When is an oak tree not an oak tree?

One word of caution is that commentary can be mistaken at places. They are just men. I have noticed some errors in the commentary I have read on this very verse. For example, The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge wrongly states that the teil (tilia) tree is an "evergreen" (the TSK was not the originator nor alone in repeating this error) --

or, when it is returned, and hath been broused. teil-tree. The teil-tree is the linden or lime-tree, a species very common in Palestine; the leaf of which resembles that of the laurel, and its flower that of the olive. But the original ailah, which our translators render the oak, (but here distinguished from allon, the oak,) and Bp. Lowth the ilex, in ch. 1:29, 30, probably denotes, as Celsius contends, the terebinth. It is an evergreen of moderate size, but having the top and branches large in proportion to the trunk;...
​

 

I have read Henry, Gill, and others. I'll happily be quoting Gill in a later post!

But we'd really like to see your Beza, Kimchi, Jarchi, and Josephus' evidence (or at least the precise references with volume title and pages).

 

No, Gill doesn't provide what I was asking for (the precise references); evidently, you don't actually have access to these commentaries either.

But notice that Jarchi, Ezra, and Kimichi also think that the "tenth" are ten kings (as translated in the Bishops' Bible, cited in my previous post). Do you agree with these commentators in their interpretation of this, too? Gill seems to disagree with them ("wherefore the words are to be understood of a few persons, a remnant"). As promised, I happily include below Gill's complete comments for Isaiah 6:13 (his bolds, my underline) --

But yet in it [shall be] a tenth…
Which some understand of ten kings that should reign over Judah from this time, the death of Uzziah, unto the captivity, as Jarchi and Aben Ezra observe; and which are, as Kimchi reckons them, as follows, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah; but the prophecy, as we have seen, respects not the captivity of the Jews in Babylon, but their present one; wherefore the words are to be understood of a few persons, a remnant, according to the election of grace, that should be called, and saved amidst all the blindness, darkness, and destruction that should come upon that people; and may be illustrated by the words of the apostle in (Romans 11:5) and these chosen, called, and saved ones, are the "tenth", that is, the Lord's tenth, as the words may be rendered. To this sense the Targum agrees,

and there shall be left in it righteous persons, one out of ten;​

though indeed the Christians were not left in Jerusalem when it was destroyed, but were called out of it just before, and were preserved from that ruin.
And [it] shall return, and shall be eaten;
or "be for burning". I should choose to render it, "it shall return, and be burnt"; that is, it shall be burnt again; it was burnt a first time by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and his army, (Jeremiah 52:13) and a second time by Titus Vespasian, to which this prophecy refers:
as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance [is] in them, when they cast [their leaves];
the word "Beshallecheth", which we render, "when they cast their leaves", is by some, as Jarchi, Aben Ezra, and Kimchi observe, thought to be the name of a gate in Jerusalem, called "Shallecheth", from which a causeway went towards the king's palace, from whence it had its name, (1 Chronicles 26:16) and along which causeway, as is supposed, were planted teil trees and oaks, which are here referred to. But the Targum, Jarchi, and Kimchi, interpret the word as we do, of casting their leaves: and the sense seems to be this; that as the teil tree and oak, when they cast their leaves in autumn, and look as if they were dry, withered, and dead, yet have a substance in them, and in spring appear alive and green, and flourishing again; so the Jews, notwithstanding their miserable destruction by the Romans, when they were stripped of all their riches and glory, yet were not utterly consumed as a people, but remained an entire distinct people, and do so to this day, among the nations of the world; though, like a dry withered trunk of a tree, without verdure or beauty; the reason of this follows: so, or "because",
the holy seed [shall be] the substance thereof;
that is, they shall subsist, or continue a distinct people, though in this miserable condition; because there is a "holy seed", or a certain number, whom God has chosen to be holy, that is to arise from them, and will be called and converted in the latter day; hence they have a substance, a subsistence, and shall remain till that comes, and that chosen remnant is called and saved, (Romans 11:25,26). The Targum is,

as the elm and oak, when their leaves fall, and are like to dry "trees", and yet are moist to raise up seed from them; so the captivities of Israel shall be gathered, and shall return to their land; for the seed which is holy is their plantation.​

Some, interpreting the passage of the Babylonish captivity, by the "holy seed" understand the Messiah. See (Luke 1:35).​

So, the speculations of Jarchi, Ezra, and Kimichi are no more likely to be correct about the exact location and the kind of trees in this verse than they were about the meaning of "tenth". The absence of Aben Ezra at the point of "interpret the word as we do" may indicate that he had a yet different opinion than the Targum, Jarchi and Kimichi. Notice also the Targum (ancient Jewish commentary) has "elm" not "teil".

 

Please sir, if you can, show us where I have made such an objection. I do not believe I have explicitly stated that the KJV men made a mistake here. It is you that continuously suggests that charge. If anything has been discredited, it has been your assertions.

 

In what citation are the trees not exactly mentioned? Every Bible text examined thus far names two specific tree types (except the LXX has "acorn"); the KJV text explicitly identifies the two kinds of tree in Isaiah 6:13 "as a teil tree, and as an oak". How is it that you deny the precise description of the two tree species in this verse?

 

Notice Hosea 4:13 (KJV) --

They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and elms, because the shadow thereof [is] good: therefore your daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall commit adultery.​

When is an oak tree not an oak tree? When it's an elm tree, of course. The underlying Hebrew word again is 'elah (Strong's #424) which when it is the only tree named in an AV verse it is translated as "oak", but the two times it is in a verse along with 'allown (Strong's #437 "oak" here and always in the KJV) it has become the "teil" (Isaiah 6:13) and now the "elm" tree.

But most 'modern' versions render 'elah as "terebinth", and so did some very early versions for example --

On the heedis of mounteyns thei maden sacrifice, and on the litil hillis thei brenten encense vndur an ook, and a popeler, and terebynte, for the schadewe therof was good. Therfor youre douytris schulen do fornicacioun, and youre wyues schulen be auoutressis. (Wycliffe 1380)

On the tops of the mountains they sacrifice, And on the hills they burn incense, Under the oak, and the poplar, and the terebinth, Because their shade is pleasant. Therefore your daughters commit fornication, And your daughters–in–law commit adultery; (Noyes 1869)

On tops of the mountains they do sacrifice, And on the hills they make perfume, Under oak, and poplar, and terebinth, For good `is' its shade. (Young 1898)

They sacrifice on the mountaintops and burn offerings on the hills, under oak, poplar and terebinth, where the shade is pleasant. Therefore your daughters turn to prostitution and your daughters-in-law to adultery. (NIV 1978)​

They seemed to have again followed the Bishops' Bible. So, in Hosea 4:13 'elah does not get to be an "oak tree" but instead becomes the "elm".

 

As explained in the OP, "teil" is an archaic term for the tilia, commonly called a 'lime tree' or 'linden tree', not native to Israel. The terebinth is a different tree that is native to the Middle East; the terebinth is the 'turpentine' tree. Therefore, the teil tree is not the same as the terebinth tree, and turpintine does not come from a tilia tree.

 

Actually, "as" (or "like") usually precedes a simile. A simile is different than a metaphor. A simile overtly compares things using similarity of characteristic (Michael Phelps swims as a fish, Mark 4:31 "[It is] like a grain of mustard seed", etc.); a metaphor makes an implicit comparison by stating that one thing is another (Michael Phelps is a fish, John 6:48 "I am that bread of life", etc.).

But yet in it [shall be] a tenth, and [it] shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance [is] in them, when they cast [their leaves: so] the holy seed [shall be] the substance thereof. (Isaiah 6:13, KJV)​

Basically, the simile in Isaiah 6:13 seems to be the "substance" of the prophetic seed is "as" the "substance" of a natural tree. It is a comparison of these two substances. The "substance" of the spiritual seed is NOT stated to be the actual "substance" of a physical woody plant, but only similar to it in character. The inserted English words of the KJV "so" and "shall be" makes it even more clear that the seed's "substance" will be like the tree's "substance" in the future (but it is not at the present).

There is no comparison between the two trees in this verse. These trees are not 'types' here. Also, there is not a direct comparison of the trees to the remnant ("tenth"). The complete trees themselves are not compared to anything. However, the specific kind of tree may or may not be a crucial detail supporting the simile, depending upon one's interpretation of the text. God willing, I hope to post further upon the close relationship of interpretations to translations of this verse later.

 

Dear sag38, one merit of this discussion is that it is an opportunity for learning more about the Scripture, about God and His creation. Did you know exactly what a "teil tree" was before you read this thread?

I was curious as what a teil tree was, so I did some searching and reading. That research led me to some interesting facts about the tilia species; one piece of data about the tilia (teil) was that it isn't indigenous to the Middle East, which made me wonder why would this tree mentioned by Isaiah. I uncovered the Hebrew behind the English words; this led to learning about the terebinth tree and that this word held connections to other passages. Sometimes the points that another poster makes causes me to learn about related or even unrelated things; cross-referencing other verses that perhaps I was not intimately familiar with before. I saw several interpretations in commentaries.

So, what are the KJV translators telling us with their rendering that is different than other versions? Can you explain the unique justification for "teil" in Isaiah 6:13, its' sole occurrence? Are the very words of Scripture important?