I now have Charles Beke's book on Jabal Baghir being Sinai

Click here to find it on Amazon.

He still placed Kadesh and Paran in the Sinai Peninsula, in fact Paran is what he prefers to call that Peninsula.  I feel I have firmly proven they are Petra, east of Israel's southern border, however this mountain fits Petra as Kadesh quite well regardless of that.

He actually gets into an early version of Mziraim wasn't Egypt speculation, but his take on that isn't as extreme.  He argues Miizraim was a tribe dwelling on the Wadi al Arish the Biblical "River of Egypt", and he identifies them as the Hyksos.  I actually think this may be a reasonable way to reconcile the issues, Mizraim settled there but his 7 named sons lead colonies into Africa.

He also predates Wyatt and Cornuke in arguing for the Biblical Yam Suph referring to specifically the Gulf of Aqaba.

I'm not willing to settle on this theory for Sinai yet.  What compels me to make a post on this is some of the material that surprisingly adds new context to the Petra as the original Mecca speculations.

Beke is informed by local Arabs that Jabal Baghir is also known as Jebel en-Nur or Jebel e-Nur, the Mountain of Light.  And the thing is he doesn't even seem to know that name is more famously the name of a Mountain near Mecca where Jibril first appeared to Muhammad.  He was simply told the Mountain of Light is one of three Mountains visible from Aqaba.

Dan Gibson, the main popularizer of the Petra as the original Mecca theory doesn't identify this mountain with Al-Nour, instead his location for the Cave of Hira is within Petra north of where the major Tombs are.  But I think this mountain being a little further from Mecca then it's usually thought to be can work well, it's a place Muhammad traveled to and stayed for a month.

On page 417 Beke concludes that an earlier writer, Burckhardt, had used the name Jebel Shafeh to refer to Jebel Shera, if Jebel Shera is a mountain near Petra, it might be the one Gibson has identified as Safa or it might by Gibson's Marwah.

I wonder if it would be accurate to describe Jebel Bagir as 5 Kilometers from Aqaba?

Dan to Beersheba

Beersheba might seem like an odd Biblical location to question the traditional identification of.  But I really feel the modern Israeli city of Beerhseba is too far north to work for how often Beersheba is an idiom of Israel's southern border.  And maybe it's too far west too, this idiom should perhaps be the middle of the border otherwise it's more of a corner.

Part of the confusion comes from Gerar, I think Biblical Gerar includes the modern traditional location but extents further to cover a descent chunk of the southern Negev.  It's a region not a city.

There are three chapters of The Bible that define the Southern Border without reference to Beersheba or Gerar.  Numbers 34, Ezekiel 47 and Ezekiel 48, all three can be difficult to interpret because of how they use place names that appear only in these three chapters, plus other aspects that are translated inconsistently.  The Lamsa translation of the Peshita version of Ezekiel seems to make Tamar and Meribah-Kadesh different names of the same location, and I think of all the versions I've read that makes the most sense in the context of other aspects of Biblical geography.

Numbers 34's use of Zin further confirms that Barnea is the same Kadesh (the Wilderness of Paran I think refers to everything west of the Arabah while the Wilderness of Zin is a more specific sub section of Paran.)  I think the reason Numbers 21 at first looks like it's saying they just arrived at a new location is because they did move slightly, but in the grand scheme of things are still on the same dot on a map of Jordan small enough to fit on my Labtop's computer screen.

So all three of these chapters place Kadesh on or very near the eastern edge of the Southern Border.  While the Western part of the border is the Wadi al-Arish.  Kadesh as I've already argued is Petra in Jordan.  The name Beersheba is not introduced till Genesis 21 but it's still implied to be pretty much where Abraham and Sarah settled at the start of chapter 20.  So the information in those chapters of Genesis combined with other references to Kadesh and Paran further support Beersheba being close to the same latitude as Kadesh.  And also about halfway between Kadesh and the Egyptian border.

Frankly I currently think Avdat is about where Beersheba should be.  The ruins at Avdat standing today (you can see them in the 73 film version of Jesus Christ Superstar) are Nabataean ruins contemporary with the Greco-Roman period, as is the name Avdat itself.  Biblical Beersheba I do not expect to have been a bustling Metropolis, it was probably a pretty humble village with no major buildings, the construction of Nabatean Avdat could easily have eliminated whatever remains older Beersheba had.  Avdat did have a Well which was the water source of it's Roman Bathhouse.

Avdat was an important stop on the road connecting Gaza to Petra. That fits pretty well with the picture I've painted above of the relationship between Beersheba and Kadesh.

Then I learned about Shivta, another city on that trade same route who's name actually seems connected to Beersheba's original name in Genesis 26:33 and Joshua 19:2.  

I now think Beersheba was in the area of either Shivta/Sobota/Subeita, Ruheiba (which seems to have the most notable Well in the area according to Dan Gibson) or Elusa.  And that Avdat/Obodat to their south was the ancient settlement of Abida son of Midian.

A Third Jewish Temple was built in the 7th Century

I have been looking into theories about reconstructing the history of the 7th Century and the origins of Islam.  I however do believe the traditional Biography of Muhammad is fairly grounded in real history, unlike Jay Smith.

And the thesis I shall provide here doesn't even matter much to if the early Arab Empire was already distinctly "Muslim" or not, my theories on that I get into elsewhere.  This is just specifically about what they did on The Temple Mount.

The current Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque were both originally built by Abd al-Malik the third Umayyad Caliph between 690 and 705 AD, that's pretty indisputably agreed on by everyone.  The question of whether or not the Arabs built some kind of earlier Mosque on the Temple Mount is difficult to answer since everything written on the subject from the Muslim POV is centuries later, including that account of Umar and Sophronius which many Gihon Spring Temple location supporters misunderstand.

There are however some contemporary 7th Century Christian sources, and one Jewish source.  Here is a link quoting a number of them gathered together by Hoyland in 1997.

http://www.christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html [Update: https://web.archive.org/web/20210211093519/http://www.christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html]

There are Four primarily I want to quote, but first let me provide some context.

Byzantine Christians of Late Antiquity, and probably all the other mainstream types of Christians who existed at that time, on the subject of the possibly of a Third Jewish Temple being built had the exact opposite opinion of modern Dispensationalist Evangelicals.  They not only weren't expecting it but they believed God would never allow it.  So if they saw it happening they would have to either deny it, or interpret it as inherently negative.  Like how today many Anti-Semitic Post Tribbers pretty much believe the Third Temple itself will be the Abomination of Desolation.

Meanwhile I have on my other Blog documented that the Quran is actually a Zionist book, it affirms Israel's right to the Promised Land and expects their return.  The parts that seem Anti-Semitic exist in the context of the Arabs' conflict with Jews living in Arabia.  I believe Muhammad probably never intended his united Arab state to expand west of the Jordan River (or East/North of the Euphrates for that matter).  None the less when Umar did conquer Judea, even under the most traditional view of what happened he allowed The Jews to live in Jerusalem again after 500 years of Rome (both Pagan and Christian) banning them from the city.

Also on the use of the word "Mosque" in these passages, if that even is an accurate translation.  It should be remembered that in the Quran itself the word Mosque does not mean the specific type of Muslim worship building we're used to today, but rather just means a Sacred site.  The most popular interpretation of the Night Journey Sura is that the "Farthest Mosque" is the site of the Temple in Jerusalem even though no building of any kind stood there at the time.

So let's start with the witness of Sophronius the Patriarch of Jerusalem who died in 638 AD.

[In a work originally composed by John Moschus (d. 619), but expanded by Sophronius (d. ca. 639), actually found only in an addition of the Georgian translation, the following entry appears, concerning a construction dated by tradition at 638, i.e., soon after the capture of Jerusalem ca. 637. It appears in a portion concerning Sophronius as recounted on the authority of his contemporary, the archdeacon Theodore, and may have been written down ca. 670.]

the godless Saracens entered the holy city of Christ our Lord, Jerusalem, with the permission of God and in punishment for our negligence, which is considerable, and immediately proceeded in haste to the place which is called the Capitol. They took with them men, some by force, others by their own will, in order to clean that place and to build that cursed thing, intended for their prayer and which they call a mosque (midzgitha). (Pratum spirituale, 100-102 [p. 63])

I notice how hostile the Christians are to their Arab conquerors seems to depend on their sect of Christianity, the "Nestorians" like Ishoyahb and John bar Pankaye got along with them just fine.  At any rate this reference doesn't tell us much about what's being built, but by "the Capitol" he almsot certainly means the City's highest peak, The Temple Mount, after all Hadrian's Temple bult there was called the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.

The second reference shall be the Coptic Apocalypse of Pseudo-Shenute from about 644 AD.

The Persians . . . will go down to Egypt and much killing will accompany them. They shall seize the wealth of the Egyptians and sell their children for gold, so harsh is the persecution and oppression of the Persians. Many masters will become slaves and many slaves masters. Woe to Egypt on account of the Persians. Many masters will become slaves and many slaves masters. Woe to Egypt on account of the Persians, for they will take the church vessels and drink wine from them before the altar without fear or anxiety. They will rape the women before their husbands. There shall be great distress and anguish, and of those that survive a third will die of grief and misery.

Then after a while the Persians will depart from Egypt and there shall arise the Deceiver, who will enter upon the king of the Romans and will be entrusted by him with headship of both the military commanders and the bishops. He shall enter Egypt and undertake many tasks; he shall take possession of Egypt and its provinces, and build ditches and forts, and order that the walls of the towns in the deserts and wastelands be [re-]built. He shall destroy the East and the West, then he shall combat the pastor, the archbishop in Alexandria entrusted with the Christians resident in the land of Egypt. They will expel him and he will flee southwards until he arrives, sad and dispirited, at your monastery. And when he comes here, I shall return him and place him on his seat once more.

After that shall arise the sons of Ishmael and the sons of Esau, who hound the Christians, and the rest of them will be concerned to prevail over and rule all the world and to [re-]build the Temple that is in Jerusalem. When that happens, know that the end of times approaches and is near. The Jews will expect the Deceiver and will be ahead of the [other] peoples when he comes. When you see the [abomination of] desolation of which the prophet Daniel spoke standing in the holy place, [know that] they are those who deny the pains which I received upon the cross and who move freely about my church, fearing nothing at all. (Ps.-Shenute, Vision, 340-41 [pp. 280-281])

Since the King of the Romans here is certainly Heraclius, my first instinct was that the "Deceiver" being referred to was Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople being condemned for the Monothelite controversy, but the Coptic perspective made me doubt that.  Since the author would have considered Benjamin I the legitimate Bishop of Alexandria this Deceiver could fit Cyrus of Alexandria who was indeed given both Ecclesiastical and Military authority in Egypt.  John of Niku was another Egyptian of the period who tied his hostility towards Cyrus into how he talked about the Arab conquest.

The last detail of that account could sound like it's saying the Arabs of this time already said Jesus didn't die on The Cross.  But in the context of how Divine Impassability was what largely drove Nestorius to develop his view of the Incarnation, this could make sense to me as a criticism of Nestorianism.  Just as Ishoyahb III saying "those who say that God, Lord of all, suffered and died" is a Nestorian criticism of Cyrilian Christianity and not opposition to the doctrine of the Crucifixion or Incarnation.  

Arculf a pilgrim from the 670s.

In that famous place where once stood the magnificently constructed Temple, near the eastern wall, the Saracens now frequent a rectangular house of prayer which they have built in a crude manner, constructing it from raised planks and large beams over some remains of ruins. This house can, as it is said, accomodate at least 3000 people. (Adomnan, De locis sanctis 1.1.14.186 [p. 221])

However the most crucial witness to my theory is the Jewish one, Simon bar Yohai in the 680s.

The second king who arises from Ishmael will be a lover of Israel. He restores their breaches and the breaches of the Temple. He hews Mount Moriah, makes it level and builds a mosque (hishtahawaya) there on the Temple rock, as it is said: "Your nest is set in the rock." (Simon ben Yohai, Secrets, 79 [p. 311])

Not only did some Christians see this as a rebuilding of the Temple from a hostile POV, but Jews also celebrated it as a rebuilding of The Temple.  Meanwhile the Rectangular shape shows this was being built more like Solomon's Temple then like the Octagonal Dome we see there now.

This witness has actually effected my opinion on the Dome of the Rock being the Temple Site.  Having a Jewish pre Dome of the Rock witness to The Temple being on a Rock really lessens how unlikely I found that possibility previously.

Still technically it is the Al Aqsa Mosque that is in it's name claiming to be the "Farthest Mosque" of the Night Journey.  And the Crusaders called that Mosque the Temple of Solomon and the Dome of the Rock the Temple of The Lord.

However archeologically we know that where the Al Aqsa Mosque is was Herod's southern expansion of The Temple complex, the Royal Stoa, so the least likely place on the Mount for the The Temple itself to have been.

The Geography of Sinai and Kadesh

This is not the first post I've made on that subject.  I have for various reasons become more interested in Kadesh then Sinai.  That includes the extent to which the Wandering in the Wilderness has typological significance to aspects of the End Times.

Among people trying to argue for alternatives to the traditional site of Mt Sinai, those who are merely moving it further north in the peninsula still accept the traditional sites of Kadesh-Barnea and Paran and everything else just about.  But I feel you can't make the argument that the traditional Sinai is based on probably wrong European guesses but keep all the others, because those identifications came even later and are derived from that Sinai location. 

It really doesn't matter that you think they aren't compatible with each other, the people who first choose current Barnea either didn't consider the 11 days verse from Deuteronomy, or had reasons for thinking it fit just fine.  I've seen people specifically argue for the 11 days journey fitting locations even further apart, so I frankly am uninterested in using that as an argument at all.

Frankly I suspect even Empress Helena gets too much credit/blame, I think a lot of what's attributed to her is more folklore then history.  I do think she went to Jerusalem and played a role in choosing the Church of the Holy Sepulture, but I have my doubts she went down to those remote parts of the Sinai.

Paran is a good one to start with.  Both Eusebius and Jerome place Paran in Arabia Deserta.  That is a lot more specific then just saying Arabia, that is a precise Roman Geographical term for the Arabian Desert that was distinct from and between Arabia Petraea/Nabataea and Arabia Felix(Yemen).

This witness to Paran being in Arabia Deserta has been used to support the Paran of Hagar and Ishmael being the Hejaz and Mecca, but most Biblical evidence places the Ishmaelite Tribes in or very near modern Jordan.  Mecca and Medina/Yathrib are south even of most lands associated with the sons of Keturah, though Josephus says her sons were settled in Arabia Felix which is basically Yemen.

Contrary to what some Jabal el-Lawz enthusiasts will tell you, Arabia in antiquity did sometimes include the Sinai Peninsula.  But the basis for that is mostly the Sinai being part of the Roman Province of Arabia Petraea which before Trajan conquered it was the Nabataean Kingdom.  The Sinai was also known to have been inhabited by Qedarites in the 5th Century BC.  

Biblical support for a Trans-Jordan Paran begins with Genesis 14 where El-Paran and Kadesh are associated with Seir and the Horites and various other obscure tribes that later Torah passages associate with the lands of Edom, Moab and Ammon.  And that is further backed up by the very first verse of Deuteronomy.

I'm not entirely decided on if I think Kadesh-Barnea and Kadesh-Meribah are the same location, but at this moment I lean towards them being the same, since both have equally valid reasons for being placed in Jordan.  It could be possible they are sperate specific encampments but still close enough that a modern city could encompass both.

Kadesh-Meribah is used in Ezekiel 47:19 and 48:28 as a marker for Israel's southern border.  Basically you're supposed to draw an east-west line from Kadesh-Meribah to a river that flows into the Mediterranean Sea (probably the Wādī al-ʻArīsh).  That supports it being a location on or very near the border between Israel and Jordan.

Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Book 4 Chapter 4 Section 7 identifies Petra as a Metropolis of the Arabs and as where Aaron died.  Now strictly speaking that is Biblically Hor not Kadesh-Meribah.  However the area of Petra includes sites locally identified with everything in Numbers 20.  It's possible that at one time this was not all considered one city.  Numbers 20 implies Kadesh is on the King's Highway which fits Petra but not the traditional location.

All that is how I was thinking about the Josephus reference.  Now I know that the Petra linked Mount Hor is technically South West of Petra proper.  Since Numbers 20:21 says they turned away from Edom when they went to Hor that can fit the city of Kadesh being North of Hor.  It still seems weird that Josephus didn't mention the name of Petra sooner.

Kadesh and Hor were not under Edom's control at the time of Moses but are near Edom's border according to both Numbers 20 and Josephus.  But Petra did become Edomite for awhile later during the Kingdom period being the city known as Cela/Sela/Selah in 2 Kings 14:7 and Isaiah 16:1, but also sometimes simply translated Rock in Obadiah verse 3 and Jeremiah 49:16.  Cela is a city also named in the Amarna Letters and is in fact the Semitic equivalent of the Greek Petra.

This Hebrew word for Rock first appears in The Bible in Numbers 20 verses 8, 10 and 11, being used of the Rock Moses stuck.  The first Meribah incident in Exodus 17 at Rephidim where Moses did what he was supposed to do uses different words for rock/stone, cagal in verse 4 and tswur in verse 6.  So is it possible the use of this word for rock is circumstantial evidence we are in the future Edomite Cela?

[Apparently the Petra=Sela assumption is outdated, Edomtie Sela is now identified as a place further north.  I still think Moses using this word for Rock here and not at Rephidim could reflect this location being the same mountain range and thus same kinds of rocks.  Petra being on the King's Highway but to the South of Edom arguably fits Kadesh of Numbers 20 even better.  Isaiah 42:11 does refer to a Cela being inhabited by Kedar.]

Numbers 13 places Kadesh-Barnea in Paran.  Genesis 21:21 identifies Paran as where Hagar raised Ishmael.  And I feel it's reasonably implied Hagar returned to the same location as her earlier temporary exile from Genesis 16:14, the well between Kadesh and Bered.

Petra as Kadesh lends credence to the Petra was the original Mecca theory of Dan Gibson which I've discussed in a few posts on a different blog already.  What Mecca claims to be Biblically is basically the Kadesh and Paran of these verses of Genesis.  Though there is still no Biblical support for Abraham building a House of Worship there, he only did that at future Israelite locations, Shechem, Bethel and Mamre near Hebron.  However the meaning of the name Kadesh suggests it was considered Sacred by someone.

Of course Kadesh could be one of a number of Genesis place names that appear as an editorial decision from Moses and not names already used at that time.  A Samaritan source known as Sharḥ al-Asāṭīr claims that Mecca was build by the sons of Nabojath (Nabateans).

Sinai I do now lean towards placing in the Sinai Peninsula.  It being described by Josephus as "between Egypt and Arabia" best fits that location, yet is also consistent with being sometimes placed in Arabia because it was part of the Roman Province and the Nabataean kingdom.

That said what Paul says in Galatians I don't even think we should consider geographically useful.   Paul is using Sinai as a symbol, and his association of Sinai with Hagar suggests he's combing Sinai and Kadesh of Paran in his symbolism.  However if both were part of the Domain of Aretas when Paul was writing that makes his fusing them together as both Hagarene work.

I find it amusing when Jabal El-Lawz proponents use Josephus calling Sinai the largest mountain in the area against Jebel Musa and then talk about how tall their mountain is.  When Mount Catherine right next to Jebel Musa is taller then Jabal El-Lawz.  That said I am also interested in more northern theories.  Being the tallest in the region isn't a Biblical detail and in fact I think it's a very secular mindset that would want that to be the case, God doesn't need to prove how Big He is the way Men do.

Some people will also place Sinai in Petra, Jebel al-Madhbah (the Mountain of the Altar).  Clearly however that is too close to the Numbers 20 events I now place there.  But maybe this mountain has some importance to the Petra=Mecca theory?  Maybe it's the original Jabal al-Nour, since after all that mountain's role in Muhammad's biography tempts one to thematically compare it to Sinai.  Question is does Madhbah have a cave that could work as the Cave of Hira?  I would hope whoever first tried to convince people this was Sinai/Horeb made sure there was a cave for Elijah in 1 Kings 19:8-9?

Maybe Jebel al-Madhbah is the Mount Paran of Deuteronomy 33:2 and Habakkuk 3:3.

The only East of Aqaba location I'm currently willing to consider for Sinai is Jabal Ahmad al Baqir in southern Jordan.  It kind of perfectly fits the Deuteronomy picture of the Seir mountains being between Sinai and Kadesh-Barnea if the later is indeed Petra.  Unfortunately no one has made documentaries on this mountain and I can't find the 19th Century book that proposed it online, and Amazon has no copies at the moment.