Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

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
>>
>>
>