1

Biblical Haman Qurnic Hmn: A Case Of Straightforward Literary

Transition?

Abdullah David & M S M Saifullah

Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

First Composed: 20th November 2000

Last Updated: 8th January 2012

inShare0

10Assalamu alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

111.

Introduction

12Pharaoh said: "O Haman! Build me a lofty palace, that I may attain the ways and means- The ways and
13means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the god of Moses: But as far as I am
14concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!" [Qur'an 40:36-37]
15Controversy has prevailed since the European Renaissance regarding the historicity of a certain
16Haman, who according to the Quran, was associated with the court of Pharaoh to whom Moses
17was sent as a Prophet by God. Haman is mentioned by name six times in the Quran and is
18referred to as an intimate person belonging to the close circle of Pharaoh, one who was engaged
19in construction projects. Western scholars have concluded that Haman is unknown to ancient
20Egyptian history. They say that the name Haman is first mentioned in the biblical Book of Esther,
21around 1,000 years after Pharaoh. The name is said to be Babylonian, not Egyptian. According to
22the Book of Esther, Haman was a counsellor of Ahasuerus (the biblical name of Xerxes) who
23was an enemy of the Jews. It has been suggested that Prophet Muhammad mixed biblical stories,
24namely the Jewish myths of the Tower of Babel and the story of Esther and Moses into a single
25confused account when composing the Quran.

2
3
26We propose to examine the various aspects of this controversy, primarily grounded in a source27critical analysis along with a literary comparison, in light of modern historical and archaeological
28research.
292.

Hmn According To The Quran: A Brief Character Analysis

30Haman is mentioned by name in six verses of the Quran.[1] From these six verses we can deduce
31Haman is one of the characters depicted in the confrontation between Moses and Pharaoh,
32indicating it is this part of the story where the context of Haman can be properly established.
33Other characters that form part of this narrative are Hrn (Prophet, supporter of Moses) and
34Qarn. Three other characters, al-Samiri, the unidentified servant and the servant of God, do not
35play a role in the confrontation though they are part of the larger Moses narrative. One of the
36most vividly described and oft-repeated head-to-head confrontations in the Quran, this story can
37be found dispersed throughout many srahs. Based primarily on the principal continuous text
38portions we can indeed discover the Quranic Haman, and reach a more useful assessment of his
39character than simply listing the verses containing his name.
40

CONFRONTATION BETWEEN MOSES AND PHARAOH

41The confrontation between Moses and the Pharaoh is one of the most vividly described stories in
42the Quran, mentioned with details in fifteen srahs.[2] This part of the story begins when God
43sends Moses to Pharaoh with miraculous signs. After showing Pharaoh his miraculous signs,
44Pharaohs inner circle of leaders become fearful, with Pharaoh accusing Moses of being a
45learned sorcerer trying to expel him from Egypt by using magic. Consequently, the Pharaoh sets
46a challenge between Moses and his best magicians to see whose signs are really superior; this
47event is given added significance as it is to take place on the renowned Day of Celebration.
48When the contest takes place and Moses prevails, Pharaohs magicians fall prostrate and openly
49declare their belief in the God of Moses. Pharaoh refused to accept the result of the contest and
50instead threatens severe punishment to anyone who believes in Moses and his God. Frustrated by
51Moses success and the wavering of his own people, Pharaoh instructs Haman to construct for
52him a lofty tower so that he can survey the God of Moses, though he is convinced Moses is
53lying. Thus we can observe it is at this stage of the confrontation that Haman assumes a clearly
54defined role. Likewise, it is at this point in the story we reach the climax of Pharaohs
55haughtiness and arrogance, who after been given a physical demonstration of miraculous signs
56and personal reminders from Moses, thinks he is able to survey God as a God. Eventually
57Pharaoh tried to kill Moses and his followers but instead was drowned as a punishment from God
58and his body preserved as a sign for future generations.
59The main characters in the story are undoubtedly Moses and Pharaoh, protagonist and antagonist,
60respectively. Though Haman is portrayed as a minor character whose authority and power are
61clearly secondary to Pharaohs, his importance as part of Pharaohs court should not be
4

3
5
62underestimated. Indirectly, Hamans seniority as part of Pharaohs court is mentioned in the story
63when Moses was sent to Pharaoh and his chiefs with signs but they were rejected [Quran 7:103].
64Although not mentioned by name in this verse, it is clear that Haman must be considered part of
65this group and he is one of Pharaohs leading supporters. Only snippets of information are given
66regarding Haman, so one cannot indulge in an all-encompassing discussion regarding his
67personality, character traits, etc., though what we do learn about him is not unimportant. Haman
68is given commands and carries them out dutifully. He is put in charge of a very important
69construction project, indicating he possessed seniority and skill necessary to see the task through
70to completion, although we are not told anything more about the construction of the tower or if it
71was even built. He holds a senior enough position to be mentioned along with Pharaoh
72repeatedly. He was also an accuser, calling Moses a sorcerer and a liar. Haman is portrayed as a
73highly unethical character; motivated by his hatred towards the believers, and, along with
74Pharaoh and Qarn, he initiated the slaying of the sons of the believers sparing only their
75women. Hamans character is unchanging; he does not acquire any new attributes and is
76described as a wrongdoer, arrogant and one who commits sins. Haman died perhaps around the
77same time as the Pharaoh as a punishment from God for his unbelief and tyranny.
783.

Criticism And Caution By Western Scholars

79Prominent Orientalists have struggled to properly situate the Haman of the Quran, and have thus
80questioned his historicity. They have suggested that the appearance of Haman in the Quranic
81story of Moses and Pharaoh has resulted from a misreading of the Bible, leading the author of the
82Quran to move Haman from the Persian court of King Ahasuerus to the Egyptian court of
83Pharaoh. The most detailed attempt to draw a genetic connection between the Haman of the
84Quran and the Haman of the Bible has been made by Adam Silverstein,[3] a Fellow of Queens
85College and University Research Lecturer at the Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of
86Oxford. Silversteins attempt to show Haman transitioning from the Bible to the Quran is
87probably the most detailed investigation so far of any character in the Quran in relation to its
88supposed dependence and subsequent transition from its corresponding biblical counterpart. For
89this reason alone, Silversteins article deserves special attention and interaction for the valuable
90insights it provides.
91Modern scholars identify Father Ludovico Marraccio, an Italian monk from Lucca and Confessor
92to Pope Innocent XI, as the first scholar to make a chronological differentiation between the
93Haman of the Quran and the Haman of the Bible.[4] There is, however, an earlier occurrence that
94is worthwhile mentioning in that it helps to properly situate the argument, tracing its trajectory
95from the outset. Some 250 years earlier in Spain around 1450 CE, Pedro de la Cavalleria, a
96distinguished jurist and apparently a crypto-convert to Christianity from Judaism, finished
97composing a work entitled Christs Zeal against Jews, Saracens, and Infidels. Subsequently
98Cavalleria was killed in 1461 CE during a period of civil unrest.[5] His work remained largely

4
7
99unknown until it saw publication in Venice in 1592, edited with a fully annotated commentary by
100the Spanish scholar Martino Alfonso Vivaldo, based at the theological faculty, University of
101Bologna. Believing Muhammad to have made a glaring mistake in chronology, Cavalleria said,
102This madman makes Haman to be contemporary with Pharaoh, surat. XXXIX. which how falsely and ignorantly
103it is said, all who understand the Holy Scriptures can declare; and he and his Followers, like Beasts, must be
104silent. [6]
105Vivaldo briefly comments on Cavallerias statement by pointing out that Hamans appearance in
106the Bible is linked with the historical period associated with the Book of Esther.[7] From this point
107onward, the vast majority of criticism has centred on the chronological disparity between both
108accounts. Moving forward, let us now look at a representative sample of critical comments from
109Western scholars.
110One of the next writers to enter the list of critics was Marraccio. Published at the end of the 17th
111century as part of his monumental Latin translation of the Quran, he said:
112Mahumet has mixed up sacred stories. He took Haman as the adviser of Pharaoh whereas in reality he was an
113adviser of Ahaseures, King of Persia. He also thought that the Pharaoh ordered construction for him of a lofty
114tower from the story of the Tower of Babel. It is certain that in the Sacred Scriptures there is no such story of
115the Pharaoh. Be that as it may, he [Mahumet] has related a most incredible story.[8]
116George Sale in his translation of the Quran said:
117This name is given to Pharaoh's Chief Minister, from which it is generally inferred that Muhammad has here
118made Haman, the favourite of Ahasueres, King of Persia, and who indisputably lived many ages after Moses,
119to be that Prophet's contemporary. But how-probable-so-ever this mistake may seem to us, it will be hard, if
120not impossible to convince a Muhammadan of it. [9]
121In what has been hailed as a classic article by Theodor Nldeke that was published in the
122Encyclopdia Britannica in 1891 CE and reprinted several times since, he says:
123The most ignorant Jew could never have mistaken
124Pharaoh... [10]

Haman (the minister of Ahasuerus) for the minister of the

125Nldekes statement is very telling and we will return to it later in our conclusion. While dealing
126with the wonderful anachronisms about the old Israelite history in the Quran, Mingana says:
127Who then will not be astonished
128of Ahaseurus?[11]

to learn that in the Koran... Haman is given as a minister of Pharaoh, instead

129On the mention of Haman in the Quran, Henri Lammens states that it is:

5
9
130"the most glaring anachronism" and is the result of
131Ahasuerus and the minister of Moses' Pharaoh." [12]

"the confusion between... Haman, minister of King

132Similar views were also echoed by Josef Horovitz.[13] Charles Torrey believed that Muhammad
133drew upon the rabbinic legends of the biblical Book of Esther and even adapted the story of the
134Tower of Babel.[14] After talking about the apparent confusion generated by this cobbling
135together of multiple sources, Arthur Jeffery says about the origin of the word Haman:
136The probabilities

are that the word came to the Arabs from Jewish sources. [15]

137The Encyclopaedia Of Islam, under "Haman" says:

138Haman, name of the person whom the Kur'an associates with Pharaoh, because of a still unexplained
139confusion with the minister of Ahasuerus in the Biblical book of Esther.[16]
140This claim has been repeated again by the Encyclopaedia Of Islam under "Firawn". It says:
141As Pharaoh's counsellor there appears a certain Haman who is responsible in particular for building a tower
142which will enable Pharaoh to reach the God of Moses... the narrative in Exodus is thus modified in two
143respects, by misplaced recollection of both the book of Esther and the story of the tower of Babel (Genesis,
144xi) to which no other reference occurs in the Kur'an. [17]
145Consequently, it is not surprising to find Christian apologists, missionaries[18] and other
146polemicists such as Ibn Warraq[19] exploiting these comments in order to prove that the Quran
147contains serious contradictions, being one of the most celebrated amongst the Christian
148missionaries on the internet. Have such criticisms permeated the discussion from the outset?
149Interestingly, beginning around the turn of the 18th century, some Western scholars were already
150advising caution.
151

AN ARGUMENT OF STRAW

152Do two people having the same name in different historical periods necessitate a relationship?
153For the first time, towards the end of the 17th century and the beginning the 18th century, a few
154Western scholars began to recognise the myths and misconceptions propagated by their academic
155fellows concerning Islamic beliefs and practices did not stand up to scrutiny under examination,
156and realised that one needed to come to terms with Islam as a religion in its own right. The first
157scholar in Europe attempting to do so in a systematic fashion was Adriaan Reland, who from
1581701 onwards was Professor of Oriental languages in the University of Utrecht. Known as his
159most famous work, the second part of De Religione Mohammedica Libri Duo responded to
160forty-one common misconceptions held by his contemporaries and those who preceded him.[20]
161Section 21 is titled, Concerning Haman that was contemporary with Pharaoh. We will quote

10

6
11
162the relevant analysis of Reland so we can properly appreciate the jist of his argument, which, in
163its basic outline, remains the same today. He said,
164I confess, we may believe, if we please, that Mahomet thought Haman (of whom we read in the book of
165Esther) livd in the time of Pharaoh. But we are under no necessity to believe this, unless from the sole
166Opinion we have of Mahomets gross ignorance. Much less can we demonstrate that Mahomet, when he makes
167Haman and Pharaoh Contemporary, meant the Haman in our Bible. How just, I beseech you, is that
168Consequence, and how fit to repel the Turks! Because Mahomet speaks of Haman, cap. 29. Therefore he
169speaks of that Haman whom our Bible mentions. Who does not see this is an Argument of Straw? [21]
170One should be careful not to romanticise Relands approach. His outlook was quite simple and
171admirable in terms of the forthright fashion this accomplished scholar set out his overall
172intention. Such openness as the kind practised by Reland is rarely glimpsed in present-day
173academia with all its modern pressures. Instead of fighting a set of misconceptions, Reland
174believed it was only by understanding Islam on its own terms that Christianity could triumph.
175Finishing off Section 21 he says, But what I have said is sufficient for my purpose; and is only
176intended to make our Writers more wary, that the Authority of the Alcoran may be beat down
177only with valid Reasonings, and the Truth of Christianity may triumph.[22] Despite these
178theological concerns, Reland is at least successful in highlighting the potential pitfalls in viewing
179Islam, the Quran and Muhammad exclusively through the prism of earlier biblical tradition.
180Breaking with the trend of seeing Haman as simply misappropriated from its biblical context, the
181Encyclopaedia Of The Qur'an makes an intriguing suggestion about the possible identity of
182Haman,
183There are conflicting views as to Haman's identity and the meaning of his name. Among them is that he is the
184minister of King Ahasuerus who has been shifted, anachronistically, from the Persian empire to the palace of
185Pharaoh... Other suggestion is that Haman is an Arabized echo of the Egyptian Ha-Amen, the title of a high
186priest second only in rank to Pharaoh. [23]
187Unfortunately no evidence is offered for this suggestion and one is instead directed to the
188bibliography in a search for answers. Let us first examine the authenticity and historical
189reliability of the biblical Book of Esther from where Muhammad supposedly appropriated the
190character of Haman.
1914. A Critical
192Quran

Examination Of The Biblical Evidence Used Against The

193Weighing up the statements given in the previous section from Christian and Jewish scholars, to
194other less well-known categories of critics such as Christian missionaries, apologists and
195polemicists, with contributions ranging in type, from scholarly monographs to detailed
196encyclopaedia entries, their criticisms can be encapsulated on the basis of the following three
197assumptions:

12

7
13
198
199
200

1. Because the Bible has been in existence longer than the Quran, the biblical account is
the correct one, as opposed to the Quranic account, which is necessarily inaccurate and
false.

201
202

2. The Bible is in conformity with firmly established secular knowledge, whereas the
Quran contains certain incompatibilities.

203
204

3. Muhammad copied and in some cases altered the biblical material when composing the
Quran.

205It goes without saying those writers who ground their objections in some or all of the
206assumptions stated above, the whole basis for the Haman controversy is the appearance of a
207Haman in the Quran in a historical period different from that of the Bible. The claim that the
208Quranic account of Haman reflects confused knowledge of the biblical story of Esther implies
209that any reference to a Haman must have biblical precursors. Furthermore, this assumption itself
210implies that either Haman is an unhistorical figure that never existed outside the Bible, or that if
211he was historical, then he could only have been the Prime Minister of the Persian King
212Ahasuerus, as depicted in the Book of Esther. Unsurprisingly, their assumptions obviously
213preclude the possibility that the Bible has its information wrong concerning Haman. Thus, only if
214the Book of Esther can be shown to be both historically reliable and accurate, can those writers
215be justified in making the claim the Quran contradicts the earlier, more reliable historical
216biblical account.
217It will come as a welcome surprise to many that not everyone who has written about this topic
218predicates their arguments on some or all of the assumptions stated above.[24] Nevertheless, as
219these assumptions continue to permeate the academic discussion regarding this particular topic, it
220seems justified for one to examine just how much substance should be attached to the biblical
221evidence, grounded first and foremost in an enquiry into the historicity of the Book of Esther.
222

THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK OF ESTHER AND ITS CHARACTERS

223Does the Book of Esther and the characters present in it have any historicity? Whatever side of
224the debate one finds himself or herself on, it is a fundamentally important question, an issue
225which has not been tackled by those claimants whose implicit assumptions rule out the
226possibility that the biblical story of Esther contains historical errors, even though such a
227position leads to a circular argument. That Jewish and Christian scholars have denied the
228historicity of the Book of Esther is something of an understatement. It would appear the people
229who subscribe to the full historicity of the Book of Esther are those whose dogmatic approach to
230historical and theological exegesis precludes the possibility of any historical problems arising
231from the biblical narrative. Believing ones holy book to be infallible is of course a mainstream
232belief found in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But what happens when such beliefs do not
14

8
15
233square with commonly accepted historical facts? While discussing the historical problems of
234the Book of Esther, Professor Jon Levenson, Albert A. List Professor of Jewish Studies at the
235Harvard Divinity School, says:
236Even if we make this questionable adjustment, the historical problems with Esther are so massive as to
237persuade anyone who is not already obligated by religious dogma to believe in the historicity of the biblical
238narrative to doubt the veracity of the narrative. [25]
239Naturally this statement does not sit comfortably with those who have used the Book of Esther to
240substantiate the historical contradiction in the Quranic account of Haman. Many scholars have
241dealt with the problems regarding the historicity of the Book of Esther. Michael Fox, Professor
242of Hebrew at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who also specialises in Egyptian literature
243and its relationship with biblical literature, has detailed the arguments for and against the books
244historicity.[26] Fox mentions numerous inaccuracies, implausibilities and outright impossibilities in
245this biblical book. After considering the arguments in detail, Fox concludes with the following
246negative assessment:
247Various legendary qualities as well as several inaccuracies and implausibilities immediately throw doubt on the
248book's historicity and give the impression of a writer recalling vaguely remembered past. [27]
249Similar assessments were made by Lewis Paton[28] and Carey Moore[29] and they both arrived at the
250same conclusion that the story in the Book of Esther is not historical. The views of Judaeo251Christian scholars concerning the historicity of the Book of Esther and its characters have been
252succinctly described by Adele Berlin, one of the editors of the Jewish Study Bible. She said,
253Very few twentieth-century Bible scholars believed in the historicity of the book of Esther, but they certainly
254expended a lot of effort justifying their position. Lewis Bayles Paton, in 1908, wrote fourteen pages outlining
255the arguments for and against historicity and concluded that the book is not historical. In 1971 Carey A.
256Moore devoted eleven pages to the issue and arrived at the same conclusion. In more recent commentaries,
257those of Michael V. Fox in 1991 and Jon D. Levenson in 1997, we find nine and five pages respectively, with
258both authors agreeing that the book is fictional. You might notice that the number of pages is going down,
259probably because all the main points were laid out by Paton, and if you are going to rehash an argument you
260should do it in fewer pages than the original. [30]
261With this in mind, it is therefore not our intention to rehash every single detail, but rather
262highlight some beneficial summaries taken from a variety of biblical commentaries, Jewish and
263Christian (Protestant and Catholic) that form part of the historical enquiry into Esther and its
264characters. We can thus come to terms with some of the key data the aforementioned scholars
265interacted with before delivering their assessment.
266The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia, under "Esther", says:

16

9
17
267The majority of scholars, however, regard the book as a romance reflecting the customs of later times and
268given an ancient setting to avoid giving offence. They point out that the 127 provinces mentioned are in
269strange contrast to the historical twenty Persian Satrapies; that it is astonishing that while Mordecai is known
270to be a Jew, his ward and cousin, Esther, can conceal the fact that she is a Jewess - that the known queen of
271Xerxes, Amestris, can be identified with neither Vashti nor Esther; that it would have been impossible for a
272non-Persian person to be appointed prime minister or for a queen to be selected except from the seven
273highest noble families; that Mordecai's ready access to the palaces is not in consonance with the strictness
274with which the Persian harems were guarded; that the laws of Medes and Persians were never irrevocable;
275and that the state of affairs in the book, amounting practically in civil war, could not have passed unnoticed
276by historians if this had actually occurred. The very tone of the book itself, its literary craftsmanship and the
277aptness of its situations, point rather to a romantic story than a historical chronicle.
278Some scholars even trace it to a non-Jewish origin entirely; it is, in their opinion, either a reworking of a
279triumph of the Babylonian gods Marduk (Mordecai) and Ishtar (Esther) over the Elamite gods Humman
280(Haman) and Mashti (Vashti), or of the suppression of the Magians by Darius I, or even the resistance of the
281Babylonians to the decree of Artaxerxes II. According to this view, Purim is a Babylonian feast which was
282taken over by the Jews, and the story of which was given a Jewish colouring. [31]
283Published about one hundred years ago, The Jewish Encyclopaedia already asserted that,
284Comparatively few modern scholars of note consider the narrative of Esther to rest on a historical
285foundation... The vast majority of modern expositors have reached the conclusion that the book is a piece of
286pure fiction, although some writers qualify their criticism by an attempt to treat it as a historical romance. [32]
287The more recent Jewish Publication Society Bible Commentary is quite frank about the
288exaggeration and the lack of historicity of the story in the biblical Book of Esther. It labels the
289story in the Book of Esther as a farce:
290The language, like the story, is full of exaggeration and contributes to the sense of excess. There are
291exaggerated numbers (127 provinces, a 180-day party, a 12-month beauty preparation, Haman's offer of
29210,000 talents of silver, a stake 50 cubits high, 75,000 enemy dead)... Esther's attempt to sound like a
293historical work is tongue in cheek and not to be taken at face value. The author was not trying to write
294history, or to convince his audience of the historicity of his story (although later readers certainly took it this
295way). He is, rather, offering a burlesque of historiography... The archival style, like the verbal style, make the
296story sound big and fancy, official and impertinent at the same time - and this is exactly the effect that is
297required for such a book. All these stylistic features reinforce the sense that the story is a farce. [33]
298The Peake's Commentary On The Bible discusses the historicity of the characters and events
299mentioned in the Book of Esther. It describes the book as a novel with no historical basis.
300Furthermore, it deals with the possible identification of Esther, Haman, Vashti and Mordecai with
301the Babylonian and Elamite gods and goddess.

18

10
19
302The story is set in the city of Susa in the reign of Akhashwerosh, king of Persia and Media. This name is now
303prove to refer to Xerxes, who reigned over Media as well as Persia. The book correctly states that his empire
304extended from India to Ethiopia, a fact which may well have been remembered long afterwards, especially by
305someone living in the East, but in other matters the author is inaccurate, for instance in regard to the number
306of provinces. Xerxes' wife was named Amestris, and not either Vashti or Esther. The statement in Est. 1:19
307and 8:5 that the laws of Persia were unalterable is also found in Dan. 6:9, 13. It is not attested by any other
308early evidence, and seems most unlikely. The most probable suggestion is that it was invented by the author
309of Daniel to form an essential part of his dramatic story, and afterwards copied by the author of Esther.
310It is therefore agreed by all modern scholars that Esther was written long after the time of Xerxes as a novel,
311with no historical basis, but set for the author's purposes in a time long past. It is pretty clear that the
312author's purpose was to provide an historical origin for the feast of Purim, which the Jews living somewhere in
313the East had adopted as a secular carnival. This feast and its mythology are now recognised as being of
314Babylonian origin. Mordecai represents Marduk, the chief Babylonian God. His cousin Esther represents Ishtar,
315the chief Babylonian Goddess, who was the cousin of Marduk. Other names are not so obvious, but there was
316an Elamite God Humman or Humban, and Elamite Goddess Mashti. These names may lie behind Haman and
317Vashti. One may well imagine that the Babylonian festival enacted a struggle between the Babylonian gods on
318the one hand and the Elamite gods on the other.[34]
319The authors of The New Interpreter's Bible, like the other writers that we have mentioned
320earlier, state that the biblical Book of Esther is work of fiction that happens to contain some
321historical elements. It then lists many factual errors only to conclude that the Book of Esther is
322not a historical record.
323Although much ink has been spilled in attempting to show that Esther, or some parts of it is historical, it is
324clear that the book is a work of fiction that happens to contain some historical elements. The historical
325elements may be summarized as follows: Xerxes, identified as Ahaseurus, was a "great king" whose empire
326extended from the borders of India to the borders of Ethiopia. One of the four Persians capitals was located as
327Susa (the other three being Babylon, Ecbatana, and Persepolis). Non-Persians could attain to high office in
328the Persian court (witness Nehemiah), and the Persian empire consisted of a wide variety of peoples and
329ethnic groups. The author also displays a vague familiarity with the geography of Susa, knowing, for example,
330that the court was separate from the city itself. Here, however, the author's historical veracity ends. Among
331the factual errors found in the book we may list these: Xerxes' queen was Amestris, to whom he was married
332throughout his reign; there is no record of a Haman or a Mordecai (or, indeed, of any non-Persian) as second
333to Xerxes at any time; there is no record of a great massacre in which thousands of the people were killed at
334any point in Xerxes' reign. The book of Esther is not a historical record, even though its author may have
335wished to present it as history... [35]
336Compiled by Roman Catholic scholars, The Jerome Biblical Commentary brands the Book of
337Esther as a fictitious story that was freely embellished and modified in the course of its
338transmissional history.

20

11
21
339Literary Form. On this point, scholarly opinion ranges from pure myth to strict history. Most critics, however,
340favor a middle course of historical elements with more or less generous historical embellishments... The
341Greek additions in particular appear to be essentially literary creations. That neither author intended to write
342strict history seems obvious from the historical inaccuracies, unusual coincidences, and other traits
343characteristic of folklore... On the other hand, there is no compelling reason for denying the possibility of an
344undetermined historical nucleus, and the author's generally accurate picture of Persian life tends to support
345this possibility. Several details of Est [i.e., Esther] suggest a fictitious story. The very fact of variations
346between the Hebrew and the deuterocanonical additions show that the book was freely embellished in the
347course of its history. Then there are many difficulties concerning Mordecai's age, and the wife of Xerxes
348(Amestris). Moreover, the artificial symmetry suggests fiction: Gentile against Jews; Vashti as opposed to
349Esther; the hanging of Haman and the appointment of Mordecai as the vizier; the anti-Semitic pogrom and
350the slaying of the gentiles. A law of contrasts is obviously at work... As is stands, it has been developed very
351freely as the "festal legend" of a Feast of Purim, which is itself otherwise unknown to us. [36]
352A New Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture points out that the book is given credence only
353by those who believe that since the Book of Esther is a biblical book, it must be true. It then goes
354on to wonder if there is any significance in the similarity between the names mentioned in the
355Book of Esther and the Babylonian and Elamite gods and goddess.
356To what extent the story of Esther is factual is debated. On the face of it, not many people would give much
357credence to Est [i.e., Esther] as history but for the fact that it is a biblical book and 'the Bible is true'. The
358evidence we have suggests that we have a tale set against an historical background, embodying at least one
359historical character (Xerxes) and some accurate references to actual usages of Persia, but a tale making no
360serious attempt to chronicle facts, aiming rather at producing certain moral attitude in the reader... Yet it
361appears that Xerxes' queen was neither Vashti nor Esther but Amestris; we have no further information inside
362or outside the Bible (e.g. Sir 44ff) of a Jewish queen who saved her people or of a pious Mordecai who rose to
363such heights in the Persian court... One may wonder whether there is a significance in the similarity between
364the name Esther and the name of the Babylonian goddess Ishtar, between the name Mordecai and the name
365of the god Marduk, so that one would have to look for the source of the tale among the myths of Elamite
366gods. But one can only wonder.[37]
367From the foregoing material, it is clear that Judeo-Christian scholars do not consider the story to
368be a genuine historical narrative, and of little or no historical value. Furthermore, no scholar
369claimed that the character Haman actually ever existed. In fact, all characters in the Book of
370Esther, with perhaps the exception of Ahasuerus, are unknown to history even though the book
371itself claims that its events are written in the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Media and
372Persia [Esther 10:2]. Though there are some conservative scholars who argue for some form or
373even full historical basis for Esther and/or its characters,[38] their analyses have generally not been
374persuasive.[39] The bewildering variety of literary genres assigned to this book adds to the
375confusion. How is this book to be read? Most scholars describe Esther as a historicised novel /

22

12
23
376diaspora novel, or something similar. Levenson reminds us, This is not to say that the book is
377false, only that its truth, like the truth of any piece of literature, is relative to its genre, and the
378genre of Esther is not that of the historical annal (though it sometimes imitates the style of a
379historical annal).[40] Ensuring the literary genre reaches an appropriate category is the means by
380which some scholars soften the serious historical problems and exaggerations, as they seek to
381argue Esther should not be read as a strict historical narrative but rather, for example, as a heroic382comic narrative[41] or some other similar literary classification.
383Concerning the character Haman, the Encyclopaedia Judaica states:
384Various explanations have been offered to explain the name and designation of the would-be exterminator of
385the Jews. The names of both Haman and his father have been associated with haoma, a sacred drink used in
386Mithraic worship, and with the Elamite god Humman. The name Haman has also been related to the Persian
387hamayun, 'illustrious', and to the Persian name Owanes. [42]
388The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible shares a similar view:
389Some scholars view the story of Esther as reflecting a mythological struggle
390Elam, with Haman identified as the Elamite god Humman. [43]

between the gods of Babylon and

391As for Ahasuerus in the Book of Esther, he is usually identified with King Xerxes I, King of
392Persia (486-465 BCE). The Webster's Biographical Dictionary informs us that:
393Ahasuerus: Name as used in the Bible, of two unidentified kings of Persia: (1) the great king whose capital
394was Shushan, modern Susa, sometimes identified with Xerxes the Great, but chronological and other data
395conflict; (2) the father of Darius the Mede. [44]
396There exists an unhistorical Haman in the Book of Esther. This unhistorical Haman is portrayed
397as the Prime Minister of Ahasuerus (Xerxes I?), King of Persia. Though the author shows
398familiarity and knowledge of Persian life and courtly customs, the events recorded in the Book of
399Esther show little correlation with those of the actual reign of Xerxes I. Long ago theologians
400both Jewish and Christian, had a difficult time accepting the Book of Esther whose canonicity
401was held in low esteem, especially in the east among early Christians.
402

THE TEXTUAL STABILITY AND CANONICITY OF ESTHER

403A quick glance at the comments of Western scholars critical of the Haman episode detailed in the
404Quran, show they either explicitly state or implicitly assume the story narrated by the Book of
405Esther was fixed centuries before the Quran was written down. Opening up his discussion on
406the significance of the question Silverstein says, Although the historicity of the Book of Esther
407has been rightly challenged by scholars for centuries, it is clear that the Biblical story even if it

24

13
25
408is but a historical novella was fixed centuries before the Qurn came into existence.[45] If this
409statement is to be understood as a comment on the textual quality of Esther then by no means can
410it be described as fixed. Should fixed be taken to mean the story as represented by the Book
411of Esther was in existence centuries before the Quran then this is of course quite true. So just
412how has Esther been transmitted to us?
413Believed to have been composed around the 4th century to 3rd century BCE (i.e., late Persian to
414early Hellenistic period),[46] there are three distinct textual versions of Esther extant today, the
415Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT), the Greek LXX (known as B-text) and a second Greek text
416(known as A-text). The B-text is a free / paraphrased translation of the text represented by the
417Hebrew MT with an additional six substantial additions (known as Adds A-F). Among the topics
418included in these six additions are the text of the letters of Haman and Mordecai and the long
419prayers of Esther and Mordecai. There are also a number of other minor omissions and additions,
420some that contradict the Hebrew MT. The A-text is similar to the B-text containing the same six
421additions; however, the A-text is 29% shorter than the B-text and matters are further complicated
422as the A-text has material not contained in the B-text. Due to these differences some scholars
423believe the A-text is translated from a Hebrew text different from the text represented by the
424Hebrew MT. Others propose the B-text is the primary source of the A-text.[47] To visualise these
425additions in terms of numbers, Hebrew MT Esther contains 3,044 words, the A-text 4,761 words
426and the B-text 5,837 words. In percentage terms, the A-text is 56.41% longer and the B-text
42791.75% longer than the Hebrew MT. Adjusting these percentages to recognise the language
428differentiation, the A-text is around 45% longer and the B-text 77% longer.[48] The earliest extant
429manuscript attesting to any of the versions of Esther is a Greek papyrus fragment generally
430agreeing with the B-text, datable to the late first or early second century CE.[49] What historical
431circumstances brought about these additions? Ancient Jewish scribes troubled by the lack of
432religiosity and otherwise overtly secular nature of the book, decided to add more than one
433hundred verses to the text, interspersed in the beginning, middle and end of the book within the
434first ten verses of the two Greek versions of Esther there is a cry to God for help.[50] The inclusion
435of a multiplicity of theological maxims and the repeated mention God (over fifty times) is
436significant as the Hebrew MT version of Esther makes no mention of God whatsoever, or indeed
437any specifically religious practice with perhaps the exception of fasting.[51] These additions which
438do not appear in the extant Hebrew text are accepted as canonical in the Roman Catholic Bibles
439(and many others) while Protestant Bibles reject them as apocryphal.

26

14
27

440
441

Figure 1: A suggested history of the Books of Esther. [52]

442The Proto A and Pre-Proto A posited by Fried are meant to establish where the Ur-Text resides
443[Figure 1]; they do not exist in documentary form. It is important to remember though that the
444three versions that have been discussed so far are based on real documents and have not been
445conjectured. Therefore, from the standpoint of its textual transmission, it is clear that the text of
446Esther has never been fixed, existing today in different versions.[53] Proceeding from Esthers
447fluid transmissional history, early Jews and Christians were led to dispute its canonicity.
448The Book of Esther, which is now regarded by Jews and Christians as canonical, has been
449embroiled in dispute until the present day. From antiquity onwards its canonicity was hotly
450contested by members of both religions and their sub-sects. The Book of Esther was evidently
451not used by the Jewish community in Qumran being the only book of the Old Testament to be
452unrepresented in the manuscripts neither is there any evidence the Purim festival initiated by it
453was celebrated.[54] According to the Talmud, as late as 3rd or 4th century CE, some Jews still did
454not regard Esther as canonical.[55] This lack of unanimity regarding the canonical status of Esther
455was not limited to the Jewish community only, witnessed by similar disputes flaring in Christian
456circles as well. Figure 2 depicts the canonical status of Esther in the early Christian church.

28

15
29

457
458 Figure 2: Map showing the canonical status of Esther in the early Christian Church. [56] Notice that the Book of
459
Esther was considered non-canonical in Constantinople, Sardis, Iconium, Nazianzus, Mopsuestia and
460
Alexandria. On the other hand, Esther was considered canonical in Rome, Hippo, Carthage, Damascus,
461 Caesarea, Jerusalem, Constanti and Constantinople. There appears to be two views of the books canonicity at
462
Constantinople.
463From the above figure, it can be seen that in the West, Esther was nearly always canonical, while
464in the East very often it was not. Among the Christians in the East, especially those in the area of
465Anatolia (in modern day Turkey) and Syria, the Book of Esther was often denied canonical
466status. This is confirmed by studying the list of canonical books by Melito of Sardis (c. 170 CE),
467Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 390 CE), Junilius (c. 550 CE) and Nicephorus (d. 828 CE). While
468denying the canonical status of Esther, Athanasius (c. 367 CE) did include it with the Wisdom of
469Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Judith and Tobit for catechetical reading. Amphilochius (d. 394 CE)
470observed that it was accepted only by some. However, as has been noted, in the West, Esther was
471almost always regarded as canonical. It was accepted by Hilary (c. 360 CE), Augustine (c. 395
30

16
31
472CE), Innocent I (c. 405 CE), Rufinus (d. 410 CE), Decree of Gelasius (c. 500 CE), Cassiodorus
473(c. 560 CE) and Isidorus (d. 636 CE). Esther was also present in the list of Cheltenham canon (c.
474360 CE) and codex Claromontanus (c. 350 CE). This book was also endorsed as canonical in the
475council of Carthage (c. 397 CE).
476During the Reformation, the Canon of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, was called into
477question. Generally, the Protestants disputed the Catholic claim to interpret scripture, either by
478Papal decree or by the action of Church councils. Martin Luther (1483 1546 CE), one of the
479Protestant reformers, said concerning the Book of Esther:
480I am so great an enemy to the second book of Maccabees, and to Esther, that
481at all, for they have too many heathen unnaturalities. [57]

I wish they had not come to us

482Luthers position appeared to have been wavering concerning the Book of Esther. Andres
483Bodenstein von Karlstadt (c. 1480 1541 CE), an early friend and fellow professor of Luther at
484the University of Wittenberg, included the Book of Esther in his third and lowest class of biblical
485books which he termed tertius ordo canonis. Despite what Luther had claimed concerning the
486Book of Esther, he included it in his translation of the Bible.[58] The low esteem in which Esther
487was held by prominent Protestant reformers reflects the polarisation of views that were
488characteristic of the book almost from its beginnings. However, it would be wrong to think the
489discussion surrounding the virtues of Esther stopped after the Reformation period. We have
490observed those communities which did and did not include Esther in their canon; more
491fundamental are the reasons why the Jews and Christians had such a hard time accepting Esther.
492Brighton summarises the tensions in Jewish and Christian writings,
493Jewish opposition to Esther surfaces in at least two areas, the one theological and the other historical. The
494principal theological objection, according to the Jerusalem Megilla 70d, is that the celebration of Purim stands
495in conflict with the statute of Leviticus 27:34. This statute suggests that only laws and festivals of the Mosaic
496code were to be observed by Jews. However, in Judaism this did not always hold true, because Hanukkah was
497a religious festival accepted by Jews and was not prescribed by Moses. Jewish objection also centered on the
498absence of any religious elements. While the king of Persia is mentioned several times throughout the book,
499God is not once mentioned. Especially objectionable was the fact that neither Law nor Covenant is even so
500much as alluded to, let alone mentioned as having any role in the bookthese two concepts run throughout
501the Old Testament. Probably the best defense of Esther in view of its secular character is that the author
502intended his story to be a "parody" of paganism, as suggested by Cohen, or a "wisdom tale, a historicized
503wisdom tale" as Talmon called it. It is a graphic portrayal of "Wisdom motifs" in the characters of Esther and
504Mordecai and thus should be understood theologically as Wisdom literature. But even if one were to view
505Esther as "veiled Wisdom Theology," and thus explain the absence of anything religious or theological, it does
506not help in understanding Esther.
507Jewish opposition to the historicity of Esther not only includes the questioning of elements within the story
508itselfsuch as Vashti's refusal to obey the king's command (1:12); a feast given by the king lasting 180 days
509(1:1-3); letters sent out in all the languages of the empire instead of in Aramaic (1:22; 3:12; 8:9), but also
510and in particular the origin of the feast itself. As the name of the feast suggests, Purim could have been non32

17
33
511Jewish in origin. The secular character of the feast with its excessive drinking and partying in place of
512religious activities of prayers and sacrifices also suggests a pagan origin. Paul Lagarde hinted at the possibility
513of its origin in the Persian festival of the dead. Others saw the origin in the Babylonian myths or festivals.
514Whatever the origin, Jewish or non-Jewish, the festival of Purim in Judaism, as also in the Christian world, has
515been suspect because of its secular character and possible origins in a non-Jewish pagan setting. [59]
516Of course, one does not need to turn to modern theologians for a summary of Jewish tensions.
517Their feelings are clearly evidenced by the additional narrative expansions introduced by them
518into the text of Esther more than 2,000 years ago. For the Hellenised Jews in particular, Esther
519and Purim were well-received.[60]
520Christian opposition to the Book of Esther can be said at least to equal that of Judaism. The secular character
521of the book as well as the obscure origins of the festival of Purim made Esther even more meaningless for
522Christians. As in the case of Qumran, the Christian church found no counterpart in its calendar for Purimas
523it did for the festivals of Passover and Pentecost. If the Jew had difficulty applying or deriving any comfort
524from Esther, the Christian certainly had more. In fact, at times Christians found the book to be anti-Gentile
525and too nationalistic to be of value in application. But the greatest difficulty the Christian has had with Esther
526is that not once is it alluded to in the New Testament. There is no quotation, no reference, and no allusion to
527the book. As far as the New Testament is concerned, Esther does not exist, for no use whatsoever is made of
528it. This is not surprising, perhaps, when it is remembered that Esther has no explicit reference to or stated
529place in the covenant history of God and Israel. What is surprising, however, is that in the entire New
530Testament there is no reference to or hint of either Esther or the festival of Purim. As in the case of the Dead
531Sea scrolls and Qumran, it could be said that from such an absence in the New Testament scrolls the Book of
532Esther and the festival of Purim had no place in the Christian community. Whether this is a possible
533interpretation (by silence) or not, early Christianity did not comment on the book or the festival, for whatever
534reason. Furthermore, a Christian commentary on Esther was not written until Rhabanus Maurus' work in 836,
535and even casual references are rare among the church Fathers. Today, Christians are no further advanced in
536the use of the book. In Judaism both the book and the festival overcame whatever rabbinical opposition
537existed, and may still exist, so that as a result both today are popular. But not so within Christianity. While on
538the one hand we acknowledge its beauty in its story interest, even to the extent of reckoning it "among the
539masterpieces of world literature," we, nevertheless, still see it as "an uninviting wilderness," theologicaly
540speaking. Even Christian attempts to theologize the book have failed in gaining the acceptance of it in
541Christian piety. So, contrary to what has happened in Judaism, Esther for all intents and purposes remains a
542closed book for Christians. What is the answer? [61]
543Brightons proposes a kind of intermediate solution. He believes what is presupposed in the
544Hebrew MT is explicitly stated in the Greek text. Therefore, he recommends reading the Hebrew
545MT in light of the Greek text in order to rescue Esther from near oblivion in its usage in the
546church. He finishes his conclusion by stating the Greek text should act as a commentary on the
547Hebrew MT until such time modern Christians attain a level a theological insight, at which

34

18
35
548point the Greek text can be dispensed with in favour of canonical Esther (i.e., Hebrew MT
549version).[62] Brighton touches on an important point and that is the non-usage of Esther in
550exposition. In his thought provoking essay on the notion of canon and its multiplicity of
551meanings, Ulrich mentions this phenomenon which is known as a canon within a canon. This
552occurs when some books are given priority over others by virtue of conflicting theologies within
553the canon,[63] each reader locating their own preferences and religious leanings. Thus although
554physically part of todays Christian canon, Esther is very seldom preached from or expounded
555upon ensuring a reduction in its status to that of opus non gratum.[64]
556
557

SHOULD THE BOOK OF ESTHER BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE

QURAN?

558Why have such lengthy detailed discussions on the historicity, canonicity and textual stability of
559Esther? What do the details here have to do with the mention of Haman in the Quran? It is clear
560if one reads the sample of critical comments provided in section three, none of the critics thought
561it necessary to establish the historicity of Esther and its characters,[65] before claiming the Quran
562contradicted the earlier necessarily historical account of Haman found in the Bible (i.e., in the
563Book of Esther). Both the historicity and textual stability of the Book of Esther are assumed and
564then the arguments are made. Since the Book of Esther is not historical, the characters mentioned
565in the book can in no way be connected with actual Persian history. Therefore, the name
566Haman mentioned in the book is clearly fictitious. Given such problems, the placing of the
567name Haman by the Quran in ancient Egypt cant be considered unhistorical on the basis of a
568person named Haman in the Book of Esther - for it can suggest that a person with a similar name
569can also exist in another part of the world and in a different time period - a possibility which
570many critics refuse to even consider. In any case it seems clear the Book of Esther cannot be
571used as evidence against the Quran, when such evidence is used to unequivocally prove the
572Quran contradicts the earlier, more reliable biblical account purportedly confirmed by secular
573knowledge.
574One could argue that even if Esther and its characters have no historical basis, the Quran has
575merely misappropriated a fictional character from an unhistorical setting. Not all scholars
576predicate their criticisms on the appearance of Haman in the Quran in a different historical
577period than that of Esther, on the basis of the assumed historicity of the later. It is to these
578criticisms we now turn.
5795. Hmn In Context:
580Silversteins Hmn

A Literary And Source Critical Assessment Of

581Seeking to elucidate the cultural-religious context of the Quran, Silversteins stance on the
582controversy of the appearance of a person named Haman in the Quran has moved the
583conversation into unchartered territory.[66] Instead of arguing on the basis of the historicity of
36

19
37
584Esther and its characters as the majority of earlier critics have done either explicitly or implicitly,
585[67] he has brought to attention never before used sources, such as the story of Ahiqar and Samak-e
586Ayyr, in addition to those better known and widely quoted. Silversteins textual tour de force is
587remarkable, as one is taken on a journey in time from the neo-Assyrian Empire all the way down
588to 14th century Persia, a time span approaching two millennia. After reviewing some medieval
589Islamic commentators, Silverstein conclusively shows the Haman they were describing was
590certainly indebted to the corresponding biblical narrative.[68] For this reason he believes any
591modern attempts to loosen the connection between the two to be unconvincing. Naming A. H.
592Johns as a notable dissenter in the prevailing Western scholarly consensus, Silverstein says such
593arguments against the association of the two Hamans ... forces us to explain systematically
594Hamans transition from the Bible to the Quran.[69] After an ordered survey of the literary
595evidence, Silverstein concludes Quranic Haman and Esthers Haman have been shown to be
596one and the same.[70]
597

PROBLEMATIC TERMINOLOGY OR SERIOUS METHODOLOGICAL FLAW?

598A not inconsiderate number of early commentators of the Quran sought to further explain some
599of the incidents reported there, and resorted to supplementing their knowledge with details from
600stories they heard from Jewish and Christian informants among others. Showing that medieval
601commentators used biblical material to explain stories and characters found in the Quran is not a
602new discovery. It was in this very milieux that these medieval Muslim scholars applied a
603technical term to such sources, naming them isrliyyt.[71] Usually the term isrliyyt was
604applied to stories of Jewish origin, though more generally it could also be applied to any
605information whose origin was not to be found in the Islamic historical tradition; it was also used
606to designate a corpus of reports deemed unreliable for use. The material usage of such sources in
607Quranic exegesis has been critically discussed conceptually in Islamic circles approaching 1,000
608years. Though he did not use the term isrliyyt, the Andalusian exegete Ibn Atiyya (d. 541
609AH / 1146 CE) was the first scholar to pay systematic attention to the implausibility of these
610types of reports, more than two centuries before the critical exegesis of Ibn Kathr's (d. 774 AH /
6111373 CE).[72] With this in mind, Silversteins defence of the isrliyyt stories regarding Pharaoh
612and Haman transmitted by some medieval commentaries is puzzling; he seems to be suggesting
613only those Islamic accounts based on biblical material are convincing. Indeed, instead of
614focussing on Haman and Pharaoh as found in the Quran and the Quran alone, Silverstein uses
615these obviously derivative accounts to prove the Quran is derivative, and it is the backbone of
616his methodology. Once realised, it is easy to spot the flaw in the process: derivative writings on
617a text do not imply the text itself is derivative. One (out of many) of the best examples of this
618inconsistent methodology is the sub-section Genealogical relationship between the book of
619Esthers Haman and the Quranic Pharaoh.[73] He states the preceding characters were widely
620acknowledged as having been blood relatives.[74] Crucially, the reason for this link is based on
621Quran commentaries and not the Quran. Nowhere does the Quran give any concrete

38

20
39
622information as to Pharaohs ethnic origin, let alone that he was Amalekite or Persian. In fact, the
623Quran gives none of the information used by Silverstein to show Esthers Haman and the
624Quranic Pharaoh were blood relatives. Utilising the commentaries of al-T abar, al-Maqdis
625and al-Qurt ub whom themselves, are, in places, strongly indebted to their biblical forerunners,
626to then claim this is what the Quran itself promotes is a mischaracterisation of the evidence at
627the least, or a misrepresentation of the evidence at the worst. Perhaps Silverstein recognised this
628problem of terminology himself as the concluding sentence of the sub-section uses the term
629Islamic instead of Quranic as found in the subtitle. Going to an even further extreme,
630evidence of Quranic commentaries can be relevant even when they contradict what the Quran
631itself says! What relevance can such a statement have when it is in open opposition to what is
632mentioned in the Quran? Silverstein says it is noteworthy some Quranic commentators
633believed the Pharaoh of Josephs time was the same Pharaoh of Moses.[75] But the Quran never
634mentions any character called Pharaoh in Josephs time, rather the ruler is consistently called as
635King. The evidence of some commentators may be noteworthy in the sense they support
636Silversteins reading, but if one is interested in what the Quran has to say for itself, the
637significance is lost.
638Thus a major methodological problem of Silversteins literary analysis is equating Quranic
639commentaries that appear centuries later in a much changed religio-cultural geo-political milieu,
640in meaning with the Quran itself. This problematic method underwrites a significant portion of
641Silversteins literary comparisons, rendering its conclusions void, if what is meant by the use of
642terms such as Quranic is the Quran alone and not later writings on the Quran. One is free to
643describe words in their own terms, but words have meanings and these meanings are conveyed to
644the reader. If Quranic has a wider textual application than its straightforward contextual
645interpretation would suggest, this should be explained to the reader. One may justifiably ask what
646the following summarised phrases in his article mean, Quran(ic) Haman, Haman who makes
647a transition to the Quran, Haman who appears in the Quran, Quranic figure of Haman ,
648Haman depicted in the Quran and two Hamans? Do they mean Haman as found exclusively
649in the Quran, or do they mean Haman as found primarily in Quranic commentaries, or a
650mixture of the two? The same could also be said of Quranic Pharaoh. Weighing these objections
651together, the failure to maintain an accurate distance between the different contexts in which
652these characters appear, is a terminological problem bordering on a serious methodological flaw.
653Instead, sometimes we are left to wonder just which Haman (i.e., Quran or Quranic
654commentaries) Silverstein thinks has been appropriated from biblical literature. In many cases it
655is clear he is mainly concerned with the Haman as supplemented by the Quranic commentaries,
656which as we have already said, he has conclusively shown to be indebted to its biblical
657counterpart. Nevertheless, when these later writings are interrogated and found to contain
658material of obvious biblical origin, their context cannot be back projected into the Quran.

40

21
41
659Despite these problems, a number of intriguing new sources are brought into the discussion
660which cannot be ignored. These sources are rarely used in terms of their application to the
661Quranic text, not in the sense of their actual discovery, and it is to Silverstein we owe their
662initial application to the Quranic account of Haman. In what follows we discuss the evidence
663adduced by Silverstein purporting to show Quranic Haman is based on biblical Haman, only
664when it is clear he is talking about Haman of the Quran and not the Quranic commentaries. To
665maintain congruity, we proceed along roughly the same outline given in his article, diverging
666where necessary for appropriate discussion.
667 BIBLICAL HAMAN AND QURANIC HAMAN: SIMILARITIES, DIFFERENCES OR
668
BOTH?
669Silverstein says,
670There are three significant differences between the Biblical and Qurnic Hamans; to demonstrate that the
671latter is based on the former, these differences must be accounted for. The first is that the Qurnic Haman is
672Pharaoh's helper whereas in the Bible Pharaoh has no helpers. The second is that the two Hamans appear in
673completely different historical contexts: Achaemenid Persia is more than a thousand miles and years away
674from Pharaonic Egypt. The third is that whereas the Biblical Haman is integral to the story of Mordecai and
675Esther at Ahasuerus's court, the Quranic Haman is completely divorced from the Book of Esther context and
676no other figures from the Book of Esther appear in the Qurn. [76]
677The first of Silversteins proposed obstacles turns out on closer inspection to be ineligible and,
678therefore, not a difference that needs to be accounted for. He says, The first difference is the
679easiest to settle: although a comparison between the biblical and Qurnic Pharaohs indicates that
680only in the Qurn is Pharaoh supported by helpers, ...[77]
681This is incorrect. The biblical Pharaoh is supported by counsellors as a cursory reading of the
682book of Exodus would confirm. Perhaps Silverstein meant to say that Pharaoh did have helpers
683but that they were not named in the Bible and since the Quran names a helper, i.e., Haman,
684one must therefore look to see at what point in history the biblical Pharaoh was assigned named
685helpers. Weighing against this possibility is the next part of his sentence, ... already in Late
686Antique monotheistic circles the biblical Pharaoh was widely believed to have had henchmen.,
687which indicates that it is the mere presence of henchmen that is significant and not the fact that
688they were named. Thus he is able to find an invented missing link, and, resultantly, sees the
689appearance of Haman as Pharaohs helper in the Quran through the following three stage
690process:
691

1. Pharaoh had no helpers in the Bible.

692

2. Already in late-antique monotheistic circles biblical Pharaoh is given henchmen.

42

22
43
693
694

3. The Quranic account of Pharaohs helper (i.e., Haman) emerges from the biblical
account via the aforementioned step.

695We have already shown the first stage is wrong. Oddly enough, the reference cited by Silverstein
696states Pharaoh did have helpers! Kugel calls them close advisers[78] and goes on to say, Now, it
697is noteworthy that in the biblical account, the unnamed counsellors or wizards of Pharaoh do
698more than merely give advice....[79] What Kugel does is that he gives a list of references to the
699names of biblical Pharaohs advisers as they appeared in texts dating from antiquity onward.[80]
700Silverstein has misjudged the nature of the biblical evidence and confuses the matter by
701connecting the Quranic account to the biblical narrative via late antique texts that are
702unnecessary. Furthermore, it should also be noted that none of these named helpers given by
703Kugel as cited by Silverstein are called Haman or derived from Haman. If the Quranic account
704emerged in this context as is confidently stated, then why do none of the five names mentioned,
705Jannes, Jambres, Balaam, Job and Jethro appear in the Quranic narrative? Though it may seem
706one is assisting Silverstein by reducing the number of differences required to make a connection,
707the unnecessary inclusion of supposed differences that are quickly and easily accounted for can
708give a misleading impression.
709 THE RULER OF ANCIENT EGYPT IN THE QURANIC STORY OF JOSEPH AND
710
MOSES
711The first real difference to which we now turn our attention (i.e., Silversteins second difference)
712is the completely different historical context of biblical Haman and Quranic Haman. The
713Quranic account places the narrative in Pharaonic Egypt while the biblical account places the
714narrative in Achaemenid Persia more or less 1,000 miles and years away. Silverstein adopts a
715two-step approach to resolve these obstacles. In reverse, the second step aims to show that there
716was a genealogical relationship between Esthers Haman and the Quranic Pharaoh. We have
717already discussed the second step earlier and have shown the analysis there has no foundation in
718the actual Quranic narrative.
719Step one aims to show there was a literary relationship between the Book of Esther and biblical
720descriptions of Pharaohs court a point which is very capably demonstrated. The courts of
721Ahasuerus and Pharaoh were associated beginning from the time the author of the Book of
722Esther penned his work and to subsequent generations of Jews all the way to modern biblical
723scholars.[81] The Pharaonic episode Silverstein says influenced the author of the Book of Esther
724was the story of Joseph, providing numerous examples in the process. Additionally, he informs
725the reader this is also the conclusion adopted by modern biblical scholars. However, the Haman
726of the Quran is not associated with the Egyptian court of Joseph, a story that is narrated in srah
727Ysuf, rather it is the Egyptian court of Moses to which he is associated. Silverstein immediately
728recognises this problem but relegates the discussion to a footnote![82] To counter the evidence
729provided in the Quran, he turns to Quranic commentaries and shows at least one commentator
44

23
45
730believed the Pharaoh at the time of Joseph and Moses in the Quran was actually one and the
731same person a statement he considers noteworthy. But the Quran never mentions any
732character called Pharaoh in Josephs time, rather the Egyptian ruler is consistently referred to as
733King. A contextual reading of the episodes of Joseph and Moses narrated in the Quran
734unequivocally shows we are dealing with two different historical periods. There are no details
735which connect one narrative to the other. The evidence of some commentators may be
736noteworthy in the sense they support Silversteins reading, but if one is interested in what the
737Quran has to say for itself, the significance is lost.
738Furthermore, we believe there is significance in the way which the Quran refers to the Egyptian
739ruler in Joseph and Moses time, King and Pharaoh, respectively, something not considered by
740Silverstein. The rulers of ancient Egypt during the time of Abraham, Joseph and Moses are
741constantly addressed with the title Pharaoh in the Bible. The Quran, however, differs from the
742Bible: the sovereign of Egypt who was a contemporary of Joseph is named King (Arabic,
743malik); whereas the Bible has named him Pharaoh. As for the king who ruled during the time of
744Moses the Quran repeatedly calls him Pharaoh (Arabic, firawn). According to modern linguist
745research the word Pharaoh comes from the Egyptian per-aa, meaning the Great House and
746originally referred to the palace rather than the king himself. The word was used by the writers of
747the Old Testament and has since become a widely adopted title for all the kings of Egypt.
748However, the Egyptians did not call their ruler Pharaoh until the 18th Dynasty (c. 15521295
749BC) in the New Kingdom Period. In the language of the hieroglyphs, Pharaoh was first used to
750refer to the king during the reign of Amenhophis IV (c. 13521338 BC). We know that such a
751designation was correct in the time of Moses but the use of the word Pharaoh in the story of
752Joseph is anachronistic, as under the rule of the Hyksos, the period to which he is usually
753ascribed, there was no Pharaoh.[83]
754There cannot really be much doubt that a literary relationship exists between the Book of Esther
755and biblical descriptions of Pharaohs court, and that such a relationship was held by Jews from
756the time the author of Esther penned his work, until the eve of Islam and after Islam. The real
757question is whether the Quran has appropriated this context for its own narrative design. The
758Pharaonic episode believed to have influenced the Esther narrative is that of Josephs career.
759Significantly, the Quran does not assume this context or any of its details, but rather places
760Haman in the Pharaonic court that existed during the time of Moses.
761 QARN (KORAH) IN THE QURAN, BIBLE AND MIDRASH: WHO BORROWED
762
FROM WHO?
763Korah, son of Izhar, appears in the Bible in the narrative concerning Moses [Numbers 16:1-50]
764and the same character also appears in the Quran. Qarun is mentioned by name four times
765[Quran 28:76, 79; 29:39; 40:24] and is described as being from the people of Moses [Quran
76628:76] and of great wealth and status [Quran 28:76,79]. Moses showed Qarun miraculous signs
46

24
47
767given to him by God, but was instead rejected as a sorcerer and liar [Quran 40:24]. Described as
768an arrogant sinner, Qarn was punished by death for his sins and unjust behaviour [Quran
76929:39-40].
770As there is another character named Korah in the Bible who had a half-brother who had a son
771called Amaleq [Genesis 36:15-16], Silverstein discovers an ulterior motive in the Quranic
772mention of Qarun and believes it may have conflated the two Korahs as it has already grouped
773the Amalekites Pharaoh and Haman together.[84] For want of sounding like a broken record, we
774repeat once again: nowhere in the Quran is the ethnicity of Haman or Pharaoh given, let alone
775they were Amalekites or Persians. The argument here simply does not follow. But there is a more
776amusing point to be taken from this line of thought. According to Silverstein, Muhammad or
777whoever else he thinks (co)authored the Quran, is more than capable of delving into intricate
778biblical genealogies picking out a half-brothers son and assigning him some special
779significance, whilst at the same time forgetting to check another character he appropriated (i.e.,
780Haman) was 1,000 years and miles out of place.
781For Arthur Jeffrey, the mere fact that Haman was mentioned alongside Korah in rabbinic legends
782was reason enough for one to believe the Quranic Haman was derived from biblical Haman.[85]
783This kind of one-dimensional approach may have been suitable when he penned his views in the
784late 1930s, but much textual and methodological progress has been made since then, and we
785now have a much better understanding of the chronology of Jewish, Christian and Muslim
786literature. The study of Midrashic literature including its chronology is an on-going process still
787being undertaken today.[86] In many cases where critics believe the Quran has copied earlier
788Jewish sources, especially rabbinic texts, it may very well be the other way around.[87] Silverstein
789also sees significance in the citation of Esthers Haman and Korah in Jewish Midrashic accounts
790though he is more restrained than Jeffrey in drawing specific conclusions in relation to the
791Quranic narrative. Providing a quotation from Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer that mentions Korah and
792Haman in the same sentence, Silverstein finds links between Esthers Haman and Korah,[88] no
793doubt seeking to draw from this the antecedents of the Quranic narrative. What is insinuated by
794the term links? If Silverstein is suggesting as previous scholars before him have, that this
795quotation provides evidence the Quran understood Korah and Haman to be contemporaries, then
796this is rejected by a close reading of the passage (Silverstein gives only a partial rendering) in its
797surrounding context (i.e., reading on an extra few sentences). Though Haman is mentioned
798alongside Korah, the author of the passage makes it clear they belong to different nations of the
799world and are obviously not considered contemporaries.[89] On the basis of this excerpt, it is
800simply not possible for one reading or hearing this excerpt to conclude these two characters were
801contemporaries in Egypt.
802But there is something more fundamental that demands attention. Believing the Quranic
803narrative of Haman to have a history, Silverstein does not seem to think it worthwhile to inform

48

25
49
804the reader the sources he utilises also have a history. Surely, this is a matter of importance given
805the nature of his enquiry? For example, the excerpt linking Korah and Haman is firmly dated
806to the 4th century CE. There is no mention at all that the source it is taken from (i.e., Pirqe de
807Rabbi Eliezer) received its last redaction well into the Islamic period, exists in numerous
808manuscripts that differ from each other none of which pre-date the 11th century, and is not
809quoted but any other Jewish writer before the 9th century.[90] This problem occurs elsewhere with
810other texts also.
811Moving on, we are introduced to the poet Shhn of Shrz. The conclusion drawn from this text
812suggests that Korah had a place in the Esther story at least to the Jews of medieval Persia.[91]
813Though it may help identifying later medieval views of Korah and the Esther story, what
814relevance the text of a 14th century Judaeo-Persian poet has for one attempting to establish the
815derivation of Quranic Haman from biblical Haman is anybodys guess.
816 FROM TOWER TO TOWER: THE STORY OF AHIQAR AND PHARAOHS SARH
817Based on biblical information, many Quranic exegetes believed the lofty tower (Arabic, sarh )
818ordered to be constructed by Pharaoh was the Tower of Babel. Once again, this statement has no
819basis whatsoever in the Quran and there is not a shred of internal evidence to link Pharaohs
820sarh to the Tower of Babel. Silverstein realises this is the case[92] and instead of recycling old
821arguments, he makes a genuinely innovative manoeuvre and asserts the story of Ahiqar is
822ultimately responsible for the Quranic Pharaoh passing his orders on to Haman. So what is the
823story of Ahiqar? A piece of ancient near eastern wisdom literature, Ahiqar is a work of two parts;
824the first part contains the narrative, the second part contains the wisdom of Ahiqar and gives a
825list of over a hundred of his sayings, many of which are difficult to understand. Lindenberger
826provides a basic summary of the narrative,
827Ahiqar is an advisor and cabinet minister of Sennacherib, king of Assyria (704-681 B.C.). This Ahiqar, while
828still a youth, had been warned by astrologers that he would have no children. When he reaches adulthood,
829the prophecy comes true, in spite of prodigious efforts on his part to thwart it, including the marriage of sixty
830wives! Eventually he appeals for divine help, and receives an oracle instructing him to adopt his nephew Nadin
831(or Nadan, in some versions) and raise him as his son. Ahiqar is to instruct Nadin in all his wise lore so that
832when the boy reaches the age of majority, he will be a fit successor. The king gives his approval, and Ahiqar
833proceeds to instruct his adopted son.
834At this point in most versions of the narrative, there comes a long series of proverbs and aphorisms
835purporting to be what Ahiqar taught Nadin. When the narrative resumes, Ahiqar has become an old man.
836Nadin has forsaken the admonitions of his aged guardian and has set his hand to plotting against him. The
837young man forges letters in Ahiqars name, and contrives to convince the king that his elderly advisor has
838committed treason against the crown. Sennacherib is furious at having been betrayed, and gives peremptory
839orders that Ahiqar should be put to death.
840By coincidence it happens that the officer detailed to carry out the execution is a man whose life Ahiqar had
841saved under similar circumstances many years earlier. Ahiqar recognises him, and urges him to reciprocate
50

26
51
842the gesture. The two agree to kill a slave and pass his body off to the king as that of Ahiqar, while the officer
843preserves the sage and his wife there now appears to be only one in a secret underground hiding place.
844Not long afterwards, Sennacherib receives a letter from the king of Egypt, offering him the entire revenue of
845Egypt for three years if he can send him an architect skilled enough to help build a castle between earth and
846heaven. The Assyrian king is greatly distressed, because he knows that of all wise in his realm, only Ahiqar
847possessed such knowledge. Sennacheribs officer perceives that the time is ripe, and comes forward fearfully
848to confess that he did no carry out the royal death warrant, that Ahiqar is alive and well. The king weeps for
849joy and immediately sends for Ahiqar, delegating him to go to Egypt to carry out Pharaohs demands.
850Ahiqar quickly recovers from his ordeal, and goes to Egypt, where he astounds the court by a series of
851impossible feats demonstrating his superior wisdom. Three years later Ahiqar returns to Assyria, bringing the
852promised revenue. Pressed by a grateful Sennacherib to accept a reward, Ahiqar declines, asking only that he
853be allowed to discipline the ungrateful Nadin as he please. With the kings approval, he has Nadin imprisoned
854and severely tortured, after which Ahiqar addresses him with a long series of reproaches. (A typical example
855is, My son, thou hast been like the man who saw his companion shivering from cold, and took a pitcher of
856water and threw it over him.) Thereupon Nadin swelled up like a bag and died, bringing the story to its end.
857[93]
858Armed with a summary of the narrative, what themes are discernible? What social and religious
859message, if any, does the story of Ahiqar impart? Lindenberger and others consider Ahiqar to be
860a non-Jewish text, a folktale of a wise counsellor, with the narrative section showing the presence
861of some basic themes, such as the downfall and restoration of a just vizier, and the betrayal of a
862powerful person by an ungrateful relative well documented and widely known folk-motifs.
863Theologically speaking, the narrative says nothing directly about God, a topic widely
864encountered in the proverbs section though it is the Gods of Aram, Canaan and Mesopotamia
865which are encountered and not the God of Israel.[94]
866Other scholars, who consider Ahiqar a Jewish text, interpret the narrative differently. Viewed as
867part of a group of Jewish texts composed between the 8th century BCE and mid-2nd century
868BCE, Chyutin believes the story of Ahiqar, like the other texts he analyses, addresses the major
869problems of the Jewish populations, whether in the Land of Israel or the dispersions. Thus,
870based on an acceptance of the story as a Jewish text (the Jewish characters being Ahiqar and
871Ndin), generally speaking, it deals with the meaning of life after the Babylonian exile and how
872Jews were integrated into a new country, accepting this diaspora as a natural way of life, not
873seeking to change it. The royal court is depicted as a place where there are no ethnic prejudices,
874concerned only with the desire for good governance. Contrary to Esther, preaching the breaking
875of national and familial solidarity, Ahiqar advocates the removal of former racial and ethnic
876boundaries and integration into Assyrian society to the point of assimilation.[95]
877One will observe from the outset, in its outline, no narrative even remotely similar to this is
878recounted, mentioned or hinted at anywhere in the Quran. No literal parallels exist, which

52

27
53
879makes the claimed correspondence between both texts all the more interesting. Silversteins
880argument can be summarised as follows:[96]
881

1. The story of Ahiqar is alluded to by the book of Tobit.

882

2. Certain versions of the book of Tobit substituted Haman for Ndn.

883

3. These versions of Tobit circulated in 7th century Arabia.

884
885
886
887

4. The Quran has retained the corrupted form of Ndn (i.e., Haman) from versions of
Tobit and connected it with the original story of Ahiqar, remembering Ndn had initially
been asked to construct the lofty tower whilst deliberately setting aside Ahiqar the one
who actually built the lofty tower.

888This way of formulating the problem and proceeding through the evidence is open to a number
889of objections. Firstly, we must deal with the unsatisfactory manner of Silversteins presentation
890and discussion of the text. Silverstein introduces the Ahiqar narrative as being extremely popular
891from the Achaemenid period until the Middle Ages. A footnote is provided informing us an
892Aramaic version of the story existed in documents from Elephantine dated to the 5th century
893BCE.[97] Next we move straight into a description of the narrative section dealing with Egypt and
894subsequently Pharaohs challenge to construct a lofty tower. We are thus perhaps unwittingly
895presented with a unified narrative from the time of the Elephantine text, to the book of Tobit and
896onward until the Middle Ages. But there is a major problem. Silverstein has not taken this part of
897the narrative or even this entire narrative section from the Aramaic text because it does not exist
898in the Aramaic text. The Aramaic story of Ahiqar does not contain the Egyptian narrative section
899of the text, from where the passage of the construction of the lofty tower is located. The final
900narrative event extant in the Aramaic text is when Ahiqar is hidden and the king is deceived (see
901paragraph three in summary given above). Lindenberger explains,
902(At this point, [i.e., Ahiqar is hidden and the king is deceived] the narrative breaks off. According to later
903versions, when the king of Egypt hears that Ahiqar is dead, he writes the Assyrian monarch challenging him
904to send a wise man who can answer a series of riddles and supervise the construction of a palace between
905heaven and earth. Nadin declares that not even the gods themselves could meet the challenge...
906It cannot be ascertained how much of this was included in the Elephantine version. No doubt it was much
907shorter. The surviving fragments of the Aram. Text have no trace of the Egyptian episode, and there may have
908originally been only a rather brief statement of Ahiqars rehabilitation and the disgrace and punishment of his
909adopted son.)[98]
910Portraying events in Nineveh beginning in the eighth centruy BCE, though actually composed
911around five centuries later, Tobit has been described as, a delightful story of the afflictions of a
912pious Israelite [Tobit] and the adventures of his dutiful son [Tobiah], who makes a journey in the
54

28
55
913company of a disguised angel [Raphael] and returns with a bride [Hannah] and the means to
914restore the father's health and wealth.[99] Considered canonical by Roman Catholics and
915Orthodox Christians, Protestants reject the book of Tobit as apocryphal. Chronologically, it is the
916next source to mention Ahiqar[100] again the Egyptian narrative elements of the text are nowhere
917to be found. So from where has Silverstein obtained the statement regarding the construction of
918the lofty tower? This statement comes from much later and more elaborate versions existing in a
919variety of languages, the most important translations being Syriac, Arabic and Armenian.[101]
920These versions exist in manuscripts none of which can be dated before the 12th 13th century
921CE.[102] What is the relationship between the narrative and the sayings in the Aramaic story of
922Ahiqar? Lindenberger explains,
923In the Elephantine text, the sayings were evidently not integrated into the narrative at all. They seem to have
924been simply collected at the end without any explicit link to the story. The version which lies behind the Life
925of Aesop represents an intermediate stage in the integration of the sayings and the narrative, and even in the
926late versions there is an artificiality about the position of the sayings. A number of the reproaches at the end
927are quite inappropriate to the literary context in which they are placed, and some sayings found in the first
928collection in one version appear in the second collection in another. Taking this into account, along with the
929fact that the wisdom portion of the Elephantine text is written in a slightly different dialect from the narrative
930(see below), it is evident that in dealing with questions of date, provenance, and historical background, the
931two parts of the text must be treated separately.[103]
932Lindenberger shows the relationship of the Ahiqar versions, as depicted in Figure 3.

56

29
57

933
934

Figure 3: Relationship of the Ahiqar versions. [104]

935The Greek Life of Aesop version G (chapters 101-123) is the earliest source in which we find a
936retelling of part of the Ahiqar story modelled on the Egyptian narrative section that includes the
937kings challenge to build a tower between heaven and earth. A piece of ancient popular literature,
938the story recounts the career of a hero (i.e., Aesop), a slave of humble origins, rising to a position
939of great honour before being moved to kill himself after a successful plot concocted by his
58

30
59
940enemies comes to fruition; subsequently he is vindicated after his death and is venerated as a
941hero.[105] The text was composed or rewritten around the second century CE[106] and, therefore, pre942dates the rise of Islam. Though the narrative outline is more or less derived from the story of
943Ahiqar, the entire narrative is transposed into a Greek context with different names, places and
944kings.[107] So it is clear the Quran cannot be taking its information from here. The Quranic
945Haman is not linguistically equivalent to Ahiqar or Ndin which leads us to the issue of textual
946emendation.
947The Aramaic text from Elephantine spells the name commonly vocalised as Ndin in English
948translations, ( n.d.n). Silverstein claims such a vocalisation of appears random.[108] This is
949not the case. Ndin is a hypocoristicon of an Assyrian name derived from the Akkadian verb
950nadnu, meaning (some god) gives.[109] The name Ndin is fairly common during the neo951Assyrian period and thus follows a frequent type in Akkadian onomastics.[110] These are the
952reasons why it has become the commonly accepted rendering of the Aramaic name.[111] Silverstein
953goes on to say it is crucial that the Syriac and Arabic versions preserve the name Ndn. The
954reasons for arguing in this manner become obvious as one reads on. Sharing the same C1C2C3
955pattern, he argues the book of Tobits author (intentionally?) corrupted the word Ndn to
956Haman.[112] It is important to note the appearance of Ndin spelt as [H]aman occurs just twice in
957only one verse (14:10) of the book of Tobit and even then only in some versions. One will
958already be aware of the stumbling block indicated by the square brackets: the spelling of the
959character named in this particular part of the verse is attested in a variety of different ways
960according to the extant manuscript evidence for Tobit 14:10. Dead Sea Scroll 4QTobd has ndn,
961Gttingen critical edition GII (including codex Sinaiticus) has nadab, Old Latin manuscripts have
962nabad/t/th/l, Gttingen critical edition GI has aman, codex Vaticanus and Armenian manuscripts
963have adam.[113] Though spelt [H]aman in some ancient and modern translations of Tobit 14:10,
964Silverstein argues for a corruption on the basis of his own historical reconstruction by reading the
965personage of Esthers Haman into Tobits Aman (NB. Spelt this way in some versions and found
966in a single verse only). He says his reconstruction becomes all the more likely when one looks
967five verses ahead where one finds mention of (Esthers) Ahasuerus (majority of manuscripts).
968Should it not suffice one to look only two words ahead in the immediate context in the same
969verse where one finds mention of Ahiqar, to realise that it is Nadin the Book of Tobits author has
970in mind and not Esthers Haman? Brockington did something similar and argued Aman was
971probably a deliberate corruption of Adam which occurs in codex Vaticanus. He said the
972corruption to Aman was probably made to associate him with the villain of the Book of
973Esther.[114] Following Brockingtons reasoning, one could just as easily argue Aman and Adam
974are scribal errors with no theological significance. Even more recently an analysis of Tobit 14:10
975and its intertextual parallels, noting the variety of ways the name was spelt, makes no mention
976the author of this verse had the Book of Esthers Haman and/or its story in mind; Di Lella
977suggests it is the Psalms that are significant here.[115] Out of numerous ways Ndin has been
978corrupted in the later versions of Tobit in all the verses that it is found, Silverstein has discarded

60

31
61
979the commonly accepted vocalisation Ndin and picked the most similar sounding name to
980Haman he could find in the versions, i.e., Aman, occurring twice in one verse. He then read into
981Aman the name and personage of Haman, violating the immediate context of the verse, and
982subsequently postulated this was only version circulating in Arabia on the eve of Islam. This
983strikes one as a conclusion in search of evidence. Joining all this information together, let us step
984through the highly improbable historical reconstruction that results from Silversteins chain of
985events.
986
987

1. The author of the Quran was familiar with the story of Ahiqar in so far as Pharaohs
challenge to the Assyrians to build him a tower between heaven and earth.

988
989

2. Knowing Ahiqar eventually built this tower, the author of the Quran instead preferred
the character Ndin to build the tower for its version, because he was asked first.

990
991
992

3. The author was also familiar with the story of Ahiqar narrated in certain versions of
Tobit. This version did not contain Pharaohs challenge to build the tower or indeed the
entire section from where it is taken.

993
994
995

4. Based on a version of Tobit in common circulation in Arabia on the eve of Quran, the
author chose the character Haman spelt many different ways in different versions and
discarded the rest of the Ahiqar story found in Tobit.

996
997
998

5. Finally, he joined the name Haman back into the incident in the Ahiqar narrative
previously modified and then inserted it into the master Moses/Pharaoh Quranic
narrative.

999If the book of Tobit does not contain the challenge of the Pharaoh / King to build a tower
1000between heaven and earth why even bother mentioning it? Picking out one verse from certain
1001versions, it was the only way Silverstein could explain the change of name from Ndin / Ndn
1002to Haman, whilst maintaining a connection to the story of Ahiqar. The fact that no other part of
1003narrative in the Aramaic Ahiqar, Life of Aesops Ahiqar, Book of Tobits Ahiqar or later versions
1004Ahiqar find their way into the Moses/Pharaoh narrative in the Quran suggests they were never a
1005basis for the story in the first place.
1006We now reach the third (or second actual) difference in Silversteins list of differences that he
1007believed needed to be accounted for before he anticipates his conclusion that Quranic Haman
1008was derived from biblical Haman. In terms of compatibility, this is perhaps the strongest
1009argument made by Silverstein.[116]
1010

62

FOR EVERY STORY, A VILLAIN NAMED HAMAN

32
63
1011Silverstein argues the Book of Tobit and other evidence suggests Haman should be viewed as an
1012ahistorical figure in pre-Islamic times, a bad guy who could dip in and out of literary contexts
1013as desired.[117] We have already shown that the name Aman is spelt this way only in certain
1014versions of Tobit, and in just one verse 14:10, which some scholars have read into the personage
1015of Haman. It could just as easily be a scribal error with no theological overtones, as the large
1016number of other corrupted spellings recorded in the manuscripts suggests. Recent analysis of
1017this verse and its intertextual parallels suggests it is the Psalms that play a primary role in
1018understanding this verse and not the Book of Esther and its characters. Silverstein seeks to
1019develop his idea Haman existing as a topos in near eastern literatures by looking at the post1020Islamic usage of Haman. This, of course, could not have served as the basis for the Quranic
1021depiction of Haman and so we move on to the alleged pre-Islamic evidence. Along with the
1022Babylonian Talmud, the first Targum to the Book of Esther is mentioned as constituting the pre1023Islamic evidence. Modern scholarship dates the Targums of Esther to the 7th 8th century at the
1024earliest so this document cannot be conclusively dated to pre-Islamic times and is very likely
1025post-Islamic.[118] In terms of documentary sources, one of the earliest if not the earliest extant
1026manuscript for any Targum of Esther was found in the Cambridge Genizah collection (from
1027Cairo Genizah) and is dated to the 10-11th century CE.[119] We are not seeking to deny the Book of
1028Esthers Haman existed as a topos in early Jewish literature pre-dating Islam, which may or may
1029not be the case. The problem arises as this whole line of thought is predicated on and
1030consequently developed based on the assumption that Quranic Haman is derived from biblical
1031Haman which, on the basis of the evidence presented, we have shown not to be the case.
1032Methodologically speaking, it is thus not a truly independent way of interpreting the evidence.
1033Navigating our way past the 14th century Judaeo-Persian poet who pops up yet again, it is
1034necessary to comment on a curious piece of evidence admitted by Silverstein, a Persian popular
1035romance named Samak-e Ayyr. So sure is he of the text, it forms an integral part of his overall
1036conclusion where he states the text took part in the evolution of Haman from the Bible to the
1037Quran.[120] There are some major, one might say insurmountable difficulties with this assessment.
1038Based on internal evidence scholars suggest the text was written down in the 12th century CE.
1039Gaillard thinks the origin of the story may go back to a period earlier than when it was written
1040down but does not commit herself.[121] There is a solitary manuscript attesting the text which is
1041dated to the 14th century CE and is kept in the Bodleian Library.[122] To claim a Persian romance
1042believed to have been written down in the 12th century, whose origins might be based on earlier
1043oral sources, and preserved in a single manuscript from the 14th century, took part in the
1044evolution of Haman from the Bible (Esther c. 4th cent BCE 3rd cent BCE) to the Quran (c.
1045610-632 CE), simply for mentioning a villain named Haman, seems to exceed chronological
1046acceptability. Which parts of this text date at or around the time of the composition of the
1047Quran? What evidence is there to suggest so? What evidence is there to suggest this story
1048circulated in north west Arabia around the time of Muhammad? How was this text acquired, in
1049what form, from whom and from where? Unfortunately these questions are never posed, so one

64

33
65
1050can only speculate as to the answers. In any case, should one maintain this text, or part of this
1051text, was one of the sources of the Quran, further more detailed examples need to be submitted
1052for proper evaluation.
10536.

Parallelomania

1054In his Presidential Address delivered at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature
1055and Exegesis in 1961, the New Testament Jewish scholar Samuel Sandmel lectured on the
1056dangers of parallelomania. As was usual practice, his address was published the following year
1057as the first article in the societys journal and it would later become a seminal essay.[123] He
1058defined parallelomania as,
1059that extravagance among scholars which first overdoes the supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds
1060to describe source and derivation as if implying literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined
1061direction.[124]
1062Sandmel was of course writing about the Old and New Testament but his instructive observations
1063are not limited to this sphere of literature. Highlighting the issue of abstraction and the specific
1064he says,
1065The issue for the student is not the abstraction but the specific. Detailed study is the criterion, and the
1066detailed study ought to respect the context and not be limited to juxtaposing mere excerpts. Two passages
1067may sound the same in splendid isolation from their context, but when seen in context reflect difference
1068rather than similarity. The neophytes and the unwary often rush in,... [125]
1069And it is in this observation we may identify a fault in Silversteins method. He has isolated six
1070verses containing the name Haman and deprives them of their context in the larger narrative. No
1071efforts are made to integrate the Quranic Haman into his larger context in the Moses-Pharaoh
1072narrative, and how this narrative relates to the srah in which it is found and to the rest of the
1073Quranic message. We are even short by the way of excerpts let alone that they are analysed in
1074isolation from their context. The only literary excerpt from the Quranic text ever introduced is
1075Pharaoh commanding Haman to build a lofty tower. This is the case with almost every critic
1076who has written on this issue that we are aware of. Admittedly, Haman is mentioned only a few
1077times in the Quran, but this makes it all the more important for one to search through the context
1078in which he is mentioned relating the parts to the whole, before engaging in a juxtaposition of
1079excerpts and deriving literary dependence. There are no extended thematic or literal parallels,
1080instead the basis of the argument is a catchword, i.e., Haman, and a loose literary parallel, the
1081construction of an edifice between heaven and earth. Focussing on the similarities and forgetting
1082about the differences, it is rarely mentioned when there are instances where parallels dont exist,
1083or where there are direct contradictions. In a couple of instances where problems are mentioned,
1084they are consigned to footnotes and are not given suitable prominence. The vaguest of parallels
1085are clung too, whist obvious inconsistencies are ignored. More problematic than this are

66

34
67
1086instances when parallels are read back into the Quran from later literature when the Quran
1087gives no basis for such a claim. An obvious example is Quranic Pharaoh being Persian or
1088Amalekite.
1089Fortunately, when viewed as part of a larger story framework, the specific narrative section
1090containing the construction of an edifice between heaven and earth found in the story of Ahiqar
1091(read. Syriac version chapters 5-7), does indeed lend itself to a typological study, especially
1092those employed by folklorists, following a predictable literary type well known to specialists in
1093folklore studies. According to the classification system originally developed by Antti Aarne
1094(1910), then expanded by Stith Thompson (1961) and later thoroughly overhauled by Hans-Jrg
1095Uther (2004),[126] the core section of the story of Ahiqar accords with tale type 922A, simply
1096known as Achiqar [127] a minor variation of tale type 922, The Shepherd Substituting for the
1097Clergyman Answers the Kings Questions (The King and the Abbot).[128] Uther describes tale type
1098922A as follows,
1099A childless minister adopts his nephew (Achiqar), rears and teaches him. He presents his foster-son to the
1100king, who likes the boys clever answers. When the minister becomes old, he recommends the king his foster1101son as his successor. The young boy is appointed to the office, but slanders his foster-father. The king orders
1102that the old minister to be killed. Instead, he is saved, and a slave is killed in his place.
1103When a hostile king learns about the ministers death, he sets the king tasks that cannot be accomplished by
1104anyone. He asks for a person who is able to build a castle in the air and who can answer difficult questions.
1105The king searches desperately for his old minister. When he learns that he is still alive, he just reinstates him
1106in his former position. Under a different name the old minister travels to the hostile king. He lets a child
1107sitting in a basket be carried into the air by an eagle, where the boy exclaims, Give me stones and lime so
1108that I can start building the palace! After solving all the riddles set by the king, he returns with a rich
1109reward. He asks his foster-son to be summoned and punishes him with a cruel death. [129]
1110Though categorised as tale type 922A by Aarne-Thompson-Uther, Niditch and Doran have
1111shown there is no problem describing the story of Ahiqar 5-7:23, the thematic core of the work,
1112as tale type 922[130] providing a detailed outline,
1113Numbers 1-4 list major plot events which move the story from its initial problem to the solution and
1114subsequent reward of the hero. Each of these major happenings is composed of a combination of motifs of
1115action, character, setting, and so on. The primary action motif will be highlighted, within each of the four
1116basic divisions. We should note, however, that certain variations on the motifs are allowed within these major
1117steps. Specific variations on the basic motif, the nuances, will be indicated in the outline of each narrative.
1118(1) A person of lower status (a prisoner, foreigner, debtor, servant, youngest son are all possible nuances) IS
1119CALLED BEFORE a person of higher status (often a king or bishop or chief of some kind) TO ANSWER difficult
1120questions or to solve a problem requiring insight. (The problem may be posed on purpose to perplex or may
1121be a genuine dilemma. Often a threat of punishment exists for failure to answer.)
1122(2) The person

68

of high status POSES the problem which no one seems capable of solving.

35
69
1123(3) The person of lower status (who may in fact be
1124questioner) DOES SOLVE the problem.

a disguised substitute for the person expected by the

1125(4) The person of lower status IS REWARDED for answering (by being given half the kingdom, the daughter of
1126the king, special clothing, a signet ring, or some other sign of a raise in status). [131]
1127If detailed study that respects the context is the criterion as opposed to the juxtaposition of mere
1128excerpts, the detailed outlined given above becomes a crucial piece of evidence providing a basis
1129for the comparison of the entire literary outline of this narrative sub-section. One will
1130immediately note this outline is not applicable to the Quranic narrative of Moses and
1131Pharaoh, and therefore, is certainly not applicable to the narrative sub-section dealing with
1132the construction of the edifice between heaven and earth. Even though it can be readily shown
1133in its present state the application of orientalist-folklorist criticism to the Quran has not provided
1134any meaningful results,[132] and, that such tale types lack universality, one can usefully proceed on
1135the basis of the structural elements of the story of Ahiqar and the arrangement of its motifs. After
1136giving a detailed outline of tale type 922, Niditch and Doran proceed to explain how the core
1137narrative of the story of Ahiqar neatly fits this typology,
1138(1) A person of lower status, Ahiqar, the symbolically dead counsellor who has dwelt beneath the earth IS
1139CALLED BEFORE a person of higher status, Sennacherib, king of Babylon (5:11) to solve a problem which is
1140impossible. He must build a castle in the air (5:2) or pay three years' revenue to Egypt (5:3), and neither
1141Nadan nor any of the members of court can solve the problem (5:5, 6).
1142(2) Person of higher status,
1143status, Ahiqar (6:1).

Sennacherib, ENUMERATES the problem, castle-building, to person of lower

1144(3) Person of lower status, Ahiqar, CAN ANSWER (6:2). (NOTE: 6:2-7:20 contains a repetition
1145and answer motifs, numbers 2 and 3 in the outline.)
1146(4) Person of lower status,

of the question

Ahiqar, IS REWARDED, set at the head of the king's household (7:23).

1147Thus on the formal level - structure of content elements - Ahiqar does share the pattern of type 922. As in
1148other tales of this type, Ahiqar includes a series of trick questions and clever replies. In Ahiqar this process of
1149repeated asking and answering is particularly extended since the wise man must not only deal with his own
1150monarch but must also travel to Egypt to answer Pharaoh's questions in person. It is at Pharaoh's court that
1151the long dialogues take place. The castle-riddle is one among many. The confrontation at Pharaoh's court
1152need not have taken place for the tale to be complete from a typological point of view. Ahiqar could have
1153simply told Sennacherib the details of his plan, the problem would have been solved, and Sennacherib could
1154have rewarded his hero. Yet the story would have suffered stylistically, both from the point of view of the
1155teller and that of the listener. Repetitions in action lengthen the story, intensify the listener's interest, and
1156create thematic emphasis. Here the emphasis is on the cleverness of the wise man who can answer any
1157question which he faces. Such repetitions are typical of and essential to traditional tales.' [133]
1158Now that we have a much clearer picture of the context and literary structure of the story of
1159Ahiqar, one will observe Silversteins linking of the tower in the story of Ahiqar and the tower
1160commanded to be built by Pharaoh, have no literary connection or comparative basis. The
70

36
71
1161explanation given behind the construction of each tower, their purpose and their placement in
1162their respective narratives, shows they cannot be connected to each other in a literary sense. Even
1163given the same typology, similarity in structural outline and/or thematic progression, this does
1164not necessarily imply knowledge of a specific source or text. Moving away from the typological
1165studies employed by folklorists, for example, the invocation-worship-petition sequence of the
1166srah al-Ftih ah and its thematic progression can be paralleled with the Lords prayer, and
1167going even further back into ancient near eastern times, the Babylon Prayer to the God Sin.[134]
1168One cannot, of course, then presume the srah al-Ftih ah is based, derived, copied or has picked
1169out certain elements, written or oral, from a prayer circulating more than a millennia earlier in
1170Mesopotamia. The context ought to be respected.
1171Then there is the excessive usage of Quranic commentaries and a large number of other sources
1172that clearly post-date the Quran. What relevance can such sources have in attempting to prove
1173the evolution of Haman from the Bible (Esther c. 4th cent BCE 3rd cent BCE) to the Quran (c.
1174610-632 CE)? It is a chronological impossibility. Silverstein is attempting to build up an overall
1175picture of Haman and his alleged transition and so rightly looks to evidence that occurs after the
1176Quran to establish a more rounded picture. One needs to be wary though: it is the context before
1177the Quran that is more important in determining what the Quran allegedly did or did not
1178appropriate, not context occurring afterward, and in some cases up to seven centuries later. With
1179such a heavy emphasis on context after the Quran, one is in danger of preconditioning the
1180interpretation of the earlier evidence.
1181Moving beyond juxtaposing mere excerpts raises further methodological questions.
1182Silversteins command of the sources is obvious as he moves with ease from the neo-Assyrian
1183empire to 14th century Persia. It may legitimately be asked if there exist even older sources
1184which may also provide parallels to the Quranic account. Should it not strike one as anomalous,
1185that at no time are any sources from ancient Egypt discussed, when this is the setting the Quran
1186places the character Haman in? This boils down to a question of presuppositions and biases
1187which are not beliefs that we need to hide from view.[135] Silverstein has already decided the
1188Quran cannot be describing a real event and deems it unworthy to look back in time any further
1189than the sources he requires to establish his version of events require. Of course, we all have pre1190suppositions from where we formulate our arguments but this should not necessarily prevent us
1191from dealing with other evidence. For instance, are the stories of Ahiqar and the Tower of Babel
1192the only two parallel explanations open to us in interpreting the Quranic account where the
1193Egyptian Pharaoh asks Haman to build a lofty tower between heaven and earth? These parallels
1194can be found in ancient Egypt and other ancient cultures and is not something unique to those
1195sources.
11967.

72

Quranic Hmn & Pharaoh In The Context Of Ancient Egypt

37
73
1197Is there any information in the Quranic narrative of Pharaoh and Haman that would contradict
1198its placement in an ancient Egyptological context? Fortunately, there are a few cases where the
1199Quran ascribes certain beliefs and actions to Pharaoh which at least allow us to check if they are
1200consistent with modern critical investigations into ancient Egyptian history. The following
1201enquiry is limited to information from five verses in the Quran, dealing with religious concepts
1202and construction technology.
1203Pharaoh said: "O Chiefs! no god

do I know for you but myself." [Qur'an 28:38]

1204Pharaoh said: "O Haman! Build me a lofty palace, that I may attain the ways and means - The ways
1205means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the god of Moses: But as far as I am
1206concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!" [Qur'an 40:36-37]

and

1207The Quranic verses concerning Pharaoh and Haman provide us with the following information:
1208

The Pharaoh as god

1209

The making of burnt bricks in ancient Egypt

1210

The desire of the Pharaoh to ascend to the sky to speak to gods

1211

Pharaoh had a leading supporter called Haman

1212Let us now investigate these statements in the light of Egyptology and primary source evidence.
1213The Bible does not provide any information regarding the above mentioned statements in an
1214ancient Egyptian setting; nor, as far as we are aware, is it explicitly stated in any secular
1215literature from the time of Muhammad.
1216

THE PHARAOH AS GOD

1217For all kings, the Bible uses the term Pharaoh to address the rulers of Egypt. The Quran,
1218however, differs from the Bible: the sovereign of Egypt who was a contemporary of Joseph is
1219called the King (Arabic, malik); he is never once addressed as Pharaoh. As for the king who
1220ruled during the time of Moses, the Quran repeatedly calls him Pharaoh (Arabic, firawn).
1221These differences in detail between the biblical and Quranic narrations appear to have great
1222significance and are discussed in the article Qur'anic Accuracy vs. Biblical Error: The Kings
1223and Pharaohs of Egypt.
1224Concerning Pharaoh, the Quran says:
1225Pharaoh said: "O Chiefs! no god

74

do I know for you but myself." [Qur'an 28:38]

38
75
1226Then he (Pharaoh) collected
1227[Qur'an 79:23-24]

(his men) and made a proclamation, Saying, "I am your Lord, Most High".

1228The issue of Pharaoh as the superlative god of Egypt is discussed more fully in the article
1229Pharaoh And His Gods In Ancient Egypt. We will touch upon this issue briefly here. God says
1230in the Quran that Pharaoh addressed his chiefs by saying that he knows for them of no god but
1231himself [Quran 28:38]. This statement can be verified by simply checking the views of the
1232kings subjects, i.e., court officials. What the subjects of the Pharaoh could expect of the ruler in
1233accordance with the Egyptian theory of the kingship is very well summed up in a quotation from
1234the tomb autobiography of the famous vizier Rekhmere of Tuthmosis III from the18th Dynasty
1235of the New Kingdom Period. The inscription occupies the southern end-wall of the tomb of
1236Rekhmere and comprises 45 lines of hieroglyphs painted in green upon a plaster surface.

1237
1238Rekhmer's relation to the king (II. 16-19)
1239... What is the king of Upper Egypt? What is the king of Lower Egypt? He is a god by whose dealings
1240lives. [He is] the father and mother [of all men]; alone by himself, without an equal ...[136]

one

1241According to Rekhmere, the king of Egypt was a god by whose decree one lives. He is alone,
1242has no equal and takes care of his subjects like a parent. This affirms that the officials in ancient
1243Egypt considered Pharaoh to be the supreme god, thus indirectly confirming the statement made
1244by Pharaoh to his chiefs, as read in the Quran, that he knew of no god for them but himself.
1245Furthermore, Rekhmere adds that the ruler like Egypt had divine qualities such as omniscience
1246and a wonderful creator.

76

39
77

1247
1248The audience with Pharaoh (II.8 - 10)
1249.... Lo, His Majesty knows what happens; there is indeed nothing of which he is ignorant. (9) He is Thoth in
1250every regard. There is no matter which he has failed to discern...... [he is acquainted] with it after the fashion
1251of the Majesty of Seshat (the goddess of writing). He changes the design into its execution like a god who
1252ordains and performs.....[137]
1253Furthermore, the king was recognized as the successor of the sun-god R, and this view was so
1254prevalent that comparisons between the sun and king unavoidably possessed theological
1255overtones. The kings accession was timed for sunrise. Hence the vizier Rekhmere explained the
1256closeness of his association with the king in the following words:

1257
1258Rekhmer's as a loyal defender of the king (II. 13-14)
1259... I [saw] his person in his (real) form, R the lord of heaven, the king of the two lands when he rises, the
1260solar disk when he shows himself, at whose places are [Black] Land and Red Land, their chieftains inclining
1261themselves to him, all Egyptians, all men of family, all the common fold...... ..... lassoing him who attacks
1262him or disputing with him... [138]
1263Rekhmere also adds that the whole of Egypt followed the ruler of Egypt, whether chieftains or
1264common folk. That the Pharaoh was indeed considered the superlative god in ancient Egypt is a
1265common knowledge. The Encyclopaedia Britannica informs us that the term Pharaoh
1266originally referred to the royal residence, and was later applied to the king during the New

78

40
79
1267Kingdom period (1539-1292 BC), and, that the Pharaoh was indeed considered a god in ancient
1268Egypt
1269Pharaoh (from Egyptian per 'aa, "great house"), originally, the royal palace in ancient Egypt; the word came
1270to be used as a synonym for the Egyptian king under the New Kingdom (starting in the 18th dynasty, 153912711292 BC), and by the 22nd dynasty (c. 945-c. 730 BC) it had been adopted as an epithet of respect. The term
1272has since evolved into a generic name for all ancient Egyptian kings, although it was never formally the king's
1273title. In official documents, the full title of the Egyptian king consisted of five names, each preceded by one of
1274the following titles: Horus; Two Ladies; Golden Horus; King of Upper and Lower Egypt and Lord of the Double
1275Land; and Son of Re and Lord of the Diadems. The last name was given him at birth, the others at coronation.
1276The Egyptians believed their Pharaoh to be a god, identifying him with the sky god Horus and with the sun
1277gods Re, Amon, and Aton. Even after death the Pharaoh remained divine, becoming transformed into Osiris,
1278the father of Horus and god of the dead, and passing on his sacred powers and position to the new Pharaoh,
1279his son.
1280The Pharaoh's divine status was believed to endow him with magical powers: his uraeus (the snake on his
1281crown) spat flames at his enemies, he was able to trample thousands of the enemy on the battlefield, and he
1282was all-powerful, knowing everything and controlling nature and fertility. As a divine ruler, the Pharaoh was
1283the preserver of the God-given order, called ma'at. He owned a large portion of Egypt's land and directed its
1284use, was responsible for his people's economic and spiritual welfare, and dispensed justice to his subjects. His
1285will was supreme, and he governed by royal decree. [139]
1286Concerning Pharaoh, Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary says:
1287The Egyptians believed that he was a god and the keys to the nation's relationship to the cosmic gods. While
1288the Pharaoh ruled, he was the son of Ra, the sun god and the incarnation of Horus. He came from the gods
1289with divine responsibility to rule the land for them. His word was law, and he owned everything. When the
1290Pharaoh died, he became the god Osiris, the ruler of the underworld... [140]
1291However, it was claimed by F. S. Coplestone that the alleged source of Pharaoh claiming
1292divinity, as mentioned in the Quran, was Midrash Exodus Rabbah.[141] This midrash says:
1293Pharaoh was one of the four men who claimed divinity and thereby brought evil upon themselves.... Whence
1294do we know that Pharaoh claimed to be a god? Because it says: 'My river is mine own, and I have made it for
1295myself' (Ezek. xxix, 3). [142]
1296There are a number of problems, one of them quite serious, concerning Midrash Exodus Rabbah
1297being the source of the Quranic verses. Firstly, Midrash Exodus Rabbah has been dated several
1298centuries after the advent of Islam. Midrash Exodus Rabbah is composed of two different parts.
1299The first part (ExodR I) comprises parashiyot 1-14 and is an exegetical midrash on Exodus 1-10
1300(11 is not treated in Exodus Rabbah). The Pharaoh claiming divinity comes from ExodR I part

80

41
81
1301of the midrash. The second part (ExodR II) with parashiyot 15-52 is a homiletic midrash on
1302Exodus 12-40, which belongs to the genre of the Tanhuma Yelammedenu midrash. Leopold
1303Zunz, who does not divide the work, dated this whole midrash to the 11th or the 12th century
1304CE.[143] Herr, on the other hand, considers the ExodR II to be older than ExodR I, which in his
1305opinion used the lost beginning of the homiletic midrash on Exodus as a source. For the dating of
1306ExodR I, he conducts a linguistic analysis and judges this part to be no earlier than the 10th
1307century CE.[144] Similarly, Shinan opines that the origin of ExodR I is from the 10th century CE.[145]
1308The Quran could not have used a source that had not yet been compiled until hundreds of years
1309later. Secondly, the midrash simply interprets the verse from the book of Ezekiel and claims that
1310the verse implies Pharaoh claiming divinity. The Quran, on the other hand, explicitly states that
1311the Pharaoh proclaimed himself to be the superlative god.
1312

THE MAKING OF BURNT BRICKS IN ANCIENT EGYPT

1313In the Quran, the Pharaoh in a boastful and mocking manner, asks his associate Haman to build
1314a lofty tower:
1315Pharaoh said: "O Haman! light me a (kiln to bake bricks) out of clay, and build me a lofty palace (Arabic:
1316Sarhan, lofty tower or palace), that I may mount up to the god of Moses: but as far as I am concerned, I
1317think (Moses) is a liar!" [Qur'an 28:38]
1318It is probable that the command of Pharaoh was but a boast, and there is no evidence from the
1319Quran itself that suggests the construction of the sarhan was ever inititated or completed. In any
1320case an interesting question now arises: Were Burnt Bricks Used In Ancient Egypt In The
1321Time of Moses?
1322The use of burnt brick in Egypt did not become common until the Roman Period. However, there
1323is enough evidence to show that burnt brick was known in Egypt from a very early date. Long
1324bars of baked clay were employed in the Predynastic grain-kilns at Abydos and Mahasna, and,
1325while these cannot be called bricks, they show knowledge of the effect of baking on ordinary
1326mud. It is impossible that early Egyptians were unaware of the fact that mud-bricks could be
1327hardened by burning, since they could have observed this process in any building which, by
1328accident or design, was gutted by fire.[146] There are several examples of accidental production of
1329burnt brick. They occur in the 1st Dynasty tombs at Saqqara, due to them having been burnt by
1330plunderers; similar cases must have been fairly common. There is no evidence, as yet, that
1331Egyptians deliberately prepared burnt bricks for use in buildings during the Predynastic Period or
1332the Old Kingdom. However, there are examples of glazed tiles, appearing in a highly developed
1333technique in both the 1st and 3rd Dynasties. This proves that the Egyptians during the advent of
1334Old Kingdom Period were well aware of glazing as a method of decoration and protection.[147]
1335The earliest example of the use of burnt brick comes from the Middle Kingdom fortresses in
1336Nubia, in which they were used as paving-slabs measuring 30 x 30 x 5 cm.[148] The next

82

42
83
1337instance of the burnt brick is recorded in the New Kingdom Period, where they occur in
1338conjunction with funerary cones in the superstructures of the tombs at Thebes.[149] Burnt brick as a
1339constructional material also appears at Nebesheh and Defenneh dated to the Ramesside times.
1340From an extensive study of brick architecture in Egypt, Spencer concludes that:
1341From the foregoing, it must be concluded that burnt brick was known in Egypt
1342when its durability would give particular advantage over the mud brick. [150]

at all periods, but used only

1343As for the less extensive use of burnt bricks in early Egypt, this is more due to the issue of
1344economics than a lack of knowledge. Barry Kemp says:
1345The widespread preference for unfired soil architecture

was thus through choice rather than ignorance.[151]

1346A factor inhibiting the use of burnt brick could presumably be the cost of fuel needed for firing.
1347Since the burnt brick architecture was known in ancient Egypt in all periods, one can firmly
1348conclude that it was also known in the time of Moses.
1349 THE DESIRE OF THE PHARAOH TO ASCEND TO THE SKY TO SPEAK TO THE
1350
GODS
1351Pharaoh said: "O Chiefs! no god do I know for you but myself: therefore, O Haman! light me a (kiln to bake
1352bricks) out of clay, and build me a lofty palace (Arabic: sarhan, lofty tower or palace), that I may mount up to
1353the god of Moses: but as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!" [Qur'an 28:38]
1354Pharaoh said: "O Haman! Build me a lofty palace, that I may attain the ways and means - The ways
1355means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the god of Moses: But as far as I am
1356concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!" [Qur'an 40:36-37]

and

1357Egyptologist Sir Flinders Petrie in his book Religious Life In Ancient Egypt says:
1358The desire to ascend to the gods in the sky was expressed by wanting the ladder to go up .... When the Osiris
1359worship came to Egypt, the desire for the future was to be accepted as a subject in the kingdom of Osiris.
1360When the Ra worship arrived, the wish was to join the company of the gods who formed the retinue of Ra in
1361his great vessel in the sky.[152]
1362The idea of the Pharaoh climbing a tower or staircase to reach the God of Moses, as mentioned
1363in the Quran, is in consonance with the mythology of ancient Egypt. The Pharaoh, asks the gods
1364(or men) to construct a staircase or a tower in order to climb and converse with the gods.
1365Standing before the gods, the Pharaoh shows his authority. He orders them to construct a staircase so that he
1366may climb to the sky. If they do not obey him, they will have neither food nor offerings. But the king takes
1367one precaution. It is not he himself, as an individual, who speaks, but the divine power: "It is not I who say
1368this to you, the gods, it is the Magic who speaks".

84

43
85
1369When the Pharaoh completes his climb, magic at his feet "The sky trembles", he asserts, "the earth shivers
1370before me, for I am a magician, I possess magic". It is also he who installs the gods on their thrones, thus
1371proving that the cosmos recognises his omnipotence. [153]
1372We are in no way suggesting it was only in ancient Egypt this belief was held, as Egyptologist I.
1373E. S. Edwards correctly points out that Egyptians were not the only ones who believed that
1374gods may be reached by going up a high building; this view was prevalent in Mesopotamia
1375and Assyria as well.
1376The Egyptians were not the only ancient people of the Middle East who believed that the heaven and the gods
1377might be reached by ascending a high building; a kindred trend of thought prevailed in Mesopotamia. At the
1378centre of any city in Assyria or Babylonia lay a sacred area occupied by the temple complex and a royal
1379palace. [154]
1380It is clear now that the idea of the Pharaoh ascending to the sky to reach gods in ancient Egypt
1381exists independently and has no connection with the biblical story of the Tower of Babel,
1382which is believed to be a ziggurat.[155] The singular use and insistence on the Tower of Babel as
1383a source of this particular Quranic statement appears to be a convenient device for those wishing
1384to explain the Quran's supposed dependence on biblical material, and a lack of interest on their
1385part in widening the historical investigation. Having said this, it must be added that the issue of
1386Pharaoh climbing up a high tower to mount up to the God of Moses depicted in Quran 28:38 has
1387attracted the attention of Father Jacques Jomier, a Catholic scholar and missionary. Concerning
1388this verse Jomier at least thinks to test the statement in an ancient Egyptological setting and asks:
1389Here Pharaoh... asks Haman to build him a high tower so that
1390Could this be a vague recollection of the pyramids? [156]

he can ascend to the God of Moses (cf. v. 36).

1391The answer to this question is not certain. Some of the Egyptian pyramids were indeed tall
1392structures. If the Pharaoh did ask for a pyramid to be built then it was as if he was asking Haman
1393to build his tomb! Alternatively, if it was indeed a pyramid the Pharaoh asked for, then the
1394Pharaoh has proven himself to be a mortal to be buried in a tomb and not the God, as he had
1395claimed to be. However, there are no recorded examples of pyramids made using burnt bricks.
1396However, there exist examples of several mud-brick pyramids from the Middle Kingdom Period.
1397The pyramid tombs of Senwosret II (at Hawara), Senwosret III (at Dahshur), Amenemhet II (at
1398Dahshur) and Amenemhet III (at Hawara) are the best known examples of mud-brick
1399constructions.[157] In some cases it was mud-brick core and a casing of fine white limestone. The
1400limestone was eventually quarried and what is left of them now is a pile of rubble.
1401Jomiers suggested connection between the pyramids and the tower in the Quran brings us to a
1402related but important issue. We have seen earlier that Pharaoh, a god of ancient Egypt, would
1403address other gods by climbing up a staircase or a high building. What happened when the ruler
86

44
87
1404of Egypt died? How did he meet with other gods? Did he ascend to them? If yes, what was the
1405instrument of his ascension? To understand this let us turn our attention to some interesting
1406evidence from ancient Egypt dealing with the pyramids and the royal tombs. There is a copious
1407amount of evidence from ancient Egypt concerning the desire of the dead king to ascend to the
1408gods and it comes in the form of the Pyramid Texts. These texts are a collection of funerary
1409rituals and spells first inscribed on the sarcophagi and the subterranean walls of nine Old
1410Kingdom pyramids.[158]
1411What was the function of the pyramid? The primary function of the pyramid in ancient Egypt
1412was to house the body of a dead King, his ka or spirit, and his funerary equipment for use in the
1413next world. It was a royal burial site. The pyramid tomb served as a place on earth where food
1414and drink could be brought regularly to supply the need of the ka. The word pyramid probably
1415derived from Greek pyramis. The Egyptians themselves used the word M(e)r to describe
1416pyramids, and it has tentatively been translated as a place of ascension. Concerning the word
1417pyramid, Verner says:
1418The shape of the pyramid has most often been interpreted as a stylized primeval hill and, at the same time, a
1419gigantic stairway to heaven. In fact, the Egyptian terms for "pyramid" (mr) has been derived from a root i`i
1420("to ascend"), thus giving "place of ascent." [159]
1421Similarly, Lehner points out that:
1422The word for pyramid in ancient Egyptian is mer. There seems to be no cosmic significance in the term itself.
1423I. E. S. Edwards, the great pyramid authority, attempted to find a derivation from m, 'instrument' or 'place',
1424plus ar, 'ascension', as 'place of ascension'. Although he himself doubted this derivation, the pyramid was
1425indeed a place or instrument of ascension for the king after death. [160]
1426Not surprisingly, the Egyptian word M(e)r has the determinative showing a triangle with a base
1427to represent the pyramid (Figs. 4 and 5).

1428

88

45
89
1429 Figure
1430

4: Hieroglyph entry for "mr" which means a pyramid. Notice the determinative which is in the shape of
a triangle representing the pyramid (line 4). [161]

1431
1432 Figure 5: Hieroglyph entry for "Pyramid". Again notice the determinative for pyramid shown

as a triangle. [162]

1433After death, the king would pass from the earth to the heaven, to take his place amongst the gods
1434and to join the retinue of the sun-god. However, he needed a way to reach the sky from the earth,
1435a bridge slung between this world and the next, a Place of Ascension. Thus, the pyramid served
1436as a place of ascension for the dead king. The Pyramid Texts inscribed on the sarcophagi and the
1437subterranean walls served as instructions for the dead kings ascension to heavens.
1438

PHARAOH HAD A LEADING SUPPORTER CALLED HMN

1439Taking into consideration the fact that so far the Quranic story relating to Pharaoh and Haman
1440can be well-supported from the point of view of an ancient Egyptian setting, let us now consider

90

46
91
1441the person Haman, a leading supporter of the Pharaoh. Should Haman be understood as a
1442personal name or as a title, similar to the Quranic usage of the title Pharaoh? Further, could
1443Arabic Haman be a curtailed form of an ancient Egyptian name or title? Writing in the
1444Encyclopaedia Of The Quran, A. H. Johns wondered if Arabic Haman could be an Arabized
1445echo of the Egyptian Ha-Amen, the title of the Egyptian High Priest, second in rank to Pharaoh.
1446[163] He does not provide any evidence from ancient Egypt to substantiate this suggestion.
1447Nevertheless, these interesting suggestions raise a number of interrelated points on a linguistic,
1448historical and religious level and require a thorough investigation before reaching a judgement.
1449Broadly speaking, there are two lines of enquiry that open in front of us, i.e., Haman as
1450

1. a title (or a curtailed form of the same) of an influential person or

1451
1452

2. a personal name (or a curtailed form of an ancient Egyptian name) of an influential

person.

1453A further subset of these two lines of enquiry may also be included if the name or title, whether
1454curtailed or not, is Arabized or simply an ancient Egyptian name. The search for Haman of the
1455Quran in ancient Egypt must take into consideration the evidence from the Quran itself. We
1456know the following from the Quran concerning the person Haman:
1457

He held a senior enough position to be mentioned along with Pharaoh repeatedly.

1458

He was put in charge of a very important construction project, indicating he possessed the
seniority and skill necessary to see the task through to completion.

Pharaohs statement (O Haman! Build me a lofty palace, that I may attain the ways and
means- The ways and means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the
god of Moses - Quran 40:36-37) is related to ancient Egyptian theology. It would seem
appropriate that the Pharaoh would assign a person for construction of this building who
also understood the matters of ancient Egyptian religion, i.e., some kind of a builderpriest. So, we can surmise that Haman mentioned in the Quran was involved in
construction as well as priestly activities.

1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466

1467Taking into consideration these three important points, the question now arises as to which
1468period of history of ancient Egypt we should search for the person Haman mentioned in the
1469Quran. Our earlier study on the identification of Pharaoh during the time of Moses suggested
1470that it was the time period associated with Ramesses II. So, we have narrowed almost c. 3000
1471years of ancient Egyptian history to a specific timescale, i.e., to the reign of Ramesses II from
14721279-1213 BCE, which is ~66 years, for the setting of the Quranic story of Moses involving
1473Haman.

92

47
93
1474I. Haman As A Title Of A Person In Ancient Egypt: Western scholarship writing on Haman
1475in the Quran has understood Haman as a personal name. This derives from their understanding
1476of the alleged connection between the Quranic and biblical Hamans, which is lacking in
1477evidence as our enquiry has shown. We have shown that Quranic Haman in his ancient Egyptian
1478context makes sense when various elements of the Quranic story are examined from a historical
1479point of view. In turn, this opens up another line of enquiry, i.e., viewing Haman as a title of a
1480person. Such an undertaking is also supported by the fact that in the Quran, the king who ruled
1481during the time of Moses, is repeatedly called Pharaoh (Arabic, firawn). This comes from the
1482ancient Egyptian word "per-aa", which in the Old Kingdom Period, meant King's palace, the
1483great house, or denoted the large house of the king. However, in the New Kingdom Period, it
1484was the title used to refer to the king of Egypt. Could the usage of Haman in the Quran be
1485similar to that of Pharaoh, i.e., an Arabized version of an ancient Egyptian title? Such a
1486question can be approached by looking into various lexicons dealing with ancient Egyptian
1487names, whether of gods or persons, and how these names came to be used in a variety of
1488different contexts.
1489One may be tempted to say that the nearest equivalent of Quranic Haman (= HMN, in Arabic) in
1490ancient Egyptian is either HMN or HMN in the consonantal form. However, this assumes that the
1491consonants in Arabic and ancient Egyptian were pronounced in a similar way and that the ancient
1492Egyptian name was not Arabized. Such a straight forward one-to-one correspondence of the
1493consonants from ancient Egyptian to Arabic is weakened by the fact that the phonology of
1494ancient Egyptian (a dead language!) is still an ongoing study[164] and the evidence for Arabization
1495of ancient Egyptian names exist in the Quran. Nevertheless, such a straight forward rendering
1496does provide a starting point to test one of the various possibilities. Wrterbuch Der
1497Aegyptischen Sprache, one of the most authoritative dictionaries of ancient Egyptian
1498hieroglyphs, does not give any entry for HMN.[165] For HMN, the lexicon says that it was a name
1499of an ancient Egyptian god,[166] it could also mean a butcher[167] and there are two other entries
1500which are not important in the present context. Likewise, Wallis Budges An Egyptian
1501Hieroglyphic Dictionary also mentions HMN to be the name of a god, and adds that it can also
1502be a vessel, natron, number 80 or to praise.[168] As for the word HMN, this lexicon says that it
1503means to work skilfully.[169] On the other hand, Rankes well-known book Die gyptischen
1504Personennamen under HMN, unsurprisingly, lists theophoric names associated with the ancient
1505Egyptian deity HMN.[170] There are none listed for HMN.[171] Updated, comprehensive and modern
1506Lexikon Der gyptischen Gtter Und Gtterbezeichnungen, an encyclopaedia of ancient
1507Egyptian deities and the theophoric names associated with them, sheds even more light. The
1508entry under the ancient Egyptian deity "HMN" provides interesting information.[172] This is
1509perhaps the most comprehensive discussion of HMN among the lexicons surveyed here. From
1510the mass of information provided, one of the entries stands out prominently, i.e., the use of HMN
1511in the title for h m-ntr. So, who is h m-ntr? In ancient Egyptian h m-ntr literally means servant of
1512god (h m = slave, or servant; ntr = god). In other words, h m-ntr is a male priest (as opposed

94

48
95
1513to h mt-ntr = female priest).[173] This means that HMN in ancient Egypt was used in the title for a
1514priest in a temple associated with the deity HMN itself. Since HMN was a minor deity in ancient
1515Egypt (and quite local as well),[174] any association of its priest with Haman of the Quran is
1516highly unlikely. Nevertheless, this leaves us a tantalizing clue that the priest of a temple in
1517ancient Egypt could have in his title the name of the deity of that temple.
1518During the time of Ramesses II, the period in which we are searching for the Haman of the
1519Quran, the ancient Egyptian deity IMN or Amun, as it is called in the literature (Amun is the
1520Coptic articulation of ancient Egyptian IMN),[175] reigned supreme and had a large, dedicated
1521temple in Karnak. Kitchen says:
1522The great gods of the state stood at the head of Egypt and of the pantheon, as patrons of Pharaoh. Most
1523renowned was Amun, god of the air and of the hidden powers of generation (fertility and virility), home in
1524Thebes. As god of Empire, he was giver of victory to the warrior pharaohs... To him [i.e., Amun] belonged
1525the greatest temples of Thebes. [176]

all

1526Did the priests of the temple of Amun in ancient Egypt have as part of their official titles the
1527name of the same deity? The answer to this question is affirmative. Lexikon Der gyptischen
1528Gtter Und Gtterbezeichnungen under the ancient Egyptian deity "IMN" lists the following
1529examples.

96

49
97

1530
1531
1532
1533

Figure 6: Various functions of the name of ancient Egyptian deity "IMN" mentioned in the book "Lexikon Der
gyptischen Gtter Und Gtterbezeichnungen". [177] For more information and examples, please consult the
reference.

1534Figure 6 furnishes us with interesting information concerning the usage of the name IMN in
1535various phrases found in ancient Egyptian inscriptions, papyrus and other literature. It shows that
1536IMN had various functions including being used in the title [In Titeln] for various grades of
1537priestly class from the lowest wb priest [Ein wb-Priester] to h m-ntr-tpy, i.e., the High Priest
1538[Ein h m-ntr-tpy-Priester]. Interestingly, it also cites an example of IMN being used in the title
1539for an architect [Ein Architekt], a sculptor [Ein Bildhauer] and a singer [Ein Sngerin] as
98

50
99
1540well. These categories of people may have been associated with ancient Egyptian deity IMN
1541through construction and singing hymns in the temple of Amun. For example, consider the entry
1542Amun vom Ramesseum or Amun from the Ramesseum (= the mortuary temple of Ramesses
1543II) which refers to the title of the High Priest [Ein h m-ntr-tpy-Priester] and the Overseer of the
1544House [Ein Hausvorsteher], i.e., the Ramesseum. In summary, it is clear that IMN was used in
1545the title not only for the priestly class but also for those involved in construction. The use of the
1546name of the deity IMN in the title for a priest and an architect is quite interesting as it appears to
1547add weight to our surmise that Haman mentioned in the Quran was involved in construction as
1548well as priestly activities. The question now is whether IMN is in some way related to Haman?
1549For this we have to go into the phonology and lexicography of IMN.
1550How was the deity IMN articulated or pronounced? The ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, which do
1551not have vowels, are not of much help. However, the cuneiform inscriptions (where the vowels
1552are written) dealing with a treaty of alliance between attuili, king of the Hittites, and Ramesses
1553II, ruler of Egypt, furnish us with the actual pronunciation of IMN.[178] Ramesses II's had the
1554prenomen usermaatre-setepenre and nomen (or birth name) ramesses meryamun. It is the latter,
1555which means Re is the one who gave him birth, whom Amun desired that is of interest here
1556and is written in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs as r-ms-sw mr-imn(w).[179] The contemporary
1557cuneiform inscription mentioned gives the transcription of this hieroglyph name as riamasisa
1558mayamana.[180] How was this pronounced using cuneiform inscriptions? Allen says that its
1559pronunciation involved stress probably on the second-last syllable in the two parts, i.e., ree-ah1560mah-SEE-sah migh-ah-MAH-nah.[181] So, the ancient Egyptian IMN was pronounced as amana
1561in the contemporary cuneiform inscriptions. How about the articulation of initial I in ancient
1562Egyptian itself? Carsten Peust writing in his book Egyptian Phonology - An Introduction To
1563The Phonology Of A Dead Language indicates there is some debate about its value. Its
1564articulation might well have depended on the position in which it occurs, or the time period.[182]
1565Traditionally, it was taken to be a real glottal stop, but there are also many scholars who think it
1566is more likely a reduced sound like a smooth breathing for syllable onset. In other words, in most
1567cases, I probably had no sound of its own, but only served to indicate that a syllable began or
1568ended with a vowel and in some words, it seems to have been pronounced as a glottal stop or
1569y.[183] Its sound value is usually defined as a semi-vowel.[184] However, Peust has also suggested
1570that there are no indications that glottal stops were spoken in ancient Egyptian or in Coptic.[185]
1571Thus, it can be said that IMN may have been pronounced as amana - the initial a being
1572voiceless frictive, i.e., a breathy a sound rather than a clear vocalised a and is usually written
1573as 3amana to enunciate the phonetic pronunciation. It must be added that apart from IMN being
1574mentioned as amana, depending upon the scribe, it is also attested as amanu, amaanu and other
1575variants in cuneiform inscriptions from the New Kingdom Period.[186]
1576Before we go any further, a few words need to be spoken about the priests and the nature of
1577priesthood in ancient Egypt.[187] The priests in ancient Egypt were religious and temple attendants

100

51
101
1578whose role remained almost the same in all historical periods, i.e., they kept the temple and
1579surrounding sanctuary pure, conducted the cultic rituals and observances, and performed the
1580great festival ceremonies for the public. The priesthood in ancient Egypt had the hierarchy with
1581the Pharaoh being the chief priest of every cult, and in theory, had the privilege of attending the
1582deity. In practice, however, since the Pharaoh cant be present everywhere, the authority was
1583delegated to the High Priest (i.e., the First Prophet), who was supported by lesser ranked priests
1584who would have attended to offerings and minor parts of the temple ritual. The Second
1585Prophet, one rank below the First Prophet, attended to much of the economic organization of
1586the temple, while lower ranks, known as wb priests attended to numerous other duties. The High
1587Priest or the First Prophet could wield significant power, and this position allowed him great
1588influence even in secular matters involving medicine, construction, etc. In most periods, the
1589priests of ancient Egypt were members of a family long connected to a particular cult or temple.
1590Priests recruited new members from among their own clans, generation after generation.
1591With this introduction, let us now examine the importance of these priestly titles and the
1592significance of having as part of their title the name of the deity of that temple. It was noted
1593earlier that the Pharaoh was the chief priest of every cult and had the foremost right to attend the
1594deity. Since the Pharaoh cant be present everywhere, in practice, the authority of managing the
1595deity, offerings and other temple rituals was delegated to the High Priest, who was supported by
1596lesser ranked priests. The priests conducted the cultic liturgy throughout Egypt as the image of
1597the king and the gods.[188] John Gee has extensively studied numerous statements dealing with the
1598position of a priest and his authority to act in a particular ritual. He has noted that:
1599In some of the statements of authority, the officiant states his earthly offices that allow him to perform the
1600ritual, in others he takes on not only the attributes of his god but his persona as well, thus becoming that
1601god's literal representative in the ritual. [189]
1602Thus for different rituals, we have various statements of authority from priests where they not
1603only assume the attributes of various ancient Egyptian deities but also the persona such as I
1604am Horus, who is over heaven, the beautiful one of dread, lord of awe, great of dread, lofty of
1605feathers, chief in Abydos, I am Thoth the protector of your bones, I am the effective living
1606soul who is in Heracleopolis, who gives offerings and who subdues evil, etc.[190] Likewise in the
1607funerary rituals, the priestly impersonators of Anubis the most important Egyptian funerary
1608god[191] regularly appear in funerary ceremonies and are styled simply Anubis, Anubis-men,
1609I am Anubis, etc. The priests who impersonate Anubis are seen donning the jackal-headed
1610masks of Anubis while doing the preparation of the mummy and the burial rites.[192] In similar
1611fashion, the High Priest of Amun wore the rams skin when impersonating Amun.[193] From these
1612examples, the significance of having the name of the deity of a particular temple as part of their
1613priestly title becomes obvious. In fact, this was such a common practice and many more
1614examples can be seen in Lexikon Der gyptischen Gtter Und Gtterbezeichnungen under the
1615listing of various ancient Egyptian deities.[194] One should remember that our understanding of

102

52
103
1616how ancient Egyptians actually understood these ritual practices is not perfect and is subject to
1617interpretation. Shaw summarises the discussion neatly,
1618Among the many questions that Egyptologists have had difficulties in answering effectively are the following.
1619Did Egyptians actually imagine their deities to exist in the real world as hybrids of human and non-human
1620characteristics, from the surprisingly plausibly rendition of the god Horus as a falcon-headed man to the
1621rather less convincing (to our eyes) representation of the sun-god Khepri as a man whose head is entirely
1622substituted by a scarab beetle? Or did they simply create these images as elaborate symbols and metaphors
1623representing the characteristics or personalities of their deities? When we are shown a jackal-headed figure
1624embalming the body of the deceased are we supposed to believe that Anubis, the god of the underworld, was
1625actually responsible for all mummifications or are we being shown a priest-embalmer wearing a mask allowing
1626him to impersonate the god (and if so was he then regarded as actually becoming the god or simply imitating
1627him during the ritual)? There is one surviving full-size pottery mask in the form of Anubiss jackal head (now
1628in the Pelizaeus Museum, Hildesheim) but this does not really solve the above series of problems. Part of the
1629urgency with which Egyptologists tend to attack such questions probably derives from our desire to find out
1630whether the systems of thought of ancient Egypt were fundamentally different to our own, or whether they
1631just appear so because they are expressed in ways that are now very difficult to interpret. [195]
1632We have seen that the Pharaoh was both the bodily heir of the creator and his living image on
1633earth. Was this aspect of royal divinity also attributed to the liturgical performer (i.e., the High
1634Priest) at least during the performance of the rite? The answer to this question is yes. The royal
1635attributes of the High Priest Herihor are perhaps an elaborate development of such a notion.
1636Herihor was the High Priest of Amun that lived in the early period of the 20th Dynasty.[196] He
1637became so powerful that he was in effect the de facto ruler of Thebes. Assuming Pharaonic titles
1638and dress, Herihor, the High Priest of Amun, ruled in Thebes. He was portrayed wearing the
1639double crowns of Egypt, something which was exclusively reserved for Pharaohs. At some point
1640in time during his rule
1641Herihor began to insist that the god Amun was advising him on matters of the state
1642Amun he was favored by the god as the ruler of both Upper and Lower Egypt. [197]

and that as a priest of

1643Thus during the time of Herihor, the High Priestdom had ceased to be primarily a religious office
1644and had acquired considerable temporal authority, i.e., rulership including the generalship of the
1645armies. In other words, the period of the rule of Herihor shows an elaborate development of a
1646High Priest taking the persona of royal divinity.
1647It was mentioned earlier that from the Quranic evidence Haman appears to have been a person
1648of importance, i.e., a senior official, to be mentioned with the Pharaoh. Furthermore, he was
1649involved in construction as well as someone who had an understanding of the matters of ancient
1650Egyptian religion. We also noted that IMN (or amana) was used in the title for a High Priest as
1651well as an architect, which strengthens our case that Haman may be simply an Arabized version
1652of the ancient Egyptian amana. It would be akin to the king who ruled during the time of Moses
1653being called firawn which is the Arabized form of the ancient Egyptian word per-aa, the title

104

53
105
1654used to refer to the king of Egypt from the New Kingdom Period onwards. Let us now test this
1655assumption using the evidence from ancient Egypt.
1656In our previous study it was noted that unlike the Bible, the Quran mentions that there was only
1657one Pharaoh during the time of Moses, i.e., the Pharaoh who was present during the time of
1658Moses was the same one who died while pursuing the Children of Israel. Our analysis suggested
1659that it was Pharaoh Ramesses II. Within his reign, Moses was born and prophethood was
1660bestowed on him at the age of 40 years. Adding to this the minimum of 8-10 years of Moses stay
1661in Midian, we have accounted for 48-50 years of the Pharaohs reign. What is unaccounted for is
1662the number of years that the Pharaoh reigned before Moses was born, the period between the
1663conferment of wisdom and knowledge on Moses and his killing of the Egyptian, and the length
1664of Moses second sojourn in Egypt after returning from Midian. However, the events surrounding
1665the conferment of wisdom and knowledge on Moses and his killing of the Egyptian in the Quran
1666are mentioned successively suggesting that they were perhaps separated by a shorter period of
1667time [Quran 28:14-22]. As it stands, this period of time is unknown. This should not discourage
1668us in the quest for locating the Haman of the Quran, for we know the fact that the clash of
1669Moses with Pharaoh, Haman and their supporters truly began only in the formers second
1670sojourn in Egypt. In other words, following the identification suggested in our previous study, at
1671least 48 regnal years of Ramesses II must have passed before the confrontation between Moses
1672and Pharaoh and his followers. Therefore, it is appropriate to search for Haman of the Quran
1673post-Year 48 of the reign of Ramesses II [Figure 7].

106

54
107

1674
1675

Figure 7: Chronology of High Priests of various gods of ancient Egypt during the reign of Ramesses II. [198]

1676Using the data of IMN from ancient Egypt and combining it with the information from the
1677Quran, we now ask whether a priest from ancient Egypt could have been involved in
1678construction as well? Figure 7 gives a chronological chart of High Priests of various gods of
1679ancient Egypt during the reign of Ramesses II (r. 1279-1213 BCE). It is clear that only the High
1680Priests Bakenkhons, Prehotep (Jr.), Khaemwaset, Neferronpet, Wennufer (son of Mery), Hori
1681(son of Wennufer), Minmose and Anhurmose reigned post-Year 48 of Ramesses II. The question
1682now is which of these High Priests were involved in construction and served the deity Amun?
1683This information can be obtained from Professor Kitchens book series Ramesside Inscriptions
1684and biographical dictionaries of ancient Egypt. The results are tabulated in Table I.

108

Name of the High

Priest

Deity Served

Chief / Superintendent
/ Overseer of Works /
Workers

Bakenkhons

Amun

Yes. Chief of Works,

Overseer of Works.[199]

Prehotep, Jr.

Re and Ptah

Yes. Chief of Works.[200]

Khaemwaset

Ptah

No. Restored older monuments.

High Priest of Ptah and hence
the title Chief of Artificers.[201]

55
109

1685

Neferronpet

Ptah

No. High Priest of Ptah and

hence the title Chief Controller
of Artificers.[202]

Wennufer (son of Mery)

Osiris

No.[203]

Hori (son of Wennufer)

Osiris

No.[204]

Minmose

Anhur-Shu

No.[205]

Anhurmose

Anhur-Shu

No.[206]

Table I: High Priests of various deities in ancient Egypt and their involvement in construction.

1686From the above table it is clear that only the High Priests Bakenkhons (or Bakenkhonsu) and
1687Prehotep, Jr. (also called Prehotep B or Rahotep in scholarly literature) had the title of Chief of
1688Works. However, although Prehotep, Jr., held the title Chief of Works, there is no inscription
1689from him mentioning what kind of building and construction work he did for the Pharaoh. This
1690may be because Prehotep, Jr., apart from holding the High Priesthoods of both Re and Ptah at
1691Heliopolis and Memphis, was also one of the viziers of Ramesses II.[207] He must have had such a
1692busy schedule that did not give him enough time to perform extensive duties involving
1693construction, but it is entirely possible that he was involved in maintenance of the temples of Re
1694and Ptah. That leaves us with Bakenkhons, the High Priest of Amun (i.e., h m-ntr tp n imn).
1695Bakenkhons was one of the great architects of ancient Egypt.[208] He is well-known for supervising
1696the construction of the temple of Amun at Karnak for Ramesses II. The main temple of Amun at
1697Karnak called by the Egyptians ipet-isut (most select of places) remains the largest
1698religious structure ever created and consisted of a vast enclosure containing Amuns own
1699temple as well as several subsidiary temples of other gods.[209] Such a large scale construction of
1700the temple of Amun is not surprising at all. The cult of Amun grew in importance and wealth
1701with the elevation of Amun to the position of chief god of Egypt during 18th Dynasty (with a
1702short downturn during the Amarna Period, i.e., in the reign of Akhenaten (or Amenhotep IV, r.
17031353-1336 BCE), and the extensive endowments bestowed upon the temple by various rulers.[210]
1704The Ramesside era saw the unprecedented growth of the cult of Amun - the patron god of the
1705state. The flow of wealth and royal patronage of Amun resulted in the growth and relative
1706autonomy of the major temples as well as the power of the High Priests running them, including
1707that of Bakenkhons. However, not all Chiefs of Works / Builders / Architects during the time of
1708Ramesses II were High Priests. For example, Penre, Amenemone (alt. sp. Ameneminet), Paser,
1709Maya, Minemhab, Amenmose and Nebnakht, who were not High Priests, also enjoyed one of
1710these aforementioned titles.[211] We have not considered them here because of the fact we are
1711searching for someone who the Pharaoh would entrust the construction of a building with
1712apparently great spiritual significance, a religiously motivated challenge to Moses and his God.
1713As noted earlier, the Pharaohs claim (O Haman! Build me a lofty palace, that I may attain the

110

56
111
1714ways and means- The ways and means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the
1715god of Moses - Quran 40:36-37) was theological in nature, and so it would seem appropriate
1716that he would assign his chief religious advisor with the task of constructing a religious building.
1717In other words, Amun being the patron deity of Ramesses II, it would seem likely for the
1718Pharaoh to ask Bakenkhons, who was the High Priest of Amun as well as Chief of Works, to
1719construct the lofty structure.
1720A few words need to be said about the life of Bakenkhons before we dwell into the evidence
1721from the Quran concerning Haman and compare it with what we know from the life of
1722Bakenkhons. Bakenkhons had a very long an illustrious career which began under King Seti I,
1723father of Ramesses II. He was born c. 1310 BCE.[212] Much of the information about Bakenkhons
1724is gathered from his lengthy biography inscribed on a block statue, now in the Munich Museum
1725 describing the course of his career, from its relatively modest beginnings to one of the most
1726august offices in the land.[213] For four years Bakenkhons was a school boy and for 11 he served as
1727the stable lad in the stables of Seti I before becoming a minor priest, a post he held for four years.
1728He then joined the Priests of Amun where he rose in the hierarchy over time. He was an ordinary
1729priest for 12 years, a third-ranked priest for 15, a second-ranked priest for 12, and a High Priest
1730of Amun for at least 27 years. By the time Bakenkhons died he had been a priest for ~70 years
1731and served Ramesses II throughout his reign. In the last year of Ramesses II reign, Bakenkhons
1732died at an age of about 90 years.[214] This is approximately the same age when Ramesses II also
1733died (~90-92 years).[215] In other words, both Ramesses II and Bakenkhons were contemporaries
1734who were born and died around the same time.
1735Now what do we know about Haman in the Quran and how does this data fit with what we
1736know from the life of Bakenkhons from ancient Egyptian sources? In the earlier section, it was
1737mentioned that the Quran supplies us with snippets of information regarding Haman. Therefore,
1738one cant indulge in an all-encompassing discussion regarding his personality, character traits,
1739etc., though what we do learn about him is not unimportant. Let us list them and examine their
1740veracity against the evidence concerning the personality of Bakenkhons.
1741

1. Haman is given commands by the Pharaoh and carries them out dutifully.

1742
1743
1744

2. He is put in charge of a very important construction project, indicating he possessed the

seniority and skill necessary to see the task through to completion, although we are not
told anything more about the construction of the tower or if it was even built.

1745

3. He holds a senior enough position to be mentioned along with Pharaoh repeatedly.

1746
1747

4. Haman perhaps died around the same time as the Pharaoh as a punishment from God for
his unbelief and tyranny.

112

57
113
1748As for points 1 and 3, the person of Bakenkhons fits very well. He was the High Priest of
1749Amun, a very senior and influential position, and served the Pharaoh Ramesses II dutifully as he
1750says in his inscription.
1751The Noble and Count, High Priest of Amun Bakenkhons, justified. He says: I am one truly reliable, useful to
1752his lord, who reveres the fame of his god, who goes (always) upon his way, who performs beneficent deeds
1753within his temple, I being principal Chief of Works in the Estate of Amun, as an efficient confidant of his
1754lord.[216]

(a)

(b)

1755 Figure 8: Granite obelisk towering over statues of Ramsses II in the Luxor Temple in Thebes (Luxor), Egypt.
1756 Photos (a) and (b) taken from two different angles to show the height of the obelisk with respect to the
1757 statue of Ramesses II and human beings. The large pylon front, a kind of triumphal entrance, has two granite
114

58
115
1758
1759

colossi of Ramesses II on a throne; originally four standing statues of Ramesses II were also placed in front
of the pylon, of them only one survives as shown in Figure 8(a). The vertical niches held flagstaves.

1760We also learn that Bakenkhons was the Chiefs of Works (above cf. 2) and performed
1761construction and erected obelisks of granite whose tops (or beauty) reached the sky, as gathered
1762from the Munich inscription.
1763I performed benefactions in the domain of Amun, being overseer of works for my lord. I made a temple for
1764him, (called) Ramesses-Meryamun-who-hears-prayers in the upper portal of the domain of Amun. And I
1765erected obelisks of granite in it, whose tops approached the sky, a stone terrace before it, in front of Thebes,
1766the bah-land and gardens planted with trees. [217]
1767Kitchen translates this inscription as:
1768I performed benefactions in the Estate of Amun while I was Chief of Works for my lord. I made for him the
1769Temple of Ramesses II-who-hears-Prayer, at the Upper Portal of the Temple of Amun. I erected obelisks in it,
1770of granite stone, whose beauty reached (up) to the sky, with a stone portico(?) before it, opposite Thebes,
1771and basin land and orchards planted with trees. [218]
1772These are two obelisks of Ramesses II at the Luxor Temple, of which one is still in situ [Figure
17738], and the other in the Place de la Concorde, Paris.[219] The former obelisk has a height of 82 feet
1774(or 25 meters). The principal entrance of the Luxor Temple is the Pylon of Ramesses II [Figure
17758], which is flanked by two colossal seated statues of the Pharaoh (one is behind the obelisk) and
1776one standing statue (of an original four). The height of the pylon is 24 meters, which is close to
1777the height of the surviving obelisk. The walls of the pylon are embellished with records of
1778Ramesses IIs military campaigns, dedicatory inscriptions, among other things. Two dedicatory
1779inscriptions of Ramesses II praises the erection of the pylons by saying that the height of its
1780flagstaves reached the heavens.
1781Dedications on the Pylon (below Cornices)
1782North (front) Faades.
1783W. Wing: Horus, Strong Bull, son of Amn; Two-ladies, the Favourite, [beneficial to his father; Golden Horus,
1784Seeker of good deed]s for him who produced him; King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Usimar-Setepenr: he
1785has made as his monument for his father Amenresonter the constructing for him of the Temple of Ramesses II
1786Meryamn in the Domain of Amn, in front of Southern Opet, and the erecting for him of a pylon anew, its
1787flagstaves reaching up to heaven being what the Son of R, Ramesses II Meryamn, given life forever,
1788made for him.
1789....
1790South

116

(rear) Faades.

59
117
1791W. Wing, upper line: <Horus>, Strong Bull beloved of Maat; Two-ladies, Protector of Egypt, who curbs the
1792foreign lands; Golden Horus, Rich in years, great in victories; King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Usimar1793Setepenr: he has made as his monument for his father Amenr, presiding over his harim, the constructing
1794for him of a great and noble pylon before his temple, its flagstaves reaching up to heaven, (made of) cedar of
1795God's Land, which the Son of R, Ramesses II Meryamn, given life like R forever, has made for him. [220]
1796Comparing Figure 8 with the phrases in the inscriptions obelisk of granite... whose tops (or
1797beauty) approached the skyor its flagstaves reaching up to heaven give a good idea as to what
1798is meant. It simply denotes a tall (and beautiful) obelisk or pylon containing flagstaves that had a
1799height close to 25 meters. Therefore, it would not be surprising if the Pharaoh had asked one of
1800his Chiefs of Works, Bakenkhons in our case, with experience in constructing structures whose
1801tops (or beauty) approached the sky (or heaven), to build him a lofty palace, so that he may
1802attain the ways and means - The ways and means of (reaching) the heavens, and that he may
1803mount up to the god of Moses [Quran 40:36-37].
1804As for the death of Haman (above cf. 4), there appears to be a difference of opinion among the
1805exegetes on this issue. Some opine that Haman was drowned while chasing the Children of
1806Israel, while others are silent. The evidence from the Quran suggests that Haman might have
1807met with a violent death as suggested by the verses below.
1808(Remember also) the Ad and the Thamud (people): clearly will appear to you from (the traces) of their
1809buildings (their fate): the Evil One made their deeds alluring to them, and kept them back from the Path,
1810though they were gifted with intelligence and skill. (Remember also) Qarun, Pharaoh, and Haman: there came
1811to them Moses with Clear Signs, but they behaved with insolence on the earth; yet they could not overreach
1812(Us). Each one of them We seized for his crime: of them, against some We sent a violent tornado (with
1813showers of stones); some were caught by a (mighty) Blast; some We caused the earth to swallow up; and
1814some We drowned (in the waters): It was not Allah Who injured (or oppressed) them:" They injured (and
1815oppressed) their own souls. [Qur'an 29:38-40]
1816If we look at the explicit mention of the mode of deaths in the Quran, we find that the people of
1817Ad died by a wind storm [Quran 69:6-7], the people of Thamud perished in a mighty blast (an
1818earthquake) [Quran 54:31], Qarun was swallowed by the earth [Quran 28:81] and the Pharaoh
1819died by drowning [Quran 10:90-92]. That leaves only Haman whose mode of death is not
1820explicitly mentioned in the Book. Interestingly, Ad, Thamud and Haman are mentioned in
1821connection with extravagant buildings. Could it be possible that Haman died either by a wind
1822storm or an earthquake? To this question there are no certain answers available in the Quran.
1823However, in the case of Bakenkhons we know that he and Ramesses II died close to each other.
1824Before his own death, Ramesses appointed Bakenkhons son Roma-Roy as High Priest in his
1825place.[221]
1826We are now left with some linguistic issues which may connect ancient Egyptian IMN (i.e.,
1827amana) with Quranic Haman (or hmn, if we consider only the consonants). It was noted earlier

118

60
119
1828that ancient Egyptian IMN was written as amana in the contemporary cuneiform inscriptions
1829and most likely pronounced with the initial a as voiceless frictive, i.e., a breathy a sound
1830rather than a clear vocalised a. The phonology of Arabic language shows that there exists
1831numerous frictives in Arabic[222] the voiceless frictives being , , , , , , and . Out of
1832these, only and are closest in terms of phonetics to ancient Egyptian I a voiceless frictive.
1833Arabic h ( )represents a voiceless pharyngeal frictive[223] and this is also found independently in
1834ancient Egyptian as h .[224] Effectively, we are now left with h(), which in Arabic represents a
1835voiceless glottal frictive.[225] One may be tempted to consider Arabic hamza (), the first letter of
1836the Arabic alphabet, to write ancient Egyptian IMN or amana. However, hamza is a glottal
1837stop.[226] On the other hand, the letter alif represents a long vowel.[227] Clearly, neither hamza nor
1838alif satisfy the phonetic conditions to write ancient Egyptian I (i.e., a voiceless frictive) in
1839Arabic. This may explain as to why the ancient Egyptian IMN or amana came to be written as
1840Haman ( )in Arabic. Staying on topic, a similar parallel is Haman (i.e., )in the Hebrew
1841Bible, which, due to linguistic considerations, is written as Aman (i.e., ) in the Greek Old
1842Testament, i.e., the Septuagint.[228] Throughout most of the 5th century BCE, the local Athenian
1843alphabet (Old Attic alphabet) was used to write Attic Greek. The Old Attic Greek alphabet had
1844the voiceless glottal frictive called heta, written as H, and was originally used to represent the
1845sound /h/. The latter part of the 5th century BCE saw the gradual adoption of a different version
1846of the Greek alphabet, the Ionic alphabet. After the adoption of the Ionic alphabet, the sound /h/
1847continued to be part of Attic Greek but simply ceased to be represented in writing in Ionic Greek.
1848[229] Thus heta (i.e., H) changed to eta (i.e., ) in Ionic Greek. Therefore, the Septuagint, an
1849ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible from c. 3rd century BCE, ended up using alpha
1850(i.e., A or ) to represent the Hebrew h or , a glottal frictive, in Haman.
1851Summarizing the discussion, we have shown that the name of the ancient Egyptian deity IMN
1852(or amana) was used in the title for a High Priest as well as an architect. The position of High
1853Priest of Amun was of great importance and influence in ancient Egypt. Combining this data
1854with that present in the Quran suggests that Haman may be simply an Arabized version of the
1855ancient Egyptian amana. Barring certain uncertainties such as the mode and time of his death,
1856the life and works of Bakenkhons, the High Priest of Amun, appears to accord well with the data
1857about Haman in the Quran. Since events in the distant past can be expressed in a probabilistic
1858manner due to underlying uncertainties, one can say, given the evidence presented above that
1859Bakenkhons is a good candidate for Haman mentioned in the Quran.
1860How does our evidence and conclusions stack up against modern scholarship which has written
1861on the identification of Haman in the Quran? The earliest scholar who compared and contrasted
1862biblical Haman with the Quranic Haman from the historical viewpoint was Sher Mohammad
1863Syed whose article appeared in Islamic Quarterly in 1980.[230] His work offered an incisive
1864rejoinder to the long line of Western scholarship that equated biblical Haman with the Quranic
1865Haman, drawing attention to the fact the former is considered a fictitious character among Judeo-

120

61
121
1866Christian scholars. This resulted in making any historical comparisons between these two
1867Hamans tenuous at best. Furthermore, he also offered interesting insights into the historical
1868connections between the High Priest of Amun in ancient Egypt and the Quranic Haman, by
1869drawing attention to the fact that the former held a very high position in ancient Egypt as a
1870supreme religious authority who impersonated the deity Amun, acted as superintendent of works,
1871head of treasury, etc. More importantly, Syed also mentions that Pharaoh asking Haman to build
1872a tower to speak to the God of Moses is in consonance with the mythology of ancient Egypt.
1873Despite a good show of erudition, Syeds article did not receive the attention it deserved, perhaps
1874due to the slightly disjointed manner in which the evidence was presented. Four years later, in
18751984, Abdurrahman Badawi took Nldeke to task for his statement The most ignorant Jew
1876could never have mistaken Haman (the minister of Ahasuerus) for the minister of Pharaoh
1877(mentioned earlier in the article).[231] His analysis, albeit brief, concluded that Haman is not the
1878name of a person, but a generic title given to the High Priest of Amun. Like Syed, Badawi also
1879noted the powerful position the High Priest of Amun enjoyed in ancient Egypt which not only
1880involved priesthood but also included the head of treasury, overseer of public works and so on.
1881Just like Pharaoh is a title of the ruler in ancient Egypt in Arabic, Haman was the title of the High
1882Priest of Amun. Since Amun was pronounced as amana in ancient Egypt, Badawi concluded this
1883made a good connection with Haman mentioned in the Quran. In the same year, Muhammad
1884Asad in his translation of the Quran mentioned in a footnote that Haman in the Quran was not
1885a proper name but an Arabicized echo of the compound designation H-Amen given to every
1886high priest of the Egyptian god Amon.[232] Although such a suggestion is in line with the
1887conclusions of Syed and Badawi, Asad fails to provide any evidence for the designation H1888Amen being used for the High Priest of Amun in ancient Egypt. Writing in 1999, Louay Fatoohi
1889and Shetha al-Dargazeli forcefully echoed the views of Syed without adding anything
1890substantially new.[233] Revisiting A. H. Johns who, writing in the Encyclopaedia Of The Quran
1891in 2002, citing Muhammad Asad, wondered if Arabic Haman could be an Arabized echo of the
1892Egyptian Ha-Amen, the title of the Egyptian High Priest, second in rank to Pharaoh.[234] Similar
1893statements are also to be seen in E. M. Badawi and M. Abdel Haleems Arabic-English
1894Dictionary Of Qur'anic Usage published in 2008.[235] Clearly, our evidence, although more
1895elaborate and exhaustive, is closely in line with earlier studies which have suggested that Haman
1896is not a personal name but a title in the Quran.
1897II. Haman As A Name Of A Person In Ancient Egypt: As mentioned earlier, Western
1898scholarship writing on Haman in the Quran has understood Haman as a personal name from
1899their understanding of the alleged connection between the Quranic and biblical Hamans, which
1900as our enquiry has shown lacks evidence. Furthermore, we have demonstrated that Haman, in the
1901ancient Egyptian context, makes sense when various elements of the Quranic story are
1902examined from a historical point of view. This presents us with our second line of enquiry
1903considering Haman as a name of a person, whether Arabized or not, in ancient Egypt during the
1904time of Ramesses II. A search in Rankes well-known book Die gyptischen Personennamen

122

62
123
1905under HMN, unsurprisingly, reveals theophoric names associated with the ancient Egyptian deity
1906HMN, out of which only one name h mn-h comes from the New Kingdom Period.[236] Originally
1907housed in the K. K. Hof Museum, Vienna, the first person to publish the door jamb containing
1908the h mn-h inscription was Reinisch in the year 1865.[237] It was again published by Walter
1909Wreszinski.[238] This door jamb, now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, is in fragmented
1910condition [Figure 9]. The translation of the hieroglyphs is provided below.

(b)

(a)

1911
1912

(c)

1913
1914

(d)

1915 Figure 9: The door jamb of " mn- " in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, Austria. (a) the original door
1916 jamb [the left fragment goes on top of the right] and (b) its transcription. Kunsthistorisches Museum (c)
1917 Hieroglyph entry for " mn- " and his profession "Vorsteher der Steinbrucharbeiter" meaning "chief / overseer
1918
of the stone-quarry workers" and dates from the New Kingdom Period. [239] (d) Notice that the " mn- "
1919
mentioned by Wreszinski is masculine. [240]
1920The information of Inv. No. 5821/5822 at the Kunsthistorisches Museum was provided to us by
1921Professor Helmut Satzinger who prepared it along with Monika Randl for the CD-ROM
1922Egyptian Treasures in Europe Volume 5: Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien / Vienna.[241]
1923Although Satzinger and Randl have dated it to the time of Ramesses II, there is uncertainty as
1924there is no mention of any kings name on it, and the tomb from which it originates. The object
1925belongs to the lot which the Egyptian Vice-King Sad gave to the Austrian archduke Ferdinand
1926Max as a diplomatic gift at the latters official visit to Egypt in 1855.
1927
1928Date: 19th Dynasty, probably from the reign of Ramesses II, 13th century BCE
1929Provenance: Unknown
1930Current location: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna
1931Material: Limestone
1932Height: c. 117 cm; Breadth: 27 cm
1933Inventory number: 5821+ 5822
1934Collection: From the Miramar collection (18551882)

124

63
125
1935Inscription in two vertical lines (the left fragment goes on top of the right):
1936Left: "The offering which the King has given to Osiris, the Formost of the Westerners, the Lord of Eternity, the
1937Ruler of eternal Duration, so may he give anything that has come forth from his table, and (also) the pleasant
1938north-wind, and a good burial after old age, to the ka of the overseer of the stone-masons of Amn, Hamen1939ha, justified."
1940Right: "The offering which the King has given to the Western Desert and to Amauni, the Lady of the Sky, so
1941may they give food and nourishment, all kinds of offerings, all kinds of good and pure things, to the ka of the
1942overseer of the stone-masons of Amn, Hamen-ha, justified."
1943Below: Relief depicting a seated couple (i.e., Hamen-ha and his wife) who are being attended by a man.
1944Above them, the name of the lady: "His wife, the lady of the house Nefer-nb, justified," and the name of the
1945attendant: "Ka-pu-htep."
1946Dr. Maurice Bucaille, perhaps the earliest scholar to deal with Haman in the Quran as a name
1947from the point of view of Egyptology, made an interesting suggestion. He surmised that since
1948Haman was mentioned in the Quran during the time of Moses in Egypt, the best course of
1949action was to ask an expert in the old Egyptian language, i.e., hieroglyphs, regarding the name.[242]
1950The expert in hieroglyphs suggested to Dr. Bucaille to consult Rankes well-known book Die
1951gyptischen Personennamen.The latter stated he had found the name Haman in it, i.e., the
1952door jamb containing h mn-h as mentioned in Figure 9.
1953Although Dr. Bucailles suggestion sounds seductive, there are difficulties. At the request of an
1954alliance of European evangelical Christian missionary organisations, Emeritus Professor Dr.
1955Jrgen Osing of the gyptologisches Seminar, Freie Universitt Berlin, a respected scholar of
1956Egyptology, was solicited for his comments regarding Haman as depicted in the Quran and the
1957identification of an ancient Egyptian inscription allegedly bearing his name. Subsequently in July
19582009 Osing read an earlier version of our article (Titled: Historical Errors Of The Qur'an:
1959Pharaoh & Haman, Last Updated: 4th June 2006) and made a number of observations,
1960specifically focusing on our analysis of an inscription which is found on said door jamb kept in
1961the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Regarding this inscription which contained the name
1962h mn-h , we suggested the final h was not actually part of the name, stating the remaining
1963letters could possibly be rendered as Haman. This is incorrect. The interpretation of the final h
1964is questionable, but not its existence as part of the name. The final h is most probably an
1965abbreviation forming a theophoric name. We would like to thank Osing for this correction.
1966Additionally he pointed out that it seemed doubtful that this particular person being an overseer
1967of the quarry workers, usually only of local importance, would have been entrusted with the
1968building of such a mighty edifice, let alone be a close confidant of the Pharaoh a consideration
1969we had overlooked. For clarification we would like to emphasise that at no point had we ever
1970stated the Haman we thought was mentioned in this inscription was the Haman of the Quran.
1971What we had said was that it was a possibility, however, this is no longer the case. For the sake

126

64
127
1972of completeness and to dispel any doubts regarding the inscription, full details have been
1973provided above.
19748.

Conclusions

1975Comprehensive modern investigations into the historicity of the Book of Esther including its
1976characters have shown that it cannot be considered a strict historical narrative. Therefore, it can
1977no longer be considered acceptable for one to predicate their criticisms on the appearance of
1978Haman in the Quran in a different historical period than that of Esther, on the basis of the
1979assumed historicity of the later. The debate has moved past this point and in the process picked
1980up some new sources along the way which are alleged to have taken part in the formation of the
1981Quranic Haman. Silverstein has very ably shown the Hmn of the Quranic commentaries was
1982indeed indebted to its biblical counterpart a well stated though obvious conclusion in face of an
1983overwhelming amount of evidence. Unfortunately, on many occasions Silverstein equates what
1984the Quranic commentaries say with what the Quran says, resulting in a serious
1985terminological/methodological flaw. It seems that any mention of Haman that pre-dates, is
1986contemporary with or even post-dates the Quran, can be used as evidence against the Quran.
1987Based on a cross-examination of Hmn as depicted in the Book of Esther, related literature and
1988the Quran (i.e., not Quranic commentaries), we have observed that though there may be some
1989basic correspondence between the two characters, such as their evilness towards the Jews and
1990their association with the Pharaonic court in ancient Egypt, there are also numerous overt and
1991sometimes subtle differences in genre, plot structure, theme, characters, setting, etc. Moving
1992beyond the isolation of excerpts, the overall context of the stories and the theological precepts
1993derived from them are so vastly different so as to warrant against their linking. The more
1994interesting question to be asked is why the Quran reproduces none of the extra details given in
1995the later commentaries, details which Silverstein relies so heavily on. These differences are a
1996product of the different religio-cultural geo-political contexts in which these texts first appeared,
1997and cannot simply be merged into one homogenous account. Have the new sources that were
1998analysed by Silverstein able to contribute to the discussion? There exists explanations other than
1999that offered by Silverstein in his interpretations of the loose thematic and literary parallels he
2000finds. His presentation and analysis of the Story of Ahiqar and Tobit in particular were found to
2001be unsatisfactory; on many occasions possibilities were turned into probabilities and probabilities
2002into certainty.
2003We have shown that Quranic Haman in the context which he is placed, i.e., ancient Egypt,
2004makes sense when various elements of the Quranic story are scrutinised from a historical point
2005of view. An examination of four specific concepts in the Quran relating to the narrative of
2006Moses and Pharaoh (in which Haman plays a part), encompassing religious notions and
2007construction technology, does not contradict its placement in an ancient egyptological setting.
2008Could the usage of Haman in the Quran be similar to that of Pharaoh, i.e., an Arabized

128

65
129
2009version of an ancient Egyptian title? A detailed investigation has shown the life and works of
2010Bakenkhons, the High Priest of Amun, who served Pharaoh Ramesses II, appears to accord well
2011with the data about Haman in the Quran. Since events in the distant past can be expressed in a
2012probabilistic manner due to underlying uncertainties, one can say that Bakenkhons could be
2013Haman mentioned in the Quran. Crucially, the absolute identification of an ancient Egyptian
2014figure with Quranic Haman does not negate the need to examine the literary evidence. Western
2015scholarship writing on Haman in the Quran has understood Haman as a personal name. This
2016derives from their understanding of the alleged connection between the Quranic and biblical
2017Hamans, which, as our enquiry has revealed, is lacking in evidence.
2018Biblical Haman is enemy of the Jews (Esther 3:10; 8:1; 9:10, 24) and the son of Hammedatha
2019the Agagite (Esther 3:10; 8:3, 5; 9:10). Nldekes bluntness gets us straight to the point, The
2020most ignorant Jew could never have mistaken Haman (the minister of Ahasuerus) for the minister
2021of the Pharaoh. Those aspects of Muhammads career to which even most revisionists would
2022agree upon do not seem to impute this kind of naivety to the character of Muhammad, and
2023portray him as a person making carefully selected choices in a hostile environment, successfully
2024navigating past his foes and engaging in acts of cooperation and friendship. Yet we are led to
2025believe that Muhammad, implicitly credited with authoring the Quran, who encountered and
2026interacted with Jews throughout his prophetic career, especially in the Medinan period, thought it
2027would be best to plagiarise the character of Haman from Jewish tradition and place him in an
2028entirely foreign historical context, a glaring error a Jewish child could have easily spotted.
2029Reduced to its most basic level the contention is simple: do similar sounding names necessitate a
2030literary connection[243] flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction? Answering in the
2031affirmative, Silversteins complex analysis represents a sophisticated attempt far removed from
2032its humble beginnings in Cavalleria and Vivaldo. Answering in the negative, the reply here is of
2033similar vintage.
2034Appendix

1: Hmn And The Tower To Heaven: Unmistakable Evidence Of

2035A Biblical Subtext?
2036Casting aside the vast majority of Muslim commentary on the Quran written over the last 1,200
2037years, Gabriel Said Reynolds believes medieval Muslim exegesis of the Quran shaped by the
2038biography of Muhammad has no critical value, and should not form the basis of critical
2039scholarship on the Quran.[244] Not unlike many of his predecessors, he believes the Quran must
2040be read in light of and understood by what biblical tradition teaches wherever it can be discerned.
2041[245] So serious does Reynolds believe the problem to be, he says Quranic studies is presently (and
2042has been) in a crisis.[246] Dismissing Muslim dependence on tafsir literature as a natural result of
2043their own beliefs, Reynolds finds it more difficult to explain the actions of secular scholars
2044practicing similar methods which he attributes to academic inertia.[247] Writing elsewhere

130

66
131
2045Reynolds says by examining the figure of Muhammad, Christians will be moved to examine
2046their own relationship with God more closely. He goes on to say, Certainly I, as a student of
2047Islam, have fallen more deeply in love with the Lord whose most powerful expression was
2048clothed in weakness.[248] It is not our intention here to examine whether Reynolds thinks
2049Christians or Muslims can fall more deeply in love with God by studying the figure of
2050Muhammad practising interpretive frameworks such as his own. Rather we wish to examine the
2051validity of his approach from a critical perspective by surveying one of his case studies relevant
2052to this article titled Haman and the tower to heaven.
2053Divided into two distinct parts, in the first part of his case study Reynolds believes the Quran
2054utilised numerous ancient Jewish and Christian traditions relating to Nimrod (including the
2055Tower of Babel) and Pharaoh and integrated them in order to come up with Pharaoh and Haman
2056account.[249] The second part is concerned with the book of Esther and Haman's tower. Here
2057Reynolds simply follows Silverstein without making any independent assessment of the
2058evidence, though at various stages he does provide his own explanations and interpretations.[250]
2059Kugels study on the Tower of Babel shows the ancient interpreters felt obliged to find additional
2060explanations to justify the punishment that followed the construction of the tower. The Bible
2061reports that God was concerned the people would become too powerful, and, along with the
2062undesired consequences that would inevitably follow, decides to scuttle their project [Genesis
206310:6]. Taken at face value, there does not appear to be anything objectionable in the biblical
2064narrative regarding the builders intentions but Jewish and Christian interpreters regularly
2065attributed their destruction to their desire to storm the heavens for the purpose of waging war
2066against God. The leader of the builders who commissioned or conceived the tower was Nimrod
2067who was literally a giant, whose great height along with the other giants whom he led, helped
2068construct the tower. Eventually, God cast down the tower in the midst of its construction.[251]
2069Beginning with the first part of his case study, Reynolds relies primarily on Kugels exposition.
2070Unfortunately, he cites only those Jewish and Christian interpretations he perceives to be of use
2071to him while the others are discarded, even within the same source. This injudicious use of the
2072evidence injures his conclusions. The tower described in the Quran is not constructed by a giant,
2073aided by other giants. In the Quran, Pharaohs intention was not to storm heaven and wage war
2074with God, rather, believing himself to be the supreme God, Pharaoh thinks by ascending to
2075heaven to look for evidence of Moses God, he will convince himself Moses is lying [Quran
207640:36-37]. Neither is the construction of the tower discussed any further or its destruction, let
2077alone the time it took to construct, the precise number of bricks used (length, breath and height)
2078and other information given for the tower of Babel in Jewish and Christian exegesis. None of the
2079epithets of Nimrod, e.g., might man, mighty hunter, so prominent in the tradition, is applied to
2080Pharaoh in the Quranic account. One could go on and on but too much space would be required
2081to labour a point which should already be obvious. When one compares the myriad of details
2082provided in Jewish and Christian traditions (e.g., by reading the original sources provided by

132

67
133
2083Kugel in full, not just the citations) the closest detail Reynolds could find relates to the
2084construction material of the edifice between heaven and earth, namely clay mentioned in the
2085Quran for Pharaohs tower and baked bricks for the Tower of Babel.[252] These traditions provide
2086a mass of information but Reynolds cuts out one verse from its larger narrative at first appearing
2087to support his thesis, but when one reads around the citation an altogether different picture
2088emerges.
2089Contrary to Silverstein and modern scholars, in order to give further weight to his own historical
2090reconstruction that the Quran integrated Jewish and Christian traditions relating to Nimrod and
2091the Mosaic Pharaoh, Reynolds unhesitatingly affirms it is the biblical story of Moses and
2092Pharaoh that thoroughly informed the book of Esther, giving the following three reasons for
2093believing so, Once again the Israelites are in exile. Once again there is a ruler who demands
2094to be treated like a god. Once again the Israelites escape massacre, and their oppressors are
2095massacred instead.[253] Is the case as simple as providing three brief points limited only to a
2096macro level comparison? Unfortunately he makes no mention whatsoever of the many reasons
2097for arguing against such an association. Though there may be apparent loose literary parallels
2098between the two accounts, one must be careful not to rush in too quickly without first embarking
2099on a closer examination of the entirety of the evidence. In her detailed study of the literary motifs
2100themes and structures of Esther, Berg has highlighted a number of considerations militating
2101against such a connection including,[254]
2102

1. Moses does not work through the administration but against it,

2103
2104

2. The goal of the Exodus narrative is to escape oppressive rule and control; no such desire
to escape Susa is found in Esther,

2105
2106

3. In Esther, Jews save the life of the King whereas in Exodus the Jews are involved in the
death of Pharaohs son.

2107She goes on to argue that it is the Joseph narrative from where the author of Esther was
2108deliberately drawing parallels.[255] This lack of objective analysis in terms of how the evidence is
2109framed is troubling; the absence of parallels whether at macro level or micro level, obviously
2110contradictory items and other contra-indicators should not be ignored, especially when they
2111appear to undercut the very point being made. Moving on we are told that it is evident the book
2112of Esther and the Quranic account of Pharaoh are connected.[256] But if the story of Esther is told
2113nowhere in the Quran as admitted by Reynolds then how can a connection be so evident? So
2114obvious is this connection apparently that Reynolds provides no evidence for his statement other
2115than giving a ten line point by point outline of Esther he thinks can be most closely paralleled in
2116the Quranic account of Moses and Pharaoh.[257] Even those points mentioned are hardly
2117convincing. Are we to believe the book of Esther is unique in history describing a person who
2118planned to kill a large group of people who instead is himself killed by those he planned to
134

68
135
2119oppress? Other than providing a useful summary of some relevant parts of Esther, it has no value
2120in establishing the alleged links between Esther and the Moses/Pharaoh narrative related in the
2121Quran. None of the specific details mentioned there has any parallel in the Quran.
2122As well as combining material found in the Bible and Jewish and Christian traditions regarding
2123Pharaohs tower, the Quran has, in addition, also used the story of Ahiqar. The evidence for this
2124is simply an affirmation of Silversteins analysis without any independent investigation. For
2125example, Reynolds says,
2126As Silverstein points out, a connection between Ahqar and Haman can be found in the Septuagint version of
2127the Book of Tobit. Therein Tobit counsels his son on his death bed, Consider, son what was done by [H]aman
2128to Achiacharus (Ahqar), who raised him up (Tobit 14:10) .[258]
2129He goes on to say,
2130The name appears as in the LXX. Later manuscript traditions in both Greek and Aramaic
2131most English translations) have some form of the name Ndn.[259]

(reflected in

2132We have already dealt with this issue more comprehensively in Section 5 but there are a few
2133points worth mentioning. It is not correct to say the name appears as Aman in the LXX. The
2134standard critical edition of the LXX is the Gttingen Septuagint which gives two complete
2135versions of the Book of Tobit, the shorter version GI and the longer version GII. So different are
2136the manuscripts represented by these versions, Hanhart establishes a critical edition of each.[260] GI
2137renders the name aman and GII as nadab.[261] Being a modern production such editions did not
2138exist in 7th century Arabia so one should also concern themselves with actual manuscripts. There
2139are manuscripts of the Greek Old Testament preserving different spellings as well as versions in
2140other languages.[262] In this particular instance, Reynolds use of the phrase the LXX is too broad
2141and lacks precision. Once more, it is troubling to note that evidence deemed to have no worth for
2142the authors thesis, though that evidence is sufficient and relevant, is not included or mentioned.
2143Saying the name appears as Aman in the LXX oversimplifies the case and disregards the
2144multiplicity of different spellings found in the extant manuscripts.
2145The fact that biblical Pharaoh acquired certain named helpers in later biblical traditions does not
2146explain why Haman and Korah were the named helpers of Pharaoh in the Quran account.
2147Reynolds gets around this major difficulty by saying the naming of certain helpers became a
2148traditional motif or theme centuries before the Quran.[263] Though convenient, one cannot use this
2149literary convention, i.e., topos, to explain why the Quran allegedly started using the names
2150Haman and Korah in its account of Moses and Pharaoh. One must envisage how this actually
2151occurred. Did the author of the Quran, being familiar with the Tower of Babel and its numerous
2152related traditions, see that a topos was emerging in that Pharaoh had received named helpers and
2153decided to follow this topos but instead use different names? This complexity unwittingly
136

69
137
2154envisages the author of the Quran as an expert in source criticism, able to recognise a topos had
2155emerged from a mass of traditions he was able to carefully examine and understand, before
2156deciding himself to continue this topos. This observation is too general and non-specific as to
2157have any real function. By the same token the Qurans insistence of the belief in one God, a
2158final Prophet, the Day of Judgement and virtually every other major tenet of belief and history
2159could be attributed to a topos. But labelling something with a term does not excuse one from
2160having to justify and evidence such a conviction. In fact, it would be far easier to explain how
2161none of this happened.
2162In terms of methodological insight Sandmels criticisms seem appropriate here,
2163[parallelomania] that extravagance among scholars which first overdoes the supposed similarity
2164in passages and then proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying literary
2165connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction. Interestingly, whilst summing
2166up his interpretation of the evidence, Reynolds says it is of no concern to him if the Quran got
2167its information wrong or confused.[264] This suggests he believes these events actually happened
2168though not as reported by the Quran. Should the Quran be considered wrong or confused by
2169default simply because it does not report the same type of information found in the Bible?
2170Interestingly, it is never stated whether the Bible could have its information wrong or confused.
2171And Allah knows best!
2172
2173
2174References

& Notes

2175[1] 28:6, 8, 38; 29:39; and 40:24, 26.

2176[2] 7:103141; 10:7592; 11:9699; 14:58; 17:101104; 20:2479; 23:4549; 26:1068;
217728:3643; 29:3941; 40:2345; 43:4656; 44:1733; 51:3840; 79:1526. This list is somewhat
2178larger than the selection of core passages cited by Wheeler relating to Moses and Pharaoh
2179(7:103126; 10:7583; 17:101103; 20:4969; 26:1051; 79:2026); N.B. some of the passages
2180above can be found under different headings. See B. M. Wheeler, Prophets In The Quran: An
2181Introduction To The Quran And Muslim Exegesis, 2002, Continuum: London & New York, pp.
2182185-188.
2183[3] A. Silverstein, "Hmns Transition From Jhiliyya To Islam", Jerusalem Studies In
2184Arabic And Islam, 2008 (published 2009), Volume 34, pp. 285-308.
2185[4] ibid., p. 287.

138

70
139
2186[5] A. Echevarria, The Fortress Of Faith: The Attitude Towards Muslims In Fifteenth Century
2187Spain, 1999, Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden: The Netherlands, pp. 28-33.
2188[6] P. de la Cavalleria (M. A. Vivaldo [Ed.]), Tractatvs Zelvs Christi Contra Ivdos,
2189Sarracenos, & Infideles., 1592, Apud Baretium de Baretijs: Venetijs, p. 137. English translation
2190taken from A. Reland (Trans. Anon), "Treating Of Several Things Fasley Chargd Upon The
2191Mahometans" in Four Treatises Concerning The Doctrine, Discipline And Worship Of The
2192Mahometans, 1712, Printed by J. Darby for B. Lintott at the Cross-Keys, and E. Sanger at the
2193Post-House in Fleetstreet, p. 82 (Book II, Sect. XXI). For the original Latin text of the entirety of
2194section XXI see H. Reland, De Religione Mohammedica Libri Duo, 1717, Editio Altera Auctior
2195(1st Ed. 1705), Ex Libraria Gulielmi Broedelet: Trajecti ad Rhenum, pp. 217-221.
2196[7] P. de la Cavalleria (M. A. Vivaldo [Ed.]), Tractatvs Zelvs Christi Contra Ivdos,
2197Sarracenos, & Infideles., 1592, op. cit., p. 137, Note b.
2198[8] L. Marraccio, Alcorani Textus Universus Ex Correctioribus Arabum Exemplaribus Summa
2199Fide, Atque Pulcherrimis Characteribus Descriptus, ..., 1698, Volume II - Refutatio Alcorani,
2200In Qua Ad Mahumetanic Superstitionis Radicem Securis Apponitur; & Mahumetus Ipse Gladio
2201Suo Jugulatur; ..., Ex Typographia Seminarii: Patavii (Italy), p. 526, note 1. The original Latin
2202text says:
2203Onfundit Mahumetus Sacras historias. Ponit enim Haman Consiliarium Pharaonis, cm Assuero Persarum Regi
2204 consiliis suerit. Fingit prtere Pharaonem jussisse extrui sibi Turrim sublimem, ex cujus vertice Deum
2205Moysis inferiorem sibi videret: quod commentum haud dubium est, quin ex Babelic turris dificatione
2206dusumpserit. Cert nihil hujusmondi de Pharaone in Sacris literis habetur, & quidquid sit, inanissimam
2207praesefert fabulum.
2208This translation of the Qur'an by the Luccan monk and his associated commentary was well2209received in Protestant missionary circles. Prominent Methodist missionary Adam Clarke
2210(1760/1762 1832 CE), an executive member of the colonial-missionary organisation the British
2211And Foreign Bible Society, described the translation as:
2212A work of immense labour: the translation is
2213notes possess great merit.

good and literal, and many of the grammatical and philological

2214See A. Clarke, The Bibliographical Miscellany; Or, Supplement To The Bibliographical

2215Dictionary, 1806, Volume I, W. Baynes, Paternoster-Row: London, p. 286.
2216[9] G. Sale, The Koran, Commonly Called Alcoran Of Mohammed, Translated Into English
2217Immediately From The Original Arabic; With Explanatory Notes, Taken From The Most
2218Approved Commentators. To Which Is Prefixed A Preliminary Discourse, 1734, Printed by C.

140

71
141
2219Ackers in St. Johns-Street, for J. Wilcox at Virgils Head overagainst the New Church in the
2220Strand: London, p. 317, footnote d.
2221[10] Th. Noldeke, "The Koran", Encyclopdia Britannica, 1893, Volume 16, Adam And
2222Charles Black: Edinburgh, p. 600. This article was reprinted many times with slight
2223modifications. T. Nldeke (J. S. Black [Trans.]), Sketches From Eastern History, 1892, Adam
2224and Charles Black: London & Edinburgh, p. 30. This article was reprinted and edited by N. A.
2225Newman, The Qur'an: An Introductory Essay By Theodor Nldeke, 1992, Interdisciplinary
2226Biblical Research Institute: Hatfield (PA), p. 9; Also see Th. Nldeke, "The Koran" in Ibn
2227Warraq (Ed.), The Origins Of The Koran: Classic Essays On Islam's Holy Book, 1998,
2228Prometheus Books, p. 43; Also see Th. Nldeke, "The Koran" in C. Turner (Ed.), The Koran:
2229Critical Concepts In Islamic Studies, 2004, Volume I (Provenance and Transmission),
2230RoutledgeCurzon: London & New York, p. 77.
2231[11] Rev. A. Mingana & A. S. Lewis (Eds.), Leaves From Three Ancient Qur'ns Possibly
2232Pre-Othmnic With A List Of Their Variants, 1914, Cambridge: At The University Press, p.
2233xiv. Also reprint in A. Mingana, "Three Ancient Korans" in Ibn Warraq (Ed.), The Origins Of
2234The Koran: Classic Essays On Islam's Holy Book, 1998, op. cit., p. 79.
2235[12] H. Lammens (Trans. from French by Sir E. Denison Ross), Islam: Beliefs and Institutions,
22361929, Methuen & Co. Ltd.: London, p. 39.
2237[13] J. Horovitz, Koranische Untersuchungen, 1926, Walter De Gruyter: Berlin & Leipzig, p.
2238149.
2239[14] C. C. Torrey, Jewish Foundation of Islam, 1933, Ktav Publishing House, Inc.: New York,
2240See pages 117 and 119.
2241[15] A. Jeffery (For. by G. Bwering & J. D. McAuliffe), The Foreign Vocabulary Of The
2242Quran, 2007, Texts And Studies On The Qur'an - Volume 3, Brill: Leiden & Boston, p. 284. This
2243is a reprint of idem., The Foreign Vocabulary Of The Quran, 1938, Gaekwad's Oriental Series
2244No. LXXIX, Oriental Institute: Baroda, p. 284. An identical explanation was given by Jeffery in
2245his Ph. D thesis also. See idem., The Foreign Vocabulary Of The Qur'an, 1929, Ph. D Thesis
2246(published), University of Edinburgh, p. 264.
2247[16] G. Vajda, "Haman" in B. Lewis, V. L. Menage, Ch. Pellat and J. Schacht (Eds.),
2248Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition), 1971, Volume III, E. J. Brill (Leiden) & Luzac & Co.
2249(London), p. 110. Much the same thing is said in the first edition also. See J. Eisenberg,
2250"Haman" in M. Th. Houtsma, A. J. Wensinck, E. Lvi-Provenal, H. A. R. Gibb & W. Heffening
2251(Eds.), The Encyclopaedia Of Islm: A Dictionary Of The Geography, Ethnography And

142

72
143
2252Biography Of The Muhammadan Peoples, 1936, Volume III, E. J. Brill: Leyden & Luzac &
2253Co.: London, pp. 244-245.
2254[17] A. J. Wensinck [G. Vajda], "Firawn" in B. Lewis, Ch. Pellat and J. Schacht (Eds.),
2255Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition), 1965, Volume II, E. J. Brill (Leiden) & Luzac & Co.
2256(London), p. 917.
2257[18] See for example Dr. A. A. Shorrosh, Islam Revealed: A Christian Arab's View Of Islam,
22581988, Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, p. 209; R. Morey, The Islamic Invasion:
2259Confronting The World's Fastest Growing Religion, 1992, Harvest House Publishers: Eugene
2260(OR), p. 142; Abdallah Abd al-Fadi, Is The Qur'an Infallible?, 1995, Light of Life: Villach
2261(Austria), pp. 35-36 and p. 88; N. A. Newman, Muhammad, The Qur'an & Islam, 1996,
2262Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute: Hatfield (PA), p. 380; W. E. Phipps, Muhammad
2263And Jesus: A Comparison Of The Prophets And Their Teachings, 1996, Continuum Publishing
2264Company: New York (NY), p. 90; D. Richardson, Secrets Of The Koran: Revealing Insights
2265Into Islam's Holy Book, 1999, Regal Books From Gospel Light: Ventura (CA), p. 34; S.
2266Masood, The Bible And The Qur'an: A Question Of Integrity, 2001, OM Publication: Carlisle,
2267UK, p. 86; E. M. Caner & E. F. Caner, Unveiling Islam: An Insider's Look At Muslim Life And
2268Beliefs, 2002, Kregal Publications: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 89; Abdullah Al-Araby, Islam
2269Unveiled, 2002 (10th Edition), The Pen Vs. The Sword: Los Angeles (CA), p. 42 and p. 44; M.
2270Elass, Understanding the Koran: A Quick Christian Guide To The Muslim Holy Book, 2004,
2271Zondervan: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 181, note 3.
2272A gentle, sensitive but inadequate treatment is done by John Kaltner concerning the issue of
2273Haman in the Bible and the Qur'an. See J. Kaltner, Ishmael Instructs Isaac: An Introduction To
2274The Qur'an For Bible Readers, 1999, The Liturgical Press: Collegeville (Minnesota), pp. 1342275135; Also see J. Jomier (Trans. Z. Hersov), The Great Themes Of The Qur'an, 1997, SCM Press
2276Limited: London, p. 78.
2277[19] Ibn Warraq, Why I Am Not A Muslim, 1995, Prometheus Books: Amherst (NY), p. 159.
2278[20] J. Nat, De Beoefening Van De Oostersche Talen In Nederland In De 18e En 19e Eeuw,
22791929, Purmerend: The Netherlands, pp. 12-21. We have partially derived our information from
2280the English summary given on the library webpage of the University of Leiden.
2281[21] English translation taken from A. Reland (Trans. Anon), "Treating Of Several Things
2282Fasley Chargd Upon The Mahometans" in Four Treatises Concerning The Doctrine,
2283Discipline And Worship Of The Mahometans, 1712, op. cit., pp. 82-83 (Book II, Sect. XXI).
2284For the original Latin text see H. Reland, De Religione Mohammedica Libri Duo, 1717, Editio
2285Altera Auctior (1st Ed. 1705), op. cit., p. 218.

144

73
145
2286[22] English text, ibid., p. 83; Latin text, ibid., p. 221.
2287[23] A. H. Jones, "Hmn", in J. D. McAuliffe (Ed.), Encyclopaedia Of The Qur'an, 2002,
2288Volume II, Brill: LeidenBoston, p. 399.
2289[24] Silverstein being one obvious recent example, see A. Silverstein, "Hmns Transition
2290From Jhiliyya To Islam", Jerusalem Studies In Arabic And Islam, 2008 (published 2009), op.
2291cit., pp. 304-305. He still believes Quranic Haman was modelled on biblical Haman but his
2292methodology is substantially different.
2293[25] J. D. Levenson, Esther: A Commentary, 1997, SCM Press Limited, p. 23.
2294[26] M. V. Fox, Character And Ideology In The Book Of Esther, 1991, University of South
2295Carolina Press: Columbia (SC), pp. 131-139.
2296[27] ibid., p. 131.
2297[28] L. B. Paton, A Critical And Exegetical Commentary On The Book Of Esther, 1992
2298(Reprinted), T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh (UK), pp. 64-77. After discussing the arguments for and
2299against the book's historicity, Paton says:
2300In the presence of these analogies there is no more reason why one should assume a historical basis
2301story of Est. than for these other admittedly unhistorical works which it so closely resembles.

for the

2302[29] C. A. Moore, Esther: Introduction, Translation, And Notes, 1971, The Anchor Bible,
2303Doubleday & Company Inc.: Garden City (NY), pp. xxxiv-xlvi; For a similar assessment see C.
2304A. Moore, "Archaeology And The Book Of Esther", The Biblical Archaeologist, 1975, Volume
230538, pp. 62-79.
2306[30] A. Berlin, "The Book Of Esther And Ancient Storytelling", Journal Of Biblical
2307Literature, 2001, Volume 120, Issue 1, p. 3.
2308[31] "Esther", The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1941, Volume 4, The Universal Jewish
2309Encyclopaedia Inc.: New York, p. 170.
2310[32] "Esther", The Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1905, Volume V, Funk & Wagnalls Company:
2311London & New York, pp. 235-236.
2312[33] A. Berlin, The JPS Bible Commentary: Esther, 2001, The Jewish Publication Society:
2313Philadelphia, pp. xxvii-xxviii.

146

74
147
2314[34] M. Black & H. H. Rowley (Eds.), Peake's Commentary On The Bible, 1962, Thomas
2315Nelson and Sons Ltd.: London & New York, p. 381.
2316[35] L. E. Keck et al. (Eds.), The New Interpreter's Bible: General Articles & Introduction,
2317Commentary, & Reflections For Each Book Of The Bible, Including The Apocryphal /
2318Deuterocanonical Books, 1994, Volume III, Abingdon Press: Nashville (TN), p. 859.
2319[36] R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer & R. E. Murphy (Eds.), The Jerome Biblical Commentary,
23201968, Volume I (The Old Testament), Geoffrey Chapman: London (UK), pp. 628-629.
2321[37] Rev. R. C. Fuller, Rev. L. Johnston, Very Rev. C. Kearns (Eds.), A New Catholic
2322Commentary On Holy Scripture, 1969, Thomas Nelson & Sons, pp. 408-409.
2323[38] For instance see, J. S. Wright, "The Historicity Of The Book Of Esther", in J. B. Payne
2324(Ed.), New Perspectives On The Old Testament, 1970, Word Books, Waco: Texas, pp. 37-47; R.
2325Gordis, "Studies In The Esther Narrative", Journal Of Biblical Literature, 1976, Volume 95,
2326Number 1, pp. 43-58; E. M. Yamauchi, "The Archaeological Background Of Esther",
2327Bibliotheca Sacra, 1980, Volume 137, pp. 99-117; W. H. Shea, "Esther And History",
2328Concordia Journal, 1987, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 234-248.
2329[39] For a couple of examples focussing on the characters of the story, see the discussion on the
2330proposed identification of Mordecai in, D. J. A. Clines, "In Quest Of The Historical Mordecai",
2331Vetus Testamentum, 1991, Volume 41, Number 2, pp. 129-136; And of Vashti and Esther in, R.
2332L. Hubbard Jr., "Vashti, Amestris And Esther 1,9", Zeitschrift Fr Die Alttestamentliche
2333Wissenschaft, 2007, Volume 119, Number 2, pp. 259-271.
2334Clines position on the historicity of Hebrew MT Esther is not that of outright rejection. After
2335surveying the evidence he says no clear conclusion emerges and recommends the evidence be
2336thoroughly reviewed before any judgements are made. See D. J. A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah,
2337Esther, 1984, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids (MI) & Marshall Morgan
2338& Scott Publications: London, p. 261 (evidence reviewed pp. 256-261).
2339[40] J. D. Levenson, Esther: A Commentary, 1997, op. cit., p. 25.
2340[41] F. S. Weiland, "Historicity, Genre, And Narrative Design In The Book Of Esther",
2341Bibliotheca Sacra, 2002, Volume 159, Number 634, pp. 151-165; idem., "Plot Structure In The
2342Book Of Esther", Bibliotheca Sacra, 2002, Volume 159, Number 635, pp. 277-287; idem.,
2343"Literary Conventions In The Book Of Esther", Bibliotheca Sacra, 2002, Volume 159,
2344Number 636, pp. 425-435; idem., "Literary Clues To God's Providence In The Book Of
2345Esther", Bibliotheca Sacra, 2003, Volume 160, Number 637, pp. 34-47. Written from an
2346evangelical standpoint, Weilands four part survey is written in an accessible style and provides a

148

75
149
2347good overview of the proposed solutions adopted by more conservative scholars in response to
2348objections raised by others.
2349[42] "Haman", Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 7, Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, The
2350Macmillan Company, col. 1222.
2351[43] "Haman", in G. A. Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible, 1962 (1996
2352Print), Volume 2, Abingdon Press: Nashville, p. 516.
2353[44] "Ahasuerus", Webster's Biographical Dictionary, 1972, G. & C. Merriam Co.: Springfield,
2354USA, p. 17.
2355[45] A. Silverstein, "Hmns Transition From Jhiliyya To Islam", Jerusalem Studies In
2356Arabic And Islam, 2008 (published 2009), op. cit., p. 287.
2357[46] Some scholars have suggested the use of double month naming in late Biblical books from
2358the Second Temple period provides a new measure of dating, and have consequently re-dated
2359Esther as much as two centuries earlier back into the early Persian period in the late 5th century
2360BCE. Such a criterion has been examined and dismissed as untenable. To follow the discussion
2361see, D. Talshir & Z. Talshir, "The Double Month Naming In Late Biblical Books: A New Clue
2362For Dating Esther?", Vetus Testamentum, 2004, Volume 54, Number 4, pp. 549-555; A. D.
2363Friedberg & V. DeCaen, "Dating The Composition Of The Book Of Esther: A Response To
2364Larsson", Vetus Testamentum, 2003, Volume 53, Number 3, pp. 427-429; G. Larsson, "Is The
2365Book Of Esther Older Than Has Been Believed?" Vetus Testamentum, 2002, Volume 52,
2366Number 1, pp. 130-131; A. D. Friedberg, "A New Clue In The Dating Of The Composition Of
2367The Book Of Esther", Vetus Testamentum, 2000, Volume 50, Number 4, pp. 561-565.
2368[47] Summarised from L. S. Fried, "Towards The Ur-Text Of Esther", Journal For The Study
2369Of The Old Testament, 2000, Volume 88, pp. 49-51. The remainder of the article deals with
2370which version can be considered closest to the Ur-Text.
2371[48] C. V. Dorothy, The Books Of Esther: Structure, Genre And Textual Integrity, 1997,
2372Journal For The Study Of The Old Testament Supplement Series 187, Sheffield Academic
2373Press Ltd, Sheffield: England, pp. 13-16. Dorothys numbers are based on the Greek texts found
2374in the Gttingen Septuagint. Josephus in his Antiquities recounts Esther in his own narrative
2375framework in 4,423 words and is 45.30% longer than the Hebrew MT. Adjusting the percentage
2376to recognise the language differentiation, Josephus Esther is around 33% longer.
2377[49] M. W. Haslam et al., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 1998, Volume LXV, Egypt Exploration
2378Society: London, pp. 4-8 (P. Oxy. 4443). The translation and notes are by K. Luchner.

150

76
151
2379[50] An easy side-by-side comparison of both Greek versions based on the critical edition of the
2380Gttingen Septuagint is now widely accessible in English. See A. Pietersma & B. G. Wright
2381(Eds.), A New English Translation Of The Septuagint, 2007, Oxford University Press, Inc.:
2382New York, pp. 426-440. For a verse by verse comparison of the B-text with the Hebrew MT
2383along with English translation, see H. Kahana, Esther: Juxtaposition Of The Septuagint
2384Translation With The Hebrew Text, 2005, Peeters: Bondgenotenlaan, Leuven (The Netherlands).
2385[51] The absence of the mention of God in the Book of Esther has baffled many scholars. Many
2386of them have given various reasons for such an omission. For a general overview on this topic,
2387please see: "Esther", The Rev. T. K. Cheyne & J. S. Black (Eds.), Encyclopaedia Biblica: A
2388Critical Dictionary Of The Literary, Political And Religious History, The Archaeology,
2389Geography And Natural History Of The Bible, 1901, Volume II, op. cit., col. 1403; "Esther",
2390The Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1905, Volume V, op. cit., p. 236; "Esther", The Universal Jewish
2391Encyclopaedia, 1941, Volume 4, op. cit., p. 170; B. W. Anderson, "The Place Of The Book Of
2392Esther In The Christian Bible", Journal Of Religion, 1950, op. cit., p. 32; M. Black & H. H.
2393Rowley (Eds.), Peake's Commentary On The Bible, 1962, op. cit., p. 381; R. E. Brown, J. A.
2394Fitzmyer & R. E. Murphy (Eds.), The Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1968, Volume I (The Old
2395Testament), op. cit., p. 629; C. A. Moore, Esther: Introduction, Translation, And Notes, 1971,
2396The Anchor Bible, op. cit., p. xxxii-xxxiii; C. M. Laymon (Ed.), The Interpreter's One-Volume
2397Commentary On The Bible Including All The Books Of The Old And New Testaments And
2398The Apocrypha, Together With Forty-Three General Articles, 1972, Collins: London &
2399Glasgow, p. 233; W. A. Elwell (Ed.), The Marshall Pickering Commentary On The NIV, 1989,
2400Baker Book House Company, p. 327.
2401[52] L. S. Fried, "Towards The Ur-Text Of Esther", Journal For The Study Of The Old
2402Testament, 2000, op. cit., p. 57.
2403Scholars are not agreed on the precise interdependences between these three versions of the text,
2404especially the A-text, and posit various stages of textual interrelatedness. Frieds analysis builds
2405upon the commonly accepted transmission hypothesis of Fox. For a good overview of the
2406scholarly opinions concerning the Greek text including the additions and its relationship with the
2407Hebrew Text see, E. Tov, "Three Strange Books Of The LXX: 1 Kings, Esther, And Daniel
2408Compared With Similar Rewritten Compositions From Qumran And Elsewhere" in M. Karrer
2409& W. Kraus (Eds.), Die Septuaginta Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten, 2008, Mohr Siebeck:
2410Tbingen, pp. 36993.
2411[53] What the average Christian gets when they read a translated version of Esther is another
2412matter. Some translations are an amalgamation of the Greek and Hebrew texts! See J. P. Sterk,
2413"How Many Books Of Esther Are There?", The Bible Translator, 1985, Volume 36, Number 4,
2414pp. 440-442.

152

77
153
2415[54] H. W. M. Rietz, "Identifying Compositions And Traditions Of The Qumran Community:
2416The Songs Of The Sabbath Sacrifice As A Test Case" in M. T. Davis & B. A. Strawn (Eds.),
2417Qumran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions, 2007, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.:
2418Grand Rapids (MI), pp. 35-36.
2419[55] C. A. Moore, "Archaeology And The Book Of Esther", The Biblical Archaeologist, 1975,
2420op. cit., p. 63.
2421[56] The map is taken from C. A. Moore, Esther: Introduction, Translation, And Notes, 1971,
2422The Anchor Bible, op. cit., pp. xxvi-xxvii. For a good overview of place of Esther in the
2423Christian canon see B. W. Anderson, "The Place Of The Book Of Esther In The Christian
2424Bible", Journal Of Religion, 1950, Volume 30, pp. 32-43.
2425[57] M. Luther, Table Talk, 1995, Fount: An Imprint of HarperCollinsPublisher: London (UK),
2426XXIV, p. 14.
2427[58] Dr. Martin Luther, Biblia, 1538, Wolff K: Strassburg; Also see Luther's introduction to the
2428Book of Esther in E. T. Bachmann (Ed.) & H. L. Lehmann (Gen. Ed.), Luther's Works, 1960,
2429Volume 35, Muhlenberg Press: Philadelphia, pp. 353-354.
2430[59] L. A. Brighton, "The Book Of EstherTextual And Canonical Considerations", Concordia
2431Journal, 1987, Volume 13, Number 3, p. 203.
2432[60] J. E. Burns, "The Special Purim And The Reception Of The Book Of Esther In The
2433Hellenistic And Early Roman Eras", Journal For The Study Of Judaism, 2006, Volume
2434XXXVII, Number 1, pp. 1-34.
2435[61] L. A. Brighton, "The Book Of EstherTextual And Canonical Considerations", Concordia
2436Journal, 1987, op. cit., pp. 203-204.
2437[62] ibid., pp. 211-212.
2438[63] E. Ulrich, "The Notion And Definition Of Canon", in L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders
2439(Eds.), The Canon Debate, 2002, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.: Peabody (MA), p. 29.
2440[64] F. W. Bush, "The Book Of Esther: Opus Non Gratum In The Christian Canon", Bulletin
2441For Biblical Research, 1998, Volume 8, p. 39. Like the vast majority of conservative scholars,
2442Bush insists that Esther is not being read properly. In fact, he thinks the text is being seriously
2443misread and has much to offer the Christian world given a proper reading, such as the one
2444suggested by him.

154

78
155
2445[65] This is most readily observable in Christian apologetical literature. A survey of the four
2446most popular encyclopaedias of Bible "difficulties" reveals no trace of a discussion on the
2447historicity or the canonicity of Esther. See N. L. Geisler & R. M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask,
24482001, Baker Books: Grand Rapids (MI); N. L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia Of Christian
2449Apologetics, 2002, Baker Books: Grand Rapids (MI); N. Geisler & T. Howe, When Critics Ask:
2450A Popular Handbook On Bible Difficulties, 2004 (7th Printing), Baker Books: Grand Rapids
2451(MI); G. L. Archer Jr., New International Encyclopedia Of Bible Difficulties, 1982, Zondervan:
2452Grand Rapids (MI).
2453[66] A. Silverstein, "Hmns Transition From Jhiliyya To Islam", Jerusalem Studies In
2454Arabic And Islam, 2008 (published 2009), op. cit., pp. 285-308.
2455[67] ibid., pp. 304-5. His position on the historicity of Esther is more cautiously stated in A.
2456Silverstein, "The Book Of Esther And The Enma Elish", Bulletin Of The School Of Oriental
2457And African Studies, 2006, Volume 69, Number 2, pp. 209-223. He says, Thus, accepting that
2458the Book of Esther shares a general storyline, assorted themes and motifs, and some linguistic
2459details with the Enma Elish does not necessarily mean that the story of Jewish triumph over the
2460machinations of an evil vizier did not happen along the lines described. (pp. 210-211).
2461[68] A. Silverstein, "Hmns Transition From Jhiliyya To Islam", Jerusalem Studies In
2462Arabic And Islam, 2008 (published 2009), op. cit., pp. 289-291.
2463[69] ibid., pp. 291-292.
2464[70] ibid., p. 307.
2465[71] R. Tottoli, "Origin And Use Of The Term Isrliyyt In Muslim Literature", Arabica,
24661999, Volume 46, pp. 193-210. One should refer to Tottoli's study for the specific ways this term
2467was employed by various scholars.
2468[72] I. Albayrak, Qur'anic Narrative And Isr'liyyt In Western Scholarship And In Classical
2469Exegesis, 2000, Ph.D Thesis (unpublished), University of Leeds, pp. 114-131. Albayrak
2470illustrates his discussion with a number of helpful case studies and the views of Western
2471scholarship.
2472[73] A. Silverstein, "Hmns Transition From Jhiliyya To Islam", Jerusalem Studies In
2473Arabic And Islam, 2008 (published 2009), op. cit., pp. 297-299.
2474[74] ibid., p. 299.
2475[75] ibid., p. 295, footnote 36.

156

79
157
2476[76] ibid., p. 292.
2477[77] ibid.
2478[78] J. L. Kugel, Traditions Of The Bible: A Guide To The Bible As It Was At The Start Of The
2479Common Era, 1998, Harvard University Press: Cambridge (MA) & London, p. 505.
2480[79] ibid., p. 506.
2481[80] ibid., pp. 505-507.
2482[81] A. Silverstein, "Hmns Transition From Jhiliyya To Islam", Jerusalem Studies In
2483Arabic And Islam, 2008 (published 2009), op. cit., pp. 294-297.
2484[82] ibid., pp. 295, footnote 36.
2485[83] See the standard reference works cited in the article Qur'anic Accuracy Vs. Biblical
2486Error: The Kings & Pharaohs Of Egypt.
2487[84] A. Silverstein, "Hmns Transition From Jhiliyya To Islam", Jerusalem Studies In
2488Arabic And Islam, 2008 (published 2009), op. cit., p. 300.
2489[85] ibid., p. 300, footnote 70.
2490[86] M. B. Lerner, "The Works of Aggadic Midrash and the Esther Midrashim" in S. Safrai, Z.
2491Safrai, J. Schwartz & P. J. Tomson (Eds.), The Literature Of The Sages: Second Part: Midrash
2492And Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science And The
2493Languages Of Rabbinic Literature, 2006, Royal Van Gorcum, Assen: The Netherlands &
2494Fortress Press: Minneapolis, pp. 133-229.
2495[87] This was pointed out by Stillman back in the 70s. See N. A. Stillman, "The Story Of Cain
2496& Abel In The Qur'an And The Muslim Commentators: Some Observations", Journal Of
2497Semitic Studies, 1974, Volume 19, p. 231. We have discussed a few of the positions adopted by
2498Stillman here.
2499[88] A. Silverstein, "Hmns Transition From Jhiliyya To Islam", Jerusalem Studies In
2500Arabic And Islam, 2008 (published 2009), op. cit., p. 300.
2501[89] G. Friedlander, Pirke De Rabbi Eliezer, 1916, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd.:
2502London & The Bloch Publishing Company: New York, pp. 398-399.

158

80
159
2503[90] L. M. Barth, "Is Every Medieval Hebrew Manuscript A New Composition? The Case Of
2504Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer", in M. L. Raphael (Ed.), Agendas For The Study Of Midrash In The
2505Twenty-First Century, 1999, Williamsburg (VA), pp. 43-62.
2506[91] A. Silverstein, "Hmns Transition From Jhiliyya To Islam", Jerusalem Studies In
2507Arabic And Islam, 2008 (published 2009), op. cit., p. 300.
2508[92] This is agreed by Silverstein also. See, ibid., pp. 285-286.
2509[93] J. M. Lindenberger, The Aramaic Proverbs Of Ahiqar, 1983, The Johns Hopkins
2510University Press: Baltimore & London, pp. 3-4.
2511[94] ibid., p. 21. idem., "Ahiqar: A New Translation And Introduction", in J. H. Charlesworth
2512(Ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1985, Volume 2 Expansions of the Old
2513Testament and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes,
2514Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, Doubleday & Company, Inc. Garden City: New
2515York, pp. 484-486.
2516[95] M. Chyutin, Tendentious Hagiographies: Jewish Propagandist Fiction BCE, 2011, T&T
2517Clark: London & New York, p. 34 & pp. 296-297.
2518[96] A. Silverstein, "Hmns Transition From Jhiliyya To Islam", Jerusalem Studies In
2519Arabic And Islam, 2008 (published 2009), op. cit., pp. 302-303.
2520[97] ibid., p. 301, footnote 72. The authoritative version of the Aramaic text is B. Porten & A.
2521Yardeni, Textbook Of Aramaic Documents From Ancient Egypt, 1994, Volume 3 Literature,
2522Accounts, Lists, Eisenbrauns, Indiana: USA, pp. 25-53. The text is also translated into Hebrew
2523and English. Porten and Yardeni have re-ordered the sequence of columns of the papyrus based
2524on a decipherment of the undertext (palimpsest) and have thus re-numbered the proverbs.
2525[98] J. M. Lindenberger, "Ahiqar: A New Translation And Introduction", in J. H. Charlesworth
2526(Ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1985, op. cit., p. 498; For similar views on the late
2527attribution of the Egyptian narrative section see, F. C. Conybeare, J. R. Harris & A. S. Lewis,
2528The Story Of Ahikar From The Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Old Turkish,
2529Greek And Slavonic Versions, 1913, Second Edition Enlarged And Corrected, at the University
2530Press: Cambridge, pp. xcii-xciii.
2531[99] This concise one sentence rsum is taken from, H. N. Richardson, "The Book Of Tobit", in
2532C. M. Laymon (Ed.), The Interpreter's One Volume Commentary Of The Bible: Including The
2533Apocrypha, With General Articles, 1971, Abingdon Press, Nashville (TN): USA, p. 526.

160

81
161
2534[100] J. M. Lindenberger, "Ahiqar: A New Translation And Introduction", in J. H. Charlesworth
2535(Ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1985, Volume 2, op. cit., p. 479.
2536[101] F. C. Conybeare, J. R. Harris & A. S. Lewis, The Story Of Ahikar From The Aramaic,
2537Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Old Turkish, Greek And Slavonic Versions, 1913, op. cit.;
2538For an excellent overview of the Syriac, Arabic and Armenian texts side by side in parallel
2539columns see, "The Story Of Ahikar" in R. H. Charles (Ed.), The Apocrypha And
2540Pseudepigrapha Of The Old Testament In English, 1913, Volume II Pseudepigrapha, at the
2541Clarendon Press: Oxford, pp. 724-776.
2542[102] J. M. Lindenberger, The Aramaic Proverbs Of Ahiqar, 1983, op. cit., p. 5.
2543[103] J. M. Lindenberger, "Ahiqar: A New Translation And Introduction", in J. H. Charlesworth
2544(Ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1985, Volume 2, op. cit., pp. 480-481.
2545[104] J. M. Lindenberger, The Aramaic Proverbs Of Ahiqar, 1983, op. cit., p. 7.
2546[105] R. I. Pervo, "A Nihilist Fabula: Introducing The Life Of Aesop", in R. F. Hock, J. B.
2547Chance & J. Perkins (Eds.), Ancient Fiction And Early Christian Narrative, 1998, Scholars
2548Press, Atlanta: Georgia, pp. 77-84. The actual personage of Aesop is much older and stretches
2549back into early classical times.
2550For an academic English translation of the narrative section of the G text based on the recently
2551established critical edition of Papathomopoulos, see L. M. Wills, The Quest Of The Historical
2552Gospel: Mark, John, And The Origins Of The Gospel Genre, 1997, Routledge: London & New
2553York, pp. 180-215.
2554[106] ibid., pp. 82-83.
2555[107] N. Kanavou, "Personal Names In The Vita Aesopi (Vita G or Perriana)", Classical
2556Quarterly, 2006, Volume 56, Number 1, pp. 208-219.
2557[108] A. Silverstein, "Hmns Transition From Jhiliyya To Islam", Jerusalem Studies In
2558Arabic And Islam, 2008 (published 2009), op. cit., pp. 301-302, footnote 74.
2559[109] "Nadnu" in E. Reiner et al., The Assyrian Dictionary Of The Oriental Institute Of The
2560University Of Chicago, 1980, Volume 11 (N Part 1), Oriental Institute, Chicago: Illinois
2561(USA), p. 42.

162

82
163
2562[110] H. D. Baker (Ed.), The Prosopography Of The Neo-Assyrian Empire, 2001, Volume 2,
2563Part II (L-N), Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, University Of Helsinki, pp. 919-921; K. L.
2564Tallqvist, Assyrian Personal Names, 1914, Helsingfors: Sweden, p. 165.
2565[111] J. M. Lindenberger, "Ahiqar: A New Translation And Introduction", in J. H. Charlesworth
2566(Ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1985, Volume 2, op. cit., p. 483, footnote 30; J. C.
2567Greenfield, "The Wisdom Of Ahiqar", in J. Day, R. P. Gordon & H. G. M. Williamson (Eds.),
2568Wisdom In Ancient Israel, 1995, Cambridge University Press, p. 45, footnote 11; J. A. Fitzmyer,
2569Tobit, 2003, Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature, Walter de Gruyter: Berlin (Germany), p.
2570283; C. A. Moore, Tobit: A New Translation With Introduction And Commentary, 1996, The
2571Anchor Bible, Doubleday: New York, p. 292. Based on a number of passages from the Old
2572Testament, Chyutin thinks the name Nadan is probably a derogatory Aramaic epithet associated
2573with a womens sexual organ, , meant to represent his character as a villain in the story of
2574Ahiqar. See M. Chyutin, Tendentious Hagiographies: Jewish Propagandist Fiction BCE, 2011,
2575op. cit., p. 33.
2576[112] A. Silverstein, "Hmns Transition From Jhiliyya To Islam", Jerusalem Studies In
2577Arabic And Islam, 2008 (published 2009), op. cit., pp. 301-302 & footnote 74.
2578[113] C. A. Moore, Tobit: A New Translation With Introduction And Commentary, 1996, op.
2579cit., p. 288, textual note t; also see J. A. Fitzmyer, Tobit, 2003, op. cit., p. 333.
2580[114] L. H. Brockington, A Critical Introduction To The Apocrypha, 1961, Gerald Duckworth
2581& Co. Ltd: London, p. 38, footnote 1.
2582[115] A. A. Di Lella, "A Study Of Tobit 14:10 And Its Intertextual Parallels", Catholic
2583Biblical Quarterly, 2009, Volume 71, Number 3, pp. 497-506.
2584[116] In as much as it was the argument highlighted by a colleague who had read his article
2585whilst writing a book about Esther and its sources, this seems to be suggested by Dalley also. See
2586S. Dalley, Esthers Revenge At Susa: From Sennacherib To Ahasuerus, 2007, Oxford
2587University Press, p. 218.
2588[117] A. Silverstein, "Hmns Transition From Jhiliyya To Islam", Jerusalem Studies In
2589Arabic And Islam, 2008 (published 2009), op. cit., p. 303.
2590[118] "Esther", The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1905, Volume V, Funk & Wagnalls Company, p. 234;
2591"Targum Sheni", Encyclopaedia Judaica (CD-ROM Edition), 1997, Judaica Multimedia (Israel)
2592Limited.

164

83
165
2593[119] R. Kasher & M. L. Klein, "New Fragments Of Targum To Esther From The Cairo
2594Genizah", Hebrew Union College Annual, 1990, Volume 61, p. 91.
2595[120] A. Silverstein, "Hmns Transition From Jhiliyya To Islam", Jerusalem Studies In
2596Arabic And Islam, 2008 (published 2009), op. cit., p. 307.
2597[121] M. Gaillard, "Samak-e Ayyr" in Encyclopaedia Iranica, 2009 (20th July), available
2598online (accessed 27th December 2009). The printed volume containing this entry has yet to be
2599published.
2600[122] W. Stockland, "The Kitab-i Samak Ayyar ", Persica, 1993-1995, Volume XV, pp. 1432601182.
2602[123] Of all the Presidential Address given during the first 125 years (1880 2005), Sandmels
2603address was selected along with others because they offer noteworthy signposts to the growth,
2604development, and expansion of the Society of Biblical Literature. See H. W. Attridge & J. C.
2605VanderKam, Presidential Voices: The Society Of Biblical Literature In The Twentieth
2606Century, 2006, Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta, p. vii. Sandmels address is reprinted on
2607pp. 107-118.
2608[124] S. Sandmel, "Parallelomania", Journal Of Biblical Literature, 1962, Volume 81, p. 1.
2609[125] ibid., p. 2.
2610[126] For a brief up-to-date overview of folklore scholarship see, D. Haase (Ed.), The
2611Greenwood Encyclopedia Of Folktales And Fairy Tales, 2008, Volume 1: AF, Greenwood
2612Press, Westport: USA, pp. xxxiii-xxxix.
2613[127] H-J. Uther, The Types Of International Folktales: A Classification And Bibliography,
26142004, Part 1: Animal Tales, Tales of Magic, Religious Tales, and Realistic Tales, with an
2615Introduction, Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia Academia Scientiarum Fennica: Helsinki, p. 554.
2616[128] ibid., pp. 552-554.
2617[129] ibid., p. 554.
2618[130] S. Niditch & R. Doran, "The Success Story Of The Wise Courtier: A Formal Approach",
2619Journal Of Biblical Literature, 1977, Volume 96, Number 2, p. 183, footnote 13. They say,
2620Thompson lists Ahiqar in The Types under 922a. He evidently believes that the content
2621elements which lead up to Ahiqar's placement in the role of the person of low status somehow
2622slightly alter the basic type of the tale. There is certainly no problem in describing Ahiqar 5-7:23

166

84
167
2623as type 922, and indeed these chapters are the thematic core of the work. The disobedient young
2624man and his treachery are only a frame and preparation for this core.
2625[131] ibid., p. 180.
2626[132] We are referring here to Alan Dundes study which the author states was the first to
2627investigate the presence of both formulas and folktales in the Quran. See A. Dundes, Fables
2628Of The Ancients? Folklore In The Quran, 2004, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.: USA.
2629This study has been widely criticised. Rippin probably gives the most concise summation, It
2630lacks any sophistication in approach and it has no theoretical depth. To get a feel for the wide
2631range of problems, misunderstandings and errors present in Dundes study, including the
2632problematical issues associated with the hermeneutic principles adopted by him, see A. A. Nasr,
2633"Fables Of The Ancients? Folklore In The Quran [Book Review]", Asian Folklore Studies,
26342004, Volume 63, Number 1, pp. 165-166; A. Kadhim, "Fables Of The Ancients? Folklore In
2635The Quran [Book Review]", Journal Of Quranic Studies, 2004, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp. 78263684; H. Blatherwick, "Fables Of The Ancients? Folklore In The Quran [Book Review]",
2637Journal Of Quranic Studies, 2004, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp. 84-88; A. Rippin, "Fables Of The
2638Ancients? Folklore In The Quran [Book Review]", Bulletin Of The School Of Oriental And
2639African Studies, 2005, Volume 68, Part 1, pp. 120-122; J. R. Perry, "Fables Of The Ancients?
2640Folklore In The Quran [Book Review]", Journal Of Near Eastern Studies, 2006, Volume 65,
2641Number 3, pp. 208-209; M. Mir, "Fables Of The Ancients? Folklore In The Quran [Book
2642Review]", Journal Of Islamic Studies, 2008, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp. 247-251.
2643[133] S. Niditch & R. Doran, "The Success Story Of The Wise Courtier: A Formal Approach",
2644Journal Of Biblical Literature, 1977, op. cit., p. 183.
2645[134] S. Sperl, "The Literary Form Of Prayer: Qur'n Sura One, The Lord's Prayer And A
2646Babylonian Prayer To The Moon God", Bulletin Of The School Of Oriental And African
2647Studies, 1994, Volume 57, Number 1, pp. 213-227.
2648[135] S. Sandmel, "Parallelomania", Journal Of Biblical Literature, 1962, op. cit., p. 4.
2649[136] The inscription was published by K. Sethe, Urkunden Der 18. Dynastie: Historisch2650Biographische Urkunden, 1909, Volume IV, J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung: Leipzig, IV
26511077, 17-18. For translation of the inscription see A. H. Gardiner, "The Autobiography Of
2652Rekhmer", Zeitschrift Fr gyptische Sprache Und Altertumskunde, 1925, Volume 60, p. 69.
2653[137] K. Sethe, Urkunden Der 18. Dynastie: Historisch-Biographische Urkunden, 1909,
2654Volume IV, op. cit., IV 1074, 8-10. For translation of the inscription see A. H. Gardiner, "The
2655Autobiography Of Rekhmer", Zeitschrift Fr gyptische Sprache Und Altertumskunde,
26561925, op. cit., p. 66.

168

85
169
2657[138] K. Sethe, Urkunden Der 18. Dynastie: Historisch-Biographische Urkunden, 1909,
2658Volume IV, op. cit., IV 1075, 13-14. For translation of the inscription see A. H. Gardiner, "The
2659Autobiography Of Rekhmer", Zeitschrift Fr gyptische Sprache Und Altertumskunde,
26601925, op. cit., p. 68.
2661[139] "Pharaoh" in Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004 DVD, 1994
26622004 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.
2663[140] "Pharaoh" in H. Lockyer, Sr. (General Editor), F.F. Bruce et al., (Consulting Editors),
2664Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers, p. 828.
2665[141] F. S. Coplestone (Updated & Expanded by J. C. Trehern), Jesus Christ Or Mohammed? A
2666Guide To Islam And Christianity That Helps Explain The Differences, 2001, Christian Focus
2667Publications: Ross-shire (Scotland), p. 80; For a similar claim also see J. W. Sweetman, Islam
2668And Christian Theology: A Study Of The Interpretation Of Theological Ideas In The Two
2669Religions, 1945, Volume I, Part 1 (Preparatory History Survey of the Early Period), Lutterworth
2670Press: London & Redhill, p. 11.
2671[142] Rabbi Dr. S. M. Lehrman (Trans.), Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman & M. Simon (Eds.), Midrash
2672Rabbah: Exodus, 1939, Soncino Press: London (UK), VIII.2, pp. 116-117.
2673[143] L. Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortrge der Juden: Historisch Entwickelt, 1892,
2674Verlag von J. Kauffmann: Frankfurt, pp. 269. Full discussion in pp. 268-270; Also see "Midrash
2675Exodus (Shemoth Rabbah)", The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1969, Volume 7, Ktav
2676Publishing House, Inc.: New York, p. 539; Similar views are mentioned by Brannon Wheeler in
2677Moses In The Quran And Islamic Exegesis, 2002, RoutledgeCurzon: London, pp. 39-40.
2678[144] M. D. Herr, "Exodus Rabbah", Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 6, Encyclopaedia Judaica
2679Jerusalem, cols. 1067-1068;
2680[145] A. Shinan, Midrash Shemot Rabbah, Chapters I-XIV: A Critical Edition Based On A
2681Jerusalem Manuscript, With Variants, Commentary And Introduction, 1984, Tel Aviv, p. 19.
2682[146] A. J. Spencer, Brick Architecture In Ancient Egypt, 1979, Aris & Phillips Ltd.: UK, p.
2683140; P. T. Nicholson & I. Shaw (Eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials And Technology, 2000,
2684Cambridge University Press: Cambridge (UK), p. 79.
2685[147] W. M. F. Petrie, Abydos: Part II, 1903, Egyptian Exploration Fund & Trbner & Co:
2686London, p. 25 and p. 48. Petrie comments on the importance of these discoveries by saying (p.
268748):

170

86
171
2688Several objects have placed the history of art and products
2689hitherto accepted.

in an entirely new light, change some of the ideas

2690At the beginning of the 1st Dynasty we meet with the art of glazing fully developed, not only for large
2691monochrome vessels, but for inlay of different colours... It was also used for relief work, and in the round...
2692and on the great scale for the coating of wall surfaces.
2693[148] G. A. Reisner, N. F. Wheeler & D. Dunham, Uronarti Shalfak Mirgissa, 1967, Second
2694Cataract Forts: Volume II, Museum Of Fine Arts: Boston (USA), pp. 118-119 and Plate XLIX B;
2695Also see A. J. Spencer, Brick Architecture In Ancient Egypt, 1979, op. cit., p. 140.
2696[149] L. Borchardt, O. Knigsberger & H. Ricke, "Friesziegel in Grabbauten", Zeitschrift Fr
2697gyptische Sprache Und Altertumskunde, 1934, Volume 70, pp. 25-35; A brief discussion of
2698these bricks at Thebes is also available in A. J. Spencer, Brick Architecture In Ancient Egypt,
26991979, op. cit., p. 140.
2700[150] A. J. Spencer, Brick Architecture In Ancient Egypt, 1979, op. cit., p. 141.
2701[151] P. T. Nicholson & I. Shaw (Eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials And Technology, 2000, op.
2702cit., p. 79; A similar observation was also made by Baldwin Smith. See E. B. Smith, Egyptian
2703Architecture As Cultural Expression, 1938, D. Appleton-Century Company: New York &
2704London, p. 7.
2705[152] Sir. F. Petrie, Religious Lie In Ancient Egypt, 1924, Constable & Company Ltd.: London,
2706pp. 208-209.
2707[153] C. Jacq (Trans. J. M. Davis), Egyptian Magic, 1985, Aris & Phillips Ltd. & Bolchazy2708Carducci Publishers: Chicago, p. 11.
2709[154] I. E. S. Edwards, The Pyramids Of Egypt, 1985, Viking, p. 302.
2710[155] Concerning the Tower of Babel, Walton et al. state:
2711Most interpreters agree that the Tower of Babel was a ziggurat... Ziggurats were solid-brick frames filled in
2712with rubble. They did not have passages and chambers the way pyramids did. Ziggurats were usually built
2713alongside a temple. They served as an architectural representation of the stairways that are found in the
2714mythology of Mesopotamia. These stairways were used for gods and their messengers to pass from one realm
2715to another. The function is indicted in the names given to some of the ziggurats: "Sacred place of the
2716foundation of heaven and earth" (Babylon), "Sacred place that links heaven and earth" (Larsa), "Sacred place
2717of the stairway to pure heaven" (Sippar).
2718The shrine at the top was not a place of worship. It housed a bed and a table stocked with food for the deity
2719to refresh himself as he came down from the heavens to be worshipped in his temple. It is this same sort of

172

87
173
2720stairway that Jacob saw in his dream in Genesis 28. People did not use the ziggurat for any purpose - it
2721holy ground meant only for use by the gods.

was

2722See J. H. Walton & A. E. Hill, Old Testament Today: A Journey From Original Meaning To
2723Contemporary Significance, 2004, Zondervan: Grand Rapids (MI), p.72. For similar statements
2724see J. H. Walton, V. H. Matthews & M. W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary:
2725Old Testament, 2000, Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove (IL), p. 42; J. H. Walton, V. H.
2726Matthews, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Genesis - Deuteronomy, 1997,
2727Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove (IL), pp. 33-34; W. W. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible
2728Commentary: The Complete Old Testament (Wiersbe Bible Commentaries), 2007, David C.
2729Cook: Colorado Springs (CO), p. 52; R. De Vaux (Trans. J. McHugh), Ancient Israel: Its Life
2730and Institutions, 1997, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.: Grand Rapids (MI) & Dove
2731Booksellers: Livonia (MI), p. 283; J. H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought And The Old
2732Testament: Introducing The Conceptual World Of The Hebrew Bible, 2006, Baker Academic:
2733Grand Rapids (MI), pp. 121-122; T. G. Pinches, "Babel, Tower Of" in G. W. Bromiley (Ed.),
2734The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1979, Volume I (A-D), Wm. B. Eerdmans
2735Publishing Co.: Grand Rapids (MI), pp. 383-384.
2736[156] Jacques Jomier, The Great Themes Of The Qur'an, 1997, op. cit., p. 78:
2737[157] M. Lehner, The Complete Pyramids, 1997, Thames And Hudson: London, pp. 175-183.
2738[158] J. P. Allen, "Pyramid Texts", in D. B. Redford (Ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia Of
2739Ancient Egypt, 2001, Volume III, Oxford University Press, pp. 95-97.
2740[159] M. Verner, "Pyramid", in D. B. Redford (Ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia Of Ancient
2741Egypt, 2001, Volume III, op. cit., p. 88.
2742[160] M. Lehner, The Complete Pyramids, 1997, op. cit., p. 34; I. E. S. Edwards, The Pyramids
2743Of Egypt, 1985, op. cit., p. 302; Y. Abou-Hadid, Why Pyramids, 1979, Vantage Press: New York,
2744p. 46; For a slightly different view see J. C. Deaton, "The Old Kingdom Evidence For The
2745Function Of Pyramids", Varia Aegyptiaca, 1988, Volume 4, No. 3, p. 193-200.
2746[161] A. Erman & H. Grapow, Wrterbuch Der Aegyptischen Sprache, 1928, Volume II, J. C.
2747Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung: Leipzig, p. 94, 14-16.
2748[162] R. Hannig, Die Sprache Der Pharaonen Groes Handwrterbuch gyptisch - Deutsch
2749(2800-950 v. Chr.), 2000, Verlag Philipp Von Zabern: Mainz, p. 999; Also see the older edition
2750of the same book by idem., Die Sprache Der Pharaonen Groes Handwrterbuch gyptisch 2751Deutsch (2800-950 v. Chr.), 1995, Verlag Philipp Von Zabern: Mainz, p. 344.

174

88
175
2752[163] A. H. Jones, "Hmn", in J. D. McAuliffe (Ed.), Encyclopaedia Of The Qur'an, 2002,
2753Volume II, op. cit., p. 399.
2754[164] C. Peust, Egyptian Phonology - An Introduction To The Phonology Of A Dead
2755Language, 1999, Monographien Zur gyptischen Sprache - Band 2, Peust & Gutschmidt Verlag:
2756Gttingen.
2757[165] A. Erman & H. Grapow, Wrterbuch Der Aegyptischen Sprache, 1971, Volume II,
2758Akademie-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 490-491.
2759[166] A. Erman & H. Grapow, Wrterbuch Der Aegyptischen Sprache, 1971, Volume III,
2760Akademie-Verlag: Berlin, p. 95, 14. For more information on this deity, see H. Willems, "Crime,
2761Cult And Capital Punishment (Moalla Inscription 8)", Journal Of Egyptian Archaeology,
27621990, Volume 76, pp. 43-46.
2763[167] ibid., p. 96, 1.
2764[168] E. A. W. Budge, An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, 1920, John Murray: London,
2765Volume I, p. 485
2766[169] ibid., p. 447.
2767[170] H. Ranke, Die gyptischen Personennamen, 1935, Volume I (Verzeichnis der Namen),
2768Verlag Von J. J. Augustin in Glckstadt, p. 240, Nos. 24-26 and p. 241, No. 1.
2769[171] ibid., p. 229.
2770[172] "HMN" in D. Budde, P. Dils, L. Goldbrunner, C. Leitz & D. Mendel in collaboration with
2771F. Frster, D. von Recklinghausen & B. Ventker (Eds.), Lexikon Der gyptischen Gtter Und
2772Gtterbezeichnungen, 2002, Volume V, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta - 114, Peeters: Leuven,
2773p. 150.
2774[173] For a basic introduction to the etymology for the word priest in ancient Egyptian, please
2775see J. P. Allen, Middle Egyptian - An Introduction To The Language And Culture Of
2776Hieroglyphs, 2010, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge (UK), pp. 44, 58, 465.
2777[174] H. Willems, "Crime, Cult And Capital Punishment (Moalla Inscription 8)", Journal Of
2778Egyptian Archaeology, 1990, op. cit., pp. 27, 43-46. Also see H. Goedicke, "A Note On The
2779Early Cult Of Horus In Upper Egypt", Annales Du Service Des Antiquits De L'gypte, 1959,
2780Volume 56, pp. 59-62.

176

89
177
2781[175] "Amoun", W. Vycichl, Dictionnaire tymologique De La Langue Copte, 1983, Peeters:
2782Leuven, pp. 10-11; A. Erman (Trans. J. H. Breasted), Egyptian Grammar With Tables Of Signs,
2783Bibliography, Exercises For Reading And Glossary, 1894, Williams And Norgate: Edinburgh
2784(UK), p. 7.
2785[176] K. A. Kitchen, Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life And Times Of Ramesses II, King Of
2786Egypt, 1982, Aris & Phillips Ltd.: Warminster (England), p. 159.
2787[177] "IMN" in D. Budde, P. Dils, L. Goldbrunner, C. Leitz, D. Mendel in collaboration with F.
2788Frster, D. von Recklinghausen & B. Ventker (Eds.), Lexikon Der gyptischen Gtter Und
2789Gtterbezeichnungen, 2002, Volume I, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta - 110, Peeters: Leuven,
2790p. 312, 332 and 335. The composite image is created using information on these three pages.
2791[178] S. Langdon, A. H. Gardiner, "The Treaty Of Alliance Between attuili, King Of The
2792Hittites, And The Pharaoh Ramesses II Of Egypt", Journal Of Egyptian Archaeology, 1920,
2793Volume 6, No. 3, pp. 179-205, esp., pp. 181-183 for the transcription of the Hittite inscription.
2794[179] J. P. Allen, Middle Egyptian - An Introduction To The Language And Culture Of
2795Hieroglyphs, 2010, Revised Second Edition, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge (UK), p.
2796364.
2797[180] S. Langdon, A. H. Gardiner, "The Treaty Of Alliance Between attuili, King Of The
2798Hittites, And The Pharaoh Ramesses II Of Egypt", Journal Of Egyptian Archaeology, 1920,
2799op. cit., p. 184. Concerning the transcription of the name of Ramesses II in the Hittite cuneiform
2800tablets, Langdon and Sir Alan Gardiner say:
2801We are more embarrassed to know how to deal with the Egyptian royal names. The cuneiform tablets, in
2802writing the prenomen and nomen of Ramesses II... set a standard of excellence ... which we cannot maintain
2803elsewhere in transcribing Pharaonic names. Here we are usually content with the sort of pronunciation that
2804was current in Greek times, the sort of pronunciation that Manetho used.
2805Also see J. P. Allen, Middle Egyptian - An Introduction To The Language And Culture Of
2806Hieroglyphs, 2010, op. cit., p. 364.
2807[181] J. P. Allen, Middle Egyptian - An Introduction To The Language And Culture Of
2808Hieroglyphs, 2010, op. cit., p. 364, note 11.
2809[182] C. Peust, Egyptian Phonology - An Introduction To The Phonology Of A Dead
2810Language, 1999, op. cit., pp. 142-143.

178

90
179
2811[183] J. P. Allen, Middle Egyptian - An Introduction To The Language And Culture Of
2812Hieroglyphs, 2010, op. cit., p. 15; L. Adkins & R. Adkins, The Little Book Of Egyptian
2813Hieroglyphs, 2001, Hodder & Stoughton: London (UK), p. 37. Concerning the pronunciation of
2814I, Adkins et al. write that it:
2815... was technically a weak consonant

and not a vowel. It was possibly not even pronounced very often.

2816Also see C. Peust, Egyptian Phonology - An Introduction To The Phonology Of A Dead

2817Language, 1999, op. cit., pp. 49-50.
2818[184] G. Englund, Middle Egyptian - An Introduction, 1995, Uppsala University: Uppsala, p. 1.
2819[185] C. Peust, Egyptian Phonology - An Introduction To The Phonology Of A Dead
2820Language, 1999, op. cit., pp. 96-98.
2821[186] C. Peust, Egyptian Phonology - An Introduction To The Phonology Of A Dead
2822Language, 1999, op. cit., p. 226. Also J. S. Galn, "EA 164 And The God Amun", Journal Of
2823Near Eastern Studies, 1992, Volume 51, No. 4., pp. 287-291, esp. p. 287.
2824[187] The discussion here is condensed from the following articles: "Priests" in M. R. Bunson,
2825Encyclopedia Of Ancient Egypt, 2002, Revised Edition, Facts On File, Inc.: New York (NY), p.
2826265; "Priests" in I. Shaw & P. Nicholson, The British Museum Dictionary Of Ancient Egypt,
28271995, The American University in Cairo Press: Cairo (Egypt), pp. 228-229.
2828[188] R. K. Ritner, The Mechanics Of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, 2008, 4th
2829Imprinting, Studies In Ancient Oriental Civilization No. 54, The Oriental Institute of the
2830University of Chicago: Chicago (IL), pp. 248-249 and note 1142.
2831[189] J. Gee, "Prophets, Initiation and the Egyptian Temple", Journal Of The Society For The
2832Study Of Egyptian Antiquities, 2004, Volume 31, p. 100.
2833[190] ibid., pp. 99-100.
2834[191] R. H. Wilkinson, The Complete Gods And Goddesses Of Ancient Egypt, 2003, Thames &
2835Hudson: London (UK), pp. 187-190; "Anubis" in G. Hart, The Routledge Dictionary Of
2836Egyptian Gods And Goddesses, 2005, Routledge: London (UK) & New York (USA), pp. 25-28.
2837[192] R. K. Ritner, The Mechanics Of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, 2008, op. cit., p.
2838249 and note 1142.
2839[193] W. M. F. Petrie, The Religion Of Ancient Egypt, 1906, Archibald Constable & Co. Ltd.:
2840London (UK), p. 30.
180

91
181
2841[194] Apart from the earlier mention of "HMN" and "IMN", the are numerous examples of the
2842priest of a temple in ancient Egypt being referred to in the title by the name of the deity of that
2843temple.
2844[195] I. Shaw, Ancient Egypt: A Very Short Introduction, 2004, Oxford University Press Inc.:
2845New York, p. 129.
2846[196] "Herihor" in M. Rice, Who's Who In Ancient Egypt, 2002, Routledge: London & New
2847York, pp. 65-66; "Herihor, High Priest Of Amun 1100-1094 BC" in R. David & A. E. David, A
2848Biographical Dictionary Of Ancient Egypt, 1992, Seaby: London (UK), pp. 50-5; "Herihor" in
2849P. D. Netzley, M. Berger (Eds.), The Greenhaven Encyclopedia Of Ancient Egypt, 2003,
2850Greenhaven Press: Farmington Hills (MI), p. 138; "Herihor" in M. R. Bunson, Encyclopedia Of
2851Ancient Egypt, 2002, op. cit., p. 166.
2852[197] "Herihor" in P. D. Netzley, M. Berger (Eds.), The Greenhaven Encyclopedia Of Ancient
2853Egypt, 2003, op. cit., p. 138.
2854[198] The chronological chart is drawn from the data given by K. A. Kitchen, Pharaoh
2855Triumphant: The Life And Times Of Ramesses II, King Of Egypt, 1982, Aris & Phillips Ltd.:
2856Warminster (England), pp. 170-171 and Chart 2: The Reign of Ramesses II on pp. 240-243.
2857[199] "Bakenkhons" in M. Rice, Who's Who In Ancient Egypt, 2002, Routledge: London &
2858New York, pp. 33-34; "Bakenkhons (Bakenkhonsu)" in P. D. Netzley, M. Berger (Eds.), The
2859Greenhaven Encyclopedia Of Ancient Egypt, 2003, Greenhaven Press: Farmington Hills (MI),
2860p. 65; "Bakenkhons" in M. L. Bierbrier, Historical Dictionary Of Ancient Egypt, 2008,
2861Historical Dictionaries of Ancient Civilizations and Historical Eras - No. 22, The Scarecrow
2862Press, Inc., p. 33; K. Jansen-Winkeln, "The Career Of The Egyptian High Priest Bakenkhons",
2863Journal Of Near Eastern Studies, 1993, Volume 52, No. 3, pp. 221-225; K. A. Kitchen,
2864Ramesside Inscriptions, Translated & Annotated, 2000, Volume III (Ramesses II, His
2865Contemporaries), Blackwell Publishers: Oxford (UK), pp. 210-215; E. Frood, Biographical
2866Texts From Ramessid Egypt, 2007, Society Of Biblical Literature: Atlanta (GA), pp. 39-46; J. H.
2867Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Records From The Earliest Times To The
2868Persian Conquest, 1906, Volume III, University of Chicago Press: Chicago (IL), No. 561-568.,
2869pp. 234-237; "Bakenkhonsu" in M. R. Bunson, Encyclopedia Of Ancient Egypt, 2002, Revised
2870Edition, Facts On File, Inc.: New York (NY), p. 64.
2871[200] K. A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions, Translated & Annotated, 2000, Volume III
2872(Ramesses II, His Contemporaries), op. cit., pp. 35-47, esp. p. 37 (Under Prahotep B, Vizier);
2873E. Frood, Biographical Texts From Ramessid Egypt, 2007, op. cit., pp. 150-162.

182

92
183
2874[201] "Khaemwaset" in M. Rice, Who's Who In Ancient Egypt, 2002, op. cit., pp. 93-94;
2875"Khaemwaset" in P. D. Netzley, M. Berger (Eds.), The Greenhaven Encyclopedia Of Ancient
2876Egypt, 2003, op. cit., pp. 163-164; "Khaemwese" in M. L. Bierbrier, Historical Dictionary Of
2877Ancient Egypt, 2008, op. cit., pp. 110-111; K. A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions, Translated
2878& Annotated, 1996, Volume II (Ramesses II, Royal Inscriptions), Blackwell Publishers: Oxford
2879(UK), p. 565; "Khaemweset" in M. R. Bunson, Encyclopedia Of Ancient Egypt, 2002, op. cit.,
2880p. 198; K. A. Kitchen, Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life And Times Of Ramesses II, King Of
2881Egypt, 1982, op. cit., p. 103.
2882[202] "Neferronpet" in M. Rice, Who's Who In Ancient Egypt, 2002, op. cit., p. 134;
2883"Neferrenpet" in M. R. Bunson, Encyclopedia Of Ancient Egypt, 2002, op. cit., p. 269; K. A.
2884Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions, Translated & Annotated, 2000, Volume III (Ramesses II, His
2885Contemporaries), op. cit., pp. 31-35.
2886[203] "Wennufer" in M. Rice, Who's Who In Ancient Egypt, 2002, op. cit., pp. 219-220; K. A.
2887Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions, Translated & Annotated, 2000, Volume III (Ramesses II, His
2888Contemporaries), op. cit., pp. 318-327; idem., Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life And Times Of
2889Ramesses II, King Of Egypt, 1982, op. cit., pp. 170-171; E. Frood, Biographical Texts From
2890Ramessid Egypt, 2007, op. cit., pp. 97-101; G. A. Gaballa, "Monuments Of Prominent Men Of
2891Memphis, Abydos And Thebes", in J. Ruffle, G. A. Gaballa, K. A. Kitchen (Eds.), Glimpses Of
2892Ancient Egypt: Studies In Honour Of H. W. Fairman, 1979, Aris & Phillips Ltd.: Warminster
2893(England), pp. 43-46.
2894[204] K. A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions, Translated & Annotated, 2000, Volume III
2895(Ramesses II, His Contemporaries), op. cit., pp. 327-328.
2896[205] K. A. Kitchen, Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life And Times Of Ramesses II, King Of
2897Egypt, 1982, op. cit., p. 170; idem., Ramesside Inscriptions, Translated & Annotated, 2000,
2898Volume III (Ramesses II, His Contemporaries), op. cit., pp. 334-338.
2899[206] His inscriptions date from the time of Merneptah, Ramesses II son. For more details see K.
2900A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions, Translated & Annotated, 2000, Volume III (Ramesses II,
2901His Contemporaries), op. cit., p. 338. A long inscription of Anhurmose at El-Mashayikh, a
2902necropolis of Thinis, is translated by E. Frood, Biographical Texts From Ramessid Egypt, 2007,
2903op. cit., pp. 107-116. Also see "Anhurmose" in M. Rice, Who's Who In Ancient Egypt, 2002,
2904op. cit., p. 21.
2905[207] K. A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions, Translated & Annotated, 2000, Volume III
2906(Ramesses II, His Contemporaries), op. cit., pp. 35-47, esp. p. 37 (Under Prahotep B, Vizier).

184

93
185
2907[208] "Architects: Builders, Overseers Of Public Works, Engineers" in M. Rice, Who's Who
2908In Ancient Egypt, 2002, op. cit., p. 247.
2909[209] R. H. Wilkinson, The Complete Gods And Goddesses Of Ancient Egypt, 2003, Thames &
2910Hudson Ltd.: London (UK), p. 95.
2911[210] R. H. Wilkinson, The Complete Temples Of Ancient Egypt, 2000, Thames & Hudson:
2912New York (USA), p. 25.
2913[211] K. A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions, Translated & Annotated, 2000, Volume III
2914(Ramesses II, His Contemporaries), op. cit., pp. 191-201. For inscriptions of Amenemone and
2915Penre, see E. Frood, Biographical Texts From Ramessid Egypt, 2007, op. cit., pp. 189-193.
2916[212] "Bakenkhons" in M. Rice, Who's Who In Ancient Egypt, 2002, op. cit., p. 33.
2917[213] K. A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions, Translated & Annotated, 2000, Volume III
2918(Ramesses II, His Contemporaries), op. cit., pp. 210-215, esp. pp. 213-215 for the inscription at
2919Munich; E. Frood, Biographical Texts From Ramessid Egypt, 2007, op. cit., pp. 39-46, esp. pp.
292040-42; J. H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Records From The Earliest Times
2921To The Persian Conquest, 1906, Volume III, University of Chicago Press: Chicago (IL), No.
2922561-568, pp. 234-237
2923[214] "Bakenkhons" in M. Rice, Who's Who In Ancient Egypt, 2002, op. cit., p. 34.
2924[215] Kitchen gives the age of Ramesses II as ~90 years. See K. A. Kitchen, Pharaoh
2925Triumphant: The Life And Times Of Ramesses II, King Of Egypt, 1982, op. cit., p. 207. On the
2926other hand, Clayton gives an age of ~92 years. See P. A. Clayton, Chronicle Of The Pharaohs:
2927The Reign-By-Reign Record Of The Rulers And Dynasties Of Ancient Egypt, 1994, Thames
2928and Hudson Ltd.: London (UK), p. 155.
2929[216] K. A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions, Translated & Annotated, 2000, Volume III
2930(Ramesses II, His Contemporaries), op. cit., p. 213. Similar translation is also seen in E. Frood,
2931Biographical Texts From Ramessid Egypt, 2007, op. cit., p. 40. It reads:
2932Member of the pat, count, high priest of Amun, Bakenkhons, true of voice, he says: I was truly assiduous,
2933effective for his lord, who respected the renown of his god, who went forth upon his path, who performed acts
2934of beneficence within his temple while I was chief overseer of works in the domain of Amun, as an excellent
2935confidant for his lord.
2936Also J. H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Records From The Earliest Times
2937To The Persian Conquest, 1906, Volume III, op. cit., No. 564., pp. 235-236.

186

94
187
2938[217] E. Frood, Biographical Texts From Ramessid Egypt, 2007, op. cit., pp. 41-42.
2939[218] K. A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions, Translated & Annotated, 2000, Volume III
2940(Ramesses II, His Contemporaries), op. cit., pp. 214. Also see J. H. Breasted, Ancient Records of
2941Egypt: Historical Records From The Earliest Times To The Persian Conquest, 1906, Volume
2942III, op. cit., No. 567., pp. 236-237. The translated text reads: I erected obelisks therein, of
2943granite, whose beauty approached heaven.
2944[219] J. H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Records From The Earliest Times
2945To The Persian Conquest, 1906, Volume III, op. cit., No. 567., p. 237, note b.
2946[220] M. Abd El-Razik, "The Dedicatory And Building Texts of Ramesses II In Luxor
2947Temple: II: The Texts", Journal Of Egyptian Archaeology, 1974, Volume 60, pp. 142-160, esp.
2948inscriptions on pp. 151-152; idem., "The Dedicatory And Building Texts of Ramesses II In
2949Luxor Temple: II: Interpretation", Journal Of Egyptian Archaeology, 1975, Volume 61, pp.
2950130-131.
2951[221] K. A. Kitchen, Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life And Times Of Ramesses II, King Of
2952Egypt, 1982, op. cit., Chart 2: The Reign of Ramesses II on pp. 240-243.
2953[222] J. C. E. Watson, The Phonology And Morphology of Arabic, 2002, Oxford University
2954Press: Oxford (UK), Chapter 2, pp. 13-23.
2955[223] "Al-H" in E. M. Badawi & M. Abdel Haleem, Arabic-English Dictionary Of Qur'anic
2956Usage, 2008, Handbook of Oriental Studies - Volume 85, Brill: Leiden & Boston, p. 186.
2957[224] C. Peust, Egyptian Phonology - An Introduction To The Phonology Of A Dead
2958Language, 1999, op. cit., pp. 98-99. Also see p. 48 for listing of ancient Egyptian alphabets.
2959[225] "Al-H" in E. M. Badawi & M. Abdel Haleem, Arabic-English Dictionary Of Qur'anic
2960Usage, 2008, op. cit., p. 975.
2961[226] "Al-Hamza" in E. M. Badawi & M. Abdel Haleem, Arabic-English Dictionary Of
2962Qur'anic Usage, 2008, op. cit., p. 1.
2963[227] "Alif" in E. M. Badawi & M. Abdel Haleem, Arabic-English Dictionary Of Qur'anic
2964Usage, 2008, op. cit., pp. 37-38..
2965[228] H. Kahana, Esther: Juxtaposition Of The Septuagint Translation With The Hebrew Text,
29662005, op. cit., pp. 127-129.

188

95
189
2967[229] E. J. Bakker, A Companion To The Ancient Greek Language, 2010, Blackwell Publishing
2968Ltd., pp. 86-87; A. L. Sihler, New Comparative Grammar Of Greek And Latin, 1995, Oxford
2969University Press: New York & Oxford, p. 20.
2970[230] S. M. Syed, "Historicity Of Haman As Mentioned In The Qur'an", Islamic Quarterly,
29711980, Volume 24, No. 1 & 2, pp. 52-54. Republished idem., "Historicity Of Hmn As
2972Mentioned In The Qur'n", Hamdard Islamicus, 1984, Volume 7, No. 4, pp. 86-88. Republished
2973again with modified title and some minor changes, idem., "Haman In The Quran: A Historical
2974Assessment", in M. Taher (Ed.), Encyclopaedic Survey Of Islamic Culture, 1997, Volume 2,
2975Studies In Quran, Anmol Publications: Delhi (India), pp. 176-189.
2976[231] A. Badawi, "Le Problme De Hmn" in R. Traini (Ed), Studi In Onore Di Francesco
2977Gabrieli Nel Suo Ottantesimo Compleanno, 1984, Volume I, Universit di Roma La Sapienza:
2978Roma, pp. 29-33, esp. p. 32 where he says:
2979Notre hypothse est la suivante: le nom Hmn dans le Coran est identique Amon; le rapprochement entre
2980les deux noms est d'autant plus facile qu'Amon se prononce aussi Amana (voir Encyclopaedia Britannica, I, p.
2981321, col. 1; dition 1 982). Il est sous-entendu, par abbrviation, grand prtre de ... . Comme le titre
2982Pharaon dsigna le Roi d'Egypte, le titre de Haman finit par dsigner dans la tradition orale le vizir de
2983Pharaon.
2984[232] M. Asad (Trans.), The Message Of The Qur'an, 1984, Dar Al-Andalus: Gibraltar, p. 590,
2985note 6.
2986Most probably, the word "Hmn" as used in the Qur'n is not a proper name at all but the Arabicized echo of
2987the compound designation H-Amen given to every high priest of the Egyptian god Amon. Since at the time in
2988question the cult of Amon was paramount in Egypt, his high priest held in rank second only to that of the
2989reigning Pharaoh. The assumption that the person spoken of in the Qur'n as Hmn was indeed the high
2990priest of the cult of Amon is strengthened by Pharaoh's demand... that Hmn erect for him "a lofty tower"
2991from which he could "have a look at [or "ascend to"] the god of Moses":...
2992[233] L. Fatoohi & S. Al-Dargazelli, History Testifies To The Infallibility Of The Qur'an 2993Early History Of Children Of Israel, 1999, Adam Publishers & Distributors: Delhi (India), pp.
2994145-154, esp. 148-150.
2995[234] A. H. Jones, "Hmn", in J. D. McAuliffe (Ed.), Encyclopaedia Of The Qur'an, 2002,
2996Volume II, op. cit., p. 399.
2997One suggestion is that Hmn is an Arabized echo of the Egyptian
2998only in rank to Pharaoh (Asad, Message, 590, n. 6).

H-Amen, the title of a high priest second

2999[235] "Hmn" in E. M. Badawi & M. Abdel Haleem, Arabic-English Dictionary Of Qur'anic

3000Usage, 2008, op. cit., p. 978. The entry states:

190

96
191
3001[(proper) noun occurring six times in the Qur'an. It is considered to be a Coptic borrowing related to the
3002Egyptian God of Amon, most likely, according to Muhammad Asad, the designation 'Ha-Amen' given to every
3003high priest of the Egyptian god of Amon (not to be confused with Persian Haman of the Old Testament), or
3004possibly, according to other commentators, it is a proper noun] either the name of the chief aid to Pharaoh or
3005the title of the high priest in Egypt at the time of Moses (Est. III ff)...
3006[236] H. Ranke, Die gyptischen Personennamen, 1935, Volume I (Verzeichnis der Namen),
3007op. cit., p. 240, Nos. 24-26 and p. 241, No. 1.
3008[237] S. Reinisch, Die Aegyptischen Denkmaeler In Miramar, 1865, Wilhelm Braumller:
3009Wein, pp. 255-256, Nr. 18 and Nr 19, Tafel XXXIX A and B.
3010[238] W. Wreszinski, Aegyptische Inschriften Aus Dem K.K. Hof Museum In Wien, 1906, J. C.
3011Hinrichssche Buchhandlung: Leipzig, I 34, p. 130.
3012[239] ibid.
3013[240] ibid., p. 196.
3014[241] D. van der Plas (Ed.), Egyptian Treasures in Europe Volume 5: Kunsthistorisches
3015Museum Wien / Vienna, 2002, U-CCER Production B. V.: Heidelberglaan (The Netherlands).
3016[242] M. Bucaille, Moses and Pharaoh: The Hebrews In Egypt, 1995, NTT Mediascope Inc.:
3017Tokyo, pp. 192-193.
3018[243] Silverstein recognises this also, see A. Silverstein, "Hmns Transition From Jhiliyya
3019To Islam", Jerusalem Studies In Arabic And Islam, 2008 (published 2009), op. cit., pp. 3063020307.
3021[244] G. S. Reynolds, The Qurn And Its Biblical Subtext, 2010, Routledge: Oxford, p. 2
3022(more generally the whole introduction).
3023[245] ibid.
3024[246] ibid., p. 3. Presumably what is meant here is Western Quranic studies.
3025[247] ibid., p. 17.
3026[248] G. S. Reynolds, "Muhammad Through Christian Eyes: Demonic Charlatan Or Moral
3027Exemplar? The Church's Mixed Response To Islam's Prophet", Books & Culture: A Christian
3028Review, 2002 (January/February), Volume 8, Issue 1, p. 8.
3029[249] idem., The Qurn And Its Biblical Subtext, 2010, op. cit., pp. 101-103.
192

97
193
3030[250] ibid., pp. 104-106.
3031[251] J. L. Kugel, Traditions Of The Bible: A Guide To The Bible As It Was At The Start Of
3032The Common Era, 1998, op. cit., pp. 228-233.
3033[252] G. S. Reynolds, The Qurn And Its Biblical Subtext, 2010, op. cit., p. 101 & p. 103.
3034[253] ibid., p. 104.
3035[254] S. B. Berg, The Book Of Esther: Motifs, Themes, And Structure, 1979, Scholars Press:
3036Atlanta, pp. 6-7.
3037[255] ibid., pp. 123-142.
3038[256] G. S. Reynolds, The Qurn And Its Biblical Subtext, 2010, op. cit., p. 104.
3039[257] ibid.
3040[258] ibid.
3041[259] ibid., footnote 293.
3042[260] There is actually a third Greek text. Hanhart gives the readings to this text in his apparatus
3043for GII. See, S. Weeks, "Some Neglected Texts Of Tobit: The Third Greek Version", in M.
3044Bredin (Ed.), Studies In The Book Of Tobit: A Multidisciplinary Approach, 2006, T & T Clark:
3045London, pp. 12-42.
3046[261] R. Hanhart (Ed.), Tobit, 1983, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate
3047Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum VIII, 5, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Gttingen, pp.
3048181-182.
3049[262] S. Weeks, S. Gathercole & L. Stuckenbruck (Eds.), The Book Of Tobit: Texts From The
3050Principal Ancient And Medieval Traditions, 2004, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.: Berlin, pp.
3051326-329.
3052[263] G. S. Reynolds, The Qurn And Its Biblical Subtext, 2010, op. cit., p. 105.
3053[264] ibid.
3054
3055

194

Back To Refutation Of External Contradictions In The Qur'an <a

href="http://www.statcounter.com/" target="_blank"><img

98
195
3056 src="http://c5.statcounter.com/counter.php?sc_project=608214&java=0&security=8de7aa4a"
3057
alt="free web hit counter" border="0"></a>
3058

196