Anda di halaman 1dari 10

1

Copyright 2002 by The BASE Institute

WHERE WAS THE ARABIA OF PAULS ARGUMENT IN GALATIANS 4?

Summary: When Paul wrote Galatians 4:25, he had in mind the Jewish understanding of Arabia, as clearly seen in the context of the rest of the book of Galatians. Further, Romes designation of Arabia in Pauls day included the Old Testament concept of Arabia, but did not include the Sinai peninsula, which was not annexed by Rome until well after Pauls era.

Highlights: The claim that the Arabia of Pauls discussion includes the Sinai peninsula would not negatively affect the case for historical Mt. Sinai in Arabia, since every definition of Arabia in history includes the region in which Jabal al Lawz is located. The belief that Paul had in mind a Roman rather than an Old Testament, Jewish understanding of Arabia violates the context of his letter to the Galatians. The Bibles descriptions of Arabia in the Old Testament never refer to the Sinai peninsula. Even if Paul did have in mind a Roman concept of Arabia, in his day it would not have included the Sinai peninsula. The witness of ancient historians is that Arabia did not include the Sinai peninsula until after the time that Paul wrote his letters. The descriptions of Josephus clearly do not refer to the Sinai peninsula. The northern Sinai (Egyptian) peninsula was not annexed by Rome until 106 A.D., more than 40 years after Paul wrote Galatians. Paul could not have been referring to any part of the Sinai peninsula when he located historical Mt. Sinai in Arabia.

Details: Because Pauls comments in Galatians 4:25 clearly place Mt. Sinai in Arabia, some skeptics attempt to either include the Sinai peninsula in the region called Arabia in Pauls day, or exclude the Old Testament understanding of Arabia from Pauls thinking. Their reason for doing this apparently is to divorce Pauls endorsement from the all-too-obvious New Testament conclusion that Mount Sinai is in Arabia.

However, the geographic term Arabia in Old Testament history as well as in Pauls day would always have included the area of Jabal al-Lawz in modern northwest Saudi Arabia. Therefore even if the above arguments had merit, Jabal al-Lawz in Arabia could never be eliminated as a candidate for historical Mt. Sinai based on Pauls argument in Galatians. On the other hand, those who insist on forcing historical Mt. Sinai into the Egyptian Sinai peninsula know they must attempt to reconcile their theory with Pauls statement that: . . . this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia . . . . (Galatians 4:25). Two basic arguments are offered in an attempt to make Pauls statement work with a Mt. Sinai in the Sinai peninsula. The first is to argue that the Arabia in Pauls thinking included the Sinai peninsula. Their reasoning is that because Paul was writing in a Roman world to an audience living in a Roman world, he must have had in mind the Arabia of Roman definition, not the Arabia of Old Testament or Jewish definition. As we will see, this argument violates the entire context of Pauls letter to the Galatians. The second line of argumentation is to insist that Arabia of the Roman era actually included the entire Sinai peninsula. This presumption is based on modern maps which show Roman Arabia as extending into the Sinai, or references to a few ancient writers who seemingly wrote with that impression. As we will see, Roman Arabia at the time Paul wrote, in fact, did not include the Sinai peninsula. It should be emphasized here that even if these arguments were true which they apparently are not they would have no impact whatsoever on the case for historical Mt. Sinai in modern Saudi Arabia, since any and every definition of Arabia throughout history has always included the region in which Jabal al Lawz is located. Unlike the theories that attempt to place Mt. Sinai in the Sinai peninsula, there is no need to grope around in the ancient records in an attempt to misconstrue contemporaneous historians testimony about the location of geopolitical Arabia when one takes the Bible at face value. As we will see, Jabal al Lawz was in the Arabia of the Old Testament. Jabal al Lawz was in the Arabia of the New Testament. And Jabal al Lawz still is in the Arabia of today. Pauls concept of Arabia So what about the argument that Paul was thinking Roman, not Jewish, when he wrote Galatians? A typical misrepresentation of Pauls thinking would go something like this: (quoted directly from one skeptic): Moses never uses the word Arab or Arabia at the time he wrote the Pentateuch. The words appear much later in the Bible. So the Apostle Paul does not have a Jewish use of the word Arabia in mind when he uses the word in Galatians 4:25, because Arabia did not exist in Moses day.

Here the writer attempts to impart the false impression that Paul could not argue from the Old Testament and use the term Arabia with a Jewish concept of Arabia in mind. However, this non-sequitur neglects to point out that although the term Arabia was not used by Moses, Arabia does indeed appear throughout the Old Testament in a number of passages specifically, 1 Kings 10:15; 2 Chronicles 9:14; Isaiah 21:13; Jeremiah 25:24; and Ezekiel 27:21! Thus the Old Testament concept of Arabia was indeed a very Jewish concept, and would have been both natural and familiar to Paul as a geographic designation from the Jewish Scriptures. Although Pauls normal training was as a Pharisee (who gave priority, but not exclusivity, to the writings of Moses), he used terminology from all parts of the Old Testament to carefully construct his arguments. In this passage of Galatians, for example, Paul refers to Jerusalem, even though Moses never used the name Jerusalem (it does not appear in the Old Testament until Joshua 10:1). He uses the term Jew, even though Moses never used the term Jew. He uses the Greek word Christ, even though Moses never used the Hebrew word for Messiah, translated Christ in Greek. And as it turns out, though Moses did not use the word Arabia, he did indeed use the name which in his day designated Arabia. That word was Midian, used no fewer than 21 times in the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch also records the births of the various original tribal leaders of the area the Old Testament later refers to as Arabia, including Kedar (Genesis 25:13), Tema (Genesis 25:15), and Dedan (Genesis 25:3). By Pauls day, the area known as Midian to Moses had long since been known throughout the balance of the Old Testament as Arabia, and thus was the name that Paul naturally used. It is obvious from even a cursory reading of Galatians that Paul was basing his entire letter on Jewish not Roman thinking. This is a baseline for any expositors clear understanding of Galatians. Pauls argument includes place names that not only exist in his day, but span all of Old Testament history. Therefore he refers to the Mt. Sinai, Arabia, and Jerusalem of Old Testament history. By coincidence, those places still bore the same names in his day. So to him as well as to his readers, they were one and the same. Throughout Galatians, Paul refers constantly to the Law, to Judaism, and to all things Jewish. In fact, he builds his argument on the most Jewish of foundations when he writes: . . . you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of the fathers. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia [e.g. Mt. Sinai], and returned again to Damascus (Galatians 1:13-17).

He then goes on to argue that not only is there no contradiction between the law given at Sinai and its fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah, but also that faith in Jesus the Messiah provides liberty from the bondage of the law given at Sinai, in fulfillment of Gods covenant promises given to Abraham. Whether or not a Gentile believer understands this at first reading, it is a Jewish argument from start to finish! Theres nothing Roman about it, except that it was written in Greek to Jews who lived under Roman domination. Therefore when Paul mentioned Mt. Sinai, his readers immediately thought of Mt. Sinai in the Old Testament. When Paul mentioned the Law, his readers immediately thought of the Law given in the Old Testament. When Paul mentioned Jerusalem, his readers immediately thought of Jerusalem of the Old Testament (and their day). When Paul mentioned Abraham and Hagar, his readers immediately thought of the Abraham and Hagar of the Old Testament. And when Paul mentioned Arabia, his readers immediately thought of the Arabia of the Old Testament (which also was the Arabia of his day, as we will see). This Old Testament understanding of Arabia which by default would take precedence over a conjectured, unstated, Roman understanding some writers try to superimpose on Paul is vividly described in a number of passages that preclude any reference to the Sinai peninsula. For example: Arabia was a land of multiple ruling kings or governors (2 Chron. 9:14; Jer. 25:24). This was typical of the various Arabian tribes that existed all the way up until the twentieth-century unification efforts of T.E. Lawrence; Arabia was a region that paid heavy monetary tribute to Solomon (2 Chron. 9:14). This was a situation that could not in any sense be argued from existing archaeological evidence in the Sinai peninsula, but was obviously true of prosperous Arabia proper; Arabia geology apparently included vast amounts of silver and gold (2 Chron. 9:14-15). This is a situation that is not true of the Sinai peninsula. One author, in fact, writes, Mining in Saudi Arabia . . . has enjoyed three periods of prosperity. . . . and then lists as the first: The Age of Solomon, 961-922 B.C.1 While there are ancient records of an abundance of malachite and copper in the Sinai peninsula, gold and sliver did not abound there. Arabia was a region that included (in the climate of the day) at least some forests (Isaiah 21:13). This is much more plausible of nowdeforested regions of northern Jordan, but only tenuously conjectured in the Sinai; Arabia was a region through which Dedanites (an early Arabian tribe of the present-day southern Saudi Arabian region) moved
1

R.F. Burton. The Gold Mines of Midian (Falcon-Oleander, 1979), viii.

its caravans (Isaiah 21:13). Again this was a known reality in Arabia proper; Arabia was a region co-identified with Kedar. Kedar is generally identified as the northwest region of modern Saudi Arabia; Arabia was a regular trade partner with Tyre in large flocks of livestock (Ezek. 27:21). This is historically documented as true of Arabia proper, but apparently never true of the Sinai; Arabia is identified with the mixed multitude. This phrase is a derivative of the same word translated Arabia in reference to the various tribes that historically dwelt east and south of Canaan, 2 but it is never applied to the Sinai. In short, Pauls concept of Arabia in the midst of a distinctly Jewish argument in Galatians must be understood as historically and theologically Jewish, rather than casually, Roman. Hence, his statement that Mt. Sinai is in Arabia would have in view the Old Testament Scriptures rather than a Roman definition of Arabia. As such, it would by definition eliminate the so-called Sinai peninsula. Roman Arabia in Pauls day Even so, what if Paul hypothetically speaking was, in fact, referring to the Arabia of Roman political delineation? Arguments and maps that imply that Roman Arabia in Pauls day included the Sinai peninsula rely heavily on the ambiguous descriptions offered by two ancient writers, Herodotus and Strabo, while ignoring numerous others. Lets examine some of these ancient witnesses: Herodotus:. First, concerning the writings of Herodotus and his locating of Arabia in the Sinai, it is apparent to historical commentators that Herodotus was clearly confused about the geography of the Red Sea and its two gulfs, as well as the geography of Egypt itself. In fact, virtually none of the writings of Herodotus reveals a correct working knowledge of the two gulfs (Suez and Aqaba) of the Red Sea, or even, in fact, a distinction between the Red Sea proper and its gulfs. For example, the commentary on his Histories ii:11:2 reads, His calculation seems to suit the length of the Red Sea (which is about 1,200 miles), but his breadth is much too small; he seems to have confused the northwest arm, the Gulf of Suez, and the main sea. Concerning Herodotus understanding of the gulfs of the Red Sea, the commentary on Histories ii:11:3 tells us, . . . [Herodotus] forgets his construction, and goes on to mention again the other gulf, i.e. the Arabian Gulf. The two gulfs, the Red
2

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Electronic Edition. See Arabia.

Sea and that which is now Egypt are conceived as boring together, so as the make the ends nearly meet, but missing each other by a little strip of land. If anything, this only shows that Herodotus probably identified the eastern gulf, the Gulf of Aqaba, with Arabia, but misplaced its terminus, and incorrectly described the surrounding geography. He was clearly confused, having never traveled the entire region to observe these features firsthand. In additional commentary we read, The words in which it ends are ambiguous as to Egypt, as is also 41.1. H. [Herodotus], however, seems by coupling Egypt with Syria to put them both in Asia . . . . On the other hand, he does not count the Egyptians in this . . . and in 41.2 he clearly makes Africa begin at the Isthmus of Suez. In ii.17.1 he makes the boundaries of Asia and Libya those of Egypt, but does not say to which continent it belongs. On the whole it is more probable that H. [Herodotus] gave Egypt to Africa, but many . . . maintain the contrary; but as he thought Africa a continuation of . . . Asia, the exact position of Egypt seemed to him of little importance. Moreover, Herodotus identified Egypt as occupying only the banks of the Nile, and incorrectly contended that anything west of that area was Libya, just as he incorrectly identified anything east of the Nile as Arabia. In fact, in ii.19.1 he wrote, When the Nile is in flood, it overflows not only the Delta but also the lands called Libyan and Arabian, as far as two days journey from either bank in places, and sometimes more than this . . . . This description stretches the limits of credulity in any historical sense. Concerning the northern peninsula, the marsh country on both sides of the Pelusiac branch was obviously considered part of Egypt by Herodotus,3 but he also noted the ethnic character of the same region when he wrote that the area . . . from Gaza to Ienyssos (probably for Rhinocolura), with all its emporia or sea-ports, simply belonged to the Arabians (Hdt. III 5).4 That this area was not considered political Arabia at the time of Herodotus is abundantly attested in the discussion of the borders of Egypt, found in a separate BASE Institute article titled, Did Egypt Control the Sinai Peninsula at the Time of the Exodus? Likewise, other contemporaneous writers testify that the ethnic Arabs who did live there were compelled to . . . pay tribute to the Egyptians,5 who held political jurisdiction over the area. Strabo: For his part, Strabos descriptions throughout the regions he traveled often overlooked detailed distinctions in broader regions (as commentators again point out) and occasionally co-identified rivers, seas, and political regions. Strabos Libya, for example, extended from the Nile River all the way west to the Strait of Gibraltar and the

Pau Figueras. From Gaza to Pelusium: Materials for the Historical Geography of North Sinai and Southwestern Palestine (Jerusalem: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2000), 65. Ibid. Ibid., 66.

4 5

Atlantic Ocean, just as his Arabia extended all the way east from the Nile to the Zagros Mountains in modern-day Iran. One writer has recognized the delineation between political and ethnic observations in Strabos writing: Confusing as Strabos explanations may be, they show how little was really known about the origins and the history of the peoples of the region. His ethnical generalizations when referring to otherwise political groups are also interesting. 6 The same writer has noted in apparent frustration: His [Strabos] inconsistency in referring to the different territories of the region can be seen when, in one and the same passage, he names first Phoenicia and Judaea as being close to Egypt, and then also Arabia of the Nabataeans as bordering Egypt (Str 17, 1, 21). . . . Perhaps still more confusing is another well-known passage, in which Strabo tries to explain the relationship between Jews (or Judaeans), Idumeaeans and Nabataeans. . . . Strabos text then continues with a strange argument about the Egyptian origin of Jews. . . .7 Still, the writer concedes that Strabo . . . knows the story of Rhinocoluras foundation, and this means that he holds that its inhabitants are Egyptians (Str 16, 2, 31).8 As noted in the discussion about Rhinocolura (modern el-Arish) in the separate BASE Institute document mentioned above, this observation acknowledges that the political boundary of Egypt extended well across the entire northern Sinai. Regardless, neither Herodotus nor Strabos comments do anything to exclude Jabal al Lawz from the Arabia of their day, since Jabal al Lawz would be well within all broad designations of Arabia. Josephus: Having traveled the region extensively, Josephus was much more specific and accurate in his understanding of Arabia, as well as the location of historical Mt. Sinai. As noted in the BASE Institute document that deals specifically with his writings, Josephus most specific description of the distinction between Egypt and Arabia as he knew them is found in Antiquities of the Jews, 5:1, where he writes, The lot of Simeon . . . included that part of Idumea which bordered upon Egypt and Arabia. Roman Idumea could only be said to border on Roman Egypt and Arabia if the Sinai peninsula was considered Egypt, and the Arabah (Jordan rift) eastward considered Arabia.
6 7 8

Ibid., 70. Ibid. Ibid.

The territory south of Idumea (the Sinai Peninsula) was in the mind of Josephus Egypt, while the area east of Idumea was Arabia. These were areas he had traveled extensively with the Roman army and could describe with military accuracy. In other writings, Josephus referred to Arabia as: Reaching west to the Red Sea (Antiquities, 15:1); Here the Greek terminology can only be understood one way: Starting in Arabia and moving westward from Arabia, the first Red Sea encountered would be the Gulf of Aqaba, not the Gulf of Suez. Josephus was familiar with both; The posterity of Ishmael (Antiquities, 2:9), historically Arabian lands, but not the Sinai; The place through which Moses marched the Hebrews until coming to its capital called in Josephus day Petra, obviously referring to the region east of the Jordan rift (Antiquities, 4:4); The place in which are the headwaters of the Arnon (Antiquities 4:5). This can only refer to the Edomite hills in modern-day southern Jordan; The entire land administrated from the city the Greeks call Petra (Antiquities 4:7). Again, this can only refer to ancient Edom, which is a part of modern Jordan. The location of the rock in the Dead Sea Valley off which Amaziah cast the defeated Edomites, generally agreed to be immediately adjacent to the Jordan rift (Antiquities 9:9; cf. 2 Chron. 25:12); Near the country of Heshbon. Biblically, this was synonymous with the region of Moab, east of modern Israel (Antiquities 12:6); The country whose king was given control of Moab and Gilead, east of the Jordan (Antiquities 13:14). There are no recorded kings in the Sinai peninsula; The country to the east of Judea over which Malchus was king (Antiquities 14:14); The country which bordered Perea to the east, while Moab bordered Perea on the south (Wars of the Jews, 3:3); The country to the east of Jerusalem (Wars of the Jews, 5:4); The region immediately adjacent to Machaerus, which was due east of the Dead Sea (Wars of the Jews, 7:6). In none of these descriptions can the Arabia in the Jewish-thinking, Romancontemporary mind of Josephus be construed to mean the Sinai peninsula. In fact, as already seen, in the Roman middle east of Josephus who did not write from hearsay but traveled with the Roman army the Sinai peninsula was that part of Egypt which bordered Idumea on the south, while Arabia bordered it on the east and southeast, in the region of modern-day Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

As already seen, Roman historians who had not been to the area, or were not familiar with the comprehensive geography of the full extent of the Red Sea and both its gulfs (modern Suez and Aqaba), were sometimes vague in describing their concept of Arabia, largely because of the indigenous ethnic population of Arabs they encountered there. Josephus, however, was not prone to those kinds of glaring mistakes. Trajan: Most important, Rome was most interested in those provinces which offered something in the way of potential wealth or revenue, and so focused its geopolitical mandates on those areas. Eventually, they did assign a designation of Arabia on the far northern Sinai but that occurred long after Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians. As G. W. Bowersock has written in his excellent book, Roman Arabia: . . . when Augustus added to his realm the former kingdom of Judaea as a province under equestrian procurators, there remained in the circuit of imperial provinces along the deserts edge only the space extending across the Sinai, from Egypt into and encompassing the Negev, together with the entire territory of Transjordan, from the Syrian Hawran to the Gulf of Aqaba. It was this substantial tract that Trajan annexed in A. D. 106 under the name of the province of Arabia. This was Roman Arabia, as distinct from the land of incense and perfume in the south of the [Arabian] peninsula, which was known as the kingdom of Saba, or, to the Romans, Arabia Felix.9 In other words, as shown in the above-mentioned BASE Institute article that deals extensively with the borders of Egypt at the time of the Exodus, the entire Sinai from Pelusium just east of the Nile delta all the way to (and often beyond) el-Arish was considered political Egypt well into the Roman era. Eventually, Rome did annex this area under the name Arabia; but it was not until 106 A.D., more than 40 years after Paul wrote Galatians. Amazingly, the southeast border of the same region annexed a generation after Paul is provided for us by Eusebius, who: . . . in his priceless series of snapshots of Palestine and Arabia as they were in about A.D. 300, refers to Aila (Aqaba/Elath) as on the borders (of Palestine, as it now was), lying next to the southern desert and to the Red Sea which is beside it, sailed by those voyaging from Egypt and those from India.10 Just as el-Arish was the northwestern terminus for Egypt-turned-Arabia subsequent to 106 A.D., so Eilat was the southeastern-most point. Once again, the border of Egypt
9

G. W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia (London, Harvard University Press, 1983), 2. Fergus Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 B.C. A.D. 337 (Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1996), p. 387.

10

10

even after it is designated Arabia by the Romans in the second century A.D. draws a line from a point near the tip of the Gulf of Aqaba to the Wadi el-Arish. One historical atlas of the ancient world delineates the comprehensive Roman understanding of Arabia as follows: Arabia, the modern Saudi Arabia, in antiquity divided into Arabia Felix (the fruitful strip along the Red Sea [e.g. Gulf of Aqaba]), Arabia Deserta (the desert district w. of Syria), and Arabia Petraea (the area E. and S. of Palaestina as far as the Red Sea [e.g. Gulf of Aqaba]).11 Another source writes: Although the heartland of the Arab nations was what is known today as Saudi Arabia, the Romans gave the name Arabia to a province of their empire which lay south and east of Palestine, in the corner of the Mediterranean world between Syria and Egypt. It comprehended the Negev, southern Syria, all of Jordan, and northwest Saudi Arabia.12 While these designations very clearly include the Saudi Arabian seaboard of the Gulf of Aqaba, they do not include the Sinai peninsula especially in light of ancient firsthand testimony. This discussion (and that of the border of Egypt) makes understanding Pauls references to Arabia in his letter to the Galatians crystal clear. Since the undeniable Jewish understanding, as well as the official Roman geopolitical designation, of Arabia in Pauls day did not include the Sinai Peninsula, Paul could not have been referring to any part of the Sinai peninsula in locating historical Mt. Sinai. The theory that postulates historical Mount Sinai in modern (and ancient) Arabia does not need this affirmation; but it nevertheless strengthens the case. The Sinai peninsula theory, on the other hand, is devastated by it.

12/4/02
11

From the index of Atlas of the Classical World, edited by A.A.M. Van Der Heyden and H.H. Scullard (Nelson, 1963), 197. Bowersock, Roman Arabia, 1.

12

Anda mungkin juga menyukai