What the readings change

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads dakkā’a (“level [to the ground]”) with a hamza.

‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr and others read dakkā (“level [to the ground]”).

This verse does not allow the addition of a hamza to the word dakkā (which would result in dakkā’a) in order for it to rhyme with the last word of the verse, or

haqqā (“true”): “…but when his Lord appeared unto the mountain He made it dust, and Moses fell down in a swoon!” (Transliteration: “… fa-lammā tajallā rabbuhu li-al-jabali ja‘alahu dakkān wa kharra mūsa ša‘iqān!”) In fact, the word dakkā’a does not rhyme with the endings of any of the preceding or succeeding verses in the entire sura (Q 18.1-110). However, dakkā without the hamza rhymes perfectly.

As already mentioned, the hamza was introduced by al-Khalīl Ibn Ahmad al-Farāhīdī, along with refined diacritical marks, to improve the writing and reading of Arabic poetry, a century after the death of Muhammad.

Among the various readings, differences resulted from a variety of factors:

Majority reading is ’afahasiba (“did [those who misbelieve] reckon…?”).

Codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd reads ’afažanna (“did they think…?”).

Ibn ‘Abbās, ‘Alī Ibn Abī Ţālib, ‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr, and others read ’afahasbu (“it will not be sufficient for them”), which means “it will not be sufficient for them nor will it benefit them at Allah[’s presence]”.

Ibn Khālawayh mentions another reading: ’afara’aytaka al-ladhīna itakhadhū(ā) min dūnī Aāliha ’ažannū(ā) ‘ibādī lahum ’awliyā’ (“Have I showed you those who took other gods apart from me[?] Did they think that my servants are their patrons[?]”).

It is apparent that this verse has been affected by many types of reading differences as classified by Ibn Qutayba. (See the section Differences in the Readings in the article “Variant Readings of the Qur’ān,).

The difference between the majority reading (’afahasiba: ) and the reading of Ibn ‘Abbās, ‘Alī Ibn Abī Ţālib, Ibn Kathīr, and others (’afahasbu: ) resulted from the lack of diacritical marks in the early Qur’ānic codices. (See Ibn Qutayba’s listing, reading difference #1.)

The difference between the reading in the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd (’afažanna: ) and the one in the ‘Uthmānic codex (’afahasiba: ) is the scripting of the word. This difference confirms that the early scribes of the early Qur’ānic manuscripts resorted to meaningful editing over rote copying in clarifying textual ambiguity. (See Ibn Qutayba’s listing, reading difference #4.)

The difference between the majority reading and the reading mentioned by Ibn Khālawayh concerns different syntax, or word order, as well as the presence (or lack thereof) of some words in the verse. (See Ibn Qutayba’s listing, reading differences #5, 6, and 7.)

Question: With all these variant readings for one verse, how can Islam justify its claim that the Qur’ānic text is unified and inerrant?

Among the various readings, differences in pronoun choice and their related grammatical endings not only highlight the lack of consistency of the Qur’ānic text but substantially affect meaning:

Majority reading is fa-lā nuqīmu lahum…waznan (“we will not give them…weight”) in the first person.

Ibn Mas‘ūd and others read fa-lā yuqīmu lahum…waznan (“he will not give them…weight”) in the third person with Allah as the subject.

‘Ubayd Ibn ‘Umayr read fa-lā yaqūmu lahum…waznan (“no weight will be given them…”).

Mujāhid and others read fa-lā yaqūmu lahum…waznun (“no weight will be given them…”).

Mujāhid also read fa-lā taqūmu lahum…waznun (“do not give them…weight”).

These readings show that the early Qur’ānic readers had freedom to choose their preferred reading, according to their taste and understanding of the verse—a matter that today’s Muslims would condemn, charging such readers with infidelity and corruption of “Allah’s Book”!

Majority reading is midādan…madadan (“ink…help”).

Note: Palmer translation incorrectly uses the word ink in both places. See instead Sher ‘Alī’s translation: “Say, ‘If the ocean became ink for the words of my Lord, surely, the ocean would be exhausted before the words of my Lord came to an end, even though We brought the like thereof as further help’”.

Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ibn ‘Abbās, Mujāhid, and others read madadan…midādan (“help…ink”).

Since the readings of Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ibn ‘Abbās and others align with each other but together conflict with the majority reading regarding these two words (“ink” and “help”), this anomaly suggests that the two words were originally written without the alif al-madd (ا). Confirmation regarding the absence of the alif al-madd in the early Qur’ānic manuscripts can be verified in several extant Qur’ānic manuscripts, such as the Cairo manuscripts, the Topkapi manuscript, and the British manuscript (MS Or. 2165). Without this marking, these two words, ink and help, look the same. However, applying the alif al-madd to the unmarked scripted word will unequivocally make that word ink.

Why was the alif al-madd added to the first word (“ink”) in the current Arabic Qur’ān when it was not written in the early Qur’ānic manuscripts? Was it to confirm the majority reading and to rule out the rest of the readings? The absence of the alif al-madd in the middle of the word in the early Qur’ānic codices raises serious problems. For instance, this absent marking can change a word’s form from singular to plural, such as baģr ( بحر or “sea”) and bihār (بحار or “seas”). As seen in this verse, the absence of this marking can dramatically change a word’s meaning, resulting in both the word midādan, which means “ink,” and madad, which means “supply and aid”.

Majority reading is tanfada (“spent”) in the feminine form.

Note: Palmer’s translation incorrectly uses the word fail in both places. See instead Arberry’s translation: “…the sea would be spent before the words of my Lord are spent….”

Hamza, al-Kisā’ī and others read yanfada (“spent”) in the masculine form, as the subject kalimāt (“words”) is only figuratively feminine.

Ţalha Ibn Mišrif read yuqďā (“to be completed”) in the masculine form.

Codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd reads tuqďā (“to be completed”) in the feminine form.

The different genders in the majority reading (feminine) and the Hamza reading (masculine) can be attributed to the absence of dotting in the early Qur’ānic codices. The reading of Ţalha Ibn Mišrif and Ibn Mas‘ūd’s codex show not only differences in gender but also use words that are marginally synonymous to the majority reading (“spent” vs. “completed,” respectively). Additionally, the words yuqďā and tuqďā are each written differently in the early Qur’ānic codices.

Question: With all these variant readings resulting from the absence of dotting, diacritical marks, and alif al-madd in the early Qur’ānic codices, where is the eloquence, clarity, and even authenticity in the Qur’ānic text?

Among the various readings, this verse has two issues:

Word choice

Majority reading is dhikru (“mention of”) from the word dhikr (“mention”), meaning “this which we recite to you is dhikr.”

Ibn ‘Abbās and Yaģyā Ibn Ya‘mur read dhakkir (“remind of”), where dhakkir is an imperative verb.

The two readings are clearly different. The majority reading is about reciting al-Dhikr, meaning “this [portion] of the Qur’ān being recited is the remembrance of your lord’s mercy”. As mentioned by al-Khaţīb, the reading of Ibn ‘Abbās commands listeners to remind others of Allah’s mercy. This reading thus indicates that the stories of the prophets were known to the masses in this time period, the seventh century AD, in the Quraysh society. The fact that the stories were known is confirmed by the Quraysh’s reply to Muhammad’s claim of prophethood by stating in Q 8.31, “But when our verses were rehearsed to them they said, ‘We have already heard.—If we pleased we could speak like this; verily, this is nothing but tales of those of yore”.

Word origin

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads rahmati (“mercy”).

‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr and others read rahmah (“mercy”) with an h ending, which al-Khaţīb states is “the language of Tai’”.

Others read rahmat (“mercy”) with a t ending, which is “the language of Quraysh”.

In the ‘Uthmānic transcription the word appears as the noun rahmat () with an open t. Al-Khaţīb states that this way of writing the word is according to the language of the Quraysh. However, al-Khaţīb strangely contradicts himself regarding this very point concerning these two languages in another verse. (See the comment on Q 10.33.)

Why didn’t the Qur’ānic text continue in the same dialect (Quraysh), especially when in the same sura, Q 19.21, the word appears as rahma (), as a noun too with a closed t, but written according to the language of Tai’?

Note: In the ‘Uthmānic codex, the calligraphic script of the word determines its meaning and pronunciation. The long t (ت) is always pronounced with a “t” and not an “h” (ه) sound under any circumstance. If one says in Arabic allat, it is understood to be an idol; if one says allah, it is understood to be the Creator. To further complicate matters, the ‘Uthmānic codex does not include dots and diacritical marks to better differentiate letters and words. Before the addition of dotting in the Qur’ān, the closed t (ة) was an h (ه). (See the article “Compilation of the Qur’ān).

Question: Why does the same sura include different dialects? Did Jibrīl bring down the Qur’ān in the dialect of the Quraysh and then mix it with the dialect of Tai’, when the Qur’ān is a book whose followers believe is a miracle in its language and precision?

Among the various readings, differences in wording affect tone and meaning:

Majority reading is khiftu al-mawālīa (“I fear…heirs”), where “heirs” refer to relatives.

‘Uthmān Ibn ‘Affān, Zayd Ibn Thābit, Ibn ‘Abbās, and others read khaffati al-mawālī (“the heirs decreased”).

Al-Ţabarī explains the reason for the fear: “I feared my cousins and my tribe behind me. He [Zechariah] says: After me that they would receive my inheritance”.

Al-Qurţubī reports that Muhammad said, “[W]e, the community of prophets, do not leave any inheritance. What we leave [behind] is for charity”. Al-Qurţubī also reports from Abū Dāwūd, who states that “the scholars are the heirs of the prophets. Indeed the prophets do not leave a dinar or a dirham; they instead leave knowledge for inheritance”.

In fact, the Qur’ān does not mention that the prophet of God, Zechariah, had money that he feared his heirs would inherit. Given what al-Qurţubī reports—that the prophets do not leave inheritance—the subject here is not regarding fear concerning inheritance but his request from God to give him offspring. It follows that the correct reading is not the majority reading but the reading (khaffati al-mawālī) according to ‘Uthmān Ibn ‘Affān, the caliph who compiled the ‘Uthmānic codex, and Zayd Ibn Thābit, the head of the committee that compiled and transcribed this codex. (See the article “Compilation of the Qur’ān).

Question: Why is the majority reading different than the united reading by the caliph ‘Uthmān, who ordered the compilation of the Qur’ān, and his committee leader Zayd as well as Ibn ‘Abbās, Habr al-Umma (“the Erudite of the Nation”)?

Among the various readings, the use of synonyms implies different language origins:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads ‘itiyan (“decrepitude”).

Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ibn ‘Abbās read‘usiyan.

Codex of ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b reads ‘usiyan.

Both words have the same meaning: “to elapse and grow old”. However, the use of synonyms indicates that some of the words in the Qur’ānic text were either in another language, such as Syriac, or they were difficult vocabulary for the second generation of the Companions to understand. So the early readers chose simpler and more common synonyms as more suitable replacements.

Among the various readings, the use of different pronouns regarding the bestower clouds his identity and affects meaning:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads li-’ahaba laki (“to bestow on thee”) with an alif, meaning “I bestow on thee”.

Ibn Mas‘ūd and others read li-yahaba laki (“so that he bestows on thee”) with a y, meaning “he”.

Abū ‘Amr Ibn al-‘Ālā’ read with an n: li-nahaba laki (“so that we bestow on thee”). The n of majesty could refer to Allah alone or the angel and Allah as the ones bestowing.

Some codices read ’amaranī an ’ahaba laki (“he commanded me to grant to you”). Al-Khaţīb writes, “This is how it is mentioned by Abū Ģaīyān, Ibn Khālawayh, and al-Zamakhsharī”. In this reading, the bestower is the angel by an order from Allah.

In the current Arabic Qur’ān reading, the one bestowing is the angel. The second reading by Ibn Mas‘ūd and the others means the one bestowing is Allah. In the third reading, it is not clear who is doing the bestowing. The fourth reading means that the angel is the one bestowing by Allah’s command. Question: How does an angel bestow a child on the Virgin Mary? Is it the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd, where Allah (rather than the angel) is the one bestowing, stronger than the majority reading?

Among the various readings, ambiguity surrounding the addressee’s identity affects meaning:

Majority reading is fanādāhā min taģtihā (“and he called to her from beneath her”).

Ibn ‘Abbās read fanādāhā malākun min taģtihā (“and an angel called her from beneath her”).

‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr, Mujāhid, al-Ģasan al-Bašrī, and others read fanādāhā man taģtahā (“and the one beneath her called to her”). Islamic scholars state that the one beneath her is her son.

Zirr and ‘Alqama read fakhāţabahā (“and he addressed her”) instead of fanādāhā (“and he called to her”).

The majority reading is ambiguous because it does not specify the identity of the person who called Mary. Is it the angel? Or is it her son? However, the reading of Ibn ‘Abbās (“and an angel called her”) clearly shows that the one who called her is the angel. However, his reading differs from the reading of ‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr and others.

Abū Haīyān claims that the reading of Zirr is an “explanatory” reading (which implies that he means a commentative reading) because it is different from the current known Qur’ān. But his claim is incorrect because Zirr’s reading does not provide any interpretation to clarify this verse, because the caller and the speaker are still mysterious.

Among the various readings, differences in wording produce contradictions that affect meaning and clarity:

Majority reading is šawman (“a fast”).

’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b read šawman šamtan (“a fast of silence”).

It is narrated that Anas Ibn Mālik read similarly to ’Ubayy but with a wāw (“and”), as in šawman wa šamtan (“a fast and a silence”).

Codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd reads šamtan (“a silence”).

The majority reading does not clarify whatsoever the relationship between fasting and eating and drinking, and specifically refraining from speaking. As puzzling, the verse states that Allah wants Mary to first “eat and drink,” yet she is then to tell others that she has promised “the Merciful One” to fast and she will not speak—such contradiction in these requests!

The reading of ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b (“a fast of silence”) clarifies that the type of fasting here is fasting from speaking. The reading of Anas Ibn Mālik (“a fast and a silence”) states that Mary was fasting from food and drink and also from speaking. The codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd indicates that she only refrained from speaking.

Consequently, these differences in the readings cause confusion with all these conflicts regarding the verse’s true meaning.

Among the various readings, differences in word phrasing not only affect the verse’s meaning but demonstrate attempts to avoid a major theological debate:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads qawla al-haqqi (“the word of truth”). (Palmer’s translation is inaccurate because it adds the word by, which is not in the Arabic Qur’ān.)

Majority reading is qawlu al-haqqi (“the word of truth”).

Codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd reads qāla al-haqqi (“he said the truth”).

Ibn Mas‘ūd and al-A‘mash read qālu al-aqqi.

Ibn Mas‘ūd read qālu Allāhi al-haqqi.

It is narrated that Ibn Mas‘ūd read qawl al-hāqqi.

Notice the many variant readings by Ibn Mas‘ūd, although, according to Islamic tradition, he had only one codex of the Qur’ān, which contests the credibility of the transfer of these readings. Additionally, the supposed Ibn Mas‘ūd readings (other than his codex) are not translated into English here because they are not translatable: They do not follow conventional Arabic grammatical rules and do not make linguistic sense. Their continued presence in the commentaries despite these problems—especially when such readings are attributed to a highly respected reader like Ibn Mas‘ūd—only lends credence that they are bogus. These false readings seem to be attempts to discredit the authority of the authentic readings of Ibn Mas‘ūd in order to enhance the credibility of the current Arabic Qur’ān readings. (This dubious phenomenon of multiple readings of a single verse is not only attributed to Ibn Mas‘ūd but also other highly regarded Companions, such as ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b and Ibn ‘Abbās.)

The rest of the variant readings give different meanings to the verse as it is stated in the current Arabic Qur’ān (qawla al-ģaqqi or “the word of truth”). Al-Ţabarī states that this reading means “this news which I told you is a word of truth”. The current Arabic Qur’ān reading is weak because it requires interpretation in order to clarify its meaning and demystify it.

The majority reading (qawlu al-ģaqqi or “the word of truth”) presents the understanding that Jesus, son of Mary, is himself the word of truth; in other words, he is the word of God. Al-Rāzī seems to support this interpretation with this clear statement about the verse’s terminology:

...‘Īsā [Jesus] himself is the word of Truth, and that is because the Truth is the name of God, and so there is no difference between saying “‘Īsā, the word of God” and saying “‘Īsā, the word of Truth”.

However, the reading according to Ibn Mas‘ūd’s codex does not define Jesus as the word of God; rather, it states that Jesus is the one who speaks the truth.

Islamic scholars have tried hard to interpret this phrase using multiple readings to avoid theological pitfalls concerning the divinity of Jesus. Perhaps the variant readings attributed to Ibn Mas‘ūd are the biggest proof of these attempts.

Among the various readings, differences in word choice affect clarity:

Current Arabic Qur’ān reads ’ahlahu (“his people”). The word ’ahlahu could mean his household or family, as this word is used in Q 38.43 and Q 51.26. It could also be understood to mean its people, as in Q 2.126 (Pickthall trans. “…bestow upon its people…”).

Ibn Mas‘ūd read qawmahu (“his people”) and refers to his tribe, Jarhuma.

Since the verse that precedes this one refers to Ishmael as a messenger and a prophet whose message was not limited to his household alone, the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd is clearer and more eloquent than the current Arabic Qur’ān reading

Among the various readings, the absence of dotting and hamzas affect word meaning:

Majority reading is ri’yān (“appearance”) with a hamza.

Ibn ‘Abbās and others read ziyān (“attire”). This reading’s meaning refers to something tangible.

Several readings for this verse include an initial consonant r:

Al-Zahrī and others read riyān without a hamza.

Abū Bakr and others read ry’ān with a hamza and the y transposed.

Ibn ‘Abbās, Sa‘īd Ibn Jubayr, and others read riyyān with a y instead of a hamza.

It has also been read riyā’ with the hamza at the end of the word.

With the exception of the first Ibn ‘Abbās reading, all these word variations refer to the abstract meaning of the word and are concerned with affluence and luxury.

The majority reading for this verse is ambiguous because it compares the physical athāthan, which means furniture (Palmer trans. “property”), with the abstract ri’yān, which refers to the appearance of the previous nations that were destroyed by Allah.

To determine which reading is the clearest among the mentioned readings and which word best reflects the physical meaning, one must look at Q 19.73: “…‘Which of the two parties is best placed [in the best place] and in the best company”? The “place” refers to the place of residence, or the home. The word translated as “company” is nadiyān, which refers to the sitting place. Since the topic is about a house and a sitting place, then the comparison is between these two groups: the misbelievers and those whom Allah had destroyed before them. Based on this comparison, then the intention of verse 74 is about the furniture of the house and the attire of those at the sitting place.

Still, the comparison here is about misbelievers whose belongings, furniture, and attire are physical possessions. Even if one was to accept the majority reading, meaning that this verse has to do with the appearance (rather than the attire) of the ones who perished, the misbelievers’ good appearance concerns tangible adornment—their clothes and jewelry.

Even though al-Ţabarī states the interpretation of Ibn ‘Abbās’s reading (ziyān) is correct, he objects that this reading does not agree with the reading of the great majority of readers. However, al-Rāzī supports Ibn ‘Abbās’s reading: “…with a z that is dotted on top [in the Arabic script], ziyān, which comes from the plural al-zay…the meaning is better than these [other readings]”.

Among the various readings, lack of details affects clarity and meaning:

Majority reading is yaqūlu (“he says”).

Codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd reads‘indahu (“he has”) instead and includes lā māla lahu wa lā walad (“he has no money and no child”) at the end of the verse.

Most of the Islamic sources indicate that this verse was given regarding al-‘Ās Ibn Wā’il, and that the phrase “we will make him inherit what he says” refers to this man’s money and children. Ibn ‘Abbās reports that this al-‘Ās Ibn Wā’il is the “childless” one mentioned in Q 108.3. Based on Q 108.3 and Q 19.77, Islamic commentators state that al-‘Ās Ibn Wā’il had neither children nor money. The fact that al-‘Ās was indebted to Khabāb Ibn al-Irth supports the notion that al-‘Ās did not have money.

Question: What does Allah inherit (or take back) from al-‘Ās Ibn Wā’il if the latter had no money and no children?

The majority reading speaks of taking back from al-‘Ās Ibn Wā’il what he wished for—money and children. On the other hand, the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd means that Allah would take back from al-‘Ās Ibn Wā’il whatever al-‘Ās had, whether it was little or much. Since it is said that he had neither money nor children, the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd is stronger and more logical.

In this verse the sky is described as a physically solid roof that can be broken apart: “The heavens well-nigh burst asunder there at….” Both the majority reading (takādu al-samāwātu yatafaţţarna) and a variant reading attributed to Ibn Mas‘ūd (yakādu al-samāwātu yatašadda‘na, or “the heavens well-nigh crack”) subscribe to this particular feature of the sky.

This same concept is found in several other Qur’ānic verses, e.g., Q 55.37, Q 82.1, and Q 84.1. Al-Ţabarī confirms this understanding when he states, “…the sky cracks and is cut into sections”.

Question: Is this presentation of the sky scientifically sound? Today’s Muslims repeatedly claim and publicize that the Qur’ān contains hundreds of scientific miracles. (See inset text “I‘jāz al-Qur’ān: The Scientific ‘Miracles’ of the Qur’ān).

Regarding the majority reading of Qur’ān and the ‘Abd Allah Ibn Kathīr reading of Qurān, see the comment on Q 15.1.

Among the various readings, ambiguous expressions affect meaning:

Majority reading is ’akādu ’ukhfīhā (literally means “I almost make it hidden”). Khalifa translates this sentence, “I will keep it almost hidden….”

Codex of ’Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b reads ’akādu’ukhfīhā min nafsī fakayfa ’užhirukum ‘alayhā (“I almost make it hidden from myself, how then would I reveal it to you”) with the part, “from myself, how then would I reveal it to you”.

Codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd reads ’akādu’ukhfīhā min nafsī fakayfa ya‘lamuhā makhlūq (“I almost make it hidden from myself, how then would a created being know it”) with the part, “from myself, how then would a created being know it”.

The majority reading causes such problems in understanding the intended meaning of the verse’s words that al-Qurţubī describes the verse as “a problem verse”. The verse gives one meaning followed by an opposing one. Regarding the troubling phrase, al-Qurţubī presents some of the opinions about its possible meaning:

It is narrated that Sa‘īd Ibn Jubayr read ’akādu ’akhfīhā with the vowel fatģa (/a/ “a” sound in “bat”) on the hamza with the meaning, “I make it appear.”

It is said that the meaning of ’akādu ’ukhfīhā’ is “I almost do that.” For example, if one said, “Zayd almost got up,” then it is possible that he got up or he did not get up. According to al-Qurţubī, the meaning “it is possible that he got up” is a wrong conclusion. The correct conclusion is that “he may get up.” In both instances, the meaning is that “Zayd” did not actually get up yet. Thus, ’akādu ’ukhfīhā means that the hour is apparent and Allah may hide it later.

Al-Rāzī attempts to solve this problem in the verse by explaining the meaning of ’akādu (“I almost”) with these suggestions:

The matter nearly disappears

I hide it/I make it disappear

I want to hide it

I almost hide it (from myself)

The hour is coming, I hide it

I almost remove its disappearance

I almost make it appear

The hour is very near, by pausing after “I almost”

Yet al-Rāzī does not adopt or support any of these possibilities—probably because none of these suggestions solve the problem of the existence of the word ’akādu (“I almost”). He seems to agree, based on his parting comment that “only Allah knows”.

On the other hand, the codex readings of ’Ubayy and Ibn Mas‘ūd decisively declare that Allah hides the hour from his creations. Their two readings agree with what the Qur’ān states in Q 7.187: “They will ask you about the Hour, for what time it is fixed?—say, ‘The knowledge thereof is only with my Lord; none shall manifest it at its time but He; it is heavy in the heavens and the earth, it will not come to you save on a sudden”. Their readings also agree with Q 31.34: “Verily, God, with Him is the knowledge of the Hour”.

Question: Where is the miracle and eloquence in choosing ambiguous expressions, which only create problems for Muslim exegetes in trying to understand and explain their meanings?