Ir-Ha-Heres

VIEW:36 DATA:01-04-2020

IR-HA-HERES.—In Isa_19:18 the name to be given in the ideal future to one of the ‘five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan, and swear to Jehovah of hosts’; AV [Note: Authorized Version.] and RV [Note: Revised Version.] ‘one shall be called, The city of destruction.’ The usually accepted explanation of the passage is that the name ‘city of heres, or destruction,’—or, more exactly, ‘of tearing down’ (the verb hâras being used of pulling or tearing down cities, altars, walls, etc., Jdg_6:25, Isa_14:17, Eze_13:14),—is chosen for the sake of a punning allusion to cheres, in Heb. a rare word for ‘sun’ (Job_9:7), the ‘city of cheres,’ or ‘the sun,’ being a designation which might have been given in Heb. to On, the Heliopolis of the Greeks, a city a few miles N.E. of the modern Cairo, in ancient times the chief centre of the sun-worship in Egypt, and full of obelisks dedicated to the sun-god Ra (‘Cleopatra’s needle,’ now on the Thames Embankment, was originally one of these obelisks, erected by Thothmes iii. in front of the temple of the sun-god at On); and the meaning of the passage being that the place which has hitherto been a ‘city of the sun’ will in the future be called the ‘city of destroying,’ i.e. a city devoted to destroying the temples and emblems of the sun (cf. Jer_43:13). [The LXX [Note: Septuagint.] have polis hasedek, i.e. ‘city of righteousness,’ a reading which is open to the suspicion of being an alteration based on 1:26.]
To some scholars, however, this explanation appears artificial; and the question is further complicated by historical considerations. The high priest Onias iii., after his deposition by Antiochus Epiphanes in b.c. 175 (2Ma_4:7-9), despairing of better times in Judah, sought refuge in Egypt with Ptolemy Philometor; and conceived the idea of building there a temple dedicated to J″ [Note: Jahweh.] , in which the ancient rites of his people might be carried on without molestation, and which might form a religions centre for the Jews settled in Egypt. Ptolemy granted him a site at Leontopolis, in the ‘nome,’ or district, of Heliopolis; and there Onias erected his temple (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] BJ. I. i. 1, Ant. XIII. iii. 1–3, and elsewhere; Ewald, Hist. v. 355 f.),—not improbably at Tell el-Yahudiyeh, about 10 m. N. of Heliopolis, near which there are remains of a Jewish necropolis (Naville, The Mound of the Jew and the City of Onias, pp. 18–20). In support of his plan, Onias had pointed to Isa_19:18 and its context as a prediction that a temple to J″ [Note: Jahweh.] was to be built in Egypt (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] Ant. XIII. iii. 1 end). These facts have indeed no bearing on Isa_19:18, supposing the passage to be really Isaiah’s; but many modern scholars are of opinion that Isa_19:16-25 (Isa 18:16–25) are not Isaiah’s, and even those who do not go so far as this would be ready to grant that Isa_19:18 b (from ‘one shall be called’) might be a later addition to the original text of Isaiah.
The following are the chief views taken by those who hold that this clause (with or without its context) is not Isaiah’s. (1) Duhm and Marti render boldly ‘shall be called Lion-city (or Leontopolis),’ explaining heres from the Arab [Note: Arabic.] , haris, properly the bruiser, crusher, a poetical name for a lion. But that a very special and fig. application of an Arab. [Note: Arabic.] root, not occurring in Heb. even in its usual Arabic sense, should be found in Heb. is not probable. (2) Dillmann, while accepting the prophecy as a whole as Isaiah’s, threw out the suggestion that Isa_19:18 b was added after the temple of Onias was built, cheres, ‘sun’ (so Symm., Vulg. [Note: Vulgate.] , and some Heb. MSS), being the original reading, which was altered afterwards by the Jews of Palestine into heres, ‘destruction,’ in order to obtain a condemnation of the Egyptian temple, and by the Jews of Egypt into tsedek, ‘righteousness’ (LXX [Note: Septuagint.] ), in order to make the prophecy more diatioctly favourable to it. (3) Cheyne (Introd. to Is. pp. 102–110) and Skinner, understanding Isa_19:18 (‘there shall be five cities,’ etc.), not (as is dooe upon the ordinary view) of the conversion of Egyp. cities to the worship of J″ [Note: Jahweh.] , but of Jewish colonies in Egyp. maintaining their national language and religion, suppose Isa_19:16-25 to have been written in the latter years of the first Ptolemy (Lagi), c [Note: circa, about.] . b.c. 290, when there were undoubtedly many Jewish settlements in Egypt: the original reading, these scholars suppose with Dillmann, was ‘city of the sun,’ the meaning being that one of these colonies, preserving loyally the faith of their fathers, should flourish even in Heliopolis, the city of the sun-god; the reading was altered afterwards, when the Jews of Palestine began to show hostility towards the Egyptian temple, by the Jews of Egypt into ‘city of righteousness’ (LXX [Note: Septuagint.] ), and then further, by the Jews of Palestine, as a counter-blow, into ‘city of destruction’ (Heb. text).
It may be doubted whether there are sufficient reasons for departing from the ordinary explanation of the passage.
S. R. Driver.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

"The city of destruction" (Isa_19:18). Smitten with "terror" at Jehovah's judgments, Egypt shall be converted to Him. "Five cities shall speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts." Some think the five are Heliopolis, Leontopolis, Migdol, Daphne (Tahpanhes), and Memphis. Leontopolis is perhaps "the city of destruction," so-called in disparagement, because here Onias, who had failed to get the high priesthood at Jerusalem, built a temple in rivalry of that at Jerusalem which was the only lawful one. Onias read "city of the sun" (ha-heres), i.e. On or Heliopolis, in the nome (prefecture) of which he persuaded Ptolemy Philometer (149 B.C.) to let him build the temple, in order to tempt the Jews to reside there. He alleged that this site was foreappointed by Isaiah's prophecy 600 years before.
So 16 manuscripts, also Vulgate. The conversion (through the Jewish settlement in Egypt and the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament) of many Ethiopians to the God of the Jews (Act_2:6; Act_2:10-11), e.g. Queen Candace's chamberlain whom Philip met on his return from worshipping at Jerusalem, is an earnest of a fuller conversion to come (Zep_3:9; Zec_14:9; Rev_7:9). The "altar" and "pillar" foretold (Isa_19:19-20) are memorial and spiritual (Jos_22:22-26; Gen_28:18; Mal_1:11); for one only sacrificial altar was lawful, namely, that at Jerusalem. Alexander the Great, the temporal "saviour" of Egypt from the Persians, was a type of the true Saviour. Onion, a Jewish city in Egypt, is supposed in Smith's Bible Dictionary to be "the city of destruction"; its destruction by Titus being thus foretold.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

ir-ha-hē?rez (עיר ההרס, ‛ı̄r ha-hereṣ, according to the Massoretic Text, Aquila, Theodotion, Septuagint, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American); according to some Hebrew manuscripts, Symmachus, and the Vulgate, עיר החרס, ̇‛ı̄r ha-ḥereṣ): A city of Egypt referred to in Isa_19:18. Jewish quarrels concerning the temple which Onias built in Egypt have most probably been responsible for the altering of the texts of some of the early manuscripts, and it is not now possible to determine absolutely which have been altered and which accord with the original. This difference in manuscripts gives rise to different opinions among authorities here to be noted. Most of the discussion of this name arises from this uncertainty and is hence rather profitless.
The starting-point of any proper discussion of Ir-ha-h is that the words are by Isaiah and that they are prophecy, predictive prophecy. They belong to that portion of the prophecies of Isaiah which by nearly all critics is allowed to the great prophet. Nothing but unfounded speculation or an unwillingness to admit that there is any predictive prophecy can call in question Isaiah's authorship of these words. Then the sense of the passage in which these words occur imperatively demands that they be accounted predictive prophecy. Isaiah plainly refers to the future, ?shall be called?; and makes a definite statement concerning what shall take place in the future (Isa_19:18-24). The reality of predictive prophecy may be discussed by those so inclined, but that the intention of the author here was to utter predictive prophecy does not seem to be open to question. For the verification of this prediction by its fulfillment in history we shall inquire concerning: (1) The times intended: ?that day?; (2) The ?five cities?; (3) ?Ir-ha-heres.?
1. The Times Intended: ?That Day?
The prophet gives a fairly specific description of ?that day.? It was at least to begin when ?there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan, and swear to Yahweh of hosts? (Isa_19:18), and ?In that day shall there be an altar to Yahweh in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to Yahweh? (Isa_19:19). There was to be also some inroad made upon the heathenism of Egypt by the message of the Lord (Isa_19:21 f), and about that time a deliverer should arise in Egypt (Isa_19:20), and all this should take place before the power of the land of Assyria should pass away (Isa_19:23 f) .
2. The ?Five Cities?
The first historical fulfillment of these words is found at the period when Onias built his imitation of the Temple of Jerusalem at the place called by the Greeks Leontopolis (Tell el-Yehudiyeh), and the worship of Yahweh was set up at Elephantine, and the Jews were a great power at Alexandria and at Tahpanhes. While any of these latter three might have contained the ?pillar,? the ?altar? would thus be either at Leontopolis or the other one of the ?five cities? which cannot be named with much probability. The great deliverer would seem to be Alexander. Some think that the conversion of the Egyptians indicated in Isa_19:21, Isa_19:22 is furthered, though still not completed, in the Christian invasion of the 1st century, and again in the success of modern Christian missions in Egypt.
3. ?Ir-ha-heres?
It will be seen that it does not follow from what has been said that Leontopolis was Ir-ha-h as some seem to think. It is not said by the prophet that the place where was the ?altar? was called Ir-ha-h, even if it were certain that the altar was at Leontopolis. Nevertheless, Leontopolis may be Ir-ha-h. The problem is not in the first place the identification of the name, but the determination of which one of the ?five cities? was destroyed. The expression ?shall be called the city of destruction? seems clearly to indicate that Ir-ha-h is not a name at all, but merely a descriptive appellation of that city which should ?be destroyed.? It still remains to inquire whether or not this was an independent appellation, or whether, more probably, it bore some relation to the name of that city at the time at which the prophet wrote, a play upon the sound, or the significance of the name or both of these, either through resemblance or contrast. If Gesenius is right, as he seems to be, in the opinion that ?in the idiom of Isa Ir-ha-h means simply 'the city that shall be destroyed,'? then the original problem of finding which one of the cities was destroyed seems to be the whole problem. Still, in the highly-wrought language of Isaiah and according to the genius of the Hebrew tongue, there is probably a play upon words. It is here that the consideration of the name itself properly comes in and probably guides us rightly. Speculation, by Gesenius, Duhm, Cheyne and others, has proposed various different readings of this name, some of them requiring two or three changes in the text to bring it to its present state. Speculation can always propose readings. On was sometimes called ?Heres? and meant ?house of the sun,? which would be both translated and transliterated into Hebrew ha-ḥereṣ and might have ‛ı̄r (?city?) prefixed. Naville, through his study of the great Harris papyrus, believed that the old Egyptian city which later was called Leontopolis (Tell el-Yehudiyeh) was immediately connected with On and called ?House of Ra,? also ?House of the Sun.? Thus, this name might be both transliterated and translated into the Hebrew ha-ḥereṣ and have ‛ı̄r prefixed. The difference between this expression and ?Ir-ha-h? which Isaiah used is only the difference between ?h? and ?ch.? So that Ir-ha-h is most probably a predictive prophecy concerning the disaster that was to overtake one of the ?five cities,? with a play upon the name of the city, and that city is either On, the later Heliopolis, or the ancient sacred city about 4 miles to the North of On, where Onias was to build his temple and which later became Leontopolis (Tell-el-Yehudiyeh). No more positive identification of Ir-ha-h is yet possible.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

Ir-ha-Heres
in the A. Vers. “THE CITY OF DESTRUCTION” (עַיר הִהֶרֶס, Ir-ha- he'res, v.r. Ir-ha-che'res, עַיר הִחֶרֶס; Sept. Α᾿χερές, Vulg. Civitas Solis), the name or appellation of a city in Egypt, mentioned only in Isa_19:18. The reading הֶרֶס, Heres, is that of most MSS., the Syr., Aq., and Theod.; the other reading, חֶרֶס, Cheres, is supported by the Sept., but only in form, by Symm., who has πόλις ἡλίου, and the Vulg. Gesenius (Thesaur. p. 391, a; 522) prefers the latter reading. There are various explanations; we shall first take those that treat it as a proper name, then those that suppose it to be an appellation used by the prophet to denote the future of the city.
1. “The city of the Sun,” a translation of the Egyptian sacred name of Heliopolis, generally called in the Bible On, the Hebrew form of its civil name AN, SEE ON, and once Beth-shemesh, “the house of the sune” (Jer_43:13), a more literal translation than this supposed one of the sacred name. SEE BETH-SHEMESH. This explanation, however, is highly improbable, for we find elsewhere both the sacred and the civil names of Heliopolis, so that a third name, merely a variety of the Hebrew rendering of the sacred name, is very unlikely. The name Beth-shemesh is, moreover, a more literal translation in its first word of the Egyptian name than this supposed one. It may be remarked, however, as to the last part of the word, that one of the towns in Palestine called Beth-shemesh, a town of the Levites on the borders of Judah and Dan, was not far from a Mount Heres, הִראּחֶרֶס(Jdg_1:35), so that the two names, as applied to the sun as an object of worship, might probably be interchangeable. SEE HERES.
2. “The city ‘Heres,” a transcription in the last part of the word of the Egyptian sacred name of Heliopolis, HA-RA, “the abode (liter. “house”) of the sun.” This explanation, however, would necessitate the omission of the article.
3. Jerome supposes חרסto be equivalent to חרש, “a potsherd,” and to be a name of the town called by the Greeks Ostracine, Ο᾿στρακινη (‘earthen”). Akin with this is the view of others (see Alexander ad loc.), who suppose that reference is made to Tacpanes, the brick-kilns of which are mentioned by Jer_43:9.
4. “A city preserved,” meaning that one of the five cities mentioned should be preserved. Gesenius, who proposes this construction, if the last half of the word be not part of the name of the place, compares the Arabic charasa, “he guarded, kept, preserved,” etc. It may be remarked that the word HERES or HRES, in ancient Egyptian, probably signifies “a guardian.” This rendering of Gesenius is, however, merely conjectural, and has hardly been adopted by any other leading interpreter.
5. The ordinary rendering, “a city destroyed,” lit. “a city of destruction;” in the A.V. “the city of destruction,” meaning that one of the five cities mentioned should be destroyed, according to Isaiah's idiom. Some maintain that the prophet refers to five great and noted cities of Egypt when he says, “In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan;” but they cannot agree as to what these cities are. Others suppose that by five a round number is meant; while others think that some proportional number is referred to-five out of 20,000, or five out of 1000.
Calvin interprets the passage as meaning five out of six-five professing the true religion, and one rejecting it; and that one is hence called “City of destruction,” which is not its proper name, but a description indicative of its doom. Egypt and Ethiopia were then either under a joint rule or under an Ethiopian sovereign. We can, therefore, understand the connection of the three subjects comprised in this and the adjoining chapters. Chap. 18 is a prophecy against the Ethiopians, 19 is the Burden of Egypt, and 20, delivered in the year of the capture of Ashdod by Tartan, the general of Sargon, predicts the leading captive of the Egyptians and Ethiopians, probably the garrison of that great stronghold. as a warning to the Israelites who trusted in them for aid. Chap. 18 ends with an indication of the time to which it refers, speaking of the Ethiopians-as we understand the passage-as sending “a present” “to the place of the name of the Lord of hosts, the Mount Zion” (Isa_18:7). If this be taken in a proper and not a tropical sense, it would refer to the conversion of Ethiopians by the preaching of the law while the Temple yet stood. That such had been the case before the Gospel was preached is evident from the instance of the eunuch of queen Candace, whom Philip met on his return homeward from worshipping at Jerusalem, and converted to Christianity (Act_8:26-39).
The Burden of Egypt seems to point to the times of the Persian and Greek dominions over that country. The civil war agrees with the troubles of the Dodecarchy, then we read of a time of bitter oppression by “a cruel lord and [or “even”] a fierce king,” probably pointing to the Persian conquests and rule, and specially to Cambyses, or Cambyses and Ochus, and then of the drying of the sea (the Red Sea; compare Isa_11:15), and the river, and canals, of the destruction of the water-plants, and of the misery of the fishers and workers in linen. The princes and counselors are to lose their wisdom and the people to be filled with fear, all which calamities seem td have begun in the desolation of the Persian rule.
It is not easy to understand what follows as to the dread of the land of Judah which the Egyptians should feel, immediately preceding the mention of the subject of the article: “In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts; one shall be called Ir- ha-heres. In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they shall cry unto the Lord because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a savior, and a great one, and he shall deliver them” (Isa_19:18-20).
The partial or entire conversion of Egypt is prophesied in the next two verses (Isa_19:21-22). The time of the Greek dominion, following the Persian rule, may here be pointed to. There was then a great influx of Jewish settlers, and as we know of a Jewish town, Onion, and a great Jewish population at Alexandria, we may suppose that there were other large settlements. These would “speak the language of Canaan,” at first literally, afterwards in their retaining the religion and customs of their fathers. The altar would well correspond to the temple built by Onias; the pillar, to the synagogue of Alexandria, the latter on the northern and western borders of Egypt. In this case Alexander would be the deliverer. We do not know, however, that at this period there was any recognition of the true God on the part of the Egyptians. If the prophecy is to be understood in a proper sense, we can, however, see no other time to which it applies and must suppose that Ir-ha- heres was one of the cities partly or wholly inhabited by the Jews in Egypt: of these, Onion was the most important, and to it the rendering, “One shall be called a city of destruction,” would apply, since it was destroyed by Titus, while Alexandria, and perhaps the other cities, yet stand. If the prophecy is to be taken tropically, the best reading and rendering are matters of verbal criticism. SEE ISAIAH.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores