Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Antonio Garcia <garcia.secretariagh.antonio1 AT gmail.com>]

       Hi Stinehart:

       I wrote a short note in a spanish numismatic forum, about the word
"mered", and there are some ancient hebrew coins that used the palm three.

http://colecciones.fororama.com/lectura-hebrea-de-las-monedas-antiguas-f65/armenia-capta-dat-qadah-dapa-sa-mered-t649.htm


       Regards,

Antonio Garcia Hurtado





2010/10/14 <JimStinehart AT aol.com>

>  Antonio Garcia Hurtado:
>
>
>
> Thank you for letting us know about your article.  Although my Spanish is 
> not so good, I notice with approval that your article mentions the 
> following three Biblical Hebrew words as having the root TMR:
>
>
>
> 1.  TMRWRYM, meaning “milepost” or “signals”.  That’s Jeremiah 31: 21.  But 
> that’s not the meaning of TMR at Genesis 14: 7.
>
>
>
> 2.  TMaRWRYM, meaning “bitterness”.  Yes, the world-famous cedars of 
> Lebanon were definitely “bitter”.  Their resin was used for mummification 
> by the Egyptians, cedar is very bitter, and cooking over cedarwood gives 
> food a bitter flavor.  The linguistic Hebrew root there is MR, an adjective 
> meaning “bitter”.  That’s the Hebrew meaning I see at Genesis 14: 7, 
> buttressed by tmr in Ugaritic meaning “fortify” or “to strengthen”.  The 
> two key characteristics of the magnificent, world-famous cedars of Lebanon 
> were precisely that they were a very “strong” tree whose fruit/resin is 
> very “bitter”.
>
>
>
> 3.  TMRWQ, meaning “scour”.  That’s at Proverbs 20: 30, and the root, once 
> again, does not include the initial T, but rather is:  MRQ.
>
>
>
> (I am translating your definitions by computer, so my translations of your 
> Spanish definitions may not be fully accurate.  But I think they’re in the 
> ballpark.  On the other hand, other than noting the above three words in 
> your article, my Spanish is not nearly good enough for me to read the rest 
> of your article.  So I am not in this post commenting on what your article 
> says [or claiming that your article supports my own view of TMR at Genesis 
> 14: 7], other than to note the above three Hebrew words that your article 
> references regarding TMR.)
>
>
>
> Thanks for the reference to your article.  I myself see TMR at Genesis 14: 
> 7 as being #2 above.  In my own opinion, the meaning “date palm tree” did 
> not evolve in Hebrew for this word until the 1st millennium BCE, centuries 
> after the composition of Genesis 14: 7.  The likely evolution of such 
> meaning was as follows:  time #1:  “ strong, bitter tree, namely the cedars 
> of Lebanon”;  time #2:  “any tall, elegant tree like the cedars of Lebanon, 
> including for example the date palm tree”;  time #3:  “date palm tree”.  
> It’s a logical progression, but note that the later meaning, meaning #3, 
> bears little relationship to the original, Late Bronze Age meaning, meaning 
> #1, which is “the cedars of Lebanon”.
>
>
>
> Anyway, that’s my theory of the case.  In my opinion, the location of XCC-N 
> at Genesis 14: 7 should not be determined the way university scholars do, 
> on the basis of (i) XCC-WN TMR in the post-exilic, Ezra-era text of II 
> Chronicles 20: 2, which claims a locale on the southwest edge of the Dead 
> Sea;  or (ii) a Roman-era village [even later in time than post-exilic II 
> Chronicles!] southwest of the Dead Sea called “Date Palm Tree”, that is, 
> “Tamar”.  Instead of looking exclusively at sources that post-date the 
> composition of Genesis 14: 7 by a thousand years or so, and assuming in 
> advance of doing any research that the eternal meaning of TMR from day #1 
> was “date palm tree”, why doesn’t any university scholar ever look at the 
> etymology of TMR, and consider the context of the Amarna Letters?  Amarna 
> Letter EA 175 confirms the presence of “Amorites” at “Xasi”/Hasi/XCC-N in 
> the north-central Beqa Valley, a locale that everyone knows was lined with 
> the magnificent cedars of Lebanon, which in my view are the “TMR” of 
> Genesis 14: 7.  In fact, a 15th century BCE Egyptian source calls the Beqa 
> Valley the “Valley of Cedar”.
>
>
>
> The pinpoint historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives would come 
> shining through if we could just get some university scholar out there 
> somewhere to take a glance at Late Bronze Age documents in evaluating this 
> Biblical text, instead of always looking exclusively at post-exilic and 
> later evidence.  We know from Amarna Letter EA 175 that Hittite forces [the 
> forces of Biblical “Tidal”, who is historical Suppiluliuma], temporarily 
> led by a Hurrian princeling [Biblical “Arioch”/Erwi-ka, who is historical 
> Etakkama], were burning down villages near the Amorite enclave at Hasi in 
> the context of the Great Syrian War in the mid-14th century BCE.  The 
> historical facts are quite clear in that regard, as confirmed by Amarna 
> Letter EA 175 (and also supported by Amarna Letters EA 174, EA 176 and EA 
> 363).  We’ve got Late Bronze Age documentation here out the wazzoo.  
> Moreover, Richard Hess, the leading scholar in the world on this issue, 
> confirms that there was an enclave of Amorite princelings at and near Hasi 
> in the mid-14th century BCE, which fits Genesis 14: 7 perfectly.  Now if we 
> could only get some university scholar out there to consider re-evaluating 
> the underlying geography of Genesis 14: 7 on the basis of Late Bronze Age 
> documentation and etymology, instead of always relying exclusively on 
> post-exilic and later sources [such as II Chronicles 20: 2] from a thousand 
> years or so after the fact.
>
>
>
> Well, I can dream, can’t I?
>
>
>
> Jim Stinehart
>
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>


-- 
http://hebreoiberico.blogspot.com/
http://numismticahebreahispana.blogspot.com/
http://europehebrewcoinage.blogspot.com/
http://blistershistory.blogspot.com/