1

Historical Errors Of The Qur'an: Pharaoh & Haman

M S M Saifullah, Elias Karim, `Abdullah David & Qasim Iqbal

© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

First Composed: 20th November 2000

Last Updated: 4th June 2006

Assalamu-`alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

1. Introduction

Controversy has prevailed since the late 17th century CE about the historicity of a

certain Haman, who according to the Qur'an, was associated with the court of Pharaoh

to whom Moses was sent as a Prophet by Almighty God (Allah):

Pharaoh said: "O Haman! Build me a lofty palace, that I may attain the ways and means- The

ways and means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the god of Moses: But

as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!" [Qur'an 40:36-37]

Haman is mentioned six times in the Qur'an and is referred to as an intimate person

belonging to the close circle of Pharaoh.

2

Many western scholars have concluded that Haman is unknown to Egyptian history.

The name Haman is first mentioned in the Biblical book of Esther, some 1,100 years

after Pharaoh. The name is said to be Babylonian, not Egyptian. According to the

book of Esther, Haman was a counsellor of Ahasuerus (the Biblical name of Xerxes)

who was an enemy of the Jews. It has been suggested that Prophet Muhammad mixed

Biblical stories, namely the Jewish myths of the Tower of Babel and the story of

Esther and Moses into a single confused account when composing the Qur'an.

We propose to examine the various aspects of the controversy in light of recent

historical and archaeological discoveries.

2. Criticisms By Western Scholars

Prominent Orientalists have not been able to correctly identify the Haman of the

Qur'an, and have thus questioned his historicity. They have suggested that the

appearance of Haman in the Qur'anic story of Moses and Pharaoh has resulted from a

misreading of the Bible, leading the author of the Qur'an to move Haman from the

Persian court of King Ahasuerus to the Egyptian court of the Pharaoh.

The first writer to enter the list of critics was Ludovico Marraccio, confessor to Pope

Innocent XI. Published in 1698 CE, the English rendering of critical Note 1 on page

526 of Marraccio's Latin translation of the Qur'an read:

Mahumet has mixed up sacred stories. He took Haman as the adviser of Pharaoh whereas in

reality he was an adviser of Ahaseures, King of Persia. He also thought that the Pharaoh ordered

construction for him of a lofty tower from the story of the Tower of Babel. It is certain that in

the Sacred Scriptures there is no such story of the Pharaoh. Be that as it may, he [Mahumet]

has related a most incredible story.[1]

George Sale in his translation of the Qur'an said:

This name is given to Pharaoh's Chief Minister, from which it is generally inferred that

Muhammad has here made Haman, the favourite of Ahasueres, King of Persia, and who

indisputably lived many ages after Moses, to be that Prophet's contemporary. But how-probable-

so-ever this mistake may seem to us, it will be hard, if not impossible to convince a

Muhammadan of it.[2]

In what has been hailed as a "classic" article by Theodor Nöldeke that was published

in Encyclopædia Britannica in 1891 CE and reprinted several times since, the author

says:

3

The most ignorant Jew could never have mistaken Haman (the minister of Ahasuerus) for the

minister of the Pharaoh...[3]

While dealing with the "wonderful anachronisms about the old Israelite history" in the

Qur'an, Mingana says:

Who then will not be astonished to learn that in the Koran... Haman is given as a minister of

Pharaoh, instead of Ahaseurus?[4]

On the mention of Haman in the Qur'an, Henri Lammens states that it is:

"the most glaring anachronism" and is the result of "the confusion between... Haman, minister

of King Ahasuerus and the minister of Moses' Pharaoh."[5]

Similar views were also echoed by Josef Horovitz.[6] Charles Torrey believed that

Muhammad drew upon the rabbinic legends of the Biblical book of Esther and even

adapted the story of the Tower of Babel.[7] After talking about the apparent 'confusion'

generated by this cobbling together of multiple sources, Arthur Jeffery says about the

origin of the word 'Haman':

The probabilities are that the word came to the Arabs from Jewish sources.[8]

The Encyclopaedia Of Islam, which claims to have been prepared by a number of

leading Orientalists, under "Haman" says:

Haman, name of the person whom the Kur'an associates with Pharaoh, because of a still

unexplained confusion with the minister of Ahasuerus in the Biblical book of Esther.[9]

This claim has been repeated again by the Encyclopaedia Of Islam under "Fir`awn".

It says:

As Pharaoh's counsellor there appears a certain Haman who is responsible in particular for

building a tower which will enable Pharaoh to reach the God of Moses... the narrative in Exodus

is thus modified in two respects, by misplaced recollection of both the book of Esther and the

story of the tower of Babel (Genesis, xi) to which no other reference occurs in the Kur'an.[10]

Although the Encyclopaedia Of The Qur'an uses a mellowed down language when

discussing Haman, it instead describes various possible views of who Haman was, it

says:

There are conflicting views as to Haman's identity and the meaning of his name. Among them is

that he is the minister of King Ahasuerus who has been shifted, anachronistically, from the

4

Persian empire to the palace of Pharaoh... Other suggestion is that Haman is an Arabized echo

of the Egyptian Ha-Amen, the title of a high priest second only in rank to Pharaoh.[11]

Consequently, it is not surprising to find Christian missionaries[12] and atheists like Ibn

Warraq[13] exploiting these comments in order to "prove" that the Qur'an contains

serious contradictions. Yet all of the above statements are based on the

misrepresentation of the historical value of the Biblical book of Esther, a

misunderstanding of the Qur'anic narrative in general and the unproven assumption

that Muhammad copied and in some cases altered the Biblical material while he was

allegedly composing the Qur'an. It can be said with certainty that this is the most

"celebrated" contradiction in the Qur'an among the Christian missionaries on the

internet.

Let us first examine the authenticity and reliability of the Biblical book of Esther from

which Muhammad supposedly appropriated the character Haman.

3. A Critical Examination Of The Biblical Evidence Used Against

The Qur'an

The criticisms of the non-Muslim scholars and Christian missionaries are based solely

on the assumptions that:

1. Because the Bible has been in existence longer than the Qur'an, the Biblical

account is the correct one, as opposed to the Qur'anic account, which is

necessarily inaccurate and false.

2. The Bible is in conformity with firmly established secular knowledge, whereas

the Qur'an contains certain incompatibilities.

3. Muhammad copied and in some cases altered the Biblical material when

composing the Qur'an.

The whole basis for the Haman controversy is the appearance of a Haman in the

Qur'an in a historical period different from that of the Bible. The claim that the

Qur'anic account of Haman reflects confused knowledge of the Biblical story of

Esther implies that any reference to a Haman must have come from the Bible.

Furthermore, this assumption itself implies that either Haman is an unhistorical figure

that never existed outside the Bible, or that if he was historical, then he would have to

be the prime minister of the Persian King Ahasuerus, as depicted in Esther.

Unsurprisingly, their assumptions obviously preclude the possibility that the Bible has

its information wrong concerning Haman. Thus, only if the Book of Esther can be

shown to be both historically reliable and accurate, are the non-Muslims justified

5

in making the claim the Qur'an contradicts the earlier, more "reliable" historic

Biblical account.

THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK OF ESTHER AND ITS

CHARACTERS

One of the most important questions that come to mind is whether the book of Esther

and the characters present in it have any historicity. This is not an issue which has

been tackled by those claimants of a historical "error" in the Qur'an, even though this

position leads to a circular argument. Let us now discuss the views of the Judaeo-

Christian scholars concerning the historicity of the book of Esther and its characters.

That the Jewish and Christian scholars have denied the historicity of the book of

Esther is something of an understatement. The people who subscribe to the historicity

of the book of Esther are those whose dogmatic approach to historical and theological

exegesis precludes the possibility of any historical problems arising from the Biblical

narrative; included in this group are the Christian missionaries and apologists as well

as other evangelical fundamentalist type Christians. While discussing the historical

problems of the book of Esther, Professor Jon Levinson, Albert A. List Professor of

Jewish Studies at Harvard Divinity School, says:

Even if we make this questionable adjustment, the historical problems with Esther are so

massive as to persuade anyone who is not already obligated by religious dogma to believe in the

historicity of the biblical narrative to doubt the veracity of the narrative.[14]

Naturally this statement does not sit comfortably with those evangelical

fundamentalist type Christians for whom each and every book contained in the Bible

is the infallible, inerrant, eternal "word" of God; even more so with those who have

used the book of Esther to substantiate the historical "contradiction" in the Qur'anic

account of Haman. The problems with the historicity of the book of Esther have been

dealt with by Michael Fox, professor of Hebrew at the University of Wisconsin-

Madison who also specializes in Egyptian literature and its relationship with the

Biblical literature. He has detailed the arguments for and against the book's

historicity.[15] Fox also mentions numerous inaccuracies, implausibilities and outright

impossibilities in this Biblical book. After considering the arguments in detail, it is

not surprising to see Fox conclude with the following negative assessment:

Various legendary qualities as well as several inaccuracies and implausibilities immediately

throw doubt on the book's historicity and give the impression of a writer recalling vaguely

remembered past.[16]

6

Similar assessments were made by Lewis Paton[17] and Carey Moore[18] and they both

arrived at the conclusion that the story in the book of Esther is not historical.

The problems with the book of Esther would be evident as we discuss the information

in various encyclopedias and commentaries. The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia,

under "Esther", says:

The majority of scholars, however, regard the book as a romance reflecting the customs of later

times and given an ancient settings to avoid giving offence. They point out that the 127

provinces mentioned are in strange contrast to the historical twenty Persian Satrapies; that it is

astonishing that while Mordecai is known to be a Jew, his ward and cousin, Esther, can conceal

the fact that she is a Jewess - that the known queen of Xerxes, Amestris, can be identified with

neither Vashti nor Esther; that it would have been impossible for a non-Persian person to be

appointed prime minister or for a queen to be selected except from the seven highest noble

families; that Mordecai's ready access to the palaces is not in consonance with the strictness

with which the Persian harems were guarded; that the laws of Medes and Persians were never

irrevocable; and that the state of affairs in the book, amounting practically in civil war, could

not have passed unnoticed by historians if this had actually occurred. The very tone of the book

itself, its literary craftsmanship and the aptness of its situations, point rather to a romantic

story than a historical chronicle.

Some scholars even trace it to a non-Jewish origin entirely; it is, in their opinion, either a

reworking of a triumph of the Babylonian gods Marduk (Mordecai) and Ishtar (Esther) over the

Elamite gods Humman (Haman) and Mashti (Vashti), or of the suppression of the Magians by

Darius I, or even the resistance of the Babylonians to the decree of Artaxerxes II. According to

this view, Purim is a Babylonian feast which was taken over by the Jews, and the story of which

was given a Jewish colouring.[19]

Published about one hundred years ago, The Jewish Encyclopaedia already asserted

that:

Comparatively few modern scholars of note consider the narrative of Esther to rest on a

historical foundation..... The vast majority of modern expositors have reached the conclusion

that the book is a piece of pure fiction, although some writers qualify their criticism by an

attempt to treat it as a historical romance.[20]

The more recent JPS Bible Commentary is quite frank about the exaggeration and the

lack of historicity of the story in the biblical book of Esther. It labels the story in the

book of Esther as a "farce":

The language, like the story, is full of exaggeration and contributes to the sense of excess.

There are exaggerated numbers (127 provinces, a 180-day party, a 12-month beauty

preparation, Haman's offer of 10,000 talents of silver, a stake 50 cubits high, 75,000 enemy

7

dead)... Esther's attempt to sound like a historical work is tongue in cheek and not to be taken

at face value. The author was not trying to write history, or to convince his audience of the

historicity of his story (although later readers certainly took it this way). He is, rather, offering a

burlesque of historiography... The archival style, like the verbal style, make the story sound big

and fancy, official and impertinent at the same time - and this is exactly the effect that is

required for such a book. All these stylistic features reinforce the sense that the story is a

farce.[21]

The Peake's Commentary On The Bible discusses the historicity of the characters

and events mentioned in the book of Esther. It aptly describes the book as a novel

with no historical basis. Furthermore, it deals with possible identification of Esther,

Haman, Vashti and Mordecai with the Babylonian and Elamite gods and goddess.

The story is set in the city of Susa in the reign of Akhashwerosh, king of Persia and Media. This

name is now prove to refer to Xerxes, who reigned over Media as well as Persia. The book

correctly states that his empire extended from India to Ethiopia, a fact which may well have

been remembered long afterwards, especially by someone living in the East, but in other

matters the author is inaccurate, for instance in regard to the number of provinces. Xerxes' wife

was named Amestris, and not either Vashti or Esther. The statement in Est. 1:19 and 8:5 that

the laws of Persia were unalterable is also found in Dan. 6:9, 13. It is not attested by any other

early evidence, and seems most unlikely. The most probable suggestion is that it was invented

by the author of Daniel to form an essential part of his dramatic story, and afterwards copied by

the author of Esther.

It is therefore agreed by all modern scholars that Esther was written long after the time of

Xerxes as a novel, with no historical basis, but set for the author's purposes in a time long

past. It is pretty clear that the author's purpose was to provide an historical origin for the feast

of Purim, which the Jews living somewhere in the East had adopted as a secular carnival. This

feast and its mythology are now recognised as being of Babylonian origin. Mordecai represents

Marduk, the chief Babylonian God. His cousin Esther represents Ishtar, the chief Babylonian

Goddess, who was the cousin of Marduk. Other names are not so obvious, but there was an

Elamite God Humman or Humban, and Elamite Goddess Mashti. These names may lie behind

Haman and Vashti. One may well imagine that the Babylonian festival enacted a struggle

between the Babylonian gods on the one hand and the Elamite gods on the other.[22]

The authors of The New Interpreter's Bible, like the other writers that we have

mentioned earlier, state that the biblical book of Esther is work of fiction that happens

to contain some historical elements. It then lists the factual errors in this book only to

conclude that the book of Esther is not a historical record.

Although much ink has been spilled in attempting to show that Esther, or some parts of it is

historical, it is clear that the book is a work of fiction that happens to contain some historical

elements. The historical elements may be summarized as follows: Xerxes, identified as

Ahaseurus, was a "great king" whose empire extended from the borders of India to the borders

of Ethiopia. One of the four Persians capitals was located as Susa (the other three being

Babylon, Ecbatana, and Persepolis). Non-Persians could attain to high office in the Persian court

8

(witness Nehemiah), and the Persian empire consisted of a wide variety of peoples and ethnic

groups. The author also displays a vague familiarity with the geography of Susa, knowing, for

example, that the court was separate from the city itself. Here, however, the author's historical

veracity ends. Among the factual errors found in the book we may list these: Xerxes' queen was

Amestris, to whom he was married throughout his reign; there is no record of a Haman or a

Mordecai (or, indeed, of any non-Persian) as second to Xerxes at any time; there is no record of

a great massacre in which thousands of the people were killed at any point in Xerxes' reign. The

book of Esther is not a historical record, even though its author may have wished to present it

as history...[23]

Even the Roman Catholic scholars have not spared criticism of the book of Esther.

The Jerome Biblical Commentary brands the book of Esther as a "fictitious story"

and a book that was freely embellished and modified in the course of its

transmissional history.

Literary Form. On this point, scholarly opinion ranges from pure myth to strict history. Most

critics, however, favor a middle course of historical elements with more or less generous

historical embellishments... The Greek additions in particular appear to be essentially literary

creations. That neither author intended to write strict history seems obvious from the historical

inaccuracies, unusual coincidences, and other traits characteristic of folklore... On the other

hand, there is no compelling reason for denying the possibility of an undetermined historical

nucleus, and the author's generally accurate picture of Persian life tends to support this

possibility. Several details of Est [i.e., Esther] suggest a fictitious story. The very fact of

variations between the Hebrew and the deuterocanonical additions show that the book was

freely embellished in the course of its history. Then there are many difficulties concerning

Mordecai's age, and the wife of Xerxes (Amestris). Moreover, the artificial symmetry suggests

fiction: Gentile against Jews; Vashti as opposed to Esther; the hanging of Haman and the

appointment of Mordecai as the vizier; the anti-Semitic pogrom and the slaying of the gentiles.

A law of contrasts is obviously at work... As is stands, it has been developed very freely as the

"festal legend" of a Feast of Purim, which is itself otherwise unknown to us.[24]

Interestingly enough, A New Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture correctly

points out that the book is given credence only by those who believe that since the

book of Esther is a biblical book, it must be true. It then goes on to wonder if there is

a significance in the similarity between the names mentioned in the book of Esther

and the Babylonian and Elamite gods and goddess.

To what extent the story of Esther is factual is debated. On the face of it, not many people

would give much credence to Est [i.e., Esther] as history but for the fact that it is a biblical book

and 'the Bible is true'. The evidence we have suggests that we have a tale set against an

historical background, embodying at least one historical character (Xerxes) and some accurate

references to actual usages of Persia, but a tale making no serious attempt to chronicle facts,

aiming rather at producing certain moral attitude in the reader... Yet it appears that Xerxes'

queen was neither Vashti nor Esther but Amestris; we have no further information inside or

outside the Bible (e.g. Sir 44ff) of a Jewish queen who saved her people or of a pious Mordecai

who rose to such heights in the Persian court... One may wonder whether there is a significance

9

in the similarity between the name Esther and the name of the Babylonian goddess Ishtar,

between the name Mordecai and the name of the god Marduk, so that one would have to look

for the source of the tale among the myths of Elamite gods. But one can only wonder.[25]

To conclude the historicity of the book of Esther, it is a:

... a tissue of improbabilities and impossibilities... Further, notwithstanding the dates which he

gives us, the author had in reality no notion of chronology... That the Book of Esther cannot be

regarded as a genuine historical work is avowed even by many adherents of ecclesiastical

tradition. Since, however, the most essential parts of the story, namely the deliverance of the

Jews from complete extermination and their murderous reprisals by means of the Jewish queen

and the Jewish minister, are altogether unhistorical, it is impossible to treat the book as an

embellished version of some real event... and we are forced to conclusion that the whole

narrative is fictitious.[26]

From the foregoing material, it is clear that Judeo-Christian scholars consider this

story to be a fable, and of little or no historical value. Furthermore, no scholar claimed

that the characters of this story, notably Haman, actually ever existed. In fact, all

characters in the Book of Esther, with the possible exception of Ahasuerus, are

unknown to history even though the book itself claims that its events are "written in

the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia" (Esther 10:2).

Concerning the character Haman, the Encyclopaedia Judaica states:

Various explanations have been offered to explain the name and designation of the would-be

exterminator of the Jews. The names of both Haman and his father have been associated with

haoma, a sacred drink used in Mithraic worship, and with the Elamite god Humman. The name

Haman has also been related to the Persian hamayun, 'illustrious', and to the Persian name

Owanes.[27]

The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible shares a similar view:

Some scholars view the story of Esther as reflecting a mythological struggle between the gods

of Babylon and Elam, with Haman identified as the Elamite god Humman.[28]

As for Ahasuerus in the book of Esther, he is usually identified with King Xerxes I,

King of Persia (486-465 BCE). The Webster's Biographical Dictionary informs us

that:

10

Ahasuerus: Name as used in the Bible, of two unidentified kings of Persia: (1) the great king

whose capital was Shushan, modern Susa, sometimes identified with Xerxes the Great, but

chronological and other data conflict; (2) the father of Darius the Mede.[29]

There exists an unhistorical Haman in the book of Esther. This unhistorical Haman is

portrayed as the prime minister of Ahasuerus (Xerxes I?), King of Persia, but the

events recorded in the book of Esther show little correlation with those of the actual

reign of Xerxes I.

As if the woes of the lack of historicity of the story in Esther are not enough, there

also exist some serious problems about the canonicity of the book of Esther.

THE CANONICITY OF THE BOOK OF ESTHER

The book of Esther, which is now regarded by Jews and Christians as canonical, had a

history of dispute even until the times of the Protestant Reformation. Its canonicity

was hotly contested by members of both the religions and their sub-sects. The book of

Esther was evidently not used by the Jewish community in Qumran.[30] More

importantly, according to the Talmud, as late as 3rd or 4th century CE, some Jews still

did not regard Esther as canonical.[31] If the Jews could not reach unanimity about the

canonical status of Esther, neither could the Christians. Figure 1 depicts the canonical

status of Esther in the early Christian churches.

11

Figure 1: Map showing the canonical status of Esther in the early Christian Church.[32] Notice that

the book of Esther was considered non-canonical in Constantinople, Sardis, Iconium, Nazianzus,

Mopsuestia and Alexandria. On the other hand, Esther was considered canonical in Rome, Hippo,

Carthage, Damascus, Caesarea, Jerusalem, Constanti and Constantinople. There appears to be

two views of the books canonicity at Constantinople.

From the above figure, it can be seen that in the West Esther was nearly always

canonical, while in the East very often it was not. Among the Christians in the East,

especially those in the area of Anatolia (in modern day Turkey) and Syria, the book of

Esther was often denied canonical status. This is confirmed by studying the list of

12

canonical books by Melito of Sardis (c. 170 CE), Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 390 CE),

Junilius (c. 550 CE) and Nicephorus (d. 828 CE). While denying the canonical status

of Esther, Athanasius (c. 367 CE) did include it with the Wisdom of Solomon,

Wisdom of Sirach, Judith and Tobit for catechetical reading. Amphilochius (d. 394

CE) observed that it was accepted only by some. However, as has been noted, in the

West, Esther was almost always regarded as canonical. It was accepted by Hilary (c.

360 CE), Augustine (c. 395 CE), Innocent I (c. 405 CE), Rufinus (d. 410 CE), Decree

of Gelasius (c. 500 CE), Cassiodorus (c. 560 CE) and Isidorus (d. 636 CE). Esther

was also present in the list of Cheltenham canon (c. 360 CE) and codex

Claromontanus (c. 350 CE). This book was also endorsed as canonical in the council

of Carthage (c. 397 CE).

During the Reformation, the Canon of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, was

called into question. Generally, the Protestants disputed the Catholic claim to interpret

scripture, either by Papal decree or by the action of Church councils. Martin Luther

(1483 – 1546 CE), one of the Protestant reformers, said concerning the book of

Esther:

I am so great an enemy to the second book of Maccabees, and to Esther, that I wish they had

not come to us at all, for they have too many heathen unnaturalities.[33]

Luther's position appeared to have been wavering concerning the book of Esther.

Andres Bodenstein von Karlstadt (c. 1480 – 1541 CE), an early friend and fellow

professor of Luther at the University of Wittenberg, included the book of Esther in his

third and lowest class of Biblical books which he termed tertius ordo canonis. Despite

what Luther had claimed concerning the book of Esther, he included it in his

translation of the Bible.[34] Such a polarization of views was characteristic of the book

of Esther almost from its beginnings, which spilled over to the period of the

Reformation.

CAN WE USE THE BOOK OF ESTHER AS AN EVIDENCE AGAINST

THE QUR'AN?

The answer to this question is clearly no. A few conclusions can now be drawn from

our discussion:

• The story of Esther is regarded as fictitious and should be rejected as a

historical record. It contradicts well established known secular history.

• The book of Esther has a history of doubtful canonicity. It is a classic case of

one man's "apocrypha" is another man's "inspired" scripture.

13

• The story appears to have been borrowed from a Persian novella, and its

contents reflect the customs associated with the Persians. These Persian

customs later became "Judaised". The book has a secular character with strong

nationalistic overtones.

It is worthwhile mentioning that the "inspired book" of Esther does not even mention

God![35] The absence of the name of God led to religiously motivated additions of over

100 verses to the Greek version of the book. These additions do not appear in the

"original" Hebrew text but are accepted as canonical in Roman Catholic Bibles;

Protestant Bibles reject them as "apocrypha".

It is clear that the book of Esther can't, in anyway, be used as evidence against the

Qur'an; evidence that is used to show how the Qur'an contradicts both secular

knowledge and the earlier, more "reliable" Biblical account. Yet we find Christian

missionaries using the book of Esther, proclaiming it to be a "reliable" historical

record, in a vain attempt to prove that the Qur'an contains a contradiction! An

example that is often parroted is reproduced below:

This is another possible example of two historical compressions in the same story and the same

confusion in both texts that recount the event. At least the Qur'an is consistent within itself.

According to Surah 28:35-42 and 40:36-37, Haman was a minister or official of the Pharaoh

(king of Egypt) who lived in the same time as Moses. According to Jewish history Haman served

as the minister of Ahasuerus (king of Persia, Xerxes I is his name in Greek). Apart from the

error in location, this is placing Pharaoh (Moses) and Haman in the same story even though they

lived 1,000 years apart. [See Esther 3:1.]

Furthermore, in the Qur'an Haman is ordered by Pharaoh to build a tower reaching into heaven

("the Tower of Babel") which is a well known story of an event that took place long before

Abraham, who lived at least 400 years before Moses. [See Genesis 11:1-9, especially the verses

3-4, "Let us build make bricks and bake them thoroughly. ... and build a ... tower that reaches

to the heavens."]

What is strange is that there is a complete absence of analysis of either the historicity

or the canonicity of the book of Esther in the Christian apologetical literature.[36] Both

the historicity and the canonicity of Esther are assumed and then the arguments are

made. It is notoriously difficult to offer an apology given such unsettling facts.

4. Pharaoh & Haman In The Qur'an

Let us now examine the passages in the Qur'an concerning the Pharaoh and Haman in

light of recent historical and archaeological discoveries.

14

Pharaoh said: "O Chiefs! no god do I know for you but myself." [Qur'an 28:38]

Pharaoh said: "O Haman! Build me a lofty palace, that I may attain the ways and means - The

ways and means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the god of Moses: But

as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!" [Qur'an 40:36-37]

The Qur'anic verses concerning Pharaoh and Haman provide us the following

information:

• Pharaoh as a god

• The making of burnt bricks in ancient Egypt

• The desire of the Pharaoh to ascend to the sky to speak to gods

• A mystery of the name Haman

Let us now investigate these statements in the light of Egyptology and ancient

Egyptian hieroglyphs. The Bible does not provide any information regarding the

above mentioned statements; nor, as far as we are aware, does any secular literature

from the time of the Prophet Muhammad.

THE PHARAOH AS GOD

For all kings, the Bible uses the term "Pharaoh" to address the rulers of Egypt. The

Qur'an however differs from the Bible: the sovereign of Egypt who was a

contemporary of Joseph is called the "King" (Arabic, malik); he is never once

addressed as Pharaoh. As for the king who ruled during the time of Moses, the Qur'an

repeatedly calls him "Pharaoh" (Arabic, Fir'awn). These differences in detail between

the Biblical and Qur'anic narrations appear to have great significance and are

discussed in the article Qur'anic Accuracy vs. Biblical Error: The Kings and

Pharaohs of Egypt.

Concerning Pharaoh, the Qur'an says:

Pharaoh said: "O Chiefs! no god do I know for you but myself." [Qur'an 28:38]

Then he (Pharaoh) collected (his men) and made a proclamation, Saying, "I am your Lord, Most

High". [Qur'an 79:23-24]

The Encyclopaedia Britannica informs us that the term "Pharaoh" originally referred

to the royal residence, and was later applied to the king during the New Kingdom

period (1539-1292 BC), and, that the Pharaoh was indeed considered a god in ancient

Egypt

15

Pharaoh (from Egyptian per 'aa, "great house"), originally, the royal palace in ancient Egypt;

the word came to be used as a synonym for the Egyptian king under the New Kingdom (starting

in the 18th dynasty, 1539-1292 BC), and by the 22nd dynasty (c. 945-c. 730 BC) it had been

adopted as an epithet of respect. The term has since evolved into a generic name for all ancient

Egyptian kings, although it was never formally the king's title. In official documents, the full title

of the Egyptian king consisted of five names, each preceded by one of the following titles:

Horus; Two Ladies; Golden Horus; King of Upper and Lower Egypt and Lord of the Double Land;

and Son of Re and Lord of the Diadems. The last name was given him at birth, the others at

coronation.

The Egyptians believed their Pharaoh to be a god, identifying him with the sky god Horus and

with the sun gods Re, Amon, and Aton. Even after death the Pharaoh remained divine, becoming

transformed into Osiris, the father of Horus and god of the dead, and passing on his sacred

powers and position to the new Pharaoh, his son.

The Pharaoh's divine status was believed to endow him with magical powers: his uraeus (the

snake on his crown) spat flames at his enemies, he was able to trample thousands of the enemy

on the battlefield, and he was all-powerful, knowing everything and controlling nature and

fertility. As a divine ruler, the Pharaoh was the preserver of the God-given order, called ma'at.

He owned a large portion of Egypt's land and directed its use, was responsible for his people's

economic and spiritual welfare, and dispensed justice to his subjects. His will was supreme, and

he governed by royal decree.[37]

Concerning Pharaoh, Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary says:

The Egyptians believed that he was a god and the keys to the nation's relationship to the cosmic

gods. While the Pharaoh ruled, he was the son of Ra, the sun god and the incarnation of Horus.

He came from the gods with divine responsibility to rule the land for them. His word was law,

and he owned everything. When the Pharaoh died, he became the god Osiris, the ruler of the

underworld...[38]

However, it was claimed by F. S. Coplestone that the alleged source of Pharaoh

claiming divinity, as mentioned in the Qur'an, was Midrash Exodus Rabbah.[39] This

midrash says:

Pharaoh was one of the four men who claimed divinity and thereby brought evil upon

themselves.... Whence do we know that Pharaoh claimed to be a god? Because it says: 'My river

is mine own, and I have made it for myself' (Ezek. xxix, 3).[40]

There are a number of problems, one of them quite serious, concerning Midrash

Exodus Rabbah being the source of the Qur'anic verses. Firstly, Midrash Exodus

16

Rabbah has been dated several centuries after the advent of Islam. Midrash Exodus

Rabbah is composed of two different parts. The first part (ExodR I) comprises

parashiyot 1-14 and is an exegetical midrash on Exodus 1-10 (11 is not treated in

Exodus Rabbah). The Pharaoh claiming divinity comes from ExodR I part of the

midrash. The second part (ExodR II) with parashiyot 15-52 is a homiletic midrash on

Exodus 12-40, which belongs to the genre of the Tanhuma Yelammedenu midrash.

Leopold Zunz, who does not divide the work, dated this whole midrash to the 11th or

the 12th century CE.[41] Herr, on the other hand, considers the ExodR II to be older

than ExodR I, which in his opinion used the lost beginning of the homiletic midrash

on Exodus as a source. For the dating of ExodR I, he conducts a linguistic analysis

and judges this part to be no earlier than the 10th century CE.[42] Similarly, Shinan

opines that the origin of ExodR I is from the 10th century CE.[43] Contrary to the

eisegesis of Coplestone, it is impossible (not to mention absurd) that the Qur'an used a

source that had not yet been compiled until hundreds of years later! Secondly, the

midrash simply interprets the verse from the book of Ezekiel and claims that the verse

implies Pharaoh claiming divinity. The Qur'an, on the other hand, explicitly states that

the Pharaoh proclaimed himself to be the god.

THE MAKING OF BURNT BRICKS IN ANCIENT EGYPT

In the Qur'an, the Pharaoh in a boastful and mocking manner, asks his associate

Haman to build a lofty tower:

Pharaoh said: "O Haman! light me a (kiln to bake bricks) out of clay, and build me a lofty palace

(Arabic: Sarhan, lofty tower or palace), that I may mount up to the god of Moses: but as far as

I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!" [Qur'an 28:38]

The command of Pharaoh was but a boast, but a question now arises: Were Burnt

Bricks Used In Ancient Egypt In The Time of Moses?

The use of burnt brick in Egypt did not become common until the Roman Period.

However, there is enough evidence to show that burnt brick was known in Egypt from

a very early date. Long bars of baked clay were employed in the Predynastic grain-

kilns at Abydos and Mahasna, and, while these cannot be called bricks, they show

knowledge of the effect of baking on ordinary mud. It is impossible that early

Egyptians were unaware of the fact that mud-bricks could be hardened by burning,

since they could have observed this process in any building which, by accident or

design, was gutted by fire.[44] There are several examples of accidental production of

burnt brick. They occur in the 1st Dynasty tombs at Saqqara, due to their having been

burnt by plunderers; similar cases must have been fairly common. There is no

17

evidence, as yet, that Egyptians deliberately prepared burnt bricks for use in buildings

during the Predynastic Period or the Old Kingdom. However, there are examples of

glazed tiles, appearing in a highly developed technique in both the 1st and 3rd

Dynasties. This proves that the Egyptians during the advent of Old Kingdom Period

were well aware of glazing as a method of decoration and protection.[45] The earliest

example of the use of burnt brick comes from the Middle Kingdom fortresses in

Nubia, in which they were used as paving-slabs measuring 30 x 30 x 5 cm.[46] The

next instance of the burnt brick is recorded in the New Kingdom Period, when they

occur in conjunction with funerary cones in the superstructures of the tombs at

Thebes.[47] Burnt brick as a constructional material also appears at Nebesheh and

Defenneh dated to Ramesside times. From the extensive study of brick architecture in

Egypt, Spencer concludes that:

From the foregoing, it must be concluded that burnt brick was known in Egypt at all periods, but

used only when its durability would give particular advantage over the mud brick.[48]

As for the less extensive use of burnt bricks in early Egypt, this is more due to the

issue of economics than a lack of knowledge. Barry Kemp says:

The widespread preference for unfired soil architecture was thus through choice rather than

ignorance.[49]

A factor inhibiting the use of burnt brick could presumably be the cost of fuel needed

for firing.

Since the burnt brick architecture was known in ancient Egypt in all periods, one can

firmly conclude that it was also known in the time of Moses.

THE DESIRE OF THE PHARAOH TO ASCEND TO THE SKY TO SPEAK

TO THE GODS

Pharaoh said: "O Chiefs! no god do I know for you but myself: therefore, O Haman! light me a

(kiln to bake bricks) out of clay, and build me a lofty palace (Arabic: sarhan, lofty tower or

palace), that I may mount up to the god of Moses: but as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses)

is a liar!" [Qur'an 28:38]

Pharaoh said: "O Haman! Build me a lofty palace, that I may attain the ways and means - The

ways and means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the god of Moses: But

as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!" [Qur'an 40:36-37]

The desire to ascend to the gods in the sky was an article of the ancient Egyptian

religion. The idea of the Pharaoh climbing a tower or staircase to reach the God of

18

Moses is in consonance with the mythology of ancient Egypt. The Pharaoh, asks the

gods (or men) to construct a staircase or a tower in order to climb and converse with

the gods.

Standing before the gods, the Pharaoh shows his authority. He orders them to construct a

staircase so that he may climb to the sky. If they do not obey him, they will have neither food

nor offerings. But the king takes one precaution. It is not he himself, as an individual, who

speaks, but the divine power: "It is not I who say this to you, the gods, it is the Magic who

speaks".

When the Pharaoh completes his climb, magic at his feet "The sky trembles", he asserts, "the

earth shivers before me, for I am a magician, I possess magic". It is also he who installs the

gods on their thrones, thus proving that the cosmos recognises his omnipotence.[50]

The desire of the Pharaoh to ascend to the sky has no connection with the biblical

story of the "Tower of Babel." The use of the "Tower of Babel" by Orientalists and

Christian apologists appears to be a convenient device to attack the Qur'an and

laziness on their part in undertaking a scholarly historical investigation. In particular,

we can observe an almost complete lack of familiarity with the ancient Egyptian

historical record and a startling absence of reference to any direct Egyptological

evidence, hieroglyphic or otherwise.

We have seen earlier that the Pharaoh, a god of ancient Egypt, would address other

gods by climbing up a staircase or a high building. What happened when the ruler of

Egypt died? How did he meet with other gods? Did he ascend to them? If yes, what

was the instrument of his ascension? To understand this let us turn our attention to

some interesting evidence from ancient Egypt dealing with the pyramids and the royal

tombs.

There is a copious amount of evidence from ancient Egypt concerning the desire of

the dead king to ascend to the gods and it comes in the form of the Pyramid Texts.

These texts are a collection of funerary rituals and spells first inscribed on the

sacrophagi and the subterranean walls of nine Old Kingdom pyramids.[51]

What was the function of the pyramid? The primary function of the pyramid in

ancient Egypt was to house the body of a dead King, his ka or spirit, and his funerary

equipment for use in the next world. It was a royal burial site. The pyramid tomb

served as a place on earth where food and drink could be brought regularly to supply

the need of the ka. The word "pyramid" probably derived from Greek pyramis. The

Egyptians themselves used the word "M(e)r" to describe pyramids, and it has

19

tentatively been translated as a "place of ascension". Concerning the word "pyramid",

Verner says:

The shape of the pyramid has most often been interpreted as a stylized primeval hill and, at the

same time, a gigantic stairway to heaven. In fact, the Egyptian terms for "pyramid" (mr) has

been derived from a root i`i ("to ascend"), thus giving "place of ascent."[52]

Similarly, Lehner points out that:

The word for pyramid in ancient Egyptian is mer. There seems to be no cosmic significance in

the term itself. I. E. S. Edwards, the great pyramid authority, attempted to find a derivation

from m, 'instrument' or 'place', plus ar, 'ascension', as 'place of ascension'. Although he himself

doubted this derivation, the pyramid was indeed a place or instrument of ascension for the king

after death.[53]

Not surprisingly, the Egyptian word "M(e)r" has the determinative showing a triangle

with a base to represent the pyramid (Figs. 2 and 3).

Figure 2: Hieroglyph entry for "mr" which means a pyramid. Notice the determinative which is in

the shape of a triangle representing the pyramid (line 4).[54]

20

Figure 3: Hieroglyph entry for "Pyramid". Again notice the determinative for pyramid shown as a

triangle.[55]

After death, the king would pass from the earth to the heaven, to take his place

amongst the gods and to join the retinue of the sun-god. However, he needed a way to

reach the sky from the earth, a bridge slung between this world and the next, a "Place

of Ascension". Thus, the pyramid served as a place of ascension for the dead king.[56]

The Pyramid Texts inscribed on the sacrophagi and the subterranean walls served as

"instructions" for the dead king's ascension to heavens.

Let us conclude this section with a quote from the famous Egyptologist I. E. S.

Edwards:

21

The Egyptians were not the only ancient people of the Middle East who believed that the heaven

and the gods might be reached by ascending a high building; a kindred trend of thought

prevailed in Mesopotamia. At the centre of any city in Assyria or Babylonia lay a sacred area

occupied by the temple complex and a royal palace.[57]

THE MYSTERY OF THE NAME HAMAN

Haman is mentioned six times in the Qur'an: Surah 28, verses 6, 8 and 38; Surah 29,

verse 39; and Surah 40, verses 24 and 36. The above ayahs portray Haman as

someone close to Pharaoh, who was also in charge of building projects, otherwise the

Pharaoh would have directed someone else. So, who is Haman? It appears that no

commentator of the Qur'an has dealt with this question on a thorough hieroglyphic

basis. As previously mentioned, many authors have suggested that "Haman" in the

Qur'an is reference to Haman, a counsellor of Ahasuerus who was an enemy of the

Jews. Meanwhile others have been searching for consonances with the name of the

Egyptian god "Amun."[58]

One of the earliest scholars to deal with the name "Haman" in the Qur'an from the

point of view of Egyptology was Dr. Maurice Bucaille. He surmised that since

"Haman" was mentioned in the Qur'an during the time of Moses in Egypt, the best

course of action was to ask an expert in the old Egyptian language, i.e., hieroglyphs,

regarding the name.[59] Bucaille narrates an interesting discussion he had with a

prominent French Egyptologist:

In the book Reflections on the Qur'an (Réflexions sur le Coran[60]), I have related the result of

such a consultation that dates back to a dozen years ago and led me to question a specialist

who, in addition, knew well the classical Arabic language. One of the most prominent French

Egyptologists, fulfilling these conditions, was kind enough to answer the question.

I showed him the word "Haman" that I had copied exactly like it is written in the Qur'an, and

told him that it had been extracted from a sentence of a document dating back to the 7th

century AD, the sentence being related to somebody connected with Egyptian history.

He said to me that, in such a case, he would see in this word the transliteration of a

hieroglyphic name but, for him, undoubtedly it could not be possible that a written document of

the 7th century had contained a hieroglyphic name - unknown until that time - since, in that

time, the hieroglyphs had been totally forgotten.

In order to confirm his deduction about the name, he advised me to consult the Dictionary of

Personal Names of the New Kingdom by Ranke, where I might find the name written in

hieroglyphs, as he had written before me, and the transliteration in German.

22

I discovered all that had been presumed by the expert, and, moreover, I was stupefied to read

the profession of Haman: "The Chief of the workers in the stone-quarries," exactly what could

be deduced from the Qur'an, though the words of the Pharaoh suggest a master of construction.

When I came again to the expert with a photocopy of the page of the Dictionary concerning

"Haman" and showed him one of the pages of the Qur'an where he could read the name, he was

speechless...

Moreover, Ranke had noted, as a reference, a book published in 1906 by the Egyptologist Walter

Wreszinski: the latter had mentioned that the name of "Haman" had been engraved on a stela

kept at the Hof-Museum of Vienna (Austria). Several years later, when I was able to read the

profession written in hieroglyphs on the stela, I observed that the determinative joined to the

name had emphasised the importance of the intimate of Pharaoh.[61]

He went on to say:

Had the Bible or any other literary work, composed during a period when the hieroglyphs could

still be deciphered, quoted "Haman," the presence in the Qur'an of this word might have not

drawn special attention. But, it is a fact that the hieroglyphs had been totally forgotten at the

time of the Qur'anic Revelation and that no one could not read them until the 19th century AD.

Since matters stood like that in ancient times, the existence of the word "Haman" in the Qur'an

suggests a special reflection.[62]

Let us now cross-check some of the statements made by Bucaille. The following entry

tabulated in Walter Wreszinski's Aegyptische Inschriften aus dem K.K. Hof

Museum in Wien mentions the name hmn-h, though no critical analysis of the

hieroglyph was provided.

Figure 4: Hieroglyph entry for "hmn-h" and his profession "Vorsteherder Steinbruch arbeiter"

meaning "the chief / overseer of the workers in the stone-quarries" and dates from the New

Kingdom Period.[63]

Figure 5: More information on "hmn-h". Notice that the "hmn-h" mentioned by Wreszinski is

masculine.[64]

While discussing this name, Hermann Ranke in his Die Ägyptischen Personennamen

was unsure what the last letter "h" in the name hmn-h represented. Therefore, he

designated the entry as "hmn-h(?)" as if suggesting "h" was not actually part of the

name.[65]

23

In order to understand how the hieroglyphs are written and interpreted, let us take a

look at the salient features of this form of writing. The Egyptian hieroglyphs are one

of the oldest writing systems in the world. In 391 CE when the Byzantine Emperor

Theodosius I closed all pagan temples throughout Egypt, it resulted in the termination

of a four thousand year old tradition. The message of the ancient Egyptian language

was lost for 1500 years and not until the discovery of the Rosetta stone and the work

of Jean-Francois Champollion (1790-1832) that the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs

awoke from their long slumber as a dead language. The Egyptian hieroglyphic

writing consists of an inventory of signs and is divided into three major categories,

namely logograms, signs that write out morphemes; phonograms, signs that represent

one or more sounds; and determinatives, signs that denote neither morpheme nor

sound but help with the meaning of a group of signs that precede them. It is usually a

picture of an object which helps the reader to understand the object and the context.

The Egyptian hieroglyphs disregard the vowels. In other words, with this system one

arrives at words that are connected by vowels. For example, let us take the word

"beautiful". Its transcription in the Egyptian hieroglyphics is nfr. To ease the

pronunciation of these three consonants, they are bound together with "e-sounds",

which leads to nefer.[66] This pronunciation bears no relation with the original

pronunciation of the Egyptian language. It is solely a convention to enable

communication among the modern scholars or even commonfolk interested in

ancient Egyptians hieroglyphs. It is not surprising that the scholarly pronunciation of

Egyptian hieroglyphs (even consonants!) also differs.[67]

The hieroglyph in our case is hmn-h(?) with a doubtful last letter. If we drop the last

letter which is doubtful, the name can be rendered as "hemen" or "haman" depending

upon the vowel which is inserted to ensure an effective pronunciation of the

hieroglyph. It is interesting to note that the profession of this person hmn-h(?) in

German reads Vorsteherder Steinbruch arbeiter - "The chief / overseer of the workers

in the stone-quarries" (Fig. 4) . This name is listed as masculine (Fig. 5) and it is from

the New Kingdom Period (Fig. 4). The generally accepted theory appears to be that

Moses lived during the reign of kings Rameses II or his successor Merenptah in the

New Kingdom Period. The Qur'an suggests that Haman was a master of construction

and this name appears to fit very well in almost all respects.

However, an objection can be raised regarding the contents in the hieroglyph and the

Qur'an. The Qur'an uses � (/h/) instead of ح (/h/) for the name "Haman". The

hieroglyph from the K.K. Hof Museum in Vienna above uses ح (/h/) instead of � (/h/)

in hmn. This objection can be tackled in two ways. Firstly, when the ancient Egyptian

hieroglyphs were discovered by Jean-Francois Champollion, it was already a dead

24

language. The phonology of the hieroglyphs were not known and even today, albeit

with considerable amount of progress in Egyptian phonology, there remain

uncertainties concerning the exact pronunciation of a word in ancient Egyptian. For

example, in the case of /h/ and /h/, Carsten Peust says:

It is presently impossible to decide whether the primary distinction of /h/ and /ḥ/ [i.e., /h/] was

one of voice or one of place of articulation.[68]

Secondly, in Roman Demotic and contemporary hieroglyphic texts, a graphical

confusion arises between /h/ and /h/, suggesting a phonetic merger had taken place.

Both sounds conflate into ϩ (i.e., hori) /h/ in all Coptic dialects. It appears that /h/ and

/h/ are not distinguished in Arabic loanwords from Coptic.[69] As to how far back this

merger in Egyptian history goes back is not very clear. There are early examples of a

merger between /h/ and /h/ from the New Kingdom Period mentioned by Jürgen

Osing.[70]

The question now arises as to whether the Haman mentioned in the hieroglyph from

the K.K. Hof Museum is the Haman mentioned in the Qur'an. Maybe. Although there

are a lot of interesting similarities between the Haman's mentioned in the Qur'an and

in the hieroglyph, it is currently not possible to determine with a great degree of

certainty whether this hieroglyph refers to the Qur'anic Haman. What we do know,

however, is that the name Haman is attested in ancient Egypt, it is a masculine name,

and it dates to the New Kingdom period, the period of history in which Moses is

principally associated.

It is also interesting to note that there also existed a similar sounding name called

Hemon[71] (or Hemiunu / Hemionu[72] as he is also known as), a vizier to King Khnum-

Khufu who is widely considered to be the architect of Khnum-Khufu's the Great

Pyramid at Giza. He lived in the 4th Dynasty of the Old Kingdom Period (c. 2700 -

2190 BCE).

25

(a)

(b)

Figure 6: (a) Statue of Hemon, Khufu's master builder. The eyes have been hacked out by

robbers, and restored.[73] This statue is in the Hildesheim Museum. (b) The hieroglyph showing

the name "Hemiunu".[74]

He is said to have been buried in a large and splendid tomb at Saqqara in the royal

necropolis. There is an extant statue of Hemiunu / Hemon, which resides in the

Hildesheim Museum [Fig. 6(a)]. Although the name Hemiunu / Hemon is quite

similar to Haman, they are written differently [compare the hieroglyphs in Fig. 6(b)

with Fig. (4)] and perhaps also pronounced differently. The writing of Hemiunu

26

employs Gardiner signs U36 O28. This is different from what we have seen for hmn

which employs V28 Y5 N35.

5. Conclusions

Marraccio's identification of the Qur'anic Haman as having been appropriated from

the Hebrew Bible and Jewish mythology was subsequently adopted by Protestant

scholars and missionaries. Adam Clarke's assessment of Marraccio's translation

indicates that the Protestants unabashedly adopted this Roman Catholic

pronouncement. One must note with a sense of alarm the ability of this 'critical note'

to endure for over 300 years without anyone seemingly taking the opportunity to

evaluate the veracity of Marraccio's untested assumptions. Concerning the name

Haman, such illustrious entries in the Encyclopaedia Of Islam and the

Encyclopaedia Of The Qur'an make no attempt to engage with the Egyptological

historical record.

Marraccio's assumption of the historicity and authenticity of the biblical narrative has

been shown by contemporary Judaeo-Christian scholars to be misplaced. As we have

observed, that the book of Esther lacks historicity is not too unexpected. This

unhistorical Haman is portrayed as the prime minister of Ahasuerus, King of Persia.

The plot of the unhistorical Haman to annihilate the Jews in the Persian Empire in

retaliation for Mordecai's refusal to bow to him, seems to be the corrupt version of the

original event when Haman had a hand in suggesting and executing the second

massacre of the Israelites newborn males, to demoralise the Israelites and discourage

them from following Moses. Athanasius whose famous Epistola Festalis of 367 CE

settled the limits of the New Testament canon at the twenty-seven books accepted as

canonical by Protestants today, unceremoniously rejected Esther from his exclusive

list of 'divinely-inspired' Old Testament books. Even the Jews had difficulty deciding

on the canonicity of Esther.

Wreszinski's Aegyptische Inschriften aus dem K.K. Hof Museum in Wien published

in 1906 CE noted a hieroglyph engraved on a stela kept at the K.K. Hof Museum in

Vienna, Austria, contained the letters hmn-h. About thirty years later while discussing

this name, Ranke in his Die Ägyptischen Personennamen was unsure what the last

letter "h" in the name hmn-h represented. Therefore, he designated the entry as "hmn-

h(?)" suggesting as if "h" was not in actuality part of the name. If we drop the

doubtful last letter, the name can be rendered as "hemen" or "haman" depending upon

the vowel which is inserted to ensure an effective pronunciation of the hieroglyph. It

is interesting to note that the profession of this person hmn-h(?) in German reads

Vorsteherder Steinbruch arbeiter - "The chief / overseer of the workers in the stone-

27

quarries" (Fig. 4). This name is listed as masculine (Fig. 5) and it is from the New

Kingdom Period (Fig. 4). The generally accepted theory appears to be that Moses

lived during the reign of King Rameses II or his successor Merenptah in the New

Kingdom Period. The Qur'an suggests that Haman was a master of construction and

this name appears to fit very well in almost all respects. However, it is unclear

whether Haman mentioned in the hieroglyphs is actually the Hamam mentioned in the

Qur'an. More research would throw some light on this issue.

The historicity of the name Haman provides yet another sharp reminder to those that

adhere to the precarious theory that parts of the Qur'an were allegedly copied from the

Bible. If Egyptian hieroglyphs were long dead and the Book of Esther a work of

fiction, then from where did the Prophet Muhammad obtain his information? The

Qur'an answers:

Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled. Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) desire.

It is no less than inspiration sent down to him. He was taught by one mighty in Power. [Qur'an

53:2-5]

It is interesting to note that the meaning of the word ayah, usually translated as 'verse'

in the Qur'an, also means a sign and a proof. The reference to Haman and other facts

concerning ancient Egypt in the Qur'an suggests a special reflection.

And Allah knows best!

References & Notes

[1] Ludoviico Marraccio, Alcorani Textus Universus Ex Correctioribus Arabum

Exemplaribus Summa Fide, Atque Pulcherrimis Characteribus Descriptus, 1698,

Ex Typographia Seminarii: Patavii (Italy), p. 526. The original text says:

Onfundit Mahumetus Sacras historias. Ponit enim Haman Consiliarium Pharaonis, cùm Assuero

Persarum Regi à consiliis suerit. Fingit prætereà Pharaonem jussisse extrui sibi Turrim

sublimem, ex cujus vertice Deum Moysis inferiorem sibi videret: quod commentum haud dubium

est, quin ex Babelicæ turris ædificatione dusumpserit. Certè nihil hujusmondi de Pharaone in

Sacris literis habetur, & quidquid sit, inanissimam praesefert fabulum.

This translation of the Qur'an by the Luccan monk and his associated commentary

was well received in Protestant missionary circles. Prominent Methodist missionary

Adam Clarke (1760/1762 – 1832 CE), an executive member of the colonial-

28

missionary organisation the British And Foreign Bible Society, described the

translation as:

A work of immense labour: the translation is good and literal, and many of the grammatical and

philological notes possess great merit.

See A. Clarke, The Bibliographical Miscellany; Or, Supplement To The

Bibliographical Dictionary, 1806, Volume I, W. Baynes, Paternoster-Row: London,

p. 286.

This statement should be understood in the context of Clarke's working environment.

Armed with the intention of specifically targeting Muslims, he was employed by the

British And Foreign Bible Society in the preparation of their Arabic Bible and played

a pivotal role in introducing the Arabic Bible to the African continent. See C. J. S.

Teignmouth, Memoir Of The Life And Correspondence Of John Lord Teignmouth,

1843, Hatchard and Son: London, Chapters XVI, XVII & XVIII; also see P. Mirrlees,

"John Hill And The Early Attempt To Study A West African Language", in S.

Batalden, K. Cann & J. Dean (Eds.), Sowing The Word: The Cultural Impact Of

The British And Foreign Bible Society 1804-2004, 2004, Sheffield Phoenix Press:

Sheffield (UK), pp. 98–120.

[2] G. Sale, The Koran Commonly Called Alcoran Of Mohammed Translated Into

English Immediately From The Original Arabic With Explanatory Notes Taken

From The Most Approved Commentators To Which Is Prefixed A Preliminary

Discourse , 1825, Volume II, London, p. 239, footnote 'h'.

[3] Th. Noldeke, "The Koran", Encyclopædia Britannica, 1893, Volume 16, Adam

And Charles Black: Edinburgh, p. 600. This article was reprinted many times with

slight modifications. T. Nöldeke (J. S. Black [Trans.]), Sketches From Eastern

History, 1892, Adam and Charles Black: London & Edinburgh, p. 30. This article

was reprinted and edited by N. A. Newman, The Qur'an: An Introductory Essay By

Theodor Nöldeke, 1992, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute: Hatfield (PA),

p. 9; Also see Th. Nöldeke, "The Koran" in Ibn Warraq, The Origins Of The Koran:

Classic Essays On Islam's Holy Book, 1998, Prometheus Books, p. 43; Also see Th.

Nöldeke, "The Koran" in C. Turner (Ed.), The Koran: Critical Concepts In Islamic

Studies, 2004, Volume I (Provenance and Transmission), RoutledgeCurzon: London

& New York, p. 77.

[4] Rev. A. Mingana & A. S. Lewis (eds.), Leaves From Three Ancient Qur'âns

Possibly Pre-`Othmânic With A List Of Their Variants, 1914, Cambridge: At The

29

University Press, p. xiv. Also reprint in A. Mingana, "Three Ancient Korans" in Ibn

Warraq, The Origins Of The Koran: Classic Essays On Islam's Holy Book, 1998,

op. cit., p. 79.

[5] H. Lammens (Translated from French by Sir E. Denison Ross), Islam: Beliefs

and Institutions, 1929, Methuen & Co. Ltd.: London, p. 39.

[6] J. Horovitz, Koranische Untersuchungen, 1926, Walter De Gruyter: Berlin &

Leipzig, p. 149.

[7] C. C. Torrey, Jewish Foundation of Islam, 1933, Ktav Publishing House, Inc.:

New York, See pages 117 and 119.

[8] A. Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an, 1938, Oriental Institute:

Baroda, pp. 284.

[9] G. Vajda, "Haman" in B. Lewis, V. L. Menage, Ch. Pellat and J. Schacht (Eds.),

Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition), 1971, Volume III, E. J. Brill (Leiden) &

Luzac & Co. (London), p. 110.

[10] A. J. Wensinck [G. Vajda], "Fir`awn" in B. Lewis, Ch. Pellat and J. Schacht

(Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition), 1965, Volume II, E. J. Brill (Leiden)

& Luzac & Co. (London), p. 917.

[11] A. H. Jones, "Haman", in J. D. McAuliffe (Ed.), Encyclopaedia Of The Qur'an,

2002, Volume II, Brill: Leiden, p. 399.

[12] See for example Dr. A. A. Shorrosh, Islam Revealed: A Christian Arab's View

Of Islam, 1988, Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, p. 209; R. Morey, The Islamic

Invasion: Confronting The World's Fastest Growing Religion, 1992, Harvest

House Publishers: Eugene (OR), p. 142; `Abdallah `Abd al-Fadi, Is The Qur'an

Infallible?, 1995, Light of Life: Villach (Austria), pp. 35-36 and p. 88; N. A.

Newman, Muhammad, The Qur'an & Islam, 1996, Interdisciplinary Biblical

Research Institute: Hatfield (PA), p. 380; W. E. Phipps, Muhammad And Jesus: A

Comparison Of The Prophets And Their Teachings, 1996, Continuum Publishing

Company: New York (NY), p. 90; D. Richardson, Secrets Of The Koran: Revealing

Insights Into Islam's Holy Book, 1999, Regal Books From Gospel Light: Ventura

(CA), p. 34; S. Masood, The Bible And The Qur'an: A Question Of Integrity, 2001,

OM Publication: Carlisle, UK, p. 86; E. M. Caner & E. F. Caner, Unveiling Islam:

An Insider's Look At Muslim Life And Beliefs, 2002, Kregal Publications: Grand

30

Rapids (MI), p. 89; Abdullah Al-Araby, Islam Unveiled, 2002 (10th Edition), The

Pen Vs. The Sword: Los Angeles (CA), p. 42 and p. 44; M. Elass, Understanding the

Koran: A Quick Christian Guide To The Muslim Holy Book, 2004, Zondervan:

Grand Rapids (MI), p. 181, note 3.

A gentle, sensitive but inadequate treatment is done by John Kaltner concerning the

issue of Haman in the Bible and the Qur'an. See J. Kaltner, Ishmael Instructs Isaac:

An Introduction To The Qur'an For Bible Readers, 1999, The Liturgical Press:

Collegeville (Minnesota), pp. 134-135; Also see J. Jomier (Trans. Z. Hersov), The

Great Themes Of The Qur'an, 1997, SCM Press Limited: London, p. 78.

[13] Ibn Warraq, Why I Am Not A Muslim, 1995, Prometheus Books: Amherst (NY),

p. 159.

[14] J. D. Levenson, Esther: A Commentary, 1997, SCM Press Limited, p. 23.

[15] M. V. Fox, Character And Ideology In The Book Of Esther, 1991, University

of South Carolina Press: Columbia (SC), pp. 131-139.

[16] ibid., p. 131.

[17] L. B. Paton, A Critical And Exegetical Commentary On The Book Of Esther,

1992 (reprinted), T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh (UK), pp. 64-77. After discussing the

arguments for and against the book's historicity, Paton says:

In the presence of these analogies there is no more reason why one should assume a historical

basis for the story of Est. than for these other admittedly unhistorical works which it so closely

resembles.

[18] C. A. Moore, Esther: Introduction, Translation, And Notes, 1971, The Anchor

Bible, Doubleday & Company Inc.: Garden City (NY), pp. xxxiv-xlvi; For a similar

assessment see C. A. Moore, "Archaeology And The Book Of Esther", The Biblical

Archaeologist, 1975, Volume 38, pp. 62-79.

[19] "Esther", The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1941, Volume 4, The

Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia Inc.: New York, p. 170.

[20] "Esther", The Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1905, Volume V, Funk & Wagnalls

Company: London & New York, pp. 235-236.

31

[21] A. Berlin, The JPS Bible Commentary: Esther, 2001, The Jewish Publication

Society: Philadelphia, pp. xxvii-xxviii.

[22] M. Black & H. H. Rowley (Eds.), Peake's Commentary On The Bible, 1962,

Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd.: London & New York, p. 381.

[23] L. E. Keck et al. (Eds.), The New Interpreter's Bible: General Articles &

Introduction, Commentary, & Reflections For Each Book Of The Bible, Including

The Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical Books, 1994, Volume III, Abingdon Press:

Nashville (TN), p. 859.

[24] R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer & R. E. Murphy (Eds.), The Jerome Biblical

Commentary, 1968, Volume I (The Old Testament), Geoffrey Chapman: London

(UK), pp. 628-629.

[25] Rev. R. C. Fuller, Rev. L. Johnston, Very Rev. C. Kearns (Eds.), A New

Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture, 1969, Thomas Nelson & Sons, pp. 408-

409.

[26] "Esther", The Rev. T. K. Cheyne & J. S. Black (Eds.), Encyclopaedia Biblica:

A Critical Dictionary Of The Literary, Political And Religious History, The

Archaeology, Geography And Natural History Of The Bible, 1901, Volume II, The

Macmillan Company: New York, Columns 1401-1402.

[27] "Haman", Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 7, Encyclopaedia Judaica

Jerusalem, The Macmillan Company, p. 1222.

[28] "Haman", in G. A. Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible,

1962 (1996 Print), Volume 2, Abingdon Press: Nashville, p. 516.

[29] "Ahasuerus", Webster's Biographical Dictionary, 1972, G. & C. Merriam Co.:

Springfield, USA, p. 17.

[30] "Dead Sea Scrolls" in B. M. Metzger and M. D. Coogan (Ed.), Oxford

Companion To The Bible, 1993, Oxford University Press: Oxford & New York, p.

159.

[31] C. A. Moore, "Archaeology And The Book Of Esther", The Biblical

Archaeologist, 1975, op. cit., p. 63.

32

[32] The map is taken from C. A. Moore, Esther: Introduction, Translation, And

Notes, 1971, The Anchor Bible, op. cit., pp. xxvi-xxvii. For a good overview of place

of Esther in the Christian canon see B. W. Anderson, "The Place Of The Book Of

Esther In The Christian Bible", Journal Of Religion, 1950, Volume 30, pp. 32-43.

[33] M. Luther, Table Talk, 1995, Fount: An Imprint of HarperCollinsPublisher:

London (UK), XXIV, p. 14.

[34] Dr. Martin Luther, Biblia, 1538, Wolff K: Strassburg; Also see Luther's

introduction to the book of Esther in E. T. Bachmann (Ed.) & H. L. Lehmann (Gen.

Ed.), Luther's Works, 1960, Volume 35, Muhlenberg Press: Philadelphia, pp. 353-

354.

[35] The absence of mention of the God in the book of Esther has baffled many

scholars. Many of them have given various reasons for such an omission. For a

general overview on this topic, please see: "Esther", The Rev. T. K. Cheyne & J. S.

Black (Eds.), Encyclopaedia Biblica: A Critical Dictionary Of The Literary,

Political And Religious History, The Archaeology, Geography And Natural

History Of The Bible, 1901, Volume II, op. cit., col. 1403; "Esther", The Jewish

Encyclopaedia, 1905, Volume V, op. cit., p. 236; "Esther", The Universal Jewish

Encyclopaedia, 1941, Volume 4, op. cit., p. 170; B. W. Anderson, "The Place Of

The Book Of Esther In The Christian Bible", Journal Of Religion, 1950, op. cit., p.

32; M. Black & H. H. Rowley (Eds.), Peake's Commentary On The Bible, 1962, op.

cit., p. 381; R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer & R. E. Murphy (Eds.), The Jerome Biblical

Commentary, 1968, Volume I (The Old Testament), op. cit., p. 629; C. A. Moore,

Esther: Introduction, Translation, And Notes, 1971, The Anchor Bible, op. cit., p.

xxxii-xxxiii; C. M. Laymon (Ed.), The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary On

The Bible Including All The Books Of The Old And New Testaments And The

Apocrypha, Together With Forty-Three General Articles, 1972, Collins: London &

Glasgow, p. 233; W. A. Elwell (Ed.), The Marshall Pickering Commentary On The

NIV, 1989, Baker Book House Company, p. 327.

[36] A survey of the four most popular encyclopedias of Bible "difficulties" reveal no

trace of a discussion on the historicity or the canonicity of Esther. See N. L. Geisler &

R. M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 2001, Baker Books: Grand Rapids (MI); N. L.

Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia Of Christian Apologetics, 2002, Baker Books: Grand

Rapids (MI); N. Geisler & T. Howe, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook On

Bible Difficulties, 2004 (7th Printing), Baker Books: Grand Rapids (MI); G. L.

Archer Jr., New International Encyclopedia Of Bible Difficulties, 1982, Zondervan:

Grand Rapids (MI).

33

[37] "Pharaoh" in Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004 DVD,

© 1994 – 2004 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

[38] "Pharaoh" in H. Lockyer, Sr. (General Editor), F.F. Bruce et al., (Consulting

Editors), Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers, p.

828.

[39] F. S. Coplestone (Updated & Expanded by J. C. Trehern), Jesus Christ Or

Mohammed? A Guide To Islam And Christianity That Helps Explain The

Differences, 2001, Christian Focus Publications: Ross-shire (Scotland), p. 80; For a

similar claim also see J. W. Sweetman, Islam And Christian Theology: A Study Of

The Interpretation Of Theological Ideas In The Two Religions, 1945, Volume I,

Part 1 (Preparatory History Survey of the Early Period), Lutterworth Press: London &

Redhill, p. 11.

[40] Rabbi Dr. S. M. Lehrman (Trans.), Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman & M. Simon (Eds.),

Midrash Rabbah: Exodus, 1939, Soncino Press: London (UK), VIII.2, pp. 116-117.

[41] L. Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden: Historisch Entwickelt,

1892, Verlag von J. Kauffmann: Frankfurt, pp. 269. Full discussion in pp. 268-270;

Also see "Midrash Exodus (Shemoth Rabbah)", The Universal Jewish

Encyclopaedia, 1969, Volume 7, Ktav Publishing House, Inc.: New York, p. 539;

Similar views are mentioned by Brannon Wheeler in Moses In The Quran And

Islamic Exegesis, 2002, RoutledgeCurzon: London, pp. 39-40.

[42] M. D. Herr, "Exodus Rabbah", Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 6,

Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, cols. 1067-1068;

[43] A. Shinan, Midrash Shemot Rabbah, Chapters I-XIV: A Critical Edition

Based On A Jerusalem Manuscript, With Variants, Commentary And

Introduction, 1984, Tel Aviv, p. 19.

[44] A. J. Spencer, Brick Architecture In Ancient Egypt, 1979, Aris & Phillips Ltd.:

UK, p. 140; P. T. Nicholson & I. Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials And

Technology, 2000, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge (UK), p. 79.

[45] W. M. F. Petrie, Abydos: Part II, 1903, Egyptian Exploration Fund & Trübner &

Co: London, p. 25 and p. 48. Petrie comments on the importance of these discoveries

by saying (p. 48):

34

Several objects have placed the history of art and products in an entirely new light, change

some of the ideas hitherto accepted.

At the beginning of the 1st Dynasty we meet with the art of glazing fully developed, not only for

large monochrome vessels, but for inlay of different colours... It was also used for relief work,

and in the round... and on the great scale for the coating of wall surfaces.

[46] G. A. Reisner, N. F. Wheeler & D. Dunham, Uronarti Shalfak Mirgissa, 1967,

Second Cataract Forts: Volume II, Museum Of Fine Arts: Boston (USA), pp. 118-119

and Plate XLIX B; Also see A. J. Spencer, Brick Architecture In Ancient Egypt,

1979, op. cit., p. 140.

[47] L. Borchardt, O. Königsberger & H. Ricke, "Friesziegel in Grabbauten",

Zeitschrift Für Ägyptische Sprache Und Altertumskunde, Volume 70, pp. 25-35; A

brief discussion of these bricks at Thebes is also available in A. J. Spencer, Brick

Architecture In Ancient Egypt, op. cit., p. 140.

[48] A. J. Spencer, Brick Architecture In Ancient Egypt, op. cit., p. 141.

[49] P. T. Nicholson & I. Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials And Technology,

op. cit., p. 79; A similar observation was also made by Baldwin Smith. See E. B.

Smith, Egyptian Architecture As Cultural Expression, 1938, D. Appleton-Century

Company: New York & London, p. 7.

[50] C. Jacq (Trans. J. M. Davis), Egyptian Magic, 1985, Aris & Phillips Ltd. &

Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers: Chicago, p. 11.

[51] J. P. Allen, "Pyramid Texts", in D. B. Redford, The Oxford Encyclopedia Of

Ancient Egypt, 2001, Volume III, Oxford University Press, pp. 95-97.

[52] M. Verner, "Pyramid", in D. B. Redford (Ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia Of

Ancient Egypt, 2001, Volume III, op. cit., p. 88.

[53] M. Lehner, The Complete Pyramids, 1997, Thames And Hudson: London, p.

34; I. E. S. Edwards, The Pyramids Of Egypt, 1985, Viking, p. 302; Y. Abou-Hadid,

Why Pyramids, 1979, Vantage Press: New York, p. 46; For a slightly different view

see J. C. Deaton, "The Old Kingdom Evidence For The Function Of Pyramids",

Varia Aegyptiaca, 1988, Volume 4, No. 3, p. 193-200.

[54] A. Erman & H. Grapow, Wörterbuch Der Aegyptischen Sprache, 1928,

Volume II, J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung: Leipzig, p. 94, 14-16.

35

[55] R. Hannig, Die Sprache Der Pharaonen Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch -

Deutsch (2800-950 v. Chr.), 2000, Verlag Philipp Von Zabern: Mainz, p. 999; Also

see the older edition of the same book by R. Hannig, Die Sprache Der Pharaonen

Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch - Deutsch (2800-950 v. Chr.), 1995, Verlag

Philipp Von Zabern: Mainz, p. 344.

[56] Jacques Jomier asks in The Great Themes Of The Qur'an, 1997, op. cit., p. 78:

Here Pharaoh... asks Haman to build him a high tower so that he can ascend to the God of

Moses (cf. v. 36). Could this be a vague recollection of the pyramids?

The answer to this question is not certain. The Egyptian pyramids were indeed tall

structures. If the Pharaoh did ask for a pyramid to be built then it was as if he was

asking Haman to build his tomb! Alternatively, if it was indeed a pyramid the Pharaoh

asked for, then the Pharaoh has proven himself to be a mortal to be buried in a tomb

and not the God, as he had claimed to be. Also there exist examples of several mud-

brick pyramids from the Middle Kingdom Period. The pyramid tombs of Senwosret II

(at Hawara), Senwosret III (at Dahshur), Amenemhet II (at Dahshur) and Amenemhet

III (at Hawara) are the best known examples of mud-brick constructions. See M.

Lehner, The Complete Pyramids, 1997, op. cit., pp. 175-183.

[57] I. E. S. Edwards, The Pyramids Of Egypt, 1985, op. cit., p. 302; Also see Sir F.

Petrie, Religious Life In Ancient Egypt, 1924, Constable & Company Limited:

London, pp. 208-209. It is a slightly out-of-date reference. Nevertheless, it provides a

brief background to ancient Egyptian beliefs of ascension to gods.

[58] Syed suggests that "Haman" is a title of a person not his name, just as Pharaoh

was a title and not a proper personal name. Syed proposes that the title "Haman"

referred to the "high priest of Amun". Amun is also known as "Hammon" and both

are normal pronunciations of the same name. Syed's identification of Haman as "the

high priest of Amun" may be probable. See S. M. Syed, "Historicity Of Haman As

Mentioned In The Qur'an", The Islamic Quarterly, 1980, Volume 24, No. 1 and 2,

pp. 52-53; Also see a slightly modified article by him published four years later: S. M.

Syed, "Haman In The Light Of The Qur'an", Hamdard Islamicus, 1984, Volume 7,

No. 4, pp. 86-87.

[59] M. Bucaille, Moses and Pharaoh: The Hebrews In Egypt, 1995, NTT

Mediascope Inc.: Tokyo, p. 192.

[60] M. Talbi and M. Bucaille, Réflexions sur le Coran, 1989, Seghers: Paris.

36

[61] M. Bucaille, Moses and Pharaoh: The Hebrews In Egypt, 1995, op. cit. pp.

192-193.

[62] ibid.

[63] W. Wreszinski, Aegyptische Inschriften aus dem K.K. Hof Museum in Wien,

1906, J. C. Hinrichs' sche Buchhandlung: Leipzig, I 34, p. 130.

[64] ibid., p. 196.

[65] H. Ranke, Die Ägyptischen Personennamen, 1935, Volume I (Verzeichnis der

Namen), Verlag Von J. J. Augustin in Glückstadt, p. 240.

[66] C. Peust, Egyptian Phonology: An Introduction To The Phonology Of A Dead

Language, 1999, Monographien Zur Ägyptischen Sprache: Band 2, Peust &

Gutschmidt Verlag GbR mit Haftungsbeschränkung: Göttingen, pp. 54-55.

[67] ibid., pp. 52-53.

[68] ibid., p. 98.

[69] ibid., p. 99 and Appendix 8 on p. 323.

[70] J. Osing, Die Nominalbildung Des Ägyptischen: Anmerkungen Und Indices,

1976, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut: Abteilung Kairo, Verlag Philipp von

Zabern: Mainz / Rhein, Note 47, pp. 367-368.

[71] P. A. Clayton, Chronicle Of The Pharaohs: The Reign-By-Reign Record of

The Rulers And Dynasties Of Ancient Egypt, 1994, Thames and Hudson: London, p.

47.

[72] "Hemionu" in M. Rice, Who's Who In Ancient Egypt, 1999, Routledge: London

and New York, p. 63.

[73] The restored statue was compared with fragments of relief of Hemiunu. For this

interesting study see G. Steindorff, "Ein Reliefbildnis Des Prinzen Hemiun",

Zeitschrift Für Ägyptische Sprache Und Altertumskunde, 1937, Volume 70, pp.

120-121.

[74] H. Junker, Giza I. Bericht über die von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in

Wein auf Gemeinsame Kosten mit Dr. Wilhelm Pelizaeus unternommenen.

37

Grabungen auf dem Friedhof des Alten Reiches bei den Pyramiden von Giza,

1929, Volume I (Die Mastabas der IV. Dynastie auf dem Westfriedhof), Holder-

Pichler-Tempsky A.-G.: Wein and Leipzig, pp. 132-162 for the complete description

of Hemon's mastaba. The name and title of Hemon are discussed in pp. 148-151. For

the hieroglyphs inscribed at the footstool of the statue of Hemon representing the

titles see Plate XXIII; For a good discussion of reliefs of Hemon / Hemiunu, see W. S.

Smith, "The Origin Of Some Unidentified Old Kingdom Reliefs", American

Journal Of Archaeology, 1942, Volume 46, pp. 520-530.

38

Collected And Organized By Abu Ali Al-Maghribi com.gmail@allah2Submitter

Skype: Abuali-almaghribi