jerusalem
temple (I Chrn. 21-22:1)’: The identification must remain uncertain, and
indeed suspect, since the Chronicler also identifies the same site with Moriah (2 Chron. 3:1, cf.
Gen. 22).123
(xviii) The same writer further asserts:
What is clear, however, is that the
Chronicler sees this narrative in I Chron. 21 as providing an appropriate introduction
to his account of how David prepared for the building of the Temple by Solomon
(I Chron. 22:2-19; 28-29:9. The intervening section, chs. 23-7, may well be a later insertion, but it too
illuminates the ideas concerning David’s organising of the worship of the
Temple). Whereas the 2 Sam. narrative makes no link with the building of the Solomonic
Temple–and this strongly suggests that the narrative originally had to do with
another sacred place–the Chronicler identifies the site precisely (22:1), explains why David could not go to Gibeon124 where the Tabernacle was (21:29-30), and subsequently also identifies this site
explicitly with the Mount Moriah
of Gen. 22 (2 Chron. 3:1), an
even more improbable identification.125
(xix) International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia has also dilated
upon the theme. It explains the site as follows:
This land is mentioned only here Gen 22:2, and there is little to guide us in trying
to identify it. A late writer (2 Chronicles 3:1) applies the name of Moriah to the mount on which
Solomon’s Temple was built, possibly associating it with the sacrifice of
Isaac. A similar association with this mountain may have been in the mind of
the writer of Genesis 22 (see 22:14), who, of course, wrote long after the
events described (Driver). (…). The description could hardly apply to Jerusalem
in any case, as it could not be seen “afar off” by one approaching either from
the South or the West. (…).
With our present knowledge we must be content
to leave the question open. W. Ewing126
No doubt it is an uninteresting practice to
quote so many authorities on a theme; but it was essential to show that it is not
a rare or minority opinion. That’s why ample evidence has been afforded from almost
every school of thought. It may also be noted that those who do not acknowledge
the unidentified nature of the location of Moriah, locate it at various places and are
dubiously confused. It would thus be appreciated that the objective study of
most of the scholars of the Bible reveals that, according to the Bible, the location
of Abraham’s offering his ‘only son’ for sacrifice cannot be identified with
exactness and certainty.
Having failed to locate the place in the
written annals of history pertaining to the Bible, one should try to trace it through
some ground realities or some perpetual traditions, commemorations,
celebrations, rituals, sites, buildings, etc. of the relevant nations on the
theme.
**********************************************************************
107 W. Gunther
Plaut, The Torah, A Modern Commentary, 146.
108 Hastings
Dic. of Bible, Revised. Single volume edn., 674-5.
109 Henry
Wansbrough, The New Jerusalem Bible (London: Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd., 1993), 41.
110 Charles
Gore, Goudge, A Guillaume, A New Com. on Holy Scripture, (London: Society for Promoting Christian
knowledge, 1928), 53.
111 7th Day Adventist Bible Com., 1:349.
112 The New
Oxford Annotated Bible, (NY: Oxford
University Press, 1989), footnote on p. 27.
113 J. R.
Dummelow, Com. On Holy Bible, (1956), 30.
114 New Bible
Com., ed. F. Davidson (Michigan: W M B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., Grand Rapids, 1953), 94.
115 The
Wycliffe Bible Com., Charles F. Pfeiffer (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983), 27.
116 Interpreter’s
Dic. of Bible, 3:438.
117 Harper’s
Bible Dic., 654.
118 Enc.
Biblica, 3:3200.
119 A New
Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 195.
120 Enc.
Judaica, 1997 edn. CD-ROM. Version 1.0, Co, s.v.
‘Moriah’.
121 The
Judaic CD ROM Reference
Library Vol. I, Contents.
The Enc. Of Judaism Copyright 1989-G. G. the Jerusalem Publishing House, 1993,
DAVKA Corporation and the Institute for Computers
in Jewish Life,
s.v. ‘Moriah’.
122 The
Jerome Bible Com., 23.
123 The
Cambridge History of the Bible, (1970), 1:69.
124 Gibeon is
the scene of the victory by David over the Philistines. Before the Temple was
built the Tabernacle and brazen altar stood here (Collins Gem DB, 1974, p.195).
125 The
Cambridge History of the Bible, 1:89.
126 International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1997, 7:924.
*************************************************************************************
Chapter VIII
SOME QUESTIONS TO TRACE
THE ACTUAL SITE OF MORIAH
Here are some questions, which would help in
thrashing out the solution to the problem:
1) Had Abraham any son who could genuinely
have been claimed to be his ‘only son’ upto the age of his being
circumstantially suitable to be offered for sacrifice?
2) Did that ‘only son’ permanently live with
his father Abraham or had he been shifted to somewhere else to be settled
there? What was the name and location of that place?
3) Is
there any evidence of this ‘only son’s’ progeny having been perpetuated at the
place of his new settlement [Paran and Beersheba]?
4) Is there any tradition related to this
‘only son’s’ having been offered there for sacrifice by his father Abraham?
5) Is this tradition of Abraham’s offering
his ‘only son’ for sacrifice related to any mountain in that land of Moriah?
6) Are
there any physical remains pertaining to the act of the sacrifice near this
mount ‘Moriah’ of the Bible (al-Marwah of the Arabs)?
7) Is
there any Concrete, Physical, and Material evidence of the presence of
Ishma‘el, his mother Hagar, and his father Abraham at the site of this ‘Moriah’?
8) Are there any festivities having
perpetually been celebrated to commemorate this great event of Abraham’s
offering his ‘only son’ for sacrifice there; and are these festivities related
to some places around this ‘Moriah’?
9) Is there any other tradition among the
Arabs that confirms their relation to Abraham and Ishma‘el?
10) Is
there any building or sanctuary in the vicinity of this ‘al-Marwah’ (‘Moriah’
of the Bible), whose construction has been assigned to the patriarchs Abraham
and Ishma‘el; ?
11)
Are there any traces which confirm that the construction of al-Ka’bah had been undertaken
by Abraham and Ishma‘el?
12) Is there any evidence of Isaac or his
progeny having ever been to some ‘Moriah’ to commemorate Isaac’s having been offered for
sacrifice?
13) Does the Bible state where Ishma‘el and
his mother Hagar had breathed their last and what is their burial site; in the
way as it gives these details about Abraham, his wife Sarah, and his son Isaac;
and why?
14) Is there any established tradition
regarding the burying place of Ishma‘el and his mother Hagar amongst the Arabs,
who are the historically established progeny of Ishma‘el?
15) Why has this ambiguity been created by
the redactors of the Bible?
THE QUESTIONS ANSWERED
As regards the 1st question (Had
Abraham any son who could genuinely have been claimed to be his ‘only son’ upto
the age of his being circumstantially suitable to be offered for sacrifice?), Ishma‘el
was Abraham’s firstborn son, who remained his ‘only son’ for nearly fourteen
years. The age of thirteen years circumstantially suits and is compatible to all
considerations for his being offered for sacrifice.
As regards the 2nd question (Did
that ‘only son’ permanently live with his father Abraham or had he been shifted
to somewhere else to be settled there? What was the name and location of that
place?), Ishma‘el, together with his mother Hagar, had been shifted by
his father Abraham to the wilderness of Paran in the land of Moriah, near Beersheba (Well of Seven127); and they had settled there permanently. Abraham himself, along
with his first wife, Sarah, had settled in Hebron and Beersheba (Well of Oath128) in Southern Canaan. Beersheba (Well of Seven) has been explained in Supplement I http://neurotherapy-of-christian-brain.blogspot.ae/2013/05/well-of-zamzam-or-wilderness-of.html and the wilderness of Paran
has been discussed in detail by this writer elsewhere. As to Moriah, it has been
discussed in detail in chapters V, VI,VII, and VIII of this book
As regards the 3rd question (Is
there any evidence of this ‘only son’s’ progeny having been perpetuated at the
place of his new
settlement [Paran and Beersheba]?), it is the
factual position that Ishma‘el’s progeny has been living in Makkah and other
parts of Arabia since time immemorial, and is still living there. The Bible
claims that Hagar and Ishma‘el had been settled by Abraham in the Wilderness of
Paran and Beersheba, and both of
these places have allegedly been claimed to be located in Sinai. But, even
according to the Bible, there are no traces of any Ishma‘elites in Sinai. That
they have been living around Makkah in Arabia, has been discussed in detail in the
next chapter of this book.
As regards the 4th question (Is there any tradition related to this ‘only son’ having been
offered there for sacrifice by his father Abraham?), it is a ground reality that millions of pilgrims travel to
Makkah in the lunar month of Dhu al-Hijjah to offer sacrifice in commemoration
of Abraham’s offering his ‘only son’, Ishma‘el, for sacrifice. Hundreds of millions
of people offer the same sacrifice in their hometowns at the same time. This
tradition has come down for centuries before the advent of Islam. Nowhere on earth is celebrated any such tradition to
commemorate any so called offering of Isaac for sacrifice by his father
Abraham.
The horns of the ram offered in place of
Ishma‘el remained preserved in al-Ka’bah until 64 AH/683 AD, when the Ka’bah
was rebuilt by Abd Allah b. Zubayr. The Enc. Of Islam has recorded:
The two horns of Abraham’s ram did not
crumble to dust until the rebuilding of the Ka’bah by ‘Abd Allah b. al-Zubayr.129
It is recorded both in Biblical and Muslim tradition
that the son going to be offered for sacrifice was ransomed with a ram. A
renowned Muslim scholar and commentator of the Holy Qur’an, Mawlana
Amin Ahsan Islahi
, while explaining the Quranic verse 37:107
in his magnum opus Tadabbur-e-Qur’an asserts:
Allah asserts: ‘We ransomed Ishma‘el with a
great sacrifice.’ It indicates that We instructed Abraham to offer a ram as
sacrifice in lieu of this son. And this act of offering shall perpetually be
commemorated as the memorial to this great event in the form of a great ritual
of offering throughout the nations of the world. It is this very offering which,
being included in the rituals of pilgrimage, has been perpetuating the memory
of the event since the times of Abraham and shall endure for ever till the
doomsday — It should be borne in mind here that although the ritual of offering
is being performed in all the religions of the world since the times of Adam,
but no ritual of offering could
achieve such significance, importance,
expansion, and universality in the world; as Abraham’s this act of offering.130
The event has been recorded in the Bible in
the following words:
And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and
took the knife to slay his son. (11) And
the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham,
Abraham: and he said, Here am I. (12) And
he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing upon him:
for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine
only son from me. (13) And
Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him
a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took
the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. (…). (15) And
the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, (16) And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the
Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son,
thine only son: (17) That in blessing I will bless thee, and in
multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the
sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall
possess the gate of his enemies; (18) And
in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast
obeyed my voice.131
As regards the 5th question (Is this tradition of Abraham’s offering his
‘only son’ for sacrifice related to any mountain in that land of Moriah?), it is only the mountainous region in the land of ‘Moriah’ at Makkah, to
which the tradition of Abraham’s offering his ‘only son’, Ishma‘el, for
sacrifice is related. The Arabic word for Moriah (מוֹרִיָּה) is Marwah (مروة) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriah . In Hebrew132 ‘Moriah’ is composed of five letters, whereas ‘Marwah’ is composed of
four letters.
The first and the last letters, i.e., ‘Meem’
(M) and ‘He’ (H) are common in both the words. The middle letters ‘R’ [רִ] (Res) and ‘W’ [וֹ] (Waw) are resembling letters in Hebrew, as
can be appreciated through observing them. They are often interchanged by the
scribes. As far as the letter ‘Yodh’ [יָּ] or ‘Y’ is concerned, it is a very small
letter in Hebrew alphabet and is likely to be omitted or inserted due to some
negligence or misunderstanding of a scribe. It is quite probable that the actual
word may have been ‘Marwah’,
which would have been mistakenly recorded as ‘Moriah’ in the Bible by some scribe, because Moriah/Marwah was not a commonly
used word in the Biblical literature. There can be another possibility: the difference
in ‘Moriah’ and ‘Marwah’ may be the
variations of pronunciation between the Arabic language and the Hebrew language
due to the change of the geographic conditions; as is common in so many cases.
A construing reader might be aware of some instances of such cases.
As regards the 6th question (Are there any physical remains
pertaining to the act of the sacrifice near this Mount ‘Moriah’ of the Bible — al-Marwah of the Arab
tradition?), it is interesting to note that the horns of the ram which was offered
in the stead of Ishma‘el had been preserved in the Ka’bah and they remained
there until 64 AH/ AD 683.
Wensinck and Jomier have reported in the Enc. of Islam in their
article on the ‘Ka’bah’ that at the time of the conquest of Makkah in 8/629: All the pagan trappings which had adhered to
the Ka‘ba were now thrust aside. (…). The two horns of Abraham’s ram did not
crumble to dust until the rebuilding of the Ka‘ba by ‘Abd Allah b.
Zubayr.133
As regards the 7th question (Is there any Concrete,
Physical, and Material evidence of the presence of Ishma’el, his mother Hagar,
and his father Abraham at the site of this ‘Moriah’?), there
exists a lot of such evidence. There exist the Black Stone, the Mi’jan, Maqam Ibrahim, the well of Zamzam,
and the Graves of Hagar and Ishma’el in Hatim in close vicinity of the Ka’bah. About
the ‘Black Stone’, which is claimed to have been fixed at a corner of the Ka’bah by
the patriarchs, the Enc. Of Religion states: The Black stone is of unknown pre-Islamic
origin, possibly meteoric.134
There is the Mi’jan in very close
vicinity of the Ka’bah. A.J. Wensinck has provided the following details about
it: (…); a depression in it [the Ka’bah] just opposite the door has
still to be mentioned; it is called al-mi’djan ‘the
trough’; according to legend, Ibrahim and Isma’il here mixed the mortar used in
building the Ka’bah. 135
There is the Maqam Ibrahim, about which ‘The Enc. Of Religion’ explains:
Near the Ka’bah stands a gilded glass case (replacing an earlier
simple wooden framework) that contains a stone marking the station of Ibrahim
(Abraham). This stone is said to have miraculously preserved the footprint of
Ibrahim, Who stood on it in order to complete the construction of an earlier
Ka’bah: it is, as it were, the builder’s mark.136
A. J. Wensinck has explained the Maqam Ibrahim as follows:
Between this archway [al-Hatim]
and the facade (N.E.) is a little building with a small dome, the makam
Ibrahim. In it is kept a stone bearing the prints of two human feet. The patriarch
Ibrahim, father of Isma’il, is said to have stood on his feet when building the
Ka’bah and the marks of his feet were miraculously preserved.137
There is The
well of Zamzam, which stands quite close to the Ka’bah. ‘The Enc. of Religion’, although
arbitrarily names it as a myth, explains: Opposite the corner of the Black Stone is a
small building housing the sacred well of Zamzam, from which pilgrims drink water at the
conclusion of their circumambulations and prayers. Its origin is mythically
associated with Hajar (Hagar) and Ismail (Ishmael), for whom God provided water in
this desert place after commanding Ibrahim to abandon mother and child and
promising to care for them in his place.138
Then there are the Graves of Hagar and
Ishma‘el in Hatim. A. J.
Wensinck explaining the rituals and places of the Islamic Pilgrimage in its article on the ‘Ka’bah’ in ‘The Enc. of Islam’ has given
the following details about it:
Opposite the north-west wall, but not
connected with it, is a semi-circular wall (al-hatim)
(…). The semi-circular space between the hatim and
the Ka’bah enjoys an especial consideration, because for a time it belonged to
the Ka’bah;
(…). The space
bears the name al-hidjr or hidjr Isma’il [lap of Ishma‘el]. Here are said to be the graves of the patriarch [Isma’il]
and his mother Hagar.139
As regards the 8th question (Are there any
festivities having perpetually been celebrated to commemorate this great event
of Abraham’s offering his ‘only son’ for sacrifice there; and are these
festivities related to some places around this ‘Moriah’?), there
have been a number of festivities related to this offering having perpetually
been celebrated by the Arabs centuries before the advent of Islam. These festivities
are related to a number of places around this ‘Moriah’. There are the seven rounds of running
between ‘al-Safa’ and ‘al-Marwah’
called sa‘y. This sa‘y is performed by millions of pilgrims undertaking Hajj in
the month of Dhu al-Hijjah
or performing ‘Umrah the whole year through. It is performed to commemorate the
similar running by Hagar in search of water for her son Ishma‘el.
The ritual of sa‘y so meticulously depicts
and retains the event that in the course of their sa‘y the pilgrims resort to jogging
at a certain space, marked with green lights these days, where Hagar had
resorted to it. It is in the declivity of the Mas‘a
where Hagar had to run fast, because she
could not see his son in that slope.140 Then there is the offering for sacrifice of goats, sheep, rams,
camels, etc. on the festival of ‘Eid al-Adha’ by hundreds of millions of Muslims throughout the world and by
millions of Muslim pilgrims at Makkah during the days of Hajj. Again there is the water of ‘Zamzam’ or ‘Beersheba’
(Well of Seven)
taken by the pilgrims as a sacred drink. It is the very spring which gushed out
for the relief of Ishma‘el in that waterless terrain. It wonderfully supplies
the water for a large population the whole year through and is also taken home by
the millions of pilgrims throughout the world in large quantities as souvenir.
Then again there is a ritual of the Islamic Pilgrimage called ‘Talbiyah’. According to it the pilgrims,
when put on the proper uniform of the Pilgrimage called ‘Ihram’, begin to assert this ‘Talbiyah’ until they enter into the
‘Holy Mosque’:
Here I am, O Allah, here I am; here I am,
there is no associate to You, here I am; verily all the praise, and all the grace,
and all the kingdom belong to You, there is no partner to You.
It is to commemorate the alacrity (quickness
and readiness) of Abraham to offer his only son for sacrifice when God tempted
him. When God called him, he said, ‘Behold, here
I am’141.
As regards the 9th question (Is
there any other tradition among the Arabs that confirms their relation to Abraham
and Ishma‘el?), there
does exist the tradition of circumcision which had been strictly observed
amongst the Arabs to represent the tradition of their ancestors, Abraham and
Ishma‘el. Islam extended
the continuation of this tradition amongst its followers in the same way as it
has been observed amongst the Jews as a sign of Abraham’s covenant. Had the
Arabs not been the descendants of Abraham through his son Ishma‘el, there had
been no question of their observing this tradition and their attributing it to
Abraham and Ishma‘el. It is not without significance that the Enc. Biblica has observed that the
rite of circumcision may have been the typification of the tradition of
offering the firstborn: (…), and, indeed, the evidence goes to show
that in exceptional cases the offering was actually made. However, just as the
first-fruits were offered as a part of the whole, it is conceivable that
originally the rite of circumcision was instituted upon the same principle to
typify the offering of the firstborn.142
Flavius Josephus has also observed in his
‘Antiquities’ (written more than five hundred years before the advent of Islam) that the rite of circumcision
had been exercised amongst the Arabians to
commemorate the circumcision of the founder of their nation, Ishma‘el:
And they circumcised him upon the eighth day.
And from that time the Jews continue the custom of circumcising their sons
within that number of days. But as for the Arabians, they
circumcise after the thirteenth year, because Ismael, the founder of their nation, who
was born to Abraham of the concubine, was circumcised at that age; 143
As regards the 10th question (Is there any building or
sanctuary in the vicinity of this ‘al-Marwah’ [‘Moriah’ of the Bible], whose construction has been
assigned to the patriarchs, Abraham and Ishma‘el?), there is the sanctuary of ‘al- Ka’bah’ in the vicinity of this
‘al-Marwah’ or ‘Moriah’, whose construction
has been assigned to the patriarchs, Abraham and Ishma‘el; and there is
reasonable evidence of the perpetuity of this tradition. The renowned
translator of the Qur’an into
English, George Sale, has recorded in his ‘The Preliminary Discourse’ the
existence of this sanctuary of ‘al-Ka’bah’ at Makkah as follows:
The temple of Mecca was a place of worship,
and in singular veneration with the Arabs from great antiquity, and many
centuries before Mohammed (…) the Mohammedans are generally persuaded that
the Caaba (…) was rebuilt by Abraham and
Ismael, at God’s command, (…). After
this edifice had undergone several reparations, it was a few years after the
birth of Mohammed, rebuilt by the Koreish on the old foundation, (…). Before we leave the temple of Mecca, two or
three particulars deserve further notice. One is the celebrated black stone,
which is set in silver, and fixed in the south-east corner of the Caaba, (…). Another thing observable in this temple is
the stone in Abraham’s place,
wherein they pretend to show his footsteps,
telling us he stood on it when he built the Caaba, and that it served him for
scaffold, (…). The last thing I shall take notice of the temple
is the well Zem-zem, on the east side of the Caaba, (…). The Mohammedans are persuaded that it is the
very spring which gushed out for the relief of Ismael, when Hagar his mother
wandered with him in the desert, and some pretend it was so named from her
calling to him, when she spied it, in the Egyptian tongue, Zem, zem, that is,
‘Stay, stay,’ 144
Professor Palmer, the well known translator
of the Qur’an into the
English language, says in his introduction to the Qur’an:
The traditions of Abraham the father of their
race and the founder of Muhammad’s own religion, as he always declared him to
be, no doubt gave the ancient temple a peculiar sanctity in the Prophet’s eyes,
and although he had first settled upon Jerusalem as his Qiblah, he afterwards
reverted to the Kaabah itself. Here, then, Muhammad found a shrine, to
which, as well as at which, devotion had been paid from time immemorial; it was
one thing which the scattered Arabian nation had in common¾the
one thing which gave them even the shadow of a national feeling; and to have dreamed
of abolishing it, or even of diminishing the honours paid to it, would have
been madness and ruin to his enterprise. He therefore did the next best thing, he
cleared it of idols and dedicated it to the service of God.145
Some more evidence is being noted below which
testifies the existence of al-Ka’bah at Makkah from times immemorial. C. E.
Bosworth attests the antiquity of al- Ka’bah in Enc. Americana in the
following words: The Kaaba was almost certainly an important
shrine of a well attested Semitic pattern, in pre-Islamic times.
It is not clear when it was first associated with the rites of the Pilgrimage,
which itself must be of pre-Islamic origin.
Muslim tradition traces it to Abraham and
Ishmael. The Prophet Mohammed cleansed the Kaaba of its idols and its pagan
features in 630.146
Edward J. Jurji asserts in Colliers Encyclopedia that the Quraysh
were the custodians of al-Ka’bah and preservers of the Ishma‘elite tradition: As
custodians of Kaaba and preservers of the Ishmaelite tradition, the Quraysh
tribe presided over its pagan worship until Mohammed appropriated it for his
new faith, 147
The Encyclopedia
of Religion states that the Ka’bah had undoubtedly
existed for several centuries before the birth of Muhammad:
The historical origin of the Ka’bah is
uncertain, but it had undoubtedly existed for several centuries before the
birth of Muhammad (c. 570 CE). By
his time it was the principal religious shrine of central Arabia and, located
at the centre of a sacred territory (haram), had the characteristic of a
Semitic sanctuary.148
The renowned Egyptian geographer of the
ancient times, Claudius Ptolemaeus (commonly known as Ptolemy, c. 90-168 AD) has also mentioned the existence of a temple near Makkah, for
which he uses the word ‘Macoraba’:
It is to be noted that Ptolemy (Geography,
vi.7) in place of Mecca mentions Macoraba, which is probably to be interpreted,
as does Glaser, as the South Arabian or Ethiopic mikrab,
‘temple’. From this one may conclude that the Ka‘ba already existed in the
second century A. D.149
Shorter Enc. Of Islam has noted some other evidence to it as well:
The information available regarding the
distribution of the offices among the sons of Kusaiy shows that the worship of the
sanctuary had developed into a carefully regulated cult several generations
before Muhammad.150
The Ka‘ba had offerings dedicated to it in
the heathen as well as the Muslim period. Al-Azraki devotes
a detailed chapter to this subject (ed. Wustenfeld, p. 155 sqq.).151
As regards the 11th question (Are there any traces which
confirm that the construction of al-Ka’bah had been undertaken by Abraham and Ishma‘el?), there had
been a depression in the Mataf just opposite the door of the Ka’bah where Ishma‘el and Abraham
mixed the mortar used in building the Ka’bah. The Enc. of Islam has recorded it as follows:
The pavement on which the tawaf is
performed is called mataf; a depression in it just opposite the door
has still to be mentioned; it is called al-mi‘djan ‘the
trough’; according to legend, Ibrahim and Isma‘il
[q.v.] here mixed the mortar used in building the Ka‘ba.152
Then there is the Maqam Ibrahim, which is another evidence of the Ka‘bah having been built by
Abraham. The Enc. of Islam explains:
Between this archway and the facade (N.E.) is
a little building with a small dome, the makam Ibrahim. In
it is kept a stone bearing the prints of two human feet. The patriarch Ibrahim,
father of Isma‘il, is said to have stood on this stone when building the Ka‘ba
and the marks of his feet were miraculously preserved.153
As regards the 12th question (Is there any evidence of
Isaac or his progeny having ever been to some ‘Moriah’ to commemorate Isaac’s having been offered
for sacrifice?), there is
neither in the Bible or in the traditions of the Arabs any evidence of Isaac
having ever been to some ‘Moriah’;
nor is there any evidence in the Bible or the annals of history in favour of
the progeny of Isaac having frequented to ‘Moriah’ for offering sacrifices and performing any
pilgrimage. On the other hand this ‘Marwah’ is a celebrated spot of offering sacrifice by the
pre-Islamic Arabian tribes from the times immemorial and subsequently by the
whole of the Muslim world, in memory of Abraham’s offering his ‘only son’ for
sacrifice. Of course, the descendents of Ishma‘el, the Arabs, have been
observing the ritual centuries rather millennia before Islam, following their Ancestor’s
offerings.
As regards the 13th question (Does the Bible state where
Ishma‘el and his mother Hagar had breathed their last and what is their burial
site; in the manner as it gives these details about Abraham, his wife Sarah,
and his son Isaac; and why?), it is interesting to
note that the Bible is totally silent about Ishma‘el and Hagar’s burying place; whereas it states categorically that
the cave of Macphelah at Hebron in Canaan was the burial ground of Abraham154, his wife Sarah155, and his son Isaac156. As to the question ‘why’, it can only be
assumed that it was due to the disregard, disinterest, unconcern, indifference,
and apathy, rather rivalry and jealousy, of the Israelites towards their
brethren or cousins, Ishma‘elites.
As regards the 14th question (Is there any established
tradition regarding the burying place of Ishma‘el and
his mother Hagar amongst the Arabs — who are the historically established
progeny of Ishma‘el?), the
answer is a positive ‘Yes’. A. J. Wensinck and J. Jomier in their article on
‘Ka‘ba’ in the ‘Enc. of Islam’ write:
The space (al-hatim)
bears the name al-hidjr or hidjrIsma‘il.
Here are said to be the graves of the patriarch and his mother Hagar.157
The New
Standard Encyclopaedia observes:
Ishmael Son of Abraham and
Hagar. He was exiled with his mother to the wilderness on account of Sarah’s
jealousy of him. He married an Egyptian, was famed as an archer and was buried
in Mecca. Mahomet claimed him as an ancestor.158
As regards the 15th question (Why
has this ambiguity been created by the redactors of the Bible?), the answer is quite clear. It is merely because they wanted to attach
reverence and respect to their forefather Isaac. The Chronicler forged for them
the basis for this ambition through arbitrarily attributing the name of ‘Moriah’ to the site of
the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. This ambiguity would never have
gained ground, had the Chronicler not fabricated and imposed it in his
‘Chronicles’ to attach sanctity to the Solomon’s Temple. It is interesting to
note that the ‘Chronicles’ had long been a non-canonical and rejected book.159 There is another aspect of this theme. In
fact Abraham’s offering cannot be treated as a merit for the son, if the son is
not taken into confidence for the task. Isaac did not know that he was going to
be offered even to the last moment. That’s why he asks his father Abraham, ‘Behold
the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?160’ Even
then, Abraham did not think it advisable to disclose to him that it was him
whom he was going to offer for the sacrifice; and rather says, ‘My
son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering.161’ Thus the act of offering could only have
been to the credit of Abraham who was going to be ‘tempted’ by God; and no
credit could have been attributed to Isaac who had been totally ignorant of his
going to be offered for sacrifice by his father. But, as regards Ishma‘el,
he was not only taken into full confidence by his father Abraham, but he
willingly endorsed the idea, surrendered to the will of God, and offered
himself for sacrifice at the hands of his father. The Qur’an records the event as follows:
Said they, ‘Build
for him [Abraham] a pyre, and throw him into the flaming hell!’
They desired to plot against him, but we made them inferior. Said he, ‘Verily,
I am going to my Lord, He will guide me. My Lord! Grant me (a son), one of the
righteous;’ and we gave him glad tidings of a clement and patient boy. And when
he reached the age to work with him, he said, ‘O my boy! Verily, I have seen
in a dream that I should sacrifice thee162, look
then what thou seest right.’
Said he, ‘O my sire! Do what thou art bidden;
thou wilt find me, if please God, one of the patient!’ And when they were resigned,
and Abraham had thrown him down upon his forehead, we called to him, ‘O
Abraham! Thou hast verified the vision; verily, thus do we reward those who do
well. This is surely an obvious trial.’ And we ransomed him with a mighty
victim; and we left for him amongst posterity, ‘Peace upon Abraham; thus do we
reward those who do well; verily, he was of our servants who believe!’ And we
gave him glad tidings of Isaac, a prophet among the righteous; and we blessed
him and Isaac; – of their seed is one who does well, and one who obviously
wrongs himself.163
********************************************************************
127 Entry 875,
p. 18: ‘__ be-ayr; from 874; a pit; espec. a well.’ Entry 874, p. 18: ‘__ ba’ar, baw-ar ; a prim. Root; to dig’; + Entry 7650, p. 112: ‘__ shaba shaw-bah ; a
prim. Root; to seven oneself,
i.e. swear(as if by
repeating a declaration seven times).’ (A Concise
Dic. of the words in The Heb. Bible by J.
Strong, NY: The Methodist Book Concern, 1984)
128 Beer Sheba. ‘__ __ be-ayr’
sheh-bah; from 875 and 7651 (in the sense of 7650); well of an oath. : ¾adjure, charge (by an oath, with an oath), take an oath.’ (J.
Strong’s Dic. of Heb. B, 1984, Entry 884; p.18)
129 The Enc
of Islam New Edition ed. E. Van Donzel, B. Lewis and ch. Pellat,
C. E. Bosworth (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978), 4:320.
130 Mawlana
Amin Ahsan Islahi, 37:107 Tadabbur-e-Qur’an, (Lahore: Faran Foundation, 1977), 5:485.
131 Gen.
22:1-18 KJV.
132 It may be
noted that the Hebrew language is written from right to left like the script of
her other sister Semitic languages (Syriac, Aramaic, Arabic, etc.).
133 Enc. of
Islam, New
(1997) edn., s.v. ‘Ka‘ba’, 4:320.
134 The Enc.
of Religion (NY: Macmillan Publg. Co, 1987), 8:225,26.
135 Enc. of
Islam, New
(1997) edn., s.v. ‘Ka‘ba’, 4:318-20.
136 The Enc.
of Religion (NY: Macmillan Publg. Co, 1987), 8:225,26.
137 Enc. of
Islam, New
(1997) edn., s.v. ‘Ka‘ba’, 4:318-20.
138 The Enc.
of Religion (NY: Macmillan Publg. Co, 1987), 8:225,26.
139 Enc. of
Islam, New
(1997) edn., s.v. ‘Ka‘ba’ 4:318-20.
140 For a
detailed refernce see pp 164-67 of this book.
141 Gen. 22:1
KJV.
142 Encyclopaedia
Biblica, 2:1525-6.
143 Flavius
Josephus, Antiquities, Book I, Ch. xii: 2, 4, p.41.
144 George
Sale, ‘The Preliminary Discourse’ to the ‘ALKORAN OF MOHAMMED’ (London: Frederick Warne & Co., n.d.), 90.
145 The QUR’AN, tr. by E. H. Palmer (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1988), p. liii.
146 The Enc.
Americana International edn. in 30 Vols. (Danbury,
Connecticut: Grolier Incorporated, 1987), 16:254.
147 Colliers
Enc. In 24 Vols. (NY: 1995), 13:695.
148 The Enc.
of Religion, 8:225-6.
149 H.A.R. Gibb
and J.H. Krammers, Concise Enc. Of Islam (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, Inc. 2001), s.v. ‘Ka‘ba’, 193.
150 Concise
Enc. Of Islam, 193.
151 Concise
Enc. Of Islam, 193.
152 The Enc.
of Islam, 4:318.
153 The Enc.
of Islam, 4:318.
154 Gen. 25:9-10.
155 Gen. 25:10.
156 Gen. 49:29-30.
157 The Enc.
of Islam, 4:318.
158 The New
Standard Enc. and World
Atlas (London: Odhams
Press Ltd,, W. C. 2, 1932), 699.
159 See App. III.
160 Gen. 22:7
KJV.
161 Gen. 22:8
KJV.
162 The
translator, Palmer, has inserted a footnote here as: ‘The Mohammadan theory is
that it was Ishma‘el and not Isaac who was taken as a sacrifice.’
163 The Qur’an, 37:95-113; as Tr. by E. H. Palmer (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,
1988), 171-2.
************************************************************************************
Chapter IX
MAKKAH AND ARABIA
AS THE HOUSE OF THE PROGENY OF ISHMA‘EL
+location+map+2.jpg) |
| "........he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt. (Note: out of Egypt means Hejaz or Paran in Saudi Arabia (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 21:21 |
Ishma‘el’s sons inhabited the land from Havilah to Shur, which is
east of Egypt on the way to Asshur, having settled to the east of his brothers.164
‘King
James Version’ has recorded the theme in the following
words:
And they [Ishma‘el’s sons] dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that
is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria and he died in the presence of
all his brethren.( Gen. 25:18 KJV )165
Almost all the translations and versions of
the Bible have recorded the same statement about the settlement of the Ishma‘elites. There is no other statement about their settlement.
It means that, according to the Bible, the
progeny of Ishma‘el had settled in the area ‘from Havilah unto Shur’. To
determine the dwelling place of the progeny of Ishma‘el, the exact location of ‘Havilah’ and ‘Shur’ is to be explored.
The word ‘Havilah’ was used for the land of Yemen and ‘Shur’ was situated somewhere near the Gulf of ’Aqabah, at the north-eastern end of the Red Sea. It can thus be deduced that according the Bible the progeny of Ishma‘el had settled in the area of Al-Hijaz, which is a strip of land in the Western Arabia North of Yemen. A brief account of the sites of Havilah and Shur has been afforded hereunder:
The word ‘Havilah’ was used for the land of Yemen and ‘Shur’ was situated somewhere near the Gulf of ’Aqabah, at the north-eastern end of the Red Sea. It can thus be deduced that according the Bible the progeny of Ishma‘el had settled in the area of Al-Hijaz, which is a strip of land in the Western Arabia North of Yemen. A brief account of the sites of Havilah and Shur has been afforded hereunder:
Havilah
As far as ‘Havilah’ is concerned, it is the name of South Arabia
or ‘Yemen’, which, in the ancient days was named ‘Arabia Felix’, as recorded by
the renowned geographer of Alexandria, Ptolemy (d.
140 AD). Easton’s BD asserts: A district in Arabia-Felix166. (…). It is the opinion of Kalisch, however, that Havilah ‘in both
instances, designates the same country, extending at least from the Persian to
the Arabian Gulf, and on account of its vast
extent easily divided into two distinct parts.’ This opinion may be
well vindicated. 167 W. Smith
has also expressed almost similar views in his BD:
A district in Arabia Felix, Gen. 10:7, named from the second son of Cush; probably
the district of Kualan, in the northwestern part of Yemen.168
Encyclopedia Judaica has noted that one of Havilah’s location is in South Arabia:
The latter Havilah, the son of Joktan, apparently stands for
a locality in South Arabia as do Hadoram (Gen.
10:27), Sheba (Gen. 10:28), and Ophir (Gen. 10:29).169
+location+map.jpg)
The Jewish Encyclopedia has explained as below: HAVILAH:
Name of a district, or districts, in Arabia. (…); the Ishmaelites are also
placed in the same locality (Gen. xxv.18),
(…). In Gen. x.29 and I Chron. i.23, Havilah is a son of Joktan, associated with Sheba and Ophir in
the southern portion of the peninsula. (…).
Havilah was
identified by Bochart Niebuhr with Khaulan in Tehamah, between Mecca and Sana;170
All the above data make it quite clear that Havilah stands for Yemen,
which is situated in the south-west of the Arabian Peninsula.
Shur
‘Shur’ can be located somewhere near the
Gulf of ’Aqabah, i.e. north-eastern end of the Red Sea. W. Smith has explained
it as follows:
 |
| This is biblical map where Shur location can be seen in Saudi Arabia |
Most of the authorities locate it in Sinai to the SE of the Gulf of Suez. Whatever the
case may be, it can safely be said that Shur or the Wilderness of Shur is situated somewhere outside the SW corner of Canaan, which may be
in the vicinity of the NW corner of Arabia.
It means that, according to the Bible,
Ishma‘el’s descendants had settled in Arabia between Shur (north western corner of Arabia) and Havilah (southern coast land of Arabia, i.e., Yemen and Hadramawt), which, according to the Arabs, is the region of al-Hijaz. The cities of Makkah, al-Madinah, and Tayef are also situated in this al-Hijaz.
Most of the Ishma‘elite tribes (Arabs) had settled in and around this al-Hijaz. It has been noted above that, according to the Bible, Hagar and Ishma‘el had been settled by Abraham in the Wilderness of Paran and Beersheba. It requires that the ‘Wilderness of Paran and Beersheba concerning Hagar and Ishma‘el, and the land of Moriah as well’, must be located in Arabia and not in Sinai.
Most of the Ishma‘elite tribes (Arabs) had settled in and around this al-Hijaz. It has been noted above that, according to the Bible, Hagar and Ishma‘el had been settled by Abraham in the Wilderness of Paran and Beersheba. It requires that the ‘Wilderness of Paran and Beersheba concerning Hagar and Ishma‘el, and the land of Moriah as well’, must be located in Arabia and not in Sinai.
That most of the Arabs are the descendants of
Ishma‘el, is a universally acknowledged historical fact and needs not to be
discussed in detail. A few lines are reproduced below from the ‘Antiquities’ of
Josephus:
And they circumcised him upon the eighth day.
And from that time the Jews continue the custom of circumcising their sons
within that number of days. But as for the Arabians, they
circumcise after the thirteenth year172, because
Ismael, the founder of their nation, who was born to Abraham of the concubine, was
circumcised at that age; (….). Of this wife were born to Ismael twelve
sons; Nabaioth173, Kedar174, Abdeel175, Mabsam [or Mibsam], Idumas176, Masmaos177, Massaos178, Chadad179,
Theman180, Jetur, Naphesus181, Cadmas182.
These inhabited all the country from Euphrates to the Red Sea, and called it
Nabatene. They are an Arabian nation and name their tribes from these, both
because of their own virtue, and because of the dignity of Abraham their father.183
The Book of Jubilees has also
recorded that the progeny of Ishma‘el is of Arabian origin. Here is an excerpt
to this effect:
And Ishma‘el and his sons, and the sons of
Keturah, and their sons, went together and dwelt from Paran to the entering of Babylon in all the
land which is towards the East facing the desert. And these mingled with each
other, and their name was called Arabs,
and Ishma‘elites.184 Lawrance Boadt, while explaining Gen 25:1-18,
writes: These names also represent a variety of Arabian Tribes.185
New Jerusalem Bible asserts:
Ishmael’s descendents are the North Arabian
tribes.186
McKenzie writes in his DB:
He is the ancestor of a number of Arabian
tribes.187
It has also been abundantly recorded in the
legends and poetry of the Arabs. The ‘Quraysh’ was one of the most important
tribes of Ishma‘el’s progeny from the line of his second son Kedar; and it had
been living in Makkah for centuries,
rather millennia, before the advent of Islam.
*****************************************************************
164 Gen. 25:18
NEB.
165 Gen. 25:18
KJV.
166 ‘Arabia
Felix’ is the classical name of SW Arabia or the ‘Yemen’. J. A, Thompson
explains in the Interpreter’s Dic. of Bible, 1:179-80: Classical geographers, following Ptolemy (2nd century A.D.),
divided the country into three parts: [1] Arabia Patrea, whose main city was Petra and
which included Sinai,, Edom, Moab, and E. Trans-Jordan; [2] Arabia Deserta, the Syrian Desert; and [3] Arabia Felix, ‘Fortunate Arabia,’ the S
portion.
167 Easton’s
1897 Bible Dic. in ‘Power Bible’ CD. ROM Version.
168 W.
Smith’s Bible Dic., 235.
169 Enc.
Judaica, CD-ROM Version.
170 The
Jewish Enc., 6:266.
171 W.
Smith’s Bible Dic., 627.
172 It may be
noted here that the writer of this ‘Antiquities’, Flavius Josephus (c.37-c.100), had died more than five centuries before the advent of Islam. F.
L. Cross writes in his Oxford Dic. of the
Christian Church (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), 759: He brought out c. 94 his second great work, the ‘Antiquities of
the Jews’, the 20 books of which trace the history of the Jews from the
creation of the world to the beginning of the Jewish war.
It shows that his observation ‘But as for the Arabians, they
circumcise after the thirteenth year’, if it be so, might have been true regarding
the pre-Islamic Arabs, whereas the Muslims generally get their children
circumcised in their early days, preferably
on the seventh day, as the Propohet of Islam had got his grand children,
al-Hasan and al-Husayn circumcised on the 7th day of their birth (Hakim and al-Bayhiqui
reported by ‘A^’ishah) .
173 Nabaioth
was the firstborn of Ishma‘el and may be the ancestor of the Nabatians of
Petrea, after whom the northern Arabia was named ‘Arabia Petrea’ by the ancient
geographers like Ptolemy.
174 Kedar was
the ancestor of the great Arabian tribe of Quraysh, to whom belonged the
Prophet of Islam. (See The Jewish Enc. n.d., 7:462, s.v. ‘Kedar’)
175 ‘Abdeel’
means ‘the slave of God’; which, in Arabic, is ‘Abd Allah’; but the Bible has
named it as ‘Ad-beel’ (Gen. 25:13 KJV), which might have been a scribal mistake.
176 Which,
according to the Bible, is ‘Dumah’ (Gen. 25:14
KJV); after whom was named the famous Arabian
town of ‘Dumat al-Jandal’, which was besieged by the Prophet of Islam himself
during the adventure of ‘Tabuk’.
177 Which, in
the Bible, is ‘Mish-ma’ (Gen. 25:14 KJV).
178 Which, in
the Bible, is ‘Mas-sa’ (Gen. 25:14 KJV).
179 Which, in
the Bible, is ‘Ha-dar’ (Gen. 25:15 KJV).
180 Which, in
the Bible, is ‘Te-ma’ (Gen. 25:15 KJV).
181 Which, in the
Bible, is ‘Na’-phish’ (Gen. 25:15 KJV).
182 Which, in
the Bible, is ‘Ke-de-mah’ (Gen. 25:15 KJV).
183 Flavius, Antiquities, Book I, Ch. xii: 2,
4, p. 41.
184The
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the OT, Volume
II: Pseudepigrapha, ed. Dr. R. H. Charles (Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1968), 43.
185 International
BC, Ed. William R. Farmer (Bangalore: TPI, 2004), 431.
186 Footnote
‘b’ on Gen 25:18 New Jerusalem Bible, p.47
187 McKenzie, Dic. of Bible, 1984, s.v. ‘Ishmael’,
p.403.
********************************************************************************
Chapter X
THE MENTION OF
THE OFFERING OF SACRIFICES AT MAKKAH
IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH
This prophecy recorded in chapter LX of the
Book of Isaiah188 of the
Bible is reproduced below. A renowned Muslim scholar, Qadi
Sulayman Mansurpuri, has quoted this prophecy in his magnum opus Rahmatulli’l-‘A ^ lamin and has explained it in a few lines there.189 It is pertinent to undertake a thorough study
of it. Exhaustive footnotes having sufficient references and relevant excerpts
have been afforded on the spot, so that it may not be said that the evidence is
scanty. They are to be carefully studied along with the text to appreciate the
significance of the observations recorded at the end of the passage. In some cases
they may not be directly relevant to the theme, but they are important to make
the concept clear. It would be advisable that after initially going through the
whole of this theme, the verses alongwith their footnotes be studied once again.
It would thus be appreciated that the conclusions drawn from the verses are
absolutely pertinent: 190Arise, shine; for thy light is come191, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon
thee. (2) For, behold, the darkness shall cover the
earth, and gross darkness the people; but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and
his glory shall be seen upon thee. (3) And
the gentiles192 shall come to thy light193, and kings194 to
the brightness of thy rising.195 (4) Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all
they gather themselves
together, they come to thee196; thy sons shall come from afar, and thy
daughters shall be nursed at thy side.197 (5) Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and
thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged [NKJV
translates these italicized words as: ‘swell with joy’]; because the abundance
of the sea shall be converted unto thee,198 the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto
thee. (6) The multitude of camels199 shall cover thee, the dromedaries [young
camels] of Midian200 and Ephah201;
all they from Sheba202 shall come; they shall bring gold and incense
and they shall shew forth the praises of the Lord. (7)
All203 the
flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth204 shall minister205 unto
thee;
they shall come up with acceptance206 on mine altar,207 and
I will glorify the house of my glory.208 (8) Who are these that
fly as a cloud209,
and as the doves to their windows? (9)
Surely the islands shall wait for me, and the
ships of Tarshish210 first, to bring thy sons from far, (…). (11)
Therefore thy gates shall be open
continually; they shall not be shut day nor night211;
that men may bring unto thee the forces of the
Gentiles, and that their kings may
be brought.
(12) For the nation and kingdom that will not
serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.212 (…). (14)
The sons also of them that afflicted thee
shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves
down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the Lord,
The Zion213 of the Holy One of Israel.214 (15) Whereas thou hast been forsaken215 and hated, so that no man went through thee, I
will make thee an eternal excellence, a joy of many generations216. (…). (18) Violence
shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders;
but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise. (…). (20) Thy sun shall no more go down 217; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself; for
the Lord shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall
be ended. (21) Thy people also shall be all righteous; they
shall inherit the land forever, the branch of my planting218, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.
219
Here are some observations which would help
the reader to appreciate the real status of the above verses and their implications:
1. Changes have been made in the above
passage by the redactors of the Bible, as is evident from the New Jerusalem
Bible’s observation on verse 12 and 14 reproduced in the relevant footnotes
above. Each and every verse, therefore, should be considered on its own merit.
2. Most of the commentators of the Bible
attach these verses to the rebuilding of the Solomon’s Temple that is generally
called the ‘Second Temple’ or the ‘Temple of Zerubbabel’.220 (A brief account of the history of the
‘Solomon’s Temple’ has been afforded under ‘Appendix IV’ at the end of this
book.)
3. Most of the scholars of the Bible hold
that according to the above passage this ‘Second Temple’ had to be more magnificent
than the ‘First One’221. The New Oxford Annotated Bible remarks:
‘The new Jerusalem will surpass Solomon’s city in beauty and tranquillity.222’
The actual position is quite contrary to it. McKenzie’s Dic. of Bible explains:
It [The Second Temple] was no doubt of the
same dimensions and structure as the temple of Solomon but much inferior in the richness of its
decorations (Ezr 3:12; Hg 2:3).223
W. Smith’s Dic. of Bible asserts: From these dimensions we gather that if the priests and Levites and elders of families were disconsolate [i.e. unhappy, downcast] at seeing how much more sumptuous [i.e. lavish, magnificent, costly] the old temple was than the one which on account of their poverty they had hardly been able to erect, Ezra 3:12, it certainly was not because it was smaller; but it may have been that the carving and the gold and the other ornaments of Solomon’s temple far surpassed this, and the pillars of the portico [i.e. covered walk; row of columns] and the veils may all have been far more splendid; so also probably were the vessels; and all this is what a Jew would mourn over far more than mere architectural splendor.224
R. J. McKelvey explains, ‘but even the
foundations showed that it [the Second Temple] would be inferior to Solomon’s
Temple.’225 The 7th Day
Adventist Bible Dic. explains that it was of poorer construction
as compared to the Solomon’s Temple.226 Prof.
Dr George A. Barton asserts:
The dimensions of the building were probably
the same as those of Solomon’s Temple, though the
edifice was apparently at first lacking in
ornament. It was probably because the building was less ornate that the old men
who had seen the former Temple wept at the sight of its successor.227
4. If someone undertakes a sincere and
objective analytic study to ascertain the implications and purport of the verses,
he will reach only one conclusion: these verses plainly and obviously relate
only to the sacrifices offered since time immemorial by the pilgrims of the
Ka’bah at Makkah. These verses can in no way be attached to the Second (or
Zerubbabel’s) Temple because: (i) It was not more glorious or magnificent than
the Solomon’s Temple, even if the glory be considered to be the spiritual glory
as some of the scholars take it to be. (ii) The Gentiles and kings never came
to the ‘light’ and ‘the brightness of the rising’ of the Second Temple (v.3). It were only a small number of Jews who
visited it after they were allowed to return from their exile, for only the period
of 515 BC to AD 70, whereafter the Jewish Second Temple had been destroyed and
it does not exist there for almost the last twenty centuries. Even during this
period of 515 BC to 70 AD the Temple and the Jews had to suffer great distress
(see App.V) for a number of times. (iii) Neither the abundance of the sea was
ever
converted unto the Jewish clan; nor the
forces of Gentiles ever came or entered to the fold of the Jews or their Second
Temple (v. 5). The wealth of the nations was never brought
to this Second Temple on the seas. (iv) There is no tradition that any herds of
camels of the Arabian pilgrims (the people of Midian, Ephah, and Sheba, the
progenies of Abraham through his wife Keturah) ever visited this Second Temple
for pilgrimage ‘proclaiming the praise of the Lord’ (v. 6).228 (v)
There is no tradition that Abraham’s progenies from Ishma‘el’s sons Kedar and
Nebaioth (the people of Arabia) ever
gathered around the Second Temple or offered
any sacrifices of flocks and rams on the Second Temple, which would be accepted
as offerings on God’s altar (v.7).
(vi) It is in no way applicable to the Second Temple that ‘thy gates shall be
open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto
thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought.’ (v.11). Not to say of the gates, there is not even a
building of the Temple on earth for the last two thousand years. (vii) It never
happened at any time in the history of nations that ‘The sons also of them [the
Babylonians] that afflicted thee [the Jews] shall come bending unto thee; and
all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy
feet.’, as the verse 14 claims; whereas the
Yemeni forces that were utterly wasted due to their ill-will towards Ka‘bah but
their descendants regularly visit the sanctuary with respect and fervour.
(viii) It can in no way be said of the Second Temple or the Jews ‘I will make
you an object of eternal pride,229 and
the joy of all generations.230’ (v.15).
(ix) It is also not true about the ‘Second
Temple’ that ‘Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction
within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates
Praise.’ (v.18). (x) It can also not be claimed about the
‘Second Temple’ or the Israelites that ‘Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall
thy moon withdraw itself; for the Lord shall be thine everlasting light, and
the days of thy mourning shall be ended’ (v.20);
for the ‘Second Temple’ and the Israelites have undergone so many vicissitudes and
misfortunes that plainly belie the assertion ‘the Lord shall be thine
everlasting light,’ (xi) The conduct and status of the Israelites is quite
contrary to the claim made in v. 21 ‘Thy
people also shall be all righteous; they shall inherit the land forever,’.
Whereas the actual fact is that instead of being ‘righteous’ they became
evildoers, usurers, and wealth-worshippers; and instead of ‘inheriting the land
forever’ they had been thrown out of it disgracefully. Now, that they have
again been given the control of their land, they have resorted to cruelty, plunder,
corruption, and sin, instead of sympathy, God cautiousness, and virtuousness.
It can by no means be attributed as righteousness.
From the analytical study undertaken above it
can be concluded that the words of Ch. LX of the book of Isaiah, with all shades
of their meanings and implications have nothing to do with the ‘Second Temple’
or the Israelites.
5. The application of chapter LX of the book
of Isaiah to the Jews or the ‘Second Temple’ being categorically ruled out, a
probe into its exact significance is to be made. If someone undertakes a
sincere and objective study to ascertain the implications and purport of the verses,
he will reach only one conclusion: these verses plainly and obviously relate
only to the sacrifices offered since time immemorial by the pilgrims of the
Ka’bah at Makkah to commemorate the offering of Abraham his only son Ishma‘el.
Here are some observations based on the analytic study of the verses that will
be useful in appreciating their real status, purport, and significance.
(a) Verse 3 asserts, ‘And the Gentiles [according
to NIV and many other translations: ‘Nations’] shall come to thy light, and
kings231 to the brightness of thy rising.’ It is to be
noted that as long as the Temple belonged to the Jews, the Gentiles were not
permitted to enter the main Temple, and if some Gentile dared to enter the
sanctuary, he was to be sentenced to death. No doubt there existed a ‘Court of
the Gentiles’ with the Temple, but it lay outside the sanctuary. ‘The court of
the Gentiles was accessible to anyone. It was separated from the temple and the
other courts by a balustrade (row of short pillars surmounted by rail) with
inscriptions prohibiting Gentiles from entering the interior courts under pain
of death.’232 When the Jews got ejected from the temple for
good, its building was also destroyed and there does not exist any temple on
this planet for the last twenty centuries. If the Government of Israel gets the
temple reconstructed, for which it is trying hard, and there are reasons to
believe that it may succeed in it, its main sanctuary would again become
prohibited for the Gentiles. It is only the sanctuary of Makkah, where Muslims
of all nations from all over the world have been
coming regularly since time immemorial. (b) The contents
of v.4, ‘Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves
together, they come to thee; thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters
shall be nursed at thy side. [GNB has well translated it as, ‘Your daughters
will be carried like children’]’ had never been applicable to the ‘Second
Temple’. But as far as the Ka’bah is concerned, they are fully applicable to it
in every sense of the words. It would be interesting to note
that the Qur’an
has described the phenomenon of the Pilgrimage and the sacrifices to be offered
there as: And when We settled for Abraham the place of the House [the Ka’bah]:
‘Thou shall not associate
with Me anything. And do thou purify My House
for those that shall go about it and those that stand, for those that bow and
prostrate themselves; and proclaim among men the Pilgrimage, and they shall
come unto thee on foot and upon every lean
beast, they shall come from every deep ravine that they
may witness things profitable to them and
mention God’s Name on days well-known over such beasts
of the flocks as He has provided them: So eat
thereof, and feed the wretched poor. Let them then finish with their
self-neglect and let them fulfil their vows, and go about [circumambulate] the
Ancient House.’233
(…). ‘Such (is the Pilgrimage): Whoever honours the sacred Rites
of God, for him it is good in the sight of his Lord’234
(c) It can by no means be said of the ‘Second
Temple’ as the v. 5 claims, ‘the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto
thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee.’ It is true only of the
Ka’bah at Makkah, that although it is situated in a barren land, yet it is abundantly
provided with every sort of the provisions of the world. Again it is Makkah
that the faithful Muslim Gentiles (men and women) from all over the world assemble
there together with all their utilities through sea routes, land routes, and by
air. It has been recorded in verse 8: ‘Who are these
that fly as a cloud, and as the
doves to their windows?’ The landings of the
aeroplanes carrying the millions of pilgrims for the sanctuary of Makkah depict
the exact picture of the verse. No planes coming to any sanctuary on earth
present this phenomenon. (d) Who can claim about the Second Temple as has
been asserted in v.6, ‘The multitude of camels shall cover your land, The
dromedaries [young camels] of Midian and Ephah;
All they from Sheba shall come: They shall bring gold and incense; and they
shall proclaim the praises of the Lord.235’ It never happened at any stage of the
history of the world that such great multitudes of the Arabian people might
have visited the sanctuary of Jerusalem in the form of the camel caravans. As
regards the sanctuary of Makkah and the sacrifices being offered there, it is
true to the letter. It will also be appreciated that the pilgrims utter the
‘Talbiyah’ (a part of which is ‘All praise belongs to
you, O God.’) loudly as the Bible has noted ‘they shall proclaim or shew forth
[i.e. declare loudly or openly] the praises
of the Lord.’ (e) No man on earth can endorse to the claim of
v.7 regarding the ‘Second Temple’ that:
‘All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth
shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and
I will glorify the house of my glory.’ Kedar and Nebaioth are the sons of Ishma‘el
and their descendants have been living in Arabia for thousands of years. There
had been no tradition amongst them to visit Jerusalem and to offer sacrifices
there. On the other hand every informed citizen of the modern world knows that
they have been coming to the sanctuary at Makkah for Pilgrimage since time immemorial.
Isn’t it a sufficient proof of the fact that the above verses of chapter LX of
the book of Isaiah exclusively refer to the offering of sacrifices at the sanctuary
of Makkah by the descendants of Abraham’s son Ishma‘el. It is further to be
considered how God can glorify the house that does not even exist on earth. It
is only the house of God’s glory at Makkah that has been safely existing since
time immemorial which can be glorified and is physically glorified in every
sense of the word. Page H. Kelley has explained this verse as, ‘The tribes of
Arabia also bring sacrificial offerings of flocks and rams.’236 And the fact is that the tribes of Arabia never
took their sacrifices to Jerusalem. The tradition amongst them has prevailed to
bring sacrificial offerings to Makkah, which is an important ritual during
their Pilgrimage. (f) It has been claimed in v. 9 that, ‘Surely the
isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons
from far.’ Tarshish was situated on the south coast of Spain, as explained in
the relevant footnote (No.209) above. As long as the Jerusalem Temple
existed, there was no question of any Spaniards coming to it for offering any
sacrifices. On the other hand, Spain had been conquered by the Arabs in the
first century of Hijrah and they had settled there. These sons of Abraham
through his son Ishma‘el, as the Arabs are, regularly visited the sanctuary of
Makkah to perform Umrah (small Pilgrimage, which is performed the whole year
through) and Pilgrimage and offered their sacrifices there to commemorate
Abraham’s offering their forefather Ishma‘el for sacrifice. (g) As
regards v.11, ‘thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor
night’, this writer has himself visited the sanctuary at Makkah. It has been
noted that it remains open around the clock. It has been a perpetually
celebrated tradition through the ages. As regards the ‘Second Temple’, when there
does not exist any building thereof, how the gates can remain open day or
night. (h) Verse 14 asserts, ‘The sons also of them that
afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee
shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee,
the city of the Lord, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel.’ It is true of the
sanctuary of Makkah verbatim et literatim. It
physically happened in January, 630 at the time of the Conquest of Makkah by
the Prophet of Islam. As regards the phrase ‘The Zion of the
Holy One of Israel’, it does not fit in the context. It is obviously an interpolation
by some redactor or a gloss by some commentator. ‘The
city of the Lord’ is the exact translation of ‘Baytullah’ which is the Arabic
name of ‘Ka’bah’ (i) The opening clause of v. 15, ‘Whereas thou hast
been forsaken and hated,’ plainly refers to Hagar. In the relevant footnote
above, it has been noted with reference to Dummelow and the 7th Day Adventist Bible Com. that ‘The figure is
that of a forsaken wife.’ As regards the last sentence of the verse, ‘I will
make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many [in fact this word should have
been ‘all’ as has been translated by NIV, etc.] generations’ the words ‘eternal
excellency’ and ‘a
joy of all generations’ can in no way be
applied to the temple of Jerusalem. It is only the sanctuary of Makkah that the
words can be attributed to in true sense. (j) Verse
18 reads as, ‘Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction
within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates
Praise.’ Not to say of Jerusalem’s Temple being secured from ‘violence, wasting,
and destruction’ it does not even exist on earth for the last two thousand
years. The contents of this verse can in no way be applied to the Temple of
Jerusalem. A brief sketch of the history of Jerusalem’s Temple has been
afforded in ‘Appendix IV’ and it can be confirmed there. On the other hand it
is applicable to the sanctuary of Makkah in true sense of the words. (k) V.21
says, ‘Thy people also shall be all righteous; they
shall inherit the land for ever.’ Who can claim the Jewish people to
have inherited the land of Jerusalem forever?
On the other hand every knowledgeable person knows that the Arabs have been
holding the land of the sanctuary of Makkah since time immemorial. As to the
last clause of the verse, ‘that I may be glorified’, anybody who has happened
to perform a Pilgrimage or Umrah at the sanctuary
of Ka’bah, would verify the statement.
*******************************************************************
188 Dr. W.
Fitch, Minister, Church of Scotland, Glasgow, remarks in his Commentary to the
book of Isaiah in the New Bible Com. (p.604): This is a prophecy of great beauty, thrilling [make
someone feel excited and happy] with the joy of a great assurance that the purpose
of God is so triumphantly to be fulfilled in the earth.
189 Qadi
Sulayman Mansurpuri, Rahmatulli’l-‘A ^ lamin (Delhi: I’tiqad Publishing House, 2001),
1:196.
190 Carroll
Stuhlmueller asserts in The Jerome Bible Com.
(p.382): These chapters (60-62), especially ch. 60 according to Dhorme (op.
cit., xlvii), are a lyrical description of the new Jerusalem. He assigns the
explanation of Chapter 60 the title of ‘GLORY OF THE
NEW JERUSALEM’. It means
that this Chapter 60 is considered to be related to the ‘Second Temple’. A
brief account of the history of the Solomon’s Temple has been afforded in App.
IV at the end of the book. It may be noted here that Jerusalem is a meaningful
word comprising of two segments: Jeru = city or place; and Salem = peace. As
such Jerusalem means: ‘city or abode of peace’. The Bible mentions two Jerusalems
without any explanation. In fact the first and the ancient ‘City of Peace’ is
the Jerusalem of Canaan which existed there even before Abraham. The second and
the new ‘City of Peace’ is Makkah which was founded by Abraham and has been
mentioned in the Qur’an as ‘al-Balad al-Amin’. It is only Makkah which is
Jerusalem (City of Peace) in the true sense of word. A detailed study on the
theme has been undertaken in this writer’s book ‘Muhammad Foretold in the Bible by Name’.
191 The Jewish
Com. Soncino Chumash’s footnote (p.1134) is: This
is addressed to Jerusalem. Light being the symbol of joy and salvation,
Jerusalem is told that the light had been rekindled (K). For the history of
Jerusalem see Appendix V at the end of the book.
192 NIV
translates it as: ‘Nations’. Generally this word ‘gentile’ means all the
nations and people other than the Jews.
193 The Rev.
Dr. I. W. Slotki, Eng. Trans. & Com on Isaiah (London: The Soncino Press, 1949), p. 292 has recorded a footnote
on it: The nations will learn the ways of God, religion and morality, from
[you].
194 Matthew
Henry’s An Exposition of the O & NT (5:351),
explains: ‘kings’ means: ‘men of figure, power, and influence’.
195 Dr. W.
Fitch asserts in New Bible Commentary (p. 604): Then will the city be the
centre of the world’s light, for the glory of the everlasting God will rest
upon her and will radiate around the world. It may be noted here that after
Isaiah the 2nd Temple
never gained such glory as has been indicated here. It is only the Temple of
Makkah which can claim this glory through the advent of the Prophet of Islam.
196 Matthew
Henry asserts in his An Exposition of the O & NT (NY: Robert Carter & Bros., 530, Broadway, 1712), 5:350: When the Jews were settled again in their own land’ after their captivity, many of the people of the land joined
themselves to them; but it does not appear that there ever was any such numerous
accession to them as would answer the fulness of this prophecy; and therefore
we must conclude that this looks further, to the bringing of the Gentiles into
the [naturally, the forthcoming words should have been ‘fold of that altar or sanctuary’;
but it is the dexterity and adroitness of the worthy commentator that he manipulates
to interpret it in the following terms] gospel church, not their flocking to
one particular place, though under that type it is here described. There is no
place now that is the centre of the church’s unity; but the promise respects
their flocking to Christ, and coming by faith, and hope, and the holy love,
into that society which is incorporated by the charter of his gospel, and of
the unity of which he only is the centre.
This is an example how the Christian scholars
mould any simple statement of the OT to be applied to Jesus Christ or the
‘Church’.
197 NEB: ‘your
daughters walking beside them leading the way.’Matth. Henry’s An Exposition of the O & NT, 5:351: ‘Sons and daughters shall come in the most
dutiful manner’. Both of these translations make a reasonable sense in this
context. It depicts the true picture of the caravans and groups of men and
women coming together for the pilgrimage of this sanctuary of Makkah.
198 New
Jerusalem Bible (p.1282) translates
it as: since the riches of the sea will flow to you, the wealth of the nations
come to you; NIV (p. 779) has
translated it as: the wealth on the seas will be brought to you, to you the
riches of the nations will come. The
Soncino Chumash (p.1134) has
recorded a footnote here: Whereas in the past the Land of Israel was desolate
and forsaken, it will now be crowded with multitudes like a roaring sea (K). But
it could never come true as far as the Second Temple is concerned.
199 The
Wycliffe Bible Com. explains (p.651): It is quite remarkable that, in origin, all these offered
treasures are preponderantly [being superior in power, numbers, etc] Arabian. But,
in his wishful thinking, he interprets it as: Perhaps there is a suggestion
here that Islam will some day turn to the Cross. This remains a mere dream and
wishful thinking of the worthy scholar.
200 7th Day Adventist BC (4:314) explains the word ‘Midian’ as ‘A region in
the desert of Arabia (Ex. 2:15).’ In fact
Midian was one of the six sons of Abraham from his wife Keturah (whom he had
taken as wife after the death of Sarah). Abraham had settled these Keturah’s sons
(Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah) in Arabia.
201 7th Day Adventist Bible Com. (4:314) explains the word ‘Ephah’ as: A Midianite
tribe (Gen. 25:4; 1 Chron. 1:33), and here the region they inhabited.
In fact Ephah was one of the five sons of
Midian (Ehpah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida and Eldaah). Midian was one of his sons from
Keturah.
202 The New
Jerusalem Bible (p.1283) explains: Midian,
Ephah and Sheba are peoples of Arabia. The 7th Day Adventist Bible Dic. (p.1015) explains: (…) it is now generally held that
it was a queen of this Arabian Sheba, in the area now called Yemen, who made a
visit to Solomon (1Ki 10:1-13). The
Sabeans were one of the most important peoples of all Arabia. (…). They built large dams and an extensive
irrigation system, which made their country the most fertile in ancient Arabia.
This is why it was known in classical times as Arabia Felix, ‘Happy Arabia.’
203 Derek
Kidner, Warden of Tyndale House, Cambridge, in his Commentary on the Book of Isaiah in the NBC Revised (p. 621) asserts: v. 7 is crucial to the understanding of the chapter [60].
204 Dummelow (p.450) has explained the word ‘Nebaioth’ in his commentary
as: ‘a tribe allied to Kedar, descended from Ishmael (Gn 2513).’ The New Jerusalem Bible (p.1283) explains Nebaioth as ‘an Arabian people, see Gn. 25:13; 28:9; 36:3.’ A New
Catholic Com. on HolyScripture (p.597) explains: The tribes of ‘Kedar’ and of ‘Nebaioth’ were of
Ishmaelite origin, and were mainly shepherds. The
Wycliffe Bible Com. (p.651), after
remarking that: It is quite remarkable that, in origin, all these offered
treasures are preponderantly Arabian. makes a wishfully predictive assertion: Perhaps
there is a suggestion here that Islam will some day turn to the Cross.
205 The actual
Hebrew word for this ‘minister’ or ‘serve’ is ___ ‘sharath’ or ‘shareth’, which, according to Strong’s Dic. of the Hebrew Bible, p. 122, entry 8334, 35, means: to attend as a menial or worshipper; fig. to contribute to,
minister, wait on; or service (in the temple). J. H. Hertz’ The (Jewish Commentary) Pentateuch and Haftorahs (p. 875), translates the Hebrew Word as ‘minister’; and
explains it in his footnote as ‘By providing animals for sacrifices ’.
206 NIV (p. 779) translates it as: They will be accepted as
offerings on my altar, and I will adorn my glorious temple.
207 Dummelow (p. 450) has recorded a footnote here in his Com. on
B: The nations are pictured as coming in a long train, to bring their riches
for the service of the sanctuary. Matthew Henry’s An Exposition of the O &
NT, 5:351 notes: Great
numbers of sacrifices shall be brought to God’s altar, acceptable sacrifices,
and, though brought by Gentiles, they shall find acceptance. If related to the
Second Temple, these are mere wishful imaginations.
208 NIV (p. 779) translates it as: ‘and I will adorn my
glorious temple.’ The Soncino Chumash (p. 1134) has recorded a footnote here: ‘By causing the
nations to bring their gifts and offerings to it (K).’
209 It depicts
a true picture of thousands of aeroplanes coming and landing at the airport of
Jeddah daily like clouds, with hundreds of thousands of pilgrims on board who
come here to perform ‘Umrah (short Hajj), and during the Hajj season in even
greater multitude.
210 Carroll
Stuhlmueller explains the word ‘Tarshish’ in The
Jerome Bible Com. (p. 383) as: ‘A
Phoenician colony in southern Spain (Jon 1:3).’ It is to be noted here that it had been ruled by Muslim Arabs
for about eight centuries. These Muslims travelled in ships to the sanctuary of
Makkah to perform pilgrimage.
211 Dr. W.
Fitch, Minister, Church of Scotland, Glasgow, remarks in his Commentary to the book of Isaiah in the NBC (p. 604): The gates will not be shut by day nor
night, a symbol of absolute security under the blessing of her God. But, under
any stretch of sense, they cannot be applied to the Second Temple. On the other
hand it is exactly true of the sanctuary at Makkah, whose gates remain open day
and night and the pilgrims, most of which
are gentile, and their kings as well, keep
circumambulating around Ka‘bah without any break of even a single minute during
day and night with absolute security and under the blessings of their God.
212 The New
Jerusalem Bible (p. 1283) has
inserted a footnote on V. 12: Interrupting
the continuity, [v. 12] is very
probably additional. A New Catholic Com. on Holy Scripture (p. 597) has also recorded similar observation on this
verse: In a context of this kind, the threat mentioned in 12 is astonishing, and is probably a gloss inserted later.
213 A brief
account of the word ‘Zion’ has been afforded at the end of ch. XI of this book.
214 In the
words of The New Jerusalem Bible (p. 1283) it may also be, like v. 12, ‘very
probably additional’. But even if vv 12 and 14 be not additional,
interpolated, and corrupt in entirety and their theme be intact and unpolluted,
it is safely applicable to the sanctuary of Makkah nd depict the true picture
of the conquest of Makkah at the hands of the Prophet of Islam.
215 Dummelow (p. 450) has recorded a footnote here in his
commentary: ‘The figure is that of a forsaken wife (546),’. The 7th Day Adventist Bible Com. (4:315) notes, ‘Like a forsaken wife.’ It clearly
relates to Hagar, the mother of Isma‘el.
216 The
Nelson Study Bible asserts in the footnote to v.15 (p.1209): The new sanctuary will
be greater than the old one because it is eternal, rich, and spiritual (vv. 17, 18); which is exactly true of the sanctuary of
Makkah.
217 The
Soncino Chumash (p.1137) has
recorded a footnote here: Israel’s sovereignty and glory will never again
depart (K). It is nothing more than a wishful expectation, which could never be
materialized . On the other hand it is exactly true of the sanctuary of Makkah.
218 The
Soncino Chumash (p. 1137) has recorded a footnote here: Israel’s
national glory will endure for ever, because the restoration will be the work
of God (K).
It also remained a mere dream, because even
after the construction of the Second Temple, the restoration of the glory of
Israel, which is mentioned here as ‘the work of God’, was not materialized.
They could only enjoy a limited ‘Internal Autonomy’ under the Persian, Greek, Syrian,
or Roman empires and, subsequently, the Temple was completely destroyed in AD
70 for good; and the dream of ‘Israel’s national
glory will endure for ever’ remained a mere
dream, as it was.
219 Isa.
60:1-21 KJV.
220 Dr. W.
Fitch in his Com. on Isaiah in the NBC (p. 604) asserts: Jerusalem is to be rebuilt (…). Then
will the city be the centre of the world’s light [unfortunately the city could never become ‘the centre of the
world’s light’], for the
glory of everlasting God will rest upon her and will radiate around the world
[the world never
saw this dream come true]. (…) iii. Jerusalem
to be built again. (lx. 10-14). (…). When rebuilt the gates
will not be shut by day nor night (11), a symbol of absolute security under the blessing of her God [of
course, it is quite true that ‘the gates will not be shut by day nor night’
because they do not even physically exist on earth. As such, the question of
their being ever shut does not arise, because it is ‘a symbol of absolute
security under the blessing of her God.’ How can someone dare to comment on
it!], and also implying the warmth of the welcome that will be given to those
that seek an entrance therein. See also the first footnote on the above
passage.
221 See
footnotes on vv. 5, 15, 20, 21 above.
222 Footnote on
Isa. 60:17-18 NOAB, p. 950.
223 J.L.
McKenzie’s Dic. of Bible, 875.
224 W. Smith’s Dic. of Bible, 680.
225 New Bible
Dic., 1170.
226See 7th Day
Adventist Bible Dic., 1100.
227 The
Jewish Enc, 12: 97.
228 Isa. 60:6f
GNB: Great caravans of camels will come, from Midian and Ephah. They will come
from Sheba (…)! All the sheep of Kedar and Nebaioth Will be brought to you as
sacrifices And offered on the altar to please the Lord. Isa. 60:6f CEV: Your
country will be covered with caravans of young camels from Midian and Ephah.
The people of Sheba will bring gold and spices in praise of me, the Lord. Every
sheep of Kedar will come to you; rams of Nebaioth will be yours as well. I will
accept them as offerings and bring honor to my temple.
The contents of the above statement are
merely a wishful imagination as far as the Second Temple is concerned. The
phenomena of the above verse are only a dream of some credulous redactor of the
Bible, which could never turn into a ground reality to console the poor person!
229 New
Jerusalem Bible, 1283.
230 NIV (p.
780).
231 It may be
noted here that According to Matth. Henry’s An
Exposition of the O & NT, 5:351,
‘kings’ means: ‘men of figure, power, and influence’.
232 Mckenzie’s Dic. of Bible, 875.
233 A. J.
Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, p. 336, (22:26-29).
234 A Yusuf
Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 858, (22:32).
235 The
Nelson’s Study Bible, 1208.
236 Page H.
Kelley in the Broadman Bible Com., ed. Clifton J. Allen etc., (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman
Press, 1971), 5:360.
***********************************************************************************
Chapter XI
THE PILGRIMAGE OF BAKKAH
IN THE PSALMS OF DAVID
King David has mentioned the Pilgrimage of
Bakkah in his 84th Psalm. He
wishes that he could also have the opportunity of accompanying the pilgrims. He
envies at the birds who make nests and reside there in the house of the Lord,
whereas he cannot even pay a visit to it. He longs for the Lord and the courts
of His house and exclaims, ‘A day in thine courts is
better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house
of my God.’ What an ardent desire! An objective study
of the Psalm has been undertaken in this chapter.237 Most of the points have been explained at the spot in the
footnotes. The Psalm is reproduced hereunder:
1. How amiable are thy
tabernacles238, O Lord of hosts!239
2. My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for
the courts of the Lord240: my heart and my flesh crieth out for the
living God.
3. Yea241,
the sparrow hath found an house, and a swallow a nest for herself, where she
may lay her young242, Even thy altars, O Lord of hosts, my king,
and my God.243
4. Blessed are they
that dwell in thy house: they will be still244 praising
thee.245 Selah.246
5. Blessed is the
man whose strength is in thee;247 in whose
heart are the ways of them.248
6. Who passing through the
valley of Baca249 make it a well250;
the rain also filleth the pools.251
7. They go from strength252 to strength, every
one of them in Zion appeareth before God.
8. O Lord God of hosts, hear my prayer: give
ear, O God of Jacob. Selah.
9. Behold, O God our shield, and look upon
the face of thine anointed.
10. For a day in thine courts is
better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house
of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.253
11. For the Lord God is a sun and shield254: the Lord will give grace and glory: no good
thing will he withhold from them that walk
uprightly.
12. O Lord of hosts, blessed is
the man that trusteth in thee.255
It would be advisable that a verse to verse
study be undertaken to ascertain the theme of the Psalm.
Verse 1, as translated by NIV (p. 621) and NOAB (p. 747) asserts, ‘How lovely is your dwelling place, O Lord Almighty!
(NOAB: O Lord of hosts!)’ It means that the Psalm relates to some dwelling place of the Lord
Almighty, which physically existed at that time. The
Arabic version of the ‘dwelling place of the Lord Almighty’ is ‘Bayt Allah’, which
means the ‘House of the Lord’. It had been built by his primogenitor Abraham
and physically existed there in Makkah with the same name as a ground reality.
It was, however, also called ‘The Ka’bah’ by the Arabs. On the other hand,
there existed no ‘dwelling place’ of the ‘Lord Almighty’ or ‘Bayt Allah’
anywhere else on earth at that time. The ‘Solomon’s Temple’ did not exist at
that time. It was built almost half a century later. Its construction could not
even be started during the lifetime of King David. So there obviously remains
no option but to consider this ‘dwelling place’ of
the ‘Lord Almighty’
as the ‘Bayt Allah’ or ‘The Ka’bah’ situated at Makkah. And there are other reasonable
grounds as well in the body of this very Psalm which make the proposition quite
certain.
Verse 2 shows the passionate earnestness of
the king for the courts of the Lord, the Living God. It reveals that the ‘courts
of the Living Lord’ already existed somewhere, but are not situated within his
empire, and, as such, he cannot visit them. Therefore he can only long for ‘the
courts of the Lord’.
As regards vv. 3-4, the comments recorded in
the relevant footnotes above sufficiently make the theme clear. NOAB (p. 747) has afforded a very beautiful footnote on vv.
3-4, ‘Envy of the birds and servitors256 who live there.’ The comments by the Collegeville Bible Com. (p. 772) on these vv. 3-4 are also noteworthy, ‘All living things are safe
from threat in the presence of the Lord.’ The
7th Day
Adventist Bible Com. (3:828) explains
these verses in the following words:
The general meaning of the verse, whose
conclusion the poet only implies, is that even the birds have
free access to the sacred precincts of the sanctuary, they make their homes there
undisturbed, while the psalmist is exiled from the source of his joy, is denied
the privilege of worshipping within the sacred enclosure [stress added].
The nostalgic appeal of this verse is one of
the most delicately beautiful expressions
of homesickness in the
whole realm of literature.
Verses 1-4 can be summed up as follows:
1. King David is paying homage to such a
sanctuary which pertained to God and which physically existed there as a ground
reality.
2. King David had an earnest desire to visit
this sanctuary, but he could not accomplish it. Obviously, it could have been
due to the fact that this sanctuary might have been outside the territorial
boundaries of his state.
3. Solomon’s Temple had not so far been
built. There existed only one sanctuary on earth devoted to the worship of the
only one God whose construction was attributed to Abraham, i.e. the Ka’bah at
Makkah, and there did not exist any such other sanctuary on eart by that time.
4. King David expresses his yearnings that
even the birds can set their dwellings in the courts of the Lord, but he is
deprived of the privilege of the pilgrimage of this house of the Lord.
The translation of the second clause of v. 5
in the KJV (‘in whose heart are the ways of them’) is not clear. Most of the other
translations have rendered the theme as who have
set their hearts on pilgrimage or the
like. Here is a list of some translations, versions, and commentaries of the
Bible which relate the theme of the verse and the Psalm with pilgrimage:
(i) Bible Knowledge Com.,
p. 855.
(ii) Christian Community Bible, p.
1000.
(iii) Collegeville Bible
Com., p.772.
(iv) Contemporary English Version, p.
707.
(v) Good News Bible, p.
900.
(vi) Jerome Bible Com.,
p. 591.
(vii) New American Bible, p.
615.
(viii) New Bible Com.,
p. 472.
(ix) New Bible Com. (Rvd), p.
504.
(x) New Catholic Com.,
p. 473.
(xi) New Com. on Holy Scripture, p.
264.
(xii) New English Version, p.
441.
(xiii) New International
Version., p. 621.
(xiv) New Jerome Commentary,
p.540.
(xv) New Jerusalem Bible,
p.900.
(xvi) New KJV (Nelson Study
Bible), p. 966.
(xvii) Peake’s Bible Com.,
p. 431.
(xviii) Today’s English
Version, p. 607.
(xix) Wycliffe Bible Com.,
p. 526.
(xx) 7th Day
Adventist Bible Com., p. 828.
(xxi) The Holy Bible (Old
and New. Testament): An Improved edn. (American Baptist
Publication
Society), as quoted by ‘The
Old Testament Books of Poetry from 26 Translations’,
p. 334.
(xxii) A New Trans. of the
Bible (James Moffatt), as quoted by ‘The OT Books of
Poetry from 26 Trans.’, p. 334.
It can be appreciated from the above data
that the Psalm refers to some pilgrimage which has traditionally been performed
at some sanctuary for a long time.
First of
all King David is bestowing the blessings in this psalm upon those ‘that
dwell permanently in the house of the Lord and are ever praising Him.’
Secondly he
is bestowing the blessings upon those ‘who have set their hearts on pilgrimage
[but are not the permanent residents of it].’ It shows that the sanctuary
physically exists there. It is practically dedicated to the Lord and not to any
thing else whatsoever. People travel to it to perform ‘Pilgrimage’. It is to be
noted that the sanctuary of Jerusalem, the Solomon’s Temple, did not exist
there by that time. It was built about half a century later.
The sanctuary of Ka’bah, called the ‘Bayt
Allah’ or the ‘House of the Lord’ by the Arabs, existed there at Makkah in
Arabia as a ground reality for the last about one thousand years (before King David).
The descendants of his primogenitor Abraham through his son Ishma‘el and the
tribes of the whole of the Arabian Peninsula travelled to perform pilgrimage
there in large multitudes. They pronounced (which they still pronounce) the praise of the Lord during their pilgrimage saying,
I am present, O my Lord, I am
present; (…); of course, all praise is for you, and all grace, and all
sovereignty; there is no partner to you.
David should have had deep love, longing, and
reverence for it, because it had been built by his primogenitor, Abraham. But
it was outside his empire and, being a king of another land and engaged in
constant battles, he could not visit it then. So he wishes he could have attended the sanctuary and performed
pilgrimage there with offering sacrifice on it. There was another genuine
reason for David’s longing for the Pilgrimage of Bakkah, which is being stated
under the next heading.
From the perusal of the material of the
chapter provided so far, it would easily be appreciated that:
i) Some ‘House of the Lord of nations’
already existed during the days of King David.
ii) It was a sanctuary and was abundanatly
visited by pilgrims from far and near.
iii) King David had happened to stay there
for a considerable period of time.
iv) It was situated in the valley of Bakkah.
v) After going back to his motherland he could not have
an opportunity to visit this sanctuary due to
some reasons.
vi) He expressed his earnest desire to visit
this sanctuary.
vii) He envies the birds which
uninterruptedly make their nests in this sanctuary and reside there.
viii) He is so fond of this ‘house of the
Lord’ that he would prefer to be a doorkeeper there than to live in his own homeland,
whom he calls the land of wickedness as compared to the sanctuary.
ix) According to him ‘a day in the court of
Lord’ is better than a thousand (else-where).
x) The Jewish sanctuary (i.e. the Solomon’s
Temple) did not exist at that time. It was built by his son Solomon after his
death. By that time there existed only the sanctuary of Ka‘bah at Makkah, which
was built by his primogenitor Abraham, and Ishma‘el about ten centuries earlier
and hundreds of thousands of people visited it all the year through.
BAKKAH HAD PROVIDED REFUGE
TO DAVID
DURING
HIS DAYS OF TROUBLE.
David had rendered great services to King
Saul but, according to the Bible, Saul, seeing David’s popularity and power,
became jealous of him and wanted to kill him.
Smith’s BD explains:
Unfortunately David’s fame proved the
foundation of that unhappy jealousy of Saul towards him which, mingling with the
king’s constitutional malady [illness], poisoned his whole future relations to
David. (…). He [David] also still performed from time to time the office of
minstrel [singer or musician of the king’s court]; but the successive attempts
of Saul upon his life convinced him that he was in constant danger. (…), he
escaped by night, (…). David’s life for the next few years was made up of a
succession of startling incidents. (…); he is hunted by Saul from place to
place like a partridge.257
In the mean time David’s patron, Prophet
Samuel died. David fled to the wilderness of Paran to remain out of Saul’s reach.258 This Paran can obviously be the place where Ishma‘el
and Hagar settled after Abraham had left them there. Had it been the other Paran (of Sinai), it
would have been in approach of Saul; and David would not have been safe
there. It can thus only be that Paran which has been described in the Bible in the following words:
And God heard the voice of the lad; and the
angel of God Called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee,
Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is.
Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great
nation. And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and
filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink. And God was with the lad;
and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer. And he dwelt
in the wilderness of Paran:
and his mother took him a wife out of the land
of Egypt.259
Had it been the other Paran (of Sinai), it would have been quite
in approach of Saul, and David would not have been safe there.
It is a historically admitted fact and ground
reality that the Ka’bah was built by Abraham and Ishma‘el. The Ishma‘elite
Arabs performed pilgrimage there. David had the opportunity to live there
and perform the pilgrimage of al-Ka’bah during his stay at Bakkah in the wilderness of Paran. That’s why he yearns to have the
opportunity to visit the place of his refuge and perform its pilgrimage once again.
THE EXACT PROPER NAME
BACA/BAKKAH
Verse 6 ‘Who
passing through the valley of Baca make it a well;
the rain also filleth the pools.’ points out the exact proper name of the place
from which the pilgrims have to pass through for the accomplishment of their
pilgrimage at ‘Arafat. It is to be noted that some of the translations have
changed the word ‘Baca’ with some other word. The
New Jerusalem Bible (p. 900, 901) has
translated it as ‘Balsam’ and has remarked in the footnote, ‘In seven MSS and
in versions, ‘the valley of Tears’ (the Hebrew words for these two words are
identical when spoken).’ Some other translations have not taken the word ‘Baca’
as a proper noun and have translated it to ‘misery’260, ‘Weary-glen’261, ‘thirsty valley’262, etc. All the 26 translations of Dr. Curtis Vaughan’s ‘The OT Books of Poetry from 26 Translations’ have basically considered the original Hebrew word as ‘Baca’. The 7th Day
Adventist Bible Com. reports: The LXX263 and
the Vulgate264
translate the phrase ‘valley of Baca’ as ‘valley of Tears.’265
It means that according to these Greek and
Latin translations of the Bible as well, the original Hebrew word here is ‘Baca’.
Here is a list of some more translations,
versions, and commentaries of the Bible that have used the word ‘Baca’ at this
place:
1 Bible Knowledge Com.,
p.855.
2 Dummelow’s Bible Com.,
p.363.
3 GNB, p. 585.
4 Gray & Adams Bible Com.,
1:612.
5 Matthew Henry’s Exposition,
4:324.
6 NAB, p. 615.
7 NASB, p. 747.
8 NBC, p. 472.
9 NBC (Rvd), p. 504.
10 New Catholic Com.,
p.473, (Baka).
11 New Com. on Holy Scripture,
p.364.
12 NIV, p. 621.
13 NKJV (Nelson Study Bible),
p. 966.
14 New Oxford Annotated Bible, p.
747.
15 Paragraph Bible, p.
621.
16 Peake’s Bible Com.,
p. 431.
17 Readers Digest Bible,
p.306.
18 RSV, p. 539.
19 TEV, p. 607.
20 Thompson’s Bible, p.
666.
21 7th Day
Adventist Bible Com., 3:827.
THE SITE OF BAKKAH
IS UNKNOWN
TO
THE SCHOLARS OF THE BIBLE.
The fact is that most of the scholars of the
Bible do not know the location of Bakkah/Baca and they clearly admit this fact.
Some observations of some of these authorities are reproduced hereunder:
1. Contemporary English Version (p.
707) has recorded a footnote to it: Dry
Valley: Or ‘Balsam Tree Valley.’ The exact location is
not known.
2. The New American Bible (p.
615) says in its footnote to the verse: Baca
valley: Hebrew obscure; probably a valley on the way to Jerusalem.
3. The Jerome Biblical Com. (p.591), taking vv. 7-8 collectively, has afforded the footnote:
A description of the pilgrim’s journey. The
MT is uncertain.
4. 7th Day Adventist Bible Dic. has afforded a fairly detailed
explanation of the word. Concluding his remarks
he could not help asserting its uncertainty: Baca
(baka). [Heb. Baka, possibly ‘balsam
tree.’] The
name of a valley in Palestine (Ps 84:6),
possibly so named because balsam trees grew there. Some have thought that it is
another name for the Valley of Rephaim, where trees of that species were found,
but this is pure conjecture. There were doubtless many valleys in which balsam
trees grew.
Another interpretation names it the valley of
‘weeping’ from the Hebrew bakah, ‘to weep,’ a word
that differs only slightly from baka. However, neither interpretation helps to identify
this place.266
5. The New
Oxford Annotated Bible (p. 747) in the
footnote to vv.5-7 indicates: Baca, some unknown, desolate place through
which the pilgrims must go.
6. The Harper’s
Bible Dic. also holds the similar opinion: Baca [bay’kuh],
unidentified valley associated with weeping or balsam [Ps. 84:6]. The term is
derived from the verb ‘to drip,’ hence its association with weeping.267
7. W. Smith’s A Dic. of Bible although
calls it ‘a valley in Palestine’, yet the air of uncertainty can be smelt from
its following remarks:
That it was a real locality is most probable
from the use of the definite article before the name.268
8. Collins
Gem Dic. of Bible has also expressed the similar views about
it:
It may simply be a valley in Palestine (Ps.
84,6). It may simply be the Valley of the balsam trees, or it may be the Valley
of Weeping (Heb. Bakah) or the Valley of
little water.269
9. J. Hasting’s Dic. of the Bible Revised One Vol. edn. throws a shadow of doubt on it:
An allegorical place-name, found only in Ps.
846 (AV, RSV), where RV renders ‘Valley of
Weeping.’ Most probably it is no more an actual locality than is the ‘Valley of
the Shadow of Death’ in Ps 234.270
10. A. S. Aglen, in his article on ‘Baca’ in
Hasting’s Dic. of Bible, discovers nothing but uncertainties about the valley:
If an actual valley (the article is not quite
conclusive), it may be identified either with ‘the valley of Achor, i.e. trouble’;
‘the valley of Rephaim’; a Sinaitic valley with a similar name (Burckhardt); or
the last station of the caravan route from the north to Jerusalem. Perseverance
and trust not only overcome difficulties, but turn them into blessings; this is
the lesson, whether the valley be real or only (as the Vulg. Vallis
lacrymarum has become) an emblem of life.271
11. W. H. Morton is also of almost the
similar views. In his article on ‘Baca’ in Interpreter’s
Dic. of Bible he observes: No valley of such a
name has yet been identified, (….). In the same vein, it is quite possible that
the valley was entirely symbolic.272
12. Dr. Frants Buhl (Copenhagen Univ.) and
Dr. Morris Jastrow (Univ. of Pennsylvania), have noted: (…);
but it signifies rather any valley lacking water.273
13. A New
Com. on Holy Scripture is also not certain as
to where this valley of Baca is to be found: Baca was the name of
some valley [Note the air of uncertainty regarding the
location of the valley!] on the way to the city.274
14. Peake’s Com.
On Bible observes: The valley of Baca;
this rendering is better than ‘valley of
weeping’ (LXX, RV). The location of the
valley is unknown. Baca may mean ‘balsam tree’, which grows in dry soil. The point
at all events seems to be that the valley is arid.275 The above information makes it quite clear
that the scholars of the Bible cannot confidently claim to locate the exact site
of the ‘Valley of Baca’. It is because they relate it to the pilgrimage of the
sanctuary at Jerusalem and don’t try to trace it somewhere else. It is to be
regretted that they either forget or knowingly ignore that:
(a) This Psalm was written by King David.
(b) There did not exist any sanctuary during
the lifetime of King David.
(c) The language and the composition of the
Psalm reveal that King David is mentioning some sanctuary which physically
existed there.
(d) King David passionately desired to visit
the sanctuary but it being outside his empire, he was unable to attend it. Had
they not ignored the plain words and the purport of the Psalm, and had they
sincerely tried to locate the place, they would have easily located it.
THE ACTUAL SITE OF BACA/BAKKAH
It is unanimously accepted that the original
word in the Hebrew Bible is ‘Baca’. The context clearly indicates that it has
been used as a proper noun and most of the versions and translations of the
Bible have retained this status. Some of the translations and versions have
misconceived its status and have taken it to be a common word. Then they tried
to translate it whimsically as: weeping, tears, balsam tree, mulberry, some of
the other trees, dry valley, etc. It does not seem to be a proper approach and
is based on some misunderstanding.
The Hebrew word ‘Baca’ is composed of three
alphabetical letters = __ (b_k_a).
According to the Strong’s Dic. Of the Heb. Bible it means: ‘weeping’276 or ‘the weeping tree (some gum-distilling tree,
perhaps the balsam,):—mulberry tree.’277 .
‘Bakah’ is also composed of three alphabetical letters = _ (b_k_h), meaning
‘to weep; gen. to bemoan, to bewail, complain, mourn, with tears, weep’278. The vowel
symbols had not been introduced in the Hebrew writing system until the
seventh/eighth century AD.279 It was only
after their introduction in the Qur’an in the 7th century AD that some proper vocalization system for the Bible was developed
somewhere in the beginning of the seventh century. Before the introduction of
the vocalization system in Hebrew writing, the words ‘Baca’ and ‘Bacca’; or the
words ‘Bakah’ and ‘Bakkah’ were to be written in the same way. King David had
actually and naturally used the word ‘Bakkah’ in his Psalm. Because the words ‘Bakah’
and ‘Bakkah’ were written in the Hebrew script in the same way, it got the
pronunciation of ‘Baca’ or ‘Bakah’ instead of the correct pronunciation of
‘Bakkah’ in the later Jewish ages. This ‘Bakkah’ was the ancient name of ‘Makkah’
and was given to it by Abraham. Originally the city was called by this name.
Here are some of the Arab authorities to elaborate it: ‘Lisan al-‘Arab’ (the language of
the ‘Arabs), a renowned Arabic Dictionary in 18 volumes, explains: Ya’qub
says, ‘Bakkah is what is situated in between the two mountains of Makkah,
because the people crushed one another during the circumambulation or
overcrowded there. (…). It is said that Bakkah is the name of the
interior of Makkah and it was given this name due to the crowding and swarming
of the people. The tradition of Mujahid states, ‘Bakkah is among the
names of Makkah.’ And it is said, ‘Bakkah is the site of the House of the Lord,
and Makkah is the whole of the city.’ It is also said, ‘Both [Makkah and
Bakkah] are the names of the city; and [the alphabetical letters] “B” and “M”
succeed (can replace) one another.’280 Tahdhib al-Lughah (in 16
volumes) is one of the most reliable dictionaries of the ‘Arabic language. It
explains the word as follows: Al-Layth says: al-bakk means breaking the
neck. It is said that Makkah was named Bakkah because it broke the necks of
oppressors when they deviated from the right course. And it is said that Bakkah
was named Bakkah because the people crushed or pushed away one another in the
paths. ‘Amr reports from his father: Bakka something, i.e. tore or disjointed
it; and from it was derived Bakkah, because it broke the necks of the
oppressors and tyrants when they transgressed in it. It is also said that
it was named Bakkah because people crushed one another in its routes.
(…). Zajja j
says: It is said that Bakkah is the site of the sanctuary, and what is all
around it, is Makkah. He [Zajja j] said: and there is consensus on it that
Makkah and Bakkah are the place where the people resort for pilgrimage; and it
is the city. And he [Zajja j] said: And as far as its derivation in the
lexicon is concerned it would be appropriate to say that ‘the people crushed
one another in the circumambulation,
i.e. pushed away one another.’ And it is said: Bakkah was given this name,
because it crushed the necks of the tyrants.281
‘Mu‘jam al-Wasit’
says, ‘Bakkah = Makkah’.282 Al-S ihah explains:
‘Bakkah’ is the name of the inner portion of
‘Makkah’. It was thus named because of the overcrowding of the people [in it]. It is also
said that it was thus named because it crushed and broke the necks of the
oppressors.283
Tartib al-Qamus al-Muh it
has also explained ‘Bakkah’ in a fair detail:
‘Bakkah’ stands either for ‘Makkah’; or for what
lies between its two mountains; or for the field of
circumambulation [Mataf], because it crushes
and breaks the necks of the arrogant or because of the overcrowding of the people
in it.284
Muhit al-Muh it is also one of the authorities of the ‘Arabic lexicons. It is a
revised and advanced version of Firuzabadi’s renowned ‘Qamus’. It has also recorded similar explanation
of the word:
It is the name of what lies between the two
mountains of Makkah or of the circumambulation field [Mataf]. It is said that
it was so named because it crushes and breaks the necks of the arrogant or
because of the overcrowding of the people in it.285
Mu‘jam Maqayis al-Lughah is an authority as regards the basic roots of the Arabic words. It
explains the word as follows:
‘Al-Khalil’ says ‘Al-Bakku: crushing
the neck’, and it is said that ‘Bakkah’ was named so because it used to crush
the necks of the oppressors. When they inclined towards oppression, they were
erased from the scene. It is also said that it was named ‘Bakkah’ because the
people crush one another during the circiumambulation or pushed them away.286
Al-Khalil bin Ah~mad
(100-175 A.H.) is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, authorities on
Arabic lexicon. The first Arabic lexicon, Kitab al-‘Ayn, was compiled by him.
He explains:
Al-Bakku: to crush the neck. Makkah was named
Bakkah because people crush one another in the T~awaf (circumambulation
of Ka‘bah), or push one another due to overcrowding. It is also said that it
was so named because it crushed the necks of tyrants when they deviated (from
the right path) in it by way of oppression.287
‘Akhbar Makkah’ is a detailed history of ‘Makkah’ in six volumes in the
Arabic language.
Here are some excerpts from its section on
‘Names of Makkah’:
One of the residents of Makkah (…) gave me a
book written by some of his forefathers. In it were stated the names of Makkah
which the residents of Makkah claimed to be, i.e. Makkah, Bakkah, Barrah,
Bassasah, Umm al-Qura, al-H~aram, al-Masjid al-Haram, and al-Balad al-Amin.
Some people say that ‘Salahi’ is also among its names. Some of the Makkans
claim that ‘Kutha’ is also one of its names.288
It is written beneath ‘al-Maqam’, I am Allah,
Lord of ‘Bakkah’. I sanctified it on the day when the heavens and the earth
were brought into existence.289
The Quran has used both ‘Makkah’ and ‘Bakkah’ for the name of the place. When
it is mentioned as a place of the ancient times it has been named as ‘Bakkah’,
as it has been used in surah Al ‘Imran (3) of the Qur’an:
The first House ever to be built (as
sanctuary) for men was that at Bakkah (Makkah), a blessed place, a beacon for
the nations. In it, there are clear signs and the spot where Ibrahim stood.
Whoever enters it is safe. Pilgrimage to the House is a duty to Allah for all
who can make the journey.291
There is another occasion in the Qur’an where it has been mentioned in the perspective of the period
contemporary with the Prophet of Islam: It was He who restrained their hands from you
and your hands from them in the valley of Makkah after He had given you victory
over them. Allah was watching over all your actions.293
Here it has been mentioned with the name of
‘Makkah’, which shows that in the times of the Prophet of Islam the city was
named as ‘Makkah’.
The source of the sounds (vocal organ) of the
alphabetical letters ‘b’ and ‘m’ is one and the same: the lips. So by the passage
of time ‘Makkah’ replaced ‘Bakkah’. It can thus be
appreciated that the original and ancient
name of the place was ‘Bakkah’. King David used this ancient name as it was in
vogue during his days. It was only in the later centuries that it was replaced
by Makkah.
The verse says, ‘passing through the valley
of Baca [they] make it a well;’ Hagar
passed through the valley of Baca in search of water for her son Ishma‘el.
Consequently she was given a well [Beersheba or Zamzam]. Those who have happened to visit this
valley of Bakkah know it well that ‘Ka‘bah’ is situated in a low lying area.
Previously, when there was a heavy rain it turned into a pond. Now, a very sophisticated
drainage system has been constructed there and the rain-water is quickly swept
away. So every clause of the verse is perfectly pertinent to the ground
realities of Makkah.
Verse 7 asserts, ‘They go from strength to
strength.’ It depicts the zeal of the pilgrims. As they draw nearer and nearer to the sanctuary, their fervour is
increased, which gives them new strength and impetus instead of fatigue.
The second clause of the verse is, ‘every one of them in Zion
appeareth before God’ or, as NIV states, ‘till each appears
before God in Zion.’
The word ‘Zion’
needs to be studied in a fair detail.
As regards its meanings, Encyclopaedia Biblica observes:
Various explanations of the name have been
given. Gesenius (Thes.
1164) and Lagarde (Ubers. 84. n) derive from [a
Hebrew word meaning] ‘to be dry’ (…) Wetzstein derives from ‘to protect’
so that the name would mean ‘arx, citadel’; cp Zin.294
Interpreter’s Dic. of Bible explains:
The etymology of the name is uncertain. It
may be related to the Hebrew (sayon), ‘dry place’ ‘parched ground’ (Isa. 25:5;
32:2).’295
It would be appreciated that ‘dry
place’ or ‘parched ground’ can be only applied to arid, barren, and sterile land of ‘Makkah’.
It can by no means be applied to the verdant and fertile land of ‘Jerusalem’.
Like other Bible names ‘Zion’ may also have
more than one significations. There may have been a ‘Zion’ of Makkah and the
other of Jerusalem. But in the sense of ‘dry place,’ or ‘parched
ground’ it can only be applied to ‘Makkah’ in the present
context. It is not possible for the writer of this book to dilate upon this
theme here. It may, however, be noted that the implication of the Zion of Jerusalem
is to be ruled out due to the fact that there did not exist any sanctuary at
Jerusalem at that time. The rest of the Psalm depicts the strong yearnings of
King David to have some opportunity to visit the sanctuary of the Lord like other
pilgrims.
It can thus be appreciated that as far back
as the annals of history and tradition can be traced, there has been perpetually
commemorated the act of Abraham’s offering his genuinely ‘only son’, Ishma‘el,
for sacrifice at the mountainous area in the land of Moriah (a mountain situated in Makkah).
But there is not even a single place, or a ritual, or a festivity, or a trace,
or a building amongst the Jewish people or the Christians to commemorate the
event of the offering of Abraham his ‘only son’ for sacrifice. It is now unto
the reader to derive an objective conclusion.
***************************************************************************
237 As to the
authorship of this song, it can safely be considered as a genuine work of King
David himself. Some of the authorities are given here. Matthew Henry’s An Exposition of the O&NT, (4:324) explains in its introduction: Though David’s
name be not in the title of this song, yet we have reasons to think he was the
penman of it, because it breathes so much of his excellent spirit and is so
much like the sixty-third psalm which was penned by him; (…), witness this
psalm, which contains the pious breathing of a gracious soul after God and communion
with him. 7th Day Adventist Bible Com. (3:827) writes in its introduction to this psalm:
Ps 84 was composed by David, the Lord’s
‘anointed’(…). It is a passionate lyrical expression of devotion and love for
the house of Jehovah and His worship. The psalm seems to describe the blessedness
of those who dwell in the sacred precincts (vs. 1-4,
9- 11); the blessedness of those who make
pilgrimages to the sanctuary (vs. 5-8).
Peake’s Com. on the Bible (p. 431) observes: The period of its composition is
clearly that of the monarchy. It shows that the commentators take it to be
written by David himself.
238 The actual
Hebrew word used here is ____ ‘mishkawn’
which is the exact synonym for the Arabic word ‘maskan’, i.e, residence.
According to the Strong’s Dictionary (Entry 4908, p. 74), it means: ‘a
residence;
dwelling (place), habitation.’ So ‘thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts’ would literally mean: ‘Your
house O Lord of nations.’ It would be ‘Baytullah’ in Arabic, which is al-Ka’bah
of Makkah. Keeping in view the fact that the Solomon’s Temple had not so far
been built, it becomes certain that it refers to only Ka’bah of Makkah, as
there did not exist any ‘House of Lord’ on earth except it by that time.
239 ‘Lord of
hosts’ may imply here that He is not the Lord of Israel only; but He is the
Lord of all the nations.
240 Gray
& Adams Bible Com., 2:611 explains: David
says not, Oh how I long for my palace, my crown, my
sceptre, my kingdom; but oh how I long to
return to the house of God! [the word ‘return’ shows that King David had
previously been to this place.] It may, however, be noted that the construction
of Solomon’s Temple had not yet begun. By the time of King David, there existed
only one ‘House of God’, which had
been built at Bakkah (the name of Makkah at that time), by his forefathers,
Abraham and Ishma‘el.
241 NOAB (p. 747) has
afforded a very beautiful footnote on vv. 3-4, ‘Envy of the birds and servitors
[a male servant] who live there.’ The comments by the Collegeville Bible Com. (p. 772) on these vv 3-4 are also
noteworthy, ‘All living things are safe from threat in the presence of the
Lord.’
242 Matthew
Henry’s An Exposition of the O&NT, (4:24, 25) observes
at this point: He would rather live in a
bird’s nest nigh God’s altars than in a palace at a distance from them. It is
better to be serving God in solitude than serving sin with a multitude. (…).
Observe, David envies the happiness not of those birds that flew over the
altars, and had only transient view of God’s courts, but of those that had nests
for themselves there. David will not think it enough to sojourn in God’s house as a way-faring man that turns aside to tarry for a night; but let this be his rest, his home; here he will dwell.
243 The 7th Day Adv. Bible Com. (3:28) explains the verse: The general meaning of
the verse, whose conclusion the poet only implies, is that even the birds have
free access to the sacred precincts of the sanctuary, they make their homes
there undisturbed, while the psalmist is exiled from the source of his joy, is
denied the privilege of worshipping within the sacred enclosure. The nostalgic
appeal of this verse is one of the most delicately beautiful expressions of
homesickness in the whole realm of literature.
244 According
to Gray & Adams Bible Com., 2:611, ‘still’ here means, ‘all the day long’.
245 NIV, (p.621) translates it as: ‘they are ever praising
you’, instead of: ‘they will be still praising thee.’
246 A New
Catholic Com. on Hebrew Scripture (p.473) renders this v. as, ‘Blessed [be] those who dwell in thy house,
still they praise thee.’ It further observes, ‘Yet the idea of “They are
pilgrims at heart” is consistent with the theme of the psalm.’
247 NIV, (p.621) has well translated it as: ‘who have set
their hearts on pilgrimage’, instead of: ‘in whose heart are the ways of
them.’
248 The 7th Day Adventist Bible Com. (3:828) explains the verse: The second blessing is
bestowed on those who hold God in their hearts as they make the pilgrimage. It
may be noted at this point that some of the translations have arbitrarily
inserted the word ‘Zion’ here; e.g. NOAB (p.849) and Praise Songs of
Israel: a Rendering of the Book of Psalms (John
DeWitt), as recorded in OT books of poertry
from 26 translations, ed. Curtis Vaughan (Michigan: Zondervan
Bible Publishers, 1973), p. 334, write: ‘in whose heart are the highways to
Zion.’ NOAB has also
recorded a footnote to it saying, ‘Heb. lacks to
Zion’ (p. 849). But this word ‘Zion’ does not
exist in most of the English translations. The original Hebrew also lacks it as
quoted above with refence to NOAB. On the contrary most of the translations use here the word of
‘pilgrimage’ or ‘pilgrim’. The Holy Bible
Containing O & N T: An Improved Edition (American
Baptist Publication Society), as recorded in OT
books of poertry from
26 translations), p. 334, translates it as, ‘In their heart the pilgrim-way.’ A New Translation of the Bible by
James Moffatt (as recorded in OT books
of poertry from 26 translations, p. 334)
translates it as, ‘Set out
on pilgrimage.’ New English Bible translates
(p.441) it as, ‘Whose hearts are set on the pilgrim-ways’
NIV translates it as, ‘Who have set their
hearts on pilgrimage.’ CEV (p. 707) translates it as: You bless all who depend on you for their
strength and all who deeply desire to visit your temple. And the Temple of the
Lord, by that time, was only the Ka‘bah at Makkah.
It clearly shows that the theme of the Psalm
84 is the ‘Pilgrimage’.
249 Matthew
Henry’s An Exposition of the O&NT, (4:326) here observes:
Our way to heaven lies through a valley of
Baca, but even that may be made a well if we make due improvement of the
comforts God has provided for the pilgrims of the heavenly city.
250 Gray
& Adams Bible Com., 2:612 explains: To
such a one, whose soul is athirst for God, the valley of Baca
becomes a well, while the hot rock pours out
its streams of blessing. It portrays a true state of mind of a Pilgrim to
Makkah.
251 The
Peshitta, (p.628): They have passed through the valley of weeping [the word ‘weeping’
shows that the actual word here was ‘Baca’, because its meaning, if not taken
as a proper noun, is ‘weeping’], and have made it a dwelling place; the
Lawgiver shall cover it with blessings.
252 The actual Hebrew
word used here in the Bible is ___ ‘khahyil’. According to Strong’s Dictionary, (Entry 2428, p. 39), it means,
‘an army, strength, band of men, company.’
253 Gray
& Adams Bible Com., 2:612 explains: The
poet would rather be the humblest of the guests of Jehovah
than dwell at ease among the heathen. It
depicts the honour and esteem which the poet attaches to the ‘House
of God’.
254 The
Peshitta (p. 628) presents it as: For the Lord God is our supply and our helper;
255 Ps. 84: 1-12 KJV.
256 Servitor means: A man servant (Chambers
Eng. Dic., 1989; 1345).
257 Smith’s
Bible Dic., 138.
258 I Sam, 25:1
NKJV: Then Samuel died; and the Israelites gathered together and lamented for
him, and buried him at his home in Ramah. And David arose and went down to the
Wilderness of Paran.
259 Gen,
21:17-21 KJV.
260 From the
Psalms in the Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican Church
(as quoted by OT Poetry 26 Tr; 334).
261 James
Moffatt, A New Trans. of the Bible, quoted in OT Poetry 26 Tr; 334 (‘glen’ means ‘deep narrow valley’).
262 NEB, p.
441.
263 ‘Septuagint’
or ‘LXX’ (meaning ‘seventy’, the number of the scholars who undertook the
translation task), the Greek translation of the MT [Massoretic Text] of the
Bible made at Alexandria during the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC.
264 ‘Vulgate’
means ‘common’. It is the name of the Latin translation of the Bible made by
St. Jerome and was commonly used by the Christians of that time. It was
completed in ca. AD 450.
265 The 7th Day Adventist Bible Com., 3:828.
266 7th Day Adventist Bible Dic. Revised 1979 edn., 114.
267 Harper’s
Bible Dic., 89.
268 William
Smith, A Dic. of the Bible, 73.
269 Rev. James
L. Dow, Collins Gem Dic. of the Bible, 54.
270 J.
Hasting’s Dic. of the Bible Revised One Vol. edn., 84.
271 J.
Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible, 1:230.
272 Interpreter’s
Dic. of Bible, 1:338.
273 Jewish
Encyclopaedia, 2:415.
274 A New
Commentary on Holy Scripture, 364.
275 Peake’s
Com. on Bible, 431.
276 Strong’s
Dic. of the Hebrew Bible, p. 21, entry 1056.
277 Strong’s
Dic. of the Hebrew Bible, p. 21, entry 1057.
278 Strong’s
Dic. of the Hebrew Bible, p. 21, entry 1058.
279 A detailed
study on this subject has been undertaken by this writer in the Appendix
‘Recording of the Vocalization Signs to the Text of the OT’ to his work ‘Muhammad Foretold in the Bible by Name’.
280 Ibn al-Manz~ur, Lisan al-‘Arab (Beirut: Dar S~adir, 1300 AH), 10: 402.
281 Abu
Mans~ur Muh~ammad bin
Ah~mad al-Azhari, Tahdhib al-Lughah (al-Qahirah:
Al-Dar al-Mis~riyah littalif wattarjamah, n.d.), 9:463,64.
282 Mu‘jam
al-Wasi t (Beirut:
Dar Ih~ya
al-Turath al-‘Arabi, 1972), 1:67.
283 Ismail bin
H~ammad al-Jawhari, Ta j al-Lughat wa Sihahal- ‘Arabiyyah (Beirut: Dar al-‘Ilm lil Malayin, 1984), 4:1576.
284 Al-Ustadh
al-T~ahir Ahmad al-zavi, Tartib al-Qamus al-Muh ~ I t ~ ‘ala T~ariqah al- Mis~bah~ al- Munir, 1979, 1:308.
285 Al-Mu‘allim
But~rus al-Bustani, Muh ~it~
al-Muh ~it~ (Beirut:
Maktabah Lubnan Nashirun, 1993), 50.
286 Ah~mad bin F~aris, Mu‘jam
Maqayis al-Lughah (Beirut: Dar Ih~ya altura th al-‘Arabi, 2001), 92.
287 Al-Khalil bin Ahmad, Kitab al-‘Ayn, (Beirut: Dar Ih~ya al-turath al- ‘Arabi,
2001), 84.
288 Al-Imam Abi
‘Abd Allah Muhammad bin Ishaq al-Fakihi, Akhbar Makkah fi Qadim al-Dahr wa Hadi thihi (Makkah:
Maktabah al-Nahd~at al-H~adithah, 1987), 2:282-3.
289 Akhbar
Makkah, 2:293.
290 The Quran,
surah A^l ‘Imran 3:96,7.
291 The
Quran, An Eng. Trans., tr. N. J. Dawood, revd. Dr. Zayid, (Beirut:
Dar Al-Choura, 1980), 3:96,7; p. 43.
292 The Qur’an al-Fath 48:24.
293 The
Quran, An Eng. Trans., tr. N. J. Dawood, al-Fath 48:24;
p.43.
293 The Qur’an al-Fath 48:24.
294 Enc.
Biblica, 4:5421.
295 The
Interpreter’s Dic. of Bible, 4:959.
**********************************************************************************
Courtesy : Dr. Abdul Sattar Ghauri AlMawrid Institute
For further reading refer the following links:
1) http://www.manyprophetsonemessage.com/2015/06/10/the-great-cover-up-evidence-that-ishmael-was-written-out-of-the-torah/
1) http://www.manyprophetsonemessage.com/2015/06/10/the-great-cover-up-evidence-that-ishmael-was-written-out-of-the-torah/
No comments :
Post a Comment