Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 25:100 (Oct 1868)
Article: The Land Of Moriah
Author: Samuel Wolcott

BSac 25:100 (Oct 1868) p. 765

The Land Of Moriah

Rev. Samuel Wolcott

A question has been raised within a few years respecting the locality designated in the divine direction to Abraham to offer his son Isaac in sacrifice. The command was: “Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah, and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of” (Gen. 22:2).

The name Moriah occurs but in one more passage in the sacred scriptures, and in this it is given as the site of the temple which Solomon built: “Then Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, in mount Moriah, where the Lord appeared unto David his father, in the place that David had prepared in the threshing-floor of Oman the Jebusite” (2 Chron. 3:1).

Is the Mount Moriah in Jerusalem on which the temple stood identical with one of the mountains in the land of Moriah on which Abraham was directed to offer Isaac? Such has been the accepted tradition and current belief. The identity, naturally suggested by the name, does not appear to have been seriously questioned, except by the Samaritans in behalf of Mount Gerizim, which has been rejected by others as the unfounded claim of an interested party.

This discredited claim found, at length, a champion in Professor Stanley, who in his “Sinai and Palestine “gave his reasons for adopting it, and in his later “Lectures on Jewish History,” ventured to assume it as an ascertained and established site. In this claim he has been supported by two eminent contributors to Dr. Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible — Mr. Ffoulkes in the Article “Gerizim,” and Mr. Grove in the Article “Moriah.” These three writers, all versed in Bible

BSac 25:100 (Oct 1868) p. 766

history and in the topography of Palestine, concur in rejecting the claim of Jerusalem, and in maintaining that of Gerizim as the scene of the offering of Isaac by Abraham. This theory could not have a more respectable authorship, nor a more weighty endorsement. But it cannot be established by authority; it must rest on its merits; and we propose to offer our reasons for dissenting from it. The arguments on the two points, which are really distinct, have been naturally blended in the discussion. We will quote them together, as they are given, but in the examination we will separate them as well as we can, and consider each locality by itself. Our quotations from the first writer are from the American edition of his first work above named; and from the other two, from the English edition of the Dictionary. We omit portions of each, to avoid repe...