Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

The exciting thing about Targum Onkelos is that it forces us to examine 
more closely the meaning of the Hebrew words that Onkelos mistranslates or 
misleadingly paraphrases.
 
The best place to start is Genesis 12: 6, which features the Hebrew word 
)LWN.  That Hebrew word, in masculine singular construct, presumably means “
Oak Tree of” or “Terebinth of”.  I am using capital English letters because 
the reference is to a single, specific tree at Shechem.  Here is the Robert 
Alter translation of the Hebrew text of Genesis 12: 6:
 
“And Abram crossed through the land to the site of Shechem, to the 
Terebinth of the Oracle.  The Canaanite was then in the land.”  Genesis 12: 6 
per 
translation by Robert Alter, “Genesis” (1996), p. 51.
 
But Onkelos didn’t like the thought of Abram being associated with a pagan 
sacred tree [a single, notable tree at Shechem], so he mistranslates Genesis 
12: 6 as follows, using the Aramaic word MY$R for the Hebrew word [in the 
singular] )LWN:
 
“And Abram traversed through the land unto the place of Shekim unto the 
plain [MY$R] of Moreh;  and the Kenaanah was then in the land.”
_http://targum.info/onk/Gen12_17.htm_ (http://targum.info/onk/Gen12_17.htm) 
 
As to Genesis 12: 6, though not as to other uses of MY$R elsewhere, the 
reason why Onkelos mistranslated )LWN at Genesis 12: 6 was to avoid a 
possible 
blasphemy:
 
 “Aberbach and Grossfeld (Targum Onkelos to Genesis, on 12.6) explain that 
TO [Targum Onkelos] translates ‘terebinth of Moreh’ as ‘plain of Moreh’ to 
remove Abraham from any association with centers of tree worship.”  
Alexander Sperber, Israel Drazin, “Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy” (1982), p. 
143.
 
[In fact, there’s no real blasphemy here.  Abram is not worshipping a tree. 
 No, Abram has picked out the most magnificent single “oak tree”/)LWN at 
Shechem as the best place to erect an altar to YHWH.  But then, Onkelos was 
not really all that much worried about tree worship in the Patriarchal 
narratives.  As we will see, he had bigger things on his mind.]
 
It’s not surprising that Onkelos would deliberately mistranslate Genesis 
12: 6 and be honored for doing so, as his mistranslation avoids any possible 
blasphemy regarding trees.  But what  i-s  surprising is the mistranslation 
he chose:  “plain” or “valley”.  Why didn’t he use “a wooded area” or 
something like that?  That’s somewhat related to “oak tree”, and would remove 
any potential blasphemy. 
 
As we will come to see, however, Onkelos in fact was brilliant in his 
choice of mistranslation here.  The Aramaic word MY$R is a generic word that 
is 
usually translated either “valley” or “plain”, but it has such a generic, 
ambiguous meaning that it could be applied to virtually any tract of land 
other than a mountaintop.  [Aramaic has at least 24 different words that can 
mean “valley”, in various senses.  MY$R has a less specific meaning than most 
other Aramaic words that can mean “valley” or “plain”.]  Here at Genesis 
12: 6, note that MY$R fits the narrow valley of Shechem perfectly.  The 
valley of Shechem is only about 500 yards wide, and lies between Mounts Ebal 
and 
Gerizim.
 
Both Aramaic and Hebrew have words that mean “broad valley”, which would 
not apply to Shechem.  In particular, I see the Hebrew word (MQ at Genesis 
37: 14 as meaning “broad valley”, and as not fitting Shechem.  I agree with 
Gesenius’ definition of the Hebrew word (MQ:   “a low tract of land of wide 
extent…, fit for corn land (Job 39: 10; Psal. 65: 14; Cant. 2: 1), and 
suited for battlefields (Job 39: 21).”  The direct Aramaic equivalent of (MQ 
is 
the Aramaic word )WLWN, which likewise means “broad valley”.  That Aramaic 
word, like the Hebrew word (MQ, with both such words meaning “broad valley”, 
would fit a true valley like the Ayalon Valley, but it would not fit either 
the narrow valley of Shechem, or the small mountainous valley of the city 
of Hebron in southern hill country that is nestled high up near the top of 
Mount Hebron.  Ignoring Aramaic for a moment, in Biblical Hebrew usage people 
who live in the hills or mountains [HR], such as the people at Shechem or at 
King David’s Hebron in southern hill country, are routinely contrasted with 
people who live in a valley [(MQ], such as people who live in the Ayalon 
Valley:  “…the Syrians have said, The LORD is God of the hills [HRYM], but he 
is not God of the valleys [(MQYM]….”  I Kings 20: 28.  “And the Amorites 
forced the children of Dan into the mountain [H-HR-H]: for they would not 
suffer them to come down to the valley [L-(MQ]”.  Judges 1: 34.  “And the 
LORD 
was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain [H-HR]; 
but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley [H-(MQ], because they 
had chariots of iron.”  Judges 1: 19.  “And the children of Joseph said, The 
hill [H-HR] is not enough for us: and all the Canaanites that dwell in the 
land of the valley [H-(MQ] have chariots of iron, both they who are of 
Bethshean and her towns, and they who are of the valley [B-(MQ] of Jezreel.”  
Joshua 17: 16.
 
King David’s mountainous city of Hebron in southern hill country is 
definitely HR, not (MQ!!!
 
Onkelos knew that King David’s mountainous city of Hebron high up in 
southern hill country doesn’t fit the Hebrew word (MQ [which means a broad, 
true 
valley], so instead of using the Aramaic word )WLWN, note that the Aramaic 
word that Onkelos actually uses at Genesis 12: 6 [and, as we shall later see, 
elsewhere in his translation of the Patriarchal narratives in different 
contexts, such as Genesis 37: 14] is MY$R, which simply means “valley” or 
“plain
”, etc., and does not necessarily entail “a broad valley”.  That Aramaic 
generic word for “valley”, which can also mean “plain”, etc., is so broad 
and ambiguous that it can fit all three locales:  Shechem and Ayalon and King 
David’s Hebron in southern hill country.  We begin to see how clever 
Onkelos is, and why his contemporary audience revered his work.
 
When Onkelos wanted to avoid a potential blasphemy [such as regarding tree 
worship], he never let the Hebrew Masoretic Text slow him down.  But much 
more importantly, and what modern scholars have missed, is that Onkelos 
brilliantly employed the same mindset of not being slowed down by the Hebrew 
Masoretic Text when he wanted to facilitate a Judah-centric re-interpretation 
of 
the geography of the Patriarchal narratives.
 
I understand that people tend to ignore Onkelos today and go right to the 
Hebrew text, and that it’s the Hebrew text that counts.  But what I am trying 
to show is that the longstanding misinterpretation of the Hebrew text of 
Genesis was greatly facilitated by Onkelos’ deliberate mistranslation of 
Genesis 12: 6, and even more so by his truly brilliant and misleading 
paraphrase 
of Genesis 13: 18, 14: 12, 18: 1, and especially Genesis 37: 14.  All 
analysts have bought into Onkelos’ Aramaic re-interpretation of Genesis 37: 
14, to 
the point that what the Hebrew text actually says is almost universally 
ignored.  Here is how Prof. Robert Alter, a leading scholar of Genesis, puts 
it 
at p. 211 of his book on Genesis, concerning Genesis 37: 14:  “14.  the 
valley of Hebron.  The validity of this designation can be defended only 
through ingenious explanation because Hebron stands on a height.”
 
Onkelos was much smarter and more clever than he is usually given credit 
for being.  Yes, his deliberate mistranslation of )LWN at Genesis 12: 6 looks 
a bit ham-handed at first glance, but we will come to see that it was 
essential to his brilliant re-interpretation of the underlying geography of 
the 
Patriarchal narratives by his misleading paraphrasing of Genesis 13: 18, 14: 
12, 18: 1 and especially Genesis 37: 14.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois