Ms. Chan suggested that "'People untrammeled by earthly authority generally end up in conflict with others' is one such bias."
As the writer of the quoted observation, I'm not sure I perceive any bias in what seems to me a reasonably supportable sociological observation. People who do not accept authority (and the rule of law that goes with it) generally do end up in conflict with others. Against whom does the observation express any bias? Lewis Reich -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of B Chan Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 3:31 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Gen 16:12 Hand Against? Karl: could you share with me the occurrences of yd b- with me, please? I would like to look at the verbal constructs. I know one occurrence in Ruth, but I'm not aware of the others. Everybody: I guess what I want to arrive at is what would be a fair translation if we were to do this "ex nihilo" as it were, relying on previous translations as a guide but not slavishly tending to negative connotations that have been the hallmark of extant English translations. The issues for us are: 1. He will be a (wild ass? wild stallion? free-ranging horse? "free spirit"?) of a man 2. His hand will be (against? in co-operation? in trade?) with all and all with him. What, really, are the arguments for and against each of the choices? Harsh as it may sound, I suspect that extant translations have some biases at play. "People untrammeled by earthly authority generally end up in conflict with others" is one such bias I think is inconclusive. Would the angel be describing "warlike Bedouin tribes" or "powerful Arab traders"? May I state the issue for discussion this way: if we were Hagar, listening to this encouragement/prophecy/pontification without explanantion, without hindsight, what would we have understood as the literal meaning of all this? I am enjoying this discussion, and I look forward to many more of your erudite comments. Betty Chan Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 06:19:54 -0800 Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Gen 16:12 Hand Against? From: [email protected] To: [email protected] CC: [email protected] B Chan: On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:29 PM, B Chan <[email protected]> wrote: The entry for "Yado bakol" at http://www.learnhebrew.org.il/print/2010/july5.htm is strangely ironic. It claims that the etymology comes from Genesis 16:12 which (it asserts) was a "definitely negative" meaning. Then it goes on to say that "in recent years it has turned semi-positive". Alas, what did the Genesis original communicate to Hagar! The promise starts in verse 10: she will have many descendants, a blessing especially in those days. Then in verse 11: she will have a son. In many societies, having a son is preferable to having a daughter, even today. Both of these promises are very positive, especially in those days. But when I look at the phrase YD B-, it is found over 20 times, and it refers to attacking and warfare, and often, though not always, victory over the enemies. So in the total context, we have a person who will be very fruitful, multiple descendants, untamable, involved in warfare with all around him. Yet there is indication that personal relations between him and Isaac remained amicable. So it looks as if the traditional interpretation is correct after all. Karl W. Randolph. _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
