Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Further,

your explanation of why the Vulgate preferred plain/valley leaves much to be
desired. See Genesis 12:6 and Genesis 13:18 Vulgate translations for a
similar phenomenon. When you think about it (if you've visited any of these
places and are familiar with the lay of the land) it's really quite simple.

In green countries the rivers in valleys generally are visible on the
surface of the ground. In the valleys of the Sinai delta and the Negev the
water (for the most part of the year) flows underground (about 20-30 metres
underground). A good indicator of where the water is is to look for the
trees. They are invariably found in valleys and are highest in concentration
where there is a good flow of water under the ground. This is where the
local Bedouines dig wells and an oasis is born and irrigation systems are
implemented to grow whatever they feel like. Have you ever drunk mint tea
with some Bedouine friends who freshly plucked the mint before your very
eyes for you? I have! Just a few weeks ago in fact at the foot of Mount
Sinai (Gebel Musa) in the Sinai Delta.

And so the connection between valleys and trees is really quite simple if
you know the land and the variation between translations in the Greek and
Latin versions is understandable.

Also, just a few weeks ago I travelled up the Arabah from Eilat at the top
of the Gulf of Aqaba and along the King's Highway up to the Dead Sea on my
way to Jerusalem. Wadi Paran is just to the left of the road. In any case,
the landscape is no where near as barren as you are making out. Compared
with the Sinai it's a jungle. The only parts which are truly barren are
those canyon like parts which gain there curious shape from the floods they
frequently undergo. Obviously, in both the Sinai and Arabah the Acacia trees
are the most common in the uncultivated parts but if you saw the forests of
massive cultivated palm trees I saw not so long ago then maybe your view of
the South of the Dead Sea would be a little different.

James Christian

James Christian

On 6 May 2010 00:59, James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>