Mount Sinai and the Apostle Paul
The Apostle Paul, writing in the first century A.D., seems to have understood the location of Mount Sinai relative to Jerusalem, according to Galatians 4:24-26.
Although the “Old Testament” account of the Exodus has been a popular topic of study, the New Testament (NT) references to the Exodus are often overlooked. The NT writers confirm the historicity of the Exodus, but their discussion of its geography is scanty. The NT only mentions Mount Sinai four times (Acts 7:30, 38; Galatians 4:24, 25), the Red Sea twice (Acts 7:36; Heb. 11:29), Arabia twice (Galatians 1:17; 4:25), and Midian once (Acts 7:29).
The most interesting comments about Mount Sinai were made by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Galatians:
“Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.” (Galatians 4:24-26, RSV)
Although these lines are easily glossed over as only spiritual allegory, the Greek text uses two distinctly geographical terms to refer to Mount Sinai. Is it possible that these verses provide geographical insight about the location of Mount Sinai?
The Apostle Paul, credited with writing fourteen of the twenty-seven books of the NT, was a high ranking, learned Pharisee, the Pharisee sect being the strictest of Judaism (Acts 26:5). He was the son of a Pharisee (Acts 23:6) and was taught the Hebrew law (Torah) by the respected Gamaliel (Acts 22:3, 5:34). Given these circumstances, Paul would likely have learned of the location of Mount Sinai if it was still known within the religious hierarchy.
As Paul’s mention of Mount Sinai is rather terse, perhaps he assumed that details of the mountain were still available to his contemporary audience. Conversely, Paul may not have had very much personal information to provide. However, Paul’s three year sabbatical in Arabia (Galatians 1:17), and his subsequent use of Mount Sinai in the Galatians epistle, hints either of insights gained from his own visit to the mountain or from contact with someone who knew of its whereabouts.
This article analyzes two aspects of Paul’s treatment of Mount Sinai in Galatians 4:24-26. The first is the relevance of the phrase “Mount Sinai is in Arabia” in light of the geographical knowledge of the first century A.D. The second is the potential disclosure of a unique geographical relationship between Jerusalem and Mount Sinai.
Historical Background
Paul may have possessed some unique information about Mount Sinai due to his education and travel experiences. Nevertheless, his statements about Mount Sinai must be evaluated in the context of the rudimentary geographical knowledge of 50 A.D., a time in which extensive travel was not routine and maps were precious rarities reserved for kings and generals.
In Paul’s day, the world was still dominated by Hellenistic culture, even though the Greek empire had succumbed to Rome in the prior century. Despite Rome’s power, the Greek geographical philosophy and advancements had not been eclipsed by Rome. Consequently, in the NT period, amid a backdrop of Latin place names and a growing network of Roman roads, the broad geographical influence of the Greeks still prevailed.
The Mount Sinai of the Hebrew Exodus was memorialized in the Hebrew records more than a millennium prior to Paul. But, given the political demise of Israel and the cultural upheavals that preceded the NT period, how much of the arcane Exodus geography was available to Paul and his contemporaries? There is evidence that many extra-biblical Hebrew archives were lost as the Jewish institutions were destroyed, beginning with the 586 B.C. Babylonian sacking of Jerusalem. In 332 B.C., any hope for national restoration was dashed by the victory of Alexander the Great and the establishment of an iron-fisted rule in Syro-Palestine.
The cultural penetration of Hellenism allowed the ideas and language of the Greeks to supersede those of the Hebrews. A critical example is seen in the Septuagint, the first Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, made in Alexandria Egypt, the Greek center of learning, ca. 250 B.C. It made Yam Suph, the Hebrew term for the Sea of the Exodus, synonymous with the “Red Sea” (Erythra Thalassa) of the Greeks. Eventually, the Greek geographical template superseded any residual Hebrew understanding and became the basis for the Byzantine era Exodus traditions. Those traditions placed the sea crossing at the Gulf of Suez near Egypt and Mount Sinai on the opposite shore within the Sinai Peninsula. It is because of these circumstances that the ancient Greek geography must be considered in order to understand the early Exodus traditions.
First Century Geography
To set the stage for Paul’s Mount Sinai references, some geographical history must be reviewed. The format of the 1490 A.D. map of the Near East in Figure 1 can be traced to Claudius Ptolemy, a Greek geographer, whose ca. 150 A.D. work was the culmination of 700 years of Greek geographical learning. Although Ptolemy lived a generation after Paul, his concepts likely typified the geographical thought in the first-century NT period.
Two aspects of Ptolemy’s map provide a context for Paul’s pronouncements. The first is that the term Arabia applied to a very large part of the Near East. The second is that the size and configuration of the Gulf of Aqaba was misunderstood and underestimated by the Classical geographers. This point is significant because the Gulf of Aqaba region dominated the milieu of the Exodus and its long term absence from geographical thought hampered the ability of scholars to accurately conceptualize the Exodus journeys.
In Figure 1, the Arabia of the first century extended west-to-east from Egypt to the Persian Gulf, and north-to-south from Mesopotamia to the tip of the Arabian Peninsula. It was divided into three regions: Arabia Petraea (stony Arabia) on the west, Arabia Deserta (deserted or wilderness Arabia) on the northeast, and Arabia Felicis or Felix (happy or fruitful Arabia) within the Arabian Peninsula. This tradition, dating from the Greek and Roman period, persisted unchallenged for many centuries, as evidenced by the map in Figure 2, made seventeen centuries after Ptolemy. This map more faithfully portrays the extent of Arabia Petra relative to the domain of the Exodus.
Figure 1. The Near East ca. 1490. This map reflects the work of the Greek geographer Ptolemy, ca. 150 A.D. Ancient Arabia was quite extensive (yellow highlight), with Arabia Petraea on the west, Arabia Deserta in the central and east, and Arabia Felix on the south. Note that the modern Gulf of Aqaba, which should define the east coast of the Sinai Peninsula, is missing. (adapted from Nordenskiold 1889)
In light of the extent of Arabia in Paul’s day, his notation that “Mount Sinai is in Arabia” does little to pinpoint the mountain’s location, although it does affirm a location somewhere broadly to the south of Israel. As the Sinai Peninsula was a small part of this Arabia, raw probability favors a Mount Sinai location outside of the Sinai Peninsula and it is fallacious to rely on this phrase to mandate a location within the peninsula. The second item of interest on Ptolemy’s map in Figure 1 is the absence of the Gulf of Aqaba. This same shortcoming is more clearly illustrated in the 17th century map in Figure 3. Such maps are not anomalies, as they reflect the deficient, but influential, legacy of the Classical Greek and Roman geography.Figure 2. An 1851 Map of Arabia Showing the Classical Names. The Gulf of Aqaba (Aelaniticus Sinus), which was absent from maps for most of history, bisects Arabia Petraea, the primary locale of the Exodus journeys. East of the Gulf of Aqaba, the place names of Macna, Modiana, and Madiana are linked with the land of ancient Midian. (from Butler 1851, author’s collection)
Figure 3. The Red Sea in Classical Geography. Note that the modern Gulf of Aqaba, the sea that defines the east coast of the Sinai Peninsula, is entirely missing. (from John Speed, Turkish Empire 1626, author’s collection)
For reference, Figure 2 correctly displays the Gulf of Aqaba as extending north from the body of the Red Sea for 110 miles along the eastern Sinai Peninsula. The Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea constrain the breadth of the land bridge connecting Africa and Asia. The longstanding obscurity of the Gulf of Aqaba is explained by its isolation, navigational dangers, rough terrain, and lack of fresh water and harbors. Because there was little commercial justification to use the Gulf of Aqaba, maps as recent as the 18th century continued to misrepresent its size and shape.
The Gulf of Aqaba problem is pertinent in this discussion because the region of Arabia Petra, which hosted much of the Exodus journey, is bisected by this sea and its rugged coasts. For many centuries, geographers and biblical commentators were never forced to position Mount Sinai within Arabia relative to this landmark because they were ignorant of it. Considering this lack of sophistication, Paul’s statement that Mount Sinai was “in Arabia” was an adequate generalization.
Due to the Septuagint-era Egypt-centrism, the Exodus and Mount Sinai speculations of the early Egyptian Coptic Christians and the religious hermits of the desert were applied to the areas close to Egypt such as the Gulf of Suez and the Sinai Peninsula. Meanwhile, the faulty classical geography excluded the Gulf of Aqaba from any involvement with the Exodus journeys. However, our modern knowledge of geography now demands that a “Mount Sinai in Arabia” be placed either east or west of the Gulf of Aqaba. This the geographical conundrum that is the crux of the present-day Exodus confusion.
Mount Sinai in Arabia
Paul’s allegory, which dominates the verses in question, deserves some explanation before turning to the geographical matters. Here is the text with the geographical terms italicized:
22 “For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar [Hagar]. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” (Galatians 4:22-26 KJV)
The key point is that the symbolism in the allegory uses a clever play on words that seems to be based on a geographical reality. That is, Paul uses a physical relationship as the backbone for a spiritual illustration. If the underlying geographical relationship is fictitious, the wordplay and the allegory becomes empty. Thus, I do not believe that the geographical wordplay is accidental or fallacious.
Paul’s allegory contrasts the outworking of two covenants, the bondage created by a legalistic adherence to the “Law of Moses” versus the freedom provided through divine grace of the “New Covenant.” By illustration, Abraham’s concubine, Hagar, and her offspring, symbolized a human plan, while Abraham’s wife, Sarah, and her offspring, symbolized a divine plan.
Hagar was symbolically linked with Mount Sinai, where the Mosaic law originated. Jerusalem was subsequently inhabited with the “children” of that law who were in bondage to a leglistic system of works. In contrast, the higher, more heavenly, state of Jerusalem was symbolized by Sarah’s “spiritual children,” who were born of faith and divine grace, not of works of the flesh.
The overlooked geographical underpinnings now need to be identified. A composite of the geographical phrases yields this statement:
“…mount Sinai in Arabia…answereth to Jerusalem…which is above…” (Galatians 4:25-26, KJV)
The geographical vagueness of “Mount Sinai is in Arabia” has already been discussed. Paul merely used this phrase to introduce the general position of Mount Sinai relative to Jerusalem. It must be remembered that the practice of the Hebrews was to view the world from the point of reference of Jerusalem. Amazingly, however, Paul was able to further specify the location of the mountain with just two Greek words.
“Answereth,” the first key term in the KJV, is translated from the Greek word sustoicheo. Its only NT occurrence is in Galatians 4:25. The meaning of sustoicheo carries the sense of corresponding, as in soldiers filing together in ranks (Strong 1990, #4960). Aristotle used “sustoichos,” another form of the word, in the geographical sense of “standing on the same row or coordinate” (Liddell and Scott 2000, 783). Sustoichia, also used by Aristotle, has the meaning of “a coordinate series” (ibid.). Hence, this word was useful for describing linear spatial relationships in geographical or military applications.
Paul’s use of sustoicheo seems to have been intended to refer to the position Mount Sinai relative to Jerusalem. In modern parlance, instead of sustoicheo, we might say that Jerusalem and Mount Sinai were on the same parallel of latitude or on the same meridian of longitude.
Since sustoicheo conotes a physical definition, Paul’s use of it to spiritually relate Mount Sinai and Jerusalem suggests that his word play scheme was based on a physical reality. If his scheme was simply metaphorical, he could have structured it using common Greek words for comparison or likening such as homoioo (Strong 1990, #3666) or parab (ibid. #3846), but these terms do not carry the geographical meaning.
The second phrase, “Jerusalem, which is above [Mount Sinai],” clarified that Jerusalem and Mount Sinai corresponded to the same line of longitude. “Above” is translated from the Greek ano, a word that can also mean “upward” or “on the top” (ibid., #507). It appears in the NT nine times. Of chief interest here is its specific geographical meaning of “on the north” or “northward.” The word was used in this manner by the notable Greek historian Herodotus (Liddell and Scott 1889, 83-84). Paul’s inclusion of ano defined Jerusalem as being north of Mount Sinai on his line of sustoicheo.
With these observations in mind, the geographical concepts in Galatians 4:25-26 can be summarized as follows:
1) Mount Sinai was in the Arabia of Paul’s day. 2) Sustoicheo: Jerusalem and Mount Sinai were on the same line of latitude or longitude. 3) Ano: Jerusalem was north of Mount Sinai. 4) The north-south relationship puts Jerusalem and Mount Sinai on a similar meridian of longitude.
Plotting Paul’s location for Mount Sinai
The map in Figure 4 shows the 35-15’E longitude meridian that passes just east of the Old City of Jerusalem. Moving southward, the line crosses the mountains of western Jordan, the ancient place of Mount Seir. Long before the Exodus, this region was synonymous with Edom, land that had been divinely granted to Esau, the brother of Jacob (Israel). Several arguments exist for not placing Mount Sinai in Edom, among them the biblical injunction that Esau’s territory was not to be violated by the Israelites.
Figure 4. The Jerusalem Longitude Meridian. Galatians 4:25-26 implies that Mount Sinai and Jerusalem were located on or near the same meridian. Eastern Jerusalem is at about 35-15’E longitude. The peak of Jabal al Lawz is 215 miles south at 35-18.25’E, about 3.5 miles (5.7 km) east of that meridian. Jabal al Lawz, the tallest mountain in N.W. Saudi Arabia, is associated with the classical domain of ancient Midian.
Rejecting Mount Seir as a site for Mount Sinai, the meridian eventually comes to Jabal al Lawz, a prominent mountain about 215 miles south of Jerusalem. Towering above the other ridges comprising the Lawz range, its 8000+ foot peak makes it the tallest mountain in northwest Saudi Arabia.
The main Jabal al Lawz peak is at longitude 35-18.25’E. The longitude of the Eastern Gate of the Old City of Jerusalem is 35-14.25’E. The four-minute difference in longitude puts the Lawz peak about 4 miles (7 km) further east. Such a relationship would correspond with the geographical implications of Paul’s sustoicheo.Interestingly, the Jewish historian Josephus (ca. 37-100 A.D.) observed that Mount Sinai was “the highest of all mountains that are in that country” (Josephus 1960, 70). If Josephus’ information about Mount Sinai is accurate, his description agrees well with the Jabal al Lawz range. In recent decades, a mountain within the Lawz range, Jabal al Maqla, has been proposed as the precinct of the biblical Mount Sinai. Its peak is about 4.25 miles SSE of the main Lawz peak. Between the Jabal al Lawz range and the Red Sea coast there are no other likely candidates for a Mount Sinai.
Jabal al Lawz is situated to the east of the Gulf of Aqaba in a region that was part of the Arabia spoken of by Paul. Based on the records of the ancient Greek and Arab geographers, one can conclude that the land of Midian likely occupied this portion of modern northwest Saudi Arabia. Although the Bible does not specifically state that Mount Sinai was in Midian, a spatial proximity is implied. For example, Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 recalled that, after Moses had fled from Egypt to Midian, he encountered the burning bush in the wilderness of Mount Sinai. Following this experience, Moses set out from Midian for his return to Egypt (Exodus 4:18). The proximity of Jabal al Lawz to the Classical location of Midian is a factor that supports its potential identification as Mount Sinai.
Conclusion
In Galatians 4:22-26, the Apostle Paul used an allegory based on a geographical reality to present a spiritual lesson. Within that allegory, a play on words using the geographical terms sustoicheo and ano suggests that Paul understood Mount Sinai to lie somewhere directly south of Jerusalem. Although it cannot be ascertained exactly how Paul gained this information, one could infer that it originated from Jewish traditions and/or from his own sabbatical experiences in Arabia. In order to evaluate these points objectively, Paul’s statements need to be judged on their own merit and not according to the usual Exodus traditions that place Mount Sinai within the Sinai Peninsula.
ReferencesButler, Samuel. 1851. Map: Egypt and Arabia. London: Longman & Co.
Josephus. 1960. Josephus Complete Works, trans. William Whiston. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
Liddell, H. G., and Robert Scott. 1889. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Liddell and Scott. 2000. Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nordenskiold, A.E. 1889. Facsimile-atlas to the Early History of Cartography with Reproductions of the Most important Maps Printed in the XV and Xvi Centuries, 1970 reprint. Trans. Johan Adolph Ekelof and Clements Markham. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Krause.
Strong, James. 1990. The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Copyright 2003 Glen A. Fritz
