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.
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?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.