and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.(1 Corinthians 15:5-8)
It's funny how Paul never mentioned Mary Magdalene at all how comes? How absurd that Paul gave a random number of 500, yet gave no more information about them?. Why did Paul omit Mary Magdalene since the very first person according to the gospels was Mary Magdalene. Doesn't this tell us that Paul was not really aware of the so called resurrection event!. Paul even goes as far as saying :
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8)
Notice how Paul said anyone who preaches a different gospel then what he has then let them be cursed. Point one is that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John decades later preached a different gospel since not a single quotations Paul made about Jesus is found in any of the gospels. Point two the four gospels explicitly mention Mary Magdalene as a disciple of Jesus and allegedly for the first to meet Jesus after the so called resurrection event, which Paul never made any mention of. Clearly that a problem for Christians to solve.
The other problem we have with Paul's exaggerated number is that Peter statement contradicts with it.
And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) (Acts 1:15)
The above tells us Peter spoke to about 120 people not 500. Nor does the gospels speak of Jesus allegedly met with 500 people? Also one has to question why did Paul say 500 and did he expect to get caught out?. And the answer is no why because of many reasons below is a list of few reason why Paul could have lied written by Bob Seidensticker he makes some extremely valid point why the whole appearance to 500 witnesses cannot be accepted.
Let’s think this through. Imagine that we’re in that church in Corinth and we have just received Paul’s letter.
1. What does “appeared” mean? Jesus “appeared” to Paul as a vision (Acts 9:3–9), but Paul uses the same verb to refer the appearance of Jesus to Peter, James, and the 500 as well as to Paul. Could Paul think that the appearance to everyone was as a vision?
2. Who are these 500 eyewitnesses? Names and addresses, please? To find out, someone would need to send a letter back to Paul, at that moment 200 miles across the Aegean Sea in Ephesus. If a church member had the money, time, and guts to write this letter, why would Paul have deigned to reply? Even if Paul had witnessed Jesus in front of the 500 (he hadn’t), it’s possible he wouldn’t have known a single person in that crowd. And even if Paul thought the number were accurate, “500 eyewitnesses” might be all he had heard, and he wouldn’t have been able to back it up with any evidence.
3. How many will still be around? Paul wrote this epistle in about 55CE about a supposed event that occurred over 20 years earlier. Of the 500 eyewitnesses, how many are still alive and still in Jerusalem, ready to be questioned?
4. Who could make this trip? Jerusalem is 800 miles away, and getting there would involve a long, dangerous, and expensive trip.
5. How many candidates for this trip? Paul had only started the church in Corinth a couple of years earlier. There would probably have been less than 100 members.* Would even one have the means and motivation to make the big trip to Jerusalem?
6. Who would challenge Paul? If the founder of the church says something, who’s likely to question it? There might well have been people who were unimpressed by Paul’s message, but these would never have joined the church. Others within the church might have become disappointed and left. Even if these people had wanted to embarrass Paul, they wouldn’t have been in the church community to learn of the claim.
7. What did the eyewitnesses actually see? Let’s imagine that we have the money and daring to make the trip, we have a plan for whom to interview in Jerusalem, and we’re rebellious enough to spit in the face of our church’s founder to see if he’s a liar. After many adventures, we reach Jerusalem. What will the eyewitnesses say? At best they’ll say that, over 20 years ago, they saw a man. Big deal—that’s uninteresting unless they saw him dead before. Had they been close enough to the movement to be certain that they recognized Jesus? Human memory is notoriously inaccurate. There’s a big difference between the certainty one has in a memory and its accuracy—these don’t always go together.
8. So what? Suppose all these unlikely things happen: we make the long trip, we search for eyewitnesses, and we conclude that Paul’s story is nonsense. If we successfully make the long trip back, what difference will this make? Even if we had the guts to tell everyone that Paul’s story was wrong, so what? Who would believe us over the church’s founder? We’d be labeled as bad apples, we’d be expelled from the church, the church would proceed as before, and Paul’s letter would still be copied through the centuries for us to read today!
9. Why is this even compelling evidence? No gospel uses this anecdote as evidence. For whatever reason—that they’d never heard it or that they had and felt that it was uninteresting—the gospels argue that this is unconvincing evidence. Why should we think otherwise?
The above list made by Bob Seidensticker completely destroyed Pauls lies to Corinthians.
--------------
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brothers at once; of whom the greater part remain to this present, but some are fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 15:3-6)
Question :
1) Where in scriptures (Tanack) does it state, Jesus will die for sins?
2) Where in scriptures (tanack) does it state, Jesus would be buried and rise after 3 days?
3) Paul said Jesus met Cephas first? Where in the gospels does it say Cephas was the first to meet Jesus?
4) Paul after meeting Cephas, Jesus met the twelve. who was the twelve disciples since Judas was included?
5) Paul said Jesus was seen by 500 brothers. who exactly were these people, why didn't Paul give any names?
6) Paul 500 brethren saw Jesus. Paul made no mention of Mary Magdalene and the other Mary's or the empty tomb?
7) If Paul was the earliest to write about the resurrection, why did he not speak of the empty tomb?
Paul was not aware of the empty tomb, nor was he aware of Judas Iscariot or Mary.
we conclude by Paul's own admission
"If my lie is spreading the truth of God why am I judged a sinner " (Romans 3:7)
But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, (Philippians 1:18)
Samiri is derived
from smr. They say smr i.e he nailed it, i.e he made it fast firm or strong
with a nail or nails, a being called smr. Hence samri is on who makes things
fast with nails, i.e one belonging to the profession of black-smiths,
carpenters, etc. this samariat means, a people who carry on the profession of
blacksmiths, carpenters, etc. i.e. artisans. The mischief-maker, seems to
belong to this class. So samiri may be a descriptive or attributive name. or it
may be a relative noun from (the Samaritans) a people said to be one of the
tribes of the children of Israel; or a sect of the Jews, differing from them in
many of their institutions. Properly speaking they were inhabitants of Samaria.
The name is now restricted to a small tribe of people living in Nublus and
calling themselves "bene Yisrael". Their history as a distinct
community began with the taking of Samaria by the Assyrians in 722 B.C.(Lane and Jew Encyclopaedia)
The Encyclopaedia Judaica (under "Samaritans")
summarizes both past and present views on the Samaritans' origins. It says:
Until the middle of the 20th century it was customary
to believe that the Samaritans originated from a mixture of the people living
in Samaria and other peoples at the time of the conquest of Samaria by Assyria
(722–721 BCE). The biblical account in II Kings 17 had long been the decisive
source for the formulation of historical accounts of Samaritan origins.
Reconsideration of this passage, however, has led to more attention being paid
to the Chronicles of the Samaritans themselves. With the publication of
Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest Samaritan version of their own
history became available: the chronicles, and a variety of non-Samaritan
materials. According to the former, the Samaritans are the direct descendants
of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century CE they
possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and
Phinehas. They claim to have continuously occupied their ancient territory and
to have been at peace with other Israelite tribes until the time when Eli
disrupted the Northern cult by moving from Shechem to Shiloh and attracting
some northern Israelites to his new followers there. For the Samaritans, this
was the "schism" par excellence.
—"Samaritans" in Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1972, Volume 14, col. 727.
Furthermore, to this day the Samaritans claim descent
from the tribe of Joseph:
The laymen also possess their traditional claims. They
are all of the tribe of Joseph, except those of the tribe of Benjamin, but this
traditional branch of people, which, the Chronicles assert, was established at
Gaza in earlier days, seems to have disappeared. There exists an aristocratic
feeling amongst the different families in this community, and some are very
proud over their pedigree and the great men it had produced.
—J. A. Montgomery, The Samaritans, the Earliest Jewish Sect: Their
History, Theology and Literature, 1907,
p. 32
How do the
Samaritans portray themselves during the period of Assyrian rule? According to
their Chronicles, the righteous remnants who belonged to "the community of
the Samaritan Israelites, that is the tribe of Ephraim and the tribe of
Manasseh, sons of Joseph, and a few other priests and a small number from the
rest of the tribes of Israel" who "did not deviate from the way of
the holy law, nor did they worship other gods. They did not behave as the
nations did, and did not forsake the chosen place Mount Gerizim Bethel, but
they continued to worship the Lord their God..."
J.
Macdonald, The Samaritan Chronicle No. II
(Or Sepher Ha-Yamim) From Joshua To Nebuchadnezzar, 1969, op.
cit., II Kings - II
Chronicles, H, H*-J*, p. 178.
“Samiri’s name as generally believed, was Musa Ibn Zafar. Ibn Jarar has
narrated from Sayiddina Ibn ‘Abbas {ra} that Samiri was born in the year
when under the orders of Pharaoh all male Israili children were to be
killed. His mother, fearing the worst, put him in the hallow of a cave
and covered its mouth.” – Tafsir Maa’riful Qur’aan, page 144.
Sayiddina Ibn ‘Abbas {ra} says that he belonged to a
nation of cow-worshippers who somehow reached Egypt and pretended to
join the religion of Bani ‘Israil whereas in actual fact he was a
hypocrite. (Qurtubi) – Tafsir Maa’riful Qur’aan, page 143.
Where did they come from, if they were not from around Egypt?
“According to Sayddina Sa’id ibn Jubair {ra} he was a Persian from the Kirman province.” – Tafsir Maa’riful Qur’aan, page 143.
SAMARITANS
OR SAMARIANS?
As mentioned earlier, the
traditional view of the origins of Samaritans is based on II Kings 17. The
verse in question is II Kings 17:29 where the Hebrew word shomronim or shomeronim
appears and is usually
translated into English as "Samaritans" (underlined in the Hebrew
text below).
But
every nation still made gods of its own, and put them in the shrines of the
high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in the cities which they
dwelt... (RSV)
The name shomronim that appears in II Kings 17:29 is associated
with the worship of idols. However, the Samaritans do not address themselves by
this name at all. They call themselves shamerin
, that is "keepers" or
"observers" of the Torah.[13] The
Samaritans themselves make a clear distinction between their own ancestors and
the inhabitants of Samaria. For example, in the part of the Samaritan Chronicle II which
corresponds to I Kings 16 of the Hebrew Bible, the biblical account of the
founding of Samaria by Omri is followed by a note which explains that the
inhabitants of Samaria and its nearby cities were called "Shomronim after the name Shomron".[14] Thus
the distinction between the people of Samaria and the Samaritans is clearly
maintained in the Samaritan Chronicle II.
Put simply, shomronim means
the "inhabitants of Samaria" and it has nothing to do with shamerin, "keepers" or
"observers" of the Torah, which the Samaritans use for themselves. In
fact, a long line of Samaritan scholarship has already pointed out this fact,
which, unfortunately, is ignored by those at their own peril. For example,
about 100 years ago James Montgomery pointed out that the Samaritans:
....
call themselves by the ancient geographical apellative, Samerim,
which they interpret however as meaning "the Observers", i.e., of the
Law.[15]
Similarly, The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible confirms
that:
... the
Samaritans prefer to style themselves 'Shamerim'
i.e.,
"the observant" - rather than 'Shomeronim'
i.e.,
"the inhabitants of Samaria."[16]
The Encyclopaedia Judaica under
the entry "Samaritans" says:
Little
guidance is obtained from the name of the Samaritans. The Bible uses the
name Shomronimonce, in II Kings 17:29, but this probably
means Samarians rather than Samaritans. The Samaritans themselves
do not use the name at all; they have long called
themselves Shamerin; i.e., "keepers" or "observers" of
the truth = al ha-amet, both the short and long forms being
in constant use in their chronicles. They take the
name Shomronim to mean inhabitants of the town of Samaria built
by Omri (cf. I Kings 16:24), where the probable origin of the
word Shomronim is to be found).[17]
[13] J. A. Montgomery, The Samaritans The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their
History, Theology And Literature, 1907, The Bohlen Lectures For
1906, The John C. Wilson Co.: Philadelphia, p. 24.
[14] J. Macdonald, The Samaritan Chronicle No. II (Or Sepher
Ha-Yamim) From Joshua To Nebuchadnezzar, 1969, Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift
Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft - Volume 107, Walter de Gruyter &
Co.: Berlin, I Kings XII-XXII, I, C*, p. 163.
[15] J. A. Montgomery, The Samaritans The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their
History, Theology And Literature, 1907, op. cit., p. 24.
[16] "Samaritans" in G. A. Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible,
Volume 4, 1962 (1996 Print), Abingdon Press, Nashville, p. 191.
What prompted me to write this short essay was there are circulating
lies concocted by Liar Christians such as Dr Amari Rafat that
KAHBA/MECCAH didnt exist before 400AD! This liar even added more lies to
his lies that there is no single scholars who recorded that KAHBA
existed before 400AD!
This lie was maliciously espoused by some low level internet troll
who ignorantly added that Prophet Abraham therefore didnt built the
Kahba! How true is that? Well this is simply UNTRUE! Scholars have
recorded the existence of Kahba / Mecca even before the Christianity
came into existence.
Diodorus Siculus was a Greek historian,
who wrote works of history in the 1st Century BC. He is known for the
monumental universal history Bibliotheca historica. Diodorus is the
first known Historian long before the coming of Islam that makes mention
of Mecca.
Reverend Charles Augustus Goodrich a
Christian, was an American author and Congregational minister comments
on Kaaba and Mecca, although, he is not fond of the Prophet Muhammed
(pbuh), but he is sincere in admitting that Ka’bah existed at the time
of Patriarchs. He writes:
“Among the variety of fabulous traditions which have been
propagated by the followers of Mahomet, concerning the origin of this
building, we find it asserted, that its existence is coeval with our
parents, and that it was built by Adam, after his expulsion from
paradise, from a representation of the celestial temple, which the
almighty let down from heaven in curtains of light and placed in Mecca,
perpendicular under the original. To this the patriarch was commanded to
turn his face when he prayed, and to compass it by way of devotion, as
the angels did the heavenly one. After the destruction of this temple by
the deluge, it was rebuilt by Abraham and his son Ishmael on the same
spot, and after the same model, according to directions, which they
received by revelation; and since that time, it has continued to be the
object of veneration to Ishmael’s descendants. Whatever discredit we may
give to these, and other ravings of the Moslem imposter concerning the Caaba
its high antiquity cannot be disputed; and the most probable account
is, that it was built and used for religious purposes by some of the
early patriarchs; and after the introduction of idols, it came to
be appropriated to the reception of the pagan divinities. Diodorus
Siculus, in his description of the cost of the Red Sea, mentions this
temple as being, in his time, held in great veneration by all Arabians;
and Pocoke informs us, that the linen or silken veil, with which it is
covered, was first offered by a pious King of the Hamyarites, seven
hundred years before the time of Mahomet.”
Mecca , which is pronounced in Arabic As Makkah
is the birth place of islamic Prophet Muhammed and also the birth place
of Islam preached and propagated by Muhammed and his Followers.
Historical Mention of Mecca come way before islam and Muhammad for example Greek Historian Diodorus Siculus (Διόδωρος Σικελιώτης) mention mecca and the Kaaba as
””And a temple has been set up there,
which is very holy and exceedingly revered by all Arabians” ,this
mention comes around 30 -50 BC (Before Christ) Almost 2000 years ago
Greek historians mention Mecca or say Makkah as it is orginally
pronounced .
Ancient Greek Geographer Ptolemy
mention and Locate Mecca (Makkah) in his World map in 90 AD , He call
Mecca as “Macoraba” in Arabic مكة .maco – raba means House of Rab
(Lord) . Islamic scripture Quran Identify Mecca as Makkah and mention
the Kaaba as Kaaba , House of Allah ( Rab ) and Bakkah ( as in arabic
”m” and ”b” are interchangeably used )
MACORABA (Μακοράβα),
an inland city of Arabia Felix, placed by Ptolemy in lat. 73° 20′,
long. 22°, universally admitted to be the ancient classical
representative of the modern Mekka or Mecca,
which Mr. Forster holds to be an idiomatic abbreviation of Machoraba,
identical with the Arabic “Mecharab,” “the warlike city,” or “the city
of the Harb.” (Geog. of Arabia, vol. i. pp.
265, 266.) A very high antiquity is claimed for this city in the native
traditions, but the absence of all authentic notices of it in the
ancient geographers must be allowed to disprove its claim to notoriety
on account of its sanctity at any very remote period. The territory of Mekka
was, according to universal Arabian history or tradition, the central
seat of the kingdom of Jorham and the Jorhamites, descendants of the
Joktanite patriarch Sherah, the Jerah of the book of Genesis (10.26),
who in the earliest times were the sovereigns of Mekka, the guardians of
the Kaaba, and the superintendents of the idolatrous sacrifices in the
valley of Mina, from whence they derived their classical synonym MINAEI
It is quite uncertain when they were superseded by the Ishmaelite Arabs
of the family of Kedar, whose descendants, according to immemorial
Arabic tradition, settled in the Hedjaz; and one tribe of whom was named
Koreish (collegitundique), “quod circa Meccam, congregatidegerent.” (Canus ap. Golium, in voc., cited by Forster, Geog. of Arabia,
vol. i. p. 248, n.) This tribe, however, from which Mohammed sprung,
had been for centuries the guardians of the Kaaba, and lords of Mekka,
prior to his appearance: for if the very plausible etymology and import
of the classical name, as above given, be correct, and Beni-Harb
was, as Mr. Forster has elaborately proved, a synonym for the sons of
Kedar, it will follow that they had succeeded in fixing their name to
the capital some time before it appeared in Ptolemy’s list, nor can any
traces of a more ancient name be discovered, nor any notices of the
ancient city, further than the bare mention of its name by the
Alexandrian geographer.
“Mekka,
sometimes also called Bekka, which words are synonymous, and signify a
place of great concourse, is certainly one of the most ancient cities in
the world. It is by some thought to be the Mesa of Scripture (Gen. 10.30), a name not unknown to the Arabians, and supposed to be taken from one of Ishmael’s sons” (Gen. 25.15). (Sale’s Koran, Preliminary Discourse,
sect. i. p. 4.) Its situation is thus described by Burckhardt:–“The
town is situated in a valley, narrow and sandy, the main direction of
which is from north to south; but it inclines towards the north-west
near the southern extremity of the town. In breadth this valley varies
from one hundred to seven hundred paces, the chief part of the city
being placed where the valley is most broad. The town itself covers a
space of about 1500 paces in length; …. but the whole extent of ground
comprehended under the denomination of Mekka” (i. e. including the
suburbs) “amounts to 3500 paces. The mountains enclosing this valley
(which, before the town was built, the Arabs had named Wady Mekka or
Bekka) are from 200 to 500 feet in height, completely barren and
destitute of trees….. Most of the town is situated in the valley itself;
but there are also parts built on the sides of the mountains,
principally of the eastern chain, where the primitive habitations of the
Koreysh and the ancient town appear to have been placed.” It is
described as a handsome town; with streets broader, and stone houses
more lofty, than in other Eastern cities: but since the decline of the
pilgrimage “numerous buildings in the outskirts have fallen completely
into ruin, and the town itself exhibits in every street houses rapidly
decaying.” Its population has declined in proportion. The results of
Burckhardt’s inquiries gave “between 25,000 and 30,000 stationary
inhabitants for the population of the city and suburbs, besides from
3000 to 4000 Abyssinians and black slaves: its habitations are capable
of containing three times this number.” This estimate, however, shows a
considerable increase within the last three centuries; for “in the time
of Sultan Selym I. (in A. H. 923, i. e. A.D. 1517) a [p. 2.240]census
was taken, and the number found to be 12,000 men, women, and children.”
In earlier times the population was much more considerable; for “when
Abou Dhaker sacked Mekka in A. H. 314 (A.D. 926) 30,000 of the
inhabitants were killed by his ferocious soldiers.” Ali Bey’s estimate
in A.D. 1807 is much lower than Burckhardt’s in A.D. 1814. Yet the
former says “that the population of Mekka diminishes sensibly. This
city, which is known to have contained more than 100,000 souls, does not
at present shelter more than from 16,000 to 18,000;” and conjectures
that “it will be reduced, in the course of a century, to the tenth part
of the size it now is.” The celebrated Kaaba demands a cursory notice.
It is situated in the midst of a great court, which forms a
parallelogram of about 536 feet by 356, surrounded by a double piazza.
This sanctuary, called, like that of Jerusalem, El-Haram, is situated
near the middle of the city, which is built in a narrow valley, having a
considerable slope from north to south. In order to form a level area
for the great court of the temple, the ground has evidently been
hollowed out, subsequently to the erection of the Kaaba, which is the
only ancient edifice in the temple. The building itself (called by the
natives Beit-Ullah, the House of God),
probably the most ancient sacred building now existing, is a
quadrilateral tower, the sides and angles of which are unequal. Its
dimensions are 38 feet by 29, and its height 34 feet 4 inches; built of
squarehewn but unpolished blocks of quartz, schorl, and mica, brought
from the neighbouring mountains. The black stone, the most sacred object
of veneration, is built into the angle formed by the NE. and SE. sides,
42 inches above the pavement. It is believed by the Moslems to have
been presented to Abraham by the angel Gabriel, and is called “the
heavenly stone.” Ali Bey says that “it is a fragment of volcanic basalt,
sprinkled throughout its circumference with small, pointed, coloured
crystals, and varied with red feldspath upon a dark black ground like
coal.” The famous well of Zemzem, in the great mosk, is 56 feet deep to
the surface of the water, fed by a copious spring; but its water, says
Burckhardt, “however holy, is heavy to the taste, and impedes
digestion.” Ali Bey, on the contrary, says that “it is wholesome, though
warmer than the air even in that hot climate. The town is further
supplied with rain-water preserved in cisterns: but the best water in
Mekka is brought by a conduit from the vicinity of Arafat, six or seven
hours distant.” (Ali Bey, Travels, vol. ii. pp. 74–114; Burckhardt, Travels in Arabia, pp. 94, &c.)
3. Meccah on Samaritan Book of the Secret of Moses
In Samaritan literature, the Samaritan Book of the Secrets of Moses (Asatir) claims that Ishmael and his eldest son Nebaioth built the Kaaba as well as the city of Mecca Gaster, Moses (1927). The Asatir: the Samaritan book of Moses. London: The Royal Asiatic Society. pp. 262, 71. Ishmaelites built Mecca (Baka, Bakh)
Today, very few Muslims and Christians
alike are aware of that Mecca – along with Medina – is explicitly
mentioned by name in an early rabbinic translation of the Pentateuch. In
Genesis 10:30 according to the Masoretic Text we read the following:
“And their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest toward Sephar, unto the mountain of the east.” [JPS, 1917]
However, the above passage according to
the Judeo-Arabic translation – i.e. process of reading run as in Arabic,
but the script is written with Hebrew letters – made by Rabbi Saadia
ben Joseph al-Fayyumi (ca. 882-942), also known as Saadia Gaon, reads
as:
Translation:
“And their dwelling was from Mecca towards al-Medina, unto the mountain of the East.” [Œuvres complètes de R. Saadia ben Iosef al-Fayyoûmî, ed. by J. Darenbourg, vol. 1 (Paris: E. Leroux, 1893), p. 17.]
Everyone who is familiar with Hebrew will
not contradict me in this matter (Mekka was marked with blue color,
al-Medina with red color). First of all, Saadia Gaon is one of the most
prominent Jewish scholars, and it is said that his translation holds an
unchallengeable authority over all other biblical translations, since he
was the best especially in scriptural exegesis, Jewish history and
Talmudic knowledge in general, and he is responsible for the first and
most important Arabic translation of the Torah which became the standard
version for all Jews living in Muslim countries. Maimonides himself, a
great and respected Rabbi (1135-1204) said:
“were it not for Saadia, the Torah would
almost have disappeared from the midst of Israel; for it was he who made
manifest what was obscure therein, made strong what had been weakened,
and made it known far and wide by word of mouth and in writing.” [H.
Malter, Saadia Gaon: His Life and Works, (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1921), p. 279.]
Therefore, as you can see, his
translation is a primary source when it comes to the accuracy of Old
Testament interpretation. As to the mentioning of Mecca and Medina in
Genesis, let us recall e.g. the statement of the Rev. Professor William
Paul who in his critical interpretation to the Hebrew fragment הַקֶּדֶם
הַר [#996] from Genesis 10:30, has wrote: “mountain (mountains) of the
East. These are supposed to be those mountains of Arabia running from
the neighbourhood of Mecca and Medina to the Persian Gulf.” [Rev. W.
Paul, Analysis and critical interpretation of the Hebrew text of the Book of Genesis, (Edinburgh: W. Blackwood & Sons, 1852), p. 100.]
Other scholars also shares a similar view.
This of course explain why rabbi Saadia
Gaon has mentioned Mecca and Medina in Genesis 10:30. This is not only
his paraphrase concluded from the context as some might think, because
if you go to the Hebrew text you will notice there such word as באכה
(baka) which was translated as “as thou goest” !
The situation of Mesha is uncertain. But
it is obviously the western boundary of the settlement, and may have
been in the neighborhood of Mecca and Medina.
Sephar is perhaps the Arabic Zaphari, called by the natives Isfor, a
town on the south coast near Mirbat. It seems, however, to be, in the
present passage, the “mount of the east” itself, a thuriferous range of
hills, adjacent, it may be, to the seaport so-called. Gesenius and
others fix upon Mesene, an island at the head of the Persian Gulf, as
the Mesha of the text. But this island may have had no existence at the
time of the Joctanite settlement. These boundaries include the greater
part of the west and south coast of the peninsula, and are therefore
sufficient to embrace the provinces of Hejaz (in part), Yemen, and
Hadramaut, and afford space for the settlements of the thirteen sons of
Joctan. The limits thus marked out determine that all these settlers,
Ophir among the rest, were at first to be found in Arabia, how far
soever they may have wandered from it afterward.
And their dwelling was from Mesha, as
thou goest unto Zephar, a mount of the east. Mesha, which is thought to
be the Muza of Ptolemy and Pliny, was a famous port in the Red sea,
frequented by the merchants of Egypt and Ethiopia, from which the
Sappharites lay directly eastward; to whose country they used to go for
myrrh and frankincense, and the like, of which Saphar was the
metropolis, and which was at the foot of Climax, a range of mountains,
which perhaps might be formerly called Saphar, from the city at the
bottom of it, the same with Zephar here: by inspecting Ptolemy’s tables
(o), the way from one to the other is easily discerned, where you first
meet with Muza, a port in the Red sea, then Ocelis, then the mart
Arabia, then Cane, and so on to Sapphar or Sapphara; and so Pliny says
(p), there is a third port which is called Muza, which the navigation to
India does not put into, only the merchants of frankincense and Arabian
odours: the towns in the inland are the royal seat Saphar; and another
called Sabe; now the sons of Joktan had their habitations all from this
part in the west unto Zephar or Saphar eastward, and those were reckoned
the genuine Arabs: Hillerus (q) gives a different account of the
situation of the children of Joktan, as he thinks, agreeably to these
words of Moses; understanding by Kedem, rendered the east, the mountains
of Kedem, or the Kedemites, which sprung from Kedem or Kedomah, the
youngest son of Ishmael, Genesis 25:15
and Zephar, the seat of the Sepharites, as between Mesha and Kedem;
for, says he, Mesha is not Muza, a mart of the Red sea, but Moscha, a
famous port of the Indian sea, of which Arrian and Ptolemy make mention;
and from hence the dwelling of the Joktanites was extended, in the way
you go through the Sepharites to the mountainous places of Kedem or
Cadmus: perhaps nearer the truth may be the Arabic paraphrase of Saadiah
(r), which is“from Mecca till you come to the city of the eastern mountain, or (as in a manuscript) to the eastern city,”meaning perhaps Medina, situate to the east; so that the sense is, according to this paraphrase, that the sons of Joktan had their dwelling from Mecca to Medina; and so R. Zacuth (s) says, Mesha in the Arabic tongue is called Mecca; and it is a point agreed upon by the Arabs that Mesha was one of the most ancient names of Mecca;
they believe that all the mountainous part of the region producing
frankincense went in the earliest times by the name of Sephar; from
whence Golius concludes this tract to be the Mount Zephar of Moses, a
strong presumption of the truth of which is that Dhafar, the same with
the modern Arabs as the ancient Saphar, is the name of a town in Shihr,
the only province in Arabia bearing frankincense on the coast of the
Indian ocean (t).
(o) Geograph. l. 6. c. 7. (p) Nat. Hist.
l. 6. c. 23. (q) Onomastic. Sacr. p. 116. (r) In Pocock. Specimen Hist.
Arab. p. 34. (s) In Juchasin, fol. 135. 2.((t) Universal History, vol.
18. p. 353.
This verse will puzzled all Christians and Jews, While in Egypt we read that YHWH was instructing Moses to inform Pharoah International Standard Version After Moses and Aaron arrived, they told Pharaoh, “This is what the LORD God of Israel says: ‘Let my people go so they may make a pilgrimage for me in the desert.'”
NET Bible
Afterward Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said, “Thus says the
LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Release my people so that they may hold a pilgrim feast to me in the desert.'”
Its really a mind boggling to learn that
Moses and Children of Israel was instructed to make a pilgrimage feast
when the Temple of Solomon was not yet been built. Does the command “make a pilgrimage for me in the desert” therefore
would make a sense if there is no dedicated temple for the intended
purpose? Of course it would make sense only if a Temple exist. But the
problem is, the Temple of Solomon was not yet in existence during this
period. The Temple Of Solomon came only to existence only after 966
years from the time of Exodus. The command “make a pilgrimage for me in the desert” will make sense only if the PILGRIMAGE FEAST is to be performed at Meccah. Some Bible experts confirmed this facts. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges while commenting on Exodus 5:1
make a pilgrimage] The Heb. ḥag means not simply a religious ‘feast’ like our Easter or Christmas, for instance, but a feast accompanied by a pilgrimage to a sanctuary: such as, for instance, were the three ‘ḥaggim,’ at which every male Israelite was to appear before Jehovah (Exodus 23:14-17). The corresponding word in Arabic, ḥaj, denotes the pilgrimage to Mecca, which every faithful Mohammedan endeavours to make at least once in his life.
Brown-Driver-Briggs[חָגַג] verbmake pilgrimage, keep a pilgrim-feast (Arabic http://biblehub.com/bdbgif/bdb02900…betake oneself to or towards an object of reverence; make a pilgrimage to Mecaa; Sabean חגג make pilgrimage SabDenkm86. compare 85; Syriac http://biblehub.com/bdbgif/bdb02900…celebrate a feast. In Palmyrene חגגו is proper name VogNo. 61; compare also Phoenician proper name חגי, חגת); —
1keep a pilgrim-feast, absolute Exodus 5:1 (JE) of one proposed by Moses; שׁלשׁ רגלים תחג לי three times shalt thou make pilgrimage unto me (in the year) Exodus 23:14 (covt. code); of pilgrim-feasts in General
Of course Christians will oppose their
own scholars when their faith is threaten, some of them will simply tell
us that the pilgrimage feast just occured somewhere in Egypt. This can
not be because as mentioned earlier, Pilgrimage -feast require a
dedicated place, area or temple. Another compelling reason that the
pilgrimage must be somewhere out of Egypt was the very purpose of the
Pilgrimage itself, Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers
wrote: In the wilderness—i.e.,
beyond the frontier, or, at any rate, beyond inhabited Egypt—that the
Egyptians might not be driven to fury by seeing animals sacrificed which
they regarded as sacred. (See Exodus 8:26, and the comment ad loc.)
Pulpit Commentary rationalizing the place of pilgrimage The rationale
of the demand is given in ch. 8:26. The Israelites could not offer
their proper sacrificial animals in the presence of the Egyptians
without the risk of provoking a burst of religious animosity, since
among the animals would necessarily be some which all, or many, of the
Egyptians regarded as sacred, and under no circumstances to be killed.
The fanaticism of the Egyptians on such occasions led to wars, tumults,
and massacres. (See Plutarch, ‘De Isid. et Osir.,’ § 44.) To avoid this
danger the “feast” must be held beyond the bounds of Egypt – in the
adjacent “wilderness.”
6. Mecca did exist before the advent of Christianity -Secular historical evidence
Makkah, or Mecca, is the centre of Islamic civilization. Qur’an terms it as Ummul Qura’
i.e. Mother of the Cities (6: 92 & 42: 7). It is the place to which
all Muslims turn their faces five times a day and making a pilgrimage
to it once in life is not only an obligation but the heartiest desire of
every Muslim.Apparently it is only the importance of this city which
gives us ‘mecca’ as a word in the English language meaning, ‘a place frequented for special purpose.’
But this is not all; its central position
in the House of Islam has lead some jaundiced-eye critics of Islam to
even doubt its historicity. They say that history of Arabia has no
evidence for the existence of Makkah before the advent of Christianity.
Infact there are references to the city
and sanctuary of Makkah even in the Old Testament. But in the following
lines I will not bask upon references from the Bible but instead share a
secular historical evidence to refute the lie.
Diodorus Siculus, a first century B.C. Greek historian while discussing Arabia writes;
“The people that inhabit these parts are called Bizomenians and live upon wild beasts taken in hunting.Here is a sacred temple in high veneration among all the Arabians.”
(The Historical Library of the Diodorus the Sicilian, Translated by G.
Booth, Esq., J. Davis Military Chronicle Office, London 1814 vol.1
p.184)
This certainly is a reference to Makkah. Georgi Zaidan (d. 1914 C.E.), a Christian Arab from Beirut writes in his book Al-‘Arab Qabl al-Islam (Arabs before Islam);
“There is no mention
of Makkah or Ka’ba in the books of the Greeks of antiquity except what
is found in the book of Diodorus Siculus of the first century before
Christ in his discussion about the Nabateans. In that he refers to
Makkah and he writes, ‘And beyond the land of the Nabateans is the
region of Bizomenians. And there is a sacred temple in high veneration
among all the Arabs.’”
And he does not just stop here, he even
explains as to whom Diodorus refers to by using the word, “Bizomenians.”
He writes (Arabic wording is given in the image above);
“As to the
‘Bizomenians’; sometimes by it are intended the Jurhamites or other
Arabian tribes who were the custodians of Makkah.” (Al-‘Arab Qabl al-Islam, Al-Hilal publishers Cairo, second ed. vol.1 p.244)
So we find a Christian testifying for and expounding a historical evidence for Makkah from pre-Christian times.
Similarly another Arab Christian, Jesuit Louis Cheikho (d. 1927 C.E.) in his work titled, ‘al-Nasaraniyah wa adaabuha bayn ‘Arab al-Jahaliyyah’
(The Christianity and Its Literature amongst the Arabs of Pre-Islamic
Times) also refers to the same quotation from Diodorus Siculus and takes
it like Zaidan. (See al-Nasaraniyah wa adaabuha bayn ‘Arab
al-Jahaliyya, Darul Mashriq, Beirut second ed. 1989 p.14)
I hope objective readers will find this piece useful.
