B. Chan:
A good, detailed discussion of the “hand” portion of Genesis 16: 12 can be
found at pp. 69-71 of R. Christopher Heard, “Dynamics of Diselection:
Ambiguity in Genesis 12-36 and Ethnic Boundaries in Post-Exilic Judah” (2001),
Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta. You yourself may be more
interested in the fairly extensive grammatical analysis at pp. 69-70. But let
me
type up here the interesting conclusions drawn at p. 70:
“The messenger’s speech [at Genesis 16: 12 regarding ‘hand’] thus
presents readers with the challenge of deciding whether to impute an
adversarial or
cooperative sense to the statement about Ishmael’s hand. Without a verb to
govern ‘hand’, ‘hand’ followed by b can go either way. …[T]he messenger’
s ambiguous syntax cannot foreclose the possibility of a reading that
implies mutual assistance rather than mutual hostility (cf. Mothes). Yahweh’s
messenger may be telling Hagar that Ishmael’s life will be lived in ‘
hand-to-hand’ combat with others, or ‘hand in hand’ with others rather than
‘under’
another’s hand, as Hagar’s life has recently been lived (cf. Fewell,
1998: 184-85, including n. 5). Again, the predictive cast of the messenger’s
speech may lead readers to defer any resolution of this ambiguity until more
is learned about Ishmael’s life later in the narrative.”
To that I would add my own comments:
1. The ambiguity of the reference to ‘hand’ is deliberate.
2. The ultra-negative standard interpretation of the analogy says much
more about analysts’ negative views of Ishmael than about the view of the early
Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives toward Ishmael.
3. The story makes sense precisely because Hagar can realistically take
the optimistic view of the divine messenger’s ambiguous prediction. Perhaps “
Ishmael’s life will be lived…‘hand in hand’ with others rather than ‘under
’ another’s hand, as Hagar’s life has recently been lived”.
A huge problem with English translations of the Patriarchal narratives is
that they rip away much of the inherent ambiguity in the original Hebrew text
and substitute their own animus against characters they don’t like, such as
Ishmael. Thus Ishmael is routinely seen as abusing Isaac at Isaac’s
weaning party, when the text says nothing of the sort.
If you are doing a translation, then I would hope you would do one of the
following: (i) either preserve the ambiguity of the Hebrew in your
translation (the ideal approach), or (ii) if that is not possible or
practicable,
then put in a brief footnote that indicates that the passage is ambiguous and
could be analyzed differently.
It’s true that the firstborn son is always portrayed in the Patriarchal
narratives as getting the shaft and properly so. But although it would have
been easy for the text to portray those firstborn sons as evil or at least
lacking in talent, the text never does that. Each of Ishmael and Esau is
portrayed more positively than ordinarily supposed, in basically a neutral
light.
Yes, Isaac and Jacob are portrayed as being without question the proper
Patriarchal successors, but neither Ishmael nor Esau (nor Reuben) is portrayed
as being evil or lacking in talent.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
