Lexical and Literary Notes (3): “The Distance of Jesus from the Lineage of Īshā” (A Review of Commentators’ and Scholars’ Views on a Verse by Khāqānī)
Document Type : pajoohesh
Author
10.22081/jap.2025.77128
Abstract
This study examines and critiques various interpretations regarding a verse from Khāqānī’s Tarsāʾiyyah (Christian Ode), specifically:
"Be-pākī-ye Maryam az tazwīj-e Yūsuf / Be-dūrī-ye ʿĪsā az peywand-e Īshā/Ashyā/‛Īshā"
In manuscript copies, the last word of this verse is commonly recorded as ‛Īshā or Ashyā, and commentators have diverged in their interpretations. Supporting the arguments of Akbar Ḥeydariyan and Sayyid Jawad Murtazāʾī (2017), I argue that both ‛Īshā and Ashyā are corrupted versions of Īshā. Furthermore, I demonstrate that many explanations provided by scholars—including interpretations such as "worldly attachments," "womb," "‛alaqah" (the embryonic mixture of semen and blood), "a modified form of Īshūʿ or Yashūʿ, meaning the pseudo-Jesus who was crucified," or "the name of a woman whom Jesus (PBUH) was accused of being involved with"—are neither substantiated nor well-reasoned. I also show that the earliest documented occurrence of the word ‛Īshā dates back to the 9th century AH and that Persian lexicographical works originating in the Indian subcontinent played a significant role in promoting this erroneous reading. By analyzing commentaries and lexicons compiled in India, I argue that ‛Īshā is a fabricated lexeme resulting from the corruption of the original Īshā. Among the interpretations proposed, the view of Ḥeydariyan and Murtazāʾī (2017) stands out as the most well-supported and convincing, identifying Īshā as the father of David (PBUH) and, according to the genealogy recorded in the Gospel of Luke, the grandfather of Joseph the Carpenter. Their reading of the verse suggests that in the first hemistich, Khāqānī absolves Mary (PBUH) of marital union with Joseph, thereby negating any paternal relationship between Jesus (PBUH) and Joseph. In the second hemistich, as a continuation of the same thought, he denies any genealogical link between Jesus (PBUH) and Īshā, the father of David and the ancestor of Joseph the Carpenter. In other words, the negation of a paternal lineage between Jesus and Joseph logically implies the absence of any ancestral connection between Jesus and Īshā (i.e., the lineage recorded in the Gospels). Despite its strong evidentiary basis, the argument of Ḥeydariyan and Murtazāʾī has been overlooked due to its convoluted and overly verbose presentation. Finally, while acknowledging their interpretation as plausible, I propose an alternative possibility: Īshā might be a rendering of the Biblical Hebrew term אִשָּׁה , meaning "woman" (specifically a wife or consort). Accordingly, the intended meaning of the hemistich would be: "By the purity of Jesus (PBUH) from any marital bond with a woman or consort."
"Be-pākī-ye Maryam az tazwīj-e Yūsuf / Be-dūrī-ye ʿĪsā az peywand-e Īshā/Ashyā/‛Īshā"
In manuscript copies, the last word of this verse is commonly recorded as ‛Īshā or Ashyā, and commentators have diverged in their interpretations. Supporting the arguments of Akbar Ḥeydariyan and Sayyid Jawad Murtazāʾī (2017), I argue that both ‛Īshā and Ashyā are corrupted versions of Īshā. Furthermore, I demonstrate that many explanations provided by scholars—including interpretations such as "worldly attachments," "womb," "‛alaqah" (the embryonic mixture of semen and blood), "a modified form of Īshūʿ or Yashūʿ, meaning the pseudo-Jesus who was crucified," or "the name of a woman whom Jesus (PBUH) was accused of being involved with"—are neither substantiated nor well-reasoned. I also show that the earliest documented occurrence of the word ‛Īshā dates back to the 9th century AH and that Persian lexicographical works originating in the Indian subcontinent played a significant role in promoting this erroneous reading. By analyzing commentaries and lexicons compiled in India, I argue that ‛Īshā is a fabricated lexeme resulting from the corruption of the original Īshā. Among the interpretations proposed, the view of Ḥeydariyan and Murtazāʾī (2017) stands out as the most well-supported and convincing, identifying Īshā as the father of David (PBUH) and, according to the genealogy recorded in the Gospel of Luke, the grandfather of Joseph the Carpenter. Their reading of the verse suggests that in the first hemistich, Khāqānī absolves Mary (PBUH) of marital union with Joseph, thereby negating any paternal relationship between Jesus (PBUH) and Joseph. In the second hemistich, as a continuation of the same thought, he denies any genealogical link between Jesus (PBUH) and Īshā, the father of David and the ancestor of Joseph the Carpenter. In other words, the negation of a paternal lineage between Jesus and Joseph logically implies the absence of any ancestral connection between Jesus and Īshā (i.e., the lineage recorded in the Gospels). Despite its strong evidentiary basis, the argument of Ḥeydariyan and Murtazāʾī has been overlooked due to its convoluted and overly verbose presentation. Finally, while acknowledging their interpretation as plausible, I propose an alternative possibility: Īshā might be a rendering of the Biblical Hebrew term אִשָּׁה , meaning "woman" (specifically a wife or consort). Accordingly, the intended meaning of the hemistich would be: "By the purity of Jesus (PBUH) from any marital bond with a woman or consort."
Keywords
)