The first 4 books deal with the childhood of Jesus.  With the Christmas season approaching, I wanted to share some of these really cool stories about Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.  I think you’ll enjoy learning some of the extra-biblical stories.  Honestly, I don’t think I’ve read so much cool stuff about the life of Jesus.  I want to start with the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, and discuss some of these other ancient writings in coming weeks.  Some of these stories overlap, and I think it will be interesting to see the different, sometimes conflicting accounts over the coming weeks.

Before I get into the actual gospel, I want to give some background on this particular document.  This gospel has been attributed to Matthew, and the version in the book dates to the 4^th century.  The book was found in the works of St. Jerome.  Some of his contemporaries mentioned the gospel as well, such as Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, and Austin.  Some of the ancient copies differed from Jerome’s version (I will quote from Jerome’s version).

The book states that Mary was from the house of David, but Faustus, Bishop of Riez disagreed, saying Mary was from Levi.  We know that Mary and Elizabeth were cousins.  Elizabeth was with wife of Zacharias, priest in the temple, and therefore of the Tribe of Levi.  Jesus went to John the Baptist who held the proper authority, so a good case can be made that Mary might have been from Levi.  Apparently Muslims believe Mary was from Levi.  This gospel clearly states Mary was a descendant of David, who was the tribe of Judah.

The ancient group Collyridians imagined that both Mary and Jesus were the result of an “immaculate conception”, both being born of a virgin.  This gospel seems to show that Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anna, had fertility problems just like Abraham and Sarah and Rachel and Jacob.  (I snipped that out of my excerpts below, but the angel clearly mentions this to Anna.)  Collyridians are an interesting group, and are considered heretical Christians.  Some believe they thought Mary was a goddess.  This Wikipedia article says that Mohammad believed that Mary was the 3^rd member of the Trinity.  That’s an interesting idea, but the gospel states that “the Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you, without any of the heats of lust.”  I’ve heard of a Father, Mother, and Son being part of the Trinity—kind of a “holy family” and that makes some logical sense.  But the references to the Holy Ghost in the Bible seem to be quite separate from Mary (such as when the Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove at Jesus’ baptism), so I think it’s a bit of a stretch to put Mary in the Godhead or Trinity, despite how appealing that might be.

So, let’s look at Jerome’s copy.  So that this isn’t too long, I will only cite the parts I find particularly interesting, and will reference chapters and verses.

Chapter 1

1 – The blessed and ever glorious Virgin Mary, sprung from the royal race and family of David, was born in the city of Nazareth, and educated at Jerusalem, in the temple of the Lord.

2 – Her father’s name was Joachim, and her mother’s Anna.  The family of her father was of Galilee and the city of Nazareth.  The family of her mother was of Bethlehem.

…

7 – And it came to pass when the feast of the dedication drew near, Joachim, with some others of his tribe, went up to Jerusalem, and at that time, Issachar was high priest;

8 – Who, when he saw Joachim along with the rest of his neighbors, bringing his offering, despised both him and his offerings…

….[priest is especially cruel]

11 – But Joachim being much confounded with shame, retired to the shepherds, who were with cattle in their pastures;

12 – For he was not inclined to return home, lest his neighbors, who were present and heard all this from the high priest, should publicly reproach him in the same manner.

Chapter 2

1 – But when he had been there for some time, on a certain day when he was alone, the angel of the Lord stood by him with a prodigious light.

2 – To whom, being troubled at the appearance, the angel who had appeared to him, endeavoring to compose him said;

3 – Be not afraid, Joachim, nor troubled at the sight of me, for I am an angel of the Lord sent by him to you, that I might inform you, that your prayers are heard, and your alms are ascended in the sight of God.

4 – For He hath surely seen your shame, and heard you unjustly reproached for not having children: for God is the avenger of sin; and not of nature;

5 – And so when he shuts up the womb of any person, he does it for this reason, that he may in a more wonderful manner again open it and that which is born appear to be not the product of lust, but the gift of God.

…[Angel discusses Sarah, Rachel as barren women as well]

9 – …Anna your wife shall bring you a daughter and you shall call her name Mary;

10 – She shall, according to your vow, be devoted to the Lord from her infancy, and be filled with the Holy Ghost from her mother’s womb;

11 – She shall neither eat nor drink anything which is unclean; nor shall her conversation be without among the common people, but in the temple of the Lord; that so she may not fall under suspicion of what is bad.

12 – So in the process of her years, as she shall be in a miraculous manner be born to one that is barren, so she shall, while yet a virgin, in a way unparalleled, bring forth the Son of the Most High God, who shall be called Jesus, and according to the signification of his name, be the Savior of all nations.

…

Chapter 3

1 – Afterwards the angel appeared unto Anna his wife saying: Fear not, neither think that which ye see is a spirit.

2 – For I am the angel who hath offered up your prayers and alms before God, and am now sent to you, that I may inform you that a daughter will be born unto you, who shall be called Mary, and shall be blessed above all women.

3 – She shall be, immediately upon her birth, full of grace of the Lord, and shall continue the three years of her weaning in her father’s house, and afterwards, being devoted to the service of the Lord, shall not depart from the temple, till she arrives at the years of discretion.

4 – But, being an unparalleled instance without any pollution or defilement, and a virgin not knowing any man shall bring forth a son, and a maid shall bring forth the Lord, who both by grace and the name of his works, shall be the Savior of the world.

…

11 – So Anna conceived, and brought forth a daughter, and according to the angel’s command, the parents called her name Mary.

Chapter 4

1 – And when the three years were expired, and the time of her weaning complete, they brought the Virgin to the temple of the Lord with offerings.

2- And there were about the temple, according to the Psalms of degrees, fifteen stairs to ascend.

…

4 – The parents of the blessed Virgin and infant Mary put her upon one of the stairs;

5 – But while they were putting off their clothes…

6 – …the Virgin of the Lord in such a manner went up all the stairs one after another, without the help of any to lead or lift her, that one would have judged from hence that she was of perfect age.

7 – Thus the Lord did, in the infancy of his Virgin, work this extraordinary work…

8 – But the parent having offered up their sacrifice, according to the custom of the law, left the Virgin with other virgins in the apartments of the temple, who were brought up there, and they returned home.

Chapter 5

1 – But the Virgin of the Lord, as she advanced in years, increased also in perfections, and according to the Psalmist, her father and mother forsook her, but the Lord took care of her.

2 – For she every day had the conversation of angels, and every day received visitors from God, which preserved her from all sorts of evil, and caused her to abound with all good things;

3 – So that when at length she arrived to her fourteenth year, as the wicked could not lay anything to her charge worthy of reproof, so all good persons, who were acquainted with her, admired her life and conversation.

4 – At that time the high-priest made a public order.  That all the virgins who had public settlements in the temple, and were come to this age, should return home, and as they were now of a proper maturity, should according to the custom of their country, endeavor to be married.

5 – To which command, though all the other virgins readily yielded obedience, Mary the Virgin of the Lord alone answered, that she could not comply with it.

6 – Assigning these reasons, that both she and her parents had devoted her to the service of the Lord; and besides, that she had vowed virginity to the Lord, which vow she was resolved never to break through by lying with a man.

7 – The high priest being herby brought into a difficulty,

8 – Seeing he durst neither on the one hand dissolve the vow, and disobey the Scripture, which says, Vow and pay,

9 – Nor on the other hand introduce a custom, to which the people were strangers commanded,

10 – That at the approaching feast all the principal persons both of Jerusalem and the neighbouring places should meet together, that he might have their advice, how he had best proceed in so difficult a case.

…

12 – And when they were all engaged in prayer, the high-priest, according to the usual way, went to consult God.

13 – And immediately there was a voice from the ark, and the mercy seat, which all present heard, that it must be inquired or sought out by a prophecy of Isaiah to whom the Virgin should be given and be betrothed;

…

16 – Then according to this prophecy, he appointed that all the men of the house and family of David, who were marriageable, and not married, should bring their several rods to the altar,

17 – And out of whatsoever person’s rod after it was brought, a flower should bud forth, and on the top of it the Spirit of the Lord should sit in the appearance of a dove, he should be the man to whom the Virgin should be betrothed.

Chapter 6

1 – Among the rest there was a man named Joseph, of the house and family of David, and a person very far advanced in years, who drew back his rod, when every one besides presented his.

2 – So that when nothing appeared agreeable to the heavenly voice, the high-priest judged it proper to consult God again.

3 – Who answered that he whom the virgin was to be betrothed was the only person of those who were brought together, who had not brought his rod.

4 – Joseph therefore was betrayed.

5 – For when he did bring his rod, and a dove coming from Heaven pitched upon the top of it, every one plainly saw, that the Virgin was to be betrothed to him;

6 – According to the usual ceremonies of betrothing being over, he returned to his own city of Bethlehem, to set his house in order, and make the needful provisions for the marriage.

7 – But the Virgin of the Lord, Mary with seven other virgins of the same age, who had been weaned at the same time, and who had been appointed to attend her by the priest, returned to her parent’s house in Galilee.

Chapter 7

…[angel appears to Mary]

8 – Fear not Mary, as though I intended anything inconsistent with your chastity in this salutation;

9 – For you have found favour with the Lord, because you made virginity your choice.

10 – Therefore while you are a Virgin, you shall conceive without sin, and bring forth a son.

11 – He shall be great, because he shall reign from sea to the sea, and from the rivers to the ends of the earth

….

16 – She said, How can that be?  For seeing, according to my vow, I have never known any man, how can I bear a child without the addition of a man’s seed?

17 – To this the angel replied and said, Think not Mary, that you shall conceive in the ordinary way.

18 – For without lying with a man, while a Virgin, you shall conceive; while a Virgin, you shall bring forth; and while a Virgin shall give suck.

19 – For the Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you, without any of the heats of lust.

20 – So that which shall be born of you shall be only holy, because it only is conceived without sin, and being born, shall be called the Son of God.

21 – Then Mary stretching forth her hands and lifting her eyes to heaven, said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord!  Let it be unto me according to thy word.

Chapter 8

1 – Joseph therefore went from Judaea to Galilee, with intention to marry the Virgin who was betrothed to him:

2 – For it was now near three months since she was betrothed to him.

3 – At length it plainly appeared she was with child, and it could not be hid from Joseph:

4 – For going to the Virgin in a free manner, as one espoused, and talking familiarly with her, he perceived her to be with child.

5 – And thereupon began to be uneasy and doubtful, not knowing what course it would be best to take;

6 – For being a just man, he was not willing to expose her, nor defame her by the suspicion of being a whore, since he was a pious man.

7 – He purposed therefore privately to put an end to their agreement, and as privately to put her away.

8 – But while he was meditating these things, behold an angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, and said Joseph, son of David, fear not;

9 – Be not willing to entertain any suspicion of the Virgin’s being guilty of fornication, or to think any thing amiss of her, neither be afraid to take her to wife;

10 – For that which is begotten in her and now distresses your mind, is not the work of man, but the Holy Ghost.

11 – For she of all women is that only Virgin who shall bring forth the Son of God, and you shall call his name Jesus, that is, Saviour: for he will save his people from their sins.

12 – Joseph thereupon according to the command of the angel, married the Virgin, and did not know her, but kept her in chastity.

13 – And now the ninth month from her conception drew near, when Joseph took his wife and what other things were necessary to Bethlehem, the city from whence he came.

14 – And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled for her bringing forth her first-born son, as the holy Evangelists have taught, even our Lord Jesus Christ, who with the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, lives and reigns to everlasting ages.

{The End}

So what do you make of this gospel?  Some have claimed that the biblical use of the word “virgin” simply meant young woman, but this gospel makes specific mention of Mary’s virginity and chastity.  On the other hand, there must have been quite some rumors about Mary’s out of wedlock pregnancy.  My next post will discuss another book called the Protevangelion.  It gives a lot more detail about Joseph’s concern about Mary’s pregnancy.  (If you thought this gospel was cool, the Protevangelion is even better!)  Here are some questions to consider.

• Have you ever heard that Mary’s birth was miraculous?  What do you make of this story of her birth?
• Did you have any idea Mary grew up in the temple?
• Did you know Joseph didn’t want to marry Mary even before she appeared pregnant?  I’m sure it is because Joseph was “far advanced in years” – perhaps Joseph was old enough to be her father (That’s the take in the Protevangelion.)
• What do you think of her conversations with angels “every day”?
• How historically accurate do you think some of these events are from the life of Mary?
• While I don’t expect Mormons to have very much of an issue with Mary’s lineage, what do you make of the dispute about her ancestry (Judah or Levi)?
• What do you make of the emphasis in this gospel of her chastity?
• Do you think Mary’s role and miraculous experiences are under-emphasized (undervalued) in the biblical gospels?  Do you think it would have been nice if this gospel had been included in the biblical canon?

I must say that Brown follows the same basic formula that he used in the 2 previous books I read.  The chapters are short, making you want to read another chapter, but I think the formula is getting a little old.  Robert Langdon must solve a symbolic riddle involving a strange, smart, psychotic killer, an attractive (almost romantic) woman, Langdon submerged in water, a new science discovery, and some sort of police agency that keeps trying to arrest Langdon but in the end realizes Langdon is onto something.  Of course the 500 pages cover just a 24 hour period.  While I liked the formula for the first 2 books, it is starting to get a bit predictable.

So, here are the only 2 overt Mormon references, and nobody will find anything unusual.  From page 79,

Langdon often reminded his students that most modern religions included stories that did not hold up to scientific scrutiny: everything from Moses parting the Red Sea … to Joseph Smith using magic eyeglasses to translate the Book of Mormon from a series of gold plates he found buried in upstate New York.

Joseph Smith and Moses in the same sentence–it’s been done before.  Miracles are not scientific–of course.  There is nothing enlightening in this statement.

The other reference comes from page 437-8,

…realizing that all spiritual rituals included aspects that would seem frightening if taken out of context–crucifixion reenactments, Jewish circumcision rites, Mormon baptisms of the dead, Catholic exorcisms, Islamic niquab, shamanic trance healing, the Jewish Kaparot ceremony; even the eating of the figurative body and blood of Christ.

Ok, I didn’t know what a niquab was.  Wikipedia spells it slightly different: Niqāb, and the short definition is:

a veil which covers the face, worn by some Muslim women as a part of sartorial hijāb. Originally part of aristocratic dress in Byzantine Empire and pre-Islamic Persia, it was adopted into Muslim culture during the Arab conquest of the Middle East.

…

Because of the wide variety of hijab worn in the Muslim world, it can be difficult to definitively distinguish between one type of veil and another. The terms niqab and burqa are often used interchangeably.^[1] Muslim girls are advised by some schools of Islam to wear the niqāb starting at puberty.

Ok, I don’t know what Kaparot is either.  According to Wikipedia, it refers to

“atonements”; a disputed ancient Jewish ritual to save oneself from a harsh Heavenly decree by it being effected on another object. Vegetables, fish, money, and other objects have been used throughout the centuries, and this is done on the eve of Yom Kippur. The service is performed by grasping the object and moving it around one’s head three times, symbolically transferring one’s sins to the object. The object is then slaughtered or donated to the poor, preferably eaten at the pre-Yom Kippur feast.^[1] If one is using a chicken, preferably, a man should use a rooster, and a woman should use a hen for the ritual.

In modern times, Kapparos is performed in the traditional form mostly in Haredi communities. Members of other communities perform it with charity money substituted for the chicken, swung over one’s head in similar fashion. There is an ancient and little known tradition of Egyptian Jewry to use plant life.^[2] Other Orthodox Jews simply prefer to not participate in the custom.

The ritual is preceded by the reading of Psalms 107:17-20 and Job 33:23-24

So, his point is that many religious rituals (such as baptism for the dead) seem strange to those who do not observe the religion.  Sure–I can see that point of view completely.

So that’s all the explicit Mormon references.  However, as I mentioned previously, the book is about a Masonic conspiracy.  Most of you are probably aware that Joseph Smith was a Mason, and there are similarities between the Masonic ceremonies and Mormon Temple ceremonies.  This should not be surprising information to most members, though I’m sure some will find it surprising. Masonry was practiced by many leaders of our country, including George Washington.  There are some who believe that the Masons organized the Boston Tea Party, which set off the Revolutionary War.  Brown doesn’t really delve deeply into Masonic ceremonies, but he does touch on some topics that Mormons will find interesting.

Brown discusses how the founding fathers utilized many religious symbols in buildings, including (page 82):

history’s great gods and goddesses–Apollo, Minerva, Venus, Helios, Vulcan, Jupiter.  In her center, as in many of the great classical cities, the founders had erected an enduring tribute to the ancients–the Egyptian obelisk.

(page 84)  Now centuries later, despite America’s separation of church and state, this state-sponsored Rotunda glistened with ancient religious symbolism.  There were over a dozen different gods in the Rotunda–more than the original Pantheon in Rome.

On page 84, he discusses apotheosis.  I wasn’t familiar with that term, and Brown explains it.  I’m going to cut out some of the dialogue so as not to give away too much plot, though I can’t resist quoting a character who discusses apotheosis:

This transformation of man into God is called apotheosis

….

The word apotheosis literally means ‘divine transformation’–that of man becoming God.  It’s from the ancient Greek: apo–’to become,’ theos–’god.’

…

“Ma’am”, Langdon said, “the largest painting in this building is called The Apotheosis of Washington.  And it clearly depicts George Washington being transformed into a god.”

Apotheosis is an interesting concept, and is similar to the Mormon idea of exaltation, or the Orthodox Christian concept of theosis or deification (which I blogged about previously.)  Brown’s introduction of apotheosis seems much more pagan as he introduces the idea from the Greek gods.  Apotheosis is an idea that is a significant part of the plot.  Yet Brown doesn’t view apotheosis as completely pagan, and illustrates some Biblical scriptures which I was already familiar with.  From page 194,

“I can see your dilemma, Professor.  However, both the Ancient Mysteries and Masonic philosophy celebrate the potentiality of God within each of us.  Symbolically speaking, one could claim that anything within reach of an enlightened man … is within reach of God.”

Langdon felt unswayed by the wordplay.

“Even the Bible concurs,” Bellamy said.  “If we accept, as Genesis tells us, that ‘God created man in his own image,’ then we also must accept what that implies–that mankind was not created inferior to God.  In Luke 17:20 we are told, ‘The kingdom of God is within you.’”

“I’m sorry, but I don’t know any Christians who consider themselves God’s equal.”

“Of course not,” Bellamy said, his tone hardening.  “Because most Christians want it both ways.  They want to be able to proudly declare that they are believers in the Bible and yet simply ignore those parts they find too difficult or too inconvenient to believe.”

A Mormon is going to be pretty comfortable with Bellamy’s statements.  These aren’t the only Biblical references–I was hoping Brown would reference Psalm 82:6, and he didn’t disappoint.  From page 308,

The famous Hermetic aphorism–Know ye not that ye are gods?–was one of the pillars of the Ancient Mysteries.  As above, so below … Man created in God’s image … Apotheosis. This persistent message of man’s own divinity–of his hidden potential–was the recurring them in the ancient texts of countless traditions.  Even the Holy Bible cried out in Psalms 82:6: Ye are Gods!

I am sure that many Christians will find this kind of information about apotheosis as jarring.  But I expect that Mormons and Orthodox Christians will embrace these scriptures and ideas presented by Dan Brown.  Overall, I found Brown to be a bit more sympathetic to religion that he was in the other two books, though I expect Catholics and Protestants to take issue with this idea that apotheosis is truly a Biblical concept.  So, have any of you read the book?  If you haven’t, does this make you want to read it?

So, this post is to serve two purposes: (1) to show some different perceptions about the sacrifice of Isaac, (as well as some other strange stories of Abraham), and (2) to introduce some new information from Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and archaeological scholars. I’ve had fun learning about it, and hope you do to. While I believe Abraham is a prophet, I find some things that Abraham did as troubling, and I’ll point them out below.

Abraham was born in southern Iraq, and traditional lived somewhere between 2000 and 1500 BC in the city-state of Ur. Ur (located near the border of Kuwait) was surrounded by city walls. A Ziggarat (stepped pyramid) has been discovered there, and some scholars believe it may be the basis for the Tower of Babel story found in the Bible.

Abraham is a well traveled person. Born in Ur, he and his wife Sarah, left with his father Terah’s family (including nephew Lot), for the land of Haran (which is now Turkey), a journey of about 1000 miles. Abraham lived there until he was 75. Apparently, there was some sort of mass migration from Ur to Turkey, as it seems many others traveled from Ur to Haran. Abraham left Turkey for the Land of Canaan (now Israel), due to a revelation from God. But due to a famine, Abraham leaves Canaan to go to Egypt. After the famine ends, he returns to Canaan. Muslim scholars believe that after Sarah’s death, he traveled to Mecca (Saudi Arabia) to live with his son Ishmael.

One story not found in the Bible, is the story of Abraham destroying his father’s idols. Mormons are familiar with the story from the Book of Abraham, but similar stories are also found in the Jewish Midrash, and Muslim Koran. The Midrash is a book composed by ancient Jewish rabbi’s to explain passages of scripture. Not only does the Midrash explain interpretations of scripture, but often further explains stories, or introduces new parts of a story. The Koran also tells of this story of Abraham destroying his father’s idols. Previously, I speculated that Joseph could have found a Muslim text in translating the Book of Abraham, but it easily could also have been a Jewish fragment of the Midrash as well.

Abraham is credited for being the “founder of monotheism,” as well as the founder of the 3 great western religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. There is an old cable series (1994) from the network A&E called Mysteries of the Bible which has a show about Abraham. William Dever, Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology, at the University of Arizona, states that monotheism was a unique religious idea in 2000 BC. (Note these quotes are taken scattered throughout the video. I have tried to put similar quotes together for clarity in this post.)

“There is nothing like the ethical monotheism of the Hebrew prophets anywhere in the ancient world. If you want to believe in the uniqueness of the Bible, this is a good point to begin with, it is a fact. There is nothing like this anywhere else.”

Walter Zanger, a Jewish scholar concurs with this opinion. “Every other country in the world, every other civilization had gods whom you had to feed, to sacrifice to them. Abraham had a god who gave him law and behavior. The introduction of a single moral law for king, for commoner, and even for God is a milestone in the history of the world.”

Dr Nahum M. Sarna, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies, Brandies University. “How did one man, stand up against all cultural and religious notions and accepted views of the time. That’s a question that there just is no answer. You can ask the same question about every innovator every founder of a new religion, every revolutionary. We just have no answers. These are abiding mysteries.”

While the Bible seems to indicate that Adam down to Abraham were all monotheists, some scholars disagree. Jewish scholar Walter Zanger makes a case that Abraham was not a true monotheist. He says,

“It’s hard to talk about Abraham as a monotheist. Abraham had an agreement, a covenant with his one god, who is the Lord. Abraham didn’t say, or believe as far as we know, that there weren’t other gods. All the evidence is that there were other gods for other people. And Abraham’s god never insisted on exclusivity.”

The narrator, Richard Kiley continues, “While experts disagree over whether Abraham was a true monotheist, the Bible does not indicate if he worshipped other gods. It only tells us that led by his fervent faith in his one god, that Abraham informs his family that they will be leaving their secure, familiar world behind.”

The Law of Circumcision

Circumcision is not unique to Abraham, and in fact the practice dates before this story in the Bible.  Scholars say that the difference in the Abrahamic story is that it attains some sort of spiritual blessing.  I’m not trying to be sacrilegious here, but I have to tell you that this idea has to be one of the strangest spiritual blessings that man has ever known.

Why couldn’t God have pierced the ear, asked for a tattoo, or some other sign? I just don’t understand why God or any man thinks it’s a good idea to put anything sharp near a person’s genitals. Before I get into the scriptural account, I want to talk about a few things regarding circumcision.

Most of us are appalled by female circumcision, which usually involves removal of the clitoris (which gives pleasure to women during intercourse.) Not all Muslims support the practice, but it is quite common among African Muslims. The practice of female circumcision pre-dates Christ and Islam, and seems to have originated in Egypt. Its main purpose is to keep women virtuous by making sex not enjoyable. It seems completely barbaric and incomprehensible to me.

Male circumcision is being discouraged in western countries because it seemingly has no medical benefit.  However, medical opinion is changing.  There are several studies showing that AIDS infections have been decreased by 60% in Africa due to a new campaign to promote male circumcision, as seen in this NY Times article. Another study in the New England Journal of Medicine shows that male circumcision has the benefit of reducing herpes infections, as well as human papillomavirus (which causes genital warts).

The Biblical account makes no reference to medical benefits, but says the Law of Circumcision is part of the spiritual covenant where God covenants with Abraham to make him a leader of many nations. The DVD talks about the ancient practice of male circumcision, making it clear that it was a practice common to Middle Eastern people prior to Abraham.

Circumcision was already widely practiced in the Middle East at Abraham’s time as a ritual of passage to adulthood, or a premarital rite. But when Abraham circumcised himself at the age of 99, the ritual acquired a new spiritual meaning.

Dr. Mark Brettler, Associate Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Brandies University, “What is unique in terms of the Bible is not so much the physical circumcision itself, but rather that circumcision was considered to be a central part of the covenant.”

This is my covenant which you shall keep between me and you, and your descendants after you. Every male among you shall be circumcised. It shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He that is 8 days old among you shall be circumcised.” Genesis 17:12.

Rabbi David Wolpe, lecturer at the University of Judaism. “One of the reasons that circumcision is a mark on the generative organ is, that God says to Abraham, ‘you’re going to be the head of a great nation, and I want you to always remember that it comes from you and your loins, and I want a mark of your commitment at the very place where this great nation will spring from.’”

Some time after Abraham’s circumcision, Sarah became pregnant, giving birth to Isaac. I suppose it could be argued that in Abraham’s case, it may have helped Sarah get pregnant. However, Abraham had previously fathered Ishmael through his slave-servant Hagar. While I have plenty of problems with polygamy, and slavery, I’m going to ignore these issues for the purposes of this post. (FYI, I don’t believe God was happy with either polygamy or slavery.) Regardless of whether people support my position on slavery and polygamy, I’ll assume that both were culturally innocuous for this post.

The Mistreatment of Hagar

Throughout history, jealousy between polygamist wives has always been a problem. In the Bible, there are several instances of jealousy, such as David, Solomon, and Israel’s (Jacob’s) wives. Sarah was greatly jealous of Hagar after Hagar conceived Ishmael, and ordered Abraham to send Hagar away (to die) on 2 occasions. What is most ironic is that Sarah asked Abraham to take Hagar as a wife, and then blamed Abraham. The following account is from an NIV bible, Genesis 16:1-11.

Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her.” Abram agreed to what Sarai said.

So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. He slept with Hagar, and she conceived. When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress.

Then Sarai said to Abram, “You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my servant in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the Lord judge between you and me.”

Your servant is in your hands,” Abram said. “Do with her whatever you think best.” Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her. The angel of the Lord found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur.

And he said, “Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?” “I’m running away from my mistress Sarai,” she answered. Then the angel of the Lord told her, “Go back to your mistress and submit to her.” The angel added, “I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count.”

The angel of the Lord also said to her: “You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the Lord has heard of your misery.

This angelic appearance to Hagar receives far too little notice in Judaism and Christianity. What is so amazing to me is that Hagar received the vision, not Abraham. Hagar chose the name (via the angel), not Abraham. The Hebrew version of the name is Yishma’el, meaning “God has hearkened”. In Arabic, his name is Ismael. Isma in Arabic means ‘to listen’ i.e answer prayer, and ell is derived from the Hebrew word el, meaning God.

Who is the righteous one in this story? To me the answer is Hagar. Hagar returns to Abraham, and the Bible story says that 13 years after Ishmael’s birth, Sarah becomes pregnant with Isaac. (The Koran seems to put the births of Isaac and Ishmael closer together—more on that in a bit.) At any rate, Sarah once again casts out Hagar and Ishmael, this time for good, referring to Hagar with the derisive term of slavewoman, rather than maidservant as in chapter 16. The DVD narrates this incident.

“So she said to Abraham, ‘Cast out this slavewoman and her son. For the son of this slavewoman shall not be heir with my son, Isaac. [Gen. 21:10]

Walter Zanger, “Sarah is very strong in the house. When she herself had a son, she was strong enough, and smart enough to know that the firstborn son, Ishmael, would naturally take the birthright. But she also knew that God had promised it to her son, and therefore she was strong enough to ensure that the woman got thrown out, with her son.”

“And the thing was very displeasing to Abraham on account of his son. But God said to Abraham, ‘Be not displeased because of the lad, because of your slavewoman. Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you. For through Isaac, will your descendants be named.” [Genesis 22:11-12]

The heart-rending moment, when Abraham sends the Egyptian slave Hagar, and their son Ishmael into exile will sow the seeds of conflict between Jew and Muslim, which on occasion will bear bitter fruit in centuries to come.

It is hard for me to reconcile that God would go along with sending a mother and child into the desert. But just as Joseph thrived in Egypt, it seems to me that Ishmael had a few miracles ahead of him in Saudi Arabia. The more I learn about this story, the more I am amazed at God graciousness in protecting Ishmael and Hagar. We Christians and Jews fail to recognize God’s hand in dealing with the Arab nations.

I’d like to emphasize another scripture about Ishmael that is ignored by Christians. In Genesis 21:12-13, “But God said to [Abraham], “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring.”

Did you get that? God said, “I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also.” The Arab nations claim their father is Ishmael. Ishmael had 12 sons—the 12 tribes of Ishmael, who became the great nations of the Arabs. God’s promises to Ishmael are in the Bible, yet I have never seen anyone emphasize this. The Koran has a similar, but more miraculous version of this event, and I was a little astonished to see that it is also in the Bible. First, let’s go over the biblical account in Genesis 21:14-20,

Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba.

When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes. Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away, for she thought, “I cannot watch the boy die.” And as she sat there nearby, she began to sob.

God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation.”

Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink. God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the desert and became an archer.

Are Arabs God’s chosen people, as well as the Jews? Genesis seems to support that idea. The Islamic version of this story is even more amazing. First of all, I did not realize that the pilgrimage to Mecca was so tied to Ishmael and Abraham. As I was transcribing some of these quotes from the DVD, one of the Islamic scholars had a thick accent, and I couldn’t understand what she was saying, so I asked my friend Ann, who I mentioned in a previous post about Arabs and Persians, what the name of the temple was in Mecca. She then told me the story of Ishmael and Hagar, and how it relates to the pilgrimage. I was even more astonished to discover that this well mentioned in Genesis is the well in Mecca.

Each year during the Hajj (the ritual pilgrimage) to Mecca, pilgrims re-enact Hagar’s (or Hajar, in Arabic) desperate search for water for her infant son, running seven times between two hills and drawing water from the well of Zam Zam. Ann told me that the Islamic version of the story holds that Ishmael was a baby, rather than a teenager in the Genesis account. During this desperate search for water, the baby Ishmael just kicked his feet on the ground (as toddlers would do), and a spring of water came forth. To me, it sounded almost like the story of Moses getting water from the rock. The full story is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari. The well Zam Zam is still there today, and it is illegal to sell the water outside of Saudi Arabia, as it is considered so sacred.

The name of the well comes from the phrase Zomë Zomë, meaning ‘stop flowing’, a command repeated by Hagar during her attempt to contain the spring water.

According to Islamic tradition, Abraham rebuilt the Bait-ul-Allah (House of Allah) at the site of the well, a building which had been originally constructed by Adam, and today is called the Kaaba, a building towards which all Muslims around the world face in prayer, five times each day. The Zamzam well is located approximately 20 meters east of the Ka’aba.

I love these quotes from the DVD.

Dr. Wadad Kadi, professor of Islamic Thought, University of Chicago, “Abraham’s message is the same as Muhammad, articulated at a different time to a different nation, and a different language.”

Abraham’s spiritual odyssey inspired both Judaism and Christianity. Abraham is also a founder of Islam. According to Muslim belief, Abraham and Ishmael helped build the Ka’aba, the holy shrine at the center of the great mosque in Mecca. They believe that Abraham literally laid the foundation for what in Islam is the most sacred spot on earth.

Kadi, “Abraham developed the true faith, and it is the true faith that Muhammad eventually preached, as part of the message that he received from God. So Abraham’s role is absolutely one of the cornerstones of Islamic tradition.”

Perhaps the fact that all 3 of the west’s great religions draw upon the story of one man for inspiration holds out a promise that the 3 faiths will someday live in harmony together as God promised to Abraham in the Bible.

“By your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves because you have obeyed my voice.” Genesis 22:18.

Human Sacrifice

Abraham is set up as a model of righteousness for attempting to follow a command of unimaginable horror—taking the life of his own son. It is terrible to think about. I have found some alternate interpretations, and I want to share some of them below. I’m not so sure I believe that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael (apparently there is a disagreement among the religions). However, I do accept that God saved Abraham from making a terrible mistake. To me the most important idea is that God saved Abraham’s son, but I don’t believe God would command anyone to kill their own child. From the DVD,

The words will haunt us today, as they have haunted the human imagination for thousands of years. “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I shall tell you.” Genesis 22:1

Rabbi David Wolpe, “the binding of Isaac, though it is only some 20, or 22 verses, is in the Jewish tradition, the most commented incident in the entire Bible.

Walter Zanger, “It is impossible for modern man to explain that story. It is impossible to deal with. I can see this historically, but I can’t feel it personally. It’s too horrible.”

Wolpe, “One of the strange things is that although Isaac is the one who is going to be sacrificed, the focus is really on Abraham, because the truth is, that we really feel it is harder in this case to be the sacrificer than to be the victim. Isaac is a figure of simple, almost pathetic trust, and Abraham is a father that is torn between his love to a son, and his duty to a god who has given him a terrible command.”

Isaac carries the wood to a place of sacrifice, while Abraham carries the fire, and the knife. Isaac then asks his father one of the most heart-rending things in the entire bible. “He said behold the fire and the wood, but where is the Lamb for a burnt offering. And Abraham said, ‘God will provide the lamb’ for a burnt offering, my son.’ So they went both of them together. [Gen 22:8]

Abraham builds an altar, and places his son Isaac on top of it. Then Abraham took forth his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But an angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, ‘Abraham, Abraham.’ And he said, ‘Here am I.’ He said, “do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me. [Gen 22:12]

We will never know what happened after that terrifying moment. Did Abraham and Isaac weep? Did father and son embrace through their tears. We know only that Isaac was spared.

“And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns, and Abraham took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.” [Gen 22:13]

Perhaps no story in the Bible has inspired as great an outpouring of speculation as the binding of Isaac, of ancient times to our own.

Wolpe, “The protestant theologian Kierkegard at the beginning of his book, “Fear and Trembling”, imagines a scene in which Abraham takes Isaac, and binds him on the altar and says to him, ‘I hate you–I’ve always hated you. I can’t stand you, and now is my chance to kill you! And now I’m going to do it. And he starts to kill him, and God stops him just as he does in the Bible. And then, Abraham unties Isaac and holds him and crying, says to him, ‘I thought it was better that you should hate me, than that you should hate God.’”

But what is the meaning of the Biblical story of the binding of Isaac? Some scholars believe that it was a statement by the editors of the Bible 1000 years after Abraham against a gruesome practice of their own time.

William Dever, Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology, University of Arizona, “Child sacrifice was fairly common throughout the ancient near east. And in fact at Carthage in North Africa, a Jewish cemetery has been found with small urns containing the burned bones of infants and the inscriptions accompanying these burials make it clear that parents had sacrificed a child to one or another of the gods to bring them good fortune.”

Scholars have sought to probe the seemingly baffling mystery of how any parent could sacrifice his own child?

Brettler, “As horrific as this might be to us, we can really see this as a very significant religious notion, where a person is coming and is saying to God, ‘God you have given me that which is most valuable, namely a child. I am going to return it to you.’”

Dever, “I think the editors wanted for us to believe that child sacrifice was never practiced. And yet the very critique of the prophets against it is proof of the fact that the practice was common. You don’t complain about something unless there was a real problem.”

Whatever the motive of the editors to set down the story of the binding of Isaac, its impact on all 3 great western religions is immeasurable. Today a mosque known as The Dome of the Rock, built in the 7th century in Jerusalem, enshrines the site on the mountaintop where the life and death drama is said to have taken place. However, according to the Islamic holy scripture, the Koran, it is Abraham’s other son, Ishmael, who was bound and almost sacrificed on this very rock.

Dr. Wadad Kadi, professor of Islamic Thought, University of Chicago, “In the Koranic version, there’s a general tendency to accept that Ishmael to have been that son, rather than Isaac. Isaac is accepted as a prophet, but the binding itself seems to have been Ishmael.”

Christians believe that Mount Moriah was the site of Calvary, while the Jews consider this the location of their holiest shrine, Solomon’s temple. All three religions have found profound importance in Abraham’s profound ordeal.

Wolpe, “After the binding of Isaac is over, God and Abraham in the Bible never speak again. Perhaps after this, Abraham and God have nothing to say again. ‘I did what you wanted, I fulfilled the mission, but now what else is there to say.’ But one commentator notes that after this story, Abraham and Isaac never speak again. After this, no matter how much Isaac understood that Abraham needed to do it, there was a sense that they could never be as close again.

According to one old rabbinic tale, when the aged Sarah hears that her beloved son Isaac was almost sacrificed by Abraham, the shock and horror of it are too much for her. In the Bible, we know only that soon after the binding of Isaac, Sarah finally dies.

In today’s world, anytime someone claims that God commands them to kill someone, we immediately assume they are mentally ill. Yet if the story is in the scriptures, we call them a prophet, and glory in their amazing obedience. I just don’t get it. My personal opinion is that Abraham was misled, and I want to point out some other opinions on the subject.

• Protestant theologian Kierkegaard said, “Though Abraham arouses my admiration, he at the same time appalls me.”
• Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi (Spain, early 14th century) wrote that Abraham’s “imagination” led him astray, making him believe that he had been commanded to sacrifice his son. Ibn Caspi writes “How could God command such a revolting thing?”
• According to Rabbi J. H. Hertz (Chief Rabbi of the British Empire), child sacrifice was actually “rife among the Semitic peoples,” and suggests that “in that age, it was astounding that Abraham’s God should have interposed to prevent the sacrifice, not that He should have asked for it.” Hertz interprets the Akedah as demonstrating to the Jews that human sacrifice is abhorrent. “Unlike the cruel heathen deities, it was the spiritual surrender alone that God required.”
• The early rabbinic Midrash Genesis Rabbah imagines God as saying “I never considered telling Abraham to slaughter Isaac (using the Hebrew root letters for “slaughter”, not “sacrifice”)”.
• Rabbi Yona Ibn Janach (Spain, 11th century) wrote that God demanded only a symbolic sacrifice.
• In Jeremiah 32:35, God states that the later Israelite practice of child sacrifice to the deity Molech “had [never] entered My mind that they should do this abomination.”
• In some later Jewish writings, most notably those of the Hasidic masters, the theology of a “divine test” is rejected, and the sacrifice of Isaac is interpreted as a “punishment” for Abraham’s earlier “mistreatment” of Ishmael, his elder son, whom he expelled from his household at the request of his wife, Sarah. According to this view, Abraham failed to show compassion for his son, so God punished him by ostensibly failing to show compassion for Abraham’s son. This is a somewhat flawed theory, however, since the Bible says that God agreed with Sarah, and it was only at His insistence that Abraham actually had Ishmael leave.
• In The Last Trial, Shalom Spiegel argues that these commentators were interpreting the Biblical narration as an implicit rebuke against Christianity’s claim that God would sacrifice His own son.
• In The Binding of Isaac, Religious Murders & Kabbalah, Lippman Bodoff argues that Abraham never intended to actually sacrifice his son, and that he had faith that God had no intention that he do so.

Finally, I want to add one last piece of information regarding Abraham. After the death of Sarah, he bought some land located in Hebron, which is part of the Gaza Strip in Israel. The Bible records that Sarah is buried there. According to Islamic tradition, Abraham left Israel and helped build a temple in Mecca, along with his son Ishmael. Abraham was later buried near his wife Sarah, in Hebron (in the Gaza Strip) according to Genesis 25:9. Ishmael’s death (at the age of 137) is also recorded in the Bible in Genesis 25:17-18.

So, what do you think of Abraham and how he relates to circumcision, Hagar, and human sacrifice?

Critics of the LDS church have often chortled at the fact that there is no archaeological evidence in support of the Book of Mormon.  Well, that is now changing, and I would like to discuss what we know about an archeaological site called “Nahom.”

When Lehi left Jerusalem, Book of Mormon scholars surmise that Lehi and his family probable followed the Frankincense Trail on the eastern side of the Red Sea.  The trail is not well marked, and is in a desert.  There are water stops along the way, spaced quite distantly.  Over the centuries, many people died along the trail because of lack of water.  The land is desolate, and it seems unlikely that Lehi’s family would have been trailblazers in such a forbidding place, especially when one considers that the Frankincense Trail pre-dates Lehi.

During the journey, Nephi and his brothers return to Jerusalem twice.  The first time they return to obtain the Brass Plates (scriptures), and the second time they return to obtain wives.  They return with the family of Ishmael, who has as many daughters as Lehi does sons.

I just purchased Journey of Faith, which discusses the probably route of Lehi, and goes into great detail of the recent discovery of NHM, or Nahom.  I’d like to quote some of the experts in the video regarding the Nahom discovery.

Kent Brown, professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU. “I believe that it took them about a year to go from their first base camp down to Nahom. The reason is because that’s when Nephi mentions the birth of the first children. As I read the text of the book of Mormon, I suspect that Ishmael was already ill, or had been experiencing ill health, and that was one of the reasons why the family stopped from time to time to rest, to gather themselves, gather strength and then move on.”

Yusuf Abdullah, Former Director of General Organization of Antiquities, Republic of Yemen, “During the frankincense trade journey, I suppose that quite a number of people will die, because it was a hard journey definitely. It wasn’t an easy journey. And when they die, they will carry it [the body] to the nearest place possible.

Abdullah, “In Yemen, like in many ancient civilizations, they used to respect the dead very much.  The areas to bury were known along the Frankincense Route.”

Abdu Othman Ghaleb, Professor of Archeaology, Sana’a University, Republic of Yemen, “I am sitting in Nahom burial ground that was discovered in 1994. The people who pass through this area and die, they will bring to the burial and buried here. Whether they were Yemenis or foreigners from the north, from Mediterranean or from someplace else.”

Abdullah, “They [the graves] are like small hives or small graves, mounds.”

Ghaleb, “And this area, what is the burial ground, is belong to the tribe of Nahom.”

Brown, “They’d have buried Ishmael here, to great mourning. One of the reasons the people felt to mourn is because he was an Israelite, and to be buried away from his home was something of a loss.”

Brown, “It’s certain that this place had a name before they arrived, because Nephi very carefully writes the passive, the place which was called Nahom.”

Ghaleb, “This is the area of Nahom, this is the land of Nahom, and also the area of the tribe of Nahom.”

Brown, “The spelling in 1^st Nephi 16 is [pronounced] ‘Nay-home’, or ‘Nah-home’, which has something to do with comfort. In ancient South Arabian, the letters N-H-M have to do with stonecutting and may possibly refer to the kind of work that the people of this tribe did.”

Abdullah, “The name is supposed to be coming from the root Nahama. And Nahama is ancient South Arabian language means to cut stone.”

Brown, “We have to imagine what happened when Lehi and Sariah and their party heard this name after the death of Ishmael, that it meant something to them and they preserved it in the text.”

David J Johnson, Archaeology, BYU, “The Yemenis have excavated a number of cemeteries in that region, including some that contained mummified remains.”

Ghaleb, “The mummies that we found here in Yemen were buried differently from the ones in Egypt. The knees are not straight like the Egyptian. And also they covered all the body inside [with] very nice leather.”

Now, why would this discovery be important?

Daniel C. Peterson, Professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic, BYU, “The finding of Nahom strikes me as just a tremendously significant discovery.”

Noel B Reynolds, director of FARMS, BYU, “The gazetteers of Joseph Smith’s day listed no such place.”

Peterson, “What it really is, is a kind of prediction by the Book of Mormon, or something that we ought to find.”

William J Hamblin, Professor of Middle Eastern History, BYU, “Now the chances of finding that exact name from the exact time, in that exact place, by random chance, are just astronomical.”

Peterson, “And to find it in the right location, at the right time, is a really striking bulls eye for the book and there are those who say the book has no archeological substantiation. That’s a spectacular substantiation right there, it seems to me. Something that would have been unexpected. It’s so unlikely that Joseph Smith could have woven into his story on his own.”

Hamblin, “The Book of Mormon has text, has made a complex prediction and modern archeology actually confirms that prediction.”

Peterson, “It’s a direct bulls-eye, as precise as you could wish it to be.”

In the past, some of the skeptics have claimed that Nahom does not date to the time of Lehi, but archeologists have dated the site, as well as pre-Islamic temples in the area to the time of Lehi.

Johnson, “There are inscriptions from the Temple Baran at Marib that date to the 6^th century BC, that talk about individuals from Nahom. So that region was known at the time of Lehi, and was called that at that period of time.”

Brown, “The temples that were uncovered there are actually from Lehi’s own time frame.”

Peterson, “But then to find the altars, with references to Nahom on them dating from 600 BC was just spectacular.”

Brown, “Certain ruins, or remnants, of that temple were uncovered, including three altars, all of which carried this inscription, Nahom.”

Peterson, “You couldn’t have asked for a neater proof that the name was there in the right place at the right time, when it was supposed to be there for Lehi’s group passing through.”

Other skeptics have tried to claim that Joseph must have consulted maps, or had prior knowledge of the area.

John Welch, Law and Classical Antiquity, BYU, “The witnesses [to the translation of the Book of Mormon, specifically Emma Smith] tell us that Joseph didn’t even know that the city of Jerusalem had walls around it. Well if he didn’t know that there was a wall around Jerusalem, he certainly didn’t know that there was a city or a site out in Yemen called Nahom.”

Peterson, “The idea that Joseph Smith, for example, was really well versed in pre-Islamic Arabian geography, or customs in the desert seems to me so ludicrous as to simply be beyond belief.”

Ann Madsen, Senior Lecturer of Ancient Scripture, BYU, “One has to ask the question, how could Joseph Smith possibly have known Nahom?”

In the interest of dissenting points of view, you may want to check out Wikipedia, which is not as glowing of a review.  However, I find most of the dissenting views to be weak.  Comments?

I’m a grad student working on some genetic studies (one of my many jobs).  As part of the genetic study we are doing, we have our study participants tell us their race.  In medical studies, different treatments can affect different races quite dramatically.

I’m designing a database to capture the information for the study.  Many people don’t identify as just one race.  Some are multi-racial, and even put percentages on their forms, such as 50% white, 25% hispanic, 25% black.  So, I was asking questions about how to properly capture the data.

I learned that there are 5 basic races:  White (Caucausian), Black, Asian, Native American, and Pacific Islander.  As I have discussed on this blog before, genetic studies show that Native Americans are related to Asian peoples.  Simon Southerton seems to have shown that peoples migrated across the Bering Strait, and settled the americas.  But according to one of the genetic specialists (I’ll call her Ann) in my office, there is still a big enough difference between Native Americans to separate them from Asians.  Same goes for Pacific Islanders.

It seems that many people often refer to the Jewish race, or the Arab race.  In some of our previous posts, we talked about the “Cohen” gene, which is a distinguishing gene among people of Jewish descent.  So I asked Ann what race Jews were, and she said “Caucasian.”  She said there is some interesting distinguishing characteristics of Jews, but not so much to call them a separate race.  I asked about Arabs?  “Caucasian.”  Ok, what about people from India?  “Caucasian.”  This one really surprised me (as if the others ones didn’t.)  I would have suspected India Indians to be Asian, but that is wrong.

Hispanic is the truly confusing one, because there are black hispanics, and white hispanics.  If a person is a black hispanic, genetically they are black.  Otherwise, they are Caucasian.

I was truly intrigued to learn all of this.  Then to top it off, I discovered Ann was from Iran.  (She told me it is pronounced ear-ron, not eye-ran, so I will endeavor to pronounce it properly from this point forward.)  Now, I just couldn’t resist asking more questions.

I told her that I had heard that Iranians are not Arabs, and that I never really understood that.  To me, it always seemed like anyone from the Middle East was an Arab.  If Iranians are not Arabs, what are they, and what distinguishes an Arab?

She told me that they refer to themselves as Persians.  I had a college professor who had told me he was Persian, and when I asked him where that was, he said “Iraq.”  So, I asked her if Iraqi’s were also Persians.  She was surprised to hear me tell her than an Iraqi claimed to be Persian, but then decided that it was possible, and then gave me a history lesson.

Persia was once much larger than it is now, and was centered in Iran.  Around 600 AD, the Arabs from Saudi Arabia expanded their kingdom and conquered Persia, converting everyone to Islam.  (Prior to that, the Persian religion was Zoroastrianism.)  Even though the Persians converted to Islam, they never liked the Arab rulers, and a few hundred years later, overthrew them and installed their own kings.

I asked about the differences between Sunni and Shiite (or Shia) muslims.  Shia muslims follow a direct lineage through to the prophet Muhammed.  Sunni’s believe that clerics do not have to be genetically related to Muhammed.  The Sunni line is larger than Shia.  Iran is really the only nation primarily Shia.  Iraq and Sadaam Hussein were ruled by the minority Sunni, but it appears that the Shiite majority is taking control of the government, so there could be a 2nd Shiite nation.  Most other Middle Eastern countries are Sunni.  Perhaps Persia is coming back into existence!

Anyway, Ann told me that Iranians hate to be referred to as Arabs, and identify much more with Europeans.  She told me that Afghanis feel the same way.  She said she knew Americans had a hard time telling the difference, but that people in that part of the world can easily tell the difference between a Persian and an Arab.

Ann has been in America for about a year.  Prior to that, she lived in France.  She said she really liked Utah, and culturally, felt that Utah was quite similar to Iran.  She said families are very important in Iran, and very important in Utah.  She said France was much more secular, and the people weren’t as nice.  (I’ve vacationed in France, and didn’t think they were very nice either.)

Anyway, it was a truly fascinating conversation!  I actually knew a little about Zoroastrianism.  For example,  the star at Jesus birth was discovered by the Wise Men from the East.  Some scholars believe that the Wise Men believed in Zoroastrianism.  (I plan a topic on this as we get closer to Christmas–it is a fascinating topic to me.)  Ann was surprised to hear this.  I also know that there is a mountain in Saudi Arabia called Jebel-Musa which means Mount of Moses.  Some muslim and christian scholars believe that this may be the true location of Mount Sinai, and I think there is some pretty intriguing evidence to support that claim.  (Ann didn’t know that either.)  Anyway, I plan some future posts on that topic as well.

So, did anyone know the difference between a Persian and an Arab?  Do you have any other interesting things to add?

In the book of Joshua, Joshua claims to be commanded by God to destroy everyone and everything in what is now the land of Israel.

“And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21

“So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon.“ Joshua 10:40-41

In an interesting twist, the prophet Jonah wanted God to destroy the city of Nineveh, yet God felt those people were to be spared.  Were the Ninevites really more righteous than the Jericho-ites?  Does God command genocide, yesterday, today, or in the future?

My take is that Joshua is a prophet.  He felt he was inspired.  However, I do not feel that God wanted all the inhabitants killed.  I do not think God ever commands genocide, and I feel that this action was wrong by Joshua.  Comments?

Paul spoke to the Ephesians in Ephesus (and his letter is in our bible now.)  He also travelled to many other cities such as Perge, Derbe, Lystra, Antioch. John died in Ephesus.  Peter built the first Christian church there in Antioch.  Philip lived in Heirapolis, and was killed with him family there.

Constantine moved the capital to Constantinople, later named Byzantium, later named Istanbul.  The Council of Nicea was in Turkey (and is now known as Iznik, between Bursa and Istanbul).  As I previously mentioned Montanus lived in Turkey; Tertullian, author of the Trinity doctrine, spent time in Turkey and was a follower of Montanus.  In short, Turkey was overwhelmingly Christian, and often was more important than Rome in influencing the direction of Christianity.  Many of the greatest christian theologians either spent a great deal of time in Turkey, or were born there.  Christianity was declared as the official religion in 380, during the reign of Theodosius I, and destruction of pagan temples was legalized.

Gradually, Christianity in Turkey disintegrated, so that when the Islamic Ottomans finally conquered the Byzantine Empire in 1453, it was inevitable that what had been a predominantly Christian region would be no more.  In 1900, Turkey had a population that was 22% Christian.  Today it is about 0.3%.

How could such an important center of Christianity change so radically?

What is interesting to me about these lost tribes is the connection to the Book of Mormon. The BOM claims that the Nephites were descendants to the Tribe of Manasseh. So I was interested to see what insights the movie might have on this tribe in particular.

First of all, we often refer to the 12 tribes of Israel, but there’s some discrepancy in numbering them. Jacob (Israel) had 12 sons: Dan, Naphtali, Issachar, Zebulon, Gad, Reuben, Levi, Joseph, Benjamin, Judah, Asher, Simeon. Due to idolatry, sometimes Dan is excluded from this list, and Levi did not receive land, but rather the priesthood, so this tribe is sometimes excluded from the list of the lost tribes. Joseph, as favorite son, gets both of his sons, Ephraim, and Manasseh included.

So, the Jews today are descendants of Judah. Joseph Smith claims that the American Indians are descendants of Manasseh (Joseph), so that explains how two of the tribes are not lost any more. The other 10 (or 12 tribes, depending on how you count them) were scattered by an invasion of the Assyrians in 700 BC. There is little archaeological evidence of these 10 tribes after 500 BC, so little is known about them. But there are prophecies in the Old Testament (Isaiah, Ezekiel) that these lost tribes would return to their promised land.

In the documentary, Jacobovici makes a case that he may have found large groups of people representing these lost tribes. A group in Ethiopia claims to be descendants of Dan. In the 1980′s, the chief rabbi became convinced that these Ethiopians were truly of the tribe of Dan. In the Civil War in 1991, the Israeli government airlifted this group, who practiced many Jewish customs, out of the war zone, and repatriated them in Israel, based specifically on their being a lost tribe of Israel.

1.5 million people, claiming to be descendants from the Tribe of Manasseh (Bnei Manashe) live on the India/Burma border. Many rabbis are becoming convinced that these people may be correct, and many are trying to migrate to Israel. Briefly, here are some others :

• Naphtali – China and Iran
• Zebulon – Bombay, India
• Issachar – Uzbekistan
• Tribes of Gad, Ephraim, Reuben,Simeon – can be found among the Pashtun (Pathans) tribes of Afghanistan
• Asher – Tunisia

Obviously, some of these groups have converted to Christianity, and Islam. They represent various races, and don’t look like the typical image of a Jew. Most of these obscure groups have unknown origins. Many of the groups have maintained some of their old Jewish traditions. For example, the Pashtuns seem to have combined their Islam and Jewish beliefs, some still killing a Passover lamb, even though this is not an Islamic custom, and many of these tribes have Israeli sounding names, even though they are Muslim.

There is not much DNA evidence in this film. However, there is another film, which I will detail in a future post, dealing with the Lemba tribe in South Africa. They claim to be one of the lost tribes of Israel, but make no specific tribal claims. They are kosher, wear Jewish clothing, and a DNA test was done on an Episode of Digging for the Truth, which seems to indicate that they have some semitic DNA. Perhaps they descended from the Ethiopian group, perhaps another way.

While I agree that these claims are highly speculative, there are some interesting claims. The Bnei Manashe (of Burma) are part of the National Geographic Genome Project, and in 2010, we will find out if there claims can be backed up by science that they are truly Semitic people.

What do you make of these claims about the lost tribes becoming found? What are the implications for the Book of Mormon?

To me, this sounds very similar to the account in the Pearl of Great Price. Is it possible, that Joseph translated a Muslim text? I find no accounts of this in the Bible, and I am not aware of any apocryphal writings about this story. Is anyone out there familiar with this? Are there other parallels with Islam, or is the story found elsewhere?