Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Genesis 31: 47: What Foreign Language Is That?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Genesis 31: 47: What Foreign Language Is That?
  • Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:55:43 EST


Yitzhak Sapir:

1. You have done a fine analysis of how the words 'yegar sahaduta' at
Genesis 31: 47 are Aramaic words. I agree with your fine Aramaic analysis, I
appreciate the careful job you have done on it, and I do not dispute your
Aramaic
analysis. But the question still remains whether those words' ultimate
origin
is mid-14th century BCE Hurrian. The fact that those words are Aramaic, per
your analysis, is neutral as to the question of whether those words are
Hurrian
in origin.

Perhaps the conceptual problem that you and I are having with this issue
relates to the difference between Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. Biblical
Hebrew is
a virgin pure west Semitic language, with few foreign loanwords from non-west
Semitic languages, and very few foreign loanwords from non-Semitic languages
like Hurrian and Hittite. Although Aramaic is a west Semitic language, and
is
quite closely related to Hebrew, Aramaic is not a virgin pure west Semitic
language. The Arameans effectively displaced the Hurrians on the upper
Euphrates River. Thus it would not be surprising at all if Aramaic, unlike
Biblical
Hebrew, has quite a few foreign loanwords from the non-Semitic language of
Hurrian.

Thus the fact that the words 'yegar sahaduta' at Genesis 31: 47 are Aramaic
words, as you have nicely shown, in fact tells us little or nothing about the
further question as to whether the ultimate origin of such words is Hurrian.
The problem is not my faulty understanding of Aramaic. I am not disputing
your
fine Aramaic analysis. Rather, the "problem", or rather the question, is
whether or not the words 'yegar sahaduta' at Genesis 31: 47 are ultimately
coming
from mid-14th century BCE Hurrian. The answer to that problem/question can
only come from looking at Hurrian.

2. Although I accept your Aramaic analysis, I am still having major trouble
with your Hebrew analysis. You wrote: "[T]he root ygr means fright in
Hebrew
as a verb." In English, "fright" is a noun, not a verb. BDB does not use
the English word "fright" to explain ygr. Rather, BDB says: "vb. be afraid,
fear". In all six cases when ygr is used in the Bible, a translation of "to
be
afraid of" or "to fear" works fine, as far as I can see. At Genesis 31: 47,
in context, the meaning is "to be properly afraid of, and hence honor".
(It's
the same as the meaning of the English word "fear" in the English phrase
"God-fearing men", meaning men who are righteous in properly fearing, and
hence
honoring, God.)

I guess you are explicitly denying that ygr has, as one of its meanings at
Genesis 31: 47, "to fear", or "to be properly afraid of". You are insisting
that ygr exclusively means "mound" or "rocks" or "mound of rocks". But how
could
any Hebrew see ygr and not think of the perfectly fine Hebrew word ygr
meaning "be afraid, fear"? That is unrealistic to me.

I understand that ygr has a different meaning than the Hebrew meaning in
other languages, including Aramaic. But when Jacob and Laban are making a
solemn
non-aggression pact, certainly the meaning of "to be properly afraid of, and
hence to honor" fits in perfectly with the situation. Each man wants the
other
to honor their agreement.

3. I myself see the phrase 'yegar sahaduta' at Genesis 31: 47 as working on
two different levels. On one level, it works as an all-Hebrew phrase, to
which a bizarre, foreign, non-Hebrew suffix has been appended, in order to
make it
sound like a foreign phrase to the Hebrew audience. Yet the Hebrew audience
can still easily figure out the meaning, based on the obvious Hebrew roots of
both words. But at a second level, I see this phrase as being based on
Hurrian. (Though not intended by the author of the Patriarchal narratives,
in my
view, I will admit that this phrase also works in Aramaic, as you have
demonstrated. In my view, that is because Aramaic later adopted the second
word from
Hurrian.)

4. The root of the second word, as you yourself pointed out in an earlier
post, is the well-known Hebrew root SHD, meaning "witness' or "testimony" or
"record". The odd "-uta" at the end of this word makes it sound very
foreign,
yet the Hebrew meaning is still fairly clear. So on the all-Hebrew front,
this
peculiar phrase at Genesis 31: 47 would be understood by a Hebrew audience as
meaning "to properly fear and hence honor, as a witness", or "to properly
fear
and hence honor, [to which this is] testimony". Given the specific context,
such a meaning works perfectly.

This all-Hebrew meaning is similar to the Aramaic meaning you are insisting
upon, though in the all-Hebrew variant, there is no direct reference to "a
pile
of rocks" or to "a mound". Yet in context, the meaning is nevertheless
similar.

5. In my next post, I hope to finally get to my Hurrian analysis of this odd
phrase at Genesis 31: 47, at long last. I initially thought the controversy
would begin with my Hurrian analysis. But instead, we've had all this
controversy before I even get to my controversial Hurrian analysis of Genesis
31: 47.
But I am learning about Aramaic (and Biblical Hebrew as well) from you, and
I thank you for that.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page