Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Hi Jim,

perhaps the first major problem is your identification of the Horites with
Hurrians. You simply have no basis to make this identification. The Horites
to the author of the Torah were a people native the mountain of Seir which
were driven out by the Edomites. See Deuteronomy 2:12. We even have an
extensive geneology of Seir and the Horites in Genesis 36. You have no basis
for identifying them with the Hurrians. They are presented as a small people
native to mount Seir which we know beyond a shadow of a doubt to be South of
the Salt Sea (Dead Sea).

the second major problem is your attack on the wilderness of Zin. Where
exactly in all the Aqaba was the wilderness of Zin? Where exactly was Paran
or El Paran? With any degree of certainty we don't really know. All we have
is a sentence saying that they defeated people x, y, z and the Horites in
the mountain/s/their mountain of Seir as far as El Paran.

thirdly, there is a great deal of ambiguity surrounding the phrase El Paran.
As used in the Hebrew text it looks like a proper name with no definite
article. In the LXX we see El translated as a type of tree while Paran is
used as a proper name. To add to the confusion the Vulgate translates with
plain of Paran. The one thing we are sure of is that Paran is in the desert
(MDBR) or at least near it if we follow your literal translation and abandon
the LXX and Vulgate understanding.

Now if we are to use the LXX as a guide to what El means (abandoning a
proper noun interpretation) then we see it as a single turpentine tree of
Paran in the desert. A turpentine tree is the tree in the photo I showed
you. Not a mighty oak! The appearance of single turpentine tree in an oasis
at the end of the Horite territory in or near the desert (MDBR) is not such
a surprising find as you are making out. I've sent you satellite images of
MDBR and an Oasis to compare but you don't seem to be taking them seriously
or interacting with them.

What we do know is we have a Wadi Paran in the Negev that fits the
traditional identification of Seir (via the Edomites) and fits the list of
stops of Moses and co on their journey to Isreal from Mount Sinai. It is
South of Hebron.

Your theories require the relocation of the Edomites, their mount Seir,
Paran, Hebron and just about everything else (did I forget to mention
Qadesh). You even go so far as to suggest that the Salt Sea is the
mediterranean not seeming to realise that this involves the valley of Siddim
being identified with the Mediterranean Sea. And you still don't see the
problems with your theory?!?

In conclusion, we simply don't know how best to translate El Paran and we
don't know exactly where it is. The one thing we do know is that it is
certainly South of the Dead Sea and that it is likely to be associated with
the Paran Valley in the Negev in some way.

James Christian



On 6 May 2010 18:50, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>  James Christian:
>
> Would you please comment specifically on the word )YL at Genesis 14: 6?  No
> matter how lovely the oases south of the Dead Sea may be, the only relevant
> question here is whether or not one would see )YL in the wilderness of Zin
> (or, per the scholarly view, at the Gulf of Aqaba).  The Greek words don't
> matter.  What counts is the Hebrew word )YL.  I have asserted that )YL is an
> oak tree or terebinth, not a palm tree or acacia tree or acacia bush, and
> that )YL does not grow south of the Dead Sea, but rather )YL was abundant in
> the Transjordan in Biblical times.  Even if the Negev were a savannah in the
> Patriarchal Age, per Karl, still one would not see )YL south of the Dead
> Sea, if )YL means "oak tree".  The logical conclusion is that all of Genesis
> 14: 6 is being portrayed as occurring in the Transjordan, north of the Dead
> Sea, where there is )YL, there are Horites/Hurrians, there is well-wooded
> hill country/HRRM %(YR, and the eastern border is an impenetrable
> desert/Paran, just beyond the marginal pastureland/MDBR.  That is to say,
> every aspect of Genesis 14: 6 literally reeks of the Transjordan in the Late
> Bronze Age.  E-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g  fits perfectly.  Why are you so opposed to
> viewing the troops of the 4 attacking rulers as campaigning in the
> Transjordan at Genesis 14: 6?  As I see it, that's what the text says, at
> least if )YL means "oak tree", and oak trees were abundant in the
> Transjordan north of the Dead Sea in Biblical times, while always being
> non-existent south of the Dead Sea.
>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>