Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] TMR

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Antonio Garcia <garcia.secretariagh.antonio1 AT gmail.com>
  • To: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] TMR
  • Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:58:21 +0200

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/




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page