Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

Lewis Reich:
 
You wrote:  “One reason to favor the traditional, adversarial, understanding 
of the phrase is the preceding phrase "pereh adam", which I think connotes a 
wild, uncivilized 
nature; an uncivilized man engaging in cooperative trade seems incongruous.”
 
The typical English translation of PR) )DM as “wild ass” is not good, because 
in English it seems so terribly pejorative.  By stark contrast, PR) )DM in 
Biblical Hebrew is ambiguous, and could even have the positive connotation of 
“stallion”: 
 
 “This verse [Genesis 16: 12] describes Ishmael’s future destiny, to enjoy a 
free-roaming, bedouinlike existence.  The freedom his mother sought will be 
his one day.  The ‘wild ass’ [PR) Equus hemoinus hemippus] lives in the 
desert, looks more like a horse than a donkey, and is used in the OT as a 
figure of an individualistic lifestyle untrammeled by social convention….”  
Gordon Wenham, “Genesis 16-50” (1994), at pp. 10-11.
 
Now consider the context.  The angel has already spoken to Hagar twice 
[Genesis 16: 9-10], telling Hagar to return to her mistress Sarah and that 
Hagar will have many descendants.  Yet Hagar still doesn’t seem of a mind to 
return to Sarah’s harsh treatment.  In speaking to Hagar a third time, here 
at Genesis 16: 11-12, the angel has to say something more positive, so that 
Hagar will be induced to return to Sarah.  If PR) )DM had a clearly 
pejorative meaning, Genesis 16: 12 would not work, in context.  It has to be 
a quality that Hagar admires:  a “stallion”, who has untrammeled freedom, 
even as Hagar herself must go back and submit to Sarah’s harsh treatment, 
being the very opposite of untrammeled freedom.
 
The story only works if Hagar can realistically view the prophecy at Genesis 
16: 12 as being a very positive prophecy.  If in Hebrew that prophecy clearly 
meant that Ishmael would be wildly uncivilized, fighting hand to hand against 
everyone, the prophecy wouldn’t work to convince Hagar to return to Sarah.
 
The English translations are awful, because they tear away all the ambiguity 
of the Hebrew, and end up sounding like a straightforward curse.  That tells 
us a lot about the translators’ anti-Ishmael bias, but little about what the 
Hebrew text actually means to convey.
 
As usual, the Hebrew text, as is, is perfect.  But analysts can ruin almost 
anything.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois