Salamander said:
The use of "daughter" shows the reader the need to understand Hebrew tradition.
I agree that there is at least benefit to understanding Hebrew tradition, where Hebrew OT and NT references are concerned.
However I still have one question about this. At what point in time, or how many times has this "Hebrew tradition" changed, in 'English' understanding, at least, after Wycliffe (1382) and between others, along the way? A quick outline of a few versions and editions with approximate dates of some of their publication, as they are fairly commonly known in English include Wycliffe (1382), Tyndale (1525), Geneva (1560), Douai (1609), KJV (1611), Webster (1828), YLT (1862), RV (1885), DARBY (1890), ASV (1901), Moffatt (), 'Goodspeed' (), RSV (1952), Berkeley (1959), MLB (1969), NASB (1971), NIV (1978), NKJV (1982), ESV (2001), and the HCSB (2004).
NOt to mention there have been several hundred other editions and versions, as well. (FTR, as all versions and editions before about 80 years ago are now in the public comain in the US, one can issue their own edition, including change words without impugnity, save from the public themselves, and there are such extant editions, despite the protestations of some, that the KJV is not among them.)
Yet all do not render this usage in the same way, nor do all of them even render the same word the same way in every instance. And in fact, the Lord Jesus Christ addressed a person who would seem to have little family linship as "Daughter", if I recall.
Maybe the problem is not the Hebrew tradition, at all, but the English language and its wends and twists over 625+ years. I sometimes find it difficult to fully comprehend the dialect of someone from the Northeastern United States. I'm pretty sure I would not do all that well with John Wycliffe, today, nor he with me.
Ed