Hi Jim, I think you forgot to change the subject line to Gen 14:3.
Blessings, Jerry Jerry Shepherd Taylor Seminary Edmonton, Alberta [email protected] On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:04 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > > Jerry Shepherd: > > ** ** > > You wrote, concerning Zechariah 9: 10: “ ‘From sea to sea’ probably > refers to the Mediterranean and either of the two arms of the **Red Sea** > .” > > ** ** > > You are interpreting the Hebrew word YM as follows: (i) it means “sea”; (ii) > it may well imply, without necessarily mandating, “Mediterranean Sea” [even > though there is no explicit reference here to the **Great** **Sea**]; and > (iii) it does not mean, at least here, the **Dead Sea**. > > ** ** > > At Zechariah 9: 10, no qualifier is added, so YM also could [at least out > of context] conceivably be referring to a fresh water lake, namely the **Sea > of Galilee**. See Numbers 34: 11, which uses YM to refer to the **Sea of > Galilee**, which is a fresh water lake; there, this identification is > clarified by adding “Chinnereth” after YM. > > ** ** > > If one wanted to limit YM to only salt water seas, thereby excluding the > Sea of Galilee and any other freshwater lakes, but by no means necessarily > excluding the Mediterranean Sea [which is comprised of salt water], then > one might add after YM the phrase: H-MLX, with such phrase meaning “the > salt”. Yes, “sea the-salt” might refer to the Dead Sea, which is a salt > water lake, but “sea the-salt” could also refer to the **Mediterranean Sea > **, which is a salt water sea. > > ** ** > > I interpret YM H-MLX [“sea the-salt”] at Genesis 14: 3 as referring, at > least on one level, to the Mediterranean Sea, and not as necessarily > referring to the **Dead Sea**. Since the **Mediterranean Sea** is a salt > water sea, it could be referenced, if a bit ambiguously, by the Biblical > Hebrew term YM H-MLX/“sea the-salt”. > > ** ** > > The reason for considering that “unorthodox” interpretation of the > intended meaning of YM H-MLX at Genesis 14: 3 is that then the “four kings > against five” [Genesis 14: 9] would match up with exactitude to what is > attested historically, instead of being completely unattested. In Year > 14 [cf. “In the 14th year” at Genesis 14: 5], historically, a coalition > comprised of a king of Ugarit [whose pejorative Patriarchal nickname is > “Chedorlaomer”/KDRL(MR, which in Ugaritic [kdr l ‘mr] means “the line of > kings of Ugarit falls into excrement”], a fearsome Hittite king [who had > gained the Hittite throne by murdering his own older brother named Tidal, > hence the nasty Patriarchal nickname “Tidal”, which in context is > effectively calling mighty Hittite King Suppiluliuma “Murderer”], a Hurrian > princeling [the Hurrian-based Patriarchal nickname “Arioch”], and an > Amorite princeling [the west Semitic Patriarchal nickname “Amraphel”] > totally defeated five Hurrian city-states, which both historically and > Biblically had but four ruling princelings at the time [whose Hurrian-based > Patriarchal nicknames are “Bera”, “Birsha”, “Shinab” and “Shemeber”]. The > exact ethnicity [but not the historical name] of each one of the 9 > historical combatants is accurately represented. So also is the exact > year [Year 14, which is often viewed as being the year of the Second Syrian > War, confirming the Year 12 Hittite conquest of Syria in the Great Syrian > War], and so also is the precise outcome: this coalition of four > attacking rulers historically utterly destroyed the five rebellious > city-states. Historically this happened north of Canaan, in the **Orontes > ** **River** **Valley**, not far from the body of water into which the ** > Orontes** **River** empties: a salt-water sea, the **Mediterranean Sea**. > [Note the reference to **Damascus** at Genesis 14: 15, which suggests **** > Syria**** as the geographical locale of the “four kings against five”.] > > ** ** > > If YM H-MLX/“sea the-salt” at Genesis 14: 3 can possibly be viewed as > implying the Mediterranean Sea, then e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g about Genesis > 14: 1-11 checks out historically. Indeed, the pinpoint accuracy of the > Biblical account of the “four kings against five” is in that event so > stunning that surely the Patriarchal narratives must have been recorded in > writing shortly after the event, in cuneiform writing, about a year or so > after the end of the troubled reign of Egypt’s only monotheistic pharaoh in > the mid-14th century BCE. [As to cuneiform, look again at Genesis 14: 15. > Logically, the reference there must be to “the Obah”, that is H-WBH, being > the historically-attested name of the district of Damascus in the Amarna > Letters, not the otherwise completely inexplicable XWBH that we see in the > received alphabetical text. In cuneiform writing, cuneiform heth stood > for both Hebrew heth/X and Hebrew he/H, so when this Late Bronze Age > cuneiform writing was transformed into alphabetical Hebrew writing for the > first time under King Josiah 700 years later, it’s little surprise that the > intended Hebrew he/H mistakenly came out as Hebrew heth/X here: both > such alphabetical Hebrew letters are rendered by the same cuneiform sign -- > Akkadian heth. This Biblical text, as a written text, is r-e-a-l-l-y > old!] > > ** ** > > Whether the “four kings against five” is historical or not is riding > primarily on the Hebrew linguistics question of whether YM H-MLX/“sea > the-salt” at Genesis 14: 3 could possibly be interpreted as referring to > the Mediterranean Sea, rather than as necessarily referring to the Dead > Sea, as heretofore thought. > > ** ** > > Jim Stinehart > > ****Evanston**, **Illinois******** > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > >
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
