Above vs Among woman

Some Protestants, especially some KJV onlyists claim Mary was only "blessed AMONG woman" and not "blessed ABOVE woman" as the KJV says about Jael in Judges 5:24.

Look at the Hebrew translated "above women" in Judges 5:24--מִנָּשִׁים minnashim

תְּבֹרַךְ, מִנָּשִׁים--יָעֵל, אֵשֶׁת חֶבֶר הַקֵּינִי: מִנָּשִׁים בָּאֹהֶל, תְּבֹרָךְ.

Blessed above women [מִנָּשִׁים minnashim] shall Jael be, the wife of Heber the Kenite, above women in the tent shall she be blessed. 

Let's look at another verse where the same word is used:

1 Samuel 15:33

וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל--כַּאֲשֶׁר שִׁכְּלָה נָשִׁים חַרְבֶּךָ, כֵּן-תִּשְׁכַּל מִנָּשִׁים אִמֶּךָ; וַיְשַׁסֵּף שְׁמוּאֵל אֶת-אֲגָג לִפְנֵי יְהוָה, בַּגִּלְגָּל.

And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless ____among women___ [מִנָּשִׁים minnashim]. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.--1 Samuel 15:33 (English is the KJV)

The fact is the mem before nashim usually is translated "from, among..." etc

Going back to Judges 5:24 we see other translations https://biblehub.com/judges/5-24.htm

For instance, NKJV says 

"“Most blessed among women is Jael, The wife of Heber the Kenite; Blessed is she among women in tents."--Judges 5:24, NKJV

Berean says: "Most blessed among women is Jael"

Brenton (translating the Greek LXX): "Blessed among women be Jael "

Myths concerning the Church of England before Reformation

This article is a response to this Anglican cleric.

England used to have its own Easter, but they conformed to the Pope, and to this day so does the Church of England.

He omits that the English church acknowledged and accepted the jurisdiction of the Pope. He leaves out that even the Orthodox say Rome was the Patriarch over England. He takes a bunch of ideas and slaps them together as if they coherently fit together divorced from their context. Before Pope Gregory, St Patrick and others were dispatched to Britain and Ireland to suppress Pelagianism since Pelagius and some of the Celtic churches like Gaul were strongholds of the error of Pelagius.

The British church was present at the Council of Serdica which acknowledged and formally canonized the primacy of Rome.

He claims there were national churches--he assumes the present reality of the Eastern churches was true in the west. Read St Irenaeus in the 2nd century--he was bishop of Lyons in modern France and he plainly stated the See of Rome holds preeminence.

Before the Reformation, even England, the Pope allowed individual expressions of the faith to flourish, but the Trent largely required conformity with exceptions of old rites like in Toledo, Milian and some of the old orders. The Sarum rite was relatively new and was therefore suppressed, you rarely see Anglicans practicing the Sarum.

This cleric's view is actually the remniscient of the Landmark Baptist just replaced by Anglican. The Landmark Baptists claim they always existed and make absurd evidences for it.

His appeal to the immorality of the popes is a strawman, what does that have to do with the office itself? There is no obligation to accept their immorality. What the heck does the age of the earth have to do with anything?

The Joseph of Arimethea legend is incredibly weak.

As far as his appeal to Nicaea goes, Canon 6 even in the view used  that downplays the jurisdiction of Rome, this view would recognized all of western Europe as being under Rome's jurisdiction!

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.--Canon 6 of Nicea I

It is unclear if Nicaea I had representatives from Britain though the whole empire was invited, the fact is only a small fraction of bishops attended and the Pope himself only through legates. If Britain did come to Niceae, then our Anglican friend must explain Canon 6, which seems to recognize the Pope has jurisdiction over cities beyond Rome. Eastern Orthodox argue this means he only has jurisdiction over western Europe and west Africa.  So even in the Eastern Orthodox view the land of England would still fall under the Pope of Rome's domain.

We do know Britain was represented at the Council of Sardica/Serdica (AD 343/344) two decades later/  We read:

a third time in the great Council assembled at Sardica by order of the most religious Emperors Constantius and Constans, when my enemies were degraded as false accusers, and the sentence that was passed in my favour received the suffrages of more than three hundred Bishops, out of the provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, Palestine, Arabia, Isauria, Cyprus, Pamphylia, Lycia, Galatia, Dacia, Mœsia, Thrace, Dardania, Macedonia, Epirus, Thessaly, Achaia, Crete, Dalmatia, Siscia, Pannonia, Noricum, Italy, Picenum, Tuscany, Campania, Calabria, Apulia, Bruttia, Sicily, the whole of Africa, Sardinia, Spain, Gaul, and Britain.--St Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos (Part I), Chapter 1. c. AD 349-352

The council even explicitly acknowledged papal power to reinstate deposed bishops and be the final reviewer of their cases:

Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which you have pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defense, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.--Council of Sardica, Canon IV

His complaining about Roman vs Celtic is ignorance of local custom, for instance, the Liturgy of the Council of Trent is actually a GAULIC liturgy--not even Roman! The Roman rite largely disappeared and the modern Roman Rite was an attempt to restore it before Rome conformed to the liturgy of the Gauls.

There ere still rites that under Rome to this day that have their own calendar, language, customs, liturgy. His argument is appealing to an ahistorical "reality"

Patrick was of Celtic-Roman descent--to call him English is anachronistic! There was no English people at the time, the English people did not exist for centuries later when the Vikings invaded. Prosper of Aquitaine said St Patrick was dispatched by the POPE.

The idea the Irish were not Christians yet is false, some were pagans but some were Christians, St Jerome said Pelagius was IRISH.

The cleric refers to the two Easter dates--yet he still accepts the MODERN PAPAL Easter Date! He states the Celtic Christianity was largely focus on the monastery--Anglicanism is not like this at all, barely with any monks and nuns. Henry VIII abolished and destroyed the monasteries.

St Clement and Sola fide

Some Protestants claim 1 Clement 32 teaches the Protestant concept of sola fide, that works are not an instrument of justification. For context here is 1 Clement 32

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. [Romans 9:5] From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, "Your seed shall be as the stars of heaven." All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.-St Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 32

As noted by the editor, Romans 9:5 is being alluded to, in fact the whole passage is alluding to Romans 9.

The previous chapter of 1 Clement 31 was about the patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, alluding to Romans 9:5 "to them belong the patriarchs." 

Clement mentions "From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh" which alludes to "from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all" (Romans 9:5)

Clement's mention of "priests" and "the altar of God" alludes to Romans 9:4 also "to them belong the ... the worship..."

St Clement refers to the "glory" of the tribes, alluding to Romans 9:4's mention of "to them belong...the glory". 

 In Romans 9

 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls--Romans 9:11

this corresponds to Clement's statement about the glory of the tribes, and even more to those He justifies as St Clement says:

"And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus.."

The mention of:

 "had done nothing...good....not because of works..."--Romans 9:11 

corresponds to

"are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart;"

Our independent efforts do not justify any in reference to "by ourselves" and "our own wisdom, or understanding." the reason for our justification from sin was not any effort on our part, but His work of will. If God were to justify us based on future works, it would make it as if we deserved the justification God is granting,

This is saying that when God calls and justifies a man He does not look into the future to look at the works they will do after they are justified so as to make it the reason He is justifying them. 

Christ's death: Ironies and Recapitulations

Lots of ironies and recapitulations when Jesus died:

the Carpenter was nailed to wood,

the author of life was killed, a murderer was saved.

The one that created man in a garden and made him fall asleep to created his wife from man's side was buried in a garden and fell asleep and formed the church from his side (blood and water)

Jesus bar-abbas (son of the father) was picked over Jesus the Son of the Father. 

Born naked, then stripped naked when he died.

Where he was born was a result of the Romans' decree, where he died as a result of the Romans' decree

The King was executed as a rebel. 

The one taught not to live by the sword died the by sword by order of a ruler named Javelin 

When Christ was born Mary's water broke and blood was shed, when Christ was dead water and blood also poured out.

the one born in a cave was buried in one, 

Wrapped in swaddling when he was born, wrapped in linen when he buried

After Jesus was born he was given myrrh, when he died he also received myrrh 

Joseph took him to the cave at his birth, another Joseph took him to the cave to be buried
a Mary (virgin) gave birth in the first, and Maries (one a former whore) were there when he was buried.

Names of Genesis 14v1

Just as my article on the explanation of the names in Genesis 14:2 were, this is purely my own conjecture, some of it agrees with dictionaries and lexicons, others might not. It is likely the names of Genesis 14:1 are Hebracizations of real historical names of people and places, whereas Genesis 14:2 uses pseudonyms.

Genesis 14:1 states the names of the kings and their cities as:

And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel [אַמְרָפֶל ] king of Shinar [שִׁנְעָר], Arioch [אַרְיוֹךְ] king of Ellasar [אֶלָּסָר], Chedorlaomer [כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר ] king of Elam [עֵילָם], and Tidal [וְתִדְעָל] king of Goiim [גּוֹיִם], --Genesis 14:1 

וַיְהִי, בִּימֵי אַמְרָפֶל מֶלֶךְ-שִׁנְעָר, אַרְיוֹךְ, מֶלֶךְ אֶלָּסָר; כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר מֶלֶךְ עֵילָם, וְתִדְעָל מֶלֶךְ גּוֹיִם

Amraphel אַמְרָפֶל 

The first king mentioned is named Amraphel [אַמְרָפֶל ], which some say is the legendary Hamurabbi. Hamurabbi is believed to mean "my kinsman heals." In Hebrew the closest we can get to this is "mother heals" which would make little sense since its obviously about a man. It's been suggested the name in Hebrew is roughly a combination of two words amr and araphel, amr means "say" a common word in the Scriptures, and a'raphel which means "darkness," therefore "sayer of darkness"

Jastrow seems to favor "obscure speech":

אִמְרָה f. (b. h.; אמר) speech. *Gen. R. s. 42 play on Amraphel, א׳ אפילה (quot. in Ar. s. v. אספרון) obscure speech (ed. שהיתה אֲמִירָתוֹ אפ׳).—Pl. אֲמָרוֹת, constr. אִמְרוֹת. Pesik. Parah, p. 30ᵇ (promises); Tanḥ. Ḥukk. 4. Pesik. R. s. 14.

The Jewish commentator Rashi claims it refers to Nimrod, basing it Tractate Eruvin. appealing to a legendary text:

Amraphel: This is Nimrod, who said (אָמַר) to Abram, “Fall (פּוֹל) into the fiery furnace.” (Gen. Rabbah) [from Mid. Tan., Lech Lecha 6; Er. 53a, Targum Jonathan]

The full text from the talmud is:

Rav and Shmuel both identified Amraphel with Nimrod. However, one said: Nimrod was his name. And why was his name called Amraphel? It is a contraction of two Hebrew words: As he said [amar] the command and cast [hippil] our father Abraham into the fiery furnace, when Abraham rebelled against and challenged his proclaimed divinity. And one said: Amraphel was his name. And why was his name called Nimrod? Because he caused the entire world to rebel [himrid] against God during his reign. --Eruvin 53a

Needless to say, RaShI's claim seems absurd, Nimrod was king chapters prior in Genesis 11.
For אמר amr meaning "say" amar and a'raphel עֲרָפֶל:

Then said Solomon, The LORD hath said [אָמַר] that he would dwell in the thick darkness [בָּעֲרָפֶל].--2 Chronicles 6:1

אָז, אָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה:  יְהוָה אָמַר, לִשְׁכּוֹן בָּעֲרָפֶל.

The only fault with עֲרָפֶל being a clear fit is the leading ayin עֲ in the word, but the ayin can function as a sort of sudden stop, similar to the schwa with the m of in am'raphel which itself can be like a stop, or a brief e sound.. 

The closest to the word heal רֹפֵא we can get is raphe as Jeremiah 8:22 where the word is translated "physician" actually literally saying "healer"

 [Is there] no balm in Gilead; [is there] no physician [רֹפֵא rophe] there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?--Jeremiah 8:22

 הַצֳּרִי אֵין בְּגִלְעָד, אִם-רֹפֵא אֵין שָׁם:  כִּי, מַדּוּעַ לֹא עָלְתָה, אֲרֻכַת, בַּת-עַמִּי.  

or רְפָא r'fa,

And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying: 'Heal [רְפָא r'fa] her now, O God, I beseech Thee.'  

וַיִּצְעַק מֹשֶׁה, אֶל-יְהוָה לֵאמֹר:  אֵל, נָא רְפָא נָא לָהּ

The only way the ending lammed, the L in Amraphal I might explain is maybe there is a missing aleph before the lammed making it the word "el." In the Hebrew Bible sometimes shortened versions of words or names are used, its actually pretty common. Since, as I mentioned in Genesis 14:2 tzoar is spelled more than one ways, as other names in the Hebrew Bible, the word Arab is likewise, sometimes the longer way, other times the short way. If the long form is אמרפאל then it might mean speak healing el. Where el can mean God, or the pagan god El, or el can simply refer to someone powerful as David's commandos are called el.  I have not been able to find this spelling in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible, the Peshitta Aramaic text, the Onkelos targum, Targum Jonathan, or even the Samaritan Torah. The only match I found is this book of Rashi which has other obvious mistakes like misspelling Shinar.

It's also interesting, the Amorites in Hebrew is spelled like the beginning of Amaraphel

And the Jebusite, and the Amorite [הָאֱמֹרִי ha'ameroi], and the Girgasite,--Genesis 10:16

וְאֶת-הַיְבוּסִי, וְאֶת-הָאֱמֹרִי, וְאֵת, הַגִּרְגָּשִׁי.

The Amorites worshipped the god "Amurru":

In Sumerian they were known as the Martu or the Tidnum (in the Ur III Period), in Akkadian by the name of Amurru, and in Egypt as Amar, all of which mean 'westerners' or 'those of the west', as does the Hebrew name Amorite. They worshipped their own pantheon of gods with a chief deity named Amurru (also known as Belu Sadi - 'Lord of the Mountains' whose wife, Belit-Seri was 'Lady of the Desert'), which also became a designation for the people as the Akkadians also referred to them as 'the people of Amurru' and to the region of Syria as 'Amurru'. --Amorite, Ancient Encyclopedia

Note the title of the deity "Lord of the Mountains" resembles the name YHVH identifies himself to Abraham: "El shaddai" (Genesis 17:1) which is sometimes interpreted "God of the mountain." The Hebrew equal to Belu or Lord is Baal, a name purposefully avoided in the Hebrew Bible, which means lord or husband, the Bible selects El, a synonym at times for Baal. 

The word Amor means "west" in Akkadian. I cannot be certain if the name of Hammurabi can mean "Ammuru heals" since this would seem to reconcile Akkadian and Hebrew if it did. The name "hammurabili" (Hammurrabi is my god) might explain the final lammed at the end of the name Amraphel. Some suggest Hammurabi-ilu, 'Hammurabi is god.'

Shinar שִׁנְעָר
The meaning of Shinar שִׁנְעָר is likely a corruption of the word Sumer. Daniel 1 seems to identify with (or at least part) of Babylon (the country, not the city):

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God; and he carried them into the land of Shinar to the house of his god, and the vessels he brought into the treasure-house of his god. --Daniel 1:1-2

The ruins of the City of Babylon are located in modern central Iraq just south of Baghdad, near the banks of an eastern branch of the Euphrates river. It is between the Tigris and Euphrates. Some from this claim it means "two rivers" but the Hebrew word two "sheni" has a yod at the end, which even if we omit this, the word river is nahar which has no ayin and has a hah.

According to Jastrow, who quotes rabbinical understanding explains עָר means "stir up" "rouse" or "hater":

Jastrow states:

עָר m. (b. h.; עוּר or עָרַר) [stirring up,] hater. Gen. R. s. 37; Y. Ber. IV, 7ᵇ bot. שׁנ̇ע̇ר̇ ש̇ונ̇א וע̇ר̇ וכ׳ Babylonia is called Shinar, because she reared an enemy and hater of the Lord (Nebuchadnezzar); Yalk. Gen. 62 (not וצר); Lam. R. introd. (R. Josh. 2).—[Midr. Till. to Ps. CII, 18 שהיה ער, ed. Bub., v. עַרְעָר.] 

The word 'ar ער is found a few times in the Hebrew Bible. Much of the time it refers to the Er who was evil and God Himself killed. As we see here

And Er [עֵר 'er], Judah's firstborn, was evil [רַע r'a] in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.--Genesis 38:7

וַיְהִי, עֵר בְּכוֹר יְהוּדָה--רַע, בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה; וַיְמִתֵהוּ, יְהוָה 

As is sometimes noted, the reverse spelling of Er's name can spell the Hebrew word for evil R'a. This phenomenon also happens with Noah's name which means relief, but spelled in reverse means grace. 

The spelling is also the name of a city 'Ar. 

And the slope of the valleys that inclineth toward the seat of Ar [עָר ar], and leaneth upon the border of Moab.--Numbers 21:15

 וְאֶשֶׁד, הַנְּחָלִים, אֲשֶׁר נָטָה, לְשֶׁבֶת עָר; וְנִשְׁעַן, לִגְבוּל מוֹאָב.

If this is really relevant, I do not know.

For one instance where it means closer to what Jastow says, stirring up/wake up (from sleep):

I sleep, but my heart waketh [עֵר 'er]; Hark! my beloved knocketh: 'Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled; for my head is filled with dew, my locks with the drops of the night.'

 אֲנִי יְשֵׁנָה, וְלִבִּי עֵר; קוֹל דּוֹדִי דוֹפֵק, פִּתְחִי-לִי אֲחֹתִי רַעְיָתִי יוֹנָתִי תַמָּתִי--שֶׁרֹּאשִׁי נִמְלָא-טָל, קְוֻצּוֹתַי רְסִיסֵי לָיְלָה.

Here it is said 'er not 'ar, but the spelling is the same since Biblical Hebrew lacks the diacritics.

The word hate itself, as mentioned before can be found in.

And Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brethren; and they hated [שְׂנֹא s'no] him yet the more.--Genesis 37:5

וַיַּחֲלֹם יוֹסֵף חֲלוֹם, וַיַּגֵּד לְאֶחָיו; וַיּוֹסִפוּ עוֹד, שְׂנֹא אֹתוֹ.  

Interesting, the word can also spell sleep:

[It is] vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: [for] so he giveth his beloved sleep [שֵׁנָא shena].

 שָׁוְא לָכֶם מַשְׁכִּימֵי קוּם,    מְאַחֲרֵי-שֶׁבֶת--
אֹכְלֵי,    לֶחֶם הָעֲצָבִים;
כֵּן יִתֵּן לִידִידוֹ    שֵׁנָא.

If this is what the Shina in Shinar means, then it means sleep-waking, maybe like day dream? Or it means like Jastrow's awaken to hatred.

Interesting, also, the nar in Shinar can mean refer to a youth in general, or young man, as in:

These [are] the generations of Jacob. Joseph, [being] seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren; and the lad [נַעַר na'ar] [was] with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father's wives: and Joseph brought unto his father their evil report.--Genesis 37:2

אֵלֶּה תֹּלְדוֹת יַעֲקֹב, יוֹסֵף בֶּן-שְׁבַע-עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה הָיָה רֹעֶה אֶת-אֶחָיו בַּצֹּאן, וְהוּא נַעַר אֶת-בְּנֵי בִלְהָה וְאֶת-בְּנֵי זִלְפָּה, נְשֵׁי אָבִיו; וַיָּבֵא יוֹסֵף אֶת-דִּבָּתָם רָעָה, אֶל-אֲבִיהֶם.

 Perhaps "hater of youth" after all the did kill their own babies, naar tends to refer more to a preteen.

Again, its likely a corruption of Sumer.

Arioch/Ariyok אַרְיוֹךְ 

The next name we see is Arioch/Ariyok [אַרְיוֹךְ] which seems which some claim means "fierce lion", others "tall" or "venerable."  The name Ariyok appears 7 times in 6 verses, 2 of which are Genesis 14, the rest are found in Daniel 2:14-25 (and another time in Greek in Judith 1:6). The spelling is used elsewhere in the Old Testament. The name might correspond to the Akkadian king of Larsa (probably Elasar) conquered by Hamurrabi, Rim-Sin whose Semitic name was Eri-Aku, which sounds like Ariyok. Rim-Sin was subject to Hammurabi until he refused to support him in a war with Elam, when Hammurabi destroyed the city in revenge.

Gensenius states:

אַרְיֹוךְ [Arioch], Assyriaco-Chaldaic pr.n--- of a king of the land of Ellasar, Gen. 14:1,9; compare Judith 1:6–(2) of the captain of the royal guard in the court of Babylon, Dan. 2: 14. Properly lion-like man , from אַרְי and the syllable tl/lj with which adjectives end in Persic ا ک , with which adjective end in Persic. ["Sanser. Arjaka, to be reverenced. Bohlen." Ges. add.]

The Jerusalem targum states:

Ariok, (so called) because he was (arik) tall among the giants--Jerusalem Targum (aka Targum pseudo-Jonathan) Genesis 14:1

This too seems like a big guess. In the Aramaic portion of Ezra 4:14 where it means "proper." Ezekiel does use a similar word to mean "long"

and say: Thus saith the Lord GOD: A great eagle with great wings and long [אֶרֶךְ erek] pinions, full of feathers, which had divers colours, came unto Lebanon, and took the top of the cedar; --Ezekiel 17:3

וְאָמַרְתָּ כֹּה-אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, הַנֶּשֶׁר הַגָּדוֹל גְּדוֹל הַכְּנָפַיִם אֶרֶךְ הָאֵבֶר, מָלֵא הַנּוֹצָה, אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ הָרִקְמָה--בָּא אֶל-הַלְּבָנוֹן, וַיִּקַּח אֶת-צַמֶּרֶת הָאָרֶז.

Most of the cases where ארך is used it means "slow" or "length"

Though, likely a coincidence, the name used later in scripture might not be related to the king or culture of Genesis 14:1 unless we assume the name is Hebrew.

For the later usage of the name Arioch Jewish Encyclopedia says it is derived from the Persian word arjak which some say means "ruler" 

It may be mentioned that the amora Samuel is often called by the name of Arioch (Shab. 53a, and elsewhere), which, however, is derived from the Old Persian arjak ("ruler").--"Arioch" Jewish Encyclopedia 

but others "venerable." The word ارجك‎ arjak is the name of an Iranian small town. When the suffix ك is removed it is ارج which means "value" in modern Farsi. Google translate, if it is to be believed, adds "supereminence" as a meaning, though sources say its only part of the word for it. This modern dictionary says 

ارج 

 cubit  ارج (واحد اندازه گیری قدیمی)

esteem,grade,order,rank,station,stature,status,values,worth

swan

worth, esteem

Jastrow states the same name probably refers to Nebuzraddan much later (1,000+ years later) in scripture and might mean "judge" in Farsi:

אַרְיוֹךְ pr. n. m. (Gen. XIV, 1) Aryokh, homiletic surname of Nebuzraddan. Lam. R. to V, 5 (allusion to ארי). —2) (cmp. Dan. II, 14) Aryokh, a title of Samuel, the contemporary of Rab. Sabb. 53ᵃ. Kidd. 39ᵃ. Men. 38ᵇ. Ḥull. 76ᵇ (prob. a Persian adaptation for judge).

He refers to Lamentation Rabbah also called Eichah Rabbah

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי נְבוּזַרְאֲדָן הוּא אַרְיוֹךְ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ אַרְיוֹךְ שֶׁהָיָה נוֹהֵם עַל הַשִּׁבְיָה כְּאַרְיֵה, עַד שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ לִפְרָת, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ לִפְרָת אֲמַר לְהוֹן לְחַיָּלוּתָא שַׁבְקִינוּן דְּנִיחוּן, דִּי מִן כַּדּוּן לֵית אֱלָהֲהוֹן חוֹזֵר עֲלֵיהוֹן, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (תהלים קלז, א): עַל נַהֲרוֹת בָּבֶל שָׁם יָשַׁבְנוּ גַּם בָּכִינוּ, עַד לְשָׁם לֹא יָשַׁבְנוּ.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Nevuzaradan is Arioch. Why was his name Arioch? Because he would roar at the captives like a lion, until they arrived at the Euphrates. When they reached the Euphrates, he said to the soldiers: Let them rest now, for from this point on their god won't return to them. That is what is written, (Psalms 137:1) "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat, we also cried." Until that point, we did not sit. --Lamentations Rabbah to V, 5

[Exact match of spelling]: אֲרַיָּוֶךְ arayavek mean "I will water/soak you"

Therefore I will bewail with the weeping of Jazer the vine of Sibmah: I will water thee [אֲרַיָּוֶךְ arayavek]with my tears, O Heshbon, and Elealeh: for the shouting for thy summer fruits and for thy harvest is fallen.--Isaiah 16:9

עַל-כֵּן אֶבְכֶּה בִּבְכִי יַעְזֵר, גֶּפֶן שִׂבְמָה, אֲרַיָּוֶךְ דִּמְעָתִי, חֶשְׁבּוֹן וְאֶלְעָלֵה:  כִּי עַל-קֵיצֵךְ וְעַל-קְצִירֵךְ, הֵידָד נָפָל. 

Perhaps that name has something to do with a river, otherwise, I am clueless if the name means this. Though it seems to be a real Babylonian name since it appears in Daniel 2 for a man there. But this seems unlikely to be the meaning of the name at all.

[Partial match]: The first 3 letters in Ariyok, Ari means lion (which Lamentation Rabbah claims) as in:

The slothful [man] says, [There is] a lion [אֲרִי ari] without, I shall be slain in the streets.--Proverbs 22:13 

 אָמַר עָצֵל, אֲרִי בַחוּץ;    בְּתוֹךְ רְחֹבוֹת, אֵרָצֵחַ

Most seem to agree the name refers to a lion, but explaining the rest of the letters has been debated. So for now, this name seems inconclusive.

Ellasar אֶלָּסָר 

Moving on, Arioch was king of אֶלָּסָר Ellasar, which might be a transposition of the letters of Larsa a Sumerian city in southern Iraq. Which, again would fit the idea that these are places in Mesopotamia/Sumeria region. And, as mentioned above a man named Eri-aku was king of Larsa, resembling the name Ariok.

The spelling Ellasar in Hebrew has the word El which can mean God or mighty one. The word sar can mean "he withdraws" or "departed" or "heavy" or "sullen."

The targum Jerusalem changes the name to Thalasar, but other versions say different. The change seems unwarranted and in my opinion is not worth quoting.

Chedorlaomer [כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר ] king of Elam [עֵילָם], and Tidal [וְתִדְעָל] king of Goiim [גּוֹיִם],



Concerning the land of Elam עֵילָם properly transliterated as 'éylam, in Hebrew the spelling is the same as Shem's first son as mentioned in the Table of Nations in Genesis 10:

The children of Shem; Elam [עֵילָם], and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.--Genesis 10:22

Elam is presently located in southern Iran, also known as Khuzestan Province. This is next to southern Iraq and the other ancient city named Ur there, which some suspect is Abraham's home despite not being "beyond the River."

Genesis Rabbah provides explanations for the names that are largely absurd and a massive stretch:

“It was in the days of Amrafel” – he was called by three names: Kush, Nimrod, and Amrafel. Kush – because he was literally a Kushite. Nimrod – because he brought about a rebellion [mered] in the world. Amrafel – because his statements [imrato] were darkness [afela]. [In addition,] it is because he defied [amrei] and ridiculed [aflei] the world, and because he defied and ridiculed Abraham, because he said [amar] that he should be cast down into the fiery furnace.

“Aryokh king of Elasar” – Rabbi Yosei of Milḥaya said: There we learned: The isar coin was named for Elasar. 

“Kedorlaomer king of Eilam, and Tidal king of Goyim” – Rabbi Levi said: There is a place there in Rome that is called this [Goyim]. They took one person and made him king over themselves. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Tidal was his name. 

Another matter: “It was in the days of Amrafel king of Shinar” – this refers to Babylon; 

“Aryokh king of Elasar” – this refers to Greece; “Kedorlaomer king of Eilam” – this refers to Media; “and Tidal king of Goyim” – this refers to the kingdom of Edom, which recruits conscripts from all the nations of the world.--Genesis Rabbah 42

In the case of Tidal, Rashi in his commentary on Genesis 14 quotes Genesis Rabbah, apparently lacking any better explanation took anything. 

(to be continued)