Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 23/07/2004 10:44, Trevor Peterson wrote:

> ... And even if we take a neutral idea, to "bend" anger would be to
> divert it from some course. Now, logically that could mean to divert
> anger that would have come but is now turned away. For your meaning, it
> would have to be an idea something like, anger that would have been
> directed elsewhere (but where?) is now diverted to the matter in
> question. ...


Well, it could mean something rather different. The anger is simply 
diverted to other parties. The two who are reconciled by a bribe are no 
longer angry with one another, but it is likely that others will become 
angry, not only if they find out about the bribe but when they discover 
that their rights or interests are ignored, because of the bribe 
although they don't know that. (And I know what I am talking about - I 
have lived in a country where bribery is rampant, and people often find 
that they can't get their due and suspect that is because someone else 
has bribed the official against them.)

But, Karl, I have to agree that the best evidence is for the traditional 
understanding. Perhaps if it is rendered as "a bribe diverts anger", it 
leaves open the possibility that anger will not necessarily be pacified, 
but may break out elsewhere as a result.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/