Mt. Moriah Question?

[jenkiedad]

I have not been to the Holy Land, so this may be an easy question.

In Genesis 22:2, Abraham takes Isaac up to the “land of Moriah” (NAB) to be sacrificed. If this is the same location as the Temple, built by Solomon, as indicated in 2 Chronicles 2:1, then isn’t this basically in the heart of Jerusalem?

The Dome of the Rock is now located at this site, and Muslims believe that this is also the site where Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac.

It is my understanding that Jerusalem has been continuously occupied as a city/town beyond 4000 BC. I have also heard that Jerusalem was previously known as “Salem”, and that this was ruled by the King-Priest Melchizedek (Re: Genesis 14:18), who Abraham gave the first tythe.

In the reading of Genesis 22, it is strongly implied that the “sacrifice” takes place out in the wilderness, and certainly not in the middle of Jerusalem (or Salem or any occupied settlement).

Can anybody clear up this confusion?

 

[NHInsider]

By no means definitive but you may find this interesting.

 

[jenkiedad]

By no means definitive but you may find this interesting.

Thanks, but your link also points out that Jerusalem existed before the Isaac sacrifice, but it doesn’t address this inconsistency.

The link also points out that Mt. Moriah is also the location of the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite, which was purchased by David. (1 Chronicles 21:15) This reference also points out that Jerusalem was also known as “Jebus”. I guess I’m still confused.

 

[NHInsider]

Part of the issue, I think, is simply that our knowledge of Biblical geography is minimal at best. But two observations that may help settle your mind a bit -

First off, I thought it was interesting to read that Mt. Moriah is not a monadnock but a ridge, with multiple summits. The “Land of Moriah” in the time of Abraham probably included lots of secluded places.

Next, I think it’s important to recognize that present day Jerusalem is a much bigger city than first century Jerusalem, which was in turn much bigger than David’s Jerusalem, and that David built a city on an readily-fortified location (which was probably used as a safe haven from pre-history) but what was there at the time was probably much more like what we might think of as an village in a place like sub-saharan Africa than it was like even a modern village in Palestine. Typically an agrarian people would not have lived in a concentrated settlement but in outlying areas, close enough to retreat to the fortified central location in the event of an attack.

Going back another millenium or so beyond David to Abraham, Melchizedek likely presided over his “kingdom” from a Bedouin-style tent, not a Herod-style palace.

And finally, of course, the various traditions that locate numerous important events of salvation history (and those of other religious traditions as well) in the same location are fascinating artifacts but not de fide dogmas.

But I think it is safe to say that Jerusalem the city grew up around the palace of the king, and later the Temple, rather than the palace and the Temple being built in the city.

 

[patrick457]

Going back another millenium or so beyond David to Abraham, Melchizedek likely presided over his “kingdom” from a Bedouin-style tent, not a Herod-style palace.

Correct. It is quite more likely that we should not imagine a grandiose figure living in a well-made stone edifice, but rather some sort of tribal cheftain. In short, kind of like Arabic sheikhs.

And finally, of course, the various traditions that locate numerous important events of salvation history (and those of other religious traditions as well) in the same location are fascinating artifacts but not de fide dogmas.

There is in fact a later Christian tradition which identifies Mount Moriah with ‘Mount’ Calvary (which probably did not become a ‘mount’ at all until the late 4th century! ) - which is admittedly rather suspect IMHO, as there are also quite a few other Jewish traditions about the Temple Mount which seem to have been imported and appropriated by Christians.

 

[patrick457]

I’ve also seen other possible explanations for Melchizedek’s title “King of Salem”: William F. Albright once proposed šālēm was probably a corruption of šəlomo, which would produce the reading “king of his (i.e. Abraham’s) peace.” That is, it not so much describes what Melchizedek was king of but rather his relationship with Abraham (i.e. his ally). This is an interpretation which the NAB follows.

But even if the “king of Salem” reading is correct, the equation with Jerusalem (cf. Psalm 76:2 “in Salem also is His tabernacle”) seems to have co-existed with another tradition which identified “Salem” as a place at or near Shechem, an early capital of the ancient kingdom of Israel, on the slopes of Mount Gerizim. The tradition is associated with the Samaritans, for whom Gerizim (and not Jerusalem) is the site intended for the Temple, and thus serves an obvious sectarian purpose; yet it is not solely associated with the Samaritans, being found also in the 3rd or 2nd century BC Book of Jubilees 30:1 (whose author was hardly a Samaritan polemicist), as well as other sources, which I shall divulge below.

One evidence which may lead credence to this is Genesis 33:18, which notes that wayyāḇō’ Ya‘ăqōḇ šālēm ‘îr Šəḵem, which is often translated nowadays as “And Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem.” The funny thing is, the word translated as ‘safely’, šālēm, is the same Hebrew word used of Melchizedek’s kingdom in Genesis 14. This may be merely a coincidence, but some commentators have concluded that the correct translation of this passage is, “And Jacob came to Shalem/Salem, a city of Shechem.” Which is, in fact, the way the verse is translated in the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Peshitta, and even a few of the earlier English translations such as the King James Version!

Septuagint: καὶ ἦλθεν ᾿Ιακὼβ εἰς Σαλὴμ πόλιν Σικίμων, ἥ ἐστιν ἐν γῇ Χαναάν, ὅτε ἐπανῆλθεν ἐκ τῆς Μεσοποταμίας Συρίας…
Lancelot Brenton: And Jacob came to Salem, a city of Secima, which is in the land of Chanaan, when he departed out of Mesopotamia of Syria…

Vulgate: Transivitque in Salem urbem Sichimorum, quæ est in terra Chanaan, postquam reversus est de Mesopotamia Syriæ:
Douai (1609): And he passed into Salem a citie of the Sichimites, which is in the land of Chanaan, after he returned from Mesopotamia of Siria…
Challoner: And he passed over to Salem, a city of the Sichemites, which is in the land of Chanaan, after he returned from Mesopotamia of Syria…
Wycliffe (Early): And he passide forth into Salem, the cite of Sychymor, that is in the loond of Chanaan, aftir that he was turned a3en fro Mesopotany of Syrye…
Wycliffe (Late): And Jacob passide in to Salem, a citee of Sichimis, whiche is in the lond of Canaan, aftir that he turnede a3en fro Mesopotanye of Sirie…

Tyndale (1530-34): And Iacob went to Salem to þe cytie of Sichem in the lande of Canaā after that he was come from Mesopotamia…
Great Bible (1540): And Iacob came to Salē a cytie of Sichem which is in the lande of Canaan, after that he was come from Mesopotamia…
Bishop’s Bible (1568): And Iacob came to Salē, a citie of Sichem, whiche is in the lande of Chanaan, after that he was come from Mesopotamia…
King James (1611): And Iacob came to Shalem, a citie of Shechem, which is the land of Canaan, when he came from Padan Aram…

The book of Judith (4:4-5) also refers to a “valley of Salem” that might have well been in or near Samaria and which clearly does not refer to an area in or near Jerusalem, as Joakin the high priest “who was in Jerusalem at that time” sends orders to the troops, apparently from a distance. Likewise, the Septuagint text of Jeremiah 41:5 refers to eighty men from “Shechem, Salem, and Samaria,” further suggesting the existence of a Salem near Shechem (the Masoretic reads Shiloh for Salem, but this seems anachronistic for Jeremiah’s time, as Shiloh has since been destroyed; cf. Jeremiah 7:12). John 3:23 notes that John the Baptist baptized at “Aenon near Salim” (=Salem). Finally, we must note that both Eusebius’ Onomasticon (4th century), as well as the Madaba Map (6th century) identify Salem as another name for Shechem (the latter source, however, may depend on the former, and the former on the various passages cited).

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I have not been to the Holy Land, so this may be an easy question.

In Genesis 22:2, Abraham takes Isaac up to the “land of Moriah” (NAB) to be sacrificed. If this is the same location as the Temple, built by Solomon, as indicated in 2 Chronicles 2:1, then isn’t this basically in the heart of Jerusalem?

The Dome of the Rock is now located at this site, and Muslims believe that this is also the site where Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac.

It is my understanding that Jerusalem has been continuously occupied as a city/town beyond 4000 BC. I have also heard that Jerusalem was previously known as “Salem”, and that this was ruled by the King-Priest Melchizedek (Re: Genesis 14:18), who Abraham gave the first tythe.

In the reading of Genesis 22, it is strongly implied that the “sacrifice” takes place out in the wilderness, and certainly not in the middle of Jerusalem (or Salem or any occupied settlement).

Can anybody clear up this confusion?

One correction–Muslims believe that the location of the Dome of the Rock is where Mohammed set out on his revelatory night journey. Muslims believe the location for Abraham’s (almost) sacrifice of Ishmael (they would say, not Isaac) is near Mecca and, as I recall is one of the holy sites visited during the the hajj. I have heard Muslims argue that it couldn’t have been in Jerusalem for exactly the reasons you state–that it was in the wilderness.