Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Hi Jim,

tereminthos does not mean Oak tree. It refers to the Pistacia Pelaestina
most likely. Oak is a poor translation that you are likely to find in KJV et
al. Alon means Oak. Tereminthos does not.

As for your opinion that the wilderness of Zin is utter desolation did you
even bother to look at the satellite images I sent you. Seing these oasis
first hand is a completely different experience. You would not believe the
herbs, fruits and vegetables that can be cultivated in these places. Just a
few weeks ago I drank a mint tea made from freshly plucked mint not in an
full scale Oasis but in a 10 square metre plot of a Bedouine family at the
foot of Gebel Musa. The Feran Oasis is by far more impressively cultivated
with flowers of all kinds and colours to be seen. You really are belittling
things that you evidently have not seen. Your description of 'a few lowly
acacias and a few palm trees' is way of the mark. You really should go and
visit these places if you are serious about your theory.

James Christian

On 6 May 2010 17:17, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>  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
>
>