The Death of Judas Iscariot between Matthew’s version and the version of the apostles.

 

Matthew’s Version

When it was noon, all the chief priests and the elders of the nation gathered and decided to kill Jesus.

(2) They bound Him and took Him and handed Him over to Pilate, the governor of the land.

(3) When Judas, who betrayed Him, saw that Jesus had been condemned to death, he was sorry.

Then he returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

(4) and said: “I have sinned by giving up innocent blood.” But they answered: “What have we got to do with it? That’s your own business!”

(5) So, he threw the silver into the temple and left there and hanged himself.

(6) The chief priests took the silver and said, “It is not permissible to put this money in the offering chest, for it is blood money.”

(7) After negotiating, they bought with the money a land called the potter’s land to be used as a burial place for foreigners.

(8) That is why the price of the land is called the Land of Blood.

(10) and they gave the money for the potter’s land, just as the Lord had commanded me.” (Matthew 27:1-10)

The Death of Judas Iscariot per the version of the what supposed to be apostles

(15) In those days Peter stood in the midst of the assembled brethren, about a hundred and twenty, and said,

(16) Brothers and sisters, the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit spoke through David about Judas, the leader of those who arrested Jesus, must be fulfilled.

(17) In the past he was among our numbers and took part in this ministry.”

(18) – This Judas had bought a piece of land with his crime, then fell on his face, and split open so that all the contents of his stomach spilled out.

(19) This was known by all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so they called the land in their own language “Hakal-Dama”, meaning Land of Blood–.

(20) For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let it be desolate in it, and let there be no occupant in it: and: Let another man take his office (Acts 1:15-20

It appears that the two versions of the verses have very sharp contradictions. some of the contradictions that we can learn from the two versions of the verses above are:

1. DID JUDAS THROW HIS MONEY IN THE TEMPLE OR BUY THE LAND? = In Matthew’s version, Judas regretted giving up Jesus for the death penalty.

So, he wanted to return the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, so Judas did not buy the land with his betrayal money, he threw the money away and hanged himself, never buying land until his spirit drifted away.

(3) When Judas, who betrayed Him, saw that Jesus had been condemned to death, he was sorry. Then he returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders

(4) and said: “I have sinned by giving up innocent blood.” But they answered: “What have we got to do with it? That’s your own business!”

(5) So, he also threw the silver coin into the temple, then went from there and hanged himself (27:3-5)

But the version of the Acts of the Apostles, Judas did not return the money to the chief priests and elders -old, even Judas with his betrayal money he bought land. Judas died after he bought the land (18) – This Judas had bought a piece of land with his wickedness, then fell on his face, and his stomach was split open so that all the contents of his stomach spilled out. (Acts 1:18))

• WHO Bought THE LAND OF BLOOD?

THE HEAD PRIESTS AND THE ELDERLY OR JUDAS? = In Matthew’s version, the chief priests and elders who bought the land of blood/Hakal Dama were not Judas. Judas immediately regretted, threw the money into the temple, then went to hang himself. (3) When Judas, who betrayed him, saw that Jesus had been condemned to death, he regretted. So, he returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

(4) and said, “I has sinned by hanging the blood of innocent people.” They answered, “What have we to do with that? That’s your own business!”(5) So he threw silver coins into the temple and left.

(6) The priest the chief priest took the silver coin and said: “It is not permissible to put this money in the offering chest, because it is blood money.”

(7) After negotiating with the money, he bought land called the potter’s land to be used as a burial place for foreigners.

(8) That is why the land is to this day called the Land of Blood (Matthew 27:3-8)) …… in the version of the Acts of the Apostles, it was not the chief priests and elders who bought the land with Judas’ betrayal money, but Judas himself bought the land with betrayal money yes himself, then he died falling on his stomach with a split stomach (18) —

This Judas had bought a piece of land with his crime, then fell on his face, and his stomach was split open so that all the contents of his stomach were spilled out. (19) This is known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the land they call in their own language “Hakal-Dama”, meaning the Land of Blood-(Acts 1:18-19) ).

The contradiction is clear, in the story of the Apostles, it was Judas who bought the land with his betrayal money. In Matthew’s version, the chief priests and elders of the Jews bought the land, the land called Hakal Dama.

HOW DOES JUDAS DIE? DEATH HANGING HIMSELF OR DEATH FALLING UP UNTIL HIS STOMACH IS RENT OUT, UNTIL HIS STOMACH CONTENTS SPILL OUT? = In Matthew’s version, Judas died by hanging himself ((5)

So he threw the silver coin into the temple, then left and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5)) …….different from Judas’ death according to the story the Apostles, Judas died not by hanging, but Judas died from falling face down, and somehow, his stomach split open until all the contents of the stomach were spilled. (18) –

This Judas had bought a piece of land with his crime, then fell on his face, and his whole stomach was spilled out. (19) This was known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the land they called in their own language “Hakal-Dama”, meaning Land of Blood (Acts 1:18-19)).

So, there is a different version of the way Judas died between the Acts of the Apostles and Matthew. Christians apologise, because Judas hung himself either on a fragile tree branch, then the trunk was broken until Judas fell until his stomach hit something until his stomach was split open until all the contents of his stomach came out. But that apology was weak.

If Judas fell on something sharp or rocks, it was impossible for all of his stomach contents to come out. maximum he was only threatened, tore his stomach slightly, and died. Unless Judas hangs himself on the Petronas tower, it could be that the fall makes his stomach split open, so that all the contents of his stomach come out. Christians, according to tradition, Judas hung himself on the edge of a steep cliff, above the Valley of Hinnom.

But the rope that hung him finally broke and Judas fell down as Luke describes. traditional stories are stories that are not in the New Testament, which cannot be confirmed and complain about the truth of the story

Well, haven’t you seen a very sharp contradiction in the two versions of the death of Judas above? So, which of the 2 versions of the story is lying? The gospel that is claimed to have come from the Apostle Matthew who lied or Luke the author of the Acts of the Apostles who lied?

The Apostle Matthew who claims to be an eyewitness says that Judas took the land of blood from the proceeds of his crime, he threw the money into the holy bait, Luke stated that Judas bought the land of blood with the proceeds of his crime. Matthew claimed to be an eyewitness, Luke claimed his writings from eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. Both claim it to be empty when faced with this sharp contradiction.

This shows, the New Testament writers wrote all the stories they liked according to their stories and attributed it to Jesus and the disciples. From this discussion, both the book of Matthew and the Acts of the Apostles, it is difficult to believe that this is a 100% true document about Jesus. s and his Apostles. Actually, among them there is a group who twist their tongues reading the Book, so that you think that what they read is part of the Book, even though it is not from the Book, and they say:

“He (what he reads comes) from the side of Allah”, even though he is not from Allah. side of God. They tell lies against Allah while they know. (Ali-`Imran: 78) So woe to those who wrote the Bible with their own hands and said, “This is from Allah”, (with the intention of) getting a little profit by doing that. So, a great accident for them, the result of what their own hands wrote, and a great accident for them, because of what they do. (Al-Baqarah: 79)

Even Jews Reject that Prophet Ishmael, peace be upon him is: “Wild Ass” Man?

 

Brief philological analysis on the term “Wild Ass” in Genesis 16:12

Many christians in the west see Muslims, Arabs, and what is happening in the middle east as a direct fulfilment to Genesis 16 11-12 by deeming all prophet Ishmael peace be upon him (Ar. إسماعيل‎ ʾIsmāʿīl) descendants  i.e. Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him  , the Arabs and Muslims in one derogatory category “wild ass of men”.

As a result they develop a racist view and built-in hatred towards Arabs and muslims for centuries since the spread of Islam, through the middle ages until modern day phenomenon known as Islamophobic prevalent in ‘christian’ nations these days. Moreover fundamentalist and evangelical christians seem to love to ridicule muslims and prophet Muhammad based on the understanding from this passage in the Hebrew Bible,.

We try to briefly examine, was prophet Ishmael peace be upon him really a ‘Wild Ass’ Man (Astaghfirullah) or Is it  a deliberate character assassination due to the enmities which arose in prophet Abraham’s extended family contributed to the translation  of Gen 16: 12?

Bereishit Genesis 16:11-12

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לָהּ֙ מַלְאַ֣ךְ יְהוָ֔ה הִנָּ֥ךְ הָרָ֖ה וְיֹלַ֣דְתְּ בֵּ֑ןוְקָרָ֤את שְׁמוֹ֙ יִשְׁמָעֵ֔אל כִּֽי־שָׁמַ֥ע יְהוָ֖ה אֶל־עָנְיֵֽךְ

And the angel of the LORD said unto her: ‘Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son; and thou shalt call his name Ishmael, because the LORD hath heard thy affliction

וְה֤וּא יִהְיֶה֙ פֶּ֣רֶאאָדָ֔ם יָד֣וֹ בַכֹּ֔ל וְיַ֥ד כֹּ֖ל בּ֑וֹוְעַל־פְּנֵ֥י כָל־אֶחָ֖יו יִשְׁכֹּֽן

And he shall be a wild ass of a man (pere’āḏām): his hand shall be with every man, and every man’s hand with him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brethren.’

If we look for the direct arabic cognate for the hebrew פֶּ֣רֶא pere in arabic it is  فَرَاء fara’

LANE Arabic-English Lexicon  give the following entry for فَرَاء

افراء. (M, K.) Hence the saying, كل الصيد فى جوف الفرا [Every kind of game is in the belly (or might enter into the belly) of the wild ass];

This archaic saying which has been recorded in the hadith of prophet Muhammad indicates the nuance of the term “wild ass” it denotes superiority as what the saying mean is every animal is inferior to the wild ass, as though the wild ass were a carnivore able to devour whatever it chooses.

However there are several roots in Hebrew that begin with the two consonants פ and ר (P and R) and  interestingly those are connected with the concept of fertility and fruits of nature. Obviously such concepts in Hebrew like in other languages are also used figuratively:  the Hebrew פֶּ֣רֶא pere can also be from the same root with the word פָּרָא para meaning “fruit”.

This option is very much possible since the hebrew text did not use vocalisation from the beginning and diacritical markings was introduced later.

The usage of word פָּרָא mis found in Hosea 13:15 , we read:

…כִּ֣י ה֔וּא בֵּ֥ן אַחִ֖ים יַפְרִ֑יא יָב֣וֹא קָדִים֩ ר֨וּחַ יְהוָ֜המִמִּדְבָּ֣ר

Though He will be the most fruitful (yaphri) of all his brothers, the east wind–a blast from the LORD–will arise in the desert.

Here in the above passage יַפְרִ֑יא yaphri , the stem could be פרא (p-r -‘) as well as  פרה (p-r -h)

Something fruitful makes much more sense if instead of “wild ass human being” it may simply be another way of stating what appears unambiguously in Genesis 17:20,

וּֽלְיִשְׁמָעֵאל֮ שְׁמַעְתִּיךָ֒ הִנֵּ֣ה ׀ בֵּרַ֣כְתִּי אֹתֹ֗ו וְהִפְרֵיתִ֥י אֹתֹ֛ו וְהִרְבֵּיתִ֥י אֹתֹ֖ו בִּמְאֹ֣ד מְאֹ֑ד שְׁנֵים־עָשָׂ֤ר נְשִׂיאִם֙ יֹולִ֔יד וּנְתַתִּ֖יו לְגֹ֥וי גָּדֹֽול׃

And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful (wehiphreithi) and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation

Having thus dealt with those possible hebrew roots Genesis 16:12 should read:

And he shall be a fruitful man: his hand shall be with every man, and every man’s hand with him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brethren.’

Note:
Some Christian/jews translation render בַכֹּ֔ל bekol to
“against every man” this is dishonest because nothing in the original text indicate as such , בַ is simply “with”

---

SEPTUAGINT TRANSLATION OF GENESIS 16:12

Interesting to observe that Septuagint version for the term “wild ass of a man” is ἔσται ἄγροικος ἄνθρωπος estai agroikos anthrōpos

We read

12 οὗτος ἔσται ἄγροικος ἄνθρωπος αἱ χεῖρες αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πάντας, καὶ αἱ χεῖρες πάντων ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν, καὶ κατὰ πρόσωπον πάντων τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ κατοικήσει.

Septuagint specialist Robert J. V. Hiebert, Ph.D. renders the greek phrase ἔσται ἄγροικος ἄνθρωπος estai agroikos anthrōpos , as  “he shall be a rustic man ”  this means a countrymen living in the rural areas or wilderness [4]

This translation reflects a slightly different reading from the Hebrew פּרא to possibly hebrew variant of בָּרָא bar’

STRONG’S CONCORDANCE

BAR: (AN OPEN) FIELD

ORIGINAL WORD: בָּרָא

PART OF SPEECH: NOUN MASCULINE

TRANSLITERATION: BAR

PHONETIC SPELLING: (BAR)

SHORT DEFINITION: FIELD

Here the word field possibly refer to Vorlage reading ברא means “country”.

Interestingly enough Greek text suggest that it is the land which is wild rather than the man i.e. Ishmael.

If the Vorlage of the Septuagint had ברא, instead of the Masoretes פּרא, , two Arabic cognates are of great interest.

The first is بَرّ (barra) Which means

“devoted and righteous [towards his father or parents, and towards God and all kind of good and affectionate and gentle in behaviour, towards his kindred; and kind, or good, in his dealings with strangers” (Lane Lexicon).

So the angel’s announcement to Hagar that her son would become البر (the righteous) may well have assured her that her son would show her due filial piety and manifest godly devotion. Such a prediction would have been a welcomed promise.

This makes more perfect sense than the angel would announce to her that her son would become a “wild ass” who would continually fight with his brothers such as the predominant christian and jewish translations.

Second Arabic cognate برأ (bara’) which means

“free, secure, safe, free from disease, distress or debt” (Lane Lexicon),

This could provide further insight into what may well have been a double entendre in the original tradition. For the slave woman to be promised that her son would be free would have been great news, helping her make her own bondage bearable.

The angel’s word to Hagar that Ishmael would be פּרא may not have been understood by Hagar as meaning “an onager man” or “wild ass human being.”

In conclusion

Brief  philological analysis of the Hebrew texts of Genesis 16:12 using possible Hebrew roots and definitions, most of which have survived as cognates in classical Arabic. These include:

ברא “forest, wilderness, country”

בר “filial piety, kind to strangers, devotion to God”

ברא “free, secure, safe”

פּרא “to bear fruit, to have progeny”

Now it becomes a little easier to understand just what the angel said to Hagar and what it was that the narrator actually said about Ishmael. Far from being negative, derogatory, or racist, the words about Ishmael and the Ishmaelites in Genesis were laudatory and compatible with the divine promise to Abraham that, through his progeny, “all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen 12:3).

Another Critical Analysis of Genesis 16:12

“And he shall be a wild ass of a man; his hand shall be against every man, and every man’s hand against him…”

But is this really what it says? Let us look at the original Hebrew, which has no vowels, and reconsider this passage according to traditional Hebrew grammar:

If this unvoweled Hebrew were given to Israeli grammar school students, how would they interpret it? First of all, let us consider the word   . The Hebrew preposition    usually means “in” or “with”. Therefore, the most plausible interpretation of    is “his hand (shall be) with everyone”. Not “against everyone”!

For   , Langenscheidt’s dictionary gives the following possible meanings: “in, at, to, on, among, with, towards; according to, by, because of.” Can it ever mean “against”?

The answer is “yes”. In certain special cases it can indeed mean “against”. A perfectly representative example of a sentence in which    can mean “against” is found in Deuteronomy 19:15, where Moses says …

… which is interpreted “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity…”.

But the word …

… is defined by Langenscheidt’s Hebrew Dictionary as “to rise up against“, and the prefix    in the word …

… does no more than define who it is with whom we are “rising up against“.

The following is a representative list of instances in the yearly Torah-Haftorah cycle where the Hebrew prefix    is properly translated “against”:

Exodus 9:17, Exodus 14:25, Exodus 32:29, Lev 17:10, Lev 20:3,5,6; Lev 24:16,20; Lev 26:17, Nu 21:7, Deut 2:15, Deut 11:17, Deut 13:10 Deut 19:15, Deut 25:18, Deut 29:19, Judg 11:12, Ezek 38:21 (Haftorah Sukkos, intermediate Sabbath), Hosea 13:9 (Haftorah Vayetze), Zech 3:2 (Haftorah Bahaalothecha)

An analysis of these passages reveals that   , by itself, never means “against”. I shall leave it as an exercise to the interested reader to look these references up, and to persuade himself that the inseparable prefix    acquires this meaning only in a context where the “against-ness” is provided by another word or words in the verse.

The analogy to English is very good in this case. If we say that we are “with” someone, this almost invariably means that we are for him, not against him. For example, the common expression“God be with you…”

…surely means “may God be for you” (not “may God be against you”!). But if we say:“I shall fight with you…”

..then we have, in English, an example of the use of the word “with” to mean “against”, for, if we fight with someone, then we are against that person. But the sense of “against-ness” is provided by the word “fight”, not by the word “with”!

The parallel to Hebrew is quite exact. In each of the above-cited examples, the inseparable prefix,   , takes on the meaning “against” either because there’s some other word in the passage which provides that meaning, or else because the context makes that meaning clear.

This is not so in Genesis 16:12. There are no words in the verse which suggests “against-ness”, and, as we shall shortly see, the context not only fails to support that meaning, but, on the contrary, essentially rules it out.

Application of the same logic shows that the most plausible interpretation of

is: “and every man’s hand (shall be) with him”. Not “against him”!

Next, let us consider the word   . If we look back two verses, to Genesis 16:10, we see “And the angel of the Lord said … ‘I will greatly multiply thy seed, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.’ “. Viewed in this light, the word    takes on an entirely different significance. There is another Hebrew word constructed from the same consonants, but with different vowel points. This is the verb …

… which means “to bring forth, to bear fruit”. (Although this word is found in modern Hebrew dictionaries, it seems that the preferred form of the verb, these days, is

The last letter changes from aleph to hay, but the meaning is the same. I wonder why this latter form is preferred?)

Now, the participle form of    is

But in the Bible, the letter    (vav), is usually omitted from participles, so in un-voweled Hebrew we would expect to see   , representing the un-voweled form of

Anyone who wishes to dispute this grammatical principle, as it applies to Genesis 16:12, will be hard-pressed to make a case, because the very next verse, Genesis 16:13, features the word

…, the participle of the Qal form of the verb “to speak”. Note that the Hebrew letter vav is absent. It is pointless to doubt that vav is usually omitted in participles in the Torah.

Since G-d says here that He will “greatly multiply” [Ishmael’s] seed, so that it “shall not be numbered for multitude”, we must ask which is the most plausible interpretation of

Does it mean “a wild ass of a man”, or does it mean “a fruitful man”? In the context of the passage, it can have only one plausible interpretation:“…a fruitful man…”

Our suspicions are further aroused when we consult the Brown, Driver and Briggs lexicon (BDB), to find out where in the Bible — if anywhere– the word

occurs in a setting in which it really does mean “wild ass” (exclusive of Gen 16:12): BDB gives the following:

Ho 8:9+, Je 14:6+, Jb 6:5, Jb 39:5, Is 32:14, Ps 104:11, Jb 11:12, Je 2:24, Jb 24:5

So the word occurs in Job, and in the Prophets. Note that there is no use of the word anywhere in the Torah! (Unless Genesis 16:12 is considered to be such a use). In general, then (admittedly depending upon the age of the book of Job), it can be said that the word …

…, meaning “wild ass”, does not appear in Hebrew literature until 1,000 years after the Torah was written.

What other contextual evidence is there which confirms that correct vowel points would cause the correct translation to be …

…, meaning “fruitful”? We have already seen that two verses above, in Genesis 16:10, God says to Hagar, “I will greatly multiply thy seed, that it shall not be numbered for multitude”. Is this not synonymous with “fruitful”? If we now look ahead slightly, to Genesis 17:6, we see God blessing Abraham with the following words:

Here we see the Hifil form of the same verb,

to inform us that God will make Abraham “fruitful”. Fruitful, not “ass-like”!! Again, a few verses down (Genesis 17:20), God addresses Ishmael in the same manner, promising to make him “fruitful” also, according to the words

This again is the Hifil form of the verb

… to reiterate the message of Genesis 16:10, where God told Hagar “I will greatly multiply thy seed, that it shall not be numbered for multitude”.

The equivalence of    and    is further evidenced in Hosea 13:15 (Haftorah Vayyetze), where we see the word …

…, which BDB identifies as the Hifil form of   , imperfect, 3rd person masculine, “as if from   (!)”

In summary, if we now employ the most plausible interpretation of the word   , and utilize the standard grammar of the preposition   , we arrive at the following interpretation of Genesis 16:12:

…which means that what our Bible really says about Ishmael is:

“… he will be a fruitful man: his hand shall be with everyone, and every man’s hand shall be with him…” (!!)

This is a markedly different interpretation than the one given by our Rabbis. At this time, claimed by Jews, Christians and Muslims to be the dawn of the Messianic Era, itsn’t it time we told the truth?

References

1. “ISHMAEL: A PEACE MAKER: GENESIS 16:10 –12” (.pdf) THOMAS F. McDANIEL Ph.D., Professor Emeritus
2. Arabic-English Lexicon  by Edward William Lane  (London: Willams & Norgate 1863)
3. .Net Bible Study Tool
4. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. 01 Genesis
5. Ishmael, peace be upon him: “Wild Ass” Man?

 

Source: https://islamcompass.com/even-jews-reject-that-prophet-ishmael-peace-be-upon-him-is-wild-ass-man/

Is Ishmael Really a "Wild Ass"?

 

A Jewish Lie, and a Muslim Lie

 

Jews and Muslims have been lying about each other for millennia. Mind you, there's nothing wrong with their scriptures. It's the interpretations thereof which are the problem.

Muslims, for example, teach their children that all Jews and Christians must either die, or convert. But the Holy Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, said that everyone who believes in the Jewish or Christian scriptures will be saved! Who's fooling who?

Although few of you can read Arabic, I feel compelled to show you the Arabic text, which I will then translate for you:

 

 

 As those of you who read Arabic know, this is translated:

 

"Those who believe*, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabians, and who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." (Qur'an 2:62, repeated verbatim in Qur'an 5:69).

*i.e., believe in the Qur'an.

 

Since the phrase "those who believe" is explicitly understood to mean "those who believe in the Qur'an", i.e., those who believe in Allah and his Prophet, it must be said the Muhammad held Islam, Judaism and Christianity to be equally holy. Although individuals and groups of evil Jews and Christians are frequently mentioned in the Qur'an, Muhammad was quick to point out -- in every case -- that there are many among them who believe, and who will be saved.

The Holy Prophet of Islam often resorted to the phrase "People of the Book", an explicit reference to Jews and Christians. Well, Muslims ought to keep in mind that they too now have a book, and have had it for some 1,400 years. It would behoove them to keep in mind that "People of the Book" now includes them, and has for all this time. If having "the book" is not, by itself, enough to "cleanse" Jews and Christians from their sins, then how is having Qur'an going to be any better?

In any event, it would be difficult indeed to find any support from the personal teachings of Muhammad for the virulently anti-Semitic, anti-Christian beliefs which have permeated Islam ... almost from the beginning (but not quite from the very beginning, as you can now see).

So what went wrong? Obviously, somebody is lying!

Having said so, let us now turn to the main purpose of this section of the Web Site, which is to expose one of the most shameful Jewish lies in history. It is every bit as outrageous as the Muslim lie I have just described above, and undoubtedly closely-related historically. I refer to the ridiculous practice of translating Genesis 16:12 to read that Ishmael -- the son of Abraham -- regarded by Muslims as being the founder of Islam -- shall be "a wild ass".

We needn't seek far for a reason for this lie. With Muslims perverting their own scriptures, teaching their children that all Jews and Christians must die, it is not surprising to find Jews -- not to mention Christians -- teaching their children that Ishmael, the esteemed founder of Islam, is a "wild ass"!

How many more millennia will we be playing this game of "your mother wears army boots"?

The passage in question is actually correctly translated "[Ishmael] shall be a fruitful man". How the hell do you get from "a fruitful man" to "a wild ass"? Well, ancient Hebrew had no vowels, and all the vowels in our modern Bibles were added during the Middle Ages. As you shall see, it's nothing short of amazing how much you can twist the meanings of words, by craftily adding wrong vowels to a text which has none of its own!

I have discussed the corruption of the usual translations of Genesis 16:12 with many learned Jews and Christians. I said "learned" and I meant "learned". I refer to men with lofty credentials who cannot have failed to grasp the point, but who are so utterly brainwashed with hate that the point just cannot sink in. Some of them ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Unfortunately, one needs a good working knowledge of Hebrew to see the fraud. You don't have to be a "scholar", mind you; a grade-school level of Hebrew knowledge is quite sufficient. But most American Jews, and certainly most American non-Jews do not even have that.

Thus, the great majority of you will not be able to understand the argument, but give it a try anyway. It's "history".

 

 

Is Ishmael Really a "Wild Ass"?

A Critical Analysis of Genesis 16:12

 

 

For Torah-literate Jews (and Christians, for that matter), the introduction to Islam takes place at a very early age. This introduction, which sets the stage for all future opinions, consists of the first reading of Genesis 16:12. This passage makes a statement about Ishmael, the son of Abraham, the brother of Isaac, and -- according to Arab tradition -- the co-founder (with his father, Abraham) of the religion of Islam. Genesis 16:12 makes the following statement about Ishmael:

"And he shall be a wild ass of a man; his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him..."

 

But is this really what it says? Let us look at the original Hebrew, which has no vowels, and reconsider this passage according to traditional Hebrew grammar:

If this unvoweled Hebrew were given to Israeli grammar school students, how would they interpret it? First of all, let us consider the word   . The Hebrew preposition    usually means "in" or "with". Therefore, the most plausible interpretation of    is "his hand (shall be) with everyone". Not "against everyone"!

For   , Langenscheidt's dictionary gives the following possible meanings: "in, at, to, on, among, with, towards; according to, by, because of." Can it ever mean "against"?

The answer is "yes". In certain special cases it can indeed mean "against". A perfectly representative example of a sentence in which    can mean "against" is found in Deuteronomy 19:15, where Moses says ...

... which is interpreted "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity...".

But the word ...

... is defined by Langenscheidt's Hebrew Dictionary as "to rise up against", and the prefix    in the word ...

... does no more than define who it is with whom we are "rising up against".

The following is a representative list of instances in the yearly Torah-Haftorah cycle where the Hebrew prefix    is properly translated "against":

Exodus 9:17, Exodus 14:25, Exodus 32:29, Lev 17:10, Lev 20:3,5,6; Lev 24:16,20; Lev 26:17, Nu 21:7, Deut 2:15, Deut 11:17, Deut 13:10 Deut 19:15, Deut 25:18, Deut 29:19, Judg 11:12, Ezek 38:21 (Haftorah Sukkos, intermediate Sabbath), Hosea 13:9 (Haftorah Vayetze), Zech 3:2 (Haftorah Bahaalothecha)

An analysis of these passages reveals that   , by itself, never means "against". I shall leave it as an exercise to the interested reader to look these references up, and to persuade himself that the inseparable prefix    acquires this meaning only in a context where the "against-ness" is provided by another word or words in the verse.

The analogy to English is very good in this case. If we say that we are "with" someone, this almost invariably means that we are for him, not against him. For example, the common expression

"God be with you..."

...surely means "may God be for you" (not "may God be against you"!). But if we say:

"I shall fight with you..."

..then we have, in English, an example of the use of the word "with" to mean "against", for, if we fight with someone, then we are against that person. But the sense of "against-ness" is provided by the word "fight", not by the word "with"!

The parallel to Hebrew is quite exact. In each of the above-cited examples, the inseparable prefix,   , takes on the meaning "against" either because there's some other word in the passage which provides that meaning, or else because the context makes that meaning clear.

This is not so in Genesis 16:12. There are no words in the verse which suggests "against-ness", and, as we shall shortly see, the context not only fails to support that meaning, but, on the contrary, essentially rules it out.

Application of the same logic shows that the most plausible interpretation of

is: "and every man's hand (shall be) with him". Not "against him"!

Next, let us consider the word   . If we look back two verses, to Genesis 16:10, we see "And the angel of the Lord said ... 'I will greatly multiply thy seed, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.' ". Viewed in this light, the word    takes on an entirely different significance. There is another Hebrew word constructed from the same consonants, but with different vowel points. This is the verb ...

... which means "to bring forth, to bear fruit". (Although this word is found in modern Hebrew dictionaries, it seems that the preferred form of the verb, these days, is

The last letter changes from aleph to hay, but the meaning is the same. I wonder why this latter form is preferred?)

Now, the participle form of    is

But in the Bible, the letter    (vav), is usually omitted from participles, so in un-voweled Hebrew we would expect to see   , representing the un-voweled form of

Anyone who wishes to dispute this grammatical principle, as it applies to Genesis 16:12, will be hard-pressed to make a case, because the very next verse, Genesis 16:13, features the word

..., the participle of the Qal form of the verb "to speak". Note that the Hebrew letter vav is absent. It is pointless to doubt that vav is usually omitted in participles in the Torah.

Since G-d says here that He will "greatly multiply" [Ishmael's] seed, so that it "shall not be numbered for multitude", we must ask which is the most plausible interpretation of

Does it mean "a wild ass of a man", or does it mean "a fruitful man"? In the context of the passage, it can have only one plausible interpretation:

 

"...a fruitful man..."

 

Our suspicions are further aroused when we consult the Brown, Driver and Briggs lexicon (BDB), to find out where in the Bible -- if anywhere-- the word

occurs in a setting in which it really does mean "wild ass" (exclusive of Gen 16:12): BDB gives the following:

 

Ho 8:9+, Je 14:6+, Jb 6:5, Jb 39:5, Is 32:14, Ps 104:11, Jb 11:12, Je 2:24, Jb 24:5

 

So the word occurs in Job, and in the Prophets. Note that there is no use of the word anywhere in the Torah! (Unless Genesis 16:12 is considered to be such a use). In general, then (admittedly depending upon the age of the book of Job), it can be said that the word ...

..., meaning "wild ass", does not appear in Hebrew literature until 1,000 years after the Torah was written.

What other contextual evidence is there which confirms that correct vowel points would cause the correct translation to be ...

..., meaning "fruitful"? We have already seen that two verses above, in Genesis 16:10, God says to Hagar, "I will greatly multiply thy seed, that it shall not be numbered for multitude". Is this not synonymous with "fruitful"? If we now look ahead slightly, to Genesis 17:6, we see God blessing Abraham with the following words:

Here we see the Hifil form of the same verb,

to inform us that God will make Abraham "fruitful". Fruitful, not "ass-like"!! Again, a few verses down (Genesis 17:20), God addresses Ishmael in the same manner, promising to make him "fruitful" also, according to the words

This again is the Hifil form of the verb

... to reiterate the message of Genesis 16:10, where God told Hagar "I will greatly multiply thy seed, that it shall not be numbered for multitude".

The equivalence of    and    is further evidenced in Hosea 13:15 (Haftorah Vayyetze), where we see the word ...

..., which BDB identifies as the Hifil form of   , imperfect, 3rd person masculine, "as if from   (!)"

In summary, if we now employ the most plausible interpretation of the word   , and utilize the standard grammar of the preposition   , we arrive at the following interpretation of Genesis 16:12:

...which means that what our Bible really says about Ishmael is:

 

"... he will be a fruitful man: his hand shall be with everyone, and every man's hand shall be with him..." (!!)

 

This is a markedly different interpretation than the one given by our Rabbis. At this time, claimed by Jews, Christians and Muslims to be the dawn of the Messianic Era, itsn't it time we told the truth?