Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

James Christian:
 
You wrote:  “Also I don't know what your source for translation of 
tereminthos is but the Vulgate quite clearly shows an understanding of 
'plains of 
Pharan'.”
 
1.  The first thing that comes up on Google is this:
 
_Male and female in Theophrastus's botanical works_ 
(http://www.springerlink.com/index/H62820421HJ31825.pdf) 
…practice of taking the fruit of what the Greek call the "male" palm and 
... The dioecious terebinths (tereminthos and also terebinthos), having male 
and ...
 
The scholarly article is referenced here:
_http://www.springerlink.com/content/h62820421hj31825/_ 
(http://www.springerlink.com/content/h62820421hj31825/) 
 
2.  It’s the same old problem that the KJV famously has at Genesis 13: 8, 
where )LNY, which is a form of )LWN, is translated by KJV as “plain”.  But 
as Gesenius notes, and I believe most modern translators would basically 
agree, )LWN is “a strong and hardy tree (from the root )WL No. 2), especially 
the oak, as the ancient versions agree.  Gen. 12: 6; 13: 18;  14: 13;  18: 
1….”
  The Blue Letter Bible sees the root as being )YL, one of whose meanings 
is “mighty tree, terebinth”.
 
The first word in El-Paran is )YL.  )LWN at Genesis 13: 8 is closely 
related to both )WL and )YL, with the latter being what we see in El-Paran.  
In 
all cases, the basic meaning is “strong” or “great”.  An oak tree is a “
strong” tree.  A ram is a “strong” animal.  El-Paran is a “Great Desert”.
 
Why the KJV and the Vulgate came up with “plain” is a bit strange.  
Perhaps it’s because that as to Genesis 13: 18, the KJV translators knew that 
the 
city of Hebron, 20 miles south of Jerusalem, is too far south to have oak 
trees.  (In fact, the Patriarchs’ “Hebron” is the Aijalon Valley, which is 
lined by magnificent oak trees.)  Yet at least in modern English, the word “
plain” doesn’t fit the mountainous city of Hebron south of Jerusalem either.
 
But it’s all the same old translators’ problem.  )YL or )WL or )LWN can 
refer to a “big”, “strong” oak tree, but that has nothing to do with a “plain
”.
 
The Greek-speaking Jews of Egypt knew that the Transjordan was “well-wooded”
/Seir.  So why not think of El-Paran as being the “oak trees of Pharan”?
 
But when you and Karl are talking about the “wilderness of Zin”, there are 
no oak trees there.  No matter how much climate change Karl wants to posit, 
the area south of the Dead Sea that was the “wilderness of Zin” could not 
have been a lush area having oak trees.  If it had oak trees, it would not 
be called the “wilderness of Zin”.  And that goes double for the peculiar 
scholarly view that El-Paran somehow means a navigable waterway, the Gulf of 
Aqaba.  Guys, there are no oak trees in the wilderness of Zin or at the Gulf 
of Aqaba!  No way.  The oak trees are, rather, in the “well-wooded” 
Transjordan (and, for that matter, oak trees magnificently line the Aijalon 
Valley, 
while not being present at the city of Hebron 20 miles south of Jerusalem).
 
The Patriarchal narratives have pinpoint accuracy in all of these matters 
of basic topography.  The Septuagint’s mistranslation of El-Paran is at least 
sensible, if not accurate.  But that mistranslation should not lead to 
positing any “well-wooded” Seir as being south of the Dead Sea near the 
wilderness of Zin, or on the desert road to the Gulf of Aqaba either.  There 
are no 
oak trees in the wilderness of Zin or at the Gulf of Aqaba.  If you want 
oak trees, look north to either the Transjordan or the Aijalon Valley.  The 
early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives knows what he’s talking 
about, and he’s not talking nonsense as to basic geographical matters.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois