Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Hi Jim,

1) please stop harping on about the Gulf of Aqaba. I think just about
everybody who has participated in this discussion thinks that a Gulf of
Aqaba theory is ridiculous. If it makes you feel better write to the
'university scholars' who support such a ridiculous theory and have a go at
them. There is nobody in need of convincing here.

2) I think you must mean pistacia palestina which is related to pistacia
terabinthus and not oak tree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistacia_palaestina

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistacia_palaestina>In any case the reference
to the one tree in LXX is definitely in the singular. Just what exactly you
would find difficult about one Pistacia palaestina being found in an Oasis
is completely beyond me. People live where there is water (underground or
overground). Where there is water there are trees. I can take you to a
number of places in the Sinai delta where you would not believe the fauna
and flora that can grow near an Oasis.

3) We are not entirely sure how to translate this word which it seems likely
could even be a misreading of the Hebrew text. If we are to trust your
Google search then this may have been referring to a palm tree. Fancy that!
A palm tree in a desert oasis! Hardly surprising enough a find to need to
relocate Edom, the Salt Sea and numerous other locations.

James Christian

On 5 May 2010 19:17, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>  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/
>
>
>
> 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
>
>