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: James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>
  • To: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org, George.Athas AT moore.edu.au
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] El-Paran
  • Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 18:44:47 +0300

Here's a picture of a Terebinth. Please show me in what way it appears to be
a mighty oak tree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elaerezisraelit.jpg

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elaerezisraelit.jpg>James Christian

On 6 May 2010 18:31, James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page