Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

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 Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois