"And he said ... ' ... every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house, who gives out from his store things new and old'."
Previously we examined the tradition and biblical foundation for the Catholic teaching that Mary was consecrated as a Temple virgin at the age of three and lived in the temple precincts till the age of fourteen when she was married to Saint Joseph and there after virginally conceived the Son of God.*
This school of Temple virgins in Jerusalem formed an altar guild that fulfilled the necessary tasks at the Temple. This included sewing and creating vestments, washing the vestments of the priests which would be stained regularly by animal blood, preparing liturgical linen, weaving the veil of the Temple, and most importantly, liturgical prayer. The Jewish and Catholic tradition holds that this school for Israelite virgins was completed by marrying age of about 14 and that they were dismissed at this time. There were also older women, perhaps widows such as the prophetess Anna, who served as teachers and governesses for the virgins under their care.
There has been some doubt as to whether their were really consecreated Jewish virgins at the Temple. In my previous post I referenced the first-century Jewish historian Josephus in support of “Temple virgins” in Jerusalem, but I fear that this cannot be substantiated. Jimmy Akin asked me for the citation and I cannot find it. One would assume that it would be in Book 5 of the Jewish Wars of Josephus. There Josephus mentions cloisters, but he does not tell us who lived in them. That’s as close as Josephus gets.
There are, however, three Scriptural accounts that are used by Catholics to demonstrate that there were special women who ministered at the Temple complex.
Exodus 38:8 mentions women who “watch (צָבָא) at the door of the tabernacle.”
The second is in 1 Samuel:
“Now Heli was very old, and he heard all that his sons did to all Israel: and how they lay with the women that waited (צָבָא) at the door of the tabernacle:” (1 Samuel 2:22, D-R)
In both of the verses above, Hebrew verb for “watch” and “waited” is the same. It is the Hebrew word צָבָא, which is the same verb used to described the liturgical activity of the Levites (see Num 4:23; 8:24). This corresponds to the Latin translation in the Clementine Vulgate, which relates that these women “observabant” at the temple doors – another liturgical reading.
So these women are not simply hanging out around the Temple, looking for men, gossiping, or chatting about the weather. These are pious women devoted to a liturgical function. In fact, the Court of Women might exist formally for these special “liturgical women.”
The third and final reference to these liturgical females is in 2 Maccabees:
And the virgins also that were shut up, came forth, some to {High Priest} Onias, and some to the walls, and others looked out of the windows. And all holding up their hands towards heaven, made supplication. (2 Macc 3:19-20)
Here are virgins that are shut up. In the Greek it is “αἱ δὲ κατάκλειστοι τῶν παρθένων” or “the shut up ones of the virgins.” In this passage the Holy Spirit refers not to all the virgins of Jerusalem, but to a special set of virgins, that is, those virgins who had the privilege and right to be in the presence of the High Priest and address him. It’s rather ridiculous to think that young girls would have general access to the High Priest of Israel. However, if these virgins had a special liturgical role at the Temple, it becomes clear that they would both address the High Priest Onias and would also be featured as an essential part of the intense supplication in the Temple at this moment of crisis.
There is further testimony of temple virgins in the traditions of the Jews. In the Mishnah, it is recorded that there were 82 consecrated virgins who wove the veil of the Temple:
“The veil of the Temple was a palm-length in width. It was woven with seventy-two smooth stitches each made of twenty-four threads. The length was of forty cubits and the width of twenty cubits. Eighty-two virgins wove it. Two veils were made each year and three hundred priests were needed to carry it to the pool” (Mishna Shekalim 8, 5-6).
We find another reference to the “women who made the veils for the Temple…baked the showbread…prepared the incense” (Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth 106a).
Rabbinic Jewish sources also record how when the Romans sacked Jerusalem in AD 70, the Temple virgins leapt into the flames so as not to be abducted by the heathen soldiers: ”the virgins who were weaving threw themselves in the flames” (Pesikta Rabbati 26, 6). Here we also learn that these virgins lived in the three-storey building inside the Temple area. However, it is difficult to find any other details about this structure. The visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich placed the cloisters of the Temple Virgins on the north side of the Temple (Emmerich’s Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary 3, 5).
Even more, the first century document by the name of the Apocalypse of Baruch (sometimes called “2 Baruch”) describes the Temple virgins living in the Temple as weavers of the holy veil:
“And you virgins who weave byssus and silk, and gold from Ophir, in haste pick it all up and throw it in the fire that it will return it to its Author, and that the flame will take it back to its Creator, from fear that the enemy might seize it” (2 Baruch 10:19).
So then, there is ample evidence for the role of consecrated women, especially virgins at the Temple. If one were to accept the passages above, we have plenty of testimony for cultic women in the time of Moses’ tabernacle, in the time of David, in the Second Temple era, and in the first century of Our Lord.
This substantiates the claims of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church who claim that the Blessed Virgin Mary was presented to the Temple and served there from the age of three until the age of fourteen. To claim that Temple virgins are a myth of celibacy-crazed Catholic bishops does not hold up. Scripture and Jewish tradition records that there were specially commissioned virgins associated with the Temple. We may not know much about them, but we know that they existed.
That the most holy human girl of all time, the Mother of the Messiah, should live as a temple virgin should come as no surprise. This also accounts for the vow of virginity she had taken since she “knew not a man” even though she was already espoused to Joseph.
Now then, there is also a tradition that Mary was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies. This seems absurd to us. Moses stipulated that the High Priest and only the High Priest be allowed to enter the Holy of Holies and that only once a year. It was the greatest privilege in Israel. Why was the Holy of Holies so special? It was the inner room that housed the ark of the covenant.
Yet remember that this is the Second Temple, not the original Temple of Solomon. The Ark of the Covenant was hidden by Jeremiah and it had been lost ever since. The Second Temple, therefore, had an empty Holy of Holies. It was an empty room. No Ark of the Covenant. Nothing. In a sense, the Second Temple was a sham. It was like an empty suit. The Temple was built to house the Ark of the Covenant, but Ark was not there.
So then, the Temple in Jerusalem was empty. It did not contain the ark of the covenant. And yet we Catholics know from Revelation 11:19-12:1 that the Mother of Christ is truly the Ark of the New Covenant. The wood ark of old contained the Word of God engraved in stone. The stainless womb of Mary contained the Word of God made flesh.
Perhaps by a singular inspiration, the High Priest of that time had been inspired to lead this immaculate virgin into the inner sanctum of the Holy of Holies. My heart leaps when contemplating this. The angels of heaven would rejoice to see the true Ark of the Covenant restored into the earthly Temple of Jerusalem. In fact, it would be a foretaste of the glorious assumption of Mary. The Temple represented a new Garden of Eden and, of course, Mary is the New Eve. Thus, her entry into the Temple reveals that the fullness of time has come. The New Eve will soon bring forth the New Adam to reverse the curse and lead the faithful into the presence of God.
This is speculation and I do not want it to obscure the purpose of this post, which is to defend the existence of Temple virgins in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the presence of the New Eve at or in the Temple certainly is fitting since it hearkens back to the prophecy that the virgin mother will crush the head of the serpent. This is an exciting new perspective at the meaning of Christmas.
Immaculate Mary, dutiful at the Temple, pray for us.
*It is blasphemy to say that the Blessed Virgin Mary was an “unwed mother” or that she conceived Christ “out of wedlock.” Joseph and Mary were married before the angel Gabriel came to her in the Annunciation, and thus she conceived Christ after she was married to Saint Joseph. “The angel Gabriel was sent…to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph.” Joseph and Mary were “spouses.”
Herodotus was a Greek historian of the fifth century B.C. It is believed that he lived approximately 484-425 B.C. For a number of years he traveled throughout the Persian empire, Egypt, and Scythia observing the culture of these ancient peoples. In his later life, Herodotus lived in Athens, finally settling in Italy where he spent the remainder of his days refining his masterpiece, The Persian Wars.
As a consequence of this work, Cicero dubbed him “the father of history.” His literary efforts consisted of nine books dealing with the Greek-Persian wars (500-479 B.C.), together with a history of the customs and geography of these combatants.
In his effort to accomplish this feat, he went further and sought to give, as an introduction to the story, the whole history of the antique world as it was then known. This material occupies the first six of his nine books.
He is generally viewed as the first writer to so unify the record of facts as to raise historical narrative to the level of literature. It should be noted, however, that his history was written in an age that lacked an abundance of solid factual documentation; his work is grounded, therefore, largely in oral tradition.
In numerous instances, the narratives of the Old Testament and those of Herodotus cross trails. Do the writings of this Greek historian have any bearing on the text of the Bible? Indeed they do.
Liberal writers have long claimed that many of the Old Testament records do not actually possess the antiquity they claim. Some of them are alleged to have come from a much later period than they claim. What shall be said in response to these charges? What does the evidence actually indicate?
The documents of the Old Testament frequently appeal to cultural elements and ancient events. These should be consistent with the eras from which they purport to come. These, thus, are checkable matters. Do the biblical writings bear those marks of accuracy which one has a right to expect if they are genuine historical records reflecting the background of the Hebrew people within a given time frame? We confidently affirm that they do, and the writings of Herodotus become an important source of information in this controversy.
The Bible, Herodotus, and Egypt
As every serious Bible student knows, the activities of the Egyptian and the Israelite people come together several times in ancient history. From the time of Abraham through the period of the exodus, there was considerable familiarity between Egypt and the Hebrews. Consider the following examples which provide a sense of integrity to the Jewish Scriptures:
The common title of the Egyptian rulers was “Pharaoh” (Genesis 39:1; Exodus 5:1), meaning “the great house.” Herodotus mentions an Egyptian ruler called “Pheron” (ii.111), a name or title strikingly similar to the foregoing. In Genesis, the Pharaoh is represented as having great authority (40:3, 21-22; 41:34, 41-44). Similarly the Greek historian describes the supreme control of the Egyptian rulers who could arbitrarily make laws (ii.136, 177).
One recalls the lewdness of Potiphar’s wife who, though married, continuously sought to seduce the young Joseph (Genesis 39:7-10). Herodotus tells of an Egyptian ruler who, for the sake of performing an experiment, searched “at length” for a married woman “who had been faithful to her husband” (ii.111).
Pharaoh’s chief butler, with whom Joseph was imprisoned, dreamed of returning to his position and of squeezing ripe grapes into the king’s cup (Genesis 40:10-11). Some critics cite this as a biblical mistake, asserting that Herodotus declares that the Egyptians grew no vines (ii.77). However, the historian may have been alluding only to certain regions of Egypt, since elsewhere he specifically mentions the priests as drinking “wine made from the grape” (ii.37).
In the dream of the chief baker, the baker saw himself carrying baskets of bread upon his head (Genesis 40:16). Herodotus mentions that whereas the Egyptian women transported burdens upon their shoulders, the men carried them upon their heads (ii.35). This is the very opposite of the custom in many countries.
When Joseph received his estranged brothers into his house, they were given water with which to wash their feet (Genesis 43:24). There is the record of an Egyptian ruler who had a golden foot-pan “in which his guests” were provided water to wash their feet (ii.172).
The Mosaic narrative records that when Joseph’s brothers returned from Canaan with Benjamin, the ruling prince commanded his servants to slay animals and prepare a noon-time feast for his visiting kinsmen (Genesis 43:16). While some have contended that the Egyptians, due to their worship of animals, did not eat flesh, the evidence does not warrant that conclusion. Herodotus notes of certain priests: “[E]very day bread is baked for them of the sacred corn, and a plentiful supply of beef and of goose’s flesh is assigned to each” (ii.37). Elsewhere he describes how a sacrificial “steer” is prepared for ceremonial feasting (ii.40).
The Genesis account states that the Egyptians would not eat bread with the Hebrews, for such a practice was an abomination from their religious viewpoint (43:32). The Egyptians considered all foreigners unclean. Concerning the Greeks, the “father of history” writes: “[N]o native of Egypt, whether man or woman, will give a Greek a kiss, or use the knife of a Greek, or his spit, or his cauldron, or taste the flesh of an ox, known to be pure, if it has been cut with a Greek knife” (ii.41).
The medical profession in Egypt was highly advanced. Herodotus observed that medicine was specialized so that “each physician treats a single disorder” (ii.84). Jeremiah once chastised: “O virgin daughter of Egypt: in vain dost thou use many medicines; there is no healing for thee” (46:11).
When Jacob died, “physicians” were commanded by Joseph to embalm the patriarch (Genesis 50:2). The Greek historian gives an elaborate description of the embalming process which commenced with the removal of most of the brain with an iron hook through the nostrils, the balance being flushed out with drugs. The body cavity was filled “with the purest bruised myrrh, with cassia, and every other sort of spicery” (ii.86). One cannot but be reminded of that Ishmaelite caravan to which Joseph was sold. Headed down into Egypt, it was bearing “spicery and balm and myrrh” (Genesis 37:25; cf. John 19:39). The body was then put into a “wooden case” which had been “carved into the figure of a man.” Joseph’s body was placed in a coffin when he expired (Genesis 50:26). When Jacob died, “the Egyptians wept for him seventy days” (50:3). Herodotus describes how Egyptian men and women, during the mourning period, would wander the streets, beating their breasts (ii.85).
After Joseph died, a new king arose in Egypt who was not so favorably disposed toward the Hebrew people. The Israelites became slaves in a distant land. “Taskmasters” were set over them and they were employed in the manufacture of bricks made of mud (Exodus 1:14). Though stone was a ready building material in Egypt, Herodotus speaks of bricks made of mud (ii.136). These were used in ordinary dwelling houses, tombs, walls, etc. The bricks were made of river mud and straw, shaped in wooden molds and left to dry in the sun. The chemical decay of the straw within the clay formed an acid which gave the clay greater plasticity for brick-making. Remember that when the Israelites’ labor was intensified, they were forced to provide their own straw (Exodus 5:10-13). In the Oriental Institute in Chicago, there is a dried mud brick with protruding fragments of straw, stamped with the Cartouche (oval figure) of Rameses II.
When Moses was a baby, his mother hid him for three months, fearing the wrath of the Pharaoh. When she could conceal the child no longer, she made a small boat of bulrushes, i.e., the papyrus plant, and placed it at the edge of the Nile river (Exodus 2:3). The use of papyrus in making boats was distinctly Egyptian and not in vogue elsewhere. Herodotus mentions the use of papyrus in caulking Egyptian boats and in the manufacture of sails (ii.96).
The Bible, Herodotus, and Assyria
When Hezekiah was ruler of Judah, Sennacherib, king of Assyria, marched against Israel’s southern kingdom (see 2 Kings 18:13ff; Isaiah 36:1ff). According to his records, the monarch took forty-six Judean cities. In fact, he sent his army to Jerusalem where he boasted that he shut up Hezekiah “like a bird in a cage.” He did not, however, take the holy city. Why not? Because Jehovah intervened, in response to Hezekiah’s prayer, and destroyed 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night (2 Kings 19:35).
Herodotus has a garbled account of this disaster that crippled the Assyrian forces. He records that Sennacherib marched against Egypt. During a certain night, though, field mice supposedly invaded the Assyrian camp and gnawed the quivers, bow strings, and leather shield handles, thus disarming the military force. As a consequence, many of the soldiers were killed and others fled (ii.141).
Dr. I. M. Price, who served as professor of Semitic languages and literature at the University of Chicago, noted that this account “has some basis, doubtless, in fact, and is an echo of some calamity to the Assyrian army” (1907, 191). Wood commented that the account provides “indirect confirmation of the biblical miracle” (1986, 306). Joseph P. Free observed: “There is no evidence in the archaeological records that Sennacherib ever returned to the region of Palestine” (1950, 209).
The Bible, Herodotus, and the Phoenicians
Phoenicia was a small country on the Mediterranean coast northwest of Canaan. Naturally, there was frequent contact between the Phoenicians and the Hebrew people. Again, the accuracy of the biblical descriptions of these people is forcefully demonstrated by the secular historical record.
The Old Testament represents the Phoenicians as skilled in the hewing of timber (1 Kings 5:6). They were fine craftsmen in gold, silver, brass, and iron. The king of Tyre made some of the vessels and pillars for Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:21-23). Herodotus once visited Tyre, a leading city of Phoenicia, and he described a temple as “richly adorned with a number of offerings, among which were two pillars, one of pure gold, the other of emerald, shining with great brilliancy at night” (ii.44). The historian commented that the people of Tyre boasted that their city had stood for 2,300 years. Isaiah appears to take note of this claim: “Is this your joyous city, whose antiquity is of ancient days?” (23:7).
Several Old Testament prophets foretold Tyre’s subjection to the Babylonians (see Jeremiah 25:22; 27:1-11; Ezekiel 26:1-28:19; 29:18-20; Zechariah 9:2ff). Isaiah declared that Tyre would be “forgotten seventy years,” but that after that period (likely the era of the Babylonian domination), the city would “return to her hire,” that is, her prosperity would resume (23:15-17). This is confirmed by Herodotus who notes that in the time of the Persian rulers, Darius Hystaspis and Xerxes, the Phoenicians were providing their ships as allies for Persian conquests (v.108; vii.89).
The Bible, Herodotus, and Babylon
Ancient Babylon was known as the “glory of the kingdoms” (Isaiah 13:19), indeed “the praise of the whole earth” (Jeremiah 51:41). Babylon’s beauty, strength, and prominence was unparalleled in the ancient world. The citadel seemed impregnable. Jeremiah alluded to Babylon’s massive fortifications (51:53, 58). Herodotus says that the city was enclosed by great walls 350 feet high and 75 feet thick (i.178). Isaiah spoke of Babylon’s “doors of brass” (45:2). The Greek historian declared that one hundred gates of brass were in the wall (I.179).
There are several prophecies which indicate that God would overthrow the “golden city” by the providential use of his “shepherd,” his “anointed one,” Cyrus, king of Persia (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1), and in conjunction therewith he would “dry up” Babylon’s water (Isaiah 44:27; Jeremiah 50:38; 51:36).
What does this mean? Herodotus describes the city as straddling the Euphrates river. He records that Cyrus diverted the river, by means of a canal, into a nearby basin. Even then, says he, the Babylonians could have defended the city, except for the fact that in their confidence they “were engaged in a festival” characterized by dancing and revelry, and so were taken by surprise (i.191).
With great precision, Jeremiah prophesied this very circumstance. The inmates of the city would be feasting and drunken (51:39, 57), and thus captured unaware (50:24). It must be emphasized in this connection that Jeremiah gave these prophecies about fifty-six years before the fall of Babylon (cf. 51:59), and about 150 years before the Greek historian produced his work!
In a curious declaration, Isaiah prophetically addresses Babylon as follows: “Come now, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground” (47:1). What is the significance of the appellation “virgin”? It apparently is a reference to the fact that the mighty city had never been ravished before. Significantly, Herodotus describes the assault of Cyrus as “the first taking of Babylon” (i.191). Incredible! The “father of history” is an eloquent witness to the accuracy of Bible prophecy.
The Bible, Herodotus, and Persia
After the fall of Babylon, the Hebrews were under Persian control for two centuries. Cyrus, a benevolent Persian monarch, had issued a decree that allowed the Jews to return to their homeland to rebuild their temple. The construction project was initiated but it eventually fell into disarray. Finally, after more than fifteen years, the work was resumed. There was, however, at first, mild opposition.
Did the Jews have regal authority for the project? A search was made for Cyrus’ original decree of authorization. When the document was located, oddly, it was not found in Babylon or Susa, as might be expected, since this was where the Persian kings usually resided, but in Achmetha (Ecbatana) in the province of the Medes (Ezra 6:2).
There is a passage in Herodotus, however, which appears to indicate that, contrary to the usual custom, Cyrus held his court in Ecbatana, hence, kept his archives there (i.153). As Professor George Rawlinson of Oxford University observed, “this is one of those little points of agreement between the sacred and the profane which are important because their very minuteness is an indication that they are purely casual and unintentional” (1873, 196).
When the original document of Cyrus was located, Darius, the then-reigning monarch, issued a decree authorizing the resumption of work on the temple, even providing expense money from “tribute” collected in the provinces “beyond the [Euphrates] river” (Ezra 6:8). According to Herodotus, Darius was the first Persian king to extract such tribute money (iii.89). Moreover, the king warned that if any should alter his decree, “let a beam be pulled out from his house, and let him be lifted up and fastened thereon” (Ezra 6:11). This was no idle threat, for, as Herodotus records, at the second conquest of Babylon, Darius crucified about three thousand citizens of the city (iii.159).
In the book of Esther one learns that the maidens of the royal harem could only go unto the king when their “turn” came (Esther 1:12), and any violation of this procedure could incur the death penalty (4:11). Herodotus says: “In Persia a man’s wives sleep with him in their turns” (iii.69), and invasion of the king’s privacy was punishable by death (iii.72, 77).
Mordecai, Esther’s cousin, had foiled a plot against the life of king Ahasuerus (Esther 2:21-22), and an account of that act of patriotism had been written in “the book of records” (6:1). Herodotus records that in Persia a list of “the king’s benefactors” was maintained with a view of returning such kindnesses (viii.85).
Examples like those of the foregoing paragraphs could be multiplied many times over. Truly, Herodotus provides unwitting testimony to the accuracy of the Old Testament. The precision of the ancient Scriptures is utterly amazing. The Bible passes every test of credibility. Let us honor it as the Word of the living God.
Sources/Footnotes
Free, Joseph P. 1950. Archaeology and Bible History. Wheaton, IL: Van Kampen Press.
Price, Ira M. 1907. The Monuments and the Old Testament. Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society.
Rawlinson, George. 1873. Historical Illustrations of the Old Testament. Boston, MA: Henry Young & Co.
Wood, Leon J. 1986. A Survey of Israel’s History. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
About the Author
Wayne Jackson has written for and edited the Christian Courier since its inception in 1965. He has also written several books on a variety of biblical topics including The Bible and Science, Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth, The Bible on Trial, and a number of commentaries. He lives in Stockton, California with his dear wife, and life-long partner, Betty.
No book has made a greater impact on world literature than the Bible. "It has colored the talk of the household and the street, as well as molded the language of the scholars. It has been something more than a 'well of English undefiled', it has become part of the spiritual atmosphere. We hear the echoes of its speech everywhere and the music of its familiar phrases haunts all the fields and groves of our fine literature" (Ackermann 9). Shakespeare's debt to Scripture is profound; biblical imagery is woven into every play. No writer has integrated the expressions and themes found in the Bible into his own work more magnificently than Shakespeare. It would take volumes to examine comprehensively Shakespeare’s use of biblical imagery, so I will limit the discussion to one play -- Macbeth. Please note that the biblical quotes used in this article are taken from the King James Authorized Version, unless otherwise stated. Shakespeare himself would have been most familiar with an earlier version of the Bible, possibly the Geneva Bible, the Bishop’s Bible, or the Great Bible, because the first edition of the King James Bible (Authorized Version) did not appear until 1611. I have divided the discussion of biblical imagery in Macbeth into acts and scenes for easy reference.
Act 1, Scene 2 Sergeant: Except they meant to bathe in reeking wounds,
Or memorise another Golgotha (1.2.45) Commentary: A reference to Christ's death upon Mount Calvary, as reported in Matthew 27.33: "And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull." According to John 29.34, a Roman soldier pierced Christ's side as he hanged from the cross. Shakespeare's Sergeant tells King Duncan that the army he has just encountered is as violent and remorseless as the soldiers who put Christ to death. Ross: God save the king! (1.2.48) Commentary: Although Shakespeare would have been familiar with this now commonplace salutation simply by living under monarchical rule, the saying originated in the Bible. In 1 Samuel 10.24 the people greet King Saul: "And all the people shouted, and said, God save the king."
Act 1, Scene 3 First Witch: All hail, Macbeth! hail to thee, thane of Glamis! (1.3.51) Commentary: "All hail" is a common greeting in the New Testament, but one use of the phrase stands out in particular when discussing this passage from Macbeth. In Matthew 26.49, Judas prepares to betray Jesus to the Sanhedrin and Roman soldiers. His plan is to identify Jesus by greeting him with a kiss so that the soldiers will know which man to arrest. Judas approaches Jesus, saying, "Hail Master." The Witches greet Macbeth in a similar fashion, and, as Judas betrayed Jesus, so do the Witches betray Macbeth. Banquo: If you can look into the seeds of time,
And say which grain will grow and which will not,
Speak then to me (1.3.60) Commentary: Banquo, unconvinced that the Witches can forsee the future, makes reference to Ecclesiastes 11.6: "In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thine hand: for thou knowest not whether shall prosper, either this or that, or whether they both shall be alike good."
Banquo: And oftentimes, to win us to our harm,
The instruments of darkness tell us truths, (1.3.123-4) Commentary: Satan using Holy Scripture to lead us into sin is a common theme throughout the Bible. In Corinthians 11.13-14 we are told, "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light". In Matthew 4.6, Satan attempts to use Scripture to tempt the Lord: "If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee; and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone." Jesus replies, "It is written again/Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."
Macbeth: Come what come may
Time and the hour runs through the roughest day. (1.3.156-7) Commentary: A reference to two passages from the Bible: John 9.4: "I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh when no man works"; and Job 7.1,2: "Is there not an appointed time to man upon the earth? and are not his days as the days of an hireling. As a servant longeth for the shadow, and as an hireling looketh for the end of his work."
Act 1, Scene 4 Duncan: There's no art
To find the mind's construction in the face (1.4.15-6) Commentary: Note the similarities to Samuel 16.7: "For God seeth not as man seeth: for man looketh upon the outward appearance, but the Lord beholdeth the heart". Duncan: I have begun to plant thee, and will labour
To make thee full of growing. Noble Banquo,
That hast no less deserved, nor must be known (35)
No less to have done so, let me enfold thee
And hold thee to my heart. (1.4.34-7) Commentary: The metaphor of growth permeates the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. Notice Jeremiah 11.16: "For the Lord called thy name, a green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit; with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken."; Jeremiah 12.2: "Thou hast planted them, yea, they have taken root: they grow, yea, they bring forth fruit: thou art near in their mouth, and far from their reins."; and Psalms 92.12,13: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon/Those that be planted in the house of the Lord shall flourish in the courts of our God." In the New Testament, the metaphor appears in Corinthians 3.6,7: "I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase/So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase". Shakespeare is careful to illustrate Duncan's status as divinely appointed king throughout the play. Duncan's goodness is necessary to enhance Macbeth's feelings of guilt and remorse. Act 1, Scene 5 Lady Macbeth: Come, thick night,
And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell,
That my keen knife see not the wound it makes (1.5.50) Commentary: A reference to Job 24.13: "These are they that abhor the light: they know not the ways thereof, nor continue in the paths thereof. The murderer riseth early and killeth the poor and the needy, and in the night he is as a thief". The connection between hell and smoke is found in Revelation 14.11: "And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever..."; and in Revelation 18.9: "And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning". Lady Macbeth here calls upon the darkness to enshroud her in a veil of smoke so that she may not see the evil deed she desires to commit. Macbeth: My dearest love, 65
Duncan comes here to-night. Lady Macbeth: And when goes hence? Macbeth: To-morrow, as he purposes. Lady Macbeth: O, never
Shall sun that morrow see! (1.5.65-70) Commentary: A thought expressed in James 4.13: "Go to now, ye that say, today or tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away."
Act 1, Scene 6 Duncan: This castle hath a pleasant seat; the air
Nimbly and sweetly recommends itself
Unto our gentle senses. Banquo: This guest of summer,
The temple-haunting martlet, does approve (1.6.1) Commentary: Tradition tells us that the gentle martlet will not build a nest in or near unjust houses. Notice the irony in Banquo's approval of the castle that will be the location of Duncan's murder. The reference to the "temple-haunting martlet" comes from Psalms 84.2,3: "Yea, the sparrow hath found her an house, and the swallow a nest for her, where she may lay her young: even by thine altars, O Lord of Hosts". A similar passage can be found in Baruch 6.20: "In the temple the owls, swallows, and birds fly."
Act 1, Scene 7 Macbeth: If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly (1.7.1) Commentary: Within this passage is a clear reference to the words spoken by Jesus to Judas in John 13.27: "That thou doest, do quickly." Macbeth is painfully aware of his bond with Judas. Macbeth: But in these cases
We still have judgment here; that we but teach
Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return
To plague the inventor: (1.7.8-11) Commentary: Macbeth's speech reflects the common biblical theme known best by the passage from Galatians 6.7: "Be not deceived: God is not mocked: for what so ever a man soeth, that shall he also reap". The theme is continued in Job 4.8: "They that plow iniquity and sow wickedness, reap the same"; and in Wisdom of Solomon 11.13: "Wherewith a man sinneth, by the same also shall he be punished."
Macbeth: I have no spur
To prick the sides of my intent, but only
Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself (1.7.25-7) Commentary: The "vaulting ambition" to which Macbeth refers is the pride so condemned in the Bible. In Matthew 23.12 we read: "For whosoever will exault himself, shall be brought low"; and in Proverbs 29.23 we read: "The pride of a man shall bring him low". Proverbs 16.18 tells us that: "Pride goeth before destruction, and a high mind before the fall." Act 2, Scene 1 Macbeth: Thou sure and firm-set earth,
Hear not my steps, which way they walk, for fear
Thy very stones prate of my whereabout,
And take the present horror from the time (2.1.65-9) Commentary: Macbeth knows that, although those around him are unaware of his crimes, the earth and the heavens know all. Notice the similarities to Job 20.27: "The heaven shall declare his wickedness, and the earth shall rise up against him". Notice also the connection to Habakkuk 2.10,11: "Thou hast consulted shame to thine own house, by destroying many people, and hast sinned against thine own soule. For the stone shall cry out of the wall and the beam out of the timber shall answer it, woe unto him that buildeth a town with blood." Macbeth: the bell invites me.
Hear it not, Duncan; for it is a knell
That summons thee to heaven or to hell. (2.1.72-4) Commentary: Macbeth is about to send King Duncan to his judgment before God. In Matthew 25.31, we are told that "When the Son of man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He shall sit upon the throne of His glory/And before Him shall be gathered all nations..." to be judged.
Act 2, Scene 2 Macbeth: I have done the deed (2.2.22) Commentary: Comparable to 1 Corinthians 5.2,3: "And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you/For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath done this thing". Macbeth surely knows these words well and is aware that he has already been judged for his crime. Lady Macbeth: Go get some water,
And wash this filthy witness from your hand. (2.2.58) Commentary: The imagery of unclean hands comes from Matthew 27.24, when Pilate comes before the masses gathered to witness the trial of Jesus: "When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it."
Macbeth: Whence is that knocking?
How is't with me, when every noise appals me? (2.2.72-3) Commentary: Macbeth, of course, hears knocking because Macduff has arrived at the castle, and there is great emphasis placed upon Macduff's knocking since it startles Macbeth and his Lady and forces them to quickly cover up their involvement in the murder. However, the knocking can also be seen as symbolic, particularly if we make reference to the Bible. In Luke 12.36, we are told that the Lord "cometh and knocketh", and in Revelation 3.20, we are told again that Christ will "stand at the door and knock". The fact that even the smallest noise now unnerves Macbeth also has parallels in the Bible, particularly in Leviticus 26.36, where we are told that God "will send even a faintness" into the hearts of sinners, and "the sound of a shaken leaf shall chase them."
Macbeth: What hands are here? ha! they pluck out mine eyes. (2.2.74) Commentary: A reference to Matthew 18.8: "Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire."
Act 2, Scene 3 Porter: Here's a knocking indeed! If a
man were porter of hell-gate, he should have
old turning the key....Who's there, in the other devil's
name? Faith, here's an equivocator, that could
swear in both the scales against either scale;
who committed treason enough for God's sake, 15
yet could not equivocate to heaven: O, come
in, equivocator. (2.3.1-22) Commentary: Christ first mentions the "gates of hell" in Matthew 16.18: "And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". As Thomas Carter points out in his examination of Shakespeare and Holy Scripture, the Porter's reference to "an equivocator", who "committed treason enough for God's sake" is possibly related to the English martyr, Jesuit Henry Garnett, who was executed in 1606. Lennox: The night has been unruly: where we lay,
Our chimneys were blown down; and, as they say, (70)
Lamentings heard i' the air; strange screams of death,
And prophesying with accents terrible
Of dire combustion and confused events
New hatch'd to the woeful time: the obscure bird
Clamour'd the livelong night: some say, the earth (75)
Was feverous and did shake. (2.3.69-76) Commentary: Lennox reports events similar to those found in Matthew 24:6, when Christ tells of the signs of the end of the world: "And ye shall hear wars and rumours of wars....For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be famines and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places". Moreover, in his attempt to accent the divine right of King Duncan, Shakespeare draws parallels to the events surrounding the death of Christ, when "the earth did quake, and the stones were cloven" (Matthew 27.51). Duncan's death has also brought about a "feverous" and shaking earth.
Macduff: Most sacrilegious murder hath broke ope
The Lord's anointed temple, and stole thence
The life o' the building! (2.3.86-8) Commentary: Macbeth has "broke ope/The Lord's anointed temple" -- he has destroyed the anointed body of the King. 1 Corinthians tells us that human beings are "the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth" in each of us. "If any man destroy the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which ye are". Shakespeare's use of the phrase "Lord's anointed temple" to describe Duncan's body highlights Duncan's status as divinely sanctioned ruler. It also emphasizes the heinousness of Macbeth's crime against God's consecrated sovereign.
Lady Macbeth: What's the business,
That such a hideous trumpet calls to parley
The sleepers of the house? (2.3.102-4) Commentary: "Macduff has spoken of the great Doomsday when the graves shall give up their dead, and Lady Macbeth takes up the thought and speaks of the Trumpet which shall call the sleepers to the Judgment." (Carter 421) The sounding of a trumpet occurs several times in the Bible. Note Matthew 24.31: "And He shall send his Angels with a great sound of a trumpet"; and 1 Corinthians 15.52: "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall blow and the dead shall be raised."
Donalbain: There's daggers in men's smiles: the near in blood,
The nearer bloody (2.3.74-5) Commentary: A possible reference to Psalms 62.4: "They delight in lies: they bless with their mouth, but they curse inwardly". Also a possible reference to Psalms 28.3: "Draw me not away with the wicked, and with the workers of iniquity, which speak peace to their neighbours, but mischief is in their hearts."
Act 2, Scene 4 Ross: Ah, good father,
Thou seest, the heavens, as troubled with man's act,
Threaten his bloody stage: by the clock, 'tis day,
And yet dark night strangles the travelling lamp:
Is't night's predominance, or the day's shame,
That darkness does the face of earth entomb,
When living light should kiss it? (2.4.6-11) Commentary: A reference to the events surrounding the Crucifixion, as reported in Matthew 27.45,51: "Now from the sixth hour was there darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour...And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened."
Old Man: God's benison go with you; and with those
That would make good of bad, and friends of foes! (2.4.52-3) Commentary: An echo of one of the fundamental teachings of Christ, told in Matthew 5.9: "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God; and also in Matthew 5.44: "But I say unto you, love your enemies; bless them that curse you: do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Act 3, Scene 1 Macbeth: For Banquo's issue have I fil'd my mind;
For them the gracious Duncan have I murder'd;
Put rancours in the vessel of my peace
Only for them; and mine eternal jewel
Given to the common enemy of man,
To make them kings, the seed of Banquo kings!(3.1.69-74) Commentary: Macbeth's selfish lamentation reflects the words found in Mark 8.36: "For what shall it profit a man, though he win the world if he lose his soul. Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul". Note that "mine eternal jewel" means Macbeth's "immortal soul", and echoes Christ's analogy of the soul to a pearl, found in Matthew 13.45: "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls." Macbeth: Do you find Your patience so predominant in your nature
That you can let this go? Are you so gospell'd
To pray for this good man and for his issue,
Whose heavy hand hath bow'd you to the grave (3.1.93-8) Commentary: A reference to Luke 6.28: "Love your enemies: do well to them which hate you. Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you". Also a reference to Matthew 5.44, which is very similar to Luke 6.28.
Macbeth: every one
According to the gift which bounteous nature
Hath in him closed; (3.1.105-07) Commentary: Here Shakespeare alludes to Matthew 25.15, in which Christ recites the parable of the talents: "And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey".
Act 3, Scene 2 Lady Macbeth: Nought's had, all's spent,
Where our desire is got without content (3.2.7-8) Commentary: Lady Macbeth's desires have been fulfilled, but she is nonetheless miserable. This reflects a common motif in the Bible, particularly in Ecclesiastes 4.6: "Better is an handful with quietness, then both the hands full with travail and vexation of spirit". Also note the similarities between Lady Macbeth's words and the warning issued in Proverbs 13.7: "There is that maketh himself rich, yet hath nothing"; and in Psalms 106.15: "But He gave them their request: but sent leanness into their soul." Macbeth: Light thickens; and the crow
Makes wing to the rooky wood:
Good things of day begin to droop and drowse;
While night's black agents to their preys do rouse. (3.2.57-60) Commentary: Compare to Psalms 104.20: "Thou makest darkness, and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth."
Act 3, Scene 4 Macbeth: It will have blood; they say, blood will have blood: (3.4.147) Commentary: A possible reference to Genesis 9.6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed". Also a reference to Genesis 4.10: "The voice of thy brother's blood cryeth unto Me from the earth, therefore thou art cursed from the earth."
Act 3, Scene 5 Hecate: And you all know, security
Is mortals' chiefest enemy. (3.5.33-4) Commentary: Security is a caveat discussed in Ecclus. 5.7: "Make no tarrying to turn unto the Lord, and put not off from day to day: for suddenly shall the wrath of the Lord break forth and in thy security thou shalt be destroyed"; and also in 1 Corinthians 10.12: "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall." Act 4, Scene 1 Macbeth: Let this pernicious hour
Stand aye accursed in the calendar! (4.1.148-9) Commentary: Macbeth borrows Job's curse, found in 3.5: "Let darkness and the shadow of death stain it: let the cloud remain upon it, and let them make it fearful as a bitter day. Let darkness possess that night, let it not be joined unto the days of the year, nor let it come into the count of months." Macbeth: No boasting like a fool;
This deed I'll do before this purpose cool. (4.1.71-2) Commentary: A reference to 2 Corinthians 11.16: "I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may also boast myself a little."
Act 4, Scene 2 Lady Macduff: All is the fear and nothing is the love; (4.2.15) Commentary: Lady Macduff's extended complaint over her husband's absence contains this direct reference to 1 John 4.18: "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment."
Act 4, Scene 3 Malcolm: Let us seek out some desolate shade, and there
Weep our sad bosoms empty. (4.3.15) Commentary: These lines are related to imagery found in Psalms 87.1: "By the rivers of Babel we sat, and there we wept, when we remembered Zion". For Malcolm, forced to flee his native Scotland and watch its destruction from afar, it is wholly appropriate to echo Psalms 87.1. Malcolm: Angels are bright still, though the brightest fell; (4.3.28) Commentary: A reference to the fall of Lucifer, reported in various books of the Bible, including Luke 10.18: "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven"; Isaiah 14.12: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning"; and 2 Peter 2.4: "For if God spared not the Angels that sinned, but cast them down into hell."
Malcolm: When I shall tread upon the tyrant's head. (4.3.55) Commentary: Imagery directly linked to Psalms 108.13: "Through God we shall do valiantly; for he shall tread down our enemies."
Macduff: Not in the legions
Of horrid hell can come a devil more damn'd
In evils to top Macbeth. (4.3.67-9) Commentary: In Luke 8.30, Jesus asks an insane man, "What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him."
Macduff: the queen that bore thee,
Oftener upon her knees than on her feet,
Died every day she lived (4.3.127-9) Commentary: A reference to 1 Corinthians 15.31: "I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily."
Malcolm: But God above
Deal between thee and me! (4.3.139-40) Commentary: A common expression of covenant making in the Old Testament, found in 1 Samuel 20.23: "The Lord be between thee and me for ever"; and Genesis 21.23: "Thou shalt deal with me"; and Genesis 31.49: "The Lord look between me and thee."
Malcolm: Scarcely have coveted what was mine own,
At no time broke my faith, (4.3.146-7) Commentary: Here Malcolm assures Macduff that he has never broken God's tenth commandment, given in Exodus 20.17: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, not anything that is thy neighbour's."
Malcolm: And sundry blessings hang about his throne, That speak him full of grace. (4.3.179-80) Commentary: "Full of grace" is a common phrase to describe Jesus and the Virgin Mary, as seen in John 1.14: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we behold his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth"; and in the prayer "The Hail Mary", which begins, "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee."
Macduff: Did heaven look on,
And would not take their part?
Sinful Macduff,
They were all struck for thee!(4.3.264-7) Commentary: Here we find echoes of two biblical themes. The first is the theme of heaven watching over earth, as seen in Proverbs 15.3: "The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good"; and 2 Chronicles 16.9: "For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth". The second is the theme of the sins of the father visited upon the children. Macduff believes that his family has died because of his sinful behaviour. Compare this to Exodus 20.5: "Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children"; and Ezekiel 18.2: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge."
Malcolm: Macbeth
Is ripe for shaking, and the powers above
Put on their instruments. (4.3.279-81) Commentary: Macbeth, and thus his stronghold, is "ripe for shaking". Compare Malcolm's words to Nahum 3.12: "All thy strongholds shall be like fig trees with the firstripe figs: if they be shaken, they shall even fall into the mouth of the eater." Act 5, Scene 1 Gentlewoman: Neither to you nor any one; having no witness to
confirm my speech. (5.1.16-7) Commentary: Comparable to Matthew 18.16: "But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be established." Lady Macbeth: Here's the smell of the blood still: all the
perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand (5.1.46-7) Commentary: As seen in Act 2, the imagery of unclean hands is derived from Matthew 27.24: "When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it". However, now that Lady Macbeth feels the full impact of her crimes, we recall other biblical passages, including Isaiah 59.2,3: "But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear/For your hands are defiled with blood and you fingers with iniquity; you lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness."
Act 5, Scene 3 Macbeth:This push
Will cheer me ever, or disseat me now. (5.3.25-6) Commentary: Compare to Daniel 11.40: "And at the end of the time shall the king of the South push at him." Macbeth welcomes the attack or "push" by Macduff and his army. Macbeth: I have lived long enough: my way of life
Is fall'n into the sear, the yellow leaf;
And that which should accompany old age, (5.3.27-9) Commentary: A reference to to Isaiah 1.30: "For ye shall be as an oak whose leaf fadeth, and as a garden that hath no water."
Act 5, Scene 5 Macbeth: To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death (5.5.23-7) Commentary: Macbeth's profound final soliloquy is rich with biblical imagery. The following are the most significant relevant passages from Scripture:
2 Corinthians 6.2: "Behold now, the accepted time: behold now the day of salvation." Isiah 45.6: "Seek ye the Lord while He may be found, call ye upon Him while He is near." Psalms 22.15: "Thou hast brought me into the dust of death." Job 18.5-6: "The light of the wicked shall be quenched...and his candle shall be out out with him." Job 8.9: "We are but of yesterday and are ignorant: for our days upon earth are but a shadow." Wisdom of Solomon 2.4: Our life shall pass away as the trace of a cloud, and come to nought as the mist that is driven away with the beams of the sun. For our time is as a shadow that passeth away and after our end there is no returning." Wisdom of Solomon 5.9: "Passed away like a shadow, and as a post that passeth by." Psalms 52.11: "My days are like a shadow that fadeth, and I am withered like grass."
Macbeth: I pull in resolution, and begin
To doubt the equivocation of the fiend
That lies like truth: (5.5.48-50) Commentary: In Scripture, Satan is the great equivocator, lying "like truth" to confound the hearts of men. The temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden is one example, and another comes from the New Testament, in John 8.44: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it."
Act 5, Scene 7 Macbeth: But get thee back; my soul is too much charged
With blood of thine already.(5.7.7-8) Commentary: An echo of Genesis 9.5,6: "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man/Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."
How to cite this article:
Mabillard, Amanda. Biblical Imagery in Macbeth. Shakespeare Online. 20 Nov. 2001. (date when you accessed the information) < http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/macbeth/bibimagery.html & gt;.
References Ackerman, Carl. The Bible in Shakespeare. Columbus: Lutheran Book Concern, 1950. Carter, Thomas. Shakespeare and Holy Scripture. New Haven: AMS Press, 1970. Milward, Peter, S. J. Biblical Influences on Shakespeare's Great Tragedies. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1968. Wordsworth, Charles. Shakespeare's Knowledge and Use of the Bible. London: Smith and Elder, 1864.
Amazing! Incredible! Unbelievable! William Shakespeare left his mark on the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. At least that is the rumor going around. According to a host of Websites and books, William Shakespeare was called upon to add his artistic touch to the English translation of the Bible done at the behest of King James, which was finished in 1611. As proof for this idea, proponents point to Psalm 46, and allege that Shakespeare slipped his name into the text. Here is how the story goes. Since Shakespeare was born in the year 1564, then he would have been 46 years old during 1610 when the finishing touches were being put on the KJV. In the King James Version, if you count down 46 words from the top (not counting the title) you read the word “shake,” then, if you omit the word “selah” and count 46 words from the bottom you find the word “spear.” Voilà! Shakespeare must have tinkered with the text and subtly added his signature. How else could one account for all of these 46s to work out so well? To top it all off, William Shakespeare is an anagram of “Here was I, like a psalm.”
BOGUS "NOAH'S ARK FROM TURKEY EXPOSED AS A COMMON GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE
Lorence Gene Collins
Department of Geological Sciences
California State University Northridge
Northridge, California 91330-8266
email: lorencec@sysmatrix.net
David Franklin Fasold
Abstract
A natural rock structure near Dogubayazit, Turkey, has been misidentified as Noah's Ark. Microscopic studies of a supposed iron bracket show that it is derived from weathered volcanic minerals. Supposed metal-braced walls are natural concentrations of limonite and magnetite in steeply inclined sedimentary layers in the limbs of a doubly plunging syncline. Supposed fossilized gopherwood bark is crinkled metamorphosed peridotite. Fossiliferous limestone, interpreted as cross cutting the syncline, preclude the structure from being Noah's Ark because these supposed "Flood" deposits are younger than the "Ark." Anchor stones at Kazan (Arzap) are derived from local andesite and not from Mesopotamia.
Introduction
Thirty-five years ago, Life magazine carried a story of an expedition sent to investigate the outline of a ship in a mud-flow near Dogubayazit in eastern Turkey (Life, 1960); see p. 112). An aerial photo in this story was captioned: "Noah's Ark?" Upon reaching the site (Figure 1) at 7,000 feet elevation, investigators found the boat-like appearance (Figure 2) to be only superficial. One scientist in the group ventured that nothing in nature could produce such symmetry, although nothing man-made was discovered. But after two days of looking for a cause of the phenomenon, the site was temporarily abandoned for lack of evidence. Other searches for the Ark continued, however, and placed Noah's barge on Mount Ararat farther to the north, much closer to where various creationists placed the Ark.
With the search still underway twenty-five years later, another explorer reclaimed the mound near Dogubayazit as Noah's Ark, which according to him contained "trainloads" of gopherwood (Wyatt, 1994). On the basis of this renewed interest in the area, representatives of the Turkish Ministry of Cultural Affairs and the High Commission on Ancient Monuments moved quickly to protect the site from exploitation, declaring the area a national park. However, skeptics and those who believed that the Ark was on Mt. Ararat remained unconvinced the Dogubayazit phenomenon is the Ark.
David Fasold, co-author of this paper, also began studies of the site in 1985, making nine trips in the following years to look for evidence. Today, the area is a military forbidden zone and is off limits to all researchers, except for Fasold who officially remains the only non-Turk having access. Placed directly on the project by the Rector of the Ataturk University at Erzurum, Fasold worked closely with project leader, Associate Professor Salih Bayraktutan, with on-site investigations.
During his investigations, Fasold found the following bits of evidence to suggest that this structure could have been the Ark. (1) The length and average overall width of the structure is exactly the same as prescribed in the Bible, "300 by 50 cubits." (1 Egyptian cubit = 0.5236 m or 20.6 inches) (2) The buried structure exhibits the same nine divisions described in the Epic of Gilgamesh: "Its innards I divided into nine parts," says the Assyrian flood hero, "One IKU (acre) was its whole floor space" (Gardner and Maier, 1984). Also, the structure displays the same area as in the Ark (44,100 square feet). (3) Metal-detecting surveys have located over 5,000 buried iron targets arrayed in a symmetrical pattern from the pointed end to the rounded end of the structure, which recalls Tubal-Cain, a biblical antediluvian "instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron" (Genesis 4:22, NKJV).
Much of what Fasold uncovered should be viewed as circumstantial. Other streamlined rock-shapes have been found in the area (Guner, 1986), but according to Bayraktutan, these shapes do not display the same morphological and internal features. Fasold's ground-penetrating radar survey appeared to confirm the existence of an internal structure, featuring symmetry and regular distribution (Fasold, 1988). Nevertheless, Bayraktutan found it difficult to explain why the site had so many geometric properties if it were just some randomly formed natural outcrop. Even marine engineers had made studies and commented on it (Windsor, 1992, 1993).
Furthermore: (4) Scattered some 24 km away are eleven, large, flat stones, each with a circular hole at one end and weighing between 4 and 10 tons (Figure 3). These could be interpreted as the anchor drogues referred to in the Qur'an: "In the name of Allah, it will cast anchor" (Dawood, 1966; see Houd 11:40). And, (5) Ancient place names relating to the Flood story abound and virtually surround the location (Fasold, 1988). Here are a few examples: Hero's Anchorage, Voluntary Pilgrimage, Vowing Sacrifice, Raven Won't Land, and Judgement Day. Fasold noted that such historians as Berossus, Nicholas of Damascus, and Josephus, recorded hearsay in their day, reported that pilgrims often visited the biblical Ark to recover pitch, highly prized for talismans.
Although Fasold dismissed tabloid discoveries of petrified rib timbers, coprolite, and exotic metal rivets, which were uncovered in clandestine excavations, as being the fruit of over-active imaginations, the prime evidence that an Ark with true artifacts really might exist came from an iron fitting recovered in situ in 1985 by a physicist, John Baumgardner, from Los Alamos, New Mexico. On the basis of an interpretation by Baumgardner (1988) that chemical analyses demonstrated that the fitting is composed of man-made iron, Fasold surmised how all the iron fittings came to be arrayed in a boat-like pattern (Fasold, 1988).
Fasold was fully aware that there is no geological evidence for a flood of such magnitude as could float a ship of these dimensions so far and so high beyond the modern ocean, except through the power of myth. Nevertheless, the reports of supposed man-made iron held out the hope for a legitimate discovery. After nine years of surveys and deploying every remote sensing device available, he waited for the Turks to excavate the structure. A reluctance on their part to do so caused him to become suspicious, and his enthusiasm for discovery began to wane. His first logical step then was to start from the beginning and request confirmation for the iron fitting. Was it really man-made?
It was at this time that I (Collins), as senior author and a geologist, came into the picture. In order to respond to Fasold's question and other queries, I first examined thin sections of the supposed iron bracket from the Ark to determine whether the iron could have been forged in a furnace. I also analyzed thin sections of what he thought might be replacement material that had seeped into void spaces, which he thought were places where wood poles and other structural supports had decomposed to leave cavities, and which now were filled with layered deposits.
Fasold also brought me a sample chip recovered from an anomalous ribbed-rock at Kazan (Arzap). This large rock had once been held in veneration by the local people, mounted upright and carved with glyphs. Sounding hollow when hit with a hammer, this rock was claimed by one researcher in his video to be petrified gopherwood (Wyatt, 1994). Fasold disagreed because he did not envision the Ark as being constructed of wood. It would be logical to assume, Fasold says, that Noah built an overly large proto-Sumerian-type craft of bundled reeds. There would be nothing left after so many years since Noah's time, but the anomalous rock displayed some interesting rippled impressions. If anything, Fasold felt it was more likely some pitch-like substance, now hardened, which was originally applied over the hull leaving imprints of reeds. It was worth looking at a thin section of this rock.
I also made a thin section of one of the "anchor drogues" (Figure 3) and obtained a chemical analysis to see if these stones could have been quarried by Noah in Mesopotamia. Finally, I interpreted aerial and ground photographs of the site and surrounding region. Some of my conclusions are preliminary, but are represented here because the site is now currently inaccessible to investigators, due to political unrest near the Iran-Turkey border. The following are the results of my analyses and interpretations.
Microscopic and Chemical Studies
The "anchor stone" (Figure 3) at Kazan (Arzap) is a fine-grained (0.001-1.0 mm) porphyritic volcanic rock in which phenocrysts (0.2-1.0 mm) consist of about 6% ilmenitic magnetite (a titanium and iron oxide containing some manganese) and about 29% plagioclase (andesine-labradorite). The very fine-grained ground mass (about 65%) contains plagioclase and ilmenitic magnetite, but with large amounts of ilmenitic magnetite than occurs as phenocrysts. The composition of this anchor stone is unusual because it lacks magnesium-rich minerals such as pyroxenes and olivine. A chemical analyses of this rock is given as Table 1.
All rock samples from the structure are pyroxene-bearing andesite or basalt partly altered to serpentine. Local calcite veins (3-5 mm wide) cut across the rock. Ilmenitic magnetite is a common accessory.
The supposed "iron bracket" is composed of granules of limonite, some of which have sizes and shapes that match those of ilmenitic magnetite crystals in the andesite of the Ark, the anchor stone, and nearby peridotite. These granules are enclosed in a matrix of calcite, clay, quartz, and fragments of anthophyllite. Many limonite granules exhibit rhythmic concretionary layers. Rare veins of pyrolusite (MnO2) locally cut the limonite.
Interpretations
Volcanic rocks similar to the andesitic "anchor stones" occur in the area surrounding Mt. Ararat (Pearce and others, 1990). The almost total absence of volcanic rocks in Mesopotamia (now Iraq) (Pearce and others, 1990; Aswad and Elias, 1988), where Noah's Ark is alleged to have been constructed, reasonably eliminate the possibility that the anchor stones were transported to Kazan by Noah's Ark. Because of the great weight of these stones, a nearby source is much more likely.
The layered samples of rocks in the mud that Fasold recovered and believed to be cavity-fillings are andesite and basalt pebbles, typical of conglomeratic mud-flows in volcanic terranes. Similar samples recovered by him from areas claimed by others to be rib timbers, planking, and deck beams are also andesite or basalt pebbles or boulders and show no evidence of petrified wood.
In the field, the supposed iron brackets have the outward appearance of pieces of black, metallic, elemental iron. The black, shiny surfaces, however, are characteristic of goethite (crystalline limonite), a hydrated iron oxide). This mineral is associated in the "structure" with black, ilmenitic, magnetite granules, and possibly pyrite or pyrrhotite because locally some sulfur is reported in chemical analyses. Both magnetite and goethite cause a metal detector to buzz just like elemental iron. Therefore, investigators might presume that they had found rusted iron metal (Wyatt, 1994).
If Noah's ship builders had forged this supposed iron bracket in a primitive smelter, the bracket would not consist of iron that was thoroughly mixed with clay, quartz, calcite, and anthophyllite particles but would have been solid iron. In molten iron these matrix minerals would have been separated as slag or destroyed. Furthermore, scanning electron (SEM) chemical analyses of five different places in the iron bracket show the variability given in Table 2.
This variability also rules out the idea that the iron was formed by smelting because smelting would homogenize the molten metal and produce a nearly constant composition. The high and variable titanium contents occur because the limonite grains were derived from hydrous alteration of ilmenitic magnetite granules eroded from different volcanic sources and having variable TiO2 contents.
Potassium, aluminum and silicon oxides reported in the iron bracket occur in interstitial clay. Small percentages of calcium oxide are either from calcite and apatite (where phosphorous occurs) or are totally from calcite where phosphorous is absent. Apatite is common in volcanic rocks where it is intergrown with plagioclase or magnetite, and, therefore, it can be eroded, transported, and become a constituent of rocks in the structure (Figure 2).
Supposed Walls In The Ark Structure
Linear (planar) limonite concentrations along supposed walls in the Ark were traced independently by three investigators, each using different electronic instruments but producing the same results (Wyatt, 1994). Thirteen lines of limonite, marking supposed walls, converge toward the structures pointed end, and a similar convergence occurs at the opposite, "blunt" end. Transverse to the longitudinal limonite concentrations are nine lines of limonite, which were interpreted to be walls dividing Ark rooms.
Although these relationships might seem to be logical evidence to indicate that the structure was originally man-made, I, as a geologist, can show that all these features could be formed by natural processes. Joining of lines in concentric shells at the structure's pointed end is consistent with the structure being an eroded doubly plunging syncline (Figure 4). At the blunt end, however, lines were not found wrapped around parallel to the outer relatively resistant rock of the Ark, which a cross-sectional view of a doubly plunging synclinal structure predicts. Their absence here occurs because eroded alluvium from the Ark's interior spills over the rounded end and buries the bedrock. Therefore, converging lines of limonite and magnetite are covered so that they are undetected. Moreover, streams of eroded limonite and magnetite granules, projecting beyond the resistant layer, give the false appearance of a metal-braced structure extending beyond the rounded end (Fasold, 1988).
Limonite concentrations in dividing walls can be formed naturally because stresses applied to rocks that are folded into a boat shape commonly produce fracture patterns that cut across sedimentary layers. Water moving through these fractures and coming in contact with ilmenitic magnetite (or pyrite) granules in the layers, would produce the limonite concentrations and stains.
Finally, no fossilized wood or traces of elemental carbon, wood, or reed fragments have ever been found associated with the limonite walls or in any other place during trenching or core drilling. The absence of ancient biotic carbons supports the hypothesis that the boat-shaped structure is not Noah's Ark. Inorganic carbon in calcite in veins cutting the layers, however, is common.
Analysis of Regional Geology
Fossiliferous limestone intersects the Ark structure on one side and is also found in outcrops on both sides beyond the adjacent landslide debris. On that basis, the doubly plunging syncline has likely formed in situ rather than being an allochthonous block transported in a landslide.
Across the landslide (200 m from the Ark) there is a resistant bed at the top of a scarp (Figure 5). Layers above and below this resistant bed have erosional forms and vegetation that match that of layers above and below the outer resistant bed of the Ark. These matching characteristics suggest that rocks composing the Ark are the same as those in the distant slope. Therefore, if such a correlation can be demonstrated, further support is provided that the Ark structure is not man-made.
Geologic History
On the basis of the information given above, I suggest the following geologic history for the origin of the structure. Rocks in the supposed Ark, which now conform to the U-shape of the syncline, were deposited initially in a horizontal or near-horizontal position. These rocks were composed of tiny grains of clay, quartz, calcite, anthophyllite, and local concentrations of ilmenitic magnetite as well as poorly sorted pebbles of andesite and basalt. They were products of weathering and erosion of volcanic rocks in nearby mountains and were transported by streams and deposited in a basin. Subsequently, these layers were compacted into rock and folded into a doubly plunging syncline. A marine sea advanced over the folded rocks and eroded and cut a channel in which fossiliferous limestone was later deposited. This was followed by uplift and further erosion that removed most of the limestone and scoured the fold to create the boat-shaped profile. Finally, swelling clays (bentonite) in mud in surrounding mountains caused a large landslide to occur. This landslide carried disoriented blocks of rock and mud that were channeled around the synclinal structure (Figure 5). Some time early in this history, following uplift, the limonite concretions ("iron brackets") were formed in the sediments, both inside and outside the synclinal structure, as ground water from rain and melting snow reacted with ilmenitic magnetite (and pyrite) granules along bedding planes and fracture zones.
Conclusion
Evidence from microscopic studies and photo analyses demonstrates that the supposed Ark near Dogubayazit is a completely natural rock formation. It cannot have been Noah's Ark nor even a man-made model. It is understandable why early investigators falsely identified it. The unusual boat-shaped structure would so catch their attention that an eagerness to be persons who either discovered Noah's Ark or confirmed its existence would tend to override caution. An illustration of the degree to which caution was disregarded by supporters of the Noah's Ark hypothesis is shown by the mistaken identification of a metamorphosed peridotite with crinkle folds as either gopherwood bark or casts of fossilized reeds that supposedly once covered the Ark (Wyatt, 1994). Furthermore, if the Creationism Flood hypothesis were valid (Baumgardner, 1985, 1990), the "dead animals" represented by fossils in this limestone must have died in the supposed Flood, and these fossilized remains are found in channels that cut the supposed Ark. Therefore, the supposed Ark is older than the deposits of the supposed Noachian Flood, and this relationship in itself conclusively refutes the hypothesis that the structure is the preserved remnants of the Ark.
When the site is again accessible to foreign investigators, the area near Kazan (Arzap) needs to be examined to see if outcrops of volcanic rocks occur there that have a mineralogy similar to that of the anchor stones. If so, a local source for the anchor stones is strongly supported. Lacking this information for this article, however, in no way negates the conclusion that the boat-shaped rock formation is totally natural.
Finally, David Fasold suggested that, although the structure is not Noah's Ark, it may very well be the site which the ancients regarded as the ship of the Deluge and may have played a role in the Flood story. As a geologist, I find this to be a interesting speculation.
Acknowledgments
Thanks are given to the MA-GUR Project for photographs and specimens and to David Liggett, Peter Weigand, and Barbara Collins for editorial suggestions.
References Noted
Aswad, K. J., and Elias, E. M., 1988, Petrogenesis, geochemistry and metamorphism
of spilitized subvolcanic rocks of the Mawat ophiolite complex, NE Iraq: Ofioliti, v. 13, p. 95-108.
Baumgardner, J., 1985, ABC TV 20/20, October 17: "Considerable evidence that
it's not a natural object."
Baumgardner, J., 1988, "SEARCH FOR THE ELUSIVE ARK," Newsletter, Los Alamos,
August 19, 1988: "...these occurrences of limonite are of special interest as they could represent the rusted remains of metallic iron objects."
Baumgardner, J., 1990, Second International Conference on Creationism, "I personally have
to include the Scripture as a critical part of my basis in believing the correlation of the beginning of the Flood at the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary."
Dawood, N. J., 1956, The Koran: Suffolk, Chaucer Press, 427 p.
Fasold, D., 1988, The Ark of Noah: New York, NY, Wynwood Press, 331 p.
Gardner, J., and Maier, J., 1984, Gilgamesh: New York, NY, Alfred A. Knopf, 304 p.
Guner, Y., 1986, Is Noah's ark on Mt. Ararat? Geomorphological development on
the Dogubayazit-Telceker landslide which is assumed to be related to Noah's Ark: Jeomorfoloji, Dergisi, v. 14, p. 27-37.
Life, 1960, September 5 issue, p. 112-114.
Pearce, J. A., Bender, J. F., De Long, S. E., Kidd, W. S. F., Low, P. J., Guner, Y.,
Saroglu, F., Yilmaz, Y., Moorbath, S., and Mitchell, J. G., 1990, Genesis of collision volcanism in Eastern Anatolia, Turkey: Journal of Volcanolgy and Geothermal Research, v. 44, p. 189-229.
Windsor, S. R., 1992, Noah's vessel: 24,000 deadweight tons: Catastrophism
& Ancient History, January, p. 5-31.
Windsor, S. R., 1993, Noah's Ark, its geometry: Catastrophism & Ancient History,
January, p. 40-57.
Wyatt, R. E., 1994, Discovered - Noah's Ark. Video documentary of research and field
Lorence G. Collins is a retired professor of geology from California State University, Northridge. He was educated at the University of Illinois and has special interests in the origin of granite and ore deposits.
David Fasold is a merchant marine officer who has been fascinated with archaeology and biblical history. He headed one of the last teams that was allowed excavation rights in Turkey. (He is now deceased.)
The above has been published in the Journal of Geosciences Education, v. 44, 1996, p. 439-444 and has been reproduced here by permission of the editor, Dr. James Shea.
