If we try too hard to avoid the appearance of bias, and that affects our translation, isn't that a sort of bias in and of itself?
Gary Hedrick San Antonio, Texas USA On Feb 13, 2011, at 2:48 AM, Lewis Reich wrote: > 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! > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
