Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] El-Paran

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com, George.Athas AT moore.edu.au
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] El-Paran
  • Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 10:17:54 EDT


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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page