Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

James Christian:
 
You’re a genius.  With a little help from the Septuagint, we’ve finally 
found the missing third special oak tree of the Patriarchs!  Is this exciting 
or what?
 
The best English translation of the Septuagint’s Genesis is “A New English 
Translation of the Septuagint”, as published by Oxford University Press in 
2009.   Here’s the website:
 
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/01-gen-nets.pdf
 
At Genesis 14: 6, the English translation of the Septuagint is:
 
“terebinth of Pharan”
 
At the end of this post I’ll briefly reference the Vulgate and the KJV 
again, but that’s a minor issue.  What counts is what the original Hebrew 
text 
says, and the Greek text of the Septuagint can sometimes help elucidate that.
 
)YL and )L-WN are alternative words in Hebrew for “oak tree”, or other 
strong tree like a terebinth, and )L-NY is plural, meaning “oak trees”.  
Instead of leaving Paran untranslated, it’s better to translate it:  
“desert”.  
So we’ve finally found the long missing “third tree” at Genesis 14: 6, for 
a total of three special oak trees of the Patriarchs:  Oak Tree of the 
Desert.  The first special oak tree is Amorite Oak Tree #1, at Genesis 12: 6 
at 
Shechem, where both Biblically and per the Amarna Letters, the princeling 
ruler was an Amorite.  The second special oak tree is the grove of Amorite 
Oak 
Trees #2, which as the most important special oak trees are mentioned three 
separate times [in the plural, )L-NY], at Genesis 13: 18, 14: 13 and 18: 1.  
That magnificent grove of oak trees is at the Patriarchs’ Hebron, where 
both Biblically and per the Amarna Letters, the princeling ruler in the area 
was an Amorite.  But there just had to be a third special oak tree.  Now 
we’ve 
found it!  The Oak Tree of the Desert, in the Transjordan, at Genesis 14: 6.
The entire phrase in question at Genesis 14: 6 is “the Oak Tree of the 
Desert, which is at the edge of the wilderness”.  That is, it’s the last 
tall, 
strong tree on the east edge of the Transjordan, before the marginal 
pastureland there gives way to a true desert, the Syro-Arabian Desert.
 
James Christian, I forgive you for all your gratuitous insults.  Your 
citing the Septuagint here at Genesis 14: 6 has led to an important 
discovery.  
Thanks much.
 
Gordon Wenham, one of the top scholarly analysts of the Patriarchal 
narratives, translates this phrase as follows:  “tree of Paran”, in his book “
Genesis 1-15” (1987), at p. 311.  That’s half-right.  Instead of “tree”, it 
should be Oak Tree.  )YL cannot be a palm tree or the lowly acacia.  No, )YL 
is the magnificent oak tree, which is never found south of the Dead Sea.  And 
“Paran” should be translated, so we come out with “Oak Tree of the Desert”
.  That is, the last oak tree near where the desert begins.  (Such a tree 
could not be in the desert.) 
 
A terebinth is a tall, strong tree similar to an oak tree.  The Transjordan 
was full of oak trees in Biblical times.  By stark contrast, there were no 
oak trees at the desolate wilderness of Zin south of the Dead Sea.  
Desolation, thy name is the wilderness of Zin.  There might be acacia or palm 
trees 
or other desert foliage at an oasis in the wilderness of Zin.  But there’s 
no way that you’re going to find a mighty )YL/venerated oak tree in the 
wilderness of Zin or at an oasis there.  No way!
 
The Greek-speaking Jews of Egypt knew that Genesis 14: 6 is referencing the 
well-wooded Transjordan.  “Seir” itself means “well-wooded”, per BDB, 
Gesenius, and the Arabic cognate word meaning “trees”.  There were oak trees 
galore in the Transjordan, though they dramatically thinned out as one 
approached the eastern edge of the Transjordan, near the impenetrable 
Syro-Arabian 
Desert. 
This testimony of the Septuagint is devastating to the view of you and Karl 
that the 4 attacking rulers spent most of their time at Genesis 14: 6-7 at 
the wilderness of Zin, “returning”/$WB to the wilderness of Zin at the 
beginning of Genesis 14: 7.  There cannot possibly be an oak tree or a 
terebinth 
at the wilderness of Zin, which is too far south for that type of tree.  No 
way.  The Greek-speaking Jews of Egypt knew their holy scripture well.  
They rightly knew that Genesis 14: 6 is talking about the well-wooded 
Transjordan, where oak trees abounded in Biblical times.   
 
As to the strange European translations, the Patriarchal narratives were 
composed long before Mosaic law came into being.  So the Patriarchs, unlike 
later Hebrews, were not prevented from venerating special trees.  But perhaps 
the medieval and early modern European translators -- Latin Vulgate and 
English KJV -- did not fully realize that the Patriarchs were not governed by 
Mosaic law.  So retroactively they neatly eliminated for their European 
audience all this seemingly “blasphemous” talk of special oak trees in the 
Hebrew 
text of Genesis, by simply mistranslating the Hebrew words for “oak tree” 
as “plain”.  But the Masoretic Text says what it says, and the Septuagint 
Greek version is a pretty good interpretation of the Hebrew words here at 
Genesis 14: 6 (though I would much prefer to have Paran translated).  And who 
cares about these European language translations anyway?  It’s the Hebrew 
text that counts.
 
Thanks again for leading me to this new insight.  We’ve finally found the 
long-lost third special oak tree of the Patriarchs.  Much appreciated.  (And 
thank you, George, for the one-day extension.  James Christian, George may 
not be happy to see you ridicule the majority university scholarly view that 
El Paran is a navigable waterway, being the Gulf of Aqaba.  Even Gordon 
Wenham himself shares that peculiar scholarly view.  That’s why Prof. Wenham 
carefully avoids a translation of “oak tree”, and instead just says “tree”, 
as I presume Prof. Wenham well knows that there are no oak trees at the Gulf 
of Aqaba.)
 
The world would be a better place if we could get at least one university 
scholar to give the word )YL at Genesis 14: 6 its ordinary meaning:  “oak tree
”.  Given that ordinary meaning, it’s obvious that all of Genesis 14: 6 
takes place in the Transjordan.  In the Transjordan, one finds (i) 
well-wooded 
hill country/HRRM %(YR, (ii) the city and district of Seir/Jazer, (iii) the 
historical Hurrians (Horites), pursuant to all those Hurrian-type name in 
the Transjordan at Amarna Letter EA 197, and (iv) oak trees, per )YL at 
Genesis 14: 6.  After campaigning in the Transjordan, the troops of the 4 
attacking rulers “return”/$WB, that is, return back north to where they 
started 
the military operation, in Ashteroth in the northern Transjordan.  After $WB 
to the Ashteroth area, they then come to QD$, north by northwest of 
Ashteroth, being historical QD$ of Upper Galilee, and then it’s on to the 
Beqa 
Valley, per all those Amarna Letters about Hittite attacks in the Beqa Valley 
in 
Year 14.
 
The unrelenting scholarly attacks on the historicity of the “four kings 
against five” collapse of their own dead weight if we are willing to give )YL 
at Genesis 14: 6 it’s ordinary meaning:  “oak tree”.  There are no oak trees 
at the wilderness of Zin south of the Dead Sea, or at the Gulf of Aqaba.  
But there were oak trees galore in the Transjordan in Biblical times.
 
The key to recovering the historicity of the “four kings against five” is 
to give )YL at Genesis 14: 6 its ordinary meaning:  “oak tree”.  
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois