Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 27/01/2004 06:27, Dave Washburn wrote:

> ...
>
> I wonder if the ancient Hebrews used it as a catch-all term, since they
> probably didn't have the finely-tuned categories (such as phylum) that
> we have today, and perhaps that's what Gesenius' comment reflects?  I
> don't know what he had in mind, but it does seem likely that BH didn't
> split categorical hairs the way we do...
>
>  
Hebrew speakers didn't split categorical hairs, but Gesenius usually 
does, so his apparent equating of sedge and seaweed suggests to me 
either an error or a mistranslation from German to English.

...

> Perhaps "water plants" is a good rendering for it in most references? ...

Agreed, but we need to be a bit more specific than "the sea of water 
plants". Since both the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba are counted 
today as parts of the Red Sea, and the Bitter Lakes were probably 
connected to the Gulf of Suez at the time, I suggest keeping to the 
traditional translation "Red Sea".

By the way, I have seen it suggested that the English name "Red Sea" 
originated as an error for "Reed Sea". But it is clear that the Greeks 
called it the Red Sea (ERUQRA QALASSA), Exodus 13:8 etc. The English 
similarity between "red" and "reed" is coincidental.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/