iron in Old Testament

We make also some interesting notices concerning the Birth narrative. Now is found reasonable to comprehend that actually Jesus was born in some stall or shed that was part of the workshop of the Smith, such was the Beth-Lohem. This does not change usual comprehension of the Birth Narrative, except little specifying that the shed or stall probably was part of workshop of Smith; but this is quite interesting detail. The Greek Gospel Mss tradition well writes of the EN FATNE of the place where Mary placed the newborn child Jesus. It is now also worth noticing that in Greek Mss difference of RATNE and FATNE is very small and easily could letter R be changed to letter F by slight stroke by some early copyist or editor; the FATNE noticed cribs and mangers and was more well known to wider Hellenistic Greek speaking audience. Also some early Mss can have written the letter F or R somewhat unclearly so that readers were questioning which of those letters actually there was written; and for fluent Greek speakers apparently it was easier to read more widely known EN FATNE- and this reading became then well established. But for Hebrew speakers such RATNE does have more specific meanings- the RTM Rotem is a species of broom that grows in desert and that was used in form of charcoal (see J 1503); such meaning apparently belongs to doings of SMITHS and their speciality of making coal fire in furnace. Simply stated, to keep the newborn baby warm over the cold night of Judaean mountains, the newborn baby Jesus may have been placed beside extinguished but still nicely warm Rotem furnace. The father Joseph was TEKTOON builder and thus was somewhat acquainted with some professional smiths and thus knew some main tenets of their professional practises; he thus certainly understood that in corner of Smith’s workshop the family could find warm place. We now study one important ritual described in the Old Testament, the Wave Offering, legislated in Lev 23. Importantly we in this legislation notice writing of LHM and writing of the NPH verb. We notice that WHBATM AT YMR RASJT QZJRKM AL HKHN WHNJP AT HYMR LPNJ JHWH LRZNKM MMHRT HSBT JNJPNW HKHN (Leviticus 23:10-11) This is understandable that the congregation is thus commanded to bring Omer of first fruits of harvest to priest, and the priest then HJNP (“waves”) this before God, acceptably; on morning time after Shabbath priest thus JNJPNW (“waves”) that. Thus is approximately this legislation of wave offering comprehensible; and Readers should specially read and ponder the details of the modern Tanakh translation, as this is one important legislation of the Torah. Thus we consider in more detail what is such NPH activity that is so central for this “wave offering”. The consensus of BDB renders TNWPH as “swinging, waving and wave-offering” (BDB 632 quite detailed comments its meaning that “oft. term. techn. in P (H), of rite in which originally the priest lifted his share of offering and waved it, i.e. moved it toward altar and back, in token of its presentation to God and its return by him to the priest”). However, this consensus in BDB 631-632 ALSO tells to Readers that the verb NPH is in Hebrew Bible often written in meaning noticing “swing, wield, wave”, specially “wield, move tool to and fro in using it”; and thus could the NPH notice use of a TOOL over materials, e.g. over stones. Interestingly, Isa 10:15 thus notices wielding a rod SBT (KHNJP SBT WAT MRJMW). Thus we recognise that the legislation of Leviticus 23 concerning “wave-offering” is for current discussion specially interesting because this ritual of “wave offering” is specially legislated with NPH verb that importantly often in Hebrew Bible is recognised (in current consensus) to notice waving some tools. Thus we little more consider what, then, might be such Omer in those Old Testament times; and at the same time we fully remember that this legislation of the Torah is also in current Rabbinical rulings and Talmudic traditions also considered. The consensus of BDB (771) notices two meanings to this Omer. FIRST, the Omer may denote sheafs; and this rendering is followed by the Tanakh translation (and from the day on which you bring the sheaf of elevation offering- the day after the shabbath- you shall count off seven weeks, this rendering in Tanakh the Lev 23:15; and Tanakh rendering Lev 23:10b-11a in words: you shall bring the first sheaf of your harvest to the priest. He shall elevate the sheaf before the Lord for acceptance in your behalf). However, the BDB consensus ALSO recognises that in Old Testament such Omer more specifically notices measures (thus e.g. in Exodus 16), and thus clarifies meaning of Omer referring to Arabic GAMR that can notice small drinking cups and bowls (BDB 771). Thus we can now easily notice that in such ritual of wave offering the priest may have somehow hammered metal cups Omer brought to the priest. It is worth considering that Arabic (AMARA verbs also are in such specific meaning said, to notice reconstructing, restoring and repairing, and in Egypt (AMRA specifically notices repairing and repair works (753); and Arabic Mu(ammar notices someone senior. This Biblical ritual of “wave offering” legislated in Leviticus 23 thus apparently deals with metalwork and that priest somewhat fixed or repaired (or improved) such small cups Omer; and for doing this the priest apparently NPH hammered such metal cups or bowls. This reference to metalwork becomes even more apparent considering the second stage of wave offering, legislated in Leviticus 23:15ff. Seven weeks after the first offering, Israelites are commanded to bring second time: “then you shall bring an offering o new grain to the Lord. You shall bring from your settlements TWO LOAVES OF BREAD AS AN ELEVATION OFFERING” (Lev 23:16b-17a). Importantly, Hebrew writ states here MMWSBTJKM TBJAW LHM TNWPH STJM Importantly, what are specially these LHM TNWPH, the LEHEM TENUFA. Current comprehension describes these as two loaves of bread (lehem) of “wave offering”, thus also is rendered in Tanakh. But now we are noticing that NPH well recognised in Hebrew Bible often notices wielding instruments, and waving instruments, e.g. in metalwork, and the LHM traditionally can notice professional doings of smiths. Thus we notoriously here find in Hebrew Bible apparent legislation concerning BRING TWO HAMMER MOULDED (TNWPH) CUPS, WORKS OF SMITH (LHM participle) Indeed, the Omer that Israelites shall bring probably were small cups or bowls; and priest should somewhat repair (or fix and improve) such Omer cups, with some hammering, in front of Lord; thus is written in Lev 23:10-11. And indeed, this Lev 23:16-17 clearly specifies that Israelites shall in this ritual bring two LEHEM TENUFA, two hammered cups of Smith’s work (LHM). This legislation in Leviticus 23 concerning “wave offering” is very important tradition for understanding of ritual activities, especially rituals of smiths, and importantly, this legislation concerning this religious ritual clearly writes the LHM word with NPH that is widely recognised as designating wielding instruments; thus this mention of LEHEM TENUFA in Lev 23:17 is actually very clear statement where LHM word in Hebrew Bible clearly describes works and production by METALSMITHS. And it is also important to consider meaning of Exod 35:22 stating in Hebrew KL KLJ ZHB WKL AJS ASR HNJP TNWPH ZHB LJHWH Apparently this statement clearly writes of Kelim vessels and utensils, and notices these as TENUFA, especially golden TENUFA vessels; this importantly emphasises writing of TENUFA to notice metal products. Apparently such Hifil HNJP here quite vividly describes such goldsmith produced Kelim vessels TENUFA ZAHAV- and the HNJP vividly describes here the acts of producing by smiths; and visioning and visual observations in these vessels in bowl divination was in those times also one important ritual. We thus also remind that among the legislated rituals also important was the “showbread”, in Hebrew mentioned the LHM HPNJM. We shortly now also notice the importance of the NPH verb denoting practises of wielding instruments and the word TENUFA. Ancient Egyptian document of Papyrus Anastasi I, from the times around 1250 BCE, tells how Egyptian royal messenger had his chariots repaired by iron-smiths in Joppa. Generally scholars comprehend that Egyptian presence in Canaan was increased in period of Nineteenth and Twentieth dynasties, thus appr. 1300BCE onwards; this period is generally comprehended there as Late Bronze Age and beginning of Iron Age, so that such mention of advanced iron work in Palestinian Joppa in Papyrus Anastasi I is one important detail from this ancient period of technological developments. Then important road (Horus Road) led from Eastern Delta towards Gaza, then important Egyptian fort, so that also the geographical detail of mentioning Joppa is quite understandable. And verb NPH in Biblical Hebrew notices wielding instruments. Maybe ancient metalworking of Joppa and Biblical NPH verb are importantly connected, so that Joppa has been repute for their practise of metalwork. Egyptians then had important forts in Gaza, Jaffa, Tel Mor and in north in Beth Shean. This is one important early attestation of iron working in Palestine, in the time of early Iron Age. Egyptian presence in Palestine was importantly doing mining activities; the notoriously large Egyptian TIMNA copper mines South East of Salt Sea have been in archaeological excavations much studied and in scholarly publications much discussed. Some of this abundant Timna copper finds can have been processed then by metal workers of Joppa in the Mediterranean coast. Now we thus notice one important very early attestation of LHM metalworking by smiths in the Book of Judges. Now we find in Judges 5 the word HLM in Hebrew Bible importantly in meaning noticing “hammering”; the HLM is with the letter HE written, and usual scholarly consensus comprehends descriptions of Jael’s doings to notice some “hammering”; Hebrew Bible writes in this archaic poem of Judges 5 the HLM word to describe such doings by Jael. Now this scholarly and churchly wide consensus of so translating the HLM word in this archaic poetry of Old Testament is apparently one truly important motivation that the current study so widely considers the usual Arabic parlance of LHM LAHAMA smith’s professional practises, welding and hammering, being really importantly relevant for some of those numerous LHM mentions in Hebrew Bible. Apparently are the LHM in Hebrew, Arabic LAHAMA and this Hebrew HLM word closely related- and importantly, the wide consensus (scholarly and churchly) does currently and traditionally comprehend that HLM verb in Judges 5 as denoting “hammering”. Thus, referring to the usual Arabic meaning of LAHAMA denoting welding, hammering and smith’s practises here in this study we merely are building upon and little developing the traditional consensus (scholarly and churchly) in translating the HLM in Judges 5! This is apparently very important motivation for thus more considering the LAHAMA verb; and notoriously many Biblical statements thus become revealed being references or descriptions of practises of smiths, welding, hammering etc. Thus we consider now some writings in Judges 5 that notices how Jael smote Sisera Her hand reached for the tent pin (JDH LJTD TSLHNH) Her right for the workmen’s hammer (WJMJNH LHLMWT YMLJM) She struck Sisera, crushed his head (WHLMH SJSRH MHQH RASW) Smashed and pierced his temple (WMHZH WHLPH RQTW) Here is noticed Tanakh translation of this Judges 5:26. This is archaic poem from early times and thus notoriously difficult to render. But in these quoted words is well reflected current scholarly and churchly consensus to render the HLMWT word with “hammer” and verb HLM with “to hammer or to strike with hammer”. (The prosaic narrative of this episode in preceding 4:21 writes quite differently the Hebrew verb TTQY; whereas this poem writes WHLMH). Of course, the HLM word notices in Hebrew Bible also dreams and dream visions; and this is archaic poetry. Difficulties in somehow rendering this to modern Readers is emphasised referring to the Hellenistic Greek renderings, where Mss Vaticanus and Alexandrinus in rendering this Judges 5:26 write quite differently, stating TEEN KHEIRA AUTEES TEEN ARISTERAN EIS PASSALON EKSETEINEN TEEN DEKSIAN AUTEES EIS APOTOMAS KATAKOPTOON KAI APETEMEN SISARA, APETRIPSEN TEEN KEFALEEN AUTOU KAI SUNETHLASEN KAI DIEELASEN TEEN GNATHON AUTOU (Cod. Alexandrinus) The DIEELASEN here notices some use of nails or pegs; notable is here writing of EIS APOTOMAS KATAKOPTOON for the Hebrew HLM word and the following writing of APETEMEN. This could rather describe some forceful use of chisel; the Alexandrinus interestingly writes of the KATAKOPTOON, notably in Egyptian circumstances where Copts were prominent. The we proceed to consider the rendering of Codex Vaticanus that here states KHEIRA AUTEES ARISTERAN EIS PASSALON EKSETEINEN KAI DEKSIAN AUTEES EIS SFURAN KOPIOONTOON KAI ESFUROKOPEESEN SISARA, DIEELOOSEN KEFALEEN AUTOU KAI EPATAKSEN, DIEELOOSEN KROTAFON AUTOU Importantly, Codices Vaticanus and Alexandrinus here write similarly of DIEELOOSEN or DIEELASEN, thus describing piercing with some nail like peg or chisel. But the Codex Vaticanus here clearly writes of the SFURA hammer and doing hammering ESFUROKOPEESEN, whereas the Codex Alexandrinus renders those EIS APOTOMAS and APETEMEN (that notice more use of some chisel- but the SFURA is quite usual designation of “hammer”, thus in Codex Vaticanus). Readers not so often considering studies of ancient Bible translation here find an interesting glimpse to the ancient varieties of rendering Hebrew Bible into Greek. This statement is archaic and quite difficult to translators; and here we follow now the wide scholarly and churchly consensus that here HLM is comprehended to notice “hammer and hammering”. This old poetry being included in Book of Judges that much describes later bronze age and early iron age, such notices of “hammering” HLM in Hebrew Bible are important. This is also importantly compared with the LHM written in this poem in 5:8 that states AZ LHM SYRJM MGN AM JRAH WRMH BARBYJM ALP BJSRAL Tanakh renders this in words: Was there a fighter then in the gates? No shield or spear was seen And another usual modern rendering finds here question if then was war in the gates. Apparently thus the LHM word has been much pondered by the Tanakh translation Committee. Now it is worth noticing that this LOHEM can notice a smith and their important metal products, the shields and spears. Importantly, this is followed by BARBYJM. Normally translations render noticing here forty thousand (forces) of Israel. But now we continue noticing that the Judges 3 specially notices smith JEHUD being Yemenite, thus apparently of Arabic origin and bringing Arabic metal working technologies for deliverance of people. Thus we also here reading this ancient poetry of Judges 5 notice motivated main tenets that: there was LOHEM smith in gates; important products shields and spears are noticed; and this LOHEM is noticed being one of there resident Arabs (BARBYJM); thus this archaic poem of Judges 5:8 notices Arabic metal workers LOHEM there resident and their important products shields and spears; and notoriously, this poem concludes with words ARBYJM SNH that may echo designation of Arabic Sinai area. Second, this archaic poem of Judges 5 is also notably important for discussing early iron production from meteoric iron. We discuss more details of BRD barad meteorites and meteoric iron in the second Chapter of the current study; but commenting this poetry of Judges 5 we already now consider HERE some BRD mentions. Currently is in Hebrew Bible the BRD usually comprehended as “hailstones” that have been raining from heaven (this meaning is currently also in Arabic known); but regarding also those usual Arabic traditions that notice BARAD metal and iron working, we easily comprehend that BARAD or BRD stones often in Hebrew Bible notice meteorites, especially because early iron was produced of meteorites (notably, they yield excellent iron because of their containing iron, nickel and cobalt alloy, material that much resembles alloy for modern steel production! Producing iron alloy with nickel would have required really advanced knowledge of melting technologies and knowledge of appropriate alloy metals, such as nickel. But such alloy was readily present in meteorites and yielded very good iron, or steel). Importantly, in Hebrew Bible BRD word is almost similar with BRK word because of similarity of Dalet and Kaf letters in end of words. Notably, THIS detail appears also in this archaic poetry of Judges 5! This is of course somewhat understandable because times described in the Book of Judges was Early Iron age in Israel; then the metal, its production methods and nomenclature were merely developing there! Judges 5:24 writes TBRK MNSJM JYL and MNSJM BAHL TBRK Usually these are comprehended as pual forms of BRK (bless) verb and thus rendered as noticing that Jael was more blessed than other women there. This writing of TBRK now can have been during millennia of copyists and editors been (un)intentionally confused with BRD; the following statement of 5:26 so clearly here writes of HLM, thus hammering and use of HLMWT device, apparently some hammer. Thus we find here specially motivated to consider here ancient description of production of meteoric BRD BARAD iron, reading that TBRD MNSJM JYL and MNSJM BAHL TBRD Apparently, in that tent, Jael prepared BARAD meteoric iron products with other workers Interestingly, this tent AHL rather seems to be some ancient workshop of early smiths. Also is interesting to read in this poem the Judges 5:19b-20 describing BZY KSP LA LQHW MN SMJM NLHMW Comprehending the LHM noticing LOHEM activities of smiths, this emphasises that smiths were producing of that coming from heavens, the heavenly metal or meteorite iron.

WHERE IS YOUR LOCAL JERUSALEM? IN OLD TESTAMENT “JERUSALEM” OFTEN IS NOUN FOR SAFE HAVENS AND SAFE HARBOURS, NOT NAME OF ONE CITY (VERRE ET BIBLE 15) A Biblical Study of Old Testament, By Pasi K. Pohjala , January 28, 2013 Studying Old Testament statements concerning Jerusalem we first specify precisely the topic of this study. Thus we first notice questions of orthography: in the Old Testament this name is almost always written as JRWSLM; only in few statements is the variant JRWSLJM written (thus in 1 Chron 3:5, 2 Chron 25:1, Esther 2:6 and Jer 26:18). In the Greek Septuagint translation is written of IEROUSALEEM, and Greek New Testament writes of HIEROSOLYMA. And in cuneiform equivalents is of URUSALIM and URUSALIMMU written. Especially important now is to notice ideas concerning etymology of this name; in the scholarly consensus, at least among Editors and Editorial Board of the TDOT, this question is now solved in favour of finding JRH word, stating “etymologically, the name may mean something like ‘foundation’ (JRH I yara) of the God Shalem. This would be a pre-Israelite name” (thus Editor Helmer Ringgren in Art. Jerusalem in TDOT VI). Everyone knows well that discussions concerning “Jerusalem” is of quite importance for Biblical religion, so that Scholars and Editorial Boards of thus important co-operations as TWAT (in English translation this is the TDOT) have discussed and pondered this question profoundly. Thus it is important to notice that the little older large Scholarly consensus result is reflected in BDB article of “Jerusalem” (BDB 436, the BDB is founded upon the work of Gesenius, translated by Robinson and thereafter developed noticing much progress of Scholarly discussions) where is concerning etymology listed possible derivation from JRH “foundation of peace” or “foundation of Shalem” but ALSO in the BDB concise article is noticed scholarly tradition of finding the derivation from RWS words: JRWS SLM “possession of peace” or “Salem’s possession”. Currently in the important TDOT dictionary now the scholarly consensus more prominently emphasises the derivation from JRH “founding”. And Marcus Jastrow does not make any special references to etymology of the name “Jerusalem” (Jastrow 595), but in this Dictionary the name Jerusalem is mentioned after JRWSH that means “conquest, taking possession” and “inheritance, heirloom”; and after “Jerusalem” the Dictionary writes of JRWTA “conqueror, heir” and “conquest, possession” (Jastrow 595); this suggests to the Readers more referring to RWS words. These now may here represent current more widely represented scholarly comprehensions of the etymological origination of the name Jerusalem, reflected in the widespread scholarly opinions as recorded in the TDOT, BDB and Jastrow’s Dictionary. Many of best current and past Biblical Scholars and many religious leaders have written extensive books and articles concerning Jerusalem: indeed, enormous number of books and articles in huge number of languages and religious groupings have been written concerning Jerusalem during hundreds of years, and even numerous are well researched bibliographies. Important question thus is to consider what the Jerusalem then may refer to. Usually of course is considered that Jerusalem refers to one city, the city that is capital of current Israel and that was founded in Israelite rule as the capital of Davidic kingdom. This study, however, studies mentions that strongly argue that often the Biblical mention of Jerusalem does not refer to ONE city (as usually is thought)- this study argues that in Bible many mentions of Jerusalem rather occur as general NOUN, the noun meaning safe harbours and safe havens and safe anchorages. For Readers might this comprehension sound quite surprising, regarding that the current city Jerusalem is inland in the mountainous Judaea and that no other major city with that name is currently known. How could thinkably Jerusalem be thus comprehended? But we find surprisingly easily important and even contemporary support for such argument. We should well remember that Old Testament does know actually quite much of realities of maritime trade and ancient seafaring, also according to the currently widely accepted translations (English RSV, NRSV, King James’ Bible and other modern translations in main European languages); world of seafaring and sailing is to some extent indeed known in Old Testament, according to widely accepted comprehensions. But Jerusalem? Let us first remember the ancient and important Mediterranean busy harbours Marseille and Barcelona. Everyone of course quite often in casual contexts talks also of these well known and busy cities. But studying their names surprisingly reveals these names as close parallels to name Jerusalem. Name Marseille includes the M-R-S, clearly possible noun formation of root R-S, and reference to EL (usual designation of God, also in Bible and Semitic traditions). Name Barcelona is currently really famous in whole world and especially amongst followers of top football; but attentive reading of name Barcelona reveals in this name interestingly R-S and SELN (that is actually really close parallel to SALEM or SELEM). Every Reader well knows something of Barcelona and Marseille and easily now finds these names as close parallels to name Jerusalem. And looking in southern Mediterranean coast, we find there still currently existing and also prospering harbour cities MERSA or cities whose name include this MERSA (thus in the Arabic-speaking coast of South Mediterranean coast). We of course remember that from times ancient, Phoenician sailors sailed across whole Mediterranean sea and established settlements also in Western Mediterranean areas, even in Spain. It is quite worth considering that the busy and prosperous harbour city of Athens of Greece is PIREAS, also in this name of thus important harbour is the R-S element found. Historically worth considering is also that Apostle Paul was native of Tarsus and missionary journeys of Apostle Paul in Eastern Mediterranean were to many important harbour cities of Eastern Mediterranean. Pauline Christianity of Gospel of Jesus was spreading in many ancient harbour cities of Eastern Mediterranean, and seriously worth emphasising is also that Bible knows the Joshua-Jesus as the Joshua Son of NUN –indeed, NUN is in Egyptian religion designation for the Waters, the Primeval Seas and Deeps. And in front of the harbour of ancient megalopolis Alexandria was the island PHAROS- and the lighthouse of PHAROS was considered as one miracles of ancient world. We remind the Readers also of that the Quran Sura HUD indeed notices MURSAHA as harbour. In reality of Catholic Europe, we remember that Order of St. John of Jerusalem, or the Hospitallers, was anciently indeed a major naval power in Mediterranean. Thus from many important and quite different religious traditions we find widely well known and surprisingly usual details that clearly suggest this comprehension that JERUSALEM is a NOUN for harbours. We have thus many details both modern and ancient that strongly suggest to seek clarification of “JERUSALEM” by seeing that “Jerusalem” was an ancient NOUN FOR HARBOURS and SAFE ANCHORAGES. It is thus quite worth to read with much consideration how the current TDOT writes of Jerusalem, there also stating “Although the installation of the ark and the building of the temple were acts of kings, the election (9) (footnote 9: H. Seebass BHR bachar TDOT II, 80f.) of Jerusalem as the site of God’s rest and presence was always understood as an act of God’s free will.” (TDOT VI, art “Jerusalem” by M. TSEVAT). This statement by M. TSEVAT- and certainly well in detail considered by the General Editor Helmer Ringgren, he wrote smaller part of that article- is truly notorious. In writing of Jerusalem, here M. Tsevat makes reference to article BHR written by H. Seebass; this is from M. Tsevat really clear reference to matters concerning “sea” because name Seebass translated from German includes reference to “sea” (der/die See) and the BHR refers to SEA when the Arabic usual noun for sea BAHAR is considered (this Arabic BAHAR word for seas is important also for considering many details of the important ancient Cabbalistic BAHIR; we seriously should remember that many ancient Jews were living in regions were Arabic was the usual language). And in this statement of the Jerusalem article in TDOT, the writer M. TSEVAT emphasises Jerusalem as the place where God rested- and this apparently alludes to idea that a harbour and an anchorage is place where ships are resting. Of course this writer M. Tsevat in writing the article keeps to the current comprehension that Jerusalem indeed refers to one city, that in current Palestine, but such very clear allusions to considering matters of sea and seafaring here in the TDOT article are truly thought-provoking! Considering Jeremiah 32:8 is also important, because there is JRSH word written (BDB 440 “possession, inheritance”, of JRS). In this statement the semantic field of JRSH is interesting for current study, here is written that BARZ Binjamin KJ LK MSPT HJRSH WLK HGALH QNH LK Here are letters JRSHWL written that is almost the name Jerusalem, or some orthographical variant of name Jerusalem (if we consider grammatically the name containing plural masc, this JRSHWLK would be, indeed, form of “your Jerusalem” with sg. 2 possessive K). This statement writes name Binjamin where reference to high seas JAM, JAMIM is heard; and the word GAL also notices reference to such Phoenician usual ships that in Greek were famously called GAULOS boats. Here this text writes of purchasing some area of land. NOW we importantly find that this well can have been in Book of Jeremiah 32 description of purchase of place for anchorage or small private harbour, or place for boat shed, reading JRSHWLK as “your Jerusalem”. Really, this semantic context very strongly writes concerning matters of sea, Binjamin and GAL or Gaulos boats. We apparently render: TRANSLATION: please, purchase in area near to sea (area of Binjamin) that small harbour place for you (HJRSHWLK), suitable for GAULOS boats; you have right (Mispat) for that. (translation of Pasi K Pohjala 2013). Details of semantic context here quite clearly specify that here concerned area is actually a small harbour area, so clearly words in this sentence describe matters of sea and seafaring. Thus is considered response to Hanamel son of Shallum (SLM) for QNH LK AT SDJ ASR BYNTWT Prophet Jeremiah is thus offered to purchase field that is in Anatot; it is worth noticing that really this name ANATOT includes reference YNJ that indeed refers to ships and boats (ANJH); and the name well may include reference to THOTH who had important role in Egyptian mythology concerning seafaring, e.g. by ruling winds. It is indeed comprehensible that here considered area HJRSHWLK located in Anatot was actually a small harbour, a nice place for anchorage. (This Jeremiah 32 occurs in such situation that “Jerusalem” was under siege by Babylonians, so that here is notorious word play: the city Jerusalem being under siege and thus dangerous, Jeremiah is encouraged to purchase his own “safe haven” HJRSHWLK). In this text of Jeremiah 32 we also can suppose much specific terminology: this text Jer 32 describes in great detail procedure of making purchase of area: the offer, negotiation, writing the document, sealing the document and taking witnesses, weighing silver for payment, giving the deed of purchase to his secretary Baruch in presence of witnesses, for being included properly in archives. This Jeremiah 32 is widely regarded to be one good detailed description of writing of official documents and documents of purchase and their archival: the terminology is concrete and well reflects official parlance in court of those times. Thus finding here word HJRSHWLK is apparently and clearly then officially used title or noun for “your harbour area” or “field for your landing-site”- we thus observe here that here is not merely described area as “possession” but specifically “harbour area” HJRSHWLK is here discussed. Importantly, the JRSH noun is also in Judges 21:17 written in discussion of matters concerning the tribe Benjamin. Here is written that WJAMRW JRST PLJTH LBNJMJN The PLT in Hebrew Bible notices escaping and being fugitive, so that JRST PLJTH can here well notice harbour place for fleeing or becoming refuge, especially appropriate because name Binjamin here is noticed, referring thus to JAMJM seas. The chapter Judges 21 describes a very difficult episode in history of the Twelve tribes; in the situation described in Judges 21 these words may refer to encouraging some Binjaminites to flee overseas via the JRST PLJTH harbour of fugitives. (We present merely as important speculation that the PLJTH here refers to Philisteans, famously reigning the rich Levantine coastal lands, usually under Egyptian rule, so that here JRST PLJTH could notice that Benjaminites shall reign some “PHILISTEAN HARBOUR”, historically well appropriate. Importantly, the following discussion of Blessing of Moses Deut 33 also presents MWRSH clearly as harbour in Philistean regions.) Apparently the name refers to some connection with seas; thus here may be heard some foundational myth why some ancient Israelites were seafarers and thus travelling around, when others were mostly settled in life of agriculture. This Chapter Judges 21 concludes the Book and is concluded noticing how people of different tribes journeyed to possessions of their tribes. Apparently was situation of seafarers different because they did not have special allotted land areas in their possession but rather practised their profession in sailing in seas; rather were the harbours and safe anchorages for sailors centrally important- and indeed, here in Judges 21:17 are noticed the JRST PLJTH where we encounter the JRSH apparently referring to harbours. Well worth mentioning is tradition of ancient poem in Deuteronomy 33:5 writing TWRH ZWH LNW MSH MWRST QHLT JYQB WJHJ BJSRWN (Jesurun) MLK BHTASP RASJ YM JHD SBTJ JSRAL Traditions of this very old poetry are really ancient and of such times that much precede foundation of Jerusalem capital for Davidic kingdom or times of Jebusites immediately preceding times of foundation of Jerusalem capital. Here in Deut 33 is written concerning Israel. Thus we more freely can trace this very old parlance of MWRST QHLT JYQB, in this statement this MWRST apparently is compared with the Jesurun, noticed that he reigned as king in Jesurun. What do we, then, find here? The Jesurun only seldom occurs in Hebrew Bible, mostly being “poetic name of Israel, designating it under its ideal character” (BDB 448). However, when we consider the almost similar name SHARON (SRWN) we consider area traditionally recognised as the very fertile lowland north of Joppa (ancient major harbour) (BDB 450). Considering the Jod as poetic variant of orthography, we find here reference to reigning king in that Sharon fertile lowlands near to Joppa, something that of course was historically important; and in THIS context of geographically discussing that area near to Joppa is obviously important to talk of HARBOUR, and indeed here is of MWRSH discussed! (This Deuteronomy 33 is the famous Blessing of Moses, in Old Testament formally placed in situation where Israel had arrived near to the borders of the Promised Land and had not yet started conquering that Land- especially, normal historiography regards that in those times the Mediterranean coastal land was inhabited by the powerful Philisteans whom Israelites for considerable times could not win in battlefield for the military superiority of Philisteans. More pondering such questions are special questions of early history of Israel. Who were, exactly, Israelites? Who were those “Philisteans” who reigned those enormously fertile coastal lands? Much of modern research of course does not regard the episodes of Exodus and subsequent episode of conquering the Promised Land even partially as historical descriptions but rather mostly as beautiful and ideologically important mythologies. NOW we merely STOP at noticing that certainly it is appropriate to consider reigning king in those specially fertile Levantine lands Sharon north of Joppa and in those coastal areas certainly is interesting to talk of a harbour- thus is here indeed noticed the MWRST place!! But it is certainly really important that in this ancient Blessing of Moses the MWRSH is actually connected to Mediterranean Levantine coastal region and that in conclusion of Book of Judges the JRSH is clearly discussing matters of seas and coasts, Benjaminites. Apparently in these ancient traditions the JRSH word is much more specific than merely “possession”, it more specifically designates area governed that was actually a good harbour area. We now consider some details in Isaiah 8. Recently the current Writer Pasi K. Pohjala has published more extensive commentary on Book of Joel in the increasingly popular and increasingly discussion generating Verre et Bible publication series, and in this Commentary were much discussed ancient developments of watering and irrigation technologies, arranging channels, conduits, dikes, and narrower irrigation channels; these were much developed from ancient times in Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures, and in the Commentary of Book of Joel I presented that in Bible such irrigation agriculture is well known and surprisingly much in detail described. Now we notice in the current discussion the extensive description of different waters in Isaiah 8, there is written that “because that people has spurned the gently flowing waters of Siloam Assuredly, My Lord will bring up against them the mighty, massive waters of the Euphrates, the king of Assyria and all his multitude. It shall rise above all its channels, and flow over all its beds, and swirl through Judah like a flash flood reaching up to the neck” (Tanakh translation of Isaiah 8:5-8) In the Old Testament this is one vivid and in its tragic description, regrettably, quite realistic description of often prevailing circumstances in the countries where much dikes and channels were built- those somewhat often tended to break asunder and the following flooding and its devastation is well known in numerous ancient documents from those countries. Such flooding waters are quite violent waters, spreading around and bringing large devastation. Here Isaiah 8 importantly contrasts such waters with silent waters of Siloam. It is thus interesting that Siloam is thus clearly by Isaiah connected with peaceful water; we recognise that also waters in harbour behind the wharfs are such peaceful and calm waters, clearly in contrast with the roaring stormy waves in the high seas just beyond the piers built to protect the harbour (or the natural formations of that style that in the more ancient times were so centrally important for choosing suitable places for harbours and anchorage). Waters of Siloam are silent, calm; and Hebrew Bible states this MJ HSLH HHLKJM LAT and reading the name as Siloam is in Translations well supported. Here Isaiah emphasises that Siloam is place of such silent, calm waters. And in this Chapter Isaiah 8 is studied the remarkable name MAHER-SHALAL-HAZ-BAZ, this is also the name that Isaiah should give to his newborn son, thus emphasised in 8:3. We now remarkably notice that this name includes the MHRSLLH that is also apparent parallel to MURSA, MURSALA and MERSA MERSAHA nouns or a possible dialect variant or orthographical variant to these, thus referring to harbours, especially for including the SLH letters and the following writings specifying that the waters of SLH are calm and silent; and this name also parallels the name Jerusalem. The Siloam is of course usually in this context comprehended to denote the famous “tunnel of Siloam” that directed Gihon waters to Jerusalem; but in this context especially the remarkable name MAHER SHALAL HAZ BAZ being MHRSLLH alerts Readers to consider also matters of harbours whose waters also are silent. In this notorious name MAHER-SHALAL-HAZ-BAZ would thus be possibly referred to harbours whose waters are silent and calm. We now consider descriptions in Ezek 36:2 HAH WBMWT YWLM LMWRSH HJTH LNW We notice here