Hebrew Q: Why is hamman almost universally translated as anything other than it's literal meaning?

Kim Brennan · 2025-06-14T09:02:37+00:00

There was an error rendering this rich post.

Strong's H2553 - ḥammān

In 2 Chronicles 34:4, the NASB95, which is supposed to be a word for word translation, this word, which means "sun-pillar" and also has a root word of sun, is translated as "incense altars". When I check the usage of this word and other bible translations, nearly all of them mistranslate this word as "incense altars" or "images". Incense altars and images are quite general, whereas a sun-pillar is very specific, as they're still seen all over the world today as obelisks.

Also where you read the verses that contain this word, "sun-pillar" fits much better. For example, sun-pillar in place of incense altar here makes much more sense to me:

"They tore down the altars of the Baals in his presence, and the incense altars (sun-pillars) that were high above them he chopped down; also the Asherim, the carved images and the molten images he broke in pieces and ground to powder and scattered it on the graves of those who had sacrificed to them."

Honestly, I am quite disturbed by this, it almost feels deceptive…. and yet i know that there are Christians who love the Lord behind these translations. The translations that are not supposed to be word to word… i can let it go i guess, but word for word translations should have no excuse (the ASV is the sole exception and uses "sun-images" here, which is more acceptable to me). Does anyone have an explanation for why this would be?

Apologies if this is the wrong place for this, I joined just specifically to ask this question.

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

HJ. van der Wal

Short answer: The exact meaning of the word chammān in Biblical Hebrew is uncertain.

Below are two quotes from the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament:

"Neither archeology nor epigraphy provides a final answer to the question of what chammān means. The word appears in Nabatean and Palmyrene inscriptions, but they do not provide a clear indication of what the word refers to. Probably what is involved is a stelalike cult object serving as an incense altar, to be thought of as resting on the ground, possibly upon an altar."

K.-M. Beyse, “חמם,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, trans. David E. Green (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), 476.

"The scanty OT and epigraphic information thus definitely admits the possibility that in the chammānîm we have cultic objects in the form of stelae, used as incense altars and used in the cult of a solar deity. If so, the two current translations “sun stela” and “incense altar” would both be correct, in that the former would speak of the form of the object and deity associated with it, whereas the latter would merely describe its function."

K.-M. Beyse, “חמם,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, trans. David E. Green (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), 477.

All comments

Jan Krohn

Have you checked the LXX? Sometimes, it seems to me, the LXX is taken to fill in some blanks when the Hebrew is ambiguous.

HJ. van der Wal

Short answer: The exact meaning of the word chammān in Biblical Hebrew is uncertain.

Below are two quotes from the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament:

Kim Brennan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1371954#Comment_1371954

I will do that, thank you for the suggestion!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1371961#Comment_1371961

Thank you very much for this, I'm not scholarly at all so this is very helpful for me.

This part in particular speaks to me:

If so, the two current translations “sun stela” and “incense altar” would both be correct, in that the former would speak of the form of the object and deity associated with it, whereas the latter would merely describe its function."

I'm curious as to why so many translations went with the functional aspect as opposed to the specific form and deity associated with it. Especially when there is still so much sun worship imagery present today. When God was speaking about tearing down these things, He wasn't doing it because of it's function, but rather He was tearing it down because they were worshipping gods other than Him.

The ASV version with "sun-image" captures it quite well then, I might have to pick one up.

Justin Gatlin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1371970#Comment_1371970

You might enjoy this book

https://www.logos.com/product/6874/exegetical-fallacies-2nd-ed

It has a lot of information on word studies and I think everyone trying to go deeper by looking at the original languages should read it.

I assume you are getting "sun pillar" from BDB. That's from 1906 and there have been a lot of discoveries since then in biblical Hebrew. Here is the JPS commentary:

The term ḥammanim is translated “incense altars.” An Aramaic altar inscription from Palmyra contains the words ḥmnʾ dnh wʾltʾ dnh, “this ḥamman and this altar.” On the reverse side of the altar there is a relief depicting two standing men with an incense stand, or altar, placed between them. This would seem to mean that the ḥamman was the incense altar itself. In still another Palmyrene inscription we read that someone dedicated ḥmnʾ klh hw wʾtrh wʾp ṭll ʾdrwnʾ klh, “the complete ḥamman, with its installation, and even covered the entire chamber with a roof.” This suggests that the ḥamman was located within a chamber. The etymology of ḥamman may have actually been confused by this recent evidence. Identifying it as an incense altar implied that ḥamman derived from the root ḥ-m-m, “to be hot.” We are now able to determine that this is not so because a word ḫmn is now attested in Ugaritic ritual texts that mention many cultic artifacts. Now, in Ugaritic the verb meaning “to be hot” also occurs, but it is written with a different letter, ḥēṭ. (In the Semitic languages, there were originally both ḫēṭ and ḥēṭ, but over the course of time, certain languages like Hebrew reduced the alphabet, leaving only ḥet. As a result, there is often confusion about the derivation of words written with a Hebrew ḥet.) As a consequence, Hebrew and Aramaic ḥamman probably have nothing to do with the idea of being “hot”; nor is it likely that the Late Hebrew word for “sun” (ḥammah) is relevant to the artifact called ḥamman. The suggestion that ḥammanim were sun disks must also be discarded. We see, instead, on the basis of the Ugaritic evidence, that we are dealing with the name of an artifact or structure that had an independent origin. This is not to say that a ḥamman, “altar,” could not be dedicated to the sun-god in pagan societies, but only to emphasize that this is not the meaning of the word itself.

In the Ugaritic ritual texts we read of offerings brought “at the ḫmn.” The word ḫmn also occurs as part of a personal name, which suggests a possible connection between ḥamman and the name of the god Baal-Ḥammôn mentioned in a ninth-century b.c.e. Phoenician inscription from ancient Turkey. The same deity was prominent at Carthage. The cult of Baal-Ḥammôn continued over many centuries. Until recently, it was not known as early as the second millennium b.c.e., but the attestation of this name in Ugaritic, if accurate, may push back the date. It seems quite possible, therefore, that the name of a deity is reflected in the word ḥammanim and that it means literally “an altar of Ḥammôn.” The biblical evidence concerning ḥammanim correlates well with that of Ugarit and Palmyra. In 2 Chronicles 14:4 and 34:3 we read that the ḥamman was installed “above” altars and bamot. Whether the ḥamman was uniformly used as an incense altar is not entirely clear. In Isaiah 27:9 we are told that the sin of Jacob can be expiated by destroying improper cultic artifacts: “That he make all the altar-stones/Like shattered blocks of chalk—/With no sacred post left standing,/nor any ḥammanim.”36

Levine, Baruch A. Leviticus. Jewish Publication Society, 1989, p. 188.

Jan Krohn

I'm unaware of any LBA obelisk discoveries in the Southern Levant. There are some in the Northern Levant (Byblos) though. The Sea Peoples who settled at Byblos were, like some Canaanites, Minoan. Obelisks aren't typical Minoan architecture either, however, since there's the Minoan connection to Byblos, who knows what's still buried in the sand? Many LBA settlements in the Southern Levant still need to be excavated. But as of now, there's no archaeological evidence that those were "sun-steles".

Doc B

Your premise is false. Other than very specialized technical terms, no word has a "literal meaning." Words have semantic ranges, and meaning is almost never derived from single words but from collocations.

The second problem is trusting very dated resources like Strong's. The use of newer and cross-referenced language resources would help a great deal with issues like this one.