Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 08:08, Peter Kirk wrote:
> 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.

OK, I misunderstood.  Thanks for the clarification.

> >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".

Agreed.

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
Insert clever quote here (or not)