Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] What Does "salt sea" Mean at Genesis 14: 3?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] What Does "salt sea" Mean at Genesis 14: 3?
  • Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:20:33 EST


Dave Washburn:

You wrote: “The Bible consistently refers to the Mediterranean as the "Great
Sea," e.g. Num 34:6 HYM HGDWL. See also Josh 1:4 and others. Pardon my
bluntness, but this seems like a no-brainer to me...”

That simply is not true.

1. The Patriarchal narratives refer to the Mediterranean Sea on at least two
occasions, and never use the phrase “great sea”.

(a) At Genesis 49: 3 the Patriarchal narratives refer to the Mediterranean
Sea as “the sea”.

(b) In blessing Joseph at Genesis 49: 25, Jacob refers to “the deep”
/tehom/tav-he-vav-mem/THWM. The Akkadian name “Tiamat”, being the female
primordial
“Salt Sea”, may well be the linguistic basis for THWM in Hebrew. A. Yahuda,
“The Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian” (Oxford, 1933)
We know that in Hebrew tradition, all the oceans of the earth, both on the
ground and below the earth, were viewed as being part of one vast, primordial
Salt Sea: Deuteronomy 5: 7 refers to “the water under the earth”, Psalms
136:
6 refers to “To Him that spread forth the earth above the waters”, and Psalms
24: 2 says: “He hath founded it [the earth] upon the seas…..” To the
Hebrews, the most obvious manifestation of this vast Salt Sea near them was
naturally the Mediterranean Sea. The Hebrews were well aware of the facts
that the
Mediterranean Sea is salt water and is directly connected to the oceans of
the
world. The “real” Salt Sea to the Hebrews was not the Dead Sea, which was an
isolated, harmless lake, but rather was the world’s seething oceans (tehom/“
the deep” at Genesis 49: 25), both above and below ground, of which the
Mediterranean Sea on the west coast of Canaan constituted the most visible
part.

2. You mention Numbers, but in Numbers the Mediterranean Sea is also
referred to simply as “the sea”: Numbers 13: 29.

3. You also mention Joshua, but Joshua in a majority of cases refers to the
Mediterranean Sea as simply “the sea”: Joshua 15: 46; 16: 3, 6, 8; 17: 9,
10; 19: 29.

4. In general, the most common way to refer to the Mediterranean Sea in the
Bible is “the sea”. Only in a minority of cases (though there are a fairly
large number of these cases) is the specific phrase “great sea” used.

With the most common reference to the Mediterranean Sea being “the sea”, we
note Gesenius’ comment that “the sea” is also used in Isaiah to refer to
three other bodies of water as well: at Isaiah 8: 23 it refers to the Sea of
Galilee; at Isaiah 10: 26 it refers to the Red Sea; and at Isaiah 16: 8 it
refers to the Dead Sea.

5. Most importantly, the Patriarchal narratives refer to the Mediterranean
Sea at least twice, and never use the phrase “great sea”. Accordingly, the
fact that Genesis 14: 3 does not use the phrase “great sea” does not mean
that
the Mediterranean Sea is not the intended reference.

Rather, the only legitimate way to approach this question is to examine the
context in which “salt sea” is used at Genesis 14: 3. The immediate context
is “Valley of Fields”, which indicates the Jezreel Valley, the western end of
which is near the Mediterranean Sea. There is no “valley of fields” near the
Dead Sea. &DYM is an archaic plural of “field”, and means “fields”. &DYM
is not an unknown variant of &YD, meaning “lime”. Why would four mighty
invading rulers attack a “valley of lime”? That makes no sense. Rather, the
attacking rulers naturally target Canaan’s most valuable land, the “valley of
fields”/Valley of Siddim/Jezreel Valley.

The overall context is a big battle for Canaan. The most likely spot for a
big battle for Canaan is obviously Megiddo, on the western end of the Jezreel
Valley near the Mediterranean Sea. That is where Egyptian pharaoh Thutmosis
III defeated the ruler of Qadesh on the Orontes in the mid-15th century BCE.
By
contrast, no invaders of Canaan would go to the southeast coast of the Dead
Sea. Why bypass the most valuable part of Canaan, the wondrous grain-growing
fields of the Jezreel Valley and the five wealthy cities there, and go to a
few
oases in no-man’s land southeast of the Dead Sea? Such a scenario makes no
historical sense.

If we look at the context of Genesis 14: 3, we will see that the
Mediterranean Sea, which was the most important salt sea to the Hebrews, is
intended by
the reference there to “salt sea”.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page