Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Yam Suph "Reed" Sea - Seaweed

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Yam Suph "Reed" Sea - Seaweed
  • Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 07:08:25 -0800

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/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page