Biblical Hebrew Forum

[B Chan <bh-chan AT hotmail.com>]

Karl:  There is an occurrence in Ruth 1:13
 
 
Karl and Jim:
 
Actually Gen. 49:8 appears to be verbless. And there does appear to be a 
theme of dominance: יָדְךָ֖ בְּעֹ֣רֶף אֹיְבֶ֑יךָ  although a case may be made 
that "neck of your enemies" is a strong syntactic coloration.
 
I will need to look into R. Heard's thesis in deeper detail.
 
Having regard to the story's internal structure I remain unconvinced that the 
reported communication to Hagar is "Ishmael will be at war with everybody; 
and everybody with him." If an element of conflict is to be imputed, it 
should not be too grim or bloody, or the ending "everybody with him" would be 
quite catastrophic and final.
 
Or how about - 
"Ishmael will struggle with everybody; and everybody with him."
"Ishmael will compete with everybody; and everybody with him."
 
 
In my opinion also, the co-operative idea is far from ruled out, because the 
construction יָדֹ֣ו בַכֹּ֔ל וְיַ֥ד כֹּ֖ל בֹּ֑ו  communicates a 
complementarity not found in any other occurrence, almost analogous to yad 
b'yad. This seems to be the idea behind the Onkelos rendering.
 
 
 
Everybody:
Any suggestions as to translation? Any more comments, for or against?
 
 
 
 
Betty Chan
 
 

 


From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:01:35 -0500
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Gen 16:12 Hand Against?
To: kwrandolph AT gmail.com; bh-chan AT hotmail.com
CC: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org



Karl wrote:  “I am not aware of the one in Ruth (didn’t find it) but the ones 
I found are Genesis 16:12 (of course), 49:8, Exodus 7:4, 1 Samuel 18:17, 
24:6, 10, 26:9,

11, 23, 2 Samuel 18:28, 20:21, 24:17, 1 Kings 11:26–27, Esther 2:21, 3:6,

6:2, 8:7, 9:2, Daniel 11:42, 1 Chronicles 21:17. From these examples, with

the verbs HYH and $LX, or understood verb to be, YD B- indicates opposition,

attacking.” Karl is right where the Hebrew verb HYH is actually there.  But 
where the Hebrew verb HYH is not there in the Hebrew text, and  E-n-g-l-i-s-h 
 needs to put in the  E-n-g-l-i-s-h  verb “to be” for an  E-n-g-l-i-s-h  
translation, the case is far from clear, to say the least. A majority of 
scholars have followed Karl’s traditional view.  But Genesis scholar R. 
Christopher Heard, having thoroughly examined that traditional view, rejects 
it: “The second element in the messenger’s prenatal characterization of 
Ishmael [at Genesis 16: 12] is similarly ambiguous.  Most interpreters think 
the narrator wishes to portray Ishmael and his descendants as people of 
conflict, and thus they render the phrase something like ‘his hand against 
everyone and everyone’s hand against him’ (Alter, 1996:71;  Dillmann:72-73;  
Driver:182;  Hamilton, 1990:449, 454;  Sarna:121;  Wenham, 1994:2, 11;  
Westermann:234;  cf. Gunkel:188; von Rad:194;  Vaswter:217).  The case for 
this translation seems strong;  in twenty-seven of the thirty-three cases 
where, as here, ‘hand’ is followed by the proposition b (‘in, against’) 
prefixed to a noun designating a person, group of people, or inhabited 
region, the sense is adversarial.  Yet it is also true that in each of those 
cases, ‘hand’ is the object of ‘give’ (natan, as in Exod. 7:4), ‘be’ (haya, 
as in Josh. 2:19), ‘stretch out’ (salax, as in Esth. 2:21). ‘lift’ (nasa, as 
in 2 Sam 18:28), or ‘raise’ (the hip(il of rum, as in 1 Kgs 11:26, 27).  In 
four of the remaining six cases, the sense is one of assistance, and ‘hand’ 
is the object of ‘strengthen’ or ‘hold’ (the pi(el or hip(il of hazaq, as in 
Gen 21:8 and 1 Sam 23:16), ‘rest’ (nux, as in Isa 25:10), or ‘touch’ (naga, 
as in Dan 10:10).  Judging by these examples, the verb that takes ‘hand’ as 
its object also determines whether the sense is adversarial or not when 
‘hand’ is followed by b prefixed to a noun designating a person, group, or 
inhabited region.  In the Hebrew of Gen 16:12, however, no verb governs ‘his 
hand’ or ‘everyone’s hand’.  Translators frequently supply some form of ‘to 
be’ when translating Hebrew verbless clauses.  This might suggest an 
adversarial sense for the present case, since ‘to be’ followed by ‘hand’ 
followed by b prefixed to a noun referring to a person, group, or inhabited 
region has an adversarial sense everywhere this construction appears in the 
Hebrew Bible.  However, the translation of verbless clauses using a form of 
‘to be’ is not a matter of supplying a missing Hebrew verb (haya), but of 
representing in translation the common Hebrew syntactical strategy for 
coordinating two elements in a sentence without using any verb at all (see 
Andersen).  The messenger’s speech 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.”  “Dynamics of Diselection” (2001), at pp. 
69-70. In my view, the phrase is inherently, and deliberately, ambiguous.  If 
the phrase unequivocally stated that Ishmael would spend his life in hand to 
hand combat with others, that would not work in context, because the angel is 
trying to induce Hagar to return to Sarah’s harsh treatment. Jim 
StinehartEvanston, Illinois