Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Sahaduta at Genesis 31: 47

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "R. Lehmann" <lehmann AT uni-mainz.de>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Sahaduta at Genesis 31: 47
  • Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 11:30:52 +0200


The traditional analysis of YGR %HDWT) at Genesis 31: 47 is that it? s an
Aramaic phrase consisting of two Aramaic words. But is it? If scholars are
right about that, the historicity of the Patriarchal narratives is lost.

So what?
The advantage of this text is not its pretended historicity, but its play with literary code switching.
In this text, two (fictitious) persons are introduced as belonging to two different languages and cultures only by means of how they (try to) say the same thing in different languages. Already from Gen 31:20-34 Laban is introduced as an Aramaean. But in v. 47 the switch to a characteristic of a foreigner, i.e. Aramaean, reminds emphatically that despite the contractual settlement of differences, and in spite of all guarantees for the future, there is something that separates Jaqov and Laban forever: Language (cp. Gen 31:53 and Jer 10:11) and Religion!


3. If scholars are right that Genesis 31: 47 is mid-1st millennium BCE
fiction, then why didn?t the Hebrew or Jewish author use the e-x-a- c-t
equivalent of GL(D in Aramaic? That would be GDR SHDWT, not YGR % HDWT).

Whether Genesis 31: 47 is fictional or not, and regardless of its
composition date, if YGR %HDWT) is Aramaic, as scholars insist, then why isn?t YGR
%HDWT) either (a) the exact equivalent of GL(D, and/or (b) an attested Aramaic
phrase for Gilead? Why is it neither? Shouldn?t we then wonder whether it?
s even Aramaic at all?

Quite simple:
Foreignness in relationship is the main notion of the Gen 31. Thus, the Aramaic wording and the possibilities of rendering are no device for a dating of the text. Of course, עד and עדין in the meaning "treaty" is well attested also in Aramaic (as seems to be in Hebrew, Num 23:18), but the author missed, or, what is more, deliberately avoided the pun with גלעד and choses שהדו to stress foreignness besides any good will to deal with one another as far as possible.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Reinhard G. Lehmann
Academic Director
Research Unit on Ancient Hebrew & Epigraphy
FB 01/ Faculty of Protestant Theology
Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz
D-55099 Mainz
Germany
lehmann AT uni-mainz.de
http://www.hebraistik.uni-mainz.de
http://www.ev.theologie.uni-mainz.de/297.php
http://www.hebraistik.uni-mainz.de/182.php
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page