Ezra ‘Father of the Jews’. Appropriated as ‘Uzair of the Koran (Qur’an)

“… if the equation 'Uzair = Ezra be valid, and there seems no reason to gainsay it, then Mohammed had either been misinformed, or had purposely invented this queer dogma”.

J. Walker

This is the opinion of J. Walker, as expressed in his article “Who is ‘Uzair?”:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/MW/uzair.htm

Though I have been at pains to show in articles that the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) was not a real flesh-and-blood historical person – but a biblical composite.

And the same is probably true of this ‘Uzair of the Koran.

J. Walker writes:

A Koranic passage which has bewildered many students, is that anent … the name of 'Uzair. It is the sole reference … in the Koran to a personage whose identity is by no means certain, but is usually equated with that of the biblical Ezra. The Sura (IX) in which it is found is of the late Medina period, and the verse in question (30) reads: "The Jews say 'Uzair (Ezra?) is God's son: and the Christians say, the Messiah is God's son... How are they misguided!"

The interpretation of this may be taken in the expanded form found in Damir (Hayat al-Hayawan, trans. Jayakar, Vol. I. 553), as follows:-

"When 'Uzair claimed that God had sent him to the Jews to renew the Pentateuch they disbelieved saying, ‘God has not placed the Pentateuch in the memory of anyone after its being lost, unless he is His son,’ so they called him, 'Uzair ibn Allah."

The difficulty that presents itself is the fact that no historical evidence can be adduced to prove that any Jewish sect, however heterodox, ever subscribed to such a tenet. What grounds were there for the accusation? Was it a figment of Mohammed's [sic] own imagination? Rodwell frankly believes it was. Goldziher accepts it as "a malevolent metaphor for the great respect which was paid by the Jews to the memory of Ezra as the restorer of the Law and from which Ezra legends of apocryphal literature (II. Esdra, XXXIV, 37-49) originated …." But we are inclined to inquire, if it were "a malevolent metaphor," on whose side was the malevolence? Whence originated such an accusation? It is not probable that the Prophet uttered an indictment of this nature in a city like Medina where Jews abounded, without some foundation.

The Jewish post-biblical writings do not seem to yield any possible solution for this erroneous statement. The quotation from the Talmud (Sanhedrim, 21, 2) given by Geiger … to the effect that Ezra would have been worthy of receiving the Law had Moses not preceded him, does not assist us in unraveling the puzzle. Lidzbarski … favors the possibility of a Jewish sect in Arabia venerating Ezra to such a degree as to deify him; thus casting shame on their orthodox brethren.

All these views are held on the supposition that the text of the Koranic passage is reliable. Emendations, of course, on the other hand, have been proposed, but it always seems a precarious operation to have resort to conjectural alteration in order to elucidate a troublesome text. There are two such textual emendations which have been proposed and which are worthy of mention because of their ingenuity. The first is by Casanova … who reads 'Uzail instead of 'Uzair, and equates with 'Azael, who, according to the Jewish Hagada, is the leader of the "sons of God" of Genesis VI:2, 4. The second is by J. Finkel … who alters the diacritic points, substitutes z for r, and reads Aziz - "king" or "potentate". This emended text he connects with the verse in the Psalms (2:7): "The Lord said unto me, thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee."

In spite of such conjectures, however, Horovitz (op. cit. 167), considers that there is no reason to doubt the equation 'Uzair = Ezra. He himself in this treatment of the subject (op. cit. 127-128) suggests in conclusion that, "it is very probable that Mohammed received his information from a Jewish or Judeo-Christian sect who revered Ezra in similar manner as certain sects did Melchisdek (See Epiphan. Haeres, LV, 1-9)".

To conclude, if the equation 'Uzair = Ezra be valid, and there seems no reason to gainsay it, then Mohammed had either been misinformed, or had purposely invented this queer dogma. Certainly among the Jews, Ezra the Scribe, the second Moses, as leader of the men of the Great Synagogue played a most important part in the editing of the Jewish Scriptures and the re-establishment of Judaism in Zion after the Captivity, but so far as is known, no Jewish sect ever held such an extreme doctrine as is herein imputed to them by Mohammed. If the idea did not germinate in Mohammed's own mind, and since it is quite alien to Judaism, it is obviously a slanderous accusation made against the Jews by their protagonists. I would suggest therefore that perhaps the libelers were none other than their old enemies the Samaritans, who hated Ezra above all because he changed the sacred Law and its holy script. We do not readily associate the Samaritans with matters Islamic but in a very able article (in the Encyclopedia of Islam on the Samaritans) Dr. Gaster has demonstrated that Mohammed seems to have made several borrowing from Samaritan sources. May not this be another?

Let us look at the question through Samaritan eyes. Ezra had acted presumptuously. He had changed the old divine alphabetic character of the holy Books of the Law - a character still used and revered to this day by the rapidly dwindling Samaritan community - for the mercantile Aramaic script. He had acted in a dictatorial manner as if he were God Himself, or the very Son of God. The Samaritans, thoroughly shocked, accused the Jews of following Ezra … and accepting his new edition of the sacred text. They not only accused the Jews of altering the sacred scriptures. Dr. Gaster (in his Schweich Lectures on the Samaritans) indeed proposes to find in this the origin of Mohammed's conception of the Tahrif, or the doctrine of the corruption of the Holy Bible by the People of the Book. For example, in Sura IV, 48: "Among the Jews are those who displace the words of the Scriptures." If Dr. Gaster's suggestion be correct, then Mohammed had found an ally against the Jews in the Samaritans. And if he found the accusations of the latter a useful weapon against the former in one instance, might he not do likewise in another instance, and that especially in the case of a personality like Ezra, whose name was the subject of controversy between the Jews and the Samaritans? Mohammed we know may have acquired his information from the Samaritans during his journeying to Syria, but on the other hand there might have been Samaritan off-shoots in Arabia, although no trace of such is discoverable in the historical records, unless a vestige be found in the feud of Sumair between the two Jewish tribes of Medina. That is highly problematical, and need not be stressed. But it is not at all unlikely that the source of Mohammed's indictment of the Jews is to be found amongst the Samaritans or amongst Arab tribesmen of Samaritan strain. If we found in Samaritan literature the opposite belief that Ezra (or Uzair) was the son of Satan, we would be well-nigh sure of having settled the matter. Unfortunately, access to Samaritan records is not possible at the moment for the present writer, and the argument from silence is not of substantial value. ….

‘Infancy Narratives’ in 1-2 Maccabees

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

“When Mattathias saw all the sins that were being committed

in Judea and Jerusalem, he said:

…

‘Our children have been killed in the streets,

and our young men by the sword of the enemy’.”

 

I Maccabees 2:6, 9

 

 

 

 

Introduction

 

From memory, it was Daniel 11 that may have started me towards my realisation (as I see it) that the wicked king Herod ‘the Great’, at the time of the infancy of Jesus Christ, could be the same as Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’, arguably the most evil ruler in the entire Bible.

Philip Mauro’s compelling interpretation of Daniel 11 in his book, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation (1921): https://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1921_mauro_seventy-weeks.html most likely assisted me in arriving at such a connection, for Mauro - having, like most, assigned vv. 32-35 to the Maccabean era - then convincingly argued for king Herod as “the king” of vv. 36-39.

In my revised system, however, there is no need anymore for a rupture between vv. 32-35 and vv. 36-39. The wicked ruler of the Maccabean era is still the same “the king” of vv. 36-39: namely, Antiochus IV-who-is-my-Herod.

 Mauro wrote on this:

 

We have seen that verses 32-35 have to do (as is generally agreed) with the [H]Asmoneans or Maccabees, verse 35 telling what was to befall them to the time of the end. What, therefore, we would be led to expect next is a reference to that order of things in Israel which followed immediately after the era of the Asmonean princes. And that is exactly what we do find. For there is no need (and no ground) either for the attempt to make the next succeeding verses apply to Antiochus Epiphanes, or to make a sudden and gigantic leap into the far distant future, in order to find a person whose career might conceivably answer to this part of the prophecy. For history, both sacred and profane, sets before us a most notable character, one who appears upon the scene and occupies the centre of the stage in Israel just at "the end" of the Asmonean era, and one who answers to every item of the prophetic description. We have reference to that strange, despotic, ungovernable and unspeakably cruel personage, whom the evangelists designate emphatically as--

 

"HEROD THE KING"

  

   --that remarkable character who was a usurper upon the throne of David when Christ, the true King, was born. The proof which enables us to identify "the king" of Daniel 11:36-39 with Herod the Great and his dynasty, is so convincing that we feel warranted in saying that the prophecy could not possibly mean anyone else.

 

     It would be strange indeed if, in an outline which gives prominence to Xerxes, Alexander, the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, Antiochus Epiphanes, and the Maccabees, there were no mention of that remarkable personage who exerted upon Jewish affairs and destinies an influence greater than they all, and who sat upon the throne of Israel when Christ was born.

 

     The words, "the king," should suffice, in the light of the context, without further description, to identify Herod to those who thoughtfully read their Bibles; for Herod alone is called by that title in the Gospels, and he alone had the rank and authority of "king" in Israel in the days after the captivity, "the latter days." The text does not speak of a king, but of the king, the emphatic Hebrew article being used. This is in marked contrast with the terms of v. 40, where the original speaks of "a king of the north," and "a king of the south."

 

Mackey’s comment: If one reads 1 and 2 Maccabees, he/she will find various rulers, including Antiochus IV, being designated simply, “the king” (e.g. I Maccabees 6:8).

Mauro continues:

 

     A glance at the context is enough to show that "the king" of v. 36 cannot mean either of the kings of v. 27. Moreover, these are never spoken of as "the king," but always, both before and after v. 36, as "the king of the north," or "the king of the south," as the case may be. Nor does the Scripture speak of any "king" who is to arise at the time of the end of this present age, and who answers at all to the description of the prophecy. The "man of sin," described in (#2Th 2:3-10), is supposed by some to be "the king" of Daniel 11:36. But he is not called a king, nor described as having kingly rank, but rather as one claiming divine worship in the temple of God, and backing up his pretensions by means of miracles and lying wonders. The "king" of Daniel 11:36 is a very different personage, and achieves his ends in a very different way, as will be clearly seen by all who diligently compare the two passages.

 

     What has caused able commentators to go astray at this point, and in some instances to seek far afield for the interpretation of this passage, is the fact that they were unable to find anyone among the successors of Antiochus who answers at all to the description of "the king." But they have overlooked two things which, had they heeded them, would have kept them from being so misled. Those things are, first, that the prophecy has not for its subject the kingdoms of Syria or Egypt, but the people of Israel, and hence the expression, "the king," without other qualification, would mean one who was king over Daniel's people; and second, that the verses immediately preceding (31-35) relate wholly to the affairs of the Jews under the Asmonean princes, and hence the terms of the prophecy itself lead us to look at this point for the beginning of a new order of things in Israel. And that is just what history certifies to us; for, precisely at this juncture of affairs, the Asmonean dynasty was brought to an end by violence and bloodshed, and it was replaced by that of a "king," who answers perfectly to the description of the last part of the prophecy.

     Moreover, and to this we would specially invite attention, it is said of this king that "he shall prosper until the indignation be accomplished" (or until wrath be completed), in fulfilment of which is the fact that the dynasty of Herod retained, through all the political upheavals of the times, its favour with Rome, and flourished in authority in Palestine, until the destruction of Jerusalem, which is the "wrath," or "indignation," or "tribulation," to which these prophecies of Daniel so frequently refer as "the end" of Jewish nationality. For it was "Herod the king" who sought to compass the death of Christ soon after His birth, and whose successors of his own family put to death John the Baptist (this was done by Herod Antipas) and James the brother of John (by Herod Agrippa I, who also imprisoned Peter, intending to deliver him to the Jews) and finally sent Paul in chains to Rome (which was done by Herod Agrippa II, the last of the dynasty, the man who is best known to the world as he who was "almost persuaded").

[End of quote]

 

‘Infancy Narrative’ Traits

 

So, to begin with, we have in each case a most evil - yet highly cunning and successful - king.

We have also a universal decree issued by a king/emperor that was binding on all of the ruler’s subjects (cf. I Maccabees 1:41 and Luke 2:1).

I am not necessarily saying that this was the one and same decree.

For the (tentative) possibility that my composite Antiochus-Herod could also have been the “Caesar Augustus” of Luke 2:1, see the appropriate reference in my article:

 

A glimpse of the Magi in Daniel 11:44?

 

https://www.academia.edu/36635276/A_glimpse_of_the_Magi_in_Daniel_11_44

 

Whilst I can find no reference to an actual “census” in 1 and 2 Maccabees, I had previously, in my article:

 

Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2's "rock cut out of a mountain". Part One: Judas the Galilean links census to Maccabees

 

https://www.academia.edu/36553726/Judas_the_Galilean_vitally_links_Maccabean_era_to_Daniel_2s_rock_cut_out_of_a_mountain_._Part_One_Judas_the_Galilean_links_census_to_Maccabees

 

used as a providential connecting link (with both Daniel 2 and 1 and 2 Maccabees) the crucial information supplied by Gamaliel in Acts 5:37 about “Judas the Galilean … in the days of the census”, thereby connecting Judas and his mentor, Matthias, with the Maccabean pairing of Judas and Mattathias (quoted at the beginning of this article) – thereby giving a census to Maccabean times.

Now, the move at the time of Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ of Mattathias, with his family, “from Jerusalem and settled in Modein” (I Maccabees 2:1), I connected with the Gospel situation in Luke 2:3: “And everyone went to their own town to register”. For, as we shall learn at the time of the death of Jonathan, Modein was the Maccabees’ ancestral town (I Maccabees 13:25).

I also hypothesised that Modein, which so far has not been unequivocally identified, was the Sepphoris in Galilee to where Judas the Galilean is said to have removed himself.

The Holy Family, also living in Galilee, went on this occasion in a different direction (Luke 2:4-5): “So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child”.

It was also a time of angelic visitations and preternatural activity.

To give only one example of many from 1 and 2 Maccabees, there is this potentially encouraging one (“a good sign”) (2 Maccabees 5:1-4):

 

About this time Antiochus the Fourth made a second attack against Egypt. For nearly forty days people all over Jerusalem saw visions of cavalry troops in gold armor charging across the sky. The riders were armed with spears and their swords were drawn. They were lined up in battle against one another, attacking and counterattacking. Shields were clashing, there was a rain of spears, and arrows flew through the air. All the different kinds of armor and the gold bridles on the horses flashed in the sunlight. Everyone in the city prayed that these visions might be a good sign.

 

Far better to know to most is this one from Luke 2:8-15, “good news” indeed:

 

And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger’.

Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,

 

‘Glory to God in the highest heaven,
    and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests’.

 

When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, ‘Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about’.

 

Not long afterwards there occurred the visit of the Magi as recorded in Matthew 2.

In my article “A glimpse of the Magi in Daniel 11:44?” (above) I have suggested, following the view of others, that this was foretold, in an Antiochus-Herod context, in Daniel 11:44.

Herod reacted most violently to the Magian mention of an alternative “king of the Jews” (Matthew 2:2). Thus we read in v. 16: “When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi”.

Today we refer to this sad incident as ‘The Slaughter of the Innocents’.

There are various references in 1 and 2 Maccabees to king Antiochus’s slaughtering of innocent babies, including the one from Mattathias above. Both Luke 2:18 and 1 and 2 Maccabees break into laments about such catastrophes for Israel.

Finally, just as the Holy Family will flee to Egypt to escape Herod (Matthew 2:13-15):

 

When [the Magi] had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. ‘Get up’, he said, ‘take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him’.

So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’ [,]

 

so (2 Maccabees 9:29): “One of [the deceased Antiochus IV’s] close friends, Philip, took his body home; but, because he was afraid of Antiochus' son, he went on to King Ptolemy Philometor of Egypt”.

Jesus Christ himself is the ‘stone’ of Daniel 2

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

‘While you were watching, a stone was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth’.

 

Daniel 2:34-35

 

 

 

 

The question of “Who/what is the stone of Daniel 2?”, as asked at, for instance:

http://bibleanswer.org/2015/08/01/whowhat-is-the-stone-of-daniel-2/

is easily answered, because Jesus Christ told us directly to whom it refers.

“Jesus said to them [the chief priests and the Pharisees]” (Matthew 21:42):

 

‘Have you never read in the Scriptures:

“The stone the builders rejected
    has become the cornerstone;
the Lord has done this,
    and it is marvelous in our eyes”’?”

 

This was an Old Testament reference to Psalm 117:22 (Douay, otherwise Psalm 118:22).

This was a “stone” (a “rock”) that would shatter the successive pagan kingdoms of Daniel 2 that would encounter it.

Jesus continued his statement, still with reference to Daniel 2 (Matthew 21:43): ‘Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed’.

 

I Peter 2:7-8 explains this further, with reference, again, to the Old Testament (Isaiah 8:14): “He will be a holy place; for both Israel and Judah he will be a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall. And for the people of Jerusalem he will be a trap and a snare”.

I Peter 2:9 goes on to tell exactly who were Jesus’s “a people who will produce its fruit” to whom the kingdom will be given: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, to proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light”.

 

The article referred to above, “Who/what is the stone of Daniel 2?” (not all of which I would agree with or recommend), comes to the same conclusion about:

 

Who/what is a stone?

“Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, ” 1 Peter 2:7

“Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. ” Acts 4:10, 11

Answer: Jesus